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: 27
2
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
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.


I wouldn't go that far. The F-22 still has better instantaneous and sustained pitch and roll rates than the Flankers not mention a better TW ratio. The Raptor is no slouch in the WVR area. It would be a good fight between the MKI and the Raptor and would probably come down to the pilots. As the poster above me mentioned, the Raptor pilot probably shouldn't have allowed it to get that close in the first place.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I'm very curious about that if F-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons can be powered by F-135 engine? Would that give them the edge in more advanced block version of these fighters with increasing performances by more than 30%? The engine's thrust power is the one of very important reason that fighter can be far more agility and advantage to fly with better handling. I believe if F-15 got these engines in it and it will fights like the F-22 Raptors except for the stealth technology. Would that save our tax money far more effectively? I may be mistaken but its not hurt to try to do it and have knoweldge about it.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
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.


Hey, thanks, for the 'vanilla' explanation, I owe you one. English is a foreign language to me and I'm always grateful to learn a new phraze

AA-11 (that's R-73, right) has off-boresight capability ( from the 80's) of around 45 degrees, all Su-27's have Helmet mounted targeting systems. Don'no about the degree of sight of the 9X, or if it is in service yet, but I don't think it is significantly better. Any dogfight between the two will probably be won by the one who has initial advantage. What I was saying is that Su-27 is better WVR than 'vanilla' Su 30. Still, the F-22's ability to go round the circle quicker is highly debatable as is anything that comes from Locheed or the USAF. We'll have to wait till the F-22 takes part in some joint excersise. "despite the weight difference" is not very correct, isn't the F-22 lighter than Su-27. The F-22 is less aerodynamically efficient (because of stealth shape, thus bleeding speed more rapidly, despite the weight)
What it has is better T/W ratio than both the 27 & 30 with the AL-31 engines, so a smart Raptor pilot will use this and maneuvre vertically rather than horizontally (it's what the Germans (Me-109 & FW-190) used in WWII against the lithe Yak 1/7/9 which were very maneuverable but underpowered (it didn't work sehr gut against La-5/7 & Yak 3 though).



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JFrazier

Originally posted by Pazo
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.


I wouldn't go that far. The F-22 still has better instantaneous and sustained pitch and roll rates than the Flankers not mention a better TW ratio. The Raptor is no slouch in the WVR area. It would be a good fight between the MKI and the Raptor and would probably come down to the pilots. As the poster above me mentioned, the Raptor pilot probably shouldn't have allowed it to get that close in the first place.


'Better instantaneuus and sustained pitch & roll rates', highly unlikely comparing a stable design with a non-stable one, which on top of that is aerodynamically superior (I think you'll find more people to agree to that than the opposite). Where do you get your conclusions, the F-22 brochure?
Better T/W is correct, already wrote for that in my prev post. However although superior T/W ratio was the thing to have in WWII, with modern close range missiles it comes down to directional agility rather than climb rates (R-73 has much better T/W ratio than a Raptor). And the Su-27 has a superior directional agility.
Look, I haven't flown a Flanker, or a Raptor and correct me if I'm wrong neither have you. So until we do you can choose to beleive Lokheed & USAF and I choose to believe what I see on airshows, eventhough everybody here dismisses them as 'misleading'. I've seen Su-37/35/30MKI/MiG-29OVT and they are untouchable. I've seen Su-27 and MiG-29 and they are not far from it.(btw, offtopic, 'Pugachev's Cobra' was not actualy invented by him, unlike what many members here think. He showed it to the west first. Was first made on a MiG 29 by Menitskiy I think, but called 'dynamic braking',).I've seen the Raptor and to say I was disappointed would be an understatement, yes it did a cobra, we already discussed it, still not good enough.
So, I have my opinion which is based on what I think credible, you have yours the same way, and that's cool.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneMyrmidon
I'm very curious about that if F-15 Eagles and F-16 Falcons can be powered by F-135 engine? Would that give them the edge in more advanced block version of these fighters with increasing performances by more than 30%? The engine's thrust power is the one of very important reason that fighter can be far more agility and advantage to fly with better handling. I believe if F-15 got these engines in it and it will fights like the F-22 Raptors except for the stealth technology. Would that save our tax money far more effectively? I may be mistaken but its not hurt to try to do it and have knoweldge about it.


Best way to save money is to stop bombing the poor bastards all over the world. Nobody wants to attack the US anyway (yes, nobody), so the US doesn't really need fighters for homeland defense either.
I'm not saying they should stop developing fighters though, just shift funds from bombing countries on the a** of geography to developing intereesting new planes which we can discuss on this wonderful forum.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
This thread is for the discussion of The Best of the Best....Air superiority Fighters

Off topic commentary is not allowed.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
Better instantaneuus and sustained pitch & roll rates', highly unlikely comparing a stable design with a non-stable one, which on top of that is aerodynamically superior (I think you'll find more people to agree to that than the opposite). Where do you get your conclusions, the F-22 brochure?



Actually as described by test pilot Jon Beesley,

"Since the Raptor is also an unstable airplane it requires very little control deflection to start it moving in a new direction. The combination of unstable airframe with a digital, fly-by-wire flight control system gives a cat-like quickness but very predictable and pleasant flying qualities."

The stealth qualities that might hurt it aerodynamically also make it unstable just like the B-2 and F-117 before it. If you search "F-22 unstable" in Google you will find many who highlight this feature. Almost all of the new fighters are inherently unstable.

We'll just have to see how manuverable the Raptor is whenever they get a demo team up and running. Until then all we can hope for are some pilot anecdotes.

[edit on 11-7-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
You are taking one word from my post and missing the big picture. This way I don't think both of us will learn something useful from this discussion.
Instability caused by raping the airframe to achieve stealth is not the same as instability dialed in the airframe on purpose to achieve greater agility. The F-117 & B-2 are also unstable but are not among the benchmarks of agility.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yes, a Hornet DID win that fight. But he had to manuver into such an extreme low energy state that anyone else in the area would have gunned him down.

And for the record, no one is claiming that an F-22 will ALWAYS win a fight. Yes, some will get shot down, and some will lose fights. It's inevitable.



I've never met a fighter pilot yet who went into a battle thinking he /wouldn't/ win.

The difference lies in 'sponsoring' that confidence with a force structure and doctrinal paradigm that lets him stay the hell out of WVR fights on a "Must save the B-17!" level of commitment to bad odds.

An F-22 force, at Blk.20 levels (with SATCOMMS and SAR modes) can win an airwar all on it's own. THAT is the difference inherent to _Contempt Of Engagement_.

You only fight the targets you want to kill. And you have so many weapons and so much penetration performance onboard that the threat cannot play shell games nor believe that they are 'beyond the pale' of a GBU-39 strike. Rather they MUST look for the Raptors in sited aspect cross-lane coverage an in so-doing become vulnerable to the very "He who lights up first, gets smoked..." rule of EMCON.

i.e. Conventional radar-SAM systems only expedite their own demise by playing ALO games with a high speed, standoff, platform.

And that's why everyone criticizes the F-22. They know they are so far behind the eightball on it's operational paradigmetric employment mode that ONLY by making it seem like _WE WILL_ fight the way they fight best can we they pretend to be even in the same league.

The difference is, in their green-eyed monster hearts, they know that we will not.
And thus their only hope is reliance on Dumb American Herd Stampede Effect. Which they have levered quite well to their advantage thus far.

'Air Superiority Only' my ass.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
The U.S. and Russia have no time, reason, and Russia currently doesn’t have the capabilities to wage a conventional war with the U.S.


In my opinion it does especially considering how America is sending police/firemen to iraq in droves .... Scrapping the barrel as they say.



In the future you may see the U.S. and Russia working together to fight china...


Russia and China is allied at this stage and it seems the alliance is very much aimed at the US...


I'm also sure that you don’t believe the missile shield would protect against the amount of ICBMs Russia would want to throw at the U.S. even if only %20 left the silo.


I am rather sure that the US has by now caught up with the USSR when it comes to the deployment of ABM lasers and the like.


We'd go broke and fall into Russians current category if we built enough interceptors and ABLs to counter the amount of ICBMs Russia had (even though most aren’t functional) and maintained current spending habits on other systems.


Since when are the Russian ICBM's not functional. The Russians never went broke and the US could have easily afforded a missile defense shield ( much like the one the USSR had at the time ) had it any interest in such ...

Stellar



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally psoted by Waynos
Could someone please do the same for the F-22 units?


Wayno’s I finally managed to find a picture of what you asked for, here they are, enjoy.





posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Thanks Westy, nice one


(you don't get a 'one liner zap' if you are being polite do you?)



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
1.Eurofighter F2[Ive seen it at Waddington airshow]
2.Gripen
3.Rafale
4.F22 [Its here cos its not in service yet, unlike the above]
5.F15C
I will remind you that this is my opinion



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Your opinion about rankings is your own free will, but your opinion that the F-22 is not in service is quite wrong


In fact, in operational terms, the Typhoon and F-22 are at about the same stage.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Waynos is correct

technically the first usaf operational("combat ready")unit the 27th fighter squadron stationed at LANGLEY afb came on line in DEC 05,

the unit consists of around 20-24+ 22A's examples

that said
i'm still under the believe that no matter how "fast", "stealthy" or "technically advance" an fighter aircraft maybe it still comes down to one thing

it still takes "skilled pilot" to give a fighter "it's superiority" to the contrary

so my list would consist based on my opinion!

#1 SU-35

i would take my chances on any given day of the week against any fighter aircraft "skilled pilot vs skilled pilot" in a SU-35, even against the "mighty" F-22
! yes i said it and stand completely by my statement! but in the right scenario mind you


#2 RAFALE


#3 TYPHOON

#4 MiG 29SMT


#5 F/A-18E

note since the F-22 is only true 5th generation it's not on the list by default, it exceeds all aircraft listed in just about every categories so i opted not to listed but note i'm very very aware of it's capabilities


note since the SU-37 is technically "not combat operational" is not listed by default



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:30 AM
link   
As a "skilled pilot" you probably noticed that the picture you posted for Su-35 is actually the Su-37 prototype, but since that designation was never recognized by the AF will let that one fly.
Su-35 is also not operational btw (not counting Su-30 MKI which is a sort of a two seat Su 35), and it will not be operational until fitted with a propper engine to counter the increase in weight, the "pseudo" AL-41F or AL-31F1 (140+KN) would be a fine choice and from what I hear it's almost completed tests.
However you have no excuse of posting a MiG-29M picture with a MiG-29SMT written on top of it. difference is almost as big as the one between F-18C and E.
Sorry I'm not trying to be hostile, just insist on accuracy when my favourite planes are concerned.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Man I wish I had the time to read all 27 pages but all I can do is the first and last.

I dont know much about other countries planes so this is extremely interesting to me. But from what I've read and heard the F/A-22 was supposed to be from the very beginning, the #1 fighter in the world.

While I agree when it comes to pilots, they matter a lot but so much of fighting now is from beyond visual range wouldnt the planes ability to block a missiles ability to track and target it some into play?



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
As a "skilled pilot" you probably noticed that the picture you posted for Su-35 is actually the Su-37 prototype


looks like i could not pull the wool over you



However you have no excuse of posting a MiG-29M picture with a MiG-29SMT written on top of it. difference is almost as big as the one between F-18C and E.


yes your right you have my complete apologizes i was very hasty in my post and stand corrected


Sorry I'm not trying to be hostile, just insist on accuracy when my favourite planes are concerned.


not at all, "i'm a big boy" so no harm no foul

i do this purely just for fun so i take nothing personal about it



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SenHeathen
But from what I've read and heard the F/A-22 was supposed to be from the very beginning, the #1 fighter in the world.


It is, currently the F-22 is unmatched in BVR and even in WVR it will hold its own, however due to its super-cruise, stealth and high situational awareness its pilots have the ability to choose and pick when and where they want to fight.



posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Just got another picture to add, this is a tail picture of the first F-22 built for Elmendorf AFB (Alaska) which will eventually house a total of 36 F-22 fighters.




new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join