VAOZoky Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Stealth technology has already been proven in combat. Out of curiosity where was stealth proven? Over FR Yugoslavia where B2 was flying so high that it was effectively out of reach of PVO units (even B52 can do that) ? Or was it proven with F117A which were damaged/shot down whenever they came near PVO? So far even 2nd generation PVO is proven deadly against stealth. Intel Core i5 2500k @ 4.2Ghz, 8GB Kingston HyperX @1.6GHz, Ati Radeon HD7870 2GB GDDR5, 19' 1440x900 screen
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) You mean the B-2's which went 'down-town' Belgrade, well within reach of air defenses in both range and altitude and hit multiple targets per pass? What about all the other stealth sorties which were never observed? How about the Baghdad overflights which were also again flown well within the reach of air defenses? Will you stop using tyres on your car because you got a flat once? Do you think that shooting down one or two stealth planes proves that stealth doesn't work when it's two planes out of hundreds if not thousands of sorties? You need to work on your logic a bit. Those engagements IN FACT proved that stealth works as expected by those who use it; its purpose is to shrink detection and thus engagement ranges. Without knowing the exact position of the SAM battery, that F-117 flew right into range (it suddenly appeared on the scope at 23km or so according to records) - and so it got shot down. But other aircraft were being tracked 10x as far. So where, exactly, are you finding evidence that stealth doesn't work? Out of curiosity where was stealth proven? Over FR Yugoslavia where B2 was flying so high that it was effectively out of reach of PVO units (even B52 can do that) ? Or was it proven with F117A which were damaged/shot down whenever they came near PVO? So far even 2nd generation PVO is proven deadly against stealth. Edited August 1, 2012 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
mvsgas Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Out of curiosity where was stealth proven? Over FR Yugoslavia where B2 was flying so high that it was effectively out of reach of PVO units (even B52 can do that) ? Or was it proven with F117A which were damaged/shot down whenever they came near PVO? So far even 2nd generation PVO is proven deadly against stealth. Operation Desert Storm To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
wilky510 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Are you saying the F-22's where carrying external fuel tanks to be stealthy? :huh: I worded that wrong, my bad :P. Nah, the USAF puts fuel tanks on to hide the real RCS of the aircraft (in most, if not all exercises), coupled with RCS emitters.
HiJack Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 No jet fighter can claim victory in peace time over another fighter no matter what advanced weapons it got. It needs a war to claim victory. Do you dare to start one?
wilky510 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Out of curiosity where was stealth proven? Over FR Yugoslavia where B2 was flying so high that it was effectively out of reach of PVO units (even B52 can do that) ? Or was it proven with F117A which were damaged/shot down whenever they came near PVO? So far even 2nd generation PVO is proven deadly against stealth. Pretty sure if an F-117 is flying really close to any air defense, they're defeating the purpose of stealth. Stealth is meant to decrease the effective range of most air defenses. But at a certain range stealth can still be detected (usually pretty close, 3-4 miles). This doesn't make stealth ineffective either. Slipping through radar nets is much easier with stealth. Plus if stealth is so useless. Why is Russia looking into their next generation of bombers most likely being VLO?
Hellfire257 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I love how some people want drop the above straw-man-makes-me-sound-wise-without-saying-anything-at-all into the conversation :D I was not referring to this thread. I was talking about the general reaction of a minority of F-22 advocates when something suggests that it may not be top dog. They respond by sticking their head in the sand and loudly proclaiming bias. See the comments on the linked articles to see what I mean, those from "solomon" in particular. If you really want a laugh from comment sections, take a look here: http://defensetech.org/
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I see funnies from both sides in there; you are right, it's all very entertaining. Thanks for the link :D It's going from +F-22 to -F-22 to +F-23, -Politicians ... [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Hellfire257 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 The best one is when someone suggests a carrier capable Typhoon or F-22. That never, ever, ends well. :p
Pyroflash Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 No jet fighter can claim victory in peace time over another fighter no matter what advanced weapons it got. It needs a war to claim victory. Do you dare to start one? Easy enough, just say something bad on youtube about a song that you have open :D If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Or start a vs forum thread :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
VAOZoky Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 You mean the B-2's which went 'down-town' Belgrade, well within reach of air defenses in both range and altitude and hit multiple targets per pass? What about all the other stealth sorties which were never observed? How about the Baghdad overflights which were also again flown well within the reach of air defenses? Will you stop using tyres on your car because you got a flat once? Do you think that shooting down one or two stealth planes proves that stealth doesn't work when it's two planes out of hundreds if not thousands of sorties? You need to work on your logic a bit. Those engagements IN FACT proved that stealth works as expected by those who use it; its purpose is to shrink detection and thus engagement ranges. Without knowing the exact position of the SAM battery, that F-117 flew right into range (it suddenly appeared on the scope at 23km or so according to records) - and so it got shot down. But other aircraft were being tracked 10x as far. So where, exactly, are you finding evidence that stealth doesn't work? You are frequent visitor on samsim forum on simhq site, and I remember vividly that people there said to you same thing that I'm saying. As far as downing of f117, it didn't "suddenly appeared on the scope at 23km or so", it was actually sighted at 38km with system that has maximum detection range of ~60km. How do i know that? Complete war journal of 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade from that night was posted many times on samsim forum and I know that you have see it. That's why I'm intrigued to know why do you keep forgetting this one? And if success is losing "only" one f117 to enemy that compared to nato fought with stone age weapons then so be it :) Intel Core i5 2500k @ 4.2Ghz, 8GB Kingston HyperX @1.6GHz, Ati Radeon HD7870 2GB GDDR5, 19' 1440x900 screen
Hellfire257 Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Or start a vs forum thread :D So, Spitfire vs. Bf109? :doh: The same thing would happen. Either way, there are too many variables in order to draw a conclusion on which is "better". People insist on arguing it to death, but the result never changes.
Frostie Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) But at a certain range stealth can still be detected (usually pretty close, 3-4 miles). Is that an accurate figure and did you come by this from experience? The problem is classified info gets talked up and possibly exceeds true capabilities, yes the F-22 has all the boxes ticked to be the leading air supremacy aircraft and rightfully gets labeled that. But when another aircraft ie. Typhoon wins a duel they reserve the right to proudly broadcast that fact without nonsense talk of RoE etc. All aircraft have RoE not just USAF aircraft, to say it only won because of this and that is irrelevant, it won because it won not because it's a superior aircraft but because it is an extremely capable aircraft that in the right hands could beat an F-22, i'm sure the F-22 whipped the Tiffy's ass a few times too. Edited August 1, 2012 by Frostie "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Actually I don't recall reading that at all; in fact, I don't recall seeing the ranges you mention. Rather, the only thing I saw was the testimony from the person who saw it suddenly pop up ... at 23km or so, and that was a translation. You are frequent visitor on samsim forum on simhq site, and I remember vividly that people there said to you same thing that I'm saying. As far as downing of f117, it didn't "suddenly appeared on the scope at 23km or so", it was actually sighted at 38km with system that has maximum detection range of ~60km. How do i know that? Complete war journal of 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade from that night was posted many times on samsim forum and I know that you have see it. That's why I'm intrigued to know why do you keep forgetting this one? And if success is losing "only" one f117 to enemy that compared to nato fought with stone age weapons then so be it :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 You can make a very reasonable, educated guess if you have some form of knowledge of what the RCS is supposed to be, and the power of the radar you want to use by using the radar range equation. Fighter radars aren't usually all that powerful. Is that an accurate figure and did you come by this from experience? Right, but at question was the whole 'Raptor salad' lunch thing, which turns out gave exactly the wrong idea - they ended up about even, which you'd expect with two trained sides flying high-performance aircrafts in 'fair' 1v1 gun duels. The problem is classified info gets talked up and possibly exceeds true capabilities, yes the F-22 has all the boxes ticked to be the leading air supremacy aircraft and rightfully gets labeled that. But when another aircraft ie. Typhoon wins a duel they reserve the right to proudly broadcast that fact without nonsense talk of RoE etc. All aircraft have RoE not just USAF aircraft, to say it only won because of this and that is irrelevant, it won because it won not because it's a superior aircraft but because it is an extremely capable aircraft that in the right hands could beat an F-22, i'm sure the F-22 whipped the Tiffy's ass a few times too. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
diveplane Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 I love how some people just cannot accept that the F-22 is not invincible. has a invincible price tag too, not sure about this f35 either. wasted tax payers money , nows not the time to build expensive toys, good old f16 f15 gets the job done for now. https://www.youtube.com/user/diveplane11 DCS Audio Modding.
mvsgas Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Things we should all agree on - Stealth offer many advantages, detection ranges get diminished that help in many way. It does increase maintenance, takes longer to repair the aircraft, increases cost, man hours, etc. We should agree with that. - No Helmet cuing or HOBS missiles will make you more vulnerable, this is true to any aircraft. - Thrust vectoring will help maneuvering, but it can and will slow down the aircraft and could make it more vulnerable. This applying to all TV aircraft, SU-30MKI, SU-35, F-22, etc. - Complexity is a problem with most if not all newer aircraft, raising maintenance cost and maintenance hours. - Military exercises should not be used as a statement of performance, F-16A have beat Typhoons, F-14 have defeated F15, etc, etc. Real combat is the only prove if reliable source and combat records are found. Many countries have inflated their numbers before. - Non of us have access to the true performance number from any of this aircraft nor weapons systems and we have to base our opinions on internet stuff. - Opinions have, are and will always interfere with any of this conversations and we will never have a structured, informative, full of fact conversation about any "item A is better than item B" conversation. Can we all agree on this? To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 No. How dare you inject facts into this argument! :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
VAOZoky Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Actually I don't recall reading that at all; in fact, I don't recall seeing the ranges you mention. Rather, the only thing I saw was the testimony from the person who saw it suddenly pop up ... at 23km or so, and that was a translation. Looks like you have very short memory: This is interview with members of unit that shot down F117. It was posted multiple times on samsim forum together with document on serbian that represent war journal from that night. Short story: At first they thought its some malfunction (they had some troubles previously) and run diagnostics. After that on azimuth 195 they sighted 3 targets. At d=20km they radiated 10s and failed to locked target due to high angular velocity. At d=13km azimuth 180 they tried again but failed. Third try at d=13km azimuth 180 (he was now running away) they managed to lock target and fire 2 missiles. First miss but second hit target. Target was hit at d=14km. All in all less then 21s of total radiation. 30min later complete missile battery relocated to new position. Don't forget that this was done with even then obsolete s125 neva pvo! Edited August 1, 2012 by VAO*Zoky Intel Core i5 2500k @ 4.2Ghz, 8GB Kingston HyperX @1.6GHz, Ati Radeon HD7870 2GB GDDR5, 19' 1440x900 screen
Snoopy Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Things we should all agree on - Stealth offer many advantages, detection ranges get diminished that help in many way. It does increase maintenance, takes longer to repair the aircraft, increases cost, man hours, etc. We should agree with that. - No Helmet cuing or HOBS missiles will make you more vulnerable, this is true to any aircraft. - Thrust vectoring will help maneuvering, but it can and will slow down the aircraft and could make it more vulnerable. This applying to all TV aircraft, SU-30MKI, SU-35, F-22, etc. - Complexity is a problem with most if not all newer aircraft, raising maintenance cost and maintenance hours. - Military exercises should not be used as a statement of performance, F-16A have beat Typhoons, F-14 have defeated F15, etc, etc. Real combat is the only prove if reliable source and combat records are found. Many countries have inflated their numbers before. - Non of us have access to the true performance number from any of this aircraft nor weapons systems and we have to base our opinions on internet stuff. - Opinions have, are and will always interfere with any of this conversations and we will never have a structured, informative, full of fact conversation about any "item A is better than item B" conversation. Can we all agree on this? Exactly!!! I always find the arguments funny , mainly because most are arguing based only on what they have read on the internet and have no direct access to the airframes in question. But then again, everything on the internet is true ;) v303d Fighter Group Discord | Virtual 303d Fighter Group Website
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Looks like you have very short memory: Looks like you know what I read/watch or not. Or maybe you don't. This is interview with members of unit that shot down F117. It was posted multiple times on samsim forum together with document on serbian that represent war journal from that night.Never watched this interview. Unfortunately, sometimes I don't have time to watch things even if they are interesting. Is it even in english? Short story: At first they thought its some malfunction (they had some troubles previously) and run diagnostics. After that on azimuth 195 they sighted 3 targets. At d=20km they radiated 10s and failed to locked target due to high angular velocity. At d=13km azimuth 180 they tried again but failed. Third try at d=13km azimuth 180 (he was now running away) they managed to lock target and fire 2 missiles. First miss but second hit target. Target was hit at d=14km. All in all less then 21s of total radiation. 30min later complete missile battery relocated to new position. Don't forget that this was done with even then obsolete neva pvo!That sounds quite familiar, very similar to the translation I read, kindly posted by another forum member. As for this whole 'obsolete neva PVO' rethoric that people like to throw around, it is some sort of fallacy. Stealth recudes detection range, and that is all - it doesn't stop some kid with a slingshot from shooting at your stealth fighter if it gets close and low enough. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
ФрогФут Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 F-16A have beat Typhoons, So. F-22 have beat F-16, F-16 have beat Typhoons, Typhoons - F-22s. Now we can tell F-22 can beat F-22, that's for sure! "Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин Ноет котик, ноет кротик, Ноет в небе самолетик, Ноют клумбы и кусты - Ноют все. Поной и ты.
VAOZoky Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Looks like you know what I read/watch or not. Or maybe you don't. Thank you Ok, then do you have book title/ISBN please? Yes, ISBN: 978-86-87833-00-5 Title: Smena It is a war journal written by Lieutenant colonel Đorđe S. Aničić. Looks like you dont know what you have read/watched :) _________________________ Intel Core i5 2500k @ 4.2Ghz, 8GB Kingston HyperX @1.6GHz, Ati Radeon HD7870 2GB GDDR5, 19' 1440x900 screen
GGTharos Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 Who told you I even bought it, let alone read it? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Recommended Posts