Aircraft VS super thread!

[Mislovrit]

Anyone know how a gripen would fare against the previously mentioned...I definitely like its look...

Iirc the Gripens are suppose to be great at defending but are a bit short-legged without mid-air refueling.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

from my reading today the YF17 was also the FIRST jet in history or fighter plane to break mach 1 without afterburner. IS F-18L just or was just an YF17 modified for dual role?

anyhoo F-8 will always be the best DOGFIGHTER compared to the F-4. F-8 can't take on the F-4 in terms of interception and overall long range fleet defense. But the F-4 at the same time cannot perform the role of the F-8 as well as the F-8-close in dogfighting. Sure the F-4 has a high ass kill ratio but to say its better in dogfighting than the F-8 is like saying the F-14 is can dogfight like the F-16, which it cant. THe israeli's and many other countries never used F-8s, most countries used the F-4 and I am sure dogfighitng was not one of its purpoted strngths, the F-4S and E models have slats to improve manueverability but in no way does it make it a dedicated knifefighter....the reason the israeli's and most fighter crews haul;ed ass with it is because of good fighter training and ACM. The whole draw of the F-4 was that it was big and could do multirole easily.....the F-8 is mainly just good for assisting in CAS and the main reason, is dogfighting as it was meant since inception to dogfight. It is not multirole to an extent. THe F-4 was multirole and could haul some windersr and sparrows in addition to a huge ass bomb load. It is not fair to say the F-4 has a higher kill ratio than teh F-8 overall when for one thing the F-8 was not used by nearly as many countries as the F-4. I can only thinkg of 3 right now, my homeland(philippines), USA and france. Maybe portugal but I bet I am wrong. Phantom is used by or was by USA, japan, saudi arabia, iran, israel, greece, germany, south korea, and possibly more countries. OF these countries, USA, saudi arabia and israel have all drawn blood with teh phantom. Crusader has only drawn blood with the USA. So its not fair to say it is a better fighter on kill ratio alone. Like I said crusader is better close in phonebooth while phantom is best high speed interception and fleet defense. THey are good at what they are both made to do NOT vice versa.

[ewilen]

This page gives a US Navy ratio from 1972 on as 12.5:1, but it doesn't break it down by type of aircraft.

This page states that Phantoms achieved a 6:1 ratio during Operation Linebacker but it's not clear to me if that includes a mix of USAF and Navy statistics, or just USAF.

Ah, just found a great source--assuming it's accurate:

US Air-Air losses in the Vietnam War

US Air-Air victories in the Vietnam War

Now I just need to get it into a spreadsheet and do some database operations.

[David Hingtgen]

The N-156F (F-5 prototype) exceeded Mach 1 on its first flight. And it didn't even HAVE afterburners. And that was long before the YF-17 existed. Northrop makes sleek planes, it's that simple. Most Northrop jets can supercruise if they're not weighed down with too many weapons and drop tanks. Nobody's surprised the YF-23 was much faster than the YF-22, especially when supercruising.

The F-18L is basically an F/A-18 without the carrier-specific equipment. But it's more an F-18 than a YF-17. None were ever actually made.

[ewilen]

Shin, the whole purpose of using kill ratios instead of sheer numbers is to control for the fact that one aircraft got more use than the other. Yes, the Phantoms had more victories because they were more widely used; for the same reason, they had more losses.

The purpose of air-air combat isn't dogfighting. It's knocking the other guy out of the sky and protecting other assets. (I.e., protecting ships, bases, cities from bombers and their escorts, or protecting bombers and recon craft from enemy fighters.) If you can do that without getting into a turning fight, you've done your job.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

oh ok. No wonder the L loooked bigger than the 17, nonetheless the picture I saw had the cobra packing some SERIOUS heat. HOly crap. What a beautiful bird!

ON the phantom and sader issue. It is often said that the supercrusader was a much better plane than the phantom and reportedly could out speed it, however it was single engine and thus the phantom won the competition to be the next premiere fighter. Phantom was also chosen on the basis that ACM was dead and wouldnt be in dogfights. So with that in mind in the hands of a good pilot anything can happen as long as the pilot knows what hes doing but the phantom was just never meant to be a dogfighter. The best phantom to dogfight would be the canard laden super phantom that the Airforce made(not the israeli kurnass and others).

Its still not a fiar comparison of kill ratios of the phantom and sader....by the late 60s most squadrons were transitioning to the F-4 from the sader or were already flying the phantom, in otherwords, the majority of the navy fighters in viewtnam were phantoms and not crusaders. If there were equal amount of squadrons using crusaders in vietnam around that time then it would be more fair but its not the case, by the late 60s the crusader squadrons were already outnnumbered by phantom suqadrons. Add to that the israeli war of attrition and other countries using the phantom later...MUCH more compared to the handful of sader users, and you have a high kill ratio that the crusader could never match due to lack of use and CUSTOMERS.

Close in i would use a crusader. chin nad cheek with a bomber id kill his ass with a phantom. If the mission was multirole strategic strike id use a phantom. F-8 was better in dogfighting. Phantom was better at interception. in overall capability the F-4 was better but in dogfighting it was not. not to mention the F-8 rocked ass anyways. gilchrist describes it as the hot rod of fighter planes. And damn I feel dumb for not buying his book on it.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Shin, the whole purpose of using kill ratios instead of sheer numbers is to control for the fact that one aircraft got more use than the other. Yes, the Phantoms had more victories because they were more widely used; for the same reason, they had more losses.

The purpose of air-air combat isn't dogfighting. It's knocking the other guy out of the sky and protecting other assets. (I.e., protecting ships, bases, cities from bombers and their escorts, or protecting bombers and recon craft from enemy fighters.) If you can do that without getting into a turning fight, you've done your job.

I tend to think that A2A is simply who wins in the sky.Air supremacy is not dictated upon who enters the dogfight or who misses the long range intercept, its dictated by which plane remains in the sky in the aftermath. Technology cannot always be dependent on to be reliable(Aim7 sparrow) , so with that any DEDICATED fighter should be able to dogfight. To me completing the job is eliminating the air threat without any losses of your own or assets regardless of whether its long range or knife fight. We have to keep in mind that the phantom was never meant to dogfight. I speak on the terms of which was a better dogfighter which I will always say the crusader was...I mean it was built for the mission.

[renegadeleader1]

I cannnot seem to remember but id the osprey an armed aircraft? If so it would make a great gunbird!

A few years after it enters service (though with all the delays it may have it when it enters service) it is slated to get a chin gun based on the double barrelled gatling on the Comanche. Beyond that it would be dificult to mount missiles on the thing since there aren't many places to mount them that wouldn't interfere with the tiltrotor (I suppose you could put stub pylons on either side of the cockpit though). The unarmed nature of the Osprey might actually be a problem. Marine corps doctrine for the the aircraft the Osprey is replacing is to have several Cobra gunships escorting them in, but the Osprey would quickly outrun any helicopter escort it might have.

considering the V-22 is supposed to be a plane chooper hybrid I doubt you really need choppers protecting it when you could easily put a couple of Av-8's or the new JSF with it as escorts

EDIT: Does anyone know if the AV-8 can hover and strafe like a gunship?

Edited June 2, 2004 by renegadeleader1

[hellohikaru]

Why no one mentions the Chengdu J-10 "Lavi" and how it compares with Gripen, EF2000, F-18 and the like.

Maybe Dave and others would like to comment.

[David Hingtgen]

A Harrier's hovering ability is really only for take off and landing. Control/manueverability when hovering is quie slow, and tactically useless.

Also, it can't aim its guns downwards like a chopper can. It'd have to point its nose down--at which point it can't hover.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

oh man a osprey at center with cobra copters surrounding it....awesome sight. Ah yes the J10. I forgot about that. I barely pay attention to china's air force since most of it is russian exported. From what I understand the j10 won't be a direct copy of a llavi just heavily influenced by it. I think the US woul be mad if such a thing were done. With that in mind the Lavi kicks ass. I liked using it in IAF sim and to me I think the manuverability exceeded the F-16. Not only that but it looked pretty nice. Being that the lavi was developed in the 80s and the gripen and rafale were developed in the 90s i would think the later planes have more advanceed avionics and manuverability. Also I tend to think the superbug wont outmatch its manuverability.

[Edveen]

Hey all what was the plane used by Argentina in the war against Britain for control of an island? I cant seem to remember it, but it looked very sleak. From what I remember they only had a handful and they took out several British ships! Anyone have any idea?

Also, Im thinking about the whole Russia and US collaberation, and I beleive that US needed Russia to build the some of the Blackbirds (sr-71) Titanium parts. Is this true or no? I cant remember where I seem to have heard this since it was long ago and I might be confusing with something else.

Ed

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

i dont think the USA would even let russia close to the manufacturing blueprints for those parts since the plane's technology is still guarded in secrecy.

I believe the plane you are referring to in the falklands war is the Super etendard. Its armed with exocet and other munitions.

[Edveen]

Yep that was the plane. thanks Shin.

[Nied]

With that in mind the Lavi kicks ass. I liked using it in IAF sim and to me I think the manuverability exceeded the F-16. Not only that but it looked pretty nice. Being that the lavi was developed in the 80s and the gripen and rafale were developed in the 90s i would think the later planes have more advanceed avionics and manuverability. Also I tend to think the superbug wont outmatch its manuverability.

Both the Gripen and Rafale were developed at the same time as the Lavi, and had the Lavi gone into service it would have started operating sometime in the mid '90s. Even with the Lavi's canards I would still give the advantage to the Rhino. At the moment I would say that it is without equal among US fighters in terms of maneuverability. I watched one at an air show and matched the much smaller F-16 in high speed maneuverability and at low speeds it reaches Flanker levels of maneuverability (it was able to pull a maneuver pretty close to a cobra just seconds after taking off).

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I gotta disagre with you on that; the super bug may have good high alpha characteristics but I still think the falcon and lavi would be able to outturn it. Superbug suffers from lots of drag and at low speed that isn't good, so while it is able to perform the go in a str8 line real slow while the nose is still puitched up manuever, I think it can be outturned by the falcon and lavi. Perhaps even the legacy hornet. Maybe its instantaneous turn is real good due to high alpha but i imagine its sustained is not as good as the falcon. Lavi looks like a little feisty bugger with speed and manueverability to match. Its got delta wings and bigger canards than the typhoon so I imagine its roll rate must be higher and its pitch rate must be good as well since it needs those huge canards to counteract its inherent instability.

[Akilae]

<snip> and I beleive that US needed Russia to build the some of the Blackbirds (sr-71) Titanium parts. Is this true or no? I cant remember where I seem to have heard this since it was long ago and I might be confusing with something else.

Ed

The Blackbird was manufactured solely in the US. However, the raw material, titanium, was actually imported from all over the world. Russia, being a huge titanium mining country, ended up supplying most of the material to build the Blackbirds overflying their airspace.

[Nied]

I gotta disagre with you on that; the super bug may have good high alpha characteristics but I still think the falcon and lavi would be able to outturn it.  Superbug suffers from lots of drag and at low speed that isn't good, so while it is able to perform the go in a str8 line real slow while the nose is still puitched up manuever, I think it can be outturned by the falcon and lavi.  Perhaps even the legacy hornet.  Maybe its instantaneous turn is real good due to high alpha but i imagine its sustained is not as good as the falcon.  Lavi looks like a little feisty bugger with speed and manueverability to match. Its got delta wings and bigger canards than the typhoon so I imagine its roll rate must be higher and its pitch rate must be good as well since it needs those huge canards to counteract its inherent instability.

Nope I watched a Super Hornet perform the same high speed maneuvers as an F-16, then pitch up to slow down and pull maneuvers that absolutely blow just about every other aircraft in service today out of the water. It may not have the high speed chops but in a turning fight the Rhino wins period.

Edited June 3, 2004 by Nied

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Still doubt it. David did say that it has kind of unmatched high alpha but in the whole US military? I dunno. I tend to think the F-22 may be able to outturn it...if it can do high alpha assisted by thrust vectoring(or aided in transition not relied on) in low speed, and is already more manueverable than the F-16, then I think the most manueverable and winner ina turning fight would be an F-22. I still think F-16 as well. THe Superbug may have done all the manuvers and stuff that time you saw it at show but in a dogfight I imagine it is much different, the nose up fly str8 ahead thing wouldnt really matter in a dogfight and again the bug has drag working against it in a sustained turn whereas the falcon has enough energy to sustain. It was an airshow so I imagine the manuvers done were not done to their full potential, the superbug may be a good showboat and enjoyable to watch(its a beauty in that respect) but i think in phonebooth knifefighting the raptor and falcon would win.

[Nied]

The Raptor is not in service right now, so I didn't count it. Trust me the Hornet is by far superior to even the F-16, and until the F/A-22 enters service, it is by far the most maneuverable aircraft in the US inventory. It was able to perform a minimum radius turn in about three quarters the radius the F-16 did. Not only that but it had enough power to accelerate out of the really impressive slow speed maneuvers very quickly. DOn't let all of the anti-Rhino propaganda fool you the Super Bug may have it's disadvantages, but maneuverability (both low and high speed) is not one of them.

[David Hingtgen]

I just ordered my flight-line seating tickets for the airshow, I will be watching the Super Bug's demo VERY closely. I've decided not to tape it, only take a few pics. You get a better sense of it that way. Staring through a camcorder's eyepiece is the worst way to watch a demo, and it's easy to lose track of the plane. Yes, low-vis greys are VERY effective camo!

And I will be watching the acceleration out of low speed moves VERY closely. There's no doubt the Super Bug can move, it's the other things I don't like.

PS--Nied--did it do anything resembling a tail-slide?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

OH its not that,. The only thing I really dont like...well a couple, are the fact that

1-legacy hornet can outspeed the thing in dry thrust-sad sad sad sad to hear

2-replacing the tomcat

3-chosen in favor of ST21

4-too much drag

5-...avionics mainly in engines and avionics as well as weapons payload, does not match performance of legacy in each class,,...as a new plane i would think it should outdo the legacy but it just doesnt in many respects.

Other than that I think the rhino is ok and I am mellowing to it., I like how the rhino will also have growler variants since for the first time we get a suppression plane(naval) that can do self defense, and dogfight.

THe only reason I disagree about the manueverability is the fact tha tthe falcon is so damn nimble..that coupled with the drag on the superbug makes me doubt a lot. I know the superbug is very manueverable, theres noone saying its like a lead sled here but to outturn a falcon is a lot, and from all accounts it would seem that the superbug does not sustain energy nor regain it as fast as a falcon...if anything the fight would be decided in the superbug with well planned instantaneous turns. This is not to say it cant outmanuvcer the falcon but in this case i just dont think it will. THe manuevers put on at air shows are manuevers that will most likelty not be in dogfights.....they are all done to showboat the plane. This is at every air show I have been at. There are so many ways how a superbu vs falcon fight can end up but I just dont think in a dogfight the hornet is superior.

[David Hingtgen]

F-16 rules at high speed, F-18 is better at low speed. It's always been that way. 300-500kts: my money's on the Falcon. Below that, Hornet.

As I compare to cars often: F-18 has a good 0-60, but the quarter mile sucks. At 200kts, there's simply not that much air moving very fast to create drag--the Hornet will get to that speed pretty quickly on raw power. But above that--drag starts building very quickly, and the Hornet can barely accelerate (relative to other modern jets), while the F-16 just keeps going. The F-16 will hit Mach 1 LONG before the Hornet does. F-16 is the fastest-accelerating jet overall, and in most any circumstance. YF-17 not far behind. Except the YF-23, which blows it away. Though the F120-powered YF-22 would almost certainly beat the F-16 at supersonic speeds.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

ahh i see. No wonder it impressed Nied. It was most certainly pulling high alpha at low speed. I am sure it is an impressive sight. Never wil i say it is better than the tomcat but the super hornet is respectable in its own right,...just not in anywheree near as many cases. I think it looks cool.

I wonder how the alpha performance on the superbug compares with teh cobra YF17 though......

[Nied]

OH its not that,. The only thing I really dont like...well a couple, are the fact that

1-legacy hornet can outspeed the thing in dry thrust-sad sad sad sad to hear

2-replacing the tomcat

3-chosen in favor of ST21

4-too much drag

5-...avionics mainly in engines and avionics as well as weapons payload, does not match performance of legacy in each class,,...as a new plane i would think it should outdo the legacy but it just doesnt in many respects.

Where did you get those last ones? Each F414 engine generates about 4,000 lbs more thrust in re-heat than the Legacy Hornet's F404s. When you consider that the Rhino only weighs 1,000 Lbs more than the legacy Hornet you've got a hell of an improvement (though IMHO not a big enough one).

Avionics wise, the Rhino currently uses the same or improved versions of the Legacy Hornet's Avionics, but slaved to a much more advanced computer. However new avionics are in a pipeline that are a quantum leap over most current aircraft (including an AESA radar based on the F-22's).

Hell it even carries a 20% heavier load than the legacy Hornet, and can carry far more varied loadouts. The extra two stations allow you to carry alot more variaties of weapons, not necesarily more, I can't tell you how many pictures I've seen of the Rhino carrying wierd asymetrical loads (say six 500 lb bombs on the two inner stations on one side, and one 500 lb LGB and a HARM on the two outermost stations on the other side).

[Druna Skass]

When engaging MiGs in Vietnam did Phantom pilots use the same tactics the Flying Tigers used with their P-40s against the Zero?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust. I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true. It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

[Nied]

BTW there's an excelent article out on the Super Hornet in the latest issue of Internatinal Air Power Review this month, I definetly recomend everyone pick it up (even though it does cost about $20).

[Nied]

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust. I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true. It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

Well you see the exact same quote over and over again. But one quote from one pilot taken out of context isn't exactly the best of evidence.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

No....phantom pilots if anything were only taught very very basic ACM or actually none at all....not until 69 and that was just the Navy. So no they were not taught the warhawk methods of taking on zeros. UIf they did learn them the kill ratios wouldnt have been so low in teh beginning.

Nied, I skimmed through that issue. It is pricey but worth it, I love how that magazine always looks like a damn book with great photo. The superbug is a good multiroler but to me will never surpass the mission dedicated intruder and tomcat...it will never outdo the cat as a fighter and the intruder as a bomber...

its like a sampler of food...has some tastes from both but is not the main course.

[Druna Skass]

Just for clarifaction, is the legacy Hornet the A and C models?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust.  I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true.  It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

Well you see the exact same quote over and over again. But one quote from one pilot taken out of context isn't exactly the best of evidence.

ITs more than just one pilot. Even higherups admit the plane is a compromise plane, nothin evo or revolutionary. It is a good plane and it will do well at what it does, just not as well as the planes it is replacing.

[Nied]

the aiframe has a lo of drag...theres numerous accounts in flightjhournal and others where legacy chase plane pilots pity the superbug mpilot since they outsped the superbug when the superbug was in reheat and the legacies were inn dry thrust.  I understand its got better weapons capacities bu mopst of what i said is true.  It is in general slower in acceleration compared to legacy and in top speed.On paper it would seem the superhornetn would leave the legacy in the dust but its the exact opposite.

Well you see the exact same quote over and over again. But one quote from one pilot taken out of context isn't exactly the best of evidence.

ITs more than just one pilot. Even higherups admit the plane is a compromise plane, nothin evo or revolutionary. It is a good plane and it will do well at what it does, just not as well as the planes it is replacing.

The problem is I've seen the two same quotes replicated over and over again (I think they're all cribbing from MATS) but not much else to back them up. I haven't seen anyone produce the actual figures on acceleration, I haven't seen them produce sustained turn rates, all I've seen is people say, "The Super Hornet is slow and can't keep up with the legacy Hornet." I'd like to see some real numbers rather than out of context quotes.

[Nied]

Just for clarifaction, is the legacy Hornet the A and C models?

A, B, C, and D yes.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Here are some facts I can remember from tonight.

legacy C can supercruise.

Super cannot.

top speed for legacy is mach 1.8.

top speed for super bug is mach 1.6.

the whole basis for drag is because of david's comments on the airframe. I have faith in what he says he is an aerospace engineer but I have read elsewhere about it on othersites like fas.org, globalsecurity, and some of the rhino fansites.

and no most of this did not come from MATS.