Military Plane discussion thread - Let’s talk Fighter/Attacker planes.

[Cedric_Eff]

How the hell is a plane like this aerodynamic and can withstand Mach 2?

 

[TiggerNits]

How the hell is a plane like this aerodynamic and can withstand Mach 2?

Same as the F-104. Tiny wings that are heavily reinforced through a heavy duty spar and a fuselage built around feeding the turbine so much air so quickly that it has to go fast

 

[Cedric_Eff]

Same as the F-104. Tiny wings that are heavily reinforced through a heavy duty spar and a fuselage built around feeding the turbine so much air so quickly that it has to go fast

We all can agree that the MiG-29 sucks right? I mean once you’re in a dive with those things, you’re gonna end up as a pancake on the ground with those things. I mean back during the Persian Gulf War, a MiG-29 fought an F-15 and dove to out maneuver the F-15 but the plane didn’t pitch up fast enough to escape the dive and just slammed into the ground.

 

[ZooSmell]

How the hell is a plane like this aerodynamic and can withstand Mach 2?

You see comrade, you must put all your faith in superior Soviet aero engineering. Use cheapest materials possible to make jet as fast as possible and shoot down Western dogs.

 

[TiggerNits]

We all can agree that the MiG-29 sucks right? I mean once you’re in a dive with those things, you’re gonna end up as a pancake on the ground with those things. I mean back during the Persian Gulf War, a MiG-29 fought an F-15 and dove to out maneuver the F-15 but the plane didn’t pitch up fast enough to escape the dive and just slammed into the ground.

The 29 is great for a low cost, high speed fighter. Problem is the average 29 pilot lacks the training needed to utilize their plane right. The legacy hornet handles surprisingly similar to the 29, just slower with better avionics and vastly superior ergonomics. Plenty of Hornet guys have killed plenty of F15s and 16s at Red Flag and elsewhere. Dogfighting is all about playing your hand in such a way that the other guy can't use his advantages.

 

[Spunt]

Yeah remember that the incredible combat record of the F-15 (never shot down by a hostile aircraft, over 200 air to air kills) was achieved by US and Israeli pilots. The MiG-29's dismal record was achieved by assorted Pakistanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Serbs whose training consisted of 3 hours in Microsoft Flight Simulator for Windows 3.1 and a photocopy of the first 2 chapters of the manual, in Russian.

The F-15 and F-16 are undoubtedly superior but not by as much as the statistics would suggest, especially when you compare the relative purchase and maintenance costs.

 

[TiggerNits]

Yeah remember that the incredible combat record of the F-15 (never shot down by a hostile aircraft, over 200 air to air kills) was achieved by US and Israeli pilots. The MiG-29's dismal record was achieved by assorted Pakistanis, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans and Serbs whose training consisted of 3 hours in Microsoft Flight Simulator for Windows 3.1 and a photocopy of the first 2 chapters of the manual, in Russian.

The F-15 and F-16 are undoubtedly superior but not by as much as the statistics would suggest, especially when you compare the relative purchase and maintenance costs.

Saudi's have the highest successful kill count with the 15. But they are all trained by US pilots and supposedly by some IAF guys as well but that's just conjecture, really.

But the F15 is almost infinitely superior to almost every airplane outside of the F22 and Eurofighter. Between the avionics, radar, weapons and insane amount of on demand power thanks to their over sized engines.

The only plane that ever did well against it in a head to head engagement from 30+ miles out was the Tomcat, and then when it got closer it was a coin flip until the turning fight started and the 15 was almost always the winner. The the thrust to weight ratio and fly by wire controls were just too much for the heavier, lower tech cat to overcome.

The 16 otoh is more evenly matched in the newer models as it's gotten heavier and less maneuverable. It used to be the best turning fighter bar none over 320 kts and extremely dangerous under it since it could regain speed so quickly. It has become significantly more dangerous at distance though thanks to the b and c AMRAAMs and the upgraded datalink and radar.

 

[The Un-Clit]

Saudi's have the highest successful kill count with the 15. But they are all trained by US pilots and supposedly by some IAF guys as well but that's just conjecture, really.

But the F15 is almost infinitely superior to almost every airplane outside of the F22 and Eurofighter. Between the avionics, radar, weapons and insane amount of on demand power thanks to their over sized engines.

The only plane that ever did well against it in a head to head engagement from 30+ miles out was the Tomcat, and then when it got closer it was a coin flip until the turning fight started and the 15 was almost always the winner. The the thrust to weight ratio and fly by wire controls were just too much for the heavier, lower tech cat to overcome.

The 16 otoh is more evenly matched in the newer models as it's gotten heavier and less maneuverable. It used to be the best turning fighter bar none over 320 kts and extremely dangerous under it since it could regain speed so quickly. It has become significantly more dangerous at distance though thanks to the b and c AMRAAMs and the upgraded datalink and radar.

If only the proposed 'Super Tomcat' midlife revision had come to be, there'd be almost no need or desire for the F-35 Boondoggle in any of the US forces or the rest of the world's potential buyers, the few that remain anyway. That thing was going to be fucking unreal. I don't have the proposed stats handy, I gotta dig that back up but that plane was going to be THE naval fighter of the 2000s.

 

[TiggerNits]

The F35 is fine. It's just the victim of really bad journalism, terrible Senate hearings and internet/armchair fighter jocks. I know about 5 guys now who currently fly them, 2 A, 2 B and a guy with time in the C. All of them love it compared to their previous rides. Both guys in the A were viper drivers and say it is much deadlier at distance and scarier in a knife fight due to the 9x and the JHMCS.
The C guy was a hornet and rhino guy who says so far the C is a vastly superior low strike platform though it lacks some utility the rhino has, so it should be a good augment to the fleet's strike capability.

The B is well liked for not being the harrier as well as being able to actually be useful for anything outside of CAS and adjust range interdiction. Not to mention it can survive contact with SAMs now, which alone makes it worth putting on the LHA/Ds.

I've yet to talk to a pilot with time in the 35 who thinks it's not worth having. Which says something because i know a good few tomcat guys who fucking despised the rhino when they got assigned to the RAG and Im mountain biking buddies with a retired F4 guy who hated flying the Tomcat.

 

[The_wandering_nibler]

The 29 is great for a low cost, high speed fighter. Problem is the average 29 pilot lacks the training needed to utilize their plane right. The legacy hornet handles surprisingly similar to the 29, just slower with better avionics and vastly superior ergonomics. Plenty of Hornet guys have killed plenty of F15s and 16s at Red Flag and elsewhere. Dogfighting is all about playing your hand in such a way that the other guy can't use his advantages.

Also shitty maintance of equipment. A lot of the nations that bought them either didn't care for it or couldn't afford it. Apparently especially radars and obviously engines can suffer.

But I stil gotta say that the F-16 is a better and more cost effective plane than the Mig 29 even though the later is more recent. Really the F16 is like the T34 of planes or something. The degree of interoperability and ease of adaption it seems to have had through its generations is amazing. I don't, maybe they spend a lot to make it work but I haven't heard about any scandals of upgrading them ever. Except in dogfighting, the Russians win due to their head mounted tracking cameras and Mig 29s are slightly better at manouvering.

Training as you say though really is the main difference. It's a shame for the Russians what kind of reputation their equipment got from being used by the Arabs so much.
It's kinda leveling out now with the western equipment in the hands of Saudi Arabia though.

 

[TiggerNits]

Also shitty maintance of equipment. A lot of the nations that bought them either didn't care for it or couldn't afford it. Apparently especially radars and obviously engines can suffer.

But I stil gotta say that the F-16 is a better and more cost effective plane than the Mig 29 even though the later is more recent. Really the F16 is like the T34 of planes or something. The degree of interoperability and ease of adaption it seems to have had through its generations is amazing. I don't, maybe they spend a lot to make it work but I haven't heard about any scandals of upgrading them ever. Except in dogfighting, the Russians win due to their head mounted tracking cameras and Mig 29s are slightly better at manouvering.

Training as you say though really is the main difference. It's a shame for the Russians what kind of reputation their equipment got from being used by the Arabs so much.
It's kinda leveling out now with the western equipment in the hands of Saudi Arabia though.

Depends? The Saudis are great with some of their stuff/ F-15s, 16s and Abrams seem to do great in their hands. But their Apache pilots won't stop flying them like they're WW2 fighters doing strafing runs instead of proper low-orbit gunships. Jordan's another Arab country that utilizes their Western equipment extremely well and have proven competent fighters with it.

Turkey, on the other hand is a shit show, but they still managed to force down a Flanker with an F-4 a few years back.

 

[Spunt]

Also remember that Russia/The USSR tended not to equip their export aircraft as well as their own. I can't remember whether the MiG-29 had a downgraded export variant, but the MiG-23 certainly did, and its barely-functional avionics and ECM was one of the reasons it got torn apart by other aircraft and SAMs every time it got into any kind of fight. The Iraqis got so fed up with their deliberately-downgraded equipment that they would jury-rig their own upgrades, making their MiG-23s just about able to go toe-to-toe with Iranian F4s a generation older and lacking spare parts. Iran's Tomcats still ate them for breakfast until they ran out of Phoenixes though.

Even if the aircraft itself was not downgraded, the weapons systems certainly were. Most export MiG-29s came with Aphid missiles that were already obsolete at the time of sale and had a habit of locking on to the sun rather than jet exhaust. The Soviets kept the best missiles (the later AA-10 models and the AA-11/12s) to themselves for the most part.

 

[TiggerNits]

One of the best things you can read if you're in to hilariously bad Russian fighter design are some of the papers in the Mitroikin archives that describe how much pilots hated the MiG-23/27 and the Su-15. A lot of people don't get that the 23 wasn't at all like the F-14/F-111/Tornado. Those wings were 100 manual and powered by hydraulics that were 100% pressurized by the turbine and had no electrical backup. So if you had an engine failure, hopefully your wings were full forward or your glide ratio was 1rash. And changing the sweep in the wrong phase of flight or speed was a death sentence. The US lost the sole 23 it had for a bit when a USAF general officer with thousands upon thousands of hours under his belt fucked up the sweep while tooling around over Nevada and forgetting to move the wings as he was losing airspeed in a turn. Plane went in to a spin, he failed to eject and the Air Force lost a lot in a single crater somewhere in the desert.

The 23 was a serious disappointment to the Soviets and a big reason why the MiG-29 and Su-27 were both ordered so quickly to full production after they were able to get a few 23 pilots to sign off on them, because they knew the 23 was completely outmatched by the current US fighter of choice. No, not the F-15 or 16. The Phantom. The 23 was so impossible to control at certain speeds you weren't supposed to take turns over 90 degrees in it UNDER ~480kts because you could lose speed so fast that you could lawn dart the aircraft before the wings could realistically get to the correct sweep to maintain lift

 

[Mister Qwerty]

One of the best things you can read if you're in to hilariously bad Russian fighter design are some of the papers in the Mitroikin archives that describe how much pilots hated the MiG-23/27 and the Su-15.

Su-15? Did you mean the Su-17 (also known as the Su-20/Su-22)? I thought Poland prefer it to the MIG-29 and F-16 as it's easier to maintain and repair.

 

[Uranus Pink]

The only Murrican bomber that comes close is the XB-70. Not put into production. Very sad!
View attachment 840056

Would have been perfect replacement for the B-52 provided the Valkyrie is doing same missions albeit at higher sub-sonic speed and altitude if need be.

Given how many U.S. military aircraft been damage or destroyed via foreign object debris ingestion aka birds over th decades. XB-70 gotten a bad rep for eating a fighter instead of a pigeon.

 

[TiggerNits]

Su-15? Did you mean the Su-17 (also known as the Su-20/Su-22)? I thought Poland prefer it to the MIG-29 and F-16 as it's easier to maintain and repair.

The Su15 wasn't exported for fear of falling in to American hands. They knew it was a terrible intercepter and feared that the US learning that the most numerous bomber killer was a paper tiger would lead to American aggression. It was wildy unreliable, had terrible flight characteristics, couldn't fly for long at any real speed or altitude and the onboard radar was terrible. The MiG25 was ordered to help bolster the defensive capabilities, but when Belenko defected we learned the 25 was an absolute shit heap as well

 

[Spunt]

The 23 was a serious disappointment to the Soviets and a big reason why the MiG-29 and Su-27 were both ordered so quickly to full production after they were able to get a few 23 pilots to sign off on them, because they knew the 23 was completely outmatched by the current US fighter of choice. No, not the F-15 or 16. The Phantom. The 23 was so impossible to control at certain speeds you weren't supposed to take turns over 90 degrees in it UNDER ~480kts because you could lose speed so fast that you could lawn dart the aircraft before the wings could realistically get to the correct sweep to maintain lift

So naturally they made a ground-attack version (the MiG-27) because when do you ever need to go slowly or make tight turns when tank-busting, right?

Su-15? Did you mean the Su-17 (also known as the Su-20/Su-22)? I thought Poland prefer it to the MIG-29 and F-16 as it's easier to maintain and repair.

The Su-17 was an OK bombtruck if it didn't come up against any serious opposition. At least it was reasonably flyable compared to a MiG-23 and the dismal Su-7 that it replaced. The export versions (Su-20 and Su-22) were super-downgraded, but they were cheap as hell and if you're a third-world dictatador who wants something loud and intimidating to drop chemical weapons on civilians they're as good as anything else.

 

[mr.moon1488]

Japan might be getting aircraft carriers, but it sounds like they're wanting them for the F-35, since it's VTOL, and the carriers they're thinking of buying are VTOL only.

Here's How Japan Could Get Real Aircraft Carriers

Spoiler: Article

Pair some helicopter carriers with F-35s.

by David Axe Follow @daxe on TwitterL



"For 30 years or more the U.K. and U.S., using AV-8Bs and Sea Harriers, have delivered significant operational effect from similar platforms," wrote Steve George, a former Royal Navy engineering officer.
The British company that built the Royal Navy’s two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers wants to help Japan modify some of its own ships into carriers.
The Japanese government in November 2018 announced that it plans to enhance its two Izumo-class helicopter carriers in order to support F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters.

The announcement followed years of speculation that began even before Izumocommissioned into service in 2015.
“Since we are equipped with such vessels, it is desirable that we will use them for various purposes,” Japanese defense minister Takeshi Iwaya told reporters. “We would like to advance our research and studies on this.”

(This first appeared in June 2019.)
BAE Systems wants to do the work, Natasha Pheiffer, the company’s managing director in Asia, told Flight Global. “She feels that BAE is well placed to assist Tokyo with the integration of fixed-wing fighters aboard the two ships owing to its work on the U.K.’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, which will also operate the F-35B,” Flight Global noted.

Tokyo plans to order another 100 F-35s to supplement the 42 stealth fighters it originally ordered in 2011. The first batch of Japanese F-35s are all A-models that require conventional runways. The new batch presumably would include some vertically-landing F-35B models for shipboard use.
Transforming the two helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers won't be easy. The Izumo-class vessels are small for aviation ships. More vexingly, Japan hasn't operated fixed-wing aircraft from ships since World War II, and will need to train pilots, staff and maintainers for the unique challenges of carrier operations.

But other countries have succeeded in operating fixed-wing planes from small aviation ships. Most notably, Italy. Australians are debating whether to modify their own small aviation vessels to carry F-35s.
Japan's post-war constitution forbids offensive military operations. For decades, the country's leaders have interpreted the prohibition to mean the Japanese navy legally could not possess aircraft carriers.

The Japanese fleet sidestepped the carrier-ban by acquiring what it called "helicopter destroyers" -- that is, surface warships with hangars and unusually large flight decks.
The Izumo class stretched the credibility of the "helicopter destroyer" moniker. The type lacks major weaponry. Its flight deck extends from stem to stern. It's a carrier in everything but name. In practice, Izumo and sister ship Kaga, which commissioned in 2017, only have embarked helicopters.

Each 814 feet long and displacing 27,000 tons of water while fully loaded, Izumo and Kaga are small for carriers. The U.S. Navy's supercarriers each are a thousand feet long and displace more than 100,000 tons. The Americans' amphibious assault ships -- which support helicopters, AV-8B Harrier jump jets and F-35s -- are around 850 feet long and displace 41,000 tons.
But the Japanese ships aren't the smallest aviation ships. The dubious honor belongs to Thailand's Chakri Naruebet, which is just 600 feet long and displaces 11,500 tons but still managed to operate a handful of first-generation Harriers until the aging planes finally went into storage in 2006.

In size and function, the Izumos most likely will match Italy's flagship Cavour, an 800-feet-long amphibious assault ship that displaces 30,000 tons while fully loaded. Cavour typically embarks five Harriers alongside helicopters. Italy is buying new F-35Bs to replace its 16 Harriers.
Lockheed Martin designed the F-35B to match the deck "footprint" of the Harrier. While an F-35 occupies the amount of deck space that a Harrier does, the stealth fighter requires more intensive maintenance -- and its engine exhaust is much hotter than the Harrier's is, requiring the launching ship to have a special, heat-resistant deck coating.

Recoating the Izumos' decks is a straightforward procedure. Potentially more difficult is reorganizing the ships' internal spaces to accommodate the crew, parts, fuel and weapons an F-35 detachment requires. That’s the kind of work BAE Systems presumably would take on if Japan were to hire it for the Izumo conversions.
The modifications certainly are feasible, according to one Australian expert who studied the possibility of upgrading the Australian navy's Canberra-class assault ships in order to embark F-35s. A Canberra is 760 feet long and displaces 30,000 tons, making it roughly the same size as an Izumo.

"For 30 years or more the U.K. and U.S., using AV-8Bs and Sea Harriers, have delivered significant operational effect from similar platforms," wrote Steve George, a former Royal Navy engineering officer.
"In my experience, the key challenge in delivering a viable maritime aviation capability wouldn’t be the equipment, but in re-generating the required naval-aviation expertise," George added.

Fortunately for Japan, its navy enjoys a strong alliance with the U.S. Navy. As Tokyo begins preparing the Izumos for F-35s, the Japanese fleet, in theory, could send pilots, staff and crew to train alongside their American counterparts who are already operating F-35s from ships.

David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.
Image: Wikimedia

Link: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/heres-how-japan-could-get-real-aircraft-carriers-66692
Archive: http://archive.is/L8U6Y

 

[TiggerNits]

So naturally they made a ground-attack version (the MiG-27) because when do you ever need to go slowly or make tight turns when tank-busting, right?

The 27 was made a little better by doctrine and a few small changes to the airflow around the fuselage iirc. And even then it was just a way to try and recoup costs on the 23. I think they only converted a few to the 27 instead of the 23K

 

[Mister Qwerty]

Saab Draken and Viggen