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

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Tolwyn
In Ace Combat 4 the SU-37 and S-37 are both rated as being better than the F-22.

That is a video game and while it may seems realistic (I have never seen it), one can hardly base opinion on it. I kick but on Gran turismo 3 but, Im not ready to race eh? That being said, the bigger issue is this: THe Raptor is entering inital low rate production. The S-37 and the SU-47 are not.

Does someone have to be able to drive a car to know a Ferrari 550 is better than Mazda 323. I doubt anyone here is a jet pilot but is that really nessesary to give an opinion on the subject? If so i doubt there will be many replies. We are talking about specs here not knowedge of how to use the craft and games do generally do more research than the average joe bothers doing because they spend millions making them and are in competition to make the best. I don't think anyone would claim any game is completely realistic but even if aspects like physics or other things are styled for better gameplay rather than realisim they do usually rate the vehicles performance when compared to other vehicles fairly well. Also the S-37 and the Su-47 are the same plane the Su-37: Super Flanker (different plane to the Su-47 aka S-37: Berkut) will be the one that will enter service first, probably it will get sold to China and other countries so they can fund their next project. I don't think Russia has enough money to mass produce the Su-37 at this point of time, or the need to do so but it first flew in 1996.




[edit on 18-10-2004 by Prismatic]

Originally posted by Prismatic
I don't think Russia has enough money to mass produce the Su-37 at this point of time, or the need to do so but it first flew in 1996.

berkut is technology testbed for future Pak-Fa, so its never going to be mass prodused.
when it comes out in 2006, then we can all argue... Pak-Fa vs. F-22.





edit: links

[edit on 18-10-2004 by titus]

similar?


edit: links

[edit on 18-10-2004 by titus]

If you will read carefully i said Su-37 not the Su-47 aka S-37. I'm talking about this plane and i believe if nothing more the Su-37 will get sold to other nations since the Su-34 recently was sold to Indonesia and the Su-37 is simply an improvement on a design that is selling well.

Originally posted by Prismatic
If you will read carefully i said Su-37 not the Su-47 aka S-37. I'm talking about this plane and i believe if nothing more the Su-37 will get sold to other nations

- Well it has been knocking about for quite a while now and there's little sign of those sales yet.

Originally posted by titus
berkut is technology testbed for future Pak-Fa, so its never going to be mass prodused.
when it comes out in 2006, then we can all argue... Pak-Fa vs. F-22.

- Frankly I don't see any Russian fighter posing the F22 - or Eurofighter for that matter - much of a threat in future.

A nice 'airframe' is no longer really the point.

In any case they don't have the money to buy many.

Nor the electronics and computing ability.

Nor a series of real-time sensor networks to 'fit' the plane into (like JTIDS, JSTARS etc).

......and no harm to anyone but whether or not India and/or China step in as cost-sharing partners there isn't the necessary degree of cutting-edge expertise to be found there either nor the enormous surplus wealth required.

(mind you to keep the 'we are being militarily threatened' fake concerns going my bet is on a tech-transfer of some sort making up a tiny bit of the shortfall. Playstation 2 computers anyone?

The US already did similar with modern-ish engines recently so maybe they'll have a go with computing? .....not that it would take them anywhere near the current state of the art.

The best analogy I can think of is to imagine giving a Victorian a pocket calculator.....even with the blueprints for it the ability to re-work it would be beyond them as there are supporting technologies they just don't have or understand.)

You can't just imagine this stuff away (despite the best encouragement of the US military-industrial complex and their propagandists), it does cost enormous fortunes to develop and takes decades to reliably deploy this stuff routinely.

A poster here informed me I was incorrect in thinking the USA spent more on it's military than the next 25 countries combined, it's 35 apparantly.

There is no genuine military threat, there isn't going to be a genuine military threat and nice paper designs don't really mean jack 's' in the overall scheme of things whatsoever.





[edit on 18-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Happy to regard anything that's in operational service - and hopefully has an operational record to add some REAL histroy to the debate - as fair game. However, I think the idea that there are 2 squadrons of Typhoons in service with the RAF must come as a bit of a shock to the Ministry of Defence, as the only Typhoons in squadron service at the moment are with the Operational Evaluation unit, based at British Aerospace at Warton. Same rules apply to the F/A-22.........OpEval doesn't mean combat ready.

PS If stealth means so much, why do B-2 missions get accompanied by a whole package of C3, Air Superiority and SEAD support types? I'm not denying the technical achievement involved but for every technical advance that someone makes, someone else makes another!

Sorry DevilWasp for not stating the source,

""While these conversations, many of them informal, didn't touch on "even one-third of its classified capabilities," according to one pilot, they included the ability to hunt down and destroy cruise missiles well behind enemy lines, the introduction of a new missile that allows the head-on attack and destruction of stealthy enemy missiles, a tailless bomber derivative design, a planned electronic attack capability so powerful that it actually damages enemy electronics, and modifications that would allow the aircraft's electronic package to invade enemy computer networks.""

Link


Also, looking at the, the Su looks like a worn out toy.

F/A-22 looks like a Alien craft

Originally posted by grumpyoldman
Happy to regard anything that's in operational service - and hopefully has an operational record to add some REAL histroy to the debate - as fair game. However, I think the idea that there are 2 squadrons of Typhoons in service with the RAF must come as a bit of a shock to the Ministry of Defence, as the only Typhoons in squadron service at the moment are with the Operational Evaluation unit, based at British Aerospace at Warton. Same rules apply to the F/A-22.........OpEval doesn't mean combat ready.

Very true, though the US has just ordered 24 Raptors for deployment... MWUHAHAHAHA!!!

PS If stealth means so much, why do B-2 missions get accompanied by a whole package of C3, Air Superiority and SEAD support types?

Because the B-2 fly it alone tactic was for first strike against the USSR. It is far to expensive to risk over some 3rd world country.

I'm not denying the technical achievement involved but for every technical advance that someone makes, someone else makes another!

Your so right. Everytime Boeing Phantom works comes up with something, then Lockheed one ups them. Then Northrop get's involved and one ups them. Then Boeig gets ticked. Then Lockheed.

It's a vicious cycle the USAF must deal with

I take your point, MadMan, but the B-2 was probably more at risk from the air defences of the old Soviet Union that from those of "some third world country". Remember the F-117 jockey that made the mistake of flying below the cloudbase over Yugoslavia (or whatever it's called this week)? Black aeroplane + grey clouds + lo-tech air defences = expensive tinkling noises..........

I love the way the F/A-22 (and the Rafale and the Typhoon and the Gripen, etc.) look and sound - I see Typhoons flying over my house almost every day but could anyone - except perhaps the Israelis - ever bring themselve to scratch that expensive paintwork?

I'll leave you with a thought. The T-34 made mincemeat of most German tanks in 1941 but that didn't stop all sorts of new tactics being worked out pretty damn quickly to stop them - and it didn't always involve a Flak36! Lurking inside every one of the new fighters is something the manufacturer doesn't want you to know..............

You know what I wanna see? The Eurofighter typhoon getting its ass kicked because it doesn't have the steal capability. Good RAMs fly at Mach 6 and I bet the Eurofighter Typhoon can't fly at mach six and so its just gonna get its butt kicked...

Originally posted by grumpyoldman
I take your point, MadMan, but the B-2 was probably more at risk from the air defences of the old Soviet Union that from those of "some third world country". Remember the F-117 jockey that made the mistake of flying below the cloudbase over Yugoslavia (or whatever it's called this week)? Black aeroplane + grey clouds + lo-tech air defences = expensive tinkling noises..........

Today it is caled Serbia and Montenegro for now, but never mind how it is caled to day or this week we shoot down this plane and if you want, you can see pictures of it and some other aircraft downed by lo-tech air defences so all You have to do is to go to

www.geocities.com...
and to
www.geocities.com...

those are the pictures from museum of aviation at Belgrade airport
He might be low but he was preparing to attack the same AAA unit wich they shot him down (beter cowboys then he is they were faster )
other thing is that f22 is excelent airplane but who knows what other have on their construction desk
for example russians do not tell anything first then they have somthing better construct already ....
but time will tell

(if there are some mistakes in english sory)

Originally posted by Laxpla
Sorry DevilWasp for not stating the source,

""While these conversations, many of them informal, didn't touch on "even one-third of its classified capabilities," according to one pilot, they included the ability to hunt down and destroy cruise missiles well behind enemy lines, the introduction of a new missile that allows the head-on attack and destruction of stealthy enemy missiles, a tailless bomber derivative design, a planned electronic attack capability so powerful that it actually damages enemy electronics, and modifications that would allow the aircraft's electronic package to invade enemy computer networks.""

[

firstly the enemy computer doesnt have a modem so it cant recieve these.
also destrying a cruise missile with another is next to impossible because its so small.
tail less huh? so its like a flying wing then huh?
also if these "informal" meetings are takeing place it would show a serios leak in info.

Originally posted by COWlan
You know what I wanna see? The Eurofighter typhoon getting its ass kicked because it doesn't have the steal capability. Good RAMs fly at Mach 6 and I bet the Eurofighter Typhoon can't fly at mach six and so its just gonna get its butt kicked...

If it doesn't have 'steal' capability does that mean we wont be seeing a chinese version any time soon?

Also whats all this mach 6 BS? Can anyone translate this redneck?

Originally posted by waynos
Also whats all this mach 6 BS?

- Yeah, I'd be interested to know which AAM is in the mach 6 class and modern enough to stand a decent chance of taking down a Typhoon2.

Can anyone translate this redneck?

- I think the gist is "I don't like the Eurofighter; ya boo".

It seems that some Americans are begining to understand that not only can they barely afford the F22 but, by extension, hardly anybody else can either.

Typhoon 2 might just do a decent job sales-wise afterall.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla
Sorry DevilWasp for not stating the source,

""While these conversations, many of them informal, didn't touch on "even one-third of its classified capabilities," according to one pilot, they included the ability to hunt down and destroy cruise missiles well behind enemy lines, the introduction of a new missile that allows the head-on attack and destruction of stealthy enemy missiles, a tailless bomber derivative design, a planned electronic attack capability so powerful that it actually damages enemy electronics, and modifications that would allow the aircraft's electronic package to invade enemy computer networks.""

[

firstly the enemy computer doesnt have a modem so it cant recieve these.
also destrying a cruise missile with another is next to impossible because its so small.
tail less huh? so its like a flying wing then huh?
also if these "informal" meetings are takeing place it would show a serios leak in info.

Heh, let me define this for you.


Computer network :a network of computers

Network: A group or system of electric components and connecting circuitry designed to function in a specific manner.


Intesting that planes don't need modems to have a network, intestering what ignorance you have? Maby you forgot to read it all the way through, but "a planned electronic attack capability so powerful that it actually damages enemy electronics"

Most intriguing about the F/A-22's future were hints from various sources that the fighter would have drastically improved electronic attack capability and would introduce computer network attack to its arsenal. Critics say some of the planning borders on the fanciful. Officials have acknowledged that the F/A-22's AESA radar has a projected capability to concentrate its transmission power onto a narrow spot--most likely the electronic radars and communication links associated with air defenses--with enough focus to jam them. The Thor jamming system is to be active in 2008. Those working on improvements say that with the addition of radar cheek arrays to the aircraft in 2010, it would be able to focus enough energy in a beam to actually damage electronic components in enemy sensors.

Remember, the F-22 isn't the Eurofighter, it can do advanced stuff

About the cruise missle issue, let me prove you wrong off the bat so you are defenceless like the Eurofighter

A primary mission for the F/A-22 is slated to be cruise missile interception well behind enemy lines. "A cruise missile has stealth in only one direction--straight ahead," says Lt. Col. Mike Stapleton, operations officer for the 43rd Fighter Sqdn. The F-22s would operate in an extended picket line so they can look at cruise missiles to either side of their patrol area from a beam aspect where the missile is not low-observable. In addition, the new, 200-naut.-mi. AESA radar, in development for the E-10 surveillance aircraft, is to provide key cueing of cruise missile locations.

Originally posted by Laxpla
A primary mission for the F/A-22 is slated to be cruise missile interception well behind enemy lines.

what's maximum speed of missile at which f-22 can sucsessfully intersept it?

what's minimum altitude of missile at which f-22 can sucsessfully intersept it?

"Heh, let me define this for you.


Computer network :a network of computers

Network: A group or system of electric components and connecting circuitry designed to function in a specific manner. "
well done some one has looked up the dictionary.


"Intesting that planes don't need modems to have a network, intestering what ignorance you have? Maby you forgot to read it all the way through, but "a planned electronic attack capability so powerful that it actually damages enemy electronics" "
you dont need to have a modem to make a network, if the USAF did use modems on all aircraft it would be exspensive , too exspensive. instead most western forces use a system called LAN or local area network wich doesnt require you to have a modem. now to comunicate with other craft they have encrypted messages on a secure digital signal picked up NOT by a modem (i belive) but by a digital reciver. now a digital system can be sent along radio waves . how do you think they send it across the atlantic? by wireless modems? GET REAL.

"Most intriguing about the F/A-22's future were hints from various sources that the fighter would have drastically improved electronic attack capability and would introduce computer network attack to its arsenal. Critics say some of the planning borders on the fanciful. Officials have acknowledged that the F/A-22's AESA radar has a projected capability to concentrate its transmission power onto a narrow spot--most likely the electronic radars and communication links associated with air defenses--with enough focus to jam them. The Thor jamming system is to be active in 2008. Those working on improvements say that with the addition of radar cheek arrays to the aircraft in 2010, it would be able to focus enough energy in a beam to actually damage electronic components in enemy sensors. "

computer network attack is nothing its just jamming , like jamming rdar BUT like all jamming it can be broken with a little time.
Remember, the F-22 isn't the Eurofighter, it can do advanced stuff

"About the cruise missle issue, let me prove you wrong off the bat so you are defenceless like the Eurofighter "
oh yeah and i suppose the yanks thought up an recovery auto pilot incase the pilot blacks out?


"Most intriguing about the F/A-22's future were hints from various sources that the fighter would have drastically improved electronic attack capability and would introduce computer network attack to its arsenal. Critics say some of the planning borders on the fanciful. Officials have acknowledged that the F/A-22's AESA radar has a projected capability to concentrate its transmission power onto a narrow spot--most likely the electronic radars and communication links associated with air defenses--with enough focus to jam them. The Thor jamming system is to be active in 2008. Those working on improvements say that with the addition of radar cheek arrays to the aircraft in 2010, it would be able to focus enough energy in a beam to actually damage electronic components in enemy sensors. "
yeah most microwave radars can kill and blow up things, big deal, its original tech just aimed.
"Remember, the F-22 isn't the Eurofighter, it can do advanced stuff "
so umm being able to share rdar info,super cruise (also the typhoon was the first production craft to have it) and the STOL and good radar stuff one of the best radars in the world are all what archaic? if so your calling your entire fleet crap.

"About the cruise missle issue, let me prove you wrong off the bat so you are defenceless like the Eurofighter "
defenseless eh? so the whole fighter is a crap fighter huh? it cant do anything that its said to do? the fact it can beat most fighters in the sky is what irelleavant?

"A primary mission for the F/A-22 is slated to be cruise missile interception well behind enemy lines. "A cruise missile has stealth in only one direction--straight ahead," says Lt. Col. Mike Stapleton, operations officer for the 43rd Fighter Sqdn. The F-22s would operate in an extended picket line so they can look at cruise missiles to either side of their patrol area from a beam aspect where the missile is not low-observable. In addition, the new, 200-naut.-mi. AESA radar, in development for the E-10 surveillance aircraft, is to provide key cueing of cruise missile locations. "
thats if they know where it is. also do you know how dificult it is to know when a missile is gona be fired? or where ? you cant have f22's every where. umm one thing your missing all it does is find it the radarthing is only capable of damaging the thing with radio and micro waves, wich can be blocked easily.

Originally posted by grumpyoldman
I take your point, MadMan, but the B-2 was probably more at risk from the air defences of the old Soviet Union that from those of "some third world country".

Not so. After the collapse of the USSR, they sold all of their missle technology to anyone who would take it. It has been over 15 years since the B-2 was designed, so you an imagine that SAMs and detection systems have improved. These systems are widly available.

Remember the F-117 jockey that made the mistake of flying below the cloudbase over Yugoslavia (or whatever it's called this week)? Black aeroplane + grey clouds + lo-tech air defences = expensive tinkling noises..........

First off, the F-117 is the least advanced US stealth aircraft - it was designed in the 70's, the B-2 is the most advanced so it has many advantages.

But more to the point, your understanding of what made the F-117 get shot down is flawed. What happened (basically) is that the same flight path was used over and over for missions (a serious no-no) and an informant tipped of about when the sortie was being flown. All they needed to do was fill the sky with AAA fire.

I love the way the F/A-22 (and the Rafale and the Typhoon and the Gripen, etc.) look and sound - I see Typhoons flying over my house almost every day but could anyone - except perhaps the Israelis - ever bring themselve to scratch that expensive paintwork?

Well, I think that the US and UK have proven that they aren't afraid to fight. As for the Rafale - isn't that French? That would prevent it from ever fighting.

I'll leave you with a thought. The T-34 made mincemeat of most German tanks in 1941 but that didn't stop all sorts of new tactics being worked out pretty damn quickly to stop them - and it didn't always involve a Flak36! Lurking inside every one of the new fighters is something the manufacturer doesn't want you to know..............

Very true. But here is the thing - how will a country in the near future be able to come up with a tactic for fighting the Raptor when they will never even see the Raptor?

Barring improvement in their sensor technology, they will neer even ee the Raptor.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Prismatic
f you will read carefully i said Su-37 not the Su-47 aka S-37. I'm talking about this plane and i believe if nothing more the Su-37 will get sold to other nations since the Su-34 recently was sold to Indonesia and the Su-37 is simply an improvement on a design that is selling well.

- Well it has been knocking about for quite a while now and there's little sign of those sales yet.

Well that's because the Su-37 only first flew at about the same time as the F-22 had it's first flight, so it's a very new plane. I don't see any countries buying the F-22 yet, probably because it takes time before first flight to when they actaully start making and selling the thing, the same rule applies to the Su-37.