Aircraft VS super thread!

[Nied]

Shin, you mentioned that someone called the JSF a "replacement" for the F-16.... I agree that this certainly doesn't seem to be the case, but I want to present a hypothetical situation here...

would the F-2 serve as a decent replacement for the F-16? I know the aircraft are similar, but I hesitate to call them the same plane (I don't know a lot about them). I Just know the F-2 is nimble as all hell and will fly like shhit off a shovel... Why has the US never invested in this?

Just curiosities... I know very little about USAF aircraft or their derivatives.

Aparently they're too expensive for the Japanese, and they're days are numbered. The F-2 had a proposed american cousin which would have had many of the same traits as the F-2 (bigger wings strengthened fuselage) but this never came to be.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

From what I hear Japan is doing a new FX program to make a replacement for their F-15J fleets. Stealth and thrust vectoring...oncepts are in the jane's books but nothing too concrete.

Any more news on agile falcon? It looks cool!!

and BTW how does the FSX F-2 compare with the F-16C?

[hellohikaru]

There is some talk in other forums about the Japanese planning to cut down on F-2 production and closing the lines at just 96 planes instead of 130.

Too bad because the F-2 for all its shortcomings was one of the first planes to have an operational AESA radar and that composite wing.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040808wo01.htm

Yomiuri Shimbun

The Defense Agency plans to discontinue procurement of the F-2 fighter within a few years, an agency source said Saturday.

The plan, which is part of the review of the Air Self-Defense Forces' fighter units, will be incorporated into the new five-year Defense Buildup Program that is to be drawn up by the end of this year.

The agency has concluded that the F-2 is the least cost-effective of all available options, making it necessary for the agency to procure an alternative aircraft.

The F-2 was jointly developed by Japan and the United States, with Tokyo originally planning to deploy 130 of the aircraft. In a rare move for Japan, procurement will now cease well short of that number.

The move comes after the Defense Agency decided to scrap its division of fighters into two categories--interceptors tasked with combating enemy aircraft, and fighter-bombers designed to attack land and sea targets. Instead, the agency plans to have future fighter aircraft assume various roles, including reconnaissance.

Under the new defense plans, to be drawn up under the new National Defense Program Outline, the agency also intends to shift from the current three-model fighter system--the F-15, F-4, and F-2--to a two-model system.

As the result of study made on the basis of these plans, the agency concluded that:

-- The F-2 had become too expensive after development delays caused its unit price to rise from the originally projected 8 billion yen to about 12 billion yen, or about the same as the larger, more capable F-15.

-- While the F-15 is being upgraded, there is little room to upgrade the F-2 with new equipment because of its smaller size.

-- The F-2 can carry only a limited number of weapons.

Based on these conclusions, the agency has decided to discontinue procurement of the F-2, but to make a rapid start on selecting an aircraft to succeed the F-4 fighter, which will reach the end of its service life in the near future, the source said.

In 1995, the Security Council of Japan decided to buy 130 F-2 fighters--a decision approved by the government.

So far, however, only 76 of the aircraft are either deployed or under construction. Next fiscal year, new contracts to purchase an additional 10 to 20 units will be made, marking the end of the procurement.

The plan to introduce the F-2 was incorporated in the Defense Buildup Program of 1985, with the aircraft intended to succeed the domestically manufactured F-1 fighter.

In selecting the model, Tokyo indicated it wanted a domestically developed aircraft, despite pressure from Washington to buy U.S.-made fighters to help cut Japan's trade surplus with the United States.

In 1987, the Tokyo made a partial concession to Washington, agreeing to base the F-2 on the U.S.-made F-16 fighter.

[hellohikaru]

What about this plane

[hellohikaru]

Dave or anyone

Is this Flanker a J-11B with WS-10 powerplant ?

Nozzle design is definitely not AL-31F

[Zentrandude]

What about this plane

looks like something if a f-16 and an american space shuttle had a child it would be that.

[hellohikaru]

The J-10 series of fighter has the potential to be the MiG-21 of the 21st century. Has connection with the Lavi and using Russian and Chinese avionics the Vigorous Dragon will be the main multi-role fighter of the PLAAF and several other nations.

[ewilen]

In a knife fight the F-35's stealth is practically useless, so complaining that it can't dogfight while stealthy is sort of redundant.

Although I've been defending the F-35's A2A ability, I can understand this concern. Basically, in a real world situation, I doubt you load up with the intention of getting into a knife fight. But in a CAP or escort, or Mig sweep mission it would be nice to be able to be a stealthy ambusher with AMRAAMs, while still carrying a pair of short-range IR missiles to deal with "leakers".

About loading ASRAAM/AIM-9X (or possibly Python) in an internal bay and using lock-on-after-launch. While it's been discussed, it's not clear to me whether it would be possible to put both an AMRAAM and one (or more) heatseekers into a single internal bay. If they can't, then a stealthy F-35 loaded for A2A would only carry two missiles (in whatever combination of AMRAAM and heatseeker).

It certainly looks like there's room for one or two sidewinders in place of the JDAM, with the AMRAAM on its hinged mount on the bay door--it's just a question of how much work it would take to mount them.

Edited August 13, 2004 by ewilen

[ewilen]

Aparently they're too expensive for the Japanese, and they're days are numbered.  The F-2 had a proposed american cousin which would have had many of the same traits as the F-2 (bigger wings strengthened fuselage) but this never came to be.

Here's a longer version of the article on the F-2 being discontinued: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040808wo01.htm

Under the new defense plans, to be drawn up under the new National Defense Program Outline, the agency also intends to shift from the current three-model fighter system--the F-15, F-4, and F-2--to a two-model system.

This can't mean they're going to just scrap or sell their F-2's...I assume that they'll keep them operating while disposing of the F-4's (I wish I had space for one). But if they truly are going to a two-fighter system, they'll need to make up for the missing F-2's. I wonder if they'll try to build a replacement or if they'll import?

[Edit: sorry, hellohikaru, I didn't see your post until I made mine]

Edited August 13, 2004 by ewilen

[Nied]

Although I've been defending the F-35's A2A ability, I can understand this concern. Basically, in a real world situation, I doubt you load up with the intention of getting into a knife fight. But in a CAP or escort, or Mig sweep mission it would be nice to be able to be a stealthy ambusher with AMRAAMs, while still carrying a pair of short-range IR missiles to deal with "leakers".

About loading ASRAAM/AIM-9X (or possibly Python) in an internal bay and using lock-on-after-launch. While it's been discussed, it's not clear to me whether it would be possible to put both an AMRAAM and one (or more) heatseekers into a single internal bay. If they can't, then a stealthy F-35 loaded for A2A would only carry two missiles (in whatever combination of AMRAAM and heatseeker).

It certainly looks like there's room for one or two sidewinders in place of the JDAM, with the AMRAAM on its hinged mount on the bay door--it's just a question of how much work it would take to mount them.

Well in US military missions the Mig sweep and CAP missions will really be the realm of the Raptor, the F-35 will at best serve a suplementary role.

Acording to most of the material I have read, the standard A2A arment for the UK version is going to consist of 2 AMRAAMs and 2ASRAAMs. There's certainly no space issues with loading both, and the bomb rack is supposed to be capable of carrying A2A ordinance.

[David Hingtgen]

I see 4x ASRAAM usually, for standard UK JSF loadout. Either way, the UK certainly seems to intend it for shorter-ranged air-to-air more than any other user. Of course, with the Sea Harrier gone in a year, and the JSF not coming for quite I while, I wonder what they intend to use their carriers for in the mean time.

[Nied]

I see 4x ASRAAM usually, for standard UK JSF loadout.  Either way, the UK certainly seems to intend it for shorter-ranged air-to-air more than any other user.  Of course, with the Sea Harrier gone in a year, and the JSF not coming for quite I while, I wonder what they intend to use their carriers for in the mean time.

The UK will still launch helicopters and ground attack Harriers off of their carriers (GR.7 and GR.9), although they will have to rely on SAMs or NATO allies for air defence. I have heard of proposals to take the Blue Vixen radars out of retireing Sea Harriers and install them into the noses of GR harriers, turning them into a Birtish version of the AV-8B+.

Edited August 14, 2004 by Nied

[hellohikaru]

I heard the RAF EF2000 Typhoons would regain the gun they deleted in the first place but only as a ballast(without ammo) because the modification needed would increase the cost. So perhaps the older guns from Tornado would be installed. Starnge

[Noyhauser]

The UK has hit a money crunch due to the war in iraq. They are also attempting a complete force restructuring in the army and Navy utilizing the Revolution in Military Affairs, on the scale not seen before. Some of their aims surpass American initiatives. However the costs of this is enormous and the airforce is getting shafted since their role figures somewhat less in their new joint doctrine.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmmm. I kind of figured they might try to upgrade the JSF's A2A capability in the future. Thrust vectoring and maybe manuvering slats could help. And me I really do not care for stealth.....rather have full deadly potential of weaponry and systems rather than make everything stealth reliant.

Have another few comparisons.

F-35B vs Sea Harrier/AV-8B Harrier II.

F-15K vs Su-37

and....not sure if we went over this.

F-22 vas SU-37.

WHile the SUper flanker has real high Alpha I believe the Raptor might have higher sustained turn rate. IT also has MORE thrust. Coupled wiuth the fact that almost all of its A2A arms can be internal as to not create more drag.

[Nied]

F-35B (assuming it can get pass its weight problems) Vs Harrier is easy. F-35 all the way, it has far more thrust, far better avionics and is supersonic to boot (and the stealth factor doesn't hurt wither, it makes disengaging far easier).

F-15K vs Su-37 (or some Super Flanker derivative like the Su-30MK): While the F-15K will be the ultimate Eagle, the lack of thrust vectoring and the inferiority of the AMRAAM Sidewinder pair to the R-77 and AA-11 mean that even the F-15Kickass could lose.

F-22 vs Su-37: The F-22 has a slight disadvantage in sensors and agility. However it's superior thrust and stealth means that the Raptor has greater freedom to disengage and re-engage on its own terms. Leathal wepons like the Archer don't do a lick of good against an AMRAAM shot out of nowhere.

[David Hingtgen]

Well, a few F-15C's have AIM-9X's now, we can assume F-15K's will be built with that capability, though I don't know if Korea will get them. We need some USAF F-15K's and add in helmet-mounted-cued AIM-9X's...

Edited August 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Lucifer]

WHAT WE NEED IS THE GODDAMMED SOB THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE GODDAMN VF-0/1 COME OUT TO REAL LIFE

...or something

[ewilen]

F-15K vs. SU-37 is kind of moot really since we don't know what capabilities a production version of the latter would have. Might as well ask F-15 ACTIVE vs. SU-37 and specify guns only...that might look like a Macross ace duel.

If it's F-15K versus an SU-30XXX, and you don't restrict the fight to WVR, I suspect the F-15K might have an advantage in radar and other electronics, but I haven't looked up any details. (Elsewhere I've argued that numbers, pilot training, and AWACS would yield a huge US advantage in any conceivable real world encounter, but I assume that for the sake of this thread, we're looking at a hypothetical 1-1 between equal pilots.)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

oh normally due to superior technology we would win a lot of engagements in muiltiple scenarios. But for this thread its mostly about either strike capability or A2A. and for A2A usually this means either interception, or 1v1 WVR knife fighting.

I would pit the ACTIV against the Su-37 but the ACTIV never flew for very long, and was only done for test purposes, but hell maybe the SU376 was done for the same reasons...but I think sukhoi tried to export it. Originally it was for the russians but we all know how poor their country is.

I am thinking right now the super flanker has a instantaneous turn advantage over th4e F-22 but as Nied pointed out, I do agree that the raptor has the means to engage and disengage and bring the fight to its terms.

I think the F-15K might have a good thrust advantage and a T/W ratio over teh super flanker as well..that fight will most likely be a zoom and dive battle. The F-15K wont be able to outturn the flanker unless it exceeds critical AOA which I presume would be either below or a lilttle over 20 degrees AOA, where as the FBW limits for the flanker are

27 degrees AOA(SU-27) presumably the super flankers AOA limit couild be much higther.

*Note flankers can only execute cobras by disabling the AOA limiter*

No I do not think VF-0 and VF-1 in fighter mode could really fair well in reality to modern figthters.....Both lack canards or horizontal stabilizers....more like small slow blackbirds if you ask me. THrust vectoring could help BUT ANYWAYS.

F-15s have alwayts been known for their speed and t/w ratio along with thrust. F-15K seems to have the best out of all F-15s. From the Janes F-15 sim there WAS no AOA limiter, the plane was basicalyl o hydraulic controls and you could overexceed critical AOA just by pulling back on the stick all of a sudden.

F-22s have even more thrust........so yea I think the F-22 woould do GREAT against a super flanker. It's main key to defearing the flanker in IMHO would be to use its surplus thrust to maintain a high sustained turn rate in order to eventually get behing the flanker. And good energy management just in case the flanker does a cobra. TYhjen agfain if it did, it wouold be low on energy trying to recover and the raptor could swing around affter zooming out, turn tight using thrust vectoring, and get a AIM-9x shot pretty easily.

Guys think the F-35B with gunpod could stil dogfight well nad outgun the harrier?

[David Hingtgen]

Hmmn. Kinda depends on the final F-35 weight! The Harrier (by necessity) has a combat power/weight ratio exceeding 1. The F-35 is around that, depending on the model and how overweight it is.

The Harrier (any version) is not a good turning aircraft in any respect. However, there are some very unique moves it can do in a vertical fight. (The Harrier can Immelman like nothing else---vector the nozzles to directly down (which is then up) or reverse at the top of the loop while inverted). It can also move forwards or backwards (with respect to the ground, not itself---the plane is technically moving up or down) while in a vertical climb or dive, to force an over or undershoot. If you spend a little while sketching out its attitude and nozzle positions, there's a lot of neat stuff you can come up with. (Besides the energy-killing "put the nozzles in reverse while flying forward"). And don't forget its vernier arrays (reaction jets in BAe nomenclature), which many people don't even realize are there--how else can it turn when at 18 knots airspeed? Its alpha limit is technically 180 degrees. Sea Harriers are far more manueverable and faster than a GR or AV-8B BTW.

Edited August 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmmn. Kinda depends on the final F-35 weight! The Harrier (by necessity) has a combat power/weight ratio exceeding 1. The F-35 is around that, depending on the model and how overweight it is.

The Harrier (any version) is not a good turning aircraft in any respect. However, there are some very unique moves it can do in a vertical fight. (The Harrier can Immelman like nothing else---vector the nozzles to directly down (which is then up) or reverse at the top of the loop while inverted). It can also move forwards or backwards (with respect to the ground, not itself---the plane is technically moving up or down) while in a vertical climb or dive, to force an over or undershoot. If you spend a little while sketching out its attitude and nozzle positions, there's a lot of neat stuff you can come up with. (Besides the energy-killing "put the nozzles in reverse while flying forward"). And don't forget its vernier arrays (reaction jets in BAe nomenclature), which many people don't even realize are there--how else can it turn when at 18 knots airspeed? Its alpha limit is technically 180 degrees. Sea Harriers are far more manueverable and faster than a GR or AV-8B BTW.

Yea the Sea harrier looks badass armed to the teeth with sidewinders and pointy AMRAAMS.

Never realized it had verniers!! I always knew the sea harriers looked a lot different than the other versions. It looks better too. I know marine harriers can't break mach 1 but can teh sea harrier?

Seems the JSF will be the better turner but the Sea harrier has the zoom and climb/VTOL fight. However if the JSF is still just barely able to lift of VTOL I am sure its VTOL manuevers in dogfights will surely suck.

So far the JSF has 2 things going for it against eh sea harrier.

1-stealth

2-speed. (supersonic)

So with that lets make this variant specific

F-35B(marine/RN) vs Sea harrier.

Not sure if the F-35B will have verniers as wel.

now lets compare more.

F-16C vs F-16XL

We all know the F-16XL is great @ striking...but how does it fair in dogfighting in the A2A rule compared to the F-16C....block whichever most suited for A2A

we also know the MIg 29 is well rusiian planes in general need tons more maintenance support than US planes(taken from F-16.net forums) so with that in mind...disregard maintenance for following comparison

F/A-18D marine night attacker vs Mig 33 Fulcrum.

Hornets have almost always been compared to fulcroms. So why not compare them here too?

[Lucifer]

What abour the SU-47?

whats the godd and bad about this motha??

Edited August 15, 2004 by Lucifer

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

big with thrust and good turn rate kuz its FSW. other than that its just a concept plane with no weapons. Ace combat just likes making it godlike but the real one has never fired anything.

[David Hingtgen]

AV-8B: Mach .89 low alt, Mach .91 high.

Sea Harrier: Mach .99 low alt, Mach 1.25 high.

GR3, GR5, etc would be slightly faster than an AV-8B. AV-8A's and C's would be identical to that.

[F-ZeroOne]

Of course, with the Sea Harrier gone in a year, and the JSF not coming for quite I while, I wonder what they intend to use their carriers for in the mean time.

What we always do... cross our fingers and improvise in the meantime. Wonder if one can fit ASRAAMs to Sea Kings...?

Edit: one other thing about the Harrier - for its size, it must absolutely be the noisest aircraft on the planet!

Edited August 15, 2004 by F-ZeroOne

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

that because of itys huge ass rolls royce pegasus VTOL engine. Actually most VTOL's are loud as hell.

Never knew the sea harrier could break mach 1. THat is awesome! I think asramms could be fitted to seakings, I know some helicopters carry IR missles for self defense.

I would like to see an F-35B take on a harrier in a dogfight....it should be very interesting. Mock dogfight that is.

Oh well we all know the marines train at topgun as well, and I am sure they will make the F-35B into a formidable dogfighter just like how topgun taught students eons ago how to make the unlikely phantom turn into a ass killing mig hunter.

[F-ZeroOne]

I always understood the Harrier (any Harrier) was subsonic except in a dive, but David probably has much more up to date information than I do!

I wasn't being serious about ASRAAMs on helicopters - it was intended as a comment about the state of the UK defence industry... latest story doing the rounds is that some of our military "kit" is going to be procured from China!

[hellohikaru]

I doubt a harrier can do more than mach 0.95 level..perhaps about mach 1 in a dive.

Harriers have too much drag from those huge elephant ear intakes and gunpods, pylons and stuff. It also lacks reheat.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yes but the sea harrier is much more sharper looking than the other stubby nosed harriers. Its pretty neat and unique looking.

And .95 low would probably be level flight at low alt.

got another one boys!!!

Mig-29 vs F-2(FSX)!!!

the obscure air battles begin!!

get to it boys!

[David Hingtgen]

::edit::

Hmmn, did some searching. Found at least 2 sites that specified that was in fact diving speed. One site lists the FA.2 speed as .94 low, .97 high, which makes more sense. If F-15C's can barely do 1.1 dry and clean on the best of days, it is unlikely a Shar will do better. FRS.1 is probably slightly faster than the FA.2, but not much.

You know, I feel really stupid that I didn't head to the Harrier sites I have book marked. I'll go check them now.

Edited August 16, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Opus]

Hmmn. Kinda depends on the final F-35 weight! The Harrier (by necessity) has a combat power/weight ratio exceeding 1. The F-35 is around that, depending on the model and how overweight it is.

The Harrier (any version) is not a good turning aircraft in any respect. However, there are some very unique moves it can do in a vertical fight. (The Harrier can Immelman like nothing else---vector the nozzles to directly down (which is then up) or reverse at the top of the loop while inverted). It can also move forwards or backwards (with respect to the ground, not itself---the plane is technically moving up or down) while in a vertical climb or dive, to force an over or undershoot. If you spend a little while sketching out its attitude and nozzle positions, there's a lot of neat stuff you can come up with. (Besides the energy-killing "put the nozzles in reverse while flying forward"). And don't forget its vernier arrays (reaction jets in BAe nomenclature), which many people don't even realize are there--how else can it turn when at 18 knots airspeed? Its alpha limit is technically 180 degrees. Sea Harriers are far more manueverable and faster than a GR or AV-8B BTW.

The Harrier may be capable of all of these things but is the average pilot?

[hellohikaru]

Dave

Which websites are best source for Harriers ?

And what does the current configuration for the Kfir 2000/Nammer upgrade look like ? Can't seem to find much info behind the iron curtian.

[David Hingtgen]

Sea Harrier pilots are exceptionally good. There are usually only about 24 people in the UK qualified to fly it in combat, known as the "Dirty Two Dozen". The Harrier is hard to fly (one of the JSF's main requirements is that it can be flown by an average pilot, as opposed to the amazing skill needed just to hover a Harrier), and to get the most out of it, you have to be GOOD. And they are.

[F-ZeroOne]

I believe Argentine pilots during the Falklands Conflict referrred to Harriers as "Black Death"... (though it should be pointed out that both sides were operating under rather less than ideal conditions and the Argentine pilots did pretty well, considering... )

One of the big mistakes made when the Harrier was introduced to US service was people thinking "Hey, its a jet that hovers - like a helicopter! So lets get helicopter pilots to fly it!" - a decision that apparently caused a lot of accidents...

Hawker-Siddley had plans for a kind of ultra-Harrier at one point - a twin engined, afterburning, supersonic metal dragonfly from Hell - that unfortunately got cancelled, though there were doubts about whether it was technically viable at the time - apparently, twin engine VTOL is a tricky one...