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: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55

-I truly dont no what the EXCERISES consist of, BUT if i were to put the INDIANS SU-30 MKI against MSIP F-15C with 8 AIM-120D and the AESA in a ALL out AIR DOMINACE WAR id put my money on the AMERICANS. (only if it were F-15 fighting).


And why would you say that?
Maybe you can run me/us through the finer points of this MSIP AESA F-15s with AIM-120Ds?



-But i think the Beyond Visual Range of the F-16 couldve blown the INDIANS out of their pants.


Again, how..



-These fights were more of a DOGFIGHT where i think the SU-30MKI (since been upgraded numerous times) had the advantage.

Not really it was more of a DACT(dissimilar air combat training) kind of a thing. Its just not about the Su-30MKI.
IAF Jaguars did just as well when they were up against USAF a/c in 2004 in Alaska.
See Cope Thunder.The jaguar is a figher bomber and is quite hopeless in 'dogfighting'



- Every country has Elite Fighter piliots, its just that AMERICA has more. soooo put 50 USA pilots against 50 Indian/Russia/English/Canadian or W/E u choose and USA will win.

It all depends on the number of flying hours pilots get in each country. IAF pilots get an average of 180 hours (ranging from 150 to 200 depending on a/c) every year.
There's absolutely no way you could back up this statement of yours.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by Daedalus3]




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Hi, almost forgot to put my list on. It's short:

1. MiG-31 (no it's not a prototype, it entered service 20 years ago and currently around 200 in service)

It has super long range radar (first in the world with phased array antenna), super long-range missiles (R-33, yes they are better than AIM-54 'Phoenix')
Intercept cruising speed of Mach 2.3+ (top speed M 2.83)
The russian AF command consider a group of 4 MiG-31's the equivalent of a division of S-300 SAM's traveling through the air at 3000 km/hour.
This plane is considered to be the reason the SR-71 was withdrown from active service. There is an improved MiG-31M ready for production (was halted for lack of funds but will be produced if needed). It has even better radar, better missiles (R-133, a prototype of the missile hit a target 300 km away from the fighter)
It has one flaw, it is too heavy to dogfight (although chief test-pilot Valeriy Menitsky has shown that in the hands of a good pilot it can maneuvre as well as a MiG 23MLD), but actually it doesn't need to, it can 'bravely' run away from a dogfight using it's unmatched speed and leave the dirty work for Su 27P's with which they usually operate in mixed groups.
The Su 27/27M's are a great show piece, they are good for morale, they sell well abroad, but when the # hits the fan, the russion count mainly on the MiG 31 to do most of the job of cleaning it.

I think this fighter is currently 'King of the Skies'. This might change once 100+ F22's enter service, but as of now, no one can mess with the Foxhound.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Zaphod58,

>>
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.
>>

Wrong. A section of F-15Es 'jumped' a section of Flubber, the Flubber turned into them and converted for an ASRAAM kill.

Things to note:

1. It it technically illegal to start a free form hassle in controlled airspace. The route and approach agencies just dont need that kind of hassle in the tightly separated airspace rules.
2. For at least 20-25 years, over uncontrolled airspace, you could flash a given IFF code and if 'trade' was available, it would come play.
3. This was _purely_ conversion (make the cutoff, go led-pure-lag to saddle) training however which meant anything past 140` of turn or 'Knock It Off!' was /also/ verbotten. The Flubbers went for a full two-circle fight.
4. Given the number of check-the-box missions, unregulated hassling was considered low value by most USAFE pilots because they needed specific capability replication to get a good workout before mandatorily forced to switch to another role category. This got particularly bad once the Aggressors left Alconbury.

Now what all this means in the 'ultimate sense' is misleading.

A. It highlights the utter blindness of ANY fighter which doesn't have support mission enablement from airborne or ground vectoring to keep the pointy end towards the likely enemy attack axis.

B. It emphasizes the absent safety of route formation tactics wherein if you can hook one, you've got'em both fried. Combat Spreads of 2-12,000ft _with another section behind_ is by far the wiser choice. And flying high and fast so that the threat cannot mask itself or drag you over trashfire is even better.

C. It begs the question as to whether the Beagles were carrying CFT or LANTIRN, both of which impose significant operational limits, the latter of which MIGHT explain why the Flubbers were 'jumped' to begin with (officially LANTIRN is not supposed to be used for A2A due o sunglare on the optics and Q loads on the head but it is done all the time anyway).

D. It points out how incredibly foolish it is to generate visual fight conditions when THE FIRST RULE of closing to the merge is _shove the other guys nose off_. With a pair of AMRAAMs that can subsequently 'transition gracefully' to 9Mikes if need be. Indeed, there are rangeless ACMI systems which, completely passively, emulate this exact engagement scenario. As well as 'virtual' expendables timing and counter maneuver. Without which all fights come down to rank and bartalk by adult children.

>>
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.
>>

The Flubber _is_the F-15 with less powerful engines but a lighterweight (shorter + composite) airframe design. That's the real problem. It doesn't bring enough of anything to the fight to make it a real war winner and _won't_ until Meteor+AMSAR arrives. OTOH, a new build 'F-15F' (the original designation for an improved F-15E single seater to be offered as a fill to the Saudis) would almost certainly include -232 engines, working 'tile' AESA (V3 not V2) and probably an IRST (stolen AAS-42 Shadows from retiring F-14D if nothing else). It -might- have an AVEN or PBBN style vectoring system and I would certainly hope it had a completely revamped FLCS. It would come with more internal fuel and more external /potential/ gas.

And as such, it would likely beat the Flubber in a straight up BVR fight, excluding Meteor (2010).

In a visual fight, the only thing that counts is a laser DIRCM. With it, any jet can beat any other. Without it, you're playing Russian Roulette with 5 chambers loaded. Worse, you're 'pulling the trigger' _regardless_ of whether the other guy is dead or not.

Do I believe in an F-15F or X (new wing)? No. Because the driving factors of modern air combat are it's desultory nature, the need to additionally carry ground attack ordnance to remain useful to the JFACC once the air threat goes away. And lastly and most dominantly: the SURFACE TO AIR THREAT. Which basically excludes any jet from operating at depth without an assigned jammer and a very competent ELS/ARM combination. None of which the F-15 can routinely (with gas) even carry. Neither of which the _current standard_ of Flubber is capable of employing.


KPl.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by ch1466]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
I see that the F-15C is certaintly losing its capabilities to this forum.

First off the SU-27 series went through moreupgrades and devlopments than the F-15.

INDIANS won the Cope 05 is because their pilots put in more hard work and dedication. But id also like to say that pitting an SU-30MKI with a F-16 is matched unfairly. Since the SU-30MKI should be classed against the F-15 and F-14. The F-16 is more classed for a MIG-29.

QUOTE = "The SU-30 is a much larger aircraft than the F-16, with a larger radome and more missiles and fuel. It's also a large radar target and therefore detectable at large distances. However, as far as I am aware, most F-16s have relatively old radars. The F-14 and F-15 are in the same class as the SU-27/30/33's class, the F-16 is more similar to a MiG-29."

AND id like everyone to know that in Cope INDIA 2004 the F-15C's were outmatched with 4 vs 10 or 12 SU-30s. Is that really that fair at all?


www.bharat-rakshak.com...
www.windsofchange.net...
www.murdoconline.net...

I truly cant agree with anything u have said ch1466, but thats just me. One thing i can tell u off the back is ur over exagerating the power of russian MIGS and Under exagerating the F-15. I dont even think the MIG 29 can compete with the F-15C. If you had said SU-30MKI with the F-15C i could see some more argument.

From what ive been reading the R-33 missles range is 80 miles and the MIG-29 & MIG-31 is considerbly Unsophisticated to western fighters.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
IMO Mig-31 is a big problem for US fighters. It has very long range missiles. It has missiles that would probably kick the ass off of phoenix missiles. While maybe not super high tech it is definitly a plane that could pose problems if confronted by a lot of western fighters. Oh yeah, wasnt it one of the first aircraft to use phased array radar?



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
IMO Mig-31 is a big problem for US fighters. It has very long range missiles. It has missiles that would probably kick the ass off of phoenix missiles. While maybe not super high tech it is definitly a plane that could pose problems if confronted by a lot of western fighters. Oh yeah, wasnt it one of the first aircraft to use phased array radar?


I understand its a threat because of its long range capabilities but u can say the same with the F-14 tomcat. BUT the plane its self is very unsopshticated compared to western fighters and older western fighters such as the F15.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
IMO Mig-31 is a big problem for US fighters. It has very long range missiles. It has missiles that would probably kick the ass off of phoenix missiles. While maybe not super high tech it is definitly a plane that could pose problems if confronted by a lot of western fighters. Oh yeah, wasnt it one of the first aircraft to use phased array radar?


Not 'one of the first', it is the first (;

Ghostr55@#$,
Man, I think it's high time you stopped using Bill Gunston and Tom Cruise as reference in aviation matters. I'm sure for you Top Gun is the best movie ever made, thus F-14 is the best plane but you should really add some new sources of knowledge. What in the MiG 31 is so unsophisticated? It has better radar, better missiles, much greater speed, better range than its competitors, flies as fast as a SR71 (without leaking fuel on the ground), and it was made 20 years ago, I call this 'ahead of its time', not unsophisticated
And enough about the Indians already, they beat the USAF fare & square. Just as the Luftwaffe MiG-29's kicked the F-16 a** when they had a similar exercise. But you won't see that on the Discovery Channel (in fact they showed a film about it, but no word on the result of matches between MiG 29, F-16, Mirage, F-15, it was 36:0 for the Luftwaffe by the way)



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Saying that Russian fighters are less sophisticated than their Western counterparts is the truest thing you have said, that is spot on. However the 'sophistication' of our fighters was always seen as 'fragility' by the Russians as it is not sophistication that wins the fight, it is the ability to get the job done, and the Russians have always excelled here.


As a side note I was reading the 1984-85 JAWA last night and there are a couple of relevant comments I'd like to pass on, make of them what you will, but bear in mind when these comments were made, 1984.

Firstly re the F-14


The have to admit they lack the assured capability to shoot down even a Soviet MiG 25 Foxbat flying at its maximum speed and height, yet the Foxbat is a twenty year old aircraft. America's F-14 Tomcat has been publicised for years as the worlds most formidable interceptor, able to detect track and destroy targets over immense ranges. Unfortunately, as US Navy secretary John F Lehman said last Juy, the TF-30 engine and the F-14 is the worst aeroplane/engine mismatch in many years. Because of a very high probability of engine stalling in combat the Navy's F-14 programme co-ordinator said "from the very start you teach the pilots to fly the engine as a priority over flying the aeroplane".


there are similarly damning comments over the AIM-54C missile further down the article.


Regarding Western v Soviet practice there is also this to consider;


The Soviet Union always builds the best that its designers and engineers are capable of producing, the West builds only what its government economists say it can afford


Naturally the world has changed a great deal and Russia can no longer do this, but it does cover the period when the Flanker and Fulcrum were created, as a direct counter to the F-15 and F-16. If anyone seriously thinks the Russians would not pull out all the stops to make sure their aircraft would not significantly outperform the existing US types then they just have their head in the sand.

[edit on 14-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   
In addition to the above, the F-15's superb combat record cannot be taken as proof of its natural superiority over planes like the MiG 29, there are other factors to consider.

The following account is reproduced from 'The Modern Defensive Fighter' by Robert Jackson;


History was to repeat itself during the first Gulf War, F-15's claimed no fewer than 30 of the 39 of the Iraqi aircraft destroyed in air combat. In every single case the Iraqi pilots failed to get the best out of their aircraft even though some were MiG 29's which are a match for the F-15



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
I see that the F-15C is certaintly losing its capabilities to this forum.

First off the SU-27 series went through moreupgrades and devlopments than the F-15.

INDIANS won the Cope 05 is because their pilots put in more hard work and dedication. But id also like to say that pitting an SU-30MKI with a F-16 is matched unfairly. Since the SU-30MKI should be classed against the F-15 and F-14. The F-16 is more classed for a MIG-29.


True, but no one gets to choose what a/c they will face when and how. Also the IAF wanted to get a gauge of the F-16 for 2 reasons:

1) The PAF has blk 15 F-16s.
2) The IAF may buy F-16s.

Also note that the exercise you mention not only involved Su30's but also Mirage 2000s and MiG 21 Bis. Both faired well against the USAF. Certainly better than what the USAF expected such caliber of a/c (esp MiG 21) to perform.




AND id like everyone to know that in Cope INDIA 2004 the F-15C's were outmatched with 4 vs 10 or 12 SU-30s. Is that really that fair at all?

Not really. It was a DACT (dissimilar air combat training exercise) where attacking forces included primary attack a/c MiG 27s , escort a/c MiG 21 Bisons and mini AWACS cum support a/c as the Su30. So it was 4 F-15Cs vs 12 a/c which included MiG 27s, MiG 21s and Su 30s.



I truly cant agree with anything u have said ch1466, but thats just me. One thing i can tell u off the back is ur over exagerating the power of russian MIGS and Under exagerating the F-15. I dont even think the MIG 29 can compete with the F-15C. If you had said SU-30MKI with the F-15C i could see some more argument.


Why? If the MiG 29 is equipped with a radar and missiles that give the F-15C a run for its money then they're comparable. Lets exclude pilot competence levels.
MiG 29 radars (ZHUK -M Phazotron) are up in the 240-250km range(10 simultaenous targets). The R-77 adder is 90-120 km BVRAAM.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I don’t think so, even against a non stealthy standard fighter size target (5m2) there is no way it could have that much range (155 miles), they’re probably bomber or AWACS figures. And if it can only track 10 target simultaneously then its ability to shoot and track must be weak. Against a fighter size target I’d give that radar no more than 130-140Km (80-86 miles).



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Western aircraft may be more sophisticated, but russian aircraft are way way way way (5 hours later) way more rugged. Those things can handle everything.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
waynos IF you think the Russians can match up with the US, than ur crazy. But some people just like taking to sides of the true losers. If Russia is better tahn us then they are better than the Europeans AND i highly doubt that. I dont understand y uhave to put the russians in a ball game they already lost.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by truttseeker
but russian aircraft are way way way way (5 hours later) way more rugged. Those things can handle everything.


Not true, while the Russians have a knack for simplicity and reliability this does not apply to all of their systems. Generally in terms of aircraft western avionics and engines are more reliable and last longer than Russian ones before maintenance is required. Western air forces also most of the time have a higher operational readiness status than their Russian counterparts. And last but not least how can we forget images such as this and this.

Oh and Ghost you should stop 'attacking' Waynos, its doing you no good, he is one of the most respected and informative members ATS has, you would do well to listen to what he has to say.


[edit on 14-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Yeah, but I'm sure russian planes can match up to that. Plus they require less maintenance than US craft. They can take off in some crappy conditions that would render the US planes useless(so ive been told from a few places). Anywho its the russians simplicity that makes their craft so badass.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I happen to think that was more a function of necessity rather than a product of durable design mentality. Nevertheless, having aircraft which are less susceptible to FOD and landing conditions is a good thing.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Westy, you'll give me a big head, but thanks anyway


I never cease to be amazed by the pics of that F-15! Maybe they should take a wing off an F-22 to see if they can repeat the trick?



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:04 PM
link   
-Waynos i cant agree with u fully that Russians excelled on getting the job done. For this statement is not fully true. During the Cold war i could agree that the Russians Mig-15/17 were planes getting the job done. The MIG-15/17 have should the US in Korea and Vietnam that these planes were something to take serious. But since the collapse of the USSR and the lack of funding, russian planes are becoming less Sophisticated and more Rugged. In a age of computers, sophistication is a necessity. Dont get me wrong they still have sophisticated systems, missles (air to air and surface to air) but their planes arent what they used to be.

IM MORE INTERESTED IN THIS>>>>>>>>>
-Why havent we made a new LONG RANGE INTERCEPTOR? Is it not needed anymore? Is it effective anymore?



Ford Mustang (ruged and less expensive)

vs

Ferrari F-50 (Sophistcated and expensive)



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
But since the collapse of the USSR and the lack of funding, russian planes are becoming less Sophisticated and more Rugged. In a age of computers, sophistication is a necessity. Dont get me wrong they still have sophisticated systems, missles (air to air and surface to air) but their planes arent what they used to be.

Much to the contrary, the fag end of the cold war(and beyond) saw the USSR/Russia showcase some of its best aircraft and A2A missiles ever:

MiG29
Su-27 (and all its variants)
MiG 31
R-77AE
R-77PD

Its just that some of these a/c have faced off against western counterparts in the hands of unskilled and untrained pilots/crews during this time.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55


Ford Mustang (ruged and less expensive)

vs

Ferrari F-50 (Sophistcated and expensive)


How dare you compare the great F-50 which was designed under instructions from GOD, with some piece of crap like the Mustang, man (;
Are you saying that american Jets are like Ferraris, while the Russian jets are like Fords. Don't agree.
American fighters are like your Benzes (you've got ABS, ESP, ASR, GPS and other stuff that makes your life easier when you're cruising to McDonald's)
Russian Fighters are like my Alfa Romeo 3.0 V6, it has nothing of the above gizmos, but when you take it to the track it can turn circles around the Mercedes.
Same with jets, for training I'd take the F-16 anytime, but when things get hot, I'd much rather be in a MiG-29



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join