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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
When you mention the F-35A and C getting TVC you raise another question for me. Can the F-35B vector its thrust while in forward flight? I've seen videos of it transitioning from horizontal to vertical and the way the nozzle works does'n't appear to lend itself particularly well to what the Harrier crews call 'Viffing'?




posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
None of the F-35 variants caan use thrust vectoring in regular flight. Even if the F-35 does get thrust vectoring, the F-35b/c do no have an internal cannon, one must be installed replacing a JDAm/AMRAAm bay or carried on an external pod. The JSF will never be much of a dogfighter, which is a real big shame.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
When you mention the F-35A and C getting TVC you raise another question for me. Can the F-35B vector its thrust while in forward flight? I've seen videos of it transitioning from horizontal to vertical and the way the nozzle works does'n't appear to lend itself particularly well to what the Harrier crews call 'Viffing'?


No the F-35B can only use it for STOVL.

However the F-35A and F-35C are most likely to get the 3D thrust-vectoring engines.

Here is an excerpt from Janes All the World's Aircraft (10-Mar-2003):

"Power Plant
One 177 kN (40,000 lb) class (111 kN; 16,000 lb St dry thrust) Pratt & Whitney F135 (formerly JSF119-PW-611; F119 derivative) turbofan. Axisymmetric (thrust-vectoring) exhaust nozzle on USAF and US Navy -611C versions. Rolls-Royce three-bearing swivel-duct nozzle on -611S version to deflect thrust downwards for STOVL, plus a Rolls-Royce engine-driven fan behind pit and a bleed air reaction control valve in each wingroot to provide stability at low speeds. For F-35B, total vertical lift of 173 kN (39,000 lb st) comprises some 40 per cent from main nozzle, 48 per cent from fan and 12 per cent from reaction control valves. F-35A has in-flight refuelling receptacle on spine; US Navy specifies retractable probe on starboard side."



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
None of the F-35 variants caan use thrust vectoring in regular flight. Even if the F-35 does get thrust vectoring, the F-35b/c do no have an internal cannon, one must be installed replacing a JDAm/AMRAAm bay or carried on an external pod. The JSF will never be much of a dogfighter, which is a real big shame.


Air-to-air wise, I would rate it just behind the F-22, it will incorporate stealth, the AN/APG-81 AESA Radar, and the AIM-120D, not to mention the AIM-9X with JHMCS. I would not underestimate this aircraft, at all.

The F-35B and F-35C won't have an internal cannon, but they can be fitted with an external cannon.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Air-to-air wise, I would rate it just behind the F-22, it will incorporate stealth, the AN/APG-81 AESA Radar, and the AIM-120D, not to mention the AIM-9X with JHMCS. I would not underestimate this aircraft, at all.

The F-35B and F-35C won't have an internal cannon, but they can be fitted with an external cannon.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]


The F-35 can only carry TWO AMRAAM missiles (not even two sidewinders), no thrust vectoring and high wing loadin properties. The only reason the F-35 has a-a missiles is for self-defense, bu its basically an attack plane, should be called A-35A/c or AV-35B



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Interesting discussion which i have enjoyed reading.

Anyway, to the point of my post.

It's totally wrong to say the Typhoon has no gun. As has been said before the Typhoon has a perfectly good cannon installed and it is only RAF Typhoons that won't have this supported. Although this probably looks like a stupid decision, in reality it is probably a pretty good call by the RAF. The Ministry of Defence were being hugely squeezed to find cost savings in their budget, and decided that cannons were a pretty easy saving as they haven't been used all that much in AA combat recently. naturally the RAF weren't keen on this but had very little option but to go along with it.

I would suggest that it is no coincidence that after exploring all of the opions for replacing the cannon, the RAF concluded that it was actually cheaper to keep the cannon in the plane than replace it with appropriate ballast. This was always going to be the case with Tranche 1, but it now seems it may well be the case for all future buys. Strange don't you think? It seems that the cheapest way to replace the cannon on the Typhoon is to.. well, keep the cannon. Sure it isn't being 'supported' but what the hell does that mean? All the software and symbology is still there, it will still be perfcetly possible for RAF pilots to simulate cannon shots in mock dogfighting, and all RAF pilots will still be trained in the principles of A2A marksmanship. The only thing RAF Typhoons won't have is ammunition for the cannon. A pretty vital component you might say? Well indeed, but it seems that Tornados might just happen to use the same cannon, in fact they might actually take the guns from Tornado F3's and fit them to the Typhoons. Either way it adds uo to the same result.

Typhoon+cannon+ammunition = a non story. Let it lie. It's a typical UK civil service fudge. Nothing more.

The helmet mounted sight confusion may well be just that. I believe the Tranche 3 introduction is probably for the full monty, helmet mounted display (all the FLIR imagery and NV integration).

Cheers.

Badger



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Air-to-air wise, I would rate it just behind the F-22, it will incorporate stealth, the AN/APG-81 AESA Radar, and the AIM-120D, not to mention the AIM-9X with JHMCS. I would not underestimate this aircraft, at all.

The F-35B and F-35C won't have an internal cannon, but they can be fitted with an external cannon.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]


The F-35 can only carry TWO AMRAAM missiles (not even two sidewinders), no thrust vectoring and high wing loadin properties. The only reason the F-35 has a-a missiles is for self-defense, bu its basically an attack plane, should be called A-35A/c or AV-35B


For standard missions it carries 2 AIM-9X and 2 AIM-120D AMRAAMs, and it has the capability to carry 4 AMRAAMs.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Cjwinnit
 


Are you crazy? Russians had the first fly by wire plane ever built, it was the Sukhoi T-4! It featured the world's first fly by wire controls.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
How can you call something a dogfight when your turning radius is half the state of Wyoming!! THERE HAVE BEEN NO DOGFIGHTS SINCE THE KOREAN WAR!

Unless avionics on a/c has been developed to guide weapon omniattacking enemy everywhere, dogfight will be still present in future air-combat.
So-called "THERE HAVE BEEN NO DOGFIGHTS SINCE THE KOREAN WAR!" is completely wrong, because there has been dogfight in vietnam war although USAF take all air-dominance there.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Theres no Russain planes on that graph
You think since most countries that buy the Euro fighter will be going up against Migs they would put it on the Graph.

Dogfight

1.SU-47
2.F-22
3.Euro fighter

I put the F-22 behind the Su-47 because its a dog fight which is close and nasty with guns. which a F-22 shouldnt be in in the first place. Its stealth should have let it have the kill before the SU-47 even knew it was there. Plus the wing design of the SU-47 let it take tighter turns so in a gun fight it might have the upper hand.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]


According to demonstration done by Su-47 in public airshow, no evidence prove it has more agility or maneuverability over F-22, although FSW perhaps give it more lift-coefficient per square meter wing but wing area of the F-22 larger than 78 square meter, so there is no superiority Su-47 has taken otherwise its inlet design seem to be old fashion indeed.


Originally posted by titus

Originally posted by longbow
I have already posted here about the F-22 angle of attack ability. It is able to achieve sustained angleof attack of 60 degrees.

The best Sukhoi's (Su-37, 47) have only about 41,

Su-30 about 30 degrees


GEEZZZ!!!! YOU MUST BE KIDDING....

i have video in russian. they say SU-47 HAS UNLIMITED AoA

also, Su-30MK was pulling and holding 75 degrees AoA at one of airshows in moscov


and, about f-22 60* AoA. you should expect that from gen5 airplane


You are warm welcome more than others if you can prove Su-47 HAS UNLIMITED A0A capability. I have watched videos many times, the Su-47 did normal turn even slower than F-18, comparatively, turn rate showed by Rafale A could be 45 degrees per second!



Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Michael784
Su-37 would definitely be a better dogfighter than the Eurofighter and the Rafale, because of its TVC and with maneuvers like the Super Cobra it has pretty much unlimited AOA.


No doubt that the Super Cobra and Cobra looks real cool at airshows (I maintain that the Russians put on the best displays) how usefull are those manuvers in a real dog fight? Even with its awesum thrust, it takes time for a Su-37 to recover energy from it. As it recovers its meat for the opfor's wingman. To my knowledge no one has used a corbra in a combat situation for that reason.

Before we go off on that tangent, there is an active thread on the Cobra
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-8-2004 by FredT]


I'll reply that thread if I get more free time. What I have to point out here is that Cobra is nothing but other Post-stall maneuver developed from Cobra. As I have said above, unless you got omni-attack capability, post-stall maneuver still will be only way to kill. I have seen Russian jet fitted with Omnidirectional Vector Thrust did some actions which could be used same as Herbst maneuver that only done by X-31,although I've been seeking the prove show F-16MATV and F-18HARV can do it also, but I am failed I am afraid.


Originally posted by DarkSide
the F35 is an attack plane not a fighter

VERY GOOD POINT! UNLESS ITS EW HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 12 TON OR LESS.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567

Originally posted by roniii259

Originally posted by roniii259
, and thats why the EF is the worst dogfighter untill it can use its gun.


I agree that now it seems only the British one cant use its gun, sorry about tthe mistake

However without itts gun I still think its the worst dogfighter. Maybe great interceptor, but ht worst dogfighter. With the gun Its the second best, after the Raptor (no offense but I just love the duck and cant wait till Langley gets it)
Does the EF use the Mausser Cannon or the old M61?


It uses the Mauser.

And for second best close in dogfighter, it could either be the EF, Rafale, or the SH, we'll have to wait and see, and if the F-35A and F-35C get the 3D axisymmetric thrust-vectoring nozzle, then I would place it above the other 3.


There is no "if", mechanically, 3D VT has been impossible to fit with F-35, which is why we call it attacker rather than fighter, LM also is ready to redefine it.

By the way, I want to know why EF did in airshow which seem to be so mediocre?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I can tell you that as an old retired F4 pilot no one would ever use a manuver like the cobra etc. except as a last ditch effort. Even then the opfor's wingmen would be standing by to pounce. All of these type manuvers are practiced aginst and only a newbie would fall for it. The use of thrust vectoring will dominate a fight but only to get a missle firing position. This coupled with helmet sighting and off axis missles will just about, (Not totally), eliminate the old style of close in very slow manuvering. Remember for a Raptor to be dragged into a slow speed contest would be considered a mental error by the pilot, even if he shot down the other plane, if for no other reason than cost versus outcome.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Seeing as this thread has resurfaced I just want to make a point for any newbies reading the last few posts.

All that guff about the Eurofighter Typhoon not having a gun is wayyy out of date.

There WAS a decision on cost grounds, made by the UK MoD, that RAF Typhoons would not have their gun made operational (but still there) but this was reversed quite som time ago as the fallacy was realised when current ops were looked into. Therefore EVERY Typhoon has a fully operational 27mm Mauser gun.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Even with a gun the Eurofighter is still no match for a normal Hornet let alone the Super Hornet. It's a Generation behind the Super Hornet at the very least.

As for the best Dogfighter that is an easy one they should be ranked like this.

1: F22
2: F35
3: Super Hornet
4: F15
5: Hornet
6: F16
7: Flankers
8: Gryphon
9: Rafale
10: EF



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
1. F22
2. F35
3. Super Hornet
4. F15
5. Hornet
6. F16
7. F14
8. F4
9. A5 VIGILANTE
10. A4 SKYHAWK
11. F105
12. SPITFIRE
13. ME-109
14. Sopwith Camel
15. 1903 Wright Flyer
15. Eurofighter.
16. Anything Russian.

Seriously...............


F-22
Eurofighter
Su-27NG / Mig-29NG
Rafale
F-16C Block 52 -232
F-15C -229
Gripen NG
Flanker / Fulcrum
F-35A
F-15C -220
Gripen
F-16C - 220
F-14
Hornet
F-35B/C
Super Hornet.

A clean Hornet is more maneuverable than a clean Super Hornet. Second, they are both 7.5g aircraft. Third, neither compare with Eurofighter let alone F-16. Only advantage Super Hornet has is AESA that EF may have soon anyway. If you add missiles or externals (to other aircraft), the F-35 it would suddenly do a whole lot better.

[edit on 29/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz


F-22
Eurofighter
Su-27NG / Mig-29NG
Rafale
F-16C Block 52 -232
F-15C -229
Gripen NG
Flanker / Fulcrum
F-35A
F-15C -220
Gripen
F-16C - 220
F-14
Hornet
F-35B/C
Super Hornet.


A lot of that is subjective though, as some of the aircraft would have advantages in certain flight regimes over others, but not necessarily all the time.

Here's my order-

F-22
EF/Rafale
F-35A/Su-30
F-18E/F-16C w/-129/132/Gripen NG/F-35C/Mig 29M
Mirage 2000
F-15C



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamanator
Even with a gun the Eurofighter is still no match for a normal Hornet let alone the Super Hornet. It's a Generation behind the Super Hornet at the very least.


Oh please!


The E/F is a rubbish aerodynamic platform and the engines lose 5-10% of their power through the inlet baffles used for radar return reasons...

The "Super" Hornet would probably struggle to beat an old F-14 in a dogfight never mind a modern aircraft.




As for what is the best dogfighter - do we consider the cost of the aircraft?

For example, if you can fly 3x Gripens against 1x F22 in WVR only combat... the odds do change somewhat.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


I understand the engine in the SH looses thrust faster than the Hornet while at high speed - but that's pretty much expected for a plane that can barely reach Mach 1.6. However, do you mean in all regimes? Closest thing I've heard is a derate for better safety (???) margins.

F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost (GAO).
Of course, when you add a Block II Super Hornet, poor aerodynamics don't necessarily make it a bad platform.


A lot of that is subjective though, as some of the aircraft would have advantages in certain flight regimes over others, but not necessarily all the time.

Definitely. And when you put them in an actual operation environment, the picture changes dramatically in favour of the best situational awareness, etc. In retrospect, I would change the list somewhat, Gripen NG was too low, and F-15 -229 should be above F-16 -132.



[edit on 30/1/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
The E/F is a rubbish aerodynamic platform and the engines lose 5-10% of their power through the inlet baffles used for radar return reasons...


Just curious, but why is the Typhoon a "rubbish aerodynamic platform"?

The Typhoon is aerodynamically unstable at subsonic speeds which is supposed to enhance agility, increase lift and reduce drag. Aerodynamically, the aircraft becomes more stable the faster it goes. What's wrong with that?

Cheers



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Just curious, but why is the Typhoon a "rubbish aerodynamic platform"?


E/F was referring to the Super Hornet, I believe. And then the claims make a bit more sense, I think.

Pr0



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


EF = Eurofighter.
E/F = F/A-18E/F.

Confusing I know.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join