graphican
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2009
- Messages
- 12,433
- Reaction score
- 48
- Country
- Location
No F-16s ???
Top 10 Fighter Jets (Your 2 Cents)
- Thread starter BordoEnes
- Start date
No F-16s ???
Wickerman
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
- Messages
- 767
- Reaction score
- 0
See my second post on this same one. I have removed the J10 and put the F16
selvan33
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,267
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
My Personnal List...
1. F-22 Raptor
2. PAK-FA/ FGHA
3. J-20 Mighty Dragon
4. F-35 Lightning II
5. Su-35 Flanker-E
6. Dassault Rafale
7. F-15 Eagle
8. Eurofighter Typhoon
9. Su-30MKI Flanker-H
10. J-10 Vigerious Dragon
Whats the list of you guys?
i think the f 35A should be above j20 because j 20 is better in less rcs but doubts in other aspects for a 5th gen fighter.
lander
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Depends on what you compare them by. I'd subcategorize it by dividing them into three lists. The fighters included in the lists are fighters on their way of being fielded and confirmed for usage.
Top 10 Air Dominance fighter jets:
In which A2A weaponry, Radar, RCS, maneuverability, EW-systems, supercruise, IRST and interoperability plays the biggest parts
1. F/A-22A
2. PAK-FA T-50
3. Gripen 39E / Rafale C F3 [TIE]
4. Eurofighter T3
5. F-35A
6. Su-35BM
7. F/A-18E / Su-30MKI [TIE]
8. F-15E
9. MiG-35
10. J-10A / F-16 Block 60 [TIE]
Top 10 Strike fighter jets:
In which A2G weaponry, Radar, RCS, EW-systems, targeting systems, payload, deep penetrative strike capability, speed and range plays the biggest parts
1. F/A-22A / F-35A [TIE]
2. PAK-FA T-50
3. Su-34
4. F/A-18F
5. F-15E
6. Rafale C F3
7. Gripen E / Eurofighter T3 [TIE]
8. Su-30MKI / Su-35BM
9. MiG-35
10. J-10A / F-16 Block 60 [TIE]
Top 10 multi-role fighter jets:
In which A2A/A2G/-weaponry, Radar, RCS, EW-systems, targeting systems, payload, speed, range, turn-around-time, flexibility and swing-role functionality plays the biggest parts
1. Gripen E / Rafale C F3 [TIE]
2. F-35A
3. F/A-18E / Eurofighter T3 [TIE]
4. PAK-FA / Su-35BM [TIE]
5. MiG-35
6. F/A-22A
7. Su-30MKI / F-15E [TIE]
8. F-16 Block 60
9. J-10 / J-11 / Su-27/33 [TIE]
10. F/A-18D
This list will with no doubt stir some emotions here, and I believe the absence of the Chinese fighter projects J-31/F-22/FC-1/J-10B/J-11B/J-15 will be the biggest question. The reason is that in my regard, there's isn't enough hard data to go on these for the time being. There's a lot of proposed data and rumors, but I just can't see how one could compare them to existing projects or existing models just yet. As far as I'm concerned, China still hasn't officially recognized neither the J-20 nor the J-31? And until the Chinese models have been in some sort of international evaluation or been tested against other similar jets in actual training exercises, I don't think it's quite fair to involve them at this moment.
Top 10 Air Dominance fighter jets:
In which A2A weaponry, Radar, RCS, maneuverability, EW-systems, supercruise, IRST and interoperability plays the biggest parts
1. F/A-22A
2. PAK-FA T-50
3. Gripen 39E / Rafale C F3 [TIE]
4. Eurofighter T3
5. F-35A
6. Su-35BM
7. F/A-18E / Su-30MKI [TIE]
8. F-15E
9. MiG-35
10. J-10A / F-16 Block 60 [TIE]
Top 10 Strike fighter jets:
In which A2G weaponry, Radar, RCS, EW-systems, targeting systems, payload, deep penetrative strike capability, speed and range plays the biggest parts
1. F/A-22A / F-35A [TIE]
2. PAK-FA T-50
3. Su-34
4. F/A-18F
5. F-15E
6. Rafale C F3
7. Gripen E / Eurofighter T3 [TIE]
8. Su-30MKI / Su-35BM
9. MiG-35
10. J-10A / F-16 Block 60 [TIE]
Top 10 multi-role fighter jets:
In which A2A/A2G/-weaponry, Radar, RCS, EW-systems, targeting systems, payload, speed, range, turn-around-time, flexibility and swing-role functionality plays the biggest parts
1. Gripen E / Rafale C F3 [TIE]
2. F-35A
3. F/A-18E / Eurofighter T3 [TIE]
4. PAK-FA / Su-35BM [TIE]
5. MiG-35
6. F/A-22A
7. Su-30MKI / F-15E [TIE]
8. F-16 Block 60
9. J-10 / J-11 / Su-27/33 [TIE]
10. F/A-18D
This list will with no doubt stir some emotions here, and I believe the absence of the Chinese fighter projects J-31/F-22/FC-1/J-10B/J-11B/J-15 will be the biggest question. The reason is that in my regard, there's isn't enough hard data to go on these for the time being. There's a lot of proposed data and rumors, but I just can't see how one could compare them to existing projects or existing models just yet. As far as I'm concerned, China still hasn't officially recognized neither the J-20 nor the J-31? And until the Chinese models have been in some sort of international evaluation or been tested against other similar jets in actual training exercises, I don't think it's quite fair to involve them at this moment.
Are you serious? I still have the video that Jas plane crashed in Stockholm. Gripen got so many componants from US that if US says no you can not sell any plane to anybody....ingeting med kina att gora....
lander
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
Well for comparison, the Rafale has had 5 completely destroyed aircrafts in which a total of 2 pilots have been killed. The F-22 Raptor has also had 5 completely destroyed aircrafts in which a total 2 pilots have been killed. The Gripen however, has had 5 completely destroyed aircrafts in which a total of 0 pilots have been killed. Seemingly, the Gripen thus has a better crash statistics than both the F-22 and the Rafale. Not to mention, even the JF-17, that has barely been fielded, has had one lethal crash to this date. The Gripen also has a very low MTBF, MTTR & MTTF compared to other fighter jets.
Saab has already encountered that problem earlier with both the JA-37 Viggen to India in the 80's and with the Gripen NG to Norway. But does that change in any way how well the Gripen with its current and future subsystems could work? Selling some American parts (primarly the engine and the APU) only boosts American profits which is why, for America, it would be better to see a Gripen exported than a Rafale or Sukhoi. Other than that you have an English/Swedish Radar System, a French fuel cell system, a German cannon, a British/South African landing gear-system, a British hydraulic system, a British environmental system and a British ejection-system. It's about integrating as many costumers as possible. Brazil (Akaer) will be able to manufacture 30% of the composit airframe and South Africa will be able to deliver the HMDs for an example for all new Gripen 39E.
There isn't really any valid reason as to why Sweden would manufacture everything themselves. It would only make the plane more expensive and the sum of the project worse. Instead we get a reliable fighter with proven technology for a relatively low price. And it's not like we would be able to sell the Gripens to shaky nations anyways considering our firm and restrictive exporting politics.
applesauce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
there is no way gripen scores that high above f-35, late f-16 in terms of Air to air
F-22 is certainly a good plane but F-35 is much more optimized for ground support than the f-22, no way is that a tie in this area, not to mention once major threats that require a plane to have stealth is removed, planes like the f-15 and f-18 are much more economical for delivery ground attacks
this is highly inconsistent with ur previous lists, u say f-22 is best at air and ground individually yet in the air-ground category f-22 ranks 6th???
"international evaluation" "other similar jets in actual training exercises"
many jets on your list do not meet the criteria, pak-fa is still in development with no concrete data and certainly no training exercises with other jets. Gripen E is also only in testing, and of course the f-35 which is nearing the end of testing, but one thing we can be certain, j-20/j-31/j-10b is Superior to j-10A
not to mention real numbers for the jets are classified
lander
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
If you take a look at the criterias on which I made my judgement, the F-35 lacks the following; Super cruise capability (no a meager range of 150 miles does not count as supercruise capability), WVR maneuverability (e.g. sustained turn rate, maximum positive and negative G-forces), speed, that might come to be increased during testing, and the somewhat limited long-range weaponry. This is where I deem the Gripen 39E to truly shine. A Gripen 39A in clean configuration had an RCS of about 0.1m2 whilst the Gripen 39C had a clean configuration of 0.1m2 with pylons and wing-tip mounted AAM. The 39E has taken even further measures to reduce the RCS. Combine a low RCS with a truly fantastic AESA similarly connected to its IRST system like the F-35's DAS, that has an advanced EWS system, LINK 16 interoperability, an even more powerful engine, great sustained turn radius, +9/-3 G capability and that has the capability of carrying the Meteor, the AMRAAM C7, IRIS-T and a HMD, the Gripen weapon layout is definitely a great one at air-air combat, making the Gripen stand out in both within BVR combat aswell as WVR combat. The Gripen was afterall created with the single purpose of being capable of protecting Swedish air space whilst being outnumbered by soviet flankers, fulcrums and frogfoots. The F-35 was created with the purpose of being a good air-air fighter but a great air-ground fighter, being able to hit advanced ground installations with the air superiority of the F-22.
Well, first of all you need to get that even though they're both more than capable of air-ground, they're optimized for different strike roles. The F-22, being stealthier, faster, having greater range and that's better equipped to handle enemy air threats would go in first delivering GPS-guided ammunition on fixed enemy positions, e.g. radar facilities, infra structure etc. and the F-35 would go in for a SEAD-like roll and pull the heavy bomb-load on the enemy. To make that happen they both have different capabilities that are both equally important for an offensive strike-capability. Both are needed before long range strategic bombers, helicopters or CAS attack aircraft can commence their operations. Again, read the description of the qualities I deemed important for each role.
There's a difference in being good at air-air aswell as air-ground and being a good multi-roll. Due to the F-22's rather limited weapon-layout and very limited swing-role capability, it doesn't qualify as a good multi-roll fighter. It's a formidable air superiority fighter and a magnificent penetrating deep strike aircraft, it doesn't come close to the Swing-role or "ômni-roll" capability that the euro canards have, being able to change from one mission roll to another with the flick of a switch in flight.
As I said, unlike the J-20 and the J-31, the PAK-FA has been confirmed as the platform of Russias future air superiority platform and it is in its test-phase right now. To my knowledge, neither the J-20 nor the J-31 has been confirmed by the Chinese authorities to even exist. Much of the equipment used on the PAK-FA is already in use, or is scheduled to be taken into use on existing Flanker platforms, e.g. the Su-35.
applesauce
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,579
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
the new gripen can only supercruise when carrying next to nothing, carrying a meaningful load means it does not have an advantage in this area over the F-16 or the F-35. the F-16 has some of the world's best sustained turn rate, is known to be very manuverable and the top speed of all 3 aircraft is simular. so no it does not perticularly shine in these areas. and as far as RCS goes it may be better than the f-16 but F-35 will destory it in a RCS measuring contest. and yes the electronics are good, but like i said late f-16 has world class electronics as well and the F-35 has some of the best sensor package around. if you think the F-35 radar is lacking in anyway to the gripen radar, your smoking something real good.
right, they are for differing roles, which is why i said it should not be a tie. the F-22 strike capabilities is actually very limited as its primarily a A2A superiority craft, ground strike are a small secondary role, the F-35 is supirior to the F-22 in this regard, in all likelyhood it would be F-35's being escorted by F-22's, air threats not being counted as part of the strike role because a2A is already disscussed above. and like i said in a low threat envioronment other planes are much better due to greater payload and much cheaper to operate.
so you mean being able to carry both A2A and A2G weapon at once then? then that is fine i have no problems with it as stealth craft have limited payloads anyways without external pylons
very well, although i dissagree i will drop this
lander
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
The NG Demonstrator has successfully sustained Supercruise at Mach 1.2 or higher [for a satisfying amount of distance] with the following configurations:
- 2xIRIS-T + 4xMeteor + 2x450 gallon external tanks
- 2xAIM-9L + 4xAMRAAM + 2x450 gallon external tanks
- 2xIRIS-T + 2xMeteor + 2xGbu-49 + 2x450 gallon external tanks
- 2xIRIS-T + 4xMeteor + 2xGbu-49
- 2xIRIS-T + 4xAMRAAM with 2 double-pylons + 2xBK90 + 2x450 gallon external tanks
So no. It's not very restricted in terms of supercruise and no, it still has a far superior supercruise-envelope compared to the F-16 or F-35 (that neither have the ability to reach and sustain supercruise). Even the JAS 39 Gripen A/B/C/D has been able to supercruise for a short period of time during certain environmental factors.
I've never claimed the Gripen's radar system would outshine the F-35's radar system nor that it's stealthier than an F-35. However, it's important to highlight that the Gripen E/F is far from passive in those areas. It'll get even more interesting in January 2013 when the Gripen E/F specifications will be specified. There's quite a large possibility that new RCS-reducing-enhancements might be employed such as stealthy weapon pods, conformal & removable AAM bays as thought of on the F-15SE, a new split-nose, new radar-absorbant paint/RAM-coating etc. The 39C fighter probably has amongst the smallest RCS/IR-signature of any 4 & 4.5 generation jet to this date, and has very enhanced silent & passive seekers employed aswell as used to have its own data-link system much like that of the advanced F-22's.
According to a study made by an independent American group a few years ago, (I'll see if I can dig up the link), the Gripen had the best sustained turn rate of all single-engined fighters whilst the Rafale had the best sustained turn rate of all twin engined (non TVC) fighter jets. And the top speed of the Gripen is Mach 2+ with a supercruise ability of Mach 1.3+. The F-16 has a top speed of Mach 2+ but lacks the ability to supercruise. The F-35 has a top speed of Mach 1.6+ and also lacks the ability to supercruise, even with internal weapon bays.
That's just it, the F-22 will be upgraded with time too, just like the F-35 will with new weaponry and new abilities. In terms of first strike, the F-22 can't be beaten really. It will deliver that GPS-guided ammunition (or SDB's) at supersonic speeds well hidden from any enemy radars or fighters. Almost like a penetrative deep strike bomber, but even faster, more agile, with just slightly shorter range and with the ability to supercruise at Mach 1.82! The F-35 however is better at combating enemy air defences, give CAS and take out less lethal air-threats like 3rd, and to some extent, 4th generation fighters and the heavy duty load being capable of being put into service from anywhere in the world with the marines F-35B from LHD's and FOB's and the Navy's F-35C from carriers.
@lander Actually the F-35 goes to mach 1.6 fully loaded, see
https://ex.democracydata.com/243F8CB0E13C119CAB73A9CD64F5174B71BBB8B2/f50a71a1-ce02-41ad-aad9-5d98e0cc798e.pdf
Pus it can reach mach 1.2 without afterburner, so it can go faster.
The F-35
https://ex.democracydata.com/243F8CB0E13C119CAB73A9CD64F5174B71BBB8B2/f50a71a1-ce02-41ad-aad9-5d98e0cc798e.pdf
Pus it can reach mach 1.2 without afterburner, so it can go faster.
The F-35
Last edited by a moderator:
500
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
Sorry but its senseless rank. Messing into one list different classes of fighters.My Personnal List...
1. F-22 Raptor
2. PAK-FA/ FGHA
3. J-20 Mighty Dragon
4. F-35 Lightning II
5. Su-35 Flanker-E
6. Dassault Rafale
7. F-15 Eagle
8. Eurofighter Typhoon
9. Su-30MKI Flanker-H
10. J-10 Vigerious Dragon
Whats the list of you guys?
lander
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 22
- Reaction score
- 0
The F-35 has been able to demonstrate it could just reach Mach 1.61 at optimal conditions during its test phase. The max speed of 1.6 "fully loaded" included the carriage of 2 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-120. Not a full strike package with any external load nor any heavy air-ground weaponry. As said, the F-35 was never designed to supercruise nor will it be able to use supercruise in real life. The F-35 was never able to reach M1.2 without the use of afterburner. Supercruise is the ability to sustain a supersonic speed without the use of an afterburner, not to enter & sustain supersonic speeds without afterburners. The test in which the F-35 was able to supercruise was during optimal conditions and it only lasted for a mere 5 minutes and covered 150 miles with a very limited temperature and altitude envelope. Not very optimal for an aircraft intending to be an interceptor for a lot of modern day air forces. The Gripen NG demo has already demonstrated a much wider supercruise span with a varied external payload and the possibility to supercruise for between 25 and 30 minutes with speeds above M1.2.
Last edited by a moderator:
My Personnal List...
1. F-22 Raptor
2. PAK-FA/ FGHA
3. J-20 Mighty Dragon
4. F-35 Lightning II
5. Su-35 Flanker-E
6. Dassault Rafale
7. F-15 Eagle
8. Eurofighter Typhoon
9. Su-30MKI Flanker-H
10. J-10 Vigerious Dragon
Whats the list of you guys?
f-15 eagle is certainly not better than su-30 mKI.
eurofighter typhoon is better than dassault rafale.
it's FGFA.
Similar threads
