LmRaptorWhat will they fly? 🙂
________
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY
LmRaptorAs I’ve said, I’d like to see the SILVE results. They are not in the public domain as far as I can see, and Jon Lake told me about a year ago, that the F-22 team did a similar simulation to that of JOUST that yielded similar results. Lake said he would only release the results in a publication for money, obviously – So is the SILVE simulation the same as the one done by the F-22 team?
LmRaptorJackonicko – Is there any way to access the SILVE results online?
LmRaptor“The McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle has its origin back in the mid-1960s, when the US aircraft industry was invited to study US Air Force requirements for an advanced tactical fighter that would replace the F-4 Phantom as the primary fighter aircraft in service with the USAF. Such an aircraft needed to be capable of establishing air superiority against any projected threats in the post-1975 period.”
I know the F-15s history :). With about a 10 year gap in terms of in service date, I believe its a tad unfair claiming the F-15 was designed in those initial years to counter the Su-27. 🙂 Lets get a bit realistic here, this is all propaganda; its like believing the F-22 will be the best thing since sliced bread for the next 40 years as LM want us to believe. :).
“Requests for Proposals for the Project Definition Phase (PDP) were requested from eight different manufacturers on September 30, 1968. […] The aircraft was to superior in air combat to any present or projected Soviet fighters, both in close-in visual and in beyond-visual-range air-to-air combat.”
How well was the 27 projected 🙂 in 68?:dev2:
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_1.html
Against a Su-35BM armed with R-37Ms it will be on the defensive before it can bring that advantage (assuming it is big enough to make tangible difference) to bear! It is also worth mentioning that the Irbis radar has the widest gimbal limits of any current fighter radar and easily enough range to support the R-37M.
Are you being serious??? 🙂 The Su-35 is intended to use the R-37 against fighters such as the tiffy? I hope the 35 can get supersonic with a loadout of those awacs killers and I’d hope the tiffy’s FCS shuts down. I’d be a lot more worried if they equiped themselves with a Ramjet R-77 that seems to be struggling. Not to mention the IRBIS wont achieve a firing solution against the tiffy at 300 km, not to mention at the edge of its gimbal which is where it wants to be – so it can set off on a supersonic turn.
In the supersonic regime perhaps, although it is debatable how big it is and how much of an impact it will have in practise (see above). With TVC and a radically improved digital FBW system there is more to the Su-35BM than meets the eye, despite the deletion of the canards.
No! It’s not a matter of perhaps.. The EF’s configuration is aerodynamically BETTER in the supersonic regime. It’s a fact. Its runs circles around many of the jets its meeting at excercises. TVC ? FCS ? There are inherent disadvantages they have to cope with :).
No, I don’t think you’re missing anything. Relatively speaking, that IS a lot better than Novator’s complete lack of any real world testing though 🙂
.
LmRaptorThen pray tell, what is this UBER Flanker which the Typhoon was designed to beat :rolleyes: Seems you have a pretty good idea of what its configuration is, since you feel able to compare it to existing aircraft.
😎 You probably know I am refering to the DERA study and while you might find that laughable, the F-22 team did a similar study recently. While the results have yet to be released in the public domain.. according to Jon Lake, IIRC the studies showed similar results against an Su-35 type aircraft with uprated engines and avionics. Not dissimilar to the BM we see today. This if true, and I don’t see why it isn’t true, gives a degree of credibility to the JOUST simulations.
It is a notional design from more than 10 years ago, at best extrapolated from available information about the original Su-35. Both the Typhoon and that generic UBER Flanker were predicted to enter service much earlier than they did/will so all bets are off by now, to say the least. Sukhoi themselves found it hard to beat the existing F-15 when designing the Su-27, only on their second attempt did they create an airframe that performed as intended. Meanwhile, in doing so they did shatter MDD’s design objective of making the Eagle superior to any prospective Soviet successor to the MiG-23 generation :p At best, it remained equal due to the better radar on the F-15C.
I was under the impression, that at the offset the F-15 was designed to counter the Mig-23 gen and not its successors.
Just because it was designed to do something that doesn’t mean it actually delivers – especially when you are trying to meet a fleeting goal that keeps moving its posts. By that logic you could claim that the Su-35BM is stated to be superior to the Eurocanards by Sukhoi officials – therefore it MUST be true.
Without doubt I agree.
If you can show the Typhoon to be clearly superior by quantifyable measures that’s one thing, claiming it is just because the manufacturer said so 15 years ago (while clearly talking about a different aircraft, no less) is quite another.
I can and have many times… people really don’t understand the significance of the term supersonic agility. The effect it has in modern BVR engagements and having a radar like the Captor that performs brilliantly at the edge of its gimbal. This allows for as Paul Metz termed: cranking tactics.. whereby the EF with a Meteor can effectively launch and turn pulling high g’s while retaining energy giving it much higher survivability as compared to any Su-XX which essentially has a very similar airframe to the 70s designed Flanker. This is key and while no doubt the Su-35 is more than a match in WVR engagements HMD and Asraam make it 50:50 at least; I really wouldn’t want to fight Asraam. So yes performance wise the Eurocanards have an advantage over any of the current Su jets in the flight regimes that count. The BM will no doubt close the gap to an extent but it still has limitations in the supersonic regime.
I’d agree that the Su-35BM has no decisive advantage across the board over any of the Eurocanards. It has a few specific strongpoints and a few weaknesses as well – overall the match is pretty even and once AESA radars are introduced the Europeans may come out on top. However, by then the PAK-FA with its own AESA and a lower RCS may well be around the corner.
What I don’t get is why some feel the need to belittle something that is quite an achievement for Sukhoi to do based on a legacy design.
And thats the point :), while I definitely don’t want to come across as an Su hater because believe me I love them. I dont want to belittle them either, they have clearly created the best fighter aircraft that has its roots in the 70s but sadly that has limitations, still being based on a fighter design philosophy that is dying.
.
LmRaptorOne highly interesting development.
Yesterday, several Vympel and TMC (Tactical Missiles Corporation)representatives in Farnbourough “broke the furniture” (metaphorically speaking).
They called the Novator KS-172 program a “complete bluff“!
A few more quotes:
-“Will not end up in series production”
-“This missile is not going to be a real program, and you should not pay any atention to it.”On a side note, that article also ends one of my personal quests, “The search for the lost Missile” (AKA, Ramjet R-77 or KRPD-TT).
The only photos available were from a 1993 “Mockup”, and there were several non confirmed reports (some from 1999) that the project had stoped a long time ago. This article confirms those reports but ends with a hopeful note, Vympel “could revive it now”.
Taking into acount that the Bureau responsible for the Ramjet propulsion his closed since 2004, the radar “head” would have to be a new one and the latest iterations of the R-77 (Izdelye 180) lost the Molnya “lattice fins”, this “Ramjet Revival” would be a completely new weapon. So, it seems that we are not going to see a Ramjet R-77 for a very long time, if ever…The article is in page 12 here:
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/farnborough071608/Cheers
I wonder if the PAK-FA will end up with the same fate. Until I see the Russian companies deliver I really can’t get excited. They have dissapointed to many times in the past.
LmRaptorI’m talking about even at higher speeds. For instance check out these two pics of it flying with an Eagle. The Eagle’s wing is all cleaned up while the F-22 is still at partial flaps. Not saying it’s a good or a bad thing, just wondering the reason for it.
There is a lot of photographic and video evidence of the F-22 cruising on the net where the inboard flaps are not deployed at all – so in that relatively high speed case you have just given us I would assume the flaps are downed only instantaneously. The reason being: the F-22 is inherently unstable and like all NG jets such as the EF/RAFALE/GRIPEN, they require the computer to automatically trim the jet and maintain its straight and level flight. So as a result you will get the control surfaces of the jet at funny angles all the time – just to keep it flying straight.
________
Long term care insurance forum
LmRaptorWhat kind of NCTR system does Captor employ?
LmRaptorPerhaps. I don’t know. I think though that it’d have been interesting to compare them on their intended operational performance, the way they could have met in a real life engagement. In real life, as flown by OPFOR it might have had engines without detune, but would the USAF have tuned its engines in favour of thrust to only last 800 or 400 hours? 🙂
Oh I doubt it :), but im sure if needed they’d squeeze that extra 10 % performance out of them :); and they had relatively speaking a lot more performance potential to play with.
LmRaptorI have a question that might be related. If you look at almost every picture of the F-22 in formation with other jets it’s flying with partial flaps. Even when they’re cruising at speed. So the question I have is, is this a result of the wing being optimized for higher speed/altitude than is typical for other aircraft?
Yes the F-22 is as you say optimised for high speed and altitude -this shows in its wing design – but the wing is a great trade-off as its really impressive as we have seen down low and slow aswell. The videos I have seen of the jet flying with the Red Arrows show it didnt use its flaps much at all. Whereas it did use them with the Heritage aircraft formations to an extent – such as in those slow slow turns; but less so while cruising. Obviously this is done for saftey especially in a turn as the jet doesnt want to approach its stall speeds while keeping in a turn with a WWII fighter.
________
GLASS BUBBLERS
LmRaptorOne has to keep in mind though, that the Germans got already detuned MiG-29A, which had then their engine power detuned by another 10% to increase engine life.
Its a two way street – the yanks could have uprated the performance of the F-16 to get 800 hours instead of its 4000 hours – then it would be a level playing field performance wise with the Mig-29; or perhaps even the original 400 hours spec.
LmRaptorI like Fairford as it’s pretty close as I live between Bristol and Sevenoaks (south east). Hope they don’t change the venue.
________
Easy vape digital herbal vaporizer
LmRaptorSo cynical Sens :), don’t you believe in military secrets :)? Where is the romance in military aviation without secrets :)?
________
HEALTH-FORUMS.ORG
LmRaptorAs for the problem of altitude….I think if the fighters want to show their skill to the viewer on the ground, their flight altitude should be at the similar low-level……
As for probability that F-22A and/or EF-2000 doesn’t/don’t do their best in the video I’ve gotten……well, may someone here provide the better video(s) to me?? Thank you very much.
According to AIR International 2008 July, “Raptor swoops into Britain”:
Major Paul D “Max” Moga, the pilot for Raptor’s airshow in UK?
1. The skills that Raptor will show in UK: tail-slide, extreme turning, back-flip, Helicopter J-turn, and Power loop.
2. The range of Raptor’s G-load during the airshow: -3/-2G ~ +9.5/+10.5G.
3. The maximal instaneous turn rate during the airshow: more than 40 to 50 degrees per second ~Personally, I don’t believe this kind of turn rate can be achieved in traditional turning, which will cause the G-load which is so high that it’s impossible for human’s body to endure it. I think it can only be achieved during the skills of superagility, such as Helicopter J-turn or back-flip.
Heya :). The best videos displaying the F-22s turn rate are over at F-16.net with links to you tube. This is just one its called a Fish Hook turn and its instaneous turn where the F-22 is doing well above 40 or 50 degrees per second its actually closer to 90 in the initial second and then it does about 160 degrees in 3 seconds or less so averaging out at 53 degrees per second – as you can see from the vid the jet is not going slowly either. But I agree at the speed its traveling and turning at such a rate the G load would become pretty hefty. But as I say toan you really cant compare the videos – and you must remember what the operational conditions are likely to be, the 8 missiles F-22 carries are not adding any penalty to the jet in those turns.
Edit lol I forgot to add the link 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo65qpEdOl8
________
Babes Webcam
LmRaptorYou are very clearly confusing the Su-35 and the Su-35BM. :rolleyes:
Nope I’m definitely not. If we had the old Su-35/37 take on a tiffy it wouldn’t be a fair fight. The BM seems closer to the UBER flanker that the Typhoon was designed to beat.
Go read up on cranking tactics – the basic Su-27-30-35-37-BM was definitely not designed with supersonic agility in mind, in fact non TVC variants are rumoured to be less efficient in this area than the F-15. They are based on 70s airframe that is going to have real issues when dealing with the new supersonic BVR game that the west wants to play.
Sign In
