Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Russian Jet Maker Promises Stealthy Aircraft

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Rusky
    The thing is that i did look at the two, you haven't, i showed you pics of the cockpits, it looks just as modern as any in the west.

    It would fall apart? Was that even a serious statement? Either way no it would not fall apart, gosh, if you going to try to argue a wrong position atleast try to BS your lack of argument.

    I see that the SU-37 mastered the "Lawn Dart" maneuver.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gun Grape
      I see that the SU-37 mastered the "Lawn Dart" maneuver.
      What would that be? Sorry, language barrier.


      Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rusky
        What would that be? Sorry, language barrier.
        Lawn Darts were a game where you placed a hula-hoop on the ground and lobbed large darts towards it trying to see who could get the most darts into/near the hoop. It was banned because kids kept throwing the darts at (and into) each other. It actually inspired a pretty cool song: "She was pegged...in the head...by a lawn dart!"

        The term "Lawn Dart" was bestowed upon F-16's for their penchant of hitting the ground nose first, the sole remains being the tails sticking up, reminiscent of the darts from the game.

        As I stated earlier, the frame used for the sole Su-37 crashed (in its Su-30 configuration) several years ago at the Paris Airshow.

        It also didn't really do a classic lawndart, it came in for a low level pass and zoom climb, got too low, smacked its tail into the ground, flew upward in flames for a couple of hundred feet to give the crew a comfortable distance from the ground to eject.

        I'll see if I can find pics for lawn darts, crashed F-16's doing a lawn dart, and the Su-37/Su-30 Paris Airshow K-36 ejection seat demonstration.
        Last edited by Horrido; 15 Jan 06,, 04:39.
        The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

        I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Horrido
          Lawn Darts were a game where you placed a hula-hoop on the ground and lobbed large darts towards it trying to see who could get the most darts into/near the hoop. It was banned because kids kept throwing the darts at (and into) each other. It actually inspired a pretty cool song: "She was pegged...in the head...by a lawn dart!"

          The term "Lawn Dart" was bestowed upon F-16's for their penchant of hitting the ground nose first, the sole remains being the tails sticking up, reminiscent of the darts from the game.

          As I stated earlier, the frame used for the sole Su-37 crashed (in its Su-30 configuration) several years ago at the Paris Airshow.

          It also didn't really do a classic lawndart, it came in for a low level pass and zoom climb, got too low, smacked its tail into the ground, flew upward in flames for a couple of hundred feet to give the crew a comfortable distance from the ground to eject.

          I'll see if I can find pics for lawn darts, crashed F-16's doing a lawn dart, and the Su-37/Su-30 Paris Airshow K-36 ejection seat demonstration.
          please do.


          Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Horrido
            As I stated earlier, the frame used for the sole Su-37 crashed (in its Su-30 configuration) several years ago at the Paris Airshow.
            I'm a bit confused here.
            Are we talking about this http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-37/su-37.htm aircraft?

            The article states:

            The Su-37's life ended when T10M-11 (serialled 711) was lost in a crash on flying a ferry flight in Russia
            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Horrido
              The term "Lawn Dart" was bestowed upon F-16's for their penchant of hitting the ground nose first, the sole remains being the tails sticking up, reminiscent of the darts from the game.

              As I stated earlier, the frame used for the sole Su-37 crashed (in its Su-30 configuration) several years ago at the Paris Airshow.
              .
              Bingo, Its slang for a plane that crashes. AV-8As were once known as Carolina Lawn Darts within the Marine Corps. Both SU-37s crashed, unless we are talking about a different plane.

              When building a sucessful airplane you try to get the number of takeoffs to be equal to the number of landings. Not to the number of crashes.

              Comment


              • Okay, here's a website describing the lawn darts game:

                http://www.crown-darts.com/



                The song is by Ed's Redeeming Qualities, "Lawn Dart."

                "She was pegged in the head by a Lawn Dart,
                her Dad didn't see her, that's the worst part,
                now they're off the shelves at the K-Mart,
                pegged in the head by a Lawn Dart"


                The nice shot of an F-16 tail sticking up out of a golf course has since been removed, I'll see if the guy who posted it can remember where to find it again.


                My sources regarding the Su-37 were incorrect, what I thought was (and is often erroneously reported as) the Su-37 converted to Su-30 standard that crashed at Le Bourget, France, in 1999 was actually just an Su-30, Bort 01:

                http://www.flying-wings.com/airshows/lebourget/lb99.htm

                There is active video of this crash available, but it's up to you to search for it.

                The actual Su-37 (without TV engines and in Su-35-standard), Bort 711, reportedly crashed during a ferry run on Dec. 18th, 2002.:

                http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-37/su-37.htm
                The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

                I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Horrido
                  Okay, here's a website describing the lawn darts game:

                  http://www.crown-darts.com/



                  The song is by Ed's Redeeming Qualities, "Lawn Dart."

                  "She was pegged in the head by a Lawn Dart,
                  her Dad didn't see her, that's the worst part,
                  now they're off the shelves at the K-Mart,
                  pegged in the head by a Lawn Dart"


                  The nice shot of an F-16 tail sticking up out of a golf course has since been removed, I'll see if the guy who posted it can remember where to find it again.


                  My sources regarding the Su-37 were incorrect, what I thought was (and is often erroneously reported as) the Su-37 converted to Su-30 standard that crashed at Le Bourget, France, in 1999 was actually just an Su-30, Bort 01:

                  http://www.flying-wings.com/airshows/lebourget/lb99.htm

                  There is active video of this crash available, but it's up to you to search for it.

                  The actual Su-37 (without TV engines and in Su-35-standard), Bort 711, reportedly crashed during a ferry run on Dec. 18th, 2002.:

                  http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-37/su-37.htm
                  Crashes happen on both sides. SU-37 is still a technologically superior plane in both avionics and mechanics. If anybody would like to proove me wrong, please lets do a comparison between the statistics. Can F-22 do "Cobra"?

                  And hey its not like SU-37 is the only Russian plane outthere, there is also SU-34/35, SU-30MKI and Mig-29E all of which are superior to their western counterparts aside from F-22.
                  Last edited by Rusky; 15 Jan 06,, 06:39.


                  Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Horrido
                    You are calling Soviet fighter pilots that served in the Korean war liars? In regards to Korean war Saber vs. MiG kills, Soviet records and SOVIET pilot interviews demonstrate the BEST the Soviets ever did was 3 MiG-15's lost to ONE Saber. The war average for SOVIET piloted MiG's to Sabers was 5 to 1. Chinese and Korean MiG's died by the pantload. While the MiG-15's performance was ever-so-slightly superior to the Saber at altitude, because of the Saber's all-flying tail and superior flight controls leading to greater pilot comfort and endurance during missions and combat, the combat edge went to the Saber, and demonstrably so.
                    I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but in reality Soviet pilots were winning against sabers 4 to 1 in favor of the Soviets.


                    In regard to the Su-37, why are people yammering on about a NON-EXISTENT AIRCRAFT as if it was even in service? The SOLE Su-37 was reconverted back to Su-30-standard and then converted into a smoking hole at the Paris Airshow a few years back. That FACT is, the last thing the Su-37's electronics were good for was roasting s'mores.
                    Eh...those were very good electronics and a very fine aircraft, yes there was a maintenance problem, no that doesn't mean that the aircraft is poorly designed, it is still technologically superior to any 4th generation western aircraft.



                    Yes, it does, actually: 25 years, which is exactly how far behind Russian technology is compared to the US. (See F-22 RAPTOR)
                    Eh, now thats just silly. Russia is on the same technological level as USA, especially now since we entered the integrated global market. US for years has been borrowing technology from the European nations and putting it all together on its own tanks, aircraft and so on. Look at the harrier, look at the chobham armor, look at the 120 mm Abrams main gun. Either way, now Russia is enjoying the same benefits of sharing technologies with the west. Russia has never been 25 years behind, many of our aircraft are superior to US alternatives, many of our other machinery (including tanks and IFVs) are superior to US alternatives, but i'll leave the vehicle talk for another thread, its quite easy to proove actually. Either way, F-22 Raptor got the edge back to US, the edge it was loosing to new Russian aircraft like the Mig-29E, the Su-34/35, and so on and so forth, its our step next and once we come out with T-50 US will have to do better, and then we will have to do better. Competition between our two great nations has been the driving force for civilian and military technological development for over the past half a century. Either way, your claim about the 25 number is incorrect. If we're so primitive why did you have to copy the helmet mounter device? Why did you need Yakovlev to help you work on the VTOL engine for JSF? Why did US buy the mobile nuclear reactor module technology from Russia in 1994? Why were we the first ones to use Vector Thurst capable powerplants on an aircraft? You are superior in some aspects of technology and we are superior in others but nothere does either of us hold a 25 years advantage over the other, no there, not 25, and not 10.


                    I really don't get this, why do you guys keep claiming that Russian aircraft have inferior avionics if they have very good radar stats and the more modern ones have fly-by-wire control systems and GPS navigation. What exactly makes the american aircraft so much avionically superior? AESA? Can i get some stats for those radars?

                    And look at our missiles, R-77 is sohpisticated fire and forget and has double the range of the AIM-120. Why would it have any problem taking out an F-15 or 16 in BVR? Neither of those are stealth aircraft and R-77 is a quite maneuvarable missile.

                    Also Burning, i am still waiting on your explanation on how some modification of F-15 would outmaneuver the most maneuvarable plane on earth.

                    And again, guys, if you want to build up your argument then back your claims up with facts. Atleast give me some stats for your side of avionics so we can compare. Burning Kid's nationalistic ranting and Hidalgo's uninformed comments don't help us to move on.
                    Last edited by Rusky; 15 Jan 06,, 07:49.


                    Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Rusky
                      Crashes happen on both sides. SU-37 is still a technologically superior plane in both avionics and mechanics. If anybody would like to proove me wrong, please lets do a comparison between the statistics. Can F-22 do "Cobra"?

                      And hey its not like SU-37 is the only Russian plane outthere, there is also SU-34/35, SU-30MKI and Mig-29E all of which are superior to their western counterparts aside from F-22.
                      I never said they didn't, just that the Su-37 is no longer extant. The F-22 can do the Cobra, as can an F-14 (I've seen video), the F-15 ACTIVE, and even an F-16. The "Cobra" is nothing really special, all that is required is an aircraft with a rearward center of gravity and an intake system resistant to engine unstarts at that angle of attack. I am curious as to why you place such value in it.

                      I never said that the Su-37 is the only one out there, just that you are harping about an aircraft that is not only not in service, but no longer exists. I also know that the Su-30MKI is essentially to Su-37 standard. Also keep in mind, none of the aircraft you have mentioned, save for the MKI, are in significant service. I would also be reluctant to use the term "superior" considering the updates to the latest models of F-16 and the F/A-18E/F.

                      I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but in reality Soviet pilots were winning against sabers 4 to 1 in favor of the Soviets.
                      Motorbooks International Warbird History's MiG-15: Design, Development, and Korean War Combat History by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant. It is a Russian book by Russian authors using Russian archives and interviewing Russian Korean War MiG-15 combat veterans. That is why I stand by my remarks, you can do NO BETTER in terms of sources than those. I think you need to reconsider yours.

                      Eh...those were very good electronics and a very fine aircraft, yes there was a maintenance problem, no that doesn't mean that the aircraft is poorly designed, it is still technologically superior to any 4th generation western aircraft.
                      I never said they weren't, just that the last thing they were was smoldering wreckage. The Flanker-series, including the Su-37 and MK-series, are still fourth-generation aircraft. Even the Berkut, MiG 1.44, Eurofighter, and Rafale are all fourth-generation aircraft, technically 4+. True fifth-generation aircraft are the F-22, F-23, X-32, and X/F-35.

                      And Rusky, for all intents and purposes, they ARE 25 years behind. The Su-37 for which you are so proud, we were doing the same things with the F-15 ACTIVE in the mid-1980's. The glass cockpit initially had its origins in the mid-1970's with the YF-17 Cobra. The borrowing from Europe and the examples you gave are the notable EXCEPTIONS, not the rule, because the majority of technical innovations either came from or were funded by the US. You talk of superior MiG's and Sukhois, but those are modifications to old aircraft designs just comming on-line and not in appreciable numbers. We have chosen not to enhance old designs to fund revolutionary projects like the F-22, F-35, and UCAV technology. We did not "copy" the helmet mounted device, it was decided to wait until it became a more reliable system, even the Israelis pioneered this. We did not need Yakovlev to "help" with the VTOL system, it was aquired for the simple sake of comparison, and as an engineer stated, the Yakovlev tech was used more for learning what NOT to do. It was a simple act of convenience and curiosity. Thrust vectoring has been used in US aircraft since the Harrier, and in the form of the Flanker-series, we have done it with the F-15 in tests since the mid-1980's. When did Sukhoi start? Again, we chose NOT to use it, seeing little tactical advantage considering the expense of installation and maintenance. I say 25 because it has consistently been 25 years from the time we tried those experiments til the time you see the SAME experiments on Russian designs. Even now, the US is rapidly advancing in the realm of UCAV's, where is the equivalent Russian example?

                      What exactly makes the american aircraft so much avionically superior?R-77 is sohpisticated fire and forget and has double the range of the AIM-120. Why would it have any problem taking out an F-15 or 16 in BVR?
                      Reliability, which seems to be a stigma regarding Russian systems. I'm not saying current avionics in Russian aircraft are not good, they are very good. To roughly quote the Russian kosmonaut in the movie "Armegeddon": "American components, Russian components. They are all made in Taiwan!"

                      Again, keeping in mind the USAF vs. IAF exercises in India. We were using old F-15's against India's most modern Su-30MKI's, in situations either equitable or advantagous to the Indians. Even under those situations, the exchange rate for the exercises was one-to-one. Granted, I don't know if the exercises were honest and open free-for-alls or kabuki-styled facsimiles of combat.


                      how some modification of F-15 would outmaneuver the most maneuvarable plane on earth.
                      Look up F-15 ACTIVE. Also, I'm inclined to believe a little biplane is probably the most maneuverable plane on earth. ;)
                      The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

                      I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Horrido




                        Look up F-15 ACTIVE. Also, I'm inclined to believe a little biplane is probably the most maneuverable plane on earth. ;)
                        Wrong....the Sea Harrier Jump Jet is

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Horrido
                          I never said they didn't, just that the Su-37 is no longer extant. The F-22 can do the Cobra, as can an F-14 (I've seen video), the F-15 ACTIVE, and even an F-16. The "Cobra" is nothing really special, all that is required is an aircraft with a rearward center of gravity and an intake system resistant to engine unstarts at that angle of attack. I am curious as to why you place such value in it.
                          I was talking about the "stop cobra" SU can perform, either way, i was just asking. As to the value, well if you can change your angle of attack in a second that will give you a clear advantage, even if it is BVR and you will get shot down there is a better chance of you letting our a missile at the enemy and getting the bastard as well before his missile shoots you down.

                          I never said that the Su-37 is the only one out there, just that you are harping about an aircraft that is not only not in service, but no longer exists. I also know that the Su-30MKI is essentially to Su-37 standard. Also keep in mind, none of the aircraft you have mentioned, save for the MKI, are in significant service. I would also be reluctant to use the term "superior" considering the updates to the latest models of F-16 and the F/A-18E/F.
                          Yeah, i heard a lot from you guys about the godly radars those aircraft now have. Can i please see some statistics? Cause i can't find any.



                          Motorbooks International Warbird History's MiG-15: Design, Development, and Korean War Combat History by Yefim Gordon and Vladimir Rigmant. It is a Russian book by Russian authors using Russian archives and interviewing Russian Korean War MiG-15 combat veterans. That is why I stand by my remarks, you can do NO BETTER in terms of sources than those. I think you need to reconsider yours.
                          Not really, the source i got mentions the claimed kills by the Russian pilots and those kills that were confirmed by the US, even in the end Russian pilots still have a winning ratio, why wouldn't the? Mig-15 is a better plane.



                          I never said they weren't, just that the last thing they were was smoldering wreckage. The Flanker-series, including the Su-37 and MK-series, are still fourth-generation aircraft. Even the Berkut, MiG 1.44, Eurofighter, and Rafale are all fourth-generation aircraft, technically 4+. True fifth-generation aircraft are the F-22, F-23, X-32, and X/F-35.
                          Yeah, i know. SU-37 is 4++ thoughn, MKI is 4+, but alright. We are developing our own 5th generation fighter, should be out by 2010 and its integral configuration alone will make it the most maneuvarable and well controlled plane on earth.

                          And Rusky, for all intents and purposes, they ARE 25 years behind.
                          No we are not. God, don't be ridiculus, up until that statement i actually thought you weren't another red neck that can't be reasoned with.

                          The Su-37 for which you are so proud, we were doing the same things with the F-15 ACTIVE in the mid-1980's.
                          I highly doubt that. I highly doubt that it can even do the things SU-27 can do.

                          You talk of superior MiG's and Sukhois, but those are modifications to old aircraft designs just comming on-line and not in appreciable numbers. We have chosen not to enhance old designs to fund revolutionary projects like the F-22, F-35, and UCAV technology. We did not "copy" the helmet mounted device, it was decided to wait until it became a more reliable system, even the Israelis pioneered this.
                          ROFL. If something is good you take it, and the system USSR was using was good and you did take it.



                          We did not need Yakovlev to "help" with the VTOL system, it was aquired for the simple sake of comparison, and as an engineer stated, the Yakovlev tech was used more for learning what NOT to do. It was a simple act of convenience and curiosity.
                          Right, keep telling yourself that....




                          Thrust vectoring has been used in US aircraft since the Harrier, and in the form of the Flanker-series, we have done it with the F-15 in tests since the mid-1980's. When did Sukhoi start? Again, we chose NOT to use it, seeing little tactical advantage considering the expense of installation and maintenance.
                          Yet you suddenly rethought that with F-22, give yourself a break, you not making any sense.


                          I say 25 because it has consistently been 25 years from the time we tried those experiments til the time you see the SAME experiments on Russian designs. Even now, the US is rapidly advancing in the realm of UCAV's, where is the equivalent Russian example?
                          We do have UCAV aircraft, mostly used for recoinessance but we do have them. And it has not been 25 years since the tests, lets see the 3D (not 2D like on F-15 ACTIVE) thrust vectoring was first demonstrated at the Paris show by SU-37. I am sure they didn't just come out with a new system at the show and were testing it in the 80s as well and either way it was not 25 year difference and the ones we have are better then the ones even F-22 has. Either way, your point makes no sense, you spit out some random 25 year figure and its simply not true, there is NOTHING that backs that ridiculus statement up, Russia is at the same technology level as US. Your example about the Vector Thrusters doesn't point to anything, ones Russia has are superior and were tested only few years after those used on F-15 ACTIVE.

                          What else? We had phased array radar before you. We had succesful anti-missile shield tests 30 years before you. We developed a mobile nuclear powermodule a technology you bought from us and were nothere near in completion of your prototype. Our avionics today are not 25 years behind yours and their performance is sufficient. Once again, your point is not backed up by anything.



                          Reliability, which seems to be a stigma regarding Russian systems. I'm not saying current avionics in Russian aircraft are not good, they are very good. To roughly quote the Russian kosmonaut in the movie "Armegeddon": "American components, Russian components. They are all made in Taiwan!"
                          I have quoted him in this thread before. As i said, its a race, you guys go up, and it goes on and on and the human civilization goes up, look at what achievements human kind made because of the Russian/American space race, US did a lot of research about our solar system, Russia designed several new materials that can only be created in space and for example the crystal plastic is the best material to be used for computer system processors, those are only two examples amongst many others. Either way, again the 25 number is incorrect, there is nothing that points to it.


                          Again, keeping in mind the USAF vs. IAF exercises in India. We were using old F-15's against India's most modern Su-30MKI's, in situations either equitable or advantagous to the Indians. Even under those situations, the exchange rate for the exercises was one-to-one. Granted, I don't know if the exercises were honest and open free-for-alls or kabuki-styled facsimiles of combat.
                          Eh...the exchange rate was not one to one, out of 50 scenarios 49 were won by the Indians.




                          Look up F-15 ACTIVE. Also, I'm inclined to believe a little biplane is probably the most maneuverable plane on earth. ;)
                          I highly doubt that, F-15 Active had 2d VT system, SU-37 had 3d thrust VT. Also refitting the SU-35s with VT engines is being considered and will probably be carried out since we finally have real money in our defense budget and most of it will be used on modyfying and buying new equipment, including taking SU-35 out of Low Production and into mass production.
                          Last edited by Rusky; 15 Jan 06,, 16:52.


                          Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Rusky
                            Right, the thing is that no your technology is not ahead of ours. SU-37s electronics are completely competitive with the Americans ones, hey i gave you info for hte SU-37 radar, why don't you proove me wrong with some factual information?
                            Really, from everything I heard it isn't. Also you wanted to some info on the AESA, well since they haven't disclosed the AN/APG-63V(2)s stats yet, I'll just give you the AN/APG-77's stats which are close to the formers:

                            "With the AN/APG-77, the F/A-22 is able to detect an enemy aircraft's radar from distances of up to 460 kilometers (250 nautical miles). It can acquire an enemy aircraft at distances of up to 220 kilometers (125 nautical miles), while its "low probability of intercept" radar signals make it very difficult to detect, leaving the "stealthy" F/A-22 will remain invisible to the enemy's radar. Once AIM-120 Extended Range Air To Air Missiles (ERAAM) are available, the F/A-22 will be able to destroy that enemy at a range of 185 kilometers (100 nautical miles). In many cases, the enemy will be hit without warning.

                            The AN/APG-77 is built around an "Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)", which consists of an array of about 1,500 transmitters-receiver (T/R) modules that are linked together by high-speed processors. The AESA can obtain electronics intelligence; jam enemy electronic systems; provide surveillance; and perform secure voice and datalink communications, in principle all at the same time. The AESA can simultaneously emit several tight beams to perform different functions. One program official commented: "Anything that can be done with X-band RF can be done with that antenna."

                            When operating as a radar, the AN/APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If adversaries do manage to detect the signal, they must then try to get a radar lock on the F/A-22 so it can be attacked. The F/A-22's stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again.

                            The AN/APG-77 is not intended to give the F/A-22 a "standoff jamming" capability, such as that provided by electronic warfare aircraft like the Grumman EA-6B Prowler, blinding enemy radars over wide areas on a continuous basis. The AN/APG-77's mission is mainly to allow the F/A-22 to fight effectively while remaining difficult to detect. A standoff jamming platform, in contrast, can't help but advertise its presence. Between dealing with active threats, the AESA collects information on the "electronic order of battle (EOB)" in the operational area, locating electronic systems, classifying them, and alerting the pilot to possible threats or high-priority targets.

                            The AN/APG-77 was a pioneer in operational development of the AESA. Later development of the concept for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has led to cheaper and more powerful AESA systems, and production F/A-22s feature a much improved AN/APG-77 based on this improved technology. The production AESA system also includes a "synthetic aperture radar (SAR)" mode to provide all-weather ground imaging, a very useful capability in the strike role."

                            Link: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html

                            Sure, i will.

                            http://uploads.abovetopsecret.com/ats15684_sweetman.txt

                            Here we go. I am not high, i just know what i am talking about, and you do not.
                            Oh damn, that is halarious! You actually thought that "AboveTopSecret" is a credible source? I feel bad for you.

                            Actually it seems that you are the one who has no knowledge of facts, you keep claiming that US technology is more advanced then Russian technology, that is simply not the case and you can't find any proof that it is, so why are you talking?
                            Just did. Read above for how our stuff is better than yours.

                            Right...eh...i just gave you the photoes of the cockpit that show that SU-37 has LCD displays and looks just as advanced as F-16 and F-15, even more advanced then F-15 actually. You're in denial. As for your claim about it falling apart, seriously dude, just shut up, you're pulling to much ******** out of your ass. Who cares how it looks? It flies and it is loads more maneuvarable then any US aicraft, even F-22.
                            You obviously are blind. You need to go to an eye doctor and check yourself out, because almost everyone hear will tell you that the cockpit doesn't even look advanced. Also whatsup with you and LCDs? The Russians have finally got to where we were somewhere in the 70s. Sad isn't it, 20 years later.

                            Please do.
                            Link:
                            http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...TIVE+AoA&hl=en

                            Now thats just your BS opinion, you don't know anything about PAK-FA and its planned capabilities and neither can you read Russian. As for your first statement, does all that ******** hurt coming out of your ass?
                            It seems your just mad because you can't come up with anything as a counterargument. I ask you again, how do you make something 1/4th the cost of the Raptor and still get the same performance? oh yeah, not!

                            I did, and those pics proove you wrong. Your radars and avionics are not better, hey please, lets do a side by side comparison, i gave you the info for the SU-37 radar, give me the info for one of your nation's radars.
                            Already did. Need more, I'll happily provide you more.

                            The thing is i provide factual information, you provide baseless speculation and ignore factual information. Look at the cockpits, god, you're in denial.
                            Like I said, go check an eye doctor. It will do you good.

                            Oh, so you saw the pics? And you claim that they look like SR-71? Are you retarded or have vision problems or both? Those pics show that SU-37 avionics are just modern as those of the western aircraft.
                            Read above.

                            Wow, nice come back, "i am not but you are", heh. But you do act like a 12 year old. You make wild, illogical speculation, give zero facts and then you end up in a tight space you deny factual information brought up against you (going back to the pics). Grow up and smell your own ********.
                            You know, if that was true why are you so mad? Is it because you can't find anything better to insult me with? Are you fustrated that I don't give in easily to your BS claims? I provided you with info. Now lets see you try and call that BS. Also I do really suggest you see an eye doctor, it will be good in the long-run.

                            Oh please, tell me what is so premitive about the SU-37 cockpit? It has three anti-glare LCD screens, and no chronometers insight. How the hell is the F-16 or F-15 cockpit any better?
                            So you developed something we did in the 70s good job. Also how does having more LCDs make you more advanced? So if I have 3 LCD TVs in my house it makes it more advanced than my neighbors who has only 2 LCD TVs? Also for the point, both cockpits have more than 3 LCD screens. Why don't you look at them? Or should I highlight it for you?

                            Crashes happen on both sides. SU-37 is still a technologically superior plane in both avionics and mechanics. If anybody would like to proove me wrong, please lets do a comparison between the statistics. Can F-22 do "Cobra"?

                            And hey its not like SU-37 is the only Russian plane outthere, there is also SU-34/35, SU-30MKI and Mig-29E all of which are superior to their western counterparts aside from F-22.
                            You keep saying that the Su-37 is better than all the rest, where do you come up with this? Out of your ass like all your other BS? As for Cobra, the F-22 can do that, along with the F-15 ACTIVE, F-18 HARV, F-16 MATV.

                            I highly doubt that, F-15 Active had 2d VT system, SU-37 had 3d thrust VT. Also refitting the SU-35s with VT engines is being considered and will probably be carried out since we finally have real money in our defense budget and most of it will be used on modyfying and buying new equipment, including taking SU-35 out of Low Production and into mass production.
                            The F-15 ACTIVE has a 3D TVC. Halarious, it got performance that the Su-37 matched a decade later.

                            Eh...the exchange rate was not one to one, out of 50 scenarios 49 were won by the Indians.
                            I'm guessing you don't stay up-to-date with news or go any further than what a stranger on the street tells you.

                            I'll leave it at hear since I think Horrido can pretty much bash all else your talking about along with I'm short on time. I'll be back to break whatever new BS you get later on today (most likely after 7:00 PM).
                            Last edited by The_Burning_Kid; 15 Jan 06,, 16:55.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                              Really, from everything I heard it isn't. Also you wanted to some info on the AESA, well since they haven't disclosed the AN/APG-63V(2)s stats yet, I'll just give you the AN/APG-77's stats which are close to the formers:[

                              "With the AN/APG-77, the F/A-22 is able to detect an enemy aircraft's radar from distances of up to 460 kilometers (250 nautical miles). It can acquire an enemy aircraft at distances of up to 220 kilometers (125 nautical miles), while its "low probability of intercept" radar signals make it very difficult to detect, leaving the "stealthy" F/A-22 will remain invisible to the enemy's radar. Once AIM-120 Extended Range Air To Air Missiles (ERAAM) are available, the F/A-22 will be able to destroy that enemy at a range of 185 kilometers (100 nautical miles). In many cases, the enemy will be hit without warning.

                              The AN/APG-77 is built around an "Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA)", which consists of an array of about 1,500 transmitters-receiver (T/R) modules that are linked together by high-speed processors. The AESA can obtain electronics intelligence; jam enemy electronic systems; provide surveillance; and perform secure voice and datalink communications, in principle all at the same time. The AESA can simultaneously emit several tight beams to perform different functions. One program official commented: "Anything that can be done with X-band RF can be done with that antenna."

                              Although the Air Force considered auxiliary side-mounted arrays for the AN/APG-77 they were abandoned due to cost, and the AESA is limited to a field of view 120 degrees across in the forward direction. Other antennas provide missile and radar warning behind the aircraft. The airframe still includes provisions for the side-mounted arrays, and they could be reinstated at a future time.

                              When operating as a radar, the AN/APG-77 transmits waveforms that change from burst to burst, and are sent at random frequencies. Such a changing signal is very difficult for an enemy to detect and analyze. If adversaries do manage to detect the signal, they must then try to get a radar lock on the F/A-22 so it can be attacked. The F/A-22's stealthiness makes this tricky in the first place, but to make matters more troublesome, the AESA also analyses the enemy's radar and sends out a jamming burst to disrupt the lock. The AESA then goes on to other tasks until the enemy radar begins its lock cycle again.

                              The AN/APG-77 is not intended to give the F/A-22 a "standoff jamming" capability, such as that provided by electronic warfare aircraft like the Grumman EA-6B Prowler, blinding enemy radars over wide areas on a continuous basis. The AN/APG-77's mission is mainly to allow the F/A-22 to fight effectively while remaining difficult to detect. A standoff jamming platform, in contrast, can't help but advertise its presence. Between dealing with active threats, the AESA collects information on the "electronic order of battle (EOB)" in the operational area, locating electronic systems, classifying them, and alerting the pilot to possible threats or high-priority targets.

                              The AN/APG-77 was a pioneer in operational development of the AESA. Later development of the concept for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has led to cheaper and more powerful AESA systems, and production F/A-22s feature a much improved AN/APG-77 based on this improved technology. The production AESA system also includes a "synthetic aperture radar (SAR)" mode to provide all-weather ground imaging, a very useful capability in the strike role."

                              Link: http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html
                              Thats F-22, a 5th generation aircraft, thats not the radar on F-18



                              Oh damn, that is halarious! You actually thought that "AboveTopSecret" is a credible source? I feel bad for you.
                              Just look around the net, there is plenty evidence to back those statements up.



                              Just did. Read above for how our stuff is better than yours.
                              Once again you are not comparing planes of the same class, so that doesn't count for ****.



                              You obviously are blind. You need to go to an eye doctor and check yourself out, because almost everyone hear will tell you that the cockpit doesn't even look advanced. Also whatsup with you and LCDs? The Russians have finally got to where we were somewhere in the 70s. Sad isn't it, 20 years later.
                              Everybody here? You mean you? Because you are the only one retarded enough to not see that the equipment is on the level, and is the software.



                              Link:
                              http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...TIVE+AoA&hl=en



                              It seems your just mad because you can't come up with anything as a counterargument. I ask you again, how do you make something 1/4th the cost of the Raptor and still get the same performance? oh yeah, not!
                              Yeah we do, we do it by finding different solutions, something Russia has been besting US at since cold war began. For example use of the integral configuration and 3d vector thrusters will give it a much more manuevarable and controlled performance then F-22. The plasma stealth described in the link i provided doubled with more traditional stealth methods like RAM paint will supply the plane with enough stealth power. And since all the same technologies are available to you as to us, i don't see any reason why the avionics on that plane would not be on the level. I got a counter argument, you're just denying it because you can't refute.


                              Like I said, go check an eye doctor. It will do you good.
                              You need to grow up, denial is such a childish defense.

                              You know, if that was true why are you so mad? Is it because you can't find anything better to insult me with? Are you fustrated that I don't give in easily to your BS claims? I provided you with info. Now lets see you try and call that BS. Also I do really suggest you see an eye doctor, it will be good in the long-run.
                              You don't provide me with ****. And i am not mad, saying ******** then i see ******** and call it ******** doesn't mean i am mad. Either way, your reasoning on judging the cockpit is ridiculus. Please tell me what is so premitive about it? It has LCD screens, almost no chronometers and up to date software, stop pulling stuff out of your ass.



                              So you developed something we did in the 70s good job. Also how does having more LCDs make you more advanced? So if I have 3 LCD TVs in my house it makes it more advanced than my neighbors who has only 2 LCD TVs? Also for the point, both cockpits have more than 3 LCD screens. Why don't you look at them? Or should I highlight it for you?
                              Why does that matter? God, the number of them doesn't matter, their presence matters and the software used matters, both of which are modern.



                              You keep saying that the Su-37 is better than all the rest, where do you come up with this? Out of your ass like all your other BS? As for Cobra, the F-22 can do that, along with the F-15 ACTIVE, F-18 HARV, F-16 MATV.
                              I highly doubt is can do Stop Cobra, thats a bit of a more difficult maneuver.



                              The F-15 ACTIVE has a 3D TVC. Halarious, it got performance that the Su-37 matched a decade later.
                              Eh, it has 2d vectors, but please, give me a source that says otherwise.

                              Here is a link for you:

                              http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000372.html

                              "giving the aircraft thrust control in the pitch (up and down) and yaw (left and right) directions"

                              3d means, up-down, left-right, and diagonal. Look at its pics, its thrusters are put too close together to move diagonally.



                              I'm guessing you don't stay up-to-date with news or go any further than what a stranger on the street tells you.
                              No, i just don't read news from redneck.com like you do.

                              I'll leave it at hear since I think Horrido can pretty much bash all else your talking about along with I'm short on time. I'll be back to break whatever new BS you get later on today (most likely after 7:00 PM).
                              Lol, agian with the denial. You haven't broken ****, you haven't given me the stats i asked for, you haven't explained to me why you think the SU-37 cockpit is not as advanced, and you mistakingly claimed that F-15 ACTIVE has 3d thrust vectoring. And also what good is targeting at 200 km if your missile can only fly 50? Common kid, i am sure you can push more BS out of your ass if you try hard enough.
                              Last edited by Rusky; 15 Jan 06,, 17:30.


                              Путин: Надо отделить мух от мяса.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The_Burning_Kid
                                The F-15 ACTIVE has a 3D TVC. Halarious, it got performance that the Su-37 matched a decade later.
                                Originally posted by Rusky
                                Eh, it has 2d vectors, but please, give me a source that says otherwise.
                                How about this one? http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/dryde...-048-DFRC.html

                                After being loaned to NASA for the ACTIVE program, the twin-engine F-15 was equipped with a powerful research computer, higher-thrust versions of the Pratt & Whitney F-100 engine and newly developed axisymmetric thrust-vectoring engine exhaust nozzles that are capable of redirecting the engine exhaust in any direction, not just in the pitch (up and down) axis or direction.
                                Good enough for you, or do you need more?
                                Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X