It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

page: 15
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:
E_T

posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dima
for the AMRAAM, maybe you mean that it has a passive seeker, the AA-12 also has that, actually, F-15 pilots mentioned that when they went up against the Indian aircraft in COPE India, they never knew when they were being illuminated...

I just wonder how many "conflicting" errors you can put in so short text.


AMRAAM is active radar homing missiles meaning that it doesn't require painting of target from launch aircraft, leaving it free to start evading contact or engage other targets.

In particular it's passive radar homing missiles which force launch aircraft to paint target continuously (ST/single target ~ continuous track radar mode) with painting causing every warning light in target to "blink like christmas tree"and leaving plane vulnerable and unable to use its radar to scan for/track others targets.




posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Awww c'mon man !!! Now your pulling rabbits outve a hat again!!...IMHO Indians are the best MiG 29 pilots and the PAF is quite good with its F-16s too..so that would be a good match-up..The RSAF F-16s were also put up against IAF jets but the damn results are classified!!!!

also this flip many switches thing sounds a little funny to be true..you got sources on that reaction time comparision between russian and american jets???


I think you're just biased because you're Indian. Your airforce still probably isn't even in the top 10 overall. Most European airforces are better. China is equal, if not better. Israel is better.

As for the flipping switch statement, just read my source. If you don't like it, look up the exercises yourself. You can find the same thing from a number of other sources.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Disturbed your right, pilot wise, Isreali AF is quite good.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Really, what would you guys rank Israeli AF pilots on the 10 list?

And when people talk about the U.S. having the best pilots some seem to only focus on the USAF... You know that the USN pilots are even better... They constantly come out the victor in 'war games' and that’s with slightly inferior equipment then the comparable airforce pilots have to work with.



posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I've always placed the Israelis number one in pilot capability.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
The cost of the MKI you have stated is completely wrong

Indian-built Su-30s will cost only about $22.5 million a unit against the current import price of about $37.5 million


The price I had given is the correct price for the Mk.3 configuration, recently certified, which is the final build of the MKI. The current foriegn built MKIs that have been inducted are first two configurations, which have considerably more foreign components, and lack full compatability with LGBs, long range precision armaments, as well as limited avionics and role capabilities. The 140 HAL-built MKIs will be of the Mk3. version.


also, i am biwildered that you are unaware that the indigenously built MKI's have alredy been handed over to the Air force :

First home-built Sukhoi-30 MKI handed over to Air Force


?
I had not said anything to the contrary...



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Honestyl guys i dont wanna sound like an AMERICAN fanatic but.... Some of u put russian aircraft on top of lists as if they almmost match American Fighters or even Western Fighters in General. America didnt build the f/a 22 to stay ahead of Russia are u kidding me. They created it so they can stay ahead in general and take their aging planes. If any one is feeling threatned its russia... Look at all these new planes their coming out with. I can honestly say my real and paper stats that even the f 14 today can still match any NEW russian fighter. Even if u put 5 su -47 against 5 f14 i gaurentee that the f 14 will win and still have half still remainin if not all.

For futrue aircrafts id say

1 F22
2 Typhoon (im european and still edgy on this one)
3 Rafale (u guys think its bad but read books more than the internet and ull see)
4 Grippen (TO me this is the western version of Migs or Sukhois)
5 Su-47 (Russia always over exagertates their planes)(its always good on paper but truthfully russias moto has always been Quantity is its own Quality)

Now for my real list (i dont even belieave even future aircrafts are better than Americas ageing aircrafts)

1 f22 raptor
2 f18 superhornet (come on guys its replacing The best record Fighter the f15)
3 F15 (god its recordsays it all)
4 F14 or f16 Hmm ones a really excellent long range fighter(f14) and ones the STANDARD for modern fighters (F16 no lie!)
6 f35 (dont really care about it cause its more for export and its a jsf)
7 Rafale (Honestly this plane is better than the Typhoon)
8 Typhoon
9 Su47 or Mig 35 (hmmm looks like more planes being made for poor countries)
10 Grippen

I dont mean to look like anti russian or anything sorry if i put a no it all tone or a mean tone in general.

O yeah the guy that only looks at russian planes... the t-50 is a trainer plane made for SOUTH KOREA by KIA which is like the break OFF of LOCKHEED USA is helpin to make that plane. AND the MIG AT is also a TRAINER so please read carefully and read books versus internet. The internet facts are to one sided. If everyone remebers the MIG 29( was supposed to be an amazin fighter NOW look at Now they consider it TO be VERY UNSOPHistacted. Which to me Russia only has nice missles. But their GUNS TANKS FIGHTERS BOMBERS their all unsophistacted or TO over exagerated

AND KENshin i dont wanna start trouble but U AND UR RUSSIAN TECH SUCKZ and if u didnt no RUSSIA isnt communist anymore it collapsed bye bye! U lost the COld WAR and RUSSIA is still LOSING BY A LONG SHOT and they are just survivng by stealin everything everyone makes and like pirating and counterfiting and basically doing every criminal procedure in the book. ALSO if third world countries didnt exist WHO!? would by their planes or in that matter anything?????? exactly!

And The typhoon is being over exagerated... i mean for all the countries that partnered for one plane... its like they just caught up to the f14... okay it might be better than the f 14 MAYBE HA! and just so everyone noes, in those fighter war games (sorry i dont no the name) the f22 took out 5 typhoons!






[edit on 8-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
I hope you don't mind me having a little poke at all that, I know you're new and it's nothing personal but I can't let these things go unchallenged





Even if u put 5 su -47 against 5 f14 i gaurentee that the f 14 will win and still have half still remainin if not all.


Now, this is a very hefty claim to make, I'll wager that Grumman made no such guarantee to the USN or IRIAF at any time while selling them Tomcats, if only I was in a position to accept your guarantee and put it to the test! The early Flankers were roughyl on a par with the F-14 and F-15, capability wise, the latest Flankers are vastly superior to the old ones, the F-15 has recieved a little further development, but not enough to threaten the F-22 programme but the F-14 remained pretty much static in terms of combat capability. The USN doesn't just junk the 'best fighterr in the world' for nothing you know, though I would still put it ahead of ANY variant of the F-18, which appears to win out today chiefly of grounds of cost and maintainability.




2 f18 superhornet (come on guys its replacing The best record Fighter the f15)


Well, apart from the fact that it actually isn't replacing the F-15 at all, this claim is no guarantee of success. You know what the next fighter was that Supermarine supplied to the RAF after the legendary and immortal Spitfire?

It was the Swift F.1, it went into service with 56 Sqn RAF in 1953 and had been retired and scrapped as a fighter within a year. The moral here is don't judge a plane by what it has replaced.




6 f35 (dont really care about it cause its more for export and its a jsf)


If you look it up you'll see that the US forces are buying more F-35's than all its exports added together, also what does 'its a JSF' mean? what do you percieve 'a JSF' to be?




Rafale (Honestly this plane is better than the Typhoon)


signed 'the ghost of Marcel Dassault'
The Rafale is great and gorgeous, I really like it, but there is not one thing that the Typhoon has been designed to do that the Rafale does better, except maybe 'look sexy'. It has a shorter range, it is slower and has a lower max payload and it has less installed power, however they weren't designed to the exact same specification anyway so there will be differences, thats to be expected.


8 Typhoon

Right, I'm supposing that, this being in your second list, you are talking about the tranche one versions in service at the moment which are still working up to capability, right? If so thats fair enough, I'll let it go. HOWEVER, you still put the F-22 top, despite it being in exactly the same condition of new aircraft in service working up to full capability, are you sure? If you are taking current conditions into account surely the fully operational and fully cleared F-16 and F-15 shuld rank above it, if not the F-18E too? Sure, only temporarily, but if Typhoon only scored 8th?


I've missed out any quote from the section where you tried not to look anti Russian, it would have been too easy



And The typhoon is being over exagerated... i mean for all the countries that partnered for one plane... its like they just caught up to the f14... okay it might be better than the f 14 MAYBE HA! and just so everyone noes, in those fighter war games (sorry i dont no the name) the f22 took out 5 typhoons!


So why do you put it at No 2 in your other list, were you lying? You also seem to think that the five nations collaborated in order to match the tech of the F14, oops, completely wrong. No, the five nations between them require around 600 aircraft, therefore one plane is economically viable where five different ones at an average of 120 planes each is not, yes? it also means a single aircraft in the market for the Europeans (well two with Rafale) instead of three or four fighters selling against each other. This is the reason that the Typhoon is multi national. The one area it trails the F-14 is range (as does everything else) you may choose to see this as a failing, or you might like to look into the actual requirement it was designed to.

I know, why not read a few books on the subject



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Thanks waynos, for saving others from the tedious task of answering the above piece of art. That guy sounds a lot like George W. I think it's him posting on ATS under a pseudonym. I mean, the IQ's match... and the guy is really patriotic 'n stuff... must be George W.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
WORLD'S BEST AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER OF 2012-
www.rense.com...

The AirBorne Laser will dominate the skies because there is no mad dog vulnerability inherent to a missile flung into an engagement condition which TOF varies from the moment of firing to endgame in terms of friendly and enemy posiitionings in the target cube of airspace. And also due to the nature of it's 'primary' target (TBM/IRBM)whoe fleeting nature and protection by a high energy plasma 'shield' of hypersonic flow makes them vastly harder to kill than conventional aircraft. Indeed, if you can hardkill a ballistic missile during initial burn at 400km, you can at least mission kill an aircraft (which isn't going anywhere fast) at LINE OF SIGHT. Which for a 747 at 40,000ft may well be 800-1,000km.

SECOND THRU SIXTH BEST AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS-
www.airforce-technology.com...
web.tiscali.it...
www.tekmicro.com...
www.fas.org...
www.beanerbanner.com...

As much if not more than ECM pods and BVR weapons, these are the 'American Express' guarantee of a return home. Because they point you in the right direction and they map out as much as suppress the threat EOB.

SEVENTH THRU TENTH BEST AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTERS-
www.designation-systems.net...
www.eads.net...
www.milavia.net...
www.symetrics.com...

All of the above represent /enabler/ systems which alter the nature of air to air warfare from one of Battleship played as Chess to one of true tactical dominance _through virtual presence_ as a function of standoff and total-volume awareness.

Specifically, to remain safe from attacks originating out of Airbase X, you no longer have to 'fire blind salvos' of covering sorties into proximity with it's baselane exits to guarantee engagement as little better than pawns and knights fighting only when in the same 'square' of engagement airspace.

If you leave the battlefield empty if not uncontested, you don't have to suppress any and all threats _along the route to_ secondary mission targets necessary to gain air supremacy. While all defensive threats must come an increasing distance TO YOU in exposing themselves and limiting their lethality modifiers.

The ability to reach out and touch air threats without commiting to a closing fight removes much of the tactical elements of surprise and maneuver inherent to A2A (and what defines the 'best fighter'). _And that's a good thing_.

To which I can only add this-

'Air Superiority' is a mission set which is-

Flown 70%
Maneuvered 20%
Fought 10%

This means if you have aircraft X available in theater to some 250 total airframes and aircraft Y available only to some 60-90 airframes. Aircraft X _will be_ your defacto 'air superiority' aircraft.

A. Because it will be the one most likely to be encountered by the enemy.
B. Because it will be the one most likely to be carrying bombs (destroying other
fighters is the least useful of support mission kills, when you can choose...)
C. Because the limited sortie counts generated daily by Y will tend to dictate
a thin 'barrier' engagement model whereby you place CAP and sweep
components over the battlefield, only so long as is necessary to gain entry for
the air to ground package which must 'self defend' (against leakers and
roadbase threats) on the way in.
D. Because, in the prestealth days, Air Superiority configured jets like the F-15
could not defend themselves against the predominant S2A threat. And in the
modern scenario, stealth may itself be so advantageous as to require
nominally A2A platforms to be fragged to attack fleeting (time sensitive)
targets /before/ the onset of a primary raid causes them to scoot away from
associated signature zones.

CONCLUSION:
Any fighter can beat any other, if it has the dominant awareness and positioning and weapons systems to make the kill. Physical performance and even to an extent pilot skill means little or nothing if you have those three basic advantages. But ONLY those fighters which can survive over a deep enemy IADS will likely be anything but defensive against the predominantly S2A threat over which they _must fly_ to not only 'kick the door in'. But to hold it open while the rest of the subsonic followon package force arrives.
It is because of these conditions that probably the best Air Superiority platform of the 1960's and 70's was the F-4. Because it had the gas and the ECM and the A2G options to swing between strike and suppression and 'pure' A2A. While also having the tri-service _numbers_ of shared performance profile to be supplied on an ad-hoc basis of covering similar missions (Marine F-4J doing HAVCAP so as to release USN and USAF Rhinos over the Northern RPs). To which I would additionally state that a second crewman in bad weather or night conditions is still preferrable for task saturation reasons.
Especially in the early 1980's there was no all-doing air superiority fighter because the F-15's ECM/EXCM suite was too primitive to take the fight to the enemy over NATO and the lack of decent missiles prevented the use of it's massive aperture as a standoff missileer. Something which the existence of only 2 Eagle's Nests in CNA and Bitburg more or less acknowledged as throwaway forces.
In the 1990's, with the advent of AMRAAM, the F110-129 and the Mini-D mods for HARM and HTS, the F-16C.50 was the most sought after penetrating air superiority platform because it was the only one which could chase Serb and Iraqi fighters back over the bryar patch of frequent SAM traps.
Today, the reigning champion is the F-22. But it exists in such limited numbers that there is no reason to believe that it will be an effective Air Superiority platform, particularly while escorting virtual cripples of signature and limited performance inherent to the Teen Generation (3rd) and some VLO
assets.
This leaves the flying gas can known as the F-35 to exploit the so-called netcentric system of engagement to gain dominant kills with only 2 AIM-120 onboard. As long as netcentricity survives, so too will the F-35 be able to deny enemy engagement in a manner which more or less allows it to 'stage' a one sided loss exchange ratio. If Netcentrics are threatened, either through advances in threat LO detection thresholds. Or by overwhelming shove-back threat to the support mission platforms themselves. The F-35 will not be able to match the F-16's record as a successful-on-it's-own 'self escorting' strike fighter. Indeed, we may well be back to blind man's grope to fights which will have a statistically large chance of closing to ranges at which 2 missiles is not enough to determine survivable odds. At that point, air combat will likely devolve to ATL type laser warfare to make sure only one side's AAM survive to reach terminals.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
ch1466,

by all your talk and by all your links, its only past/present/future 'american planes' no talk of any other aircraft, why??

what about the shenyang J-XX, Su-47 Berkut, Mikoyan Project 1.44, Sukhoi PAK FA

at present, the typhoon can pretty much do 90% of what the f-22 can do and its 4 times cheaper.

also by reading your previous other posts you don't like the f-35 (jsf) why might this be, is it because other nations are involved?







[edit on 9-6-2006 by Sepiroth]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
Thanks waynos, for saving others from the tedious task of answering the above piece of art. That guy sounds a lot like George W. I think it's him posting on ATS under a pseudonym. I mean, the IQ's match... and the guy is really patriotic 'n stuff... must be George W.


Are u guys kiddin? i didnt see this guy even say one fact true.
1.He said what does jdf mean??? it means jsf what the hell else... its a JOINT strike fighter not essentially an air superioty fighter so give ur self a brake.

2. "early Flankers were roughyl on a par with the F-14 and F-15, capability wise,"
Man are u kiddin? who gave u this kind of lie??? The f-14 can take it out 100 miles away at tops~~~!
Their trashing the so called best figher because stuff gets old and out dated... Why refurbish old when u can create new?????
Your think the f-18 only would be ahead cause its cost and maintainability??>>> cant think of one, we always improve.

4. Ok your right that the typhoon does do things better than the rafela BUT ITS defintly vice versa. LEts see some rafela stats |everything next are facts| -------

max speed of raf 1321 max speed of typ 1321
combat radius 655 (wins) 345
Service ceiling 50,000 ft 55000 (wins)
weight loaded 19 973 (wins) 51 809
max ordance HAS 14 store stations maxium ordance of 17,637 (wins)

Max ordance of eurofighter 16535
Also fun facts is the RAF "it offers stealth, high performance, and manuverabilty, as well as sophisticated new weapons.) EXAMPLE Its new cockpit read about it and decide whats bettter.
AND to tell the truth i was lookin at some books and websites it looks like the RAFELA totally sucks but i dont no who to belieave. ( these facts i got were from a book called Fighter by jim winchester)

5. Where do u figure the f22 has the same conditions as the f14 f15 and f18 are u kidding i put it number one cause for the purpose and way it was made out ranks all fighters for a long time.....!

6. Just so u know i put typhoon as 2nd because we were talkin about the original 5 planes that was implemented in this convo since the beginin... my real list is the second one. And ill admit i think the typhoon is better than the RAFela.

7. NEVER said the typhoon was made to calobarate with the f14 ... but they try to create a SUPER FIGHTER and they coem out wit a plane who cant take out A long range fighter THE F14...

8. And where did anyone figure out the typhoon can do 90 % of what the F22 can dO??? OOO I KNOW U MEAN 90 % percent of the basics, if u mean otherwise well cant type what i think..!!!!!! i think the f16 has no problemem takin on the typhoon.

And please dont refute me with these specific facts and questions that arent relevant at all.! waynos Sepiroth You guys remind of people who act like they no it all with their big complex theories, sentences, always making it seem like ur right. But in essence ur feedin lies and oter people actually belieave and pretend to say that u make sense.

I think the Typhoon is a threat to russias planes BUT no Threat to American tech wat so ever... AND PLZ I AM NOT A BUSH FOLLOWER AT ALL, IF ANYTHING Dont beat around the bush



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Sepiroth,

>>
By all your talk and by all your links, its only past/present/future 'american planes' no talk of any other aircraft, why??
>>

Nonsense. Nobody has a clinch on anything but the laser technology. The Russians have datalinks and LRAAM. The Meteor IS British and the ADM-160 upon which any AIM-160 MALI would be build has close kin in numerous foreign projects, not least of which being the Israeli Delilah and the Italian Mirach and the Russian Tu-243. It's not my fault if the morons can't think past their primitive envisionment of how Air Combat is /really/ fought.

>>
What about the shenyang J-XX, Su-47 Berkut, Mikoyan Project 1.44, Sukhoi PAK FA
>>

DSP satellites were acknowledged to be tracking aircraft at high altitude using AB, the followon constellation will likely include full Teal Ruby level SATWACS coverage of ALL targets. At all altitudes and engine states. After all, why look at a headon 'knife edge' profile with the intent of burning through layered RAM to get a resonant return. Or looking up with limited horizon coverage, when you can cover an ENTIRE THEATER with _one_ 'always on station' asset.

And if you can see it, you can point a laser at it. And if you point a laser at it in the 1-2MW class _it's dead_, less than a 4 seconds later.

>>
At present, the typhoon can pretty much do 90% of what the f-22 can do and its 4 times cheaper.
>>

Against conventional signature threats firing non I-ARH missiles perhaps. Without AMSAR and Meteor it cannot come close to matching the F-22's ability to survive the _surface_ threat while making longer ranging shots. With those systems, they will just about be equal as standoff missileers. But the F-22 will be able to deliver 8 GBU-39 compared to the four GBU-22 or two GBU-24/Storm Shadows that a Flubber must either bring right over the target or pay upwards of a million bucks to put on target.

>>
Also by reading your previous other posts you don't like the f-35 (jsf) why might this be, is it because other nations are involved?
>>

Baaah. I would be against the F-35 even if it was entirely for the U.S.. _The Problem Being_ that it doesn't do enough of the right things to leverage OUR OWN expeditionary airpower capabilities and so ratchets the miltech escalatory game up yet another notch by exporting LO for /nothing good/ on our end.


CONCLUSION:
You can use misdirection all you like, datalink modems, endurant LRAAM and AESA based systems make the days of the conventional fighter numbered when installed on ANY other jet. This has _nothing_ to do with the aerodynamic performance or design source of said airframe. LO cuts the margin a bit-

www.ausairpower.net...

But only until Stealth vs. Stealth simply returns you to blind man's bluff level of radar direction and you switch over to EO systems. Whose own limited (for range) capabilities requires you to throw in DEWS technology as the ONLY way forward now that we've whored VLO to the world at large. Not for gain. But for profit.

I can't believe everybody are such _suckers_ for the used-car-salesman advertising lie. You're worse than sports betters comparing stats.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Honestly if the US didnt get into the F22 so much and improved the f14. Thats all any country would need. (except theUS cause we are better than Them, lol). Lets imagine a country say as IRAQ had 500 F-14d Super Tomcat with Say the A
IM-155 (if was finished an created) OR with a combination of AIM-155 and DRM / ASMT. What MORE can Iraq NEEd then???? A bunch of Typhoons and SU-47 HA dont make me laugh...



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by Pazo
Thanks waynos, for saving others from the tedious task of answering the above piece of art. That guy sounds a lot like George W. I think it's him posting on ATS under a pseudonym. I mean, the IQ's match... and the guy is really patriotic 'n stuff... must be George W.


Are u guys kiddin? i didnt see this guy even say one fact true.
1.He said what does jdf mean??? it means jsf what the hell else... its a JOINT strike fighter not essentially an air superioty fighter so give ur self a brake.

2. "early Flankers were roughyl on a par with the F-14 and F-15, capability wise,"
Man are u kiddin? who gave u this kind of lie??? The f-14 can take it out 100 miles away at tops~~~!
Their trashing the so called best figher because stuff gets old and out dated... Why refurbish old when u can create new?????
Your think the f-18 only would be ahead cause its cost and maintainability??>>> cant think of one, we always improve.

4. Ok your right that the typhoon does do things better than the rafela BUT ITS defintly vice versa. LEts see some rafela stats |everything next are facts| -------

max speed of raf 1321 max speed of typ 1321
combat radius 655 (wins) 345
Service ceiling 50,000 ft 55000 (wins)
weight loaded 19 973 (wins) 51 809
max ordance HAS 14 store stations maxium ordance of 17,637 (wins)

Max ordance of eurofighter 16535
Also fun facts is the RAF "it offers stealth, high performance, and manuverabilty, as well as sophisticated new weapons.) EXAMPLE Its new cockpit read about it and decide whats bettter.
AND to tell the truth i was lookin at some books and websites it looks like the RAFELA totally sucks but i dont no who to belieave. ( these facts i got were from a book called Fighter by jim winchester)

5. Where do u figure the f22 has the same conditions as the f14 f15 and f18 are u kidding i put it number one cause for the purpose and way it was made out ranks all fighters for a long time.....!

6. Just so u know i put typhoon as 2nd because we were talkin about the original 5 planes that was implemented in this convo since the beginin... my real list is the second one. And ill admit i think the typhoon is better than the RAFela.

7. NEVER said the typhoon was made to calobarate with the f14 ... but they try to create a SUPER FIGHTER and they coem out wit a plane who cant take out A long range fighter THE F14...

8. And where did anyone figure out the typhoon can do 90 % of what the F22 can dO??? OOO I KNOW U MEAN 90 % percent of the basics, if u mean otherwise well cant type what i think..!!!!!! i think the f16 has no problemem takin on the typhoon.

And please dont refute me with these specific facts and questions that arent relevant at all.! waynos Sepiroth You guys remind of people who act like they no it all with their big complex theories, sentences, always making it seem like ur right. But in essence ur feedin lies and oter people actually belieave and pretend to say that u make sense.

I think the Typhoon is a threat to russias planes BUT no Threat to American tech wat so ever... AND PLZ I AM NOT A BUSH FOLLOWER AT ALL, IF ANYTHING Dont beat around the bush

And im sorry if i dont seem to make sense i wrote this fast and with out looking to into it so sorry for poor refrences dont got to much time to waste.


[edit on 9-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I hate to burst your bubble, but the biggest reason the F-14 was retired was because the Pheonix developed cracks, causing them to blow up when they launched, or in flight and was retired. And the Pheonix had at BEST a 70% hit ratio at long range. The farther the range, the lower the accuracy. The Tomcat was built around the Pheonix, and when they went away, they were just trying to find missions for them to keep flying.

As far as the F-18 being worse, IT IS. Until the E/F came along the Hornet had a 45 minute time off the deck before having to refuel. That's under NORMAL MISSION FLIGHT, we're not talking in constant dogfights or high speed. Even the E/F has horrible range problems.

You seem to think that the F-14 was and is the best thing to come along since sliced bread. Yes the Tomcat was good, WHEN USED FOR ITS MISSION. However, it also had major problems right up until they retired them. They had engine problems throughout the life of the plane that caused several to be lost, along with other issues. It's not, and never was a BAD plane, but it was never as incredible as you seem to think it was.

And what Waynos said was how can you have one plane that still in workup listed lower down your list BECAUSE they haven't seen combat, but still have the F-22 at the top of the list, when IT hasn't seen combat either. If you're going to move one plane down the list because it's just becoming operational and hasn't seen combat, you can't have another one that is in the same position at the top of your list.

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I hate to burst your bubble, but the biggest reason the F-14 was retired was because the Pheonix developed cracks, causing them to blow up when they launched, or in flight and was retired. And the Pheonix had at BEST a 70% hit ratio at long range. The farther the range, the lower the accuracy. The Tomcat was built around the Pheonix, and when they went away, they were just trying to find missions for them to keep flying.

As far as the F-18 being worse, IT IS. Until the E/F came along the Hornet had a 45 minute time off the deck before having to refuel. That's under NORMAL MISSION FLIGHT, we're not talking in constant dogfights or high speed. Even the E/F has horrible range problems.

You seem to think that the F-14 was and is the best thing to come along since sliced bread. Yes the Tomcat was good, WHEN USED FOR ITS MISSION. However, it also had major problems right up until they retired them. They had engine problems throughout the life of the plane that caused several to be lost, along with other issues. It's not, and never was a BAD plane, but it was never as incredible as you seem to think it was.

And what Waynos said was how can you have one plane that still in workup listed lower down your list BECAUSE they haven't seen combat, but still have the F-22 at the top of the list, when IT hasn't seen combat either. If you're going to move one plane down the list because it's just becoming operational and hasn't seen combat, you can't have another one that is in the same position at the top of your list.

[edit on 6/9/2006 by Zaphod58]




-Man i highly doubt this stuff. Yes the f14 was devolped around the Pheonix and yes there were problems with the plane and its main AND only long range missle BUTTT if they continued devolping the f14 which they shoulda, they would came out with an F-14D SuperTomcat with more capabilties and all clinks worked out WITH A NEW long range missle called the AIM-155. AND if those were to be combined... i can guarantee we wouldve had the greatest long range figther seen to date.

-I do belieave the F14 was GREATEST thing since sliced bread.

-I dont hve any plane listed by its OPERATIONS STATS besides the F15 so what exactly are u talkin about???

- As far as the hornet being worse ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE! Where did u get ur info that the updated or even first HORNETS had a 45 min off deck???? AND if so it most of been the first hornets, actually i just took a look and i think u misread it for 45 minz when its really 1 hour and 45 minz.
BUT HERE ARE THE FACTS FOR HORNETS>

F/A-18C/D

-Yea its a pretty small plane but if ur talking about flight range its got an 1 hour and 45 minz AND if ur talking about combat range, it carries AIM-9 Sidewinder,
AIM-7F Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM. Wit much more arsenal to add. Its mission range and radius FAR exceeds it adversaries .

And the E/F Super Hornet is just BIG BADER AND BETTER!
1.F/A-18E/F can carry up to 17,750 pounds of external ordnance; two additional wing store stations have been added.
2.The E/F model will be able to perform a strike tanker mission while carrying a self-protection air-to-air missile loadout. And The F/A-18 Hornet can perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions (which so does the f/a 18c/d).
3.The E/F model will also have greater payload flexibility, increased mission radius, survivability, payload bring back, and a substantial avionics growth potential.
4. AND u do no that the F/A-18C/D is already been combat proven right? And all the Super hornet is an upgrade Of the already combat proven C/D.
5. A Strategic combinations of F-14D Supertomcats with Aim-155, F-15C, F-16E/F and F/A-18E/F And NO ONE could ask for anything better! Who could handle that? Let alone the combination of the F/A-22, F-35 JSF and the B2, come on! we are so far ahead of FIGHTER TECH, LET ALONE ANY military TEC that we should have proud pouring out of are asses.




[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacemunkey

What is the current top 5 of Air superiority fighters currently in service or about to come into service within, say the next 2 years?



The top 5 are certainly not the overpriced and obsolete show ponies everyone's been going on about for the last so many pages.

The real top 5 are UCAVs that are capable of detecting and destroying any target without supplemental sources of real-time data.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   


1.He said what does jdf mean???


No, I did not. I asked what YOU meant.




Man are u kiddin? who gave u this kind of lie??? The f-14 can take it out 100 miles away at tops~~~!


If that Flanker hadn't taken the F-14 out first, or don't you believe the Flanker could do this?




4. Ok your right that the typhoon does do things better than the rafela BUT ITS defintly vice versa.


What does this mean? I only speak English.

Your comparative figures for the Rafale and Typhoon are very different to mine, which show the Typhoon to have an edge in virtually every respect (but no more than an edge, I am not decrying the Rafale). I have never seen the Book you mention but I take my figures from 'Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft'.

As for the rest of it, I'm afraid it is incomprehensible gibberish and after trying to make sense of what you said so I could try and answer you I had to give it up as a bad job, so ironically;



oter people actually belieave and pretend to say that u make sense.


Rest assured that nobody will ever accuse you of that.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos



1.He said what does jdf mean???


No, I did not. I asked what YOU meant.




Man are u kiddin? who gave u this kind of lie??? The f-14 can take it out 100 miles away at tops~~~!


If that Flanker hadn't taken the F-14 out first, or don't you believe the Flanker could do this?




4. Ok your right that the typhoon does do things better than the rafela BUT ITS defintly vice versa.


What does this mean? I only speak English.

Your comparative figures for the Rafale and Typhoon are very different to mine, which show the Typhoon to have an edge in virtually every respect (but no more than an edge, I am not decrying the Rafale). I have never seen the Book you mention but I take my figures from 'Jane's All The Worlds Aircraft'.

As for the rest of it, I'm afraid it is incomprehensible gibberish and after trying to make sense of what you said so I could try and answer you I had to give it up as a bad job, so ironically;



oter people actually belieave and pretend to say that u make sense.


Rest assured that nobody will ever accuse you of that.


1. JSF means Joint Strike Fighter, NOT essentially a SUPERFIGHTER so i wouldnt put the plane on top of a Air Superiorty List.

2. Well lets see, 5 F-14D Supertomcats with the ability to carry 8 AIM-155, with the ability to shoot down a jet at 100 mile radius (maybe a tad more not sure) vs 5 Flankers (Which was created solie for the purpose of speed, maneuvability and range). Its a sitting duck on the radar of an F-14D Supertomcat. AND just so u know, The Newest models of the FLANKERS avionics are matched with the older F-14A????

3. I think u only speak chinese because i said THE TYPHOON is batter in some aspects as so vice versa meaning, The typhoon is better in some ways and so is the French RAF.

4. You should really change your sources to BOOKS and Military scientist websites, such as Globalsecurity.org (probably the best website to go to).\

5. I think your main problem is that you fight with words but not facts (especially not a obvious "look outside the box" point of view. Plz id like to talk to u otside this forum so ill leave MY AIM on all tonight until u can reach me, my screen name is
GhossTOmaR



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join