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

Stress loads / composite materials.

F-117 inherently has major problems with wing stress loads. There is a great test flight video in which the leading edge just explodes during level flight and takes the whole wing with it. While composite materials do provide strength and flexibility in one package, stress loads are not linear as in metals, they just snap and sheer. As soon as the structure is compromised it just unravels like a sweater.

It is exactly why F-117 and B-2 are so susceptible to small high velocity fragmentation (tiny steel cubes) warheads. A few small perforations delivered to the load baring parts of the wing will shred the composite strands resulting in catastrophic failure, while metal will just whistle in the wind. So in case of “anti-stealth” missiles, the seeker doesn’t have to be as accurate.

A bigger warhead filled with shrap will have a much easier time bringing down composite based planes.


naXaH , po latini koroche - The sound of reason doesn’t echo, yet fools anthem lingers on.

Gde nasha ne propadala.

i'm new to the board but i know my stuff the sr-71 is fast but the handling and gas mileage is down the toilet now back to the f-22 did noone hear about the alaskan test that they put the f22 through yeah it came back 10-0 kill ratio the f-22 is the fastest fighter plane ever built it speed it incredible no other plane can go supersonic with out afterburners it's thrust vectoring is amazing and the stealth tech on it is incredible see it can see anyplane long long long before that plane see's it which gives it the advantage so it can get the jump on the other plane which means better chance of shooting that plane down

No offense but before others jump on you, you're generally in the right direction but the specifics are a bit off.

What are yo talking about f_22? The fastest fighter (massproduced) is the MiG-25. It has a faster top speed and a faster cruise speed then the F-22

I also think that the F-22 is a comlpete joke (to much computers) and that the USA will do the best if they stick with the F-18.

Originally posted by STM
What are yo talking about f_22? The fastest fighter (massproduced) is the MiG-25. It has a faster top speed and a faster cruise speed then the F-22

I also think that the F-22 is a comlpete joke (to much computers) and that the USA will do the best if they stick with the F-18.

Behind the times my friend? The F-22 uses supercruise, the ability to cruise supersonically without afterburners, something the MiG-25 cannot do. Their capabilities are not to be compared anyway as the MiG is a high-altitiude interceptor and the Raptor is an air-superority/precision strike fighter. Two different missions for two different planes.

If you had any idea of what the F-22 can do compared to other fighters, you would know that those "computers" are there for a reason. The F/A-18 is a good figther but in the air-superiority role there's nothing flying right now that can touch the F-22. Besides the USAF doesn't use the Hornet in any role.

Get your facts straight.

Originally posted by STM
I also think that the F-22 is a comlpete joke (to much computers) and that the USA will do the best if they stick with the F-18.

Ah yes, the good ol' days of yore when wires, canvas, levers and pulleys were all you needed. Damn, if we only had a Camel then we would be invincible and no more pesky computers!.

Oh by the way, this video pretty much sums it up. ENJOY.



[edit on 4-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by STM
I also think that the F-22 is a complete joke (too much computers) and that the USA will do the best if they stick with the F-18.

The computers have redundancies built in I think, and the more CPU power the better, it shifts workload from the pilot to the computers, making for a better overall capability.


Also... on your point about the F/A-18... avionics aside it is quite easily the worst fighter aircraft of all USAF and USN machines. Continuing with it alone would probably be the worst decision they could make [not too far behind is the "Super Hornet" idea to be honest .]

[edit on 4-11-2006 by kilcoo316]

in terms of agility, i cant speak on that. in terms of stealth however, just looking at both aircraft will tell you who has the upper hand.

if the f-22 ever encountered the s-37, the f-22 would probably pick up on the s-37 much sooner than the s-37 would pick up on the f-22. the s-37 would be shot down before he even saw the f-22.

[edit on 4-11-2006 by prototism]

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by STM
What are yo talking about f_22? The fastest fighter (massproduced) is the MiG-25. It has a faster top speed and a faster cruise speed then the F-22

I also think that the F-22 is a comlpete joke (to much computers) and that the USA will do the best if they stick with the F-18.

Behind the times my friend? The F-22 uses supercruise, the ability to cruise supersonically without afterburners, something the MiG-25 cannot do. Their capabilities are not to be compared anyway as the MiG is a high-altitiude interceptor and the Raptor is an air-superority/precision strike fighter. Two different missions for two different planes.

If you had any idea of what the F-22 can do compared to other fighters, you would know that those "computers" are there for a reason. The F/A-18 is a good figther but in the air-superiority role there's nothing flying right now that can touch the F-22. Besides the USAF doesn't use the Hornet in any role.

Get your facts straight.


I will say amen to that. STM seem doesn't have enough knowledge about the priorities of performances. Everyone must know this, F-22's top speed is absloute Pentagon's classified top secret. The words have that F-22 is capable of going beyond Mach 3. Its because the airframe is very smooth on surface and large enough intakes to feed two powerful engines. I did said that before, everyone must hush from estimate about F-22's top speed.

What I meant was that since the F-22 uses computers to fly that means that in the event of a nuclear blast the EMP would knock the F-22 out of the skie. (I belive that a nuclear war will happen some day.)

I dont think that the F-22 will shot down the S-37 since the US mostly uses the Sidewinder series or the Sparrow series AAM, while the Russians mostly arms their fighters with AAMs from Vympel. IF a battle would ocour I think that it would more depend on the arming then the aircraft

[edit on 5-11-2006 by STM]

Originally posted by OneMyrmidon
I will say amen to that. STM seem doesn't have enough knowledge about the priorities of performances. Everyone must know this, F-22's top speed is absloute Pentagon's classified top secret. The words have that F-22 is capable of going beyond Mach 3. Its because the airframe is very smooth on surface and large enough intakes to feed two powerful engines. I did said that before, everyone must hush from estimate about F-22's top speed.

Thats pure rubbish.


The F-22 is not capable of more than mach 2.5. Also, at higher speeds, you want a smaller air intake.

Originally posted by STM
What I meant was that since the F-22 uses computers to fly that means that in the event of a nuclear blast the EMP would knock the F-22 out of the skie. (I belive that a nuclear war will happen some day.)

So, the enemy has to use air burst enhanced radiation nukes, which would destroy all unshielded electronically equipped systems BTW, just to damage Raptors? Please, we're trying to be realistic here.
Also, you should know that F-22 critical components are most likely shielded against EMP, same goes for every other critical US military system. The F-22 even has a gold tinted canopy specifically lined to reduce the radiation a pilot receives in the event of a nuclear explosion or strong radar pulse. It can also protect pilots from the brightness of a nuclear explosion. And as an added bonus it reduces the RCS.

Originally posted by STM
I dont think that the F-22 will shot down the S-37 since the US mostly uses the Sidewinder series or the Sparrow series AAM...

Wrong conclusion made worse by your missile comments.

The US uses the AIM-9L/M and X series of Sidewinders for the short range missile role. And the US uses the AMRAAM series for long range missile role, the AIM-120C, C-7 and future D version as well as the AIM-9X are every bit as good as their Russian counterparts. You should also look up the effect F-22 kinematics have on long range missiles. To be blunt, at this point in time the F-22 is unmatched in the A2A role.

[edit on 5-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Thats pure rubbish.

The F-22 is not capable of more than mach 2.5. Also, at higher speeds, you want a smaller air intake.

I'll agree with that one.

Originally posted by JFrazier
I'll agree with that one.

Me too, the F-22’s top speed, though classified, is somewhere around Mach 2.3-2.4. And it's top super-cruise speed is also classified but I'd hazard a guess at around 1-7-1.9. I'd be really impressed if those figures were significantly exceeded.


[edit on 5-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

F-22 is not much or any faster than F-15 or Su27, its primary focus of on radar/electronics, stealth, and somewhat maneuverability, not on top speed.

A top speed doesn't give you much advantage since missiles are yet faster. the best way to avoid missiles is by stealth and maybe maneuverability.

A high speed means less maneuverability, because a high speed with a lot maneuver at the same time would give the pilot a lot of G force which can crush the pilot from inside.

one idea that came up for future planes is to build unmanned fighter jets so that they can overcome the human physical barrier, and having both high speed and high maneuverabilities, and plus stealth.

In the long run, we are trying to inprove our a/c to reach the standard of the UFOs.

[edit on 11/6/2006 by warset]

I think that in this new stealth age manuverabillity will become more and more important especially for the cheaper not so stealthy planes. Manuverabillity allows you to dodge the long ranged missles and to dogfight. A f22 might shoot first but if the enemy plane is manuverable enough it will dodge the amraams. Amraams are not designed to be very manuverable. If a sidewinder can be dodged then a amraam will be easier.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
So, the enemy has to use air burst enhanced radiation nukes, which would destroy all unshielded electronically equipped systems BTW, just to damage Raptors? Please, we're trying to be realistic here.

The American strategic infrastructure is not designed to actually fight a nuclear war as far as i can tell and the airforce certainly can not operate in such environments...

Also, you should know that F-22 critical components are most likely shielded against EMP, same goes for every other critical US military system.

Well have some source material that disputes this so if you feel like posting something more solid about the F-22 or the US military system....

Went and did some additional reading...

The findings of the Task Force as discussed throughout the preceding chapters
can be summarized as follows:
a) The nuclear threat is evolving, and in troublesome ways that should lead DoD
leadership to expect that the military will be forced to operate in a nuclear
environment at some point in the foreseeable future.
b) With respect to vulnerabilities, have we created the elements of the “perfect
storm”? The lax attitude to hardening requirements, the increasing reliance on
COTS components, the move to net centric operations, and other contributing
factors should raise concerns.
c) Weapon output calculations can and should be higher fidelity based on advances
in DOE codes.
d) Survivability requirements for all but a part of the nuclear strategic force have
been routinely waived or ignored.
e) Expertise for assessing survivability has atrophied considerably in the DoD, but
remains robust at the DOE laboratories.17 Simulator capabilities have largely
been maintained although large scale EMP facilities are no longer available and
the remaining fast neutron sources are in danger of disappearing.
f) The MDA system presents new and unique challenges because of its
evolutionary acquisition strategy and the need to harden or protect the optical
components of the interceptor.
g) The belief that hardening adds considerable cost is not uniformly true if
hardening is addressed early in design. Design practices are well understood
and supported by easy-to-use design tools

www.acq.osd.mil...

In 1997 Congress held what was apparently its first public hearing on high-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP). This topic had "riveted the attention of the military nuclear tactical community for three and a half decades since the first comparatively modest one very unexpectedly turned off the lights over a few million square miles in the mid-Pacific," testified Dr. Lowell Wood, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientist who has worked for the past three decades in both the offensive and defensive aspects of EMP. "The entire topic of EMP was highly classified," said Dr. Wood.

The Blackout Bomb is simply a high-yield nuclear weapon, or a smaller nuclear weapon designed to maximize gamma-ray emissions. The EMP "laydown" of a thermonuclear burst moves at the speed of light, striking the Earth to the horizon at line-of-sight from the detonation. Gamma rays actually radiate spherically from the blast point, creating space EMP which, Dr. Wood explained in written hearing testimony, would damage satellite electronics even at great distances from the explosion. "The basic point," he said, "is that essentially all of our conventional military capability and all of our civilian infrastructure is highly vulnerable to EMP damage. The dollar numbers in the civilian infrastructure alone can be conservatively estimated at several trillion dollars' worth of infrastructure which is at risk potentially even from a single pulse--several trillion dollars."

Dr. Wood noted that hardening systems to withstand EMP is a small part of the cost, if done as part of the initial design. Yet no civilian and few military systems have been hardened to resist EMP. However, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Wood's recommendation that any civilian hardening to protect us from EMP be done. After a flirtation with civil defense and bomb shelters, Americans realize that nuclear attack against the United States is not something they are willing to prepare for because there is no rational way to prepare for it.

The Russians have done much more EMP hardening and military/civilian preparedness training than has the United States, testified Dr. Wood. "We Americans, in contrast, collectively saw EMP as a major nuisance which could be rather precisely understood, defended against 'good enough' and thereafter largely ignored." Satellites are especially vulnerable to the x-rays and gamma rays from a high-altitude nuclear explosion, which is different from atmospheric EMP but radiated spherically around the explosion. No United States satellites, he added, can be considered reliably protected from space EMP, because EMP testing of protective systems is erratic.

www.sonic.net...

The F-22 even has a gold tinted canopy specifically lined to reduce the radiation a pilot receives in the event of a nuclear explosion or strong radar pulse.

Radiation will imo be the least of his problems and that short of active canopy is required in any truly stealth platform to start with.

It can also protect pilots from the brightness of a nuclear explosion. And as an added bonus it reduces the RCS.

If it's bright enough to bother the pilot that's already a bad sign.

Wrong conclusion made worse by your missile comments.
as well as the AIM-9X are every bit as good as their Russian counterparts. You should also look up the effect F-22 kinematics have on long range missiles. To be blunt, at this point in time the F-22 is unmatched in the A2A role.

While i agree with most of your statements the last one does not in my reading/experience follow as logically as you suggest... That being said your will probably not be far from the truth if it's straight forward conventional air battle without Sam's or significant Awacs/EW radars on either side....

Stellar

Let me respond to a few things here.

Originally posted by warset
F-22 is not much or any faster than F-15 or Su27, its primary focus of on radar/electronics, stealth, and somewhat maneuverability, not on top speed.

The F-22, in absolute theoretical top speed might not be any faster but in top speed with a similar combat load it probably is significantly faster. And it's ability to accelerate and reach it's max speed is unmatched by the Eagle or Flanker.

Originally posted by warset
A top speed doesn't give you much advantage since missiles are yet faster. the best way to avoid missiles is by stealth and maybe maneuverability.

The F-22 can super-cruise at high speeds Mach 1.6-1.8. Cruising at 1.6-1.8 offers much more advantages than cruising at subsonic speeds. The kill zone and reaction time for SAM's is reduced, the range for A2A missiles is also reduced (given it's not a head on scenario). With a high sustain speed you have the option of disengaging your enemy and fighting only on your terms. The time it takes to reach a certain area is also significantly lower, obviously. Your missiles have better kinematics do to you having a high launch speed. Missiles may be faster but you significantly reduce their effectiveness with sustained high speed (see Mig 25 SR-71) never mind a combination of stealth and high speed.

Originally posted by warset
A high speed means less maneuverability, because a high speed with a lot maneuver at the same time would give the pilot a lot of G force which can crush the pilot from inside.

You can reduce you speed if for some unknown reason you want to engage in ACM, but in the end speed is life.

____________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by StellarX
The American strategic infrastructure is not designed to actually fight a nuclear war as far as i can tell and the airforce certainly can not operate in such environments...

The American civilian infrastructure is definitely not designed to fight a nuclear war, key military command and control centers however are. And which DoD systems, components or centers are shielded against EMP and to what level is classified but you should remember the Cold War did not "end" that long ago.

Originally posted by StellarX
That being said your will probably not be far from the truth if it's straight forward conventional air battle without Sam's or significant Awacs/EW radars on either side....

Even with similar assets, EW/AWACS/ SAM's etc.. the F-22 still offers you a better level of protection and effectiveness than other conventional fighters. Which would you rather have in that sort of environment a Mig-29 or an F-22.

[edit on 6-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Manuverabillity allows you to dodge the long ranged missles and to dogfight.

Can you give me a single example where a modern combat fighter has "dodged" a modern A2A missile? I'm not talking about a tail chase BTW.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
A f22 might shoot first but if the enemy plane is manuverable enough it will dodge the amraams.

Again, there is nothing to support this, in practically this is a really unreliable, foolish and infective way to deal with A2A missiles and enemy aircraft.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Amraams are not designed to be very manuverable. If a sidewinder can be dodged then a amraam will be easier.

Where did you pull this from? For it's role the AMRAAM is very maneuverable and reliable. And again, a single case of a AIM-9L/M/X being "dodged"?

[edit on 6-11-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The American civilian infrastructure is definitely not designed to fight a nuclear war, key military command and control centers however are. And which DoD systems, components or centers are shielded against EMP and to what level is classified but you should remember the Cold War did not "end" that long ago.

I think your just overly optimistic logically assuming that the US strategic defenses were actually designed to fight and win a nuclear war much past the early mid 70's. I have repeatedly shown ( the whole ABM, early warning, re fire capacity, civil passive defenses) that America's ability to fight where being compromised from around the mid 60's forward by her intelligence ( non military )agencies and politicians who were clearly not working in America's best interest.

For example, 95 percent of our military communications go through commercial channels. Are we confident that EMP will not disable or disrupt these commercial communications systems? How confident are we that the military could continue to communicate effectively if commercial systems were disrupted or completely disabled by EMP? How thoroughly do we protect our weapons systems from EMP? Are we confident they will continue to function?

Regrettably, these defensive efforts directed towards strategic military capabilities were not perfectly fruitful. To be sure, there were some outstanding success stories. However, a number of important military systems were quite incompletely defended and some were defended only on paper.

Even more regrettable was the fact that most major military hardware and systems, especially those not considered vital to the conduct of strategic nuclear war, were not hardened against EMP much at all. As a result, at the present time our national profile of vulnerability to EMP attack is highly uneven, with large parts of our military machine and virtually all of the equipment undergirding modern American civilization being utterly EMP vulnerable.

Through the end of the cold war, this posture, though unfortunate, arguably could be tolerated. Only one nation, the Soviet Union, could mount EMP attacks on the United States, and likely only as the first punch of a fight to the death conducted with EMP hardened means.

commdocs.house.gov...

I think the EMP hardening is just another part of the overall deception plan to bring about the ultimate destruction of America which is moving along ever faster... You don't have to believe my conclusion but i believe the facts ( declassified material and so forth) speaks for itself.

Even with similar assets, EW/AWACS/ SAM's etc.. the F-22 still offers you a better level of protection and effectiveness than other conventional fighters.

If you are the United states and can invest in such expensive ideas.... I am not fully convinced that this plane is not simply overly expensive for the task or will be deployed in sufficient numbers ( turn around time etc) to affect the outcome of a strategic war against Russia and even more uncertain if this capability is required for the very many lesser enemies... If you can buy half a dozen or more Su-27's/Mig 29's/ Mig-31's for the same price ( not even mentioning upgrading much older planes with current technology to absolutely swamp the F-22's) does it make much sense?

I am of the opinion that a major strategic war will not simply end because of the use of nuclear weapons, and will in fact go on as factories go on producing, and then lesser planes in larger numbers is probably preferable to something like the F-22 which required is much wider resource and technological base for production. So basically this plane is great for further terrorizing third world nations ( or rising powers such as China/India) but probably not so much use against the real enemy. This is pretty much what i have found for most American weapons systems...

Which would you rather have in that sort of environment a Mig-29 or an F-22.

I am to be the pilot i would pick the F-22 by a massive margin as everything i know tells me that this is in fact a great airplane when used against symmetrical forces. In terms of picking it as a strategic weapon to fight and win a world war I'm not so sure i would pick it had i my nations best interest in mind...

Stellar




[edit on 7-11-2006 by StellarX]