Oh how quickly we forget that our darling f-117 and it's first generation stealth were based on an obscure mathematical treatise we dug up by a russian scientist....
The current differential between eastern and western military technology is a hold over from the cold war years. The west knew they could never match soviet quantity nor convince it's peoples to accept the same level of casualties. SO by default they were forced to push technology and hope they could achieve massive kill ratios against their counterparts. On the other Hand the russians had a massive industrial base and a more shall we says captive audience in their citizenry, but were consistently hampered by quality control issues. Which is common in a command based economy.
End of story kids... it's not better or worse but quality versus quantity and ideology that differentiate.

Originally posted by Manincloak
What are you talking about?
The F/A-22's CPU is 16Mhz and the plane is running on obsolete technology from the 80s,

That reflect the long development times of aircraft. Also rember it takes time to harden electronics and that designs must be frozen at some point of time. SO when the ATF was developed the CPU was not cutting edge, but was proven technology. It seems to do fine and it does not have to sort through millions of lines of bloatware at anyrate.

Originally posted by Sugarlump
Oh how quickly we forget that our darling f-117 and it's first generation stealth were based on an obscure mathematical treatise we dug up by a russian scientist....

Well that actually not entirely true. Overholser of the Skunk Works team had already written Echo I (The program to calculate the RCS) and used Ustemiv (sp?)'s paper to refine the program into the Echo II program that the F-117 was designed with. I will try to dig up the reference

How many of those planes are actually in production or made it past the prototype stage?

The first Experimental American aircraft(or aircraft in general) to have Thrust vectoring control was the X-31

Pardon? That statement is so wrong it beggars belief!

The first form of thrust vectoring was as a control device for the 1950's Rolls Royce Thrust Measuring Rig, better known as the 'Flying Bedstead'. Vectored thrust's first application in a 'real' aeroplane was in the 1960 Hawker P.1127 and then in the Hawker Siddeley Kestrel and after that in the Hawker Siddeley Harrier, the first operational vestored thrust aircraft and the first in the world to use the system for combat manoevring. Since then we have also seen vectored thrust employed in the Yak 36, Yak 38, VAK 191, Do 31 and AV-8B Harrier upgrade, ALL of which predate the X-31.

It was actual experience of pilots flying the Harrier and Sea Harrier in combat and making great use of thrust vectoring (known as Viffing - short for vectoring in forward flight) that led directly to the idea of thrust vectoring for non-VTOL combat aircraft.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

We don't need more arrogance in ATS.

Oh. so if I see a clear error I must not correct it for fear of looking arrogant? Surely not?

]
Alright, so I meant to put a question mark at the end of my paranthesis, guess I overlooked that.

I'm not a mindreader, as it was written down it looks a clear statement, and thus a wrong one.

So tell me Waynos, how many of those aircraft you listed use Thrust Vectoring Control for VTOL? The X-31 was a CTOL aircraft that had thrust vectoring control of up to 20 degrees. Also had canards, it was a flying delta wing platform that experimented with Thrust Vectoring control on an unstable platform.

So what? Didn't you read the bit about viffing combat manouvres by Harriers? Besides, vectored thrust is what it says it is, if you are going to say (by error or not) that the X-31 was the first aircraft with vectored thrust control then, as a member of this forum, I feel it only right to point out the mistake. If you think that is arrogance then, may I suggest, thats your problem.

No, actually, you saying that I was plain wrong was arrogance.

Lets do this, isntead of showing up to someone and saying 'no, you're wrong" how about you just prove them wrong? That way they feel stupid.

We are here to correct each other, no one on ATS is superior to others(except for the Administration of course). So how about instead of acting like teacher, we correct each others mistakes? There were much better approaches you could have come from to help me understand why I was wrong instead of just throwing the information on me and saying I was wrong.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
No, actually, you saying that I was plain wrong was arrogance.

etc...

Why was it arrogance? Sorry , but it was simple fact. You were wrong in what you said, so what? We all make mistakes.

I have no intention of making anyone feel stupid, that would be childish. I merely gave you the true facts surrounding vectored thrust.

What do you mean by 'acting like a teacher'? Again, I saw something that was wrong and posted accordingly.

What would you say was a better approach? I was not sarcastic or abusive, I did not write "Shattered Skies is an idiot" (which I don't think you are btw) nor did I even name you in the quote, as I was only concerned with righting the wrong, as it were, not in pulling you up personally, as you seem to be doing with me. I merely gave a very potted run down of previous uses of vectorered thrust to illustrate the point.

If you mean the line about the statement beggaring belief, well, it does. It would be the same if I tried to say that the Typhoon was the first ever delta or similar, I would expect the same response, maybe even harsher!

I'm afraid your angry response has baffled me, I'm sorry for any offence caused, I can assure you none was intended, but theres no getting away from the fact that what you said was wrong, simple as.







[edit on 9-10-2005 by waynos]

[edit on 9-10-2005 by waynos]

I take issue with the poster who said that russia was willing to accept more casualites and their people were more willing to fight. The only people willing to accept more casualties were the power hungry communist leaders who didnt care 2 cents for their own people. The actual russian people would not support their government to the death, as americans have shown throughout history. When you have something so precise and so meaningful to you called freedom and independance, you tend to know just how important it is and will do anything to keep it. The majority of the soviet people would not support a war with america or the rest of the world for the purpose of world domination as the communist leaders so dearly wanted.

Look at it like this, your starving, cold and poor in russia, what do you have to fight for? This was all too common the life in the communist russia, and now more people in russia can live without fear and can have a good life due to democracy taking effect. So quanitity u say, sorry man not buying it

Train

Getting back to the original question and not going off on tangents as these threads tend to do, I'll base my 2-cents worth on personal experience. This experience includes 500 hours in the MiG-29 (with an additional 1000 hours in the F-15, 2000 hours in the F-16 plus 500 more in the mighty F-5E Tiger II). I've also got a little time in the F-4 Phantom and the Super Hornet.
The Russians build fine aircraft, mechanically that is. They are, for the most part, simple and reliable. I seldom had a mechanical issue with the MiG-29. I have heard though, that the Su-27 is more of a maintenance nightmare; much like the F-15, which is a hydraulic-system-failure ground abort waiting to happen.
In combat, it's the whole "picture" as to how good an aircraft is. This means the aircraft as a weapon system. Here is where western aircraft have a distinct edge. In today's aerial combat, the advantage goes to the pilot who has the highest situational awareness. In this regard, Russian aircraft are woefully lacking. They are encumbered by poor radar performance, poor display technology, and poor pilot-vehicle interface (PVI) that increase the pilot's workload and make the weapon system less effective.
The MiG-29 is a fine aircraft but as a weapon system, it sucks. It has OK performance but not as good as the F-16C. It carries only 300 pounds more internal fuel than an F-16 and has to feed 2 very thirsty engines versus only one in the F-16. That doesn't give it much range or station time. Figure on a combat radius of about 100 nautical miles with about 2 minutes of afterburner available before having to return to base. The F-16 is over 3 times that. The MiG-29 is a terrible beyond-visual-range (BVR) fighter. Not only does the radar and its displays limit BVR employment, a maximum range AA-10A shot would be about 23 to 25 kilometers. An F-15/F-16/F-18 would more than double that with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, plus the AIM-120 is launch-and-leave while the AA-10A must be guided the entire way to the target. Getting to the visual arena is tough if you're outgunned. Assuming the MiG-29 pilot lives long enough to make to the within-visual-range (WVR) fight, he'll probably arrive with a disadvantage due to radar and HUD displays not providing a lot of information as to the actual target location. Let's say that an F-16 and a MiG-29 arrive at a merge totally neutral and both pilots see each other. The initial advantage would go to the MiG-29 as it enjoys a slightly higher instaneous turn rate. However, the MiG-29's energy bleed rate is extremely high and the advantage would quickly go to the F-16. The F-16 can sustain much higher Gs than the MiG-29 which translate into a higher sustained turn rate. Advantage F-16. Plus the F-16 is easier to fly, has better visibility and much better PVI. The MiG-29 has terrible handling qualities. That doesn't mean that it's dangerous, just that it's harder to fly precisely. Precision handling is important in WVR flighting, especially when it comes to gun employment. If the MiG-29 pilot has a helmet-mounted sight and the AA-11 Archer, the the advantage swings back to the MiG-29. This combination is beatable though. I've done it with an F-16. There's just no margin for error. If the F-16 pilot has the Joint Helment-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) and the AIM-9X, the advantage swings back to the F-16 pilot as the AIM-9X has better off-boresight and kinematic capabilities then the AA-11. JHMCS and AIM-9X don't guarantee victory, they just give the Viper pilot a distinct advantage. I'd take the F-16 (or the Eagle or Hornet) over the MiG-29 into combat everytime. Just look at the Fulcrum's miserable combat record. Everytime we have faced it in combat, the Fulcrum pilot has had to walk back to base.
I have never flown the Su-27, but I have flown against it in training exercises in both WVR and BVR scenarios while I was flying an F-16C. It is a much better aircraft than the the MiG-29, but for some reason, other than max detection range, its radar is not as good as the Fulcrum's. In both scenarios, I beat it like the proverbial red-headed stepchild. The F-16 is sounding like a pretty good weapon system, huh? Vectored thrust versions. Vectored thrust is a blessing and a curse. I have flown WVR against vectored-thrust aircraft and it's pretty eye-watering what they can do. That's the blessing part. The curse part - if you give up everything to point your nose, you'd better kill me now. If you don't, I will make you pay with your llife. At some point, vectored thrust quits moving the nose around and merely holds the nose at a high angle of attack. You're just a point is space, which makes my problem easy to solve. Plus, the pilot gives up a signficant amount of the axial component of thrust which is used to push the airplane. The result is that the airplane starts to fall like a rock and that gives me vertical turning room to take advantage of. The other downside is that if the pilot decides to unload and get back to an angle of attack where he can get enrgy back, it takes a while to get rid of all that angle of attack which is time the non-vectored thrust aircraft can use to its advantage. The above is not fanasty or theory. I've done it.
I also wouldn't put much stock into the results of Cope India. The handcuffs placed on the F-15s made it such that they weren't allowed to employ as F-15s. The results are totally unusable except for the Raptor Mafia and Sukhoi to use as propoganda. Soon, F-16s are deploying to India with similar handcuffs. The results won't mean a thing. While Russian fighters may not be as good as western fighters (in my opinion), they are to be respected. I treat everyone on the other side as if they are the best fighter pilot in the world until I prove them not to be.
I don't want to kick up a bunch of dust and have people tell me I'm full of it. But my points have been based on emperical data and not conjecture. Whether you believe me or not is up to you.

shattered i tried to find where i read that the f23 technology was being used in the classified programs before i made my post however i was unsuccesful.
sorry.

It must be pointed out though, when was the design for the F-22's CPUs finalised... Moore's law and all that, computing power will have moved on significantly even if its only a couple of years old.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by kilcoo316]

True, but that would apply to any aircraft so can hardly be used as a criticism, also these things are constantly upgraded to allow for advances in technology, by those that can afford to, like the USA for example.

But at what stage does the improvement returned for investment diminish?

i.e. when is a cpu strong enough to do all it will ever have to do? (or to do it to 95-99% of the super brand new hideously expensive versions etc etc)

What are current CPUs like in respect of the workload in aircraft? Need more development or nearly as strong as they will ever need to be?

Originally posted by fulcrumflyer
At some point, vectored thrust quits moving the nose around and merely holds the nose at a high angle of attack. You're just a point is space, which makes my problem easy to solve. Plus, the pilot gives up a signficant amount of the axial component of thrust which is used to push the airplane. The result is that the airplane starts to fall like a rock and that gives me vertical turning room to take advantage of.

Having flown in an F-18 before with a guy bent on making me pass out from G's and havintg been in an F-15 once, I can agree with this. Another cool thing is that you don't need thrust vectoring to be able to do this. It's quite cool to see, flying level while pointing 60 degrees or higher. An interesting trick however would be to point the plane's nose up while idling thrust (and kind of stalling it so that you don't go up, but straight) and tehn gunning the engines and afterburners just to see how many times you can flip the thing end over end. And then Trying to pull out of the resutling power-on stall.