F-22 vs. Su-37 who would win

**Bill** · 22 Sep 05, 04:19

"If not why not use the coatings/stealth tactics on the B1A????"

The B-1A did have extensive RAM coatings.

The USAF's first 'stealth' aircraft was the SR-71 first introduced in the 1960s.

**canoe** · 22 Sep 05, 05:04

"If you notice the talk of the "Astra" project was pre Afghanistan war era-which means before 1979"

Ok I'm having trouble finding any online referrences to the Astra project, so I'll take your word for it that it was developed around 1979. The F117's RAM coating was developed and tested in 1975. However the RAM coating was only part of the "stealth" aspect of the aircraft, the entire plane was designed to augment the use of the RAM coating and make the aircraft more difficult to detect.

"Now if the technology for the B1B's radar coating was not available on the B1A,and the B1A flew until 1979 officially,AND the russians were using the radar absorbant coatings in pre 1979 models, is it all that unbeleivable that what i say is true???If not why not use the coatings/stealth tactics on the B1A????"

I beleive the B1A did infact make use of RAM. The changes to the B1B did increase its stealth aspects but they were internal structural changes and changes to the engine housing.

"Differences between the B-1B and its predecessor, the B-1A of the 1970s, are subtle, yet significant. Externally, only a simplified engine inlet, modified over-wing fairing and relocated pilot tubes are noticeable. Other less-evident changes include a window for the offensive and defensive systems officers' station and engine housing modifications that reduces radar exposure. The B-1B was structurally redesigned to increase its gross takeoff weight from 395,000 to 477,000 pounds (177,750 to 214,650 kilograms). Still, the empty weight of the B-1B is but 3 percent greater than that of the B-1A. This added takeoff weight capacity, in addition to a movable bulkhead between the forward and intermediate weapons bay, allows the B-1B to carry a wide variety of nuclear and conventional munitions. The most significant changes, however, are in the avionics, with low-radar cross-section, automatic terrain-following high-speed penetration, and precise weapons delivery. "

**BIGAL** · 23 Sep 05, 00:30

Well you may be right about the addition of RAM coatings on the B!A-I thought it was only added on the B1B, but I cant recall and dont have any old references to it.
But stealth goes back to even WWII.Old mosquito aircraft were somewhat stealthy
for thier time, and yes the SR 71-but the coating on that was a "iron Ball" type,not quite the coating i was referring to.
I tried the internet search but found nothing relevant-should not be a secret if it was published shortly after it happening.Maybe somebody else with more inside knowledge will add to this post.It could be that the Soviet RAm was a different type,and that all the americans stole was the technology for it,then made thier own.Hopefully somebody will share this knowledge.

**Bill** · 23 Sep 05, 00:33

The americans did get the core mathematical formula from the russians, but the russians didn't even realize they were giving it away when they allowed the russian scientist to publish the data internationally.

This is all detailed very well in the book "Inside the Skunk Works", by former Skunk Works #2 man Ben Rich.

**~~Insomniac~~** · 07 Oct 05, 17:01

The Su-37 can out turn the F/A-22, but with the AMRAAM missile the flanker will need to be extremely lucky to get inside an effective range. I doubt the Flanker will even see the attack coming. In close range Flanker would tear apart the Raptor, but from BVR the Flanker pilot won't know what hit him.

**tu160mblackjack** · 07 Oct 05, 19:27

Originally Posted by highsea

I don't have a complete list. This is what I have, from large to small:

F-15: 10 to 13 dbsm
SU-27: 10 to 13 dbsm
Tornado: 9 dbsm
MiG-29: 7 dbsm
F-18: 5 dbsm
MiG-21: 5 dbsm
F-16: 0 to 3 dbsm
Mirage 2000: 0 to 3 dbsm
Gripen: -5 to 0 dbsm
SU-47: -5 dbsm
Rafale: -10 to -5 dbsm
MiG 1.42: -10 dbsm
F-18 E/F: -10 dbsm
Typhoon: -13 to -10 dbsm
F-35: -30 to -28 dbsm
F/A-22: -37 to -33 dbsm

The figures for the SU-47 and MiG 1.42 should be taken with a grain of salt, due to the high percentage of alloys in the airframe. The reason they get the rating they do is mainly due to internal weapons carriage.

The numbers were compiled from various open sources, avleak, Janes, and manufacturers datasheets. YMMV.

Anyone know the RCS for the LCA?

**~~raptor1992~~** · 08 Oct 05, 23:17

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The Su-37 can out turn the F/A-22, but with the AMRAAM missile the flanker will need to be extremely lucky to get inside an effective range. I doubt the Flanker will even see the attack coming. In close range Flanker would tear apart the Raptor, but from BVR the Flanker pilot won't know what hit him.

how can the missiles of the flanker can lock on to the raptor?

**tphuang** · 08 Oct 05, 23:43

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The Su-37 can out turn the F/A-22, but with the AMRAAM missile the flanker will need to be extremely lucky to get inside an effective range. I doubt the Flanker will even see the attack coming. In close range Flanker would tear apart the Raptor, but from BVR the Flanker pilot won't know what hit him.

su-37 doesn't even exist, are you talking about su-35 or su-35bm? su-35bm uses AL-41F supposedly, so that might give it better dogfighting chance against f-22, but if you are talking about su-35 the one that uses AL-31FM engine, there is no way it has better maneouverability than F-22.

**~~Insomniac~~** · 17 Oct 05, 00:33

Yes, the Su-37 Terminator dies exist. That is what this thread is named, F/A-22 vs. Su-37. The F/A-22 has 2D thrust vectoring nozzles, while the Su-37 has 3D thrust vectoring nozzles that allow it to out turn the Raptor.

**tu160mblackjack** · 17 Oct 05, 03:28

Originally Posted by canoe

Ok this obviously begs the question if the stealth coating was developed by the Russians first why has there to date never been a Russian stealth aircraft. I figure at worst they could designed a prototype by now. You guys have built alot of aircraft and warships since the U.S first got the F117 and as of yet theres nothing.
Plus if you look into where Haveblue came from the military initially didn't even realise the importance of what they had built. The project wasn't even classified initially it was just a research project as far as the airforce was concerned.

And yes Russian aircraft probably have thermal imaging (I have no idea how good their imaging tech is) but given the range and accuracy of all known thermal systems is far less then current radar systems I don't see what good it is. The F22 will pick the Russian fighter up on active radar, fire off a couple radar guided missiles and switch to passive radar and hit then deck then watch the fireworks.

For the record I do like some Russia tech and gear but the F22 is obviously ahead of everyone else for the time being. But I do like some of your anti-ship missiles and warships. I think your aerospace industry needs a bit of a wakeup call though.

Wouldn't you consider the Tu-160 to be pretty stealthy? Just wondering. It has a pretty sleek body.

**~~doctor_vals~~** · 17 Oct 05, 06:34

Originally Posted by raptor1992

what is the dbsm for all the major russian and american aircraft? i like to compare it.

After 20 yearsafter Cold war finished, and normal people looking to friendship between two countries, you still looking to find any way to strike Russia.
Yugoslaviya, Afganistan and Iraqi war - is it not enough? You need more? WHY???

**TopHatter** · 18 Oct 05, 16:41

Originally Posted by doctor_vals

After 20 yearsafter Cold war finished, and normal people looking to friendship between two countries, you still looking to find any way to strike Russia.
Yugoslaviya, Afganistan and Iraqi war - is it not enough? You need more? WHY???

Oh relax! Geez...we like a little friendly comparison and you immediately assume we're 30 seconds away from striking Mother Russia with everything in our inventory.

As for why?

Yugoslavia: Genocide. You may not have a problem with tens of thousands of men, women and children being liquidated in cold blood, but we do.

Afghanistan: Figure that one out for yourself. It shouldnt be too difficult.

Iraq: We were bored.

**tphuang** · 19 Oct 05, 04:20

Originally Posted by Insomniac

Yes, the Su-37 Terminator dies exist. That is what this thread is named, F/A-22 vs. Su-37. The F/A-22 has 2D thrust vectoring nozzles, while the Su-37 has 3D thrust vectoring nozzles that allow it to out turn the Raptor.

if you haven't noticed, su-37 is not actually getting produced. su-35 and su-35bm are the flankers that Russia is going after.

**lurker** · 19 Oct 05, 06:29

Originally Posted by tphuang

if you haven't noticed, su-37 is not actually getting produced. su-35 and su-35bm are the flankers that Russia is going after.

Su-37 was a "commercial" version of Su-35. After single existing prototype #711 crashed in 2002 - the program was frozen and incorporated into Su-35.

There is no Su-37, and never will be.

**Vadim** · 28 May 06, 19:13

Very interesting.

It is common to see in this discussion the Raptor's "Stealth Advantage", that was designed what 20 years ago? Hmm, the Russian radar systems only joke about them now. Every aircraft creates a vortex behind it as the air is unbalanced, again could be picked up by new radar. Su 37 comes with FAR superior missiles with thrust vectoring that F22 with its extremely poor manuverability has no chance of avoiding. The Su 37 is THE most manuvarable fighter plane in the world. I'm sorry but 1980's stealth technolgy does not compete with today's radar and that is what killed the Raptor. They concentrated so much on making it stealth, they completely sacrificed what it could do in the air.The Su 37, knowing its got full radar support has the ability to out turn, out power (with its superior engines) and outgun the Raptor anyday. Who said the Raptor was the best aircraft for all weather? total rubbish.

It is also probably true these two machines will never meet head to head so we can never tell really as it also depends a lot on the pilot.

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