What Makes a Good Fighter?

[Air Marshal]

Speed and Performance countsn the Good Fighter...... :coffee

OPTIONS :

Speed
Logistics
Servicing
Performance
Range and runways
Cost and Availability

 

[Aussie Digger]

What makes a good fighter? Depends. I presume you're referring to nowadays? The Spitfire was the greatest fighter in existence in it's day, but I don't see many nations lining up for it now...

IMHO, the basics for a great fighter include: excellent thrust to weight ratio, large payload capacity, advanced avionics, good RCS, good range performance, an "unstable" aircraft design, good EWSP and advanced weapon systems.

Any fighter however is a compromise between design issues. Each has relative strengths and weaknesses. Fighters such as F-16, F-18 series, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29 are all good highly maneuverable aircraft that can carry reasonable payloads. They are reasonably priced, but have several important limitations.

They are range limited. If you try and increase their range with external fuel tanks, conformal fuel tanks etc, you reduce the aircraft's agility and the payload it can carry.

Aircraft such as F-15, F-22, SU-30 are big aircraft with excellent performance, excellent range and payload capabilities. They are also expensive to acquire and expensive to operate.

It's all a matter of National defence requirements, strategic and political reality and doctrinal and financial issues. There is no fighter that is perfect for every situation and Country...

The best air to air fighter in existence is arguably the F-15 series of fighters. 101 A2A victories and no losses in over 20 years of service is pretty hard to go past...

 

[Alektas]

Now lets see. The most important things for a good fighter:
1. Avionics/Weapons range and capability
2. Acceleration+maneuvrability
3. Speed
4. Range

With these features in mind the SU-37(or SU-30MKI) looks like the best, with strong competition from F-22. IF the F-22 is better than the SU-37 will depend on the practical degree of stealthiness of the F-22. If the SU-37 radar can pick up the F-22 at a long range that would allow effective use of the AMRAAMSKI(over 100km range) rocket, then the F-22 is in a bad position.
On the other hand, if the stealthiness of the F-22 is high enough to allow the F-22 to approach the SU to 50 km or less, then the Super Manuverability of the SU again gives it an edge again. A way to counter the super manuverability is to have a very powerfull proximity fuse rocket, so even if it misses by 50m it would still blow the plane out of the sky.

 

[vrus]

Ok, now lets see.

I would want a very high max. speed. So that you can catch up with a retreating aircraft or escape yourself. Another point, high operating ceiling meaning, you can lift up and leave the enemy low. This would require a high lift generating wings. Most jets these days have a delta wing (LCA, Mirage 2000). They have a large surface area and can create good amounts of lift. Good range. Good thrust to weight ratio. Thrust vectoring (Su-37, F-22, Typhoon). Reasonably good stealth capabilities (F-22). Supersonic cruising (F-22). Good Manuverability (Su-30). Good weapons compatibilty. Mid-air refuelling (obviously!). Advanced avionics. High payload cap. VTOL or very short take-off distance. Good acceleration ---> Low drag ---> New revolutionary technology.

And something unique that other aircraft do not have. Dunno what it could be. but something that would give an advantage. Camouflage ??? ; )

 

[gf0012-aust]

With these features in mind the SU-37(or SU-30MKI) looks like the best, with strong competition from F-22. IF the F-22 is better than the SU-37 will depend on the practical degree of stealthiness of the F-22. If the SU-37 radar can pick up the F-22 at a long range that would allow effective use of the AMRAAMSKI(over 100km range) rocket, then the F-22 is in a bad position.
On the other hand, if the stealthiness of the F-22 is high enough to allow the F-22 to approach the SU to 50 km or less, then the Super Manuverability of the SU again gives it an edge again. A way to counter the super manuverability is to have a very powerfull proximity fuse rocket, so even if it misses by 50m it would still blow the plane out of the sky.

Where do you get this guff? There is no data available on the F-22. There is no comparable airframe to even start baseline comparisons even.

OTOH, the USAF has a wealth of baseline data on the Su-27/30 family.

making claims on intercept capability when no information is made available about the type in the public domain is an exercise in sophistry.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Anyone who thinks there is a fighter aircraft in the world that will match, let alone exceed the F-22 in the next 20 years is simply kidding themselves. Without getting into too much detail, the kinematic performance of the F-22 alone is greater than any other fighter thanks to it's "supercruise" which has been tested at Mach 1.5+ without afterburner for extended periods.


No other fighter can go supersonic for more than a few minutes without using up all it's available fuel. The advantage here at least should be quite obvious to everyone... The F-22 will quickly come upon opposing aircraft and get close enough to them to fire it's weapons before the opposing fighter is even aware of it. If you think an SU-37 can outmaneuver an AMRAAM Alektas, I suggest you think again or do a bit more research on the subject...

In a recent A2A test, a single F-22 defeated 5 F-15C's in a single engagement without the F-15C even being able to tell where the threat was... Name another aircraft that could do that?

 

[rafale_2k5]

Anyone who thinks there is a fighter aircraft in the world that will match, let alone exceed the F-22 in the next 20 years is simply kidding themselves. Without getting into too much detail, the kinematic performance of the F-22 alone is greater than any other fighter thanks to it's "supercruise" which has been tested at Mach 1.5+ without afterburner for extended periods.


No other fighter can go supersonic for more than a few minutes without using up all it's available fuel. The advantage here at least should be quite obvious to everyone... The F-22 will quickly come upon opposing aircraft and get close enough to them to fire it's weapons before the opposing fighter is even aware of it. If you think an SU-37 can outmaneuver an AMRAAM Alektas, I suggest you think again or do a bit more research on the subject...

In a recent A2A test, a single F-22 defeated 5 F-15C's in a single engagement without the F-15C even being able to tell where the threat was... Name another aircraft that could do that?

Couldnt ve sais it better , agree with u on this 1000% , comparn the two is lie coparintwo different generations , wat would the fancy antics of n SU-37 fetch against a 40 g missile !!!!!!!! it would be too little too late, unless Russia could come up with somethin to defeat stealth theres no point arguin , just plain patriotism wont win dog fights.....

 

[hot222]

First of all, I'd like to say that comparing through specs that we are not quite sure about it, it's not fair for any aircraft. These kind of comparison may be are better if we can access at info like mission/combat weights, which i don't think that we can have it.

The best comparison is in the air, during fights, both we equal trainned pilots. Even, let say Iraq had the same aircraft inventory like US, could they beat USAF?

The Su-37 Vs F-22 battle at the papers, is of course anequal cause they are aircraft from different generations. From long distance engagements, F-22 has a great advantage cause it stealthiness and better (?) avionics. In dogfight, seems Su-37 are better. And in the "fog of war" these two aircraft may be come close.

A little about that stealth thing. During GW1, F-117s were 100% undetected. But in Kosovo war, one went down by enemy fire. And I don't believe Serbia had the most sofisticated radar to do that.

At the end, the thing that make a fighter good, is that it fits 100% to what designed for.

 

[doggychow14]

A little about that stealth thing. During GW1, F-117s were 100% undetected. But in Kosovo war, one went down by enemy fire. And I don't believe Serbia had the most sofisticated radar to do that.

Well stealth aircraft were never really designed to be totally invisible from radar. They are only undetectable at long ranges, thus the reason for b-2s during the iraqi war to fly around radar nets. Whan a stealth bomber/fighter flies right over a radar, the chances are it's been detected.

 

[gf0012-aust]

First of all, I'd like to say that comparing through specs that we are not quite sure about it, it's not fair for any aircraft. These kind of comparison may be are better if we can access at info like mission/combat weights, which i don't think that we can have it.

those that have it aren't going to stick it in the public domain.

The Su-37 Vs F-22 battle at the papers, is of course anequal cause they are aircraft from different generations. From long distance engagements, F-22 has a great advantage cause it stealthiness and better (?) avionics. In dogfight, seems Su-37 are better. And in the "fog of war" these two aircraft may be come close.

actually the F-22 is almost a 25 year old design. It was started during the halcyon days of the cold war. As it was, the Soviet Union collapsed and the priority for the aircraft was reduced considerably.

A little about that stealth thing. During GW1, F-117s were 100% undetected. But in Kosovo war, one went down by enemy fire. And I don't believe Serbia had the most sofisticated radar to do that.

How many times do we have to repeat this? (rhetorical question)

This was not a case where the Serbs had some capability to compromise stealth:

French Major Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted for treason in Bosnia for providing targetting data and flight information to the Serbs.

"A special military court in Paris heard that he revealed details of Nato's bombing plans just before its military campaign got under way in Kosovo. Bunel, who was attached to Nato in Brussels at the time, admitted passing on information, but denied the treason charges, saying he was acting under the orders of French intelligence services."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1706341.stm


and before I sound like a broken record:


1) the aircraft had flown the same flight path 4 missions in a row - a complete planning and tactical failure on the pilot due to complacency
2) Major Brunel gave the Serbs flight path information of likely stealth ingress
3) The serbs were able to set up a box kill once they established the ingress pattern


An example of good lateral thinking on the serbs part - but not a demonstration of technical detection prowess.

The continuing urban myth that the Serbs ID'd the target cold and made the shot is absolute nonsense.

There are also post conflict records that show that the Serbs expended over 2000 individual bits of weaponry at the thing. That also supports the notion that there was a lack of accurate targetting information and an attempt to saturate the ingress route.


At least get it right if events are to be presented as supporting evidence of capability.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Actually I think the F-22 would probably surprise any other fighter if it came down to dog fight too. It is equipped with thrust vectoring nozzle engines, has a greater thrust to weight ratio than any other fighter, has a "clean" configuration meaning it's drag is minimised when all stores are carried internally and is an unstable 9G rated airframe.

There's a very good reason that the F-22 is the most expensive fighter ever built, because every single capability built into the aircraft is pushing the technological envelope as far as possible at present... Something that no-one else is attempting yet.

 

[aaaditya]

now theyve made a good fighter

This seems interesting

Sun 19 Jun 2005

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.

:coffee

 

[gf0012-aust]

now theyve made a good fighter

This seems interesting

:coffee

as usual it's an article that doesn't detail the whole incident and doesn't portray it truthfully.

Rather than me go and repeat everything that's been said in the past about this, go to the Fighter Forums on EZBOARD for a bit more detail.

 

[AlexSWE]

I would say that the fighter that gets hold of the information first will be the winner, in other words, radars, datalinks, radios etc is the most important kit (besides weapons) on a winning fighter. Speed and manuvrebility is not vitel qualitys as if you have the best information you will get the first shot off, with good weapons, you will get a kill before the enemy even notice you.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I would say that the fighter that gets hold of the information first will be the winner, in other words, radars, datalinks, radios etc is the most important kit (besides weapons) on a winning fighter. Speed and manuvrebility is not vitel qualitys as if you have the best information you will get the first shot off, with good weapons, you will get a kill before the enemy even notice you.

Electronics and precision is king - and that has to be part of a system. the importance of "Biggles" and those days are well and truly over.

 

[knightrider4]

If that is the case GF does that mean that the JSF is indeed the correct choice for Australia, taking into consideration Houston talking about the JSF being a system of systems within the ADF-AD?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If that is the case GF does that mean that the JSF is indeed the correct choice for Australia, taking into consideration Houston talking about the JSF being a system of systems within the ADF-AD?

At the risk of appearing contrarian, I'm not a fan of having all our air combat assets based just on the JSF.

I'm far more comfortable with having a mixed fleet of different types, even though logistically it makes more sense to stick with one.

If we have a minimum of 2 platforms in the fixed wing combat area, then I think we then have the following advantages:

1) leverage of platform prices
2) an easier way to stage in future aircraft on issues of block obsolesence
3) possible flexibility of mission options.

If we go to "pretend aircraft carriers" then we only have two options. JSF-B or Rafale M. If they are only going to be ramped, then the Rafale M's are automatically out of consideration. Bearing that in mind, I'm not that keen on the Rafale for various reasons. That means that for CTOL we could have "multiple choice". V/STOL narrows it down further.

Personally I'm more inclined to look at SuperHornets to replace the F-111's and then JSF or Eurofighters to replace the Bugs. That would enable us to stage introduction rather than be caught short sheeted with a block Bug replacement problem. I can't see the JSF being delivered in the current projected time frame.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think HOUSTON was referring to a system including AWACS, UAV's, fighters, GBAD's, etc, rather than individual systems on the JSF itself. The JSF IS going to be chosen, provided the current Government remains in power for it's next term, I can feel it.

I think it's the wrong decision. The JSF is just being designed as too limited for a sole platform. It's probably fine if all you're going to do is loiter over an Iraq style battlefield and strike targets on the ground, but if you want to do anything else, it's limitations start to become apparent...

At best, it should only be part of the RAAF's fighter force...

 

[knightrider4]

If it's true that the present goverment intends to purchase the JSF in phases, the first phase being around 20-30 aircraft in the 2012 time frame as replacements for the F-111 could it be at all possible that there may indeed be a purchase of F-22's in the latter phases?

 

[gf0012-aust]

If it's true that the present goverment intends to purchase the JSF in phases, the first phase being around 20-30 aircraft in the 2012 time frame as replacements for the F-111 could it be at all possible that there may indeed be a purchase of F-22's in the latter phases?

Armitage made a speech last year in front of DefMin where he indicated that if Aust asked for F-22's then he could not see any reason why we would not get them. He made a point of underlining that as we were regarded as long term reliable allies, then the US would do anything that was in our interest to ensure we got military equipment that we deemed was necessary to protect our interests. That reinforces the view of some in ADF that we have access to the capability sooner than anyone else outside of the UK/Aust alliance.

However, at this point in time, although we could probably afford a short squadron, I do not see any tactical advantage at this point in time in acquriing an aircraft that is not really necessary for strategic benefit or leverage.


In 20 years time, then who knows? Block 60's etc may well be on the menu.