NationStates Jolt Archive

If these aircraft all fought one another in equal numbers with good pilots, which one would be victorious? I think it could be close between the S-37 Berkut and the F-22. Both are super-manueverable and both have stealth capabilities. The F-35 would also compete well in my opinion because it is also stealthy.

In the case of the CF-105 Arrow and Mirage 2000, please assume they have upgraded avionics and weapon systems.

Not sure what the best fighter is, but if I may make a slightly off-topic observation, the most beautiful bomber in the world has got to be this:
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/6679/tu160pic1mh0.jpg
*fixed*

SU-47 Berkut because the idea is to be frank "fucking insane!" and I'm fairly confident that maneuverability will be a big factor in an equal fight between skilled pilots (plus plasma stealth FTW!)

http://www.air-attack.com/MIL/_EXP/su47/berkut.jpg

Not sure what the best fighter is, but if I may make a slightly off-topic observation, the most beautiful bomber in the world has got to be this:
http://www.avions-militaires.net/images/photos/tu160.jpg

What exactely is that? A B-1?

Blackjack. Tupolev T-160. Think it's their version of the B-1.

SU-47 Berkut because the idea is to be frank "fucking insane!"

No kidding, those Russians really go balls to the walls with aircraft design. That forward wing design is suppose to give the S-37 extremely low speed manueverability, so that other planes will stall before slowing down enough to get behind it.

Blackjack. Tupolev T-160. Think it's their version of the B-1.

Oh right, the reverse-engineered B-1.

Oh right, the reverse-engineered B-1.

Except about 2.5x the Max. takeoff weight, thrust, and speed. Plus a little greater range.

Oh right, the reverse-engineered B-1.

Frankly? Yes.

The F-22, as of now. We don't really know the combat capiblilites of the Su-47, so I'm going to reserve judgment until it's actually delivered in numbers to any Air Force.

Liu Kang:)
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/thumbnail/1131833206-00.png

The F-22, as of now. We don't really know the combat capiblilites of the Su-47, so I'm going to reserve judgment until it's actually delivered in numbers to any Air Force.

That may never actually happen. The Russian airforce is falling apart from what I understand. Plus the Mig-29 probably has the ability to beat anything but an F-22 so why even try?

That may never actually happen. The Russian airforce is falling apart from what I understand. Plus the Mig-29 probably has the ability to beat anything but an F-22 so why even try?

I wouldn't say that the MiG-29 is the end all of 4th Generation fighters. It's probably equal to the F-15 and F/A-18.

Don't know. I have no knowledge or interest in the subject.

I wouldn't say that the MiG-29 is the end all of 4th Generation fighters. It's probably equal to the F-15 and F/A-18.

Interesting. I found this on Yahoo Answers.

"American Airforce and their Indian counterparts held joint excercises in the state of Rajasthan. The Americans had F15 and the latest F16s. Guess What? the Mig29 with its upgaded avionics gave both a planes a good run for their money, slightly losing out to the newer F16s. The talk of this excersice was the SukhoisMk2 (much different than the MK1) which beat both the planes in almost all depts. Suddenly the mighty F-16s and 15s were not that invincible afterall. The Indians then let the Americans fly the Sukhoi and they were shocked to find out that the plane not only had matching avionics it could also outmanuver the F-18s which are considered the best handling planes of the American fleet. Janes Defence Weekly carried out a detailed report and concluded that the excersice highlights the need of F22's induction much earlier than anticipated. It was also all over the Indian press. The chief American test pilot admitted he had never flown a more agile aircraft of this size."

I voted for the F-35, but I think this guy has the fight covered.
http://www.airventure.de/wow04/Fokker_Dreidecker_1.jpg

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to the pilot.

Top Gun FTW!!

at the end of the day, the best pilot in the world can never defeat someone that he is unable to ever see or know is there until he is dead.

if you want to win, you need the best combination of pilot, plane, weapon, battlefield management, and numbers.

That is why the U.S. air force is the best

At the end of the day, I think it comes down to the pilot.

Top Gun FTW!!

Top Gun doesn't exist anymore.

I'll throw in the Colonial Viper Mk.VII.

*snip*

if you want to win, you need the best combination of pilot, plane, weapon, battlefield management, and numbers.

I should have qualified my statement a little better, I suppose. But the mere fact that there's even a debate about which 'plane' is better lends itself to the argument that 1) many are close in their ability, with trade-offs and pros/cons for each, and 2) it's not the 'only' thing that matters. There are plenty of fine military aircraft out there, and even the second-tier fighters are bound to face off against each other at some point in time. As such, other variables do come into play. TFD seems to sum up what I mean rather well above.


Top Gun doesn't exist anymore.


Isn't it called this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_and_Air_Warfare_Center) now?

Anyways, I'm an Army guy, so I should probably leave the jet-talk to all you fly-boys. :)

Isn't it called this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_and_Air_Warfare_Center) now?

Anyways, I'm an Army guy, so I should probably leave the jet-talk to all you fly-boys. :)

I guess I should have been more clear. It doesn't exist as a seperate entity anymore. But a moot point anyway.

Bah! All the new planes can not withstand the pure fugliness of the:

http://http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/Chip-Man/1948_J29.jpg

SAAB J 29 TUNNAN!!!

"on the ground an ugly duckling - in the air, a swift."

No kidding, those Russians really go balls to the walls with aircraft design. That forward wing design is suppose to give the S-37 extremely low speed manueverability, so that other planes will stall before slowing down enough to get behind it.
More likely for landing or refueling. Bombers don't dogfight, they run away. There are any number of ways to shoot down a slower aircraft; the advantage goes to the aircraft with the most energy and prolonged slow speed is incompatible with an energy fight.

More likely for landing or refueling. Bombers don't dogfight, they run away. There are any number of ways to shoot down a slower aircraft; the advantage goes to the aircraft with the most energy and prolonged slow speed is incompatible with an energy fight.

I must disagree. Although top speed is more important than minimum speed, alot of manuevers require very slow speeds. This is meant to keep a lead on your enemy as he might whip around you or dive below you.

If two planes are side by side in the air, the plane that speeds up and gets in front will be shot down. So it then becomes a race to see who can slow down the most and put the other plane in front of him. A plane with poor low speed design would slow down to the point that its wings would be unable to generate lift and the plane would begin to stall and fall to the ground making an easy target.

at the end of the day, the best pilot in the world can never defeat someone that he is unable to ever see or know is there until he is dead.

if you want to win, you need the best combination of pilot, plane, weapon, battlefield management, and numbers.

That is why the U.S. air force is the best

Unless a BVR ROE is in effect, but I guess RADAR counts too. I agree with you about the U.S., except you need to remember _all_ the services fly and they're all pretty darned good. I don' think anyone can go head-to-head, every day against the U.S. and come out victorious in air combat. We just spend too much time practicing. We'd even beat the IAF because we can win a war of attrition.

(Weaking public support not withstanding...)

So apparently the Indian Air force will fly whatever they can get their hands on.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/F-15_Su30_Mir2000.jpg/744px-F-15_Su30_Mir2000.jpg

Russian, French, American. They all make good planes I guess.

I must disagree. Although top speed is more important than minimum speed, alot of manuevers require very slow speeds. This is meant to keep a lead on your enemy as he might whip around you or dive below you.

If two planes are side by side in the air, the plane that speeds up and gets in front will be shot down. So it then becomes a race to see who can slow down the most and put the other plane in front of him. A plane with poor low speed design would slow down to the point that its wings would be unable to generate lift and the plane would begin to stall and fall to the ground making an easy target.
Now, you're really in my turf. You're talking aerodynamics, but without the experience that proving them brings.

Typically engagements start out head to head. Side-by-side doesn't get you anything. At the pass, you have to make a decision...mainly, is the fight going to be horizontal or vertical. All fights are won by conserving energy, trading altitude for airspeed. There is no advantage to slowing down unless you are fairly evenly matched. Then you get stuck in a horizontal or a rolling scissors and the slowest plane might get a shot. He might not, because the adversary may still do something unexpected that puts him out of synch.

Remember what I said though, bombers don't dogfight. They may do some defensive maneuvering, but only to get a momentary advantage and run away.

Let's look at that side by side setup for a second. Your bomber slows down. My fighter hits the burner and goes vertical. I fall in behind and through a series of yo-yo's I get my nose on your bomber and shoot you down. I can always make the angles work to my favor, if I have enough energy. If you continue to fly straight ahead, I just strafe you.

Did I emphasize that it's about energy and not speed?

I had a dream about you last night Myrmidonisia. You were giving me a ride in a small jet to Reno. You looked just like George Wentz. I couldn't get you to climb to altitude. You insisted on following the highway, even passing under the underpasses. When we pulled into a Chevron station you poured yourself a drink, still sitting in the cockpit.


Any idea what the hell that means, or should I just start trying to avoid spicy foods before bed?

Why is this important?

Now, you're really in my turf. You're talking aerodynamics, but without the experience that proving them brings.

Typically engagements start out head to head. Side-by-side doesn't get you anything. At the pass, you have to make a decision...mainly, is the fight going to be horizontal or vertical. All fights are won by conserving energy, trading altitude for airspeed. There is no advantage to slowing down unless you are fairly evenly matched. Then you get stuck in a horizontal or a rolling scissors and the slowest plane might get a shot. He might not, because the adversary may still do something unexpected that puts him out of synch.

Remember what I said though, bombers don't dogfight. They may do some defensive maneuvering, but only to get a momentary advantage and run away.

Let's look at that side by side setup for a second. Your bomber slows down. My fighter hits the burner and goes vertical. I fall in behind and through a series of yo-yo's I get my nose on your bomber and shoot you down. I can always make the angles work to my favor, if I have enough energy. If you continue to fly straight ahead, I just strafe you.

Did I emphasize that it's about energy and not speed?

wait, is the S-37 a bomber? I could have sworn it was a tactical fighter like wikipedia says it is.

You clearly know more about this than I do. I had to look up what exactely a yo yo and a rolling scissors is. I still don't understand why you contest that low spe...er...energy maneuverability is not relevant. I mean, the whole purpose of a yo yo is to slow down and stay behind your target right?

Sopwith Camel.

Teh awesomest plane evar.

I actually don't trust flying. If I had to go off and fight in a war I'd rather be in the infantry or navy.

So apparently the Indian Air force will fly whatever they can get their hands on.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/F-15_Su30_Mir2000.jpg/744px-F-15_Su30_Mir2000.jpg

Russian, French, American. They all make good planes I guess.

I would say that the two F-15's in the middle are USAF planes. They have Alaska markings on the tail and a US star and bar below the cockpit.

I'll throw in the Colonial Viper Mk.VII.


X-Wing > Colonial Viper

Is there still a need for fighter/interceptors with the advent of AA missiles? Why should our enemies spend millions of [insert currency of choice] for each aircraft and then train an expensive and "delicate" pilot when they can spend thousands of [insert currency of choice] for multiple anti-aircraft missiles that can be controlled by a desk jockey.

Besides I prefer ground attack aircraft. (Long live the A-10!)

X-Wing > Colonial Viper

StarFuries pwn all.

wait, is the S-37 a bomber? I could have sworn it was a tactical fighter like wikipedia says it is.

You clearly know more about this than I do. I had to look up what exactely a yo yo and a rolling scissors is. I still don't understand why you contest that low spe...er...energy maneuverability is not relevant. I mean, the whole purpose of a yo yo is to slow down and stay behind your target right?

Oops, I was thinking of the bomber photo that was posted right above your post. Forward swept wings like the Berkut were tried on the X-29, too. I don't remember much about it's success or failure, of that program, but you're right about the potential. Now, we're back to how well you train.

Some planes do fight better than others. If you have a pair of similar aircraft, you will almost always get into a horizontal low speed fight. I think it's because they both use up their stored energy at about the same rate and neither can make a decisive move by just going to burner.

In dissimilar fights, the plane with the better ability to convert airspeed to altitude will almost always go vertical and look for a way to get behind the lower performance plane. That's what barrel rolls and yo-yos are good for. The barrel roll will correct angles off the tail when the planes are at similar speeds. The yo-yo will slow you down, but it will also help align the fuselages to where a lead angle exists for guns, or to a nose-on angle for missiles.

It's tough to write about this because I'm thinking at about 500 kts and my fingers only type at about 15. Anyhow, imagine you're in a hard turn and that I've got behind you. I can't bring the guns to lead you without stalling, so I drop my nose inside your turn to pick up a few angles on you. If you're smart, you'll counter that, but that's the basic idea.

If I'm behind, but overshooting like crazy and you're still in that hard turn, I'll pull the nose up and outside the turn to cut down some of the overshoot. It's going to cost some airspeed and that's why similar planes always end up slow and horizontal.

Anyway, after a yo-yo, you will slow down, but the advantage should be yours, either because you've repositioned yourself or because you've stopped the overshoot that will put you out in front again. It's kind of a subtle difference, but the tactic itself isn't to slow down, but to find a productive way to bleed off excess energy. The only exception is the slow scissors, where you really do want to make the other guy fall out of the sky and then capitalize on that. I can't imagine that would be the first consideration of a modern fighter, though. I think the forward sweep pays other dividends than low speed maneuvering. Shorter spars, certainly, maybe that leads to increased g loading...

Sorry to get so far off track.

ANything Russian.

Is there still a need for fighter/interceptors with the advent of AA missiles? Why should our enemies spend millions of [insert currency of choice] for each aircraft and then train an expensive and "delicate" pilot when they can spend thousands of [insert currency of choice] for multiple anti-aircraft missiles that can be controlled by a desk jockey.

Besides I prefer ground attack aircraft. (Long live the A-10!)

Yeah, I thight the next generation of fighters will either be unmanned planes or just long-range guided missles.

Oops, I was thinking of the bomber photo that was posted right above your post. Forward swept wings like the Berkut were tried on the X-29, too. I don't remember much about it's success or failure, of that program, but you're right about the potential. Now, we're back to how well you train.

Some planes do fight better than others. If you have a pair of similar aircraft, you will almost always get into a horizontal low speed fight. I think it's because they both use up their stored energy at about the same rate and neither can make a decisive move by just going to burner.

In dissimilar fights, the plane with the better ability to convert airspeed to altitude will almost always go vertical and look for a way to get behind the lower performance plane. That's what barrel rolls and yo-yos are good for. The barrel roll will correct angles off the tail when the planes are at similar speeds. The yo-yo will slow you down, but it will also help align the fuselages to where a lead angle exists for guns, or to a nose-on angle for missiles.

It's tough to write about this because I'm thinking at about 500 kts and my fingers only type at about 15. Anyhow, imagine you're in a hard turn and that I've got behind you. I can't bring the guns to lead you without stalling, so I drop my nose inside your turn to pick up a few angles on you. If you're smart, you'll counter that, but that's the basic idea.

If I'm behind, but overshooting like crazy and you're still in that hard turn, I'll pull the nose up and outside the turn to cut down some of the overshoot. It's going to cost some airspeed and that's why similar planes always end up slow and horizontal.

Anyway, after a yo-yo, you will slow down, but the advantage should be yours, either because you've repositioned yourself or because you've stopped the overshoot that will put you out in front again. It's kind of a subtle difference, but the tactic itself isn't to slow down, but to find a productive way to bleed off excess energy. The only exception is the slow scissors, where you really do want to make the other guy fall out of the sky and then capitalize on that. I can't imagine that would be the first consideration of a modern fighter, though. I think the forward sweep pays other dividends than low speed maneuvering. Shorter spars, certainly, maybe that leads to increased g loading...

Sorry to get so far off track.


That was very interesting. Thankyou for sharing. But I still want to know exactely wtf is up with those forward swept wings. Perhaps the answer is somewhere on the internet?

Yeah, I thight the next generation of fighters will either be unmanned planes or just long-range guided missles.

Anything remote controlled can be jammed. Anything controlled by a computer can be outthought.

Until that ceases to be the case (and I freely admit this may well become so soon) manned birds are the only real defence.

That was very interesting. Thankyou for sharing. But I still want to know exactely wtf is up with those forward swept wings. Perhaps the answer is somewhere on the internet?Forward swept wings are more manuverable, especially at low speeds. I once saw a diagram showing the areas of most stress and heat on a traditional delta wing and these corresponded exactly with the areas that are missing in a forwrd swept design. Of course with the forward swept design control is inherently unstable (giving the increased manuverability) making fly-by-wire control a neccesity (control imputs are routed through a computer), not that big a deal with modern avionics, unless you have a computer or electrical malfunction. If you loose either your only option is to punch out and say goodbye to the airframe.

So apparently the Indian Air force will fly whatever they can get their hands on.

Russian, French, American. They all make good planes I guess.

IAF does not have any US planes.

Not a fighter, but still (imho) the coolest looking plane ever built:

Blackbird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg)

Brewster Buffalo.

I had a dream about you last night Myrmidonisia. You were giving me a ride in a small jet to Reno. You looked just like George Wentz. I couldn't get you to climb to altitude. You insisted on following the highway, even passing under the underpasses. When we pulled into a Chevron station you poured yourself a drink, still sitting in the cockpit.


Any idea what the hell that means, or should I just start trying to avoid spicy foods before bed?
I think that means you should seek out a mental health professional. I would never drink in the cockpit.

That was very interesting. Thankyou for sharing. But I still want to know exactely wtf is up with those forward swept wings. Perhaps the answer is somewhere on the internet?

As I mentioned before, the main spar can be shorter, but the best explanation I see is that the pilot can maintain control at very high angles of attack. Here's the link to the X-29 fact sheet at NASA Dryden.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html

Is there still a need for fighter/interceptors with the advent of AA missiles? Why should our enemies spend millions of [insert currency of choice] for each aircraft and then train an expensive and "delicate" pilot when they can spend thousands of [insert currency of choice] for multiple anti-aircraft missiles that can be controlled by a desk jockey.

Besides I prefer ground attack aircraft. (Long live the A-10!)

Yet, SAM sites have been in place defenses around the world since the late fifties, and there remains a demand for tactical fighters and fighter-interceptors.

I think that means you should seek out a mental health professional. I would never drink in the cockpit.No cup holders, right?

No cup holders, right?

There you go. Isn't the rule "No smoking within 8 hours and no drinking within 50 ft"?

We used to get box lunches for long flights and a can of Coke or something was always included. One time we were hanging on the blades at max range airspeed, using the autopilot to hold altitude. I was doing the Stars and Stripes crossword and the pilot was reading a comic book and drinking one of those Cokes, so neither of us were paying much attention to anything. The autopilot picked that moment to command a higher altitude -- meaning the airspeed would drop if the throttles weren't pushed up a little.

Well, the plane stalled, the pilot let go of his Coke and pushed the nose over into 0 g to recover, and I caught the Coke in mid-air. Not a drop was spilled. It was so graceful, it was almost like we had rehearsed it.

My awnser is: It's either the F-22 or the Eurofighter. I know alot about Fighter aircraft but I'll try to keep it simple and down to earth.

Now both have distinct advantages that most if not all other fighters do not pocess. Read carefully, because at the end you will find a somewhat unexpected conclusion.

The Eurofighter Typhoon: Is the most manuverable fighter in the world, out turning the F-22 the Su-37 and the Dassault Raphale. The fighter is incredibly fast and has an unheard of climbing rate which gives the fighter the advantage of being capable of attacking ANY aircraft from above which is a distinct advantage not only in short range but also on the long range level (BVR) due to the fact that gravity then assists the missiles fired by the fighter in otherwords a fighter at 20.000 ft can fire a missile sooner at a fighter at 10.000 ft then the fighter at 10.000 ft can fire its (exactly identical) missile at the fighter at 20.000 ft due to the fact that the Missle from the first fighter has 10.000 ft of extra gravity energy on its side whilst the 2nd fighters missiles have 10.000 ft of gravity energy working against it.
The Eurofighter is also so manuverable that it can outturn ANY missile including the AIM-9X the IRIS-T, the ADDER and even the ASRAAM. This gives the Eurofighter the advantage of, I dont need stealth because I can't be hit anyway aslong as I pay attention. I can go on and on but for the Eurofighter the following is what makes it so good:
-Superb speed
-Unmatched manuverability
-Great acceleration
-Abbility to take off from unpaved runways and very short ones.
-Unmatched climbing rate
-Armerment
-The best sensors of any opperational fighter jet.
-Low Maintanance
Its main disadvantage is:
-The lack of range.
-Somewhat old

The F-22 Is also a very good fighter aircraft, it has speed on its side and it has great manuverability and it's also stealthy. Meaning it can do alot undetected. The following is what makes the F-22 great:
-VERY high speed.
-Far above average manuverability
-Stealth
-Armerment
-Great sensors
Its main disadvantages:
-Heavy
-Bad acceleration
-Needs an awfully long and very very very well maintained runway.
-To fire your weapons you need to activate your radar, doing so is like turning on a flashlight in a world with no other lightsource, everybody can suddenly see you this instantly destroying your stealth.
-A very steep price, in comparisson its only about 2 times as good as an F-15 but more then 3 times as expensive.

Something they both lack: Abbilities beyond air to air combat.

Both are great at air combat, saying one is better then the other is nothing more then patriotism coming from both sides, face it the F-22 is equal to the EFA and the EFA is equal to the F-22. But both suck at air to ground, recon, support missions. etc.

The F-35 has it all:
-It has a very high speed, but no more then required.
-It has better range then the F-22 and EFA combined.
-It can cary a far larger payload then the F-22 but less then the Eurofighter.
-It's highly manuverable, although not as much as the F-22 just to forget about the Eurofighter. But more then enough.
-Countermeasures are far better then either the F-22 or the Eurofighter.
-Sensors make those of the Eurofighter and the F-22 look like 1930's radios.
-Next generation cockpit.
-Countless weapontypes useable.
-Designed to be constantly upgraded, something the F-22 and Eurofighter lack.
-Extremely low maintanance requirments.
-And most importantly it's a fighter that has the best of both the USA and Europe. Both are better at some forms, and both the USA and Europe have weaknesses that the other doesn't, the combined technologies mean a better plane.

Su-47 Berkut for sure. The combination of Thrust Vectoring Control, unstable triplane configuration and forward swept wings make it the most maneuverable fighterplane to date. Like its predecessor the Su-37 it can even fly backwards if necessary (really, it can!). It has swivelling missiles mounts, so it can fire its missiles backwards. (Implemented because they were afraid of the Dutch version of the F-104 Starfighter. Netherlands FTW! Shame they don't use them anymore... Oh well, we still got one in our hangar at school.) It has a topnotch targetting system that can track 15 enemies and shoot down six of them at the same time. If one of them is a real live wire the pilot can target it by just looking at it after which the computer can follow it all around the plane and engage at will. It has a thrust-to-weight ration of more than 2, so it can break the sound barrier while in a steep climb. It is made of advanced composites with a high-end fly-by-wire system. It in nearly invisible on radar because of the stealthy composites and can turn on a dime. The Su-47 can take more than any human pilot could handle. Like the F-22 it has supercruise (flying supersonic without using the afterburner), but unlike the F-22 it can fly really slow as well, which is very spiffy in dogfights.

Face it: American planes are crap, French planes are even more crap. Pavel Sukhoi is God.... If only the Russians had a better economy.

Actually the Eurofighter is getting A-G capabilities, it's multi-role lol

On Swept Forward wings, quoting my general aerodynamics book (Introduction to flight, fifth edition by John D. Anderson, Jr.):

"...swept forward wings have certain design advantages. For example, the wing root can be placed farther back on the fuselage, allowing greater flexibility in designing the internal packaging inside the fuselage. Also, the details of the three-dimensional flow over a swept-forward wing result in flow separation occurring first near the root, preserving aileron control at the tips; in contrast, for a swept-back wing, flow separation tends to occur first near the tips, hence causing loss of aileron control."

In short, if the pilot of a swept-back plane pulls the stick to hard he drops like a brick and loses rolling- (and with those banking-) controls, while a swept-forward has no problem.

My awnser is: It's either the F-22 or the Eurofighter. I know alot about Fighter aircraft but I'll try to keep it simple and down to earth.

Unless you've flown high performance aircraft you know squat.

Unless you've flown high performance aircraft you know squat.

That is not entirely true, but I know from experience that it certainly helps.

Su-47 Berkut for sure. The combination of Thrust Vectoring Control, unstable triplane configuration and forward swept wings make it the most maneuverable fighterplane to date. Like its predecessor the Su-37 it can even fly backwards if necessary (really, it can!). It has swivelling missiles mounts, so it can fire its missiles backwards. (Implemented because they were afraid of the Dutch version of the F-104 Starfighter. Netherlands FTW! Shame they don't use them anymore... Oh well, we still got one in our hangar at school.) It has a topnotch targetting system that can track 15 enemies and shoot down six of them at the same time. If one of them is a real live wire the pilot can target it by just looking at it after which the computer can follow it all around the plane and engage at will. It has a thrust-to-weight ration of more than 2, so it can break the sound barrier while in a steep climb. It is made of advanced composites with a high-end fly-by-wire system. It in nearly invisible on radar because of the stealthy composites and can turn on a dime. The Su-47 can take more than any human pilot could handle. Like the F-22 it has supercruise (flying supersonic without using the afterburner), but unlike the F-22 it can fly really slow as well, which is very spiffy in dogfights.

Face it: American planes are crap, French planes are even more crap. Pavel Sukhoi is God.... If only the Russians had a better economy.

Many of the claims about the S-37/SU-47 seem to be unsubstantiated after some researching on the matter. For example, I have found no evidence that it is capable of supercruise, no evidence that it is capable of flying backwards and no evidence that it has swiveling missile mounts.

Further, first rate Fly-by-Wire and targeting systems, such as those you described, are not rare. Most modern planes are able to target, and fire upon, multiple hostile targets at once, and have been able to for some time.

First off I've gotta say that the F-22 is stationed in Dobbin's airforce base in Marietta Georgia. I'm so proud of my hometown!

I've actually met an F-22 pilot at a party and was able to listen to him describe the F-22 systems. He said that it has a system called God-mode that is like a map showing his plane, all his buddies planes and all the enemies. The missles can fire in multiple directions like the SU-47 and that the pilot can target enemies by looking at them. He went on to say how in the new F-35, the hud is displayed inside the pilot's helmet and that the weapon system on the F-35 was unmatched.

The F-22 was easily the best interceptor 12-15 years ago. I find it hard to believe that's still the case.

Many of the claims about the S-37/SU-47 seem to be unsubstantiated after some researching on the matter. For example, I have found no evidence that it is capable of supercruise, no evidence that it is capable of flying backwards and no evidence that it has swiveling missile mounts.

Further, first rate Fly-by-Wire and targeting systems, such as those you described, are not rare. Most modern planes are able to target, and fire upon, multiple hostile targets at once, and have been able to for some time.

Yeah plus the aircraft is considered experimental. The designers admitted that alot of changes would have to be made before it could go into production. It may be that this plane is alot of bark and no bite, but considering the history of the company, well, it could be very dangerous to underestimate the S-37.

As I mentioned before, the main spar can be shorter, but the best explanation I see is that the pilot can maintain control at very high angles of attack. Here's the link to the X-29 fact sheet at NASA Dryden.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html

very cool stuff:)

"The F-22 was easily the best interceptor 12-15 years ago. I find it hard to believe that's still the case."---Llewdor

Um.....there weren't any of them 15 years ago. The first production F-22 was delivered in 2003.

The Albatross DVXI
http://avia-hobby.ru/model/ChorMod/pic/AlbD11_2.jpg

Interesting. Suddenly the mighty F-16s and 15s were not that invincible afterall. The Indians then let the Americans fly the Sukhoi and they were shocked to find out that the plane not only had matching avionics it could also outmanuver the F-18s which are considered the best handling planes of the American fleet. ...It was also all over the Indian press. The chief American test pilot admitted he had never flown a more agile aircraft of this size."
Neat report. I missed this yesterday. What I wouldn't give to see the classified report.

We used to treat the Saudis like this, i.e. couldn't beat them or criticize them. I don't doubt the airplane was capable, but I'm not so sure about the Indian pilots. I just don't think they get the training that U.S. aircrew get.

I guess that no one likes the Mig-29 or SU-27 series that much. It has been said that neither one can hold against a western fighter. The western military has always told us that any Russian equipment is 2 generations behind what we currently have. Where they surprised when the wall came down.

When the Germans took the former DDR Mig-29's, they found out that the biggest failure was the former DDR training. On several occasions, it has been mentioned that the German Migs have waxed the NATO airplanes that go up against them during training. The Military Channel had a show on the German Migs, in which the Germans were under political pressure to let the NATO aircraft win the air duels.

Initially the newly assimilated East German MiG-29 Wing (JG.3 changed later to JG.73), at Preschen still manned by its original cadre, proved unsatisfactory according to NATO standards, in both airmanship and tactical know-how. Only after existing Luftwaffe F-4, Tornado, and F-15 exchange pilots re-built the squadron, did a more realistic use of the MiG-29 occur.

To say that the communist trained East Germans were innovatively hampered by their own dielectric approach to training and operationally shackled by Russian authority as to "when" and "how much" to fly, would be a gross understatement. NATO pilots were quite amazed and confused over the fact that most of these East German "elite" pilots appeared not "care" about flying and had little interest in doing anything innovative with their training once they did get a chance to fly. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

Germany's experience with the Russian fighters has been enlightening. The MiG-29 has a high-tech, laser-linked "sight-and-shoot" helmet that allows a pilot to shoot down a target aircraft by just staring at it for two seconds. Such a sight does not exist in the Western weapons arsenal. On the other hand, the Germans have had problems getting MiG parts and supplies in a timely manner from the only source, the Russian arms monopoly known as Rosvooruzheniye. President Boris Yeltsin has recently put pressure on the arms export agency to improve its service. He knows that Russia can use the cash that the MiGs produce.
However, the MiG-29 can do things most Western fighter jets cannot. For example, it can accelerate in a turn much tighter than its Western counterparts -- the only real limit being the point at which the pilot would black out. But this advantage is lost when U.S. jets don't even need to get within visual range to shoot down a MiG or any other enemy warplane. Phantoms and other Western aircraft have long-range radar and missiles that nullify any MiG maneuvering advantage. Moreover, reflecting a very different military mind-set, the MiG was designed to eliminate pilot initiative, going so far as to make it impossible for a pilot to fire a missile without a special electronic command from the ground.

Luftwaffe experts contend that the Russian planes could be used very effectively by NATO — with some modifications. A $500,000 electronic retrofit, far cheaper than buying new warplanes, could turn the MiG-29s into state-of-the-art air weapons for possible new NATO member countries like Poland and Hungary that already have MiGs. Most of the objections are political. U.S. aircraft makers, for instance, don't like the idea of losing potential sales of new planes to the former East Block. Most observers see less of a problem with the planes and more of a problem in bringing the pilots from the other side of the old Iron Curtain up to NATO training levels.
http://www.german-way.com/mil.html


Also, http://www.aeronautics.ru/mig29site2.htm does a good side by side comparison of the pros and cons of the Mig-29.

Bottom line the Germans found out, it is the quality of the pilot training that makes the machine.

I don't doubt the airplane was capable, but I'm not so sure about the Indian pilots. I just don't think they get the training that U.S. aircrew get.

lol.


"They performed very well. I think in most cases they were equal to us, superior in some aspects. So it was a very good learning experience for both sides. It was a very tough scenario on all days, the pilot skill levels were also equal a lot of times. It felt like we were fighting ourselves, when we were fighting the Indian Air Force guys," said Captain Vogel, US 19 Squadron.

Comment by a participant of Indo-US air exercise at Gwalior, 2004.

A very steep price, in comparisson its only about 2 times as good as an F-15 but more then 3 times as expensive.

Except that in some simulated dogfights a single F-22 has engaged and shot down up to eight F-15s without even being seen.

Except that in some simulated dogfights a single F-22 has engaged and shot down up to eight F-15s without even being seen.

Yes that is true. I actually saw that on a show about the raptor on the military channel. The guys in the F-15's said that they never saw the raptor the whole time.

Actually the Eurofighter is getting A-G capabilities, it's multi-role lol

The F-22 has em too, even the Hawker Hunter had A-G Cappabilities. Having them doesnt make you good at it.

The English Electric Lightning


http://www.dogluvers.com/dog_breeds/upload/thumb/8/8a/300px-Lightning.two.750pix.jpg

Unless you've flown high performance aircraft you know squat.

Indeed, I stand with what I say.

Indeed, I stand with what I say.

Pray continue...I am interested in hearing your experience.

TIA

Pray continue...I am interested in hearing your experience.

TIA

Gee, I've only called for tac air - I've never ridden in one of the damned things.

But based on that slim experience, the impression I get is that individual fighter planes are nothing without the pilots and integrated support that makes interception possible.

Most nations don't have anything that compares to the US in this regard - most nations don't have anything as good as AWACS and JSTARS, nor do most nations have as much time in the air per pilot doing both training and actual combat missions.

If you take some of the leading edge fighter aircraft as being generally comparable, with slight edges in certain areas, then it boils down to pilot experience and the integrated support.

Just like it has throughout history.

The only difference now is that for about the past ~30 years, if your side has the advantage in the air, the other side is going to have its entire air force shot down or blown up on the ground inside of a few days (dating all the way back to the Israeli action against the Syrian Air Force in 1984).

Gee, I've only called for tac air - I've never ridden in one of the damned things.

But based on that slim experience, the impression I get is that individual fighter planes are nothing without the pilots and integrated support that makes interception possible.

Most nations don't have anything that compares to the US in this regard - most nations don't have anything as good as AWACS and JSTARS, nor do most nations have as much time in the air per pilot doing both training and actual combat missions.

If you take some of the leading edge fighter aircraft as being generally comparable, with slight edges in certain areas, then it boils down to pilot experience and the integrated support.

Just like it has throughout history.

The only difference now is that for about the past ~30 years, if your side has the advantage in the air, the other side is going to have its entire air force shot down or blown up on the ground inside of a few days (dating all the way back to the Israeli action against the Syrian Air Force in 1984).

Yeah...integrated support systems are a key component for delivery of aircraft and targets.

But also (as you say) the pilots are THE key component. No pilot...no fly.

The English Electric Lightning


http://www.dogluvers.com/dog_breeds/upload/thumb/8/8a/300px-Lightning.two.750pix.jpg

Sigh...yeah....that is a beast....as was the Buccaneer...huge airframe...but great fun to fly on the deck apparently.

My personal favorite is the Mossie though.

Bottom line the Germans found out, it is the quality of the pilot training that makes the machine.
Of course, they also found out that it was pointless to keep a relatively small number of jets that need completely different skills and spare parts to maintain, so they handed them over to Poland for a dollar or something.

As for the OP: Obviously the F-22 is the best fighter jet that actually flies.

The F-35 is my favourite because it's a much, much better bang for your buck.

The various Russian planes are nowhere near being in service, and even if they were I don't think the modern Russian airforce has the training, doctrine or support services to make them count.

The Eurofighter and Rafale are two excellent planes that seem to do exactly what their countries wanted them to, and that's all that counts. And the Saab Gripen shouldn't be forgotten either because it's a real bargain and will do almost all things there are to be done for a fighter jet in the modern world.

The rest is old.

Bottom line the Germans found out, it is the quality of the pilot training that makes the machine.

The Starfighter is ample proof of that.

lol.



Comment by a participant of Indo-US air exercise at Gwalior, 2004.

I understand your bias, but I've been to the IO and met many pilots around that area. See my comments about the Saudi pilots in the same post you quoted. I'd have had to said the exact same thing in a press release. I don't think Indian pilots get the same training that American pilots do. We tried to get about 20 hours a month, minimum, when I was on active duty. I know the Soviets never came close. If I recall, Indian pilots I talked to were getting about 10 hours in a good month -- and they were trash haulers (cargo pilots).

Another good tactic is to play dumb and let the adversary get the kill. One learns a lot about opposition tactics that way.

The Starfighter is ample proof of that.
To be fair, the modifications done to it, especially the extra bomb loading in Luftwaffe service, made it a much more difficult jet to fly.

Still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#1960s_Starfighter_crisis

To be fair, the modifications done to it, especially the extra bomb loading in Luftwaffe service, made it a much more difficult jet to fly.

Still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#1960s_Starfighter_crisis

Well thats sorta my point...it was notoriously unforgiving.

To correct my own remark, I think the F-22 and EFA are the best jets in the world when it comes to Air to Air, Saying that either is better then the other is uneducated nonsense most often fueled by nothing more then pro-EU or pro-USA patriotism. They're both good in some things that the other is less capable in. The F-35 is the overall best fighter when it comes down to everything combined: Air to Air, Air to Ground, recon. ETC.

But I have a bit of experience that will show you that nothing is conclusive:

A few decades back, both the USAF and the RNLAF(and many other European air forces for that matter) had the Starfighter, great plane for its day. In an air exercise between the two nations, the RNLAF beat the USAF by miles, this is purely because the Euro Airforces had even better training for their pilots due to the fact that they couldnt afford the super large amounts of fighters that the USA could, this forced Europe to put everything on training. This is also the case when you compare the USSR to the USA, the USA couldn't afford the size of the USSRs armed forces, so they put their money on quality.
Now in the mid 70's the USA got the F-15 fighter jet, the RNLAF was set to get the F-16 which would be introduced 2 years later. So the RNLAF was stuck with the F-104 starfighter. Now the thing is the F-15 is vastly superior to the F-104 in almost all respects. The joke comes now: In an exercise the F-104's beat the F-15's. Why? What we found out was that there are 3 reasons:
-The Dutch knew what they could do with their planes and how to achieve what, the Yanks just had their jets brand new and were totally unfamiliar to the F-15.
-The training reason given before.
-The thought that raged in the heads of the Americans: "My jet is superior to yours" this caused them to feel safe and relaxed, and it made mistakes.

So you see, it's not just the jet that counts, what is most important is the training of the pilot and the mentality. As soon as a pilot thinks he's better: He's no longer fit to be one.

To be fair, the modifications done to it, especially the extra bomb loading in Luftwaffe service, made it a much more difficult jet to fly.

Still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftwaffe#1960s_Starfighter_crisis

The reason that the F-104 crashed so much is simple (Im not sure if this is in the wiki article as I haven't read it) the F-104 had very old sensors in its engine nozzle which decided wheter the engine nozzle should be fully opened or closed. When you flew threw a cloud however, the water in the air (thus the cloud) could easily shor curcuit the sensor and fling the engine nozzle open, if you were not in afterburner but just on full military power (maximum engine thrust without turning on the AB) this meant that you barely had any thrust due to the fact that the Engine nozzle is there to focus the engines energy to create thrust. The annoying part was, that the Afterburner could only be turned on if the engine nozzle WASNT open. Due to the fact that the engine nozzle would be fully open and unable to close, you couldn't turn your afterburner on, this meant that you wouldn't have enough thrust to keep you flying. And that is why the F-104 was called the flying coffin.

Now they fixed this by making a lever inside the cockpit which you could pull to close the engine nozzle mechanically.

To correct my own remark, I think the F-22 and EFA are the best jets in the world when it comes to Air to Air, Saying that either is better then the other is uneducated nonsense most often fueled by nothing more then pro-EU or pro-USA patriotism. They're both good in some things that the other is less capable in. The F-35 is the overall best fighter when it comes down to everything combined: Air to Air, Air to Ground, recon. ETC.

But I have a bit of experience that will show you that nothing is conclusive:

A few decades back, both the USAF and the RNLAF(and many other European air forces for that matter) had the Starfighter, great plane for its day. In an air exercise between the two nations, the RNLAF beat the USAF by miles, this is purely because the Euro Airforces had even better training for their pilots due to the fact that they couldnt afford the super large amounts of fighters that the USA could, this forced Europe to put everything on training. This is also the case when you compare the USSR to the USA, the USA couldn't afford the size of the USSRs armed forces, so they put their money on quality.
Now in the mid 70's the USA got the F-15 fighter jet, the RNLAF was set to get the F-16 which would be introduced 2 years later. So the RNLAF was stuck with the F-104 starfighter. Now the thing is the F-15 is vastly superior to the F-104 in almost all respects. The joke comes now: In an exercise the F-104's beat the F-15's. Why? What we found out was that there are 3 reasons:
-The Dutch knew what they could do with their planes and how to achieve what, the Yanks just had their jets brand new and were totally unfamiliar to the F-15.
-The training reason given before.
-The thought that raged in the heads of the Americans: "My jet is superior to yours" this caused them to feel safe and relaxed, and it made mistakes.

So you see, it's not just the jet that counts, what is most important is the training of the pilot and the mentality. As soon as a pilot thinks he's better: He's no longer fit to be one.

Can you link or tell us the name of this competition? Sounds rather interesting.

I do have an interest in this as I have connections to 32TFS

The reason that the F-104 crashed so much is simple (Im not sure if this is in the wiki article as I haven't read it) the F-104 had very old sensors in its engine nozzle which decided wheter the engine nozzle should be fully opened or closed. When you flew threw a cloud however, the water in the air (thus the cloud) could easily shor curcuit the sensor and fling the engine nozzle open, if you were not in afterburner but just on full military power (maximum engine thrust without turning on the AB) this meant that you barely had any thrust due to the fact that the Engine nozzle is there to focus the engines energy to create thrust. The annoying part was, that the Afterburner could only be turned on if the engine nozzle WASNT open. Due to the fact that the engine nozzle would be fully open and unable to close, you couldn't turn your afterburner on, this meant that you wouldn't have enough thrust to keep you flying. And that is why the F-104 was called the flying coffin.

Now they fixed this by making a lever inside the cockpit which you could pull to close the engine nozzle mechanically.

Um....that makes no sense as it would have happened in the earlier series of the model as well...?

Can you link or tell us the name of this competition? Sounds rather interesting.

I do have an interest in this as I have connections to 32TFS

Well the 32TFS never used the F-104. ;) Although I think the F-15's were 32TFS F-15's.

I think you're seeing this in the wrong context these exercises weren't exactly what you would call broad NATO exercises. These were just dutch internall everyday exercises where they used American units stationed close by as the "enemy" force.

Um....that makes no sense as it would have happened in the earlier series of the model as well...?

Yes this was in the early moddel aswell. The German tinkering only increased the danger of the plane. As a matter of fact, this was only in the early moddels.

Well the 32TFS never used the F-104. ;) Although I think the F-15's were 32TFS F-15's.

I think you're seeing this in the wrong context these exercises weren't exactly what you would call broad NATO exercises. These were just dutch internall everyday exercises where they used American units stationed close by as the "enemy" force.

Well that s what I was wondering...if the Eagles where from Soesterberg...I moved there when they took possession of the Eagles....replacing the Phantom II's they had.

I suspect that this exercise was weighted in favour of the 104's...

Afterall the 32nd won the Hughes Cup more than any other squardon as far as I can remember...

Yes this was in the early moddel aswell. The German tinkering only increased the danger of the plane. As a matter of fact, this was only in the early moddels.

Now I am confused. If it was a known problem on the older aircraft and the Germans had newer models delivered...?

Well that s what I was wondering...if the Eagles where from Soesterberg...I moved there when they took possession of the Eagles....replacing the Phantom II's they had.

I suspect that this exercise was weighted in favour of the 104's...

Afterall the 32nd won the Hughes Cup more than any other squardon as far as I can remember...

Well I believe it wasn't. It's not so hard to imagine either. It's what happened against India. From my own experience: Pilots who start thinking they're superior are toast because they relax and make mistakes. Eitherway fact is that the 32nd pilots barely knew the F-15. And a plane can be as good as you want, but even Spitfire can beat an F-15 if the F-15 pilot made mistakes whether that be out of shear: "you cant beat me so I wont even try" or out of shear inexperience on the F-15's side + high experience on the Spits side.

I think that's the danger of the F-22 that the EFA doesn't have. The Americans can't stop screaming about the F-22 being so good, while at the same time the equally good EFA is getting alot less attention. This means that the EFA pilots have a feeling of needing to prove it's equality in capabilities, and it also results in arrogance from the F-22 pilots. Again you can have a great plane, but if your pilot is crap... the planes a big waste.

Now I am confused. If it was a known problem on the older aircraft and the Germans had newer models delivered...?

Well as I sayed in the main text, the problem was solved in the following way: The F-104's got a lever inside the jet that mechanically (so just by strings and levers) narrowed the engine nozzle. This allowed the Jet to continue flying but required the sensor to be replaced. Note that this didn't happen every time you flew threw a cloud.

Now Something I didn't mention is: The sensor was replaced and there were no problems after that.

I think the Germans felt that it was safe enough to have a humanly opperated safe-gaurd.

The F-22 has em too, even the Hawker Hunter had A-G Cappabilities. Having them doesnt make you good at it.

I was pointing out that someone else was wrong to state that another jet was superior for having A-G when the EF will have them Batch 5 of Tranche 1 onwards the rest being retrofited with it and improved later A-G capabilities to do better than these makeshift ones. And I thought the 22 only had A-G in the not yet and maybe never developed FB-22. And there have been billions of A-G capable birds, we all know it's nothing new. Gimme the Tempest anyday but then this is supposed to be about figters/interceptors I go for the Eurofighter, gotta love the Lightning though.

So you see, it's not just the jet that counts, what is most important is the training of the pilot and the mentality. As soon as a pilot thinks he's better: He's no longer fit to be one.
Just a minor nit, a good fighter pilot is just like a trial lawyer -- all ego. The minute he ceases to think that he's better than everyone else, that's the minute he ceases to be a good fighter pilot.

You're worried about complacency and you're right to do so.

Just a minor nit, a good fighter pilot is just like a trial lawyer -- all ego. The minute he ceases to think that he's better than everyone else, that's the minute he ceases to be a good fighter pilot.

You're worried about complacency and you're right to do so.

O I know every pilot has an ego the size of saturn, but what Im saying is if it gets TOO big then you're toast. See you need to have enough to have self confidence otherwise you're just going to say: I cant do that, and tight up and just do nothing resulting in death. The other way around is if you are to arrogant, you won't be open to new ideas and you wont search to improve yourself because if you think you're perfect, you also think you can't improve. I've seen many pilots go bad both ways.

Um....that makes no sense as it would have happened in the earlier series of the model as well...?

I thought it was largely the way the West Germans used it.

Low altitude approach at near supersonic speeds, carrying bombs.

Not a lot of automation in the cockpit in those days. You sneeze, and you plow the farmer's field at 600 knots.

O I know every pilot has an ego the size of saturn, but what Im saying is if it gets TOO big then you're toast. See you need to have enough to have self confidence otherwise you're just going to say: I cant do that, and tight up and just do nothing resulting in death. The other way around is if you are to arrogant, you won't be open to new ideas and you wont search to improve yourself because if you think you're perfect, you also think you can't improve. I've seen many pilots go bad both ways.

I've had the "fighter pilot mentality" described to me in this way:

There is a room ful of 10 pilots. The commander says, "only 1 of you is comming back from this mission". Every pilot says to himself "Well that means I'm gonna survive" and he looks around the room and feels sorry for his friends.

know what a fighter pilot looks like to a helicopter pilot?


cold, wet, and scared

I was pointing out that someone else was wrong to state that another jet was superior for having A-G when the EF will have them Batch 5 of Tranche 1 onwards the rest being retrofited with it and improved later A-G capabilities to do better than these makeshift ones. And I thought the 22 only had A-G in the not yet and maybe never developed FB-22. And there have been billions of A-G capable birds, we all know it's nothing new. Gimme the Tempest anyday but then this is supposed to be about figters/interceptors I go for the Eurofighter, gotta love the Lightning though.

The F-22 can carry two JDAMS internally, thus retaining it's stealth. Once the Small Diameter Bomb is fielding in a few years the F-22's A2G capabilities will increase sizably. Also, it can carry more ordinance on external hardpoints at the cost of stealthyness. However, the decidely unstealthy F-15E carries all of its ordinance externally and very few of those have been brought down.


On the subject of fighter pilots:

What's the difference between God and a fighter pilot?

God doesn't think He's a fighter pilot.

Well I believe it wasn't. It's not so hard to imagine either. It's what happened against India. From my own experience: Pilots who start thinking they're superior are toast because they relax and make mistakes. Eitherway fact is that the 32nd pilots barely knew the F-15. And a plane can be as good as you want, but even Spitfire can beat an F-15 if the F-15 pilot made mistakes whether that be out of shear: "you cant beat me so I wont even try" or out of shear inexperience on the F-15's side + high experience on the Spits side.

I think that's the danger of the F-22 that the EFA doesn't have. The Americans can't stop screaming about the F-22 being so good, while at the same time the equally good EFA is getting alot less attention. This means that the EFA pilots have a feeling of needing to prove it's equality in capabilities, and it also results in arrogance from the F-22 pilots. Again you can have a great plane, but if your pilot is crap... the planes a big waste.

Hmmm Not sure about this.

They took delivery of the Eagles in '78...and won the Hughes Trophy in 79 and 80...All in the A/B model...

Now to win the Cup twice...(bearing in mind that they only flew the A/B for 18 months...) is not due to a lack of training.

When I say that the odds were weighted in favour of the Dutch I mean exactly that. Not that it was some underhand politics thing. Unless we know the exact purpose and the terms of engagement for that exercise it really is moot.

Regarding the sensors in the 104...

Now Something I didn't mention is: The sensor was replaced and there were no problems after that.

My old man was a techie on the 104 programme when he worked for Lockheed (we were stationed in the North of Germany at the Red Barons Geschwader) before he moved to MD.

I shall have to ask him. I am bound to forget though...LOL

I thought it was largely the way the West Germans used it.

Low altitude approach at near supersonic speeds, carrying bombs.

Not a lot of automation in the cockpit in those days. You sneeze, and you plow the farmer's field at 600 knots.

The Spanish never lost a single 104...so yeah.

know what a fighter pilot looks like to a helicopter pilot?


cold, wet, and scared

And what's the difference between a fighter pilot and a pig?


There are some things even a pig won't do.

I've had the "fighter pilot mentality" described to me in this way:

There is a room ful of 10 pilots. The commander says, "only 1 of you is comming back from this mission". Every pilot says to himself "Well that means I'm gonna survive" and he looks around the room and feels sorry for his friends.

My flight school indoctrination class was nearly like that. The C.O. told us to look at the person on our left and then on our right. Then he said, "When you graduate, they won't be here." I made it and the guy sitting on my right did too, but there were a whole bunch of other ones that just couldn't hack it.

There are bold pilots and there are old pilots. There are no bold old pilots.

/vonners - going against the grain

There are bold pilots and there are old pilots. There are no bold old pilots.

/vonners - going against the grain

Are saying that being bold is foolhearty and that wisdom comes with experience?