Read the forum code of contact
By: 28th August 2000 at 20:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
Yeah I agree w/ almost all that. But still i like the stealth fighters and there is not much wrong with the JSF. However you didnt even talk about the F-22. Why is this? Thanks later.
By: 29th August 2000 at 12:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
F-22 is a great pure interceptor/fighter, but lacks a long-range AAM in the class of the R-37, KS-172, or even AIM-54. Still rates as a great fighter though, just Rafale and F-16 got picked instead due to true multi-role capability. F-22's multi-role potential hasn't yet been realised.
As for the JSF...it has nowhere NEAR the capability of the F-16, AND will rely on offboard sensors such as JSTARS, AWACS...how will it be a viable aircraft for a NATO nation lacking some or all of these systems?
By: 29th August 2000 at 22:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
That is why it is called JSF. I agree that both the F-22 and JSF lack due to the stealth making them slower then they could of been and need help from other aircraft but still they are good. The F-16 has only one engine making it very slow while the F-15 is fast. I still prefer the F-15 for this reason. However the JSF and F-22 will work well if other aircraft are in the air to help it. But still the stealth is becoming more useless and expensive everyday while making the airplane even more vulnerable . So I agree with you for the most part. Thanks for your opinon later.
By: 30th August 2000 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
With a max speed of just over Mach 2, how is an F-16 slow?
By: 30th August 2000 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
versus the F-22 going mach 2.5 it is slow. I am not sure what the JSF speed is but it might be faster too. I agree mach 2 is well, pretty darn fast but look at some Russian fighters and there speeds. All I am saying is the F-16 is not stealth making in worse and slower then the F-22 and some Russian fighters. I agree with most of what you say SOC and beleive that you are very educated on aircraft but I simply prefer Stealth over normal aircraft. Even with stealth becoming more pointless every day due to ir. thanks later.
By: 30th August 2000 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
The F-22 has a top speed of Mach 1.7 (1,170 mph). Trust me on this one. If you want fast, you should look at the F-4. It has a top speed of Mach 2.4 (1,580 mph) The F-15 is right in there at Mach 2.5 (1,650 mph) F-16's aren't slow, but they are not quite up to par with the F-4 and F-15.
By: 31st August 2000 at 12:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
You're right. And I still maintain that a tailless F-16XL would have made a better choice...it could use existing F-16 support equipment (JSF may be able to as well, I don't know), and I guarantee it can carry more than 2 AIM-120 and 2 JDAM. How can the JSF be expected to fill all the roles currently undertaken by the F-16?
As for the B-52, when was the last time it overflew a threat environment before the IADS had been depleted? ECM is great, but as soon as someone see's the aircraft it won't last 5 minutes. It's fine as a cruise missile truck, I'll give it that, but standoff missile launching and low-level bombing are two entirely different things.
By: 31st August 2000 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
The Yugoslav IADS was never fully depleted during Operation Allied Force, but the B-52H still flew mission into Yugoslavia even bombing targets around Belgrade. Political constraints and certain NATO members opposition to some targets being hit put paid to that. Daylight missions were also flown over Kosovo of which some were filmed by news crews positioned along the Kosovo/Albanian border. B-52Gs also went low-level for the first four days of Desert Storm. B-52Gs were combat damaged in Desert Storm, but none were shot down.
By: 31st August 2000 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-RE: Best aircraft, but more specific...
Swede,
"British Aerospace is helping Saab to sell the Gripen,why do they do that?"
Basically, because BAE SYSTEMS owns 35% of Saab Military Aircraft. BAE see the Gripen as an excellent aircraft that fits nicely in-between the export Hawk and the export Eurofighter Typhoon.
The building of the Gripen is truly an international undertaking.
http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/aviation/gripen/partners.html
"BAE Systems, which since 1998 owns 35% of Saab Military Aircraft, in 1995 together with Saab formed the joint venture company Saab-BAe Gripen AB, which will adapt, manufacture, market and support Gripen internationally. BAe was involved in the Gripen programme before that and designed the wing and made wing prototypes and will furthermore produce 45% of the export airframes. Saab Military Aircraft is responsible for the overall system including basic aircraft development and production, as well as testing and delivery.
The foreign content of Gripen is high, 60% by value comes from NATO member countries, 70% from EU members (including Sweden), so upwards 30% is US content, contributed by more than 25 companies. Non-NATO, non-EU content isn't very high, although for example Danube Aerospace in Hungary has been making parts for Gripen since 1997."
Poland has recently joined the huge international manufacturing problem. The Polish Aviation Factory Company Limited (PZL) in Mielec, Poland, has started work on its first contract to manufacture sub assemblies for the Gripen.
TJ
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 28th August 2000 at 20:18
In response (of sorts) to Merlin's "Best aircraft" posts, here's my list...
Best looking: Tupolev Tu-144D
Worst Looking: Avro Guppy/Belouga/whatever its called. The one that transports aircraft/rocket parts and is bulged and just plain ugly.
Best idea: HMS. Easily the edge in a dogfight between two pilots of equal ability, just downright unfair if in the hands of a superior flyer.
Worst idea: JSF. Enough said on this pathetic money sump already.
Most capable fighter: Rafale or F-16C/D Block 50/52//60. True multi-role capability, arguably more developed than Eurofighter.
Most capable bomber: Tu-160. Recieving upgrades, will begin using conventional weapons, great range/payload performance, and man, you should hear the Guard B-1B pilots here bitch about the Bone's range!
Most capable naval aircraft: F-14D. LANTIRN+AIM-54? Nuff said.
Best airshow performer: Flanker. How many NATO analysts do you think needed new pants after the first Pugachev Cobra display at Paris in '89?
Most overrated aircraft: F-15. Bomb truck, air defence fighter, and oh yeah enormous radar target. Not a bad aircraft by any means, just last year's technology.
Most underrated aircraft: B-2. Bitch about the cost, but a fleet of these with JDAMs or other PGM's could replace the F-15E/F-117 fleet, and do it with comparatively fewer numbers thanks to large bomb load.
Why is it still around?: B-52. Meet the SAM sump. Cruise missiles can be shot from other far more survivable platforms. Why this aircraft is still around is beyond me. Expecting it to perform in combat is taking an unnecessary risk with the lives of its crew.
Comments?