firebarThe F-117A does use special transponders to enable it to be seen on ATC radars in peacetime. And as for the shootdown over Europe, that might have had more to do with idiotic mission planning than a problem with the aircraft’s low RCS design.
Really? What combat experience does the MiG-31 have? Combat characteristics of the FOXHOUND are no more proven than those of the Raptor.
Problem for F-117 was not idiotic mission planning but other things.
Primary, it was SAM-3 modified radar. Just like modified radar of SAM-6 was cause of F-16 shooting down over Bosnia in 1994.
Regarding Mig-31, I did not say that it had combat experience, but that it is well proven aircraft. It entered service 23 years ago !!
From previous experience, it is known that capabilities of all american fighters is exaggerated in open literature, in their early service life.
F-22 is certainly not exception.
firebarMig-31 radar has one trick against stealth type targets, like Mig-25.
It works in 2 separate frequencies.
firebarAt ACIG I came across the value of, 460+ km versus a 20 m2 target for AN/APG-77. From what I have been reading here its about 360+ km versus a 22 m2 target for the Zaslon-M. Don’t know how accurate those values are though….
ACIG does not have very creditable data.
APG-77 has about 200 km detection range against 5 m2 target and that in optimum, very dry atmosphere.
firebarAs I said, Mig-25 was designed for SR-71 type targets, and americans would not risk another U-2 like incident.
It is out of the question.
When we talk about which aircraft is more advanced, we ought to know technical details.
Mig-25 is more advanced than YF-12 in weapons, intercept radar, visibility from the cockpit and what is very important, flight and engine control system, which permit fighter maneuverability: loops, rolls, immelmans etc.
Mig-25 is the only Mach 3 aircraft with that capabilities.
YF-12/SR-71 family is restricted to very basic and slow maneuvering, its engines are extremely sensitive to even mild maneuvers.
At sea level, SR-71 is restricted to miserable 540 miles per hour.
Mig-25 have 1300 km/h speed at sea level, so, it has far better speed envelope regarding high and low level.
In other words, Mig-25 is useful as a weapon and recce aircraft.
SR-71/YF-12 is not, and so, Mig-25 is more advanced as multi mission aircraft.
firebarMig-25 versus SR-71
You can run, but you can not hide.
SR-71 has never operated near known Mig-25 bases.
Mig-25 was designed for that type of targets.
firebarThere are many misinformations about stealth design.
It reduces radar and/or IC detection range, but stealth design is not invisible on radars, as many think.
Before shooting of F-117 by modified SAM-3 missile, there are many serious publications claiming that it can not be brought down, simply because it can not be seen by radar, and that it has to have special radar transponders in peace time in order to be seen on radar scopes !!
Statements like that turned to be wrong, and after shooting, everybody talk that it is not invisible but only has reduced radar visibility, which is ,of course, true.
The same is true for F-22. Do not believe everything which is said about it.
USAF needs money for its production, and because of that, we can read most fantastic stories of its capabilities.
In contrast to this, Mig-31s capabilities are well proven.
firebarIt is true that F-22 has far less radar cross section, but Mig-31 has far longer range of missiles and also radar range.
Both have electronic scanning radars but Mig’s antena is far bigger, and as it is known, radar antena diameter is most important feature influencing the radar range.
Because of that, shooting will start from about the same range.
Also, note that Mig has integrated long range FLIR which F-22 lacks.
Regarding supercruise, YF-22 has attained 1,58 Mach dry, but serial F-22 have somewhat different aerodynamics which reduces its speed.
That is: less wing sweep and significantly more wing span and area.
We do not know exactly which is supercruise speed of service F-22. It is known only that it is less than of prototype.
On the other hand, Mig-31 has combat radius of 700 km at 2,3 Mach which is truly amazing.
One more important aspect is cruise altitude. Mig has dafinitive advantage in that area also. It has positive effect on missile range.
firebarSheez! Sure the original F-14 was underpowered but that changed with F-14D. Anyway I read a quote by an F-15 driver who said after fighting F-14As,”I believe we have the best dogfighter in the world, but we don’t get slow for the gents in F-14s.” If the Tomcat were so useless as you say it is then USN would have retired it ages ago instead of keeping it in service for 35 years! Why in the world would any air arm waste money on such a high maintenace platform if it is useless. It unfortunately has become much too expensive for the USN maintain such old A/C with no new ones in supply. As to why F-14s got no kills in GW2, well the USAF controlled that show and in the in-country CAPs were given to F-15s, the USN asked for those CAPs but didn’t get. In Desert Fox, OEF and OIF, while there were no air targets, the F-14 played a major role even so far as being the primary strikers.
The F-14D has, of course, far better thrust to weight ratio than A version,
but it is still far lower than F-15,16 or Mig-29. Its F-110 engines still had very bad by-pass ratio.
I have many old books about Tomcat and it is there presented as fighter without vices. This turned to be wrong.
For example, high angle of attack behaviour, which is one of the most important aspect of a fighter, left much to be desired, in spite of earlier statements. In such flight it is prone to departure and flat spin. These are statements of NASA and AIAA papers.
As you probably know, many were lost in that way.
In late 90’s F-14D has got British digital flight control system which corrected it behaviour, but it was too late because decision has been taken already to retire it from the fleet.
You are quoting an F-15 driver about Tomcat capabilities, but did you pay attention of the year of this quotation. It was in early years of both F-14 and F-15 service, when it has been neccessary to present them both as equaly good fighters.
In much later years truth has been unveiled.
As Col. John Boyd, a famous instructor pilot and inventor of Energy-Maneuverability theory of aerial combat say, F-14 is underpowered, lumbering aerial truck. It losses too much energy in turning fight.
Also, it’s inertia moments are too high, except in pitch where it is very good.
There is much talk about its 24 TWS capability radar. Also untrue.
This is demonstrated in ground tests only. In flight it has about half that number.
It also never demonstrated that it can hit 6 targets simultaneously. There was only one such test and 4 targets were hit, all in small sector.
It’s radar has high sector scan time and has no medium pulse repetition frequency capability at all, even F-14D.
It’s Phoenix missile is far slower than Sparrow and is prone to jamming, etc, etc.
Navy kept it in inventory for so long simply because they had no other choise. The F/A-18C with AMRAAM entered only in 1993. Before that it had only 2 Sparrows, a too weak armament for longer range shooting.
In Iraqi wars, Phoenix missile did not performed well. There are reports that there were many misses. One thing is strictly controlled test firing and other is real combat firing.
firebarF-8 was never a good weapons platform. It was too unstable.
It even rarely used 4 Sidewinders because it was directionaly unstable with them.
Two were prefered.
The F-4 turned to be a far better fighter and from 1968 F-8 was not used in air combat.
firebarNeat trivia fact……the Crusader was one of the few aircraft to ever use a radar-guided Sidewinder version…..the semi-active radar homing AIM-9C.
That missile was retired soon after entering service because of technical difficulties.
firebarHey, US tactical fighters have been radar bombing with increasing accuracy since the 1960s. It has become very accurate. The F-8 may not have been accurate, but the F-16 sure is.
The F-105D in tests achieved about 30 meters CEP, but in combat conditions CEP appeared to be 227 meters.
So, this is very relative thing.
firebarThe problem with that argument is that the avionics in baseline MiG-29s and Su-27s still lags behind those in even early F-15s. Modern variations of the FLANKER and FULCRUM are much better, but the original series aircraft were rather dated in terms of avionics, and are even more so now.
What do you mean exactly by that?
Do you know that reports of German Mig-29 radar say that it is unjammable.
Even its early version radar has medium PRF for better target discriminatin.
By the way, radar of F-14D, newest Tomcat, has no medium PRF mode.
Also, early version Mig-29 radar has director mode for gun tracking and funnel mode for gunsight.
HMS is very important peace of avionics. Does F-15C have it?
In the west fighters, gun director radar mode was first introduced on F-18, and funnel gunsight was first introduced on F-16C Block 50 in 1989.
F-15C and F-14D have not that radar mode.
Speaking of avionics, look at Mig-31. It is awfull. It has no equal in service anywhere.
firebarWhen we talk about combat performance of a fighter, we have to know its aerodynamic features, engine characteristics, fire control etc.
SU-27/30 and Mig-29 are the best fighters because this features:
-Aerodynamics: The best aspect ratio wing and agility at very high angle of attack thanks to overall aerodynamics. They are no departure prone even in 90 degrees Alpha.
-Engines: The best by-pass ratio and ability to run safely at high angle of attack without compressor stall, and giving very high T/W ratio.
-Fire control: Mixed radar, laser tracker and IRTS, all coupled with wide angle helmet mounted sight.
Add to this R-73 missiles with the widest off-bore sight tracking angle in service and you will get the picture.
The F-15C has old aerodynamics with less then optimal aspect ratio wing, its engines are sensitive to high Alpha maneuvering. It is aerodynamicaly limited to about 35 degrees alpha. Above that, it enter departure.
It has no laser tracker, or IRTS, not to speak of helmet mounted sight coupled with radar.
Its AIM-9M also has limited off-bore sight angle capability.
So, without of help from AWACS, its destiny in combat with similar number of Mig-29s or SU-27s is not bright.
firebar>
> In fair fight, with similar numbers on each side and without
> AWACS , Mig-29 and SU-27 have no equal in aerial combat.
What pilot wants a fair fight? He wants to find the enemy, get him in a position of which escape will be difficult and kill him before he can take effective action to avoid dieing.Why does the opponents of America make such a big deal out of AWACS? Until AWACS came along, the defense had all the command & control advantages with GCI! The American fought over Europe, Korea, and, (to a lesser extent) Viet Nam…. without the assistance of command and control.
When we talk about quality of each fighter we have to exlude help from other services.
F-15 with AWACS is better than Mig-29 without AWACS, but one on one, F-15 have no chance, as was revealed in many simulated combats.
For your information, in Vietnam, American forces were backed up by AWACS aircraft also. These were E-1, E-2 and EC-121.
firebar>
> In Gulf war, only sure kill was a Mi-8 helicopter.
> It is not very useful aircraft and, so, its replacement
> with F-18E is rapidly under way
Boy, do you have that wrong! Check the Soviet Naval Aviation (SNA) and their response to the F-14A Tomcat. It completely changed their manor of attacking surface fleets! No longer could they penetrate to 100 miles and fire anti-ship missiles and get away.
The Internet “might” have some information but, these changes took place before the ARVNet!!! This one you will need to check books!
Adrian, I am aeronautical engineer, and I have sources which are not available to you. Like AIAA and NASA papers for example.
I se that you have only old literature about F-14. Many fairey tales have been writen about it earlier.
Now it is known that “F-14 is underpowered, lumbering aerial truck, which losses energy to fast in hard maneuvering ( Col. JOHN BOYD- Instructor pilot in Nellis Fighter Weapons School).
Also its Phoenix Missiles are not as effective as we have thought earlier.
And its max range is not 100 miles but much less. It is also much slower than AIM-7 and is very sensitive to ECM jamming.
Current Navy opinion is that it is virtualy useles.
Sign In
