F22 vs Eurofighter vs SU37 who wins the Dogfight.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
am i anyhow starting to make any sense already? plz say yes:0

your new thread does make sense!

ok so do we have a resolution?

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
am i anyhow starting to make any sense already? plz say yes:0

your new thread does make sense!

ok so do we have a resolution?

ALLELUIA! we have a resolution! see i dont know alot but what goes through my mind is more logical than informational i think more of future time and not past or present or my self, i think of what will these new things do for us. so im really like ATS' own philosopher
every thread site needs a philospher:0 and thats me right now! any questions students? lol just joking

reply to post by KKing123


why does everyone assume that the f22 is not as manuevarable as su47 much less eurofighter check raptor first flight on youtube then watch su47 berkut then draw your conclusions

Who sees who first?

Which plane has more energy going into merge?

Who has the most reliable missile?

There are a million possible scenarios. Raptor probably has the advantage of seeing the other guy first and that will probably end most close up fights fast.

If energy/surprise advantages are lost.... it's probably up to the best pilot, the 3 planes being close enough in performance.

Originally posted by lpbman
Who sees who first?

Which plane has more energy going into merge?

Who has the most reliable missile?

There are a million possible scenarios. Raptor probably has the advantage of seeing the other guy first and that will probably end most close up fights fast.

If energy/surprise advantages are lost.... it's probably up to the best pilot, the 3 planes being close enough in performance.

The Su-37 doesn't exist anymore (actually it never did that Su-37 Bort-711 that crashed was a modified Su-35, the next 4.5+ Gen Su is going to be the Su-35BM, anyays the F-22 can detect a 3^2 target at 240km/149mi the Su-35BM can detect the same at 400km/250mi so I'm going with the Su.

F-22 at BVR.

Typhoon up close and personal.

The new extended no time limit 9 'G' suit the RAF have plugged into the Typhoon has to be strapped on to believe. Its mental in the extreme.

reply to post by Lambo Rider



And the F-22's RCS is? As opposed to the Su-35?

The S-37, AKA the SU-47 is the Forward Sweep flying wing, the SU-37 is a modded SU-35.

reply to post by Willard856


Even if the SU-35 radar can detect things at enormous ranges, give me a AN/APG-77 ANY DAY. Hell, give me a Super Hornet radar any day too! Why? No 'proper' LPI. One power source on PESA means you're still pumping out god knows how many kill-o-watts on a single frequency.... while AESA may be operating on a few hundred frequencies at only a few watts each. And when you couple that with a stealthy platform you have one killer plane...

[edit on 4/6/2008 by C0bzz]

The F-22 would shoot either one of the opposing aircraft from the skies. Lets examine the reason, it is a Stealth Fighter in every means of the word. Both the Russian and European planes would NOT be able to shoot back as they're missles wouldn't lock on to the F-22. Henceforth you can throw any MiG or Su-what have you(27, 37,....) up against the F-22 but in the end all you will have is a one sided turkey-shoot and F-22's still flying on to bomb the airfields that the opposition flew from.

If you cant see it and it can not only see you but hit you, what chance do you have? Not to mention that US pilots have far more experience than their Russian counter-parts, HISTORY has proven time and time again he who sweats in Peace seldom Bleeds in War.

the f22 raptor was developed with funds around the value of 60 billion dollars - according to wikipedia. combine that with experience gained in operating the f15 eagle and a little help from nasa - they must have designed something with tremendous combat capability. but i do agree that there are just too many variables in determining the winner of a dogfight. the ef2000 in my opinion looks like an aircraft from the 1970's with all those hardpoints - what are those now.....?? stealth, thrust vectoring, and a very smooth modern exterior with engines developed by a company that can build very capable engines - who knows! what i know is that i would be scared no matter what plane i was in facing with any of the other two left..!! but lets not forget our original air superiority fighter the f15, the f22 is like what they wanted to make all those years ago-@@

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The F-22 would shoot either one of the opposing aircraft from the skies. Lets examine the reason, it is a Stealth Fighter in every means of the word. Both the Russian and European planes would NOT be able to shoot back as they're missles wouldn't lock on to the F-22. Henceforth you can throw any MiG or Su-what have you(27, 37,....) up against the F-22 but in the end all you will have is a one sided turkey-shoot and F-22's still flying on to bomb the airfields that the opposition flew from.

Read I think Su-35 Radar will give APG-77 a run for it's money: www.ausairpower.net...

If you cant see it and it can not only see you but hit you, what chance do you have? Not to mention that US pilots have far more experience than their Russian counter-parts, HISTORY has proven time and time again he who sweats in Peace seldom Bleeds in War.

History has prooven Russian pilots are acually more better, of the Soviet/U.S./British pilots in WW2 the #1 Aces goes: 1. VVS, 2. British, 3. U.S.

Originally posted by C0bzz
The S-37, AKA the SU-47 is the Forward Sweep flying wing, the SU-37 is a modded SU-35.

reply to post by Willard856

 

Even if the SU-35 radar can detect things at enormous ranges, give me a AN/APG-77 ANY DAY. Hell, give me a Super Hornet radar any day too! Why? No 'proper' LPI. One power source on PESA means you're still pumping out god knows how many kill-o-watts on a single frequency.... while AESA may be operating on a few hundred frequencies at only a few watts each.

And when you couple that with a stealthy platform you have one killer plane...

[edit on 4/6/2008 by C0bzz]

I wouldn't at ALL!!!!
www.ausairpower.net...

I like this thread! Being a huge fan of the Bercut, I will side with Russians in this fictional battle. You know, I suppose it really depends on the pilot abilities. On a not so similar note, I hope Michael Bay throws in a Su-37 or 47 for Transformers 2... Now that would be epic!

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
History has prooven Russian pilots are acually more better, of the Soviet/U.S./British pilots in WW2 the #1 Aces goes: 1. VVS, 2. British, 3. U.S.

And of those three groups, look how their pilots flew tours in the war. Soviet pilots pretty much HAD to stay in the fight, as did British pilots for a several years until things settled down. US pilots went over, flew their combat tours, came home and then went back or stayed doing bond tours. Yes most of them had multiple tours, but they didn't have the SUSTAINED combat that British and Soviet pilots had.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
History has prooven Russian pilots are acually more better, of the Soviet/U.S./British pilots in WW2 the #1 Aces goes: 1. VVS, 2. British, 3. U.S.

And of those three groups, look how their pilots flew tours in the war. Soviet pilots pretty much HAD to stay in the fight, as did British pilots for a several years until things settled down. US pilots went over, flew their combat tours, came home and then went back or stayed doing bond tours. Yes most of them had multiple tours, but they didn't have the SUSTAINED combat that British and Soviet pilots had.

It doesn't matter the statement was made by him about history provving U.S. better, which it dosen't, based upon stats.

Ive seen all of these planes in airshows demonstrating agility for some reason people assume eurofighter and berkut have superior agility because raptor is superior in bvr combat but from what ive seen with my own eyes raptor owns all fighters in every combat regime ive seen it pull off manuvers at both combat speeds and low speeds the other fighters could only do at airshow speeds yes the eurofighters turn radius increases dramatically at higher speeds while it has vectored thrust it is much more limited and engines far less powerful one raptor engine nearly equal to both eurofighter engines in power much higher thrust to weight ratio much higher wing area lower wing loading all prerequisites to high agility how can you argue

Don't forget what the pratt and whitney engines can do. if we are talking about a long range tactical fighter, the ability to cruise supersonically will perpetually keep you out of the enemies reach...assuming that they can see you.

Not to mention that the USAF has proven to be superior in piloting skills going back to when it was the Army. A pilot trained on the F-22, with all its integrated telemetry, is among the finest pilots in the world.

reply to post by Lambo Rider


While I respect Dr. Kopp and agree with him on somethings, namely the F-111 issue, some of the things he states is pure crap, often PC sim like simulations of battles. Why don't you read his glowing review of the Super Hornet back in 2001? He even suggests the Irbis is LPI - while that may be true to a certain extent, what the hell makes _ANYONE_ think modulating frequencies up and down will make it harder to detect. You're still pumping out 20 killowatts of microwaves into the air on a SINGLE frequency! When one is in the air, A. EVERYONE one will be abled to see its BARN DOOR RCS, and B, when it turns on its radar, EVERYONE will detect emissions.

Detection ranges and so on are great, I don't doubt that. That's what AWACS and datalink capability is for. But are they, overall, more effective than a third generation AESA? No friggen way.

It doesn't matter the statement was made by him about history provving U.S. better, which it dosen't, based upon stats.

Them stats are meaningless and out of context.

[edit on 19/6/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by Lambo Rider

 

It doesn't matter the statement was made by him about history provving U.S. better, which it dosen't, based upon stats.

Them stats are meaningless and out of context.

[edit on 19/6/2008 by C0bzz]

What do you mean