F-22 Raptor vs. Sukhoi Su-17

[djeitnstine]

These jets are amazing! They "defy" the laws of physics. I have been watching a few demonstrations on these jets and I really can't find many differences in their "claim-to-fame" maneuverability. I know that the f-22 is by far the most expensive jet to manufacture on the planet currently but is it "really" the best?

If you would like to see the videos for comparison here they are
sukhoi su-37


f-22raptor


First thing that is obvious is that angle of attack means nothing to both of them. They act like miniature space shuttles. Also it is said that the f-22 has the most maneuverability but I would also expect that those canards on the su-17 would make it even more so.

Perhaps it is the avionics and the weight if the f-22 that makes it so "awesome"? I know that its avionics is quite sophisticated and it seems pretty light.

Any insight or additional info would be awesome

 

[russ_watters]

The F-22 isn't expensive because it is a maneuverable conventional fighter, it is expensive because it is stealthy. The SU-37 is not stealthy.

 

[Cyrus]

These jets are amazing! They "defy" the laws of physics. I have been watching a few demonstrations on these jets and I really can't find many differences in their "claim-to-fame" maneuverability. I know that the f-22 is by far the most expensive jet to manufacture on the planet currently but is it "really" the best?

If you would like to see the videos for comparison here they are
sukhoi su-37


f-22raptor


Any insight or additional info would be awesome

Hi djeitnstine,

I'm appreciate the fact that you like airplanes; however, I'm going to point out a few things about your post. First, aircraft do not 'defy' the laws of physics, they are constrained to follow them. So while this statement sounds cool on a TV show, it's not something you want to say in a scientific setting. It will make people (I did) roll their eyes when reading it. My second point is that the F-22 is not the most expensive jet, as I would refer you to the B-2 bomber, which is near a billion dollars each. Your statement about it being the 'best' is again a hollow statement to any serious aerospace engineer. What is 'best' supposed to mean? In fact, this isn't the correct question to ask - ever. The correct question is, "Is it good at what its supposed to do?". Does it meet the RFP (Request for Proposal) set by the government. Showing videos of the two aircraft really doesn't mean anything, but they are cool to watch!

First thing that is obvious is that angle of attack means nothing to both of them. They act like miniature space shuttles. Also it is said that the f-22 has the most maneuverability but I would also expect that those canards on the su-17 would make it even more so.

Angle of attack has everything to do with these (and all) aircraft, so this statement is just flat out wrong. And no, they don't act like miniature space shuttles (I don't even know what that means). Again, what do you mean by "f-22 has the most maneuverability". In terms of what? Roll response? Pitch response? Short period modes? This is a bogus claim to an engineers ears.

Perhaps it is the avionics and the weight if the f-22 that makes it so "awesome"? I know that its avionics is quite sophisticated and it seems pretty light.

Again, what is 'light' supposed to mean? A cessna is lighter than an F-22. That would make an F-22 heavy... A hang glider is ligher than a cessna...these vague statements really don't amount to anything.

I would recommend you go to www.amazon.com[/URL] and buy a book on the F-22 and read it. I want to, but I don't have time. You will learn a great deal more information than your getting from youtube videos and online websites.

 

[djeitnstine]

Hi djeitnstine,

I'm appreciate the fact that you like airplanes; however, I'm going to point out a few things about your post. First, aircraft do not 'defy' the laws of physics, they are constrained to follow them. So while this statement sounds cool on a TV show, it's not something you want to say in a scientific setting. It will make people (I did) roll their eyes when reading it. My second point is that the F-22 is not the most expensive jet, as I would refer you to the B-2 bomber, which is near a billion dollars each. Your statement about it being the 'best' is again a hollow statement to any serious aerospace engineer. What is 'best' supposed to mean? In fact, this isn't the correct question to ask - ever. The correct question is, "Is it good at what its supposed to do?". Does it meet the RFP (Request for Proposal) set by the government. Showing videos of the two aircraft really doesn't mean anything, but they are cool to watch!



Angle of attack has everything to do with these (and all) aircraft, so this statement is just flat out wrong. And no, they don't act like miniature space shuttles (I don't even know what that means). Again, what do you mean by "f-22 has the most maneuverability". In terms of what? Roll response? Pitch response? Short period modes? This is a bogus claim to an engineers ears.



Again, what is 'light' supposed to mean? A cessna is lighter than an F-22. That would make an F-22 heavy... A hang glider is ligher than a cessna...these vague statements really don't amount to anything.

I would recommend you go to www.amazon.com[/URL] and buy a book on the F-22 and read it. I want to, but I don't have time. You will learn a great deal more information than your getting from youtube videos and online websites.[/QUOTE]

Well I guess I deserved that I should do more research before I post such a thing. Thanks.

 

[timmay]

When you say 'they act like miniature space shuttles' are you referring to the fact that both are capable of thrust vectoring, increasing maneuvrability? If so, personally it's quite exciting that instead of just development programs, operational fast jets are now able to do this (not just for VTOL/STOL).

 

[FredGarvin]

There hasn't been, that I have seen, a side-by-side compare between the two aircraft. I remember back when the F-14 was being flight tested, they put a Tomcat up against the top dog of the day, the F-4. It was shown just how much better in turning and other performance characteristics the F-14 was. I believe they also did it with an F-5. I'd love to see the same thing with these two aircraft, but it would never happen.

Like Russ mentioned, stealth was never part of the equation with the Su-37, nor was super-cruise. Although, I am sure that there could be some lessons learned in getting the cost per aircraft down between the two countries. Our governmental procurement process adds a fair amount on to the final bill. Whether that is good or bad is an area of debate.

 

[djeitnstine]

When you say 'they act like miniature space shuttles' are you referring to the fact that both are capable of thrust vectoring, increasing maneuvrability? If so, personally it's quite exciting that instead of just development programs, operational fast jets are now able to do this (not just for VTOL/STOL).

Yes that's exactly what I was referring to.

 

[DuncanM]

The F-22 is supposed to be the best air superiority fighter in the world. Meaning it should be able to win a dogfight with any other fighter jet. That's it. Its specialty is dogfighting. Any other capabilities (for example, ground support) is a second thought. And its awesome capabilities are the result of several factors: engines, airframe, stealth, electronics, fire control system, etc. Not one single factor.

Other jets, for example, the F35 Joint Strike Fighter, are designed with ground support as a higher priority than the F-22. In other words, the F-35 is designed to be a good fighter, and should be a better ground support fighter than the F-22, but the F-22 should be a better dogfighter than the F-35 because that is its specialization. In a dogfight between the F-22 and F-35, the F-22 should win. (Just like the F-15 versus the F-18, the F-15 is the better air superiority fighter).

I think the F-22 is presently the best air superiority fighter in the world. In fact, I think presently the American aerospace industry is about twenty years ahead of anybody else, including western Europe. Nobody else has had the deep pockets to keep up with the research that America has put into this field.

 

[russ_watters]

The F-22 is supposed to be the best air superiority fighter in the world. Meaning it should be able to win a dogfight with any other fighter jet.

If you define a "dogfight" as a maneuvering battle, I'm not sure that it could beat an SU-37, but "dogfighting" isn't really a component of air superiority anymore, since most are decided by missiles fired without the two pilots ever laying eyes on each other, much less maneuvering.

 

[jhae2.718]

I would say that the F-22 would definitely be better than a Su-17 Fitter in an air combat situation...

As far as the latest generation Flankers, it would depend on a number of factors: pilot skill, position, of both aircraft the actual effectiveness of stealth (there's always the possiblity someone has discovered an implemented a countermeasure), etc. The only real way to tell would be to have examples of actual combat between the aircraft. We can predict based on public knowledge of the aircraft what might happen, but we cannot really say what is better.

 

[rbeale98]

Hi djeitnstine,

I'm appreciate the fact that you like airplanes; however, I'm going to point out a few things about your post. First, aircraft do not 'defy' the laws of physics, they are constrained to follow them. So while this statement sounds cool on a TV show, it's not something you want to say in a scientific setting. It will make people (I did) roll their eyes when reading it. My second point is that the F-22 is not the most expensive jet, as I would refer you to the B-2 bomber, which is near a billion dollars each. Your statement about it being the 'best' is again a hollow statement to any serious aerospace engineer. What is 'best' supposed to mean? In fact, this isn't the correct question to ask - ever. The correct question is, "Is it good at what its supposed to do?". Does it meet the RFP (Request for Proposal) set by the government. Showing videos of the two aircraft really doesn't mean anything, but they are cool to watch!



Angle of attack has everything to do with these (and all) aircraft, so this statement is just flat out wrong. And no, they don't act like miniature space shuttles (I don't even know what that means). Again, what do you mean by "f-22 has the most maneuverability". In terms of what? Roll response? Pitch response? Short period modes? This is a bogus claim to an engineers ears.



Again, what is 'light' supposed to mean? A cessna is lighter than an F-22. That would make an F-22 heavy... A hang glider is ligher than a cessna...these vague statements really don't amount to anything.

I would recommend you go to www.amazon.com[/URL] and buy a book on the F-22 and read it. I want to, but I don't have time. You will learn a great deal more information than your getting from youtube videos and online websites.[/QUOTE]

you have no soul