5th Generation Fighters

[ahem]

Originally posted by stan45


From the combined lighter weight of the F/A-22 and its 70,000 lbs thrust engines, it could carry significantly more payload than the say, SU-37.

I think you lost me here. Each Su-37's engine provides 83.36kN thrust and 142kN with the afterburner.

As in the past, U.S. air dominance (fighters, strikes, bombers, and reconnaissance) will certainly be maintained for the foreseeable future, while other countries will be playing catch-up, much with the help of previously developed/tested technologies and industrial espionage.

I guess you are not familiar with Tu-22M, Tu-160,
Su-25, Su-34, MiG-31. It seems that you have never seen the real statistics of air combat in the Korean and the Vietnam wars either.
And also, do you by any chance know why USAF denies the "evaluation" of Su-27 and Su-30 with F-15 in Nevada?

And why American planes never perform back to back with Russian planes at international airshows? And finally, why there are no challengers from USA to meet the challenges of Mikoyan-Gurevich and Suhoi OKBs?

[GetReal]

The Best Fighter without a doubt is the Mig-15. Reasons why? Have you checked out the price of a Mig-29 or F-16? There is no way on earth that anyone can afford one of those. The fuel consumption of any of today's fighters would drive you broke. There is also the little issue of maintenance. Do you know what a rebuild of a modern engine costs? Not likely that any of us could even think of paying for one of them. I give the T-33 runner up. It is a wonderful aircraft but they are getting to rare.

Seriously, here is my prediction:
Russia will drop the 5th generation fighter as too expensive.
America will drop the F-22 as too expensive.

There. Even the governments of most countries are seeing that modern fighters are too expensive. I guess I am not alone. I just wish the German government would restore the FW-190 to service. I think I could afford to keep one of those. As long as I got it used anyway. Other fighters I think should be restored:
Zero (really good fuel costs)
Spad (just too cute not to have).

[stan45]

The F-15 went into service since 1972. The more recent Russian/Soviet war planes (Su-34, SU-37, MiG-31) mentioned went into service during the 90's and 80's. These are low level bomber, and interceptors and reconnaissance. Each has their strong points and they were designed for more specific roles. The F-15 is design as a multi-role fighter, and overall it is still a formidable plane. Also, the F-16 was also developed to complement the F-15. F-15 is a fighter plane that was developed during the 60's, and it has been in active service for over 30 years! Also, The F/A-117 (stealth striker/bomber) which was developed in the 70's is still has no equal. F-15 faced no serious challengers until the mid-80's onward (namely, the emergence of the Mig-29). The "catch-up game" as I said. The U.S. did recognize the increasing threats of other emerging warplanes during the 80's. The F-22 was developed at this time (first flown publicly in 1991 as YF-22, competition with YF23) and was to replace the F-15 in the 90's. With the collapse of the Soviet Union (Cold War threat gone) and its accompanied weaker military/air force due to funding shortages, the deployment of the F-22 was postponed.

The F-22 engine produces a maximum 35,000 lbs thrust each , or 155 KN. F-22's empty weight is 30,000 lbs. The Su-37 engine produces a maximum of 30,855 lbs thrust each, or 136 KN. Su-37 empty weight is 40,500 lbs. The reader is encouraged to check on other sources as well and draw his/her own opinion.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft...22/index.shtml
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/su37.htm

U.S., Britain, and European warplanes are quite varied in design. In contrast, Russian/Soviet warplane designs are largely based on previous western designs. A few example, the Mig-29 design follows from the F-15. The top supersonic bomber, the Tu-160 was developed after the U.S. B-1B bomber and with the design basically the same. The heavy transport An-124 and its predecessors follow from that of the C-5 and C-130. Notice I do not mean to say the planes as whole are similar, just mainly the design. Do keep in mind, Russian/Soviet avionics, engines, and weaponry can be quite different. Russian/Soviet warplanes are a formidable force and to be taken very seriously.

To my understanding, according to U.S. military, the Korean and Vietnam air-to-air combat statistics are in favor of the U.S. (I can't recall the exact ratios at this time). Also, according to Russian/Soviet military, the air-to-air combat statistics are in favor of the Soviet planes (2 to 1 over Vietnam, if I recalled correctly). So on this, I honestly cannot say which is more accurate. As for the other topics, I will not attempt to comment since they are based on conjectures and speculations.



[Edited by stan45 on 23rd February 2003 at 12:32]

[stan45]

Hello GetReal,

Welcome to the board! I think you have a point there. Yes, the Mig-15 was a great fighter plane of its time. Also, I would say it was probably the best bang-for-the-buck plane, especially when purchased by a foreign country. The Mig-15 ushered in a new era of advanced jet fighters in the Soviet Union in the late 40's, and more advance fighters later followed. Did you know what makes the Mig-15 possible is due to the jet engine, which the SU copied (illegally) of the early Rolls-Royce engine? By the way, cars (like many things) are much more expensive nowadays than forty years ago, even adjusted for inflation. However, modern cars offer greater performance, airbags, ABS brakes, fuel injection, less pollution, safer, more reliable, and more fuel-efficient. We do get a lot more.

[GetReal]

"Did you know what makes the Mig-15 possible is due to the jet engine, which the SU copied (illegally) of the early Rolls-Royce engine?"

I don't know if I would say illegally copied. The British Labor government shipped it to the USSR knowing full well what would probably happen. I've seen a lot of people claim that the Mig-15 is simply a TA-183 with the RR engine. They also claim that the F-86 was based on a German design. I am not too sure that the Mig-15 wasn't influenced by the TA-183. I do know that the F-86 actually started life as a Lockheed follow-on to the P-80. German research was responsible for the wings getting bent but not much more than that. I guess we could make the "family" complete by mentioning that the P-80 started as a Bell follow on design to the P-59. It would be dishonest to claim that most aircraft are original designs - most are influenced by something else.
Another couple of notes that some on this board should keep in mind. Fighter design has not progressed very much since about 1960. Before you start screaming, think about this: The F-4 Phantom was designed in the late 50s. About 10 years before its design P-51 mustangs were front-line fighters. The F-22 is 30 years newer than the F-4. 10 years from F-51 to F-4, 30 years from F-4 to F22? From a Russian view, 15 years from Yak-9 to Mig-25. 30 from Mig-25 to today's designs. Most advances have to do with electronics now. Airframe and engine design is stagnating. The SU-27 isn't much different from the F-14 in engines or airframes (compare the specs). Not that the F-22 fighter is any different.
Second point. If the F-22 gets built (doubtful), it and the F-35 (which will be built, probably at the expense of the F-22) will no doubt be the last manned fighters. The follow on fighters will be unmanned. Boeing are already working very hard on unmanned fighters. I wonder if the controllers for them will take quarters (tee hee hee).

[GetReal]

While I am flinging what I think of as reality around, I've seen pilot skill mentioned on the board. Examples of pilot skill:
American Navy F4F pilots fighting Zeros. Zero was better plane but F4F had higher kill rate.
Finnish pilots with Brewster Buffalos. The fact that they had any success has to be attributed to pilot skill as the Brewster gets my vote for worst fighter of WWII (well, maybe the Boulton-Paul Defiant can put up a fighter for the title).
Soviet pilots in the P-39s. Another really bad airplane. Anyone that survived over the battlefield in a P-39 must have had some skill.
German pilots in ME-109G against P-51s. It's kind of odd that a lot of German pilots preferred the '109 over the FW-190.
Polish pilots in their PZLs. They actually managed to shoot down some German planes in these crates. Again, must have been the pilots.

What is pilot skills? Only a racist would claim that one ethnic group has any better inherent skills over any other. So, given that people are pretty much the same the world over biologically, these get my vote:

1. Pilot selection. How does one determine who would make a good pilot?
2. Training and experience. Care to pit a pilot with 4 hours of training against one with 2000 hours of combat experience? Of course not.
3. Tactics.
4. Heart.

Maybe I should have put the last one first. Without heart, one will not be successful. The Italians surrendered quickly during WWII. Was it because they "make bad soldiers?" No. They saw no gain fighting for the facists.

[stan45]

You do have some good points on fighter development. On aircraft design, I think you probably meant about aeronautical design principles, shapes and their aerodynamic behaviors. The design of an actual aircraft in itself is normally viewed as something else. It is the overall shape and detailed geometry of the aircraft based on application of aerodynamic principles, performance parameters, size, weight, load, weapons, materials, etc., depending on what the aircraft was design to do and under what conditions and so on. Often hundreds of various aircraft designs were evaluated, simulated, built, and tested in wind tunnels. The most optimal design is selected and then built. The new aircraft is then rigorously flight tested to study its actual behaviors and limitations, and further refinements may needed. With modern fighter aircraft design, there is a difference from general aircraft design in that it seeks a balance between sound aerodynamic stability and complete aerodynamic instability. An inherently unstable aircraft makes it a more responsive and maneuverable fighter, while stability is needed for normal non-combat operations. Thus, fighter designs often can vary significantly in this perspective (though they do share common features), even in non-combat aircraft. One can easily identify the F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-22 apart, while F/A-117 hardly utilized sound aerodynamic designs at all. With the addition of stealth features, the design gets even more complicated. Modern stealth designs is one main design advancement in the past 30 years or so, due to new physical/mathematical theories, faster computers, new materials, and real testing. Another significant area of advancement in aerodynamic designs is in efficient supersonic flight. This occurred mainly in the past ten or so years by research done by NASA with the SR-71 for high speed experimentation. Supersonic flights of the past were performed inefficiently under non-laminar flow. We now know that efficient supersonics speeds under laminar flow can be attained. Such designs would be applied to future aircraft.

On the Mig-15, my informations are as followed (a little history).
With the occupation of Eastern Germany following WWII in Europe, the Soviets have the control of 80% of Germany's jet aircraft and jet engine industry. The industry, jet aircraft, and related parts (also the complete design for TA-183) were transported to the Soviet Union along their engineers and scientists. The Soviets then built a version of the TA-183 with some modifications, which comes to be the Mig-15, though it did not have the proper jet engine to power it. The German jet engines available at the time did not produce enough power to do the job. Rolls-Royce on the other hand, did possess such an engine. It was the "Nene" turbojet engine. Not sure, but hopeful, Stalin sent his MiG Bureau engineers and others to England to persuade and negotiate a purchase, which RR accepted, and British government later approved. About ten or so engines, not that many. The purchase/export contract did not allow for the production or duplication of the engine without an issued license. The British authorities later admit it was a major oversight and mistake on their part, nor did they expect the Soviets possess such an aircraft. The procurement of the engine was a major leap in jet technology that the Soviet Union needed. Thousands of unlicensed copies of the "Nene" engine were produced for the Mig-15 through the years. Of course, there was really nothing the British can do about it. Later, U.S. and British fighter pilots later were facing Mig-15s over Korea and were unpleasantly astounded that the Soviets had such a plane. Mig-15 is certainly the most produced jet fighter in the world, and one of the best fighters of its time. Many were sold to several counties. China, Poland, and Czechoslovakia were also licensed by the Soviet Union to produce them. Some believed as many as 18,000 were produced.

On the F-80 and F-86. The F-80 was the first U.S. jet plane produced in large number. It was a strait wing aircraft. Many were sent to Europe in 1944 for testing, but they never got to engage in combat as the war is approaching an end. Also in 1944, the U.S. was planning for a faster, more advanced jet fighter, which is to become the F-86. It underwent major design changes during its development after the war ended in Europe due to information obtained from the Germans. German designs did influence its development, mainly the swept wing concept for high-speed flight. F-86 became the first U.S. swept wing fighter and also the first supersonic fighter plane.

Overall, the Mig-15 and F-86 are fairly comparable planes in terms of performance, and with fairly equal overall effectiveness. Each had their strong points and advantages. In a dogfight, the Mig-15 had the advantage in a vertical flight engagement due to its higher climb rate. For the F-86, the advantage was in a more horizontal flight engagement. It was slightly faster, and it also could out turn and pull out quicker than the Mig-15. Though similar in overall performance, the F-86 was a much more advanced aircraft such as in aircraft control, instrumentation, and pilot ergonomics. The Mig -15 did not have any air-condition units. Windshield/cockpit fog-up with reduced visibility is one resulted problem. Another key difference is that the F-86 can reach supersonic (in a shallow dive), while the Mig-15 cannot. Both planes being fairly equal inperformance, it usually comes down to the fighter pilots. During the Korean War, F-86 pilots had air-to-air kill ratio of 10:1 over the Mig-15, according to the U.S military.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap40.htm
The Soviet military did not dispute this figure, but said it was mainly due to poor air engagement communications of the Chinese and Korean pilots (Soviet Mig-15 pilots also fought in the Korean War). Proper and standardized flight and combat communication language had not been set by the Chinese or the Korean military. This could also be a contributing factor.



[Edited by stan45 on 28th February 2003 at 00:17]