U must be joking me!

No way that MiG 23..?...(sorry ive forggotten... long time since ive seen one.).would stand a chance....
Cause its a Bomber...!!!!!!!!  



Lol anway..

Nice  

In that case i think they are on pretty equal standings then, seeing as all the f-15's carring is fuel tanks!

Quote:


Is not. The MiG-27 is a bomber, the 23 is a pure fighter. And could surely kick a F-15s butt.

Quote:


Kein Problem.

Err...what?

I think the F-15 is generally overrated.

In genral i dont like any American planes..

I too think the F-15 is overrated,

But the only New American Jet i have respect for is the F-16, its climb rate is the only thing that impresses me. 

Lol..

Personal issues aside, when you consider the F15 is undeafeated in air to air combat, well albeit a minor mistake in taking on a Eurofighter once, and airforce officials telling the pilots to loose a few rounds in India to push congress into the buying of the F22. Its actual combat record is very impressive.

Quote:

Its actual combat record is very impressive.

How many conflicts has it been in where the OpFor air force actually stood a chance?
Level the playing field, and the F-15 would have a rather difficult time.

Almost forgot about the superior numbers and better pilot training.

U cant say the F-15 has been undefeated...

What has it had to fight against..
Iraqi   Sopwith Camels?
Afgan Sopwith Camels?


Seriously..::..
MiG-21's come on.. there realy great but no match..
And there wasnt even a war realy... just rebels..
all the army n' airforce ran away....

If it were up against a MiG29,

BOOM!!!! Goodbye F-15..

Talking about sopwith's....
Iraq had no chance come on...
Its the big countries pickin on the small ones...

The latest wars are all scams for the Oil..
Everyone knows that..

And in the first Iraq war. But those were MiG-29A and not the newer MiG-29M. Equipped with the R-77/AA-12 they could easily shoot a F-15 down.

Quote:


So far the only Mig 29 which has been shot down for real was by a Dutch F-16 pilot over Yugoslavia (go Holland) And also the reason why the F-22 buying was given the green light was because some american pilots got their asses kicked by some Isrealis (so I've heard)

Quote:


Correct 

And we havn't even thought about the Su-27 yet have we now? 

Quote:


Disagreed. There were some losses of F-15E during Desert Shield/ Desert Storm.

Quote:


Original airframe and engines, but israeli avionics.

Quote:


AFAIK, that was an accident.

Quote:


Yes, iraqui pilots in iraqui (say export) versions of MiGs. If those were russian aircraft with russian pilots, the cards would have to be mixed again.

Quote:


Except some iraqui ZSU AA guns.

Quote:


Stupid Eagle pilots, I guess. Their RWRs must have been deactivated...

I should clarify, sorry, the F-15 has a perfect Air-to-Air combat record: 101 air combat kills-0 losses.

I am just stating the facts, don't hate it because it's beatiful.


And I will admit that I am a little biased because of where I am from and I am friends with someone who helped design the F-15.  Sorry, but I did give the straight facts and a few of my opinions.  I said Russian fighters would have a fair chance, I don't know much about Russian AWACs or training so please correct me if I am wrong.

When I said nothing can beat the F-15E, I meant it as in performance-wise nothing can beat it, it's all-around capabilities are very good when compared to other strike fighters.

Not anymore. As i said in its day the F-15 was the best. But even the multirole varient is getting to the end of its life. Multirole its beaten by the Rafale the Grippen, and the Typhoon, hell even the F-18 is better.

Quote:


U didnt read what i said, i said 'capable active'
That didnt mean there in good condis..
Just ment the shear size could wipe out a whole airforce of F-15's or F-22's


Quote:


Cough?

Su-47?
Su-37?
Su-52?
MiG-AT?

Hmmmm ure lacking some rescources...

yes the MiG-AT is and so is the Su-52..
Just answering to ure post about russia having no money... the country might not, but the military have.
All invested in military units.

The Su-52 was announced in a issue of Airforces monthly back about a year ago.
It had been planned for a few years.


**And ive just found out that the Su-52 proccess has been stopped, because of lack of resources..**

http://home.tiscali.nl/~ti019223/files/scramble295-english.pdf

Shame was looking forward to that A/C

Right,
Onto the Su-47.

It may only be a Test bed,
But it shows that russia are not afriad of trying out new designs.
And did worry the U.S when it flew its first test trial back in 2001.


The designation S-37 was the prototype
The designation Su-47 was for the russian airforce

So they still might have plans for the Su-47.
-------------
SU-37..
Now isnt that the first plane to use Thrust Vectoring in front of the public
1992 the prototype plans were issued..

i know in 1972 i dink...
McDonalld Douglas submitted plans for the F-15 Active... but in 96 the Nasa Dryden actually tested it didnt they?
The F-15 Active in my eyes failed misrably..

--
I dont have anything realy against the F-15...
Just the U.S in genral lol... joke..

Quote:


I Agree

Quote:


Past tense...
It still is.. and is alot better than the euro****er were getting.. lol 

Quote:


I know that already... 

Quote:


Yes, very true.
But i dont regard Americas plans as Next Gen...
There more Upgrading the past..
No new ideas..

And since they havnt got anything to compete against the russians, this time around..
It doesnt seem like the U.S are going to ever going to make a new gen fighter, without that push from good old 'russia' lol..   


the U.S are still on 4th gen arnt they?
While russias proto berkut (golden eagle) was designed as a 5th gen, much like the viggen...


But i wish they wouldnt keep evolving...
I still like the Tonka.. i dunno how the hell there gonne keep the same airframes going for another 35 years..   

Quote:


Cough...
Vectoring > >Eurofighter...<<


Quote:

And ive heard things on the radar reports on the F-22
that it isnt 'that' stealthy... and can still be detected by radar..

Quote:


OOoo nooo...
u do belive it...
How the hell can u belive that..
Its a US statement...
Kind of like..
'The u.s have not killed any british soldiers'
I heard someone say that on the news in the recent war...

Go B-52!!!!!!

Don't care Which planes are better Russian ones or Americans Probaply it's the ones we don't get to see represents the level of both countries. (Skunkworks anyone?) Modern warfare is beginnig to look more like a videogame unfortunately the casualties are for real

The Eurofighter is not in production yet, so technically the F/A-22 is the first production fighter with those capabilities. 

**EDIT**  Yeah, I'm stupid, the Eurofighter is in production, but it still doesn't have thrust-vectoring.

And yes I do believe that the F-15 has a perfect air-to-air record.  The friend of mine who helped design the F-15 knows many F-15 pilots who say this is a true fact.

Also, no aircraft is completely stealthy, F-117s can be detected on radar.  The "stealthyness" (I made up a new word) of an airplane depends on the conditions at the time.  A manuevering airplane is not really stealthy, when the bay doors are open they're not stealthy, but in straight and level flight they can be picked up on radar, only their RCS is close to that of a bird's.

Interesting Fact: The B-52 has a smaller RCS than that of an F-15.  ??? wierd

Quote:
The Eurofighter is in full service with Italy and Germany. And is now being brought into service with 2 squadrons with the RAF. This is an Area Charlie will be able to clear up as hes on his way to flying the things:)

Quote:

It doesnt need thrust vectoring. It adds weight and couldn't improve its agility enough to make it worth it.
I certainly would take the Typhoon over anything else. Its true Multi-role. Added to the ability to carry and fire ALCM's at supersonic speeds while running air defence. For the first time since the Lightning the British with some European help have actually designed a capable fighter again.

Vat about the hunter?

lol, just checka raf site www.raf.mod.uk

Quote:

Came before the Lightning. If i remember correctly. You could have said bucaneer.

In one on one combat its possible, but since you never would be in a 1 on 1 situation its still too risky.

yes it was, but it was the last great british aircraft.

Quote:


The F-15 is a box with wings,all edgy, while the B-52 is quite round.
The B-1B almost has the RCS of a seagull,btw.

Yakovlev 141
Nato designation "Freestyle"


Tis supersonic aswell, but not in service..

Engines:
1 x Kobchenko/Soyuz R-79V-300
2 x Glushenko/Rybinsk RD-41


and Hay! the F-35 uses lift jets

Hmmm... it is realy...
It Lifts doesnt it?...

More stress on the engine though,,

They'll have a terrible maintence cost when we get them..
the Shaft will have to be replaced alot..

that wouldnt surpirse me  thats the one bit they really really dont want to fail

that cant be right, can it? It seems dreadfully silly to me for them to have deigned it to be like that...?

lol.. oh dear, i was going to say wouldnt a cat solve or help to solve the problem.

hmm, why didnt the navy just the the VSTOL one like the RAF are getting?

ah well... at least we have (some) Typhoons

The take off run is a few hundred meters I believe, 300 maybe, better, more capaple yes, but more expensive, and no vtol option. Though I for one would like to see more Typhoons  8)

Quote:

I do love the way people harp on about supercruise as if it's just been invented. The RAF had it's first supercruise fighter over 40 years ago with the EE Lighting. I must also point out that the EE Lightning could out climb any aircraft that dared take it on (except the harrier. But that took off vertically and was at 10,000 feet before the Lighting had got to the end of the runway.) and could also outmanuvre just about anything too. Before you say anything, yes the Lightning did outclimb the F15. The Lighting was better than the F15 so I'm afriad Craig the F15 was outclassed even when new.

As for the F35, who ever thought anyone but Britain could build a VTOL aircraft that worked properly? If Bae still had the rights to the Harrier and the proper funding it would have gone supersonic years ago. Infact, if it wasn't for red tape the Harrier would have been supersonic from the word go.

So, before you go on anymore, stop and think. Is the plane your promoting better than the EE Lightning? Is it as ahead of it's time as the EE Lightning was? Then once you've thought about that continue and say the Lightning was great.

P.s. Other great Jet fighters include the Buccaneer, the Folland Gnat, the Sea Vixen and the Hunter.

last i heard Typhoon had a unit cost of aroud 70 million each, maybe a little more.

and the dont make em like they used to! lol The lightning was great for its time, but these days, a Typhoon, can out climb it, has longer range, and better armerment, and speed is roughly the same as far as I know, the Lightning may be slightly faster, i know you can poin the nose down at high alt and go supersonic in idle thrust....

The Lightning was NOT designed as a fighter (initially) it was designed as a research aircraft (hence the short range) then used with radar and missiles as an interceptor / fighter.

erm.. Quote:


Cant disagree on the speed though 

I heard my version from a Gp Capt in the ATC but either sound equally likely.

They better start building more and more SU35's or hope they dont come up against the Raptor or Typhoon.

Quote:

Nah, we won't worry about it...I doubt that your pilots that took part in these simulations know how to fly our aircraft to even 1/2 their potential and I don't see any detailed specs on the Su-35...do you? If you do - I suggest you keep a low profile (Its classified material and will be for the next 8 years(atleast)) and I am not talking about the general specs...that doesn't say much.

One thing that you fail to recognize is that the Su-37 has 3D Thrust vectoring, not the older thrust vectoring systems that we have on the Su-27MKI's (Note, thats MKI and not MK1 --they are different aircraft, please don't confuse them...the MKI would get offended  its like calling a 737NG a 737 Classic - kinda rude)
The Su-37 has been put into production but no chance of it being exported for another 8 years (at the least) unless they decide to downgrade the export versions (no need to do that, they can just sell some MKI's since the 37 is basically a further modified MKI and it would cost alot)
Please let me clear something up: many of you think that Russia and it's people are poor. I don't blame you for thinking these things, but please in the future, don't read as much biased western press...really wake up: Khodorkovsky is a criminal (not a hero), Putin isn't a dictator (he finally got us back on our feet and regained control), the war in chechnya is OVER (and has been for about 2.5 years now), the chechen 'rebels' aren't rebels, they are terrorists (NOT the population of the republic - but those that feel the need to start a juhad against the wishes of the population of the republic are terrorists (our neighbours are from Chechenya - very nice people, they dispursed alot of myths that I had about the situation there) and last of all - we are not poor! There are many factors that those 'smart people' don't consider when they make such assumptions and state them as facts. (I'm sorry that I got us into politics, I just wanted to clear several myths about Russia since few of you have been here but many of you speak as if you live here and know all there is to know In fact, I live here and I don't know all there is to know - but I guarantee you that I know more than most of you about my country )
Our airforce isn't as bad or as underfunded as you think it is, our pilots are probably better trained than alot of the U.S. and Brittish pilots so lets not make assumptions without backing it up, allrigt? As they say: When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME!
By the way, India has frequent crashes due to poor maintanence, we rarely do. If you look at the ammount of crashes in peacetime that occur within the USAF and the Airforce of the Russian Federation, the USAF has way more crashes. The fact is, crashes occur when you have such a complex piece of machinery, its inevitable, all we can do is introduce systems that reduce the number of these occurances. In my opinion, the Su-37 is currently the best aircraft in the world, nobody comes close to it at the moment. That is not only my opinion but the opinion of many qualified people! Heck, the Americans themselves admitted that it is better than anything they have! Now regarding the F-22, let's wait and see, and ONLY then compare the aircraft...remember dont ASSUME. As a matter of fact, I myself considered going into the Air Force but decided not to...although this has to do with other factors (I lived in Canada for 7 years...this pretty much guarantes the fact that I would not climb any higher than a Senior Liutenant 
Vic
P.S. I would be glad to clear up any 'myths' you have about Russia, feel free to PM or email! We are all here to learn.

Maybe we should set up some kind of simulated world war. Then we'll see whose fighters are best.


I kinda liked the times after the german reunion, when the Luftwaffe was a mixed bag of western and eastern aircraft. But sadly, all of the MiGs, MIs and SUs are sold or scrapped by now, and considering the purchase of some newer equipment from Russia or the Ukraine wasn't an option for our MoD. I would have loved to see An-70s in the Luftwaffe, but sadly, we're now going for that stupid and expensive A-400M. All to keep up the european unity. :/

I usually don't reply to posts like these since it's all speculation and in war there is no speculation only reality.

Everything was more or less going fine with some interesting discussion and than "boom"
Nationalism stinks it all up.

Although I am an American (whatever that means) I served in 3 wars in the Israeli army and I am now 56 yrs old. I was in the tank corps but witnessed many aerial battles.

I've seen Mig 21s shot down by Skyhawks (slow and low-no manuverability no escape).

No one can simulate combat or war and unless you've been there it is beyond what you can understand !!!!!!!!

I think the thing that bothers me the most is the flag-waving.

Russian against the US and European against Russia and the US ? What is this ?

US lies about Russia ? US Lies about everything ? Russia lies Europe lies?

I thought your generation learned something and somehow were supposed to be more understanding and tolerant

Judging by these posts you are as nationalistic and as capable of hate as every other generation.

When the hell will you grow-up. After you kill a few million more.

I wish that all of you will never see a war or fight in one

Michael Greenblatt
Fs-Gs

Quote:


I disagree on that one. The Skyhawk is the by far most manoeuverable Sub-Sonic aircraft I've ever seen (the Harrier left out of consideration). And since the "E" was avaiable, it also had better chances of defending itself (Sidewinders).
And the Navy wasn't using it in the Fighter Weapons School for nothing.

And you're right - nationalism is an evil thing.

Oh, yeah, I misunderstood what you said.

When I'm flying in Sims, I'm only flying with the highest realism level possible, so I somehow know the way an A-4 polit feels during a dogfight with MiGs.

Ramsa, i am not saying i want to see these aircraft up against each other in real warfare. Every few years as you may or may not be aware the various nations get together with their best aircraft and send them up in the air for mock combat. Everything from long range targeting to close in dogfights. This is what i want to see from the new aircraft, barring any accidents no-one gets hurt and the general public like us get to find out the aircrafts ability against each other.
As for countries lying? No, however they will never give away key secrets about their own aircraft and will always fight over who has the best.
And as for nationalistic pride. Damn right, i am proud that the UK has produced something to be proud of with the help of its European partners. It makes a change for once. However i have also given credit to both the US and Russia for their products, as all of them are of high quality and ability.

The relationship between the GDR and the USSR was of a different kind than the one between Iraq and the USSR.
So it's quite logical that NVA aircraft were equipped better than regular export versions.

Igorski, I'm talking about Strike Fighters here, a pretty realistic rendition of air to air combat in the 1960s. The flight model of the jets is nowhere near the CFS series.

Craig L

Good at least you and your European partners managed to get together to do something.

Now if you could just work out your issues about money and your legacy of imperialism we'd really be cooking LOL

I fly planes from all over the world in my sim and I don't give a s**t who makes them.

Countries do not make planes aerospace companies do and it's for profit and it's done with designers and scientists from all over the world.

When you don't have the computing power you go to places that have the power and rent space and time in that country on their computers.

Composit structures are made in those countries that have the technology and you pay a fee to reproduce them. It's called a patent and it's worldwide.

No plane today is entirerly the product of any country or region except for Russia and the US and even that's not true anymore since technicians and aerospace designers from all over the world are employed by any company that's serious.

It is naive to think otherwise.

I think I actually agree with everyone here , I do hate to see actual combat and actual people dying.  If given the choice, I and I think just about everyone here would choose peace over war, but in my opinion, war is a necessary thing sometimes.  I am also proud of the United States and what we have done to "try" to help others around the world, even though it seems like the rest of the world hates us for it . 

I am not trying to be prejudice against any other nations and their aircraft, I don't care where the airplanes I fly come from.  My favorite sim to fly other than FS is Lock On, where you can fly 2 different American airplanes and 4 different russian airplanes and I would have to say that when I have the choice, I actually fly the MiG-29 and Su-35 more than I fly the A-10 and F-15.


Ramsa,
I don't think that this conversation has turned "nationalistic" and I don't think this proves we are more capable of hate than other generations.  I think this was a friendly discussion about the combat capabilities of fighters and as you can probably well assume, I and others here have not seen combat and probably never will , so we have to base our arguments about facts and information we know and find from credible sources.  I was enjoying this conversation because I am very interested in all different types of aircraft and there are not many people I can talk to who have the extensive knowledge that people on this forum do.  Therefore, I would like to have an opinion and be able to argue my point without being called "nationalistic" and more "capable of hate".  I am an adult and I do have my own personal point of views, I agree and disagree with people about those views, and I am ready and willing to defend my views in a friendly argument.  I don't know why this was called nationalist and I don't know why we have been told to "grow the hell up".  I don't want to see another person die because of war and I sure as hell don't want to see another million die just to see combat vehicles in action.  I think you took this argument the wrong way, if you have been following this debate all along, you would see that for the most part, we are sharing information about different fighter aircraft and just because they are fighters doesn't mean we are war-mongers, there's just no other aircraft in the world like them to argue about. 


Sorry for my ranting again, seems like I'm doing that quite often, maybe I should just shut-up, but I don't really want to.  Again, I am not trying to make a political argument, if you took it that way, I apologize.

Too subjective.....waaaaay too subjective...and nationalistic. 

Well, just wanted to add in several things:
Im no defence anaylist, but it seems to me that the US and Russian armed forces are completely different. The US has an enormous fleet of Aircraft carriers and in their campaigns use mid range or short range strike aircraft. (The B-52's are pretty useless if you ask me, they wouldn't get close enough to fire their cruise missiles, they are only good for attacking third-world countries like Afghanistan and Iraq where they can see them, they can scream at them, but those AK-47 can't quite shoot em down )
We use Long Range strategic aviation (thats Tu-160, Tu-95) Russia has never had a fleet of carriers. As a matter of fact, we never had more than 10 active at one time! and in the last 40 years we have never had more than 4 active at one time! So Russian Naval Aviation is completely irrelevant. We only have one aircraft carrier (Admiral Kuznetsov - sometimes called 'Admiral of the Soviet Fleet Kuznetsov' which was recomissioned last year, the one we sold to India was the Admiral Gorshkov) It doesn't play a part in our strategy, unlike the U.S. Instead, we have the largest fleet in the world of Strategic Submarines (Nuclear Ballistic, and Attack Subs - I counted only active Subs, we have a large ammount mothballed, as does the US) So the strategies are completely different! We can't compare apples to oranges! Fact is - in a war (highly unlikely) between the RF and the US, you won't care who has the better AF or Navy, and you won't have a chance to analyse the data either - we have something like 2700 nuclear warheads and the US has a little more, it is unlikely that anyone will survive to care much about the outcome.
Vic
P.S. Read the original post and see what it has in common with what we are talking about now  LOL - we really did drift off topic on this one!

Yeah well said OBS but I came to look at screens not talk about whos better. I do have a  few words to say about russia but I will keep quiet