The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

5th Gen

1. F-22A
2. F-35B
3. Typhoon
4. SU-35
5. RAF


In my opinion, if you factor everything in > in a real air engagement like AWACS, BVR, WVR etc the list should go like this

1. F-15C >AESA - AIM-120D
2. F/A -18E SuperHornet
3. Typhoon
4. SU-35
5. F-16 AM

This is not including the F-22A and F-35B
I think USA pretty much owns BVR.

LAWNMOWERMAN who did u figure out the su-35 is better than the Typhoon or the RAF better than the Typhoon or the SU-35 is better than both RAF AND TYPHOON ... thats crazy.>> i just wanna here ur opinion.

LAWNMOWERMAN i think thats crazy that you would take ur chances with and SU-35 against a F-22A because from past discussions(with WESTY and WAYNOS) on this forum and some articles i was reading, in a BVR a F-15C will shoot 2 SU-35 before being shot its self. So god bless your brave soul.










[edit on 23-8-2006 by GhosTBR55]

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
LAWNMOWERMAN who did u figure out the su-35 is better than the Typhoon or the RAF better than the Typhoon or the SU-35 is better than both RAF AND TYPHOON ... thats crazy.>> i just wanna here ur opinion.

my opinion was based in the order of 3 factors
cost(military budget), needs(performance capability), and philosophy

cost(budget)
lets say that i'm the country of the "LAWNMOWERMAN"

i have an "x" amount of so many "$" to spend and i'm looking in the market to purchase a "top of the line" front-line air superiority fighter for my air force

i have narrowed my choice down to the SU-35/37 and the TYPHOON platform

based on the cost alone
for the price of one TYPHOON(est. cost $100+ mill) i could get 2 SU-35/37 or even maybe up to 4 in a package deal for that est. price tag

in return what ever "$" i saved i would use towards the purchase for other vital needs(such as training, maintenance, armaments, fuel, etc. etc.)

needs(performance capabilities)
every air force small or large, all have their needs. some needs greater or consider more important than others, it depends on the country

in my case, the of country LAWNMOWERMAN my needs are
for a all weather fighter that has great agility, off the chart maneuverability, some aspects of super cruise, quick recovery, decent range, top of the line sophisticated sensors, avionics, electronics and armaments

if it just so happens to incorporate some "stealthy" features, great it's an added bonus
if not so be it, it's not a must have or demand

in this case neither fighter are consider "stealthy"

my opinion based on the two
the SU-35/37 would best suit my needs
when it comes to agility and extreme maneuverability the SU-35/37 platform is unmatched
sure the TYPHOON may have better range, sensors, avionics, and etc. but they all can be countered

Philosophy
hey all i can say is that our philosophies differ but that's what makes for good conversation

LAWNMOWERMAN i think thats crazy that you would take ur chances with and SU-35 against a F-22A because from past discussions(with WESTY and WAYNOS) on this forum and some articles i was reading, in a BVR a F-15C will shoot 2 SU-35 before being shot its self. So god bless your brave soul.

call me crazy but i would still take my chances in a SU-35/37 one on one any day of the week i live and die by the blade!

all of today's top fighters have their strengths and weakness and that applies to both the SU-35 and F-22 as well

it's just a matter of(or what i should say what i deem important)
exploiting your advantages
exploiting your adversaries weakness
pilot training
tactics

i'm not disputing the F-22 capabilities it's a very impressive platform
but where talking about scenarios and simulations based against sub par opponents where the SU-35/37 type fighters are shot down in most simulated cases

(given example SYRIA if given the F-22 let alone a SU-35 could not shot "the fly off SHHH!")

or against "future potential" adversaries(CHINA, RUSSIA etc.)

but i'm not CHINA or IRAN i'm the country of LAWNMOWERMAN

all i can say is that they would have never built the F-22, if it wasn't for the potential threat from fighters such as the SU-35 and so on

but mine you that this is just all my opinion of course

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
when it comes to agility and extreme maneuverability the SU-35/37 platform is unmatched

Maybe pure maneuverability but in future WVR battles with fighters who more or less are all pretty maneuverable and who all have HOB missiles and HMS the fight is basically going to be almost equal in terms of capabilities. Pilot skill and maneuverability will still matter but not as much as they have in the past. Currently the F-22 is AIM-9X and HMS capable and it will get the AIM-9X but the HMS is going to US legacy fighters like the F-15 and Super Hornet first since they need it the most.

And as for the cost, to tell you the truth I’d rather get a Block II or future Block III Super Hornet then a Su-35. The Super Hornet is a very capable A2A and A2G aircraft so that’s who I’d go with.


[edit on 24-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
but in future WVR battles with fighters who more or less are all pretty maneuverable and who all have HOB missiles and HMS the fight is basically going to be almost equal in terms of capabilities.

now that i do agree and see happening

and point taken over all



[edit on 24-8-2006 by LAWNMOWERMAN]

LAWNMOWERMAN

1. The SU-37 is a testbed for developing technologies and not Operational.
2. Unit cot of a Typhoon is 51-58 mil NOT 100 mil.
3. R-77 > 55 mile range vs the upcoming MBDA Meteor. Typhoons avionics and armanent are better.

"sure the TYPHOON may have better range, sensors, avionics, and etc. but they all can be countered"

Price-wise, I'd rather invest in the Eurofighter as the Saudi's have so recently and shrewdly done as we live in a world embroiled in terrorism concerns. However, when it's a war against Communist China, the F-22 easily comes in handy since it is the equivalent to a laser beam from a satellite. Because it is extremely unlikely for the F-22 to have to go against either the F-35 or Eurofighter, the question becomes of which plane for a country to actually invest in to which the F-22 is simply to be expensive with regards to mass deployment.

[edit on 24-8-2006 by risitar]

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
LAWNMOWERMAN
1. The SU-37 is a testbed for developing technologies and not Operational.

correct, the SU-37 at this time is currently being used as a testbed for future developments, but originally the SU-37 was intended to be marked for export as an MRV of the SU-35

since RUSSIA's economy at the time was unable to totally fund the program and no potential buyers in sight, SUKHOi opted to use the SU-37(T-10M11) as a testbed and keep the SU-37 designation

2. Unit cot of a Typhoon is 51-58 mil NOT 100 mil.

actually the figure which you have given, was at one time between $51-58 mill, but that was 10 years ago

now the cost of a TYPHOON is between $102.14 mill to 149.5 mill USD(80 mill EUROs/54.1 GBP to 117.1 EUROs/79.2 GBP) per copy depending on the platform

3. R-77 > 55 mile range vs the upcoming MBDA Meteor. Typhoons avionics and armanent are better.

well if we are going to compare armaments, i think the
R-72(KS-172/K-172) range 400 km
R-37(the R-33 replacement) range 300 km
Kh-31P range 200 km
are more than sufficient for my needs

as for avionics
based on what's available, yes i would agree on the fact that the TYPHOON's avionics are clearly better, but sophisticated systems are always evolving to where they can be easily obtain, upgraded, and implemented

"sure the TYPHOON may have better range, sensors, avionics, and etc. but they all can be countered"

I’d just like to address a few points here. The Typhoon probably does not cost 50-60 million USD, currently. This article about the Austrian purchase of Typhoons (2003) states that each aircraft cost 62.9 Million Euro, that’s roughly 81 million USD. I don’t know what the current price for it is but I think its likely lower, production of the Typhoon has already begun and significant numbers have come out, the unit price therefore I think would be somewhat lower than 81 million USD, perhaps in the neighborhood of 70-75 million.

As for the KS-172 and R-37 well let me just say something about those two, these missile are a possibility, the AMRAAM-D (2008) and Meteor (2010) are going to be produced.

The KS-172, if it sees production, for anyone, is meant to be an anti-AWACS, or anti-bomber missile, large conventional bomber I may add. For the firing fighter aircraft to detect anything at 250 miles the target has to be emitting RF energy like crazy or be very large and un-stealthy. The KS-172 is meant to be fired in the vicinity of the target aircraft and then go active once it gets there, this will not work, against fighter aircraft. Even with AWACS data link it won’t work against the F-22, F-35 and to an extent Typhoon. It is also a very large missile, how many could a SU-35 carry 1 maybe 2 while sacrificing other missiles. Since it’s so large and has relatively small control surfaces the KS-172 is not going to be very maneuverable let alone when fired from maximum engagement envelope. I’d say its probably rated around 4g’s, ok for an AWACS and transport/heavy bomber but not for a fighter. Then there’s the issue of stealth, I can guarantee you that a Su-35 or any other (non friendly) fighter aircraft can not detect an F-22, F-35 and Typhoon at 250 miles, unless the Typhoon is going crazy with its radar, you cant shoot at what you cant see. Personally the KS-172 is not comparable to the AMRAAM-D or Meteor, it’s a different missile for a different role.

And the R-37 is not the replacement for the R-77, it was meant to be the replacement for the AA-9, and its future, if any is uncertain so is any integration to the Su-35. However it too is meant to be primarily a long range missile for attacking large targets, again, not fighters. It runs into some of the same problems the KS-172 has when it’s trying to attack fighters. Much like the feared Aim-54 its effectiveness against modern targets is doubtful.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

i based the cost taken from quotes from
www.defensenews.com...
AIR FORCE magazine or www.afa.org...
www.strategypage.com...

As for the KS-172 and R-37 well let me just say something about those two, these missile are a possibility

the K-72 your right based on available info

now the R-37 has been in development since the 80's and some examples(rumored depends on what you read) have been said to be in existence since the mid/late 90's

R-37 is not the replacement for the R-77, it was meant to be the replacement for the AA-9, and its future

bit confused
i said that a R-37 was a replacement for the R-33 not a R-77
i thought a AA-9 is a R-33? if not my mistake

also
i'm aware that the K-72, R-37, Kh-31P are for taking out AWACS etc. and not fighters
but when i stated the K-72, R-37, Kh-31P etc. as a comparison example to armaments
i meant in terms of up what weapons could be used and carried by an SU-35

not so much role match up vs match up
i wasn't trying to applying that they could be used against to engage a TYPHOON(example) in a engagement

just merely stating what a SU-35 could carry more or less

Then there’s the issue of stealth, I can guarantee you that a Su-35 or any other (non friendly) fighter aircraft can not detect an F-22, F-35 and Typhoon at 250 miles

out of the 3 only two are true 5th gen when it comes stealth. you bought up a good point in one of your post about agility/maneuverability capability and how eventually future platforms will have or feature that same type capability

well i feel the same way about that when it comes to "stealth"

i'm only using the SU-35/37 in the mean time until i build my own true 5th gen. platform in due time, to me out of all the 4.5 gen. the SU-35/37 would best suit my air force

but i don't disput that claim, but there forms of detection that can be used to counter that
plus again goes back to what i said early, if i know that my SU-35 is at a great disadvantage in this case is limited in detection capability etc., why would i allow myself to fall in that disadvantage

i'm going to find sufficient means to counter it to the best of my ability(capability) and it may not always necessarily involve using the SU-35/37 to do so, i would have other means

I don’t know why that article said 80 million Euro, perhaps they meant 80 million USD, or they may have added in other factors. That seems unreasonably high to me, especially since mass production has already started, I can’t see why the final unit price would go up 22 million USD.

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
bit confused
i said that a R-37 was a replacement for the R-33 not a R-77
i thought a AA-9 is a R-33? if not my mistake

No you’re right, I read it wrong, I thought you said R-77, so its my mistake.

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
out of the 3 only two are true 5th gen when it comes stealth. you bought up a good point in one of your post about agility/maneuverability capability and how eventually future platforms will have or feature that same type capability

Yes, but the Typhoon incorporates RCS reducing features, even if its frontal RCS is anywhere from 1-2 M2 there is no fighter radar in the world (that I’m aware of) capable of tracking/detecting something that small from 250 miles away on radar returns alone. This image is just to get an idea of RCS to tracking/detection range.

Link

Originally posted by LAWNMOWERMAN
but there forms of detection that can be used to counter that plus again goes back to what i said early, if i know that my SU-35 is at a great disadvantage in this case is limited in detection capability etc.,

Ok, but personally I don’t see how you’re going to counter it if they can see and fire at you while you’re still essentially blind. An integrated air defense system with SAM’s up the wazoo will help, but it’s not going to save your AF. Even airborne AWACS platforms are in danger, going Mach 1.5 at 50K gives an A2A missile like the AMRAAM 30-50% increase in range, combine that with a stealthy platform and your AWACS are in trouble.

[edit on 25-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

1. F-22A
2. F-35
3. Typhoon
4. Raf
5. SU-37/SU-47

I feel the F-35 is actually more effective than Typhoon, even in the role of Air Superiorty fighter. Some can argue that the F-35 wasnt made for that role, but so wasnt the F-16 and then F/A-18 and many countries have used these fighters for their countries air defense. Id like to add that they used them effectivly. So i dont think its the role of the fighter, its the fighters abilities its self.

Theres also a few effective missles coming out >>

AIM-120D

DRM / ASMT -read about this it is very interesting

FMRAAM



LAWNMOWERMAN I think your just tryin to make a underdog come up. Its good you dont run a real country cause ud have serious issues, dont let testosterone be 1.




[edit on 29-8-2006 by GhosTBR55]

The F-22 is definitely the best air superiority fighter in existence. I have the greatest respect for the Su-27 design, but its like comparing a Sopwith Camel to the Spitfire and saying "this new Spitfire isn't as good as the Sopwith Camel in low speed manouvering, and we can buy 2 of them for the price of a Spitfire, so we should go with the Sopwith Camel". The F-22 is simply in a different league, just like the Spitfire was superior to the biplanes that came before it.

Engines. The F119 is the most advanced fighter engine in the world. The EJ200 is an honourable second.

Stealth. Can't see it, can't shoot it.

Agility. Yes, the F-22 is able to outmanouvre the Su-27 series in all necessary scenarios. Shouldn't be a surprise, as that was its design brief.

Supercruise. The ability to strike suddenly and get the hell out if needed. Good luck catching it in an Su-35 laden with 10-12 AAMs on draggy pylons.

Avionics. The F-22 has the best avionics suite yet designed.

Now the question is, is the F-22 too expensive? That's a possibility, but it doesn't stop it being the best. Value for money only works if your 2 Su-35s actually are a match for the 1 F-22.

[edit on 30-8-2006 by overscan]

Overscan,

>>
The F-22 is definitely the best air superiority fighter in existence. I have the greatest respect for the Su-27 design, but its like comparing a Sopwith Camel to the Spitfire and saying "this new Spitfire isn't as good as the Sopwith Camel in low speed manouvering, and we can buy 2 of them for the price of a Spitfire, so we should go with the Sopwith Camel". The F-22 is simply in a different league, just like the Spitfire was superior to the biplanes that came before it.
>>

First off, in principle, I agree completely with you. But to play Vader's Advocate 'do put too much trust in this technological terror'...

Because the absolute physical performance edge is not as great as it was with the Spitfire/Camel argument and the notion of 'banzai logic' is no longer culturally prohibitive. IF you can soak the losses by sending out a robot to force the threat away from even an extended bomb release point, you can win. Whether or not you kill the F-22. In this, the Su-27 is still inferior because it should effectively be a robotic MiG-21 (F-5, Mirage III or some other ultracheap asset).

An Su-27 can beat one missile. It /may/ beat two, at extended range. It will not beat three fired in close salvo. The difference being that if the F-22 is carrying 8 GBU-39, it only has 2 AIM-120 to spare. Even with a full six AMRAAM, the variance is one of killing 2 lackey's only to get seriously engaged by the third sniper grade pilot coming along behind.

A UCAV might be able to better this yet again if it had a MAKS missile approach warner. And full-G availability from the airframe.

>>
Engines. The F119 is the most advanced fighter engine in the world. The EJ200 is an honourable second.
>>

Yes and no. The F-22 is not going to go anyplace slow. It is really designed to go fast and sustain that speed _over a shorter time period_ that equates to more distance covered.

Add to this the certainty that the best flight profile condition for a LO aircraft is the same as that of a 747 or a Concorde (Wings level, nose on the horizon) to avoid flashing multi-aspect sensors and the notion of what is 'best' is highly dependent on what you want to /do with it/.

>>
Stealth. Can't see it, can't shoot it.
>>

True enough. Until the other guy gets LO for free because you've whored your technology to the world and thus solved his 20 year development lag. Then you are like too maddened deaf men with roaring chainsaws and blindfolds running at each other atop roller blades. Fighter combat as an exercise in sprint-drift tactics
akin to ASW will be a LOT different and not necessarily better for being so.

>>
Agility. Yes, the F-22 is able to outmanouvre the Su-27 series in all necessary scenarios. Shouldn't be a surprise, as that was its design brief.
>>

No. This is flat out incorrect for BOTH airframes. Because fuel state dictates both the thrust loading, CofG percentages on FLCS limitering as well as encounter mode (supersonic or not) for all players.

An Su-27 with the full 25,000lbs onboard (including the early fin cells) flies like a tank. It doesn't become a 'real fighter' until it gets down to around 15. It is not truly /agile/ until it hits 8-10. By which time the pilot is flying with one eye glued to the fuel gauge.

For the F-22 it is even worse because in addition to the fuel penalty, he is already paying another for LO as both RAM and internal carriage structural offsets. He may also have to go a lot farther to hit a tanker as opposed the the Flanker which can at least temporarily base-in anywhere within it's own national airspace.

Such is the difference between DCA and OCA mindsets. The latter guy has to fly out of the threat airspace before he can even /think/ about RTB. And so he is vastly more likely to tank late and either avoid the close fight or come into it fuel heavy and very conservative.

Finally, the definition of /maneuverability/ is that of a fighter which can sustain a good loaded turn without bleed of airspeed, altitude or G. _Agility_ is that which says "You can leave one maneuver state and initiate another with minimum DELAY as a function of predictability of tactics.

In this, nothing as huge as either the F-22 or the Su-27 are going to be as agile as say a late block F-16, Gripen, Rafale or Typhoon. Because they have more mass, spread out over a wider spanwise separation of wing area. And so for both inertial and drag reasons are going to have to work harder to initiate or change their given flight state.

What this ultimately means, especially for the Raptor, is a tendency to force the first turn and then play for altitude once the other guy has made his best move. At speed, the Raptor can change it's fight plane by 10-20,000ft in a heartbeat. And if you are smart enough to play against the other guy's sill line, you can force him to lose sight.

Which means all of nothing if you are playing forward aspect HOBS games with every fight being decided by off axis missile work ahead of the the 3/9. But it is the essence of using 'big moves' to keep the little-quick ones from mattering. Because junior (a MiG-29 Sniper with a late model Python) can play a better slow speed games. But he can't bring his nose up and sustain there if you choose to simply leave the fight in a way he can't match.

Here the real problem is that while (energy) maneuverability is indeed superior to (angles) agility, the lack of effective IRCM to beat the first shot means you are at supreme risk of never being able to prove it.

>>
Supercruise. The ability to strike suddenly and get the hell out if needed. Good luck catching it in an Su-35 laden with 10-12 AAMs on draggy pylons.
>>

Supercruise makes sense when you have offboard support and particularly an ADAAM ability to fire from X and guide from Y. It is also a VASTLY superior means of getting from A to B (600-800nm radius) without spending /hours/ doing absolutely nothing but get your pilots tired.

As a direct combat advantage, ainh. Especially with low numbers and a probably D1/R1 strike commitment, it's better to adopt a COE attitude of not engaging a threat which cannot keep you from reaching SDB range. Than to press on something which commitment will force you to resolve at the possible cost of your primary mission.

>>
Avionics. The F-22 has the best avionics suite yet designed.
>>

No.

It doesn't have a working AIRST/EOSS. Nor an EOTS. Nor (yet) a Blk.20 SAR. It's cockpit display architecture, while large, is still rendered largely discrete by the nature of separating the offensive, defensive and SAD displays into discrete alphanumeric tagged formats. JSF is superior in all these areas because it puts all the MFDs in a row and lets the pilot pick up data from any or all simultaneously from high in his eyeline using more sophsticated graphical and portalling presentations. The JSF also has a sophisticated HMDS which means that the HUD optics don't have to crown everything.

About the best you can say here is that the -data itself- is more comprehensive than that on later Flankers. And this is as much about the linked offboards and ability to exploit remote shooter-illuminator tactics as anything particularly relative to the F-22 in generall and the cockpit avionics specifically.

>>
Now the question is, is the F-22 too expensive? That's a possibility, but it doesn't stop it being the best. Value for money only works if your 2 Su-35s actually are a match for the 1 F-22.
>>

No, the real answer is that Congress wants pork so that it can make it's constituents rich and they can make back-channel 'contributions' that also ensures their own position in power or as wealthy post-government individuals.

With the F-22 not eligible for export and -at best- only likely to be purchased in roughly 1/4 the numbers of the F-35, Congress simply raised false-pretense 'objections' to the continued funding of the F-22 until they made the economics of stretched development match the lies of their own dire predictions on cost. _IF_ the F-22 had been developed on schedule with first flight in 1996 and squadron IOC in 1998, by the time of the 334th airframe, unit cost would have been down to 74 million dollars each. Which is roughly twice that of an F-15C and _worth every damn penny_.

Even as late as 2003, the USAF rewarded Lockheed Martin with a single unit addon purchase which proved that each individual Raptor could be bought for 117 million dollars per airframe. Not 338. Just 117. Congress was mortified in their embarrassment at being caught out as liars and promptly closed the funding loophole that allowed this to happen. But it was too late (an all too clear) that they would and will do ANYTHING NECESSARY to sustain the production of a bulk-fighter 'suitable for foreign sales' over that of an effective one that didn't have to have half as much spent on it, overall.

Congressmen make money by giving it away. The bigger the pie, the more slices whose dispensation can be bought for a price. This is why democracy and capitalism don't work.

Yet, they have overstepped themselves this time. For as technology (multiple small IAM and robotic airpower) and strategic position (nobody wants to be our 'friend', post Iraq) go through dramatic sea-changes; the popularity of F-22 bashing will fade proportionately with the exit of more and more JSF clients from a customer base that is now looking at costs 130% over budget and determined to produce '40-50 million dollar airframes' for 112 million each.

I myself also blame the utterly worthless Air Force because they helped this conspiracy along in trade for maintaining 'just one more generation!' of manned assets, even though they knew that the time was ripe to make the transition. Now we are tailchasing the Euros on a 'Gen 6' airframe whose only notable points of common definition will be price and lack of a pilot. It's been a lot of years since we failed to set the pace in aerospace.


KPl.

Hey KPl what do you think of the information Lt. Col. Michael "Dozer" Shower is posting on this site? Seems to me from what he's saying the F-22's integrated avionics suite and particularly its long range situational awareness is second to one. I also find his comments about its maneuverability quite interesting.

It is eye watering to see what happens to bad guys in the air and on the ground when this airplane does it's thing, it's virtually untouchable when flown right, and I have 2000 hours of F-15C time + 3 tours over Iraq and 2 in Serbia (one being Allied Force) to back up why I know that, plus about 450 hours in the Raptor now including 3 years in the test world over the Nevada test ranges doing everything you can do with this jet - it's a remarkable machine we've built, it's truly a superfighter. It also has the integrated sensor suite that is top notch, you COULD build that into other fighters but you'd have to totally redesign them to make it so, and you'd end up spending so much that it's cost prohibitive - and since the sensors themselves are built into the aircraft all over the place under the skin you'd really have to make significant changes to get them even close to the Raptors sensor suite & integration performance levels. The situational awareness the jet provides is that good - it's like sitting in the ACMI shack watching a mission where each jet has a pod on it telling you where & what each player is doing, the pilot of a Raptor has that same level of information while flying - but he's getting it from the jets sensors alone not from anything else, it's better than an AWACS picture, we sometimes turn it off because we see the same thing they do and with higher fidelity. Finally, and like the Mig/Sukoui with thrust vectoring and as you guys are seeing, it also has the super maneuverability and thrust to weight ratio that matches or exceeds anything else out there currently or projected to show up anytime in the foreseeable future. You're not, once again, going to get that from any of our current designs without extremely costly new engines with thrust vectoring (I can't imagine how much it would cost to re-engine the Eagle or Hornet fleet with a new thrust vector motor - the Raptor motor is a shining star for performance in every category but it's not cheap). Link

BTW, read from page 6 onwards, "dozerf22" is Lt. Col. Shower.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - shortened quote

[edit on 5-9-2006 by masqua]

You might want to check everything on the SU-37

www.flymig.com...


Su-37 "Super Flanker" Technical Data.
Su-37 Album
DESCRIPTION:
Yet another derivative of the Su-27 family is the Su-37. The Su-37 design incorporates the canards and digital fly-by-wire control system of the Su-35 but also adds axisymmetric steerable nozzles to provide thrust vectoring capability.
The resulting design achieves a level of super-maneuverabilty unmatched by any contemporary fighter. A test pilot reported that the controls are so effective that the aircraft can recover from spins and stalls at almost any altitude. Although the Russian Air Force has shown great interest in the remarkable abilities of the Su-37, it is somewhat doubtful that any will be acquired due to the nation's financial difficulties.
The aircraft may see more success in the export market, which Sukhoi is actively pursuing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

shortened quote

Mod Edit - added link

You have a U2U

[edit on 1-9-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 5-9-2006 by masqua]

Be aware, I have researched the Su-27 family in some detail over many years. I have translated the flight manuals into English. I am quite aware of its capabilities and limitations.

If I was a little excessive in my praise of the F-22, Kurt, it was a reaction to the idiotic "Flanker Fanboy" tendency that seems prevalent here and elsewhere. Feel free to visit my forum if you get a chance

According to the Su-27SK flight manual:

Normal takeoff weight: 23,250 kg with 2 R-27 + 2 R-73, normal fuel load of 5,090 kg, 150 rounds for the GSh-301.

G limits: 7.4 g below Mach 0.85, 6g between Mach 0.85 and Mach 1.25, 6.5g above Mach 1.25

Overload takeoff weight: 27,380kg with 2 R-27 + 2 R-73, overload fuel load of 9,220 kg

G limits: 6.2 g below Mach 0.85, 5g between Mach 0.85 and Mach 1.25, 5.5g above Mach 1.25

9G is only achievable at a weight of 19,000kg; thats 4 AAMs and about 840kgs of fuel.

I like to listen to you all guys' opinions about which jets are the best in the world. I'm tired of the guessing and debate. The obviously best fighter plane in the world is the F-15C Eagle with more than 100 kills to zero losses in the air to air combat. That list of victims have most MiG-29's on that list than all of other aircrafts combined. It shows that American pilots are the one of best trained pilots in the world. Israel is only air force in the world can rivals to the talents of Americans. Its the done fact. I read about that in AirForce Power magazine.

I dont understand why people are trying to prove a F-22A is better than a SU-27.

The SU-27 and SU-35 are in the league of and F-15C.

The SU superior Manuv is only in low speeds >>>> thus rendering that Superior Manuv useless. At high speeds say sub sonic and up the F-15c matches if not EXCEEDS when it come to Manuvering. + Plus its has speed, American missles and owns BVR.

and WESTY THANK YOU for that Document i was looking for it.





[edit on 4-9-2006 by GhosTBR55]

There is no way that any SU can out MANUv a F-22A, thats just plain non sense. It has been proven that any Sukhoi that showed this so called Superior Manuv was only because it was striped and not even close to its combat stance. F-22A Manuvs the way it says it does with everything on it AND if u striped it, then thats a whole new ball game.