NavyLonghorn
Registered User
Aight.. just making sure.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
fighters
- Thread starter kevin
- Start date
- Status
Well, on the F-4, you're right about training. Top Gun may be a load of crap, but the movie didn't lie when they said it was created to improve the chances of Vietnam era pilots. ACM wasn't really taught as much, but they soon fixed this after we were taking a pounding. The F-4 pilot's trick was to force the MiG into an "energy fight", rather than a "turning fight". Yeah, she didn't turn as well, had that BIG nose, etc, but as with a lot of US training, they knew their weaknesses and got around them. The F-4 was the best of its era, I wish they still had them, I'd LOVE to fly them *grin*
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
doubleeagle
Registered User
I have a problem with the signature akamifeldman is using; and anyone else who uses the same things for that matter. I agree you should never do anything dumb. But, how do you advance and improve with out doing things different and ocassionally dangerously. Just a thought but I don't think we'd be here talking about landing on a carrier if we weren't willing to do something a little dangerous....
wildflyin69
Grad of OCS 187 Charlie Co. 3rd Plt.
pbbbth!!
"Push the stick foward, the houses get bigger; pull back, the houses get smaller... unless you keep pulling back, then they get bigger again."
"Push the stick foward, the houses get bigger; pull back, the houses get smaller... unless you keep pulling back, then they get bigger again."
akamifeldman
Interplanetary Ambassador
Ok, this thread is getting seriously off topic, but this time, its thanks to doubleeagle. Dude, yes, of course we allll know nothing new is done without different things, blahblahblah. My sig is just what an instructor might say to a new student regarding flying. It's been said that the most dangerous thing to say in an airplane is "Watch this" because its usually accompained by a nonstandard manouver. Thats all it means. It is not, doubleeagle, not, a way of life, a dogma, or anything else. If you can't see that, you're probably as anal as I was about the above stuff.
Does anybody here NOT have a problem with me, my signature quote, my bio, my views, or anything else? If you do, just PM me and keep it from ruining the thread, please.
The Three D's of Aviation: Never do anything Dumb, Dangerous, or Different!
Does anybody here NOT have a problem with me, my signature quote, my bio, my views, or anything else? If you do, just PM me and keep it from ruining the thread, please.
The Three D's of Aviation: Never do anything Dumb, Dangerous, or Different!
goldwingdreams
Registered User
Back to the main focus of the original question: Are these fighters real threats to current and/or future American airpower?
The answer, in my humble opintion, is demonsterably NO.
The only corallary to my statement is this: Piloting makes all the difference.
But ceritus paribus (all else being equal)...
While the late-model MiGs are fast and rather manueverable they lack the sophisticated radar and electronics to engage targets EFFECTIVELY outside of visual/IR ranges. This has more to do with the MiG-29 as a weapons platform rather than as an aircraft.
Withtin gun/IR missile range their turning characteristics are better than only a few of our older, post-Vietnam airframes. Against a Super Hornet or F-22, there is very little chance of acquiring a target and acheiving a kill before the U.S. pilots do.
Much has been made of the Su-37 and its phenomenal turning characteristics. God only know how those Russian engineers were able to make the airframe able to do that and not create a compressor failure scenario! As a fleet defense fighter, it is one of the best despite the very low numbers of productions units the Russians have been able to turn out.
What this aricraft has not been able to challenge is either stealth/low-observable technology or the AMRAAM. It can turn good, but not THAT good. The electronics are an improvement over earlier models but still very much behind those in our front-line fleet defenders such as the F-14D or the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
But the single most important thing that seperates our Navy/Air Force from thier Russian coutnerparts is tactics. U.S. air tactics have undergone a twice-over evolution since the breakup of the Soviet Bloc while they have barely had the money to keep their best pilots in the air. This has prevented them from advanicng their tactics to keep pace with our improvemnts in stealth and air-to-air armament.
I would like to see at least one enemy have the balls to challenge us in the air to disprove/prove my hypothesis though...
And I'm spent....
"A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace."
President Theodore Roosevelt
The answer, in my humble opintion, is demonsterably NO.
The only corallary to my statement is this: Piloting makes all the difference.
But ceritus paribus (all else being equal)...
While the late-model MiGs are fast and rather manueverable they lack the sophisticated radar and electronics to engage targets EFFECTIVELY outside of visual/IR ranges. This has more to do with the MiG-29 as a weapons platform rather than as an aircraft.
Withtin gun/IR missile range their turning characteristics are better than only a few of our older, post-Vietnam airframes. Against a Super Hornet or F-22, there is very little chance of acquiring a target and acheiving a kill before the U.S. pilots do.
Much has been made of the Su-37 and its phenomenal turning characteristics. God only know how those Russian engineers were able to make the airframe able to do that and not create a compressor failure scenario! As a fleet defense fighter, it is one of the best despite the very low numbers of productions units the Russians have been able to turn out.
What this aricraft has not been able to challenge is either stealth/low-observable technology or the AMRAAM. It can turn good, but not THAT good. The electronics are an improvement over earlier models but still very much behind those in our front-line fleet defenders such as the F-14D or the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets.
But the single most important thing that seperates our Navy/Air Force from thier Russian coutnerparts is tactics. U.S. air tactics have undergone a twice-over evolution since the breakup of the Soviet Bloc while they have barely had the money to keep their best pilots in the air. This has prevented them from advanicng their tactics to keep pace with our improvemnts in stealth and air-to-air armament.
I would like to see at least one enemy have the balls to challenge us in the air to disprove/prove my hypothesis though...
And I'm spent....
"A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guaranty of peace."
President Theodore Roosevelt
NavyLonghorn
Registered User
I think the problem people might have, is that you speak like you are out in the fleet, and you are still in High School.
kevin
Registered User
sounds like good info, thanks. i have to say though that you seem to contradict yourself a little when you say that the turning characteristics are better than only a few of our older fighters, yet you give credit to the engineers for creating something (su27) which has clearly not been done here. im not an engineer, but from the info ive gathered, the advanced mig/su are better than ALL of our aircraft with regards to manueverability, including the f22, not just a couple post vietnam fighters (then again, what aircraft do we have now that isnt really a post vietnam aircraft). whether that in and of itself will win air superiority im not arguing. with regards to the radar, a lot has been made of the "look down, shoot" and look behind radar on the mig and su, as well as the helmet mounted hud. i dont claim to know a lot about these, but it's been documented by people a lot more knowledgeable than me as pretty hot stuff. as for pilot tactics, you might be right... but i thought the iraqi pilots were totally inept...yet somone on this site mentioned that u.s. pilots had a lot of praise for them. if a country like iraq (which is much more focused on ground force and air defense) can train pilots like that i cant see why russia couldnt either, even with money shortages. once again id point out that my original statement in this thread, now a novel, was with regards to the raw aircrafts themselves and not anything else (pilots, etc). though i will say that even when fighting the japanese zeros the p40 pilots begged for a new aircraft since they, although better trained, didnt have a fighting chance on any given day against a zero. granted that was many decades ago.
With regards to Iraqi pilots, it was during Desert Storm that US pilots had respect for. These Iraqi pilots however didn't, for the most part, live through the war. The pilots they have now...um...yeah, not so good, they can't afford training, etc.
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
Fly Navy
ENS USNR
As I understood it, the respect was given prior to the war started. In a way, it was done so as not to underestimate the enemy. That in itself can be a big mistake. The Iraqi pilots had just fought an 8 year war and thus it was felt they were seasoned veterans. They had some successes in the past, against the Israeli's and of course a hit on the USS Stark. However, once the fighting began, it was obvious we overestimated their capability. Those who fought, usually died. So they began to run.
By the way, your comment about MIG pilot(s) ejecting at the sight of Phantoms was wrong. Plus, Navy F-4's never installed cannon, only the Air Force F-4E did and they still barely had a 2:1 kill ratio with the addition of the internally cannon armed F-4 (the F-4C/D carried an external gun pod). Anyway, back to the MIG pilot ejecting, it happened once and it wasn't due to an F-4. Can you guess which type of fighter the MIG-17 pilot punched out instead of committing to the fight? IMO, it was the best air-to-air fighter of the war. I'll give you a hint, VF-211 flew it througout the war and this incident happened in 1972.
FRS Flight Instructor
- Status