The best Dogfighting aircraft: SU-37 * F-35 * Rafale * Eurofighter * Gripen *

Thats all true but the major drawback with FSW (and the reason that the US ATF proposals didn't feature it after extensive research with the X-29) is the reverse twist induced in the wing.

An aft swept wing naturally twists the leading edge downwards under load but with FSW the leading edge twists upwards.

The leading edge twisting down decreases the load but twisting upwards increases the load and the wing diverges, ultimately twisting itself off.

To overcome this the wing must be made stiffer and, thus, heavier. Although aeroelastic tailoring with composite wings can largely overcome this there are still penalties involved which can largely negate the theoretical aerodynamic advantages inherent in Forward Sweep.


In short, FSW doesn't automatically make the fighter more manoeverable in practice, NASA and thus the US fighter industry knows this very well.

Its entitrely possible that Sukhoi have solved, or are close to solving the problem but there's no reason to assume this as a fact.

The wing of the F-23 was Northrop's answer to the reverse twist problem. By using a diamond shaped wing you have the benefit of an aft swept leading edge and a forward swept trailing edge giving excellent manoeverability without the penalies. This original concept for this wing was first developed around 1980 for the joint US/German Dornier/Northrop N/D-102. Unfortunately the only image I have of this project dates from before the diamond shape had fully evolved.






[edit on 19-8-2004 by waynos]

I think F-16 is best dogfighter, it was built to be it. It reaches maximum G that a human can stand, so no manned aircraft can be more manuverable.

One factor yet to be considered is the weapon system to be used in the actual dogfight.

As far as short-ranged AA missiles are concerned, wouldn't you all agree the the Vympel R-73 missile system, with helmet-mounted sighting system, is the best short ranged AA weapon? And paired with advanced Sukhoi aircraft, any low-speed dogfight at close range would go to the Russians?

One thing that was also mentioned, however, is that the traditional dogfight is not really as important in AA combat as it once was........

yep dogfighting is maybe a old scene, it's a shame there are only dogfights in friendly matches between NATO partners.

I thought the SU-47 is only a demoplane, the F-16 and F15 are also indeed good dogfighters(maybe the best records in history) but their time has come. yes I ment the F-22 in stand of the F-35 in second place dogfighting.

yep dogfighting is maybe a old scene, it's a shame there are only dogfights in friendly matches between NATO partners.

I thought the SU-47 is only a demoplane, the F-16 and F15 are also indeed good dogfighters(maybe the best records in history) but their time has come. yes I ment the F-22 in stand of the F-35 in second place dogfighting.

Originally posted by snowcat
yep dogfighting is maybe a old scene, it's a shame there are only dogfights in friendly matches between NATO partners.

I thought the SU-47 is only a demoplane, the F-16 and F15 are also indeed good dogfighters(maybe the best records in history) but their time has come. yes I ment the F-22 in stand of the F-35 in second place dogfighting.

the F35 is an attack plane not a fighter

Originally posted by waynos


The wing of the F-23 was Northrop's answer to the reverse twist problem. By using a diamond shaped wing you have the benefit of an aft swept leading edge and a forward swept trailing edge giving excellent manoeverability without the penalies. This original concept for this wing was first developed around 1980 for the joint US/German Dornier/Northrop N/D-102. Unfortunately the only image I have of this project dates from before the diamond shape had fully evolved.


[edit on 19-8-2004 by waynos]

This seems to be what your talking about. That would be a great Idea if it gets the best of two worlds in one design. Good post Waynos

Originally posted by waynos
Thats all true but the major drawback with FSW (and the reason that the US ATF proposals didn't feature it after extensive research with the X-29) is the reverse twist induced in the wing.

An aft swept wing naturally twists the leading edge downwards under load but with FSW the leading edge twists upwards.

The leading edge twisting down decreases the load but twisting upwards increases the load and the wing diverges, ultimately twisting itself off.

this is why x-29 never broke sound barrier, its wings just would break off. russians solved that twisting problem.
su-47's wings are made of more than 90% composite materials.
su-47 broke sound barriers and passed all supersonic tests years ago, and appearently its wings remained in place.

f-16 was the best dogfighter, but not anymore.
as i said, the pilots seat in berkut is at 60 degrees, so pilot can safely handle much more stress.

Berkut.. need awesone fly-by-wire to keep them in the air, something the Russians are far behind in.

what are you talking about?

(quote) "the Su-47 was originally built as Russia's principle testbed for composite materials and sophisticated fly-by-wire control systems"

The US has stuided forward swept wing aircraft before, does anyone remember the Grumman X-29 back in 1984? They obvioulsy did not choose the route for future combat aircraft. Plus the F-22 has thrust vectoring.

The Grumman X-29 was the end product of a long and tortuous research programme that included Rockwell, General Dynamics, British Aerospace and others, that was aimed at producing a practical FSW test bed. Here are the origiinal design proposals for a demonstrator aircraft that was to be called X-29. Obviously the Grumman proposal was the winner.

British Aerospace



Grumman



General Dynamics



Rockwell



There can be no doubt that the huge amount of interest in such research at this time was what prompted the Russians to follow the path that eventually led to the Sukhoi S-37. The modern embodiment of those early ideals.



[edit on 20-8-2004 by waynos]

In a real turning fight that would just make it a sitting duck. High energy is the name of tyhe game in a turning fight and for high speed, high energy manoevering, as has been said its the Raptor first and the Typhoon second. The Su-47 may change that but the Su-37 does not

But if the Su-37 is able to perform maneuvers like the Cobra/Super Cobra which the Raptor can't, wouldn't that show that the Su-37 is more maneuverable?

Forward sweep has been around since Junkers first thought about using it in the dying moments of WW2.

It's absolutely the case (as already said) that the FSW has some favourable characteristics compared with the usual rear SW and some major problems.

It's also true that composite structures can 'cure' some of these problems.

What seems to have been mentioned only by one poster here - and sadly ignored by just about everyone else - is that whether FSW or RSW either can be made to manoeuvre - and sustain those manoeuvres - well beyond human tolerance.

FSW may look flash but really it conferes no advantage that a well designed RSW aircraft cannot have too.

Originally posted by Michael784

In a real turning fight that would just make it a sitting duck. High energy is the name of tyhe game in a turning fight and for high speed, high energy manoevering, as has been said its the Raptor first and the Typhoon second. The Su-47 may change that but the Su-37 does not

But if the Su-37 is able to perform maneuvers like the Cobra/Super Cobra which the Raptor can't, wouldn't that show that the Su-37 is more maneuverable?

I dont think there is anything a SU-37 can do a Raptor can't

Check out this ATS thread

actually if u read it. it says that the F22 cant do it and its designed to be a first shot first kill thing.

Originally posted by UK Wizard



there you go

Air Power

I wouldn't go with the EF's main site or fan sites as an accurate source for unbiased information.

And the rank the F/A-18 far below the EF, this is not true, as of right now, i would put the SH ahead of the EF because the Typhoon is experiencing problems, and is woefully undercapable in the AtG arena.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

why?
i suppose everyone thinks they are lying?
if so then sue them for false advertising!
...hmm wait no one has so that means it must be true.

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Originally posted by UK Wizard



there you go

Air Power

I wouldn't go with the EF's main site or fan sites as an accurate source for unbiased information.

And to rank the F/A-18 far below the EF, this is not true, as of right now, i would put the SH ahead of the EF because the Typhoon is experiencing problems, and is woefully undercapable in the AtG arena.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by longbow
I have already posted here about the F-22 angle of attack ability. It is able to achieve sustained angleof attack of 60 degrees.

The best Sukhoi's (Su-37, 47) have only about 41,

Su-30 about 30 degrees

GEEZZZ!!!! YOU MUST BE KIDDING....

i have video in russian. they say SU-47 HAS UNLIMITED AoA

also, Su-30MK was pulling and holding 75 degrees AoA at one of airshows in moscov


and, about f-22 60* AoA. you should expect that from gen5 airplane

The Su-37/47 are just basically shells with flight control systems, i wouldnt have them either on the list, and they have been cancelled from production in favor of the PAK-FA program (but who knows if Russia can actually fund this).

And as for the "unlimited AoA" you speak of, this just means the absense of an AoA limiter on the control laws. That's it, nothing more. So it's real AoA is about the same as a SH's, 45 degrees, maybe 50.

Originally posted by Hyperen

Originally posted by waynos
Someone posted a table on here recently (sorry I cant remember which thread) which showed that the Typhoon is bested only by the Raptor in A2A Combat.

Heres a table showing the results of 'The DERA Study' where Western fighters were put up a simulated threat of one Su-35.

from here
F/A-22 Raptor -- 10.1 : 1
Typhoon ---------- 4.5 : 1
Rafale ------------- 1.0 : 1
Su-35 ------------- 1.0 : 1
F-15C ------------- 0.8 : 1
F/A-18+ ---------- 0.4 : 1
F/A-18C ---------- 0.3 : 1
F-16C ------------- 0.3 : 1

These results mean, for example, that in simulated combat, 4.5 Su-35s were shot down for every Typhoon lost.

The EF2000 is agile and fast with the potential to be a great dogfighter (if the MOD decide to buy cannons).

Simulations are a horrible source of information, and I wouldn't trust this one anymore.

Let me use Benjamin Disreali's words to explain this report:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

the ef is far more manouverable than most fighters includeing the f18.
also every fighter has faults at the start. their just working them out.