SU-27

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 08-13-2005, 08:44 AM

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 · 10-04-2005, 12:29 AM

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 · 10-04-2005, 05:40 AM

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

Glider · 10-04-2005, 09:35 AM

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 · 10-04-2005, 12:02 PM

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-04-2005, 12:42 PM

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 · 10-04-2005, 01:05 PM

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 · 10-04-2005, 01:36 PM

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 · 10-04-2005, 02:30 PM

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 · 11-06-2005, 12:49 AM

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 · 11-06-2005, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HealzDevo

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 · 11-06-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HealzDevo

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 · 11-06-2005, 07:59 AM

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 · 11-06-2005, 08:06 AM

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 · 11-06-2005, 01:56 PM

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