yup. let’s wait until the thing actually flies. As a matter of interest the Russians had declared that their pilot in the SU-35 will beat ANY plane in the world in the hands of ANY pilot. Including the F/A-22. I for one would like to see a mock dogfight between the two…
You dont expect somene that involved in a billion dollar project to say’ It handles like a rusty Buick’ do you?
You mean like the generals who just flunked the C-130J in it’s opeval?
I am going to stop here before I say anything that will get me tossed into a federal pen. All I can say is believe the hype.
No U.S. general is going to admit that the F-22 may not stand a chance against a Russian-built Su-27, or Su-35, or Su-37. I’ve been to countless airshows, and seen the F-14 and F-15 fly, and the paid narrators talk of “…state-of-the art avionics and computer design…make the F-____ the dominant fighter of today’s skies…” blah blah blah.
If I had to bet, I’d put my money on the Su series. The Russians have been ahead of us for awhile…the F-22 doesn’t have vectored thrust, does it?
Case in point.
MA Cooke “…the F-22 doesn’t have vectored thrust, does it?”
Actually it does:
Advanced technologies in the F119 include integrated flight-propulsion controls and two-dimensional, thrust-vectoring engine nozzles.
Gonna throw my fists into the fray here…
Seems like there are quite a few people here who have fallen in love with this Su-35 contraption because it has sleek lines and can fly a good airshow routine. Whoopie. If good low-level acrobatics won air-to-air engagements, pilots would still be flying biplanes. Truth be told, the Su-35 looks to me to be the best and last plane of it’s generation. Planes like the F-22 and JSF represent the best of the new generation. “Slamming on the brakes” makes for good movies, but it’s not really going to do you any good when you’ve got a supersonic missile flying up your rear-end that was fired from an F-22 that never showed up on your radar screen.
Haha, this is good entertainment all. Honestly, you guys are starting to remind me of the kids on the vehicle forums getting into arguments and “bench racing”, otherwise known as talking out of your hindquarters. Noone has any real-world data on who would win in what types of fights, this is just bias being thrown around left and right. My thoughts? I would rather none of these beautiful aircraft HAVE to fight one another.
I do agree with AH1Wsnake, though. How when was the last air-to-air kill using cannons made? :brings out the popcorn and watches the chaos ensue:
You are not going to have that much luck against that in a visual fight. are you?
I would suggest people got very good with AMRAAM - of course, their missiles are supposed to be better !
A fact that I am missing in this dicussion is that the su-35 can operate from minimaly prepared strip, with minimal technical backup. A very handy factor in war, since airfields are a prime target.
I would also like to add that, according to the sources I have read, the F-22 is not a stealth plane, it therefore cannot “never showed up on your radar screen”. It is low observable but not stealth, as far as I can tell.
Also add the ‘Maintainable by conscripts’ into the mix and that spells trouble!
Typhoon/Meteor is looking better and better all the time.
BTW , I dont think we have a snowballs chance of seeing F35 (fully operational) by 2015, especially the v/stol config.
Lift fan run by a connecting drive shaft to the main hoover - plenty of blooper landing movies on the horizon!
I just hope the bang seats are as good as the Russian stuff.
Stealthdrake , wasn’t the first 22 crash something to do with pilot induced oscillation?
I remember seeing the nozzles moving up and down as it was bucking down the runway.
Gun kills were made in SEA by a F105, and beleive it or not, an A1 Spad! And, get this, a B52 tail gunner! Since that time however I am also unaware of any air to air gun kills.And Snake, Semper Fi, thanks for covering my six.
The crash you are talking about was caused by software issues tied in with PIO. This was also a YF-22, not one of the production birds. Pilot walked from the crash.
There are three basic rules for air-to-air engagements:
(1) Lose sight, lose the fight
(2) Speed is life
(3) If you ain’t cheating, then you ain’t trying!
Lose sight…
Yes, the F/A-22 is “low observable.” So is the F-117 and B-2. The definition of “stealth” over the years has been twisted in the collective conciousness to mean “totally invisible” whereas the actual definition is closer to “avoiding detection by moving carefully.” A radar can detect all three of the aforementioned aircraft, just at different ranges and conditions than so-called conventional aircraft. That’s why tactics are developed to maximize the strengths and reduce the weaknesses of an aircraft.
Speed is life…
A slow moving target won’t be one for very long. Slamming on the brakes and letting the other guy fly right past by work well for Maverick and Goose, but in the real world, they’re left with little kinetic and potential energy. For a fighter pilot, that’s a very dangerous situation.
So the F/A-22 isn’t the fastest plane in the skies? It was never meant to be. Speed doesn’t just meed maximum velocity. It’s power. It’s the ability to do things quickly. What the Raptor offers is powerful acceleration and the ability to sustain high speed flight. I’ve personally seen F-16s and F-15 struggle and fail to keep up with F/A-22s
If you ain’t cheating…
Combine low observability with a powerful, agile airframe and (from what I’ve heard) kick-ass avionics, and that’s a hell of a combination. Everyone’s looking for an edge; otherwise we wouldn’t have MiGs out there flying with helmet-mounted sights and Sukhois with canards and vectored thrust.
wow that was good fun!
and everyone managed to stay civil and polite!
there’s life in this forum yet.[:)]
Hey Trigger (and whomever else):
Per your “Speed is Life” paragraph, which is what I have always heard as gospel from fighter guys, what about or can you compare, how the Brits used the Sea Harrier in the Falklands? (Sounds like an essay question on a college final! [(-D])
I think the technique they (and maybe other Harrier communities?) use is called “viffing” which I have heard described as similar to deploying speed brakes. Or is there more to “viffing”, to where they aren’t losing all of their energy? If I remember my source document, it was a UK mag series called Airpower years ago and they disected the Harrier/Falklands campaign, but never went into details on viffing.
Rocky, how’s it going! (How’s that MH-68 coming along?) I thought I was the only one who remembered VIFFing!
Vectoring In Forward Flight
The Brits figured out that if they changed the angle of the exhaust nozzels while in forward flight, they could affect a quicker turn/reduced turn radius while keeping a their momentum. I don’t think they rotated the nozzels to a full 90 degree deflection, but rather used then in conjunction with the aerodynamic control surfaces (ailerons, elevators, etc). Any time you hit the breaks you lose kinetic energy and have to fight to regain it (unless you are at a high altitude, in which case you have potential energey that you can trade off for kinetic).
Basically the same thing the F/A-22 and SU-35 are doing now. What we’re seeing is that to acheive supermanuverability, the SU-35 is “overdoing” it. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying the SU-35 is too manuverable for it’s own good, just that it can get itself into trouble very quickly.
Trigger: 10-4. Thanks for the info! [tup]
And to go even more off topic:
As for the MH-68, its moving along, slow but sure. I thought the weapons were gonna be the hardest, Heck No! It looks like it will be the interior. The Revell-AG kit is a mod that the USCG must not use, as the bulkhead on the kit directly behind the pilots is solid, whereas that is wide open on the real one. And it is a major support structure for the model interior, so the modifications are moving along on that front first.
The exterior is very different, especially around the cabin doors, window placement and engine shroud. But to make all of those accurate, is beyond my skills, my patience and my sense of “time worthiness.” I think it will still build up as a very good representation of the real bird.
The kit itself, though, is a very good kit. The fuselage halves go together as tight as any I have ever seen, flash is minimal, and overall parts fit is very good. I’d recommend it to anyone looking for a 1/72 A109.
The USCG decals should be coming in any day now (my “guy” down under has been gone doing annual trng in the Aus Army reserves) which will be the last hurdle.
The only example I can offer to the “who’s better” question is, when I was in NROTC, our Gunny was selected for a tour with the British Marines, and said that he would have to train harder to get ready for them than he did for the US Marines. But, not really sure what that means in the aggregate.
to whoever asked about the cannon question, I BELIEVE (am not sure) that cannon kills have been made as recently as the early 90’s and late 80’s. For sure they were made thorugout the 70’s, with Israeilis gunnning the syrians, and vietnamese and USAF primarily dogfighting… Oh wait a sec!!! I just remebered!! In 1995 (Bosnia) A serb AF (or some AF) pilot took down an f-117A stealth fihgter with his cannons.
nice video never seen the whole thing before.
the stealth in bosnia was bagged by a SAM. the serbs had been noting the flight paths and seen the AF use the same ingress/egress routes all the time and essentially setup a flak trap. the SAM that took the stealth down was ballistic.
also… it’s somewhat amusing watching people who don’t know how to fight a jet argue about fighting a jet.