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: 26
2
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
RAF Typhoon service insignia

Here are the squadron colours of the current RAF Typhoon units in the order they entered service (all Typhoon F.2's)

29 Sqn (ex-Tornado F.3)



17 Sqn (ex-Tornado GR.1)



3 Sqn (ex-Harrier GR.7)



Could someone please do the same for the F-22 units?


[edit on 7-7-2006 by waynos]




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Thanks for the pictures Waynos!
It's nice to finally see operational Typhoons. I've been waiting for them for SUCH a long time....



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo

Originally posted by Zaphod58

You're also comparing German pilots that flew in many cases the ENTIRE war, starting in Poland, to American pilots who flew a limited number of missions in their tour. Apples and Oranges.


You have a point there Zap, I know that, but let's take the ones that didn't fly the whole war- Molders, Marsei, there are far too many German super aces. If you devide the number of sorties to the kills you will see that the Germans still win ten laps ahead of the american boys. Same goes for the Russians, Fedorov was a test pilot who left the factory at his own will and went to the front in 1943. Has 126 kills (actually the Russians officially have Kozhedub as No 1, because Fedorov was a 'bad boy' and had trouble with the comissars)
An interesting fact: Hartmann has 324 kills but was shot down 16 times (all by Russians, but survived).
Fedorov has never been shot down, Pokrishkin neither if I'm not mistaken. Kozhedub was shot down only once.

What I'm saying is that according to Discovery Channel, P-51s won WWII, where in fact the total number of kills of the P-51 was insignifficant on the scale of the war. In fact american P-39 Cobras flown by russian pilots (Lend-Lease) have more kills than the Mustangs.


The Mustang DID play a HUGE role though. Not so much in the air to air kill area, but in the Bomber Escort mission. They might not have gotten a huge kill total, but while they were fighting the MEs and FWs, the B-17s weren't being attacked, so more were reaching their targets to hit them.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
The Raptor does have superior maeuverability to an SU 27 or SU 30.
P.S. im no Rapor fanboy,simply pointing out a mistake someone else made.

[edit on 6-7-2006 by masqua]


No it doesn't. Where did you get that from?

Its common knowledge that the Su-30 series with TVC can maneuver in more axes than the purely 2D TVC on the Raptor.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

The Mustang DID play a HUGE role though. Not so much in the air to air kill area, but in the Bomber Escort mission. They might not have gotten a huge kill total, but while they were fighting the MEs and FWs, the B-17s weren't being attacked, so more were reaching their targets to hit them.


Yes, the escort role is important, agree. But it is not true that the bombers weren't attacked when escorted by P-51. The germans still attacked, despite being heavily outnumbered. Mixed groups of Me 109G-6/G-10 drawing the Mustangs while FW-190 A8s butcher the bombers. It's not like the P-51s didn't have what to shoot at.
Me-109s escorting bombers during the battle of Britain had a much better kill ratio than the Mustangs so no excuses there


Originally posted by waynos

But surely your list is simplistic and flawed from the start?

The P-80 (and F-84) were contemporary with the MiG 9, whereas the F-86 and MiG 15 were contemporaries of each other in 1947. There was no time to design one in response to the other, in fact as late as 1950 the west didn't really know for certain what the MiG 15 even looked like


Simplistic, yes, it was more of a joke than a serious study. Of course the F-86 designers didn't look at the MiG's blueprints when making the Sabre, it just feels from the distance of time that the F-86 was somewhat more sophisticated than the MiG, thus can be considered a countermeasure. As I said everything can be debated, but you must see the point I was trying to make. There is something like a pattern, don't you think.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
i frankly think . . if the f22s radar and sensors are taken out of the equation . . . the sukhoi happens to be a better fighter (any day)


Well, yeah, you cant run with one leg, BTW even then the F-22 would still have stealth.


Originally posted by Pazo
So, as debatable as the above might be, you see the point that there is not much chance (statistically) the new Russian fighter to be inferior to the F-22.


Sorry, but that’s fuzzy logic, and I believe the Russians themselves have stated that the PAK-FA is not intended to compete with the F-22 per se, its more of a response to the JSF.


Originally posted by Pazo
'IT IS SAID' to be very maneuverable? You can do better than that, surely. …You are telling me the F-22 has a chance at low speeds against any of the above?


Look, like I said, frankly I don’t have enough information on the maneuverability of the F-22 to argue with you, my views are based on what I’ve seen and the comments of pilot’s and designers of the F-22. Watching air shows is a bit misleading because how many of the generic pilots can perform those maneuvers? Probably not many, as such in WVR it really does come down to pilot skill, and I’m not going to get into that whole debate.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Originally posted by Pazo
So, as debatable as the above might be, you see the point that there is not much chance (statistically) the new Russian fighter to be inferior to the F-22.


Sorry, but that’s fuzzy logic, and I believe the Russians themselves have stated that the PAK-FA is not intended to compete with the F-22 per se, its more of a response to the JSF.?


Like I said. it was more of a joke than a serious study (the fuzzy logic).
I wouldn't trust a claim that the PAK FA is not competing with the F-22, if they indeed said such a thing, it is more of an excuse, in case their plane turns out to be inferior, but make no mistake, they are aiming for the raptor. Maybe they meant that it will be more multi-role, like the JSF, and not so focused on AA. We'll see.



Originally posted by WestPoint23


Look, like I said, frankly I don’t have enough information on the maneuverability of the F-22 to argue with you, my views are based on what I’ve seen and the comments of pilot’s and designers of the F-22. Watching air shows is a bit misleading because how many of the generic pilots can perform those maneuvers? Probably not many, as such in WVR it really does come down to pilot skill, and I’m not going to get into that whole debate.


Surely an airshow is not as misleading for a fighter's maneuvering ability than the claims of it's designers. Do you trust a commercial of a car more than a test drive. I mean the designers need to sell their product, what do you expect them to say " Well buy our 150 mln dollar plane but don't go dogfighting a lot cause it's not that great in that department'?
I agree 100% that pilot skill is more important than the plane, but we still discuss plains here, not pilots, nor the outcome of a hypothetical war.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   


Simplistic, yes, it was more of a joke than a serious study. Of course the F-86 designers didn't look at the MiG's blueprints when making the Sabre


Yes, OK, I can see what your saying, except, what I was getting at was that they didn't just 'not look at the Blueprints' for the MiG 15, they didn't even look at the MiG itself as it was as much a mystery to them as the Pak Fa is to us today, if not even more so. I agree that the F-86 is a more sophisticated design though, but that relects more on the state of the art of the two industries rather than any progression in fighter design



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

No it doesn't. Where did you get that from?
Its common knowledge that the Su-30 series with TVC can maneuver in more axes than the purely 2D TVC on the Raptor.
I was speaking of the regular MKI not the TVC version.But you gotta dmit the Raptor does have a superior aerodynamic shape.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
i dont get it . . . they say the f22 is more stealthy than the f117 night hawk . . . . . is that true . . . ? ? ? is it just a RCS comparison or something else . . ? ? ?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
Yes, the escort role is important, agree. But it is not true that the bombers weren't attacked when escorted by P-51. The germans still attacked, despite being heavily outnumbered. Mixed groups of Me 109G-6/G-10 drawing the Mustangs while FW-190 A8s butcher the bombers. It's not like the P-51s didn't have what to shoot at.
Me-109s escorting bombers during the battle of Britain had a much better kill ratio than the Mustangs so no excuses there


Yeah, they were still attacked but more got through. And as more got through, more factories were taken out and more industries hit. As more industries were hit, fewer fighters were available to defend against the bombers, so more bombers got through. Before escorts, there were missions that lost dozens of planes. After escorts when some of the fighter pressure was taken off them, that went way down.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Yeah, they were still attacked but more got through. And as more got through, more factories were taken out and more industries hit. As more industries were hit, fewer fighters were available to defend against the bombers, so more bombers got through. Before escorts, there were missions that lost dozens of planes. After escorts when some of the fighter pressure was taken off them, that went way down.


As I said, I do not question the importance of the escort role, I know very whell how it affected bomber efficiency. That was not the point I was trying to make, anyway it is getting away from the topic so I'll leave it at that. Yes, the P-51 played an important role. I was just saying that it wasn't among the best Ace's planes.


Originally posted by urmomma158
I was speaking of the regular MKI not the TVC version.But you gotta dmit the Raptor does have a superior aerodynamic shape.


The TVC IS the regular version now. And NO, the Raptor does not have a superior aerodynamic shape, it's aerodynamic shape isn't any better than the F-15 . The shape is made for low RCS mainly, aerdynamics is second on the priorities list. Thus a compromise is made. The only thing that a Raptor has on an F-15 is it's superior T/W ratio and of course the TVC, which is more than enough against the F-15, but the MKI is a whole different animal. And I don't even want to talk about the single seater Su's with the more powerful engines. So, it will take something more than an unfounded statement from you to get anyone to admit anything.


[edit on 8-7-2006 by Pazo]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
The Raptor certainly does not have a better aerodynamic shape than the Flanker in my opinion. The F-22 design has to allow for stealth and internal weapons, these restrictions did not apply to the Flanker, which was designed with aerodynamic performance in mind, no consideration of stealth and everything hanging on the outside . The centre section of the F-22, by contrast, is a huge box, this has major operational advantages but is not aerodynamic, just think of the volume of air it has to shift out of the way to accomodate it. It is brilliantly designed and does exactly what it says on the tin but it is not more aerodynamically refined than the lithe Flanker family



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Nope, TVC is only on the Su-30MKI and the soon to be commenced Malaysian MKM. The vanilla Su-30 does not have TVC. Chinese Su-30MKKs don't have TVC.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
i dont get it . . . they say the f22 is more stealthy than the f117 night hawk . . . . . is that true . . . ? ? ? is it just a RCS comparison or something else . . ? ? ?
RCs and it's stealth over a broader range of frequencies. Why do you use this .............say something and go.......... I don't get it.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
im like really habituated to this . . . . . cant help it now . . . . . it has become more like involuntary muscle movement for me . . .



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
How long will the Gr.4 still fly. I believe they saw service 1998??



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Do you mean the Tornado GR.4 ?

They are supposed to be retired by 2018, but, because of ' Lightning II' development and weapons integration many in the RAF can't see the Tornado being replaced until 2022 at the earliest (which will make it 40 years in service by then for the IDS as a whole).



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
Nope, TVC is only on the Su-30MKI and the soon to be commenced Malaysian MKM. The vanilla Su-30 does not have TVC. Chinese Su-30MKKs don't have TVC.


We were talking about the MKI., I don 't know what you mean with 'the vanilla Su-30' but if you are referring to the first Su-30 delivered, they don't have TVC because at that time it wasn't ready for production. The MKK doesn't have TVC because the Chinese decided that it is not worth the extra complication, cash, weight (TVC is best used together with the canards, which complicate the plane too much) on a plane that is meant mostly as a deep strike fighter, and less an air superiority fighter. The Indian & Malaysian Su-30 on the other hand have air superiority as a priority, thus they ordered the whole nine yards.
The Su-30 is a very flexible package, you can choose canards/no cannards, TVC/no TVC, engine type, avionics, weapons. And as heretical as it may sound to some, The Su-30 is more than a match for the F-22 WVR even without the TVC & the canards. The basic Su-27 is even a better match, because it is lighter than the 30's.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Sorry Pazo, I misread your post (thought you were saying that all Su-30s have TVC), so we are actually in agreeance in that respect. By "vanilla" I meant there is no flavoring to the aircraft (ie a standard Su-30 with no bells and whistles, if that makes sense).

Can't say I agree with the Su-27 being a match for the F-22 WVR though. AIM-9X off-boresight capability, tied with the F-22s ability to get around the circle quicker despite the weight difference, will beat an AA-11 equipped Su-27 most times (with both pilots of equal capability). The MKI/MKM will have more success. Of course, if it gets to a WVR fight the Raptor pilot deserves everything he gets.



new topics




 
2
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join