Best 4/4.5 generation fighter series
#26
Posted 22 March 2008 - 18:03
THE EUROFIGHTER IS 5TH GENERATION PLANE AND IT`S BETTER THEN the f22.A FRIEDNLY SHIRMISH TOOK PLACE BETWEEN 2 RAF EF AND 2 f22 AND THE BRITS WON.
I think that`s big enough for anyone to read
And the best 4/4.5 gen plane is SU 37 (Berkut - SU 47 it`s a 5th gen plane )
#27
Posted 12 May 2008 - 13:57
ShockBlast, on 22 Mar 2008, 18:03, said:
THE EUROFIGHTER IS 5TH GENERATION PLANE AND IT`S BETTER THEN the f22.A FRIEDNLY SHIRMISH TOOK PLACE BETWEEN 2 RAF EF AND 2 f22 AND THE BRITS WON.
I think that`s big enough for anyone to read
And the best 4/4.5 gen plane is SU 37 (Berkut - SU 47 it`s a 5th gen plane )
Dude, actually, a skirmish is completely different than a real fight. First of all, the F-22 is superior (no offense). In a real fight, it would shoot down about ten eurofighters before it's spotted. Also, the F-22 is meant to be used in large areas of combats, skirmishes are usually in much smaller radiuses. Finally, the F-22 has stealth (it's the stealthiest fighter in the world, and second stealthiest plane, after the B-2), intergrated avionics, thrust vectoring, and supercruise, and even more. The truth is America has the single best air force in the world, followed behind by Russia and then Israel, that's why Europe is buying our F-35s. The thing is we have better technology when it comes to the airforce and in a real war, not a mock fight, the F-22 would, without a doubt, own the Eurofighter. In my opinion, the best hope Europe has to match the F-22 would be the Russian TU-50 (the result of the MIG-1.44 and the SU-47 projects) and even then I doubt it because of stealth. So, sorry dude, but the truth is that the USA has the best planes around.
[indent]Garrod "Newtype Killer" Ran[/indent]
#28
Posted 13 May 2008 - 02:23
We'll never know because thankfully none of these jets have ever gone to war against each other, and anything else isn't really a fair comparison. But Sukhoi's latest offerings just trounce everything on this list - they shouldn't really even be there (they're not 5th generation becuase of their lack of stealth, but in every other aspect they are).
Edit - spelling.
Edited by CommanderJB, 13 May 2008 - 10:21.
Quote
#29
Posted 13 May 2008 - 03:16
#30
Posted 13 May 2008 - 03:20
Edited by CommanderJB, 13 May 2008 - 03:21.
Quote
#31
Posted 13 May 2008 - 04:34
#32
Posted 13 May 2008 - 10:19
http://www.ausairpow...vs-Flanker.html
Which concludes that Super Hornet is uncompetitive against Flankers in close-range combat, and by 2010 will also lose out in beyond-visual-range combat.)
Edit - got the wrong version of Sukhoi (the MKI is confined to India only, and is actually a bit better than a Su-35 in some respects, most notably in avionics. Ironically Sukhoi's export fighters that are being sold to China and India are actually something like half a generation ahead of the ones that the Russian Air Force is buying!)
Edited by CommanderJB, 13 May 2008 - 12:31.
Quote
#33
Posted 13 May 2008 - 11:00
#34
Posted 13 May 2008 - 18:22
(A lil' off topic-ness, but isn't this akin to pitting the fabled F-22 Raptor against the experimental S-37 Berkut?)
#35
Posted 13 May 2008 - 22:07
#36
Posted 13 May 2008 - 22:29
Destiny, on 13 May 2008, 13:22, said:
(A lil' off topic-ness, but isn't this akin to pitting the fabled F-22 Raptor against the experimental Su-47 Berkut?)
Fix'd.
From what it seems the Su-35 since it seems like a 5th gen fighter, without stealth. But I personally think the F-15 due to its proven combat record.
#37
Posted 13 May 2008 - 23:22
#38
Posted 14 May 2008 - 00:54
Quote
#39
Posted 14 May 2008 - 04:41
#40
Posted 14 May 2008 - 05:25
Most amusing.
Quote
#41
Posted 14 May 2008 - 11:02
#42
Posted 14 May 2008 - 15:43
Modernization on the other hand keep the F-16 for nearly 30 years on service. But cannot match the modernized mig-29s that are in Russia and Ukraine ( Those in Iraq were outdated ones and this had a severe impact in the war).
Today we have mig-35, F-22, Su-47, Eurofighters and F-35. For these planes it's hard to tell because they have never seen an actual combat (and hopefully they won't).
As a conclusion I must underline that for the best results which airplane is better, means that world superpowers have to engage in aerial combat, I think we all know what may happen next.
#44
Posted 14 May 2008 - 17:43
#45
Posted 14 May 2008 - 23:14
She was the nemesis of the western fighters and her maneuverability was unmatched. She also could carry heavier armaments in her class than other fighters.
#46
Posted 15 May 2008 - 01:28
Like people have said, it's wonderful that we'll never know which was precisely the best and had the most effective balance of speed, armament, range, etc. in its day. But clearly some fighters on here are just so much more effective than others because they were built twenty years later. You simply can't put an Su-35 against an F-15 and expect the F-15 to win. It's that simple. I know the F-15 was a great fighter in its day, but it was retired for a reason; it got old and couldn't compete any more. It really depends on what the definition of 'best' is - best for its time, or would come out best in an engagement, or has the best range of features. I prefer to go on 'best in an engagement' because it gives the strongest indication of the level of technology and combat effectiveness, which is what people look at when they buy these things after all.
There is debate over whether fighters are still relevant - most of these engagements would be decided from beyond visual range with long-range AAMs anyway, so from that point of view it's not the quality of the fighter that matters, it's the quality of its radar and the missiles you hang off it.
Quote
#47
Posted 15 May 2008 - 12:06
Ditto:
1. F-15 against F-16? I'll choose F-15. I hate single-engine 'planes. It is so unmanly. :chilldead:
2. @ DerKreiger: F-15 kill ratio of 104:0?? We need data for that to back up your claim.
3. @ CommanderJB (BTW, Are you a Commando in StarWars Galaxies?): I agree. Even if an airforce got Northrop F5's, or MiG-21's but the 'planes got kick-*ss avionics and decent weaponry, then they can still be in active service (remember the Falklands War, gentlemen. Missiles ARE NOT always right, as discovered by the Brits.) That's the reason why world militaries got "defence systems modernisation".
Click here for military upgrades.
"Once upon a time in 1700's, Imperial Britain had its share of terrorists...And they were called Americans."
#48
Posted 15 May 2008 - 12:08
Quote
#49
Posted 15 May 2008 - 13:17
Su-37 refers to a totally diferent aircraft. It's a minor mistake, however, we must be precise in such kind of discussions.
BTW. I read an article that a F-15 got shot down in Yugoslavia. Any opinions about that?
#50
Posted 15 May 2008 - 22:58
Quote
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users