F-22 and F-35 superiority

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
WAYNOS

Red Troske, welcome along.

Thank you. Nice to meet you too.

Of course that is all way too simplistic to be entirely accurate but I cannot see how Lockheed are contacting Russia for help in improving the F-35?

I'll try to find info on eglish to you about it, but i can to find it on russian now only. Untill i looking for it, please, look at this:
youtube.com...
When i said about collaboration of Boeing and Yakovlev boureau in begin of 90th - i said it absolutely seriously. Harrier and Yak-38 - its "yesterday", and Harrier and Yak-38 doesnt relates to F-35 really. F-35 and Yak-141 has absolutely another structure really.

English is not your first language.

Sure. I'm russian, so, it's not too easy to me to speak and write on "not Empire" languige. Structure of russian languige are absolutely different from english, so please, forgive me my mistakes it english. I use to live in Siberia (Kemerovo), so, chinese, korean and japanese are much easy close to me (ah! If you want, i can to translate for you some of chinese news about J-10).

Really F-22 and F-35 looks like really nice fighters, but we here wants to create our own planes, and we wants here to do it better than NATO planes. Russians says "It's good to have spoon to dinner time" - it means we doesnt want to be "first". We just want to be best. As always.

StellarX, Hi too!
Are you from South Africa? Thats cool! One of my ancestors fought there in 1900 as good will soldier!

Right, and good luck with that.

Oh, you know, i said about Su-35 already. Its only something like "rebuild of Su-27K to absolutely another plane". Most os hull parts are another, most of avionics are another... its something like "maximum approximate" to 5th generation of fighter. Nobody here really knows what Su and MiG teams will produce tomorrow. Its secret, and they preparing "surprice" for us...




posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Nice to meet you, I'm Darkpr0. You'll probably find out soon that I love Russian aircraft
. I might randomly ask how you say something in Russian for no reason, it's mostly because I'm a great fan of the Russian language.




If to say about Su-35 - its something like "unnecessary" plane in Russian Air Force. Of course, Su-35 are really awesome fighter, and serious possible opponent to most of NATO fighters, but its not that fighter what Russian pilots wants to have. Everybody waits here for "this new plane".


In my mind, the Su-35 901-series is to PAK-FA what the F-18 E/F Super Hornets are to F-35. They're a stopgap with new technology until the new toy comes out. And to be honest, the Su-35 is not really an "unnecessary" aircraft. The mass of hardware (which isn't getting any younger) in the RuAF is pretty darned old. While PAK-FA is put through testing and modification until production, there's still going to be a gap. It would seem wise, then, to have a tried-and-true airframe with a lot of new guts inside to play with until the new Monster can get off the ground.

Besides, I doubt Sukhoi wants to see Mikoyan come out with a 4++ generation aircraft and have no Flanker response.



Soviet Union built this "absolute agressor" in the end of 1980th - it was MiG-31, but (thanks God, at last!) commies was kicked and MiG-31 becamed another unnecessary plane too. Of course, its really outstanding interceptor, nobody untill now didnt created nothing like it, but in modern Russian Air Force it has no place.


Interesting thought. This is one that has always ground the millstones in my head, and I've not quite agreed with. If Russia has a defensive strategy, let us consider the following: If someone does not like Russia, and deploys airborne weapons against her, I'd say that the first plan of action would be to intercept them. Possibly with something large, fast, and nasty. Do we know any aircraft like that? I'd say that it makes an excellent compliment to Russia's already impressive (and I'm tempted to say superior) ground-air defense strategy. If there's a hole in that strategy, a fast aircraft might be a good idea to fill the gap as they move through it. Anyway, enough of my rants. I've probably misconstrued the idea of "Interception" altogether.



I'm alfraid - but russian fighter of 5th generation will be "new MiG-31", but it will be "invisible" (i suspect minimum RCS as 0.0005m2 (meters quadrant), and much more fast than F-22. I really dont know why hell Russia need plane like this.


It certainly doesn't need a new Foxhound, but I don't think it's looking for one. The stats say, however, a bunch of things that point to more of the Flanker idea, big, and multirole leaning toward air superiority. If you won't mind committing the Cardinal Sin of looking on Wikipedia, it's actually got a pretty fair section on PAK-FA, as well as a chart of intended features.

I'm going to try a bit of logic out of the information just in my head here. I believe that PAK-FA will feature engines that produce about 16 tons worth of thrust (first engines will be the Saturn 117S, and I don't know what the next engines are). This definitely puts it in the class of a heavy fighter, unless they intend to pull an F-35 and put a single, huge engine in it. But considering that it is being built upon work in the Mikoyan 1.44 and Sukhoi Su-47, I'd say it's going to feature two engines as the above do. So this thing's going to be a heavy-class fighter. It's also slated, I believe, to have full 3D thrust vectoring, which rather puts an interceptor in an odd position as a consideration. Why would an interceptor need 3D TVC? Anyway, with a bit of logic you can see, I think I can safely say you needn't worry about seeing a new MiG-31 out of PAK-FA.

It's only a problem for people who don't want to see Flankers go. People like me.



If to say about JSF F-35 - we dont need to do a much to "answer" on this plane. Its really funny story for all russians, but all engine-power structure of F-35 was copied from russian seal fighter Yak-141 (Yak-43, Yak-41).


I wouldn't say "copied", but I think we can say it was looked at
.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Nice to meet you, I'm Darkpr0.

I'm glad to meet you here too.

You'll probably find out soon that I love Russian aircraft

Oh, i dont ask to love russian aircraft, i just want to find answers on my questions... But if you love it, so, that's great! One of my "love kids" Ka-32 helicopter are flyes in Canada now.

I might randomly ask how you say something in Russian for no reason, it's mostly because I'm a great fan of the Russian language.

Sure. If you want to have my help with russian languige - i'm always at you service! Ask me every time, and i always ready to help you.

In my mind, the Su-35 901-series is to PAK-FA what the F-18 E/F Super Hornets are to F-35.

Really PAK-FA - its only "laboratory" project, and nothing more. But Su-27K and Su-30 - its really something like same with F-15 and F-18 "Super Hornet" in their characteristics. Su-35 - its not serial fighter now. Guys from China wants to build "their own" version of Su-35, but they can to build only J-11 yet (i hope they will build their own "Su-35" soon). Really Su-35 - it's "another" Su-27K with new "everything". Just experimental plane with base of Su-27K.

The mass of hardware (which isn't getting any younger) in the RuAF is pretty darned old.

Ohhh... why do you think so? Who tells it to you? James Bond?

Really russian avionics are not too bad too.
10 years ago it was pretty modern even on helicopters (when we fought on CW2). I can only to suspect as it looks now, but i think its much more better than 10 years ago.


This is one that has always ground the millstones in my head, and I've not quite agreed with. If Russia has a defensive strategy, let us consider the following: If someone does not like Russia, and deploys airborne weapons against her, I'd say that the first plan of action would be to intercept them. Possibly with something large, fast, and nasty. Do we know any aircraft like that? I'd say that it makes an excellent compliment to Russia's already impressive (and I'm tempted to say superior) ground-air defense strategy. If there's a hole in that strategy, a fast aircraft might be a good idea to fill the gap as they move through it. Anyway, enough of my rants. I've probably misconstrued the idea of "Interception" altogether.

Of course, MiG-31 are really deadly foe for any flight object. MiG-31 has supersonic cruise speed as F-22, and it has superfar missiles, but...
But i even cannot to imagine nuclear strike on Russia now. I can to imagine european or USA intervention... so, you're welcome. Russia - it's a great swamp. If you want to enter - you must to pay a dollar. If you want to exit - you must to pay 100 dollars. Welcome to Vietnam with winter with -40. We will meet you here with our best feelings if you will arrive as friends, and we will meet you with weapon if you will arrive as enemies. And you will meet MiG-31 too... (it was my "but") NATO havent enough of soldiers to attack Russia and it'a allies. And Russia never planned to attack Europe (USA leaders try to imagine Russia as agressor, but its only... you know what i said about).

P.S. Ohhh... i'll answer on last part of post tomorrow. It's time to sleep for me. Its not too easy to me to speak on english, but all of you will help me with it, right?



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
According to members on youtube from Russia,Netherlands and other countries regarding the PAK-50 and Su fighters..They say the Raptor is a reversed engineered concept from the 1940's stolen from Russian design.
They feel that the Raptor would stand no chance against the PAK or Sukhoi built fourth and fifth generation fighters..

Go read what they are saying.. www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by C0bzz
...many other sources told me F-22 had Eleven tons...


As I said before the F-22 has an internal fuel capacity of 20,650 lb (3,082 gallons), or roughly 10.3 tons. So far with the external fuel tanks certified for it is has a total fuel capacity of 36,515 lb (5,450 gallons) or roughly 18.2 tons.

Remember the F-22 carries it's weapons load internally and therefore sacrifices nothing if it initially launches with external fuel tanks. The tanks are all designed to be jettisoned along with the pylon. Meaning there is no adverse adverse on the VLO characteristics of the F-22. I hope that settles it...


Originally posted by C0bzz
...the F-15 which has something like ten tons of fuel...


The F-15C has an internal fuel capacity of 11,792 lb (1,760 gallons), or roughly 5.9 tons. The F-15E with conformal tanks (see internal) has a fuel capacity of 21,842 lb (3,260 gallons), roughly 10.9 tons.


You said the F-22 contains internal fuel 3082 gallons? May I request source? what is the fuel specific gravity?



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This thread is like 500 years old - and I feel like a dumbass reading my own posts.
F-22 with eleven tons of fuel... psshttt.... F-15... with 10 tons... LOL. F-22 has about 9000kg or litres of fuel... i forget. ill try and find some quotes for you tomrow.

[edit on 17/9/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
You said the F-22 contains internal fuel 3082 gallons? May I request source? what is the fuel specific gravity?


The information was found within a USAF Technical Order for AERMR teams. Detailed and accurate to a tenth of a gallon. As for the specific gravity of JP-8 (F-22 fuel), here is a PDF for you to mull over.





top topics
 
1
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum