US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Billy T, Jan 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,507
    Nope.

    Yes, there is a receiver on the missile (the seeker head) but the primary receiver is on the ship, as is the transmitter - which makes it monostatic - otherwise the damn ship wouldn't know what to shoot at.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Certainly there is a receiver on the ship as well as a transmitter, but that is NOT the Aegis/ SAM radar system. That is the radar system which constructs the air space picture. It works to do that all the time.

    The Aegis radar can continue to do that surveillance job even when it is also the transmitter part of a bi-static radar system with the SAM missile housing the receiver part of that bi-static radar system. I.e. when the SAM is nearing the attacking threat*, the shipboard radar transmitter "paints" the attacking target with a strong narrow radar beam for the SAM's receiver to get reflected, Doppler up shifted frequency, EM waves from to guide itself to intercept the target.

    --------------
    * The shipboard monostatic radar system is of course tracking the SAM as it flies out and does send general guidance cmds to the SAM, especially if the target makes any significant trajectory changes such as a “dog leg” towards another ship.

    SUMMARY: The fact that the Shipboard radar is most of the time only a monostatic radar system operating by its self does not cancel the fact that when it is working with the SAM to intercept a target, it is the transmitter part of a bi-static radar system.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. beanra Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    russian

    first raptor and f-35 are not invisible or completely stealthy. have listen to lockheed or military when talking about the planes! it is always they have stealth like capabilities. that a big difference! had a argument with a guy the other day who always believe what he is told and what military says! i said they show up on radar about the size of a bird! he was well not looking for birds and birds dont show up on radar! was blown away by that i said yes they do. in fact we have to move commercial airliner sometimes cause the birds on the radar such as the geese from canada! second you think the russia wont catch on or think something is weird when 4 to 8 birds flying very high at mach 1+ are coming into their airspace? yeah! even so raptor can shot them down from far distance before seen he said! i said there is your other problem we believe in and really is old thinking and the same bad thinking we had going into vietnam! missiles, missiles! see once our plane opens it's bay downs to fire it's stealth like qualities are gone second they can see those missiles not like it destroys them soon as they are fired. cause every time i hear our pilots talk it shoot at them from 25 miles out +. thats alot of distances and time for russian planes to counter! second
    manuv. any missile now cause missile dont have or cant move like these jets only cause just a long tube with a rocket on it cant stop or turn on a dime! the way we are starting to think again i heard a retire general say after seeing these russian jets up close. he said americans are starting to believe dog fighting is over cause of advance tech and alot of that comes from lockheed and others. well we thought like that before and believe it going into vietnam. we had missiles and are superior even to the fact we didn't put any guns into the f-4. well reality hit us hard cause can only carry so much missiles 6 maybe than what shown yourself and now if like vietnam we will lose alot of planes and pilots cause of dog fighting and we weren't prepared against the russian mig's. if you look at the russian jets they build them like tanks and to where a teenage boy can fix with a ball bin hammer. where we have to have 25 tech just to find and try to fix our planes cause thats the way lockheed likes it and builds planes! i myself have gone over to russia and was able to fly in a mig-29 and a su-27 believe me these planes are amazing and those were the older models. it's sad we have atarted training are pilots to believe this stuff that they are untouchable superior and watering down their training cause of. the best example is when we train against the german pilots in red october! we have to tell the germans to hold back even put them in older jets cause it's not about training our pilots to be the best more than it is to show them and than pass them through as if to say coming out better pilots. especially when really not. once heard a german pilot who really didn't like the fact he had to hold back and didn't understand why the american didn't train to be better and learn from aggressive training. because he said for him and the other german pilots it's about climbing into that plane everyday and learning something new. cause the day they stop learning is the day they retire!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Odin'Izm Procrastinator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,851
    Some arguments are a farse,

    1. Russians created the basis for stealth 20 years before the US, but the proposal was trashed by the Union, and it was a Russian physicist (Petr Ufimtsev) who was responsible for advancing the US stealth program.

    This aside the next generations of aircraft such as the PAK-FA employ stealth technology, current prototypes and to some extent the SU-35 have stealth aspects added. The problem seams to be a lack of recognition in Russian political circles of its usefulness.

    2. The IbrisE and other next generation PESA arrays allow Russian fighter aircraft to engage cruise missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles as well as fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft, such as the F-22 and F-35 at 80-90km. With a range of 400 miles on normal targets, and capacity to track 30 airborne targets while engaging 12, their cited performance figures exceed those for the APG-77 used in next gen US aircraft such as the F22.

    3. Is there really a competition in air-to-air missiles? everyone knows that the soviet union won the missile race, this technology finds it's way to Russian air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, which not only have better maneuverability than western counterparts, but greater speed and range. Even the aged russian AA-10 (R27-ER) has twice the range of the US AMRAM system, the R-37M has a range almost 5 times the AMRAM, and a more sophisticated targeting system. R-77 is on par with the proposed Meteor system, and both use an air breathing engine, except the R-77 has a higher service ceiling.

    This misconception that the Russian aerospace sector is some stone age workshop is nonsense, it lagged behind in the 90's during the perestroyka, but with added investment it is back where it should be.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  9. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Well seeing as the planes take less then a second to open, fire, and close the missile doors and that radars rotate the transmitters and receivers then unless your radar sweep is at the exact right place at the right time you would never notice it.

    And the F-22 is armed with a gattling gun.

    I can't even get what your saying, and I hate to break it to you, no shit sherlock, there was nothing you said that I could actually understand that anyone with knowledge (meaning most of us) didn't know before.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page