In the video you can clearly see that the thrust of the turbines is being vectored, enabling the aircraft to perform some interesting aerial manoeuvres. Something to keep in mind at a time when almost all the F-15 fleet is grounded due to issues with structural integrity.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
That indepedent thrust-vectoring kind of reminds me of a strabismic gecko.
Impressive… too bad the demonstration seems to show the ability of the airplane to consistently start to fall out of the sky.
Our F-15’s are falling out of the sky, our F-22’s are somewhere in the future… and we still spend more on Defense than the rest of the world combined. Hurray for the military-industrial complex!
Did you see that F-22 on his tail? Neither did he.
Old, but cool video. It’s a neat thing to do, but really doesn’t have much offer in aerial combat. We may be nearing that age where combat happens more BVR than in close.
And regarding the F-15. It’s the Air Superiority A-D models that are grounded. The newer fighter bomber E models are still active. The Air Force was warning about this kind of thing years ago, but the government, in all its wisdom, decided to move along at a snail’s pace with the replacement.
Actually, it is not “falling out of the sky”, it is in a flat spin. This is generally unrecoverable in most aircraft and is a frequent cause of fighters crashing in combat and in simulated warfare. That it has the ability to enter and leave a flat spin seemly at will, is very impressive and an excellent demonstration of what vectored thrust can do. The Cobra maneuver is another and a powerful tool for getting that F22 suddenly in front of you for the kill shot…
#2
The Raptor was first operationally deployed in 2005.
You are correct about F-15 structural issues which have largely been attributed to fatigue associated with operational life extension in part to save $.
The Russians are no doubt great plane designers but don’t underestimate the Raptor. It is designed to kill before anyone even knows it is there much less get into a dogfight which I also believe it would be good at.
Let’s not forget that the Su-30 is a relatively new aircraft (late 80’s/early 90’s) while the A-D F-15’s have been around since the 1970’s. The F-22 should have gone operational in the mid-90’s, but thanks to the (Democratic) Congress and the (Democratic) President, funding was slashed and the project continuously pushed back, and in the process raising the cost per copy.
Damn, that thing can dance.
And the F-22 still isn’t equipped with an AWG-9 radar and Phoenix missiles.
#3 RoboRob
All combat is driven by economics and will, not technology.
The Russians, and other Allies, proved during WWII they could win against Germany because they had bigger economies and more heart.
Russian doctrine of providing “good enough” technology in large numbers against a few highly (expensively) developed opposing elements is not to be dismissed.
Your hubris is akin to the German thinking during WWII.
As you probably know, the battle space consists of more than opposing aircraft. Economics and will would seem to be key elements in victory.
The reason you didn’t see the F-22 is because the Raptor takes care of business from 10 miles away!
#8 wrote: “And the F-22 still isn’t equipped with an AWG-9 radar and Phoenix missiles.”
Like any rules of engagerment our pilots will ever be given in the future would allow them to shoot from 100 miles away.
#7
So, have we had many air superiority fights that we lost because of that (Democrat) President and his shortsighted spending cuts?
I love jets, always have, the Sukhois are sweet. They are different than the F-22. This thing should really be compared to the EFA-2000 or the Mirage 2000-5 Mk2.
I did a report on thrust vectoring during my Freshman year in college back in 1999.
I recently talked with a friend of mine that has worked in aerospace for many years. I asked him about the SU-30. He responded that what matters more is the missiles carried by the aircraft than the aircraft itself. The US has missiles which can launch from the right of the pilot’s aircraft and hit a target to the left of the aircraft. The missiles are able to turn at g-forces that are beyond the physical capabilities of the opposing aircraft much less the pilot. The days of dogfighting are history along with “Curse you Red Baron”.
And the Russians have missiles that are launched rearwards.
In order to avoid a USS Vincennes – Iran Air Flight 655 issue in the future, aircraft may have to make a visual id of a plane before firing on it.
I know that bandwidth and other things could alleviate this kind of mistake; but firing blind is a last ditch move in my mind.
Just think what we would do if Iran shot down a United flight today?
Risking a $361 million per aircraft (F-22) to id then shoot down a cheap Russia plane seems like a fool’s economy. Ground based missiles seem much cheaper.
#7,
Uh, but hasn’t Congress been controlled by Republicans from about 1994-2006? And a Republican was president for half of those years!
Not that facts should get in the way of your fetish to blame everything on the Democrats.
Get your head out of your ass and stop watching Faux News.
Best thing they could do for any aircraft is remove all the guns and bombs. I had tons more fun fly an ag cat for a few years than the four years of flying gunships in Nam
Don’t need Phoenix missles with far more advanced AIM-120 AMRAAM’s.
#14
I guess you do not realize that medium range missiles are used within visual range. I would much rather risk a $300 million dollar missile over a $300 million dollar aircraft and its pilot.
#14
Oh, and by the way, they also have the ability to launch the latest medium range missiles using ground launchers.
A few years ago I watched an airshow of Su-27s here in Fairbanks, AK. A flight of six came over. The whole airshow took place at under 500 feet. Their lead pilot stood the Su-27 on its tail and HOVERED vertically. Low speed high maneuvering aerobatics had our fighter pilots from the nearby airbase standing beside me practically drooling. Impressive airplane.
One of their pilots was missing some paperwork and couldn’t fly in the show. He was annoyed when he left. I watched his departure from my home. Off the ground and vertical climb until out of sight.
#5 Imagine if the F14 had had those things – maybe Goose would have lived, and they would have claimed ze trophy! 😛
#11: You miss the point. The only way to be truly undetectable is to shoot from so far away that they can’t see your plane with any equipment.
#17: The D model, yes.
No video of Patrick Norton getting bobbled about in the f/a 18?
Look, an F16 can outmaneuver an F15 at slow speed and low altitude. Why do you think the Thunder birds fly them. Uhm, Duh!
The F15 has been flying for 30 years!!! Of course some of them are wearing out and developing stress cracks. Uhm, Double Duh!
US training doctrine is very rigorous and ongoing. The average US pilot gets more flying in a month than a Russian pilot gets in a year. Experience is the single biggest factor in living to be an old fighter pilot. Since their is very little actual COMBAT going on these days, I would say the side with the most flying experience would have a significant edge.
In a “pitched” battle, the visual ID rule goes out the window, and the US AWACs will be IDing the enemy planes as they lift off from their runways and vectoring US fighters in on the bad guys, so the AMRAMS would have a field day.
Still, the stall/spin recoverery of the Sukoi is amazing. Why haven’t we stolen the plans to the engines and airframs? Hmm, maybe we have. We probably just bought them for a few hundred rubles from a Russian engineer.
Look, for the money spent, the US is getting ripped off on fighter procurement. A few high profile news events like the F15’s are wearing out or the F22 date line incident make me want to scream. But in a knock down drag out, I would rather be riding in the $200 million dollar stealth beast with Awacs backup, thankyou.
Don
Popular Mechanics wrote couple of years ago about a simulated fight btw US Air Force F-15s and Indian Air Force Su-30s (real planes, no missiles):
“An analysis of the exercise by New Delhi-based India Defence Consultants (IDC), a military-affairs think tank, cited its sources as saying that the Americans and Indians had spotted each other on their radar screens at the same moment, but that the Indian pilots shot first.”
#25
That is the equivalent simulating a battle of tanks without ammunition.
#26: It’s called MILES gear. And a laser is only a little more accurate than a depleted uranium sabot round from an M1, but costs less and provides much closer to realistic training.
The sister site has a link to the Air-Attack site and many more exciting videos, this one included:
Videos:
http://www.air-attack.com/videos/80/page/6#
CM:
http://tinyurl.com/25vked
Don.
The total production run of F-22s costs between $339,000,000 and $361,000,000 each. Not $200M.
The Su-30 costs $44,000,000 each ($44M) in the hands of non-Russian enemies.
The each Su-30 is approximately 1/8 the cost of each F-22.
What justification can you provide for such the cost disparity between F-22 and SU-30?
The life of the pilot?
Tell that to the grunts in Iraq who couldn’t get body armor.
Dorksters #29
I don’t know where you got your information but The fly away unit cost as of 2007 for a F-22 is ~$149 million
I think you may have misunderstood what you read because the production overrun costs at one point were ~$350 million. That is not the same as the fly away cost.