quote:

Originally posted by IamKFAM:
Calm down y'all...

What he's saying could be true, could be false. Not the point though.

Military technology always marches on and if stealth technology doesn't work as well as as it used to, so be it. (This will eventually be the case anyway...)

The true measure is when American women start advertising on the web to become brides for Russian men, then it's time to worry.

...

I don't think anyone has said that stealth planes are completely undetectable, though they might have been relatively close. It is an error, though, to then assume stealth technology is by any means useless. In the case of the F-22, stealth is just one more advantage that provides it with its first look first shoot first kill capabilities.

Probably won't matter as much as skill of pilot

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:

quote:

Originally posted by ChatNick2009:
This was my "zastavnik" (rank like older sergeant in western armies). He is talking about shooting down F117.
As you can see - rockets are "NEVA" (not long range) that launches in pair. The big thing that rotates (looks like 2 large bars) is actually a radar (non radiating radar). The innovation of electronics of this radar is military secret, and that is the point of this story. As you can see - the whole system is mobile, and can be conjoined/detached and ready to move in less than 5 minutes. This is tactic "hit and run" that was successful in shooting down about 15 airplanes (m secret again)for 80 days of bombardment, whence this system have not been spotted not even once!
I don`t know what evidence more do you (and stupid maxraptor) need to believe in what am I talking about.
Believe it or not - stealth technology of any "F" plane DOES NOT WORK ANY MORE. It was a success for first few years when it was developed, but today that is exceeded technology.

Please stop. No one believes you. You are continuing to make yourself look even worse. Your "evidence" is now limited to a YouTube video. An intelligent person would have provided credentials from the offset (IE - At his initial post).

You? What you do is continue to post videos and links that do not prove a thing other then the fact that you at least choose a real world unit to base your fabrication on. I was actually hoping to find VALID proof in this matter considering we are closing in on 24 hours LATER.

I can hear your thoughts now -- "I didn't think of this"...

There is another insult thrown out. "Stupid maxraptor"? Congrats on proving your maturity once again.

As I stated before, a 25 year old technology ran its course. If you were HALF the expert you CLAIM to be, you would understand that that cutting edge technology usually does not last that long until an improvement is made. The Cockroach had no defensive countermeasures, no FCS, and was severely limited to sub-sonic delivery of it's weapons. The F-22. 4 times as fast, orders of magnitude lower in RCS, all the while operating at altitudes over 65,000 ft. Even IF the Raptor is detected, catch it will be a chore all in itself.

I know, I know. You are a proud countryman. You are proud that your country managed to shoot down 38 airplanes out of 38,000 sorties. Your country mananged to finally nail a Stealth aircraft. The Serbians hid well. No shame in hiding when you know you can't win.

There is nothing wrong with being proud. After seeing Russian designed equipment embarrassed for the past two decades, I would feel proud to. However there is plenty wrong when it comes to lying. I would have hoped you knew the difference.

So hey, to show you that all Americans are not arrogant, I am willing to move on, and continue the discussion this thread was originally intended to be. Below is re-type of my original statement in this thread. Please offer a fact based, and logical rebuttal.

"Since someone wants to "discuss" this, I am game.

For starters, my comment on the Su-47 was in regards to VERY unstealthy planform design, which consists of the following but limited to ---
A - Near 90 degree angles at the verticle stablizers
B - Round engine nozzles (which are huge BTW)
C - Exterior sensors most noticable at the rear of plane and near cockpit
D - Lack of "jigsaw" faceting along fuselage where needed
E - Has not demonstrated a working interal weapons bay

While the Su-47 is a project that began in the 80's, it did not make a flight until 1997. However, the US counterpart in which was the X-29, flew 13 years BEFORE the Su-47. It's a prime EXAMPLE of the US being "ahead of the game" when it comes to military aviation.

When it comes to stealth technologies, (and while you are correct about the F-117 shoot down) you need to examine the entire spectrum of facts before you attempt to discredit the American technology. Yes, the question of the Nighthawk being untouchable was answered, and then the F-117 was retired AFTER 25 years (IOC in 1983, retired in 2008).

The F-117 fun fact -- The Cockroach flew roughly 1300 sorties in Desert Storm (which consisted of what many considered the most heavily defended city in world), 850 sorties in Serbia, and 100 sorties in the War on Terror all the while being shot down once before being retired. Not one airplane is invincible, but these numbers sure put the one-seventeen on the verge of it.

As far as the what Stealth is tested against, that remains highly classified. No one in the public light knows. To speculate on such is rather futile.

Plus, the F-22 was designed to defeat ANY countermeasure now and in the future. The USAF has a proven track record with stealth technology, and considering it took the world 11 years of combat operations to hit the F-117, your point is rendered moot."

First at all I have not started with the politics, and I was insulted with your proclamation that this war had it cause!
Be aware that there is no legal, moral, or any other reason to attack country that is fighting against terrorist on its own land. Plus, to kill so many innocent people and call it a humanitarian war! Whatever - I guess that you didn`t hear that way from your media.
Second, I`ve never said that I am an expert in this! I was just a soldier (no rank) in that unit. I was just executing what I was told to do - can U get it already?

If you can't get your point across, try banging your shoe on the table.

And it will go on forever, depending on what plane the poster favour (from time to time slipping to political flooding). Heh.

maxraptor09, Su-47 has internal weapons bay. (It was added recently though). I've posted a link a copule of pages earlier, there you can find the photos and schematics. Also, about X-29. It was experimental plane, which proved inability to create reverse-svept winged fighter at a time. Su-47 is pre-mass production, that was replaced by PAK-FA, because those @#$##s in our governmet only care about better export potential (see F-22 vs F-35 discussions on the net, same thing, actually).

But now I'd like to say my opinion. The Raptor has the edge at distance, since it's steathier. (Of cource it must be supported by AWACS, since radar on = no stealth).
The Su-47 however, has an edge in dogfight, due to it's wing shape.

It's as simple as that.

quote:

Originally posted by JSF-89:
Yep, and I shot down A flight of Berkuts today using a microwave, some bubblegum and a BB gun.

Wuss. One time I saw a SU-47 and an F-22 dogfighting over my house. So I got a really big ladder and climbed up there, punched both pilots in the face and told them to grow up as the iron-curtain fell two decades ago and to play nice. They landed on my lawn and we all shared a brandy.

quote:

Originally posted by ChatNick2009:

quote:

Originally posted by JSF-89:
Yep, and I shot down A flight of Berkuts today using a microwave, some bubblegum and a BB gun.

Try to read more - you will not be that much retarded.
Unit is a group between 30 and 80 soldiers.
I have posted you all the details about shooting down so called "stealth" plane while it had backup of (at least) 50 fight planes! Believe it or not - we did it! And there are tons of films about this and many other successful AA missions. Let me remind you one thing: 1000 airplanes was each moment on the sky - and even so, we have crashed much, much more planes than NATO had destroyed our military targets.
The only thing NATO could hit was tens of thousands of civilians! And that is a real war crime!
So much about efficiency of western airplanes and technology!
The only thing you can do is killing innocent people!

Thanks for the First World War.

quote:

Originally posted by IamKFAM:
If you can't get your point across, try banging your shoe on the table.

HELL YEAH KRUSCHEV

quote:

Originally posted by Ant_Kalgin:
And it will go on forever, depending on what plane the poster favour (from time to time slipping to political flooding). Heh.

maxraptor09, Su-47 has internal weapons bay. (It was added recently though). I've posted a link a copule of pages earlier, there you can find the photos and schematics. Also, about X-29. It was experimental plane, which proved inability to create reverse-svept winged fighter at a time. Su-47 is pre-mass production, that was replaced by PAK-FA, because those @#$##s in our governmet only care about better export potential (see F-22 vs F-35 discussions on the net, same thing, actually).

But now I'd like to say my opinion. The Raptor has the edge at distance, since it's steathier. (Of cource it must be supported by AWACS, since radar on = no stealth).
The Su-47 however, has an edge in dogfight, due to it's wing shape.

It's as simple as that.

As I stated, my comment about the internal bay was "demonstrating a working interal bay". Not one of paper schematics. The Raptor has done of all of this, as well as fired it's ordinance from differing velocities.

Anyways, it's obvious your base knowledge of the F-22 is severely limited (no offense). But at least you admit to the Raptor having the BVR advantage.

Here are some facts for you, about the HERE AND NOW Raptor (at current Block No.) ---

A - The F-22 is an AWACS. Yes, the brilliant engineers of the AN/APG-77/AN/ALR-94 combo built this system to do just that. Why? Large, slow AWACS are "sitting ducks" (yes, they will still be used, even with the F-22 in the battlespace). The F-22 can act as a "mini AWACS" for a strike package as it ensures air dominance.
B - The F-22 does not need radar to fight. The AN/ALR-94 can passively track and engage a target at ranges of up to 250 miles. This system communicates with the -77 FCS to handle threat aircraft as the system deems neccesary. In other words, the Raptor will be able to lauch the AMRAAM at max range, and the -94 will continue to update the AIM-120's onboard computer with data as it reaches it target. Essentially, the -94 turns the AMRAAM into an airborne HARM missile.
C - The AN/APG-77 features a LPI passive search and track system that affords the F-22 user the ability to engage a target passively (IE-undectable)at around 100 miles or so. Plus, the frequency of the radar changes 1000 times per second and each of 1500 AESA modules can be electronically steered and power levels changed individually!

You state that the Su-47 would have an edge in a dogfight. Where exactly? No plane will out manuever the F-22 at 50,000 ft at 1,200 mph. If the fight occurs down at the deck, will the Berkut's FSW design's slight advantage over the traditional Raptor mean a thing against the F-22's HOBS missiles?

Curious to see if you can provide me the sustained turn rates, roll rates, minimum airspeeds at altitude of the Su-47 Berkut. I would love to compare them to the F-22's. While you are at it, tell me how the Su-47 would deal with the aforementioned considering the Russians have yet to field a AESA radar (not talking about 1,2,3,10 years from now either)..

Thanks for replying.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maxraptor09,

but don't you know maxraptor?
Facts and stats are pointless!
The almighty Serbian military was able to shoot down a 25 year old design!!

quote:

Originally posted by JSF-89:
but don't you know maxraptor?
Facts and stats are pointless!
The almighty Serbian military was able to shoot down a 25 year old design!!

I fear those hoodie clad militiamen with AK-47's and about half a mag of 7.62mm.

quote:

Originally posted by SkopeDog:

quote:

Originally posted by JSF-89:
but don't you know maxraptor?
Facts and stats are pointless!
The almighty Serbian military was able to shoot down a 25 year old design!!

I fear those hoodie clad militiamen with AK-47's and about half a mag of 7.62mm.

I fear kids typing on a forum.

Oh, and I am Boris Yeltsin, yes? I am at drunk.

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:
tell me how the Su-47 would deal with the aforementioned considering the Russians have yet to field a AESA radar (not talking about 1,2,3,10 years from now either)..

Thanks for replying.

The closest thing I can find is the following and it does not mention the SU-47:

radar

quote:

Originally posted by wgs1234:

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:
tell me how the Su-47 would deal with the aforementioned considering the Russians have yet to field a AESA radar (not talking about 1,2,3,10 years from now either)..

Thanks for replying.

The closest thing I can find is the following and it does not mention the SU-47:

radar

Ah. I was beginning to wonder if someone would ever bring up the folks at APA. Dr. Carlo Copp and others on that site have led a charge for Australia to procure the Raptor as priority number 1 (which subsequently won't happen to due US Congress ban on the F-22).

My main (and others) issue with that site is that the general inconsistencies regarding their comparisons of military hardware. The site's antagonists openly critisize certain western equipment and their respective manufactures claims, yet seem to hold dear whatever comes out of Russia based solely on manufacturers claims. Odd.

However, the F-22 is usually absent from such said attacks and APA "issues". I personally believe that APA and the Australia Industrial Complex suffers from Raptor-itis, which can be compared to a toddler not getting what they want. Crude? Yes. But only to make a point.

There is plenty to discuss/debate just on one of the articles on APA (and I have, lol). A ton of criticism is usually thrown at the F-35, and it's general inferiority to the F-22 (and potential problems if it ever runs into a Su-27+ future version). My main problem is the JSF program is still growing and adapting. Plus, to reach the certain capabilities they are in desire of seeing the RAAF obtain costs money. The JSF program is all about affordability, and yet not many of consortium want to spend the required R&D time and MONEY into reaching such said goals.

The world over is realizing the costs associated with developing a G5 aircraft with capabilities in the realm of the F-22. Take a look at all the F-XX programs all over the world experiencing delays (even the PAK-FA).

quote:

Originally posted by maxraptor09:

As I stated, my comment about the internal bay was "demonstrating a working interal bay". Not one of paper schematics. The Raptor has done of all of this, as well as fired it's ordinance from differing velocities.

There are also photos. They're testing it for PAK-FA

quote:

Anyways, it's obvious your base knowledge of the F-22 is severely limited (no offense). But at least you admit to the Raptor having the BVR advantage.

None taken. I've said before that Su-47 wasn't intended to be Raptor's counterpart. It's main adversaries are F\A-18E and F-35.

quote:

Here are some facts for you, about the HERE AND NOW Raptor (at current Block No.) ---

A - The F-22 is an AWACS. Yes, the brilliant engineers of the AN/APG-77/AN/ALR-94 combo built this system to do just that. Why? Large, slow AWACS are "sitting ducks" (yes, they will still be used, even with the F-22 in the battlespace). The F-22 can act as a "mini AWACS" for a strike package as it ensures air dominance.
B - The F-22 does not need radar to fight. The AN/ALR-94 can passively track and engage a target at ranges of up to 250 miles. This system communicates with the -77 FCS to handle threat aircraft as the system deems neccesary. In other words, the Raptor will be able to lauch the AMRAAM at max range, and the -94 will continue to update the AIM-120's onboard computer with data as it reaches it target. Essentially, the -94 turns the AMRAAM into an airborne HARM missile.
C - The AN/APG-77 features a LPI passive search and track system that affords the F-22 user the ability to engage a target passively (IE-undectable)at around 100 miles or so. Plus, the frequency of the radar changes 1000 times per second and each of 1500 AESA modules can be electronically steered and power levels changed individually!

Thanks you for information.

quote:

You state that the Su-47 would have an edge in a dogfight. Where exactly? No plane will out manuever the F-22 at 50,000 ft at 1,200 mph. If the fight occurs down at the deck, will the Berkut's FSW design's slight advantage over the traditional Raptor mean a thing against the F-22's HOBS missiles?

Dogfights usulally happen at 800-1200 kph speed. Faster will be dangerous for pilot's health. The very purpose of FSW is to gain better turning ability on subsonic and near-supersonic speeds.

I'm trying to translate, but here is wing strain (load, charge... not sure in english aviation terms):

Su-47 30000/125 = 240 kg/square meter
F-22 27200/78 = 348,7 kg/square meter

Lesser strain - fater turn.

quote:

Curious to see if you can provide me the sustained turn rates, roll rates, minimum airspeeds at altitude of the Su-47 Berkut. I would love to compare them to the F-22's. While you are at it, tell me how the Su-47 would deal with the aforementioned considering the Russians have yet to field a AESA radar (not talking about 1,2,3,10 years from now either)..

Thanks for replying.

Roll and turn rate strongly depends on altitude, there's no official data, so it has to be computed, and I don't know the formula. I've once asked similar question myself and been told that the best way is to compare thrust\weight ratio. So

F-22 31620/27200 = 1,16
Su-47 (with R-79M engine) 35000/30000 = 1,16

Since they're pretty much equal with the T\W ratio (R-79M also have thrust vectoring capabilities), I'd say that FSW will give Su-47 the edge.

Ant_Kalgin,

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, but they seem a little off to me from what I've seen. I'm also not too sure about the statement "Lesser strain - fater [faster] turn." That seems a little counter intuitive. I have heard of forward swept wings having an advantage in mobility, but I also know that wing area has a lot to do with mobility, and the wing area of the F-22 is 1.26 times greater than the Su-47. Furthermore, because the thrust vectoring the F-22 has is optimized for vertical thrust vectoring at greater angles and has convergent/divergent capabilities, that affords it the ability to turn into the merge and circle at a higher angle of attack to get other planes in front of it.

...

Wing area to weight (empty) might be a better representation.

F-22: 0.0193 (ft²/lb)

Su-47: 0.0184 (ft²/lb)

So you see, according to these numbers, the F-22 has the advantage in this regard.

quote:

Originally posted by Ant_Kalgin:

There are also photos. They're testing it for PAK-FA

None taken. I've said before that Su-47 wasn't intended to be Raptor's counterpart. It's main adversaries are F\A-18E and F-35.

Thanks you for information.

Dogfights usulally happen at 800-1200 kph speed. Faster will be dangerous for pilot's health. The very purpose of FSW is to gain better turning ability on subsonic and near-supersonic speeds.

I'm trying to translate, but here is wing strain (load, charge... not sure in english aviation terms):

Su-47 30000/125 = 240 kg/square meter
F-22 27200/78 = 348,7 kg/square meter

Lesser strain - fater turn.

Roll and turn rate strongly depends on altitude, there's no official data, so it has to be computed, and I don't know the formula. I've once asked similar question myself and been told that the best way is to compare thrust\weight ratio. So

F-22 31620/27200 = 1,16
Su-47 (with R-79M engine) 35000/30000 = 1,16

Since they're pretty much equal with the T\W ratio (R-79M also have thrust vectoring capabilities), I'd say that FSW will give Su-47 the edge.

Nice. I appreciate the facts (albeit disputed) that you brought to the table.

I also offer my congratulations on finding that image. I have have never seen that before with it's internal bay doors open. But, to my knowledge, the internal weapons loading capability of that bay is 1.5 tons (if you have additional info, by all means, share). That would put it at an estimated 2 stores. This would make sense considering the 14 external hardpoints. In the realm of VLO warfare, relying on external hardpoints wil add (not only drag) but added RCS for the launchers and ordinance. Plus, as I stated, there is no proof of a working (actually firing) internal weapons launch as on the Raptor. There is some serious engineering involved to perform this.

Unfortunately, I feel you are mistaken. It would be FOOLISH (I don't see Russian engineers following this logic what-so-ever) for any Russian fighter to be designed for just "one" plane of a potential adversary. The F-22 is a day one fighter. It will be the spear tip in any major air campaign undertaken by the USAF. Anybody that heads to sky to fight the USAF will face the F-22, guaranteed.

Exactly. Traditional "dogfights" have occured at lower altitudes, but that's represents the convential train of thought. The F-22 was designed and engineered to operate at altitudes over 65,000 ft (it's true ceiling height is classified). The F-119 powerplant coupled with the Raptors super clean airframe will afford the F-22 an unmatched high altitude fighter. The F-22 is designed first and foremost as a supersonic fighter, because history has showed us that speed is a dominating factor.

There is a significant problem with low speed, low altitude warfare. It's called the HOBS (high off bore sight) missile. Passive (key as to no radar) systems such as the F-22's AN/ALR-94 and the F-35's DAS system provide the pilot with 360 awareness, search and track, and direct communication to the airplanes FCS. These marvels are further augmented by a HOBS missile system such as the Aim-9X (the Russian equivelent is the Archer). All the ballet pirouette manuevers that dominate airshows wont mean a thing. Yes, the F-22 features the same type of manuevering, but in the end, the HOBS missiles terminal velocity and high g flight envelope will in most cases neutralize the Cobra type manuevers WVR.

I believe you are speaking of wing loading --
F-22 Raptor - 76lbs per sq. foot (64,000 loaded weight / 840^2 wing area)
Su-47 Berkut - 82lbs per sq. foot (55,000 loaded weight / 666^2 wing area)
As you can see, the Su-47 has a distinctive lower amount of wing area in which adds to lower lift. What happens when you load those same wings with stores? Higher wing loading, more drag, higher RCS. Of course individual weights will play a huge part in all of this, but the problem persists of a lower wing area for the Su-47. It is my guess that that the FSW design will compensate for any dificiencies in lift.

Each of the F-22's F119's are rated 37,000lbs of thrust for a total of 74,000lbs (giving the thrust/weight ratio of 1.16) . These engines are operational NOW. Not in development, or contingent on funds. The Su-47's "planned" powerplant is the AL-37FU which are rated at 32,000lbs of thrust for a total of 64,000lbs (giving the thrust/wight ratio of 1.16). Our figures were near identical in this category.

The Su-47 while possessing the physical traits of a superb fighter, will always be inferior to the F-22 in BVR due to obvious stealth advancements that the US does possess. Plus, considering the recent woes with the MiG-29 and its manufacturing defects, I seriously question the Russian's ability to manufacture and handle highy sensitive materials such as RAM and stealth coatings. Plus, if any screw is loose, there is any scratches on the plane, or a door or cockpit not sealing correctly, the RCS of the airframe takes a dramatic turn for the worse.

I would still like to hear how the Berkut would handle the F-22's AN/ALR-94 - AN/APG-77 system (in my post above, for you did not reply to that). To be honest, I agree with the USAF and others the world over, a plane that is engaged with the F-22 won't be able to for the foreseeable future.