Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Garou Kuroryuu]

Most recent pic out there of YF-23 #2 shows the wings have been removed---that's not a minor operation, they would have had to have a good reason. 

That would be such an interesting move.

The USAF was looking for an "air-superiority" fighter, when the ATF contest was rised. The Raptor was designed specifically for that role (CAP, airspace control / dominance and dogfight-enabled). The Black Widow, on the other hand, was more interceptor oriented, for the what I know of its performance. Catch up on enemy aircraft undetected, fire from BVR (Beyond Visual Range), kill and run away undetected. Its airframe, speed, stealth features and weaponry were thought more on that scenario than what the Raptor is. There's also the money issue.

I think that the 23 could be revamped, and (perhaps) make it a more multirole capable fighter. It's main role would still be stealth interceptor, but I believe it could also perform excellent as a deep precision-attack plane to replace the F-117. They both share stealth features, plus the 23 could carry more armament (could replace the AIM-120 with GBU's, CBU's or MK-84), enter/leave the fighting area in less time due to a far higher speed and higher operation ceiling.

And it looks a lot cooler than both the Raptor or the Nighthwk Paint it in dark blue with yellow lines and we got ourselves a non-variable VF-22

EDIT:

Ha! Apollo Leader just beat me to the reply.

Is this the one that Northrop is allegedly converting into their "Strike Black Widow II" proposal?

Mmmm, guess my idea is not that far off, then. I would have made a good aeronauthical engineer after all.

(j/k)

Edited April 3, 2006 by Garou Kuroryuu

[Nied]

The YF-23 could make a pretty good bomber since it's PEZ dispenser weapons bays could more easily be adapted to carry heavy bombs than the F-22's shallow missile bay (ironically the YF-23's bay design was counted against it in the ATF competition, the AF worried about a hung missile rendering half the plane's war load useless). I thought I read somewhere that the most recent QDR proposed to get rid of the Regional Bomber project for which the FB-22, FB-23, and B-1R were being proposed.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Nied

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So I take it....

F-22 replaces F-15C's.

F-23RFB replaces F-15E's

JSF replaces F-16/F-1117's.

[Garou Kuroryuu]

So I take it....

F-22 replaces F-15C's.

F-23RFB replaces F-15E's

JSF replaces F-16/F-1117's.

387236[/snapback]

Yes, the Raptor would replace the F-15Cs as the front-line fighter for the USAF.

There's no official news on the 23 going into production in any way yet, that I know of. The F-15E Strike Eagles would still be the main attack aircraft, the F-117 being the "special-ops" precision-bomber of the USAF. My suggestion on making the 23 a dual-role aircraft (stealth interceptor / stealth deep precision-striker) was only theoretical. In my crazy idea, this could allow the 23 to replace both the Strike Eagle and the Nighthawk.

On the JSF :

- F-35A CTOL will replace USAF F-16 C / D and A-10s.

- F-35B STOVL will replace USMC's F/A-18s and AV-8B Harrier II STOVL fighters.

- F-35C CV (carrier variant) will replace all USN's F-14s and F/A-18 C / D variants, complementing the carrier air wing along the F/A-18E/Fs.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So I take it....

F-22 replaces F-15C's.

F-23RFB replaces F-15E's

JSF replaces F-16/F-1117's.

387236[/snapback]

Yes, the Raptor would replace the F-15Cs as the front-line fighter for the USAF.

There's no official news on the 23 going into production in any way yet, that I know of. The F-15E Strike Eagles would still be the main attack aircraft, the F-117 being the "special-ops" precision-bomber of the USAF. My suggestion on making the 23 a dual-role aircraft (stealth interceptor / stealth deep precision-striker) was only theoretical. In my crazy idea, this could allow the 23 to replace both the Strike Eagle and the Nighthawk.

On the JSF :

- F-35A CTOL will replace USAF F-16 C / D and A-10s.

- F-35B STOVL will replace USMC's F/A-18s and AV-8B Harrier II STOVL fighters.

- F-35C CV (carrier variant) will replace all USN's F-14s and F/A-18 C / D variants, complementing the carrier air wing along the F/A-18E/Fs.

387263[/snapback]

Oh I agree. I think the YF-23 would be more survivable than the F-15E since it can carry some a2a internally as not to compromise speed, and along with its stealth and speed, would be safer. Its already a lot more manueverable than the F-15E, so it could pretty much be a multirole fighter with high survivability and minimal compromises in regards to being multirole.

[Nied]

So I take it....

F-22 replaces F-15C's.

F-23RFB replaces F-15E's

JSF replaces F-16/F-1117's.

387236[/snapback]

Well since the regional bomber might get the axe no. It's actually more like this.

F-22A replaces F-15C

F-22A replaces F-117A (with new 1,000 lb penetrating warheads and a JDAM kit it can even take out bunkers now)

F-22A replaces F-15E in some missions in others the F-15E keeps up the good work

F-35A replaces F-16

F-35B replaces A-10

A decade later some new strike fighter (two seat F-22 with bulged doors? FB-23 derivative?) replaces the F-15E

[Coota0]

- F-35C CV (carrier variant) will replace all USN's F-14s and F/A-18 C / D variants, complementing the carrier air wing along the F/A-18E/Fs.

387263[/snapback]

Not quite the F-14s will be long gone before the F-35 comes into service, they will have been replaced by F/A-18E/Fs while the F-35 will replace the F/A-18C

[Phalanx]

You know what, to make the new age stealth fighters more versatile in terms of combat roles, I think that it would be best if the F-22, and the YF-23 be given the ability to hover instead of having have just the XF-35 be the only one to do so. Despite the fact that the F-22 is just an air superior fighter and the YF-23 would probably be a long range strike fighter/bomber if were to enter service, I think that it probably would be a good idea for them to have hover capabilites in the event that if it needs to be deployed and theres no runway or airstrip in anyform, whether it be a highway or drag racing track to take off from, the F-22 or YF-23 would be able to be deployed immediately like the AV-8B and the JSF can with their STOVAL or VTOL capabilites. Also, since the X-35 JSF is supposed to be used by the U.S ARMY, NAVY, MARINES and the British Royal AF, I think that this capability with the F-22 and YF-23 would perfectly complement the X-35 JSF as a suitable reinforcement for it or perhaps I may be wrong.

[Skull Leader]

Unless something unforseen happens, the Last Tomcat squadron (12 planes total) will never go on a cruise again. The last squadron will hit the boat this summer for carrier qualifications "just in case", but unless something major happens, I don't forsee much else. The F/A-18F was the Tomcat's replacement, not the JSF.

The F-15E mudhens will be around for a while yet. The Raptor, as it is, cannot carry anywhere near the bombload that the Strike Eagle can. The Strike Eagle is simply too good at what it does (and with new production airframes rolling off the lines for foreign countries now, a steady supply of spare parts is guaranteed for several more years).

An FB-23 would be interesting to see and would be a worthy successor to the F-15E Strike Eagle, but it's hard to say for certain what's happening with that. Dave's comment about the prototype being seen with it's wings off means they ARE doing something, but what that "something" is no one can verify just yet.

[Phalanx]

Hey, check this out about the Fighter/Bomber variant of the F-22

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...craft/fb-22.htm

I remember seeing this about 2 years ago when I first visited this site for jet pics and judging by the looks of it, the may be a very able medium bomber. It kinda reminds me of the V/B-22 Jagd Vogel VF that SK created in terms of it's design.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Phalanx

[Knight26]

Phalanx while your enthusiasm is appreciated you have some facts way off. First off you have to remember that when designing anything there are significant trade offs depending what you want to put on it. To make an F-22 or F-23 have VTOL capability would add thousands of pounds to the airframe in terms of new engines, additional fuel, controls, etc... And in the process you would lose much of the internal weapons storage and for what, a limited use capability? Plus remember all that extra weight means a slower less manueverable airframe. There is a reason why only the Marine and Royal Navy variants of the F-35 have VTOL capability, they are the only ones that want/need it. Truth be told VTOL is a very limited capability, the most promising type thus far would have to be the old X-Wing Concept, with the rotor that turns into the main wing. VTOL jets just tend to eat way too much fuel for very little practical payoff. Also the F-35 is not being marketed to the US Army, that would be illegal as it would take an act of Congress to allow the US Army to use fixed wing combat aircraft again. And, if that act of congress did pass trust me on this one the army would be much more likely to pick up the close air support role from the Air Force by buying up all their old A-10s, since the F-25 will have a very limited CAS capability.

[buddhafabio]

Any one think there is a chance of 1:18 f6f hellcat being produced?

[Phalanx]

Thanx for pointing that out Knight26. I must admit, when it comes to me making suggestions or recommendations for modifications of aircraft, I don't consider the downsides to doing so since I honestly take U.S military technology for granted. I just assume that since we have superior technology, I feel that we can make just about anything possible with todays aircraft. Also, about the AV-8B and JSF, because they only have a sufficeint amount of fuel that allows them to hover for about 90 seconds, that pretty much epitiomizes why they are lightweight and short according to British Aerospace with their Harrier in which they originally intended to make it fighter size but it's heavy weight didn't produce powerful thrust for hovering so they made it lighter with a shorter wingspan. However, I do feel that stealth aircraft should havethis capability because the Harrier and the JSF are perfect examples of what all fighter aircraft should do because not all fighters should be limited to just flying. Since aircraft can fly in general like birds and winged insects, I agree that aircraft should be able to mimic the flying abiliteis of birds and winged insects to hover as well. I know that this not feasible and there are extreme downsides to this but this was according to an expert aerospace historian that I saw on Top 10 Fighters on the Military channel.

[David Hingtgen]

Look at the production F-35. The thing was DESIGNED to be VTOL and they're having serious weight and structural strength problems. (It got fat, and they realized it's too weak---strengthening will only make it fatter, and I don't know if it'll ever be strong enough without removing the forward fuel tank)

PS---They have tried making "super fighters" with everything before. It turned out to be the F-111. Super bomber? That was the original concepts for the XB-70, which were so godawfully huge, complex, and expensive that the USAF seriously thought they were a joke, and asked where the REAL concept drawings were. You can't have everything.

You're not ever going to have a Mach 3 long-range highly agile VTOL stealth strategic air dominance fighter-bomber recon plane. Now matter WHAT they add to a Super Hornet.

[reddsun1]

Dang, this article's a bitter pill to swallow. Somewhat irrelevant, given the Eagle's imminent replacement. But still; IIRC there was a program on the Military Ch[?] on some of the greatest fighter designs ever. One of the speakers was one of the designers of the F-15 Eagle [forgot his name], and he didn't think too highly of "whiz-bang" high-tech designs like the Raptor/JSF/etc. Said something to the effect that it tries to "wear too many hats," and isn't really optimized for the parameters of fighting [energy mgmt, maneuvering, etc], thus it won't likely make a truly great dogfighter...anyways, on to the article.

"RUSSIAN FIGHTERS SUPERIOR, SAYS PENTAGON

MOSCOW, RIA Novosti's military analyst Viktor Litovkin

The American military amazed Moscow and the Russian media by saying that Russian-made fighter planes were superior to their American equivalents. How can these flattering revelations be explained?

General Hal M. Hornburg told USA Today that India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multi-role fighters have been successful against F-15 C/D Eagle aircraft in mock combat. In fact, the Indians won 90% of the mock combat missions.

USA Today reported: We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were, said Gen. Hal Hornburg, the chief of the Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings...The F-15Cs are the Air Force's primary air superiority aircraft...[and] the results of the exercise [were] wake up call.

The Inside the Air Force official newsletter also discussed the "Russian victory," and reported even more details. F-15 C/D Eagle fighters were pitted against not only Su-30 MKI fighters but also MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and even the older MiG-21 Bisons, which also performed well. The fighters not only defeated the F-15s but the French-made Mirage-2000 as well. According to the Washington ProFile Web site, the results of the exercises surprised the American pilots.

Meanwhile, Russian military experts and aircraft designers did not seem surprised by these victories. The Sukhoi general designer, Mikhail Simonov, has repeatedly told RIA Novosti and other news agencies the Su-27 Flanker and the Su-30 MKI, a modified version of the Flanker, which are now in service in the Indian Air Force, were developed in the 1980s in response to the F-15 Eagle. Moreover, Soviet designers had stipulated far superior specifications. Consequently, Russian experts were not particularly surprised that the performance of the fighters matched their specifications.

Why did an American general publicly admit this fact four months after the exercises?

India's Su-30 MKI fighters and F-15 C/D Eagles from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, engaged in mock combat exercises in February 2004. However, no one mentioned that India won three of the four exercises at the time.

Russian fighters first defeated their US rivals when Sukhoi and MiG fighters had just started being shown at international aerospace shows in the early 1990s. At that time, several Su-27 fighters, under the command of Maj.-Gen. Alexander Kharchevsky, the head of the Lipetsk center for retraining air force pilots, went to Canada to demonstrate their impressive potential. (President Vladimir Putin flew in a Su-27 to Chechnya.)

Instead of missiles and artillery shells, Russian and American fighter planes used aerial cameras to record their mock air-to-air battles. American fighters were disappointed to learn the results of exercise - their cameras had not captured any Su-27s. The Russians, however, had filmed their rivals' vulnerable points from just about every angle.

Russian pilots owed their impressive success to the Su-27's spectacular performance and its substantial thrust-to-weight ratio. The fighter's unsurpassed performance has already become well known throughout the world because no other fighter (except MiG fighters) can execute such impressive stunts as Pugachev's Cobra and others.

The F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 have wide turning radii. Russian fighters, on the other hand, can turn on a dime by merely switch on their afterburners.

Apart from in Canada, MiG-29 fighters also fought mock air battles with South Africa's Mirage-2000s. Again, the Russia planes defeated their enemies.

Chief designer Arkady Slobodskoi, the supervisor of the MiG-29 program, said, "if our plane is within range of an opponent and has a direct shot, the enemy can be considered destroyed. It only takes 5-6 machine gun bursts."

The United States, which is aware of the impressive combat potential of Russian fighters, had even purchased a squadron of MiG-29s from Moldova after the Soviet Union disintegrated. (That squadron was deployed at an airfield near Chisinau.) Germany, which had obtained a number of MiG-29s after reunification, helped repair the Moldovan fighters. Both Germany and the United States now use these aircraft to train their pilots, so that the pilots can cope with the 7,000 Russian fighters in the world. Britain's Military Balance magazine estimated that India had more than 500 Russian-made fighters. It was therefore not surprising that Indian pilots could defeat their American rivals, despite the U.S. Air Force's intensive combat-training programs.

On the other hand, American pilots have not confronted any serious adversaries for a long time. The U.S. Air Force dominated the skies over Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Iraqi planes were grounded during both campaigns. Therefore, mock combat is the only way to amass experience.

The long standing American Air Force mentality prevents its pilots from confronting their Russian counterparts because any possible setback would be detrimental to morale. An American Air Force pilot must be convinced that he can and must defeat the former "theoretical enemy." At the same time, these problems do not exist for mock combat exercises against Indian pilots because any defeats can be explained by inadequate training.

Why did the United States inform the world about its setbacks? Neither Russian, nor U.S. generals like to do this.

The explanation lies on the surface: The U.S. Congress discusses defense spending for the next fiscal year every June and therefore, top American military officials started talking about events in February 2004 now"

[reddsun1]

YA know in my old super thread, we barely mentioned beloved WW2 birds. 

As a relative newcomer in the 1/18 scale collecting community, I am thrilled that 21st and BBi still continue to pump out some 1/18 birds. 

What are your fav Ww2 fighters?  And for the sake of nostalgia...

ME-109 vs P-51

P-51 vs P-47

Spitfire vs Seafire

Corsair vs Hellcat

Discuss!  

oh yea...

Stuka vs Sturmovik...which was the more capable attacker?

and 21st just released their retooled P-51.....competition with BBI's P-51 is high...so far I have heard the dihedrehal on the 21st one is superior but the BBI one is still holding ground.

*Btw boys, 21stcenturytoys.com's AREA 51 fan club just announced that they will unveil the FIRST pics of their upcoming 1/18 MIG-15 and F-86 next weekend!*

387163[/snapback]

One of my fav warbirds is actually the P-40. Much maligned as "obsolescent" by historians, I still like these birds. I remember seeing a program hosted by the late Jeff Ethell [on Speedvision? or Discovery Wings?] once featuring the P-40; IIRC, he said it was actually much more maneuverable than people give it credit for, nearly as much so as the Zero. Hmm, __ vs __ eh? Well, I'll concede this is strictly subjective; the biggest factor always being the skill/training/experience of the pilot at the controls of the given plane....buuuut, here goes:

--ME 109 vs P-51: Mustang, easy--especially at higher alt's. Greater speed, greater agility [arguably], and range enough to loiter/fight longer. Plus, the P-51's heavier, had greater dive speed--German pilots couldn't dive away to escape the way they could against Spitfires

--P-51 vs P-47: depends on what you wanna do with it. For tough-as-nuts reliability, the "Jug" hands down. Stories of P-47 pilots coming home with glowing-hot chunks of engine [literally] flying out from under the cowl, yet still making it to base definitly inspire confidence in their toughness. Plus more firepower [8 guns as opposed to 6] P-51 on the other hand? One slug to the radiator, an' she'll bleed to death in a few minutes' time. If I were going after ground targets, I'd want the Jug; if going after airplanes, gimme a P-51

--Spit vs Seafire: dunno; don't know enough about the Seafire

--Corsair vs Hellcat: toss-up; probably the Hellcat. Weren't the Corsairs somewhat tricky/unforgiving to fly, or more specifically land? I think the Hellcat had a much higher kill ratio

Don't have anywhere near enough room/funds to collect 1:18 warbirds, but still think they're cool as h-ll. Almost as cool as Valkyries! Yup, I keep 21st Century Toys' w'site bookmarked myself...

Edited April 4, 2006 by reddsun1

[reddsun1]

Found this while surfing, some pretty neat viewing. It's an old WWII training film on flying the P-40. About 30-min long. Man, there's a helluva lot more to this business than just "stick and rudder," that's for sure...

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/realg2/P-40SS.ram

[Garou Kuroryuu]

Dang, this article's a bitter pill to swallow.  Somewhat irrelevant, given the Eagle's imminent replacement.  But still; IIRC there was a program on the Military Ch[?] on some of the greatest fighter designs ever.  One of the speakers was one of the designers of the F-15 Eagle [forgot his name], and he didn't think too highly of "whiz-bang" high-tech designs like the Raptor/JSF/etc.  Said something to the effect that it tries to "wear too many hats," and isn't really optimized for the parameters of fighting [energy mgmt, maneuvering, etc], thus it won't likely make a truly great dogfighter...anyways, on to the article. 

"RUSSIAN FIGHTERS SUPERIOR, SAYS PENTAGON

I'm not surprised at all of the events the article relates.

Russian (former Soviert) fighter planes have been specifically designed for dogfight, particularly the Su-27 Flanker and its variants and derivations (30, 33, 35 and 37). What has always being criticized in Russian fighters (and for good reason) is the lack or scarse presence of top-of-the-line sensors, digital controls and displays. This, however, have little effect in dogfight. And even this might be changing. The Su-47 is a lot closer to American fighter planes in terms of digital controls, sensors and semi-stealth features, and it's even considered the direct Russian counterpart to the Raptor, even if it still in a development phase. Plus it has what is perhaps the best manuverability performance of any existing fighter in the world.

American fighters from the 18 and ahead, on the other hand, were designed more for VBR fighting, depending mostly on medium-long range radars and medium range air-to-air missiles (AIM-120), expecting to kill the enemy before any potential counter-attack. When the Raptor was on development, and rumor went out from time to time about it, there was some documented rumors that it would not include an internal machine gun, since it would completely depend on medium-range AA missiles for anti-aircraft combat, and no dogfight capability would be needed. Good the designers changed their mind.

@Skull Leader:

Thanks for clarifiying the info on the F-14 status.

I thought there were still a couple of squadrons flying the Valk..... errrr, the Tomcat, I mean

Edited April 4, 2006 by Garou Kuroryuu

[Skull Leader]

Dang, this article's a bitter pill to swallow.  Somewhat irrelevant, given the Eagle's imminent replacement.  But still; IIRC there was a program on the Military Ch[?] on some of the greatest fighter designs ever.  One of the speakers was one of the designers of the F-15 Eagle [forgot his name], and he didn't think too highly of "whiz-bang" high-tech designs like the Raptor/JSF/etc.  Said something to the effect that it tries to "wear too many hats," and isn't really optimized for the parameters of fighting [energy mgmt, maneuvering, etc], thus it won't likely make a truly great dogfighter...anyways, on to the article. 

387357[/snapback]

(time for a little armchair fighter comment or two)

A Flanker (pretty much any variant) in the right hands is very much an aircraft to be feared. US aircraft may have a slight edge up on radar technology, but unless I'm mistaken, one or two RU missiles outrange our own. Take into account really souped-up flankers like the Indian Su-30MkI, and you REALLY would have to be on top of your game to come out on top. It's not to say that we couldn't engage flankers and win, but that in many cases, they're very much our equal.

Switching channels to the V/STOL conversation...

David, wasn't it discovered that the VTOL version of the F-35 couldn't even take off? I'm not aware that there is currently a functioning prototype of the VTOL version.

[Skull Leader]

I'm not surprised at all of the events the article relates.

Russian (former Soviert) fighter planes have been specifically designed for dogfight, particularly the Su-27 Flanker and its variants and derivations (30, 33, 35 and 37). What has always being criticized in Russian fighters (and for good reason) is the lack or scarse presence of top-of-the-line sensors, digital controls and displays. This, however, have little effect in dogfight. And even this might be changing. The Su-47 is a lot closer to American fighter planes in terms of digital controls, sensors and semi-stealth features, and it's even considered the direct Russian counterpart to the Raptor, even if it still in a development phase. Plus it has what is perhaps the best manuverability performance of any existing fighter in the world.

@Skull Leader:

Thanks for clarifiying the info on the F-14 status.

I thought there were still a couple of squadrons flying the Valk..... errrr, the Tomcat, I mean

387373[/snapback]

No problem. As I said, there STILL is one squadron left (VF-31 "Tomcatters". The VF-213 "Black Lions" have already stood down and have begun their training on Super Hornets). They have a stateside "readiness" deployment this summer (probably out at El-Centro in the desert). I'll be at NAS Oceana in september photographing the last of the tomcats during the Tomcat Sunset ceremony.

Just to comment on your flanker info (you may or may not know, hence my reason for stating), the Su-37 and 47 are no more. The only Su-37 prototype was reverted to Su-35 standards and later crashed. The Su-47 Berkut was simply a proof of concept/technology demonstrator, Sukhoi had no intentions of mass producing it. Finally, the only Su-35s still in existence are all going to the "Russian Knights" (Russia's Flanker flight demonstration team). No Su-35,37, or 47 is fielded operationally and so far as I know, only the Su-35 *might* at some point in the distant future. The most advanced flankers in field service are probably the Russian's Su-33s (used to be Su-27K) naval flankers and India's Su-30MkIs.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Skull Leader

[Knight26]

Actually SL the prototype F-35B can take off and land in hover, but not a full fuel or with weapons. Of course the current harrier can't take off vertically with a full weapons and fuel load either, it has to take a running jump. Several friends of mine work on the JSF and cutting weight has been a major deal, bonuses are paid out by the pound to engineers to who can reduce weight, major bonuses. At one point there was a joke going around that all they had to do was get rid of the weapons, since the RFP for the JSF did not specifically call them out. In the end the most successful variants will probably be the A and C models, since they won't have to deal with the extra engine and associated hardware and weights. But it all boils down to one thing, the JSF is just an F-117 that can carry weapons to defend itself, plain and simple. It can't carry the warload to replace the F-16 or F-18 and doesn't have the punch to replace the A-10. Plus only the B model has any form of thrust vectoring, and that is just the hover mode. When pretty much everyone else out there is making their new fighters thrust vectoring you have to wonder what the US is thinking. There is an axiom amongst missile designers, no missile can hit a thrust vectoring airplane, it takes several. So here we are sending out a fighter that can only carry two AMRAAMs and maybe a gun, A model, and you expect it to successfully engage a thrust vectoring target that can carry a half dozen or more A-A missiles?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Any one think there is a chance of 1:18 f6f hellcat  being produced?

387347[/snapback]

YES, BBI showed off a prototype at fall toyfair last year. They kind of dodge questions on it but the prototype was there.

[Skull Leader]

Actually SL the prototype F-35B can take off and land in hover, but not a full fuel or with weapons. 

387379[/snapback]

I stand corrected... either way, it's still useless as it stands right now . I'm only so-so on the non-VTOL versions, and the VTOL variant FAILS.

[Lynx7725]

What are your fav Ww2 fighters?  And for the sake of nostalgia...

ME-109 vs P-51

P-51 vs P-47

Spitfire vs Seafire

Corsair vs Hellcat

Discuss! 

oh yea...

Stuka vs Sturmovik...which was the more capable attacker?

387163[/snapback]

Bear in mind I've only flown some of these in commerical PC simulators, so my experience is only from these..

In general, I dislike European fighters. A lot of them are speed demons but hellishly difficult to pull around. I prefer fast planes that are fairly agile, and a lot of the late war fighters in Europe are just bricks with rockets as far as agility is concerned.

The BF-109 -- if memory serves they retain the BF designation -- is a tricky bird to fly, and more importantly, to land. Its armament was extremely limited, and as such had a hard time in the late war. Load it with external gun packs and it becomes as bad as the bombers it's trying to shoot down. The Dora-9 was a lot more forgiving and fun to fly.

The P-51, good speed, fair agility. Ok as things goes but as noted, somewhat fragile.

The P-47: the flying brick. Fall out of the sky like one, so-so as dogfighting goes. It's definitely nice to have that much firepower, but still...

The Spitfire, quite ok, but I prefer the Typhoon or Tempest though. Again, the emphasis on European designs is speed not agility, so I had some issues with the Spit.

Can't recall if I flew the Hellcat, but I love the Corsair. It's a sweet bird, Torque's a killer on take-off (especially the later versions) but once in the air it is quite powerful and actually fairly agile. It can't turn with a Zero in low speed, but it can dive and zoom away well enough to turn and re-engage. It's a fairly deadly fighter with good armament.

[Noyhauser]

Dang, this article's a bitter pill to swallow.  Somewhat irrelevant, given the Eagle's imminent replacement.  But still; IIRC there was a program on the Military Ch[?] on some of the greatest fighter designs ever.  One of the speakers was one of the designers of the F-15 Eagle [forgot his name], and he didn't think too highly of "whiz-bang" high-tech designs like the Raptor/JSF/etc.  Said something to the effect that it tries to "wear too many hats," and isn't really optimized for the parameters of fighting [energy mgmt, maneuvering, etc], thus it won't likely make a truly great dogfighter...anyways, on to the article. 

"RUSSIAN FIGHTERS SUPERIOR, SAYS PENTAGON

387357[/snapback]

I'm waiting for someone to post about the actual nature of these simulations, and how uneven it was for the US pilots.

In general, I dislike European fighters. A lot of them are speed demons but hellishly difficult to pull around. I prefer fast planes that are fairly agile, and a lot of the late war fighters in Europe are just bricks with rockets as far as agility is concerned.

Also I wouldn't say that All European Planes were intended as speed demons. Many British fighters (like the Mark XII spitfire) were designed to be more maneoverable. Maybe David can make sense of,this site although I can't find anything on wing loading (though there are figures about wing area and weight)

Personally I'd probably give it to a late model spitfire... maybe a Mark XIV? On the basis of the pure looks though, I'd give it to this.

edit: forgot link.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Noyhauser

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I'd bet that 'loss' to the Indian Air Force was purely designed to get more F-22 money from Congress.

As for the Bf-109, I never flew them things but looking at it, its pretty antiquated by late ww2 standards. The streamlining was really primitive by late-war standards. It only kept pace by hot-rodding itself with bigger engines. And the armament was also bad by late war standards. As for those wing gun tubs, all indications show that the German pilots hated them due to the performance penalties they imposed.

[Phalanx]

[Russian (former Soviert) fighter planes have been specifically designed for dogfight, particularly the Su-27 Flanker and its variants and derivations (30, 33, 35 and 37). What has always being criticized in Russian fighters (and for good reason) is the lack or scarse presence of top-of-the-line sensors, digital controls and displays. This, however, have little effect in dogfight. And even this might be changing. The Su-47 is a lot closer to American fighter planes in terms of digital controls, sensors and semi-stealth features, and it's even considered the direct Russian counterpart to the Raptor, even if it still in a development phase. Plus it has what is perhaps the best manuverability performance of any existing fighter in the world.

387373[/snapback]

What also helps make the Flanker including all of it's variants able dogfighters

and the Mig-29 and Mig-33 as well is their special helmet mounted targeting system(I think German, Russian, adnUkrainian variants are the only one's that have this) in which the pilot just has to jerk his head in the position of the enemy fighter just to achieve a lock on opposed to American and European(I think) aircraft that require the pilot to line up the nose of their aircraft just to obtain a solid lock on. Sure I'll admit Russia has superior fighters but they don't have suitable multi-role capabilities just like American and European fighters. The only Russian fighter that has this is the Su-34 Platypus which serves as a fighter/bomber as well as the Su-30MKII Zhuravlik. The Flankers and Fulcrum have may have a more sleeker look to them but in terms of design, there's not much variation since they are just mere updates of original models. (It's aslo worth noting that the Su-33 is my favorite Flanker variant) The Su-47 is Russia's first sewpt forward three surface wing design and boasts far more maneuvaribilty than the Raptor I think that it strongly has something to do with it having lateral 3-d thrust vectoring nozzles opposed to the Raptor's 2-D vertical vectoring. I also believe that MIG-1.44 may be a complementing fighter to the Su-47 since it boasts identical capabilities. I aslo believe that the mysterious MIG-37 Ferret may not enter service at all.

European fighters don't have much of a fear factor in terms of design but the only fighter that I'm feeling is the Rafale since it looks more sleeker than EFA2000 Eurofighter Typhoon. As for Sweden's JAS-39 Gripen, I'm not fond of it's design and I wish that the Saab Viggen was updated with avionics to compete against comtemporary fighters but I think that the plane is long retired from service.

Edited April 4, 2006 by Phalanx

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

[Russian (former Soviert) fighter planes have been specifically designed for dogfight, particularly the Su-27 Flanker and its variants and derivations (30, 33, 35 and 37). What has always being criticized in Russian fighters (and for good reason) is the lack or scarse presence of top-of-the-line sensors, digital controls and displays. This, however, have little effect in dogfight. And even this might be changing. The Su-47 is a lot closer to American fighter planes in terms of digital controls, sensors and semi-stealth features, and it's even considered the direct Russian counterpart to the Raptor, even if it still in a development phase. Plus it has what is perhaps the best manuverability performance of any existing fighter in the world.

387373[/snapback]

What also helps make the Flanker including all of it's variants able dogfighters

and the Mig-29 and Mig-33 as well is their special helmet mounted targeting system(I think German, Russian, adnUkrainian variants are the only one's that have this) in which the pilot just has to jerk his head in the position of the enemy fighter just to achieve a lock on opposed to American and European(I think) aircraft that require the pilot to line up the nose of their aircraft just to obtain a solid lock on. Sure I'll admit Russia has superior fighters but they don't have suitable multi-role capabilities just like American and European fighters. The only Russian fighter that has this is the Su-34 Platypus which serves as a fighter/bomber as well as the Su-30MKII Zhuravlik. The Flankers and Fulcrum have may have a more sleeker look to them but in terms of design, there's not much variation since they are just mere updates of original models. (It's aslo worth noting that the Su-33 is my favorite Flanker variant) The Su-47 is Russia's first sewpt forward three surface wing design and boasts far more maneuvaribilty than the Raptor I think that it strongly has something to do with it having lateral 3-d thrust vectoring nozzles opposed to the Raptor's 2-D vertical vectoring. I also believe that MIG-1.44 may be a complementing fighter to the Su-47 since it boasts identical capabilities. I aslo believe that the mysterious MIG-37 Ferret may not enter service at all.

European fighters don't have much of a fear factor in terms of design but the only fighter that I'm feeling is the Rafale since it looks more sleeker than EFA2000 Eurofighter Typhoon. As for Sweden's JAS-39 Gripen, I'm not fond of it's design and I wish that the Saab Viggen was updated with avionics to compete against comtemporary fighters but I think that the plane is long retired from service.

387517[/snapback]

MIG-37 was just a concept painted by an artists back in the 80s. SU-47 won't even see production, its just a tech demonstrator. MIG 1.44 won't come out, MIG/Sukhoi are working on a new 5th generation fighter.

And Noyhauser I saw the stats on the whole US/India engagement...the Indians held the advantage the whole time with engagements and radar and all that really catering to their side. The US was put at a severe disadvantage, but barely any of the press even mentions it. IN other words the fight was NOT FAIR AT ALL. Just goes to show how far the media will go to make the US look bad.

I wouldnt at all be surprised if this was to gouge more money for the F-22 though.

[Phalanx]

Shin, quick question, did U.S Today mention anything about the dogfighting exercises taking place at "Red Flag" Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, Nevada because that's the only known place in the U.S where they conduct air combat exercises with pilots from around the globe. If it did, I would have assumed that the U.S should have the home field advantage against the Indians and their Su-30MK1.

[Guest Bromgrev]

What are your fav Ww2 fighters?  And for the sake of nostalgia...

387163[/snapback]

What? No mention of the Focke-Wulf 190? Not my favourite, though, on sheer prettyness (in a mean kind of way) I'd have to go for the Bf109E.

In general, I dislike European fighters. A lot of them are speed demons but hellishly difficult to pull around. I prefer fast planes that are fairly agile, and a lot of the late war fighters in Europe are just bricks with rockets as far as agility is concerned.

Unfortunately, that's the way things were going by late WWII - speed and firepower counted for a lot more than manoeuverability. Hence the ME262 (Ooh, another beauty). I much prefer the early stuff, even slightly pre-war, like Spitfire Mk.1a, Bf109D, P40.

The BF-109 -- if memory serves they retain the BF designation

387462[/snapback]

IIRC they were only Bf (small 'f') up to the Bf109F, after that they were ME.

As for the Bf-109, I never flew them things but looking at it, its pretty antiquated by late ww2 standards.

387508[/snapback]

Much as I hate to admit it, most would agree that the ME109 should have been replaced by the FW190 by 1941. The Bf109 and the Spitfire started the war on fairly equal terms, but the Spitfire turned out to have a lot more upgradability as time went on.

Now then, about bigger stuff:

Beaufighter? ME110? Lightning?

[kalvasflam]

I wonder how well Flankers will stack up against the -22s. One has to remember that the -15s were conceived and developed in the 70s, and as was pointed out the Fulcrums and Flankers were both designed specifically to fight against these threats. But how has much the situation changed in the past 20 years. The question is really, how relevant is it to have the best dogfighter these days.

After all, aerial combat has evolved over time. While the focus is still centered around identifying the other guy and then achieving firing position first, things have changed quite a bit in 100 years. Through WWI and most of WWII, aerial dogfights were conducted visually, the guy with the better eyeball and faster reflex won. Toward the middle of WWII, radar became important in vectoring planes out to the right places so that pilots could find their enemies... hopefully completely defenseless bombers, but reflex and eyeball still counted for a lot. It really wasn't until the 60s when BVR engagements became possible. Even then, people went through dogfights a lot, because the weapon systems were just not that reliable to always achieve BVR kills. Then a further refinement of in the 70s and 80s evolved combat aircraft into managed systems where their actions more often than not (especially in the case of the US) involved management by airborne radar. At which point, BVR engagements became much more realistic. Meaning, good eye sight didn't mean as much as it used to, same with reflexes.

The next evolution of this though is the introduction of stealth, it's kind of hard to kill a guy if your sensors can't see him that well. Oh, there is still a tendency to think about dogfights as a necessity, and well, no one wants to be caught flatfooted, after all, if a mig-21 happens to catch an F-117 in visual range, the latter can't really dogfight very well. It was one of the supposed reason why the YF-23 lost out to the YF-22. The former focused more on stealth and BVR engagements, while the latter was supposed to be more balanced with a better ability to engage in dogfights.

The point I'm making is in the eyes of the Americans at least, aerial combat is graudally shifting away from dogfights and moving further into the realm of BVR engagements and taking some of the human factor such as ability to withstand G forces out of the equation. Yes, a couple of cannon bursts could destroy a -15 or any other modern combat aircraft with exception of may be the A-10 and the SU-25. I have to wonder how relevant that comment will be in the next 30 years or so. No doubt, it will still happen on occasion, but it will likely be the exception. And now, with advent of UCAVs, I wonder how long it will be before human driven fighters become obsoleted. After all, a human will become pulp long before a machine experience a similar failure.

Edited April 4, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I wonder how well Flankers will stack up against the -22s.  One has to remember that the -15s were conceived and developed in the 70s, and as was pointed out the Fulcrums and Flankers were both designed specifically to fight against these threats.  But how has much the situation changed in the past 20 years.  The question is really, how relevant is it to have the best dogfighter these days.

After all, aerial combat has evolved over time.  While the focus is still centered around identifying the other guy and then achieving firing position first, things have changed quite a bit in 100 years.  Through WWI and most of WWII, aerial dogfights were conducted visually, the guy with the better eyeball and faster reflex won.  Toward the middle of WWII, radar became important in vectoring planes out to the right places so that pilots could find their enemies... hopefully completely defenseless bombers, but reflex and eyeball still counted for a lot.  It really wasn't until the 60s when BVR engagements became possible.  Even then, people went through dogfights a lot, because the weapon systems were just not that reliable to always achieve BVR kills.  Then a further refinement of in the 70s and 80s evolved combat aircraft into managed systems where their actions more often than not (especially in the case of the US) involved management by airborne radar.  At which point, BVR engagements became much more realistic.  Meaning, good eye sight didn't mean as much as it used to, same with reflexes.

The next evolution of this though is the introduction of stealth, it's kind of hard to kill a guy if your sensors can't see him that well.  Oh, there is still a tendency to think about dogfights as a necessity, and well, no one wants to be caught flatfooted, after all, if a mig-21 happens to catch an F-117 in visual range, the latter can't really dogfight very well.  It was one of the supposed reason why the YF-23 lost out to the YF-22.  The former focused more on stealth and BVR engagements, while the latter was supposed to be more balanced with a better ability to engage in dogfights. 

The point I'm making is in the eyes of the Americans at least, aerial combat is graudally shifting away from dogfights and moving further into the realm of BVR engagements and taking some of the human factor such as ability to withstand G forces out of the equation.  Yes, a couple of cannon bursts could destroy a -15 or any other modern combat aircraft with exception of may be the A-10 and the SU-25.  I have to wonder how relevant that comment will be in the next 30 years or so.  No doubt, it will still happen on occasion, but it will likely be the exception.  And now, with advent of UCAVs, I wonder how long it will be before human driven fighters become obsoleted.  After all, a human will become pulp long before a machine experience a similar failure.

387543[/snapback]

True but advanced technology was around in vietnam and still dogfighting skills and guns were just as important there as they were in Korea. I believe that no matter how advanced technology gets, fighter pilots should still be prepared to fight in the booth so to speak and have guns even if its 'just in case". History shows that unexpected threats will come out of nowhere and what we thought was not needed long ago in favor of new stuff, will once again be needed.

[Garou Kuroryuu]

The next evolution of this though is the introduction of stealth, it's kind of hard to kill a guy if your sensors can't see him that well.  Oh, there is still a tendency to think about dogfights as a necessity, and well, no one wants to be caught flatfooted, after all, if a mig-21 happens to catch an F-117 in visual range, the latter can't really dogfight very well.  It was one of the supposed reason why the YF-23 lost out to the YF-22.  The former focused more on stealth and BVR engagements, while the latter was supposed to be more balanced with a better ability to engage in dogfights. 

I agree. It's a paradigm change that the USAF is foreseing and pushing forward.

Hoever, even with the upgrades of missile tech, there's also the fact that countermeasures and higher-manuverability makes a fighter harder to be shot down from afar, at least speaking of closely similar planes (same generation).

I agree that trying to achieve VBR kill will be first rule in the book for every pilot in following years, but ending up in short-range (1-10 mi) fighting will still be present, in my opinion.

EDIT:

Ha!, Shin beat to the reply

Edited April 4, 2006 by Garou Kuroryuu

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Shin, quick question, did U.S Today mention anything about the dogfighting exercises taking place at "Red Flag" Nellis AFB in Las Vegas, Nevada because that's the only known place in the U.S where they conduct air combat exercises with pilots from around the globe. If it did, I would have assumed that the U.S should have the home field advantage against the Indians and their Su-30MK1.

387525[/snapback]

From what I recall it was in India. It wasn't even about Indians having the homefield advantage, they had numerical superiority and BVR superiority as well. They were not as limited as the Americans were. IT wasn't an even playing field no matter how you look at it. IF it WAS on even terms I have no doubt in my mind that the US would have called a lot of the shots and won a lot of the battles. If anything the way the media portrays it helps both countries as a propaganda tool....

1-Makes Sukhoi look good in the eyes of potential customers

2-Makes the F-22 increasingly important especially in the eyes of paranoid politicians(this is not to say that it is not needed but when programs need more money just about every trick in the book/urban legend just about works).

And I did hear at one point that the Mustang was inferior to the Lightning and that the Lightning did okay in the pacific but horrible in Europe. Thoughts?

[Warmaker]

As a Marine Hornet maintainer and after seeing the USAF go for the -22 variants as well as the JSF... is the USN getting a new fighter? Or is everything banking on the success of the JSF?

From what I've gathered, the USN is getting:

The JSF

Super Hornets (E/F/G-Growler) - I always saw this as an "interim" fix.

Side story: I recall from a couple years ago, when the Super Hornet was just hitting the Fleet, a Sailor buddy of mine. He was an Electrician for the weary E/A-6B Prowlers and he had alot of pride in them despite the intensive maintenance actions.

I was looking at some Naval Aviation news periodicals and I told him, "Hey, they're going to replace your beloved Prowlers with Super Hornets."

He goes, "No f*****g way, man. No jet in the US does the job of the Prowlers anymore! No one carries our pods either!"

I go, "Oh really?" and flip the magazine over to show a promotional picture of an E/A-18G Growler, flying with what looked like the same pods the Prowler did.

He replied with, "Hey... that's B*****it, man!"

Edited April 4, 2006 by Warmaker