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.

 

Which of these 3 fighter aircraft is better?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 07:19 PM
link   
hey look we never said why they are fighting i mean the eurofighter fighting the rafale, get real man.
i just said how the f22 is nothing compared to the YF23.
also they could and would fight if some baught the plans off the company which im sure they would be willing to sell




posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
actually they cant buy the plans because that government wont allow that these companies wont risk loosing current contracts with the government the government will say to them if you sell the plan's we will never do business with you again and they wont risk that.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Westpoint>

What are you talking about F22 against our planes? Are we at war with the US? Duh...?

I asked if anyone has an opinion of which of those 3 planes are a better bet. Do we need you to open your pie-hole and talk about how good the F22 is. We don't need you to tell us what we already know.

Anyway...

We now operate about 70 F16 mostly the C/D versions. Most of these planes are based overseas in Australia and the US. The reason is that a sudden, overwhelming attack can destroy our 3 airbases and one international airport despite our strong air defenses.

We are now looking at the 3 fighters mentioned. These will replace the F16 as our top interceptor and the F16 will in turn replace the A4 Super Skyhawks and the F-5E Tigers as fighter/bombers.

We are also involved as a small partner on the F35 stealth fighter project. This is like the second cousin of the F22 but should still be a very formidable fighter.

he Grippen was not invited for consideration because their export version was well-below what we require. And also Singapore attaches a "technology transfer" requirement to the people we buy weapons from.

With the F16, we actually didn't buy the planes with the most advanced avionics from the US. A lot of the weapons and radar systems on our F16 are Israeli.

We have the AIM-120 missiles for our F16 but again, these are kept in the US for we don't want to offend our neighbours too much.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Oh, basing our aircrafts overseas may explain why we need the long range capability.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
duno the F-15 has got a nice all round thing going for it
the eurofighter has supercruise and lots of manouverability
and the rafale is well prety bad



couldnt of said it better my self

although my reason for the rafale would be "cause its french"



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by JCMinJapan
I would say, that it all comes down to the best pilot.


Well, our pilots should be pretty OK. Most of them are US Top Gun graduates. And they get a hell lot more flying time than any of our potential enemies in SE Asia.

Actually the best pilots can win whatever the weakness of their aircraft. There are many cases in WW2 of great pilots in inferior aircraft winning over enemies in better aircraft.

Finland was invaded by Russia sometime before or during WW2. They had old aircraft compared to the Russian Yaks. Yet, they won the air dogfights overwhelmingly and caused the Russian great losses. The Finns also used British Gladiator biplanes in this war against modern Russian planes nearly twice the speed but on many occasions the Gladiator still won.

Actually the Gladiator was also used by the Brits to defend Malta against modern Italian Fiat fighters in WW2 and also won.

But, great pilots and great airplanes will not just win the fight but win the war.



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by tvdog

Originally posted by JCMinJapan
I would say, that it all comes down to the best pilot.


Well, our pilots should be pretty OK. Most of them are US Top Gun graduates. And they get a hell lot more flying time than any of our potential enemies in SE Asia.

Actually the best pilots can win whatever the weakness of their aircraft. There are many cases in WW2 of great pilots in inferior aircraft winning over enemies in better aircraft.

Finland was invaded by Russia sometime before or during WW2. They had old aircraft compared to the Russian Yaks. Yet, they won the air dogfights overwhelmingly and caused the Russian great losses. The Finns also used British Gladiator biplanes in this war against modern Russian planes nearly twice the speed but on many occasions the Gladiator still won.

Actually the Gladiator was also used by the Brits to defend Malta against modern Italian Fiat fighters in WW2 and also won.

But, great pilots and great airplanes will not just win the fight but win the war.








Most of them are US top gun graduates what the hell are you on? first of all the top gun program is only open to us military and how would singapore have top gun graduates?


E_T

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tvdog

Originally posted by JCMinJapan
I would say, that it all comes down to the best pilot.


Well, our pilots should be pretty OK. Most of them are US Top Gun graduates. And they get a hell lot more flying time than any of our potential enemies in SE Asia.

Actually the best pilots can win whatever the weakness of their aircraft. There are many cases in WW2 of great pilots in inferior aircraft winning over enemies in better aircraft.

In dogfight pilot's skills matter more than aircraft. (maybe except if one is flying modern jet and other WW1 era flying "loom")
Even smallest error can give other the upper hand and time (if there is that) to correct error is very small.
In longer ranges other factors come to play but pilot is what matters most in dogfight.



Finland was invaded by Russia sometime before or during WW2.

BTW, Finland wasn't conquered by Stalin, only small part of. (which would have been much smaller if FDF would have had modern weapons)
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
although the eurofighter is much newer , and has sum advantage i.e, no need for over-heating to break the sound barrier , the ability of maneuvering until 6G after breaking the sound barrier ( beacuse of an especial suit designed for the pilot ) and a lot more

but still I prefer the F-15 , it has the ability to track and lock 8 targets at the same time , it is faster than the eurofughter ( F-15 = 2.5 mac , eurofighter = 2.00 mac ) , and it has an amazing shape



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scorpion
it is faster than the eurofughter ( F-15 = 2.5 mac , eurofighter = 2.00 mac )


The F-15 has a higher max. speed but it can't maintain it for more than minutes due to the fact that it needs to put on the after-burner so it can't maintain a speed over mach 1 for long but the eurofighter can ( super-cruise)
So the eurofighter in general terms is faster

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Bl00D_Th0rN]



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Yeah but have you forgotten that the eagle is close to 30 years old and the raptor can supercruise and eat the EF for lunch.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey look we never said why they are fighting i mean the eurofighter fighting the rafale, get real man.
i just said how the f22 is nothing compared to the YF23.
also they could and would fight if some baught the plans off the company which im sure they would be willing to sell


I agree with you 100%! The ONLY reason that the USAF is flying f-22's instead of F-23's is that someone on the Lockheed team paid someone in the Pentagon off to get the contract. I know the Pentagon says the yf-22 was better, but remember this: They are the same people told us that Area 51 was not real and that there was no base out at Groom Lake! We know they have lied to us before! Why do you want to trust them NOW?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
duno the F-15 has got a nice all round thing going for it
the eurofighter has supercruise and lots of manouverability
and the rafale is well prety bad


All the three fighters have good maneuvrability, and are efective fighters. The F-15 has the best ratio of kills vs losses ever: 104 kills to 0 losses. No other aicraft in the history can aproach that.

Here is a specification comparison



1) maximum speed

F-15C Eagle 2698 km/h
F-15E Strike Eagle 2698 km/h
Eurofighter Typhoon 2390 km/h
Rafale 2125 km/h


2) rate of climb

Eurofighter Typhoon 18898 m/min
Rafale 18300 m/min
F-15C Eagle 17500 m/min
F-15E Strike Eagle 16000 m/min


3) ceiling

F-15C Eagle 20000 m
Eurofighter Typhoon 19810 m
F-15E Strike Eagle 18200 m
Rafale 16800 m


4) engine thrust

F-15C Eagle 258 kN
F-15E Strike Eagle 258 kN
Eurofighter Typhoon 180 kN
Rafale 174 kN


5A) weapons payload

F-15E Strike Eagle 11000 kg
Rafale 9500 kg
Eurofighter Typhoon 7500 kg
F-15C Eagle 7300 kg


5B) internal cannon rounds

F-15C Eagle 940 (20 mm)
F-15E Strike Eagle 940 (20 mm)
Eurofighter Typhoon 150 (27 mm)
Rafale 125 (30 mm)


6) maximum range

F-15C Eagle 5745 km
F-15E Strike Eagle 3900 km
Eurofighter Typhoon 3790 km
Rafale 3705 km


7) price

Eurofighter Typhoon 100.15 mil USD
F-15K Strike Eagle 100 mil USD
Rafale M 90.5 mil USD
Rafale C 83.3 mil USD
F-15E Strike Eagle 31.1 mil USD
F-15C Eagle 29.9 mil USD


8) aircraft built

F-15 Eagle 1198
F-15 Strike Eagle 334
Eurofighter Typhoon 200
Rafale 82


edit on 3-6-2011 by kondor because: type error



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Answering the Op I would say the eurofighter as its designed to be inherintley unstable which means it can do some crazy shizz



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join