How could you make the F-16 equal to Su-37 in agility?

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Normsta3

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2003, 02:08

Unread post17 Aug 2003, 17:24

What does that have to do with a Su-37? I'm confused. :? , lol, lol, lol.
Offline

Commando

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2003, 18:39
  • Location: Qatar

Unread post18 Aug 2003, 00:34

Sorry I meant SU-37 :(
Offline

Normsta3

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2003, 02:08

Unread post18 Aug 2003, 08:08

Oh, oh, I see. But how does acceleration factor into agility or dogfighting ability? Before, I thought all that really mattered in a dogfight was how skilled the pilots were and how agile their respective planes were, but apparently there is more. Do explain, cuz I'm all ears.
Offline

Stefaan

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 2603
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 11:32
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post21 Aug 2003, 11:16

Normsta3,

Acceleration allows you to pick up speed and thus (kinetic) energy - and energy is everything in dogfights. Note that I'm not saying that TOP speed is important. Every aircraft has a speed at which it can manoeuver best (small turn radius, high sustained turn rate, etc.); that speed is called the corner velocity. For the F-16, that speed is about 450mph (please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this).

Manouevring takes energy; if you start a turn in an F-16 at 450mph, you will immediately start to bleed off speed. So if you want to stay at corner velocity (and of cource, if you're flying too slow you just simply crash), you have to increase the speed again. This can be achieved by converting potential energy (i.e. height) in kinetic energy (i.e. speed), or by accelerating.

There's an old saying that summarizes this well: "Out of altitude, out of speed, out of ideas".

If you want more info on this, the energy theory of air combat was developed by Major Boyd, one of the people behind the Lightweight Fighter Program. See the <a href="http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=1&page=1">Lightweight Fighter Program</A> article on this site for more info, as well as the book <a href="http://www.f-16.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=books&file=index&req=view_cat&cid=3">The Pentagon Wars</A> (I think).

Again, someone else will be able to explain all this in a better way I'm sure :-)

stefaan
Stefaan Vanhastel
F-16.net Webmaster.
Offline

Normsta3

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2003, 02:08

Unread post21 Aug 2003, 17:20

Thanx a lot Stefaan. While visiting other F-16 sites, I had heard of a similar principle and all, but it didn't really make that much sense to me at the time. Thanx for the clarification. :D Is that why the F/A-18 has the advantage in duels between the F-16 at lower speeds? I think it is, and from what I can remember about that speed at which the F-16 is most agile, yeah, I do believe it is around 450 mph.

lefty

Unread post21 Aug 2003, 20:59

having a slightly better manueverability wont give it an advantage any longer in WVR combat. new f16's and older ones are currently being refitted with the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System. This is the most adanced and the best off boresight system in the world when combined with the aim9x. no pilot can outmanuever the aim9x and I believe the off boresight capability of the jhmcs is 90 degrees off axis. it is no longer a matter of who gets in whose 6 clock position but who sees who and fires first.
Offline

Normsta3

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2003, 02:08

Unread post24 Aug 2003, 19:37

I know, quite the departure from the old days. Now it's seems to become a matter of who sees who first, like you said. It seems so cut & dry, I see, I lock on, I kill you. Talk about precision and accuracy. In response, the Air Force really needs to look into making some much more stealthly F-16s, you know?
Offline

SPIKE

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 00:53

Unread post09 Aug 2004, 18:30

The SU-37 is faster, more manueverable and more advanced. It also got Luylka Saturn Co. thrust vectors on it.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post09 Aug 2004, 18:39

And will still die in WVR when a HOBS Helmet Heater nails it :D :D
- ELP -
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1091
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post09 Aug 2004, 22:26

I ones heard that if the F-16 or F-15 tried a cobra the engine(s) would just choke and die, which is not good if ones nose is pointing skywards... Better have a lot of altitude when this is put to a test, as the backwards slide will be lengthy, increasingly speedy and probably very scary.

If this is the case it is not down to the agility, flight control system, G limit or pilot, but the design of the air intake and the engines ability to continue running when the air supply is basically shut off and it has to suck all the air it needs to continue to run.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

Lawman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 356
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2003, 21:35

Unread post10 Aug 2004, 02:55

cmjohnson wrote:The initial system was quoted by GE to cost about 1 million per plane to retrofit, if done in reasonable numbers. These days, that 1 million might well be 2.5 million per copy, but personally, I think it would be worth it


You get the same problems encountered with the HARV Hornet at Dryden. The airframes were not originally designed to take those kind of stresses and cause structural failures over time. The increasing in bracing and strengthening would negate alot of the menuverability by adding alot of dead weight and also lower internal fuel. Also These menuvers were flown in certain load and fuel configurations, as Im almost certain the SU-37 did both in its demo and for that matter ever Flanker Cobra menuver. Replecating these menuvers in a combat loadout with the added fuel of actually flying a mission not just looping and turning around the field for the crowd would also lessen the amount of pros justifying the cons and costs.

Basically I see the SU as the russian way of justifying not having a Low Observable aircraft or the money to make one. They have to keep the flanker family lethal and sellable to the world market and by saying "it aint stealth but look what it can do" was about the only way they could do it. Some more evidence to this would be the speed at which they developed the Saturn engines compaired to the lagging behind of avionics and weapons to complete the package. So yeah to any would be nation flying against old Tiger II's and Aging Phantoms Im sure the Flanker scares the hell out of them. But when you really get in there and examine it against a prepared foe (say Isreal or Pakistan) it isnt quite as scary past the initial shock and awe.
Last edited by Lawman on 10 Aug 2004, 18:26, edited 1 time in total.
Drew
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1091
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post10 Aug 2004, 15:02

Lawman, well put
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

RobertCook

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 21:20

Unread post23 Nov 2004, 23:53

Normsta3 wrote:Second, when talking about American vs. Soviet fighters, 2 topics are nearly inevitably turned up, maximum number of G's pulled and the cobra manuever. So far, every single thread I've looked at involving those types of fighters involves those 2 topics. Why, well you know why, because it says a lot about a fighter's agility.

Why? I'd say that the answer--like for most things that most people talk about all the time--is hype. :roll:

Normsta3 wrote:Maximum G's: enough said.

Not quite enough said--the question is really how many Gs can be pulled at various speeds and altitudes.

Normsta3 wrote:The cobra manuever: one of the most complex manuevers known to man,

It's not any more complex than it is useful in combat.

Normsta3 wrote:one that CANNOT be reproduced with just any aircraft (heck, only Canadian F/A-18s can done it as far as I know, though I have a feeling that others such as the F-22 & JSF could as well).

In analogy, some people can bend their thumb back and touch their forearm (same arm) with it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have good handwriting. :)

Normsta3 wrote:It takes an F-16 with a thrust - vectoring nozzle to replicate the cobra manuever, yet the Su-27 does it with ease, WITHOUT the assistance of thrust - vectoring. It stands to logic that thrust - vectoring increases agility, so if a thrust - vectored F-16 is possibly just even with a Su-27,

Logic is only as good as its assumptions, and your assumption is inaccurate--an F-16 with an MATV nozzle can do a lot of weird maneuvers that the standard Su-27 cannot.

Normsta3 wrote:then imagine what a Su-37 could do with thrust - vectoring engines.

No offense intended, but that's sort of like saying "If they laugh this hard when I slip on one banana, they'll laugh twice as hard with two bananas!" :)

In any case, with all of the videos available, we don't have to imagine too hard. The Su-37 (and the Su-30MKI) can do the "Hook" (Cobra with controlled yaw--kind of like a J-turn) and the Kulbit (tight flip). It's fun to watch this stuff, but I don't see its utility, aside from marketing.

Lawman wrote:
cmjohnson wrote:The initial system was quoted by GE to cost about 1 million per plane to retrofit, if done in reasonable numbers. These days, that 1 million might well be 2.5 million per copy, but personally, I think it would be worth it


You get the same problems encountered with the HARV Hornet at Dryden. The airframes were not originally designed to take those kind of stresses and cause structural failures over time.

It's also an extra expense and maintenance issue to worry about for no practical benefit, except perhaps for redundancy in case of battle damage or some other cause of pitch control failure. While thrust-vectoring also offers a reduction in supersonic trim drag, this is really only justifiable (somewhat) on the F-22, for obvious reasons.
Offline

RobertCook

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2004, 21:20

Unread post24 Nov 2004, 18:31

Fintonov wrote:Hey, come on friends, why you all so negative on our Sukhoi?

I can only speak for myself, but I think that the Su-27 and its many derivatives are outstanding fighters. It's amazing what Sukhoi has been able to accomplish, even if we don't consider the situation they're in. I've just been trying to put certain aspects of fighters in perspective, such as airshow maneuvers (no matter how impressive, and they are very impressive) and thrust vectoring (which I do not support for American fighters, either). No disrespect was intended in any of my recent messages (I'm new here), although I do tend to "burst some bubbles" when I think that I know enough about something. I'll do the same for the F-22 when I find out what's wrong with it, too. :)

Fintonov wrote:The SU xx are fantastic plane, big radar,many missiles, great turn,quick speeds,

No argument here.

Fintonov wrote:maneuver are also best.

The F-22 and Typhoon are more optimized for supersonic maneuvering, but while subsonic, as far as I can tell, Flankers can stand up to or exceed anything that anyone else has.

Fintonov wrote:1v1 f15vsu35 SU will be victorious in air fight I believe.

In theory, yes, it certainly seems capable of this, and I think that the USAF and other western air forces would agree with you. I don't think that anyone doubts the Flanker's overall aerodynamic superiority to the F-15, but it's hard to tell how they really compare as a whole under combat conditions, as they have never faced each other on equal terms, even during exercises, and probably never will (for one thing, pilots are never equal).

Fintonov wrote:One good thing USA have is AWACS. Our AWACS plane are Mig31, it is good, but AWACS is better help to pilot.

They're not really comparable, as I'm sure you're aware, because the MiG-31 is an interceptor with great radar capabilities and an additional crewman to do extra work, while the E-3 AWACS is a dedicated control system. However, for what it's worth, I'm sure that the MiG-31 would win in a 1-on-1 fight with the E-3. ;)

I'm only half-joking--it wouldn't be funny for the USAF if a MiG-31 really did blaze in at Mach 2.8 and took out an E-3. As long as Russia doesn't export the MiG-31, I'm sure that this will never happen, although the old MiG-25 is still pretty good, too.

Fintonov wrote:Your F 22$$$ is great, and it will be for period time,

It's designed to be superior, just like the Su-27 was in its time, and its price tag reflects this. If it's any consolation, a great many Americans seem to despise the Raptor for a number of reasons, including cost, the opinion that it's ugly, and the fact that the YF-23 lost the competition. I disagree, but that's just my opinion.

Fintonov wrote:pilot is who is victorious in air fight, plane always help pilot, I put $$ on Su 35 if 1v1 fight againts f15-16C.

All else being equal, I'd agree, although as you've seen, there are many caveats to consider. In most forums I've participated in, I think that Flankers are criticized less than most other fighters, actually.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post31 Mar 2005, 19:26

Does the Raptor's computer system limit it from pulling over 9 g's like the Viper's does? I thought it, but I just want to be sure. :wink:
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest