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.

 

what's the most powerful Fighter in the world F-22 or the Su 27(35m)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And how can VFFing assist in a combat cituation?

Shattered OUT...


You can use it to tighten up your turn, while slowing your forward speed. That lets your bogey get in front of you and you can pop off a few rounds at him. If you are really quick on it you can get a sidewinder off on him.

Ask the Argentinians how well it worked, they were on the wrong side of it.


To my knowledge, actual thrust reversing was never used in any A2A engagements over the Falklands. The thought of it DID make the Argies soil themselves though!

Although strangely enough some of these references say a couple of pilots DID do that, while I distinctly recall a Falklands vet saying nobody ever actually used it. Oh well. Maybe he was referring to flying backwards.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Lampyridae]




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
mad man its not the aircraft its the man that flies it
our aircraft may be crap but our engineering is the best

[Edited on 05/03/2004 by devilwasp]


Aren't aircraft built by engineers

You are correct with the first statement - to a point. With the F-22 though, the other pilot won't have a chance to fight. Typical combat would go like this:

Raptor picks up bogey on radar, bogey doesn't. Raptor fires AMRAAM missle, still bogey doesn't know raptor is there. AMRAAM goes to end game and "locks on" to bogey. Bogey realizes he is about to die and ejects. At this point, the Bogey knows the plane is there - but still has no idea WHERE, and he's still dead or floating down on a parachute.


If I were the UK, I'd be kissing Washingtons ass to try to get this bad boy - maybe it could be made cheaper in greater numbers.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:31 AM
link   
u still dont get my point u americans are not the best at aircraft building all u do is step on giants shoulders i mean u guys wouldnt have a jet programe if it wasnt for the germans
any how our pilots would just dodge the missile and we would just use sight

[Edited on 05/03/2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:17 AM
link   
To my knowledge, actual thrust reversing was never used in any A2A engagements over the Falklands. The thought of it DID make the Argies soil themselves though!

Although strangely enough some of these references say a couple of pilots DID do that, while I distinctly recall a Falklands vet saying nobody ever actually used it. Oh well. Maybe he was referring to flying backwards.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Lampyridae]

VIFFing is not using reverse thrust (something the harrier does not have anyway).

They did actually use it on several occasions.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
1) the best pilot with an obsolete plane will die as soon as the normal pilot with an up-to-date plane will have him on his radar, maybe he will have to shoot a couple of AASRAM, but they will blow Chuck Yeager out of the skies;
2) it takes a stupid pilot to begin a dog-fight if his plane has the ability to shoot from 50 km (or more) away.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Had any of you touched a former-USSR fighter plane? They are bad assembled.

Or read about their engines life-span?
They coud be sexy-looking, or having great performance, written in their books, but they won't last a 10th of a normal western fighter plane.

I flew T-38's that were older than me, and still working good, I've never heard of a good working USSR plane older than 5 years. Maybe in a skirmish a Su 27 could win a couple of matches, but in the long run (and a war is usually long enough) F-22 will be the winner.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
exscuse me !
russain aircraft are not crap
u do realise that most aircraft no matter thier country o origin have not state of the art engines

can some 1 also exsplain to me y my country doesnt buy a better plane ?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrunoDT
1) the best pilot with an obsolete plane will die as soon as the normal pilot with an up-to-date plane will have him on his radar, maybe he will have to shoot a couple of AASRAM, but they will blow Chuck Yeager out of the skies;
2) it takes a stupid pilot to begin a dog-fight if his plane has the ability to shoot from 50 km (or more) away.


1. No, a good pilot will use what he has to evade the missiles. It can be done.
2. True, only if he has missiles that can hit that far away.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
To my knowledge, actual thrust reversing was never used in any A2A engagements over the Falklands. The thought of it DID make the Argies soil themselves though!

Although strangely enough some of these references say a couple of pilots DID do that, while I distinctly recall a Falklands vet saying nobody ever actually used it. Oh well. Maybe he was referring to flying backwards.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Lampyridae]


VIFFing is not using reverse thrust (something the harrier does not have anyway).

They did actually use it on several occasions.

What I mean by thrust reversing is not the way most other aircraft do it (clamshells), I was referring to tilting the exhaust nozzles slightly forward of perpendicular so that the aircraft would fly backwards if transitioning from a hover.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
u still dont get my point u americans are not the best at aircraft building all u do is step on giants shoulders i mean u guys wouldnt have a jet programe if it wasnt for the germans
any how our pilots would just dodge the missile and we would just use sight

[Edited on 05/03/2004 by devilwasp]


Ohhhh god - you're right - we don't build the best Aircraft


We didn't build any good planes in WWII

We didn't build the U-2

We didn't build the SR-71

We didn't build the F-14,15,16,18, or 22

or the F-117

or the B-2


You are completely right - we stole the designs from the mighty aircraft juggernaught that is the UK

All hail the rest of the world, the REAL TRUE designers of all the best aircraft........


Oh yeah - and while your pilot is "dodging" the missle he doesn't know is there, our pilot will use his SOLID STATE LASER that will be in service by the end of the decade.....But of course, we stole that too, and it sucks because it sucks like all american stuff


[Edited on 14-4-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
What I mean by thrust reversing is not the way most other aircraft do it (clamshells), I was referring to tilting the exhaust nozzles slightly forward of perpendicular so that the aircraft would fly backwards if transitioning from a hover.

Why would an aircraft want to transition from a hover to flying backwards?????????

Why would an aircraft that can land vertically need to bother with thrust reversing?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
exscuse me !
russain aircraft are not crap
u do realise that most aircraft no matter thier country o origin have not state of the art engines

can some 1 also exsplain to me y my country doesnt buy a better plane ?


It happened at Le Bourget, some years ago, when still USSR had this name: there was a Mig 29, in static view, and I happened to see it close enough to understand that was built with very little care.
A couple of day after it went down, probably for a compressor stall. It was no surprise, having studied the engine production. Low quality takes there: failure.
So, I do state that former-USSR planes are almost crap. Again: they can have good looking performances, but they just can't afford to keep them long enough to be dangerous for a western fighter plane.
When Su 27 was presented they stated it was ready to be used from am Aircraft Carrier, probably forgetting to say that the only way it coould take off from a ship was in clean configuration (no weapons and almost no fuel aboard)... Useful plane indeed!
There is no possible way that a modern western fighter plane could lose any kind of fight with another jet.

In this historical moment there are not countries capable of producing a modern fighter plane outside of NATO, my question is: do we (NATO countries) need to spend billions in oversized projects? Aerial superiority is meanless in Falluja...



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
We need to spend these billions to keep the edge. Thats why the US is only getting like 2 or 3 hundred raptors now instead of the planed 700 - we don't need that many.

But realize that this technology is not only used in the military world - it finds its way to the civilian sector later on.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:23 AM
link   
It happened at Le Bourget, some years ago, when still USSR had this name: there was a Mig 29, in static view, and I happened to see it close enough to understand that was built with very little care.
A couple of day after it went down, probably for a compressor stall. It was no surprise, having studied the engine production. Low quality takes there: failure.

You do know that Russian aircraft are built to have their engines changed out more frequently than their western counterparts?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   


Why would an aircraft want to transition from a hover to flying backwards?????????

Why would an aircraft that can land vertically need to bother with thrust reversing?


Probably to astonish the opponent, that would be so impressed having a static target that he will just leave the throttle and stick to make an applause and lose plane control crashing on the ground.
Thrust vectoring can go as far as the human inside the cockpit can stand (i.e. steep turns or other high-G manoeuvers), so the cobra thing or other show offs are pretty useless in a high energy dog fight, since the turn the plane would make will exceed human resistance, ending in a G-lock. And in a slow speed (low-energy) dog fight there is no way to evade even the oldest Sidewinder...



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Thrust vectoring can go as far as the human inside the cockpit can stand (i.e. steep turns or other high-G manoeuvers), so the cobra thing or other show offs are pretty useless in a high energy dog fight, since the turn the plane would make will exceed human resistance, ending in a G-lock. And in a slow speed (low-energy) dog fight there is no way to evade even the oldest Sidewinder...

The cobra is useful in a dogfight as a way of causing your opponent to overshoot you. It will also screw with your head when you see the other plane moving like that.

BTW if I were to evade the oldest sidewinder I would just point towards the sun.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:35 AM
link   


You do know that Russian aircraft are built to have their engines changed out more frequently than their western counterparts?


Sure, but why is this done?
Because to have enough thrust from the engines they have to oustretch metal resistance, since their technology is not as good as the one NATO countries have developed



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Sure, but why is this done?
Because to have enough thrust from the engines they have to oustretch metal resistance, since their technology is not as good as the one NATO countries have developed

No, the reason that they did this was because that was how their maintenance was set up. Unlike western aircraft, who can get almost all maintenance done at a squadron level, the Russians prefer to do most of the maintenance at a depot level.

Their engines get complete overhauls at a lower hour point than western ones do. At least that was how it was supposed to be in theory.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
What I mean by thrust reversing is not the way most other aircraft do it (clamshells), I was referring to tilting the exhaust nozzles slightly forward of perpendicular so that the aircraft would fly backwards if transitioning from a hover.


Why would an aircraft want to transition from a hover to flying backwards?????????

Why would an aircraft that can land vertically need to bother with thrust reversing?


"For rapid deceleration, the nozzles can actually be rotated past the vertical position to about 98°. "

www.globalsecurity.org...

There you go.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
"For rapid deceleration, the nozzles can actually be rotated past the vertical position to about 98°. "

www.globalsecurity.org...

There you go.

Thanks, I already knew that from friends who fly it. I was just asking the question of why would anyone want to fly backwards????



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join