my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Jets   » Who does have the best all round fighter? (Page 1)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Who does have the best all round fighter?
Phil47
Member
Member # 658

posted 01-09-2000 02:44 PM     Profile for Phil47     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well well,
There are certainly some people out there amongst you guys who seem to know their stuff when it comes to combat jets and weapons etc...So!
It would be interesting to hear your comments re air to air combat. For instance given the scenario of a close up furball , which aircraft do you think would come off best. Obviously taking in to account that the pilots were all about equal in experience.Firstly with missiles, then a free for all with cannon only.
Maybe this is a daft question that I have asked, but it seems everyone in here sings the praises of one aircraft or another for various reasons.
Lets face it, during the gulf war so I gather, no allied plane ever tangled with a Mig 29 and the only ones they ever destroyed were on a runway.....So ! what if four F16's met four Flankers head to head, or an EF2000 met a F22 or whatever. Who do you think would come out on top, and for what reason?
Avionics.....weapons...Radar...stealth etc.
Unbiased answers please.No patriotism or flag waving.
Long live the R.A.F.Ooooooops sorry
Your man in the frozen wastes of the UK
Phil.

Posts: 340 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Armchair Aviator
Member
Member # 931

posted 01-09-2000 03:14 PM     Profile for Armchair Aviator   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Actually, there has indeed been a turning fight between U.S. F-15s and Iraqi MiG-29s during Desert Storm.

During the early morning hours of January 19 over Southeastern Iraq, an F-15 package was running a MiGCAP to clear the skies while other birds pounded their ground targets. Citgo Flight (2 F-15s) has just shot down a pair of MiG-25s and Chevron Flight (also 2 F-15s) were clearing Citgo Flight's six, and picked up 2 MiG-29s that the AWACS failed to call.

Chevron 26, flown by Captain Underhill, got off an AIM-7 at 10 miles, which destroyed the lead MiG-29. Underhill and his flight lead, CPT Rodriguez (Chevron 25), bracketed the remaining MiG-29, which tried to split-S to escape and crashed into the desert floor. CPT Rodriguez was credited with a ground kill on the second MiG-29.

Previously, two MiG-29s has also been killed by F-15s using long-range AIM-7 shots in the opening hours of the war on Jan 17 1991: credited to USAF CPT Kelk, and USMC CPT Magill (exchange pilot attached to USAF 58th TFW).

Over Kosovo U.S. F-15s also shot down 2 MiG-29s.

Armchair Aviator


Posts: 502 | From: Forest Hills, NY, USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Major Tom
Member
Member # 1256

posted 01-09-2000 03:40 PM     Profile for Major Tom   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Any aircraft carrying the AMRAAM.
Posts: 1352 | From: Prescott, AZ | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Casey
Member
Member # 873

posted 01-09-2000 04:33 PM     Profile for Casey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Until around 1994, I would have said F-15 or F-16- all the way. But right now, I'm not so sure.

The Su-27 is a very capable BVR interceptor and a nasty close-range dogfighter. And, more alarming are the newest variants of the Su-27, such as the Su-30/35/37 series. These big, powerful fighters not only carry missiles which are long-reaching and accurate but they carry more than the F-15 or F-16, allowing them to "ripple-fire" them very quickly and still hold a few for closer encounters.

Rumor has it, these babies not only have the amazing thrust, climb, speed, turning ability and long range radar but also- as "James Bond" as it sounds- rearward-firing missles! Imagine, when engaging a bandit, to worry not only about a cone of missile-lock potential off the nose, but an entire 30 or 40-mile circle around the aircraft in which you are subject to lock-on! The helmet-mounted sights used in the MiG-29 and Su series is another serious feature. When you can fire close-range missiles at a target well off your centerline during a turning fight, without even getting "on his tail," you're in a very powerful position.

As for the F-22, it's supposed to be great but since we keep postponing it, we don't have one in active service yet, so it's isn't really a factor at this time. If we had hundreds of F-22s now, I would assume they were superior to the Su-xx fighters and not worry. But- we don't.

I'm sure someone out there will say wars of the future will be won by cruise missiles and pilotless attack planes or something. But I can't think of one war in the past 65 years, which hasn't involved fighter planes and old-fashioned ground troops at some point.

[This message has been edited by Casey (edited 01-09-2000).]


Posts: 636 | From: America | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
.
unregistered

posted 01-09-2000 05:44 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
BTW., there are some statistics on Desert Storm http://members.home.net/solschew/DESERT_STORM_AA_KILLS.htm
IP: Logged
hummmmm
unregistered

posted 01-09-2000 06:08 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, if it was just a one on one, and the planes didn't really care about saving ammo, each plane could just unload all its missiles onto the other. It could very well be a tie if the missiles were active seekers...
IP: Logged
:)
unregistered

posted 01-09-2000 06:36 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
ATF Gold had a neato rear firing missile, it was called the Backfire. I don't remember its AA-number thingy though.
IP: Logged
BoneDome
Member
Member # 190

posted 01-09-2000 07:00 PM     Profile for BoneDome   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, I guess if you're asking which jet has the best combination of features, then the Su-27 has to come pretty close. It's a very manuverable aircraft in a dog-fight, can be adapted to carry out most roles, and has a huge fuel capacity (If memory serves, I think a flanker once flew from Moscow to Farnborough in England JUST on internal fuel), so it could loiter for a long time and still have the fuel for a turning fight. Add to that the off-axis missile capability, and the amazing performance of later Flanker varients (Su-37) that allows them to point their noses just about anywhere in the sky, and you've got one hell of an aircraft.

But if you're asking which aircraft is most effective, well, that comes down to the pilot. Lets face it, if the conditions are right, the F-14 could be the most effective if it manages to shoot down all the incomming targets with AIM-54s from 100 miles out. It depends on the situation.

Ooops, I just re-read the question. WHO has the best all round fighter. I think right now, that would have to be Russia.

I'm worried about the F-22, because I think the U.S puts too much faith in stealth technology wich, by it's very nature affects the combat capability of the aircraft (payload capability) i.e as soon as you open the weapons bays you're no longer all that stealthy.

Hmmmm, it's an interesting question.


Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
XPEH BAM
unregistered

posted 01-09-2000 07:06 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
From http://members.home.net/solschew/munit.txt
"...excluding cannon rounds that may have been fired..."

DATE CALLSIGN AC SN/BUNO TARGET ORDNANCE

2/2 RIFLE 01 F-15C ? Il-76 AIM-7


"?" means too embarast


IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 01-09-2000 07:07 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
All things being equal... It comes down to the pilot. Enough said.
Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JimG
Member
Member # 153

posted 01-09-2000 07:50 PM     Profile for JimG   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Since there is a wave of newer generation aircraft either being produced or soon to enter production, this may complicate the answer....possibly the new EF2000/Typhoon may be the hottest thing in the air? Also, it may boil down to the pilot who can handle the most "Gs" for the longest time who wins, if the aircraft performances are near equals.

The original question is "who does have the best all around fighter"
...if this is implying a multi-role fighter, then the current competiton would not include the F-15C/E of the Su-27, but may include the Saab Grippen as well as something made by the French (M2000/Rafale). From actual performance in war, the F-16 & F-18 would be frontrunners, although the MiG-29 has always been at a disadvangtage in war.
Additionally, there are different models of the F-16 worldwide and some are more capable than others due to more powerful engines.


Posts: 1012 | From: Columbia, S.C. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
adder
unregistered

posted 01-09-2000 10:49 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Obviously taking in to account that the pilots were all about equal in experience.

IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 01-09-2000 11:02 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The JAS 39 Gripen is designed primarily as a defence interceptor with anti-ship and A2G capabilities.
Emphasis is on manoeuvrability rather than range or payload.
For national defence purposes, it might be one of the best there is, but as an offensive fighter it isn't very capable.

------------------
Pushing the edge of the envelope...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 01-09-2000 11:04 PM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Anyway, my bet is on Great britain with it's Typhoon.
Great airframe and weapons systems.

------------------
Pushing the edge of the envelope...


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-09-2000 11:18 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Phil47 >>>
My take on your question:

Fighters currently in service > I'd take the SaaB Gripen, in either Beyond Visual Range or guns only dogfight combat. It is the newest currently operational fighter and has stealthiness and sensor-fusion not seen on other designs. This tiny fighter could slide into contested airspace, see the enemy {F-15,SU-27,F-14} first with it's excellent radar or outside sources, then kill it with an AMRAAM. Retaliatory fire {If any} would probably be unsuccessful due to it's stealth, excellent defencive systems and the fact the Gripen held the initial advantage. The Gripen's very, very small size {Makes F-16 look big!}, currently unsurpassed agility and hard-hitting 27mm cannon would be murder in a guns only dogfight. In a furball with missles I'd take a late model Iraeli F-16 with the brutal Python-4 helmet cued heat seeking missle, just look at the enemy, lock on and pull trigger-and thats the end of 'im.

Near future fighters > I'd take the F-22 hands down, not only is it very, very stealthy, supercruise and have a powerful, nearly impossible to detect radar, but it's super-advanced passive detection array can apparently pick out non-emitting aircraft using nothing but ambient {background} electomagnetic energy, like radio waves! It will be a while before the Raptor is seriously challenged.


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Armchair Aviator
Member
Member # 931

posted 01-09-2000 11:33 PM     Profile for Armchair Aviator   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The Gripen's "stealthiness" is Complete BullSh*t. Anytime you hang weapons OUTSIDE the airplane as must be done on the Gripen, you are blooming the RCS by a few orders of magnitude.

Stealthy missiles or stealthy pylons? Sorry mates, but RCS engineering doesn't work that way.

This is the reason why the USAF and USN insists that stealth aircraft carry weapons INTERNALLY.

If you are putting Gripens up against F-15s or F-16s, the winner will be the side with the best AWACS and EW support.

Armchair Aviator


Posts: 502 | From: Forest Hills, NY, USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-10-2000 12:36 AM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Armchair Aviator >

I agree the Gripen is no F-117A in the RCS department, however smaller fighters will will always be harder to detect than large ones and the Gripen is extremely small and is the first to have {affordable} RCS reduction in mind from the outset. It is far from invisible but degrages enemy radar significantly. If it can find an enemy 80 miles away and the enemy can only find it at 30 or 40 then someone has a problem...

Internal Weopons = vastly lower RCS, of course. that's why the USAF keeps talking about NEEDING the F-22. A near-zero RCS plane will beat a low RCS one in modern BVR every time. The Gripen represents only the first and least of a new generation of threats that the current F-15 and F-16 will find a little hard to handle

Regarding AWACS and EW support, Let's assume it's equal, keep in mind that the Gripen does the "sensor fusion" thing better than any current fighter and make a radar-off AMRAAM attack using outboard sources, among other things.


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Armchair Aviator
Member
Member # 931

posted 01-10-2000 07:31 AM     Profile for Armchair Aviator   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A few things:

1) Gripen's "low RCS" does not work that way. Anytime you have external weapons or tanks hanging on that bird, it is VERY detectable, and will show up quite well on any digital radar set with decent DSP capabilities and power, like the APG-68(V)5 set on late F-16s. Older analog sets like those on MiGs would have trouble. An F-16 can still find a Gripen at 80 miles while a MiG-23 with its vintage High Lark radar can see it only at 40.

2) Gripen is survivable in that if you get into a jam, you can jettison all the tanks and pylons to clean up your RCS to extend an escape. Naturally, if the opposition forced you to jettison your load, you've already failed your mission.

3) Cooperative AMRAAM Engagement (shooter's radar-off) is not quite so simple. For an AMRAAM shot to work reliably, it requires constant SARH midcourse guidance. Only during terminal homing does it go active and use its own radar. The limitation is the missile, NOT the airplane. Inertial-guidance-mode AMRAAM shots have markedly decreased PK over fire-and-update shots.

So if the Gripen can make radar-off AMRAAM shots, it is NOT because of any superior system on the Gripen's part, but rather the guidance systems on the platform guiding the AMRAAM (like an AWACS). Therefore, as I've mentioned before, the side that wins will be the side with the best AWACS and EW support.

Armchair Aviator


Posts: 502 | From: Forest Hills, NY, USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 01-10-2000 07:39 AM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Pilot's of equal experience is an extremely UNLIKELY scenario. Now, if you put two 'fresh' pilots right out of the pilot training then maybe we could see this as a possible scenario


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 01-10-2000 02:13 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, the Gripen does actually have AWACS- or as we put it in Sweden; "Airborne STRIL"- support...
It's made up of a Swedish made (Ericsson) radar boom mounted on the SAAB 340 Turbo Prop airliner. It's a bit like the US E-2 Hawkeye...

Also, the Gripen has a comprehensive tactical information system alowing every aircraft to see what the other aircraft (including STRIL, probably both airborne and ground based. (GCI)) can see... A bit like the JTDIS system modelled in DID's EF2000...

As for close quarter combat (Rogue Spear? ;-]) or "dogfights" as some people here put it <G>, I'd say that this is where the Gripen would exell at least over any non-thrust vectoring aircraft in service today. It's a combination of small size/weight, un-stable design and canards (you know that means "duck" in French?).

BTW, I've been pretty close the the Gripen at an airforce display and I can tell you that there are pick-up cars/trucks who are about as large as the JAS-39 ;-)

So let's just say the gripen fires it's ordnance and then gets the h-e-l-l outta there?

("STRIL or "STRIdsLedning" = Combat Command/Combat Control)

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: PiteŚ, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
LeadHead
Member
Member # 184

posted 01-10-2000 02:52 PM     Profile for LeadHead   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Wait, let's try pitting the Gripen into a most unlikely scenario...:

Gripen versus the hopefully(?!?) soon to come F-22.

I have no doubts whatsoever that the F-22 would probably blow a Gripen out of the sky at least before the Gripen is close enough to get a lock-on and shoot back.

However, there's one catch...

IIRC, according some figures I saw a while ago, you'll get something like 2-3 Gripens for the price of one F-22. So if we put $ against $ we'll have the F-22 smoke one of the JAS-39's.. uhm... ehh... "tailpipes". However, by the time the AMRAAM has flown far enough to become autonomous I'd estimate the other Gripen(s) would have come close enough to smoke the F-22's jetpipe either by an AMRAAM shot, a Sidewinder or, God forbid, a bunch of 30mm Oerlikon shells ;-)


On the other hand, let's just hope that this will never happen...

No, wait, I've got a better idea...
I don't want anyone hurt but:

You Yanks are about retire the Tomcat, right?

So, instead of simply laying them up in Tucson, you could make a naval airstrike against South Africa. You know, just for kicks. That would put the Gripen not against F-22:s but against F-14:s.
You can't get everything, can you? ;-)


(Note: I'm not really serious on those last lines...)

------------------
Lead-Head's Simulation Site:
http://fly.to/lead-head


Posts: 775 | From: PiteŚ, Norrbotten, Sweden. | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
goanna
Member
Member # 1639

posted 01-10-2000 04:11 PM     Profile for goanna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Grippen Vs F-22, talk about dissimiliar A2A combat.
I read an article once about Royal Navy Sea Harriers went up against the F-15C. Now by all accounts the F-15s should have shot the Shar down with ease. But in fact the Shars blew the Eagles out of the sky at the rate of 7 to 1! Never under estimate the advantage of well trained pilots.
Which beggs the question, where the U.S. pilots poorly trained? I don't know. But I wouls be grateful if someone could tell me how the Shar wiped the floor with worlds premier air supiority fighter.

Posts: 427 | From: QLD Australia | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Armchair Aviator
Member
Member # 931

posted 01-10-2000 04:18 PM     Profile for Armchair Aviator   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
to Leadhead:

Your proposed scenarios are incomplete at best.

1) If there's nothing to prevent the Gripen force from shooting and getting the hell out of there, there's nothing to prevent an AMRAAM-armed F-15 force quarterbacked by an E-3 from doing the same either.

2) Gripen vs. F-22: Plenty of factors in an F-22's favor. Internal weapons carriage (F-22) vs. External weapons carriage (Gripen) translates to ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE in RCS difference and hence detection range. Active scanned array radar (F-22) vs. mechanically-steered radar (Gripen) translates to difference in multiple engagement capabilities.

3) Against an F-14 force, where are the considerations in terms of F-pole and combat radius (multiaxis engagement), which an F-14 force is sure to exploit since these are the Tom's strong points?

Biased analyses is one reason why U.S. Navy Commander Ron "Mugs" McKeown cautioned his students at Top Gun to "beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who'd rather fly a slide rule than kick your *** ."

Armchair Aviator


Posts: 502 | From: Forest Hills, NY, USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 01-10-2000 04:39 PM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Goanna: Heck, we were flying F-4s and regularly beat F-15C pilots too. We found out later we were facing pilots who had recently come to the operational unit out of the F-15 school. Most of them were pretty green, and actually believed their fighter would win the match for them. They learned that they would have to fight the enemy, and the enemy may well know your weaknesses and try to exploit them. The training pilots understood this, and actually sent the new guys up, HOPING we would clobber them and teach them that there was more to flying than "sort and mort."

Typically, in a 4v4, we would divide into two flights of two. When we start inbound, we split altitude. Once one of us gets spiked, that flight turns at right angles to the F-15s. Remember the "notch?" The F-15 radar filters out ground returns, and to do that it filters out everything on the scope with the same relative speed as the ground (the F-16 works the same way). So when we turn perpendicular to him, he loses us. So we kick out chaff at the same time (if he fiddles with his notch) and change altitude. Then we head inbound again.

With any luck, we catch the F-15s as they are lining up to hit the other flight. As soon as they spike that flight, THEY turn perpendicular ... and disappear, just like we did. Meantime, we are coming into visual on the F-15s as they are pointed toward the other flight, trying to find them. We turn radars to standby as soon as we have a tally, and go for heat and gun kills.

I suspect the Harriers had a similarly green bunch they went up against,ith similar results. Harriers have their own way of finding the "notch" so it really isn't that different.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Armchair Aviator
Member
Member # 931

posted 01-10-2000 04:45 PM     Profile for Armchair Aviator   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
to Goanna:

You are of course referring to RN Commander Ward's book "Sea Harriers Over the Falklands." I have this to say on the matter: The F-15 drivers from Bitburg has *never* fought against Harriers before. If there is another ACM meet say one year later, you can be sure the F-15 drivers would have developed new tactics to counter VIFFing aircraft.

to Skoonj,

All I can say is that, you see that an enemy has three options open to him, he will usually adopt a fourth.

It's fine and dandy for you to theoretically postulate what you want to do in a dogfight. But what makes you think your enemy will cooperate and behave exactly as you predicted? They are bound to have plenty of tricks up their sleeve too, unless the F-15 drivers are clinically brain-dead.

Again, "beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who'd rather fly a slide rule than kick your a**!"

Armchair Aviator

[This message has been edited by Armchair Aviator (edited 01-10-2000).]


Posts: 502 | From: Forest Hills, NY, USA | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Skoonj
Member
Member # 80

posted 01-10-2000 05:21 PM     Profile for Skoonj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Armchair: What I was saying wasn't theoretical. It's what we did. We were in the 121st TFS, 113th FW, District of Columbia Air National Guard. I flew with them in the F-4D for ten years, until they transitioned to the F-16. I don't know what you mean by theory, since that's exactly what we did.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd



Posts: 541 | From: Naples, Florida, United States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
goanna
Member
Member # 1639

posted 01-10-2000 05:32 PM     Profile for goanna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
To Armchair Aviator

One year later the F-15 pilots may have better tatics, but one must also remember two things, A. that you can bet your *** that the Shar pilots didn't sit around all year with their heads up their asses, they to would have been developing better tatics, and B., if the fight was real, the F-15 pilots may have only had one chance, without the luxury og comming back in 365 days time with new tricks.


Posts: 427 | From: QLD Australia | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Phil47
Member
Member # 658

posted 01-10-2000 06:04 PM     Profile for Phil47     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Gentlemen,
Hell, there are some well informed people who visit here.
Being a total blockhead when it comes to statistics I find all your posts riveting.
What I actualy meant by experienced pilots were pilots who knew their aircraft inside out. It's flight handling capabilities etc.

We all know that even though we can drive.When you get into a new car it takes some time to get the feel of the thing, until it becomes an extension of you.

A couple of years ago I was right up close to a Mig 29. It looked as though it had been put together in a welders yard and then I watched it take off...Christ ! the noise was incredible. I had to put my fingers in my ears... It shot down the runway and just went straight up till it disappeared through some quite high cloud...That was it .Gone.

Do you think that the East and West go in for different designs as regard aircraft.
As a layman it seems to me that the west seem to go in for technology and agility and the East for sheer brute power. I mean for instance are we that more advanced than the Russians in avionics...weapons systems communications etc?

Phil.....



Posts: 340 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Aaron
unregistered

posted 01-10-2000 06:12 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The thing is that pilots are trained to know their planes and the planes of their most likely enemy, which usually means Soviet aircraft. Few, if any, pilots in Nato train against Harrier tactics. Now I'm no Harrier pilot and the only sim I have with the Harrier is FA (not know for it's exacting FM) but you can perform some interesting tricks in that plane.
IP: Logged
goanna
Member
Member # 1639

posted 01-10-2000 07:11 PM     Profile for goanna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm sure that the Harrier can do some fantastic stuff as well, but I wonder just how much aircraft agility will count in the future against the next generation BVR missiles which can fly at Mach 4+ and pull god knows how many G's at that speed. Is thrust vectoring is too little to late? Any thoughts?
Posts: 427 | From: QLD Australia | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-10-2000 07:12 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Airchair Aviator > I have an account of RAF Harrier GR7's {no radar} trading 1 for 1 with USN F-14B's, in an DACT excercise only last year. The Harrier's relied on GCI info and flew aggressively to defeat the Tomcats' radar and simulated missle shots and took the fight into the visual arena, where they stomped. I keep seeing the F-15 being used as an example, the F-15 was at it's best in the late '70's, early '80's. Today it's increasingly average in the air superiority role.

Phil47 > In the '70's the U.S. experimented with high off-boresite IR missle technology but complacently never followed up with it until recently. The Soviets, having similar capabilities, went on to intruduce the monster R-73 {NATO AA-11 Archer} dogfight missle in '83. The last generation of Russian combat aircraft made use of this deadly missle and stress dogfight capability and have superb aerodynamics biased toward agility at subsonic speeds and powerful but crude engines, ditto the SU-27 {Flanker's engines' way better than MiGs'}. The avionics and human engineering are second rate by NATO standards. One RAF guy said of the Flanker "You can fly or fight but not both". I found this to true based on playing the excellent Flanker 2 sim. The Russian tactical aircraft are very rugged and are rough field capable. All in all they remind me of the Shelby Cobra sports car, very powerful and with good handling but also crude and slightly difficult to drive {fly}.

The Western fighters of the same era are far
more complete in terms of systems and are generally more manuverable at supersonic speeds. The have better radar and vastly better human engineering which let the pilot kill targets, not flick switches and peer at guages. The Western aircraft generally have better engines {F-14A an exception here} but lower thrust-to-weight ratios. Also the MiG-29/Archer missle combo isn't the threat it was in the '80s due to the fact we now know a
lot more about them and also due to the introdution of the AMRAAM.

Skoonj > Is no Armchair Aviator!


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
ghehg
unregistered

posted 01-10-2000 10:30 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
i think the spruce goose could kill the efa typhoon, mig42, gripen, f-22, yf-23, su-37, and rafale in a 1 vs 7 fight
IP: Logged
ThePerson
unregistered

posted 01-10-2000 10:37 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm pretty sure physical size does not matter with the RCS. That is one of the things the Skunkworks was truthfully trying to convince the anti-stealth people aboutó that the same numbers on the scale model of it could be reproduced on the full sized plane.
IP: Logged
ghehg
unregistered

posted 01-10-2000 10:55 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
goooo lavi!
IP: Logged
patriotSTORM
Member
Member # 1265

posted 01-11-2000 04:29 PM     Profile for patriotSTORM   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I know that you said it was presuming both pilots were equal, but I will say that it is the pilot and not the plane. The pilot that takes the initiative in the dogfight and uses his plane to it's best ability will win - if the F16 has better turning than an F15, the Falcon pilot will win if he can turn and burn. The Eagle pilot will if he can engage in an energy fight. It is the pilot that can knows, and has the ability to use his aircraft to it's advantage will win.
Posts: 404 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Raptor
Member
Member # 1428

posted 01-11-2000 11:11 PM     Profile for Raptor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think it really depends on the pilot not plane. Also, missiles don't make aces. Training make aces. Missiles are just part of the technology aspect.
Posts: 162 | From: San Francisco, CA USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 01-12-2000 04:04 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
F22 is obviously the most outstanding combat aircraft ever devised. It's missile payload, even if only internal bays are used, is higher than most other aircraft carrying missiles externally. The F22 can carry six AMRAAM's and four Sidewinders internally. That's more than the F-15C. And the F22 is just as stealthy as the F117 & B2.

With its outstanding operational range and supercruise, combined with its stealthy LPI radar and large amount of internal stores, the F22 is basically invincible. The F22 will have no equal in the air superiority role for decades to come, even if the MFI and SU-37 go into widespread operational service (which won't happen anytime soon).


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-12-2000 06:32 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Mbaxter > Well said, I think the choice of the F-22 is obvious, however it's five or six
years away from going into service. A good cannidate for best fighter in actual service may just be the Saab Gripen, it's the hardest to see on radar and spot visually and has big fighter BVR performance. I would also have to say it's margin of superiority is pretty slim and will be eclipsed by the Typhoon, Rafale, SU-35, F-16 Block 60 and even the Super Hornet, let alone the F-22.

------------------
"Charlie don't care, he'll slit your throat"

[This message has been edited by Rosco (edited 01-12-2000).]


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jason
Member
Member # 1545

posted 01-12-2000 07:43 PM     Profile for Jason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Listen to yourselves,
you guys are compairing planes that aren't even in squadrens yet. the question was what is the best all around fighter now. I take now as in squadrens use them. I hate to burst al your bubbles but the best thing that is flying hands down is a..........drum roll please.......F/A-18. Look at it; good payload, can turn and burn like a dream, dogfighting isn't a problem. sure, she might be not as fast as other fighter but you know, what would you rather have, a plane that can dogfight and do BVR fights extreamly well, while going on a bombing mission or a plane that can only do one or another................i'll take my -18 anyday. oh and look at the super hornet, it's even better than the orignal

------------------
_________________________
don't listen to the bitchin' betty


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
meeee
unregistered

posted 01-12-2000 09:08 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The F-22 actually can carry two Sidewinders and six AMRAAM's internally.

quote:
The F-22 carries weapons in three internal bays. These weapons include six radar-guided AIM-120C Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) in the main weapons bay (or four earlier version, longer-finned AIM-120A AMRAAMs), and two heat-seeking, short-range AIM-9M Sidewinders (one in each side weapons bay).

Quote taken from: http://www.lmtas.com/FighterPrograms/F22/f22_weapons.html

I don't blame you for thinking it can carry four. I have a reference that tells that. (It also lists the name of the jet as Rapier)


IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved