# SU-27



## marconi (Jul 3, 2005)

Most of the Russian sources state that SU-27 is the best modern fighter and it has no analogues in the world.How true is this statement? Is it really the best fighter?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2005)

Nope... The F-22 Raptor ownes that title...


----------



## marconi (Jul 3, 2005)

Maybe, but how many of them are in the Army, Air Forces, Navy or anywhere else? X-fighter from "Star wars" is also superior to SU-27.Lets talk about more "usual" fighters which are believed to be the main air power of the USA, UK and other NATO countries nowadays.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2005)

There a whole squadrons of them, and they own anything else in the sky..... And the whole XWing comment is just plain wise ass attitude, so watch ur mouth...


----------



## marconi (Jul 3, 2005)

Well? I'm sorry if I offended you but I really thought that they aren't adopted by the USAF. Yet still I'm interested in your opinion about SU-27.As I've said before Russians say that it is better than any NATO fighter
(excluding F-22 ). Is it true or is it partially true or is it propaganda?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 3, 2005)

SU-27 is probably a great aircraft. How proficient are Russian pilots these days? I have heard that money is limited and Russian pilots only fly a few hours a month. You could have the best plane in the world but if you don't stay proficent flying it you might as well just park it. 

The USAF plans to buy 339 F-22s. Right now I believe 10 have been built.


----------



## marconi (Jul 3, 2005)

The situation in Russian army is not that bad these days.They even have some real combat practicing in Chechnya.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 3, 2005)

i've always believed the Su-27 was/is a truely great plane, cirtainly better than the F-15, proberly equal with the F-22, she is a phenominal bird, and the russians have some of the worlds finest pilots too........


----------



## plan_D (Jul 3, 2005)

I read that the USAF had started training a "few" pilots in the F-22 in late 2004. So, it's a regular aircraft in my book because it's starting to see training service. Most likely in operational conversion units.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2005)

For what its worth I believe that the SU27 is an excellent aircraft aerodynamicaly roughtly equal to the F15 but let down by its avionics which are behind the latest in the west.
Its certainly better than other western jets in service, Tornado's, Mirages, F16, but how it would handle the latest wave of planes, Eurofighter, Rafael, Grippen I don't know. my suspicion is that it would lose out on the avionics which is so important these days.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 5, 2005)

Glider said:


> For what its worth I believe that the SU27 is an excellent aircraft aerodynamicaly roughtly equal to the F15 but let down by its avionics which are behind the latest in the west.
> Its certainly better than other western jets in service, Tornado's, Mirages, F16, but how it would handle the latest wave of planes, Eurofighter, Rafael, Grippen I don't know. my suspicion is that it would lose out on the avionics which is so important these days.



Agree - but as mentioned earlier I understand that the Russian AF is money strapped and training hours are limited. If you don't stay proficient, you could have the best wiz-bang fighter in the world and you'll be worthiless in combat. I recently read that the average Russian pilot only flies 3 hours a month!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 7, 2005)

The Su-27 is a great aircraft. Probably the best of its kind in the world especially when compared to the F-15, F-16 and so forth however the F-22 is coming into Service now which means it is in service and it is the same kind of fighter as the Su-27. Therefore it should be counted against the Su-27 and it beats out the Su-27 hands down.

I still love the Su-27 though. I got to see it fly at an airshow in England. Man it was impressive.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2005)

FJ is correct the amount of training that the Soviet Pilots have would be a concern for most countries.
The F22 is the best fighter around and is likely to remain so for the medium/long term but its numbers will be limited and I doubt if many, or even any will be sold to other countries.
With that in mind Marconi does have a point and the 'normal' fighters should be compared to the SU27. My position has been stated before and I believe that it will be second to the latest Eurofighters, Rafael, Grippen. As a result they will not be a major concern to Europe but will be when bought by countries hostile to Thailand, Taiwan and other allies of the west who will not be able to affort the more modern planes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 8, 2005)

what about the S-37 then?? if they ever find the money to develop it more??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2005)

I posted some cool pics of the Su-37 and 47 in another thread somewhere, I dont remember where but if you want to see them you can go find them I guess. There was also some info on the thrust vectoring they have.


----------



## marconi (Jul 27, 2005)

BTW I saw some pictures of American analogue of S-37.As far as I know that project was abandoned in 1980's.Does anybody know anything about it?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jul 27, 2005)

Russian R&D has always impressed the hell out of me. Even today, while the Russian military as a whole may not have the biggest budget, the best training, or the largest numbers (compared to the old Soviet military), they still continue to develope some amazing machines. They may or may not ever see widespread service in the Russian Air Force, but they're still amazing machines. 

(I wish I could say the same thing about Canada.  )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

I am not sure when the project was canceled. I actually thought it was still an ongoing project.


----------



## marconi (Jul 28, 2005)

As far as I remember the "American S-37" is called X-29A


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

I think the S-37 was developed after the X-29. The X-29 first flew on December 14, 1984. The second one didn't fly until almost 5 years later, on May 23, 1989. The first one flew at least 240 test flights. It was a good test bed for testing new technologies, but it was proven the forward swept wing did not improve aerodynamic drag like it was theorized. But it was used to prove out a number of other theories and improvements including vortex control and using canards for improved longitudinal control.

From what I have read, the S-37 started as the S-32 and that development was in the 1990s. But this was not the first Russian airplane with forward swept wings. Was the S-37 influenced by thee X-29? Hard to say as the Russians had played with FSW in the 1970s as well.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 31, 2005)

The Russians though have been giving some of these away to other Airforces, Indonesia has got them, and the RAAF has vitually lost our only effective fighter against them- the F-111. There needs to be more fighters like it however, no-one has tackled the problem of creating a fighter just as good. It is okay for the Americans as they have a lot of money, Airforce bases etc. everywhere to defend themselves but Australia doesn't and therefore Australia needs the long-range fighters. Even aerial refueling doesn't really work that well in extending the FA-18s reach over the whole of Australia. The F-111 is a proven aircraft, and we won't get its replacement until 2015 or more- an aircraft designed to replace the F/A-18 Hornet in US service. Therefore it is doubtful whether it will meet Australia's need for a long-range fighter. Maybe it is time Australia started shoping around rather than going straight to the US. Russia being a country with areas similar to Australia in remoteness may have what Australia needs to use to maintain an effective airforce. Australia's F-111 will also be retired before the replacement is due in service, leaving us without this capability. Some of the airforces on Australia's back door-step are armed with this aircraft as well as other Soviet designs.


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2005)

| dont want to worry you, but if your banking on F111 to take on Su27 then you are on a loser. The F111 is a strike plane and unless I am mistaken the ones in the RAAF are modified A versions well behind the slope when it comes to ability.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 31, 2005)

I agree with Glider. The F-111 is an excellent ground attack and strike aircraft, but it is no match for modern fighters. Remember that the F-111 is 1960s technology. They are expensive to maintain and prone to compressor stalls. The F models are the fastest ones and can outrun almost any airplane below 2000 feet, but they use a _lot_ of fuel to do so. 

The Hornet is a much better fit to go after modern fighters. It may not have the range of the F-111, but normal fighters don't have as much range as strike aircraft. 

Although I do know about an F-111 that took out an F-16 during an exercise with an extreme method, that would not be a normal occurance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 31, 2005)

My father-in-law has several hundred hours in F-111s. He said it was one of the fastest aircraft he ever flew. If it was made out of different material it would eventually go mach 3, but it was no dogfighter and was not very maneuvable, so he says.....


----------



## Glider (Jul 31, 2005)

Extreme situations are very enjoyable. We had a Buccaneer that somehow got behind an F5 aggressor in a Red Flag exercise and stayed there for a few glorious seconds. 
Buccaneer's weren't armed so the F5 pilot would have been safe but as our pilot pointed out, the safest place was behind him so he stayed there as long as he could.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

Yes the F-111 could not outfly a Su-27 or Mig-29 or hell even any of the next generation Russian fighters. As Glider said it was a strike aircraft and not a fighter in that sence.

You can go to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC and see the X-29.


----------



## HealzDevo (Aug 9, 2005)

I was meaning that we need that to help us cover our coast, plus it is the only long-range one we have that can hope to intercept any aircraft along our coast. If the US can design Australia a long-range fighter then they should rather than short-range stuff they are currently designing like the F/A-18 Hornet and the F-22 Raptor.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2005)

Why do you need long-range aircraft for defence? Long range is for offence, the Lightning had an extremely short range and was a perfect defensive machine. 

Short-range, fast and reliable is what a defensive aircraft needs to be.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2005)

I think the days of the long range US fighter are gone. Carriers will get attack aircraft and fighters close enough to the action. Big bombers and cruise missiles are also effective. Warfare has changed and the need for long range fighters is no longer there.


----------



## Glider (Aug 9, 2005)

Australia is a big place with a small population so any fighter needs a decent range. A Lightning type plane would be close to useless as it couldn't cover the area that needed defending. In the 60's the Australians bought the Mirage 3 and found that was a major weakness.
Cruise missiles etc have changed the battlefield and one fallout is that the enemy can hit you from further out. With that in mind you need to have an air force that can operate a good distance from base. I am not saying that you should buy an F14 type plane but modern fighters do have a good range and can cover the requirement.
For Switzerland go for a short range fighter, for Australia you need something bigger.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 9, 2005)

It's a big place and a sparsely populated place. It doesn't need to cover the entire terrain, just the coast. Well positioned airfields can solve the problem of short range combat aircraft.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 9, 2005)

Precisely the position that the Canadian Air Force is in these days. Two fighter bases to cover the entire country. One in Québec, the other in Alberta. They're both operating F-18's. It's a stretch, and as has already been proven on more than one occasion, it's not _nearly_ enough for a country this size. They just can't always get to where they need to be quickly enough, and by the time they get there they're in need of fuel in order to be of much use.

I tend to agree with most of what plan_D is saying. With enough squadrons properly positioned, short/medium-range fighters should provide adequate protection. Even to a country the size of Australia. Small population or no, that's still a huge chunk of geography. Bases don't necessarily need to be positioned only near the population centres.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2005)

But if you are talkiung about defense, you would be defending against an assault coming from the outside, hence the need for short range from coastal regions. You could also acquire tanker aircraft to allow greater distances and loiter in spots that are away from the action but available to the fighters and to allow ferrying of fighters from place to place.


----------



## Glider (Aug 9, 2005)

I think Evan has it right. With short range planes by definition you must be close to population areas. A Medium size plane with air to air refueling should cover it. 
As for the situation in Canada, two bases for that size of a country is really stretching things. It must take hours to react to a situation which is very risky in the current environment.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 9, 2005)

All perfectly sensible reasons to increase defence spending and start building up the forces again, but in the meantime it's all we have. No one ever said we were overly bright, I'm afraid.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2005)

I am sure that if push came to shove, you could ask your friends to the south for help though, NS. Any threat to you guys would also be a threat to us.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 9, 2005)

And that's exactly what our government is counting on. That's the single biggest reason why the military of Canada has been allowed to languish and decay the way it has been over the last forty years. Ottawa is banking on the US of A to come to the rescue. It makes us nothing more than cheap freeloaders. Some neighbours, huh?

Sorry guys, please carry on with the intended discussion. I always seem to do this. Sorry.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 9, 2005)

No worries. I understand where you are coming from. It sucks that the government there has that mentality.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 9, 2005)

Well, I'll just say this one last thing on the subject. If any invasion _does_ come to us, a lot of us are pretty certain it'll be the States. Sooner or later Uncle Sam is going to have had enough of his goofy neighbour upstairs, and decide to clean his house for him. 

Regardless of who it is or where it happens, we're going to get our asses handed to us if we don't soon wake up. It's a sad fact.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

I personally think the F-18 can do just what Australia needs. If they dont like what the US is producing buy from some place else or build your own.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 10, 2005)

It really is a perfectly good fighter. Outstanding really, even though those old airframes are over twenty years old in the case of Australia and Canada. More up to date versions of the F-18 would be ideal. The F-18E and F Super Hornet models would be tremendous, with their increased range and payload capabilities.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2005)

I agree.


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

The Sukhoi "Flanker" airframe (ie. airframe development project no. Sukhoi-T10-1 through 15, for example), is released in the various Flanker and Platypus models which include the 27, 30, 33, 34, 35 and 37 aircraft portfolios and their variants. They're all Su-27s in UB, K, IB and PU portfolio designations, among others.

So which Sukhoi "Su-27" are you talking about? The latest SuperFlankers are more than capable of going toe to toe with an F-22 and are likely to outmatch all other aircraft currently in service. The 1981 model clearly outmatches any fighters which were in service during that decade...or the next.

The basic airframe development itself was named for the first combat portfolio delivery which was earmarked, the Su-27 basic fighter to be offered for export.
The 15 T-10 prototypes were therefore named the Su-27 and they promptly started killing pilots. The "Flanker-A" never saw service for this reason.
A "Flanker-B" was developed through redesign and that became the Su-27. But that's not the one people saw in air shows like Farnborough.

A special P-42 development was used to test the airframe limitations and this is the one which set the 27 world records currently held by the Flanker airframe, including rate of climb to 40,000-odd feet in just over 55.5 seconds.

The Su-27PU (Su-30) is a specialised, two seat long range interceptor designed to slave rig up to four single seat Su-27 "Flanker-B" variants into its avionics via radio data link so they can switch off their radars and still target enemy aircraft with complete electronic invisibility. It's basically a redesigned Su-27UB orientated for 10+hr individual missions, the new generation AWACS you don't want to mess with as it's still fully combat capable and usually very heavily armed.

The Su-27IB and KU Flankers (Su-34 "Platypus") are a side by side two seat configuration that can deliver a deep penetration strike package on missions so long it has a galley in the cabin and retains the fighter performance of a front line interceptor for self defence. It's a 21st century F-111 and easily outclasses the deep penetration strike capabilities of the F-22A _and_ its proposed derivatives (FB-22 delta wing tactical strike aircraft).

The F-22 has a released top speed of Mach 1.8 by the way, rated closer to Mach 2 by independant enthusiasts, and is designed for high load bearing, low-mid altitude performance (helped with 2D variable geometry engine outlets) and multirole capability (a feature built in to its ubiquitous avionics, it needs only a software tape to perform penetration strike roles, for example). Its main feature is supercruise, that is non-augumentation supersonic flight for increased range under combat conditions, and a high survivability (low radar visibility and EM emission).
Its air superiority feature was never designed to be a focus, but a capability. It is an excellent aircraft, but is ridiculously expensive and thus was fully intended to unify as many requirements as possible, including parts commonality with other new generation US aircraft.

The Su-35 Flanker ("SuperFlanker") has a rearward facing radar for over the shoulder missile fire (just like the movie "Firefox"), a triplane canard layout, higher rated engines (some 29,900lbs st aug. apiece), and a new avionics package. This is the basic air superiority variant and is easily en par with the most advanced fighters in the world.
When tacticians say the Eurofighter can take on a Flanker, they're most certainly not talking about this one. Introduced as a stop-gap for the Su-37 whilst its engines were under development.

Su-37 SuperFlanker has engines rated for Mach 3 (airframe design limits are still Mach 2.35), 3D variable geometry exhaust outlets and updated avionics again. It was probably conceived to counter the YF-22A, which it is likely to do, since such things were not in the engineering requirements of the YF-22 in the first place, the previous two decades of typical US military action was.
As the eventuation of a design concept begun in 1969, the SuperFlanker is probably the last true remnant of the Cold War era. It's deadly.

Su-47 Berkut is a different airframe, with forward swept wings, stealth features and 3D variable geometry outlets. Emphasis appears to have moved to high transonic performance against older and export aircraft as opposed to single purpose fighter-interceptors that can also lay waste to a small city.

As is typical of all the latest fighters of the 21st century, the SuperFlankers and Berkut series avionics can probably tell you how much an enemy pilot weighs, what he was thinking about last night and does better CGI than George Lucas. The thought that Flankers have poor avionics is ridiculous (this was a reputation given to early and export MiG-29S and SE Fulcrums which were not fly-by-wire, the latter as is typical of Soviet exports also had downgraded radar; resolved in the MiG-29M indigenous to CIS air forces).

The Flanker is probably one of the projects which broke the Soviet economy, now the basic Su-27 Flanker-B and Su-27UB variants are available dirt cheap on the export market, along with the excellent MiG-29 Fulcrum (the detuned version as far as I know). It's less expensive and a much better prospect than equipping with used Eagles and export Vipers for a small nation, hence has been growing in popularity in the Asiatic region. The only decent thing about these yesteryear fighter exports from the US is the product support, which although ridiculously expensive (bit of a theme for the US military expenditure really, isn't it), at least it exists.

Here's a picture of an Su-37 SuperFlanker. Pray they never deliver them to the Middle East.






Here's a Platypus variant.





Here's the Berkut.


----------



## vanir (Aug 13, 2005)

Now to Australia's defence needs.

According to the RAAF (published in a service magazine), the F-35 purchased to replace both the F18's and F111's are utterly incapable of performing the task, however were a decision based on the greater inadequacy of the existing aircraft to do so effectively for the future and overall costs.
What the RAAF would have preferred in fact would be a compromise of relatively small numbers of F-22A and an F-35 force to take up the slack.

Part of the prime consideration was a long range penetration strike capability necessary for defending Australia's huge territories in a relatively sparse surrounding region. Whilst shorter range strike multiroles such as the Hornet and F35 were capable of coastal defence, the threat to Australian territories are likely to include conventional MRBM strikes from distant naval forces and land based locations.

Another consideration was the South East Asiatic region's increasing purchase of dirt cheap Soviet 21st century fighters like the Flankers and Fulcrums, the former which has a 4,000km range and full tactical strike capability plus air superiority performance and the latter which is considered one of the most manoeuvrable fighters in the world today and possibly one of the scariest dogfighting prospects a pilot might face.

F-22A's are considered to have an excellent air superiority characteristic and its supercruise ability is almost custom designed for deep penetration strike and supersonic interception alike. Their actual combat response range is spectacular.

The F-35 is a transonic multirole with supersonic dash and good all round modern performance. It was primarily designed as a cost saving exercise to capably replace Marines Harrier and Hornet, plus Navy Hornet and Air Force Vipers all in one swoop and combine it with "stealth" technological commonality (ie. more high survivability than actual stealth is involved in new generation "stealth" aircraft, any country with a good mobile phone coverage knows precisely where a stealth aircraft is flying at any given moment, but they're still hard to target with weapons guidence systems).

Due to the proposed gap in Australia's defence coverage by an F35 whole force, the F111's had been earmarked to continue in service until some time around 2015 but this is beginning to look unlikely. Although not officially decommissioned, most of them are already being mothballed and relatively few are actually airworthy (something like six I think).

Australia uses primarily F111C's by the way, often fitted with a vulcan although a small handful of used F111G's were bought when they were decommissioned by the US, so I think most of the C's are being used for parts.

There's new developments all the time mind you. Here is an excerpt from another aviation forum:


> Defence Minister, Sen Robert Hill stated late yesterday that the RAAF F-111's will be kept on untill 2020 and cited the Indonesian purchase of Su-30's as the reason.
> 
> "The Super Flankers can take off in Java and strike at Alice Springs and then return without needing to refuel in mid air. This consitutes a problem in our defence force if we can not counter that" Sen Hill said.
> 
> ...


Personally I had no idea the Indonesians had bought Su-30's, I thought they only had Su-27's. This is very bad, as it means you won't pick up their Su-27's without a dedicated search, as their radars will be initially switched off during a military action. Su-30's are as I mentioned in my last post are, apart from a very deadly combat aircraft, a new-generation sort of AWACS, very roughly speaking.

Here is a quote from a science and technology publication:


> An issue has arisen with the Joint Strike Fighter where the Pentagon is not sharing technology sufficiently for nations that are contributing to the JSF program to bid on parts of the program. The US is paying the bulk of the development project ($27B vs $3.5B). The Joint Strike Fighter eventually entering the Australian Defence Force raises issues on just what project Australia should have and what the defence doctrine in the South Pacific should be.
> 
> The JSF will replace the F18 and F111 in Australia. The F111 alone currently accounts for sixty two per cent of Australia's strike throw weight. Adopting the JSF will result in a loss of Australian strike power by a third. The JSF is an American solution to the American strategic needs of global projection backed by the huge US military infrastructure. Australia requires regional projection with independence of operation.
> 
> The JSF is not a solution to Australia's strategic issues. The solution is for Australia to either develop a replacement for the F111 itself, or to partner with other Pacific Rim countries in similar strategic positions, such as Japan, South Korea or Taiwan, to create a long range, infrastructure immune strike aircraft.


The full article, which is interesting is available here:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/1/8/74257/90039

I personally don't understand why Australia hasn't been buying Flankers and Fulcrums, it could certainly do so more cheaply than this F35/F22 US economic farce.
I'd rather have 80 Flankers than 25 F22's any day of the week. We developed our own F-18 "C" commonality avionics package (under ridiculously expensive license of course), so we could bring early Flanker B variants up to SuperFlanker scratch ourselves, the PU variant itself (Su-30) is already there.
Besides we've been sucking up to the east so much in the last decade I'm sure Russia would sell us fly-by-wire Fulcrums to boot, for less than the cost of a used F16 Viper (one day somebody will tell how that one figured out).


----------



## evangilder (Aug 13, 2005)

I personally never understood why the Aussies bought the F-111 to start with. As a strike aircraft, the F-111E and F versions were quite fast and very effective. Below 2,000 feet, there were no threats to the F-111F. It could fly _very_ fast at low altitude. It was a huge threat to the USSR because of it's capability to hug the contours of the earth at a high speed. But while those capabilities were important during the cold war, they became less important after the cold war. 

The F-111C was a capable aircraft...in the 70s. But by the late 80's, early 90's, the aardvark was an aging craft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2005)

Three is nothing out there that can coutner a F-22. You say that the Su-37 had thrust vectoring to counter the F-22 which did not have it in the designs specs. The F-22 actually has better thrust vectoring than that of the Su-37. The Su-37 is a marvelous plane but the future is the F-22.


----------



## pilotman (Oct 4, 2005)

have to agree. the F-22 according to evrything I,ve read is the best of the best. Combat sim. prior to official purchase by the airforce pitted 6 F-15s against 1 F-22. F-22 pilots only concern was running out of missiles.
as to my home country, Australia. at the outbreak of war (hypothetically) john howards on the phone to george w. "help"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Australia has always been a marvelous fighting force and allways fought well on the side of there allies.


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

The F22 is likely to be hideously expensive and having some idea of your defence budget I would be surprised if you purchased any, whatever the politicians say now. 
My guess is that you will be looking at alternatives to the F22. Typhoon springs to mind as does the Grippen as a backup. 
The UK are getting concerned over the lack of transparency in the sharing of the technology for the support. No one has said anything officially as there is little alternative to the F35 for the Fleet Air Arm. For the RAF however, the Grippen would make a good partner for GA. We already have a share as the wings were designed and I think are built by BAE so financially that would be a good plan B.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 4, 2005)

Canada has also been eying the F-35, but I'd be a bit surprised if we actually puchased any. We shall see.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

I see the program being cut even more in the United States because of the cost. I doubt they will cancel the program they will just buy less of them.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

One reason thrust vectoring is not a great idea is it advertises its infa-red signature all over the sky. 

One of my friends was a project engineer at the old Mac-Dac facility, and he told me that when the powers-that-be saw how unstealthy the thrust vectoring is, they began rethinking the concept.


----------



## Glider (Oct 4, 2005)

Once your in combat I don't suppose you mind being none stealthy as they know your there. Or do you know if was he saying that in cruise the thrust vectoring is non stealthy?


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 4, 2005)

Being in cruise and not being stealthy is not a good idea these days. the IR wont be seen from way off, but having those huge steel thrust vanes sticking out is like turning on a searchlite saying "here I am".

One problem they had in a close up dogfight with thrust vectoring, is the IR was being directed everywhere, allowing the (then) next generation IR seekers a solid, almost impossible to break lock on it.

There was one other thing he mentioned too........ the thrust vectoring would give you astounding agility, but it was at the cost of high gee loads for the pilot, even higher fuel consumption, plus if you were at slow speeds and used it, you were a sitting duck for the AAM's.

Note - his project role was designing the actual thrust vane shapes and interfaces.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I still think though that short-range fighters are next to useless in a country like Australia and stand by my comment that the US needs to pull its head out and start designing longer range fighters that can actually do something instead of short-range fighters. Australia is only purchasing those aircraft in my opinion to butter up the US. If there is a war with our Asian neighbours (like Indonesia who is very hostile), all the politicians like Howard will be out of here on a private flight to the US. Don't get me wrong Indonesia is an Asian country that has kept relatively peaceful with Australia, however there have been signs such a peace can't last... Australia needs to be able to defend itself and shove the Indonesian covert threats down their throats. Indonesia hates us for East Timor and a few other things. They will attack and when they do it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

HealzDevo said:


> it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.



How do you figure? No one forced Australia to buy F-18s or -111s. I worked on the P-3 program and it was made clear to me on many occasions (By members of the RAAF) that if we (Lockheed) didn't produce, the RAAF would be flying Atlantiques within a year!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Glider said:


> Once your in combat I don't suppose you mind being none stealthy as they know your there. Or do you know if was he saying that in cruise the thrust vectoring is non stealthy?



It has nothing to do with stealth in combat. The heat signature needs to be reduced so that it is harder for a missle to track it.



HealzDevo said:


> I still think though that short-range fighters are next to useless in a country like Australia and stand by my comment that the US needs to pull its head out and start designing longer range fighters that can actually do something instead of short-range fighters. Australia is only purchasing those aircraft in my opinion to butter up the US. If there is a war with our Asian neighbours (like Indonesia who is very hostile), all the politicians like Howard will be out of here on a private flight to the US. Don't get me wrong Indonesia is an Asian country that has kept relatively peaceful with Australia, however there have been signs such a peace can't last... Australia needs to be able to defend itself and shove the Indonesian covert threats down their throats. Indonesia hates us for East Timor and a few other things. They will attack and when they do it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.



Oh my god I can not believe you just wrote that. Do you know how ignorant you just sounded by maked these statements: *in a country like Australia and stand by my comment that the US needs to pull its head out and start designing longer range fighters that can actually do something instead of short-range fighters. Australia is only purchasing those aircraft in my opinion to butter up the US. * and *Australia needs to be able to defend itself and shove the Indonesian covert threats down their throats.* and _*They will attack and when they do it will be the US's fault if Australia falls through inadequate aircraft to defend itself.*_. 

Lets see lets annalize this a bit:

You say the US needs to pull its head out of its ass and build fighters that Australia can use. Give it up. Why does Austalia not build its own planes. Infact why dont you design them because you know what Australia needs better than we do. If anyone needs to get there heads out there ass then it is Australia.

You say thatAustralia needs to defend itself, then design and build you own things to defend youself with, dont blame other countries for you own damn problems

You say it will be the US's fault. Hello it is not the US's fault that Australia needs help to defend itself. Grow up, get a better military and realize your own problems. The US has eneogh to worry about on its own than making sure you are happy. Australia is capable eneogh to build its own planes, dont buy from the US then. Infact write a letter to your governemnt telling them this because you obviously can do a better job than them. Oh and when Australia needs the US help, maybe just maybe we wont be there.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

But the U.S will be there. I don't think the U.S or Australian governments pay attention to the simple minds of their population. That said, most government folk just don't have minds at all, let alone a simple one. 

If Australia couldn't rely on the U.S for arms deals, it'd just build it's own. Either that, or it's screwed. You can't blame another nation for not producing your aircraft. It's the Australian government that gives the order. If it wanted a long-range fighter, it'd send the specifications out to all the U.S companies. If you're really bothered, blame your own government ...you can't blame the U.S. 

Take a challenge in your life ...blame someone else but the U.S 'cos blamin' the U.S is so damn popular, and it's so easy to do from an armchair.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

You hit the nail there pD. The Australian government puts the order. That ignorant post though just pissed me off. If you dont like the US products build you own damnit!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 6, 2005)

Some downloadable Su-27 videos:

http://personal.auna.com/ptma1/su27_armas.avi

The navy version:

http://personales.ya.com/tupolev/su33.avi


Su-35/37:

http://personales.ya.com/ptma/su35-37.wmv


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 6, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You hit the nail there pD. The Australian government puts the order. That ignorant post though just pissed me off. If you dont like the US products build you own damnit!



Venezuela has some F-16s for sale!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

I hear they want to give them to China.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2005)

Yep - would be interesting!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

I dont they would be able to use them effectively.


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2005)

Dangerous assumption. If Venezulea can I expect the Chinese will work it out


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Who said the Venezuelans would be successful with the F-16. You have to realize that the no one knows the capabilities of the F-16 better than the US and they would be able to counter either opponents F-16 pretty easily I would guess. I am not talking about Chinese Mig-29's or anything just the F-16's.


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2005)

I doubt if the USA would have any problems as I think they are F16A machines that they are having trouble maintaining. That being the case they would do well to get them airworthy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

That I believe the Chinese could do.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

S-37 is a different plane entirely (later designated SU-47) which was devoloped after the X-29.

As for the SU-27, it was the best when it was first produced, designed to surpass the F-15, which it succeeded in. It is now out of the date but has spawned a whole family of variants. The SU-35 Super Flanker is currently the top on it's line. The F-22 is the best overall fighter of our time, though soon to be surpassed. The SU-35 is basically just an updated and upgraded SU-27. The SU-37 (hence my name) was a modifed SU-35, equipped with TV(Thrust-Vectoring) systems. This meant the engines could pivot in different directions controlling the thrust, making the plane ultra-manueverable. Sukhoi was going to contract a force of SU-37's to the UAE, but the UAE changed their minds and went with the Mirage fighter instead. So their ended up only being one SU-37 built (made for testing), with the tail number '711'. Recently however the 711 was lost in a crash, thus ending the SU-37. However SU-35's will continue to be developed, and when equipped with TV systems, they may decide to retake the designation as SU-37.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

While I agree with your assessment that the F-22 is the best fighter today. I doubt that it will be surpassed anytime soon. The Russians do not have the money to develop anything right now.


----------



## R988 (Dec 19, 2005)

Keep in mind that Flankers can carry the R27 missiles which can be launched earlier than an AIM-120C carrying F-15, both are roughly equal in detecting the other on radar. F-22 is harder to detect on radar so it can get in closer to be more effective in using the AIM-120C against a Flanker. The Russians are pretty much ahead of the game in missile technology, actually so are the Israelis. Even the Europeans have got a decent ASRAAM now, the US is still fiddling about trying to get the AIM9X working while everyone else has deployed theirs. The Europeans are also working on a longer range missiles than the AIM-120C so the US is failing in that regard as well, they have nothing to replace the AIM-54 now the F-14 is gone.

Another interesting fact is places like Ethiopia have Su-27 Flankers, so they are cheap and affordable, they only have about 6 though.

Instead of whining about America not building something decent why doesn't Australia do the logical thing and buy a bunch of Su-35s and Su-32s? They fit the bill perfectly in every way except they are not American and not good for our alliance (or should that be 'reliance'? ) with America. Indonesia only have a couple of Su-30s and will only get a handful more. They would only be about half the cost of the F-35s and would be available immediately. Build some or at least critical components in Australia as part of the deal like the Chinese did or at least have a large spares store as the Indians have found only intermittent spares supply from Russia due to their laziness  . 

When Australia first got F/A-18s they were the best thing in the region, now they are just about the worst.

Indonesia has Su-27s, Su-30s and F-16s
Malaysia has F/A-18Cs and MiG-29s
Thailand has F-16s
Singapore has just signed on for F-15s to replace F-16s
India has MiG 29, Su-30, Mirage 2000
China has Su-30s and a ton of other stuff
South Korea has F-15s now
Japan has F-15s
Vietnam has Su-27s
Taiwan has F-16s and Mirage 2000s

Theres a lot of firepower in that region now, at least Australia isn't as bad a New Zealand which doesn't even bother trying anymore.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2005)

I think Australia's interest in the F-35 stems from the fact that they've played a small part in it's development, by way of contributing funds. So has Canada, and the Air Force of this country has also expressed interest in that particular fighter.


----------

