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

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The US is concerned with dominance against any potential threat - that means the ability to not only fight and win against, say, Russia or China, but to crush them in the air.

I don't think the UK is that concerned with fighting a global power like that

- Russia and China are "global powers" now and liable to be any kind of 'threat' to the UK or Europe are they?! LMAO.....

....and what's with this "crush them" BS? Rhetorical overkill? (did you salivate as you mouthed that as you typed it?)

AMM you crack me up matey!.

and even if they did, I think it is fair to say that because of their budget restraints they don't have the money to build a fighter that culd do that.

- I think you'll find most commentators rating the Typhoon as one of the top 2 fighter available anywhere.....

....and just to be clear I didn't say that it was superior to the F22, overall.

Plus, like you said, the economic advantages are substantial.

- Correct.....and if I may "substantial" hardly covers it particularly when operating costs are figured in.

I take exception to this.

- Quelle surprise.

The Raptor is clearly better in many areas - it is not, as you say a little bit better.

- Well as neither of us are in a position to 'prove' any of this I will simply say that the information I have (from impeccable sources) is that in the differences are not vast actually and apply mainly to certain aspects.

It is extremely stealthy. The EF is not.

- This is one of the prime points. It's agreed that the F22 is overall the more stealthy but only from certain aspects and Typhoon (from the aspects it is most likely to be encountered from is absolutely not shabby at all.

It is more manueverable than the EF.

- My sources laugh in your face at this assertion.

It has better radar then the EF.

- Well, if you say so. Frankly this would be one of those 'a little bit better' - possibly - areas.

It has a higher cieling then the EF.

- Says who. A kids aircraft recognition book? LOL....and frankly so what even if it is so? The difference is, again, a very marginal one and given optimum operating altitudes and the weapons specs rather unimportant.

It has better EW then the EF.

- Look mate just cos the USA has Microsoft based there doesn't mean the USA knows everything there is worth knowing about EW - or radar for that matter.

You should start believing a little less and retaining a tad more scepticism. ....and this is a field where (unless you are working on the 2 projects) you don't (can't possibly) know the full ins and outs.

But feel free to under-estimate away.

It also has entire abilities that the EF does not, such as cruise missle intercept.

- Yeah. So the sales brochure and the fan club would have you believe.....not that they specify what these awesome 'secret' special powers are meant to be (unless you count that risible crap about the 'supercruising stealth hacking platform').....

....and naturally of course you imagine you know everything there is to know about Typhoon.

Jayzuss that was a funny one for the gullible adolescents and general ignoramuses.

The Raptor is better or equal to the EF in every area ecept cost.

- .....and that's what you will be told from now until the more realistic truth emerges.

It isn't. Not every area. As I said it is better in certain areas and not others and in surprisingly many areas there is very little to choose between them.

You may choose to believe this or not but I'll just ask you to remember this conversation down the line as the true - much more realistic - state of affairs between the 2 planes emerges.

Originally posted by American Mad Man


No no no. It is just that the more people know a secret, the more likely that secret is to get out. I mean, if several thousand extra people know every weakness in the F/A-22 or know how to make it, then that is several thousand extra chances that some info will be leaked.

yeah , but the officail secrets act would solve that.

Originally posted by American Mad Man


I take exception to this. The Raptor is clearly better in many areas - it is not, as you say a little bit better. It is extremely stealthy. The EF is not. It is more manueverable than the EF. It has better radar then the EF. It has a higher cieling then the EF. It has better EW then the EF. It also has entire abilities that the EF does not, such as cruise missle intercept.

The Raptor is better or equal to the EF in every area ecept cost.

i dont see how the raptor can intercept a cruise BTW cause frankly a missile on missile chase is gona be difficult, i mean you could blow up a bird instead.
they can only find it not really destroy it.
this EW btw is not reallly going to do anything except jam comms. the micro wave and radio wave weapon will do nothing except fry electronics and can be over come with aluminium ,lead or paper.

Originally posted by titus
when it comes out in 2006, then we can all argue... Pak-Fa vs. F-22.
[edit on 18-10-2004 by titus]

More like PAK-FA vs JSF.

The pak-fa can never take on the f-22, its just way too advanced.
The pak-fa is also intended as competition to the f-35 not the f-22

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man


I take exception to this. The Raptor is clearly better in many areas - it is not, as you say a little bit better. It is extremely stealthy. The EF is not. It is more manueverable than the EF. It has better radar then the EF. It has a higher cieling then the EF. It has better EW then the EF. It also has entire abilities that the EF does not, such as cruise missle intercept.

The Raptor is better or equal to the EF in every area ecept cost.

i dont see how the raptor can intercept a cruise BTW cause frankly a missile on missile chase is gona be difficult, i mean you could blow up a bird instead.
they can only find it not really destroy it.
this EW btw is not reallly going to do anything except jam comms. the micro wave and radio wave weapon will do nothing except fry electronics and can be over come with aluminium ,lead or paper.

I was reading somewhere that the typhoon has the ability to intercept cruise missiles as well, provided it is armed with the new meteor missile.

I wish I still had the source

I was playing a simulator a while back (eurofighter typhoon), and one of the missions thrown at you was to intercept a wave of cruise missiles launched from russian submarines. (the scenario is set in 2015)
The game was technically endorsed by the RAF, so regardless of the fact it was not real... i'm sure they would not have included it unless the capability was there.

Originally posted by Lucretius
The game was technically endorsed by the RAF, so regardless of the fact it was not real... i'm sure they would not have included it unless the capability was there.

- Oh come on.

A game is a game is a game.

They may losely base things around reality (but who's kidding who here, we're talking - without exception - in 'popular' reality at best); it 'proves' nothing.

The super capability jets in those games are like the super capability cars, features etc etc that crop up in most games.

Unfortunately the military in several countries (UK and USA included are such cash-tart whores that they will tie in with anything they think 'appropriate' (and with the budget) whether that be some laughably sad film (take a bow Iron Eagles, Top Gun etc etc) or some daft game.

What is anyone going to do? Sue them for the inaccuracies?

well the game sold terribly due to it's high regard for realism... though the cockpit and basic control were simplified it was in no way an arcade shooter.

Trust me, missiles had a less than 50% chance of hitting... especially the Medium and Long range meteors... it was damn hard.

The only way to shoot down the cruise missiles was either short range air to air or cannon... which was difficult as the missiles are an extremely small target, and you have to catch the damn things to start with.

I think I only managed to shoot 1 down the the cannon

Originally posted by Lucretius
I think I only managed to shoot 1 down the the cannon

- Well (as things stand at the moment) you'd have had to have been nice to the stores guys to get them to arm your Typhoon cannon (with Tornado ammunition....which is the same, apparantly).

very true

Though I don't think they would touch me with a barge pole in reality... not with my dire performance

Guys lets get this one back on topic eh?

Thanks
FredT

Originally posted by FredT
Guys lets get this one back on topic eh?

Thanks
FredT

- Sorry Fred.

I must admit I thought the actual 'topic' had been exhausted.....for now.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Russia and China are "global powers" now and liable to be any kind of 'threat' to the UK or Europe are they?! LMAO.....

Yeah - they would be a threat, but judging by your military budget the UK and Europe in general isn't very concerned about being able to beat such an adversary

....and what's with this "crush them" BS? Rhetorical overkill? (did you salivate as you mouthed that as you typed it?)

What I was trying to say was that the mission for the F/A-22 is not simple air superiority, it is air dominance - and yes, I salivate at the thought

- I think you'll find most commentators rating the Typhoon as one of the top 2 fighter available anywhere.....

....and just to be clear I didn't say that it was superior to the F22, overall.

Oh - don't get me wrong, I believe the EF to be among the finest in the world - it's just that the Raptor is clearly a few steps ahead.

- Correct.....and if I may "substantial" hardly covers it particularly when operating costs are figured in.

Actually, the Raptor was designed to have minimal operating costs. The main financial burden will be in procuring the aircraft.

- Well as neither of us are in a position to 'prove' any of this I will simply say that the information I have (from impeccable sources) is that in the differences are not vast actually and apply mainly to certain aspects.

Well, if you are speaking of things like top speed and cruise speed, then sure, they are more or less equal. If you are talking about things such as radar, stealth, EW, 'other abiities' the Raptor is far superior.

- This is one of the prime points. It's agreed that the F22 is overall the more stealthy but only from certain aspects and Typhoon (from the aspects it is most likely to be encountered from is absolutely not shabby at all.

I assume you are speaking of head on radar return. I believe that the Raptor is still far superior nased on the fat that an F-15 had visual before the Raptor showed up on radar.

- My sources laugh in your face at this assertion.

The USAF laughs at your sources. Let's see a typhoon do an indefinatly sustained 60 degree AoA. It can't.

- Well, if you say so. Frankly this would be one of those 'a little bit better' - possibly - areas.

No - not at all. Not only is the radar better, but it is also LO, thus making it difficult for an enemy to track or identify the raptor by "seeing" it's radar.

Says who. A kids aircraft recognition book? LOL....and frankly so what even if it is so? The difference is, again, a very marginal one and given optimum operating altitudes and the weapons specs rather unimportant.

Says a buddy of mine that happens to be an analyst at the pentagon...

And the difference is big - you always want the high ground.

- Look mate just cos the USA has Microsoft based there doesn't mean the USA knows everything there is worth knowing about EW - or radar for that matter.

Your right, but we sure as hell know more then anyone else about the field.

You should start believing a little less and retaining a tad more scepticism. ....and this is a field where (unless you are working on the 2 projects) you don't (can't possibly) know the full ins and outs.

Oh - I have plenty of skpeticism. I am not one to buy into the 'hacker Raptor' or the idea that the Raptor is unbeatable. But, I do have friends in the USAF and pentagon - and they DO know whats gong on. From what they have said, the Raptor is waaaaaaaaay ahead of anything else.

- Yeah. So the sales brochure and the fan club would have you believe.....not that they specify what these awesome 'secret' special powers are meant to be (unless you count that risible crap about the 'supercruising stealth hacking platform').....

Are you denying that the Raptor will be used as a missle intercept platform? It has been designed that way ever since SDI became a program because it naturally lends it's self to the mission. Other abilities will be recon, as the stealthy nature ad supercruise ability combo will lend it's self to this also - the EF can't perform this role nearly as effectively because it is not nearly as stealthy.

....and naturally of course you imagine you know everything there is to know about Typhoon.

Jayzuss that was a funny one for the gullible adolescents and general ignoramuses.

I don't presume to know everything about either aircraft, but it is preatty clear that the Raptor is simply better because it's stealth makes it better in so many different areas as well as better electronics and sensors.

- .....and that's what you will be told from now until the more realistic truth emerges.

It isn't. Not every area. As I said it is better in certain areas and not others and in surprisingly many areas there is very little to choose between them.

Well please - tell me an area of perormance where the Typhoon is better. I'm all ears.

You may choose to believe this or not but I'll just ask you to remember this conversation down the line as the true - much more realistic - state of affairs between the 2 planes emerges.

Tell you what - in about 15 years when all the secrets are out about these aircraft who ever was wrong can buy the other a beer. I'm in England once or twice a year.

Untill then, I'll just go with the Typhoons website which states that the Raptor is better

[edit on 22-10-2004 by American Mad Man]

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Yeah - they would be a threat, but judging by your military budget the UK and Europe in general isn't very concerned about being able to beat such an adversary

[edit on 22-10-2004 by American Mad Man]

so haveing the best infantry men,best trained army/navy and fastest helicopter in the world.
helicopters that DONT sink or fill up with sand.
we seem to have done well considering how low our budget is.
anyway who is going to invade us?
france? russia? oh and cant forget sweeden biggest threat in europe.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Yeah - they would be a threat, but judging by your military budget the UK and Europe in general isn't very concerned about being able to beat such an adversary

[edit on 22-10-2004 by American Mad Man]

so haveing the best infantry men,best trained army/navy and fastest helicopter in the world.
helicopters that DONT sink or fill up with sand.
we seem to have done well considering how low our budget is.
anyway who is going to invade us?
france? russia? oh and cant forget sweeden biggest threat in europe.

That is exactly my point. Europe isn't worried about fighting a powerfull enemy. US military doctrine is to be able to fight - and beat - anyone. Could you honestly say that the UK would stand up to say Russia on their own?

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
More like PAK-FA vs JSF.

The pak-fa can never take on the f-22, its just way too advanced.
The pak-fa is also intended as competition to the f-35 not the f-22

yes, i agree

but thats more appoporiate than berkut vs raptor

Originally posted by American Mad Man


That is exactly my point. Europe isn't worried about fighting a powerfull enemy. US military doctrine is to be able to fight - and beat - anyone. Could you honestly say that the UK would stand up to say Russia on their own?

defensive : yes
offensive: no
we dont have the troops they have but for them to get here is another matter.
we've got the tech and crews to use them waiting for a mission just like that.
hell thats the been the idea of britain for centuries, island fortress.

Isn't the S-37 also designed to be stealth and has a very low radar cross-section? If so both planes could be flying around trying to find each other all day and in this case the one that can stay in the air the longest would win

I have been looking into the size of the radar signature given off by both aircraft and i found some details on the S-37 but not much on the F-22 besides it's radar signature is small. Does anyone have details on the aprox size of the F-22's radar signature. Anyway this is the info i found on the S-37.

Clearly benefitting from previous research, the S-37 prototype relies heavily on the Sukhoi's state of the art low observable technology. The forward swept wing, a conformal underfuselage weapon station(s), use of RAM, fixed intakes with S-ducted air ducts, suggest a further reduction of the aircraft radar signature down from similarly sized Flanker's 3-5 sq m.

aeroweb.lucia.it...

I just found the aprox size of the F-22's radar signature, it's small.

The Radar Cross Section of a plane is basically, how much echo the plane sends from radar. Everything has a Radar Cross Section (or RCS), but where birds have approximately a .01 square meter RCS, the Raptor has almost the same RCS. The B2 Bomber has a radar cross section of .75 square meters. For the Raptor to be stealthy, the creators had to cut down on the RCS, meaning that everything on the plane, internal and external, had to have no echo, or as little as possible.

www.f22fighter.com...

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Sabre262]

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Yeah - they would be a threat, but judging by your military budget the UK and Europe in general isn't very concerned about being able to beat such an adversary

- AMM, come on. They aren't a threat, they aren't going to threaten us and we have no need to maintain a standing set of armed forces just in case.

Were they to start to actually look threatening and develop the capacity to actually threaten us seriously we might consider responding but, given Europe's existing nuclear response abilities what would we even need to do that for?

Any Chinese or Russian attempt to invade Europe is always going to be a very very bad idea and people will get seriously hurt. I can't see any realistic propect whatsoever of it happening. Hell, if it didn't happen during the cold war why now?

Maybe we should gear up just in case the US becomes threatening to Europe.....afterall you have a vast military and you lot keep making aggressive and threatening noises to us here in the EU, not to mention the gang of nutters running around the USA trying to get people to listen to their claims that the next serious world war is going to be versus the EU, hmmmmm?

What I was trying to say was that the mission for the F/A-22 is not simple air superiority, it is air dominance - and yes, I salivate at the thought

- er, ok.

Raptor is clearly a few steps ahead.

- Then we're quibbling. A few steps (in certain areas) is all I've said.

Actually, the Raptor was designed to have minimal operating costs. The main financial burden will be in procuring the aircraft.

- Yes but then that has been the purposely stated aim of every project since the 1970's. Whether it actually works out like that is another matter. As I understand it the F22 requires very careful handling to maintain it's abilities.

I assume you are speaking of head on radar return. I believe that the Raptor is still far superior nased on the fat that an F-15 had visual before the Raptor showed up on radar.

- I wouldn't go basing anything on what an F15 could do as if that were in any way analogous to the Eurofighter.

The USAF laughs at your sources. Let's see a typhoon do an indefinatly sustained 60 degree AoA. It can't.

- We shall see.

No - not at all. Not only is the radar better, but it is also LO, thus making it difficult for an enemy to track or identify the raptor by "seeing" it's radar.

- AMM do you really think that LO radar is a new concept? You have got to be kidding me. In the UK we've known about and have been working on this for decades.

I doubt the radar is 'better'. Again I would bet my shirt on it having certain capabilities the Typhoon hasn't got and vis versa.

Says a buddy of mine that happens to be an analyst at the pentagon...

And the difference is big - you always want the high ground.

- So OK, you say you know people and I say I know people. As for 'high ground'? LOL, I think I simply ask you to be a little more open minded and not to simply believe everything you get told.

Your right, but we sure as hell know more then anyone else about the field.

- If you say so. We shall see.

From what they have said, the Raptor is waaaaaaaaay ahead of anything else.

- Don't get the idea that I'm saying the F22 is a turkey, I'm not, but who - wherever they're based - would admit to it being less than 'best by several country miles' now......particularly given it's price?

Are you denying that the Raptor will be used as a missle intercept platform?

- No, it remains an objective they will probably spend several years and several $billion trying to perfect. The $ will be spent on the missile package IMO so as to try and get it through government.

We are attempting similar with Typhoon.

It has been designed that way ever since SDI became a program because it naturally lends it's self to the mission.

- Well they would say that wouldn't they? We shall see just how capable or limited these programs turn out to be.

Hopefully unlike most (all?) of the SDI tests they don't need to tell the missile where the targets are going to be and when!

Other abilities will be recon, as the stealthy nature ad supercruise ability combo will lend it's self to this also - the EF can't perform this role nearly as effectively because it is not nearly as stealthy.

- Given their value I doubt either plane will find itself used much as a recon platform......and you keep making assumptions about Typhoon's stealth abilities. You really should be aware by now that this is not just about the plane itself but, for instance, route planning considering the threat assessment and making allowances for that etc.

I don't presume to know everything about either aircraft, but it is preatty clear that the Raptor is simply better because it's stealth makes it better in so many different areas as well as better electronics and sensors.

- As I keep saying you are making a series of unfounded assumptions (particularly on the Typhoon electronics).

Sorry to break this to you but Europe is the home of just about every major modern electronic innovation going.

Tell me how little Phillips (to give you the example of home electronic tech) didn't invent in the last 4 decades would probably be easier and more like it!

Well please - tell me an area of perormance where the Typhoon is better. I'm all ears.

- Initial costs, operating costs, agility (in a similar comparable configuration) and major parts of the electronics fit.

Tell you what - in about 15 years when all the secrets are out about these aircraft who ever was wrong can buy the other a beer. I'm in England once or twice a year.

- Naaaa, we can do better than that AMM.

It'll be anything between 3 - 5yrs till Typhoon does it's first Red Flag (or then equivelent).

Between that and the 'normal' meetings around the world it'll probably take another 2 - 3 meets till the 'sandbagging' stops and the crews start really getting to grips with the capabilities of each other.

I reckon we'll be hearing about it all starting in 5yrs and with accuracy within 7 to 8.

Untill then, I'll just go with the Typhoons website which states that the Raptor is better

- Like I said, small amounts in small areas and we have the better in a few ourselves.

Speaking of small that accurately describes the F22's load carring ability, wouldn't you say?

But we were talking A2A really weren't we?

The only good thing to underpin all of this is we'll never have to have it tested for real.

Your handful of F22 against the much more numerous Eurofighter isn't ever going to happen.

We are not for fighting each other and neither of us are for selling either to anymore than about half a dozen potential customers none of whom would fight either of us anyway.

Happy days!

(No doubt Fred will tell us off about being off topic , ahem, so yeah personally AMM I don't rate the SU-37/47 as adding up to anything approaching either plane. )











[edit on 25-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

But the MiG-35 / 1.42 Multirole Front-Line Fighter is capable of destroying the F-22 due to its configuration as a " air-superiority figher " its number one goal is to destroy other planes, unlike the F-22 whose main goal is to strike targetts at the same time as destroying other fighter planes. The MiG-35 / 1.42 has similar stealh capabilities to the F-22with canard, wing and fuselage structures incorporating carbon-fiber and polymer composite materials. Other stealth features include radar-absorbing covering, screening of radar-visible structure elements, and reduced heat signature. The fifth-generation pulse-doppler radar has a phased-array andtenna with electronic scanning to simultaneously attack over 20 targets.

I would say along with many others that what I have read gives me more than enough reason to believe that the latest MiG is more than enough to handle any current American fighter including the F-22, even though the MiG-35 may not even come into military service until 2005 it still deserves to be a fierce competitor of the F-22.

Warning: Patriotic Americans may find these facts hard to come to, AMM