[Oxymoron]

Yea, screw the basic premise of law when it comes in conflict with your interest!

What?

[Dave]

Russia can't afford their good new aircraft.

Hence why they market them around the world.

[Zerogouki]

Honestly, they look so similar that when I first saw the 23, I thought it was a 22.

Anyway, after some careful consideration, I've decided that the 22 is slightly cooler-looking.

Unlike Treaties, people actually care about the Constitution.

Yes. Unfortunately, they make up approximately 0.3% of the US population.

Let me give you a lesson in reality, if a treaty is not in the interests of the United States it will be ripped apart and used for toilet paper.

...just like the Constitution.

[Igor Antunov]

we don't need F-22s to fight Russia and China.

Exactly, you need a miracle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_Triumf

When these laughably expensive things start turning into scrap metal in the air maybe the US will consider developing DEFENSIVE weaponry to defend it's interests.

[War Angel]

Oh yes, I can totally see the S-400 flying around, hitting targets and going back home safely.

OH WAIT.

(well, you could theoretically drop them off planes...)

[Igor Antunov]

The point of this aircraft is to counter russian technology, since even a ww2 vintage jet will be effective against the taliban, but the problem is, it doesn't counter it, because it is as vulnerable as any other to russian defensive systems. So what do you gain from this expensive toy that you couldn't have with an F-16?

[War Angel]

So what do you gain from this expensive toy that you couldn't have with an F-16?

That it's effective against 99.99% of the current weapon systems in the world, with the possible (and currently unproven, would be cool to see it in action) exception of the S-400.

You can't say the S-400 is 'better' than the F-22. The F-22 is a freaking plane, the S-400 is an AA unit.

[Igor Antunov]

You can't say the S-400 is 'better' than the F-22. The F-22 is a freaking plane, the S-400 is an AA unit.

But this AA system was specifically designed to counter such new generation aircraft, so we can definately compare their effectiveness, because this offensive weapon (the raptor) will be going up against this defensive weapon (S-400) in any high technology conflict. Essentially for every aircraft we have in the air, if there is a S-400 missile to counter it, we can compare their effectiveness.
Now if you want to do precision airstrikes without having air superiority, that's where the Iskander system comes into play. Couple iskander with triumf and you have the same offensive and defensive capabilities (possibly superior since missiles are faster and almost impossible to intercept) as an airforce without having an airforce or even air superiority. Add to that the fact that iskander and triumf are cheaper per unit than your average 5th generation fighter/bomber. Beautiful example of assymetric warfare.

The only advantage these aircraft have to a missile system as of now is power projection, but that's a perk only required for the agressor (which the US is always going to be seeing as it has to maintain an empire thousands of km away from it's borders). Plus you can always increase the range on the missile systems, thereby increasing your power projection.

[Oxymoron]

Essentially for every aircraft we have in the air, if there is a S-400 missile to counter it, we can compare their effectiveness.

A Good offence is always better then a good defence.

[Igor Antunov]

I don't think that old addage applies in this debate considering the effectiveness of modern AA missile systems. When you fire your missile at an aircraft, you have essentially unleashed a a flying bomb with far more speed and maneuvrability than any manned aircraft can hope to achieve, and it will be a one sided affair. Countermeasures are easily thwarted considering these missiles are guided not just by computer but by humans on the ground.

And once again the iskander is as precise as any strike aircraft and far less expensive. So the option for offensive is there, without throwing $150 million into a flying missile carrier that can be shot down.

[Zerogouki]

Are we absolutely sure that the Growler can intercept and destroy a B-2 Spirit?

How well would a Growler do against a barrage of several hundred cruise missiles fired from offshore?

[Igor Antunov]

Are we absolutely sure that the Growler can intercept and destroy a B-2 Spirit?

Presumably , since it was designed to shoot down all aircraft, current and with a fair bit of future proofing.

How well would a Growler do against a barrage of several hundred cruise missiles fired from offshore?

Growler can intercept and shoot down enemy missiles.

But, more importantly, how well would ships do against a barrage of anti-ship missiles fired from shore? Point is if you try the same old shtick against Russia or China as you did against Iraq or Afghanistan, you will get your shit sunk.

[Oxymoron]

AA missile systems. When you fire your missile at an aircraft, you have essentially unleashed a a flying bomb with far more speed and maneuvrability than any manned aircraft can hope to achieve, and it will be a one sided affair. Countermeasures are easily thwarted considering these missiles are guided not just by computer but by humans on the ground.

The AA missle System can be attacked you know, plus the command and control infarstructure can be taken out by Stealth and Cruise missles. Peal the onion type operation cannot be stopped by AA systems.

[Igor Antunov]

The AA missle System can be attacked you know

With what? If you mean cruise missiles, then how do you suppose their launch platforms will get within range before being attacked themselves? Russia for example has no shortage of missile systems, it's their primary coastal detterent. Anti-ship missiles are the standard and those based on land have far longer range and are far greater in number than cruise missiles carried on ships. A carrier fleet approaching the coast is a sitting duck, it is why carrier task forces are not designated to securing the coast, they must keep away as they become too vulnerable. They are designed to defend shipping on the high seas. Only against defenseless third world militaries are they used offensively to project power.

The whole point of the carrier task force was to protect allied shipping lanes from soviet submarines and arsenal ships.

[Oxymoron]

With what? If you mean cruise missiles, then how do you suppose their launch platforms will get within range before being attacked themselves?Russia for example has no shortage of missile systems, it's their primary coastal detterent. Anti-ship missiles are the standard and those based on land have far longer range and are far greater in number than cruise missiles carried on ships. A carrier fleet approaching the coast is a sitting duck, it is why carrier task forces are not designated to securing the coast, they must keep away as they become too vulnerable. They are designed to defend shipping on the high seas. Only against defenseless third world militaries are they used offensively to project power.

Well cruise missles can be launched from Subs.

In conjunction with attacks by

B-2, and Drones.

[Zerogouki]

Presumably , since it was designed to shoot down all aircraft, current and with a fair bit of future proofing.

And the Pentium 4 was designed to go all the way up to 10 ghz. Plans and claims do not equal reality.

Growler can intercept and shoot down enemy missiles.

Yeah, but HOW MANY? We have a hell of a lot more missiles than they have Growlers.

[Igor Antunov]

Russia has more missile systems than all of nato combined.

[War Angel]

Russia has more missile systems than all of nato combined.

And how many working, modern aircraft?

They're getting defensive, which is okay... but that can never lead them to supremacy.

[Igor Antunov]

And how many working, modern aircraft?

About 900 are state of the art modern, from a total of 2800. That 900 is like the airforces of france, germany and the UK combined. The rest range from obsolete (only useful against third world/small opponents such as georgia to only useful in newly adapted specialised/limited roles. Keep in mind even a mig-25 is deadly with the latest ordinance/weapons systems. About half the airforce is kept as backup, not all of these obsolete aircraft are active.

[Oxymoron]

Igor so you conviently ignored my post?