MILAVIA Forum
Military Aviation => Military Aircraft => Topic started by: Air Marshal on June 13, 2005, 04:23:04 PM
-
F-22 Raptor is best because of THRUST VECTORING ENGINE.
-
There was no Viggen on the list, so i went with the Tomcat because of its speed and its cool folding wings. It just says raw power with its twin enginesn and its a moviestar. ;)
-
I chose Flanker because it can engage anything that can fly.
-
The MIGHTY MIGHTY Tomcat!!!! Sadly to be retired :'( and never exercised to it's full potential.
-
Would be cool to see the Flanker and the Tomcat go head to head in a friendly dogfight.
To be honest, its just mainly because i want to see both jets irl. Its hard to imagine the size of these aircraft just by looking on pics. :)
-
Thanks for cast ur Value able vote..... :)
-
There was no Viggen on the list, so i went with the Tomcat because of its speed and its cool folding wings. It just says raw power with its twin enginesn and its a moviestar. ;)
Thanks Viggen But i wants to take the difference between thses aircrafts from others. So i got it.
You say that Tomcat is good because of speed and cool folding wings also twin engins. On the other
hand Hornet is also cool folding wings and twin engins.
-
I chose Flanker because it can engage anything that can fly.
Ya thats true.......
-
Thanks Viggen But i wants to take the difference between thses aircrafts from others. So i got it.
You say that Tomcat is good because of speed and cool folding wings also twin engins. On the other
hand Hornet is also cool folding wings and twin engins.
Never said it was good, you asked for favourite fighter.
But the F18 do not fold it wings backward, making it meanlooking. It do not use the phonix-missile to take out several bandits, it do not enforce the same sort of respect just by looks. :)
-
WHO EVER SAID SIZE DOSENT MATTER?? ;)
-
There was no Viggen on the list, so i went with the Tomcat because of its speed and its cool folding wings. It just says raw power with its twin enginesn and its a moviestar. ;)
Yeah, the Tomcat looks really mean, I like that. The F-111 and the Su-24 Fencer look very mean as well (folding wings!). And don't forget about the Tu-22M Backfire and the Tu-160 Blackjack. It's almost a little bit sad that there are no new fighters with folding wings.
-
Ya thats true....... - yes it can with R-27, it is capable of engaging manned and unmanned targets in long-range and close maneuverable air-to-air combat.
-
WHO EVER SAID SIZE DOSENT MATTER?? ;)
Yes size of Aircraft must also be counted..... :)
-
I chose Flanker because it can engage anything that can fly.
Any thing that can fly ......... ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
FA\22 Raptor cuz it just looks cool.sorry for my lack of reason...
-
FA\22 Raptor cuz it just looks cool.sorry for my lack of reason...
From its Performance
-
Go with the combat experience- the Tom Cat (f-14) although its far from a new fighter,with most at least 15 yrs old in the fleet of the US. THE flanker and the Raptor are the future- although I'd bet the Raptor gets more action in the future, and it'll be downing older mig 29s ,"foreign" F-16s and SU-27us in the future...
-
The Tomcat because it is and i sayed so. no, but really its just the old dog, everyone gots to luv the vetran!
-
My favourite fighter jet is F-14 Tomcat..as u can find it in my display pic.. ;)
-
Not too bad but how u rate MiGs...
-
i think SU-30 will lead in the future...even though the raptor ready into service... ???
-
well, ill go with the Sukhoi 30...I like tomcats though....its cool sweptback wings and status makes it such a lovable aircraft. Too bad F-15C Eagle isn't on the list, i love that plane too. Sadly, the F-22 Raptor isn't really in my list...its bleeding cost and lousy topspeed for its thrust (74000lbs) makes it feel lesser in comparison to more simple and affordable air-superiority fighters such as the Su-35 superflanker and EuroTyphoon. Oh, and the Su-37 also had TVC, and so does the MiG 1.42...so thrust vectoring isn't entirely a new thing. Plus, i love the way the EuroTyphoon remedies its lack of stealth with speed and ultra-maneuverability...costs only 1/4th the price of the F-22. F-22 is just not cost-efficient enough...
-
Sekiria, to answer you about the Raptor, yes it has, probably the highest thrust of any fighter currently out. But remember that it's top speed isn't Mach 1.6, that is its supercruise speed. And its true top speed is still top secret, but most analysts have pegged the Raptor's speed at Mach 2.5, or at least that. We won't know for sure until prbably 10 to 15 years from now.
And to answer Berkut, the Flanker is an outstanding fighter, particularly its many variations. But it cannot engage anything in the skies. Most, but not all. Definitely not the new Typhoon or Gripen, and certainly not the Raptor. Not even the latest variant of the Flanker.
You want to talk about supermaneuverability, I've seen footage on Discover Military Channel of the Typhoon doing moves that most other fighters can't even possibly imagine. On a friendly exercise against two F-15's, the British pilot flying the Typhoon shot down both Eagles. I don't know how true that is, but I would say any Flanker or Super Flanker pilot out there should start worrying when a Typhoon comes rolling in like a hurricane. No pun intended.
-
Raptors all the way. Plus. They have great avionics.
Unfortunatly, our friend Val is right. Flankers aren't good enough to engage those eensy weensy little flies buzzing around.
No pun intended. Right.
The Typhoon was designed to shoot down planes to the best of it's ability. Not much more can it do efficiently.
-
Hey Air Marshal, you forgot the F-15 Eagle!!!
I love the F-14 Tomcat, F-15 Eagle and F-22 Raptor.
BUT I'M GONNA HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THE F-14 TOMCAT.
IT WAS RETIRED TOO EARLY BECAUSE OF OUR STUPID POLITICIANS. Regardless of what others say in regards to the airframe being too old and needed too much maintenance time. aircraft carrier crews spoke out the truth - IT DIDN'T NEED THAT MANY HOURS TO MAINTAIN THE F-14 FOR EVERY ONE HOUR FLYING TIME! The airframe was still strong and tight!
-
F-15 Eagle all the way 8)
-
It your talking just favorite then F-15 if your talking best F-22.
-
Mr. nonpilot, it is possible the F-22 may be the best, but as we speak, the USAF is working on the Raptor's successor. Most likely, Lockheed Skunkworks.
-
Hello Mr. Valiant1
That goes without saying aviation never stays still and a lot of good projects came out of Lockheed Skunkworks. It will be years before anybody's air force has anything close to an F-22, the US has too much of a head start and the funding to back it up. I do think there are a lot of very good fighters on the market that perform very well and will for years to come. Not every aircraft design must be able to do battle against F-22s to be good. Most would avoid going toe to toe against the US. These kinds of post are difficult to respond to and when I read posters comments about this aircraft can beat that aircraft most leave out the most important factor, pilot skill.
-
That's true, pilot skill is a major factor. And again you're correct in saying other nations have excellent fighters, as I've pointed out in these posts time and time again. England, for example, with Germany, Spain and Italy, have produced the remarkable supermaneuverable Tyhpoon and Sweden has the magnificent Gripen, although I think the Swedes should have used the EJ200 jet engine from the Typhoon rather than the Hornet's rather weak engine.
And speaking of the F-18C and D Hornet, I feel it would have been a better dogfighter had it been given more powerful engines such as those of the Typhoon,which would have given the C and D models a Mach 2 class rating WITH supercruise and thrust vectoring on top of that. Then I feel the Hornet would be able to dance with Flankers and Fulcrums.
But the weakest part of the US Raptor is the cost, sadly enough, the US Air Force is cutting down on the number of purchase constantly.
-
The EJ200 on the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring does it? I don't think it does :-\
-
I'm not sure, some people say it does, others say it doesn't. I hope I didn't make the wrong assumption.
-
I am 99% sure it doesn't, or at least doesn't seem to have on photos ::)
-
I take the Su-30 because there isn't a Su-37 on the list. I like the Su-37 because of its extraordinary maneuvrability and power. ;)
-
Welcome to the forum Flanker.94. :)
-
The Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring but they are working on it.
-
I didn't think so ;)
-
Welcome to the forum, Flanker. Come to think of it, there SHOULD be thrust vectoring for the Typhoons. Imagine what they could do...
-
or it could make the Typhoon worse. Planes with thrust vectoring are designed to have it, the typhoon wasnt. itd take a lot of redeisn work to fix any problems a TV Typhoon might or more likly will have
-
Agree with that, but didn't they overcome similar problems with the F-16's "over-manueverability" with a computer?
-
ah, was the problem fixed on the F-16 before or after they were built and put into service?
-
Actually, it wasn't a problem. The F-16, F/A-18, and the Flanker series are all inherently unstable aircraft. So, they used this to an advantage by fixing the really big oversensitivity problems with a computer. Why do you think you have a super-manueverable fighter like the F-16, being the heavy beast it is. Or even the Gripen?
-
you didnt answer me
-
Before. But as i said, it wasn't really a problem...
-
I'd vote for Flanker, and i am glad to see that the Mighty Cat goes nose to nose with the Flanker....
-
The Cat and the Flanker? Huh. No contest. Cat wins any day. ;)
-
Well, the Crane (russian nickname for the flanker) and the cat, share the same fuselage configuration, but the cat has that swing wing advantage which make it very maneuvrable. But the crane has this combination of neutral stability plus LERX which enables it to do some magic tricks.
If it was to select one of them for a supersonic dogfight, i'd take the F-14 with the glove vanes (7 g's at M=2!). But subsonically, the crane has an advantage (let alone that is 2 tonnes lighter!)
-
wow, didn't know that the mighty Cat was more maneuverable than the -27 at supersonic flight :o
The idea that they got it out of service seems more and more stupid to me.... ::)
-
In the A model, there were some retractable "canards" Grumman named the "glove vanes". At supersonic speeds, where the center of pressure has moved far aft and all aircrafts are getting nose heavy, the glove vanes helped to move the center of pressure forward. Result was a lighter tail and the ability to sustain 7 g's at M=2.
Neither the F-15/16/18 has such a capability. Only with TVC u can have the same results.
-
Simply awesome. I always wondered what they were for...
-
Cool. Never knew that about the F-14... You an F-14 fan, Val?
-
Yes Raptor, and i feel very sad that they retired the Cats...in another forum some mentioned that by now all the cats have been cut to metal..."they kill the horses when they get old'..
Tomcat belongs to a breed that no longer exists, but soon it will be needed. Such a capable airframe, with enough growth potential....no doubt, what it could do with the F-119 + APG77. The second man could expand the capabilities of the sensors....now they stuck with the Super Bug....(which no foreign airforce seems to buy it)
-
could they have selled the F-14s? I mean, was there room for them, or would have somebody be interested in them?
-
Hmm... Okay, granted. I support your view that the '14s were superb, val, but it just isn't worth the cost for the USA to continue using them. They don't really need much to win a war now. You just say, "Ok, you want to fight, I have a very nice ICBM way back home. I don't care for the other nations around you.", then they say, "Ok, you want to complain about my actions, I have a very nice ICBM way back home. I don't care for the other nations around you." and on and on and on. Then they say, "NASA! I want a new planet! It's a nuclear winter here!" Oh, and the internal rebellions can be stopped with a few machine guns and tactical air-strikes. Russia you have to hit first. Maybe launch an ICBM over Moscow, detonate it there, cause an immense EMP, then start another series of tactical Thermo-nuclear strikes.
This was all hypothetical, by the way. I just had to propose it.
-
Sounds quite like reality :-\ unfortunately
But we are here to disscuss about planes ;D something we have... yet...
-
F-14's were sold to Iran and Australia's buying the 'Super Bug'
-
That is so loser...
-
What will Australia do with only 24 S.Hornets? Poor results. But considering that in that region weapons are needed only for parades and show off, i think it is o.k. After all if Australia is in danger, some carriers will appear and the situation is going to be resolved..well the usual way........
-
oh please the air force dosent do parades.
and their a temporary fill in to we get the stupid F-35's.
and tell me, you know about OUR region how when your in Greece? and besides, who wants to attack Australia? All the US uses us for is to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and help them to keep oil cheap.
-
I agree with you on most of your thoughts
a) stupid fighter
b) they use you for sending forces.
In my region things are more complicated. We have a cold war running already. And if you search, you'll see that in comparison with Australia, Greece has more planes, more army, more navy and unfortunately more military spending.
And i consider Australia like my second country, since i was born there. So, there are some things that i care a lot. For eample it is unfair to offer the Japs the F-22 and not to the Australians. I can't see why.
-
Simple answer:
CHINA
China has always hated Japan, and Japan doesnt have the power these days to keep the Chinese calm. Theres a report of a Chinese Rocket that could be fitted with a Nuke Warhead being fired OVER Japan. It makes sense giving the JSDF the Raptor, as it would be a hard kill for any Chinese plane or pilot, alot harder then the current F-15/F-16 combination they have now.