How much does an F-22 cost? A SU-37?

[AndrewR]

Why are there so many Su-35/37 groupies around who start clamoring about how wonderful the technology demonstrator is? I am still baffled by it. Sure, it has some terrific maneuver capabilities, but answer these few questions:

1) Does it have any stealth characteristics?
2) Does its maneuverability in any way improve its avionics?
3) Do those protruding engine nozzles increase its IR signature?
4) Does the ability to stop in midair make it more or less of a perfect target for an incoming missile?

No, seriously, answer those questions THEN we can talk about the future of air warfare.

 

[SuperTool]

<< Why are there so many Su-35/37 groupies around who start clamoring about how wonderful the technology demonstrator is? I am still baffled by it. Sure, it has some terrific maneuver capabilities, but answer these few questions:

1) Does it have any stealth characteristics?
2) Does its maneuverability in any way improve its avionics?
3) Do those protruding engine nozzles increase its IR signature?
4) Does the ability to stop in midair make it more or less of a perfect target for an incoming missile?

No, seriously, answer those questions THEN we can talk about the future of air warfare.

>>



That's a very good point. Su 27 was a great plane for it's time, and it's still a very good plane, esp the Su-37 Variant. But F22 is state of the art jet with all the latest goodies, while Su37 is a 20+ year old jet with bolt on mods. There is a lot of nostalgia for the beautifully shaped planes like Su-27 and F15, but the new stealthiness requirements mean we are just going to have to live with square ugly planes in the future.

 

[notfred]

The SU-37 is a nice plane. I've seen one (in a magazine, not personally) with air to air missles mounted backwards on the thing (with a radar cone mounted between the engines) that could actually fire rearward. It's also amazingly maneuverable. But, the Russians have poor quality control not only in thier production facilities, but thier pilot training programs.

Also, I don't know where someone got the idea that the Russians build better engines than us. Have you ever seen a Russian fighter? You put a Mig 29 next to a F-18 (the two planes I got the opportunity to compare side-by-side) And the F-18 sounds like a Ferrari compared to the Mig's riced out Honda Civic. Also, the Mig leaves a lot of black smoke in the air, while the F-18 runs clean.

 

[AndrewR]

The SU-37 is a nice plane. I've seen one (in a magazine, not personally) with air to air missles mounted backwards on the thing (with a radar cone mounted between the engines) that could actually fire rearward. It's also amazingly maneuverable. But, the Russians have poor quality control not only in thier production facilities, but thier pilot training programs.

I've seen a video of the Su-37 in action. It really is quite amazing what it can do, but it's more applicable for air show demonstrations that it is modern fighter combat. If I'm not mistaken, the -37 is not the first to have rear facing missiles, but I cannot remember which others do.

 

[Lithium381]

those planes are cheap, chump change....heh if you're going to get one, might as well get one that can go into orbit and launch nuclear attacks......

 

[MadRat]

The F-22 is no dogfighter. It is the SILENT SERVICE of the skies, meant to ferry for hours on end and sneak up on targets using passive radar means. It is actually not designed for any harder manuevers than are capable in today's front-line fighter aircraft. (Pilots cannot take the strain from today's fighters, let alone the SU-37's mythical swivel jets!) The aircraft will require alot of expensive maintenance, yet in the long run will cost less (on an annual basis) to maintain than the F-15 fighter it replaces. Fewer fighters, but more dependable fighters, are actually more cost-effective than many low-reliability fighters.

btw - People are toting Russian engines as if they are good! NO WAY. The Russian designs last less than 10% the lifespan of their western counterparts, even fifteen years after the fact. The western fighters have been using a secret process that casts the engines in fewer parts and with fewer flaws, giving them way more reliability. The average Soviet-era jet uses 7-15 engines to each used by its western counterpart. The worst engines maintained in the world are the easiest to locate by civilians, the ones used in the old MiG-15 jets. A civilian may be lucky to garner 300 hours on a mint condition engine; pretty expensive when you look at its $15-20k engine price tag, not including the labor costs.

 

[Martin]

<< Why are there so many Su-35/37 groupies around who start clamoring about how wonderful the technology demonstrator is? I am still baffled by it. Sure, it has some terrific maneuver capabilities, but answer these few questions:

1) Does it have any stealth characteristics?
2) Does its maneuverability in any way improve its avionics?
3) Do those protruding engine nozzles increase its IR signature?
4) Does the ability to stop in midair make it more or less of a perfect target for an incoming missile?

No, seriously, answer those questions THEN we can talk about the future of air warfare.

>>




I'm not really a groupie, but I am quite impressed by it. Whether its useful, well, I guess a war will show that the best.

I was asking for the cost, since if its 2x or more cheaper than an F22, Russia might be able to sell a good number of these to other counties.

btw, on #4, wouldn't in maneuverability help it escape missles? I read countermeasures can be mounted instead of missles, it seems like a good idea.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Won't really matter much longer anyways. NASA has been working on unmanned planes that pull 30+ G's and other insane stuff like that. Controlled by computer, or a guy can hop in the virtual seat at base anytime. It's exceptional aerobatics won't do it much good when it's outclassed in everyway, and probably blown out of the sky before it even sees the enemy (120+ miles).

 

[MadRat]

I highly doubt the "terminal service" drone technology (fancy name for "remote-control") will enter operations any time soon. The F-117 is basically a terminal service drone except for takeoffs and landings, although they can be done pilotless, too. You would be better off mounting long-range missiles on loitering drones than on airframes capable of 30G's. Seriously, why fly the whole airframe into harms way when you can stay at a safe distance? A solar-powered hybrid could loiter for a week on end before refueling all the while hauling a load of a dozen AMRAAM sized missiles. Think about the potential energy of a weapons release at 80k feet altitude; a slope-launched AMRAAM would potentially reach 100 miles to a target flying at no less than 25k feet altitude. We are talking about around a 500% size-to-weight efficiency versus a SAM missile.

 

[AndrewR]

It is actually not designed for any harder manuevers than are capable in today's front-line fighter aircraft.

I beg to differ on that point. The F-22's vectored thrust engines, while only two directional, give it a high degree of maneuverability. I haven't seen any numbers on its agility, but even if I had, I couldn't post them here.

I was asking for the cost, since if its 2x or more cheaper than an F22, Russia might be able to sell a good number of these to other counties.

Assuming they can produce them in quantity and to a high degree of precision given the current state of their manufacturing and economy. However, even if a 3rd World country can buy them, it doesn't mean they can fly them adequately since most countries rely on GCI tactics to control their aircraft. You can have an awesome airframe, but if the pilot is little more than a remote controlled drone, than a highly trained pilot in a F-86 can shoot him down.

btw, on #4, wouldn't in maneuverability help it escape missles? I read countermeasures can be mounted instead of missles, it seems like a good idea.

You need speed and agility to defeat an incoming missile. If you slow down and nearly stop when making a turn, which the Su-37 is capable of doing, you make yourself into a nice, juicy target for the missile. A missile can and will always be able to turn faster than an aircraft so the era of dodging missiles is fast departing. If you are relying on last ditch efforts to avoid a missile hit, you're almost dead already because even if you do avoid THAT missile, you've bled off all your energy, making the next launch an almost certain fatality.

 

[MadRat]

<<It is actually not designed for any harder manuevers than are capable in today's front-line fighter aircraft.

"I beg to differ on that point. The F-22's vectored thrust engines, while only two directional, give it a high degree of maneuverability. I haven't seen any numbers on its agility, but even if I had, I couldn't post them here. ">>

Let me guess, you also graduated from Princeton and do occassional supersecret missions for the government? C'mon, the human body simply cannot tolerate the manueverability of today's fighter jets. The thrust vectoring for the F-22 is for low speed manuevering of the nose on take offs and landing, and for efficient maintenance of back pressure.

Air superiority is not about dogfighting; in fact, dogfighting is and has always been a waste of resources. Dogfighting has been a big boost to the public during wars, since warfighting in the air is sterile compared to ground fighting, and to this day the fighter pilot still enjoys a sexy-romantic stereotype. Air superiority is about gaining the high ground and refusing to let the enemy gain par. As far as the modern fighter pilot goes, the job is pretty boring these days.

<<Assuming they can produce them in quantity and to a high degree of precision given the current state of their manufacturing and economy. However, even if a 3rd World country can buy them, it doesn't mean they can fly them adequately since most countries rely on GCI tactics to control their aircraft. You can have an awesome airframe, but if the pilot is little more than a remote controlled drone, than a highly trained pilot in a F-86 can shoot him down.>>

The Russians have a very efficient mass production in the heavy industry arena. What they lack is microarchitecture. The Su-35 is not very expensive, nor is its thrust vectoring technology. The thrust vectoring technology is used by a number of Russian missiles, not just on aircraft. To say they cannot produce them is a total lie. Military planners simply cannot see any long-term benefit of using thrust vectoring the way the Russians use it. And what about GCI? The USAF and USN still use GCI procedures, too! Are you saying they are backwards?? (The wink is because I know what you are trying to say, you just didn't relate it fully.)

<<You need speed and agility to defeat an incoming missile. If you slow down and nearly stop when making a turn, which the Su-37 is capable of doing, you make yourself into a nice, juicy target for the missile. A missile can and will always be able to turn faster than an aircraft so the era of dodging missiles is fast departing. If you are relying on last ditch efforts to avoid a missile hit, you're almost dead already because even if you do avoid THAT missile, you've bled off all your energy, making the next launch an almost certain fatality.>>

Anyone that took your advice is an almost certain fatality, too. Speed and agility do not negate missiles in the micro management of the manuever, they defeat it only in macro management. High speed intercepts of aircraft above 12000 feet are nigh impossible; the target manuevering any erratic pattern is safe from all missiles using today's technology simply because of physical limitations of missiles. Evasive manuevers at the micro level are usually fatal to the pilot, due to your last point. Countermeasures and direct evasion (micor management) are secondary to a carefully orchestrated (macro management) battle plan.

The modern battlefield is about efficient manuever and safe kills. It consumes less to do more. The day of the 600-ship Navy, 5000 warplanes, and 20000 battle tanks is unrealistic. A brigade using $20 billion of equipment is much more efficient than a division with the same spending limits. That is pretty much the whole reason why the U.S. military had a slight edge over the Soviets during the cold war.

 

[AndrewR]

Let me guess, you also graduated from Princeton and do occassional supersecret missions for the government? C'mon, the human body simply cannot tolerate the manueverability of today's fighter jets. The thrust vectoring for the F-22 is for low speed manuevering of the nose on take offs and landing, and for efficient maintenance of back pressure/

No, I am currently an Air Force officer and am being specifically trained in all aspects of air warfare and aircraft employment as well as threat assessment of red forces. I've also been studying this stuff on my own for years.

Thrust vectoring will be used to increase the angle of attack during WVR* engagements. It is not simply a take off and landing gimmick.

Air superiority is not about dogfighting; in fact, dogfighting is and has always been a waste of resources. Dogfighting has been a big boost to the public during wars, since warfighting in the air is sterile compared to ground fighting, and to this day the fighter pilot still enjoys a sexy-romantic stereotype. Air superiority is about gaining the high ground and refusing to let the enemy gain par. As far as the modern fighter pilot goes, the job is pretty boring these days.

How many after action reports have you read? How many gun camera videos have you watched lately?

To say they cannot produce them is a total lie.

I never said that. I only wonder about the state of their manufacturing since the rest of the country is going to hell (or is already there).

Anyone that took your advice is an almost certain fatality, too. Speed and agility do not negate missiles in the micro management of the manuever, they defeat it only in macro management. High speed intercepts of aircraft above 12000 feet are nigh impossible; the target manuevering any erratic pattern is safe from all missiles using today's technology simply because of physical limitations of missiles. Evasive manuevers at the micro level are usually fatal to the pilot, due to your last point. Countermeasures and direct evasion (micor management) are secondary to a carefully orchestrated (macro management) battle plan.

I am glad that you could brief our pilots that they are safe from missiles above 12,000 feet. Of course, that would be the last brief they would ever hear before the missile rams up their tailpipe, and they have pieces of a continuous rod warhead pass through their body. Are you even remotely familiar with the capabilities of today's missiles? I challenge you to look at some of the newer ones being introduced and ask that you seriously consider if you would fly against them, assuming that you can "macromaneuver" yourself into safety against the latest generation.

The main reason why WVR is still possible? EW. There is no such thing as a certain kill with any standoff munition, and closing speeds being what they are with high performance fighter aircraft, BVR quickly becomes WVR. Granted, USAF doctrine is for BVR engagements, but it is pure folly to ASSUME that BVR will always happen.

*WVR=within visual range
BVR=beyond visual range

 

[MadRat]

Well, well, an officer in the USAF, eh? That is quite impressive considering your descriptions of high-altitude engagements are funny as hell. WVR has been generally accepted as "wide-visual range" by the industry for some time now. The WVR and BVR terms you speak are not nearly as important to the F-22 as the stealth, supercruise, and reliability of the total system. Care to explain why WVR (either close-in or wide-aspect engagements, you pick) has been resisted by the USAF for so long if it is so revolutionary? Another point you did not consider is that as far back as Vietnam it was shown that BVR is politically unacceptable to civilian governments. Politicians want confirmed engagements, hence the computerized telescopic sights found on today's fighter suite. International police actions further complicate the matter as non-aligned, civilian and non-standard alliance aircraft will be operating in the AOB.

<<How many after action reports have you read? How many gun camera videos have you watched lately?>>

Hmmm, should I ignore this taunt or ask you a question like, when is the last time you debriefed? No need to get into a pissing match of credentials. Maybe I should simply ask, when was the last knife kill by a U.S. warplane? They certainly are not common.

<<I am glad that you could brief our pilots that they are safe from missiles above 12,000 feet. Of course, that would be the last brief they would ever hear before the missile rams up their tailpipe, and they have pieces of a continuous rod warhead pass through their body.>>

Actually it would be more than likely that an engagement at this altitude would be from top-down, not at the rear of the aircraft. I am not aware of any missile with an IR-seeker that can engage reliably above 12000 feet. (Enlighten me to which one can, please.) The missile would likely be launched vertically to an altitude superior to the threat, then it would likely follow a pre-programmed stratagem to gain maximum efificency in the terminal homing phase. The pre-programmed flight is mainly for modern engagement systems as the majority of systems out their fly a semi-LOS to the target using command-guidance with SARH. Either way, almost all of these systems will engage from a top-down perspective.

At 12000 feet you fairly limit the enemy to what they can do as far as tracking the target. If you illuminate the target with ground-based radar for any period of time then active-homing anti-radiation missiles will quickly turn it off. Not only that, but the narrow band of energy used by illuminators is not easy to bear on targets that carry any means of counter-measures. What this means to the pilot is that the missile is commonly fired blind with a pre-programmed flight path to the vicinity of the target. Macromanagement manuevers create a virtually impossible environment in order to hit with blind-fired SAMs. Not only that, but the air corridor becomes dangerous for friend and foe alike, i.e. the recent shootdown of a civilian passenger jet by a Ukrainian SA-5. The missile's seeker does not have neither the power nor the endurance to track all the way to the target, unless you know something about the laws of physics that the rest of us do not...

 

[AndrewR]

WVR has been generally accepted as "wide-visual range" by the industry for some time now.

I couldn't give a "rat's" ass what the "industry" dubs WVR to mean since within visual range comes straight from Air Force doctrine. I could probably find the AF document which defines it if you really want me to. I already threw out my packet from that block of instruction, however. Just off a Google search, here is a definition of WVR and BVR (see para. 6, if you count the single sentences as paragraphs).

Here is another definition of the acronyms WVR and BVR, this time from a governmental source which relies heavily on US air tactics. Wonder where they took their definitions?

Here is a third reference to WVR as "within visual range" -- this time from a Finnish site which is unintelligible to me, but WVR is clearly defined in the paragraph above the head-on shot of the F/A-18.

And finally, here is a page from our friends the Brits who also define WVR as "within visual range". Scroll down to about the middle of the page next to the little icon of the fighter.

Which industry is that again?

The WVR and BVR terms you speak are not nearly as important to the F-22 as the stealth, supercruise, and reliability of the total system. Care to explain why WVR (either close-in or wide-aspect engagements, you pick) has been resisted by the USAF for so long if it is so revolutionary?

No one said that it's revolutionary, but only an idiot would completely ignore it. Certainly, USAF wants to avoid WVR engagements if at all possible to leverage our advantages in detection and long range weapons systems as well as to avoid the inevitable higher danger of WVR. However, THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE. As you mention, sometimes it is necessary to engage in WVR combat for various reasons. Sometimes, WVR combat is not wanted but unavoidable.

Also, nowhere did I state that supercruise, stealth and various other capabilities (there are many) of the F-22 were unimportant or even less important than WVR considerations.

They certainly are not common.

So we only plan for what has happened recently? That's tantamount to saying we should throw away our heavy armor assets because the last few engagments have not necessitated their use which therefore makes them superfluous. We have to prepare for every eventuality because our potential next conflict could be anywhere and could involve a country that is currently friendly to us.

--
I cannot address any other subjects in this thread.

 

[MadRat]

Funny how your first example reinforces what I've said.

 

[ianbergman]

<< The Russians has better technology, they just don't have the money. >>



hah! sure they do. a couple of their early/mid 90s designs were pretty slick, but none of them can match the power/speed/stealth of the F-22. Which brings up the question of why exactly we need thousands of F-22s flying around, but that's for the politicians to figure out.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<< The Russians has better technology, they just don't have the money. >>



hah! sure they do. a couple of their early/mid 90s designs were pretty slick, but none of them can match the power/speed/stealth of the F-22. >>



In the days of the Cold War, soviet fighters were as good as their western counterparts. The reason they are a bit behind right now (altrough SU-37 is SWEEET) is because communism crumbled and along with, Soviet Union. You ability to keep-up in aviation technology gets hurt when society and economy is in chaos. But Russia has ALOT of know-how when it comes to military-technology, and once their economy picks up, they will bring out some amazing products.

 

[MadRat]

<<In the days of the Cold War, soviet fighters were as good as their western counterparts.>>

No, the Soviet designs never matched the western counterparts. Some of the Soviet designs were unique, therefore there was no western counterpart from which to compare. An example is the MiG-25 family of interceptors that were readily compared to the F-15 family of air-superiority fighters.

The CIA and military would readily allow the comparison in order to justify their huge budgets. The truth was that the MiG-25 was in no roles that would make a direct comparison valid, considering that the Soviets banked on MiG-21's and MiG-23's for air-superiority not the MiG-25. The MiG-25 was used for strategic intercept of American nuclear bombers, therefore it wasn't planned in any way for matchups to the F-15.

If you carefully study matchups of western aircraft to Soviet designs then you will be surprised to see that more likely the western designs, even when a generation or two behind the Soviet design, came out on top. Soviet airframes and equipment have never caught up to the west and probably will never compare well.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< No, the Soviet designs never matched the western counterparts. >>



Sure they did. they had some really good bombers that were simply superior to their western equivalents. For example, the Backfire. And Mil 24 "Hind" was the fastest gunship in the world (while carrying huge load of weapons).



<< An example is the MiG-25 family of interceptors that were readily compared to the F-15 family of air-superiority fighters. >>



I think Mig-29 Fulcrum or SU-27 Flanker is better comparison. Those planes are more or less equal to their western counterparts.

And if you mention Mig-25, you shouldn't forget Mig-31 Foxbat.



<< The truth was that the MiG-25 was in no roles that would make a direct comparison valid, considering that the Soviets banked on MiG-21's and MiG-23's for air-superiority not the MiG-25. >>



To my knowledge, Flanker and Fulcrum were the "real" air-superiority fighters of the soviet air-force. And no-one could claim that those planes were poor. They were and are among the best in the world. Mig-21 was already outdated and I severely suspect that it wouldn't have been used in vital mission. The advantage Mig-21 had was that there were large number of them available.



<< The MiG-25 was used for strategic intercept of American nuclear bombers, therefore it wasn't planned in any way for matchups to the F-15. >>



true, that role was reserver for Fulcrum and Flanker.

 

[MadRat]

What was the TU-22M Backfire superior to, perhaps you are judging by the F-111, Vulcan, or Mirage 4? Neither of these were directly comparable to the Backfire, nor did the west see a need to field a bomber in the TU-22M's niche roles. It was too big, too expensive to operate, and was coupled to overly expensive ordnance for the Soviets to justify its role.

The Hind was fast when flying clean, yes, but have you seen how ungainly they fly? They are not nimble helicopters, nor do they have the option of a stable hover. The Soviets were very good at fielding fast helicopters. However, not many of the Soviet designs were good at roles that their western counterparts were designed. The Black Hawk helicopter is much more capable as both a troopship and weapons platform in the "medium helicopter" roles.

You do realize that the Su-27 and MiG-29 designs came late in the game? The MiG-21 and MiG-23 were still the predominant frontline fighters fielded by Soviet bloc countries right up until the fall of the Berlin wall.

The MiG-21 was superior to the MiG-23 in many roles, not because of raw numbers but because of easy of maintenance. The MiG-21 is still operated by dozens of air forces around the world due to their relative low cost. MiG-23's around the world are fairly expensive to operate, let alone to find spare parts for them. MiG-29's are way too expensive for most third world air forces. The Su-27 is not even an option for any but the largest countries because of their extreme high cost to operate. It is roughly the same cost to operate F-15's as it is to operate Su-27's once the initial purchase is complete. Which would you rather afford?

 

[Nemesis77]

<< You do realize that the Su-27 and MiG-29 designs came late in the game? The MiG-21 and MiG-23 were still the predominant frontline fighters fielded by Soviet bloc countries right up until the fall of the Berlin wall. >>



Mig-29 entered in to service in 1982, 6 years after F-15. Su-27 in early eighties. They weren't THAT much "late in the game"



<< The Su-27 is not even an option for any but the largest countries because of their extreme high cost to operate. It is roughly the same cost to operate F-15's as it is to operate Su-27's once the initial purchase is complete. Which would you rather afford? >>



SU-27 or F-15? Why would you assume that F-15 is automatically superior to SU-27? Even if they were of same cost, why would F-15 be superior? SU-27 definitely has impressive techical specs, and it is a lethal fighter.

 

[MadRat]

The middle 80's was when the MiG-29 and Su-27 entered in any worthwhile numbers, but I won't debate that with you. Either way, it was way too little, way too late to matter. The Cold War ranged from what, 1945 to 1991? I'd say that was very late in the game.

<<SU-27 or F-15? Why would you assume that F-15 is automatically superior to SU-27?>>

Well, besides taking fewer trips to the maintenance shop and having a higher reliability of operation, I'd say it is also THE proven fighter of the two. What has the Su-27 been proven to be capable of doing? If I am an Air Marshall/General then having my best planes available is definitely of importance. Having fancy specs and cool eyecandy come second to simply getting the job done in a timely fashion.

 

[AndrewR]

Funny how your first example reinforces what I've said.

Funny how I see no mention of 12,000 ft in that article. You never did mention specifically the credentials you purport to have -- I am not doubting the possibility that they exist, only that they haven't been mentioned.

I think Mig-29 Fulcrum or SU-27 Flanker is better comparison. Those planes are more or less equal to their western counterparts.

What are you basing your assessments on, a flight sim? Seriously.

6 years after F-15

I thought IOC on the F-15 was 1974 at the latest. I know it first flew for operational testing in 1972.

SU-27 definitely has impressive techical specs, and it is a lethal fighter.

Which technical specs are those? I would like to understand your reasoning behind judging the Su-27 the equivalent or superior of Western aircraft.

 

[Pastfinder]

The bottom line is the pilot. It is the pilot who controls the plane. Granted, superior design gives the pilot a huge advantage, but the pilot is what determines who lives and who dies.

 

[MadRat]

Sorry, AndrewR, if you cannot find the implied meaning of that last comment. Your article was basically supporting the lack of interest in western designs to entertain close-in fighting during an air campaign. With such high potential loss rates in air-superiority campaigns built around dogfighting it is no wonder they lack an interest.

Pastfinder-

We just went round and round about how the pilot doesn't play the major role in aerial campaigns in the modern age. Would you back up your claim that the pilot is in the position to decide who wins or loses? I highly doubt the Iraqi pilots, even with millions of dollars of training, could have prepared for the air war during Desert Storm.

Hey, AndrewR, do you remember the anticipation of trouble during that first hour of the operation? Luckily for our pilots the thinktank that designed Instant Thunder was right on the money. And do you remember the initial cielings they made pilots fly and than how much they dropped as hostilities unfolded? There is no magic "12000 feet" cieling. I dropped that number because it is a fairly safe altitude to operate when a smart plan of action (using both micro and macro management) is in progress.