Mogura wrote:
all those jets are good, but i find the new russian airplanes from sukhoi compani are great fighter / bombers
specialy the SU-30MK, SU-32 and SU-33.
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su33/
of corse we as civilians, dont have all informations on all those aircrafts, but im sure they equal western produced aircrafts
I think russians are best at jets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig-29
The Su-30 Platypus is one heck of a fighter bomber to go up against ive ran into them in a real combat simulator (not that crap you get from microsoft) a Squadron of Su24's and Su34's vs 4 F15's it had the battle to 6vs4+Some Urals. We managed to take down the two Su27's loitering around and thought that would be the hardest part. Where we wrong i came up behind the Two Su24's and Su30's jammed a AIM7 "sparrow" up a Su-24's tailpipe and fired another at a Su-30 the Su-30 evaded it much to my suprise and performed a heck of a manuver and fired one AAR7(somecrap like that) into my tail section. It heavily damaged my rudder and destroyed engines. I ended up skid landing on a inactive commercial aircraft runway coming in at 600 knots it was either a skid land or an ejection and saving your aircraft from distruction is the primary goal the life of the pilot comes after the mission. Now thats what i call two airplanes that have haredend the fuck up. F15 for its dopller radar capable of takign out jets in Air to Air combat at ranges as long as 160NM and its rate of climb being able to go verticle without losing speed it has a higher thrust to weight ratio. And the Su-30 for its capability to move like a sidewinder missle that caught me unawares. Different aircraft go for different plans and tactics there is no best plane it all depends on the pilot and his ability to execute the plan and improvise when a difficulty arises.
Tornado -
F-16 FIGHTING FALCON
It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack.
It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack.
True the Falcon can fire AGM (Air to Ground) Maverick missles these things are a peice of laser guided technology ill tell ya now.
Are you joking?
Understood, I was not certain if you were thinking technically (performance, toughness, quality) or technologically (radar, targeting system, weapons). What is different about the Russian Migs? I wasn't aware of that.Bertster7 wrote:
Technology is not just limited to electronics. The toughness and quality of the plane, along with the performance of it are considered to be higher by most leading experts. That, in my opinion, means the technology is better. I didn't say better technology anyway, I said technically better and there is a slight difference.Stingray24 wrote:
I'd add the F-18 to naval.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Naval: F14
Air to ground: F16
Air to Air: F15.
Berster7:
I believe the Mig-29 is a tougher plane than the F-15 in that it requires less maintenance. Watched a show on the History or Military channel awhile back about the Mig-29. Better technology? I doubt it. Doesn't the German Air Force fly Mig-29? US flies against them to get practice and the Germans are pretty good.
The Mig-29 has poor combat statistics, but in combat has only been used by crap pilots, Iraq, Syria, etc.
Also you have to remember any Mig-29s not flown by the Russians themselves are not true Mig-29s but stripped down versions for foreign sale. Russian Mig-29s are better than the rest.
personally i think its got to be the F-14, with that huge-ass radar and Phoenix missile its like a sniper in the sky. enemy planes never know what hit them. but too bad the Tomcat's been retired.
The primary difference is the ones they sell don't have the capability to launch nuclear weapons. There are other differences as well though.Stingray24 wrote:
Understood, I was not certain if you were thinking technically (performance, toughness, quality) or technologically (radar, targeting system, weapons). What is different about the Russian Migs? I wasn't aware of that.Bertster7 wrote:
Technology is not just limited to electronics. The toughness and quality of the plane, along with the performance of it are considered to be higher by most leading experts. That, in my opinion, means the technology is better. I didn't say better technology anyway, I said technically better and there is a slight difference.Stingray24 wrote:
I'd add the F-18 to naval.
Berster7:
I believe the Mig-29 is a tougher plane than the F-15 in that it requires less maintenance. Watched a show on the History or Military channel awhile back about the Mig-29. Better technology? I doubt it. Doesn't the German Air Force fly Mig-29? US flies against them to get practice and the Germans are pretty good.
The Mig-29 has poor combat statistics, but in combat has only been used by crap pilots, Iraq, Syria, etc.
Also you have to remember any Mig-29s not flown by the Russians themselves are not true Mig-29s but stripped down versions for foreign sale. Russian Mig-29s are better than the rest.
Radar's and sea destroyers have a radar range of 500 kilometres + the F14 could only fire missles 100 miles out the F15 has a longer range then it. Also if fighter aricraft are not supported by ground or sea radar they will possibly have AWACS (normally a converted commercial plane with better specs that has a giant ass radar mounted onto it.)dilun wrote:
personally i think its got to be the F-14, with that huge-ass radar and Phoenix missile its like a sniper in the sky. enemy planes never know what hit them. but too bad the Tomcat's been retired.
My grandad was a harrier pilot in the falklands war he told me that the harrier never lost against the jets the argentinians had (dont know what they were ) because the harrier had the advantige of just being able to stop in midair letting the plane fly right past an then instantly being on there tail! pritty damn cool if you ask me
Pre- 5th Gen it's the F-15E IMHO.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
American F-14s never shot down any enemies with a Phoenix Missile. Look it up, I'm too lazy
Last edited by >LOD<Dougalachi (2006-12-06 09:08:06)
The placebo fighter. Has been stalking assholes since 1850. Literally
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2006-12-06 09:07:28)
Su-37
Aside from the capability to launch nukes the more advanced versions have ECM (radar jamming) and automatic recognition of friendly/enemy aircraft, increased weapon loads, increased range and the ability to engage more than 2 air targets simultaneously, and can be fitted with weapons of non-Russian origin.Stingray24 wrote:
Understood, I was not certain if you were thinking technically (performance, toughness, quality) or technologically (radar, targeting system, weapons). What is different about the Russian Migs? I wasn't aware of that.
Thanks for clearing that up. I knew the Russian version was better, just not by how much.Masques wrote:
Aside from the capability to launch nukes the more advanced versions have ECM (radar jamming) and automatic recognition of friendly/enemy aircraft, increased weapon loads, increased range and the ability to engage more than 2 air targets simultaneously, and can be fitted with weapons of non-Russian origin.Stingray24 wrote:
Understood, I was not certain if you were thinking technically (performance, toughness, quality) or technologically (radar, targeting system, weapons). What is different about the Russian Migs? I wasn't aware of that.
SU-35 Air superiority jet-fighter .
QFTTowelly wrote:
The Harrier..
Just because it was innovative at the time and it actually experienced combat and proved itself.
I'm surprised the F-117A Hasn't at least been mentioned.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I was pretty sure that the F-15 had all those capabilites except for the ability to be fitted with foreign weapons.Masques wrote:
Aside from the capability to launch nukes the more advanced versions have ECM (radar jamming) and automatic recognition of friendly/enemy aircraft, increased weapon loads, increased range and the ability to engage more than 2 air targets simultaneously, and can be fitted with weapons of non-Russian origin.Stingray24 wrote:
Understood, I was not certain if you were thinking technically (performance, toughness, quality) or technologically (radar, targeting system, weapons). What is different about the Russian Migs? I wasn't aware of that.
Not air superiority fighter would be my guess. Very effective with it's stealthiness, but I don't think the pilot would want to engage with a conventional fighter in a dogfight.Kmarion wrote:
I'm surprised the F-117A Hasn't at least been mentioned.
F-15 also costs more than twice as much as a Mig-29.Stingray24 wrote:
I was pretty sure that the F-15 had all those capabilites except for the ability to be fitted with foreign weapons.Masques wrote:
Aside from the capability to launch nukes the more advanced versions have ECM (radar jamming) and automatic recognition of friendly/enemy aircraft, increased weapon loads, increased range and the ability to engage more than 2 air targets simultaneously, and can be fitted with weapons of non-Russian origin.Stingray24 wrote:
Understood, I was not certain if you were thinking technically (performance, toughness, quality) or technologically (radar, targeting system, weapons). What is different about the Russian Migs? I wasn't aware of that.
Mig-29 about $20 million.
F-15 about $50 million.
F-22 about $350 million.
Eurofighter Typhoon about $110 million.
That's why the Mig-29 is great. It might not be quite the best, but it's comparable and it's cheap.
Because of its flawless kill record and amazing durability, the F-15
Last edited by Pernicious544 (2006-12-06 12:25:36)