SU-47 VS F-22

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#21

[quote=“Dani”]

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.[/quote]

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.

#22

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…

#23

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? :slight_smile:

#24

Trying to justify a “super” version in a few years time that looks the same but shares no common parts?

#25

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.

#26

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.

#27

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? :wink:

#28

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.[/quote]

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

#29

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? :?: