Is The S-37 Fighter Up There With The F-22 ?!?!

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
just wanting some opinions whether or not the S-37 fighter is up there with the likes of the F-22 and the Grippen ?

Personally I think that it is more than capable of going one on one with any western fighter
Hope you guys feel the same






[edit on 9-10-2004 by Kenshin]




posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Nope, the F-22 is better. Dont get me wrong I like that planes performance and its "odd" looks but once you look at the stats it becomes clear that the Raptor is better.




posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   
The US has a history of "reacting" to Russian technology, as opposed to being on the cutting edge. The F/A 22 is no different.

One of the great selling points is its directional thrust. Its nozzles can be directed by the Automatic Flight Control System 30 degrees up or down.

Now compare this to the S-37. The Su-37 has 360 degree nozzle position. This, combined with its forward canards make it very very agile. I have seen video of the Su-37 at almost 0 airspeed pointing straight up. This would make other fighters stall immediately, even the F-22.



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Though I can't discount a 0 degree angle of stall on the F22, is that the only thing that would make it inferior to S37?

The F22 has superior electronics in the aircraft in the manner of Beyond Visual Range attacks, but the S37 is a faster more maneuverable aircraft.

Its a tough call, it looks like the Russians do have an amazing machine with a slight flying edge over the US plane at this time. If their electronic capabilities catch up with their plane building skills, it will be a different story completely.

I believe the Russians have a big jump on the US when it comes to 3-D vector thrusting as opposed to 2-D vector thrusting. They have a decade at least on us in the field.



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   
I think this is an interesting demonstrator just like the X29.

Thrust vectoring with 2 great powerful engines makes it a tad more interesting too.

....and IMO it's about as relevant as the X29 in terms of production, orders and any kind of large-scale deployment.

ie not at all.

Russia is (apparantly) moving on and skipping this one.

(BTW does anyone have an informed and reliable link for how many of them actually exist right now?)



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by diefaster
The US has a history of "reacting" to Russian technology, as opposed to being on the cutting edge. The F/A 22 is no different.

Well, that's not entirely true. Take the TU-160 for instance,a brilliant Russian rip-off of the older American B-1 Lancer.

It might be able to outmaneuver the F/A-22, but the F/A-22 has a better weapons system, radar and with the Beyond Visual Range attacks, infinite8 mentioned, the S-37 (or SU-47 as it is called now) will stand little chance, I think.



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
...and from the "what Russia did wrong during the Cold War" file...

of ALL the jets Russia could have ripped off, they picked the B-1? Ask anybody who has worked on these things and they will tell you it is the most problematic aircraft of all time (aside from the Spruce Goose I guess).

IMO you can't go wrong with the B-52, as far as bombers go. Any jet that can be more effective now than it was 50 --count em'-- 50 years ago when it came out, then that's probably the one to rip off.

I don't know much about the TU-160, but I will do my research so as to not look like an a$$ and give bad information. Just good manners and all...

*edit* sorry, I seem to have strayed from the topic.

[edit on 10/9/04 by diefaster]



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I think that the Raptor will win hands down

Why? Because you cant shoot waht you cant see.

The S-37 is optimized for dogfighting, but the smart pilot will only dogfight enough to stay alive then bug out to do a BVR intercept. While a S-37 would look around trying to dogfight the Raptor, the raptor would zip around ussing supercruise and take each one out one at a time, then move out of the area. It is kind of like a pack of wolfs encircling a bunch of sheep, taking one out and then drawing the herd allowing another from the other side to take out another in the back.



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   

infinite8
I believe the Russians have a big jump on the US when it comes to 3-D vector thrusting as opposed to 2-D vector thrusting. They have a decade at least on us in the field.

No, the X-31 was a good demonstrator on what thrust vectoring can really do, I think the reason that the Raptor has limited thrust vectoring is because of 2 reasons, 1.To complex and costly to build a 3D vectoring system which can remain stealthy at all time, 2. The days of dogfighting are dead and gone.

So even if the SU-47 is a little more maneuverable it wont matter because it wont even be able to see the Raptor.



posted on Oct, 9 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Are there any Russian planes in the opinion of you guys, that can stand up to Americas latest Generation of fighters

Russian are u on
,

Hopefully this won't be a one sided view


[edit on 9-10-2004 by Kenshin]



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by diefaster
Now compare this to the S-37. The Su-37 has 360 degree nozzle position. This, combined with its forward canards make it very very agile. I have seen video of the Su-37 at almost 0 airspeed pointing straight up. This would make other fighters stall immediately, even the F-22.


The SU-37 and the S-37 are 2 totaly diffrent planes, common mistake but just thought i would clear that up.

On the topic of any planes that can stand up too the americans, i'd have too say the SU-37, it ain't steath like the F-22, but if the 2 were too fight it out, then the SU-37 would probely beat it, if the pilots were of equal skill.

But yea that F-22 and its stealth, its kind of unfair eh lol



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Ok i'll play devil's advocate...

I think the Russians could be capable of delivering a good fighter if the squadrons could get the supplies, maintenance, and training they need. The problem is, their facilities are hopelessly outdated. All the technology in the world doesn't matter if you can't afford spare parts.

I think it is high time that the U.S. and Russia conduct an exercise, pitting their best against our best. Not that it would ever happen, but it would be nice. At the very least we could hope for a battle between their MiG's and our F-15's/F-16's.

And you are right about the S-37/Su-37. I believe there is also a Su-47 posted earlier. Sorry, I will do my research.

*smacks himself in head doh!*



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 02:05 AM
link   


This is what i'd like to see



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I prefer this pic, Kenshin.




posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Do You


Personally I Prefer the pride of the pride of the American Air Force being shot down by its Underistamated Foe






posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Just one thought:

We (The US) thought back in the 60's with the likes of the F-4, that dog fighting was gone. Our kill ratio was pretty bad - we had to learn to dog fight again....the use of missles and BVR engagements were the future.

I think we should have the capacity for a good dogfight, but have the advantage in BVR tactics.

=-Rich



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by rvfried
Just one thought:

We (The US) thought back in the 60's with the likes of the F-4, that dog fighting was gone. Our kill ratio was pretty bad - we had to learn to dog fight again....the use of missles and BVR engagements were the future.

I think we should have the capacity for a good dogfight, but have the advantage in BVR tactics.

=-Rich


The F-22, if need be, can still dogfight.
Hence the reason that it has a gun.
*opinion* - The F-22 can turn just as sharp as the SU-47.

[edit on 10-10-2004 by Murcielago]


E_T

posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Russia is (apparantly) moving on and skipping this one.

Yep, this one was just technology demonstrator just like US X-serie.



Originally posted by diefaster
of ALL the jets Russia could have ripped off, they picked the B-1? Ask anybody who has worked on these things and they will tell you it is the most problematic aircraft of all time (aside from the Spruce Goose I guess).

IMO you can't go wrong with the B-52, as far as bombers go. Any jet that can be more effective now than it was 50 --count em'-- 50 years ago when it came out, then that's probably the one to rip off.
Because of swing wing desing gives better high speed (low altitude) capability with low speed capability.
And in modern warfare BUFF is complete crap. It can't go anywhere near defended area, it's slow and shows well on radar, pretty much any fighter designed after WW2 could shoot it down without problems.
Making copy of that kind aircraft against high-capability enemy would be 110% waste of resources.



Originally posted by Murcielago
No, the X-31 was a good demonstrator on what thrust vectoring can really do, I think the reason that the Raptor has limited thrust vectoring is because of 2 reasons, 1.To complex and costly to build a 3D vectoring system which can remain stealthy at all time, 2. The days of dogfighting are dead and gone.

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...
The thrust vector system provided pitch and yaw forces by deflecting carbon-carbon composite paddles into the engine exhaust plume. The amount of deflection was proportional to the amount of thrust. In much the same way that aerodynamic control surfaces require larger deflections at low airspeeds, the paddles required larger deflections at low power settings. Consequently, the digital flight control system on the X-31 aircraft would determine the most suitable deflection for a given amount of thrust.

The X-31 program differed from most of the NACA or NASA predecessor programs in its emphasis on military applications. During flights with US and German service pilots, the X-31 aircraft was evaluated in a variety of simulated air combat roles, including air-to-air close combat, ground attack, military maneuvers and aircraft carrier operations.

This airplane was capable of controlled flight at both angles of attack greater than 70 degrees and during post-stall conditions beyond the aerodynamic limits of any conventional aircraft. During dog fights with comparable but non-thrust-vectored aircraft, the X-31 maneuverability was clearly superior. Controllability at high alpha gave it almost a helicopter-like ability to put on the brakes, do an about-face and fire from within the opponent's turning radius.




Thrust vectoring (especially 3D) system really causes much expenses, makes plane more complicated and adds weight... althought also removing normal aerodymic control surfaces gives certain advantages.
www.globalsecurity.org...
216.239.59.104...:We6NoDWI-q0J:www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/dj00/Manta.html+x-44+manta&hl=fi



And even mechanical engine nozzle and thrust vectoring system can be replaced which much simpler and lighter system.


The experimental demonstration of a fluidic, multiaxis thrust vectoring (MATV) scheme is presented for a structurally fixed, afterburning nozzle referred to as the conformal fluidic nozzle (CFN). This concept for jet flow control features symmetric injection around the nozzle throat to provide throttling for jet area control, and asymmetric injection to subsonically skew the sonic plane for jet vectoring.
link.aip.org.../123/502/1



This thrust vectoring and afterburn control system is a complex mechanical maze of hundreds of parts—hinges, seals, hydraulic actuators, bearings, flaps, etc.—that must slide, pivot, extend, and retract while maintaining tight tolerances under extreme temperature and pressure variations.

In a fluidic nozzle, effective throat area is controlled via tiny injectors symmetrically located around the nozzle throat. Depending on the configuration, injection angle, and pressure, these injectors can throttle the main exhaust stream as much as 50 percent between afterburning and normal cruise operation.

Thrust vectoring is a technique for turning an aircraft by diverting the exhaust stream using movable flaps or paddles. In fluidic thrust vectoring, a second set of injectors is symmetrically located around the nozzle flap, but the injectors are individually activated, as needed, to skew the sonic plane, the section of the exhaust where the flow reaches a speed of Mach 1.
www.memagazine.org...


www.geocities.com...
www.afrlhorizons.com...
www.afosr.af.mil...
techreports.larc.nasa.gov...
techreports.larc.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I prefer this pic, Kenshin.




That picture just made me think. Would the firing of a missile by an F/A-22 always have to be followed immediately by a sharp change of direction and rapid acceleration away from its now exposed position /predicted flight path?

If so could the stealthiness aspect be maintained or is the F/A-22 from this point in a good old fashioned fight with the enemy?



posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by diefaster
The US has a history of "reacting" to Russian technology, as opposed to being on the cutting edge. The F/A 22 is no different.



Don't make me laugh. The US is THE cutting edge. Period. The Raptor is the superior plane. Period. The Russians are still waiting for their first stealth aircraft, the US has 3, with a 4th under development (F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35 JSF). The US holds the record of fastest plane (SR-71). The US has a "history" as you put it, of making the very best planes.

The F-15 is a classic example. It has never lost in A2A combat. The F-16 is still regarded as the greatest light aircraft ever made. The F-14 was the greatest interceptor ever made. The SR-71 is the greatest spy plane ever made. The B-2 is the greatest bomber ever made.

Notice the trend here?



One of the great selling points is its directional thrust. Its nozzles can be directed by the Automatic Flight Control System 30 degrees up or down.

Now compare this to the S-37. The Su-37 has 360 degree nozzle position. This, combined with its forward canards make it very very agile. I have seen video of the Su-37 at almost 0 airspeed pointing straight up. This would make other fighters stall immediately, even the F-22.


This is all well and good, but for real world situations it has no bearing. The Su-47 would never see the F-22, while the F-22 would sit back and launch an AMRAAM at BVR, let it's radar guide the missle (so that the S-37 would never know a missle was even launched) and get an easy kill. Yeah - I said it. An EASY kill.

The days of the dogfight are done. It is obsolete when you can sit back undetected and fire missles with over a 90% kill ratio miles away.

That being said, the Raptor can still dogfight, and do it with the best of them.

Remember, the Raptor can maintain an UNLIMITED 60 degree AoA - something no Russian aircraft can do. This is much more usefull in real world dogfighting then a Russian cobra or super cobra (which by the way can only be done with a half empty tank of fuel and no missles).



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join