Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Durr on May 28, 2002, 01:22:06 AM
-
In the recent thread titled "F-15 is junk" some discussion arose as to what is the best modern fighter plane. This is a very subjective question and more than a little vague. So to limit the question somewhat I want to exclude prototypes, types not currently in service, fighters from the past, and the non air-air mission. Base your opinions on the capabilities or the combat records of the aircraft in question or both.
What is the best modern fighter plane at the air-to-air mission?
A similar thread came up last year on the military.com message boards. I will post my response from then and I welcome all your opinions on the subject.
-
Here is my post from last year (given in response to somebody that asked what was the best fighter plane, without any limiting criteria) It is a top 10 (well actually top 11 list) of modern fighters:
I have had some slight changes of opinion since I first made this post, but I will leave it unaltered for now. I will say however, that the top 5 in this list are a virtual tie, and my choice for the F-15 as number 1 is influenced by the fact that I am in the USAF and thus somewhat prejudiced towards it, and also due to its impressive combat record. My rankings for these aircraft were determined by comparing their performance, systems, and combat records. I didnt include the Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-35, and F-22 since they arent in current active service.
The question is somewhat broad, as has already been pointed out so I will narrow it down, and answer my own narrowed down version. I will assume that the question is, "What is the best fighter at air-to-air combat currently in service?" This will eliminate oldies that have distinguished records in the past like the P-51 Mustang, and also future wonders such as the F-22 Raptor. Also it will focus the question on the fighters traditional role of air superiority, as opposed to the role that they usually carry out these days, of ground attack. I think that the candidates for this question can be summarized as:
-F-15 Eagle
-F-16 Viper
-F-14 Tomcat
-F-18 Hornet
-Mirage 2000
-Saab Gripen
-Mig-29 Fulcrum
-Su-27 Flanker
-Tornado ADV
-Mig-31 Foxhound
-AIDC Ching-Kuo
These are the best fighters flying today for the air to air mission.
Note that any of these fighters with the right pilot flying it could take on any of the others and win. The most important factor in the equation is the crew manning the plane, not the aircraft itself. That said, pilots being equal, here is how these fighters rate in my opinion.
1. F-15: The Eagle is #1 because it has the best all round blend of desirable attributes, it is at least the 4th or 5th most maneuverable of those listed, has the best radar plus the JTIDs system is installed on many Eagles. It also is the 2d or 3rd fastest of these in top speed. It has probably the longest range of those listed, is quite reliable, and has the best record in air to air combat. The Eagle has seen action with 3 air forces in 4 full blown military campaigns as well as approximately 8 smaller actions. The air to air record is over 100 kills with 0 losses so far. For more info on the F-15 look at the thread on F-15s.
2. Su-27: I am going to give the nod to the Flanker for runner-up. Its a close match for the Eagle in almost all respects. It is more maneuverable, almost as fast, and carries excellent short range missiles. It has the helmet mounted sight as well which helps it close in. It is inferior to the Eagle in longer range engagements however, due to radar and fire control which isnt as good and the superior AMRAAM medium range missile carried by the Eagle.
The Flanker is, as far as I know, untested in air to air combat.
3. Tie F-16 and F-18 and Gripen: These planes have almost identical characteristics in many respects. They are equally adept at air combat. The Viper is faster and slightly more maneuverable under some parameters. The F-18 has the edge in BVR encounters due to better radar. F-18 may have better characteristics in a slow fight too.
F-16 has app. 30 kills/0 losses in air to air combat having seen action with 4 countries. The Hornet has 2kills/possibly 1 loss (disputed) in action with the US only. The Gripen is a little known (in the US at least) plane that is an outstanding fighter. It is in service with the Swedish, and soon with South Africa, and some other countries possibly as well. Its performance characteristics are similar to the F-16. It has some newer technologies in it since it is a newer design. Highly maneuverable, excellent avionics, all in all a superb fighter plane. The Gripen has not seen air combat yet.
6. Mig-29: This jet was a match for the Viper and Hornet when it first became operational but the American fighters have been modernized many times since then. The latest versions of the Fulcrum are still far behind the Western fighters in avionics, radar, and fire control. It does have the helmet mounted sight and the Archer missile, which combined with its outstanding manouverability make it deadly in a close in fight. This is a much better fighter than its dismal combat record would suggest. It hasnt been well served by its pilots. Air combat scores for the Mig-29, app. 2 kills/20+ losses
7. F-14: I know that many will probably say that the venerable Tomcat deserves higher than number seven on this list but the fact remains that the Tomcats day is almost done. It still possesses an outstanding long range radar suite and awesome speed. However, except for the D model it is a little underpowered for this class of fighter, and isnt nearly as manouverable as the others. It is in limited service with the USN and will be phased out within 6 years. Combat record is 5 kills/0 losses in a-a action (note: F-14 may have seen action in service with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Reliable figures for any a-a combat if so, are not available).
8. Ching Kuo: This is a very similar aircraft to the F-16. However, it has fairly short range, and slightly inferior avionics to the newer F-16s. This Taiwanese built fighter has yet to see combat.
9. Mirage 2000: Latest and greatest fighter by Dassault, this plane doesnt quite compare with the 8 listed above in many ways. It isnt as manouverable, and its avionics are older among other things. The Rafale will mostly replace this fighter in French service once it becomes operational. Mirage 2000 has never been tested in air-air as far as I know.
10. Tornado ADV: Not manouverable enough to compete against the others listed here, the Tornado is still a good fighter. It is quite fast especially at low level. Its avionics and missile setup isnt bad either but overall its not competitive with the more modern fighters out there in capability. No air to air record as far as I know.
11. Mig-31: The choice for number eleven was easy. This one barely made the cut for being included with the best. It is the fastest fighter here, but other than that it leads in no category, rather it is in the bottom for most. It is heavy, unmanouverable, poor range, and questionable reliability. It has rather good avionics and radar for a Russian fighter but with equal pilots it wouldnt last long against any other fighter on this list most likely. No air to air combat record for the Foxhound as far as I know.
-
Well, I guess I'll go first.
As I said in the other thread, as far as I have understood these things (not being a fighter pilot) in the modern air-to-air combat situation weaponry, avionics and countermeasures are far more important than the manuverability or speed of the fighter. (a good example of this would be the Falklands where crappy british Harriers dominated the skies thanks to the capabilities of the new Sidwinder missile (was it the aim-9m?)
It really doesnt matter how fast you are or how good you can turn, there will always be a missile that is faster than you and can turn inside you. What becomes crucial is who gets to fire the first shot, and what your chances are to avoid a missile heading for you. That means radar, ecm, weapon systems etc will decide who wins the fight.
The above pretty much disqualifies any Soviet, Chinese, Arab or whathaveyou fighter from the discussion. They simply lack the technology we have in the west.
If we would compare western fighters though, we'll find that most of them use the same (US) weapons, and they all have pretty similar capabilities when it comes to radar and ecm etc.
So if we remove weapons and avionics from the equation (since they are of similar capabilities) tactics and pilot quality becomes the next factor. Im gonna ignore that one too though, because I strongly suspect that we will never agree on what country trains the better pilots :) (My bet is Israel though).
Hrm, I guess I'm rambling here, but if we remove all the above, what aircraft is the best fighter? I'd like to offer the JAS-39 as my bet. It is small, fast, agile, uses US weapons and (I think) British avionics. It was specifically built to be able to use the Swedish wartime air base-system so it has short take off and landing capability (where we move our airforce from the airfields and base our aircraft on highways to reduce vunerability). It has roughly the same speed as teh US fighters mentioned, and it will turn inside all of them (at least according to my sources).
-
All those fighters are more or less equal in performance... what really makes the difference is the peripheral infrastructure (intelligence, communications, signal processing, surveillance, target handover, jamming, etc.). On that basis, the F-15 will always come out on top.
-
Originally posted by Dux
All those fighters are more or less equal in performance... what really makes the difference is the peripheral infrastructure (intelligence, communications, signal processing, surveillance, target handover, jamming, etc.). On that basis, the F-15 will always come out on top.
Sounds to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of Navy infrastructure. IMNSHO, it's every bit as capable as USAF.
Oh... and which F/A-18 are we talking about? The F/A-18C/D is a completely different aircraft than the F/A-18E/F. The E/F isn't a modification of the C/D. It's an entirely different aircraft that happens to resemble the C/D.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sounds to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of Navy infrastructure. IMNSHO, it's every bit as capable as USAF.
Oh... and which F/A-18 are we talking about? The F/A-18C/D is a completely different aircraft than the F/A-18E/F. The E/F isn't a modification of the C/D. It's an entirely different aircraft that happens to resemble the C/D.
Did I see a little white hat spinning into the air?
:eek:
-
Mebbe a little...
Used to be in the Navy. I was an intercept controller (OS).
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Sounds to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of Navy infrastructure. IMNSHO, it's every bit as capable as USAF.
lol, I'm not picking sides as far as US interservice rivalry goes... I'm counting it all as one service. And in that context, I think the F-15 still has the slightest of advantages.
... and you'd be surprised as to what I have knowledge of. :)
-
Originally posted by Dux
lol, I'm not picking sides as far as US interservice rivalry goes... I'm counting it all as one service. And in that context, I think the F-15 still has the slightest of advantages.
... and you'd be surprised as to what I have knowledge of. :)
I can sum up the USAF advantage in one aircraft:
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e_3.jpg)
Then again, can't really call it an advantage... The USAF doesn't have any of these:
(http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ea-6b_7.jpg)
-
Yup, Sandman, that's very true. You'll be happy to know that the E-2C is now undergoing a MAJOR upgrade study, and will soon be just as capable as the E-3.
... that is, as capable as the E-3 is today... Muahahahahaha!
-
But... by then the Navy will probably have the Growler. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-18g.htm) :)
(http://www.boeingmedia.com/boeingmedia/img/R27t/R27ts.jpg)
-
hmmm i would have to say the up and coming joint assuault fighter or something like that cvant quit remembver the full name (supposed to be known as f 35 or something like htat i think)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
hmmm i would have to say the up and coming joint assuault fighter or something like that cvant quit remembver the full name (supposed to be known as f 35 or something like htat i think)
You mean the F35... Joint Strike Fighter.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf200.jpg)
-
yup thats the one
-
The one with me piloting it.
-
(http://www.pedalcarshop.com/sportracer.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, I guess I'll go first.
If we would compare western fighters though, we'll find that most of them use the same (US) weapons ...
Are you sure about that? :D
-
Pretty sure.
Why?
-
Never heard of the Gripen before. Nice plane.
-
http://www.rafale.com.sg/ (http://www.rafale.com.sg/)
:D
(http://www.rafale.com.sg/bw06.jpg)
(http://www.rafale.com.sg/pictures/28.jpg)
-
Gripens are cool. Great value for the money. When I build my own air force we will use those.
-
uh, Frenchy.
Doesn't the fact that it's a French plane disqualify it automatically?
Just askin. ;)
-
I used to think the F-18 was a step up/equivalent to the F-16. Well, after listening to friends who have worked on F-18s (crew chiefs, mechanics, armament folks)...the F-18 sure doesn't come off as "loved" by these guys. What's up with that? These guys do not know each other, its just interesting how all of these guys generally despise the damn plane. "flying parts" was a common mention :)
I was Air Force/Air National Guard in Otis and learned a lot about F-15s and was very impressed with their systems and capabilities. Maybe I'll buy one on eBay someday! :p :eek: :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
uh, Frenchy.
Doesn't the fact that it's a French plane disqualify it automatically?
Just askin. ;)
If you disregard all Americans who picked F, hell yeah!:cool:
Gripen is cool birdie, cheap and easy to maintain too, too bad 3 crashed thank to their on board FBW computer.
-
The good old Harrier turned out to be an air-to-air killer. Does it really not have a chance in here?
Good save the queen!
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I used to think the F-18 was a step up/equivalent to the F-16. Well, after listening to friends who have worked on F-18s (crew chiefs, mechanics, armament folks)...the F-18 sure doesn't come off as "loved" by these guys. What's up with that? These guys do not know each other, its just interesting how all of these guys generally despise the damn plane. "flying parts" was a common mention :)
Let's see... it replaced (or eventually will replace) the F-14 as a fighter and it replaced the A-6 as an attack platform...
Sure... it's a better bomber than an F-14 and a better fighter than an A-6, but... jack of all trades, master of none...
Oh... I remember the F-14 guys complaining about maintenance on the Tomcat as well...
"If the Tomcat isn't leaking, it's empty."
:D
-
the F-14D Tomcat would be my pick.. mach 2+ with tanks and full armaments loaded.. a combat range better than any USAF fighter...let alone it's potential adversarys.
it can stand off and engage up to 6 targets.. better than 100 miles out, well before they are aware they are targets.
at medium range, it's still in action with it's superb radars and upgraded sparrows.. still engaging the enemy before most of 'em can even determine there's an adversary in the neighborhood.
At close range in eyeball to eyeball ACM it can and does hold it's own.. easily the superior of the F15 eagle with it's sweep wing geometry, and packin a 20mm Vulcan cannon and forward quarter aim-9 sidewinders it's truly a squeak to mess with in a knife fight.
No airforce fighter platform can come close to it's targeting and flight to the fight abilities... yet it could easily do the job any airforce plane is tasked with.. air to air, or air to ground.
After 30 years there's a reason it's still in the inventory.. and still to this day engaging adversarys of the nation and the fleet. There's nothing better.. and likely never will be. The JSF will not have the range or weapons inventory the Tomcat has.. and as a result, the fleet will be more vulnerable when they are finally retired.
(http://www.voodoo.cz/tomcat/b/f14010.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
the F-14D Tomcat would be my pick.. mach 2+ with tanks and full armaments loaded.. a combat range better than any USAF fighter...let alone it's potential adversarys.
Mig-31? Speed M3+, ceiling 20600 metere and range of 3000k
(http://www.kkrva.se/images/kkrvaht/mig-31.jpg)
-
LOL! can that russian rocket land on a CV? With out any off platform help can it track 20+ targets and silmutaneously engage 6 of em better than 100 miles out?
That rooski popsickle stick may have a 2,400 mile range.. and fly better than mach 3 for maybe 300 miles of that.. but it's helpless without a GCA, and in a shooting fight with a tomcat it would never get within 100 miles of one.
yer bird was a bust the day it was made.. a flying drag racer, it was piteously incapable in ACM. It was designed to intercept a Valkerie or a SR71.. and it proved unable to do even that.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
the F-14D Tomcat would be my pick.. mach 2+ with tanks and full armaments loaded.. a combat range better than any USAF fighter...let alone it's potential adversarys.
it can stand off and engage up to 6 targets.. better than 100 miles out, well before they are aware they are targets.
at medium range, it's still in action with it's superb radars and upgraded sparrows.. still engaging the enemy before most of 'em can even determine there's an adversary in the neighborhood.
At close range in eyeball to eyeball ACM it can and does hold it's own.. easily the superior of the F15 eagle with it's sweep wing geometry, and packin a 20mm Vulcan cannon and forward quarter aim-9 sidewinders it's truly a squeak to mess with in a knife fight.
No airforce fighter platform can come close to it's targeting and flight to the fight abilities... yet it could easily do the job any airforce plane is tasked with.. air to air, or air to ground.
After 30 years there's a reason it's still in the inventory.. and still to this day engaging adversarys of the nation and the fleet. There's nothing better.. and likely never will be. The JSF will not have the range or weapons inventory the Tomcat has.. and as a result, the fleet will be more vulnerable when they are finally retired.
(http://helios.acomp.usf.edu/~slflores/YouWantMoreBaby.jpg)Note the Tomcat with a crutch, a sling, and seeing stars as an F-15 buzzes by ;)
F-15s have had no problem dispatching F-14s in simulated combat unless they got in both close and slow (as in less than 300 kts). Using AMRAAM, Eagle could theoretically engage 8 targets if all AMRAAMs are carried. The "100 mile shot" capability of the Phoenix system was a one time demonstration against a high-altitude, high-speed, straight line drone with a blip enhancer. The electronics on the latest upgraded F-15C Eagles are easily superior to the F-14D, especially the ECM. No US air-to-air fighters top the range of an Eagle with both CFTs and external fuel. The Eagle is still the fastest as well, and with the F100-220 engines still has the best T/W and climb performance. The swing wing does not give the F-14 any useful ability other than low speed cruising/endurance, it is mainly a weight penalty (it is still the heaviest of all the air-to-air fighters even though it doesn't carry as much internal fuel as an Eagle), which cripples it in comparison to other fighters with engines in the same class. The only aircraft an Eagle should fear are the later derivatives of the Su-27 which are getting comparable electronics to go with their superior flight performance.
-
I wouldnt go so far as to say that the Mig-31 is useless without GCA, it has an excellent onboard pulse doppler radar with true lookdown-shootdown capability, unlike its predecessor the Mig-25. Your remarks apply better to the the Mig-25 which was indeed designed to counter the Valkyrie. The Foxhound, however, is a substantial upgrade to the Mig-25, although it still leaves much to be desired. You are correct that it is better in straightline speed than in turning though. The manouverability of the Mig-31 is not good. Speed of the Mig-31 is NOT mach3+ though. Some of the recon versions of the Mig-25 could touch Mach 3 for a very short period, but the fighter versions of the Foxbat and the Foxhound, although still exceptionally fast at around Mach 2.5 cannot reach Mach 3.
Also, the F-14 is not more manouverable than the F-15. The Tomcat is the least manouverable of the teen fighters. In fact the current Tomcats are limited to 7.5 Gs. The F-15E is limited to 9G. The Eagle has the faster roll rate and the smaller turn circle. Acceleration of the Eagle is also better due to its better power to weight ratio. The only area of performance where the Tomcat is near equal is in low altitude top speed. The variable geometry wings help it in this flight regime. The Eagles greater power makes up for this to a large degree though.
The 14 and 15 have roughly equivalent capabilities in terms of radar and targeting. The Tomcat does have an advanced optical system for identifying air-to-air targets that the Eagle lacks, but the Eagle radar is better overall. The F-15E has terrain following radar that enables it to fly hands-off at extreme low level in any weather.
The F-14 has the advantage in terms of longest ranged weapon of course with the Phoenix, but the Phoenix is primarily a fleet defense weapon. The Phoenix isnt agile enough to deal with fighters well, not to mention that it costs too much to be used against fighters that pose no threat to the fleet. The AMRAAM and Sidewinder missiles are used by both aircraft so no relative advantages there. Both aircraft use a 20mm multi barrel cannon as well. The F-14 has recently become quite an accomplished ground attack aircraft, although it isnt in the same league as the Strike Eagle in this role.
I do agree however that the F-14 is a much better interceptor than the F-18 and that the fleet will be giving up some capability once the Tomcats are retired. The bottom line as to why they are going away is simply the cost. They are old, parts are scarce, and things are breaking on them much more than they used to. The wear and tear on the F-14s has been more than would have been the case for a land-based fighter due to the additional stress of operating from a carrier.
Having an all F-18 air wing will yield cost benefits in many areas. The downside is that the Hornets cant perform the anti-sea and tanker missions as well as the S3, the EW mission as well as the EA-6, the interceptor mission as well as the F-14, or the attack mission as well as the A-6. The fact that it can be configured to perform all those missions is simply amazing, and the Hornet is an awesome fighter plane, one of my favorites to be sure. However, the jack of all trades, master of none comment definitely applies here. The Hornets main weakness is its lack of range, which is a cardinal sin for a carrier based aircraft.
-
Henh. The tomcat is dated to be sure.. but to compare the original F14A to the current Eagles ain't exactly fair..
F14D
Maximum range: 1600 nm (2573km)
Combat radius: 578 miles (930 km)
Ceiling: 68,900 ft (21,000m)
Max. speed: 1,584 mph (2,548km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,200 m)
Internal fuel: 16, 200 lbs.
External fuel: 3, 800 lbs.
Function: Carrier-based multi-role strike fighter
Contractor: Grumman Aerospace Corporation
Unit Cost: $38 million
Propulsion:
F-14A: Two Pratt & Whitney TF-30P-414A turbofan engine with afterburners
F-14B and F-14D: Two General Electric F110-GE-400 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust:
TF-30P-414A: 20,900 pounds (9,405 kg) static thrust per engine
F110-GE-400: 27,000 pounds (12,150 kg) static thrust per engine
Length: 61 feet 9 inches (18.6 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.8 meters)
Weights: Empty: 41, 780 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 72,900 pounds (32,805 kg)
Wingspan: 64 feet (19 meters) unswept, 38 feet (11.4 meters) swept
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet
Speed: Mach 2+
Crew: Two: pilot and radar intercept officer
Armament: Up to 13,000 pounds to include AIM-54 Phoenix missile, AIM-7 Sparrow missile, AIM-9 Sidewinder missile, air-to-ground precision strike ordnance, and one M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon.
Date Deployed: First flight: December 1970
F15E Eagle:
Primary function: Tactical fighter
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Power plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust: (C/D models) 23,450 pounds each engine
Wing span: 42.8 feet (13 meters)
Length: 63.8 feet (19.44 meters)
Height: 18.5 feet (5.6 meters)
Speed: 1,875 mph (Mach 2.5 plus)
Maximum takeoff weight: (C/D models) 68,000 pounds (30,844 kilograms)
Ceiling: 65,000 feet (19,812 meters)
Range: 3,450 miles (3,000 nautical miles) ferry range with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Crew: F-15A/C: one. F-15B/D/E: two
Armament: One internally mounted M-61A1 20mm 20-mm, six-barrel cannon with 940 rounds of ammunition; four AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and four AIM-7F/M Sparrow air-to-air missiles, or eight AIM-120 AMRAAMs, carried externally.
Unit Cost: A/B models - $27.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars);C/D models - $29.9 million (fiscal 98 constant dollars)
Date deployed: July 1972
Inventory: Active force, 396; Reserve, 0; ANG,126.
--------------
On basic stats the two birds are very comparable.. the kitty, while a little bit heavier still has a better thrust to weight ratio and a very comparable radar suite... if both carried the same armament in a head to head engagement I'd still rather fly the Tomcat. Stripped down for a knife fight the kitty will kick the birds ass.
in any case.. even dated and tired, it still rates better than number 7 on yer list.
-
Hang you've been watching Top Gun over and over again too much. You're taking the Tom Cruise fetish too far this time.
Those figures are a bit misleading. F-15C weighs 16,000 lb less than F-14D with no stores and max internal fuel. With similar loads the kitty cannot touch the Eagle in T/W.
Climb rate, acceleration, maneuverability, top speed, avionics, pilot visibility. All in the favor of the Eagle. Kitty litter had better pray for a Fox 3 kill.
It's a nice JDAM hauler though. And obviously it has a passenger carrying advantage over the F-15C. :)
-
Durr wrote:
The Rafale will mostly replace this fighter in French service once it becomes operational
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/avions/rafale/images/avril2002_1.jpg)
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/avions/rafale/images/avril2002_7.jpg)
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/images/raf2.jpg)
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/avions/rafale/images/from-rafale13.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Henh. The tomcat is dated to be sure.. but to compare the original F14A to the current Eagles ain't exactly fair..
F15E Eagle:
Power plant: Two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or 229 turbofan engines with afterburners
Thrust: (C/D models) 23,450 pounds each engine
It is also unfair to use the F-15E when talking air to air since it weighs more. Without CFT's or drop tanks, F-15C weighs about 44,635 at takeoff with full internal fuel. F-14 in a similar condition is well over 50,000 lbs and has less internal fuel. Also, look up the thrust for the -229 engine, its just a bit more than the old -220 (around 28 to 29000 lbs each) :p Eagles were held back from being re-engined because even with the old -220, they still had decent T/W, whereas the F-14 and F-16 received priority since they were getting too heavy with "improvements". I have never heard of any American aircraft in service that had more T/W and could outclimb the Eagle.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Gripens are cool. Great value for the money. When I build my own air force we will use those.
Hehe.. can I be a l33t f1g|-|t3r p10l3t in your air force when you build it?
With me leading a squadron we can take over any country we want!
How's Bolivia sound? http://www.scramble.nl/bo.htm
:)
-SW
-
We'll annex Puerto Rico first. Then Bolivia. Zen zee verld!
-
Gripen taking off from a road:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/nato/hi_res/take_off_road_hi.jpg)
Gripen landing on a road:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/high_res/Gripen_P_G_2002_9.jpg)
Gripen cockpit:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/nato/hi_res/Dig024004-B_hi.jpg)
Gripen at a road base in the forest:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/nato/hi_res/road_base_hi.jpg)
Gripen with Maverick, DWS39 and Sidewinder:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/high_res/Gripen_P_G_2002_5.jpg)
Gripen formation over Visby, Sweden:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/high_res/Gripen_P_G_2002_10.jpg)
Gripen in-flight refueling:
(http://www.gripen.com/images/high_res/Gripen_P_G_2002_21.jpg)
Sorry for posting so many images, I hope nobody minds :-)
-
DANG we've got a great looking fighter in our airforce *proud*
-
You guys should read the new issue of "Flight Journal" to see the evaluation of the F-16 vs F-18 from the pilot's perspective and AtoA combat.
-
All other factors equal (which of course they are not) there are other very important considerations regarding military aricraft. Ruggedness and maintainability are not the least of which. All US military aircraft are designed and built with this in mind. What good is a hot new fighter or bomber if ya can't generate the sorties ya need?
-
Originally posted by streakeagle
It is also unfair to use the F-15E when talking air to air since it weighs more. Without CFT's or drop tanks, F-15C weighs about 44,635 at takeoff with full internal fuel. F-14 in a similar condition is well over 50,000 lbs and has less internal fuel. Also, look up the thrust for the -229 engine, its just a bit more than the old -220 (around 28 to 29000 lbs each) :p Eagles were held back from being re-engined because even with the old -220, they still had decent T/W, whereas the F-14 and F-16 received priority since they were getting too heavy with "improvements". I have never heard of any American aircraft in service that had more T/W and could outclimb the Eagle.
But none of that matters as F-15's don't land on carriers.
-
Where is this f-15 thread?
-
there's an La9 replica that just had its first engine run. Do you get where I'm aiming with this? :)
-
they just need to figure out a way to keep those f14s from augering all the time. every 6 months you hear about one crashing.
-
Served on two CVN's, in S3 squadron.
Some notes on F18s: ( only C/Ds in my time )
Range is short, and i mean really short.
Any mission will more then likely be flown with DTs which negates couple of arming points.
In 94 we had F14s frequently fly bombing missions while 18s flew escort, because 18 couldn't carry a decent number of bombs and DTs at the same time, and air opposition wasn't really expected.
18E/F has more fuel capacity but also larger engines so the range isn't increased significantly. But it does have two extra pylons for payload, no doubt for expected DT usage.
18 is indeed a jack of all trades and master of none. Medicore at best.
I doubt if it will be able to replace EA6Bs capability in the future. Seeing as F14s are bombing it obviously didn't fill in A6Es shoes very well.
As for S3s, that's a whole different story. Different mission, different plane.
-
Well, since this thread got resurrected, I guess there's no harm in me pointing out that the F-15C Eagle and the F-15E Strike Eagle are two completely different planes. The Eagle is an air-superiority fighter, whereas the Strike Eagle is primarily an air-to-mud plane. Also, I know this thread was started almost a year ago, but can we now include the F-22 on the list? They're already starting to train up operational units, shouldn't be too much longer before we see them in combat.
(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/images/c12-27430-4.jpg)
-
For lopsided budgets I'd go with the f22 or the f15.....
On the cheap there no question the Mig 29 fulcrum... with the f16 a close second..
The cost of those aircraft is about half to 1/3 of that of those advanced avionics fighters...
Not to say those advanced fighters arn't worth the cost.. Modern air combat avionics and radars have proven their weight on the battlefield...
Given equal money I'd go with mass over quality...
having a 3 to 1 advantage exponentially hurts the quality guys worse for every aircraft downed.. also you can cover more air with more fighters... Given a good forward radar system those inferior aircraft can still be directed onto target and as noted earlier seeing the enemy first is the most important part of modern air combat. IMO....
so in a flight on flight sortie no forward radar the f15's f14's etc... with there onboard radars rule the battlefield...
but when faced with a non air superiority situation I'd take mass everytime..
2 cents..
BTW you should check out the AOA of the fulcrum... its down right silly... Only thing that can touch it in a knifefight is maybe vectored thrust birds...
DoctorYO
-
Uhh and I thought that F14's were only Standoff platforms for those big A/A phoenix missiles. "Shooting a Bear out of the woods", so to speak :)
-
http://www.eurofighter.com/typhoon/costhome.asp this is interesting, click on 'Affordable Air Dominance'.
That gripen is a really nice looking plane!
heres the Eurofighter Typhoon
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/images/ef2000_8.jpg)
(http://www.imagepark.de/efpublic/html/pic_jpeg/gl-020592.jpg)
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Served on two CVN's, in S3 squadron.
As for S3s, that's a whole different story. Different mission, different plane.
VS-32 Baby! (1982-1985/ two IO/Med cruises USS America)
Did ya see Naval Wings on The History Channel that showcased the S-3B?
Was too cool watchin' that turbofanned slung beastie firing Air to Air missiles, Harpoons then droppin' eggs, torps, and mines. :D
And where's the love for the F-111?
-
Originally posted by milnko
VS-32 Baby! (1982-1985/ two IO/Med cruises USS America)
Hey small world. Just missed you. Probably made some of the same workups in '85.
VF-33 "Starfighters" (1985-88/one NATO/Med cruise USS America)
CVW-1 Baby!
-Smut
-
Smut (shipmate!)
My last workup aboard the AMERICA ended in England in Sept. 1985, my wife was expecting twins, so when we pulled into Portsmouth I took leave, went up to Midenhall RAF base and hopped a flight home insteada ridin' the boat back.
Quite an adventure in itself, but to make a long story short I arrived in Jacksonville, with just enough time for the wife to pick me up, drive me home, get in bed, and to start her labor! That's right, no sooner my head hits the pillow than she wakes me to run her to the hospital. :eek:
You know us NAVY types, it's all about timing! :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Mig-31 carries the most powerful radar of any fighter (record previouslly held by Mig-25), the electronically scanned phased-array SBI 16 Zaslon "Flash Dance" with a tracking range of 124 miles.
You mean "most powerful radar of any Soviet fighter"...the AWG-9 in the F-14A is quite a bit more powerful than the MiG-31's. By "more powerful" I mean in terms of raw radar power out, as well as radar signal processing power. Max STT range for the AWG-9 is also a great deal further, as one might expect.
The APG-71 in the F-14D puts out the same power as the AWG-9, but has greatly improved signal processing. Draw from that whatever conclusions you wish.
-Smut
-
Luftwaffe Mig29s tear up U.S. F16s all the time. Helmet mounted IR missle seeker is a MAJOR advantage.
-
Holy disappearing posts!
Hey Smut... which Jane's production was it that you worked on? Did you handle the technical reference / data / performance aspect of things there?
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Cerceuilvolant
Durr wrote:
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/avions/rafale/images/avril2002_1.jpg)
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/avions/rafale/images/avril2002_7.jpg)
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/images/raf2.jpg)
(http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/embarque/galerie/heracles/avions/rafale/images/from-rafale13.jpg)
LOL that French Rafale will kick the Eurotyphoon's ass/arse
-
Is there a fighter out there with good avionics, weapons, speed and agility that even a poor country can own it and maintain it?
-
OMG, look at those migs. I want I want!
:D
-
The best ride in the world. 80,000 ft at mach 3.2.
:)
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/edgeofspace.html
Check out the prices here...
http://www.voentour.com/mhp/flight.shtml
http://www.voentour.com/mhp/MiG_25.shtml
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
LOL that French Rafale will kick the Eurotyphoon's ass/arse
BS it will, helmet mounted targeting system and new ASRAAM missiles will own. Eurofighter Typhoon much better performance and more advanced systems too.
-
Originally posted by Furball
BS it will, helmet mounted targeting system and new ASRAAM missiles will own. Eurofighter Typhoon much better performance and more advanced systems too.
Hell NO!:D
-
Originally posted by Furball
BS it will, helmet mounted targeting system and new ASRAAM missiles will own. Eurofighter Typhoon much better performance and more advanced systems too.
A few years back I used to play EF2000, the Typhoon sim, with... get this... a VFX-1 Virtual Reality Headset.
Helmet mounted target acquisition was interesting. You could mark the target before it came into the missiles firing 'cone', and release as soon as it was 'in'. Quite a fun sim, esp if you had a VR Headset which the game supported natively :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
A unique feature of the Mig-31 is its ability to coordinate a four-ship formation through a digital data-link. Four Mig-31s can link their radars together, to establish a search pattern covering a width of 800-900 km with four aircraft, spaced at 200 km. Each aircraft can engage four targets simultaneously.
This sounds suspiciously like FDL (Fighter Data Link), which our planes use all the time.
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
This sounds suspiciously like FDL (Fighter Data Link), which our planes use all the time.
that doesnt mean the soviets copied it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm sorry but you are plain wrong with regard to the power output. The AWG-9 has a power output of 10.2 kilowatt vs. the Zaslon's 14+ kilowatt. The Zaslon also has an almost 50% larger antennae with a diameter of 1.4 meters. Signal prossecing superiority goes to the AWG-9 as with most if not all US/Russian comparisons. The (upgraded) AWG-9 can track 24 targets and engage 6, the Zaslon can track 10 and engage 4.
I'm a little curious why the Su-30M(K)(I)(K) hasn't been included. It is by far the most capable evolution of the Su-27 and is in service with the airforces of three countries.
The Su-30M is a two-seat version of the basic Su-27 airframe, has an upgraded Zaslon radar (of the Mig-31) that can track 20 targets and engage 8 simultaneously, has a rearward facing NO12 radar with a tracking range of 50 km/31 miles and can deploy the R-73RDM2 (AA-11 Archer B) missile which can engage targets in the rear hemisphere.
The Su-30M is the superfighter of today which incorporate many features from the Su-35/37 project. With radar capabilities similar of the F-14 plus rearward facing radar, better maneuvreability than most figthers with thrustvectoring jet nozzles, and a wide range of weapons. It's a lot better in the air-mud role than previous Russian interceptors aswell.
IAF(India) Su-30MKI's.
(http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/Su_30/big/su30K_1.jpg)
(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Current/Su-30/Su-30w.jpg)
Su-30M fiering a R-73RMD2.
(http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/R-73.gif)
(http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/Images/R-73A.jpg)
Front cockpit of Su-30MKK (Chinese).
(http://www.duffeyk.fsnet.co.uk/cockpits_files/su-30mkk-front.jpg)
Rear cockpit of Su-30MKK (Chinese)
(http://www.duffeyk.fsnet.co.uk/cockpits_files/su-30mkk-back.jpg)
Thrustvectoring nozzles.
(http://legion.wplus.net/guide/air/i/su30mk-1.jpg)
The Su-30MK(I) is what I consider the most stunninglly beautiful fighter yet seen, especially the way the cockpit blends with the fuselage.
(http://www.military.cz/russia/air/suchoj/Su_30/big/su30MKI_1.jpg)
Absolutelly stunning! :)
(http://www.ef2000.de/images/su30_12.jpg)
LOL whats the point of selling SU-37 if the SU-30 MKI comes with thrust vector nossles, good avionics, and better weapons
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, "all the time" is perhaps an overstatement. The Link-16 became operational (in fighters) in what? 2001? 2002?
Anyways, the Link-16 is a much more capable system in the C2 role, capable of sharing information with many platforms. However the Mig-31 data-link is a C3 system. The flight leader does not just get information from the other planes, but actually controls their radars and weapon systems so that each Mig-31 tracks 10 different targets and egages 4 different targets. The Flight leader has a different data-link to share information with ground controllers and AWACs.
This is actually a re-visit of an old Russian concept. The Mig-17P was controlled (on autopilot) by ground controlers and maneuvered in position to fire its four K-5 missiles. The Mig-17P could also be landed by remote if the pilot was incapacitated. The Mig-29, Su-27/30/33 etc. and Mig-31 have a similar remote-control system.
Ok, there's a very good chance you're right, you seem to know much more about these systems than I do. All I know is that when our Eagles are using FDL, combined with this:
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e_3.jpg)
There's not very much out there that they're afraid of.
-
GScholz are you aware of the networking capabilities of the F-22? Tell me more about that if you can.
One thing that I never hear much about this in these conversations is the thrust vectoring ability of the F-22. I have seen some footage of these things doing really evil maneuvers, almost as extreme as what the X-31 could do. Anybody have more info on this?
I had an opportunity to get a real good look at the YF-22 at the USAF Museum, when it first arrived and they hadn't roped it off. They said don't touch but I couldn't help myself. Absolutely the most beautiful airplane I have ever seen. The manufacturing on that thing is incredible. Some of the parts look like they belong on a UFO.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Holy disappearing posts!
Hey Smut... which Jane's production was it that you worked on? Did you handle the technical reference / data / performance aspect of things there?
MiniD
I was part of the EA Baltimore team that created Jane's F-15 and Jane's F/A-18. I was a Designer on F-15, and Lead Designer for F/A-18. A great deal of what I did was to gather and translate technical data into game terms.
-Smut
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm sorry but you are plain wrong with regard to the power output. The AWG-9 has a power output of 10.2 kilowatt vs. the Zaslon's 14+ kilowatt. The Zaslon also has an almost 50% larger antennae with a diameter of 1.4 meters. Signal prossecing superiority goes to the AWG-9 as with most if not all US/Russian comparisons. The (upgraded) AWG-9 can track 24 targets and engage 6, the Zaslon can track 10 and engage 4.
As a former F-14 maintainer that has had access to Jane's Information Group data and analysts, I stand by my earlier post.
-Smut
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, "all the time" is perhaps an overstatement. The Link-16 became operational (in fighters) in what? 2001? 2002?
Your knowledge of western systems is lacking. The USN had fighter to fighter data link (not Link-16, but very capable nonetheless) in the F-14A in the mid-80's (ASW-27C).
JTIDS became operational in the early 90's in the F-14D as well as other platforms.
-Smut
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes that is true, but as far as I know those systems only shared information between C3 platforms (E-2, E-3, GC and ships) and the figthers. Not between the fighters. Nor could the fighters use the shared information for targeting purposes, they had to use their own sensors.
Again, I'm relying on textbook info here, and I'm not an expert in any of these technologies ... just and enthusiast.
Fair enough. Just to be clear, I'm not an operator or an engineer. I'm a senior reliability & maintainability engineering technician. (Try saying that three times fast). So I can be wrong too. ;)
The fighter to fighter data link capability in the ASW-27C allowed targets to be shared between fighters. Our squadron used it to good effect during Red Flag in 1987...much to the dismay of the F-15's we were up against. :)
JTIDS could do all that and more. JTIDS didn't really catch on because the terminal cost was high, and it was coming out during the big post coldwar draw down. The latest Link-16 system to become operational is MIDS, which I'm not fully up to speed on to be honest. These days I mostly worry about whether or not the systems I support (F/A-18 COMM and ID) are MIDS-compatable. MIDS is multi-national, and my MIDS counterpart has gotten some good travel out of that program...but the development / deployment process has been, shall we say, less than smooth. :eek: The sheer scope of of the MIDS program, at least on the F/A-18 side, is very impressive.
-Smut
-
GScholz, when's the next Harpoon game gonna ship?
I remember playing H1 on an Amiga 500. At accelerated time (max), it still ol did 1 second at a time.
Got Harpoon 2, that was the last Harpoon game I played.
-
The Eurofighter Typhoon Helmet Equipment Assembly represents the state-of-the-art for Helmet Mounted Displays. It incorporates a Helmet Tracking System (HTS) which effectively informs the aircraft system where the pilot is looking. Modern head tracking systems provide better than one degree of accuracy at all viewing angles. This means that the Eurofighter Typhoon pilot can direct missiles to look in the direction of a target and the missile can then be locked on to that target. The pilot can maintain the target visually and designate the target even at angular extremes such as the elusive "over the shoulder" shot. The HMS therefore truly provides a 'look and shoot' capability.
here is a good link where it compares F-22, eurofighter, Rafale, F-15, F-16 and F-18. It also allows you to enter specific criteria to find the most suitable a/c (such as supercruise, A2G etc.)
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.html
-
If the Tornado ADV is such an outclassed fighter, why did it frequently smack the arses of the USAF in the Red Flag exercises? :p
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You are absolutelly right Sir. Command and control is the deciding factor of modern air combat. Gulf War I (air war) would have been won even if the US used F4 Phantom II's.
Which of course we did.
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/ww.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Tell me ... do you have any info on the C2/C3 capabilities of the F-22? (that will not get you sacked for sharing). Would it surprise you that my favorite game is Harpoon? :D
Unfortunately, I don't know much about the F-22 aside from what is public knowledge. That is a USAF program. The JSF will most likely build upon certain F-22 systems, but I've seen very little on the JSF CNI suite so far. My JSF brethern work out of a different building and I haven't been able to get the full scoop yet.
I have seen both the X-32 and X-35 in person though. Both aircraft were still at Pax the last I knew but I don't get over to the hanger they are in much these days.
Now that you mention Harpoon, I realize I never got my beta copy of H4. One of my former coworkers is now a producer at Ubisoft. Guess I need to give him a call... :)
-Smut
-
Is there any other cheap fighter that is easy to maintain besides the F-5A/E?
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-5e-DN-ST-94-00669.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-5e-DF-ST-91-10771.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-5a-DF-ST-91-10772.jpg)
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-5e-DN-ST-93-03365.jpg)
cockpit of the F-5E (this needs and extensive upgrade)
(http://www.sintrade.ch/bilder/tiger37032.jpg)
This is the F-5A/E with glass upgrades
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractor_images/elbit/elbit2.jpg)
-
the MiG-21 is the best but can those upgrades shoot down F-15s :D
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There are many upgrades available for older jets of all makes. The most "prominent" upgrade projects are perhaps of the old Mig-21 since some 3000 Mig-21's are still in service around the world.
Mig-21 Lancer upgrade (Romania/France):
(http://www.mig-21.de/Bilder/Paris99_2.jpg) (http://www.mig-21.de/Bilder/KabineLancerC.jpg)
Mig-21 2000 (Israel)
(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig21/images/mig21_3.jpg) (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig21/images/iai3.jpg)
Mig-21-93 (Russia)
(http://www.tayyareci.com/rus-ucaklari/images/rus-images/mig21_93ek.JPG) (http://www.tayyareci.com/rus-ucaklari/images/rus-images/kokpitler/mig/Mig-21-93.JPG)
... now if you compare those to the original Mig-21 Bis cockpit ... eh ... well it speaks for itself.
(http://www.tayyareci.com/rus-ucaklari/images/rus-images/kokpitler/mig/Mig21bis.jpg) ;)
The F-5E looks "cleaner" and "neater" than the MiG-21 but the F-5E cant go mach 2:(
-
The really good stuff is always kept secret from the public.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project152.html
(http://www.inettek.com/stuff/aurora.gif)