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

Originally posted by Danie
Heres my ideas of what an f-22 vs su-47 battle would look like.

For real now. You do realize that after shooting its BVR AMRAAM, the F-22 will be manuvering and stealthy again once its missile bay doors are closed right? Its not a blimp that will be the in the same place when the missile fires off. Also do not forget that the Raptor is agile as well.

You can Cobra all day and put on a really good airshow, but thats about it.

I would think that the F-22's stealth characteristics would be severely compromised once it started manoevering and it is at its most effective when flying straight and level, therefore it would be best for it to launch missiles, shut doors, and carry on on the same height and heading, perhaps with a gentle flat turn so as not to become too refelective.

Originally posted by mxboy15u
How is this even discussed? Stealth stealth stealth. Period. There is no dogfight the Russian plane would be lucky to make it off the ground.

Yup..stealth stealth stealth stealth.. and whoops there you can see him..whats he going to do about it.. nothing..
He's still under the stealth stealth stealth etc. etc. realm..

Originally posted by roniii259
I think that the Raptor will win hands down

Why? Because you cant shoot waht you cant see.

The S-37 is optimized for dogfighting, but the smart pilot will only dogfight enough to stay alive then bug out to do a BVR intercept. While a S-37 would look around trying to dogfight the Raptor, the raptor would zip around ussing supercruise and take each one out one at a time, then move out of the area. It is kind of like a pack of wolfs encircling a bunch of sheep, taking one out and then drawing the herd allowing another from the other side to take out another in the back.

Pretty much the US tactic in WW2, the Zero could out turn anything the US had so they just used hit and run tactics, get in with superior speed and shoot it down if you didn't down it zoom away out of range, turn around and try again until finished. F-22 vs S-37 would be much the same,

Like a martial arts expert against a sniper.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Danie
Heres my ideas of what an f-22 vs su-47 battle would look like.

For real now. You do realize that after shooting its BVR AMRAAM, the F-22 will be manuvering and stealthy again once its missile bay doors are closed right? Its not a blimp that will be the in the same place when the missile fires off. Also do not forget that the Raptor is agile as well.

You can Cobra all day and put on a really good airshow, but thats about it.

yes i do realize that but as waynos said it would be better for the raptor pilot to gently change his course instead of breaking left or right, at least until after the missle slams into the russian aircraft

>>
I know the old saying "Don't judge the book by its cover" but to be honest, what one really does look more technology advanced?
>>

Which one looks like it's better maintained? LO is all about keeping the materials and coatings 'fresh' and smooth. The ability to do this on a jet with a flat paint scheme is highly indicative. To which I would add that putting hard edges on soft curves /in plastic/ indicates superior ability to dictate, not just manufacturing tolerances but smoothness of shape.

>>
The raptor has BVR, stealth and a so called "Emp" radar to shut down enemy electronics. So in theory, no plane will be able to see it if their radar isn't working
>>

The Su-27SM/30 with the S400 mod (Ks-172) missile has superior 'BVR' pole reach. Which is the beginning of a complex argument:

1. Flankers (substitude Berkut's if you wish, 20,000lbs more thrust, decidedly worse aeros) can easily outrun F/A-22s.
2. Flankers which try to 'defend' their airbases are going to be trapped and obliterated on a guilt-by-spatial-association basis.
3. Flankers which run from their airbases are not going to be able to generate sortie #2 thru Next because their airbases will be obliterated.
4. If F-15's and 16's and 18's are the coursing horses in a fox hunt, the F/A-22 is little more than a dog to flush the game and give 'spirit to the chase'. i.e. On a money'd asset vestiture and embarrassment basis, it is /vastly/ more important (and easier) to catch the huntsmen (they who bringeth the most bombs) or the elephant houdah (E-2/3/8/10) than it is to pretend to notice the dogs.

Because the way 'BVR' works in the F/A-22 is X launches his AIM-120C6 or 7 at a full 25nm with perhaps a Mach 4.8 flyout (20 seconds off the top of TOF) stretch. While Y -guides- that weapon from 50nm further back or 20nm offset. Using the new weapon digital datalink facility which is much more sophisticated and multiuser PIN code friendly than the old analogue 'tether' system.

And also because ANY tactical airframe which generates a random tac-turn variation in it's heading will likely be able to outextend a lightweight (At 360lbs AMRAAM is terribly anemic) AAMs terminal E-Pole footprint past the point of a 'sure thing' endgame intercept. i.e. the NEZ is short and small no matter what, it's the speed (in seconds) from launch to impact that counts.

Comparitively, if an Su-30 spends 6 million dollars launching 4 of 20 giant killer missiles (800-1,500lb category) in Outer Swabovia's AF inventory, it had damn well better hit /something/ worthy of note. Because it's chances of surviving to RTB are always going to be pretty slim (it will expend 90% of it's fuel in a sprint away from the baselanes to intercept).

In this, the _S-37_ (it is not productionized and thus doesn't deserve the Su-47 moniker) is pretty pathetic because it's wings are not really designed for external stores (certainly not of the AAAM-L category) and it's centerline bay is small, as it is on all internal carriage 'fighter' class airframes.

In any case, the real question is whether you want to play SWWWWING! (Batta-batta-batta) at ghosts or hit something with a your long lances. And in this, BVR is designed as much as defined by it's target class reference point.

EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) is generally restricted to nuclear events. HPM or High Power Microwave systems are another matter. One thing to be clear on is that radar power varies by the square of it's transmission distance just as radar returns are a 4th power variable. Even given the APG-77 has a massive TRM count (1,500 'cells') I would not want to put excess trust in it's ability to interfere with threat systems (in a destructive way) over 20 miles or an interfering way over 30. Both of which potentially place the Raptor in severe 'harms way' threat overlap with longwave surface radars perfectly capable of both outhumping it's power threshold by an order of magnitude at least. And of guiding missiles to a fuzzy-soft return.

There are other variables (average and peak power and inband vs. secondary frequent harmonic effects) but you are generally better off NOT transmitting because you can see some real problems with rise in pseudo noise thresholds against the background ether on even an LPI radar.

Better by far to adopt a weapon like Meteor which takes a real 60nm pole and sustains the midcourse energy to preserve both flyout times and terminal endgame thresholds on target evasion.

As to what others have said, the notional ability to remain invisible is based largely on a false presumption that optical processing (literally the ability to passively sort pixel detector stimulation to generate on-plane quantum photon level 'stereo from zero' baseline time and phase) remains relatively primitive compared to the highly evolved RF equivalents.

This is NOT true and particularly for the F/A-22's prefered (high, cold, dry) operating environment, it will not remain so. Which generally implies that passive detection by IRST/EO complexes is going to largely replace shooter RF based targeting with a kind of hotdot flyout and track via missile targeting once the weapon is inside the minimum threshold for either it's own optical (including LIDAR) or a complex waveform RF seeker. The latter able to generate a range of sympathetic, instantaneous, waveforms which bypass RAM's ability to resonantly change inbound RF to heat in generating a 'warble' echo. So-called 'Noise' seekers and MicroMechanicals are already headed this way.

If the silent indian option is transient/fleeting at best (for distance, atmospherics and networking ability); the only remaining variable to work is to try and defeat his arrows.

In this, NONE of the existing airframes are worth diddly dip. Because they have a man onboard. And that limits instantaneous onset rates to about 11.5G and sustaineds to about 8-9. Such is just not the way to defeat a threat missile, in particular because you are never going to be operating above 250 knots if you really decide to crank on the alpha. A UCAV can theoretically pop (accelerative vice natural post stall) 'wheelies' at upwards of 400-500 knots in the 12-15G range. And so it has a MUCH better chance of defeating threat weapons with hyper intelligent terminal seeker/fuzing combos and 'scheduled' (conserved) terminal intercept profiles which delay maximum-rate lead plays on the missile (A2A or S2A) until they 'overlap' the target reference state for energy and plane of motion.

The notion then being that you can shift towards an ability to soak the BVR long-shots (miss-ile ironically meaning it hits or misses, on one roll of the dice with no secondary reattack option) by spotting the inbound weapon itself (passive MAWS) while keeping the general airframe simplistic enough and _light enough_ that a MiG-21 type performance profile is still able to force closure to a visual merge. At which point, pack tactics rip the enemy to pieces.

Of course the big deal here is that of costs associated with developing a new breed of robotic interceptor specifically to defeat the technology spiral of a 340,000 dollar AMRAAM and a 117 million dollar F/A-22. Using a 5-10 million dollar airframe equipped with 200,000 dollar K-30 or equivalent (MICA-IR, Python 4, ASRAAM etc.) short range weapons. While performing no other mission to support an OFFENSIVE warfare option in multirole attacks on ground targets.

A better choice may be something more akin to the Ba-349 Natter in which you pull the 'middle men' altogether, even if they are R2 units.

A target drone equivalent technology effectively /soaks/ the threat shots and can still be recovered 5-10 times using a parachute and airbag system. Yet at 1 million dollars each (the cost of the AAAM-L) you can buy FIFTY such weapons for the same cost as a late mod Su-30. For the Berkut, this number is probably closer to 70-100.

If I put 50 missiles into the air, each one capable of orbiting for 30 minutes at a distance of 200nm from the launch point; I have largely defeated the F/A-22 altogether. I may not be able to catch it specifically but it will never be able to kill of me either (literally, it will run out of missiles first).

Furthermore, I can form a skirmish line and sweep forward across a given frontage 'on command'. Using the simplest of Ding Hao type raid warnings. And that will put the kaibosh on ever manned _subsonic_ (F-teen or F-35) platform out there. Since the target drone will be attacking them as they come over the fence, heavy with gas and bombs. And it will, unlike a missile, be able to stage 'formating attacks' with multiple repass options as well as pack-member tap-bounce cued runins.

The only thing which can defeat such a massed attack is DEWs. And given that lasers are just as much a threat to the manned platform as they are to the missiles (and far easier to package in a ground installation where the fuels and cooling and electrical generation may take several semi-trailers worth of volume), it hardly makes sense to try and use an airborne approach (ATL on F-35'D' for instance).

Since the airborne approach will not really cover wingmen. And it's total shot count (2, 4 second, impulses, split by a 15-20 second cooldown interval for a total of 20-25 separate engagements) is so low.

CONCLUSION:
The Russians and now Chinese are stupid monkey-see-do plagiarists. NOT because of any specific similarities between airframes (though the Su-47 has a lot of similarities with one of the Grumman ATF concepts). But because they insist on meeting apples with apples. Rather than defining a system which invalidates the similar-fruit concept of same-scale, same-technology-level, warfare metric altogether. It is the latter pursuit of ego (beat you at your own game rather than devising my own) which always puts them a 'generation behind U.S.', not a basic technology level or engineering community shortcoming.


KPl.

Something Robbie Coltrane (yes, yes, I know, he plays Hagrid) said in Coltrane's Planes and Automobiles:

Your engineers are only as good as the questions they ask or are asked.

His example: someone in the air ministry asked an engineer to do a study to determine whether turbines as used in RN ships could be used in planes. The answer was an emphatic NO. The reason: the weight of an RN turbine was simply too great to get off the ground.

Luckily Sir Fank Whittle asked himself a slightly different question.

Perhaps the Russian and Chinese engineers need to read a little Hagrid...

hi there im new in here^^
i signed in only to reply on that thread becuz i want to inform u guys so much^^

1. Stealth.
The most often called strength of f22 is its stealth capability.
Did u know that this kind of stealth is obsolete if scanned by multiple linked radar stations? Sure it will always work superb agaisnt some rogue states but if opposed by a serios foe with sofisticated radar network all that "stealth" is a myth.
Did u know that the serbs shot down a stealthy f117 using some improvised mobile phone technology? Serbs!
Russians have the best fighter radar available namely the phased array radar "flash dance" on their mig31 so its only a question of some years untill they can scan those raptrors butts any time of the day (in russian air space they already can via radar-networks).

2.Avionics.
So u really think the most advanced russian fighters will have inferior avionics? Even the good old mig29 in its updated mig29smk version has avionics comparable with any 5th generation fighter. The russians cought up significantly since the cold war in this sector.

3.Price.
U get 2 high end russian aircrafts for each raptor (only estimation here) so the f22ies really should come with serios advanteges to somehow match the russians.

4.Maneuverablility.
Even su27 delivers better maneuverability. S37 totally owns f22.

5.Speed.
Supercruis is surely nice for strike missions but in a fighter vs fighter fight doesnt make any difference cuz the s37 comes with greater max speed with afterburners and a dogfight doesnt last too long.

6.Armament.
Should be comparably even, however im not quite sure wether the internel weapon bays of the f22 need extra seconds for a missile to be launched which would give an other advantage for the berkut.

7.Looks.
Last and least the looks. Now which one looks kooler? IMHO both planes look totally kool they are the best looking planes in the world. F22 with its smooth sparkling edges and the s37 with its alien forward swept wings. Even.

Did you bother to ever look up the interview with the guy that was the commander of the SAM site that shot down the F-117? They shot it down by knowing that it was flying along the same route, at the same time every night. He put out observers to watch for it, and used an optically guided missile to shoot it down. If stealth was so bad, and so easy to track then why has there only been ONE stealth airplane shot down EVER.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Did you bother to ever look up the interview with the guy that was the commander of the SAM site that shot down the F-117? They shot it down by knowing that it was flying along the same route, at the same time every night. He put out observers to watch for it, and used an optically guided missile to shoot it down. If stealth was so bad, and so easy to track then why has there only been ONE stealth airplane shot down EVER.

They still have a point though.

1. It is widely accepted low frequency radar can detect pretty much anything - although how good the resolution is is another matter. However, it should be good enough to allow the Su's to avoid F-22s if they cannot meet them on advantageous terms.

2. There is much rumour and gossip over the capabilities of the newer Russian SAM systems, if so they can defend airfields from F-22s.

3. Its now, what, 30 odd years since both the US and soviet saw the need for low radar cross section aircraft, although the end of the cold war meant the soviet designs never achieved production (MiG 1.44). It doesn't matter however, as it means both sides have had 30 or so years to try and build detection systems for low return aircraft - I'd like to think they've both come up with something.

And 30 or so years to improve the capabilities of stealth planes.

Have you ever seen the interview of the head engineer that designed the B-2 bomber on the discovery channel. He went over EVERYTHING. He described that all the necesary technology that had to be designed for the b2 to be as badass as it was developed and tested and passed everything the US had. He describes how they had to develop a radar that would be undetectable to the enmey radar, he mentioned how they invented the secret RAM paint. He talked about the actual radar cross section of the plane, he talked about the heat of the exhuast. When asked how they did it though, he just smiled and said its top secret. They tested all these systems with the most advanced radar and electonic systems the US had at the time, and the B-2, was undetectable to all known, PUBLIC, systems. The US might have technology, I believe we do, which can detect a B-2, because, after all, we know how we built it, we know how to defeat it, but then again, we can upgrade the B2, see where this is going. Lets face it people. Our stealth is so far and above comprehension. And you think the f-22 is any different. Give me a freakin break.

Low freq radar aint nothing we havent though of and developed for, the B2 engineer describes the B2 being designed to be invisible to ALL radar freq's.

Again, Classified top secret.

Train

Apparently, Australian CSIRO scientists came up with a way to detect the B2 using a modified weather radar. Instead of trying to see the plane itself, it picks up the air disturbed by its passage. Since anything moving through the air will create some turbulence, this would seem to make stealth technology obsolete.

If I had a nickle for everytime I've read of a development that made stealth obsolete.......

Well i heard bout that mobile phone thing but even if ur right and they shot down that 117 by other tricks still there is the radar network usage which means in air space of any developed country stealth is useless so russian planes dominate becuz of better overall statistics. However somewhere over the ocean or above any neutral territory stealth is yet very usefull.
Still i think its much easier to adopt and upgrade fighter radar for stealth detection than after long years of relying on stealth technology see it become obsolete and face opponent planes surpassing US aircrafts in every sector by several generations.
Stealth technology relies on the edged shape and radar reflecting surface but once there is a counter radar all this costly and aerodynamicly weak technology is junk. How do u wonna upgrade the raptors after this? U cant switch the whole hull. On the other side we have half a dozen of exellent russian fighters only needing a radar upgrade.
For now yes stealth is nice but baby as soon as the russians have working mobile stealth detection the whole USAF is in HUGE trouble u know what i mean? And USA will be sitting on its super expensive grandpa planes.
What USA really needs is an alternative way. U want stealth? Ok but dont stop developing high maneuverable and cheap fighters (yes the price is super important) or otherwise u put all your money on a single number u know what i mean?

Yeah, there were other tricks used.
Night one: Plane flies over city A at 11pm
Night two: Plane flies over city A at 11pm. coincidence.
Night three: Plane flies over city A at 11pm. plan starts to form.
Night four: Plane flies over city A at 11pm. guns move in.
Night five: Plane flies over city A at 11pm. gets shot down.

When you fly the same planes, over the same routes, at the same time, night after night after night, you're GOING to lose some. It's a lesson MOST of us learned in Vietnam when they did the same thing. Apparently the air commander didn't read his history books very well.

Oh, and FIRST GENERATION steath relies on edges and angles, because they didn't have the computer power to do it any other way. Does the B-2 look edged and angled? The F-22 certainly doesn't.

[edit on 11/27/2005 by Zaphod58]

Yea i perfectly understood how they shot that f117. Ok i already took that as given dont need to explain again.
I wasnt sayin the serbs shot it down with the radar array network. It wasnt used against US planes cuz US didnt face a foe technologically advanced enough for it. But IF US was attacking Europe/Russia/China (completely insane scenarios i know) all the stealth planes would get shot very fast.
All the stealth f22 uses is edges, internal weapon bays, jet emmition reduction and radar absorbing surface.
Which of these the B-2 was missing? I dont know it.
And yes f22 sure looks edged and angled, however not as extremely as B-2. Besides all this doesnt negate the arguments i used in my last post.

[edit on 27-11-2005 by naXaH]

THIS is what is considered angled, and edged.



If anything the angles and edges on the F-22 would serve to make the RCS BIGGER. Big flat sides tend to reflect radar even more.


external image
The angles on the side of the intakes, and the tail would NORMALLY reflect the radar. That's one reason the F-15 has such a HUGE RCS. It's a big flat, slab sided airplane, and radar LOVES that.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]

So what do u think makes f22 stealthy? Romulan like cloaking device?
The f15 is easily detectable not only cuz its big and flat but also becuz it has many round parts and all kinda stuff sticking out.
The theory says:
A flat edged aircraft reflects radar beams like a mirror it reflects them but rarely in the direction of the radar emmiter. Any round part reflects the beams in all directions making the plane visible by radar emmiter. F15 is large AND has many round parts/weapons sticking out thats why its so easily detected.
F22 doesnt look like a triangle, but it still has very sophisticated edges reflecting radar in all directions but the one where radar beams come from.

Uh, no. The radar beam goes out, hits the flat side, and bounces back to the radar antenna. Being round has nothing to do with it. The F-15 has almost NO round parts on it. It's big and flat.

I don't see too many round angles on this F-15. Do you? Lots of big flat radar reflective sides though.
external image


From Wiki:
Radio waves reflect from curves and corners, in a way similar to glint from a rounded piece of glass. The most reflective targets for short wavelengths have 90° angles between the reflective surfaces. A structure consisting of three flat surfaces meeting at a single corner, like the corner on a box, will always reflect waves entering its opening directly back at the source. These so-called corner reflectors are commonly used as radar reflectors to make otherwise difficult-to-detect objects easier to detect, and are often found on boats in order to improve their detection in a rescue situation and reduce collisions. For generally the same reasons objects attempting to avoid detection will angle their surfaces in a way to eliminate inside corners and avoid surfaces and edges perpendicular to likely detection directions, which leads to "odd" looking stealth aircraft. These precautions do not completely eliminate reflection because of diffraction, especially at longer wavelengths. Half wavelength long wires or strips of conducting material such as chaff are very reflective but do not direct the scattered energy back toward the source.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 11/27/2005 by Zaphod58]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 27/11/2005 by Mirthful Me]