F-22 and Su-37

scg_af

New Member
The F-22 and the Su-37 are, in my opinion, the best fighter jets ever made (Except for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter). But I don't know is which one is better. The Su-37 is a highly manuverable, heavily armed plane while the F-22 has amazing stealth technologies combined with an impressive armament that includes AIM-9 heat-seeking missiles...

The Su-37 is a super-maneuverable thrust vectoring fighter derived from an Su-35 prototype. The Su-37 represents a new level of capability compared with the Su-27 and Su-35. The Su-37 test aircraft made its maiden flight in April 1996 from the Zhukovsky flight testing center near Moscow. This impressive single-seat all-weather counter-air fighter and ground attack aircraft, derived from the SU-27, has an updated airframe containing a high proportion of carbon-fibre and Al-Li alloy. The engines, avionics and armaments are also improvements on those originally installed in the SU-27. The AL-37FU engines are configured for thrust vector control, with the axisymmetric steerable thrust vector control nozzle is fixed on a circular turning unit. The steel nozzle in the experimental engines is replaced in production engines by titanium units to reduce the weight of the nozzle. The nozzle only moves in the pitch axis, and the nozzles on the two engines can deflect together or differentially to achieve the desired thrust vector for a particular maneuver.




The Su-37 has a variety of other innovative equipment such as a radar configured for simultaneous surveillance of airspace and the ground and a high-precision laser-inertial/satellite navigation system. The all-weather digital multi-mode phased array radar operates in either air and ground surveillance modes or in both modes simultaneously. Ground surveillance modes include mapping (with Doppler beam sharpening), search-and-track of moving targets, synthetic aperature radar and terrain avoidance. The Su-37 is also equipped with a rearward facing radar in the tail stinger area of the fuselage. The Su-37 features fly-by-wire and relaxed static instability, which along with 3D thrust vectoring give the aircraft tremendous agility. It incorporates state of the art ECM in wing-tip pods, allowing improved survivability in electronic warfare environments. The Su-37 can carry air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons on 12 stations. The number of missiles and bombs carried can be increased to 14 with the use of multi-payload racks. Sukhoi used payments earned in the sale of an Su-27 license to China to finance the Su-37 development. Russia's Air Force has not ordered any Su-37s. Sukhoi is studying the possibility of developing a two-seat version of the Su-37 with enhanced strike capabilities.

Armament: One GSh-30-1 30mm cannon, plus up to 18,075 lb including R-73/R-77 AAMs, ASMs, bombs, rockets, drop tanks, and ECM pods carried on fourteen external points

Top Speed: 1,516 MPH



The F-22's engine is expected to be the first to provide the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound for an extended period of time without the high fuel consumption characteristic of aircraft that use afterburners to achieve supersonic speeds. It is expected to provide high performance and high fuel efficiency at slower speeds as well.
For its primary air-to-air role, the F-22 will carry six AIM-120C and two AIM-9 missiles. For its air-to-ground role, the F-22 can internally carry two 1,000 pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), two AIM-120C, and two AIM-9 missiles. With the Global Positioning System-guided JDAM, the F-22 will have an adverse weather capability to supplement the F-117 (and later the Joint Strike Fighter) for air-to-ground missions after achieving air dominance.



The F-22's combat configuration is "clean", that is, with all armament carried internally and with no external stores. This is an important factor in the F-22's stealth characteristics, and it improves the fighter's aerodynamics by dramatically reducing drag, which, in turn, improves the F-22's range. The F-22 has four under wing hardpoints, each capable of carrying 5,000 pounds. A single pylon design, which features forward and aft sway braces, an aft pivot, electrical connections, and fuel and air connections, is used. Either a 600-gallon fuel tank or two LAU-128/A missile launchers can be attached to the bottom of the pylon, depending on the mission. There are two basic external configurations for the F-22:
  • Four 600 gallon fuel tanks, no external weapons: This configuration is used when the aircraft is being ferried and extra range is needed. A BRU-47/A rack is used on each pylon to hold the external tanks.
  • Two 600 gallon fuel tanks, four missiles: This configuration is used after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP). The external fuel tanks, held by a BRU-47/A rack are carried on the inboard stations, while a pylon fitted with two LAU-128/A rail launchers is fitted to each of the outboard stations.
An all-missile external loadout (two missiles on each of the stations) is possible and would not be difficult technically to integrate, but the Air Force has not stated a requirement for this configuration. Prior to its selection as winner of what was then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, the F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990. Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., facility and made their maiden flight from there. Since that time Lockheed's program management and aircraft assembly operations have moved to Marietta, Ga., for the EMD and production phases.


The F-22 passed milestone II in 1991. At that time, the Air Force planned to acquire 648 F-22 operational aircraft at a cost of $86.6 billion. After the Bottom Up Review, completed by DOD in September 1993, the planned quantity of F-22s was reduced to 442 at an estimated cost of $71.6 billion.


A $9.55 billion contract for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) of the F-22 was awarded to the industry team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin in August 1991. Contract changes since then have elevated the contract value to approximately $11 billion. Under terms of the contract, the F-22 team will complete the design of the aircraft, produce production tooling for the program, and build and test nine flightworthy and two ground-test aircraft.

A Joint Estimate Team was chartered in June 1996 to review the F-22 program cost and schedule. JET concluded that the F-22 engineering and manufacturing development program would require additional time and funding to reduce risk before the F-22 enters production. JET estimated that the development cost would increase by about $1.45 billion. Also, JET concluded that F-22 production cost could grow by about $13 billion (from $48 billion to $61 billion) unless offset by various cost avoidance actions. As a result of the JET review the program was restructured, requiring an additional $2.2 billion be added to the EMD budget and 12 months be added to the schedule to ensure the achievement of a producible, affordable design prior to entering production. The program restructure allowed sourcing within F-22 program funds by deleting the three pre-production aircraft and slowing the production ramp. Potential for cost growth in production was contained within current budget estimate through cost reduction initiatives formalized in a government/industry memorandum of agreement. The Defense Acquisition Board principals reviewed the restructured program strategy and on February 11, 1997 the Defense Acquisition Executive issued an Acquisition Defense Memorandum approving the strategy.

The Quadrennial Defense Review Reportwhich was released in mid-May 1997, reduced the F-22 overall production quantity from 438 to 339, slowed the Low Rate Initial Production ramp from 70 to 58, and reduced the maximum production rate from 48 to 36 aircraft per year. The F-22 EMD program marked a successful first flight on September 7, 1997. The flight test program, which has already begun in Marietta, Georgia, will continue at Edwards AFB, California through the year 2001. Low rate production is scheduled to begin in FY99. The aircraft production rate will gradually increase to 36 aircraft per year in FY 2004, and will continue that rate until all 339 aircraft have been built (projected to be complete in 2013). Initial Operational Capability of one operational squadron is slated for December 2005.

The F-15 fleet is experiencing problems with avionics parts obsolescence, and the average age of the fleet will be more than 30 years when the last F-22 is delivered in 2013. But the current inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound condition until 2015 or later. None of the 918 F-15s that were in the inventory in July 1992 will begin to exceed their expected economic service lives until 2014.

Armament:
Two AIM-9 Sidewinders
six AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM)
one 20mm Gatling gun
two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM)


Top Speed: Mach 1.8



Source of info: Military Analisis Network FAS


So can anyone tell me their opinions on which plane is better? Thanks in advance...
 
Last edited:

nz enthusiast

New Member
Does the su-37 have 2D or 3D thrust vectoring? becuase according to the book i have it only has 2d thrust vectoring.

I would put money on the su-37 winning in a dog fight (with a well trained pilot, the right weapons and all that). It seems to be that it is more agile than the F-22, despite the F-22 having thrust vectoring. The su-37 will have the higher top speed (we don't actually know the top speed of the F-22 we just knows its mach 2 class which could mean anything). The US pilot would try and avoid the dogfight, and use supercruise to help with this.

Beyond visual range would be the other way round, the F-22 will have that stealth advantage, and possibly more advances medium/long range A2A missiles. So the F-22 should win in this area.

In ground attack, the F-22 could use supercruise to give its Jdams or the other weapons it is carrying a better starting point, although the Su-37 porbably can as well. The stealth also comes int othis again, with the F-22 beginning able to strike deaper behind enemy lines with out being detected. WIth the number of external and internal hardpoints on each fighter i would favour the su-37 in close air support. I do not know about the aircraft in a maritime strike role, but my guess would be the su-37 would be better for this. I would say the Su-37 would be the better ground attack platform of the two.

Then theres price, the price of the F-22 has been put all over the place, they range from US$70 million, right up to US$300million. Only lockheed martin would know the cost of one airframe. Most people will tend to be inaccurate because they are dividing the development and other costs by the number of airframes, you should be able to see why that will be inaccurate. The su-37 on the otherhand can only be guessed by looking at other aircraft that are even slighty similar to it and the genuine price of Russian combat aircraft. If i was to guess the su-37 would be cheaper, i would estimate the price of one su-37 alyway at US$50-60million when it is a part of a larger order. The F-22 between US$70-80million when in a large order. A large order in my view would be around the 300+ mark.

If i was to go into combat as a fighter pilot i would prefer to be in an F-22 i would just feel safer in a stealth fighter with supercruise. The su-37 does have its good points but the basic/original su-27 airframe just seems to be getting a litle out of date, it was amazing when it first appeared and i imagine would have destroyed F-15s rather easily. In the end i prefer a F-22.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
If I had to pick one of these 2 aircraft, I'd also pick the F-22. The first reason is because it is an in-service aircraft, whereas the Su-37 is nothing more than a developmental aircraft that has yet to be ordered even by the Russians...

2. The F-22 is a revolutionary combat aircraft as opposed to the evolutionary SU-37. The F-22's combination of supercruise, stealth, integrated avionics/EWSP and LPI radar system means it will be virtually unbeatable in A2A combat. The F-22 ALSO utilises thrust vectoring control and I have some doubt that the SU-37 would be so much a better dogfighter, particularly given that the F-22 will be supersonic whereas the Su-37 will be mainly subsonic... Just because the US hasn't demonstrated the full maneuvre capability of the F-22, doesn't mean it isn't capable of performing the maneuvres the Su-37 has demonstrated, or more...

3. The F-22's supercruise has been publicly demonstrated at sustained speeds in excess of Mach 1.6. This is using only "dry heat" mind you. F-22's can still use "after burners" and reports (to which I have no link) have indicated that on full power the F-22 is capable of Mach 2.5+ and has a higher top speed, is a faster climber and has much greater acceleration than the F-15...

4. The supercruise capability of the F-22 means that in BVR air combat it will basically dominate every other aircraft type that doesn't possess this capability. The reason is simply because of the kinematic performance boost this provides to the aircraft's weapons.

5. Add to this the stealth capability and capabilities of the AESA LPI APG-77 radar system of the F-22 and it is very likely that the F-22 will be almost completely unseen to any enemy aircraft and yet have their enemy "in their sights" and able to fire as desired...

6. On top of this, the F-22's mission rates, provided no maintenance problems occur will dwarf any other fighter. By flying each mission roughly twice as fast as any other fighter is capable of, the supercruise alone increases the "firepower" of the weapon system...
 

scg_af

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
Aussie Digger said:
If I had to pick one of these 2 aircraft, I'd also pick the F-22. The first reason is because it is an in-service aircraft, whereas the Su-37 is nothing more than a developmental aircraft that has yet to be ordered even by the Russians...

2. The F-22 is a revolutionary combat aircraft as opposed to the evolutionary SU-37. The F-22's combination of supercruise, stealth, integrated avionics/EWSP and LPI radar system means it will be virtually unbeatable in A2A combat. The F-22 ALSO utilises thrust vectoring control and I have some doubt that the SU-37 would be so much a better dogfighter, particularly given that the F-22 will be supersonic whereas the Su-37 will be mainly subsonic... Just because the US hasn't demonstrated the full maneuvre capability of the F-22, doesn't mean it isn't capable of performing the maneuvres the Su-37 has demonstrated, or more...

3. The F-22's supercruise has been publicly demonstrated at sustained speeds in excess of Mach 1.6. This is using only "dry heat" mind you. F-22's can still use "after burners" and reports (to which I have no link) have indicated that on full power the F-22 is capable of Mach 2.5+ and has a higher top speed, is a faster climber and has much greater acceleration than the F-15...

4. The supercruise capability of the F-22 means that in BVR air combat it will basically dominate every other aircraft type that doesn't possess this capability. The reason is simply because of the kinematic performance boost this provides to the aircraft's weapons.

5. Add to this the stealth capability and capabilities of the AESA LPI APG-77 radar system of the F-22 and it is very likely that the F-22 will be almost completely unseen to any enemy aircraft and yet have their enemy "in their sights" and able to fire as desired...

6. On top of this, the F-22's mission rates, provided no maintenance problems occur will dwarf any other fighter. By flying each mission roughly twice as fast as any other fighter is capable of, the supercruise alone increases the "firepower" of the weapon system...
Is the F-22 already in service??? I thought USAF were only flying prototypes...

A revolutionary fighter jet is better than an evolutionary fighter jet. Sukhoi based the Su-37 on the Su-35 (and the design of the Su-37 is very much like the Su-35, Su-30, Su-27, and MiG-29), which means that the Su-37 is not significantly better than the Su-35 and maybe even the Su-30MKI...

When Lockheed designed the F-22, Lockheed didn't base it on the F-15 or the F-16, making it not only America's number 1 fighter jet, but it has a far more modernized fighter jet. Basing fighter jets on other fighter jets means that one can't make any significant improvements on that fighter.

nz enthusiast: USAF has currently ordered 277 F/A-22s. I think the Su-37 costs a lot more than $50-60 mil. China said that its air force would be willing to pay $100 million per unit for Su-37s.
 

highsea

New Member
scg_af said:
Is the F-22 already in service??? I thought USAF were only flying prototypes...
The Nellis and Tyndall Raptors are not prototypes. There were 9 prototypes built before the final design was frozen. The first operational squadron (27FS, 1FW, Langley) is filling up at the rate of 2 per month, they should have 5-6 AC as of right now, plus a couple loaners used for maintenance training. There are 58-59 completed F/A-22's (either in service or currently undergoing AF approval), and production will increase to 3 per month early next year.
scg_af said:
nz enthusiast: USAF has currently ordered 277 F/A-22s. I think the Su-37 costs a lot more than $50-60 mil. China said that its air force would be willing to pay $100 million per unit for Su-37s.
225-227 is closer to reality as of today. The last round of budget cuts to the Raptor was rejected by the house, which restored funding through 2009. We will probably not see any additional funding decisions until around 2007. It's waaay too early to predict how long the program will last, but the AF has stated that 381 AC is their minimum number, and they haven't backed off from this.
 
Last edited:

nz enthusiast

New Member
I thought the number was 180 it even said on lockheed and boeings website. The 42nd F-22 was delieved to Langley air force a litle while back f22fighter.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi go to this site, thsi is a forum where F-22 lovers seem to be. The number ordered has changed alot but from what i last heard it was 180.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

highsea

New Member
nz- The 180 number was based on the Pentagon's budget request. It was rejected by the house, which restored the funding. Also rejected in the measure was the provision to kill the C-130J and retire the USS John F. Kennedy.

It's just the way the Pentagon deals with Congress- when told their budgets will be reduced, they chop the programs that they know Congress will not allow to die- so the Congress allocates more money to save their favorite progs, and everyone's happy. ;)
Lockheed wins round over planes

House votes to continue funding C-130J, F/A-22


By BOB KEMPER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/22/05

Washington — The House has approved a defense budget that would keep alive the once-endangered C-130J military cargo plane and F/A-22 fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin in Marietta.

The vote, taken late Monday, would restore funding for two planes that had been targeted by the Pentagon for elimination. The measure also includes funding for a study of whether the F/A-22 Raptor should continue in production beyond 2009, the termination date for Lockheed's current contract.

The Senate still needs to act on its own version of the defense bill. Georgia lawmakers have expressed confidence that the measure will clear both chambers.

The Pentagon proposed killing the C-130J program at the end of next year. But it reversed course last month after learning it would cost $1.6 billion in penalties to terminate the multiyear contract early, wiping out any savings gained by canceling the plane.

The proposed defense budget would restore funding for 13 of the Hercules cargo planes — nine for the Air Force and four for the Navy.

"I'm relieved full funding for the C-130J program was included in the legislation," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Marietta whose district includes the Lockheed plant. "The Georgia delegation fought hard for this aircraft and it paid off."

The measure also restores funding for 25 Raptor fighter jets, which the Air Force called its top priority but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to cancel.

Pentagon officials and a variety of taxpayer watchdog groups have criticized the Raptor, which was designed during the Cold War, as an overly expensive replacement for the Air Force's aging fighter jets.

The same groups have targeted the venerable C-130J, which they said was so plagued with design problems that it has still not been used in a combat situation.

Georgia lawmakers, however, fended off such criticisms and were able over the last six months to round up substantial support for both planes on Capitol Hill, forcing the Pentagon to back down.

"I, along with the entire Georgia delegation, will continue to work tirelessly to promote and protect these valuable programs," said Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Roswell whose district is home to many Lockheed employees.

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0605/22natdefense.html
Gotta read between the lines a little bit.... :D

Edit to add: Don't misread "the 42nd. Raptor was delivered to Langley" as meaning that Langley has 42 Raptors. The reference was just to the 42nd production airframe- e.g.- Raptor 4042. Last month, Langley received Raptors 4041, 4042, and 4043. They should have 2 more by now, and as I mentioned earlier, at least one loaner from Tyndall.
 
Last edited:

pawa_k2001

New Member
I would take 4 Su-37s over 1 F-22.

Su-37 costs about $40-$50 million each but F-22 costs about $200 million each.(That is according to 2003 congress info) $200 million a aircraft is based on the congress approval of 180 aircrafts instead of the 750 they wanted in the start. So will F-22 be able to take on 4 Su-37s?

I think when comparing aircrafts and other military equipment you should always look at the cost. Is the cost worth what you are getting?
 

backfire

New Member
Both the aircraft are equally good in their own right.

But I'd like to wait for the PAK-FA to come out in the open.
Is it true that India is cooperating with Russia on this project
 

pawa_k2001

New Member
When Pak-Fa comes wout India will get the bad side of the deal. Russia doesnt sell its best stuff. Even the T-90 tanks... India gets the down graded ones.
 

ashblackhawk

Banned Member
pawa_k2001 said:
When Pak-Fa comes wout India will get the bad side of the deal. Russia doesnt sell its best stuff. Even the T-90 tanks... India gets the down graded ones.
How do you know that India is getting down graded ones. Dont just bluff my friend everyone is watching you !! :D
 

pawa_k2001

New Member
ashblackhawk said:
How do you know that India is getting down graded ones. Dont just bluff my friend everyone is watching you !! :D
I read on the stats of the Indian T-90 and the Russian T-90. Everyone thinks Russia sell all their best stuff... They sell their best stuff but without the things that make them best.
 

boleen

New Member
I'm new comer, so everybody here can help me something ? I want to know if F-22's stealth capacity can invisible to radar of Su-30/37 or Mig-31 ? If "see first - shoot first" then why F-22 use only medium range AA missle ? why not use long range to increase survival capacity in air battle ? If could, give me some link about it, thnx in advance.
 

nz enthusiast

New Member
I have been thinking that for ages as well boleen, i thought they would have made a loong range missile possibly stealthed, just incase they needed but it seems they are just do slight improvements on the AMRAAMs. Didn't the F-14 tomcat have a longe range A2A missile on it?
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Yep the F-14 used to use the Phoenix missile which had a 200k+ range but it's been retired from service. AMRAAM has had several range improvements throughout it's life. The AIM-120B version supposedly had a 70k range and the latest C variants have had their range upgraded.

The next up AIM-120C-7 variant supposedly has a fairly significant range enhancement at the request of the US Navty due to the retirement of theAIM-54 Phoenix, though the next version the AIM-120D is supposed to have 50% greater range than the C-7 version.

I suspect the main reason that AMRAAM's or similar missiles haven't been designed to provide the stated range that some other missile systems allegedly have, is that there hasn't been a true need. When has an AMRAAM equipped fighter ever been outranged in ACTUAL combat? Never to the best of my knowledge...
 

backfire

New Member
boleen said:
I'm new comer, so everybody here can help me something ? I want to know if F-22's stealth capacity can invisible to radar of Su-30/37 or Mig-31 ? If "see first - shoot first" then why F-22 use only medium range AA missle ? why not use long range to increase survival capacity in air battle ? If could, give me some link about it, thnx in advance.
I think the longer range missiles don't seem to figure because of their larger size maybe which makes it physically challenging to fix in the internal bomb bay's of the raptor , although i'll look further and let you know ASAP.

BTW The tomcat could carry a load of 8 AIM120.
 

highsea

New Member
backfire said:
...BTW The tomcat could carry a load of 8 AIM120.
The Tomcat was never certified for AMRAAM. The plans were made, and missile tests were done, but the program was shelved, and the AMRAAM was never integrated into the F-14 fleet. The number would have been 6, not 8, if it would have been carried through.

Incidentally, there are two long-range AMRAAM variants under development besides the C-7. The AMRAAM-D and the AMRAAM-VFDR. Both versions will be compatible with the Raptors internal bay.
 
Last edited:

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
Phoenix missile had a 200k+ range & AMRAAMs still lack behind. Yet still US turned down the Phoenix. Confusing. Why ?

Is it the size & weight etc?

  • PHOENIX;
Length13 feet (3.9 meters)

Weight---1000 pounds - AIM-54A
1040 pounds - AIM-54C [various, 1020-1040 pounds]
1023 pounds - AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed Missile

Diameter---15 inches (38.1 cm)

Wing Span--3 feet (.9 meters)

Range---In excess of 100 nautical miles (115 statute miles, 184 km)

Speed---In excess of 3,000 mph (4,800 kmph)

Warhead Weight---135 pounds (60.75 kg)

Unit Cost---$477,131



  • AIM-120 AMRAAM;
Length---143.9 inches (366 centimeters)

Launch Weight---335 pounds (150.75 kilograms)

Diameter---7 inches (17.78 centimeters)

Wingspan---20.7 inches (52.58 centimeters)

Range---20+ miles (17.38+ nautical miles)

Speed---Supersonic

Unit Cost---$386,000

 
Last edited:

Lightndattic

New Member
pawa_k2001 said:
I would take 4 Su-37s over 1 F-22.

Su-37 costs about $40-$50 million each but F-22 costs about $200 million each.(That is according to 2003 congress info) $200 million a aircraft is based on the congress approval of 180 aircrafts instead of the 750 they wanted in the start. So will F-22 be able to take on 4 Su-37s?

I think when comparing aircrafts and other military equipment you should always look at the cost. Is the cost worth what you are getting?
The F-22 was designed to take on multiple Su-27 class aircraft and destroy them from long range before the other aircraft ever know the Raptor was there.

You ask can 1 Raptor take on Su-37s? The answer is yes.

BTW... If you're going to take cost into effect when comparing 2 fighters, you also need to take into account probability of actually being built. In that instance the F-22 is way ahead of the Su-37.
 
Top