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: 16
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
......I always thought that a Pilot is what makes a plane lethal....you can have the best pilot in the world behind a F-16c .....and have him fight against a F-22a with the worlds top technological systems a novice pilot....and of course with out a doubt the F-16c would win.......but this is just my .02 cents....Any agree with me?




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:56 PM
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?


Currently my list goes as followed.

1. F-22 Raptor
2. EF-2000 Typhoon
3. F-35 JSF
4. F-15C Golden Eagle
5. Su-30MKI Flanker


Originally posted by Latter Day
Any agree with me?


Of course, but for the sake of argument we’re assuming all pilots are on the same level, or we’re just judging the aircraft itself, to include all real world factors would make a comparison too complicating.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   


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


Again, thats not what I asked, incidentally, neither would I, and for the same reason.




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


May I point out the obvious flaw here? There is no F-14D with AIM 155 to pit against the Flanker as the programme was canned in 1992. I am talking about actual service fighters, not what ifs. Besides, two jets facing each other, each capable of shooting down the enemy at @100miles, is pretty much an 'even contest'.




just so u know, The Newest models of the FLANKERS avionics are matched with the older F-14A????


Says who? Its not what I've read but I'm prepared to listen if you have facts.




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.


But that is not what you said, you simply said "it is vice versa" which means "the opposite applies" After you previously seemed to concede my point this appeared contradictory. If you had said 'in some cases' then it would have been clear, please write clearly if you don't wish to be misunderstood.




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

Are you serious?


Don't you know that Jane's All The Worlds aircraft is probably the largest and greatest aircraft reference BOOK in the world
If you saw my personal library of Aviation source material (Books and respected Magazines) you would know not to say that
(hint; my earliest 'original source' is from 1938, my newest was published five days ago)



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


I'm not sure quite what you mean by fighting with words not facts but I can only post detailed facts and figures so many times before it becomes tedious to do so, in this case you are right and I have reverted many times recently to just putting my opinions and conclusions, as a new member I accept that this is not really fair to you but feel free to ascribe it to my own laziness. If you search this forum (using the google bar at the top of the page or the 'find posts' option at the bottom of each message you should be able to find where I have previously posted fairly exhaustive data for both the Rafale and Typhoon culled from the 2004 edition of JAWA.

I suppose the lesson for me here should be to save such data laden posts so I can repost them easily for newer members who will have missed them when I am asked to


Regarding IM, well, being a bit of an old fart I don't get on with IM's too well, but you can PM me off the thread by using the U2U function if you wish.

Maybe you can look through a few of my threads before you decide that I hide lack of knowledge through 'using words'? If you still think so afterwards then fair enough




[edit on 10-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
1. If you look back at when u first "took a poke" at my post, you said " what does "its a jsf" mean... And i replied Its a JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER and NOT a SuperFIGHTER. So i wouldnt put it on a list wit other planes made simply to be SUPER FIGHTERS.

2. If i made myself NOT understandable im sorry. Like u said im new to this and i was rushing myself.

3. And your probably right abour ur refrence wit Jane's All The Worlds aircraft, So sorry about that too.

4. I probably looked at 4 websites and 3 of books i own and found nothing that says a Flanker has any type of long range air to air missles (that the plane it self uses) because the plane was not created for that purpose. And i only mentioned the F-14D with 8 AIM-155 because it shouldve been created but the f22 was growin and the US found that plane more suitable for the job. Essentially im saying that if they further improved and Created the F-14D Supertomcat with AIM-155 it would be able to TAKE OUT SUPER FLANKERS AND SU-47. And please dont post back saying o well were not talking of ifs and etc.... dont really care. I was just saying thats its pathetic with RUSSIA being on top of any list for anything.

5. OKAY here is where i got my facts about their avionics... The book is called " The Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes" by Bill gunston.
AND it states....
A. They both have Electronic counter measures, Search Radar, Fire control radar, look-down/shoot-down.
B. But the F-14 has a Television... AND obviously dont mean a home tv...
C. And from what i read on GlobalSecuirty and another book i have on Avionics, IS THAT U.S. has "better" or "superior" avionics from the rest of the world.
For example- If 2 planes have electronic counter measures, does that necesarily mean their equal??? NOOOOOO! one is usually created more sophisticated and advanced than the other (plain and simple BETTER)

List that goes by Forum chat :

1. F22
2. Typhoon
3. Rafale
4. SU-47 and MIG-35
5. Gripen

"average people belieave what they hear and read, but when they see... the world changes so suddenly"

My List

1. F-22
2. F-15
3. Typhoon
4. F-35 ( Its replacing the F-16 and F-18, Im starting to think it should be 2nd or 3rd)
5. F/A-18E/F SuperHornet or F-16 (which ever floats ur boat
)







[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
5. OKAY here is where i got my facts about their avionics... The book is called " The Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes" by Bill gunston.
[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]


dude your book was published in 1995.

www.amazon.com...

time to find a newer source me thinks.

justin



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
dude your book was published in 1995.


LOL
SOOOOO???
It doesnt matter especially when the planes i was talkin about were started 30 years ago and their latest models finished id say about 15 years ago or 10.





[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
1, Are you deliberately missing the point? I was asking you about your use of the phrase 'its a jsf' as shown by the use of quotation marks, not the meaning of JSF itself, the original question is now completely overshadowed by this silly argument so lets just forget it.

2, OK,

3 Sure, no worries

4 I wasn't even talking about missiles, just the plane's capabilities. I know missiles go hand in hand with modern fighters but this is a total defence system, the fighter plane itself is just the most expensive component and this is what I was referring to. After all, it is no use hanging a 130 mile range missile off a plane with a 50 mile track and scan range, it would be a waste. I mean the detect and intercept capabilities of each plane and in that respect the Su-27 is right up there with the F-14, if they should meet face to face the Su-27 would also win the dogfight as it is unencumbered by the heavy VG mechanism and high aspect ratio wings of the F-14. A much closer fight at short range would be between the F-15 and the Su-27 as they are of a similar design philosophy.

If you factor in missiles then the discussion may well change, in fact the Su-27 can track up to 100 miles while scanning up to 130 miles whilst its R-77 Missiles have a range of 50 miles, this however gives the Su-27 parity (at least) with the specification figures of the F/A-18E which has replaced the F-14. Whichever is 'best' after that comes down to tactics, pilot training and reliability, which are all variables. If you then come down to the quality of the avionic systems you are talking about which aircraft has the 'edge', not a decisive advantage, avionics are constantly developing and so advantages abb and flow in this area. Also, 'more complex' is not necessarily always better and my interest is in aircraft design and performance not electronics, I leave that to the other guys.

4 (continued) The F-22 is not being bought by the US Navy so it is not the alternative/replacement for the F-14D you are making it out to be, likewise the AIM 55, there is no point harping back to cancelled projects when the discussion is what people think is best today. Otherwise I would see your F-14/AIM-55 combo with the Fairey F.155T/Red Hebe and raise you the SARO SR.187 and then where would we be? Probably launching one of the most pointless arguments ever.

Be happy that the USA is top of the pile with the F-22, to try to say 'we would be more on top because we should have built...blah blah' is a daft argument that anyone can use.

5. Bill Gunston is a decent writer but where does HE get his figures from? I know that Janes sources all its material directly from the manufacturers, who in turn tend to regard JAWA as a sort of Aviation 'Argos' catalogue so they would not knowingly under or oversell their products (the former might lose them a sale and the latter would leave an angry customer probably demading compensation) Of course this data is so detailed that it is amended every year so you will see discrepancies as aircraft are improved or predicted targets are not met and figures are amended both upwards and downwards, my comparison of the Typhoon and Rafale was taken from the 2004 edition which is the latest I have. I felt that to compare competing aircraft I should use the same edition as it gives a fair comparison, for example to compare the production Typhoon with the Prototype Rafale from the 1995 edition would have been ludicrous. Likewise to compare older aircraft with modern ones you need to choose the right volumes, say the Typhoon from 2004 with F-15 from 2004 AND 1973, when it was at the same state of development that the Typhoon is now, to get a clear overall comparison, for instance.

A that looks like parity to me, which is whgat I said in the first place

B I don't see how 'having a television' is an advantage in performance terms. The Su-27 cockpit has CRT's too.

C The avionics business is global, for instance last year BAE bought out part of Boeings avionics business, there is also significant UK avionics content in the F-22, F-16 and A-10 as well as the F-35 it is also developing all the time. 'US is best' is just too simplistic. Please don't turn this into an 'anti US sentiment, I'm not saying they aren't right at the top, I'm just saying they aren't there alone and they don't have it all.

Since I haven't done it yet I'll give my list;

1 F-22
2 Typhoon
3 Rafale
4 Su-27
5 F-15

This is a list of basic generic types, not including sub types and is meant by way of a general overview, nothing more.

Just had a look at my earlier list in this thread and in Dec 04 I said this;

1; Raptor
2; Typhoon F.2
3 Sukhoi Su-30
4 Rafale
5 Gripen

I have since learned to love the Rafale more than I did it seems and of course I simply forgot about the F-15 altogether, I probabaly still thought that the Raptor was going to completely replace it in those days.



[edit on 10-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
With all due respect Waynos I don't see how the Rafale is better than the F-35 in the A2A role, the rest of your list I pretty much agree with.


[edit on 10-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Westy, the one thing that all the planes in my last list have in common is that they were designed to be their country's premier air defence fighter. The F-35 however is a bomb truck with such a degree of A2A capability trhat it will be able to look after itself in a fight.

OK, its only my opinion but I think it is a little unrealistic tio expect it to be one of the very top A2A fighters in the world, it hasn't been designed to do that.

Now, I may be wrong here and you might correct me but I believe the F-18 is still going to be the USN's chief defensive fighter even after the F-35 debuts? (If my list was longer I would put the F-18E at number 6). The USAF, despite acquiring vast numbers of F-35A's is still retaining the F-15 in service as an A2A fighter because of the cuts to the Raptor line. Both these facts tell me that the F-35 is not a fighter plane. If these assumptions are wrong then I have misunderstood but these assumptions are what I based my list on.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Waynos I disagree, the F-35 is meant be a multi-role plane, yes, (as is the Rafale), however it still has credible A2A capability, more so in my opinion than the Rafale. I could list all the features of the F-35 which I think make it a formidable A2A platform but you know what they are. So I’m just going to say that even if its a multi-role fighter its A2A capability is better than that of most current fighters.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I think the difference between the F-35 and the Rafale (and Typhoon for that matter) is that the latters airframe was designed to be a super agile aerial fighter while the former was designed to be a low observable bomb truck.

I know that is hugely oversimplified and it takes no account of onboard systems but I feel that in a straight fight the F-35's weight and lack of TVC (which might otherwise have helped enormously) would lead to it being comprehensively outfought given pilots of equal ability and awareness.

I think we will have to agree to differ here, but maybe when we have both seen more of the actual F-35 one of us will change our opinion?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Waynos
I think we will have to agree to differ here, but maybe when we have both seen more of the actual F-35 one of us will change our opinion?


Fair enough, I’m open to the possibility that the F-35 is not as good as I may think in the A2A role, if real world performance or future information hint toward this than that's fine.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I noticed that the F-15C was on alot of people's list, according to the Air Force itself, the F-15 is inferior to many aircraft, including the MiG-29's and Su-27's. I don't know how the F-15C could have made that list.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Which Air Force? The one that wants as many F-22’s as possible? Short of the Raptor or Typhoon and possibly F-35 I think the F-15C with AESA AKA Golden Eagles are on par with any other Air Superior fighter out there.


[edit on 10-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
WAYNOS i lost all respect to u. Everytime you refute, you make bougus claims...
For example The f-14 has 130 mile range missles but a 50 mile radar scanner............................................................................................................... HA! Thats funny.

Forum list
1.F22
2.Typhoon
3.F35
4.Rafale
5. Grippen

Real List
1. F22
2. Typhoon
3. F35
4. F15 (omg the SU27 does not compare with this let alone the F-14D SuperTomcat)
5, F/A 18 E/F

AND WAYNOS ARE U KIDDIN ME!!! THE SU 27 CAnt TRACK UP TO 130 MILES and DOES NOT EQUIP WITH THE R 77 MILES

Im starting to think your very lonely and in denial PLEASE stop lieing to the Pubic.


[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I noticed that the F-15C was on alot of people's list, according to the Air Force itself, the F-15 is inferior to many aircraft, including the MiG-29's and Su-27's. I don't know how the F-15C could have made that list.

Shattered OUT...


I dont wanna say anything more "than are you kiddin me "? THE mig-29 is Inferior To all modern day aircraft let alone the F15. I can gaurentee u tat the F15 would take out a su47 and a Typhoon.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I noticed that the F-15C was on alot of people's list, according to the Air Force itself, the F-15 is inferior to many aircraft, including the MiG-29's and Su-27's. I don't know how the F-15C could have made that list.

Shattered OUT...


I dont wanna say anything more "than are you kiddin me "? THE mig-29 is Inferior To all modern day aircraft let alone the F15. I can gaurentee u tat the F15 would take out a su47 and a Typhoon.



[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
I noticed that the F-15C was on alot of people's list, according to the Air Force itself, the F-15 is inferior to many aircraft, including the MiG-29's and Su-27's. I don't know how the F-15C could have made that list.

Shattered OUT...


I dont wanna say anything more "than are you kiddin me "? THE mig-29 is Inferior To all modern day aircraft let alone the F15. I can gaurentee u tat the F15 would take out a su47 and a Typhoon.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]


Then I suggest you do some serious research. A Typhoon jumped a pair of F-15E models over England, and downed them both without them making a single kill against them. The Russian planes aren't NEARLY as bad as you think they are, and the F-15 is getting old. Old design, old airframes = losses. It's absurd to say that the MiG-29 is inferior to everything. Yes, the F-15 is a good plane, but considering that the only major update to it in a long time is the AESA radar, that it is JUST NOW GETTING, and other designs have been making improvements, and incorporating new advances then it's dumb to say that it can easily take out a Typhoon, or an S-47, or anything else out there.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Latter Day,

Put X (insert any topflight Martial Artist) in a pit with any three 'normal people' under the condition that only one man would be thrown a rope. And at least 70% of the time, most people would agree that it would be Bruce or Jean Claude or Jackie Chan giving a yell.

Now, put TEN such specialists warriors into a pit with a starving Bengal Tiger.

And you'd better have a ramp because kitties can't climb ropes.

The difference is that the Tiger has now gone to being inherent to the tools not the consent mechanisms of aircombat doctrine and the way you make sure you are always dominant is by creating the tactical system of employment which keeps you outside of ALL PITS (circumstances which make pilots equally victims of the 'Tiger' in their systems).

Having said that, early in the DIOT&E period, a test pilot was prequalifying into the F-22 and having done the day's official schoolwork; decided to engage in a little stay-on-my-tail hassling with his F-16 flight lead (also with an 'experienced' F-22 pilot onboard as I recall).

A rolling scissors ensued in which Junior got slow and slower and slower, a position which nominally the F-16 is going to lose from in a tight angles fight because of the alpha limiter. Yet the F-16 is still a lot smaller and less draggy and thus has a phenomenal roll rate advantage as the speed comes down and the Raptor has to waddle around it's own mass. So that said 'genius' F-16 pilot did a skid into a point to point roll reversal maneuver and the novice F-22 driver, already nose high and 'paddling hard' to stay in the fight, tried to follow him out of plane and then cut off the corner to keep him visible as he came under the nose.

Unfortunately, the combination of existing stress on the FLCS (keeping the nose up at near zero airspeed) and sudden application of yaw force to come around, made the F-22 depart.

10-15,000ft later, the F-22 recovered by the skin of it's teeth, supposedly with 4 million plus dollars worth of overstress damage.

In this case, the stupidity was (as is typical) 'pilot originated' in both employing a COE platform in a dogfight with a much smaller, more energy-conserving, platform. And in giving a newbie with all of 20 hours time on type a chance to make a dead fool out of himself at tax payer expense.

Because with six vs. four LRAAM, a 270km vs. 100km radar and a .00025mcs2 vs. 2-3mcs2 frontal signature, the Raptor will push even a pro pilot into the pit with the TIGERS of 2 AIM-120Ds at least 3 times before the pro can even see him.

And even in a so called 'dogfight', with an AIM-9X and soon JHMCS, the F-22 MISSILE is still going to be doing the corner cutting sooner, better, farther away than any attempt to gain dominance by nosepoint maneuvering. After which you blow thru and let your wingman take a shot.

Indeed /waiting/ to take that shot until you are struggling for nose to tail aspecting is asking to get hosed by the bad guy who fires as he cuts across the anchor of a fight, looking to make you fight him and HIS missile without any circling-duelist crap at all.

Beyond this, it must be emphasized that while two professional martial artists can indeed 'kill each other as equals' doing stupid things prove a personal point, they are unlikely, by skill, to achieve any statistically measurable level of dominance on a day to day basis of training each other in their own peculiar preferences and weakness'.

Similarly, the majority of fights are never between 2,000hr old hands (look at the 1991 ODS records and count the nuggets on the patrol lists) fighting over friendly training ranges. But rather novices with a leavening of high time flight leads.

If you have hamburger filling out the flight roster and a mountain of DCA advantages such as numbers, fuel:radius and supporting GCI, you cannot afford to rely on pilot skill, it will not be enough.

Short of UCAVs, the nature of the F-22 in particular is thus less an exercise in airframe performance as maximized by the pilot than a systems platform designed to reduce the effect that his talent (or lack thereof) will matter in determining the outcome of a fight.

Bluntly- YOU could beat an FWS instructor in an F-16 with an F-22, used properly, from an airliner-like engagement profile. With less than 100hrs of simulator time.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Hi GhostTBR55, just wanted to point out that Waynos is a highly respected, educated and valued member of this forum who backs up his points of view with hard facts and intelligent discussion points. While you are a brand new member with a dubious understanding of air combat and a limited ability to apply the usual standards of spelling and grammar expected from forum members. Instead of getting stuck in to Waynos, maybe you should close your mouth, open your eyes, and actually read what he saying, rather than shooting from the hip. And then comment as appropriate.

Good luck, and welcome to the forum.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join