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

GhostTBR, The cold war ended in 1990, by which time the planes I am arguing for were fully developed and in service. Since then the lack of funding has prevented mass upgrades for Russian service aircraft which might otherwise have happened but it has also opened the country up to ever more sophisticated technology from overseas that has found its way into prototypes and such and which the Russians have integrated into their own technology base. I am not saying the Russians can beat the F-22, but the older generation US jets are pretty much covered. Everyone, including the USAF, appears to agree with this except you it seems

I dont understand how anyone can say that Russian jets covered all of US jets before the F-22 and after the F-14. What does a MIG-29 have against F-16 besides being a formidable, what does a SU-27/30 have over a F-15/ 18 superhornet? I defintely can say that the MIG-31 can rape a F-14 (no argumen there).

Unless the SU-47 and the MIG 1.42 comes out, the russians dont have anything covered besides supplying 3rd world countries with decent military equipment. I dont see anything yet that has proven russian planes, besides the nice tricks that every single damm country pulls off and shows when a new plane comes out.

Doesnt anyone realize that Russia is not a threat? Even the post on top of this website says "survey result shows the US to be the BIGGEST Global Peace Threat"
AND who in the USAF has said that they agree that the russian planes are better or more able?????? I know that they have said we are losing our air dominance but anything past that is bs.

PAZO why dont u go to RUSSIA and declare war on the US and well see i your MIG-29 can handle my F-16 and ill show ur pathetic BLINd @$$ whats HOT u RUSSIAN COMMIE. I have a Whole document of what the GERMANS said about the MIG-29. If anyone wants to see it or if u have already reaad it, all it says is that the plane sucks but inside Ten Nautical Miles is when the plane comes in handy. Otherwise all ull see is www.cs.wisc.edu...

Will i ever give the RUSSIANS credit? NO! they been stealing spying and intergrating other countries tech and works in their own equipment since WW2 .

If u dont belieave that then u are truly lost.

Anakin > "To me the Jedi are Evil."
Obi Wan > "Then you are truly lost."


[edit on 16-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]

Those Nukes Russia seems to have seems to contradict your statements ghost.

Russia is a threat, always will be.

Don't undermine the enemy, underestimating the enemy is possibly the worst thing you could do.

Shattered OUT...

O in that sene i defintly agree with u Shatter. In that case many countries are a threat.

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
I dont understand how anyone can say that Russian jets covered all of US jets before the F-22 and after the F-14.

It really is very easy to understand, they were not facing the teen series with MiG 21's or 23's and Su-15's beyond the mid 1980's; the F-16 was a small agile multi role aircraft, Russia met this by building the MiG 29, the F-14 was a long range stand off two seat interceptor, the MiG 31 was created in this role, and the F-15 was a large agile single seat air superiority fighter, enter the Su-27, so Russia had the US line up covered (not forgetting the Su-25 vs A-10)

Which planes were superior is another question, the F16 retained the edge over the MiG 29 in its design role, though the MiG 29 could take on the F-15 WVR, though not BVR where the F-15 still had a huge advantage, however the Su-27 was designed to meet the F-15 head on.

Originally posted by Pazo

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

Well - I would say that you have yourself a challenge. Unfortunately, I don't want to see historic aircraft trashed in a pointless battle.

Russian aircraft have always seemed to have the advantage in engine technology. That's been aparent from the beginnings of the Space Race. However, many Russian aircraft are made of steel frames - rather than the lighter aluminum and composites that American aircraft are made of. In cars - this makes a difference. In planes - steel is a disadvantage - it's heavy and it doesn't keep your plane alive if you get hit by a missile any more than Aluminum alloys will.

That being said - Russia and America have taken different approaches to aircraft design. For a long time - The MiG 25 'Foxbat' was a perfect example of Russia's approach - cruch cruch cruch - go fast, slam a missile into them. After America clearly began developing aircraft that were based more on technology - rather than raw power, Russia began to change the way they designed aircraft - thus came the MiG 29 'Fulcrum' and the Su-x7 and 29 - those four aircraft (with the fifth now under development as the Su-47 .... name yet to be decided) became the cause of worry for our military advisors - which spawned the ATF project as well as the Lightwieght Fighter project that gave birth to both the F-16 and F/A-18.

As far as what the results of combat would be:

Asuming Navy F-14 Tomcats intercept the first wave of aircraft - the Tomcats can expect a kill ratio of greater than 12-1. After that, Hornets would be required to defend the fleet while the Tomcats rearm to intercept additional threats. If you don't know why the Tomcat would score such a kill ratio - then I suggest you visit F-14 and be sure to pay attention to the Phoenix Missile System as well as the coordination with AWACS.

The F-15s would take the worst hits - pretty much a battle of atrittion with whatever came their way - hoping that their missiles hit their mark and that the ones coming at them miss. The weapons that the F-15 carry are fairly similar in range to most of the standard armament on the MiG 29 and Su-x7s and x9s.

From what I have seen of the Su-47 - I don't expect much of the low RCS - there is too much RCS lobe intersection. It looks like it'd be a very maneuverable aircraft to contend with - so I'd be sure to keep it from getting in close.

Ironically - the F-15 seems built for the battles of atrittion I mentioned... but the F-22 is built more for isolated combat - as well as the F-23.

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
I dont understand how anyone can say that Russian jets covered all of US jets before the F-22 and after the F-14.

It really is very easy to understand, they were not facing the teen series with MiG 21's or 23's and Su-15's beyond the mid 1980's; the F-16 was a small agile multi role aircraft, Russia met this by building the MiG 29, the F-14 was a long range stand off two seat interceptor, the MiG 31 was created in this role, and the F-15 was a large agile single seat air superiority fighter, enter the Su-27, so Russia had the US line up covered (not forgetting the Su-25 vs A-10)

Which planes were superior is another question, the F16 retained the edge over the MiG 29 in its design role, though the MiG 29 could take on the F-15 WVR, though not BVR where the F-15 still had a huge advantage, however the Su-27 was designed to meet the F-15 head on.

yes u are right that the Russians defiantly made planes to counter the AMERICAN line up, but they only succeded with the MIG-31 for we didnt continue to create better long range interceptors. Other than that we out class em. (not including the SU-47 ad MIG-1.42)

For my real question > Can a F/A-18F Super Hornet beat a typhoon, tie or be beaten OR all of the above? This question mainly goes out to Waynos and Westpoint.





[edit on 16-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]

Any modern fighter can beat any other, it depends on the pilot, his training and tactics. Sea Harriers have defeated F-14's on excercise but there is no way the Harrier was a better fighter.

The Typhoon has a speed advantage over the Super Hornet, they both have advanced systems and, unitl the Meteor comes into service, identical weapons.

EDIT; of course the above means that a USN F-18E will beat a Spanish/German/Italian AF Typhoon most times but never, ever an RAF one

On the other hand he might just shoot himself down and save the Typhoon the bother





Cheap shot, but it amused me.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by waynos]

The one thing that the F-18E does not have in its favor is Thrust-Weight ratio. It doesn't have very much get up and go when it's got much of a combat load. It's pretty maneuverable - but air to air combat was not a focus of the F-18E - attack roles are what it was designed for. It's maneuverable so that it can get out of dodge of a SAM - but it's designed to take out the SAM launcher.

Statistically - I don't see what all the hype is over the F-18E. I would have liked to have seen a re-configured Tomcat with composite structure, super cruise - and enhanced ground-strike capability. It would have been a much better investment. The F-18E doesn't have the mobility that is becoming so highly valued by the branches of the service. It doesn't have enough bite and it doesn't have enough muscle. With the Navy at the forefront of our offensive air campaigns, we need to give them the best aircraft we can for the job.

Originally posted by Waynos
The Typhoon has a speed advantage over the Super Hornet, they both have advanced systems and, unitl the Meteor comes into service, identical weapons.

Waynos, the Super Hornet is fielding the new C-7 while the Typhoon uses the B version of the AMRAAM, significant difference between the two. And just to add the Hornet is likely to use the C-8 before the Meteor enters service. Also, I’m not sure how the AN/APG-79 compares to the ECR-90, I do know however that it can do a whole lot more than track targets at a distance.

As for who would win, well that like all think depends on a few factors. Personally I’m a fan of the E/F, especially the Block II version. Its advanced avionics/systems, reduced signature, weaponry and high agility make it a very formidable fighter. IMO more so than the F-14 in the A2A role.

The AMRAAM on the Typhoon is the AIM 120C-5 which will be standard until Meteor comes along, there is currently a programme integrating the C-5 witht he Tornado F.3 to allow it to use Typhoon stocks as well, the first test firing was in Jan this year. I'm not sure what the difference is between the C-5 and the C-7 but I don't think its that massive.

edit; I know the difference now

Developed under the AMRAAM Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) Phase 3 programme, the AIM-120C-7 configuration retains the same motor and warhead as the current AIM-120C-5 but incorporates new commercial processors, rehosted software and enhancements in the radar signal processing chain intended to provide an increased electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) capability.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by waynos]

1. Raptor, really in service, unlike many other 5th gen fighters
2. F15C, once again really in service
3. The -30 the Indians have, great jet but they are still learning
4. Block 50 Vipers with JHMCS and Link, Dude even if you have a small radar you can still have a HUGE advantage when you see the entire battle and your wing can too.
5. Hornets, E model, the extra stations, and bit of LO help a bunch though it needs more motor.
6. Su-27 models, formidable weapon in the right hands but not many users know how to employ them fully.
The rest is a toss up.

Having flown the F-35 sim that LM travels around to various Viper bases with I can tell you that it will be a huge step forward in some respects, the ability to "see" through your airframe and to have all the worlds info in your helmet will be huge. Though the glass front will not be liked well because pilots like to have physical switch or button to push, pull, or through. The entire front glass is touch sensitive glass, it won't be much good on a bumpy ride. Most things are handled using a more advanced HOTAS than current 4th gen fighters, so it may be a mute point in the end.

Have fun, debating this but I think it should be limited to currently field weapon systems and I mean units that can take the weapon and employ it, not take them to airshows.

Waynos when did the Typhoon switch over to the C-5? A Tornado F3 performed the first UK firing of a C-5 AMRAAM in December of last year.

ch1466

DO NOT tell me what I'm talking about. I am NOT mistaken. The F-15Es were returning from a training sortie when one or two Typhoons jumped them. It's a common practice and it happens a lot more than people realize. Both F-15s were gunned down by the Typhoons with relative ease.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Waynos when did the Typhoon switch over to the C-5? A Tornado F3 performed the first UK firing of a C-5 AMRAAM in December of last year.

It is currently ongoing, tranche 1 Typhoons (currently entering service) are using existing RAF stocks of AIM 120B but the C-5 will be introduced with tranche 2 aircraft next year and will be the standard RAF BVR weapon until the Meteor comes into service, hence the need to get the Tornado cleared on it too.

I realise that some F-18E's have AESA and C-7 right now but is it really such a *huge* adavantage? The AIM 120C is a step upgrade of the B, essentially a clipped wing version with a better motor developed for the F-22, its not as if the RAF is still using the AIM-7 or the BAe Skyflash. Would the discrepancy in missile mark (of the same type of missile) really make more difference to the fight than better tactics or pilot awareness? I wouldn't say so.

Well, missile performance is enhanced a bit but as you said noting that couldn't be compensated for by other factors. And Waynos I only asked about the Typhoon using the C-5 because it caught me off guard, frankly I was not aware that it was switching over to it next year.

I too believed we were sticking with the B version when I was in discussion with another member on a similar topic some time ago, it was only while searching the net to find out the differences between the B and C versions that I discovered the C-5 was going on the Typhoon over the next couple of years, which I then verified with other sources, for all I know even this information could be out of date by now with the appearance of the C-7 and the UK's commitments in Iraq etc, such decisions always appear to be in a state of flux.

[edit on 17-6-2006 by waynos]

The lockheed martin FA22 Raptor (USAF), the Joint Strike Fighter (RAF), the Eurofighter Typhoon (RAF) the MF1 MIG (Russia) and the FA18 hornet (USAF)

If you want info on the latest russci mig than check out this, i found it the other day on my travels through cyberspace, you know, as you do. www.aeronautics.ru...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
ch1466

DO NOT tell me what I'm talking about. I am NOT mistaken. The F-15Es were returning from a training sortie when one or two Typhoons jumped them. It's a common practice and it happens a lot more than people realize. Both F-15s were gunned down by the Typhoons with relative ease.

Whatever bucky.

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...

Now clearly I was mistaken in thinking that nobody would flash the 'shoot me I'm stupid' free conversion target IFF code without a wingman to make it a far fight. But unless there has been /another/ engagement between Beagles and Flubber, you are the one who got the essentials of who was on which end of the stick-at-start (Advantage Eagle) dead wrong.

And I stand by what I said. THE RULE being that nobody goes more than 140` to break the engagement because then it becomes a hassling match and that is _strictly_ verbotten. Of course if it had been a hapless F-15E that refused to lose like a gentleman, I'm sure the Brit ATC organization would have been /soooo/ understanding.

Snicker.


KPl.