Originally posted by sovietman
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?
United States used to use the AIM-54, a huge long-ranged missile. That was retired due to AIM-120. The current AIM-120C has a range of about 100km,
and the AIM-120D is generally accepted to be greater than 150km range. That's BVR enough for me
.
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.
Supercruise is actually a really big deal. In fact, in the Indian MMRCA competition, supercruise is one of the main selling points for the F-16IN,
Lockheed Martin's entry.
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?
Range 10 to 18 miles depending on altitude
Source
That's information on the AIM-9, an IR-guided missile.
Also, the MiG-35 is reputed to have the best current optical/IR detector, known as the OLS. Stats follow:
In air combat, the electronics suite allows:
* Detection of non-afterburning targets at 45 km range and more;
* Identification of those targets at 8 to 10 km range; and
* Estimates of aerial target range at up to 15 km.
Source
Wikipedia's not
all bad.
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.
The soot (yes, that's the right word) is in jet exhaust, yes, but the problem is that the particles are so small that it doesn't give enough surface
area to bounce radar waves off of. Even MiG-29's smokey engines couldn't put out enough ash to give off a lasting radar signal. It'd be the bane of
all aircraft if that did work though
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.
Actually, it doesn't quite work that way. F-22 was designed from the ground up to be made with stealth. The innards were even designed with
honeycombs to trap radar waves if memory serves me. Su-47 had an eye to stealth, but it also had to deal with making the FSW stable. Now, you can fly
without stealth, but not without wings. Thus, the Su-47 had to put stealth in as a secondary, although important feature.
And BTW, I stick to my word, that the best (and definitely the cheapest) technique to avoid radar detection is to fly low.
It stops being cheap the second the pilot doesn't see that particularly tall tree
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.
Actually, there are a couple good hints as to what PAK-FA might look like. This is the one I currently buy into. It's a concept photo done by NPO
Saturn, the company responsible for doing PAK-FA's engines.
Personally, I don't see much of a stretch to believing this will be like the eventual outcome. There are also a couple other documents out there
agreeing with this concept, including an RCS map and a 3-View picture. Darned if I can find them, though =/.
[edit on 1/27/2008 by Darkpr0]
. But it wasn't only on Wikipedia, I looked on other sites and learned a lot (I didn't check all those sites now). I think
that the point is, that the soot makes clouds and those clouds can be visible on radar. Well I think it is the bane of all aircraft. 
