Is The S-37 Fighter Up There With The F-22 ?!?!

Originally posted by waynos
...I didn't say that the US doesn't know what its doing at all and I think you know that.

Damn! you found me again! maybe I really am a glass yank!

I too was referring to the marvel of engineering video and in particular the part where the Raptor comes to a standstill and is then obscured by engine smoke as it begins the tail slide. the last aerial footage before the production line shots.

Yeah! I saw that again and I have to agree their is smoke but you don't think that it is engine smoke do you! That's way too much!
I think it must be some sorta smokeflare or something to show its manevers because when it is flying level their is no smoke at all also that much smoke makes it look as if it has an engine fire! I don't think they would put that in a "marvel of engineering video"

IAF

Some more charts for you guy's

Lucretius

Please cite a source or link for your posted figures. They are required when you quote or post material from another site or reference.

Thanks
FredT

IAF101 why is it that you always tend to take statement I�ve made completely out of context and manipulate it in order to prove theory that is absolutely baseless? All you do is try to try to cover up unawareness with borrowed intelligence - All you did was a copy and paste job, so don�t act like it�s the gospel itself.
Please don�t keep harping upon �supercruise� by now we all know what supercruise is. Yes I am completely aware of the fact that the Su 37 achieve mach 3+ using afterburners, but my point was if we are going to compare the statistics or both aircraft, at least state some stats on the F-22 other than the fact that it is able to supercruise at mach 1.4 which seems sad but true. I�m sorry I never bothered to check any of the links you provided prior to now, but in relation to max speed all it say is mach 1.8 ? and regarding range it says absolutely nothing except that it greatly exceeds the range of other current fighters � 1. the Su 37 is not current, it hasn�t even come out for Christ�s sake, so it definitely couldn�t be referring to the Su 37 when making that statement.
Integrated avionics � I was merely stating the obvious in response to an earlier statement made by you � �It is the first aircraft to use integrated avionics, where the radar, weapons management system and electronic warfare system work as one� � well all I meant was Su 37 incorporates the same system. You also sounded that you were insinuating that Russian aircraft don�t incorporate the same western style system of avionics, well you�re right when it comes to the Su 37 Super flanker / Berkut have far superior avionics then any current US fighter, with exception maybe only to the F-22 since at this point in time we don�t have any knowledge or proof as to its true capabilities.
Regarding thrust � from the links you provided it states that the F-22 engine produces approximately 35.000 lbs of wet thrust compare that to the near 37,000 lbs and you will have your answer as to which engine is more powerful. What happened to the thrust to weight ration 12:1 for the Su 37 � you stated the F-22 is almost as close to it, my friend as I said almost as close amount to second best.
Now I know you�ll probably go on about �supercruise�, please get this into your thick head, the final Su 37 version will be able to supercruise, at what speed I don�t know at this point in time. Incase you are unaware of the new engine developed to power the Su 37, it consitis of titanium and various alloys which incorporates digitally mechanized engine control. The Su 37 thrust vectoring engine nozzle fully integrated into the aircraft permutation in order to act as interlaced equipment. Thrust vectoring is an integrated part of Su 37�s flight control system, which allows for flawless integration of all apparatus working in response to pilot instructions.
America might want to delude itself into believing that it is the only nation that develops cutting edge aircraft, a point we all know if far from true! The Su 27, Su 30MK and MiG 29E/S are far superior to any of your F-15�s 16�s, in terms of engine design, airframe design, maneuverability etc. The only aspect where they are on par is avionics.


[edit on 20-12-2004 by eastern_block]

www.afa.org...

posted again as I can not find the edit option

Yes,the Su-27 Airframe was so sucessful that they went on to develope many other planes based on the airframe,like say Su-30 (canard and avonics and refuelling),Su-33 (folding wings and canard),Su-37(not S-37,canard,avonics,refuelling and engines),and a whole lot of other flankers. It is a fact that the Russian Su-27s are superior to the F-15 and the MiG-29 superior to the F-16,but US training and tactics are superior.The USA also have more advanced radars,and with the F-22 now the Russians better watch out.

Hi, come on, the 3-D Vector Thruster is NOT ALWAYS better than the 2-D Vector Thruster !! Whoever need any more details, we can make further discussions.

According to the most recent official specifications, today's F/A-22 can do supercruise at M1.7+ (M1.4 is the YF-22's limit) without afterburer. Actually F/A-22 only can fly on M2.1, but the max speed is not limited by its engine. The melting point of its stealth coat won't allow raptor run faster than M2.1.

But history CLEARLY show U.S. Training AND tactics are NOT superior what in the world are YOU talking about????????????

[edit on 21-12-2004 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by eastern_block
...but my point was if we are going to compare the statistics or both aircraft, at least state some stats on the F-22 other than the fact that it is able to supercruise at mach 1.4 which seems sad but true.

OK EasternBlock, you have to understand this- Unlike in the former soviet union we here in the USA don't have a "For Sale" sign on every thing(even if its christmas!) thats why "ALL" the details and specs of the F-22 are not available - because its " classified ". In russia they might scream till their hoarse on all the supposedly "better than American planes" they have but thats what they say all the time because their economy depends on it. America on the other hand doesn't need to sell military hardware to survive economically and so their are many things which are " classified "! Comprende??

I�m sorry I never bothered to check any of the links you provided prior to now, but in relation to max speed all it say is mach 1.8 ?

You should be - wasted so much time typing The facts of the max speed are never the same in any two places for the F-22, its pure speculation! Also the max speed is around M2 at 'sea level' so you can expect that speed to increase considerably at its service ceiling of around 60,000 feet!

and regarding range it says absolutely nothing except that it greatly exceeds the range of other current fighters � 1. the Su 37 is not current, it hasn�t even come out for Christ�s sake, so it definitely couldn�t be referring to the Su 37 when making that statement.

Again the numbers? It is "speculated" the F-22 can fly 2000 miles that's without refuling and in ferry mode it can go about 6000Km [with four 600lb tanks and 4 AA missiles].
When Lockheed Martin made their statement, all the specs of the Su-37 were already out and so they must know about them to make a statement as such.
Also in the S-37 CTD only will most probably never fly because it is plauged with problems- chord area problems with wings, resolution required new carbon fibre and compound solutions which made it too expensive as a production asset. In addition it has a restricted weapons loadout due to wing config. It's RCS was high and is not conducive to stealth development due to reflection and angle issues.

when it comes to the Su 37 Super flanker / Berkut have far superior avionics then any current US fighter, with exception maybe only to the F-22 since at this point in time we don�t have any knowledge or proof as to its true capabilities.

So YOU say, have you any links to back this up or is this mere ranting?
ALL Russian planes have CRAPY avionics when compaed to American aircraft because we are the leader in aircraft avionics by a 100 miles! By saying that the Su-37 has better avionics than the pervious fighter like F-15 or F-16 will not change the fact that it doesn't - why they don't have enough money to get it off the ground, forget about advanced technology!
Also the true and complete capabilities of the F-22 will only be known when we have another system even better than the F-22 which will be maybe in the next 20 years[ taking comparision to F-15C] .

Regarding thrust � from the links you provided it states that the F-22 engine produces approximately 35.000 lbs of wet thrust compare that to the near 37,000 lbs and you will have your answer as to which engine is more powerful.

Judgeing from your reply it shows that you have very little understanding of engines. You can't bring it down to just numbers - its depends more on the utilization of the thrust produced from each individual engine and on the design parameters on which the aircraft is ment to function. The F-22 produces more thrust than the F-15[29,000lbs](which could reach Mach 2.5+) that clearly shows that speed isn't a main criteria for the F-22's design, also the F-22 is said to have 39,000lbs of thrust but the fact that it doesn't acheive mach 3 isn't because it can't, its because it isn't supposed to according to the design ! this is because variable inlets are hard to make stealthy. However, the F-22 is able to attain its maximum speed (around mach 2) with all weapons and most of the fuel; something which no other fighter is capable of. Maximum speed is set by airframe temperatures and by the use of fixed geometry air inlets.
Why the F-22 isn't the fastest

What happened to the thrust to weight ration 12:1 for the Su 37 � you stated the F-22 is almost as close to it, my friend as I said almost as close amount to second best.

The numbers game again! Thrust to weight ratio gives you info about its
the acceleration of an aircraft to attain its max cruise speed or its rate of climb.
WHAT?!! 12:1 thrust- weight ratio. Where do you get your facts from? - Post some links that show thrust weight ratio of 12 - I dare you !
You can't because its impossible!:lol I think you have misunderstood, it would be more like 1.2:1, this shows beyond doubt that you have no clue about aircrafts and are posting figments of your immagination on this thread.
BTW the F-22 has a thrust-weight ratio of 1.4:1 which is still higher than the Su-37's 1.2:1.
proof

America might want to delude itself into believing that it is the only nation that develops cutting edge aircraft, a point we all know if far from true! The Su 27, Su 30MK and MiG 29E/S are far superior to any of your F-15�s 16�s, in terms of engine design, airframe design, maneuverability etc. The only aspect where they are on par is avionics.

Their is no delusion just fact- America makes the better planes than Russia- no doubt about it. An F-15C can easily take out an Mig-29 and the F-16 would have no problem in coming out unscathed after bringing down an Su-27. The Su-30MK on the other hand could engage an F-16 and cause a problem. The only competition that russian aircraft present is the Su-30Mk the rest are just obsolete and only belong in airshows and museums ! The russians concentrate more only performing aerobatics to please their customers instead of building a aircraft that can actually win a fight. Unreliable engines and costly spares along with huge delays in the procurement of spares drives home the point that buying russian planes is "penny wise pound foolish".

[edit on 21-12-2004 by IAF101]

IAF... a recent study showed that the US F16 and F15 were inferior to the Su-30, losing roughly on average 1.5 F15's for every Su-30 lost in a high profile simulation

Lucretius.. I agree that the su-30MK is as good if not better than the F-16/F-15 but the Mig-29 and Su-27 are clearly outperformed by the F-15 and the F-16 respectively. The F-15 falls behind the Su-30Mk as shown by the recent air exercises in India.

Originally posted by IAF101
Lucretius.. I agree that the su-30MK is as good if not better than the F-16/F-15 but the Mig-29 and Su-27 are clearly outperformed by the F-15 and the F-16 respectively. The F-15 falls behind the Su-30Mk as shown by the recent air exercises in India.

IAF101 I simply cannot agree with that last message posted by you. True the Su-30MK is far superior to the F-15 / F-16 , no arguements as far as that is concerned, but so is the Su 27 version E / M and the MiG 29 M / S. - I'm not saying the later two I mentioned are "far" superior, but in terms of maneuvrability, and the new and upgraded avionics both planes incorporate, including the new NVIP rader wouldn't you say on an overall basis they are superior?
Also regarding the joing exercises conducted in India The US was using F-15's the Indian airforce was using Su 30MK's (note not the Su 30MKI), and Su 27's aquired prior to obtainging the Su-30MK's. In both circumstances the Su 27 / 30MK came out on top. Infact those exercises resulted in a white wash of the US - India winning 9 - 0.
One more point concerning an earlier post of yours - you stated that where the thrust to weight ration were concerned the F-22 had a ratio of 1.4:1, is that so?? Regarding the 12:1 I posted earlier, I stated 12:1 because in this part of the world our system of conversion defers from what you use in the US, please don't misinterprete what I meant..

Originally posted by IAF101
Lucretius.. I agree that the su-30MK is as good if not better than the F-16/F-15 but the Mig-29 and Su-27 are clearly outperformed by the F-15 and the F-16 respectively. The F-15 falls behind the Su-30Mk as shown by the recent air exercises in India.

Oh yeah?

Now, The MiG-29 is far behind the F-16? It is common knowledge, that in East Germany in 1991, the F-16 lost 49:1 to a MiG-29. As long it was close combat, the F-16 lost MAJORLY. Now, it was more fair in Air-to-Air, but you must remember that it was a pretty old MiG-29 without latest upgrades (Radar, Missiles)

Now, For the F-15 vs. Su-27 Case..

In Langley (Virginia), August 1992, There was a test battle between the F-15 and the Su-27UB.

It was basically the Eagle that was supposed to outmaneuver the Flanker to then tail him. From the Russian side, Maj. Karabasov flew.

The F-15 set the engine on full power, and set on forcage. Now the Russian plane easily held on his ass using lowest level of forcage and turning on the antiforcage pulling(bad english).

The Flanker never used an AOA higher than 18 degrees...

The roles now changed, Karabasov took a turn and started moving away. The F-15 pilot at one time was yelling "Where is the flanker?!" The Russian major took a turn and held behind the Eagle again.. And if this was reality, A eagle would now fall..

(Aerohobby, 1993)

49:1 lol Where do you guys get these numbers. That is impossible just by the law of averages. I read a report in an Airforce magazine which featured German MIG-29s vs. American F-18s. I can assure you that there was no gap between the aircraft. Especially this 49:1 number you seem to have pulled out of the air.

Originally posted by eastern_block
One more point concerning an earlier post of yours - you stated that where the thrust to weight ration were concerned the F-22 had a ratio of 1.4:1, is that so?? Regarding the 12:1 I posted earlier, I stated 12:1 because in this part of the world our system of conversion defers from what you use in the US, please don't misinterprete what I meant..

Thats BS and you must surely know it. Thrust to weight ratios are a universal measurement, they don't differ from country to country. A ratio of 1.2:1 means precisely that the amount of thrust produced is 1.2 times the aircrafts weight, how else can it be interpreted? 12:1 is so laughable, don't even try to wriggle out with that excuse.

Originally posted by subcane
49:1 lol Where do you guys get these numbers. That is impossible just by the law of averages. I read a report in an Airforce magazine which featured German MIG-29s vs. American F-18s. I can assure you that there was no gap between the aircraft. Especially this 49:1 number you seem to have pulled out of the air.

F-18's, i said F-16

F-18 is a different story, F-18 is a better plane than F-16..

The Russians can build nice show aircraft, but in terms of mass-production, they are terrible. Their aircraft have avionics with processor technology from the 1970s in them, and the construction of their planes is very shoddy. On an American F-15, the parts are interchangeable with another F-15. On a Russian aircraft, the parts are kind of individual to each aircraft, which makes interchangeability rather lousy. This is one of the main reasons why the United States would never buy Russian aircraft even.

As it stands, the Navy's F-18 E/F, with its avionics and current pilots, could most likely take on any Russian aircraft right now, let alone the F-22 Raptor.

You also forget that half the Raptor's features are classified. It is meant to be able to take on many many aircraft.

And America has a habit of actually doing things that it CAN do. The Russians have a habit of making a really super showoff, wow-'em type of aircraft, that is way too expensive to buy and field.

The American military purchases the quality aircraft that will last a long time that it can field within its budget, and the aircraft designers build them according to these specifications.

The fact of the matter is that America IS amongst the best when it comes to fighter aircraft and pilot training. In the Korean War, the Korean and Russian pilots had the Mig that could out-accelerate and out--climb the F-86 Sabres, yet because of superior training, the American pilots still shot down far more aircraft than the Migs shot down Sabres.

In a pure aerial-to-aerial dogfight, a Sukhoi is tough for an F-15 or F-16, but not from a distance avionics-wise. And with superior pilot training it all depends. But with an F-022, superior avionics, superior maneuverability, and superior training equals superior force.

An F-22's acceleration is like firing the afterburners in an F-15, and the aircraft can fly its entire mission on supercruise, so I don't know where people get the idea that it has weak engines.




[edit on 23-12-2004 by Broadsword20068]

The Russians can build nice show aircraft, but in terms of mass-production, they are terrible. Their aircraft have avionics with processor technology from the 1970s in them, and the construction of their planes is very shoddy. On an American F-15, the parts are interchangeable with another F-15. On a Russian aircraft, the parts are kind of individual to each aircraft, which makes interchangeability rather lousy. This is one of the main reasons why the United States would never buy Russian aircraft even.

They are indeed nice show aircraft, BUT, they are very easilly produced, they use state-of-the-art computer systems which are CLOSE to being as good as the western counter parts, the older MiG-29's might be equipted with 70's processor technology JUST like the American F-15A's...
The construction is not the greatest since they are produced MUCH cheaper than US aircraft, but they are AIR worthy...and why would they make individual parts? they use the same blueprint for every aircraft...just like the US, they are ALL interchangable and CAN TAKE OFF FROM DIRT RUNWAYS unlike the US aircraft...so there

As it stands, the Navy's F-18 E/F, with its avionics and current pilots, could most likely take on any Russian aircraft right now, let alone the F-22 Raptor.

The F/A-18E/F would stand a chance against a SU-30, but more than likely will be beaten in Both short and Long range, medium range is probably which the Super Hornet excels at, the The Super Hornet proved it self against thrid world countries with already decimated airforces, hardly a match...The F/A-22 would be their best bet right now...

You also forget that half the Raptor's features are classified. It is meant to be able to take on many many aircraft

.

I wouldn't say half, and I doubt it's hiding any secret weapons of any kind, as for stealth, the russians are not in the least worried about that since they can detect all kinds of stealth, stealth is only useful against outdated radar systems...

And America has a habit of actually doing things that it CAN do. The Russians have a habit of making a really super showoff, wow-'em type of aircraft, that is way too expensive to buy and field.

The F/A-22 costs nearly 300 million per aircraft, probably less in the future, but it will still be a 100-300million dollar aircraft, the Russian aircraft will probably go for half that price or even less...

The American military purchases the quality aircraft that will last a long time that it can field within its budget, and the aircraft designers build them according to these specifications.

Yeah, because they'd never take off from airfields that are COMPLETELY free from depris and they actually have the money to maintain their aircraft, Russia runs on a limited budget...

The fact of the matter is that America IS amongst the best when it comes to fighter aircraft and pilot training. In the Korean War, the Korean and Russian pilots had the Mig that could out-accelerate and out--climb the F-86 Sabres, yet because of superior training, the American pilots still shot down far more aircraft than the Migs shot down Sabres.

Got any proof? I do believe the MiG-19 was vastly superior and the MiG-19 actually made the US develop the F-104 Starfighter because they were outmatched...I do have to agree with pilot training, the US makes sure that pilots are very well trained...

In a pure aerial-to-aerial dogfight, a Sukhoi is tough for an F-15 or F-16, but not from a distance avionics-wise. And with superior pilot training it all depends. But with an F-022, superior avionics, superior maneuverability, and superior training equals superior force.

Well, Long Range is a big issue too now, with the R-27 and R-77 out there, they have greater range, the R-77 "AMRAAMski" has better overal stats compared to the AIM-120...

An F-22's acceleration is like firing the afterburners in an F-15, and the aircraft can fly its entire mission on supercruise, so I don't know where people get the idea that it has weak engines.

The topspeed of the F-22 is about mach 1.8, the F-15 has a topspeed of mach 2.5, thus they call the engines weak, I don't agree, I believe acceleration is better in any case...

I don't mean to bash you or America, but I just want to argue with the fact that America thinks they are the greatest, they are very good in designing weapons, but Russia is very good as well and they deserve attention since they form a threat Americans are ignorant about...

I will repeat this again, I love America and Americans, but I do not aproof of them being arrogant and ignorant...Russia is MORE than a threat to the US, let's hope they never wage war together....

I'd have to disagree on the stealth issue; they've tried very hard to detect the Raptor, and it is very difficult to detect. Also, stealth isn't its only main area.

And yes, the Russians make the parts interchangeable, but due to shoddy craftsmanship, each individual part isn't made as precise as it should be, and thus they aren't as interchangeable as they should be.

As for dirt runways, how do you know American aircraft can't take off from them?

Also, the avionics in the Russian aircraft may have newer, flashier screens and digital displays, but the processor technology behind them is still very old.

And the Russian aircraft being simply "airworthy" isn't enough. The aircraft needs to be quality, and be maintainable. You can't have parts that don't interchange well in the aircraft the way they are right now.

America does not think it is amongst the best, nor does it ignore world threats, it thinks it is AMONGST the best because it is.

And the Russians build damn fine aircraft, they just don't have the avionics development up to par totally, and as for the construction, that is just because they are on a shorter budget than the U.S. military. Remember though that the U.S. military is on a limited budget too.

The reason the Russian aircraft have funny parts that make maintanence a nightmare is because of their industry right now.

As for the F-86 Sabres and the Migs in the Korean War, the Mig aircraft WAS a lot better than the F-86, and America didn't like being technologically outclassed. But the American pilot training was superior. Just google it, there is lots of info about it on the web I am sure.

Oh, and I would not say "Russia is MORE than a threat to the U.S." maybe nuclear-wise, otherwise, no way in hell. Their air force would not stand a chance against the current U.S. air forces, they have no bluewater navy, and their battle tanks cannot compare to the U.S. Abrams tanks; near the end of the Cold War, the Russians were even becoming concerned about how so many weapons were coming out that could blow their tanks to smitherines. The Russian way to build a tank was to make it light, cheap, and to not give too much of a damn about the crew (i.e. place the ammunition inside). Their theory was tanks are expendable, so just make lots and lots of them. The U.S. theory was tanks aren't expendable, so make them survive as best as possible, and keep the crew as safe as possible.



[edit on 23-12-2004 by Broadsword20068]