NationStates Jolt Archive

In your opinion, what is the current best air-superiority fighter aircraft?

I'd have to say the Mustang or Spitfire Mark 2... Probably spitfire... those were the shit! :D

Nowadays I have to say JAS 39 (Also known as the worlds most expensive plow) just to be patriotic :)

for now, the new F-22 raptor. with stealth capabilities built in from previous lessons learned with americas stealth aircraft, LADAR with no superior, and a weapons guidance system second to none, you gotta go with the F-22.

not that its value priced, but hey, the question is which plane is the most supreme.

Seeing as I know jackshit about fighter aircraft I'm going to go with the name recognition: F-15.

La-7.

Or Fokker DVII.

A Flying Spaghetti Monster.

MiG-35 I'd say (yes that’s the aircraft that everyone complained was too good in Generals)

Also the fact that it has plasma stealth (which gives stealth without having to change the airframe) and is $50 million cheaper than the raptor makes it all the better

Raptor>Everyone.

On the other hand, everyone else is buying twice the number of Eurofighters/Rafales/MiG-35's/J-10's etc for the money...

It has to be the Su-47 'Berkut' - never mind plasma stealth, jamming and all this hoo-hah, it's got forward-swept wings and skill fans who can make pics like these

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a246/doomboy536/berkut.jpg

take that F-22 :p

With my limited knowledge and a brief google search, I'm going to say the F-22.

Raptor>Everyone.

On the other hand, everyone else is buying twice the number of Eurofighters/Rafales/MiG-35's/J-10's etc for the money...

but one raptor can take 4 F-15/16s... theyve proven that in simulated (note: not on the ground, in the air) air combat against experienced F-15/16 pilots.

great bang for your buck.

but one raptor can take 4 F-15/16s... theyve proven that in simulated (note: not on the ground, in the air) air combat against experienced F-15/16 pilots.

great bang for your buck.

Unless it goes bang:(

Unless it goes bang:(

or the F-22 has to take them on over the course of a few hours/days (veeeery time consuming maintenance plus it has so much that can go wrong anyway)

never mind the fact that its an expensive and inferior MiG-35:p

or the F-22 has to take them on over the course of a few hours/days (veeeery time consuming maintenance plus it has so much that can go wrong anyway)

never mind the fact that its an expensive and inferior MiG-35:p

Best airsuperiorty fighter = Alfred Hitchcoks Birds.

Best airsuperiorty fighter = Alfred Hitchcoks Birds.

http://www.crazyaviation.com/images/CA_birds.jpg

:eek:

http://www.crazyaviation.com/images/CA_birds.jpg

:eek:

Exaclty.

F-22.

It's got stealth, it's got an obscenely powerful radar and electronics package, and an excellent support network behind it.

The relatively lower payload (not that much of an issue; in practice it's not like it's gonna run out of missiles) and high costs are the only drawbacks, but if anyone can deal with that, it's the USAF.

And unlike all the cool plasma stealth Russian wonderplanes, it's actually in service.

The Rafale and Eurofighters are good planes though, and clearly more suited to what the Europeans needed than the F-22. Which is in the end more important when one needs to decide which is "best".

The F-35, once it's finished, might be the ideal compromise though.

http://www.crazyaviation.com/images/CA_birds.jpg

:eek:

Damn... wouldn't want to be the one to clean that windshield...

It has to be the Su-47 'Berkut' - never mind plasma stealth, jamming and all this hoo-hah, it's got forward-swept wings and skill fans who can make pics like these

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a246/doomboy536/berkut.jpg

take that F-22 :p
QFT, the Berkut owns. My nation uses them (but aren't they a multirole f/b aircraft rather than air superiority?)

http://www.crazyaviation.com/images/CA_birds.jpg

:eek:

This is what they get for serving birdseed in flight.

If we can have some test pilot that has tested more then one of these aircrafts?

No? Then liets just go with inverified crap. I meen; how effective is f-22's stealth, russians plasma? We dont know, and we wont get to know it for quite some time.

Ill go for the Eurofighter, on the virtue that it was the fighter the pilots at the base i was working on as a MP wanted.

F-22.

With stealthy capabilities and a Low Probability of intercept, plus the ability to go supersonic without using afterburners, it has an awful lot going for it.

If we can have some test pilot that has tested more then one of these aircrafts?

No? Then liets just go with inverified crap. I meen; how effective is f-22's stealth, russians plasma? We dont know, and we wont get to know it for quite some time.

Ill go for the Eurofighter, on the virtue that it was the fighter the pilots at the base i was working on as a MP wanted.

Actually, with the raptor, we do know a good amount. You might not, but the levels of secrecy have not been the same as they would have been during the Cold War.

Actually, with the raptor, we do know a good amount. You might not, but the levels of secrecy have not been the same as they would have been during the Cold War.

Quite true. But i am a light inf. (MP) soldier, not a pilot. :) I'll go for what sounds good. You know; speed, climbrate, maneuverbility, payload, radarrange, stealth, jammer, userfriendlyness, overall design and so on. :D This for me is more a uneducated guess then, a analysis of the craft in question. And these crafts probalby wont combatt eachother!

I know nothing about modern fighters, so I'm going to go for the nuke.

Seeing as I know jackshit about fighter aircraft I'm going to go with the name recognition: F-15.

Mig 31 firefox. it's a mutli-role fighter and has the most advanced weapons and radar system available. It had the ability to fire rockets in multiple directions and can hit targets behind it. It's weapons guidance sytems are sigith eneabled so the pilot can look at a target and use voice commands to fire the weapons. It has a top speed near mach 3 and a ceiling of 45,000 feet. It's manuverability is great, although not the best and the small and lighter mig 21, 23, and 25 are superior in that area.

Mig 31 firefox.
Not really. It was an interceptor, much like the F-14, just not as flexible.

Though it did have a radar that could kill rabbits alongside the runway by just pointing at them, which is sorta cool.

I voted F-15 because it has demonstrated it's ability. The F-22 is still in the stage where a lot of kinks are being worked out. It's only been IOC'd for a year and that hasn't seen much, if any, air-superiority activity. The Raptor will be a great plane, it just has a lot to prove.

Mig 31 firefox. it's a mutli-role fighter and has the most advanced weapons and radar system available. It had the ability to fire rockets in multiple directions and can hit targets behind it. It's weapons guidance sytems are sigith eneabled so the pilot can look at a target and use voice commands to fire the weapons. It has a top speed near mach 3 and a ceiling of 45,000 feet. It's manuverability is great, although not the best and the small and lighter mig 21, 23, and 25 are superior in that area.

Ummm, you do realise that the firefox was only thus called in the film starring Clint Eastwood of the same name?

The Nato designation for the Mig 31 is Foxhound.

Let's just get this out of the way right now: The Eurofighter sucks.

Sopwith Camel.

Let's just get this out of the way right now: The Eurofighter sucks.

Why do you say that?

Why do you say that?

Too many industrial trade-offs.

In March 2005, USAF Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Typhoon and the Raptor, talked about these two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F-22 Raptor". "They are different kinds of airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

I like the quote.

F-22.

It's got stealth, it's got an obscenely powerful radar and electronics package, and an excellent support network behind it.

The relatively lower payload (not that much of an issue; in practice it's not like it's gonna run out of missiles) and high costs are the only drawbacks, but if anyone can deal with that, it's the USAF.

And unlike all the cool plasma stealth Russian wonderplanes, it's actually in service.

The Rafale and Eurofighters are good planes though, and clearly more suited to what the Europeans needed than the F-22. Which is in the end more important when one needs to decide which is "best".


I agree on the F/A-22 Raptor. It is more comparing apples to oranges, but if I had to pick between the Raptor and the Typhoon, I'd take the Raptor.
Speed (with or without afterburners), stealth, maneuverability are superior in the Raptor.
And bewtween the Raptor and the Typhoon, they seem to be capable of carrying much of the same Air to Air/Air to Ground armaments.

Mig 31 firefox. it's a mutli-role fighter and has the most advanced weapons and radar system available. It had the ability to fire rockets in multiple directions and can hit targets behind it. It's weapons guidance sytems are sigith eneabled so the pilot can look at a target and use voice commands to fire the weapons. It has a top speed near mach 3 and a ceiling of 45,000 feet. It's manuverability is great, although not the best and the small and lighter mig 21, 23, and 25 are superior in that area.

You have overstated several points. The Foxhound's weapons and radar are around 25 years old (there are minor upgrades from the 1990s) and it can only track and targets in front of it, within its radar cone (although it was one of the first aircraft to track more than one aircraft at a time). It does feature a helmet mounted sight (as do most of the 1980's Soviet Aircraft), but not voice operation as far as I know. It's service ceiling is in excess of 45,000 feet, over 60,000 if i recall correctly. For its time, it was certainly very innovative. One major plus side is that as far as I know, it is the only fighter aircraft to include a toilet in the seat and a soup and coffee dispenser (Western pilots on endurance missions as far as I know are expected to hold it in or crap their pants and get no in-flight refreshments). That point aside, its avionics have long been rendered obsolete by modern developments.

In addition, the MiG 21 and MiG 23 have pretty sub-standard maneuverability by today's standards, whereas the MiG 25 is a brick with very powerful engines - this applies also to the MiG-31, which is the same basic design. Those aircraft are interceptors designed for long-range combat and speed. Maneuverability isn't a design requirement. (The MiG 29 and Su-27 series are the maneuverable ones.)

Too many industrial trade-offs.

Could you elaborate on that please?

Sopwith Camel.

Fokker DVII > Sopwith Camel :p

Sopwith Camel.

Flown by a different breed of men.

I like the quote.

I just read that one too and it makes perfect sense.

Could you elaborate on that please?

Sure. Germany, for example, says to the Brits, "You got to put X system on the fighter, so we should get to put Y system on it. Just ignore that you produce a better Y system. We need a balance in industrial share in the program."

The Eurofighter isn't the best plane it could be, because the participating nations demanded certain slices of the industrial pie, regardless of capability.

Flown by a different breed of men.

Yeah, nutters the lot of them. When I fly an aeroplane I like a better than evens chance that the wings will remain attached for the duration of the flight.

Yeah, nutters the lot of them. When I fly an aeroplane I like a better than evens chance that the wings will remain attached for the duration of the flight.

They flew up to 12,000 feet in an open cockpit. Max power was 150 horse power.
The entire plane was constructed of flammable materials.

Ground attacks by hand-dropping 25 pound bombs.


If they werent in fact, nutters, I dont know where they had space to keep their brass balls.

They flew up to 12,000 feet in an open cockpit. Max power was 150 horse power.
The entire plane was constructed of flammable materials.

Ground attacks by hand-dropping 25 pound bombs.


If they werent in fact, nutters, I dont know where they had space to keep their brass balls.

Sopwith Camel Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel

Like I said, nutters.

Sopwith Camel Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel

Like I said, nutters.

You're right- I switched the #s in error.

12,000 or 21,000- men who didnt contemplate fear much.

Sopwith Camel Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel

Like I said, nutters.
Service ceilings and combat ceilings are two different things. Plus, a sea-level R/C of 1000 fpm isn't going to get you to 21,000 ft in 21 minutes. Or anything close. It's going to take all-friggin-day to get to that altitude. That's why superchargers and turbochargers dominated in the next war.

Twelve angels is about right.
http://transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_sopwith_camel

They flew up to 12,000 feet in an open cockpit. Max power was 150 horse power.
The entire plane was constructed of flammable materials.

Ground attacks by hand-dropping 25 pound bombs.


If they werent in fact, nutters, I dont know where they had space to keep their brass balls.

I read something way long ago about the conditions that these guys flew in. The planes were so unsafe and alcohol was so available that a number of the pilots learned to fly while intoxicated. When they sobered up, they weren't anywhere near as good as they were when drunk.

Service ceilings and combat ceilings are two different things. Plus, a sea-level R/C of 1000 fpm isn't going to get you to 21,000 ft in 21 minutes. Or anything close. It's going to take all-friggin-day to get to that altitude. That's why superchargers and turbochargers dominated in the next war.

Twelve angels is about right.
http://transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_sopwith_camel

Who mentioned combat? We were talking about how much respect we had for the guys who flew these things and at least one must have hit 21,000 feet for it to have been recorded as the aircrafts ceiling no?

Ummm, you do realise that the firefox was only thus called in the film starring Clint Eastwood of the same name?

The Nato designation for the Mig 31 is Foxhound.

you are correct. but the lore is that the russians actually devloped the firefox in small numbers.

I read something way long ago about the conditions that these guys flew in. The planes were so unsafe and alcohol was so available that a number of the pilots learned to fly while intoxicated. When they sobered up, they weren't anywhere near as good as they were when drunk.

The rotary engines would throw of tonnes of castor oil onto the the pilot's faces, making them poop themselves after a while.

Regarding Russian fighters:

The MiG 35 is an upgraded MiG 29, it's also known as the MiG 29OVT and features canard foreplanes and thrust vectoring. The MiG Project 1.44/1.42 and the S-37/Su-47 are both technology demonstrators, not intended for service. Russia's 5th Gen fighter project is called the PAK-FA, and is likely to be developed with Indian assistance, and cash.

The MiG 31 Foxhound is a significantly improved MiG 25, more capable but still too specialized to be the best in it's day, and too outdated to be the best nowadays.

Mig 31 firefox. it's a mutli-role fighter and has the most advanced weapons and radar system available. It had the ability to fire rockets in multiple directions and can hit targets behind it. It's weapons guidance sytems are sigith eneabled so the pilot can look at a target and use voice commands to fire the weapons. It has a top speed near mach 3 and a ceiling of 45,000 feet.

The Firefox is a fictional airplane, from a movie and novel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_%28film%29

Some of the features this poster has described are actually planned features of the PAK-FA project, or other 5th Gen fighters (voice commands, rearward firing missiles), some of them are on other fighters in service already (the MiG 29 and Su 27 can both aim 'off bore sight' by the pilot's head turning, as can upgrades to the Mirage series, and the newest block of F-16s), some of them are unlikely to ever be included in a fighter, no one's built a fighter with a top speed over Mach 2.5 since the 70s, when it was realized top speed wasn't a deciding factor in air combat anymore.

you are correct. but the lore is that the russians actually devloped the firefox in small numbers.

Lore also suggests magic faeries made the earth and there's a secret stash of Avro Arrows somewhere, doesn't make it based on even the slightest shred of truth, just a little truthiness.

You have overstated several points. The Foxhound's weapons and radar are around 25 years old (there are minor upgrades from the 1990s) and it can only track and targets in front of it, within its radar cone (although it was one of the first aircraft to track more than one aircraft at a time). It does feature a helmet mounted sight (as do most of the 1980's Soviet Aircraft), but not voice operation as far as I know. It's service ceiling is in excess of 45,000 feet, over 60,000 if i recall correctly. For its time, it was certainly very innovative. One major plus side is that as far as I know, it is the only fighter aircraft to include a toilet in the seat and a soup and coffee dispenser (Western pilots on endurance missions as far as I know are expected to hold it in or crap their pants and get no in-flight refreshments). That point aside, its avionics have long been rendered obsolete by modern developments.

In addition, the MiG 21 and MiG 23 have pretty sub-standard maneuverability by today's standards, whereas the MiG 25 is a brick with very powerful engines - this applies also to the MiG-31, which is the same basic design. Those aircraft are interceptors designed for long-range combat and speed. Maneuverability isn't a design requirement. (The MiG 29 and Su-27 series are the maneuverable ones.)

I actually have to go with the F-22 on this one inspite of being a Falcon man. As for the MiG-25 and MiG-31, those were designed to intercept hig flying bombers such as the B-52. They did this job very well. Their high speed and high altitude performance also made them capable spy planes. THe Raptor simply outperforms the new batch of European fighters, but in actuality it really comes down to the skill of the pilot and how well the pilot knows his machine.

THe F-22 has one key advantage. Because of its radar design, no other aircraft can detect its radar emissions until it is very close. This gives the F-22 first look and first shot in most engagements.

you are correct. but the lore is that the russians actually devloped the firefox in small numbers.

No they didn't. And even if they didn't Firefox would have been a Nato designation following the pattern they use and not a Russian one and as they never saw serve Nato never gave it a designation. If they had secretly developed a super plane and then just decided not to use it on a whim, it would have been called something else.

No they didn't. And even if they didn't Firefox would have been a Nato designation following the pattern they use and not a Russian one and as they never saw serve Nato never gave it a designation. If they had secretly developed a super plane and then just decided not to use it on a whim, it would have been called something else.

Wait a minute. Obviously the commies did build a few of those firefox thingies because Dirty Harry stole one to win the cold war all by himself. It's true, I saw it on TV.

Wait a minute. Obviously the commies did build a few of those firefox thingies because Dirty Harry stole one to win the cold war all by himself. It's true, I saw it on TV.

It was on BBC4 2 nights ago.

Who mentioned combat? We were talking about how much respect we had for the guys who flew these things and at least one must have hit 21,000 feet for it to have been recorded as the aircrafts ceiling no?

Probably, but not necessarily. A service ceiling is not the maximum altitude the aircraft can reach, but a point where it reaches 100 fpm. I think they mostly calculate these things, rather than measure them, but they aren't in the normal operating envelope of the aircraft. And then there's the whole hypoxia thing. The partial pressures of oxygen are just too low at 20K to sustain consciousness.

When I was an A-6 B/N, we would do test flights after engine replacements that required a climb, then level flight, at 40,000 feet. First, it took all day to get there with 20,000 lbs of thrust and second, level flight on a single engine was nearly impossible. I don't know what our service ceiling was, but we never got close.

The rotary engines would throw of tonnes of castor oil onto the the pilot's faces, making them poop themselves after a while.

Liberty in Karachi did that to me.

At first I was gonna say the F-15, as no F-15 has ever been shot down in combat (but they haven't seen as much action as other models, either)

One cool thing an F-15 can and has done... Shoot down a satellite. It was depicted in the novel Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, and I always thought that was cool if a little unrealistic, but then I found out later that in real life, and F-15 was indeed used, along with a specially designed missile, to take out a satellite in orbit.

The F-15 was chosen for that mission because it has the highest service ceiling, able to climb vertically and accelerate. OMG that's so cool I can't stand it...

And yet I voted F-22. My reasoning is that the F-22 can do everything an F-15 can do plus it has stealth, greater speed, thrust vectoring, advanced avionics, etc etc etc.

At first I was gonna say the F-15, as no F-15 has ever been shot down in combat (but they haven't seen as much action as other models, either)

One cool thing an F-15 can and has done... Shoot down a satellite. It was depicted in the novel Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, and I always thought that was cool if a little unrealistic, but then I found out later that in real life, and F-15 was indeed used, along with a specially designed missile, to take out a satellite in orbit.

The F-15 was chosen for that mission because it has the highest service ceiling, able to climb vertically and accelerate. OMG that's so cool I can't stand it...

And yet I voted F-22. My reasoning is that the F-22 can do everything an F-15 can do plus it has stealth, greater speed, thrust vectoring, advanced avionics, etc etc etc.

Clancy got it wrong. The US ASAT missile was designed to be (and could only launch from) an F-16.

Clancy got it wrong. The US ASAT missile was designed to be (and could only launch from) an F-16.

It may have been designed for the F-16 but apparently it's a matter of avionics.


Satellite killer
From January 1984 to September 1986, an F-15A was used as a launch platform for five ASM-135 ASAT missiles. The F-15A went into a supersonic climb and released the ASAT missile at an altitude of 11.6 km. The F-15A computer was updated to control the zoom-climb and missile release. The third test flight involved a retired communications satellite in a 555 km orbit, which was successfully destroyed by sheer kinetic energy. The pilot, USAF Major Wilbert D. "Doug" Pearson, became the first pilot ever to destroy an orbiting satellite.[6]

The ASAT missile was designed to be a standoff anti-satellite weapon, with an undetected first stage (the F-15A).

Yeah, I just took a look at the site about it. Seems the F-16 didn't have the power to carry it, so they changed to the F-15 late in the program.

Sorry, guys. My bad.

I wonder if they'll keep any F-15s around just for the purpose of anti-satellite ops... The F-22 can't do it because all of its weapon hardpoints are internal and I just don't see something as big as the ASAT being deployed by one...

I wonder if they'll keep any F-15s around just for the purpose of anti-satellite ops... The F-22 can't do it because all of its weapon hardpoints are internal and I just don't see something as big as the ASAT being deployed by one...

Looks like the planned retirement is going to be delayed (http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/883/USAF-May-Delay-F-15-Retirement.html), at least for a while. The buy of F-22s isn't enough to completely replace the Eagles.

I've always liked the FW 190A-8.

In your opinion, what is the current best air-superiority fighter aircraft?

The Mig 29. Why the hell isn't that on there. The radar lock is mounted on the pilots helmet, so you can in fack just turn your head to lock on and fire, no matter where the enemy is.

The Mig 29. Why the hell isn't that on there. The radar lock is mounted on the pilots helmet, so you can in fack just turn your head to lock on and fire, no matter where the enemy is.


That's actually nothing unique.