What are the world's best aircraft in these categories and why?

1) fighter
2) bomber
3) transport
4) your choice here
5) air superiority
6) stealth
7) speed
8) maneuverability
9) helicopter
10) firepower

any links?

Sorry, can't count today

aahhh!....the cloud in my silver lining returns.

1) fighter: I assume you mean multi-role, I would have to say the F-16, small, manvoerable (sp), and power- to weight ratio.

2) bomber:I would have to say the B-52, her range, her experinace, her loads, her lotiering time.

3) transport: Bar none, the An-124. It's extreme heavy left capibilty, her ability to land on gravel, short take off and landings, and her commercial success.

5) air superiority: I think you mean 4, and the MiG-31, her Amos missiles, she was desgined for the outset as a superiority fighter, her Zaslon radar, and tandem seating.

6) stealth: The good ole, F-117. Small, nimble, and a sexy plane.

7) speed :The SR-71, if you want only in service aircraft the MiG-25, and MiG-31.

8) maneuverability: This one is a no brainer the SU-37, can do sommersaults in the sky, fly backwards, and many other funky moves. She is the epitome of super-manoverability.

9) helicopter : Depends on which one you are talking about, for lift, the Mi-26, for the Attack Helicopter, I am going to stick with the Mi-24 Hind. Strength, the heli looks evil, and she can
carry 8 soldiers as well.

10) firepower: :eek: This one is vary board, but I would have to say... The F-15E, or the SU-34. Both nimble, fast, and carry the most modern air-air, and air-ground weapons.

Nothing European yet!

1) I would have to say the Tomcat. Its menuverable and has some of the best weapons and weapons systems to back it up.
2) The F-117A it says it is a Fighter/Attack but with its stealth capabilitys and precise laser guided bombs it does the work of a bomber.
3) The C-130 it can move alot of troops and supplies and also has a good record when working in hostile inviroments. Although the new Ospre looks like after more modifications it could be the best.
4) I would again say the Tomcat is ther best air superiority fighter.
5) The F-22 Raptor mostly because it imploys the newest stealth technology.
6) The aspect of speed has almost become obsolite most of the new jet fighters are around the same in this catagory.
7) I have heard that the Mig-29 is the most menuveralable jet right now it can pull up from level flight into a strait clim perpandicular to the ground in one move.
8) The Chamanchy which packs just about as much punch as the Appachy and has stealth capabilitys.
10) It is hard to say what has the best firepower because most types of ordinance can be afixed to almost any plane.

Just my opinions on the best.

if you want to find a any of these you can just type the Aircrafts name and designation in a google search.

1) X-wing fighter.
2) Deathstar.
3)Rebel transporter from Return of the Jedi.
4) what happened tp 4???....u missed it out
5)I'd go with Imperial starship.
6)Airwolf, in stealth mode.
7)Tie Fighter.
8)ditto.
9)Airwolf damn it.
10)Death star again (when completed, and fully operational)

Originally posted by Randolfo
What are the world's best aircraft in these categories and why?

1) fighter
2) bomber
3) transport
5) air superiority
6) stealth
7) speed
8) maneuverability
9) helicopter
10) firepower



1 bf 109 edit : he 162
2 he 111
3 Ju 52
5(?) me 262
6 go 229
7 me 163
8 fw 190
9 airwolf edit : Bat-copter
10 stuka 87

No, no,no!!!! NO fair wasi!....i chose Airwolf!! U gotta choose something else.:D

but it wouldn´t be the truth ;)

how about Bluethunder? that was pretty good, u can have that:D

Originally posted by Randolfo
7) speed I think the X-15 still has the record for this one. I can't remember it's exact speed off the top of my head, but it went stupidly fast.

Wasn't the X-15 technically a sub-orbital space plane? I'm not sure if it should count against "normal" aircraft...

wasnt it in captain scarlet???

Fighter is the Su-37. Ditto for manueverability. Variable vector thrusters.

Air superiority: Eurofighter. Will be surpassed by the Raptor when that comes into surface.

Firepower: B-1B has the largest payload.

Transport: Antonov 225

Stealth: B-2

helicopter: for finding a sub or killing a tank?

Speed: foxbat

My choice: A-10 warthog. Lots of ordinace, can take a beating.

After exactly a century of flying machines, it's a sad and typical commentary that at least half of the criteria for "best" involve the effectiveness of an aircraft in killing people. By this logic, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, George Bush, and Sadam Hussein must be exalted among the best of humanity.

Equipping an aircraft for killing does not make it more delightful to fly nor better at providing transportation. I would certainly enjoy flying an F-16 unfettered by the hardpoints, ordinance, countermeasures, etc. But such a Falcon would remain an extremely overcomplicated, oversized and high-maintenance aircraft, and I would have to deceive millions of compatriots regarding thier imperatives to subsidize every thrilling flight.

I enjoyed the entire work day yesterday, checking out a fellow in his Starduster open-cockpit biplane, his first tailwheel airplane. Today I will be instructing in a Zlin 242L, shooting many instrument appproaches to minimums. If the weather should clear, we will also enjoy some aerobatics. I get to fly many wonderful airplanes, and savor particular attributes of each. When I was younger, I would have gladly killed people I did not know just to be at the controls of a magnificent flying machine, for the experience and the ego boost. Now I know better, and I feel more honest and happy soaring through a Cuban 8 or chasing along a river with malice toward none.

Those of you who want to find out what is "best" about aircraft: Take a flying lesson on a beautiful spring morning. Look around and enjoy the freedom. Take in the vastness of the planet, and also the minutia of the clumps of humanity below. Slip the surly bonds of earth without hate, tumble your eager craft through footless halls of air without menace, top the windwept heights without threat to anyone. The sky and earth below will welcome you as a participant and not a destroyer.

Personal faves in the unrepresentative categories offered:

Best Fighter: Supermarine Spitfire - can't resist a stunning beauty
Best Bomber: Avro Arrow "never bombed anyone"
Best Transport: DC-3/C-47 "Mister Douglas"
Best Air Superiority: Nothing fits this egotistical delusion
Best Stealth: Schemp-Hirth Discus
Best Speed: X-15
Best Maneuverability: Zlin 50
Best Helicopter: Zlin 50 in an inverted spin... what a view.
Best Firepower: J-3 Cub fully armed with water balloons.


Gotta fly now!

most important aircraft: 'Wright 1903 Flyer'.

It doesn't fit anywhere in the list though. I would almost think that the list is biased.

I know absolutely nothing about military aircraft except the purpose of most listed above is to kill humans.
As an engineer, I have to admit that I enjoy looking at pictures of these death machines. They’re beautifully designed – form following function and you have to love the precision and efficiency of the damn things.
As a father and a husband, I look at these machines with disgust and contempt. It makes me ashamed to … well .. be human.
Also as a father and a husband the thing that interests (and worries) me most is the quality of commercial aircraft. With the airline industry suffering these days, I pray to god the FAA maintains its stringent guidelines and polices all cost-cutting measures. As far as I’m concerned, “world’s best aircraft” is the world’s safest aircraft.

Best Bomber: Avro Arrow "never bombed anyone

The Avro Arrow was a Canadian fighter it had no air - ground capibility. I think you might mean the Avro Vulcan.

hypewaders,
First off, thanks for the much-needed note of reality.
Second, (and please take this the right way), you lucky bastard! :)
(I'm not sure if you can say the J-3 is nicer than the PA-18 though... I'd have to fly in both to compare ;) )

Originally posted by hypewaders
After exactly a century of flying machines, it's a sad and typical commentary that at least half of the criteria for "best" involve the effectiveness of an aircraft in killing people.

Equipping an aircraft for killing does not make it more delightful to fly nor better at providing transportation.

Those of you who want to find out what is "best" about aircraft: Take a flying lesson on a beautiful spring morning. Look around and enjoy the freedom. Take in the vastness of the planet, and also the minutia of the clumps of humanity below. Slip the surly bonds of earth without hate, tumble your eager craft through footless halls of air without menace, top the windwept heights without threat to anyone. The sky and earth below will welcome you as a participant and not a destroyer.

Gotta fly now!

Thanks for adding some civilian planes, & for mixing in parts of "High Flight", the best poem ever written ( John Gillespie Magee, Jr.), but I may be biased, I'm ex-USAF (73-79).

Read more:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/prewwii/jgm.htm

Brazil has begun a competition in 2001 to replace her aging Mirage III's, and F-5's. Brazil as regional superpower has to keep the balance tipped in her favour. The Chileans are getting the super advanced F-16 Block 50, and the Peruvians have the most battle hardened air force in the region with the MiG-29, SU-25, Mirage 2000's. Argentina can't afford anything as of this point so she has to deal with the A-4's that she got ,Neshers, and MIII's. But Brazil has grand ambitions for her role not only in Latin America but the world. She wants to create a Amazonian zone in which everything illegal is tracked. Brazil has the biggest budget out of all the latin american countries with $13 billion. Now remember that Brazil massive size requires certain things i.e. long ranged aircraft, low matenineance, and advanced tech, and the ability to possibly be able to handle a hot, and high situation.

The contenders are:
F-16 Block 50
Mirage 2000
SU-35
Saab Gripen

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/brazil/fx-br.htm

Which should Brazil pick to become a important player?

Fighter = Mig-29 No Doubt, tailslide, gorgeous, enuff said

Bomber = Well, not much to choose from, B-2 I guess =\

Transport = An-124 Antonov Condor. check out the wheels

Interceptor = F-14, Phoenix Missiles, 90 mile range, 6 targets at once, gotta be the tomcat

Air-Superiority = F-22, stealthy, supercruise, sleek, gorgeous, maneuverable....GOtta be the F-22

Stealth = F-117, gold windshields, thats crazy!

Speed = X-15 But! its not really because it has to be dropped from a B-52, its more of a rocket than a plane see, so the SR-71, goes 3+, but how much +? 5+? Thats crazy, bring out the Aurora!

Maneuverability = X-29 or X-31....both are groovy, ill go with the X-31, that thing turns on a dime! sweet! But in active duty its gotta be the Harrier

Helicopter = Comanche, bring it

Firepower = F-15E is completely loaded to the gills, crazy mo-fo

Fighter: Su-37 - Rear-Firing missles, thrust vectoring, low maintenance, maneuverable, what more could you want?

Bomber: Hmm...I'd have to say B2.

Transport: An-225 or the An-124. No contest.

Interceptor: Mig-31. The speed is unmatchable

Air-Superiority=Mig-29. lots in service, low maint. again, maneuverable, payload, etc etc etc

Stealth=b2 of course. However, stealth is going to be rendered impractical in a few years. There is a new radar coming out called passive radar that detects stealth airplanes. Same as cell phone.

Speed=Mig-25. Sure the SR-71 is faster, but this is in a burst of speed, unmaintainable. Mig-25 can maintain its high speed, not to mention fly at high altitudes.

Maneuverability=Su-37 once again. Thrust vectoring. Nuff said

Helicopter=Ka-50 or Ka-52. Commanche is being developed too slowly and will be rendered obsolete due to passive radar.

Firepower=B-52. But that's only because its gargantuan in size. Su-34 if you take into consideration fighter/bombers.

Originally posted by nico
Brazil has begun a competition in 2001 to replace her aging Mirage III's, and F-5's...

The contenders are:
F-16 Block 50
Mirage 2000
SU-35
Saab Gripen

Which should Brazil pick to become a important player? The Saab Gripen, but she won't . it's a forgone conclusion that the F16 will get it.

well, just Pricewise

Yeah there is, it's called a Mig-29.

The F-16 is a excellant aircraft, but like all American aircraft it's a pussywillow. It has very hi-matenince times, it is extremely complex, and worst of all the US will not give Brazil vital codes. My choice is clear and simple, the SU-35. Over the Amazon I know I want a aircraft that has two powerful Russian engies. She carries the AA-12 which is better than the American AMRAAM. She carries the latest in anti-shipping weapons, and compared to American stuff like the Harpoon. Well there is no comparison. The Brazilians will have the most formidable air force in the region. Chile bought the F-16 Block 50. But I put my money on the SU-35, especially because the Brazilians will be able to manufacture it at home.

I think it will come down to politics, this the USA's back yard, Brazil will not want to upset the US, the US will put political pressure on Brazil and the F16 will be chosen.

The US doesn't care! Really to tell the truth, Latin America is on the backburner. The Americans pulled the F-18 out of the competition due to the fact that Brazil was wiling to pay so little. For brazil the best aircraft is the SU-35. Which in my view is better than anything the Americans got apart from the F-22. I think Brazil and Russia have a reason to be together on closer ties, and the new Brazilian pres. is a leftist.

Which Mig-29 variant, and F-16 variant. I can tell you all that list doesn't apply to the MiG-29SMT!

X-31 completely outmaneuvers F-16. I cant wait for that thing to be put into service. Hoorah for thrust vectoring!

X-31 completely outmaneuvers F-16. I cant wait for that thing to be put into service. Hoorah for thrust vectoring!

If you didn't know X means experimental, and the X-31 was never meant to go into service! A SU-37 totally outmaneuvers the F-16, as does the F-22. Hoorah for ignorance!

And Andre you go look up the SMT, it can fly direct from London to Moscow, it carries all of Russia's modern Air-Air, and Air- Ground weapons. I don't think going up against a 80's era Mig-29 and a 90's era F-16 is fair do you?

Any idea how many F-16's you can affort for one F-22. Besides F-22 is basically Air defence only.

And this has to do with???

Anyways the F-16 is a excellent aircraft I am not saying that it isn't. But it's too expensive 25 million a pop! when I can get up to 10 Mig-29's for $31 million? (all 1996 numbers). Also the F-22 has a very limited air-ground capibility.

If you didn't know X means experimental, and the X-31 was never meant to go into service!

No SHIt!

dumbass. Eventually the technology used in the X-31 Will be used to put an X-31-like aircraft into service. THen it will be the Y-31(Y=prototype!). YF-12 = SR-71 interceptor version. YF-17 lost the competition with the YF-16 and became the F-18 after some improvements. You dont think that if something works it will be produced eventually? Ignorance indeed.

X-31 completely outmaneuvers F-16. I cant wait for that thing to be put into service. Hoorah for thrust vectoring!

dumbass. Eventually the technology used in the X-31 Will be used to put an X-31-like aircraft into service. THen it will be the Y-31(Y=prototype!). YF-12 = SR-71 interceptor version. YF-17 lost the competition with the YF-16 and became the F-18 after some improvements. You dont think that if something works it will be produced eventually? Ignorance indeed.

Someone sounds like a oximoron! And it's not me.

ahh, ok , i will correct myself= x-31 mite be an F-31, or it mite not be. but then again, you are just trying to throw insults as usual without any information...excellent argument!!!:D :D :D *pat on the back

ahh, ok , i will correct myself= x-31 mite be an F-31

Eventhough that F-31 dosen't exist, okay mr.fantasy man!

but then again, you are just trying to throw insults as usual without any information.

Why should I present info when it's common knowledge? I don't throw insults unless people are wasting time. i.e. you.

*pat on the back

Better be wearing SARS gloves.

lol, ok mr. all knowing judge, sentence me to eternal hellfire so i know my place!

SARS gloves? u are aware it is a respiratory disease?

lol, ok mr. all knowing judge, sentence me to eternal hellfire so i know my place

Serious case of a inferiority complex! Whoa!

SARS gloves? u are aware it is a respiratory disease?

That's why they hand out gloves at my local area hospitals? SARS it still generally unknown as to how it spreads. Again B.S

someone gets off on themselves a bit too often =)

back to the subject!

if the SU-35 is so good, and i dont argue that it isnt a good plane, why isnt it in more widespread use?

back to the subject!

Yeah let's hope you don't need your prozak pills.

if the SU-35 is so good, and i dont argue that it isnt a good plane, why isnt it in more widespread use?

US pressure, pure and simple. The UAE wanted it, nope pressure.

Austin Powers' plane, the SR-71 blackbird, the B-52 or better yet a flying saucer!

My 170-hp Citabria 7KCAB is the most awesome creature to ever grace the sky. Mostly due to her superior pilot.

Pah hypewaders. Had you said a J-3 or a PA-18 I might have some respect left for you ;) :D

:D Cubs are wonderful, but overpriced.

How are the Russians doing with that SU-37 Fighter? It is soupposed to match the F-22 raptor.

Originally posted by Guyute
How are the Russians doing with that SU-37 Fighter? It is soupposed to match the F-22 raptor.


SU-37 is supposed to match the F-35, Nothing in planning these days can match the raptor. Still a waste of money if you ask me.

Supposedly the Russian S-37 Berkut, and MiG-1.44 are supposed to match the F-22. I think the F-22 was also a big waste of money, I find her loads to be ridicoulously small for a modern fighter. Meanwhile the Russians can carry like 12 missiles.

Nothing can Compare to raptor. With The F119-100 turbofan engine providing 156 kN thrust, The F-22 is the best plane available. Russian tech is very rusty now and they don't even have the best avionics available. That is why Indian Air Force is in the market for French/Italian avionics for their SU-30MKII.

In service no you are correct, but there are aircraft that are better for service then the raptor. I mean it has a sad multi- role capability.

F-22 thrust:

F-119-PW-100: two35,000-pound-thrust-class engines.

S-42 Berkut

2 Perm Aviadvigatel D-30F6: 34,170 lbst

MiG-1.42

Two Lyulka AL-41F vectored-thrust afterburning turbofans, 39,340 lb thrust each

The F-22 IMO is not worth the money. I think a Stealth fighter is good but truly un-nesscary especially with emerging anti- Stealth radars. Also Russian missiles are better then American as are Israeli. And Russian tech is not rusty, that is very wrong.

Also has anyone formed a opinion on the F-35 JSF? I haven't been able to conclude anything yet?

QUOTE]Originally posted by nico

The F-22 IMO is not worth the money. I think a Stealth fighter is good but truly un-nesscary especially with emerging anti- Stealth radars. Also Russian missiles are better then American as are Israeli. And Russian tech is not rusty, that is very wrong. [/B][/QUOTE]

Untill they are combat tested they are rusty and not worth the money. In other hand, our weapons are combat proven. I have never heard of Mig shot down a F-16 or F-18. I haven't seen russian tech in action in last 15 years. I can only say about what I see every day and it is proven tech. So, Russian Tech is Rusty. They haven't produce any thing significant in last 10 years or more. Their planes look good for aerobatic teams and that is it. Their avionics and radars are said to be good but I haven't seen any action so I can't compare.

Actually i was researching a bit and I found out that both the Mig-29 and Su-27 are actually combat proven. In Iraq, and Yugo the Mig's didn't fair well with the western fighters. But in the Ethiopian/ Eriterian conflict there were aerial combat btwn a Mig-29 and Su-27.

http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Park/5875/NewsMay2000/Airforce_SU27_Mig29.html

The Su-27 was obviously the victor. I would say that the AA-12 is the best BVR missile yet in service, 100km range compared to the AMRAAM's 50 km. And Russian Zaslon radars are the most powerful in the world.

Also has anyone formed a opinion on the F-35 JSF? I haven't been able to conclude anything yet? It's supposed to replace the A-10 in 10-15 years. Yeah right.

Originally posted by nico
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Park/5875/NewsMay2000/Airforce_SU27_Mig29.html

The Su-27 was obviously the victor. I would say that the AA-12 is the best BVR missile yet in service, 100km range compared to the AMRAAM's 50 km. And Russian Zaslon radars are the most powerful in the world.

nico,
I meant against US/Wetern made war planes. If I am in a market to buy a fighter plane, I would look for F-22, Rafale and then Euro fighter. In theory Su-27 and Su-30 looks awesome but in reality, we have to wait and see. No matter how powerfull radar you can get, but BVR missile can be ditched. There are ways to counter BVR and 100 miles is really not that affective, it means MAX range and nothing works good when you stretch to their max. Since we are talking about BVR, I like you to check out Denel Darter. South African BVR. Looks more then perfect in theory but how will it perform is a different story.

Let's hope we won't have to see the SU-27 meeting a western jet in war. But eventually we will in China/Taiwan. The F-22 is truly a waste of money, I mean I would rather get 5 SU-27's for the price of one F-22. Also like many American jet's it probably needs a huge amount of maintenace. Also Russian jets SU-35 were to be chosen by the UAE, but US pressure made her choose F-16. Also the SK wanted to get the Rafale Instead of the F-15E/K but of course US pressure. What wins US contracts is incentives and pressure. Also it is true what u said about the max range, but it is a testament to Russian tech.

Originally posted by nico
Let's hope we won't have to see the SU-27 meeting a western jet in war. But eventually we will in China/Taiwan. The F-22 is truly a waste of money, I mean I would rather get 5 SU-27's for the price of one F-22. Also like many American jet's it probably needs a huge amount of maintenace. Also Russian jets SU-35 were to be chosen by the UAE, but US pressure made her choose F-16. Also the SK wanted to get the Rafale Instead of the F-15E/K but of course US pressure. What wins US contracts is incentives and pressure. Also it is true what u said about the max range, but it is a testament to Russian tech.

Well, I really would like to see some sort of dog fight between those two. I don't think that we will sell F-22 to Taiwan any time soon. We have to meet up with our own requirements and won't be done till 2012 or later. Taiwan is not going to see this brid till next 15 years or so. Untill then China will be done with XXJ/J-12/J-13 project, more headache for Taiwan. Russian planes have nice payload but they are huge compare to American planes. However UAE is going for F-16 block 60, a definately wise choice. I beg to differ about maintenance of American planes. At first they are expensive like anything else coming out brand new. I bet you can find a used F-16 for about 10-15 mil, and it will out performed the Mig29 and can meet up easily with SU27, if it is block 40 or 50. Their maintenance is not that expensive either, try some French planes and you will find out that how horribly expesnive it is for them. Russian planes also encounter spare parts problems since they were not all produced in Russia. They are partly produced in different former russian states as well. I read while back about Indian AF having trouble with Russian getting them spares for Mig 29 and Su-27 because they were not producing them in enough numbers. Well, it is one problem any country can encounter. In case of F-16 many countries are producing license parts, for expample Turkey and Singapore.

Well what I was talking about was a aerial battle btwn the J-11's, and the Su-30 MK's that China is getting and Taiwans F-16's and M-2000's. I don't think either that the F-22 will be in Taiwanese hands soon, but I have heard inklings of such a deal. Anyways I don't know who the US will give the F-22 as a export plane, the only nations i can see getting it is Japan, and Israel. The mainstay of the USAF, and USN will be the F-35. I haven't been able to make a firm asscertation of it's performance as of yet. The Chinese mainstay will be the J-10 for the next 15-20 years. I would have opted for a Su-35 anyday over the F-16. More reliable, better weapons IMO, and has greater range. The F-16 is a excellant aircraft, (go to the begining of the thread). But IMO it is not what I am looking for in a plane. French planes are bitches I know.

Footnote and newsflash to those so awed by obsolete military hardware:

Dogfights are over as far as "air superiority" goes. Ask any heat, sound, or radar seeking chipset that can fearlessly guide small lethal things with superhuman precision, pulling 20 gs on any axis if necessary while exceeding mach 3. Consider that Air-Air missiles are now launched by unmanned platforms. Small autonomous unmanned aircraft have been ending every dogfight for decades, while marketers and enthusiasts have persisted with enthralled hype over ever more expensive flying circi, that benefit only the corporations that build them.

Soon a swarm of nanoraptors will await any steely-eyed Buzz Lightyear who strays outside his time and territory, and these swarms will likely be built outside of the countries still enthralled by flying knights on the joust, and built in vast numbers on a relatively small budget.

But let's not piss each other off, and instead just go have fun up there in something more entertaining.

I dogfight often in simple light aircraft, for a pittance, nobody ever gets killed. I believe that I regularly experience more authentic and classic engagements than any modern fighter jock.

Check 6 and break.

Which one might that be? Has such a launch occured already?
No, at least not in anger. Air to ground missiles have been fired from unmanned platforms in anger for over a year now though, in Yemen and Iraq, from predator UAVs.

Here are scetchy descriptions of various predator engagements (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/tech/printable551126.shtml), encluding the one with an Iraqi MiG-25 in which both aircraft fired missiles, I remember reading an FIM-92 Stinger was launched in that confrontation, which the Predator lost (I haven't found the source on that).

Predators are being equipped (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/predator.htm) with Maverick, Sidewinder, and AMRAAM.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/graphics/uav4.bmp
This is the look of our future dogfighting heroes ( but they'll be bluegray).

Coming soon in our next block-buster killing spree, no front-line fighter will be able to elude a gaggle of angry flying bots that can be produced for a small fraction of the cost of any obsolescence bearing ejection seats, life support, and (most disadvantageious of all) the heavy, slow-reacting, emotional human who always faints during hard maneuvering.

So let's just consign the aerial OK Corral to history, where such archaic duels belong, and save ourselves a few trillion dollars building fancy manned targets for UAVs.

Really? I read:

Other direct-attack weapons such as Raytheon's AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile remain options, while air-to-air weapons like Raytheon's AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile may also be evaluated at some point.

Personally I would not count on it.

I wouldn't bet too much on it Andre. Predators have fired UAVs in combat in Iraq and at a suspected terrorist target (a car with four people in it) in Yemen.
That's the way these things are going. The US does not like to lose soldiers. Remotely controlled weapons platforms are where they're going. Especially as having a human on board places strict limits on the ability of the platform to manouever, as well as on loiter time and so on.
Take out the human and the platform can pull 40Gs or more, travel faster (thanks to being lighter), loiter longer (for the same reason), and so on.

I also know why you can't send a smal boy to do a mans job. How would a top bal player (any sport) perform if you get his head out of his platform?
And what do ball players have to do with aerial combat?

But have you counted the number of casualties of air men in the last couple of conflicts compared to the casualties of the ground men?
Indeed. Thing is, they're developing unmanned land vehicles with mounted weapons as well.

Oh, and how many Predators and Global Hawks were lost in action? Granted, it didn't kill anybody but it failed to achieve its mission.
Their mission is to gather surveillance data without risking human life.
As far as I know, none failed in that mission.

Originally posted by hypewaders
[B. [/B]

Tell this to a real pilot, he will give u a weird look and walk away. Nothing in near future is going to replace the good ol Dogfight. Once a you ditch a BVR threat, you are back on AIM9, 3-12km range. Then it is all about the piolt skills and then maneuverability of your plane.

Originally posted by Markx
Tell this to a real pilot, he will give u a weird look and walk away. Nothing in near future is going to replace the good ol Dogfight. Once a you ditch a BVR threat, you are back on AIM9, 3-12km range. Then it is all about the piolt skills and then maneuverability of your plane.
I'll see your F-16 and it's nine-g limiter and raise you an unmanned platform capable of 40-Gs, that's lighter and faster than the F-16, and that can react faster than a human pilot in some areas.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
I'll see your F-16 and it's nine-g limiter and raise you an unmanned platform capable of 40-Gs, that's lighter and faster than the F-16, and that can react faster than a human pilot in some areas.

Untill your drones will fly/engange fighter planes, take part in real action( 15-20 years ). I will be happy with my F22/F16/F15.

I don't know about putting AMRAAMs on a Predator. They weigh a couple of hundred pounds, compared to the hundred or so of a Hellfire. As I recall, the Hellfire was a Push on the Predator's payload, Stingers make more sense.

How about the category of sexiest aircraft? The Su37 or Su47, granted the Su47 is not a production aircraft, it sure looks sweet.

Any thoughts on the Tornadoes or Eurofighter, just had not seen them mentioned here?
-----------------------------------------------------
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” -- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University.

To me the sexist mama in the skies is by far the S-42, the Rafale is in typical French high style. As for the Typhoon.... that looks like the rag doll of the skies. I hate the F-15, and like the F-16. My opinion on the Tornado is: It's a good plane, it is the best attack craft built, but it is showing it's age and it was a export disaster. AS for the Typhoon... well I think it would have been better to just to get the Rafale.

Sopwith Camel eh, hehe, I have hard time not picturing Snoopy flying on his Sopwith Camel (his doghouse).

Sopwith camel? Ever heard of the sopwith snipe, the successor i think htey got it out into combat last month or two of the war, i think it was ratehr good.

And as for dogfighting, there was a guy in my year, ex RAF regiment, at uni a few years ago, who said that the USA were rubbish at it, theyd just fire missiles and run, and got beaten most times by the RAF whenever on exercies and close combat came up.
thats my patriotic point for the day.


(ok, its hideously biased hearsay, but....)

I always liked the looks of the F-100 Super Sabre myself. Those funky old open mouthed jets, all polished up to reflect the light from nuclear explosions. Ah, those were the days.

Originally posted by Andre
Stokes
F-100, the hun, sexy look and a beast to fly. A typical trial and error plane. Also the first on the road to the dead end of ever higher and faster, sacrifycing agility and manoeuvrability. Yeah, and you can take that trend further with the F-104 Starfighter. Sure, it could break Mach 2 in a climb, but its ACM specs were molasses and its weapons loadout mediocre. Then again, all it was supposed to do was make a one-shot pass at Soviet bomber formations. Back in the days when all wars would be nuclear and speed was all a fighter jet needed to kick ass. It's always funny in retrospect.

Here is a cool link, a photo vault of all sorts of the type aircraft people have been discussing.

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Military/AirForce/Aircraft/F-106DeltaDart.html

-------------------------------------------------------
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” -- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University.

Well in terms of aircrafts, then I will choose a helicopter (gunship actually) because they have the versatility of being able to travel at considerable speeds, while also being able to carry troops, land in remote destinations, and they also have some impressive firepower! They probably actually carry more firepower than most (if not all) aircraft!

The AH-64 Apache (http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/) is (I would say) ideally equipped for almost all combat situations:

The AH-64 Apache is a twin-engine, four bladed, multi-mission attack helicopter designed as a highly stable aerial weapons-delivery platform. It is designed to fight and survive during the day, night, and in adverse weather throughout the world. With a tandem-seated crew consisting of the pilot, located in the rear cockpit position and the co-pilot gunner (CPG), located in the front position, the Apache is self-deployable, highly survivable and delivers a lethal array of battlefield armaments. The Apache features a Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) and a Pilot Night Vision Sensor (PNVS) which enables the crew to navigate and conduct precision attacks in day, night and adverse weather conditions.

The Apache can carry up to 16 Hellfire laser designated missiles. With a range of over 8000 meters, the Hellfire is used primarily for the destruction of tanks, armored vehicles and other hard material targets. The Apache can also deliver 76, 2.75" folding fin aerial rockets for use against enemy personnel, light armor vehicles and other soft-skinned targets. Rounding out the Apache’s deadly punch are 1,200 rounds of ammunition for its Area Weapons System (AWS), 30MM Automatic Gun.

Powered by two General Electric gas turbine engines rated at 1890 shaft horsepower each, the Apache’s maximum gross weight is 17,650 pounds which allows for a cruise airspeed of 145 miles per hour and a flight endurance of over three hours. The AH-64 can be configured with an external 230-gallon fuel tank to extend its range on attack missions, or it can be configured with up to four 230-gallon fuel tanks for ferrying /self-deployment missions. The combat radius of the AH-64 is approximately 150 kilometers. The combat radius with one external 230-gallon fuel tank installed is approximately 300 kilometers [radii are temperature, PA, fuel burn rate and airspeed dependent]. The AH-64 is air transportable in the C-5, C-141 and C-17.

An on-board video recorder has the capability of recording up to 72 minutes of either the pilot or CPG selected video. It is an invaluable tool for damage assessment and reconnaissance. The Apache's navigation equipment consists of a doppler navigation system, and most aircraft are equipped with a GPS receiver.

The Apache has state of the art optics that provide the capability to select from three different target acquisition sensors. These sensors are: - Day TV. Views images during day and low light levels, black and white.
- TADS FLIR. Views thermal images, real world and magnified, during day, night and adverse weather.
- DVO. Views real world, full color, and magnified images during daylight and dusk conditions.

...the AH-64 crew can easily find the heat signature of a vehicle, it may not be able to determine friend or foe. Forward looking infrared detects the difference in the emission of heat in objects. On a hot day, the ground may reflect or emit more heat than the suspected target. In this case, the environment will be "hot" and the target will be "cool". As the air cools at night, the target may lose or emit heat at a lower rate than the surrounding environment. At some point the emission of heat from both the target and the surrounding environment may be equal. This is IR crossover and makes target acquisition/detection difficult to impossible. IR crossover occurs most often when the environment is wet. This is because the water in the air creates a buffer in the emissivity of objects. This limitation is present in all systems that use FLIR for target acquisition.

http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/pics/s/SAH001.jpg

http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/pics/s/SAH004.jpg

http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/pics/s/SAH014.jpg

http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/pics/s/SAH019.jpg

http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/pics/s/SAH015.jpg

Mmmm, does anyone else find these pictures almost orgasmic??

Hehe, Mucker, I think you may need to get out more, but I will admit they look cool. What do you think of the Commanche?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” -- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813), Scottish jurist and historian, professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by truth
[B]Hehe, Mucker, I think you may need to get out more, but I will admit they look cool. What do you think of the Commanche?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I can say that, HULK beat the crap out of them. :D :p

Ka-50 is better...

10-10-220 I couldn't agree more!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka-50-40p07.jpg

COMING IN FOR THE KILL! APACHE!
:)

Markx wrote:
"Tell this to a real pilot, he will give u a weird look and walk away. Nothing in near future is going to replace the good ol Dogfight. Once a you ditch a BVR threat, you are back on AIM9, 3-12km range. Then it is all about the piolt skills and then maneuverability of your plane."

Tactics, shmactics.

Thousands of autonomous drones can soon be loitering in their killboxes, redefining air superiority. These tiny banes will unhesitatingly accelerate toward and hit anything larger than a goose. They don't have to operate perfectly, but only in large number, to render all manned combat ineffective.

Shoot at one drone, and all his clones come out of their holes madder than hornets: Some will just hit you and kill kinetically from high loiters. Later versions will get annoyingly intimate with your aircraft, punching through a wing for a sip of fuel, operating your canopy jettison, or dispensing small steel eggs into your intakes, before returning to loiter mode.

Enjoy the ejection seat ride, hotshot. Maybe the drones will be programmed to let you descend under canopy. But as another swarm of grey specks approaches, you'll be wondering: Maybe not. Give all the weird looks you want, as unfriendly ground rises to meet you, Capt. Lightyear. You're out of time.

All i have to say about the apache is this, it was shot down by a Iraqi farmer! The Ka-50 is in Checnya not one loss, also the Ka-52 Hokum-B also has the apache styled Radar I believe. Also in Sweden they preferred the Mi-35 to the Apache. American heli's are good tech but soft boys. Russians can stand the heat.
:D

With a hand held surface to air missle.

Could u specify which missile please!

I don't know the exact model , sorry.

About the best aircraft though take a look at this site as to what's right around the corner.

http://www.invisible-defenders.org/fsa.htm

http://www.invisible-defenders.org/images/fsa/lm-fsa-07.JPG

I liked that one, but I personally don't see the value in Stealth when it makes mass production almost impossible, and the costs are prohibative. Also anti-Stealth radars are in existance, that Czech one, (forgot the name). The F-117 shot down over Yugoslavia proved my point of stealth. I mean it works obviously but not well enough to waste billions.

Originally posted by nico
All i have to say about the apache is this, it was shot down by a Iraqi farmer!Nope.
The 'Apache' farmer's tale

The elderly Iraqi farmer who, according to Baghdad officials, literally shot his way to fame by downing a state-of-the-art US Apache helicopter with an old carbine has flatly denied he had anything to do with the crash.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2969471.stm

On another note, the Hokum is a piece of shit. Aside from the novelty of counter-rotating rotors it has outdated avionics and archaic weaponry. It's a no-go showboat. A lot like the Hind, it looks good in pictures but in reality it's simply outdated technology. As far as attack helicopters go, the US and European nations have a plethora of them that completely outclass anything the Soviets ever contrived.

Well I don;t think the Ka is a piece of shit as u so put it. I agree that compared to American or maybe even Euro tech it is not the best. But it has advantages, manouverablity, 30 mm cannon, one pilot, high speed, not tail rotor, and nice armour. I personally don't like the Apache, neither the Tiger. Also the Russian requirements are different than those of the west. The heli is made to support the troops. I mean the Il-2 was not a very hi-tech toy in WWII yet 20,000 were made. For Russians it depends on whether u have raw firepower, and strength.

And isn't funny that the UAV's seem to be doing more important work than manned planes, like the huge waste of money like the B-1B? Or dare I say the B-2?

Originally posted by nico
All i have to say about the apache is this, it was shot down by a Iraqi farmer! The Ka-50 is in Checnya not one loss, also the Ka-52 Hokum-B also has the apache styled Radar I believe. Also in Sweden they preferred the Mi-35 to the Apache. American heli's are good tech but soft boys. Russians can stand the heat.
:D

* a little editorial footnote here* Their helicopters may be able to, but as Afghanistan proved, the Russians can't take the heat!


*sidebar*
Let's see if the US can, the word "Vietnam" scares a lot of people here, it brings up ghosts, shame, anger, a lot of what ifs...

Actually the Hind had more problems with the fact of the height of there airfields more than the heat. I mean have u seen where the hind has fought? *coughANGOLAcough* Also don't forget that Afghanistan it does snow,so.....

Originally posted by nico
Actually the Hind had more problems with the fact of the height of there airfields more than the heat. I mean have u seen where the hind has fought? *coughANGOLAcough* Also don't forget that Afghanistan it does snow,so.....
Oh, I thought you meant heat of battle, not heat of temperature.
Angola, as in Cuban or Russian troops?

There were no Russians in Angola. Cubans and Angolans themselves the MPLA. Also Russian heli's could survive the heat of battle as well.

Best is very subjective, but here you go:

1)Either the F/A-18 E or the Eurofighter*
2)B1-B Lancer.
3)An-124.
4)Concorde.
5)See 1)
6)B2-A Spirit.
7)Mig-25. (SR-71 no longer flies).
8)Harrier.
9)Chinook. :D
10)Tu-160 or Eurofighter**

* - depending on what you definition of fighter is and if you want to believe the Eurofighter is in service. As a note, the RAF now have a dozen or so Eurofighters.

** - Tu-160 wins on weight (i think, not sure), but Eurofighter wins on number of different weapons fits. Again, depends on what your definition of "in-service" is.

Apropos of Mig (from LUFT 46):
After the war, the Ta 183 story continued. The Soviets found a complete set of plans for the Ta 183 in Berlin at the RLM offices, and began construction of six prototypes in March 1946 by the MIG design bureau. On July 2, 1947, the first Soviet-built Ta 183 took to the air powered by a British Rolls-Royce "Nene" turbojet. They discovered that the original Ta 183 design needed either automatic leading edge slots or wing boundry layer fences to alleviate low-speed stalling. Also, as a compromise between high-speed and low-speed flying, the horizontal stabilizer was moved approximately one-third down from the top of the vertical tail. The modified Ta 183 first flew on December 30, 1947 and in May 1948 was ordered into production as the MIG 15.

My pick for speed is the SR71 Blackbird.. It was conceived and built in the 1960's and was flown up until I think 1997. Considering the technology avialable at the time it was built, it did some remarkable things. And it is a beautiful aircraft. It still holds a lot of speed records. ie coast to coast , new york to london ect. And for nearly thirty years it flew regular recon missions over Russia.
We have come a long way in less than 100 years. I know that sounds like a long time to most of you, but just think how long it took for ships to go from oars to sails to steam, several thousand years I would guess.

So where do we go from here. Has anyone got any info on project Aurora? Will Lockheed perfect the F35 joint strike fighter within a reasonable time?

Ka-50 is better... No way! Despite having the impressive design of twin-rotars that make a tail rotar uneccessary, I feel this was more of an ambition than a practicality. I don't think it beats the Apache. :)

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/manet/394/german.jpg
It's all glorious until the pesky serfs unhorse and stab you in the armpits.

Dogfighting, like jousting, has become another obsolete phallic death pageant.

But revel away in bygone hyped glory, if you must.

Originally posted by hypewaders
Dogfighting, like jousting, has become another obsolete phallic death pageant.It's funny, because they also said that at the dawn of the atomic age. Then Vietnam came around and the A model Phantoms were stuck without a gun.

The absence of jet-on-jet dogfighting in recent skirmishes is probably more because of who has been fighting, not their obsolescence. In the 1991 Gulf War there was some air to air combat. Not much, but when you consider the size of Iraq's 1991 air force and how little it took to the skies, it was proportional. Since then we've seen Chinese fighters intercept (and collide with, heh) an American RP-3C Orion, and North Korean antiques challenge SK airspace, and intercept an American RC-135. And now, in the case of Korean reconnaissance, RC-135s fly with a fighter escort.

Provided the right combination of enemies engage each other, we will see air to air combat. And with it, some semblance of dogfighting. Its absence from recent conflicts has been largely because of who has been fighting more than anything else.

I guess I might say the F-117, becuase it loks kinda cool, and I'm going to Holloman. Lots of MAU-12s.