F-22 destroys the Su-27 in super maneuverbility

[GGTharos]

Can you support that?

 

Sadly, now that I think about it, the statement is based on something I saw a long time ago, and I can't really say wether it really was 80AoA or not - all i can recall is very slow speed, and the nose pointed up high - the aircraft was maintaining altitude and just slowly moving forward.

 

IK's suggestion might be good here.

 

And when the Raptor does this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5930540020698670370&q=russian+backflip&hl=en

then we got something. WHY it would do that is another question.

 

Theoretically at least, it can. Someone did make the claim that the Raptor can go 180 Aoa (ie. fly backwards) for short periods of time, which is precicely what this maneuver seems to require - plus the TVC alone ought to be enough for the flip we see, but ... obviously until we see it happen ... ;)

[S77th-GOYA]

I've seen the Hornet Walk and it was nowhere near 80 AoA. Of course I may not have seen the best Hornet Walk.

[Ukr_Alex]

My 9" penis made loops and cobras 20 years ago.

 

I thought 20 years later you'd catch up with at least 13".

 

But oh well............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a serious note: This is a "F22 PWNS!" thread numero what?

[GGTharos]

My 9" penis made loops and cobras 20 years ago.

 

I thought 20 years later you'd catch up with at least 13".

 

But oh well............

 

 

Ha. with all the stuff I got from my email, mine now reaches to the moon.

[hitman]

Hitman, its a maneuver they do all the time, and the Gs are about 1G. Maybe in a slightly different direction, but there's not much G loading in that high-AoA maneuver. ;)

 

Oh. Well someone break out some vaseline so I can pull my head out my butt, lol. I was thinking something totally different.

 

I didnt have my Fr00t L00ps this morning.

[Pilotasso]

Certainly it ,means something. If a Raptor (or any other plane) finds itself in a position where it must flee, it matters a great deal. And if you say a Raptor would never get itself in that position, why does it carry Sidewinders?

 

It would mean alot, only if the difference was high, wich is not. Raptors T/W ratio is much bigger than any 2nd and 3rd gen fighter. yet the difference between Raptors supercruise speed is not much lower than the older aircraft's top speed. The difference between max speed of both types is even smaller. Also max speed doesnt translate into acceleration directly.

One design feature is undeniable. Before max thrust or T/W ratio, is the engines bypass ratio. The bigger it is the better will be acceleration. Couple that with best max thrust and T/W ratio and you wont have to bother to look any further, so while climb rates are classified (yes even for 3rd gen fighters) you can tell wich will be a better climber, the F-22 or decades old plane. This is called progress, and while the F-22 top Speed seem a step backwards, that is missleading because the difference is small and tells nothing about intercept potential. Have you ever tried to catch someone who is only marginaly slower than you, but not only can accelerate faster but also maintain a pace that will make your lungs blow out? :)

 

The sidwinders on the raptor are there for any number of eventualities including firing on a larger numbers of fighters that has already made you expend all AMRAAMs.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I have that documentary and its an old one, at the time it was expected that the Su-35/37 would evolve into an operational fighter wich later turned out to be economically unviable and thus not feasible for service.

He, he, he. Russia does not need to spend money on building Su-37’s. They built one, they have all the tooling all the parts. If they need to build more, they will. In the mean time, they will spend money on DEVELOPMENT of other advanced systems.

 

I just wonder, where do you get information such as what is “economically unviable and thus not feasible for service”? Did you just make that up? How do you know what is “economically unviable” for Russian federation?

[GGTharos]

He, he, he. Russia does not need to spend money on building Su-37’s. They built one, they have all the tooling all the parts. If they need to build more, they will. In the mean time, they will spend money on DEVELOPMENT of other advanced systems.

 

Maybe, but they don't seem to be doing a whole lot ... besides, tooling for prototype aircraft does not equal production capability, right?

 

I just wonder, where do you get information such as what is “economically unviable and thus not feasible for service”? Did you just make that up? How do you know what is “economically unviable” for Russian federation?

 

I'm going to guess: It 'used' to be unviable as far as producing aircraft, and right now it might still be unviable in terms of manpower, both of which go back to economy ... wether this is currently true in -one- way or another (this is where you have to use your imagination) I don't know :)

[Guest IguanaKing]

I think that how much stick time the average Russian pilot gets per year is a good indication of how much money can be directed at creating and producing new aircraft. The situation is improving though, and they have access to some of the best minds in the business...but funding is still a stumbling block. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Ah yes, F-22 destroys Su-27 because:...

Nobody ever on this thread or on this forum doubts that.

 

However, what is the point that you are trying to make? What’s all that hype about something that is so obvious and well known?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Maximum speed means nothing these days.

Supercruise means nothing these days.

 

A high supercruise speed will overcome maximum speed any day simply because maximum speed cant be maintained for long and supercruise offers a much higher average speed.

Maximum speed will overcome supercruise because maximum speed offers a chance to catch fleeing (supercrusising) aircraft and destroy him.

 

Do you see anything wrong (or right) with yours and mine statements? BTW, what if supercruise and/or maximum speed … We actually don't know, do we?

[Maximus_G]

He, he, he. Russia does not need to spend money on building Su-37’s.

Su-37 project is closed. But there is work going on a new Su-35 (one-seater). New avionics, refurbished airframe, new versions of AL-31 , advanced radar. It is a new main export version of Su-27 line, and it has much in common with Su-27 modernisation program for domestic use. The thing is gonna be a workhorse till they roll out 5-gen stuff.

[S77th-GOYA]

It would mean alot, only if the difference was high, wich is not. Raptors T/W ratio is much bigger than any 2nd and 3rd gen fighter.

 

So it's safe from MiG-23s? :thumbup:

 

...so while climb rates are classified...

 

Exactly my point. You assume the Raptor is the best climber with no basis in fact and say how great it is. Progress? You proved that it can't be counted on by speaking of top speed. There are many things about the Raptor that we do know and they are great things. Why talk about things that you don't know?

 

The sidwinders on the raptor are there for any number of eventualities including firing on a larger numbers of fighters that has already made you expend all AMRAAMs.

 

At that point, why not just supercruise to safety? :smilewink:

 

(Remember it has a cannon too.)

[Pilotasso]

Nice Goya, you cut my second quote in half to take it out of the context. ;)

 

Talk about verbal F-poling. :D

 

If we were to aply that logic to everything we wouldnt be able to have a discussion here at all. After all, and completing my quote you cut in half, much of the 3rd GEN fighters still in service (and by that I mean F-16/16/18 Mig-29 Su-27) details are as much classified and numericaly "rouded up" as the raptors. All that for what? To pretend that the F-22 is not a progress?

[Ukr_Alex]

Russia has more then enough money to get its aviation back on its feet.

 

Its that neither the government nor the generals give a sh*t.

 

Like all Eastern Blocks, there is tons of money on that territory. Since they produce steel, heavy machinery, military equipment, and in case of Russia petrol and gas.

 

There is more then enough money.

 

Except for the fact that people that hold them couldnt care less about avaition, the military or the people.

 

So I find it very ammusing when people from the West say "ex soviet territories are poor".

 

No they aint...Factories are open, countries exportin' and it aint soy beans. ;)

 

Just for example Russia has a 300$ billion stabilization fund. Now thats money in the bank that is supposedly the "peoples money" but which aint seeing any use in "peoples needs".

 

50% Of Ukrainian economy is a shadow economy.

 

The list goes on...

 

Those who believe that the Russians are developing what they need and what they think is usefull are delusional. What they are devolping is the minimal just so they can say "we are doing something"....its long gone, no one cares anymore, they aint gonna catch up, cause no one is funding the army anymore.

 

Those who believe Russia has no money, are trippin too. They do, its just in the hands of a few. Read a recent article. There are 10 year waiting lists for Lamborghinis in Moscow. Hows that for a broke as* communist state?

[S77th-GOYA]

Nice Goya, you cut my second quote in half to take it out of the context. ;)

 

Talk about verbal F-poling. :D

 

Not gonna work. You were talking sh*t and I called you on it. Like GG with his Hornets flying at 80 AoA.

 

Nothing personal, I just don't want to hear BS about these planes. There is either data or there isn't. We don't need to make things up.

[Pilotasso]

edited my last post and, by the way Im not BS'ing you. If I ver feel annoyed by someone I give a notice and make it black on white, just as I did with a guy just now on another thread.

[S77th-GOYA]

Those are 4th gen fighters, by the way.

[Pilotasso]

well I use an older classification standard. I dont like to think you skip a generation just because of some upgrade kits when the filosophy of the design and purpose (in in many ways, limitations) are the same. I read alot of Mike Spiks and Bill Gunston's stuff, and got used to it. Sorta like still considering Pluto as the 9th planet. :D

[Shaman]

LOL @ video - flanker did it more then 10 years ago without thrust vectoring, recall what it does with thrust vectoring

@ this thread - here we go again...

[Guest Cali]

OK OK Who cares about the cobra or breakstand, it is just a air show move nothing else. It's cool and all but do we need to fight about it? Some people might not see it as being a "we gotta have are aircraft do that" move. Some have other importants things to worry about. come on think about it...

[upyr1]

Such maneuverability as СУ-30МКИ or МИГ-29 with ОВТ(Changeable vector of draft) is no need F-22, it and so maneuverable enough for conducting БВБ(Near air fight) (though its basic style of fight ДВБ(Distant air fight) ) and a stealth of the plane, it not that iron which was F-117 (I do not understand why have appropriated an index «F» to a small tactical bomber, for privacy?:))

An other question with the F-117 is why did it have the 1117 was the old designation system being kept to hide AC or was this just some random choice know one has any idea to thereason?

[Guest Cali]

An other question with the F-117 is why did it have the 1117 was the old designation system being kept to hide AC or was this just some random choice know one has any idea to thereason?

 

We can only have so many fighters and bombers, so it got designated as a fighter.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

edited my last post and, by the way Im not BS'ing you.

Pilotasso, you are good young man and it is more then obvious that you are not trying to BS anybody.

 

I comment on your posts because they are full of speculations and “what if’s”. And while speculating, you put a lot’s of technical terms and acronyms and untrained eye may think that you are commenting on pure facts.

 

Your bias towards western (read USA) technology is more than obvious. And I really don’t have any problem with that. As long as it is about FACTS, not speculation.

 

BTW, I like western technology as well. I like F-22, I like F-117, these are cool machines. However, I like Russian and European technologies as well.

[bflagg]

We can only have so many fighters and bombers, so it got designated as a fighter.

 

I thought they gave it the F designation because of coolness factor, nothing more...

 

I vaguely remember this on the discovery channel....

 

..just googled this:

 

"The F-117 program was designed to employ the best fighter pilots, and the explanation given (on a recently televised documentary) by a senior member of the F-117 development team was that fighter pilots would be reluctant to fly a "B-" or even "A-" designated plane. There has been something of a class system separating fighter and bomber crews, particularly in the days of the Strategic Air Command (disbanded in 1991), and flying one type often limited a pilot's future prospects for flying the other."

 

At this site