Su-37 Video

[Tripp]

I can't remember if this video has been posted here, but someone emailed me this link to a video of the SU-37 "Super Flanker" (Pay attention! Some of us will see this aircraft again later in our careers...). Check out the thrust-vectoring nozzles at the beginning of the clip.

http://www.artbell.com/video/su37.mpg

 

[Ed Williams]

DErrill Thompson sent that before. That is some crazy flying. Doesn't the f-22 have the thrust-vectoring nozzles? I hope i don't see it on the other side.
ed

 

[Dave Shutter]

F-22 does have thrust-vectoring, but their to enable it in turning ability, not circus stunts; of course it could and we'd probably never know about it: hush-hush. The SU-37 MKK
(in the video) has vertical/horizontal vectoring, but I've read about a MKI vesion that vectors 360'.

Sure, an amazing plane, (only a handful of those advanced Flankers though, and even fewer test pilots who can do those maneuvers) everything I've read about the purpose for those maneuvers is to allow for their allegedly advanced off-boresight, helmet-sight aimed missles to be fired; but if you can really shoot a missle like that, you don't need to fly like that??? That's the whole rational behind our development of the AIM-9X Off-Boresight Sidewinder, we can build planes that can do 15-20 G's. Problem is no one can fly it. We get around that glass ceiling of pilot endurance by building a heatseeker that can kill from any angle and Raptor, Superbug and JSF will carry it. They have the same type of missles, had them first actually; the difference between theirs and ours (same as always) ours will actually work!!!

As for the application of it's abilities: well, next time you're at an air-show ask a real fighter pilot if coming to a near stop in mid-air, and then traveling a slow and predictable flight path are healthy practices in a real world fur-ball. I've asked dozens, the unanimous response: "smile for the gun-cam B*tch!"

D

Edited by - Dave Shutter on 05/06/2001 01:40:29

 

[Ed Williams]

I was under the impression that the Su-37 was too expensive to produce in any large quantities.
ed

 

[Dave Shutter]

Yeah, I've never heard or read anything about the actual price of a Flanker, only that they were extremely expensive to produce. They have developed some really impresive (impressive sounding anyway) Flanker models, but besides the handfulls of SU-34/35/37's sold to China, India and so forth, they really haven't been built to any numbers. And what little #'s they have aren't going to be sent to attack an American Carrier. As for encountering one of these back-flipping planes while doing air-ops near Russia, you'd probably see a green faced old lady on a broomstick first. So they're basically X-planes. Hell, Russia can't afford to mass-produce light prop planes right now.

my $0.04

D

 

[Ed Williams]

quote: As for encountering one of these back-flipping planes while doing air-ops near Russia, you'd probably see a green faced old lady on a broomstick first. So they're basically X-planes. Hell, Russia can't afford to mass-produce light prop planes right now.

FIne by me
ed

 

[Tripp]

Speaking of Russian training a/c:

A couple of days ago, I happened to be reading a Jane's Aircraft primer (kinda like one of those Audobon Bird Identification Guides) and noticed that MiG has begun to market a jet trainer (The MiG-AT) that was designed to compete against the BAe Hawk (which we all know Boeing ripped off to build the Goshawk ). I couldn't help but noticing that the light attack version was designed to use AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missles.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! You know it's a cold day in Hell when the frickin' Russians are using Sidewinders! Might as well sell them frickin' Phoenixs to mount on their Mig-31s while we're at it...



Edited by - Tripp on 05/06/2001 01:58:50

 

[Dave Shutter]

What are you doing up this late Tripp, don't you have school or something jump in the chat room when your done...

Yeah, a lot of other article's I 've read illustrate Sukhoi's desperation to get into the international fighter market. A lot of their advanced designs: Strike-Flanker/Super-Flanker etc. (gee, where'd they get that idea from) aren't really for the sake of defending the Motherland but for export. But like I said before, and you don't need to be an Aerospace expert to know this, there's no way your going to sell expensive, unproven, unreliable Flankers, when you can buy oh-so reliable and proven American birds. Like say, F-16's and F-15's who used Migs for target practice over Bosnia and the Gulf!

Oh well, that's life without AWACS.

D

 

[Randy Haskin]

quote:
there's no way your going to sell expensive, unproven, unreliable Flankers, when you can buy oh-so reliable and proven American birds. Like say, F-16's and F-15's who used Migs for target practice over Bosnia and the Gulf!

Sort of true. For one, the base per-unit cost of your average FLANKER and FULCRUM is significantly less than your average Eagle, Viper, or Hornet, and gives you essentially comparable performance. This would be appealing to a lot of countries short on the budget but wanting to replace outdated equipment.

We all know that current Russian fighters leave something to be desired in reliability, but most countries don't look at the "down the road" maintenance and spares replacement costs. Unless you're Israel (and the US is going to *give* you the F-15 plus a lot of spare parts and weapons) or an oil-rich country that can afford US equipment, there's definitely an argument for going with the Russian designs.

Second, both FLANKERs and FULCRUMs have combat experience (and kills), specifically in the Eritrea/Ethiopia war and the Yemeni civil war. Granted, they were not fighting US equipment, but they were able to easily defeat second and third-generation ex-Soviet jets without western-style tactics.

I'm just glad that there hasn't been a market for things like the Su-37, although India's Su-30MKI has very similar performance. The less of this stuff that gets out on the world market, the more likely it will be that I win at the next hostile Merge.

 

[Frumby]

Aw now, come on Randy. I thought a hostile merge for an F-15 guy is a 100 mile, BVR, Fox-3 shot followed by the infamous "Eagle Bug" Semper Fi! Frumby

P.S. The soviets wouldn't want our crappy missles anyway. Soviet missle technolgy has been better then the ol USA's for awhile.

Attack Pilot
Major USMC

 

[Randy Haskin]

quote:
Aw now, come on Randy. I thought a hostile merge for an F-15 guy is a 100 mile, BVR, Fox-3 shot followed by the infamous "Eagle Bug"

If that's what it takes for me to be able to put my GBU-10 through the front window of his O-Club, then so be it.

That typical F-15 engagement is especially true with the Mud Eagle...with a full load of iron hanging under the jet I'm more than happy to stiffarm a MiG and let the "skinny wingman" go get the kill. I'm usually a "the only real kill is a guns kill" kind of guy, but ANYONE would be proud of a 100-mile AMRAAM kill!

 

[Frumby]

Ok, I'll concede. A kill is a kill regardless of the method. This philosphy works well at 1:45 am at the O'club, why not during an air to air eengagement! Frumby

Attack Pilot
Major USMC

 

[Phoenix]

I personally think that underestimating any type of Su-27 is either a sign of BIG arrogance, POOR knowledge of military aviation, or ENORMOUS stupidity. First of all, even the first version of Su-27, has a smaller radar signature than ANY type of F-15, including the Strike Eagle, except for the israeli version, the Ra´am. Second of all, it has a greater thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15 and better avionics. The Su-37 is an Su-27, which has seen A LOT of improvement in all of those areas, which makes it the BEST operational strike-fighter today. It also has better sensory equipment than the F-15, it can detect and launch missiles at aircraft over 150 miles away(and NOT just the Su-37, even the earlier models can do that). If you ask me, the only role that an F-15 fighter would play in a BVR engagement with an Su-27 would most likeley be a TARGET. I´m no big fan of russian military aviation (love the design of the US fighters ), but such underestimation of an opponent can prove fatal in a real engagement. Keep that in mind. It is however true that few russian pilots (if any) get the amount of flight hours that the US pilots have. But if the engagement took place with the airplanes over 100 miles away, I´d put my bet on a Suhoi. One last thing: I don´t think that it´s fair to compare a virtually unarmed MiG-29 with no sensory equipment at all, its only armament being the guns, flown by a completely untrained pilot, to a fully A/A armed F-15C. And did I by chance miss the fact, that the number of MiGs in the air that night was equal to three and there were LITERALLY multiple squadrons of F-15s firing at them.
And that, as Dave mentioned before, is TARGET PRACTICE. Give those MiGs a decent armament, some capable pilots, some reinforcements and you get a hell of a threat. About russian airplanes being unreliable: I beg to differ. Russian airplanes are MUCH more reliable than their american counterparts and can operate at temperatures reaching well below zero and from any reasonably hard surface.

Phoenix out - http://www.vfa25.com - Virtual F/A-18 Hornet squadron

 

[Randy Haskin]

Phoenix, either this post is flame-bait, or you're displaying a little ignorance yourself. Regardless, the post is bogus on multiple levels. Discussion follows:

quote:
even the first version of Su-27, has a smaller radar signature than ANY type of F-15, including the Strike Eagle, except for the israeli version, the Ra´am.


The F-15I has the exact same RCS as the US F-15E...there is no special RAM or radar-absorbant paint on it.

quote:
Second of all, it has a greater thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15 and better avionics.


Better avionics?? Based on what? Better radar? Better RWR? Better jammer? What experience or information makes you think this? My information *and* experience says otherwise.

quote:
The Su-37 is an Su-27, which has seen A LOT of improvement in all of those areas, which makes it the BEST operational strike-fighter today.


The Su-37 is a *one off* aircraft. There is *one* (1) of them. I don't deny this jet's impressive airshow demonstration and thrust vectoring nozzles, but you can hardly call a one-off aircraft an "operational strike fighter." If that's the game, then why don't you compare it to the F-22 -- which it is at a significant disadvantage against in both the BVR arena and the WVR fight (without the Archer and the HMS).

quote:
It also has better sensory equipment than the F-15, it can detect and launch missiles at aircraft over 150 miles away


Impressive! Just out of curiosity, what is the max range of the Su-27's radar scope? (Hint, I know the answer, and it's not 150 miles!)

quote:
compare a virtually unarmed MiG-29 with no sensory equipment at all, its only armament being the guns, flown by a completely untrained pilot, to a fully A/A armed F-15C.


So, a Serbian MiG-29 (with a SLOTBACK radar which, in my book, qualifies as "sensory equipment") with AA-10As and AA-11s is "virtually unarmed"? If you look at the photos of the crash site of the aircraft, you can clearly see both these missile types. In addition, the pilots' own reports reveal that they attempted to shoot ARCHERs. As for the pilots, Major Slobodan Peric and Captain 1st Class Zoran Radosavljevic (both shot down) were "completely untrained pilots"?

I'll agree with the main point of your post -- that is, the FLANKER and FULCRUM are both formidible threats to US fighter aircraft. Yes, underestimating their abilities can be deadly. There are some of us, however, on this board who are professional fighter pilots. I make it my business to *not* be ignorant about my potential threats and *not* to underestimate their capabilities, because doing so may cost me my life someday. I spend a lot of time studying a wide variety of source material, exploitation material, and intelligence material about the FLANKER and other threats. I'm fairly confident that I'm not being deluded by some huge NATO conspiracy to devalue the capabilities of these threats, especially when people I work with have *actually flown* these threats and seen their capabilities firsthand.

Based on this, I think your assessment of the capabilities of the FLANKER vis a vis the F-15 are inaccurate.



Edited by - Randy Haskin on 05/09/2001 22:57:18

 

[bpikula]

I don't know much about the capabilities or the limitations of the latest jet aircraft. I never really cared I guess. I always thought that I would learn that stuff when the time came. After reading these post I learned a few things, most importantly: If you mess with Randy Haskin he will tear you a new one.