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: 29
2
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
There is no way that any SU can out MANUv a F-22A, thats just plain non sense.
I am going to have to disagree with you.one reason would be that the su-37 can out manuvere a raptor.and there are even proof.like viedios.what proof does the raptor have any proofs??? becase i havent got any proof in all the years




posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
sorry about that i must have forgot to close the quote.so arfter the part f-22 cannot be out manuvered by the su family that would be my starting point



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
by the way have you heard of the penetration held in india.the contest between all the fighter plane.sukhois selected plane the su-32 managed to go through.according to what i heard no other plane could go in.so they were sent i n squadrons.

squadrons of five and the su-32 managed.(my brother told me all this from a magazine he read)



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by phsyco
by the way have you heard of the penetration held in india.the contest between all the fighter plane.sukhois selected plane the su-32 managed to go through.according to what i heard no other plane could go in.so they were sent i n squadrons.

squadrons of five and the su-32 managed.(my brother told me all this from a magazine he read)


Su-32? There is no Flanker variant with that designation. And trust me, it wasn't up against all of the fighters on the market.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devil Forger

There is no way that any SU can out MANUv a F-22A, thats just plain non sense.
I am going to have to disagree with you.one reason would be that the su-37 can out manuvere a raptor.and there are even proof.like viedios.what proof does the raptor have any proofs??? becase i havent got any proof in all the years

What videos were u watchin??? Listen next time u set up a rebutal against me use more than just opinion. Its a known fact any time a SU performs its so called SUPERIOR MANUV, its only because it was low speed, STRIPED from its combat stance (pylons, electronics, etc) or both.
YOU NEED PROOF
1. INTERNET > its all over the place
2. EVEN History Channel
3. READ my next post that WESTY put up already.


[edit on 5-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
External Source

www.worldaffairsboard.com...

It is eye watering to see what happens to bad guys in the air and on the ground when this airplane does it's thing, it's virtually untouchable when flown right, and I have 2000 hours of F-15C time + 3 tours over Iraq and 2 in Serbia (one being Allied Force) to back up why I know that, plus about 450 hours in the Raptor now including 3 years in the test world over the Nevada test ranges doing everything you can do with this jet - it's a remarkable machine we've built, it's truly a superfighter. It also has the integrated sensor suite that is top notch, you COULD build that into other fighters but you'd have to totally redesign them to make it so, and you'd end up spending so much that it's cost prohibitive - and since the sensors themselves are built into the aircraft all over the place under the skin you'd really have to make significant changes to get them even close to the Raptors sensor suite & integration performance levels. The situational awareness the jet provides is that good - it's like sitting in the ACMI shack watching a mission where each jet has a pod on it telling you where & what each player is doing, the pilot of a Raptor has that same level of information while flying - but he's getting it from the jets sensors alone not from anything else, it's better than an AWACS picture, we sometimes turn it off because we see the same thing they do and with higher fidelity. .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit... trimmed huge cut/paste from another board

From the T&C's
1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from AboveTopSecret.com LLP). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

You have a U2U

[edit on 5-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by phsyco
by the way have you heard of the penetration held in india.the contest between all the fighter plane.sukhois selected plane the su-32 managed to go through.according to what i heard no other plane could go in.so they were sent i n squadrons.

squadrons of five and the su-32 managed.(my brother told me all this from a magazine he read)


Su-32? There is no Flanker variant with that designation. And trust me, it wasn't up against all of the fighters on the market.

[edit on 5-9-2006 by JFrazier]

There is actually a variant with the designation Su-32, it is the two-seater bomber also known as the Su-34, I never did understand why it had two different designations...

A quick search on the internet reveals it.


But I am curious as to where your brother got this information as well, and from what magazine, never heard of the "penetration" excersises in India, they sound interesting.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Me too...
What penetration exercises involing the Su-32/34 were conducted in India?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:03 AM
link   
It was more like a competition.well the next time my brother comes home Ill try my best to find out what magazine he was talking about.

by the way let me give you something about the su-32


www.airshow.ru/expo/412/prod_208.htm - 40k -
The Su-32 two-seat fighter-bomber Is Intended to implement tasks of combat application on aerial ground and sea targets (including small-size and moving ones) during autonomous and group actions, round-the-clock under simple and adverse weather conditions with enemy`s jamming and flight informational counteraction as well as for aerial reconnaissance.
weaponry includes a wide range of unguided and precision corrected and guided ments with various homing systems (launch range up to 250km).


Its a two seater figher bomber.In ace combat 6 it says this thing has a small ktchen and a toilet in the back of the cockpit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
fixed link and added 'ex' tags




[edit on 6-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
Its a known fact any time a SU performs its so called SUPERIOR MANUV, its only because it was low speed, STRIPED from its combat stance (pylons, electronics, etc) or both.
YOU NEED PROOF
1. INTERNET > its all over the place
2. EVEN History Channel
3. READ my next post that WESTY put up already.



Is it?

I don't think anyone sensible could call a statement made by a pilot [especially one of a rival airforce] as anything remotely approaching a fact on the matter. So I assume you are referring to some other reference, could you please post it?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
by the way the devil forger guy would be me as well.I was banned from posting.I didnt know I had u2us until I was post banned.arefter i made the "devil forger" i saw that my account will always be denied.but fortunatley.i managed to tell masqua the truth and he decided to let me keep the account.so during the time i was banned on posting along with GI'd i was working on trying to deban myself.during that time I was posting by the name of devil forger.

so ghosTBR55.you might want to chat with me.by the way.I wacthed the video of the craft doing its stunt.I cant remeber where because my other brother was watching it.hes the fan of the su-family.practically the 2 of my brothers and me.
now you know the truth!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 06:37 AM
link   

orginally posted by shatterterd skies[
But I am curious as to where your brother got this information as well, and from what magazine, never heard of the "penetration" excersises in India, they sound interesting.

Shattered OUT...



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Me too...
What penetration exercises involing the Su-32/34 were conducted in India?

well my brother let me take a look on the magazine. its name was defence.its a military magazine they dont sell it to the public.just the military.since my brother was one he allowd me to take a sneak peek.not much.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Is it?

I don't think anyone sensible could call a statement made by a pilot [especially one of a rival airforce] as anything remotely approaching a fact on the matter. So I assume you are referring to some other reference, could you please post it?


You think he's lying? He knows more about fighter aircraft then all of us combined so I'll take his word for it. Forgive me but I wouldn't put it past the Russians to strip their air show aircraft of anything unnecessary for the demo flights.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You think he's lying? He knows more about fighter aircraft then all of us combined so I'll take his word for it.

Forgive me but I wouldn't put it past the Russians to strip their air show aircraft of anything unnecessary for the demo flights.



Why? Who told him? Are you saying a pilot has never told little white ones about how much his plane will kick anyone else's arse?


Exactly that attitude is probably why he has said it... probably a case of someone told a mate of a mate that said to him the russkies might be running light at airshows - and the rumour has grown. The quite common... I'll not say paranoia, probably distrust would be better, of many US citizens towards Russia would be a fertile breeding ground for such a rumour.


Until I'd see such an allegation from what I'd term an impartial source, I'll pay little heed. I don't want to cast doubt on the honour of the pilot that has said this - but if I was to use such a source in such an argument in say, a peer-reviewed paper, I'd be laughed out of the building.



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Why? Who told him? Are you saying a pilot has never told little white ones about how much his plane will kick anyone else's arse?


"Why?" Because people keep bringing up how Russian aircraft maneuver at air shows as proof that they are more maneuverable than the F-22. He said "reliable sources" what that means I cannot tell you, I assume other individuals involved in the military aviation industry and or even foreign pilots, maybe. Also, he never said the F-22 was more maneuverable than the latest Russian fighters, he did say however that it can do everything they can, and vice versa.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Until I'd see such an allegation from what I'd term an impartial source, I'll pay little heed.


Well ok, but I'll take his word for it.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Why? Who told him? Are you saying a pilot has never told little white ones about how much his plane will kick anyone else's arse?


Why?" Because people keep bringing up how Russian aircraft maneuver at air shows as proof that they are more maneuverable than the F-22. He said "reliable sources" what tat means I cannot tell you, I assume other individuals involved in the military aviation industry and or even foreign pilots, maybe. Also, he never said the F-22 was more maneuverable than the latest Russian fighters, he did say however that it can do everything they can, and vice versa.


Originally posted by kilcoo316
Until I'd see such an allegation from what I'd term an impartial source, I'll pay little heed.


Well ok but I'll take his word for it.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by WestPoint23]

allright westpoint23 tell you what.all im saying here is i havent seen much proof dont worry.ill wait to ghostbr55's answer.ghotbr55 says that its only manuverable at low speeds.maybe hes right or hei s wrong.

Yet another derivative of the Su-27 family is the Su-37. The Su-37 design incorporates the canards and digital fly-by-wire control system of the Su-35 but also adds axisymmetric steerable nozzles to provide thrust vectoring capability.
The resulting design achieves a level of super-maneuverabilty unmatched by any contemporary fighter. A test pilot reported that the controls are so effective that the aircraft can recover from spins and stalls at almost any altitude. Although the Russian Air Force has shown great interest in the remarkable abilities of the Su-37, it is somewhat doubtful that any will be acquired due to the nation's financial difficulties.
The aircraft may see more success in the export market, which Sukhoi is actively pursuing.

i got this from fly mig.com su-37 technical data.
atleast i hope that now you would belive me.I dont give up



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   
originally posted by westpoint23
You think he's lying? He knows more about fighter aircraft then all of us combined so I'll take his word for it. Forgive me but I wouldn't put it past the Russians to strip their air show aircraft of anything unnecessary for the demo flights.
west point 23. if ghotbr55 knows more about fighter aircraft than all of us combined belive me hell lose the bet.if i found info that he had never searched for i take the lead and if all the others combined we would have skyrocketed to another universe.so now i ask you the same thing.how did ghostbr55 know better than all of us combined???
Think again.as i said i dont give up until i lost everything or gain everything by becoming the victor of the war.now.CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
By the way.whats with you defending ghostbr55.and him about"MY POST WESTY PUT UP ALREADY"cousins.brothersand sisters.whats the reason behind it?



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by phsyco
west point 23. if ghotbr55 knows more about fighter aircraft than all of us combined


I was referring to Lt. Colonel Michael "Dozer" Shower, GhosTBR55's comments were based on what Lt. Col. Shower said. And If you want "Dozer's" resume I'll be more than happy to provide you with the details. One more thing, you need to relax, yeah we all know what some websites have posted up, its interesting to read but most of the information on some websites is what I like to call hyped up "fact". In this case we get the information straight from the "horse's mouth", so to speak, way more valuable and credible than what some websites may claim.


Originally posted by phsyco
By the way.whats with you defending ghostbr55.


See above.


Originally posted by phsyco
and him about"MY POST WESTY PUT UP ALREADY"cousins.brothersand sisters.whats the reason behind it?


I don't see anything special about pointing out another member's post, especially if you don't want to essentially repost what he/she already put up.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by phsyco

west point 23. if ghotbr55 knows more about fighter aircraft than all of us combined belive me hell lose the bet

He was talking about an F-22 squadron commander. You lose the bet.




top topics



 
2
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join