Su-30

[Wonder 0]

Yes, I know about the X-31. It's mostly built of parts mostly from F-16s and F-5 among other aircraft. It is the only 3D thrust-vectoring aicraft that I'm aware of. The thing it's nothing but a test aircraft with no weapons. The russian Su-35 on the other hand is a full-grown combat aircraft.

It's like comparing the Mig-25 with the SR-71... Sure, the SR-71 is faster, but the Foxbat is a front line combat aircraft, and that's what shocked the west when they found out about it.

I'm sure the russians talk more about their equipment nowadays, because they're concentrating more on exports, because the russians cannot afford to buy them themselves. The Americans don't have that problem, so they can be more hush-hush about their newest equipment.

The perfect combat aircraft would be something designed by russian engineers and built by american hands that has an american radar, american avionics and an american cockpit. It would be armed with a russian cannon, russian close-range missiles and american long-range missiles, powered by russian engines and tested by american test-pilots.

[da_ofp_man 0]

Yes, I know about the X-31. It's mostly built of parts mostly from F-16s and F-5 among other aircraft. It is the only 3D thrust-vectoring aicraft that I'm aware of. The thing it's nothing but a test aircraft with no weapons. The russian Su-35 on the other hand is a full-grown combat aircraft.

It's like comparing the Mig-25 with the SR-71... Sure, the SR-71 is faster, but the Foxbat is a front line combat aircraft, and that's what shocked the west when they found out about it.

I'm sure the russians talk more about their equipment nowadays, because they're concentrating more on exports, because the russians cannot afford to buy them themselves. The Americans don't have that problem, so they can be more hush-hush about their newest equipment.

The perfect combat aircraft would be something designed by russian engineers and built by american hands that has an american radar, american avionics and an american cockpit. It would be armed with a russian cannon, russian close-range missiles and american long-range missiles, powered by russian engines and tested by american test-pilots.

American avionics and American cockpit-yes but why American radar Russian radars that are now entering to service are one of the bests in the world and who knowes what radars werent shown to public. And one thing more why test-pilots from America it is proven that pilots from Russia are way more better pilots then Americans its a fact finally they wont be at the top of the ranking if they werent that good

[Wonder 0]

American test pilots because the russians aren't used to giving feedback to the developers. The defence department simply gave the preformance requirements and so the manufacturer came up with an aircraft that can meet these requirements and the russian air force pilots just had to accept the new fighter as it was wether they liked it or not. No modifications requested by the pilots were  made.

I don't know if the russian pilot is better than the american, and I'm not going to comment on that either, but I'm pretty sure the avarage american pilot has more flight hours than the avarage russian pilot.

[Consigliere 0]

It's like comparing the Mig-25 with the SR-71... Sure, the SR-71 is faster, but the Foxbat is a front line combat aircraft, and that's what shocked the west when they found out about it.

So the SR-71 isn't a frontline aircraft?

[Sole 0]

No, the SR-71 is a spy plane designed, it carries no weapons...

As for the rear fireing missiles on Flankers, I've read about it a while back. did a short search on google and this was the first thing that popped up:

Quote[/b] ]The interesting concept of rearward-firing missiles has apparently been tested on Su-27s, using modified R-73 missiles mounted on rotating pylons that can fire missiles in either direction. The production version apparently has a "nose cone" over the rocket engine (jettisoned on launch), and modified fins to prevent instability problems while briefly flying backwards after launch. The launch rails are fitted with gas cartridges to boost the missile backwards, so its own engine doesn't have to overcome the aircraft's full forward speed. It isn't clear whether the missiles will be mounted on fixed rearward facing rails, or rotating pylons similar to those used during development. How well any of this will work in practice remains to be seen.

[Consigliere 0]

No, the SR-71 is a spy plane designed, it carries no weapons...

Yes thankyou I am aware of the SR-71s role...

So?

The AWACs aircraft also doesn't carry weapons, are you saying this isn't a frontline aircraft?

Recon might not be glamorous, but it is as important as strike... You can't strike without reconnaissance...

[da_ofp_man 0]

American test pilots because the russians aren't used to giving feedback to the developers. The defence department simply gave the preformance requirements and so the manufacturer came up with an aircraft that can meet these requirements and the russian air force pilots just had to accept the new fighter as it was wether they liked it or not. No modifications requested by the pilots were  made.

I don't know if the russian pilot is better than the american, and I'm not going to comment on that either, but I'm pretty sure the avarage american pilot has more flight hours than the avarage russian pilot.

Maybe I overestimate Russians but their are very good pilots

that are a big danger to any west pilot.Now to the matter of the test-pilots.Yes with new planes is just like you say but there is one hitch before the planes go to frontline unites someone had to test the plane if it fulfills requirements and that one was just a Russian test-pilot

[Consigliere 0]

Russians are very good pilots, it's just the equipment they use tends to disappoint them more often than not

[da_ofp_man 0]

 I'd agree with rearward facing radars,

Yep and I have just found some info about this radar  It is   Fazotron-NIIR Kopjo-DL a light radar with an active antena  with phasic chic it is mounted in airplanes tail the task of this radar is to monitor the situation behind the plane.Its purpose is not to guide rockets its task is only to steer the  planes selfdefance system.

[da_ofp_man 0]

Since fast multirore figters are an second position to make it for ofp (still waiting  for an good SU-30)I have a propositon to RHS make first an SU-39 way better then an old SU-25.The SU-39 is more modern plane, can carry more guided weapons  has bigger fire power ,it armor is greater so the plane can take more fire and still continue its mission in danger area. And no SU-25 has such beatiful camouflage as SU-39

[m21man 0]

Weren't Hudson and Pennywise making a SU-39 ?

[Wonder 0]

Nope, they were making the platypus. (Su-34 or 32? Make up your mind!)

[Consigliere 0]

Heh...I think we should refer to it as the 'Platypus' from now on...Save the confusion

[Sole 0]

Quote[/b] ]The AWACs aircraft also doesn't carry weapons, are you saying this isn't a frontline aircraft?

Recon might not be glamorous, but it is as important as strike... You can't strike without reconnaissance...

actually, Consigliere, SR-71 isnt really a spy plane that flies over the battlefield like UAV/UCAV's do nowadays. The front line is where the actual fighting is taking place, and the SR71 flies way above the frontline

Also, I think you kinda mixed up recon with surveilance, recon is mostly on the frontline, but surveilance like E3's and E767's is a bit behind the frontline (close enough to support aircraft though). Spy/surveilance aircraft like the SR71's and U2's fly further from the frontline though.

..anyway, stupid school, now I got to get back to class

[Crowley 0]

Yes, I know about the X-31. It's mostly built of parts mostly from F-16s and F-5 among other aircraft. It is the only 3D thrust-vectoring aicraft that I'm aware of. The thing it's nothing but a test aircraft with no weapons. The russian Su-35 on the other hand is a full-grown combat aircraft.

May as well clarify this.

There are many 3D thrust vectoring aircraft besides the X-31. I dont remeber their precise designations but an F/A-18 and F-16 were converted to TVC with paddles like the X-31s. There was an F-15 converted with thrust vectoring nozzles but I dont remember that it specifically had 3d thrust control.

And guess what, the most relevant aircraft to this thread, the Su-30 MKI, has 3d thrust vectoring control. The Su-30MKI is the most agile fighter in service anywhere and may be more manueverable than the X-31 itself because of hardware limitions on the X-31. However, no direct comparisons have been done between the two.

[Sole 0]

The F-15 with TVC and canards (named the F-15 ACTIVE) was in two different versions, one with 2D like flaps as found on the F/A-22, and one with a 3D nozzle, as found on the SU-30.

[da_ofp_man 0]

Nope, they were making the platypus. (Su-34 or 32? Make up your mind!)

their making SU-34 the ground attack airplane version and SU-32 the antiship version! because ther are 2 versions of this plane and that will be a beutiful pack and maybe a present for this xmas who knows?