The best fighter aircraft

The Sukhoi SU-37 aka SU-47 no longer exists off the drawing board. The project is scrapped. Only two of these craft were built and one of those two  crashed and the other one was converted into an Su-35. Only one S-37/su-47 has ever been extensively tested and flown, it was not stealthy and could only do a max of mach 1.5 because the forward swept wings, canards, are are great for manuverability but a "drag" on speed, pun intended.

The SU-37 was nothing more than a proof of concept testing aircraft which amazed people at airshows. Now, in my own mind an idea just popped up. What if they construct a canard craft that has a hydraulic wing angling system that can change the wings from forward swept to back swept? Could such a design be able to combine mach 3.0 top speed with canard dogfighting ability?

Haven't watched TV in ages so no, I did not see that program. I wish I were well versed in 3-D animation though, I would love to just play around and create nonexistent prototypes of planes and just see how they look in an animation. 

Originally posted by Laelius would go for the Eurofighter (with full weapons capability). May not match the Raptor in air combat, but beats it for all round air-to-ground capabilities, and a little cheaper. The Gripen is good for air-forces on a tight budget.   No it doesn't the F-22 is far and away more survivable on account that its both stealth and in possession of a far stronger air frame.

In air to air combat, the F-22 can beat the Typhoon (which is what I said), but the Typhoon (or at least the Batch 3) is a true multi-role aircraft, whilst the F-22 is still an air-superiority fighter with only a limited ground attack capability compared to the Typhoon. The F-22 can carry a couple of JDAMS internally, but more than that, and with drop-tanks, it loses its �stealthyness�. Turn the F-22 into a �bomb-truck� and it loses stealth and performance. And the F-22 is not wired to as many ground attack stores as the Typhoon.

 

So if a nation only wants an air to air fighter, then the F-22 is its choice (providing it has the money). But if it wants a true multi-role fighter, then it has to be the Typhoon.

The Sukhoi PAK-FA is a 5th generation fighter jet in developement that will replace Mig 29's and su-27's. It is designed to compete with Amnerican F-22's and F-35 Lightning II's. The first flight is projected to be in 2009 and it will be introduced into the Russian armed forces in 2012. These are just projections and such claim sare not definate yet. If someone can find more imformation about this please do

Any discussion of the best fighter should be broken down into sub categories:

1.) Best fighter available, cost no objection:  F-22 Raptor

Edited by Cryptic - 12-Feb-2009 at 22:38

Isreali avionics have a very good reputation, bang for buck a russian jet fitted out with western equivalent avionics would be a good iidea. The Indian Flankers have Isreali and i think some french bits added, the malays something similar. These derivatives are benchmarks for such combinations. Vietnam could do well by looking at indian flankers (rather than stright out of the box russian)  and bulking up on adv Russian SAMs. The chinese flankers are getting better every year. AFAIK they can build them to a high standard of finish and if they can also train their pilots to a high standrd will match any 4th+ gen western plane.

I wouldnt be too hard on the russian avionics and dont assume there is huge gaps, only up until the F-35 comes out, will a wide edge between the two be restored.

 Allot of the comparisons > kill ratios has as much to do about pilot training and such issues as organistion than just  technology.

Originally posted by Leonidas Isreali avionics have a very good reputation, bang for buck a russian jet fitted out with western equivalent avionics would be a good iidea.

I would have guess this.

Originally posted by Leonidas The Indian Flankers have Isreali and i think some french bits added, the malays something similar. These derivatives are benchmarks for such combinations. Vietnam could do well by looking at indian flankers (rather than stright out of the box russian) and bulking up on adv Russian SAMs.

 
Definitely agree with this.

Originally posted by Leonidas The chinese flankers are getting better every year. AFAIK they can build them to a high standard of finish and if they can also train their pilots to a high standrd will match any 4th+ gen western plane.

I have my doubts here.

I'm sure they are indeed getting a "notch" better every 7-10 years, but I seriously doubt they are anywhere near Western standards, say that of US, UK, Israeli, German, French, Japanese, S. Korean or even Taiwanese.  I don't believe they'd fare well against Russian pilots either.

I can't remember the exact dates, facts and figures of the top off my head, but... around 1958-59, PLAAF pilots were something like 0-15 against Taiwanese pilots, who were obviously western trained and flying American fighter jets.  Beijing quickly realized that the PLAAF was only humiliating itself and put a stop to their annoying aerial shannigans. 

Recall that in 1950, a PLA force of about 250,000 (later up to 750,000) nearly humiliated the 100,000 or so US/UN troops in the Korean penisula, forcing the US army into its longest retreat, EVER!  But in the air war, the US got a kill ratio of about 10-11:1 against Russian, Chinese and N. Korean pilots, despite the fact that they were initially fly propeller planes against Russian Migs.  No doubt, the kill ratio must have been significantly higher against the PLAAF pilots, like at least 15:1 as the Taiwanese had achieved in 1958-59.

As for the Vietnamese, they achieved an overall kill ratio of 1:2 against the USAF and USN pilots.  In 1968, they actually had a slight advantage--believe it or not.  A lot of factors (pro & con) contributed to this end result:

1.  They were trained by the Russians who learned from their mistakes in Korea.
2.  The US had far more jets, and pilots.  Essentially an endless supply.
3.  US pilots were fighting in hostile territory, with SAMs pointed at them.
4.  US pilots had superior radar, missiles, faster jets, etc.
5.  The air war took place in two time periods, 1965-68 and then again in 1972-73.  During the four years when Nixon called off the bombing of North Vietnam, the US Navy did a thorough overhaul of training as well as tactics, whereas the USAF was merely relying on the newer avionics that had just come into line.  As a result, the USN pilots reachived their 10:1 kill ratio advantage in the latter 1972-73 phase, whereas the USAF pilots barely made any progress despite the new technology.
6.  During the period of 1965-68, US pilots were flying very predictable flight patterns.  The N. Vietnamese were constantly setting traps which they fell for.  By 1972-73, US pilots were setting traps, which the Vietnamese fell into. 
7.  Also very important here is that earlier broken promise of technology and the "end of the dogfight" to a good extent came into reality during the 1972-73 phase.  By this time, US fighter radar, AWACs radar and aerial comand and control, and long rang air-to-air missiles were actually effective, i.e. they had first look, first kill advantage.  The Vietnamese on the other hand  were still flying mostly antiquated Mig-15s and Mig-17's; they possessed only about 16 supersonic fighters, i.e Mig-21's, for the entire war; the total number of fighters in the N. Vietnamese AF was ~250 for the entire war.

Anyway, this is the historical backdrop from which I make my guestimations.  In 1979, even though China invaded Vietnam, and had the tactical advantage of surprise, they didn't even bother to use any air power, for they knew, it would be in vain.  At the time, Vietnamese pilots were obviously among the best in the world, second only to US, Israeli, etc., or countries with real aerial combat experience, so the PLAAF didn't even dare.  (The N. Vietnamese shot down over 4,000 US aircraft during the war, mostly from the ground.)
 
Vietnam's AF now is pretty pathetic, with only dozen or two number of Suhkois.  I'm not even sure.  Any at rate, my guess is they still have a lot of "know how", when it comes to training their pilots.  The Vietnamese AF certainly cannot defeat the much, much, much bigger PLAAF, but all they need to do is make it very painful for any would be invader.  I know my people, we've been dealing with the Chinese for 2000+ years.  We don't underestimate them.  In fact, it's the invaders who always do the underestimating.  Besides, the PLAAF in its infinite paranoia needs to guard the Sino-Russian border, the Sino-Korean border, the Sino-Indian border, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan Strait, etc., so it's not like they can afford to send their entire air force down to little old Vietnam.

Originally posted by Leonidas I wouldnt be too hard on the russian avionics and dont assume there is huge gaps, only up until the F-35 comes out, will a wide edge between the two be restored.

Since Vietnam, the USAF and USN has made quantum leap after quantum leap in virtually every respect when it comes to jet fighters.  From radar to air-to-air missiles, AWACs aerial command & control, pilot training, tactics, and of course:  Stealth.  Frankly, China is not anywhere near the US in air power, stealth or no stealth technology.  Sure, they have better fighters, better training.  But they simply don't have the real world experience:  Actual dogfighting experience.

US pilots were like ~46:0 in Iraq in 1991, undefeated in Kosovo, etc.  I'm pretty sure they'd achieve the same against Vietnamese pilots flying Flankers, with or without Israeli avionics.  The days when Vietnamese pilots could achieve a 1:1 kill ratio against American pilots has long gone.  And I'm also pretty sure they'd do that to PLAAF pilots too, flying Flankers or for that matter, F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, or F-18's.

Originally posted by Leonidas Allot of the comparisons > kill ratios has as much to do about pilot training and such issues as organistion than just  technology.

Yes, of course.  I was making this tacit assumption and simply forgot to say so explicitly.

Intuitively speaking, the major factors contributing to kill ratios are:

1.  Technology (avionics, missiles, stealth, etc.)
2.  Pilot training (hours of flight time, per capita spending, etc.)
3.  Organization (tactics, AWACs command and control, etc.)
4.  Experience (actual dogfights, esprit de corp)
 
But, technology is the dominant factor now:  First look, first kill is the overriding principle.  Western avionics and air-to-air missiles are the most advanced and reliable.  Period.  No amount of pilot training can overcome a missile (or several) coming at you from out of nowhere, i.e. your enemy can see you but you can't see him--and he's not even flying a stealth aircraft!  Or rather, he sees you first, but you don't see him until it's too late.

Naturally, stealth vs non-stealth dogfights is the extreme case here.  It'll be 15-20 years before the Raptorski and it's Chinese/Indian counterpart is deployable.  By then, the US may deploy a hypersonic pilot-less 6th generation stealth fighter with a laser weapons system.  Who knows.  The rumors are out there. 
 
-------------------------------------

Year after year, after a careful analysis, the Taiwanese military come up with the same conclusion to the hypothetical question:  What if China invaded?  Answer:  They'd lose.  BIG TIME.   

Guess what? Their American counterparts agree.     Overall, American military analyst have no respect for China's conventional forces.  They say the military is poorly trained, and in particular, their pilots don't get much flight time.  The PLA's strong points are that it is BIG, and it has nukes.  Aside from it's nukes, it's really just a paper dragon.

A Japanese general has openly stated that if China attacked Japan (PLAAF pilots routinely fly provocatively into Japanese air space to probe for weaknesses, as well as to intimidate), the PLAAF would be quickly annihilated by the JDF's air force, within days!   And once you lose your air power, it's lights out for your ground and naval forces too.

Quantity is no substitute for quality. 

Originally posted by TranHungDao During the Kosovo intervention, F-15's were shooting down Mig-29's like flies.  Or if you prefer, like fish in a barrel.

Edited by Cryptic - 13-Feb-2009 at 17:05

Red Flag Exercises in 2008:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ 
---Wow, Indian Su-30 MKI bested USAF pilots, in fact they creamed them!   Bravo!

Or did they?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, here's a some expert testimony on Su-30 MKI vs F-15/F-16.  What really happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w
---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part II

Fornof lets the cat out of the bag:  It was rigged.  There's lot of disinformation out there.  What really happened:
1.  Indian pilots were creamed.  (These were average pilots, not the best nor the worst of India AF.)
2.  He does say that on paper, the Indian Flankers are slightly better then the F-15 and F-16.
3.  Indian Flankers have stronger radar, yet could not discern between friend and foe, leading to many fratracides.
4.  Red Flag 2004 and 2005 in Cope, India was rigged.  USAF sent 80% novice pilots and 20% experienced by rusty pilots who have desk jobs at the USAF.  Indian AF sent their best pilots.  (More on Cope Red Flag below...  It was rigged in so many other ways.)
5.  Flankers have huge radar cross section.
6.  Flankers require 1 min separation between multiple fighters are taking off.  Apparently, this is a huge weakness.
7.  Indian (i.e. Russian) AWAC technology is completely antiquated.

Read between the lines:  If retro-fitted with F-22 avionics, US 4th gen fighters are still better, i.e. avionics is King.




-----------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPmaY  
---Indian TV, offended by Fornof's statements.  LOL, the TRUTH always hurts.  Boo hoo. 


http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.html
---Article on how USAF rigged the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 joint exercise in favor of Su-30 MKI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnjKt0lreo8
---This video actually cites a another article I've read before, which interviewed yet a different USAF officer.  It also talks about how the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 exercises were completely rigged by the USAF.  For instance, there was a bizarre 3:1 fighter ratio against US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. 12 IAF fighters flying various fighters vs 4 USAF F-15's.  USAF pilots were not allowed to use their AIM 120 amraams.  Thus, even if they could see the IAF fighters first, the could not shoot.  Pretty bizarre rules of engagement, no?  On top of this, the IAF pilots had AWAC support.  USAF pilots were not afforded such luxuries.  (Remember, these were the IAF's finest, and the USAF's weaker pilots, i.e. novices and rusty old guys with desk jobs.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cope India 2004 - A "Staged Dogfight"? Analysis and Some Lessons" This 'incident' has caused quite a brouhaha in the United States. There was a political and strategic assessment, as well as an operational rundown. In any event, what was clear was that the best fighter aircraft the American "superpower: could field was outclassed in aerial combat by the Indian fighters by a crushing nine wins to one. America was beaten at her own game - advanced technology and aerial combat. The publicity surrounding these exercises initially stressed the excellent performance of the Sukhoi Su-30 against the American F-15. That is the way the affair was generally presented in the specialised American press. This version of the IAF-USAF "contest" brings knowing smiles to Indian faces. An independent Indian source specialised in military affairs commented: "The very great majority of engagements were carried out, on our side, by Mirage-2000s, not by Su-30s. Certain of the U.S. military were surprised by these errors in the reports on the exercise, which were inspired essentially by American sources. The few knowledgeable about the details of the competition fully understood". Indeed, it is more advantageous for the Americans to convey the impression that it was Russian aircraft that bested the Americans rather than the French aircraft. Internationally, Russian aircraft are rarely in direct competition with American aircraft, of course. In any event, an obvious 'commercial' effect of the IAF-USAF was the adverse publicity heaped on the F-15 in advance of the Singapore competition pitting the American contender against two European aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault's Rafale.  General Hal M.Hornburg, Commander, Air Combat command, on the lessons to be learnt from the exercise stated: "There is no doubt that some foreign aircraft are 'nearing the capability of ours', and that 'we' are going to be fighting a larger and more capable surface-to-air threat', said Hornburg. 'We need stealth technology and ... other capabilities' of the type that will be provided by the F/A-22 and F-35. Hornburg said that USAF's current F-15s and F-16s are 'still very good', but they are 'becoming dated'."

Link:  http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html


Don't fall for the hype.  This was nothing more than the USAF's clever little scam to scare the  public into buying F-22's. 

Fear creates sheep.  Sheep don't protest.

Originally posted by TranHungDao Red Flag Exercises in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZYu7LGLBQ  ---Wow, Indian Su-30 MKI bested USAF pilots, in fact they creamed them!   Bravo! Or did they? --------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, here's a some expert testimony on Su-30 MKI vs F-15/F-16.  What really happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU ---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w ---Colonel Terrence Fornof, part II Fornof lets the cat out of the bag:  It was rigged.  There's lot of disinformation out there.  What really happened: 1.  Indian pilots were creamed.  (These were average pilots, not the best nor the worst of India AF.) 2.  He does say that on paper, the Indian Flankers are slightly better then the F-15 and F-16. 3.  Indian Flankers have stronger radar, yet could not discern between friend and foe, leading to many fratracides. 4.  Red Flag 2004 and 2005 in Cope, India was rigged.  USAF sent 80% novice pilots and 20% experienced by rusty pilots who have desk jobs at the USAF.  Indian AF sent their best pilots.  (More on Cope Red Flag below...  It was rigged in so many other ways.) 5.  Flankers have huge radar cross section. 6.  Flankers require 1 min separation between multiple fighters are taking off.  Apparently, this is a huge weakness. 7.  Indian (i.e. Russian) AWAC technology is completely antiquated. Read between the lines:  If retro-fitted with F-22 avionics, US 4th gen fighters are still better, i.e. avionics is King. ----------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNie0HzPmaY   ---Indian TV, offended by Fornof's statements.  LOL, the TRUTH always hurts.  Boo hoo.  http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007810.html ---Article on how USAF rigged the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 joint exercise in favor of Su-30 MKI. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnjKt0lreo8 ---This video actually cites a another article I've read before, which interviewed yet a different USAF officer.  It also talks about how the Red Flag Cope, India 2004 exercises were completely rigged by the USAF.  For instance, there was a bizarre 3:1 fighter ratio against US pilots flying F-15's, i.e. 12 IAF fighters flying various fighters vs 4 USAF F-15's.  USAF pilots were not allowed to use their AIM 120 amraams.  Thus, even if they could see the IAF fighters first, the could not shoot.  Pretty bizarre rules of engagement, no?  On top of this, the IAF pilots had AWAC support.  USAF pilots were not afforded such luxuries.  (Remember, these were the IAF's finest, and the USAF's weaker pilots, i.e. novices and rusty old guys with desk jobs.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Cope India 2004 - A "Staged Dogfight"? Analysis and Some Lessons" This 'incident' has caused quite a brouhaha in the United States. There was a political and strategic assessment, as well as an operational rundown. In any event, what was clear was that the best fighter aircraft the American "superpower: could field was outclassed in aerial combat by the Indian fighters by a crushing nine wins to one. America was beaten at her own game - advanced technology and aerial combat. The publicity surrounding these exercises initially stressed the excellent performance of the Sukhoi Su-30 against the American F-15. That is the way the affair was generally presented in the specialised American press. This version of the IAF-USAF "contest" brings knowing smiles to Indian faces. An independent Indian source specialised in military affairs commented: "The very great majority of engagements were carried out, on our side, by Mirage-2000s, not by Su-30s. Certain of the U.S. military were surprised by these errors in the reports on the exercise, which were inspired essentially by American sources. The few knowledgeable about the details of the competition fully understood". Indeed, it is more advantageous for the Americans to convey the impression that it was Russian aircraft that bested the Americans rather than the French aircraft. Internationally, Russian aircraft are rarely in direct competition with American aircraft, of course. In any event, an obvious 'commercial' effect of the IAF-USAF was the adverse publicity heaped on the F-15 in advance of the Singapore competition pitting the American contender against two European aircraft, the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault's Rafale.  General Hal M.Hornburg, Commander, Air Combat command, on the lessons to be learnt from the exercise stated: "There is no doubt that some foreign aircraft are 'nearing the capability of ours', and that 'we' are going to be fighting a larger and more capable surface-to-air threat', said Hornburg. 'We need stealth technology and ... other capabilities' of the type that will be provided by the F/A-22 and F-35. Hornburg said that USAF's current F-15s and F-16s are 'still very good', but they are 'becoming dated'." Link:  http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/exercise-cope-india-vayu.html Don't fall for the hype.  This was nothing more than the USAF's clever little scam to scare the  public into buying F-22's.  Fear creates sheep.  Sheep don't protest.

Edited by Jallaludin Akbar - 13-Feb-2009 at 20:17