Russian S-300 anti-air weapon delivered to Iran

[gambit]

I guess S400 can encounter 5th gen air craft?

Yes...Absolutely...You go right on and believe that. In fact, we ernestly do hope that you believe EVERYTHING Russia and China tells you.

 

[applesauce]

Yes...Absolutely...You go right on and believe that. In fact, we ernestly do hope that you believe EVERYTHING Russia and China tells you.

shouldnt believe everything they tell us but why then should we believe everything the makers of stealth aircraft tell us?

 

[gambit]

shouldnt believe everything they tell us but why then should we believe everything the makers of stealth aircraft tell us?

Something called 'combat record'?

 

[applesauce]

Something called 'combat record'?

so then given me proof that any stealth aircraft of the usa has EVER been up against a S-300 or more interestingly a S-400

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

so then given me proof that any stealth aircraft of the usa has EVER been up against a S-300 or more interestingly a S-400

Both S-400 and F-22/35 are hyped up.........

 

[Spitfighter]

@applesauce,

You think they'd ever release details about the abilities of their aircraft? How's the missile going to lock on to the plane if it can't DETECT it?

You are free to believe in whatever you like, but even a technologically advanced country like Russia will not have the capability to effectively counter an F-22 or a B-2 for at least a decade.

 

[SinoIndusFriendship]

@applesauce,

You think they'd ever release details about the abilities of their aircraft? How's the missile going to lock on to the plane if it can't DETECT it?

You are free to believe in whatever you like, but even a technologically advanced country like Russia will not have the capability to effectively counter an F-22 or a B-2 for at least a decade.

You're making the assumption it can't be detected. Oh really?!

 

[Spitfighter]

and presumably you KNOW that it can?

 

[Thomas]

the only stealth aircraft I know of that have been used in combat are the F-117 and B-2. one F-117 was shot down during the Serbian war. But it was determined that the reason was mission planners had them performing the same mission every night for several nights at the same time. This was a violation of protocols that allowed the aircraft to be shot down.

There is a possibility the U.S. has a stealth spy aircraft capable of Mach 6 flight. Numerous sightings and Bureaucratic (Congressional budget) slips allude to this being possible. It was years before the SR-71 was unveiled from secrecy. And the F-117 as well. Such aircraft if they exist would regularly fly over Iran, Russia, and China.

I think also if the Russians had a radar that could effectively track stealth aircraft. They would be producing them in large numbers and selling them to other countries. Anything to be a thorn in the side of the U.S.. And negate stealth advantage the U.S. has. As well as make some much needed cash.

What are the advantages to Russia claiming they can track and shoot down stealth aircraft? So they can charge more money for the S400? It would not be the first time something they built didn't work quite as advertised. And how is it they tested the radars effectiveness at tracking stealth aircraft when they do not even have a stealth aircraft on the level of say the B-2 bomber or F-22. Computer simulations? Sorry but computer simulations are not always right.

Thats why I said earlier I guess we will see if they are as advertised.

 

[Thomas]

@applesauce,

You think they'd ever release details about the abilities of their aircraft? How's the missile going to lock on to the plane if it can't DETECT it?

You are free to believe in whatever you like, but even a technologically advanced country like Russia will not have the capability to effectively counter an F-22 or a B-2 for at least a decade.

Fighter pilots that have flown against the F-22 in red flag exercises. Report that even with the F-22 directly in front of them they can't get a radar lock. They have had to resort to guns rather then missiles.

 

[gambit]

the only stealth aircraft I know of that have been used in combat are the F-117 and B-2. one F-117 was shot down during the Serbian war. But it was determined that the reason was mission planners had them performing the same mission every night for several nights at the same time. This was a violation of protocols that allowed the aircraft to be shot down.

Called 'spray and pray' and given the truth presented, it was a statistical inevitability that at least one F-117 will be a casualty of this 'spray and pray' tactic. There is nothing for US to regret about developing 'stealth' technology. The concept worked in combat and beyond anyone's expectations.

And how is it they tested the radars effectiveness at tracking stealth aircraft when they do not even have a stealth aircraft on the level of say the B-2 bomber or F-22. Computer simulations? Sorry but computer simulations are not always right.

This kind of logical thought process and critical thinking skills are sorely lacking in these forums.

================================

so then given me proof that any stealth aircraft of the usa has EVER been up against a S-300 or more interestingly a S-400

Here is what you and so many others who sucked up to Russian and Chinese junks failed to understand about radar and 'stealth'...

That is called a 'radar range'.

That is a FULL SCALE model of an A-12/SR-71.

For the A-12/SR-71 model above, why are the vertical stabs not installed and the model is upside down at that? A valid speculation could be that they wanted to see the differences between a clean fuselage versus one with the stabs installed. The data collected could determine the optimum angle for the stabs for the final version. But the point is that in radar range testing, a radar pulse is just as good as a bullet or a missile and the only difference is that after a radar pulse 'hit' we can select the 'reset' button on the aircraft's design, go back to the drawing board and re-do the design.

The behaviors of radar waves on a single surface is not unknown. But on different dimensions of surfaces and finally on a body, which is a collection of surfaces with varying dimensions, we mastered the radar range testing process. The Russians have not. So yes...Based upon the B-2's and the F-117's combat record, we have a better than good estimation of how the F-22 and F-35 will fare against the S-300 and S-400. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese have even a functional FLYING model of the F-117's equivalent. A fully functional flying model is crucial in that the aircraft will present different aspects of itself to the transmitter(s) at different speeds and altitudes. Radar range testing will include multiple transmitters at different locations to establish baseline RCS figures. Then the flight figures will be compared against the baseline figures to see if any modifications are necessary.

Go back to the radar range facility image and take note of the concrete pattern. Those are deliberate designs to minimize ground reflections that could influence the result of the model mounted on the pylon. That level of detail is equally crucial as a flying model of a design. Without radar range testing, and such testing is NOT confined to aircrafts, any claim about any radar system or aircraft should be under suspicion. A missile battery's radar could be removed from the truck, transported to a radar range facility, baseline figures are established for the system's performance against various models of varying sizes, the radar system then is reinstalled to the truck and the whole thing sent out to an actual flying base to test against flying aircrafts.

For the B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35, their performance against the best of US radars, from Air Force to Army to Navy, are classified. But now you know, just a fraction, what is truly involved in radar testing these 'stealth' aircrafts may be you should not be so gullible about Russian or Chinese claim on their junks.

 

[applesauce]

never said i believed in the russian claim just that i would believe the us claim either, you responded by saying the combat record when it has NEVER faced a s-300/400

oh someone mentioned the the us wouldnt release records...well durrr no one gonna argue with you that the military keeps secrets just saying that the US would like you to believe their aircraft is undetectable/invincible like how the russians would like you to believe that their sams are godly

 

[gambit]

never said i believed in the russian claim just that i would believe the us claim either, you responded by saying the combat record when it has NEVER faced a s-300/400

It is about the TECHNOLOGY that has a combat record that no one else has.

oh someone mentioned the the us wouldnt release records...well durrr no one gonna argue with you that the military keeps secrets just saying that the US would like you to believe their aircraft is undetectable/invincible like how the russians would like you to believe that their sams are godly

In order to be able to detect a 'stealth' aircraft, it would be very helpful if you have such an aircraft. Does either Russia or China have any? And the US does not say our 'stealth' aircrafts are invisible. We say that it is extremely difficult to detect them.

 

[applesauce]

Called 'spray and pray' and given the truth presented, it was a statistical inevitability that at least one F-117 will be a casualty of this 'spray and pray' tactic. There is nothing for US to regret about developing 'stealth' technology. The concept worked in combat and beyond anyone's expectations.

This kind of logical thought process and critical thinking skills are sorely lacking in these forums.

wow you say other people lack logic but ur post about the downing of the F117 is absolutely wrong (thats absolutely as in completely)

it is not a statistically inevitability, places like Baghdad has some of the most dense AA concentration in the world outside of Moscow but not a single f-117s were downed there, the point is the sky is huge if as you claim the f-117 is truly completely stealthed then there is almost no way to hit it, the AA guns would have to be firing 24/7(not possible) to "spray and pray" even then the chances are low.

also do some damn research the downing of the F-117 in serbia is very well documented, the commander used scouts which saw the F-117s take off and we with his out dated sa-2 was able to down it because

1. he knew it was coming

2. he moved often to prevent the enemy from getting his location and taking him out

3. he switch his radar on only when he he knew the enemy was coming thus lowering his chances of being detected and taken out prior to firing a shot

4. the F-117 was NOT complete stealth, the radar operator of the SA-2 learn to look for the minute signatures of the F-117 thus he was able to down one.

but i do agree there is no need to regret developing stealth tech, it significantly lowers chances of being detected but that does mean it is undetectable..... (the titanic was unsinkable and what happened there?)

so next time think about ur own posts before calling other people out on lacking thinking skills

 

[applesauce]

It is about the TECHNOLOGY that has a combat record that no one else has.


In order to be able to detect a 'stealth' aircraft, it would be very helpful if you have such an aircraft. Does either Russia or China have any? And the US does not say our 'stealth' aircrafts are invisible. We say that it is extremely difficult to detect them.

uh huh yes.. its about the technology and that still hasn't been up against the s-300 when it has then we will all know whether or not what they say is true until then we can discuss all we want but whether a s-300 can or cannot detect stealth craft cannot be known for sure.

thats what i've been saying, the stealth planes are not invisible, i agree they are hard to detect,, but having a small chance of being detected means it can be detected so there's nothing to rule out that a s-300 cant detect a stealth aircraft(the russians never said how it is at that anyways). i am not claim anywhere it it definitely can im just saying as i did in the beginning that i would take both claims with a grain of salt until some thing more solid comes up