[0.25] Stock Sukhoi Su-47 with DOWNLOAD!!!

[i like turtles]

I finally made the Su-47 (I don't know why I didn't do this earlier)

Enjoy!

DOWNLOAD

[manni01]

Looks pretty cool

I've made one too, but I don't really like it

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(I recommend kerbpaint. It lets you color stock parts without adding parts. You can make cooler crafts then, better than this one)

Edited November 22, 2014 by manni01

[andrew123]

Don't worry, 'Murica 'll sell Ukraine some F-22's.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

If you look in the second pic, you'll notice we installed a full sized bomb bay.

[Naten]

Don't worry, 'Murica 'll sell Ukraine some F-22's.

F-22 is

1.) a crappy plane, only looks bad@$$

2.) no longer in production

3.) Su 47 and other Russian modern jets are designed to counter the American/Western combat doctrine

so, chances are, you'll need another plane to help

maybe try the F-16. If you have a replica already, I'll check it out

[andrew123]

F-22 is

1.) a crappy plane, only looks bad@$$

2.) no longer in production

3.) Su 47 and other Russian modern jets are designed to counter the American/Western combat doctrine

so, chances are, you'll need another plane to help

maybe try the F-16. If you have a replica already, I'll check it out

If you believe all western jets are impotent, I introduce you to the Aegis Combat system and it's SM-6 missiles.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Or.. giggles... the undefeated F-15.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Next, I'm putting that DDG-51 on steroids for a certain South Korean Navy Destroyer...

Edited November 23, 2014 by andrew123

[i like turtles]

F-22 is

1.) a crappy plane, only looks bad@$$

2.) no longer in production

3.) Su 47 and other Russian modern jets are designed to counter the American/Western combat doctrine

so, chances are, you'll need another plane to help

maybe try the F-16. If you have a replica already, I'll check it out

Well, that's half true. Russian planes are purely made for aerodynamics, not pilot comfort. So russkies focus more on great planes rather than great pilots while the U.S. has better pilots than planes. It would be easy for Russia to train their pilots to have a strong air force with Great planes + great pilots. It would be harder for U.S. to create better designs of planes to have a strong air force with great planes plus great pilots. However, the U.S. air force has the upper hand now because Great pilots are more important than great planes.

[i like turtles]

Looks pretty cool

I've made one too, but I don't really like it

http://imgur.com/a/Mour3

(I recommend kerbpaint. It lets you color stock parts without adding parts. You can make cooler crafts then, better than this one)

I already use KerbPaint. But sometimes I'm too lazy to paint it because KerbPaint is glitched where when you launch the craft only one side is painted:P

[andrew123]

Well, that's half true. Russian planes are purely made for aerodynamics, not pilot comfort. So russkies focus more on great planes rather than great pilots while the U.S. has better pilots than planes. It would be easy for Russia to train their pilots to have a strong air force with Great planes + great pilots. It would be harder for U.S. to create better designs of planes to have a strong air force with great planes plus great pilots. However, the U.S. air force has the upper hand now because Great pilots are more important than great planes.

I'm sorry to say that you have a very naive view on the arena of aerial combat.

Let me just give you a small tidbit of info: Russian jets are not 'superior' in all aerodynamic and electronic aspects. Have you seen how the russian turbofans tend to produce more smoke? That creates a larger thermal signature and is indicative of inferior turbine/compressor design. Also, don't even get me started on the aerodynamic flaws present in Russian dogfighters. While you may believe the SU-27 to be superior to the F-15, the F-15 doesn't bleed energy excessive energy in combat maneuvers unlike the SU-27, and it has greater vertical maneuverability compared to most Russian designs. Once you consider the American AESA radars, it doesn't look good even for the RuAF's SU-35's.

If you try bringing out the thrust vectoring 'trump card', the Russian V nozzle design is an energetically terrible method of thrust vectoring. Sometimes, no TV is better than a flawed adaptation.

All of these deficiencies can be attributed to the Soviet Union's inferior aerodynamic technology and the lack of military funding that followed the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russian combat doctrine is tailored to maximise the impact of their limited assets through intimidation and asymmetrical warfare, mixed in with domestic unrest and industrial sabotage.

There's also the Western advantage of 'sensor fusion', which leverages assets such as AWAC's and warships to provide realtime wide area battlefield coverage. The Russians haven't had ample money to develop a comparable data network.

Just a FYI. Comparing the US and Russian AF's is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

They're just not in the same league.

Edited November 24, 2014 by andrew123

[Deredere]

F-22 is

1.) a crappy plane, only looks bad@$$

2.) no longer in production

3.) Su 47 and other Russian modern jets are designed to counter the American/Western combat doctrine

so, chances are, you'll need another plane to help

maybe try the F-16. If you have a replica already, I'll check it out

Even pretending your first point isn't completely laughable, the Su-47 and T-50 have one major problem: Russia will never have enough money to get them out of prototyping.

[andrew123]

Even pretending your first point isn't completely laughable, the Su-47 and T-50 have one major problem: Russia will never have enough money to get them out of prototyping.

Don't worry, they'll take the 'plasma stealth' and make their Tu-95's invisible!

/s

[i like turtles]

I'm sorry to say that you have a very naive view on the arena of aerial combat.

Let me just give you a small tidbit of info: Russian jets are not 'superior' in all aerodynamic and electronic aspects. Have you seen how the russian turbofans tend to produce more smoke? That creates a larger thermal signature and is indicative of inferior turbine/compressor design. Also, don't even get me started on the aerodynamic flaws present in Russian dogfighters. While you may believe the SU-27 to be superior to the F-15, the F-15 doesn't bleed energy excessive energy in combat maneuvers unlike the SU-27, and it has greater vertical maneuverability compared to most Russian designs. Once you consider the American AESA radars, it doesn't look good even for the RuAF's SU-35's.

If you try bringing out the thrust vectoring 'trump card', the Russian V nozzle design is an energetically terrible method of thrust vectoring. Sometimes, no TV is better than a flawed adaptation.

All of these deficiencies can be attributed to the Soviet Union's inferior aerodynamic technology and the lack of military funding that followed the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russian combat doctrine is tailored to maximise the impact of their limited assets through intimidation and asymmetrical warfare, mixed in with domestic unrest and industrial sabotage.

There's also the Western advantage of 'sensor fusion', which leverages assets such as AWAC's and warships to provide realtime wide area battlefield coverage. The Russians haven't had ample money to develop a comparable data network.

Just a FYI. Comparing the US and Russian AF's is akin to comparing apples to oranges.

They're just not in the same league.

But still, the US are wasting billions of dollars to make a 'cheap', 'effective', and 'maneuverable' plane that became the F-35. It's wings are too stubby for 'maneuverablitiy', its stupidly slow for a modern day fighter which means even a MiG-21 is faster than it, it has so little weapon storage(in the weapons bay) that it would be nearly useless. Clearly it would be beaten easily by a Su-27 or even a MiG-17/MiG-19. It's only advantage is stealth. I say it would be pummeled by the T-50 if the T-50 goes into service. But Russia is about as poor as some homeless man on the streets so... yeah the T-50 might not go into service......5

- - - Updated - - -

And the russians already have their own AWACS aircraft

[i like turtles]

Plus the US purchased some Su-27 form russia to test it against their 'undefeated' F-15s. Turns out the Su-27s actually defeated the F-15s in a test where the Su 27 was in front of the F-15 and the Sukhoi's wing had to lightly tap the f-15's engine. I think there were no losses of F-15's because it never actually got to meet with any enemy craft as Saddam Husein cut corners to cut costs so his russian planes were basically useless. Put a F-15 infront of a Su-27 and the Su-27 will fly back to base safley while the F-15 would be upside down on the ocean floor.

[Deredere]

But still, the US are wasting billions of dollars to make a 'cheap', 'effective', and 'maneuverable' plane that became the F-35. It's wings are too stubby for 'maneuverablitiy', its stupidly slow for a modern day fighter which means even a MiG-21 is faster than it, it has so little weapon storage(in the weapons bay) that it would be nearly useless. Clearly it would be beaten easily by a Su-27 or even a MiG-17/MiG-19. It's only advantage is stealth. I say it would be pummeled by the T-50 if the T-50 goes into service. But Russia is about as poor as some homeless man on the streets so... yeah the T-50 might not go into service.

I'm not going to point-by-point debate the abilities of the F-35; nobody screaming about it on the internet has ever flown one, so it's all nonsense.

I'll just say this: The F-35 is predicted to put every other western fighter manufacturer out of business. The only countries that haven't already placed orders for it are the ones that either can't afford it or aren't permitted to purchase it.

You can repeat all the garbage you want from internet pundits, but the reality seems to be very different. The Su-27 is still for sale. So is the F-15. And the Eurofighter. Yet country after country is lining up to buy F-35s, despite it being the most expensive fighter on the market today. Why is that?

Edited November 25, 2014 by Deredere

[i like turtles]

I'm not going to point-by-point debate the abilities of the F-35; nobody screaming about it on the internet has ever flown one, so it's all nonsense.

I'll just say this: The F-35 is predicted to put every other western fighter manufacturer out of business. The only countries that haven't already placed orders for it are the ones that either can't afford it or aren't permitted to purchase it.

You can repeat all the garbage you want from internet pundits, but the reality seems to be very different. The Su-27 is still for sale. So is the F-15. And the Eurofighter. Yet country after country is lining up to buy F-35s, despite it being the most expensive fighter on the market today. Why is that?

Because the US have been exaggerating about their 'Advanced' plane.

If you compare stats, the F-35 would be useless. It can only carry 4 Sidewinders without losing stealth. It's slower than my grandma, and it would risk crashing if the engine failed. at least 2-engined planes would stil be able to land safely if one engine failed.

[Gryphorim]

Because the US have been exaggerating about their 'Advanced' plane.

If you compare stats, the F-35 would be useless. It can only carry 4 Sidewinders without losing stealth. It's slower than my grandma, and it would risk crashing if the engine failed. at least 2-engined planes would stil be able to land safely if one engine failed.

4 Sidewinders, 4 kills. With the integral sensor-fusion, as well as superior target lock angle, maneuverability is of limited importance, besides the people I've spoken to, who've actually flown the few that exist, they maneuver just fine, thanks. Minimal weapons bay is true enough, if you have to maintain stealth. Stealth loses most of it's relevance once you own the sky, so it only needs to be maintained for 1st strike ops. After that, adapt to a larger payload for freer engagement of enemy targets. Besides, as a multi-role aircraft, it leaves the role of dedicated Air-to-Air to the specialists.

Straight-line speed is militarily irrelevant. Back in the 80's it was possible to be pinged on enemy radar, and if you were fast enough, hit your target before a response could be mustered. Now, sensor ranges are so great, that unless you can hit mach-5, you will be engaged on approach. As such, flat-out speed, at least much past around mach 1.5 is unneccesary, unless you are an interceptor, and even then, modern sensors, warning, take your time to get in position ahead of your enemy.

F-35 carries a significantly higher internal fuel/weapon load than any 4/4.5 gen fighter, so it does not have to suffer the parasitic losses associated with under-wing stores.

I completely agree with the 1 engine failure risk though. Pilots I've spoken to have said even in a twin-engine they'd bail if they completely lost an engine, though. I dunno, I'd wanna get the plane home, though.

[Naten]

Well, that's half true. Russian planes are purely made for aerodynamics, not pilot comfort. So russkies focus more on great planes rather than great pilots while the U.S. has better pilots than planes. It would be easy for Russia to train their pilots to have a strong air force with Great planes + great pilots. It would be harder for U.S. to create better designs of planes to have a strong air force with great planes plus great pilots. However, the U.S. air force has the upper hand now because Great pilots are more important than great planes.

Exactly, the US has always had the best pilots, and this is more important than the plane itself; a drunk driver in the safest car on a highway isn't very safe, is it?

My main point was that the F-16, F-15, F-18 are better planes than the F-22.

[Naten]

Don't worry, they'll take the 'plasma stealth' and make their Tu-95's invisible!

/s

oh god what have I done

we don't need another cold war here on the forum... sorry for ruining this thread >_>

[Deredere]

I completely agree with the 1 engine failure risk though. Pilots I've spoken to have said even in a twin-engine they'd bail if they completely lost an engine, though. I dunno, I'd wanna get the plane home, though.

Single-engine F-16 is the single most reliable and popular modern fighter ever made, and it's still in production.

No match for most 4th gen fighters, but you get what you pay for. You can get three block 60 F-16s for the price of one F-35 or Eurofighter.

we don't need another cold war here on the forum...

Another? I'm sorry I missed the first.

[i like turtles]

The reason why the SR-71 had no losses is because no plane could match it's range plus speed. MiG-25s couldn't go as fast as the blackbird and not damage it's engines. MiG-31s too. If the F-35 runs out of missiles during a combat, how is it gonna run away. It wings are too short for maneuverability, so basically it can't dodge the missiles. Even if no maneuverability and very high speed can be used to dodge missiles. Yet, the F-35 can barely reach speeds of Mach 1.8(which can be achieved easily by a F-18) and it's turn rate is 22-23degreees / second compared to the 28 degreees demonstrated by the F-22, the Su-27, and the MiG-29.

[manni01]

Lol guys. Jeez, so many rants. Take it to the space lounge subforum( its a pun, as if i were to say take this fight outside)

I already use KerbPaint. But sometimes I'm too lazy to paint it because KerbPaint is glitched where when you launch the craft only one side is painted:P

When that happens, press p on the non colored part and then color that and then both sides will be colored. It does get annoying that you have to do both sides, but its worth imo.

Edited November 29, 2014 by manni01

[i like turtles]

I sometimes make planes where there are A LOT of parts. I'm just lazy to press p so many times.

[Deredere]

The reason why the SR-71 had no losses is because no plane could match it's range plus speed. MiG-25s couldn't go as fast as the blackbird and not damage it's engines. MiG-31s too. If the F-35 runs out of missiles during a combat, how is it gonna run away. It wings are too short for maneuverability, so basically it can't dodge the missiles. Even if no maneuverability and very high speed can be used to dodge missiles. Yet, the F-35 can barely reach speeds of Mach 1.8(which can be achieved easily by a F-18) and it's turn rate is 22-23degreees / second compared to the 28 degreees demonstrated by the F-22, the Su-27, and the MiG-29.

It's designed with the assumption that all air combat will be BVR, a role that stealth fighters dominate completely. And that assumption works just fine for the USAF, because there will never not be hundreds of F-15s, F-18s, or F-22s in the theatre to screen the F-35s.

If I was a country looking to replace my entire air force with F-35s, I might be a little more concerned about the possibility of pursuit or visual range combat. But so far as I know, there is no such country.

Jeez, so many rants.

It's a civil discussion, not a rant.

[Megadeath]

The reason why the SR-71 had no losses is because no plane could match it's range plus speed..

Well, that maybe part of it. It certainly isn't THE reason though. Probably the biggest factor in achieving that record was the fact that it was a strategic reconnaissance plane. It never flew in a combat role which always helps minimize combat losses. Another major factor was the high ceiling it was capable of operating at; combined with the high speed you mentioned it would have been able to avoid most launches against it by outrunning them. Unless that height is what you mean by range, I don't really see how range affects survivability in most cases? Unless you mean its weapons range, in which case I think you're mistaking what the sr-71 was.

[VektorWorlds]

Holy necrobump, batman! This is a craft from 0.25... almost a year earlier.