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

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 16:56
by Normsta3
Yes, I've been posting a lot, my bad. Anyways, what do you think it would take to bring a standard F-16 (let's say a Block 50 / 52) up to par with a Su - 37 in terms of manueverability? Just a thought, because it has been proven beyond a doubt that the Su family of fighters is extremely agile, more so than many of America's fighters, including the F-16, :cry: But what could designers do to change that? Me, I'm thinkin' of adding a thrust - vectoring engine of some sort and getting rid / altering that command in the F-16's computer systems that limits the amounts of G's it can pull. What do ya'll think?

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 17:02
by DeepSpace
I think it needs to get a vectoring thurst, enlarged control surfaces (ailerons, rudder and elavetor) and as you said, get rid of that computer system :wink:

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 18:40
by Guest
All ready been done. Lockheed and General Electric fitted a vectored thrust nozzle to the VISTA F-16 in 1992...they called it MATV "multi axis thurst vectoring". It was capable of thrust vectoring in ALL 3 AXIS!!!!! They claimed it wsnt that big of a deal that it needed to be on the Acft. It cost over $2.5 mil a copy, why do it if there was a replacement aircraft on the horizon. I have a 5 min video of the F-16 flying with this....I need to get it digitized. LOL.....get rid of the computer system? It would fall out of the sky with out it. Aicraft designed around relaxed static stabilty need a computer to fly it.....nothing else would even come close. 9 g's are plenty....pilots cant take much more than that!!!!!

I didn't mean it literally

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 21:39
by Normsta3
1. I didn't suggest completely getting rid of the computer control systems, I simply suggested altering it to allow more radical movements.

2. Do you think the VISTA F-16 is equally as manueverable as the Su-37? I mean, we all know it's probably the most manueverable of the F-16 family, but we're talkin' one of, if not the most manueverable planes in all the world. Can the VISTA F-16 really stand up to that? I honestly don't know, but unfortunately, my first instinct / educated guess wouldn't be the VISTA F-16.

3. Are there any other suggestions save a thrust - vectoring engine and altering / modifying the computer control systems?

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 23:57
by Guest
They used the VISTA F-16 to test the MATV concept, please read my post carefully. Deep space is the one that suggested that the computer go bye bye.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 02:01
by Commando
Well the F-16 may have more pick-up in speed, but overall I think the SU-37 is faster.

No offense to "Guest"

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 04:11
by Normsta3
Hey "Guest", no offense meant by me. Deep Space was just agreeing with what I said earlier. Neither he nor I literally meant get rid of the computer system, just that part of the flight control system that limits just how maneuverable the F-16 can be. But anyways, you think that the VISTA F-16 is just as agile as the Su-37 huh? That's very interesting. God knows I'd love to see a fly-off between to the two to see who truly is more maneuverable, wouldn't you?

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 04:44
by Guest
"rolls his eyes"..........Listen to what I am saying (so to speak) they used the VISTA F-16.........They put a F-110 jet engine in it that had been modified with a multi axis thrust vectoring nozzle in it that was linked to the flight control system. It was capable of 128 degrees AOA. It could have been installed in ANY F-16!!!!! Yes I think in this particular configuration it was just as capable as the 37. As I said earlier I have a video tape that was done by the AF and GE....it clearly showed the capabilities of the F-16 and the MATV engine. It really doesnt have anything to do with the VISTA....thats just the platform they chose to fly it in. What really was the point of the flying program was the vectored thrust!!!!!! The VISTA was designed to simulate many different aircraft and their flyng characteristics.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 04:52
by Sparticus
I know the test he is refering to. How about this. In 1992 the AF and General Electric tested a vectored thrust nozzle in a F-16 and they concluded that it was a remarkable success. Just as capable as any vectored thrust aircraft.
On the subject of the FC computer. It has been carefully factored in to the life of the airframe that 9 G's be the limitation of the jet. Name one combat aircraft that has a higher G loading. You ever pulled 9 G's? Trust me you dont want to do it all day long, a little goes a long way. It also decreases the lifespan of the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 05:36
by cmjohnson
It should be noted that the VISTA/MATV experiments were done in the 1980's. Quite some time ago. A bit scary, when you think about it.

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.

Imagine if it'd been done to the whole fleet back in the 80's. Imagine the absolute superiority it would have established in our fighter's positions worldwide, and that is somebody that NOBODY would have questioned.

Incidentally, the MATV/VISTA system has also been successfully integerated with Pratt & Whitney F100 series engines.


CJ

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 12:50
by s_ellebaut
I've posted a litlle movie showing the F-16 MATV making the cobra manouvre some time ago, it's in the photo gallery under movies.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 21:54
by Guest
Why would you want to build/modify an F-16 with the FLCS characteristics of an SU-37...considering that the former Soviet Union has only enough money to build a few of these aircraft? Lets see, we(the F-16CJ) already have an airframe that does 9 G inst and sustains a respectable amount of G in a turning fight. Yet has the ability to shoot BVR and not even worry about turning with an SU-37! If youve ever done 9G in a dogfight - its not fun and nothing you want to do more of. Kill them before the merge and get it over with. (KSSC)

A Response To Each Of The Last Few Posts

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 03:53
by Normsta3
To Sparticus & "Guest": Ok, I already knew about the thrust - vectoring nozzle employed on the VISTA F-16. The only reason I keep using the VISTA F-16 in my points is because it was the first F-16 that I know of to have the thrust - vectoring nozzle. I never even came close to stating that it was the ONLY F-16 capable of sporting that nozzle. On the contrary, as you mentioned, a great deal of F-16s can use that nozzle. Heck, if Israel or the UAE wants, they could put those nozzles on their latest F-16s.

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. Maximum G's: enough said. The cobra manuever: one of the most complex manuevers known to man, 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). Now, the point I was trying to make earlier is one of comparisons. 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, then imagine what a Su-37 could do with thrust - vectoring engines. And I know, I know, people can't take more that 9 Gs for any length of time, but pulling more than 9 in certain circumstances could potentially end in a kill for the pilot. Potential is what I'm really talkin' about. Shoot, I don't expect every Soviet, or American pilot, for that matter, to go and pull 10+ Gs, that's crazy. But I'd say the ability to be able to do so is very useful indeed, cuz God knows that combat is a very fluid situation, one in which pulling more than 9 Gs may be necessary to save one's life. But anyways, the point is, a thrust - vectored Falcon may be equal to a Su-27, but a Su-37 kinda seems like a little bit of stretch.

To Another, or possibly same "Guest": Beyond Visual Kills are great and all, but it might not always turn out that way. Not to mention, Su-35s have the R-77 missile, which is often called the AMRAAM-ski. Seeing as how we're all intellgent individuals, I'll leave you to intelligently guess at what its performance is like. Most likely, Su-37s would be just as capable of carrying such a missile as the Su-35s. And once again, I know that doing 9 Gs or more obviously isn't good for one's health, but guess hey, if it could potentially save me from being shot down or killed, then I'd rather take a chance at living then just continue being shot at and possibly die in the process.

Well, I'm spent. I don't know if any of what I said had any value or revelance to anyone, but hey, whatever, that's what discussion boards are for, discussing. :wink: I'm tired, so I'll check ya'll later. Peace.

I apologize . . .

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 03:57
by Normsta3
Before I hit the hay for the night, I apologize for all the numerous grammatical errors in my post earlier, but frankly I'm just too dang tired to care. I just pray ya'll get the basic premise of what I'm tryin' to say. Anyways, good night.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 05:13
by Commando
I'm sure that the F-16 can pick up speed faster then the SU-30

Huh?

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 17:24
by Normsta3
What does that have to do with a Su-37? I'm confused. :? , lol, lol, lol.

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2003, 00:34
by Commando
Sorry I meant SU-37 :(

I See

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2003, 08:08
by Normsta3
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.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2003, 11:16
by Stefaan
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

Thanx Stefaan

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2003, 17:20
by Normsta3
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.

manuevering

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2003, 20:59
by lefty
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.

I Know

Unread postPosted: 24 Aug 2003, 19:37
by Normsta3
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?

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2004, 18:30
by SPIKE
The SU-37 is faster, more manueverable and more advanced. It also got Luylka Saturn Co. thrust vectors on it.

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2004, 18:39
by elp
And will still die in WVR when a HOBS Helmet Heater nails it :D :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2004, 22:26
by lamoey
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.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2004, 02:55
by Lawman
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.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2004, 15:02
by lamoey
Lawman, well put

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2004, 23:53
by RobertCook
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.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 18:31
by RobertCook
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.

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2005, 19:26
by agilefalcon16
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:

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2005, 03:41
by MATMACWC
I GOT IT!!! You can make it a 2 seater, take out the radar and all the avionics, load it with less gas, let it crash at a few airshows as WALLA, the F-16 will perform as well as the SU-37.

Please, the SU-37 shown at airshows was a ringer with all the advantages I have listed. Oh by the way, how many are front line aircraft???

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2005, 11:12
by Pumpkin
Well, the Su-30MKK and Su-30MKI are derived from the Su-35/37. They're most certainly front line.

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2005, 20:41
by parrothead
Pumpkin, I think he was just pointing out that the actual SU-37 isn't a real frontline jet :wink: . I just can't wait to see the Raptor really strut its stuff at airshows!!!

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2005, 22:12
by Pumpkin
parrothead wrote:Pumpkin, I think he was just pointing out that the actual SU-37 isn't a real frontline jet :wink: .


Well parrothead, I'm sure that was the common understanding. And I guess my response meant to point out, the actual thrust vectoring capabilities of the Su-37 is now found in Su-30MKI and it is a real frontline jet. I believe the technologies employed to facilitate agility is the discussion here, not the number game. :wink:

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2005, 00:09
by ACSheva
Im pretty sure the 30MK/I/33 can perform air to air/ground just as well as the 35-37. And yes those are real frontline jets with a few lucky countries.

ACSheva

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2005, 18:03
by blain2
So guys agility aside, what you are left with is the various components, avionics and armament. When comparing these catagories, does the F-16 not have a much better track record in terms of the MTTR and MTBF of the components involved (essentially pointing to higher sortie rates and quicker turnarounds)? Afaik, the quality and life of the various components on the Russian equipment is fairly limited.

Secondly, as someone has mentioned in the previous post, wrt having a AIM-9x/JHMCS and AIM-120 combo on the Viper, how would the F-16 be at a disadvantage then against the Su-30/37 variants? For some reason, I am do not see what the great advantage the Su30/37 would have over an F-16 which is equipped as such. Range of the Su30/37 and its radar not withstanding, what other capabilities are there where it can come off well against the viper in a WVR or even at a BVR engagement?

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2005, 01:47
by ACSheva
Maybe because the Su can see the Viper first, of course it all depends on which F 16 block its facing. And its more manueverable in a WVR scenario. And dont the new Su's carry more weapons, in range wise. But allot of it will depend on the F 16 block that its facing.

ACSheva

...

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2005, 01:26
by Northax
Agility and sustained turning rate, I believe at higher speeds, an F-16 MATV (3D thrust vectoring) with canards thrown on it will win over the Su-35/37/30MKI.

The F-16 is about half the size of an Su-37! That, together with 3D TVC and canards, I'd most definitely put my money on the F-16 being more agile... at higher speeds. Slow speed, I don't know for sure, since the F-16s' wing is smaller. An F-15 ACTIVE or F-18 HARV would probably do better in this area since they have more wing than an F-16.

Real world air-to-air combat takes place in the high speed regime, I believe.

As I've said this as well on another forum: I think Russia takes advantage of their slow-speed maneuverability at airshows to make the audience (not just civilians, but countries seeking to buy military fighter aircraft...) go 'ooh... ahh', and push them to buy their aircraft in light of this. But, I think we all know, going slow in REAL COMBAT is counter-productive! ESPECIALLY against an AIM-9X! :D

In my opinion, the reason why we (the U.S.) never threw TVC and canards on military production F-16s, F-15s and F-18s, is: We're replacing them pretty soon with the stealthy F-35 and F-22. Canards will be counter-productive to the F-22/35 since it'll make'em less stealthy; stealth is their MAIN advantage in combat. In REAL COMBAT you want the first sight, first shot, thus giving more chance for the FIRST KILL. Maneuverability of the actual aircraft is secondary in real air-to-air combat; especially in light of current missiles (AIM-9X) being able to pull 2-3x more G turns than any manned aircraft is capable of doing for atleast the next 100-200 years; and helmet mounted sights being able to point way faster than the nose of any current manned fighter can.

Anyway, in real combat, you'll want stealth over maneuverability, at the start of any mission. Stealth, together with BVR capable radars and missiles, is the best place to be in combat; it lowers the risk of you being shot down, while heightening the risk of your enemy being shot down.

Exemple: Would you rather have a sniper rifle and ghillie suite on a long, wide-open field? Or an M-4 with your basic BDU, standing out like a sore thumb?

Sure, you can 'maneuver' easier with an M-4, but your sight and accuracy is limited; and plus, you're not very well hidden, so you'll most likely be spotted way before you spot the Sniper.

With the sniper rifle and your ghillie suit blending in with your surroundings (stealth), you'll most likely have first sight of the enemy; therefore, giving way to having the first accurate shot, and ulimately the first kill. This is combat, not competition in a game to make an audience go 'ooh' 'ahh'. Many must realise that. Great agility and nose-pointing with an aircraft was great in WWII for dog fighting, but things have somewhat changed. :)

Don't get me wrong, it's good to have, but in my opinion, it's not the MAIN thing you want to think about when flying a fighter aircraft presently with the others having stealth advantages over you; while also having 2D TVC, AIM-9X and HMS.

The F-22 has 2D TVC, so it'll have very good maneuraverability also; but again, this is secondary to it's main advantage: Stealth

The X-32 had TVC also, but it lost out in competition to the X-35. So the F-35 willn't be as maneuverable as the F-22. But, atleast it has stealth, to give it the advantage in BVR.

Now, the F-16 block 60 has AESA radar, and as said before, is about half the size of an Su-3X; so, it'll be harder to spot WVR and BVR, while having extremely great range with that AESA radar. :)

RE: ...

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2005, 12:37
by agilefalcon16
I've been waiting for someone to revieve this thread. Northax, I agree with you that the a MATV Viper with canards attached would give it an advantage over a Su-35/37/30MKI in a high speed fight. But at low speeds, I'm not sure either (Too bad General Dynamics didn't give the Viper a slightly larger wing area). But still, even without a larger wing and canards, the MATV F-16 preformed incredibly. It was eaisly capable of 86 degrees AoA, and was capable of going well beyond 100 deg. Here's what I found incredible, that aircraft can even fly BACKWARDS for a brief period of time. :shock: Here's two great links that explain the MATV F-16's capablities, and its experience when it faced off against other Vipers.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/articles/jul_94/jula_94.html

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/articles/jul_94/jul2a_94.html

True, stealth does prove to be more useful today than maneuverability alone, so the Raptor could probably defeat any aircraft as the target aircraft would never see it coming. But still, after the MATV F-16 program, the USAF
should have updated the last Vipers that would be expected to be in service until at around the year 2020 to have the MATV engine nozzel. I mean how much stress really would it put on the F-16's airframe if it had the MATV nozzel? I don't think the MATV F-16 had any stress related issues. Even though thrust vectoring probably would never have showed its worth, I really, REALLY wished the USAF would have installed it on the newest Vipers, at least then it would be considered a worthy adversary against agile 5th generation fighters, like the Raptor, and the Typhoon. :(

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2005, 20:26
by IndianAirForce
Not going to happen unless you big changes are made.

Advantages of Sukhoi:
  • Big fuel tanks so no need of drop tanks
  • Super Maneuverbility
  • Designed To compete with F22 raptor and the new generation of fighters
  • Thrust vectoring
I've see the Su-37 in action. The moves it can do are excellent. The only other aircraft that can do the moves the Su37 can is the raptor.

Bottom Point: The Sukhoi Design Bureau made this aircraft to compete the new generation of airpalnes like the raptor. The F-16 ins not in that generation. Sure changes can be made but still that will not be enough, anyways why would the USAF spend money upgrading the F-16 if they have the raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter. For right now the F-16 is doing awesome. But 10 years from now, the top aircraft will be the JSF,Raptor, Su 37, Gripen, Rafale, Tyhoon, Su 30, and Mirage 2000-5.The F-16 is my favorite aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2005, 20:39
by Northax
First off, the only place I've ever seen any Su-35/7 do super-maneuverable tricks, is slow speeds (below 180 knots, or so); The F-16 is known to be more maneuverable (read: agile) at higher speeds, compared to the Mig-29, without canards or TVC. Throw 3D TVC and canards on an F-16, and I believe it'll be more agile than an Su-37...at higher speeds.

I think if we want to compare against slow-speed maneuverability and agility, we should turn our eyes toward the F-15 ACTIVE, which has a lot more wing area compared to the F-16; better TWR, as well. The F-15 ACTIVE has 3D TVC and HUGE canards, way bigger than any Su-35/7, or ANY aircraft for that matter. The bigger the canards, the more lift you'll get; the more lift on a canard, the more maneuverable the jet will become. Modify it's FBW, and I'll bet it'll whoop any Su-3X in a maneuverability contest, any day. :D

Then again, the F-16 MATV with 3D TVC alone has been said to spin in mid-air like a helicopter.

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2005, 01:00
by ACSheva
First off, the only place I've ever seen any Su-35/7 do super-maneuverable tricks, is slow speeds (below 180 knots, or so);


Well of course, because it was an airshow. You arent going to show youre sh*t by going at 500+ knots. You want people to actually see youre capabilities. But it sounds like you havent seen much of the new Sukhois.

If you look at some videos containing the performances of the Russian Knights, Strizhi. You will see the jets do the same stuff going at 300+ knots. not any slower than our TBirds, or the Blues. You will be surprised.


think we all know, going slow in REAL COMBAT is counter-productive! ESPECIALLY against an AIM-9X!


You have to understand Northax that dogfights arent going to happen at Mach 1 speeds. The Russians know that, I assure you and so do we. Each plane has its sweet spot. Bassicly he wants you to get fast/slow, and he will turn like a dime on you. Yes the 16 has a better manuverability in a fast setting, but it doesnt make the Su any less capable. All he has to do is to get you slow, and he got you. Its all design.

And I agree with Indian AF, the new Sukhois are like a bridge between the 4th and the 5th generation jets. The F 16 is a fourth generation jet. You cant make it to be a Su, actually you probably can but its not worth it. Save it for the Raptor.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2005, 15:36
by agilefalcon16
ACSheva wrote:
First off, the only place I've ever seen any Su-35/7 do super-maneuverable tricks, is slow speeds (below 180 knots, or so);


Well of course, because it was an airshow. You arent going to show youre sh*t by going at 500+ knots. You want people to actually see youre capabilities. But it sounds like you havent seen much of the new Sukhois.


Yeah, but they may also not want to make the Su-35/37 go too fast while pulling insane maneuvers, as they can over G the pilot (If the "cobra maneuver" or the "super-cobra" is performed the wrong way, it can cause serious damages to the pilot and in fact, has attributed to numerous deaths of pilots at 15g's from what I've heard.), and so they won't put too much stress on the aircraft's airframe (Since the Su-30MKI/35/37 is strongly based on the Su-27, which wasn't originally designed to use thrust-vectoring, like say the F/A-22 was).

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2005, 02:48
by ACSheva
Very good point. Very good. Im sure that speed is a very big variable when you're striking up a Cobra.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 03:37
by MATMACWC
Lag...Lag....Cobra all you want, Fox 2.....Fox 3.....Viper 1 Kill Hostile Su......

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 17:26
by Guysmiley
MATV was never considered for operational use because the engine mounts and airframe couldn't handle the stresses being put on them and still have an acceptable airframe life.

The real bottom line is that a truly effective BVR missile combined with AEW (like, oh, say an E-3 AWACS) makes any amount of agility moot. Unless the Russians can (snicker snicker) perfect their "plasma stealth". Then of course you just need to add a "home on ball of plasma" mode to the AMRAAM seeker.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 18:06
by EriktheF16462
Dig a hole in the ground and put the Viper there just like all the Su-37s are. They would then be equal. I find comparing a real fighter to a dead prototype a huge waste.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 23:56
by ACSheva
I find comparing a real fighter to a dead prototype a huge waste.


Ok, try comaring the Viper to a Su 30SMK :roll: , which is an operational fighter with the Ruskis. Very similar to the 37 in manueverability.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2005, 08:24
by cru
AC Sheva, you'r obsessed with the Su... there is no Su 30 SMK "operational fighter with the Ruskis". The only MKs are the Indian MKIs... The Russain upgrade is called Su 27 SM. There are no Su 30 S**. There are only Su 30 M*(*) or Su 30 K*

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2005, 10:22
by boff180
Su-30SMK is actually one of the multiple "other" designations the Su-27SM... they are the same aircraft... Sukhoi calls them one thing then the Russian AF calls them another (Su-27SM being the Russian AF designation)

Andy

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2005, 19:59
by ACSheva
Russian Air Forces use "intelligent" airplanes

07/13/2005 18:43

In the end of the last year, Russia's Air Forces received 25 new fighter planes Su-27-30 SKM (modernised). This year there will be at least 20 more of them. As the engineers and military officials comment, these fighter jets would become the first step towards switching the Russian Army to the fifth generation jetfighter ("Izvestia" information)

The main thing that makes Su-27 SKM stand out from the rest of the Army's Su's is that this new machine can work on both air and ground targets with the same ease. The entire specter of both non-controlled and controlled type of bombs is used for this, plus various aviation missiles. The jetfighter can use all this arsenal with no regard to neither time of the day nor to the weather conditions: pilot can drive his machine and also do bombing with the help of special equipment, explained Igor Demin, the chief constructor of "OKB Sukhoi".

"Human just needs to press "Fire" button in the right time. Yet another know-how is the radio location station of the jetfighter, which can track not only the air targets, but also the moving ground ones", he added.

Su-27 SKM is not very different from the normal Su jetfighters by appearance, however its cabin was seriously modernised. Near its usual analogue arrow meters three LCD monitors were placed, they display all flight and combat information.

The constructors comment this was made to gradually teach pilots they can observe the situation not only by arrows' movement, but by display's data too. Their greatest convenience is that all information can be found in one place.

The first Su-27 SKM will be received by Lipetsk, Kalinka, Kubinka and by many other aviation center pilot bases, Russia's military aviation elite. Now they are on duty in Russian base Kant, Kyrgyzstan.

They have to fulfill the last condition to allow wide switch from old Su's to the new ones: prepare documentation and final report on usage of this new machine in various climate and weather conditions. This has to be done in short time: Su-27 SKM is planned to be supplied to the forces massively in the second half of 2005. Navy will have its own SKMK version to follow soon after.

This year, "Sukhoi" is to start work on creation of a new, revolutionary machine, Su-35.

In 2004 "OKB Sukhoi" is starting experimental and construction works on new revolutionary jetfighter, Su-35. This machine is to become a bridge to the fifth generation jetfighters.

Su-35 will not have any analogue, arrow controls and monitors. Instead of the three LCDs there will be 2 big ones. To maximise the area of information displayed, their screens would have windows, similar to Picture-in-Picture technology in modern TVs.

Additionally, the most important of flight and combat information will be displayed in the pilot's helmet. This will free the pilot from constant need to look at the cabin's monitors before him, so that he is able to move his head around, visually evaluating the situation.

Moreover, Su-35 will be also harder to see for radiolocation stations. This can be done by using special radio waves-swallowing finish, a new paint of the jetfighter in fact. And certainly, the most serious developments to happen with engines and the main computer. They would finally become one whole.

Su-35 engines will have greater power and elasticity, which would give the machine more speed and maneuverability. Hydrodynamic controls of the power engines are to be changed to electrical. Constructors claim this would not only save space and weight, but also would allow a "parallel" control of the machine.

What it means in practice, is that the pilot's role will be less notable. The computer will be deciding what speeds and which regimes the machine is to approach targets, at which moment the pilot can be allowed to use weapons. Human will not be able to make any wrong decisions: the computer would simply switch off his controls and advice him what is the fault.

Demin believes that if the fifth generation jetfighters would still have pilots, the next generation planes will do without them. Yet some can not agree with him, including Givi Dzandzagava, President of "Technocomplex" scientific & producing center uniting 16 companies working on various equipment of Su-27 SKM.

"While the intellect level of the jetfighters' on-board equipment will be very high, we still have to leave for human an opportunity to make combat decisions at the top of the technical abilities of machines and weapons. A task given can be completed even at the cost of one's own life. Decisions on weapons use and responsibility following lies on human and no one else"

The fifth generation jetfighter is machine with brains and eyes

Dzandzagava goes on: "Today we can only generally visualise the cabin of the fifth level fighter planes, and it would resemble Su-35's cabin very much"

What is known for certain: displays of the cabin and of the pilot's helmet will feature much more information. Analogue scales with arrows and numbers will disappear for good, all the information will be in visual form. Like in prestige cars: symbols and icons.

Su-35 on-board computer processors receive information from 150 various antennas and devices, placed all over the jetfighter's body.

The fifth level airplane will have many times more such "feelings". It will be legible to say that new jetfighter feels the situation with its skin. Today there is already a task set to raise intellectual potential of the on-board computer.

Su-27 SKM tactical and technical characteristics:

Year official approval as an army machine: 2002. Maximal speed, km/h: at low heights: 1400, at the height: 2430. Practical height ceiling, meters: 18,000. Maximum flight distance, km: 3680. Maximum exploitation overload: 9. Crew: 1. Weapons: automatic one-barrel 30mm gun GS-301 (1,500 shots/min, 150 bullets). Maximum combat load: 8000 kg. The chassis' 10 bases can be equipped with "air-air" and "air-ground" rockets, and various non-controlled and correctable bombs.

"Izvestia"



Ok Cru, I was off by 3 digits :doh: .

But the point is still that the 27 SMK is the newest fighter from Sukhoi. The 37, and this SMK are very similar jets. When the SMK was presented at LeBurgeot last summer, it was presented as the SU30SMK. By the Russians themselves. I get confused myself with their designations also.

Shev :D

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 07:26
by cru
I cannot but agreee. I believe that Suhoi executives themselves get confused with such many vatriants.

However, the SKM is not so advanced as you might believe. The only advances are on A-G area. The Russians finally manages to achieve what US fighters (F16 especially) did with the C model, at the end of 80' :lol: :lol:

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2005, 12:44
by EriktheF16462
Lets see, Block 52+ with HMCS, Link and other bells and whistles or a Su whatever that is in service right now. Viper hands down!

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2005, 00:06
by ACSheva
Cru, maybe you are correct.

I just dont think that its fair for us to compare a 16 width a 37.
Su has more radar, weapons, range, power, tvc,maneuverability, etc. The SKM is actually ahead of our late 80s equipment, do you really think that they are so behind.

Here are some things which are upgraded on the SKM. First the pilot's original helmet-mounted sighting system is replaced by a new Sura KMUB unit. The SKM also has an upgraded IRST with a collimated designator, and a new L150MK radar homing and warning system can be used to cue up to 21 anti-radar missiles, as well as air to air. Did we have that capability in late 80s.

Air-to-ground capabilities are thus considerably expanded, adding compatibility with a wider selection of precision-guided air-to-surface bombs and missiles, including the Kh-29T/TE, Kh-29L, Kh-31A and Kh-31-33-35HSP missiles and KAB 500Kr and -1500-600-900Kr bombs. Also with the Israelis providing avionics for the jet, its going to be a very solid fighter. Definitely not a late 80s jet.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 07:08
by ottleymonkey
how about an F-16 with forward sweft wing and multi axis thrust vectoring? A mini berkut. Sigh, may be nasa could reconfigure X-29 with VT.

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2005, 11:03
by cru
Here are some things which are upgraded on the SKM. First the pilot's original helmet-mounted sighting system is replaced by a new Sura KMUB unit. The SKM also has an upgraded IRST with a collimated designator, and a new L150MK radar homing and warning system can be used to cue up to 21 anti-radar missiles, as well as air to air. Did we have that capability in late 80s.


AC this is a joke. Even the dedicatted EA6 cannot cue 21 ARH missiles!

Air-to-ground capabilities are thus considerably expanded, adding compatibility with a wider selection of precision-guided air-to-surface bombs and missiles, including the Kh-29T/TE, Kh-29L, Kh-31A and Kh-31-33-35HSP missiles and KAB 500Kr and -1500-600-900Kr bombs. Also with the Israelis providing avionics for the jet, its going to be a very solid fighter. Definitely not a late 80s jet.


Aslong as ther is no GPS+datalink+iir seeker A-G weapons, that exactly what US had in the 80'! (laser guided or tv guided)