Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

the moon landing was basically conducted on an 8kb computer

And the Memdelev Table was also developed without computers... what is your point?

My point is that even a bog standard Mig-29 uses 486 level computer hardware, so what is all this crap about the F-22 being a super computer with wings?

bigger and fatter bandwidth is not automatically better especially for fighters.

Most word processing and email that people do now on 8 core 3.5 GHz computers is not hugely different from the sort of thing they could have done in the 1980s on an Amiga 500 at something like 7.4 MHz clock speed.
As you point out there is a difference between military and commercial, but a faster higher performance processor operating in a larger bandwidth has very important flow on effects in terms of capabilities.

If you want sensor fusion then you need a system that can in real time combine raw data coming in from multiple sources (RHAW, IR sensors, Radar, and off platform sources and combine it all into a real time picture of everything around the aircraft.

An 8 bit or 16 bit architecture will limit the number of memory addresses... even in a 32 bit environment Windows cannot recognise more than about 3 GB of RAM, which might not sound like a big deal but the amount of data a modern AESA radar can generate means you need as much grunt as you can get.

Just as an example the original ZASLON radar of the Mig-31 was a very powerful set and its volume of scanning was enormous, but its range was not very impressive because of a lack of processing power.

The current upgrades AFAIK use the same radar with the same antenna with almost double the range because of a much more powerful radar.

A dedicated processor that is hard wired to a task doesn't need to be fast... do a search on my chats with Flanky about UAVs taking over the role of JSTARS in the Russian Air Force and even my chats with Vlad about making computer chips.

A calculator can have a very slow processor but still do the job of calculations very very quickly, the problem is that in the 1980s as processors got faster the computers in military equipment moved from pretty much custom designed chips used for specific roles in specific aircraft where an upgrade means a whole new chip and hardware needs to be developed to a generic off the shelf chip where upgrades are just a question of a software patch or upgrade.

because in combat you don't need it - you only want and need to track the object of interest that does not require huge bandwidth

Again, this us supposed to be the best of the best... some even claim it should be called a 6th gen fighter because it is so much better than 4th gen fighters...

the Mig29 HMS doesn't give a cue as to what the missile is locked to - certainly it was true of the former East German airframes - there's a very comprehensive description of operations with the Mig29 by a US pilot floating around, and it's quite illuminating as to how crude the whole thing is compared to western aircraft.

What a load of rubbish. Looking through the glass monocle the pilot sees a reticle or aiming sight pattern and to use it he turns his head to put the target aircraft in the centre of the reticle and presses a button on his control stick which slaves the selected missiles seeker to his line of sight, so it turns to where he is looking and gets a lock on that target. When lock is acquired the pilot is free to pull the trigger and launch the missile.

When this system entered service his NATO equivalent looked around in the sky for the enemy and when he located them he had to turn his entire aircraft to point his nose at the target and then activate his missile seeker to scan for the target. If there is a group of targets EVEN IF HE GETS A RADAR LOCK that means nothing because there is no link between his radar and his IR guided missiles so his radar might lock on one target and his IR guided missile might lock on a different target altogether...

It is amusing the west calls the Soviet system crude because the US equivalent didn't enter service till at least 20 years later, has no clear advantages over the Soviet system though it is heavier, more complex and orders of magnitude more expensive so only a small percentage of US fighters actually have it... and that does not include their F-22s. On the other hand every model from the oldest to the newest Mig-29 and Su-27 have it fitted as standard.
Also what is not widely recognised is that the R-27T and R-27ET are also high off boresight IR guided AAMs which benefit from the helmet mounted sight...

I'd suggest training (western jet operators spend a lot of time and money in putting their stuff into the sky in large, well scriped DACT exercises), and situational awareness (both inside the cockpit and out!) are both more relevant than how many gigaflops are on tap.

I'd suggest that it is par for the course... the Super aerial Cray computer is actually a white elephant that will likely be a hangar queen for some time to come...

consider that the F-16s flew in "clean" condition while the MiGs had six pylons and carried a centreline drop tank and two fixed R-73 acquisition rounds "



A....little detail Very Happy .

To be clear the use of the centreline drop tank on an early model Mig-29 is for ferrying ONLY and limits the aircraft to something like 4g flight performance.

Simple but equally effective weapon costs much less over the service lifetime cost. Indians are buying Su-30s w/AESA and total cost for 40 birds comes to $4B odd at $104M per unit. However these include the lifetime service costs. People tend to go with initial flyaway price which should be $30-40M for Su-30s and spread stories that Russians are trying to defraud Indian Air Force.

The contents of that contract have not been revealed AFAIK, for all we know the $4B dollars could cover the price of the 40 new Su-30s with AESA plus an upgrade of existing aircraft to that standard. They equally could have ordered new simulators, or they might simply have included a large order of spare parts and weapons for their whole fleet with those 40 new aircraft.

Of course the Mig-29 pilots in India have the benefit that they are getting upgrades and are flying aircraft far superior than the aircraft these western pilots are complaining about.

It is a bit like the M16 and the AK-47... comparing the latest model M16 with the original AK-47 and complaining that the AK-47 doesn't have the features of the M16.

The amusing thing I find is people suggesting the AK-47 is not ergonomic.

If you shoot left handed it is very ergonomic.

Left handed people are trained to shoot right handed, so it should be no problem at all to train all soldiers to shoot left handed.

Much cheaper than buying all new rifles...

The thing is that people trained on M16s with peep iron sights and adjustable length stocks become used to such features, and when trying a different rifle that don't have those features will criticise their absence.

The problem from a third party view is that the fact that they are used to a different system does not make the system they are trying bad or not good... I know for a fact that someone like me used to the AKM I don't like the western style peep iron sights, and the M16 is a very long rifle that could do with a folding stock instead of one you can move a few cms to make it slightly shorter or longer.

Anyway... what I am trying to say is that these western pilots are basically criticising the first model Mig-29 for not being an F-16.

Lets apply western rules to dealing with Soviet propaganda....

If it is bad then it must be true. If it is not bad then it is a lie and should be ignored.

Which basically means the first video condemning the F-22 was all truth and the second video was advertising rubbish that should be ignored.

...hey, I didn't make up the rules...

Hahahahahaha... so they are actually going to build more of them!!!!

Hilarious.

Reopening production is never cheap... these planes will cost a fortune... without really changing the level of security for the US.

In fact it will likely just increase international demand for the PAK FA and the eventual Chinese equivalent.

US export its best fighter for a few billion dollars when it can very easily make that money on F-35 sales anyway. I don't see the logic in that if you look from US point of view.

And that is critical... F-22s sales will kill F-35 sales and as numbers for orders keep dropping for the F-35 it becomes more and more expensive.

Sales of F-22s for export will not be big enough to reduce the price and lets face facts the US can barely afford the upkeep on them... for the Israeli air force or the Australian air force or even the Japanese air force the costs of maintainence will likely chew up the budget and kill other more valuable programs.

It makes rather more sense for the US to let the F-22 die and work on an unmanned 6th generation aircraft they keep crapping on about... even if the first version has a pilot to reduce development costs.

India has a chance to get a very good deal and it will much cheaper than 120 million that you keep stating, since it will be built in India.

Building them locally usually increases costs, though there are plenty of benefits to that that outweigh the extra cost. Upskilling the local workforce, is just one example.

I am sure Australia will love it.

For the sort of money a single F-22 squadron would cost they would be better off buying an aircraft carrier or a couple of submarines.

Imagine if Australia had accepted the Russian advances in the 1990s... they wouldn't have troops in Afghanistan, they could have Su-34s replacing their F-111s and instead of Super Hornets the money and effort they could be introducing their own Su-35 variant into service to replace their legacy Hornets and they likely would be working now on RVV-BD missiles. Instead of thinking about a Collins replacement from Europe they could be paying for the completion of an OSCAR II class vessel with an upgrade to replace the Granits with Yakhonts.

They could even be collaborating with Russia on a variant of the PAK FA... if India didn't want them in on the FFGA then perhaps the Australians and the Brazilians could work together with the Russians on another variant of the PAK FA or perhaps a light 5th gen fighter with Mig?

Ahh well.... if is one of the biggest words in the English language...

It is subject to the law of diminished returns.

To get the highest stealth possible you need to have everything perfect... any deviation from perfection and the whole thing is ruined.

I remember reading of an F-117 that was actually being tracked easily by civilian radar of all things.

Turns out they had been doing maintainence on the aircraft and two screws were not screwed down fully and stuck out above the surface.

It was enough to ruin the stealth of the aircraft.

Might sound silly... the tips of two screws sticking up from an otherwise flat surface, but because of the frequency the radar was operating at the two screw tips were far enough apart to reflect the radar signal back to the radar source with a fairly strong signal that allowed the otherwise stealthy aircraft to be not only detected but also tracked.