An incredible display of skill and technology . . .

[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...






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.