Question about the F-15 Satellite Destroyer

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I read some where that the Navy was looking at possibly making a naval version of the F/A-22 only the navy version would carry more bombs/missiles and be bigger.

That was Lockheed's NATF proposal. Initially, the USN would replace its F-14s with a variation of the ATF, and the USAF would replace F-111s and F-15Es with a variation of the A-12. Amusingly, one of the reasons given in Lockheed's favor for winning the ATF bid was the strength of their NATF proposal. The irony is that the NATF was cancelled shortly after Lockheed was declared the ATF winner.

Lockheed did propose another F-22 version to the USN, this time with twin seats, as a replacement for the cancelled A-12 program, but this wasn't proceeded with either.

Originally posted by SOC

The first FLANKER-A prototype flew in 1977, not 1976. The FLANKER-F (T-10PU, Su-30) prototype was converted from the fifth T-10U, and flew sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s (the first T-10U FLANKER-B/Su-27UB prototype flew in 1985).

How are Su-30 series aircraft worse than the MiG-29? Have MiG-29s acquitted themselves better on an international stage than the Su-30Ks of India did over India against the USAF, and now over France against the AdA?

If you compare a baseline Su-30 to a baseline MiG-29C, you have a bigger aircraft with more range, more ability to operate autonomously from a GCI network, and longer-ranged weapons (R-27ER and ET against the operational FULCRUMs R-27R and R-27T). Both still retain a very rudimentary A/G capability in the form of unguided weaponry, the only advantage the FULCRUM having in this arena is the ability to deliver tactical nuclear weapons as it was an FA aircraft.

I meant the early Su-30 series, not the more modern ones, the modern ones effectively out perform and out class any other fighter in Russian inventory, except the S-37.

And the Su-27 was built from 1976-1977, I didn't mean the date that it was flown. And the Su-27 had 75 percent less manueverability and capability than the F-15C at the time. The Su-27 UB soon became the Su-27 PU and in turn became the baseline Su-30, a double seater aicraft with upgraded engines from the Su-27 baseline. Ok I was wrong to say that the Su-30 was worse than the MiG-29(I was thinking of the first Su-27 prototypes at the time).

Su-30 MK is nothing better than the Su-30 baseline, MK is just export to other nations. M being Multirole and K being export, that's all it was.

Side not, the Su-27 K was the carrier version, so some 'K' models can be different than others, an easier way to remember it is by the designation Su-33.

Source for alot of information that I have gotten is from: Link
It's not the perfect source, granted there are common typos and is in 1st person, but gets all the important information down.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 11-7-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

The F-14 is being retired because it's getting old, and it no longer serves it's primary role. One of the biggest reasons for the Tomcat being built in the first place was to shoot down Russian Cruise Missiles, and supersonic bombers, hence the Pheonix. Once Pheonix was retired, there were other platforms that did the mission better/cheaper. The Hornet was and still is a piece of junk as far as the mission goes. It has no legs. The E/F added 3000 gallons of fuel through various means, with the external fuel tanks, and got a loiter time of 71 minutes at 400 miles from the carrier. The original Hornets didn't even carry 2000 gallons of fuel without externals.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I meant the early Su-30 series, not the more modern ones, the modern ones effectively out perform and out class any other fighter in Russian inventory, except the S-37.

And the Su-27 was built from 1976-1977, I didn't mean the date that it was flown. And the Su-27 had 75 percent less manueverability and capability than the F-15C at the time. The Su-27 UB soon became the Su-27 PU and in turn became the baseline Su-30, a double seater aicraft with upgraded engines from the Su-27 baseline. Ok I was wrong to say that the Su-30 was worse than the MiG-29(I was thinking of the first Su-27 prototypes at the time).

Su-30 MK is nothing better than the Su-30 baseline, MK is just export to other nations. M being Multirole and K being export, that's all it was.

Side not, the Su-27 K was the carrier version, so some 'K' models can be different than others, an easier way to remember it is by the designation Su-33.

Source for alot of information that I have gotten is from: Link
It's not the perfect source, granted there are common typos and is in 1st person, but gets all the important information down.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 11-7-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

The Su-30 also introduced air refueling and a datalink ability allowing the rear seater to coordinate other FLANKERs.

Yes, the Su-30MK was initially just an export version of the Su-30, with added A/G capability. It did however provide the starting point for the Su-30MKK series for China, the Su-30MKV for Vietnam, the Su-30MKM for Malaysia, and the outstanding Su-30MKI for India.

Su-33 is a Sukhoi design bureau designation. That's a standard trick-give it a new designator to hide the fact that it's a modified version of something else in an attempt to get orders (hence Sukhoi now calling the strike fighter the Su-34, and the Russian Air Force still calling it the Su-27IB). Can't recall if the AV-MF uses Su-33 or Su-27K off the top of my head. You're right about the different Ks too-in the Su-27K K is Korabelniy (or something similar), for carrier based, while K in Su-30MK is Kommercial, or commercial (again, or something similar, my transliteration skills are a bit rusty).

Speaking of new designators for existing aircraft, the S-37 is now the Su-47 too.

Yes, I understand the new designations, just like the Su-35 and the Su-37, the Su-37 is only a midly upgraded Su-35. I like the designations due to the fact that it's easier to remember those designations instead of having to remember all those little letters.

Shattered OUT...

The super hornet seems to be a good successor to the F14. The F14 is a good bomber but the F18 super hornet will be cheaper and its a more modern design. The F14 still wins hands down from a standard F18 tho.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
The super hornet seems to be a good successor to the F14. The F14 is a good bomber but the F18 super hornet will be cheaper and its a more modern design. The F14 still wins hands down from a standard F18 tho.

The F/A-18 is a better bomber then the F-14 for one reason. The F/A-18 was design as a light strike/bomber, and the F-14 wasn't! The Tomcat was design to be a Fleet Air Defense Fighter and Interceptor. Its mission was to take out the Soviet ASU/ASW aircraft. The purpose of the Pheonix Missile is to shoot down anti-ship cruise missles. The Hornet was design to repace the A-7 as an attack aircraft!

Bottom Line: If you use something for what it was design for, it always works better then something that was adapted for the role later!

[edit on 12-7-2005 by ghost]

Untill they stuck bombs on F-14s and realized that it could perform the role AS WELL as the F/A-18. Interceptors have had a long and surprisingly good history when rigged for the strike role. Often this is downplayed by pilots because of their egos, they want to be fighters, not bombers. That's why 'Top Gun' has a bigger fan base than 'Flight of the Intruder'. Nothing really macho about bombers. Even F-15 pilots resisted the ground attack role, 'Not a pound for air-to-ground!' But we have the F-15E Strike Eagle. Except for question about it's take off run fully loaded, it's the premier fighter-bomber in the Air Force today. And it started as an interceptor. In the history of aircraft design, the aircraft designed as multirole from the start has had more problems than one designed for one role, then adapted to other roles. Some aircraft that prove these points are the F-100, F-104, F-4, F-111, F-14, F-15, MiG-21, MiG-19, ect., ect.

The big problem the E had with a fully loaded take off was when they upgraded the engines, they made them TOO powerful. They were causing cracks in the backbone of the planes from the vibration when they took off with a full load.

error in post

[edit on 20-6-2006 by neverlost]