Egyptian Air Force (EAF)

Obama offers Israel more F-35 fighters

TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov. 15 (UPI) -- The U.S. administration's offer to Israel of more Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighters and other military equipment in return for a 90-day settlement freeze is an offer that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu "cannot refuse," the Haaretz daily said Monday.

According to media reports, U.S. President Barack Obama offered to add 20 F-35s to the 20 Israel ordered in October under a $2.75 billion contract.

The additional F-35s would give the Israeli air force a formidable strike capability unmatched in the region, and indeed the world, that could deliver massive blows against an adversary, such as Iran.

"The offer by President Obama is very enticing," Haaretz commentator Amos Harel observed.

"The addition of 20 F-35s to the package discussed two months ago tips the balance very clearly. From Israel's point of view, it's an offer that cannot be refused."

Israel has reportedly taken delivery of the first batch of 1,000 new U.S. 250-pound GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs it ordered in 2009. The SDBs, manufactured by Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, can be carried by Boeing F-15s or Lockheed F-16s.

The bombs can penetrate 8 feet of concrete, making them ideal for strikes on Hezbollah's rocket bunkers and underground command posts in Lebanon.

Obama is pushing hard to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, in large part to notch up a major foreign policy triumph to distract from the drubbing his domestic policies in the midterm elections earlier this month.

The defense package and other commitments he is holding out to Netanyahu, who only last week rejected out of hand any resumption of the 10-month freeze that has expired, underscore the lengths Obama is prepared to go to secure a breakthrough in peace process.

But, Harel noted, the generosity of Obama's offer "raises suspicions that there are much broader and substantive issues at hand …

"Not only may there be a genuine Israeli willingness to move forward in a substantive way in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, but perhaps some sort of deal on the Iranian question is afoot.

"Could it be -- and this is only conjecture -- that Obama is trying to persuade Israel to commit to desisting from any independent action against the nuclear installations in Iran, in exchange for a substantial future reinforcement of the Israeli air force?"

Harel noted that "according to the prime minister, the United States is generously offering to double the number of aircraft without the funding for them being taken from the future military aid package.

"This is an enormous gift … In spite of a great deal of badmouthing about him, the U.S. president has proven no less committed to Israel's security than his predecessor."

Obama's move came amid reports by U.S. public opinion analysts that American attitudes toward Israel are becoming much more critical, in part because of Netanyahu's hard line over a settlement freeze that could propel the peace process forward.

That shift appeared to be exemplified in an unusually harsh critique of the Israeli government over its policy regarding the Palestinians published last week in The New York Times by its Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas Friedman.

The writer, an American Jew who has long supported Israel, accused Netanyahu's coalition of acting like "a spoiled child" because "it feels no compunction about spurning an American request for a longer settlement freeze after billions and billions of dollars in U.S. aid."

The offer of another 30 F-35s for Israel, which will be the first foreign state to acquire the fifth-generation fighter, could mean it will get the jets before U.S. forces do.

Israel, along with the United Arab Emirates and India, led the world over the last five years in the procurement of new fighter aircraft, according to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute issued last week.

It said Israel bought 82 aircraft in 2005-10, mostly Lockheed Martin F-16I jets tailored for its air force, preceded by the emirates with 108 and India with 115.

The report warned of the destabilizing effect the sale of such aircraft could have.

"While combat aircraft are often presented as one of the most important weapons needed for defense, these same aircraft give countries possessing them the potential to easily and with little warning strike deep into neighboring countries," said Siemon Wezeman, the study's author.


Obama offers Israel more F-35 fighters - UPI.com

360 degree all around IRST at the cost of half the detection range the OLS-27/35.

The EO system on the Mig-35 is rather impressive and includes the ability to mark targets for laser guided weapon attack from 20km.
The downward facing component of the system makes it rather better for ground attack use than the system for the Su-35 which is more aimed at air to air use.

Yes, but ground attack is totally irrelevant when the Israelis have almost always had Air dominance so air-to-air combat must always be the priority for all Air forces of the middle east.

About the cost, the Su-27 costs about a million USD more than the MiG-29, well worth it for all the additional functions it can carry out.

Larger aircraft cost more to operate and take up more space while the extra performance is not always needed.

Needless to say that a well flown Mig-29 would not be at any huge disadvantage to a Flanker in real combat. There are those that point to bigger radar and other differences, but at the end of the day smaller aircraft can sometimes be more difficult adversaries.

Extra performance, is of course, always going to be needed, especially when you're pitting Generation 4.5 fighters against Generation 5 fighters, every kilometer per hour you can get from your engine will count, ever nanometer squared of RCS you can reduce counts, so if you're going to spend a bit less money for something that's supposed to be the same but actually isn't, then you can pretty much kiss them good bye because an AIM-120D can sure as hell catch and kill a MiG.

And no, a smaller aircraft will not have the advantages you say if they have crap engines, almost blank attempts to reduce RCS, or barely the fuel capacity to leap across the Sinai.

(Although, many say Carlo Koppe is heavily biased)

He certainly is biased in his opinion... if the Australian government took his word the Australian airforce would currently either consist of F-22s or F-111s modified with a new digital updated versions of the radar and missiles carried by the F-14D.

By biased, I mean exaggerating numbers and using unconfirmed reports and the like. And no, even if he had it his way, the Australian Government would never, ever, get F-22's, we are just not going to sell them to anyone, or even produce them, and certainly as hell the Australian government is not going to pressure us to do anything.

US marketing videos may show everything Lockheed Martin shooting down everything Russian, but that is not analysis.

To be fair that is their purpose... just as British companies show Russian aircraft being destroyed and Russian companies show western aircraft being shot down... and it is all hopeful speculation that they have done their jobs right and the other teams have done nothing to counter them.

But we aren't discussing speculation?

hehe...wrong definition of SuperPower nowadays;

I come from New Zealand... and from this end of the planet the Russians still have the same nuclear potential to destroy life as we know it on this planet. As far as I am concerned that makes them a superpower.

look we are talking about Egypt versus Israel likewise we were talking about Israel versus Iran; so Russians will side with any one giving them more potent national benefits;

The Russians are not ideologically driven and don't need to pick sides if they don't want to. They have said they are willing to sell weapons to anyone that does not have UN sanctions against them that prevents that sale. Or should I say they are willing to consider selling weapons to anyone...

Obviously it is in their interests not to sell just anything to just anyone, but if Pakistan decided it wanted to start making AK-103s and to buy 100,000 and start up a munition factory to make the ammo I don't see why India would object to that.
Equally Israel would have to offer something pretty tangible before Russia decides to stop all ties with Iran because as far as Russia is concerned Iran is no threat to Russia and is just a potential business partner. Of course if Iran only wanted to buy 2-3 S-300 batteries and nothing else then it would be clear they are not a good partner in that there is unlikely to be a lot of future sales opportunities there and also the likelyhood that they want examples of the S-300 to reverse engineer rather than to keep buying them... then of course the Russians might decide to cut them loose as a business partner. If conversely the Iranians ask to buy 1,000 T-90s and 400 Su-35Ss, as well as have the Russians completely update their air defence network with mobile radars, airborne radar aircraft, SAM batteries large and small and perhaps another 6 submarines then Russia might start ignoring Israeli and US pressure.
Problem is that Iran really doesn't have the money for such spending and even if it did then spending that money on its own economy makes rather more sense for them.

tomorrow I will learn Israel minister going to Putin crying to block MiGs/Flankers sale to Egypt in exchange of some opto-electronic device to Russia.....

Israel has some products that might be interesting to Russia, but most have US components and simply can't be offered. Thales of France has the Russian imported foreign opto electronics market sewn up. In addition to the Russian companies of course.
The optronics in the Mig-35 were developed from scratch by a Russian company that makes optics for satellites. That same Russian company sold a laser communications system for satellites to France I think last year.

Yes, but ground attack is totally irrelevant when the Israelis have almost always had Air dominance so air-to-air combat must always be the priority for all Air forces of the middle east.

If Egypt is buying aircraft with the only purpose of fighting Israel then I think strengthening their ground based air defence network to include some very large new Russian long wave radar systems, some ground based jammers and of course some tactical ballistic missiles like Iskander would be more cost effective. Israel is a small country and its number of airfields is small. A single Iskander strike on one airfield that scatters 1,000 anti personel mines that are booby trapped would render that airfield unusable till the field is cleared. Another missile that can penetrate hardened aircraft shelters with larger munitions or targets the airfields radar will effect operations even longer.
These things can be done without drawing attention to what you are planning to do. The answer to an enemy with strong airpower is to find unconventional ways to defeat that airpower without wasting money on things they have great strength in.

At the end of the day if you spend billions on Su-35s and even actually manage to clear the skies of Israeli airpower and then start moving in ground forces what do you do when the first nuclear warhead explodes over an Egyptian city?
Do you think they wont do it?

so if you're going to spend a bit less money for something that's supposed to be the same but actually isn't, then you can pretty much kiss them good bye because an AIM-120D can sure as hell catch and kill a MiG.

It can catch and kill a 1980s mig-29 with no upgrades and without proper maintainence. The West has never entered combat with a Mig-29 better than a Mig-29B (the downgraded model for fellow communist countries). They haven't even been pitted against the Mig-29C with its early Gardenia Jamming equipment in the wingtips and R-77 AAMs. Can the west kill a modern fighter with RHAWS and digital jamming pods? Hasn't been proven yet.

The point is that no matter what plane Egypt buys will not enable it to defeat nuclear armed Israel. If that is the case then it makes sense to buy an aircraft that can do all the peacetime jobs you want it to. That will not cost too much to buy or operate. Is sophisticated enough to use satellite guided munitions for cheap all weather use.

Odds are we are not talking about Mig-35s, though they could certainly order some of those if they want, this is likely to be a gift of Mig-29s taken from storage given a modest upgrade to SMT standard and maybe an overhaul back to zero airframe hours.

It will be a cheap to buy and cheap to operate multi role aircraft.

And no, a smaller aircraft will not have the advantages you say if they have crap engines, almost blank attempts to reduce RCS, or barely the fuel capacity to leap across the Sinai.

150 Mig-29SMTs vs maybe 50 Su-35s for the same purchase price... sometimes numbers are a virtue. You don't want to go into Israeli airspace looking for a fight... you want to deal with a threat in your own airspace where you have the best view and the most options.
The most effective thing the Egyptians could do is buy thousands of ATGMs, RPGs and MANPADs and send them over the border into Gaza just for starters.

By biased, I mean exaggerating numbers and using unconfirmed reports and the like.

His technical information is usually pretty damn good. His speculation sometimes goes a little far and leads to assumptions... for instance he has long suggested a wide range of R-77 missiles including hybrid missiles with IIR seekers and the like for which there is no evidence.
Of course his early speculation of wing mounted L and N band AESAs turned out to be pretty spot on.

But we aren't discussing speculation?

Indeed, just pointing out that until something actually happens all anyone can do is speculation. The problem is when fanboys see western speculation/marketing as truth, while Russian speculation/marketing as propaganda and lies. Not suggesting you are a fanboy of course. The Russian people know their governments lie to them, and western citizens will often admit they know they get lied to, but when hearing stories from their own government and the Russian government they will automatically believe what their own government says no matter what evidence there is either way. Evidence that supports is held up and evidence that does not support is disregarded.

For instance the F-35 is a super unbeatable example of western superiority = Carlos Kopp is not a reliable source.

Yes, but ground attack is totally irrelevant when the Israelis have almost always had Air dominance so air-to-air combat must always be the priority for all Air forces of the middle east.

If Egypt is buying aircraft with the only purpose of fighting Israel then I think strengthening their ground based air defence network to include some very large new Russian long wave radar systems, some ground based jammers and of course some tactical ballistic missiles like Iskander would be more cost effective. Israel is a small country and its number of airfields is small. A single Iskander strike on one airfield that scatters 1,000 anti personel mines that are booby trapped would render that airfield unusable till the field is cleared. Another missile that can penetrate hardened aircraft shelters with larger munitions or targets the airfields radar will effect operations even longer.
These things can be done without drawing attention to what you are planning to do. The answer to an enemy with strong airpower is to find unconventional ways to defeat that airpower without wasting money on things they have great strength in.

At the end of the day if you spend billions on Su-35s and even actually manage to clear the skies of Israeli airpower and then start moving in ground forces what do you do when the first nuclear warhead explodes over an Egyptian city?
Do you think they wont do it?

And what makes you think the Israelis just wouldn't use their Ballistic missiles or simply fly their planes from U.S. Carriers? Also, you dwell too much on the Cold War, expecting everyone to nuke each other at a moment's glance, I've just noticed that.

so if you're going to spend a bit less money for something that's supposed to be the same but actually isn't, then you can pretty much kiss them good bye because an AIM-120D can sure as hell catch and kill a MiG.

It can catch and kill a 1980s mig-29 with no upgrades and without proper maintainence. The West has never entered combat with a Mig-29 better than a Mig-29B (the downgraded model for fellow communist countries). They haven't even been pitted against the Mig-29C with its early Gardenia Jamming equipment in the wingtips and R-77 AAMs. Can the west kill a modern fighter with RHAWS and digital jamming pods? Hasn't been proven yet.

The point is that no matter what plane Egypt buys will not enable it to defeat nuclear armed Israel. If that is the case then it makes sense to buy an aircraft that can do all the peacetime jobs you want it to. That will not cost too much to buy or operate. Is sophisticated enough to use satellite guided munitions for cheap all weather use.

Odds are we are not talking about Mig-35s, though they could certainly order some of those if they want, this is likely to be a gift of Mig-29s taken from storage given a modest upgrade to SMT standard and maybe an overhaul back to zero airframe hours.

It will be a cheap to buy and cheap to operate multi role aircraft.

Those were F-15/16/18s. We're talking F-35s here. MiGs have zero chance against them, even if Egypt had the electronic blessing of America.

And no, a smaller aircraft will not have the advantages you say if they have crap engines, almost blank attempts to reduce RCS, or barely the fuel capacity to leap across the Sinai.

150 Mig-29SMTs vs maybe 50 Su-35s for the same purchase price... sometimes numbers are a virtue. You don't want to go into Israeli airspace looking for a fight... you want to deal with a threat in your own airspace where you have the best view and the most options.
The most effective thing the Egyptians could do is buy thousands of ATGMs, RPGs and MANPADs and send them over the border into Gaza just for starters.

Su-35s only cost about $1m more so 150 MiGs would mean about 145 Sukhois. And no, a MANPAD won't stop an artillery bombardment, or a ground assault. Trophy can take down all Russian infantry-based ATGMs/RPGs, and MANPADS can be shot with a M16. Simply escalating the violence won't work.

By biased, I mean exaggerating numbers and using unconfirmed reports and the like.

His technical information is usually pretty damn good. His speculation sometimes goes a little far and leads to assumptions... for instance he has long suggested a wide range of R-77 missiles including hybrid missiles with IIR seekers and the like for which there is no evidence.
Of course his early speculation of wing mounted L and N band AESAs turned out to be pretty spot on.

Wouldn't say damn good. Some of his graphics shows technologies yet to be produced. Which would lead idiots to believe that Russians actually have them. But again, I'd be defending idiots that can't read.

But we aren't discussing speculation?

Indeed, just pointing out that until something actually happens all anyone can do is speculation. The problem is when fanboys see western speculation/marketing as truth, while Russian speculation/marketing as propaganda and lies. Not suggesting you are a fanboy of course. The Russian people know their governments lie to them, and western citizens will often admit they know they get lied to, but when hearing stories from their own government and the Russian government they will automatically believe what their own government says no matter what evidence there is either way. Evidence that supports is held up and evidence that does not support is disregarded.

For instance the F-35 is a super unbeatable example of western superiority = Carlos Kopp is not a reliable source.

And you can say the same about any Nation, "Our Government tells you x, but their government tells you y! They're all liars I say!". The F-35 has it's pros and it's cons, so does every Russian fighter. Aside from it's performance and such, pilot skill of course would be a factor we can't add in to our calculations. Technically speaking, a F-35 versus a Su-35 over an ocean with no support from each other side, I'd put my money on the F-35 as it would retain the initiative by virtue of stealth. It's definitely not unbeatable, but so is everything else.

At the end of the day if you spend billions on Su-35s and even actually manage to clear the skies of Israeli airpower and then start moving in ground forces what do you do when the first nuclear warhead explodes over an Egyptian city?
Do you think they wont do it?

we will not get in israel borders,,we just defeat our land>>
in 1973 war we hit israel down in few days and get her out of our lands(sinai) and israel can't use nuclear weapons,,in that time some resources said that egypt has 4 nuclear weapons from russia,,we have bilogical and chemical weapons and ballastic missiles like no dong,scud c,d and we have giant air fuel bombs...
i mean that we have the cabability to hit them hard so they can't use nuclear weapons,also usa refuse that....

IMO, I think the Middle east is just too hot of place both literally and metaphorically to handle any WMDs, no matter who's deploying them.

And what makes you think the Israelis just wouldn't use their Ballistic missiles or simply fly their planes from U.S. Carriers?

I am sure they would if they could.

Egypt is no easy beat like Syria or Iraq.

What I am asking is, what is the purpose of this weapon acquisition?

If you want to invade and conquer Israel then Su-35s will be a good start, but you will need to spend a lot of money on this and not expect any help from the US.

If they want to merely deter Israel from attacking Egypt then cheaper options can be considered that will save money and prevent provoking an arms race in the region.

Mig-29s with upgrades to SMT standard with modern missiles would be a capable aircraft. With modern jamming pods and new AAMs they will offer good performance at a good price.

For patroling Egyptian airspace and hitting targets in moderately defended airspace they would be fine. For defending airfields etc they would also be useful too in conjunction with the AD network.

There is a reason the Israelis were happy to sign peace agreements with Egypt.

They wouldn't bother if they thought they could walk over them any time.

Also, you dwell too much on the Cold War, expecting everyone to nuke each other at a moment's glance, I've just noticed that.

The end of the cold war makes nuclear war more likely, not less likely. During the cold war there was a balance. This balance no longer exists because as nuclear stockpiles are reduced and ABM systems proliferate the world becomes less safe.

Israels nuclear weapons were not to support the US in the war against communism. They were to protect Israel. If any country successfully invaded Israel why would they not use nuclear weapons?

Israels nuclear weapons are not a bee sting... something to use just before it dies. It is to stop any aggressor before Israel is overrun. To make Israel survive. Don't think they wouldn't kill millions for that. There is no other purpose to them having nuclear weapons. They claim publicly that they have them in case another country in the region gets nuclear weapon capability, yet their actions show they will use military force to prevent that so really they don't actually need nuclear weapons at all... unless it is a lie.

Those were F-15/16/18s. We're talking F-35s here. MiGs have zero chance against them, even if Egypt had the electronic blessing of America.

You seem a little confused here. What difference do you think the launch platform makes to the success or otherwise of a missile launch? A missile fired by an F-15 that is defeated by the EW suite of a Mig-29SMT will also be defeated by that same suite when fired from any other aircraft.

The difference is whether that Mig-29 will have a chance of defeating the launch platform too.

For all we know in the environment of the Middle East stealth technology might not last long in that environment. The quality of maintainence might not be up to scratch either... there are lots of variables.

Besides using mobile high performance SAMs you could use the Mig-29s to create a trap for Israeli aircraft to fall into. Any problem or gap in performance can be compensated by tactics... and that goes for both sides.

Su-35s only cost about $1m more so 150 MiGs would mean about 145 Sukhois.

There is no way that an Su-35S fighter aircraft could cost 1 million dollars more than a Mig-29 taken from storage and given an SMT upgrade. A Mig-29SMT would cost about $10-16 million if they are prepared to write off the value of the Mig-29.
Second the operational costs of an Su-35 would probably be in the region of $9,000 per hour in fuel and maintainence. The Mig-29SMT would be in the region of $6,000 per flight hour.
In those very rare cases where the Mig-29SMTs flight range is not enough it can use inflight refuelling.

And no, a MANPAD won't stop an artillery bombardment, or a ground assault.

It will deal with helos and low flying aircraft like F-35s trying to evade long wave radar.

Trophy can take down all Russian infantry-based ATGMs/RPGs, and MANPADS can be shot with a M16.

We were also told that Israel has lasers that can shoot down Grad rockets... has to be in the right place at the right time of course.
Trophy is widely deployed is it?
Would be impressed to see an M16 used to shoot down a supersonic light anti aircraft missile.

Simply escalating the violence won't work.

The alternative is surrender. Escalation of violence is what ends conflicts. For whatever reason in this scenario this conflict starts (it is assumed Israel attacks Egypt and not vice versa) then the best way to stop an attack is to escalate and widen the conflict.

An example of this would be a small incursion by Israel into Egyptian territory.. Egypt asks them to leave and Israel refuses, then Egypt might threaten to open its border with Gaza and supply the Palestinians with a range of weapons... Israel has to decide whether it wants to stick with its new occupation or whether it will withdraw on condition that Egypt stops supplying the Palestinians.
The alternative of using force to remove the Israeli forces is an option too but this would be more difficult to contain and control.

Wouldn't say damn good. Some of his graphics shows technologies yet to be produced. Which would lead idiots to believe that Russians actually have them. But again, I'd be defending idiots that can't read.

Those pictures are usually clearly identified as growth potential... and actually rather fair because often the technology being discussed is not in service in the west in numbers that would make it useful anyway so it goes both ways. Often when talking about future capabilities you have to make such assumptions because comparing what the West will have with what the Russians have revealed so far is a little dishonest don't you agree?

Technically speaking, a F-35 versus a Su-35 over an ocean with no support from each other side, I'd put my money on the F-35 as it would retain the initiative by virtue of stealth. It's definitely not unbeatable, but so is everything else.

I would agree in principle, but to be honest I think it would be more a case of the F-35 firing its AMRAAMs and then leaving. Whether the Su-35 gets shot down or not is hard to say without knowing what it is equipped with regarding jammers etc.

Having said that two aircraft meeting over the ocean without any support is hollywood BS that would never happen in the real world.

The F-35 would need to ID the target as an enemy aircraft... for all the F-35 pilot knows it could be a civilian airliner. The Su-35 pilot would not have that dilemma because few Civilian airliners have such small RCS.

Of course the Su-35 could simply turn and climb and fly back to base at mach 1.8 and the F-35 could do nothing about it.

we will not get in israel borders,,we just defeat our land>>

Very glad to hear that. This lowers the bar for your requirements and by choosing lesser equipment you save money and show a less aggressive stance to potential enemies.

in 1973 war we hit israel down in few days and get her out of our lands(sinai) and israel can't use nuclear weapons,

Did Israel have nuclear weapons then? If Israel felt the threat of being completely overrun and there being no Israel anymore I am sure they would use nuclear weapons in a heartbeat and the opinion of the US would not even be considered.

IMO, I think the Middle east is just too hot of place both literally and metaphorically to handle any WMDs, no matter who's deploying them.

Sometimes WMDs create balance, in the ME however there has never been balance so I think they are pretty destabilising. The small size of Israel makes her rather vulnerable to WMD attack too.

And what makes you think the Israelis just wouldn't use their Ballistic missiles or simply fly their planes from U.S. Carriers?

I am sure they would if they could.

Egypt is no easy beat like Syria or Iraq.

What I am asking is, what is the purpose of this weapon acquisition?

If you want to invade and conquer Israel then Su-35s will be a good start, but you will need to spend a lot of money on this and not expect any help from the US.

If they want to merely deter Israel from attacking Egypt then cheaper options can be considered that will save money and prevent provoking an arms race in the region.

Mig-29s with upgrades to SMT standard with modern missiles would be a capable aircraft. With modern jamming pods and new AAMs they will offer good performance at a good price.

For patroling Egyptian airspace and hitting targets in moderately defended airspace they would be fine. For defending airfields etc they would also be useful too in conjunction with the AD network.

There is a reason the Israelis were happy to sign peace agreements with Egypt.

They wouldn't bother if they thought they could walk over them any time.

Exactly. If Egypt wants Defense, go Sukhoi. You said it yourself, MiG's have the EO systems for improved surface attack capabilities as compared to the Su-35. The Su-35 is technically a Multirole fighter, however, it performs the Air-superiority role far better than MiG-29s do.

Also, you dwell too much on the Cold War, expecting everyone to nuke each other at a moment's glance, I've just noticed that.

The end of the cold war makes nuclear war more likely, not less likely. During the cold war there was a balance. This balance no longer exists because as nuclear stockpiles are reduced and ABM systems proliferate the world becomes less safe.

Israels nuclear weapons were not to support the US in the war against communism. They were to protect Israel. If any country successfully invaded Israel why would they not use nuclear weapons?

Israels nuclear weapons are not a bee sting... something to use just before it dies. It is to stop any aggressor before Israel is overrun. To make Israel survive. Don't think they wouldn't kill millions for that. There is no other purpose to them having nuclear weapons. They claim publicly that they have them in case another country in the region gets nuclear weapon capability, yet their actions show they will use military force to prevent that so really they don't actually need nuclear weapons at all... unless it is a lie.

And yet you think that if Egypt wins Air-dominance with Sukhois, Israeli is just going to outright nuke Cairo. Yeah, read more.

Those were F-15/16/18s. We're talking F-35s here. MiGs have zero chance against them, even if Egypt had the electronic blessing of America.

You seem a little confused here. What difference do you think the launch platform makes to the success or otherwise of a missile launch? A missile fired by an F-15 that is defeated by the EW suite of a Mig-29SMT will also be defeated by that same suite when fired from any other aircraft.

The difference is whether that Mig-29 will have a chance of defeating the launch platform too.

For all we know in the environment of the Middle East stealth technology might not last long in that environment. The quality of maintainence might not be up to scratch either... there are lots of variables.

Besides using mobile high performance SAMs you could use the Mig-29s to create a trap for Israeli aircraft to fall into. Any problem or gap in performance can be compensated by tactics... and that goes for both sides.

Ah, you seemed to have misread Wikipedia. The difference is a kinetically superior launch platform equates to up to 30% range. The difference is that legacy fighters are not stealth. The difference is that you don't know them at all. A F-35 can detect, track, and engage a MiG-29 way before the MiG can, all thanks to stealth. That EW suite is useless because you're assuming that they actually do what they're tasked with. These aren't dumb missiles, they are guided, focal plane arrays, AR, ARM, missiles.

As for maintainenece, heh, as if you didn't think Israelis wouldn't of thought of that and compensated.

Finally, Egypt doesn't have high performance SAMs, stay on topic.

Su-35s only cost about $1m more so 150 MiGs would mean about 145 Sukhois.

There is no way that an Su-35S fighter aircraft could cost 1 million dollars more than a Mig-29 taken from storage and given an SMT upgrade. A Mig-29SMT would cost about $10-16 million if they are prepared to write off the value of the Mig-29.
Second the operational costs of an Su-35 would probably be in the region of $9,000 per hour in fuel and maintainence. The Mig-29SMT would be in the region of $6,000 per flight hour.
In those very rare cases where the Mig-29SMTs flight range is not enough it can use inflight refuelling.

Exactly, taken from storage. Same outdated crap we discussed in a lot of threads. Those MiG-29s might as well just be used for bullet resistant vests.

In those very rare cases where inflight refuelling is available in Egypt, maybe we'll see that happen.

And no, a MANPAD won't stop an artillery bombardment, or a ground assault.

[quote[It will deal with helos and low flying aircraft like F-35s trying to evade long wave radar.[/quote]

Couldn't we just deploy flares? Igla, down.

Trophy can take down all Russian infantry-based ATGMs/RPGs, and MANPADS can be shot with a M16.

We were also told that Israel has lasers that can shoot down Grad rockets... has to be in the right place at the right time of course.
Trophy is widely deployed is it?
Would be impressed to see an M16 used to shoot down a supersonic light anti aircraft missile.

And so does Russian ATGMs. Yeah, just try killing Merkavas with stone age AT-3s.

It's quite probable that you are not a proficient speaker of English. MANPADS or, "Man Portable Air Defense System" is as it states, a system. If you did not know, I'll inform you, a system isn't a missile. So, in effect, a M16, given that it does not jam, will take down any Igla-wielding enemy.

Simply escalating the violence won't work.

The alternative is surrender. Escalation of violence is what ends conflicts. For whatever reason in this scenario this conflict starts (it is assumed Israel attacks Egypt and not vice versa) then the best way to stop an attack is to escalate and widen the conflict.

An example of this would be a small incursion by Israel into Egyptian territory.. Egypt asks them to leave and Israel refuses, then Egypt might threaten to open its border with Gaza and supply the Palestinians with a range of weapons... Israel has to decide whether it wants to stick with its new occupation or whether it will withdraw on condition that Egypt stops supplying the Palestinians.
The alternative of using force to remove the Israeli forces is an option too but this would be more difficult to contain and control.

Lol, then why not just encourage Egypt and might as well, the rest of the world to proliferate Nuclear weapons? Your logic is so very flawed, it is almost sad to see you exist in Western society anymore.

Wouldn't say damn good. Some of his graphics shows technologies yet to be produced. Which would lead idiots to believe that Russians actually have them. But again, I'd be defending idiots that can't read.

Those pictures are usually clearly identified as growth potential... and actually rather fair because often the technology being discussed is not in service in the west in numbers that would make it useful anyway so it goes both ways. Often when talking about future capabilities you have to make such assumptions because comparing what the West will have with what the Russians have revealed so far is a little dishonest don't you agree?

Nah, just because the Russians can dream about it while we make small numbers of it doesn't make it fair. What would be fair is if Carlo Kopp actually used present day technologies in his analysts and not assume Russia will even deliver upon QWIP equipped OLS-35s for all fighters foreign and domestic, because lets admit it, monkey models won't cut it in a capitalist society.

Technically speaking, a F-35 versus a Su-35 over an ocean with no support from each other side, I'd put my money on the F-35 as it would retain the initiative by virtue of stealth. It's definitely not unbeatable, but so is everything else.

I would agree in principle, but to be honest I think it would be more a case of the F-35 firing its AMRAAMs and then leaving. Whether the Su-35 gets shot down or not is hard to say without knowing what it is equipped with regarding jammers etc.

Having said that two aircraft meeting over the ocean without any support is hollywood BS that would never happen in the real world.

The F-35 would need to ID the target as an enemy aircraft... for all the F-35 pilot knows it could be a civilian airliner. The Su-35 pilot would not have that dilemma because few Civilian airliners have such small RCS.

Of course the Su-35 could simply turn and climb and fly back to base at mach 1.8 and the F-35 could do nothing about it.

The problem with that is if the F-35 needs to identify targets, than unless it's a patrol mission and the Su-35s are the attackers, than the F-35s would know from AWACs what's in the battle zone at the moment, while Russia usually doesn't have the advantage the number of E-3s way have gives us.

Further more, I highly doubt an intelligent F-35 pilot would let a Su-35 get close enough to detect it. According to Carlo Kopp's analysis of Russian radars, the Irbis would detect the F-35 at, if I remember correctly, 20-40 km out. A F-35 would of fired it's AIM-120s far before that distance, which would give it ample time to retreat.

IMO, I think the Middle east is just too hot of place both literally and metaphorically to handle any WMDs, no matter who's deploying them.

Exactly. If Egypt wants Defense, go Sukhoi. You said it yourself, MiG's have the EO systems for improved surface attack capabilities as compared to the Su-35.

But that 360 degree passive detection system is also good for air to air as well.

Lets put this in perspective... As far as we know Egypt has been offered Mig-29s. Not Mig-35s or Su-35s.

This suggests Russia remembers Egypt turning away from the Soviet Union and jumping into bed with the Americans and Israel and they are not really that ready to hand over their Su-35s to the US just yet.

If Egypt don't want Mig-29s then that is completely up to Egypt, but as I mentioned in my previous post upgraded Mig-29s will probably do an excellent job. It is pretty clear that the Mig-29 is under rated and to be honest that can be taken advantage of.
The Mig-29 will be able to pretty much carry anything the Su-35 will be able to carry except the 1.5 ton guided bombs.

It seems to me that the Russians want to reduce the number of aircraft in storage... they will likely upgrade as many as they can sell and then probably upgrade the rest for their own use to maintain numbers. 48 Mig-35s, 48 Su-35s, and 60 odd T-50s is not an airforce large enough to cover all of Russia. They will need Su-27SM and Mig-29SMT and Mig-31BMs to fill out the numbers. They would get about 20-30 Mig-29SMTs for each Su-35S fighter, because the Mig-29s the Mig-29SMTs are built from are already paid for so the cost of them is the cost of the upgrade and overhaul. The Su-35s are being built from scratch and will cost a lot more.
They will also be worth it... but too expensive to make 1,000 of them.

The Su-35 is technically a Multirole fighter, however, it performs the Air-superiority role far better than MiG-29s do.

Both are multirole and I will agree that the Flankers are better than the Fulcrums in the air superiority role. The gap in performance between the Mig-29SMT and the Su-35 is much larger than the gap between the Mig-35 and the Su-35 however.

And yet you think that if Egypt wins Air-dominance with Sukhois, Israeli is just going to outright nuke Cairo. Yeah, read more.

If Egypt defeats Israels airforce and then starts a ground campaign what do you think the Israelis will do? BTW It is not how much one reads, but what one reads that is the key.

Ah, you seemed to have misread Wikipedia. The difference is a kinetically superior launch platform equates to up to 30% range.

I haven't read anything about this topic in Wiki. The Mig-25 was tested with the Kh-58 anti radiation missile (called AS-11 in the west) and it was found from a high altitude supersonic launch the missile had a flight range of 250km. The targets were of course ground based radars that weren't moving so the missile had to fly 250km to the target. This contrasts with head on air to air missile range where the target is assumed to be closing so a range of say 80km does not mean the missile travels 80km to hit its target.
The normal flight range of the Kh-58 from a low flying transonic launch from an Su-24 is 120km. The combination of lower launch altitude and flight through thicker air from a slower aircraft greatly effect flight range. Max range is not limited by seeker performance as a passive homing weapon being fired against an emitting radar of enormous power could lock on to the target well outside the range of the missile. In comparison a missile like an R-60MK that is an IR guided missile that has no data link and needs a missile lock before it can be launched does not gain from a high speed high altitude launch because its lock on range isn't increased along with its kinematic flight range.

These aren't dumb missiles, they are guided, focal plane arrays, AR, ARM, missiles.

First of all the US doesn't have an ARM missile that can attack aircraft, so we are talking about IIR and ARH missiles. The IIR would not be much good because to get within range to launch it would be to get inside the IRST range of even the early model Mig-29s. Which leaves the AIM-120 and its various models. The radar and computing power inside a missile is nothing compared with what could be fitted inside an aircrafts nose.
It has been shown that the AIM-120 has a kill probability of 50% against targets with no defense or awareness of attack. With RHAWs and onboard countermeasures the kill probability plummets...

And 40 F-35s dont carry as many AAMs as you might think.

Finally, Egypt doesn't have high performance SAMs, stay on topic.

Yeah... Patriot is crap... I know, but TOR is actually a pretty good system...

Exactly, taken from storage. Same outdated crap we discussed in a lot of threads. Those MiG-29s might as well just be used for bullet resistant vests.

That is funny. The USAF still seems to find their B-52s useful and they are all older than their pilots. If you listen to Sukhoi they are outdated crap, but they only entered service in the 1980s so they are more up to date than most of the crap Israel is currently operating. Why does Israel persist with junk like F-16s? What do you mean that with a few upgrades it can actually do the job?

In those very rare cases where inflight refuelling is available in Egypt, maybe we'll see that happen.

If they want to buy new fighters why wouldn't they buy new tankers to support such aircraft?

Couldn't we just deploy flares? Igla, down.

What happened to your stealth when you fire flares?

BTW no flares would not be much use against Igla. Very effective against early model Strela, but not late model Strela or Igla.
(The same could be said of American man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) like Red Eye and the various models of Stinger... flares effective against Red Eye... not so much use against Stinger).

And so does Russian ATGMs. Yeah, just try killing Merkavas with stone age AT-3s.

Why? Why not kill Israel Shermans with AT-3s? Kornet and Metis-M are available and have been for some time. In 5 years time there will be the land based Hermes with a range of 20km and likely a diving top attack flight profile with a 28KG multi purpose warhead.

It's quite probable that you are not a proficient speaker of English. MANPADS or, "Man Portable Air Defense System" is as it states, a system. If you did not know, I'll inform you, a system isn't a missile. So, in effect, a M16, given that it does not jam, will take down any Igla-wielding enemy.

Yeah, I speak a little English. I just don't understand... if you can get an M16 to where all those Igla launchers are why are you bothering with air power as you already clearly have troops throughout Egypt near the targets your aircraft are trying to hit?

Lol, then why not just encourage Egypt and might as well, the rest of the world to proliferate Nuclear weapons? Your logic is so very flawed, it is almost sad to see you exist in Western society anymore.

What is the problem? Israel said it needed nuclear weapons because its Arab neighbours have WMDs. Chem and bio weapons and the like. Now Israel and the US are having a hissy fit because they think Iran might be trying to get nuclear weapon capability. If Israel and/or the US will use force to stop the Persians as well as the Arabs from getting nuclear weapons then WTF does Israel need nuclear weapons for? And if Israel is allowed nuclear weapons why not let anyone have them?
And regarding western society I thought the key foundation of western society is freedom of speech.

BTW my logic is fine. The problem is that US foreign policy is not based on logic or morality or even common sense. It is based on American interests only.

not assume Russia will even deliver upon QWIP equipped OLS-35s for all fighters foreign and domestic, because lets admit it, monkey models won't cut it in a capitalist society.

If we are talking about reality then we can disregard the comment about monkey models... this was practised by both the west and the Soviet Union... F-35s for export will be monkey models... Egypts Abrams tanks might look like American Abrams tanks but you can bet when push comes to shove I rather doubt they will have the same performance. On the other hand the Pantsir-s1 sold to UAE recently were better than any model Pantsir sold previously to the Russian Armed forces because the UAE paid for its development. Equally the Su-30MKI was rather better than any fighter model Flanker in Russian service because India paid for its development.
If Egypt decides it wants French or Swedish QWIPs or if it wants Russian QWIPs and is prepared to invest in their development then that is what they will get.

The problem with that is if the F-35 needs to identify targets, than unless it's a patrol mission and the Su-35s are the attackers, than the F-35s would know from AWACs what's in the battle zone at the moment, while Russia usually doesn't have the advantage the number of E-3s way have gives us.

Hang on... you said two fighters alone over water. Now you claim the F-35 can have E-3 support?

How about we make it more realistic and say it is over Russian territory with hundreds of operational radars and SAM sites and the F-35 is on a strike mission and therefore has only 2 AAM while the interceptor Su-35 is being directed to the F-35 and is carrying 12 AAM including two R-37M to take out any E-3 support aircraft it detects.

Further more, I highly doubt an intelligent F-35 pilot would let a Su-35 get close enough to detect it.

Intelligent? There are good and bad tactics, but intelligence really doesn't come into it. A well trained pilot might not be super intelligent but they might know their aircraft very well and knowledge of the enemies aircraft can give him and edge in combat but it is hardly a case of intelligence winning.

The communications through the Link 16 datalink system with an E-3 would be an emission that the Su-35 pilot should be able to detect because it operates in the L band which is the same band his wing mounted AESAs operate in.

According to Carlo Kopp's analysis of Russian radars, the Irbis would detect the F-35 at, if I remember correctly, 20-40 km out.

And the current IRST can double or triple that... and that ignores the fact that the Su-35S will operate with other aircraft and ground based systems.

A F-35 would of fired it's AIM-120s far before that distance, which would give it ample time to retreat.

The flame plume of the launch would alert the Su-35 pilot and give him plenty of time to evade that launch.

If the F-35 retreats then it exposes its engine exhaust to the Flanker greatly extending the effective range of its IRST even if the F-35 does not use AB.
Any R-27ET missiles suddenly become very useful for a completely passive tail shot.

Exactly. If Egypt wants Defense, go Sukhoi. You said it yourself, MiG's have the EO systems for improved surface attack capabilities as compared to the Su-35.

But that 360 degree passive detection system is also good for air to air as well.

Lets put this in perspective... As far as we know Egypt has been offered Mig-29s. Not Mig-35s or Su-35s.

This suggests Russia remembers Egypt turning away from the Soviet Union and jumping into bed with the Americans and Israel and they are not really that ready to hand over their Su-35s to the US just yet.

If Egypt don't want Mig-29s then that is completely up to Egypt, but as I mentioned in my previous post upgraded Mig-29s will probably do an excellent job. It is pretty clear that the Mig-29 is under rated and to be honest that can be taken advantage of.
The Mig-29 will be able to pretty much carry anything the Su-35 will be able to carry except the 1.5 ton guided bombs.

It seems to me that the Russians want to reduce the number of aircraft in storage... they will likely upgrade as many as they can sell and then probably upgrade the rest for their own use to maintain numbers. 48 Mig-35s, 48 Su-35s, and 60 odd T-50s is not an airforce large enough to cover all of Russia. They will need Su-27SM and Mig-29SMT and Mig-31BMs to fill out the numbers. They would get about 20-30 Mig-29SMTs for each Su-35S fighter, because the Mig-29s the Mig-29SMTs are built from are already paid for so the cost of them is the cost of the upgrade and overhaul. The Su-35s are being built from scratch and will cost a lot more.
They will also be worth it... but too expensive to make 1,000 of them.

Not so good when it still has half the range of the OLS-35.

And yet you think that if Egypt wins Air-dominance with Sukhois, Israeli is just going to outright nuke Cairo. Yeah, read more.

If Egypt defeats Israels airforce and then starts a ground campaign what do you think the Israelis will do? BTW It is not how much one reads, but what one reads that is the key.

As if suggesting Egypt has the ground attack capability to even change anything. Also suggesting that any change in the political theatre would result in an Israeli nuclear strike. By the way, what you read is irrelevant if you're not reading it at all; hence, read more.

Ah, you seemed to have misread Wikipedia. The difference is a kinetically superior launch platform equates to up to 30% range.

I haven't read anything about this topic in Wiki. The Mig-25 was tested with the Kh-58 anti radiation missile (called AS-11 in the west) and it was found from a high altitude supersonic launch the missile had a flight range of 250km. The targets were of course ground based radars that weren't moving so the missile had to fly 250km to the target. This contrasts with head on air to air missile range where the target is assumed to be closing so a range of say 80km does not mean the missile travels 80km to hit its target.
The normal flight range of the Kh-58 from a low flying transonic launch from an Su-24 is 120km. The combination of lower launch altitude and flight through thicker air from a slower aircraft greatly effect flight range. Max range is not limited by seeker performance as a passive homing weapon being fired against an emitting radar of enormous power could lock on to the target well outside the range of the missile. In comparison a missile like an R-60MK that is an IR guided missile that has no data link and needs a missile lock before it can be launched does not gain from a high speed high altitude launch because its lock on range isn't increased along with its kinematic flight range.

An improved range does not mean that's the range the missile has to fly no, it means how much the missile can fly. If a F-22 was supercruising at high-altitude and launches an AMRAAM, the F-22 will have the long reach needed to make the kill. And no, seeker lock performance of course doesn't improve, that does not take an idiot to figure it out.

These aren't dumb missiles, they are guided, focal plane arrays, AR, ARM, missiles.

First of all the US doesn't have an ARM missile that can attack aircraft, so we are talking about IIR and ARH missiles. The IIR would not be much good because to get within range to launch it would be to get inside the IRST range of even the early model Mig-29s. Which leaves the AIM-120 and its various models. The radar and computing power inside a missile is nothing compared with what could be fitted inside an aircrafts nose.
It has been shown that the AIM-120 has a kill probability of 50% against targets with no defense or awareness of attack. With RHAWs and onboard countermeasures the kill probability plummets...

And 40 F-35s dont carry as many AAMs as you might think.

The AMRAAM has a backup ARM seeker. The difference between the AIM-120 and the R-77 is quite clear. The AIM-120 has been combat proven, the R-77 has not. The AIM-120's kp is far better than the R-77 because at least there's some genuine battle data to back it up not just some mock tests.

40 F-35s can carry 240 AMRAAMs, if you didn't know.

Finally, Egypt doesn't have high performance SAMs, stay on topic.

Yeah... Patriot is crap... I know, but TOR is actually a pretty good system...

Someone already said it ahead of me, the Tor is a very basic system.

Exactly, taken from storage. Same outdated crap we discussed in a lot of threads. Those MiG-29s might as well just be used for bullet resistant vests.

That is funny. The USAF still seems to find their B-52s useful and they are all older than their pilots. If you listen to Sukhoi they are outdated crap, but they only entered service in the 1980s so they are more up to date than most of the crap Israel is currently operating. Why does Israel persist with junk like F-16s? What do you mean that with a few upgrades it can actually do the job?

Because we actually maintained them.

In those very rare cases where inflight refuelling is available in Egypt, maybe we'll see that happen.

If they want to buy new fighters why wouldn't they buy new tankers to support such aircraft?

It all depends on if they are actually there, the time, the date, etc. Most likely, no tankers will even show up for a war.

Couldn't we just deploy flares? Igla, down.

What happened to your stealth when you fire flares?

BTW no flares would not be much use against Igla. Very effective against early model Strela, but not late model Strela or Igla.
(The same could be said of American man portable air defence systems (MANPADS) like Red Eye and the various models of Stinger... flares effective against Red Eye... not so much use against Stinger).

I thought we're flying low? No radars would see us (unless there just happened to be a Low altitude radar close by).

Difference is, as your ECCM evolves, so does our ECM, our flares would work.

And so does Russian ATGMs. Yeah, just try killing Merkavas with stone age AT-3s.

Why? Why not kill Israel Shermans with AT-3s? Kornet and Metis-M are available and have been for some time. In 5 years time there will be the land based Hermes with a range of 20km and likely a diving top attack flight profile with a 28KG multi purpose warhead.

In 5 years Iron Fist would be around and you won't even be able to shoot high speed APFSDS at it.

It's quite probable that you are not a proficient speaker of English. MANPADS or, "Man Portable Air Defense System" is as it states, a system. If you did not know, I'll inform you, a system isn't a missile. So, in effect, a M16, given that it does not jam, will take down any Igla-wielding enemy.

Yeah, I speak a little English. I just don't understand... if you can get an M16 to where all those Igla launchers are why are you bothering with air power as you already clearly have troops throughout Egypt near the targets your aircraft are trying to hit?

M16s can shoot through Abrams.

Lol, then why not just encourage Egypt and might as well, the rest of the world to proliferate Nuclear weapons? Your logic is so very flawed, it is almost sad to see you exist in Western society anymore.

What is the problem? Israel said it needed nuclear weapons because its Arab neighbours have WMDs. Chem and bio weapons and the like. Now Israel and the US are having a hissy fit because they think Iran might be trying to get nuclear weapon capability. If Israel and/or the US will use force to stop the Persians as well as the Arabs from getting nuclear weapons then WTF does Israel need nuclear weapons for? And if Israel is allowed nuclear weapons why not let anyone have them?
And regarding western society I thought the key foundation of western society is freedom of speech.

BTW my logic is fine. The problem is that US foreign policy is not based on logic or morality or even common sense. It is based on American interests only.

Logicfail. Your argument in context a New Zealander might understand is: "That kangaroo has a hat, I must have it too!". Look, I'm not encouraging WMDs, you shouldn't either. I stated before, I think no one in that region, or might as well, the world, should ever have WMDs.

Finally, Morality is subjective, what we see as moral and what you see as moral are different.

not assume Russia will even deliver upon QWIP equipped OLS-35s for all fighters foreign and domestic, because lets admit it, monkey models won't cut it in a capitalist society.

If we are talking about reality then we can disregard the comment about monkey models... this was practised by both the west and the Soviet Union... F-35s for export will be monkey models... Egypts Abrams tanks might look like American Abrams tanks but you can bet when push comes to shove I rather doubt they will have the same performance. On the other hand the Pantsir-s1 sold to UAE recently were better than any model Pantsir sold previously to the Russian Armed forces because the UAE paid for its development. Equally the Su-30MKI was rather better than any fighter model Flanker in Russian service because India paid for its development.
If Egypt decides it wants French or Swedish QWIPs or if it wants Russian QWIPs and is prepared to invest in their development then that is what they will get.

If we are talking about reality than what you are really saying is that Russia herself gets the monkey models. That is even sadder.

The problem with that is if the F-35 needs to identify targets, than unless it's a patrol mission and the Su-35s are the attackers, than the F-35s would know from AWACs what's in the battle zone at the moment, while Russia usually doesn't have the advantage the number of E-3s way have gives us.

Hang on... you said two fighters alone over water. Now you claim the F-35 can have E-3 support?

How about we make it more realistic and say it is over Russian territory with hundreds of operational radars and SAM sites and the F-35 is on a strike mission and therefore has only 2 AAM while the interceptor Su-35 is being directed to the F-35 and is carrying 12 AAM including two R-37M to take out any E-3 support aircraft it detects.

Reread it again. "than unless it's a patrol mission". If both were alone above water, I doubt either side even needs confirmation.

Further more, I highly doubt an intelligent F-35 pilot would let a Su-35 get close enough to detect it.

Intelligent? There are good and bad tactics, but intelligence really doesn't come into it. A well trained pilot might not be super intelligent but they might know their aircraft very well and knowledge of the enemies aircraft can give him and edge in combat but it is hardly a case of intelligence winning.

The communications through the Link 16 datalink system with an E-3 would be an emission that the Su-35 pilot should be able to detect because it operates in the L band which is the same band his wing mounted AESAs operate in.

Knowledge would be a part of intelligence, so yes.

Of course, assuming Russian fighters aren't communicating at all.

According to Carlo Kopp's analysis of Russian radars, the Irbis would detect the F-35 at, if I remember correctly, 20-40 km out.

And the current IRST can double or triple that... and that ignores the fact that the Su-35S will operate with other aircraft and ground based systems.

Only in the Front sector. The F-35 can absolutely detect a Su-35 in BVR range, move into an advantageous position, probably behind the Sukhoi, and fire. I thought we were talking 2 planes alone above the water? Because the F-35 will do the same, except our C4I is generally superior to Russian C4I.

A F-35 would of fired it's AIM-120s far before that distance, which would give it ample time to retreat.

The flame plume of the launch would alert the Su-35 pilot and give him plenty of time to evade that launch.

If the F-35 retreats then it exposes its engine exhaust to the Flanker greatly extending the effective range of its IRST even if the F-35 does not use AB.
Any R-27ET missiles suddenly become very useful for a completely passive tail shot.

Problem with Stealth v.s. Su-35 is that a F-35 pilot can go up and around a Sukhoi, completely avoiding it's IRST, so, no thermal plumes to chase, sorry!

Not so good when it still has half the range of the OLS-35.

So what? If that is a problem then buy some Damocles pods from the French.

As if suggesting Egypt has the ground attack capability to even change anything.

Those Abrams tanks they operate look reasonably good to me.
In what way are the much smaller Israeli forces more powerful?

Sure their tankers are very skilled but without air cover and with enemy air power over head I really think their aura of invincibility will be tarnished.

Fighting T-55s in a Merkava 4 is one thing, fighting civilians with bricks in a Merkava 4 is another, and fighting Mig-29SMTs dropping laser guided bombs from 5,000m in a Merkava 4 is something else entirely.

Also suggesting that any change in the political theatre would result in an Israeli nuclear strike.

So Egyptian forces start moving into Israel... and the defeat of the Israeli air force leading to Syria sending forces down too and perhaps even Jordan moving forces to join the party... you think the Israelis will just sit back and say... well we had a good run and then wait for their new Arab overlords?
Can't really see that myself.

Even if they don't smoke Cairo or some large city they will fire a nuke at the enemy forces outside of Israeli territory and then threaten if the invasion doesn't stop that Cairo will be next and give a big long list of all the cities to be nuked... probably with Mecca near the top of the list.

By the way, what you read is irrelevant if you're not reading it at all; hence, read more.

Reading without thought is like a broken pencil.

I could read "Clifford the big red dog" 1,000,000 times and it wouldn't improve my understanding of middle eastern affairs.

Reading is just part of the story.

An improved range does not mean that's the range the missile has to fly no, it means how much the missile can fly.

Altitude adds range to a missile. High flight speed at launch adds to the missiles top speed which means it goes further and gets there a little quicker.

I already know all that.

There is no reason why a Flanker can't climb and accelerate to high speed before launching an attack on an enemy aircraft to improve the performance of its missiles. It will burn more fuel but it also carries more fuel so it can afford it.

The AMRAAM has a backup ARM seeker.

It has a home on jam feature that is exploited by using wing tip jammers or towed decoys or for example decoy rockets that the Russians produce in their 122mm calibre rocket range.

The difference between the AIM-120 and the R-77 is quite clear. The AIM-120 has been combat proven, the R-77 has not.

The AIM-120 has a combat record that shows an astounding kill ratio of about 50%. Less impressive is that of this 50% record most of the kills were against targets that were pretty much completely unaware they were being attacked and so they flew straight and level and used no countermeasures.
The R-77 has never been used in combat so it has no combat record, and it probably wont have one as its replacements are now in production.

40 F-35s can carry 240 AMRAAMs, if you didn't know.

And how many bombs can it carry in that configuration? It is supposed to be a strike aircraft isn't it?

Someone already said it ahead of me, the Tor is a very basic system.

One F-35 would not be able to defeat a TOR. The missiles for TOR are very simple but the sensors are incredibly sophisticated.
It can shoot down anything that gets within range including HARMs, bombs, guided or dumb, rockets, missiles, and of course aircraft.

One common use for them is to defend larger SAMs from anti radiation missiles.

The new model has missiles that have a much larger ceiling, double the range and carries twice as many missiles ready to launch. It is probably the best missile only vehicle in its class.

Because we actually maintained them.

So?

They are still 1950s bombers. Or is it possible that some missions don't require mach 10 stealth bombers?
Fanboys love Su-35s... for most air forces a smaller aircraft makes more sense.

It all depends on if they are actually there, the time, the date, etc. Most likely, no tankers will even show up for a war.

Sure it takes some planning, but I think the Egyptians can manage such things.

I thought we're flying low? No radars would see us (unless there just happened to be a Low altitude radar close by).

Even flying low and fast showering the area with bright burning flares is not a good thing when you are sneaking in some place.

Difference is, as your ECCM evolves, so does our ECM, our flares would work.

The flares would work because they is 'merican? Or because it says so in the script... right there... see?

"Merican flares distract junk commie missiles because those cheap pieces of junk were copies of 'merican Vietnam era missiles anyway... close up of missile shows dumb Ruskies even copied markings and they say "Made in USA"."

In 5 years Iron Fist would be around and you won't even be able to shoot high speed APFSDS at it.

So I guess they will Junk the Merkava 4 and replace them with Landrovers?

I am sure that in 5 years a countermeasure will have been developed to defeat it. A simple radar jammer and optronics dazzler should suffice.

M16s can shoot through Abrams.

When they aren't jamming of course.

Logicfail. Your argument in context a New Zealander might understand is: "That kangaroo has a hat, I must have it too!". Look, I'm not encouraging WMDs, you shouldn't either. I stated before, I think no one in that region, or might as well, the world, should ever have WMDs.

Logic fail? First of all the sun can be quite harsh here so a hat is a good idea either way.
And of course you think that way about WMDs, except for most countries the Western military is a WMD.

Most countries like to feel in control or to have some power. WMDs exist for this reason. Who would listen to NK if it didn't have nukes? Most of the Middle East noticed that countries without nukes like Iraq and Afghanistan have zero defences against the west. NK has nukes and SURPRISE!!!! the first option is not regime change.

Perhaps if the West respected the sovereignty of other countries like it said it did when Russia helped its two new neighbour states in 2008 then other countries would be less eager to get WMD capability.

The problem is that most of the west has a colonial past and seems to think it has the right to order other countries around.

Too late now. If you really do want all WMDs gone from the world then the US should lead by example and get rid of all its WMDs.

Finally, Morality is subjective, what we see as moral and what you see as moral are different.

Indeed... which is why the wests attempts to justify its activities morally is so repugnant. America was so keen to introduce democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq it never bothered to ask anyone including the Afghans and Iraqis if that was actually what they wanted.

It is the same with everyone American deals with... they always see fit to lecture countries like China about their poor human rights record when Americas record is hardly squeaky clean.

Ahh, but China has a bad record in that regard.

Perhaps when China starts telling you what to do then you can justify telling them what to do in return.

Otherwise keep it to yourself.
(not a shot at you personally, but when you wonder why so many people around the world have a low opinion of America... think about what I am saying above. America today is a rich powerful self interested bully that will get its way by fair means or foul and morally justifies everything it does to a moral standard no country could live up to... not even the US itself. Perhaps it would get more respect if it walked the walk instead of just talking the talk.)

If we are talking about reality than what you are really saying is that Russia herself gets the monkey models. That is even sadder.

No. There are no monkey models. The work and development on the Su-30MKI led to improvements that were included in the Su-27SM to improve it, though obviously much of the equipment that went into the Su-30MKI that was not Russia was foreign so it didn't make it to the Su-27SM.

Reread it again. "than unless it's a patrol mission". If both were alone above water, I doubt either side even needs confirmation.

And when the F-35 has shot down its 4th airliner do you think its pilot might get into trouble?
Lack of proper confirmation leads to Blackhawk helos getting shot down mistaken for Hinds... you can't tell from their radar signature... and if they are using the wrong IFF code that might be because they have moved into a new area without changing their settings.

Knowledge would be a part of intelligence, so yes.

Not really. Someone can know a lot but be as dumb as a stick. I know a few people with photographic memory that get 95+% in exams simply by reading the text book cover to cover and memorising it.
Ask them to apply what they learned and you find they didn't actually learn anything... but they can quote from any page in the book without looking.

Of course, assuming Russian fighters aren't communicating at all.

Does the F-35 have an L band AESA radar to locate the source of non directional datalinks?

Only in the Front sector.

Well first of all Kopp is Australian and generally talks in NM, not kms. Second the reason the IRST compliments the radar so well is that from side on and behind an IRST is better than radar, but even from front on it can be useful.

The F-35 can absolutely detect a Su-35 in BVR range, move into an advantageous position, probably behind the Sukhoi, and fire.

Considering the range and field of view of an IRST that is going to require the F-35 to fly a long way around and for most of that flying around it will be presenting its side to the Su-35 which greatly increases the distance it can be detected from.
There is no reason to believe the posted RCS of the F-35 is going to be .01 for the three Su-35s' X band PESA radars in its nose, or its two L and N band AESA radars in its inner wing area let alone its IRST, or any weapon targeting pod it might be carrying like Damocles.

Problem with Stealth v.s. Su-35 is that a F-35 pilot can go up and around a Sukhoi, completely avoiding it's IRST, so, no thermal plumes to chase, sorry!

Under what conditions? The revelation of the 360 degree coverage of the Mig-35s electro optical system might lead Sukhoi to make their system 360 degree capable too for the final product. The T-50 will certainly have such a system.

If I was the Sukhoi pilot I would be flying high and supercruising so the F-35 might get no choice about approaching from any angle except the rear... in fact if he was directly in front of me when he first detects me he might have trouble getting far enough sideways to avoid my view as I blast towards him...

Not so good when it still has half the range of the OLS-35.

So what? If that is a problem then buy some Damocles pods from the French.

Because then I can get into AMRAAM range while you're still looking at your little display screens? Oh and, buy from the French and it gets sudered!

As if suggesting Egypt has the ground attack capability to even change anything.

Those Abrams tanks they operate look reasonably good to me.
In what way are the much smaller Israeli forces more powerful?

Sure their tankers are very skilled but without air cover and with enemy air power over head I really think their aura of invincibility will be tarnished.

Fighting T-55s in a Merkava 4 is one thing, fighting civilians with bricks in a Merkava 4 is another, and fighting Mig-29SMTs dropping laser guided bombs from 5,000m in a Merkava 4 is something else entirely.

By that logic, fighting Abrams with a Merkava IV is one thing, hugging with the Reds and then hugging with the West is another, and then Sukhois clearing air space is another.

I don't think you understand my point, MiG-29's would be the last thing to fly because they'll all be scrapped by Israeli pilots. If you want Air power, go Sukhoi. You can put GPS guided bombs that don't require your men to be near by on Sukhois too

Also suggesting that any change in the political theatre would result in an Israeli nuclear strike.

So Egyptian forces start moving into Israel... and the defeat of the Israeli air force leading to Syria sending forces down too and perhaps even Jordan moving forces to join the party... you think the Israelis will just sit back and say... well we had a good run and then wait for their new Arab overlords?
Can't really see that myself.

Even if they don't smoke Cairo or some large city they will fire a nuke at the enemy forces outside of Israeli territory and then threaten if the invasion doesn't stop that Cairo will be next and give a big long list of all the cities to be nuked... probably with Mecca near the top of the list.

So one lost battle means one radiated region? Yeah, get back into reality. If Israelis lose Airpower, we'll intervene, men/material. If Israelis get invaded, we'll intervene, ACTUAL Abram tanks with DU and M829A3. Israeli knows not to use nukes because Papa Chuck is always here.

By the way, what you read is irrelevant if you're not reading it at all; hence, read more.

Reading without thought is like a broken pencil.

I could read "Clifford the big red dog" 1,000,000 times and it wouldn't improve my understanding of middle eastern affairs.

Reading is just part of the story.

But you're not reading with thought because you aren't reading at all.

An improved range does not mean that's the range the missile has to fly no, it means how much the missile can fly.

Altitude adds range to a missile. High flight speed at launch adds to the missiles top speed which means it goes further and gets there a little quicker.

I already know all that.

There is no reason why a Flanker can't climb and accelerate to high speed before launching an attack on an enemy aircraft to improve the performance of its missiles. It will burn more fuel but it also carries more fuel so it can afford it.

Oh, I was just informing you. But, if you fly high, you expose yourself to long wave radars! Hey Sukhoi, how do you like your PAC-3s? In your tail pipe or going for it?

The AMRAAM has a backup ARM seeker.

It has a home on jam feature that is exploited by using wing tip jammers or towed decoys or for example decoy rockets that the Russians produce in their 122mm calibre rocket range.

Which is an ARM iirc.

The difference between the AIM-120 and the R-77 is quite clear. The AIM-120 has been combat proven, the R-77 has not.

The AIM-120 has a combat record that shows an astounding kill ratio of about 50%. Less impressive is that of this 50% record most of the kills were against targets that were pretty much completely unaware they were being attacked and so they flew straight and level and used no countermeasures.
The R-77 has never been used in combat so it has no combat record, and it probably wont have one as its replacements are now in production.

And you think that combat record is horrible? Check out R-77's, 0 kills, 0% probability. I'll stick with my AMRAAMs, thank you.

40 F-35s can carry 240 AMRAAMs, if you didn't know.

And how many bombs can it carry in that configuration? It is supposed to be a strike aircraft isn't it?

Only when it's Striking. You see, we're the type to shoot JASSMs at your Sukhois while they're sitting. And you know they'll sit, Indian Su-30MKIs are apparently the best Russia can produce yet they sit idle for a minute on the air field checking for FOD, which stands for Foreign Object Debris.

Someone already said it ahead of me, the Tor is a very basic system.

One F-35 would not be able to defeat a TOR. The missiles for TOR are very simple but the sensors are incredibly sophisticated.
It can shoot down anything that gets within range including HARMs, bombs, guided or dumb, rockets, missiles, and of course aircraft.

One common use for them is to defend larger SAMs from anti radiation missiles.

The new model has missiles that have a much larger ceiling, double the range and carries twice as many missiles ready to launch. It is probably the best missile only vehicle in its class.

Then we'll do what the Russians always do, spam them. Bye bye Tor.

Yeah, problem with New Russian equipment is that it always gets sent to India, some Middle Eastern Country, or Venezuela. Those "new" Tors are probably gonna end up defending Russian interests and not Russia herself. Very sad to hear.

Because we actually maintained them.

So?

They are still 1950s bombers. Or is it possible that some missions don't require mach 10 stealth bombers?
Fanboys love Su-35s... for most air forces a smaller aircraft makes more sense.

Yeah, a smaller aircraft like the MiG, and there is a thread here about MiG-29s losing flying capabilities due to inadequate maintenance.

However, if you want Small aircrafts, get F-15s. Very small RCS, great performance, and also, small.

It all depends on if they are actually there, the time, the date, etc. Most likely, no tankers will even show up for a war.

Sure it takes some planning, but I think the Egyptians can manage such things.

lol, in which case couldn't enemy planes just deny Egyptian air superiority by killing tankers? Same thing RAND did.

I thought we're flying low? No radars would see us (unless there just happened to be a Low altitude radar close by).

Even flying low and fast showering the area with bright burning flares is not a good thing when you are sneaking in some place.

If you were sneaking in, Iglas wouldn't even see you.

Difference is, as your ECCM evolves, so does our ECM, our flares would work.

The flares would work because they is 'merican? Or because it says so in the script... right there... see?

"Merican flares distract junk commie missiles because those cheap pieces of junk were copies of 'merican Vietnam era missiles anyway... close up of missile shows dumb Ruskies even copied markings and they say "Made in USA"."

Yet Russian equipment work because Putin said they would? Yeah, my AK-47 just jammed.

In 5 years Iron Fist would be around and you won't even be able to shoot high speed APFSDS at it.

So I guess they will Junk the Merkava 4 and replace them with Landrovers?

I am sure that in 5 years a countermeasure will have been developed to defeat it. A simple radar jammer and optronics dazzler should suffice.

As you said it yourself, Israelis have been in real wars, they'll make a tank with a 10 foot Steel glacis if it came to it.

And you are sure but that wouldn't ever happen just because it's on the script. lol. Being enthusiastic about Russia is very common these days? Or is it just denial?

M16s can shoot through Abrams.

When they aren't jamming of course.

That's why you have to teach your solders to clean their weapons.

Logicfail. Your argument in context a New Zealander might understand is: "That kangaroo has a hat, I must have it too!". Look, I'm not encouraging WMDs, you shouldn't either. I stated before, I think no one in that region, or might as well, the world, should ever have WMDs.

Logic fail? First of all the sun can be quite harsh here so a hat is a good idea either way.
And of course you think that way about WMDs, except for most countries the Western military is a WMD.

Most countries like to feel in control or to have some power. WMDs exist for this reason. Who would listen to NK if it didn't have nukes? Most of the Middle East noticed that countries without nukes like Iraq and Afghanistan have zero defences against the west. NK has nukes and SURPRISE!!!! the first option is not regime change.

Perhaps if the West respected the sovereignty of other countries like it said it did when Russia helped its two new neighbour states in 2008 then other countries would be less eager to get WMD capability.

The problem is that most of the west has a colonial past and seems to think it has the right to order other countries around.

Too late now. If you really do want all WMDs gone from the world then the US should lead by example and get rid of all its WMDs.

Ah, so just because our military is better than you, you get nukes? Again, logic fail. Learn to compete and maybe you'll fight off our onslaughts.

Finally, Morality is subjective, what we see as moral and what you see as moral are different.

Indeed... which is why the wests attempts to justify its activities morally is so repugnant. America was so keen to introduce democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq it never bothered to ask anyone including the Afghans and Iraqis if that was actually what they wanted.

It is the same with everyone American deals with... they always see fit to lecture countries like China about their poor human rights record when Americas record is hardly squeaky clean.

Ahh, but China has a bad record in that regard.

Perhaps when China starts telling you what to do then you can justify telling them what to do in return.

Otherwise keep it to yourself.
(not a shot at you personally, but when you wonder why so many people around the world have a low opinion of America... think about what I am saying above. America today is a rich powerful self interested bully that will get its way by fair means or foul and morally justifies everything it does to a moral standard no country could live up to... not even the US itself. Perhaps it would get more respect if it walked the walk instead of just talking the talk.)

So why did the Russians try to shove Communism down the Afghan's throats without asking them? I smell bias?

If we are talking about reality than what you are really saying is that Russia herself gets the monkey models. That is even sadder.

No. There are no monkey models. The work and development on the Su-30MKI led to improvements that were included in the Su-27SM to improve it, though obviously much of the equipment that went into the Su-30MKI that was not Russia was foreign so it didn't make it to the Su-27SM.

Which is a monkey model. Because Su-30xxx are all really the same Planes with different gadgets. It just so happens the Sukhois Russia has are crap when compared to the Sukhois they sold to foreigners.

Reread it again. "than unless it's a patrol mission". If both were alone above water, I doubt either side even needs confirmation.

And when the F-35 has shot down its 4th airliner do you think its pilot might get into trouble?
Lack of proper confirmation leads to Blackhawk helos getting shot down mistaken for Hinds... you can't tell from their radar signature... and if they are using the wrong IFF code that might be because they have moved into a new area without changing their settings.

But I thought they were over water? Besides, if you're going to argue the IFF argument, go watch some Red Flag testimonials. Those Russian IFFs aren't working Mr. Singh! Ah!

Knowledge would be a part of intelligence, so yes.

[quote[Not really. Someone can know a lot but be as dumb as a stick. I know a few people with photographic memory that get 95+% in exams simply by reading the text book cover to cover and memorising it.
Ask them to apply what they learned and you find they didn't actually learn anything... but they can quote from any page in the book without looking.[/quote]

I thought you had common sense. Someone that's smart would have both, which was what I was implying.

Of course, assuming Russian fighters aren't communicating at all.

Does the F-35 have an L band AESA radar to locate the source of non directional datalinks?

Aren't are radars powerful enough to see big fat Sukhois even without datalinks? Yeah, the Sukhoi is small enough for us to see it 100 km away.

Only in the Front sector.

Well first of all Kopp is Australian and generally talks in NM, not kms. Second the reason the IRST compliments the radar so well is that from side on and behind an IRST is better than radar, but even from front on it can be useful.

Well first of all, Advanced American technologies have invented Google, where I can type # knots to km and the conversion just shows up. Second, we can always fly atop the Sukhoi, then dive. IRST can't look up can it!?

The F-35 can absolutely detect a Su-35 in BVR range, move into an advantageous position, probably behind the Sukhoi, and fire.

Considering the range and field of view of an IRST that is going to require the F-35 to fly a long way around and for most of that flying around it will be presenting its side to the Su-35 which greatly increases the distance it can be detected from.
There is no reason to believe the posted RCS of the F-35 is going to be .01 for the three Su-35s' X band PESA radars in its nose, or its two L and N band AESA radars in its inner wing area let alone its IRST, or any weapon targeting pod it might be carrying like Damocles.

A kill is a kill, we can make it back home nonetheless. Btw (by the way), the F-35's Front RCS is .001 m2. All of the Sukhoi's sensors are irrelevant because we'd still have the initiative, we can either engage or go home. For the former, we can do the tactic I mentioned.

Problem with Stealth v.s. Su-35 is that a F-35 pilot can go up and around a Sukhoi, completely avoiding it's IRST, so, no thermal plumes to chase, sorry!

Under what conditions? The revelation of the 360 degree coverage of the Mig-35s electro optical system might lead Sukhoi to make their system 360 degree capable too for the final product. The T-50 will certainly have such a system.

If I was the Sukhoi pilot I would be flying high and supercruising so the F-35 might get no choice about approaching from any angle except the rear... in fact if he was directly in front of me when he first detects me he might have trouble getting far enough sideways to avoid my view as I blast towards him...

"The advent of x from y will make our z's super better!" I'll believe it when I see it. If I were a F-35 pilot, I'd go home, call for my SAMs to shoot at your Sukhoi.

Because then I can get into AMRAAM range while you're still looking at your little display screens?

Actually AMRAAMs are not that fast... an R-27ET is actually faster.
The development of datalinks and lockon after launch missile technology could easily be applied to the R-27ET and other missiles to allow very long range engagement of targets without requireing a IR seeker lock before launch.

Oh and, buy from the French and it gets sudered!

Do you fully understand what you are saying?
First of all the Damocles pods will be Russian manufactured from Russian components.
Second the Damocles pod is a sensor, not a network so you can't really hack it without plugging a cable directly into it.

I don't think you understand my point, MiG-29's would be the last thing to fly because they'll all be scrapped by Israeli pilots. If you want Air power, go Sukhoi. You can put GPS guided bombs that don't require your men to be near by on Sukhois too.

I thought your point was that the F-35 can fly over Moscow without any fear because Russia hasn't said it has installed QWIP sensors in its fighters so the Su-35 and T-50 are useless against the mighty F-35.
If that is your case why should Egypt bother with Su-35s at all?
They should clearly bend over and let the Juice have their way with them as often as they like.

Israeli knows not to use nukes because Papa Chuck is always here.

Assuming you are right and the Israelis can rely on the cavalry to come in and save them, WTF do they need nuclear weapons for then?

If you are right and the US is always there to protect its Juice then they don't need any nuclear weapons at all... except the chosen people can't trust even the US to be there all the time. What if there is a problem somewhere else or they still have all their forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and can't spare any to defeat three countries in the ME. What if they can't afford to help the Juice?

The reality is that they don't fully trust 100% the US, and would use nuclear weapons in a heartbeat. They don't care about the people they would kill. Look at the kill ratios of most of their skirmishes. One juice soldier injured, 3,000 Palestinians injured or killed. World condemns. Juice call justice. Sometimes they even kill the people responsible.

Oh, I was just informing you. But, if you fly high, you expose yourself to long wave radars! Hey Sukhoi, how do you like your PAC-3s? In your tail pipe or going for it?

When would a Russian Sukhoi ever get anywhere near a Patriot battery?

Which is an ARM iirc.

Not really. An ARM is a missile optimised to defeat radar emitters, not necessarily radar jammers. An example would be the radar jamming equipment on the Bears that mimics the incoming radar energy but bounces it off the ground to project a larger false target that appears to be in a different place from the Bear. An AMRAAM fired from an F-22 would follow the signal into the ground, or off a mountain side.

And you think that combat record is horrible? Check out R-77's, 0 kills, 0% probability. I'll stick with my AMRAAMs, thank you.

But F-22 has 0 kills and therefore is a crap aircraft.
The F-35 is in the same boat... 0 kills but much talk.

You see, we're the type to shoot JASSMs at your Sukhois while they're sitting. And you know they'll sit, Indian Su-30MKIs are apparently the best Russia can produce yet they sit idle for a minute on the air field checking for FOD, which stands for Foreign Object Debris.

Yeah. Them Ruskies are too dumb to operate SAMS near their airbases.

I realise you are used to invading third world countries but have you noticed yourself that some countries the US bullies and invades, and with other countries it just wags its finger and uses a stern tone?
There is a reason for that.

Then we'll do what the Russians always do, spam them. Bye bye Tor.

Problem is that the Russians do have a few options most of the easy beats you normally fight haven't got. Spam them with what?
The TORs operate with larger SAMs, SAMs that can deal with jammer aircraft. They also have aircraft they can send to investigate lots of planes forming up for a raid. Lots of activities at a NATO airbase will be noticed, and even a successful raid will result in retaliation. Not necessarily nuclear initially, but that is always an option.

Those "new" Tors are probably gonna end up defending Russian interests and not Russia herself.

5 years ago I might have agreed, but these systems have been developed using Russian funds and the Russian Armed forces are ordering them.

Yeah, a smaller aircraft like the MiG, and there is a thread here about MiG-29s losing flying capabilities due to inadequate maintenance.

Which would happen to any modern fighter that is not properly maintained. The secret of course is that when Egypt buys some Mig-29s that they also spend money on maintaining them.

Another trade secret is that modern fighters need modern weapons to be effective so spending large on all sorts of missiles and bombs would also be important too. The Egyptians are not newbies however so I didn't really mention the need for maintainence or new weapons.

BTW I guess everyone air arm in the world should dump their F-16s because Venezuela's F-16s are in as bad a condition as Serbian Mig-29s were because the US refuses to support the aircraft they sold to Venezuela. I guess they must all be junk?

However, if you want Small aircrafts, get F-15s. Very small RCS, great performance, and also, small.

Perhaps you should read this thread again... wasn't it already mentioned that Egypt wanted enormous and expensive but capable F-15s and the US refused... because it likes to dictate who can buy what in the various regions. Lucky Egypt isn't in Central or south America or they would only be allowed A-4 Skyhawks and F-5s.

lol, in which case couldn't enemy planes just deny Egyptian air superiority by killing tankers? Same thing RAND did.

They could certainly try, but if the Egyptian airforce can't defend its assets and force multipliers it is not going to last very long anyway.

If you were sneaking in, Iglas wouldn't even see you.

If their humint network is working they will know your flight plans before you even take off and will be asking for an emergency meeting of the UNSC and demanding the US explain what it is doing violating Russian airspace... which is clearly an act of war.

Yet Russian equipment work because Putin said they would? Yeah, my AK-47 just jammed.

AK-47s can jam just like any other rifle ever made. You are the one living in "everything American is perfect" land.

As you said it yourself, Israelis have been in real wars, they'll make a tank with a 10 foot Steel glacis if it came to it.

Why waste time with a 100 ton tank when Trophy will stop everything?
Like I said a Land Rover would be just as mobile and cheaper to run and buy... and with Trophy will be impervious to all RPGs and penetrators. The purpose of a thick glacis plate is to stop all those bothersome RPGs and penetrators, but if Trophy can do the job you can dispense with all that heavy armour... or are they much more sensible than that and realise that no system is perfect and they will keep the armour and ERA too for the time being.

Being enthusiastic about Russia is very common these days? Or is it just denial?

More a reaction to my western upbringing. Nothing to do with denial and everything to do with the reality that good doesn't win because good has rules. The west didn't win by being good, it won by being every bit as bad as it claimed everyone else was being. No country in the world has done more to undermine democracy and freedom than the US in the last half century.

That's why you have to teach your solders to clean their weapons.

The M16 is a 21st century firearm that is so modern it doesn't need cleaning and was not issued with a cleaning kit when first deployed in Vietnam. Why on earth would they need a cleaning kit now in the 21st C?

Ah, so just because our military is better than you, you get nukes? Again, logic fail. Learn to compete and maybe you'll fight off our onslaughts.

The point is that your use of force to solve all your problems with weak countries leads other weak countries to seek nuclear weapons capability because like most bullies you are scared of the sight of your own blood. The idea that every other country in the world should follow your lead and spend a trillion dollars a year on "defence" just shows how out of touch you are. During WWII in the west there were War ministries with a minister of war, and in the US the war department and whatever you have instead of ministers (DKDK). After the war they got cosmetic overhauls but nothing changed except the stationary. Ministry of Defence, or MOD, and Department of Defence, or DOD. Except right now I think their old names suit them much better because they have little to do with defence.
Saddam was no threat to anyone.
Afghanistan was no threat to anyone.
Serbia was no threat to anyone.
But all these threats were dealt with by the west... saving our freedoms again!

So why did the Russians try to shove Communism down the Afghan's throats without asking them? I smell bias?

A better question would be why was the CIA trying to set up a listening base there in 1976. Afghanistan in 1979 was much the same as Afghanistan in 2010 in real terms. A government that almost ruled Kabul, and lots of war lords that controlled the rest of the country and fought to keep what they had and to get what their neighbour has. Communism had no effect outside the major cities, but the effect it did have was electricity and running water, and a sewerage system that didn't look like it was from the dark ages.

Of course with the Taleban in charge boys went to school for about 3 years... just long enough so they could read the Quaran, and girls never left the house except with a male relative.
Under communism a woman and a man could get a tertiary education and a real job. The US is trying to give the Afghans something they already had under communism, except what they are actually doing is looking for OBL and then they are gone.
Their attempts at rebuilding are undermined by their fighting and attempts to get OBL.
Just like Soviet attempts to drag the Afghans kicking and screaming into the 16th century was undermined by US, British, French, Saudi, Iranian, and Chinese interference. Early in the war the Afghans had 303s mostly. Later in the war they had plenty of AKs but they didn't have Soviet markings... they had Arab and Chinese markings. Billions of dollars of US taxpayers money went into buying chinese equipment to pass on to the Muj and a lot ended up in Pakistani inventories because there was no accountability to where the money went.

Which is a monkey model.

No it isn't. It is a cheaper upgrade option. Much like an early upgrade proposed for the American A-10 which would have greatly improved performance... but it was too expensive so nothing was done. More recently a much more modest upgrade was applied to improve performance. Not to say the new A-10 is a monkey model.
Or indeed the F-22 losing its IRST to save costs would make current in service F-22s monkey models.

It just so happens the Sukhois Russia has are crap when compared to the Sukhois they sold to foreigners.

The Su-27SM always was a modest upgrade intended to improve performance and reduce costs while a deeper upgrade was developed. The aircraft everyone calls Su-35S is actually an Su-27BM technically.

But I thought they were over water?

You are right. Airliners can't fly over water, and there is no way different areas over water could be designated different combat areas and be given different IFF settings... or maybe they could.

Besides, if you're going to argue the IFF argument, go watch some Red Flag testimonials. Those Russian IFFs aren't working Mr. Singh! Ah!

What has Red Flag got to do with Russian IFF?
Whether Indian IFF equipment works with US equipment is rather irrelevant unless the US intends to cooperate with Russia on something. Why would Russia need NATO compatible IFF?
You have clearly shown you are the bad guys.

I thought you had common sense. Someone that's smart would have both, which was what I was implying.

For thousands of years it was common sense that the earth was flat and earth was the centre of the universe and the stars and planets and the sun and moon went around the earth.
I know lots of very smart people who don't even know how a car engine works. Intelligence and knowledge are not related.
It is one of the failings of most time travel movies.
People think that people in the past were stupid because they didn't have the knowledge we have now. The simple fact is they were every bit as intelligent as we are now.

Aren't are radars powerful enough to see big fat Sukhois even without datalinks? Yeah, the Sukhoi is small enough for us to see it 100 km away.

So you will risk a radar scan to find the Sukhoi in the hope that that small emission will be ignored as noise? Even with LPI it is a risk, and remember it is low probability of intercept, not zero probability of intercept, so the emission, if detected would get the full attention of the enemy who might try an active scan in L band in the direction the brief emission was detected. He doesn't need to care about being detected because the frequencies being used are commonly used for data links anyway, which include ground based communications links. On detection of the emission he can turn towards the source and start to climb and accelerate. The lack of a target on his X band radar will tell him he is up against a stealth target, so he will alert the AD network and check local assets for anything they might have detected.
The Su-35 has added the trick the Mig-31 can play where Mig-31s flying 200km apart can link their radar pictures to form a coherent radar picture 1,000km wide and of 200km depth. Doing the same with their wing mounted L and N band AESAs they might even be able to triangulate stealth aircraft based on Data Link transmissions, or even the LPI mode emissions. Two Su-35s 200km apart detect a faint flash of radar energy it wouldn't be hard to draw a line from both aircraft in the direction of the emission and look at where the lines cross to detect a stealth aircraft.

IRST can't look up can it!?

They have a field of view that is 180 degrees.
And who says he will spend his time flying straight and level?

All of the Sukhoi's sensors are irrelevant because we'd still have the initiative, we can either engage or go home. For the former, we can do the tactic I mentioned.

Who said they can't take the initiative from you?
Long wave radar on their wingroots is not there for window dressing you know, it is to hunt stealthy aircraft.
The Sukhoi is a big aircraft and has plenty of fuel to fly long distances and carry lots of weapons of a wide variety.

The f-35 is a stealthy Buccaneer. Not a great dogfighter, it is basically a strike aircraft except for those who don't have better stealth aircraft.
For Europe... lets say Britain... it will be Typhoon as the fighter and F-35 as the light strike aircraft. Up against Russia that means the T-50 will be able to do to the Typhoon and F-35 what you claim the F-35 could do to the Su-35.
Except the new Russian planes seem to be better equipped to fight stealth aircraft than most western aircraft.

If I were a F-35 pilot, I'd go home, call for my SAMs to shoot at your Sukhoi.

Turn your back on a Flanker and you expose your most vulnerable aspect in both RCS and IR signature and he can run further and faster than you can, for longer. And who is to say that your SAMs have survived the ISKANDER attack Russia just launched?
Its inflight manouvering is designed specifically to make it effective against ABM capable SAMs.

Sorry to those who started this thread as we are clearly off topic.

Because then I can get into AMRAAM range while you're still looking at your little display screens?

Actually AMRAAMs are not that fast... an R-27ET is actually faster.
The development of datalinks and lockon after launch missile technology could easily be applied to the R-27ET and other missiles to allow very long range engagement of targets without requireing a IR seeker lock before launch.

We're talking about range here, not speed. And just because they could, doesn't mean they have. You're almost saying the same things Kopp would say in regards to that.

Oh and, buy from the French and it gets sudered!

Do you fully understand what you are saying?
First of all the Damocles pods will be Russian manufactured from Russian components.
Second the Damocles pod is a sensor, not a network so you can't really hack it without plugging a cable directly into it.

Russian components, French design. Gonna git sudered I tell you.

I don't think you understand my point, MiG-29's would be the last thing to fly because they'll all be scrapped by Israeli pilots. If you want Air power, go Sukhoi. You can put GPS guided bombs that don't require your men to be near by on Sukhois too.

I thought your point was that the F-35 can fly over Moscow without any fear because Russia hasn't said it has installed QWIP sensors in its fighters so the Su-35 and T-50 are useless against the mighty F-35.
If that is your case why should Egypt bother with Su-35s at all?
They should clearly bend over and let the Juice have their way with them as often as they like.

Uh, you're going to have to reread this debate over again.

Israeli knows not to use nukes because Papa Chuck is always here.

Assuming you are right and the Israelis can rely on the cavalry to come in and save them, WTF do they need nuclear weapons for then?

If you are right and the US is always there to protect its Juice then they don't need any nuclear weapons at all... except the chosen people can't trust even the US to be there all the time. What if there is a problem somewhere else or they still have all their forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and can't spare any to defeat three countries in the ME. What if they can't afford to help the Juice?

The reality is that they don't fully trust 100% the US, and would use nuclear weapons in a heartbeat. They don't care about the people they would kill. Look at the kill ratios of most of their skirmishes. One juice soldier injured, 3,000 Palestinians injured or killed. World condemns. Juice call justice. Sometimes they even kill the people responsible.

Because we're not there all the time?

Oh, I was just informing you. But, if you fly high, you expose yourself to long wave radars! Hey Sukhoi, how do you like your PAC-3s? In your tail pipe or going for it?

When would a Russian Sukhoi ever get anywhere near a Patriot battery?

I thought your point was that the Su-35 can fly over Washington without any fear because 'Merika hasn't said it has installed QWIP sensors in its fighters so the F-35 and F-22 are useless against the mighty Su-35.

Which is an ARM iirc.

Not really. An ARM is a missile optimised to defeat radar emitters, not necessarily radar jammers. An example would be the radar jamming equipment on the Bears that mimics the incoming radar energy but bounces it off the ground to project a larger false target that appears to be in a different place from the Bear. An AMRAAM fired from an F-22 would follow the signal into the ground, or off a mountain side.

Lol, as if Egypt owns Tu-95s.

And you think that combat record is horrible? Check out R-77's, 0 kills, 0% probability. I'll stick with my AMRAAMs, thank you.

[quote[But F-22 has 0 kills and therefore is a crap aircraft.
The F-35 is in the same boat... 0 kills but much talk.[/quote]

So, Su-35 has 0 kills, compared to the F-15 with a perfect track record. Guess Egypt best by F-15s then.

Yeah, your point is invalid because the plane is the simple Vehicle while the Missiles are the Package. The Package is all it counts. If you modify a P-51 Mustang to be able to fire missiles, and put some AIM-120C-7s on it and a modern radar, that bad boy will shoot down every single Soviet fighter manufactured from the 40s to 80s. So, my point stands, the AIM-120 performs superior to the R-77 in real combat. And because F-22's and Su-35s have never seen combat, we'll rely on the missiles combat records, which as it stands, leaves the AMRAAM superior.

You see, we're the type to shoot JASSMs at your Sukhois while they're sitting. And you know they'll sit, Indian Su-30MKIs are apparently the best Russia can produce yet they sit idle for a minute on the air field checking for FOD, which stands for Foreign Object Debris.

Yeah. Them Ruskies are too dumb to operate SAMS near their airbases.

I realise you are used to invading third world countries but have you noticed yourself that some countries the US bullies and invades, and with other countries it just wags its finger and uses a stern tone?
There is a reason for that.

Find me a SAM with 900 km range that is operational and not Russian propaganda? Yeah, good bye S-300s.

Then we'll do what the Russians always do, spam them. Bye bye Tor.

Problem is that the Russians do have a few options most of the easy beats you normally fight haven't got. Spam them with what?
The TORs operate with larger SAMs, SAMs that can deal with jammer aircraft. They also have aircraft they can send to investigate lots of planes forming up for a raid. Lots of activities at a NATO airbase will be noticed, and even a successful raid will result in retaliation. Not necessarily nuclear initially, but that is always an option.

Egypt has Buks, Tors, and Patriots. Nothing JASSMs can't handle.

Yeah, a smaller aircraft like the MiG, and there is a thread here about MiG-29s losing flying capabilities due to inadequate maintenance.

Which would happen to any modern fighter that is not properly maintained. The secret of course is that when Egypt buys some Mig-29s that they also spend money on maintaining them.

Another trade secret is that modern fighters need modern weapons to be effective so spending large on all sorts of missiles and bombs would also be important too. The Egyptians are not newbies however so I didn't really mention the need for maintainence or new weapons.

BTW I guess everyone air arm in the world should dump their F-16s because Venezuela's F-16s are in as bad a condition as Serbian Mig-29s were because the US refuses to support the aircraft they sold to Venezuela. I guess they must all be junk?

lol yeah, as I've said before, they might as well just save that extra maitenance money that broken MiG-29 are going to eat up and get Sukhois.

However, if you want Small aircrafts, get F-15s. Very small RCS, great performance, and also, small.

Perhaps you should read this thread again... wasn't it already mentioned that Egypt wanted enormous and expensive but capable F-15s and the US refused... because it likes to dictate who can buy what in the various regions. Lucky Egypt isn't in Central or south America or they would only be allowed A-4 Skyhawks and F-5s.

Oh yeah, sell our air planes to our enemies! You should note that F-15s are cheap compared to Su-35s, and they are proven, and they are still manufactured new (again, unlike dying MiGs in old hangars).

lol, in which case couldn't enemy planes just deny Egyptian air superiority by killing tankers? Same thing RAND did.

They could certainly try, but if the Egyptian airforce can't defend its assets and force multipliers it is not going to last very long anyway.

Which as you've told me, means Egyptian WMDs, woo!

If you were sneaking in, Iglas wouldn't even see you.

If their humint network is working they will know your flight plans before you even take off and will be asking for an emergency meeting of the UNSC and demanding the US explain what it is doing violating Russian airspace... which is clearly an act of war.

Obviously, this is off topic; we're talking about Egypt.

Yet Russian equipment work because Putin said they would? Yeah, my AK-47 just jammed.

AK-47s can jam just like any other rifle ever made. You are the one living in "everything American is perfect" land.

And you said nothings gonna get personal. I already said back there that M16s jam, yet you for some reason also think that "everything Russian is perfect", which isn't the case as we've always known. If you want Quality equipment, buy from Western nations, our quality control has had better records then Russian quality controls so at least you can depend on our stuff being fine most of the time.

As you said it yourself, Israelis have been in real wars, they'll make a tank with a 10 foot Steel glacis if it came to it.

Why waste time with a 100 ton tank when Trophy will stop everything?
Like I said a Land Rover would be just as mobile and cheaper to run and buy... and with Trophy will be impervious to all RPGs and penetrators. The purpose of a thick glacis plate is to stop all those bothersome RPGs and penetrators, but if Trophy can do the job you can dispense with all that heavy armour... or are they much more sensible than that and realise that no system is perfect and they will keep the armour and ERA too for the time being.

Not good with metaphors? I will dumb it down for you. Israelis are paranoid enough to get the MAXIMUM (most) protection they can on their vehicles. They won't get a silly land rover because Trophy can run out of ammunition and it can malfunction (as with any machines), so it's a safer bet to compound the protection offered by Trophy with advanced composite armor that the Merkava IV has.

Once example I will give you is the T-90. It's hull is 65% covered by ERA. It has 2 Electro/Optical jammers that can jam a laserguided missile within a fair area. It also has composite armor. So, why use ARENA? I'll let you infer the rest.

Being enthusiastic about Russia is very common these days? Or is it just denial?

More a reaction to my western upbringing. Nothing to do with denial and everything to do with the reality that good doesn't win because good has rules. The west didn't win by being good, it won by being every bit as bad as it claimed everyone else was being. No country in the world has done more to undermine democracy and freedom than the US in the last half century.

Ah, I see, life has screwed you over, blame is to be put on the US, and Russia will be the hero of the story, good good. That's not the life style for me and I think you should dump it right away. Fair knowledge and unbias thinking is how we should all live. I don't completely support my American peers but I also don't support any of my peers completely. Everybody is good in some ways, bad in others, blah blah blah.

That's why you have to teach your solders to clean their weapons.

The M16 is a 21st century firearm that is so modern it doesn't need cleaning and was not issued with a cleaning kit when first deployed in Vietnam. Why on earth would they need a cleaning kit now in the 21st C?

Why not? Hasn't jammed yet.

Ah, so just because our military is better than you, you get nukes? Again, logic fail. Learn to compete and maybe you'll fight off our onslaughts.

he point is that your use of force to solve all your problems with weak countries leads other weak countries to seek nuclear weapons capability because like most bullies you are scared of the sight of your own blood. The idea that every other country in the world should follow your lead and spend a trillion dollars a year on "defence" just shows how out of touch you are. During WWII in the west there were War ministries with a minister of war, and in the US the war department and whatever you have instead of ministers (DKDK). After the war they got cosmetic overhauls but nothing changed except the stationary. Ministry of Defence, or MOD, and Department of Defence, or DOD. Except right now I think their old names suit them much better because they have little to do with defence.
Saddam was no threat to anyone.
Afghanistan was no threat to anyone.
Serbia was no threat to anyone.
But all these threats were dealt with by the west... saving our freedoms again!

Alright, I guess we'll just try to convert these Afghanis from pitiful cave men to working Communists!

If you don't want anybody stomping on your lawn, get a big gun, is what you're saying. I say, no one gets a gun and everyone takes a Speech and Debate class.

So why did the Russians try to shove Communism down the Afghan's throats without asking them? I smell bias?

A better question would be why was the CIA trying to set up a listening base there in 1976. Afghanistan in 1979 was much the same as Afghanistan in 2010 in real terms. A government that almost ruled Kabul, and lots of war lords that controlled the rest of the country and fought to keep what they had and to get what their neighbour has. Communism had no effect outside the major cities, but the effect it did have was electricity and running water, and a sewerage system that didn't look like it was from the dark ages.

Of course with the Taleban in charge boys went to school for about 3 years... just long enough so they could read the Quaran, and girls never left the house except with a male relative.
Under communism a woman and a man could get a tertiary education and a real job. The US is trying to give the Afghans something they already had under communism, except what they are actually doing is looking for OBL and then they are gone.
Their attempts at rebuilding are undermined by their fighting and attempts to get OBL.
Just like Soviet attempts to drag the Afghans kicking and screaming into the 16th century was undermined by US, British, French, Saudi, Iranian, and Chinese interference. Early in the war the Afghans had 303s mostly. Later in the war they had plenty of AKs but they didn't have Soviet markings... they had Arab and Chinese markings. Billions of dollars of US taxpayers money went into buying chinese equipment to pass on to the Muj and a lot ended up in Pakistani inventories because there was no accountability to where the money went.

Which has avoided my question.

Which is a monkey model.

No it isn't. It is a cheaper upgrade option. Much like an early upgrade proposed for the American A-10 which would have greatly improved performance... but it was too expensive so nothing was done. More recently a much more modest upgrade was applied to improve performance. Not to say the new A-10 is a monkey model.
Or indeed the F-22 losing its IRST to save costs would make current in service F-22s monkey models.

Monkey models are for export no? F-22s aren't going to export nor further production so they're just there. However, as we all know, Russia's economic power comes from foreign buyers, so, it is fair to say that those Sukhois Russia are getting for themselves are crap of the line while the ones India is getting are top of the line because, Russia doesn't need defense when India can protect them.

It just so happens the Sukhois Russia has are crap when compared to the Sukhois they sold to foreigners.

The Su-27SM always was a modest upgrade intended to improve performance and reduce costs while a deeper upgrade was developed. The aircraft everyone calls Su-35S is actually an Su-27BM technically.

Yeah, keep upgrading your planes and slapping new designations on them. Doesn't attract new buyers.

But I thought they were over water?

You are right. Airliners can't fly over water, and there is no way different areas over water could be designated different combat areas and be given different IFF settings... or maybe they could.

Thank you for submitting.

Besides, if you're going to argue the IFF argument, go watch some Red Flag testimonials. Those Russian IFFs aren't working Mr. Singh! Ah!

What has Red Flag got to do with Russian IFF?
Whether Indian IFF equipment works with US equipment is rather irrelevant unless the US intends to cooperate with Russia on something. Why would Russia need NATO compatible IFF?
You have clearly shown you are the bad guys.

Because Indians use Russian IFFs! And Friendly fire between Su-30MKIs were all but too common. I think, those 48 Su-35's Russia is getting for themselves, half will be shot down by the other half in a real conflict. Maybe you should buy some French IFFs.

I thought you had common sense. Someone that's smart would have both, which was what I was implying.

For thousands of years it was common sense that the earth was flat and earth was the centre of the universe and the stars and planets and the sun and moon went around the earth.
I know lots of very smart people who don't even know how a car engine works. Intelligence and knowledge are not related.
It is one of the failings of most time travel movies.
People think that people in the past were stupid because they didn't have the knowledge we have now. The simple fact is they were every bit as intelligent as we are now.

But I thought America has no common sense? Seems like a good thing to you?

Let me dumb it down some more for those whom Metaphors are blank.

Intelligence = I can figure out how to make this rock go that far!

Knowledge = I know how to make this rock go that far!

Smart = I know how to make this rock go that far, but what if I just put wings on it...

Aren't are radars powerful enough to see big fat Sukhois even without datalinks? Yeah, the Sukhoi is small enough for us to see it 100 km away.

[/quote]So you will risk a radar scan to find the Sukhoi in the hope that that small emission will be ignored as noise? Even with LPI it is a risk, and remember it is low probability of intercept, not zero probability of intercept, so the emission, if detected would get the full attention of the enemy who might try an active scan in L band in the direction the brief emission was detected. He doesn't need to care about being detected because the frequencies being used are commonly used for data links anyway, which include ground based communications links. On detection of the emission he can turn towards the source and start to climb and accelerate. The lack of a target on his X band radar will tell him he is up against a stealth target, so he will alert the AD network and check local assets for anything they might have detected.
The Su-35 has added the trick the Mig-31 can play where Mig-31s flying 200km apart can link their radar pictures to form a coherent radar picture 1,000km wide and of 200km depth. Doing the same with their wing mounted L and N band AESAs they might even be able to triangulate stealth aircraft based on Data Link transmissions, or even the LPI mode emissions. Two Su-35s 200km apart detect a faint flash of radar energy it wouldn't be hard to draw a line from both aircraft in the direction of the emission and look at where the lines cross to detect a stealth aircraft.[/quote]

lol, say good bye to your planes because for Paragraph 2 I can answer with Paragraph 1. Spray and pray your Irbis and you'll get AMRAAM in your tailpipe.

IRST can't look up can it!?

They have a field of view that is 180 degrees.
And who says he will spend his time flying straight and level?

So, what you're telling me is:

"THINKING PATTERN OF A SUKHOI PILOT"

"Woah, how did I get here? In this plane? Over the ocean!?"

"Comrade, this is Vodka one, where is Mother Russia comrade?"

*silence*

"This can only mean one thing....COBRA!"


Yeah, right.

All of the Sukhoi's sensors are irrelevant because we'd still have the initiative, we can either engage or go home. For the former, we can do the tactic I mentioned.

Who said they can't take the initiative from you?
Long wave radar on their wingroots is not there for window dressing you know, it is to hunt stealthy aircraft.
The Sukhoi is a big aircraft and has plenty of fuel to fly long distances and carry lots of weapons of a wide variety.

The f-35 is a stealthy Buccaneer. Not a great dogfighter, it is basically a strike aircraft except for those who don't have better stealth aircraft.
For Europe... lets say Britain... it will be Typhoon as the fighter and F-35 as the light strike aircraft. Up against Russia that means the T-50 will be able to do to the Typhoon and F-35 what you claim the F-35 could do to the Su-35.
Except the new Russian planes seem to be better equipped to fight stealth aircraft than most western aircraft.

Of course, we can just, go home. Call in F-22s, all Sukhois down in 20 minutes.

If I were a F-35 pilot, I'd go home, call for my SAMs to shoot at your Sukhoi.

Turn your back on a Flanker and you expose your most vulnerable aspect in both RCS and IR signature and he can run further and faster than you can, for longer. And who is to say that your SAMs have survived the ISKANDER attack Russia just launched?
Its inflight manouvering is designed specifically to make it effective against ABM capable SAMs.

Sorry to those who started this thread as we are clearly off topic.

You should realize that Air space isn't a straight line. I can go up, down, left, right, etc. I could just go low and you won't even see me.

We're talking about range here, not speed.

The R-27E missiles have better range and speed.

And just because they could, doesn't mean they have. You're almost saying the same things Kopp would say in regards to that.

Why wouldn't they? After they developed the ARH they offered an ARH seeker for the R-27E series. It already has an enormous range of options, so for export or local use it makes sense to further expand those options. The development work is already being done anyway.

Russian components, French design. Gonna git sudered I tell you.

Bollocks. And sudered is not a verb.
It is an external targeting pod. It would be like me trying to hack into your computer through your monitor.
The real world doesn't work like that.

And even assuming you are right hacking into the Russian air defence network would be an act of war for which any Russian would launch nuclear weapons. The US military is completely geared to a first strike... spending billions of dollars on stealth bombers makes no sense because if Russia attacks the US with a first strike the US B-2s will not arrive over the north pole to launch its cruise missiles attack till about 8 hours after US ICBMs and SLBMs have all done their job so stealth for the B-2 is useless.

...unless the B-2 is supposed to go in first and take out as much of Russias nuclear weapons as it can with a preemptive first strike.
In conjunction with ABM systems left right and centre it might lead to a position where a sneak attack might render most of Russias nuclear weapons neutralised. Seawolfs following Russian boomers, Ohios firing SLBMs in a depressed trajectory to take out any boomers at pier that could fire. B-2s taking on ICBM fields and airbases... and what might be left could be dealt with using ABM systems in Europe, Japan and the US.
Except US intel leaks like a sieve... so it would never work in a million years.

Uh, you're going to have to reread this debate over again.

I'd rather be sent to my room.

Because we're not there all the time?

Dude... Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi National, something like 14 of the 19 terrorists on 11/9 were Saudis and the other 5 were Pakistanis, Saudi is still where much of the worlds oil comes from and if it also united in the war against Israel then the US would have to choose between the Juice and the Oil... and oil beats everything. The US doesn't want democracy in the ME, because most people in the ME hate the US... except the Juice.

I thought your point was that the Su-35 can fly over Washington without any fear because 'Merika hasn't said it has installed QWIP sensors in its fighters so the F-35 and F-22 are useless against the mighty Su-35.

My point is that it is the west that invades countries and imposes regime change on foreign countries as a matter of foreign policy.
Russian Su-35s will not go anywhere near any Patriot battery.

Lol, as if Egypt owns Tu-95s.

The Tu-95 was doing this in the 1970s. I am sure the jammer pods of current Migs and Sukhois can also do the job.

So, Su-35 has 0 kills, compared to the F-15 with a perfect track record. Guess Egypt best by F-15s then.

If you want to have a discussion that is OK but please keep up.
Egypt is not a good boy like Saudi Arabia and it can't have F-15s to play with. It has to stay at the kiddy table and play with the planes it has been made to pay too much for.

If you modify a P-51 Mustang to be able to fire missiles, and put some AIM-120C-7s on it and a modern radar, that bad boy will shoot down every single Soviet fighter manufactured from the 40s to 80s.

The Mustang is the most overrated plane ever to exist. A British plane licence produced in the US that was rubbish till it got a British engine. It didn't even become available till the war was over in 1944.

So, my point stands, the AIM-120 performs superior to the R-77 in real combat. And because F-22's and Su-35s have never seen combat, we'll rely on the missiles combat records, which as it stands, leaves the AMRAAM superior.

OK if you want to play a stupid game... lets play.
The AA-3 Anab. Not exported. The K-98 model was only used once to my knowledge and shot down the Korean airliner it was fired against.

Two missiles fired and the pilot confirms two hits so 100% kill record. Leaves the AA-3 Anab superior to the AMRAAM by 50%.

Find me a SAM with 900 km range that is operational and not Russian propaganda? Yeah, good bye S-300s.

Why would they need a SAM with a 900km range?
Even if you mean JASSM-ER you are grasping at straws buddy. When they get within range of an S-300 site they are dead. S-300 is specifically designed to shoot down cruise missile targets. It even has specialised radars for the purpose.

Egypt has Buks, Tors, and Patriots. Nothing JASSMs can't handle.

JASSMs. Nothing Egypts Buks, Tors, and Patriots can't handle.

Oh yeah, sell our air planes to our enemies!

You said it. Egypt is your enemy. Why would Egypt bother buying anything from the US because you are clearly not on their team...
Still it is completely their choice.

You should note that F-15s are cheap compared to Su-35s, and they are proven, and they are still manufactured new (again, unlike dying MiGs in old hangars).

You keep putting down Mig-29s... what are you afraid of? You wont sell Egypt F-15s because they would be too good for them but you don't want them to waste their money on Mig-29s?

The price of a worn out Eagle is not important when they are not for sale to Egypt.

Which as you've told me, means Egyptian WMDs, woo!

And what makes you think they don't have chem or bio weapons?

They aren't that hard to make.

If you want Quality equipment, buy from Western nations, our quality control has had better records then Russian quality controls so at least you can depend on our stuff being fine most of the time.

Hugo Chavez is not happy with the support for his F-16s so he is going for Su-35s. It seems Egypt might make the same change.

And you said nothings gonna get personal.

I assumed you wanted a serious discussion, but claiming an M16 will remove the Igla threat to Israeli aircaft... well when those Egyptian small arms shoot hole into the Israeli F-35s on the runway they wont be stealthy anymore so the Egyptian AF could engage them at max range and shoot them all down .

Not good with metaphors? I will dumb it down for you. Israelis are paranoid enough to get the MAXIMUM (most) protection they can on their vehicles.

They clearly are not, because they could easily add another 2-3 tons of armour on the front and sides of a Merkava but for some reason they decided the amount they put on was enough.
If Trophy was so perfect then they wouldn't need any armour at all.
Seems it is clearly not perfect and 100% effective against all RPGs.

They won't get a silly land rover because Trophy can run out of ammunition and it can malfunction (as with any machines), so it's a safer bet to compound the protection offered by Trophy with advanced composite armor that the Merkava IV has.

But the Israeli ground forces will sweep all before it and no RPG will touch juice flesh...

Ah, I see, life has screwed you over, blame is to be put on the US, and Russia will be the hero of the story, good good.

To be brutally honest I have no interest at all regarding America.
I am sure it is a nice place and has some nice people but I really don't care about it at all. This is not the Lets hold hands and talk about why we love the US and Jesus forum.
Russia has been portrayed to me all my life in the west as evil and bad, yet when you ask about the bad an evil it has done it sounds a lot like the sorts of things a lot of western countries did and still do. Evil imperial Russians with their goons in South Ossetia with their jackboots on the throat of poor little innocent Georgia.
Then Hilary pops up and says "America supports anyone who opposes Russia". Including Georgia and Japan. Nice reset.

That's not the life style for me and I think you should dump it right away.

Yes. Conform to the western view. You are from New Zealand... if it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Japanese/German/Russian.
Yeah, America waited till Japan attacked it before it decided to fight Japan and it had nothing at all to do with helping the British or the Aussies or us Kiwis.

Gotta be grateful though... I mean America did... drag us into Vietnam with them. Thanks for that BTW.

Fair knowledge and unbias thinking is how we should all live.

The amusing thing is ask any commie and they will tell you their governments lied to them. Ask an American and they will agree that commie governments lie all the time but the American government doesn't lie except very occasionally.
You see anything bad the west has done is a conspiracy theory.
Putin murders people personally with a poison that is really hard to get hold of and is radioactive so its presence can be detected for months after the crime.
Ah but that it because he wanted everyone to know who did it... what is wrong with Ricin in an umbrella?
Why spend a small fortune on a rare exotic expensive poison and then deny it?
The stuff was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per miligramme... gee you don't think it might be possible that the dick head might have been trying to smuggle it for profit?
Nah much more fun to blame leaders of states.

Why not? Hasn't jammed yet.

Pretty disrespectful considering the number of American conscripts who lost their lives running up and down their own lines in contact with the enemy because there was only one cleaning rod and everyone wanted it.
You can tell its Mattel.

Alright, I guess we'll just try to convert these Afghanis from pitiful cave men to working Communists!

How about create some stability and peace and teach them to read and write and then let them decide what they want.

I say, no one gets a gun and everyone takes a Speech and Debate class.

If you followed your own advice your own country would have crushed you and bombed the sh!t out of you till you did as you were told.

Which has avoided my question.

Afghanistan was friendly to the Soviet Union and both countries coexisted side by side till the US started agitating. Remember when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan at the end of 1979 the CIA was getting kicked out of Iran because apparantly Iran didn't like Americas brand of democracy shoved down its throat without being asked too. Think it is a coincidence?

But no, the Soviet aims were clear because Britain has been complaining that the Russians might invade India for the last 200 years. It was clear that the Soviets wanted to invade Afghanistan and then Pakistan to get a warm water port within miles of a warm water port they could have asked India for without invading two freaken countries.
The dopey western histories of the cold war still list this as an aim of the invasion.
The aim was obvious. Afghanistan used to be good friends with the Soviets. The US was moving in and stirring up some elements and trying the same trick they performed in Iran to overthrow the government and install something hostile to the commies and friendlier to the west. The Soviets reacted... the same way the US reacted to even the hint of something similar in central and south america.

Monkey models are for export no?

Monkey models are purposely downgraded versions of the models used at home. The Su-27SM was not down graded, it was applied to a base model Su-27 and was an upgrade.
Just like very late model F-15s and F-16s that were exported were upgraded with equipment even USAF models didn't have.

However, as we all know, Russia's economic power comes from foreign buyers,

The T-50 and Su-35S is better than any export customer of Russia ever got. Russias economic power comes from raw materials exports. Military exports only generate a very small fraction of those earnings.

so, it is fair to say that those Sukhois Russia are getting for themselves are crap of the line while the ones India is getting are top of the line because, Russia doesn't need defense when India can protect them.

Wrong and wrong. The worst Flankers in operation currently are in Russian AF service. Su-27SM upgraded aircraft are significantly better aircraft. Indias Su-30MKIs are even better but are much much more expensive. The Su-35S aircraft the Russians will introduce into service next year will be the best available Flanker anywhere.

Yeah, keep upgrading your planes and slapping new designations on them. Doesn't attract new buyers.

They are not my planes.
The designation means something. Su means a product of the Sukhoi design bureau. 27 is the model number, it is an even number meaning it is a fighter or fighterbomber. The Mig-23 and Mig-27 are basically the same aircraft with different noses and different roles. The Su-17, Su-20, and Su-22 are practically the same aircraft, as is the Su-15 and Su-21, or for that matter the Su-9 and Su-11. The Mig-15 and Mig-17 can be considered the same aircraft in many ways.
The Su-35 has all its internal components changed and upgraded... in practical terms it is a new aircraft.

It is not the design bureau that decides what designation is used, that is up to the user.

Thank you for submitting.

Look Sarcasm up in the dictionary.
(It might have my picture there...)

Because Indians use Russian IFFs! And Friendly fire between Su-30MKIs were all but too common. I think, those 48 Su-35's Russia is getting for themselves, half will be shot down by the other half in a real conflict. Maybe you should buy some French IFFs.

The Su-30MKI is a mishmash of lots of different bits and pieces as requested by India. Most of the self defence suite is Israeli. If it mistook another Su-30MKI for an enemy well sounds like India have problems rather than Russia.

Let me dumb it down some more for those whom Metaphors are blank.

Intelligence = I can figure out how to make this rock go that far!

Knowledge = I know how to make this rock go that far!

Smart = I know how to make this rock go that far, but what if I just put wings on it...

You want to dumb it down further to talk about intelligence?

If someone knows they are pretty stupid by your definition that makes them smart.

lol, say good bye to your planes because for Paragraph 2 I can answer with Paragraph 1. Spray and pray your Irbis and you'll get AMRAAM in your tailpipe.

The S-400 batteries the Su-35s are operating over will already have shot you down.

So, what you're telling me is:

What I am telling you is that an Su-35 pilot ordered to patrol airspace over water will fly a large circuit... how do you sneak up behind a plane flying in a large circle... up high to conserve fuel.

Of course, we can just, go home. Call in F-22s, all Sukhois down in 20 minutes.

Which triggers a nuclear strike with warheads hitting washington in 30 minutes.

You should realize that Air space isn't a straight line. I can go up, down, left, right, etc. I could just go low and you won't even see me.

Hahahahaha. Flying low works against ground based radar... not enemy aircraft.

I wouldn't bother comparing any R-27 to an AMRAAM. It is a limited to 9Gs and at Mach 3 speeds, that isn't going to turn very far.

AMRAAM has been successful when the target is totally unaware it is under attack so high g targets are probably not that easy for AMRAAM either.

The RVV-SD and RVV-MD are improved digital versions of the R-77 and R-73. An improved digital R-27 with a QWIP seeker using long, medium, short IR and digital TV and new more powerful rocket propellent should be a much more formidible missile than the old models were.
The modularity of the system alone makes it rather useful, while its size like that of the Flanker allows much more growth potential for missiles that don't require internal carriage.

Seems to me to be an opportunity.

Have seen diagrams showing its use in lofted trajectories used against large targets like transports, tankers, and AWACs aircraft where it would be useful too.

We're talking about range here, not speed.

The R-27E missiles have better range and speed.

Mach 2.5 for the R-27 v.s. Mach 4 for the AMRAAM?

And how much R-27AEs does Russia actually have?

So why not cancel R-77 and integrate whatever good came out of it to R-27?

And just because they could, doesn't mean they have. You're almost saying the same things Kopp would say in regards to that.

Why wouldn't they? After they developed the ARH they offered an ARH seeker for the R-27E series. It already has an enormous range of options, so for export or local use it makes sense to further expand those options. The development work is already being done anyway.

But, they don't.

Russian components, French design. Gonna git sudered I tell you.

Bollocks. And sudered is not a verb.
It is an external targeting pod. It would be like me trying to hack into your computer through your monitor.
The real world doesn't work like that.

And even assuming you are right hacking into the Russian air defence network would be an act of war for which any Russian would launch nuclear weapons. The US military is completely geared to a first strike... spending billions of dollars on stealth bombers makes no sense because if Russia attacks the US with a first strike the US B-2s will not arrive over the north pole to launch its cruise missiles attack till about 8 hours after US ICBMs and SLBMs have all done their job so stealth for the B-2 is useless.

...unless the B-2 is supposed to go in first and take out as much of Russias nuclear weapons as it can with a preemptive first strike.
In conjunction with ABM systems left right and centre it might lead to a position where a sneak attack might render most of Russias nuclear weapons neutralised. Seawolfs following Russian boomers, Ohios firing SLBMs in a depressed trajectory to take out any boomers at pier that could fire. B-2s taking on ICBM fields and airbases... and what might be left could be dealt with using ABM systems in Europe, Japan and the US.
Except US intel leaks like a sieve... so it would never work in a million years.

You know, you should come to America, become a comedian, and make lots of money. You're a funny man. Here's my flow chart of your thought pattern.

"'Merika v.s. Russia"

"'Merika > Russia"

Russia, "Fuck this" *nukes away*


Yeah, we're not dumb, we aren't going to hack into you guys, THEN wait, we're going to hack, blitz, and go home. And what are you talking about? Russia barely has any planes with enough range to get even close to New York. We have too many planes suited for that job. Oh and, didn't we ever talk about CBGs? We did didn't we? You gonna try to spam missiles again? We have more!

Uh, you're going to have to reread this debate over again.

I'd rather be sent to my room.

No freedom for the oppressed eh?

Because we're not there all the time?

Dude... Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi National, something like 14 of the 19 terrorists on 11/9 were Saudis and the other 5 were Pakistanis, Saudi is still where much of the worlds oil comes from and if it also united in the war against Israel then the US would have to choose between the Juice and the Oil... and oil beats everything. The US doesn't want democracy in the ME, because most people in the ME hate the US... except the Juice.

Right, and you think I ever supported that?

I thought your point was that the Su-35 can fly over Washington without any fear because 'Merika hasn't said it has installed QWIP sensors in its fighters so the F-35 and F-22 are useless against the mighty Su-35.

My point is that it is the west that invades countries and imposes regime change on foreign countries as a matter of foreign policy.
Russian Su-35s will not go anywhere near any Patriot battery.

See: Soviet Union

Estonia goes, "WHY?1"
Latvia goes, "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!"
Lithuania goes, "THIS IS ILLEGAL!"

Seriously, do I have to go on?

Lol, as if Egypt owns Tu-95s.

The Tu-95 was doing this in the 1970s. I am sure the jammer pods of current Migs and Sukhois can also do the job.

And you're expecting that Israelis aren't going to do it first? See Suder, see Empty Egyptian Air Space, now Imagine, Israeli air space.

MIND BLOWING

So, Su-35 has 0 kills, compared to the F-15 with a perfect track record. Guess Egypt best by F-15s then.

If you want to have a discussion that is OK but please keep up.
Egypt is not a good boy like Saudi Arabia and it can't have F-15s to play with. It has to stay at the kiddy table and play with the planes it has been made to pay too much for.

Oh no, I'm just trying to inform you with metaphors. It's either get Sukhois which are great on paper (but as we all know, have a 0% kill probability) or get MiG-29s which are absolutely horrible on paper, degrading in real life, but as we all know, has at least some combat experience.

I'm just saying man, if Egypt wants good fighters, they should be good boys and buy from America.

If you modify a P-51 Mustang to be able to fire missiles, and put some AIM-120C-7s on it and a modern radar, that bad boy will shoot down every single Soviet fighter manufactured from the 40s to 80s.

The Mustang is the most overrated plane ever to exist. A British plane licence produced in the US that was rubbish till it got a British engine. It didn't even become available till the war was over in 1944.

lol, such an uncreative mind are you? It was a metaphor, which means: "The concept of understanding one thing in terms of another."

What I meant was, your launch platform isn't as relevant as what you're launching. You can put great missiles on a truck and put it against a great plane, and we'd just call that truck w/ missiles a SAM and that plane a Sukhoi, and you know what happens? Dead Sukhoi, conspiracy in Russia.

So, my point stands, the AIM-120 performs superior to the R-77 in real combat. And because F-22's and Su-35s have never seen combat, we'll rely on the missiles combat records, which as it stands, leaves the AMRAAM superior.

OK if you want to play a stupid game... lets play.
The AA-3 Anab. Not exported. The K-98 model was only used once to my knowledge and shot down the Korean airliner it was fired against.

Two missiles fired and the pilot confirms two hits so 100% kill record. Leaves the AA-3 Anab superior to the AMRAAM by 50%.

Never learned the Scientific method? Get a larger sample size. The AMRAAM has been used successfully against a handful of crafts.

Find me a SAM with 900 km range that is operational and not Russian propaganda? Yeah, good bye S-300s.

Why would they need a SAM with a 900km range?
Even if you mean JASSM-ER you are grasping at straws buddy. When they get within range of an S-300 site they are dead. S-300 is specifically designed to shoot down cruise missile targets. It even has specialised radars for the purpose.

Who says were firing one? Oh yeah, S-300s can shoot 10 targets, well we'll just shoot more! At the end of the day, our launch platforms are unharmed while you're at our mercy, we'll eventually have victory.

Egypt has Buks, Tors, and Patriots. Nothing JASSMs can't handle.

JASSMs. Nothing Egypts Buks, Tors, and Patriots can't handle.

Egypt has Buks, Tors, and Patriots. Nothing JASSMs can't handle.

Oh yeah, sell our air planes to our enemies!

You said it. Egypt is your enemy. Why would Egypt bother buying anything from the US because you are clearly not on their team...
Still it is completely their choice.

But it's all for defense! If I have to buy a gun from a criminal I'd buy it! Lets see Russia sell PAK-FAs to America!

You should note that F-15s are cheap compared to Su-35s, and they are proven, and they are still manufactured new (again, unlike dying MiGs in old hangars).

You keep putting down Mig-29s... what are you afraid of? You wont sell Egypt F-15s because they would be too good for them but you don't want them to waste their money on Mig-29s?

The price of a worn out Eagle is not important when they are not for sale to Egypt.

I'm afraid of Egyptian pilots getting killed because people like you lied to them.

MiGs are crap, get Sukhois or F-15s.

Which as you've told me, means Egyptian WMDs, woo!

And what makes you think they don't have chem or bio weapons?

They aren't that hard to make.

Yay! Proliferated world! Anthrax spores for everybody!

Back to your time out Garry.

If you want Quality equipment, buy from Western nations, our quality control has had better records then Russian quality controls so at least you can depend on our stuff being fine most of the time.

Hugo Chavez is not happy with the support for his F-16s so he is going for Su-35s. It seems Egypt might make the same change.

Didn't Indian planes get melted down into kills by USAF pilots? They aren't complaining now, but that's just because they want to stay friends.

And you said nothings gonna get personal.

I assumed you wanted a serious discussion, but claiming an M16 will remove the Igla threat to Israeli aircaft... well when those Egyptian small arms shoot hole into the Israeli F-35s on the runway they wont be stealthy anymore so the Egyptian AF could engage them at max range and shoot them all down .

Never heard of welding?

Not good with metaphors? I will dumb it down for you. Israelis are paranoid enough to get the MAXIMUM (most) protection they can on their vehicles.

They clearly are not, because they could easily add another 2-3 tons of armour on the front and sides of a Merkava but for some reason they decided the amount they put on was enough.
If Trophy was so perfect then they wouldn't need any armour at all.
Seems it is clearly not perfect and 100% effective against all RPGs.

For the sake of mobility! You, Russian, know of mobility!

I don't think you understand; if TROPHY fails, there's a system of redundancy (back up systems). Same reason why Su-35s and most other fighters still carry a gun, BECAUSE IF OUR WEAPONS WORKED FINE LIKE PUTIN SAID, WE WON'T NEED A GUN RIGHT?

They won't get a silly land rover because Trophy can run out of ammunition and it can malfunction (as with any machines), so it's a safer bet to compound the protection offered by Trophy with advanced composite armor that the Merkava IV has.

But the Israeli ground forces will sweep all before it and no RPG will touch juice flesh...

Of course, thoughts of the idiots. There is always that sneaky guy that avoids our weapons, flanks us, and tries to kill one of us. You may know them as Ninjas.

Ah, I see, life has screwed you over, blame is to be put on the US, and Russia will be the hero of the story, good good.

To be brutally honest I have no interest at all regarding America.
I am sure it is a nice place and has some nice people but I really don't care about it at all. This is not the Lets hold hands and talk about why we love the US and Jesus forum.
Russia has been portrayed to me all my life in the west as evil and bad, yet when you ask about the bad an evil it has done it sounds a lot like the sorts of things a lot of western countries did and still do. Evil imperial Russians with their goons in South Ossetia with their jackboots on the throat of poor little innocent Georgia.
Then Hilary pops up and says "America supports anyone who opposes Russia". Including Georgia and Japan. Nice reset.

Yet whenever I say and prove something that Russia did wrong or are doing wrong, you automatically accuse the US as being the wrongdoers? You aren't really mending the situation by getting pay back.

That's not the life style for me and I think you should dump it right away.

Yes. Conform to the western view. You are from New Zealand... if it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Japanese/German/Russian.
Yeah, America waited till Japan attacked it before it decided to fight Japan and it had nothing at all to do with helping the British or the Aussies or us Kiwis.

Gotta be grateful though... I mean America did... drag us into Vietnam with them. Thanks for that BTW.

Sins of our father, sins of our young.

You misunderstood my previous statement, here's a dumbed down version: "The lifestyle of US = bad guy and RUS = Good guy is not the life style for me, and I think you should dump it". Never recommended any other life style, but I think it's best not to have a hero or a villain as both the US and RUS has done wrong that has yet to be mended.

Fair knowledge and unbias thinking is how we should all live.

The amusing thing is ask any commie and they will tell you their governments lied to them. Ask an American and they will agree that commie governments lie all the time but the American government doesn't lie except very occasionally.
You see anything bad the west has done is a conspiracy theory.
Putin murders people personally with a poison that is really hard to get hold of and is radioactive so its presence can be detected for months after the crime.
Ah but that it because he wanted everyone to know who did it... what is wrong with Ricin in an umbrella?
Why spend a small fortune on a rare exotic expensive poison and then deny it?
The stuff was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per miligramme... gee you don't think it might be possible that the dick head might have been trying to smuggle it for profit?
Nah much more fun to blame leaders of states.

Of course, you could of just always not asked the right people.

Why not? Hasn't jammed yet.

Pretty disrespectful considering the number of American conscripts who lost their lives running up and down their own lines in contact with the enemy because there was only one cleaning rod and everyone wanted it.
You can tell its Mattel.

Oh right, we're back to reality? Sorry, I thought we were trying to nuke each other.

Alright, I guess we'll just try to convert these Afghanis from pitiful cave men to working Communists!

How about create some stability and peace and teach them to read and write and then let them decide what they want.

Yes, and power their new society with massive Energy converters of the people! Laid upon the ground where villages once stood. Yeah, Afghanistan collapsed right after all those Communist thoughts and I have a feeling it's going to do the same to our Democratic ones.

I say, no one gets a gun and everyone takes a Speech and Debate class.

If you followed your own advice your own country would have crushed you and bombed the sh!t out of you till you did as you were told.

You seriously need to visit America and have a chat or two with some folks here, your view of us is pretty damn similar to our view of Russians, so that's why I haven't actually attacked (although I have made fun of) Russian society. In reality, there are two bubbles concerning America. The bubble many Americans live in (the world is flat and it's all gonna melt), and the bubble everyone else in the world lives in (All Americans have big fancy car, big tall house, big fat bellies, dumb to the rock, etc). Of course, neither is true, so don't run around thinking so.

Which has avoided my question.

Afghanistan was friendly to the Soviet Union and both countries coexisted side by side till the US started agitating. Remember when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan at the end of 1979 the CIA was getting kicked out of Iran because apparantly Iran didn't like Americas brand of democracy shoved down its throat without being asked too. Think it is a coincidence?

But no, the Soviet aims were clear because Britain has been complaining that the Russians might invade India for the last 200 years. It was clear that the Soviets wanted to invade Afghanistan and then Pakistan to get a warm water port within miles of a warm water port they could have asked India for without invading two freaken countries.
The dopey western histories of the cold war still list this as an aim of the invasion.
The aim was obvious. Afghanistan used to be good friends with the Soviets. The US was moving in and stirring up some elements and trying the same trick they performed in Iran to overthrow the government and install something hostile to the commies and friendlier to the west. The Soviets reacted... the same way the US reacted to even the hint of something similar in central and south america.

So, it was a, "we're good buddies, but we aren't being Communist" type of thing? Because US coming in there and talking shit isn't much of a cassus belli for: 1. Soviets invading 2. Soviets killing over a million people 3. Afghanis killing thousands 4. More Internet war porn.

Monkey models are for export no?

Monkey models are purposely downgraded versions of the models used at home. The Su-27SM was not down graded, it was applied to a base model Su-27 and was an upgrade.
Just like very late model F-15s and F-16s that were exported were upgraded with equipment even USAF models didn't have.

Ah well, I guess I'm wrong on the semantics portion. But the original point stands, Russia doesn't keep the very best for themselves and instead sends them to India.

However, as we all know, Russia's economic power comes from foreign buyers,

The T-50 and Su-35S is better than any export customer of Russia ever got. Russias economic power comes from raw materials exports. Military exports only generate a very small fraction of those earnings.

Yeah, lets call it PAK-FA for now, T-50s in 5 years time, maybe xD

so, it is fair to say that those Sukhois Russia are getting for themselves are crap of the line while the ones India is getting are top of the line because, Russia doesn't need defense when India can protect them.

Wrong and wrong. The worst Flankers in operation currently are in Russian AF service. Su-27SM upgraded aircraft are significantly better aircraft. Indias Su-30MKIs are even better but are much much more expensive. The Su-35S aircraft the Russians will introduce into service next year will be the best available Flanker anywhere.

As a wise Croatian friend of mine said and is paraphrased, "Money is irrelevant when the quality is superior". So, until next year, my statement stands firm, "Russia has crap Sukhois, India has good Sukhois."

Yeah, keep upgrading your planes and slapping new designations on them. Doesn't attract new buyers.

They are not my planes.
The designation means something. Su means a product of the Sukhoi design bureau. 27 is the model number, it is an even number meaning it is a fighter or fighterbomber. The Mig-23 and Mig-27 are basically the same aircraft with different noses and different roles. The Su-17, Su-20, and Su-22 are practically the same aircraft, as is the Su-15 and Su-21, or for that matter the Su-9 and Su-11. The Mig-15 and Mig-17 can be considered the same aircraft in many ways.
The Su-35 has all its internal components changed and upgraded... in practical terms it is a new aircraft.

It is not the design bureau that decides what designation is used, that is up to the user.

Wasn't directed at you, Russia in general (as if they're actually going to read this). But no, having your Internal components upgraded is not a new plane, simply a modernized one. We call those Upgrade blocks. A new plane is the PAK-FA, Su-35s are just modernized.

Thank you for submitting.

Look Sarcasm up in the dictionary.
(It might have my picture there...)

Duly noted, thanks but no thanks, I have super knowledge recovery technology, known as, "Google"!

Because Indians use Russian IFFs! And Friendly fire between Su-30MKIs were all but too common. I think, those 48 Su-35's Russia is getting for themselves, half will be shot down by the other half in a real conflict. Maybe you should buy some French IFFs.

The Su-30MKI is a mishmash of lots of different bits and pieces as requested by India. Most of the self defence suite is Israeli. If it mistook another Su-30MKI for an enemy well sounds like India have problems rather than Russia.

Which doesn't change a thing about how IFF works! If India has problem, Russia has too, time to send in the RPE (Russian Private Eyes)!

Let me dumb it down some more for those whom Metaphors are blank.

Intelligence = I can figure out how to make this rock go that far!

Knowledge = I know how to make this rock go that far!

Smart = I know how to make this rock go that far, but what if I just put wings on it...

You want to dumb it down further to talk about intelligence?

If someone knows they are pretty stupid by your definition that makes them smart.

If they know they're pretty stupid, does that make them pretty stupid? If you liked Orwell, yes, if you liked reality, no.

lol, say good bye to your planes because for Paragraph 2 I can answer with Paragraph 1. Spray and pray your Irbis and you'll get AMRAAM in your tailpipe.

The S-400 batteries the Su-35s are operating over will already have shot you down.

But we're not even communicating! You're the one with radars up!

So, what you're telling me is:

What I am telling you is that an Su-35 pilot ordered to patrol airspace over water will fly a large circuit... how do you sneak up behind a plane flying in a large circle... up high to conserve fuel.

I can see it from below far away. Still have the initiative, waiting for it to turn it's back, AMRAAM!

Of course, we can just, go home. Call in F-22s, all Sukhois down in 20 minutes.

Which triggers a nuclear strike with warheads hitting washington in 30 minutes.

Bullocks! We won Air dominance fair and square, we weren't going to do anything else, I swear!

How will Russia be remembered? The ones that shot first, at the kid who threw punches.

You should realize that Air space isn't a straight line. I can go up, down, left, right, etc. I could just go low and you won't even see me.

Hahahahaha. Flying low works against ground based radar... not enemy aircraft.

Hey, wait a minute, you don't have any sophisticated ground attack equipment do you? Oh right, that was those MiGs, tsk tsk, too bad they couldn't out run bullets.

Mach 2.5 for the R-27 v.s. Mach 4 for the AMRAAM?

And how much R-27AEs does Russia actually have?

The R-27E has a much bigger rocket motor than the basic R-27.

Head on range for E model R-27s is 130km from high alt high speed launch.

The R-27E was designed for the Su-27 and is widely deployed in at least 4 variants, including the ET (IR BVR), ER (SARH BVR), EP (ARM for aircraft radars BVR), and the modified version for use over water for the Su-33.

The R-27 is currently likely the most common Russian BVR missile in service even today.

So why not cancel R-77 and integrate whatever good came out of it to R-27?

Because the R-27s huge front butterfly wings make it tricky to carry internally. The R-77 with its tail grid fins folded forward is ideal for internal carriage.

But, they don't.

Says you. The Russians aren't stupid. Most current export customers of Russian fighters wont care about internal carriage so the only difference between the R-27 and the R-77 is that the R-27ET is bigger and heavier and much longer ranged and passive IR guided... absolutely ideal for those planes that try to run.

You know, you should come to America, become a comedian, and make lots of money. You're a funny man. Here's my flow chart of your thought pattern.

Don't want to sound mean but I would say the same about you except your chart would be:

Merica= better than everything else in the world.

Mig-29 crap.

F-35 is best in the world... there is no situation where an F-35 could fail. Experience at fighting bunnies tells me that merican planes are the best in the world and nothing even on the drawing board can defeat what merica will have in service in Maybe 4 years time.

Russia doesn't need planes to reach New York. America is a non issue. It is a huge boxer that likes picking on kids. We Russia is not a boxer and isn't particularly fit, but he has a hand gun and I really don't think he would have any problem using it to shoot the boxer in the hip or shoulder if that boxer starts throwing real punches.

You gonna try to spam missiles again? We have more!

You just don't get it do you?

There is no chance of a direct conflict between Russia and the US simply because each one will not know when the other will go for the throat so both will be on a hair trigger and if you overstep the mark it will go nuke... and you really can't be sure what that mark actually is... only they do... when you step on it.

No freedom for the oppressed eh?

Screw the oppressed. If they want freedom and rights then let them fight for them. It is not my job or your job for that matter to save the world.

Right, and you think I ever supported that?

Not saying you did, but question why you seem so certain a regime that will do that on your behalf will tell you the truth about the F-35 and F-22 for that matter. They cost trillions of your tax dollars... they are hardly going to say "sorry, Russia isn't a threat and stealth planes are not worth sh!t against terrorists or in the war on drugs." "No refunds". Please vote for us next election... it is a two party system and they Oked these white elephants too.

See: Soviet Union

Estonia goes, "WHY?1"
Latvia goes, "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!"
Lithuania goes, "THIS IS ILLEGAL!"

Seriously, do I have to go on?

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were Soviet Republics and plenty of Russians suffered under the soviet system too... how about an apology from the Baltic states?

Or better yet, they are little countries like Haiti and Grenada. Big countries like Russia and the US don't need to respect their rights of sovereignty and they certainly don't need to respect their borders... unless they develop nuclear weapons.

Imagine, Israeli air space.

Israel is tiny. A few bio weapons and they would collapse.

I'm just saying man, if Egypt wants good fighters, they should be good boys and buy from America.

Fixed for ya...

I'm just saying man, if Egypt wants good fighters, they should be good b!tches and buy from America... or else feel the economic and political isolation that America can impose on a country that rejects it.

lol, such an uncreative mind are you? It was a metaphor, which means: "The concept of understanding one thing in terms of another."

I know what a metaphor is. Mustangs are still over rated junk.

What I meant was, your launch platform isn't as relevant as what you're launching.

I know what you meant. It doesn't make you right however.

A C-5A Galaxy could be fitted with an enormous radar and hundreds of AMRAAMs but it is simply not able to go fast enough or fly high enough to give its missiles extra reach. In comparison a Mig-31 flying at Mach 2.84 at 20,000m could kill a C-5 Galaxy at 200km without problems using an R-37 missile.

Never learned the Scientific method? Get a larger sample size. The AMRAAM has been used successfully against a handful of crafts.

Who cares about sample size. This was a real engagement against a real target. Perfectly valid.

Who says were firing one? Oh yeah, S-300s can shoot 10 targets, well we'll just shoot more! At the end of the day, our launch platforms are unharmed while you're at our mercy, we'll eventually have victory.

Actually a S-300 battery could probably deal with about 50 targets, and that is ignoring the other missiles supporting them like Pantsir which carries 12 x 12km range SAMs and has two 30mm cannon too.

The point is that to fire lots of missiles you will need lots of platforms and those platforms will have to operate from somewhere... a somewhere the Russians could easily attack in revenge against an attack against Russia.

Egypt has Buks, Tors, and Patriots. Nothing JASSMs can't handle.

Even OSA (SA- can deal with subsonic cruise missiles. TORs and BUKS and even Patriots would eat JASSMs for breakfast.

But it's all for defense! If I have to buy a gun from a criminal I'd buy it!

Now you say the US is a criminal? Most law abiding countries don't buy from criminals when they can. They often choose not to accept what their enemies will allow them to have but instead try to buy from neutral countries that treat them like adults. They could buy Rafales.

I'm afraid of Egyptian pilots getting killed because people like you lied to them.

Yeah, cause you just care about egyptian pilots...

MiGs are crap, get Sukhois or F-15s.

F-15s... they can't have. I have told you, you naughty little sand country somewhere near the pyramids of some Geeza. The Russians have offered Migs. Egypt turned its back on the Soviet Union some time ago and as far as Russia is concerned it might do it again so I really don't think they will be offered the latest stuff straight away. BUK and TOR were in service in the 1980s and are not exactly new either.

Yay! Proliferated world! Anthrax spores for everybody!

Back to your time out Garry.

Anthrax? Kiddy stuff... more like weaponised Ebola.

Didn't Indian planes get melted down into kills by USAF pilots? They aren't complaining now, but that's just because they want to stay friends.

AFAIK Indian pilots kicked USAF ass and won over 90% of the simulated engagements... even without using their radars in their proper modes to keep their frequencies secret.

Never heard of welding?

What... no band aids?

For the sake of mobility! You, Russian, know of mobility!

Hahahahaha... the Merkava 4 could gain another 5 tons and the mobility would not suffer because it was not very mobile to begin with.

BECAUSE IF OUR WEAPONS WORKED FINE LIKE PUTIN SAID, WE WON'T NEED A GUN RIGHT?

Guns on a fighter are not backup. Try firing a warning shot in peacetime to make a civil airliner land when all you have are missiles.

Yet whenever I say and prove something that Russia did wrong or are doing wrong, you automatically accuse the US as being the wrongdoers? You aren't really mending the situation by getting pay back.

No country has clean hands. The problem I have is the west preaching to the rest of the world. How do you think the west got so rich and powerful? By pinching stuff off the natives... that is how. The ME never went through an industrial revolution, they never understood fully what Europe was doing with all that black liquid stuff they craved so much. Of course much of it was done centuries ago... but it makes embarassing reading.

You misunderstood my previous statement, here's a dumbed down version: "The lifestyle of US = bad guy and RUS = Good guy is not the life style for me, and I think you should dump it". Never recommended any other life style, but I think it's best not to have a hero or a villain as both the US and RUS has done wrong that has yet to be mended.

How about I explain it to you in plain terms.

I am the athiest here. I don't believe in good and evil as such. Humans are capable of either and good people can do bad just as bad people can do good.
I don't hate America. I would have to care about America to hate it and I honestly don't think about America very much at all.
I don't think Russia is pure and innocent either, but one of these two countries seems to have decided it is the world police. It seems to think it has the right to impose its political system on other countries, that international law does not apply to it yet it will demonise other countries for not meeting its very high standards without ever considering whether it meets its own standards itself.
If the US disappeared completely off the Earth tomorrow I would not miss it. I don't know it and quite frankly it doesn't appeal to me enough to make me want to get to know it.
Even if it did practise what it preached I don't think we'd ever be close friends because it is a little preachy and likes to show off by demanding it has the best. My computer is not the best latest super dooper computer in the world and that really isn't a problem for me. My dick is not so tiny I have to compensate by having the biggest or best... which reminds be of a fitting joke... a huge biker goes into a prostitutes room and drops his trousers and out pops a tiny penis maybe 1cm long. The Hooker takes one look and blurts out "Who is that supposed to satisfy."
To which the biker replies "Me."

Of course, you could of just always not asked the right people.

It is the west in the 21st Century... who cares what the people think... it is trial by media. Let big business media giants tell you what to think... 1984 came late. Don't think for yourself or someone will say "If you don't love it... leave". Or more cutting "If you are not with us then you are with the Terrorists!"

Yes, and power their new society with massive Energy converters of the people! Laid upon the ground where villages once stood. Yeah, Afghanistan collapsed right after all those Communist thoughts and I have a feeling it's going to do the same to our Democratic ones.

America has found valuable minerals in the ground... it will at least keep a token presence there even just to extract that.

Of course for the Afghan people, US funding for bombs and weapons stopped the instant the Soviets left and there was no rebuilding assistence or support.

You seriously need to visit America and have a chat or two with some folks here, your view of us is pretty damn similar to our view of Russians,

Your view isn't changing, I doubt mine would either.
Besides who wants to apply 3 months in advance and get finger printed and cavity searched just to visit US soil... no thanks.

So, it was a, "we're good buddies, but we aren't being Communist" type of thing? Because US coming in there and talking shit isn't much of a cassus belli for: 1. Soviets invading 2. Soviets killing over a million people 3. Afghanis killing thousands 4. More Internet war porn.

Perhaps you might want to read up about it before making assumptions. The CIA didn't just pop in to Iran to suggest he take over for a while... and they didn't do it that way in Afghanistan either. Afghanistan was not a communist country but they weren't a democracy either. Their army was largely armed along a mix of legacy British (ie 303 rifles) and Soviet gear. After they had a few coups and had a few ambassadors and their families executed the Soviets were invited in to help with some problems.

It was basically a civil war largely funded by the US and Saudi Arabia that the Afghan government couldn't fight on their own so they asked for Soviet support. The resulting conflict lasted 9 years.

But the original point stands, Russia doesn't keep the very best for themselves and instead sends them to India.

Not really. Russia sold what people wanted to buy but couldn't afford to buy some stuff herself.
Well correction... chose not to spend money on their military till they had a few things sorted out first. Now most of those things have been sorted out and they are starting to buy the new stuff again, especially in priority areas like command, control, communications, computers, intell, and aircraft and new munitions.
They are also spending on their navy. They never stopped spending on strategic weapons and have managed to fill most of the gaps created by their early warning stations now being located in foreign countries with the break up of the Soviet Union.

Yeah, lets call it PAK-FA for now, T-50s in 5 years time, maybe xD

IOC date of 2015... the IOC date for F-35 is 2014 so not much of a gap really... if all goes to plan for both.

As a wise Croatian friend of mine said and is paraphrased, "Money is irrelevant when the quality is superior". So, until next year, my statement stands firm, "Russia has crap Sukhois, India has good Sukhois."

Well I think the Su-27SM is far superior to the original and in many aspects is not much different from the Su-30MKI. An R-77M will have the same flight parameters launched from both aircraft.

Wasn't directed at you, Russia in general (as if they're actually going to read this). But no, having your Internal components upgraded is not a new plane, simply a modernized one. We call those Upgrade blocks. A new plane is the PAK-FA, Su-35s are just modernized.

Russian design bureaus can call them what they like, it is the Russian military that actually makes the decision.
Personally I really don't care much what they call them... Talking about Su-27SM and Su-35S aircraft is quicker and easier and more straight forward than talking about block upgrades. Expecially when you have a Block 20 F-16 and give it most of a Block 60 upgrade except for parts from the Block 50 upgrade that results in performance on par with a block 40 F-16.

Which doesn't change a thing about how IFF works! If India has problem, Russia has too, time to send in the RPE (Russian Private Eyes)!

It is the electronic warfare suite that manages that stuff. The IFF equipment just sends signals and codes and enters the information into the EW suite.
Very simply you could point an IFF interrogator at an aircraft and send a signal and get a response. Obviously that can be used to track aircraft without using radar... simply by IFF automatic responses. Modern IFF systems are more cagey about who they reply to and when so as not to give themselves away and need to be set up properly. The Indians will not be using Russian codes and settings because they wont even know them. Even during the cold war the PVO, Frontal Aviation, and naval Aviation would not have the same IFF codes, radar frequencies, and missiles.

If they know they're pretty stupid, does that make them pretty stupid?

If they know they are stupid and they are right then you have to accept they are pretty stupid. If they are wrong they are pretty stupid to think they are stupid.

But we're not even communicating! You're the one with radars up!

One site might operate radars with half a dozen sites getting air picture information from those radars with their radars off.
Or 6 sites might take turns turning their radars on and then shutting down and moving. The options are extensive.

I can see it from below far away. Still have the initiative, waiting for it to turn it's back, AMRAAM!

And you assume he can't see you. With height he has the high ground advantage. His missile dives on you, while yours has to climb for him... and of course it all falls apart because aircraft operate without wingmen only in crap computer games where one plane can take on an entire airforce and win.

Bullocks! We won Air dominance fair and square, we weren't going to do anything else, I swear!

And Russia trusts you... like Putin would trust Saakashvili with a knife to putins nutsack.

How will Russia be remembered? The ones that shot first, at the kid who threw punches.

I rather doubt there will be any around to remember.
Any that survive would have no way of finding out what happened. CNN would hardly tell the truth would it?

Hey, wait a minute, you don't have any sophisticated ground attack equipment do you? Oh right, that was those MiGs, tsk tsk, too bad they couldn't out run bullets.

What? The Su-34 is a dedicated striker like the F-15E. The Su-35 has just as much air to ground capability as the Su-30MKI. The Mig-33 probably has better capability but a more narrow range of ordinance.

The R-27 in any form is not a replacement for the R-77, AMRAAM, or any other modern BVRAAM. The R-27EP1 is the best of the lot and still doesn't have the maneuverability needed to intercept an evading target. It is the last attempt to upgrade Soviet rust piles.

If you need any evidence all one needs to review is its total failure in Eritrea. There was one engagement where a MiG-29 ripple fired 3 R-27s at an Su-27 head-on, all of which missed. The Su-27 then launched four R-27s and missed. There are three incidents similar to that one where R-27 failed every time.

And there are plenty of instances where Sparrow has failed and F-4s have had to resort to guns... which was obviously a problem initially when the first F-4s only had a pod gun option.

I am not suggesting the R-27 suddenly be revived and replace the R-77.

I am suggesting a digital upgrade of the design and new rocket fuel to greatly improve performance because the R-77 is optimised for internal bays and that is not important on a Mig-35 or Su-35.

The option of passive radar homing and IR homing long range BVR missiles has been speculated by Carlos Kopp but AFAIK the only revealed long range BVR IR missiles in Russian service are the R-27ET and the R-40TD of the Mig-31.

If it makes sense to keep R-27ETs in production then why not upgrade them... and a modern IR seeker plus a datalink and lock on after launch capability will make the R-27ET the missile it should have been.

BTW the R-27ET would only ever be of much use at long range in a head on engagement against a hot target like an SR-71. For pretty much any other target the seeker is not sensitive enough to get locks at the 60km range the missile would be fired at. This is not to say it is no better than an R-73, because at low level in a tail chase situation where IR missiles are most useful the R-27ET would chase a target down from 30+kms whereas most sidewinder sized missiles would struggle with 10km range targets.

The potential export market for a new digital R-27 family is large too in my opinion.

R-27EP1 is the final modernisation of the weapon. None of the Soviet era fighters can accommodate the missile. If they get an avionics upgrade they can carry R-77 which is infinitely better. The future of R-27 is at its end.

The EP model is the passive anti radar model and was in service with the ER SARH model and the ET IR model
The original R-27 and R-27E family of missiles had no datalink which limited their performance.

I would suspect that since it has been in service to current times and was the standard BVR AAM for the past 30 odd years they probably have a few in storage. They are not like 80mm rockets or FAB-250 bombs that have been used extensively in most conflicts Russian forces have been involved with.

The Missile itself is totally modular with two motor options... the R-27 and the R-27E being the large and small missiles respectively.
Originally the big missiles were for the Flanker only with the Mig-29 initially not able to use any R-27s except the small rocket motor SARH R-27R model. Later models like the Mig-29C added extended range and IR guided models.
The Su-35 will carry the R-27ET and probably the R-27EP though it is unlikely to bother carrying the R-27ER SARH model.
The EP model looks externally similar to the ER model and has been in service for decades. It was not realised it was an anti fighter aircraft missile till the Russians admitted as much in the early 2000s. Obviously the EP will be less use against fighters now because fighters try not to use their radars too much. In the 1980s they used them all the time and to guide a SARH they needed to continuously mark a target making the EP model a perfect counter as the high energy E long range and faster model Alamo was faster and longer ranged than any model Sparrow.
Now of course its usefulness is diminished but AWACS or battle management targets (ie big fighter using radar and sending info to other smaller radar silent fighters closer to the combat area) it could still be useful.
Assuming numbers of missiles already in stock new seekers could be developed and used on the aircraft in the inventory that have no internal capacity to carry weapons like Su-27/-34/-35, Mig-29/-31/-35 etc.
They would also be good for export as there are modifications of the R-27 for use in older fighters with upgrades (Mig-21-98, Mig-23-98 etc) that in some areas exceed the R-77 in performance... particularly the existence of an IR homing model.
The R-27 models are around 250kgs while the larger R-27Es are 350kgs so there is more room for more powerful rocket fuels and new maybe dual seekers than in the 175kg missile that is the original R-77.
For larger targets where terminal manouver capability is not so important the 40kg warhead of the R-27 series will probably be more effective than the 22kg warhead of the R-77.

Mach 2.5 for the R-27 v.s. Mach 4 for the AMRAAM?

And how much R-27AEs does Russia actually have?

The R-27E has a much bigger rocket motor than the basic R-27.

Head on range for E model R-27s is 130km from high alt high speed launch.

The R-27E was designed for the Su-27 and is widely deployed in at least 4 variants, including the ET (IR BVR), ER (SARH BVR), EP (ARM for aircraft radars BVR), and the modified version for use over water for the Su-33.

The R-27 is currently likely the most common Russian BVR missile in service even today.

Lol, high speed launch, yeah, so subtract 30% off from that 130 km and we get: just over 100 km!

I know that we're talking maximum range here, but if the US test fired our AMRAAMs in outer space it's range would be marked with hundreds of miles.

So why not cancel R-77 and integrate whatever good came out of it to R-27?

Because the R-27s huge front butterfly wings make it tricky to carry internally. The R-77 with its tail grid fins folded forward is ideal for internal carriage.

But...they're just wings...I'll lob off deltas and smack on some potato mashers, sounds simple.

But, they don't.

Says you. The Russians aren't stupid. Most current export customers of Russian fighters wont care about internal carriage so the only difference between the R-27 and the R-77 is that the R-27ET is bigger and heavier and much longer ranged and passive IR guided... absolutely ideal for those planes that try to run.

But as Vlad said, they aren't the bit maneuverable? How do you even expect to catch a F-35 if your end game kill box is tiny?

You know, you should come to America, become a comedian, and make lots of money. You're a funny man. Here's my flow chart of your thought pattern.

Don't want to sound mean but I would say the same about you except your chart would be:

Merica= better than everything else in the world.

Mig-29 crap.

F-35 is best in the world... there is no situation where an F-35 could fail. Experience at fighting bunnies tells me that merican planes are the best in the world and nothing even on the drawing board can defeat what merica will have in service in Maybe 4 years time.

Russia doesn't need planes to reach New York. America is a non issue. It is a huge boxer that likes picking on kids. We Russia is not a boxer and isn't particularly fit, but he has a hand gun and I really don't think he would have any problem using it to shoot the boxer in the hip or shoulder if that boxer starts throwing real punches.

Lol, then you should obviously read this thread again because I haven't said that the F-35 was invincible but only not susceptible to the tactics you're using. And obviously you should read my posts more clearly because I already said in a thread far far away that we're out matched by Russian Nukes, AShMs, and Ballistic missiles. So before you actually go try prodding my skin, read.

You gonna try to spam missiles again? We have more!

You just don't get it do you?

There is no chance of a direct conflict between Russia and the US simply because each one will not know when the other will go for the throat so both will be on a hair trigger and if you overstep the mark it will go nuke... and you really can't be sure what that mark actually is... only they do... when you step on it.

But...you suggest that a conflict will occur in so many posts...other wise you wouldn't have brought up S-400s against B-2s, because I can understand Buks/Tors/Pantsirs v.s. B-2s because those medium-short range SAMs would be the first line of defense for a country like Iran against a country like the US, but when you brought in the S-400 it was a total Russianization. But my point still stands, our B-2s have the range, it's missiles (JASSMs) have the range, and it's payload is large enough to handle Buks/Tors/Pantsirs. What one should do is purchase Aircrafts with uber IRSTs like the Su-35 to handle B-2s instead of using a surface force.

No freedom for the oppressed eh?

Screw the oppressed. If they want freedom and rights then let them fight for them. It is not my job or your job for that matter to save the world.

Non-interference eh? And you say we are blind.

Right, and you think I ever supported that?

Not saying you did, but question why you seem so certain a regime that will do that on your behalf will tell you the truth about the F-35 and F-22 for that matter. They cost trillions of your tax dollars... they are hardly going to say "sorry, Russia isn't a threat and stealth planes are not worth sh!t against terrorists or in the war on drugs." "No refunds". Please vote for us next election... it is a two party system and they Oked these white elephants too.

Uh, you should watch MSNBC then. On that matter, Russia is only the supplier, because Colombian cartels have been looking for weapons that can take down our Enforcement troops for a long time, getting Iglas or advanced SAM isn't making us comfortable.

See: Soviet Union

Estonia goes, "WHY?1"
Latvia goes, "WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?!"
Lithuania goes, "THIS IS ILLEGAL!"

Seriously, do I have to go on?

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were Soviet Republics and plenty of Russians suffered under the soviet system too... how about an apology from the Baltic states?

Or better yet, they are little countries like Haiti and Grenada. Big countries like Russia and the US don't need to respect their rights of sovereignty and they certainly don't need to respect their borders... unless they develop nuclear weapons.

Because Russians were the dominants in the Soviet system? And you just keep avoiding my questions, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belarus, etc, all fairly large countries, oppressed by the Soviet system led by Russians, yet you're asking for an apology? Yeah, right.

Imagine, Israeli air space.

Israel is tiny. A few bio weapons and they would collapse.

Bio weapons are for those who can't fight an honorable war. And who'd be the better man then?

I'm just saying man, if Egypt wants good fighters, they should be good boys and buy from America.

Fixed for ya...

I'm just saying man, if Egypt wants good fighters, they should be good b!tches and buy from America... or else feel the economic and political isolation that America can impose on a country that rejects it.

Yet the OP of this thread has a computer and Egypt is still a bad boy to us? Lol, if you want good fighters, buy from America or Sukhoi, MiGs are shit.

lol, such an uncreative mind are you? It was a metaphor, which means: "The concept of understanding one thing in terms of another."

I know what a metaphor is. Mustangs are still over rated junk.

Which is again, irrelevant.

What I meant was, your launch platform isn't as relevant as what you're launching.

I know what you meant. It doesn't make you right however.

A C-5A Galaxy could be fitted with an enormous radar and hundreds of AMRAAMs but it is simply not able to go fast enough or fly high enough to give its missiles extra reach. In comparison a Mig-31 flying at Mach 2.84 at 20,000m could kill a C-5 Galaxy at 200km without problems using an R-37 missile.

Or do the same with a B-1B, it works.

But again, your problem is that you are saying that high altitude and high speed is everything for a missile, which I'd agree if we were in Space, but we're not. Put R-37s on that C-5 and it'd kill the MiG-31 anyways.

Never learned the Scientific method? Get a larger sample size. The AMRAAM has been used successfully against a handful of crafts.

Who cares about sample size. This was a real engagement against a real target. Perfectly valid.

Science cares about sample size. Unless you reject science and substitute it for propaganda?

Who says were firing one? Oh yeah, S-300s can shoot 10 targets, well we'll just shoot more! At the end of the day, our launch platforms are unharmed while you're at our mercy, we'll eventually have victory.

Actually a S-300 battery could probably deal with about 50 targets, and that is ignoring the other missiles supporting them like Pantsir which carries 12 x 12km range SAMs and has two 30mm cannon too.

The point is that to fire lots of missiles you will need lots of platforms and those platforms will have to operate from somewhere... a somewhere the Russians could easily attack in revenge against an attack against Russia.

Perhaps you've read one too many Soviet manuscripts. "Putin said it can kill 50 targets, why did it only kill 10!? THOSE LIARS!" Vlad posted a video of a news story of a S-300 killing 10 targets in however much time, that can be confirmed, what you're saying, isn't.

"Somewhere" is usually home or the sea, because we have the reach of a Superpower.

Egypt has Buks, Tors, and Patriots. Nothing JASSMs can't handle.

Even OSA (SA- can deal with subsonic cruise missiles. TORs and BUKS and even Patriots would eat JASSMs for breakfast.

Oh sure, if you were to put low-frequency long band radars to anything, you might see a reduced RCS JASSM, but by then it'd be about 50 km out and there'd be about 100 more behind each one. Good luck!

But it's all for defense! If I have to buy a gun from a criminal I'd buy it!

Now you say the US is a criminal? Most law abiding countries don't buy from criminals when they can. They often choose not to accept what their enemies will allow them to have but instead try to buy from neutral countries that treat them like adults. They could buy Rafales.

lol, stop shoving words into my mouth because you obviously missed the metaphor.

The Criminal whom I'm referring to was Russia, which you've obviously missed by cropping out my statement.

I'm afraid of Egyptian pilots getting killed because people like you lied to them.

Yeah, cause you just care about egyptian pilots...

It's better than you whom only care for Russia and not for the sake of the world. :attention

MiGs are crap, get Sukhois or F-15s.

F-15s... they can't have. I have told you, you naughty little sand country somewhere near the pyramids of some Geeza. The Russians have offered Migs. Egypt turned its back on the Soviet Union some time ago and as far as Russia is concerned it might do it again so I really don't think they will be offered the latest stuff straight away. BUK and TOR were in service in the 1980s and are not exactly new either.

Jeez, I didn't realize you thought Egypt was stagnant and didn't improve or worsen relations with other countries because they could buy F-15s if they did 7 little favors.

Yay! Proliferated world! Anthrax spores for everybody!

Back to your time out Garry.

Anthrax? Kiddy stuff... more like weaponised Ebola.

Or maybe the Andromeda strain? Yeah, I lost my tin foil hat for a bit.

Didn't Indian planes get melted down into kills by USAF pilots? They aren't complaining now, but that's just because they want to stay friends.

AFAIK Indian pilots kicked USAF ass and won over 90% of the simulated engagements... even without using their radars in their proper modes to keep their frequencies secret.

Should check some testimonials. The IAF (Indian Air Force) got literally melted down and turned into FOD for future adversaries.

Never heard of welding?

What... no band aids?

Couldn't afford them Putin said

For the sake of mobility! You, Russian, know of mobility!

Hahahahaha... the Merkava 4 could gain another 5 tons and the mobility would not suffer because it was not very mobile to begin with.

Quit joking around, you obviously never had 5 tonnes on you before.

BECAUSE IF OUR WEAPONS WORKED FINE LIKE PUTIN SAID, WE WON'T NEED A GUN RIGHT?

Guns on a fighter are not backup. Try firing a warning shot in peacetime to make a civil airliner land when all you have are missiles.

IMO, should of just bought radios. Oh wai- we do. So again, learn the word, "Redundancy".

Yet whenever I say and prove something that Russia did wrong or are doing wrong, you automatically accuse the US as being the wrongdoers? You aren't really mending the situation by getting pay back.

No country has clean hands. The problem I have is the west preaching to the rest of the world. How do you think the west got so rich and powerful? By pinching stuff off the natives... that is how. The ME never went through an industrial revolution, they never understood fully what Europe was doing with all that black liquid stuff they craved so much. Of course much of it was done centuries ago... but it makes embarassing reading.

But we've already apologized to the Natives, and what I've been saying all along is that Russia hasn't apologized to the CIS, as far as I know that is. What you've done is instead of answering my questions you just skipped over them to attack me and make me answer instead of for yourself.

You misunderstood my previous statement, here's a dumbed down version: "The lifestyle of US = bad guy and RUS = Good guy is not the life style for me, and I think you should dump it". Never recommended any other life style, but I think it's best not to have a hero or a villain as both the US and RUS has done wrong that has yet to be mended.

How about I explain it to you in plain terms.

I am the athiest here. I don't believe in good and evil as such. Humans are capable of either and good people can do bad just as bad people can do good.
I don't hate America. I would have to care about America to hate it and I honestly don't think about America very much at all.
I don't think Russia is pure and innocent either, but one of these two countries seems to have decided it is the world police. It seems to think it has the right to impose its political system on other countries, that international law does not apply to it yet it will demonise other countries for not meeting its very high standards without ever considering whether it meets its own standards itself.
If the US disappeared completely off the Earth tomorrow I would not miss it. I don't know it and quite frankly it doesn't appeal to me enough to make me want to get to know it.
Even if it did practise what it preached I don't think we'd ever be close friends because it is a little preachy and likes to show off by demanding it has the best. My computer is not the best latest super dooper computer in the world and that really isn't a problem for me. My dick is not so tiny I have to compensate by having the biggest or best... which reminds be of a fitting joke... a huge biker goes into a prostitutes room and drops his trousers and out pops a tiny penis maybe 1cm long. The Hooker takes one look and blurts out "Who is that supposed to satisfy."
To which the biker replies "Me."

So you're an Individualist. Understand this, if America were to dissapear tomorrow, Russia will replace us. If goes Russia, China will. Someone is always going to be the Superpower, whether you like it or not. That someone will always shove whatever Morals it has down your throat, whether you like it or not. Why is this? Because without one extreme, you will not recognize the other. America is also here to provide a reference point for morals, what is considered consensus and what is considered non sense. We are also here to provide mediation in the world, because whether you like it or not, a lot of people hate us, but many more adore us. We do not use that admiration for whatever belligerent purpose many accuse of us, because this same damn speech has been given over and over by the father of my father and the son of my sons. We have done bad things in the world, I've admitted it many times, and I'd admit it again. But how much good have we done? How much good have you've over looked? Many? None? Many people in Iraq might as well look in disdain at the trail of blood we've left behind but that is the short term no? How will they and their sons enjoy the life that we have left 10, 20, 30 years from now? They say Democracy is bad but for a country that has never had one it is a trial, and like many experiments before, there will be errors. Sure, you can say that their integration into a world of Democratic Capitalism is only going to exploit the poor and mobilize the rich but the true question is if they are content. Sometimes the ends justify the means and other times it doesn't. So bottom line, before you call us for what you think we are (a collection of rich, belligerent, interventionist racists who only look out for ourselves) then I can only ask you to look deeper into our people and our character.

Of course, you could of just always not asked the right people.

It is the west in the 21st Century... who cares what the people think... it is trial by media. Let big business media giants tell you what to think... 1984 came late. Don't think for yourself or someone will say "If you don't love it... leave". Or more cutting "If you are not with us then you are with the Terrorists!"

The problem with that is that the alternative is to listen to more media because your sources are mostly people educated by media anyways so if you want another Orwellian, you'd have to spend your life contemplating society in a forest.

Yes, and power their new society with massive Energy converters of the people! Laid upon the ground where villages once stood. Yeah, Afghanistan collapsed right after all those Communist thoughts and I have a feeling it's going to do the same to our Democratic ones.

America has found valuable minerals in the ground... it will at least keep a token presence there even just to extract that.

Of course for the Afghan people, US funding for bombs and weapons stopped the instant the Soviets left and there was no rebuilding assistence or support.

Which of course could be a good thing or a bad thing for Afghanistan.

The problem with that is that we weren't the ones in Hinds strafing.

Because what you're asking us is like asking Pakistan to rebuild Afghanistan after we leave because they funded most of their shenanigans.

You seriously need to visit America and have a chat or two with some folks here, your view of us is pretty damn similar to our view of Russians,

Your view isn't changing, I doubt mine would either.
Besides who wants to apply 3 months in advance and get finger printed and cavity searched just to visit US soil... no thanks.

So you'd much rather dump away a chance to look at the other side of the fence just because you don't want a hand up your ass? I would; I'd learn Russian, visit Russia, I'd learn Mandarin, visit China. Because my views change, they aren't going to be stagnant, and although I do admit my arguments do come off as hard headed, you yourself is hard headed so there's no point in being soft headed in this argument because the only way I'll punch a hole through the wall you've built is to be harder than the wall itself.

So, it was a, "we're good buddies, but we aren't being Communist" type of thing? Because US coming in there and talking shit isn't much of a cassus belli for: 1. Soviets invading 2. Soviets killing over a million people 3. Afghanis killing thousands 4. More Internet war porn.

Perhaps you might want to read up about it before making assumptions. The CIA didn't just pop in to Iran to suggest he take over for a while... and they didn't do it that way in Afghanistan either. Afghanistan was not a communist country but they weren't a democracy either. Their army was largely armed along a mix of legacy British (ie 303 rifles) and Soviet gear. After they had a few coups and had a few ambassadors and their families executed the Soviets were invited in to help with some problems.

It was basically a civil war largely funded by the US and Saudi Arabia that the Afghan government couldn't fight on their own so they asked for Soviet support. The resulting conflict lasted 9 years.

Which of course, as we know, ended in nothing. America intervened, Soviets intervened, and the resulting clash; nothing.

But the original point stands, Russia doesn't keep the very best for themselves and instead sends them to India.

Not really. Russia sold what people wanted to buy but couldn't afford to buy some stuff herself.
Well correction... chose not to spend money on their military till they had a few things sorted out first. Now most of those things have been sorted out and they are starting to buy the new stuff again, especially in priority areas like command, control, communications, computers, intell, and aircraft and new munitions.
They are also spending on their navy. They never stopped spending on strategic weapons and have managed to fill most of the gaps created by their early warning stations now being located in foreign countries with the break up of the Soviet Union.

All the while leaving the money in the hands of Russian fat cats while boys on the front line had to do with mediocre equipment? There's a reason why I supported the F-22, even though it might as well bankrupt us.

As a wise Croatian friend of mine said and is paraphrased, "Money is irrelevant when the quality is superior". So, until next year, my statement stands firm, "Russia has crap Sukhois, India has good Sukhois."

Well I think the Su-27SM is far superior to the original and in many aspects is not much different from the Su-30MKI. An R-77M will have the same flight parameters launched from both aircraft.

The Plane itself might be similar, but electronics are the Brains of the plane and Su-30MKIs are better in that aspect.

Wasn't directed at you, Russia in general (as if they're actually going to read this). But no, having your Internal components upgraded is not a new plane, simply a modernized one. We call those Upgrade blocks. A new plane is the PAK-FA, Su-35s are just modernized.

Russian design bureaus can call them what they like, it is the Russian military that actually makes the decision.
Personally I really don't care much what they call them... Talking about Su-27SM and Su-35S aircraft is quicker and easier and more straight forward than talking about block upgrades. Expecially when you have a Block 20 F-16 and give it most of a Block 60 upgrade except for parts from the Block 50 upgrade that results in performance on par with a block 40 F-16.

Because we don't call our block 60 F-16s F-16DM (deep modernization) just to make people want to the new version, we just scrap the old version and sell only the new one.

Which doesn't change a thing about how IFF works! If India has problem, Russia has too, time to send in the RPE (Russian Private Eyes)!

It is the electronic warfare suite that manages that stuff. The IFF equipment just sends signals and codes and enters the information into the EW suite.
Very simply you could point an IFF interrogator at an aircraft and send a signal and get a response. Obviously that can be used to track aircraft without using radar... simply by IFF automatic responses. Modern IFF systems are more cagey about who they reply to and when so as not to give themselves away and need to be set up properly. The Indians will not be using Russian codes and settings because they wont even know them. Even during the cold war the PVO, Frontal Aviation, and naval Aviation would not have the same IFF codes, radar frequencies, and missiles.

Of course, which leads to Team killing.

If they know they're pretty stupid, does that make them pretty stupid?

If they know they are stupid and they are right then you have to accept they are pretty stupid. If they are wrong they are pretty stupid to think they are stupid.

Why must you keep cropping my sentences?!

It was a rhetorical question if you didn't notice.

But we're not even communicating! You're the one with radars up!

One site might operate radars with half a dozen sites getting air picture information from those radars with their radars off.
Or 6 sites might take turns turning their radars on and then shutting down and moving. The options are extensive.

Or one site has radars up giving 6 sites their radar image so we just attack those 6 sites.

I can see it from below far away. Still have the initiative, waiting for it to turn it's back, AMRAAM!

And you assume he can't see you. With height he has the high ground advantage. His missile dives on you, while yours has to climb for him... and of course it all falls apart because aircraft operate without wingmen only in crap computer games where one plane can take on an entire airforce and win.

Because he can't see me...I've told you this Garry, so many times

Bullocks! We won Air dominance fair and square, we weren't going to do anything else, I swear!

And Russia trusts you... like Putin would trust Saakashvili with a knife to putins nutsack.

That's a bad analogy, it's like we're 2 boxers and I just knocked you out, so your Coach gives you a gun to shoot me, which is so unfair.

How will Russia be remembered? The ones that shot first, at the kid who threw punches.

I rather doubt there will be any around to remember.
Any that survive would have no way of finding out what happened. CNN would hardly tell the truth would it?

Ahahaha, my point has been proven exactly. Honor is something lost on you.

Hey, wait a minute, you don't have any sophisticated ground attack equipment do you? Oh right, that was those MiGs, tsk tsk, too bad they couldn't out run bullets.

What? The Su-34 is a dedicated striker like the F-15E. The Su-35 has just as much air to ground capability as the Su-30MKI. The Mig-33 probably has better capability but a more narrow range of ordinance.

But we're talking Su-35 v.s. MiG-29...the enemy is THAT way Garry!

hey guys
i'll take 2 days to read all these words
i want to give asurprise
we finally be sured that egypt alredy get 40 mig 29,,see pic.
from FAS website


www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934407.pdf

no doubt now that egypt got it...
some years ago,,an israelian diplomtic said that egypt got 40 new planes from aforign contry...we get it after gorge push refused to give us adeal about f16 when we refused the war over iraq (2003).....