A Question for Limey Defence

[TITE]

The F-117 is way more advanced in stealth than the F-15 so if the Srbs tracked the 117 using radar then shot it down with a missile (which they did) then how much more easy wouldn't it be to shoot down a f-15? I'll be back with how many f-15's were lost in Kosavo P.S. I havent forgot about what the proof that U.S.'s only "proof" it's supiriour to Russia in military tech is U.S.'s word ONLY still preparing my PROOF as I've stated soon I"ll be ready!

[Edited by TITE on 18th May 2004 at 03:38]

[Voyager13b]

TITE,

According to US military sources, old long wave Soviet Radar sets are more likely to detect the presence of an F-117, but other factors related to wavelength limit the usefulness of those sets. Also, they pointed out that when the plane gets wet, or it's weapons bay is open, stealth is lost.

I think you will find that the F-15 still has a clean record of all wins though. I really don't get your point in this debate. Given the number of missions completed by either aircraft to date, it is hard to imagine saying anything but positive things about them. So what if one F-117 was shot down over Kosovo? What does it prove? That war is a risky business? That someone got lucky that day, and someone else didn't?

Weeks ago, you mentioned publishing proof that American aircraft are far inferior to Soviet designs. Most people here agree that both systems produced good platforms, but you were determined to show the world that American stuff is no good (something to do with Serbia, I'd bet). You said that you already had the proof. That was weeks ago. Where is it?

I'm curious to read the results of your unbiased research.


Voyager

[scandinavian]

American has the best long range interceptors (F-15, F22) and Russia the best dogfighters (Mig-29, Su-35). However, if Russia has the money to finish the development of the Mig 44, Russia will probably have the best longrange interceptor and dogfighter in the world in one single package!

Some random facts about fighters:

- American fighters are generally easier to fly and have better performance at supersonic speeds. They are also more stealthy.

- Russian aircraft (and missiles) have better radar systems and unlike American fighters, Russian fighters have rearward-facing radars and can fire missiles rearwards.

- Russian countermeasure systems (chaff, flare, EWS) are better than american equivalents.

- Russian air-to-air missiles are superior to all other missiles in the world. For example, the AIM-9X Sidewinder doesn't even come close to the performance of the R-73 and the R-77 has better agility, speed and range than the American AMRAAM.


I'd say Russian fighters are better than the American when their pilots have had A LOT of training! Learning to unleash the true potential of Russian fighters requires thousands of flying hours since they are very complex aircraft.

Originally posted by scandinavian

- Russian aircraft (and missiles) have better radar systems and unlike American fighters, Russian fighters have rearward-facing radars and can fire missiles rearwards.

- Russian air-to-air missiles are superior to all other missiles in the world. For example, the AIM-9X Sidewinder doesn't even come close to the performance of the R-73 and the R-77 has better agility, speed and range than the American AMRAAM.

Interesting, Americans usually say it's the other way round. They say AMRAAM/AIM-9X have more hit percentage than R-77/73, their radars can detect enemy from greater distance, and all their avionics/weapon systems are far superior to Russian. Strong point of Russian aircraft, they say, is superb flying characteristics.

[limey_defence]

I'm quite honoured people ask for me. Although there are many people on here smarter than me.

I'd like to point out straight away no F-15 has been lost to enemy action. I personally believe that American aircraft are superior but only just.
There are advantages to both countries aircraft, and past experiences between the two nations aircraft have shown their abilities.

The American AWAC system is more sophisticated than the Russian systems. The E-3 Sentry still provides the most widespread and reliable eye in the sky, and AWACs are the most important aircraft up there.
You can't really say which is the better in fighters unless you have the same pilot fly both. And then have pilots of comparable skill dogfight in the two aircraft.

In most cases the American planes have the superior electronics but the Russian planes are more durable, and better manuverability. On top of that, you'll find Russian planes top speeds to be very high, along with their ceiling.

I'm sure someone will bash me now, but hey, you have to take those risks.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by scandinavian
American has the best long range interceptors (F-15, F22) and Russia the best dogfighters (Mig-29, Su-35). However, if Russia has the money to finish the development of the Mig 44, Russia will probably have the best longrange interceptor and dogfighter in the world in one single package!

Some random facts about fighters:

- American fighters are generally easier to fly and have better performance at supersonic speeds. They are also more stealthy.

- Russian aircraft (and missiles) have better radar systems and unlike American fighters, Russian fighters have rearward-facing radars and can fire missiles rearwards.

- Russian countermeasure systems (chaff, flare, EWS) are better than american equivalents.

- Russian air-to-air missiles are superior to all other missiles in the world. For example, the AIM-9X Sidewinder doesn't even come close to the performance of the R-73 and the R-77 has better agility, speed and range than the American AMRAAM.


I'd say Russian fighters are better than the American when their pilots have had A LOT of training! Learning to unleash the true potential of Russian fighters requires thousands of flying hours since they are very complex aircraft.

Scandinavian,
Judging by the way you see things, Russia should scrap the Mig project altogether, and just spend the money building fully amortized current jet designs, and giving their pilots more training for their "complex" aircraft.

By the way, I'm curious about your comment that Russian fighters have rear facing RADAR systems, and fire rockets backwards. Which current fighters have that capability, and why would you want to fire a Mach three or four missile backwards from a plane going Mach 2.5? By the time the missile gained controllable forward flight characteristics, the threat would be long gone, jammed the control RADAR, or simply present the missile with it's most stealthy head on view, and dissapear.

I don't recall any Mig 29's, or Su 27's with rear facing missiles mounted to their hardpoints. It also seems like a silly waste of precious missile mounting real estate. Are you sure that you are not thinking of rear facing RADAR detection and jamming antennas that most everyone uses?

By the way, if the Russian detection, evaision, jamming, and missile systems are as superior as you suggest, why have they failed to take their toll on F-16, FA-18, F-14, and F-15 American planes in the numerous encounters over the past two decades? It can't be pilot training alone, as most of these are autonymous systems (or nearly so). You would think that superior systems would get a break every now and then.

Voyager

[Vic07]

Voyager, Scandinavian explained it wrong to you. The newer russian fighters/interceptors (Su-37, 47, 33) CAN fire their missiles backwards with great accuracy, the missiles still face forward though. If they want to do this, they release it unevenly (forward end first) and then fires the engine after 1.5 secs. The MINIMUM distance for this is 300m. To your other point, in the conflicts you are reffering to, the people against the U.S. did not have enough support. As you know, an interceptor alone isnt much of a thing, it has to have ground support (if not fire, than atleast information from radars and such, because the aircraft's radar, as you know, doesnt have as long a range as powerfull ground stations) so they were caught with their pants down, and another thing is that the pilots werent trained very well.
Vic