Look at 0:09, 1:17, and 8:52. At 8:52 you see a 1980's American police car. At 1:17 look at that right arm emblem, that flag is Soviet, not Russian. Then 0:09, that left breast seal, Soviet Air Force. Also check out the caps of the pilot talking with the F-18 pilot and the Soviet ground crew. Those caps are gifts. The pilot is wearing a channel 9 TV cap from the local American television station. This is glasnost Soviet Union on an exchange visit of the SU-27. Beautiful! Historical!
@viktormc1 If you look closely, there is a nozzle for the cannon. When it fires, it creates a large flame that would damage and rip off the paint anyway so they left it unpainted.
Hi, that is really greate work from the cameraman! Just look at the zoomed in footage of the Flanker in the air. I would say a rigid video tripod of 25 kgs, at least a Canon J50x2 broadcast lens and a pissed cameraman, determined to get the shots or die! He is nog giving up is he? He just keeps shooting, panning, tilting and keeping the objects in focus! Just unbelievable! Great film work! /Lars, TeamM
The F-117 was shot down by a modified missile and a low frequency radar, and what I'm saying is that AESA radars employ a number of frequencies in their signals which range from lower to higher and they change frequently per transmitter and this makes it easier for them to detect more stealthy targets as opposed to phased array radars. The Flanker has a PESA Bars radar with certain AESA specific frequencies, but that's nowhere near AESA. It depends.
The radar systems on the F-15, F-16 and F-18 appeared before the information leakage that you were talking about, and the R-27 and R-60 were already either comparable or inferior to US missiles, and the advantage came with the R-73.
Je suis d'accord, cet avion est certainement un des plus élégants chasseurs soviétique voire mondial ! Superbe délicatesse de vol et beauté d'évolution notamment pour la figûre du fameux cobra ! Mais vu de près, il lui manque la finesse de finition caractéristique d'un appareil européen ou américain ! (on ne peut pas être tout à la fois...beau, performant et parfaitement ajusté. Je l'ai vu de près au "Salon International du Bourget" près de Paris le 17 Juin 2005)
@ZachAttack8720 The pipe between the nozzles, firstly has the role of carring the brake parachute after touchdown aswell as an aerodynamic effect at high speed reducing drag, thus allowing for a higher top speed to be obtained...! The russian designers always had rich imagination upon everything, I love them for that!
The Rafales have AESA radars, and so they can detect stealthy aircraft at very close ranges, due to the lower frequencies used in the signals. The distances have to be closer than the range of a medium range air to air missile though. If the aircraft is directly above the radar and into its beam it can be detected because the signal just bounces back. It needs a certain distance and a certain angle. The phased array radar on the Flanker can't detect the F-22 at the same distance as the Rafale's.
AFAIK, they went up against each other in pretty much everything.Both BVR and WVR.In both, the Raptors were almost always dominant.Regarding head on attacks, I don't know, but it doesn't matter, the Typhoons couldn't tell they were being painted at long/medium ranges regardless of the Raptors' angle.As they said, the Raptor's a "sniper".
The Pershing missile that you said the Russians were supposed to jam, had an inertial navigation system. If you know what that is, you also know it can't be jammed with electronic jammers. The missile only had the sensors which were necessary for it to be directed from bases in England to Eastern Germany and Russia. After it left Western airspace and reached the target area, the inertial navigation system took over, and it fell from the stratosphere at Mach 8.
So by the time the jammers were supposed to jam the missile, the missile didn't use sensors anymore, because the sensors were radio sensors which helped the missile communicate with the base before the Inertial Navigation System kicked in. The INS wasn't a sensor, it was a system of gyroscopes which was more advanced then those in World War II. How do you jam an Inertial Navigation System? You can't. Maybe you'd try moving your city away a few kilometers. That should work.
As I said before, F-22s/35s are equipped with LPI radars.The German EFs didn't even know for how long the Raptors had been painting them.That essentially makes them static targets=safe to engage from long range.How can you possibly reject all those weapons systems that show that BVR time is here, and it is longer than 30 miles?If the AMRAAM's bad enough to need to be at ~30 miles to hit a target, it would have been long cancelled.
I actually read about the battle for Al Nasiriyah, and 32 US troops died in the confrontation and 60 were injured, and 6 captured and one of them unfortunately died in captivity because the Iraqis didn't have medical equipment to save her. At least 15 or 18 US vehicles were lost. There was an ambush by the Iraqi troops, and not a ground defense system, and there was no air defense system mentioned. There was a friendly fire incident with an A-10. The A-10 wasn't shot down.
Maybe I misunderstood what you said, and thought you said another thing, or maybe you misunderstand the whole thing.If you fire, let's say, a Phoenix against a Foxbat head-on at 170km, all the Foxbat has to do is turn on the ECM, turn around, and push the throttle all the way forward.It will fly outside of the missile's effective range.That is a straight-up miss.But if the Fox 3 takes place at 80-100km, the Foxbat's gonna need something more than turning around, ECM and full burner.
20Gs is not really the average number an AAM pulls.This kind of punishment is usually meant to be taken by SAMs.IIRC, most modern MRMs will pull some 12-14Gs if they have to, on rather extreme/"unlucky" cases.And when they do pull those Gs, they're usually close enough to the target to miss because of their speed being too high to have time to take the necessary turn that will lead to the target being slammed.
A UAV, flying a completely predictable horisontal route with no maneuvering whatsoever.That's what large missiles like the R-37 are meant to do.Strike either small targets that can't maneuver, or huge stuff that can barely turn. As for the IrAF MiGs, I must inform you that they did possess MiG-25PDs, and used them to score approx. 8 kills throughout their career.US fighters used AIM-7s to down 2 of them, if I remember correctly.
@OlderG0ds We'll probably never see that F-15-vs-SU-27 challenge for real. You know every F-15 and/ or F-22 jock salivates at the thought of a real-world engagement. If that was ever to happen, I could only hope the gov't would let us see the gun camera footage, so we can increase our record to 105-0.
Lower frequencies used in the signals? Meterwave have the least difficulty detecting but that does not mean a plane can carry one of those. It has to do with angles yes, but not just that single one you describe. Millimetre wave can make out planes like these just fine and that is high frequencies, very high. They did not use a specific angle or AESA to take down the F117, remember. Flanker has a better radar than Rafale on paper, but in practice the Rafale SOFTWARE is better. Better algo's.
The R-37' was tested was on a UAV at a range of 298km with a MiG-31. (: The Iraqi mig-25's were i believe only recon versions, and that one shot down was in a dogfight which the mig wasn't meant to do.
yep, this was a great clip. Not that I need to se the Sue since I been watching clips and have vids on my harddrive since 15 years. No, this clip showed some detail. yes thats it, it was detailed. I watched handling / response and also looked at some of the mechanics. I will bookmark this one. No smoke, no cobras, just flying ..... great!
This didn't happen due to the maneuverability of the MiG-29, but because of its off boresight capability with the helmet and the R-73 Archer missile, also called AA-11 Archer. I did specify that that was an advantage of the MiG-29 together with the rate of climb, and the system proved more efficient than the combination between the F-16 and the AIM-9M Sidewinder. That doesn't mean that the MiG-29 was a superior aircraft. An F-16 has serious chances of winning in a dogfight.
The advantage of the MiG-29 was not in Air Combat Maneuvering( ACM), it was in close range combat and off boresight capability, which means that the MiG-29 doesn't have to maneuver in order to achieve a lock. In a maneuvering combat, in which the cannon would be used, the aircraft would be evenly matched, with a slight advantage of agility to the F-16 and slow speed maneuverability to the F-18.
They were manufactured but never used in real missions. They were replaced by MiG-25s before that. And no, they were not hypersonic. I'm expecting mass production to be over just 52 pieces, and those things had to be used in real time, which they were not.
I love these Russian Jets Took just 8 seconds for him to be airborne and then climbed straight up. They did not take the design of their jets from us. We took it from them. #389 Awesome!
It's not strange in the context in which it's a low priority objective and you don't have to strike it in the first few days. If you don't attack it, it's not strange. In the end it went down, and it didn't just shut itself down if it had a fighting chance. Maybe it wasn't very important. If it had been, it would have been taken down fast.
The Russian versions of either the R-60 or R-27 are comparable or inferior to US AIM-9M Sidewinders and AIM-120 AMRAAMs. The R-27 is a semi-active radar missile, as opposed to the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The comparable US missile is the AIM-7P Sparrow. Both the Russian version and the export version of the R-27 are passive missiles, which means that there is no significant advantage in terms of range and precision.
Now, if there was any air defense system that you wrote about, and it was as effective as you wrote it was, how come the A-10 wasn't shot down while heading into the air space or leaving it? It was a slow moving plane, and it could have been fired on by missiles and shot down. Maybe there are multiple sources telling different accounts of the battle.
Your dear cruise missile reached Mach 5 in the testing phase, and there it stayed. It was later used for flight laboratory testing. So, no hypersonic cruise missile either.
I'm talking about trying to shoot a moving target with a laser weapon in the 1960s. You'd have to keep the laser on the troops long enough for it to take effect. It has to shoot a static target. Armies and soldiers are moving, they're not sitting there and waiting to get shot or killed. The laser must have been used on static targets, not soldiers who were MOVING. If the soldier is moving, it's hard to keep the laser on him. The Chinese were pushed back with conventional military weapons.
You read that on Wikipedia. They outran the F-15s because they were faster than them. The MiG-25s fired the missiles and accelerated, and before the F-15s turned to catch them from behind( which meant losing speed) the MiG-25s accelerated even further. It was not maneuverability. You know the MiG-25s flew at Mach 2.82 or something, and without electronic limitations they'd go to Mach 3.2. It was speed, and not maneuverability.
@Ouija121085: However, the SU-30MKI were beaten later. There was an F-22 beaten by an EA-18G at Nellis AFB, is the EA-18G now a better Fighter? No. It's all depending on the pilots. You can kill a F-22 with a MIG-21, you can kill a PAK FA with a F4. You can kill a iraqi AK-47 gunner with a M4 Rifle, you can kill a M4 Gunner with a AK-47 Rifle. The Human is the Weapon, the Plane is just the equipment, they don't shoot & fly alone.
THE BEST AIRCRAFT MILITARY OF THE HISTORY LOVE THE SU-27 OMG...............EL MEJOR AVION MILITAR DE LA HISTORIA AMO AL SU-27 HASTA ESTETICAMENTE ES HERMOSO.................VIVA RUSIA VIVA LA URSS QUE VUELVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
There are also over 150 F-15s upgraded with better avionics from 2007 or 2010 and upgrades will continue. The US systems are working 100% properly when it comes to offensive military capability. The defense has some things to take care of though. The Russian air defense system is breakable with proper air to ground attack, and if it doesn't turn low frequency weather radars into military radars, it's totally breakable by B-2 stealth bombers.
The Tu 123 was a drone which was never put into mass production, and it was never used against NATO airbases in the West, because it was not reliable and it had to parachute the information it collected. They had to replace it with another one which could land, but that wasn't reliable either, and they decided it was too expensive to operate. There were no Soviet drones flying at hypersonic speeds and doing reconnaissance over NATO airbases. They were replaced by MiG-25 Foxbats.
Regardless of how much the missile's energy is drained, when you are flying at mach 4 minimum speed and can pull 17Gs, no energy loss is enough to stop the missile.AIM-54s have shot down pretty much anything, if IRIAF combat records are to be trusted of course.Range is not BS.Most of the time (if not always) LRMs are also high-speed weapons in order to be able to ensure a good speed during the final stages of the engagement.
There was "bad workmanship" in Russian articles, especially during materially-stressed months of WW2, but this was intentional. A western manufacturer, prior to shipping his tank overseas, would give it a beautiful finish. Russia, however, was in a direct conflict with Germany, and Russian tanks were often rolling directly from assembly into battle (near enough to even eliminate need for transport by rail). "Bad workmanship" was the deliberate omission of any 'polishing' which slowed output.
Missile energy is indeed drained fast.But as I've said, AAMs aren't cargo planes full of rubber dogshit.They're maneuverable, fast-flying explosives of -usually- small size.As for the 140km flight, in case you're referring to the AIM-54, I would like to remind you that its actual range is some 200km (and an unconfirmed Iranian test allegedly had a Phoenix fly 212km).Still got quite some energy to expend (if needed) at 140km.
anyone knows why behind the numbers serial of jet, there is a piece who is not paintted equal? it happens in many russian jets. you can watch it at last seconds of video
Maybe for Poland it was. The Westerners decided back then that we'd have countries. You remember that Poland was non existent as a political entity before World War I. Before World War II ended, the westerners decided that the Eastern part of Europe, starting from Eastern Germany until Ukraine and as far south as Yugoslavia and Greece were to be administered by the Soviets, while they'd take the Central Western part and go all the way to England. There was an exception in Greece, they rebelled.
Well, all radars have limitations, but for what I know AESA radars are better. This is one of the reasons why they're being fitted on the most modern fighters, and that includes Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, and even the MiG-35 and the Sukhoi PAK-FA prototype. They include better search angle without moving the sensor plate, a greater number of frequencies, which means they're harder to jam, and better all round detection and possibility of engagement of multiple targets. Why very limited?
Please tell me, is Mach 1.8 or Mach 2 a hypersonic speed to you? Those are supersonic speeds. Further than that, no Tu 123 or Tu 139 which was supposed to replace it ever flew at Mach 4. Mach 4 is also a supersonic speeds. Hypersonic speeds are at a minimum of Mach 5 and go to a speed of Mach 10.
My friend, I wasn't referring to collateral damage. I was referring to the objective capabilities of a fighter aircraft. If the mission planning isn't right or if the people doing the briefing include bombing kindergartens, it's the fault of the people and not the plane.
Sorry about that, I omitted to say that an advanced MiG-29 would be able to get a F-22 on radar if the F-22 wasn't stealthy.This is why it is a VLO aircraft.
There is only one active version of the R-27 and it's about to be replaced by the R-77 due to its inferiority to the AMRAAM. There were about 24 R-27s fired in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, and none of them hit their targets. Only one R-27 exploded near a MiG-29 and damaged it but didn't shoot it down. The aircraft were from Russia and were flown by Russian pilots.
The B-2 wasn't used and isn't used to destroy air defense systems from a distance, and with well positioned radars, even a B-2 can't get through, because it has to fly over them, and it is detectable in such circumstances. If radars are in the vicinity of the ground targets which the B-2s were supposed to strike, then sending a B-2 without taking out the air defense isn't a good idea either. With proper mission planning and electronic warfare aircraft, you can take out even that air defense.
Those missiles are actually different types of missiles given that name. They're fired from destroyers and they have a range of 100 km. Don't you think they'd be pretty useless if the destroyer that they should be deployed from is hit by aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles? The destroyers are detected from a range of over 100 km and before they get into striking range, aircraft carriers can deploy aircraft with multiple anti ship missiles and destroy the destroyer.
I honestly don't understand why people argue about air combat, when was the last time there was actually any aircombat? when was the last time an American fighter took on a Russian or Chinese or North Korean fighter? hell when was the last time someone fixed a bayonet and charged???????
1.The F-15 has also shot down your best interceptor until 1982, the MiG-25. 2.Are you suggesting that it actually takes a radar with a range of 400km to shoot down a '70s fighter? 3.AIM-120C-8/D=>180km, although most US fighters cannot fully exploit its range. 4.The R-37 is a design similar to early AIM-7s, with the only differences being reliability, ARH, and range.What do I mean?It can only hit HUGE targets.Given the size, range, and purpose of the missile, I doubt it can down modern fighters.
I'm not exactly sure if they used B-2s in those particular missions in Iraq, and especially in that particular place. The Iraqi air defense system had been damaged from the two previous military interventions and that happened before the B-2 was deployed. There are anti radar aircraft such as the EA-6B Prowler, which destroy radars. Stealth aircraft are used for evading radars and bomb, not damage air defense systems.
In drills like Red Flag F22's have been locked by French Rafale fighters. They just need to be fairly close. F22 has low observability technology, they are far from truly invisible in any sense of the word. Even the almighty B-2 needs a well planned out route because certain radartypes in too close ranges or at certain angles will easily lock them and will not let go after.
That is actually one of the most wise things they ever did.With all those defectors flying in air forces that were likely to engage in combat with the West at any moment, they had to find a way to keep their most sophisticated systems for themselves.
Your argument was that Russia didn't use its advanced armament in conflicts, and the US, by comparison, used the F-117 in Serbia. What I was trying to point out was that the US needed to use the F-117 in Serbia because it was better defended. Russia didn't need to use its advanced armament in Georgia and Chechnya because they weren't so well defended and there was no need for such armament to be used.
I was comparing AESA radars to PESA radars and saying that AESA radars are superior to them. I want't talking about satellite sensors, because the USA have military radars too, and the information is well coordinated. If you're attacking a ground position in a stealth aircraft as opposed to a non-stealth aircraft, than I suppose, yes, the stealth aircraft is better. Radars are the main means of detection, not satellites, which is why radars are placed on aircraft and on the ground.
The Flanker is a fine air frame, with an excellent thrust to weight ratio. Where it's let down is its engines (TBO), avionics and big radar signature. In its day it was a worthy opponent. But with the advent of the F-22 and F-35, it's been completely outclassed..
That's exactly what LPI radars offer.You don't get beeped until the active seeker makes you shit your pants.Long range missiles indeed aren't much of a necessity, but having both is always better.
I'm not fully aware if what you wrote there is true, and if it is, then it's very likely that the US had similar designs but kept them in secret conditions. You may never know how advanced they were or they weren't until some documents in the USA and Russia are declassified. But if you were Russia, would you used advanced weapons against Chechnya or against Georgia? Would you think that's as necessary as the US using an F-117 against Serbia?
The Russians concluded much as did the United States about the need for aircraft that could turn with Second World War prop planes yet hit Mach 2 with a full air-to-air missile load. The Su-27/33/37 can hold its own against anything other than the F-22 as a result. (Minimal radar observability of targets wasn't an issue for either Sukhoi or MiG, as of the 1970's.)
Thanks for posting this great video! What a magnificent machine. Love the sound, too.
Look at 0:09, 1:17, and 8:52. At 8:52 you see a 1980's American police car. At 1:17 look at that right arm emblem, that flag is Soviet, not Russian. Then 0:09, that left breast seal, Soviet Air Force. Also check out the caps of the pilot talking with the F-18 pilot and the Soviet ground crew. Those caps are gifts. The pilot is wearing a channel 9 TV cap from the local American television station. This is glasnost Soviet Union on an exchange visit of the SU-27. Beautiful! Historical!
First week of June, 1990. Oklahoma City OK. AEROSPACE AMERICA AIRSHOW.
These Flankers 388 and 389 (UB) performed a public demonstration in the Philippines way back 1992.
Great shots of my favorite plane!
WOW best SU-27 video I've seen.
@viktormc1
If you look closely, there is a nozzle for the cannon. When it fires, it creates a large flame that would damage and rip off the paint anyway so they left it unpainted.
Приятный знакомый звук запуска.
su 27 is just sick! I love that thing so muchhh!
Hi, that is really greate work from the cameraman! Just look at the zoomed in footage of the Flanker in the air. I would say a rigid video tripod of 25 kgs, at least a Canon J50x2 broadcast lens and a pissed cameraman, determined to get the shots or die! He is nog giving up is he? He just keeps shooting, panning, tilting and keeping the objects in focus! Just unbelievable! Great film work! /Lars, TeamM
The F-117 was shot down by a modified missile and a low frequency radar, and what I'm saying is that AESA radars employ a number of frequencies in their signals which range from lower to higher and they change frequently per transmitter and this makes it easier for them to detect more stealthy targets as opposed to phased array radars. The Flanker has a PESA Bars radar with certain AESA specific frequencies, but that's nowhere near AESA. It depends.
The radar systems on the F-15, F-16 and F-18 appeared before the information leakage that you were talking about, and the R-27 and R-60 were already either comparable or inferior to US missiles, and the advantage came with the R-73.
I love the cry of those AL-31F engines.
What a lovley sound!
Je suis d'accord, cet avion est certainement un des plus élégants chasseurs soviétique voire mondial !
Superbe délicatesse de vol et beauté d'évolution notamment pour la figûre du fameux cobra ! Mais vu de près, il lui manque la finesse de finition caractéristique d'un appareil européen ou américain ! (on ne peut pas être tout à la fois...beau, performant et parfaitement ajusté. Je l'ai vu de près au "Salon International du Bourget" près de Paris le 17 Juin 2005)
What a masterpiece.
@ZachAttack8720
The pipe between the nozzles, firstly has the role of carring the brake parachute after touchdown aswell as an aerodynamic effect at high speed reducing drag, thus allowing for a higher top speed to be obtained...!
The russian designers always had rich imagination upon everything, I love them for that!
The Rafales have AESA radars, and so they can detect stealthy aircraft at very close ranges, due to the lower frequencies used in the signals. The distances have to be closer than the range of a medium range air to air missile though. If the aircraft is directly above the radar and into its beam it can be detected because the signal just bounces back. It needs a certain distance and a certain angle. The phased array radar on the Flanker can't detect the F-22 at the same distance as the Rafale's.
I'm very pro US and US fighters but the SU-27 and Modified Versions of it beautiful and quite capable fighters!
Just an amazing aircraft, next to the F-14, this one steals the show.
AFAIK, they went up against each other in pretty much everything.Both BVR and WVR.In both, the Raptors were almost always dominant.Regarding head on attacks, I don't know, but it doesn't matter, the Typhoons couldn't tell they were being painted at long/medium ranges regardless of the Raptors' angle.As they said, the Raptor's a "sniper".
@Tata996
i agree theres not to many out there as nice as this one
Это было вчера. Сейчас Су- 30 и 33, равных в воздушном бою нет. )))
plz is it possible to get the complete DVDRIP of this great video?
Sid Ahmed thats what I asked...
The Pershing missile that you said the Russians were supposed to jam, had an inertial navigation system. If you know what that is, you also know it can't be jammed with electronic jammers. The missile only had the sensors which were necessary for it to be directed from bases in England to Eastern Germany and Russia. After it left Western airspace and reached the target area, the inertial navigation system took over, and it fell from the stratosphere at Mach 8.
So by the time the jammers were supposed to jam the missile, the missile didn't use sensors anymore, because the sensors were radio sensors which helped the missile communicate with the base before the Inertial Navigation System kicked in. The INS wasn't a sensor, it was a system of gyroscopes which was more advanced then those in World War II. How do you jam an Inertial Navigation System? You can't. Maybe you'd try moving your city away a few kilometers. That should work.
8:01 What a soft landing
As I said before, F-22s/35s are equipped with LPI radars.The German EFs didn't even know for how long the Raptors had been painting them.That essentially makes them static targets=safe to engage from long range.How can you possibly reject all those weapons systems that show that BVR time is here, and it is longer than 30 miles?If the AMRAAM's bad enough to need to be at ~30 miles to hit a target, it would have been long cancelled.
I actually read about the battle for Al Nasiriyah, and 32 US troops died in the confrontation and 60 were injured, and 6 captured and one of them unfortunately died in captivity because the Iraqis didn't have medical equipment to save her. At least 15 or 18 US vehicles were lost. There was an ambush by the Iraqi troops, and not a ground defense system, and there was no air defense system mentioned. There was a friendly fire incident with an A-10. The A-10 wasn't shot down.
Maybe I misunderstood what you said, and thought you said another thing, or maybe you misunderstand the whole thing.If you fire, let's say, a Phoenix against a Foxbat head-on at 170km, all the Foxbat has to do is turn on the ECM, turn around, and push the throttle all the way forward.It will fly outside of the missile's effective range.That is a straight-up miss.But if the Fox 3 takes place at 80-100km, the Foxbat's gonna need something more than turning around, ECM and full burner.
@swedishvolvo
For parachute, the single seater version have a small radar at tail.
20Gs is not really the average number an AAM pulls.This kind of punishment is usually meant to be taken by SAMs.IIRC, most modern MRMs will pull some 12-14Gs if they have to, on rather extreme/"unlucky" cases.And when they do pull those Gs, they're usually close enough to the target to miss because of their speed being too high to have time to take the necessary turn that will lead to the target being slammed.
A UAV, flying a completely predictable horisontal route with no maneuvering whatsoever.That's what large missiles like the R-37 are meant to do.Strike either small targets that can't maneuver, or huge stuff that can barely turn.
As for the IrAF MiGs, I must inform you that they did possess MiG-25PDs, and used them to score approx. 8 kills throughout their career.US fighters used AIM-7s to down 2 of them, if I remember correctly.
@OlderG0ds We'll probably never see that F-15-vs-SU-27 challenge for real. You know every F-15 and/ or F-22 jock salivates at the thought of a real-world engagement. If that was ever to happen, I could only hope the gov't would let us see the gun camera footage, so we can increase our record to 105-0.
Pugachev!!!..name says it all!
@sirwann no, difference from 29 and 27 can be seen from all angles
Lower frequencies used in the signals? Meterwave have the least difficulty detecting but that does not mean a plane can carry one of those. It has to do with angles yes, but not just that single one you describe. Millimetre wave can make out planes like these just fine and that is high frequencies, very high.
They did not use a specific angle or AESA to take down the F117, remember.
Flanker has a better radar than Rafale on paper, but in practice the Rafale SOFTWARE is better. Better algo's.
Some real pilots comments...igor pugachev a really good one!!
The R-37' was tested was on a UAV at a range of 298km with a MiG-31. (:
The Iraqi mig-25's were i believe only recon versions, and that one shot down was in a dogfight which the mig wasn't meant to do.
yep, this was a great clip. Not that I need to se the Sue since I been watching clips and have vids on my harddrive since 15 years.
No, this clip showed some detail. yes thats it, it was detailed. I watched handling / response and also looked at some of the mechanics.
I will bookmark this one.
No smoke, no cobras, just flying ..... great!
This didn't happen due to the maneuverability of the MiG-29, but because of its off boresight capability with the helmet and the R-73 Archer missile, also called AA-11 Archer. I did specify that that was an advantage of the MiG-29 together with the rate of climb, and the system proved more efficient than the combination between the F-16 and the AIM-9M Sidewinder. That doesn't mean that the MiG-29 was a superior aircraft. An F-16 has serious chances of winning in a dogfight.
Beautiful deadly machine!
The advantage of the MiG-29 was not in Air Combat Maneuvering( ACM), it was in close range combat and off boresight capability, which means that the MiG-29 doesn't have to maneuver in order to achieve a lock. In a maneuvering combat, in which the cannon would be used, the aircraft would be evenly matched, with a slight advantage of agility to the F-16 and slow speed maneuverability to the F-18.
Beautiful!
один из самых красивых самолетов не может быть там
Victor pugachev is the best pilot...
They were manufactured but never used in real missions. They were replaced by MiG-25s before that. And no, they were not hypersonic. I'm expecting mass production to be over just 52 pieces, and those things had to be used in real time, which they were not.
@IauthenticI You nailed it....
I love Russian videos,they are the best.
I love these Russian Jets Took just 8 seconds for him to be airborne and then climbed straight up.
They did not take the design of their jets from us. We took it from them. #389 Awesome!
Hahahah🤣🤣
It's not strange in the context in which it's a low priority objective and you don't have to strike it in the first few days. If you don't attack it, it's not strange. In the end it went down, and it didn't just shut itself down if it had a fighting chance. Maybe it wasn't very important. If it had been, it would have been taken down fast.
@Ouija1210: Remember about the SU-30MKI which lost against the F-15 in BVR-Combat at Red Flag.
The Pershing missile also had a nuclear warhead. So if it fell a few kilometers from the target, it wouldn't have been much of a difference, would it?
@TheTequilaShooter Well if you look at that date.. its over 1 year ago while the plane was still a prototype.
The Russian versions of either the R-60 or R-27 are comparable or inferior to US AIM-9M Sidewinders and AIM-120 AMRAAMs. The R-27 is a semi-active radar missile, as opposed to the AIM-120 AMRAAM. The comparable US missile is the AIM-7P Sparrow. Both the Russian version and the export version of the R-27 are passive missiles, which means that there is no significant advantage in terms of range and precision.
Now, if there was any air defense system that you wrote about, and it was as effective as you wrote it was, how come the A-10 wasn't shot down while heading into the air space or leaving it? It was a slow moving plane, and it could have been fired on by missiles and shot down.
Maybe there are multiple sources telling different accounts of the battle.
Your dear cruise missile reached Mach 5 in the testing phase, and there it stayed. It was later used for flight laboratory testing. So, no hypersonic cruise missile either.
I'm talking about trying to shoot a moving target with a laser weapon in the 1960s. You'd have to keep the laser on the troops long enough for it to take effect. It has to shoot a static target. Armies and soldiers are moving, they're not sitting there and waiting to get shot or killed. The laser must have been used on static targets, not soldiers who were MOVING. If the soldier is moving, it's hard to keep the laser on him. The Chinese were pushed back with conventional military weapons.
Right on.. a good read you guys
You read that on Wikipedia. They outran the F-15s because they were faster than them. The MiG-25s fired the missiles and accelerated, and before the F-15s turned to catch them from behind( which meant losing speed) the MiG-25s accelerated even further. It was not maneuverability. You know the MiG-25s flew at Mach 2.82 or something, and without electronic limitations they'd go to Mach 3.2. It was speed, and not maneuverability.
@Ouija121085: However, the SU-30MKI were beaten later. There was an F-22 beaten by an EA-18G at Nellis AFB, is the EA-18G now a better Fighter? No. It's all depending on the pilots. You can kill a F-22 with a MIG-21, you can kill a PAK FA with a F4. You can kill a iraqi AK-47 gunner with a M4 Rifle, you can kill a M4 Gunner with a AK-47 Rifle. The Human is the Weapon, the Plane is just the equipment, they don't shoot & fly alone.
THE BEST AIRCRAFT MILITARY OF THE HISTORY LOVE THE SU-27 OMG...............EL MEJOR AVION MILITAR DE LA HISTORIA AMO AL SU-27 HASTA ESTETICAMENTE ES HERMOSO.................VIVA RUSIA VIVA LA URSS QUE VUELVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Нет всё правильно сделали. Отдельный Спасиб! ❤
There are also over 150 F-15s upgraded with better avionics from 2007 or 2010 and upgrades will continue. The US systems are working 100% properly when it comes to offensive military capability. The defense has some things to take care of though. The Russian air defense system is breakable with proper air to ground attack, and if it doesn't turn low frequency weather radars into military radars, it's totally breakable by B-2 stealth bombers.
The Tu 123 was a drone which was never put into mass production, and it was never used against NATO airbases in the West, because it was not reliable and it had to parachute the information it collected. They had to replace it with another one which could land, but that wasn't reliable either, and they decided it was too expensive to operate. There were no Soviet drones flying at hypersonic speeds and doing reconnaissance over NATO airbases. They were replaced by MiG-25 Foxbats.
Regardless of how much the missile's energy is drained, when you are flying at mach 4 minimum speed and can pull 17Gs, no energy loss is enough to stop the missile.AIM-54s have shot down pretty much anything, if IRIAF combat records are to be trusted of course.Range is not BS.Most of the time (if not always) LRMs are also high-speed weapons in order to be able to ensure a good speed during the final stages of the engagement.
There was "bad workmanship" in Russian articles, especially during materially-stressed months of WW2, but this was intentional. A western manufacturer, prior to shipping his tank overseas, would give it a beautiful finish. Russia, however, was in a direct conflict with Germany, and Russian tanks were often rolling directly from assembly into battle (near enough to even eliminate need for transport by rail). "Bad workmanship" was the deliberate omission of any 'polishing' which slowed output.
fantastick video !!!
For me, it's destroy the defenses around the most important objectives and leave the rest after the priority objectives are captured.
Missile energy is indeed drained fast.But as I've said, AAMs aren't cargo planes full of rubber dogshit.They're maneuverable, fast-flying explosives of -usually- small size.As for the 140km flight, in case you're referring to the AIM-54, I would like to remind you that its actual range is some 200km (and an unconfirmed Iranian test allegedly had a Phoenix fly 212km).Still got quite some energy to expend (if needed) at 140km.
Nice!!!
Regards,...to Venezuela.
Thanks.
anyone knows why behind the numbers serial of jet, there is a piece who is not paintted equal? it happens in many russian jets. you can watch it at last seconds of video
Maybe for Poland it was. The Westerners decided back then that we'd have countries. You remember that Poland was non existent as a political entity before World War I.
Before World War II ended, the westerners decided that the Eastern part of Europe, starting from Eastern Germany until Ukraine and as far south as Yugoslavia and Greece were to be administered by the Soviets, while they'd take the Central Western part and go all the way to England. There was an exception in Greece, they rebelled.
Well, all radars have limitations, but for what I know AESA radars are better. This is one of the reasons why they're being fitted on the most modern fighters, and that includes Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, and even the MiG-35 and the Sukhoi PAK-FA prototype. They include better search angle without moving the sensor plate, a greater number of frequencies, which means they're harder to jam, and better all round detection and possibility of engagement of multiple targets. Why very limited?
That pilot is total bad ass, means businesses
Please tell me, is Mach 1.8 or Mach 2 a hypersonic speed to you? Those are supersonic speeds. Further than that, no Tu 123 or Tu 139 which was supposed to replace it ever flew at Mach 4. Mach 4 is also a supersonic speeds. Hypersonic speeds are at a minimum of Mach 5 and go to a speed of Mach 10.
My friend, I wasn't referring to collateral damage. I was referring to the objective capabilities of a fighter aircraft. If the mission planning isn't right or if the people doing the briefing include bombing kindergartens, it's the fault of the people and not the plane.
Sorry about that, I omitted to say that an advanced MiG-29 would be able to get a F-22 on radar if the F-22 wasn't stealthy.This is why it is a VLO aircraft.
There is only one active version of the R-27 and it's about to be replaced by the R-77 due to its inferiority to the AMRAAM. There were about 24 R-27s fired in the Ethiopian-Eritrean war, and none of them hit their targets. Only one R-27 exploded near a MiG-29 and damaged it but didn't shoot it down. The aircraft were from Russia and were flown by Russian pilots.
The F-16 has a BVR advantage over the MiG-29, but the MiG-29 has an advantage in the off boresight capability.
The B-2 wasn't used and isn't used to destroy air defense systems from a distance, and with well positioned radars, even a B-2 can't get through, because it has to fly over them, and it is detectable in such circumstances. If radars are in the vicinity of the ground targets which the B-2s were supposed to strike, then sending a B-2 without taking out the air defense isn't a good idea either. With proper mission planning and electronic warfare aircraft, you can take out even that air defense.
I love Russian jets.
Those missiles are actually different types of missiles given that name. They're fired from destroyers and they have a range of 100 km. Don't you think they'd be pretty useless if the destroyer that they should be deployed from is hit by aircraft carrying anti-ship missiles? The destroyers are detected from a range of over 100 km and before they get into striking range, aircraft carriers can deploy aircraft with multiple anti ship missiles and destroy the destroyer.
Yugoslavian Galeb G2 training jet on 08.38 ???
I honestly don't understand why people argue about air combat, when was the last time there was actually any aircombat? when was the last time an American fighter took on a Russian or Chinese or North Korean fighter? hell when was the last time someone fixed a bayonet and charged???????
1.The F-15 has also shot down your best interceptor until 1982, the MiG-25.
2.Are you suggesting that it actually takes a radar with a range of 400km to shoot down a '70s fighter?
3.AIM-120C-8/D=>180km, although most US fighters cannot fully exploit its range.
4.The R-37 is a design similar to early AIM-7s, with the only differences being reliability, ARH, and range.What do I mean?It can only hit HUGE targets.Given the size, range, and purpose of the missile, I doubt it can down modern fighters.
@Rubashow
Its a radar or an antenna
I'm not exactly sure if they used B-2s in those particular missions in Iraq, and especially in that particular place. The Iraqi air defense system had been damaged from the two previous military interventions and that happened before the B-2 was deployed. There are anti radar aircraft such as the EA-6B Prowler, which destroy radars. Stealth aircraft are used for evading radars and bomb, not damage air defense systems.
In drills like Red Flag F22's have been locked by French Rafale fighters.
They just need to be fairly close.
F22 has low observability technology, they are far from truly invisible in any sense of the word.
Even the almighty B-2 needs a well planned out route because certain radartypes in too close ranges or at certain angles will easily lock them and will not let go after.
wow! Beautiful! Where did u get this images? Are them from the RAM-K SU-27 DVD?
@danm981 Certainly none of those jets has been a SU-27
That is actually one of the most wise things they ever did.With all those defectors flying in air forces that were likely to engage in combat with the West at any moment, they had to find a way to keep their most sophisticated systems for themselves.
Your argument was that Russia didn't use its advanced armament in conflicts, and the US, by comparison, used the F-117 in Serbia. What I was trying to point out was that the US needed to use the F-117 in Serbia because it was better defended. Russia didn't need to use its advanced armament in Georgia and Chechnya because they weren't so well defended and there was no need for such armament to be used.
I was comparing AESA radars to PESA radars and saying that AESA radars are superior to them. I want't talking about satellite sensors, because the USA have military radars too, and the information is well coordinated. If you're attacking a ground position in a stealth aircraft as opposed to a non-stealth aircraft, than I suppose, yes, the stealth aircraft is better. Radars are the main means of detection, not satellites, which is why radars are placed on aircraft and on the ground.
The Flanker is a fine air frame, with an excellent thrust to weight ratio. Where it's let down is its engines (TBO), avionics and big radar signature. In its day it was a worthy opponent. But with the advent of the F-22 and F-35, it's been completely outclassed..
@dirceualves100 What's it's record in combat? Beautiful, absolutly. Much better looking. Deadly is yet to be seen.
the camera man seems to be more interested in the engines than the plane :p
That's exactly what LPI radars offer.You don't get beeped until the active seeker makes you shit your pants.Long range missiles indeed aren't much of a necessity, but having both is always better.
I'm not fully aware if what you wrote there is true, and if it is, then it's very likely that the US had similar designs but kept them in secret conditions. You may never know how advanced they were or they weren't until some documents in the USA and Russia are declassified. But if you were Russia, would you used advanced weapons against Chechnya or against Georgia? Would you think that's as necessary as the US using an F-117 against Serbia?
WOw that plane is scary! And thats just the Su-27!
The Russians concluded much as did the United States about the need for aircraft that could turn with Second World War prop planes yet hit Mach 2 with a full air-to-air missile load. The Su-27/33/37 can hold its own against anything other than the F-22 as a result. (Minimal radar observability of targets wasn't an issue for either Sukhoi or MiG, as of the 1970's.)