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

When reading here about computer networks,
I can't help but wonder what it must be like to fly one of these babys
knowing that the computer control systems just dowloaded the latest Windows update.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It's funny - Tiger, you talk about our victories always being against 3rd world countries.....

Didn'r Ruusia get there buts handed to them by Afghanistan?

The same Afghanistan that the US took, in what, a matter of weeks?

i don't believe that your familiar with that war if u think russia didn't conqueor afhanistan, russia conquered it in ONE day when they assassinated the family, but the fighting continued until 1989 supported by almost every non-soviet/communist country, its a fact, china, japan, america, all of western europe, many countries in south america, australia etc. gave money, weapons and training to the afghani's

Wow Dima, you really need to get out more, or at least read history books NOT published by the Central Committee. Afganistan was Russia's Vietnam. No doubt about it. The simple fact is they took Kabul but that was about it. Lets not forget the Russian war crimes in that war either shall we?

Originally posted by Dima
blackout, rusia doesn't rely on military contracts for a large portion of thier economy, on the contrary, it is a very small one, only about $5.4-5.5 billion that was last year, they rely heavily on raw materials, and since the oil prices have been going up, and as the demand increases, russia will be eraning billions, their national treasury is 50% larger than it was expected this year, and investments in the country are literally skyrocketing, i read russian news everday from 5 different websites, the increase in investment has grown 20% and they moved up a new level into i thin it was the yellow or green, which means it is safe to invest in their economy right now because of stability

In terms of economics, stability does not equal boom. In a boom, there's no such thing as stability because there's always a chance that the bubble will burst.

Either way, Russia can't afford to fight any major wars.

Originally posted by FredT
Wow Dima, you really need to get out more, or at least read history books NOT published by the Central Committee. Afganistan was Russia's Vietnam. No doubt about it. The simple fact is they took Kabul but that was about it. Lets not forget the Russian war crimes in that war either shall we?

Don't even bother. It's people like him that are so nationalistic that you cannot convince them even if you present documented evidence. They believe only what they want to believe - the glory, the triumph, and so forth. They believe no one can challenge their power by giving falsified facts or feeding you propoganda. These, my friend, are the future/pro-fascists.

It's okay to be patriotic, just don't take it to an extreme as would a fascist/Nazi. Try and be open-minded. No one cares if you say "my country can beat your country in this and that" if you can provide valid arguments. The fact that you're visiting some Russian forum to ask them to help you argue is just pathetic especially since your primary objective is to preach to us the "glory" of your country. Tone it down. If I sound like a mod, great. I'm just voicing my opinion as I'm sure I'm not the only one being annoyed by this.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It's funny - Tiger, you talk about our victories always being against 3rd world countries.....

Didn'r Ruusia get there buts handed to them by Afghanistan?

The same Afghanistan that the US took, in what, a matter of weeks?

ummm...but the US had already obliterated one major taliban plus point...the Pakis...plus this time nobody was stuffing the talibans with stingers and other goodies

Originally posted by Daedalus3
ummm...but the US had already obliterated one major taliban plus point...the Pakis...plus this time nobody was stuffing the talibans with stingers and other goodies

D3, the Taliban didn't come to power until after the Soviets left. So the US wasn't stuffing them with stingers and other goodies.

The origins of the Taliban were rooted in the war, but they were mostly refugees from camps outside Afghanistan who fled to Pakistan to study in the religious schools and form a new government for Afghanistan.

It's true that the US did send weapons through Pakistan to the mujahdeen, but it is not accurate to call them Taliban.

u guys are the same, i can provide u with sites such as Veniks and that stuff and u guys still won't believe me, everyone is under the grip of propaganda, and there's no way out, and the ONLY thing that i asked for help in is stealth, and i posted once or twice, thats it, u make it sound as if every post i have made and all the info in it is from that site, i've only beena member of the site for less than a week now

and don't even deny that u're under propaganda, i don't but, there is still relevant information out there, anyways, i'm not closed minded, i like reading about the F-22 and its abilities but i don't like all this hyping up about it making it seem as if its an innovation in aerospace science, its nothing new, stealth with Mach 1.5 supercruise, those abilities are cool, but people just oversatte these things, and i haven't noticed a lot of "support" or at least mentioning that some russian aircraft are good unless its rom soviet people or british/scottish people(i was actually surprised that they like russkie aircraft) i have said many times, that the F-22 is a good plane, yet i don't hear often that the Su-47 is a good one, the best i've heard from an american is that the MiG 1.42/44 hasa chance, wtf? it has more of a chance

anyways.....thats all, trying to keep my temper down

DIMA

The reason people on this board don't believe the Su-47 has a chance vs. a raptor is simple - IT DOESN'T!!!!

The Su-47 was a technology demonstrator. It combined state of the art (for Russia) avionics with a reduced RCS and FSW. Now, it is a very "cool" aircraft, and it had some very advanced equipment, BUT the thing is that the technology it was demonstrating WOULD NOT HELP IT AGAINST A RAPTOR!

The Raptor would still see it first, without being detected himself. The Raptor would still get the first and probably the second shot of. With todays technology, it will only take 1 shot to get a kill in most cases.

It boils down to the fact that the S-37 simply IS NOT DESIGNED TO TAKE ON A RAPTOR. It was designed to have extreme agility. As we have shown and told you about 8,000 times, the Raptor will never even get into a dogfight where that agility might give the Su the advantage. The Raptor is somewhat of a sniper - it will sit back and pick off other aircraft never being seen it's self untill it is too late.

That is also the reason why I said the Mig 1.44 might have a chance. It was designed around the same ideas as the raptor. Thus, it has a better (but IMHO, still equally futile) chance of beating the Raptor.

Take it or leave it Dima, but this is the truth.

there's that propaganda thing that i'm talking about though, u say it DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE, well, let me tell u something, i did this experiment on another post, but if both aircraft are going at about Mach 1.8, it takes only about 2 minutes for them to be in contact with each other and in those 2 minutes they have to fire a missile, now, just because the F-22 incorporates stealth technology, doesn't mean its invisible, yes its hard to detect, but there are many means by which you could use to detect an aircraft, here's a link

homepage.mac.com...

it states some extremely simple yet rather effective methods, especially the last one, and in those 2 minutes don't u think the Su-47 would be able to launch a missile, maybe a short-ranged one while they're closing in, and everyone knows how deadly russian missiles are, its the truth, sure, if u want me to admit things, okay, here we go

the F-22 is a capable aircraft, that right now is able to annihialate any other production aircraft out there, yet, its capabilites are overly and extremely overrated, none the less though, its a good aircraft, i've ben trying to hold this in, but now u americans can't say i'm closed minded, its actually the other way around

anyways, i'm done, bi

Originally posted by Dima
u guys are the same, i can provide u with sites such as Veniks and that stuff and u guys still won't believe me, everyone is under the grip of propaganda, and there's no way out, and the ONLY thing that i asked for help in is stealth, and i posted once or twice, thats it, u make it sound as if every post i have made and all the info in it is from that site, i've only beena member of the site for less than a week now

and don't even deny that u're under propaganda, i don't but, there is still relevant information out there, anyways, i'm not closed minded, i like reading about the F-22 and its abilities but i don't like all this hyping up about it making it seem as if its an innovation in aerospace science, its nothing new, stealth with Mach 1.5 supercruise, those abilities are cool, but people just oversatte these things, and i haven't noticed a lot of "support" or at least mentioning that some russian aircraft are good unless its rom soviet people or british/scottish people(i was actually surprised that they like russkie aircraft) i have said many times, that the F-22 is a good plane, yet i don't hear often that the Su-47 is a good one, the best i've heard from an american is that the MiG 1.42/44 hasa chance, wtf? it has more of a chance

anyways.....thats all, trying to keep my temper down

What? Stealth technology is not an innovation in aerospace technology? Nothing new? Dima, what are you talking aobut? This is an innovation, it is new. Aeroplane technology has been around for 100 years, within the last 55 years (introduction of radar) we have discovered stealth, and within the last 30 we have found a way to make it more and more effective. And only since the induction and creation of America's F-117, B-2, and now F-22 have we made significant strides in applying it to modern military aircraft. Why is there so much funding on both sides (US and Russia) into stealth tech if it is as insignificant as you suggest?

Here's where I prove my neutrality guys! And maybe my silliness too but here goes;

AMM, I have never accepted the argument that the Raptor will never get into a dogfight and never be found by the enemy. Clearly neither has Lockheed judging by the dogfight agiity they worked hard to put into the aircraft. Sure this 'first look first shot' thing is one of the major factors behind Raptors current total supremacy but technology is not infallible and rarely is it infallible in a war situation, there are many factors that might lead to a close engagement.

What if the 'contact' cannot be identified for any reason, do you just blast a what is potentially a US jet with faulty IFF out of the sky or do you go and have a look? Yes, that would be a rare event but its one of many possibilities none the less.

Even accepting that the engagement begins BVR there is the fact that missiles can be avoided, sure the AIM 120C can hit 95% of RPV targets but what about a well equipped and well trained adversary? I'm not saying all, or most, or even quite a lot of missiles will be defeated, but some will. Even then, what if for reasons of clutter or sheer numbers or even ground control error the Raptor finds it is faced with too many adversaries for a 'first look' kill on them all? Wars are, by there nature, messy and thngs rarely turn out as the planners envisaged them.

Then you have the fact that things like the missile bay doors opening increase the RCS, and the ignition of the missile motor will also be highly visible, these are only momentary but they tell the enemy where to look and that small almost neglible return signal you couldn't quite make out now becomes more noticeable. does the raptor pilot stay on course hoping he has gotten away with it or does he turn, exposing his belly to an enemy radar now looking his way?

You see even with all this I still think the Raptor is the best fighter by a large margin, but the Raptor, while it undoubtedly will enjoy engagements a plenty where the enemy will never have known what hit him, cannot expect that this is always going to be the case.

This is even before you consider that technology moves on and to every new threat a counter measure is ALWAYS developed somewhere.

Now Dima, I've read that article and it may be the beginning of finding an effective 'anti-stealth' measure, or it may be a blind alley, only time will tell. For todays practical purposes you cannot hope to scan every single piece of terrain where an enemy plane MIGHT be flying and get a kill when that enemy is approaching you at the speed of sound with a clear objective to aim for, its like looking all around you for a wasp and it stings you on the back of the neck. The article accepts that initial contact may be slow to achieve, thats no good against fast incoming aircraft. Like I said, maybe in time it will lead to something though.

Also this thing about looking at the space behind the stealth aircraft for a 'masking effect'. How can that work? Sky doesn't show on a radar and ground and sea returns are unintelligble clutter, how would you know what was an aircraft and what was a random pattern, they would be indistinguishable? I know the aircraft would be moving in a line but, with random clutter all over the screen how would you know a line when you saw one? I admit this is only my immeditate thought on the article and someone who knows about radar returns might be able to piut me straight on this.

The basic fault I can find with your POV Dima is that you seem to be saying Russia can defeat what America has now with something that Russia might have, if it works, a decade or so from now. A bit of a flawed argument I think.
You are comparing two prototypes and a design project with an operational type ,which isn't really a valid comparison to make as the S-37 and MiG 1.42/1.44 are more akin to the BAe EAP in nature.

You know, the EAP is not better than the Rafale, nowhere near as good even, but the Typhoon that it led to is superior. When the Russian fighter emerges for real is when a comparison can be made.

OK, I don't even know if i said the word "never" but the point of my post is this:

The Raptor, in all likely hood, will have first look-first shot. That equals a win, as you pointed out, 95% of the time. To me that shows that the Raptor is CLEARLY the better aircraft.

And yes, the Raptor is super manueverable - which just proved my point even more. Even if the Sukhoi were to get close without getting splashed, it still wouldn't enjoy that much of an advantage. And since US pilots get better training and more flight hours then Russian pilots do, the US Raptor pilot would still probably win.

I think we are saying pretty much the same thing except you have a bit more belief in the success rate of 'first look first kill' AMRAAM launches than I do, but the difference isn't worth arguing over as I think that in a 'real' war the success rate would be a bit less than 95% which is against target drones that aren't trying to protect themselves, more like 75-85% which still equals mainly victory for the F/A-22. As I say it is clearly the best by some margin and if it is true that it gets overhyped by some Americans then it is equally true that the Dima's of the world are also guilty of 'underhyping' it in an attempt to redress the balance.

Agreed

It will be interesting to see what Russia puts out as a production aircraft to challenge the Raptor.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It will be interesting to see what Russia puts out as a production aircraft to challenge the Raptor.

The Pak-fa is russia's answer to the f-22

www.military.cz...

seems more like an F-18, I dont think the Raptor will be bothered at all

First of all I am a very proud US Air Force pilot, part of the 1st Fighter Wing�s 27th Fighter Squadron, at Langley VA. Wellour squadron is the furst listed to start using in the F- 22 in's first combat assignments midm2005, and I have been training for the change for quite a while now.

Anyway the Russians on this board are possibly some of the most blide people I have ever seen post on an internet message board about there Air Force, the Usa tech is the main reason our 5th generation fighters are the best in the world. So getting to it, first of all I have done several 1,000 sim hours with the F-22 since 2002 and let me tell you that a Aircraft with vectoring could not avovid an ata missile, are you joking? The Russian craft we have flown agaist mainly Su-27's, are jokes, they are possibly worse then the F-15 C when it come too the nonMilitry speed, they're fuel runs out in minutes. Second of all the F-22 specs are low balled as all militrycraft are, although some stats I am not willing or at liberity to talk about ... though the stats given by the goverment and Lockheed are close, but if you look at the two craft, even the new Mig it is pretty easy to see which craft is more of a Sleath craft, and plus the Pak uses active radar, and the Russian goverement only a has access to a numeber of sleath tech, the F-22 had many sleath measures, some that the Public knows and some that they don't, hell some of it's comp systems are so under wraps that I do not know there capilities, why do you think the F-22 cost is so much more then the Mig when they are the remotly the some Aircraft, the tech adds so much more too the craft, both in cost and ability.

And the Su- 37 as some of you call it is only a experment plane, it is too see how the foward wing reacts, and my Russian friends the Russian militry is only making export planes, really they don't have the money to buy 100 jets, they economic ability is limited and is going to get even more so if your president keeps going the way he is.

Originally posted by roniii259

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It will be interesting to see what Russia puts out as a production aircraft to challenge the Raptor.

The Pak-fa is russia's answer to the f-22

www.military.cz...

seems more like an F-18, I dont think the Raptor will be bothered at all

But you too are making a judgement based on a concept, not an actual aircraft, you see? There is no reason to believe that the concept for Pak fa shown on the link bears any resemblance to the actual programme, therefore how can it be compared to anything? You only have to look at all the different ATF pictures that came out before the real planes were revealed.

Originally posted by roniii259

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It will be interesting to see what Russia puts out as a production aircraft to challenge the Raptor.

The Pak-fa is russia's answer to the f-22
seems more like an F-18, I dont think the Raptor will be bothered at all

Jeez, I seem to run into this every other day. That AC is NOT a Pak-fa. That is the Mig I.2000. It is a LFI/Trainer concept that Russia bailed out on about 6 years ago.

It has since been revived as the Shafaq by Iran. It is not even a supersonic AC. You can see it on globalsecurity among other places. It is already in production in Iran.

The best info to date is that the Pak-fa will be based on the SU-47, but without the FSW. FSW looks neat, but it has some MAJOR problems in RCS, stress, and loadout limitations. It's only edge is in subsonic maneuverability, and that is a questionable quality to design a fighter AC around in todays environment.

Originally posted by Strike Eagle
First of all I am a very proud US Air Force pilot, part of the 1st Fighter Wing�s 27th Fighter Squadron, at Langley VA. Wellour squadron is the furst listed to start using in the F- 22 in's first combat assignments midm2005, and I have been training for the change for quite a while now.

Anyway the Russians on this board are possibly some of the most blide people I have ever seen post on an internet message board about there Air Force, the Usa tech is the main reason our 5th generation fighters are the best in the world. So getting to it, first of all I have done several 1,000 sim hours with the F-22 since 2002 and let me tell you that a Aircraft with vectoring could not avovid an ata missile, are you joking? The Russian craft we have flown agaist mainly Su-27's, are jokes, they are possibly worse then the F-15 C when it come too the nonMilitry speed, they're fuel runs out in minutes. Second of all the F-22 specs are low balled as all militrycraft are, although some stats I am not willing or at liberity to talk about ...

though the stats given by the goverment and Lockheed are close, but if you look at the two craft, even the new Mig it is pretty easy to see which craft is more of a Sleath craft, and plus the Pak uses active radar, and the Russian goverement only a has access to a numeber of sleath tech, the F-22 had many sleath measures, some that the Public knows and some that they don't, hell some of it's comp systems are so under wraps that I do not know there capilities, why do you think the F-22 cost is so much more then the Mig when they are the remotly the some Aircraft, the tech adds so much more too the craft, both in cost and ability.

And the Su- 37 as some of you call it is only a experment plane, it is too see how the foward wing reacts, and my Russian friends the Russian militry is only making export planes, really they don't have the money to buy 100 jets, they economic ability is limited and is going to get even more so if your president keeps going the way he is.

i think that this message can be entirely rooted to propaganda, i'm not trying to be closed-minded, but take a look at the India excercise, the F-15's lost 9 to 1, not 2 to 1, but MiG-21BIS', Mirage's, forgot which version, MiG-27's and Su-30MKI's took place in the excercise, so, the F-15's didn't lose just to the Su-30MKI's, they lost to the MiG-27, the BIS, and the Mirage's

here's where i'll be more open minded, i think that the F-15C beat the MIG-21BIS's, and probably the Mirage F.5's i think they were, it would be a tie between the MiG-27 or the F-15 beat it, but to balance the F-15 beating all these other aircraft, than the Su-30MKI must have posted even more phenominal scores to get that 9 to 1 advantage

F-15 vs. MiG-21BIS 3-4/1
F-15 vs. Mirage F.5 2.5/1
F-15 vs. MiG-27 1.5-2/1
F-15 vs. Su-30MKI 1/16-17.5

u might be a pilot, but i don't know eher u got this"Su-27 is the crappiest plane" attitude from

hope i've been open minded, to all those people that say i'm not