72 replies to this topic

[Code Monkey]

F-22 pwns all, it's an all around great fighter (I know it's a 5th generation, but still). The Hornet, Eagle, Tomcat, and Falcon are good, but the raptor is the best out of them all. MiGs are too out dated for me. As for the others, no comment as I am not familiar with them.

@ JB: I'd reccomend SWG for you. It's very fun and enjoyable game. And if you get it, join the chimaera server. =P

Edited by Evilgmk, 16 May 2008 - 02:03.

[The Wandering Jew]

CommanderJB, on 16 May 2008, 6:58, said:

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?

(Shrugs shoulders) Eh. Propaganda purposes I presume, considering the F-117 is supposed to be a "stealth" fighter.


@evilgmk:

I have finished the 14-day SWG trial. It's fun. Too bad the price is somewhat hefty.

P.S. I was Bounty Hunter. (Do we have discussions here in E-Studios about Star Wars Galaxies?)

[Waris]

The Wandering Jew, on 16 May 2008, 13:45, said:

(Shrugs shoulders) Eh. Propaganda purposes I presume, considering the F-117 is supposed to be a "stealth" fighter.

No it is not.

[CommanderJB]

Umm... oh yes it is. The F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Bomber that is, not the F-15 Eagle, which was of course what I was talking about after all.
The loss of the F-117 to a Soviet-era missile is hard fact, after all (plenty of imagery of the wreckage). But the loss of the F-15 is up to debate. It could just be Yugoslavian propaganda (and there was plenty of that flying around in 1997) and it was actually lost to ground fire or pilot error, but then they did lose one, and if there was a MiG-29 in the area I'd say that that was more than just a coincidence. Anyway, not to get onto issues that I've seen spark flame wars (while I consider the forumers here to be more well-balanced than that, you can never tell. Patriotism is a powerful thing, after all).

And @ Evilgmk: Sadly any on-line gaming is a no-no for me, and as you can see it has nothing to do with my internet connection. Otherwise I probably would. After all, I would (at risk of starting a bit of a war - I don't really know how big a risk as most of the discussions on this forum are about C&C, not Star Wars) classify myself as the forum's most knowledgeable and avid Star Wars aficionado.

Edited by CommanderJB, 16 May 2008 - 09:06.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:

War is cool.

On a computer screen!

Real war is very different.

Back at topic:

One of the choices here is a Panavia Tornado. Who made this? Any air force currently using this? I have a picture of this in a Super Trump card.

[CommanderJB]

The Wandering Jew, on 17 May 2008, 15:13, said:

@^:

War is cool.

On a computer screen!

Real war is very different.

I'd never argue with that, good god no. Believe me, I truly believe that there's very little more horrifying or frightening than warfare on any scale. I never claimed otherwise. Please see my profile page if you want to know what I'm doing here discussing things.

The Wandering Jew, on 17 May 2008, 15:13, said:

Back at topic:

One of the choices here is a Panavia Tornado. Who made this? Any air force currently using this? I have a picture of this in a Super Trump card.

The Tornado is the UK Royal Air Force's primary interceptor and patrol aircraft, and they saw extensive action in both Gulf Wars. They're also currently in service with the Luftwaffe in considerable numbers, in addition to the Aeronautica Militare Italiana (Italian Air Force) and the Royal Saudi Air Force. In the RAF and Luftwaffe they're being replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon, but it will be a few years until they're phased out entirely. Tornadoes are quite capable aircraft; they have very impressive endurance, good survivability and a considerable weapon capacity, making them very good for low- and medium-level strike missions. But they're getting old and definitely can't match up to EFs/Sukhois etc.

[The Wandering Jew]

Then why not upgrade 'em? And change them into bomber aircraft? Or ground support?

Anyway, time for a change I guess.

[CommanderJB]

Their mission statement is IDS, for Interception, Defence and Strike, so when they've been deployed internationally (i.e. to the Persian Gulf) their primary role has been that of a tactical bomber, doing low-level munitions dispensing runs over Iraqi airfields and the like. They have upgraded them several times, but a thirty-year-old airframe can only do so much after all. The Eurofighter is more air-to-air combat oriented, but looks to be an amazing aircraft all the same. Evidently it has the most unstable flight characteristics of any aircraft the engineers have ever seen, but fly-by-wire is a wonderful thing, and it's extremely manoeuvrable (plus canard foreplanes are an instant +1 to style).

Edited by CommanderJB, 17 May 2008 - 10:18.

[The Wandering Jew]

Point taken.

Who would cross into AA gun fire?

[Zaho]

I read a post where someone said that Migs are outdated. I don' agree with that. THERE ARE FEW AIRCRAFT THAT MAY BARELY RIVAL MIG-33, AND EVEN FEWER THAT MAY RIVAL MIG-35. RIVAL DOES NOT MEAN OUTBEST HOWEVER, RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT ARE GOING IN HISTORY AS THE WORLD'S MOST UNMATCHABLE IF MODERNIZED AND SUSTAINED. Mig-29 is a legend that had to be respected, I don't say that F-22s are bad planes or they suck, however, russian military ingeneering must be respected at any occasions. F-15 is one of the few US planes that went down on history, along with the F-4 and P-38. Russian Migs 15,17,21,25,29 and 31 were all considered to best of their age, and let's not talk about the Sukhoi because it's gonna be a long. The 5th generation planes have first to fight for their names, this is one of the reasons we should not say which is better by comparing F-22 with Mig 29. Every aircraft that goes in history is one of the best. The Germans, Britsih, US, French, Russians and Chineese and everyone else have to be respected.

[CommanderJB]

Ouch, too many caps! Please refrain from shouting, it won't convince people to see your point of view, believe me. No-one is comparing the F-22 to the MiG-29 (different generations), and no-one is disrespecting Russian military engineering (just look at the results - the greatest fraction be far of respondents voted for Sukhoi aircraft!). And it really isn't fair to say that every single MiG fighter was the best of it's age - far from it (the MiG-25, for example, while faster and with a better climb rate than anything NATO had to offer, had extraordinarily limited endurance, low weapon load and for goodness sakes it had valves behind the dashboard. And all at a time when bomber interceptions were basically useless thanks to ICBMs anyway.) Meanwhile, you've missed out some important US aircraft such as the A-4 Skyhawk (one of aviation's most shocked silences was said to have occured when Douglas Heinemann, cheif of Douglas Aircraft Corporation, waked into the Navy aircraft assessment panel and told them he could meet and in most cases surpass all their requirements at half the maximum weight allowed under the tender!)
This is a poll merely intended to find out who thinks what about the world's most common fighter aircraft, those that form the bulk of modern Air Forces as 5th generation aircraft are only beginning to enter service.

[The Wandering Jew]

@^:
The very same A4 Skyhawk (retrofitted with a French-made missile) that sunk a British destroyer (or frigate, they all look the same to me) by the Argentines in the Falklands War.


@Zaho:
You might want to divert/copy your post to the guy and give him hell.

[Zaho]

Nope. This is a forum and we all have info from different sources and different opinions on our own. For example I barely know something about the A-4, however, I respect the A-6 and the F-111 all made in the US. I put them in caps to show people to pay attention mostly on this part because it was a long post and I doubt that most members will do the trouble to read it, I didn't wanted to shout, sorry about that. I'm impressed with CommanderJB's knowledge about modern aviation.

Now away from the previous subject, does anyone know something for the newly designed mig-37. I doubt that there are prototypes of it, however, if someone could shed some light on that, I will be grateful

[CommanderJB]

Evidently my knowledge of modern aviation is far from complete, because I've never heard of a MiG-37. The only thing Google turned up was a fictional model kit, so I'm afraid I can't give you a single jot of info there.
Also, fun fact about the Eurofighter - it requires seventy-two computers to fly! That's how unstable it is. If they ever failed, the thing would just fall out of the sky like a stone... There's an awesome Top Gear video I watched yesterday on YouTube where they race a Buggatti Veyhron over a two mile-stretch of runway against a Eurofighter in a two-mile vertical stretch. I'm not going to tell you who won, but damn, it was close!
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=dljyEyq5Aw4

[Zaho]

Nice. About the mig-47 I saw only the engineering plans and that's all, however, it would be far more different than any previous models. It is strange however, that military scientists are working on the next model before the previous one even has a rival superior to it. I think mig-35 entered mass production in 2007, however, for the S-37 (Su-47) it will be in next year. The two planes are both 5th generation and very expensive, however, Mig-35 is a multi-role jet like most of the other mig models, while the Berkut will be an interceptor and carrier based plane according to Russian Ministry of Defense.

[Cuppa]

Zaho, on 21 May 2008, 5:48, said:

Nice. About the mig-47 I saw only the engineering plans and that's all, however, it would be far more different than any previous models. It is strange however, that military scientists are working on the next model before the previous one even has a rival superior to it. I think mig-35 entered mass production in 2007, however, for the S-37 (Su-47) it will be in next year. The two planes are both 5th generation and very expensive, however, Mig-35 is a multi-role jet like most of the other mig models, while the Berkut will be an interceptor and carrier based plane according to Russian Ministry of Defense.

Really? I thought the Berkut was just experimental.

[CommanderJB]

The Berkut (Golden Eagle) as the Su-47 is indeed experimental and there were only two built (one of which later crashed) as technology demonstrators for the forward-swept wing concept, a bit like the Grumman X-29 but more developed (and way cooler looking). The Su-37 or 'Terminator' was an extremely upgraded Su-30, but it was a bit too much and they only built two of those before they converted them back into the slightly less advanced Su-35, which is set to become Russia's next main long-range multi-role fighter/attack aircraft. There was also an offshoot design, the Su-34 'Fullback', which has a ground-scanning radar, much more weapon hardpoints and is designed solely as an attack aircraft - a bit like the A-10, but able to do basically the same job while retaining all the speed, versatility of firepower and manoeuvrability of a normal fighter jet. The Su-33 is an upgraded Su-30 that's been adapted for use aboard carriers with strengthened landing gear, a bigger airbrake, all that sort of thing.
I just had a quick look at the MiG-35, as well; evidently it's a way upgraded MiG-29 with an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar that's much more capable than any other radar currently in service with the Russian Air Force. There are also plans to upgrade the Sukhois with this radar as well, made possible by a very large aperture. As neither the Su-35 or the MiG-35 are stealthed (though they do claim to have 'reduced radar observability', mainly through the use of radar-observant paint) they are technically '4.5th generation' (as they have pretty much every other characteristic of a 5th generation fighter; the Su-35 even gets the ability to supercruise when upgraded with the AL-31F engines). The PAK-FA is the only true 5th generation fighter to be currently under development in Russia. We should get to see a flight test next year.

Edited by CommanderJB, 22 May 2008 - 00:07.

[Code Monkey]

I wasn't putting down russian engineering, I was just saying compared to the F-22 most existings MiGs can't compare. Only because the F-22 is a 5th gen, and is one of the most high-tech and sophisticated fighters out there.

Also @ JB: You're gonna have to back up that claim about you being the most knowledgeable about star wars, bud. ^_^

[CommanderJB]

Any time, any place. Bring it on - I'll be waiting. Hehehe.
Ahem.
Anyways, I know you weren't putting down Russian engineering (and I don't think ever suggested such; do you refer to Zaho's first post on this page?), which may be why I said

Quote

no-one is disrespecting Russian military engineering

.
And I do agree with you about the F-22, it's just irrelevant to this discussion because it's 5th generation. Basically the combination of stealth plus latest-gen AMRAAMs/BVRAAMs means it will win an engagement against any other aircraft unless somehow the opponent can close, in which case it will lose because it isn't invisible, just very hard to see, and is probably worse than half the planes on this list at dogfighting simply because it isn't designed to do so.

[Zaho]

I remember saying on discovery channel that stealth technology affects aircraft's combat ability. I have read in an article that Mig-35 has a painting that makes it invisible if not too close from radar (As JB said), however, NATO considers it a 5th generation aircraft. Sukhoi Su-47 is considered as a rival of F-22 because it is also stealthed.

F-22 is truly a masterpiece because it is first anounced 5th generation jet in the world and this cannot be taken from it, sorry about the sharp statements. Theoretically no jet can stand against the F-22, however, theoretically even Pearl Harbour could not be atacked and many other examples. Who knows, maybe an F-22 may get shot down even by an Mig-15. Russian and US avionics are always in a competition. Today I think is hard to deside which is the best of all planes, however, I'm sure it is not the F-22

[Waris]

Let's spice up this thread a bit!

Threats To US Air Supremacy, pt. 1
Threats To US Air Supremacy, pt. 2

I mostly agree with most of the points brought up there.

[Zaho]

NICE! It's good thing that the Americans admit that their F-15s are outdated. However, it's better that such advanced fighters don't meet in the air, cause modern warfare is threatened by nuclear devastation which is bad for everyone.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Zaho, on 23 May 2008, 9:07, said:

I remember saying on discovery channel that stealth technology affects aircraft's combat ability. I have read in an article that Mig-35 has a painting that makes it invisible if not too close from radar (As JB said), however, NATO considers it a 5th generation aircraft. Sukhoi Su-47 is considered as a rival of F-22 because it is also stealthed.

F-22 is truly a masterpiece because it is first anounced 5th generation jet in the world and this cannot be taken from it, sorry about the sharp statements. Theoretically no jet can stand against the F-22, however, theoretically even Pearl Harbour could not be atacked and many other examples. Who knows, maybe an F-22 may get shot down even by an Mig-15. Russian and US avionics are always in a competition. Today I think is hard to deside which is the best of all planes, however, I'm sure it is not the F-22

What do you mean theoretically Pearl Harbor couldn't be attacked?

What makes you so sure the F-22 is not the best?