Sparks, the AK 47 is good, the RPG 7 failed to stop Centurion tanks both in Vietnam ( Australian Army) and in the Arab Israli wars. A T72 tank force has 'never' defeated it's British, US, or Israeli built counterparts, the MIG 21 was blown out of the sky by the F4 Phantom whenever they met. The F15 Eagle still rules the Sky. Like I said to Nico, forget the performance details in the sales brochure's. The test is on the battlefield and only on the battlefield and for the last time I repeat that for the last 20 years Soviet built weapon's systems ( AK 47 excepted) have consistently disappointed in their combat effectivness.
I provided a very good link in the first post above. I suppose it depends on if you talk to a Navy pilot or an Air Force pilot. I talked a few years ago at an air show who had had the opportunity to train in both. The only thing he told me he preferred about the Tomcat was that he liked flying off carriers. However, he said the Eagle was a 'magnificent machine' (his words). It could fly at 1875 mph and had a 9g airframe, as opposed to the Tomcats 6.5g-7.3g airframe. It weighs 42k lbs. with a centerline and full missle compliment, whereas the F-14 weighs that much empty. It's package of speed, maneuverability and firepower made it unmatched. As far as the SU-27 being better than the F-15, can you provide a link? Here's 2 on the F-15. http://arms.host.sk/aircraft/115.htm
aghart, The rpg-7 has a good track record (if you'll forgive the amoral assessment) in the field. http://www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm The T-72 was the best tank in it's day. The Mig-21 was one of the best jets in it's day (which was prior to the F-4 to be fair) You're right, the best test is the field - but there's a difference between testing a weapons system against it's contemporaries and testing it against a much more advanced system.
I provided a very good link in the first post above Yeah the link was okay, but I don't think this means prodcution for the Mig-1.44 the S-42 is actually government sponsered as with the new tradition of preferring the Sukhoi's compared to Mikoyan MAPO. I suppose it depends on if you talk to a Navy pilot or an Air Force pilot. I talked a few years ago at an air show who had had the opportunity to train in both. The only thing he told me he preferred about the Tomcat was that he liked flying off carriers. However, he said the Eagle was a 'magnificent machine' (his words). It could fly at 1875 mph and had a 9g airframe, as opposed to the Tomcats 6.5g-7.3g airframe. It weighs 42k lbs. with a centerline and full missle compliment, whereas the F-14 weighs that much empty. It's package of speed, maneuverability and firepower made it unmatched. As far as the SU-27 being better than the F-15, can you provide a link? Chances are that many aerial battles wouldn't be fought in a dog fight nowadays. The F-14 is the best for two big reasons i) her radar, and ii) the AIM-54. Both far outreach the F-15 by 100's of kms. With a range of 150 km the AIM-54 is a killer and would do much more damage to the Soviet AF than the F-15, the F-15 would be tangled with the Mig-29's at a lower level, the F-14 would meet with Mig-31's, Su-27's and the like. And the load on the pilots is greatly reduced with a tandem seating. So the pilot can fly and the weapons officier can fight. And a F-15 wouldn't win in a dog fight with a SU-27, her AA-11's are the best short ranged missiles on the earth. And new versions of the Sukhoi jets have rearward facing radar and I think missiles! As far as the SU-27 being better than the F-15, can you provide a link? Best I could find: http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/supermaneuverability_001.htm EI The T-72 was the best tank in it's day. Actually the Chieftan was the best tank of that era.
Hard to tell much from the article other than a British pilot was impressed with the turn speed and the inventor stated that the plane had broken the F-25's speed record. I think the newer F-15E Stike Eagle, which is a 2-seater, has the firepower to handle any other fighter of its generation. But that's JMO. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-15e.htm
I think the newer F-15E Stike Eagle, which is a 2-seater, has the firepower to handle any other fighter of its generation. But that's JMO. The F-15E is by far not a air-air jet, it was desgined to attack ground targets, and when a F-15E flies it's usually very heavy loads, and would be destroyed before she can counter a Su-27. Sorry dosen't bite.
Well, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. First you discount the speed and manueverability of the F-15 because you say today's air combat will not likely involve dogfights, but then you discount the payload of the F-15E because its heavy payload would make it to vulnerable in a dogfight. Obviously we disagree, but I still have the opinion that lb. for lb. the F-15 was the premier fighter of its generation. Don't get me wrong; I think the Tomcats were superb fighters as well, but I still believe that its combination of speed, manuevaribility and payload makes it the finest air superiority fighter of its time.
That's too sweeping a statement to have any weight. What criteria are you using? Top speed? Weapons? Manoeuverability? Climb rate? Cruising speed? Operational range? Operational flexibility? Avionics? Cost-effectiveness? Because there are several contemporaries to the F-15 that bettered it in many of these areas, for example - Manoeuverability - the Harrier wins here. No other airplane has ever been able to beat it for in-close manoeuvering. Thrust-to-weight ration - the F-16 wins out. Cost-effectiveness - I think that the F-16 is the winner here, but you'd have to check. Operational flexibility - there are several contenders here, the F-16, the Su-27, the Eurofighter (though to be fair, that's a different generation of aircraft) Operational range - I think the Tornado wins out here.
Nico are you that mad cow that everyone's worried about in Canada, or did you just take a bite of it, either way it'd explain some of your posts lol just joking sry couldn't help myself when you said you lived in Canada
I've never heard someone use the phrase "population problem" when referring to UNDERpopulation. What the hell is that? Thats not a problem! What is it a problem for? I bet endangered tigers don't think its a problem. Oh right its a problem because russia can't take over the world nowPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! oh no, what a tragedy... Since when did population = dominance anyway? Oh yeah mexico's a big player, and man... I hear indonesia's been flexing its muscles, don't mess with indonesia!
Now was it?. Chieftain had the best armour, although the T72 came next, the most powerful gun, ( a rifled barrel not smoothbore), but 120MM with the T72 having a 125MM smoothbore gun, It was however the slowest and least agile of all the then current main battle tanks and it had a poor reliability record (automotive) that was second to none. It's awful automotive reliability record tends to be watered down or even ignored when this tank is compared to it's peers. It started out with an Infa-Red searchlight for night fighting, but did not upgrade to Image intesifying sights when everyone else did ( The British defence budget could not stretch that far). It was upgraded to include a computerised fire control system and eventually an integrated thermal Imageing sighting system. The Main gun was stabalised but the gunners and commanders sights were not, which meant that htting a target whilst shooting on the move was very very difficult, so much so that it was very rarely practised. So we have a tank that the 'sales brochures' boast was the best in the world, but in reality broke down at every opportunity, and could not fire at night without third party illumination for most of the cold war years and had very little chance of hitting another target when firing on the move. Before anyone says my information is wrong, let me tell you I was a Chieftain tank commander in a British tank regiment in Germany during the cold war years. In a defensive situation and without suffering a breakdown there was however no other tank that came close. But now you can see that it is often impossible to judge 'what is best' because everybody judges using different criteria.
Sparks - I'm certainly no expert on jets being ex-army myself, but from the info I've read, mainly from Jane's Defense and internet sources such as GlobalSecurity, coupled with a couple of personal conversations, most seem to credit the F-15 based on overall performance. As I said to Nico, each of those planes mentioned had its specialties; just from what I've read from those who have attempted to offer overall comparisons, the F-15 seems to be mentioned as the premier fighter overall. I think the F-14, F-15, and F-16 are all excellent planes, and probably whoever flew them would respectively consider each the better jet. I don't know enough about the Tornado to comment.
Coldrake, I just don't think that you can pick a "best" aircraft, without some very well-thought-out criteria.
Abdulla: The best fighter in the hands of an incompetent is the worst fighter in the world. Remember, the MiG-29 is equal to the F-16 in combat capability. But you put a rolex in the hands of a camel jockey and you have a camel that can't tell time! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Despite all of the US' great fighters, it's the Russians that hold all the "time to climb," and "combat acceleration" records ( Remember the MiG-25, took us almost 10 years to be able to catch up with it and intercept it!?)--and remember, the average Russian fighter can land in a muddy field--and take off too---try that with an F-22, F-16, F-15?! Abdulla....
Erm, actually no they can't. They do have a lot more robustness however (for example, the Su-29's engine management is astonishingly less complicated than the F-15s, according to pilots that have flown both).
the Su-29's EI there is no such thing as the Su-29, I think your trying to say MiG-29, correct? What do I consider the criteria for a great fighter, missile ability, radar, and manverouablitly. By FAR the best jet fighter in the world is the Su-37, she incorporates all the major Russian systems, thrust vectoring and it's Russian nice and sturdy. Another thing to me that must be put into condieration is multi- role capibility, i.e the F-16 has shown herself to be one of the best. The MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed mostly if not entirely for Air- Air. The best jet fighers are the one's that don't have to engage in dog fights, their enemies are long dead, thus the F-14 and MiG-31 are also my bets, both in terms of radar the MiG-31 having the best, and missile range. A new type of jet aircraft has come out one that was made mostly for ground attack but can perfrom very well in air combat, ie F-15E and SU-34, (I'd bet on the 34). Well, I'm not sure what you are trying to argue. First you discount the speed and manueverability of the F-15 because you say today's air combat will not likely involve dogfights, but then you discount the payload of the F-15E because its heavy payload would make it to vulnerable in a dogfight. The F-15 and the F-15E are very different aircraft made to fulfill very different roles, that of air-air and ground attack. The F-15E mostly would carry a AIM-9 not a BVR missile is it, well so in essence yes the F-15E would be in a dog fight meanwhile the F-15 wouldn't with her AIM-120's , good bye F-15E. Especially against a MiG-29! Now was it?. From that era (1970- 1985) you have to look at the Iran- Iraq war and determine the best. The M-60, Chieftan (Iran) vs T-62, T-72, T-55 (Iraq). Dr: Since when did population = dominance anyway? In today's market economy numbers count, and for a country the size of Russia 17 million km2 your talking about a dramatic decrease in the amount of people living per km2. And thus the Chinese could easily swap Siberia.
Correct, and one aircraft may be perfect in one role but less so in another. When the UK replaced it's F4 Phantom's in the air defence role it was during the cold war and the air defence of the UK was a perculiar problem because any Soviet air attack was likely to come from Northern Russia with 'backfire bombers ' flying past the UK into the Atlantic and then turning about and attacking from the west as well as the east. The aircraft considered to replace the F4 were the F14, F15, F16 and Tornado. The F16 was dropped because it was only a single engined aircraft and with patrols over the ocean it was felt the security of two engines was required. The F15 was then discarded because the possibility of very long patrols, with in flight re-fuelling before being relieved meant that a two man crew was essential. The RAF wanted the F14, but the cost was the deciding factor. The Tornado was chosen because it met all the criteria, it was cheaper than the F14 and it had the benefit of being able to dive at speeds that would shake most other aircraft to bits, allowing the Tornado to swoop down, destroy incoming raiders and then get back to the patrol altitude. The Tornado ADV (air defence variant) is not a dog fighter , is at a disadvantage against it's peers, but is outstanding in the role of 'bomber destroyer' which is the reason for it's existence, so for us in the UK at that time the Tornado was the best fighter in the world.
