F 35 Radar Fight Test - AN/APG-81 - F-35 AESA Radar

[andrewm153351]

For instance, in the georgian-russian war, georgia was funded, AND trained by U.S. forces.

Does that mean we lost that war?

[2IDSGT]

I can't wait for the first proud 3rd world S-300/400 customer to find out that they are up shit creek with a paddle made out of shit when it comes to fighting the F-35.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@2IDSGT Jamming is not an option, and not only because of power (a EW EA-18G has enough), but because the s-400's main acquisition radar has good frequency switching capabilities, possibly with each pulse, despite being a PESA. That makes copying then broadcasting the correct jamming signal impossible, and flooding all the frequencies at once ineffective.

Radar-homing missiles are the solution, the JASSM isn't one. That's because a stealth missile has the only advantage over regular HARMs...

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@2IDSGT to have a higher probability of evading close-in antimissile systems. But it the missile got in range of those in the first place, it means the s-400 was left on long enough to have its location pinpointed, and that means it's dead, even with non-stealth missiles.

[edwardtang1977]

better start making a new version if this is the thing you are going up with....80miles range? You'll be target practice

[MagnesiumAlloy]

The Hunt... IS... On...!

[SilentEagles]

APG-81, APG-80, and APG-82 should change from AESA radar to advance X-band / AESA radar. X-band radar will help the APG-80 (F-16E/F), APG-81 (F-35), and APG-82 (F-15E/SE) tracking more range than ever and more targets. The F-22 Raptor already operate advance X-band / AESA APG-77 radar.

[qunniq]

leagues better then OLD russian doplar technology

even the F-18E/F have AESA Radar

[rtrThanos]

And yes, I love all the thumbs down. It shows just how stupid people are. They don't like what they hear, but I don't see anyone able to disprove it.

It IS just a simulation, it tells us nothing of target aspect, RCS, speed. The MFG made a media vid, and idiots eat it up and say "oh this MUST be real" with no thought to what they really saw. Is that how you live your life? You believe every commercial you see? My point is that ALL manufacturers make these media vids of their products.

[orlock20]

The AWAC and Apache D radars are very good and we know how good they are. I would expect the F-35 to be at least as good at identifying targets as those two systems are. There is another aircraft that was built specifically to test the electronics such as the radar system for the F-35 so this doesn't have to be a simulation at all.

[Maloross]

AWACS is a type of Aircraft(Airborne Warning and Control) used by at least 25 countries. There are several different radars used, including ones made in countries like Sweden. And aircraft vary from a Boeing-707(E-3) to Ilyushin-76(A-50) as well as many others.

The F-35 radar is a less powerful version of the AN/APG-77 used on the F-22.

[rtrThanos]

This is funny. I think every radar manufacturer has a video like this, which shows how their radar is the best.

In reality, ALL current air superiority fighters use AESA/PESA. The F22, Eurofighter, Su37, Rafale, and others use this same technology. So multiple-track/multiple-kill is not unique to USA planes.

Who is actually stupid enough to believe they would release REAL max targets and acquisition time to public? Seriously, grow a brain people. This is a computer sim retards.

[rtrThanos]

REAL WHAT??? WHAT is this video showing? Is it showing us tiny planes like the F5 being tracked from 120 miles away with a bad angle? Is it showing us gigantic, slow bombers from 40 miles away at a good angle? Who knows! If you knew anything about radar you'd understand that the RCS matters, the angle matters. I see flashing symbols, NO ACTUAL DATA. This is acceptable "proof" for you???

[orlock20]

@rtrThanos, it's showing aircraft and the headings. The number of targets one can track is a big things in military radar. This is an edited version of the full story. I suspect that the radar can also tell friend from foe and military aircraft from civilian aircraft much like the Apache radar can tell the difference between a tank and a bus. One could probably pass off targets to even SA systems which would then have an offensive capability.

[rtrThanos]

@orlock20

I saw the full video that it is from. You're not understanding the question. What you are seeing is a computer simulation. That wasn't a real radar, tracking real targets. It was a software test, a media demonstration, a sim.

For all intents and purposes, it was nothing more than flashing dots and lines. What we saw in that demonstration told us nothing, and I assure you that the contractor is not ALLOWED to tell the world technical data about the combat radar.

[Maloross]

"I suspect that the radar can also tell friend from foe"

This technology is not new, it has been used on almost all Military (in most Air Forces) and most Civilian Aircraft since the 1950's, they are called IFF Transponders.

"the Apache radar can tell the difference between a tank and a bus"

Attack Helicopters NORMALLY confirm their targets with some type television or thermal vision sight. This combined with a ground scanning radar allows them to select targets more effeciently.

[orlock20]

The F-35 along with the Apache D uses radar identification for air and ground targets. So when scanning a city, the F-35 can tell the difference between a tank and a school bus and the difference between a cannon and a dumpster. Not only will the radar see aircraft, but will tell the pilot what kind of aircraft they are. Also both the Apache-D and the F-35 have pass off capability so everyone doesn't have to be running their radar system which adds extra stealth and battlefield awareness.

[rtrThanos]

So does Su37and Ka-52. Both use datalinks also. That was 1 of 2 points I was making. 1) This is not unique tech to the USA. It's actually the current standard, so it's popping up everywhere. 2) This isn't real. It's part of a movie that Northrup Grumman made for the media. You can go download the full video from their website. I posted some of the Russian AESA ones on my site.

And how can F35 have "first kill" when R77 has longer range than AMRAAM. S400/500 has 250mi range. Good Luck

[N1cholas240]

The aim-120d has longer range then r-77, The s-400/500 will be jammed by the AESA or be destroyed by a missile shot from 575km to 1000km.

[rtrThanos]

@N1cholas240

Nobody knows the range for AMRAAM-D. But we DO know that the R77 has a longer range than the AIM120C. USA upgrades to AIM120D with longer range, and Russia upgrades to RVV-MD with longer range... and we're right back to square 1. I am ASSUMING that after upgrades are done, the R77 will still have a longer range.

The F35 is going to "light up" and use AESA to jam from 250 miles away, the S400 max range? Good luck.

S400 intercepts missiles... including ICBMs.

Try again?

[Maloross]

RVV-MD is an upgraded R-73, MD means "Maloy Daylnosti" - Short Range. You were thinking of RVV-SD. I suspect both the new American AIM-120D and the RVV-SD have a similar range.

Although, the Russian Air Force does not really receive many upgraded Air to Air missiles, most of them are from the USSR.

Once an F-35 tries to activate ECM it will be tracked and destroyed.

[rtrThanos]

@Maloross

Thank you for the correction. Sorry... I always associate the M with Medium, and S with Short.

Yes, I agree they will have similar range. But historically, the Russians have had longer-ranged weapons that can turn much harder. So, assuming USA doesn't somehow leapfrog ahead in technology, I'm guessing Russia will still have the lead here. But who knows, since the AMRAAM-D's range has been kept so secret.

[Maloross]

The AIM-120D will most likely be limited to the size of the internal weapons bays, so I don't think the designers of this weapon will make many changes to it. It may have a longer range than export variants of the RVV-SD, but the export variants are usually 20-30km less than the domestic variant.

[andrewm153351]

@rtrThanos

"But historically, the Russians have had longer-ranged weapons that can turn much harder. So, assuming USA doesn't somehow leapfrog ahead in technology, I'm guessing Russia will still have the lead here."

wow...you HAVE be kidding.

Russian tech is DECADES behind U.S. tech. Everyone knows this.

They are just now trying to build stealth aircraft when we've had them for many decades.

[Maloross]

@andrewm153351

The problem with your "stealth" aircraft is that they are extremely expensive to build and maintain and are not completely invisible. The PAK-FA is a PR program, Russia does not actually need it or will build more than 20.

You apparently have a false belief that "stealth" aircraft are some kind of "super weapon". 50 years ago the US also believed the U-2 Spy Plane was nearly impossible to shoot down.

[andrewm153351]

@Maloross

And we did NOT lose militarily in the vietnam war...god....you clearly just read the news...yes, we pulled out of vietnam because our people back home didn't approve of the war, and made our government pull out.

We were WINNING the vietnam war. We had a 20-1 kill ratio(just against soldiers)

and we rarely lost a single battle

[Maloross]

You did not lose, of course, the NVA Tanks in front of the US Embassy in Saigon were "mirages". Yes, when facing the Viet Cong the US Military suffered light casualties, but when the NVA launched their last offensive the defenses in South Vietnam collapsed and the US abandoned the country leading to the unification of Vietnam. Bombing villages was easy, facing advancing Tanks was not so easy. The financial cost of the war could not be maintained by the US.

[andrewm153351]

@Maloross

Also, the ONLY reason why north vietnam did good in the end, is because they knew we were leaving. The north vietnamese general giap said himself that they were days away from surrendering, but it was the MEDIA that made us leave.

Also, south vietnam didn't fall until YEARS after we left.

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 U lost enough battles in Vietnam ....u are delusioned . Maloross clearly owned you.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

Lol you are clearly mistaken. The only battles we "lost" were the ones that were ongoing until the end of the war, being that we left. Battles that WERE finished before the end of war, and major ones at that, were won EASILY by the U.S.

And thats not even taking into account the 20-1 kill ratio NOT INCLUDING CIVILIANS.

Lol fucking owned

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 U are delusioned as your stupid Kill ratios always ending with same score ....20:1 , 10:1 , 200:1 , 100000:1 ..........probably same as germans kicked your shermans ass how much 6:1 . Poor tommy cookers.

Listen i know plenty of battles u lost in the vietnam ...around 20.

Anyways nice try yankee donut.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

Again, you didn't listen to what i said because you are a moron. The "battles" that we lost were because we LEFT vietnam. And they weren't MAJOR battles.

And there were over 1,176,000 north vietnam and NLF fighter dead/missing.

Compare that to 59,000 American soldiers dead/missing. That comes to 20:1.

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO DO MATH?????

And german tanks kicked EVERYONE'S ass in ww2 you moron. Russia was no different.

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 Heh ....the vietnamese casulties include farmers,workers etc. basically civillians . And they still manage to kick your ass. U are the only one stupid here because u are making excuses like a little kid (i guess u are) ....u lost battles fair and squire.

Germans kicked really so much russian tanks asses ....so they invented Panther to counter T-34 .... Not to mention Russian heavies like IS ,ISU etc. blah blah ..u are full of shit kid.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

Lol you fail. The casualties DO NOT include farmers, workers etc you MORON. that's why i said, North vietnamese and NLF.

If you want to count civilians, its over 3,000,000.

YOU FAIL.

And how can you say im lying about vietnam, when the Vietnamese general Giap SAID HIMSELF that we were kicking their asses.

FAIL.

And at the battle of Kursk the germans lost 323 tanks and the soviets lost 1,956 tanks

EPIC FAILURE.

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 Thats all your wishes "you fail" ??? thats how u are probably trying to convince yourself u are always right ..dont let your ego blind u ..my fellow donut. Vietnamese general said it on purpose and word of one man doesnt mean anything .

Still Russians made it to the Berlin and beat around 80% of the german forces .......

U will be young....thats explain why u are so dense.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

"Vietnamese general said it on purpose"

hahaha what a fucking IDIOT. He said it on purpose YEARS after the war ended? You sir, are a complete DUMBASS.

And he was the general for the ENTIRE North vietnamese military!!!

And you haven't addressed the fact that you FAILED when you said that most of the casualties that i was talking about were farmers, and workers...hahahaha why'd you leave that alone? HAHAHAHAHA.

And by the way, russia had the biggest amount of casualties in the war!!!

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 U are such a low intelligent person ...funny .

Said it on the purpose ...after war because he had nothing to lost...most of the generals say "pro-winners" statements after the war. U can go and read what german generals said about russian T-34 and russians . So yes u were good at killing civillians and destroying/polluting vietnam nature.

Russia had the biggest casulties because russia faced the most german forces ....simple as that.

Really young & stupid american redneck :)

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

"said it on purpose...after war because he had nothing to lost"....

listen to yourself. You DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE.

He wrote that in his MEMOIRS. Do you even know what that means? Its funny how your saying that a general is lying about admitting that he was getting his ass kicked....lol your fucking RETARDED.

North vietnamese soldier deaths(NOT INCLUDING CIVILIANS)

1,176,000

American soldier deaths

59,000

CASE CLOSED.

And your profile says your 23 years old HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

ALSO its funny cause the soviet union was in afghanistan for 10 years and lost 14,000 soldiers.

The U.S. has been in afghanistan for the SAME amount of time and only lost 1,400.

HAHAHAHA the soviet union lost 10x more soldiers than us!!!!!!

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 I really see u are pretty stupid person ....a waste for any explanation over vietnam. Losses in Afghanistan .... because time and with it technology moved forward pretty much....think about it stupid kid :)

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

haha im sorry but you are one of the dumbest people i have ever talked to.

You say the GENERAL of the north vietnamese army is LYING about something that he has no reason to lie about.

You refuse to look at the DEATHS of the vietnam war, and see that we have 20:1.

And to top it all off your saying that the soviets lost 10x more men in afghanistan because of technology? LOLOLOL

No, its because they had over 2x more soldiers there AND their soldiers weren't as well trained as ours

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 Your problem is u are so stupid to realize how stupid actually u are :) ........Soviet soldiers (most of them) didnt have even night vision.......what is common package in your forces. They didnt use satellites , No UAV , poor air support , conscripts,......mujahideens been also well supplied by western modern weapons , Milan ATGM ,Stingers etc....u should know (i understand i want to much for your brain) technology saves and takes lifes every day....u are really full of shit kid.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

lol this is coming from someone who tried to call ME young and is actually only 23. HAHAHA

"Soviet soldiers (most of them) didnt have even night vision"

LOLOLOL

Exactly. We SUPPORTED the mujahideens. And look how many causalities the soviets took!!! LOL look what that says about our military might.

Im still laughing over you saying that north vietnamese general lied....ROFLAMO.

AND you refuse to acknowledge the CLEAR statistics that show we had a 20:1 kill ratio in vietnam.

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 I doubt u are mature with such a stupid behaviour its highly impropable u are any old.

U are still too stupid to get the point thats why u laugh at the Night vision..... if Russians supplied Mujahideens right now your losses will increase from day 1. Even soviet conscripts badly supplied managed to control more land than your professional soldiers backed up with perfect support ever will . Not to mention in Afghan there is whole NATO ....soviets been alone against all.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

We're not talking about NATO, we're talking about America. That's why i didn't bring up NATO deaths. AND the soviets had the afghanistan army on their side.

And how can you compare vietnam to afghanistan? LOLOL two totally different wars. you have to compare SIMILAR wars, like the soviet and USA afghanistan wars. Not a desert to a jungle. LOLOL

We won the cold war.

Case closed.

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351

USA fought alone in the Vietnam 11 years .......lost 58000 mans / Soviets fought alone in the Afghanistan for 10 years lost 14000 mans .....also gap between this two wars is only 4 years.

Today America in afghanistan is backed up by NATO this include many countries fighting along your side armed with the newest technology and professional soldiers this fact lowers your casulties.I

gap between Soviet and Nato afghan war is 12 years.

Really stupid nationalistic redneck.....

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

Are you fucking serious? You refuse to compare the two afghanistan wars, and compare the soviet-afghanistan war to VIETNAM WHICH IWAS IN A JUNGLE.

In that case. Lets compare the afhanistan war to the six coalition war.

Do you see how much that makes sense?

I destroyed you on all of your silly little arguments.

Russia lost more soldiers.

Case closed

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 U didnt destroyed anything u only showed how stupid person u are :) .

jungle / mountain terrain is same hard to conquer.Read something about war i recommend for u Arrianos it will help u to understand why u look like a retard.

[andrewm153351]

@Vykuk123

You are seriously the stupidest person ive ever come across. Instead of comparing two of the EXACT same wars like soviet-afghanistan war, and todays war, you compare it to a JUNGLE war......your making me laugh....

WHY DON"T YOU COMPARE IT TO THE WAR OF TODAY???? YOUR STUPID AND YOU KNOW IT.

I owned you on vietnam, soviet-afghanistan war, battle of kursk, and SO MANY MORE.

You should really be embarrassed

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 You are really only stupid and insecure kid :) ...every person which will come across this will figure out whats the point and what a dumb redneck u are.

[Vykuk123]

@andrewm153351 U been alone in the Vietnam (1964 a 1975) and u lost 58000 mans .....Soviets alone lost in Afghan war (1979–1989) lost 14000 mans .....statistics saying u been pretty much worse.

[andrewm153351]

Gen Giap-

"What we still don’t understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi . You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 You are both retarded. The US army was not in Vietnam as the main fighting force, it supported the South Vietnamese army which is responsible for most of the Vietcong casualties, themselves loosing about 300 000 men, with over a million additional casualties. So the kill/death ratio is much less favourable than you claim.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Wow. you have got to be kidding. Did you SERIOUSLY just say that the majority of the vietcong deaths were from south vietnamese? LOL WOW.

The U.S. military dropped more tonnage of bombs in vietnam than the entire ww2 put together.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 You don't either, the wartime sources are so unclear that it is impossible to even tell who died defending their own side's soil or attacking the other's, or of course how many casualties are the responsibility of aerial bombardment. That's mainly due to the USA's grossly inflated kill ratios in order to please the media.

So casualties are treated on a side basis, and the 300000 SVA casualties are part of the South/US side's losses, whether you like it or not.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

" so unclear that it is impossible to even tell who died"

But i thought you said the majority of vietcong deaths were from the south vietnamese? LOL SWITCHY-ROO.

And saying that the SVA casualties are part of the US side's losses is utterly laughable.

Nearly all of the south vietnamese units worked completely on their own.

I guess in that sense, all of the jews killed in ww2 were part of the Allies casualties.....

ROFLMAO

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 Only a logical supposition : US advisors supervised the training of the south-Vietnamese, and they were largely supplied with US materiel. Yet, they died about 4 times more in relation to the mobilized total. Unless they fought like crap (maybe the did, i don't know), that must mean they killed more enemies as well.

And your affirmation that the SVA worked on is own is what's laughable. The war started and ended with Americanization, then Vietnamization...

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Training and actual war are two totally different things. Even with the training, they didn't have nearly the amount of materials and naval/air power that we did, so counting them as our casualties is remarkably insane

And no, the vietnam war ended YEARS after America pulled out.

And like you said yourself, the south vietnamese fought like crap.

At the end of the day, NVA/vietcong and American casualties were well over 10:1.

Different soldiers are different soldiers.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 Then they fought like crap. Still, i looked it up, and they were not just "largely" trained and equipped by the US, they were 100% funded, trained, and equipped by the USA. When a country raises a proxy army, sends it to fight alongside its own troops, and get killed by the same enemy, the casualties are of the same side. Disputing that is ridiculous.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Lol we didn't "raise" any army. Funding/training are a different matter all together.

We're not talking about the power of coalitions, we're talking about the power of ONE country, so no, the casualties of south vietnam are meaningless.

And you said yourself that the south vietnamese fought like crap, so i already won.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 Don't start playing on words now. The NVA was funded by China and the USSR, and given materiel much more advanced than anything they could manufacture. If the USA had not made a similar effort with the south, there would have been no war at all. Training, funding, and equipping the SVA is the only thing that made it an effective force. So it's the exact same thing than raising an army.

Now, you're right, if your only purpose is to compare the power of countries, the USA...

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Again, counting the south's casualties as our own is ridiculous. there's a REASON why the south had almost 4x more deaths than the U.S., and that's because they were totally separate militaries, with separate strategies.

We didn't win the war, but nearly all of the battles we won.

The war was lost purely for political reasons, not military.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 It's perfectly normal to associate casualties, for a good and simple reason : they were all killed by the same enemy, during the same war. That makes them all casualties of a single side of the conflict, which is defined by being allied, and sharing the same enemies. Not military affiliation, not strategy, only who you're fighting.

Unless you're fighting for the defense of your own country, loosing politically is quite a legitimate way to end a war. Except for the soldiers.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Again, this whole time i was talking about the military prowess of ONE country-the U.S.-. So counting other coalition forces deaths does not relate to my argument

Again, we trained AND funded georgia when they lost the georgian-russian war.

But that does NOT mean we lost that war.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 I GOT THAT. I never said the USA were militarily loosing Vietnam, they could just have shelled it into surrender from the coast without a single casualty if just winning was the goal. But the goal was to maintain a non-communist regime in power while making the whole US involvement look good to the international community, and to the home public. And they lost that.

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

Shelling from the coast? You obviously have no knowledge of how modern war works. You can shell a country all day that's not going to win anything. Especially being that "shelling" only goes a few miles inland at tops.

And no, the goal WAS to win, to stop the spread of communism. When we realized that it wasn't a big deal, along with the continued protests from home, we left. Pure and simple.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 Look at a map of Vietnam. A lot of major northern cities are coastal, except for the capital. When the USA got into talks with North Vietnam for a ceasefire, one of the first conditions was to recall the USS New Jersey, which was severely complicating their troop deployments and supply lines. The B52 raids were poorly organized at first, but they got more effective later on, and top gun improved the picture for the fighter pilots. When the goal is to win a war at all costs...

[andrewm153351]

@OldDirtyRatbastard

"except for the capital"

LOL THATS THE WHOLE POINT.

And by the way, the war took place in south vietnam, not north vietnam so your whole shelling theory is ridiculous. How are you going to shell civilian militia's who are in a friendly country?

And again, the point to the vietnam war was not to prove a point, it was purely out of fear that the spread of communism would overturn or threaten capitalism.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 You truly are poorly informed. Just look up "USS New Jersey" and "operation Linebacker". The USA had more than the means to win the war very soon if the only objective was to stop the establishment of a communist government at all costs. But that actually came second to the preservation of the US intervention's legitimacy. You're trapped by your own argument there; as you said the war was not lost militarily. Then, think a minute about the reason why they pulled out.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 there is no care for civilians (or at least the image of their treatment that filters to the media), or for image at all, you just bomb everything when the balance of power allows for it, and it did. Stopping the spread of communism was not only a military battle, it was also ideological. The whole bet of the Vietnam war was to show the world that the West was a force that would stand in the way and protect its allies, which if course implies keeping a legitimate, indigenous...

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 government in power, and at least giving the impression that this government was the wish of the population. When in became clear that preserving this image had failed even among the US public, the politicians concluded that allowing a new communist state was better than destroying their country's image. And it was the cold war, image was over-important.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 were much more powerful than Vietnam, and its soldiers certainly got a favourable kill ratio. Still, you didn't win.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 10:1 sounds more like it for US troops (instead of 20:1), even though the tendency of the leadership to exaggerate reports back then is an averred fact.

[OldDirtyRatbastard]

@andrewm153351 which involved the blending in and out, respectively, of US combat troops into the South's fighting force. They worked hand in hand, shared the same weapons, facilities, and means of transportation, and they fought the same enemy. The comparison with Jews during WW2 is downright stupid, these were civilians. Civilians existed in Vietnam too. A fitting WW2 comparison would be the free French forces or something like that.

[N1cholas240]

The s-400 is made to intercept short range nuclear missiles not ICBMs. The s-400 cant stop a JASSM-ER or JOSW-ER. There are stealth missile made to kill the s-400. The AESA jammer can jam the s-400 radar at long range with its powerful jammer.

Try again.

[Maloross]

1. Currently the S-400 is not even a complete system. Work on all 3 types of missiles(Short, Long, and Extended Long Range) is not complete, essentially at this moment it is a modernized S-300 which is only deployed in small numbers.

2. The S-400 can accomplish different tasks, including intercepting small hypersonic objects in the atmosphere like ICBM warheads.

3. S-400 can intercept small Cruise Missiles and Guided Glide Bombs like those you mentioned.

[andrewm153351]

Thats what the russians SAY. But in reality, u.s. weapons(throughout history) have proven themselves to be superior to russian tech.

The only way that f-117 was found was because the commander on the ground KNEW exactly where it was going to fly-through spies, and overhearing the pilot's said course-, and picked it up on L-band radar.

In reality, if the guy never knew where the f-117 was going to fly, he would have never seen it, just like the other many successful sorties that the f-117 did.

[Maloross]

@andrewm153351

When has the US fought a country with modern(recently designed) weapons in the last 50 years? Almost every time the US had a numerical advantage. When the US Military encountered an enemy with weapons that can be described as modern at the time it lost(Vietnam).

As for shooting down the F-117, NATO's Military potential was about 50 times greater than that of Yugoslavia, and NATO proved it can kill thousands of civilians, but Yugoslavia's Military survived the attacks.

[andrewm153351]

@Maloross

Wow you are so misinformed its unbelievable.

First of all,Russia will be receiving 200 PAK-FAs not 20.

And what do you means yugoslavia's military survived? THEY are the ones that gave up!!! THEY are the ones that offered to sign the "United Nations temporary administration"

We technically won that war

No NO No, we NEVER said our u2 plane couldn't be shot down, that was our sr-71.

And both of those aircraft literally had extremely undeveloped stealth by today's standards

[Maloross]

Actually I am better informed than you are here. Russia is not the USSR, current Military spending is 50-75% embezzled before it even reaches any kind of procurement phase. It disappears into various bureaucrat pockets. In this situation normal procurement for the Russian Military is impossible. There won't be enough financing available for 200 new Su-XX(PAK-FA is not named yet) fighters in the future as the price will be more than 50 Million USD per aircraft.

[Maloross]

2. NATO destroyed more hospitals and schools in Yugoslavia than Tanks or SAM vehicles. Yugoslavia's Military was not destroyed but NATO caused a humanitarian crisis(water treatment plants, power plants, hospitals, schools were destroyed by NATO Missile attacks) which forced Yugoslavia's Government to negotiate.

3. In 1950's the US Government believed the U-2 could not be shot down. Even though a US spy plane "crashed" in China in 1958 with the help of a Soviet S-75 SAM.

[andrewm153351]

@Maloross

First of all, i have to point out that the u2 spy plane literally has almost no stealth. Its radar cross section is bigger than some fighter jets. While our f-22 has a radar cross section of a small insect. Also, the b2 bomber has NEVER even been detected, and it flew over several highly restricted airspaces.

And how can you say that the u.s. wouldn't have been able to sustain the economic cost of the vietnam war? lol thats what we're good at.

[Maloross]

@andrewm153351

"Stealth" had nothing to do with it. When the U-2 was introduced it could not be shot down with conventional Air Defenses of the time. Fighter Aircraft could not reach its altitude, and Anti-Aircraft Artillery was ineffective at such altitudes. Therefore the US began flying over the territory of the USSR thinking the U-2 would not be shot down, the US knew about the S-75 SAM but assumed it was ineffective, having written off a spy plane loss in China as an "accident".

[Maloross]

The reality was the S-75 was tested in China by the USSR and it had been shown to be successful against High Altitude Spy planes like the U-2. Such planes began appearing near or over Soviet territory in the late 1950's and there was a debate whether the Soviet Military could shoot them down without creating a conflict with the USA. Finally the decision was made to shoot them down. When Gary Powers did not return from his mission the US assumed his plane had crashed in an accident.

[Maloross]

The US Government released a nonsensical story that a NASA "atmospheric research" aircraft had been lost during a mission flown from Turkey, and it was assumed the case was closed. Until the Soviet Government revealed that a U-2 Spy plane was shot down by the USSR and its pilot captured.

So you see, even when they were not a "stealth" aircraft the US Government assumed they could not be shot down.

F-22 does not have an RCS of an insect, the laws of physics have not been canceled.

[Maloross]

2. If the US could continue paying for the costs of the Vietnam War it would not have begun to divert the costs to South Vietnam by reducing its own involvement in the conflict. But the US did not completely withdraw from Vietnam until North Vietnamese Forces captured Saigon.

[andrewm153351]

@Maloross

What i was saying is that the u2 had no stealth. Nowadays it is much harder shooting down stealth bombers and stealth aircraft.

And yes, the f22 has an rcs of 0.0001 m2 and even has the same irst stealth as the b2 bomber where it blows cold air over the hot air exhausts making it much harder to see in infrared. It also can super cruise at very high speeds which also helps its irst steatlh.

The truth of the matter is that the f22 can defeat ANY fighter jet. Thats plain and simple

[N1cholas240]

@andrewm153351 Does f-35 have 0.001m2 rcs.

[andrewm153351]

@Maloross

"S-400 can intercept small Cruise Missiles"

Not low-flying unobservable ones.

"hypersonic objects in the atmosphere like ICBM warheads"

Yeah, so can just about every other anti-missile device.

[Vlaudeimirz]

S-400 may be able to intercept a stealth missile when utilized with a smart radar array. The S-400 onboard radar won't be able to pickup a small target. Counter measures and counter-counter measures are always evolving to defeat each other. The can use the same way the F-117 have been detected and shot down. But then agains the opposing force would know that and will take other precautions.

[TheRussian1]

@N1cholas240 What a load of crap. Why cant S-400 attack JSOW? Pantsir can easily shoot down a JSOW.

[N1cholas240]

The JSOW is a stealth missile made to kill the s-400. By the time the s-400 x-band can see it it will be very close. The pantsir has ir camera to shoot down missiles but the radar cant see them coming since their stealth and very small so the ir camera has to be used to track them. The ir camera cant guide missiles and can only use guns and guns on the SAM have a range of only 2km.The u.s. jets can fire a few of these missiles can they cant stop all of them. This is called overwhelming defenses

[HSetOSCAR]

@N1cholas240 Good explanation. Is the S-400 the SA-21?

[N1cholas240]

@HSetOSCAR Yes the s-300 is called sa-20 and s-400 is called sa-21.

[HSetOSCAR]

@N1cholas240

Ok thanks was just wondering

[N1cholas240]

@TheRussian1 No it cant 

[renegadekav]

@rtrThanos f-22/35 can get far closer then 250 miles why would they even bother trying to jam anything?especially at that range?

[Maloross]

1. Both the F-35 and Apache use some type of Optical Thermal Vision or Television sights to identify targets.

2. Scanning the surface with radar only creates a "rough" map of objects, and trying to identify a 5 meter long square object as a Bus or a Tank is more difficult than you believe. For this reason several systems are used as input to identify a target. And this is true for many types of aircraft including Russian, French, Chinese, and Swedish aircraft.

[rtrThanos]

@Maloross

I'm seeing 1 meter resolutions for Russian AESA/PESA radars. Whether or not this is true, I don't know as I've never piloted any of these planes. However, if I "believe the hype" about American weapons, I see no reason not to believe the hype about Russian weapons.

[Maloross]

I was not arguing scanning resolution. I was saying that the radar could misidentify a Crane as a Self-Propelled Gun.

I am familiar with the capabilities of the main Russian designed radars.

[rtrThanos]

Go find it yourself, asshole. If you're so knowledgeable about radars, you should already have been to the web sites of the big radar manufacturers. Did you call me a retard, and you've never been to Northrup-Grumman, NIIP, Raytheon, etc websites and looked at their stupid marketing movies? Where do you think this video came from? This is from a much longer video MADE BY NORTHRUP GRUMMAN. This literally IS marketing bullshit, str8 from the manufacturer. Duh.

[ukrainesuperpower87]

marketing bullshit

us weapons always look good on paper

same with "invicible stealth"

[ohainoob]

Shut the fuck up.

[jamesskull2000]

ukraine cock sucker

[zackman40]

lol to bad ukraine is not a super power, better luck next time

[toesf15]

That's the REAL deal there!!

[ohainoob]

Awesome!