New Russian Jet Fighter

[spookyload]

Originally Posted by Kimbo

let's see what i read from these two patriots, within seconds...

1st guy goes on about the best training et al
2nd guy perhaps infers that the unit used was a 70's era "piece of junk"
well then that in itself is points to russia (it's russian made) since a 70's piece of junk can hit a 1988ish "stealth" plane, no doubt retro fitted with heaps newer sh!t.
then he says it was because of the same time. wth ? so are the strike planners stupid ? must be, because then we have:
what the 1st guy said and the 2nd guy says since vietnam and also in vietnam. so the americans haven't learned from the same mistake in decades ?? which is it then ? superior training or none at all ???? i mean here we have them saying: we lost planes in 'nam because of times... nearly 30 years later they loose planes (the 117 was only the most famous - they lost plenty more normal jets) because of the same reason. huh ? (and actually i find that hard to believe anyway - do you have proof? i doubt american military planners are stupid, eh ? show us proof of what you said: the same target was hit multiple times at the same time)


and don't the 117's fly real high ??? and fast... dam that 70's junk must be pretty good then...
also why hit the same target multiple times ? 1st time couldn't do the job properly ?? maybe. (i do know that many targets were multi hit to keep the sorties going because at one stage they ran out of targets.. and had they stopped and then restarted the momentum would be gone. by that i mean to convince the populace of the west about it. because otherwise if there was a time of say two weeks with no strikes at all because they have finished hitting all they could - which they have - then people watching would have said "hey what's going on ? why are you starting new bombings? they finished two weeks ago!!" but that's another story...)

Not really sure what your agenda is. When I said the same time, I don't mean being the exact second of the day. I was referring more to a two or three hour window. They strike the same targets because they don't always use lethal weapons. On top of that smart bombs don't always hit targets, no matter how smart. Why not go find yourself a two or three start general and ask him why they flew missions like that. I don't know, but I am pretty sure they had a reason. Lessons learned are not always lessons learned. And compared to the F-117 the SA-3 is an old piece of junk. 18 years is a long time in tech development. Think about the computer you have now and what you had 18 years ago.

You also seem to be confusing my post. I was speaking the first part to training, supply's, and technology in regards to the F-22 vs SU-30 post. The F-117 part was to correct what someone had said about what it shot it down. Nothing more. I am not saying they didn't and won't use stupid tactics in the future, but it has nothing to do with how a F-22 will dogfight.

If you would like to talk about this further, perhaps we can do it in PM. Sorry you anti-war agenda got its feelings hurt. I thought this was in the open forum and not the heated debates.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment that you tried to put off as an insult BTW. I am indeed a patriot. That is why I have chosen to serve my Air Force for the last 17 years, flying combat missions in four different conflicts. I truly hope I can be considered a patriot.

[johnrr6]

Kimbo-----I don't understand your post----or your logic....

It's my opinion in my post----nothing more....

Love to sit down and talk to you sometime about your views---but guess this will have to do as I'm old and cranky and I ain't going to Australia....

If I came across as too American and irritated you----it was not meant to do so....

I simply firmly believe that if another countries Air Force comes up against ours-----they will lose no matter if the have a few exceptional planes and a few exceptional pilots.

I'll bet the Russian Jet is GREAT!

But then the questions arise.
How many do they have?
How many pilots are trained well with it.
What tactics are used with it?
Can it be maintained properly
How quickly can they rearm and refuel it and get it back into the air?
What kind of intelligence structure supports it and gives it missions?
What kind of supporting technology is employed----the list goes on and on.....

And in the end----RIGHT NOW----at this particular moment in history, we win-----hands down....

And to tell you the truth, even with all of the flaws we have as Americans (and we certainly do)......

Having been all over the world----and seen a lot of countries and lifestyles.....

I'll take our "American ways" any day-----it might not be utopia----but it is pretty darn good in comparison to a lot of places I've been....

So pardon me for feeling comfortable about the fact that IF we had to go to blows with some folks----we have an Air Force that would kick their tails 22 ways from Sunday......

BTW----I served with some Aussies in the Desert in 91---superb soldiers and fine people-----I trusted them completely and enjoyed working with them.

And as for the jibe about being a patriot....

I take it you are from the school of thought like Samuel Johnson who said "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" or Oscar Wilde who said "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."----or maybe you like Tolstoys thoughts on Patriotism....

I tend to look at it in a much simpler light.....and I believe that being a Patriot is more of a good thing than bad.

Funny, how when you've laid in a muddy hole through the night, just praying to God that the next mortar shell isn't coming for you----and you look around and see a bunch of scared kids holding their ground---despite little ammo, no food and chances pretty high that they are about to get themselves killed.....

Yeah----funny how that tends to simplify your views a bit......

[XJ.]

Originally Posted by ade2008l

سلام الي كل الاصدقاء اعضا المنتدى
انا لاول مرة اشارك
وارجوا المساعدة
ممكن يا اصدقائي

You're first post and it's totally unreadable by 90+% of our active users. All I can say is huh...?

[ctal]

Originally Posted by XJ.

You're first post and it's totally unreadable by 90+% of our active users. All I can say is huh...?

He's probably another weird would-be spammer.

-- Al

[ctal]

I'd first like to express my sincere and considerable appreciation to John and Spooky for the dedication and sacrifice they have made on behalf of their fellow Americans.

Second, with respect to the comments that have been made comparing American vs. Russian air superiority, I want to emphasize that an important factor in the comparison should be avionics ("aviation electronics") capability. And as one who has worked extensively on the design of these kinds of systems, I would suspect that the radar systems, countermeasure systems, and other electronics on American fighters are far superior to their Russian counterparts. Soviet avionics and other electronic systems apparently were still vacuum tube-based 20 or 30 years or more after transistors and integrated circuits started being utilized in our systems. The signal processing and other aspects of our systems today typically take advantage of the advances in computer-related technologies that we are all familiar with, in which we are undoubtedly far ahead of the Russians.

Regards,
-- Al

[TQ]

Plus they don't have cable in those jets. If you look closely at the video you'll see a rabbit ear at the tip of each wing.

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by ctal

I'd first like to express my sincere and considerable appreciation to John and Spooky for the dedication and sacrifice they have made on behalf of their fellow Americans.

Second, with respect to the comments that have been made comparing American vs. Russian air superiority, I want to emphasize that an important factor in the comparison should be avionics ("aviation electronics") capability. And as one who has worked extensively on the design of these kinds of systems, I would suspect that the radar systems, countermeasure systems, and other electronics on American fighters are far superior to their Russian counterparts. Soviet avionics and other electronic systems apparently were still vacuum tube-based 20 or 30 years or more after transistors and integrated circuits started being utilized in our systems. The signal processing and other aspects of our systems today typically take advantage of the advances in computer-related technologies that we are all familiar with, in which we are undoubtedly far ahead of the Russians.

Regards,
-- Al

This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the electronics. Just because something's using vacuum tubes does not mean it's not as good as something using ASICs. The vacuum tube story you remember is probably the MiG-25 Flogger that Belenko defected with to Japan in the late 70's. Even though it seemed arcane at first, the energy output of the radar was so high it could burn through EWF jamming like it was a hot knife through butter. In fact, if memory serves me right, US experts had to admit that it was a formidable piece of engineering with surprisingly good performance. (Back in the 70's you couldn't get the same effect out of integrated circuits you can today, using vacuum tubes was a way around that.)

Today, the latest Russian fighters have AESA radars (Active Electronically Scanned Array -- the "dish" is actually a grid of independent transceivers that can be utilized for various purposes other than traditional radar scanning, such as communication) which is pretty much the state of the art in any air force. All the latest fighters are fly-by-wire, and the computer throughput you need for that task is many generations behind the latest commodity hardware (which is necessary to know of as many bugs as well).

As for the rest of the avionics and overall networking capabilities, I don't know, but if a nation like Sweden can create a networked combat management system (STRIL) that rivals most things you can throw at it, Russia can too. (Any Gripen can act as an AWACS of sort, it can easily relay data between fighter groups and if you have a link aircraft on the ground, you can replay the major items an airborne pilot can see in the system on a big screen with little fuss. That last bit was used to scare the bejesus out of Argentinians a while back, with fun little mock attacks against the hangar where the dignitaries were situated.)

[zapionics<alt>]

Originally Posted by ade2008l

سلام الي كل الاصدقاء اعضا المنتدى
انا لاول مرة اشارك
وارجوا المساعدة
ممكن يا اصدقائي

مرحبا ، اهلا بك الى abx.
الرجاء الوظيفة باللغه الانجليزيه.
عذرا لمشكلة اللغة.

[ctal]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the electronics. Just because something's using vacuum tubes does not mean it's not as good as something using ASICs. The vacuum tube story you remember is probably the MiG-25 Flogger that Belenko defected with to Japan in the late 70's. Even though it seemed arcane at first, the energy output of the radar was so high it could burn through EWF jamming like it was a hot knife through butter. In fact, if memory serves me right, US experts had to admit that it was a formidable piece of engineering with surprisingly good performance. (Back in the 70's you couldn't get the same effect out of integrated circuits you can today, using vacuum tubes was a way around that.)

Today, the latest Russian fighters have AESA radars (Active Electronically Scanned Array -- the "dish" is actually a grid of independent transceivers that can be utilized for various purposes other than traditional radar scanning, such as communication) which is pretty much the state of the art in any air force. All the latest fighters are fly-by-wire, and the computer throughput you need for that task is many generations behind the latest commodity hardware (which is necessary to know of as many bugs as well).

As for the rest of the avionics and overall networking capabilities, I don't know, but if a nation like Sweden can create a networked combat management system (STRIL) that rivals most things you can throw at it, Russia can too. (Any Gripen can act as an AWACS of sort, it can easily relay data between fighter groups and if you have a link aircraft on the ground, you can replay the major items an airborne pilot can see in the system on a big screen with little fuss. That last bit was used to scare the bejesus out of Argentinians a while back, with fun little mock attacks against the hangar where the dignitaries were situated.)

Interesting perspectives, kONGO, and I stand at least partially corrected.

But let me give you an example of the kind of technology I was thinking of. The radar in a modern fighter must have what is called look-down capability, meaning the ability to detect an enemy aircraft that is at a lower altitude. To do that, it has to be able to isolate that aircraft's radar reflection from the much larger amplitude reflections from the ground (referred to as ground "clutter"). That is done basically by spectral analysis, taking advantage of the Doppler shift that will differ between the aircraft's radar reflection and the reflection from the ground. The signal processing required to do that (or at least, to do it well) has to be very powerful high speed real-time dsp, which in turn requires modern asic and other advanced ic technology. Particularly when, as in a fighter aircraft, the system has to be small and lightweight, and must consume relatively limited power.

Regards,
-- Al

[fvbounty]

Boy did this thread go off in all different ways, I just thought it was a neat video of a airplane doing things I never seen before....by the way I was a Airframes mechanic when I was 18 years old until I was 21, at the Alameda Naval Air Station, working on some old timers, A4, A7, and A6's when they first came out, really enjoyed working on them.

[Ozzie]

What a good read this thread has become! I've always been fascinated by these marvels of technology.

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by ctal

Interesting perspectives, kONGO, and I stand at least partially corrected.

But let me give you an example of the kind of technology I was thinking of. The radar in a modern fighter must have what is called look-down capability, meaning the ability to detect an enemy aircraft that is at a lower altitude. To do that, it has to be able to isolate that aircraft's radar reflection from the much larger amplitude reflections from the ground (referred to as ground "clutter"). That is done basically by spectral analysis, taking advantage of the Doppler shift that will differ between the aircraft's radar reflection and the reflection from the ground. The signal processing required to do that (or at least, to do it well) has to be very powerful high speed real-time dsp, which in turn requires modern asic and other advanced ic technology. Particularly when, as in a fighter aircraft, the system has to be small and lightweight, and must consume relatively limited power.

Regards,
-- Al

Phazotron's Zhuk series seem to have that capability, and for some time now.

All I'm really trying to say is the Russians are highly skilled at engineering and mathematics. They're also very frugal, in that they know how to make the most of the material they have at hand. They may be a generation or three behind Intel in terms of semiconductor nodes, but for military use that's still fine (spurious bit errors increase with smaller line widths in high-radiation surroundings, for example).

There are many examples. The RS-68 rocket engine, which will power the Ares V, is a direct derivative of technologies pioneered by the Russians, with turbo pumps for the liquid fuels and a much less complicated cooling system. Ufimtsev pioneered stealth, and Skunkworks took his research to heart and from that came the Have Blue etc.

They just generally get this implicit bad reputation because of the PR prowess of the US military machine (with countless documentaries, Hollywood flicks and so on).

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by k0NG0

As for the rest of the avionics and overall networking capabilities, I don't know, but if a nation like Sweden can create a networked combat management system (STRIL) that rivals most things you can throw at it, Russia can too. (Any Gripen can act as an AWACS of sort, it can easily relay data between fighter groups and if you have a link aircraft on the ground, you can replay the major items an airborne pilot can see in the system on a big screen with little fuss. That last bit was used to scare the bejesus out of Argentinians a while back, with fun little mock attacks against the hangar where the dignitaries were situated.)

All true----and the Swedes have been excellent and innovative for as long as I can remember----I built models of J-35 Drakens as a kid. There is a reason Hitler never invaded Sweeden-----because the Swedes always recognized that neutrality AND a large and VERY capable defense force was the most beneficial path for it as a nation.

but----I digress....

What I'm talking about is economies of scale.....

Sure----using certain excellent systems---at certain points of time----at certain places on a battlefield----it would be absolutely possible for another country to gain local air superiority----for a limited time and with limited objectives in mind.....

But in the bigger picture-----for long term capabilites and ultimate success----no one can match the US at this given point of time in History....

It's that simple...And we haven't even spoken about the US's long range bombardment and interdiction capabilities.......

And---as an American----I LIKE that-----gives me a "warm and fuzzy" if you will.....

Different but similar subject.....

Favorite WW II airplane: P-51 Mustang
Coolest looking American plane: Curtis P-40 Warhawk with the Sharks Teeth painted
Favorite American Unit: The Flying Tgers
Weirdest American Plane: Bell P-39 Airacobra---totally outclassed but carried a 37 mm cannon that fired through the nose.....The Russians loved it as a tank buster
Favorite German Plane: Messerschmidt ME-109
Favorite British Plane: Spitfire (of course)
Favorite Japanese Plane: Zero (of course)
Favorite Amercan Ace: Richard I Bong----40 kills flying a P-38 for crying out loud...

Favorite Foreign Ace: Eino Luukkanen from Finland; 54 kills of which 19 were in an old Brewster Buffalo----the guy HAD to be a heck of a pilot....

Favorite Comics Ace: DC's Ace Johnny Cloud and his P-51

Not bad for an old ground pounder.....

[johnrr6]

Originally Posted by fvbounty

when I was 18 years old until I was 21, at the Alameda Naval Air Station, working on some old timers, A4, A7, and A6's when they first came out, really enjoyed working on them.

Man----you ARE old.....

Like me....

[fvbounty]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

Man----you ARE old.....

Like me....

Right Oldies but Goodies!!!!!! LOL