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.

 

U.S. combat aircraft equivalents

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 07:11 PM
link   
It's always fascinating to find equivalents of U.S. aircraft with those of Russia (since Russia dominates RotW aircraft). This is the way I see it, including which fighter is superior:

A-10 Warthog - Su-25BM "Frogfoot" (A-10)
AH-64A "Apache" - Mi-28N "Havoc" (Equal)
B-1B Lancer - Tu-160 "Blackjack" (Tu-160)
F-5E Tiger II - MiG-21 "Fishbed" (MiG-21)
F-14A Tomcat - Su-27K "Flanker-D" (F-14A)
F-15C Eagle - Su-27 "Flanker-B" (Su-27)
F-15E Strike Eagle - Su-34 "Platypus" (F-15E)
F-16C/D/G Fighting Falcon - MiG-29C "Fulcrum-A" (F-16)
F/A-18C Hornet - MiG-29K "Fulcrum-D" (F/A-18C)
F/A-22A Rapier - MiG Object 1.42 (Undecided)

Any thoughts?




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Forgot some planes, B2, B52, and F117, also JSF



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Forgot some planes, B2, B52, and F117, also JSF


I know.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Mig 1.42 is not produced in numbers and is still under research, besides being under-funded. Is the Russian government looking to produce this aircraft after further tests/testings and what are the projected numbers?

Nice list though and seems fairly accurate.


seekerof



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

F/A-22A Rapier



maybe F/A-22A Raper

------------------------------------------------------

Su-47 would fit better than Mig 1.44
it has more flying hours, and it was on airshow (MAKS 2001), and i like it more


Edit: Uhhh... maybe MAKS 1999?

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by titus]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I don't think the F-22 and the MiG 1.44 MFI are equal... the F-22 has a better stealth design, whereas the MFI only has that plasma gas shielding system.
And I don't think the MiG has BVR engagement capability (not entirely sure).



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by titus

Su-47 would fit better than Mig 1.44
it has more flying hours, and it was on airshow (MAKS 2001), and i like it more


Edit: Uhhh... maybe MAKS 1999?

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by titus]


You mean Berkut?



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
you got it all wrong


A-10 Warthog - Su-25/39 "Frogfoot" and il-102 (A-10)
AH-64A "Apache" - Mi-28N "Havoc" (outperforms apache) and mi-35
B-1B Lancer - Tu-22M3"Backfire"
F-5E Tiger II - MiG-21 "Fishbed" (MiG-21)
F-14A Tomcat - Mig-31"Foxhound" (outperforms f-14 in everyway except manuverabilety)
F-15C Eagle - Su-27SM (all su-27 will be upgraded to SM 4++ gen by the end of the year)
F-15E Strike Eagle - Su-34 "Platypus" (F-15E) and su-24
F-16C/D/G Fighting Falcon - MiG-29SMT and M2 F/A-18C Hornet - MiG-29K and Su-33
F/A-22A Rapier - Pak-fa (t-50) will take off in 2006 and enter production some years later.
F-117 - Su-22
B-2 - Tu-160



[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Flanker]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
How about :

yf-23:Mig1.44



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker
you got it all wrong


A-10 Warthog - Su-25/39 "Frogfoot" and il-102 (A-10)
AH-64A "Apache" - Mi-28N "Havoc" (outperforms apache) and mi-35
B-1B Lancer - Tu-22M3"Backfire"
F-5E Tiger II - MiG-21 "Fishbed" (MiG-21)
F-14A Tomcat - Mig-31"Foxhound" (outperforms f-14 in everyway except manuverabilety)
F-15C Eagle - Su-27SM (all su-27 will be upgraded to SM 4++ gen by the end of the year)
F-15E Strike Eagle - Su-34 "Platypus" (F-15E) and su-24
F-16C/D/G Fighting Falcon - MiG-29SMT and M2 F/A-18C Hornet - MiG-29K and Su-33
F/A-22A Rapier - Pak-fa (t-50) will take off in 2006 and enter production some years later.
F-117 - Su-22
B-2 - Tu-160



[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Flanker]


Why compare tu-160 with B2? These are both different bombers. TU-160 is supersonic bomber, but B2 is subsonic stealth bomber. TU-160 can be compared to B1B (it was developed as B1A counterpart)

I really don't know why are you comparing F117 with Su-22, those are totally different aircrafts.

About PAK-FA: It is not F22 adversary, it should be JSF adversary. Prototype SHOULD fly in 2006, serial aircraft in 2010-11. Of course there is the problem with the funding - only 1.5 billion $ have been appropriated for this project. The estimated cost for development is 15 billions. Pak-fa is being developed not primarily for russian Air-Force, but for export. The Russians fear that JSF can be a disaster for the Russian aircraft products by some of their traditional partners. (especially India).

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by longbow]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
true,

I cant undesrtand how the Su-22 can be compared to the F-117



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Why compare tu-160 with B2? These are both totally different bombers. TU-160 is supersonic bomber, but B2 is subsonic stealth bomber.

TU-160 can be compared to B1B (it was developed as B1A counterpart)
not really, tu-160 and b1b are also very different aircraft.

I really don't know why are you comparing F117 with Su-22, those are totally different aircrafts.
both are mainly ground attack.. i just dont think there are more such crappy aircraft as the f117, anyway su-22 wins hands down, especially the M$
, it also has air-to-air unlike the #ty f117



About PAK-FA: It is not F22 adversary


according to Russian air force deputy CinC, Aleksandr Zelin,
this airplane "in no case" will be inferior to Western analogues, including the F-22 airplane. The deputy CinC specified that this will be an ultra-maneuverable, low-detectable airplane with broadened capabilities which provide for the destruction of aerial and ground targets in any weather and time of day or night.


, it should be JSF adversary. Prototype SHOULD fly in 2006, serial aircraft in 2010-11. Of course there is the problem with the funding - only 1.5 billion $ have been appropriated for this project. The estimated cost for development is 15 billions. Pak-fa is being developed not primarily for russian Air-Force, but for export. The Russians fear that JSF can be a disaster for the Russian aircraft products by some of their traditional partners. (especially India).

the design of the pak-fa is ready.. engines are being tested long time ago.. so are the avionics, there will be different versions of the pak-fa and also VSTOL






posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flanker
not really, tu-160 and b1b are also very different aircraft.


Really?
TU-160



B1B







[Edited on 2-5-2004 by longbow]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by Flanker
not really, tu-160 and b1b are also very different aircraft.


Really?
TU-160



B1B







[Edited on 2-5-2004 by longbow]



and?



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Flanker you wrote : they are VERY DiFFERENT. I disagree.
These two are very diferent ...




... but no B1B and Tu-160.

Comparison:

Tu-160 B-1B
length 54,1 m 44,8 m
height 13,1 m 10,36 m
Engine thrust 4*225 kN 4*137 kN
empty weight 110 t 87 t
max weight 275 t 216 t
max. payload 40 t 34 t
max. range 14.500 km 12.000 km
vert.climb rate 70 m.s. 70 m.s.
low altitude speed 1M 1,1M
12000m alt.speed 2M 1,7M

Both are strategical supersonic bombers. Both have variable geometry. Both are made for low altitude ,deep penetration strategical attacks. Something more to add?





[Edited on 2-5-2004 by longbow]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
you are kind of right.. these airplanes were made for the same task, a supersonic low-level air defence penetration... quoting another tu-160 related post:





And the laws of aerodynamics are the same for all, be you American or Russian. TU-160 is considerably bigger and outperforms its American counterpart. You also should remeber the technological margin between US and Russia, so some engineering solutions can't be directly copied and should be approached differently. And if we speak about a modern combat aircraft, it is a very complex weapon system and the overall appearance of the airframe says little about its true properties.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Mig 1.42 is not produced in numbers and is still under research, besides being under-funded. Is the Russian government looking to produce this aircraft after further tests/testings and what are the projected numbers?

Nice list though and seems fairly accurate.


seekerof


Funny thing is, I remember reading an entry in the old Knowledge Adventure educational program Aviation Challenge about Russian Aircraft of the future. One of these was the MiG 1.44. This was 1994, so back then it was referred to as the Mikoyan Object 1-42. It said that the program was lagging behind schedule, so considering the economic situation in Russia has gotten worse over the last 10 years, my guess is the project is at it's twilight.

Let's face it, Russia is not the Soviet Union. It cannot be that awesome juggernaut capable of dominating the entire world as it once was.

I mean, if you can't even supply your officers with desks and paper, then how do you expect to keep an air force flying?



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Originally posted by Seekerof
Mig 1.42 is not produced in numbers and is still under research, besides being under-funded. Is the Russian government looking to produce this aircraft after further tests/testings and what are the projected numbers?

Nice list though and seems fairly accurate.


seekerof


Funny thing is, I remember reading an entry in the old Knowledge Adventure educational program Aviation Challenge about Russian Aircraft of the future. One of these was the MiG 1.44. This was 1994, so back then it was referred to as the Mikoyan Object 1-42. It said that the program was lagging behind schedule, so considering the economic situation in Russia has gotten worse over the last 10 years, my guess is the project is at it's twilight.

Let's face it, Russia is not the Soviet Union. It cannot be that awesome juggernaut capable of dominating the entire world as it once was.

I mean, if you can't even supply your officers with desks and paper, then how do you expect to keep an air force flying?



more bs... this is not 1993 anymore, russian economy is on its feet.


ia.vpk.ru...

According to the data of Minister of Defense Sergey Ivanov, during July 2003 VVS obtained five destroyers Su-35, and during December five additional aircraft Su-27SM, on the end of the year all the su-27 will be upgraded into ++ generation, Furthermore, on 20 December for the first time into air rose the front bomber Su-34, which on the level of radio-electronic equipment can be attributed to the aircraft of the fifth generation. Within the framework gosoboronzakaza in 2004 are planned the completion of strategic bombers Tu-160, and also the innovation and repair of 150 aircraft of front aviation and more than 100 helicopters.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
To broaden the subject, which do you think has the superior strategic bomber force? Let's make it two scenarios:

2004 U.S. Air Force vs. 1980s Red Air Force (V-VS)

2004 U.S. Air Force vs. 2004 Russian Air Force

For the first scenario, I say the 1980s Red Air Force. They had some fearsome bombers then. They had the Tu-16 "Badger," which did just about everything. The Tu-22 "Blinder," was long-range, and had some reliability. But the Tu-22M "Backfire" was just awesome. It carried like three super-powerful cruise missiles, far more powerful than even our CALCMs. The Tu-95 "Bear" was the ultimate all-purpose bomber. And the Tu-160 "Blackjack," had it entered service, would have had a huge combat payload and a range exceeding that of any bomber.

Today, however, the U.S. Air Force bombers are 200 times superior to the Russian Air Force. For one thing, the Tu-22 and Tu-95s are not even in service any longer. They have Badgers and Backfires, but they have trouble maintaining them. They don't carry the weapons they once used to. They only have a handful of Blackjacks. And they have no stealth bombers.

But if I could choose my favorites, I would say the Soviets had the best bomber force. And they have the best names! Stratofortress and Spirit don't really measure up to "Backfire" and "Blackjack."



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Flanker,

But can Russia have the same military it had at the height of the Cold War?

That was no ordinary military. That was a military force unprecedented in human history. It was capable of destroying the world ten times over all on it's own.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join