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: 36
2
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Su 30 MKI walkaround

Also note the AESA radar to be deployed on the Su30 MKI by 2010: Irbis
Source
This page has been recently updated and holds new info on the MKI. I was looking for the RWR capable R-73R here(had scene a russian schematic of it before) and found lots of new updates including this Irbis bit.




posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier
In a 1v1 battle with no AWACS or other network support I think that the Su-35 would be an equal match for the Eagle BVR and would hurt it WVR. It's design is just more advanced as should be expected. It carries more fuel, has more powerful engines, is more manueverable, has a better TWR, and its radar is just as powerful. That's why the F-22 is around.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by JFrazier]

and the 37 is a later model.so.now what Jfriazer
the 37 win with no awacs in sight.or even the 35.nows there is something you dont say evryday.tell me what you meant.BRIEFLY.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not sure what the USAF will do with that, I think it will eventually upgrade the newest Eagles with the AN/APG-60v(3) to serve as a backstop for F-22's if we don't get more Raptors (it might upgrade them regardless though). This would be in addition to the two dozen or so F-15C's equipped with the AN/APG-62v(2) we already have in Alaska. Take in consideration that there are only a dozen or so Su-35's in use I believe.


I thought they were scrapping the(3) and going straight to the v(4)



I'll go have a look and report back



edit: Ahhh, from AIAA, its the F-15E getting the v(4)


Although, since the upgrade hasn't happened yet, it would probably make more sense for all to go with the v(4). But then sense and government decisions (no matter where the country!) are pretty much mutually exclusive


[edit on 18-9-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by phsyco
and the 37 is a later model.so.now what Jfriazer
the 37 win with no awacs in sight.or even the 35.nows there is something you dont say evryday.tell me what you meant.BRIEFLY.

The Su-37 is not a later model. The Su-35 is a more refined concept than the Su-37 and has a much greater chance of going into service. It was introduced after the Su-37.



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by phsyco
and the 37 is a later model.so.now what Jfriazer
the 37 win with no awacs in sight.or even the 35.nows there is something you dont say evryday.tell me what you meant.BRIEFLY.

The Su-37 is not a later model. The Su-35 is a more refined concept than the Su-37 and has a much greater chance of going into service. It was introduced after the Su-37.

correction.the su-37 is in service.models been built but the designation is unknown.

so now what.still the plane aint in mass production yet.so there is the chance flankers might have better stealth capabilities and maybe even better mobility,
(i know youll be eating my head arfter this.Sorry!)



posted on Sep, 19 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Actually from my understanding, the Su-35 predates the Su-37 limited though. The Su-35 came into production before the Su-37 but, only few were made if any at all. The Su-37 was later designed and built as a technology demonstrator and after the Su-37 proved it's worth as a technology demonstrator, the Su-35 design was revamped to incorporate many of the technologies tested on the Su-37. So if the Su-37 ever went into production, it would be the Su-35, which technically is a production aircraft despite having one ever built.

So it's like a match of ping pong, the ball is going back and forth. The reason for all of this is lack of funding.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 19-9-2006 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
yes.even the berkut has one of the reasons.but the russians are funding its airframe to be studied so it was made as russias priciple testbed.and the russians cant fund enough for the terminator to be in mass production



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
S2,

According to WAPJ, there were between 10 and 13 Su-35 built with the new alulithi airframe and triplane configuration as well as the deepened nose and advanced cockpit. 2-3 of these were later tested with the intended production FBW system (digital, quadruplex) and ONE of these was subsequently also fitted with the 3D AVEN system.

That aircraft serving as a flight demonstrator (no weapons system) throughout the late 80's and into the early/mid 90's. After which the Su-35 was heard from no more as an official State production program (though it passed acceptance trials, supposedly).

While the Su-35 has been recently been rebroached as a fighter airframe for Russian national service, it is almost certainly NOT based on the original (very costly for the minor weight savings achieved) structural redesign but rather simply the existing Su-30 which is itself (as an airframe) nothing more than an Su-27PU with some structural changes for the expanded A2G role and canards.

I would fully expect the Su-35 or 37 to be little more than a topoff order which is being done either because it is equal to or cheaper than the Su-27SM/SK upgrade. Or because, politically, it is advantageous to say that you have a given X-number 'of your most advanced fighter' finally in service.

The key delineators of which will be what's under the radome and hanging from beneath the wings. If it's not an AESA able to beat back the Raptor's LO with raw ERPS. Or R-77PD/Ks-172 able to gun the AWACS supporting it before the Raptor can kill the Uber Flanker, it truthfully won't matter much.

In any case, the important thing to note is that BOTH the Su-35 and the Su-37 are preseries production (FSD level) developmental airframes and that the latter was taken from the last of the former as a further systems upgrade for vectoring nozzles and possibly the MFI radar.


KPl.



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
5th Gen

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


In my opinion, if you factor everything in > in a real air engagement like AWACS, BVR, WVR etc the list should go like this

1. F-15C >AESA - AIM-120D
2. F/A -18E SuperHornet
3. Typhoon
4. SU-35
5. F-16 AM

This is not including the F-22A and F-35B
I think USA pretty much owns BVR.

LAWNMOWERMAN who did u figure out the su-35 is better than the Typhoon or the RAF better than the Typhoon or the SU-35 is better than both RAF AND TYPHOON ... thats crazy.>> i just wanna here ur opinion.

LAWNMOWERMAN i think thats crazy that you would take ur chances with and SU-35 against a F-22A because from past discussions(with WESTY and WAYNOS) on this forum and some articles i was reading, in a BVR a F-15C will shoot 2 SU-35 before being shot its self. So god bless your brave soul.










[edit on 23-8-2006 by GhosTBR55]


I agree with Ghost (his entire list in all circumstances).



posted on Sep, 20 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I thank you for agreeing with me but i changed my list a while ago

5th Gen

1. F-22A
2. F-35
3. Typhoon
4. Raf
5. F-15

Including all factors (BVR, WVR, AWACS, ETC)

1. Typhoon
2. F-15
3. Raf
4. SU-35
5. F/A-18E
This is not including the F-22A or F-35

Oldies - Including all factors (BVR, WVR, AWACS, ETC)

1. F-15
2. SU-35
3. F/A-18E
4. SU-27
5. F-16AM



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
guess what the raptor seems to be in the fastest aircrafts list is.in 23rd place


1. X-43 (Unmanned) Mach 9.8 110,000 feet
2. X-15 Mach 6.72 354,200 feet
The X-15 is the fastest manned aircraft in the world.
3. SR-71 Blackbird (YF-12) Mach 3.2+ 85,000+ feet
The SR-71 Blackbird is the fastest airplane in the world.
4. MiG-25R Foxbat-B Mach 3.2 123,524 feet
4. X-2 Mach 3.2 126,200 feet
5. XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3.1 77,350 feet
6. MiG-31 Foxhound Mach 2.83 67,600 feet
7. MiG-25 Foxbat (Ye-155) Mach 2.8 118,900 feet
8. F-15 Eagle Mach 2.5 60,000 feet
8. F-111 Aardvark Mach 2.5 60,000+ feet
9. X-1 Mach 2.435 90,440 feet
10. Su-24 Fencer Mach 2.4 57,400 feet
11. Tu-144 Charger Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
11. MiG-23 Flogger Mach 2.35 60,700 feet
11. Su-27 Flanker Mach 2.35 59,055 feet
12. F-14A Tomcat Mach 2.34 58,000+ feet
13. F-106 Delta Dart Mach 2.31 57,000 feet
14. IAI Kfir Mach 2.3 75,000 feet
14. English Electric Lightning Mach 2.3 60,000 feet
14. MiG-29 Fulcrum Mach 2.3 59,060 feet
14. F-107 Ultra Sabre Mach 2.3 48,000 feet
15. Tornado ADV Mach 2.2 69,997 feet
15. F-4 Phantom Mach 2.2 62,250 feet
15. Mirage 2000 Mach 2.2 59,055 feet
15. F-104 Starfighter Mach 2.2 58,000 feet
(120,800 feet NF-104A)
15. B-58 Hustler Mach 2.2 64,800 feet
16. F-105 Thunderchief Mach 2.1 52,000 feet
16. A-5 Vigilante Mach 2.1 52,100 feet
17. Su-22 Mach 2.09 59,055 feet
18. Tu-160 Blackjack Mach 2.05 49,200 feet
18. MiG-21 Fishbed Mach 2.05 50,000 feet
18. Concorde Mach 2.05 60,000 feet
19. D558-2 Skystreak Mach 2.005 83,235 feet
20. YF-23 Black Widow II Mach 2 (AB) 65,000 feet
20. F-20 Tigershark Mach 2+ 55,000 feet
20. YF-17 Cobra Mach 2+ 50,000 feet
21. Saab JAS 39 Gripen Mach 2 50,000 feet
21. F-16 Fighting Falcon Mach 2 50,000+ feet
21. Saab 37 Viggen Mach 2 60,039 feet
21. Saab 35 Draken Mach 2 65,600 feet
22. Tu-22M Backfire Mach 1.88 43,635 feet
22. F-14B/D Tomcat Mach 1.88 53,000+ feet
23. Su-34 Mach 1.8 45,890 feet
23. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Mach 1.8 50,000+ feet
23. F-22 Raptor Mach 1.8 (AB) 50,000 feet
24. XF-104 Starfighter Mach 1.79 58,000 feet
25. F-8 Crusader Mach 1.72 58,000 feet
26. F-101B Voodoo Mach 1.66 52,100 feet
27. X-29 FSW Mach 1.6 50,000 feet
28. Tu-22 Blinder Mach 1.52 48,228 feet
28. XF8U-1 Crusader Mach 1.52 58,000 feet
29. SEPECAT Jaguar Mach 1.5 45,930 feet
30. F-5 Freedom Fighter Mach 1.4 50,700 feet
31. F-100 Super Sabre Mach 1.3 51,000 feet
32. X-31 EFMI Mach 1.28 40,000 feet
33. B-1b Lancer Mach 1.25 50,000+ feet
34. F-102 Delta Dagger Mach 1.23 55,000 feet
35. T-38 Talon Mach 1.22 55,000+ feet
36. XF-90 Mach 1.1 39,000 feet
37. MiG-17 Fresco Mach 1.05 52,366 feet
38. F-86 Sabre Mach 1.04 50,800 feet
39. F-117 Nighthawk High Subsonic 45,000 feet
40. AV-8B Harrier II Mach 0.98 41,700+ feet
41. F-94 Starfire Mach 0.97 51,800 feet
42. A-6 Intruder Mach 0.94 42,400 feet
43. Saab 32 Lansen Mach 0.93 52,500 feet
44. F-80 Shooting Star Mach 0.88 46,800 feet
45. BAe Nimrod 2000 Mach 0.87 42,000 feet
46. B-52 Stratofortress Mach 0.86 55,000 feet
47. U-2 Dragon Lady Mach 0.8 90,000 feet
48. C-5 Galaxy Mach 0.79 35,750 feet
49. C-141 Starlifter Mach 0.77 41,600 feet
49. C-17 Globemaster III Mach 0.77 45,000 feet
50. B-2 Spirit Mach 0.72 50,000+ feet
50. P-3 Orion Mach 0.72 28,300 feet


www.globalaircraft.org... - 28k -
23rd.this is the real speed

[edit on 21-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
What does speed have to do with the plane performing well? The plane doesn't need to go at Mach 6 to launch a missile, the speed it goes at is pretty much the speed it should go at, there's a reason those 35,000 lb thrust class engines don't send it faster.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
yeah shatterd skies who did say it? tell you what i didnt say it has to go at 6 does it.dont worry a new character who came in will tell you something.well shatterd.by the way i meant its real speed.didnt mean it like that you know bad speed.i diint mean it.sorry.you misunderstood.nothing personal.but 23rd in the best 5 thats good(selected among the populer planes)



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
The figure Mach 1.8 at altitude comes from the F-22A Raptor's ability to supercruise at altitude, hardly it's maximum speed, it's maximum speed would most probably be around Mach 2.2 or Mach 2.1 with afterburn.

The reason Mach 1.8 is listed is because that's the figure supplies by the Air Force but, it's at supercruise.

It's a pretty high figure without afterburner, but that's what the powerful engines are for aren't they?

I was just wondering what the point was of posting the list of the fastest aircraft in the world? I'm suprised the shuttle isn't number 1.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I think M1.5 and M1.8 were the old ATF specs for the program without and with afterburner.

Obviously the YF-22 and the F-22 both exceeded those, and were designed to [hence the LE wing sweep angles].


While I still have my severe doubts over where the F-22 will fit into a future war, I have no doubt its far and away the best all-round A2A fighter in the skies today, anyone that thinks otherwise is in a pure dream-land.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
I think M1.5 and M1.8 were the old ATF specs for the program without and with afterburner.

Obviously the YF-22 and the F-22 both exceeded those, and were designed to [hence the LE wing sweep angles].


While I still have my severe doubts over where the F-22 will fit into a future war, I have no doubt its far and away the best all-round A2A fighter in the skies today, anyone that thinks otherwise is in a pure dream-land.

The YF-23 was better.


Too bad it was more expensive and wasn't as much of a flexible airframe as the YF-22.


Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
The YF-23 was better.


Too bad it was more expensive and wasn't as much of a flexible airframe as the YF-22.


Shattered OUT...


I dunno if it was.

It might have looked more futuristic etc, but it also probably carried more technological risk.


Risk is bad, risk is invariably expensive. If the USAF are complaining about the cut in numbers of F-22s, it would have been worse for a F-23.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I don't know Kilco, the YF-22 changed dramatically, it actually started too look more like the YF-23 in the end.

The YF-23 was a very good design, but both the YF-22 and YF-23 IMO carried the same amount or risk. They just went with what was more flexible for future upgrades and what cost cheaper at the time.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Phsyco

okay hold up >>>>> F-22A Max Speed is 2.42 mach and 2 mach being a normal figure. phsyco ive been reading to many of your bogus posts, please for the sake of real true fact arguements stop posting false opionized postZ!!!! You seriously do it to much. You know what i dont even know where u got this info? Your external source leads to info on a flanker. Also y are you always sending false info about everything and always trying to make a USA plane look bad? Is this mental? Go to some credited websites and read PLEASE!

Even you know its bull cause most of your posts end like this

"i know this is going to start a post war"

GROW UP.



[edit on 21-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
Phsyco

okay hold up >>>>> F-22A Max Speed is 2.42 mach and 2 mach being a normal figure. phsyco ive been reading to many of your bogus posts, please for the sake of real true fact arguements stop posting false opionized postZ!!!! You seriously do it to much. You know what i dont even know where u got this info? Your external source leads to info on a flanker. Also y are you always sending false info about everything and always trying to make a USA plane look bad? Is this mental? Go to some credited websites and read PLEASE!

Even you know its bull cause most of your posts end like this

"i know this is going to start a post war"

GROW UP.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]



Why are you blasting Phsyco.

I have been following this thread and i am yet to see a credible argument from you let alone from a credible link.

I think you should concentrate on backing up your own claims first before direspecting others. Atleast Phsycho posted a link, which i might add has accurate figures for most a/c.




top topics



 
2
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join