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 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Who does have the best all round fighter?
ghehg
unregistered

posted 01-12-2000 09:17 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[image]http://www.lmtas.com/ImageGallery/Images/UCAV/UCAV_2.jpg[/image]
IP: Logged
ghehg
unregistered

posted 01-12-2000 09:18 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
HAGA!

IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-12-2000 11:21 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jason > The Gripen is in service, as of 1996. You're right about the Hornet, It's my favorite plane and is badly underrated, it would have been my next choice. It's very easy to fly, has extremely good low speed handling and is very rugged, however the brand new Gripen has many of the same capabilities and improves on many of them. I don't think it would compare nearly as well to the almost-in-service Super Hornet. Also, regarding the Hornet's multirole capabitilies, I think there is at least a half dozen planes that are virtually as good in that respect.
Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Jason
Member
Member # 1545

posted 01-13-2000 02:10 PM     Profile for Jason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Rosco,
But can those other planes land on a carrier in the middle of the night, in 10 foot seas, while their are only 6 lights on the carrier deck.......i think not. that is why the hornet is better, it can take off from land, bomb, and land on a carrier.

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


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
goanna
Member
Member # 1639

posted 01-13-2000 05:02 PM     Profile for goanna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yes Jason there is another plane besides the F-18 that can drop bombs and dogfight with the best of them (which is also combat proven against an enemy which actually stayed to fight)AND can land not only on a carrier in heavy seas (both American and British as well as helicopter carriers), but can ALSO land on ANY runway no matter how short.....The Harrier, both Sea and GR.7

[This message has been edited by goanna (edited 01-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by goanna (edited 01-13-2000).]


Posts: 427 | From: QLD Australia | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tailspin
Member
Member # 86

posted 01-13-2000 06:23 PM     Profile for Tailspin   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I saw a TV show recently about test pilots and they talked to one of the guys that flew the F-22. From what I could gather the F-22 is VERY manouverable, on a par with all the tricks the Flanker can pull. I would be very suprised if the USAF built its newest air-superiority fighter and relied totally on stealth. I'd venture the F-22 will be more than capable in any kind of fight it gets into.
Posts: 1895 | From: Metropolis USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jason
Member
Member # 1545

posted 01-13-2000 07:08 PM     Profile for Jason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
goanna,
ok, but does the harrier have the same ability to hold as much bombs and missiles and does it have as good radar as the F/A-18, i think not. also, look at the speed difference, F/A-18-Mach 1.8 Harrier-About mach 1 or less

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


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
goanna
Member
Member # 1639

posted 01-13-2000 07:59 PM     Profile for goanna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
>>"does it have as good radar as the F/A-18, i think not."

So tell us, what exactly do you know about the Marconi Bluefox radar? My guess is not much. The F-18 at Mach 1.8? now how fast will a full load at sea level? Not Mach 1.8 thats for sure. Have you read the combatsim article about the Sea Harriers going up against the Aggressor Sqn and a Sqn of F-15c's. Both of these planes were faster with "better radars" as well. Both shot down a 7:1 by the Harriers.


Posts: 427 | From: QLD Australia | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-13-2000 10:25 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Last year the RAF and U.S. Navy held similar exercises. The Navy planes were F-14B's, which are more manuverable and have better radar than F-15's. The Harriers were GR7 ground attack jets that lack radar. The score was dead even.

The Sea Harrier is AMRAAM capable, as are some U.S.M.C. AV-8B's. The payload difference between the Hornet and Harrier doesn't amount to much as most fighters usually carry 4000 lbs or less at one time in the real world. Both aircraft are very reliable.

In the air, the Hornet is far more powerful than any Harrier and more agile than even a MiG-29, The Harrier is pretty average in both respects but can pull off some unique manuveres with thrust vectoring if you're careful. I really like the Marine Harrier's 25mm cannon, which can kill tanks through their roof. The Hornet's weakness is short range, the Harrier's is that it's difficult to fly and is vulnerable to IR missles.

Both these aircraft seem well matched in their better versions. Another question might be, are modern navy fighters more capable than air force ones?

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

[This message has been edited by Rosco (edited 01-13-2000).]


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 01-14-2000 01:40 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
meeee - oops. I stand corrected. The F22 can only carry two AIM-9's internally, not four. So for ATA the F22 can carry 6 AIM-120 & 2 AIM-9 on just its internal stores alone. Still better than an F-15C loaded to the max. Then when you think about all the F22's other features, my God you have a killer plane that won't be matched for many decades.

BTW, for carrier ops, F/A-18 variants appear to be the best overall multirole fighters, but how does the SU-33 compare?


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
1234
unregistered

posted 01-14-2000 02:50 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
i beleive the true secret of the f22 is its agility in a dogfight and its avionics.
IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-14-2000 03:19 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter > The SU-33 has extremely long range, powerful engines, a very powerful but slightly crude radar, it has very heavy armament that can includes heavy antiship cruise missles, super long range antiradiation missles and very heavy bunker-buster laser guided bombs that the Hornet would have trouble or couldn't carry.
For more general strike duties the Hornet is probably better, maybe a lot better. The SU-33 is really more of an air superiority machine that's air-to-ground capable than a true multirole aircraft. The SU-33's crude cockpit interface can get you killed, the Hornet's is one of the best. The SU-33 is a heavy fighter while the Hornet is a medium one, the SU-33's real equivalent is the deadly F-14D Tomcat.

Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-14-2000 03:20 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
mbaxter > The SU-33 has extremely long range, powerful engines, a very powerful but slightly crude radar, it has very heavy armament that can includes heavy antiship cruise missles, super long range antiradiation missles and very heavy bunker-buster laser guided bombs that the Hornet would have trouble or couldn't carry.
For more general strike duties the Hornet is probably better, maybe a lot better. The SU-33 is really more of an air superiority machine that's air-to-ground capable than a true multirole aircraft. The SU-33's crude cockpit interface can get you killed, the Hornet's is one of the best. The SU-33 is a heavy fighter while the Hornet is a medium one, the SU-33's real equivalent is the deadly F-14D Tomcat.

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


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 01-14-2000 03:35 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Does anybody still have the link where the retired Navy admiral suggested that we license the Su-33...? Read it and think...

Nough said...


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
123
unregistered

posted 01-14-2000 03:57 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think its best that the US doesn't depend on foreign countries to supply its military with jets. the last thing the us needs is to be depended on russia for anything.
IP: Logged
treeman
unregistered

posted 01-14-2000 06:00 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
That's true dude, who needs russian equipment?
IP: Logged
goanna
Member
Member # 1639

posted 01-14-2000 06:58 PM     Profile for goanna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Who needs Russian equipment? Maybe no-one, but like it or not the Ruski's have better skills in some areas WRT thw Yanks or Brits. One of better areas is airframe design, like it or not. It think the U.S. admrial had a good idea which may well have been distorted by the media. The SU-27/33/34 etc airframe fitted with modern American or European engines, up to date glass cockpit and first rate western build quility made with late 20th century materials would be an outstanding aircraft. Maybe something the Ruski's should look at, the lic out of thier airframe technology, not the completed item.
Posts: 427 | From: QLD Australia | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Phil47
Member
Member # 658

posted 01-15-2000 05:01 AM     Profile for Phil47     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
A very interesting debate so far gentlemen.
A smattering of patriotism here and there but I suppose that is allowed.
It would be interesting to here from some Russian flight simmers....Hell they must exist somewhere out there...Perhaps they have their own combatsimski. comski forums in Moscow or Leningrad....Speak up people from the Russia.We would love to hear from you.
Yes it is rather ironic the way things have gone....The Russians for instance seem to build everything on a Heath Robinson style.
( Sorry if some of you Americans don't know who Heath Robinson is)...He designs greetings cards with weird contraptions on.
say an aircraft with a pram for an undercart. Planks of wood for wings and lots and lots of gears and cogs joining it all together....I mean look at the Russian moon rover it could have been a bathtub on wheels..
The west on the other hand go in for the all singing dancing super sleek latest computer driven wizardry...But Hell!
I wonder what would really come off best in a long drawn out theatre of war.
A bit like modern cameras...I have at the moment a Cannon EOS 50E .....Yeh does everything. Even works out where the person will be when running towards the lens...But S*** when they go wrong they go wrong. Not like my old trusty Nikon FE. Built like a tank and goes on forever. You can drop it, leave it out in the snow etc and the thing still keeps taking amazing pictures.
And a bit like my car. Once I used to be able to give the petrol pump a whack with a screwdriver and away she would go.....Now the car I've got has to be towed into a special garage and hooked up to right diagnostic computer to tell you the a fuse has blown.....
As I have said in a previous post I have been up close to a Mig 29 and to look at, you would think someone has knocked it together in their garden shed...Sheets of alloys welded and rivited together....But boy did it go.. Just basicaly two huge engines with wings.

It's food for thought people .....Just take a look at your own high tech gadgets.....Great when they work!..BUT!
Your man in the UK....Phil.


Posts: 340 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 01-15-2000 06:33 AM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Off topic, but...

I've got a Pentax Z-1p camera.
It's a modern thing, full of electronics, but I've dropped it from three feet (accidently) into asphalt and concrete at least five times...
Works great still...

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


Posts: 339 | From: West coast of Sweden | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Phil47
Member
Member # 658

posted 01-15-2000 07:11 AM     Profile for Phil47     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Bogey,
Yeh but wait till it does go wrong. Bet you can't just unscrew the thing and insert a new piece. It will probably cost you the price of a new camera to get the thing fixed.
I recently had a new Fender guitar amp..The volume pot packed up....Do you think I could change it....Couldn't even get to the thing. The old amps .... It was easy. Just take of the facia. Unsolder the old pot and pop a new one in..Price approx 2--3 .... When I got the bill back from Fender for the new one 147...
Lots of modern things aren't designed to be fixed...Just try getting a Sony Walkman repaired if it costs under 100. Sony will basically tell you to throw it away.
The point I was trying to make in my last post was that in a theatre of war it is sometimes not possible to get the technical back up in. Therefore the basic stuff can sometimes be fixed relativly easily whereas unless you can exchange a whole new printed circuit board, with probably thousands of other commands on ,your plane is grounded .
Phil.

Posts: 340 | From: | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jason
Member
Member # 1545

posted 01-15-2000 02:26 PM     Profile for Jason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Goanna & Rosco,
You guys are making very interesting points. I was talking about top speed w/o any load, and my numbers are accurate. Eventhough the Harriers are AMRAAM capabel, their combat use will be signifacantly reduced because of their lack of radar(that is is older models)and the reason the F-15's were defeated was because of the Harrier pilots studying up on the F-15 adn their use of hiding, if the Pilots of F-15 had more time to prepair, they would have doen much better

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


Posts: 220 | From: | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-15-2000 03:47 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The biggest weakness of most fighters, in
my opinion, is being forced to use an airfield.
Cruise missles, air strikes and commando raids can keep the best planes
on the ground even if they're sheltered properly. There's no way to move a 10,000 foot runway and it would be too difficult for NATO type forces to defend adequately with their thin anti air defences. Imagine if the Iraqis would have had Soviet made Tomahawk type missles instead of those crappy SCUDs.

Both the Harrier and Hornet can be a lot better than average in this regard. The Hornet can be based from either a well defended aircraft carrier or rough airstrips or even public roads. The Harrier can go anywhere, period.

Jason > You are right about the F-15 drivers not knowing much about the Harrier, few pilots do as the Harrier is pretty rare compared to say, F-16's.

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


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
Bogey
Member
Member # 998

posted 01-16-2000 02:50 AM     Profile for Bogey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Good point about planes being easily grounded by an airfield attack.

The swedish air force relies on road bases as alternatives.
Our fighters are designed to be able to operate from short stretches of road.

I'd like to know if there are other air forces that does this.

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


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

posted 01-16-2000 04:18 AM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I think the Swiss and Finns do with their
Hornets, also the Poles, Czechs, Serbs, basically all the former Warsaw Pact countries use aircraft well suited to road
operation. I hear Russian SU-25s can takeoff, land and taxi on muddy terrain that
would sink a truck...

By not using airfields, you can more easily hide your location and numbers. Look at the trouble NATO went through finding Serb aircraft {or decoys} based on roadways or the problems the Coalition had finding SCUDs in Iraq. Compare this to the state of Serb and Iraqi airfields.


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


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 01-16-2000 06:35 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
An interesting thread!
Despite this, I agree with the remark made by Spectre early in this thread:-

Know your aircraft!

US avionics are more reliable than most so that gives US fighters and edge. Russian missile at BVR seem to be equal or perhaps a little better than current US technology. The thing is, the US can afford to invest in a newer generation of technology a lot faster than Russia can. Training methods in the US can also be revised more quickly.
Russian, UK and other European pilots are often better at adapting to what they currently have rather than US pilots. But US pilots are trained better, have better initial equipment but can suffer from overconfidence in the equipment.
I'd take the F22 (at least the specs I have read) over most planes including the Typhoon but I still hark back to Spectre's point:-
Know your plane - it's the pilot that will decide the outcome of a 1v1 engagement.


------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 01-16-2000 06:42 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just a little extra thought. I once heard that a few US pilots took portable 100$ GPS receivers into the cockpit with them because although the USAF had invested millions in GPS technology the pilots had more confidence in the 100$ gadgets coz it did the job 100% of the time! The point is that other countries would not have the economy of scale to be able to do that.
(In the UK, I'd bet the same piece of kit would be twice the price at least! )

------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Zed
Member
Member # 64

posted 01-16-2000 06:49 AM     Profile for Zed     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I would second that!

Zed


Posts: 866 | From: Midlands, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
daveb
Member
Member # 173

posted 01-16-2000 06:53 AM     Profile for daveb   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Rosco,
The problem with Scuds in Iraq was that the US led coalition was so overwhelmingly successful that the Iraqis were forced to move them so frequently. Air supremacy was 100%!
With Serb aircraft, the Serbs were canny in not taking off! The problem in both cases here was a lack of intelligence on the ground. In both cases special forces had to be landed to locate targets. UN reliance on satellite technology was partly to blame- if you don't know where the planes are to start with and you have an enemy that could (at least theoretically) use a sophisticated SAM/AAA network to great effect you have to remain cautious.

AFAIK Serbia still has some of its AG systems intact. They just didn't want to risk all of it in a fight they knew they couldn't win.


------------------
Best wishes,
Dave B.


Posts: 613 | From: Windsor, UK | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 01-16-2000 04:50 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I've heard the Soviets managed to "lose" entire carrier battle groups at sea many times even with all their surveillance
capabilities. I would not like to return from a strike, fatigued and low on fuel, to find my runway awash with debris, craters and mines.

A STOVL { Short Take Off Vertical Landing }
aircraft can be based in truly unlikely locations, I could hide two Harriers in my
back yard privided I had enough IR suppressing camoflage netting. The point I'm
trying to make is flexible and mobile is better.

Daveb > The Russians military can't afford
their newest gear but many can. China may be
able to rival the U.S. military machine
budget wise in twenty years. The Russians
now produce their top gear specifically with
export in mind. The new ramjet powered, 100 mile range version of the R-77 { AA-12 }
comes to mind here. Similar Western missles
like the BVRAAM and/or METEOR are likely to be slighly better but only in detail.

Also Serbia and Iraq were both vastly inferior opponents, what if the U.S. had to take on the rest of NATO in a full scale
conventional war {really implausible but just an example}. They'd still probably win
but it sure as hell wouldn't be a giveaway.
I think its better to plan and train to fight
a Muhammed Ali and get a Peter McNeely than the other way around.


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


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  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