Russian SU-30 Vectored

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

I hope you know :
F-22 is a 5th Gen
Su-30 is a 4th Gen

not really comparable.

HunterICX

True. It is not apples to apples.

So, since we are talking about a one off aircraft, a better comparison is the X-31. It is 3rd generation and will do all this nifty stuff.

-S

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

True. It is not apples to apples.

So, since we are talking about a one off aircraft, a better comparison is the X-31. It is 3rd generation and will do all this nifty stuff.

-S

It's also a test aircraft, and can't do anything other than use thrust vectoring

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

It's also a test aircraft, and can't do anything other than use thrust vectoring

And that is relevant how? Adding a weapons system is a simple affair. The aircraft the body was taken from already have one available.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Where does the F-35 factor in on this list, since we are on the subject of aircraft???



-S

[HunterICX]

Ha! I raise you



and its nemesis



Times there wherent any silly electronics.
Pilots flew them without the fancy gadgets to keep the plane in control

HunterICX

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Ha! I raise you



and its nemesis



Times there wherent any silly electronics.
Pilots flew them without the fancy gadgets to keep the plane in control

HunterICX

Don't get me wrong man. My favorite sim of the past was MiG Alley!

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder if Russia will actually field this little plane?

http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280

-S

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Ha! I raise you



and its nemesis



Times there wherent any silly electronics.
Pilots flew them without the fancy gadgets to keep the plane in control

HunterICX

Speed beats manouverability every time. Although the tri plane was amazingly manouverable, it was not very fast and as long as the opposing pilots did not try to out fly them, they would win. This always annoys me whenever Pearl Harbour is on, the idiot Ben Affleck character says 'We can't outrun them, so we'll have to outfly them' - well no, don't try that, or you're dead and also you CAN outrun them and you CAN'T outfly them, you blithering moron. I think he got brain damage when he went under water in the daytime and only reached the surface at night. Lack of oxygen is a terrible thing. The Zero was slow, but very manouverable. Later, against the P-38, which was less manouverable, it was dead meat, as long as the pilot didn't try to get into a turning battle. The incredible flipping and flying backwards is only useful if you can fire a missile that will catch your enemy and as you are stationary and he's moving at twice the speed of sound, that's got to be one hell of a fast missile.

[SUBMAN1]

Especially with the high off boresight versions like the AIM-9X. No need to flip around unless you are out of missiles.

Doing simulations against the F-22 though in a guns only fight with me in an F-16 - it is not a fair fight. No matter how you try to get an angle on it, he can not only fly slower than you, but at any airspeed, he can out-turn you. It comes down to only a matter of time till I was shot down.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Okay, I have a question.

As someone who is not a devoted student of modern aerial warfare, I don't quite understand the complexities of the same.

Does the added maneuverability, when coupled with countermeasures, not significantly increase the probability of evading a missile attack?
And does the new SU-30 not have any means of reducing its' radar cross-section to make it less vulnerable to AMRAAMs?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Okay, I have a question.

As someone who is not a devoted student of modern aerial warfare, I don't quite understand the complexities of the same.

Does the added maneuverability, when coupled with countermeasures, not significantly increase the probability of evading a missile attack?
And does the new SU-30 not have any means of reducing its' radar cross-section to make it less vulnerable to AMRAAMs?

SU-30 is like a giant light bulb in a dark closet when it comes to Radar cross section. Start with the inlets for the engines.

AMRAAMS have reached a point where countermeasures are not reliable, they are so accurate that they have given up hitting the aircraft and instead specifically target the pilot, which is a guaranteed kill of the aircraft. Hence the F-22 was born - the only aircraft that will live in the future are those that can't be detected.

Russian SAM's have gotten just as sophisticated so it will be impossible to have an offensive capability with aircraft in the future if they are not stealth. The Rafael? Good for nothing more than defense. Same goes for the EF-2000. This is the reason Europe wants F-35. An F-15 and F-16 will have even less of a chance in 5 years and be good for nothing more than museum pieces.

-S

[Lurchi]

I still have doubts about the claim that Air-to-Air Missiles are really so accurate and that Stealth really makes you completely undetectable: It seems that still a lot of hot air comes out of the F-22's engines.

To me this all sounds like stuff taken out from the producer's advertisement flyers in order to convince politicians to pump huge amounts of money into their products.

A stronger focus on Stealth was considered for the EF-2000. It was dropped not because it cannot be done but because it would make the plane ridiculously expensive - proven by the immense price tag of the F-22.

Maybe there are better performing planes than the Su-30, although you may find none that is more cost-efficient. Another thing about the Sukhoi is that it is the best-looking fighter out there ... simply a beautiful plane .

[longam]

never mind

[XabbaRus]

OK, going back to the beginning though, who gives a monkeys whether this is useful in combat? Who cares that the F-22 would knock it from the sky? It looks cool, it is cool, and I'd give my right arm to sit in the back seat while that is spinning about.

One thing though, get rid of the pink smoke....make it blue or something.