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 Dogfighting aircraft: SU-37 * F-35 * Rafale * Eurofighter * Gripen *

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the ef is far more manouverable than most fighters includeing the f18.
also every fighter has faults at the start. their just working them out.


I am well aware of the agility of the EF and the EF does have some maneuvering advantages over the SH, for example, instantaneous turns and better rolls the EF has the advantage, but the sustained turn rate of the SH is significantly better than the EF, because the EF has bad turn drag, and the SH i believe has a higher AoA than the EF.




posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   
You may well believe it, it is your privilege. If the F/A-18 could outfly and outfight the Typhoon (please don't call it the EF or I will resort to calling Raptor the ATF
) then the RAF and the Luftwaffe would have bought it. That is a fact.

Also the reason the Typhoon is currently lacking in A2G capability is because it is first and foremost an agile fighter, which is how it is entering service. The A2G requirement is less pressing, or was until the MoD recently decided to throw away the perfectly acceptable and recently upgraded Jaguar GR.3. Consequently the development programme is still ongoing. The few relatively trivial problems that have arisen are are merely what you would expect with an all new system. Its not as if the bombs don't fit



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
You may well believe it, it is your privilege. If the F/A-18 could outfly and outfight the Typhoon (please don't call it the EF or I will resort to calling Raptor the ATF
) then the RAF and the Luftwaffe would have bought it. That is a fact.

Also the reason the Typhoon is currently lacking in A2G capability is because it is first and foremost an agile fighter, which is how it is entering service. The A2G requirement is less pressing, or was until the MoD recently decided to throw away the perfectly acceptable and recently upgraded Jaguar GR.3. Consequently the development programme is still ongoing. The few relatively trivial problems that have arisen are are merely what you would expect with an all new system. Its not as if the bombs don't fit


Well, the RCS of the Super Hornet is significantly smaller than that of the Eurofighter (you're welcome:@@
. As of right now, the Typhoon uses an older version of the AMRAAM, the AIM-120B, while no plans for the C variant, and won't get the Meteor until 2010, and by then the AIM-120D will be in service with the US, which i'd put my money on that over the meteor.

Not to mention the Super Hornet has a more powerful radar than the Eurofighter.

And i have read reports that the German Luftwaffe aren't too happy with the Typhoon.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
[Well, the RCS of the Super Hornet is significantly smaller than that of the Eurofighter (you're welcome:@@
. Thats odd because everything I have previously seen says that he RCS of the SH is significantly lower than previous Hornets but also significantly higher than Typhoon. As of right now, the Typhoon uses an older version of the AMRAAM, the AIM-120B, Yes, as of now the Typhoon is just working up to operational capability, there will be no AIM-120C's because of the Meteor, as for 2010 well I can't comment but in any case thats the weapons bought for it, not the aircraft itself.while no plans for the C variant, and won't get the Meteor until 2010, and by then the AIM-120D will be in service with the US, which i'd put my money on that over the meteor.I thought we were talking about fighters not their missiles?

Not to mention the Super Hornet has a more powerful radar than the Eurofighter. Typhoons PIRATE negates any radar advantage, IF it really exists.

And i have read reports that the German Luftwaffe aren't too happy with the Typhoon. Have you really, there are a hell of a lot that say that they, and the RAF are extremely happy if you look for them. Incidentally I also saw a report that lambasted the SH as underperforming, I have also seen reports praising it, it is after all a fine aircraft. It proves nothing.

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]


Unfortunately there are many Americans (you may be one or you may not) that simply cannot accept that anyone has something better than they have got. Even the USAF (or at least one of their highest ranking generals)rates the Typhoon as second only to the Raptor among all fighter aircraft in the US arsenal. There is a report linked on one of the Typhoon threads on this forum iif you want to search for it. Second to Raptor is good enough.

By way of a bit of background which you may not be aware of, or even care about. You may know of my country's abysmal record in following military aircraft programmes through to the end.

It is fairly well known that if the UK government can find a superior alternative. or even just a cheaper one thats nearly as good, then the British option is ditched. Thus it has been since the fifities. All of America's 'teen' series fighters were thoroughly evaluated on more than one occasion as the UK tried to extricate itself from this expensive fighter project, Germany too on this occasion wanted to find an alternative as the cost of reunification bit hard.

The conclusion was that, apart from the F-22 which was out of reach anyway nothing else came close enough (not even 'better' but 'close enough' mind) to justify cancellation of the EF (as it then was). The RAF went ahead with the full spec aircraft, as did Italy and Spain, while the Germans selected more 'off the shelf' components such as certain avionics and ECM equipment.

The project was renamed 'EF-2000' to appease the German need for cost cutting, which in fact ended up affecting only their version until the UK gun debacle of a couple of years ago.

To sum up, the best brains in military purchasing and Government finance in this country tried to make out a case for the F/A-18 (amongst others) to be a better bet for re-equipping the RAF. They were proven wrong.



posted on Sep, 2 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
F?A-18E outfight Typhoon? Surely you jest, it doesn't have the specific excess thrust to sustain combat, and even if it has a better AoA capability that only bleeds off speed that it has less time to recover its energy state, couple good pulls and you're low and slow.....and scrap metal falling from the sky. Hypothetically. It's a BVR bird, and a strike fighter with reasonable air to air capability. Against a fighter in the Typhoon class or better it might as well lower its hook and go back to the boat.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
www.gripen.com
Media Center -> News -> New Gripen News Magazine Published (2004-2)
Download New Gripen News

And then the article "Gripen Presents Its International Credentials"

"In combat we out-turned them in many engagements. I give the credit for that
on our maneuver load limiter which manages the 'g'load on the aircraft all the time
and lets you concentrate on flying. In an F-16 you always have to keep one eye on
the g-meter so as not to overstress the jet. In the Gripen you just pull the stick back
into your stomach and it gives you everything"

In addition to this I am pretty sure that I have read, paper edition of flygvapennytt,
that Gripen has automatic aiming for the cannon...
(software upgraded Viggens too, but not on all control surfaces)
But I can not find any references on the net... Found! See new message.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by RogerL]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MPJay
F?A-18E outfight Typhoon? Surely you jest, it doesn't have the specific excess thrust to sustain combat, and even if it has a better AoA capability that only bleeds off speed that it has less time to recover its energy state, couple good pulls and you're low and slow.....and scrap metal falling from the sky. Hypothetically. It's a BVR bird, and a strike fighter with reasonable air to air capability. Against a fighter in the Typhoon class or better it might as well lower its hook and go back to the boat.


Outfighting is different then out dogfighting. I hope you understand that BVR is totally different then dogfighting. In BVR, the SH and EF are probably about even, as in BVR combat the airframe has very little to do with effectiveness (unless it is a stealth airframe, which niether of these are), and there for the pilot with the advantage is the one with the better weapons and electronics. That being said, I put my money on US equipment in BVR combat every day of the week.

But if we are talking dog fighting, the EF has the clear edge.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by MPJay
F?A-18E outfight Typhoon? Surely you jest, it doesn't have the specific excess thrust to sustain combat, and even if it has a better AoA capability that only bleeds off speed that it has less time to recover its energy state, couple good pulls and you're low and slow.....and scrap metal falling from the sky. Hypothetically. It's a BVR bird, and a strike fighter with reasonable air to air capability. Against a fighter in the Typhoon class or better it might as well lower its hook and go back to the boat.


Outfighting is different then out dogfighting. I hope you understand that BVR is totally different then dogfighting. In BVR, the SH and EF are probably about even, as in BVR combat the airframe has very little to do with effectiveness (unless it is a stealth airframe, which niether of these are), and there for the pilot with the advantage is the one with the better weapons and electronics. That being said, I put my money on US equipment in BVR combat every day of the week.

But if we are talking dog fighting, the EF has the clear edge.


But throw the AIM-9X and HMCS into the mix and the results would very different.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
This is a mote discussion, no one dogfight anymore. China, Russia, and the US have beyond visual range capablity in varing degrees. Long range radar detects an aircraft and a plane shoots a missle and then BOOM BOOM.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
This is true up to a point Harry but echnology isn't infallible. I have seen it posted many times on here in the past that BVR means the absolute end of dogfighting. This is to put 100% faith in BVR capability, which would be foolish as radar is not something you can just go under or over (in theory) but also straight through the middle in the right circunstances. This is because radar coverage has unavoidable gaps due to many considerations (weather is just one). If an enemy manages to fly through that gap (and many are working on ways to actually find them to exploit this weakness) and you cannot dogfight then it is curtains. There is a simplistic diagram that illustrates this point in the Encyclopedia of Air Combat (edited by Bill Gunston) if you can find a copy.

Neither does your argument take into consideration the politics of the the engagement, where the interceptor has to fly in close to show a 'presence' in order to make the other guy back down, as often happened in the '70's over the UK with Russian planes. BVR is no good if he then doesn't back down but turns in to fight you.

also Hockey guy you seem not to realise that Typhoon also has all-aspect missiles and Helmet mounted sight, not to mention VTAS (Voice throttle and stick) which is absent from the SH. As I've said before the SH is a fine aircraft but an upgrade of an old fighter whereas Typhoon is an all new fully integrated design and will thus hold the edge in a close fight.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by waynos]


D

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
for Dogfighting, I'd go with the EF. The speed it can roll, turn and do all it's stuff is amazing after watching videos of it.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   
EF last because it has no guns.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
EF last because it has no guns.


It really doesn't matter how much you try to inform people does it, one might as well type in heiroglyphics



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
EF last because it has no guns.


the EF has guns 'rapid fire cannons' but they don't work, they have no ammo and the pilots arn't trained to use them

BUT THEY ARE STILL THERE

they can be changed to fire, if the need arises

how long would it take to teach the EF pilots how to use the cannons??



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

how long would it take to teach the EF pilots how to use the cannons??


- I'm quite sure that trained crew capable of understanding and operating a complex piece of kit like Typhoon aren't going to require too much additional training over how to actually use of it's guns.

It's not like they won't have encountered principles, the gun programs, HUD symbols etc on the aircraft until they get into any of that anyway is it?

Wise up.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 11:58 AM
link   


also Hockey guy you seem not to realise that Typhoon also has all-aspect missiles and Helmet mounted sight, not to mention VTAS (Voice throttle and stick) which is absent from the SH.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by waynos]


The Typhoon won't get the Meteor or a "possible" helmet mounted sight until the Tranche 3 phase of the EF, and so far the Trance 3 phase has been very iffy. If the Tranche 3 phase does come around (I think it will, but's it's looking a bit shaky right now) then the EF will possibly get the HMCS.

And this is not until atleast 2010.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I have cut down my previos lengthy answer because when I read it back it looked like a rant.

However the HMCS is not 'possibly' part of Tranche 3. It is 'definitely' an integral part of the entire programme. Meteor is not a problem because the AIM-120B will be followed by the AIM-120C which is scheduled for clearance in 2005 (AIM-120B was cleared just prior to the first deliveries to the training units).

Something that is borderline 'possibly/probably' in line for Tranche 3 is TVC, which I hope becomes a definite when the time comes.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I have cut down my previos lengthy answer because when I read it back it looked like a rant.

However the HMCS is not 'possibly' part of Tranche 3. It is 'definitely' an integral part of the entire programme. Meteor is not a problem because the AIM-120B will be followed by the AIM-120C which is scheduled for clearance in 2005 (AIM-120B was cleared just prior to the first deliveries to the training units).

Something that is borderline 'possibly/probably' in line for Tranche 3 is TVC, which I hope becomes a definite when the time comes.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by waynos]


Well, according to what I have read, in Janes and Aviation Weekly, the Typhoon won't have the HMCS until Tranche 3, and the Eurofighter is having major problems, so we don't even know if Tranche 3 will come around.

[edit on 4-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Ah yes, Typhoon has been having such 'major problems' that it has not only been accepted into service by the RAF and Luftwaffe, the RAF has already deployed it abroad working with BAE Systems in a joint effort that doubled up as an overseas deployment excercise and a bid to persuade Singapore to order them for its own Air Force.
Who would send a faulty aircraft on a sales tour?

If the HMS is having such incredible problems that it wont be ready until 2010 how come it is in daily use now on the DA's , RAF T.1's and on RAF Jaguar GR.3's?

EDIT; Your assertions have intruiged me and though I never thought you were lying, I've googled on the subject and I think I may have discovered where we are at cross purposes. According to the latest info I can find it does state that the HMS of the early aircraft is of a partial capability due to the highly advanced and complex nature of the fully integrated system that is planned. This full integration will be installed on Tranche 3 aircraft from new and then retrospectively added to the earlier aircraft.

This is in line with the stepped integration schedule I have been banging on about and perfectly normal but in a way we were both right. HMS is installed (the Jaguar one I mentioned turns out to be a simpler system) but it is not at 'full strength' as it were.

This leads me to ask (for I do not know) isn't this also normal practice for US types? For the planned total capability to be built up in steps after IOC has been achieved? As far as I know its always been the way here in the UK which may explain our different perspectives on it?

[edit on 4-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Ah yes, Typhoon has been having such 'major problems' that it has not only been accepted into service by the RAF and Luftwaffe, the RAF has already deployed it abroad working with BAE Systems in a joint effort that doubled up as an overseas deployment excercise and a bid to persuade Singapore to order them for its own Air Force.
Who would send a faulty aircraft on a sales tour?

If the HMS is having such incredible problems that it wont be ready until 2010 how come it is in daily use now on the DA's , RAF T.1's and on RAF Jaguar GR.3's?


I never said the HMS has problems in particular, I just said the Typhoon is having problems. Currently there is NO HMS integration on the Typhoon, and there aren't any plans....yet.

And i haven't seen any information regarding HMS on Tornado's or Jaguars.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join