Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Edit: its not that bad..

F-16.net Sponsor

exec wrote:

Meteor and R-77M1 are not in production yet.

I think that AIM-120D (and C-7) will be superior to Meteor and R-77M1 when launched from high altitude. Why? Becouse of ballistic trajectory and low-drag at high altitude. Metor and R-77M1 may have greater range in low-med altitudes becouse of their ramjet engines.
.

And who says that the other missiles must be launched at low or medium altitude only?

It seems at this point in time that the F-22 should be the reigning champ in the aerial combat regime. However, opposing combatants are definitely steering towards better means of detection and more advanced weaponry. It would appear that better missiles are certainly more cost effective and faster to deploy than newer fighters these days.

Then again, the F-22s that haven't been built yet keep evolving as well- right? I sure hope to see one some day...

Cleaned up this thread. Be courteous folks.

mustang65 wrote:

I know the raptor has stealth and would probably win a BVR situation but in a close up dogfight who would win, and isn't the Su-37 the only plane that can out turn a Raptor? Does the AMRAAM 120D stand up to the R-77M version or the MDBA since it doesn't have a ram jet?

Its is pointless do compare Su-37 to the raptor because the 37 was only demosntrator and full development of it was cancelled long ago.

Russia will field the Su-35 in the comming years (not to mistake it with the old canard Su-35) because this is an entirely new plane and probably much more modern and capable anyway.

Having said that the F-22 is still easely in a class of its own and will remain the plane to be beaten, not by the 35 nor the upcoming PAK FA (wich will be born as an affordable upgrade to 4.5++ planes).

Regarding the R-77M it has been canceled more than 10 years ago. Russia is concentrating on more modest upgrades. See the following manufacturer page:
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/505/

The AIM120D and the meteor will be the missiles to be beaten and they wont so soon.

Those Sukhois put on a dazzling show but in the most extreme maneuvers the jet actually departs controlled flight and the pilot is nothing more than a passenger on a ballistic trajectory until such time as he is able to restore control. At least that's what I've been made to understand. I don't know if its a good idea in a life-and-death combat situation NOT to be in control of your aircraft for any period of time. But the Russian routine is sexy and really generates a big WOW effect on airshow audiences.
The F-22s, OTOH never depart from controlled flight during any of their demos thanks to the advanced FCS. They may not gyrate wildly thru the sky but the pilot is always in full control and with superior SA of the tactical situation. Perhaps not as sexy but then it wasn't built to dazzle airshow audiences.More important is what is not demonstrated, namely the other inherent strengths of the platform (ie. supercruise, sensor fusion and stealth) never even enter consideration in such events.

I still defy any SU to sit with near zero airspeed for several seconds in a nose up attitude. Not saying that this maneuver is useful in combat, but it does demonstrate power and controlability, as does the two-directional "helicopter turn". Su-37 can also do the helicopter turn due to TVC, the F-22 , does it aerodynamicaly. As far as airshow maneuvers go, there is nothing the F-22 cant do that something else can, so there is no reason to believe that there is anything that is superior at nose pointing and energy retention/recovery.

you gotta beleive there is a lot the f-22 can do that we are not told

I'll add these points:

-In terms of nose pointing authority, the F-22 has it in spades (in a much wider envelope too).

-No operational designed fighter (past, present, or the foreseeable future) can turn like the F-22.

-In terms of maneuverability, agility or whatever measure you want to call it, if you think the F-22's entire maneuver capability and envelope is represented in what you see in the air show demo, you're just kidding yourself. It can do far more impressive things. Oh, did I mention it can do all this with a full combat load?

In terms of up close and in-your-face BFM, the last thing I'd want to fight is the F-22.

I remember a video on Youtube of an F-22 doing a 'Cobra manuever' with no problem.

Cobra manuever is basicaly useless anyway

airforceone wrote:

you gotta beleive there is a lot the f-22 can do that we are not told

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h43F-7LpA3o

My

on Flanker demos:

Oh wow, a kulbit!... Or was that an extreme-alpha cobra that got away from the pilot?

Oh wow, a hi yaw rate pedal turn!... Meh, basically a run-of-the-mill flat spin--NO nose authority whatsoever.

Oh wow, a double backflip!... Big deal. Put any TVC-equipped jet at high enough altitude at zero airpeed, pull back on the stick, mash the throttles and you'll be backflipping nonstop until you hit the deck (FLCS allowing, of course). It doesn't mean anything.
-

I've yet to see any of the Flanker derivatives perform hard "fishhook" type turns, or ANY move that demonstrates energy retention during/after hard turns, controllability, or nose pointing authority.

Flanker demos are, IMHO, a perfect example of "pulling the wool over spectators' eyes." It's basically just wowing people with "extreme" maneuvers that depart from controlled flight.

Yes, Flankers put on an exhilarating show, but then so does "Destroyed In Seconds."

In the real world...
Flanker vs. F-22 BVR: Flanker is toast.
Flanker vs. F-22 WVR: Flanker is toast.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 Vs Su37