Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/7/2003 7:41:34 PM EDT
I have been reading quite a bit lately about new Russian military technology. And one that seems to stand out is the SU-37 fighter jet, which is a new version of the SU-27 Flanker. This fighter/interceptor seems to use lots of innovative features and on the surface seems to be as good as anything in the sky. This jet has the thrust vector controls which allow for very weird unconventional maneuvers, it's capable of handling 9.0 G's, it uses fly-by-wire control systems, it has two Lyulka turbofans that can propel it to a max speed of 1516 mph and has set new records for climb (beat the F-15 which previously had this honor). Add to this an all-weather digital multi-mode phased array doppler radar, with the ability to look down and shoot down, as well as track and fire AA-11 Archer all-aspect missiles (which some claim are better than our AIM-9L and M Sidewinder) toward targets to the rear! Evidently the short range dogfighting weapons can be used with a special sighting system in the helmet. This would seem to make the SU-37 a very formidabble foe in a dogfight. And it has the newer AA-12 Adder radar guided missiles for beyond visual range engagements along with a 30mm cannon for close range use. The scary thing about these jets aren't that they are being placed into service by the Russians. What bothers me is the fact they are willing to sell them to anyone. Evidently they can't afford to produce them for their own air force, but yet governments like the Chinese, North Koreans, Syrians and Iranians are foaming at the mouth to get some of these. It seems that Sukhoi will use these sales to fund the production of more of these aircraft. I think I read where the Chinese are buying as many as 100 or more of these aircraft or variants. A jet with those capabilities would give them an aircraft that rivals our's closely, giving them a good attack and interceptor/CAP options. So, just how good is the SU-37 compared to our F-15's, F-16's, F-18's and soon to be delivered F-22? Are we outclassed in some ways by it? Air combat has always in the past boiled down to who was sitting in the plane. As Manfred Von Richtofen once said, "the quality of the crate matters little, success depends on the man who sits in it". I agree with that in large. But with new advances in maneuverability, electronics, weapons and sighting systems and overall performance, the gap between us and the world seems to have dramatically closed. If a well trained pilot straps the SU-37 on, they could be difficult to deal with. And it's possible a new version of the MiG-29 with some stealth features is also forthcoming. So just how much of a threat do these new aircraft pose to us? -Charging Handle
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:51:53 PM EDT
Even *IF* they were better.... They pose little or no threat whatsoever. They can't afford to build them in quantity. They can't afford to maintain them properly. They can't afford constant flight training and cannot assure mission readiness. These are the same problems they have right now with their current inventory.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:51:58 PM EDT
saw a show on discovery wings channel. had a small snippet on this. it is more manueverable than the f-22. they got the thrust vectoring into service ahead of us big time. our advantage,however, is that we have the stealth radar signature and they don't.when we can see them and they can't readilly see us, their extra manueverablity won't help them all that much.about selling them to other countries,pilot ability counts for more than people think. a poorly trained pilot or one with limited experience won't fair that well against us, even in a bad ass plane.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 7:57:08 PM EDT
Not a pilot but it seems that the old saying "It's not the plane you flying but how you fly your plane". The Russians, comparitively speaking, are dirt poor and don't have the resources to train as often as their western counterparts, not to say that there is not any good Russin pilots up there. The F-22 has capabilities in the performance dept that are classified and who knows what else it hides. We know it has supersonic non-afterburner cruise capability, vectored thrust, advanced avionics, suspected ceiling of 100k feet. As for the rest of our fighter/attack planes I would hazzard a guess that our peripheral support in air operations puts us above the rest EVEN IF we were flying inferior aircraft.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:06:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: Even *IF* they were better.... They pose little or no threat whatsoever. [red]Not from the Russians, but then again it's not the Russian who would be using them.[/red] They can't afford to build them in quantity. [red]Actually, if China and other countries front the money (which they are about to do) then the quantity thing isn't an issue[/red] They can't afford to maintain them properly. [red]Once again, Russian may not, however China with it's new found economy can[/red] They can't afford constant flight training and cannot assure mission readiness. [red]Actually, the only branch of the Russian military that hasn't had any funding cut's at all is their Airforce. Although with that said your probably right about the not being able to "constantly" do flight training but could most likely stay "mission ready", but there again, it's not the Russians that you would encounter with these things.[/red] These are the same problems they have right now with their current inventory.
View Quote
If it were Russia vs. US I would totaly agree with you on everything except the training part.[;)]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:06:53 PM EDT
Don't fprget that it is the COMPETITION with them that has forced us to improve our own jet fighters. Look at the MIG of the Korean conflict, and how it influenced our design of the Sabre jet. I'm sure that there are many other examples. Competition forces us to re-think our designs. Without it growth and development would stagnate, and give rise to a status quo.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:10:17 PM EDT
suspected ceiling of 100k feet
View Quote
I would love to see some hard data on that (to bad it's classified damnit!), that does seem a bit.....far fetched.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:12:52 PM EDT
They only had the money to build like 4 of em. Why we dont jsut copy the design I dont know. They can do frikin hammerheads in em. ............I bet the Chinese are building a bunch
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:18:15 PM EDT
I don't doubt that you can find this kind of information floating around about how the Russian stuff is "better than our stuff". This has been the rumor for at least the past 30 years and I cannot think of any time when it has proven to be truthful. Russian MIGs, tanks, missiles, etc. have all been proven to be technologically inferior to anything we have been able to come up with. What else do you expect the Russians to say at a time when we just waxed Iraq and took out some of their GPS jamming devices with GPS guided munitions. Not to mention that the seamless integration of technology in the battlefield enables the U.S.A. to field a force that is superior in its ability to communicate and gather data on the battlefield. One good system won't help the Russians and Chinese overcome our advantages. They are both way outclassed at the moment in conventional warfare by the U.S.A.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:24:59 PM EDT
Sniper I am pretty sure I saw that at Janes. I could be wrong.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:25:51 PM EDT
The more complicated it is, the more bells and whistles you put on it, then the more training you need to put it all to full use. Our guys know the importance of that. Our enemies have always underestimated that angle. Though that helmet-slaved IR seeker on the Archer is quite incredible. We've worked on a similar idea bit it hasn't made it to the field yet.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:30:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Valkyrie: Sniper I am pretty sure I saw that at Janes. I could be wrong.
View Quote
I'm not doubting you Miss Valkyre[;)], It just seems a bit much for that paticular design. Considering that the Mig 28 Foxhound's ceiling is in the 70-72,000ft range and it's engines are (well ok, seem) far more powerful than the F-22's . Go to either GE.com or GeneralElectric.com and click the link to their aircraft engine page. It gives the thrust power of all their engines (including the F-22 Raptors)
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:32:06 PM EDT
OURS can fly.....theirs make nice paper weights.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:35:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 8:38:10 PM EDT by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:36:43 PM EDT
The russians develop alot of great things... Including The AN-94 Which is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Thankfully they are a country that is full Of bright minds and no money. Sure they can sell them to others. When It comes down to It I really dont think its our equipment... the reason why we are superior in defence. Its how we work everything together... We got logistics figured out so much so that the rest of the world dreams about doing what we do. I think the fact is We colud beat an enemy with his own equipment provided we had the time to train in it like we do our own. Im pritty sure we are one of the only countrys in the world that can support a full on unilateral war by itself. Not a war at home but a war half way around the world. Who else can do that? Im not sure... Hell let me know who you think can also do that. And that SU-37 is badassed
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:40:44 PM EDT
And that SU-37 is badassed
View Quote
Correct you are sir, considering it can out maneuver all US fight's except [b]MAYBE[/b] the F-22.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:56:43 PM EDT
The SU-37 is actually equivlant to one of our X-craft. Its a experiment, not yet a real fighter. Probably closest comparison would be YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes. Its extreamly agile, but probably no more so than Typhoon, which is probably better in that aspect than the F22. But it doesn't seem to have the supersonic cruse ability and it is definently not stealthy. The only markets are China and India. Without a investment by one of them there will only ever BE 4-er now three, one of them did a lawn dart impression at a airshow.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 8:58:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:01:06 PM EDT
The question is: who can afford to buy a plane like that? North Korea has no money, and their air force is so old it would loose a war with the CAF museum fleet... (not literally, but VERY close!) Ditto for Syria. They made their cash IMPORTING Iraqi oil and selling it for Saddam. That's done. Al Queda doesn't use jet fighters. The Chinese seem to be trying to sprout an aviation industry right now. They have taken to copying US designs (one of them looks like a canard-nose F-16), and will have less and less use for Russian fighters in the future... We'll see where this bird ends up... Who else buys Russian aircraft these days???
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:17:25 PM EDT
I'm not sure what the current situation is in China, but if they can afford 100 of these at $30 million per pop and the cost of the weapons systems, then I would think they could afford to train in them and maintain them. But they will likely never beat us in training because of the programs such as Top Gun and Red Flag (if these weren't slashed from the budget by Clinton that is)and our experiences in Vietnam and since to draw from. Are the Top Gun and Red/Desert Flag programs still in existance? But I do hope we have something on the drawing board to meet or exceed the capabilities of this new Russian fighter. As long as our aircraft are on equal terms, our pilot training will prevail. But when an enemy can fire at you by turning his head toward you or firing at you while you are behind him (when you can't do the same if he's behind you} puts our pilots in much greater danger. One possible counter move would be to give our Hornets, Eagles and Raptors the ability to launch the AIM-54 Phoenix! Nullify the threat before it can get to you! That's still the most impressive and long range air-to-air missile in the world and had a 90% kill probability in the 1980's. I imagine it could still get the job done. That's one reason I will hate to see the F-14 retired, because no other plane in our inventory is set up to use it, at least as far as I know. And although I can't recall where it was ever used in combat, it's still nice knowing you have a tool in the arsenal that will reach out and touch something at 100 miles! Get them before they can get within range of you! But who knows, the Raptor may hold lots of secrets and may be able to fly rings around the SU-37 if they met in a fight. Afterall, I remember stories of how the MiG-25 Foxbat's ability was greatly overestimated. In truth, it was so cumbersome it could barely maneuver. But that was when the old Soviet Union was good at keeping secrets, unlike now when info flows freely. But hell, maybe the US should buy a dozen of these planes and weapons systems! The Russians would sell to anyone with the money. Then take those planes to Miramar and let the Top Gun instructors strap them on, test it and fly it as an adversary against our pilots and planes. Then they could learn stuff that might be incorporated into our designs and develop tactics to counter the SU-37's strengths.Would be an interesting thought. At least we could find out exactly what we were up against.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:23:31 PM EDT
The "canard equipped F16" is the Shenyang F-10 and it is actually the old Israeli Lavi the plans for which were sold to the Chinese by employees of Israeli Aircraft Industries illegally in a fit of pique over the US refusing to fund the Lavi when it was almost ready for production. The US refused to let US MAP funds build a competator to the F16, and they also wanted to keep the IDF 'captive' to US sources for spare parts and training thus maintining their leverage over Israeli foreign policy. And thus keeping Israel controllable through the threat of embargo. Its actually taken the Chinese 13 years to bring this aircraft to completion. Though they got the plans, they didn't get the manufacturing technology needed to produce the parts to actually create the aircraft. The F-10 was supposed to have flown last year, and now it will fly sometime this year-supposedly-but its stuck using the SU-27/33's engines-which China still has to have built and even serviced in Russia. China does have a engine liscence-but have yet to build a serviceable model.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:35:37 PM EDT
The Aim-54 was designed to splash bombers - big, slow targets. At the end of its flight time, it's got no fuel and (relatively) little ability to maneuver. Given a bit of RWR, which even third world countries have, you could easily juke it. We never used it peacetime due to ROE issues. The successor, the AAAM, would likely have suffered the same issues, and was killed. The AMRAAM seems to be doing quite a fine job. We are working on the Aim-9x, which reportedly has the slaveable IR tracker. No clue as to whether or not we've got the helmet-mount to match. What I do miss about the Tomcats was the long-range camera. When ROE is a concern, it was quite a neat tool for getting visual ID at extreme range. Don't think we have a counterpart with the current inventory (except on the 14's).
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:37:46 PM EDT
I'm not sure if anybody has addressed this yet...I was lazy and didn't read all the threads. The Mig-29, SU-27 and SU-37 have several advantages over our present aircraft to include the f-22. However, the primary flaw with russian design is their advantages all are focused on close in engagements. The higher thrust to weight ratios and helmet mounted IR sights are good for BFM style fights. Where the US has focused and maintains an incredible advantage is radar and missile engagements. Frankly...with present tactics we can clean their chronometers and if we do get in close our pilots have enough def-tac training to bug out and fight another day. Don't ask me to explain advanced air-air tactics...because I can't.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:39:55 PM EDT
I don't think that even if our enemies produce better planes that it will matter much in the future. Dogfights are becoming rare anyway, they happen but not very often. Air-to-air missiles have such long range (well over 100 miles) that you can shoot a plane down long before you even see it. Besides, we're now building drones that fire missiles. It's only a matter of time before unmanned fighters become feasable (but that will still be a ways off). Human pilots limit the manuverability of a plane, about 9 G's before a pilot risks passing out. Pilotless aircraft will have fewer limitations (I know that the very thought disgusts real pilots out there). Wouldn't it be cheaper to counter advanced aircraft with better anti-aircraft missiles and stealth technology?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:40:09 PM EDT
What you people seem to not know, is that the su-37 was only a tech demonstrator, and there a currently no flying su-37's anywhere. both testbeds were returned to su-35 configuration, and one of them crashed. people saying the Su-37 is more agile than the F-22 have nothing to base it on. a few videos of a plane doing extreamly slow thrust vectoring pushovers does not make it a power house in a true air to air engagement at combat loadings and speeds. but if we go by what we know about the two aircraft, we can come to some basic conclusions. 1. the F-22's thrust vectronig system can tilt the nozzels at 20+- degrees, as the su-37 can. the F-22 however has a much larger wing area, and much more effective lifting body than the Su-37 due to it being carrying its stores internally, and having a near perfect wing shape to its fuselage. The F-22 also has a much better wing design. the su-37 uses a cranked arrow wing set, so while it gives it terrific low speed instantainious turn rate, it bleeds speed at a tremendous rate. and at higher speeds, it is much less effective than most designs. consider those facts before you come up with your conclusion. oh and we got a little variation if the Aim-120 called the p3. its an AIM-120 C' that uses liquid fuel. so in theory it will have twice the range of a normal amraam, but be the same size.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:45:28 PM EDT
The Russian aircraft have no advantage over us anymore. AA-11 and the HMS were big worries for the last 12 years but we now have AIM-9X Sidewinder and a HMS of our own. The British have ASRAAM and the IDF has Python4 both with the same capability. The AA-12 "AAMRAMski" is actually a much larger weapon than our AMRAAM and since we have yet to see it outside of Russian service we cannot say for certain that its as good as AMRAAM. Probably it isnt since that would require the radars in the planes so equipped to be much better than the ones we have seen. The radars we have had a chance to examine in the SU-27 are only about the equivilant of the F-15A's APG-63. Its not a fully digital system.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:46:55 PM EDT
MMX: the Aim-9X is being integrated with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing system (JHMCS)not only does it give the pilot the agility to fire the aim-9x at very high off boresight angels, but it also has a full bown HUD built into the visor. check it out being used here [url]http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv [/url]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 9:47:31 PM EDT
oh and we got a little variation if the Aim-120 called the p3. its an AIM-120 C' that uses liquid fuel. so in theory it will have twice the range of a normal amraam, but be the same size.
View Quote
Hey that sounds like the missile Rafael is buiding for the IDF, known only as "Derby"-are they related?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:01:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Raptor1911: MMX: the Aim-9X is being integrated with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing system (JHMCS)not only does it give the pilot the agility to fire the aim-9x at very high off boresight angels, but it also has a full bown HUD built into the visor. check it out being used here [url]http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv [/url]
View Quote
Whoa! Raytheon sure likes to show off, don't they! Any lack of confidence in our close-range abilities has been restored by that demo.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:06:09 PM EDT
how about a pic of the Sukhoi ??
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:06:44 PM EDT
lastbscout is right. Even the 29 can outmaneuver most (if not all) of our fighters. It has an amazing thrust to weight ratio. The West German Air Force took over about 30 of the latest edition Mig29 after reunification. They fly 'em here to the us and there are some tech demonstrations for friendly western Air Forces held in Germany. This includes dogfights etc... Seems that at close in range the 29 has an edge, but it's distance fighting capabilities are inferior to US fighters. It boils down to tactics. Hoping that most interested parties, as far as the SU37 is concerned, still follow Soviet tactics (decision making by HQ and not the guy in the field) they shouldn't pose to big of a threat. Certainly the Russians always did build great aircraft and no doubt the 37 will be a great one too. Too much high tech won't work for many countries. Got to train all their people and that costs mayor bucks... On a different note... it's almost a pitty that the Russians don't have more money. If would probably be very interesting to see what they could come up with. Unfortunately we would look at it from the wrong end of the barrel if they still had some cash. So, I guess it's all good. [:D] LRdrvr
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:11:16 PM EDT
read about it [url]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-37.htm[/url] [img]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su37_01.jpg[/img] [img]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su37e.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:15:00 PM EDT
THAT is a SU-37? What happened to the forward swept wings?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:15:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
oh and we got a little variation if the Aim-120 called the p3. its an AIM-120 C' that uses liquid fuel. so in theory it will have twice the range of a normal amraam, but be the same size.
View Quote
Hey that sounds like the missile Rafael is buiding for the IDF, known only as "Derby"-are they related?
View Quote
Whoa! That's phoenix-class range there... Talk about 'reach out & touch someone'...
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:17:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
oh and we got a little variation if the Aim-120 called the p3. its an AIM-120 C' that uses liquid fuel. so in theory it will have twice the range of a normal amraam, but be the same size.
View Quote
Hey that sounds like the missile Rafael is buiding for the IDF, known only as "Derby"-are they related?
View Quote
Whoa! That's phoenix-class range there... Talk about 'reach out & touch someone'...
View Quote
70 miles? AIM-54C was around 100. But if it fits on a modern aircraft it still will be a good thing.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:24:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/7/2003 10:25:53 PM EDT by mmx1]
S-37: [url]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/s-37.htm[/url] [img]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/s37.jpg[/img] Geez, I love the Federation for American Scientists. The SU-37 (note the U), is ready for production but nobody's buying any(yet). The S-37 is a testbed, with the forward swept wings. Both are designed by Sukhoi.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 10:57:33 PM EDT
Damn, looks like you could just about shoot yourself down with that AIM-9X. That would make a great headline, lol...
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 11:28:22 PM EDT
Generally I'll second the opinions of the posters already speaking here. It IS a very capable aircraft but there are issues on whether the field models would be up to snuff. In pure capability terms it presents at least a decent challenge, Given a good Russian Pilot it might be able to eat our lunch so to speak. We have a bit of an edge in terms of range, and utility. The Russians have the edge in pure power and up close and personal. Despite the superiority of their current close missille systems they still have decent minimum engagement envolopes, and when it comes time to throw lead thier cannons arent as fast or accurrate as ours. An American Pilot worth his stick won't wanna get close to the Russian, but if he can't help it he's going to be well trained enough to get VERY close very fast and nullify the present short range misille advantage (This changes when we deploy aim9x, but thats still a bit off). Theyre good in a dogfight but its more an issue of training, skill and experience when we get to this range and all of these are american strengths. A better 6 barrelled boomstick and more well rounded plane also helps. Stealth is an important innovation but it is strategically useless after a certan point. Eventually they WILL down one of our aircraft (Assuming a large, long multi-theater war) and we will LOSE our stealth advantage VERY shortly after that. Stealth is a whole lotta money spent to let us run wild and cripple them before it is eventually nullified. Basically its a strategic "Sucker Punch", it only works once (the beginning of the engagements) but its one hell of a doozy and if you play your cards right you can knock em off balance enough right off the bat to keep em from mounting an effective counterattack. This does not change the fact that Stealth is Overhyped, The Stealth Fighter, Bomber f-22, f-35 et all... WONT be after 6 months to a year, possibly less. I put the total advantage on our side, but II dwarn you never to underestimate the ability of the Russians to drag you into a fight on thieir terms. Of course thier terms are nearly as devestating to them as they are on the enemy, but the Russians are a spiteful people.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 11:35:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mmx1:
Originally Posted By Raptor1911: MMX: the Aim-9X is being integrated with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing system (JHMCS)not only does it give the pilot the agility to fire the aim-9x at very high off boresight angels, but it also has a full bown HUD built into the visor. check it out being used here [url]http://www.raytheon.com/products/aim9_x/ref_docs/v2885a.wmv [/url]
View Quote
Whoa! Raytheon sure likes to show off, don't they! Any lack of confidence in our close-range abilities has been restored by that demo.
View Quote
Is it me, or does that 9X Sidewinder seem to accelerate off the rail a bit quicker than the older ones did?
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 11:39:52 PM EDT
Yeah. Might be Raytheon speeding up the vids, but I doubt it. According to FAS, it uses the same motor as the M model(and quite a few other components, too), but visually it's way faster than the old videos I've seen. Might also be an artifact of the smaller fins, but it looks quite a bit longer, too.
Link Posted: 5/7/2003 11:43:30 PM EDT
This does not change the fact that Stealth is Overhyped, The Stealth Fighter, Bomber f-22, f-35 et all... WONT be after 6 months to a year, possibly less.
View Quote
Wrong. Getting ahold of remains of one of ours might help them build one of their own but it will not help them find a way to defeat the effect. One of the nice things about our passive stealth as opposed to active jamming is that exploits basic microwave physics. The effect is therefore immuteable. They are not going to find a magic "window of vulnerability" by close exam because one does not exist. They way to defeat stealth is already known-use sensors that do not rely on microwaves. After 14 years of combat, no one has been able to field such a device.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 12:04:35 AM EDT
Sorry, I have to disagree with you, the current methodology isnt working. However the Current methodology isnt the only one (and to assume so is to ignore the lessons we learned in the first Radar "Wizard War" wiith Germany). Russians are not stupid, provided an incliination AND a testbed. They'll pull something out of thier hat. Indeed from what I've heard theyre already theoretically ditching the microwave detection route altogether. Theyre already doing the drudge work in optical and thermal detection, theyve managed to create systems which can measure short range temperature variations within one degree. Theres theory on how to turn these into theater range detection systems but no money to do it. In case of a massive war, it will not be difficult for these projects to get more funding. Ironically, the more effective stealth proves to be strategically, the quicker it will be counteracted. Believing in Magic Bullets is what failed the Axis, ultimately it comes down to the fundamentals. Stealth helps you in the short term, but to believe it will not be rapidly counteracted once it proves to be devestating is to underestimate any enemy. Fundementals first, leverage second, Stealth is leverage, training, maintenence and overall robustness of the entire system (including the pilot) comes first.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 12:32:49 AM EDT
Sorry, I have to disagree with you, the current methodology isnt working.
View Quote
Really? Prove it. Its kind of hard for the Russians to field systems that use other methods, when optical, infared, and passive radar all require advanced microprocessors and high speed switches that they cannot produce. Alternatives to microwave radar do not have the comparative ease of adaptation to either volume search or doppler range data that radar does. They only work for us-to the extent we have made them work-because we can build the computers that can handle the load and conduct a very inefficient search at a very high rate of speed.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:08:30 AM EDT
The Russians definately have the know-how to make capable and sturdy planes. Their internal training programs were also focused around medium to close range combat, because they knew we had the long range advantage. One thing I think you all would find is that just like the US, they will sell the platform to other countries, but not necessarily with their highest end fire control systems. It's a contingency plan for the few times you may encounter equipment purchased by the previous friendly regime, and keeps them from selling the secrets off as soon as the first shipment arrives.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:08:36 AM EDT
In the past the Russians have avoided highly complex designs. I think that is in part due to the abilities of their air force, and especially their clients', to maintain a high reliability rate with such systems. Then again, some things we see as being low-tech they would see as being practical. When Belenko dropped off the MiG-25 in Japan we laughed because it had tube electronics instead of solid state. However, somebody then pointed out that their systems were more likely to survive the effects of EMP. So we have to also try to understand the philosophy behind the design. I think the Su-37, if it was operational, would be a superior platform compared with our conventional fighters. However, the F-22 has capabilities we can't begin to imagine. I don't have access to secrets, but the stuff they've declassified is amazing. For example, the fire control can data link to other sources, such as an Aegis cruiser, Patriot battery, AWACS, or another Raptor. This means the pilot can target his weapons without turning on his own radar and giving away his position. This allows him to sneak in and get the first shot. The airplane also has sensors that will identify threats based upon their characteristics (SAM sites & AAA) and automatically plot a path for the pilot that exposes him to the least risk. It makes me wonder where this technology will be in another 50 years...
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:35:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Katana16j: Stealth is an important innovation but it is strategically useless after a certan point. Eventually they WILL down one of our aircraft (Assuming a large, long multi-theater war) and we will LOSE our stealth advantage VERY shortly after that. Stealth is a whole lotta money spent to let us run wild and cripple them before it is eventually nullified. Basically its a strategic "Sucker Punch", it only works once (the beginning of the engagements) but its one hell of a doozy and if you play your cards right you can knock em off balance enough right off the bat to keep em from mounting an effective counterattack. This does not change the fact that Stealth is Overhyped, The Stealth Fighter, Bomber f-22, f-35 et all... WONT be after 6 months to a year, possibly less.
View Quote
Katana16j, It's not like once you're detected, your stealh capability vaporizes. Any military using FSU training as their paradigm is at a great disadvantage. It's one thing to say we have scientists that can figure out ways to overcome this advantage or that advantage. It's a completely different thing to actually take something from a lab and field it. Take that to a whole new level and actually train your forces to be proficient in a tactic. Example: it takes somewhere between 6 months to a year for an average aircrew to become mission ready (MR) in the air force. That's with 2-3 times more flight time than a typical FSU trained air force. And being MR doesn't mean you're experienced. It just means you've met the minimum of training. Our A-A tactics generally stress the BVR engagement. Our missiles generally have a greater F-pole (or A-pole) than any FSU missiles in most engagements. Add to that the fact that 1) They typically are much more reliant on GCI/AWACS than we are 2) They really don't understand the concept of cranking/gimbaling your radar on a SAR engagement 3) The HMS on the MiG-29 is not THAT great 4) They have not fielded the AA-12 Stealth is not the end all be all. But when you can shoot someone before they can see you, even if they have offboard cueing like GCI, the best they can do is go defensive (which by the way, they are very poor at doing). In that case, their radar isn't looking at you, and you still have the edge.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:39:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ColonelKlink:
Originally Posted By Valkyrie: suspected ceiling of 100k feet
View Quote
Angels 100 my ass! Thats 18 miles! You need pressurized suits at like 60,000.
View Quote
I guess it depends on how you define "ceiling." The F15 set many records in the early 70's including altitude records. I don't recall what the exact max altitude was but it was in the 120K range. of course, this was set with a stripped down F15 that didn't even have a full paint job and the flight profile was anything but straight-and-level at 120K. Later,
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:07:36 AM EDT
All this oooing and aahing over Russian aircraft: When you consider that they've had almost NO original designs, after 40 years they still can't land a space capsule on target, they've had many failures, and they're dirt poor... Seems to me this is much ado about nothing.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:31:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: All this oooing and aahing over Russian aircraft: When you consider that they've had almost NO original designs, after 40 years they still can't land a space capsule on target, they've had many failures, and they're dirt poor... Seems to me this is much ado about nothing.
View Quote
While the Russians have "copied" many things from us and others they have also developed some very interesting things, in some cases, well before we did. We won the space race but we did so playing catch up for almost a decade. The best tank and attack aircraft of WWII were neither US nor German they were Russian! Late model Russian fighers have been the equal or even superior of ours in terms of airframe but have fallen behind in terms of weapons platform. Later,
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:43:13 AM EDT
"The more you uptake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." Advanced engineering is one thing, advanced production is another thing altogether. The Soviets and their heirs have always been disadvantaged by the crudity of their production and the inattention to quality control on the part of their workforce. While the government form has changed and free-market reforms have been made, it takes generations for cultures to change, and only if there is both the will and the perceived need to change. So it will be a while before the former Soviets develop their society and economy to the point that they can compete with the US. So while they have the engineering know-how to do amazing things, they lack the precision production capability to do it efficiently. The chinese have another problem and it's spelled SARS. SARS is paralyzing China right now. They are a manpower reliant economy. Where we use robots and other computerized methods to reduce the need for physical manpower, China tends to use raw muscle power and LOTS of bodies working in close proximity. In that sort of environment, an easily spread disease can and will incapacitate or wipe out a large segment of their workforce VERY quickly. The fear of getting the disease is causing more problems than the actual disease. China's economy is no-where near as robust as some seem to think. If the US cuts off China, China collapses, FAST. While China is also capable of advanced engineering, they also lack advanced production capability and will likely keep searching for solutions that don't require it because they have to employ all those PEOPLE, and inefficient manpowered production does that rather nicely. But the fact of the matter is that you cannot build SU-37 type airplanes without large-scale, advanced manufacturing capabilities. In the US, that level of precision is relatively common. Who else could field the cash to buy such an aircraft in militarily significant numbers? That is one of our major advantages in the world today. No one rivals our economic power to not only design, engineer and prototype these sorts of high-technologies, but also to build and field them with properly trained operators.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:55:59 AM EDT
[rolleyes] Where's USN-Joe - he should have 8 or 10 posts here by now.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top