TOP 10 - World Fighter Aircrafts

[Chogy]

Just look at what they talk about the F-22. Sure, sometimes they'll mention its supercruise, but generally, they emphasize its stealth and AESA radar, instead of its superb climb, acceleration, and turn performance. And the next plane to be created is the F-35, which has all the cutting edge fifth generation technology, but the kinematic performance of a third generation fighter.

The F-22 turn rate and acceleration is superior to anything else out there now. The F-35 will be extremely agile... the T/W is huge. But the reason they emphasize avionics and stealth is that the future of the air war rests in those. Agility doesn't win a fight anymore. You don't need hyper-maneuverability, you need "acceptable" maneuverability.

Once again, sensors, weapons, and stealth, trumps cobras, whiffordills, and post-stall weirdness.

 

[SBD-3]

The F-22 turn rate and acceleration is superior to anything else out there now. The F-35 will be extremely agile... the T/W is huge. But the reason they emphasize avionics and stealth is that the future of the air war rests in those. Agility doesn't win a fight anymore. You don't need hyper-maneuverability, you need "acceptable" maneuverability.

Once again, sensors, weapons, and stealth, trumps cobras, whiffordills, and post-stall weirdness.

You cant be hyper maneuverable with conventional structures, not to mention there is a human body in the cockpit
I mean can you out turn a 60g capable HOBS missile? when just 9G pull has the potential to make pilot unconcious

 

[King123]

1. F-22 (USA)
2. F-35 (USA)

3. Typhoon (Europe)
4. Rafale (France)
5. F-18 Hornet (USA)
6. Sukhoi 35/MKI (India/Russia)
7. F-15 Eagle (USA)

8. F-16 Block 70 (USA)
9. Jas 39 Gripen (Sweden)
10. Sukhoi 30 MKK, MIG 35, J-10 (China/Russia)

 

[MastanKhan]

You make a good point. The difference between variants of the same aircraft is often very large. Open architectures mean that the configurations can make a huge difference. Furthermore, the materials from which an airframe is built can change the RCS by a factor of 10 (for example the Su-35, F-18E, proposed F-15SE, etc.).

At the same time, though, airframes and kinematic performance is still a major factor. American manufacturers have been playing up technology to the detriment of kinematic performance. Just look at what they talk about the F-22. Sure, sometimes they'll mention its supercruise, but generally, they emphasize its stealth and AESA radar, instead of its superb climb, acceleration, and turn performance. And the next plane to be created is the F-35, which has all the cutting edge fifth generation technology, but the kinematic performance of a third generation fighter.

Hi,

So, where does the primary BVR missile fit in----isn't that where the F 22 and the F 35 claim their position of strength amongst other things---smart missiles---longer range---highest percentage kill ratio at farthest distance---.

 

[Birbal]

The F-22 turn rate and acceleration is superior to anything else out there now. The F-35 will be extremely agile... the T/W is huge. But the reason they emphasize avionics and stealth is that the future of the air war rests in those. Agility doesn't win a fight anymore. You don't need hyper-maneuverability, you need "acceptable" maneuverability.

Once again, sensors, weapons, and stealth, trumps cobras, whiffordills, and post-stall weirdness.

I agree about the F-22 having the best performance out there (though the newer Eurocanards and Flankers come pretty close). However, the F-35 T/W ratio is 1.07, and the wing loading is about 88 lb/f^2, both of which are equal to a 4th generation fighter, and exceeded by all the 4++ generation fighters. And that isn't all. Unlike modern aircraft, the F-35 doesn't have such a good wing-body lifting configuration. So the raw wing loading does not yield the same performance as other aircraft of similar wing loadings.

Some comparisons using the performance of the 240-3 F-35A configuration (small modifications mean the latest configuration of the F-35A is almost identical, but slightly heavier):
The F-35A can get 4.95 G sustained at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 feet. The old Luftwaffe Mig-29 could get 6.3 G sustained at Mach 0.8 and 5,000 m (16,404 feet).
The F-35A can accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 feet in 61 seconds. The Mig-29 could accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 in about 49 seconds at 11,000 m (36,000 feet).
At least the F-35A can win with instantaneous pre-stall turn rate: 370 kt for 9 G at 15,000 feet, whereas the Mig-29 requires 470 kt for 9 G at 5,000 m. This will bleed energy very fast though, similar to how the IAF Mirage 2000s were supposed to be able beat the Mig-29 in instantaneous turn rates, but they lost airspeed so fast that the Mig-29 could match their 90 degree turn time.
Finally, the max for the F-35A is Mach 1.67. This is lower than the supercruise speed of the F-22, and is far too slow to be able to disengage against any contemporary fighter aircraft. The Mig-29, for example, is limited to Mach 2.35.

Getting heavily beaten by a 30 year old fighter in speed, acceleration, and turn performance isn't "acceptable" performance. It's bad performance.

 

[Birbal]

Hi,

So, where does the primary BVR missile fit in----isn't that where the F 22 and the F 35 claim their position of strength amongst other things---smart missiles---longer range---highest percentage kill ratio at farthest distance---.

That's the thing though. In real life scenarios, missiles are generally effective at less than half their quoted range. That's 35 km for the Aim-120. An Su-35 may be able to target an F-22 at that range, and will definitely be able to target an F-35. Thus, what's the point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars on an aircraft if other aircraft can also carry that missile?

Furthermore, BVR combat is over-rated. The history of combat shows that BVR missiles have a very low kill probability against fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft have plenty of tricks to avoid long range missiles. One classic trick is the doppler beam maneuver. By dropping towards the ground and flying perpendicular to the enemy aircraft, you can get filtered out by the doppler radar because your aircraft looks like ground clutter. Other tricks include simply running away, chaff and jamming, and making large oscillating maneuvers to bleed out the enemy missile's energy.

 

[rcrmj]

1. F-22 (USA)
2. F-35 (USA)

3. Typhoon (Europe)
4. Rafale (France)
5. F-18 Hornet (USA)
6. Sukhoi 35/MKI (India/Russia)
7. F-15 Eagle (USA)

8. F-16 Block 70 (USA)
9. Jas 39 Gripen (Sweden)
10. Sukhoi 30 MKK, MIG 35, J-10 (China/Russia)

more or less I would rank, but few changes

1. F-22 (USA)
2. Typhoon (Europe)
3. Rafale (France)
4. F-35 (USA)
5. F-18 Hornet (USA)
6. Sukhoi 35/MKI (India/Russia)
7. F-15 Eagle (USA)

8. F-16 Block 70 (USA)
9. Jas 39 Gripen (Sweden)
10. Sukhoi 30 MKK, MIG 35, J-10 (China/Russia)

 

[Tang0]

Furthermore, BVR combat is over-rated. The history of combat shows that BVR missiles have a very low kill probability against fighter aircraft. The fighter aircraft have plenty of tricks to avoid long range missiles. One classic trick is the doppler beam maneuver. By dropping towards the ground and flying perpendicular to the enemy aircraft, you can get filtered out by the doppler radar because your aircraft looks like ground clutter. Other tricks include simply running away, chaff and jamming, and making large oscillating maneuvers to bleed out the enemy missile's energy.

This statement is true only if the targeted fighter has any idea he is being targeted. If the target is unaware of it's situation in time for the missile to close most of that first 50% of range, kill probability runs up to 90%. Also, when was the last time a BVR missile was fired in Anger? 1999? Much has changed since then as far as computer technology and programming are concerned.

Anyway, this is a nifty sight summarizing what is widely known, admittedly with a pro-Russia slant.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

 

[satishkumarcsc]

The F-22 turn rate and acceleration is superior to anything else out there now. The F-35 will be extremely agile... the T/W is huge. But the reason they emphasize avionics and stealth is that the future of the air war rests in those. Agility doesn't win a fight anymore. You don't need hyper-maneuverability, you need "acceptable" maneuverability.

Once again, sensors, weapons, and stealth, trumps cobras, whiffordills, and post-stall weirdness.

Sir,
I have a question. What happens if two stealth aircrafts face off each other? Like let's say J 20 faces off with F 22 or the PAK-FA against the F 22 over South China sea? they both detect each other at 20 kms and both are flying in air-superiority configuration....at that time what will happen?

And does F 22 have an IRST like the PAK-FA (something in lines of OLS-35)?

 

[Storm Force]

The Russian Philosophy of BVR Air Combat

Very interesting HYPERLINK

I FOR ONE thought up to now that USA AMRAAMS C5 upwards are superior to RUSSIAN flanker BVRS R27/R77

love THE RUSSIAN concept of 3 x as many BVRS ALL of different seekers to confuse the enemy

THE MKI can be a real; nitemare AS WE KNOW

 

[SBD-3]

The Russian Philosophy of BVR Air Combat

Very interesting HYPERLINK

I FOR ONE thought up to now that USA AMRAAMS C5 upwards are superior to RUSSIAN flanker BVRS R27/R77

love THE RUSSIAN concept of 3 x as many BVRS ALL of different seekers to confuse the enemy

THE MKI can be a real; nitemare AS WE KNOW

Well well well....isn't it the Carlo Kopp........I can tell you the possible conclusion of this article even without reading it......"We need F-22 for RAAF to stand against BVR threat". You can fire as many as you want, but a combat aircraft with good time,RWR,MAWS and ECM can engage these missile successfully. Get out of Simulation mindset where all you have to do is fire a missile. BVR is an advantage but the game changer for future is defensive suit edge, the platform with better defensive suit will live to see another day.

 

[gambit]

Sir,
I have a question. What happens if two stealth aircrafts face off each other? Like let's say J 20 faces off with F 22 or the PAK-FA against the F 22 over South China sea? they both detect each other at 20 kms and both are flying in air-superiority configuration....at that time what will happen?

And does F 22 have an IRST like the PAK-FA (something in lines of OLS-35)?

Assuming both are of equal RCS? Then it depends on who is the better pilot with the better radar because during maneuvers, an aircraft's RCS will changes with respect to the seeking radar. The system with the quickest response to when it sees the largest RCS return and the pilot with the quickest response to take advantage of his technical superiority -- winner.

But it is safer to assume that both the J-20 and the PAK-FA will NOT be the F-22's equal in terms of RCS, unless we are talking about looking directly from atop or below, then EVERYBODY, from the F-22 to the B-52, will be glaring.

The general rule is...In radar detection, a difference of 10dB equals to a difference of 50% in effective detection distance. In other words, if initially A and B are detectable at 100 km and A did <something> to reduce its RCS by 10dB COMPARED to B, then A will be detected at 50 km. Or if B did <something> to increase its RCS by 10dB COMPARED to A, then B will be detected at 150 km.

Let us be very generous and say that the J-20 is 2dB greater than the F-22. Or that the F-22 is 2dB less than the J-20. Depends on how you want to look at them. But the essence is that there is a 2dB difference in RCS between the two aircrafts.

First you need to read our former F-15 pilot's explanation of air combat tactic as he once lived...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-tactics-combat-formations-5.html#post1502645

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-31-fighter-contract-syria-2.html#post1255243

So instead of a 'wall of Eagles' we have a 'wall of Raptors' spread out over a span of several kms.

Now you need to understand something called 'radar resolution cell'...

Definition: radar resolution cell

The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.

What we have is a spread of Raptors with very capable radars using very tight beams in LPI mode looking at one or more 'stealth' targets in different aspect angles and the Raptors are communicating with each other over secured channels. The greater the angular differences between these seeking radars looking at a target the greater the diversity of RCS values they will see OF THE SAME TARGET.

Giving the J-20 a 2dB difference to the F-22 is well within statistical generosity where we say the two items are essentially the same. But we are talking about situations where lives are at stakes and the difference of a few meters or a few troops or a few tanks or even a few bullets have made or break many combat situations.

Outside of cyber warfare, it is difficult to think of any arena where technical advantages matters more, in the fight for superiority, than in the air. And it is equally difficult to think of any combat arena where we depends so much on the individuals, whether alone or in concert with each other, to get that supremacy, than in air combat. Combine the two: technical advantages and persistent high quality training to exploit those technical advantages and we have a better than average odds of victory in any potential war.

 

[Chogy]

Getting heavily beaten by a 30 year old fighter in speed, acceleration, and turn performance isn't "acceptable" performance. It's bad performance.

You're missing the point. When you combine F-16 like performance with vastly reduced RCS and high-performance missiles, you do indeed have acceptable performance.

Dogfighting - I hate that term. The objective was to maneuver to an opponents six o'clock, originally to employ a gun, then to employ a stern-aspect missile. The need to do that ended in the late 1970's. Given that there is no longer a need to maneuver to an opponents six o'clock, what IS needed?

You need high instantaneous turn rate, not necessarily a high sustained turn rate. You need HOBs missiles that can pull 60G and is capable of close-range performance and fusing. Helmet-mounted sights. We have all of these. We have offloaded the dogfight into the AIM-9X and other missiles. And these are used only assuming the AIM-120's don't work.

In all of Gulf War 1, there wasn't a single turning fight. No gun kills. And the majority of kills were AIM-7, not AIM-9. People say "Well, that's Iraqi pilots for you" but that's too simplistic.

Will we still practice it? Of course. Kind of like the bayonet. In one encounter in a hundred, you might stick a guy with one.

We are seeing the end of an era. Dogfight: 1914-1985 RIP

 

[Storm Force]

hasnain

in reply to "defensive suit edge"

AGREED this is why india sourced jammers and ECCM for their SU30MKI from israel and not russia.

SMART MOVE

 

[Birbal]

You're missing the point. When you combine F-16 like performance with vastly reduced RCS and high-performance missiles, you do indeed have acceptable performance.

That isn't F-16 like performance. That's downright awful performance.

Dogfighting - I hate that term. The objective was to maneuver to an opponents six o'clock, originally to employ a gun, then to employ a stern-aspect missile. The need to do that ended in the late 1970's. Given that there is no longer a need to maneuver to an opponents six o'clock, what IS needed?

What IS needed is the ability to evade BVR missiles, the ability to disengage from combat. The F-35 might have the former because of its jamming suite and reduced RCS. It certainly doesn't have the latter two. If you can't disengage, then you need the ability to win a WVR fight. Obviously, high off boresight missiles, which everybody will have, help. However, high off boresight missiles aren't a magic aim and shoot weapon. A missile loses lots of energy maneuvering to an off boresight angle. Thus, getting somewhere in the general direction of the opponents six o clock (to give the missile enough time to maneuver), is still a very useful thing.

You need high instantaneous turn rate, not necessarily a high sustained turn rate. You need HOBs missiles that can pull 60G and is capable of close-range performance and fusing. Helmet-mounted sights. We have all of these. We have offloaded the dogfight into the AIM-9X and other missiles. And these are used only assuming the AIM-120's don't work.

As I pointed out, high instantaneous turn rate is misleading. Try turning hard enough with an F-35 to evade multiple missiles and you'll find yourself falling out of the sky.

In all of Gulf War 1, there wasn't a single turning fight. No gun kills. And the majority of kills were AIM-7, not AIM-9. People say "Well, that's Iraqi pilots for you" but that's too simplistic.

Will we still practice it? Of course. Kind of like the bayonet. In one encounter in a hundred, you might stick a guy with one.

We are seeing the end of an era. Dogfight: 1914-1985 RIP

As for the Gulf War, most of the kills were made within visual range. Granted, there wasn't much turning involved, but that isn't surprising given that the Iraqis were usually significantly outnumbered and lacked situational awareness due to not having good ground control or AWACS.

Dogfighting in the idealized sense rarely ever occurred. Most kills during the World Wars were scored by sneaking up on the opponent. This started to change with the introduction of control radar, and we had significant dogfighting during the Vietnam war, but modern day fights won't last for more than a few turns. However, what is needed is the ability to make those few turns as quickly as possible and to retain enough energy to escape. The F-35 doesn't have that ability.