LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
We're giving it a gun so we won't make the same mistake we did with the early F-4 Phantoms.Originally Posted by M21Sniper
(you can put anything in this bracket):-Of course not in the case of F-22 vs Su-37 where Su-37 RCS are as big as (you can put anything in this bracket)
(A small house)
We're giving it a gun so we won't make the same mistake we did with the early F-4 Phantoms.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
On a final note, if a corsair can shoot down a Mig well then I guess it means pilot skill still might mean something.
Of course this new fighter is a lot better than a Mig is, was and the US will be in the lead for a long time.
no, no, no, like my unit operations teacher said, all you guys are wrong
wrong
there are always fantastic tales in the introduction of the new planes is just marketing,
1) the AESA is a evolution, is more advanced, yes, but other countries dont want to hurry to get airborne AESA, because isnt pratcical, the great advantage of AESA radars are the multi-kind targets tracking at te same time, but please guys get real....how many times a mirage 2000 would need to launch a MICA while is droping bombs????, the AESA works better in ECM enviorement????, i doubt that, since it only can operate in the X band, instead russians radars are aware of the ECM-electronic noise problems, so they use 2 bands in their radars, one X and other L, the agp77 -aesa is a evolution, but it dont mean that US is above in the "knowledge curve", the fact is that the other countries dont see it practical, is obvious that other countries will adapt AESA, because as i said is a evolution, but it dont give you a huge advantage, the radar give you a higher quantify of targets tracked, but how many missile you will carry, 4-6????
Also air target tracking systems are becoming less useful since the active radar millises are putting into service, AESA could work mainly for ground target AG tool
2)the f22 isnt a stealth design like the f23 or f117, is a fighter airframe adapted with stealth concepts, you must know how works stealth before to say that the plane have that feaure, 1) it have a great proportion of his topologic surface facing down, 2) it have a huge quantify of optuse angles ,3) their engines dont have any IR protection, yes it have sharped surfaces, but put hat in a su27, and you have the same, the engines are hided, but so the thyphoon
3) atually the 22 wont be a super dogfighter, it use the same unstable design as the f16, when the best unstable airframe is the delta-canard, they didnt use that configuration due supercruiser compromises i mean the canards drag vortexs /not stealth compromises/ Typhoon seems better at subsonic velocities, but even that isnt so agile like th flankers -due the low aspect wing affecting the corner velocity-, actually the yf22 performed soo bad in subsonic that the wing aspect was increased
4)stealth technology only works in X band, it dont work in C-L band , at such frequencies there is nothing stealth, because the electromagnetic wave is more expansive, yes you dont have the resolution of the X band, but hey!!!, the Sam 2 used A band as targeting and G band as tracking -in some versions- with out problems, nothing that some algorithms cant fix, and that is the reason why a f117 was downed by a stupid sam3 -or sa2, i dont remember-
5)the f22 supercruiser is M1.5 in the pre-production series and M1.4 in production machines, not M1.7, that was a record in a dive, was very public, and very missunderstooded
6)the raptor is a mix of stealth concepts, supercruiser, subsonic agility, etc, the plattaform works good, but is very overated by their fans, it main strong point is supercruiser, it was designed mainly for that
ahhh, btw, the f22 "supercomputers" have less power than my pc chip
Last edited by mythbuster; 04 Sep 05, at 21:28.
is this a joke? f-22 vs su-37? su-37 has no chance. It has no chance again eurofighter and Rafale either. It's in the class of Gripen.
Normaly these questions "who is better" are ********. Because it always dependes on the circumstances of the airfight, which aircraft wins. But this one is easily answered: F-22 will win. The Su-37 looses in all aspects: stealth, agility, avionics and weapons.
The Su-37 is still based on the Su-27 and has an old body that is not any longer possible to update in the ways F-22, Eurofighter or Rafale will be. The Su-family will die if there's no other fighter-concept coming soon by Suchoj.
@tphuang
Su-37 and Gripen are two totally different concepts. You can't compare them.
I tend to disagree with your conclusions.For one thing the stealth coating was designed by the russians and stolen by americans-(this saved the USA billions and helped financially cripple the USSR).Manouverability is about equal-this plane has thrust vectoring/canards,etc...But the main issue of stealth is this:how will either plane know the other is there?The russian tactics of intercept are simple-to head in a last known heading or location and acquire the enemy PASSIVELY.The russians make full use of thier thermal imaging systems and are much better than american onboard systems using LANTERN,etc...this means the american plane will be using active radar to acquire .Tell me which is stealthier?Using radar or not?In poor weather especially this is a no contest .All this said I am presuming an american invading soviet airspace.If the other way around or in international airspace who knows,but tactics and luck play a huge factor in any outcome.
Ok this obviously begs the question if the stealth coating was developed by the Russians first why has there to date never been a Russian stealth aircraft. I figure at worst they could designed a prototype by now. You guys have built alot of aircraft and warships since the U.S first got the F117 and as of yet theres nothing.
Plus if you look into where Haveblue came from the military initially didn't even realise the importance of what they had built. The project wasn't even classified initially it was just a research project as far as the airforce was concerned.
And yes Russian aircraft probably have thermal imaging (I have no idea how good their imaging tech is) but given the range and accuracy of all known thermal systems is far less then current radar systems I don't see what good it is. The F22 will pick the Russian fighter up on active radar, fire off a couple radar guided missiles and switch to passive radar and hit then deck then watch the fireworks.
For the record I do like some Russia tech and gear but the F22 is obviously ahead of everyone else for the time being. But I do like some of your anti-ship missiles and warships. I think your aerospace industry needs a bit of a wakeup call though.
The mathematical equations that predicted stealth were penned by an obscure Russian scientist, so in that respect, they did 'invent it'.
However they had no idea whatosever that they did, because they allowed the scientist to publish his work.
That's when a brilliant engineer at the Lockheed Skunk Works saw it and realized just what it really meant.
The hopeless diamond was born, and the rest is history.
Beyond that though, BIGAL is quite clueless.
"Plus if you look into where Haveblue came from the military initially didn't even realise the importance of what they had built. The project wasn't even classified initially it was just a research project as far as the airforce was concerned."
That is not even remotely close to true.
The project wasn't initially a "black" project.
http://www.f117reunion.org/History.htm
"In early 1977, Lockheed received a contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for the construction of two 60-percent scale flyable test aircraft under a project named Have Blue. The name Have Blue seems to have no specific meaning, probably having been chosen at random from an approved list of secret project names. Shortly after the Have Blue contract was let, the project was transferred over to Air Force System Command control and became highly "black", with all information about it being highly classified and restricted to those with a need to know."
Following recommendations from the Russian Ministry of Defence and the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG (RSK MIG), the Indian Air Force (IAF) is now believed to be considering adding stealth modifications to an existing $340m programme to upgrade 125 of its MiG-21bis fighters to MiG-21-93 standard. Sources for Jane's Defence Weekly have revealed these secret events in a report published in today's edition of the magazine.
Extensive tests to demonstrate Russia's ability to upgrade Indian fighter aircraft with stealth capabilities took place in front of Indian defence ministry officials at the Sokol aircraft plant in Nizhniy Novgorod on 29th May 2000. The demonstration was highly successful and is understood to have resulted in the Russian government and RSK MIG urging the IAF to adopt the stealth modifications across its MiG-21-93 fleet.
The core of the demonstration saw two MiG-21bis--one upgraded with stealth technology and one without--being tracked by what is believed to be a Mig-31 in a controlled test of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and coatings developed at the Moscow Institute of Applied and Theoretical
Electrodynamics. During its flight the radar signature of the upgraded Mig-21bis was shown to be between 10 and 15 times weaker than the regular MiG-21bis.
This was from Janes sorce early 2002.I cant find a link back-but recall reading in the Vancouver Sun thru associated press about the stealing of russian coatings .That article referred to (in the Reagan era) a Soviet aircraft that was being spied upon.It was on one of its first few flights or perhaps its first ,but was not visible on radar.I do not know where it flew, or what it was attempted to be tracked with,but recall the information claiming it had saved billions of dollars to the USA
The Soviet Union to my understanding havent made stealth aircraft,rather they make funcional aircraft adapting stealth to them.Much the same as coating an F18 in a RAM coating-it helps alot but isnt the ultimate in stealth.
Russian stealth researchers have developed materials and techniques that can reduce the head-on radar cross-section (RCS) of a Sukhoi Su-35 fighter by an order of magnitude, halving the range at which hostile radars can detect it. The research group - working with Sukhoi, but based at the Institute for Theoretical and Applied Electromagnetics (ITAE) at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow - has performed more than 100 hours of testing on a reduced-RCS Su-35 and has also experimented with the use of plasmas - ionized gases - to reduce RCS.
US and European aircraft manufacturers have used specially developed materials to reduce the RCS of basically non-stealthy aircraft for many years. Notable examples include the Have Glass and Have Glass II modifications to the F-16. However, Russian work in this area was undisclosed until ITAE researchers presented a paper to a conference on stealth in London in late October 2003, which was organized by the International Quality and Productivity Centre.
According to the ITAE presentation, Russian researchers have developed mathematical tools that can calculate scattering from complex configurations, such as an Su-35 carrying a full external missile load, by breaking them down into small facets and adding the effects of edge waves and surface currents. The antennas are modelled separately and then are added to the entire RCS picture.
"A problem of huge size" is how the researchers describe the Su-35 inlet, with a straight duct that provides direct visibility to the entire face of the engine compressor. The basic solution has been to apply ferro-magnetic radar absorbent material (RAM) to the compressor face and to the inlet duct walls, but this involves challenges. The researchers note: the material cannot be allowed to constrict airflow or impede the operation of anti-icing systems and must withstand high-speed airflows and temperatures up to 200ºC. The ITAE team has developed and tested coating materials that meet these standards. A layer of RAM between 0.7mm and 1.4mm thick is applied to the ducts and a 0.5mm coating is applied to the front stages of the low-pressure compressor, using a robotic spray system. The result is a 10-15dB reduction in the RCS contribution from the inlets.
The modified Su-35 also has a treated cockpit canopy which reflects radar waves, concealing the high RCS contribution from metal components in the cockpit. ITAE has developed a plasma-deposition process to deposit alternating layers of metallic and polymer materials, creating a coating that blocks radio-frequency waves, is resistant to cracking and crazing and does not trap solar heat in the cockpit. The plasma-coating process is then carried out robotically in a 22m3 vacuum chamber.
ITAE and its partners have also developed plasma-type technology for applying ceramic coatings to the exhaust and afterburner. The conference video also showed the use of hand-held sprays to apply RAM to R-27 air-to-air missiles.
still skeptical!!??
I'm not saying you'll never develop it but clearly you didn't have stealth technoligy/RAM coating first given your developing your first stealth aircraft now and the US has had theirs in service for over a decade.
Given the Ameriancs significant lead in the stealth technoligy area I think Russians would do better focusing on anti-stealth tech and longer range missiles (to counterbalance the meteor). Also your going to need to address the Americans new found and growing capability with directed energy weapons (the AESA radar on the F22). EMP hardening all the electronics in your aircraft can get expensive I'd imagine, maybe a better/cheaper way to shield against it can be developed?
All of this is not overly critical for Russia mind you, I don't expect to see any hostilities between the U.S or Russia in my lifetime, but its more a concern for the Americans I think because of Russians tendancy to sell weapons to anyone who has money.
Another article i found...
Low Observable
One of the early Sukhoi exposures to the low visibility technologies were tests with Sukhoi Su-25 Frogfoot prototypes T8-11 and T8-12. First trial, code named "Astra", involved T8-11 which is now displayed in Monino Air Force museum. A graphite based filler was applied to the basic T8-11 airframe for reduction of the aircraft radar cross section (RCS). Additional tests involved the first series production T8-12, which became a testbed for radar absorbing material (RAM) coatings and special camouflage schemes, intended to lower radar and visible signatures of the aircraft. This low visibility paint tests were similar to those carried out for USAF A-10 in early 1990s. The cannon port was faired-over and forward fuselage of the stealthy Frogfoot was painted with rubber like material. For a brief period this RAM coated T8-12 joined T8-16 at Khodynka, but its prompt removal suggested that the hightech and state secrets were at stake and it was put on display by a mistake or ignorance in a first place.
The Afghanistan experience where Sukhoi's encountered a thread of the shoulder launched infrared homing surface-to-air missiles such as Redeye, Stinger and SA-7, forced Sukhoi team to work on the reduction of the infrared signature of the Su-25. The results materialized in the Su-25T development -- Su-25TM (Su-39 in Sukhoi's nomenclature). The installation of the intake cones hiding the turbine blades and efficient mixing of the exhaust with cold air reduced the IR signature of the Frogfoot from front and rear aspects. This fourfold reduction at expense of 2% lower SFC is indeed an impressive achievement.
Further experiments with low visibility involved the advanced Flanker development prototypes, aircraft of 700 (Su-35,-37) and 600 (Su-30) series. These fighters wear eye catchy new camouflage schemes designed to reduce the visual signature of the aircraft on the ground and in the sky. One of the most interesting examples of Sukhoi experiments was a scheme applied to 701, designed to deceive space based optical systems.
If you notice the talk of the "Astra" project was pre Afghanistan war era-which means before 1979
In November of 1979, the Air Force began to show some interest in these projects, and began to study them under the project name of Long-Range Combat Aircraft (LRCA). The FB-111B/C was thought to be too small to carry very many of these ALCMs, and in any case they would all have to be carried externally, adversely affecting range and performance. The Rockwell approach attracted more favorable attention. During 1980, Rockwell refined its LRCA approach, and proposed a minimal-change version of the B-1A that would be capable of launching stand-off ALCMs. One of the major changes was the elimination of the Mach 2.0-plus dash capability by simplifying the engine inlets and overwing fairings. It would be optimized for penetration of sophisticated defenses by flying nap-of-the-earth penetrations at near supersonic speeds, avoiding enemy radars, interceptors, and missiles. Maximum penetration speed would be increased from Mach 0.85 to Mach 0.92. The aircraft would be strengthened in order to raise the maximum takeoff weight from 395,000 to 477,000 pounds. Much of this extra weight would be taken up by additional fuel and weapons. In addition, the elimination of the Mach 2.0 dash capability made it possible to eliminate the variable air intakes, which had the additional benefit of making it possible to configure them for minimal radar cross section. These changes, along with the use of radar absorptive material covering critical areas of the surface, would, it was hoped, make it possible to build an aircraft with only a tenth of the radar cross section of the B-1A. Maximum unrefueled range was to be increased from 6011 to 7455 miles.
Now if the technology for the B1B's radar coating was not available on the B1A,and the B1A flew until 1979 officially,AND the russians were using the radar absorbant coatings in pre 1979 models, is it all that unbeleivable that what i say is true???If not why not use the coatings/stealth tactics on the B1A????
listen.....i can hear an ego getting broken
"US has had theirs in service for over a decade."
It's actually 2 decades, and 4 decades if you want to count the SR-71.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: