new russian fighter

[flyboy]

does anybody kno is russia working on any new fighters right now(besides the Su-47 and the MiG 1.42) and can they put up some pics?also which plane do u think would be bettter in a dogfight,the F-22, Su-37, or the Su-47?

[Flunch]

whichever one turns faster. in an old fashion dogfight that's what matters.

 

otherwise, whichever one has longer range air-to-air missles and better radar or stealth technology

[CPL.Luke]

dogfights don't happen anymore, the planes fly far to fast to be effectively shot at by a machine gun (some planes aren't even equippeded with one anymore), and missiles all have ranges of over 10-20 miles, I think some radar guided missiles can be launched from up to 65 miles away.

[AI_Interface]

CPL.Luke is right, the one that fires it's missles first and has the best counter-measures. In this case the F-22 stealth capabilities give it the edge over the competition.

[Pangloss]

I don't want to suggest that Cpl Luke is wrong (because he's not), but it's also worth keeping in mind that maneuverability is still an important part of a fighter's mission. The missiles-only philosophy got American air power into trouble during the Vietnam conflict, and it's a lesson that has not been forgotten by designers. Missiles don't always hit their targets (especially in a closing profile) and rules of engagement don't always permit firing missiles from a distance. Some interesting examples of the designer response to these problems can be seen in the return of "machine guns" to fighter designs, and the demise of the Phoenix missile program (which had extremely long range but a very low hit probability).

 

So maneuverability does still play an important part in design. I don't think you'll be seeing any F-22s replacing F-16s on the Thunderbirds flight line even in the distant future, but there's no question that agility was a serious design consideration for the Raptor. Some examples of this can be seen in the close proximity of the engine mounting (compare with the F-15) and the thrust-vectoring capability of the exhaust system (neither of which are unique to the Raptor).

 

Incidentally, another important factor worth consideration is that the Raptor will be the one of the only fighter planes in the sky with supercruise capability (I believe the Typhoon is the only other plane slated to get this). That's the ability to go supersonic without using afterburner. That gives it extended high speed range, meaning it can get into a superior engagement position much faster than the opponent (several hundred miles per hour faster) and maintain an engagement profile for a much longer period of time. The other guy can burn his afterburner getting there, but from that point on he's going to have one eye on the fuel gauge. The Raptor pilot will... not.

[Pangloss]

Just as a side note to the above, I would go so far as to say that MiG isn't even in the ballpark these days. The competition, if there is one, is more or less entirely between Typhoon and Raptor, both of which are amazing aircraft.

[Skye]

Well the phoenix was an old design, beiginning service in the seventies. It could only be carried by the F-14's, which are being replaced by super hornets currently, so the missile was at a dead end in any case.

[Pangloss]

Indeed, but my point is that the Phoenix's ultra-long-range capability wasn't replaced. CAG air superiority with Tomcats consisted mainly of long-range standoff capabilities backed by a cross-your-fingers approach to the determination of enemy intentions. Great when you're pondering a fleet of incoming Backfires, but not so great when you're pondering a rogue civilian airliner or a handful of poorly maintained Foxbats, and your main goal is keeping developments off the six-o'clock news. CAG air superiority with Hornets is much more flexible and adaptable, and employs a broader range of response options and determination capabilities than it ever had under the Tomcat or Phantom.

 

Ironically, the Hornet is in many ways an inferior airplane, and the Navy has shown little interest in the Raptor. The future of the CAG is very uncertain at the moment. But since it's unlikely that any carriers are going to be attacked by long-range bombers (or even high-tech attack fighters) anytime soon, it seems to be of minor import. (Though perhaps we should tell Bill O'Reilly to cool it with the "Boycott France" rhetoric, eh?) ;-)

 

So for the near future, most Hornets likely will continue to be payloaded for ground attack in combat situations, with a couple of Sidewinders slung under the wings just to keep the flyboys (and girls) happy.

[Skye]

I think the Raptor may have been briefly considered by the USN but the problem is that it was not in any way designed to slow down to land on a carrier. The F-14 has those fancy swing wings, and fitting them to a Raptor retrospectively would have been difficult.

 

I suppose the main reason the USN wasn't so worried about losing the phoenix is because the AEGIS destroyers are so effective for air defence. But also the 65 mile AMRAAMs will probably come close to matching the phoenix in practical range in any case, and can be fitted to the super/hornets.

[vrus]

I thought the Su-47 project was cancelled as they found problems at high speeds due to the froward swept wings?

 

And I also read that the MiG-1.42 was not going to be used, but used as a Tech. Demonstrator ?

[flyboy]

CPL.Luke is right, the one that fires it's missles first and has the best counter-measures. In this case the F-22 stealth capabilities give it the edge over the competition.

 

 

this is one thing i hate

the F-22 does have stealth cababilities but that doesnt mean that its not invisible to radar, it only means that the signiture is decreased and on the less sophisticated radar nothing comes up at all

stealth planes are only invisible to radar to some extent

[vrus]

this is one thing i hate

the F-22 does have stealth cababilities but that doesnt mean that its not invisible to radar' date=' it only means that the signiture is decreased and on the less sophisticated radar nothing comes up at all

stealth planes are only invisible to radar to some extent[/quote']

 

You're right!

And its getting easier to do it. Obviously its not that easy, but applying radar-absorbent paint causes some effect of some extent!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the Raptor may have been briefly considered by the USN but the problem is that it was not in any way designed to slow down to land on a carrier. The F-14 has those fancy swing wings' date=' and fitting them to a Raptor retrospectively would have been difficult.

 

I suppose the main reason the USN wasn't so worried about losing the phoenix is because the AEGIS destroyers are so effective for air defence. But also the 65 mile AMRAAMs will probably come close to matching the phoenix in practical range in any case, and can be fitted to the super/hornets.[/quote']

Fortunately for the Navy, they'll be getting the Joint Strike Fighter soon enough. It's nearly as capable as the Raptor, and a lot cheaper.

 

Also:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4446

[Pangloss]

Fortunately for the Navy' date=' they'll be getting the Joint Strike Fighter soon enough. It's nearly as capable as the Raptor, and a lot cheaper.

 

Also:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4446[/quote']

 

 

Hmm, I don't think so. The F-35 won't have anything like the Raptor's capabilities in the air superiority role, and far greater capabilities in the ground attack role. No supercruise, slower, but configured better for ground attack, STOL/VTOL capabilities, etc.

 

A better comparison might be between the F-35 and the F-18. From that perspective the 35 makes a lot of sense based on the lessons learned with the Hornet-centered CAG. It gives you a better ground attack plane, a better air superiority plane, and a safer aircraft to land on a carrier, all in one fell swoop.

 

But it does raise an interesting capabilities question. What good is the Raptor if you can't put it where it most needs to be? That's a highly debatable question, with interesting points on both sides.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the point, however, is that even the F-35's air superiority capabilities will be far better than any other enemy aircraft, so the difference isn't that bad.

[Pangloss]

I'm afraid I can't agree with that either. The only advantage it will have over over the far better performing European and Russian counterparts will be stealth.

 

I do agree that it is likely to be superior versus anything it's likely to come up against in the air superiority role, at least in the current geopolitical environment. But that's already true with the Hornet.

[Klaynos]

You mean the stealth which can infact be picked up by certain radars?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm afraid I can't agree with that either. The only advantage it will have over over the far better performing European and Russian counterparts will be stealth.

 

I do agree that it is likely to be superior versus anything it's likely to come up against in the air superiority role' date=' at least in the current geopolitical environment. But that's already true with the Hornet.[/quote']

The JSF also has a thrust-vectoring system and good maneuverability.

When you say "the only advantage will be stealth," that's not saying much. Stealth is a huge advantage over anything.

 

You mean the stealth which can infact be picked up by certain radars?

That's not the way it works. Stealth reduces the effective radius that the radar can operate in. If a radar network thinks they can detect any normal aircraft, then a F-22 will be able to fly through the gaps--it has to be much closer before being detected. The F-117 pioneered a system where radar sites could be programmed in, and the aircraft would fly itself around them automatically.

[Skye]

Fortunately for the Navy, they'll be getting the Joint Strike Fighter soon enough. It's nearly as capable as the Raptor, and a lot cheaper.

Well alot of the technology from the F/A-22 will carry over to the JSF, but I would be cautious about saying that that makes it nearly as capable. I think it will be a good air support aircraft. But I think it's a strange choice for a carrier aircraft, it has a small range and a single engine.

[Pangloss]

I wasn't aware that the F-35 had thrust-vectoring, that's an interesting point. Of course it makes sense giving the V/STOL design goals. Thanks for pointing that out. I still think the plane is very inferior to a number of other planes in the AS role, but as I said earlier, it may not matter to the Navy. But one thing is for sure: The Navy's last vestige of deniability that the Air Force has the superior fighter hardware disappeared when the first Raptor was deployed.

 

Hey Klaynos, what's this about stealth being visible to certain kinds of radar? Can you tell me anything more about that?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hey Klaynos, what's this about stealth being visible to certain kinds of radar? Can you tell me anything more about that?

I believe I responded to this already.

That's not the way it works. Stealth reduces the effective radius that the radar can operate in. If a radar network thinks they can detect any normal aircraft, then a F-22 will be able to fly through the gaps--it has to be much closer before being detected. The F-117 pioneered a system where radar sites could be programmed in, and the aircraft would fly itself around them automatically.

[vrus]

Two points ppl.

First, the F-35 DOES NOT have thrust vectoring. Only the Raptor does.

Second, this thread is supposed to be about a RUSSIAN 5th gen. fighter! For the JSF, etc start a new thread. In fact I'll do it myself and we can argue about thrust vectoring ther !