What are the most disappointing and overhyped aircraft to you?

Mig 19 has poor weapon carrying ability
No radar and limited ability for upgrades

:confused:

Let me add
Su 15 flagon to the list too

Mig 19 and lightning were basically overtaken by more advanced planes
But in lightning the big disappointment was no BVR weapons And poor load carrying capacity
Mig 19 has poor weapon carrying ability
No radar and limited ability for upgrades

I’d agree with the first, somehow managed served its roles in recce and interception despite its lethal design flaws.

But the second and third? The Lightning combined the interception performance of the F-104 with agility better than the Mirage III. The MiG-19 out-performed and out-manouevred the F-100 and made the Super Mystère look pathetic. Both achieved what was asked of them. Both could have achieved more with proper development, but progress overtook them.

What was so lethal about the F-101? I can’t imagine it had a bad safety record compared to other 1950s designs.

The same could be said for both the MiG-19 and Lightning. The MiG-19 certainly did not outperform either the F-100 or Super Mystere.

Hmmm these details on the Lightning versus the rest are not from Wikipedia:

“The Lightning’s speed and climb performance were excellent not just by 1950s or 1960s standards but even compared with modern operational fighters. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute (15 km/min). The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft/min (9 km/min), the MiG-21 managed 36,090 ft/min (11 km/min), and the Tornado F-3 43,000 ft/min (13 km/min).

The official ceiling was a secret amongst the general public and low security RAF documents simply stated 60,000+ ft (18,000 m), although it was well known within the RAF to be capable of much greater heights. Recently the actual operating ceiling has been made public by the late Brian Carroll, a former RAF Lightning pilot and ex-Lightning Chief Examiner, who reports taking an F-53 Lightning up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) at which level “Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark”. In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted an American U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe from interception. Records show that Hale climbed to 88,000 ft (26,800 m) in his F3 Lightning. Hale also participated in time-to-height and acceleration trials against F-104 Starfighters from Aalborg. He reports that the Lightnings won all races easily, with the exception of the low level supersonic acceleration, which was a dead-heat.

Carroll reports in a side-by-side comparison that the F-15C Eagle (which he also flew) that:
Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lighting leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet [600 to 900 m], depending upon military or maximum afterburner-powered take-off. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet [15 m] height in a horizontal distance of 1,630 feet [500 m]. “

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/bac.htm

I’d agree with the first, somehow managed served its roles in recce and interception despite its lethal design flaws.

But the second and third? The Lightning combined the interception performance of the F-104 with agility better than the Mirage III. The MiG-19 out-performed and out-manouevred the F-100 and made the Super Mystère look pathetic. Both achieved what was asked of them. Both could have achieved more with proper development, but progress overtook them.

Lighting weighted > than 14 tons and carried 2 IR missiles, a F-104S less than seven and carried 2 Sparrow and up to 4 Sidewinders + superior velocity, superior range , superior quote and essential for an interceptor, climb speed of 270 m/s against a ridicule 100m/s.
Rest is however correct.

My list
F 101
BAC LIghtning
Mig 19

I’d agree with the first, somehow managed served its roles in recce and interception despite its lethal design flaws.

But the second and third? The Lightning combined the interception performance of the F-104 with agility better than the Mirage III. The MiG-19 out-performed and out-manouevred the F-100 and made the Super Mystère look pathetic. Both achieved what was asked of them. Both could have achieved more with proper development, but progress overtook them.

The most overhyped (at least on these forums) have to be the following

yes, i do think a number of governments would flat out refuse F-32 on grounds of decency

yes, USMC has every reason to be thrilled over F-35B,
i think USAF & USN could have gotten better performance tho, if B had been allowed to deviate to a higher degree

Not just the USMC but every service and our partners too.

The program has already stated that the STOVL requirements had little to do with the overall shape & performance specs of the F-35.

Count yourself lucky we did not end up with the F-32. :very_drunk:

yes, USMC has every reason to be thrilled over F-35B,
i think USAF & USN could have gotten better performance tho, if B had been allowed to deviate to a higher degree

no different from F-35 today

Except that all the services love the F-35 in it’s current form and are not looking to ditch it for a service-specific model.

more specifically it was an accountant: Robert McNamara, no different from F-35 today,
the intent was to skip cost additive cost for several different types.

perhaps the rafale is the most successful conventional/carrier combo in recent times

To me one of the most over hyped to begin with was the F-111. It was a mouse built to GSA specs that turned out to be a elephant, a white elephant. How ever it did turn out to be a pretty good medium bomber. It was a result of politicians getting involved in the picture. When the Navy said no way in hell, they ended up with the briliant F-14.

That is funny you wrote that, I was reading that article earlier. A couple of clarifications:

DDM-NG has the inherent capability to provide tracking function (apart from missile warning, where the missile came from and direction to employ countermeasures) as any staring IR MAWS with sufficient resolution/FoV would, but the article stops short of saying it would provide hostile target tracking for aircraft. Only that:
According to MBDA. Your commentary suggests that there is more functionality, with qualifiers. I am curious if there was more discussion”off the record” that led to those conclusions, or that was the impression you got.

Second, due to it’s drop in integration with SPECTRA, does that means that video feed is not shared? In essence, Spectra provides the mission computers with data of where a target is but not the imaging?

Lastly, the article leads the reader to believe that (like DAS) many of the functions (classification, hostile ground fire detection) are possible with software upgrades due to the FoV and resolution but unlike DAS assigning target tracks and fusing target information with other sensors is not possible as of yet?

Yes there were discussions off the record. Eg. A whole part of the article was deleted (identification of sensor involved and analysis of the wavebands used ; and therefore the heat it is optimized for… ). On the other hand it allowed me to get official confirmations. :

Il participe directement aux capacités de détection, d’identification et de ciblage du Rafale.

.

DDM-NG HAD to be plug and play replacement of DDM. Therefore its full spectrum of capabilities is not used on present production planes. Accidentally i asked to a Istres test pilot about displaying of DDM-NG 3 days ago, he answered me that DDM-NG images were classified. Afaik the only two released are the ones posted in the article. It is fairly difficult to get good infos about Rafale evolutions, DGA is very secrecive.

Vianney Riler Jr confirmed me that IR channel was involved in his 6o’clock shot. But one should take in account that he was flying B-301 in Istres, experimental Rafale for future technology. And disposed of an evolution of SPECTRA. Spectra 5T will be implemented on F3R standard. And will allow a much wider use of DDM-NG. Atm, informations from DDM-NG are fused to other plane sensors, but i don’t think it can really track by itself a target (imprecision of my previous post)

Real step ahead will come with F3R , spectra 5T…(unpublicizly F3R ismostly focused on networking, IFDL, directional Satcom, SDR etc.) and tragedac (intraflight sharing datas between passive sensors).

Thx for reading our website 😉

When i researched for this article, i contacted Jean Dupont at MBDA for confirmation… http://www.portail-aviation.com/2014/02/exclusif-le-ddm-ng-un-detecteur-de_8513.html

In fact they were bothered but confirmed it.

That is funny you wrote that, I was reading that article earlier. A couple of clarifications:

DDM-NG has the inherent capability to provide tracking function (apart from missile warning, where the missile came from and direction to employ countermeasures) as any staring IR MAWS with sufficient resolution/FoV would, but the article stops short of saying it would provide hostile target tracking for aircraft. Only that:

thanks to the high-quality IR imagery produced by the DDM-NG sensor, many other
applications can be foreseen on aircraft (Air Policing, Situational Awareness, Targeting, Assistance to navigation, Air Patrol, Anti-collision, “IR Black-Box”,

According to MBDA. Your commentary suggests that there is more functionality, with qualifiers. I am curious if there was more discussion”off the record” that led to those conclusions, or that was the impression you got.

Second, due to it’s drop in integration with SPECTRA, does that means that video feed is not shared? In essence, Spectra provides the mission computers with data of where a target is but not the imaging?

Lastly, the article leads the reader to believe that (like DAS) many of the functions (classification, hostile ground fire detection) are possible with software upgrades due to the FoV and resolution but unlike DAS assigning target tracks and fusing target information with other sensors is not possible as of yet?

I have no doubt that sometime in the future that DDM-NG will give it some kind of EODAS-like tracking, but that will require upgraded software.

btw, Since the sensors are on the tail, it’s can’t detect or track anything underneath the airframe.

Um.. no you can’t.

If they could, they would claim it as a feature.

When i researched for this article, i contacted Jean Dupont at MBDA for confirmation… http://www.portail-aviation.com/2014/02/exclusif-le-ddm-ng-un-detecteur-de_8513.html

In fact they were bothered but confirmed it.

If you can track a missile you can track a fighter.

Um.. no you can’t.

If they could, they would claim it as a feature.

I do, that is why I am pointing out the issue. It’s obvious you don’t since you can’t seem to comprehend the problem with DDM-NG not being “fused” within the MDPU. It is a drop in replacement without additional software added to the mission computers. Now what does tell you about sensor fusion?

it’s a part of Spectra, which is fused with everything else. And lines of software are added with every new update to the fighter. New modes & functionalities have been added to SPECTRA for years, and there is no reason to expect that has stopped.

Nic

Another thread turned into a F-35 slugfest.

Oh, the DAS thing has already been talked about…..the video is on a Gen II helmet with OLDER DAS. Watch the video your own source. God f*cking dammit, F-35 haters USE ANYTHING to criticize the plane.

EODAS>any current MAWs used by 4th Gens. Period. It is the ONLY MAW that can track enemy aircraft at long ranges with IRST capabilities.

I really don’t believe that the F 35 had to be slower than most of its competitors in order for it to have such capabilities. So yes. As much as Im tired of hearing about the F 35, it is a hard one to quantify for us fan boys.

It has very few diehard fans. There are diehard Raptor fans. Diehard SU 27 fans ect. But F 35 ? Very few