F-22 and F-35 superiority

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion but I'm not impressed with the J-10. It looks like a crossbred Flanker/Eurofighter but probably doesn't perform as well as either of those aircraft.

It is designed primarily as an air to ground platform, and indeed, for that job is superior to both Flanker and Eurofighter.


I think a while back it was compared to F-16s on here, with the conclusion an F-16 with conformals could match it for range, but without it couldn't.


Due to its larger wing, the J-10 could carry more, but because its wing was a relatively simple design, it wasn't so great for ACM. It also lacked the T/W ratios of the F-16, never mind the newer machines.



As far as its design goals, which I'd assume were development of indigenous design experience and an aircraft that can be used as a baseline for bringing the PLAAF up to the 21st century in terms of avionics (upgrades) and tactics, oh, and a plane could carry bombs to Japan and back, it has accomplished them.


That experience will be put to use in follow on programs. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will the Chinese equivalent of the F-22.

You understimate too much russian capabilities.
Anyway, the new russsian fighter is the PAK-FA Sukhoi T-50 which is expected to come into service in 2008. See here www.telegraph.co.uk...;jsessionid=XY4ELGWWD5NGRQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/08/19/wputin119.xml

Ciao,

Andala

Originally posted by Andala
You understimate too much russian capabilities.

Possibly, but in the past, the U.S. has consistantly OVERestimated Russian capabilities. Mig-25 ring a bell?

Originally posted by Andala
Anyway, the new russsian fighter is the PAK-FA Sukhoi T-50 which is expected to come into service in 2008.

Actually the first prototype is to make it's first flight in the 2008-2010 time frame. The in service date will probably be in the 2015-2018 time frame. So far we have zero reliable information regarding the PAK-FA, including what it looks like. So naturally I'll hold my judgment about it's capabilities until I see some data.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually the first prototype is to make it's first flight in the 2008-2010 time frame. The in service date will probably be in the 2015-2018 time frame. So far we have zero reliable information regarding the PAK-FA, including what it looks like. So naturally I'll hold my judgment about it's capabilities until I see some data.

True, we don't have any concrete information, but that seems to be due to Russian secrecy rather than our failings. I mean, has anyone seen any serious statistics on the Su-35 BM? I've seen names of equipment, but very few rock-hard statistics.

Anyway, what I was going to say here is that we can't say exactly, but we can make some pretty good judgements. Example, we can be fairly sure that PAK-FA's first engines will be either the AL-41 F1 or somthing better. There are some stats out there on that, I believe. I'm too lazy to look them up right now. Also, we know that Russia DOES have AESA radar capabilities. We can'ts ay how it'll eventually stack up to American radar, but we can find stats on the MiG 35's AESA, and we know that Irbis is due out pretty soon. You get the idea.

Now, onto the original post.

My question is, how long will it be before a Soviet....er...Russian design bureau developes something comparable to the Raptor and Lightning II?

Very, very soon. Sukhoi is heading up PAK-FA which still faces confusion due to lack of knowledge whether it's supposed to go after F-22 or F-35 as opposition. I prefer to believe that it will be matched up with the F-22, as that's what really needs the opposition. It's pretty tight under wraps though. Stay tuned for updates on this. Just don't be insulting my Flankers. I can be vicious .

Also worth looking at is the Chinese XXJ. Judging by the exceptional Chinese security on the J-10 project, as well as progress on the Super 10, I think it's safe to say that they are fully capable. They have the minds, and they definitely have the money. 5th generation aircraft are still a pretty new idea around, so it's a pretty open field. And, now that the F-22 is out there, there's a target and some statistics to beat.

One thing to be on the alert though, is Russian engines. I can't place where, but I don't think that Russian engine makers are too keen on supplying Chinese interests anymore. And, as far as I can remember, Chinese engines aren't bad but they are behind Russian and American advances. So without new tech I don't know what to expect for engine statistics on the up-and-coming XXJ. Eyes up for news, though.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
I'll assume you meant Mig-29's and not Mig-25's. Although I don't think the Su-35 or Mig-29 would be a match for the F-22, I do think that Russia is the only potential enemy of the U.S. capable of fielding an aircraft that could compete with the Raptor in the near future.

Just some information on the above.

MiG-29's and Su-35's is not quite a fair comparison (assuming you mean the non-variation ones). They are more comparable to F-16 and F-15. For the record, Su-35 is really just an export name for the Su-27.

If you want to compare new Russian stuff with the new American toys, you'd be looking for the MiG-35 Fulcrum-F (Which I do refer to as the Ultra Fulcrum from time to time. Sounds Better.) and the Su-35 BM. From the outside, these two aircraft look just as sexy as the first ones, but under the hood is some genuinely cool stuff.

Russians debuted their AESA capabilities on the Ultra Fulcrum with the Zhuk radar (It works, people, it really works!). They also showed off some pretty interesting jammer tricks with the Su-35 BM, it's got some fun wingtip L175M Khibiny-M jammer suites. I don't know how it stacks up to F-22 jammers or even stealth, but it certainly can't hurt. From what I know, it's also got a nifty datalink system capable of beaming target data to aircraft, including older, non-modernized a/c. Another whiz-bang feature of the BM is rear-facing radar in the tail cone between the engines. This is supposed to let it capitalize on all-directional missiles (there's a really cool video of a pilot looking over his right shoulder on a Sukhoi jet, along with a missile firing from what looks like the left wing and striking the simulated bogey. Really nifty, I'll see if I can find it). Oh, and the days of a really ugly Su-27 cockpit are over. Both the BM and Ultra Fulcrum have fully glass cockpits.

One last point is in an area that is actually better than an American rival; 360 degree thrust vectoring. Believe it or not, the Russians have actually fielded something that the Americans haven't! American engines have better thrust ratings, but they have not fielded 360 degree TVC. It's currently in use on the production version of the MiG-35 Ultra Fulcrum, and has been shown off with some really neat tricks, including the invention of three new maneuvers. I really want to see a mock dogfight of a MiG-35 with the latest block of F-16, just to see the show.

Anyway, rant over. Just giving you some info on the latest Russian toys to help you with your opinions. Not trying to slant you in any direction. Nope. Not at all.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Possibly, but in the past, the U.S. has consistantly OVERestimated Russian capabilities. Mig-25 ring a bell?

Up until the late 60's the US public were sold a enemy that were far less capable than the propaganda suggested but after that there followed the 70's were the Russians built up a clear conventional superiority and at least strategic parity and by the time Reagan decided to rearm the US the strategic lead had slipped and NATO resistance in Europe were being measured in weeks, not months. The 'overestimation' did happen but not for as long as you think and not for the reason you think

I have no doubt that the US could have retained both strategic and conventional superiority ( i should make this clear more often) but there were forces at work within the US government that deliberately disarmed it so that lost even strategic superiority; something that never had to happen and certainly not so soon.

As for the Mig-25 it did manage to score the only official air to air kill against the USAF in 1991 and given the odds it was operating against one can only wonder what 1300 Mig-25/31's would have done against the USAF in 1985; the Mig-25 might have at first been over propagandized but compared to how over hyped what it was going to have to fight in 1975 was i have little doubt about it's likely effectiveness.

Stellar

[edit on 24-8-2007 by StellarX]

Yo Stellar, I was wondering, if the MiG-25 was rearmed with a new AESA Radar would it be able to compete with the F-22

[edit on 24-8-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 24-8-2007 by YASKY]

Originally posted by YASKY
Yo Stellar, I was wondering, if the MiG-25 was rearmed with a new AESA Radar would it be able to compete with the F-22

The basic Mig-25 airframe and design may just too old to throw that kind of money at but if the same frame were built with the old engines and new avionics& integration with modern radar and R-33/R-77 it would probably be perfectly functional even against the F-22.

Given that there are still more than 300 Mig-31's in service of which the last hundred or two hundred production models could probably be upgraded to serve well into the second decade of this millennium i would consign all the Mig-25's to storage and only pull them out when things were going as wrong as things sometime goes in war. That being said the Mig-31 was not intended for this role and i think the Su-27/Mig-29's are more than able to carry the type of upgrades that will enable them to take on F-22's; it's after all not a wonder plane and without it's stealth, which it does not really have to start with, it's quite a good value target.

I would rather be in the F-22 myself but if had to win a war i would much rather be building Su-35's if i were forced to employ pilots at all.

Stellar

[edit on 24-8-2007 by StellarX]

One question:

If any aircraft locks up on, let's say, an F-15, the F-15 will see the threat on TEWS. The F-15 will turn around and then, unless the plane is stealth, the F-15 will get a lock (If it's getting jammed then Home On Jam).

The R-27 and AMRAAM are fairly equal, so therefore, would it not be most logical that BOTH aircraft would shoot missiles at rouphly the same time and BOTH would get blown out of the sky?

If that were true, I would MUCH rather have a limited number of F-22s which cannot be detected or locked onto than the Su-35 that would just go into combat to not return.

Thanks.

One last point is in an area that is actually better than an American rival; 360 degree thrust vectoring. Believe it or not, the Russians have actually fielded something that the Americans haven't! American engines have better thrust ratings, but they have not fielded 360 degree TVC.

I think thrust vectoring is a huge waste of money. In pretty much every plane when heavily loaded, while turning HARD, even with full afterburner, it will loose its airspeed; quickly.

What's the point of thrust vectoring if it's just going to make the plane stall or atleast bleed off all airspeed? People may say that thrust vectoring will reduce elevator movements in a turn, but this, in modern designs is a load of crap.

Unstable designs will want to turn all by themselves, and in extreme cases, the elevators may be pointing DOWN in a positive g turn as the airframe is so unstable.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
One question:


The R-27 and AMRAAM are fairly equal, so therefore, would it not be most logical that BOTH aircraft would shoot missiles at rouphly the same time and BOTH would get blown out of the sky?

The AMRAAM is actually closer to the R-77, or AA-12. The R-27, or AA-10, comes in semi-active and IR variants (two types of each, with a short burn and long burn version). For the semi-active, the firing platform has to maintain lock of the target throughout the time of flight of the missile, while an AMRAAM shooter can turn away from the fight once the missile goes active. Without going into the finer details on F-pole and A-pole, a semi-active shooter against an active shooter will turn into a fireball before the active one. And once the semi-active missile loses the host radar, it reverts to pretty much flying blind. This is all premised, of course, on a 1v1 engagement. Throwing in multiple platforms, and Force Level or Self Protection EW can change things, but generally, I'd back an active shooter against a semi-active one any day of the week.

And if you meant R-77 originally, then I'd still back the AMRAAM shooter. I'm biased however!

The amount of upgrades required to bring a Mig-25 up to par with an F-22 would turn it into an entirely different aircraft. There is no way in hell a Mig-25 could compete with a Raptor. Not in a million years. I can't think of one single area where the Foxbat would have an edge over a Raptor. The thing is nearly as big as a 737 and probably has the radar cross section of one.

As far as the Mig-25 scoring an A to A kill in Desert Storm...even a broken clock is right twice a day. The fact that it was a Mig-25 and not a Flanker or Fulcrum screams "right place, right time" to me.

Originally posted by C0bzz
One question:
If any aircraft locks up on, let's say, an F-15, the F-15 will see the threat on TEWS. The F-15 will turn around and then, unless the plane is stealth, the F-15 will get a lock (If it's getting jammed then Home On Jam).

Who gets lock first depends largely on the radar and that depends on who has been doing more upgrades or who have better support aircraft/ground control.

The R-27 and AMRAAM are fairly equal, so therefore, would it not be most logical that BOTH aircraft would shoot missiles at rouphly the same time and BOTH would get blown out of the sky?

Well both would turn away as no one takes a SARH/ARH in face without good reason. In this case i believe the advantage must go to the 3-4 SU-30MKI's or Su-35's that are well data linked and thus have 3-4 times more ordnance to expend while alternatively launching missiles at relatively long range and running away from any F-22's that were not forced to turn away before their Aim-120's were able to get to self guidance distance. In effect you have far more fuel and range , higher speed, more mustered weapons and the ability to provide mid course guidance to your missiles by means of a tail mounted radar/data link which can receive long range data radar data from the Su's that are still pointing into the danger. In this way i believe the Su's can systematically narrow the range and deplete the Amraam stores before finally attempting to dash in for the kill as the F-22's are forced to disengage and expose their tails without the benefit of being able to jam the SARH/ARH R-77's or easily defeat the IR missiles that will follow or are now easily tracking.

This obviously assumes very good pilot quality and a air force that can in fact spend the same amount of USD in buying aircraft; if that's not the case then the results will probably be as predictable as many seem to think.

If that were true, I would MUCH rather have a limited number of F-22s which cannot be detected or locked onto than the Su-35 that would just go into combat to not return.

Thanks.

But there is no good reason to suggest that the F-22's can not be locked onto by the support systems that Russia deploys. Just because a single Su-35 might lack the ability to detect the F-22 at maximum ranges does not mean the combined information of the 4-5 ,you can buy for the price of the F-22, will not yield sufficient data to do the job. The Russians were data-linking their aircraft long before the rest were and combined arms seems to actually feature in their planning.

I think thrust vectoring is a huge waste of money. In pretty much every plane when heavily loaded, while turning HARD, even with full afterburner, it will loose its airspeed; quickly.

I think the discussion of BVR have led people to think that interception at 100 km or further actually ever happens which is just not the case. At the engagement closing speeds these aircraft fly at the difference between 120 km range and 10 Km is at high altitudes 1.5 -3 minutes and at low altitudes missiles normally little more than a minute; the difference between a knife fight and exchanging bullets is not all that significant.

History have so far shown that operational limitations can quickly lead to WVR conditions and knowing that the Russians consider tactical and strategic nuclear weapons as part of a third world war scenario leads me to believe that they believe BVR will be a luxury that must be exploited but not bargained on.

What's the point of thrust vectoring if it's just going to make the plane stall or atleast bleed off all airspeed? People may say that thrust vectoring will reduce elevator movements in a turn, but this, in modern designs is a load of crap.

Unstable designs will want to turn all by themselves, and in extreme cases, the elevators may be pointing DOWN in a positive g turn as the airframe is so unstable.

In WVR being able to change the angle of attack at all cost may be sufficient and if your going to go into a fight with a four to one advantage it hardly matters if one of the four must bleed away it's energy to ensure a kill; there are after all possibly as many as four left to ensure that that weakness is not easily exploited.

I think the main problem people have in understanding Russian aircraft design is that they think 1 vs 1 when that was NEVER the case. The moment you think in terms of 3-5 vs 1 it makes far more sense and perceived weakness suddenly looks like strengths.

I hope that makes my views clear and my ignorance not too plain; please correct me wherever you see reason to.

Stellar

The AMRAAM does not need to be guided to the target before it activates its self guidance, though, it helps hit probability (which is already high). It's the same as the system you described in your post I think.

When the Raptor has to disengage, it could just turn around and go full burners upto fifty thousand and supercruise. Renember, even with hot exhaust, missile range is more or less halves when the target is heading in the opposite direction.

I have not researched data linking of Sukhoi thirties, but I do beleive it will be extremely hard for four Flankers, even data linked, will be abled to effectively detect Raptors at fairly long ranges. Even WVR with all an aircrafts radar energy focused in HUD limits with a Raptor in sight, it has been dificult to even lock onto them then.

I will look it up now.

I hope that makes my views clear and my ignorance not too plain; please correct me wherever you see reason to.

lol, wtf?



Personally, I beleive that pilots should be trained special tactics to outmaneuver missiles, because if you don't, you'll be blown from the sky. The reason why I think this is because every aircraft can see the direction on which he's been locked up in, and every aircraft can lock onto eachother.

A F-15 could lock onto four Flankers in Track While Scan (TWS) and launch four missiles at four different targets. While the F-15 would be hit by 15 missiles at once, there's very good chance that atleast one missile would be a kill.

Or.

What if each side waits for the enemy to launch a missile. You could then just turn around and the missile would run out of overtake speed. Maybe each side could run out of missiles before planes? Of course, the later you shoot the higher probability for it to hit.

P.S. Get a game called Lock On: Modern Air Combat (LOMAC). It may be a game but it does teach you quiet allot.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Vanguard223
The amount of upgrades required to bring a Mig-25 up to par with an F-22 would turn it into an entirely different aircraft.

The Mig-31; not a entirely different aircraft.

There is no way in hell a Mig-25 could compete with a Raptor. Not in a million years.

Why?

I can't think of one single area where the Foxbat would have an edge over a Raptor.

Well then i suppose you should stop thinking as your wasting your time doing so without any relevent knowledge.

The thing is nearly as big as a 737 and probably has the radar cross section of one.

So the hell what? Since when is seeing a threat first in any way proof that it can be defeated? Sure it lends advantageous but sometimes the only advantage it knowing that it's a good time to run away; unsupported infantry versus tanks, etc.

As far as the Mig-25 scoring an A to A kill in Desert Storm...even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And as the USAF proved in Vietnam having enough broken clocks is enough to almost win you war against a third world nation.

The fact that it was a Mig-25 and not a Flanker or Fulcrum screams "right place, right time" to me.

Or it might prove that speed is a very important factor or that even under the worse circumstances a Mig-25 have the 'right stuff' to get 'lucky'; how lucky it might have gotten when fighting over very well defended airspace in cooperation with several hundred similar aircraft is any one's guess.

I think i have made it clear just how 'lucky' i believe it would have been in 1985 over Germany and France.

Stellar

Originally posted by C0bzz
The AMRAAM does not need to be guided to the target before it activates its self guidance, though, it helps hit probability (which is already high). It's the same as the system you described in your post I think.

The ARH only happens in the terminal phase which is about 20 km's for the R-77 and as far as i can tell about the same for the Aim-120.

www.raytheon.com...

Both aircraft will in effect have to turn away at the same general time and the advantage will still be on the side who can launch first and who have more missiles to expend. In this situation the ability of the Su's to turn away and run while providing mid course updates by means of a tail radar/data-link is in my opinion quite critical.

When the Raptor has to disengage, it could just turn around and go full burners upto fifty thousand and supercruise.

Supercruise is a meaningless term as the Su-27/30/35 can all go further than the F-22 at the same mach 1.7 that is touted as 'supercruising'.

Renember, even with hot exhaust, missile range is more or less halves when the target is heading in the opposite direction.

At Mach 1.7 the interception ranges in tail chase situations is about 1/4 -1/3 of stated long range high altitude head on intercepts; it quickly turns into WVR.

I have not researched data linking of Sukhoi thirties, but I do beleive it will be extremely hard for four Flankers, even data linked, will be abled to effectively detect Raptors at fairly long ranges.

Spread out over a 100 km's on the horizontal plane and 10 km on vertical plane four Flankers are going to be able to get sufficient data to launch R-77's on and precise data is not required as the missiles receives mid course updates. A single F-22 is unlikely to stay and fight against ripple fired R-77's from four directions and i believe the same will be true for 10 raptors against 30 - 50 Su-35's.

Even WVR with all an aircrafts radar energy focused in HUD limits with a Raptor in sight, it has been dificult to even lock onto them then.

I don't believe those results are accurate for a number of reasons i will go into if you believe that it in fact is.

lol, wtf?

I am after all a arm-chair general and wargamer and if you can not sometimes indulge in self mockery, and especially when your 1500 planet empire collapses, your not going to learn anything and probably get sick trying....

Personally, I beleive that pilots should be trained special tactics to outmaneuver missiles, because if you don't, you'll be blown from the sky.

Modern air to air missiles can not be out flown by manned machines and i think pilots should rather be trained how to eject properly than get into WVR maneuvering contests against missiles. If the ECM/ ECCM can't spoof it, if you can't kill it starts killing you and towed or ejected decoys can't beat it you need to work on those fundamentals or simply stop building manned planes that can't pull the type of G's that you must to defeat missiles you can't stop by any other means. If i were running things my pilots would be sitting in well hidden bunkers flying small drones that do not mind suiciding themselves; manned aircraft in the days of direct energy weapons ( yes, all the 'superpowers' have them) is pretty stupid but that's what you get when generals and admirals derive their power from having men to command.

The reason why I think this is because every aircraft can see the direction on which he's been locked up in, and every aircraft can lock onto eachother.

That depends entirely on the RWR technology a host of other electronic surveillance as you well know. In intense ECM/ECCM environments it is those who gain such awareness that is likely to win and it's the reason why the USSR have redundant ground and air based assets to ensure that the flow of information is not interrupted.

A F-15 could lock onto four Flankers in Track While Scan (TWS) and launch four missiles at four different targets. While the F-15 would be hit by 15 missiles at once, there's very good chance that atleast one missile would be a kill.

Even Amraams are likely to be ripple fired and a F-15 can not take on four flankers without running out of missiles by assigning two per target. The Flankers are in the lucky position that whichever aircraft is not fired on can simply keep on providing mid course updates for all the missiles in flight while the targeted flankers turn and run while sending the mid course updates trough tail mounted radar.

Or.

What if each side waits for the enemy to launch a missile. You could then just turn around and the missile would run out of overtake speed. Maybe each side could run out of missiles before planes? Of course, the later you shoot the higher probability for it to hit.

The later you shoot the better the chances of a hit but that goes for both sides and then the side with the most airframes going in is very like to come out with the most. All the arguments for the F-22 assumes detection at long ranges to be unlikely but i have no reason to believe this to so

P.S. Get a game called Lock On: Modern Air Combat (LOMAC). It may be a game but it does teach you quiet allot.

I am a strategy gamer as might be obvious from my logistical approach to these and other topics.

Stellar

there are 32 AESA equiped combat AIR TO AIR aircraft (other than the raptor) in the US fleet - 24 in the USN and 18 in the USAF.

also , as much as the `range` of the AIM120 is great - ROE will mean unless you have a 100% gurenteed shot then the shot will be made usually at about 30km`s - and the israelies go for WVR combat in preference (wvr confirmed kill)

StellarX,

Your posts, through your lack of rational thought, have made it obvious that you're either a Mig fan boy or an America hater. I shouldn't need to explain why a Mig-25 is no match for an F-22. Are you freaking serious?!
By your train of thought, why would we ever design new aircraft at all? Why not still field F-86's....hell, why not P-51's? That's it! Russia can save a lot of money by just upgrading Sopwith Camels with data links and rear facing radars! Oh wait....but those aren't Russian built aircraft so they're obviously inferior in every way, right?

Give me a break, your posts smack of fanboism. It's hard to hold a rational conversation with someone who thinks Migs are the second coming of Jesus Christ. Here's a little test for you. What's your opinion on how F-22's would stand up against Typhoons or Rafales, all other factors being equal?

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Give me a break, your posts smack of fanboism.

Thats rich coming from the poster that declared all Chinese equipment to be crap, without even knowing what equipment they are talking about!




As for the EF/Rafale vs. F-22 debate, there is another thread on the first page that mentions *RUMOURS* [I'll say that again incase someone didn't get it the first time - RUMOURS] of a Typhoon getting a radar track on an F-22 from a long distance.

Thus, without further substantial evidence, in a square off between a Typhoon and F-22 equipped with optimal A2A loadouts [that'll be 120D vs. Meteor], I really wouldn't want to speculate too much.

I would expect the F-22 to have the better kill rate, but not by the margins some might like to imagine.

I'm well aware this post was not directed at me, but I'll have a go at it just for old time's sake.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Your posts, through your lack of rational thought, have made it obvious that you're either a Mig fan boy or an America hater. I shouldn't need to explain why a Mig-25 is no match for an F-22. Are you freaking serious?!
By your train of thought, why would we ever design new aircraft at all? Why not still field F-86's....hell, why not P-51's? That's it! Russia can save a lot of money by just upgrading Sopwith Camels with data links and rear facing radars! Oh wait....but those aren't Russian built aircraft so they're obviously inferior in every way, right?

The MiG-25 is not a match for a Raptor under the traditional head-on BVR conflict. We're well aware of that. But what you're completely ignoring are a couple of nifty facts about the MiG-25 that could theoretically be used to put a dent in a Raptor if its occupant was less than observant. Shall we use an example? I don't know about we, but I sure will.

In a theoretical situation where we have an F-22 doing something or other, and a MiG-25 (for whatever reason) coming up behind, someone will have a problem. The F-22, although having exceptional front and side RCS decreases, has a problem of having a (radar-signature-wise) fat ass. What this means is that the MiG-25 (with it's absolutley colossal radar) may or may not be able to detect it (An F-22 actually being detected by any source that could possibly want to do it harm? The blasphemy of it all! It's the rapture, people!) and uncage weaponry.

Moving on with that concept, let's take a look at Foxbat's big brother, the Foxhound. Specifically, the MiG-31M since it's the newest one, and if there are Raptor's about you want the best shot at taking one down, da? The MiG-31 shares many traits with the MiG-25, including high speed, high altitude, and big radar. Oh, and before I go any further, most of the older MiG-31's have, in fact, been converted to M standard, so an encounter is not entirely impossible if Russia and the US were to ever square off.

Now check this out. The Russians currently have outfitted the MiG-31M to carry the R-172 missile. That's a range of 400 km at Mach 4. Also, it's fitted to carry the R-37 Arrow, which goes 300 km at Mach 6. The MiG-31's enormous radar allows the missile to be effective at such ranges. Yes, both these missiles are made for high-value asset-whacking, but an F-22 is pretty valuable.

So, although in a traditional Top-Gun-style standoff, a MiG-25 is not going to do anything. Most likely, neither will a 31. This trick is to use the aircraft for what they were designed to do- intercept them and harass them from far away, especially when they're already occupied. I mean, could you imagine the potential for 4 inbound MiG 25's as some F-22's skirmish with a few Su-35's? Even you have to admit, that used properly any aircraft could feasibly do something to an F-22. It's just that traditional 1-on-1 fights which, realistically speaking, don't happen aren't a particularly good way to compare all types of aircraft.

Give me a break, your posts smack of fanboism. It's hard to hold a ratonal conversation with someone who thinks Migs are the second coming of Jesus Christ. Here's a little test for you. What's your opinion on how F-22's would stand up against Typhoons or Rafales, all other factors being equal?

Don't get me started on fanboism. It's hard to hold a rational conversation with someone who disregards all the tactical possibilities in favor of a single 1-on-1, head-on duel between two fighters. While, yes, the F-22 does represent a significant advantage in BVR combat, it's not just about seeing your enemy, uncaging a couple of missiles, and seeing a little "SUCCESS" go up on the HUD. You have to consider possibilities of WVR, reinforcements, and different ways to use aircraft that aren't used in the role of standoff air-superiority. Considering other possibilities, you can see how a MiG-31 could be useful, and even a MiG-25.