History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedThe best fighter aircraft

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2007 at 18:22
The Sukhoi SU-37 aka SU-47 no longer exists off the drawing board. The project is scrapped. Only two of these craft were built and one of those two  crashed and the other one was converted into an Su-35. Only one S-37/su-47 has ever been extensively tested and flown, it was not stealthy and could only do a max of mach 1.5 because the forward swept wings, canards, are are great for manuverability but a "drag" on speed, pun intended.

The SU-37 was nothing more than a proof of concept testing aircraft which amazed people at airshows. Now, in my own mind an idea just popped up. What if they construct a canard craft that has a hydraulic wing angling system that can change the wings from forward swept to back swept? Could such a design be able to combine mach 3.0 top speed with canard dogfighting ability? Shocked
Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Webmaster
Webmaster
Avatar
AE Magazine Coordinator

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 00:18
A sound idea, maqsad. Have you seen the program "Future Weapons"? I think it is on the discovery channel and it deals with emerging cutting edge military technologies, as well as prototypes and concepts for the future. There have been many interesting ideas like a helicopter crossed with a plane, and things like that. Digital animations of heli-planes feature at the end credits in the background I believe, and your idea reminds me of them...

Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 928
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote maqsad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jul-2007 at 02:46
Haven't watched TV in ages so no, I did not see that program. I wish I were well versed in 3-D animation though, I would love to just play around and create nonexistent prototypes of planes and just see how they look in an animation. 
Back to Top
HEROI View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 469
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote HEROI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Aug-2007 at 05:57

F22 is the best.

Me pune,me perpjekje.
Back to Top
Chwyatt View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 15-Mar-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chwyatt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 09:31
Originally posted by Laelius Laelius wrote:

Quote would go for the Eurofighter (with full weapons capability). May not match the Raptor in air combat, but beats it for all round air-to-ground capabilities, and a little cheaper. The Gripen is good for air-forces on a tight budget.
 
No it doesn't the F-22 is far and away more survivable on account that its both stealth and in possession of a far stronger air frame. 


In air to air combat, the F-22 can beat the Typhoon (which is what I said), but the Typhoon (or at least the Batch 3) is a true multi-role aircraft, whilst the F-22 is still an air-superiority fighter with only a limited ground attack capability compared to the Typhoon. The F-22 can carry a couple of JDAMS internally, but more than that, and with drop-tanks, it loses its Ďstealthynessí. Turn the F-22 into a Ďbomb-truckí and it loses stealth and performance. And the F-22 is not wired to as many ground attack stores as the Typhoon.

 

So if a nation only wants an air to air fighter, then the F-22 is its choice (providing it has the money). But if it wants a true multi-role fighter, then it has to be the Typhoon.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2007 at 10:55
^ i agree with that.

the best of anything has more to do with the needs of a country. The Eurofighter is an all-rounder 'swingrole' figher, and should be compared to others like the Rafaele, F-18E, F-15 derivs, Su-27/30 derivs. These are heavy/medium weights and may be to big or expensive for many countries

 If you have the money and, just as important, the US clears the sale, the f-22 /f-35 mix would be better. but this is a two plane 'hi-lo' mix.

 lighter fighters like the Gripen (which i like) should be compared to f-16's (also very good) , Mig-29's, Mirages and the J-10.


Edited by Leonidas - 24-Aug-2007 at 10:56
Back to Top
Jallaludin Akbar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jan-2009
Location: U.S.A!
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jallaludin Akbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2009 at 03:48
The Sukhoi PAK-FA is a 5th generation fighter jet in developement that will replace Mig 29's and su-27's. It is designed to compete with Amnerican F-22's and F-35 Lightning II's. The first flight is projected to be in 2009 and it will be introduced into the Russian armed forces in 2012. These are just projections and such claim sare not definate yet. If someone can find more imformation about this please do Thumbs Up


"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Feb-2009 at 14:23
Raptorski  Embarrassed
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Feb-2009 at 22:09

Any discussion of the best fighter should be broken down into sub categories:

1.) Best fighter available, cost no objection:  F-22 Raptor

2.) Best fighter in performance / cost ratio: Advanced Sukhoi variants, especially those with Israeli avionics
 
3.) Most competitive fighter produced by a developing nation: Chinese / Pakistani JF-17. Indian LCA is too costly.


Edited by Cryptic - 12-Feb-2009 at 22:38
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 06:41
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

Any discussion of the best fighter should be broken down into sub categories:

Sure, but one must then also include (legit & propaganda free) kill ratios, both actual and theoretical, if one is to do such a break down.  Such a break down should always be framed by kill ratios, for kill ratios have a brutal way of keeping things in perspective.  Edit:  Understand that the democratic country who's military and defense contractors are pushing for a new generation of rather √ľber costly fighters and weapons systems, but who's peace activists vehemently rail against as waisteful warmongering, will often themselves play the fear card, namely put forth bogus kill ratios in favor of their enemies' jet fighters.  Fear is the best motivation, no? Ermm


Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

1.) Best fighter available, cost no objection:  F-22 Raptor

No disagreement here.

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

2.) Best fighter in performance / cost ratio: Advanced Sukhoi variants, especially those with Israeli avionics

I dunno about Isreali avionics, but as for the Russian made stuff, their avionics is pretty shoddy, to even speak of Chinese or Indian.

Sea Harriers and F-15 Eagles aren't that expensive, and I believe both are undefeated in actual combat.  The F-15 certainly is.  I've also heard that he Sea Harriers, flown by RAF hotshots, have even defeated in aerial training runs the F-15, flown by USAF hotshots, in certain types of aerial manuevers.  The advantage was simply due to the Harrier's Blue Vixen Radar.

The Sukhoi's, and Russian fighers in general, are more aeronautically agile fighters, but their avionics will get them shot out of the sky, by both the Sea Harrier and the Eagle, faster than you can say in Russian: 

"WTF was that?!?" Dead

During the Kosovo intervention, F-15's were shooting down Mig-29's like flies.  Or if you prefer, like fish in a barrel.

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

3.) Most competitive fighter produced by a developing nation: Chinese / Pakistani JF-17. Indian LCA is too costly.
  Your breakdown scheme is useful here since developing nations do fight each other too.  Cry

I'm Vietnamese, and I know the leadership in Hanoi knows fully well they only need get roughly equivalent (i.e. inexpensive, "bang for the buck") fighters to deter their only threat, namely the China's PLAAF, which is not very good, and possesses many but all of which are subpar fighters of Russian lineage.

The Russian fighters which N. Vietnam used quite effectively against the US during the Vietnam war (1965-1973), had inferior avionics to their American counterparts--that's fo' sho'.  However, the difference wasn't as great as it is now.  US, Brit, Euro avionics is vastly superior nowadays to their Russian/Chinese/Indian counterparts. 

Eventually, China, Russia and India will catch up, but that's not any time soon.  In fact, don't hold yer breath.  I'd say like 50 years at least, since American technology grows by leaps and bounds.  I'm sure you'd agree when it comes to discussing the development of technology, the learning curve, the law of diminishing returns, and of course Moore's law (computer processor speed doubles every two years) always applies, which is precisely why I prognosticated 50 years.  The other obvious factors are national wealth and spending priorities.

The stuff (6th, 7th, 8th, 9th... generation fighters) that's currently in development now at Lockheed Skunkworks without doubt makes the Raptor (aka  F-22) look like a true dinosaur.   Pun intended.  Embarrassed

Edit:  The rumors, from former military personnel no less, surrounding the numerous black projects, blacker than black projects, etc., at Skunkworks are pretty fantastic.  Keep in mind that the Americans have known about stealth aircraft since WWII really, that the SR-71 Blackbird was itself quite stealthy, and that work on the F-117, F-22, and B-2 began decades ago.

Chinese (and Russian too of course) military spying is very active in America, to put it mildly.  In fact, it's in TOTAL overdrive.  There have been numerous cases of their agents being caught trying to buy even entire jet engines and the like.  Clap


P.S.  Be sure to click on the link, i.e. fo' sho' above.  LOL



Edited by TranHungDao - 13-Feb-2009 at 07:24
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 10:30
Isreali avionics have a very good reputation, bang for buck a russian jet fitted out with western equivalent avionics would be a good iidea. The Indian Flankers have Isreali and i think some french bits added, the malays something similar. These derivatives are benchmarks for such combinations. Vietnam could do well by looking at indian flankers (rather than stright out of the box russian)  and bulking up on adv Russian SAMs. The chinese flankers are getting better every year. AFAIK they can build them to a high standard of finish and if they can also train their pilots to a high standrd will match any 4th+ gen western plane.

I wouldnt be too hard on the russian avionics and dont assume there is huge gaps, only up until the F-35 comes out, will a wide edge between the two be restored.

 Allot of the comparisons > kill ratios has as much to do about pilot training and such issues as organistion than just  technology.

Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 10:37
Originally posted by Jallaludin Akbar Jallaludin Akbar wrote:

The Sukhoi PAK-FA is a 5th generation fighter jet in developement that will replace Mig 29's and su-27's. It is designed to compete with Amnerican F-22's and F-35 Lightning II's. The first flight is projected to be in 2009 and it will be introduced into the Russian armed forces in 2012. These are just projections and such claim sare not definate yet. If someone can find more imformation about this please do Thumbs Up


first flight is not going to happen in 2009, try 2012. They need the money first and probably an outside partner.
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 13:35
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Isreali avionics have a very good reputation, bang for buck a russian jet fitted out with western equivalent avionics would be a good iidea.

I would have guess this.

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

The Indian Flankers have Isreali and i think some french bits added, the malays something similar. These derivatives are benchmarks for such combinations. Vietnam could do well by looking at indian flankers (rather than stright out of the box russian) and bulking up on adv Russian SAMs.
 
Definitely agree with this.

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

The chinese flankers are getting better every year. AFAIK they can build them to a high standard of finish and if they can also train their pilots to a high standrd will match any 4th+ gen western plane.

I have my doubts here.

I'm sure they are indeed getting a "notch" better every 7-10 years, but I seriously doubt they are anywhere near Western standards, say that of US, UK, Israeli, German, French, Japanese, S. Korean or even Taiwanese.  I don't believe they'd fare well against Russian pilots either.

I can't remember the exact dates, facts and figures of the top off my head, but... around 1958-59, PLAAF pilots were something like 0-15 against Taiwanese pilots, who were obviously western trained and flying American fighter jets.  Beijing quickly realized that the PLAAF was only humiliating itself and put a stop to their annoying aerial shannigans. 

Recall that in 1950, a PLA force of about 250,000 (later up to 750,000) nearly humiliated the 100,000 or so US/UN troops in the Korean penisula, forcing the US army into its longest retreat, EVER!  But in the air war, the US got a kill ratio of about 10-11:1 against Russian, Chinese and N. Korean pilots, despite the fact that they were initially fly propeller planes against Russian Migs.  No doubt, the kill ratio must have been significantly higher against the PLAAF pilots, like at least 15:1 as the Taiwanese had achieved in 1958-59.

As for the Vietnamese, they achieved an overall kill ratio of 1:2 against the USAF and USN pilots.  In 1968, they actually had a slight advantage--believe it or not.  A lot of factors (pro & con) contributed to this end result:

1.  They were trained by the Russians who learned from their mistakes in Korea.
2.  The US had far more jets, and pilots.  Essentially an endless supply.
3.  US pilots were fighting in hostile territory, with SAMs pointed at them.
4.  US pilots had superior radar, missiles, faster jets, etc.
5.  The air war took place in two time periods, 1965-68 and then again in 1972-73.  During the four years when Nixon called off the bombing of North Vietnam, the US Navy did a thorough overhaul of training as well as tactics, whereas the USAF was merely relying on the newer avionics that had just come into line.  As a result, the USN pilots reachived their 10:1 kill ratio advantage in the latter 1972-73 phase, whereas the USAF pilots barely made any progress despite the new technology.
6.  During the period of 1965-68, US pilots were flying very predictable flight patterns.  The N. Vietnamese were constantly setting traps which they fell for.  By 1972-73, US pilots were setting traps, which the Vietnamese fell into. 
7.  Also very important here is that earlier broken promise of technology and the "end of the dogfight" to a good extent came into reality during the 1972-73 phase.  By this time, US fighter radar, AWACs radar and aerial comand and control, and long rang air-to-air missiles were actually effective, i.e. they had first look, first kill advantage.  The Vietnamese on the other hand  were still flying mostly antiquated Mig-15s and Mig-17's; they possessed only about 16 supersonic fighters, i.e Mig-21's, for the entire war; the total number of fighters in the N. Vietnamese AF was ~250 for the entire war.

Anyway, this is the historical backdrop from which I make my guestimations.  In 1979, even though China invaded Vietnam, and had the tactical advantage of surprise, they didn't even bother to use any air power, for they knew, it would be in vain.  At the time, Vietnamese pilots were obviously among the best in the world, second only to US, Israeli, etc., or countries with real aerial combat experience, so the PLAAF didn't even dare.  (The N. Vietnamese shot down over 4,000 US aircraft during the war, mostly from the ground.)
 
Vietnam's AF now is pretty pathetic, with only dozen or two number of Suhkois.  I'm not even sure.  Any at rate, my guess is they still have a lot of "know how", when it comes to training their pilots.  The Vietnamese AF certainly cannot defeat the much, much, much bigger PLAAF, but all they need to do is make it very painful for any would be invader.  I know my people, we've been dealing with the Chinese for 2000+ years.  We don't underestimate them.  In fact, it's the invaders who always do the underestimating.  Besides, the PLAAF in its infinite paranoia needs to guard the Sino-Russian border, the Sino-Korean border, the Sino-Indian border, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan Strait, etc., so it's not like they can afford to send their entire air force down to little old Vietnam.

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

I wouldnt be too hard on the russian avionics and dont assume there is huge gaps, only up until the F-35 comes out, will a wide edge between the two be restored.


Since Vietnam, the USAF and USN has made quantum leap after quantum leap in virtually every respect when it comes to jet fighters.  From radar to air-to-air missiles, AWACs aerial command & control, pilot training, tactics, and of course:  Stealth.  Frankly, China is not anywhere near the US in air power, stealth or no stealth technology.  Sure, they have better fighters, better training.  But they simply don't have the real world experience:  Actual dogfighting experience.

US pilots were like ~46:0 in Iraq in 1991, undefeated in Kosovo, etc.  I'm pretty sure they'd achieve the same against Vietnamese pilots flying Flankers, with or without Israeli avionics.  The days when Vietnamese pilots could achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against American pilots has long gone.  And I'm also pretty sure they'd do that to PLAAF pilots too, flying Flankers or for that matter, F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, or F-18's.

Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Allot of the comparisons > kill ratios has as much to do about pilot training and such issues as organistion than just  technology.

Yes, of course.  I was making this tacit assumption and simply forgot to say so explicitly.

Intuitively speaking, the major factors contributing to kill ratios are:

1.  Technology (avionics, missiles, stealth, etc.)
2.  Pilot training (hours of flight time, per capita spending, etc.)
3.  Organization (tactics, AWACs command and control, etc.)
4.  Experience (actual dogfights, esprit de corp)
 
But, technology is the dominant factor now:  First look, first kill is the overriding principle.  Western avionics and air-to-air missiles are the most advanced and reliable.  Period.  No amount of pilot training can overcome a missile (or several) coming at you from out of nowhere, i.e. your enemy can see you but you can't see him--and he's not even flying a stealth aircraft!  Or rather, he sees you first, but you don't see him until it's too late.

Naturally, stealth vs non-stealth dogfights is the extreme case here.  It'll be 15-20 years before the Raptorski and it's Chinese/Indian counterpart is deployable.  By then, the US may deploy a hypersonic pilot-less 6th generation stealth fighter with a laser weapons system.  Who knows.  The rumors are out there.  Wink
 
-------------------------------------

Year after year, after a careful analysis, the Taiwanese military come up with the same conclusion to the hypothetical question:  What if China invaded?  Answer:  They'd lose.  BIG TIME.  Dead 

Guess what? Their American counterparts agree. Shocked    Overall, American military analyst have no respect for China's conventional forces.  They say the military is poorly trained, and in particular, their pilots don't get much flight time.  The PLA's strong points are that it is BIG, and it has nukes.  Aside from it's nukes, it's really just a paper dragon.

A Japanese general has openly stated that if China attacked Japan (PLAAF pilots routinely fly provocatively into Japanese air space to probe for weaknesses, as well as to intimidate), the PLAAF would be quickly annihilated by the JDF's air force, within days!   And once you lose your air power, it's lights out for your ground and naval forces too. Dead

Quantity is no substitute for quality.  Ermm

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 13:48
Truth be told, much of the PLA's raison d'√™tre is merely to keep a lid on internal threats.  There are estimates that over 10,000 riots took place in one year alone, just a few years ago.

On the positive side, they also help out during natural disasters.

But I'm getting a bit off topic.  Ermm
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 16:23
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


During the Kosovo intervention, F-15's were shooting down Mig-29's like flies.  Or if you prefer, like fish in a barrel.
Sure they did. They also had some help. 
   - F-15s out numbered MIG-29s by dozens to one
   - F-15s were supported by AWACS, Satellite intelligence etc etc. MIG-29s had none of this. 
   -F-15s were all maintained in top condition and flown by pilots with hundreds of training hours per year.  MIG-29s were flown with key sytems inoperable and by a country that could not afford hundreds of training hours / year, ultra expensive simulators etc.
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:


F-15 Eagles aren't that expensive, and I believe both are undefeated in actual combat. 
They were very expensive when built. So much so tha t all other NATO countries went for the less expensive single engine F-16.  I imagine that one could buy them used relatively cheap. But... the USA would never sell the used planes with out ultra expensive, mandatory upgrades from U.S. manufacurers.
 
F-15s are undefeated in combat. And this fact testifies to their lethality. But... they also have had some help. See notes on Serbia verse NATO. Also, Syria was not a capable opponent against Israel. Had the Turkish, Pakistani, Korean, Taiwanese etc. airforces used the same Syrian equipment, there would have been F-15 losses.


Edited by Cryptic - 13-Feb-2009 at 17:05
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 18:50
Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:


   - F-15s out numbered MIG-29s by dozens to one

Where are you getting this number?

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:


Sure they did. They also had some help.
   - F-15s were supported by AWACS, Satellite intelligence etc etc. MIG-29s had none of this.

True.  Such engagements, or turkey shoots really, often take place with the Mig-29, or enemy fighter in general be it in Iraq or Kosovo, just fresh from take off and fully detected by USAF AWACs.

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

   -F-15s were all maintained in top condition and flown by pilots with hundreds of training hours per year.  MIG-29s were flown with key sytems inoperable and by a country that could not afford hundreds of training hours / year, ultra expensive simulators etc.

Ultimately, avionics is still king.  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, this is how I'd rate the importance of all the major elements:

1.  Avionics & air-to-air missiles:  15
2.  Pilot Training & Readiness: 10
3.  Aerial combat experience: 9
4.  Aeronautical capability:  8


For instance, all else being equal, a subsonic Sea-Harrier can take out a Supersonic F-15 or Su-30 M/MKK/MKI (with thrust vectoring) if it has better avionics.  Period.  Why?  Simply b'coz it has FIRST LOOK, FIRST KILL.

F-15's have better avionics than Mig-29.  Mig-29 is more a agile fighter.  Agility is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

They were very expensive when built. So much so tha t all other NATO countries went for the less expensive single engine F-16.  I imagine that one could buy them used relatively cheap. But... the USA would never sell the used planes with out ultra expensive, mandatory upgrades from U.S. manufacurers.
Out of curiosity, how much were they initially?  I only know that the F-15 K is  superexpensive. 

The newer Su-30's aren't cheap at all in comparison to 4th Gen US fighters.
 

Originally posted by Cryptic Cryptic wrote:

F-15s are undefeated in combat. And this fact testifies to their lethality. But... they also have had some help. See notes on Serbia verse NATO. Also, Syria was not a capable opponent against Israel. Had the Turkish, Pakistani, Korean, Taiwanese etc. airforces used the same Syrian equipment, there would have been F-15 losses.

No way.

What if instead Israeli, Turkish, Pakistani, S. Korean, Taiwanese were flying F-15's vs US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. same exact equipment on both sides? 

Israel?  Yes.
S. Korea?  maybe
Taiwan?  NO.
Turkey, Pakistan?  Please tell me you're joking. Confused
Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:38
Red Flag Exercises in 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ 
---Wow, Indian Su-30 MKI bested USAF pilots, in fact they creamed them!   Bravo! Clap

Or did they? Tongue

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, here's a some expert testimony on Su-30 MKI vs F-15/F-16.  What really happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
---
Colonel Terrence Fornof, part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w
---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part II

Fornof lets the cat out of the bag:  It was rigged.  There's lot of disinformation out there.  What really happened:
1.  Indian pilots were creamed.  (These were average pilots, not the best nor the worst of India AF.)
2.  He does say that on paper, the Indian Flankers are slightly better then the F-15 and F-16.
3.  Indian Flankers have stronger radar, yet could not discern between friend and foe, leading to many fratracides.
4.  Red Flag 2004 and 2005 in Cope, India was rigged.  USAF sent 80% novice pilots and 20% experienced by rusty pilots who have desk jobs at the USAF.  Indian AF sent their best pilots.  (More on Cope Red Flag below...  It was rigged in so many other ways.)
5.  Flankers have huge radar cross section.
6.  Flankers require 1 min separation between multiple fighters are taking off.  Apparently, this is a huge weakness.
7.  Indian (i.e. Russian) AWAC technology is completely antiquated.

Read between the lines:  If retro-fitted with F-22 avionics, US 4th gen fighters are still better, i.e. avionics is King.




-----------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPmaY  
---Indian TV, offended by Fornof's statements.  LOL, the TRUTH always hurts.  Boo hoo.  Cry


http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.html
---Article on how USAF rigged the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 joint exercise in favor of Su-30 MKI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnjKt0lreo8
---This video actually cites a another article I've read before, which interviewed yet a different USAF officer.  It also talks about how the
Red Flag Cope, India 2004 exercises were completely rigged by the USAF.  For instance, there was a bizarre 3:1 fighter ratio against US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. 12 IAF fighters flying various fighters vs 4 USAF F-15's.  USAF pilots were not allowed to use their AIM 120 amraams.  Thus, even if they could see the IAF fighters first, the could not shoot.  Pretty bizarre rules of engagement, no?  On top of this, the IAF pilots had AWAC support.  USAF pilots were not afforded such luxuries.  (Remember, these were the IAF's finest, and the USAF's weaker pilots, i.e. novices and rusty old guys with desk jobs.)

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

Quote "Cope India 2004 - A "Staged Dogfight"? Analysis and Some Lessons"

This 'incident' has caused quite a brouhaha in the United States. There was a political and strategic assessment, as well as an operational rundown. In any event, what was clear was that the best fighter aircraft the American "superpower: could field was outclassed in aerial combat by the Indian fighters by a crushing nine wins to one. America was beaten at her own game - advanced technology and aerial combat.

The publicity surrounding these exercises initially stressed the excellent performance of the Sukhoi Su-30 against the American F-15. That is the way the affair was generally presented in the specialised American press. This version of the IAF-USAF "contest" brings knowing smiles to Indian faces. An independent Indian source specialised in military affairs commented: "The very great majority of engagements were carried out, on our side, by Mirage-2000s, not by Su-30s. Certain of the U.S. military were surprised by these errors in the reports on the exercise, which were inspired essentially by American sources. The few knowledgeable about the details of the competition fully understood".

Indeed, it is more advantageous for the Americans to convey the impression that it was Russian aircraft that bested the Americans rather than the French aircraft. Internationally, Russian aircraft are rarely in direct competition with American aircraft, of course. In any event, an obvious 'commercial' effect of the IAF-USAF was the adverse publicity heaped on the F-15 in advance of the Singapore competition pitting the American contender against two European aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault's Rafale.  General Hal M.Hornburg, Commander, Air Combat command, on the lessons to be learnt from the exercise stated: "There is no doubt that some foreign aircraft are 'nearing the capability of ours', and that 'we' are going to be fighting a larger and more capable surface-to-air threat', said Hornburg. 'We need stealth technology and ... other capabilities' of the type that will be provided by the F/A-22 and F-35. Hornburg said that USAF's current F-15s and F-16s are 'still very good', but they are 'becoming dated'."

Link:  http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html


Don't fall for the hype. 
This was nothing more than the USAF's clever little scam to scare the  public into buying F-22's.  Ermm

Fear creates sheep.  Sheep don't protest. Tongue


Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 19:53
Without explicitly name him, this Aviaton Week article discusses Col. Fornof comments, as shown in two of the YouTube vids I linked above.


Edited by TranHungDao - 13-Feb-2009 at 19:56
Back to Top
Jallaludin Akbar View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jan-2009
Location: U.S.A!
Status: Offline
Points: 126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jallaludin Akbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 20:12
Originally posted by TranHungDao TranHungDao wrote:

Red Flag Exercises in 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ 
---Wow, Indian Su-30 MKI bested USAF pilots, in fact they creamed them!   Bravo! Clap

Or did they? Tongue

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, here's a some expert testimony on Su-30 MKI vs F-15/F-16.  What really happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
---
Colonel Terrence Fornof, part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w
---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part II

Fornof lets the cat out of the bag:  It was rigged.  There's lot of disinformation out there.  What really happened:
1.  Indian pilots were creamed.  (These were average pilots, not the best nor the worst of India AF.)
2.  He does say that on paper, the Indian Flankers are slightly better then the F-15 and F-16.
3.  Indian Flankers have stronger radar, yet could not discern between friend and foe, leading to many fratracides.
4.  Red Flag 2004 and 2005 in Cope, India was rigged.  USAF sent 80% novice pilots and 20% experienced by rusty pilots who have desk jobs at the USAF.  Indian AF sent their best pilots.  (More on Cope Red Flag below...  It was rigged in so many other ways.)
5.  Flankers have huge radar cross section.
6.  Flankers require 1 min separation between multiple fighters are taking off.  Apparently, this is a huge weakness.
7.  Indian (i.e. Russian) AWAC technology is completely antiquated.

Read between the lines:  If retro-fitted with F-22 avionics, US 4th gen fighters are still better, i.e. avionics is King.




-----------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPmaY  
---Indian TV, offended by Fornof's statements.  LOL, the TRUTH always hurts.  Boo hoo.  Cry


http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.html
---Article on how USAF rigged the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 joint exercise in favor of Su-30 MKI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnjKt0lreo8
---This video actually cites a another article I've read before, which interviewed yet a different USAF officer.  It also talks about how the
Red Flag Cope, India 2004 exercises were completely rigged by the USAF.  For instance, there was a bizarre 3:1 fighter ratio against US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. 12 IAF fighters flying various fighters vs 4 USAF F-15's.  USAF pilots were not allowed to use their AIM 120 amraams.  Thus, even if they could see the IAF fighters first, the could not shoot.  Pretty bizarre rules of engagement, no?  On top of this, the IAF pilots had AWAC support.  USAF pilots were not afforded such luxuries.  (Remember, these were the IAF's finest, and the USAF's weaker pilots, i.e. novices and rusty old guys with desk jobs.)

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

Quote "Cope India 2004 - A "Staged Dogfight"? Analysis and Some Lessons"

This 'incident' has caused quite a brouhaha in the United States. There was a political and strategic assessment, as well as an operational rundown. In any event, what was clear was that the best fighter aircraft the American "superpower: could field was outclassed in aerial combat by the Indian fighters by a crushing nine wins to one. America was beaten at her own game - advanced technology and aerial combat.

The publicity surrounding these exercises initially stressed the excellent performance of the Sukhoi Su-30 against the American F-15. That is the way the affair was generally presented in the specialised American press. This version of the IAF-USAF "contest" brings knowing smiles to Indian faces. An independent Indian source specialised in military affairs commented: "The very great majority of engagements were carried out, on our side, by Mirage-2000s, not by Su-30s. Certain of the U.S. military were surprised by these errors in the reports on the exercise, which were inspired essentially by American sources. The few knowledgeable about the details of the competition fully understood".

Indeed, it is more advantageous for the Americans to convey the impression that it was Russian aircraft that bested the Americans rather than the French aircraft. Internationally, Russian aircraft are rarely in direct competition with American aircraft, of course. In any event, an obvious 'commercial' effect of the IAF-USAF was the adverse publicity heaped on the F-15 in advance of the Singapore competition pitting the American contender against two European aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault's Rafale.  General Hal M.Hornburg, Commander, Air Combat command, on the lessons to be learnt from the exercise stated: "There is no doubt that some foreign aircraft are 'nearing the capability of ours', and that 'we' are going to be fighting a larger and more capable surface-to-air threat', said Hornburg. 'We need stealth technology and ... other capabilities' of the type that will be provided by the F/A-22 and F-35. Hornburg said that USAF's current F-15s and F-16s are 'still very good', but they are 'becoming dated'."

Link:  http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html


Don't fall for the hype. 
This was nothing more than the USAF's clever little scam to scare the  public into buying F-22's.  Ermm

Fear creates sheep.  Sheep don't protest. Tongue


I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that USAF pilots are the best trained in the world and are superior to their third world counterparts. During Red Flag, the usaf decided not to use some of the things that would give them an edge over the iaf. The IAF knows it is not going to face enemies with the advanced technological capability of the United States Airforce and that is why it decided to put restriction on them. Much of the the expert colonel's testimony has been proven false and that is why the iaf and usaf expressed anger over his comments. I agee with most of your post but please keep biased comments to a minimum.

Apart from that, did anybody hear of the latest developements on the PAK-FA project? 



Edited by Jallaludin Akbar - 13-Feb-2009 at 20:17
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-Mahatma Gandhi

Back to Top
TranHungDao View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 245
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TranHungDao Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Feb-2009 at 21:00
Originally posted by Jallaludin Akbar Jallaludin Akbar wrote:

Much of the the expert colonel's testimony has been proven false and that is why the iaf and usaf expressed anger over his comments.

Sources please.  I insist. Ermm

Here's an article, which criticizes Col. Fornof, but it is muddled at best.  Be sure to see the first response by a guy who essentially says the author is confused.  It also has a bunch of embedded vids on Red Flag 2008 at Nellis AFB.

Originally posted by Jallaludin Akbar Jallaludin Akbar wrote:

I agee with most of your post but please keep biased comments to a minimum.
  I'll admit my bias when you provide the sources.  Embarrassed


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.