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

page: 40
2
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The answer to your questions is both because of stealth (airframe and avionics) and range. The F-22 has all aspect LO, this means that it's RCS is so small (at all angles) conventional radars would have to be very close to even detect an F-22 let alone track it for long durations. This allows the F-22 to position itself in a superior point and attack from BVR without being detected.

The F-22 is aided in this aspect from it's advanced and highly capable AESA radar the AN/APG-77. Not only is it very precise, powerful and multi function it is also LPI. This means the RWR's of enemy jets will not alert the pilot that he is being illuminated. This is helpful because even if an enemy fighter could not detect the Raptor on his radar he would still know something was out there.

Next the F-22's sensors and avionics provide the pilot a "picture", if you will, of the threat environment. The computer calculates the F-22's angle/aspect to the target (therefore its relative RCS) and it calculates at what ranges the sensors of the enemy pilot will detect the F-22 (given a pre-stored database on performance specs of foreign radars). This is represented by a circle around the icon of the enemy aircraft on an liquid display. Next the F-22's systems also show a line emanating from the threat icon. This line represents the maximum theoretical range of the likely weapon the threat aircraft is carrying. The range is calculated (again using a pre-stored database) with factor such as speed, altitude, range and F-Pole taken into account. This "picture" is updated continuously and instantaneously by the on board computers giving the F-22 pilot superb SA. As long as his icon remain outside of the circle and out of reach of the line he is "safe".

Anyway, what good are advanced and integrated sensors, avionics and LO if you have to get close to use a short range missile? This is where the latest version of the AMRAAM (C-7) in combination with F-22 kinematics (speed and altitude) come into play. Any ordnance dropped from faster speeds and higher altitude will fly (glide) further. The F-22 usually assumes a tactical position super cruising at Mach 1.5 - 1.7 and at very high altitudes FL 50-60. As such when the already extended range AIM-120C-7 is fired from the F-22 it gains a range increase up to 50%. This increase in range will become even more apparent with the introduction of the AIM-120D.

As for passive radars, there are several problems, one there are no passive radars in aerial fighters that I am aware of. Sure fighter radars have passive modes for detecting via radiation (radar waves) but that's not what we're talking about here. Ground SAM systems that use passive systems in combination with a highly concentrated and integrated placement are claimed to be able to detect the presence of LO fighters. But the technology does not yet exist to be precise enough to track LO aircraft this way at stand off ranges. Currently any such system might detect LO systems at reduced ranges and provide sector to interceptors but they would not be able to themselves guide missiles to the target. Keep in mind however that if your (SAM system) can detect the F-22 he has surly seen you long before (incredible ISR, ELINT and SIGINT platform), and if a weapon is available...

The F-14 was retired for several reasons, one being that as a total systems it was currently obsolete for it's given mission. It's radar was good but it could be "seen" long before in Phoenix range by enemy sensors, not to mention the AIM-54 was not all it was cracked up to be in the first place. It is a mistake to see or use the F-22 as an upgraded F-14 or F-15. It offers new integrated capabilities and therefore new tactical situations in which is can be used...

[edit on 17-4-2007 by WestPoint23]




posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Very informative.


Irv



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

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.


Like American Patriot is a rip off of Russian S-300.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I've said this a lot, but people just don't seem to grasp it. Or they skip right over it. As far as designs being "rip offs" of other designs, you can only design a plane so many ways to do the same mission. If you want a supersonic bomber, you're going to have to design something that has a very skinny fuselage, so you can get it through the sound barrier easier, and swing wings are the best design for something that large.

The more swept a wing, the faster you can travel. But the faster you have to go on take off and landing, to keep the wing generating lift. That's why a swing wing is a good design for both planes. You get a long straight wing for take off and landing, and you sweep them back for higher speeds.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
hmm.. wstpt..
The info you gave on realtime battlespace updates(esp about missile/radar envelopes) is quite dependant on intel on which the database is built.
Whether this actually translates into an advantage or a risk depends on the extent of pessimism of the data(i.e. the more pessimistic the data is, the lesser chances of a gross miscalculation of intel).

Just something to think about.

Also this kind of display is good if it incorporates and 3D view of the whole battlespace, i.e. you have spherical/ellipsoid envelopes instead of circles and ellipses.
However this would complicate User interface esp in terms of viewing all aspects of the 3D data.
A better option would be to provide 3 views(Top down,side and frontal). This is also quite complicated as the pilot would have to continuously toggle through these views as variables changed rapidly.

Finally the most complex realtime data these displays would have to incorporate would be the envelopes of the off boresight/LOAL capabilities of short range missiles like the R-73.
I think gauging the missile envelopes for the same would be especially complex when you take into consideration LOAL and HMCS factors.
Hec in a dog fight, I doubt pilots would bother much about display data.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 06:59 AM
link   
This actually gives real good insight into what combat algorithms a UCAV would require to ensure mission success when faced with aerial foes.
Obviously the system would not need the UI display functionality.
Here the data would directly be fed to the thrust ctrl/aileron actuators.



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The Russians are not stupid. They have tested Stealth technology from a downed F-117A at the almaz test centre and developed countermeasures to see Stealth aircraft.

One method is to use variations of frequency washed through a sophisticated processor, so the suggestion that an F-22 will not be detected is wishful thinking.

There is also no evidence that the Russians do not have passive radar for stealth aircraft illuminated from the ground.

Third if the Russian long range air to air missiles are passively guided by datalink from sources other than the firing aircraft the F-22 is also in trouble.

Another point, Russians have wide borescope IR guided missiles which are slaved to IR tracker balls on the aircraft.

There are so many variables that I would say there is an even match.

I would even say that the West puts all it's eggs in one basket depending so heavily on Stealth.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
You guys are all just jealous that the F-8 Crusader would own both the Raptor and the Berkut! F*ck*ng Noobs!



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Xchox after viewing your profile it's a bit rich you calling other people "noobs".

When you can use the English language sufficiently to explain yourself, please feel free to contribute another less cryptic post.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by xchox
You guys are all just jealous that the F-8 Crusader would own both the Raptor and the Berkut! F*ck*ng Noobs!


Considering the fact that the F-8 entered service at some point near 1957 while these two aircraft are cutting edge, I find it just a tad unlikely that such an old aircraft could "own" such new aircraft. Also, if you have any proof to back up your claims that the Crusader could "own" the raptor, that the Crusader could "own" the Berkut, and that we are Noobs, feel free to explain yourself.

Else, I would humbly request that you keep such comments to yourself as they detract from the peaceable community on ATS.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Sarcasm. And sure my post count isnt high, But it was a joke.
Like common now...

Anyways, If I was being serious, I would say the YF-23 would have done better then the 22 based on a documentary I watched. If you left it to personal opinion, I'd pick the Gripen, And if I were picking best per era, id say Yak-3 tied with the Be-109 during WW2.

The F-8 was always just simply the plane I looked at and was always like, Man that looks like an F14 made a baby with an A10. Just looked mean and have always loved it!

[edit on 1-6-2007 by xchox]



posted on Jun, 2 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
OH PLEASE, LET THIS THREAD DIE!! Its been discussed to the point of no return. We all have the results:

The S-37 (Su-47) isnt up there with the F-22, because it isnt anywhere. It isnt a fighter. I would be surprised if it was ever even weaponized. Prototype.

NO the raptor is not invincible.
YES it is currently the best fighter.
YES it will be surpassed some day.
YES the PAK-FA will give it a run for its money.
YES stealth is beatable, and detectable.
N/A would win a nuclear war.

PLEASE, let this thread die.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
the sukhoi berkut or golden eagle has an advantage, look at the rear stingers one is longer than the other which suggests a rear facing radar.
i dont think the raptor does, the raptor has thrust vectoring the berkut might not but its rare forward swept wings makes for turning ability that would tear apart a f22.
a berkuts saturn engines only have a life of 500 hours however a f22 is only stealth in twos, when its radar is on its visible directly head on so it needs a second plane to relay enemy position.
i think a slight edge would go to the raptor.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I agree. Let it die.
Please.

[edit on 12/23/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson
The Russians are not stupid. They have tested Stealth technology from a downed F-117A at the almaz test centre and developed countermeasures to see Stealth aircraft.

One method is to use variations of frequency washed through a sophisticated processor, so the suggestion that an F-22 will not be detected is wishful thinking.

There is also no evidence that the Russians do not have passive radar for stealth aircraft illuminated from the ground.

Third if the Russian long range air to air missiles are passively guided by datalink from sources other than the firing aircraft the F-22 is also in trouble.

Another point, Russians have wide borescope IR guided missiles which are slaved to IR tracker balls on the aircraft.

There are so many variables that I would say there is an even match.

I would even say that the West puts all it's eggs in one basket depending so heavily on Stealth.


F-117 and F-22 are in completly different generations when it comes to RCS tech, and as far as the EW suite goes they aren't even in the same galaxy, plus the whole idea of the stealth on the F-117 was it's shape, the RAM was secondary to the exacting design of it's surface angles, something which would've been rendered useless in a crash, their research would've yielded basic information on RAM composite structure, and 70's EW/ECM tech, not much else, though I do agree that stealth reliance is blatantly retarded






Originally posted by BlackWidow23
NO the raptor is not invincible.
YES it is currently the best fighter.
YES it will be surpassed some day.
YES the PAK-FA will give it a run for its money.
YES stealth is beatable, and detectable.
N/A would win a nuclear war.

PLEASE, let this thread die.


No the raptor isn't invincible, in fact in the current world of networked battlefields it'd be a fairly easy kill for a current gen military (that means europe BTW, not russia or china)

Yes, it is currently the best in service fighter, though not by much and Tranche 3 eurofighters might change that depending on what EW tech is ready to be fitted by then)

Yes, it will be surpassed, and designs which surpass it are probably already on the drawing boards of the major airframe design specialists (again not russia or china)

NO, the PAK-FA will not give it a run for it's money, just beacuse you can copy the basic look of a stealth plane on a few bits of promo material, that doesn't mean you can build something comparable, and by the time the PAK-FA reaches first stage production the F-22 will be entering it's first major upgrade, raising the bar yet again.

Yes, stealth is beatable, but EW advantages are not, the V Bomber force walked through the NORAD tests undetected for a very good reason, and US/UK ECM will ALWAYS be about 2 generations ahead of everyone elses, because we like it that way.

Oh, and a nuclear war cannot be "won" only survived.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I didn't read everything, so I will answer to the first question.

Is the S-37 fighter up there with the F-22?!?!

The answer is easy: Yes, maybe it is even better.
Let me tell why: as we all know, S-37 or su-47 has forward swept wings. This gives him extreme maneuvrability. Further on the AOA can be much greater without stall than the one of F-22. Supermaneuvrability (post stall maneuvrability) can be reached if the aircraft has more power than weight, wich F-22 does, but maybe the operational version of su-47 will also have. Su-47 has thrust vectoring in both axes, F-22 only in pitch. The pilot in su-47 sits at the angle of 60 degrees, so he/she can survive much higher g-loads. So if we tell all this in one sentence, su-47 is much more agile.
F-22 has supercruise capability. It is a nice thing but it's not so importaint in combat, except for lengthening the weapon's range, but Russia has long range missiles, wich U.S. doesn't. By the way Sukhoi said su-47 will have supercruise ability. The top speed of operational su-47 is not yet known. FSW are usefull in supersonic flight, because they act the same way as delta wings. The only problem is twisting, but use of composite materials solve it.
You were talking about stealth. You were all brainwashed. Stealth does not exist, exept maybe in gliding aircraft. Did you see any picture of F-22 like this?




Can you see the hot track behind the raptor?? Raptor designers say they made a revolutionary turbofan where the cold air surrounds the hot core. I can tell you, by IR cameras, a track like this in the picture can be detected from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. In the exhaust of an aircraft are many small particles, which can't be removed so easily and reflect radar beams perfectly. Even if everything i wrote about stealth is wrong, su-47 will have stealth capability. The only possible way of avoiding radar detection is by flying very low. Again in one sentence, new russian aircraft (also su-47 will) have IR cameras and radars on the ground are powerfull enough to detect stealth aircraft.

And about the avionics. We don't know which avionics will the operational su-47 have, but the testing version had digital engine control and very advanced avionics.


Hope you will someday realize, that America isn't always the best.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Sorry for the picture above, you have to click on it. I am a beginner on this forum. Didn't know.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I do not doubt that russian 5th on fighter would be a capable aircraft,
however it is certainly not ready yet. Not event the prototype is
done, and the main problem would be to get it serial.
The reason that i'm sure there is no finished prototype - no pictures of it. Current Russian government always tries to show it's latest achievments (s-400,bulava,topol, mother/fother/sister of all bombs and ctr) and yet nothing on pak-fa (the same with tanks- where's picture of t-95?) exept some old drawings which are rip-offs of raptor program.
Once they'll have it driving (not even flying) we will hear about it.
Once again, it will be a good aircraft given the legacy of developers.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Before I say all this, let me tell you that the Su-47 is probably my second-favorite plane, next to the Su-35 BM, so I'm not ranting on you because I'm pro-American/anti-Russian. In fact, I've gone to Russia for no other reason than to see a MAKS show since they were showing off Su-35 BM.


Originally posted by sovietman
So if we tell all this in one sentence, su-47 is much more agile.


Of course, this is correct. You can probably as any Raptor lover, and they would tell you that Su-47 has some serious aces in its paws when it comes down to maneuverability. But there is the issue of practicality. Very, very, very, very, (give or take a few hundred "very"s) few modern combat situations degenerate into WVR combat. It's all about BVR, where no maneuvering is necessary. You just pull the trigger and watch the little "DESTROYED" pop up on the HUD. So, the F-22's BVR-oriented design is simply more practical for modern use. Now, before I get too far into this, in WVR the Su-47 looks a lot better, but for the advantage it affords you it's not quite worth the difference in BVR.



F-22 has supercruise capability. It is a nice thing but it's not so importaint in combat, except for lengthening the weapon's range, but Russia has long range missiles, wich U.S. doesn't.


Thing 1: Supercruise is vital when getting to a combat zone. It doesn't help to get there late because you're slow, or with 10% fuel because you used afterburners all the way there.

Thing 2: Currently, R-77 and AIM-120 C-7 are pretty well on par. The R-77RVV-AE-PD (Enough letters?) should be on-par with AIM-120D. Also, the Novator R-172 missile of which you might be speaking is still not operational, and the AA-X-13 (R-37) is still experimental. Also, the long-ranged missiles are intended for use on High-Value Assets, like AWACS or Tankers. Not other fighters.



By the way Sukhoi said su-47 will have supercruise ability. The top speed of operational su-47 is not yet known. FSW are usefull in supersonic flight, because they act the same way as delta wings. The only problem is twisting, but use of composite materials solve it.


Actually one of the main problems with Su-47 and supersonic travel was the wing root. All the force on the wing is put onto the wing root, with which they were having a great deal of trouble since for on the wing multiplies as you go transonic and supersonic. The root of this is the inherently not-so-broad wing. A delta wing is connected to the aircraft over a very long area because its shape allows such a thing. The FSW on the Su-47 does not, which causes the problem.



You were talking about stealth. You were all brainwashed. Stealth does not exist, exept maybe in gliding aircraft. Did you see any picture of F-22 like this?
Can you see the hot track behind the raptor??


Infra-Red tracking is only effective under 50km, most combat takes place past 80km range. Even then, IR can only detect the enemy, not identify them. As well, I think that the range on most IR missiles is under or around 40km. So that doesn't help much.

The stealth we speak of is a reduced RCS, based on radar. That kind of stealth is very real.



Raptor designers say they made a revolutionary turbofan where the cold air surrounds the hot core. I can tell you, by IR cameras, a track like this in the picture can be detected from hundreds or even thousands of miles away. In the exhaust of an aircraft are many small particles, which can't be removed so easily and reflect radar beams perfectly.


Actually, most of what is in jet exhaust is water vapour. Water vapour will definitely mess a little bit with radar, but not nearly as much as you're selling. Why do you think they can use radio telescopes in all weather?



Even if everything i wrote about stealth is wrong, su-47 will have stealth capability. The only possible way of avoiding radar detection is by flying very low. Again in one sentence, new russian aircraft (also su-47 will) have IR cameras and radars on the ground are powerfull enough to detect stealth aircraft.


At the range that IR is effective, you could probably detect them by radar anyway.



And about the avionics. We don't know which avionics will the operational su-47 have, but the testing version had digital engine control and very advanced avionics.


Su-47 isn't going to be produced, so we'll never know. If you're talking about PAK-FA, it's speculated to have the N050 BRLS AFAR/AESA radar.

[edit on 1/27/2008 by Darkpr0]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Darkpr0 don't be offensive, we are just talking.

Well I still think maneuvrability is more important in combat, than very high speed. If most of combat is BVR, why U.S. doesn't have BVR missiles like MBDA Meteor? Good old dogfights still exist. Even if it is not an dogfight maneuvrability can help you escape (you not a plane
).

Is it really so important to get in the combat zone so quickly? Maybe, but as I wrote operational version of su-47 (if it will ever exist) will have supercruise, so Raptor isn't better there.

Oh, about the missiles. You wrote about experimental missiles, su-47 is experimental too!!


Yeah that's true about wing root. But that can also be solved by composite materials. When I mentioned delta wing a thought about the height-to-length ratio of the wing. I suppose you know why is that important (why they started to use delta wings in late 1940s an early 1950s when supersonic planes appeared).

OK about IR. I'm really not sure about the range of IR. I just heard it, but didn't check. It seamed possible to me. Can you post any sources?

Exhaust: in the exhaust of any jet aircraft there is water vapour, that's true. I don't know the ratio, possible that there is mostly water vapour. BUT the fuel doesn't burn perfectly, so there are many small particles (sorry I'm not native speaker: soot?, those small black particles
). And, as I wrote, they can't be removed (well maybe but the technology isn't affordable or at least not used in raptor.

Whatever about stealth (discussing it completely would last weeks), the question was if su-47 is up there with f-22. And it HAS stealth capability, so f-22 isn't better. And BTW, I stick to my word, that the best (and definitely the cheapest
) technique to avoid radar detection is to fly low.

Su-47 AS IT EXISTS NOW will never be produced. Russia has a plan to make a 5th plus generation fighter. Sukhoi was chosen. India was also negotiating with Sukhoi about their new 5th gen fighter and about su-47 as an option. We don't know yet what will the final aircraft look like, but it might have some su-47's techniques. We don't know yet. I think it will. About avionics we agree we don't know but not we will never know
.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 37  38  39    41 >>

log in

join