Favorite 1970+ Air Superiority fighter

[YNM]

13 hours ago, MiffedStarfish said:

Rule, Brittaina! Brittaina rules the waves...

Victorian quality for you !

 

Best air superiority ?

Well I'd hope we never use one at all to be honest.

 

The country I live in employs both eastern and western fighters, so I can't tell which would be better. Seems to be more keen on sukhois though.

Edited December 6, 2017 by YNM

[Mayer]

Dogfights in WW2 planes are one thing but modern fighters are very expensive. The 5th generation even more so and will be just too valuable to risk in an engagement on even ground.

Honestly if we see a reemergence of close air combat, it will be in the form of drones who are disposable and can withstand higher G-loads. In the meantime a multipurpose airplane is more than adequate.

14 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Funny, that's what the USAF and USN thought going in to Vietnam with the shiny new F-4 that didn't even have a gun pod. Then the North Vietnamese started handing them their asses in dogfights-that-weren't-supposed-to-happen with 15-year-old Mig-21s. So, the Fighter Mafia was born, which gave us (directly or indirectly) many of the aircraft we're talking about above.

Vietnam was a special case due to technical failures and strict rules for engagements, but most kills were done by Flak. Old Migs would come atop in dogfights but what's the point? The Mig-29s were retired in german service because there was no need for them.

And funny is that me talking about the massive #%&*!! with the Eurofighter (and all the Airbus projects lately...) is somehow inappropiate but american failures can be freely cited. The Tornado in comparison was a european project done right.
 

btw Focke-Wulf 190 was the best fighter in WW2 all around

Edited December 6, 2017 by Mayer

[TheSaint]

8 hours ago, Mayer said:

Dogfights in WW2 planes are one thing but modern fighters are very expensive. The 5th generation even more so and will be just too valuable to risk in an engagement on even ground.

Honestly if we see a reemergence of close air combat, it will be in the form of drones who are disposable and can withstand higher G-loads. In the meantime a multipurpose airplane is more than adequate.

You would probably find this article as interesting as I did. I would be curious to hear your opinion of the idea. Not necessarily the specifics (I think he slings around a lot of numbers that he's just pulling out of his keister), just the general concept.

I am...intrigued...by the prospects of UAVs in air-to-air combat. They have certainly proven their value for reconnaissance and as ASM trucks. On paper they should perform better than a conventional air superiority fighter that is limited by the man in the cockpit. But, on paper, the Missileer concept should have worked too. No plan survives contact with the enemy.

Quote

Vietnam was a special case due to technical failures and strict rules for engagements, but most kills were done by Flak. Old Migs would come atop in dogfights but what's the point? The Mig-29s were retired in german service because there was no need for them.

Yes, most of the kills, especially of the bombers, were SAM kills. But we're discussing air-to-air combat. The RoE problems were a part of the equation, but RoE problems are always going to be a part of the equation. The fact that they didn't take that into account was part of their failure and not taking that into account now would be failing to learn from it. 

While we're on the subject, I think that the shift in Western air power away from dedicated air superiority fighters (and dedicated attack aircraft, for that matter) towards multi-role aircraft over the last 25 years has been a result of an urge to take advantage of the "peace dividend" that came about as a result of the end of the Cold War and the shift towards fighting asymmetric wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that it will come back to haunt us in the long term.

Quote

And funny is that me talking about the massive #%&*!! with the Eurofighter (and all the Airbus projects lately...) is somehow inappropiate but american failures can be freely cited. The Tornado in comparison was a european project done right.

They don't like discussions of politics. So if we're discussing the failures of old American weapon system programs, that's generally okay. We could possibly get away with discussing McNamara or Johnson in the context of those weapon systems failures, since that's ancient history, if we kept it civil. But current political figures and regimes (such as Trump or the EU) are a no-fly zone, so to speak.

I find it amusing. I participate in a board where people can swear like sailors, but politics is off-limits. I participate in a board where you can talk politics all day, as long as you talk like you're in church. And then there's here.

Edited December 6, 2017 by TheSaint

[Mayer]

I'm an outsider but it remains to be seen that the F-35 is a bad plane. I view it as superior to Airbus FCAS(Future-Combat-Air-System) which only exists on paper and the russian Su-57 which is still developing. It's the most capable aircraft on the market.

7 hours ago, TheSaint said:

You would probably find this article as interesting as I did. I would be curious to hear your opinion of the idea. Not necessarily the specifics (I think he slings around a lot of numbers that he's just pulling out of his keister), just the general concept.

I find the arguments of this article to be faulty. The F-35 has a lifting body and high thrust-to-weight ratio, it's reasonable maneuverable for the unlikely occurrence of a close air fight. The cost of procurement isn't very high, maintaining obsolete planes like the Tornado for 2025+ will be more difficult and expensive. And having different planes with specific roles would cause chaos with logistics and spare parts. Building low-tech fighters en masse.. well, it could be viable according to the motto "quantity has a quality of its own"(Lenin) but that's a strategy only viable for big countries who come out on top in a long war of attrition. In military history there were enough examples where a larger force was defeated. Instead the goal should be to get where the enemy is the most vulnerable and strike hard, preferably silent.

"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate." (Sun Tsu)

Which is why i strongly disagree with the conclusion that stealth is useless. Even i know that the serbs who shot down a F-117 had a lucky shot in specific circumstances. My prediction is that we will see more stealthy vessels in air, on sea and on land.

 

Also the P-51 Mustang which the author so idolizes as the epitome of air superiority in the past had the aforementioned Fw-190 as rival in Europe, which was a jack-of-all-trades but more like a swiss army knife than a master-of-none.

And the "venerable" A-10 close-air-support was from what i read too vulnerable in the Gulf War and the F-16 did its job better. Another historical comparison from WW2, the infamous Stuka(Ju87) was a highly successful CAS in the early years but later it became a lame duck which couldn't survive in the battlefield, the Fw-190 did its job better. Mind you, the Luftwaffe at the time had no doctrine about strategic bombardment but was all about ground support and tactical integration.

[Guest]

Just make sure this doesnt turn into a big argument, ok?

[Mayer]

I sum it up like this: The Air Superiority fighter is a niche and outdated concept, every fighter is to some extent multipurpose nowadays. Including all those strike crafts on the poll above.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Mayer said:

I sum it up like this: The Air Superiority fighter is a niche and outdated concept, every fighter is to some extent multipurpose nowadays. Including all those strike crafts on the poll above.

FALSE!

what do you think the f-15, f-16, and f-22 are there for. THEY ARE MUILTIROLE AIR SPERIRITY FIGHTERS. The USA depends on them! They are best sellers.

[snip]

On 12/6/2017 at 5:59 PM, Mayer said:

the F-35 is a bad plane.

I agree on that.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Guest
Redacted by moderator

[Mayer]

10 hours ago, dundun93 said:

what do you think the f-15, f-16, and f-22 are there for. THEY ARE MUILTIROLE AIR SPERIRITY FIGHTERS. The USA depends on them! They are best sellers.

The F-22 isn't meant for export, the F-16 is cheap and thus viewed as cost-effective but it's weaker than the F-15. The Greek and Turkish Air Forces show that an old F4 Phantom II with new electronics and armament can go toe-to-toe with a F-15.

[snip]

Air combat is evolving, it's no longer the days of Richthofen and his flying circus. Simulations show that the F-35 has a decisive advantage over 4th generation fighters due to its ability to stay undetected. I would be very worried to go up against this stealth plane.

And hating the F-35 seems to be a popular opinion due to its development hell and conspiracies on the internet.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[adsii1970]

10 hours ago, Mayer said:

Air combat is evolving, it's no longer the days of Richthofen and his flying circus. Simulations show that the F-35 has a decisive advantage over 4th generation fighters due to its ability to stay undetected. I would be very worried to go up against this stealth plane.

The P-51 Mustang was not a cheap fighter. During World War II, the P-51 Mustang cost $51,000 in 1944. If you adjust for inflation, that brings the price tag up to the value of currency in 2017, that would roughly be $691,743. Although it is considerably cheaper with our current level of military spending, in 1944, that $51,000 made it a moderately expensive aircraft.

Consider that the median income in 1944 was $1,450 a month. For that generation, $51,000 per fighter was a lot of money. As an historian, it irritates me when folks want to compare the cost of products between any two dates without consideration of the value of currency... 

Also, the P-51 was designed for TWO main missions - intercepting of enemy fighters and as an airborne anti-tank platform. It excelled in both of those roles during the first year of it's introduction into combat. By 1945, especially in Europe, it became a key component of ground air support because of it's maneuverability and ability to handle the forces involved in quick directional changes. It was for these very reasons the P-51 also saw combat in the Korean War.

On 12/6/2017 at 1:57 AM, Mayer said:

The 5th generation even more so and will be just too valuable to risk in an engagement on even ground.

Then why build them? Military equipment, regardless of the cost, is made to 1) bring harm and destruction to the enemy, 2) to protect it's crew or pilot, and 3) be destroyed or if damaged, be easily repaired to repeat the cycle of destruction. If an aircraft is "too valuable to risk an engagement on even ground," then it is probably something that should never have been invested in to begin with. No one buys a car just to park it in the garage and NEVER move it again. Just as a nation's military does not buy tools of war and expect them not to be destroyed at some point.

18 hours ago, Mayer said:

The Air Superiority fighter is a niche and outdated concept, every fighter is to some extent multipurpose nowadays.

This concept of a single role aircraft has been outdated since the First World War. Every aircraft in the U.S. arsenal once the Second World War began were designed for multiple wars. The "P" designation simply meant it was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter but that was not the only design consideration. As an example, the P-47 was designed on a dual service platform of areal defense (not superiority) and ground support. In it's role at Normandy, the missions flew by its pilots was to protect the soldiers and marines on the beaches by providing air cover and taking out ground targets. My personal favorite, the Vought F4U Corsair, was also a multi-platform craft designed for air superiority AND attack craft. It was used by both the Navy and Marines successfully to engage Japanese ships and land targets. There were very few combat aircraft (nearly all the cargo planes were single role craft) by the end of the war that simply only had 1 mission. 

What's made the combat aerospace industry "stale" is there has not been any large scale wars since the Vietnam War. Sure, there has been regional skirmishes where aircraft have been used, but peacetime has in modern times done, just as it did between World War I and II, lent itself to have a vision where one model does one job.

On 12/6/2017 at 9:33 AM, TheSaint said:

I am...intrigued...by the prospects of UAVs in air-to-air combat. They have certainly proven their value for reconnaissance and as ASM trucks. On paper they should perform better than a conventional air superiority fighter that is limited by the man in the cockpit.

The UAV would only be as good as the person remotely operating it and that would make it equal to traditional aircraft. However, there are some huge tactical advantages if the drone is smaller than a traditional aircraft and faster than the ones we see being used now in the battlefields of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Imagine if you have a UAV as the "master" drone that the pilot remotely fires. And in turn, that UAV has an on-board threat assessment program that controls "two wingmen" UAVs to defend it. You could have a swarm of drones in any given area which could neutralize any airborne threat. I've read somewhere that Northrop-Grumman is actually working on this very thing. But the down-side is this would create a military asset that would only have one real role. So again, the issue at hand comes full circle...

10 hours ago, Mayer said:

Simulations show that the F-35 has a decisive advantage over 4th generation fighters due to its ability to stay undetected. I would be very worried to go up against this stealth plane.

But the problem is the air frame itself. To make it usable by the Navy and Marines, they adopted an air frame that makes it heavier than what the Air Force needs. Then there are the problems with the over-cost of production because of the "need" to meet the requirements by the Marines that it be able to take off vertically - and again, this feature is being added to the Navy and Air Force versions as well (or at least it was when the Military Times ran an article about the problems of the aircraft in 2014). The Air Force had hoped to keep the aircraft lightweight for dual role purposes such as long haul B2 Bomber escort, air superiority because of stealth and speed, and even ground attack using the stealth technology to engage fixed ground targets at low altitudes and high speeds. The added weight of making it an inter-branch aircraft means the Air Force will need to have other aircraft developed for some of the planned roles. 

the DoD had hoped to save money by having one aircraft that could meet multi-operational roles across the branches. It was a good idea, in concept and theory, but is turning out to be impractical. And as military publications are pointing out, it may be too late to go to an F-35 version for the air force with a lighter frame and a version for the Marines and Navy.

[Snark]

Some posts have been edited to remove inappropriate personal comments.

Please play nice, folks.  We're a varied group of people from a lot of different backgrounds, so of course there are going to be a lot of different opinions on any topic.  People are going to disagree with you, and they have as much right to their opinions as you do to yours.

If someone posts something with which you disagree-- or which you believe is wrong, based on evidence-- then by all means feel free to respond or rebut!  But please address the post, not the poster.  If you're calling someone "wrong", cite your evidence.  And personal comments about the person posting are never appropriate.

Thank you for your understanding.

[Guest]

Sorry.

[Guest]

Guys, lets keep this discussion to favorites, and not argue about which is "best".

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Mayer said:

The F-22 isn't meant for export, the F-16 is cheap and thus viewed as cost-effective but it's weaker than the F-15. The Greek and Turkish Air Forces show that an old F4 Phantom II with new electronics and armament can go toe-to-toe with a F-15.

What about the Su-57, Su-27, mig-35, and mig-29? They are air superiority fighters!

None of them are cheap. And the mig-29 was a best seller! The mig-35 is being sold internationally and so is the Su-27.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dundun93 said:

What about the Su-57, Su-27, mig-35, and mig-29? They are air superiority fighters!

 

*sigh*

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

*sigh*

*sigh*

[Guest]

Just now, dundun93 said:

*sigh*

*sigh*

 

[MiffedStarfish]

*breathes in*

I’m just sad that Britain hasn’t bothered developing any new planes for so long. I want to see an indigenous design fly over my house! The valley my house is in is used quite frequently for military exercises or flights, so I see quite a lot of Hercules and occasionally eurofighters fly right over me. 

[Mayer]

I'd also like to see another Messerschmitt, but alas the company is gone and development of a indigenous plane would take too long now. If Britain and Germany ever had a conflict again, they would use the same planes on both sides.

On 8.12.2017 at 4:11 PM, adsii1970 said:

What's made the combat aerospace industry "stale" is there has not been any large scale wars since the Vietnam War.

Which is why i highly value the F4 Phantom II which is both battle-proven and reliable.

A Luftwaffe saying goes "The Typhoon is a warm weather plane. if you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F"

I may be biased on this but i live near Tactical Air Force Wing 71 "Richthofen" which had the last F4s in service and there is a monument to one on a street crossing.

On 8.12.2017 at 4:11 PM, adsii1970 said:

Sure, there has been regional skirmishes where aircraft have been used, but peacetime has in modern times done, just as it did between World War I and II, lent itself to have a vision where one model does one job.

The Fw-190 was a good counter- example. I just have the opposite opinion, an aircraft with diverse mission profile will come atop because it is versatile and cheaper to maintain than a fleet of vessels which can only do one job, it's also much more survivable than a low-altitude bomber. Germany in the past had bad experience with the F-104 because they were used as fighter-bomber for which they weren't designed for, an airframe specifically designed for the task is preferable. Britain is also getting F-35 btw.
 

As it stands, it needs to be proven that the F-35 is a bad plane. Reports near the project seem to indicate the opposite, that it really is one step ahead.

Quote

Then why build them? Military equipment, regardless of the cost, is made to 1) bring harm and destruction to the enemy, 2) to protect it's crew or pilot, and 3) be destroyed or if damaged, be easily repaired to repeat the cycle of destruction. If an aircraft is "too valuable to risk an engagement on even ground," then it is probably something that should never have been invested in to begin with. No one buys a car just to park it in the garage and NEVER move it again. Just as a nation's military does not buy tools of war and expect them not to be destroyed at some point.

This train of thought may work for large militaries but a small country can not bear this losses. You want to avoid unnecessary risks, which is why you don't look for a dogfight. You want to maximize casualties of the enemy and bring your pilots home. Modern sensors and low chance of detection means the 5th generation fighter has an information advantage and can avoid fights to its disadvantage.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Mayer

[Matuchkin]

"There's absolutely nothing beautiful about these hideous killing machi-"

"Such crude, horrible things-"

"Absolutely no grace-"

Edited December 11, 2017 by Matuchkin

[Exploro]

On 12/6/2017 at 4:57 AM, Mayer said:

Vietnam was a special case due to technical failures and strict rules for engagements...

To add to your point it was also a matter of training; or lack thereof, on the part of American pilots early on in the War. Simply put American pilots were not adequately trained in dogfighting; particularly against dissimilar aircraft. It was that weakness that contributed to the poorer performance of US pilots during the Vietnam war compared to those who fought during WWII and the Korean War.

The Navy and Marine Corp recognized this deficiency and initiated the Fighter Weapons School; or the Top Gun school,  during 1969. The program emphasized on training select pilots against aircraft simulating the characteristics and tactics of North Vietnamese fighters. These pilot would return to their respective postings within the fleet and pass on their experiences to their fellow aviators. The training program paid off; improving the Navy/ Marine pilots victory to kill ratio from 3:1 to 13:1.

As TheSaint mentions; the lack of a cannon on Phantoms was a problem; but not as big as most of us have been taught it was. It should be pointed out that after implementing Top Gun; Navy Phantom pilots acheived a victory/ kill ratio of a little over 5:1. That was a significant improvement and the Phantoms of the Navy and Marine Corp lacked cannons throughout the entire war! Yet even when an onboard cannon was installed on the Air Force F-4E; that service did not show any improvement. What is more most other Air Force planes operating in Vietnam had cannons; yet they faired no better than their naval counterparts in the early years of the war and would never see the kind of improvements the Navy reaped through emphasis on proper training.

[linuxgurugamer]

What about the F-14

[Mayer]

2 hours ago, Exploro said:

What is more most other Air Force planes operating in Vietnam had cannons; yet they faired no better than their naval counterparts in the early years of the war and would never see the kind of improvements the Navy reaped through emphasis on proper training.

Indeed, getting the right answer for the tactics of the enemy was probably more important than the plane itself. The Vietname would do ambushs and not loiter around to pose as a target, the window of opportunity was small and reaction time was key.

[YNM]

Vietnam is a jungle where you can easily wage wars for decades without a clear view... unlike Middle East.

 

But, back to planes.

On 09/12/2017 at 4:17 AM, dundun93 said:

What about the Su-57, Su-27, mig-35, and mig-29? They are air superiority fighters!

We have Su's. It just appears that F-15s don't go die, like B-52s.

Edited December 12, 2017 by YNM

[Guest]

On 12/11/2017 at 8:58 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

What about the F-14

Yeah!

[GoSlash27]

My favorite was the F-14 Tomcat. Not a pure air superiority fighter and not the "best" air superiority fighter, but definitely my favorite.

Best,
-Slashy