Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

RUSSIANS BUILD FAR-BETTER -WARBIRDS than the USA! Why it is so hard to understand, ?


  • Please log in to reply
593 replies to this topic

#361 Buttersideup

Buttersideup

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10450 posts

Posted 24 July 2003 - 02:36 AM

Going to have to work the bugs out of vectored steering at those velocities
  • 0

#362 Buttersideup

Buttersideup

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10450 posts

Posted 24 July 2003 - 02:15 PM

Basic design has...looking at a lot of tweaking
  • 0

#363 Pole

Pole

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 25 July 2003 - 02:10 AM

hello, I see we have a$$hole expert in aerospace technology onboard,

wwwwwwwwwow!

ButtSideUp ?
  • 0

#364 SteelTrap

SteelTrap

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1361 posts

Posted 25 July 2003 - 02:17 AM

Apparently the Polish Air Force is not very selective in who they let in.

Col. Potocki, is there truth to the rumor that they installed the windshield wipers INSIDE your cockpit?
  • 0

#365 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15667 posts

Posted 25 July 2003 - 02:20 AM

Funneeeeeeeeeee, funnnnnneeeeeeeeeee, man.

I'm not going to ask you if that question comes from your personal experience. No, I refuse to ask you that. Someone else will just have to do it.
  • 0

#366 SteelTrap

SteelTrap

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1361 posts

Posted 27 July 2003 - 05:10 PM

"Russians are # 1"

At swilling vodka and getting their a s s e s whipped in every other endeavor.
  • 0

#367 Guest_Issak_*

Guest_Issak_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 August 2003 - 02:33 AM

SU-47 (S-37) BERKUT -
EXPERIMENTAL FIGHTER
AIRCRAFT, RUSSIA


The Sukhoi Design Bureau of Moscow, Russia has
developed the Su-47 (previously called the S-37
Berkut or Golden Eagle) fighter aircraft, which first
flew in September 1997. Su-47 is in a forward
swept wing configuration and uses a highly unstable
triplane (with three main lifting surfaces)
aerodynamic configuration. The Su-47 completed
the first stage of flight trials in December 2001. In
May 2002, Sukhoi was selected as prime
contractor for the next-generation Russian PAK
FA fighter programme. The PAK FA will be a
development of the Su-47 but without the forward
swept wings.

The design of the very high manoeuvrability
prototype is based on the avionics and
aerodynamics technologies developed for the
Su-27 upgrade programme. Some of the systems
and component designs from the Su-27, (the all
weather supersonic fighter aircraft with NATO
reporting name Flanker), have been used in the
Su-47, for example the design of the canopy,
landing gear, some of the avionics and the
near-vertical tails.

MANOEUVRABILITY

The Su-47 has extremely high agility at subsonic
speeds enabling the aircraft to alter its angle of
attack and its flight path very quickly, and it also
retains manoeuvrability in supersonic flight.

Maximum turn rates and the upper and lower limits
on air speed for weapon launch are important
criteria in terms of combat superiority. The Su-47
aircraft has very high levels of manoeuvrability with
maintained stability and controllability at all angles
of attack.

Maximum turn rates are important in close combat
and also at medium and long range, when the
mission may involve engaging consecutive targets in
different sectors of the airspace. A high turn rate of
the Su-47 allows the pilot to turn the fighter aircraft
quickly towards the next target to initiate the
weapon launch.

The swept-forward wing, compared to a
swept-back wing of the same area, provides a
number of advantages: higher lift to drag ratio;
higher capacity in dogfight manoeuvres; higher
range at subsonic speed; improved stall resistance
and anti-spin characteristics; improved stability at
high angles of attack; a lower minimum flight speed;
and a shorter take-off and landing distance.

FUSELAGE

The Su-47 fuselage is oval in cross section and the
airframe is constructed mainly of aluminium and
titanium alloys and 13 per cent by weight of
composite materials.

The nose radome is slightly flattened at the fore
section and has a horizontal edge to optimise the
aircraft's anti-spin characteristics.

WINGS

The forward swept midwing gives the unusual and
characteristic appearance of the Su-47. A
substantial part of the lift generated by the
forward-swept wing occurs at the inner portion of
the wingspan. The lift is not restricted by wingtip
stall. The ailerons - the wing's control surfaces -
remain effective at the highest angles of attack, and
controllability of the aircraft is retained even in the
event of airflow separating from the remainder of
the wings' surface.

The wing panels of the Su-47 are constructed of
nearly 90% composites. The forward-swept
midwing has a high aspect ratio, which contributes
to long-range performance. The leading-edge root
extensions blend smoothly to the wing panels,
which are fitted with deflectable slats on the leading
edge; flaps and ailerons on the trailing edge.

The all-moving and small-area trapezoidal canards
are connected to the leading-edge root extensions.

COCKPIT

The cockpit's design has focused on maintaining a
high degree of comfort for the pilot and also on the
pilot being able to control the aircraft in extremely
high G-load manoeuvres. The aircraft is equipped
with a new ejection seat and life support system.
The variable geometry adaptive ejection seat is
inclined at an angle of 60
  • 0

#368 Guest_Soviet_*

Guest_Soviet_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 August 2003 - 02:20 PM

Fascists throwing away M-16 and M-4 rifles and turning to that magnificant piece of engineering, the AK-47
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged."


In Humvees, on tanks
  • 0

#369 ahmad

ahmad

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1927 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 09:43 PM

Remember what the Chinese say: "No ticky no laundry". You ain't got the money to build it and no one is buying. Better luck next time..........

From flyingmig.com.
Though similar in overall concept to the American X-29 research aircraft of the 1980s, the Su-47 is about twice the size and far closer to an actual combat aircraft than the US design.
Su-47 has shown far superior manuvering in the air to any aircraft known to this date.
Like the X-29 though, the Su-47 was primarily a technology demonstrator, one intended to lay the foundation for the next Russian fighter. Such a fighter must not only be as advanced as the US F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon, but must also compete for funding with the more conventional MiGs. However, Sukhoi is now attempting to market the Su-47 to the Russian military and foreign customers as a production fighter in its own right. Initial reaction was not good, but the aircraft's performance has been so impressive that the Russian government has made funds available for further testing of the design.
Still, the low budgets of the Russian military and the aircraft's high price tag make it unlikely that the Su-47 will be purchased any time in the near future.
___________________________
  • 0

#370 jamesmacgregor

jamesmacgregor

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:11 PM

Good point Larani! But you do have to admit the previous Russian posts were extremely arrogant and really do nothing to gain a consensus of opinion.

My only question is why, if the Russian planes are so good, are they blown out of the sky every time there is a conflict with a third world country that Russian has sold the planes to and they faced American built planes?

Also, Why does everyone buy US planes and avoid Russian planes like the plague? Could it be the inability of the Russian economy to back up the planes they sell, provide replacement parts without standing in a line around the block for replacement parts and toile paper, or is it the fact that Russia has such a weak economy that potential buyers would never take the risk of purchasing an aircraft with no future or hope of any guarantee.

American planes are not only superior, our economy is so we have the ability to back up our products.

A country would either have to be third world or idiots to by Russian made aircraft, even if they claim they have superior crafts....... All the recent confrontations have proven otherwise......
  • 0

#371 jamesmacgregor

jamesmacgregor

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:26 PM

No response to any of the issues..... Kind of expected blind nationalism to be the rule here... as always.......
  • 0

#372 Buttersideup

Buttersideup

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10450 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:34 PM

Forgetting the topic for a moment, the AK is a good weapon as far as reliability. Not as accurate though.....it should be a soldiers choice.
  • 0

#373 jamesmacgregor

jamesmacgregor

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:34 PM

Oh Come come.... Would Mommy and Daddy be happy with that response? That is not why they sent you to college little boy! They sent you to college to be a man and be able to stand up for your convictions! You know, like argue a point without making personal attacks when someone proved you wrong!

Do you need a happy meal to help you think things through?
  • 0

#374 ahmad

ahmad

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1927 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:42 PM

The best thing the Russians can hope for is collaboration with the United States to get their stuff off the ground.

From Moscow Times and AVIA.RU (yes that's a Russian website):

Thursday, August. 21, 2003
The Moscow Times
This week with lots of fanfare the MAKS-2003 air show opened in Zhukovsky. The Russian aviation industry is displaying its best. Improved relations with the West are also underlined by the presence of French, Italian and American military jets. This year's MAKS seems to surpass previous ones, but is the progress real? The civil as well as military aircraft on display are all of Soviet stock, at best minor modernizations of hardware mass-produced in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of these upgrades were also designed in Soviet times but did not go into production because the Soviet Union collapsed.
The organization of the show is also very Soviet. In 1997, after passing the entry checkpoint on opening day, I was stranded for two hours in an open field under a blazing August sun without water or sanitation, surrounded by security guards together with hundreds of hapless Russian and foreign dignitaries. We were detained while President Boris Yeltsin was looking over the exhibits. This August, hundreds of journalists accredited to the show had their passes canceled on opening day while President Vladimir Putin was given a tour around.
The Americans sent in Cold War veteran warplanes: The F-15 Eagle and the F-16 Falcon were designed in the late 1960s, mass-produced in the 1970s and 1980s. Production was terminated in the 1990s, and the fighters will be retired in coming years, phased out by new F-22 and F-35 warplanes. A B-52 strategic bomber also landed in Zhukovsky. This airplane was mass-produced in the 1950s.
Several European NATO countries have decided to buy F-35 stealth fighters to modernize their air forces after 2010. It's clear that the United States does not expect Russia to buy anything since it is displaying aviation relics at the show.
The most modern Russian fighters -- the Su-27 and MiG-29 -- were designed in the 1970s to meet the challenge of the then new F-15s and F-16s. The Soviet fighters were built to be as good as the American ones, and just a bit better. The Su-27 is in fact very much like the F-15 -- in essence a copycat, but with some improvements. It has much more maneuverability, more engine thrust, a much bigger onboard fuel compartment and longer range without refueling or external fuel tanks.
It took more than 10 years of design work to put the Su-27 into mass production in the 1980s: The first prototype versions made in the 1970s turned out to be much worse than the F-15. In the late 1970s a crash redesign program was undertaken at great cost to the Soviet economy.
The Su-27 turned out to be a superb airframe. Its ability to carry large payloads allowed it to be modernized in the 1990s into the Su-30MK fighter-bomber. Up to $10 billion worth of Su-27s and Su-30s have been exported in the last decade.
After unification in 1990, Germany inherited a squadron of MiG-29s, which were incorporated into the Luftwaffe. In subsequent exercises it turned out that the MiG-29 easily out performed all NATO fighters, including the F-16 and F-15, in close air combat, because of its higher maneuverability and superb short-range guided air-to-air missiles.
But in real war in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, the MiG-29 did not manage put up any significant resistance. While Russians were trying to improve the capabilities of fighters, the United States was undergoing a military-technical revolution, creating new ways of command and control, long-range intelligence gathering, targeting and precision attack.
The MAKS air show is a manifestation of this Russian stagnation, not because we are intellectually inferior but because our designers are handicapped by the absence of essential technologies to make integral modern products.
We can make powerful airframes but not modern, cheap, GPS-guided precision weapons or planes with stealth capabilities. We can make a long-range antiaircraft missile and equip it with powerful radar, but the command computer is a relic mainframe of the 1970s -- and so on.
In the future Russia may move on to fully integrate with the West and continue to produce outstanding aeronautics products -- as part of a transnational industry, using Western components and know-how. Or the relative isolation and stagnation, demonstrated at MAKS-2003, will carry on.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pavel Felgenhauer
  • 0

#375 Templar

Templar

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:44 PM

Hello, MacGregor who did you prove wrong?

Russians selling 50 billions worth of superior war-birds?

Or yourself



Cheers de Molay , SOVIET
  • 0

#376 Templar

Templar

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 10:53 PM

50 billions in superiori war-birds!!!!!!. China is buying exclusively Russian know-how and components, as you well know > ahmad you moron!

American components and know how stick up yours,
designed by 50IQ niggers hahahahaha.

play some hoops , leave airplane design to the Russians. You just have no brains to do that.
  • 0

#377 jamesmacgregor

jamesmacgregor

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 11:17 PM

China????????????? Oh you are a jolly little boy aren't you???

China can't afford US planes, and by the way, we won't sell them to China....... I guess you got me on that one didn't you little boy? NOT!!!!! It is funny that Russia sells war planes to a communist country that was allied with the government of the Soviet Union that supressed the Russians for so long.... Short memory or too much vodka?

By the way, You have now officially become a member of the idiot list for using the word "nigger".

You are offensive and no longer deserve any respect. Just another sad little racist and misguided idiot in Europe.....


NEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • 0

#378 Templar

Templar

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 11:32 PM

PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA is the very country that will USE those superior Russian war-birds to NUKE your as-s to submission!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

HEHEHE
  • 0

#379 Buttersideup

Buttersideup

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10450 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 11:42 PM

you next
  • 0

#380 jamesmacgregor

jamesmacgregor

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 25 August 2003 - 11:50 PM

Little boy Idiot!

That is the only response you deserve for your mindless post. If you had a thought in your mind, you would have responded with something that had so miniscule bit of relevance.....

I hate little kids who post and waste everybody't time..... This little idiot obviously has nothing to say.......
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru