ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/21/2014 04:02 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
Global Warming Not Due to Natural Factors, Expert Says
Study: Junk Food Doesn´t Only Make You Fat, It Makes You Lazy
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/20/2014 07:16 PM
Lurker receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Hustler Magazine Sent to Every Congressional Office Since 1983'
04/20/2014 02:56 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Hustler Magazine Sent to Every Congressional Office Since 1983'
04/20/2014 02:56 PM
captainJane receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Hustler Magazine Sent to Every Congressional Office Since 1983'
  11.608 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
09/12/2008 02:55 AM ID: 73333 Permalink   

New US Fighter Jets 'Clubbed Like Baby Seals' By Russian Sukhois

 

Australia's decision to purchase the United States' new stealth warplane the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been thrown further into doubt after unconfirmed reports of poor performance against Russian Sukhoi fighter planes in simulated dogfights.

Liberal party politician Dennis Jensen said a person with information regarding the tests had told him "the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois". Late model Sukhois are fielded by Russia & China among many others.

Australia has been lobbying the US for access to the F-22 which currently has a foreign sales ban, but is already operational and performs exceptionally in wargames. An opposition defence spokesman dismissed the report saying "this is not real life".

 
  Source: www.brisbanetimes.com.au  
    WebReporter: lachs Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  35 Comments
  
  .  
 
To bad it's only in a simulation and not in real life.. there no way russian sukhoi jets can beat the F22 or F35.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report. "This is not real life."

That pretty much sums it up.
 
  by: keanu1982     09/12/2008 03:12 AM     
  Well..  
 
Considering that neither of them have seen the report, yes it's best to take everything said 'with a grain of salt'. However, it seems quite foolish to me, to dismiss fighter simulations as useless, or non-indicative of fight performance. If they really were useless, they wouldn't be done. Although I have a feeling that when the fight sim results are good, it gets talked up, and definitely isn't considered as being non-indicative of real-world performance.

Personally my impression is that the JSF got completely trashed in the simulations and certain people are going on the defensive any way they can.
 
  by: StarShadow     09/12/2008 03:29 AM     
  @keanu  
 
I found it pretty hard to believe too, thus the post... I heard F-22s had something stupid like a 240-0 kill rate so you'd think F-35s would be similar, although they don't cruise as fast or as high (i heard the cruise height (40T-50T feet)of the f-22 gives it a stellar advantage) and aren't as stealthy. But clubbed... hmmm there is more to this story
 
  by: lachs     09/12/2008 03:42 AM     
  @keanu  
 
i wasn't aware the f-22 raptor had ever been battle battle tested like sukhoi's have... until then i could are less about superior claims..

the f-22 has only ever seen simulated battle, so to say that f-35 would proform better against sukhoi's in real life (contrary to simulation) would be the same as saying some other country's latest non-battle-tested fighter jet would beat the US's latest jet fighter in battle (despite being contrary to simulations).
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/12/2008 04:03 AM     
  This was  
 
All a deal set up when Howard was in power and in bed with Bush.
Is to expensive and the unproven, if simulations are correct why waste so much money on a dog not fit for the dog fight?
Maybe Australia should be looking at other options including the Russian jet and what Europe has to offer.
Indonesia has already got the Sukhois so Australia better choose wise and not on the whims of some corrupt politician.
 
  by: thinking   09/12/2008 04:11 AM     
  ,.,.,  
 
From what i've heard we used f-22's in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I understand you don't believe in simulations but they've always been good enough to see how well something works to this point so I don't see why it wouldn't continue to work.

Go look up some test videos then tell me that it can't possible be as good as they say, because from what i've seen those f-22 beat the living shit out of any plane i've seen them fly against and somehow I doubt that suddenly changes when they're bad guys.
 
  by: splicer   09/12/2008 04:14 AM     
  Err.. Umm Urkk..  
 
O.k. I'm willing to believe that the planes suck in dogfights.. but It's a STEALTH plane.. It's NOT meant to be in dogfights.. it's meant to take the other guy out BEFORE they figure out they are dead.. That is why it's called a stealth.. DOH!
 
  by: CaveHermit   09/12/2008 04:25 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
Point taken.
 
  by: keanu1982     09/12/2008 04:34 AM     
  @Keanu and CaveHermit  
 
Actually the Russians make superior airframes and engines.
The US beats them in avionics so they should never get in a
dog-fight. If however, they did end in a dog-fight, I
suspect that the sukhois would club the US fighters.

@cave
The tests were against the JSF which is not fully stealth.
Australia would like to buy the stealth F-22, but can't.

My opinion, get the sukhois and outfit them with american
avionics. :)

We do however need the F22 to maintain regional tech
superiority.
 
  by: jendres     09/12/2008 05:01 AM     
  @splicer  
 
not unless they've been used in secret.. F-18 have been be the primary aircraft used... the air force has been suggesting since june that they might... but hey've actually been saying that ove over a decade now (saying the raptor was battle ready, yet testing still continues.

the only "action" that the f-22 has ever seen to my knowledge has been an inception in or around Alaska of a Tu-95 russian heavy bomber (the bear); a 50+ year old aircraft, hardly a test. esspecially considering the bomber was only on a mock mission anyhow, and they knew about it as they've been caerrying them out for a long time now.

also i've read that they've were in an airshow... but i have no details about this.

i'm not saying that the raptor probably isn't the best plane out there... only that its never been proven such due to the fact its never seen combat...

technically its not the fastest. 2400km/h compared to MIG 31's 3000km/h (the MIG 33 is 100km/h slower), it s perfect match speed wise for MIG 29, but thats 30 year old soviet craft, another 30 year old craft also proforms better in speed.

the f-22 really shines in the area of supercruise, and beyond horizon targetting and holds an extra 2-4 payloads, and is a fair bit stealthier... however as i've pointed out before the f-22's stealth advantage and even the b2 bomber's stealth advantage in nullified when you consider that low frequency radar will trump it everytime, and might even cost less than the f-22's sticker price of 137.5 million.

i'm waiting to see russia's next fighter jet (Sukhoi PAK FA), since only then will the f-22 have anything that can be accurately compared to it.

its supposed to be faster, have a longer range, an unnoticably higher combat ceiling, roughly the same thrust/weight ratio, the ability to engage 8 out of 32 tracked targets and a 400km radar as opposed to the raptors 200-240, however will likely only carry 8 payloads (as opposed to up to 12)... this is all just estimation based on the two prototypes jet fighter that its based on, it wont face production for another 3 years yet, its first flight it scheduled sometime next year.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/12/2008 05:10 AM     
  @all  
 
Beware the sleeping bear and the yellow dragon...


Dont underestimate Russia so much people... If both Russia and China use these aircrafts, and they know they are superior in dogfights, wouldn't it be their aim to force the f-22's into dogfights?

I dont know a lot about air force and military - but i do know that when you wright off something as a non-threat - it comes back and bites you on the @ss...
 
  by: george2101436   09/12/2008 05:19 AM     
  ,.,.,  
 
I've come across quite a bit of info that say's they've already assigned F-22's to squadrons. There was also a little data on some of the non-test things they've done also, not exciting but still there. They've even converted some F-15e's to F-22's to boot.

I'm not arguing that the F-22 is our main thing and I understand that with all the really nice toys built into it it's a fairly expensive plane but from what i've seen it beats the crap out of everything on shear maneuverability alone.

It'll be a while still for there to be quite a few of those suckers, but there's a deal right now going on to make quite a few in 2009 and 2010.
 
  by: splicer   09/12/2008 12:02 PM     
  What about the Eurofighter Typhoon?  
 
I would like to know how that plane compares, any military expert here knows?
 
  by: evilrat   09/12/2008 01:45 PM     
  @evilrat  
 
The Eurofighter is a generation (half a generation?) behind... the F22 is a generation ahead of everything else out there. The equivalent generation Russian fighter hasn't been fielded yet.

All of these comparisons are really contrived though... when was the last time a any 4th/5th gen fighters went up against each other in real combat? Has that ever happened? I believe the newer fighters have only really gone up against older generation, export variants of their counterparts, and those engagements end like you would expect them to.
 
  by: bane39   09/12/2008 06:04 PM     
  @CAVEH  
 
Dont believe the hype. STEALTH..Pfffft.

There is more than one way to detect an object up above us or below. A while back a stealth bomber was brought down and USA all of a sudden started scrambling and wondering how did that happen.

Radar technology is an open technology, expectations of USA was, all countries would use the convention radar system or the one they and other War mongers sell. Then after bringing down stealth, it was realized a simple cellphone technology can detect the stealth and with triangulation it can be shot down. All of a sudden 20 years of research and hush hush technology was exposed, after Billions were spent on a fighter that has only one advantage. Stealth!! NOT.

Raptor on the other hand is a marvel but dont under estimate humanity and cross scientists who know something that you and I dont.
 
  by: isuzu     09/12/2008 06:26 PM     
  Clubbed Like Baby Seals eh ?  
 
that's because you didn't have Maverick and the Iceman flying them ....
Otherwise they would have been taking upside down Polaroids of the enemy pilots and dishin out some serious whop ass ....
yeehhhhh harrrrrr
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     09/12/2008 06:38 PM     
  I have one thing to say on this ...  
 
... and it can be all found in one picture:

http://www.sysexrecords.com/...
 
  by: Daev     09/12/2008 06:42 PM     
  @evilrat  
 
the eurofighter typhoon is a good aircraft, but nothing like the raptor, and aside from possibly maneuverablity wouldn't do well against most russian jet fighter of the last 30 years which are also much biggere and faster.

however compared to the raptor, its fairly the same, 300km/h slower (as well as a slower supercruise), 10 feet shorter), 9 foot less wingspan, and probably hold 4-6 less payloads... other than that manuevarbility (which i'm not in a greatest position to judge) and stelth they are a fairly similar aircraft, even there thrust to weight ratio is about the same.

compared to the f-35, its roughly the same size, although lighter (about 2000kg less unloaded [over 3500 kg lass than f-35's vertical take-off variant], and 3500kg less max takeoff weight), the eurofighter is quite a bit faster than the f-35 has been demonstrated to be, it also has a larger combat range than 2 out of 3 version of the f-35, a higher thrust/weight ratio
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/12/2008 06:55 PM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
Thank you for the very detailed information!
 
  by: evilrat   09/12/2008 07:16 PM     
  I saw the F-22 Raptor  
 
It was in the Chicago Airshow this year and it was an amazing aircraft. This thing had amazing maneuvering capabilities, and it was fast... Of course, they wouldn't let any of the jets that day go supersonic, for fear it would shatter windows in the city. But after seeing this thing flying around, I was certain there could be no opponent that could take this thing on.
 
  by: theavenger8     09/12/2008 07:46 PM     
  Wow..  
 
Talk about jumping to conclusions. Seeing it at an air-show, which is definitely not a combat situation, is enough to convince you that nothing can beat it?
 
  by: StarShadow     09/12/2008 07:58 PM     
  Knowing the U.S. military  
 
The F22 Raptor would have to prove over, and over, and over again, that they have a major advantage over anything currently in use to justify their importance and price tag. The U.S. military makes sure it has the domination, and on going improvements and upgrades it requires to stay on top, currently and in the future.

The F22 Raptor can pull so many G's, that they relied on the onboard computers to cripple it so the G-Forces wouldn't kill the pilot. The F-22 Raptor is capable of so much more, but human pilots are its bottle neck.

There are many websites posting that 1 F-22 Raptor went up against 8 F-15's (in a pack) in clear day time weather and confirmed killed them all in less than 5 minutes, top gun pilots were in the F-15's. Of course, no live ammo used.

They are basically invisible, extremely hard to see them, and Radar has a hard time detecting them (very low radar signature). They have the latest radar, weapons, radar jammers, and most likely equipment that we don't know exist.

There are 2 models, production models to sell to other nations, then the other model that has all the latest and greatest technology that excels the production model. The production model will still stomp the Euro-Fighter, of course at twice the cost.

---->isuzu said: <-----
There is more than one way to detect an object up above us or below. A while back a stealth bomber was brought down and USA all of a sudden started scrambling and wondering how did that happen.

True, it is hard to trick radar. But then again, if you can make a jet fighter look like a small bird (robin, humming bird or geese, ducks) on your enemy's radar screen, then basicly the jets are invisible.

If you shoot enough explosives or lead into the air blindly, you will eventally kill or shoot something down. Kosivo got lucky, they shot enough lead and explosives blindly and shot down a stealth plane. Yes, the U.S. was worried that they found a way to detect Stealth aircraft, but that concern quickly faded. Iraq fired enough ammo blindly in both wars, but I quess they were unlucky twice.
 
  by: slayer06   09/13/2008 07:21 AM     
  @isuzu  
 
Haven't you seen the released U.S. military videos that shows a couple of the early model Stealth Bombers having a computer glitch, started spinning and breaking apart for no reason? That is what they think happened in Kosovo, but they still didn't rule out the shoot enough ammo into the air, and you will shoot something down. The Bomber that went down was one of the early models.
 
  by: slayer06   09/13/2008 07:38 AM     
  @slayer06  
 
The F117 brought down by the Yugoslav military was definitely not a fluke but it had alot to do with the US using the same flight paths for their bombing missions. The Yugoslavs monitored them with infra-red, visually with night-vision and were able to momentarily spot them on radar if they modified their equipment to use really an unusually wide band.

http://www.defenceaviation.com/...

The commander of the brigade shot down the only 2 NATO aircraft destroyed in the campaign without sustaining any losses, a pretty incredible feat when you think about the technology he was using.
 
  by: lachs     09/13/2008 10:57 AM     
  @lachs  
 
I missed that link, good find. Still, he still could have taken credit for something that was blind fire.

Stealth Tech. is not completely invisible. If you get close enough to triangulated radar, the aircraft signature becomes truer.

It use to take up to 10 aircraft for 1 mission in the past, now it takes 1 plane for 4 missions. It was common for an aircraft to be shot down per night mission, now if one or two bombers get shot down during the whole war, it is big news! So yes, the technology works. It is not fool proof, still have to take out a lot of radar and still fly between the weak spots. If enemy radar becomes active, an immediate guided bomb or missile is going to kill it.
 
  by: slayer06   09/13/2008 06:37 PM     
  Russians Talk Loudly and Carry Big Sticks?  
 
What the-!? How do you hit another jet with a stick?

Sneaky Roosians.
 
  by: theironboard     09/13/2008 07:35 PM     
  Playing Hard to Get  
 
Seems to me that the Australians are just playing hard-ball to gain access to the banned F-22 instead of the F-35 that they are being assigned.
 
  by: kmazzawi     09/13/2008 11:36 PM     
  if stealth is  
 
As good as they say.
Why are there so many concerns with Iran getting The S-300 missile system?
 
  by: thinking   09/14/2008 12:50 AM     
  @thinking  
 
because it would offset the US's ability to attack without having to worry about retaliation as iran would have a much more fromidable defense, something the US is opposed to any nation having, which is not allied with them, after all why would you want countries that you intended to attack or occupy to be defended. the US has more than made it clear that somewhere down the line they intend to attack iran; over 450 targets...

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option."

and this is even using a conservative source.

http://www.amconmag.com/...

another source: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/...

the S-300 system is the russian equivelent to what the US is trying to install in poland. it would allow iran to track and destroy many incomming missiles at once, as opposed to one or two at a time; meaning any attack on iran would be ineffiencent as they would have to use several times more missiles to achieve the same result, and this would be in addition to their existing defences.
 
  by: HAVOC666     09/14/2008 01:24 AM     
  @HAVOC  
 
I believe the S-300 and S-400 are way superior to the patriot system.
The F-22 and F-35 are both untried with the S-300 and S-400 missile defence systems.
If these aircraft can't penetrate these systems are they really worth the big dollars?


 
  by: thinking   09/14/2008 02:20 AM     
  You know when they start throwing around  
 
the overwrought metaphors that it has to be a Ruskie propaganda effort. They wouldn't know elegance in language if poet showed them the way. Perhaps if they stopped chasing them away with revolutions, maybe then they would learn some eloquence.
 
  by: Big Bird     09/14/2008 06:21 AM     
  Wow  
 
sure is a lot of aviation experts here
you guys must earn a fortune to leave what you are doing too write on here.
 
  by: Jammy-Doger   09/15/2008 01:32 PM     
  There's a difference  
 
Between a strike fighter (F-35) and an air superiority/interceptor (F-22). This article makes me think that the F-35 was being tested against air superiority fighters, which it was not specifically designed to counter, being a multirole fighter. In this respect, I'm not suprised that the Sukhois, especially if they were late models, would be able to take them.

The F-22 has the full checklist of 'dogfighting' advantages over most anything in the sky at the moment, but its biggest advantage is the fact that its stealth gear basically just denies the enemy's ability to put a weapon system on it. Even from a perfect firing position, any radar targeted or guided weapon (and thanks to vectored thrust nozzles, most infrared weapons) just won't recognize that the fighter is there. The JSF isn't quite as invisible, or maneuverable, but it is better suited to what Australia needs.

We're never going to have strategic or theater air superiority without US support, we just can't afford it. So the next most important thing is solid ground attack and close air support for our army and SAS units, which the JSF can provide.
 
  by: Tek   09/15/2008 02:50 PM     
  My opinion  
 
????????? ???????????? ??????????? ? ??????? ??????, ??? ?? ???????? ? ???? ?????, ??? ????????? ?????? ? ??????
 
  by: chasy2007   04/11/2009 12:49 PM     
  @Tek  
 
I think you might be correct. I read an article recently stating that the Russians were doing some work on Vectoring nozzles for the SU-27 which is supposed to be one of their most advanced fighter, probably in response to the F22's capabilities. :)
 
  by: keanu1982     04/11/2009 01:45 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com