72 replies to this topic

[ShockBlast]

OK the person who made this pool is offending all the europeans so want we can`t make a 5th gen plane?
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 )

[Zero]

I think the F-15 is superior in every way. The F-15 has a ten-to-one (I think) kill rate and has NEVER been shot down by any enemy plane. On top of that it has speed, maneuverability, weapons, and a number of variants matched only by the F-16 (quite probably the single most modified plane in ALL of aviation history, the thing has like a thousand variants!). Plus have you ever seen the F-15 ACTIVE, that thing look cool as HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!

ShockBlast, on 22 Mar 2008, 18:03, said:

OK the person who made this pool is offending all the europeans so want we can`t make a 5th gen plane?
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.

[CommanderJB]

The F-15, while undoubtedly an excellent aircraft, is a bit too old to win this poll. Sorry. Even an upgraded F/A-18F/G Super Hornet, Boeing's latest offering, can't match up to the Sukhoi Su-30, let alone the F-15 match up to an Su-35/37. The Su-35/37, in addition to being the best-looking fighter around (IMO, of course) has far manoeuvrability thanks to the world's best thrust vectoring and a large wing area that produces lots of lift and control (it can literally flip any direction at any attitude you like mid-flight at most speeds - look it up on YouTube, some of its aerobatics are amazing), it has a much larger radar aperture with about 50% greater range and power (and a radar in its tail!), and is adapted to fit the R-73M, R-27ER, R-77M and similar new-generation missiles which match or outperform most Western equivalents thanks to their range, manoeuvrability and speed. Its avionics are just as advanced as any contemporary Western aircraft and it has highly impressive range and way better combat endurance thanks to about twelve separate hardpoints for weapons, fuel tanks, sensor pods or other peripherals. And they also have a much better gun (the 30mm cannon they use is so much more accurate it's literally like comparing an assault rifle to a shotgun - while it can't match the M61 Vulcan's rate of fire, this precision and higher weight of shell are more than enough to convince me).
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.

[Waris]

Also, backward-firing missiles

[CommanderJB]

Yup, all-aspect targeting FTW!

Edited by CommanderJB, 13 May 2008 - 03:21.

[Destiny]

I'm staying true to my F/A-18 Hornet. Too lazy to specify a 18E Super Hornet The Hornets and Super Hornets have proven themselves much, even the new F-35s cannot replace them as Carrier Strike Fighters, instead only complementing them.

[CommanderJB]

Well, I'm not going to tell you what to believe, but I think you'll find that if you rack up the numbers against each other, you'll find them weighted heavily in Sukhoi's favour. (This particular topic has been a matter of great debate thanks to future military purchases for Australia and our neighbours - we are adding a couple of dozen Super Hornets to our Air Force over the next few years to add capability while we wait for the delivery of our Joint Strike Fighters, while Indonesia has flagged the purchase of several Su-30MKs. As a result there's been an impressive stink with numbers flying all over the place, and if you're really interested I suggest you have a look at this page:
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.

[Waris]

Malaysia has also received its own iteration of the Su-30, namely the Su-31MKM, but with most likely reduced performance because, of other things, different avionics package compared to other export models.

[Destiny]

However, these are theoritical, no?

(A lil' off topic-ness, but isn't this akin to pitting the fabled F-22 Raptor against the experimental S-37 Berkut?)

[Waris]

Yeah, Cold War is over so we only got numbers to compare

[Cuppa]

Destiny, on 13 May 2008, 13:22, said:

However, these are theoritical, no?

(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.

[MentalAss]

F-15, because it doen't have the fly-by-wire crap.

[CommanderJB]

Which, umm, helps performance?

[Destiny]

Somehow Fly-by-Wire does help? Because I don't think the wires actually add to the empty takeoff weight

[CommanderJB]

Oh har har. Fly by wire - used since aviation's beginnings! Why, the controls even in First World War fighters were exclusively fly-by-wire in nature!
Most amusing.

[Rich19]

If the F-15 was not a fly by wire system, the only controls inside would be a steering wheel, a lot of pedals and a big red button or two. Somehow I don't think that's the case.

[Zaho]

I read some interesting opinions and some total bullshit! F-15 is a good plane, however, it is completely outdated against SU-35 and SU-37. Going back to the late 60s when USSR builds the mig-31, a plane much faster than any other COMBAT AIRCRAFT (the Black Bird doesn't count). F-16 on the other hand for me personately is the worst fighter ever (no personal offense), rivals mig-21 who is 10 years older.

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.

[Reaper94]

f/a 18 but i wlda voted for f4 phantom tho

[DerKrieger]

F-15C; It has a 104:0 kill ratio, highest in recorded history.

[Beta9]

If the Mig-29 in the poll refers to the Mig-29 Fulcrum, then that baby gets my vote.

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.

[CommanderJB]

But it's still outranked these days by the Su-35/Eurofighter...
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.

[The Wandering Jew]

I voted Sukhoi Su-37 Berkut because of its high potential.

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.

[CommanderJB]

No, I've never played Star Wars Galaxies (though I'd like to one day).

[Zaho]

The Berkut is Su-47, or S-37.
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?

[CommanderJB]

Interesting, it appears that an F-15E was lost over Yugoslavia followed by the infamous F-117 shootdown a few hours later, but the Pentagon is claiming two separate tapes, one claimed to be of the F-15, are of the F-117 and denies having its F-15E shot down by a MiG-29. That would kind of ruin the perfect kill ratio, wouldn't it?