US built "Su-33"

[MAKO69 186]

Just saying we would be taking a step backwards with what we have now and whats in the works. Spend more money on 1 jet to do the job of 10. You make good points w/all those other aircraft, but that was different time. We were still young in the air like everyone else. We were borrowing a lot of stuff from the Brits and old GE scientists. If we were still like that we would have been flying Tornados, and now EF-2000s instead we are " pretty much" a very independant nation when it comes to our war planes now. I am sure these days both aircraft enginers share info to some extent. If it was 1988 and not 2008 I would say yeah we could use some of that fancy "COBRA" stuff, but not now. If we want to make money we can sell whats in the desert still very capable stuff F-4s,F-16A+Cs, F-18As. They may not be Su-27 family and up capable but, still good old work hoarses and we could do simple upgrades to extend the life, systems. Spend a mil or 2 on each plane to make 10,15 mill. I was being sarcastic with my anology.

Edited June 11, 2008 by MAKO69

[+Jug 99]

Just saying we would be taking a step backwards with what we have now and whats in the works. Spend more money on 1 jet to do the job of 10. You make good points w/all those other aircraft, but that was different time. We were still young in the air like everyone else. We were borrowing a lot of stuff from the Brits and old GE scientists. If we were still like that we would have been flying Tornados, and now EF-2000s instead we are " pretty much" a very independant nation when it comes to our war planes now. I am sure these days both aircraft enginers share info to some extent. If it was 1988 and not 2008 I would say yeah we could use some of that fancy "COBRA" stuff, but not now. If we want to make money we can sell whats in the desert still very capable stuff F-4s,F-16A+Cs, F-18As. They may not be Su-27 family and up capable but, still good old work hoarses and we could do simple upgrades to extend the life, systems. Spend a mil or 2 on each plane to make 10,15 mill. I was being sarcastic with my anology.

 

Excellent points, Mako69. Pros and cons both ways. I just get a little sick of the US defense industry sticking it to the taxpayer. Object lesson, the new USAF tanker competition. Northrop Grumman Airbus beats the pants off the Boeing product in straight up head-to-head competition, and instead of a contract on the table as the law says, we have Boeing seeking a political way out. Seeing as the F-15, a great, but old warhorse, is discovering structural ugly things that McDonnaldDouglas is going to great lengths to say is not their fault, I say toss the lot and buy the Sukois. That would be a shot across the bow of our sometimes overrated DoD vendors.

[MAKO69 186]

Roger that.

Excellent points, Mako69. Pros and cons both ways. I just get a little sick of the US defense industry sticking it to the taxpayer. Object lesson, the new USAF tanker competition. Northrop Grumman Airbus beats the pants off the Boeing product in straight up head-to-head competition, and instead of a contract on the table as the law says, we have Boeing seeking a political way out. Seeing as the F-15, a great, but old warhorse, is discovering structural ugly things that McDonnaldDouglas is going to great lengths to say is not their fault, I say toss the lot and buy the Sukois. That would be a shot across the bow of our sometimes overrated DoD vendors.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Is that diagram from that paper by an Australian (forget his name) that wants Aus to have the F-22 at all costs over the F-35?

 

Yeah, those are the Carlo Kopp/Peter Goon stats from Ausairpower.net. Only thing is, I've also seen pamphlets from LM that show similar diagrams about the potential of the F-35 using almost identical stats, just swapping the F-35 and Flanker, pretty much.

 

Disclaimer: There is a lot of good info on that site, only, when you read through it, be aware that both men have specific agendas and that there is some specific information missing/omitted from some of their analysis. Their main arguments about the F-22 are neither practical, cost effective, nor politically probable. Especially this late in the game. And some of their stats on the Flanker is inflated somewhat to make it seem a bigger threat (Indonesian availability rates/turn around times and future funding aren't taken into consideration, for example.)

 

That said, there is some substance to the concept of a modular Su-33 that's compatible with Western avionics, engines, etc. Sukhoi would have many more customers if this were the case, but seeing Sukhoi, Elta, BAe etc teaming up to supply a potential customer would be extremely unlikely given their competative differences...

[cgold 0]

 

 

 

 

 

I downloaded the US Su-27 and tried some different loadouts on the aircraft. From what it looks like, it can carry quite a bit. I know this is the Su-27, but it is similar in airframe to the Su-33. If someone (Boeing, Lockheed, Grumman) modified the landing gear, hardpoints, tailhook, and update the folding wings system, you would have a very nice aircraft. BTW, when those wings fold up along with the stabilators, the aircraft is only 24 feet or so wide.

[+EricJ 4,245]

That's the major selling point of the Flankers. They're good looking and can carry quite a punch. I've flown the Su-33 in LOMAC so much that anything that would improve it would be more strike capability, or a multirole system. Other than that it gets where it needs to currently.

[MKopack 0]

Su-anything is simply Raptor meat. Easy pickings. Dinner. Especially if you carry any of those fictitous warloads, which work great in a PC sim, but in real life are full of c#@p. A Flanker has the radar cross section of an entire city, especially when carrying weapons and the first indication that he'd even have of a Raptor hunting him would be a pair of incoming 120 that are already on terminal homing.

 

If it was my choice between an F-22 for $120M or a pair of Sukhois for the same price (look at the purchase price that was offered to South Korea) I'll show you a pair of DEAD Flankers.

 

Mike

Edited June 17, 2008 by MKopack

[cgold 0]

Su-anything is simply Raptor meat. Easy pickings. Dinner. Especially if you carry any of those fictitous warloads, which work great in a PC sim, but in real life are full of c#@p. A Flanker has the radar cross section of an entire city, especially when carrying weapons and the first indication that he'd even have of a Raptor hunting him would be a pair of incoming 120 that are already on terminal homing.

 

If it was my choice between an F-22 for $120M or a pair of Sukhois for the same price (look at the purchase price that was offered to South Korea) I'll show you a pair of DEAD Flankers.

 

Mike

 

Just to let you know, those "fictitous warloads" is what our F-22's are using today. Maybe not the rocket pods, but the AGM-84's, AIM-120's, AIM-9X's, Mk.84's, GBU's, cluster bombs, and the Mavericks are some of the weaponry the F-22 will use or already has used.....very effectively I might add.

 

Maybe I should pose this question...to everyone.

 

-Would a "US built Su-33" do well in the US Navy? The Airforce has the F-22. It doesn't need much else. -

[MKopack 0]

Just to let you know, those "fictitous warloads" is what our F-22's are using today. Maybe not the rocket pods, but the AGM-84's, AIM-120's, AIM-9X's, Mk.84's, GBU's, cluster bombs, and the Mavericks are some of the weaponry the F-22 will use or already has used.....very effectively I might add.

 

Maybe I should pose this question...to everyone.

 

-Would a "US built Su-33" do well in the US Navy? The Airforce has the F-22. It doesn't need much else. -

 

As far as 'fictitous', I consider anyone attempting to lug around a dozen air-to-air missiles, or air-to-ground weapons on amassive scale as has been displayed on Flankers in the past.

 

You will never see rocket pods, Harpoons, Mk-84's (internally, or likely externally) or Mavricks on a Raptor.

 

As far as the Navy goes, I would prefer to see something other than F/A-18E/F's, but Flankers are not the direction that I would go. As I said above, if I can see you, but you can't see me, I am going to kill you the vast majority of the time.

 

Mike

[JediMaster 451]

Heh, an AGM-65 on a Raptor. Using a $140m fighter to attack a target worth a few hundred grand isn't really cost effective.

Besides, that would really expose the Raptor to visually guided ground fire.

[eagleace 0]

i dont thik we neeed an Su-33 because we already have the fighters (eg F-22 and F-35, Eurofighter meaning nato) and it wont improve relations because it is such a minor thing

[eagleace 0]

Heh, an AGM-65 on a Raptor. Using a $140m fighter to attack a target worth a few hundred grand isn't really cost effective.

Besides, that would really expose the Raptor to visually guided ground fire.

 

 

It would be better to use an A-10A because it is tougher and more suited along with cheaper

[eagleace 0]

-Would a "US built Su-33" do well in the US Navy? The Airforce has the F-22. It doesn't need much else. -

 

The Us navy will get the F-35B wihich is simply a multi role fighter with another version for the marines with VSTOL capabilities and is being also sold To the Royal Navy Fleet air arm. These will scare the

heck outta the russians

[the test pilot 5]

stealth is not forever......

and, by the way, it doesn't mean radars cant'see you, it just means they will see you a bit nearer than normal.

 

but an IRST can find you. no matter what. because f-22's engines are Hot.................

[eagleace 0]

stealth is not forever......

and, by the way, it doesn't mean radars cant'see you, it just means they will see you a bit nearer than normal.

 

but an IRST can find you. no matter what. because f-22's engines are Hot.................

 

 

it means a B-2 lager than a city block is the size of a bird on radar

[Bounder 0]

Su-anything is simply Raptor meat. Easy pickings. Dinner. Especially if you carry any of those fictitous warloads, which work great in a PC sim, but in real life are full of c#@p. A Flanker has the radar cross section of an entire city, especially when carrying weapons and the first indication that he'd even have of a Raptor hunting him would be a pair of incoming 120 that are already on terminal homing.

 

If it was my choice between an F-22 for $120M or a pair of Sukhois for the same price (look at the purchase price that was offered to South Korea) I'll show you a pair of DEAD Flankers.

 

Mike

 

put a sloppy tired pilot in a Raptor,and a fresh sh--hot pilot ihn anything ,and thr raptor still better watch or he will end up salvage

[MKopack 0]

stealth is not forever......

and, by the way, it doesn't mean radars cant'see you, it just means they will see you a bit nearer than normal.

 

but an IRST can find you. no matter what. because f-22's engines are Hot.................

 

That's right, it'll see you a lot nearer than normal - and I'm not going to mention the RAAF pilot on an exchange assignment as an Eagle pilot who couldn't get a lock in a Raptor, either with his radar or his AIM-120 when he could visually see the acft in his HUD.

 

Another thing about your comment of 'nearer than normal' - if you are looking for that Raptor, he already knows where you are. A radar beam, especially in a search mode, is literally a flashlight in a dark room and while yes, there is the chance that you might catch the 22, through passive means he knows exactly where you are, has data linked your position to his flight, and the first indication that you have on your precious IRST is a pair of exhaust plumes from inbound AMRAAMs.

 

The harder you search for a low observable airframe - and you MUST search, if there is even a possibility that he's out there - the more power you emit, the further away he can detect, track, and prosecute your contact.

 

Now it's your choice, you've got two missiles inbound, and now a direction to search. Evade or search, your choice...

 

Mike

 

...and remember, you still don't have an idea where his wingman is...

[MKopack 0]

put a sloppy tired pilot in a Raptor,and a fresh sh--hot pilot ihn anything ,and thr raptor still better watch or he will end up salvage

 

That's true with any aircraft ever built, anywhere. Of course last summer Raptors dominated all comers at Red Flag with a roughly 150:1 kill ratio, and every Raptor pilot in attendance had less than 100 hours in the airframe.

 

I have had the opportunity to have talked to quite a few experts on the subject. They are Eagle pilots from Langley and Eglin, Viper pilots from Shaw, Hornet and Super Hornet pilots from Oceana, and Beaufort - these guys fight Raptors every day. Want to know what they think?

 

"Nothing else comes close." "It's not even fun to fight them." "I didn't even know they were there until I was dead."

 

Although the Eagles are getting old, I don't think anyone will doubt their capability, even today - especially working as a group and with AWACS support. I spoke to a group of Eagle drivers after and 8 vs. 1 fight against a Raptor, EVERY Eagle was killed and not a single aircraft ever got a visual on the F-22. THAT'S dominance...

 

...and it's also a typical Raptor engagement.

 

Raptor squadrons are having a difficult time scheduling training missions - why? The Eagle, Viper and Hornet squadrons just have a tough time justifying TDY's and the flights out to the training area to time and time again just receive the radio call "You're dead, return to back for the debreif".

 

Mike

[Bounder 0]

look ppl I dont care how advanced a weapon is it ALWAYS THE MAN RUNNING IT that matters in most cases,We have the most advanced equipment if the world,but we lose ppl,and equipment to primitives,but primitives with heart ,and convection. For the "movies warriors" remember the Flight of the Intruder all that advanced Aircraft ,and a sinlgle shot muzzle loader nailed th Co-pilot.(sorry if I boched some spelling mypain meds kicked in big time :))

Edited June 19, 2008 by Bounder

[Bounder 0]

"Raptor squadrons are having a difficult time scheduling training missions - why? The Eagle, Viper and Hornet squadrons just have a tough time justifying TDY's and the flights out to the training area to time and time again just receive the radio call "You're dead, return to back for the debreif".

 

Mike"

 

And speaking as one hows Militery tour spans 1972 to current if that where true SF,SEAL,RANGERS,DELTA and the like couldent get training,the US Gov will always train it latest hottest equipment no matter how mush it demorlizes the OPFOR unit (example when the M-1 tank came out at the time it was what the Raptor is the AC now When US ran out of OPFOR stateside,they went to other countries,and the US forced won all the C.A.T. trophies. then the Canadians,and Germans just got better)

 

More current example We wear the most advanced body armor in the world,and I NEVER SAW an INSERJENT in anything but reguler clothing,and we still take hits.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Bounder

[the test pilot 5]

yeah, and when they will improve AEW systems?

 

i mean, certain wawe lengths can obtain a better target acquisition.

 

and i don't think a bird flying at 10000 metres sounds "normal"............

 

it's just to look the right thing, but there is always a way.

 

EDIT

 

another thing: and if you use passive means too?

you're right: radar beams make your RWR thrill.......

invincibility is not forever. now they have a 150:1 ratio. what will happen in the next years?

what will happen if supplies runs out and they can't replace RAM panels (i heard they don't resist very much......)

Edited June 19, 2008 by the test pilot

[MigBuster 2,884]

Well nothing lasts forever - and most things are got round eventually - however you can guess at what the future might hold like everyone else - maybe they will, maybe they won't etc

 

What we know is that currently there is a large force of F-22s manned by some very highly trained personnel that cant really be touched in A-A combat (if Red Flag is anything to go by).

[JediMaster 451]

I've read through this thread twice and I STILL can't figure out what it is the argument is apparently about?

[GreyCap 0]

I've read through this thread twice and I STILL can't figure out what it is the argument is apparently about?

 

I think it's about how the F-22 can kick the F-15s ass.

[rovert97 1]

after watching a show on the military channel about the top 10 fighters, the F-22 came in 10th. and according to all the guys that rated it, it is because it will be a "turkey". in other words they said that this plane is so incredibly expensive, can really only do one mission, can be brought down by other cheaper planes that have better pilots, and has a long way to go to even prove that it was worth the cost of making it. they said there should be no reason for this aircraft to even exist right now, other then the fact that technology must improve and go forward. thats the only reason for its existance. for the costs, they should have redesigned the current top fighters, and made them even better, such as a new F-15, F-16, F/A-18's, and the JSF.