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: 22
2
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The thing is though that MSIP is only a systems upgrade. If you're talking WVR then MSIP isn't going to get you anything to win the fight. If you want to have an F-15 that is a serious WVR threat to anything out there now, you have to make major changes to the structure of the plane. You'd have to put thrust vectoring and new powerplants at a minimum. The F-15 is still a good WVR/BVR platform, but if you want the top dog F-15 you can't talk MSIP unless you do physical changes too. ACTIVE was an interesting idea, but not really feasible as an active (no pun intended) platform.


Wasn't ACTIVE based on the SMTD airframe?

With all that residual weight deriving from the structural beefing for the heavy reverser installation and all that drag inherent to the largely unmodified (certainly 'unoptimized') F/A-18 stabilator installation and the heavy actuators over the intake ramps, I just don't see the usefulness of that approach at all.

Mind you, they did an 'F-15X' which more or less completely changed the aerodynamix of the jet by installing a wing with fully variable LEF/TEF combination and about 10-15% more area (along with proposed 229/232 engines with PBBN). That might work. But it would still be a 608(+) square foot wing area. Which is just NOT what you want to play WVR with.

Indeed, IMO, there are two keys to winning the WVR fight:

1. Freedom from SAMs.
Something not even an F-22 can guarantee if it's flatplating the airframe to all points of the compass going 'round and round'. Ground threats are the number one killer of ALL 'fighters'. Not other airframes. Not even close.

2. Freedom from optics.
This is actually more practical because it only requires aerodynamic tailoring for a (relatively) small turret protrusion into the airflow. With high probability of seduction (+95%) if you /also/ have a weapon that can kill at 'any point in a globe' _greater than_ the distance for which a threat can execute a successful guns pass, a C-130 with multiple DIRCM turrets and a mix of AMRAAM, WANDA/VIPRE and AIM-9X type systems (backed by a massive load of EXCM and a really good IRST/Radar) suddenly becomes a superior 'dogfighter'.

CONCLUSION:
Put your dogfighting underwing. Fire the blood things over fence with about a half hour lead at .85 on a microturbine engine. Follow-on to cue the air defense response and watch the fur fly as men who can't SEE what's killing them suddenly find themselves being dogpiled (10 miles out from wheel in well) by missiles that _hunt_ which is to say come around for a second and third pass, looking to hamstring the sluggish manned airframes own energy recovery. Until they (or a pack mate) can score the grenade-in-ear trick of exploding next to the cockpit canopy while the airframe is a 1G strafe rag.


KPl.




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Ch, no contradictions here, I said the F-15C has quite a build with all it's upgrade, implying that it was significantly better than it's original build. It would pose a threat to any real 5th generation fighter, but that does not make it a 5th generation Super fighter as much as Ghost would want it.

I have not contradicted myself. I said the F-15C is significantly better, and at the same time stood by the fact that it is not better than the Typhoon, it was ghost who kept pushing for it to be better than the Eurofighter, I always had the stance that it is not. Read very carefully, don't read one sentence and then think that of the whole post.

No contradiction going on in my mind.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Ch, no contradictions here, I said the F-15C has quite a build with all it's upgrade, implying that it was significantly better than it's original build. It would pose a threat to any real 5th generation fighter, but that does not make it a 5th generation Super fighter as much as Ghost would want it.

I have not contradicted myself. I said the F-15C is significantly better, and at the same time stood by the fact that it is not better than the Typhoon, it was ghost who kept pushing for it to be better than the Eurofighter, I always had the stance that it is not. Read very carefully, don't read one sentence and then think that of the whole post.

No contradiction going on in my mind.

Shattered OUT...


No such thing as a plane thats a threat to a 5th Generation fighter with out being a 5th generation fighter itself. Thats like saying a SU-30 is a threat to a Typhoon, it doesnt make sense. And anyway no the ACTIVE is not a air frame of the SMTD. CH1446 i honestly dont understand where u derived ur informtion from.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
ShatteredSkies,

>>
Ch, no contradictions here, I said the F-15C has quite a build with all it's upgrade, implying that it was significantly better than it's original build. It would pose a threat to any real 5th generation fighter, but that does not make it a 5th generation Super fighter as much as Ghost would want it.
>>

Quite the contrary, I myself see the F-15C and Flubber as occupying 'nearly the same' niches. With a slight advantage going to the latter by virtue of useable pylons.

>>
I have not contradicted myself. I said the F-15C is significantly better, and at the same time stood by the fact that it is not better than the Typhoon, it was ghost who kept pushing for it to be better than the Eurofighter, I always had the stance that it is not. Read very carefully, don't read one sentence and then think that of the whole post.
>>

Everyone knows my opinion of Flubber-

www.sixtiescity.com...

In that-

1. 'If you take away the AMSAR (after they rob the APG-81 of the necessary techbase for 'tile' AESA).

2. If you take away the Meteor (when it arrives, for real, in 2010 or so).

3. If you eliminate the Eurofirst/ASRAAM/Cockpit/HMDS combination.

4. If you remove the TRD/Crosseye options plus Plessey MAWS plus ALARM/ARMIGER pylon.

It isn't a fighter worth buying.

Because it's internal fuel fraction is too small and it's signature too large (especially for the available radar modes and A2G ordnance) to allow it to be a particularly capable OFFENSIVE 'expeditionary fighter'.

And yet the greeblies all work perfectly well as a defensive interceptor which is more or less what it was originally a Centfront Air Superiority = 15 minute lifespan intended to be.

What pets my peeve is that ALL these secondary systems are themselves fully 'representative' if not /harvestable/ so that, by it's very existence, you are left with an inevitable conclusion that we are closing our own loop on the arms escalation spiral.

Either by exporting the _weapons system_ (around which the aluminum and composite shell are wrapped) to a nation which will proliferate the technology base to threats.

Or, 'threatening too' (setting the technology bar based on the capabilities of a so-called Ally) as a justification stealth, i.e. The F-35.

And IMO, even this is not really relevant. Because a 100-120km AIM-120D fired off a _radar silent_ F-15 (with full tanks and 3 610s worth of droppables), while using 'button' MP-RTIP array support from an RQ-4 GHawk semi-WACS, can probably still beat a 150-200km ram-AAM airframe which must provide it's own illumination to both find and MCG track targets during the Meteor's extended flyout.

The ultimate difference still being whether you want to have an F-15 anything in the theater when a UCAV can do the same mission (dumb carrier for LRAAM ADAAM guided from offboard) for half the cost AND drop bombs more efficiently on mission #2.

As well as what you do when multi megawatt (digital, diode) pumped lasers start obliterating any aircraft which comes to line of sight.

If I wanted to kill a fixed wing asset, my first effort to do so would always be 'bird on the ground is worth two on the fly' oriented. At that would mean a Cruise-AAM that did not participate in the circular logic of 'coming to grips' with who was better in their element. Supported or otherwise.

Whether that means I flush the enemy out from their MOBS to roadbases (where they have no overhead protection and all of 1-2 flights worth of gas and munitions and spares). Or up to high altitude where their 'supercruise' is still worth all of about diddly squat to a 186,000 mile per second DEWS.

The fact remains that nobody fights as equals an enemy whose true prowess is measured in the length of their spears and the quality of their apertures. They out finagle them with cheaper munitions. Or they smack them down from completely beyond their point of engagement.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
No such thing as a plane thats a threat to a 5th Generation fighter with out being a 5th generation fighter itself. Thats like saying a SU-30 is a threat to a Typhoon, it doesnt make sense. And anyway no the ACTIVE is not a air frame of the SMTD. CH1446 i honestly dont understand where u derived ur informtion from.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]

Only problem I see with this is that the Su-30MKI is infact a threat to the Typhoon.

The Su-30MKI is a good example of how a generation 4.5 can be a threat to a generation 5 fighter, it masters superior manueverability and capability for the size of the aircraft.

Last time I checked the ACTIVE is a part of the F-15SM/TD airframe, the F-15SM/TD was a tech demonstrator show various different technologies and their effects on modern aircraft at the time, it proved successful, ACTIVE is merely a system of Thrust Vectoring included in the airframe. The F-15SM/TD airframe included Thrust Vectoring, but only 2 Dimensional, ACTIVE was 3 dimensional.

To say that the ACTIVE is not an airframe of the F-15SM/TD is wrong because believe it or not, the ACTIVE and IFCS systems were incorporated into the same exact aircraft TF-15A that is the F-15SM/TD. So the F-15SM/TD is the exact same plane as the the F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Not to nitpick, but the SMTD was an F-15B. It was the first F-15B that was produced, and loaned to NASA who modified it. The SMTD demonstrator flew in 1988 for the first time. It had two dimensional thrust vectoring, F-18 elevators as canards, and digital fly by wire installed. After the SMTD tests were done, it had a new computer installed, higher thrust F100 engines, and three dimensional thrust vectoring to do the F-15 ACTIVE testing. In 1998/1999 they began using it for test on an Intelligent Flight Control System.

[edit on 6/20/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
The F-15B was originally called the TF-15A at the start of the programme until the USAF had a rethink in the mid 1970's. They are the same plane.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
You're right. I completely forgot about that since they changed it so fast. IIRC they only came out with a couple of them as TF-15As and then almost immediately changed to the F-15B.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
So my sources aren't wrong, F-15B and TF-15A are the same plane.

The TF-15A used is the exact same Airframe as in all Tech demonstrators, SMTD, ACTIVE, IFCS alike.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Yeah, the first two or three were TF-15As then they switched to the F-15B designation.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by GhosTBR55
No such thing as a plane thats a threat to a 5th Generation fighter with out being a 5th generation fighter itself. Thats like saying a SU-30 is a threat to a Typhoon, it doesnt make sense. And anyway no the ACTIVE is not a air frame of the SMTD. CH1446 i honestly dont understand where u derived ur informtion from.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]

Only problem I see with this is that the Su-30MKI is infact a threat to the Typhoon.

The Su-30MKI is a good example of how a generation 4.5 can be a threat to a generation 5 fighter, it masters superior manueverability and capability for the size of the aircraft.

Last time I checked the ACTIVE is a part of the F-15SM/TD airframe, the F-15SM/TD was a tech demonstrator show various different technologies and their effects on modern aircraft at the time, it proved successful, ACTIVE is merely a system of Thrust Vectoring included in the airframe. The F-15SM/TD airframe included Thrust Vectoring, but only 2 Dimensional, ACTIVE was 3 dimensional.

To say that the ACTIVE is not an airframe of the F-15SM/TD is wrong because believe it or not, the ACTIVE and IFCS systems were incorporated into the same exact aircraft TF-15A that is the F-15SM/TD. So the F-15SM/TD is the exact same plane as the the F-15 ACTIVE and F-15 IFCS.

Shattered OUT...


Who told u this? If you look at past or present simulations and testing that the US and British did. Ull see that the typhoon beats a SU-35 any where from 4.5 to 1 (could be a little lower or higher). Meaning one typhoon for every 4.5 SU-35. So whered did u get your information that a SU-30MKI was a threat to a Typhoon? PLEASE send me a real source of this.

AND

I dont understand why are u trying to prove that the ACTIVe is a TECH demonstrator and W/E? Im just combinin up all the upgrades of the F-15 and asking if it could be a threat to a TYPHOON. I dont care if the airframe is from a STMD or W/E. Stop trying to talk about something that wasnt even part of the post. This a discussion not a Disection.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by GhosTBR55]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Alright, look whatever, you think what you want, but as for me, this is the last I post to this thread.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
ok so where does the su 37 (terminator) fall . . ? ? gen 5 or 4.5 . . ? ?




posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
ok so where does the su 37 (terminator) fall . . ? ? gen 5 or 4.5 . . ? ?



i would say 4.5 maybe 4.75

justin



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by srsairbags
ok so where does the su 37 (terminator) fall . . ? ? gen 5 or 4.5 . . ? ?



i would say 4.5 maybe 4.75

justin


aww cmon dude . .
there is no such thing as gen 4.75 its a 5 gen fighter .
And im sure its a better fighter than the typhoon and rafale (thats for sure) . . the only thing that comes close woould be the f22 raptor . . . the terminator will out perform the F22 too . . when it comes to menouverability . . in the rest of the things they are quite evenly matched . . . .



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
whoops . . . soory didnt mean to post again

[edit on 25-6-2006 by srsairbags]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
aww cmon dude . .
there is no such thing as gen 4.75 its a 5 gen fighter .
And im sure its a better fighter than the typhoon and rafale (thats for sure) . . the only thing that comes close woould be the f22 raptor


first things first about the 4.75 generation fighter.
from www.abovetopsecret.com...



The 4.5 generation includes F-18 Super Hornet, Sukhoi Su-33, Sukhoi Su-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Grippen and the Dassault Raphale. (it bears acknowledgement that Aerospaceweb says that the Typhoon and the Raphale are arguably somewhere between 4.5 and 5th generation.)


5th GENERATION: 2000-
The attributes that characterize the 5th generation of fighter aircraft include highly advanced avionics and stealthy sensory suites giving the pilot a comprehensive view of the entire battlespace. Also characterizing 5th gen is a combination of stealthy design and efficient supersonic speeds.
Aircraft that stand as examples of 5th generation fighters are the F-22 Raptor, the not yet operational F-35, and possibly the MiG MFI and Sukhoi Su-47, should either of them ever see production.


it isnt 4th generation but i dont think its good enough for 5th generation and if 4.75 generation is ggod enough for intelgirl its good enough for me. i only realised there was a 4.75 generation when i read that thread purpously to answer this dudes question.

second things second.


. . . the terminator will out perform the F22 too . . when it comes to menouverability . . in the rest of the things they are quite evenly matched . . . .


the terminator might out manouver the f-22 but it has to get close enough to outmanouvere it. nothing is going to get close to the f-22 without being shot down on a regular basis (freak occurences happen) for a while. the f-22 would kick the ass of a su-37 almost every single time.

btw the su-37 has not gone into production so again it cant really be compared to the f-22. a real plane would kick the ass of any paper plane.


justin



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3

Originally posted by srsairbags
aww cmon dude . .
there is no such thing as gen 4.75 its a 5 gen fighter .
And im sure its a better fighter than the typhoon and rafale (thats for sure) . . the only thing that comes close woould be the f22 raptor


first things first about the 4.75 generation fighter.
from www.abovetopsecret.com...



The 4.5 generation includes F-18 Super Hornet, Sukhoi Su-33, Sukhoi Su-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Grippen and the Dassault Raphale. (it bears acknowledgement that Aerospaceweb says that the Typhoon and the Raphale are arguably somewhere between 4.5 and 5th generation.)


5th GENERATION: 2000-
The attributes that characterize the 5th generation of fighter aircraft include highly advanced avionics and stealthy sensory suites giving the pilot a comprehensive view of the entire battlespace. Also characterizing 5th gen is a combination of stealthy design and efficient supersonic speeds.
Aircraft that stand as examples of 5th generation fighters are the F-22 Raptor, the not yet operational F-35, and possibly the MiG MFI and Sukhoi Su-47, should either of them ever see production.


it isnt 4th generation but i dont think its good enough for 5th generation and if 4.75 generation is ggod enough for intelgirl its good enough for me. i only realised there was a 4.75 generation when i read that thread purpously to answer this dudes question.

second things second.


. . . the terminator will out perform the F22 too . . when it comes to menouverability . . in the rest of the things they are quite evenly matched . . . .


the terminator might out manouver the f-22 but it has to get close enough to outmanouvere it. nothing is going to get close to the f-22 without being shot down on a regular basis (freak occurences happen) for a while. the f-22 would kick the ass of a su-37 almost every single time.

btw the su-37 has not gone into production so again it cant really be compared to the f-22. a real plane would kick the ass of any paper plane.


justin


well dude . . i was comparing the aircrafts as a whole . . that includes avionics ,radars and stuff . . . NOT THE ARMAMENT carried by them . . . if you pitch in air to air missiles too while comparing them . . then youre better off with a bloody TOM cat (f14) or hf-eagle (f15). . why dish in the extra muulah $$ for the yf22 ? ? ? . . f14 amrams have the largest range of them all . . . that dosent mean that they are better than the F22 now is it . . . . .

then that way ill say that the sukhoi 30 mki can be mounted with a pair of supersonic ICBMs and then say . . well . .since my effetive range is more than yours . . . in a real combat situation (regular basis) i would bomb your airfeild before you could take off . . .


now thats stupid . . . compare the aircrafts and thats it . . . . . su37 turns out to be marginally better than the f22 . . . . but then again f22 is stealth and can supercruise . . . .

and about the oming into production thing . . . well . . su37 will enter into production shortly . . . some versions are undergoing testing and developmental programs . . mostly funded by foreign countries . . . .



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
well dude . . i was comparing the aircrafts as a whole . . that includes avionics ,radars and stuff . . . NOT THE ARMAMENT carried by them . . . if you pitch in air to air missiles too while comparing them . . then youre better off with a bloody TOM cat (f14) or hf-eagle (f15). . why dish in the extra muulah $$ for the yf22 ? ? ? . . f14 amrams have the largest range of them all . . . that dosent mean that they are better than the F22 now is it . . . . .


actually i think the mig 31 carries the longest range air to air missile but i might be wrong on that.

i was compaiing the aircraft as a whole. you sadi the su-37 can outmanouver the f-22 so i said that it doesnt matter as the f-22 would blow it out the sky at bvr distances using an aim 120 amraam before the su-37 was close enough for manouvering to become important. the f-22 also has a decent chance of blowing the su-37 out the sky without the su-37 picking the f-22 up on radar due to the f-22's stealth.


then that way ill say that the sukhoi 30 mki can be mounted with a pair of supersonic ICBMs and then say . . well . .since my effetive range is more than yours . . . in a real combat situation (regular basis) i would bomb your airfeild before you could take off . . .



wtf???


now thats stupid . . . compare the aircrafts and thats it . . . . . su37 turns out to be marginally better than the f22


i would be intrested to see some links on that one.



. . . . but then again f22 is stealth and can supercruise . . . .


yep they are rather large things to leave out of your above comparison espcially stealth. if you take away the f-22s stealth and supercruise using the remainder in a comparisson leaves the comparisson worthless if not worse.



and about the oming into production thing . . . well . . su37 will enter into production shortly . . . some versions are undergoing testing and developmental programs . . mostly funded by foreign countries . . . .


aye maybe it will but its still a prototype but you cant compare a prototype with a actual real life fighter on level terms.

justin



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
well dude . . yeah the raptor is stealthy . . but not completely undetectable . . . .
. . . BVR actually means nothing here . . even the sukhois got a decent enough range to take care of the raptor at BVR . . . i guess the BVR that you are reffering to is with AWACS supprt . . that againn is a completely different thing . . . . . i kinda feel stupid comparing the two . . . hell many ppl have alredy done soo . . in the very site . . . soo i think lets leave it at that . . . what i actually wanted to say is that sU 37 lies in the 5th generation catagory . . . . (along with the su47 berkut and mig proj 1.42 arguably the best air superiority fighters in the planet)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join