Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CMC Airboss on May 20, 2004, 06:02:38 PM
-
Either the Sukhoi Su-35 is overmodeled or this guy knows some serious cheat codes!
http://bemil.chosun.com/movie%20link/SU-35.wmv
MiG
-
looks like it was modeled after the niki
-
Man the Russians are making some pretty airplanes these days.
Neckbone
-
Originally posted by neckbone
Man the Russians are making some pretty airplanes these days.
Neckbone
There planes have always looked nice, the problem was exports. Countries were not recieving the full package and as such were regarded as inferior. Goes back to Korea, Russian pilots were the ones they could pick out. They knew how to fly and fight.
-
The one thing I find most amazing about video of pilots inside modern cockpits is how still their hands appear. Especially with the ability to have large portions of combat functions on the sticks and throttles in jets or so it appears.
-
Long way since the wright bro's :aok
-
Originally posted by Reschke
The one thing I find most amazing about video of pilots inside modern cockpits is how still their hands appear. Especially with the ability to have large portions of combat functions on the sticks and throttles in jets or so it appears.
wly-by-wire technology. very small movements with the hands/feet produce lotta movement on control serfaces
-
That plane is nothing short of shock and awe inspiring..
More than a match for a lone f16/f15 you guys think? And dont they have a fire control system that allows for a look and shoot??
dude
-
Yes, the Russians have the helmet mounted sight slaved to the IR missile seeker heads to allow large angle-off shots. Potentially very deadly.
MiG
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
Yes, the Russians have the helmet mounted sight slaved to the IR missile seeker heads to allow large angle-off shots. Potentially very deadly.
MiG
yeah they lead the world of Fighters for quite long time.
baaa Cobra is quite cool :cool:
-
Raptor Bait!
-
Originally posted by Scatcat
Raptor Bait!
Wonder what the price tag of the raptor is compared to the Su35. A reason that that the raptor may(most likely) never see production.
-
Well let put it this way.....
We just saw what can Su-35 do today.
And we can dream what can Raptor do once they build it
-
The Raptor is in production and in service with two USAF squadrons. I believe that there are four aircraft each at Tyndall AFB and Nellis AFB. More than 20 aircraft have already been produced.
Only one Su-35/37 (Su-35 with the movable nozzles) has been produced and there are no current plans for production.
MiG
-
SU35 ... yeah it's nice:), but have you seen a video of the SU37 demo?:eek:
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Most if not all of the advanced design features of the Su-35 is incorporated in the Su-30MK(I)(K), including the vectored thrust nozzles and canards. The Su-30MK(I)(K) is in service with the Russian, Indian and Chinese air forces. The Su-35 can more or less be considered a technology demonstrator.
What a beauty! IMHO the best looking Sukhoi.
(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Su-30/Su-30a1.jpg)
(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Su-30/Su-30y.jpg)
Su30s, isnt that what india used to beat the US in a mock combat situation a couple months back?
-
Stabby just curious but what restrictions were used during that mock combat scenario?
-
Phantom of the Opera-like tune lol
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
And dont they have a fire control system that allows for a look and shoot??
dude
RTFM...it's called the HO :lol :mad:
-
Who doesn't have the Look Shoot capability? Maybe not all US fighters currently but the ability is out there in some squadrons.
-
GS you might wanna do some research. The AIM-9X is fully operational with the units at Alaska receiving the first batch. Tyndall has also received some for WSEP training. They aren't fully operational on all airframes yet though. F-15 and F-18 have fired them successfully and the F-16 is just starting it's testing.
ACC (http://www2.acc.af.mil/accnews/apr04/0058.html)
AFA (http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2004/0104world.asp)
Journalist Mark Farmer (http://homepage.mac.com/topcover/PhotoAlbum39.html)
F-16 Initial Testing (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article1062.html)
-
lol. I see that. I wasn't sure how much I could say so I checked first. lol
-
Not that they need it though those AMRAAMs work pretty well :D
-
I sure am glad the editors of this flick showed photographers taking pictures of this plane again and again and again. After all, if I buy one it will be because I want crowds of people taking my picture wherever I go! I’m also really glad the editors of this flick showed that impressive controlled high AOA speed scrubbing move 47 times; I wouldn’t think that a modern fighter jet need to be capable of anything else.
Yup, just take my picture while I quote Maverick’s, “I’ll just hit the brakes and they’ll just fly on by”, and I’m sold!
eskimo
-
It's a great F-15 copy.
F-22 will make easy meat of it.
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
The Raptor is in production and in service with two USAF squadrons. I believe that there are four aircraft each at Tyndall AFB and Nellis AFB. More than 20 aircraft have already been produced.
Only one Su-35/37 (Su-35 with the movable nozzles) has been produced and there are no current plans for production.
MiG
Nope Raptor is still in testing and none in "service"
http://www.f-22raptor.com/
ACC will receive the first operationally ready Raptors at Langley AFB, Va., in late 2004. The Air Force Education and Training Command officials at Tyndall AFB, Fla., are preparing to train F/A-22 pilots, as well as maintainers, General Pearson said.
Edwards officials will continue to develop the Raptor design, focusing more on developing air-to-ground attack capabilities, General Pearson said.
"With the recent successful drop of the first bomb from the Raptor´s weapons bay, Edwards will continue to expand this line of testing until we have successfully developed the required ground-attack features," General Pearson said.
Operational testers have already started planning for the follow-on test and evaluation phase of the Raptor, which includes JDAM release testing, Colonel Freeman said.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
AMRAAM's useless in a dogfight.
lol, thats a broad statement... the AMRAAM is a very lethal weapon, just does not turn very well... either way, dogfights are LONG GONE, and the AMRAAM and that genre are the kings of Air to Air.
-
Looking around the web, I'm finding min. range listed anywhere from 300m to 3km.
-
300m? That's close, probably a typo.
-
Maybe a 300 m shot is possible directly from the 6 of an unreacting bogey at supersonic speed. While 3 Km are needed in a HO shot (Boooooh! HO!)
Originally posted by Funked
It's a great F-15 copy.
F-22 will make easy meat of it.
The avionics/weapon systems of the F15 are maybe superiors, but in pure flight characteristics the Sukhoi is a winner IMO.
And btw, the US pilots were making this sort of statement about japanese fighters around 1940...until they met the Zero.
Only a real combat situation would tell which one is better in this case.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*lol* The death of dogfighting has been announced many times before, and they were all proven wrong. The AMRAAM has a minimum range. I believe it is about five miles (or was it kilometres).
AMRAAM is effective within 300m... but can not make the turns required in a "dogfight" but, as you seem to think, dogfighting will continue.... :rolleyes:
Maybe in an engagement between Bolivia and Cloumbia... LOL.
Nowadays AWACS sees you 300 miles away, and a missile whacks you from 20. Guess thats dogfighting, eh?
:lol
-
Dogfighting dead? Chit, the USAF and USN practices dogfighting very routinely.
In fact, I was just reading a report this weekend of a F-14 dogfighting a Luftwaffe Mig29 and winning due to the Mig29 overstressing its airframe in a 9+ g turn.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
AMRAAM is effective within 300m... but can not make the turns required in a "dogfight" but, as you seem to think, dogfighting will continue.... :rolleyes:
Maybe in an engagement between Bolivia and Cloumbia... LOL.
Nowadays AWACS sees you 300 miles away, and a missile whacks you from 20. Guess thats dogfighting, eh?
:lol
Been said many times..........and they were wrong everytime they said it. Military Aviators know this. How fast do you think those jets will take to cross that 50 down to 20 miles at Mach 1+?
That is why they still have the old low tech 20mm Vulcan cannon on the F-22 RAPTOR.
-
when is the last "dogfight" you ever heard of?
-
Dogfighting is a daily routine for aircrews these days. They learned the hard way during Vietnam that dogfighting with guns is a real possibility. Many early F-4s were killed because they lacked a gun. Aircrews fly against everything possible to try and perfect their dogfighting skills.
To sit here and say close quarters combat will never be an issue again is rather naive on some folks part. Even what is considered to be one of the worlds best fighters (F/A-22)still had a gun installed just in case. Granted it won't be the norm but it is still a high possibility.
I wouldn't also sit here and claim to know the AMRAAMs real minimum/maximum effective range because it's classified.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
I wouldn't also sit here and claim to know the AMRAAMs real minimum/maximum effective range because it's classified.
Bout 20 different quotes so far... all from 200 meters to 5km.
Given the physics of the weapon, my bet is that its around 300 to 500 meters, but that depends on it's programming almost entirely... that and speed off drop...
-
GS there is a distinct difference in how many Gs and aircraft can withstand without structural damage opposed to how many it can withstand before it essential over gs the airframe to the point of inducing structural damage.
I'm sure in a real world situation that wouldn't make a difference. But in a training enviroment if the airframe gets over gd they will back off to save the airframe from major down time for inspections and possible repairs.
Many companies will claim their maximum over g conditions to be extremely high. Typically these are at the point of major structural failures though. There are also some companies that rate their over g condition alot lower than what it can actually handle before structural failure. This is to allow for extended airframe life. Some are being extremely cautious while the others are giving the extremely critical over g rating. Not sure which is best though.
-
Always like the SU-33 from the series myself.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su33.jpg)
But that comes from my "built in" Navy bias I guess. :D
Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the Soviets had been able to put together a real "Blue Water" carrier force and how we would have reacted to it. Would be interesting to see how the evolution of their carrier force would have come along.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/kuznetsov-DDSD9903360.JPG)
Looks like we will have to wait and see how China's is going to turn out. Damn shame to see such a nice looking ship turned into a "Casino" even if it was one of the "Bad Guys." ;)
-
Bohdi I'm just curious but what practical experience do you have with the AIM-120 or it's capabilities?
-
Yea, but while they have a good fleet going - it is mostly made up of "Used" equipment. Big difference from a "Blue Water" Fleet made for the purpose of power projection on the Superpower level of play. They could probabily still put up a HELL of a local fight.
You seen the plans of the Gorshkov that they were proposing to turn her into a full Fleet Carrier?
(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Gorshkov6.jpg)
TOP: As Built. MIDDLE & BOTTOM: Proposed Rebuild
(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Images/Gorshkov7.jpg)
Model of Proposed Refit
Interesting refit. Still going to be mighty crowded. A/C complement of only around 30 (24 Sea Fulcrum's + some Helix Helicopters). Deck crew is defanately going to be busy during operations!
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Bohdi I'm just curious but what practical experience do you have with the AIM-120 or it's capabilities?
Nothing more than a aero engineering degree, 10+ years of working on aircraft and systems, and spending some time looking at the spec sheets of Ratheon. You are right, the min range is "classified", but I have some friends who flew 14's and say that my educated guesses are not out of this realm.
Same question back to you.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
*LOL* You have NO idea what you're talking about!
My bet is that I know a bit more about it then you do, but have at poking fun all you like... being a butt is more important than the facts anyday.
Ohh, and still waiting on the answer to the last series of dogfights... not isolated incidents.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I guess Bodhi has never heard of visually identifying unknown contacts...
Gee, the lowlight capable video on the 14 is capable of seeing and id' out to 100+ nm....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There were at least twelve of them in GW1. One Saudi F-15 shot down two Iraqi Mirage F1's with AIM-9's in one engagement alone.
Show links... my bet is over half of what you talk as dog fights were distance engagements of over 6km
-
Nice aerobatics, do they also build a Combat Version? It's quaint that they still use pilots.
Did anyone see the L-19 Blanik Sailplane in the first video? Wow! I've got about 100 hours in those. Execellent aircraft from the Czech Republic.
-
Bohdi, 10 year F-15 Avionics Specialist. Pre MSIP APG-63, MSIP APG-63, APG-63(V) 1,and APG-70 radars. Full access to all documents on every weapon capable of being used on all F-15 airframes including the AIM-9X. Currently involved in test and evaluations of new systems being implemented on the F-15 airframe.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, India already got one carrier, although it's a VSTOL carrier. The Russian carrier will give their navy a lot more capability, but not anything like the USN of course.
Yea, their INS VIKRANT (ex-HMS HERMES) is due to hang on till 2010 but she is got to be getting near the end of her rope.
Will agree with you though - the MIG-29K's will be a big improvement over the Sea Harriers if nothing but in the range they can cover.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The USN is also moving away from the dedicated interceptor/fleet defence F-14 to a more homogenous F-18 multirole force.
Which is a MAJOR prettythanged mistake IMHO!
In this day and age when more and more countries are having cruise missiles coming online with their forces I just don't see the reasoning (other than to save a buck) in reduceing the F-14 fleet without something equal to or better than it to replace it. The "Super Hornet" for all the PR they put on it cannot take out a low flying cruise missile or keep aircraft out as far as the Tomcats with their Phoenix missiles.
The reasoning behind this one just escapes me.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Bohdi, 10 year F-15 Avionics Specialist. Pre MSIP APG-63, MSIP APG-63, APG-63(V) 1,and APG-70 radars. Full access to all documents on every weapon capable of being used on all F-15 airframes including the AIM-9X. Currently involved in test and evaluations of new systems being implemented on the F-15 airframe.
Thats awesome, so, are you in implementation, repair and maintenance, design? Just curious. Myself, never been any closer to an AMRAAM than to look at one on a table years ago. Was interesting piece of equipment then. So, am I in the ballpark? Understood if you can not answer that.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think their problem is that they don't have anything to replace the F-14 with (that they can afford). A navalized F-22 would be sweet though, but is the airframe suited for navalization?
The reason the F14 is being phased out is the fact that during the Clinton Administration, the 14's tooling was destroyed to guarantee that the aircraft would be replaced by more modern systems. That is why today, the fleet scavanges from mothballed and museum 14's for usable parts. As far as cost, I think it would be cheaper to rebuild the 14 assembly live than to navalize the 22. That, and the 22 is not gonna carry anywhere near the load a tomcat does, or be able to carry the Phoenix....
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The reason the F14 is being phased out is the fact that during the Clinton Administration, the 14's tooling was destroyed to guarantee that the aircraft would be replaced by more modern systems. That is why today, the fleet scavanges from mothballed and museum 14's for usable parts. As far as cost, I think it would be cheaper to rebuild the 14 assembly live than to navalize the 22. That, and the 22 is not gonna carry anywhere near the load a tomcat does, or be able to carry the Phoenix....
Did not know that Bodhi! :eek: I knew "Slick Willie" gutted the USN but didn't know that.
Agree, don't see them "Navalizing" the F-22 for the same reason they didn't do the F-15. Would take away from what gives the a/c it's real edge. Also I don't think you could ever get the F-22 where it could opperate the Phoenix missile system = by the time you did you most likely could have built a whole new system or close to it. And while the Phoenix system is still the best in town for range - it is over 20 years old. Time for something "New and Improved" IMHO.
The US Navy is still a place where an "Interceptor" still has a role and can do a better job than a pure "Fighter" type aircraft like the F-15, F-16 & F-18. The farther they can keep the enemy from the fleet the better it is. Don't think there is another aircraft out there you can hang 6x AIM-54's off of like you can the Tomcat.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think their problem is that they don't have anything to replace the F-14 with (that they can afford). A navalized F-22 would be sweet though, but is the airframe suited for navalization?
The Navy will have to do the same thing they did with the YF-17 to make it suitable for Naval use. But WTF do I know about Naval aviation, I got a NAM for driving a forktruck on the flightdeck of my AFS.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I doubt it was an "Executive Order" from the White House. Sounds more like something the Pentagon would do ... perhaps to get the WH to sign off on a new plane for the Navy. Ironic isn't it?
He just said "during the Clinton Administration" not "on the orders of the Clinton Administration." I know, could be an English thing but Bodhi wasn't saying it was Clinton's fault directly, just a time period reference (I think).
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, but is the F-22's airframe suitable for carrier operation. I know the F-16's airframe was not, and that's why the YF-17 got a new lease on life (and the fact that the F-16 is a one holer).
From what I understand the YF-17 developement was to the extent that the plane had to be redesignated, thus F-18 was born. I am sure the F-22 could be done much the same way. That is if it's what the Navy wants to pursuit but why would it with all the $$$$ being pumped into the JSF?
-
I heard the F/A -18 E and F would replace the F-14 as the premier Fleet protector ,aside from the fact I think the E and F can't carry the Phoenix I think the AMRAAMs can do a pretty good job of defending the fleet and keeping those future non existant bombers away from the CVN.
Oh and I meant that the AMRAAMs were good not for dogfighting but for keeping the enemy far away and outside the IR missle range. Another thing people don't take into account if and when those kills in GW1 were made from visual range and not BVR is that perhaps the ROE mandated them to visually identify the targets, though some kills if I recall were done inside the 15 to 10 nm range with Sparrows 7Ms , most likely they wanted to minimize friendly fire incidents.
Another thing I'd like to point out just because the USAF and the Navy practice dogfighting doesn't mean that they will encounter or they plan on engaging in ACM, is just for insurance . The current doctrine, if I'm not mistaken, is to get in and get out as fast as you can , while taking orders from AWACS ,to not reveal the fighter's location until the last moment while using the most passive modes or their airborne radars , get the lock ,get the kills and get out, and in the event the missiles fail, after all there is a probability they will or ROE mandates them to get close enough that they cannot use their BVR sticks then, they won't be caught with their pants down.
Again I could be wrong but I think it makes sense
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I doubt it was an "Executive Order" from the White House. Sounds more like something the Pentagon would do ... perhaps to get the WH to sign off on a new plane for the Navy. Ironic isn't it?
Do not believe it was "executive" just that Grumman developed some enemies during slick willie's tenure, and that spelled the doom to the F-14. Either way, all I know is that it happened during that time frame. Thats all.
-
You are correct. Just look at the YF-17 compared to the final production F-18. New gear, bigger airframe, larger wing area. I would expect the same thing from the naval version of the Raptor (gayest name ever for a US fighter).
-
The F-14 is actually obsolete. No U.S. carrier has ever been attacked by cruise missles or Soviet bombers. Nor can the F-14 hold its own in modern air combat.
-
Originally posted by SunTracker
The F-14 is actually obsolete. No U.S. carrier has ever been attacked by cruise missles or Soviet bombers. Nor can the F-14 hold its own in modern air combat.
Got a few 14 driver's that would love to prove you wrong... then again, you don't fly anything... other than a Cessna.
Ohh, and if it's such a POS, why is it the 14 dropped more ordanance on target and still maintained its ability to loiter as CAP then any other naval plane???
-
"The F-14 is the best fighter today. Period. That's why I've crashed 3 of them."
(http://www.chiroho.net/images/wallpapers/jag/harm1-800x600.jpg)
-
Bohdi I'm in repair and maintenance. As far as the minimum range envelope I can't go into that.
-
Suntracker may I ask what your basing your opinion on with the F-14?
Diablo the Raptor by definition is a bird of prey. So how is that gay? Lets see there's the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fight Falcon, F-14 Tomcat, F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. I know it's hard but lets see where the Raptor fits amongst this bunch. No offense to the Navy folks but Hornet and Tomcat? Atleast the hornet fits it's job description somewhat where as Tomcat is just different than the others. Heck even Sesame Street could have picked that out of the bunch.
I'm sure you would all be surprised at up and coming systems for all of the US Armed Forces. The problem is very few see exactly whats being designed and tested on a daily basis. Guess thats the nice thing about being in this business.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Suntracker may I ask what your basing your opinion on with the F-14?
Diablo the Raptor by definition is a bird of prey. So how is that gay? Lets see there's the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fight Falcon, F-14 Tomcat, F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet. I know it's hard but lets see where the Raptor fits amongst this bunch. No offense to the Navy folks but Hornet and Tomcat? Atleast the hornet fits it's job description somewhat where as Tomcat is just different than the others. Heck even Sesame Street could have picked that out of the bunch.
I'm sure you would all be surprised at up and coming systems for all of the US Armed Forces. The problem is very few see exactly whats being designed and tested on a daily basis. Guess thats the nice thing about being in this business.
If you don't know where Tomcat comes from you don't know Grumman history. Go look it up and get back to me. The Hornet? Has a really nice sting. Raptor sounds, I don't know, just Jurassic-ish. Also, realise that it is derived from the Latin word raptores which means "plunderer", not exactly what I'd want to name a US fighter. Yeah, it still sounds gay.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
If you don't know where Tomcat comes from you don't know Grumman history. Go look it up and get back to me. The Hornet? Has a really nice sting. Raptor sounds, I don't know, just Jurassic-ish. Also, realise that it is derived from the Latin word raptores which means "plunderer", not exactly what I'd want to name a US fighter. Yeah, it still sounds gay.
When I think of the word raptor, I think of a bird of prey.
That's a perfect image for a fighter.
eskimo
-
To each his own then.
-
So because some Admiral (Connolly) supported it so much that makes it a good name? Doesn't necessarily fit it's job description either way.
-
The F-14 TOMCAT is a "family name" of the Grumman Corporation that made it. Most fighters starting with the F4F were named after cats.
The "Cat" names started with the famous WW2 F4F WILDCAT and continued with the Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat to the jet age with the Panther, Cougar, Tiger and finally the TOMCAT.
Can't recall which ones they were but two other Grumman planes had the "nicknames" Bobcat & Black Cat but they didn't catch on.
Even some of the Fire Engines made by the Grumman Corp today are named after cats: Attack Cat is the small Fire/Rescue vehicle, Fire Cat is the standard Pumper & Arial Cat is their ladder truck.
-
Originally posted by Jester
The F-14 TOMCAT is a "family name" of the Grumman Corporation that made it. Most fighters starting with the F4F were named after cats.
The "Cat" names started with the famous WW2 F4F WILDCAT and continued with the Hellcat, Tigercat, Bearcat to the jet age with the Panther, Cougar, Tiger and finally the TOMCAT.
Can't recall which ones they were but two other Grumman planes had the "nicknames" Bobcat & Black Cat but they didn't catch on.
Even some of the Fire Engines made by the Grumman Corp today are named after cats: Attack Cat is the small Fire/Rescue vehicle, Fire Cat is the standard Pumper & Arial Cat is their ladder truck.
Don't forget General Aviation, The Grumman.. Cheetah, Tiger and their Spray plane the AgCat