PDA

View Full Version : F/A-18E vs. Su-37



Insomniac
15 Oct 05,, 07:21
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jhmcs/flash.html

To my surprise I didn't find any threads on JHMCS. This is important technology. It puts the heads up display onto the visor of a fighter pilot's helmet. This allows the HUD to always stay in view and the pilot to lock onto an enemy simply by looking at him. Combined with the AIM-9X high off-boresight missile this will be a devastating weapon.

The US Navy had to make a choice between this and thrust vectoring for the F/A-18E Super Hornet and they chose this. The Airforce also wants to use them on the F/A-22 Raptor. I just want to know what you guys think about it. If a non-vectored thrust aircraft with the JHMCS and AIM-9X (example: F/A-18E) went against an enemy vectored thrust aircraft without it, (example: Su-37) which one do you think would get the kill in a close range dogfight.

((my other thread wasn't attacting any vistors so I decided to make one with a more attention grabbing name.))

ajaybhutani
15 Oct 05,, 08:56
The US Navy had to make a choice between this and thrust vectoring for the F/A-18E Super Hornet and they chose this.

Well that really dsnt mean that thrust vectoring offers lesser advantage. It all comes with the fact that TVC is a new technology and there are only two planes in serial production using TVC. ( F22 and SU30MKI). Leave aside using this technology for the carrier borne operations. Carrier borne operations are much more demanding than normal land based operations. Getting a TVC is one thing. then maintaining it is another. And definitely it will be much better to maintain an avionics module than a TVC which they wouldnt know how well will it perform.
Secondly US isnt really quite ahead in TVC. For instance. The F22 uses thrust vectoring in a single axis( vertical) and has rectangular nozzles.( which come with the obvious disadvantage increased weight by a few hundred kilos and also decrease in the engine thrust). While russians have already tested an all aspect TVC with swivveling nozzles on their Mig35( am i right??). these nozzles and much lighter in weight. begin spherical and dont decrease the thrust of the engine .
So its unfair to make this decision of Navy as a decision criteria by calling TVC as inferior.

indianguy4u
15 Oct 05,, 09:07
How many F22 will USN get?

ajaybhutani
15 Oct 05,, 09:27
How many F22 will USN get?
F22's are only for USAF.

indianguy4u
15 Oct 05,, 15:28
F22's are only for USAF.
Any specific reasons for that?

Insomniac
15 Oct 05,, 19:30
Yes, the rectangular nozzles and limited movement of up and down are called 2D thrust vectoring. The former Soviet Union use all aspect 3D thrust vectoring that makes the Su-30MKI, Su-37 Terminator, and Mig-1.44 much more manuverable. I know the F/A-18E Super Hornet is replacing the Tomcat with the biggest difference being that it only requires 15% of labor hours of the Tomcat. Every Super Hornet would be fueled, repaired, and ready to fight in less than half the time it takes to freshen up an F-14. Putting TVC on a F/A-18E would make it harder to maintain on a carrier deck.

However I still would like to know which you think would win. TVC and the JHMCS give each pilot different advantages in air-to-air combat.

Raven
15 Oct 05,, 19:46
There was going to be F-22N varient built for the USN, as to the guidelines of the AFX program, although it never got off the drawning board. It's was proposed in 92-93. It was raptor air frame, except larger. It's internal weapons bay was larger, it had PW 7000 engines which would of been a good bit smaller. it was unveiled in 1994, and was shot down almost right as the plans were unveiled. The F-22 navy varient was shot down for the same reason the F-117 nany varient was shot down, they just were to expensive, and did things the navy didn't need them to do. Also I believe sleath tech doesn't work nearly as well in a naval environment, due to the fact that the navy add ons, like tail hook, larger landing gear, ect.. would take away from the F-22's sleath.

The_Burning_Kid
15 Oct 05,, 20:50
I hope that maybe the F/A-22B or other future version will have a 3D TV nozzle. That's just sad that the F-22 only has a crappy 2D one.

Bill
15 Oct 05,, 22:42
The 2d nozzles are just as good in an aircraft with the roll rate of the F-22.

Insomniac
17 Oct 05,, 00:06
The 2D nozzles on the Raptor allow it to roll quicker than the Terminator, but the 3D nozzles make the Terminator bank better and make sharper turns. The Su-37 can make manuvers that the F/A-22 cannot, such as controlled backwards flight for a short period of time. The 3D nozzles also make the Su- 37 able to increase thrust better that the Raptor, but it is still not as fast because of the airframe.

However, when the Airforce mounts the JHMCS on the F/A-22 it will be the only aircraft in the world to have both TVC and the JHMCS.

The Israelis have a different, less advanced Helmet Mounted Sight that is used on their F-15s and the Russians are trying to make one of their own for the Mig-29 and Su-30.

In the future combat looks like it be who sees first, kills first.

Bluesman
17 Oct 05,, 01:50
There was going to be F-22N varient built for the USN, as to the guidelines of the AFX program, although it never got off the drawning board. It's was proposed in 92-93. It was raptor air frame, except larger. It's internal weapons bay was larger, it had PW 7000 engines which would of been a good bit smaller. it was unveiled in 1994, and was shot down almost right as the plans were unveiled. The F-22 navy varient was shot down for the same reason the F-117 nany varient was shot down, they just were to expensive, and did things the navy didn't need them to do. Also I believe sleath tech doesn't work nearly as well in a naval environment, due to the fact that the navy add ons, like tail hook, larger landing gear, ect.. would take away from the F-22's sleath.

Your stealth doesn't work worth a dam', either, jag-off. I've acquired and locked-on; Fox One, dickhead.

Now, bail out, and call for a Jolly Green pick-up. You're outta this AoR, loser.

BenRoethig
17 Oct 05,, 04:26
Any specific reasons for that?

Chair Force has a bigger lobby.

Raven
17 Oct 05,, 04:27
Funny I don't remeber being so arrogant when I was 19, o well. You want to screw with my integrity feel free to do so, your only making yourself look stupid. Evertime I am perusing and find one of your posts, I laugh my ass off. You know thats why I'm here cause I don't give a ****. I mean all these comments make ya sound like a De La Hoya, but your just be a ****ing Vargas, get over it. The truth is ya think your a cop or something attempt to catch me on this board lie, not so much my friend. Your a bad cop and I'm the ****in Serpico. So there, sorry to hurt the thread, but Mr. Vargas had to attack me once again.

Bluesman
17 Oct 05,, 04:53
Funny I don't remeber being so arrogant when I was 19, o well. You want to screw with my integrity feel free to do so, your only making yourself look stupid. Evertime I am perusing and find one of your posts, I laugh my ass off. You know thats why I'm here cause I don't give a ****. I mean all these comments make ya sound like a De La Hoya, but your just be a ****ing Vargas, get over it. The truth is ya think your a cop or something attempt to catch me on this board lie, not so much my friend. Your a bad cop and I'm the ****in Serpico. So there, sorry to hurt the thread, but Mr. Vargas had to attack me once again.

Tell you what, 'sir': I'm your inferior in rank, if you are who you say you are. So, why don't you call me out on my insubordination, as it's your duty to so do, when I tell you to suck my unit?

Private message me, and I'll give you my CO's phone number, and you can bust me for my crime. THAT would be what a decent officer would do...

Mods, please get this idiot out of here. It's dumbasses like this that drag the board into a direction that it's your mission to prevent. Rub him out like the piss-spot that he is.

dalem
17 Oct 05,, 05:18
Funny I don't remeber being so arrogant when I was 19, o well. You want to screw with my integrity feel free to do so, your only making yourself look stupid. Evertime I am perusing and find one of your posts, I laugh my ass off. You know thats why I'm here cause I don't give a ****. I mean all these comments make ya sound like a De La Hoya, but your just be a ****ing Vargas, get over it. The truth is ya think your a cop or something attempt to catch me on this board lie, not so much my friend. Your a bad cop and I'm the ****in Serpico. So there, sorry to hurt the thread, but Mr. Vargas had to attack me once again.

I certainly don't know who you are or are not, but Bluesman's credibility rating with me is AAA, so maybe you should put your argument down on the floor and slowly back away from it.

-dale

ajaybhutani
17 Oct 05,, 17:29
Any specific reasons for that?
because USN doesnot operate land based aircrafts and F22 is not designed to fly from the carrier.

ajaybhutani
17 Oct 05,, 17:44
Yes, the rectangular nozzles and limited movement of up and down are called 2D thrust vectoring. The former Soviet Union use all aspect 3D thrust vectoring that makes the Su-30MKI, Su-37 Terminator, and Mig-1.44 much more manuverable. I know the F/A-18E Super Hornet is replacing the Tomcat with the biggest difference being that it only requires 15% of labor hours of the Tomcat. Every Super Hornet would be fueled, repaired, and ready to fight in less than half the time it takes to freshen up an F-14. Putting TVC on a F/A-18E would make it harder to maintain on a carrier deck.

However I still would like to know which you think would win. TVC and the JHMCS give each pilot different advantages in air-to-air combat.
much bigger issue than maintenance is that the american TVC is rectangular and so much heavier. And added weight decreases the capabilities the the fighter overall.

ajaybhutani
17 Oct 05,, 17:56
Yes, the rectangular nozzles and limited movement of up and down are called 2D thrust vectoring.

They are not called 2 D thrust vectoring because they are rectangular nozzles.but because movement is only on one axis.


The former Soviet Union use

only russia and the countries it has been sold to (india and in future malaysia, china etc..expecting deliveries).


all aspect 3D thrust vectoring that makes the Su-30MKI, Su-37 Terminator, and Mig-1.44 much more manuverable.

None of these have an all aspect 3 D TVC. SU37 is a 2D.( but much lighter as its a circular nozzle and so no decrease in thrust when the TVC is not used.). MKi is displacement in 2 directions. ( i dunno about Mig1.44.
The all aspect TVC is a new entry tested by russia on mig29M recently.



However I still would like to know which you think would win. TVC and the JHMCS give each pilot different advantages in air-to-air combat.
We will never know as there hasnt been a test on aircrafts with everything else similar but only one with JHCMS and other with TVC( again what type of TVC).

TopHatter
17 Oct 05,, 20:26
Your a bad cop and I'm the ****in Serpico. So there, sorry to hurt the thread, but Mr. Vargas had to attack me once again.

You ain't shyt you little pissant. If you were a REAL pilot, you could prove your bonafides within just a few sentances. But first, I suggest looking up the word "bonafides".

Bill
17 Oct 05,, 21:21
The 2D nozzles on the Raptor allow it to roll quicker than the Terminator, but the 3D nozzles make the Terminator bank better and make sharper turns.

Wrong. 3d axis nozzles improve on YAW axis manuevering, and hold no advantadge whatsoever vs 2d nozzles wrt roll and pitch.

"The Su-37 can make manuvers that the F/A-22 cannot, such as controlled backwards flight for a short period of time."

Wrong again. :)

"The 3D nozzles also make the Su- 37 able to increase thrust better that the Raptor, but it is still not as fast because of the airframe."

That makes no sense at all...

And just for the record, the US has had 3d vectored nozzles since the late 80s...

Insomniac
18 Oct 05,, 03:43
Wrong. 3d axis nozzles improve on YAW axis manuevering, and hold no advantadge whatsoever vs 2d nozzles wrt roll and pitch.

And just for the record, the US has had 3d vectored nozzles since the late 80s...

I already know that.

Listen to what I'm saying. I was talking about BANKING. Banking means tilting your aircraft in the direction you chose and using the tail fins for turning. 3D nozzles increase the sharpness at which this manuver is done.

Yes, the Su-37 can make a manuver called the "Hammerhead" where is flys backwards controllably for a short instant in the middle of the manuver.

The sleek air frame is what gives the F/A-22 its great super cruise capability.

TopHatter
18 Oct 05,, 03:46
The sleek air frame is what gives the F/A-22 its great super cruise capability.

Say whuh? I always thought it was the engines.... ;)

Insomniac
18 Oct 05,, 03:48
They are not called 2 D thrust vectoring because they are rectangular nozzles.but because movement is only on one axis.

None of these have an all aspect 3 D TVC. SU37 is a 2D.( but much lighter as its a circular nozzle and so no decrease in thrust when the TVC is not used.). MKi is displacement in 2 directions. ( i dunno about Mig1.44.
The all aspect TVC is a new entry tested by russia on mig29M recently.


I know what makes 2D nozzles, I was just stating the they are rectangular while I was writing.

I actually got the information on the Su-37's TVC from a different site and am only repeating what I read.

Insomniac
18 Oct 05,, 03:49
Say whuh? I always thought it was the engines.... ;)

It's both actually.

TopHatter
18 Oct 05,, 03:52
It's both actually.

Ahh huh....do you have any sources for that please?
I'll start looking myself.
I would imagine you can't have an airframe like a Super Guppy (http://www.fredsboringpictures.com/images/Dayton%20Airsho/pages/150920a%20Super%20Guppy.htm) and expect to supercruise, but I didnt think it was that crucial....

Insomniac
18 Oct 05,, 04:10
Ahh huh....do you have any sources for that please?
I'll start looking myself.
I would imagine you can't have an airframe like a Super Guppy (http://www.fredsboringpictures.com/images/Dayton%20Airsho/pages/150920a%20Super%20Guppy.htm) and expect to supercruise, but I didnt think it was that crucial....

I have never seen that plane before. That is the uglyiest flying machine I ever laid eyes on.

My only source was actually on the military channel. They showed a drawn picture of the F/A-22 Raptor that graphically detailed the airflow of the frame and the officer pointed at a few spots and that it greatly reduces the planes drag.

Repatriated Canuck
18 Oct 05,, 15:47
I already know that.

Listen to what I'm saying. I was talking about BANKING. Banking means tilting your aircraft in the direction you chose and using the tail fins for turning. 3D nozzles increase the sharpness at which this manuver is done.

Yes, the Su-37 can make a manuver called the "Hammerhead" where is flys backwards controllably for a short instant in the middle of the manuver.

The sleek air frame is what gives the F/A-22 its great super cruise capability.


Let me see, banking, is that not wher you roll the aircraft then pull up? Oh yeah IT IS, now as I can tell you have never flown an aircraft before I'll explain. While in a bank to keep the nose from dropping (which would be yaw) you can adjust with a rudder that's what it's for.

Oh, while you hammerhead and make a nice stationary target I'll shoot you down. Just because it looks cool in an airshow doesn't make it practicle does it?

JG73
18 Oct 05,, 16:09
Ahh huh....do you have any sources for that please?
I'll start looking myself.
I would imagine you can't have an airframe like a Super Guppy and expect to supercruise, but I didnt think it was that crucial....




F-117 for example wasn't able to do supercruise with the engines of the F-22. Stealthdesign has made big progress in aerodynamics since the 80's. Anyhow it isn't possible in the present to make a stealth aircraft as aerodynamik as a non stealth aircraft. So the Rafale, Gripen and Typhoon are more streamlined than the F-22.
however primarily it depends on the engines.

Insomniac
18 Oct 05,, 17:41
Let me see, banking, is that not wher you roll the aircraft then pull up? Oh yeah IT IS, now as I can tell you have never flown an aircraft before I'll explain. While in a bank to keep the nose from dropping (which would be yaw) you can adjust with a rudder that's what it's for.

Oh, while you hammerhead and make a nice stationary target I'll shoot you down. Just because it looks cool in an airshow doesn't make it practicle does it?

Did I say that I've flown an aircraft before? No.

I made a mistake, sorry. And actually both those manuvers are refered to as banking.

Actually if you perform a Hammerhead while an enemy is behind at a close range you could get behind him and turn the tables. Not in any postion for a missile lock, but it would keep him out of you vulnerable area.

Bill
18 Oct 05,, 19:08
The F-22 has the greatest roll rate(bank rate) of any military aircraft ever made.

Bill
18 Oct 05,, 19:10
Hammerheads are a very common manuever, and every military fighter ever fielded will do one.

Insomniac
19 Oct 05,, 17:41
The F/A-22 is not the most manuverable fighter in the world. The Su-37 can still out turn it. That's why we have the JHMCS.

Bill
19 Oct 05,, 21:37
The SU-37 cannot outturn an F-22.

The F-22 is so agile a new liquid filled g-suit had to be invented to keep the pilot conscious. The F-22 is stressed to handle 11g of sustained manuevering....a g load that will render any human in a conventional g suit unconscious in a matter of seconds.

The_Burning_Kid
20 Oct 05,, 01:18
The SU-37 cannot outturn an F-22.

The F-22 is so agile a new liquid filled g-suit had to be invented to keep the pilot conscious. The F-22 is stressed to handle 11g of sustained manuevering....a g load that will render any human in a conventional g suit unconscious in a matter of seconds.

Can you clear something up for me:

So basically the F-22's manuverability comes from its airframe? Not really its 2d tv? Would 3d TV have much effect on its manuverability?

Insomniac
20 Oct 05,, 02:24
I didn't know they made a new G-suit for it. The Russians already have a liquid filled G-suit for the Su-37 and pilot still almost went unconscious. I don't know the G-load for the Terminator.

The Su-37 is most manuverable jet I've seen and in close range is the only real threat to the Raptor (Mig-1.44 is still not clear, but I bet it can outturn a Raptor as well). The rectangular nozzles are better and don't reduce the thrust. Other than that the TVC on the Su-37 is simply better than that on the F/A-22. There are still some manuvers that the Su-37 can do that the Raptor can not. All planes without TVC must stall to do a "Hammerhead." The Terminator can do it without stalling. Another move called the "Super Cobra" and the "Kulbit" are things that the F/A-22 can not do.

This description of the "Super Cobra" is from another site:
The Su-37's astounding maneuvers included the "Super Cobra", demonstrated for the first time. In this move, the aircraft enters with a speed of 400 kmh and is pulled through to an alpha of 135 deg, then recovered to the vertical and held in place for 4-6 seconds. The nose is then allowed to fall to the horizontal position, emerging at 150kmh with no loss of height. Another used the thrust vectoring to flip the Su-37 onto it's back, and then to rotate it upright and continue in the opposite direction. The most impressive manouver was the kulbit (somersault). With an entry speed of 350 kmh the aircraft flipped onto it's back (a full 180 deg) facing the opposite direction, inverted and practically stationary. After 'pausing', thrust vectoring completes the kulbit (a 360 deg somersault) with a nose down angle of 30 deg and an exit speed of 60 kmh.

The Raptor just can't do this.

Insomniac
20 Oct 05,, 02:26
Yes, putting 3D TVC on the F/A-22 would make it the deadlyest machine ever made.

The_Burning_Kid
20 Oct 05,, 03:17
I didn't know they made a new G-suit for it. The Russians already have a liquid filled G-suit for the Su-37 and pilot still almost went unconscious. I don't know the G-load for the Terminator.

The Su-37 is most manuverable jet I've seen and in close range is the only real threat to the Raptor (Mig-1.44 is still not clear, but I bet it can outturn a Raptor as well). The rectangular nozzles are better and don't reduce the thrust. Other than that the TVC on the Su-37 is simply better than that on the F/A-22. There are still some manuvers that the Su-37 can do that the Raptor can not. All planes without TVC must stall to do a "Hammerhead." The Terminator can do it without stalling. Another move called the "Super Cobra" and the "Kulbit" are things that the F/A-22 can not do.

This description of the "Super Cobra" is from another site:
The Su-37's astounding maneuvers included the "Super Cobra", demonstrated for the first time. In this move, the aircraft enters with a speed of 400 kmh and is pulled through to an alpha of 135 deg, then recovered to the vertical and held in place for 4-6 seconds. The nose is then allowed to fall to the horizontal position, emerging at 150kmh with no loss of height. Another used the thrust vectoring to flip the Su-37 onto it's back, and then to rotate it upright and continue in the opposite direction. The most impressive manouver was the kulbit (somersault). With an entry speed of 350 kmh the aircraft flipped onto it's back (a full 180 deg) facing the opposite direction, inverted and practically stationary. After 'pausing', thrust vectoring completes the kulbit (a 360 deg somersault) with a nose down angle of 30 deg and an exit speed of 60 kmh.

The Raptor just can't do this.

I would like you to prove that the Raptor can't do that. From what I see your just pulling that from the top of your head. :p :)

lurker
20 Oct 05,, 04:01
I would like you to prove that the Raptor can't do that. From what I see your just pulling that from the top of your head. :p :)
It just can't, it also can't make coffee. Prove that it can.

There is a lot of videos showing Su-27 and Su-37 doing "cobra's", but not a sinlge one showing any american aircraft doing the same. Don't you think they would miss such a promotion trick?

p.s. In my opinion all this "stealth" c*ap hardly flies without supercomputers on board.

Warrior_Medic
20 Oct 05,, 09:36
It just can't, it also can't make coffee. Prove that it can.

There is a lot of videos showing Su-27 and Su-37 doing "cobra's", but not a sinlge one showing any american aircraft doing the same. Don't you think they would miss such a promotion trick?

p.s. In my opinion all this "stealth" c*ap hardly flies without supercomputers on board.

An AIM-9X (ASRAAM from a Typhoon) fired from an invisible F/A-22 Raptor renders the Flanker's airshow maneuver moot. :rolleyes:

American > Russian

ajaybhutani
20 Oct 05,, 10:38
An AIM-9X (ASRAAM from a Typhoon) fired from an invisible F/A-22 Raptor renders the Flanker's airshow maneuver moot. :rolleyes:

American > Russian
things might need a complete rething with the recent announcement of stealth technologies by russia. Who knows in future we might see even R77s fired with plasma generator and the attacked aircraft will not even know till the missile hits it.

JG73
20 Oct 05,, 13:35
I didn't know they made a new G-suit for it. The Russians already have a liquid filled G-suit for the Su-37 and pilot still almost went unconscious.

The first liquid filled G-suit was the german "Libelle" which all Luftwaffe pilots wear.

JG73
20 Oct 05,, 14:33
The F-22 has the greatest roll rate(bank rate) of any military aircraft ever made.


Have you ever read something about Typhoon's roll rate or turn rate? No? I also didn't because there are no official dates. So this is a very rash statement of your's.
F-22 has a very big disadvantage because of it's airframe. So the wing loading of F-22 is about 342 kg/m2 while Gripen's is 341 kg/m2, Rafale's is 304 kg/m2 and Typhoon's is 300 kg/m2. The thrust/weight ratio of F-22 however is unbeaten with 1.27 while Typhoon is second with 1.18. Out of these dates you can make a conclusion about performance.
More over the typhoon also has thrust vectoring in it's software. There are only no thrust vectoring nozzles built in. Maybe that will change in tranche 2 or 3.

lurker
20 Oct 05,, 14:52
An AIM-9X (ASRAAM from a Typhoon) fired from an invisible F/A-22 Raptor renders the Flanker's airshow maneuver moot. :rolleyes:

American > Russian

Flame from a missile starting stage is visible. It gives couple of suqre meters signal on a radar.

Besides, in the whole history of the use of missiles in air-to-air - there is only couple of single cases of successful engagement from a distances over 25km.

I am not saying that F-22 is a crappy plane. It is a good expensive (costs about 5-6 times of the Su-27/37) plane, with supersonic cruise and all that...

But.

Any missiles on outside mounts will render it's "less visibility" useless. And if it will engage any maneuverable plane in close combat - noone knows who will win.

lurker
20 Oct 05,, 14:54
Have you ever read something about Typhoon's roll rate or turn rate? No? I also didn't because there are no official dates. So this is a very rash statement of your's.


Sniper just loves to make propaganda statements that nobody can prove. Later discussion usually reveals that he knows none or very little on a subject.

Insomniac
20 Oct 05,, 17:40
The Su-37 is the most manuverable fighter every made. I think it has been the same throughout history in comparison with Russian and American fighters. Russian aircraft are always more manuverable, while American fighters have the edge in electronics.

European aircraft are sort of like the middle ground, they have excellent manuverability and electronics, but they aren't as manuverable as an Su-37 and not as high-tech as an F/A-22. I think the EF-2000 is the third best jet ever made. The meteor missile that is carries is fairly long range, while not as long range as the AIM-54 Pheonix, it has a much better chance of actually hitting the enemy. Europe has also ordered several JHMCS's from the US.

JG73
20 Oct 05,, 18:40
The Su-37 is the most manuverable fighter every made. I think it has been the same throughout history in comparison with Russian and American fighters. Russian aircraft are always more manuverable, while American fighters have the edge in electronics.

European aircraft are sort of like the middle ground, they have excellent manuverability and electronics, but they aren't as manuverable as an Su-37 and not as high-tech as an F/A-22. I think the EF-2000 is the third best jet ever made. The meteor missile that is carries is fairly long range, while not as long range as the AIM-54 Pheonix, it has a much better chance of actually hitting the enemy. Europe has also ordered several JHMCS's from the US.

Could you please back up the turbid stuff you talk?
There are thousands of factors for each parameter. So it's not possible to say american aircrafts are better in avionics than russian's and european's are somewhere in the middle. From what I heard both, F-22 and EF, are more manuverable than Su-37 should be or the other Sus. It has strong engines but in ratio to it's weight it doesn't come close to F-22 and EF. Su-37's airframe is nearly the same as the Su-27's (plus canards) which was designed in the seventies and it's wing loading should be something about 400-430 kg/m2. I'd also say that Rafale and Gripen are more agile. Unfortunately agility is barely relevant in the present.

lurker
20 Oct 05,, 21:06
From what I heard both, F-22 and EF, are more manuverable than Su-37 should be or the other Sus

Lot of people heard that, and lot of people think that it is a BS.


was designed in the seventies and it's wing loading should be
something about 400-430 kg/m2.

With what load? There is a couple tons plus or minus.
I've heard its 360-500 kg/m2.

Warrior_Medic
20 Oct 05,, 22:42
things might need a complete rething with the recent announcement of stealth technologies by russia. Who knows in future we might see even R77s fired with plasma generator and the attacked aircraft will not even know till the missile hits it.


Yeah. Plasma, HDTV, LCD, CRT, etc. Who cares?! the Flanker's a ***** to the Raptor and so are the rest of the world's best fighters.

Warrior_Medic
20 Oct 05,, 22:45
p.s. In my opinion all this "stealth" c*ap hardly flies without supercomputers on board.

Yes, it's just your opinion. Your country's opinion was to BUILD A STEALTH FIGHTER (1.42) and only $$$$ kept them from completing it.

Obviously your country doesn't think it's crap, boy.

lurker
20 Oct 05,, 23:11
Yes, it's just your opinion. Your country's opinion was to BUILD A STEALTH FIGHTER (1.42) and only $$$$ kept them from completing it.

Obviously your country doesn't think it's crap, boy.

See the pictures below, and tell me why do you think it's "stealth" (boy)?

http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_1.jpg
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_2.jpg
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_3.jpg

Bill
21 Oct 05,, 04:03
"Can you clear something up for me:

So basically the F-22's manuverability comes from its airframe? Not really its 2d tv? Would 3d TV have much effect on its manuverability?"

The F-22s agility comes from it's wing and lifting body, fantastically low drag, combined with it's 2d nozzles and a massive 80,000lbs of thrust.

What 3d axiometric thrust adds is the ability to make severe yaw adjustments, and that is the one area where a 3d equipped jet will outmanuever or outpoint the same plane with a 2d nozzle.

Of course the coming of the AIM-9X and JHMCS almost makes such hyperagility superflous, but i guess when you combine AIM-9X/JHMCS with hyperagility, stealth, and supercruise what you get is.........the F-22.

Bill
21 Oct 05,, 04:04
"on the F/A-22 would make it the deadlyest machine ever made."

It already is.

Bill
21 Oct 05,, 04:06
Sniper just loves to make propaganda statements that nobody can prove. Later discussion usually reveals that he knows none or very little on a subject.

LOL.

Oh, that's rich... :rolleyes:

The_Burning_Kid
21 Oct 05,, 04:10
It just can't, it also can't make coffee. Prove that it can.

There is a lot of videos showing Su-27 and Su-37 doing "cobra's", but not a sinlge one showing any american aircraft doing the same. Don't you think they would miss such a promotion trick?

p.s. In my opinion all this "stealth" c*ap hardly flies without supercomputers on board.

I bet the bas its stationed at could. Maybe one of those "60% capability that hasn't been released" is making coffee. Who knows :lol: :p

The US doesn't need to show that kind of manuverability when it has its contracts sealed. When a company goes out of its way to trying to perform things that won't help in real combat but is eye candy you know their desperate. Besides I'll repeat "60% of its capability is unknown". It might be able to do that.

M21: Thanks :)

Also give me a break on Plasma stealth. It will never in the foreseeable future work. It has plenty of problems. For example, you can't generate a plasma shield around an aircraft that is actually flying. The airflow disturbs it to the point it can only be located on limited area not on the entire plane. Also the plasma stealth may stop radars but its fuel for an IR-Seeker. The only difference with a non-stealth aircraft and a plasma-stealth aircraft is that the USAF will be using more IR-Seeking missiles in the future :p

lurker
21 Oct 05,, 05:08
I bet the bas its stationed at could. Maybe one of those "60% capability that hasn't been released" is making coffee. Who knows :lol: :p


They cut so much out of the program, so noone knows whats there for real. The only stuff that left looks like a poster.
If you want - I can summarize everyting that looks wrong on that poster.



Also give me a break on Plasma stealth. It will never in the foreseeable future work. It has plenty of problems. For example, you can't generate a plasma shield around an aircraft that is actually flying. The airflow disturbs it to the point it can only be located on limited area not on the entire plane. Also the plasma stealth may stop radars but its fuel for an IR-Seeker. The only difference with a non-stealth aircraft and a plasma-stealth aircraft is that the USAF will be using more IR-Seeking missiles in the future :p

It's not hot plasma, it's cold plasma. Your plasma TV heats up like oven when it works? I quess not.

There is completely different kind of problems, that they were trying to solve for 30 years now. Would be interesting if they finally solved them.

Insomniac
21 Oct 05,, 06:49
The 60% of the F/A-22 that hasn't been released is all internal and computer software. The computers are highly classified and other technology that helps keep stealth. Its manuverability has been demonstrated and it still doesn't match that of an Su-37 Terminator. However, it might be able to make that coffee you desire. Overall the F/A-22 is the deadliest machine ever made, but its still can't match an Su-37 in a close range dogfight without the JHMCS.

However the Russians keep bragging about this "anti-stealth radar" and "plasma stealth." I don't know much about the anti-stealth radar, but the plasma stealth looks pretty workable. It is quite possible that these will get working and if they do then the Raptor's main edge is going to get dull real fast.

Russia has been making new technology just as we have. Let's face it: the Raptor's not invincible, but it and the JHMCS are simply one of our new technologies that we are making to match the Russians for future conflict.

Warrior_Medic
21 Oct 05,, 09:28
See the pictures below, and tell me why do you think it's "stealth" (boy)?

http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_1.jpg
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_2.jpg
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_3.jpg

You should say "Stealthy" rather than "Stealth"

And to answer you, boy, it looks more like a Typhoon wannabe rather than a stealth fighter. You Russians are calling it a stealth fighter, so obviously, you're freaking wrong about your country's interest in stealth. Heck, it was Russians who developed radar absorbent material. It's also far stealthier than the Flanker or American teen series fighters.

F/A-22 and Western fighters > Any Russian crap.

lurker
21 Oct 05,, 09:33
You should say "Stealthy" rather than "Stealth"

And to answer you, boy, it looks more like a Typhoon wannabe rather than a stealth fighter. You Russians are calling it a stealth fighter, so obviously, your freaking wrong about your country's interest in stealth. Heck, it was Russians who developed radar absorvent material.

F/A-22 and Western > Any Russian crap.

How about you go and learn some manners, boy? You look like a village idiot in a genglemen's club. And you probably are.

The plane have nothing similar to Typhoon. Different airframe, different matherials, different weight. Different concept.

So go really. Count some trains.

BenRoethig
21 Oct 05,, 15:37
And to answer you, boy, it looks more like a Typhoon wannabe rather than a stealth fighter.

More like what the Typhoon should have been. It has power, range, and payload that the super falcon can only dream of.

raptor1992
27 Oct 05,, 03:12
See the pictures below, and tell me why do you think it's "stealth" (boy)?

http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_1.jpg
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_2.jpg
http://www.airforce.ru/photogallery/gallery2/mfi/mig142_3.jpg

no offense but the fighter, MiG-1.44, doesn't have nearly as much stealth F-22. i admitt though i do somewhat agree with warrior_medic. but russian stealth technology is just behind US by quite a few steps. i'm not trying to be offensive and if you think i am i apologize.

jgetti
09 Nov 05,, 19:17
The 2D nozzles on the Raptor allow it to roll quicker than the Terminator, but the 3D nozzles make the Terminator bank better and make sharper turns. The Su-37 can make manuvers that the F/A-22 cannot, such as controlled backwards flight for a short period of time. The 3D nozzles also make the Su- 37 able to increase thrust better that the Raptor, but it is still not as fast because of the airframe.

However, when the Airforce mounts the JHMCS on the F/A-22 it will be the only aircraft in the world to have both TVC and the JHMCS.

The Israelis have a different, less advanced Helmet Mounted Sight that is used on their F-15s and the Russians are trying to make one of their own for the Mig-29 and Su-30.

In the future combat looks like it be who sees first, kills first.

The Joint Smoke Fighter will also have both TVC and JHMCS.

The benefit of having 3D thrust vectoring does exist, but not for increased roll rate,, everyone seems to miss this important point. Any given airframe is going to have AOA limitations. An aircraft can only pitch to the point that it's control surfaces wash out so greatly that it falls off to one side or the other. Adding 2D (pitch) vectoring only allows you to get to max AOA quicker,, it does NOT increase the airframes AOA capabilities. The true benefit of 3D thrust vectoring is that it DOES increase AOA capabilities as you now have yaw control to keep the aircraft from departing at AOA's that would otherwise cause the aircraft to depart.

Insomniac
10 Nov 05,, 03:32
The Joint Smoke Fighter will also have both TVC and JHMCS.

The benefit of having 3D thrust vectoring does exist, but not for increased roll rate,, everyone seems to miss this important point. Any given airframe is going to have AOA limitations. An aircraft can only pitch to the point that it's control surfaces wash out so greatly that it falls off to one side or the other. Adding 2D (pitch) vectoring only allows you to get to max AOA quicker,, it does NOT increase the airframes AOA capabilities. The true benefit of 3D thrust vectoring is that it DOES increase AOA capabilities as you now have yaw control to keep the aircraft from departing at AOA's that would otherwise cause the aircraft to depart.

Sorry about that post. I was using, what I just discovered to be, false information. I didn't know the JSF was going to incorporate thrust vectoring, though. Thank you for telling me.

BenRoethig
10 Nov 05,, 03:38
TVC was on the early list of specifications, but as of now is not slated to be in the initial production aircraft.

The_Burning_Kid
10 Nov 05,, 04:18
I have to agree. The F-35 will lack TVC and Supercruise, two essential things for a modern fighter if you ask me. I hope they make a "D" variant that has some of this stuff in it. But that's probably wishful thinking.

jgetti
10 Nov 05,, 15:42
I have to agree. The F-35 will lack TVC and Supercruise, two essential things for a modern fighter if you ask me. I hope they make a "D" variant that has some of this stuff in it. But that's probably wishful thinking.

I'm certain the F-35B will have it,, it's part of it's vertical lift system.

BenRoethig
10 Nov 05,, 16:38
It's a nozzle vectoring system, but it isn't thrust vectoring. It cannot be used except during takeoff and landing.

Injecteer
17 Nov 05,, 13:10
why is everyone tryin' to compare an EF2000 to Su*, while it's in the Mig29's class?

Also, from the Discovery-channnel-like TV program I heard, that the EF couldn't outperform a good-ol' Mig29 in some aspects, and Germany, Italy and the other EF project member countries are continueing to order and buy EF's only because they dont want to waste money, spent on the R&D of the plane. So, it's rather a political question, and it doesn't have much to do with the actual plane's performance.

BenRoethig
17 Nov 05,, 15:44
Justify its price maybe? The Typhoon isn't a Eagle, Raptor, or Flanker competitor. It's more like an evolved F-16.

Insomniac
17 Nov 05,, 17:26
I found the video I was looking for that demonstrated the Su-37's super manuverability. To put things plainly the F/A-22 just can't do any of this:

http://www.webmutants.com/strategypage/SU37.mpe

Injecteer
17 Nov 05,, 17:38
well, the video is cool if U dont consider the quality.
But now we'll hear opinions, like it doesn't matter what F22 can do that, it will kill with a missile from BVR :)

JG73
17 Nov 05,, 20:40
why is everyone tryin' to compare an EF2000 to Su*, while it's in the Mig29's class?

Because we are not talking about boxing where heavy weighters are only fighting against heavy weighters. In a potential conflict scenario of the future Typhoon and Su-family are typical competitors.


Also, from the Discovery-channnel-like TV program I heard, that the EF couldn't outperform a good-ol' Mig29 in some aspects...

First of all: Discovery Channel and nearly all TV documentations about military aviation are bs. The people there don't know what they are talking about respectively are talking bs intentional because they want to influence the audience's meaning. Especially US documentaries are specialized on that. They don't lie but only tell the half truth.
So, which aspects did they mention?



...and Germany, Italy and the other EF project member countries are continueing to order and buy EF's only because they dont want to waste money, spent on the R&D of the plane. So, it's rather a political question, and it doesn't have much to do with the actual plane's performance.


Nice suggestion. You could say the same about F-22. Why do the americans only buy 181 units? Is the performance of the F-22 so bad? It's the price !
Although the EF Program creates jobs and supports technical innovation. I read some numbers that more than 60% of the investions reflow to the federal budget.

Insomniac
17 Nov 05,, 22:26
Actually the Mig-29 can hold its own fairly well against an EF-2000. The Fulcrum can go faster and the turning rate is nearly, if not, equal to that of the Eurofighter, but in a fight between the two I would have to say that the Mig would win in a close range engagement. Germany currently has a few Mig-29s and they have kept pilots for them inspite of the Eurofighter being introduced. That's proof enough.

I personally think that the purchase of the F/A-22A Raptor for the U.S. Airforce was a foolish and rash decision.

JG73
17 Nov 05,, 23:51
Actually the Mig-29 can hold its own fairly well against an EF-2000. The Fulcrum can go faster and the turning rate is nearly, if not, equal to that of the Eurofighter, but in a fight between the two I would have to say that the Mig would win in a close range engagement. Germany currently has a few Mig-29s and they have kept pilots for them inspite of the Eurofighter being introduced. That's proof enough.


Germany has none MiG-29s left. They where donated to Poland. The MiGs where stationed in Rostock/Laage at Jagdgeschwader-73 "Steinhoff" (see my username), which is now getting equipped with EF2000.
I know a fighter pilot over internet(and that's proven no fake) who has flown the MiG in the past and is currently flying the EF2000. He is not allowed to talk about every detail but he says that he can do things with the Typhoon which had not been possible with the MiG and that the Typhoon is even more agile than the MiG.
And the German MiG pilots where famous to be the best MiG pilots in the world.

BenRoethig
18 Nov 05,, 02:10
Actually the Mig-29 can hold its own fairly well against an EF-2000. The Fulcrum can go faster and the turning rate is nearly, if not, equal to that of the Eurofighter, but in a fight between the two I would have to say that the Mig would win in a close range engagement. Germany currently has a few Mig-29s and they have kept pilots for them inspite of the Eurofighter being introduced. That's proof enough.

I personally think that the purchase of the F/A-22A Raptor for the U.S. Airforce was a foolish and rash decision.

Why? The Raptor has significant range and radar advantages over the Eurofighter stealth characteristics not withstanding.

tphuang
18 Nov 05,, 03:34
Actually the Mig-29 can hold its own fairly well against an EF-2000. The Fulcrum can go faster and the turning rate is nearly, if not, equal to that of the Eurofighter, but in a fight between the two I would have to say that the Mig would win in a close range engagement. Germany currently has a few Mig-29s and they have kept pilots for them inspite of the Eurofighter being introduced. That's proof enough.

I personally think that the purchase of the F/A-22A Raptor for the U.S. Airforce was a foolish and rash decision.
right, with an engine like EJ-200 and the kind of airframe on EF-2000, it can only be equal to Mig-29 in manuverability?

JG73
18 Nov 05,, 09:24
Why? The Raptor has significant range and radar advantages over the Eurofighter stealth characteristics not withstanding.

Significant advantages is overplayed. The Typhoon has a mission radius of 1390km in a high-low-high mission, equipped with 2 BVR and 4 WVR missiles. As far as I know F-22 has a radius of 1480km. What kind of mission or payload it underlies I don't know.
The current EF2000 Captor radar is inferior to the Raptor's APG-77 AESA radar. But in 2010 it also gets some kind of AESA radar with some additional capabilities the AMSAR radar.
Maybe whe could make a list next time in which we list all capabilities of each aircraft in details. Maybe than these >what is better? Rhinoceros or hippopotamus?< threads will stop.

Injecteer
18 Nov 05,, 09:44
Germany has none MiG-29s left. They where donated to Poland.
for 1 Euro, rite? :biggrin:



He is not allowed to talk about every detail but he says that he can do things with the Typhoon which had not been possible
lemme guess.... making coffee? :)



Typhoon is even more agile than the MiG.

I have seen multiple videos from airshows, and nowhere the EF2k showed smth. like "cobra" or "kulbit"... If U say:


And the German MiG pilots where famous to be the best MiG pilots in the world.
then that means, that such tricks should be a peace-a-cake for the highly trained german Kerle :).

Also, several years ago I heard rumours, that Germany would like to quit the EF program and buy MiGs, which were not worse, especially if we consider the German-upgraded Mig 29 (Sniper?). But that attempt failed due to some obvious political reasons.

JG73
18 Nov 05,, 12:12
for 1 Euro, rite? :biggrin:

Right.


lemme guess.... making coffee? :)

No, he realy is a pilot. He also makes alot of incredibble inflight photos. At flugzeugforum.de you can join them. I also know his real name.


I have seen multiple videos from airshows, and nowhere the EF2k showed smth. like "cobra" or "kulbit"... If U say:

Airshows are no foundation to estimate manouverability.


then that means, that such tricks should be a peace-a-cake for the highly trained german Kerle :).

I just wanted to say that the German pilots know the full spectrum of MiG-29's capabilities and are able to compare it to the EF2000.
He also said flying the MiG is a bit like driving a "Trabbi"(East-German car), while flying the Typhoon is like driving a Ferrari.


Also, several years ago I heard rumours, that Germany would like to quit the EF program and buy MiGs, which were not worse, especially if we consider the German-upgraded Mig 29 (Sniper?). But that attempt failed due to some obvious political reasons.

Some politicians of "Die Grünen" mentioned to buy cheap russian aircrafts instead of EF2000. :biggrin:
They are real dreamers. If they could they would disestablish military and sing peace songs to lull the enemie to sleep. :tongue:
None of the experts thought about it.

Injecteer
18 Nov 05,, 14:01
Right.
Airshows are no foundation to estimate manouverability.

why not? if an aircraft cannot do a maneuver on an airshow, it won't be able to do it anywhere, in the dogfight as well.


Right.
He also said flying the MiG is a bit like driving a "Trabbi"(East-German car), while flying the Typhoon is like driving a Ferrari.

which version are U (or ur pilot friend) talkin about? is it one of the early Migs, or is it an up-todated version, like Sniper?


Right.
Some politicians of "Die Grünen" mentioned to buy cheap russian aircrafts instead of EF2000. :biggrin:
I'm not sure, that Joschka's comrades :) are aware of such a complex thing, as a fighter plane :)
They seem to be more interested in rising the tax on a mineral fuel, damn' bastards!


None of the experts thought about it.
well, I heard, that there were several "militarists", who strongly concerned buying MiGs, so the guys who really knew what it's all about.

It makes also sence in the light of Shoeder's speech in Munich (??), where he voted for a closer alliance with Russia.

JG73
18 Nov 05,, 15:12
which version are U (or ur pilot friend) talkin about? is it one of the early Migs, or is it an up-todated version, like Sniper?

We had the MiG-29G (G=Germany). It was an updated A-Version. A german consortium updated it to NATO standard.
Some features of the 29G:
-build in TACAN
-new Transponder
-new radio set and navigation system
-build in IFF/SIF
-english letterings
-details in feet not meters
-anti collision lights



I'm not sure, that Joschka's comrades :) are aware of such a complex thing, as a fighter plane :)
They seem to be more interested in rising the tax on a mineral fuel, damn' bastards!

They where a real economic downer. Thank god they are no ruling party anymore.


well, I heard, that there were several "militarists", who strongly concerned buying MiGs, so the guys who really knew what it's all about.

As far as I know it only was mentioned by politicians. Sure, the MiGs where cult among the pilots. And in dogfighting the MiGs where specialists, ask US F-15C and F-16C pilots. But they also knew their many weaknesses. The Luftwaffe itself was happy to have found somebody to take the MiGs. The ratio of flight hours and maintenance work was disastrous and the russians moral of delivering spare parts was disastrous too.


It makes also sence in the light of Shoeder's speech in Munich (??), where he voted for a closer alliance with Russia.

I think Schröder was more interested in russian raw materials and to export alot to russia.

Insomniac
18 Nov 05,, 15:28
right, with an engine like EJ-200 and the kind of airframe on EF-2000, it can only be equal to Mig-29 in manuverability?

Yes, the EF-2000's max speed is around 2.0 mach, while the Mig-29 has a speed around 2.5 mach


I know a fighter pilot over internet(and that's proven no fake) who has flown the MiG in the past and is currently flying the EF2000. He is not allowed to talk about every detail but he says that he can do things with the Typhoon which had not been possible with the MiG and that the Typhoon is even more agile than the MiG.

Now I know your making this up off the top of your head. I don't know any fighter pilots, but I can say that I know the difference in capabilities of the aircraft. In close range the Mig-29 is better in overall performance. If this "pilot over the internet" of yours says he can do things in a Typhoon that he couldn't in a Mig it must be because of the EF-2000's superior computer technology to the Fulcrum. Now he may not be able to turn as tightly or go as fast, but he can use the Meteor missile for air-to-air combat and make precision ground strikes to hit targets as small as a shoe box.


Why? The Raptor has significant range and radar advantages over the Eurofighter stealth characteristics not withstanding.

The Raptor is the most ineffective costing military machine ever made. The Airforce can only afford slightly over 100 of them and that is not enough to protect our country. You could buy nearly three F-15s for the price of one Raptor. The F-15 still has the range, fire power, and speed to take out any aircraft with the right pilot of skill. With that money you could be making better F-15s and F-16s while upgrading your currently used machines and increasing the overall size of your force. I know they wouldn't be stealthy, but at least they could be survivable and leathal.

Injecteer
18 Nov 05,, 15:35
-english letterings


the best enchancement ever made :biggrin:



-details in feet not meters

hmm, I've never seen germans, who measured the length or hieght with the feets, instead of meters? so, what is this for? :confused:


The Luftwaffe itself was happy to have found somebody to take the MiGs./QUOTE]
maybe 'cos it didn't want to be blamed by other NATO countries for a too strong bias?

[QUOTE=JG73]
The ratio of flight hours and maintenance work was disastrous and the russians moral of delivering spare parts was disastrous too.

yeah, but it had nothing to do with the ACs theriselves. The same is happenning now to Venezuella's F16, which are suffering from the lack of US spare parts.



I think Schröder was more interested in russian raw materials and to export alot to russia.
no, that's happening already without Shroeder :)
His speach (actually, he didn't read it personally, but passed to someone) was about the military alliance, or at least acquiring the weapon systems, like S300.

I find it logical, bacause, as U know some russians DB were takin part in R&D of the airbus A380 (it was like 20-30% of the whole project)

leib10
18 Nov 05,, 16:05
The Raptor is the most ineffective costing military machine ever made. The Airforce can only afford slightly over 100 of them and that is not enough to protect our country. You could buy nearly three F-15s for the price of one Raptor. The F-15 still has the range, fire power, and speed to take out any aircraft with the right pilot of skill. With that money you could be making better F-15s and F-16s while upgrading your currently used machines and increasing the overall size of your force. I know they wouldn't be stealthy, but at least they could be survivable and leathal.

I'm starting to think the same thing. Unless we go up another powerful air force with advanced aircraft, I don't think the F-22 is a necessity.

JG73
18 Nov 05,, 19:07
Yes, the EF-2000's max speed is around 2.0 mach, while the Mig-29 has a speed around 2.5 mach

.....with afterburners. After 3 minutes flying at 2.5 fuel is low. And with flying 2.5 or 2.0 you can't do a dogfight.
Moreover EF2000 can do supercruise while MiG-29SMT can't and the Thrust/Weight ratio of the Typhoon is superior to the MiG-29s. It's 300 vs. 411 ( I think it underlies a medium filled tank and typical payload).
Both fighters do weight nearly the same when they are empty.
MiG-29SMT: 10.925kg
EF2000: 10.995kg
while EF2000's wings are much bigger
MiG29SMT: 38m2
EF2000: 50m2
So you can see that the wing loading of the EF2000 is much lower than the MiG's which is some of the most important factors of manouverability.
In contrast with the MiG the EF2000 has canards which are increasing manouverability aditional.



Now I know your making this up off the top of your head. I don't know any fighter pilots, but I can say that I know the difference in capabilities of the aircraft.

You don't seem to. And don't tell me I was a liar!!!


In close range the Mig-29 is better in overall performance. If this "pilot over the internet" of yours says he can do things in a Typhoon that he couldn't in a Mig it must be because of the EF-2000's superior computer technology to the Fulcrum. Now he may not be able to turn as tightly or go as fast, but he can use the Meteor missile for air-to-air combat and make precision ground strikes to hit targets as small as a shoe box.


See what I've posted above. All speaks against MiG-29 the old flower power kite.
But if you want....dream on.

JG73
18 Nov 05,, 19:24
...Thrust/Weight ratio of the Typhoon is superior to the MiG-29s. It's 300 vs. 411


I meant 1.18 vs. 1.13.

The_Burning_Kid
18 Nov 05,, 23:43
Actually the Mig-29 can hold its own fairly well against an EF-2000. The Fulcrum can go faster and the turning rate is nearly, if not, equal to that of the Eurofighter, but in a fight between the two I would have to say that the Mig would win in a close range engagement. Germany currently has a few Mig-29s and they have kept pilots for them inspite of the Eurofighter being introduced. That's proof enough.

I personally think that the purchase of the F/A-22A Raptor for the U.S. Airforce was a foolish and rash decision.

I think that last statement was foolish and a rash decision :p The F-22A can do things that other aircrafts can't. Do I really have to list them considering they've been gone over a million times on this board? Yes they are expensive, but they come with the privelage of having the best and most powerful fighter to date and in the forseeable future. I would like to see and F-15 or F-16 upgraded that could give 1 raptor its a*s to it.

The_Burning_Kid
18 Nov 05,, 23:45
The Raptor is the most ineffective costing military machine ever made. The Airforce can only afford slightly over 100 of them and that is not enough to protect our country. You could buy nearly three F-15s for the price of one Raptor. The F-15 still has the range, fire power, and speed to take out any aircraft with the right pilot of skill. With that money you could be making better F-15s and F-16s while upgrading your currently used machines and increasing the overall size of your force. I know they wouldn't be stealthy, but at least they could be survivable and leathal.

Uh no. Like stated before, the Raptor is the ultimate fighting machine. The F-15 can't maintain its supremecy over other aircrafts considering it is a 4 generation while the other guys are fielding 4.5 generation aircrafts. They are worthless now if you ask me.

tphuang
19 Nov 05,, 00:17
the speed isn't everything. J-8 can fly at mach2.2, do you think it has better manuverability than EF-2000?

Insomniac
19 Nov 05,, 06:16
the speed isn't everything. J-8 can fly at mach2.2, do you think it has better manuverability than EF-2000?

It has been proven in all air combat duels that the faster you can accelerate, the more air is pressed against the turning flaps and the harder you can turn. The Mig-29 can accelerate much faster than the EF-2000 and can keep that speed up in tight turns. Even with the speed advantage alone the Mig's airframe design turns nearly, if not just as good with the Euro. The EF-2000 can't reach the speed of the Mig-29 and it can't keep it's speed up in tight turns as well as the Mig either. In every EF-2000 vs. Mig-29 simulation the Mig has a great advantage in WVR duels.

However, the EF-2000 was made to shoot down a Mig from 70-50 miles away with the Meteor and not duel with them at close range.

Insomniac
19 Nov 05,, 06:33
I think that last statement was foolish and a rash decision :p The F-22A can do things that other aircrafts can't. Do I really have to list them considering they've been gone over a million times on this board? Yes they are expensive, but they come with the privelage of having the best and most powerful fighter to date and in the forseeable future. I would like to see and F-15 or F-16 upgraded that could give 1 raptor its a*s to it.

Uh no. Like stated before, the Raptor is the ultimate fighting machine. The F-15 can't maintain its supremecy over other aircrafts considering it is a 4 generation while the other guys are fielding 4.5 generation aircrafts. They are worthless now if you ask me.

Actually the Su-30MKI with plasma stealth is more than capable of handing a Raptor it's @ss. The russian's plasma stealth is a more reasonable, not to mention cheaper, approach. We are currently experimenting with our own design of plasma stealth and I think that the Airforce officials were idiots to try putting the Raptor in service and ignore this idea.

An F-15C with plasma stealth (or the U.S. version) and thrust vectoring can not only out turn a raptor, but also outrun it , keep under the radar, still leave space aboard the frame for upgrades, and even hand a Raptor its @ss at a much cheaper price. Stealth is a horrible aerodynamic design. The triangle style wings of the raptor actually hinder manuverability so the Raptor pretty much derives all its manuverability from thrust vectoring and speed.

Yes, the F/A-22A can do certain things that the current F-15s and F-16s can't, but we don't really need them to do half of those things right now. It has reduced the overall size of the force and wasted a lot of money that could be spent better in only a dozen more ways. If half of the money wasted on the Raptor were put into plasma stealth developement we would be near the Russians in putting it in production.

I stand by my earlier statement and say that it makes sense.

Maxor
19 Nov 05,, 09:08
I'm slightly knowledgeable about radars and I want to know how this plasma stealth idea works and the general theory behind it. I understand an active stealth type sysemt but just putting a coating of plasma over leading eadges doesn't seem more effective than a thin coating of RAM. Can someone show me some proof of this nifty dream plasma stealth material?

Active stealth is recognizing the decting radar beem and matching it's fequency and power at the opposing wave crest to cancel.... it's been tested to work however the equipment and computing power needed to do it right now takes up a huge amount of space and isn't expected to become practicle in the near future.

Plasma in its current uses tends to reflect and difuse most wavelegnth that hit it. The other odd thing that happens is it also emits across a wide band of wavelengths.
So you have highly excited atoms (plasma) on the skin of an aircraft not emiting a darn thing to in theory difuse a radio beam that hits it and that won't screw with onboard electronics....... and you can retrofit it to existing airframs? please someone explain to me how this works? If by some nifty chance you do find some nifty way to keep plasma in that state without emiting anything (Light, Heat, or Radio) how do you bond it to the surface of an airplane or even just the hard reflection surfaces? And once doing so do you ensure deflection of beems by a material that is by definaition unstable? I can see coming out with a good RAM material and if cheap and bonds well being able to be put onto existing airframes and serious upgrading or updating a force. Basing it on plasma isn't something I understand. I could see maybe making an active system that encorperates plasma in a couple of places as a wide frequency emitter, I'm fairly sure however the the russians have no where near the computer tech to minaiturize the proccessing power into an airframe to work for this. The USA doesn't have this and don't think they'll have it for a couple of decades.... Plus the ability to mount the nessisarcy senors all over the aircraft and have it be decent at preforming a combat mission are beyond current tech un the US. Last I checked in computer tech the US was about 8 years ahead of russian and in sensor tech about 5 so I am doubting its a functional active system......

So sure you have an ionized gas that is able to bend some wavelegnths, providing complete broad band coverage over a plane constantly; this is including the low pressure area's over the wings and the high pressure area's beneath them? It's also acting as an enormous amout of plasma and abosbing everything on a the whole radio spectrum? I simply don't understand how this is functional... Oh and lets also remember that we use radio telescopes to study stars..... why is this because when energized my heat light or radio waves the excited ions emmit radio waves.

I can see the Russains coming up with a ram and angle deflection stealth system at this point tech wise but it fits no real role for the russians.

Someone please tell me how plasma works I know this is redundant but really expound.

BenRoethig
19 Nov 05,, 10:26
Wouldn't plasma make an aircraft very visible to IR sensors?

JG73
19 Nov 05,, 11:38
It has been proven in all air combat duels that the faster you can accelerate, the more air is pressed against the turning flaps and the harder you can turn. The Mig-29 can accelerate much faster than the EF-2000 and can keep that speed up in tight turns.

The opposite is true. See the statistic numbers I posted above (T/W ratio=acceleration).


Even with the speed advantage alone the Mig's airframe design turns nearly, if not just as good with the Euro.

The opposite is true. See the statistic numbers I posted above (wing loading).



The EF-2000 can't reach the speed of the Mig-29 and it can't keep it's speed up in tight turns as well as the Mig either. In every EF-2000 vs. Mig-29 simulation the Mig has a great advantage in WVR duels.

:biggrin: Now you are making yourself ridiculous. You only judge aircrafts from what you saw at airshows and PC simulations? How old are you?:biggrin:

The_Burning_Kid
19 Nov 05,, 17:17
Actually the Su-30MKI with plasma stealth is more than capable of handing a Raptor it's @ss. The russian's plasma stealth is a more reasonable, not to mention cheaper, approach. We are currently experimenting with our own design of plasma stealth and I think that the Airforce officials were idiots to try putting the Raptor in service and ignore this idea.

An F-15C with plasma stealth (or the U.S. version) and thrust vectoring can not only out turn a raptor, but also outrun it , keep under the radar, still leave space aboard the frame for upgrades, and even hand a Raptor its @ss at a much cheaper price. Stealth is a horrible aerodynamic design. The triangle style wings of the raptor actually hinder manuverability so the Raptor pretty much derives all its manuverability from thrust vectoring and speed.

Yes, the F/A-22A can do certain things that the current F-15s and F-16s can't, but we don't really need them to do half of those things right now. It has reduced the overall size of the force and wasted a lot of money that could be spent better in only a dozen more ways. If half of the money wasted on the Raptor were put into plasma stealth developement we would be near the Russians in putting it in production.

I stand by my earlier statement and say that it makes sense.

Once again I find myself repeating things I've said long ago. Plasma stealth is a hoax. It can't be used for two reasons:

1) It is impossible to cover an entire aircraft with plasma stealth. Airflow and simple physics will illustrate that. The airflow would destroy the plasma shield or whatever around the aircraft. Its impossible. You could only put it around very small areas.
2) It is going to be very large. How are you going to create plasma with a small box? Your going to need some heavy equipment. So it destroys that possiblity.
3) Plasma stealth no matter what you say, is going to have a large IR signature.

And about the F-15, could you prove that? No, I don't think so. Also if your talking about upgradable capability, my friend then you are lost. A new airframe will be much more upgradable and expansionable than a airframe that is around 30 years. The same reason why the US didn't choose the F-20 over teh F-16.

The Russians continue to say they are going to put plasma stealth in production, but guess what, I haven't seen anything other than big statements, that will make all the more funnier when the tell us the truth that it isn't capable of doing what they said it would.

Insomniac
19 Nov 05,, 18:25
The opposite is true. See the statistic numbers I posted above (T/W ratio=acceleration).



The opposite is true. See the statistic numbers I posted above (wing loading).




:biggrin: Now you are making yourself ridiculous. You only judge aircrafts from what you saw at airshows and PC simulations? How old are you?:biggrin:

If you haven't noticed that is what airshows are for, demonstrating the capabilities of military aircraft. The airshow by the Su-37 is just a demonstration. It won't be using any of those manuvers in a fight. It could do far more when dogfighting an adversary and is the ultimate close range killer.

Actually I there's a realistic simulation center that I go to and it has all the aircrafts real characteristics from 1990-1995 downloaded from real engineers and people who designed the planes. I have even talked to some fighter pilots, but I don't keep in touch. Your numbers are overall weight to thrust, but you forget that the Mig is still smaller and lighter than the EF-2000 even though it has a weaker thrust to weight ratio. Canards do not increase the manuverability by a great margine. Not only that, but the Mig-29 has a much tighter fly-by-wire system. My age is of no importance. I would ask how old you are and where you get your sources from, but that's not important either.

Wait, are you talking about dogfighting with no ordance? That is what I'm comparing with in my mind. The Mig-29 is superior in performance at close range if neither it or the EF-2000 has ordinance. You could mount some air-to-air missiles and it will still be superior, but with anything else it will hinder the Mig more than the Euro, but even then it would only be by a small margine.

Insomniac
19 Nov 05,, 18:54
Once again I find myself repeating things I've said long ago. Plasma stealth is a hoax. It can't be used for two reasons:

1) It is impossible to cover an entire aircraft with plasma stealth. Airflow and simple physics will illustrate that. The airflow would destroy the plasma shield or whatever around the aircraft. Its impossible. You could only put it around very small areas.
2) It is going to be very large. How are you going to create plasma with a small box? Your going to need some heavy equipment. So it destroys that possiblity.
3) Plasma stealth no matter what you say, is going to have a large IR signature.

And about the F-15, could you prove that? No, I don't think so. Also if your talking about upgradable capability, my friend then you are lost. A new airframe will be much more upgradable and expansionable than a airframe that is around 30 years. The same reason why the US didn't choose the F-20 over teh F-16.

The Russians continue to say they are going to put plasma stealth in production, but guess what, I haven't seen anything other than big statements, that will make all the more funnier when the tell us the truth that it isn't capable of doing what they said it would.

How would you know? Those aren't even real reasons. You just simply say that it is impossible. You are not a scientist working on it with the Russians. They have already done it in a lab and once that's finished then the thing is pretty much working and just needs to be supersized. I have no idea how big the box will be, but they said it would take up a small amount of space and be very light weight. You don't know a single thing about making plasma stealth so you can't say that it is impossible. As for the IR signature, yeah, maybe it will generate heat, but keeping under the radar is a better advantage.

And yes I can prove that about the F-15. There was a an experiment with NASA called the F-15 ACTIVE. It was basically an F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring. The F-15 already has an airframe that was designed to manuver and with the thrust vectoring/canards the tests showed extreme results and can even do some of the manuvers that the Su-37 can do, which the Raptor can't. However, they were actually testing this to put it onto the F/A-22. The stealth airframe gives it sharp edges that slice through the air and give fantastically low drag, but the triangular wing design is horrible for manuverability so thrust vectoring was mounted on it.

Thrust vectoring mounted on an airframe that is designed to manuver is far better than mounted on a stealth airframe. Both the Su-37 and F-15 ACTIVE prove that.

Insomniac
19 Nov 05,, 19:04
(Nevermind this post.)

The_Burning_Kid
20 Nov 05,, 02:45
How would you know? Those aren't even real reasons. You just simply say that it is impossible. You are not a scientist working on it with the Russians. They have already done it in a lab and once that's finished then the thing is pretty much working and just needs to be supersized. I have no idea how big the box will be, but they said it would take up a small amount of space and be very light weight. You don't know a single thing about making plasma stealth so you can't say that it is impossible. As for the IR signature, yeah, maybe it will generate heat, but keeping under the radar is a better advantage.

And yes I can prove that about the F-15. There was a an experiment with NASA called the F-15 ACTIVE. It was basically an F-15 with canards and thrust vectoring. The F-15 already has an airframe that was designed to manuver and with the thrust vectoring/canards the tests showed extreme results and can even do some of the manuvers that the Su-37 can do, which the Raptor can't. However, they were actually testing this to put it onto the F/A-22. The stealth airframe gives it sharp edges that slice through the air and give fantastically low drag, but the triangular wing design is horrible for manuverability so thrust vectoring was mounted on it.

Thrust vectoring mounted on an airframe that is designed to manuver is far better than mounted on a stealth airframe. Both the Su-37 and F-15 ACTIVE prove that.

1) Other than them stating that, I would like to see some video proof that they have actually done it. How do you know that there not bluffing and just want to make people think its working so they get more funding for their project? Also saying that the heat will be disregarded is a very bad statement. If it is invisible on radar its a mountain on an IR sensor. The USAF will just have to commission more IR-Seeking missiles. I wouldn't trust everything they have said.
2) I know about the F-15 ACTIVE. Yes it was manuverable but could you prove me that the F-22 can't do those manuvers that it did? Huh? All I hear is statements with no backing. We don't even know most of the F-22's capabilities. The USAF isn't inclined on showing off its F-22 to as Russia is.

Insomniac
20 Nov 05,, 04:54
1) Other than them stating that, I would like to see some video proof that they have actually done it. How do you know that there not bluffing and just want to make people think its working so they get more funding for their project? Also saying that the heat will be disregarded is a very bad statement. If it is invisible on radar its a mountain on an IR sensor. The USAF will just have to commission more IR-Seeking missiles. I wouldn't trust everything they have said.
2) I know about the F-15 ACTIVE. Yes it was manuverable but could you prove me that the F-22 can't do those manuvers that it did? Huh? All I hear is statements with no backing. We don't even know most of the F-22's capabilities. The USAF isn't inclined on showing off its F-22 to as Russia is.

Like I said earlier, the F-22's manuverability has been demonstrated and it does not match that of an Su-37. The horrible wing design hinders turning ability. All of the 60% of the Raptor that hasn't been shown is all internal computer software. Did you not see the video of the Su-37 I posted earlier? I went to NASA's official site to try and find the F-15 ACTIVE videos but for some reason my computer won't play the file.

And how would you know if the russians are bluffing about plasma stealth or not? It seems to me that you are just scared of the F/A-22's supremacy being challenged so you mock plasma stealth every chance you get. I do not have video proof, but here is a site with pictures and a scientific description of how it works.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/plasmamain.htm

The_Burning_Kid
20 Nov 05,, 05:37
Like I said earlier, the F-22's manuverability has been demonstrated and it does not match that of an Su-37. The horrible wing design hinders turning ability. All of the 60% of the Raptor that hasn't been shown is all internal computer software. Did you not see the video of the Su-37 I posted earlier? I went to NASA's official site to try and find the F-15 ACTIVE videos but for some reason my computer won't play the file.

And how would you know if the russians are bluffing about plasma stealth or not? It seems to me that you are just scared of the F/A-22's supremacy being challenged so you mock plasma stealth every chance you get. I do not have video proof, but here is a site with pictures and a scientific description of how it works.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/plasmamain.htm

One question, why would the USAF or Lockheed want to show off the full manuverability of the F-22? Huh? It wouldn't be smart. I bet you a couple of bucks that it hasn't shown its true performance yet.

Uh, let me see...... there is no evidence that it works or not. All that showed was pictures. How do we know if that really is stealth? That site doesn't seem very credible in its not so professional layout. If it was from the company then yes I would believe it. And like I stated before, it wouldn't be possible to field it for those reasons I stated before. And if you look at the picture, that is pretty big component. And you would need something even bigger to make a large shield, which on its own is still impratical.

Also I'm not scared about the F-22 supremacy as I know it already has it. :tongue:

lurker
20 Nov 05,, 05:45
I'm slightly knowledgeable about radars and I want to know how this plasma stealth idea works and the general theory behind it. I understand an active stealth type sysemt but just putting a coating of plasma over leading eadges doesn't seem more effective than a thin coating of RAM. Can someone show me some proof of this nifty dream plasma stealth material?


People (who seen the math about this thing) say that radiowaves behave in plasma (of some frequencies) exactly as in absorbing paint.

Maxor
20 Nov 05,, 06:42
All I want to know is how you can get an ionized gas to uniformly spread over the leading edge of a jet intake and wings? Once this has been explained to me I might be ready to beleive in a plasma stealth aircraft possibility. Untill someone points this out to me the radio wave bending properties of plasma's make me go nifty, it has no use in aircraft however. If you have some pointy projections along the leading edges to distirbute the ionization to the existing airparticles you A. destroy alot of the aerodynamics of the plane (alot more than current intrument projections as there are on a typical fighter plane maybe 15) B. have the projections themselves to ounce off of which would reduce signature significantly but not enough to stealth an aircraft it would be more of a low profile system. C. You are adding a large amount of wieght and power drain to an airplane. D. You are still counting onfluid dynamics over your whole airfram to channel plasma this would require a complete plane designed around including windtunnel testing oh and has anyone ever actually seen what flying in a highly charged enviroment tends to do to electronics on planes?

Maxor can see projecting a ion or plasma stream over certain points of a plane to reduce signature. It would play merry hell with one's own active radar by bouncing back odd distortions but should be software editable. So far as I know know one has created a usuable system to do this that has been deemed as effective as just using angles and ram on those portions.

Maxor
20 Nov 05,, 06:46
Thanks lurker I kinda think I got into that bit further down but how can you have a plasma over a wing edge? and if you have it inside of a thin plastic over the edge you are still getting bounce off of the plastic (though rduced) and at normal speeds have to worry about compression creating gaps in the plasma as the plastic is pressed against the airfram metal.... also from what I know about plasma (not one hell of alot just basics) you need different plasmas to effect different frequence bands. I'm just wondering about the technicalities of this.

The_Burning_Kid
20 Nov 05,, 16:55
All I want to know is how you can get an ionized gas to uniformly spread over the leading edge of a jet intake and wings? Once this has been explained to me I might be ready to beleive in a plasma stealth aircraft possibility. Untill someone points this out to me the radio wave bending properties of plasma's make me go nifty, it has no use in aircraft however. If you have some pointy projections along the leading edges to distirbute the ionization to the existing airparticles you A. destroy alot of the aerodynamics of the plane (alot more than current intrument projections as there are on a typical fighter plane maybe 15) B. have the projections themselves to ounce off of which would reduce signature significantly but not enough to stealth an aircraft it would be more of a low profile system. C. You are adding a large amount of wieght and power drain to an airplane. D. You are still counting onfluid dynamics over your whole airfram to channel plasma this would require a complete plane designed around including windtunnel testing oh and has anyone ever actually seen what flying in a highly charged enviroment tends to do to electronics on planes?

Maxor can see projecting a ion or plasma stream over certain points of a plane to reduce signature. It would play merry hell with one's own active radar by bouncing back odd distortions but should be software editable. So far as I know know one has created a usuable system to do this that has been deemed as effective as just using angles and ram on those portions.

Thats the problem with plasma stealth. Even if you could get it to work, the airflow would disrupt and wouldn't allow the shield or whatever to maintain shape over the aircraft. Its impossible and only a pipe-dream to get it to work. There are so many problems with it, that it isnt' worth it.

Insomniac
20 Nov 05,, 17:52
One question, why would the USAF or Lockheed want to show off the full manuverability of the F-22? Huh? It wouldn't be smart. I bet you a couple of bucks that it hasn't shown its true performance yet.

Uh, let me see...... there is no evidence that it works or not. All that showed was pictures. How do we know if that really is stealth? That site doesn't seem very credible in its not so professional layout. If it was from the company then yes I would believe it. And like I stated before, it wouldn't be possible to field it for those reasons I stated before. And if you look at the picture, that is pretty big component. And you would need something even bigger to make a large shield, which on its own is still impratical.

Also I'm not scared about the F-22 supremacy as I know it already has it. :tongue:

1. Actually I have no idea how they are going to work that out. You still can't say it is impossible since neither you or me know what the Russians are going to use on an aircraft.

2. Not everyone at Lockheed of the USAF is smart.

The_Burning_Kid
20 Nov 05,, 18:07
1. Actually I have no idea how they are going to work that out. You still can't say it is impossible since neither you or me know what the Russians are going to use on an aircraft.

2. Not everyone at Lockheed of the USAF is smart.

1) I can say that based on physics.
2) I doubt that as everyone would have to be stupid to leak out the full capabilities of the F-22.

Insomniac
20 Nov 05,, 20:05
1) I can say that based on physics.
2) I doubt that as everyone would have to be stupid to leak out the full capabilities of the F-22.

The manuverability of the F/A-22 was demonstrated during the tests before being put into prodution. And, no, not everyone would have to be stupid, just the people ahead of the program. I can assure you that the F/A-22 is not able to do those manuvers based on the physics of a stealth airframe and the demonstration of its manuvering capability. The Su-37 and F-15 ACTIVE are both superior in that area.

You still have no idea what the Russians plan to use for the plasma stealth, but until we really find out, keep you own opinion. I don't think that it's impossible since they actually tested the plasma stealth with the airframe of an Su-47 in a wind tunnel at the lab. It had worked and did not hinder the manuverability or aerodynamics of the plane. They haven't released how they did it, of course. So you can think whatever you want. If you're correct then you have every right to rub it in my face, but if your wrong then the F/A-22's supremacy has come to a quick end and every official in the US Airforce just wasted billions of dollars on a weapon that can only fight on equal grounds with the enemy and really won't be able to keep control of the air space if out numbered. You have your opinion and I have mine on plasma stealth; let's just leave it at that.

The_Burning_Kid
20 Nov 05,, 20:34
The manuverability of the F/A-22 was demonstrated during the tests before being put into prodution. And, no, not everyone would have to be stupid, just the people ahead of the program. I can assure you that the F/A-22 is not able to do those manuvers based on the physics of a stealth airframe and the demonstration of its manuvering capability. The Su-37 and F-15 ACTIVE are both superior in that area.

You still have no idea what the Russians plan to use for the plasma stealth, but until we really find out, keep you own opinion. I don't think that it's impossible since they actually tested the plasma stealth with the airframe of an Su-47 in a wind tunnel at the lab. It had worked and did not hinder the manuverability or aerodynamics of the plane. They haven't released how they did it, of course. So you can think whatever you want. If you're correct then you have every right to rub it in my face, but if your wrong then the F/A-22's supremacy has come to a quick end and every official in the US Airforce just wasted billions of dollars on a weapon that can only fight on equal grounds with the enemy and really won't be able to keep control of the air space if out numbered. You have your opinion and I have mine on plasma stealth; let's just leave it at that.

The keyword in your second paragraph is "wind tunnel". If something can be used on a wind tunnel doesn't mean squat when in the real world. Also if they haven't revealed how they did it, how do you know if they actually did do it?

Injecteer
21 Nov 05,, 10:53
The keyword in your second paragraph is "wind tunnel". If something can be used on a wind tunnel doesn't mean squat when in the real world. Also if they haven't revealed how they did it, how do you know if they actually did do it?

if he meant the wind tunnel in the russian TsAGI (smth. like, Central Aero-hydrodynamic Institute), then this tunnel is one of the best in the world. So, there they could've modelled any "real-life" conditions, that's actually the primary goal of any wind channel :).
Also, if they have tested the plasma gen only there, that means, that they didn't have the possibility (more likely, funds) to install and test it on a real plane. And still it doesn't mean, that something tested in a wind channel won't work in the real world

The_Burning_Kid
21 Nov 05,, 23:35
if he meant the wind tunnel in the russian TsAGI (smth. like, Central Aero-hydrodynamic Institute), then this tunnel is one of the best in the world. So, there they could've modelled any "real-life" conditions, that's actually the primary goal of any wind channel :).
Also, if they have tested the plasma gen only there, that means, that they didn't have the possibility (more likely, funds) to install and test it on a real plane. And still it doesn't mean, that something tested in a wind channel won't work in the real world

I'm not going to believe it until they prove it on a real aircraft.

Injecteer
22 Nov 05,, 09:56
I'm not going to believe it until they prove it on a real aircraft.
yeah, in this case we'll have to wait another decade until the secrecy of the technology expires and such aircrafts would be available on the market.
I'd say, that a plasma shielding as a technology is much more innovative and risky, than F117's diamond shape and RAM.

The_Burning_Kid
22 Nov 05,, 21:40
yeah, in this case we'll have to wait another decade until the secrecy of the technology expires and such aircrafts would be available on the market.
I'd say, that a plasma shielding as a technology is much more innovative and risky, than F117's diamond shape and RAM.

Uh, they'll probably outfit their aircraft with this if it even is what they are saying it is, so it won't last as long.

Jimmy
23 Nov 05,, 21:21
Actually the Su-30MKI with plasma stealth is more than capable of handing a Raptor it's @ss. The russian's plasma stealth is a more reasonable, not to mention cheaper, approach. We are currently experimenting with our own design of plasma stealth and I think that the Airforce officials were idiots to try putting the Raptor in service and ignore this idea.

An F-15C with plasma stealth (or the U.S. version) and thrust vectoring can not only out turn a raptor, but also outrun it , keep under the radar, still leave space aboard the frame for upgrades, and even hand a Raptor its @ss at a much cheaper price. Stealth is a horrible aerodynamic design. The triangle style wings of the raptor actually hinder manuverability so the Raptor pretty much derives all its manuverability from thrust vectoring and speed.

Yes, the F/A-22A can do certain things that the current F-15s and F-16s can't, but we don't really need them to do half of those things right now. It has reduced the overall size of the force and wasted a lot of money that could be spent better in only a dozen more ways. If half of the money wasted on the Raptor were put into plasma stealth developement we would be near the Russians in putting it in production.

I stand by my earlier statement and say that it makes sense.

Your statement makes sense on paper. One problem with that is that the newest F-15s we have are old enough to vote. These fighters have already served to their designed limits. They break. A lot. The engines wear out. A lot. Sure, the Raptor is having its own maintenance issues, but nothing that isnt typical of a new airframe going through its growing pains.

Plasma stealth at BEST wont be fielded for another 15 years. The F-15, a plane that I've loved since I was 4, simply cant keep us on top until then.

You say its money wasted. The Eagle and Viper drivers who fly against them disagree. The Raptor pilots who routinely wipe out their opponents disagree. My former boss flew a 1v5 in a Raptor against Eagles. They never saw him. The F/A-22 works. It works very well.

At what point does the value of ensuring air dominance in the future and the safety of our pilots outweigh the almighty dollar?

Insomniac
23 Nov 05,, 22:30
Your statement makes sense on paper. One problem with that is that the newest F-15s we have are old enough to vote. These fighters have already served to their designed limits. They break. A lot. The engines wear out. A lot. Sure, the Raptor is having its own maintenance issues, but nothing that isnt typical of a new airframe going through its growing pains.

Plasma stealth at BEST wont be fielded for another 15 years. The F-15, a plane that I've loved since I was 4, simply cant keep us on top until then.

You say its money wasted. The Eagle and Viper drivers who fly against them disagree. The Raptor pilots who routinely wipe out their opponents disagree. My former boss flew a 1v5 in a Raptor against Eagles. They never saw him. The F/A-22 works. It works very well.

At what point does the value of ensuring air dominance in the future and the safety of our pilots outweigh the almighty dollar?

Hmm... point proven.

I am simply saying that there are some cheaper methods to Air Dominance and plasma stealth is one of them.

The F/A-22 is the greatest fighter in the world and I have no doubt in it's capabilities, but I just think that the reduction of the USAF's entire size was a bad decision. We won't even need half of the things that the Raptor does. I've even heard some experts say that buying the F/A-22 was a mistake when upgrading the airframe and avionics of the F-15 and F-16 would have been much cheaper and able to handle any fighter made in the world of tomorrow. The F-15 still has upgrade ability space in it and it is still faster and more manuverable than any of the new fighters that are planning to be fielded into service with the exception of the Su-27 family. Upgrading it would keep a large force and still have enough power for air dominance. Of course the F/A-22 would be able to beat an upgraded F-15 any day, but our pilots won't be flying against anything like the F/A-22.

Eddy01741
23 Feb 06,, 03:48
Wow, this is an interesting thread indeed, it when to talking about TVC vs. JHMCS. ANd now it's like F-22 vs. Plasma Stealth/Su-37. I say i should bump the thread and keep it going.

Captain Drunk
23 Feb 06,, 06:15
Inferiorly compared with the Su-37, F/A-18 EF simply dosn't match the Flanker class family, leave alone trying to compete with the F-14 and F-15 in the first place. If theres any fighter to compare the F/A-18 EF with it'll probably be F-16 Block 60 with an AIM-120.

Jedi_Iatros
23 Feb 06,, 06:36
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jhmcs/flash.html

To my surprise I didn't find any threads on JHMCS. This is important technology. It puts the heads up display onto the visor of a fighter pilot's helmet. This allows the HUD to always stay in view and the pilot to lock onto an enemy simply by looking at him. Combined with the AIM-9X high off-boresight missile this will be a devastating weapon.

The US Navy had to make a choice between this and thrust vectoring for the F/A-18E Super Hornet and they chose this. The Airforce also wants to use them on the F/A-22 Raptor. I just want to know what you guys think about it. If a non-vectored thrust aircraft with the JHMCS and AIM-9X (example: F/A-18E) went against an enemy vectored thrust aircraft without it, (example: Su-37) which one do you think would get the kill in a close range dogfight.

((my other thread wasn't attacting any vistors so I decided to make one with a more attention grabbing name.))


I read about the JHMCS on COMBAT AIRCRAFT magazine 3-4 magazines ago. Pretty cool technology. F-15s based in Alaska have it right?

Captain Drunk
20 Jul 06,, 19:41
With the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph(later Su-37s upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers a Hornet on full load - external stores and fuel tanks would be easily engaged within a 50-65 NMI envelope by the Flanker.

nutter
21 Jul 06,, 07:32
Given the choice, I'd take the helmet mounted HUD every time.

Pointing the nose be it with thrust vectoring, or not will consume fuel, divert you off course, inflict G-loading (hence, stress) on the pilot, etc. I seriously doubt the vectoring will enable you to point the nose quicker than the pilot can turn his head...

Both would be nice of course, but given that the F/A-18 can already point the nose pretty well and the TVC would add weight and maintenance, i think the navy made the right choice. Doesn't matter how good your jets are if they're all in the workshop :D

My 2c...

edit:
Caught up with the rest of the thread... :D

Addressing a few points...

Plasma stealth being a cheaper way of doing things? It doesn't exist yet.

It doesn't matter how cheap it's *going* to be in 15 years if you need stealth today. In 15 years time, the successor to the F22 will no doubt be well into it's initial development stages...

The F15 is not faster than an F22 in real world use. Forget BS on paper top speeds - they're not sustainable. The F22 can fly mach 1.5 or so without using the afterburner. To exceed that, an F15 is going to need to burn a lot of fuel, massively reducing it's range. Also, I doubt the F15 will do that mach 2.5 unless it's in a clean configuration...

Also, we don't yet know the F22's *actual* top speed (with burner)...

ashkon
21 Jul 06,, 09:04
With the NIIP N-011M and Phazotron Zhuk-Ph(later Su-37s upgrades) and Agat 9B-1103M/9B-1348E R-77/R-77M seekers a Hornet on full load - external stores and fuel tanks would be easily engaged within a 50-65 NMI envelope by the Flanker.

And you are absolutely certain of this, because you flew an F-18E into combat against a flanker did you?

jgetti
21 Jul 06,, 16:08
:frown: The F15 is not faster than an F22 in real world use. Forget BS on paper top speeds - they're not sustainable. The F22 can fly mach 1.5 or so without using the afterburner. To exceed that, an F15 is going to need to burn a lot of fuel, massively reducing it's range. Also, I doubt the F15 will do that mach 2.5 unless it's in a clean configuration...

Also, we don't yet know the F22's *actual* top speed (with burner)...

I'm not disagreeing that the F22 in operational use is faster than an F-15. However, you state that we don't know the "actual" top speed of the F-22. We don't know the actual top speed of either for that matter,, nor does anyone here know the top speed of an F-15 (and which variant with which engines) at what altitude, how much fuel, what weapons, etc. etc. etc. The only thing advertised for F-15 is mach 2.5+ and no other information is given. The only F-22 speed numbers posted is anywhere from mach 1.2 to 1.7 that I've heard in MIL power. Again, this tells you absolutely nothing about altitude, internal weapons/fuel, or any of 1000 other things that WILL affect how fast the aircraft can go.

Nothing is publicly known about the top MIL power speed of any of the F-15 variants either. Everyone rattles on about supercruise here and which planes have advertised it, yet nothing is said about under what conditions any of them can do so. Likewise, we have no idea what the fuel consumption rate is of any given F-15 variant in any given situation, much less the F-22 in burner or MIL.

Bottom line is rattling on about the speed of F-22 compared to F-15 (variant specific notwithstanding) or how much fuel one has to burn to keep up with the other is nothing more than an uneducated wild arsed guess extrapolation off of one data point (influencing conditions unknown) given for each.

nutter
22 Jul 06,, 02:25
Granted, however my point is thus:

With a typical weapons load, the F22 will be faster in a typical mission. All it's weapons will be carried internally, it will be able to supercruise at mach 1.2+ without issue.

With external stores (required to accomplish any of the F15's typical mission roles), you're not going to have an F15 doing that - the publicity surrounding the gen 4.5/5 fighters being able to supercruise wouldn't be so great otherwise...

I would wager that internal fuel/weapons load will have little bearing (note, i'm not saying "no bearing" :D) on how well the F22 can cruise.

At the sorts of speeds we're talking here, drag is BY FAR the biggest factor... and that does not change between an empty aircraft and one carrying everything internally.

Yes, it's guessing.

However I would not say that it's wild uneducated stabbing in the air...


Maybe I should qualify it with "Based on the publicly available information on both aircraft, and what we know about the laws of physics" :D

HistoricalDavid
22 Jul 06,, 14:31
Granted, however my point is thus:

With a typical weapons load, the F22 will be faster in a typical mission. All it's weapons will be carried internally, it will be able to supercruise at mach 1.2+ without issue.

I've heard Mach 1.7, so presuming that's purely on an empty load, Mach 1.5 should be achievable with the pretty light load of six AIM-120 and two AIM-9X, a total weight of about 2,300 lbs, or two 1,000lb JDAMs and two -9X, again a total weight of about 2,300lbs, or 8 SDBs and two -9X, again, a total weight of... 2,300 lbs.

Compare 2,300lbs with the 81,000lb MTOW of the F-22 and it doesn't seem that significant, so Mach 1.7 is probably not far off.

nutter
23 Jul 06,, 00:12
Agreed. I was simply stating mach 1.2 to be conservative.

Whether it's mach 1.2 or mach 1.5, the F15 isn't going to be doing more than mach 1.0 (cruising without burner), unless of course it too, is able to supercruise and for some reason the powers that be have decided to keep that secret, yet divulge that the F22 can... :)

YellowFever
26 Jul 06,, 09:53
Actually the Su-30MKI with plasma stealth is more than capable of handing a Raptor it's @ss. The russian's plasma stealth is a more reasonable, not to mention cheaper, approach. We are currently experimenting with our own design of plasma stealth and I think that the Airforce officials were idiots to try putting the Raptor in service and ignore this idea.

An F-15C with plasma stealth (or the U.S. version) and thrust vectoring can not only out turn a raptor, but also outrun it , keep under the radar, still leave space aboard the frame for upgrades, and even hand a Raptor its @ss at a much cheaper price. Stealth is a horrible aerodynamic design. The triangle style wings of the raptor actually hinder manuverability so the Raptor pretty much derives all its manuverability from thrust vectoring and speed.

Yes, the F/A-22A can do certain things that the current F-15s and F-16s can't, but we don't really need them to do half of those things right now. It has reduced the overall size of the force and wasted a lot of money that could be spent better in only a dozen more ways. If half of the money wasted on the Raptor were put into plasma stealth developement we would be near the Russians in putting it in production.

I stand by my earlier statement and say that it makes sense.

Yes I believe you're right ... but an X-Wing fighter from the movie star Wars can beat anything flying...

Plasma Stealth???

Can we keep this conversation to things that will be developed and be operational within the next ten to fiften years???

YellowFever
26 Jul 06,, 10:32
I've been reading this thread and some of them are downright hilarious and obviously SOME of you have no idea what the heck you're talking about.

What matters a great deal in ACMs are angle of attacks and thrust to weight ratios. Boasting about the ability to do a "Cobra" or the "Tulbit" (or whatever it is) is like boasting one's MBT can climb a tree.

Yes, turning sharply is a big deal for any AC when it comes to a knife fight but it's not the be all and end all. If that is indeed the case, the A-10 warthhog will be the supreme dogfighter in the world as it has the best turning ratio for any military aircraft in the world.

You really think ACM's today are like the old days of the red baron, flying at around 150 to 250 mph seeing the enemy planes with your eyeballs and making quick turns to get behind their "six"?
(Get real, even as far back as WW1, the majority of kills were made, not in the classic dogfighting but by smart pilots sneaking up behind their enemy and shooting them in the ass before the other guy knew he was even there.)

The F-22 was designed to "sneak" up behind an enemy or eyeball the enemy before he eyeballs you and blot him out of the sky before you even know he was there.

BTW...for those of youwho truly believe a the SUK would "hold it's own" against the Raptor, chew on this for a bit.
They know a helluva lot more about this stuff than alll of us put together:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ghter_aircraft



Quote:
Britain’s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) did an evaluation (simulation based on the available data) comparing the Typhoon with some other modern fighters in how well they performed against an expected adversary aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35. Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.

The study used real pilots flying the JOUST system of networked simulators. Various western aircraft supposed data were put in simulated combat against the Su-35.
The results were:
Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
J-10 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1



Saying an AC can do the COBRA is like saying a long range sniper can shoot handguns pretty well.

YellowFever
26 Jul 06,, 10:36
Ooooppps..wrong url.
Here's the right one..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft

highsea
26 Jul 06,, 17:12
...Due to the lack of information gathered on the 5th generation combat aircraft and the Su-35 during the time of this study it is not meant to be considered official.That's the understatement of the year. The DERA simulation should be taken with a grain of your favorite condiment. At best it can be considered a series of educated guesses.

Dreadnought
26 Jul 06,, 19:53
During Exercise Northern Edge 2006 in Alaska in early June, the F-22 proved its mettle against as many as 40 "enemy aircraft" during simulated battles. The Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill ratio at that exercise

Oww that would have been expensive :eek:

YellowFever
27 Jul 06,, 00:47
:)
That's the understatement of the year. The DERA simulation should be taken with a grain of your favorite condiment. At best it can be considered a series of educated guesses.

Well, unless we have a big furball involving these jets, theories and guesses are all we have.

The point is that people that actually studies these theories and guesses (and do it well enough to make a living off of it) thinks more highly of the Raptor than alot of people that just gets snipets of news about it here and there.

Personally, I'd go with their educated guesses than anyone here, especially since they are not affiliated with the USAF or the Raptor program ;)

highsea
27 Jul 06,, 01:21
The point is that people that actually studies these theories and guesses (and do it well enough to make a living off of it) thinks more highly of the Raptor than alot of people that just gets snipets of news about it here and there. My criticism is not of the Raptor or the Typhoon, but of the DERA simulation, which was intended to show the Typhoon in the best possible light to the British public.

My point being, don't take the numbers seriously. They simply didn't have any solid data on the SU-35 or the Raptor to make a decent comparison.

Personally, I'd go with their educated guesses than anyone here, especially since they are not affiliated with the USAF or the Raptor program ;)You might be surprised...jgetti builds F-15's and I built the first production set of F-22 wing spars back in '94.

uss
27 Jul 06,, 02:41
Dunno about the Su 37, but the MKI should give the Hornet a decent whooping in the A2A arena, esp. WVR. BVR would be tough but i'd still say the edge is with the MKI. While the Hornet is great as a striker, in A2A combat it leaves a lot to be desired. Yes we know it has an AESA but that does not automatically guarantee victory, esp. not against an a/c with Bars NO11 mk3 whose detection ranges are completely classified. Ehem, if it is anything to go by:
The Irbis which is basically a followon of the Bars and scheduled to be fitted on the later MKI models detects a 3sqm target @ 400km as per Air Fleet 04/06.

Regards,
USS.

Captain Drunk
27 Jul 06,, 13:03
And you are absolutely certain of this, because you flew an F-18E into combat against a flanker did you?

Considering my post of the Flanker engaging the Hornet within a 50-65 NMI envelope, well here’s my explanation :

Flanker’s N011M has a 350 km search range, a maximum 200 km tracking range and 60 km in the rear hemisphere.

Now its total nonsense that the F-18E/F even has an RCS as low as = 1m2 and not lower than that with external load. The RCS of an AGM-84 alone is RCS =0.1, so if there’s an F-18E/F with a whole load of AGM-84s it’s indeed got an RCS close to an F/A-18C which is infact = 3m2(Known RCS of an F/A-18C is 3m2). And the Super Hornet is even bigger than the F/A-18C and has more external weapons carriage, with absolutely “0” stealth features.

I am using Su-27B's radar as a test radar, which is still ancient, because stats. on the N011M are still classified. It detects in the game other fighters mostly at range of about 50 nm approximately. If we take those numbers as a basis it is possible to calculate detection distance for other aircrafts.

Now detection distance for the F-18 is about 16.5 nm when calculated distance is about 25 nm. Known RCS for Super Hornet is 3 sq m (and it couldn’t be less with external loadouts), so distance should be 50*(3/15)^0.25=33nm, when in the game it is 46 nm.

So maybe give and take 10 NMI here and there, but the Flankers gonna spot the F-18 within that envelope I specified.

Captain Drunk
27 Jul 06,, 13:13
Dunno about the Su 37, but the MKI should give the Hornet a decent whooping in the A2A arena, esp. WVR. BVR would be tough but i'd still say the edge is with the MKI.


As stated, the F15 is not alone in being speed restricted by external stores. If I'm not mistaken, the F/A-18E/F is barely supersonic with a full weapons load.

You see as Nutter states, the Hornet is barely Mach 1+ with full load and Flankers with a max. speed of Mach 2.35 would surely be Mach 2+ atleast with full load so the fight isn't even going to be WVR. :biggrin:

Besides with the N011M, AA-12 Adders, HMS cueing, Cobras and Vertical Charlies the Flanker beats all from an F-5 to an F-15, except F-22.

The_Burning_Kid
27 Jul 06,, 17:03
Considering my post of the Flanker engaging the Hornet within a 50-65 NMI envelope, well here’s my explanation :

Flanker’s N011M has a 350 km search range, a maximum 200 km tracking range and 60 km in the rear hemisphere.

Now its total nonsense that the F-18E/F even has an RCS as low as = 1m2 and not lower than that with external load. The RCS of an AGM-84 alone is RCS =0.1, so if there’s an F-18E/F with a whole load of AGM-84s it’s indeed got an RCS close to an F/A-18C which is infact = 3m2(Known RCS of an F/A-18C is 3m2). And the Super Hornet is even bigger than the F/A-18C and has more external weapons carriage, with absolutely “0” stealth features.

I am using Su-27B's radar as a test radar, which is still ancient, because stats. on the N011M are still classified. It detects in the game other fighters mostly at range of about 50 nm approximately. If we take those numbers as a basis it is possible to calculate detection distance for other aircrafts.

Now detection distance for the F-18 is about 16.5 nm when calculated distance is about 25 nm. Known RCS for Super Hornet is 3 sq m (and it couldn’t be less with external loadouts), so distance should be 50*(3/15)^0.25=33nm, when in the game it is 46 nm.

So maybe give and take 10 NMI here and there, but the Flankers gonna spot the F-18 within that envelope I specified.

Instead of talking, go read. The Super Hornet during designing was made as stealthy as possible for the design (and in future upgrades there going to make it even more stealthy). Its RCS is smaller than the F/A-18Cs. Its in the decimals (around the stealth of the Rafale at this current Block 1). Your Flanker won't detect the F/A-18E/F until an AIM-120D is meters away from impact.


You see as Nutter states, the Hornet is barely Mach 1+ with full load and Flankers with a max. speed of Mach 2.35 would surely be Mach 2+ atleast with full load so the fight isn't even going to be WVR.

Besides with the N011M, AA-12 Adders, HMS cueing, Cobras and Vertical Charlies the Flanker beats all from an F-5 to an F-15, except F-22.

Have you ever flown a plane? Have you ever talked to a pilot? I suggest you go on F-16.net, there is a real F/A-18E/F Super Hornet pilot there that will enlighten you on your so called "opinions". A Flanker is not going to be going Mach 2.35 when it has a full load. Its impossible. Its going to barely Mach 1 too.

Besides with the APG-79, AIM-120D, JHMC, and AIM-9X, a Super Hornet can go against the best and win.

nutter
28 Jul 06,, 00:41
Flankers with a max. speed of Mach 2.35 would surely be Mach 2+ atleast with full load so the fight isn't even going to be WVR. :biggrin:

Got a source for that?

My bet is that with a full combat load a flanker is going to be sub-mach 2, and probably not a lot quicker than mach 1.5 (however, this is an un-educated guess - I have no source to back that up).

Drag is a ***** (it goes up with the SQUARE of velocity - i.e., even *double* the thrust is not going to get you anywhere near double the mach), and external stores incur lots of it. I'll bet that the longer ranged (and hence, likely larger) AAMs on the flanker incur more drag than the AIM120s on the SuperPig anyway (fat, ugly and with those 2 nose nostrils :D)...


Get *over* the top-speed masturbation, seriously.... it's not the be-all and end-all of air combat...

edit:
As to RCS figures... I've seen 5m2 quoted for the F16C (Block 50/52, source: falcon 4 patched up with the realism patches, etc :D)