NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think is the best new fighter aircraft? Designs that are not in production, but are almost ready are fair game too.

And what do you think is of vital importantance- Stealth, maneuverability, range, speed, armament, cost...


Here's a good link for some info, post more if you find them...

http://www.fighter-planes.com/

The F-35 for stealth, maneuverability, can perform multiple types of missions, and price.

Probably ties with the Eurofighter, F-22, and Avro Arrow (Canadian Pride).

F-22. Spending $150-$350m dollars each, plus research and development for each plane, better damn be the best fighter plane in the world.

Now, the one I think will be the most useful in the long run, all things considered for the user? The Rafale.

Production design the F-22 Production capable design the YF-23 But Lockheed won the ATF program not based on capability but cost so we get the F-22. Grumman's offering is in almost every way a superrior air-superiority fighter IMHO....

I am a big F-22 fan. I know Eurofighter fans make a big deal about the cheaper price, but for straight up air superiority it is simply outclassed by the Raptor. And for a cheap multi-role aircraft the F-35 will beat the Eurofighter hands down. Even the countries involved in Eurofighter design are starting to defect to the F-35 project. If the Russians could afford to produce them, the Mig 1.42 might give the Raptor a run for it's money, however.

Best jet right now is the F-22, there's just not enough of them.

Best Bang for your buck would have to go either to new Sukhois or the Saab Gripen.

The Eurofighter is okay for the countries whch started it because it does precisely what they want from it. It'll be more difficult to compete with overseas jets on the export market because it probably won't fit the niches as well.
That being said, the Eurofighter is the second-best fighter around at the moment.

I'm not saying anything about the F-35 because it's not really ready yet - I can't see how good it will be once it's done. Seems good though.

The ones that fly really really fast and shoot stuff really really well.You know, the ones with the pointy noses and the sort of fin-shaped things sticking out the sides.

*Edit: wings. The ones with wings, yes.

If the F-35 performs up to specs (and it's certainly looking to), it'll be a very competent aircraft with vertical takeoff/short landing, which is a very nice trick. My bet's on it.

SU 47...

Most of the research and development of the PAK FA aircraft will be funded by India. The aircraft is set to go into production for the Russian Federation Air Force and the Indian Air Force around 2009. Recent reports have suggested that the S-37 will eventually emerge as Russia's "5th Generation" fighter(actually the first fighter to be assigned any generation), which is seen as a competitor to the American Joint Strike Fighter and F-22


Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Sukhoi_Su-47.jpg

Russian fighters are still built with the idea that the best offence is the best defence. The F35 is too "fancy" to be worth the effort to make it the next gen fighter.

EDit: one more thing, The F35 is not being made by JUST the US, its a mulitnation effort. (mostly nato)

SRecent reports have suggested that the S-37 will eventually emerge as Russia's "5th Generation" fighter(actually the first fighter to be assigned any generation), which is seen as a competitor to the American Joint Strike Fighter and F-22.

Sorry just have to cut in for a second. First 'genrations' of fighters have been used as a term for a long time. The Suhkoi is not the first incidence of this term being used in aviation. Read the last 12 years or so of Aviation Week and Space Technology and you'll se what I mean. Second the manueverability afforded by the forward swept wing is a great advantage in a dogfight with cannons well inside of missile range. Sort of the reason it was abandoned after being developed here in the x-31 seeing as hitting the enemy with a missile removes any need for a dogfight and 'stealthing' means that you're missiles hit and an unstealthed (although highly manueverable) enemy misses.

you can have the best fighter in the world, but if your support system sucks ass then it's not going to get you very far.

america has the best support system.

Except having really good technology will get you far. If the argentineans had had more exocets...

The Eurofighter Typhoon (Europe), beat all the competitors (especially the raptor) on the discovery channel but then again the German Leopard 2 tank beat the American Abram tank also. Until America gets involved in a major war in Europe (hopefully not), we will never know.

The first thing you have to consider when trying to determine what the best aircraft is, is what category are you refering to. Let's start with the F-22. it is designed as an air superiority fighter, which means it is designed to kill enemy fighters. this means it's use as a fighter bomber would be much less than let's say the Su-47 which can carry a much larger amount of ordinance. the issue of cost is also important, but you can't just look at the price tag. an F-22 costs four times as much as an F-15, but it can easily kill eight F-15s in air-to-air combat. so, in a sense, the F-22 is actually cheaper than the F-15 because you only need 1/8 the number of aircraft to do the same thing, which means you only need to spend half the amount of money on the actual vehicles. not only that but with 1/8 of the cost of personnel(give or take) and a significant reduction in cost of materials.

As snappy as this judgement may be, the F-22 WILL be the best fighter aircraft for a very long while. The F-35 won't be near as manueverable because it doesn't have thrust vectoring like the F-22. The new Eurofighter Typhoon2 will only be armed with a single vulcan cannon. All those others weren't even worth showing up at '05s Operation Red Flag hosted in Egypt (where the F-22 shined in simulated combat for the first time ever). The only jet capable of outmanuevering the F-22 and still possibly shooting it down is the Chinese J-10. That, or the up and coming Mirage3 (right? Mirage2 is already out there? meh, gotta look that up...)

The Eurofighter Typhoon (Europe), beat all the competitors (especially the raptor) on the discovery channel but then again the German Leopard 2 tank beat the American Abram tank also. Until America gets involved in a major war in Europe (hopefully not), we will never know.
What show was this on?

And don't forget the infinite power of stealth technology. The chinese would be hard pressed to even find the F-22 in the air before they were blow to smithereens by long range radar-guided AIM-120s. Oh, and according to my Web Publishing teacher who is also a first lietenant in the Air national gaurd who by his account has top secret clearance, the F-22 has the equivelant of an AWACS radar in it's nose.

(pardon my lack of an ability to spell without a spell-check)

Oh and for the record, modern aircraft don't really use their guns anymore. they just make all the 3000 year-old commanders feel comfortable. every so often you run out of missiles. and have more targets.

My favorite is the F-22 Raptor. Of course my all time favorite militatry aircraft would have to be the A-10 Warthog (Thunderbolt II).

My favorite is the F-22 Raptor. Of course my all time favorite militatry aircraft would have to be the A-10 Warthog (Thunderbolt II).
Oh yeah.

Oh yeah.

Yea this guy knows what I'm talking about! The Warthog is old, it's ugly, it's slow, but what it does have is ALOTTA FIRE POWER BABY! That bad boy can spit bullets out at SUPER SONIC speed. Those tanks won't know what hit them!

If you really want to see the destructive power of the A-10 google "Highway of Death" sometimes.

Also, this aircraft not only can dish it out, but it can take it too! I can't tell you how many times I've heard stories of A-10's flying back home with one engine missing and riddled with bullets hole. This aircraft is a flying tank!

the cockpit if refered to as a titanium bathtub

Yea this guy knows what I'm talking about! The Warthog is old, it's ugly, it's slow, but what it does have is ALOTTA FIRE POWER BABY! That bad boy can spit bullets out at SUPER SONIC speed. Those tanks won't know what hit them!

If you really want to see the destructive power of the A-10 google "Highway of Death" sometimes.

Also, this aircraft not only can dish it out, but it can take it too! I can't tell you how many times I've heard stories of A-10's flying back home with one engine missing and riddled with bullets hole. This aircraft is a flying tank!
Couldn't have put it better myself! By the way, have you ever played "A-10 Cuba" for PC?

Couldn't have put it better myself! By the way, have you ever played "A-10 Cuba" for PC?

No I haven't, is it any good?

and what I want to know is why does everyone say the A-10 is ugly. I think they look cool.

and what I want to know is why does everyone say the A-10 is ugly. I think they look cool.

Eh so do I, but people in general think it's ugly because it doesn't have that sleek fighter look. Personally I would be more concern if the aircraft can do it's mission and get me home safely.

You know, every year the US Militatry tries to retire the A-10 Warthog, but they keep on leeting it fly because they can't find any suitable replacement for it. I wouldn't be suprised if that bird stays in the air for a VERY LONG time.

actually the F-35 was supposed to replace it. but they decided to keep the A-10 until 2028.

No I haven't, is it any good?
It's an older game, so it isn't super graphical, but it's pretty fun. You get to fly an A-10. What else do I have to say?

actually the F-35 was supposed to replace it. but they decided to keep the A-10 until 2028.

God please don't ever retire that bird! I love seeing that bird in flight!

oh and i also heard a rumor (just a rumor) that they were planning to increase the calibre of the A-10 gun from 30mm to 50mm. personnaly i don't see how that is possible since the A-10 is built around it's gun. would sombody please look into that.

It's an older game, so it isn't super graphical, but it's pretty fun. You get to fly an A-10. What else do I have to say?

lol, look like I have some searching to do, I wonder if I can still buy this game, even if it's used.

Hey, hey, careful, now. I fear that some people here may be falling into the NS role-play trap of assuming that making missiles capable of longer-flight and radars capable of further detection range means OMG WIN!

That's simply not true.

During the first Gulf War, at more than one point, American pilots found themselves within visual range of Iraqi fighters. I distinctly remember one pilot describing his terror as he realised that an Iraqi fighter on his tail had him in gun range, and he didn't see the guy coming. Lucky for him, his flight had the enemy outnumbered four to one, and one of his wingmen got to the bandit first!

Missiles like AMRAAM and the latest Russian and European missiles don't have 100km+ range for a good reason... it's not because they can't do it, it's because you're not going to hit anyone out there. The enemy has every chance of getting quite close, and agility is important.

Of course, that doesn't detract much from the F-22, which is nimble as hell. There's no way I can see to argue that the F-22 Raptor isn't the most powerful fighter aircraft in the world. It just is. And EA-2000 Eurofighter is second, and if you say otherwise, you're wrong, and that's that.

But the F-22 is extremely expensive, and the EA-2000 is more expensive than... than it is worth, you know?

I am glad that the JAS Gripen was mentioned by an early contributor, because that is an aircraft that makes sense. It is multi-role capable, it is affordable, and it is a credible threat to Eurofighter and Raptor. No, if you put one Gripen up for every one Raptor against you, you are probably not going to win outright, but you do give the over-powering enemy pause for thought, you do have a good chance of causing him billions of dollars worth of damage, you can afford to actually resist him, you do have the ability to strike his ground and sea-based targets, you know?

We need to qualify, people!

F-22 will beat any other fighter on earth, more than half the time. Eurofighter will be next. Anyone who argues against this is clearly wrong. But the role and cost of fighters is significant. Is the politics of their producers?

Well the first thing you must consider is that in the gulf war we didn't have STEALTH dogfighters, so the enemy could find them. second if you had read my previous posts, you would know full well my argument was that there were many factors to take into account.

Oh, no, but be reasonable... the Yugoslavs managed to shoot down at least one F-117 with positively archaic technology.

Israel thrashed Russian-armed opponents without loss in the air because it detected the enemy first every time, and that is the essence of the F-22's edge, but as Iraq proved, prior detection is not assured even with superior technology. Yes, stealth will help, but the Americans in the situation I mentioned really ought to have detected the Iraqis first... they didn't. The real world just isn't nation states, after all.

Anyway, as you'll surely gather from my first post, I don't dispute that the F-22 is singly the most powerful fighter in the world, but I do intend to cast some doubt over the vague qualification of it as, "best".

You could have [large number] of Gripen for every F-22... but you could also have [less large number] of Gripen plus airborne early-warning radar or seriously powerful ground-based anti-stealth radar per [X] F-22s.

You know, maybe you could have one F-22 vs. four [other fighter]. But you can't really send in one F-22 and expect a good result in any real conflict. So you send in, maybe, eight F-22, which comes to 32 [other fighter]. Okay, the eight F-22s kick arse, and maybe lose one while totally crippling the enemy (that still cost as much, but you can afford it, the enemy can't, plus, who cares, they're beaten now!). But what if your eight F-22 aren't answered by 32 enemy fighters but by 16 plus a new Russian radar system or two, able to detect stealth aircraft?

You may still win, it's hard to say, but you're suddenly in a really fricking serious fight with an enemy you should easily have whipped. You might lose billions in machine and pilot training.

Like I say, I don't dispute that the Raptor is the most powerful fighter, but I just want to try to be realistic.

I wasn't trying to say you only needed to match cost, nor am i trying to say stealth is fool-proof, i was just trying to state why i believed an increase in technology could alleviate some of the surprises our enemies have pulled in the past. and i would never suggest that an F-22 (or even a group) should be sent without support. i was just stating that the cost-to-effectiveness ratio of the newer fighters is greater than in previous aircraft.

Edit: if i, by chance, just happen to contradict what i have previously written please let me know.

oh and could you please tell me how they managed to shoot down an F-117. did they just throw up a bunch of flack and get lucky, find it by visual scanning, did they use radar that doesn't look for a solid object but rather an air disturbace, or was it something else entirely.

Hm, well, it's hard to say [re. cost to effectiveness of current vs. previous fighters], we would have to get into an Phantom vs. Flogger debate and such things to really address that, I think.

I don't put too much stock in technology, because it isn't improving so rapidly as we're lead to believe. In truth the rate of invention today is lower than that in the industrial revolution, and is, purportedly, falling towards levels more at home in the middle agest, perpetual growth being part of the grand market/capitalist myth, but possibly that is an issue aside.

Still, I'm not sure. I think that the cost-to-effect ratio of a wood-and-Irish-linen Hawker Hurricane in the 1940s is probably thousands of percent greater than that of a Raptor today. I think that many a MiG probably had a better ratio, too. Certainly Britain's lifetime of comfortable air superiority, achieved until now quite independently, has been achieved at a better ratio. I fear that, in their day, the Hunter, Harrier, Lightning, and others were more cost effective than the Raptor.

Today, I'm not sure. We're sorely lacking in parameters, here, eh? India and China wouldn't be buying MiGs or Sukhois if American aircraft were cost-effective in a post-cold-war environment.

The F-22 is an overpriced, over engineered piece of junk that might never even see service in the US military if they keep completely screwing up their program. They keep having defects in their engine design and have had to start from scratch more than once after complete failure. The US airforce is now doing it’s best to back away from the entire program before the out of control project eats up more of its budget that would be better spent on just about anything other than the F-22. The best thing they could do right now is kill the project and slap a huge fine on Lockheed Martin for gross incompetence and failure to meet their contract. Just about everything, from the engine, to its weapon mounts, its sensors, and even its stealth tech has been found to be faulty!

The current cost for the F-22 is about 250 million a pop! That’s five times the price of any next generation, current air-superiority combat jet that actually flies and does what it’s supposed to! It was supposed to be built for about the same cost as the F-15 (35 million each).

Lockheed Martin have had some pretty shady computer simulations (like the ones versus F-15), where the simulation was tilted so far against the enemy that members of the media who tried it out where shocked (the simulation begins with the F-22 aiming at the F-15 from behind and getting a free shot that never misses). The simulation is fine against enemies willing themselves to die, but had no other value. Veteran jet fighter pilots were more than a bit disgusted at these simulations passed up the chain of command to show how cool their new jet was.

Here are some links that the fans of the F-22 should look at before opening their wallets for Lockheed Martin anymore:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040104-f-22.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/980326-f22.htm

http://www.afa.org/magazine/sept2002/0902raptor.asp

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001952.html

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-19644.html

http://207.44.130.104/forums/search.php?searchid=224161



I also agree with a few of the people here that the F-15 was a very fine jet. The Americans thought it was overbuilt and expensive, so they went to the not so very well constructed F-18’s with their twisty wing defects.

keep in mind when i say cost to effectiveness, im refering to the effectiveness against the current competion. Let's say you try to use WW2 zero fighters in a modern battlefield. just because they are cost-effective doesn't mean they are effective. you also have to consider the cost in human life. and it doesn't really matter how fast technology is advancing, as long as you have the best.

And for the record, it's my belief that if you have smart people who know what they're doing, you can manage to overcome a technological disadvantage.

I'm surprised the Swedish air superiority jet, the Gripen, wasn't included in the poll. It's as good as any of the top jets out there.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/gripen/

A few of us have mentioned the Gripen, Koffee!


Anyway, yeah, cost effective.. well, that covers cost and value, eh? I don't really feel the need to reply to that any further, Arrakiel, I do speak English, after all :)

Also consider my opinion that the F-35 is actually more practical. The topic of this forum was supposed to be which fighter is the BEST. Personally i think the F-22 should be used to destroy enemy fighters that are in the air, then take out the radar installations then use more practical fighters and bombers take out everything else.

and one of the great things about science is that sometimes it gets really expensive. but that doesn't mean that what you were working on must be scrapped.

I also do have to admit that the F-22 might just be a cold war relic. we might just be better off with anti-air bombers hehehe (evil laugh)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1R


Oh and there is talk of doubling the order for F-22s. just thought you might like to know

It depends -to no small degree- what weapons systems are deployed.

If I may be permitted to cite Yugoslavia once again, it was reported that the Americans and another ally using American equipment (the Dutch? I am unsure) detected a Yugoslav air defence system (I don't know if the radar was directing missiles or guns or what have you) and, of course, attempted to destroy it. They launched an anti-radiation missile... and the Yugoslav commander turned off his radar. The missile hit the dirt, and the Yugoslavs turned the system back on. The Americans fired again... and the Yugoslavs turned off the radar, the missile hit the dirt, and the radar went back on... and this went on and on and on and on. Eventually, the Americans and their like-equipped allies had fired scores of missiles, I think maybe in the area of one hundred (but don't quote me on that) and failed to take out one rather old Yugoslavian position. That was tens of millions of dollars of hardware, not to mention the flying hours and lost impact elsewhere in the campaign. They called in the RAF (the British) and one missile later the Yugoslav radar was out of action.

That's a slightly over-drawn example, but I think maybe significant as, well, an example. I mean, making it easier to understand by going back to simpler technological times, the Spitfire was the best fighter in the world when it came out, end of story. Except it was armed with eight .30 calibre guns spread out on its wings. The Hurricane had the same battery fitted tight in the centre of its wing, and the German aircraft tended to include 13mm guns or else full-blown cannons, which was significant. The Spit tended to spatter targets with a few light rounds, where a Hurricane would hit with several times as many light rounds, and a German aircraft would hit with big penetrating rounds.

If you arm a top modern fighter with slightly dated missiles, it will suffer greatly. The Russians will kick your arse if you go in with baseline Aim-9 Sidewinder as your SRAAM, for example.

What do you think is the best new fighter aircraft? Designs that are not in production, but are almost ready are fair game too.

And what do you think is of vital importantance- Stealth, maneuverability, range, speed, armament, cost...



Stealth, speed and cost would be the vitals. If you cant be seen/detected, you can move quickly, and it costs little to mass produce, with decent pilots you should own the skies.

China's J-10 and the Super Hornet have tied in my opinion. Both are fast, and have decent armaments.

Oh, yeah, I must admit that the low-signature low-altitude supersonic bomber with fighter-ability is quite interesting at a glance, thought I haven't thought long on the matter.

of course you have to look at the whole package. an F-22 armed with cans of tuna isn't going to do a whole lot. it'd be funny as hell, but not very useful

I’d actually go with the Su-37, Su-40 or whatever NATO designation the latest upgrade is given these days. The biggest shocker was in tests run by India against the F-15 (not those fake computer simulations that Lockheed used for the F-22) the Su-37 obliterated the competition. India has now gone into business with Russia to help build this next generation combat jet.

The Su-37 is just part of the reaping that the US is doing over the handing over of a supercomputer to the Russians to help them through Perestroika. Under the Clinton regime the US actually helped employ Russian arms designers to keep them from leaving Russia and working for people they liked even less. The result: the Su-37, the super-cavitating torpedoes (torpedoes that go at mach speed underwater), the T-90, K-55 attack helicopter, and a new generation of mobile nuclear ICBM’s. Thanks to some US funding the Russians have really designed some terrifying stuff. The only safe thing is that they lack the funding to mass produce a lot of what they are engineering. Until they go into business with India and China that is.

The scary thing is that it’s hard to say who will get their hands on them, with the Russians cash strapped. The 50 million a pop will keep the poorer despots from getting their grimy fists on it and US pressure on people like the Saudis will keep them from getting too much stuff that doesn’t need parts made in America.

I guess the voter concensus is that the F-22 is the best. however one must keep in mind that it should only be considered part of a greater whole. it takes a very well-balanced force in order to be effective.

a couple things to consider with the rape we (and by "we" i mean my country) suffered at the hands of india. first of all they out numbered us three to one. second they had an AWACS and we didn't. third, the US wasn't allowed to fire their missiles at maximum range and the indians were. fourth, when flying simulated battles with other countries, we don't use our normal tactics. this is so our enemies really don't know what we are going to do when we get into a real war.

Where did you get that from, I'm indian and I haven't heard of these tests, and I'm usually pretty uptodate. Anyway, I'm sure you have completely accurate information :gundge:

Anyway, I'm wondering how the Tejas is even in the list, but you can be sure that for every F-22 you'll have about 25 LCA in the air, but its not even inducted into the army yet.

i thought that was pretty well publicized. i known it was a big shock and embarrasment for the USAF. India won 90% of the simulated engagements.

You get what you pay for. The F-22 has to have some pretty damn good avionics to cost $150Mil. It's not like the MiG 1.42 and the F-22 are equally good air superiority fighters, but the Raptor comes with a $80 million beverage holder.

the problem with trying to find ANY accurate comparrison with fighters (or any military vehicles at that) is that any test is usually weighted in the direction of a particular vehicle. trying to determine the best from test and simulation data amounts to about guessing.

I think that the Joint Strike Fighter, F136, will be the superior product coming out the US. With GE teaming up with Rolls Royce to make the engines, it’s going to turn out a whole lot better than anything else coming out these days in US aeronautics. Like the Eurofighter it is designed to replace the F-16, but the JSF is also going to be used to replace just about everything other combat jet used by the US. Its mission statement says it will augment the F-22 jets, but by the time that project gets sorted out it will be in a museum and the JSF will take over the whole ball game. It is expect to run at around 35 million a pop. Essentially, Lockheed is taking the best technology developed in the F-22 project and getting a second crack at getting it right.

http://www.geae.com/engines/military/f136/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

you might like to know that the F-22 is already being deployed. or at least so i've heard.

Hold on while i double check

Which year was it, hopefully in the last decade. The government has talked about military excercises, but nothing about who won or lost simulations. Did the US declare it had lost 90% of the simulations or what?

the US probably didn't declare it but India certainly did. I know the USAF generals were appalled by the losses, even with all of the disadvantages.

Umm, are you in the country or am I, ? No reports of anything like that, Which year did this happen though?

I'd say that most Sukhois by far stand out of their contemporary competion. But history has shown that the best aircraft usually don't go very well market-wise...
If the russians had been given a decent chance to market their jets, the western world might be filled with aircraft that actually need less maintenance, are more dependable and less expensive... But that would mean strengthening the russian industries which is a big no-no...

The western world needs more F-16, and more F-22...

fcuk military politics...

i'm currently trying to find the article i saw this in so i can be more specific

Well, this is haistily dragged-up while I'm quite drunk, but I think it's worth linking this: http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.html

I haven't re-read it just now, but if memory serves it was supposed to be presented as an independent assessment of the Eurofighter's chances against the Su-27 Flanker upgraded to be roughly equivalent to Su-35 Super Flanker. It also includes F-22 and prior US aircraft in the test.

I'm pretty sure that it wasn't totally realistic, but was supposed to be fairly impartial at least in the presentation. It supports the idea that F-22 wins, and Eurofighter is next, and that these two are far ahead of the pack, with the latest practical Russian fighters and the Rafale coming in roughly equal next. No JSF in the tests, though, which is sort of a shame but presumably down to its more multi-role design? I dunno.

Oh, plus, the Eurofighter and most of Russia's recent output are far prettier than America's attempts ;) No use in war, but in peace that's nice to know, eh?

What's the Myrth-jet BTW?

i thought that was pretty well publicized. i known it was a big shock and embarrasment for the USAF. India won 90% of the simulated engagements.
Yeah, but it was a pretty biased experiment. The US Jets weren't supposed to use their new fancy gimmicks and so on, while the Indians used everything they had.
Not to detract from the Indian machines (which were all Russian models I believe) but the test wasn't really fair.

yeah i already mention to what extent the simulation was sided

Most of all fighter craft in the world are US, Russian or European, India's own fighter program has only finally reached fruitition with the deal to make a plane on par with the US Raptor along with Russia and the release of the Tejas, which will increase the funding of the program immensely because the Tejas is cheaper than other models, and will become wanted in less developed countries. Other countries with their own planes are China and Israel (Fullstop)

yay!!! found it!

let me know if this doesn't take you right to the article

http://src1.epnet.com/School/Citation.aspx?sid=ab2df504-e2b8-4b7d-8e13-bcaf4c14f70f%40SRCSM2&vid=13960518

Unable to identify me as a legitimate user.

want me to just copy and paste the article into a post?

sure, thanks.

FOREIGN FIGHTER JETS performed well against F-16s in recent exercises
Dateline: NEW DELHI

Mingling over a few rounds of golf, dogfighting a bit over the jungles of West Bengal - this month's Cope India 2005 war games were billed as a standard two-week exercise between Indian and American top guns.

But in website chat rooms devoted to the arcania of fighter aircraft, there was a buzz. Arre, wa! Oh, wow! Had the Indian Air Force beat the Americans?

Not exactly, according to observers and participants. The exercises had mixed teams of Indian and American pilots on both sides, which means that both the Americans and the Indians won, and lost. Yet, observers say that in a surprising number of encounters - particularly between the American F-16s and the Indian Sukhoi-30 MKIs - the Indian pilots came out the winners.

"Since the cold war, there has been the general assumption that India is a third-world country with Soviet technology, and wherever the Soviet-supported equipment went, it didn't perform well," says Jasjit Singh, a retired air commodore and now director of the Center for Air Power Studies in New Delhi. "That myth has been blown out by the results" of these air exercises.

For now, US Air Force officials are saying only that the Cope India 2005 air exercises were a success, and a sign of America's growing appreciation for the abilities of its newfound regional ally.

But there are some signs that America's premier fighter jet, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, is losing ground to the growing sophistication of Russian-made fighter planes, and that the US should be more wary about presuming global air superiority - the linchpin of its military might.

"The Sukhoi is a … better plane than the F-16," says Vinod Patney, a retired Indian Air Force marshal, and former vice chief of air staff. "But we're not talking about a single aircraft. We're talking about the overall infrastructure, the command and control systems, the radar on the ground and in the air, the technical crew on the ground, and how do you maximize that infrastructure. This is where the learning curve takes place.

"So let's forget about I beat you, you beat me," he adds. "This is not a game of squash."

F-16s 'got their clocks cleaned'
Tell that to the participants of bharat-rakshak.com (Guardian of India). On any given day, this website seems devoted to which Indian fighter plane uses which missile, with occasional grumblings about why Saurav Ganguly is still playing on the Indian cricket team. But during Cope India '05, Bharat Rakshak was a veritable cheering session for the underestimated Indian Air Force.

Typical was a posting by a blogger who called himself "Babui." Citing a quote from a US Air Force participant in Cope India '05 in Stars and Stripes - "We try to replicate how these aircraft perform in the air, and I think we're good at doing that in our Air Force, but what we can't replicate is what's going on in their minds. They've challenged our traditional way of thinking on how an adversary, from whichever country, would fight." - "Babui" wrote, "That quote is as good an admission that the F-16 jocks got their clocks cleaned."

Another blogger, Forgestone, advised against such "chest-thumping." "Coming out on the winning or losing side of a scorecard doesn't change their large technological edge, their resources, their experience, their talent, their geostrategic position," he wrote, referring to the US Air Force.

More recently, an American pilot who participated in the exercise, added his own two cents on the blog. "It makes me sick to see some of the posts on this website," wrote a purported US "Viper" pilot. "They made some mistakes and so did we…. That's what happens and you learn from it."

The point of the exercise, he said, was for the USAF and the IAF to train, learn, and yes, play golf alongside each other. "For two weeks of training, both sides got more out of their training than they probably would in two months."

US fighter prowess slipping
Military experts say the joint exercises occurred at a time when America's fighter jet prowess is slipping. Since the US victories in the first Gulf War, a war dependent largely on air power, the Russians and French have improved the aviation electronics (avionics) and weapons capabilities of their Sukhoi and Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft. These improvements have given countries like India, which use the Sukhois and Mirages, a rough parity with US fighter planes like the F-16 and F-15C. China, too, now has 400 late-model Sukhois.

Yet, while the Indian Air Force designed the exercises to India's advantage - forcing pilots to fight "within visual range" rather than using America's highly advanced "beyond visual range" sensing equipment - both observers and participants admit that Indian aircraft and personnel performed much better than expected.

The Su-30 MKI "is an amazing jet that has a lot of maneuverability," Capt. Martin Mentch told an Air Force publication, AFPN. Maneuverability is key for missions of visual air combat.

If it turns out the US Air Force did, in fact, get their clocks cleaned, it will have been the second time. In Cope India 2004, an air combat exercise that took place near the Indian city of Gwalior, US F-15s were eliminated in multiple exercises against Indian late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers. In the 2005 exercises in Kalaikundi air base near Calcutta, Americans were most impressed by the MiG-21 Bisons and the Su-30 MKIs.

Indian training surprises US
Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India 2004, admitted that the US Air Force underestimated the Indians. "The outcome of the [2004] exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," he told Aviation Week last year. "They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly."

One USAF controller working aboard an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) plane told reporters at Kalaikundi Air Base that he was impressed by the speed in which Indian pilots responded to target assignments given them by AWACS. The AWACS, while operated by Americans, was acting as a neutral party, feeding target assignments to both Indian and American pilots during the exercise. In most cases, the Indians responded to target assignments faster than the American pilots did - a surprising fact, given that this was the first time Indian pilots had used the American AWACS capability.

Given India's growing economic and diplomatic aspirations, it's not surprising that many Indians would have the occasional outburst of jingoism. But Indian pilots know they still have a lot to learn.

"Whether the Indians win or lose is crew room gossip," says Mr. Patney. "The important thing is for us to be involved with the Americans; the purpose is to fly alongside each other, to learn from each other, to see if there is any interoperability. And for the Americans, the main thing is to see what we [Indians] can do with limited resources."

Its not written by an Indian, thats easy to see, no idot would mistake New Delhi for west bengal unless they just wanted to proclaim they were inside the country.

Umm, that says that pilots were interchanged as well, meaning Indians piloting US jets or having teams of mixed indian and US jets, I believe, and Indian winning more often against americans than americans against indians. The government was being pretty guarded, I guess they knew that it wasn't a fair test, or just didn't want to provoke anyone.

I've never seen that article before.

What's the Myrth-jet BTW?

Myrth = Rumored mod, ex-mod [w/e]. Usually found as an alternative poll option, hence the Myrth-jet.

yeah, i found that article by accident while doing research on the USAF

Ok

So neither country published it, great now I have some more propoganda to spread at IGN.com hahahahahahaha :sniper:

hahahahahahahahaha.....oh wait....

you can have the best fighter in the world, but if your support system sucks ass then it's not going to get you very far.

america has the best support system.


I just cant stop pissing myself laughing at this post...oh common we seen the support chain in Iraq, the moment the so called iraqi's fought back and hit the supply convoy's then everything stood still, all forward mobile units had a battle capability of only 48 hrs, try using this stratergy against an oposing force with the same military hardware....i guess things would not be the same..!

The US probably thought it could steamroll the IAF even without an advantage, just giving the indians some new technology to use, you know just forgetting that they were taking on the most diverse air force in the world.

The post quoted by Arrakiel is in response to a badly written article by the Christian Science Monitor about the Cope India '05 exercise. Not that I would go looking at the CSM for tech articles in the first place.

It’s reported too in other places that it was the Americans that had the AWACS on their side, not India. These are some links to the Cope India ’05:

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/002600.html

http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=54604

http://kuku.sawf.org/News/3602.aspx

http://www.india-defence.com/events/13

I hope these links will clear up a few things. Especially since none of them are written by the Christian Science Monitor.

Amatuers talk about tactics, veterans talk about strategy, experts talk about logistics.

I guess the US only has veterans

i've heard slightly contradictory reports from guys in the US air force (air national gaurd more specifically, but it turns out that Air Gaurd actually get more flying time than active-duty)

Amatuers talk about tactics, veterans talk about strategy, experts talk about logistics.

I guess the US only has veterans

{Compliments of Dictionary.com}

Tactic:An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver.

Strategy: The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations. [Several Tactics]

Logistics: The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel.

____________________________________

Logistics and Tactics both seem to be included within the definition of strategy.

Amatuers talk about tactics, veterans talk about strategy, experts talk about logistics.

I guess the US only has veterans

If you have a population to active war status ratio, then the U.S. is not in the top 5 catergory its placed around the top 10 but given the military hardware that they posses then it gives the distinct impression that they have more veterans

it was a quote i couldn't...well... quite quote exactly, and it was in reference to US commanders.

Rumsfeld sucks

The Israelis decided to go with the F-16I Sufa for their next generation air superiority combat jet and are stocking up on them in very large numbers. This upgrade has a lot going for it and addresses two of the most critical flaws of the F-16. The F-16I Sufa has greatly increased range (larger internal fuel capacity) over the F-16 and is capable of targeting at night and in bad weather (improved avionics), which was something the F-16 had a lot of problems with. The Israelis are one of the more practical militaries out there, so their taste in jets should be taken seriously.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html

I also agree with a few of the people here that the F-15 was a very fine jet. The Americans thought it was overbuilt and expensive, so they went to the not so very well constructed F-18’s with their twisty wing defects.

You don't seem to understand our fighters at all. This statement you made is very wrong.

Euro fighter because like a Duracell battery it just keeps on going and going and going

and when it does need maintenance it can get back in the air faster than the raptor

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper recently took a check ride in the Eurofighter, making him the first person to have flown both the Eurofighter and the F-22. So far, he is the only person to have done this, and his comments on the two aircraft have raised a point often forgotten by people. That point is that these two aircraft have been designed for different purposes.

The F-22 was intended to be an aerial version of a sniper. It has performed well in tests as a dogfighter, but it is primarily intended to get deep into opposing airspace and to take out the high-value airframes of an opponent. These are better known as airborne early warning planes, taking aircraft, and even the opposition’s top fighters. Its chief assets are speed and stealth. To get in close quickly, and to kill its prey with an AMRAAM, then get out. The stealth helps it get in close – the speed shortens the reaction time once the plane is detected (stealth technology only reduces the detection range – albeit the range is greatly reduced). The F-22 is primarily intended for air-to-air combat. Its secondary role of attack is very limited (two JDAMs or eight GBU-30 or GBU-40 Small-Diameter Bombs), but again, stealth and speed play big roles. The stealth gets the plane close, and the speed gives the target very little chance of reacting before the bombs hit the ground.

This is not to say the F-22 can’t handle a dogfight (there are plenty of F-15 and F-16 pilots who have gone head-to-head with the F-22 who will attest to that). However, if the F-22 is in a dogfight, the pilot is not using the aircraft in the most effective manner. With a planned production run of 179 aircraft (or possibly as high as 277), the F-22 is too important to be risked in a dogfight.

The Eurofighter, on the other hand, is a pure multi-role aircraft. This is a plane that, while it has some stealthy features, is intended to dogfight, win air superiority, or to carry out some attack missions. What roles this plane carries out will often depend on who buys it. Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, Austria, and the UK are already confirmed buyers, with Norway and Singapore possibly buying additional planes. The current run of Eurofighter is 620 aircraft. The United Kingdom and Germany will both have more Eurofighters than the United States will have F-22s should the planned production cuts to 179 remain in place.

These two aircraft are more akin to complementary parts of a team. The F-22 would kick in the door, so to speak, taking out key points of the defenses, and allowing the Eurofighter (and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter) to follow, carrying out various airstrikes and carrying out the bulk of the air superiority missions. These two aircraft will be the top aircraft for the United States and Europe, respectively in the early 21st Century.

The F-22 Raptor, just cuz' its cool.

And personally, I think its hilarious that all the European countries will have the same planes. Just one step closer to the domination of the European Union...

What you guys don't understand is that the Russians and some other nations in the world see sealth as somthing ot be countered. The new SU-47 has 360 degree radar (unheard of) and a radar system that makes awaks look 50 years old.

WIthout Awkas in the air the F-22 or any other US fighter for that matter is usesless. they are invisable to low end radar yes, but without awaks, they are blind and to a new SU-47 they are as big on the radar screen as a 747.

actually F-22's don't need an AWACS. they have about that much radar potential in their nose cones.

The F-22 Raptor, just cuz' its cool.

And personally, I think its hilarious that all the European countries will have the same planes. Just one step closer to the domination of the European Union...

It's not that hilarious, your own Hercules is powered by Rolls-Royce engines, the carrier trainers are British Aerospace Hawks, and your best artillery is made in Britain.

No country manafactures everything their military needs. That's why there's an arms trade!