FBWDepends on the weight, DI of both. A clean F-4 is going to have superior turn performance to an F-15C carrying two wing tanks and a full load of missiles.
It also depends on what F-4 model you are talking about, the F-4E with wing slats wasn’t a poor performer in regards to sustained turn performance. An F-15C is (of course) going to have superior turn performance, acceleration when both are combat configured.
Edit- to give some specifics for context,
The early F-15C’s GW 41,000lbs carrying a centerline tank, four aim-9, four aim-7 could sustain about 5.2 G at Mach .8 15,000 feet. ( 5.5G without the centerline tank and a lower GW)
The F-4E at a GW of 41,500 lbs carrying 2 each of aim-9 and aim-7 could sustain roughly 4.8 G. at same speed/alt.
Even with a higher DI (more specifically, higher parasitic drag as drag index is only relative to the particular airframe) the F-15C had slightly better turn performance (about 1.5 degrees per second with centerline tank, or better than 2.5 degrees per second with just missiles and center pylon as compared the the combat weight F-4)
FBWI’m going to assume that discussing the roles of the MiG-29 and the Su-27 don’t constitute thread derailment, if anyone disagrees, please say so.
@KGB-discovery channel? It’s entertainment. They are putting the MiG-29 in a context that makes sense to the western viewer. Here’s why the MiG-29 and Su-27 aren’t really analogous with the -15/-16 of the USAF.
Both the -29 and -27 came out of the PFI program, an air superiority fighter to counter the new American fighters. It required long range (900+ mile combat radius), rough field performance, and high agility. The requirement were too ambitious for one design. The MiG came out of the need for a highly agile air superior fighter to replace the MiG-23 in frontal aviation. The Sukhoi was to meet the long range escort, and interception requirements. Both were supposed to be all-weather air superiority fighters. More “heavy-light” than “high-low” from a technological standpoint.
The F-15 was designed as an all-weather air superiority fighter, the F-16 was originally a low cost day fighter meant to counter the spiraling cost of modern aircraft. It was to be technologically simple, and cheap enough to be procured in large numbers as it was clear the F-15 wasn’t going to be procured in the thousands. Even before the F-16 entered service, the USAF morphed the role of the F-16 into a more capable multi-role aircraft with limited all-weather interception and strike capabilities.
The MiG-29 would have filled the air superiority role over the central front, countering the F-15’s and -16’s. The regiments were assigned to frontal aviation. There was not a single Su-27 regiment assigned to : western group of forces, northern group of forces, central group of forces. The nearest Su-27 regiment was assigned to Baltic theater, Kaliningrad. That was to establish air superiority over the Baltic as the MiG’s range was too short. The difference in role is highlighted by the fact that the first Su-27 regiment was assigned to PVO.
One could argue that the MiG-29 and Su-27 became a “high-low” mix as the protracted development of the Su-27 led to a more capable fighter in the end, but in Soviet doctrine they were both considered highly capable air superiority fighters. By contrast, the F-15 was the USAF all-weather air superiority fighter, the F-16’s role in the USAF became more focused on attack and a supplementary counter-air role. Consider the U.K’s mix of fighters during the Cold War, the FGR.2, and the Tornado ADV. The Phantoms were assigned to provide air superiority over the BAOR (a role similar to MiG-29), the ADV provided long range interception, escort, air defense over the U.K. And North Sea. The Su-27 served a similar role (albeit far more capable).
FBWWell, this kinda messy. i wonder why we need to compare MiG-29 and Su-27 when they serve different Hi-Lo mix. Just like F-15 and F-16.
They really weren’t. The -27/-29’s tactical function really wasn’t analogous with the -16/-15 in the USAF. Different airforces different doctrines.
The MiG-29 was to be the tip of the spear in Soviet frontal aviation. In retrospect, we look at it as the “low” probably due to combat record and the lack of post-Soviet investment in the type. At the time, the MiG-29 was not viewed as inferior, nor was it conceived as a day fighter/light attack aircraft as the F-16 was. We don’t have to draw comparisons across very different tactical doctrines.
FBWThe Shah of Iran was basically forced to buy 60 Tomcats so yeah. That certainly is a flaw in the theory
That is an amazing statement of “alternate” history there KGB. Maybe you should read the story of the fly-off between the F-15 and the F-14 in Iran (correction Andrews AFB)The Shah demanded the sale of state of the art fighters, and put enormous pressure on the U.S. to supply them.
Maybe we should stick to the topic on hand rather than make up alternate history factoids.
FBW@Vnomad
Poland is also a former Soviet yet you mentioned it in your own post.@FWB
I highly doubt that but I don’t feel like looking it up. Is this contingent on the red herring about X Soveit states not counting as export markets ?
One, Poland was a Warsaw Pact client state, not part of the USSR. Technically, that would count as an export customer.
And no, excluding Ukraine and the lot ( which were not export clients as they were part of the USSR) the total number of F-15’s exported will exceed the MiG-29’s totals (there are still the final S.Korean, Saudi, and Qatar F-15 orders to be completed).
The numbers get a bit wonky when u consider the second hand MiG’s and the ex-USAF F-15’s sent to Israel (in addition to the exports).
FBW@KGB
Let’s say that while the F-16 is without a doubt a best seller, Mig-29A was surely exported more that both the versions of the F-15 or of all the F/A-18s (but it can also be of both planes put together+ F-14, no time to make the addition atm).
So comparing it to the Mirage 2000 is just cheap trolling.
e.
No, the F-15 variants (ordered + delivered) exceed that of the MiG-29 exports (excluding those inherited from the former Soviet republics). And the vast majority are still in service.
FBWBye bye MiG, news broke Sukhoi and MiG merger going ahead. ( not really goodbye, MiG and Sukhoi names will still be separate on products)
FBWDidn’t find Flynn as compelling as Berke. Probably because Flynn repeated many talking points he’s mentioned in previous interviews. Did think it was interesting that he flew: HARV, and VISTA, which I didn’t know before. Also, his comments on auto-GCAS were interesting, particularly the story about the Hornet pilot pulling 11.8 g’s to avoid augering in.
Overall, Check-6 is a good podcast sound aside. The podcast covering MAKS was also good.
FBWThanks TR1, interesting. Didn’t really consider the fact they haven’t seen frequent deployment, or the differences between gas turbines vs steam for the 956. Much smaller hole needs to be cut in the hull to replace gas turbines (or removal of the trunking, not sure how Russia does it).
FBWVLBB is 3,500lbs of weapons and expendables and 1,500lbs of fuel. The “b” carries 1,000lb JDAM’s.
FBWThe oldest 1155 currently in service is 36 years old, the youngest was launched 25 years ago. How long is it realistically economical to operate them? Upgrades don’t make a propulsion system or hull new.
FBW@stealthflanker- the F101 formed the basis for the F110 used in F-14D, the majority of F-16C, and some strike eagle variants. GE also used the F101 as a base for civilian turbofans powering 737’s and some A320’s. So, yes, the engines derived from the F101 saw considerable use on other platforms. No word on the B-21 but considering that PW was chosen, odds are the engine leverages technology (and possibly the core) of the F135.
Don’t see anything different in Russian Engine dev, as Haavarla pointed out all current Flankers and derivatives are using Al-31F based engines.
FBWIt doesn’t, Glonass guidance is part of the nav system. But they’ve said the system can use satellite guided weapons to increase accuracy. Why wouldn’t it? The glonass guided weapon isn’t reliant on the SVP-24, but provides the backup to the digital bombing system (reverse that, bombing system provide backup to sat guidance, sorry it’s late here). The hitting moving targets part is more than a bit laughable, in spite of the above commentary. Sure, even with the old optical bombsights you could lead a target, hitting it was an entirely different matter.
The SVP-24 isn’t some revelation, the F-111D had a digital bombing system that was reputed to have phenomenal accuracy… when it worked. The technology wasn’t mature at the time and the USAF never really got the serviceability issues fixed for the F-111D. Sounds like the SVP-24 did it right.
FBWBefore you post anything else of stupidity, take a look at F-15E acceleration Charts up to Mach 1.9
Both Spurt and andraax has mentioned many times before that F-22 has not shown it self superior in climb rate or acceleration over F-15E.
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=362337#p362337
And yet we on occations see the monstrious claimed thrust on Both F135 and F119.. like its from a different world.
Get a grip.
We all know what P/W website has of thrust on the F135
The only stupidity being displayed is yours.
One, show me where I claimed anything about the F-22’s performance?
Two, I am very familiar with the F-15E’s flight manual, what I fail to see is the relevance to this conversation.
Last, yes the thrust of the F135 is well known and posted by the manufacture (and I’ve never claim otherwise). The exact thrust of the F119 isn’t.
You are the one making b.s. statements here about what you “think” is the F119’s true thrust. One of us has a well established reputation for pulling stuff out of their rear and expounding on things they have no clue about, and hint that poster starts with “H” not “F”
FBWI’d say 17700kgf is BS.
The Dynamic thrust is not the same as Static thrust, and all jet engines are measured in Static thrust.
Where did anyone mention dynamic thrust? All figures are usually given for uninstalled static thrust at sea level.
As for the rest, many statements have been made about the “true” thrust of the F119. You can put whatever number suits you, the official number is “35k class” and +/- a thousand lbs of thrust wouldn’t make much difference when your talking about a 43,000lb fighter with 70,000lbs of augmented thrust.
As someone pointed out, this isn’t the F-22 thread and enough space has been devoted to that stupid YouTube “busting myths” video.
Sign In
