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

I don't get your point, are you trying to say that a MiG-21 could take out a F-22, and that the S-37 is far to surperior to be fighting a plane of inferior statuer.

Please exsplain your ponint

Best Air Supperiority Fighter in the WORLD !

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Kenshin]

Sorry , but the Raptor is the Best. It is more of a stealth plane than the stealth fighter. It can out move any plane in the sky, period.

In a fight, the enemy would be practicaly dead before he knew the f-22 was there.

Originally posted by Kenshin

Best Air Supperiority Fighter in the WORLD !

[edit on 14-10-2004 by Kenshin]

looks like you are blindfolded pro MIG... too bad

su-30mk2 wipes its *** with mig-29...

1. F-22
2. Su-30MK2

but if you are talking about MIG-29SMT-2.... that's whole different story (5th generation aircraft by RU standards, 4++ by western)


[edit on 16-10-2004 by titus]

err ... wtf, im a pro MiG supporter, your the one with a S37 and su-30mk2 in your avatar, so you must be a 'pro sukhoi'

... *coff*

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Sorry , but the Raptor is the Best. It is more of a stealth plane than the stealth fighter. It can out move any plane in the sky, period.

In a fight, the enemy would be practicaly dead before he knew the f-22 was there.

that really depends if the enemy has awacs AND if the enemy is an F23 or not although they dont realy exist thats not the point.
dont grow dependant on the raptor it may take the air but enough anti air would bring it down, im not putting the plane down i like it but dont really love it, im just saying everyone seems hyped on this plane.

Originally posted by Kenshin
err ... wtf, im a pro MiG supporter, your the one with a S37 and su-30mk2 in your avatar, so you must be a 'pro sukhoi'

... *coff*

i have MiG-1.44 and Su-47 in my avatar... no su-30...

btw, i love both MiG and Su, so you can consider me as pro-mig/su

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
Sorry , but the Raptor is the Best. It is more of a stealth plane than the stealth fighter. It can out move any plane in the sky, period.

In a fight, the enemy would be practicaly dead before he knew the f-22 was there.

that really depends if the enemy has awacs AND if the enemy is an F23 or not although they dont realy exist thats not the point.

They exist more so then the S-37 and Mig 1.44 do. So I would say the revised list starts off like this...

1) Y/F-23 Black Widow II
2) F/A-22 Raptor
3) best of the rest....

dont grow dependant on the raptor it may take the air but enough anti air would bring it down, im not putting the plane down i like it but dont really love it, im just saying everyone seems hyped on this plane.

The reason for the hype is well deserved. It has stealth aproaching that of the B-2, yet can cruise at speeds over Mach 1. Combine that with TVC and the revolutionary avionics and computing power of the plane, along with it's ability as a strike aircraft and anti missle plat form - not to mention the EW abilities and all of the things we DON'T know about - and i'd say it is worthy of the hype.

In real world situations, I doubt any enemy airraft could bring this thing down. Mark my words - it will continue the unbeaten streak of the Eagle.

American Mad Man, America are not the best at everything, as I think you believe that they are. Just because America says its the best doesn't mean that it actually is... Yes the F-22 is a great plane but how do you know that it can beat its Russian counter-parts ??? As your name sugest you are a
'American Mad Man'

- Deny Ignorance -

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Kenshin]

Name: MiG-35
Prime Contractor: MiG-MAPO
Nation Of Origin: Russia
Function: Multi-role fighter
Crew: 1
First Flight: 1999
In-Service Year: ?
Engine: Two Lyulka AL-41F vectored-thrust afterburning turbofans, 39,340 lb thrust each Wing Span: 15 m / 49 ft 3 in
Length: 19 m / 62 ft 4 in
Height: 6 m / 19 ft 8 in
Canard Span: 5 m / 16 ft 5 in
Weight (approx.): 33,069 lb empty / 44,092 lb max. take off
Ceiling: N/A
Speed at altitude: In excess of 2,448 km/h / 1,521 mph at super cruise: In excess of 1,224 km/h / 760 mph
Range: N/A
Armament: Unknown but surely any AAMs in Russian arsenal

Name: F-22
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin Tactical
Nation Of Origin: United States of America
Function: Air superiority fighter
Crew: 1
First Flight: September 7, 1997
In-Service Year: 2004
Engine: N/A
Length: 18.90 m / 62.08 ft
Height: 5.08 m / 16.67 ft
Canard Span: N/A
Weight (approx.): N/A
Ceiling: N/A
Speed at altitude: Mach 1.8 (super-cruise: Mach 1.5)
Range: N/A
Armament: Two AIM-9 Sidewinders, six AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), one 20mm Gatling gun, two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)

The stats on the MiG-35 in my opinion are much better

Stats are from: www.fas.org...

[edit on 17-10-2004 by Kenshin]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
In real world situations, I doubt any enemy airraft could bring this thing down. Mark my words - it will continue the unbeaten streak of the Eagle.

hmm mabye.
still if it gets into a dogfight then its gona be bad cause if it uses the mach 1.5/ 2 speeds its stealth is gona fail but i agree no air craft right now can but give it time.
are we talking about the f15 eagle or the american eagle here?

"http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/index.html"

"The F/A-22�s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.."

"The air threat to the United States in the year 2005 and beyond is real.
Current Russian fighters are already on par with America�s best fighter, the F-15. Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters will surpass the F-15; they are set to roll off production lines by 2005
At least three foreign aircraft threaten to surpass the F-15�s performance in the near future: the French Rafale, the Eurofighter 2000 and the Russian Su-35. Some foreign aircraft are already at parity with the F-15
Nations are already denying America access to airspace around the globe by obtaining low-cost, but sophisticated, surface-to-air missile systems
Highly capable surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems pose a formidable challenge to the F-15�s survivability. Advanced SAM systems, because of their relatively low cost, are a quick and easy way for countries to modernize their air defense systems
Estimated twenty-one countries will possess the most advanced systems by 2005 "

Both Mikoyan-Gurevitch MiG-35 and OKB Sukhoi Su-47 can beat a F/A-22.
The F-15 can be beaten with a MiG-29, or a Su-27.

Recently the Discovery wings channel aired a program, on just this subject (about two weeks ago?). I saw footage of the SU-37 doing a manuver called the (something or other) super-cobra which was just amazing. The jet, using its thrust vectoring, can literally fly forward and rotate 360 degrees and appear to enter a controlled tumble (end-over-end) yet fly straight forward except for a brief moment when it is actually flying in the opposite direction. It was a breath-taking display of manuverability and it has to be seen to be believed.

The program's central thesis regarding a comparison between the F-22 & Su-37 was that the F-22 had a decided weapons system and avionics advantage. But-if the Su-37 managed to get in close, it could possibly outmanuver the Rapter in a close-in dogfight.

This view is a continuation of the MIG-29 debate. I recently read on a MIG-29 website that a German airforce (Luftwaffe) pilot who flies the fighter (inhereted from the East German AF) that he, in excercises geared to prepare coalition pilots for the first Gulf War, had a hard time getting close to F-15's, F-16's, Mirages, and Tornados before he was "killed" by a missile strike. But if he could get past the Western technology, the MIG-29 would "kill" western aircraft at an embaressingly high ratio. His MIG was so agile and manuverable that he virtually could'nt lose in a close dogfight. The following is text taken from the this extensive and fascinating site on the MIG-29: www.aeronautics.ru... Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience

Following the re-unification of Germany, Luftwaffe inherited a number of East Germany's MiG-29 fighters. It was decided to incorporated these fighters into the Luftwaffe and make them as much "NATO-compatible" as possible. These aircraft were later used for a number of training exercises, including simulated air combats against American F-16 fighters. Many weaknesses and advantages of the MiG-29 were discovered. The wild interest in the West toward MiG-29 was caused by the results of these exercises in which MiG-29 proved to be a far superior fighter in close combat than any Western type. Many people continue to argue about advantages and flaws of MiG-29 and, of course, I can add a few dozen kilobytes of my own thoughts to that argument. However, fortunately for you, I am not feeling particularly patriotic this night and so I decided to quote Luftwaffe's Oberstleutenant Johann Koeck, who for many years was an F-4 pilot and who has first-hand experience flying MiG-29 as the commander of Luftwaffe's MiG-29 squadron. If anyone is qualified to compare MiG-29 to Western fighter aircraft it would be Johann Koeck. I organized his evaluations of the aircraft's performance - everything from dogfighting to maintainability - into two categories: flaws and advantages. It is rather important to keep in mind that Germany operates some of the earliest models of MiG-29 - not even the baseline Fulcrum-A but downgraded versions of the MiG-29s employed by Soviet air forces. The MiG-29 was upgraded at least six times during the past decade, as you might have noticed from the title page, and today's MiG-29s are far superior to the ones operated by Luftwaffe. I should also mention that Mikoyan OKB designers concentrated their work on all of the problems established by NATO's evaluation of MiG-29. Strange as it may sound, NATO proved to be of invaluable assistance to MiG in designing such latest variants of Fulcrum as MiG-29SMT.
"The East German JG3 took delivery of its first MiG-29 in 1988, and by 4 October 1990 had 24 on strength, equipping two squadrons. A follow-on batch were on order, but were never delivered. With the re-unification JG3 became Evaluation Wing 29 on 1 April 1991. On 25 July 1991 the decision was taken to keep the aircraft and integrate them into the NATO air defence structure. JG73 was activated in June 1993, and the MiG-29s assumed a National (Day Only) QRA(l) commitment over the former East Germany. The MiG-29s moved to Laage in December 1993 and on 1 February 1994 the unit gained a NATO QRA(l) commitment. The two aircraft on QRA were assigned to NATO, while the rest were assigned to national tasking. All will be NATO assigned when the F-4s move to Laage to complete the wing."



Negatives

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft�s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

"Our navigation system is unreliable without TACAN updates and is not very accurate (I�d prefer to call it an estimation system). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations, and if you lose one, you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadequate. We also can�t display our �Bullseye� (known navigation datum, selected randomly for security). For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio.

"The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can�t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability.

"We don�t have the range to conduct HVAA attack missions - and we�re effectively limited from crossing the FLOT (Front Line of Own Troops). Our limited station time and lack of air-to-air refuelling capability effectively rules us out of meaningful air defence missions. Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role. We have a very limited range, especially at high speed and low altitudes, and are limited to 540-kt with external fuel. We have navigation problems, Bullseye control is very difficult and we have only one radio. So if I talk, I �trash� the package�s radios!

"The only possible missions for NATO�s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations. But even then I would still consider the onboard systems too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system as well as the lack of fuel. These drive the problems we face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (which leads to poor situational awareness and identification problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on- station times."


Positives

"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft�s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I�m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and �Archer� I can�t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 �Archers�. We didn�t operate kill removal (forcing �killed� aircraft to leave the fight) since they�d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn�t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!

"They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the �Archer� which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight.

"I should stress that I�m talking about our Luftwaffe MiG-29s, which are early aircraft. They also removed the Laszlo data link and the SRO IFF before the aircraft were handed over to us, so in some respects we�re less capable than other contemporary MiG-29s. From what we hear the latest variants are almost a different aircraft. I�d like to see our aircraft get some of the updates being offered by MiG-MAPO. The more powerful engines, better radar, a new navigation system, a data link and an inflight refuelling probe. If we got the new �Alamo-C� that would also be an improvement - even a two nautical mile boost in range is still ten more seconds to shoot someone else! We won�t get many of those improvements, though we are getting a new IFF manually selectable radio channels, and improvements to the navigation system, including the integration of GPS. Most of our aircraft will be able to carry two underwing fuel tanks, which will also help."

from Jane's At the Controls: MiG-29, by Jon Lake






[edit on 17-10-2004 by Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diefaster
The US has a history of "reacting" to Russian technology, as opposed to being on the cutting edge. The F/A 22 is no different.

One of the great selling points is its directional thrust. Its nozzles can be directed by the Automatic Flight Control System 30 degrees up or down.

Now compare this to the S-37. The Su-37 has 360 degree nozzle position. This, combined with its forward canards make it very very agile. I have seen video of the Su-37 at almost 0 airspeed pointing straight up. This would make other fighters stall immediately, even the F-22.

360 degrees? You mean, you can flip the thrust around and heat up your butt on those chilly, winter flights?

The F-22 has 'supercruise' and i'd bet that it's stealth capabilities are greater than that of the Sukhois'.

But are you aware that the Su-27 and Su-30MK, the ones that are currently in service, have targeting systems that follow the pilot's eye movements, similar to that of the Apache's Longbow system? The F-22 Raptor will be America's first fighter jet with that same capability.

The F-22 has superior radar imaging, but for how long will that last? You might have a tactical advantage in an F-22 approaching a group of enemy fighters, but if you screw up and they see you coming, i don't think it'll be an easy task to takem' out. The maneuverability of the Sukhoi planes definitely exceeds that of the F-22.

Originally posted by Laxpla


"The F/A-22�s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.."

rather bold statement for a company that doesnt knnow what other countries are makeing. also one thing about the EF it has a perfectly good radar in fact i believe it is better than the F15.
the interesting thing about the typhoon is that it has an auto climb,auto attack and auto aproach are availible.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by devilwasp]

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Laxpla


"The F/A-22�s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.."

rather bold statement for a company that doesnt knnow what other countries are makeing. also one thing about the EF it has a perfectly good radar in fact i believe it is better than the F15.
the interesting thing about the typhoon is that it has an auto climb,auto attack and auto aproach are availible.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by devilwasp]

So, what are you infering? The eurofighter is better then the F-15? No doubt it is, but we got the raptor son. Hell, the eurofighter has better radar then the F-15 as you stated, but the raptor didn't get detected by the F-15's radar until it was right on top of him

Lets just assume, ASSUME the raptor and eurofighter have same radar. Whos going to come out the victor? The raptor of coarse because of the raptors stealth.

Originally posted by Laxpla




Lets just assume, ASSUME the raptor and eurofighter have same radar. Whos going to come out the victor? The raptor of coarse because of the raptors stealth.

ok lets just show what the two fighters are.
F22= stealth fighter
purpose= air superiority
EF=light multi role fighter
purpose= multi role fighter

also just so you know the EF has a low RCS sig ,mabye not the same as the rafale but its got some.
now lets just presume the F22 came up against a F23 (impossible i know but lets just see what happens)
both aircraft cant see each other at long distance and the F22 will be picked up by the F23 first due to it being stealthier. the F23 wins by being the first to find and first to fire and first to kill

Not really anything intelligent to say that hasn't already been said, but I have a hate on for most new American aircraft.

Wow, they FINALLY figured out thrust vectoring was a good idea... uh... say 30 years behind Sukhoi and Mikoyan Gurevich. Wow, it has a 60 degree angle of attack... um... older Su-27's and such have about 120 degree angle of attack. So many things don't impress me about American aircraft, especially flight handling innovations.

Sure the Americans have the superior avionics and weapons systems, but the physical structures of the planes just can't compare. I want to see them land that F-22 in a farmers field or on an arctic ice pack... next to the MiG's and Sukhois that have been landing in those conditions for years.

You smack the radome of that F-22 you not only would probably mess up its radar and whatever else they cram in there, but reduce its 'stealth' capabilites. Now if the Sukhoi LOSES its radome, you just make a new one out of cardboard and glue it on and away you go.

What I'm trying to say, is just that American aircraft cost WAY to much for what they actually do. And what they do is what these russian planes have been doing for years already. The only thing better about the american planes is their electronics and software.

Sorry, I just really hate american planes. If you can build an aircraft carrier cheaper than you can build one single bomber... i mean come on.