[Descenterace]

Exactly. But missiles are still the easiest kill.

I'd want odds of two-to-one in my favour going up against the Su-47, but then, everyone likes to have a numerical advantage in a firefight.

[NGTM-1R]

Well, consider the state of the Russian military at present.

They aren't training much, and the -45 is largely an experimental aircraft. I don't think it's even in squadron service yet.

Besides, BVR multiple AMRAAM launches kill everybody.

[Kosh]

It said that Sukhoi is just now marketing it to the Russian government and to foreign buyers (that includes India and China amoung others).

I'm sure that there are plenty of countries who would love to get their hands on it.

[achtung]

I doubt its cheap though.

[EtherShock]

Nothing in the military is cheap, but that's because there's no competition.

Originally posted by Descenterace
Exactly. But missiles are still the easiest kill.

I'd want odds of two-to-one in my favour going up against the Su-47, but then, everyone likes to have a numerical advantage in a firefight.

Well, I don't know how missiles work in real life, but I was thinking of taking them down like dragons: launching missles at top speeds from a click out, or whatever the max range is and finish with guns if you have to.

[Descenterace]

The usual way a fighter dodges a radar-guided missile is a combination of chaff, active ECM, and hard jinks. If the pilot can break the missile's lock for a split second, that can be long enough for it to overshoot and most missiles aren't smart enough to come back for another pass.
If the pilot has plenty warning, ie. the missile has been launched from many klicks out, he can go nose-to-nose with it to accelerate the closure rate and decrease both his apparent radar signature and the time the missile will have to reacquire lock if it's fooled by the chaff.

Heat seekers usually lock onto a fighter's exhaust emissions and must therefore be launched from behind a target to stand a reasonable chance of killing it.
Since the missile tail-chases, nose-to-nose tactics aren't possible unless the aircraft can turn in its own length (not a good idea since a tight turn would sap a lot of speed, making the target a sitting duck). Heat seekers are usually short-ranged, too, so their flight time is in the order of one to five seconds. Dropping flares just before a hard jink is effective against heat seekers.
The Sidewinder missile (and one of Russia's more advanced missiles, codenamed 'Archer' IIRC) has a sensitive enough seeker head to lock onto the hot leading edges of a plane's wings, allowing it to track a target from almost any direction. These are hard to dodge without MAWS (Missile Active Warning System) but it's still possible.

Launching missiles from a long way away means using active radar (or having an AWACS providing targeting data) which gives away your location to the enemy. And it lets them use passive radar tracking to launch their own missiles at you. Add jammers to the mix and the number of possibilities skyrockets.
But yeah, air combat usually involves launching radar-guided missiles from about twenty miles, launching heat seekers at five, then finishing with guns if necessary (or just bugging the hell out and hope they don't follow).

Note also that the carrier aircraft's speed isn't going to affect the missile's flight time much. Externally-mounted missiles typically impose a speed restriction on the aircraft, and the speed restriction for launching them is even tighter. Once stabilised, a missile is dependant on its own booster to get up to speed (usually around Mach 1 or 2) which is independant of launch speed due to air resistance imposing an upper limit to the missile's velocity.

The MiG-25 'Foxbat' superfighter is actually capable of outrunning AMRAAM missiles. Its top speed is around Mach 3. The Foxbat is a big titanium jet built to chase B-1s down low.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Descenterace
Forward-swept wings mean that... uh... something about putting the control surfaces in the place where they can do the most. Gives much higher manoeuverability at all speeds.

no..

Forward swept wings give higher manuverabiltiy at lower speed. At higher speeds it has a negative effect..

or was it vice versa?

Oh..and about missiles - most missiles in the world fall below the Mach 2 category.. Really fast fighters can outrun most missiles.
Then again, there aren't many fighters than can go over Mach 2.5

[aldo_14]

From what I (well, a google search for "forward sweep wings" ) can tell, forward swept wings are both faster and more maneuverable (at that higher speed) - the main problem is structural instability and the material requirements for the wing.

[Descenterace]

Yes, that's right. The airflow departs from the forward-swept wings differently from standard designs. A smaller deflection has a greater effect on the airflow. I think they generate more lift, too.

Basically, forward-swept wings can be shorter than standard wings for the same effect. The problem is that greater forces are exerted on the materials in the wing, so ordinary materials are no use.

With deformable-skin technology, forward-swept wings are far more efficient. Microhydraulics can handle the massive forces required to reshape the wing in the airflow, and such precision control of the airfoil's shape allows for full realisation of the benefits of the forward-swept wing.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghost


No, but it might certainly cost the US thousands or millions of innocent lives. Or any other nation that Iran thinks sucks. Or for that matter, that North Korea thinks sucks. You'll notice we have them, but we don't use them? I highly doubt they'd hesitate to use them on us.

They probably feel the same way about you.  Certainly that's the justification they can use - at the end of the day, North Korea and Iran are far, far more likely to be attacked by the US than vice versa.

Nations don't just nuke each other because they think the other nation 'sucks'.  There's inevitable consequences to nuclear - or biological / chemical (which most nations next to Iran in particular will have... except Iraq) - weapons use, usually involving massive international sanctions and probably proportionate retaliation from the US (for example; depending on the armament of struck country).

This is not an argument for allowing Iran and NK to have nuclear weapons, incidentally - it's an arguement for not allowing anyone to have them.  So long as the US (and UK, France, etc - the Western nations particularly) have a nuclear arsenal, but seek to dictate what nations are 'worthy' of having them, it'll only fuel the paranoia and resentment of nations like Iran & NK.  It's simple hypocracy for a nation to say nukes are too dangerous for one nation, whilst building more and more itself.

[Ghost]

Yes, there is fallout and whatnot with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure whether the US should have them or not, myself - I'm just saying that I don't like for one second that hostile countries are developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  They have no regard for the costs that come with using them, whereas we do, although we keep ours. Like I said, I don't know whether I think the US should have them or not. I certainly agree with the decision to drop them on Japan, but that's ancient history.

Also, are you saying that you think Iraq doesn't have biological/chemical weapons? I mean, they sure as hell aren't going to, but we have discovered active weapons of that particular type there. The media just doesn't say it much, because it might make it seem like Bush was justified(heaven forbid!). Look it up; read accounts of the soldiers and Marines who have found them.

[ChronoReverse]

Originally posted by EtherShock
Nothing in the military is cheap, but that's because there's no competition.


Well, I don't know how missiles work in real life, but I was thinking of taking them down like dragons: launching missles at top speeds from a click out, or whatever the max range is and finish with guns if you have to.

Too much Freespace.  A click is spitting distance.


The AIM-54 Phoenix has range of 100 miles =D

You won't be able to counterattack regardless of whether you see your opponent on the radar or not.  By the time you're in range for anything, you'd have been plastered already.  I wonder if it's even possible except for the elite of the elite to dodge two slightly staggered shots.

[Descenterace]

Don't most cannons have an effective range of half a klick? I know the Zeus-23-4's lethal range is about 2 miles, which is just over 3 kilometers, but that's a surface-to-air weapon.

The AIM-54 is one of my all-time favourite missiles. Hellishly expensive, but that's not the reason they're not the primary air-to-air missile...
The reason is that each Phoenix weighs so godsdamned much most fighters can only carry two, or four if they don't want/need any other weapons.

I wonder how many Phoenixes could fit on a B-52's weapon pylons?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghost
Yes, there is fallout and whatnot with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure whether the US should have them or not, myself - I'm just saying that I don't like for one second that hostile countries are developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  They have no regard for the costs that come with using them, whereas we do, although we keep ours. Like I said, I don't know whether I think the US should have them or not. I certainly agree with the decision to drop them on Japan, but that's ancient history.

That's the sort of hypocracy i mean; that other nations are savages without the judgement to use nuclear weapons 'responsibly'.  That attitude towards them just encourages their insularity - remember, the US is a hostile nation to them, and one which poses a far greater threat than they do to the US.

Yeah, NK in particular is a bit of a nutcase state and I don't trust them one bit.  But, the inevitable consequence of all this sabre rattling will be to encourage nations to arm themselves with WMD - these nations know the consequence of launching a WMD attack on a Us ally will be similar, massive retaliation - it's not an offensive option for them, and everyone knows it.  So why would the US be so concerned, unless it was worried about them having a credible defensive option?  That's their viewpoint, and why stuff like the war on Iraq will drive these nations towards more rearmament and WMD programmes, not less.

No nation can be trusted with nuclear weapons.  As long as they even exist, they're a threat.  The thought that the US - or the UK, or France, or Pakistan, or India, etc - can be 'trusted' with these weapons in perpetuity is blind arrogance.

Originally posted by Ghost
Also, are you saying that you think Iraq doesn't have biological/chemical weapons? I mean, they sure as hell aren't going to, but we have discovered active weapons of that particular type there. The media just doesn't say it much, because it might make it seem like Bush was justified(heaven forbid!). Look it up; read accounts of the soldiers and Marines who have found them.

You'd be more advised to read the statements of the men hired, by the US Army, to actually find biological weapons.  Because they've said there are none; the original head of the Iraq Survey Group quit in 2004 saying there were no weapons to find, and the final report from the ISG concluded Iraq had no deployable weapons in 2003, and no production since 1991 - no proof of biological weapons existing since 1991.

 These are the people, hired by the US, to find weapons.  That's not 'liberal media bias', or any similar pish used to avoid the simple facts.  That's official confirmation there have not been any weapons found, nor are believed to be any.

[Ghost]

At your first half: I see your point in that nobody should be trusted with nuclear or other giant death dealing weapons of that sort. But you do know that the reason that we have all the nukes in those silos is because of the Cold War arms race? And did you know that both the US and Russia(I read this before 9/11, I believe; the decision could quite possibly have been reversed) have begun nuclear weapon cutbacks? As in, deactivating and dismantling existing warheads.

But yes, of course, you're right; they are a threat, no matter who uses them.

At your second half: I'm quite willing to look around for official documented statements about chemical and biological weapons, and not just hearsay. But looking at this thread, when I find them, it's probably going to be a few pages down the road. Do you mind if I PM you instead?

[karajorma]

Post them. We'll wait.

It's been a while since I read that article about the soldiers find a ten year old weapon that was apparently forgotten about by the Iraqis and seeing as how that's pretty much all you'll find I'd enjoy reading it again when you post it.

[Ghost]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Not weapons, per se, but rather the actual lethal chemicals themselves. Click, please.

This was a week or two ago.

EDIT:: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/iraq/main653731.shtml

Old, weakened, but still dangerous. The chemical in this case was "sarin." This article is dated Oct. 2004.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Ghost
At your first half: I see your point in that nobody should be trusted with nuclear or other giant death dealing weapons of that sort. But you do know that the reason that we have all the nukes in those silos is because of the Cold War arms race? And did you know that both the US and Russia(I read this before 9/11, I believe; the decision could quite possibly have been reversed) have begun nuclear weapon cutbacks? As in, deactivating and dismantling existing warheads.

Then why did the administration ask for an increase in the budget for 'nuclear weapons activites' of $332m (to $6.85bn), and implement a provision that would shorten the 'ready' time required for sites before a resumption of nuclear testing (from 32 to 24 months IIRC).  Or spend $6m or so investigating low yield tactical nuclear weapons of around 5kt?   Or begin a construction programme to build a new warhead plant to replace older warheads in cold war era weapons (rather than, say, decomission them)?

Most importantly, why did the US withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty?

Originally posted by Ghost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

Not weapons, per se, but rather the actual lethal chemicals themselves. Click, please.

This was a week or two ago.

[q]"He said the lab was relatively new, dating from some time after the invasion of Iraq in 2003."[/q]
So the manufacturing equipment is post invasion.  What's the odds the chemicals are also post invasion?

It's worth noting Polish troops have already captured insurgents trying to buy nerve gas; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3861197.stm  Although there weren't actually CWs (there was only a minute trace of Sarin in a couple of the warheads).

So still no evidence of WMD in Iraq before the invasion.  I believe some precursor chemicals were declared by Iraq to the UN prior to the inspections, anyways.  Whether they were secured post-invasion, I don't know.  Probably not.

Originally posted by Ghost

EDIT:: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/iraq/main653731.shtml

Old, weakened, but still dangerous. The chemical in this case was "sarin." This article is dated Oct. 2004.

Incidentally, it's possible to buy the components of Sarin over the net; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2949356.stm

More importantly, that article doesn't mention a single proven sarin gas warhead.  It suggests there might have been some there.  It was also a bunker inspected by the UN group in 2003; the only group saying there may have been sarin there was the ISG, who have already stated in a later report there was no WMD in Iraq.

Technically, any empty bunker *could* contain sarin gas rockets.  My house *could* contain a VX rocket in the garage.  That doesn't mean it does, and it's sure as hell not proof for a cassus belli.

[Ghost]

Incidentally, it's possible to buy the components of Sarin over the net

Yup. Bad security if you ask me.

As for the rest, I think I'm going to concede the point to you, because I honestly can't find any weapons/manufacturing facility articles that involve materials before May '03.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Then why did the administration ask for an increase in the budget for 'nuclear weapons activites' of $332m (to $6.85bn), and implement a provision that would shorten the 'ready' time required for sites before a resumption of nuclear testing (from 32 to 24 months IIRC).  Or spend $6m or so investigating low yield tactical nuclear weapons of around 5kt?   Or begin a construction programme to build a new warhead plant to replace older warheads in cold war era weapons (rather than, say, decomission them)?

Most importantly, why did the US withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty?

To be fair, Nuclear warheads do decay over time to the point that they lose the ability to reach critical mass.  They are made out of unstable elements, after all.  So if the US is to maintain a viable nuclear arsenal, that involves some continual production just to replace aging warheads (not that I necessarily advocate that stance, as I think the world would be a much better place without the concept of M.A.D.).  Also to be fair, properly retiring nukes isn't free, and while I don't honestly believe the budget increase request was to cover decommissioning, it is not totally out of the question either AFAIK.