# F-22 Vs. Su-37



## Velius (Feb 11, 2008)

Hello everyone,

I'm not too much into modern aircraft, but when browsing on this site I saw a video demonstrating the flight characteristics of a Su-37 "Terminator". Needless to say, I was VERY impressed. I then thought about how The F-22 (The U.S.A.F.'s top fighter if I am not mistaken) would fare against the Su-37 in one-on-one combat. So, what do ya'll think?

Like I said before, I don't know too much about modern aircraft, but I do know that both have thrust vectoring systems to give a wider range of maneuverability. The only differences I can think of is that the 22 has "stealth" abilities while the 37 has canards- which I would think aids the aircraft during the inverted stall tricks.

Oh, one last thing, the designer of the Su-37 is so confident in it's abilities that he challenged any U.S. aircraft to a mock dogfight "... any time, any place!"

Thanks! 8)


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 15, 2008)

A challenge that would never be taken nor made conclusive. Today, dogfights are claimed to be BVR... beyond visual range. The F-22 has a public ceiling of 60kft. Likely it is MUCH higher than that. The F-22 has all aspect stealth, while the Sukhoi's stealth is frontal only.

In addition, you have to understand the tactics that are used with the different platforms. A one on one is not the F-22s strength (or so they say). The F-22 is more like a high flying invisible AWACS with AMRAAMs who is able to direct other assets for the passive kill. If something creeps beyond the radar/infrared fence, only then will the Raptor swoop in for the kill.

In a WVR (withing visual range) dogfight, I would not put the F-22 at a decidedly disadvantage. Off boresight missile shots, significant maneuverability with vectored thrust, and a integral gun system makes the F-22 a real contender. That is if you survive getting past the Raptors AESA radar to even get close to it.

Different mission. Different capabilities. That's why you can buy 3 Sukhois for ever F-22. It's not all about top speed, range, ceiling and largest payload.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 16, 2008)

Velius said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I'm not too much into modern aircraft, but when browsing on this site I saw a video demonstrating the flight characteristics of a Su-37 "Terminator". Needless to say, I was VERY impressed. I then thought about how The F-22 (The U.S.A.F.'s top fighter if I am not mistaken) would fare against the Su-37 in one-on-one combat. So, what do ya'll think?
> 
> Thanks! 8)



Matt summed it up pretty well. But if you're talking about the so-called "Cobra" maneuver, then the F-22 is entirely capable of doing the same thing; I've seen it demonstrated by an F-22 pilot.

Also, as Matt said, that depends on whether the Su-37 could get past the F-22's combo of non-detectable radar and 90%-kill-probabilty AIM-120D's; highly doubtful. Even assuming the Su-37 got past that, it would be hard pressed to defend itself againt a highly-maneuverable F-22.


----------



## Velius (Feb 16, 2008)

- I had no idea that the raptor had such capabilities. Thanks for all the information Matt. Also, what is a AMRAAM?


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2008)

AMRAAM- Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile. And I can tell you from seeing several demos of the F-22 last year, it is one BADASS bird. Supercruise, stealth, thrust vectoring and the ability to accelerate while going straight up all add up to a demo that leaves you breathless.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 16, 2008)

Velius said:


> - I had no idea that the raptor had such capabilities. Thanks for all the information Matt. Also, what is a AMRAAM?



AMRAAM is the same thing as an AIM-120; the terms are used interchangably. The AIM-120D is the latest incarnation of the AMRAAM. 

The AIM-120C was the first AMRAAM designed specifically to be used with the F-22 Raptor; it has "cropped" (shortened) fins, allowing the Raptor to carry six AMRAAMS in it's ventral weapons bay, instead of four of the "normal" variety.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 16, 2008)

Weapons bays help the F-22 maintain Stealth and get you when you least expect it. The inside of the weapons bay should have a sign that reads "If you can read this...you're dead"


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 16, 2008)




----------



## Velius (Feb 17, 2008)

Yikes!

An F-22 demo must be quite a sight! I should look up some videos when I get a chance (and not on this computer....I'm still a few years behind the times with my "wonderful" dial-up connection  )


----------



## evangilder (Feb 18, 2008)

There are some good videos on YouTube of it. I have photos on my website of the demo. The first page is my most popular page on my website, with over 47,000 hits in 11 months! 

Van Gilder Aviation Photography, Point Mugu Airshow 2007- F-22
Van Gilder Aviation Photography, Point Mugu Airshow 2007- F-22 Raptor, page 2

Van Gilder Aviation Photography, Edwards 2006- F-22 Raptor

And as part of the USAF Heritage Flight:
Van Gilder Aviation Photography, Edwards 2006- USAF Heritage Flight
Van Gilder Aviation Photography, Point Mugu Airshow 2007- Air Force Heritage Flight


----------



## Ramirezzz (Feb 18, 2008)

IMHO you compare peaches with oranges - the su-37 is a derivation from the Su27M (Su-35), which makes it 4++ generation aircraft. And it's still a prototype, btw
I think the better comparison would be between Su-30MXX and the latest F-15E variants


----------



## Velius (Feb 18, 2008)

Thanks a lot Evangilder- those photos are fantastic!!


----------



## evangilder (Feb 18, 2008)

You're welcome. Not only does it have impressive demos, but it's a good looking plane too. It's very photogenic.


----------



## Henk (Feb 26, 2008)

I love both aircraft, but if I had to get a great aircraft quickly and cheap I would get the Su-37, but the F-22 has more functions that makes it so expensive and advanced combat aircraft.


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Feb 26, 2008)

hay guys thanks for the info much appreciated but I'm still a fan of the Russian planes don't hate me for saying that i just don't know why


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 27, 2008)

They are beautiful planes. The Russians make some the most elegant looking planes on the planet. I'm still in love with the Tu-95.


----------



## solo (May 12, 2008)

Some say Su-37 has rearward-facing missile system that give the pilot the ability to fire at enemy aircraft behind him.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2008)

solo said:


> Some say Su-37 has rearward-facing missile system that give the pilot the ability to fire at enemy aircraft behind him.


Providing it's radar could actually see what's behind it.


----------



## SoD Stitch (May 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Providing it's radar could actually see what's behind it.



LOL!

That reminds me of that movie "Firefox", with Clint Eastwood: the MiG he stole could (supposedly) shoot missles out the rear at pusuing enemies; more fiction than fact, I should think.


----------



## Matt308 (May 12, 2008)

Don't laugh. It has a NIIP NO-12 rear looking radar and fire control system. Ever wondered what that long stinger was used for? Now whether the tested missiles are in actual service is debateable. The Russians are notorious for one-off experimental/test aircraft. Has it been done? I've read about it. Is it operational? I doubt it in any numbers that are worth worrying about.


----------



## Matt308 (May 12, 2008)

Here is a pic of the Su-34 twin seat bomber. It has a toilet. So why not rear firing missiles to go along with that bad boy stinger.


----------



## solo (May 18, 2008)

I want to know why US fighter are design to be Stealth lately. While Russian designs are still base on aerodynamic.

Regards
SOLO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2008)

solo said:


> I want to know why US fighter are design to be Stealth lately. While Russian designs are still base on aerodynamic.
> 
> Regards
> SOLO



And how and why do you draw that conclusion?


----------



## solo (May 18, 2008)

Because F-22,F-117 and F-35 they are Stealth.
Su-37,Migs and others didn't have Stealth tech that mean it don't need complicated computer system to fly it and they look more like fighter. 

(I may screw this up Sorry About that)


----------



## Matt308 (May 18, 2008)

They HAVE stealth. For the time frame you quote, the US has also developed the F-18E/F, F-15E/J/K/S and numerous UCAVs. And they are all operational.


----------



## Velius (May 18, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Here is a pic of the Su-34 twin seat bomber. It has a toilet. So why not rear firing missiles to go along with that bad boy stinger.



It also has a small galley


----------



## solo (May 19, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> They HAVE stealth. For the time frame you quote, the US has also developed the F-18E/F, F-15E/J/K/S and numerous UCAVs. And they are all operational.



I like that era especially F-15 (don't forget F-16 too)


----------



## drgondog (May 28, 2008)

solo said:


> I like that era especially F-15 (don't forget F-16 too)




When F-15 and F-16 were in design stage (pre 1973) stealth was a Russian paper on signal attenuation that Lockheed and Nothrup found and said 'aha' leading to the F-117. Pave Blue (the forerunner) literally had the radar signature of a humming bird.


----------



## evangilder (May 29, 2008)

A couple of things. First, the F-117 was never a fighter. It didn't carry guns and was used operationally as an attack aircraft. It should have really been called the A-117, but I digress...

How are the F-22 and F-35 not aerodynamic??? Have you actually _seen _these aircraft fly?


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2008)

evangilder said:


> A couple of things. First, the F-117 was never a fighter. It didn't carry guns and was used operationally as an attack aircraft. It should have really been called the A-117, but I digress...
> 
> How are the F-22 and F-35 not aerodynamic??? Have you actually _seen _these aircraft fly?



I agree - but the conversation led from stealth on F-22 back to why not on F15/16/18.. and I was illustrating that 'stealth' concept per se came from an obscure paper on an entirely different subject about the time the 15 and 16 were well along in the design phase.

I definitely agree on the A-117 concept also - and the F-22/35 are exceptionally aerodynamic.. you don't have the ability to 'cruise' > mach 1 if it isn't.


----------



## evangilder (May 29, 2008)

Ah, ok. Stealth technology certainly gives a competitive edge in air combat, at least for now.


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2008)

drgondog said:


> I agree - but the conversation led from stealth on F-22 back to why not on F15/16/18.. and I was illustrating that 'stealth' concept per se came from an obscure paper on an entirely different subject about the time the 15 and 16 were well along in the design phase.
> .



I wouldn't put all my "stealth" eggs in one basket. While I acknowledge the reference, the Russians did not have a monopoly on stealth technology nor R&D activity in its support. In fact, the CIA published a paper on "anti-radar technology" back in the late '50s (1956-1957?). These technical objectives served as the low observable basis for the A-12 (RS-71) development.


----------



## solo (May 29, 2008)

evangilder said:


> A couple of things. First, the F-117 was never a fighter. It didn't carry guns and was used operationally as an attack aircraft. It should have really been called the A-117, but I digress...
> 
> How are the F-22 and F-35 not aerodynamic??? Have you actually _seen _these aircraft fly?



I agree that we should call it A-117 rather than F-117.

(By the way F-117 doesn't seem to have "Fighter" definition.)


----------



## Kruska (May 30, 2008)

The F-22 is certainly a very good aircraft - and a huge $$$ maker for Lookheed Martin, but an upgraded RASIGMA2 Tornado from the GAF would just be as good.

Right now Germany and partially some European NATO members are going into a different direction of developing air combat surviability then the US - mostly due to money constrains. But the result is the same at far lesser costs.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (May 30, 2008)

More justification, Kruska. You piqued our interest.

And what the hell is a RASIGMA2 Tornado?? You playin' video games again?


----------



## Kruska (May 31, 2008)

Hello Matt 308,

No, no video games (actually I don't play any) it's the real thing I am interested and involved in.  

*Quote from the thread - Russia lost the quantity war.*

On the public forum I wouldn't be able to tell you much but maybe you want to refer to: http://www.aero-microwave.com/Files/...asurements.pdf click the second (common base name) and then the 1st article 2005.

Fritzel and Steiner I know quite well, for more info try EADS and then search for RaSigma, but it will be very difficult/impossible to find details. If you put RaSigma5 and a Cheetah together you would easily have the worlds best fighter/fighterbomber - forget the F-22 just good looks and a lot of propaganda - it wouldn't stand a chance - even being a very good aircraft.

The US, Russia and China are exteeeemly interested in this.  

If you google RaSigma, it is surprising to see all the Chinese pages refering to it. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## evangilder (May 31, 2008)

F-22 looks good and propaganda?!?! Are you shitting me? You obviously have never seen the demo live. You can't tell me with a straight face that _any _Tornado is as good or better than the F-22.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 31, 2008)

I could remember the same arguments used against the F-15 with the MiG-29 years ago..


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2008)

Kruska said:


> On the public forum I wouldn't be able to tell you much but maybe you want to refer to: http://www.aero-microwave.com/Files/...asurements.pdf click the second (common base name) and then the 1st article 2005.
> 
> Fritzel and Steiner I know quite well, for more info try EADS and then search for RaSigma, but it will be very difficult/impossible to find details. If you put RaSigma5 and a Cheetah together you would easily have the worlds best fighter/fighterbomber - forget the F-22 just good looks and a lot of propaganda - it wouldn't stand a chance - even being a very good aircraft.
> 
> ...




It's an RCS range in Europe. So?

Kruska you come across as the engineering equivalent of a "name dropper". One who desires worship based solely upon purporting to know austere acronyms, work black projects and naming technical designers.

Until you post something with some actual technical statements, I'll relegate you to my BS bin.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2008)

Kruska said:


> The F-22 is certainly a very good aircraft - and a huge $$$ maker for Lookheed Martin, but an upgraded RASIGMA2 Tornado from the GAF would just be as good.



     

(I could not post anything meaningful, because I could not stop laughing...)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

Hello D.A.I.G.

Laughing is sometimes the reaction by those who do not know much or can't face the facts due to non existing knowledge.

Who cares about how many G's an F-22 can handle, how many 360 degree turns it can do at a 60 degree angle, or what common theoretical stealth RCS it has? or its advanced electronical systems -which radiate as undefined hotspots or counteracts on its own electronics.

A RaSigma upgraded a/c simple see's the opponent first, it simply increases the chances to ident for "first look - first shoot", and reduces/eliminates its own hotspots. 

How does the US aircraft industry places its antennas on a/c's? according to what basic knowledge and in practical application? how do they verify its correct positioning and the RCS of an a/c?, - which BTW changes constantly during operation -(some less educated peolpe on this topic actually believe that the RCS remains a constant figure) How do they ID an a/c without IDF?, how do they configure a hologram on a/c's? and why should one hologram an a/c?

If you should know the answers, dont hesitate to tell me, and we can have a good discussion instead of laughing at things we simply don't know.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

evangilder said:


> F-22 looks good and propaganda?!?! Are you shitting me? You obviously have never seen the demo live. You can't tell me with a straight face that _any _Tornado is as good or better than the F-22.



Hello evangilder,

I know the F-22 is American, so don't take it too personal  

Not "any" Tornado would be as good (I never stated better), but an uprated Tornado via a RaSigma would be as good, simply because its electronical capability and RCS matches the capability of the F-22due to the antenna positioning it would outperform a present F-22 in regards to ECM and spotting range of non friendlies. 

My forwardings are not about placing an F-22 and a Tornado against each other (where the F-22 would have its advantages) but on the effectivness of the aircrafts in their mission role in relation to $$. Obviously a F-22 can't compete with a Tornado on weapon load for ground attack, or naval missions. As an interceptor the RaS..Tornado could perform just as well as the F-22 in respect to other countries aircrafts and ground radar capabilities. The F-22 is IMO just overdoing the topic and who knows what radar technology is available in 5-10 years that might or will make the stealth ability useless. Looking at the "washing" - "showering" of the F-22 due to its sensible surface, I would doubt the servicability of this a/c in "less developed" or harsh environments.

Radar technology is far faster developing (mostly due to stealth) then before. So indeed comparing, placing a F-22 and a RaSigma enhanced Eurofighter against each other I wouldn'd be surprised to find the Eurofighter as the overall better aircraft.

Since we still depend on US technology for an AIM, the US would still have the overall edge  but from a/c to a/c ability on missions these RaSigma Tornados would indeed be a match for a F-22.

BTW all the ex GAF F-4's were "repositioned" before being handed over to Greece, and the Greek AF is indeed very happy about these "extremly electronically and RCS upgraded" a/c's. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## evangilder (Jun 1, 2008)

Uh huh... I really don't think you know the capabilities of the F-22 and are only speculating based on previous US aircraft and how they were in the past. There is a lot of info on the F-22 that is not public knowledge, so for you to categorically claim that a Tornado would be a "match" or better than an F-22 is pure conjecture. 

My nationality and the fact that the F-22 is made in America has nothing to do with it. You have not seen the F-22 in action and you simply do not have all the available information to make a claim like that, especially that the F-22 is only "good looks and propaganda". 

This has gotten WAY off topic anyway, which is F-22 versus *Su-37*.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

evangilder said:


> Uh huh... I really don't think you know the capabilities of the F-22 and are only speculating based on previous US aircraft and how they were in the past. There is a lot of info on the F-22 that is not public knowledge, so for you to categorically claim that a Tornado would be a "match" or better than an F-22 is pure conjecture.
> 
> My nationality and the fact that the F-22 is made in America has nothing to do with it. You have not seen the F-22 in action and you simply do not have all the available information to make a claim like that, especially that the F-22 is only "good looks and propaganda".
> 
> This has gotten WAY off topic anyway, which is F-22 versus *Su-37*.



As I stated before, I never said or wrote better. The public sources for the F-22 are open to anyone - the classified ones you and me wouldn't know, just as you wouldn't know about RaSigma in contra to me. BTW any aircraft needs good looks and propaganda right?

But you are correct on the being of topic for this thread.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I could remember the same arguments used against the F-15 with the MiG-29 years ago..



Hello FLYBOY,

why should someone compare a F-15 with a MiG29, I think that comparrison doesn't stick - it should be a Su27/30 contra F-15.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> why should someone compare a F-15 with a MiG29, I think that comparrison doesn't stick - it should be a Su27/30 contra F-15.
> 
> ...



Because back in the early 1980s they were considered the two top fighters and later the Su 27 was thrown in there. When MiG-29s were flown into Sweden in 1983 (if my memory serves me correctly) there were numerous articles stating how the -29 would be a match for any Western fighter of the period.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Because back in the early 1980s they were considered the two top fighters and later the Su 27 was thrown in there. When MiG-29s were flown into Sweden in 1983 (if my memory serves me correctly) there were numerous articles stating how the -29 would be a match for any Western fighter of the period.



Yes, but that is a usual procedere, whenever the Russians build something new, be it a tank, ship or aircraft, the west - its industry - immediatly reacted in that manner in order to promote new weapon programs, even though the existing ones proved to be even or superior for the next 15 years.

Sweden 1983 - Iraq 2003, Wow thats 20 years and no MiG29 in 2003 could pose a serious or even a threat to an F-15. did the USN, USAF, RAF or French AF loose any a/c due to threatening MiG29's or Su's?

The F-15 IMO, is still good enough to counter a Su27.......35, upgrades could ensure superiority easily for another 15 years. To develop - finance a 170 F-22 just to combat what/ 200-300 Su's and neglect 3000 F-15's and F/A 18's which could be upgraded for a fraction of the costs doesn't make much sense to me. The F-35 will do the job just as well and good.

That is why I forwarded that the F-22 is a very good aircraft, but it all comes down to good looks and propaganda - (meaning the need for the F-22 not its capability) - since a RaSigma enhanced Tornado or Eurofighter could do and will do the job just as well.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2008)

AFAIK no US aircraft has been lost to air to air combat since Vietnam. There is speculation that an Iraqi MiG-25 shot down an F/A-18 the first night of the war but no one has been able to accurately prove this.

As far as upgrading - there is only so much you could do with a dated airframe design and sometimes the contractor will not support out of production aircraft. Every time a new generation of combat aircraft is developed it seems that maintenance man hours are reduced. This is one of the reasons why the F-14 went away. I knew many folks who worked on the Tomcat and compared to the F/A-18 it was a maintenance nightmare.


----------



## buzzard (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska,

You may believe that the addition of electronic gimcrackery will make the Tornado (which by all accounts is no dogfighter, F.3 not excepted) a match for the F-22, but given that the Raptor has shown itself in recent exercises to be clearly superior to current U.S. fighters (The F-15, despite being a generation older than the latest Russian and European fighters, is still very competitive), you have the burden of proof. Conjecture is not evidence...

JL


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as upgrading - there is only so much you could do with a dated airframe design and sometimes the contractor will not support out of production aircraft. Every time a new generation of combat aircraft is developed it seems that maintenance man hours are reduced. This is one of the reasons why the F-14 went away. I knew many folks who worked on the Tomcat and compared to the F/A-18 it was a maintenance nightmare.



Well the Airframes of a F-15 date from 1983? - 2006. Off course one will choose those that are less then 10 years. That is why I find it very interesting to see the European/German approach in contra to the US.

Sofar RaSigma has proved it $ being worth - one will see which side might have the better or lets say more reasonable approach.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Well the Airframes of a F-15 date from 1983? - 2006. Off course one will choose those that are less then 10 years. That is why I find it very interesting to see the European/German approach in contra to the US.


A 10 year old airframe could have thousands of hours on it, depending on where and how the aircraft was operated. That is just one part of the equation for expanding aircraft longevity.


Kruska said:


> Sofar RaSigma has proved it $ being worth - one will see which side might have the better or lets say more reasonable approach.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



We'll see, especially when older airframes still seem to develop more problems as they are continually rebuilt.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Kruska,
> 
> You may believe that the addition of electronic gimcrackery will make the Tornado (which by all accounts is no dogfighter, F.3 not excepted) a match for the F-22, but given that the Raptor has shown itself in recent exercises to be clearly superior to current U.S. fighters (The F-15, despite being a generation older than the latest Russian and European fighters, is still very competitive), you have the burden of proof. Conjecture is not evidence...
> 
> JL



Hello buzzard,

the Tornado is by all means no dogfighter. The question I am putting is if in todays time or in the next 10-20 years, dogfights exept for mockup displays will actually take place or need to take place, since the foe is eliminated by technology in 30-70 km distance and even further now and in the future.

The RaSigma is not about electronic gimcrackery, it is used to determine and improve the existing RCS, Antenna positioning and body areas of deflection and to avoid cross interference on the a/c's own electronics and radar. And this is effectivly done by 1:1 scale live a/c and not through theoretical calculations and formulas as presently by other a/c manufacturers. Stealth addon's, or EMI centers are selected/determined and improved by this system and the range finding capability of RaSigma evaluated a/c's has been enhanced extremly - first look - first shoot.

RaSigma is presently the worlds only system were one can actually determine on an existing aircraft all weak spots and reconfirm changes immediatly in 1:1 and again not through calculations or extremly (not as precise as a RaSigma) costly in flight manouvers - not to mention hung up a/c on steel ropes in a hangar such as the US or others, or scale models. To fly certain or all possible 360 degree angles for an aircraft in order to be re measured would practicably be impossible. The captioned RCS even with different configurations - unique to every single a/c is used to feed a FoF system - no IDF who cares - it will not be ours if not registered.
If oil/fuel e.g. is spilled/weathered on the aircraft what RCS do you have? are you still 100% stealth? and were exactly is the spot on the a/c that betrays its stealth capability.. and there are other things that a RaSigma will find out in order to enhance an existing aircraft.

If Germany would have a budget freedom as the US, this system would have been boycoted by the a/c industry, but since there are budget constrains this system was able to be developed and show its capabilities.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## buzzard (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska, 

I just saw your post, and while I agree with some of it, I'm not at all convinced that the "F-35 will do the job just as well and good"...

IMO, the F-35 is the boondoggle, not the F-22. The billions of dollars spent on this attempt to be 'all things to all people', would have been better spent on a strike-optimized version of the Raptor ala F-15E. Given that much of the cost of the F-22 is avionics, by simplifying the avionics suite (You don't need an all AWACS fleet), the cost would be comparable to, if not less than, that of the much less capable F-35.

The Vol.9, No.2 'Combat Aircraft' magazine has an interesting article to that effect. One of the more interesting items in the article concerns the cost of this supposedly '$40-60 million' a/c... 

USAF calculated average flyaway unit cost:

FY2007 $247.45 --- 2 a/c
FY2008 $215.035 -- 6 a/c
FY2009 $199.45 --- 8 a/c
FY2010 $158.54 -- 12 a/c
FY2011 $124.58 -- 24 a/c
FY2012 $101.72 -- 42 a/c
FY2013 $91.22 --- 48 a/c

If history is any indication, these costs are optimistic at best. A simplified strike version of the F-22 would be more capable in every way (excepting the STOVL role for the USMC/RN) and probably cost less.

Of course the F-35, as the only game in town, is a fait accompli...for the Russians, who must be rubbing their hands in glee at all the business that the astronomical price of the JSF will send their way.

JL


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

buzzard said:


> Kruska,
> 
> I just saw your post, and while I agree with some of it, I'm not at all convinced that the "F-35 will do the job just as well and good"...
> 
> ...



Yes, I do agree with most of your post, but to enhance/supplement a F-22 into a strike version and to replace about 3000-4000 existing US combat a/c I would think is impossible to pay for, even for a super power.

IMO the F-35 can still do the job of an F-22, even though the F-22 will be the better interceptor.

Besides some nutty Arab or third world country, or non US product buying countries such as India or China, I do not see much chances for anyone to get around a Eurofighter, F-35, Saab or Rafahel.
So IMO the Russians would be rubbing their hands for nothing 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 1, 2008)

buzzard said:


> IMO, the F-35 is the boondoggle, not the F-22. The billions of dollars spent on this attempt to be 'all things to all people', would have been better spent on a strike-optimized version of the Raptor ala F-15E. Given that much of the cost of the F-22 is avionics, by simplifying the avionics suite (You don't need an all AWACS fleet), the cost would be comparable to, if not less than, that of the much less capable F-35.


Although the F-35 is falling victim to cost over runs, look at the F-22 in the same time frame and it was an anchor. I've worked with people who worked on both the F-22 and f-35 and in the end the F-35 will be the more cost effective aircraft. There were many mistakes made on the F-22 that were not made on the F-35, in fact LMAC has to walk a fine line not to let the F-35 overshadow the F-22, and for a while that was happening.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello D.A.I.G.
> 
> Laughing is sometimes the reaction by those who do not know much or can't face the facts due to non existing knowledge.



The differene Kruska is that I do not *pretend* to know everything, and people can tell when people are blowing smoke up there ass.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 1, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> why should someone compare a F-15 with a MiG29, I think that comparrison doesn't stick - it should be a Su27/30 contra F-15.
> 
> ...



Yet the comparison of an aging Tornado with a F-22 does?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yet the comparison of an aging Tornado with a F-22 does?



It depends on what issue you compare, did I ever compare the Tornado an flight manouver ability with a F-22, or on stealth ability? Is there a need to?

If I would compare the Tornado and F-22 on ground attack capabilities, the F-22 would certainly be out of the competition, same would apply on naval warfare, but I do not.

The primary and only mission/purpose for the F-22 is interception / airsuperiority against present and future a/c threats - which could only be a SU 27-35/ equivalents and Co. And as such I do indeed compare an RS Tornado with the F-22, or a RaSigma enhanced Eurofighter. But since the present RS Tornados can do the job, I don't even need to bring up the Eurofighter.

If I would tell you that a Rheinmetall 20mm tungsten projectile can inflict the same result as a 105mm, would you laugh? just because you never thought about it? because you wouldn't know, since everybody is reading and hearing about the fabulous Abrams with a 105mm cannon in 1982. And you will be telling me all about its fantastic turbine, spacious compartment and armour compared to the German Wiesel. 

And I would still forward that a Wiesel can match an Abrams I in the anti tank role in 1982.

If someone on this forum does not agree to my opinion, I can certainly live with it, as long as it is expressed in a civil manner - but I will not just stand by having put words in my mouth such as that I would know everything, or that I would blow smoke up on peoples ass. 

If that is your opinion about me, well then I thank you for your rich comment.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 2, 2008)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> And as such I do indeed compare an RS Tornado with the F-22,



Okay then please provide actual proof that the RS Tornado is just as capable or better than the F-22? 



Kruska said:


> If I would tell you that a Rheinmetall 20mm tungsten projectile can inflict the same result as a 105mm, would you laugh?



No because I do not know much about Armour and that is not part of this discussion, so I would just tell you to keep it on topic.



Kruska said:


> because you wouldn't know, since everybody is reading and hearing about the fabulous Abrams with a 105mm cannon in 1982. And you will be telling me all about its fantastic turbine, spacious compartment and armour compared to the German Wiesel.



No because I actually believe that the Leopard 2 is a better tank than the Abrams.

But ofcourse I do not even know what this "Wiesel" is you are talking about...

Again though, this would have nothing to do with this discussion, and I would just tell you to get back on topic.



Kruska said:


> If someone on this forum does not agree to my opinion, I can certainly live with it, as long as it is expressed in a civil manner - but I will not just stand by having put words in my mouth such as that I would know everything, or that I would blow smoke up on peoples ass.



I did not say that you were pretending to know what you were talking about, or that you were blowing smoke up peoples ass. I was making a general statement in reaction to you implying that I have *non existing knowledge!*



Kruska said:


> If that is your opinion about me, well then I thank you for your rich comment.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



I can say the same of you, based off of your comment. Everything here is a two way street my friend.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Okay then please provide actual proof that the RS Tornado is just as capable or better than the F-22?
> 
> *Please check my post 39 under Modern/F-14*
> 
> ...



 *on future good discussions*

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska, I'm confused. Are you implying that Germany has a monopoly on open air RCS test facilities? What unique capabilities does RS bring to the table that other leading RCS test facilities do not? Your video and still shots of your RCS target fixture seemed less than extraordinary.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> *on future good discussions*
> 
> Regards
> Kruska





Agreed


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Kruska, I'm confused. Are you implying that Germany has a monopoly on open air RCS test facilities? What unique capabilities does RS bring to the table that other leading RCS test facilities do not? Your video and still shots of your RCS target fixture seemed less than extraordinary.



Yes, presently (since 2000) Germany has a monopoly on an open air RCS turntable lift facility which enables clean 360 degree RCS analysis of full sized a/c's in contra to flatbed open air RCS or indoor measurments, which partially only enable segmentational scans. The second part would be the software, which enables to determine hotspots within a 0.3cm diameter, e.g. a bolt or even irregular coating thickness, analyse the antenna interacting (since 2003) and datacollect a homogenous RCS print (like fingerprint) which can be fed into an onboard IFF system or hologram visualised by Helmet mounted optics (range depending on weather conditions) and ident. the aircraft even down to weapon status.(since 2006/7).

If you think not, maybe you could provide some pictures and capability data from US open RCS facilities? The US try very hard to achieve similar possibilities but AFAIK they have not succeeded so far.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Kruska, I'm confused. Are you implying that Germany has a monopoly on open air RCS test facilities? What unique capabilities does RS bring to the table that other leading RCS test facilities do not? Your video and still shots of your RCS target fixture seemed less than extraordinary.


I was wondering the same thing....

I used to live close by Edwards AFB - there's at least 10 RCS test facilities within a 50 mile radius. Here's 2 of them.

Northrop Tejon Ranch Radar Cross Section Facility

Gray Butte Radar Cross-Section Facility


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

please scroll down to page 12/13, what makes it unique to other open field RCS facilities is the ability to to combine clean radar signature verification and antenna installed performance capabilities due to the positioner (360 degree turn in Vertikal and Horizontal status) In addition, the extended frequency range now covers frequencies from 0.5 to 40 GHz. Not mentioned because only since 2006/7 is the hologram and RCS print for IFF.

View attachment Rasigma 70.pdf


Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Good info Kruska, the facility seems very capable. The ones I shown that are in California are for the most part classified and not much is known on what they test or their capabilities. I do know there are several compaines that do RCS tesing indoors as well.

RCS Test Facility, Lockheed Martin F-22 - The Howland Company

Etcheron Valley Junction Ranch Range RCS Facility


----------



## Kruska (Jun 2, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY,

thanks for the Howland link. It varifies my knowledge status about the F-22 or present US standard of being measured only indoors on mockup or non operational (used) aircrafts without a 360 degree full encompassing scan and the segmentational (partial) outdoor scan.

Maybe they don't want to show the "secret" capability in regards to outdoor scan  but I doubt that personaly.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Maybe they don't want to show the "secret" capability in regards to outdoor scan  but I doubt that personaly.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska


Up till a few years ago there were no details about these facilities, as a matter of fact many of them been around sine the late 1970s.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 2, 2008)

There are many ranges that are outdoors for far field measurements. Hell there is one no less than 12 miles from my house that Boeing uses for missile testing. Most of the RCS ranges that you are referring to are on Military reservations that are typically not available for the press to scrutinize. Sandia Laboratories owns two that I know of in support of the DoD. The Tonopah reservation contains multiple far field ranges. Their use? Beats the hell out of me, but they include quite a bit of large ground infrastructure. But perhaps you are right, probably just used for golf.

While I understand your statements about risk associated with calculating nearfield effects from far field radition, I am more than a little concerned that your conclusion that RaSigma addresses all of these shortcomings to a degree that indicates obsolescence. The US (and other countries for that matter) possess both near and far-field RCS test facilities that offer various cost vs benefits for the EMF being analyzed

You make a statement that US anechoic facilities provide results that are less than ideal. What makes you think that use of those facilities are inherently substandard in a typical multifaceted test regime that includes far field analysis for ANY DoD acquisition? Even RaSigma has inherent limitations associated with its mounting structure, multi-path reflections, dependency upon local geographic features and emitting equipment (ground or air based). I mean, how technically advanced over other facility's capabilities is use of a remote vehicle containing the emitting equipment whose EMC signature is influenced by wireless data link control and making use of high speed rotors/engines. There are always pros and cons to approaches and to date I am not aware that any one of them is by itself a silver bullet to RCS testing. The sheer fact is that the level of energy in terms of dBm is so low that virtually every aspect of a ranges construction is likely to influence test results.

So I find your position of RaSigma superiority a bit specious.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 3, 2008)

Hello Matt308,

Germany or lets rather say EADS, before it was a DASAG facility, used the same kind of open field RCS facilities as the US or others. The results were found to be from non satisfying to good but not to the peak, and furthermore to time consuming and too costly.

Some trials or datacollections such as a 360 degree full encompassing scan, the ability to combine clean radar signature verification and antenna installed performance or the hologram and RCS print ID application could not be done before or on existing out door ranges.

Regarding deflections: yes starting in 1998 it took 2 1/2 years just to develop/design the angularity and define the material of the lifter booms to come to a clean verification of scans.

And all of the above factors plus the development of the software is what makes the EADS RaSigma unique till today - who knows about tomorrow or in a years time.

As you can see for yourself this topic is classified and obtained results are top secret, I think you retrieved more information from me on those couple of posts then what the US facilities are publicly documenting or even showing.

The main reason for the further development of an enhanced RCS facility was actually the shoot down of the F-117 in Serbia and a severely damaged 2nd one which showed-proved that the stealth verifications were not precise or could not be optained as such by former RCS technology. At the same time it opened up the possibility to use this technology to uprade - upstealth existing aircrafts.

There are as you know international symposiums on this topic and one of the leading German experts is internationally recognized as a person of capacity, it was him and another guy (imagine just 2 people) who came up with this idea, and I am very proud to say that I was involved in this (just a very little bit) from the day of developing the booms. And belief me I never expected this kind of rapid progress to develop and come up with such a unique system in such a short time.

Now in order not to be termed as a BS again: let me state very clearly - I have never been an employee at EADS or DASAG.

How do countries or companies verify their knowledge or state of the art? Well espionage could be one way - but no much simpler. 

There is a country that just received brand new aircrafts from the US, from BMcDD to be exact. An RCS is picked up through different means and exactly these RCS patterns are analysed or compared to earlier ones and we (Germany) know very well from the other side about their lead or knowledge on the subject. Of course this works vise versa.

So I hope this helps a bit to rseolve your sceptical view: because through this verifications one knows exactly about the others state of art, there is no reason to speculate about actual existing RCS pickups or ones lead on the topic.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 3, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Matt308,
> 
> 
> There are as you know international symposiums on this topic and one of the leading German experts is internationally recognized as a person of capacity, it was him and another guy (imagine just 2 people) who came up with this idea, *and I am very proud to say that I was involved in this (just a very little bit) from the day of developing the booms*. And belief me I never expected this kind of rapid progress to develop and come up with such a unique system in such a short time.
> ...



Now we are getting somewhere, Kruska. Your post was excellent. I will not file this post in my BS bin.

What parts of the boom were your involved in? The structural aspects? The EMC aspects? Modelling?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 4, 2008)

Hello Matt308,

No, my engineering knowledge would certainly be far too limited to grasp or interpret these calculations and factors regarding this topic. For the results I rely on the experts to forward these to me and others.
I did not say I was involved in the developing of the booms, but since the day of developing these.

My part is (was) more towards the promotion of this facility to the respective governments - since this system is also used for civil aviation (comp ability checks and verification of electronic and radio interferences) - or national defence – authorities, in order to prepare presentations to these authorities, after evaluating (gathering of relevant information) the existing national defense doctrine, air surveillance and state of the art in reference to air defense and aircraft purchasing programs. 

Regards 
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 4, 2008)

Ah okay. Marketing/Sales. I gotcha.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 4, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Ah okay. Marketing/Sales. I gotcha.



Yes, more or less sales.  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## clear1970 (Aug 28, 2010)

ScOoTeR1992 said:


> hay guys thanks for the info much appreciated but I'm still a fan of the Russian planes don't hate me for saying that i just don't know why



We don't hate you! Your just jealous because Australia was not able to purchase F-22 instead of the F-35. JK.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 29, 2010)

I like the Russian birds too. They build 'em pretty.


----------

