Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SgtPappy on February 22, 2010, 09:51:16 PM
-
We all know of Dr. Gonzo's a/c performance pages.
Are there any graphs like that which exist for 4th generation jet fighters? Those planes are still in service but are getting old enough to have their performance data somewhere on the internet.
I'm really trying to figure out if the F-15C/F-16C of 1999 configurations have better major performance characteristics (i.e. climb, accel, top speeds at different altitudes) than their equivalent Russian planes, i.e. Su-27 and MiG-29 (late 90's models).
After all the the propaganda the US-made shows on Discovery have shoved down my throat, I'd like to know what the F-15's and 16's have against their Russian counterparts OTHER than BVR superiority.
-
You're probably not going to find any "real" data that lets you do any sort of comparison that would be useful in real life. If you find anything, it will most likely be single data points, such as instantaneous turn rate at a particular weight and airspeed. The full graphs and diagrams are not going to be releasable, at least by official US sources. The info you seem to be looking for is still tactically significant so it isn't releasable.
A good simulation (the old Janes F-15 or Janes F-18 for example) can hit pretty darn close to reality through some smart programming and aerodynamic modelling, but it is still going to be an approximation and not anything a real fighter pilot could use.
-
What, no F-18? :bolt:
I've always wondered this too, but I think where this info is at hand and readily available falls into the realm of modern-day air defence and strategical planning, a notoriously hush hush industry and bunch of professionals nowadays. Probabley gotta do some of your own digging and data compilation to get something close to exactly what you want.
-
Well .. I have some 'anecdotal' stuff .. I had a chance to fly the F-16 simulator at Nellis for awhile.
I also spent more than a few hours in the F-4 sim at various bases I was stationed at here an there.
I had a chat with the tech rep guy for Falcon *the game* long ago ..Pete (a Guard F-16 pilot when I met him).
I told him that I had flown the game .. compared to what the actual sim would do it was night and day.
He laughed, said there was no way they could make a game that would match real world figures or even come close.
I told him they did a great job of makin an F-16 feel like a Thud ..F-105 .. it took forever to get off the ground and vertical perfomance was terrible. -shrug-
.. also had a long chat with an F-15 pilot a couple years ago.
He said it's the Ferrari ..whereas the F-22 is just so much a step up that those guys have to use a stripped down F-15 as primary trainer ..the entry level air combat platform ..like the AT-6 was to the Mustang :)
Go to any airshow that has an F-16/F-15 flyin, granted they aren't carryin full loads, but .. you can see what they do.
Can't do it in a sim/game that I know of.
As for comparison to Soviet gear .. there just isn't any.
Orders of magnitude difference.
They are lead sleds.
There hasn't been an opponent aircraft that is a match for the F-15 built yet, altho they are closing the gaps, slowly.
But .. that's just my opinion based on what I learned over the years from the guys I talked to, things I saw, read, did, here an there.
-GE
-
Hm, I suppose that's why I haven't had much knowledge on jet fighters.
AH forced me to be competitive and research deeply into aircraft. For jet sims, I suppose that isn't even possible. I guess a fun arcade game like HAWX is now validated since it's difficult to make a sim based on 4th gen jets.
In terms of Soviet aircraft, they seem to focus HUGELY on supermaneuverability now, perhaps in hope that the next fight with air-air combat is going to be some super-close range, missile-spamming, flare-spewing battle. Apparently many say the MiG-29 is just as fast as an Eagle at low altitude and the Su-27, the closest Soviet contemporary to the F-15, climbs and accelerates better. Any ideas concerning the U.S.'s fighter design philosophy after Vietnam and before the mid 90's?
From what it seems, it looks like U.S. fighters were still heavy, but designed for sheer speed and weapon efficiency (just like in WWII), rather than some other option. The USSR at the time, seems to have been designing fighters with maneuverability with weapons set at a lower priority in mind while in WWII, they wanted low-alt performance with weapons set as a lower priority.
-
After Vietnam = F-4 to F-15 and F-16.
The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)
There just wasn't anything close to an F-15 in the decades after it was introduced ..it would fly circles around any opponent aircraft. Some in the US inventory (F-14 f'rinstance) would give it a challenge .. but for out and out dog fighting prowess .. the F-15 was and still is an awesome machine.
The Russians put out a *lot* of propwash about their *everything* .. to the point that the F-15 was initially brought into being to counter the uber Mig 25.. I mean . . it was fast and flew high, the planform looked like it was a great fighter.. totally outclassed the F-4 that tried to chase it down.
The Mig was just cruisin and the F-4 jock wasn't sure the Mig even knew the Phantom was there.
Well. Then that pilot defected with one.
Lot of assumptions about the Mig 25 turned out to be pure hogwash.
Turn? . . not in a country mile. Made of mostly stainless steel. *Heavy*
Fast? You bet, if it burnt the engines down, blew out the turbine blades, and destroyed the airframe.. it could go fast. For a little while. To impress someone.
Pure interceptor. Short range point defense.
Not even close to what most thought it was.
Nowadays ..if someone tells me Russian made *anything* is good, well .. I'm not from Missouri, but *near* there .. Show Me.
(like the Bekaa Valley Air War .. can you imagine how empty the flight lines must have been at the end of that day? Talk is cheap)
IMHO, the Yak 9 was their pinnacle.. I'd still rather fly a Mustang .. but, that's just me.
-GE aka Frank
-
The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)
they had aggressor F5s at Upper Heyford near me fairly often back in the 80's, all black with the red star - very cool to see :aok
-
This sounds like a question for the snailman :O
-
We like Pie.
-
We like Pie Charts.
fixed
-
fixed
Fail.
-
After Vietnam = F-4 to F-15 and F-16.
The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)
There just wasn't anything close to an F-15 in the decades after it was introduced ..it would fly circles around any opponent aircraft. Some in the US inventory (F-14 f'rinstance) would give it a challenge .. but for out and out dog fighting prowess .. the F-15 was and still is an awesome machine.
The Russians put out a *lot* of propwash about their *everything* .. to the point that the F-15 was initially brought into being to counter the uber Mig 25.. I mean . . it was fast and flew high, the planform looked like it was a great fighter.. totally outclassed the F-4 that tried to chase it down.
The Mig was just cruisin and the F-4 jock wasn't sure the Mig even knew the Phantom was there.
Well. Then that pilot defected with one.
Lot of assumptions about the Mig 25 turned out to be pure hogwash.
Turn? . . not in a country mile. Made of mostly stainless steel. *Heavy*
Fast? You bet, if it burnt the engines down, blew out the turbine blades, and destroyed the airframe.. it could go fast. For a little while. To impress someone.
Pure interceptor. Short range point defense.
Not even close to what most thought it was.
Nowadays ..if someone tells me Russian made *anything* is good, well .. I'm not from Missouri, but *near* there .. Show Me.
(like the Bekaa Valley Air War .. can you imagine how empty the flight lines must have been at the end of that day? Talk is cheap)
IMHO, the Yak 9 was their pinnacle.. I'd still rather fly a Mustang .. but, that's just me.
-GE aka Frank
Gray, you are definitely still living in the 70's and early 80's. Article basically says that only the F-22 holds an advantage over current versions of front line Russian fighters. I also found it funny, the author specifically mentions the Bekaa Valley air war as a contrast.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-04.html (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-04.html)
Abstract
This paper performs a comparative assessment of Russian technology employed in contemporary fighter aircraft and associated systems and weapons. Models of future air combat are defined and discussed. All categories of basic systems technology are then consecutively compared against their US or other Western equivalents. Finally, fighter types are compared to the first order. In conclusion, the notion that contemporary production Russian fighters are inferior in technology, performance and overall capability to their US/EU peers is largely not correct, and predicated on assumptions about Russian technological capabilities which ceased to be true a decade or more ago.
In other words.. THIS
(http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/su-35s-knaapo-2p-1s.jpg)
...is not THIS.
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-25-DNSC8809520_JPG.jpg)
-
In other words.. THIS
(http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/su-35s-knaapo-2p-1s.jpg)
Well put...
But, soon we will have a same old 'Ejection seat demonstration' remarks...
IMHO
The SU-27+ is The Best Looking modern age Fighter.
-
IMHO
The SU-27+ is The Best Looking modern age Fighter.
No contest :aok
-
Anything that's not stealth is already obsolete. That includes the Su-27, Su-30, Su-34, Eurofighter. The guy who gets to dictate the fight is going to win every time. Only stealth or insane amounts of speed can do that.
-
Anything that's not stealth is already obsolete. That includes the Su-27, Su-30, Su-34, Eurofighter. The guy who gets to dictate the fight is going to win every time. Only stealth or insane amounts of speed can do that.
The media term "stealth" is very very relative.
The F22 could be a dead on target practice bird already today by the underestimated forces.
I hope our childes never need to find it out in practice...
-
Well .. Moray ..dood.
I read the 'paper' and some of the references.
'performing better in all cardinal areas of the flight envelope' is an interesting statement.
So ..this guy knows their flight envelopes?
Guess you could buy a Russian fighter off ebay ..prolly a little tougher to get an F-15 tho.
-shrug- .. the Russians have been selling it to the cheap seats for decades.
It's also interesting how he ticks off all the whiz-bang g-whiz stuff that's gonna be on the Mig 35, etc.
If they even get built.
Mebbe they can auction 'em off on ebay to support a production run?
-evil grin-
The Russian fighters are closing the gap on our F-15 as I said.
Took them awhile. There's a bit more to it than just hardware though.
Someone's gonna get spanked hard findin out.
-GE aka Frank
-
After Vietnam = F-4 to F-15 and F-16.
The F-5 went overseas (ie: South Korea)..USAF didnt use 'em much (Aggressors out at Nellis is about it)
There just wasn't anything close to an F-15 in the decades after it was introduced ..it would fly circles around any opponent aircraft. Some in the US inventory (F-14 f'rinstance) would give it a challenge .. but for out and out dog fighting prowess .. the F-15 was and still is an awesome machine.
The Russians put out a *lot* of propwash about their *everything* .. to the point that the F-15 was initially brought into being to counter the uber Mig 25.. I mean . . it was fast and flew high, the planform looked like it was a great fighter.. totally outclassed the F-4 that tried to chase it down.
The Mig was just cruisin and the F-4 jock wasn't sure the Mig even knew the Phantom was there.
Well. Then that pilot defected with one.
Lot of assumptions about the Mig 25 turned out to be pure hogwash.
Turn? . . not in a country mile. Made of mostly stainless steel. *Heavy*
Fast? You bet, if it burnt the engines down, blew out the turbine blades, and destroyed the airframe.. it could go fast. For a little while. To impress someone.
Pure interceptor. Short range point defense.
Not even close to what most thought it was.
Nowadays ..if someone tells me Russian made *anything* is good, well .. I'm not from Missouri, but *near* there .. Show Me.
(like the Bekaa Valley Air War .. can you imagine how empty the flight lines must have been at the end of that day? Talk is cheap)
IMHO, the Yak 9 was their pinnacle.. I'd still rather fly a Mustang .. but, that's just me.
-GE aka Frank
Mig-25 'short range point defense'? Yak 9 is 'their pinnacle'?
Are you for real?
-
See Rule #4
-
Russian,
I hate using the History Channel as a reference, especially when it's the horribly-narrated (but still fun) Dogfights program...
but they stated that the MiG-25 MIGHT have been a short-range interceptor with no IFR capability. One pilot said that he was told this, but nothing in the show ever confirmed that possibility.
Is it really long ranged and super deadly?
Tell me what's wrong with GrayEagle's post (not trying to put beef between you two :neener:), I just don't know much anything about modern Russian fighters.
-
Russian,
I hate using the History Channel as a reference, especially when it's the horribly-narrated (but still fun) Dogfights program...
but they stated that the MiG-25 MIGHT have been a short-range interceptor with no IFR capability. One pilot said that he was told this, but nothing in the show ever confirmed that possibility.
Is it really long ranged and super deadly?
Tell me what's wrong with GrayEagle's post (not trying to put beef between you two :neener:), I just don't know much anything about modern Russian fighters.
I would think of Mig29 as a point defense fighter. Mig25 has range of 2500km (1900km with +1 mach speeds) and alt up to 30,000 meters (37,650M record). I don't know what numbers define 'point defense' to GrayEagle, but maybe he should rethink his definition.
Edit: good website for 'numbers'
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-25.htm
25 pretty much 60s technology so I wouldn't expect 'magic super deadly OMFG soviets are coming' interceptor. See 31 for that.
-
-shrug-
Opinions Vary.
Any nation that feels froggy can 'bring it'
Same old story, different day.
Read the same BS being spewed all the years I was in.
It eased up for a few days after Bekaa Valley happened,
but it didn't take long to start up again.
The in-country breifing when I arrived at Taegu (K2) Korea was
interesting and to the point.
The South Koreans don't have 'rules of engagement' ..
..I got the feeling the US was there to keep them from going all the way to Moscow :)
-GE aka Frank
-
re: Point Defense .. as far as I know, a plane that cannot turn, designed as a bomber interceptor, with a short range.
Read the book 'Mig Pilot' .. written by the guy who flew one to Japan.
Those huge Tumansky turbines were *thirsty* pushin all that freight.. the plane is so heavy it was g-limited to +2.5.
..the 25 sure as heck isn't an air superiority fighter ..check out the visibility out of that cockpit.
And forget about turning .. even an F-4 would look 'nimble' next to that truck.
But what do I know .. I am sure the Russian hardware has always been so uber it's just a wonder they haven't taken over the world by now ... o .. wait .. all their BS finally caught up to them, didn't it? .. several times.
-GE aka Frank
-
re: Point Defense .. as far as I know, a plane that cannot turn, designed as a bomber interceptor, with a short range.
Read the book 'Mig Pilot' .. written by the guy who flew one to Japan.
Those huge Tumansky turbines were *thirsty* pushin all that freight.. the plane is so heavy it was g-limited to +2.5.
..the 25 sure as heck isn't an air superiority fighter ..check out the visibility out of that cockpit.
And forget about turning .. even an F-4 would look 'nimble' next to that truck.
But what do I know .. I am sure the Russian hardware has always been so uber it's just a wonder they haven't taken over the world by now ... o .. wait .. all their BS finally caught up to them, didn't it? .. several times.
-GE aka Frank
With respect....
There's a difference between peeking over the Iron Curtain trying to figure out what a plane is capable of.....from pictures or drawings taken during chance encounters of straight and level flight....
....and seeing a plane performing maneuvers no allied fighter can match at Farnborough or the Paris Air Show.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sukhoi-performing-the-Cobra-Maneuver (http://www.videosift.com/video/Sukhoi-performing-the-Cobra-Maneuver)
This is what I think you're missing here. The current capabilities are not "inferred", they're "observed".
-
LOL .. the 'Cobra' has been discussed to death long ago.
Imagine a typical dogfight scenario .. guy gets so slow he may as well be stopped, his nose comes up into the 'Cobra' ..
.. every other aircraft/SAM in the area gets a free shot at a stationary for all intents and purposes target.
(and he better hope a Raptor isn't in the area)
..but it does look nice at air shows.
-GE aka Frank
-
LOL .. the 'Cobra' has been discussed to death long ago.
Imagine a typical dogfight scenario .. guy gets so slow he may as well be stopped, his nose comes up into the 'Cobra' ..
.. every other aircraft/SAM in the area gets a free shot at a stationary for all intents and purposes target.
(and he better hope a Raptor isn't in the area)
..but it does look nice at air shows.
-GE aka Frank
You know, you really are quite set in your ways, old gray beard. The relevance is not that the "Cobra" is necessarily an overtly usable tactic in a modern battlefield, it is however a physically and clearly observable indication of the performance envelope of the airframe. From knowing the airframe can perform that maneuver, you can extrapolate out many other characteristics.
Obviously, even logical dissection is beyond your stubborn wiring.
-
How is that low speed maneuvering capability materially useful? Is it used to peek around mountain tops?
-
You know, you really are quite set in your ways, old gray beard. The relevance is not that the "Cobra" is necessarily an overtly usable tactic in a modern battlefield, it is however a physically and clearly observable indication of the performance envelope of the airframe. From knowing the airframe can perform that maneuver, you can extrapolate out many other characteristics.
Obviously, even logical dissection is beyond your stubborn wiring.
Greyeagle is more right than you are, and I am confident that my sources and personal experiences are far more relevant than yours. Extrapolate all you want, but until you read the flight test report and the FWIC tactics talk, or actually take an F-15 up against a flanker or fulcrum, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. But you can't, and never will. I spent over a year where I flew 4-5 sorties per month replicating fulcrum and flanker threats using the best available data, and I've worked with both former GAF mig-29 pilots and F-15C drivers who spent weeks flying DACT against the fulcrums before we had the benefit of our new helmet mounted sights and aim-9x.
Again, Grayeagle is more right than you are. I will go further to say that although the flanker is a very capable aircraft, the airshow maneuvers are not very good at all for extrapolating anything except how good the plane is at waving the nose around at low airspeeds. A well flown F-18 with some flight control software tweaks would probably be able to pretty much the same maneuvers, slightly modified of course to account for the lower thrust to weight ratio.
In the end, the aircraft and weapons are matched well enough that if neither side knows the exact tactics used by the other side, the edge is probably still the US F-15 due to the sheer number of flight hours an F-15 pilot gets and because of the very good cockpit ergonomics and system integration. If the flanker pilot knows the US tactics however (as I did whenever I "cheated" while replicating russian fighter threats), it then comes down entirely to individual pilot skill even without resorting to the radical maneuvering capabilities of the flanker. If they're both cheating, then the better pilot wins even though the flanker can pretty much turn up it's own butt, because the F-15 is easier to fly and tactically employ. Plus the amraam is a freaking deathstick, and 2 amraams coming at you are nearly impossible to defeat so the flanker's maneuverability may not mean anything in most engagements.
-
Greyeagle is more right than you are, and I am confident that my sources and personal experiences are far more relevant than yours. Extrapolate all you want, but until you read the flight test report and the FWIC tactics talk, or actually take an F-15 up against a flanker or fulcrum, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. But you can't, and never will. I spent over a year where I flew 4-5 sorties per month replicating fulcrum and flanker threats using the best available data, and I've worked with both former GAF mig-29 pilots and F-15C drivers who spent weeks flying DACT against the fulcrums before we had the benefit of our new helmet mounted sights and aim-9x.
Again, Grayeagle is more right than you are. I will go further to say that although the flanker is a very capable aircraft, the airshow maneuvers are not very good at all for extrapolating anything except how good the plane is at waving the nose around at low airspeeds. A well flown F-18 with some flight control software tweaks would probably be able to pretty much the same maneuvers, slightly modified of course to account for the lower thrust to weight ratio.
In the end, the aircraft and weapons are matched well enough that if neither side knows the exact tactics used by the other side, the edge is probably still the US F-15 due to the sheer number of flight hours an F-15 pilot gets and because of the very good cockpit ergonomics and system integration. If the flanker pilot knows the US tactics however (as I did whenever I "cheated" while replicating russian fighter threats), it then comes down entirely to individual pilot skill even without resorting to the radical maneuvering capabilities of the flanker. If they're both cheating, then the better pilot wins even though the flanker can pretty much turn up it's own butt, because the F-15 is easier to fly and tactically employ. Plus the amraam is a freaking deathstick, and 2 amraams coming at you are nearly impossible to defeat so the flanker's maneuverability may not mean anything in most engagements.
So you're saying a guy that is comparing generation 4 and 4.5 fighters to the ones that lost the Bekaa Valley Air War is.......... right? :headscratch:
Seriously?
The guy is using the Mig25 as a yardstick to the Flanker. You really gotta be kidding me, with respect to your service, which is a few years back, if I recall. The Russians have been working hard in the last ten years to get their electronics up to western standards (Irbis E, etc)
-
See Rule #4
-
Greyeagle is more right than you are, and I am confident that my sources and personal experiences are far more relevant than yours. Extrapolate all you want, but until you read the flight test report and the FWIC tactics talk, or actually take an F-15 up against a flanker or fulcrum, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. But you can't, and never will. I spent over a year where I flew 4-5 sorties per month replicating fulcrum and flanker threats using the best available data, and I've worked with both former GAF mig-29 pilots and F-15C drivers who spent weeks flying DACT against the fulcrums before we had the benefit of our new helmet mounted sights and aim-9x.
Again, Grayeagle is more right than you are. I will go further to say that although the flanker is a very capable aircraft, the airshow maneuvers are not very good at all for extrapolating anything except how good the plane is at waving the nose around at low airspeeds. A well flown F-18 with some flight control software tweaks would probably be able to pretty much the same maneuvers, slightly modified of course to account for the lower thrust to weight ratio.
In the end, the aircraft and weapons are matched well enough that if neither side knows the exact tactics used by the other side, the edge is probably still the US F-15 due to the sheer number of flight hours an F-15 pilot gets and because of the very good cockpit ergonomics and system integration. If the flanker pilot knows the US tactics however (as I did whenever I "cheated" while replicating russian fighter threats), it then comes down entirely to individual pilot skill even without resorting to the radical maneuvering capabilities of the flanker. If they're both cheating, then the better pilot wins even though the flanker can pretty much turn up it's own butt, because the F-15 is easier to fly and tactically employ. Plus the amraam is a freaking deathstick, and 2 amraams coming at you are nearly impossible to defeat so the flanker's maneuverability may not mean anything in most engagements.
Nice post Eagl.
-
A follow-up regarding mig-25... Without going into many details, the mig-25 is one of the more challenging threats an F-15 driver faces, because it really is fast and high-flying. Different opponent fighters will have different roles, so the scenarios where an F-15 driver faces a mig-25 will be biased in favor of the mig, simply because the mig's mission would be tailored for the capabilities of the mig-25. Chasing down our AWACS or other high-value assets (such as U-2, jstars, etc), or intercepting incoming bombers are examples where the fact that the mig-25 turns like a truck simply is not relevant. Likewise, the mig-29's small size and limited range wouldn't likely be a deciding factor when flying into a nest of the little suckers. And an su-27 in a forward offensive counter-air role or escorting their own strike package may not have the luxury to park in one spot to mix it up in a dogfight.
All in all, I still prefer the F-15 over all of them, knowing full well what their real capabilities are. For that matter, I still prefer the F-15 over the viper or hornet because of the eagle's versatility, loadout, range, and the performance edge it has over most other aircraft in most flight regimes. It has lots of gas, can go very high and fast, can bring 8 amazing missiles to the fight, and has a radar the size of that new video scoreboard monstrosity hanging in the new dallas cowboys stadium. That radar matched to the amraam, employed from over 40,000 ft at mach 1.5+, is absolutely superb, and the F-15 is still one of the few fighters in the world with the gas and low altitude speed to intercept and chase down low altitude high speed intruders as well. System integration is outstanding, and the pilot has a great view of the world from the high seating position compared to most of the russian designs which have the pilot seated relatively low, with somewhat restricted visibility. Add a helmet mounted sight and aim-9x, and the eagle still matches or surpasses the mig-29 and su-27 *as a complete system* even in a close-range dogfight.
The F-22... That plane is in yet another class entirely. Awesome capability, its main drawbacks are that it is tough to maintain and very expensive. The JSF won't come close to the F-22 in the air to air realm and it can't carry half the air to ground loadout as an F-15E, but it's going to be a really capable F-16 replacement if it works as advertised. The next gen russian fighter... I suspect that they'll have trouble getting and keeping the radar cross section down below that of a super hornet, but I have no real data other than putting a critical eye on some detailed photos I ran across.
-
So you're saying a guy that is comparing generation 4 and 4.5 fighters to the ones that lost the Bekaa Valley Air War is.......... right? :headscratch:
Seriously?
The guy is using the Mig25 as a yardstick to the Flanker. You really gotta be kidding me, with respect to your service, which is a few years back, if I recall. The Russians have been working hard in the last ten years to get their electronics up to western standards (Irbis E, etc)
You're a Marine Biologist correct? So where exactly.....does your expertise in this matter come from? Just wondering..... :headscratch:
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #8
-
That is a pretty typical attitude for the Academia of this country.
-
A follow-up regarding mig-25...
Unreleated, odd-ball F-15 question.
Does the gun have any upward tilt to it at all, and how scary is it to strafe with? I've read some articles recently that at least one pilot went in on a strafing run, and the pilots aren't happy about how nose low they have to go at low level to make the attacks.
-
One would have to think it's pretty much lined up with the axis but I'll defer to the experts.
-
One would have to think it's pretty much lined up with the axis but I'll defer to the experts.
I know the F-16 has a "built in dispersion" that spits out a conical fire pattern. I just can't remember if the thing is tilted up a few degrees for lobbing the shells out there.
-
I know the F-16 has a "built in dispersion" that spits out a conical fire pattern. I just can't remember if the thing is tilted up a few degrees for lobbing the shells out there.
All the Gatling cannons on American fighters have some built in dispersion afaik. The F-15 and F-4 have an 8 foot pattern at 1000 yards.
-
He's the American version of Beetle. He knows everything and anyone who disagrees is clearly inferior. He'll even post up all sorts of marginal evidence as absolute proof. Once faced with clear evidence to the contrary he'll question your intellect and general credibility but never admit he was wrong. It's beneath his ego to treat others as equals or be responsible for himself. That's OK, it all adds to the spice of life.
Someone should ask Moray if the Germans had any cavalry units during WW2. That was a fun thread :rofl
ack-ack
-
In ref to the F15 and the SU27, I gotta say I have probably been closer to these two birds than most here, save eagl, and can unequivocally say that in my opinion the SU27 is superior to the F15 in all areas save cockpit ergonomics and weapons/ avionics. It is out and out a beast of a fighter.
That being said, your F15 drivers are probably better trained as eagl has pointed out and better equipped to deal with any given scenario.
On a pure airframe to airframe match up..Su27 hands down.
Just my humble $.02
RTR
-
ad hominem attack
you'll probably want to delete that before skuzzy does
-
Maybe I am wrong but wouldn't the whole package come into the picture? Theater electronics coverage, training, networking and sharing of information etc.. It's not like a 1 on 1 duel within visual range anymore. Seeing your opponent is 95% electronic.
-
Hmmm modern fighter knowledge.
F-15 driver or sea turtle gynecologist. Who do I rely on for more credible info? decisions....decisions :headscratch:
-
Hmmm modern fighter knowledge.
F-15 driver or sea turtle gynecologist. Who do I rely on for more credible info? decisions....decisions :headscratch:
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg18/Shooter912/Smilies/lmao.gif)
-
In ref to the F15 and the SU27, I gotta say I have probably been closer to these two birds than most here, save eagl, and can unequivocally say that in my opinion the SU27 is superior to the F15 in all areas save cockpit ergonomics and weapons/ avionics. It is out and out a beast of a fighter.
That being said, your F15 drivers are probably better trained as eagl has pointed out and better equipped to deal with any given scenario.
On a pure airframe to airframe match up..Su27 hands down.
Just my humble $.02
RTR
Yes, i do suppose, from what I've read and heard, that the Su-27 has far better maneuverability, climb and acceleration, giving it the total dogfighting edge.
Other than better tech, does the Eagle not have better top speeds at most altitudes?
-
Yes, i do suppose, from what I've read and heard, that the Su-27 has far better maneuverability, climb and acceleration, giving it the total dogfighting edge.
Other than better tech, does the Eagle not have better top speeds at most altitudes?
Every aircraft has it's weaknesses that can be exploited and Eagle pilots are likely to be far better trained than Sukhoi pilots.
-
Every aircraft has it's weaknesses that can be exploited and Eagle pilots are likely to be far better trained than Sukhoi pilots.
So, if there are two equal skilled pilots for each specific plane, the SU-27 will won the dogfight?
-
So, if there are two equal skilled pilots for each specific plane, the SU-27 will won the dogfight?
That isn't likely to happen because very few Air Forces give their pilots the stick time the US Air Force gives theirs.
-
That isn't likely to happen because very few Air Forces give their pilots the stick time the US Air Force gives theirs.
You are avoiding the question.
Was that 'yes' in between the lines?
:)
-
You are avoiding the question.
Was that 'yes' in between the lines?
:)
Of course I am. I'm avoiding it because it isn't likely to happen. Sukhoi pilots don't get the same stick time and training that Eagle pilots do.
-
See Rule #4
-
It is nice when an expert on subjects like this (Eagl) shows up and actually puts fact into the discussion. The actual facts you can learn are so much nicer than the opinions that abound.
-
Worked F-15s in Okinawa and never heard of an F-15 jock who disliked it or thought anything in the world could beat it. It is a real MANS plane to work on as I imagine it is to fly!! I believe everyone ever associated with this fine aircraft without a doubt truely loves it, It was my favorite I ever worked on!! Can't say the the same for the F-16 though ;)
Not trying to hijack, reading this brought back a few fond memories <S>
-
Unreleated, odd-ball F-15 question.
Does the gun have any upward tilt to it at all, and how scary is it to strafe with? I've read some articles recently that at least one pilot went in on a strafing run, and the pilots aren't happy about how nose low they have to go at low level to make the attacks.
The F-15E has the up-canted gun, yes. And it is challenging to strafe, yes. The employment range has to be a bit longer than other ground attack aircraft and the dive angle is typically steeper. If you know how to do it though, it's just like any other strafe pass, just put the pipper on the target and squeeze, keeping slant range, dive angle, and altimeter in the crosscheck.
-
We tried to train some F-15C drivers to strafe when some people were wondering how much it would cost to mod some F-15Cs to be able to drop bombs (they'd probably haul around LGBs that F-15Es would lase into the target, or JDAM) and let them strafe, so they'd be useful in the GWOT... Our weapons officers gave them a few hours of academics, put them in the sim, and then took them to the range to give it a shot. There wasn't a second sortie... I didn't get the whole story but apparently the first trip to the range was pretty scary and nobody thought it was worth the risk to continue the program. Strafing with a fixed mil-depressed gunsight and an up-canted gun is not easy at all.
I don't think the idea to mod F-15Cs to turn them into bomb mules for the strike eagles ever went very far either.
-
It is nice when an expert on subjects like this (Eagl) shows up and actually puts fact into the discussion. The actual facts you can learn are so much nicer than the opinions that abound.
It took me a while to post after I saw this thread, mostly because I can't share the most relevant or convincing analysis. Every aircraft has limitations, and the exploitable tactical ramifications of those limitations are not always obvious or trivial.
Armed only with the gun, I would not want to take anything but an F-22 up against a gun-only flanker variant. With full-up systems, no tactical handcuffs, and reasonably even number of opponents though, I'll take any Eagle variant including a heavy/draggy F-15E.
It should be noted that NASA and Boeing (MacD) experimented with modifying the F-15 with canards and vectored thrust nozzles. It gave the plane similar extreme maneuvering capabilities as the flanker, but the cost wasn't worth the minor edge it would give us in the limited close-in dogfight scenarios. Plus the mod would add weight/complexity, increase fuel burn, decrease top speed, etc, basically reduce the overall ability of the F-15 to be the worlds best all-around air dominance fighter.
-
interesting... I'm assuming the reason wasn't ballistic drop? Was it more for giving easier lead under g's? I guess I'm not grasping the reason.. From your description I'm assuming it's more than a couple degrees.
-
It took me a while to post after I saw this thread, mostly because I can't share the most relevant or convincing analysis. Every aircraft has limitations, and the exploitable tactical ramifications of those limitations are not always obvious or trivial.
Well, I am appreciative of your input. As I have said before, opinions are like... (well you know the rest) The sad part about discussions in here are that those with their opinions are not always the ones with facts. Yet they are more than willing to ruin a good discussion on a topic by remaining fact less and loudly opinionated. It is why I rarely post in the open forums anymore. It is just not worth it. The same goes for the rest of the boards regarding warbirds and aviation. It seems they are loaded with people who "know-it-all" based off of a book they read or something they heard. That what they are spouting off on is completely fact less means little to them. Their ego and personal view of themselves as "in the know" makes them impossible to discuss things with, and thus it is just a waste of time.
Again, I appreciate your input.
-
The up-cant angle is to give a couple more degrees of lead in a turning fight. The problem with that in strafing is that the bullets sort of get lofted towards the target, and normal ballistic impact point is ahead of the plane that accuracy and weapons effect (bullet speed at impact) is severely degraded. As you dive down on a strafe pass in the F-15E, the pipper starts low in the hud, moves up, pauses for a second at the bullet apex well ABOVE the aircraft's flight path, and then slowly starts dropping back towards the velocity vector (the flight path indicator in the hud). With a computing air to ground gunsight, it is merely difficult. With only a fixed (adjustable but non-computing) reticle, the reticle is only accurate at exactly 2 ranges, once at very very close range with the bullets still lofting up over the flight path, and once at longer range when the bullets head back down. So you have to do a lot of computation on the ground, to determine the exact dive angle, speed, and firing altitude. So you have to have the pipper exactly on the target at the instant that the plane hits the exact dive angle and altitude, otherwise the bullets go... who knows where, either well short of the target or far far beyond the target.
The way the geometry works out, you have to dive at the ground in front of the target since the bullets are lofted up past where the plane is flying, and hope you judged things right so the pipper gets to the target before you hit your abort altitude or plow into the ground. It is possible to open fire at much longer range where the bullets are dropping back down, but the bullets are going so slow by then that they may not explode or cause much damage when they hit. I read a story of a guy who got hit by a 20mm training round... Some F-16s were strafing with a new, more aerodynamic type of 20mm round (PGU), but they didn't know that at low angles the new rounds would skip off the ground and travel for miles. So some rounds skipped well off the range and hit some guy driving in a car a few miles past the target. It lodged in his chest and he survived.
Come to think of it, that would be an interesting addition to the AH damage model... 20mm hits to the pilot at velocities below minimum for fuze operation could merely cause a pilot wound?
In a plane with the gun boresighted with the airframe, the bullets only drop, so the pipper is always below the velocity vector at tactically relevant speeds in a stable dive, so you are diving to a point past the target, not diving to a spot in front of the target.
-
Worked F-15s in Okinawa and never heard of an F-15 jock who disliked it or thought anything in the world could beat it. It is a real MANS plane to work on as I imagine it is to fly!! I believe everyone ever associated with this fine aircraft without a doubt truely loves it, It was my favorite I ever worked on!! Can't say the the same for the F-16 though ;)
Not trying to hijack, reading this brought back a few fond memories <S>
I worked F-15's in Alaska, awesome plane.
-
The F-15E has the up-canted gun, yes. And it is challenging to strafe, yes. The employment range has to be a bit longer than other ground attack aircraft and the dive angle is typically steeper. If you know how to do it though, it's just like any other strafe pass, just put the pipper on the target and squeeze, keeping slant range, dive angle, and altimeter in the crosscheck.
I stand corrected on this, I worked the other variants of F-15's and didn't realize that only the E had a gun that was mounted at an angle.
-
I stand corrected on this, I worked the other variants of F-15's and didn't realize that only the E had a gun that was mounted at an angle.
I wasn't clear on that... All F-15 variants have the angled gun. I specifically mentioned the E because it's the US variant that has to strafe.
-
What about cost? If the Eagle is twice as expensive as the 25, the enemy could deploy twice as many of them! Think of what we did in WW2 with Shermans; overfill the system until it shuts down. We might slaughter our Russian adversaries and lose but one plane, but if the next morning they have replaced everything, all is lost.
Just my $0.02, since it's not always a 1v1, because the country with more planes can make it a 2v1 (curse the bish hordes! :furious)
-Penguin
-
I wasn't clear on that... All F-15 variants have the angled gun. I specifically mentioned the E because it's the US variant that has to strafe.
I installed/removed many guns from A-D variants, I don't believe those have the angled gun.
-
What about cost? If the Eagle is twice as expensive as the 25, the enemy could deploy twice as many of them! Think of what we did in WW2 with Shermans; overfill the system until it shuts down. We might slaughter our Russian adversaries and lose but one plane, but if the next morning they have replaced everything, all is lost.
Just my $0.02, since it's not always a 1v1, because the country with more planes can make it a 2v1 (curse the bish hordes! :furious)
-Penguin
Russia's broke...
-
I installed/removed many guns from A-D variants, I don't believe those have the angled gun.
It's angled up, trust me. It isn't obvious since it's just a couple of degrees.
-
Hey...you spend that much time probing fish butts and see if you don`t get confused. :)
:rofl
ack-ack
-
Okay guys, let's not get too carried away here... Oh what am I saying, on with the roast! :devil
-Penuin
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Moray... Honestly... If I needed info on sea turtles you'd be the first I'd come to. Info on climate or fighter jet tech... not so much.
You read a book and have an interest so you opinion outweighs the real world experience of an actual fighter jock.. because... well, because he's retired? Seriously?
Let me put this another way... Let's say forty years from now you're fortunate enough to still be alive and retired. You're surfing some intardnet BBS and some punk calls into question your knowledge of marine biology because... well... because... He's read a few books and has an interest AND... after all... Haven't you been retired for a while?...
You have no business crying about so-called personal attacks when, in many people's opinion here, that is exactly what you have done to eagl...
-
See Rule #2
-
edit: I have to be nice.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Eagl, Does just a couple degrees really make that much of an issue? Unless I misread, it sounds like trying to use an aerial sighting mechanism for ground strafing was their biggest trouble.
-
Eagl, Does just a couple degrees really make that much of an issue? Unless I misread, it sounds like trying to use an aerial sighting mechanism for ground strafing was their biggest trouble.
I would like to hear eagl's answer on this too but I would think that the limited range of the guns coupled with the extreme speeds involved would require the plane to be at a perilous angle at a perilous speed perilously close to the ground. I wouldn't want to do it either...
-
No, there's nothing personal directed at Eagl. I did not attack him.
You really gotta be kidding me, with respect to your service, which is a few years back, if I recall.
What does that mean? It either means: 1. He's too old and senile to know what he's talking about, or 2. He retired and completely turned his back on something that took up a large portion of his life and doesn't know what he's talking about...
For some reason you are calling into question the reliability of his knowledge... I guess only you know why..
-
Eagl, Does just a couple degrees really make that much of an issue? Unless I misread, it sounds like trying to use an aerial sighting mechanism for ground strafing was their biggest trouble.
I was surprised to hear they had retained the canted arrangement in the F15E, I wasn't aware of that. I had talked at length with a friend in the Air Force (-16 pilot) regarding it, and how hard it was to strafe.
Of course, he was relating this position from hearsay, so attack my post in the relevant manner you see fit.
-
Of course, he was relating this position from hearsay, so attack my post in the relevant manner you see fit.
Of course... if you were basing and stating your position as pure conjecture and opinion... and stated it as such.. no one would have given you a hard time at all...
-
What does that mean? It either means: 1. He's too old and senile to know what he's talking about, or 2. He retired and completely turned his back on something that took up a large portion of his life and doesn't know what he's talking about...
For some reason you are calling into question the reliability of his knowledge... I guess only you know why..
No, it means neither. But continue attempting.
I would like to know his opinion on the Irbus-E and the MSP-418K and KNIRTI Sorbstiya jam pod. All three have been touted as significant upgrades, and the KNIRTI is deemed better than western equivalents, by analysis.
-
Of course... if you were basing and stating your position as pure conjecture and opinion... and stated it as such.. no one would have given you a hard time at all...
Yes they would have. It's just a bunch of personal issues carried over and over and over, from different threads.
I will simply not subscribe to the opinion that the Su-27 sucks because the Mig-25 sucks, as was postulated by Gray.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Amazingly, it's western analysis that is saying these things, ...
'western analysts' have been saying the same things for decades.
People like this were saying that 'Desert Storm' in Iraq would be another Vietnam, Sad Sack did have the 4th largest army in the world after all, experienced vets for the most part with their years of fighting Iran, and so on ad infinitum.
We had an untested battle tank and no actual combat experienced units, all our Vietnam experienced guys were out/retired, gone ..
I mean ... we were so gonna be toast.
They (along with Sad Sack) had very little idea of the actual capabilities we had.
Sad Sack actually did launch the 'mother of all battles' .. it was destroyed before making any impact at all.
Guess that was blind luck. Or .. maybe not.
Perhaps the analysts do us a favor by setting up opponents for a hard fall based on false information.
They make us look 'good' when the shootin starts.
I do know that every time the shooting starts the 'analysts' are proven so wrong it's laughable.
So ya .. Su27, Mig 35 .. prolly good airplanes, *might* be as good as an F-15, (although I doubt that)
".. McDonnell Douglas designed in 1967 to meet the service's need for a dedicated air superiority fighter.
The Eagle first flew in July 1972.."
-cough- er.. wtg.
Pray they never have to meet what we have now.
-GE aka Frank
-
Eagl, Does just a couple degrees really make that much of an issue? Unless I misread, it sounds like trying to use an aerial sighting mechanism for ground strafing was their biggest trouble.
There is nothing wrong in theory about using a fixed reticle for strafing. The angle on the gun really does present a different challenge. If you don't mind the bullets arriving at the target with very little energy and being really inaccurate, then it's not even that big of a deal. The gun angle apparently makes enough of a difference in A2A combat that they included it as an intentional design feature in what may arguably be the best fighter ever produced, from multiple perspectives. In terms of impact when initially fielded, to versatility and design longevity, I don't know of any other fighter ever produced that even comes close. Even now, any time an allied nation has the cash to buy a no-holds-barred strike fighter, they go with an F-15E, and Boeing has done some work on bringing down the radar cross section for a future variant, sort of like how the super hornet has a significantly smaller RCS than the original F-18 even though it is a bigger aircraft.
My point isn't to brag on the F-15 though, it is to say that when MacD built the thing, they tilted the gun up. Since the rest of the plane was so well designed, I can't imagine that they did it just to make it darn near impossible to strafe with the thing.
Even with the computing gunsight in the strike eagle, strafing isn't easy. You have to choose between a totally messed up attack profile with a steep dive angle and early abort range, or a very very long range shot with reduced accuracy and the probability that the cannon rounds won't fuse properly so you end up scattering around a lot of rounds that end up being essentially live grenades all over the place for kids to pick up and turn into IEDs.
-
Using simple trig and not accounting for bullet drop. The two degrees up angle of the gun would mean at 1,000 ft the impact point would be three feet high. So at a nautical mile (5,000 ft) the bullet would be fifteen feet high. An aircraft traveling at 400 mph would cover that mile in nine seconds.
-
No, it means neither. But continue attempting.
I would like to know his opinion on the Irbus-E and the MSP-418K and KNIRTI Sorbstiya jam pod. All three have been touted as significant upgrades, and the KNIRTI is deemed better than western equivalents, by analysis.
Just about everything kicks butt on the F-15 radar in peacetime... Feel free to extrapolate ANYTHING you like from that, because the truth is probably even more weird than whatever you think is possible. But in my experiences against various sorts of jammers *in peacetime*, it has still been effective enough to employ weapons. There is a pretty big benefit to hauling around that large of a radar, especially matched to relatively modern digital processing. Unfortunately that's all I can say about that.
I don't have any info on the latest counters to the US radars, but of course if I did then I still couldn't say what I thought of them :) I will say that fighting against even an older jammer is a pain in the butt because even if the radar can handle it, your tactics have to change on the fly. To put it mildly, it is challenging.
If you really want to know more about the eagle radar, go to amazon and buy a handful of books on radar theory, and then assume that the F-15 can do everything the book talks about, even the hypothetical stuff, because any time they want to put in a new radar mode it is a matter of reprogramming the computers that do all the processing. The antenna and basic tx/rx hardware passes really good info to the signal processors. Then think about the fact that the books don't cover some of the really strange tricks you can do with a radar.
Radar vs. jammer stuff is all back room geekery... If we get a chance to see a new pod in action, or better yet get our hands on one and figure out how to make it work in full-up wartime modes, then it is only a matter of time before our radar gets an anti-jam mode to deal with it. Same with the AMRAAM... And of course, anything that emits can be homed on. And when any competing jammer manufacturer gets ahold of any details on our countermeasures, then the jammer will be modified. So you hold back a bit until you really need the capability, and hope the bad guys didn't get good enough intel or anticipate whatever special modes you're going to use when the crap really hits the fan.
-
Using simple trig and not accounting for bullet drop. The two degrees up angle of the gun would mean at 1,000 ft the impact point would be three feet high. So at a nautical mile (5,000 ft) the bullet would be fifteen feet high. An aircraft traveling at 400 mph would cover that mile in nine seconds.
The bullet drop changes every foot based on energy depletion of the round in flight. The bullets start off going really fast and then slow down fairly rapidly. Even the new PGU rounds that get another 40%ish of useful range are a challenge to strafe with.
If you want to see how weird it can be, take a plane in AH, and try to do some strafing while near stall speed, flaps up. Make sure convergence is at the maximum possible too. The plane isn't flying anywhere near the direction the guns are pointing. To get any sort of dive angle without speeding up, you'll have to have the gear down I guess... Or take up one of the planes with dive brakes (not flaps, since that changes the wing camber and increases the effective angle of attack so the gun wouldn't be pointing up as much with flaps down). Maybe an f4u with gear down at very low speed might show the effect... I don't know if it will work or not in the game because I don't have it installed at the moment.
-
Ya know Eagl, I was thinking of the statement that you made about the F-15 and every country with the option wants one and it brought up to things.
1. The Shah and Iran and the F-14 to counter the Mig-25's.
2. Japan and the original intent to sell Japan F-22's.
The first is so old and thanks to Grumman technicians will never come back to haunt us. Plus the Tomcat was the best (all real life results aside)
The second is still kind of weird that the Japs never got to buy an aircraft that would definitely have decreased unit cost with production order increases and the US could have ended up with more F-22's....
Makes ya kinda wonder.
-
If you want strike capability, why use an air-superiority fighter when you have the good old A-10?
-Penguin
-
Because A-10s can't clear the skies by themselves.
-
True, but they shouldn't have to; there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you want the plane to be a strike fighter, it won't be a great air-to-air fighter. It's like trying to do air-strikes with a Spitfire/109 rather than a Thunderbolt or 190.
That's why you have many classes of fighters, to deal with everything effectively. Also, just pondering here, but I don't think that our real-lifel enemies, the Taliban/Al Queada/Myriad Arab Mafias don't have an air-force to oppose us doing air-strikes.
That means that a Predator, or rather, a bunch of predators, would be the way to go. They're cheap, easy to fly, and nobody gives a darn if they get blown up. Not only that, but the new versions can carry far more missles than the current predator (if only you could get a Vulcan cannon on that thing!).
In conclusion, we aren't about to fight an air war any time soon. Which means it's a good idea to focus on air-to-ground for now, and cross the air-to-air bridge when we find and get to it (hopefully never, war only destroys).
-Penguin