75 replies to this topic

[Flying Tigers]

That plane is Good, If I wasn't wrong, My country trade rice for 4 of those from Russia

[Lucid]

i thought that the SU-37 wasn't in service yet.

[Flying Tigers]

maybe it wasn't su-37, I forgot

[Eddy01741]

Yay, we talk about the Su-37, which is the area in war machines that i excel in most. Well, for starters, lets see, one of them crashd, and the other was converted back into Su-35 configuration, which sucks. BUt anyways, not enough were made and they were never sold, they were more of a tech demonstrator, if you want something like a Su-37, get the Su-30MKI, BASICALLY a two seater Su-37.

[Flying Tigers]

I read in the magazine that there is a fighter plane for long distance with a kitchen behind the cockpit

[Alie]

i thought 37' weren't on the market....

Edited by ailestrikef36, 28 August 2006 - 04:10.

[Flying Tigers]

Trade Rice with only 4 sukhoi is not good (it's only 4 plane) if it's destroyed because of Indonesia bad maintenance and I'm the President than I'm going to scream "Tidaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak (Noooooooooooooooo)"

[Eddy01741]

Dark Star, on 27 Aug 2006, 23:39, said:

I read in the magazine that there is a fighter plane for long distance with a kitchen behind the cockpit

Thats the Su-32/34, it looks quite ugly, but it is a strike fighter, made for long range misions as well. Anyways, it's not the Su-37 PERIOD. It might be the Su-35 which looks basically identical but doesn't have TVC (and other small features).

[Flying Tigers]

I heard that the same kind has a bathroom/toilet

[BillyChaka]

Sweet. Mig 21 truly deserves that spot.

[Anti-U]

everytime ive seen a top 10 of aircraft the P51 always comes first,

anyways my top ten would be:

1. Su-37 "Terminator"
2. Mig 29
3. Eurofighter typhoon
4. S-37
5. Mig-144 (if they ever use it)
6. Mig 21
7. Tornado (GR4, F3)
8. Vulcan
9. Mig 25
10. Su 30

( and yes i play Ace Combat )

Edited by Anti-U, 02 October 2006 - 08:22.

[Eddy01741]

Anti-U, on 2 Oct 2006, 04:20, said:

everytime ive seen a top 10 of aircraft the P51 always comes first,

anyways my top ten would be:

1. Su-37 "Terminator"
2. Mig 29
3. Eurofighter typhoon
4. S-37
5. Mig-144 (if they ever use it)
6. Mig 21
7. Tornado (GR4, F3)
8. Vulcan
9. Mig 25
10. Su 30

( and yes i play Ace Combat )

Haha,another AC fan. I agree, Terminator at the top all the way. As well as no F-22 on top ten lol.

[Overdose]

Anti-U, on 2 Oct 2006, 05:20, said:

everytime ive seen a top 10 of aircraft the P51 always comes first,

anyways my top ten would be:

1. Su-37 "Terminator"
2. Mig 29
3. Eurofighter typhoon
4. S-37
5. Mig-144 (if they ever use it)
6. Mig 21
7. Tornado (GR4, F3)
8. Vulcan
9. Mig 25
10. Su 30

( and yes i play Ace Combat )

I agree completely with that list.

[DerKrieger]

My list of best modern military aircraft:
Fighters:
1. F-22A Raptor
2. Su-47 Berkut
3. F/A-35 Lightning II
4. EF-2000 Typhoon
5. Su-27 Flanker series
6. Dassault Rafael
7. F-14D Tomcat
8. F-15C Eagle
9. F-16 Viper series
10. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or JAS-39 Gripen
Bomber:
1. B-2A Spirit
2. B-1B Lancer
3. Tu-22M Backfire
4. B-52H Stratofortress
5. Tu-160 Blackjack
6. Tu-95 Bear
7. Tu-16/H-6 Badger
8. F-111 Aardvark
9. Tu-22 Blinder
10. British Aerospace Canberra or Il-16/H-5 Beagle

[Alias]

1. Spitfire.
2. Spitfire.
3. Spitfire.
4. Spitfire.
5. Spitfire.
6. Spitfire.
7. Spitfire.
8. Spitfire.
9. Spitfire.
10. Spitfire.

End of list. Spitfire is easily the greatest plane ever. If it weren't for these, Britian would likely be Nazi.

[Eddy01741]

To stir up a friendly debate, i'm gona argue with you Razgriz 1. First off, how is F-15C Eagle at #8 when it has a 100+:0 ratio of downed fighters? And the first four havn't been proved in combat period. F-22A has a squadron, but no combat, The berkut isn't going into service and is more of a tech demonstrator, the Lightning hasn't either, and the Typhoon has a number of training accidents so far and no combat record. As for bombers, although the B-1B Lancer is my favorite bomber probably, i don't think it deserves #2 (yes i actually admit my fave planes arn't neccesarily the best), i mean, it is good, but isn't great in any area imo, and i think B-52 should be one, for unsurpassed service length, and the fact that it is effective.

[DerKrieger]

Eddy01741, on 5 Oct 2006, 22:39, said:

To stir up a friendly debate, i'm gona argue with you Razgriz 1. First off, how is F-15C Eagle at #8 when it has a 100+:0 ratio of downed fighters? And the first four havn't been proved in combat period. F-22A has a squadron, but no combat, The berkut isn't going into service and is more of a tech demonstrator, the Lightning hasn't either, and the Typhoon has a number of training accidents so far and no combat record. As for bombers, although the B-1B Lancer is my favorite bomber probably, i don't think it deserves #2 (yes i actually admit my fave planes arn't neccesarily the best), i mean, it is good, but isn't great in any area imo, and i think B-52 should be one, for unsurpassed service length, and the fact that it is effective.

You make some good points- I considered making the B-52H number one due to it's high reliability (which is why they still are in service), but I decided to make the B-2A and the B-1B higher due to stealth for the former and speed and bomb load for the latter. I guess perhaps the B-52H should be number one.
As for the fighters, I heard that the Su-47 is a production aircraft that will be entering service in the Russian Air Force in 2012-India is also interested in buying. The F-22A and F-35C were placed above the F-15C and the F-16C because of technology and effectiveness- they are the successors of those two aircraft after all. Though probably not a real substitute for actual combat- in Nov. 2005, a squadron of eight F-22As was able to take down an 33 aircraft squadron composed of F-15Cs without even being detected. Computer tests vs. other aircraft have shown similar results- vs. a Su-30, the F-22 has a 10:1 kill ratio in it's favor!

[Anti-U]

*Puts on Professor glasses*
Grue i do believe you are wrong about the Spitfire, i am English (WAHOO!) but it is commonly mistaken that the Spitfire Saved the UK due to its AWSOM£ proformence when actually the Hurricane scored more Fighter and Bomber kills than the Spifire and thus aided us alot better in whooping nazi ass!




EDIT:
Oh and Razgriz 1 the Avro Vulcan is a far more superior bomber than any american bomber as it can carry a nuclear bomb yet at the same time out turn a fighter at high alt.
DELTA WING FTW!

Edited by Anti-U, 06 October 2006 - 19:48.

[Eddy01741]

Razgriz 1, on 5 Oct 2006, 21:29, said:

Eddy01741, on 5 Oct 2006, 22:39, said:

To stir up a friendly debate, i'm gona argue with you Razgriz 1. First off, how is F-15C Eagle at #8 when it has a 100+:0 ratio of downed fighters? And the first four havn't been proved in combat period. F-22A has a squadron, but no combat, The berkut isn't going into service and is more of a tech demonstrator, the Lightning hasn't either, and the Typhoon has a number of training accidents so far and no combat record. As for bombers, although the B-1B Lancer is my favorite bomber probably, i don't think it deserves #2 (yes i actually admit my fave planes arn't neccesarily the best), i mean, it is good, but isn't great in any area imo, and i think B-52 should be one, for unsurpassed service length, and the fact that it is effective.

You make some good points- I considered making the B-52H number one due to it's high reliability (which is why they still are in service), but I decided to make the B-2A and the B-1B higher due to stealth for the former and speed and bomb load for the latter. I guess perhaps the B-52H should be number one.
As for the fighters, I heard that the Su-47 is a production aircraft that will be entering service in the Russian Air Force in 2012-India is also interested in buying. The F-22A and F-35C were placed above the F-15C and the F-16C because of technology and effectiveness- they are the successors of those two aircraft after all. Though probably not a real substitute for actual combat- in Nov. 2005, a squadron of eight F-22As was able to take down an 33 aircraft squadron composed of F-15Cs without even being detected. Computer tests vs. other aircraft have shown similar results- vs. a Su-30, the F-22 has a 10:1 kill ratio in it's favor!

I agree with first stuff, but the Su-47 is NOT going into service at all. THey are making the PAK-FA, which is the equivelent of the IA-PVO which is now known as teh Su-27. Even lok at wikipedia, only very few were built, more of a tech demonstrator than a real fighter. Anyways, the F-35 is a multirole, replacing the F-16, the F-22 is replacing the F-15, but the fact is, there is no real combat stuff. I mean, in theory, it cantake down 10 Su-30s, and take on 5 eagles at teh same time (which makes absolutely no sense at all since a Su-30MKI beats out an eagle with ease). But it's not been tested in combat, and it's the most expensive fighter aircraft ever produced at i think 367 million dollars, you could get 12 Su-30MKIs for that price, and that is better than the 'stated' 10:1 on teh Su-30, and the Su-30MKI is more manuverable than a F-22.

[DerKrieger]

Anti-U, on 6 Oct 2006, 19:46, said:

EDIT:
Oh and Razgriz 1 the Avro Vulcan is a far more superior bomber than any american bomber as it can carry a nuclear bomb yet at the same time out turn a fighter at high alt.
DELTA WING FTW!

The B-2 Spirit is stealthy while the Vulcan is not; the B-1B is supersonic and carries a ton of bombs; the B-52H is very reliable; all can carry more bombs and have longer range. The Vulcan is damn maneuverable though!

Eddy01741, on 6 Oct 2006, 23:08, said:

I agree with first stuff, but the Su-47 is NOT going into service at all. THey are making the PAK-FA, which is the equivelent of the IA-PVO which is now known as teh Su-27. Even lok at wikipedia, only very few were built, more of a tech demonstrator than a real fighter. Anyways, the F-35 is a multirole, replacing the F-16, the F-22 is replacing the F-15, but the fact is, there is no real combat stuff. I mean, in theory, it cantake down 10 Su-30s, and take on 5 eagles at teh same time (which makes absolutely no sense at all since a Su-30MKI beats out an eagle with ease). But it's not been tested in combat, and it's the most expensive fighter aircraft ever produced at i think 367 million dollars, you could get 12 Su-30MKIs for that price, and that is better than the 'stated' 10:1 on teh Su-30, and the Su-30MKI is more manuverable than a F-22.

Well, here's more results: http://www.strategyp...aspx?comments=Y
http://www.af.mil/ne...oryID=123022371
108:1 kill ratio-damn!
The F-22 is stealthy (and is fast while doing so due to supercruise) and can take advantage of spy sattelites and other various sources for info and reconnaisance-the Su-30MK does not. This means that the F-22 will almost always get the first shot in. Maneuverability looks cool, but it's only really useful in close range combat (the F-22 is no slouch when it comes to maneuverability either). Secondly, the US has some of the best trained pilots in the world, and produces 40% of the world's GDP (not to mention that the F-22 smokes practically anything in the skies out there), so the numbers argument is moot. The 367 million dollars was in development costs- the real thing only costs about 125 million, and prices will go down as more are produced.

[Dauth]

@ Anti-U yes the Hurricane shot down more planes but the Spitfire was the symbol that the population got behind. As the UK is currently finding out, you cant win a war that the public doesnt identify with.

Every time you heard that merlin engine; every time you saw those oval wings some part of you thought we can do this.

Yes the spitfire was a bugger the first flight was a pig, the pilot said "I don't want anything touched" because it was so bad to fly, the prototype only flew at 335Mph until the props were altered and the tips managed to stop running into the sound barrier, speed 348Mph. On top of this the prototype had smooth rivets, real aircraft wouldn't so peas were cut in half and stuck to the plane, we lost over 22Mph, but if the rivets/peas were in straight lines this didnt happen. The Rolls Royce found out that they could point the echausts in such a way to increase thrust Speed now 380Mph.

The hot exhaust pipes caused the pilot to be blinded after dark but at 37000ft this didnt matter becuase the guns stopped working and froze up, until the plane landed and they thawed out and a single bump would set off a shot form all 8 Browning machine guns. The pilots all got "Spitfire Knuckle" from winding down the landing carriage by hand. But at the start of the battle of Britian we had a plane that could tak on the Nazi's and win.

Sicne then the Spitfire has been upgraded to be a fighter capable of 680Mph, a bomber, launched from an aircraft carrier, ground attack mud movers, photo recon planes and even tested against a RAF Mach 2 Lightning, while of course the Lightning could light up the afterburners and be home before the spit pilot had time to wind up his undercarraige in a twisty turned dogfight the spit would still pepper the advanced plane.

Im English and for sure the Spitfire is the best fighter plane ever

[Eddy01741]

Razgriz 1, on 13 Oct 2006, 20:15, said:

Anti-U, on 6 Oct 2006, 19:46, said:

EDIT:
Oh and Razgriz 1 the Avro Vulcan is a far more superior bomber than any american bomber as it can carry a nuclear bomb yet at the same time out turn a fighter at high alt.
DELTA WING FTW!

The B-2 Spirit is stealthy while the Vulcan is not; the B-1B is supersonic and carries a ton of bombs; the B-52H is very reliable; all can carry more bombs and have longer range. The Vulcan is damn maneuverable though!

Eddy01741, on 6 Oct 2006, 23:08, said:

I agree with first stuff, but the Su-47 is NOT going into service at all. THey are making the PAK-FA, which is the equivelent of the IA-PVO which is now known as teh Su-27. Even lok at wikipedia, only very few were built, more of a tech demonstrator than a real fighter. Anyways, the F-35 is a multirole, replacing the F-16, the F-22 is replacing the F-15, but the fact is, there is no real combat stuff. I mean, in theory, it cantake down 10 Su-30s, and take on 5 eagles at teh same time (which makes absolutely no sense at all since a Su-30MKI beats out an eagle with ease). But it's not been tested in combat, and it's the most expensive fighter aircraft ever produced at i think 367 million dollars, you could get 12 Su-30MKIs for that price, and that is better than the 'stated' 10:1 on teh Su-30, and the Su-30MKI is more manuverable than a F-22.

Well, here's more results: http://www.strategyp...aspx?comments=Y
http://www.af.mil/ne...oryID=123022371
108:1 kill ratio-damn!
The F-22 is stealthy (and is fast while doing so due to supercruise) and can take advantage of spy sattelites and other various sources for info and reconnaisance-the Su-30MK does not. This means that the F-22 will almost always get the first shot in. Maneuverability looks cool, but it's only really useful in close range combat (the F-22 is no slouch when it comes to maneuverability either). Secondly, the US has some of the best trained pilots in the world, and produces 40% of the world's GDP (not to mention that the F-22 smokes practically anything in the skies out there), so the numbers argument is moot. The 367 million dollars was in development costs- the real thing only costs about 125 million, and prices will go down as more are produced.

The thing is... the Raptor doesn't have enough missiles to kill 12 MKIs lmao... but then again, Raptor is more of a quality not quantty, while the MKi is the other way around, so it's also better for pilots, as a human life is more important than a plane, or it SHOULD be at least. BTW, the development cost was over 900 mil IIRC, and the raptor does cost 367mil a piece, why do you think Air force only wants like 100-200 of them? Anyways, the F-22 is manuverable, bt not as much as the MKI (think two seater Su-37), and India isn't exactly deficient in their air force. Prices arn't going down either, having engines that put out like 32,000 lb each fitted with thrust vectored nozzles and is capable of supercruise, neither is the raptors frame which is designed for stealthiness. Look, if Airforce already has 50 of them, and prices are still the same, they won't be going down anytime soon. 367 mil is nothing compared to the B-2, the B-2 is like 1 billion per each or so. Bottom line: F-22A can never be considered the best until it kills real enemies, and good enemies, just like why the Mustang is still over the Eagle as the Eagle desn't really go against Indian Su-30mks, just like Iraqi Mig-29s or anything. Mustangs were the best in their time because they went up against worthy opponents, and lots of them, and shot them down.

EDIT: Checking my resources, to develop the raptor, it cost 13.3billion, and the B-2 is 1.3 Billion per piece, not cheap indeed.

Edited by Eddy01741, 14 October 2006 - 19:04.

[BillyChaka]

A B2 costs a billion dollars? I''d like to see those sources of yours, Eddy.

[Whitey]

I read 2.2 billion dollars... from some site.

Edited by Switchblade, 14 October 2006 - 21:10.

[DerKrieger]

Eddy01741, on 14 Oct 2006, 19:01, said:

The thing is... the Raptor doesn't have enough missiles to kill 12 MKIs lmao... but then again, Raptor is more of a quality not quantty, while the MKi is the other way around, so it's also better for pilots, as a human life is more important than a plane, or it SHOULD be at least. BTW, the development cost was over 900 mil IIRC, and the raptor does cost 367mil a piece, why do you think Air force only wants like 100-200 of them? Anyways, the F-22 is manuverable, bt not as much as the MKI (think two seater Su-37), and India isn't exactly deficient in their air force. Prices arn't going down either, having engines that put out like 32,000 lb each fitted with thrust vectored nozzles and is capable of supercruise, neither is the raptors frame which is designed for stealthiness. Look, if Airforce already has 50 of them, and prices are still the same, they won't be going down anytime soon. 367 mil is nothing compared to the B-2, the B-2 is like 1 billion per each or so. Bottom line: F-22A can never be considered the best until it kills real enemies, and good enemies, just like why the Mustang is still over the Eagle as the Eagle desn't really go against Indian Su-30mks, just like Iraqi Mig-29s or anything. Mustangs were the best in their time because they went up against worthy opponents, and lots of them, and shot them down.

EDIT: Checking my resources, to develop the raptor, it cost 13.3billion, and the B-2 is 1.3 Billion per piece, not cheap indeed.

13.3 billion to DEVELOP the F-22-that has nothing to do with the per unit cost; if you read one of the articles ( http://www.af.mil/ne...oryID=123022371 ), the per unit cost is much, much lower- though the F-22 is still the most expensive fighter jet ever used. Prices will go down as more aircraft are built and the construction process is streamlined (the B-2 would have been much cheaper if the full production run of 135 aircraft had been made). The AF isn't terribly interested in buying large amounts of them as of now because none of our enemies have aircraft that are significantly better than the F-15/F-16 in any major quantity.