F-117s being mothballed to free up money for F-22 Raptors

[Rob94hawk]

Is the F-22 Raptor that good that it can replace the F-117's?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/11/stealth.fighter.ap/index.html

[Buck47]

Yes, it is.

[BrownTown]

F117s are pretty well useless given their tiny payload and how expensive they are to maintain.

[[XC] gomeler]

I just hope these planes are put into proper shelters and not left to weather in the environment. If they are left to weather, it's better off disassembling them and getting a few bucks out of the scrap heap. There goes a piece of history, upwards and onwards to better things.

[AAbenson]

what they say is that the F-117's series wasnt what they thought it will be:down: and thats why they will get "retired"...
guess it this fact became clear to everyone ever since a F-117 was shot down by the Serbs(even though serb army is still equiped with 1970s weapons/tech) it became clear that the whole concept of a slow moving stealth fighter is wrong and it will be replaced by a real fighter plane,namely the f22.
successeful airplanes/series like the f16s have been around ever since the 60s and they still get used a lot and get upgrades every couple of years.
unsuccesseful series like the F-117's gets retired...instead of getting upgraded whenever useful new tech comes around cause the whole concept of the F-117's was wrong...not to mention here that the F-117's can not fight other aircraft...talk about billions of taxpayer's money wasted.. or rather dont talk about it but feed some BS to the media,it would be unpatriotic to criticize :shrug:

[LuckyNV]

I wonder how long it will be before "Buy on Ebay, piece of genuine F-117 stealth armour, deal on 10 purchases, make your car evade radar detection!" :D

[Swatrecon_]

Is the F-22 Raptor that good that it can replace the F-117's?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/11/stealth.fighter.ap/index.html

Hell yea


F117s are pretty well useless given their tiny payload and how expensive they are to maintain.

Not to mention pilots hated flying them. The "woblin goblin" it's apparently really hard to keep still while refueling, landing, etc.


gomeler;2832007']I just hope these planes are put into proper shelters and not left to weather in the environment. If they are left to weather, it's better off disassembling them and getting a few bucks out of the scrap heap. There goes a piece of history, upwards and onwards to better things.

No. Just no. Do you seriously think that they're just going to leave them sitting out in the desert to rot? No. Sure the Navy will have them on carriers and they'll get some damage, but there's this thing called MAINTENANCE. The military will take good care of something that costs billions.


successeful airplanes/series like the f16s have been around ever since the 60s and they still get used a lot and get upgrades every couple of years.


Actually, the F16 was discontinued about 5 years ago because it was too expensive to maintain. The F14 as well. They don't really get used anymore except by other countries and at air shows.


I wonder how long it will be before "Buy on Ebay, piece of genuine F-117 stealth armour, deal on 10 purchases, make your car evade radar detection!" :D

Like when the Columbia blew up and people were selling pieces of it? lol I thought that was funny, people could've gotten cancer from the radiation.

[Xope_Poquar]

F22s have a smaller radar signature than F117s.

And they still use F16s. At my local National Guard base that's their main fighter. They do upgrade them all the time with new computers and such of course. I get tours of the base because there's a sergeant there that was my limo driver back for prom back in high school and he really liked our group. Told us to come by the base any time for a free tour. Great guy!

[lithpiperpilot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Monthan_Air_Force_Base

Check it out, and you'll see some of how they preserve aircraft that were decommissioned. It's also a really cool place to visit, and take a tour of if your over in Tuscon Arizona.

[YukonTrooper]

I'd argue that the F/A-18 Hornet is the most versatile bird that you have, but the F-16 Fighting Falcon does come in many variations.

[zakelwe]

The B-52 came out 30 years before the F117 and is still going.

The B-52 will probably be still going when the F22 is scrapped also.

When the USA is fighting China on Mars come 2191AD you will still be using modifed B-52's.

Wow, what a plane.

Regards

Andy

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

The B-52 came out 30 years before the F117 and is still going.

The B-52 will probably be still going when the F22 is scrapped also.

When the USA is fighting China on Mars come 2191AD you will still be using modifed B-52's.

Wow, what a plane.

Regards

Andy

Tru.dat

The BUFF is simply awesome.

Just wait until the Air Force reads Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog and successive stories:

http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Old-Dog-Dale-Brown/dp/0425108937

Upgrades up the wazzoo for a plane with a design conceived before the birth of my father :ROTF:

[zakelwe]

Tru.dat

The BUFF is simply awesome.

Just wait until the Air Force reads Dale Brown's Flight of the Old Dog and successive stories:

http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Old-Dog-Dale-Brown/dp/0425108937

Upgrades up the wazzoo for a plane with a design conceived before the birth of my father :ROTF:

Very true.

I love that old footage where the bomb bays open and 750lb dumb bombs start falling out and then continue. You can go and make a cup of coffee and come back and they are still falling out. :eek:

Actually, that pilot in Vietnam is probably still up there getting rid of them :rofl: Only another 18000 to go ...

Regards

Andy

[Dan_c]

what they say is that the F-117's series wasnt what they thought it will be:down: and thats why they will get "retired"...
guess it this fact became clear to everyone ever since a F-117 was shot down by the Serbs(even though serb army is still equiped with 1970s weapons/tech) it became clear that the whole concept of a slow moving stealth fighter is wrong and it will be replaced by a real fighter plane,namely the f22.
successeful airplanes/series like the f16s have been around ever since the 60s and they still get used a lot and get upgrades every couple of years.
unsuccesseful series like the F-117's gets retired...instead of getting upgraded whenever useful new tech comes around cause the whole concept of the F-117's was wrong...not to mention here that the F-117's can not fight other aircraft...talk about billions of taxpayer's money wasted.. or rather dont talk about it but feed some BS to the media,it would be unpatriotic to criticize :shrug:

actualy 85% of the weapons used today are designed 30-40 years ago...ballistix, for example, never changed, like many other base principles behind weapons design. only materials have changed, but that isn't so important. and the f14's are actually still in use, the Tom Cats proving to be extremelly versatile still.

[zerazax]

Uh, no the last F14 squadrons were retired last year or so and they are no longe used by the Navy. Used by Iran? Yes, but not by us anymore. They were replaced by the F/A18 Hornet and Super Hornets

The F22 has a smaller radar cross section than the F117 anyways and rumor is that modern radar technology could detect objects like the F117 if they tried since the F117 was designed way back in the day (70's technology) and so it was very obsolete, and once its stealth features were compromised, it was worthless compared to a higher performing stealthier multi-role fighter

[Entity_Razer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Monthan_Air_Force_Base

Check it out, and you'll see some of how they preserve aircraft that were decommissioned. It's also a really cool place to visit, and take a tour of if your over in Tuscon Arizona.

OMG !

Its a plane graveyard :'(

My plane-loving soul is crying right now... it really is...

such a waste to leave those beautiful planes outside :shakes:

[Craftyman.]

A-10C Warthog was always my favorite plane, ever since I was a kid :D I guess I still am a kid though haha!

[kromosto]

i always wanted to see f*29 retaliator but it was dead even before born

[fiskov]

Everything in the US arsenal minus of course the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-15 (for defence over America) should be retired.
The F-16 has been sold to Far to many countires now making it useless for an air to air fighter and with these predators about in the sky carrying munitions it's role as a bomber is becoming less required. And it guzzles fuel like Hummer and like all the others.. F-18 etc are just getting far to old now.

Think of the benefits of just using F22/F35 out in the field.
1) We would get more AC-130 Spooky action (I LOVE THAT PLANE)
2) More B52/B1/B2 Bomber action
3) With the F-16 retired it would then be in the Reno Air race

If only the USA would sell the F-22 to the UK, if we had Raptors i'd join the Airforce like that! But alas we have the Eurofighter :(

[irev210]

A-10C Warthog was always my favorite plane, ever since I was a kid :D I guess I still am a kid though haha!


Heck yes.

A-10C Warthog is the coolest! What a tank heh

[iddqd]

i always wanted to see f*29 retaliator but it was dead even before born

It was nowhere near a combat-capable fighter.

The su-47 - the only flying prototype of which is fully combat ready, by the way, is about 2x the size of the x-29 and relies on materials that weren't available in the 80's - composite carbon/glass fibers, etc.

And still, it's not going to make it to production, the wings are too costly to make. After they make a wing, they basically have to x-ray it to search for microscopic cracks in the fiber structure, if they find anything in the high stress zones, the entire wing has to be discarded - lest it shatter under stress.

They're redesigning it with delta-shaped wings, though.
...

Also, the F-117 looks like that because they literally didn't have the computing power to design something more high-polygon. It's a physical manifestation of crappy 3d graphics :). But on the bright side, it's equally 'invisible' to the radar, no matter what size you make it - could be as small as a missile or as large as a blimp.

[ferrari_freak]

This is actually really sad. The Night Hawk was an icon in the advancement of aviation. The F-16 however will always (or at least for some time to come) remain my favourite plane. I know a guy who used to fly them back when he was in the Pakistani Air Force.

[Monkeywoman]

i hope the sell them to canada, our f-18s are getting a little old

[THE JEW (RaVeN)]

i hope the sell them to canada, our f-18s are getting a little old

.......no. We're just in the process of retrofitting the CF-18:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=90571

The F-117 doesn't fit into our model of air defense. Though, if the price was right, I could see us buying them.

I mean, buying cheap, used subs from Britain worked, right? :D

[Monkeywoman]

I mean, buying cheap, used subs from Britain worked, right? :D

yah, work by almost killing 57 of our marines :shakes:

[ArcticOC]

I would go for the Mig-29 any given sunday :)

Too bad about the 117 tough, a plane so ugly that i actually looks cool.. I always tought that it`s role was to narrow.

[Swatrecon_]

And they still use F16s. At my local National Guard base that's their main fighter. They do upgrade them all the time with new computers and such of course. I get tours of the base because there's a sergeant there that was my limo driver back for prom back in high school and he really liked our group. Told us to come by the base any time for a free tour. Great guy!

I meant that they don't make new ones, nor do they make "upgrades" for them. All the parts for them aren't being manufactured anymore. They might replace stuff, but eventually they'll run out of parts for them.


The F14 was retired. As in not used. That is not true of the F16. It is used heavily. It is the most versatile aircraft we have, and I dont believe its a maintenance hog either.

It's not used heavily. They're getting replaced, albeit slowly. It's not the most versatile, either JSF or F22 wins that hands down.


I'd argue that the F/A-18 Hornet is the most versatile bird that you have, but the F-16 Fighting Falcon does come in many variations.

Yes, the F-18 is very versatile, and was my favorite jet for a long time. Until the F-22. :D


I would go for the Mig-29 any given sunday...

bleck.

[bluep3ace]

the stealth capacities of the f22 were one of it's key selling points. it's just about as good as the f117 because of the developments in the field, and performance wise, no doubt it's a better fighter.
it's more of a real fighter, as well.

[Warship]

Laughable!

Everybody knows that this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfury) is the good stuff.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

F-117s aren't even good enough to dog fight. They are pretty much just a stealthy bomber, but not quite a bomber ... lol I'm not sure why they are still in service. The F-22 is THE baddest fighter ever created, even better than F-35 by quite a large margin.

[MuffinFlavored]

I get tours of the base because there's a sergeant there that was my limo driver back for prom back in high school and he really liked our group. Told us to come by the base any time for a free tour. Great guy!

Now THAT is good luck.

[LordEC911]

F-117s aren't even good enough to dog fight.
The point WAS that they don't need to dogfight...

[Chewbenator]

The F-117 was really mis-named. It was never meant to get into dogfights, the point was that no one would ever find it so they didn't need that type of capability. There's a great show on the History Channel where pilots talk about the first gulf war and how the Iraqis had no idea where they were so they just lit up the entire sky with AA. The only time they got hit was from stray munitions, they were never specifically targeted.

Yeah it was a good plane in 1990, but the f-22 is just so much better it's not even funny. But, it was the first offensive stealth aircraft and we did learn a lot of things from it which are evidenced in the f-22. Just look up some videos on youtube of the f-22, plane can friggin fly sideways. Since I first read up on the f-22 I wondered when they were going to retire the f-117 and it seems it's finally happening.

[iddqd]

F-117s aren't even good enough to dog fight. They are pretty much just a stealthy bomber, but not quite a bomber ... lol I'm not sure why they are still in service. The F-22 is THE baddest fighter ever created, even better than F-35 by quite a large margin.

F-117 was always designed as a bomber, the "F" designation was there to fool any spies into thinking it's a fighter. But the payload is tiny compared to F-22... so there's no reason to continue using them.

Also, the F-35/JSF isn't meant to be as high-performance as the F-22, but it has way more tricks up its sleeve. For example, it can provide ground support, sort of as a helicopter gunship - by hovering and blasting the #@$%! out of everything with its cannon. It can also take off/land vertically, and unlike Harriers, it's not a deathtrap (thanks to computer control correction that the Harrier didn't have, it actually has very stable and predictable VTOL), so it's a godsend for the Navy - if they completely replaced all their aircraft with F-35s, they could have way more F-35s on a ship, because they don't require a runway. You could also have other ships, which were previously incapable of housing jets, but had helicopters instead, have F-35s on board as well.

[WangChung]

Also, the F-117 looks like that because they literally didn't have the computing power to design something more high-polygon. It's a physical manifestation of crappy 3d graphics :).

Mmmmm.... I don't think so. If a bunch of dudes with slide rules could make the SR-71, I'm pretty sure the F-117 was full purpose built to FUNCTION (looks don't mean a damn thing) the exact way it was supposed to.

[BullGod]

If only the USA would sell the F-22 to the UK, if we had Raptors i'd join the Airforce like that! But alas we have the Eurofighter :(

And what's wrong with it?

http://www.tu.no/multimedia/archive/00030/Eurofighter1_30536a.jpg

You can not put a quarter of that payload on the F22. Still the F22 is the most beautiful fighter ever made.

[iddqd]

Mmmmm.... I don't think so. If a bunch of dudes with slide rules could make the SR-71, I'm pretty sure the F-117 was full purpose built to FUNCTION (looks don't mean a damn thing) the exact way it was supposed to.

Well, the concept was human-driven, but nobody's ever designed a really bad antenna that can fly before, you see. So they took their faceted designs to a computer simulation to see if they'd actually fly or not. Due to computing being somewhat in its cradle in the 70's, they had a very limited amount of facets (polygons) that they could work with, resulting in something like only 40 facets. If you had more computing power, you could design something with, I don't know - 400? 4000? 40,000? facets, you'd end up with something... more of the f-22 variety.


And what's wrong with it?

http://www.tu.no/multimedia/archive/00030/Eurofighter1_30536a.jpg
You can not put a quarter of that payload on the F22. Still the F22 is the most beautiful fighter ever made.

You could probably come pretty close, if you started putting things on external hard points. But that would compromise the stealth.

Also, the YF-23 looked cooler.
http://www.kaliteliresimler.com/data/media/791/yf-23-desert.jpg

But YF-22 ended up performing better due to vertical thrust vectoring (the YF-23 forgoes trust vectoring to have the exhaust exit through 'troughs' lined with heat-absorbing material to greatly reduce its IR signature).

They're very similar planes, despite being designed by two different teams. The YF-23 was more stealthy and 22 was more maneuverable.

[Buck47]

F-117s aren't even good enough to dog fight. They are pretty much just a stealthy bomber, but not quite a bomber ... lol I'm not sure why they are still in service. The F-22 is THE baddest fighter ever created, even better than F-35 by quite a large margin.

F-117 had a single role: stealthy delivery of air-to-ground munitions. It performed that mission quite well...failing on only one occasion due to a "mechanical system failure that subsequently created a heat source in excess of 3 times that of normal systems operation".

F-35 is a multi-role fighter - with several variants. The EU and the Brits will have their own versions of the JSF...with potential sales to some of the Asian allies.

F-22 is another multi role weapons system, and I will echo your comments...it is a pure bad ass.

Edit: Both the UK and Japan are pressing US officials for the F-22.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

And what's wrong with it?

http://www.tu.no/multimedia/archive/00030/Eurofighter1_30536a.jpg

You can not put a quarter of that payload on the F22. Still the F22 is the most beautiful fighter ever made.

Eurofighter Typhoon:
# Empty weight: 11,000 kg[97] (24,250 lb)
# Loaded weight: 15,550 kg (34,280 lb)
# Max takeoff weight: 23,000 kg[97] (51,809 lb)

F-22:
# Empty weight: 31,700 lb (14,379 kg)
# Loaded weight: 55,352 lb (25,107 kg)
# Max takeoff weight: 80,000 lb (36,288 kg)

Provided Wikipedia is accurate it would appear that it could possibly hold even more armament than the Eurofighter. IIRC it can even hold weapons externally if necessary, so it's not restricted to internal only weapons.

[BullGod]

Also, the YF-23 looked cooler.


Nah it was too fat. And most important much more complicated, that's why the simpler and thus more elegant design of the F22 was chosen.

[iddqd]

Nah it was too fat. And most important much more complicated, that's why the simpler and thus more elegant design of the F22 was chosen.

They're both fairly complex. IIRC, they had a "points" system for competing designs, and even though both aircraft satisfied (or exceeded) requirements, the YF-22 was slightly ahead in the score, so that's what they chose. Same thing as with the JSF competition, really, it was a very close one.

[Nuker_]

Fa22, the best and the prettiest aircraft ever made. The yf23 looks great aswell.

[iddqd]

Fa22, the best and the prettiest aircraft ever made. The yf23 looks great aswell.

Meh, Idk, russian jets always looked way sexier.
Su-47 at an airshow
http://bbs.warchina.com/bbs1/attachments/month_0606/s37berkutlarge_VLNpZSqNRGok.jpg
Su-27
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/picswar1/su27.jpg
MiG-25
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/mig/Mig-25/images/mig25PD_1.jpg
MiG-35OVT with digital camo
http://i29.tinypic.com/2ceqd02.jpg

[BullGod]

:shocked: What is that? It looks insane.

[lolhalol]

http://www.mrtoys.com/f-22-raptor-jet-12-volt-ride-on-plane/pics/F22-Raptor-12-volt-rideo-on-plane.jpg


the best variant of the f22 :P:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[iddqd]

:shocked: What is that? It looks insane.
It's the Su-47 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-47) that I mentioned earlier in this thread

It was nowhere near a combat-capable fighter.

The su-47 - the only flying prototype of which is fully combat ready, by the way, is about 2x the size of the x-29 and relies on materials that weren't available in the 80's - composite carbon/glass fibers, etc.

And still, it's not going to make it to production, the wings are too costly to make. After they make a wing, they basically have to x-ray it to search for microscopic cracks in the fiber structure, if they find anything in the high stress zones, the entire wing has to be discarded - lest it shatter under stress.

They're redesigning it with delta-shaped wings, though.
The forward-swept wings are too costly to manufacture right now, they're redesigning it with delta wings, so it will look more like this:
http://images.google.ca/url?q=http://img223.exs.cx/img223/2310/pakfaevo7mk.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEwAAvcphbrcw2_i_8nvhMnsO3abg

[Donnie27]

I would go for the Mig-29 any given sunday :)

Too bad about the 117 tough, a plane so ugly that i actually looks cool.. I always tought that it`s role was to narrow.

I liked the SU 27 better LOL!

I was a fan of the F22 the first time I saw it. Too bad 2 of my favorites didn't make it. The F-20 Tiger shark, that Chuck Yeager called better than the F-16. I trust his judgment. And the F-16 XL

http://www.f20a.com/f20foto.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
http://search.msn.com/images/results.aspx?q=f+16xl&mkt=en-us

http://www.mig-29.com/aircraft/Su-37/
Or as one Navy Guy called the SU-27, a Fixed wing F-14 LOL It was No secret where RAM J and RAM L came from.

[[Spectre]]

Everything in the US arsenal minus of course the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-15 (for defence over America) should be retired.
The F-16 has been sold to Far to many countires now making it useless for an air to air fighter and with these predators about in the sky carrying munitions it's role as a bomber is becoming less required. And it guzzles fuel like Hummer and like all the others.. F-18 etc are just getting far to old now.


Because the aircraft is all that matters in air combat...................................













......................oh wait it isn't.

[fiskov]

;2834673']Because the aircraft is all that matters in air combat...................................

......................oh wait it isn't.


Didn't you see the videos of the F-22 in dogfight demonstrations.
(1) F-22 VS (5) F-16's .. F-22 winner
(2) F-22's VS (8) F-16's .. F-22 Winner
(1) F-22 VS (3) Eurofighters.. F-22 Winner
(1) F-22 VS (3) Mirage's.. F-22 Winner

The plane is undeniably untouchable..

[Nicksterr]

long live the beastly f-14 tomcat! I will miss it. Watch Topgun!

I have talked with a couple veterans and some pilots. They all like the f14 better than any of the other jets, but they wouldn't say why. Just thought I'd share.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

long live the beastly f-14 tomcat! I will miss it. Watch Topgun!

I have talked with a couple veterans and some pilots. They all like the f14 better than any of the other jets, but they wouldn't say why. Just thought I'd share.

The WWII pilots that are still alive say stuff like: "The P-51 mustang was the greatest plane ever built."

It's all relative is my guess, everyone loves what they were in. The F-14 was a damn good plane, but I believe there are better platforms now. Although they were all designed to have slightly different roles so ...

[[Spectre]]

Didn't you see the videos of the F-22 in dogfight demonstrations.
(1) F-22 VS (5) F-16's .. F-22 winner
(2) F-22's VS (8) F-16's .. F-22 Winner
(1) F-22 VS (3) Eurofighters.. F-22 Winner
(1) F-22 VS (3) Mirage's.. F-22 Winner

The plane is undeniably untouchable..

I thought you were talking about the F-16....nothing like changing the situation to try a score a victory :rolleyes:

But anyway.

And in the F-22 vs. F-22 you know who wins...........



.................................hint its the better pilots and their training which is the point. As cool as your technology is NOTHING replaces a superior pilot. Why do you think we lost so many F-4's and F-105's to MIG-17's and 19's? Because we fought like you suggest; as keyboard warriors who play simulations where the superior technology wins. Well in reality your technology is only as good as the guy using it and then when the :banana::banana::banana::banana: really hits the fan its ALL down to the pilot.

Edit: And no the f-22 is touchable...if you approach the situation that it is untouchable you play into your enemies hands and you have already put yourself at a disadvantage. You never take your advantage for granted or you will lose we have proven that time and again.

[phelan1777]

;2835332']
.................................hint its the better pilots and their training which is the point. As cool as your technology is NOTHING replaces a superior pilot. Why do you think we lost so many F-4's and F-105's to MIG-17's and 19's? Because we fought like you suggest; as keyboard warriors who play simulations where the superior technology wins. Well in reality your technology is only as good as the guy using it and then when the :banana::banana::banana::banana: really hits the fan its ALL down to the pilot.



We lost so many F-4s first and foremost because they were not designed to be dog fighting aircraft. They were not designed with a gun as any true fighter should have as a basic part of their design.

The F-4 was all engine, and a missile platform. It had raw power because of its huge engines, but that was about it.

The F-4 worked well as a SAM hunter.

Not to mention air-to-air missile tactics and technology were in their infancy, add the not having secondary weapon support and you have a desperate situation more then any of the pilots would have liked.

[fiskov]

;2835332']


Why do you think we lost so many F-4's and F-105's to MIG-17's and 19's? Because we fought like you suggest; as keyboard warriors who play simulations where the superior technology wins. Well in reality your technology is only as good as the guy using it and then when the :banana::banana::banana::banana: really hits the fan its ALL down to the pilot.

Edit: And no the f-22 is touchable...if you approach the situation that it is untouchable you play into your enemies hands and you have already put yourself at a disadvantage. You never take your advantage for granted or you will lose we have proven that time and again.

As "phelan1777" said bellow, the F-4 was nothing more than a rocket to destory trails/bridges and drop naplam in hot situations.

And a for the F-22, you need to watch the videos (proberly on youtube as it has all) as the same pilots where used for both the F-16/F-22 and rotated.
Simple fact is nothing out there is better than the F-22.

[strange|ife]

can't beilive it's been 28 years almost since the "stealth" was designed. Im the same age

F 18 and F15E are are still the best imo.

and dont forget the A-10

much like the awesome F-111, the F-14 tomcat was a matience HOG...but a great platform for the time

[RAW-Raptor22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Monthan_Air_Force_Base

Check it out, and you'll see some of how they preserve aircraft that were decommissioned. It's also a really cool place to visit, and take a tour of if your over in Tuscon Arizona.

Heres what happens to most, not that bad really: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Center


can't beilive it's been 28 years almost since the "stealth" was designed. Im the same age

F 18 and F15E are are still the best imo.

and dont forget the A-10

much like the awesome F-111, the F-14 tomcat was a matience HOG...but a great platform for the time

There is a reason the F14 was similar to the F111, the reason the F14 was designed was because the F111 was too heavy of a hog so they redesigned the platform.

[[Spectre]]

As "phelan1777" said bellow, the F-4 was nothing more than a rocket to destory trails/bridges and drop naplam in hot situations.

And a for the F-22, you need to watch the videos (proberly on youtube as it has all) as the same pilots where used for both the F-16/F-22 and rotated.
Simple fact is nothing out there is better than the F-22.

Wait you mean pilots who were trained in the same system with the same instructors, and methods were roughly equal with the deciding factor being equipment. THat is unexpected :shrug:

Now take people trained under different systems with different philosophies and you'll understadn that your arguement was bad strawman. Simple fact is nothing is untouchable, they will get touched and thinking they won't is setting up for failure.

[[Spectre]]

We lost so many F-4s first and foremost because they were not designed to be dog fighting aircraft. They were not designed with a gun as any true fighter should have as a basic part of their design.

The F-4 was all engine, and a missile platform. It had raw power because of its huge engines, but that was about it.

The F-4 worked well as a SAM hunter.

Not to mention air-to-air missile tactics and technology were in their infancy, add the not having secondary weapon support and you have a desperate situation more then any of the pilots would have liked.

That doesn't change the fact that the F-4 was the technologicaly superior aircraft to the MIG-17. And suggesting the F-4 was designed as just a bomber as was suggested by you and the other poster is rather uniformed about the origins of the F-4 program and the requirements the plane was to fullfill. Now suggesting that the air-to-air missile tactics were in their infancy would make the pilot upperhand go to which side again? The technologicaly inferior side whose pilots were better with their aircraft as to score as many kills on the much technologically superior F-4.

[phelan1777]

;2835926']That doesn't change the fact that the F-4 was the technologicaly superior aircraft to the MIG-17. And suggesting the F-4 was designed as just a bomber as was suggested by you and the other poster is rather uniformed about the origins of the F-4 program and the requirements the plane was to fullfill. Now suggesting that the air-to-air missile tactics were in their infancy would make the pilot upperhand go to which side again? The technologicaly inferior side whose pilots were better with their aircraft as to score as many kills on the much technologically superior F-4.

Correction I am talking about the Mig 21, not the Mig-17.


The MiG-21 was a very small, maneuverable aircraft that had a good record in combat against US pilots in Vietnam. But it was no world beater.

When Vietnam begain the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy were operating equipment and tactics devised for the Cold War. US pilots were clearly regarded to have superior technology and training. The technology part was generally true. The MiG-21 was superior to most of the Century Series Fighters employed by the USAF early in the war, but the MiG-19 and subsonic MiG-17 were not. None were better than the F-4 Phantom, or the short legged Navy F-8 Crusader in air to air combat.

What the MiG-21 along with the other Russian fighters had going for them is that it was small. That meant that all things being equal, the MiG would sight its targets first, and once spotted US pilots often assumed that it was farther away than it was, which led to tactical mistakes. Also, unlikely as it seems the MiG-21 looks very much like the F-4 from many angles, which made mixups possible. As there were more Phantoms in the sky at any one time than the MiG-21, it was often left alone until very late in the game.

But the real issues were tactical. In 1965 it was assumed that the air to air missile would prove dominant, so cannon were left off the Phantom fighters under the assumption they would be unnecessary. That assumption proved false, and the cannon was returned in the later F-4E variant of the Phantom. Also US pilots practiced aerial combat maneuvering (ACM) against other Americans, who were often in the same aircraft. If two adversaries are in the same aircraft pure pilot skill and early aircraft recognition willl usually determine the winner. But different aircraft have different flight characteristics. One may have the advantage of speed and climb, versus turn rate, and these advantages may reverse at different speeds and altitudes. Pilots fight as they are trained. American style training did not teach them to do things that maximized their airplane's advantages, and even played into a MiG jockey's strengths.

The average North Vietnamese pilot enjoyed a few distinct advantages over his American opponents. First MiG pilots were instructed to engage in combat only when they enjoyed a favorable position. Most US aircraft, including the fighters, were being used as bombers. Dropping your bombs early to engage an enemy was regarded as failure by the Americans, and a victory for North Vietnam. US aircraft were there to attack ground targets, and did not break off from difficult fights.

Second, there were so few North Vietnamese fighters that for most US pilots, an actual dogfight was very rare, which meant their peacetime training against similar aircraft prevailed That meant that North Vietnamese pilots who survived their early flights had extensive experience fighting US fighters, and thus their tactics were refined to a high level. But US pilots were trained to fight other Americans, and that gave them some bad habits that had to be unlearned. They were often surprised by the performance of their adversaries. They often misjudged distance and aircraft type.

This was addressed by the Ault Report prepared by the Navy which led directly to the Top Gun program that re-introduced dissimilar aircraft ACM training to the fleet. Before the introduction of Top Gun, Navy fighters killed 1.1 Vietnamese aircraft for each US fighter lost due to all causes. After Top Gun pilots filled the fleet, the kill ratio jumped to 13-1, which is above the Korean War ration of 10-1. The US Air Force learned similar lessons, and formed its Aggressor Squadrons to teach dissimilar ACM at such exercises as Red Flag. The combat effectiveness of US units leaped once such training was initiated.

The MiG-21 is a small, maneuverable daylight fighter that can be a deadly adversary in skilled hands. Particularly when it gets to fight on its terms. But the speed and climb rate of the F-4 Phantom gave it a distinct advantage when using the vertical, and its superior avionics multiplied those advantages when clouds filled the sky. Noders should also remember that North Vietnam's top pilot, Colonel Tomb, flew the older, subsonic MiG-17.

It is always hoped that your fighter pilots will shoot down far more aircraft than they lose. But air to air combat is not the point of an air campaign. One can enjoy a favorable kill ratio and still lose the air war. Victory goes to he who goes where he wants, does what he wants and keeps his enemy from doing the same.

kermitov has contributed an anecdote he heard from an American pilot who served in Vietnam. Because the MiG-21 was considered the toughest adversary, they were highly sought after. North Vietnam used to use them as bait, and once engage throw some MiG-17's into the party. The 17's would cover the faster MiG-21's escape, and their dissimilar characteristics would present problems for pilots whose mind was focused on the '21.

Link, (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=485177)
The biggest advantage the mig-21 pilots had was that the American pilots had to visually identify a target before engaging it, and by that time the range was way to close for AA-missile combat.

We can not use rely solely on the "technological advantage. Case in point is Iraq with IEDs, and VBIEDs. They still kill soldiers almost on a daily basis and they are crude by our standards but they unfortunately work all to well.

When it came to dog fighting, especially because the migs much smaller size and the American pilots could not get a solid visual lock until they were to close and by then it was a turning game. The F-4 was a pig, yes it have the "technological" advantage, but when you had missiles that where not nearly as reliable as they should have been (not expecting 100% by any means).

Hell Top Gun was founded by Vietnam Pilots and that is where they cut their teeth. Yes the Mig 21 was basically a piece of junk from an advanced electronics POV., but none the less we lost a lot of aircraft and pilots unnecessarily, but then look @ the parallel of air-to-air missile development with the time line of Vietnam.

I am not in anyway including the pilot skill/training just the hardware they had to use.

If the F-4 had a gun the kill ratio probably have been even more in our favor.

Yes we shot down a lot of aircraft and yes the F-4 did have a few advantages but in a close up dog fight the F-4 was more then likely to get owned. In a turning war the Mig would win.

This of course just an F-4 against a Mig 17. Also that depends if it was a Korean pilot or a Soviet WWII or Korean War Vet Pilot.

Many of our Vietnam pilots where Vets of the previous two wars as well obviously.

[tiborrr]

Everything in the US arsenal minus of course the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-15 (for defence over America) should be retired.
The F-16 has been sold to Far to many countires now making it useless for an air to air fighter and with these predators about in the sky carrying munitions it's role as a bomber is becoming less required. And it guzzles fuel like Hummer and like all the others.. F-18 etc are just getting far to old now.

Think of the benefits of just using F22/F35 out in the field.
1) We would get more AC-130 Spooky action (I LOVE THAT PLANE)
2) More B52/B1/B2 Bomber action
3) With the F-16 retired it would then be in the Reno Air race

If only the USA would sell the F-22 to the UK, if we had Raptors i'd join the Airforce like that! But alas we have the Eurofighter :(
You have Eurofighters, why on Earth would you even complain? :rolleyes: It's one of most advanced aircraft used in the world today, can fly supersonic without afterburner, it's maneuverability is compared to the russian Su-27 & Mig-29. What can you ask more?

Hehe, you are funny saying that F-16 is a fuel hog. The versions used nowadays are equipped with General Electrics F110 turbofan engine, modified version of it (F118) is used in a B-2 bomber. Well, the B-2 isn't a fuel hog then? Double standards i guess :D

If you would like to see another real dogfighting platform, you should see the Mig-29OVT. With the raw thrust greater than the whole weight of the aircraft and R-73 Archer missile system its one lethal opponent.

It seems you know nothing about air warfare. AC-130 is extremely vulnerable from SAM, even the air supremacy does not allow you to fly carefree since the aircraft must fly faily low. A relatively small group of soldiers with shoulder mounter SAM systems, equipped with infrared or thermovision can put a bird out of the sky. Just because you could play a gunner in AC-130 in some FPS game, that doesn't mean this is how it really works... I mean, cmon...

P.S.: If this was 1999, you would say that F-117 is untouchable, right? Emm, tell this to the Serb Air Defences who shot down so-called untouchable aircraft. You see, even the most advanced and up-to-date technology isn't "waterproof"...

[zabomb4163]

You have Eurofighters, why on Earth would you even complain? :rolleyes: It's one of most advanced aircraft used in the world today,

key phrase being "one of" instead of THE most advanced. Eurofighter is nice and would beat a F15 quite easily, but in a battle with a F22 an entire squadron wouldnt know what happened.

[tiborrr]

Huh, it don't see a single reason why an F-22 is better than Eurofighter? In share brute principle, the airplanes are basically matching platforms. Both have RAM, radar is virtually the same, RCS is on par with F-22 (they both still have 4x bigger RCS than F-117), small difference is because of Eurofighters external missile pods. Why would you be so sure the F-22 would just wipe a squadron of Eurofighters?

[Donnie27]

You have Eurofighters, why on Earth would you even complain? :rolleyes: It's one of most advanced aircraft used in the world today, can fly supersonic without afterburner, it's maneuverability is compared to the russian Su-27 & Mig-29. What can you ask more?

If you would like to see another real dogfighting platform, you should see the Mig-29OVT. With the raw thrust greater than the whole weight of the aircraft and R-73 Archer missile system its one lethal opponent.

P.S.: If this was 1999, you would say that F-117 is untouchable, right? Emm, tell this to the Serb Air Defences who shot down so-called untouchable aircraft. You see, even the most advanced and up-to-date technology isn't "waterproof"...

Get real, LOL! They shot down one, this after getting the crap bombed out of them. Petty good odds. Sorry folks couldn't even find the pilot. Oh wait, they were use to hunting down and killing civilians, not not trained military personnel.

EF lost to the F22 or did you miss that part?

Mig 29 = F/A 18
SU-27 = F14
Just as the frackin' Mig 25 is a copy of the R/F 5 Vigilante
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=268
It was the fore runner to the Mig 25 Foxbat and F-14 Tomcat. Both later planes' lines can be traced to it.

Most are copies, gessh! F111, SU 24/Mig-23, even the Phantom was Copied to hell and back.

F-22 has Supercruise and flies faster with or without after burner:rolleyes:

EF has a similar load out to the F16. Just like Airbus EF is more about money than substance. Oh and it's eighties technology. At least Russia keeps their aircraft updated and advancing as tech becomes available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DcRqS6MeZE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2W6oy2iGJ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmbEGcNG4B0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y77n5ULSyHA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9oKZizry0I&feature=related

Still depends on the Pilots flying any aircraft.

[Donnie27]

key phrase being "one of" instead of THE most advanced. Eurofighter is nice and would beat a F15 quite easily, but in a battle with a F22 an entire squadron wouldnt know what happened.

Don't think it would beat and F15 easily LOL!

[Donnie27]

Speaking of F117 being shot down,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUIgzf6qLfw&feature=related

A fighter jet is taken down by a bird.

[bluep3ace]

EF has a similar loud out to the F16. Just like Airbus EF is more about money than substance. Oh and it eighties technology. At least Russia keep their aircraft updated and advancing as tech become available.

you probably aren't, but you're sounding like a really stupid uninformed person.here's the thing: US arms technology isn't advancing as fast as it was back since 50 years ago. the aerodynamic qualities of the eurofighter are definitely 21st century, especially its ability for supersonic cruising and its agility. while its electronics may still not be top notch (as in stealth, where the US is stellar) its performance is still very good.

Still depends on the Pilots flying any aircraft.

this is true. no matter how advanced the aircraft is, it all comes down to the pilots, and the US and NATO countries (+Russia) probably have the best pilots.

the f117 was shot down because it still releases small radar signatures. the commander that shot it down was also able to avoid jamming my allied forces by using the radar very sparingly.

[Swatrecon_]

Eurofighter is nice and would beat a F15 quite easily

depends on the pilot. but if they were like clones, they would be very close, i don't think the EU would trump it that easily. I'd wager on the F15.

[Donnie27]

you probably aren't, but you're sounding like a really stupid uninformed person.here's the thing: US arms technology isn't advancing as fast as it was back since 50 years ago. the aerodynamic qualities of the eurofighter are definitely 21st century, especially its ability for supersonic cruising and its agility. while its electronics may still not be top notch (as in stealth, where the US is stellar) its performance is still very good.


this is true. no matter how advanced the aircraft is, it all comes down to the pilots, and the US and NATO countries (+Russia) probably have the best pilots.

the f117 was shot down because it still releases small radar signatures. the commander that shot it down was also able to avoid jamming my allied forces by using the radar very sparingly.

Last things first, the ratio of bombs dropped on target to ONE F117 getting shot down is nothing short of amazing. That's like Sadam bragging about how many Coalition Troops they killed during the 100 hour Gulf War One:rofl:

Please disagree but please keep your ding-bat comments to yourself! EF was started back during the Cold War while I was stationed in Germany from 1981 to 1985. I have old Combat Arms mags with its layout from 1984.

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/history.html

1981 UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy initiate future fighter project.

On the 27th of October 1985 the EAP was towed out of the assembly hall at BAe Warton. Its first flight would be almost a year later in August 1986 with BAe Chief Test Pilot Dave Eagles at the controls.

That's where what you see today got started. Just as I said, from the 1980's. Both the Mig-29 and Su-27 were started in the 1970's.

No, advancements are steady and where it should be. An F16 is similar in size to a Mustang and Smaller than a Hurricane or Spitfire. Dewd, the average Car has more computing power than the Rockets had in the late sixties and most of the 70's. Just look at Avionics in that time? Planes don't need brute force they needed back in then:rolleyes:

I could also say something dumb like how you sound, but that would be counter productive and equally as silly.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/n19990721_991378.htm

Released: 21 Jul 1999


WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- The Air Force's next-generation air-superiority fighter flew at sustained speeds of greater than Mach 1.5 without afterburner, demonstrating for the first time one of its most important and advanced capabilities: the ability to "supercruise."

In the context of the F-22 Raptor, supercruise is defined as the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration. In fact, once operational, the F-22 will be able to fly large portions of its combat missions in supercruise mode, a key element to the aircraft's air dominance role.

"Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor," said Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. "The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting, for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do that."

[Donnie27]

Here are real fact about what happened.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/f117down.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-26-serb-stealth_x.htm

[nn_step]

F117s are pretty well useless given their tiny payload and how expensive they are to maintain.

Considering the fact that you only need a small amount of force to destroy things when you hit them in the exact correct spot.

[Rob94hawk]

What I find funny is the fact that the US got it's stealth technology from a Russian mathematician. Learned this from watching the military channel.

Stealth technology started back in the late 70's so I can't imagine what the US has flying around now. I'm sure we have stealth UAV's flying all over China and Russia right now and no one has a damn clue.

[tiborrr]

Get real, LOL! They shot down one, this after getting the crap bombed out of them. Petty good odds. Sorry folks couldn't even find the pilot. Oh wait, they were use to hunting down and killing civilians, not not trained military personnel.

EF lost to the F22 or did you miss that part?

Mig 29 = F/A 18
SU-27 = F14
Just as the frackin' Mig 25 is a copy of the R/F 5 Vigilante
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=268
It was the fore runner to the Mig 25 Foxbat and F-14 Tomcat. Both later planes' lines can be traced to it.

Most are copies, gessh! F111, SU 24/Mig-23, even the Phantom was Copied to hell and back.

F-22 has Super Cruse and flies faster with or without after burner:rolleyes:

EF has a similar loud out to the F16. Just like Airbus EF is more about money than substance. Oh and it eighties technology. At least Russia keep their aircraft updated and advancing as tech become available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DcRqS6MeZE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2W6oy2iGJ4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmbEGcNG4B0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y77n5ULSyHA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9oKZizry0I&feature=related

Still depends on the Pilots flying any aircraft.
Don't *snip* make fun of any war conflict in Yugoslavia. If you would experience it first-hand (the Serb aggression on Slovenia or any other later conflict), you wouldn't babble out crap like you do now. That was not the point of my post who bombed out the crap out of who (besides, if you wanna brag youself - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/340966.stm ). I wanted to show that even the most advanced aircraft can be shot down pretty easily.


Hehe, Mig-25 a copy of A-5? Get real, have you even read the page you just linked? It clearly says:

It is believed that the MiG-25 "Foxbat" was produced as a direct result of the A-5's capabilities in high-level combat.... the primary role of high-level nuclear bomber ... A-5 was relegated to the secondary role of supersonic carrier-based reconnaissance aircraft as the RA-5C
Mig-25's primarly role was to be an electronics warfare / interceptor aircraft. I guess i am talking to another psyched-out patriot who thinks Russia coppied everything from United States :p:

Check which plane does supercruise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise, can be verified by Jane's.

I strongly suggest you put down this military PR crap and turn off the crappy TV documentaries (yes, i've pretty much seen them all (Discovery), they're all pretty much bias) and take a real book in your hands, such as Jane's.

[Buck47]

For those interested, Lockheed Martin has several videos posted on their site, as well as an official YouTube channel.

[Motiv]

The F22 is a very capable LO aircraft, it is currently the only 5th Gen aircraft in the world.

Within Visual Range, it is as good as the Typhoon but Beyond visual range it has no equals currently until the US/UK F35 is built.

While the russian craft are indeed good, they suffer from the overall package now a days. They are not the latest technology and suffer from the electronics (especially radar).

The F22 has the most sophistacted electronics package of any plane, the radar is second to none and only the Eurofighter/Griphen will have a comparable one within two years.

At the end of the day any aircraft can be spotted. The F22 cannot fly through most european airspaces without being seen by sophisticated radars systems. That's why cruise missiles are used to begin with.

No aircraft is currently invisible from Radar of any country, they just are less observable and get more observable the closer they get to the radar stations.

[Ub3r-L33ch]

What I find funny is the fact that the US got it's stealth technology from a Russian mathematician. Learned this from watching the military channel.

Stealth technology started back in the late 70's so I can't imagine what the US has flying around now. I'm sure we have stealth UAV's flying all over China and Russia right now and no one has a damn clue.

I'm no expert but the SR-71 is considered the first aircraft to have stealth technology, it just didn't have that much. It was designed in the late 50s and 60s. Maybe they got the stealth technology from somewhere else, the cold war was an interesting era of technological advance, lots of spying going on, etc.

[Motiv]

I'm no expert but the SR-71 is considered the first aircraft to have stealth technology, it just didn't have that much. It was designed in the late 50s and 60s. Maybe they got the stealth technology from somewhere else, the cold war was an interesting era of technological advance, lots of spying going on, etc.

'Stealth' technology or LO as it's known has been around pretty much since the first plane flew.

Some of the first "stealth" was painting the underbelly of a plane grey. The Germans, I think, had a bi plane with see through plastic. It's only drawback when later discovered was it's sun reflecting capability! :D

[Donnie27]

Considering the fact that you only need a small amount of force to destroy things when you hit them in the exact correct spot.

Absolutely. In the Army we called it "Force Multiplication".

[iddqd]

As "phelan1777" said bellow, the F-4 was nothing more than a rocket to destory trails/bridges and drop naplam in hot situations.

And a for the F-22, you need to watch the videos (proberly on youtube as it has all) as the same pilots where used for both the F-16/F-22 and rotated.
Simple fact is nothing out there is better than the F-22.

Hah! You think it's impressive that the F-22 can out-turn F-16 and F-35, both of which are designed to be support (not air superiority) fighters?

The MiG-29OVT can do backflips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeiqMn7xb_Y&feature=related

Besides, I'd like to see F-22 take off or land vertically :p:

It can also do maneuvers they haven't come up with names for yet. And yes, the F-22 does indeed have thrust vectoring, but it's 1-dimensional, and one engine is slaved to the other (whereas this design has 2-dimensional, independent computer-controlled vectoring). You could reverse the direction of the aircraft mid-flight and fly backwards, for example.

[Donnie27]

Don't you fu<king make fun of any war conflict in Yugoslavia. If you would experience it first-hand (the Serb aggression on Slovenia or any other later conflict), you wouldn't babble out crap like you do now. That was not the point of my post who bombed out the crap out of who (besides, if you wanna brag youself - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/340966.stm ). I wanted to show that even the most advanced aircraft can be shot down pretty easily.


Hehe, Mig-25 a copy of A-5? Get real, have you even read the page you just linked? It clearly says:

Mig-25's primarly role was to be an electronics warfare / interceptor aircraft. I guess i am talking to another psyched-out patriot who thinks Russia coppied everything from United States :p:

Check which plane does supercruise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise, can be verified by Jane's.

I strongly suggest you put down this military PR crap and turn off the crappy TV documentaries (yes, i've pretty much seen them all (Discovery), they're all pretty much bias) and take a real book in your hands, such as Jane's.

First, that info came from the folks testing the plane, not the Discovery Channel.:rofl: Second there is no "psyched-out patriot" BS! Blind men can see design cues of was there first and other crap that looked like it later. I'm sure if the Russians themselves say they improved on American AND BRITISH designs you'd probably think the same Crap. Why do you think even NATO calls one of Russia's newest missiles AMRAMSKI?

It was a put down of Serb aggression that sucked. LOOK at what I said again?:mad: I said they couldn't find the pilot because they were too used to killing Civilians.:down: That's a SLAP IN THE FACE=P 97% of Americans were deplored and were discussed by what the Serbs were doing, that's what brought the bombs in the first place.

Oh and I've been reading Jane's since 1981. Please also read their opinions on RAM-J and maybe you can call thier view "psyched-out patriot", oh brother:rolleyes:

[Donnie27]

Hah! You think it's impressive that the F-22 can out-turn F-16 and F-35, both of which are designed to be support (not air superiority) fighters?

The MiG-29OVT can do backflips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeiqMn7xb_Y&feature=related

Besides, I'd like to see F-22 take off or land vertically :p:

Sorry, F16 was built as a Fighter first and multi-role second. It had one of the smallest turning radius's of any plane flying at that time. But yes it is a very major accomplishment that the F-22 out turn it.

[Movieman]

Very true.

I love that old footage where the bomb bays open and 750lb dumb bombs start falling out and then continue. You can go and make a cup of coffee and come back and they are still falling out. :eek:

Actually, that pilot in Vietnam is probably still up there getting rid of them :rofl: Only another 18000 to go ...

Regards

Andy

Actually including wing mounts a B-52 can carry 104-500lb iron bombs.
A buddy of mine told me the scariest thing he ever heard was a squadron of B-52's making a bombing run over North Vietnam in 1971 and he was 30 miles away.
Now keep in mind that this same guy was on a 282 ft Coast Guard Cutter that had 2 MIG's make a run at it at 2am one morning and he thought the B-52's were scarier..:D
A destroyer came into the picture just a minute before the MIG's arrived to divert attention from the CG cutter.Tossed on all her lights and active radar so that the MIG's wouldn't go after the cutter..
That's the quiet version of heroism you never hear about.

[iddqd]

Sorry, F16 was built as a Fighter first and multi-role second. It had one of the smallest turning radius's of any plane flying at that time. But yes it is a very major accomplishment that the F-22 out turn it.

Actually, lightweight first. It's in the name. But again, The F-15 was, and continued to server as the air superiority fighter during F-16's deployment, which makes F-16 support. Inferior, if you will, and you would, now, wouldn't you?

[Donnie27]

I'm no expert but the SR-71 is considered the first aircraft to have stealth technology, it just didn't have that much. It was designed in the late 50s and 60s. Maybe they got the stealth technology from somewhere else, the cold war was an interesting era of technological advance, lots of spying going on, etc.

Steath technology didn't come from the Russians. Stealth was an accedent. It was first noticed druing the later part of World War Two by the Germans first and then the Americans who BOTH were building and experimenting with Flying Wing designs. They notice smaller cross sections and the actually Flying Flyingwing had sensors to help the radar work (track it).

Just as Northtroupe never gave up on the XB35 and B49.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Northrop_modern/Aero41.htm


Jack Northrop's dream of a flying wing resurfaced in the late 1970s when Northrop began work on a proposal for a new plane with stealth technology. In 1980, when company designers had drawn the new plane, the Air Force brought the ailing Jack Northrop, confined to a wheelchair, to see the drawings of the secret "stealth" bomber, which strongly resembled his B-35 flying wing of the early 1940s, perhaps vindicating his vision. In October 1981, Northrop received the contract for the Advanced Technology Bomber, a long-range heavy bomber with low-observable technology, beating out a design submitted by Lockheed. For the next seven years, the project remained shrouded in secrecy while work continued amid cost overruns and delays. Not until April 20, 1988 did the U.S. Air Force release a painting of the B-2 bomber. A few months later, on November 22, 1988, the first B-2 was rolled out at Palmdale, California. Its first flight occurred in 1989.

No, I'm no expert at all.

http://www.f-117a.com/Variants.html

[Donnie27]

Actually, lightweight first. It's in the name. But again, The F-15 was, and continued to server as the air superiority fighter during F-16's deployment, which makes F-16 support. Inferior, if you will, and you would, now, wouldn't you?

Almost true but we're nit picking. It's Lightweight *Fighter.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-history.htm


F-16 Fighting Falcon
History
The air war experience in Vietnam, where the lack of maneuverability of US fighters at transonic speeds provided advantages to nimble enemy fighters, was the stimulus for the Lightweight Fighter program. The Air Force and designers of the Lightweight Fighter therefore placed great emphasis on achieving unprecedented transonic maneuver capability with excellent handling qualities.

In January 1972, the Lightweight Fighter Program solicited design specifications from several American manufacturers. Participants were told to tailor their specifications toward the goal of developing a true air superiority lightweight fighter. General Dynamics and Northrop were asked to build prototypes, which could be evaluated with no promise of a follow-on production contract. These were to be strictly technology demonstrators. The two contractors were given creative freedom to build their own vision of a lightweight air superiority fighter, with only a limited number of specified performance goals. Northrop produced the twin-engine YF-17, using breakthrough aerodynamic technologies and two high-thrust engines. General Dynamics countered with the compact YF-16, built around a single F100 engine.

Now, see my point?

To that other guy. In those days, Russian flybywire sucked, they didn't like the F-16, so they started with the FY-17. RAM J is the Su-25 Frog foot. The US test a very similar model against what would become the A-10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YA-9. Even the A-10 borrowed from "Ilyushin Il-2, Henschel Hs 129 and A-1 Skyraider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II


The decision to make the 30 mm GAU-8 gun the main anti-tank weapon of the A-10 was influenced by Vietnam A-1 pilots and by Hans-Ulrich Rudel and his book, "Stuka Pilot". In World War II, Rudel flew the Ju 87G Stuka and destroyed many tanks using its two underwing 37 mm guns. His book was required reading for members on the A-X project. The JU-87G was an outmoded airframe with ersatz anti-tank weapons attached, yet still inflicted impressive casualties on Soviet tank forces.

A-10s were initially an unwelcome addition to the arsenal in the eyes of Air Force brass. The Air Force prized the high-flying, high-performance F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon air-superiority jets, and were determined to leave the dirty work of close air support to Army helicopters (the development of the AGM-114 Hellfire anti-armor missile and AH-64 Apache attack helicopter having since provided the Army with a viable anti-tank aircraft). Attempts to transfer the A-10 to the Army and the Marines were at first prevented by the 1948 Key West Agreement, and then by the A-10's impressive combat record during the Gulf War in 1991. Shortly after the war, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[7]

This is NOT meant to go off topic but to prove the point that the F-117 and all aircraft are developed like a Chess match where it is Point/Move-Counterpoint/Countermove or for every action there's a reaction. Once that counter point is accounted for, another one is thought up. F117 is of very little use now, so it is being dumped.

Just as the first Israeli F-15 made the Foxbat obsolete, the ebb and flow will continue.

[Donnie27]

Those pretty backflips will do nothing but get you a missile in the face.

The F22 doesnt have 3D thrust vectoring, not because they didnt think of it, not because it might have made it to big or added weight, but because its not needed. The thrust vectoring is really only going to help in a dogfight. Which usually end up in turn fights. So thrust vectoring is only needed on that axis. Sure you can add it to the others, and you can do pretty corkscrews. But everytime you do, you lose speed. You lose speed, you die.

Regardless. The MiG29M-OVT can be as good as it wants, it doesnt matter when no one is buying them. So if its so great, why do countries want the F22, and no one buying the MiG?

Yea, that left every NATO Pilot in the world licking there chops to shoot at a sitting Duck. Those aren't the first aircraft to do a "Cobra" & "Tail Slide". F-14 Tom Cat was the first to do both maneuvers. That's where the line that went something like; Nice for Airshows but Dumb for combat, came from.

Random Photo.
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/pix/mix_f16_su37-2.jpg

[[XC] 2long4u]

The F-15 is the baddest plane evar!!!
Check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_EXtBEaBbs&feature=related
Not to mention its flawless service history.

[iddqd]

words, words, words...
Inane and/or insane. I usually don't pick apart other people's posts word by word because I believe that's bad mannered, but seriously WTF??


Those pretty backflips will do nothing but get you a missile in the face.
As will barrell rolls, aileron rolls, and other such pretty aerobatic figures which are totally not combat maneuvers at all, amirite? Quit trying to be fancy, you fancypants dancing jet!


The F22 doesnt have 3D thrust vectoring, not because they didnt think of it,
What? I didn't mention anything about them nothing thinking about it. Where are you drawing this conclusion from? I'm sure the thought at least occurred to them. I'm even going to let the fact that we're talking about 2d vs 1d instead of a whole third dimension slide.


not because it might have made it to big or added weight
You base this claim on what?


, but because its not needed.
Sure, technically, stealth isn't needed either. Sure is nice, though.


The thrust vectoring is really only going to help in a dogfight.
I can think of more applications. Very easy to exit a stall, shortens takeoff and landing time, the list goes on.


Which usually end up in turn fights.
Suddenly, we're world-class experts not only in thrust vector control designs, but also dogfighting. Also, similarly, firefights always end up in both parties shooting bullets out of their guns.


So thrust vectoring is only needed on that axis.
Well, that obviously is the best axis to implement it on.


Sure you can add it to the others, and you can do pretty corkscrews. But everytime you do, you lose speed. You lose speed, you die.
Losing speed is actually a dogfighting maneuver. The trick is to do it in a way your opponent doesn't anticipate. With OVT, you will have many more tricks up your sleeve than with traditional controls. Dogfights tend to occur at relatively low speeds anyway, where maneuverability is king.


Regardless. The MiG29M-OVT can be as good as it wants, it doesnt matter when no one is buying them.Why doesn't it matter? This statement makes no sense. Besides, already existing MiG-29s can be converted to the OVT version with a fairly straightforward avionics/powerplant upgrade. Most jets undergo several such upgrades during their service cycle.

Also, the list of current MiG-29-based aircraft users: Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Moldova, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Yemen.

There are currently over 1500 aircraft in service worldwide. More than 2000 were produced since the 80's, and the latest version, MiG-35 is still in production for export.

Which makes it one of the most successful platforms to date.


So if its so great, why do countries want the F22, and no one buying the MiG? I don't know, ask these "countries" why they want the F-22.


Edit:

What is inferior from the F16 to F15? They have different roles, different fuel levels. I would hardly say 1 is inferior to the other.

Semantics; you can't have several things all of which are 'superior'. Air inferiority fighter has a nicer ring to it, anyway.

[[XC] 2long4u]

Ah Kazakhstan. Very niiiccee.

[VinnyG]

Just because I seen it mentioned here, the cobra and "backflip" maneuvers are 100&#37; pointless in real doghfighting senario. Slow down like that and your as good as dead. Also, the F-22 is capable of performing either one of them.

The F-16 is one of the most versatile aircraft out there, I have no ideal why some of you bash it. Its also very easy on the maintenance side of things...

The F-14 were put out of service because the TU-22 treath is no longer existent. They were designed for long range interception and carrier fleet defence, which can be done (sadly and not as effectively) by the Super Hornet. The need for a fighter bomber in the Navy is currently much higher than that of a single role aircraft.(Im 100% aware of the F-14D "BomCat" variant) So bye bye, sweet Tomcat!

The F-15 is starting to show its age... Not as agile as the newer Russian or european fighters its role as a superiory fighter is comming to a end. What it does still have over all the other planes is its huge air-to-ground ordance packages (F-15E Strike Eagle comes to mind) which easely take up the role of what the F-111 used to have...

Now all we need Canadians, is some working subs and a few F-35s (hell Ill take Russian Sukois over the CF-18s anyday)

[lolhalol]

Meh, Idk, russian jets always looked way sexier.
Su-47 at an airshow
http://bbs.warchina.com/bbs1/attachments/month_0606/s37berkutlarge_VLNpZSqNRGok.jpg
Su-27
http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/picswar1/su27.jpg
MiG-25
http://www.military.cz/russia/air/mig/Mig-25/images/mig25PD_1.jpg
MiG-35OVT with digital camo
http://i29.tinypic.com/2ceqd02.jpg



thats not a Mig-35 OVt...Thats a plain normal Slovakian Air Force 9.12 version with new digital camo after undergoing an major upgrade & overhaul.

[mike047]

We lost so many F-4s first and foremost because they were not designed to be dog fighting aircraft. They were not designed with a gun as any true fighter should have as a basic part of their design.

The F-4 was all engine, and a missile platform. It had raw power because of its huge engines, but that was about it.

The F-4 worked well as a SAM hunter.

Not to mention air-to-air missile tactics and technology were in their infancy, add the not having secondary weapon support and you have a desperate situation more then any of the pilots would have liked.

Magnet would be more accurate. I worked on the F4-A, B, G, and J. USN

[iddqd]

thats not a Mig-35 OVt...Thats a plain normal Slovakian Air Force 9.12 version with new digital camo after undergoing an major upgrade & overhaul.

I thought that upgrade was comparable to 35? Who cares, they all look the same.

[Rob94hawk]

Meh, Idk, russian jets always looked way sexier.
Su-47 at an airshow
http://bbs.warchina.com/bbs1/attachments/month_0606/s37berkutlarge_VLNpZSqNRGok.jpg


Reminds me of the X-29 from 1984.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Grumman-X29-InFlight.jpg

Popular Science had this airplane in their magazine and if I remember correctly the g-forces were murder on the pilot because of it's awsome turning radius. Plus I'm sure those forward swept wings didn't help it's stealthiness.