[Kosh]

Anyway, as I said, the likelyhood of these planes ever actually encountering each other on the battlefield is very remote.

But that doesn't stop the US from burning a fairly large hole in it's budget.

[Black Wolf]

What's the unit cost on the Raptor anyway? I've heard around 130 million, can anyone confirm this? I think the Typhoon is somewhere in that neighborhood too. Which is what, three or four times the cost of an Su-30? Yeah, that cost efficiency for ya.

I think the Typhoon is considerably cheaper actually, depending on the Avionics suite.

[Rictor]

The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.

Su-30MKI. It has thrust vectoring and other Really Cool Things (including advanced avionics), which puts it, if not exactly on par with the F-22, then rather close, certainly well above the 4th generation fighters. Read the Wikipedia article.

[Unknown Target]

It's close, but not on par - the F-22 has more advanced avionics, non-afterburner Mach 1 capability, a stronger airframe, thrust vectoring, better maneuverability, and stealth.

[Janos]

The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.

Su-30MKI. It has thrust vectoring and other Really Cool Things (including advanced avionics), which puts it, if not exactly on par with the F-22, then rather close, certainly well above the 4th generation fighters. Read the Wikipedia article.

Hmm I wonder then why western airplanes have repeatedly beaten their Russian coutnerparts in evaluation simulations and just how the Russians make up for much, much worse avionics, fire control, stealthiness and generally gagdet power?
 In current air combat it's more important to lob missiles at your opponents from a safe distance and minimal fuzz than to make glorious immelmanns and whatelse.
 Also I would trust  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency more than I would trust some internet doods, but that's just me then.

One reason why Suhoi's and Migoyan's late designs are always glorified is the fact that they are really cool-looking machines that are not in common service and even if they are, not too much info is leaked on public. Suhoi's newer designs are basically updates on an older chassis - a good idea - but that chassis wasn't so good as it was made up to be.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Are you're reffering to this? I wouldn't say that it has that much of an advantage, not in the real world anyway. The Su-30MKI, built for the Indian Airforce has all the 5th generation bells and whistles, and can be considered to be in the same class as the F-22 and Typhoon, even being superior in some respects.

Anyway, as I said, the likelyhood of these planes ever actually encountering each other on the battlefield is very remote.

Simulation>Speculation.

The Su-30MKI is not what you originally referenced. While the MKI IS a considerable fighter, it most certainly cannot match the F-22A.

[IceFire]

Thing is...the British and American aviation industries were not ready or prepared for WWII.  They finally got their acts together about 1943 or 1944.  War wasn't particularly expected...on the whole (specific people and leaders sure but not the overall society/industry).  So while I'm an advocate of not fighting wars of helping people and of solving problems through diplomacy and peacekeeping when necessary, I'm also fairly adamant about making sure that if you need to go to war...then you are ready to do so.

Patently false. Consider: The specifications to which the F6F Hellcat and P-38 Lightning were built were issued in 1937-1938. (So was that to which the P-40 was built, actually.) The Hurricane and the Spitfire were up and ready to go by the beginning of the war, in large numbers. The Brits were, at the very least, ready to go when the war started.

The problem in the US was not the aircraft industry, but rather the US Congress, which was unwilling to give out the funding for the necessary buildup until the war actually started. (Fortunately export contracts to Europe helped cover some of the gap.) Even so, the next-generation aircraft were reaching front-line units by late 1942 and saw serious action in early 1943.

The Spitfire really didn't get a huge amount of support till things started to turn bad in Europe.  True the timeline was much earlier.  My point was not really about the actual designs as the US and British designs were doing their best to keep upto what Hitler had his bunch already doing.  My point was more about manufacturing capability.  They had the designs ready but not the actual aircraft in production.  Or at very reduced rates.  Full manufacturing capability combined with lessons learned and some serious improvements to the original P-38, F6F, P-40, and other types didn't really come into place until 1943 and 1944.  The P-38 for instance really reached its peak in the middle of 1943 or the middle of 1944 with the J model and then the J-25 with dive brakes and all sorts of other things that were really needed.

[IceFire]

I will say it again - the Raptor is multirole capable - it's not just an intercepter, hence F/A-22.
From the website:

This aircraft combines stealth design with the supersonic, highly maneuverable, dual-engine, long-range requirements of an air-to-air fighter and will have an inherent air-to-ground capability. The F-22A’s integrated avionics gives it first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability that will guarantee U.S. air dominance for the next 40 years.

Thats unfortunately quite a bit of PR work.  Most of the air to ground capability is in the form of 250lb JDAM's.  I'm actually not sure if any other types have been used or tested on the Raptor.  Apparently I've just read that the F/A-22A has had the A designator dropped.  So its a F-22A.  It does have a A-to-G mode but its not anywhere close to what the Typhoon can do (multiple types of ship killing missiles, stealth cruise missiles, standoff attack weapons, cluster munitions, conventional bombs, and so on).  No quite honestly the F-22A is mostly a fighter...and its likely the best thats ever been put together.  Strictly speaking.  But if you're talking bang for buck...the Typhoon I think looks like a better candidate because its got a very extensive multi-role capability.

The thing is...in a NATO wartime situation, having the F-22, multiple nationalities of Typhoons, theoretically multiple nationalities of F-35's, and some AWAC's support means for a VERY effective and serious force to contend with.  And thats just with various types of fighters.  If put up against Su-30MKI's, the very latest Mig-29s (which also have something of a supercruise ability), and whatever the Chinese build out of the J-10 technology demonstrator...I'd feel pretty good being with the Typhoons and F-22's.

[Rictor]

The Su-30 is not equal to the F-22 in any way. The F-22 can pull maneuvers and treat it's engines in ways that the Su-30 could only dream of. Granted, the two are both very advanced, but the F-22's avionics is next generation, beyond all other aircraft on the planet; the Su-30 simply isn't capable of the sensor integration that the F-22 has.

Su-30MKI. It has thrust vectoring and other Really Cool Things (including advanced avionics), which puts it, if not exactly on par with the F-22, then rather close, certainly well above the 4th generation fighters. Read the Wikipedia article.

Hmm I wonder then why western airplanes have repeatedly beaten their Russian coutnerparts in evaluation simulations and just how the Russians make up for much, much worse avionics, fire control, stealthiness and generally gagdet power?
 In current air combat it's more important to lob missiles at your opponents from a safe distance and minimal fuzz than to make glorious immelmanns and whatelse.
 Also I would trust  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency more than I would trust some internet doods, but that's just me then.

One reason why Suhoi's and Migoyan's late designs are always glorified is the fact that they are really cool-looking machines that are not in common service and even if they are, not too much info is leaked on public. Suhoi's newer designs are basically updates on an older chassis - a good idea - but that chassis wasn't so good as it was made up to be.

The Indian Airforce begs to differ.. In any case, I agree that dogfighting is not where it's at. Hell, you could win or lose before you even came in visual range of the opponent. And while the MKI may not be in service in Russia, vanilla Su-27s and 30s are, and Mig-29s are serving in a dozen foreign countries. Keep in mind, the F-22 isn't in full, or even partial deployment either; not yet. And the F-35 is still in development, years away from actual deployment. The EU probably has the best fighter, pound for pound, at the moment, but I wouldn't begrudge Russia, China, India and others their slightly inferior technology, given that the US has something like 30 times the money to play with.

[NGTM-1R]

In any case, I agree that dogfighting is not where it's at.

They thought that before Vietnam, too. And before Desert Storm. They haven't been right yet. In practice BVR engagements tend to fall before concerns of positive identification of your target. The dogfight is also a great equalizer between those with lesser technology aircraft and those with higher tech planes, so there are lots of folks out there who spend their time coming up with ways to force a dogfight. The general idea is to take no chances, ever since it was discovered that building the original F-4s without an integrated cannon was A Bad Idea.

[Janos]

The Indian Airforce begs to differ.. In any case, I agree that dogfighting is not where it's at. Hell, you could win or lose before you even came in visual range of the opponent. And while the MKI may not be in service in Russia, vanilla Su-27s and 30s are, and Mig-29s are serving in a dozen foreign countries. Keep in mind, the F-22 isn't in full, or even partial deployment either; not yet. And the F-35 is still in development, years away from actual deployment. The EU probably has the best fighter, pound for pound, at the moment, but I wouldn't begrudge Russia, China, India and others their slightly inferior technology, given that the US has something like 30 times the money to play with.

That training is rigged. US was denied AWACS, AMRAAMS, the results were constantly changed and the numerical situation was less than favourable. Ok ok, Su-30s can shoot down F-16s (hell, not even airsup fighters, F-16s!) which have their command grid pretty neutered.

[Wanderer]

What i know from military circles (have few relatives there) most of the pilots consider Russian SU-27 and it's descendants to be the best fighter planes in deployment at the moment. For the actual flying part. And atleast some of the Russian missiles have long been believed to be outperforming (no real tests have been made) their Western counterparts (Sidewinder vs. Archer). Again for the general performance parts. American (ie. top of the line Western) technology is generally better (avionics, computers etc.) but has for a long time dragged behind in aerodynamics and in general flying performance. So it might best not to ridicule the Russian or some other non-Western technology until it has been proven in real tests.

[Herra Tohtori]

Interesting debate about K/D ratio.

You know, it's not just the equipment the pilots have, but also their training and the tactics used. It seems that less and less actual piloting skills are required to fly these automagically computer assisted, aerodynamically instable planes, and also the pilot is not required to have a "flexible neck" any more, when all information required is visible on one single display. But still, the pilot's role IS important.

You might want to familiarize yourselves with achievements of the FAF (Finnish Air Force) during Winter War 1939-1940 and the Continuation War 1941-1944 against the Russian Air Force.

Example: The FAF bought 44 Brewster 239's (On US Navy, the type was known as Brewster F2A-2) on 1940, but the planes arrived too late to have any meaning in Winter War. So, when the Continuation War begun in 1941, the plane type was already starting to get obsolete, as Russian air forces could upgrade their material on a much regular basis. On the beginning of Continuation War, FAF had 40 Brewsters on service, and during the war 19 of them were shot down in aerial combat, whereas Brewsters achieved 447 confirmed kills against Russian planes. That's about K/D = 23,5 planes shot down for one lost Brewster. Of course most of the shot down planes were bombers, but still...

By the way, Ilmari Juutilainen scored in total 92 (confirmed) kills against Russians in 437 sorties, flying Fokker D.21s, Brewsters and Messerschmitts. His plane was never hit in combat.

Oh, back to the subject. Russians generally had better planes to fly; Yakolevs, MiGs, LaGG's were all good fighters - and of course they received several Hurricanes, P-51 Mustangs, Thunderbolts and stuff from the west. From 1943 to end of war Finland had in total 159 Messerschmitts, which were practically only planes that were compatible with all Russian planes. Still the Finnish Air Force managed quite well in both wars. That was mainly due very advanced and efficient training and modern air combat tactics developed by Eka MAgnusson and Richard Lorenz...

Of course, if all pilots had the same skills and followed same tactics, the results would certainly show that better plane would have better K/D ratio. This is obviously never that simple...

[Kosh]

That training is rigged. US was denied AWACS, AMRAAMS, the results were constantly changed and the numerical situation was less than favourable. Ok ok, Su-30s can shoot down F-16s (hell, not even airsup fighters, F-16s!) which have their command grid pretty neutered.

On the other hand the Indian military isn't exactly the best in the region.

[vyper]

Aside from Pakistan, who they massively outnumber, I only see China as the other possible rival. (And Russia ain't exactly in any shape to fight a war afaik)

[Rictor]

Shush now. Tsar Putin is fixing all that.

In any case, I think that both China and Russia, and to a lesser extent India have some sort of informal understanding which says "let's not squabble, so we can keep the Americans the hell off our contintent".

[Kosh]

Shush now. Tsar Putin is fixing all that.

In any case, I think that both China and Russia, and to a lesser extent India have some sort of informal understanding which says "let's not squabble, so we can keep the Americans the hell off our contintent".

Something like that, yeah.