Whats the deal with the SU47?

THATS TOTALY WRONG YOU YANKS ALWAYS SAY THAT BUT CAN'T GIVE THE SO CALLED PROFF THAT RUS HAS GOOD IDEAS ON PAPER BUT NOT IN ACTION

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
THATS TOTALY WRONG YOU YANKS ALWAYS SAY THAT BUT CAN'T GIVE THE SO CALLED PROFF THAT RUS HAS GOOD IDEAS ON PAPER BUT NOT IN ACTION

Why are you yelling? He has a valid point BTW. Russia's ability to make supercomputers etc etc. no doubt held it back. The US had lots of killer stuff that never made it off paper or out of flight test. Simply put the US had a lead in key technilogical areas that allowed its aviation industry to essentialy bury Russias. Smart people happan everywhere and Russia is no exception, but like I said being able to design it and build it are mutualy exclusive items.

I am currently reading the book 'Soviet Secret Projects - bombers since 1945' by Tony Buttler and Yefim Gordon and it is true that many Russian projects were absolutely phenomenal in their scope, however the fact remains that, for whatever reason, the majority of them didn't become operational. I would say that backs up the statement you are shouting about ST.

I love the way our western so called experts so so comprehensively duped time after time. For example reference to my 1962 OBA states "several versions of the Myasischev M-50 Bounder are known to exist and the one illustrated is a FR tanker" yet the book clearly states that only one M-50 was ever flown and it had been stood idle for over a year when a major restoration effort allowed it to be flown at Tushino in 1961, leading to the erroneous statements above. I am currently filling in a large gap in my knowledge of this area and can't wait for the next two volumes to be released.

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by Raptorkiller3334
like the Phoenix missile. Its got longer range then most MiGs!

dont worry, russia has missiles in its arsenal that have even longer range

Ehhh... longer range? Despite popular propaganda, both the Adder and Alamos have shorter EFFECTIVE ranges. Not to mention they use inferior seeker heads and can be countered much easier than the AMRAAM.

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by Raptorkiller3334
I wonder how it would perform against the F-16 or F-15, I hear that the Fighting Falcon is extremely maneuverable and deadly with amraams or aim 9s.

it would wack both in dogfight, as for maneuverability of berkut - try moving paper through air backwards...

get it?
but otherwise it depends on the training of pilot and avionics in the aircraft.

Dog fighting it would have the advantage. Unfortunately for the S-37 pilot, he would never get the chance, because US aircraft have the edge in BVR combat.

I don't know about that, both the F-15 and F-16 can sustain about 9 gee's fully loaded, not to mention the AIM-9X would be the deciding factor here, it has a much higher off-bore sight compared to the Archer.

Sorry - when I speak of a dog fight, I mean guns only.

What I was trying to say was that the Berkut has the manueverability advantage.

Either way, I don't think it makes much of a difference, because the fact remains that with the long range superiority the US currently enjoys, I doubt very much that a dog fight would happen very often.

Awhile back I had a link to a low altitude flight by a SU47 ( or is it SU-48)? It was amazing. Front canards gave it high maneuverability at low speeds. The link went down and I have not seen it since.

Too bad....a very sexy looking fighter

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Ehhh... longer range? Despite popular propaganda, both the Adder and Alamos have shorter EFFECTIVE ranges. Not to mention they use inferior seeker heads and can be countered much easier than the AMRAAM.

I think he is reffering to the Novator KS-172.

I think Russia's problem was the lack of capable computer technology. The US pulled ahead thanks to the computer power they developed, it help them escape conventional design rules and push the envelope to new frontiers.
Case in Point all the stealth projects were developed thanks to computer technology.

Failing to see that was what ultimately pushed Russian craft behind US planes...

[edit on 28-2-2006 by carcharodon]

Many things have been said about BVR weapons doctrines and the weapon systems designed and built for it. From what i have seen BVR systems are just not measuring up ( and won't anytime soon) to what the doctrine called for.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The second article gives some indications of the problems involved and recent exercises seems to indicate that not much has changed.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Many things have been said about BVR weapons doctrines and the weapon systems designed and built for it. From what i have seen BVR systems are just not measuring up ( and won't anytime soon) to what the doctrine called for.
Stellar

No matter how much the missiles are advancing (and lets be realistic, they are), are we all stupid enough to think countermeasures are not advancing at the same rate?


BVR combat will not happen against a large, technologically advanced opponent in anything like the numbers some would like to think. Dogfighting is still a key component of an airforce's power.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
No matter how much the missiles are advancing (and lets be realistic, they are), are we all stupid enough to think countermeasures are not advancing at the same rate?

Well your preaching to the choir you know...

BVR combat will not happen against a large, technologically advanced opponent in anything like the numbers some would like to think. Dogfighting is still a key component of an airforce's power.

Even thought i hate disagreeing with people who seem to be agreeing with me i have to add that i do not believe BVR combat has been or will be a effective, and certainly not efficient, way to gain the air superiority required. The problem with the system has as much to do with the requirements for a BVR launch as with whoever your fighting on the given day.

Anyways!

Stellar

Originally posted by waynos
reference to my 1962 OBA states "several versions of the Myasischev M-50 Bounder are known to exist and the one illustrated is a FR tanker" yet the book clearly states that only one M-50 was ever flown and it had been stood idle for over a year when a major restoration effort allowed it to be flown at Tushino in 1961, leading to the erroneous statements above.

- This caught my eye. (and I'm not trying to take this off topic either)

Did you see the (I think it was History and not discovery) channel program about nuclear powered aircraft?
It was all about the ultra-long range benefits etc etc and there were those in the US holding up the 'Bounder' as the USSR's nuclear powered bomber!

The things people convinced themselves of, eh? (to generate funding and all that goes with them )

BTW how was the book, worth buying?
Ever get the next 2 volumes you mentioned?

Anyhoo, to return to topic......I think if the Su37/47 had come along just a year or two earlier the same kind of 'Mig25' uber-fighter hoopla would have happened.
Black paint? It must be stealth.......and special secret sneaky Russian plasma stealth at that.
Forward swept wings? Obviously it must mean every other fighter would turn like a shopping cart in comparison.
Etc etc.

You can understand why but time after time it happens. The Su's misfortune was to appear just too late and after the clearly superior F22 and Typhoon (ok, ok, that's only my opinion) arrived to kick the wind out of it's sails.
That and the plain fact Russia wasn't buying old stylee super-power sized military capabilities anymore.

But I do agree that Russia has a unique and clever outlook in so many things.
I am reminded of the western airmen aghast at Russians being able (and doing) pull-ups on the pitot tubes on the noses of their planes - we just didn't make ours that robust
or
how about the all time classic (but be warned it is an urban myth, go look up the 'Fisher pen' for the truth)
the story of how Nasa and the USA spent millions of $ making a pen that would work in the gravity free environment of space......

......the Russians used a pencil!

The principle is valid if not the exact example

[edit on 28-2-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Yes I saw that programme sminkey (amazingly CSI wasn't on that night so our lass was away from the telly, have you ever keyed in the channel numbers 5.....5......"oh no, not bloody aeroplanes!")

The Soviet bombers book is a revelation, the Bartini flying boat supersonic bomber from that programme is also covered in the book and the fighters volume is every bit as good, there is a wild X wing tail sitting supersonic Interceptor by Yakovlev from 1963 which also adorns the cover, tempted? The third volume isn't out yet.

Originally posted by StellarX
Even thought i hate disagreeing with people who seem to be agreeing with me i have to add that i do not believe BVR combat has been or will be a effective, and certainly not efficient, way to gain the air superiority required. The problem with the system has as much to do with the requirements for a BVR launch as with whoever your fighting on the given day.

Anyways!

Stellar

I was trying to put it in the context of:

If you cannot "arrange" the fight (as the israeli's previously did) due to overwhelming air power so you can make sure its a BVR engagement from a very advantageous position - it won't work.


I suppose the IRST will allow for slightly greater engagement ranges after positive ID - but what is the range of an IRST device these days?

Originally posted by StellarX
Many things have been said about BVR weapons doctrines and the weapon systems designed and built for it. From what i have seen BVR systems are just not measuring up ( and won't anytime soon) to what the doctrine called for.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The second article gives some indications of the problems involved and recent exercises seems to indicate that not much has changed.

Stellar

Thanks for posting those articles. They do a good job articulating the obvious ... that BVR combat as most imagine it is a bankrupt concept and the military is quite happy to provide false data to make the crap they blow tax payer money on look better.

[edit on 3-3-2006 by orca71]

Originally posted by Dima
engineer, u do know that there are threedifferent frequencies that rdar can operate, i'm not really competely sure because i haven't studied this myself, but i saw someone on these forums talking about it, well, there's a high frequency and a low frequecy and a medium frequency too

u can set the radars to different frequency's, now, if u put it at the large frequency, its the most innacuarate, but i think it has ht longest range, then medium, many scientists say that if u switch the rdar to medium, u'll have a lower range, but will be better able to react to stealthy aircraft, and the low frequency(or band, it might be called band)u can see stelth aircraft relatively esayily, but the range is even shorter

also, i think that all these tests and the claims made by Lockheed about its incredibly stealth features is BS, they say all this junk jus to get more money for the project, but i am sure that the F-22 is telathy, but not as stealthy as everyone says, invisible my ass lol, sry couldn't help myself

no, just no, the radar on the F-15 isn't the best, that american bravado again, lol, i have heard multiple times that russian aircraft radar is the bet, by many agencies and tings like that, oh wait, i jus remembered, the radar thats on the MiG 1.42, can engage 20 targets suimultaneously and can track i think it was 36,i don't know, i'll try to find the site

tootles

do u ahva ny proof what lockheed sez is bs plus if i apply the sam elogic i can use ot o say the russian planes radar and missiles are inferior as well plus y invest in stealth if its so ineffective do u have any proof plus read thiswww.timesdispatch.com...! health!healthology

www.f22-raptor.com...

www.ausairpower.net...

even the austrailians like it plus if it was so ineffective why develop it in the first place why invest billions of dollars in it propoganda has got to be the oldest comeback if i apply ur way of thinking the russians and everyone lese's stuff sucks 2 hahahhahahahahahahhahaha you are only a 10th grader u are naive

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
THATS TOTALY WRONG YOU YANKS ALWAYS SAY THAT BUT CAN'T GIVE THE SO CALLED PROFF THAT RUS HAS GOOD IDEAS ON PAPER BUT NOT IN ACTION

its based on declassified papers after the cold war the soviets stuck on the oncept of stealth but they lacked the computer technology to develop it and they idint want a low stealth sr71 or horrible aerodynamic f117 so they abandoned it so there u go Dima n Siberian tigerthe soviets wre either 1 too stupid to keep this rcs stuff secret or didnt thnk it was possible to make stealth iarcraft now ur next step is to pick your poison

can any russian radar to this www.newsmax.com...
lol microwave weapon

Originally posted by urmomma158
can any russian radar to this www.newsmax.com...
lol microwave weapon

Most of that is years away, probably 20+.




As for radar, is it not widely accepted that low frequency radar can detect "stealthy" aircraft, however they cannot do this to a sufficient resolution to allow weapons to be slaved from the system. I dunno, its not my field, so perhaps someone more learned could confirm this right or wrong.