F-22 Vs. Su-37

[Kruska]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.........
JL

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Kruska]

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]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.