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

on Veniks, it says that a B-2A was shot down, or detected, or was fired at and was damaged somewhere in the Yugoslavian war, i'll look for it again, i already provided a link to it, first i have to do h/w

Originally posted by devilwasp
What about that one that got shot down?
I thought the RN tracked a B2 over scotland?

The F-117 was shot down because it used the same flight path repeatedly. Thus, they filled the Air with AAA fire and got one down.

The B-2 was tracked because the RN were told when and where the B-2 was coming from and it flew nearly directly overhead of the cruiser. As said, stealth does not make you invisable. However, in real world situations, the B-2 would never ever fly that close to a radar site, much less tell the enemy where and when it is coming.

Originally posted by grunt2

The Raptor is already in service buddy. Today. Right now.

its an pre-service like in the f104 history

[edit on 10-12-2004 by grunt2]

WRONG!!!

There are 2 active squadrons right now.

In any case, it is a hell of a lot more "in service" then anything the Russians are talking about that can come even close to matching it.

Originally posted by Dima
on Veniks, it says that a B-2A was shot down, or detected, or was fired at and was damaged somewhere in the Yugoslavian war, i'll look for it again, i already provided a link to it, first i have to do h/w

Veniks is like a Russian aviation propaganda and his dogma is to the left of even yours Dima. It is a good site, but hardly what I would call "un-biased" Was the B-2 fired at? Well if you count unguided ripple fires of SAMS then maybe so.

u guys can keep talking, but the thing is that all u guys have are excuses, i mean russian aircraft aren't perfect, but they're not as damn bad as every dumbass here thinks they are

i mean excuses like the F-117, the B-2, the F-15 excercise in India

veniks is a reputable site, even intelgurl agrees, he collects information from various different people, some with links to the actual government, yea, he admires russian aircraft, it doesn't mean that he's biased towards it, look at his info, nnot once will it say that "because of the superiority of this russian aircraft" he uses info from different sites to make one huge ass database, most of it is on russian aircraft, but that doesn't mean that he's biased towards them

this whole america is the best thing is over rated.
sure the f-16 is labeled as the greatest light-weight multirole fighter of all time, but only because its the only one of its type to see combat.
american does not have a history of making the best air craft in the world.
lets note that through the decades all of americas fighters were geared to answer the russian threat, america has done everything in its power to acquire russian technology and even paid off defecting pilots to see whats under the hood. most of our aviation accomplishments were out of fear of a possibly superior product.
and this whole "no other country has stealth fights" bull, lets be realisitic, just becuase no other country has a stealth fighter, doesn't mean they can't or won't build one, russia, U.K, france, china, germany have all been working on projects since the 70's but don't see the urgency like america does, except in the case of russia where they can't afford it. if u do the research u can see that russia had plans to build a stealth bomber to attack targets in the U.S. (mind u the whole theory on evading stealth came from work done by a russian scientist). the United states is at war with the world, which explains our inflated budget, but while we're blowing up deserts and destroying relics, other countries are chilaxing

So the Pentagon LIED about the F-117 being shot out by SA-6 is what your teling us hu?

Originally posted by kozmikduster
and this whole "no other country has stealth fights" bull, lets be realisitic, just becuase no other country has a stealth fighter, doesn't mean they can't or won't build one,

Hmmm, just about any country in theory can build a super carrier as well but having the knowledge base versus the actuall ability is two whole seperate things. I could in theory if I had say a PhD in Pysics, build a atomic device, but getting the material is another issue.

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
So the Pentagon LIED about the F-117 being shot out by SA-6 is what your teling us hu?

From what I heard it was AAA fire NOT a SAM. I have seen pics of the crash...Theres a bunch of bullet holes and no sign of an explosion.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by kozmikduster
and this whole "no other country has stealth fights" bull, lets be realisitic, just becuase no other country has a stealth fighter, doesn't mean they can't or won't build one,

Hmmm, just about any country in theory can build a super carrier as well but having the knowledge base versus the actuall ability is two whole seperate things. I could in theory if I had say a PhD in Pysics, build a atomic device, but getting the material is another issue.

But surely that would be an industrial advantage, not a technological one?

Originally posted by waynos
But surely that would be an industrial advantage, not a technological one?

But that is the whole point. At this point alot of the "stealth" technology could be duplicated with effort. However, Being able to build one on paper versus reality is a big difference. TO be able to afford a squadron and its supporting aircraft (not to mention building it in the first place) is simply beyond the means of most countries. So even you can put one on paper but not build one is there any difference?

Well maybe I was confusing this argument with another where it had been asserted that no one else had the tech to do it, that was the distinction I weas drawing.

I suppose the difference is that America is prepared to fund, by whatever means necessary such hardware, which is great for your forces, whilst other countries that do have both the tech and the industrial ability are not, these would include the European nations and Britain (funny how we here make that distinction, I know it makes no sense to others, but I digress). I'll make it clear here that I do not mean cloning of the F-22 and B-2 which are said to be out in front in so many as yet unseen areas, an argument I can accept, but merely 'proper' stealth aircraft that would otherwise be up to the standard of the Typhoon and Rafale.

Then there are other nations that would love to create such weapons but can't, which is basically the rest of the world outside the top industrial countries.

Originally posted by waynos
Well maybe I was confusing this argument with another where it had been asserted that no one else had the tech to do it, that was the distinction I weas drawing.

Ah, yes, then we are in agreement. Smart people happen everwhere, but each nation has to decide its priority. Countries have to make due with what thier budget will bear. You also have to look at the requirements each nation has for thier defence etc.

Is the PAK-FA based remotely on the S-37, without the FSW. If you see some of the illustrated impressions drawn by artists to replicate the PAK-FA, even though there has been no set airframe and neither MiG or Sukhoi no exactly what it will look like yet.

yo Kenshin, here's a forum wit some pics on the PAK-FA project, apparently, MiG has also restarted its fifth-generation light fighter concept again? whats happeneing?i though Sukhoi was gunna make it, and it would be called the T-50, but now MiG is also maing one?

here's the site with pics

www.rfforces.com...

and here's the site that says MiG ahs restarted their fifth-generation fighter

www.rfforces.com...

its in the fifth post, somewhere in the midle large paragraphs

Looks like an remote cross between the F-22 raptor and the MiG-31 foxhound,but looks better than both

yea i know, i luv how it looks, some people are saying that the MiG fifth=generation aircraft will be the Vityaz 2000, i wonder which one is better the T-50 or the Vityaz 2000

Hmmm, those look to show various kinds of production proposals

I personally do not think the Pak-fa will be based on the Su-30 airframe, although there is rumours of two different projects in the work. A single-engine, 'stealthy' flanker, and the Pak-fa itself

Anyway

Russian 5th generation fighter to fly in 2007, says air force chief

The 5th generation combat aircraft under development for the Russian Air
Force at the Sukhoi company will fly no later than 2007, Army General Vladimir Mikhaylov, Air Force Commander-in-Chief, told Interfax-Military News Agency on Friday.

"I am satisfied with the results. The electronic model of the 5th generation fighter is ready, its aerodynamics and other parameters calculated," he said.

MiG has also restarted its fifth-generation light fighter proposal, thats an artists impression and rendition of the aircraft, i think it will look close to it, and it will definitely havw TWO engines, its like russian philosphy, a plane has to have at least two engines, look at the MiG-29, lgiht multi-role fighter, two engines

What was the name of that prototype Russian fighter that incorperated the concepts of the MiG-29, but only had 1 engine ?