Sus for breakfast. Eat your heart out.

[Sailor]

Watch this closely, this aircraft literally turns upside down without
moving forward, theres no way another jet can out fight this thing,
its incredible. Unbelievable. Have you ever seen a jet able to tail
slide down its own thrust?

Please Note: The F/A-22 is now operational, with two wings already
flying in the Air Force. The JSF-35 'Lightning' is fast approaching
operational, and can do much more than the F/A-22 - including
literally stopping in mid-air from near super-sonic flight. The Su-
27 / Su-31 'Cobra' maneuver was essentially a 'one-trick pony'
maneuver. The F/A-22, and especially the JSF-35, can stop and eat a
Sukoyhan doing the 'Cobra' maneuver, plus do so much more.

And, as pointed out by some ex-F-4 Phantom drivers, ANY of these
maneuvers in an F-4 Phantom would have resulted in stall/fall/spin.
Fast (super-cruise*) and stealthy, and integrated avionics are cool,
but what's really impressive is the F/A-22s low speed stability and
maneuverability. In the late 40s and to early 60s aeronautical
engineers were going nuts on how to shape intakes to handle both
subsonic and super-sonic air flows, without stagnation or compressor
stalls.

Supersonic in itself was a big challenge because you had to use shock
waves to slow the intake air mass to sub-sonic before it hit the
compressor blades, or they would stall. The engineers figured it
out, but the solution was keeping a lot of air going in the front end
to make sure all the hot air kept going out the back end. As you
watch this Mach 2 airplane suspend motionless in air and do tail
slides, be aware of the truly amazing performance of the engines
and intakes.

Some used to think the Su-27 / Su-31 'Cobra' maneuver was the epitome
of 3rd to 4th generation fighter maneuverability. That snap maneuver
doesn't hold a candle to what this two-dimensional vectored-thrust
fighter with fat independent horizontal stabs can do at low speed.
There must be far more tricks up its sleeve in the high subsonic
dogfight speed range.

The video is about 5 minutes long, but the last 30-40 seconds are
priceless.

Note also, that the RAPTOR does a complete 360 degree turn in less
than 20 seconds!

*Supercruise: The F/A-22 can sustain supersonic flight without the
use of fuel-gulping afterburners. I.e. 1.6 m+

www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv

ACC recently approved the Raptors new DEMO profile. This was the
first show .

Watch the elevators of the airplane in this demo. They work
independently. It also has vectored thrust.

 

[VayuSena1]

Watch this closely, this aircraft literally turns upside down without
moving forward, theres no way another jet can out fight this thing,
its incredible. Unbelievable. Have you ever seen a jet able to tail
slide down its own thrust?

Please Note: The F/A-22 is now operational, with two wings already
flying in the Air Force. The JSF-35 'Lightning' is fast approaching
operational, and can do much more than the F/A-22 - including
literally stopping in mid-air from near super-sonic flight. The Su-
27 / Su-31 'Cobra' maneuver was essentially a 'one-trick pony'
maneuver. The F/A-22, and especially the JSF-35, can stop and eat a
Sukoyhan doing the 'Cobra' maneuver, plus do so much more.

And, as pointed out by some ex-F-4 Phantom drivers, ANY of these
maneuvers in an F-4 Phantom would have resulted in stall/fall/spin.
Fast (super-cruise*) and stealthy, and integrated avionics are cool,
but what's really impressive is the F/A-22s low speed stability and
maneuverability. In the late 40s and to early 60s aeronautical
engineers were going nuts on how to shape intakes to handle both
subsonic and super-sonic air flows, without stagnation or compressor
stalls.

Supersonic in itself was a big challenge because you had to use shock
waves to slow the intake air mass to sub-sonic before it hit the
compressor blades, or they would stall. The engineers figured it
out, but the solution was keeping a lot of air going in the front end
to make sure all the hot air kept going out the back end. As you
watch this Mach 2 airplane suspend motionless in air and do tail
slides, be aware of the truly amazing performance of the engines
and intakes.

Some used to think the Su-27 / Su-31 'Cobra' maneuver was the epitome
of 3rd to 4th generation fighter maneuverability. That snap maneuver
doesn't hold a candle to what this two-dimensional vectored-thrust
fighter with fat independent horizontal stabs can do at low speed.
There must be far more tricks up its sleeve in the high subsonic
dogfight speed range.

The video is about 5 minutes long, but the last 30-40 seconds are
priceless.

Note also, that the RAPTOR does a complete 360 degree turn in less
than 20 seconds!

*Supercruise: The F/A-22 can sustain supersonic flight without the
use of fuel-gulping afterburners. I.e. 1.6 m+

www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv

ACC recently approved the Raptors new DEMO profile. This was the
first show .

Watch the elevators of the airplane in this demo. They work
independently. It also has vectored thrust.

My dear man, Sukhoi and F-22 Raptors are aircrafts of two different league. While the F-22 is a stealth fighter with thrust vectoring, the Sukhoi series aircraft are conventional and are compared to the F-15 E that USAF flies till today. While I don't like being partial about aircraft, I must say that my bird the MKI flies far superior to any other conventional aircraft.

The whole of Su-27/30 series marked a new milestone in the path to achieve supermaneuverability while F-15's illustrious streak of invincibility is purely attributed to the pilots that flew it, notably the Israeli Air Force, which is qualitatively the best air force on earth. The number of hours they clock in training for dogfights, bomb runs, carpet bombing, evasive measures and aerial counter-assaults is something no one has ever done. However, in most UNBIASED simulations, and even head to head competitions, the Sukhoi series outstripped the American F-15Es. A repetition of these "losses" is what forced the US government to hurry up the Raptor project because they were well aware of the Su-30 series capabilities.

While the United States Air Force retains its position as the most sophisticated and largest air force on earth, it is yet to take head to head on an air force that is in its league yet. I do not mean ill, however this is the truth predicted by many analysts and airmen around the world. F-22 might be the first fighter of 5th generation, however it is to be noted that they won't retain their status throughout their lives.

We all are humans that inhabit this world and the most dynamic thing on earth is human mind. There is no saying what the other countries currently with their 5 th generation fighters can come up with; perhaps something that engineers of Lockheed Martin missed or did not notice.

While the F-22 Raptor is truly the most lethal aircraft in the world at this moment, there have oflate been a lot of problems with the fighter. Despite very small crash record, the interval between these crashes is very small and this is something that will not add stars to its tech log and status the Raptor claims it is of. The experts at Lockheed Martin should consider this crucial drawback as soon as possible because in the coming years, the Raptor will face intense competition from aircraft of similar and better category/generation from other countries.

Apart from this, the F-35 Lightning II will not even be half of what Raptor is. I say this because the US authorities would not want a Raptor cousin in the hands of all the countries around the world and that is the reason why they chose to continue this project so that strategically, the NATO members and other allies' attention could be deviated. This was the strategic aim whereas technically, the USAF and allies air forces needed to replace their mainstay, the F-16 fighter aircraft with a state-of-the-art fifth generation fighter. This is a matter of common sense and simple on-the-field analysis where any defence enthusiast/pilot/analyst could understand the circumstances under which the JSF project is being continued.

 

[Sailor]

You have made so many points in your answer that has no relevance to my post, the only one I can see worth mentioning is While the F-22 Raptor is truly the most lethal aircraft in the world at this moment
My post is about today and not next year or the next ten years. I am saying that the F-22 is the best fighter in the world right now. Finish of the statement.

Further interesting reading can be found in my post about the F-22 from the chief test pilot at Lockheed Martin. http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?t=1357

 

[VayuSena1]

But Raptor is not going to just stick around today alone and would have to see wars for at least next 30 years minimum. Therefore you should consider the near and far future around this aircraft and as it is said, without considering timelines, innovation and retaining the uniqueness is not possible. Obstinately sticking to one's point on a defence discussion forum does not lead to and further construction of that discussion thread at all and by making such declarations that "this is best or that is best" without expecting any doubts or counter arguments, it doesn't help your case here. It is be natural for every defense manufacturing company to make its latest product's comparison with whatever is existent in the market around them. I don't think me reading that link is going to further this discussion in a useful manner. It must be remembered that when the Chengdu J-10 was revealed to the world, countless such comparisons were made with the then fully established Su-27 flanker aircraft.

I might need to remind you that prior to the advent of the Raptor, the F-117 Nighthawk had a similar aura around it, with the US air force portraying it as something that martians had come to earth and exclusively gifted them. All their portrayal of the Nighhawk as something superhuman was washed to dust by the Nighthawks that were shot down over Serbia.

I am not saying that this might essentially define Raptor's fate in a similar manner, however what I want to emphasize is that just as there had been some shortcomings on the Nighthawk, there is a chance of shortcomings on the Raptor as well. After all, Raptor was also made by humans. The maker was not aware of the shortcomings of Nighthawk until it got shot down in the Serb conflict. Therefore, until Raptor is put to a rigorous real life situation, it would not be wise to rely on its stellar on-the-paper specifications to declare it to be the most lethal jet on earth.

Thank you

 

[Sailor]

I think all these discussions have really nowhere to go. They are all considered opinions that are related to possible scenarios.

Take the Battle of Britain in 1940. A clear cut situation was evident. Enough planes and pilots of roughly similar performance and ability to shoot down the other guy's planes and pilots until one gave up. That will never happen again.
Never again will we get a situation where great airfleets of fighters escort great fleets of bombers to targets and then mix it in one huge free for all.

It has just been announced in the paper here today that the RAAF has placed an order for 100 F-35s. We know that some foreign power isn't going to send bomber and fighter fleets for us to shoot down. The numbers are largely for just counting in the paper warfare and to make civilians feel like we are safe from attack. In fact I can't quite see the use of them other than to show off to our neighbors who are buying planes. We want to look good too. [If not better]

The other factor is that modern aircraft of the 5th generation will potentially fight a foe without ever seeing the enemy. An old aircraft like the F-111 is likely to be of the most use by just upgrading it's avionics, weapons and electronic jamming packages.
But civilians don't want a 1965 model aircraft any more than a 1965 model car.

So the bottom line in my answer here is that there just isn't a really clear cut way of comparing planes in 2009 like there used to be.

 

[VayuSena1]

So the bottom line in my answer here is that there just isn't a really clear cut way of comparing planes in 2009 like there used to be.

Quite precisely the point that I am making here.