F-22 Vs. Su-37
- Thread starter Velius
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And how and why do you draw that conclusion?
Matt308
Glock Perfection
They HAVE stealth. For the time frame you quote, the US has also developed the F-18E/F, F-15E/J/K/S and numerous UCAVs. And they are all operational.
- Thread starter
- #26
Velius
Airman 1st Class
Here is a pic of the Su-34 twin seat bomber. It has a toilet. So why not rear firing missiles to go along with that bad boy stinger.
It also has a small galley
I like that era especially F-15 (don't forget F-16 too)
drgondog
Major
When F-15 and F-16 were in design stage (pre 1973) stealth was a Russian paper on signal attenuation that Lockheed and Nothrup found and said 'aha' leading to the F-117. Pave Blue (the forerunner) literally had the radar signature of a humming bird.
evangilder
"Shooter"
A couple of things. First, the F-117 was never a fighter. It didn't carry guns and was used operationally as an attack aircraft. It should have really been called the A-117, but I digress...
How are the F-22 and F-35 not aerodynamic??? Have you actually seen these aircraft fly?
How are the F-22 and F-35 not aerodynamic??? Have you actually seen these aircraft fly?
drgondog
Major
I agree - but the conversation led from stealth on F-22 back to why not on F15/16/18.. and I was illustrating that 'stealth' concept per se came from an obscure paper on an entirely different subject about the time the 15 and 16 were well along in the design phase.
I definitely agree on the A-117 concept also - and the F-22/35 are exceptionally aerodynamic.. you don't have the ability to 'cruise' > mach 1 if it isn't.
evangilder
"Shooter"
Ah, ok. Stealth technology certainly gives a competitive edge in air combat, at least for now.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
I wouldn't put all my "stealth" eggs in one basket. While I acknowledge the reference, the Russians did not have a monopoly on stealth technology nor R&D activity in its support. In fact, the CIA published a paper on "anti-radar technology" back in the late '50s (1956-1957?). These technical objectives served as the low observable basis for the A-12 (RS-71) development.
I agree that we should call it A-117 rather than F-117.
(By the way F-117 doesn't seem to have "Fighter" definition.)
The F-22 is certainly a very good aircraft - and a huge $$$ maker for Lookheed Martin, but an upgraded RASIGMA2 Tornado from the GAF would just be as good.
Right now Germany and partially some European NATO members are going into a different direction of developing air combat surviability then the US - mostly due to money constrains. But the result is the same at far lesser costs.
Regards
Kruska
Right now Germany and partially some European NATO members are going into a different direction of developing air combat surviability then the US - mostly due to money constrains. But the result is the same at far lesser costs.
Regards
Kruska
Matt308
Glock Perfection
More justification, Kruska. You piqued our interest.
And what the hell is a RASIGMA2 Tornado?? You playin' video games again?
And what the hell is a RASIGMA2 Tornado?? You playin' video games again?
Hello Matt 308,
No, no video games (actually I don't play any) it's the real thing I am interested and involved in.
Quote from the thread - Russia lost the quantity war.
On the public forum I wouldn't be able to tell you much but maybe you want to refer to: http://www.aero-microwave.com/Files/...asurements.pdf click the second (common base name) and then the 1st article 2005.
Fritzel and Steiner I know quite well, for more info try EADS and then search for RaSigma, but it will be very difficult/impossible to find details. If you put RaSigma5 and a Cheetah together you would easily have the worlds best fighter/fighterbomber - forget the F-22 just good looks and a lot of propaganda - it wouldn't stand a chance - even being a very good aircraft.
The US, Russia and China are exteeeemly interested in this.
If you google RaSigma, it is surprising to see all the Chinese pages refering to it.
Regards
Kruska
No, no video games (actually I don't play any) it's the real thing I am interested and involved in.
Quote from the thread - Russia lost the quantity war.
On the public forum I wouldn't be able to tell you much but maybe you want to refer to: http://www.aero-microwave.com/Files/...asurements.pdf click the second (common base name) and then the 1st article 2005.
Fritzel and Steiner I know quite well, for more info try EADS and then search for RaSigma, but it will be very difficult/impossible to find details. If you put RaSigma5 and a Cheetah together you would easily have the worlds best fighter/fighterbomber - forget the F-22 just good looks and a lot of propaganda - it wouldn't stand a chance - even being a very good aircraft.
The US, Russia and China are exteeeemly interested in this.
If you google RaSigma, it is surprising to see all the Chinese pages refering to it.
Regards
Kruska
evangilder
"Shooter"
F-22 looks good and propaganda?!?! Are you shitting me? You obviously have never seen the demo live. You can't tell me with a straight face that any Tornado is as good or better than the F-22.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I could remember the same arguments used against the F-15 with the MiG-29 years ago..
Matt308
Glock Perfection
On the public forum I wouldn't be able to tell you much but maybe you want to refer to: http://www.aero-microwave.com/Files/...asurements.pdf click the second (common base name) and then the 1st article 2005.
Fritzel and Steiner I know quite well, for more info try EADS and then search for RaSigma, but it will be very difficult/impossible to find details. If you put RaSigma5 and a Cheetah together you would easily have the worlds best fighter/fighterbomber - forget the F-22 just good looks and a lot of propaganda - it wouldn't stand a chance - even being a very good aircraft.
The US, Russia and China are exteeeemly interested in this.
If you google RaSigma, it is surprising to see all the Chinese pages refering to it.
Regards
Kruska
It's an RCS range in Europe. So?
Kruska you come across as the engineering equivalent of a "name dropper". One who desires worship based solely upon purporting to know austere acronyms, work black projects and naming technical designers.
Until you post something with some actual technical statements, I'll relegate you to my BS bin.
