F-22 Raptor vs Su-37 Terminator

[stealth]

Which aircraft do you believe would win in an air combat engagement, a dogfight if you will. Remember though no matter how good an aircraft is, it's all about the pilot. Put your input on which fighter aircraft you think would win.

Other links for information and specifications.
F-22 http://www.f22fighter.com/Specs.htm http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f22/f-22-specifications.html http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/f-22/f-22_specs.htm

Su-37 http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-37/su-37_specifications.htm http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/su-37_flanker.pl http://www.thaitechnics.com/aircraft/su37.html




F-22 Raptor

Technical Specifications F-22A

Powerplant: two Pratt & Whitney F119-P-100 turbofan each rated at 155.69 kN (35,000 lb st) with afterburning

Dimensions: length 18.92m (62 ft 1 in); height 5.00m (16 ft 5 in); wing span 13.56m (44ft 6 in)

Weights: empty more than 13.608 kg (30,000 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 26.308 kg (58,000 lb)

Performance: max level speed at optimum altitude Mach 1.58 in supercruise and at 30,000 ft (9145m) Mach 1.7 in afterburning mode; service ceiling more than 15,240m (50,000 ft); g limit +7.9

Armament: one 20mm M61A2 Vulcan six-barrel gun with 480 rounds; 2 AIM-9X Sidewinder IR-guided missiles in internal side bays. Up to 6 AIM-120C or 4 AIM-120A AMRAAM missiles in internal fuselage weapon bays or 2 AIM-120C AMRAAMs and 2 GBU-32 JDAM bombs or 2 GBU-30 JDAM bombs. Up to four fuel tanks and up to 8 missiles can be carried on optional external hardpoints. (reportedly there are plans for a F/A-22C with larger weapon bays capable or carrying a larger selection of Air-to-Ground weapons and weapons such as the AGM-88 HARM)




Su-37 Terminator

Powerplant: two 142 kN (31,924 lb st) Saturn Lyul'ka AL-31FU TVC afterburning turbofans

Dimensions: length 22.183m (72 ft 9 in) ; height 6.43m (21 ft 5 in); wing span 14.7m (48 ft)

Weights: empty 18400 kg (40,564 lb); Max Take-Off Weight 34000 kg (74,956 lb)

Performance: max level speed at high altitude Mach 2.35 or 2500 km/h (1,553 mph); at sea level 1400 km/h (870 mph); service ceiling 18,000m (54,000 ft)

Armament: one internal GSh-301 30mm cannon with 150 rounds; up to 8000 kg (17,637 lb) of ordnance carried on up to twelve external hardpoints, including R-60, R-73, R-27, RVV-AE (R-77) AAMs, freefall and cluster bombs, unguided rockets, external fuel tanks, guided bombs and air-to-surface missiles.

[titanic3]

F22 in BVR. Su-37 in close range TnBing furball.

[RedBull1]

In an actual dogfight I'd take the SU any day, in any other situation (as titan said, a BVR engagement) I'd take the Raptor.

[whiteman]

SU-37 in the sexy department

[Bodhi]

F22 all day long because the Sukoi would never know it was there.

[LCADolby]

MCOMM-1 = win

[Dragon]

F22 all day long because the Sukoi would never know it was there.

This

[titanic3]

One thing I've noticed with almost all modern planes...they only carry 100-400 rounds of cannon ammo...and I understand that missiles are the primary weapons. But don't those guns fire at something insane like 100 rounds+ per second? Would that even be enough for a dogfight?

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

From what i understand, most of the primary air to air russian guns, fire so fast and so violently, they only hold a small amount of ammo because if the gun fires any longer then it "currently can" the vibrations are so violent it starts to do harm to the aircraft's frame itself, not to mention the radar and other sensitive systems.


Currently the russians have the best air to air guns, they just cant fire them.

:Edit: one such weapon system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-6-30

"On the Mikoyan MiG-27 the Gsh-6-30 had to be mounted obliquely to absorb recoil (5,500 kg). The gun was noted for its high (often uncomfortable) vibration and extreme noise. The airframe vibration led to fatigue cracks in fuel tanks, numerous radio and avionics failures, the necessity of using runways with floodlights for night flights (as the landing lights would often be destroyed), tearing or jamming of the forward landing gear doors (leading to at least three crash landings), cracking of the reflector gunsight, an accidental jettisoning of the cockpit canopy and at least one case of the instrument panel falling off in flight. The weapons also dealt extensive colateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200 meter radius from the impact epicenter, including aircraft firing."


:Edit: Who wants to fire a gun, that is so violent it makes it so you cannot land, or forces your ejection!? No thanks.

[Zacherof]

The picture looks like a 35(which lacked the canards)
What ever happened to the russion jet with forward swept wings???

[expat]

Swept forward wings jet was the SU 47 ,think they only made 1.

[Rob52240]

Sukhoi has my vote all day long.

In my opinion the USAF has better missiles and guns but the SU seems to be an all around better plane and I have to assume it can carry a lot more weapons.

[Plawranc]

The F-22 is a long range monster.

Ive seen them fly, they are absolutely incredible in their close in fighting.

That said. The SU-37 carries more punch, and seeing as this is a Super flanker with thrust vector and better avionics etc etc I would back it simply because it is a hell of a lot cheaper.

I could field 3 Terminators for one Raptor. And still have a combat edge over every nation in the world except the USA and in the USA's department. Strength in numbers is a good thing.

[Rich46yo]

I could field 3 Terminators for one Raptor. And still have a combat edge over every nation in the world except the USA and in the USA's department. Strength in numbers is a good thing.

Your thinking is 30 years old.

The lesson of modern warfare is there is no substitute for technology. Most of all when the reality is nobody is going to be able to buy 3 flankers for every one F22. Not that the 37 was ever even produced. The problem with these kinds of threads is they are entirely hypothetical and have no basis in the real world, from A to Z.

The F22 is an actual operational system. So dominant that a squadron of them based in Okinawa completely tilts the balance of power in Asia.

[Rob52240]

Your thinking is 30 years old.

The lesson of modern warfare is there is no substitute for technology. Most of all when the reality is nobody is going to be able to buy 3 flankers for every one F22. Not that the 37 was ever even produced. The problem with these kinds of threads is they are entirely hypothetical and have no basis in the real world, from A to Z.

The F22 is an actual operational system. So dominant that a squadron of them based in Okinawa completely tilts the balance of power in Asia.

Right....



BTW how many F-22s are currently not grounded?