An incredible display of skill and technology . . .

[Remington]

check it out! (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1994695142386399860)

Anyone else have more footage of maneuvers like these?

[personman]

Woww... that's awesome.

[Rudz]

thats hot

[geekwarrior]

that is cool.....a nice fat, slow moving target...lol....it is impressive though

[magman007]

its also fast as crap geek warrior, and could litterally shred the f22 in a dog fight.

[MoeMag]

yeah but the f22 doesnt need to dog fight.... beyond visual range attack. But yeah as far as speed the sukhoi-35/37 (whichever it was) tops out at m 2.35 whereas the f-22 is at 1.58. Give me an f-15 anyday though... m2.5 :cool:

[bleachit]

its also fast as crap geek warrior, and could litterally shred the f22 in a dog fight.

meh, I doubt it.

experience always pwns technology in the air anyway. regardless, the f22 is far more capable than an a stunt plane.


we need to get those Sukoi's in the hands of all our enemies.... they will kill all their pilots trying to show off.

[txaggie08]

That little flat immelman he did was a neat manuver. That and the rolling spin...


Calling that thing a stunt plane is funny. Its an unarmed aircraft with to smoke gen. on it. They are faster and more manuverable in CAM sitaution....


BTW, just because there american doesnt mean there more experienced. Talk to some korea era vets about dog fighting with russians...

[Steelrat]

its also fast as crap geek warrior, and could litterally shred the f22 in a dog fight.

Wrong. The F-22 is every bit as manueverable as the Sukhois. You should see the airshow demos, the -22 does cobras and all the other junk the Sukhois do. The Mig-29 OTV may be a tad more manueverable due to it's 3-d manuevering, but it's really academic. The new HOBS heaters and HMS allow engagement all around an airplane anyways.

Plus, in air-to-air combat, energy is life. Slow speed manuevers look cool, but they will only get you killed. The F-22 has it all over the russian jets. It can supercruise, which means it can exercise contempt of engagement all day long. The F-22 has a far, far superior radar that will soon be upgraded to act as an emp weapon. The -22s will massacre the russian jets, and thats not even figuring in the stealth. Even the most conservative estimates put the kill/loss ratio of a -22 versus an SU-27 at 10+ to 1.

There is NO jet out there that it equal to the Raptor. Not the Russian birds, not the Eurofighter, NOTHING.

[trevorjk]

Wrong. The F-22 is every bit as manueverable as the Sukhois. You should see the airshow demos, the -22 does cobras and all the other junk the Sukhois do. The Mig-29 OTV may be a tad more manueverable due to it's 3-d manuevering, but it's really academic. The new HOBS heaters and HMS allow engagement all around an airplane anyways.

Plus, in air-to-air combat, energy is life. Slow speed manuevers look cool, but they will only get you killed. The F-22 has it all over the russian jets. It can supercruise, which means it can exercise contempt of engagement all day long. The F-22 has a far, far superior radar that will soon be upgraded to act as an emp weapon. The -22s will massacre the russian jets, and thats not even figuring in the stealth. Even the most conservative estimates put the kill/loss ratio of a -22 versus an SU-27 at 10+ to 1.

There is NO jet out there that it equal to the Raptor. Not the Russian birds, not the Eurofighter, NOTHING.

how about the p51-Mustang i heard those things are amazing, and in manueverability they own the jets :D :cheers:

[rkjunior303]

how about the p51-Mustang i heard those things are amazing, and in manueverability they own the jets :D :cheers:

I was always a P-38 guy..

[Altimas]

I've flown kites better and more entertaining than that.

[edweird]

meh it would of been ground breaking and usefull 13 years ago... but modern aircombat is moved to the realm of beyond visual range. hovering fighterjets suck up the fragmentation warheads of modern air intercept missiles just as easy as a jet that is moving at mach+

face it kids, dogfighting has went the way of pistol duels at high noon.

evolve or die

[robnix]

I've flown kites better and more entertaining than that.

I was more entertained by this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8110880470768460776

[Steelrat]

meh it would of been ground breaking and usefull 13 years ago... but modern aircombat is moved to the realm of beyond visual range. hovering fighterjets suck up the fragmentation warheads of modern air intercept missiles just as easy as a jet that is moving at mach+

face it kids, dogfighting has went the way of pistol duels at high noon.

evolve or die

Exactly. And even if you do "dogfight" its all about energy. Pulling those airshow manuevers dumps so much energy that you are toast.

What the Sukhois and Migs will actually face is a bunch of F-22s running passive, launching their missles with supercruise boosting for additional range, acquiring the targeting information from AWACs loitering way behind them. Enemy planes will not even know what hit them. Remember that air warfare is more than just plane versus plane, though the F-22 canbeat anyone at that game. It's about all the support systems as well, and no one else in the world does that NEARLY as well as the US.

[SCpoloRicker]

I work for Sukhoil. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.

[Steelrat]

I work for Sukhoil.

Is that a petroleum company?

[trevorjk]

I work for Sukhoil. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.


then enlighten us? :tard:

[bleachit]

I work for Sukhoil. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.



I work for Lockfeed Shartin. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.

[mobsterboy]

I work for Sukhoil. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.

you seem to really get around jobwise. Where don't you work again?

The line "I work for..." is really overrated and overused, so im really just getting a kick out of your replies. lawl

[txaggie08]

I was more entertained by this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8110880470768460776


You hear the guy at the end go "its alright"

[edweird]

so yeah my 10 years of working on USAF tactical aircraft in close relation with instructor pilots is just some BS you get from the typical AOer...

[pennywise]

I work for Sukhoil. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.

so yeah my 10 years of working on USAF tactical aircraft in close relation with instructor pilots is just some BS you get from the typical AOer...
Jesus, haven't you people figured out Ricker's game yet... :tard:

[billybob_81067]

I work for sarcasm and irony. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't.

I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

This is how bad info gets passed around.

If you dont know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do.

Cos some AOers believe anything they hear.

:p

[rkjunior303]

Exactly. And even if you do "dogfight" its all about energy. Pulling those airshow manuevers dumps so much energy that you are toast.

What the Sukhois and Migs will actually face is a bunch of F-22s running passive, launching their missles with supercruise boosting for additional range, acquiring the targeting information from AWACs loitering way behind them. Enemy planes will not even know what hit them. Remember that air warfare is more than just plane versus plane, though the F-22 canbeat anyone at that game. It's about all the support systems as well, and no one else in the world does that NEARLY as well as the US.

that's even if they get past stuff like or AEGIS cruisers.

[SCpoloRicker]

"Sukhois"? "Sukhoil"? "Suckoil"?

/lol
//happy friday everybody

[Steelrat]

that's even if they get past stuff like or AEGIS cruisers.

Or even if they get in the air after their fields are pounded by wave after wave of tomahawks.

[NewbieMagMan10988]

*back on topic*


I think that was neat.


*on stupid topic*

Who cares... it was an air show, not a "i can win in a dogfight because i cans stall my plane" show....



But w/e


Mike

[Steelrat]

*back on topic*


I think that was neat.


*on stupid topic*

Who cares... it was an air show, not a "i can win in a dogfight because i cans stall my plane" show....



But w/e


Mike

Yes, but then the inevitable "Those things could waste our planes in a dogfight" stuff happened. Only third-world countries really think that fancy flying crap means anything in actual fighting.

[DWill]

Wrong. The F-22 is every bit as manueverable as the Sukhois. You should see the airshow demos, the -22 does cobras and all the other junk the Sukhois do. The Mig-29 OTV may be a tad more manueverable due to it's 3-d manuevering, but it's really academic. The new HOBS heaters and HMS allow engagement all around an airplane anyways.

Plus, in air-to-air combat, energy is life. Slow speed manuevers look cool, but they will only get you killed. The F-22 has it all over the russian jets. It can supercruise, which means it can exercise contempt of engagement all day long. The F-22 has a far, far superior radar that will soon be upgraded to act as an emp weapon. The -22s will massacre the russian jets, and thats not even figuring in the stealth. Even the most conservative estimates put the kill/loss ratio of a -22 versus an SU-27 at 10+ to 1.

There is NO jet out there that it equal to the Raptor. Not the Russian birds, not the Eurofighter, NOTHING.

Sorry for beating a dead horse but the Su-37 has 3d thrust vectoring as well and I imagine is quite a bit more manueverable than the F-22. The "stealth" technology also makes the F-22 a bit less aerodynamic. You can never completely plan out combat situations and if a dogfight were to happen the extra manueverbility might be useful. But I agree the F-22 is a superior fighter. However that is also a moot point, seeing as Su-37s are not in production and will likely never be. You are also comparing a generation 4 fighter to a generation 5 fighter, and a 130 million dollar fighter to a 45 million (ish) fighter, hardly fair. Finally the F-22 is most likely the best fighter now, but later? The Russians have some very promising test planes, and have been known to but out high quality fighters that compete with ours for a much lower cost.

[Steelrat]

Sorry for beating a dead horse but the Su-37 has 3d thrust vectoring as well and I imagine is quite a bit more manueverable than the F-22. The "stealth" technology also makes the F-22 a bit less aerodynamic. You can never completely plan out combat situations and if a dogfight were to happen the extra manueverbility might be useful. But I agree the F-22 is a superior fighter. However that is also a moot point, seeing as Su-37s are not in production and will likely never be. You are also comparing a generation 4 fighter to a generation 5 fighter, and a 130 million dollar fighter to a 45 million (ish) fighter, hardly fair. Finally the F-22 is most likely the best fighter now, but later? The Russians have some very promising test planes, and have been known to but out high quality fighters that compete with ours for a much lower cost.


First of all, stealth does not interfere with aerodynamics. Maybe back in the F117 days, but that was the 70s, and it's not true with current generation planes like the -22 or -35.

As for manueverability, both planes are 9g+ aircraft. Sure, with the 3d vectoring they can do the neat slow speed manuevers, but again, those will just get you killed.

As for cost, Russian stuff is always cheaper, but you really get what you pay for. Ease of maintenance, reliability, and ease of use are all things that US aircraft have in spades over their Russian counterparts, as well as lethality.

[rkjunior303]

As for cost, Russian stuff is always cheaper, but you really get what you pay for. Ease of maintenance, reliability, and ease of use are all things that US aircraft have in spades over their Russian counterparts, as well as lethality.
I wouldn't want to put my life on Russian gear over US gear - granted, they floated our Space program for quite some time with no accidents..

[Linkwarner]

And I thought I knew a bunch about jets... Wow. lol, All I know is that is impressive.. and it was a AIR SHOW. Not a dogfight

[Destructo6]

There is NO jet out there that it equal to the Raptor. Not the Russian birds, not the Eurofighter, NOTHING.
And how many operational Raptors are there?

First of all, stealth does not interfere with aerodynamics. Maybe back in the F117 days, but that was the 70s, and it's not true with current generation planes like the -22 or -35.
Sure it does. The internal weapons bays increase the plane's frontal area, increasing drag. The only reason for the internal weapons bays is for stealth (ie AIM9s aren't stealthy).

[bleachit]

hmmm


Im sure an internal streamlined weapons bay that is VERY aerodynamically clean produces FAR more parasite drag than a bunch of pylons and missles hanging underneath it. Also, you can have a rather large frontal area and still have a slick airpalne... 747 anyone?


the f22 may bulge more than an airplane with external load, but a properly designed aircraft will still be aerodynamically efficient regardless. How big an aircraft is is only one part that determines its equivalent parasite area...

http://www.f-22raptor.com/pix/photos/news/060607_01.jpg

http://gumballproductions.com/333/0899/f15-front.jpg


edit:

now that I think of it, the interfere drag added to the drag of having the pylons hanging down with weapons on them would also result in higher total parasite drag than that of the internal weapons bay...

[Steelrat]

And how many operational Raptors are there?

About 50. Certainly more than the number of operation Eurofighters.


Sure it does. The internal weapons bays increase the plane's frontal area, increasing drag. The only reason for the internal weapons bays is for stealth (ie AIM9s aren't stealthy).

Where are you getting that it increases drag? The F-15 has a lot more frontal area than, say, an F-86, does that cause it to have more drag? Plus, the fact that it has the internal bays means that it doesn't have to carry it's ordinance externally, which would be far draggier than any minimal size increase. Also, the Raptor is the only us plane that can supercruise, that doesn't sound very draggy to me. Yes, the only reason for the bays is stealth, but a benefit is that there is no penalty on performance for having a combat load on the raptor. Try tossing around a loaded Sukhoi or Eurofighter the way you can a loaded Raptor.

[bleachit]

Also, the Raptor is the only us plane that can supercruise, that doesn't sound very draggy to me.

actually I believe some of the F15's can supercruise, not like the F22 but they can do it.

[Steelrat]

actually I believe some of the F15's can supercruise, not like the F22 but they can do it.

Not that I've heard of. Which F-15s? And there is really only one definition of supercruise, which is the ability to maintain supersonic speed using only mil power, not afterburner. There is some debate about whether planes that need AB to hit supersonic, but can then maintain it wil mil, can be considered supercruise capable. I didn't think the F-15 fit into either catagory. If so, it certainly is without any sort of ordinance, and probably with minimal fuel.

[bleachit]

I dont remember which model, but I do recall reading about it several times.

yes, the aircraft was able to maintain supersonic flight without ab. However, I never read whether or not it required ab to get there. If I remember correctly, its some ridiculously low number like M 1.1something. I dont know what conditions it was under either.

edit: google has thus far failed me

edit again: I am almost 100% positive I have read it at least twice.. usually in reference to debunking "the f22 is the only US plane with supercruise". I believe it also mentioned that the yf23 actually flew first and had supercruise as well, essentially making the yf22 the 3rd us plane to have it.

2 problems arise: 1.) I have read a ridiculous amount of info on airplanes in the last 10 years or so. 2.) all my aviation reading material is in New York and I am in Florida...

[Destructo6]

Plus, the fact that it has the internal bays means that it doesn't have to carry it's ordinance externally, which would be far draggier than any minimal size increase. Also, the Raptor is the only us plane that can supercruise, that doesn't sound very draggy to me. Yes, the only reason for the bays is stealth, but a benefit is that there is no penalty on performance for having a combat load on the raptor.
Well, it's not a minimal size increase, it's a size increase to accomodate the maximum, currently foreseable, weapons load. That presents another problem in that a currently unforseen weapons load may not be accomodated in the internal bays, requiring external pylons instead: stealth compromises taken for naught. Also, the supercruise feature is as much a function of impoved engine design than anything.

Try tossing around a loaded Sukhoi or Eurofighter the way you can a loaded Raptor.
I'd like to compare, but I've never seen a flying raptor.

[Steelrat]

Well, it's not a minimal size increase, it's a size increase to accomodate the maximum, currently foreseable, weapons load. That presents another problem in that a currently unforseen weapons load may not be accomodated in the internal bays, requiring external pylons instead: stealth compromises taken for naught. Also, the supercruise feature is as much a function of impoved engine design than anything.

I'd like to compare, but I've never seen a flying raptor.

You need to look around a bit more. Plenty of videos of them at airshows, doing the same crap as the russian birds.

About the external stores, keep a few things in mind. The F-22 is really a "first day of war" fighter, for taking out enemy air assets and high-value ground targets in the beginning of a conflict. Once they have trashed the enemy air defenses and airpower, stealth isn't as important, and it can run with pylons. Due to it's advanced radar and ability to show contempt of engagement, it would still be able to dominate against any other aircraft, ever without stealth. It can carry plenty of ordinance in stealthy configuration, and a lot of new stuff is being desined to fit in it's bays (SDBs, for example).

As for the supercruise being partially a function of the engine, well of course it is. The engines are an integral part of any aircraft design. But you couldn't slap the engines into, say, an f-15 and get the same performance.