PDA

View Full Version : What the Best Air to Air Combat Plane in the world today?



XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted on 11/11/03 10:25PM (server time: GMT 0)

I know some are more dedicated than others.
Some can perform the Fighter Function and Bomb too.

But at this moment in time whats the best A2A platform in the world??

Eagle?

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted on 11/11/03 10:25PM (server time: GMT 0)

I know some are more dedicated than others.
Some can perform the Fighter Function and Bomb too.

But at this moment in time whats the best A2A platform in the world??

Eagle?

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:34 AM
I would most definitely have to say F/A-22. Air Dominator!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif As for current fighters that are in service, that's kinda hard to say. I would probably put my money on the Eurofighter, Rafale, Su-30 (not 100% sure what other more modern sukhoi family is in service but I think this is the most modern one in service), Superhornet, or the F-15. Its kinda hard to say for sure though because they each have their strengths and weaknesses. However, I do believe the Eurofighter has some of the most modern avionics in the world (next to the Raptor of course) so it should have an advantage over the other platforms. If you're talking about dogfighting then I would bet on the Sukhoi.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 01:42 AM
F/A-22
OR the F-15 w/ u r looking at curret A2A fighters

*runs to get in his personal troll bomb bunker*

http://www.x-plane.org/users/12thiaptbone/bvrfalcon.jpg


367th "Fire Eagles"

britgliderpilot
11-12-2003, 02:44 AM
In terms of overall systems, I think the F15 has to take that title.

A significant amount of that does also come down to training and backup . . . . the USAF and the Israelis fly the F15, and they are probably the two hardest, most practiced air forces in the world for A2A combat in recent years.

The F15C has in excess of 100 A2A kills for no A2A losses.


Yes, it's in part the system backing it up - but the F15 is a truly awesome fighter.


F/A-22 will probably take over that crown - if it's let anywhere near a war zone . . . at $200 million an aircraft, they might not want to do that.


Some of the newer 5th gen jets can rival the F15, but aren't really proven . . . . and for political reasons, probably won't be.



<center>http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 02:59 AM
Hmmm...perhaps that's the solution of world-peace?

Everyone gets so hip, hi-tech and new leather-smelling equipment that they won't use it in war?

Perhaps not... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 03:03 AM
Elmendorf AFB Eagles

APG-63v2 AESA radar, F-100-PW-220P engines, MSIP II, PEP 2000, AIM-120C-6, AIM-9X, JHMCS.

Pretty tough birds.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-15c-990429a.jpg





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

When you go home, tell them of us, and say - for your tomorrow, we gave our today

- US Army 2nd ID memorial, Burma 1942



BiG R

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 03:25 AM
Nah it's the Rafale.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 03:26 AM
olaleier wrote:
- Hmmm...perhaps that's the solution of world-peace?
-
- Everyone gets so hip, hi-tech and new
- leather-smelling equipment that they won't use it in
- war?
-
- Perhaps not...

Not as long as the people who sell the stuff have the top politicians on their payroll. The more and most expensive the better.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:39 AM
Well, would be nice to know, from what country are voters. I mean by that that only western planes are mentioned above. If you are "us", it's ok, you MUST vote in that way ;-)

Nevermind, my opinion: it's Su-27/30/37 family, no doubt.

[NOTE: I'am not russian ;-) ]

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:47 AM
yeah its totally a matter of opinion.
the best ones in service right now i guess are f-15, f/a-18, su-27, mig-29, and a few European planes (sry i dont know anything about them).

<table bgcolor=#92A5AC border=1 bordercolor=black cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3><tr><td><center><font size=0 color=white face=verdana>Joint Airforce Command</font> (http://jacforums.proboards17.com/)</center><img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~tsauder/sig5.jpg></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:01 AM
Hmm.. I recall in a training exercise at Alaska, the RAF Tornadoes were able to sneak past the F15 defenses.

Anyhoo, the total kills for the F15, IIRC, aren't primarily because of the Charlie. I think most of the US F15s have the MSIP upgrade anyhow.

Also, with those kills, majority were accomplished by the IAF.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:04 AM
WVR as well

http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

The Nation that draws too great a distance between its soldiers and its scholars will have its children taught by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

-Thucydides

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:12 AM
During Gulf War 1 did'nt a couple of Hornets on a Bombing run shoot down 2 Iraq Jets and then carry on with their Bombing Mission?

Something like that anyway?

I like the Tomcat with it's 100 Mile Phoenix.
However as a Single Seater i'd go for the F-15'probably to be supplanted by the F-22 soon.

bigvette
11-12-2003, 09:31 AM
GE powered F-14D's, APG-71, IRST, swing-wing, say four AIM-54C and 4 AIM-9...how can anyone deny this? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-photo-vf031-25l.jpg




http://people.tamu.edu/~rdr0821/test%20hornet%20two.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:00 AM
1. Su-35 latest modification with N-011M BARS, new FBW system allowing almost the same performance as TVC-engines, RAM-painting and so on (Su-30MKI are kinda downgraded)
2. F-15 with AESA
3. MiG-31M with Zaslon-M and R-37,KC-172 - not a dogfighter though, but the best interceptor, hands down

britgliderpilot
11-12-2003, 11:12 AM
I heard about the F15's in Alaska . . . don't think I got an answer to the question I asked last time . . .


Why are they so far away from everything?

They're the highest tech fighters in the USAF . . . . and they're in Alaska. ??


Tornadoes can pretty much sneak past anything . . . . when you go howling along behind a hill at zero feet, not much can see you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



<center>http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 11:36 AM
KALO1 wrote:
- 1. Su-35 latest modification with N-011M BARS, new
- FBW system allowing almost the same performance as
- TVC-engines, RAM-painting and so on (Su-30MKI are
- kinda downgraded)
- 2. F-15 with AESA
- 3. MiG-31M with Zaslon-M and R-37,KC-172 - not a
- dogfighter though, but the best interceptor, hands
- down

1) let me remind you that theres lots of FBW aircraft around, and that it cannot allow same manuevering as TVC.
That for 2 reasons:
-extreme low speed, control surfaces are useless while stalling, TVC allows the pilot to steer the aircraft anyhow, its a big help on spins but will also aid in dogfights.
-extreme high speeds, were control surfaces would be ripped apart or you would be forced to go straight forward.

About RAM painting, there lots of planes using it now, among them are the new F-16AM's going out of production lines here in Portugal. The new paint adds 100Kg (a bit more than 200 punds) of extra weight(old paint included). Its handy to make it hard a BVR lock on, but at close range is easely burned through.
That on a small fighter as the Falcon, the flanker will have a much harder time to go unnoticed, given its massive size.

2) actualy at close range the contest would be much balanced I cannot say the eagle is the best, perhaps not, it depends on the range your talking about, different aircraft takes the crown.

F-22 will be much probably be best in all areas second VERY CLOSELY by typhoon, but meanwhile, I would say F-14/15/Su-35 for BVR and F-16/18E/Rafale/gripen WVR, and maybe, just mauybe Su-35.
Thats because the stunts of the flanker only work on very specific occasions and might cause the flanker to go smaking in the middle of the HUD very easely, if it tries to use the cobra to force an overshoot, for example.
You can use the Su's TVC to surprise the enemy, but if he escapes the SU is in trouble.

The lighter planes I mentioned are better at sustained perfomance, and thats what a pilot wants in hard turning.
They also have the plus of being able to shoot BVR too.

3)For hit and run tactics or spy in air supremacy disavantage, I would say the Mig-25/31 as seen in Iraq, but only exclusively on that scenario.





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

No job, no money, no car, no wife, NO PROBLEMS! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 12:14 PM
Of course there are lots of FBWs - I just said that this one - tested on Su-35 since 2001 allows great maneuverability.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 04:41 PM
- I heard about the F15's in Alaska . . . don't think
- I got an answer to the question I asked last time .
- . .
-
-
- Why are they so far away from everything?
-
- They're the highest tech fighters in the USAF . . .
- . and they're in Alaska. ??

First of all, what do you mean Alaska is far away from everything, it's RIGHT NEXT to Russia. Also, it's not like F-15's are JUST stationed there, there are F-15's at several other Air Force bases.

LawDog15
11-12-2003, 06:00 PM
Yes, he's asking why the Alaska ones take priority with upgrades, etc.

Some reasons:
Lot's of territory to defend. (Take a look at what a pain it was when the Japanese captured one of the islands in WWII)

Closest to Russia/some proximity to China.

Distance from backup support on the mainland.

Spillover from the cold war strategy.

Cold war may be "over" in the press, but we aren't exactly on a hugging basis yet. There's still not a lot of trust there, perhaps for good reason.

To use a wild west example, Alaska's our last remaining outpost in Indian country, in a way.



"I never use shampoo with milk or eggs. These are imperialist ideas." - Muammar al-Qaddafi - 365 Dumbest Things Ever Said

LawDog15
11-12-2003, 06:10 PM
I forgot to add - some of that strategy might be undergoing adjustment, as they won't be the first to get F-22's. The upgrades will need to get them through the transition.

"I never use shampoo with milk or eggs. These are imperialist ideas." - Muammar al-Qaddafi - 365 Dumbest Things Ever Said

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 06:50 PM
The JAS 39 with its hyper advanced TIDLS will have anything flying today for lunch! And that's that!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I'm not joking!

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 07:32 PM
britgliderpilot wrote:
- I heard about the F15's in Alaska . . . don't think
- I got an answer to the question I asked last time .
- . .
-
-
- Why are they so far away from everything?



Extension of CONUS - Bering Strait - Defense line.


-
- They're the highest tech fighters in the USAF . . .
- . and they're in Alaska. ??



Look above.


-
-
- Tornadoes can pretty much sneak past anything . . .
- . when you go howling along behind a hill at zero
- feet, not much can see you


With the tactics they used, any aircraft could do it. It is one of the weaknesses of PD radar. I believe it has been discussed on this board. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

A RAAF F111 did the same thing to the F-14A from the USS Enterprise. This was when the control tower wanted to control the F-14A and the F14 crew were already trained for that "tactic". Lesson learned. let the flight dictate the fight.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 08:41 PM
bigvette wrote:
- GE powered F-14D's, APG-71, IRST, swing-wing, say
- four AIM-54C and 4 AIM-9...how can anyone deny this?


During my internship, I met a former navy F-14 pilot who is currently flying F-15's for the Air Force ANG. According to him, the tomcat was pretty sluggish in a dogfight compared to the 15. As he put it, he is very happy that he is now flying eagles.

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 09:53 PM
Astrochimp80 wrote:
-
- bigvette wrote:
-- GE powered F-14D's, APG-71, IRST, swing-wing, say
-- four AIM-54C and 4 AIM-9...how can anyone deny this?
-
-
- During my internship, I met a former navy F-14 pilot
- who is currently flying F-15's for the Air Force
- ANG. According to him, the tomcat was pretty
- sluggish in a dogfight compared to the 15. As he put
- it, he is very happy that he is now flying eagles.
-
-
-
-
-

Let's see an F15 rolls faster due to the placement of the engines and the shorter span. Transient performance should be a tad better than the F14. Under the transonic, the F14 turns better then the F15.

Take a look at OPEVAL in 70's and I recall there was a big shootout at Yuma that pitted the F14B vs the F15s. The F14 had an "eagle shoot".

Here's an excerpt from an article that was written from an USN aviator that was in both the F14 and F15:


"
In 1975 I was honored to take part in a joint USAF/USN air combat evaluation test in the United States. We were just to be observers, but the USAF invited us to fly together with them, and I was to make 22 hours on the F-15B, flying against a large number of USAF F-4D/E, F-5/T38, F-106A/B, and the USN F-14A. At the time, all USAF F-15A-pilots had only one wish: to take on the USNs new F-14As in mock combat, because it was the best during that evaluation test, and because the F-14As with their USN pilots defeated the F-15A every time during these test combats. As I recall almost all of the USAF F-15A pilots and USN F-14A pilots at this test were ex-F-4 pilots and war tested by Vietnam. I can also recall that some of these pilots had even killed MIGs in Vietnam combat, and one USN pilot had in fact killed an Egyptian Air Force Mig-21FL during the 1973 War as he was flying IAF F-4E. These were most excellent pilots for sure, but none were more professional then the USN F-14A pilots sent to Nellis for this test in my opinion....

...The USAF pilots I can you were very happy and proud about their new F-15As at the time, and I found it an easy aircraft to fly, having an instantaneous turn rate of more then 16 degree per second, sustained turn at more then 14 degrees per second...

...I flew in an F-15B turning at more then 450mph airspeed at 16,000 feet sustaining 7.3g in full afterburner with almost no loss of airspeed. The F-15A pilot can snap his fighter around, but lacks the aerodynamic qualities of the F-14A: the F-15As basic aerodynamic directional stability comes as a result of the F-15As raked wing design, and so no high lift devices are necessary, the F-15As wing flaps are used only during landing....



... "


Each aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses and the major weakness in the f14 is the aero center and Cg that occurs in the transonic regime. This was alleviated with the glove vanes somewhat but was deemed unnecessary and later blocks blocked them or didn't install them. Going the higher transonic and above, the F14 turn betters the Eagle. But since most merges happen under the Mach and in the transonic, the Eagle is better by several degrees of turn rate. As the fight slows into the subsonic regime, the F14 will out nose the Eagle.

A F14 flown at high AOA can be done but takes some skill in using the rudders and if not done correctly would lend to nasty snap roll into a spin.

The current DFCS F14 are overly damped although cleans up the flight characteristics but lessens it turn performance. The AFCS F14s were better turn performers.

Julian




Message Edited on 11/12/0304:07PM by Jewels_201

bigvette
11-12-2003, 10:01 PM
Jewels,

Pretty interesting stuff - and remind you all that the F14 was fitted with the crappy engines designed for the FB-111 while the Air Force stuck with their advanced engine design program and got what they needed. Imagine how an F-14B must handle?

http://people.tamu.edu/~rdr0821/test%20hornet%20two.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:24 PM
BV:

Added thrust help the STR - sustained turn rate - and as well as SEP. If you were to look at the charts for both the F14B/D and the F-15A-D, the figures are identical. In fact, if you were to look at climb profile, they are identical!

Since the F14 is an "aero wonder", it's acceleration with the GE engines accelerate faster when the wings are fully swept aft manually - low drag profile when compared to the F15. Yet, with the wings set to AUTO the acceleration time from subsonic to under the Mach is similar to the Eagle. But once going over the high transonic to the supersonic, the F14 is out gone besting the Eagle by several seconds - more at higher altitude. The aircraft will reach it top speed faster than Eagle. hence why there is a lower thrust requirement on the F14 and also why several USN Aggressors have mentioned that the aircraft dictated the fight because of its speed to unload, extend, and come back.

Both aircraft are great together and luckily they are in the same country as they compliment each other nicely!

I recall that the SH is better maneuvering in the low subsonic less than M0.4 and a tad better than the F-14 in the low - mid transonic. In the mid-high subsonic and supersonic, I have a feeling that the F14 turns better than the SH. - Don't kill me Smut! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif It's almost the same profile as the F15's. Of course, the F15 has more turn rate in the transonic with these 3 big aircraft.


Julian

XyZspineZyX
11-12-2003, 10:58 PM
F-15C - Air Superiority
F/A-22 - Air Dominance

The F/A-22 will be the best out there once it is fully operational in active squadrons. First one has been sent to Tyndall AFB, YAY!!!

http://sh1.free-host.com/sierra%20hotel%20sig.gif


http://sh1.free-host.com/newshsig2.bmp


http://www.clandatabase.com/player.aspx?CWNID=510556
Make sure to pump up the volume!!!!

bigvette
11-12-2003, 11:20 PM
Why does everyone fail to mention the F-14 in that it was specifically designed to carry and sling the AIM-54 Phoenix missile?! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MiG-31, yeah right?! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://people.tamu.edu/~rdr0821/test%20hornet%20two.jpg

britgliderpilot
11-12-2003, 11:31 PM
- Why does everyone fail to mention the F-14 in that
- it was specifically designed to carry and sling the
- AIM-54 Phoenix missile?!

Extreme speed and intercept capability doesn't often come into air combat these days . . . . while it's an awesome interceptor, it's advantage decreases the closer it has to engage the enemy.



<center>http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.jpg </center>

bigvette
11-12-2003, 11:38 PM
britgliderpilot wrote:
-- Why does everyone fail to mention the F-14 in that
-- it was specifically designed to carry and sling the
-- AIM-54 Phoenix missile?!
-
- Extreme speed and intercept capability doesn't often
- come into air combat these days . . . . while it's
- an awesome interceptor, it's advantage decreases the
- closer it has to engage the enemy.
-

Really, how so?! Did you read any of the data that Jewels posted above pertaining to the similarities between the F-14 and the F-15A?

AMRAAMs are nice, but hey - I'd rather shoot a Phoenix at a bogey anyday. The F-14's radar is far superior to nearly everything out there save for the E2 and E3!

This is really not a big deal, I just found it interesting that no one was even mentioning the F-14 since this is exactly what it was designed for!

http://people.tamu.edu/~rdr0821/test%20hornet%20two.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 12:51 AM
britgliderpilot wrote:
-- Why does everyone fail to mention the F-14 in that
-- it was specifically designed to carry and sling the
-- AIM-54 Phoenix missile?!
-
- Extreme speed and intercept capability doesn't often
- come into air combat these days . . . . while it's
- an awesome interceptor, it's advantage decreases the
- closer it has to engage the enemy.
-
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.
- jpg"></center>



Common misconception, it was designed as a maritrime air superiority fighter first and FADF second. Take a look at the VFX requirements. It was a fighter to begin with hence the GUN.

britgliderpilot
11-13-2003, 01:12 AM
- Common misconception, it was designed as a maritrime
- air superiority fighter first and FADF second. Take
- a look at the VFX requirements. It was a fighter to
- begin with hence the GUN.

*hangs head in shame*

I bow to superior knowledge . . . .



<center>http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:11 AM
britgliderpilot wrote:

-
- *hangs head in shame*
-
- I bow to superior knowledge . . . .
-


I don't claim to have superior knowledge its just that I have been researching for several years on USN aircraft and now have started on the USAF F15.

But to reiterate what I posted earlier, look at the speeds were the F14's strengths are at and then answer this question, where do most dogfight speeds occur?

Intercept: over the Supersonic
Merge: typically transonic
ACM/BFM: Subsonic


Now answer the question why does the F14 have auto LEF/TEF? Not only to delay the onset of the buffet (which doesn't change all the way to max aft stick 55+ degrees AOA) but to also increase the turn rate depending on the MACH and AOA. Now surely, they didn't put those in there just for interceptor role.

The MSP (Mach Sweep Programmer) was optimized for max Power excess instead of CLmax - USN didn't want the wings to bend too much although the first 23 F-14 were programmed like this and then later changed.



Julian

XyZspineZyX
11-13-2003, 05:26 AM
I would assume that most don't initially see it as a good corner burner because they imaging it often with the wings fully swept.

But unswept is a whole other story

http://acad88.sahs.uth.tmc.edu/lab/flight/f14right.jpg




- I am a vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants! - Cain

FlyingCan0pener
11-13-2003, 09:16 PM
Sea Harrier

http://www.armedforces.co.uk/navy/listings/seaharrierb.jpg


23 confirmed splashed Argies and counting!

Though personally I must go for the Eagle/Falcon/AWACS combo. Can't go wrong with that!

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 12:06 AM
bigvette wrote:

-..
- AMRAAMs are nice, but hey - I'd rather shoot a
- Phoenix at a bogey anyday.

..........................................

Until a few years back, I was convinced that the Phoenix/F-14 combo was "da bomb". How can you argue with that kind of radar capability & missile range. After reading over the transcripts of a number of engagements (F-14 and otherwise) - I've changed my mind.

The F-14/Phoenix package was designed to protect carrier battle groups from massed attacks of Soviet bombers.
The reality of the average engagement now is 2v2, in the transonic at short range (due to ROE). So the Phoenix will most likely live out it's life sittin' on the weapon's rail, staring over at the other missiles with envy.

I'd have the same arguement against the excellent Flanker as well. It's very capable, but it's frickin' HUGE and can only do it's aerobatic wonders when "clean" and near bingo fuel. When you have to check the other guy's tail number before you can fire, it pays to fly something smaller and more nimble than an industrial park.

Rafale & Typhoon are pretty slick, but as yet unproven. Lots of very capable platforms "on paper" but in the real world, results talk. I gotta give mad props to the F-15C.


---------------------------------------
If you can't be a good example,
then at least serve as a terrible warning.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 12:25 AM
TwoShedsJackson wrote:

- The F-14/Phoenix package was designed to protect
- carrier battle groups from massed attacks of Soviet
- bombers.
- The reality of the average engagement now is 2v2, in
- the transonic at short range (due to ROE). So the
- Phoenix will most likely live out it's life sittin'
- on the weapon's rail, staring over at the other
- missiles with envy.

During the 8 year Iran-Iraq war, IRIAF F-14s scored over 100 kills, 60+ of which were with AIM-54A.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 12:28 AM
I doubt the Iranians were held to the same ROE that the rest of us would be. The Phoenix is just as likely to pick of some airliner 90 miles away...


---------------------------------------
If you can't be a good example,
then at least serve as a terrible warning.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:43 AM
TwoShedsJackson wrote:
- I doubt the Iranians were held to the same ROE that
- the rest of us would be. The Phoenix is just as
- likely to pick of some airliner 90 miles away...
That is not true, as proven by the lack of Phoenix friendly fire incidents during the war.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 01:57 AM
Wolfman_96th wrote:

- That is not true, as proven by the lack of Phoenix
- friendly fire incidents during the war.

..........................
So...the Phoenix has some sort of IFF AI going on? My guess would be that the Iraquis grounded everything that they didn't want shot down.
Hell, the US managed to shoot down an airliner with a guided missile cruiser....


---------------------------------------
If you can't be a good example,
then at least serve as a terrible warning.

britgliderpilot
11-14-2003, 02:55 AM
- I'd have the same arguement against the excellent
- Flanker as well. It's very capable, but it's
- frickin' HUGE and can only do it's aerobatic wonders
- when "clean" and near bingo fuel. When you have to
- check the other guy's tail number before you can
- fire, it pays to fly something smaller and more
- nimble than an industrial park.

There was an airshow with the Flanker loaded . . . quite a heavy loadout, and uneven to boot. Still did the same thing.


Near bingo . . . . well my understanding is that while it does have to be at a lower fuel percentage than an F15, the amount of fuel it carries internally means that round about 60% fuel a Flanker is roughly equivalent to an F15 on 100% internal fuel in terms of fuel weights . . . .


I know it's foolish to base an evaluation on a sim, no matter how accurate it is, but Flanker's Su27 is a truly wonderful beast . . . . not the sustained turn performance you get from an F16, of course, it's just too damn big . . . . but then so're most other fighters.



<center>http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.jpg </center>

bigvette
11-14-2003, 03:00 AM
TwoShedsJackson wrote:
-
- Wolfman_96th wrote:
-
-- That is not true, as proven by the lack of Phoenix
-- friendly fire incidents during the war.
-
- ..........................
- So...the Phoenix has some sort of IFF AI going on?
- My guess would be that the Iraquis grounded
- everything that they didn't want shot down.
- Hell, the US managed to shoot down an airliner with
- a guided missile cruiser....

I don't know all the specs, but the late model updated AIM-54C version # XXXXXX or what not, I remember someone who knew what they were talking about backing up that the missile still packs as powerful and lethal of a punch as it ever has.

It's RMin is akin to that of the slightly lower than Sidewinder's Rmax, which means you can almost fire it in a close-range encounter. It has more than lethal agility and it's speed is greater than most AAM's even today.

I think the F-14D is a far greater interceptor in the true sense of the role than the F-15C or any Su-27 series.

Why wait for them to come to you when the Delta model's IRST can positively ID a target in excess of any of the aforementioned aircraft's AAm Rmax range, so the Tom's will always be able to dictate the engagement via radar or IRST combined with the lethal and unparralleled Phoenix combination.

http://people.tamu.edu/~rdr0821/test%20hornet%20two.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 08:32 AM
Wolfman_96th wrote:
-

- During the 8 year Iran-Iraq war, IRIAF F-14s scored
- over 100 kills, 60+ of which were with AIM-54A.



Uhhh, well - during Iran-Iraq war Iran had about 70 F-14A . 10-20 of which were battle ready. The total amount of AIM-54 was 284. After the Islam revolution in 1979 the ex-pilots of the Tomcats sabotaged the avoinics so the plane was unable to use Phoenix. Later that was corrected but only for a douzen of the F-14As.

Iran claims his F-14A have scored 45!!! A-A kills during that war. In 25 of them AIM-54 was used. The AIM-54 suply was over in 1986.

The documents confirm only 3!!!! F-14A`s victories - 2 Mirage F.1EQ and 1 Œ¨ƒ-21.

The same goes for A-A losses of Tomcats:
21th Nov 1982 - Mirage F.1EQ with Matra R-550 Magic
1th Jul 1984 - same case
March 1983 - MiG-21 with Matra R-550 Magic

Iran confirms 12 F-14As were lost during the war, most of them because of mechanic failures









Message Edited on 11/14/0307:34AM by KALO1

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 08:51 AM
their boastings does not meat the evidence /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

45 kills? uh huh.. i wasnt born yesturday!

<center>http://home.att.net/~antont/airforcedeltastrike_screen006262.jpg
<font color=skyblue>
"Joy can be real only if people look upon their life as a service, and have a definite object in life outside themselves and their own personal happiness." - Leo Tolstoy</font></center>

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 08:59 AM
that`s what they claim. Both sides lied a lot about their victories

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 09:28 AM
Something for you guys to keep in mind, the DOD here in the didn't keep track of it although on an unoffical level. From the research done so far from Tom Cooper and Mr. Bishop, the Iranian did have an abundance of kills. These authors have asked both sides and then reflect what was real and was not.

BTW, it was either the CIA or the Grumman techs that sabotaged the F14 - supposedly. What doesn't make sense was the F14 avionics were completely functional during the war since the inventory of the AIM54, AIM7, and AIM9 were used extensively during the war.

I have also been in communications with an Iranian F14 pilot with over 5000 hours under his belt that was taught in the US on how to fly and fight in the aircraft. He shot down six Iraqi aircraft.

During the later stages of the war, the Iraqi pilots were heard yelling over the comms telling them to move because the AWG9 blimped on their warning receiver. Which explains during Desert Storm in the early 90's why the Iraqis fled or turned tail once the AWG9 was seen on their screen. Obviously, there was something about their experiences of the F14 that made them turn tail.

I think the upcoming book about the Iranian F14 in the war will explain things from true accounts from the war. Tactics from both sides. How the Iraqis with the help of the USSR, France and the US tried to deter the Iranian F14.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 09:37 AM
Where did these 100+ Eagle Kills come from?
Israel or Gulf War 1??

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 11:05 AM
Osakajoe wrote:
- Where did these 100+ Eagle Kills come from?
- Israel or Gulf War 1??
-
-

Majority of the kills were from Israel.

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 02:43 PM
I am currious about a list of victories from the Bekaa Valey. I assume that you are talking about F15 performances there.

http://www.soft4net.ro/~phoratiu/tomcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-14-2003, 08:17 PM
If you want to talk about the pure number amount of kills, look at the F4, it's kill record IIRC is over 230+.

It's all about opportunity nothing more.

XyZspineZyX
11-19-2003, 11:34 PM
The F-14 is a superb interceptor. But in a dogfight, I don't think it has the power of the Eagle. I believe the Alaska based F-15s are the best fighters in the world excluding the fifth generation fighters. Their AESA radars and other systems make them superior to anything else currently operational. If I remember correctly, I also read somewhere that they have more powerful engines. Upgraded PW-220s. But I'm not sure. Maybe somebody else can verify this.
The phoenix missile itself was designed to shoot down bombers. Against a highly manoeuvrable aircraft like the F-15, I doubt its capabilities. And also, it is one thing to shoot down a bear at 70 miles range, but quite another to shoot down an aircraft that can pull 10gs and is also jamming you at the same time. My bets are on the F-15.

Regards

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 01:04 AM
Well Airwolf,

A few things here...

- The F-14 is a superb interceptor. But in a dogfight,
- I don't think it has the power of the Eagle.

You're exactly right, it doesnt have the power of the Eagle, it in fact has more. F110 engines in the Tomcat are producing 29,000 pounds of thrust in 'burner. Pratt 220s are pumping 25,000 pounds.

- If I remember correctly, I also read
- somewhere that they have more powerful engines.
- Upgraded PW-220s. But I'm not sure. Maybe somebody
- else can verify this.

Correct. They have a model called the F100-PW-220P. Afterburner thrust is almost the same, but mil. thrust is significantly improved. I have the specs from the ASU engineering library. I'll post them when I get home from work.


- My bets are on the F-15.


Maybe. Maybe not. Just in my view of the airshow @ Nellis last weekend, the F-14B had a much tighter radius than the F-15C. But the F-15C is a 9G jet while the Tom is 7.5G, so faster speeds are going to be a problem for the Tom. However, with wings swept, the Tom appeared to have a faster roll rate than the Eagle. Go figure. Figure the pilot above the two jets, as the jets themselves are pretty well matched.





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

When you go home, tell them of us, and say - for your tomorrow, we gave our today

- US Army 2nd ID memorial, Burma 1942



BiG R

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 06:52 AM
Don't forget that the F14 has a lower thrust requirement due to the aero qualities of the aircraft. The actual lifting area is in fact higher than what the REF area suggests so for those calculator pushers out there the W/S loading is a lot lower than it suggests.

Max thrust will always be at higher at lower altitudes for a given Mach - Less then 5000' or so although the FADEC also plays are part into it.

The 220 engines electronic engine control also aids in AB thrust at higher altitudes where the 100 engine suffers.

Nevertheless, if you were to speak to the pilots that fly these aircraft, they each say they are the best. What pilot won't?

Remember when the prototype F14A+ was about to operational the guys at Oceana decided to play a trick on the 1st TFW F15 Eagles from Langley to invite them into a WVR match. The F15 pilots were speechless from what the story says. Also, during the OPEVAL days for both aircraft at Nellis, the F14A was the "king of the dogfight arena" as everytime both of this aircraft were in a WVR match the F14A came out on top. I posted an excerpt of the story on this earlier on this board.

Also, remember these aircraft don't have a G/AOA limiter and will over G the aircraft if the need arises.

e.g During the fly off for the Shah in the 70's at KADW, the F14 crew pulled 8.5G at 380 KIAS with the wings at 45 degrees. What's the corner of the Eagle? Around 370 KIAS.

Both aircraft have strengths in different areas. Most maneuvering doesn't happen at high Gs anyhow as they are usually are the mid range (3-6) anyhow. The more Gs you keep pulling the more tired you get at a faster rate. High G maneuvering is usually done in a defensive posture although I recall the Falcon drivers still fly at those high Gs in which several adversary pilots just wait for them to get dizzy and then make the kill. Most dogfighting speeds are under M0.7, which is subsonic.

I recall what Jarhead told us at Frugal's that during his ACM training in his F18 he was usually around 4-5Gs. He did reach 7G and begin to grey out. Remember, loading the Gs, HURT! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

_______________________________________

If an AIM54 was to be launched, the problem is, you know there's an AWG9/APG-71 in the area but the problem is that you don't know if they bugged you or not. This is what happened during the Iraq v Iran war as the former knew that there was a F14 in the area but didn't know if they launched. Throughout the war, the Russians, French and other countries tried helping out the Iraqis with better EW gear to aid in detection of the AIM54 and to spoof the AWG9. It didn't work majority of the time.

If you were able to evade the AIM54 missile, you still have another problem, while during your evasive maneuvers because of the Buffalo, the F14 is still coming thus you're still in a defensive position.

The buffalo can also go active right off the rail for short shots. In the same war, there were several kills by the AIM54 when launched less then 20nm against a moving aircraft! Don't forget the big warhead and the proximity fuse. The missile has a big fragmentation pattern; in comparision it would take several AIM9 missiles to have the same blast radius.

Anyhow, don't forget that there's more than one profile that the AIM54 can be flown. The missile is big for reason to fly long distances. Technology back then wasn't capable of developing a long range missile in a small package. Perhaps the rocket-boosted AMRAAM will take this role once operational.

ie. During the early stages of the war, the Iraqis flew tight formation and when the AIM54 hit one of the aircraft, 3 of 4 aircraft were destroyed. Taking lesson learned, they spread out their formations and the casualities dropped.

At the later stages of the war, Iraqis were heard screaming over the comms telling the pilots to move because a F-14 was spotted in the area. Hence, the behavior of the Iraqi aircraft during Desert Storm I as they fled everytime their RWR went off with the AWG9 signatures and ran right into the USAF F15's. Bomber, SEAD and the like flights requested a pod to give that same signature in the war since the AWG9 became known as the "Mig Repeller".

Of course, the ROE of the USN would make it more difficult for their F14s to have the same success as the Iranian as VID is a necessity. Which is why the USN drivers wanted the ROE to be changed to use the AIM54.



Julian

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 01:05 PM
Most of you think just by using the AIM-54 the F-14 is better.
Let me remind you that missile is a Long range missile, used to counter specific percieved threts, no to go out for a sweep with phoenix blazing the skies all over the place.
Do you have any idea how much one of those beats cost???
some fighters arent as expensive as that missile.

Furthermore its avaiability, is far lower than the AIM-120, wich BTW, the tomcat doesnt use. So in BVR combat your stuck with AIM-7's. Not a very pleasant scenario is it?

The AMRAAM is far more deadly because it can both be used in BVR and almost during dogfights.

The usage of the phoenix by iran is something apart ,realy, the iranians wanted to use everything western before it rotted and rusted, furthermore they would have used aerial, nukes if they could. Even more, they way of thinking makes them use anything at hand.
Also the Iraqis were not quite equiped or trained to counter the tomcat, phoenix or not phoenix.

I also dont believe (still) the pheonix scored that many kills anyway.


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

No job, no money, no car, no wife, NO PROBLEMS! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 02:34 PM
KALO1 wrote:
- Uhhh, well - during Iran-Iraq war Iran had about 70
- F-14A . 10-20 of which were battle ready. The total
- amount of AIM-54 was 284. After the Islam revolution
- in 1979 the ex-pilots of the Tomcats sabotaged the
- avoinics so the plane was unable to use Phoenix.
- Later that was corrected but only for a douzen of
- the F-14As.
-
- Iran claims his F-14A have scored 45!!! A-A kills
- during that war. In 25 of them AIM-54 was used. The
- AIM-54 suply was over in 1986.
-
- The documents confirm only 3!!!! F-14A`s victories -
- 2 Mirage F.1EQ and 1 Œ¨ƒ-21.
-
- The same goes for A-A losses of Tomcats:
- 21th Nov 1982 - Mirage F.1EQ with Matra R-550 Magic
- 1th Jul 1984 - same case
- March 1983 - MiG-21 with Matra R-550 Magic
-
- Iran confirms 12 F-14As were lost during the war,
- most of them because of mechanic failures

I suggest you read 'Iran-Iraq War in the Air 1980-1988', and talk to Tom Cooper at www.acig.org (http://www.acig.org).
The info you listed above is far from accurate.

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 03:38 PM
Pilotasso wrote:
- Most of you think just by using the AIM-54 the F-14
- is better.

Nope..it is better by its performances. There where tests, done starting even from prototype stage, the Cat usually ended up nailing the Bird/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Let me remind you that missile is a Long range
- missile, used to counter specific percieved threts,
- no to go out for a sweep with phoenix blazing the
- skies all over the place.

why do u think the they carried always 6 AIM54? Usualy where 2AIM54, with the rest being AIM7 and AIM9.

- Do you have any idea how much one of those beats
- cost???
- some fighters arent as expensive as that missile.
Missile was around 1 mil.Planes where more expensive , not to mention the pilot (training is also expensive)

- Furthermore its avaiability, is far lower than the
- AIM-120, wich BTW, the tomcat doesnt use. So in BVR
- combat your stuck with AIM-7's. Not a very pleasant
- scenario is it?

Now where did u pulled that out. Except US , just look at the numbers of AIM120 bought by various countries.
Why do you say the AIm7 is a bad weapons. It had problems with with on/off hardpoint cicles, due to very sensitive gyro units, also in Vietnam RoE requested a visual ID , so thise denied useage of AIm7, and not to mention that pilots sometime during battle they don't have time to think about missiles parameters.
One thing though. The AIM120 enetered into usage with the upgraded version of the Eagle. Well i don't remeber to be such a program for the Tomcat after Chenney "Scarp Tomcats" order./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- The usage of the phoenix by iran is something apart
- ,realy, the iranians wanted to use everything
- western before it rotted and rusted,

What is a purpose of a weapons if you don't use it when you are in need?

- Also the Iraqis were not quite equiped or trained to
- counter the tomcat, phoenix or not phoenix.

Well they somehow learned , true, the hard way, to avoid the Tomcat. Russian RWR where improved so they could detect Tomcat's Radar from almost 100km. Those reconaising a big problem they turned away./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


- I also dont believe (still) the pheonix scored that
- many kills anyway.
But still scored more that you beloved AIM120./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.soft4net.ro/~phoratiu/tomcat.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 07:57 PM
Pilotasso wrote:
- Most of you think just by using the AIM-54 the F-14
- is better.


Right better for the original job it (AIM54) was designed for long range stand off capability designed by the USAF in the 50's. Only one other aircraft could carry it - F111. Pilots will tell you if they have the opportunity they prefer to fox at long distances.


- Let me remind you that missile is a Long range
- missile, used to counter specific percieved threts,
- no to go out for a sweep with phoenix blazing the
- skies all over the place.


Right due to the size but it isn't just left only to those type of or profile. There's where your ignorance shows about the missile itself. Even during training exercises, the USN used the AIM54 for strikes against "smaller aircraft". Look at Frugal's website and read one of the Chunx's stories when he is deployed in Hawaii. The USAF sent a package in to destroy the bomber. He's squad was fragged to take care of the incoming bandits. They took the F15's out first and played with the F111 a bit.



- Do you have any idea how much one of those beats
- cost???
- some fighters arent as expensive as that missile.


Unless you're talking about a WWII.


-
- Furthermore its avaiability, is far lower than the
- AIM-120, wich BTW, the tomcat doesnt use. So in BVR
- combat your stuck with AIM-7's. Not a very pleasant
- scenario is it?
-


HAH! Don't forget the ROE that is used by the US.



- The AMRAAM is far more deadly because it can both be
- used in BVR and almost during dogfights.



Physics, the smaller and lighter the missile, the manueverable it is. Same with planes. Better take a read about the Mig29 v F15 conflict over the Balkans. I recall Mike Shower foxed AIM120s and missed and then finally hit the Mig with a heater.

All missiles can miss and be avoided, hence the name, "miss -ile". If they hit everytime they were launched, wouldn't they be called "hittles"? Read the Falcon 4.0 manual about that as F16 IP Pete Bonannia speaks about that.



-
- The usage of the phoenix by iran is something apart
- ,realy, the iranians wanted to use everything
- western before it rotted and rusted, furthermore
- they would have used aerial, nukes if they could.
- Even more, they way of thinking makes them use
- anything at hand.
- Also the Iraqis were not quite equiped or trained to
- counter the tomcat, phoenix or not phoenix.


You better read or do some research. During the early stages of the war, the Iranians had a lower count of F14 that were operational and as the war progressed, more F14s became operational. I am afraid that is true, the West Intel didn't either keep up with the war or they don't want to talk about it. Ask Mr. Cooper and Mr. Bishop as they are correcting all the dumbfounded myths that transpired during the war.

-
- I also dont believe (still) the pheonix scored that
- many kills anyway.
-

Read what Tomcat replied and you sound like the typical Westerner that doesn't have a clue what happened over there.



-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- No job, no money, no car, no wife, NO PROBLEMS! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-

britgliderpilot
11-20-2003, 08:07 PM
- Right better for the original job it (AIM54) was
- designed for long range stand off capability
- designed by the USAF in the 50's. Only one other
- aircraft could carry it - F111. Pilots will tell you
- if they have the opportunity they prefer to fox at
- long distances.

I didn't know the F111 could carry it . . . . did the Aussies buy any for long range intercepts?




<center>http://www.x-plane.org/users/megile/migeng99.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 09:28 PM
A2A is to broad... What scenario? Air dominance deep in enemy teritory? Point defence fighter? Interceptor?

Do you want to know which one is the best (ie. has the greatest chances of winning or surviving the combat with averagely trained pilot against other aircraft with the pilot with same level of training) or you want to know who has greatest chances to win in real life? That last is F15 hands down, but not because of it's superiority (it's still in the first top 3 list IMO, you'll see below), but because of support it gets in combat...

My opinion:

Point defence fighter: MiG29SMT(-2)

Why: Sophisticated avionics, excelent maneouvrability,
small load of fuel (enhaces maneouvrability...), R73, head mounted sight, excelent climbing.

Air dominance over friendly and enemy teritory: F15C

Why: Because of AMRAAM. Period. If there was a variant of Su27 that can carry R77 widely used, that would be my choice, but F15C+AMRAAM vs Su27+ALAMO = 1:0.

Interceptor, hit & run tactics: MiG-31M
Why: Zaslon radar-no comment. Speed - great chance to outrun AMRAAMs and other missiles.

That's all from me. Thnx for reading.



regards, tt

XyZspineZyX
11-20-2003, 10:57 PM
The best Air to Air fighter in the world today? Well, that's easy, whatever fighter I'm flying /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




______________________________________
<A HREF="http://23rd.ticat.at" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.x-plane.org/users/12thiaptbone/baz.jpg </A>

Live to hunt, Hunt to kill!

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 05:15 PM
Even though the F-15 has no doubt proven itself to be the best of the best, I must say the F/A-22 is currently and technically the best.

Even though it is not deployed in squadrons yet, the ones currently produced could be called into duty in an emergency and no doubt they would take any piece of MiG, Su, or Mirage crap and beat it senseless until the aircraft looked like a metallic rag.

LPI, supercruise, thrust vectoring, and stealth technology has been proven and no doubt it will maintain and surpass expectations by critics of the F/A-22.

The F/A-35 JSF will also utilize many of the qualities the F/A-22 has and provide a good value for multi-role combat aircraft needs.

Trust me, Lockeed Martin puts out some very excellent defense work.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:19 PM
havoc_squad wrote:
- Even though the F-15 has no doubt proven itself to
- be the best of the best, I must say the F/A-22 is
- currently and technically the best.
-
- Even though it is not deployed in squadrons yet, the
- ones currently produced could be called into duty in
- an emergency and no doubt they would take any piece
- of MiG, Su, or Mirage crap and beat it senseless
- until the aircraft looked like a metallic rag.

You know what. The crap mirage would totally flat out beat the crap out of a F86A. Yeah that's right. Until the aircraft looked like a metallic rag.

Nic

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 08:01 PM
That's the most stupid comparison of force inequality I've heard in two years.

Grow up and mature a little before talking about aircraft capabilities, then come back and talk about the best of the best in aircraft.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 10:56 PM
havoc_squad wrote:
- That's the most stupid comparison of force
- inequality I've heard in two years.
-
- Grow up and mature a little before talking about
- aircraft capabilities, then come back and talk about
- the best of the best in aircraft.



You wrote:

"Even though it is not deployed in squadrons yet, the ones currently produced could be called into duty in an emergency and no doubt they would take any piece of MiG, Su, or Mirage crap and beat it senseless until the aircraft looked like a metallic rag."



Hmm...

Pot... Kettle... back!


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif




<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:03 AM
Damn!! What a ###?!!! Everybody who knows a bit about jetfighters would tell you that Sukhoi's fighters are the best!!! Su-30 woul send F-22, F-15 at home to go on training!!!!

Edited for foul language. Please refrain from repeating this in the future.

Message Edited on 11/22/0305:07PM by Wolfman_96th

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 01:47 PM
havoc_squad wrote:
- That's the most stupid comparison of force
- inequality I've heard in two years.
-
- Grow up and mature a little before talking about
- aircraft capabilities, then come back and talk about
- the best of the best in aircraft.

There is no more time difference between the indroduction into service between the F86 and the first mirage than between the F22 and the last mirage.

F86 (1948) Vs Mirage III (1960) = 12 years difference.

Mirage 2000 (1983) Vs F22 (2003+ more like 2005-2007) = 20+ years difference.

Now tell me who made the most stupid comparison of force inequalty that you've heard in two years? Yes that's right it's you; you compare F22 (which is not yet into service as of now) to a design (assuming you were talking of the Mirage 2000, the last version) that was put in operational service 20 years ago. The mirage (as you put it) family however started being operational in 1960. Who knows if you weren't comparing the F22 to a Mirage III or a Mirage F1. Well you'd have to know the difference to do that though.

So I have a good advice for you that I heard recently: grow up and mature a little before talking about aircraft capabilities, then come back and talk about the best of the best in aircraft.

Nic

Message Edited on 11/22/0302:13PM by nicolas10

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 09:09 PM
The F-110 engines fitted in the F-14 have a thrust of 27000 lbs. Slightly lower than the ones fitted to the F-16 but still much better than the TF-30s. The combined thrust comes out to about 54000 lbs. It is greater than the 50.000 lbs thrust of the F-15 but we have to keep in mind that the Tomcat is much much heavier than the Eagle. The F-15 performs better in terms of power.
Regarding Airshows and these peacetime exercises, we have to be careful. Airshows are very nice but pilots don't usually max perform their aircraft at airshows. The aim is to produce effect and do some pleasing manoeuvres, and that can be done without max-performing an aircraft. I'm sure these aircraft are far more capable than what they do at airshows. I think it is not correct to measure performance by airshows because a pilot may not be using the aircraft's full capabilities.
The same is true for dogfighting exercises. They are more dependant on pilot skill than aircraft performance. Even the F-5 has shot down a lot of F-15s and F-14s in exercises but that does'nt mean the F-5 is as good as these two. It is not unusual for even an inferior aircraft to win against a superior dogfighter if the other guy is not flying properly. Sometime ago, someone posted a link in which Sea Harriers had scored better against F-15s as compared to F-5s. That didn't mean that the F-5 was a better dogfighter than the Eagle. It simply meant that they were better piloted. I think the same is true for the above mentioned exercises as well. I've also heard a lot of pilots speak about the weaknesses of the tomcat and excercises in which it was easily beaten. The F-14A in particular was stated to lack in dogfight performance. An article once appeared in AFM magazine, which described an exercise between Dutch F16s and USN F-14s. The dutch pilots stated that they were surprised at the number of kills they got against the Tomcat.Especially so because they were new to the Air to Air arena.They were said to have given the F-14s a very hard time. The Tomcat crew themselves said that they found out that in many situations only speed could save them. I've found out that, generally, F-14 is not rated very highly as a dogfighter. As an interceptor it is very good but in a dogfight, it is not in the same league as the Flanker or Eagle or Viper etc.
The aerodynamic qualities of the aircraft may be very good but they can help u only upto a certain extent. For instance, if u want to go up vertically and ur engines lack power, aerodynamics cant help u much. If an F-14 gets into a dogfight with a Mig-29, I think he's in trouble. The acig website seems biased to me in favour of the F-14 and Tom is especially biased. I'm not saying the Tomcat is not a good aircraft. It is an excellent fighter but I doubt its dogfighting abilities against the hottest dogfighters. Its speciality is the interceptor role.

Regards

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 10:54 PM
Airwolf,

What's listed for thrust is majority of publication is "uninstalled" thrust. Installed is in fact higher than the uninstalled figure depending on the MACH. Thrust lowers per gain in altitude. At SL, where the most thrust is produced, the F14B/D with weight of 56K the T:W is over 1:1.

As in regarding to the F14 stories, most magazines post results for a political incentive for propaganda IOW. They don't expressly tell the whole story as much of the information is classified.

During the OPEVAL in the 70's, with the new F14 and F15 becoming operational, the former scored more kills in close. And in fact, the F14A were besting out the F15As in WVR/ACM arena.

During the shootout at Yuma in the late 80's with the F14Bs, the Tomcats had an Eagle shoot.

If you were to listen to the scanner at Oceana and Langley, the F15s have their hands full in close but the USN aircraft were playing "roles", which goes back to the publicized events. AFM and the like do NOT know the complete details any DACT period. As Chunx and Hornit (Former USN aviators) once put it, these are just training exercises on the emphasis to train not to boast what country or aircaft better. Most people need to understand. It's not a ego-boasting contest per se.

Nevertheless, there are downsides to the F14 at this day and age due to the latest generations of fighters that are in service now. In its prime, it was known amongst the pilots as the "best dogfighter" - Chunx.

Since 1999, the long awaited DFCS upgrade did in fact, slowed the turn performance of the aircraft and the F14 community complained about that.


Lastly, if you were to see the EMDs/performance charts of each aircraft you would clearly see the performance differences. You can't clearly base a subjective opinion without knowing what the aircraft actually do as it takes more than one factor to decide the outcome in air combat.





Message Edited on 11/22/0304:57PM by Jewels_201

XyZspineZyX
11-23-2003, 02:28 PM
tomcat1974 wrote:
-
- Pilotasso wrote:
-- Most of you think just by using the AIM-54 the F-14
-- is better.
-
- 1)Nope..it is better by its performances. There where
- tests, done starting even from prototype stage, the
- Cat usually ended up nailing the Bird/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-- Let me remind you that missile is a Long range
-- missile, used to counter specific percieved threts,
-- no to go out for a sweep with phoenix blazing the
-- skies all over the place.
-
- 2)why do u think the they carried always 6 AIM54?
- Usualy where 2AIM54, with the rest being AIM7 and
- AIM9.
-
-- Do you have any idea how much one of those beats
-- cost???
-- some fighters arent as expensive as that missile.
- 3)Missile was around 1 mil.Planes where more expensive
- , not to mention the pilot (training is also
- expensive)
-
-- Furthermore its avaiability, is far lower than the
-- AIM-120, wich BTW, the tomcat doesnt use. So in BVR
-- combat your stuck with AIM-7's. Not a very pleasant
-- scenario is it?
-
- 4)Now where did u pulled that out. Except US , just
- look at the numbers of AIM120 bought by various
- countries.
- Why do you say the AIm7 is a bad weapons. It had
- problems with with on/off hardpoint cicles, due to
- very sensitive gyro units, also in Vietnam RoE
- requested a visual ID , so thise denied useage of
- AIm7, and not to mention that pilots sometime during
- battle they don't have time to think about missiles
- parameters.
- One thing though. The AIM120 enetered into usage
- with the upgraded version of the Eagle. Well i don't
- remeber to be such a program for the Tomcat after
- Chenney "Scarp Tomcats" order./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-- The usage of the phoenix by iran is something apart
-- ,realy, the iranians wanted to use everything
-- western before it rotted and rusted,
-
- 5)What is a purpose of a weapons if you don't use it
- when you are in need?
-
-- Also the Iraqis were not quite equiped or trained to
-- counter the tomcat, phoenix or not phoenix.
-
- 6)Well they somehow learned , true, the hard way, to
- avoid the Tomcat. Russian RWR where improved so they
- could detect Tomcat's Radar from almost 100km. Those
- reconaising a big problem they turned away./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-- I also dont believe (still) the pheonix scored that
-- many kills anyway.
- 7)But still scored more that you beloved AIM120./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
- http://www.soft4net.ro/~phoratiu/tomcat.jpg

by highlighted topics:

1)thats not what I have read. The tomcat is better at low speeds, the eagle tops the tomcat in turning ability in its coener velocity, furthermore the eagle is not limited to 7.5G and doenst have the same limitation in using afterburner like the tom.

2)Carrying 6 phoenixes doenst mean it would go for war like that at any time because it never did. As I said that missile wast to be used by percieved threts that was a soviet bomber cruise missile fleet. Not fighters.

3)geez sometimes ppl take coments literaly...even so how much do you think a 30 year old mig-21 costs? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

4)tomcat...again...read carefully your completely missed my point.
Also with the AIM-7 the only BVR tom weapon used by US cannot go active letting the launcher go for other things.
Also AMRAAM has a better kill ratio than the sparrow, and the sparrow is more risky to use because your forced to go head to head with the enemy and by the time the missile hits or fails the launcher tom is close enough an ina predictable position for a IR return shot. Its documented so.

5) yes but you gotta wonder why the US never used one in combat. More, the iranians didnt know how much longer they could used the 14 even with program of alternative parts sources you cannot tell how successfull that plan is because it has lots of failiure risks. 20 yers later we can judge that but not at the time.

7)That was simply because there were more firings and targets around when the AIM-54's were fired. For better comparison go for kill ratio.
The AMRAAM shares the same technology as the phoenix but embodied in a much agile missile, wich allows its greater kill ratio. however you must distinguish the AIM-120 US uses and that the europeans use wich are downgrades, and have a worse combat kill ratio.


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

No job, no money, no car, no wife, NO PROBLEMS! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 09:32 PM
Ehum, i would say Swedish JAS 39 Gripen,
it has a good standar the one thing that could make it disaper from this conversion is that the only country that operate this has no good BVR misile, but the elecktronics is well over the standar, atleast it was it from it start of service into around 2001-2002 where it was the first 4: generation fighter...

but i can be wrong, if you want to read about it, go to

www.gripen.com (http://www.gripen.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 02:28 PM
The F-15E, without a shadow of a doubt /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 03:33 PM
And of course, we all know the best off-shore rat killa

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/12269911l.jpg



Geez, the new forum software will be a godsend..


- I am a vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants! - Cain

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 05:22 PM
I'd call AMRAAM a good BVR misile, wouldn't you?

UWS wrote:
- Ehum, i would say Swedish JAS 39 Gripen,
- it has a good standar the one thing that could make
- it disaper from this conversion is that the only
- country that operate this has no good BVR misile,
- but the elecktronics is well over the standar,
- atleast it was it from it start of service into
- around 2001-2002 where it was the first 4:
- generation fighter...
-
- but i can be wrong, if you want to read about it, go
- to
-
- www.gripen.com (http://www.gripen.com)
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 10:23 PM
I think he's alluding to the fact that the US DoD refuses to sell AMRAAM to Sweden; I also doubt that the SAF will get it either, so he has a valid point.

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 11:25 PM
F15E wrote:
- I think he's alluding to the fact that the US DoD
- refuses to sell AMRAAM to Sweden; I also doubt that
- the SAF will get it either, so he has a valid point.
-
-

Actually Sweden have already bought som 100 AMRAAMs (the swedish airforce designation is RB99) as a stopgap untill METEOR is ready.

Also, Sweden was until recently (when the Eurofighter testfired one in Italy i think) the only country that has been allowed to testfire the AMRAAM outside the US.

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 11:32 PM
Bjorn,

Thanks for the info, I did not realise that Sweden had finally been permitted to buy it.



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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 01:12 AM
What the Best Air to Air Combat Plane in the world today?

STEVE, my GOODNESS! Did you actually say "F-15E without a shadow of a doubt."?

Surely you jest! By your own admission, you've said that the F-15C is better than the mudhen!

Surely F-15C with APG-63(v)2 is better than your beloved Strike Eagle, and even with APG-70 equipped Charlies, with all the software modes being taken up with A to A operations, wouldnt it have the advantage over the Echo?

Come ON man. by your own admission.....

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif





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

When you go home, tell them of us, and say - for your tomorrow, we gave our today

- US Army 2nd ID memorial, Burma 1942



BiG R

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 03:29 AM
- Also, Sweden was until recently (when the
- Eurofighter testfired one in Italy i think) the only
- country that has been allowed to testfire the AMRAAM
- outside the US.
-
-

I don't think so.
The RAAF has them.

http://www.worldmiltair.co.uk/news/aaaanaaaan006.htm

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 01:01 PM
RAAF_Viper wrote:
-- Also, Sweden was until recently (when the
-- Eurofighter testfired one in Italy i think) the only
-- country that has been allowed to testfire the AMRAAM
-- outside the US.
--
--
-
- I don't think so.
- The RAAF has them.
-
- <a
- href="http://www.worldmiltair.co.uk/news/aaaanaaaa
- n006.htm"
- target=_blank>http://www.worldmiltair.co.uk/news/a
- aaanaaaan006.htm</a>
-
-
-

I did not know that, it seems however that the testfirings at Woomera was done in august 2000 while the first test at the Vidsel range was conducted in April 1998.

Thanks for the info
/B

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 05:43 PM
This is an inane question. A fighter is only as good as the pilots that fly it and the ground crew who maintain it!



<center>http://www.blitzpigs.com/images/Ham-SigPic.jpg </center>



Per Ardua Ad Astra

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 07:47 PM
Big,

I did indeed say it, but it was only in jest (hence the winkey smiley afterwards) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think that the C-model represesnts the best that there is in operational service today.



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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 06:18 AM
Sorry Steve, I half suspected that anyway given your extensive knowledge of both types.

I guess I need to study my "United Nations Official International Translation of Official Smiley Protocol (subchapter on Winking Smiley)" cause I dont know what half of them mean to half of the people. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Whats the one with the tongue mean?





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

When you go home, tell them of us, and say - for your tomorrow, we gave our today

- US Army 2nd ID memorial, Burma 1942



BiG R

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 06:54 AM
F15E wrote:
- Bjorn,
-
- Thanks for the info, I did not realise that Sweden
- had finally been permitted to buy it.
-
-

They got it *several* 5+ years ago. The info I got then was
that JA-37 Viggen was to be modified to carry it.
The AMRAAM being the thing making it worth while to keep
the JA-37 in service. I don't know if they whent through
with the modernization programme. They have so little
money now so if I was boss then I would skip the JA-37
upgrade. Wouldn't be surprised if it is like that.
I saw they had AMRAAM at an airshow at F7 S¥ten¤s
several years ago next to a Viggen. Don't know if that meant
they allready were modified to carry it.



/Thomas

Message Edited on 11/28/0305:58AM by Maj_Solo

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:42 AM
Thanks, Thomas.

I have not been following the Gripen too closely, so that major piece of info must have slipped through the net!

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 08:45 AM
Big,

- Whats the one with the tongue mean?

Well, that one really is something of a grey area. Think about it for a moment, I am sure that there may be several interpretations, not all of them suitable for a nice family-friendly board like this /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (Winkey used in the cheeky sense of the wink, as opposed to the sarcastic sense or 'I fancy you' sense )

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-28-2003, 11:57 AM
Maj_Solo wrote:
I don't know if they whent
- through
- with the modernization programme. They have so
- little
- money now so if I was boss then I would skip the
- JA-37
- upgrade.

There are several JA 37's upgraded to "D" standard. In some ways the JA 37D is even more advanced than the JAS 39 Gripen. Among other things the upgrade allowed detection ranges for the radar to be doubled. Our beloved politicians(which I didn't vote for) still send many of them to the scrapheap though./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The new cockpit( if the pic doesn't work, right click and copy the URL to your browser)

http://hem.passagen.se/weasle/images/saab/cockpit.jpg


JA 37 unmodified

http://homepages.force9.net/ffour/airshows99/waddo/viggen.JPG


JA 37D(notice the new antennas)

http://www.highgallery.com/Frisian-Flag-Viggen-01-012a.JPG





<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

Message Edited on 11/28/03 02:31PM by robban75

Message Edited on 11/28/0304:06PM by robban75

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 01:20 AM
Speaking of BVR-missile for the Gripen, SAAF will use their indigenous R-Darter that they have developed together with the israelis. Supposedly Israel will not use it for economic reasons, but go for the AMRAAM instead.


But I suspect an error in my source about this missile. Acording to it, the R-Darter has a range of 8 km. Compared to the 50+ km for the AIM120 this sounds redicoulus. Could it be that it should be 80km instead? In that case it would go from redicoulus to quite impressive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Does anyone know?

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:10 AM
I think its pretty trivial trying to compare aircraft when air warfare is about communication and intergration of many aircraft and missions and systems.

You have to look at the big picture and then the F15 / F14 would probably rule in air superiority.

Some countries might be able to afford a few aircraft like the Su-30/33, but to use these aircraft up you need a huge amount of backup aircraft, communications on the ground, awacs in the air... etc...

Thats where the unrivialed might of the USA air power shows itself http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif





Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

Message Edited on 12/01/0304:13AM by Menthol_moose

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 05:55 PM
As far as information superiority goes, the Gripen has the edge with its unsurpassed TIDLS.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 12:22 AM
robban75 wrote:
- As far as information superiority goes, the Gripen
- has the edge with its unsurpassed TIDLS.
-
Robban,


Can you back that up with a descriptive example or two? I'm thinking that it's pretty bold claim given that Link-16 allows the C-model to talk to eachother, AWACS, RJ, JSTARS and other US fighters.

TIDLS may be technically superior (again, I'd be interested to hear an argument to support this), but surely it's the *information* that's passed over it that really counts? I doubt very much that any other air force in the world has the ISR and C3I network capabilites of the US.

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 09:41 AM
Exactly... the modern air war is about communication and networking.



F15E wrote:
-
- robban75 wrote:
-- As far as information superiority goes, the Gripen
-- has the edge with its unsurpassed TIDLS.
--
- Robban,
-
-
- Can you back that up with a descriptive example or
- two? I'm thinking that it's pretty bold claim given
- that Link-16 allows the C-model to talk to
- eachother, AWACS, RJ, JSTARS and other US fighters.
-
- TIDLS may be technically superior (again, I'd be
- interested to hear an argument to support this), but
- surely it's the *information* that's passed over it
- that really counts? I doubt very much that any other
- air force in the world has the ISR and C3I network
- capabilites of the US.
-
----------------------------------------
-
-
-



Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 03:10 PM
F-15I Raam.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 05:11 PM
I can't judge how good th TIDLS is compared to other systems, but this is some information I found:

"The Flygvapnet was a pioneer in the development and deployment of datalinked combat systems, secretly fielding an initial version of a national defense datalink network with the SAAB 35 Draken fighter in the mid-1960s. They have continued to refine the network.

The Gripen is fitted with the "Tactical Information Datalink System (TIDLS)", which gives the fighter four high-bandwidth, two-way datalinks with a range of about 500 kilometers and very high resistance to jamming. The datalinks allow the Gripen to engage in combat using another aircraft's sensors or from targeting data provided by other defense systems. Data acquired from remote sources is fused and displayed on the fighter's main MFD. The link is fully operational when the aircraft is on the ground, allowing a pilot on standby to have high situational awareness of the battle environment.

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions.

TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere."

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 06:36 PM
F15E wrote:
- Can you back that up with a descriptive example or
- two? I'm thinking that it's pretty bold claim given
- that Link-16 allows the C-model to talk to
- eachother, AWACS, RJ, JSTARS and other US fighters.
-
- TIDLS may be technically superior (again, I'd be
- interested to hear an argument to support this), but
- surely it's the *information* that's passed over it
- that really counts? I doubt very much that any other
- air force in the world has the ISR and C3I network
- capabilites of the US.


Ok, here goes.

Central to the Gripens warfighting capabilities is its unique Communication and Datalink 39 (CDL39), which is probably the best in the world. As Bapp mentioned in his post the Flygvapnet has plenty of experience with datalink systems, having explored this technology in the Draken Viggen and now Gripen.
In BVR combat, where information and situational awareness are key to success, a datalink system gives the user unrivaled battlespace awareness. The advantages of datalink systems are well recognized elsewhere and include the JTIDS used by US armed forces and Britain's RAF, and NATO's Link 16.
However, these other systems are fitted only to a few aircraft and are generally command-driven systems used to guide other aircraft. They do not allow a free flow of information between platforms and are limited in the type of data they can handle. Furthermore, compared to the CDL39 their basic data exchange rates are painfully slow. Types like the Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon will be the first operational aircraft outside Sweden to have datalink capability that comes anywhere matching that of the Gripen.

The CDL39 is fully integrated with Sweden's new tactical Radio System(TARAS) - a secure radio network for JAS39 Gripen and JA37D Viggen fighters, S100B Argus AEW&C platforms, S102B Korpen SIGINT aircraft and ground-based Stridslednings Central, Command and Control Center (StriC) units. The FMV is currently working to make CDL39 capable of communicating with JTIDS for international Gripen operations. Up to four aircraft can be actively transmitting on the datalink at any one time and an infinite number can be receiving(passive).As its most basic function the CDL39 can transmitt radar/sensor pictures and aircraft/weaponry status data anywhere on the TARAS network. To send data on the link all the pilot has to do is select the appropriate radio channel/which will be preset by the mission planning system) and transmit. extensive testing has shown the system to be unjammable.
The Gripen's datalink offers enormous flexibility. For example, in the air to surface role one aircraft "package" can attack a target, obtain a radar picture of the the target area and realy it to the cockpits of the next wave of attackers. Those aircraft would receive an accurate image of the target area, allowing them to know which targets have already been attacked. Furthermore this information can be relayed back to the StriC for decisions based on the actual situation.
In the air to air role it is possible for one Gripen to transmit its radar picture of an airborn target tothe radar screen of another aircraft. The second aircraft can the leave its radar switched off, approach the target and engage it without ever betraying its precense. Weapons launch even can be guided from the first aircrafts radar. Using AEW&C radar, a much larger airpicture can be datalinked to a formation of Gripens, to increase their combat reach.
The Gripen/datalink combination offers formidable capabilities. The airforce has run air defence exercises deplying just six Gripens to defend half the country. Using the CDL39, three pairs of aircraft flying CAP are able to monitor Sweden's entire east coast, from the northern edge of the island of Gotland in the Baltic to Ronneby Air Base and beyond, to the souther tip of the country.
Each Gripen pilot can be confident that everybody knows where everyone else is at all times, what they are seeing and what they are doing.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 08:27 PM
Hmm, I'm unable to edit the post. Thought I'd throw some smilies in there aswell./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I also meant to ask you F-15E if you knew about the two Gripens participating in celebrating the 100 years of powered flight in the US? I'm sure the Gripen pilots(they were based at Nellis AFB) shared some info about their fighter with the base personel? I'd like to know more about this aswell because it's the first time an in-service Swedish fighter has ever flown to the US. If anyone knows more about this please share it with me, it'd be nice!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 10:29 PM
I was @ Nellis this year for Aviation Nation 2003.

Sorry,

No Gripens, no pilots. Nothing was there, not even a booth.





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

Q. How do you know your date with the fighter pilot is half over?

A. He says "but enough about me - wanna hear about my plane?"


BiG R

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 11:51 PM
As I recall it they were supposed to be in Washington for the celebrations but some bad weather (some kind of storm) canceled the whole event so they continued to Nellis, but I don't think they participated in any event, just a normal visit. It was mentioned that they MIGHT possibly be participating in redflag sometime in the future. That could be very interesting.

I'm sorry to contribute to this sandbox discussion about who's country has the best aircrafts but...
I heard that some Gripens where in Switzerland this autumn and participated in an exercise with some F16s from Norway, some F18s from Finland and some F18s from Switzerland. Supposedly Gripen did very well, and at one occasion one Gripen even defeted two F16 at the same time in close dogfight.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 01:11 AM
Maybe the Griffen is a good plane...and has great communication technology, but which nation using it has sufficent enough logistics to use it ?



Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 01:51 AM
Hmmmm... logistics in what way?
Gripen is designed to be able to take off and land on long strips of regular roads. It can be serviced by conscripts that will refuel, rearm and make it combat ready in only 15 minutes.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 03:03 AM
things like awac's, mid air refueling, ground command centres, other aircraft supporting in their missions (like wild weasels)

a aircraft is not a lone entity.. it takes massive amounts of people and reasources just to organise and fly one mission.

The first gulf war too scores of air controllers just to organise things.

Sure it might be a nice plane, but you need the backup of a massive team to properly use it.

Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 07:19 AM
Much thanks to the CDL39 the Gripen can take advantage of what ever is at hand , be it AWACS or Ground centers. The SK37E Viggen has adopted the role of airborn radar jamming and has proven to be very effective during international excercises.
Sweden has never had the need to refuel in the air, because it's a neutral country and its defence is mainly built up on self defence/defending the homeland, but as international cooperations increases such needs has proven to be vital. The JAS39C/D Gripen has IFR capability amongst many other things.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 05:41 PM
Yeah the Grippen is a great plane. I really don't understand why it didn't score more international sales already. Are they offered for export with the whole CDL39 package?

Nic

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 06:25 PM
Well, buying a fighter is 75% politics and the fact that Sweden has rather strict rules about who you can sell defence material to doesn't help.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 08:01 PM
Roban,

Many thanks for the information of the Gripen datalink. However, there's nothing you mentioned there that the MIDS and FDL datalinks used by the F-15 cannot also do. I think it might be a tough one to call in terms of deciding which one is 'best'. ;-)

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 08:06 PM
Hi, you americans may think you have the best fighter aircraft but you dont have the best pilots to fly them! Britain may not have a super aireforce whith hightech planes n stuff, but we sure as hell no how to fly them. Andrew

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 10:55 PM
a lot of people consider the Israeli pilots the best in the world. Is that a fact or is it because they've just had the oportunity to show their ability against crappy pilots?

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 11:12 PM
nt = No Text

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 11:16 PM
Andgie wrote:
- Hi, you americans may think you have the best
- fighter aircraft but you dont have the best pilots
- to fly them! Britain may not have a super aireforce
- whith hightech planes n stuff, but we sure as hell
- no how to fly them.

Is that a joke? How, exactly, do you propose that remark can be qualified?

I'm a Brit and whilst I know that the RAF probably has the best low-level pilots in the world - simply because we go low where no-one else will - that does not mean that I could even begin to try and argue that we are any better in general than any other first-class outfit. Whether it the Israelis, French, German, Australians (who are really supposed to be ****-hot), Americans or whoever, there's really no way you can make that assertion.

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 11:18 PM
Bapp wrote:
- a lot of people consider the Israeli pilots the best
- in the world. Is that a fact or is it because
- they've just had the oportunity to show their
- ability against crappy pilots?
-
-

Some of the reports I have read would indicate that some of those Syrian pilots are no slugs, but their equipment is not as advanced

LawDog15
12-04-2003, 12:42 AM
Andgie wrote:
- Hi, you americans may think you have the best
- fighter aircraft but you dont have the best pilots
- to fly them! Britain may not have a super aireforce
- whith hightech planes n stuff, but we sure as hell
- no how to fly them. Andrew
-

Kid, go to your room, before the belt comes off.

No pudding for you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget ... beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders"

AthlonXP 2200+ <> Soyo KT333 Ultra Plat motherboard <> 9700 Pro Cat 3.9 <> 1 Gig Corsair PC2700 <> Onboard Audio <> Logitech Wingman Extreme <> WinXP

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 12:44 AM
Ok I refrase http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

a lot of people consider the Israeli pilots the best in the world. Is that a fact or is it because they've just had the oportunity to show their ability oponents with crappy equipment?

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:16 AM
nt = No Text

Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

LawDog15
12-04-2003, 01:22 AM
Your asking a question that nobody can really answer.

The best pilots are most likely to have:

-The best equipment

-The best training, in terms of actual flight hours, sim hours, updated intelligence, and demanding instructors.

-The drive to be better than anyone on the planet at what they do.

-etc.

I'm biased. I think we have the best overall, from my contact with these guys (and gals). And we also have a handful of pilots that shouldn't have been allowed near a plane, but that's very rare. It's an elite group no matter what country your looking at.

I've heard a dozen stories about "X aircraft pilots from X country flew against the Americans using X Rules of Engagement and they won..." You never hear about the Americans winning. If you assume from that that Americans are poor pilots then you're naive. Can you imagine an American pilot bragging about defeating a pilot from any country in a mock fight? I can't, not from the fighter pilots I'm acquainted with. That would just be dumb. They're focused on the next real-life conflict, so they take any defeat and learn how to win when faced with a similar situation in real life, or avoid being dragged into that scenario at all. Take these anecdotes you come across with a grain of salt. The rules of engagement in such mock conflicts are designed to work on a specific skill, such as WVR engagements. But in real life, the gloves come off. Classified tactics and capabilities are used. Full air assets are brought in. This applies to any country's airforce.

Some things to keep in mind in discussions like these.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget ... beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders"

AthlonXP 2200+ <> Soyo KT333 Ultra Plat motherboard <> 9700 Pro Cat 3.9 <> 1 Gig Corsair PC2700 <> Onboard Audio <> Logitech Wingman Extreme <> WinXP



Message Edited on 12/03/0304:41PM by LawDog15

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 01:28 AM
Andgie wrote:
- Hi, you americans may think you have the best
- fighter aircraft but you dont have the best pilots
- to fly them! Britain may not have a super aireforce
- whith hightech planes n stuff, but we sure as hell
- no how to fly them. Andrew
-


Let me guess.. your around 16 years old ?



Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 07:22 AM
I think the question should be,:who has the best TRAINED pilots in the world" since training is something you can measure (even that is quite argueable). Skill is not so easy, especially when looking at a large, diverse group of people. Asking a question like that is like asking which country has the smartest people or who is the most athletic or any other very generalized, impossible to substatiate query.

-Brass

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 06:24 PM
Question for Jewels_201
That´s interesting,
jets are my hobby, but not my job, and since I´ve already gotten all the information about combat airplanes commonly available (I guess :-), I know now it´s not enough and not even the really important half of it.

So I have a question: TTW ratio determins acceleration of each jet, as well as rate of climb and turn rate at high AoA.
So if put this way, F-15 must always beat in dogfight JAS-39 or M 2000.
But I´m not so sure about it.
Then, how big role does the wing play (area and type: delta, hybrid, variable geometry)?
Are there any other factors having noticeable impact on maneuvrability (responsivnes of controlls e.g.?)
If you find time to answer.
Thanx

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 07:35 PM
Duncan_123 wrote:
- Question for Jewels_201
- That´s interesting,
- jets are my hobby, but not my job, and since I´ve
- already gotten all the information about combat
- airplanes commonly available (I guess :-), I know
- now it´s not enough and not even the really
- important half of it.
-
- So I have a question: TTW ratio determins
- acceleration of each jet, as well as rate of climb
- and turn rate at high AoA.


Don't forget the aero qualities. Added thrust also helps the STR department.

There's more to dogfighting than just relying on thrust. Pointability is a big one. EMD or performance charts can only tell you how the aircraft performs in that one particular area yet in the WVR arena it is completely dynamic. Some may think that because an aircraft has a high sustained Max G, it will out turn everything damn then in the planet but forget about the side effects of this. Most WVR matches are usually in the 3-5G range anyhow.

"Ya can't shoot anything if you're greyed/blacked out". Some missiles don't like be foxed at high Gs anywhow.

Others factors could be onset buffet - does the buffet change as the AOA increase? What about longitidinal effectives per AOA? What other side effects happen if the aircraft is flown at high AOA? Is there an AOA limiter affectionately what I all the "bucking bronco"?

PreFBW aircraft flown at their extremeties takes a pilot with skill since there's FCS to "fix or damp out" the aircraft's bad traits - well most of them.



- So if put this way, F-15 must always beat in
- dogfight JAS-39 or M 2000.
- But I´m not so sure about it.


Don't forget size matters in the WVR arena. Any aircraft that is smaller, lighter will most likely be a bit more peppy in the transient - not to be confused with trasonic,- performance regime. Hence, why the F5 or A4 is still used today during DACT training. They may not have the killer turn rate performance but they can switch direction more quickly than that of a bigger aircraft thus giving hell.

As an IAF pilot once put it, "If you have turned more than 30-50 degrees, you've turned too long!"

As one USN Aggressor told me about the A4, "If they go slow with me, consider the fight done, it's over. They can't deal me at the slow speeds".

- Then, how big role does the wing play (area and
- type: delta, hybrid, variable geometry)?



1. Area: More lift but with the downside of more surface volume which equates to more drag. It's only wing area, don't forget there are lifting surfaces or bodies that change the overall Cl vs AOA vs CD profile. Some planes have it and some do not.


2. Delta; Lower CDp (parasitic drag) during acceleration depending on the LE sweep. Higher CDi (induced drag) thus higher thrust requirement. Typically low AR.

2a; variable camber. FCS controls the LEF/TEF to change the L/D profile per MACH and AOA. CDp might be high depending on the LE sweep angle - F18/SH

2b: VG: expounds on variable wing yet the LE sweep changes per Mach and SEP. Auto LEF/TEF: deploy on AOA and "Mach range". At high LE sweep (wings fore), the spoilers aid in lateral control over the stabs/tailerons. As the sweep increases, this effect is swapped. Downside of the VG wing is increased stability when the LE sweep angle increases as the CG and aero center shifts aft. Thus, the static margin increases. This was found out during the testing of the F-111 which greatly hurt its turn performance since it couldn't sustain a high G.Taking lesson learned, Grumman moved the pivots further outboard and added glove vanes - which was later removed - with the F-14. The Cg and aero center in the F-14 is 50% less than that of the F-111 thus more maneuverability is acheived. This shift stops around 45-50 degrees, whereas the F111's margin continues to move aft past this LE sweep angle.

Since the wings change LE sweep per MSP, the overall drag profile changes. Thus, you can have great acceleration using lower thrust. With the wings out, the thrust requirement doesn't increase since CLmax occurs at lower AOA thus having lower CDi.

VG wings have slower transient performance particualarly with the wings out.

The overall aerodynamics keep changing with the VG thus giving you a broad curve. VG wings are good in the mid-high subsonic, fall in the low - mid transonic (CG, AC shift), and are good in the high transonic to supersonic.

At mid LE sweep range, the wing area actually lessens. As the wings are fully aft, the wing area increases.



- Are there any other factors having noticeable impact
- on maneuvrability (responsivnes of controlls e.g.?)
- If you find time to answer.
- Thanx
-


Bob n weights are heavy and slow. True FBW controls are sensitive. PreFBW, aircraft controls degrade at higher AOA.From this point on the ARI (Aileron to Rudder Interconnect) or TRI (taileron to Rudder Interconnect) take over.


I hope this helps, I might've forgotten several things but I hope you get the idea.

Julian

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 05:18 PM
is the best!!!
http://aviaforce.free.fr/avions/images/chasse/jas39/jas39_3.jpg


full reloded att 2 min

http://members.tripod.com/lobox1/90s/jas39.jpg



Wingspan
incl launchers: single seat 8.4 m. Dual seat: 8.4 m
Fuselage and tail length excl pitot tube: single seat: 14.1 m.

Dual seat:14.8 m

Height 4.5 m
Engine one Volvo Aero Corporation RM12
Weight Empty: 7400 kg 7700 kg

Maximum external load:5300 kg 5300 kg

Maximum take-off weight:14000 kg 14000 kg

Speed Sea level:1400km/h

At high level: close to mach 2.0

Range 3000 km


The Swedish Air Force lost his third JAS 39A (39156/56) the pilot escaped safely. This aircraft came in the jet blast of an other JAS 39 the pilot lost the control, the plane crashed in V¤nern lake near the island Djur¶.

the new jas39 nato stadard has airrefuling and can drive in jet blast to save fule (like birds i v formation)
the data from the third crash

and the say that saab working on Cobra manuver
and it have the most power ful radar and links system

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 12:19 PM
I didn`t orignaly want to post but...
First of all no one knows the real capabilities of any modern military planes,missiles etc. the figures and capabilities are under or over rated or in other words secret.

Pilots are humans for the time and no human can be expected to behave the same in each day.

You are forgeting the numbers so what if on the paper the X plane is better than the Y if X is produced in 7 aircrafts and the Y in 200 who would win??

The topic is as STUPID as "the best special forces,best army,best looking woman/man,best football team,best drink etc."
Wich leads nowhere since the sides involved have thir own oppinion and no one can change them.

Bye bye stupid thread.

Stop and THINK.

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 08:35 PM
Well excuuuuse me, Mr. Fancypants!

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 10:12 PM
I could have told him I'm the best looking guy. Then he would have had even fewer inane thoughts!

hehehe

Cheers, Conan

F-22!

Conan
RSO
249th IAP



<A HREF="http://www.249th.com/" TARGET=_blank>
249th IAP</A></p>




<CENTER<marquee><FONT COLOR="yellow">
There is no problem which cannot be solved by the proper application of high explosive"......</FONT>
</marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 11:19 PM
My thoughts exactly. Everyone knows it's the F-15E. Stupid thread. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 11:54 PM
Not trying to sound like a arse or anything but not many of you are even close. F-15 is WAY overrated and can be downed with a F-16 with not much problem. The reson F-15s still exist is because the Air Force cannot afford to upgrade the F-16s radar that has a much more limited range than the F-16s. Otherwise the F-16 is more agil, and just overall more capable than the F-15.

But F-16 is not the best A - A plane (althought it could be with upgraded radars and thrust vectoring)

Currently:

SU - 37 will school any other plane out at the moment. Thing snaps on a dime with its thrust vectoring.

Here's my list of the top 5 (in the order I think they should go but I'm not positive)

1. SU - 37
2. F/A - 22
3. EuroFighter
4. SU - 27 (Upgraded with Thrust Vectoring)
5. Raf


In the next 20 years this is how its going to look:

1. F - 32 (JSF)
2. SU - 37
3. (insert the new MiG being devolped here)
4. Dunno
5. Dunno

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 12:15 AM
CC_KickURanus wrote:
- Not trying to sound like a arse or anything but not
- many of you are even close. F-15 is WAY overrated
- and can be downed with a F-16 with not much problem.
- The reson F-15s still exist is because the Air Force
- cannot afford to upgrade the F-16s radar that has a
- much more limited range than the F-16s. Otherwise
- the F-16 is more agil, and just overall more capable
- than the F-15.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

What does the fact that an F-16 can down an F-15 prove? Nothing.

The Air Force continues to operate the F-15C because it is by far the best air superiority platform in its arsenal: radar, range, payload and operability.

The simple fact that the F-15 gives the pilot more time to work his radar mech than an F-16 pilot is a huge bonus. Additionally, the F-15C has air-to-air capes that are still highly-classified but which the F-16 does not have.

Agility really has done nothing for every air-to-air engagement flown by the USAF in the last 13-years. In any case, If you bother to actually read Conan's posts about his own experiences in the F-16 and F-15 you'll see that each has its merits in the knife-fight and that the F-16 does have weaknesses that can be exploited.


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

Steve Davies

"Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle: All Weather Attack Aircraft" ISBN 1840 373 784

"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776

www.f-15e.net (http://www.f-15e.net)
www.fjphotography.com (http://www.fjphotography.com)



Message Edited on 12/12/0311:47PM by F15E

bigvette
12-13-2003, 02:06 AM
CC_KickURanus wrote:
- But F-16 is not the best A - A plane (althought it
- could be with upgraded radars and thrust vectoring)
-
- Currently:
-
- SU - 37 will school any other plane out at the
- moment. Thing snaps on a dime with its thrust
- vectoring.
-
- Here's my list of the top 5 (in the order I think
- they should go but I'm not positive)
-
- 1. SU - 37
- 2. F/A - 22
- 3. EuroFighter
- 4. SU - 27 (Upgraded with Thrust Vectoring)
- 5. Raf
-
-
- In the next 20 years this is how its going to look:
-
- 1. F - 32 (JSF)
- 2. SU - 37
- 3. (insert the new MiG being devolped here)
- 4. Dunno
- 5. Dunno


Yeah, you kind of lose your credibility when you think the Su-37 and it's "thrust-vectoring" is a better platform in any area then the F-22! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


http://people.tamu.edu/~rdr0821/BigVette%20FA18F.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 04:19 AM
15, oyu got me all wrong im saying if a 15 takes on a viper as currently configed yeah the 15 wil have NO problem taking it out but just like you said, the 15 has capabilites that are not on the viper. I'm saying, in my opinion (and my dads (flew the 18)) the viper is a more capable platform than the 15


and yes the 37 owns to 22 =/

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 05:09 AM
If you dad really flew an F-18, then he wouldn't be telling you that.

In fact, he would also tell you there is not such thing as an Su-37 anymore too (and give slightly more accurate rankings).

http://www.geocities.com/afacadet2000/Buff.txt

The Nation that draws too great a distance between its soldiers and its scholars will have its children taught by cowards and its fighting done by fools.

-Thucydides

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 07:08 AM
F-32 JSF?

....riiight.....

Someone should tell him the F-35 won the competition!

Of course, if his dad flew F-18s, then he'd already know. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





Steffi
------------------------------------------------
http://www.fsfreeware.com/feb_02/f-16_tig.gif

Tiger Lady! Grrr....

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 07:57 AM
For one thing, I don't think the JSF will even be close to F-22 in A-A combat. Not even in that 20 year range that you predict. Plus, much of both the F/A-22 and the SU-37 (if it is ever goes into operation) are still classified. So any opinions on that are probably either biased or just from what you've heard about one plane and lack of the other. Don't forget the US likes to downplay the capabilities of their jets and Russia loves to point out all the nice stuff they can do.



Message Edited on 12/12/0310:59PM by Finhead

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 01:15 PM
Given the limited budget the russian military has, can the SU-37 be better than the F22 ???

Where is all this money comming from ?



Winston, You're drunk!

Bessie, You're ugly. But in the morning I shall be sober.

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 11:44 PM
The F-15 is better for long range fights, the Falcon gives a run for its money at close range, but still there isnt any defenitive advantage of the F-16 over the eagle.

One thing the eagle is much worse, is its size, making it very easy to spot.

The F-16 is much cheaper and easier to maintain, but thats not an issue to those countries that can afford the F-15 anyway.

The F-16 is a much better multirole aircraft, but the F-15 can fire a barrage of missiles very qickly to superior number of oponents, something that the vipers always lacked and makes some confusion to falcon lovers like me.

The F-35 will be to the F-22 the same way F-16 is for the eagle. However the gap between the 2 in terms of maneuverability is even smaller.

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

No job, no money, no car, no wife, NO PROBLEMS! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 08:11 AM
Menthol_moose wrote:
- Given the limited budget the russian military has,
- can the SU-37 be better than the F22 ???
-
- Where is all this money comming from ?
-

its much cheaper to keep your technologies fairly up to date than to do research AND build hundreds of aircraft. the US will build hundreds of Raptors but Russia currently has only ONE Su-37. even so, ive heard the the Su-37's BVR capabilities arent as good as that of that of the raptors, correct me if im wrong

the money is coming from exports. something like 80% of the budget for the PAK FA comes from sales to mostly to India and China, and 20% comes from the government and other means. im guessing other projects will be like this too.

<table bgcolor=#92A5AC border=1 bordercolor=black cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3><tr><td><center><font size=0 color=white face=verdana>Joint Airforce Command</font> (http://jacforums.proboards17.com/)</center><img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~tsauder/sig5.jpg></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 03:07 AM
What about the Su-47? I heard this thing was Da ****, is it still in development?

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 12:35 PM
only one Su-47 exists (also called Su-37 Berkut)
its not gonna be produced because its just a tech demonstrator like the MiG 1.44 - they just develop these things to learn from them what to incorporate into a future 5th generation fighter.

<table bgcolor=#92A5AC border=1 bordercolor=black cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3><tr><td><center><font size=0 color=white face=verdana>Joint Airforce Command</font> (http://jacforums.proboards17.com/)</center><img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~tsauder/sig5.jpg></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 01:05 PM
There is no more such thing as Su-37 (#711). The plane was renamed Su-35 in 2000 and after one year crashed during tests of a new FBW system.

early version of Indian Su-30MKI`s radar N-011M was capable of detecting Su-27 at 330 km. There are rumors that Su-35`s radar is even better.

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 03:07 AM
i think he means the Su-37 with forward swept wings, that one didnt crash. the one that looks like a Su-35 crashed

<table bgcolor=#92A5AC border=1 bordercolor=black cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3><tr><td><center><font size=0 color=white face=verdana>Joint Airforce Command</font> (http://jacforums.proboards17.com/)</center><img src=http://home.earthlink.net/~tsauder/sig5.jpg></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 05:40 AM
Yeah the one with forward swept wings, it looked so damn cool. It's still operational?

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 05:49 AM
JSF as number one on the list? Why have I been so worried about the RAAF's abilities then? We'll take on all the flankers you can throw at us! errr yeah right...Im hoping we grab some Typhoon's to go with them personally...and put some freakin ammo in the gun!

_______________________________________

Eagles may soar, but Weasels never get sucked into Jet intakes

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 08:11 AM
The plane with the forward swept wings is S-37 or Su-47 Bercut. Su-37 was #711

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 04:23 PM
nicolas10 wrote:
- Yeah the Grippen is a great plane. I really don't
- understand why it didn't score more international
- sales already.

Don't beat me if I'm wrong, but didn't South Africa order Gripens ?

That Gripen would be a nice solution for an european tactical "front line" fighter..
Looks kinda *cute* /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif but deadly though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


@ The "anti Mirage fraction": Don't remember the "Six day War" of 1967 ? Israel owned the other coutries with it's Mirage III fighters. The enemies from then (Egypt) got so impressed that they trust in Mirage power today /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

"Zwei flieger sind abgestürzt...fünf sind zwischengelandet...und einer...ist auf dem Weg nach SCHOTTLAND"

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 05:15 PM
It's part of a strategy. Intitial incursions will be dealt with by the MiG-31, and if it is successful, subsequent ones as well.

It's purpose specific, of course.


And why does everyone keep saying the F-22 is some sort of wonder plane?

It isn't. It's avionics software isn't finished, it beacons when it turns, and yadda yadda ... it offers increased performance, but it only does so in a linear manner.

miffomannen
03-19-2004, 06:46 AM
I'm from Sweden and even though I am very proud of JAS 39 Gripen I can't see the relevance in comparing different fighters.

Most aircrafts are designed for some specific purpose and I guess there are few aircrafts that has exactly the same specifications to fulfill. I can only see one way to compare different aircafts and that would be to compare some specific feature of them, like for instance turn-ratio, loadout capabilities, range, price etc. Even that kind of comparison would not make complete sense since not one such feature alone would determine the outcome in a real world situation.

I would say that one way to judge what fighter is the best is to say that it is the one that performs its designated tasks as specified by its owner in the best manner. That would not only include having a good performing aircraft but also to know when to use it, how to use it and back it up with the right people and forces required for the situation.

For instance - little does it help to have an extremely agile fighter if it can't return home after a dogfight as it can't bring enough fuel. Even if the fighter excels in combat maneuvering it can't really be considered the best if it has to disengage in order to run home and refuel. Another example: what does it help having a badass aircraft if it can't start due to the harsh environment it has to fight in...

I noticed someone listed F-22 as one of the best fighers. This also points out the difficulty to compare aircrafts. As I know it, there are no F-22's in the world. Operational that is. Right? And considering the financial situtation there might never be such a thing as an operational F-22. I'm not the one to speak on behalf of the F-22 but I use it as an example. Of course, one could arrange a 1 on 1 combat with one of the test aircrafs against a worthy opponent... but to what use? If the need for competent air-to-air combat fighters arises tomorrow there would not be any F-22's deployed as there are none to deploy. So to what use would the F-22 performance be then? In fact, some speculates that even if they were operational they might not be used in all situations as they are considered too expensive. Isn't that ironic? Sure, the F-22 is very impressive looking at its specifications but is that really relevant?

Speaking of costs... For the price of one F-22 I could get a bunch of Gripen fighters, working together via their Data Link system. If price is a constant in the equation one could think of 4 gripens as one aircraft with the extremely advanced feature of being able to divide itself to 4 separate units spreading out and working together. The figure 4 is arbitrary but it sure shows how difficult it is to compare aircrafts...

Well, my point is not to write down the F-22 or praise the Gripen. It is that it is hard to compare fighters and if you want one fighter to be the best then you can find a way to compare it to others and you will have your winner...

Last, what do we *really* know about all these fighters, from F-22 to Gripen? The ones flying them and building them sure don't write about it here in detail (or at least they shouldn't) so most things I read about and know about are guesses and assumptions. And they could be wrong...

britgliderpilot
03-19-2004, 07:11 AM
miffomannen -

The first production F/A-22's are being delivered already - several have arrived, and the first USAF service pilot has been checked out on it.

I'd say that's pretty much in service . . . . it's not operational until they get a full squadron, but they're getting there.


No comment on how competitive as a combat aircraft http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

&lt;BringbackHTMLtags!&gt;http://koti.welho.com/mkihlman/2004sigs/newsigblack.jpg

P4 2.8GHz 800FSB | Radeon 9700 PRO | 1024Mb DDR RAM | MS SWPP2 | Lomac Hat, Patch, and Pen

karadi
03-19-2004, 07:56 AM
Well in my opnion it has to be the Su-30 MKI.. the Indian version that has thrust vectored engines. It is a Air to Air as well as Air to Ground platform. It out manouvers most planes in its class.

Karadi

Death99th
03-19-2004, 09:18 AM
To the guy who said "russians don't have the money to build aircrafts" or something like that:

If money was a matter, certain countries wouldn't be able to build nuclear powerplants, nor make nukes. And they can't be compared to Russia.
You know, and most if not everyone also know, that russians are very proud of what they do, and their proud is way beyond the money. If they want to, they'll build a plane to beat all americans planes, with or without money.

http://www.deathangell3.50megs.com/lockon/deathlomac.jpg

Wolfman_96th
03-19-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Death99th:
You know, and most if not everyone also know, that russians are very proud of what they do, and their proud is way beyond the money. If they want to, they'll build a plane to beat all americans planes, with or without money.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Tartan_67th
03-19-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by alfa_fsb:
I didn`t orignaly want to post but...
First of all no one knows the real capabilities of any modern military planes,missiles etc. the figures and capabilities are under or over rated or in other words secret.

Pilots are humans for the time and no human can be expected to behave the same in each day.

You are forgeting the numbers so what if on the paper the X plane is better than the Y if X is produced in 7 aircrafts and the Y in 200 who would win??

The topic is as STUPID as "the best special forces,best army,best looking woman/man,best football team,best drink etc."
Wich leads nowhere since the sides involved have thir own oppinion and no one can change them.

Bye bye stupid thread.

Stop and THINK.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hit the nail on the head. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Eddo36
03-19-2004, 02:51 PM
Hit what nail? It's quality, not quantity. And of course one fighter is always better than another. There is no such thing as equal, unless they are the same kind of jets with the same modifications etc, which they aren't. They're different jets, and one has to be better than the other.

Tartan_67th
03-19-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eddo36:
Hit what nail? It's _quality_, not _quantity_. And of course one fighter is always better than another. There is no such thing as equal, unless they are the same kind of jets with the same modifications etc, which they aren't. They're different jets, and one has to be better than the other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He didnt say that they where equal, the point he makes is that there are many factors that make a plane the best. A fighter is only as good as the person flying it.

You are right that one jet has to be better than another, but the reason why the question is stupid is that knowone actually knows the real capablities of modern jets. So saying one is better than the other is based on limited info and personal opinion.

"It's _quality_, not _quantity_"
Well if i have 200 jets and you have 7 i think i might win, no?

Arthonon
03-19-2004, 04:15 PM
Aircraft are very different, even when comparable, so it is really difficult to say which is best, and this has been true of weapons throughout history.

For example, which is better, a broadsword or a rapier? Of course, it depends on who's using it, who they're using it against, and the circumstances under which it is being used. It's kind of a rock/paper/scissors thing.

Aircraft are typically planned to fit within a given country's doctrine, and will be designed accordingly. So probably a better question to ask is which country has a more successful battle plan than which aircraft is best.

American aircraft used within a Russian doctrine environment would probably not perform as well as their Russian counterparts, and vice-versa. The rest of battle infrastructure is designed to support an overall approach, so if the aircraft don't fit in, the aircraft and the rest of the system will suffer. This applies to the supply chain, maintanance scheduling, avionics, etc.

Even in the wildly unbelievable scenareo of a 1v1 battle with absolutely no external support, victory will most likely go to the pilot most effectively employing his aircraft's strengths against his opponent's weaknesses (and to the most lucky).

Eddo36
03-19-2004, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tartan_67th:

"It's _quality_, not _quantity_"
Well if i have 200 jets and you have 7 i think i might win, no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you have 200 jets and I have one jet that is massively superior to them all, I'll have my bets on that one jet.

IguanaKing
03-19-2004, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Death99th:
You know, and most if not everyone also know, that russians are very proud of what they do, and their proud is way beyond the money. If they want to, they'll build a plane to beat all americans planes, with or without money.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with that quote WolfMan. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Death99th, pride is a major factor in producing a good product, I don't dispute that. But, even if the builders and designers worked for free, you still can't get around the fact that materials for the airframe, engines, and avionics are still going to cost money. Let's also not forget, that the plane is only part of the equation. Fuel and spare parts for necessary training missions in whatever aircraft are also going to cost alot of money. I'll use another quote from "The Right Stuff" that I think is appropriate to this question.

"There are two things you can't change. Some ******wood's gotta take the beast up, and some ******wood's gotta...land the son of a b****. And that ******wood is called a...pilot."

As for the original topic, I still am partial to the F-15 since it has been proven many times in actual combat.

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

erorr404
03-20-2004, 12:03 AM
thats true, money definately does effect the development of an aircraft. this is something that russia lacks right now, but on the other hand they do have tons experience.
im sure that if they had the money though, they could definately build a great 5th generation fighter.
there are two, i believe, 5th gen fighters currently being developed in russia right now, but they are said to be more like the JSF and less like the Raptor (ie, not advanced air superiority fighters, but more cost-effective and less capable in terms of air superiority and performance)
btw, does anyone have any info on these? is one being developed by MiG and the other by Sukhoi? i know one of them is called the PAK FA, is the other the LFI? if u know anything, any info at all, please share.

Plankton: Only aggressive people rule the world Spongebob!
Spongebob: Well, what about aggressively nice people?

erorr404
03-20-2004, 12:04 AM
thats true, money definately does effect the development of an aircraft. this is something that russia lacks right now, but on the other hand they do have tons experience.
im sure that if they had the money though, they could definately build a great 5th generation fighter.
there are two, i believe, 5th gen fighters currently being developed in russia right now, but they are said to be more like the JSF and less like the Raptor (ie, not advanced air superiority fighters, but more cost-effective and less capable in terms of air superiority and performance)
btw, does anyone have any info on these? is one being developed by MiG and the other by Sukhoi? i know one of them is called the PAK FA, is the other the LFI? if u know anything, any info at all, please share.

Plankton: Only aggressive people rule the world Spongebob!
Spongebob: Well, what about aggressively nice people?

IguanaKing
03-20-2004, 06:27 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by erorr404:
thats true, money definately does effect the development of an aircraft. this is something that russia lacks right now, but on the other hand they do have tons experience.
QUOTE]

Yes, that is definitely true, and they also have very good aeronautical education in many of their universities. Now, about the money problem: I noticed that sales tax (which I'm accustomed to paying in the US) was not charged (not visibly anyway) for anything that I purchased when I was in Russia. Maybe that would help get some money in the coffers if they aren't already doing that. Just a thought...Russian members, pass that idea on to Putin for me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (Just kidding, he's probably already thought about that one).

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

Deuce420
03-20-2004, 02:01 PM
Why does everyone have a biased favor the F15? I don't see any reason why an Su-27 armed with R-27's isn't a match for a sparrow-armed F-15C.

As for the F-22, don't bet your money on it being able to out-turn a super flanker in close combat. The Su-37 is an awesome aircraft with it's thrust vectoring.....if only we could see it eat up an Eagle one day.

IguanaKing
03-20-2004, 02:11 PM
As I have already said...I chose the F-15 because it has been proven numerous times in combat against other aircraft of its own generation. To my knowledge, the Su-27 has not been proven nearly as extensively. As for the F-22 vs. Su-37 question, the F-22 has already entered production, I think that gives it a huge advantage over a prototype. We all saw the superiority of the alien spacecraft in "Independence Day" over the F-18, but, in reality those alien spacecraft aren't starting to enter any battlefield yet, so the F-18 wins there. As for me, I can't see why anyone would favor an unproven prototype aircraft over anything that is already in production. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

AFACadet
03-20-2004, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As for the F-22, don't bet your money on it being able to out-turn a super flanker in close combat. The Su-37 is an awesome aircraft with it's thrust vectoring.....if only we could see it eat up an Eagle one day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are no Su-37s left (for the 1000th time)


The Raptor has a lower wing loading, higher T/W ratio, and a higher pitch rate (both instant and sustained) than any combat Su-27 varient flying today or tested in the past.

Nunsuch
03-20-2004, 11:36 PM
This is all conjecture of course but I read that a Mig-31M shot down a cruise missile over 100km away. Asuming it locked onto this cruise missile with its own RADAR even so the Mig-31M is supposed to be able to fire on a cruise missile at very low altitude from very high altitude at about 40-60km I think if not more. This would mean that it could shoot at an F/A-22 before the F/A-22 could shoot back and this would be a fully active radar guided missile(R-37) that the Mig-31 could abandon and run at a speed and altitude that the F/A-22 couldn't aproach. I guess that would mean that an F/A-22 wouldn't be up to the task of fighting with Mig-31M's thats ok though I think because there is just one or two Mig-31 and may whatever deity you pray to protect all of us if Russia and the U.S.A. were to go to war.

muse-sic
03-21-2004, 12:30 AM
Yeah. that's some conjecture. I don't think a Foxbat could surprise a Raptor flight tho. Maybe sneak a shot in, but not by surprise.

Let's hope that Mig-31M pilot's not trigger-happy then, eh...

Wolfman_96th
03-21-2004, 12:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nunsuch:
This is all conjecture of course but I read that a Mig-31M shot down a cruise missile over 100km away. Asuming it locked onto this cruise missile with its own RADAR even so the Mig-31M is supposed to be able to fire on a cruise missile at very low altitude from very high altitude at about 40-60km I think if not more. This would mean that it could shoot at an F/A-22 before the F/A-22 could shoot back and this would be a fully active radar guided missile(R-37) that the Mig-31 could abandon and run at a speed and altitude that the F/A-22 couldn't aproach. I guess that would mean that an F/A-22 wouldn't be up to the task of fighting with Mig-31M's thats ok though I think because there is just one or two Mig-31 and may whatever deity you pray to protect all of us if Russia and the U.S.A. were to go to war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it all wrong, what you are describing is a complete and utter failure of the ATF program.

Nunsuch
03-21-2004, 01:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nunsuch:
This is all conjecture of course but I read that a Mig-31M shot down a cruise missile over 100km away. Asuming it locked onto this cruise missile with its own RADAR even so the Mig-31M is supposed to be able to fire on a cruise missile at very low altitude from very high altitude at about 40-60km I think if not more. This would mean that it could shoot at an F/A-22 before the F/A-22 could shoot back and this would be a fully active radar guided missile(R-37) that the Mig-31 could abandon and run at a speed and altitude that the F/A-22 couldn't aproach. I guess that would mean that an F/A-22 wouldn't be up to the task of fighting with Mig-31M's thats ok though I think because there is just one or two Mig-31 and may whatever deity you pray to protect all of us if Russia and the U.S.A. were to go to war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it all wrong, what you are describing is a complete and utter failure of the ATF program.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't fully understand what you mean by the ATF programme my guess is that it involved requirments for that first shot first kill thing? If so and considering that head to head you could not get the first shot what would you suggest that a F/A-22 can sneak up on a Mig-31M that most likely would be at about 20,000 meters cruising at mach 2.35?! Of course I wouldn't suggest for a moment that there would be any compareing the manuvering characteristics of a F/A-22 with a Mig-31M I am just suggesting that an F/A-22 probably wouldn't do very well at intercepting a Mig-31M. Also the F/A-22 may make a decent precision strike platform where I doubt that the Mig-31 will ever get notised as a ground attack aircraft despite attempts with the Mig-31BM upgrade.

Wolfman_96th
03-21-2004, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nunsuch:
I don't fully understand what you mean by the ATF programme my guess is that it involved requirments for that first shot first kill thing? If so and considering that head to head you could not get the first shot what would you suggest that a F/A-22 can sneak up on a Mig-31M that most likely would be at about 20,000 meters cruising at mach 2.35?! Of course I wouldn't suggest for a moment that there would be any compareing the manuvering characteristics of a F/A-22 with a Mig-31M I am just suggesting that an F/A-22 probably wouldn't do very well at intercepting a Mig-31M. Also the F/A-22 may make a decent precision strike platform where I doubt that the Mig-31 will ever get notised as a ground attack aircraft despite attempts with the Mig-31BM upgrade.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ATF program was based on a set of requirements, which include certain capabilities such as being undetectable at combat ranges by anything flying today, and in the foreseable future. If any MiG-31 variant could see the Raptor head-on before it is in AMRAAM range, that would mean that the entire project is a failure.

As for intercepting a MiG-31, well F-15Cs intercepted a few Iraqi MiG-25s in 1991 using some smart tactics. Intercepts are all about geometry, and if you can get the required cutoff angle, you are good to go. The way a high speed airplane would escape is by turning away until you can no longer attain that angle. Well it is hard to react to something you and your GCI cannot see, which is what the Raptor brings to the table.

All I am saying is if you are trying to intercept a MiG-31, probably the best platform to use would be the F/A-22 (any other airplane would do only worse).

Nunsuch
03-21-2004, 12:42 PM
I have heard pro F-22 source's compare its RADAR signature with a cruise missile in front if that is true the Mig-31M gets to shoot first even if it only detects the F-22 at 40km the F-22 would have to shoot 5000 meters streght up to hit the Mig-31M that was intercepting it. The ATF programme obviusly didn't have the Mig-31M in mind when they designed the F-22 as the Mig-31M was being designed at the same time for a similar purpose with a drastically different aproach. Last I checked the F-15 could go mach 2.5 which is faster than the cruise speed of a Mig-25 but the F-22 can only go mach 2.0 and with that kind of speed disparity it would either have to attack from in front where it would be detected by the Mig-31M's powerfull RADAR and possibly not be able to shoot first or it would miss the intercept altogether.

IguanaKing
03-21-2004, 01:03 PM
"Maximum speed" and "cruise speed" are two completely different things. Most current generation aircraft have to use their afterburner to even fly Mach 1 in level flight, to say nothing of going 2-and-a-half times that speed. Use of the afterburner increases fuel consumption by 60% or more and severely limits the range/combat effectiveness of a given aircraft. The F-22, and other aircraft of its generation, use "supercruise" which allows them to fly beyond Mach 1 without using the afterburner.

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

Nunsuch
03-21-2004, 01:21 PM
The Mig-31B with D30F6 engines can cruise at mach 2.35 withought substained use of afterburner. I did the math on fuel consumption and it is not possible for that aircraft to achieve its published capability of a 730+km combat radius at mach 2.35 with substained afterburner. Thompson said he invented the Submachinegun in fact he only invented the catchfrase as the French and Italians areday had fully automatic small arms that fired parrabellum ammo. In the case of supercruise the same is true, many other aircraft now flying have this capabillity withought the catchfrase. The Mig-31B is one of these.

IguanaKing
03-21-2004, 02:14 PM
Yes, and that's at altitude, Mach 2.35 isn't nearly as fast as it seems it would be at 60,000', a lower-altitude fighter could intercept it while flying at a much lower Mach number...Mach airspeed decreases with altitude.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/mig31-01.htm

Its a Russian site, which you may have already seen before, so there shouldn't be any pro-western stuff there...notice the huge difference in the Mach 2.35 "cruise" range and the Mach 0.85 "cruise" range with internal fuel, that suggests either heavy use of the afterburner or a terribly inefficient airframe for high-speed flight (I'm guessing its a little bit of both). The plane has had numerous materials and engine upgrades, but it is still based on a design that became operational in the Mid-70's, I think there have been a few improvements in airframe efficiency since then. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Supercruise is about more than just the engine's performance, regardless of who invented the catch phrase or technology.

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

Wolfman_96th
03-21-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nunsuch:
I have heard pro F-22 source's compare its RADAR signature with a cruise missile in front if that is true the Mig-31M gets to shoot first even if it only detects the F-22 at 40km the F-22 would have to shoot 5000 meters streght up to hit the Mig-31M that was intercepting it. The ATF programme obviusly didn't have the Mig-31M in mind when they designed the F-22 as the Mig-31M was being designed at the same time for a similar purpose with a drastically different aproach. Last I checked the F-15 could go mach 2.5 which is faster than the cruise speed of a Mig-25 but the F-22 can only go mach 2.0 and with that kind of speed disparity it would either have to attack from in front where it would be detected by the Mig-31M's powerfull RADAR and possibly not be able to shoot first or it would miss the intercept altogether.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on everything I have heard from AFACadet and BTR12 (the two best informed people on this matter here), the RCS is much smaller than that of a conventional cruise missile. Your assertion that a platform such as MiG-31 was not foreseen is also quite unlikely, for the obvious reasons. Do you think the ATF program looked at Su-27 baseline and figured that is the plane to be surpassed?

F-15's mach 2.5 top speed is quite irrelevant, it has never been reached in combat (the number of F-15 hours flown at mach 2.0+ in combat in the USAF is 0.00). Their MiG-25 intercepts were conducted at speeds at which F/A-22 normally cruises (whereas the Eagles had to hit AB in order to get there).

MiG-31 can supercruise (no AB) at mach 2.35? Tell you what, tomorrow I will talk to my aerodynamics professor and see what he thinks.

Viking_128th
03-21-2004, 04:26 PM
@Wolfman,
a Short note about the MiG-31. No the MiG-31 can't supercruise AFAIK, but this aircraft has a lot of gas and it's combat profile includes very fast flights, similar as for the SR-71 even if the Blackbird was designed for a completly other role.


My opinion about "the best" fighter is:
The F/A-22 Raptor will probably be the most advanced and best fighter for BVR distances and also one of the best, if not the best for WVR. But at the moment the aircraft isn't in service, even if the pilot training had begun as far as I'm informed. Also there're a lot of problems which must be solved and who knows if that all goes it's right way. In fact there're existing problems such as extrem heat developement in the tail region while flying with speed of sound, not to mention diverse other problems. I don't know how much of these problems are solved, but I think they can be solved. AFACadet or BTR12 are knowing probably more.

After the Raptor I would say the Typhoon and the Rafale are superior to all what can fly.

Nunsuch
03-21-2004, 04:35 PM
As published the Mig-31B(RP-31 Zaslon-A) can detect a target with an FCS of 30cm squared at a maximum range of 65km the YF-22 as published had a FCS of 27cm squared the Mig-31M supposedly has a 100 percent improvement in RADAR capability and demonstrated this by shooting down a cruise missile in a test at 200km with an R-37 missile. I would say this put up a substantial argument for a ramjet powered AIM-120 derivitave which would be the only way I can see that the F-22 would be able to shoot first. Of course all these numbers could be wrong but the information available for the RP-31 is not at all weird or over the top sounding and it is a 1.1 meter wide antenna the whole unit weighing it at over 1000KG.

I didn't say the Mig-31 could super cruise at mach 2.35 what I said was that the published cruising speed for the Mig-31B is mach 2.35 at high altitude for a published combat radius of 730+ kilometers and given the fuel useage for the D30F6 would make that impossible with substained afterburner. Either the numbers are wrong or it can at least fly most of the time withought afterburner.

I consider this on topic beacause clearly the F/A-22 is the most all around capable air to air combat plane in the world but the Mig-31Mhas some capabillities that at least warrent discussion here. Considering cruising speed RADAR and altitude the Mig-31M is a very capable expensive fighter that I think would survive well in air to air combat. There is no way they knew anything about the detection capabilities of the Mig-31M's RP-31 when they designed the F-22.

britgliderpilot
03-21-2004, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nunsuch:
I didn't say the Mig-31 could super cruise at mach 2.35 what I said was that the published cruising speed for the Mig-31B is mach 2.35 at high altitude for a published combat radius of 730+ kilometers and given the fuel useage for the D30F6 would make that impossible with substained afterburner. Either the numbers are wrong or it can at least fly most of the time withought afterburner.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a slight thought - don't think combat radius is flown entirely at Mach 2.35 . . . . .

Supercruise at that kind of speed is kind of debatable - since at high Mach numbers it's often more a form of ramjet propulsion system in which the major part of the air passing through the engine bypasses the core and is treated rather more like a ramjet than turbojet. As such, it's not exactly using afterburner . . . . tricky, isn't it?

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

&lt;BringbackHTMLtags!&gt;http://koti.welho.com/mkihlman/2004sigs/newsigblack.jpg

P4 2.8GHz 800FSB | Radeon 9700 PRO | 1024Mb DDR RAM | MS SWPP2 | Lomac Hat, Patch, and Pen

sweepertom
03-21-2004, 06:07 PM
Isn't this a really old thread - resurrected?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nunsuch:
As published the Mig-31B(RP-31 Zaslon-A) can detect a target with an FCS of 30cm squared at a maximum range of 65km the YF-22 as published had a FCS of 27cm squared the Mig-31M supposedly has a 100 percent improvement in RADAR capability and demonstrated this by shooting down a cruise missile in a test at 200km with an R-37 missile. I would say this put up a substantial argument for a ramjet powered AIM-120 derivitave which would be the only way I can see that the F-22 would be able to shoot first. Of course all these numbers could be wrong but the information available for the RP-31 is not at all weird or over the top sounding and it is a 1.1 meter wide antenna the whole unit weighing it at over 1000KG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not doubting the MiG-31's RADAR numbers. It a huge plane with a huge RADAR. I'm doubting your 0.27m squared RCS for the F/A-22. From what I've read (none of it classified http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) that's around the RCS of the F/A-18E/F, Rafale and Typhoon not the F-117 or F/A-22. From what I've read you'll need to go at least 2 orders of magnitude lower (maybe 3) for the F-117 and F/A-22. For example: detecting a 0.3m squared object at 65km equates to detecting a 0.003m squared object at 20km. With a 20km detection range the Mig-31 just ate a couple of AMRAAM's before it detected the F/A-22.

Supercruise increases AMRAAM range by about 50% and with both planes really high the effective range will be pretty far. Much farther than 12 miles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I consider this on topic beacause clearly the F/A-22 is the most all around capable air to air combat plane in the world but the Mig-31Mhas some capabillities that at least warrent discussion here. Considering cruising speed RADAR and altitude the Mig-31M is a very capable expensive fighter that I think would survive well in air to air combat. There is no way they knew anything about the detection capabilities of the Mig-31M's RP-31 when they designed the F-22.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does warrant discussion as it's an extremely impressive plane. Typhoon might even have problems dealing with it BVR until it gets the Meteor. Even then it could be rough. Any non-stealth plane could be in trouble BVR vs. the MiG-31.

The F/A-22 was designed to be able to dominate even in the presence of the best IADS assests (which I believe was the SA-10 at the time - now that's a BIG RADAR).

Nunsuch
03-21-2004, 06:52 PM
For one thing the Mig-31B I agree would not be able to compete with the F-22 it was the Mig-31M with 100 percent better RADAR performancethat could pose a threat. Even if it could only lock the F-22 at 40km considering the hight that the AMRAAM would have to climb it migh be able to shoot first. For another thing that RCS I posted was for the YF-22 not the F/A-22 I don't know what that means but it isn't the same.

britgliderpilot - the combat radius that I posted as I understnad it would be a Mig-31 takeing off climbing to extreme altitude and flying fast out to 730km or so and returning at max eficientcy which is mach 0.8. Even for less than 730km at mach 2.35 the Mig-31B would use more fuel than it can carry at that speed. There is less air resistance at high altitude and unlike the PW220 engines the D30F6 engines are designed for that altitude. Maybe they use the occasionall burn to maintain speed but I find it very difficult to believe that an aircraf that is limited only by regulations to mach 2.86 and gets more than 80 percent of its power withought afterburner is incapable of going mach 1 withought them. Mig-31Bs in the north need gaskets on the retracted fuelling probes replaced very frequently as the sustained high speeds generat so much heat. I don't think this is a problem with many other aircraft which leads me to believe that the Mig-31 is designed to fight in combat at a much higher speed than almost any other aircraft.

Wolfman_96th
03-21-2004, 09:05 PM
I can assure you, F/A-22's frontal RCS is much much smaller than 0.27m^2. F-117 achieved the RCS of an insect (bee is the one stated by LM engineers for a comparison) in the 1980s, one can expect at least that level of performance. One thing I have been assured is that F/A-22 does NOT have a higher frontal RCS than the F-117, so use that as a guideline.

Nunsuch
03-21-2004, 09:32 PM
Oh well that was the best I could do as an argument to the F/A-22's dominance and even so it would be very difficult for the F/A-22 to shoot down a Mig-31M with its own RADAR I would think as the altitude and speed of the Mig-31M would be so far out of reach.

Thank you for your input Wolfman I also eagerly await any info I could get about the Mig-31 and its ability to fly withought afterburners. I am not sure how someone who knows about aerodynamics could help especially here as we already know that the Mig-31 is aerodynamically capable of flying mach 3+ to get a good idea of how fast it could go withought afterburners you would have to have much more diverse information about the aircraft I would think. Such as what the altitude was that the Mig-31 would be traveling at what the wing loading of the Mig-31 was, what the non afterburned thrust of the D30F6 and of course detailed information about aerodynamics that most experts won't have on the top of their heads. The aerodynamics don't change when you turn on the afterburners just the thrust and in this case the D30F6 is a fighter jet engine with only one rival for power: F/A-22's F-119-PW-100 engines. That dosn't mean I don't want to here an opinion though I am looking forward to that.

kalo21
03-22-2004, 01:08 AM
MiG-31M priorities are Stealth bombers and cruise missiles. Only 6 were buildq one crashed.
the plane olds the record for long distance shot - over 300 km with R-37 (April 1994). It was not generaly intended to intercept fighters, but could pose a threat even to F-22 having at least as powerful radar (Zaslon-M).
In 1-1 scenario (which could not happen in real world) the chances IMHO are on the side of MiG - if F-22 uses its radar it would be found at a relatively long range, and a pair of R-37s sent - F will have to make evasive maneuvers which means going in defence and loosing the iniciative. than another pair of R-37 will be on its way (max speed about 5-6M, AIM-120C - 4M) - finaly the planes could get closer for R-77 shot (F-22 would stil be in defensive position) - and while R-37 could be avoid with High-G maneuvers it is not so likely for the R-77.

erorr404
03-22-2004, 01:55 AM
what about the raptors stealth capability?
the MiG-31s radar is considered the most powerful in the world, but can it detect stealth aircraft such as the F-22/B-2? what good does a radar do if it cant detect the plane? is there something special about the Foxbats radar, since its made to kill stealth aircraft?

i would also like to know some more info on the MiG-31, like Nunsuch, except more general info, like when was the plane made, what is its top speed, and some more info on the radar. and what is the most advanced varient of it?

Viking_128th
03-22-2004, 02:36 AM
Stealth does not mean that an vehicle is completly undetectable. But I don't think that the MiG-31M is able to detect and engage an aircraft like the Raptor at larger distances. The front RCS of the Raptor is probably under 0,1 m². And the Zaslon is good, but not the best radar. Short, it isn't as easy to defeat the Raptor at the moment, who knows what technologies will be available in the future.

erorr404
03-22-2004, 02:52 AM
last ive heard, the MiG-31 employed the best radar. does the Raptor beat it?

Plankton: Only aggressive people rule the world Spongebob!
Spongebob: Well, what about aggressively nice people?

erorr404
03-22-2004, 02:55 AM
last ive heard, the MiG-31 employed the best radar. does the Raptor beat it?
and just a quick OT question.. what do AWACS aircraft do? i imagine they have a gigantic radar (which is why its on big planes), with a huge range, and it basically detects contacts and sends this information down to fighters and other small aircraft that cannot fit a radar that good, and dont have to all go through the trouble of operating it, since they can all get quick and easy data from the AWACS. is this how it works or am i way off? (sorry for OT-ness)

Viking_128th
03-22-2004, 03:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by erorr404:
last ive heard, the MiG-31 employed the best radar. does the Raptor beat it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The MiG-31 had the first airborne phased array radar in the world and the new Zaslon-M is even better than the original Zaslon, but it's not up to date. You can see that for example on the number of targets which can be tracked simutously. Also with AWACS aircraft it's not possible to detect stealth aircraft at larger distances and as you suggested, the AWACS radars are much more powerfull than normal fighter radars.

The AN/APG-77 should be much more capable than the Zaslon, it incooperates newer and more advanced technologies such as AESA.

erorr404
03-22-2004, 04:06 AM
is the Zaslon-M currently the best russian radar?

i never suggested that AWACS radars can detect stealthed aircraft. i simply asked what RADAR does, and i guess my guess was right.
anyway, why cant AWACS radar detect stealth, as opposed to radar in fighters?

Viking_128th
03-22-2004, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by erorr404:
is the Zaslon-M currently the best russian radar?

i never suggested that AWACS radars can detect stealthed aircraft. i simply asked what RADAR does, and i guess my guess was right.
anyway, why cant AWACS radar detect stealth, as opposed to radar in fighters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant that you said, the AWACS radar is much larger and so it should be more powerfull than that of the MiG-31, and I agree with that.

Current sources say the N-011M Bars is the best russian fighter radar at the moment. It is integrated in the Su-30MKI and Su-35.

kalo21
03-22-2004, 07:33 AM
During tests even the early version of BARS detected Su-27 at 330 km, lock-on at 200-250. Zaslon-M locks big targets at over 300 km

Wolfman_96th
03-22-2004, 08:41 AM
Why do the Russians release this kind of information about their radars? The same is not available for any recent US and NATO system (other than broad generalizations).

CSL_Jp-
03-22-2004, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
Why do the Russians release this kind of information about their radars? The same is not available for any recent US system (other than broad generalizations).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They want to sell em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tigertalon
03-22-2004, 09:57 AM
It's impossible to debate about such topic. You have to specify the mission... If it is an interception of high flying fast moving unescorted recconaisance or bomber, I'd go for a MiG31 with R37s... If it is a low, slow, anti-helo mission, I'd vote for F5 with 6 'winders...

It's good to specify the weapons to be carried also...

Wolfman_96th
03-22-2004, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CSL_Jp-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
Why do the Russians release this kind of information about their radars? The same is not available for any recent US system (other than broad generalizations).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They want to sell em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By publicly compromising the security of their systems? I don't think that is a good way to go.

BIOLOG_
03-22-2004, 01:47 PM
Small point. F-22 can be detected using Radars which use longer wavelength... Don't you think? It wouldn't be accurate enough for missile launch, but it will give an indication where F-22 is at least...

Nunsuch
03-22-2004, 02:44 PM
Just a guess here but it might have something to do with glasnost the Russian government may be legally obligated to share more information than the U.S. In someways it isn't such a bad thing the U.S. has been cought several times persuing technology that wasn't usefull essentially pork barreling. I agree with Wolfman though releasing the RADAR ranges for their best fighter seems foolish. Then again maybe it's misinformation.

Oh and as the Mig-31M has shot down cruise missiles at over 200km reportedly I would say it would be very good at hunting helicopters(in russia anyway where there isn't much terrain masking to be found).

Voskhod5
03-22-2004, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CSL_Jp-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
Why do the Russians release this kind of information about their radars? The same is not available for any recent US system (other than broad generalizations).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They want to sell em http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By publicly compromising the security of their systems? I don't think that is a good way to go.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No one's compromising anything. The people, who could make use of that info, don't sit around, waiting for it to be released publicly. They usually have their own sources: spies. Btw, much more reliable than those claims by the manufacturer, might I add.
Furthermore, those radars are for sale. If you had enough dough you could probably buy one - can anything really be more compromising than that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Compromising the system would be taking out the IFF unit from a RuAF Su-27 and giving it to the Chinese, Americans or to whomever. Now THAT would be compromising the system.

---------------------------
BlitzPig_Voskhod

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

Wolfman_96th
03-22-2004, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
Small point. F-22 can be detected using Radars which use longer wavelength... Don't you think? It wouldn't be accurate enough for missile launch, but it will give an indication where F-22 is at least...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F/A-22 can be detected by any radar, the question is at what range.

Voskhod5, you don't see Raytheon putting out ranges for their radars now do you? Either the stuff released by the Russians is intentionally not accurate, or somebody is advertising stuff that should remain secret (from their perspective anyway).

Voskhod5
03-22-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfman_96th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BIOLOG_:
Small point. F-22 can be detected using Radars which use longer wavelength... Don't you think? It wouldn't be accurate enough for missile launch, but it will give an indication where F-22 is at least...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

F/A-22 can be detected by any radar, the question is at what range.

Voskhod5, you don't see Raytheon putting out ranges for their radars now do you? Either the stuff released by the Russians is intentionally not accurate, or somebody is advertising stuff that should remain secret (from their perspective anyway).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Raytheon can do whatever the heck it wants, Wolfman, it's their choice (maybe not entirely). One company not doing something, doesn't mean the other shouldn't. You don't see NASA launching paying tourists into orbit do you? Well... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Like I said, trying to keep radar range specs(which may or may not be correct) of a "for sale" radar away from the general public (which has no use for them anyway) is rather foolish.
The Chinese would already know about 'em either way, same for the Indians, and so would the U.S., I bet.

Serious people, whose business is to gather this kind of information, wouldn't rely on the manufacturer data alone anyway, instead, having their own, more reliable sources.

---------------------------
BlitzPig_Voskhod

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

[This message was edited by Voskhod5 on Mon March 22 2004 at 04:28 PM.]

BIOLOG_
03-22-2004, 05:10 PM
What I ment Wolfman, was that Raptor will be detected at longer ranges using long-wavelength radars. Also, I am not sure how its RWR will behave if subjected by that kind of emission.
Also, may i say that Russian government is very much in controll of companies which make aircraft/components. If they give range of their radars, that means that Government allowed it. Or asked them to make it up...

erorr404
03-22-2004, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viking_128th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by erorr404:
is the Zaslon-M currently the best russian radar?

i never suggested that AWACS radars can detect stealthed aircraft. i simply asked what RADAR does, and i guess my guess was right.
anyway, why cant AWACS radar detect stealth, as opposed to radar in fighters?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant that you said, the AWACS radar is much larger and so it should be more powerfull than that of the MiG-31, and I agree with that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>no... i didnt say that either. i simply asked whether AWACS have more capable radars than fighters. forget about AWACS relating to the MiG-31, it was a totally seperate and very general, unrelated question http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

erorr404
03-22-2004, 07:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voskhod5:
Compromising the system would be taking out the IFF unit from a RuAF Su-27 and giving it to the Chinese, Americans or to whomever. Now THAT would be compromising the system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>what is an IFF unit?

erorr404
03-22-2004, 07:11 PM
lets continue on with the radar debate. AN/APG-77 is currently the best in the world? what about the best AWACS radar?

IguanaKing
03-22-2004, 07:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by erorr404:
what is an IFF unit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indentification Friend of Foe. Its function is to keep an aircraft from being engaged by friendly aircraft or air defenses. Hopefully one of the military aircraft gurus can give you a more detailed explanation.

EDIT: Or you can have a look at the information on this page:

http://www.tpub.com/content/et/14089/css/14089_42.htm

There are several pages there, and from my quick scan of the article, it looks like it provides a pretty good explanation of how the system works.

http://imageshack.us/files/IguanaKingSig3.jpg

[This message was edited by IguanaKing on Mon March 22 2004 at 07:03 PM.]

Wolfman_96th
03-22-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Voskhod5:
Raytheon can do whatever the heck it wants, Wolfman, it's their choice (maybe not entirely). One company not doing something, doesn't mean the other shouldn't. You don't see NASA launching paying tourists into orbit do you? Well... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me restate it, I don't see any US or western radar manufacturer publishing any sort of range info. The Russians weren't doing it either during the Cold War. About the enemy finding out, well I seriously doubt that China, India, and Russia know the exact detection ranges and capabilites of the current US AESA radars. These things are closely guarded secrets and any leaks would require a major oversight (on the scale of the nuke blueprints in 1945).


About the long-wavelength radars detecting the F/A-22 from a longer range, I have to admit that my physics background at this time (freshman aerospace engineering) is not nearly good enough to participate in a real discussion. So I will not speculate on stuff that I do not understand at this point.

BIOLOG_
03-23-2004, 01:39 AM
Fair enough Wolfman. However, I would like someone like AFACadet to confurm what I am saying (or to tell me why I am wrong). Theoretically covering which scatters centimeter radio wawes shouldn't be as effective in scattering meter radio waves... But that would eliminate only certain elements of stealth, such as certain reflective surfaces...
{REGARDS}

britgliderpilot
03-23-2004, 03:20 AM
I'm no expert on this either - but I understood that although in certain circumstances long wave radar could detect a stealthy aircraft, there was no way for it to track or target it.

So they could more or less see something's out there . . . . but they still can't shoot it down.

&lt;BringbackHTMLtags!&gt;http://koti.welho.com/mkihlman/2004sigs/newsigblack.jpg

P4 2.8GHz 800FSB | Radeon 9700 PRO | 1024Mb DDR RAM | MS SWPP2 | Lomac Hat, Patch, and Pen

BoCfuss
03-23-2004, 06:15 AM
If thats the case than the USAF would have no problem with that. The enemy would send up an intercept, and promptly be shot down. If thats the case.

Chromatorg
03-23-2004, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by britgliderpilot:
I'm no expert on this either - but I understood that although in certain circumstances long wave radar could detect a stealthy aircraft, there was no way for it to track or target it.

So they could more or less see something's out there . . . . but they still can't shoot it down.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even 20 year old Su27 / Mig29 have optical/infrared sensors what can detect a fighter sized plane at 15+ km at normal power, and at 25+ at full military power... I'll bet newer modification can do it at least 2x farther.
Newer fighter radars can also detect even small RCS target like F22 at 35-50 km... So its not so big problem to find and shotdown a "stealth" plane if you know its there. Remember, 40 years ago planes didnt have radars at all and still managed somehow to find an enemy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Now of course if you send some F22 against equal or less numbers of previous gen fighters like non-upgraded Mig29/ Su27 the later dont have any chance at all.