I think the F22 and the SU27, in a dogfight, would be evenly matched for power and manuverabilty. It would come down to the pilots. Don't forget, the SU27 has vectored thrust as well. And those tiny canards up front help out tremondusly in high AOA situations. Stealth (F22) on the other hand, would knock a good deal of 27s out of the air at long range. Leaving a fish in the barrel situation for the remaining SU27 jockeys.

 

I agree too, the F-22 is a bad boy, but few people can say what it can do, because "the world" hasn't been shown yet. I'm sure its all of that (why build a replacement for the F-15, that can't beat it.) But, the F-22 isn't "invisible" it's "low observable" which means hard to see. It definately has a 1st shot opportunity against most any enemy, and that makes a huge difference. but, it's not impervious to heat-seeking SAM's or to an enemy pilot that is in visual range. I also find it hard to believe that a plane with two 35,000 lb rated engines (more thrust than a SR-71) and lighter, has a lower top speed than that of an F-15. I'd bet it can outrun an SR-71, but we'll never know if that information isn't declassified. (If we really know how fast the SR really is...)

Nevertheless, you can't win on virtues of the machine alone, it comes down to the pilot. If hardware alone won wars, we'd have gotten our butts kicked Germany because their Tiger tanks were WAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaayyyy superior to out Shermans and better (although not as much) than the Russian and British tanks. But, we could build them cheaper and faster than Germany could build Tigers, and if enough Shermans locked horns with a Tiger or two, the Shermans came away with the "W". (I heard this 50 times, my history teacher was a TD (Tank Destroyer) driver in Patton's 3rd Army)

Russia's game is numbers, that's why they have 10,000 more tanks than we do. Same goes for jets; if it costs you $60,000,000.00 for one of them, but- I can build/buy a Su-27 for $10,000,000.00, giving me six for every one you have, (which is not a crappy jet BTW) the enemy is sitting prettyy well. Not to mention with the thrust vectoring technology, the Flankers are very agile machines, with highly trained pilots. Their planes are IN the field, and the F-22 is "mainly" still on the drawing board, not in service, and still may be cut back to an insignificant number of jets.

It's hard to justify spending that kind of dough when few countries, if any, have anything that can mop the floor with the F-14, 15, 16 or 18).

(Although the Navy has seen fit to retire the F-14, in favor of the Super Hornet )

Technology is cool, but I don't care if it has phasers & photon torpedoes on it; Superior numbers allows an opportunity for you to get an ***-whipping. You might win, but- then again- you might not.

The F-15 is unmatched now, and has never been beaten in a dogfight; but, the F-15 has never tangled with a Mig 28 - MiG-31, or a Su-27 - 37 Flanker either. So, we don't KNOW if it's truly the best. We just know it's better than what it's been up against. Being an F-15 fan; I hope it's true- but, I'm glad we don't know for sure... I'll take the benefit of the doubt.

 

I know what they can do, I work for Lockheed Martin as an aircraft assembler.

All your points are understood and valid, as are mine. The only difference being I have total faith in the product I build for our country's defense. It will be far, far superior than anything in the sky for many decades. Bank!

 

Aw come on now, don't try to "Out-Patriot" me... I'm not trying to debate here- we're on different points of the same coin. And trust me, EVERY TIME the military channel has a special on the stealth fighter (F-22) and even the original (F-117, the B-2) and especially the SR-71, I don't miss it <DVR>. When I see something, I read it, tons of research, and I even have the ATF flight simulator games. I've probably shot down more Su-27's, and MiG's and done more in-flight refueling's than any pilot over there has.



I believe in the F-22 (And JSF, and I'm glad the Fort Worth plant will be building both), an engineer of mine used to build the F-16. I'm only saying that until the Raptor and the Flanker do a fly-off (The Russian pilot issued a challenge at a Paris Airshow, and no one accepted after seeing the Flankers maneuverability) I'll withold determination of which is the best- but, I think the Raptor will win, but with a similiar shape, equally powerful engines, and those front canards; I can't say I'm not "concerned"...

It's certainly prettier.



Flanker Maneuvering snippet:
The Su-37's astounding maneuvers included the "Super Cobra", demonstrated for the first time. In this move, the aircraft enters with a speed of 400 kmh and is pulled through to an alpha of 135 deg, then recovered to the vertical and held in place for 4-6 seconds. The nose is then allowed to fall to the horizontal position, emerging at 150kmh with no loss of height. Another used the thrust vectoring to flip the Su-37 onto it's back, and then to rotate it upright and continue in the opposite direction. The most impressive manouver was the kulbit (somersault). With an entry speed of 350 kmh the aircraft flipped onto it's back (a full 180 deg) facing the opposite direction, inverted and practically stationary. After 'pausing', thrust vectoring completes the kulbit (a 360 deg somersault) with a nose down angle of 30 deg and an exit speed of 60 kmh . (From forward-flight to what amounts to a 36 MPH "stop") in a jet- and maintain flight. (That's bad-***).

 

Not out patriot, co-patriot!

I am going to be able to move to the JSF when the program ramps up soon, maybe by years end.


The F-22's thrust vectoring ability is awesome compared to anything else out there.

I do understand the competition aspect, but we have always had the edge, and I know we'll never lose it! Even the sorry democrats can't defeat it.

 

"Russia’s fighters have some good traits. The Flanker is very maneuverable (the Pugachev Cobra being a prime example of that maneuverability), and it carries a lot of weapons (at least ten air-to-air missiles for air superiority missions, and a wide variety of bombs and missiles to attack ground and naval targets). However, despite these positive traits, Russian fighters have had a very uneven performance record where it counts: combat operations. In air battles against United States Air Force aircraft, the kill ratios have been lopsided. The Russian-built planes have always come out the losers. The worst examples were the 1982 Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot and 1991 Desert Storm battles. The combined score of those two air campaigns was 108 to 0 against the Russian aircraft."

The F-22 is THE Air Superioity fighter of the next generation, far more advanced than the F-22

 

Don't bet on it and I won't be so bold as to stick it on any one political party.

Now that's saying something.

 

Whoops, let's try that again...
The F-22 is THE air superiority fighter of the next generation, far more advanced than the F-15 E Strike Eagle and reaches a top speed of MACH 2.5 without afterburner...

 

Supercruise.

 

Originally Posted by USAFPATRIOT1
Whoops, let's try that again...
The F-22 is THE air superiority fighter of the next generation, far more advanced than the F-15 E Strike Eagle and reaches a top speed of MACH 2.5 without afterburner...


Well, that's news...

I knew it had supercruise (The ability to fly Mach 1+ without afterburners) but didn't know (and haven't read anywhere) that it could do Mach 2.5 without AB.

If it can, it wouldn't surprise me... The engines on this SOB (F-22) are awesome. One engine on the F-22 produces as much thrust as BOTH engines on the F-4 Phantom, and 20,000 more pounds of thrust than the F-15, so I know it can roll out when need be. The F-4 could run Mach 2.4 (Damn near as fast as the F-15 (Mach 2.5), the F-14 was a match (Mach 2.4),faster than the F-16 (Mach 2.2), and the F-18 (Mach 1.8) just not nearly as swift in getting to Mach 2.4 as the F-15).

The new Super Hornets (single and two-seat) has a 25% increase in power over the regular Hornets, if they get all of that in accelleration, that would equate Mach 2.25 (respectable).

It's amazing they're still better than most of our enemy's planes, still on the cutting edge, and none of our first line fighters is under 20 years old. The F-14 & 15 are both in their mid-30's, the F-16 & 18 are gettign close to 30 a well.

The Euro-Fighter is supposed to be able to kick the F-15's ***, but- somehow, I doubt it.

Think about the bad-*** jets we have built that never saw service: F-20 Tigershark, the F-23, the X-29 and the delta winged F-16.

Navy, you took the Air Force loser last time and made it a bad-*** (F-18 Hornet lost the fly off to the F-16 to become the Air Force's choice), the F-23 is a bad-*** too, and there'd be no R&D costs (for you anyway)... It's already there, sitting there, waiting, just waiting...

 

Supercruise
F-22 has demonstrated supercruise at speeds greater than 1.5 Mach – increased battlefield access and control, reduced exposure to ground threats and improved weapons delivery ranges
F-22 has demonstrated superior maneuverability throughout the flying envelope from sea-level to 50,000 feet - assures the F-22 will maintain a distinct advantage in visual range dogfights
The F-22 has been extensively designed, tested and refined aerodynamically during the dem/val and EMD process and has extremely high-maneuver capability. The sophisticated F-22 aero-design and high thrust-to-weight ratio provided the capability to outmaneuver all current and projected threat aircraft. To ensure the F-22 provides air dominance for deep-interdiction aircraft, it operates at medium and high altitude at ranges superior to current generation air-dominance aircraft
The F-22 incorporates Pratt & Whitney's new F119 engine. Designed for efficient supersonic operation without afterburner use (supercruise) and with increased durability over today's engines, the F119 is a very high thrust-to-weight ratio engine. Advanced technologies in the F119 include integrated flight-propulsion controls and two-dimensional, thrust-vectoring engine nozzles
The F-22 engines produce more thrust than any current fighter engine, especially in military (non-afterburner) power. This characteristic allows the F-22 to efficiently cruise at supersonic airspeeds without using afterburner (supercruise). This capability greatly expands the F-22's operating envelope in both speed and range over current fighters that must use afterburner to operate at supersonic speeds.


Supercruise Speed
F-22 testing marks the first time in history a fighter has flown supercruise, sustaining speeds of Mach 1.5 or greater without using afterburner, achieved at a low power setting, and at less than 275 flight hours in the testing process
Velocity is supported by state-of-the-art 35,000-pound-thrust class Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines
Speed enables a smaller number of aircraft to control a far greater area, and enter and exit hostile areas quickly, reducing the time a pilot spends over enemy territory and reducing the risk to American lives
Internal weapons have eliminated aerodynamic drag which allows the Raptor to fly faster, further and higher while using less gas than conventional fighters who must carry pods, gas and weapons externally


I've heard from sources that supercruise speeds have reached Mach 2.5+
However, I cannot personally claim this, just what brass has said

 

Stealth Capabilities –
First and Only 24/7/365 All-Weather Stealth Fighter
Radar signature approximately the size of a bumblebee, thereby avoiding detection by the most sophisticated enemy air defense systems
Signatures/emissions of sound, turbulence, and heat that can aid detection are reduced
Requires no direct assistance from electronic support aircraft that may be more easily detected
Includes planform alignment of the wing and tail edges, radar-absorbing sawtoothed surfaces, an engine face that is concealed by a serpentine inlet duct, "stealthy" coating ****pit design to minimize the usually substantial radar return of pilot’s helmet
Through internal weapons placement, the F-22 eliminates multiple surface features that could be detected by enemy radar

The F-22 provides "first-look, first-shot, first-kill" transformational air dominance capability for the 21st Century - it can see the enemy first while avoiding detection itself.
When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49
The F-22 will be able to get to the fight faster and engage the enemy longer
Parity or inferiority in air dominance is unacceptable; either one means more friendly casualties and a longer, more uncertain campaign. The American people do not want an even match; they want decisive, overwhelming superiority and minimum casualties with no protracted conflict
Downsizing U.S. forces means that in future conflicts, at least initially, we are likely to fight outnumbered – making the revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 essential for national security

 

That's another reason why it was dumb to retire the F-14. It had all of that (minus the supercruise, and low radar signature) but it had the first look, first shot, first kill. Being able to splash an enemy that doesn't even know you're there is amazing. The F-14 could do that from 100 miles away, never having been detected by the enemy's radar.

Not even my beloved F-15 could match that... The Sparrow/AMRAAM could only reach out and touch you 40 miles away. The Sparrow wasn't fire & forget; I'm not sure if the AMRAAM is or not.

 

A jet is just a jet, it is only superior with a fully trained pilot, something of which very few countries have…

Put a fully trained US pilot in an F4 against some untrained Iran F16 pilot and the Iran pilot will die a miserable death…

 

Put Chuck Yeager in a P-51 Mustang, and a newby pilot in an F-16, Chuck would blast him out of the sky. (In a low speed dogfight.)

If you gotta get slow & low, I'd want an A-10.
Brutal, highly maneuverable, and Survivable.


The F-22 is bad, but to have real fun, you have to be a gunner on an AC-130 Spectre Gunship.
That's fun... I'd come to work every day with a woody.