PDA

View Full Version : SU-47 VS F-22



FW-190 Pilot
09-28-2005, 09:29 PM
which plane do you think its better, i post more about those planes later

Gen. Sandworm
09-29-2005, 12:19 AM
F-22 hands down!!!

FW-190 Pilot
09-29-2005, 02:02 AM
are you sure?
i mean SU-47 has the foward swept wings that makes it easy to control (does it makes dogifight easier too?) The highest speed for the craft is 2500km/h, which is more than mach 2.0, and i find that F-22 in supercrise is only in 1.52?
my only suspect is SU-47 can reach 2500km/h, but it cannot sustain for long
and F-22 can only reach mach 1.52, but it was able to hang on the speed for a long time
I also heard F-22 would be poor in dogfights? is that true?

Firefly
09-29-2005, 02:49 AM
Where is the SU? Has it flown? Is it in production? I have to admit, never heard of it.

FW-190 Pilot
09-29-2005, 02:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47
thats the plane, its first flight is in 1997
notice its forward swept wings

Dani
09-29-2005, 03:54 AM
Also some links for Su-47:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-47.htm

Both are good planes but F-22's avionics are better than SU-47's. Also I bet that on classified specifications F-22 looks better than SU-47.
Also I believe that US pilots are more trained than Russian pilots.

An interesting comparision would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_2000s_fighter_aircraft
Quoted: Two promising Russian aircraft, the MiG-35 and Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut will also not be included, as there is not enough reliable information available about their performance and no assurance that they will ever go into service with any air force.

festamus
09-29-2005, 04:08 AM
are you sure?
i mean SU-47 has the foward swept wings that makes it easy to control (does it makes dogifight easier too?)

Forward swept wings, among other things, enable the wing to start stalling from the inboard outover, rather than the usual outboard in over. This means ailerons, which are usually placed outboard, remain effective later whereas on a rearward swept wing the flow over them would be the first thing to separate. This allows you greater control up to high angles of attack, which means "Yes" - it would perhaps be an advantage in a dogfight.

But... looking at the Wiki for the Su-47, Sukhoi may have decided to move away from the forward swept wing, having reached the same conclusion as the Americans - the benefits aren't worth the trouble.


The highest speed for the craft is 2500km/h, which is more than mach 2.0, and i find that F-22 in supercrise is only in 1.52?

Supercruise being the most important word. That is a cruise speed - not a top speed. And what's more, it's this fancy "supercruise" stuff... that is to say, supersonic flight without use of reheat and therefore far more sustainable. Flying supersonic usually requires reheat which burns fuel at a much increased rate. It is after all, simply dumping a sh*tload of fuel into the exhaust from the final turbine stage.

Even assuming the Su-47's top speed is higher than F/A-22's, it won't be *massively* higher I shouldn't think. Besides which, top speed isn't that good a measure of an aircraft anyway.


my only suspect is SU-47 can reach 2500km/h, but it cannot sustain for long
and F-22 can only reach mach 1.52, but it was able to hang on the speed for a long time

Almost right. Correct that Su-47 wouldn't be able to sustain it's top speed for long. But incorrect to say F/A-22 can ONLY reach Mach 1.52, but correct to say that it can hang on at 1.52 for longer.

It's hard to get definitive figures for top speeds, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Su-47 did have a higher absolute top speed. The F/A-22 is likely to be a much more stealthy aircraft and therefore, have more compromised aerodynamics in pursuit of a low radar cross-section.

BUT... as part of it's stealthy design, the F/A-22 carries it's stores internally, which should mean less drag and I woudl guess is therefore more likely to be able to reach higher speeds in a real shooting war with a realistic payload.


I also heard F-22 would be poor in dogfights? is that true?

I think the idea behind the F/A-22 is that it shouldn't be getting into those anyway.

Firefly
09-29-2005, 09:26 AM
I would also like to add that like the B2 the F22 is a plane made for a diffrent war. The cost of the units alone is prohibitive and the day of the pure air superiority fighter is fading fast..... Still, time will tell....

Sturmtruppen
09-29-2005, 11:36 AM
well,i love the f22,i have to go for the f22,but im not sure which of them is better.

festamus
09-29-2005, 01:53 PM
I would also like to add that like the B2 the F22 is a plane made for a diffrent war. The cost of the units alone is prohibitive and the day of the pure air superiority fighter is fading fast..... Still, time will tell....

That said, if you adjusted for inflation, what would the B-2 cost relative to the B-52, or the F/A-22 relative to the F-15, were you to build the same numbers of the new ones as the old ones? The F/A-22 is a spectacular example of what happens when you keep deciding to buy less on cost grounds. The development and start-up costs make the per unit cost skyrocket.

Notice how the F-22 is now the F/A-22. It seems someone at the Pentagon agreed the days of the pure air superiority fighter were fading. Although what targets would be worth risking such an expensive piece of kit on in the "Attack" role is beyond me. Leave it to the cheap and cheerful stuff! Unless... Nah. Banish that thought: the added "/A" isn't at all to fool the people in Washington D.C stumping up the cash that for the grossly overpriced unit cost, they're getting a super-duper do anything F/A-22 instead of just plain old F-22 for the older, slightly less overpriced cost. Because of course those inflexible F-15E's and F-16C's don't have that /A so can't move mud, and thus to have something that does MUST be good. And remember kids: It's not a name change: it's transformational!

Anyway, I don't remember if I'm being sarcastic or not now...

pdf27
09-29-2005, 04:49 PM
are you sure?
i mean SU-47 has the foward swept wings that makes it easy to control (does it makes dogifight easier too?)
Ummm... they allow the wings to work at very high angles of attack, but the F-22 has a delta wing which also works at very high angles of attack. Since forward swept wings have some fairly nasty aeroelastic behaviour, and both aircraft have thrust vectoring then I would suggest they would be fairly even in a low speed dogfight. Both being dead, which is what happens when aircraft get into visual dogfights nowadays with helmet mounted sights and all-aspect IR missiles.
When you get up to higher speeds, I strongly suspect the F-22 will win. Delta wings pretty much keep on going as before at supersonic speeds, while swept wings don't. Couple in the fact that the F-22 has a hell of a lot more specific power (even in dry thrust it's nearly as powerful as the Su-47 in full reheat) and you're going to see it outfly the Su-47. It also has massively superior electronics.

Edit: formatting

pdf27
09-29-2005, 04:52 PM
The highest speed for the craft is 2500km/h, which is more than mach 2.0, and i find that F-22 in supercrise is only in 1.52?
First of all, when quoting a speed you can't just convert it into a Mach number by using the speed of sound at sea level. Mach 2 at sea level for instance is around 347 m/sec (for a 23 deg C ground temperature). Assuming that is the sea level temperature, at 10,000m (typical operational height) it is only 305 m/sec. Very few aircraft can go at high speeds at sea level - for instance the Panavia Tornado is one of the fastest aircraft on earth below 5,000 ft, and it is limited to around Mach 1.2 at this height.
This would imply a maximum speed for the Su-47 of around Mach 2.27 would be realistic (following on from the quoted max speed of 2,500 km/hr). Vectorsite (http://www.vectorsite.net/avf22.html) quotes 2,130 km/hr (Mach 1.94) as a top speed for the F-22 at altitude, although I personally find this implausibly low - it just doesn't fit in with the rest of the aircraft's capabilities.

pdf27
09-29-2005, 04:53 PM
Although what targets would be worth risking such an expensive piece of kit on in the "Attack" role is beyond me.
Any idea what the engagement envelope is for JDAM from 50,000ft and Mach 1.5? I've got a feeling it's something around 80 miles or so. At that distance I don't think there's a fire control radar on earth that can lock onto it long enough to engage.
My understanding is that the /A is part of a plan to use the stealth, high ceiling and supercruise capability to turn the F/A-22 into a super-SEAD aircraft, using AMRAAM and JDAM to destroy threats in the air or on the ground. Given the capabilities of the aircraft and those two weapons, I'd have to say I reckon it will be rather good at the job.
Of course, once the air defence system is largely suppressed, the JSFs will have practically a free run over the opposition country - something the US can't guarantee against all opposition in the future without the F-22.

(can you tell I wish we had a JSF-type arrangement with the US over the F-22 rather than the Eurofighter?)

pdf27
09-29-2005, 04:54 PM
By the way, sorry for the multiple posts - my PC isn't letting me post long things to this board tonight :(

Eagle
09-29-2005, 10:22 PM
Again with the topic...

You need to remember that the SU-47 Berkut is only a "show". The Berkut never was thought as a real fighter, Sukhoi started this projet to show the world that the Russian factories were at the same level than the european or north american factories, showing that the problem weren't the capabilities, the problem were the poor interest of a new aircraft showed by the 1990's broken Russia.
The Raptor is the best fighter from all over the world. The possible russian competitor for the Raptor will be the Sukhoi SU-T50 (Pak-Fa), but now is only a project.

Why I've choosen the Raptor?
*-The extended arsenal of weapons which can use the FA-22 Raptor is huge:
(air-air bvr) AIM-120C AMRAAM
(short distance air-air) AIM-9X Sidewinder
(short distance air-surface) AGM-65G Maverick
(air-surface long distance) AGM-84 Slam
(air-sea long distance) AGM-84 Harpoon, or better missiles which will be used soon by the USAF
(LGB, Laser-guided bombs) GBU's (all of them, included the new GBU-39 Baby Slam, of only 1.8mts lenght)

*-The radar of the Raptor, the APG-77 is the best aircraft-carried radar with a range, in optimum conditions, near to the 380km.

*-The new electronic systems, as the HOTAS, HUD, Off Boresight aim JHMCS, New generation of defenses (RWR, Chaff, Flare, Jamming), et cetera.

*- And of course, the most important item, the stealth capability makes a real "ghost fighter", being the Raptors extremely advantaged above the rivals.


http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Nellis2004/Highlights/F22Afterburner.jpg

Firefly
09-30-2005, 03:56 AM
Id only ask a few questions here.

How many JDAM can the F/A-22 carry internally, as opposed to an F-15E?

Im not certain what the maximum speed of launch, if any a JDAM has.

I know its sltealthy, but just how? Wait until they decide that they have to hang stuff off it. Anyway, wish we were getting some. Im sure the Typhoon will be excellent though.

Iron Yeoman
09-30-2005, 04:04 AM
Im sure the Typhoon will be excellent though.

Really? After all the cutbacks on the programme and the delays? I'll be surprised if it enters service before 2015!

Dani
09-30-2005, 04:09 AM
How many JDAM can the F/A-22 carry internally, as opposed to an F-15E?


According to http://www.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/apr98/cover/weapons.htm, two:
Quoted:
Performance The combination of the stealthy F-22 and the precision capability of the GBU-32 allows the F-22 pilot to drop the weapon from altitudes of approximately 40,000 feet; Range: Approximately 15 miles
F-22 Loadout The GBU-32 is only carried in the F-22's main weapons bay.
Typical combat load Two GBU-32. One GBU-32 is carried inboard in each side of the main weapons bay. When loaded with GBU-32, there is still sufficient room in the F-22's main weapons bay to carry two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles (one in each side of the bay, in addition to the two AIM-9 Sidewinders in the side weapons bays), which means that even on a mission to attack ground targets, the F-22 retains significant air-to-air combat capability.

pdf27
09-30-2005, 10:08 AM
How many JDAM can the F/A-22 carry internally, as opposed to an F-15E?
Not many of the large variety. It can carry 8 SDBs (the most plausible payload) which isn't bad considering.


Im not certain what the maximum speed of launch, if any a JDAM has.
I don't think the envelope has been fully explored yet, but there was a recent test where one was launched (I think by an F-22 actually) at Mach 1.5.
Not quite the test I was thinking of, but this one's over Mach 1 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123011121)
Note that JDAM range increases radically with increasing speed and altitude, and since the F-22 will be capable of launching them from 50,000ft and Mach 1.5+, expect to see several times the range they have from current generation aircraft.

Edit: Formatting

Firefly
09-30-2005, 12:48 PM
Im sure the Typhoon will be excellent though.

Really? After all the cutbacks on the programme and the delays? I'll be surprised if it enters service before 2015!

Well I know some guys who fly it at Conningsby and they rave about it.

http://www.eurofighter.com/Default.asp?Flash=True

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

If 17 Squadron belongs to the RAF, I think it can be classed as in service now!

Eagle
09-30-2005, 04:00 PM
How many JDAM can the F/A-22 carry internally, as opposed to an F-15E?


According to http://www.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/apr98/cover/weapons.htm, two:
Quoted:
Performance The combination of the stealthy F-22 and the precision capability of the GBU-32 allows the F-22 pilot to drop the weapon from altitudes of approximately 40,000 feet; Range: Approximately 15 miles
F-22 Loadout The GBU-32 is only carried in the F-22's main weapons bay.
Typical combat load Two GBU-32. One GBU-32 is carried inboard in each side of the main weapons bay. When loaded with GBU-32, there is still sufficient room in the F-22's main weapons bay to carry two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles (one in each side of the bay, in addition to the two AIM-9 Sidewinders in the side weapons bays), which means that even on a mission to attack ground targets, the F-22 retains significant air-to-air combat capability.


Remember that you are posting the F-22 skills, when the Raptor was only thiought as an air-air fighter. The modifications to FA-22 (Fighter and Atack) improved a lot the air-surface ammo to the Raptor.


Talking about the EF Typhoon, I think is one of the best fighters in service from all over the world, with the russian Sukhoi SU-30MK, the french Rafale and the north american F-15E Eagle, but we must know that the Typhoon isn't as good as the Raptor.

Firefly
09-30-2005, 04:06 PM
I never tried to say it was, then again, you never know! Specifications dont make the aircraft....

The days of the pure A-A fighter have gone now....... Maybe to return someday though..

festamus
09-30-2005, 05:29 PM
Remember that you are posting the F-22 skills, when the Raptor was only thiought as an air-air fighter. The modifications to FA-22 (Fighter and Atack) improved a lot the air-surface ammo to the Raptor.


Last night I wrote a whole post on the F-22 to F/A-22 transition. Not a clue where it went. Maybe forgot to click submit before I fell asleep. *shrug*.

Basically - don't be fooled. It's a rebranding. Not really significant changes to the aircraft itself. F-22 was to have had an air-to-ground capability. I'm not saying no changes were made, but I'm saying the "F/A-22" name is as much political as anything else, probably to try to ensure the survival of a much sniped at program which was being labelled as a one trick pony.

To the best of my knowledge The USAF has always called aircraft fast pointy aircraft "F-..." rather than "F/A", even if they blatantly aren't fighters at all. (erm, F-111 or F-117 anyone?). Post war, "A" is really only seen for aircraft like the A-10 or the AC-130. I do wonder about the A-7 though... but maybe the Navy got there first and the USAF just stuck with it for their own Corsairs...

(The US Navy are, unlike the USAF, usually rather good at giving prefixes that fit).

So why the sudden appearance of the F/A prefix in the USAF? To try to make the F/A-22's high price tag seem more readily justifiable by it's breadth and depth of capabilities? :)

pdf27
09-30-2005, 06:02 PM
So why the sudden appearance of the F/A prefix in the USAF? To try to make the F/A-22's high price tag seem more readily justifiable by it's breadth and depth of capabilities? :)
Trying to justify a "super" version in a few years time that looks the same but shares no common parts?

Firefly
09-30-2005, 06:21 PM
I dont deny the F22 is a capable aircraft, on paper so far. But if I was the Air commander in the conflicts we have today, I would much prefer an F-15E or Tornado to deliver my ordinance.

I still believe that the gain in performance is not worth the loss of tactical ability. It was designed for the Cold War to counter massive Soviet numerical advantage and huge radar coverage. That model just doesnt exist in the world today, except the first World.

Im just not sure the Raptor is worth the effort when the B1 is already in the inventory.

pdf27
10-01-2005, 03:30 AM
I still believe that the gain in performance is not worth the loss of tactical ability.
Remember that it still has the ability to bolt on underwing pylons. I can't remember how many pylons, but they're stressed for something like 5,000lbs per pylon. The JSF is the same, and can carry for instance a pair of Storm Shadow externally. Much the same as a Tornado or Beagle.

festamus
10-01-2005, 04:10 AM
Trying to justify a "super" version in a few years time that looks the same but shares no common parts?

Would now be a bad time to say they're already trying to pitch the FB-22? ;)

Firefly
10-01-2005, 04:45 AM
I still believe that the gain in performance is not worth the loss of tactical ability.
Remember that it still has the ability to bolt on underwing pylons. I can't remember how many pylons, but they're stressed for something like 5,000lbs per pylon. The JSF is the same, and can carry for instance a pair of Storm Shadow externally. Much the same as a Tornado or Beagle.

This is true, we shall see I suppose. Like everything else over the years it wil be made to work. Tornado F3 anyone?

Eagle
10-01-2005, 07:03 PM
I dont deny the F22 is a capable aircraft, on paper so far. But if I was the Air commander in the conflicts we have today, I would much prefer an F-15E or Tornado to deliver my ordinance.

I still believe that the gain in performance is not worth the loss of tactical ability. It was designed for the Cold War to counter massive Soviet numerical advantage and huge radar coverage. That model just doesnt exist in the world today, except the first World.

Im just not sure the Raptor is worth the effort when the B1 is already in the inventory.

Firefly, it depends who is your enemy. If you are fighting agaisnt Afghanistan, you'll know that is better carry more tons of weapons, you haven't got the radar thread. But if you are fighting agaisnt a relative well-forced armed forces, you'll prefer be insured with a Raptor, although you'll need to sacrificate tons of weapons.

Talking about the B-1, why are you saying that it is in the inventory? :?: