RUSSIA'S RADICAL NEW FIGHTER

Discover Magazine ^ | FR Post 9-30-2002 | By MALCOLM V. LOWE

[hosepipe]

Foreign Aid to Russia.?... We see can where the last aid went..

[FreeLibertarian]

This is just another old rip off of our out of date technology.

I am certain that during the Cold War the U.S intentionally allowed the Soviet Union to steal our out-of-date technology knowing that the Soviets couldn't reproduce it. The Soviets would panic when they realized how far behind they were and they weren't going to catch up.

This was one of the major factors in ending the Cold War.

We have continued the same strategy with the Chinese to this date.

Psychological games were a strategy that we always used with the Soviets. During the late 70s or early 80s we sent U.S construction workers with Q (Top Secret) clearances to Moscow to work on our embassy. Knowing that the supplies shipped to the workers would be inspected by the Soviets we sent along several packages of condoms. The condoms supplied were actually the type used by veterinarians to collect semen samples from horses. They were repackaged similarly to Trojans and labeled Size Small.

[hosepipe]

#4 "The multi-phased program was conducted from 1984 to 1992 and provided an engineering data base that is available in the design and development of future aircraft."

I wonder how much Clintoon got for the plans.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Grumman

[thedilg]

This worries me. America must have a military that can destroy all enemies.

Not to worry. Fighter planes that weighs 75,000 lbs has already made a terrible error. Pulling 8 G's is a tough structural requuirement for a plane that will surely weigh over 40 tons by the time weight overruns are added.

A modern fighter that has a thrust to weight of .93 is truly a sluggard. (thrust 70,000 vs weight of 75,000) A pig by todays standards.

I doubt if we could afford this plane. Advanced fighters cost us about $300 per ounce, or about that of pure gold. The Russians can do better but compared to their radically smaller GNP it becomes even more difficult for them. There would never be large numbers. A fatal flaw.

Air-to-air missiles contained in internal bays is also a major problem. It is difficult to get a missile to see the proper enemy. When you launch without lock-on you will often throw blind missiles that never see the bad guys. These missiles have zero Pk. (probability of kill)

Forward swept wings are dynamically unstable. We experimented with this concept decades ago. It sole advantage using todays technology is in the quikness of responding to a control input. Of course the responsivness of a standard design is so fast that any advantage would be measured by micro seconds. A trivial exercise.

I could discuss about 20 other features that auger poorly for a 75,000 lb forward swept fighter but the answer doesn't change.

Godspeed, The dilg

[1rudeboy]

I wonder how well it rusts.

[archy]

Grumman

Lockheed-Martin

-archy-/-

[archy]

A modern fighter that has a thrust to weight of .93 is truly a sluggard...a pig by today's standards....

Not to worry. The Vympal R-33 missiles have a 160 KM range at mach 4.5, enough to be at least something of a challenge, even if the present Russian aircraft aren't also controlling follow-on versions of the TU-143 *Reys* remotely-piloted vehicle or TU-300 configured as a fighter...or *suicide ramming plane*

Anybody even know what gun package the new Sukhoi carries, assuming that it does? I doubt they've repeated the USAF *Gunless F4 Phantom* mistake, but you never know...

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

The X-29 was built by Grumman not Lockheed-Martin.

[Kozak]

The Russian challenge comes in the form of the single-seat Sukhoi S-37, the world’s first combat aircraft to successfully exploit forward-swept wing (FSW) technology

Not exactly . German Ju-287

[adam stevens]

Thanks for the reply!

[steveegg]

The max take-off weight's 75,000 lbs, not the empty weight. Given that the F-15C's is a not-too-far-off 68,000 lbs (with only a max of 50,000 lbs of thrust), and its gross weight is 41,500 lbs, I'd say that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the S-37 wouldn't be all that far off.

As for maneuverability, the F-15E is even heavier, with a max take-off weight of 81,000 lbs (and is pushed along by 2 engines with just under 30,000 lbs of thrust). That aircraft was designed to handle a 9-G turn.

[Looking for Diogenes]

and labeled Size Small.

That joke goes back to Roosevelt and Stalin.

[Grampa Dave]

What a great reply.

If you have not read Red Rabbit by Clancy, you should buy a copy and read it.

Clancy agrees with your reply. Let the commies have a 7 to 10 year old plane or some other war toy, and they would would spend billions trying to copy it and never really doing it correctly with their terrible quality control and production standards.

When we cleaned the clocks on their step son army, the Iraqis in Desert Storm, they knew that it was over for them. Their tanks, migs and tactics were burnt and scattered all over Iraq in a few days. A lot of Russian advisors went up in smoke too.

The ChiCom missile guidance systems apparently depend our our GPS satellites. Any bets where one of those missiles would end up if launched with an American city target.

I had not heard about the condoms, what a great story.

[Mo1]

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[BnBlFlag]

I thought the Russkies were broke!

[WOSG]

roflmao - good one on the condom story ............. if only the CIA had the wit and intelligence to actually do this.

[thedilg]

"The max take-off weight's 75,000 lbs, not the empty weight.
Given that the F-15C's is a not-too-far-off 68,000 lbs (with
only a max of 50,000 lbs of thrust), and its gross weight is
41,500 lbs, I'd say that the thrust-to-weight ratio of the
S-37 wouldn't be all that far off."

I was on the F-15 source selection in 1974. That was a
quarter of a century ago. I can assure that many of us on
the program were not proud of our efforts. We rapidly
started the LWF progam (F-16) at the completion of the F-15
source selection. To compare a modern 2010 operational fighter to one that was operational 35 years earlier is not valid.

The F-15 sizing mission was full internal fuel, 4 Sidewinders and 4 Sparrows. Take off gross weight was 39,600 lbs. Thrust was over 40,000 lbs. which gave it better than a 1 to 1 ratio. That compares to the .93 thrust to weight of the S-37 35 years later. I assume that we have an apples to apples comparison. That is the S-37 weighs 75,000 lbs. with full internal fuel and a full complement of missles. I agree that both planes could carry another
20-30,000 pounds of external fuel and munitions.

I stand by my original assessment that the S-37 would be a
modern day pig.

"As for maneuverability, the F-15E is even heavier, with a
max take-off weight of 81,000 lbs (and is pushed along by 2
engines with just under 30,000 lbs of thrust). That aircraft
was designed to handle a 9-G turn."

I assume you mean that a single engine is 30,000 lbs. Two
engines would be 60,000 lbs. I haven't kept up with the
F-15 program. I assume the F-15E is a stike fighter not a
dogfighter. Even at that the 81,000 pounds is with 30,000 lbs. of external stores. (apples and oranges)

There is an interesting story about the 9 G that you
mentioned. In 1974 the F-15 engineers all but convinced Gen
Bellis, the F-15 program manager, that their centrifuge data showed that only 4.5 G's was useable. All their evidence indicated that a person would black out at 4.5 G's. I could not persued the general otherwise. I invited him to the Fighter Weapons School at Nellis for an F-4 mission. For 45 minutes we flew at the 8.5 g limits. We demonstrated dive pull outs, dog fights, and a 2 minute turn at 8.5 G's. Poor Gen Bellis spent a goodly share of his time blacked out. He could hear, so I kept reading the G meter to him. Of course the engineers lost. The G spec remained at 8.5 G's or was it 9 G's.

Godspeed, The Dilg

[FreeLibertarian]

roflmao - good one on the condom story ............. if only the CIA had the wit and intelligence to actually do this.

The information is true, there is a VFW post where those construction workers are members that has one of the "Small" condoms and its original packaging in the trophy case.

[thedilg]

Thanks for the info. Any missile that flies at 4.5 mach would have to pull well over 100 G's. Not
a really credible threat.

Godspeed, The Dilg