Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
F-22 Raptor swallows pilot
- Thread starter edesignuk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
-Could be worse 
When they were testing the F-14 Tomcat back in the 70's, they found that the plane would crash.
No, really! Laugh!
Poor guy'd be flying along, playing with this great plane with swing-wings, and without warning, it'd just, point it's nose into the ground.
>boink!<
>ouchies<
When they were testing the F-14 Tomcat back in the 70's, they found that the plane would crash.
No, really! Laugh!
Poor guy'd be flying along, playing with this great plane with swing-wings, and without warning, it'd just, point it's nose into the ground.
>boink!<
>ouchies<
blitzkrieg79 said:That is also true. Anyway, even F-22 can't match the manoeuvrability of Su-37 (which was built in 1996, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su37/ ) not to mention the up and coming Su-47 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/)
However, as I mentioned earlier, you can have the best airplane in the world, but if you are not a good pilot, nothing will save you. Airplane is just a machine which needs a human control input. Just like in a computer world, you have people with over 3GHZ rigs and all they do is play solitaire or surf the net
EDIT: I think I should correct myself, Russians make better fighter jets as Americans definately seem to have better bombers.
I work in the military aviation field. I can assure you that Russian fighter jets are not better than their US counterpart. The Russians were still using heavy metals for their fusalages where the US uses composites and titanium. In order to make up for that fact they put massive engines that are truly overpowered for the craft.
In addition, the US utlizes solid state electronics. Many of the comparable Russian planes were still using analog and vaccuum tubes to power the computers for the crafts.
Russian aviation is nothing more than a bad copy of the US's offerings.
hcuar said:
Well you have your own opinion and I have my own opinion, and to these day on, the most impressive airplane maneuver that I've seen was when Su-37 did the famous cobra move, try that with any American made plane and then we can talk about engineering and design. I am not comparing the electronics, radars, and weaponry here. I am comparing raw airplane performance and manoeuvrability.
Electronics and weaponry can always be upgraded but the overall plane design usually has to last 15-30 years.
Just thought i would mention is those Russian planes hold all the stores outside the craft, the F22 is all internal meaning a loaded Su-37 would be very dirty with all those missiles hanging. The su47 looks like the X-29 they were flying with the forward wing, I wonder if they stoled that plan like they did so many others from the west.blitzkrieg79 said:That is also true. Anyway, even F-22 can't match the manoeuvrability of Su-37 (which was built in 1996, http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su37/ ) not to mention the up and coming Su-47 (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/)
However, as I mentioned earlier, you can have the best airplane in the world, but if you are not a good pilot, nothing will save you. Airplane is just a machine which needs a human control input. Just like in a computer world, you have people with over 3GHZ rigs and all they do is play solitaire or surf the net
EDIT: I think I should correct myself, Russians make better fighter jets as Americans definately seem to have better bombers.
Dont Hurt Me said:Just thought i would mention is those Russian planes hold all the stores outside the craft, the F22 is all internal meaning a loaded Su-37 would be very dirty with all those missiles hanging. The su47 looks like the X-29 they were flying with the forward wing, I wonder if they stoled that plan like they did so many others from the west.
And I wonder how much military tech USA stole from Germans after WWII ended
Check out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-29.htm it mentions that Germans had that forward wing design in works since beginning of WWII (Germans also had an F117-like design back in those days), actually military technology largest leap was during WWII, definately Germans are the pioneers of it all. If Hitler wouldn't attack Russia during winter (the biggest reason they lost WWII), who knows how it all would turn out to be. But thats getting off the topic
Everyone was using and experimenting with german tech after WW2 but the U.S. has never built aircraft from stolen plans as the Russians have, they stoled the Canadian Arrow plans and made the Mig 25, they also took apart B29s and then built copys though i dont remember what they called the copy. There may be more examples but it was so bad that they stopped the Arrow because they knew they had russian spys at the plant. They closed the whole program in a matter of days.blitzkrieg79 said:And I wonder how much military tech USA stole from Germans after WWII ended
hcuar said:
Maybe you can answer my question:
On the webpages for the Su planes, they say that they use "a highly unstable triplane aerodynamic configuration".
Can you explain this for my less-than-technical mind? If it is so unstable, why do the Russians continue to use the design? How do they counteract this instability?
leftbanke7 said:
Not sure why... however consider the B2 bomber is completely unstable do to the single plane configuration.
Both craft are stabilized using computers to make "automagic" corrections without pilot intervention.
The B2's configuration is desirable due to the natural stealthiness of the design. The Russians probably haven't been able to steal, I mean aquire a design that's better.
blitzkrieg79 said:
I think i'd go for "Super cruise", stealth, etc over the Su-37. If you can'tssee it... you can't shoot it. If you can't catch up to it... you can't see it...
See a pattern?
I'm not saying the Su-37 isn't a decent bird, but the F22 is truly air dominance.
hcuar said:
If F-22 is as stealthy as F117 (one of them was shut down over Bosnia, and considering the cost of one of these puppies it was not a small loss for US military) then I'll take Su-37. You have to remember that as stealth technology is advancing, so is the radar technology (with radar technology advancing you really can't just rely on stealth technology because you never really know if you are seen or unseen by the enemy, stealth technology may be good for wars against Iraq but if US was to hit a more advanced nation I don't think this would be as effective).
And when you are in a dogfight you definately want an airplane that is faster (Su-37 is faster than F-22) and agile (again Su-37 is better than F-22, and you have to remember that Su-37 has been flying since 1996 which is 10 years ago).
Let me put it this way, I would rather have a Su-37 design with the weaponry and electronics of a F-22 than other way around.
But again, this is all pointless, it really depends on the pilot of the plane anyway.
blitzkrieg79 said:
Stealth is a factor. The Bosnia hit was pure luck... If you blindly shoot, it's a probability you might eventually hit something.
The Su-37 is faster in peak performance... this can only be sustained until fuel runs out or tears apart the plane. First, the Russian have been known on releasing specs that fused the engines to perform the advertised speed. Second, the F-22 can sustain super sonic speeds without the use of after burners (Super Cruise). The Su-37 would have a difficult time intercepting a F22.
Actually it wasn't blind luck. A few years ago one of the radar manufacturers demoed an interception system based on mobile phone tech. The system works on the principle that a stealthy aircraft might be able to deflect radar but it also deflects regular radio and mobile (and satellite phone) signals. By tracking the disruption it's just about possible to follow a Stealth. It was demonstrated at Farnborough a few years ago.hcuar said:
The Czechs pioneered it.
EDIT: The system is called Tamara and was operational pre -1989 (as a basic weapons system)
hcuar said:
Luck or not but stealth doesn't make any airplane invoulrnable (and F117 is one expensive air plane) . Bosnia shutdown was reported by European media, I wonder how many shut downs actually are covered up by USA. And besides, Bosnia shut down wasn't luck. Czech a couple of years ago demonstrated at Farnborough a radar interception system that basically was able to detect "stealth" airplanes. So I am guessing that was used in F117 shut down.
Also, F-22 total cost is around $130-$170 million dollars (depending on sources) and Su-37 is around $50-$70 million so price-performance ratio definately goes to Su-37.
And again, Su-37 is 10 years old which means that the actual design is probably 20-25 years old. I would like to see F-22 compete against Su-47 which should be flying any time soon. And Su-47 does posses stealth technologies.
blitzkrieg79 said:
The Russians build some good airframes, but their R&D budget is a mere fraction of what it once was. Aircraft like the MiG Project 1.42 and the S-37 Berkut spinoff (Su-47) are either vaporware or proceeding at a very slow pace
Right now the Russian aviation industry is being kept alive mostly by India and China. The primary aircraft invoilved are the Sukhoi Su-27 family and upgraded versions of the MiG-29. India has ordered the very impressive Su-30MKI with thrust vectored engines and very up-to-date avionics. India is also developing a carrier version of the MiG-29 to use on the ex-Soviet carrier they bought from Russia. China has developed their own 4th-gen fighter in great secrecy but it is not considered a match for The Su-30, Eurofighter or Raptor; it is more analogous to the still very capable Gripen or F-16 family.
The Russians do have an enviable reputation for ruggedness - almost all of their aircraft are required to be able to use unprepared runways, a requirement that most air arms have done away with before WWII. This is an advantage when selling aircraft to third world nations that don't have a lot of infrastructure.
Right now the F-15C is still IMHO capable of dealing with any air defense needs the US will encounter, but even so the F-22 Raptor is superior to anything else out there. New-generation fighters like the Eurofighter, the Su-30MKI, the Rafale and others are very good but the Raptor has the edge in stealthiness and avionics, which are more important than the airframe these days. That's why some countries are still flying MiG-21s - an average airframe can become an effective weapons system with the right electronics and weapon upgrades. Missiles like the AIM-120 AMRAAM or AIM-9X and their foreign counterparts make just about anything that can fly dangerous to even new-gen fighters.
Plus, US Air Force pilots log more training hours in the air than any other Air Force near its size. The F-22 program was expensive but it was money well spent. I for one do not want to see the day when Russia and China have a superior capability to us. As long as we rely on our Air Force/Navy for power projection or UN/NATO operations abroad we need to be the best.
The Su-47 in particular looks promising; in terms of airframe performance it is (on paper) competitive with the Eurofighter, Su-30MKI and F-22 but the F-22 willl probably have a better radar and systems integration, making it easier for the pilot to get his job done. The F-22 is also probably a better BVR fighter; the Russians have recently shifted to an emphasis on super-manueverability, wheras the US has instead emphasised a top-quality weapons loadout and sensor fit with high-bandwidth datalinks to other units. Still the Raptor does have 2D thrust vectoring, so it is no slouch in the manuevering department; it can do a cobra just like the Sukhois.
Generally, the more unstable the aircraft the more maneuverable it can be.leftbanke7 said:
Weird, but true.
Military aircraft these days are fly by wire and must be controlled by a computer. For example, the F117A Steath Fighter will fly about 1-2 seconds without the computer before it tumbles out of control. Yet, it is one of the sweetest flying jets due to the computer control. This was one of Ben Rich's key requirements during manufacturing due to it's rather unconventional shape/design according to him.
The B-2 is the same way...
The magic is that with fly-by wire is that you can perform manuevers so extreme and/or design an airframe so inherently unstable (and thus manueverable) that the aircraft is constantly departing from controlled flight and re-establishing control several times per second - it essentially allows you to fly the plane beyond the limit.
If you look at pictures of the Su-30 series fighters, you see that they really are tri-planes, those canards they use are HUGE.
The magic is that with fly-by wire is that you can perform manuevers so extreme and/or design an airframe so inherently unstable (and thus manueverable) that the aircraft is constantly departing from controlled flight and re-establishing control several times per second - it essentially allows you to fly the plane beyond the limit.
If you look at pictures of the Su-30 series fighters, you see that they really are tri-planes, those canards they use are HUGE.
Nickygoat said:If you follow the link on the Register to the original site at FlightGlobal, and then click on the blog there's a piece from some guy about how WW2 Hurricanes and Spitfires were better designs because you could open the cockpit before combat. Hmmm Mach 2 - let's open the window
LOL
Not sure that it would be a good idea to open the cockpit at those speeds! 
i wouldn't bet any success on stealth nowadays .. at least in countries who can afford it, linked together radar system are considered standard
a low radar profile is still nice and everything but it's far from making invincible like perhaps 15-20 years ago
it goes so far that sneaking through inside a radar shadow of a big airplane doesn't work anymore
the USAF did try that over austria when overflight rights were refused during the Iraq conflict and the f-117 got caught/photographed by the stone-age Saab Draken Austria used at that time, flying close to a transport plane
a low radar profile is still nice and everything but it's far from making invincible like perhaps 15-20 years ago
it goes so far that sneaking through inside a radar shadow of a big airplane doesn't work anymore
the USAF did try that over austria when overflight rights were refused during the Iraq conflict and the f-117 got caught/photographed by the stone-age Saab Draken Austria used at that time, flying close to a transport plane
leftbanke7 said:
the forward wing design is very unstable but highly manuverable.
it takes some intense computer assistance to fly that plane.
obeygiant said:
Let us hope these computers aren't using some variation of Windows or the next headline we'll see is "Microsoft's Blue Screen Of Death Kills 2 Russian Pilots"
takao said:
The stealth capabilities of the B-2 are a lot better than those of the F-117, and the F-22 is probably close to the 117 in stealthiness, as it is a third-gen stealth aircraft.
I agree that stealth technology is far from a panacea. However, if the enemy has linked radars on the ground, the USAF has linked AWACS, J-STARS and other airborne sensors that constantly feed a strike package or even a lone aircraft information that will lead them through the weakest areas in the enemy air defense network. And unlike the F-117 or B-2, the F-22 can fight its way out of trouble in the event of detection.
Reliance on stealth technology is IMO overstated by the press and also purposely by the USAF for psychological effect. The only people that know how stealthy they are are Iraqi and Sebian radar operators. They got an F-117 during Allied Force, but that aircraft is significantly less stealthy than a B-2 (and flies lower and slower) and can't fight it's way out of trouble like the F-22 or F-35.
I am somewhat surprised that the USAF still flies the F-117, and are only planning on retiring them when the F-22 is fully operational. Obviously they are still satisfied with the aircraft's performance.