F-22 vs....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

T

The Nerd

Airman
36
0
Sep 14, 2005
Snohomish Washinton
I have a great appreciation for the F-22 raptor, and I think its one, if not the best fighter of the modern world. but recently I recieved a book of jet war planes past through present. After reding about the newer Mig 29 and its capabilities as a close counter fighter, and the Su-34 Flanker with all its glories, I kinda got curious, which is the better in a dogfight?
 
Any modern plane will wipe the floor with F-22 in WVR.

And with very good enough ECM/ECCM it will have equal chances in BVR. F-22 is all about stealth, but it is not undetectable, and you can find him either with use of good radar with good computer, passive detection (IRST, electro-optical, detecting those tons of EM radiation from uber-cool F-22 radar) or simply with Eyeball Mk I if one have enough luck.
 
Personally, I would like to see mock fight between F-22 and the latest MIG-29 and SU-34. Then I would decide which is better, but I think MIG and SUKHOI fighters are better than any US fighter. I once read an article, can't remember where, that there was a mock dogfight between MIG-29( or was it SU??) and F-15. It remained a secret one because of one reason, guess which one?
 
I think you guys would be in for a big shock if the F-22 ever engages these Russian aircraft. Chances are, as I'm sure you know, the MiGs and Sukois will be shot down BVR.
 
If if was an F-15 versus a Su-34, I am not totally surprised. The Su-34 is at least a generation newer than the F-15. Look at the first flight info on both aircraft.

It is quite easy for people to sit back and poo-poo the F-22 when they have never seen it up close, nor seen it fly a demo.

But keep thinking that the MiGs and Sukhois are better, because if they ever do meet in a combat arena, there will be some very surprised adversaries.
 
Zarathos said:
Any modern plane will wipe the floor with F-22 in WVR.

And with very good enough ECM/ECCM it will have equal chances in BVR. F-22 is all about stealth, but it is not undetectable, and you can find him either with use of good radar with good computer, passive detection (IRST, electro-optical, detecting those tons of EM radiation from uber-cool F-22 radar) or simply with Eyeball Mk I if one have enough luck.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Please enlighten me with facts that will prove your point. Where do you come up with this stuff????

Seriously please post facts to prove your point.

This should be good, we are all waiting....

I dont wish to insult you here but you really dont seem to know what you are talking about.

The F-22 is highly maneuverable especially with its thrust vectoring.

The F-22 has a stealth advantage.

The F-22 has some of the latest avionics technology.
 
Here's a quote from Smithsonian's Air Space magazine that pretty well sums it up:

(Lt. Col. Michael Showers) has seen demos and videos of performances by the Russian MiG 29 and Sukhoi Su 35, and admits that their maneuverability is probably on a par with the F-22. "I can do everything they can do and vice versa," he says. "We can all do some pretty neat stuff. But I love this part of it: That's all they have. They don't have the stealth , they don't have the supercruise, they don't have the integrated sensors, the avionics. We have an aircraft that does everything a fighter pilot has ever wanted to do. It has it all—you can tell by the price tag," he says, (about $137 million per copy, or $338 million if you count in all the Air Force's research costs).

Here are some more informative quotes from the official USAF website concerning the F-22's first participation in last year's Red Flag excercises:

'Though better known for its stealth capability, the F-22 packs a list of surprises cherished by Raptor pilots and coveted by others. In addition to radar evasion, this fifth-generation fighter features unmatched maneuverability, surprising power (supercruise) and integrated avionics or sensor fusion (multiple displays combined into one). Even aircraft maintainers said they enjoy superior logistics such as computerized technical orders, reduced trouble shooting and faster remove-and-replace components, such as engine changes. These Raptor advantages were demonstrated and sharpened at Red Flag.'

And:

'When the Raptor finds itself in a dogfight, it is no longer beyond visual range, but the advantage of stealth isn't diminished. It maintains "high ground" even at close range.

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

Lt. Col. Larry Bruce, 65th AS commander, admits flying against the Raptor is a very frustrating experience. Reluctantly, he admitted "it's humbling to fly against the F-22," - humbling, not only because of its stealth, but also its unmatched maneuverability and power.'
 
F22 is probably the best and definitely the most advanced fighter at the current time...I wonder what are the russians gonna throw at him...Mig29 was a great fighter but against an F22...
 
MiG-29 is an awesome fighter. So is F-15. But these airframes and their avionic suites are old. Even with upgrades, their avionics 'backbone' is not capable of supporting the open architecture and integration that the F-22 enjoys. Today's fighter is more about the avionics allowing continual upgrades and modifications, pilot training, and integration with other battlefield assets. Certainly stealth plays a part, but lethality is all about situation awareness and ability to convey that information to nearby assets to act as force multipliers.
 
VVS is not like USAF. They have different doctrine and their planes are built around that doctrine. Problem is, that Russia (and probably China) is only country that can use them as they were planned and build to be used.

For example USAF planes are made so, that they can be used with each others and work with help of AWACS above enemy territory. VVS planes are made to operate above their own territory (or fight areas) with heavy support of SAMs and ground based radars. USAF is "stay there, shoot, take fuel in the air and shot a little more". VVS is "land, intercept, shot, land".

Different planes, different tactics. One on one in neutral ground - probably USAF fighters will win 7 fights out of ten. One on ten (as russians made their fighters to fight) - SAF fighters will loos most fights. Wanna comapare fighters - compare them with all factors in mind.
 
So that makes the F-22 an inferior fighter how?

One on one in neutral territory, F-22 wins, but ten to one it doesn't? How many aircraft win at 10 to one?!?!?

Tactics are one thing, the aircraft and it's capabilities are another. Let me ask you this, how well have buyers of that Russian hardware been doing with it? It appears to me that when a country buys Russian gear, they get minimal training that is barely adequate. I can't say the same for buyers of US gear. A majority of the buyers of US gear at least know how to use the Nav systems to get home once out of visual range of the airbase.

I could name countless cold war countries that had very poorly trained piltos in their Russian made gear, who got lost regularly or just punched out when things got the slightest bit wrong.
 
hey, Su-34 is a bomber, its kinda unfair to throw a bomber against the F-22,isnt it? :lol:
In a pure dogfight, Su-30MK has slightly better chance because of better aerodynamics and overall agility, but only if it can track with its IRST the reduced IT signature of Raptor, which is pretty hard to do within acceptable range. But anyway, as I always say, you cant compare peaches with oranges - the Su-30 comes from the Su-27 family, it's basically the same airframe ,just fitted with better engines and avionics.

Zarathos said:
VVS planes are made to operate above their own territory (or fight areas) with heavy support of SAMs and ground based radars. USAF is "stay there, shoot, take fuel in the air and shot a little more". VVS is "land, intercept, shot, land".
Different planes, different tactics. One on one in neutral ground - probably USAF fighters will win 7 fights out of ten. One on ten (as russians made their fighters to fight) - SAF fighters will loos most fights. Wanna comapare fighters - compare them with all factors in mind.[/
Click to expand...
Your statement is correct regarding the russian tactics before 4th gen fighters were introduced - for example, Su-27 has the same role as F-15 as a air superiorty fighter regardless where the action takes place.
One on ten - even in 60ies the Vietnamese were almost always outnumbered by USAF but they still could achieve victories. The numerical superiority was never a point of the VVS because they never hadn't any.
 
So Russia values its pilots less, thus is willing to sacrifice their loss as grist for the war mill. Brilliant tactic, I guess.

So knowing that, that must instill pride and high morale in the pilot cadre. As well as greatly influencing the aircraft's requirements to not "over engineer" them and violate the expected 10:1 loss "doctrine". Certainly helps with sales.

With the recent birth rate of indigenous Russian males, perhaps you might wish to rethink that doctrine. Now with respect to the Chinese, they have the economy and enough males trainable for pilot fodder. So perhaps for them the doctrine works. :toothy5:
 
Zarathos said:
VVS is not like USAF. They have different doctrine and their planes are built around that doctrine. Problem is, that Russia (and probably China) is only country that can use them as they were planned and build to be used.

For example USAF planes are made so, that they can be used with each others and work with help of AWACS above enemy territory. VVS planes are made to operate above their own territory (or fight areas) with heavy support of SAMs and ground based radars. USAF is "stay there, shoot, take fuel in the air and shot a little more". VVS is "land, intercept, shot, land".

Different planes, different tactics. One on one in neutral ground - probably USAF fighters will win 7 fights out of ten. One on ten (as russians made their fighters to fight) - SAF fighters will loos most fights. Wanna comapare fighters - compare them with all factors in mind.
Click to expand...
\

Okay now please explain to me how that makes the F-22 inferior?

Oh and while you are at it, please go back to the Alpha sub thread and post that list of NATO ships sunk by Polish Subs.
 
In close combat the MiG 29 would be more than likely the better of the two.
"
The MiG-29 has a few advantages over its more electronically advanced American counterparts. At about 40 miles apart, the American planes have the advantage because of avionics. At 10 miles the advantage is turning to the MiG. At five miles out, because of the MiG weapons sight and better maneuverability, the advantage is to the MiG. The weapons sight is a helmet-mounted system that allows the missile to follow the line of sight of the pilot's helmet. Where the pilot looks is where it goes."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
USAF Reviewing the V-22 Role
Replies
0
Views
334
MIflyer
M
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
713
GTX
GTX
Dronescapes
Pratt & Whitney PART 2: From The F100 turbofan That Powered The F-15 To The F-22 Raptor Engine
Replies
1
Views
171
Gnomey
Gnomey
N
About NATF-22
Replies
1
Views
323
cvairwerks
C
J
F-106 vs. F-4 (1972)
Replies
0
Views
433
Joe Broady
J
Back