F-22 Vs. Su-37

Matt308 · May 12, 2008

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. :toothy5:

solo · May 18, 2008

I want to know why US fighter are design to be Stealth lately. While Russian designs are still base on aerodynamic.

Regards
SOLO

FLYBOYJ · May 18, 2008

solo said:
I want to know why US fighter are design to be Stealth lately. While Russian designs are still base on aerodynamic.

Regards
SOLO

And how and why do you draw that conclusion?

solo · May 18, 2008

Because F-22,F-117 and F-35 they are Stealth.
Su-37,Migs and others didn't have Stealth tech that mean it don't need complicated computer system to fly it and they look more like fighter.

(I may screw this up Sorry About that)

Matt308 · May 18, 2008

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.

Velius · May 18, 2008

Matt308 said:
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

solo · May 19, 2008

Matt308 said:
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.

I like that era especially F-15 (don't forget F-16 too)

drgondog · May 28, 2008

solo said:
I like that era especially F-15 (don't forget F-16 too)

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 · May 29, 2008

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?

drgondog · May 29, 2008

evangilder said:
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?

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 · May 29, 2008

Ah, ok. Stealth technology certainly gives a competitive edge in air combat, at least for now.

Matt308 · May 29, 2008

drgondog said:
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 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.

solo · May 29, 2008

evangilder said:
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?

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.)

Kruska · May 30, 2008

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

Matt308 · May 30, 2008

More justification, Kruska. You piqued our interest.

And what the hell is a RASIGMA2 Tornado?? You playin' video games again?

Kruska · May 31, 2008

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

evangilder · May 31, 2008

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 · May 31, 2008

I could remember the same arguments used against the F-15 with the MiG-29 years ago..

Matt308 · May 31, 2008

Kruska said:
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.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · May 31, 2008

Kruska said:
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.