Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SpetsnazWarriorX

The undecided air-superiority debate

Recommended Posts

Oh, and another little match-up I just love thinking about [uSA vs Russia vs Europe]:-

Battle of the next-generation air-superiority fighters:

F-22 vs Su-37 vs Eurofighter Typhoon

Battle of present-day air-superiority fighters:

F-15 vs Su-35 vs Mirage 2000

Battle of present-day multi-role fighters:

F-16 vs MiG-29 vs Rafale

Battle of present-day interceptors:

F-14 vs MiG-31 vs Tornado ADV

Battle of present-day strike fighters:

F/A-18 vs Su-24 vs Tornado IDS

Battle of past-day interceptors:

F-101 vs MiG-25 vs BAe Lightning

Battle of present-day close-support:

A-10 vs Su-25 vs Jaguar

The ultimate old skool air-superiority bout:

F-104 vs MiG-21 vs 35-X Draken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ June 27 2002,22:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is gonna be really funny when someone finds a sure fire way of detecting stealth aircraft, or of course when one of them gets shot down by an evil farmer brandishing a musket  or something.

Then again, it's also something to think about - would the yanks send 1 billion dollars (5 f-22's) worth of hardware into the gulf, or anywhere that they risk getting shot down?<span id='postcolor'>

The stealth technology is already under question, for those of you in the UK and watch the news will remember a few years back that at the airshow in Farnbourough they detected the B2 Spirit on radar...thats an embaressment if i ever knew one...especially as it was a trade airshow.

word has it the french also claim to be able to detect stealth...

chances are, no they wouldnt send their new equipment into the Gulf or whatever, if you remember the Bosnia turned Kosovo conflict last year, they backed out of sending their Apaches with the new Longbow system "because it was too dangerous" now if i read correctly, europe was the reason it was primarily designed, and more to the point against more up to date technology... I find that amusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpetsnazWarriorX @ June 27 2002,07:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">F-117 'stealth fighter' is its common name, although I've tried to find out its combat record regarding air-to-air kills. The term 'fighter' given to any aircraft, should mean that it can effectively and effeciently hold its own in any air-combat situation. However, I strongly reckon its pretty useless in any dogfight, simply because of the lack of a cannon, even though its capable of carrying two AIM-9 Sidewinders. But even then, there's a delay of some sorts, with the internal bay doors opening and closing, etc. So, by the time any form of missile has been launched, the ol' Nighthawk will have been blown clean out of the sky.

 Another thing I heard recently within the last couple of years, was the fact that Iraqi military has discovered the technology behind 'stealth'. So, really, stealth isn't that taboo or secretive in the military aviation business these days. I would prefer stealth to become obsolete, and so bring back the good old days of 'Top Gun' visual-attack ranges!

 Regarding my earlier comment stating that the F/A-18 was, in my opinion, sluggish; what I meant was, it cannot turn as quickly as any of the other aircraft I mentioned. Its top speed is only a mere Mach 1.9 or so, and in a slow-paced knife fight, it would lose speed far too easily to remain competetive. I don't think it can perform an Immelman or Split-S without stalling or breaking up into bits.  biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

I feel you are wrong in your thoughts about the F/A-18 being sluggish. Yes it has a lower top end than other planes, but you don't dogfight at those speeds. As for being less manouvrable, here's a quote from Chunx, a current F/A-18 pilot:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ditto today in the E/F. It looks like a big Hornet, but it gets used differently. Aircrew are still learning how to best fly the jet, and we are seeing that using the C/D style does not optimize the jet. The new Hornet has vastly superior pitch authority and high AoA stability. It can get its nose on an opponent quicker than any jet I've flown before. But regardless of thrust-to-weight, when you skid your jet around at a 30-50 deg angle to the relative wind, you turn the jet into a big, flying speed brake. So how you use that ability best is still being explored. Would I want to give it up now that I have that? No way. Is the jet "less maneuverable" because I bleed faster at 40 AoA than a C/D at 25 AoA? No way. Can I lose a fight trying to pretend my E/F is a Tomcat or Hornet and fly it as such? Yep. And vice versa, except if I fly a Tomcat or Hornet like an E/F the result is out-of-control flight and a spin.

<span id='postcolor'>

I got his from CJ Martin on a thread in the LOMAC board where he's giving a troll quite a thrashing:

http://forums.ubi.com/message....tpage=4

From that quote you can see that the bug can handle extemely high AOA and if flow correctly can get it's nose around quite quickly. That's why the bug is so dangerous in a slow flight: it can hang in the air and turn under control where another plane would drop from the sky.

As for the F-22 being a waste I disagree with that. It is an air superiority fighter and the best ever made. Also it is damn exspenisve, but the threat is constantly changing. 10 years ago in the Gulf war they faced Mig-29s and older planes and the current gen fighters handled them easily. But now Russia is exporting planes like the Su-30/33/35 and has some very nice planes in development that need funding. If another country gets a hold of these planes they could be a serious threat. Also isn't it being a little short sighted to say only big countries would be a threat and since we aren't going to fight any of them why spend it? All it will take is China invading Tiawain and we will be in WWIII.

As for a bomb platform they are already looking in expanding the F-22 much like the F-15 became the strike eagle. The radar is powerful and all it would need is a software upgrade for better A-G mapping and with the next gen bombs that use GPS special targetting wouldn't be needed. The F-22 could fly at 60k feet at supercruise speeds with a very small radar signature and deliever it's bomb package.

Stealth still has it's place as well. Yes they are finding ways to defeat it, but it still makes it harder to detect. Any radar can see a stealth plane if they use enough power and look at the right piece of the sky, but that's the trick, knowing where to look and such an attenna would be huge and a bright becon to any HARM in the air. The F-22 is the most expensive fighter plane ever, but it does what it supposed to do, rule the skies untouched.

COLINMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, then the F-15 was originally designed to intercept the MiG-25. When the U.S.A. cancelled the XB-70 project or whatever, we discovered the MiG-25 wasnt all that much of a threat.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the F-15 was made as an aerial interceptor to take down MiG, but subsequent modifications have made it a VERY capable ground attack aircraft. Isnt it possible that there will be more variants of the F-22 that will increase its capabilities, possibly as a ground attack fighter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pictures biggrin.gif

s-37

s-37.jpg

su-37

su-37.jpg

eurofighter

eurofighter.gif

mirage2000

waddington7.jpgmirage2000_p01.jpg

the last 3 look a bit similar

If i got any of them wrong just let me know smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F-15 was designed as a counter of what the west thought was a superfighter in the Mig-25. They thought it could fly faster higher and manouver better than any plane ever. This was the blueprint for the F-15 to beat and they did. The F-15 can obtain Mach 2.5 under ideal conditions so it never reached the mach 3 goal, but it was designed to be far more manouvrable in the close range from the lessons learned in Vietnam.

As for modifying the F-22, there is a proposal of a F/B-22 as a repleacement of the F-15E

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr020524_1_n.shtml

COLINMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The F-22 is the most expensive fighter plane ever, but it does what it supposed to do, rule the skies untouched.

<span id='postcolor'>

True, it will, but only because all the enemy aircraft would've been destroyed by Gunships and cruise missles way before the F-22 ever get sent within 200 km of the danger zone (due to high cost they'll probably send in ''lesser'' fighters to do all the dirty work.

I visualise the F-22 like the fat general of the skies. It looks good with all its merits and medals, and will be the one to take all the credit in the end. But there will be little appreciation for all the other fighters who cleared out the danger zone and rolled out the red carpet. And why? because the F-22 is on higher pay and looks more classy.

The F-22 can and will dominate the skies, but its unlikely it'll fire off many BVR Missles to do it. \I doubt very much it'll even take on the formidable SU's. The thing is too damm expensive to risk them like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that the F-22 is THE plane to beat. smile.gif Simple as that. But regarding the not-so-distant past [which I still much prefer to anything we have today - stealth and all this secretive shit], my favourite military aircraft of all time simply has to be: the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 Foxbat. To me, its just an awesome aircraft. Not because it possesses any snazzy stealth technology, thrust-vectoring, supercruise, or even specially-reclined seats. Its just a rugged, box-shaped tincan [well, titanium biggrin.gif ] - and I love it!!! Mach three at sixty-thousand feet, extremely long range [despite older-sister MiG-31], and that look! When I first heard about the F-22, I thought it'd probably look as ugly as the F-117 - and I was unfortunately right. But the ol' Foxbat is simply pure meat! Like the U.S. scientists exclaimed after Lt. Victor Balenko defected: "This contraption isn't an airplane; its a rocket!"

One thing that I've never seemed to be able to find out, is the Foxbat's combat abilities. Like, is there really no cannon? Could it perform an air-superiority mission and emerge victorious? Or, could it beat its highly-capable successer, the Foxhound? Someone join yours truly in admiration for this once-feared flying beast! smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mig-25 was created to shoot down the XB-70 Mach 3 bomber the Americans were building. It needed to fly high and fast and that's it. It has a huge 600w radar designed not for range, but to burn through any ECM. The old Soviet docturn has the planes flying under heavy GCI control. They are told where and when to fly and only at the end do they use their own radar to target. No cannon is included b/c WVR combat isn't part of the design. It's from the same era as the F-4 and it was built with no cannon either. The thought at the time was that BVR missiles would do all the work, hell Britain stopped devoping manned aircraft b/c they thought they were out dated smile.gif

I love the rugged design and the way the Soviet engineers worked through problems. The American Mach 3 aircraft, the SR-71, was built with leaky fuel tanks. Why? Because when flying that fast the metal of the tanks expanded and created a seal, but the plane leaked on the ground. The Soviet solution to the problem: Just weld the damn tanks in and it worked!

Actually remember in the old game ATF dogfighting a Mig-25 vs F-104. Nice slow turn dogfight smile.gif

It is believed that a Mig-25 is responisible for a F/A-18 shootdown in the Gulf War. The official report says it was a SAM, but the flight leader says different. His belief it was a Mig-25 he lost track of moments earlier. There were no SAMs in the area at the time of the shootdown.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The F-22 can and will dominate the skies, but its unlikely it'll fire off many BVR Missles to do it. \I doubt very much it'll even take on the formidable SU's. The thing is too damm expensive to risk them like that.<span id='postcolor'>

Pesonally I don't think so. The Americans have used the B-1/B-2 in combat operations and they cost a whole lot more than the F-22. For todays environment, yes the F-22 is overkill, but as I said before this would be shortsighted. Look at Britain. In the 60s they killed all fighter development b/c they thought that missiles would rule the sky and that destroyed much of their fighter development and they are just catching up now. The F-22 wouldn't be used in small conficts, but as more and more countries find planes like the SU-27 on the market the west will need an answer to them.

COLINMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

chances are, no they wouldnt send their new equipment into the Gulf or whatever, if you remember the Bosnia turned Kosovo conflict last year, they backed out of sending their Apaches with the new Longbow system "because it was too dangerous"  now if i read correctly, europe was the reason it was primarily designed, and more to the point against more up to date technology...   I find that amusing

Not because apache cost too much,but because they was scared it might get shot down,and that would be bad because most of americans wonder why they was fighting over there.

--edit

Soo if a pilot died,they would very upset.

Remember when i said they made f-117 in the 1970s.How do we know they don't have something soo top sercet that we won't know about it,Probably better then the f-22,b-2,all other stuff.But if they don't they are pretty stupid smile.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more pictures smile.gif

Tornado,can they swing the wings back like the tomcat ?

tornado.jpg

F-14

f-14-tomcat-03.jpg

F-15

F-15.jpg

F-16

f-16.jpgF-16-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pesonally I don't think so. The Americans have used the B-1/B-2 in combat operations and they cost a whole lot more than the F-22.<span id='postcolor'>

True, but it is highly likely those B1/B2's will be doing the same job as the Submarines, Crusiers etc... - firing cruise missles to destroy aircraft on the ground. Threat to B1/B2 - minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

must get even more pics in,heres some of my favourites smile.gif

F-4 Phantom

f-4.jpg

Harrier biggrin.gif

harrier.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ June 28 2002,02:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pesonally I don't think so. The Americans have used the B-1/B-2 in combat operations and they cost a whole lot more than the F-22.<span id='postcolor'>

True, but it is highly likely those B1/B2's will be doing the same job as the Submarines, Crusiers etc... - firing cruise missles to destroy aircraft on the ground. Threat to B1/B2 - minimal.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure about the B-2, but I remember hearing about the B-1 dropping Mk-82 500lbers. It can carry 84 which is more than the B-52. You have to remember the Bone has some major stealth charactoristics (RCS of a F-15 I believe) and probably the most powerful ECM suite on any aircraft.

Yes the USA does a cost vs effeciency in the conficts. They didn't use AH-64s in Bosnia b/c they wanted to run the campaign from 20,000ft and not lose an aircraft. But more dire situations would require more force. In a conflict like Afganastan they would probably not use F-22s, but there is always a possiblility of a major conflict with either major Arab nations or even China/N. Korea. To not prepare for that eventuallity is very short sighted. You never know what the future will bring and you need to be ready.

COLINMAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ June 27 2002,03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I heard that in an Air-to-Air combat, the F22 Raptor has the radar signature of a tennis ball?  Is that true?<span id='postcolor'>

Do mean as if the raptor was only a tennis ball or the on the radar screen the raptor is the size of a tennis ball? My totaly uninformed guess is that it is the prior because of all the gizmos 'n' on this new plane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DayGlow, regarding that game featuring the MiG-25 and F-104 [i would post the quote, but yours truly doesn't quite know how to post another's quote, lol], it would seem to me that the game's representation of the Starfighter would've been quite inaccurate: "Slow turning dogfight" - doesn't really bring to mind the F-104, seeing it was an air-combat fighter and a 'nasty' dogfighting machine, according to some German pilots who flew it. To me, would be a blasphemy to imagine an F-104 even appearing to lose to a MiG-25 in air-combat. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to the grounding of the Apaches in Kosovo, a large part of that was due to the fact that a majority of the A/C had broken down!

The British Army is taking deliveries of the WAH64 (All Brit Apaches are Longbow equipped), and have found out that they are bastards to maintain. A Laison officer popped up to the Sqn to do a talk and mentioned that the Apache is heavily ground crew intensive. With the Lynx for example, you'd crawl out of your tent, have a cup of tea, fire up the A/C and off you go. The Apaches need a lot of prepping, and it was found that the weather in Kosovo (Coldness mainly) was disagreeing with the Apaches, which ended up grounding them.

That incident tarnished the Apaches record quite badly, but they have done a bloody good job in Afganistan. I'll find a article I read in AFM. Bloody good. One Apache took a RPG hit, while naother was hit by machine gun fire. They limped off leaking oil. Landing a couple of miles away, the crews jumped out under fire, poured all the remaining emergency oil into the leaking Apache, and limped back to the FARP. The pilot was nominated for a DFC for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Acidcrash @ June 27 2002,23:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The stealth technology is already under question, for those of you in the UK and watch the news will remember a few years back that at the airshow in Farnbourough they detected the B2 Spirit on radar...thats an embaressment if i ever knew one...especially as it was a trade airshow.

word has it the french also claim to be able to detect stealth...<span id='postcolor'>

Was the B2 "At war" at the time they detected it on radar though?

Stealth aircraft are not completely invisible 100% of the time. The pilot has to activate several components on the aircraft to make it go into full stealth mode... And, for full optimization of the stealth ability, the aircrafts flight has to be as flat and straight as possible. Any turns increases the radar signature of the aircraft.

Watch the movie "Broken Arrow" for an example of this... very Hollywoodish movie, but it shows how they can disappear from radar quite easily when they need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Watch the movie "Broken Arrow" for an example of this... very Hollywoodish movie, but it shows how they can disappear from radar quite easily when they need to.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think I would try to use a Hollywood film as anything resembling reality when it comes to military harware, especially not something as 'black' as actual stealth capabilities.

In a movie, all it takes is a (not so) special effect for an aircraft to disappear from radar biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> doesn't really bring to mind the F-104, seeing it was an air-combat fighter and a 'nasty' dogfighting machine, according to some German pilots who flew it. <span id='postcolor'>

I remember watching a German documentary about F-104s in luftwaffe and the plane was universally vilified by pilots interviewed because of its low maneuvrabililty, awful handling characteristics and unreliable ejection seats. The pilot fatalities in that plane were extremely high. I think the type was maintained in service for mostly political reasons. Makes you wonder what exactly did they mean by "nasty" in your quote... biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask you people.. in the effectiveness of stealth.. why a cessna with a microwave saturation weapon wouldnt be effective.. the thought chain might be a little unconventional..

but microwaves are known to favorably target human eyes..

and I ask you.. how effective would any radar system be.. without eyes for the enemy to see it with?

out of sight, is out of mind.. but it may not be a matter of hiding the aircraft..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×