F/A-22 Raptor vs Su-43 Berkut

[AtomicMX]

These 2 are the best multirole combat jets i consider of USA and Russia?

But... which one is the true best?

Or in which specs is one better from the other?

 

I trust in soviet engineering though.

 

I (L) Berkut

[bloodhound]

su 47 berkut definitely looks impressive

 

while the raptor looks alil bit more subdeud.

 

I am sure the raptor is the only current plane which can go supersonic witought the need of afterburners.

 

edit: taken the images off

[bloodhound]

while, i personally like the su-27. They look very nice . and have the "Thrust vector control" thingy. i think it means it can change the nozzle direction, allowing more manuevaring, like vertical stalling and other impossible stuff become possible. does the berkut have that as well?

 

edit:taken the images off

[AtomicMX]

berkut had adds about everything that a common Sukhoi has.. and Su-27 errr its quite old... :S ....

 

since the times of the F-16 and stuff

[bloodhound]

theres nothing wrong with old. i used to be fascinated by it when i was a kid living in russia. it looks much better than all the others

[AtomicMX]

yes in deed...

 

well i also like the remake of the su-27 (su-35)

the difference is only the computer techonologies, the avionics are quite de same.

[bloodhound]

yeah, computers taking over everything. used to be just man and machine and pure skill.

[5614]

normally "whats wrong with old?" is a good question,

 

however, with planes, whats old is not as good, i think that the Raptor is better, it also has stealth technology which matches that of the 'Stealth Bomber', i think the Raptor can also carry more weaponary, and as someone else said, it can go supersonic without afterburner, this means there is much much much less heat produced, and as you know, nearly all missiles are heat seeking, it also means that at night it cant be seen becase there is no tail of 'fire' from the afterburner, and it is invisible to radar.

 

so i think that Raptor is better

[bloodhound]

well, raptor maybe "better", but su is for me "better looking" and thats all that counts.

 

Also su being lighter than raptor and on top of that having the thrust vector control, i am sure it will have an advantage in a one on one dogfight.

[5614]

no offense, but in planes, looks count for nothing, it is solely how good/fast/powerful it is.

but yes the su does have some advantages, but i think in a one on one dogfight, the raptor would win,

 

not only do heat seeking missiles not really work on the raptor, it is stealth, so you cant have radar guided missiles either

its quite a good plane

 

however so is the su, its just not as good, in my opinion

[Guest fulcrum]

Hey all,

 

Anyone considered that turn radii and rates, which were all the things you needed to judge aircraft performance have now taken a back seat? Thrust vectoring, long range AAMs and the rest have turned it around. But what makes the humble gunfighter lose out is the long range of the missiles these planes use in a tactical situation...planes have to be designed for performance and purpose, and usually looks count in maybe general purpose aircraft or for people who are cool enough to want cool, non-run of the mill aircraft which have form and function - maybe like Rutan's Boomerang (which he prides in )...

 

And isnt is difficult to compare the two fighters (except when in the air, in combat)? Theyre supposed to be the same class of airplane, but to end up using a forward swept wing (a relatively underused technology) for an important airplane like this one indicates some sheer engineering skill and expertise on the part of Sukhoi. But its just that this is one more brilliant plane in the line of the Su-7MB, the Su-11, the Su-15 Flagon, the Su-24 Fencer and the enormously successful Su-27 Flanker series, which got Sukhoi 50% of the fighter market share in 2000-2003. By contrast, the F-22 is aerodynamically relatively less radically, though more stealthy.

 

To come to the F-22: it is a very complex airplane. And somewhat of a good gamble if it is expected to be maintained easily by the US. It wouldnt be any export success, tho. The cost of maintaining and flying something like this is very high. It is a very capable airplane however, but for the fact that it is extremely complex. And getting an act together in war time requires a lot of coordination and planning and stuff, very unlike when you get into your simple, supersonic MiG-21, blast down the runway and blow 'em to kingdom come with basic supersonic missiles.

 

However, in the middle are well balanced machines like the Saab JAS 39 Gripen, the Chengdu J-10, The Eurofighter, the Dassault Rafale and the MDD F/A-18 E/F...why not like these machines? They are from an older generation, but not necessarily incapable or bad - in fact they're very cool...

 

And besides, you cant have a squadron of 20 F-22s flying on the same mission - you'd do that with a few maybe and then reinforce them and keep them stealthy. And all planning can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers of simple manoeuverable aircraft like maybe the F-5E Tiger or something.

Also in a battlefield scenario, how long can you expect a nation to support an airplane like the F-22 which takes billions to design and test, and millions of dollars to make and maintain? When you have simpler but efficient aircraft like the JSFs (F-35) why do you need an F-22? Fighter fashion it sounds like, but thats another matter altogether...

 

About the aesthetics that you guys talked abt, the Su-27 and the Su-37 are really lookers. The original N-22YF didnt look very bad, but the F-22A looked goofed up. This is a trivial matter. Look at the awesome looking F-8U3 Crusader or the F-105 Thunderchief...just rocking things!!

 

Anybody care for a cool gunfight in a Fockewulf Fw-190D-9? That must be real fun, with no missiles, just guns, wide sky and blazin cannons...

 

This is a long one already, so thats abt it for now...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

while, i personally like the su-27. They look very nice . and have the "Thrust vector control" thingy. i think it means it can change the nozzle direction, allowing more manuevaring, like vertical stalling and other impossible stuff become possible. does the berkut have that as well?

I do believe the F-22 has that also.

 

In my opinion, the F-22 would easily win any competition. Why? One word: Stealth. With the US's advanced electronics and radar, the F-22 could easily detect the Berkut at 100 miles away and blow it to smithereens from only 50 (AIM-120). The Berkut wouldn't detect it, and would never know what hit it.

[AtomicMX]

Anybody care for a cool gunfight in a Fockewulf Fw-190D-9? That must be real fun' date=' with no missiles, just guns, wide sky and blazin cannons...

This is a long one already, so thats abt it for now...[/quote']

 

 

Yeah but i'd use a Me-109K

[Guest fulcrum]

Good one AtomicMX...though the Fw-190 D has a slightly better ammunition, the Me-109K is very good with its instantaneous turn rate...what some 27-28 degrees/second? And another feature I liked was the grim square wingtips and the dangerous poise on this small machine. Simply awesome stuff. After all it (K-4) was the seat of Erich Hartmann, Jagdgeshwader-52!!

 

By contrast the F-16 generation (4th gen) of aircraft have 16-17 degrees per second and the Su-27 family (also 4th gen though with different upgrades) and later thrust vectored aircraft like the DASA X-31 and the Su-35M all have very high turn rates thanks to thrust vectoring. Yes it is an exciting technology alright.

 

There was talk of thrust vectoring tech on the MiG-29 as well. There was even a demonstrator to show it off. Did it work? Anyone has links/info?

[AtomicMX]

I am a Hartmann's fan.. That guy took down over 352 airplanes and survived the war.... what a man...

[5614]

In my opinion, the F-22 would easily win any competition. Why? One word: Stealth.

 

i agree the F-22 is one of the best most advanced planes around, even if it could be out-turned it would kill the opponent before they knew the plane was even in the sky

[admiral_ju00]

F-22 all the way!!!!

[ZAXAQUAR]

F/A-22 has another advantage that i would like to point out when it comes to munuverability. it is that the raptor uses all its advanced munuvering systems together unlike the su-47 wich uses mainly elevators and thrust Vectoring instead of every thing to top effichensy. like the raptor if something like the elevators goes out then it can still munuver ok but just not the fastest it could.

 

F/A-22 wins because it is a real plane that is being produced and put into combat line

 

SU-47 is not a combat plane it was just an example of fowrard swept wing effichency. sorry for all the typos.

 

F/A-22 goes farther faster with stealth and is advanced bing produced and is superior ( no offense ) and it looks great!

[atinymonkey]

I'm just impressed the US has got so much mileage out of the 40 year old British Aerospace design.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We're cost effective.

 

 

NOT!

[Sayonara]

We're cost effective.

Not at our prices.

 

YOU GOT SERVED BABEEE.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I was being sarcastic.

 

The government is spending $50 MILLION on the worlds largest domed rainforest in Iowa.

 

Seriously. What a waste.

[Dave]

Definately not a waste - at least that's of some kind of scientific value and could help save the rainforests and provide valuable research. I'd rather they spent it on that than fighter aircraft.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

*laughing so hard that my dentures come out, even though I don't have any*

 

No, they're doing it so it will be the BIGGEST.

[Sayonara]

That precludes any scientific observation does it?