Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I hope that all will regard this as a serious inquiry. Who will the Raptor fly against that F-15s can't?

Posted by Bernard W Joseph at April 17, 2006 09:21 AM

It always makes me cringe when I hear people talking like this. I KNOW the Raptor is great at fighting known threats but I can't help thinking back to Vietnam... We KNEW that the F4 was the best. It wouldn't even let anyone get within visual range because we could shot them down with our new fangled missiles. Well that didn't work out so hot because the NVAF didn't fight like that. Do we need the Raptor? Yes F-15's are old and dumpy but I hate the arrogance that most all AF pilots seem to radiate.

Posted by Ryan at April 17, 2006 09:28 AM

Bernard Joseph:

The purpose of combat being to win, not to be fair, the question is whether our pilots, flying F-15s, retain as much of an edge today as they would have thirty years ago, when the F-15 was first introduced.

Keep in mind that the Su-27/Su-30, which is in the Chinese as well as Russian inventories, are probably comparable to late-model F-15s. Keep in mind that the Eurofighter Typhoon, while no match for the F-22, is probably also comparable to later model F-16s (it was designed in the mid-1990s, iirc). Keep in mind that the French have been offering the Rafale, a 1990s design, for sale worldwide as well.

Can the F-15 beat those? Sure---at what is likely to be some cost to themselves. Can the F-22? Apparently, and quite handily.

Posted by Lurking Observer at April 17, 2006 09:47 AM

In a recent series of simulations by DERA, Raptors achieved a 10:1 kill rate against the Su-35. Typhoons managed 4.5:1 (when armed with worse missiles than will actually be used by combat-ready Typhoons), Rafaele Cs 1:1, and F-15s, F-16s and F-18s did worse than 1:1 (with the F-16s down at 0.3:1). Also, in actual flight, Typhoons seem to be able to outfight pairs of F-15s.

Posted by Rich at April 17, 2006 10:02 AM

Well, *somebody* bagged one.

There's a HUD pic on StrategyPage of a bug driver with a Raptor in his gunsight.

I'd like to know the story on that, and how many beers the Raptor pilot had to buy his squadron in pennance.

Posted by Big D at April 17, 2006 10:16 AM

Unfortunately, the enemy in this war doesn't employ aircraft as its primary, or even secondary means of force projection.

Yes, Rand, but what about the next war? We'll be needing those Raptors to take out the Chinese. Or, more hopefully, knowing that we have them, and other things to make us superior to Chinese forces, we won't have to actually fight them.

Posted by Astrosmith at April 17, 2006 10:26 AM

What I'd be worried about is not 10 Su-35s, but 50 J-9s (or whatever the 50s'-technology jet that comprises most of the Chinese airforce these days is). They have an awful lot of the things... being overwhelmed with numbers seems plausible. (I don't know about likely...)

Posted by Mike Earl at April 17, 2006 10:27 AM

I didn't say they were useless. Just that they may not help that much with the current war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 17, 2006 10:28 AM

One big problem with this article. The author says "In simulated dogfights [the F-22] has wiped the floor with the opposition."

However, the simulated battles described in this article are *not* dogfights -- which are defined as short-range, manuevering fight -- they are beyond-visual-range engagements: "we never once got to merge [make visual contact] against a single Raptor”.

There's no question the F-22 enjoys an advantage at beyond-visual range, due to its stealth and advanced electronics.

At closer range, its advantage is more questionable. The F-22 was the first US fighter designed for supermanueverability, but development took so long that the rest of the world has caught up to it. Many of the Su-29 variants are reported to be more manueverable. The F-22 has one-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles. The MiG-29OVT has two-dimensional thrust-vectoring nozzles. An F-22 that got into a manuevering fight with an OVT or a Su-29 would be at a disadvantage.

More importantly, dogfights are notoriously unpredictable. Even a cheaper inferior fighter can get in a lucky shot. No one would want to risk a $200-million airplane in a dogfight with a $20-million adversary, but if the F-22 is always used at beyond-visual range, then the money spent on supermanueverability was wasted. And if the F-22 does end up in a dogfight, it may against a MiG or Sukhoi that's not only cheaper but more manueverable to boot.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 11:31 AM

> Keep in mind that the Su-27/Su-30, which is in the Chinese as well as
> Russian inventories, are probably comparable to late-model F-15s.

Comparable in what way? Perhaps in electronics (although the F-15 electronics are constantly being upgraded). In manueverability, however, the Su-27 family is clearly superior. The latest versions can even fly backwards.

At present, the Russian pilots get very little flight time compared to US pilots, so they are not prepared to use that advantage. However, that may not be true of pilots in China, India, etc. who are now receiving the latest Su's. The Indian pilots, in particular, are reported to be very good.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 11:38 AM

Ed: "The latest versions can even fly backwards."

ROFLMAO!!

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 17, 2006 11:57 AM

Ryan: "..Vietnam... We KNEW that the F4 was the best. It wouldn't even let anyone get within visual range because we could shot them down with our new fangled missiles. Well that didn't work out so hot because the NVAF didn't fight like that."

The reason BVR missiles were of little use (or less use than they could have been) against the NVAF had much less to do with how THEY fought than it did with how WE fought. BVR missiles were neutered primarily (1960’s technology issues aside) due to Rules Of Engagement that required target aircraft to be visually identified prior to missile launch, kinda defeats the purpose of a 20-mile range missile don’t it?

Recent experience would indicate that US fighters are no longer hamstrung by such ROE and that the day of the dominance of BVF missile has at last come, but that isn’t to say it will always be so.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 17, 2006 12:05 PM

Ok, since I’ve now stopped giggling about Ed’s “fly backwards” claim I want to “shoot down” that idea so to speak. I would assume most of us have seen videos of the Su-27 doing the much-vaunted “Cobra Maneuver” where the SU pulls up into an extremely high angle of attack, pulling up past 90 degrees AOA and actually pivoting about its’ pitch axis before continuing on it’s original path of flight. Not flying backwards, but impressive airshow stuff. Or maybe Ed is referring to the SU pulling vertical, the pilot pulling back on the throttle and the aircraft falling backwards through it’s own smoke (again, airshow stuff) for a ways and the going nose down and flying off as normal aircraft do. Again this is impressive, but the Pitts Special and other airshow aircraft have been doing this for years. I guess that means the USAF should buy a bunch of Pitts huh?

Truth is that any SU pilot that tried any of these airshow maneuvers while engaged in a close in dogfight with an F22 (or an F15, F16 or F18 for that matter), said pilot would shortly be piloting a parachute.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 17, 2006 12:19 PM

While I've not heard of any aircraft (aside from Harriers) flying backwards, I have heard that the Pugachev Cobra maneuver MIGHT have utility in air-to-air combat.

Specifically, that when the aircraft pitches up, it "disappears" off a Doppler radar (and anything using such a radar to home in on the aircraft). If it's an air-to-air missile, it just went ballistic (especially, I suspect, if you've also been dropping chaff).

Similarly, in a tail-chase or horizontal scissors situation, one wonders whether such a maneuver would result in an overshoot by the chasing aircraft?

Posted by Lurking Observer at April 17, 2006 02:12 PM

> Ok, since I’ve now stopped giggling about Ed’s “fly backwards” claim I
> want to “shoot down” that idea so to speak. I would assume most of us have
> seen videos of the Su-27 doing the much-vaunted “Cobra Maneuver” Not
> flying backwards,

No, Cecil, I'm not talking about the Cobra manuever. Today's manuevers are two generations ahead of the Cobra manuever Su-27s were doing in the 1980's. Military aviation has not stood still over the last two decades.

> Or maybe Ed is referring to the SU pulling vertical, the pilot pulling
> back on the throttle and the aircraft falling backwards through it’s own
> smoke (again, airshow stuff) for a ways and the going nose down and
> flying off as normal aircraft do.

It's called a "Hammerhead Stall." The airplane is not flying backwards, it isn't flying at all. It's stalled. If you don't understand the difference between that and flying backwards -- as helicopters do and the MiG-29OVT can do -- you should ask a pilot to explain it to you.

> Truth is that any SU pilot that tried any of these airshow maneuvers
> while engaged in a close in dogfight with an F22 (or an F15, F16 or
> F18 for that matter), said pilot would shortly be piloting a parachute.

Uh-huh. Try telling that to General Hal Hornburg whose F-15s got waxed by Su-30s in the Cope India exercise. He called it "a wake-up call." Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper called it "very revealing."

I'll listen to the guys in the cockpits over those who have only watched 20-year-old video clips of Cobra manuevers.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 02:19 PM

> I've not heard of any aircraft (aside from Harriers) flying backwards

Try to find a video of the MiG-29OVT/MiG-35 demo from MAKS 2005.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 02:49 PM

One of the biggest advantages of the F-22 over all other fighters is stealth. It can shoot down other fighters that don't even know the Raptor is there. Stealth changes everything. A Raptor reportedly has stealth as good or better than the F-117A (scheduled to be retired in a few years). Unlike the F-117A, the Raptor can defend itself and go into hostile territory even in daylight. While the Raptor is very maneuverable, if it gets into a turning and burning dogfight, it's almost considered a failure of tactics. All the dogfighting maneuverability in the world is useless if you get an AMRAAM up you ass (or in your face) from 50 miles away. In addition, the Raptor's radar has potential to be directly used as a weapon by itself.

Posted by Larry J at April 17, 2006 03:15 PM

> One of the biggest advantages of the F-22 over all other fighters is
> stealth. It can shoot down other fighters that don't even know the
> Raptor is there.

Which has nothing to do with the claims about "dogfighting."

> While the Raptor is very maneuverable, if it gets into a turning
> and burning dogfight, it's almost considered a failure of tactics.

In which case, the F-22 could have been built cheaper without thrust vectoring for supermanueverability, allowing the Air Force to build more planes for the same money.

The problem with the F-22 is that the design requirements were set during the Cold War, based on the Soviet threat. It used to take 4-5 years to develop a new fighter. When there was exceptional need, aircraft like the SR-71 could be developed even faster. Today, it takes 20 years. The result is that we end up with airplanes that are designed to fight the last war and aren't able to procure enough of them to make a difference. (The Air Force originally planned to buy 750 F-22s. It will probably end up with 180.)

In the meantime, our adversaries and potential adversaries have the opportunity to leapfrog us, by developing military spaceplanes with prompt global strike capabilities that will make the F-22 look like the cavalry horse. Yet, the same military-industrial complex that touts the F-22 doesn't want the US to build military spaceplanes. It wants to build Apollo capsules, to provide bread and circuses.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 04:01 PM

It's expensive, but it _is_ best that the US maintain it's technological advantage around the world. Even if the only realistic opposition are currently our allies.

Biggest strain on the military, in my opinion, is the continued effort to bribe the military into service. Eventually, the costs will be too high, and like all other government spending, good luck reducing the pay of a servicemember. Leave it to those who think American servicemembers serve only for money to spend us into an impossible situation.

Posted by wickedpinto at April 17, 2006 04:12 PM

Ed I know what a Hammerhead is, I know what the Cobra Maneuver is, and I don't care how long either have been performed by whatever aircraft be it SU-27 or Sopwith Pup.... neither is considered by any knowledgeable person as "flying backwards". There is no, zero, zilch COMBAT maneuver that is considered "flying backwards". And no matter what sort of vector thrust nozzles or how many canards you hang on a MiG-29, it still will not “fly backwards”.

And please Ed, tell us WHO has “military spaceplanes” will make the “F-22 look like the cavalry horse” even on a fantasy drawing board? I suppose they’ll be powered by dilithium crystals too…..

As usual you’re spewing BS.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 17, 2006 04:49 PM

"Which has nothing to do with the claims about "dogfighting."

"While the Raptor is very maneuverable, if it gets into a turning and burning dogfight, it's almost considered a failure of tactics."

In which case, the F-22 could have been built cheaper without thrust vectoring for supermanueverability, allowing the Air Force to build more planes for the same money."

Thrust vectoring for supermanueverability is so useless for "turning and burning" dogfighting, don't you know...

Posted by Mike James at April 17, 2006 04:55 PM

> It's expensive, but it _is_ best that the US maintain it's technological
> advantage around the world.

If we overinvest in outdated Cold War weapon systems, we will lose our technological advantage.

Before World War II, we could have bred the best horses and built the best battleships, but it was airplanes, not horses or battleships, that determined the outcome of World War II.

The outcome of future wars will be determined in space.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 05:43 PM

"The latest versions can even fly backwards."

Yes. While upside down. And supersonic.

"Uh-huh. Try telling that to General Hal Hornburg whose F-15s got waxed by Su-30s in the Cope India exercise. He called it "a wake-up call." Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper called it "very revealing.""

The US Air Force has an amazing ability to turn even its own failures into justification for buying the latest fighter plane.

The F-15 did not get "waxed" by the Indians. They got knocked around a bit in a couple of engagements after they had stomped on the Indians pretty heavily themselves. Why? Was it because the F-15 is an old, outdated, technologically inferior aircraft? No. It's because the Air Force pilots went into the fight complacent, arrogant, outnumbered and stupid.

A couple of months after this incident happened Aviation Week finally got to follow-up with the pilots and learned that one of the big problems was that the F-15 pilots never assumed that the Indians would innovate. The Indians got smart, studied the F-15s' tactics, and used a numerical advantage to its fullest. The F-15s involved also did not have the latest radar system installed. And they also suspect that the Indian pilots had a datalink capability that the USAF was not aware of (i.e. bad intel on the adversary).

What it all boils down to is a case where the USAF pilots assumed that the Indians were like just about every other adversary that they had trained against and not smart enough to change tactics. Once they realized what the Indians were capable of, they were not going to get caught again. Who ever would have thought that Indians could be smart, huh? Maybe people who have seen their software jobs outsourced to New Delhi, that's who.

But naturally the brass uses this as proof that we need a super expensive fighter interceptor.

Posted by Tim Noble at April 17, 2006 06:33 PM

> I know what the Cobra Maneuver is, and I don't care how long either have been
> performed by whatever aircraft be it SU-27 or Sopwith Pup.... neither is
> considered by any knowledgeable person as "flying backwards".

I never said the Cobra manuever was "flying backwards," Mr. Trotter.

You *assumed* I must be talking about the Cobra manuever or a hammerhead stall -- but there are many manuevers in aviation beside the Cobra and the hammerhead.

The manuever where the MiG-35 flies backward is not the Cobra manuever. It's called the "boomerang."

The fact that you don't know about the boomerang is understandable, because its first public demonstration was less than a year ago. As I said, aviation does not stand still.

> There is no, zero, zilch COMBAT maneuver that is considered "flying backwards".

None that you know. That is obvious. You might want to consider the possibility that your knowledge does not contain the sum total of what is possible in the universe.

> And no matter what sort of vector thrust nozzles or how many canards
> you hang on a MiG-29, it still will not “fly backwards”.

It did so in front of hundreds of thousands of people at MAKC. If you refuse to believe it, fine. You can refuse to believe that the Earth is round or that Apollo landed on the Moon, but your belief will not make it so.

> And please Ed, tell us WHO has “military spaceplanes” will make the
> “F-22 look like the cavalry horse” even on a fantasy drawing board? I
> suppose they’ll be powered by dilithium crystals too…..

No, they are powered by chemical reactions. Most likely LOX/hydrocarbon. The belief that military spaceplanes require dilithium crystals is like your belief that the OVT cannot perform a boomerang. Neither is based in fact.

Military spaceplanes have been on the drawing board for more than 40 years, going back to DynaSoar and the MiG-105. The DynaSoar prototype was 80% complete when the project was cancelled. A MiG-105 prototype was actually flown in subsonic tests, and another prototype was tested in thermal chambers to provide the thermal protection system.

Just because you are unaware of something does not mean it doesn't exist, and just because something doesn't exist today does not mean it's impossible. Just because we used space capsules in the 1960's does not mean we must remain mired in the capsule era forever. Nor that our enemies will, simply because we choose to.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 06:34 PM

A fair amount of the content appears to be taken, without any attribution, from the article which appeared in Code One magazine. It's available on the web here:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2005/articles/jul_05/airspace/index.html

Well... I guess stealing content makes South African journalists a tad better than Jason Blair, who simply made it up. Also, Roger Makings added the mini-interview of Johannes “Blokkies” Joubert, so it's at least something.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at April 17, 2006 07:48 PM

First, I agree with you, Rand, that the F-22A is not much use against terrorist targets. With all the news about Rumsfeld today; people forget that his ideas is to have a force similar to what we are fighting. A force that is small, agile, and stealthy. I don't completely agree with Rumsfeld, but I do get his strategy, and it makes sense for Iraq.

Now for the comment about the F-22A vs F-15. I agree with those who note that the F-22A did not dogfight the F-15. I'm fairly certain a dogfight of 1 or 2 F-22A vs 6 F-15 would be interesting. However, why assume the F-22A was attacking BVR? The point is that the F-22A is stealthy, and therefore can sneak within visual range without the F-15 knowing it is there. When it can do that, you don't need to twist and turn in a dogfight. Sure, an alert F-15 might spot the F-22A sneaking up, but by then, the F-22A is probably already on the 6.

Posted by Leland at April 17, 2006 08:49 PM

I can back up Edward’s assertion that the SU-37 can fly backwards. I saw a video of it on the Military channel; of course back then it was Discovery Wings. The maneuver starts of looking like a cobra but right about when you expect the pilot to pitch the nose back over he keeps pulling it back and the plane continues to effortlessly spin around to the point where the aircraft actually starts to fly backwards for several seconds. Since now the engines are pointing in the original direction of travel the aircraft suddenly slows to a stop and then begins to fly the opposite direction. I can see how this could be used in a combat situation. Instead of a scenario where you hope the chaser overshoots, you actually have the opportunity to bring your plane's line of sight around 180 out and get a shot off.

As far as the super maneuverability of the F-22 and how practical it is. I believe that even at beyond visual range encounters the old dog fighting rules still apply for the most part. The pilot that turns faster then his adversary will win. The fact that an F-22 can turn on a dime and bring its line of sight around in an instant gives that pilot the ability to instantly train his radar and weapons down range in a 360 degree sphere of influence. Remember, modern fighter aircraft have their radar pointed forward. This doesn’t do much good to detect and engaging targets on your flanks and rear. The faster you can orient yourself to sweep through these firing arcs the better chance you have at survival. I know that 20 miles sounds like a lot, but at modern fighter combat speeds those kinds of distances tick away in seconds. Also, as far as super maneuverability on the F-22 and whether that is considered to be superfluous for beyond visual range engagement and that stealth technology was all that was needed, fine, that what the JSF was built for.

Besides, if we really got in a situation where we see that cheaper more maneuverable aircraft provide such a clear cut advantage we could simply upgrade our existing aircraft with all-aspect thrust vectoring engine nozzles. Tests with the F-16 have demonstrated that the airframe is well suited to thrust vectoring and displays amazing agility.

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 17, 2006 09:32 PM

> The maneuver starts of looking like a cobra but right about when you expect the pilot to pitch the nose
> back over he keeps pulling it back and the plane continues to effortlessly spin around to the point
> where the aircraft actually starts to fly backwards for several seconds.

Yes, and the MiG-35 (MiG-29OVT) takes it one step further. It does not even need to pitch up. With 2-d thrust vectoring, it simply spins on the yaw axis, like a frisbee.

Note that all of this was developed while the F-22 was in development. The problem with long development cycles is that an adversary or competitor can develop multiple generations while you're working on one. American industry has learned that lesson. Government hasn't.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 17, 2006 10:18 PM

great point about the "last war" ed, however, testing all capabilities is good.

I do disagree with a full fleet replacement when it is unnecessary. In that you are right.

We need to stay the best, but that doesn't mean we need to destroy the CURRENT best, in exchange for the future best, just cuz of a maybe.

That is true. We should prolly fund advancement and prototypes, but we don't have to fund entire fleets, thats the cold war fallacy.

Posted by wickedpinto at April 17, 2006 10:21 PM

Wait... are we supposed to slashing F-22 because it's overkill and there's no threat against it or because it's obsolete and 1337 Russian fighters can dance circles around it?

Just one note... "dogfight" is frequently equated to mean all arial combat, regardless of ACM.

As far as the F-22 goes, it's designed to kill the enemy from outside his detection envelope, with enough capability to press home the attack and go ACM if necessary. However, the preferred engagement, whenever possible, would be to stay BVR and mug the enemy from afar.

Posted by Big D at April 17, 2006 10:38 PM

Sliding backwards for a short distance is not flying backwards any more than a Lomchevak is "flying in multiple directions at once". And the former would be just about as useful in combat as the latter; IE next to useless. If the MiG has to slow down to under about 400 knots before performing this Frisbee act (and I’ll not believe it can do this at more than 200 kts until I see it) it will be dead before it completes 90 degrees of yaw. Ed has been sucked in by Russian sales pitch, just as so many previous MiG buyers whose purchases ended up as smoking holes courtesy of the USAF/USN/IAF. Long development period or not there isn’t an aircraft on the planet in existence or in development (credible development) that can match the F22 as a weapons system.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 05:36 AM

> Sliding backwards for a short distance is not flying backwards

Yes, and a backslide is not a boomerang manuever.

As the saying goes, ignorance is not a sin -- the unwillingness to learn is. You just keep digging yourself in deeper.

> Ed has been sucked in by Russian sales pitch, just as so many previous
> MiG buyers whose purchases ended up as smoking holes

I'll take the word of USAF pilots over that of an Internet troll, thank you. Especially one whose knowledge of space and aviation is limited to politically correct soundbites.

Anyong who thinks military spaceplanes require dilitium crystals is not to be taken seriously.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 18, 2006 12:45 PM

You're an idiot Ed, why I waste my time with you... I just don't know. Go back and talk to your fictional fighter pilot buddies who are scared of one off airshow MiGs, as none of the USAF/USN fighter pilots I personally know (admittedly less than a dozen) agree with you.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 01:27 PM

> your fictional fighter pilot buddies who are scared of one off airshow MiGs

Those "fictional" pilots risk their lives so you can sleep safe at night, Mr. Trotter.

Calling officers like General Hornburg cowards shows what an ungrateful ideologue you are.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 18, 2006 04:40 PM

> Wait... are we supposed to slashing F-22 because it's overkill and
> there's no threat against it or because it's obsolete and 1337 Russian
> fighters can dance circles around it?

I never said we are supposed to slash the F-22. That's one of Mr. Trotter's feverish hallucinations.

What I said was that the usefuless of supermanueverability is open to question, and if it is useful, the manueverability of Russian fighters is already better.

There's also a question of whether the 180 F-22s being procured will be able to cover all of the necessary ground.

Morst importantly, the future of warfare does not lie with next-generation systems like the F-22 but with "leap ahead" systems like military spaceplane. Ironically, when "compassionate conservatives" took office, they favored leap-ahead systems. Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, was a strong proponent. Unfortunately, that seems to have been abandoned, just like educational reform and fiscal responsibility.

> Just one note... "dogfight" is frequently equated to mean all
> arial combat, regardless of ACM.

Yes, it's equated that way by people who don't know what the word really means.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 18, 2006 05:00 PM

Ed: "Those "fictional" pilots risk their lives so you can sleep safe at night, Mr. Trotter."

No they don't, because they're fictional. But the real fighter pilots that I know, who aren't afraid of your super duper frisbee MiG, do risk their lives for me and YOU.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 18, 2006 07:49 PM

"Those "fictional" pilots risk their lives so you can sleep safe at night, Mr. Trotter."

That humming noise y'all hear in the background is the Battle Hymn of the Republic. We start humming that to emphasize what a patriot the writer is. If somebody has an 'merican flag to wave, please wave it. I'll go find a small child who can cross his heart and say the Pledge...

Posted by Tim Noble at April 18, 2006 07:55 PM

Is this a dead topic? Maybe no one will see my post. Oh well. Regarding this comment:

"Yes, and the MiG-35 (MiG-29OVT) takes it one step further. It does not even need to pitch up. With 2-d thrust vectoring, it simply spins on the yaw axis, like a frisbee.

The US hasn't been "asleep" with respect to thrust vectoring. The US developed thrust vectoring as it is seen in the Su-35. The US fitted thrust vectoring nozzles to F-15 and F-18s in the '80s and '90s - both 1D and 2D. In fact, it was the US that demonstrated the world's first vectoring at supersonic speeds - with the F-15 ACTIVE. (I believe the British Harrier was the first with true thrust vectoring.) Additionally, the F-15 ACTIVE demonstrated both 2D vectoring and canards. The current crop of Sukhoi and MiG fighters seems to have a lot of features developed on the F-15 ACTIVE.

The current crop of Sukhois and MiGs offer nothing new or innovative. They are neat airshow planes. Tend to crash a lot, though.

[img]http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/F-15ACTIVE/Small/EC95-43273-4.jpg[/img]

Posted by RowlandP at July 26, 2006 07:53 PM

Post a comment