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.

 

SU-37 vs F-18/Super Hornet

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Ups . .. .
At the fly In India was used Su-30MK if Iam not wrong (So It firstly version of the export SU 30 .. ) when we see the fly of Su 30MKI ...

[edit on 28-3-2005 by Fenix F 308]




posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
They did thins in another occasion in front of many congressional members when 5 F-15’s were engaged with one F/A-22 and the Raptor shot them all down without the F-15’s getting any missiles off.

If you really think that the IAF pilots were significantly better than the American ones then your easily impressed.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
this has probably been asked before but what requirements do you have to have to be a US fighter pilot, i mean can you go to any recruiting center and say i want to be a F-15 fighter pilot, then go through there extremely tough course and if you are lucky enough to pass be able to fly a fighter jet



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Ok F-15 is s.... it not hard think's for me.
So what you speak then I don't understand ..
.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zakattack
this has probably been asked before but what requirements do you have to have to be a US fighter pilot, i mean can you go to any recruiting center and say i want to be a F-15 fighter pilot, then go through there extremely tough course and if you are lucky enough to pass be able to fly a fighter jet



LOL...um, no, you CANNOT do that...go to some of the Air Force websites, read up...

As for "the USAF can't be the best, look who they've fought" argument, who else trains and spends as much resources training as rigorously as the USAF???

Who exactly is proven, in any way, to have better trained, more skilled pilots?



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Im not saying anyone's better than the others..I could simply say IAF (Israel) pilots are way better than USAF pilots and many AMERICANS would agree with me..
But one cannot say that conclusively, unless the two AFs have had exercises(which im sure they've had) with each other..
All I'm saying is its all very inconclusive..



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
How long do Indian pilots train before they take the controls of their aircraft?

However it must be noted that the MKI is a very impressive aircraft and all the mock fights were probably knife fights rather than BVR or MVR fights.



I am quite sure they weren't knife fights..
It was an attack defense scenario with 9 IAF aircraft simulating a AB strike while 3 F-15s were scrambled to intercept..

9= 3 Mig 21 bis + 3 MiG 27 floggers + 3 Su 30KA

MiG 21 in counter scramble ops (MVR) and Su-30 Ka in BVR and air superiority role..
Floggers obv. in ground attack..

F-15s did not use ESRA modified AESA while Su-30 Kas used NO-11M w/o indian/israeli upgrades in avionics..

All IAF pilots fly the MiG 21 bis early in their careers..

The cream get sent off to MiG 29s for interceptor roles, Mirage 2000 and Sukhoi 30 for Multi role fighters and Jaguars for Fighter bombers..

The above average are kept with the MiG 21 bis//MiG 25

While the rest are kept with the normal MiGs and the MiG 23//MiG 27s

Navy pilots also train along side AF pilots and later get sent off to their Harriers..

I will confirm an average Su pilot's flight hrs.' before he gets to upgrade to the Su's..



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

But we are comparing just planes now, not pilots, nor airforces/navies etc.



One can't campare "just planes" becaus aerial combat (barring any extremes such as F/A-22 vs Cessena) will always come down to the pilot. period. There are almost too many historical references that prove this to mention.

So the Super Hornet and Su-37 are both amazing aircraft, but neither one is significantly better than the other to negate the skill of the pilot as the deciding factor.

As mentioned about, a well trained F-4 crew from back in the day could beat a young stud in either one.




[edit on 29-3-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
The F/A-18E/F has a very good electronics suite including the AESA radar which will be added soon. However, in terms of raw performance the F/A-18E/F is actually much worse than the previous F/A-18C/D. It cannot reach supersonic speeds below (what was it... 10000 ft?) even with afterburners. Its wingspan is large and wingsweep is small, add that to its relatively weak engines, and you got a major performance problem. Speed and altitude is important in giving initial kinetic energy to your BVR missiles so they can fly faster and farther as well as dodging incoming BVR missiles.

But in the end, comparing the Su-37 vs. the F/A-18E/F is like apples vs. banannas. There are areas where the Su-37 is superior, and there are areas where the F/A-18E/F is superior, but neither are by any means superior the other. In the end it might come down to the pilot's skill and tactics.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
The F/A-18E/F is a different kind of aircraft with a different role than the SU-37. The SU-37 while not being built would of been an interceptor much like the F-15 and F/A-22. The F/A-18 is an all around plane. It is what the US Navy uses for ground attack missiles but it is also used to defend the fleet. Because of this they had to give up some things in a few area sfor it to accomplish its mission. The larger wings means it can go slower at a lower height for ground attacks and the such. That is one example, they are many others.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist





One can't campare "just planes" becaus aerial combat (barring any extremes such as F/A-22 vs Cessena) will always come down to the pilot. period. There are almost too many historical references that prove this to mention.

So the Super Hornet and Su-37 are both amazing aircraft, but neither one is significantly better than the other to negate the skill of the pilot as the deciding factor.

As mentioned about, a well trained F-4 crew from back in the day could beat a young stud in either one.




[edit on 29-3-2005 by KyleChemist]


so what your saying is a ace in a Mig21 or mig27 or mig29 can shoot down a rookie F-22 pilot??

I dont think, if you want to compare pilots skills then compare something like the Mig29 to a F18, or F-18 to SU-37 if you want to compare pilots, Technology helps win in almost all scenerios, with the F22s first look First shot first Kill capability i dont think no matter how good of mig pilot you got he is going to get shot down or he is goin to turn around and head home, nothing more frustrating then trying to Find something on your radar that can hardly be detected and having it shoot missiles at you, and your doing serious manuevers to evade.

pilot skills do help but you make it sound like US has ill trained pilots, US pilots train more and harder then anyone else and some pilots were getting real life experience while flying the no fly zone and in the 1st and 2nd Iraq war

Countries can try and simulate air combat but nothing is better then real life experience,

I wonder when the last time a russian fighter pilot got into A2A combat, i would bet it has been a long long time and probably even longer for China or NK, they can simulate on the computer games all they want but no better experience then real life situation.



[edit on 29-3-2005 by zakattack]

[edit on 29-3-2005 by zakattack]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Us pilots simulate first then if they are in the navy same go to Top Gun to train. The Air Force has an are the size of Rhode Island in the Mojave desert to do whatever they want and Red Vs. Blue training occurs that's where instructors fly Mig-29's and other imports and U.SAF cadets fly F-15's and f-16's. And the pilots in the F/A-22 are the best in the USAF you have to have to be a F-15 pilot to even be asked to fly the Raptor.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Again are we talking about the Su-37 flanker upgrade or the Berkut??



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
It seems the Flanker...

Yeah, it's way too tough to become a fighter pilot, you have to be recommended or something I believe....



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   

so what your saying is a ace in a Mig21 or mig27 or mig29 can shoot down a rookie F-22 pilot??


Thats EXACTLY what I'm saying (we're never going to agree so there is really no point in arguing). Defense Contractors have claimed for years that 'this plane is so wonderful it makes pilot training unimportant' no aircraft as EVER lived up to this claim. When the F-15 first came on-line (not to knock the F-15) rookie pilots ROUTINELY can waxed in exercises by expierenced F-106 drivers.


Technology helps win in almost all scenerios, with the F22s first look First shot first Kill capability i dont think no matter how good of mig pilot you got he is going to get shot down or he is goin to turn around and head home, nothing more frustrating then trying to Find something on your radar that can hardly be detected and having it shoot missiles at you, and your doing serious manuevers to evade


Technology is great, but the greatest technological asset to any aircraft is the brain on the guy flying it.



pilot skills do help but you make it sound like US has ill trained pilots, US pilots train more and harder then anyone else and some pilots were getting real life experience while flying the no fly zone and in the 1st and 2nd Iraq war


I've been claiming that pilot skill will be the deciding factor NOT technology. I've never claimed the US has ill trained pilots. But I do feel that pilots (in all Air Forces) are becoming too dependent on technology. Coming from actual Air Force personnel, pilots are becoming more 'computer engineer' and less 'fighter jock'



I wonder when the last time a russian fighter pilot got into A2A combat, i would bet it has been a long long time and probably even longer for China or NK, they can simulate on the computer games all they want but no better experience then real life situation.


There is NO substitue for real world training, thats why the Isrealies are among the best.




[edit on 30-3-2005 by KyleChemist]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The Hornet is an exceptional dogfighter b/c of its ability to point its nose as needed. With today's high energy, high G missiles, that's a huge advantage, as you can point and shoot first.

Certain Hornet maneuvers do bleed speed, but they're done intentionally. Furthermore, it can recover extremely well from a low energy state until it hits transonic, when it hits "the wall."
In addition, it maneuvers in zones where other aircraft would lose all control authority, either from spinning out or due to the FCS limiters. With the Super Hornet, the FCS makes high alpha/low speed fighting a breeze. The SH pirouette is impressive, and is quite literally done on a dime.

They are both very good fighters, but I would have to give the edge to the Super Hornet because of superior radar and weapons, not to mention a smaller RCS than the Su-37.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Su-37 is not produced, but when produced it would be much better. Let's face it folks the F-18 E/F looks more like the interim solution than a new generation fighter. It has not even all the capabilities orginally proposed for F-18+ program. Especially it's menuvrability sucks, the F-18 C/d can fly circles around it. I also don't think it has a better radar - at least Su-37 has more place in the nose for the radar dish so I would sayif eqipped with newest russian AESA it's radar has better range. The only thing that has F-18E better is RCS, but it is still not stealth, more like eurofighter. (somewhere I read the RCS estimates are 1m2 for F-18, while 0.5-0.8m2 for Typhoon- of course those are just estimates.)


The Super Hornet has a smaller RCS than both the Rafale and the Typhoon.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Not me...And I'm sure many ppl (non-russian) agree with me on this..
USAF is by far the most logistically deployable but not the best..at lest not proven to be better than its rumored fighter equivalents..


Then who has the best airforce oh wise one?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyleChemist

Thank you AceOfCombat!! Somone who gets it! Pilot skill trumps technology every time. History has proven this, and it will be proven again in the future.


I agree totally but dont forget that bad luck can trump the lot. There are far to many variables for any pilot to be safe no matter what.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
The F/A-18E/F has a very good electronics suite including the AESA radar which will be added soon. However, in terms of raw performance the F/A-18E/F is actually much worse than the previous F/A-18C/D.


Wrong, the Super Hornet performs much better aerodynamically than the original heritage Hornet, in terms of both instantaneous/sustained turn rates, and higher alpha handling, and it will get new engines by 2008 to increase its T/W ratio.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join