What do you guys think now?

yeah, sure…

Eurofighter promo materials (for what’s that worth) claim the plane can sustain 1.5 mach with 4 amraams. With bigger a2a load and fuel tanks that drops to 1.3.

😮
those 2 big canards should help a lot… 😀

The problem with the Iraqi “insurgents/freedom fighters” is that they killed ten times more Iraqis than Americans.

As you might or not know…Raptor is a 5th generation fighter. They wanted it to supercruise since it was a gleam in the designers mind. On the other hand our beloved Flanker is a 4th generation fighter that the designer thought it should be maneuvrable. Supercruise wasn`t in the mind.
We could compare Su-27 with…let`s say…F-86 Sabre ?

That’s not the point.

If you would follow the posts, someone said ironically that US “discovered” the benefits of supermaneuvrabilty only after they had the F 22 operational. This is not true I said, since US studied the subject for same time ahead the Russians. Both the US and URSS had experimental manned planes about the same time (1989– Su 27 and Agile Eagle). I also add that TVC really make a difference in combat at high speeds/high altitudes. This is what makes the Raptor unique.

Then someone said that the Russians had the MiG 25 and the MiG 31 so they “discovered’ the high speeds for 30 years, to which I replied that is a big difference between flying fast and flying fast without afterburner. I also add that the Russians were not the only (or the first) ones that flew fast.

I didn’t compare older Russian planes with the last US ones, nor did I said that “US is the best”.

aurcov, I’d love to know the manuevering capabilties of the SH (possibly compared to the old one and a Mirage-2000). If you have any references, please post them

I know many here including me have rediculed Dr. Kopp at times but he did fly the SH and actually piloted it in the back and had the following to say about its handelling..

I would like to add to what bring it on posted, (also from Kopp’s flight ) :

A notable aerodynamic feature is a significantly enlarged strake design over the baseline Hornet, intended to improve vortex lifting characteristics in high AoA manoeuvre, and reduce the static stability margin to enhance pitching characteristics – Boeing cite pitch rates in excess of 40 degrees per second.

(http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5.htm)

The Super Hornet is a fighter with exceptional handling qualities, even by modern fighter standards, which even a novice can handle comfortably and with confidence at the edge of the low speed manoeuvre envelope.

The point which Boeing and the US Navy have made most convincingly, is that the aircraft’s flight control software is so robust that even a beginner on the type can fly it without embarrassing himself too badly. Sceptics should note that test pilot comments about fighters with this generation of flight controls being `as easy to fly as a Cessna 172′ are indeed correct. There is no room for argument here, as I had the opportunity to observe first hand!

In the hands of an experienced combat pilot, such flight control software means that the pilot can be wholly focussed on the furball in progress, and need not devote any thought to pushing the aircraft past the edge into a uncontrolled departure and resulting risk of a ground impact or successful enemy missile shot. The importance of a substantially departure resistant aircraft, especially if encumbered with stores, cannot be understated – carefree handling translates directly into combat effectiveness.

In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30. The analogue and early generation digital flight controls with hard-wired or hard-coded AoA limiters used in the Russian aircraft are a generation behind the Super Hornet and a much more experienced pilot will be required for the Russian types to match the ease with which the Super Hornet handles high alpha flight regimes.

(http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-5b.htm)

By the way, the SH is not my favorite plane. As a bomb truck (with good self-defense capabilties) is OK, due to superb avionics, especially when the APG 79 will be operational, MSI-multi sesor integration (the most advanced except the so-called sensor fusion of the F 22), ATLIR targeting pod –offering FLIR and IRST functions at long distances, PowerPC-based avionics, a 1Mb/s fiber optic databus, JHMCS/9X combo, lowest RCS from all convetional fighters and and the capability to carry all the sophisticated J familly weapons.

But as an air superiority fighter it sucks.

If you dont know something it doesnt mean it not exist. What you discovered today russian pilots knew for 30 years with Mig-25 and Mig-31 expirience.

What you should have discovered by now is that supercruise means flying over 1M without AB :diablo: :p 😀 Something that, I repeat, your beloved Flanker isn’t capable (and no Russian plane will be for some years). As well as maneuvring at high speeds/high altitudes in the way the Raptors does.

And by the way, MiG 25 and MiG 31 were indeed the fastest interceptors ever built, but let me remind you that the planes that reached for the first time 1M, 2M and 3M were American ones…So the Russians did not “discover” anything regarding high speeds…

Obviously aurcov has never seen the Fulcrum or Flanker Cobra in real life.

No, unfortunatelly I didn’t had the chance to see them live; i would love to. OTOH, I have some 25 mpegs with various Su xx and MiG 29 (3D TVC). And yes, I am impressed by their maneuvrability.

I am also impressed by the maneuvrability of the SH. In a knife fight it won’t be an easy opponent even for the latest of Su xx. Considering that it is a non-TVC plane, it is really impressive.

I am not discussing here the obvious disadvantages that the SH had, as a pure A-A, compared the the Flankers (slow speed, high drag, slow acceleration, smaller combat radius).

Coming back to the original topic, what the SH video shows is not a Cobra by far

Yeah, sure…:D :diablo: :p

Only time will tell. If the F-22 does manage to showcase some impressive flight performance (much unlike the previous attempts) in front of public eyes, supermanueverability would’nt be useless anymore.

You may have also read in the past that high AoA performance was also useless.

The Americans did not considered supermaneuvrability useless, otherwise there would not have pioneered TVC (on an unmanned plane, at NASA, in 1985). What they always said was that supermaneuvrability is really worth at high speeds/high altitude. It is in this part of the flying enveloppe that sm. pays off. It is also usefull at the oposite side of the flying enveloppe (low speed) but only an idiot would fly in this way in wartime. In the middle, where dogfights occur, sm. bring some advantages, but not so decisive.

So unless a fighter is not able to supercuise at 1.7M/60,000 feet, something that your beloved Flanker (or any future Russian plane in the comming years) can,t :p :diablo: 😀 supermaneuvrability is not useless, but at least futile.

So,

Dont belive all PR what media repeat. 90% pilots cant sustain 9G more then several seconds consious – and many will black out almost immediatly. Even 6G is too much for half of them – depending from personal endurance, moon phase and if they where with woman yersterday . I’ve spoken with some pilots, and all of them said that.

I never said that sustaining 9 G is easy ot pleasant. But any fighter pilot is required to susteanin 9G for a few secons, otherwise they never get in flying school.

RWR will only say what missile MAY BE fired – RWR will detect command sequences from radar to missile. But you know, radar can send these sequences WHITHOUT missile fired – i.e. so-called “simulation” mode. “Small” change in course will do nothing – especeally against long range missile as big as R-33.

It is the 3d time that I sugest a google. A SARH missiles can be guided only by illuminating continuosly the targets, from the very moment you fired it, up to the last metters of the flight! There is this particularity that let you know that you are targeted.

“Small” change in course will do nothing – especeally against long range missile as big as R-33. Missile will just change its direction. After all, thats why it have command guidance.

A 7G (I am not even mentioning 9G) is not a small change! especially when the fired missile can’t go over 4G. And especially when the illuminating aircraft can’t pull more thatn 5G!

I know for sure what prior to 1999 almost no F-16 and F-15 had any kind of datalink, not to say IFDL. That was confirmed by many ppls who served in that time.

Wrong again :p The predecesor of MIDS was called JTDIS and was installed on (a few is true) selected units of F 15 and F 14 in kid 60’…

I dont doubt that. Still, making 9G several minutes long will probably results in dead from endless laughting USSR pilots.

Not to mention the the airframes would be severely stressed. but Bo outturn a MiG 31/R 33 one is not obliged to make 9G for minutes 😀

So, only 360 F15A against THOUSANDS Mig-23, Mig-29, Su-27, Mig-31?

Again, in mid 80′ (a benchmark that you established) there were some 7-800 F 15 A/B/C/D and only a few dozens of MiG 29, MiG 31 and Su 27! As for the MiG 23 as a weapon… :p :p :p