It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

page: 23
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
No stealth is invisible. That's not the point of stealth. Stealth makes it much harder to detect you and makes the platform much more survivable. If the F-22 can detect the SU-37 at 70 miles, but the SU-37 can only detect the F-22 at 20 miles, then that's a HUGE advantage for the Raptor.




posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
well dude . . yeah the raptor is stealthy . . but not completely undetectable


true but its far stealthier than anything else out there and stealthy enough to be very difficult mayube even near impossible to detect at long range. the f-22 is designed to defeat any and all current and near future fighters at long range and is very good at this due to stealth and powerful radars.



. . . BVR actually means nothing here . . even the sukhois got a decent enough range to take care of the raptor at BVR . . . i guess the BVR that you are reffering to is with AWACS supprt


you read a hell of a lot into my posts. i was referring to the raptors radar which as far as i am aware is as good as most (and a damn sight better than lots) if not all other radars around. bvr does mean something here. bvr is the area the f-22 is designed for fighting in not close range dogfighting.


what i actually wanted to say is that sU 37 lies in the 5th generation catagory . . . . (along with the su47 berkut and mig proj 1.42 arguably the best air superiority fighters in the planet)


the su-47 and mig 1.42 are technology prototypes and therefore arent any generation fighter. and the su-37 isnt a 5th generation fighter i think its a 4.5, 4.75 at best.

justin



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No stealth is invisible. That's not the point of stealth. Stealth makes it much harder to detect you and makes the platform much more survivable. If the F-22 can detect the SU-37 at 70 miles, but the SU-37 can only detect the F-22 at 20 miles, then that's a HUGE advantage for the Raptor.


links plz . . . i dunno . . . but i dont think that the individual radar range of F22is 70 miles


. . and plz . . .there isnt a 4.75 generation . . actually there isnt even a 4.5 generation . . . ive never heard of it anywhere . . . and plz ont say that youve heard it in some post . . .

also justin dude . . like i alredy said . . if BVR is something to go by . . . . you are better off with a f14 why get a f22 . . ? ? ? . . regarding comparing the F22 and Su37 . . well . . i never intended to do that . . . . i just wanted to find its generation . . .



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I'm not saying the radar range is 70 miles, and radar is capable of tracking MUCH farther than 70 miles. I'm saying that IF the F-22 can detect the SU-37 or whatever at 70 miles, THEY won't detect the F-22 until say 20 miles. I just used those figures to show how stealth really works, and that it DOESN'T make you "invisible".



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
links plz . . . i dunno . . . but i dont think that the individual radar range of F22is 70 miles


Zap was using a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the advantage offered by stealth. But incase you're wandering the AN/APG-77 against a 5m2 target has a range of 230 Km or 143 miles. However its typical operational range is 125 miles because at this distances it can use its LPI systems. Or it can just use its passive sensors to detect the radar emissions of enemy fighters form hundreds of kilometers away.

Link
Link
Link
Link


Originally posted by srsairbags
. . and plz . . .there isnt a 4.75 generation . . actually there isnt even a 4.5 generation . . . ive never heard of it anywhere . . . and plz ont say that youve heard it in some post . . .


I suggest for clarification you read Intelgurl’s excellent post on this topic.

Link


Originally posted by srsairbags
also justin dude . . like i alredy said . . if BVR is something to go by . . . . you are better off with a f14 why get a f22 . .


Not at all, nothing could be more wrong.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
well dude . . . in a typical scenario . . . the f14s will have awacs cover . . and thus my BVR post is justified . . . and about inteligurlrs excellent post . . event that dont mention anything about generation 4.75 fighters . . . .
ill repeat again . . . i never wanted to compare the f22 with the sukhoi . . .i just wanted to know where it stands . . ( i which generation) . . . thats all



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by srsairbags
ok so where does the su 37 (terminator) fall . . ? ? gen 5 or 4.5 . . ? ?



i would say 4.5 maybe 4.75

justin


aww cmon dude . .
there is no such thing as gen 4.75 its a 5 gen fighter .
And im sure its a better fighter than the typhoon and rafale (thats for sure) . . the only thing that comes close woould be the f22 raptor . . . the terminator will out perform the F22 too . . when it comes to menouverability . . in the rest of the things they are quite evenly matched . . . .


Okay please stop this nonsense. Where you got your info about the SU-37 being at line with a F-22 is unknown. The SU-47 and MIG-1.42 are being scrapped as tech demonstrators and now being retired for the PAK-FA devlopment.
I highly doubt the SU-47 and MIG-1.42 where going to be 5th generation planes to begin with. The Typhoon could still out perform a MIG 1.42 and SU-47.
Will the PAK-FA reach its expectations >>>> i doubt it. Will it even be completed >>>>> i doubt it too.

The only thing i give RUSSIANS credit for is building

1. Air to Surface Missles
2. Superior Plane Manuverability
3. Planes very able in WVR engagements (especially in 10 NM)
4. ICBM s

[edit on 26-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
The only thing i give RUSSIANS credit for is building

1. Air to Surface Missles
2. Superior Plane Manuverability
3. Planes very able in WVR engagements (especially in 10 NM)
4. ICBM s

[edit on 26-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]


A while ago you were saying they stole everything from the US... Now you are giving them credit for 4 things, how generous of you. I won't be surprized if in time you turn into a 'russian commie' like myself


About the generation of Su 37. When designing it, the russians regarded it as a 4+ gen fighter, I think that is most accurate. Since we could hardly explain what a 0.5 gen fighter is, 4.5 just doesn't sound right imho.
btw, I think 4+ is a good gen description for Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Mirage 2000-5/9, F-18E/F and F16C/D bl60. This could be disputed but that's my opinion.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
As it happens Pazo, that is mine too. If you start subdividing generations with decimal points you are just going to end up with a tangled mess and the 'generation' of a fighter is not an official classification by any means but merely a 'filing system' in which aircraft of a similar vintage and capability can be grouped together for reference purposes.

I notice that the hang up is solely to do with what constitutes a gen4 or a gen5 and what comes in between. Nobody argues, or has ever argued, whether a Hunter is a gen1.5 or gen2 fighter or whether an F-4 is a gen2.5 or a gen.3. We are getting hung up over the latest generation because we are currently in a state of flux between 4 and 5 and noone is able to step back and make the definitive call yet.

I think a + is all you need to describe the F-18E,Rafale, Typhoon, Super Flanker etc which have clearly moved on from what is regarded as gen4 but don't have all the whistles and bells associated with gen5, so gen4+ it is.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55


I highly doubt the SU-47 and MIG-1.42 where going to be 5th generation planes to begin with. The Typhoon could still out perform a MIG 1.42 and SU-47.
Will the PAK-FA reach its expectations >>>> i doubt it. Will it even be completed >>>>> i doubt it too.


both the mig mapo proj1.42 and the su-47 berkut were classified as gen 5 by the moderator (intelgurl) go chek her post on generation classification . . . coming to the typhoon . . . what makes you say that itll outperform both its russian counterparts . . ? ? ?

show me sum proof dude . . .

[edit on 27-6-2006 by masqua]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
both the mig mapo proj1.42 and the su-47 berkut were classified as gen 5 by the moderator (intelgurl) go chek her post on generation classification


intelgurl isnt a mod shes a scholar.

i dont think that either the mig 1.42 or the su-47 can be given a generation number because they are technology demonstrators. if you actually read what intelgurl said


5th GENERATION
...
Sukhoi Su-47, should either of them ever see production.


so intelgurl never said it was 5th generation either.

is the mig1.42 the same as the mig mfi? or is it a different aircraft?

justin



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3


is the mig1.42 the same as the mig mfi? or is it a different aircraft?

justin

MFI is a program (set of requirements), stands for 'Mnogofunkzionalnij Frontovoi Istrebitel'- Multi-role Front-line Fighter.
MiG 1.42 or 1.44 is the winner in the 'MFI' competition
It was 'too little, too late'. Whole program was abandoned in favour of PAK-FA, which again is a program, not an aircraft. The Sukhoi project which was selected winner is called T-50 (based on Su-47). The production aircraft will probably be called Su-51 or something.
PAK-FA (perspektivnij aviatsionnij kompleks frontovoi aviatsii)- roughly translated: 'advanced arial complex of the airforce'


Hope this helps on the confusion of future russian aircraft



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
i really dont get it . . . what the hell was wrong with mig 1.42
. . it was soo good . . . . . anyways . . the PAK-fa (fisrt impressions) look totally like the raptor . . (aww man) . . . its got stuff luke the raptor too , , , stealthy-supercruise . . . blah blah . . . place for a huge radome . . (this is soo lame o sukhoi yto copy F22) . . . anyways . . more importantly . . is ot true that su47 program was re initiated by foreign funding . . .. ive heard that
now sukhois developing two planes . . both the pak fa and the berkut . . .



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
i really dont get it . . . what the hell was wrong with mig 1.42
. . it was soo good . . . . . anyways . . the PAK-fa (fisrt impressions) look totally like the raptor . . (aww man) . . . its got stuff luke the raptor too , , , stealthy-supercruise . . . blah blah . . . place for a huge radome . . (this is soo lame o sukhoi yto copy F22) . . . anyways . . more importantly . . is ot true that su47 program was re initiated by foreign funding . . .. ive heard that
now sukhois developing two planes . . both the pak fa and the berkut . . .


Well the 1.42 is by no means stealthy, and like such, it is no better than Su 27M, or at least not good enough to to be worth the extra cost compared to upgrading Su27. And in my opinion it was rather ugly, so I'm not really sorry it will be scrapped

Now I wouldn't worry that the T-50 (PAK FA is not an aircraft as I said above) would look anything like a F-22 (that would be awful) Those were 'artist impressions'. Don't worry, it will be a different bird.
As for Su 47, don no if it received funding from abroad, it is basicly ready for production, if somebody orders it, it will be produced. It's problem is the same as 1.42. It is not worth the extra cash compared to Su 27M. So I doubt it will ever be produced. The russian AF won't buy it and no one else will by a plane that is not in service with it's own AF (remember the excellent F-20 Tigershark?)



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   
. . .timing was the most critical thing for the failure of the tiger shark . . . if f16 wouldnt have been there . . it was an ideal aircraft . . . . .
also lack of spares at the parent country (US) was another reason . . .



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
No, the lack of a USAF order was the critical reason it failed to sell, it was offered in competition with a de-rated and J-79 powered version of the F-16 (F-16/79) and both options were viewed by prospective customers as 'second best shoddy goods' (even though in the case of the F-20 it was nothing of the sort) and so everyone plumped for buying the 'full strength' F-100 powered F-16A, just like the USAF had.

The F-16A was already in squadron service when the F-20 and F-16/79 were proposed so there was nothing Northrop could do about the timing.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Yeah, the second biggest problem of the F-20 (apart of not serving with the USAF) was that it was viewed by most as a hot-rodded F-5 (in fact it was called F-5G initially) Not Good. The aircraft was in fact much more capable than the F-16A regardless of engine used, but that resemblence with the 'cheap' F-5E sealed its fate. Anyway, still one of my favourite US designs.
With the Su-27/37 it's actually a similar situation, but unlike the F-5, the Su 27 has quite a reputation, so a hot-rodded Su-27 (Su37) is actually a strong selling point.
I'm so disappointed the F-20 didn't make it into production. I hope the Su doesn't go in history as a prototype.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Just an interesting fact to throw out, the raptor hada kill ratio of something like 108-0 in a military exercise.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by Laxpla]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Laxpla what exercise was that from? I know the 27TH FS beat the Red Flag aggressor squadron soundly over and over and over not too long ago, just wondering if that’s related.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
www.af.mil...

Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join