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: 31
2
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
I have to add that I see a F-35 coming in at least 5th place in WVR. Its high thrust to weight ratio, small fighter in general, with 40,000 pounds of thrust on tap, new avoinics and AIM-9X missles. It seems it will be formidable. If anyone has opinions on it being at least 5th or more (or less) please post.

No AIM-9X even on the board right now. It's also a pretty heavy plane, not small in the least bit. The TWR probably will not be good as the Typhoon(weighs more than EF) or the Raptor.

Basically, the F-35 has potential but it doesn't belong on this list because we have no idea how it will turn out. There's probably still 6-8 years worth of testing to go. The Su-37 doesn't belong on the list simply because it doesn't exist anymore.


i heard of deployment starting in 2008, but besides the fact its not the most formidable in WVR it will be a monster in BVR second to F-22A>>> many sources have clamied this




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
i heard of deployment starting in 2008, but besides the fact its not the most formidable in WVR it will be a monster in BVR second to F-22A>>> many sources have clamied this



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
NOPE NOPE, im very sorry. Youre mis reading information. The 2 AMRAAMS and JDAMS that your referring to are the ones held internally not ex. They are 9 clear pylons for a max of 8 AIR TO AIR MISSLES or 4 AIR TO AIR and 6 2000 pound INS bombs with a Cluster bomb unit. The planes ability is very much out there wether u take it ask speculation or not.

REPOSTIN MY POST

I think the F-35 has alot of Potential

GlobalSecurity.org states

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:

Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements
Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets
Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions
About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint "

-Theres also 3 versions F-35A CTOL, F-35B STOVL and F-35C Carrier.
-This plane has Stealth.
-Most powerful single engine.
-Avoinics including radar are off the charts.
-Holds exactly 8 Air to Air missles (not sure if more) which is the same amount of an F-15c.
-Its multi Role < not important for Air Superiorty but its a nice extra.
-Bigger bombload than a F-15E.
-about Mach 1.5 / Mach 1.8+
(~1,200 mph) < nice speed for a lil guy.
-Probably not the best guy for WVR but Hey its all ABOUT THE BVR BABY!

Hey their are plenty of countries who have implemented F-16C and F/A-18C and have been very successful.

This ones plain and simple > If you are a country like Slovania, Italy, Czech, etc who cant afford to buy a whole bunch of fighters that are made for specific roles



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55

But i gaurntee that above Sub Sonic a F-22A is more Manuv than any Flanker.
Wars been over just relax and post.



Basically supersonic? Right. Okay, Supersonic the F-22 may be pretty maneuverable, but I think the Su-37 would take the cake (I won't go into the Su-47, because that's not planned for production). Just because it's been designed with maneuverability in mind. Also, although it's not a flanker, the MiG 29 OVT is hands down the most maneuverable fighter I've ever laid my eyes on. That being said, why would you want to do high-G maneuvers supersonic? The F-22 isn't likely to be shot at BVR unless they already know what's there. When maneuvering is really needed (ie WVRACM) the F-22 will get a smacking. Sorry.

Example: This is what happens when an American plane tries to do something the Russians have done with their jets for a while, even sans TVC. Specifically, it was a Kulbit. This was posted on ATS before, but I just dug it up again. No, this wasn't the belly landing one.

What Did You Learn?

By the way, I don't detest the F-22 because it's ugly (although in a few ways it is. Eh. X-32 was worse.
. ), or because it actually gives Russian jets a run for their money in WVR. I detest it because of all the publicity it gets and people saying that it will destroy any aicraft no matter what the circumstances. People here have the decency to say that there are some situations in which the F-22 has disadvantages, like WVR. Now it's no slouch, but in a dogfight the F-22 might have an issue or two taking on some other advanced platforms (if it were ever produced, and I hope it will even though it won't, the Su-47) it could very well end up an F-22 Roasted Turkey. Hmm... Sounds delicious!



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by GhosTBR55

But i gaurntee that above Sub Sonic a F-22A is more Manuv than any Flanker.
Wars been over just relax and post.



Basically supersonic? Right. Okay, Supersonic the F-22 may be pretty maneuverable, but I think the Su-37 would take the cake (I won't go into the Su-47, because that's not planned for production). Just because it's been designed with maneuverability in mind. Also, although it's not a flanker, the MiG 29 OVT is hands down the most maneuverable fighter I've ever laid my eyes on. That being said, why would you want to do high-G maneuvers supersonic? The F-22 isn't likely to be shot at BVR unless they already know what's there. When maneuvering is really needed (ie WVRACM) the F-22 will get a smacking. Sorry.

Example: This is what happens when an American plane tries to do something the Russians have done with their jets for a while, even sans TVC. Specifically, it was a Kulbit. This was posted on ATS before, but I just dug it up again. No, this wasn't the belly landing one.

What Did You Learn?

By the way, I don't detest the F-22 because it's ugly (although in a few ways it is. Eh. X-32 was worse.
. ), or because it actually gives Russian jets a run for their money in WVR. I detest it because of all the publicity it gets and people saying that it will destroy any aicraft no matter what the circumstances. People here have the decency to say that there are some situations in which the F-22 has disadvantages, like WVR. Now it's no slouch, but in a dogfight the F-22 might have an issue or two taking on some other advanced platforms (if it were ever produced, and I hope it will even though it won't, the Su-47) it could very well end up an F-22 Roasted Turkey. Hmm... Sounds delicious!


Cant belieave the things you post with out facts, Russian planes always been getting smacked, Do you honestly think that russian planes pull those WVR tricks with combat config? Youre crazy if you think so. I dont care if a USA fighter can or can not pull a jack knive or any other tricks. THIS IS NOT A CIRCUS THIS IS WAR!
So save your chat on how u think a F-22A will get smacked in WVR because ur wrong its able or if not more to take down a SU of any kind and quit the debate on MANUV its not the number one importance of modern day Air to Air combat.

You seem to think because these Are NEW plat forms, the fighters will perform better?? USA have made Fighters that have held Supremacy for DECADES and werent matched until after RUSSIA developed their models 4 times or more!!!! Its pathetic.

I think Russia makes these planes cause they know they can easily sell to some one like you.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
NOPE NOPE, im very sorry. Youre mis reading information. The 2 AMRAAMS and JDAMS that your referring to are the ones held internally not ex. They are 9 clear pylons for a max of 8 AIR TO AIR MISSLES or 4 AIR TO AIR and 6 2000 pound INS bombs with a Cluster bomb unit. The planes ability is very much out there wether u take it ask speculation or not.


With those external pylons you have just eliminated any advantage the stealth design the F-35 has over its competitiors. The F-35 will not be particularly quick or fly very high so in the A2A role it relies on its stealthiness. With pylons it is back down to the level of the Typhoon and Rafale.

Therefore it would not be second to the F-22 anymore. We know almost nothing about the F-35's radar and I will assume that the Europeans will have fielded AESA radars by 2012.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by JFrazier]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - trimmed big quote

[edit on 7-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Basically supersonic? Right. Okay, Supersonic the F-22 may be pretty maneuverable, but I think the Su-37 would take the cake (I won't go into the Su-47, because that's not planned for production). Just because it's been designed with maneuverability in mind. Also, although it's not a flanker, the MiG 29 OVT is hands down the most maneuverable fighter I've ever laid my eyes on. That being said, why would you want to do high-G maneuvers supersonic? The F-22 isn't likely to be shot at BVR unless they already know what's there. When maneuvering is really needed (ie WVRACM) the F-22 will get a smacking. Sorry.

The F-22 uses supersonic manuverability as it is important to have a somewhat decent turn radius while supercruising. At speeds in any other jet, including the Flankers, turn radii becomes very great. The Flanker was not made for supersonic maneuverability. That was not one its design goals. It was alo not designed with TVC in mind like the Raptor. WVR, Raptor pilots have stated that they can do everything the Russian pilots can in terms of stunts. Take that for what it is. Also, the Su-47 is not the as great a plane as you think. That forward swept wing wasn't the greatest idea.


Example: This is what happens when an American plane tries to do something the Russians have done with their jets for a while, even sans TVC. Specifically, it was a Kulbit. This was posted on ATS before, but I just dug it up again. No, this wasn't the belly landing one.

What Did You Learn?

Wrong. That was caused by a PIO. The pilot did not boot up the Raptor's FCS correctly and an error resulted. Pilots now know how to correct this mistake.


People here have the decency to say that there are some situations in which the F-22 has disadvantages, like WVR. Now it's no slouch, but in a dogfight the F-22 might have an issue or two taking on some other advanced platforms (if it were ever produced, and I hope it will even though it won't, the Su-47) it could very well end up an F-22 Roasted Turkey. Hmm... Sounds delicious!

I don't see where the F-22 loses out in WVR combat. It should be able to compete very well with the Flanker especially considering that its climb rate is much greater than any other operational fighter. WVR combat is not all low-speed. Ask the Isrealis abnout that.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
With those external pylons you have just eliminated any advantage the stealth design the F-35 has over its competitiors. The F-35 will not be particularly quick or fly very high so in the A2A role it relies on its stealthiness. With pylons it is back down to the level of the Typhoon and Rafale.

Therefore it would not be second to the F-22 anymore. We know almost nothing about the F-35's radar and I will assume that the Europeans will have fielded AESA radars by 2012.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by JFrazier]


One Radars are equal to an F-22A because they share Avioinics to save money.
If the USA AESA is fielded by the Europeans y wouldnt we field them? Also just because a missle hangs off a pylon doesnt render stealth useless... The missle them selves are small not enough to blow the whole planes stealth useless. Also the stealth on a F-35 is greater than a typhoon. So if both have missles hanging off them. the F-35 would still be stealthier because its one engine and smaller (and was stealthier to begin with). Also its not jsut the stealth that makes it second to a F-22A, its more (Avionics and ETC).

Listen im sorry, I dont want to start a post war with you because i agree with you in many areas. BUT you have to relieaze that this Fighters Potential is Enormous. Alot more potential than the expectations of an F-16 and the F-16 was and still is DEADLY.

Mod Edit - removed big quote

[edit on 7-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Just a quick note...triple and quadruple nested quotes will be removed completely, especially if the post being quoted is directly above yours.
Carry on

And, phsyco...drop the ALL CAPS, puh-leeze!

Edit to add that the same goes for humungous quotes

[edit on 7-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
One Radars are equal to an F-22A because they share Avioinics to save money.
If the USA AESA is fielded by the Europeans y wouldnt we field them? Also just because a missle hangs off a pylon doesnt render stealth useless... The missle them selves are small not enough to blow the whole planes stealth useless. Also the stealth on a F-35 is greater than a typhoon. So if both have missles hanging off them. the F-35 would still be stealthier because its one engine and smaller (and was stealthier to begin with). Also its not jsut the stealth that makes it second to a F-22A, its more (Avionics and ETC).

Listen im sorry, I dont want to start a post war with you because i agree with you in many areas. BUT you have to relieaze that this Fighters Potential is Enormous. Alot more potential than the expectations of an F-16 and the F-16 was and still is DEADLY.

The APG-81 will have the mode switching capability of the APG-77 but will not have the all-out power because it's not needed for its mssion. The extra power of the APG-77 requires more cooling which requires a bigger airframe.

One engine does not affect anything in terms of RCS. The F-35 still has two intakes and both planes' engines are well hidden from radar. The F-35 will still have a lower RCS than the Typhoon but expect the Eurocanards to field some pretty powerful radars in the next decade. These radars will make it hard for an F-35 with external pylons to be undetectable.

Yes, the F-35 is stealthy and its avionics will be amazing. However, we are talking in the present tense, The F-35 is not operation now and therefore is not one of the best air superiority fighters in the sky today. The F-35 holds a ton of potential but we have yet to see anything from it.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Actually, when talking the levels of LO and VLO that we are for JSF and and F-22, external stores will have a significant effect on the RCS. Both the stores themselves, and the pylons they are fitted to, give significant returns. While there is a push to make munitions more stealthy (both for external carriage, and survivability in SAM WEZs), they still effect the stealth characteristics of both platforms.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
One Radars are equal to an F-22A because they share Avioinics to save money.
If the USA AESA is fielded by the Europeans y wouldnt we field them? Also just because a missle hangs off a pylon doesnt render stealth useless... The missle them selves are small not enough to blow the whole planes stealth useless. Also the stealth on a F-35 is greater than a typhoon. So if both have missles hanging off them. the F-35 would still be stealthier because its one engine and smaller (and was stealthier to begin with). Also its not jsut the stealth that makes it second to a F-22A, its more (Avionics and ETC).

Listen im sorry, I dont want to start a post war with you because i agree with you in many areas. BUT you have to relieaze that this Fighters Potential is Enormous. Alot more potential than the expectations of an F-16 and the F-16 was and still is DEADLY.

The APG-81 will have the mode switching capability of the APG-77 but will not have the all-out power because it's not needed for its mssion. The extra power of the APG-77 requires more cooling which requires a bigger airframe.

One engine does not affect anything in terms of RCS. The F-35 still has two intakes and both planes' engines are well hidden from radar. The F-35 will still have a lower RCS than the Typhoon but expect the Eurocanards to field some pretty powerful radars in the next decade. These radars will make it hard for an F-35 with external pylons to be undetectable.

Yes, the F-35 is stealthy and its avionics will be amazing. However, we are talking in the present tense, The F-35 is not operation now and therefore is not one of the best air superiority fighters in the sky today. The F-35 holds a ton of potential but we have yet to see anything from it.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by JFrazier]


Straight off the back, we have yet to see anything from all planes except flying like stars, tricks, and specs. > also the new RADARS will only help them track further not make enemies that were 20 miles out more visible.





[edit on 7-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Actually, when talking the levels of LO and VLO that we are for JSF and and F-22, external stores will have a significant effect on the RCS. Both the stores themselves, and the pylons they are fitted to, give significant returns. While there is a push to make munitions more stealthy (both for external carriage, and survivability in SAM WEZs), they still effect the stealth characteristics of both platforms.


What proof do u have that it will have a significant effect? i see it has hanging birds on the planes pylons >>>>>> when was a bird ever targeted or shot down????



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
Straight off the back, we have yet to see anything from all planes except flying like stars, tricks, and specs.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
What proof do u have that it will have a significant effect? i see it has hanging birds on the planes pylons >>>>>> when was a bird ever targeted or shot down????

If there wasn't significant effect, the F-22 would be flying with external pylons all the time. Yes, they do make a difference. You are getting a combined return not just the RCS of one missile. Radar waves do bounce in different directions.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Well, having seen the difference myself on a DDI between a fighter in clean configuration, and a fighter with external stores. F-5s in particular suffered when stores were added. Hard buggers to see clean, but whack some stores on board and the radar had no problem seeing them. But you don't have to take my word on it. There are plenty of websites that go into the mathematics of RCS, and what impacts RCS. The fundamentals of aircraft combat survivability analysis and design by Robert Ball is a great start if you can afford it (or borrow a copy).

The JSF will carry external stores once air supremacy is obtained. Until then, it will carry missiles internally until the air and long range SAM threat go.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
There is no way an F-22 can do everything a flanker (Note those equipped with AL-31 TVC engine; i.e. Su-30 upward) in terms of manueverability unless its got some 'new' revolutionary control surfaces.
The TVC is purely 2-dimesional and cannot possibly achieve what a 3D TVC (pseudo 3D actually) engine can.
Plus there are no canards.
So I fail to see how manueverability can be compared?

I have never seen the F-22 live and have seen some manuverability videos online..not bad, but I've seen the TVC Su-30 live executing mock combat manuevers (scissors, barrel rolls etc..) and it can do stuff (w/o bleeding off too much energy) which makes your jaw inoperable. I've seen this a/c literally run circles around the likes of the Jaguar

Not stuff you see in shows where enregy is bled off at ridiculous rates which will make the a/c ineffecient in live combat.


Also I saw a graphical comparision of the radars onboard various a/c around the world (posted by Westpoint):



This obviously shows the BVR advantage the NG APG-77 radars offers giving a persistant detection buffer of ~50km which translates to a straight advantage of a minute or so for head-on vectors at mach 1 (not considering stealth).
As ch1466 has so often(too often?
) stated, a bunch of BVRs fired in a salvo from a F-22A would put any opposing a/c in deep sh*t..
But having said that, I would seriously contest all radar figures for Russian a/c, namely the N011M on the Su-30 which most definitely can see a 10 sq meter object at a distance considerably greater than mentioned here. Also the newer
Mig-29(not the OVT) a/c fitted to carry the R-77 Adder have the Zhuk-M Phazotron radar, again having a better curve than shown here. Maybe the American radars are inferiorly rated too,but I can say that is a fact for the russian ones.
I am unaware of the N001 radar on the Su 27, but one could extrapolate the same logic for this radar too.
Strangely absent are statistics for the radars on the Typhoon and the Rafael(We would truely get a overall comparision then). Nonetheless this is a really good source of info(even though partially inaccurate IMO) and shows you that in the 1-10 sq meter range, the Su-30+ is comparable (superior IMO again
) with detection ranges differing by only a few km (translates to 2-3 seconds at near mach speeds and less than a second at supersonic speeds) as compared to western AESA radars. Also note these Russian radars are passive, not AESA.

My point is that other than the F-22A, no other a/c seriously holds a 'sight advantage' over the Su 30 and beyond series at BVR. Notably the Russians are coming up with their own AESA radars soon ,and the Su-30 genre of Russian a/c with other countries(India ,China) have access to western AESA technology too.

Thus a AWACS assisted Su-30/Mig 29(Hell you can put in fighter-bombers as well) strike group pose a major threat to ANY opponent as of TODAY, unless they have the F-22 at their disposal. The N011M equipped a/c can act a mini AWACS relays thus greatly enhancing the capabilities of the entire group, if data-feed is shared amongst all a/c.

Hence the F-22 is definitely worth it. DEFINITELY. No two ways about that.

Another point to note is that the Chinese do NOT currently have the N011M and their Su-30s are either fitted with the N001 or the Zhuk M Phazotron, though they're doing great stuff with indigenous products so you never know.

Also the R-77 upgrade (AVVE-PD?) isn't considerably inferior to the Aim120D now really

The K-172 etc are hopefuls and if realised only AWACS-killers.
The AIM-9X reportedly offers a 90 deg off-boresight advantage to HMS systems and some here have told me that the true off-boresight advantage exceeds 90 degrees. Incredible if true.
However the R-73RDM2 (operational as of today) has a reported off-boresight capability of 60+ Degrees(90 degrees if you want to believe me
) for HMS systems.
Couple that with the mauneverability the TVC capable engines and canards offer and you get a absolutely awesome WVR combat system.

Summary: Except for the F-22, the Su-30 series a/c aren't 'inferior' to any other a/c at BVR, and IMHO they absolutely aren't inferior to any a/c at WVR.

Just taking a stock of general info on the thread


[edit on 7-9-2006 by Daedalus3]

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Daedalus3]



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
There is no way an F-22 can do everything a flanker (Note those equipped with AL-31 TVC engine; i.e. Su-30 upward) in terms of manueverability unless its got some 'new' revolutionary control surfaces.
The TVC is purely 2-dimesional and cannot possibly achieve what a 3D TVC (pseudo 3D actually) engine can.
Plus there are no canards.
So I fail to see how manueverability can be compared?

I don't want to get into the whole thing but basically the chine on the nose of the F-22 acts like a virtual surface. It has no need for canards. The F-22's FBW system couples all contol surfaces in a way no other fighters does. It can do the Cobra, high alpha loops, helipcopters, etc. A Raptor squadron commander says that he has no problems doing Russian manuevers.
Also, those rudders are huge for a reason. The F-22 has exceeded a 30 degrees/sec yaw rate.

I have never seen the F-22 live and have seen some manuverability videos online..not bad, but I've seen the TVC Su-30 live executing mock combat manuevers (scissors, barrel rolls etc..) and it can do stuff (w/o bleeding off too much energy) which makes your jaw inoperable. I've seen this a/c literally run circles around the likes of the Jaguar

Not stuff you see in shows where enregy is bled off at ridiculous rates which will make the a/c ineffecient in live combat.

Well I have seen the F-22 and yes it climbs like no other. As many in the F-22 program have said, "It's just the tip of the iceburg."



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55

Cant belieave the things you post with out facts, Russian planes always been getting smacked, Do you honestly think that russian planes pull those WVR tricks with combat config? Youre crazy if you think so. I dont care if a USA fighter can or can not pull a jack knive or any other tricks. THIS IS NOT A CIRCUS THIS IS WAR!
So save your chat on how u think a F-22A will get smacked in WVR because ur wrong its able or if not more to take down a SU of any kind and quit the debate on MANUV its not the number one importance of modern day Air to Air combat.


I didn't say it wast he number one importance- I stick by what I said in the Agility thread. It's not the most important, but like a gun, it's damn handy to have when you do something stupid. As all pilots are bound to do. This debate will always be around, so I do ask that you get used to it.

While those tricks may be mostly suitable for airshows, this is just like Prime, Fleche, and Balestra. Haven't heard of them? They're techniques for fencers (swordfighters). Tricks, really. They are like ACM tricks. Nothing ever goes exactly to plan, and eventually you'll do something stupid. These ACM tricks and fencing tricks may not be as valuable as knowing the basics of either art, but when you've done something you probably shouldn't have, you'll be thankful that these things are in your arsenal.

Now, while these tricks aren't absolutely feasible with combat config, I imagine that by the time you've closed to the range where these things are useful you've expended a few munitions, dropped a few tanks. I may not know a whole lot about my Newtonian physics, but I imagine less stuff on the plane= less weight. So it may come to pass that these maneuvers are possible.

Notice that I haven't said "These are the things that will save your behind in every combat situation; know them," but I have said "If you don't know them eventually you'll have a problem". Feel free to tell me BVR is more important. I just might agree with you. But if you try telling me that knowing a stunt that some other pilots don't know won't help you in any situation? No dice.



You seem to think because these Are NEW plat forms, the fighters will perform better?? USA have made Fighters that have held Supremacy for DECADES and werent matched until after RUSSIA developed their models 4 times or more!!!!


I didn't say they were NEW platforms. Interestingly enough, I didn't say what kind of platforms they were there. But the fact is, new or not, they may or may not have matched the USA fighters as you have so nicely stated. Fact is, it doesn't matter how old the idea is- it can still be pretty true. 1+1=2. As far as I know that's pretty old. An airframe is like an idea- it can be changed if need be, but usually it's just more efficient to look at it in a new way.



Its pathetic.

I think Russia makes these planes cause they know they can easily sell to some one like you.


How nice. BTW, how many F-22's have the Americans sold?


Originally posted by JFrazier
The F-22 uses supersonic manuverability as it is important to have a somewhat decent turn radius while supercruising. At speeds in any other jet, including the Flankers, turn radii becomes very great. The Flanker was not made for supersonic maneuverability. That was not one its design goals.


Touche, touche. Although decent is relative, isn't it?
That's fine by me. I suppose that's what the Raptor has to do. And it was supposed to do it, so it does it. Still, the Flanker series is no slouch I think.



It was also not designed with TVC in mind like the Raptor. WVR, Raptor pilots have stated that they can do everything the Russian pilots can in terms of stunts. Take that for what it is. Also, the Su-47 is not the as great a plane as you think. That forward swept wing wasn't the greatest idea.


Like any other "great idea", it has its successes and its failures. But it does hold a few of the latest Russian generalizations... Maneuverability and agility highly respected. Now I'm not sure about the BVR/Radar/Avionics about this thing, and I'm sure the Raptor has better innards, but I'd like to see what this thing is capable of with regards to long intercepts. Even if it isn't actually produced. Just like the project itself, simply "for the hell of it".


Wrong. That was caused by a PIO. The pilot did not boot up the Raptor's FCS correctly and an error resulted. Pilots now know how to correct this mistake.


To answer.... Cross-thread quote. Just because nobody ever believes me



Originally posted by Taishyou
I thought that F-22 crashed because of oversensitive controls during landing?

Or was that the other F-22 that crashed...

Edit: Yeah sorry that was the other F-22.


Apparently that's the right pic. The one with the landing as far as I know didn't end up this charred. It was more of a belly scrape unless munitions exploded or something. I don't know, I didn't go too far into the landing failure.


I don't see where the F-22 loses out in WVR combat. It should be able to compete very well with the Flanker especially considering that its climb rate is much greater than any other operational fighter. WVR combat is not all low-speed. Ask the Isrealis abnout that.


True, but with TVC being glued onto a lot of Russian fighters as well as naturally being on the F-22 has made it so that slow flight in WVR combat is no longer the gargoyle it once was. Being able to use that to quickly change heading can help decrease turn radii. Which, in WVR, is good. And, yes, the F-22 is likely to put up a fight against the Flankers in WVR. But the idea here being that it doesn't quite have the advantage as it did in BVR. 1 F-22 against 5 Flankers BVR? 5 roasted ducks. 1 F-22 against 5 Flankers WVR? Just a tad different. 1v1 it might be interesting but if the Flankers had numbers the F-22 is likely to have in issue.



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Daedalus3

Ok i have one question. From all this info you pointed out. Are you saying that an SU-30 is better than a Typhoon because what you state a SU-30 is clearly just as powerful if not more because it has the WVR Superiorty? So the SU-37 will be better than the Typhoon? Thats what your info is stating. I could only agree with the WVR statement but i feel everything else is sketchy.

1. F-22A
2. F-35
3. Typhoon
4. SU-35 / SU-37
5. RAF

DARKPRO
BTW F-22A will not be sold because its just to valuble to do something that stupid.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join