"Opposition defends Joint Strike Fighter over simulated dogfights"

[Vekkinho]

OK look here:

 

Now, after watching this I find it hard to believe in those results form "Simulated Dogfight". F-35 splashed by bunch of New Gen Flankers! C'mon really!

 

Maybe, but again entire campaign seems to me like a preplanned scenario of lowering the price of F-35!

[mvsgas]

F-22 vs MIG29 OVT - Long range = favour of the F-22, close combat, close to evenly matched, but I belive that the MIG29 OVT will come up on top this only due to previuos planes made by composite in the US army, have a tendancy to break appart, F117 has done this on 3-4 occations, but most likly, the wing design will be the turning point in favour of the MIG29.

3-4 occation? F-117 came appart once during a airshow and had nothing to do with bad design, it was a maintenance error. A part was installed incorrectly. Besides the F-22 is 9g capable AFAIK, so I doubt composites on it would have any problems in a turning fight. :smartass:And they do not make planes in the US Army, nor tanks or other equipment, they just maintain them and use them. :D

http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/12/briefs/stealth.fighter.crash/

Edited October 6, 2008 by mvsgas

[Vekkinho]

" Both the MIG29 and SU-37 have actually the same design on the wing, the wing has been developet first, during extensive testing, actually, no other wing has been tested as thoroughly as the original desing wing for the MIG29/SU-27 series, ans the wing was also the fitst thing that was designed, all the other parts was added later..."

 

 

Do you guys post things like that 'cause you agree with that or to mock the author of those statements. IMHO we should redicule that guy because the parts in bold are so untrue!

 

Firstly, comparing Fulcrum A wing design to Su-37 wing is BS. Remember, Flanker wing designers approached Mikoyan Gurevich back in the '70s but were refused so they turned to Sukhoi. They made a GAW-1 airfoil design! So Flanker wing design was more advanced in terms of aerodynamics, lift and preformance than Fulcrum wing. Simply it had better airfoil! Fulcrum wing design remains unchanged throughout all airframe versions in the past (A,B,C,G,S,UB) but I'm not sure is this the case with naval K versions of Fulcrum (tail section visibly different and folding wings with slightly increased wingspan) and latest MiG-35 which probably has some minor changes but invisible to plain eye view.

 

On the other hand, Flanker's wing was already superior in terms of performance, drag and lift even since the begining. With introduction of a third wing (canards) on Su-33, Su-35, Su-37 and Su-32 main wing airfoil change was neccessary, IIRC lower camber of the main wing was slightly flattened since lift now generates from both canards and main wing.

 

Now what I'm trying to explain here is that comparing Su-37 wing to a MiG-29A wing is a pure nonsense!

[Vekkinho]

He, he, he ... This comments are sign of desparation! Here's little picture for our unanmed military expert ...

 

 

But that's not Su-37!

[hitman]

Heres a kicker: didnt the ONLY Su-37 "crash"? So the Su-37 doesnt have 2d or 3d or any nozzles at all.

[GGTharos]

Oh I think after that pancake they're pretty 2D right now :D

[hitman]

LOL!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

But that's not Su-37!

That is exactly my point. The author of that text was so wrong on many things including TV.

[hitman]

So how, exactly, does that prove your point? He says Su-37 (destroyed, btw, non-existant except in blueprint form) has 2d thrust vectoring, and you show us a picture of a Su-30 with 3d thrust vectoring. I think you are personally grasping at straws.

[Weta43]

No - what the material in the post =RvE=--AS-- made actually said was :

 

Also, the SU-37 only has 2D thrust vectoring. The only Russan fighter built with 3D is the Mig-29 OVT

 

And so when =4c= Hajduk Veljko

 

show(s) us a picture of a Su-30 with 3d thrust vectoring

 

He's not clutching at straws, he's pointing out a factual error in =RvE=--AS-- 's statement...

Edited October 7, 2008 by Weta43

[hitman]

 

He's not clutching at straws, he's pointing out a factual error in =RvE=--AS-- 's statement...

And was not his statement as he pointed out in the first place.

[A.S]

I posted post 243-245 to heat and inspire this discussion here.

I copy pasted infos here like everyone else :smilewink: to add some material to the topic.

That the author in post 245 is talking bout 2D-TVC for Su-37 and not 3D may be explainable by the date of his statement, where Su-37 was still in 2D status....however...

 

i am more astonished that the other contents in these posts have been overseen so easy without reply :music_whistling:

 

you buy this so easy ? without ...."hold on a second?" :lookaround:

[A.S]

 

Now what I'm trying to explain here is that comparing Su-37 wing to a MiG-29A wing is a pure nonsense!

 

.. i think what he is trying to say is that both jets were designed on the same concept....first the wing ( the fuselage ) and then the rest.

 

..its a known concept to design the jet around its aerodynamical structure and performance in first line.....its not always like that in jet-design depending on the purpose and priority of a design.

 

i think he is pointing to this in comparsion...in the meaning of the whole sentense he is saying there......not the final jets.

[Weta43]

Sorry =RvE=--AS-- I should have said the statement you quoted in your post, not that you made yourself.

I've edited it.

 

Regarding whether or not =4c= Hajduk Veljko's post was correct on the point he raised - no need to edit :-)

[A.S]

here, more things to draw a picture

 

(F-35)

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk&feature=related

 

 

Sukhoi anti-stealth Radar test the IRBIS

 

:shifty::harhar::unsure:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKaiOu0gvU

 

Secrets of Russian Anti-stealth Technology / Part 1 of 3

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhFqIZX9yfE&feature=related

Edited October 7, 2008 by A.S

[Mugatu]

Just read about a few scenarios used in the RAND simulation (flight international, 20 Sep 2008).

 

One scenario had 6 F-22s pitted against 72 Su-27s (48 v 912 A2A missiles) with the end game being no F-22s were lost but enough Su-27s were able to survive and shoot down the tankers.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Just read about a few scenarios used in the RAND simulation (flight international, 20 Sep 2008).

 

One scenario had 6 F-22s pitted against 72 Su-27s (48 v 912 A2A missiles) with the end game being no F-22s were lost but enough Su-27s were able to survive and shoot down the tankers.

These Sukhoi's, each of them carried 12,66 missiles? 912/72=12.66! :)

[GGTharos]

I guess that's how much guns count for or something? :D

[RedTiger]

here, more things to draw a picture

 

(F-35)

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnWg4v6iHk&feature=related

 

 

Sukhoi anti-stealth Radar test the IRBIS

 

:shifty::harhar::unsure:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKaiOu0gvU

 

Secrets of Russian Anti-stealth Technology / Part 1 of 3

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhFqIZX9yfE&feature=related

 

The Irbis_E can pickup an F-22 at 3.218688 kilometers away?

 

Yeah...so could a decent pair of human eyeballs. Are they trying to be being sarcastic?

[Kuky]

These Sukhoi's, each of them carried 12,66 missiles? 912/72=12.66! :)

 

shows just how much "realistic" this simulation is... who'd in their right mind wanna send aircraft with 4 missiles against 8 aircraft? (if raptors had 48 missiles how in the world would they be able to shoot 72 flankers... oh yeah.. they would gun them down :music_whistling:) and I thought flankers have 10 harpoints not 12.... or 12.66 :D

[Mugatu]

The scenario was over Tawain and China's jets could rearm! waves of 24 aircraft.

 

These Sukhoi's, each of them carried 12,66 missiles? 912/72=12.66! :)

[Weta43]

So the story is ... - 6 F-22 with 48 missiles between them, took on 72 flankers with a total of (lets say) 720 missiles between them.

Now assuming every one of the launches from the F-22 hits its target, & none of the Flanker BVR missiles hits home - and for the sake of the story we'll count any R-27T variants as BVR missiles & assume they all missed. So now you have 6 F-22 gunzo, Within Visual Range of {(72 - 48 =) 24 flankers, each with (again assuming they launched & missed with every R-27T / ET missile BVR*) either 2 or 4 R-73 - so between 48 and 96 R-73 between the Flankers - lets assume 48 ... } 24 Flankers with 48 R-73 between them.

 

We arrive at - best case endgame for the F-22s is 6 F-22 armed only with guns, engage 24 Flankers armed with 48 R-73 & their own guns - within visual range - & the story ends with not one of the F-22 taken down ?

 

Sounds more like a fairy story than a simulation...

 

Unless of course the rules of engagement were that the Flankers were to ignore the F-22 & only engage the bombers. Which would account for "enough Su-27s were able to survive and shoot down the tankers" statement, & would also mean that the exercise would give absolutely no insight into the relative capabilities of the 2 aircraft were they targetting each other ...

 

*Which in itself seems a bit of a fairy story, since surely after the first 20 or 30 BVR misses, someone would realise that they weren't holding lock & hold fire till within visual range, at which point - is it realy credible that not one of the Flankers got onto the tail of the 4:1 out numbered F-22 & got a heater away ? (& we've all seen video of F-22 from behind - they have a hot rear end :-)

Edited October 8, 2008 by Weta43

[Mugatu]

^^^^

You can't kill what you can't see and catch and it aint that hot!

[Weta43]

Have they borrowed Harry Potter's cloak of invisibility ? If it's close enough for guns, it's close enough to see ...

 

Looks hot here ...

[GGTharos]

If it's close enough for guns, it's probably gunning you down ... ;)