vegita1220
User
Hmm..good point. Still your perspective would be enlightening, much more than a TV station anyway, especially since the event was "edited" for broadcast convenience.
-
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
Navy F-18 vs Luftwaffe Mig-29
- Thread starter contrail_dash
- Start date
- Status
The few instructors I've talked with regarding Naval aviation of the US and other air forces... it seems that overall the other nations can fair pretty well in a 1 v 1 engagement. I have heard that the SU-27 is indeed better than the Hornet at this. However, anytime there are multiple ship engagements, the US Navy is dominant. That includes both the Turkey-drivers and FAGs. And really...let's face it... we've got the best radar platform pilots in the world.
kevin
Registered User
how's about a fighter jet designed like the "nautilus" that just rams it's opponents? kind of like bumper jets. that way, right before the actually ramming, you'd have a split second to flick off the adversary before destroying his aircraft. this could also be used in conjunction with rolling down the window and throwing rocks (spinoff of jaerose's air defense idea). but im getting off topic.
kevin
Registered User
so i was kidding about the ramming airplane thing....but apparently the soviets weren't. i was reading something last night about this tactic called the "taran" that soviet pilots would sometimes use in ww2 when they ran out of bullets. they'd get up behind the luftwaffe plane (usually bombers) and chomp away the tail plane with their prop....needless to say the mortality rate for this particular technique was rather high.
As was alluded to earlier, if the US is being challenged 1 v 1 in the air, the battlespace hasn't been prepped properly. Those enemy aircraft should have already been destroyed on the ground or BVR. Not to say that we shouldn't be ready for the worst, lest we relearn the aerial lessons of Vietnam. The "who's better?" or "what a/c is better?" debates are always fun, though.
kevin
Registered User
DISCLAIMER: PERSONAL OPINION FROM A NON-EXPERT!!!! MEANING IM NOT A PILOT. HENCE I HAVE NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE. NOR DO I WORK FOR ANY DEFENSE ANALYST GROUPS. I AM MERELY AN AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC.
a lot of what i read refers to the american mindset of aerial combat as bvr, and hence being avionics-centered, not aircraft-centered. russian mindset is that aerial engagement will almost always degenerate into dogfighting eventually, hence focus on the aircraft (and partly cause they've always been well behind in avionics and they know it). so they spend a great deal more time focused on this environment, believing they can get into that arena when desired (how many aggressor squadrons do we have left?). who's to say who's right and wrong? supposedly western tactics for aerial combat are better (i assume this is referring to the dogfight), but since vietnam we havent fought a large air force, neither have they. probably wont happen for some time, but when it does....who knows. after wwI, many believed dogfighting was over. after ww2, many experts said dogfighting was over. after the korean war, many experts said dogfighting was over. after vietnam, many experts said dogfighting was over...is it finally, or will this trend continue?
a lot of what i read refers to the american mindset of aerial combat as bvr, and hence being avionics-centered, not aircraft-centered. russian mindset is that aerial engagement will almost always degenerate into dogfighting eventually, hence focus on the aircraft (and partly cause they've always been well behind in avionics and they know it). so they spend a great deal more time focused on this environment, believing they can get into that arena when desired (how many aggressor squadrons do we have left?). who's to say who's right and wrong? supposedly western tactics for aerial combat are better (i assume this is referring to the dogfight), but since vietnam we havent fought a large air force, neither have they. probably wont happen for some time, but when it does....who knows. after wwI, many believed dogfighting was over. after ww2, many experts said dogfighting was over. after the korean war, many experts said dogfighting was over. after vietnam, many experts said dogfighting was over...is it finally, or will this trend continue?
- Status