Boeing unveils the "stealthy" F-15 Silent Eagle

[GGTharos]

I`m not comparing the Su-35 to the F-15s in service but to this "stealth" version of f-15.

 

... The one that's 'in theory' better than service F-15C's? ;)

 

 

 

I dont think its magical, i think its superior. I`m comparing the range of the radars, the ability to track multiple targets, and to fire missiles at multiple targets at the same time. Lets not compare both aircrafts in other aspects cause the "F" will lose in most of them.

No, you're definitely thinking they're magical. AESA has and always will be superior to PESA implementations. That's all there is to it - the AESA is more flexible, and typically more powerful. Detection ranges of the APG-63(v1) already had the thing picking up MiG-sized targets (a relatively low RCS target) in look down at 80nm in mountainous territory.

 

While PESA likely out-performs this (took them how many decades to catch up?), AESA does even better - and guess what's being mounted on those F-15C's. Ahuh.

 

The avionics, while already superior, are still being upgraded. The TWR is still exceptional, and the armament is also superior on the F-15C ...

 

... so ... what are you talking about?

[CE_Mikemonster]

I'll bet anyone a tenner that this plane isn't bloody 'silent'

[GGTharos]

I think it's probably bloody loud.

[nscode]

took them how many decades to catch up?

 

it took them -1 decades

[topol-m]

Yeah, and if we are talking about catching up, i still remember how ancient SCUDs were falling over Israel and Patriots couldnt do nothing to stop them which came to show how even the greatest propaganda of how your weapons are superior could fall apart in days when real fight shows how much americans should catch up russian missile technology and not only. And the are still catching up remember that were some old scuds, try shooting down iskander missiles. Here i would have puted a nice emoticon but i`m getting punished for using them so i won`t.

[Pilotasso]

Patriots were never meant to fend off SCUD's. Its a matter of, rather that they could be launched at such targets. Thats a bad (hand picked) example IMHO.

 

A better one was that in the same time pperiod Migs were falling off the sky whenever F's faced them with or without numeric advantage in various conflicts.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Pilotasso

[nscode]

They were meant, they were presented as they could, and thay were falsely reported that they did.

 

The fact that those MiGs flew at all in the condition they were in just shows you how tuff those airframes are. Any F would simply stay on the ground. And that they were used in such a state for air to air combat is just a bad human error.

Edited March 18, 2009 by nscode

[GGTharos]

Maybe you haven't heard of the PAC-3 ;)

Not only is the PAC-3 a dedicated and successful ABM interceptor, but following the experience from the first gulf war, PAC-2 versions were also quite successful at TBM intercepts.

 

Funny thing that you mention Iskanders - even though it wasn't on purpose, those SCUDs 'maneuvered' with about the same about of movement as Iskanders are famed to now. PAC-2GEM+ and PAC-3 didn't have a problem with such.

 

I find it amusing that you are considering a magical leap in RuAF's techology, and nothing in particular on the other side.

 

Yeah, and if we are talking about catching up, i still remember how ancient SCUDs were falling over Israel and Patriots couldnt do nothing to stop them which came to show how even the greatest propaganda of how your weapons are superior could fall apart in days when real fight shows how much americans should catch up russian missile technology and not only. And the are still catching up remember that were some old scuds, try shooting down iskander missiles. Here i would have puted a nice emoticon but i`m getting punished for using them so i won`t.

Edited March 18, 2009 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

They were meant,

 

Weren't. They were meant to serve as anti-air assets as designed, and pressed into service as ABM interceptors.

 

they were presented as they could, and thay were falsely reported that they did.

That's pretty much correct - although they DID hit targets, they didn't do what was actually required (warhead destruction)

 

The fact that those MiGs flew at all in the condition they were in just shows you how tuff those airframes are. Any F would simply stay on the ground. And that they were used in such a state for air to air combat is just a bad human error.

Meaningless drivel. ;)

 

I recall something about an F-15 landing without half a wing, A-10's landing with holes blown in their wings and missing engines - yeah, I'd say though are tough airframes. Would an 'F' stay on the ground if it was in as sad a condition as one of those migs? Not if it had to be used.

 

Amusing how good maintenance is being held against some of the best fighter aircraft in the world. Truly amusing.

Edited March 18, 2009 by GGTharos

[nscode]

They would sit on the ground without any option of getting airborn.

 

Want pictures of a wingless mig? :)

[GGTharos]

... while there are better conditioned aircraft to fly?

You bet.

 

Otherwise - I think you've seriously mis-judged a few things.

[topol-m]

Maybe you haven't heard of the PAC-3 ;)

Not only is the PAC-3 a dedicated and successful ABM interceptor, but following the experience from the first gulf war, PAC-2 versions were also quite successful at TBM intercepts.

 

 

I`ve heard about them. But I seriously doubt that they are any good against low, fast flying, maneuvering, deploying countermeasures targets. Despite that US autorities might tell that they can shoot down even UFOs. They might be improvement over the first Patriot but yet the older were told to be the "best" too, in fact we saw what they are best in - missing. I have a feeling the case here is similar - a lot of talking and no positive result.

[GGTharos]

Um ... they were used very successfully in GF2. Maybe you're the one doing a lot of talking?

 

I`ve heard about them. But I seriously doubt that they are any good against low, fast flying, maneuvering, deploying countermeasures targets. Despite that US autorities might tell that they can shoot down even UFOs. They might be improvement over the first Patriot but yet the older were told to be the "best" too, in fact we saw what they are best in - missing. I have a feeling the case here is similar - a lot of talking and no positive result.

[topol-m]

Um ... they were used very successfully in GF2. Maybe you're the one doing a lot of talking?

 

Instead of giving money for new AA systems US could just buy some S-400. Nah why when we could give some billion dollars more and create "better" missiles.

[X-man]

Please stick to the topic guys! Otherwise a moderator might show up and correct you ;) Oops, he's already here :P

[GGTharos]

*checks the topic*

 

Damn you X-Man :P

 

Alright, back on topic ;)

[Groove]

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/

 

Question: How many Su-35 will be in service in, lets say, 5 years?

[tflash]

Boeing targets a specific list of customers with this: see http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/Silent031709.xml

 

These weapon CFT's are a nice idea: some handsome suitcases to put your missiles in. Also allows to fly in a clean configuration, with all the advantages it brings. I guess this will be a modular approach, with customers deciding what they want. Maybe only the CFT's?

 

And if you need more payload/range, you just fit the old CFT's!

[CE_Mikemonster]

I think it's probably bloody loud.

 

Hahaha

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Question: How many Su-35 will be in service in, lets say, 5 years?

What do they need them for? There is no threat in the world that Russia face, that would require Su-35 in service. So why would Russia rush to produce something that does not really need at the moment?

[topol-m]

What do they need them for? There is no threat in the world that Russia face, that would require Su-35 in service. So why would Russia rush to produce something that does not really need at the moment?

 

 

I agree, they need them but not in great numbers. Why should they pay for production, maintenance of hundreds of aircrafts, when there is no need for such large airforce especially for fighters. Investment in other projects is better and thats what they are doing, ICBMs development and production for example.

[Grimes]

Thats quite a good looking aircraft. It seems like quite a sacrifice of payload though. Although I suppose this is a/c main goal is pure A2A combat.

[Weta43]

GG

No, you're definitely thinking they're magical. AESA has and always will be superior to PESA implementations. That's all there is to it - the AESA is more flexible, and typically more powerful. Detection ranges of the APG-63(v1) already had the thing picking up MiG-sized targets (a relatively low RCS target) in look down at 80nm in mountainous territory.

Really ?

 

Remember this?

PESA - Passive Electronically Steered Array or passive phased array radar

PRO's:

Agile electronically steered beam

Multiple antenna elements, as with conventional planar array

Low weight compared to MSA (mechanically steered array)

High power beam - since it has a single beam usually using a TWT (travelling wave tube)Beam width, shape, and obviously direction can be finely controlled

Much smaller radar signature with smaller side lobes - less apt to be jammed

Modes (A/A & A/G) can be interleaved and other modes can be time shared

Alpha

Keep in mind that this thread concerns the new Su-35 version and therefore much of the radar talk here takes outset in the PESA radar of this(Irbis-E) versus the AESA of the F-22(APG-77). Comparing these two particular sets, the PESA is by far the most powerful......peak output of 21 Kw vs. 12 Kw of the APG-77.

 

see this thread for a re-cap... (ED Forums » English » Reality » Military and Aviation » Su-35 first flight)

Edited March 19, 2009 by Weta43

[RedTiger]

GG

 

Really ?

 

Remember this?

 

Alpha

 

 

see this thread for a re-cap... (ED Forums » English » Reality » Military and Aviation » Su-35 first flight)

 

By "more powerful", I assumed he meant overall, not literally in the amount of energy it projects.

[GGTharos]

You're right, it has higher peak power. And that's the only advantage it has - I'll take a 1500 element APG-63(v2/3/4) or APG-77 over it any time; better frequency agility, better processing, not likely much shorter ranged.