Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
well this means a lot of american "comon" people are thick. let me ask you this how do you know when someone has a lock on you?, yes because there radar system sends a pulse and is detected by yours.. The whole idea of stealth is not to be detected by radar
This is how the F-22's radar (APG-77) works:
"When operating as a radar, the APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If the enemy does manage to detect the signal, he or she must then try to get a radar lock on the F-22 so it can be attacked. The F-22's stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again."
The SU-37 would need a hell of a lot of luck to even get a lock on the Raptor, while doging the missiles.
you are always assuming that the raptor will see the SU first but stealth doest take away something called "sight".
With radar and infared satelites, raptors know where MiGs are and the direction they are headed long before they have a visual. Not to mention the raptor, unlike the SU, actually has a camoflauge scheme.
Plus, the Raptor can hit a target from 185 KM away. It can be quite a challenge to see something that far away.
Also, Otmo, about the things to block our satelites blah blah blah. You bring up a good point. Those could only be used assuming we are flying over Russian airspace. This would me we are the attacker. You see, both the attacker and the defender have certain advantages in a battle. One of the attackers advantages is being able to choose
when and where to strike.
Assuming the US is attacking Russia, we get to fly at night. This means you have pretty much no way of detecting the raptor, becuase you loose your best method of detection - the human eye. In other words, there's no sense in even putting your MiGs airborne.
and that missle thing, bullshit a missle couldnt possible know what the pilots next move is and the pilot would always be at advantage by seconds even if the missile see's what angle its moving and head for its "approximate" destination all the pilot has to do is too steer off.
Certain missles used by the navy can and do do that and are being developed to fit aircraft.
you're a american im not a american hes russian im not russian so i should be pretty impartial. and you see the raptor isnt a fighter its a fighter/bomber which means THEY HAVE COMPRIMISED IT so its not a good of a fighter so it can, basically bomb.
That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard you say. Another reason why it is very hard to take what you say seriously.
The Raptor was designed for air to air combat, however, just like pretty much every other fighter (including MiGs), it has air to ground capabilities. This means, if they need to take out a quick target, the Raptor can be armed on special conditions to attack a ground target, with missles loading only for that mission. Let me repeat this one more time: just about every fighter in modern warfare (INCLUDING MiGs) has A2G capabilities. It in no way make it any less a fighter, but a more useful combat machine.
let me get this through your head americans have about 12 raptor prototypes and guess how many sukhoi's the russian have..... yes a ****ing lot more than you
Numbers aren't one of the concerns. Raptors come into production in 2005, and the US and Russia are not going to be combating before than. We're talking about which is better, not who has more.
