EELightningNot sure if this comes under the ‘controversial’ tag but going by earlier comments, surely the E.E.Lightning should be here as the only 2 engines stacked config ever, the only plane ever to catch and pass Concorde and probably the most UNDER-armed “combat” plane ever. Don’t forget, it still holds the climb to height record as well. Hated by some but loved by many others.
The EE Lightning was controversial for a significant amount of reasons, I guess one can say both negative and positive. It was designed and developed during a time when it’s requirements were rather simple, take-off, intercept, shoot down, land, re-arm, re-fuel again and again at short notice and at short distances – range wasn’t a priority at that point and it was only meant to be in operational service for a short amount of time, certainly less than 10 years.
Given it came about at a time when Britain was at it’s peak of military and civil aviation it almost got the chop on several occasions more notably during the 1957 Defence White Paper, plus at a time when some bright spark thought it’d be a good idea to do away with manned aircraft and be replaced by defensive missiles in the RAF. Fortunately that never happened and the Lightning was saved, albeit it would seldom receive support from the government – British Politicians don’t like to be proved wrong and this aircraft was a thorn in their side for many years. On a positive side, the RAF managed to save the aircraft they love and keep it in service much longer than was previously planned, on a negative side it never received the support it deserved when it came to exports, upgrades and enhancements. Sure, it received ‘some’ “enhancements” but they were never significant or at best, minimum. During it’s early years it was considered to be by many the best interceptor in the sky. It’s I-band monopulse Ferranti AI23/23B/23C radar was simply brilliant, housed within a fixed intake known as the ‘Radar Bullet’ (which always kept the airflow into the engine subsonic, in affect the exact same concept as DSI some members boast about), it could, unlike contemporary conical-scan radars, angle track azimuth and elevation from a single pulse. It was a bit of a ‘pat your head and rub your tummy’ when it came to operating it, and the aircraft, but was much better than other radars fitted to other aircraft during that time.
Despite it’s short-comings and lack of support, it proved to be a very capable aircraft indeed.
EELightningOh no please don’t flame this thread, I am just trying to deepen my understanding. 🙁
That’s what happens when one asks why the French equate the Typhoon to a M2K… *Sigh!*
@Bluewings,
No, I won’t edit my post. Your claims were stupid then and they still are now. You’re also inadvertently stating something that’d normally raise your blood pressure if another member had pointed it out. I’ll let you figure it out, until then keep the flame nonsense out.
EELightning2012-2000
Which is I assume is Iraq and Afghanistan. If the F-35 had entered operational service before 2000 there’s no reason why it couldn’t perform the roles other aircraft have done.
EELightningYep marketing gimmick, the F-35 is referred as a plane build for yesterday’s war…
What yesterday’s war?
EELightningWhy is he making up that its a 5th Gen fighter? It’s a 4th++ gen fighter and it isn’t made up for stealth. Guess he’s the one in charge of interviewing the salesmens to make up things to trick the people into buying the SU-35. It’s not a 5th gen fighter, it’s from the original SU-27 design made into new enhancements. All there is to the SU-35 is longer range, newer engines, Aerodynamic enhancements for better maneuverability, newer engines, and enhance avionics. If it were 5th gen, then why isn’t the SU-35 made for stealth and lower RCS?
Or probably like many others, including Lockheed Martin, he has trouble defining the term “5th Generation”, thus not having a clue about it. Marketing gimmick!
EELightningDavid also, why do the French equate the EF to a m2k? I have seen that comment on a few occasion and wondered if it had more to it than nationalism?
If you’re a Monkey and your name is Bluewings then Typhoon is using ’80s Dassault technology there for a “Souped-Up” Mirage. So yep, a spot of Nationalism and certainly doesn’t represent the French.
The differences in performance at high altitudes between these two aeroplanes are same as the differences between Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber. I’ve got some information floating about somewhere of the M2K and Typhoon, I’ll see if I can find it.
EELightningEvery design is a compromise. Yet, the point is the benefits of Internal Weapons and Increase Fuel combined with Stealth is considered the best solution today. Which, is why all current and future designs are adopting it.
And as I say, the trade off for such as design is what I stated earlier, I’m not going to explain it again.
Yet, if they had a choice (money no limit) they would want a all 5th Generation Force. As a matter of fact a top RAF General said he would prefer such a force. Yet, the reality he would have to live with a mixed force of 4.5 and 5th Generations for sometime.
Do you have a source quoting this top RAF General? It’s not what I’ve heard.
By the way, I’ll let you into a little secret. There’s no such thing as an “RAF General”.
What I am talking about is the real world not an exercise. So, while the Polish F-16’s appeared to do well against the F-22’s. In the real world in actual combat it would be no contest.
18th AGRS F-16s, I corrected oneself earlier. ‘No Contest’ is a strong and rather bold claim to state, with that, what you’re saying is is that the F-22 will never be defeated in the real world, that is simply untrue. What that means is that the particular aircraft in question is “Invincible” which to be fair, is old school LM marketing hype. In “the real world” and of course during exercises such as Red Flag, I believe the success ratio will very heavily favour the F-22, however, that doesn’t mean it will not receive any losses. That particular exercise (Red Flag) is mean’t to be as realistic as possible and is rather thought highly of by every nation’s air forces that have taken part. What you’re claiming is rather arrogant.
Sorry, I don’t see it mattering who is flying the F-16’s. The odds are they would all loose and loose badly flying against the F-22’s in the real world…..
See above.
If, not the USAF wouldn’t have invested Billions in the F-22 and F-35. They would have continued to purchase more advance versions of the F-16’s.
Yet, despite this they’re still investing Billions in other aircraft. Other countries around the world are also looking into purchasing non-stealth aircraft, aren’t they not(?), especially the Middle East, Europe, Far East.
EELightningvs. comparisons are fine with me, but as MKI is in a different weigh class, direct comparison without giving a specific scenario is not possible. For example, MKI has much superior range, and can carry some heavy payload and equipment that would never fit onto JF-17. In short, there are some missions an entire squadron of JF-17 cannot do, but a lone MKI can.
It is like comparing F-111 to B-1B or a Su-24 to Tu-22M.
Yes but, but, but….. but JF-17 has DSI! :dev2:
EELightningI do like this particular Phantom… If rather controversial somewhat. :dev2:
EELightningIt’s a huge disadvantage carrying external stores. It has been said (for example) that it requires half the fuel in an external fuel tank just to make up for the added drag. So, is simple terms if your carrying a 330gal External Fuel Tank. You only have 165 usable gals of fuel! Plus, that doesn’t even touch on the impact external stores have of performance. I remember as highly experienced TEST PILOT stating recently that even a single external AMRAAM has a big impact on the performance of a otherwise clean airplane.
I hear what you’re saying and I agree with you. But you’re ignoring the fact regarding the disadvantages internal weapons/fuel storages brings, it’s not speculation, it’s simply fact!
I would add that all the major players are going with Stealthy 5th Generation Fighters with increase internal fuel and weapons. (i.e. F-22, F-35, PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, etc. etc.) The same also applies to future UCAV’s. Which, speaks for itself……….IMO
True, and it also speaks for itself how those operators are still heavily investing in non-stealth aircraft.
Well, a group of several of the best USAF Pilots flying F-15C’s never saw the single F-22 they were fighting against until it flew over them. So, while I don’t personally know this case of Polish F-16’s vs F-22. The doubt the Pol’s are vastly better even in there F-16 Blk 50’s than the best USAF F-15 Pilots. Speculation for sure but I personally think the odds are in my favor………
Well, we’re not discussing which air force has the better pilots, that’d be taking the discussion away from a separate topic, and I’m not falling for that.
Snippets of information from Air Forces Monthly, September 2012 issue. Report: Red Flag Alaska 12-2, Author; Alan Warnes.
Note: I need to correct my earlier claim. The F-16s that scored kills against the F-22s were not Polish Air Force, though they did take part in the Exercises, they were 18th AGRS F-16s. My mistake. Though I’m positive it was reported in another report, I shall look out for it!
On day two of Red Flag Alaska 12-2, two F-22s from the 525th FS (Blue Air) were known to have been “killed” by the 18th AGRS F-16s after getting into the ‘merge’. One source stated it was “bad luck”. To rub salt into wounds of the F-22 jocks, they were acting as Blue Air (already stated), the 18th AGRS F-16s (Red Air… usually “mean’t to lose”) were masquerading as Russian Su-27, Su-30 and Chinese J-10 fighters.
It doesn’t show the exchange ratios of the engagements, I believe overall the results were heavily in the F-22’s favour by the end of the exercises, but it proves that the F-22 isn’t the ‘be all and end all’, nor doesn’t make dogfighting “obsolete” as was once widely marketed during the early days by LM and the USAF, or even by many forum members the world over.
EELightningUntil I see otherwise, this deal is as likely as the Korean one (and you should scoop up all the positive news about Eurofighter in Korea too) 😉
There’s nothing positive coming out of South Korea with regards to Typhoon. They’re a puppet government going to buy American regardless. The chances in the UAE are far better.
EELightningYou really need to start quoting things because for all the average reader knows you’ve just made that up. Without a source or quote its meningless hearsay.
Just realised I forgot to say that I’ll get the details and source later tonight when I’m home.
EELightningCrown Prince of Abu Dhabi General Sheikh Mohammad Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who also acts as Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, is expected to meet with a delegation of BAE Systems on a deal for the Eurofighter Typhoon.
http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/UAE:_Sheikh_Mohammad_BAE_Systems_and_Eurofighter_deal/3417
EELightningSure weight is a disadvantage but so is drag! The point is older generation Fighters have more of both. As they still have to carry External Fuel and Weapons plus they have the added drag that type like the F-22, F-35, and PAK-FA don’t………..
You’re missing the point. The likes of those aircraft have the disadvantages of more moving parts, i.e. more weight, maintenance which equates to higher costs, to develop, purchase, maintain and possibly upgrade. Sure, they might reduce drag but it’s a classic case of ‘sacrifice in an area to gain an advantage in another’, that’s the penalty one has to pay in physics. Of course, other aircraft (I’ll avoid the Generation marketing gibberish) have the disadvantages of carrying weapons and fuel externally yet on the other hand they have the advantage of having no moving parts such as weapons bays doors and the hydraulic systems that operate them, and like I said earlier, they bring penalties of their own. So one must say, carrying external weapons and fuel isn’t such a disadvantage after all – some aircraft work extremely well with certain external weapons/tank configurations.
I don’t know the details in that case. Yet, in the real world I doubt the F-16’s would last more than few seconds. Really, Air Exercises are more about teaching and working together as teammates. Then a true test between types. As the ROE are often tilted toward the lesser of the two opponents. If, not the F-22’s would come in and kill everybody and that would be no fun. Plus, the Raptor Pilots will learn nothing.
If you don’t know the details then you can’t assume, or doubt, the F-16s wouldn’t last more than a few seconds in the real world.
EELightningNot likely as the Super Hornet will have inferior performance in the vast majority of any WVR Engagement. Because it will have to carry all of it’s stores externally. (Pylons, Missiles, External Fuel Tanks, etc.) In addition even getting to the merge would likely be a long shot.
Internal stores, advantages; lower RCS, lower drag. Disadvantages; more systems, more mechanical moving parts, (extra maintenance) and that killer for performance those equate to: Weight!
Anyone seen a 2013 spec Formula 1 car and the FIA’s regulations? No?… Well, one of the FIA’s regulations state that the F1 cars cannot refuel during anytime of the race, meaning they have to start the 3rd Qualifying session the day before with a full tank of fuel in which they have to qualify and race with. Anyone that follows F1 will know that the F1 car’s performance figures are no where near what they’re truly capable of during Q3 and the first three quarters of the race. Why? It’s simple, because they’re carrying that weight and has nothing to do with anything external. Weight kills performance and the same is said for fighter aircraft – having everything installed internally isn’t much of an advantage many believe or want it to be. It’s as simple as that!
Remember, the story’s of F-15’s not even seeing the F-22 Raptors until they flew overhead!
I remember that. I also remember when Polish Air Force F-16s got into the merge with the F-22 and claimed a number of kills. The F-22 jocks were none the wiser how they managed it…
Sign In
