F-22 vs. Su-37 who would win

**HistoricalDavid** · 04 Jun 06, 13:45

Originally Posted by SRB

Dont forget Lockheed said that SR-71 is stealh back in 60'.

Not stealth, but low RCS.

F-22 need great marketing because of big price, as I read with R&D it cost over 300 milion. No way USAF would buy more than 200 F-22.

He's talking about over its whole production life.

It is great plane on paper but dont belive in everything what lockheed and F-22 loby say.

So you believe what Lockheed said about the SR-71 and what the USAF says about the F-15, but not about the F-22A?

Almost all versions of the Flanker except the early ones which saw combat - against MiG-29s, well done (!) - are also combat-unproven.

You dont understand me, why US need F-22 when F-15 is better then any other plane (USAF is contiue saing that F-15 is best fighter in world).

Right now, perhaps it is. I think a Su-30MKI could give current Eagles a good fight.

But to say that, therefore, a replacement is not needed is arrogant in its short-sightedness.

I still belive that your country dont need F-22 even in far future.Build new F-15 with better radar, vector supercruise engines, with better missiles...It would cost fraction of F-22 program and put F-22 on frezze for far future if ever you need it.

RCS...

I mean what would happed if Chinese capture Taiwan wouldnt US use thier nuclear domination over China in near future.

China probably could not capture Taiwan quickly enough to prevent a conventional US retaliation, if at all. How quickly did the Nimitz and Independence CVBGs arrive, having been given the order to sail? Pretty quick.

**SRB** · 04 Jun 06, 15:01

SR-71 was big dot on UK radars, when it take off in USA.
USAF would have in any moment maximum 200 F-22 it is govrment plan. Read about cutting down F-22 numbers.

3 F-15 bomber could carry 45 tones of bombs, and they cost same as F-22. Who many bombs could carry F-22 internal?
You see F-15 are better in small wars and that will be wars of future.

I think that only Eurofighter could do something against new upgraded F-15 (which would be build instead of F-22).
India-USA war game show that weaken F-15 could be effective against Su-30MK.
And total new version (Vector supercriuse engines, F-22 radar, new missiles) would superior over any fighter in next 20 years.
I dont think that new Russian fighters are problem.
P.S. USAF could buy 450 new F-15(model which would use F-22 tehnology) for 200 F-22.

**Vadim** · 04 Jun 06, 15:23

Practically the only one for the Su 37 in here and everyone tries to shut me down, is this not meant to be an arguement? Might as well rename this to F 22 is the greatest flying machine ever and the Sukhoi sucks!

Not interesting at all.

By the way, hovering on one spot could be done with any jet with TV supported engines and a skilful pilot. The stunts the 35 heck, the 30MK can perform have a purpose which is to have a 360 degrees attack angle at any time both vertically and horizontally, much like a helicopter.

**HistoricalDavid** · 04 Jun 06, 15:29

Originally Posted by SRB

SR-71 was big dot on UK radars, when it take off in USA.

You sound like a British Cold War radar operator.

USAF would have in any moment maximum 200 F-22 it is govrment plan. Read about cutting down F-22 numbers.

He's SPECULATING.

3 F-15 bomber could carry 45 tones of bombs, and they cost same as F-22.

More like 36 tonnes and that's never actually done, you do know that? Fighter-bombers NEVER carry their maximum payload in actual flight missions.

Who many bombs could carry F-22 internal?

2x 1,000lb but its capability is obviously not in carrying large amounts of bombs. In the S/DEAD role the F-22A, carrying SDBs, would be extremely effective with its extremely low RCS, its EW suite (largely unknown), and self-escorting ability.

An F-22A could easily penetrate enemy airspace, day or night, cruising at Mach 1.8, place bombs very accurately on the highest-value targets and defend itself against a good number of threats.

An F-22A in the air superiority - sorry, air DOMINANCE - role would be unmatched.

You see F-15 are better in small wars and that will be wars of future.

That view relies on the US fighting only small wars, which is a supremely complacent and arrogant view.

I think that only Eurofighter could do something against new upgraded F-15 (which would be build instead of F-22).

An F-15X would probably be the world's best - but that's not enough. The USAF has to find a fighter to ensure as great a lead as possible for as long as possible.

India-USA war game show that weaken F-15 could be effective against Su-30MK.

The Cope India exercise was way too biased to be useful, but purely on paper you would not want to bet on current F-15s consistently winning MKIs. An upgraded F-15X would, but in 10 years the MKI may not be the biggest threat out there.

And total new version (Vector supercriuse engines, F-22 radar, new missiles) would superior over any fighter in next 20 years.

Over next 5-10 years, perhaps. But anything more is being arrogant.

I dont think that new Russian fighters are problem.
P.S. USAF could buy 450 new F-15(model which would use F-22 tehnology) for 200 F-22.

Personally what I think the USAF should do is follow M21Sniper's oft-repeated idea; a Hi-Lo mix with the F-22A on 'Hi' and a souped-up F-15X on 'Lo'.

Originally Posted by Vadim

Practically the only one for the Su 37 in here and everyone tries to shut me down, is this not meant to be an arguement?

Stop with your stupid persecution complex.

Might as well rename this to F 22 is the greatest flying machine ever and the Sukhoi sucks!

The F-22A is probably the most effective air combat machine ever built.

There is always the possibility that it goes up against the best Sukhoi and it gets dominated. But all the evidence points to the other way.

By the way, hovering on one spot could be done with any jet with TV supported engines and a skilful pilot. The stunts the 35 heck, the 30MK can perform have a purpose which is to have a 360 degrees attack angle at any time both vertically and horizontally, much like a helicopter.

What's your point?

**Vadim** · 04 Jun 06, 15:52

The F22 can't do that and gives the Su yet one more advantage.

But in any case, no point to this arguement where people claim the F22 can out range an Su and travel at mach 2.42.

**HistoricalDavid** · 04 Jun 06, 17:00

Originally Posted by Vadim

The F22 can't do that and gives the Su yet one more advantage.

Expending massive amounts of fuel to hover like a helicopter is not an advantage in any meaningful sense.

It's quite interesting that you say "yet one more advantage" when that turn of phrase is usually used to after having shown that it already has so many advantages.

But in any case, no point to this arguement

Stop whining. You're the one with BS arguments.

Notice how you can't even bother to answer anyone step-by-step.

the F22 can out range an Su

I'm not sure anyone said that, but considering the extremely clean profile of the F-22A, it wouldn't be outside the bounds of imagination.

and travel at mach 2.42.

That's what an Air Force pilot says, and considering the massive thrust of its engines and its clean profile, it doesn't sound ridiculous.

**hello** · 04 Jun 06, 17:28

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

2x 1,000lb but its capability is obviously not in carrying large amounts of bombs. In the S/DEAD role the F-22A, carrying SDBs, would be extremely effective with its extremely low RCS, its EW suite (largely unknown), and self-escorting ability.

An F-22A could easily penetrate enemy airspace, day or night, cruising at Mach 1.8, place bombs very accurately on the highest-value targets and defend itself against a good number of threats.

An F-22A in the air superiority - sorry, air DOMINANCE - role would be unmatched.

Personally what I think the USAF should do is follow M21Sniper's oft-repeated idea; a Hi-Lo mix with the F-22A on 'Hi' and a souped-up F-15X on 'Lo'.

"Personally what I think the USAF should do is follow M21Sniper's oft-repeated idea; a Hi-Lo mix with the F-22A on 'Hi' and a souped-up F-15X on 'Lo'."

Why? If you want to beat a Flanker(any variant), the F-35, even if it ends up carrying only *cough* 2 *cough* internal AAMs, which is unlikely with the A and C, that's enough to beat the Flanker in BVR with a good advantage. I suggest F-22/F-35 Hi-Lo with F-15 variants in the fighter-bomber role of the F-111 and F-15E.

"2x 1,000lb but its capability is obviously not in carrying large amounts of bombs. In the S/DEAD role the F-22A, carrying SDBs, would be extremely effective with its extremely low RCS, its EW suite (largely unknown), and self-escorting ability.

An F-22A could easily penetrate enemy airspace, day or night, cruising at Mach 1.8, place bombs very accurately on the highest-value targets and defend itself against a good number of threats."

An F-22A can carry 6 SDBs and 2 SWs at Mach 1.8. An F-35A/C can carry 8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs at Mach. Why would an F-22A do the dirty work of S/DEAD and ground strike? They'd do air dominance missions while F-35s do S/DEAD, F-16/F-18 style medium altitude air support, strike/interdiction against normal, medium-defended targets, deep interdiction with drop tanks(which get dropped on the way) and other AG missions. F-22s will do CAP, OCA, DCA(intercept)/BARCAP, escort, other AA missions, and the occasional high-priority deep strike like to destroy ICBM/surface-to-surface cruise missile launch sites before they fire missiles, in which supercruise is important. Nothing can be said about EW right now, as the aircraft's EW capabilities are unkown.

Originally Posted by Vadim

Practically the only one for the Su 37 in here and everyone tries to shut me down, is this not meant to be an arguement? Might as well rename this to F 22 is the greatest flying machine ever and the Sukhoi sucks!

Not interesting at all.

By the way, hovering on one spot could be done with any jet with TV supported engines and a skilful pilot. The stunts the 35 heck, the 30MK can perform have a purpose which is to have a 360 degrees attack angle at any time both vertically and horizontally, much like a helicopter.

"Practically the only one for the Su 37 in here and everyone tries to shut me down, is this not meant to be an arguement?"

Yes, this is an arguement. An arguement that's already been won by the F-22 supporters. Everyone's trying to "shut you down" because you continue to fight over a lost arguement.

" Might as well rename this to F 22 is the greatest flying machine ever and the Sukhoi sucks!

Not interesting at all."

Of course it's not interesting for the F-22 to dominate every other fighter jet in the world, but you can't denie it, it is the most powerful combat aircraft in the world when it comes to air dominance. Also, it's not that the Sukhoi sucks, it's just that everything sucks against the F-22.

"By the way, hovering on one spot could be done with any jet with TV supported engines and a skilful pilot. The stunts the 35 heck, the 30MK can perform have a purpose which is to have a 360 degrees attack angle at any time both vertically and horizontally, much like a helicopter."

The 35 and 30/30MK can't do those maneuvers. They don't have TVC. Only the 37 and 30MKI can do so. These maneuvers are useless though against an F-22, because they won't help against a 40G AIM-9X coming at you, an AMRAAM that you only know is coming when it's a second away, or a sudden burst of 20mm shots from nowhere, or if the Raptor can copy every turn and twist you do, which it can.

**HistoricalDavid** · 04 Jun 06, 17:36

Originally Posted by hello

Why? If you want to beat a Flanker(any variant), the F-35, even if it ends up carrying only *cough* 2 *cough* internal AAMs, which is unlikely with the A and C, that's enough to beat the Flanker in BVR with a good advantage. I suggest F-22/F-35 Hi-Lo with F-15 variants in the fighter-bomber role of the F-111 and F-15E.

The F-22A would handle the toughest threats, the F-15X (for want for a better designation) would handle everything else. The F-35 is unproven and not even in production, the F-15 is enormously proven and its production has been refined to the tune of something like 1,300 examples and counting, and its roomy airframe allows perhaps even for further expansion.

An F-22A can carry 6 SDBs and 2 SWs at Mach 1.8. An F-35A/C can carry 8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs at Mach. Why would an F-22A do the dirty work of S/DEAD and ground strike?

It's much faster, probably longer-ranged, can defend itself well, etc.

They'd do air dominance missions while F-35s do S/DEAD,

Probably with shorter range, escorts, etc.

I just think the F-35's stealth is not really enough of an advantage vis-a-vis the F-15X's potential strengths.

Nothing can be said about EW right now, as the aircraft's EW capabilities are unkown.

Indeed.

**hello** · 04 Jun 06, 18:16

"Probably with shorter range, escorts, etc"

The F-15X will need a lot more escorting. The F-35C has range very close to a clean F-15E while carrying full internal payload. Any payload on the F-15 will remove that advantage.

"I just think the F-35's stealth is not really enough of an advantage vis-a-vis the F-15X's potential strengths."

If you put a stealth F-35 against an F-15X, or pair of F-15Xs in BVR, it'll win like an F-22 because of stealth. Also, to do the same SEAD missions the F-35 can do with 8 SDBs, you'll either have to find a way to load the F-15 with 8 JSOWs or JASSMs, or use multiple F-15s. Of course, the stats show it can, but the fact that not all of the hardpoints on the F-15 can carry JSOWs or JASSMs along with the fact that it will never carry it's full payload capacity makes you have to retreat to using multiple F-15s.

"The F-22A would handle the toughest threats, the F-15X (for want for a better designation) would handle everything else. The F-35 is unproven and not even in production, the F-15 is enormously proven and its production has been refined to the tune of something like 1,300 examples and counting, and its roomy airframe allows perhaps even for further expansion."

If the F-35 is unproven, so is the F-22. The F-15, no matter how much you keep squeezing out of that airframe, in which nothing much is left, won't be able to keep up for more than 10 years. The F-35, being a completely new design, is fully open to upgrades and further improved variants in the future. If anyone else developed a 5th gen or a stealth aircraft, the F-15X would be roasted. It's like keeping the F-20 or an "F-4X" in place of the F-16. Would the F-20(or "F-4X") be able to handle all the upgrades the F-16 has taken through it's service life and be as effective as a modern F-16 is today?

**The_Burning_Kid** · 04 Jun 06, 18:32

Actually the F-20 Tigershark was a refinement of the F-5 Tiger.

**Bill** · 04 Jun 06, 18:44

Originally Posted by SRB

I think that only Eurofighter could do something against new upgraded F-15 (which would be build instead of F-22).
India-USA war game show that weaken F-15 could be effective against Su-30MK.
And total new version (Vector supercriuse engines, F-22 radar, new missiles) would superior over any fighter in next 20 years.
I dont think that new Russian fighters are problem.
P.S. USAF could buy 450 new F-15(model which would use F-22 tehnology) for 200 F-22.

In some ways i agree......full up "hot roded" F-15"X" Uber Eagles would be FANTASTIC aircraft for probably 1/2 the flyaway cost of a Raptor- outperforming both the EF-2000 and SU30MkI handily in many categories, but they don't have stealth, and much more importantly, they simply lack the architecture for anything like the same level of sensor fuzing/data processing as the F-22/F-35 do, but- neither does the F-18E/F/G for that matter- though it is much better than the earlier teen series jets. The F-15"X" would be limited to about the same level of processing as the S.Hornet unless they gutted the whole jet and rewired the whole airframe.)

I feel the USAF should buy F-22 for first day ops and the chance of a major war, and cancel the F-35 A/B...sticking with existing airframes for the majority of iron hauling until they wear out. As the older F-16s and Eagles wear out they should be replaced by Raptors/Eagles on a 1:2 ratio. IOW, 2 new "Uber Eagles" for every new F-22.

Of course we run into a HUGE problem because IMO the F-35C is the single most important program in the USN pipeline right now. IMO, they would really benefit from that particular jet.

Read this http://www.sci.fi/~fta/aviat-6.htm article(written by a fighter jock), it gets into very good detail about why the data processing/sensor fusion is SO overridingly critical to the F-22/F-35s performance.

They are SO MUCH MORE than just "Stealth" fighters. They are 'revolutionary' alrgiht, but it's got MORE to do with computer power than it does with the shape of the plane or how big it looks on radar.

**Bill** · 04 Jun 06, 19:00

Originally Posted by The_Burning_Kid

Actually the F-20 Tigershark was a refinement of the F-5 Tiger.

A damned good one too.

Ironically, the Iranins also have built a little upthrusted F-5 derivitave with canted twin tails and gigantic F-18 style LERX. It also has a blended fuselage like the F-16, and it's wing appears to have been stolen straight off a Viper as well....the shape is practically identical.

It's called the "Saeqeh(owl)-80".

Looks like an agile little mohter-humper. Supposedly it's in limited production and is BVR capable.

Here's a couple pix:

**Bill** · 04 Jun 06, 19:04

Originally Posted by hello

An F-22A can carry 6 SDBs and 2 SWs at Mach 1.8. An F-35A/C can carry 8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs at Mach. Why would an F-22A do the dirty work of S/DEAD and ground strike? They'd do air dominance missions while F-35s do S/DEAD, F-16/F-18 style medium altitude air support, strike/interdiction against normal, medium-defended targets, deep interdiction with drop tanks(which get dropped on the way) and other AG missions. F-22s will do CAP, OCA, DCA(intercept)/BARCAP, escort, other AA missions, and the occasional high-priority deep strike like to destroy ICBM/surface-to-surface cruise missile launch sites before they fire missiles, in which supercruise is important. Nothing can be said about EW right now, as the aircraft's EW capabilities are unkown.

The F-22 has much better range and persistance, so it will be able to strike deeper into the enemies homeland than the F-35 for any given amount of tanking. It's also ALL ASPECT STEALTH, which makes it FAR SUPERIOR for DEEP STRIKE missions when enemy SAM sites will get a look at your tail as you ingress deep into enemy territory.

That article i posted a few links up goes into all that stuff. It's good readin'.

**Bill** · 04 Jun 06, 19:06

Originally Posted by hello

40G AIM-9X coming at you

AIM-9X can sustain 90g manuevers.

**Bill** · 04 Jun 06, 19:08

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

I just think the F-35's stealth is not really enough of an advantage vis-a-vis the F-15X's potential strengths.

For everybody but the USN and RN, i agree.

But the USN/RN have NO stealth platforms at all, so if i was either of them i would be very, very keen on buying F-35Cs....lots of them.

Thread: F-22 vs. Su-37 who would win

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

We Can't Win If We Don't Know The Enemy

How to Win in Iraq—and How to Lose

Win for the Troops

Can Israel Win?

Bush Sees a Rare Chance to Win Wisconsin

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions