# Your top 10 modern fighters



## Chris_G (Jan 4, 2006)

Saw something similar to this on Discovery wings, so what do you guys think?

1- F 22 Raptor
2- Eurofighter Typhoon
3- Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
4- F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
5- F-15 Eagle
6- Saab Gripen
7- Dassault Rafale
8- Mig-29 Fulcrum
9- F-16 Falcon
10- Mirage 2000


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 4, 2006)

I know its just gone out of service...but no F-14!?

And is the Saab Gripen really that good? Ive never really done any research on the Swedes and their planes.


----------



## Chris_G (Jan 4, 2006)

Well it was just my opinion and no doubt its a great airshow plane and very photogenic. Just in my opinion everything does not revolve around American stuff, yes they have got some great kit, but the Tomcat is past it's prime.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 4, 2006)

> but the Tomcat is past it's prime.


In the eyes of the US State Dept, yea, but in the eyes of the F-15 and F-16 pilots that lost in mock-dogfights to the F-14, I'm sure they'll tell u differently...


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2006)

Using the list that Chris gave as the basis I have made some changes and tried to give the thinking behind the changes. Its thin in places I admit but the decisions are close as so many of them are new. 

1- F 22 Raptor 
2- Eurofighter Typhoon 
3- F-15 Eagle 
4- F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
5-Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker 
6- Saab Gripen 
7- Dassault Rafale 
8- F-16 Falcon 
9- Mig-29 Fulcrum 
10- Mirage 2000

A very similar list. I moved the F15 up two as it has exceptional electronics an area where I believe the Russians are behind and are likely to stay that way for a while. This is also why I moved the Su27 down two places.
The F18 I moved above the Su27 because of its electronics but I don't believe it has the performace of the F15.
F16 and Mig 29 I switched for similar reasons. Also I believe that the F16 is better placed to improve and take on extra sensors and weapons.

To those who wonder about the Grippen, I believe it to be that good. All the displays that I have seen of this have really impressed and to a fairly large degree the plane has had inputs from companies which are well respected in their fields. I feel this ability to have input from other countries such as the wings from Bae, gives it the edge over the Rafael which is purely French. I have no evidence for this it must be said, but it seems logical and overseas sales seem to prefer the Grippen.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 4, 2006)

Interesting list Glider, still no F-14 I see.

Mine would be as follows:

1: F-22 Raptor
2: Eurofighter Typhoon
3: F-15 Eagle
4: F/A-18 Super Hornet
5: F-14 Tomcat (although now out of operational service in the USA it is still a very good fighter and more than a match for anything around)
6: Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
7: F-16 Falcon
8: Saab Grippen
9: Mig-29 Fulcrum
10: Dassalt Rafale


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2006)

Only left out the F14 as it is no longer in service. If it had been updated as per the F15 I would have it above the F18.
I think it was FJ that implied that everyone wanted to fly the F14, but no one wanted to maintain it.

Apologies to FJ if I got that wrong


----------



## Eagle_Giuli (Jan 4, 2006)

Here's mine:

1- Lockheed F-22A Raptor -US-
2- Eurofighter EF-2000 Raptor -Europe-
3- Sukhoi Su-30MK Super Flanker -Russia-
4- Boeing F-15C/E Eagle/Strike Eagle -US-
5- Boeing FA-18E Super Hornet -US-
6- Dassault Rafale -France-
7- Lockheed F-16E Desert Falcon (Block 60) -US-
8- Chengdu J-10 -Chine-
9- Saab JAS-39 Gripen -Sweeden- 
10- Dassault Mirage 2000-5 -France-


----------



## R988 (Jan 4, 2006)

F 22 Raptor - no contest 
Eurofighter Typhoon - easy second
Sukhoi Su-30MK (or Su-35 if you count it) - on current models the radar is at least equal to an F-15 and the Russian missiles are superior and can be fired from a greater distance, gave over for F-15.
F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet - I'm skeptical but lots of people seem rate it, so I'll give it a go on reputation until I'm informed otherwise since I haven't bothered finding out much about it.
Dassault Rafale - Better than most think, but French insistence on independance means they are limited to their own tech, that, while not bad, is not in the same leage as the big boys, same goes for Gripen.
F-15 Eagle - Former champion and past its prime, it doesnt have any missiles that can shoot from a long enough distance though which lets it down, as does lack of stealth features which exaserbates the situation.
Saab Gripen - Overrated IMHO, not much better than an upgraded current model F-16, if you include value for money the F-16 kills it. Only will be bought by those who dont trust the US and dont want to rely on the Russians/chinese.
F-16 - Old but they keep upgrading it with latest kit, good value for money now.
Mig-29 Fulcrum - Upgraded models fixed most of the short comings like poor range and upgraded the electronics (which are usually customer fit anyway) still an old design now, good in close but not so good at long range.
Mirage 2000 - Nice allrounder, but isn't really on the same level of capability as the rest, a generation behind now.

Could also include the F/A-18C here instead of Mirage 2000, also MiG31 though its more pure interceptor than multirole fighter. F-35 will probably be number 3 when/if it comes into service.


BTW Iran still used the F-14A so you could include it on that basis


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 5, 2006)

can we count planes like the Su-47?? prototypes baisically?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 5, 2006)

NO!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

Well heres mine:

1- F-22 Raptor 
2- Eurofighter Typhoon 
3- Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker 
4- F-14 Tomcat
5- F-15 Eagle
6- Mig-29 Fulcrum
7- F-16 Falcon 
8- F/A-18E Super Hornet
9- Saab Grippen
10- Mirage 2000


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 5, 2006)

Nice list Adler but you put in the MiG-29 twice


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 5, 2006)

Oops gonna have to fix that.


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> > but the Tomcat is past it's prime.
> 
> 
> In the eyes of the US State Dept, yea, but in the eyes of the F-15 and F-16 pilots that lost in mock-dogfights to the F-14, I'm sure they'll tell u differently...



Absolutely.


----------



## LTARaptr (Jan 30, 2006)

Well now the Tomcat made it's case, I don't believe I saw the " JSF " on anyones list. Is it because it's primary mission is ground support?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Maybe because the JSF is not in service yet, so it can not be the best fighter yet.


----------



## krupp (Feb 4, 2006)

What`s about J-10A?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

The J-10 to me is a stolen design. It is too much like the Eurofighter in every aspect. We can not compare it though until they start mass producing it. It might be a decent aircraft but I dont think it will compare to the F-22 which is clearly going to be the best thing in the skies for some time to come.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

wow, to be honest this's the first i've ever heard of this aircraft!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Looks strikingly like a Eurofighter does it not?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

from that side shot i'd say it looks more like the F-16.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

How about this then. Another J-10 pic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 4, 2006)

It looks good - I wonder how it will stack up against a EP-3!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 4, 2006)

Yes it does look good but I don't think it would be a match for the F-22 and the Eurofighter because of their superior avionics...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

> 1- F 22 Raptor



Too new to rate



> 2- Eurofighter Typhoon



Too new to rate



> 3- F-15 Eagle



Either this or the F16 should be rated the best jet fighter since the end of the Arab-Israeli wars



> 4- F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet



A goof but definatley not a great jet. Too many compromises to make it a multi-role carrier jet.



> 5-Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker



Probably the best Russian Jet



> 6- Saab Gripen



Youre joking right?



> 7- Dassault Rafale



Youre joking right?



> 8- F-16 Falcon



See my comment about the F15



> 9- Mig-29 Fulcrum



I would say its past its prime in the 80's/90's



> 10- Mirage 2000



Youre joking right?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

Someone's got all uptight. That time of month, syscom?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2006)

No. I just dont think you can rate any jet thats brand new and say its "the best".


----------



## plan_D (Feb 4, 2006)

That may be so. But I was actually thinking more a long the lines of the other comments. In any case, I was only joking around. 

I personally think the updated F-15Cs are the best. Since their avionics are superior to any other aircraft except the Typhoon and F-22. And the F-15 airframe is proven.


----------



## krupp (Feb 7, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The J-10 to me is a stolen design. It is too much like the Eurofighter in every aspect. We can not compare it though until they start mass producing it. It might be a decent aircraft but I dont think it will compare to the F-22 which is clearly going to be the best thing in the skies for some time to come.


Whatever you said. Infact, the J-10 is not you think,or our, or anyone.
But, this design is great breakthrough for my country. It`s honor.
We don`t follow russian`s outmoded design.
 My English is not good enough.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 7, 2006)

Your English is fine. Obviously it could be improved, and hopefully will get better while conversing with the English speakers on here. As we always say: Your English is better than my Chinese.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 8, 2006)

Mine is going to be a _bit_ biased, but then thats the way I am.

1. F14 
(the F15 may have lost the long range missile contest, but not the F14; ya gotta love the Phoenix missil)
2. F4 II/F15 
(couldn't decide which would be better with the same avionics, etc.)
3. F104 
(As far as pure speed goes, this fighter can take all enemies on)
4. BAe Sea Harrier FRS Mk 2
(good carrier plane, especially with the VTOL)
5. MiG 25P
(A good, but old, high speed interceptor)
6. Tornado ADV
(Older plane, other wise it might be higher up, otherwise a good plane.)
7. F-5E
(A good plane for a good price)
8,9,10: can't think of any, except the Fi 103    , even if it is a bit old it can still knock a bomber out of the sky, or blow up a bridge or something.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

MacArther said:


> Mine is going to be a _bit_ biased, but then thats the way I am.





> 1. F14
> (the F15 may have lost the long range missile contest, but not the F14; ya gotta love the Phoenix missil)......



The F14 was more an interceptor than a dogfighter. The F14A/B/C all had a poor performing engine as compared to any model of the F15. The F14 also had a two man cockpit which added complexity, cost and weight penalties compared to the F15. Id take the F14 for fleet defense any day, but the F15 was the better of the two for land based fighters.



> 2. F4 II/F15
> (couldn't decide which would be better with the same avionics, etc.)



The F4 was a 60's era fighter that was good in its day, but in no way compares to the F15. The performance of the F100 engines alone put the F15 into a whole different class. And even the avionics of the F15 were superior to the F4.



> 3. F104
> (As far as pure speed goes, this fighter can take all enemies on)



I have to admit the Brits in this forum did make a convincing argument that the Lightning was the superior interceptor of its day. (60's and 70's)



> 4. BAe Sea Harrier FRS Mk 2
> (good carrier plane, especially with the VTOL)



I the suppose the Harrier is better than nothing. Its a good specialized aircraft, but not hardly something to mention a "top ten" award.



> 5. MiG 25P
> (A good, but old, high speed interceptor)



I dont think the Mig 25 ever proved it was worthy of anything. just because its fast doesnt mean its good.



> 6. Tornado ADV
> (Older plane, other wise it might be higher up, otherwise a good plane.)



Thats actually a good pick. 



> 7. F-5E
> (A good plane for a good price)



Another good pick.


----------



## Glider (Feb 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How about this then. Another J-10 pic.


Stolen design or not, there is no doubt it will be a significant advance on anything else that China has produced.
It will be interesting to see if there production techniques are able to build them in serious numbers.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

F-5 was a great aircraft - Although we hear about the Mig-25's potential, it combat record showed it couldn't fly its way out of the junk yard, as a matter of fact I posted earlier, F-5s have shot down Mig-25s!!!


----------



## plan_D (Feb 9, 2006)

Let's be honest for a moment here, syscom ... it was just me that proved the Lightning to be _the_ interceptor of the 60s and 70s. 

Because of the fact that the Lightning was a breakthrough in aeronautical design, and supersonic flight it deserves a place in the Top Ten of all-time great fighters. But this thread is about modern fighters ...and I hardly consider the Lightning modern, since it's development began in 1947.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2006)

Since the Starfighter was mentioned, I had to admit that the fighter that was its peer, the Lighting was a better aircraft.

Further, since you proved that its performance margin was so good, all it needed was avionics upgrades over the years to stay competitive.

Now if you want to say the Lightning wasnt so good, Id be happy to not argue that fact.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 10, 2006)

I'll never say the Lightning wasn't good, even as a joke. If you ever need a hand in arguing for the Lightning, I'll be willing to lend a hand. Mentioning avionics, remember one of the reasons the Lightning was so fast to target was because it was basic. 

What the Lightning really needed, and which was propsed by EE, was a lighter airframe, stronger under-carriage, more efficient (and powerful) engines and a better weapons package (AIM-9 was put forward). 

Also, maybe a bit longer for increase fuel capacity in the ventral tank ... 

The Lightning proved it could be used in ground strike as well as interceptor roles, so it certainly wasn't a one hit wonder. I would have loved to see the Lightning developed ... but the MoD were tied by liberal military cuts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

krupp said:


> Whatever you said. Infact, the J-10 is not you think,or our, or anyone.
> But, this design is great breakthrough for my country. It`s honor.
> We don`t follow russian`s outmoded design.
> My English is not good enough.



No your english is fine and yes it will be a step up for the Chinese AF.


----------



## dinos7 (Mar 9, 2006)

The F-22 wins in pretty much any perspective in the debate. it has good air to ground, exellent air to air and is very manueverable. And is fairly new aircraft.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 12, 2006)

gawd i have so many Russian prototypes on my mind!!!!

F-22
Eurofighter Typhoon
Su-35? if not Su-27SMK
F/A-18
F-15
Dassault Rafale
MiG-29
F-16
MiG-31
Mirage 2000? cant think now


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

Um none of those are Russian Prototypes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 13, 2006)

Didnt you hear about that Adler? The F-16 is just a big conspiracy, its really an all Russian design made by the what was thought to be defunct Lavochikin company.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 13, 2006)




----------



## Twitch (Mar 15, 2006)

Well, if it doesn't have combat history under its belt it ain't proved itself worthy to be included in a list so in no order.....

F-4 Phantom
F-16
F-14
Mirage 2000
F-15
MiG 29
MiG 21
Harrier
F-117
F-5


----------



## Henk (Mar 15, 2006)

Here is are few of mine.

Mig-25
Mig-31
Su-27
Mirrage 2000
Cheetah ( South African modified Mirage )
F-4 Phantom
Euro-fighter
F-14
Blackbird
F-117

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 15, 2006)

Godd stuff guys but you're killing me with the Mig-25! A 1 to 3 kill ratio...

F-5s even shot them down!!!


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 15, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Godd stuff guys but you're killing me with the Mig-25! A 1 to 3 kill ratio...
> 
> F-5s even shot them down!!!


----------



## Henk (Mar 15, 2006)

The Mig-25 is a great asircraft that can do many things, but it is a nice aircraft, but I do not know about its combat record.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Um none of those are Russian Prototypes.


les said no russian prototypes so i didnt mention them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2006)

Henk said:


> The Mig-25 is a great asircraft that can do many things, but it is a nice aircraft, but I do not know about its combat record.
> 
> Henk



The Mig-25 was sh*t but a gem, it's a dog but a Thoroughbred. It was designed to take down one aircraft that never materialized and when pitted in other roles it suffered sadly. It didn't have an ejection seat and a stock F-4 could totally out maneuver it, but yet it had one of the most powerful airborne radars of its day - it looks great but because it was designed to kill one type of aircraft it was limited and its combat record proved it. It was a notable fighter but should not be considered a "top ten."

My opinion.....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 16, 2006)

i agree, though a good interceptor


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> i agree, though a good interceptor


It couldn't intercept the SR-71.......


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 16, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> loomaluftwaffe said:
> 
> 
> > i agree, though a good interceptor
> ...


Could anything though? I thought it was immune to interception as it could out-run pretty much anything.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 16, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > loomaluftwaffe said:
> ...


True - if you read Victor Belenko's book, he was told the Mig-25 was the most advanced aircraft in the world but yet they had this reconnaissance aircraft flying rings around them over their eastern borders - Silly Soviets!!!


----------



## Henk (Mar 16, 2006)

Yes, flyboy you are right. The Mig-25 were a interceptor and not a fighter or a ground support aircraft. It did lack in the roles they gave it and it is sad. It had great radar like you said and that is what made a great aircraft to intercept bombers, but none of the others.

Well, I would actually replace the Mig-25 with the Mig-29. Great aircraft way better than the Mig-25. I would also say Saab's new fighter are also great for a 3rd generation fighter and it is cheap for the things it can do and the technology it have.

Henk


----------



## Twitch (Mar 18, 2006)

Yeah Henk, MiG 29 is much better than the 25 which was a one-trick-pony high speed interceptor.


----------



## Henk (Mar 18, 2006)

The Mig-29 and the Su-27 look quite the same to me if you look very fast.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 18, 2006)

except the Su-27 is larger


----------



## Henk (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, but the shape is very much the same.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

the bigger one is the Su-27









images from 
http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/alain2005&page=all


----------



## Henk (Mar 19, 2006)

looma the pics does not work mate.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

did u try the URL?
it works on my PC


----------



## Henk (Mar 19, 2006)

It will take ages for me to be able to go through all those pictures, dail-up, but I will try again.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

the URL below the pics displays thumbnails,probably small enough for dial-up


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 19, 2006)

The pics work for me...

Nice pics too...


----------



## Henk (Mar 19, 2006)

Ok, wait I got some of them now. You see it is the company that supply the net to me that is so stupid. Why do you think looma is the Su-27 larger than the Mig-29?

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

because it is larger, you can carry more powerful engines, better avionics, better armament in a larger airframe


----------



## Henk (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, but have you seen the range of the Su-27. For such a aircraft it is great. The Su-27 is a great aircraft and I would get some of those baby's in my airforce if I had my own country. The Su-27 are mostly not talked about it is always just the US aircraft.

I think that the Su-27 is better than what the west can produce right now.

But, we should also look at the skill of the pilot again. If you take the South African Bush War you would see it was the Mirage against the Mig-23, Mig-21, Mig-15, Mig-17, Mig-25 etc. etc. Some of those aircraft are way ahead of the Mirages the South African Airforce had, but who had the best kills ratio?

The pilot makes or brake your airforce.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 19, 2006)

you can make a russian bystander jump into a yak, but not a sophisticated jet fighter like the MiG-23/25


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

The Su-27 and the Mig-29 have 2 different roles.

The Mig-29 is more of a fighter like the F-16. In fact it was designed to counter the F-16. The Su-27 is an interceptor not a fighter and was designed to be an equivilent of the F-15.


----------



## Henk (Mar 20, 2006)

Yes, but they have now also made a fighter and a fighter bomber of the Su-27. I also seen a recon tipe of the Su-27.

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

Yes because it takes up the same roles as the F-15.


----------



## Henk (Mar 20, 2006)

Ok, I see what you mean mate.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 20, 2006)

its just that the Su-27 wasn't the unstable-thing type like the F-16 and the F-15 as they don't have very advanced avionics, they designed the Su-27for stability and tweaked it for more maneuverability and agility


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2006)

What are you talking about? The F-15 has some of the best avionix out there in the world and the F-16 has been upgraded to be the same.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 21, 2006)

i think he was refering to the Su-27, but i'd bet good money on the Su-27 out-manouvering the -15 and -16..........


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 21, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i think he was refering to the Su-27


yeah thats what i meant sorry for the misunderstanding


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 21, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Su-27 out-manouvering the -15 and -16..........



No arguments from me here.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 21, 2006)

and the Su-27 SMK with thrust vectoring, yikes if the guy knew how to fly i'd just hit the afterburner and go home


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 30, 2006)

hmm... peaking of Russian fighters... what will be their next generation fighters that werent cancelled?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

loomaluftwaffe said:


> hmm... peaking of Russian fighters... what will be their next generation fighters that werent cancelled?


 Well think about this - the Soviet Union went broke trying to keep up with the US......


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Mar 30, 2006)

oh yeah lol... so the new MiG-35 or I-something is supposedly their next gen fighter


----------



## ozumn (May 3, 2006)

All i know is that in every joint exercise that we have been in Gripen has allways come out as the winner.


----------



## Henk (May 3, 2006)

I must say that the Grippen is truly one of the best I have seen. Our government bought some and they are really great aircraft.

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2006)

The Grippen is a great aircraft but it will be quickly overtaken by the F-22 and especially the F-35...


----------



## ozumn (May 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Grippen is a great aircraft but it will be quickly overtaken by the F-22 and especially the F-35...




i´m not that sure. mabye we will se soon think we are about to go too Red Flag abit more in the near future.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2006)

No it will my friend. Does the grippen have the stealth technology, maneuverability and super cruise capabitlity of the F-22? NO. The Grippen is a great aircraft but the F-22 will overtake it.


----------



## ozumn (May 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it will my friend. Does the grippen have the stealth technology, maneuverability and super cruise capabitlity of the F-22? NO. The Grippen is a great aircraft but the F-22 will overtake it.




its Gripen, it has very low radar signature it have supercruse and im sure it has about the same manouverbility in a dog fight as any new plane, but we wil see it will be fun.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2006)

ozumn said:


> its Gripen, it has very low radar signature it have supercruse and im sure it has about the same manouverbility in a dog fight as any new plane, but we wil see it will be fun.


 The Gripen is not a pure stealth aircraft, although it has a very low radar signature and although it did well in exercises against the Norwegian AF it does not have the "legs" or the bomb carrying capability of the F-16 and that's why many nations have continued to purchase the F-16 over the Gripen if they require a multi role strike capability. 

The F-22 avionics suite and especially the F-35 (airframe and avionics) is a generation a head of the Gripen


----------



## ozumn (May 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Gripen is not a pure stealth aircraft, although it has a very low radar signature and although it did well in exercises against the Norwegian AF it does not have the "legs" or the bomb carrying capability of the F-16 and that's why many nations have continued to purchase the F-16 over the Gripen if they require a multi role strike capability.
> 
> The F-22 avionics suite and especially the F-35 (airframe and avionics) is a generation a head of the Gripen



did well hmm i would say no match, the few times that i been on exercises when the f16 was the dogfight oponent the f16 sisnt stand a chance it was clear victory all the time. and i still say just wait by the time the f22 is out there will be new gripen also.


----------



## Henk (May 4, 2006)

If you guys know about the South African Bush War in Angola the South African Airforce used the Mirrage and the Communists used the MIGs. The MIGs were way better and newer but who whippet who's a**? 

It is the Pilot and not just the machine who makes it a great aircraft or not. I must say that the Gripen is the best fighter for its prise and can do many things that just dog fight, thus you do not need to buy other aircraft to fill the other roles.

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

ozumn said:


> did well hmm i would say no match, the few times that i been on exercises when the f16 was the dogfight oponent the f16 sisnt stand a chance it was clear victory all the time. and i still say just wait by the time the f22 is out there will be new gripen also.


 What "new" Gripen? Are you trying to say that Saab is going to attempt to update the aircraft? You could only pump so much into that airframe and its already been shown that the Grippen's inability to carry substantial air to ground stores has handicapped it in foreign sales. But then again it is designed as an interceptor with some air to ground mission capability.... 

BTW the exercises you were talking about was against the Norwegian Air Force, one of the weaker NATO members in the air-to-air intercept role. I'd like to see the Gripen piloted against US or even Israeli F-16 pilots. Over all the Gripen is a superior aircraft but it won't be an "easy kill" against a seasoned air force in a tactical role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

Henk said:


> If you guys know about the South African Bush War in Angola the South African Airforce used the Mirrage and the Communists used the MIGs. The MIGs were way better and newer but who whippet who's a**?
> 
> It is the Pilot and not just the machine who makes it a great aircraft or not. I must say that the Gripen is the best fighter for its prise and can do many things that just dog fight, thus you do not need to buy other aircraft to fill the other roles.
> 
> Henk


 Know about it well and the SAAF did extrememly well against Angola, here's a site that give information for kills an losses of the SAAF.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_184.shtml


----------



## ozumn (May 5, 2006)

no i think it was in Neatherlands, and i was just talking to my brother a gripen pilot he says that you can put any pilot from what ever nation the f16 want last long, he told me about the the finnish f18 they could put out a goodfight at high altitud.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

ozumn said:


> no i think it was in Neatherlands, and i was just talking to my brother a gripen pilot he says that you can put any pilot from what ever nation the f16 want last long, he told me about the the finnish f18 they could put out a goodfight at high altitud.


 Ahh a little family prejudice?!? 

The Gripen does have an excellent linking system, but the link-16 has brought the Falcon with parity here.

Link-16 shares target info, radar contacts, SAR images, and IIR targeting pod images. Can also get GPS coordinates from any C3ISR platform.

As far as ergonomics and ease of operation, Id give the prize to the Gripen. The cockpit is full glass, with excellent HOTAS and HUD. Large fully programmable MFDs display whatever the pilot wants. The cockpit is truly a gem.

But for payload, range, and T/W ratio, I think the Viper gets the nod. The Gripen is a much smaller aircraft, and with just s single F404 engine, there just isnt the capacity for as much "stuff" as the Viper.

The Gripen has just a fantastic pilot interface though.

ALTHOUGH....

F-16s offer the following distinct advantages:

* It is a true multi-role aircraft and can be used Air to Air or Air to Ground Role unlike Gripen which may be better for Air to Air role only;

* Low RCS of Gripen is due to its small size and a naked body only. Once you hang stores, its low RCS will disappear;

But here's something to think about...

**Gripen may out outmaneuver an older F-16 but new F-16s with their newer more powerful engines can easily turn tables on Gripen.*

* Gripen's small size will become a liability in the A to G role. It does not carry more weapons as F-16 can. You keep loading heavy armaments on Gripen and you have a shortened wing life.


----------



## ozumn (May 5, 2006)

give up, Gripen is a exelt striker and what new f16 you must be kidding. and what has range to do with anything. F16 was a great plane but now its just good.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

ozumn said:


> give up, Gripen is a exelt striker and what new f16 you must be kidding. and what has range to do with anything. F16 was a great plane but now its just good.


 I worked for Lockheed and know what is going on with the program. The Gripen fits the need of Sweeden but not many are being sold, there's a reason for that. Compare the bomb loads....

*Specifications (F-16C Block 30)*

F-16 3 View SchematicGeneral characteristics
Crew: 1 
Length: 49 ft 5 in (14.8 m) 
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.8 m) 
Height: 16 ft (4.8 m) 
Wing area: 300 ft² (27.87 m²) 
Airfoil: NACA 64A204 root and tip 
Empty weight: 18,238 lb (8,272 kg) 
Loaded weight: 26,463 lb (12,003 kg) 
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (16,875 kg) 
Powerplant: 1× Pratt Whitney F100-PW-220 or 1× General Electric F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan, F100 14,590 lbf dry and 23,770 lbf with afterburning; F110 17,155 lbf dry, 28,985 lbf with afterburning (F100 64.9 kN / 105.7 kN; F110 76.3 kN / 128.9 kN) 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at altitude, 1,321 mph (2,100 km/h) 
Range: 2,000+ mi ferry (3,200+ km) 
Service ceiling: 55,000+ ft (15,240+ m) 
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (255 m/s) 
Wing loading: 53 lb/ft² (260 kg/m²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.91 
Armament
Guns: 1× M61 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun 
Rockets: CRV-7 
Missiles: 
Air-to-air: 6× AIM-9 Sidewinder, 6× AIM-120 AMRAAM 
Air-to-ground: 6× AGM-65 Maverick, 4× AGM-88 HARM 
Anti-ship: 4× AGM-119 Penguin 
Bombs: 2× CBU-87 cluster, 2× CBU-89 gator mine, 2× CBU-97, 2× GBU-10 Paveway, GBU-12 Paveway II, Paveway-series laser-guided bombs, 2× JDAM, 6× Mk 80 series, and also nuclear bombs such as the B61 nuclear bomb. 

*Specifications (JAS-39 Gripen)*
General characteristics
Crew: 1-2 
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in) 
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in) 
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) 
Wing area: 25.54 m (274.9 ft) 
Empty weight: 6,620 kg (14,600 lb) 
Loaded weight: 8,720 kg (19,200 lb) 
Maximum gross takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 (GE404) afterburning turbofan, 54 kN dry, 80 kN with afterburner (12,000 lbf / 18,000 lbf) 
Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in) 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 
Range: 800 km (500 mi) 
Service ceiling: 15,000 m (50,000 ft) 
Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min) 
Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.63 
Armament
1x 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 
6x AIM-9 Sidewinder 
4x AIM-120 AMRAAM or MICA 
AGM-65 Maverick, KEPD 150, or various other laser-guided bombs, rocket pods.


The Gripen is a great plane and a half of step ahead of the F-16 in many cases but the F-16 can still compete with it - Now compare the Gripen with the F-22 or F-35 (Or even the Eurofighter) and once again these aircraft hold an commanding performance lead in almost all areas.....


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2006)

Wow. With a GE404 engine, Gripen is more in the league of the F-20. I can see why a plane that small would be a tough dogfighter. Also, I see why its use is somewhat limited.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Wow. With a GE404 engine, Gripen is more in the league of the F-20. I can see why a plane that small would be a tough dogfighter. Also, I see why its use is somewhat limited.


 Great comparison and you hit it right on the head!!!


----------



## pbfoot (May 5, 2006)

The Gripen was designed for the defence of Sweden it does'nt have to go very far and would be basically a Air defence weapon its not really an offensive threat buts its STOL characteristics and its ability to deploy locally easily make it ideal for Sweden


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> The Gripen was designed for the defence of Sweden it does'nt have to go very far and would be basically a Air defence weapon its not really an offensive threat buts its STOL characteristics and its ability to deploy locally easily make it ideal for Sweden


 Agree!! And unless another air force has a similar requirement, they ain't selling very many....


----------



## lesofprimus (May 5, 2006)

I dont think they really want to export very many of them anyways, so it all works out for Sweden.... 

All the spare parts they'll ever need.....


----------



## lesofprimus (May 5, 2006)

ozumn said:


> the few times that i been on exercises when the f16 was the dogfight oponent the f16 sisnt stand a chance it was clear victory all the time.


----------



## ozumn (May 5, 2006)

The Volvo Aero Corporation RM12 is a modular, fuel efficient, low bypass ratio afterburning turbofan in the 80 KN (18,000lb) thrust class. It is based on the General Electric F-404-400 which has attained several million flight hours in operations world wide - with several enhancements incorporated by Volvo including increased thrust and bird strike resistance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2006)

ozumn said:


> The Volvo Aero Corporation RM12 is a modular, fuel efficient, low bypass ratio afterburning turbofan in the 80 KN (18,000lb) thrust class. It is based on the General Electric F-404-400 which has attained several million flight hours in operations world wide - with several enhancements incorporated by Volvo including increased thrust and bird strike resistance.


 And the PW-100-220 puts out over 10,000 pounds more thrust in afterburner - plus the F-16 has almost a 2 to 1 thrust to weight ratio over the Gripen....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2006)

Sweeden design a lot fo their own equiptment for their own use, and most of their kit is indended to fight a defensive war defending Sweeden's varying terrain, take the S-tank for example, designed by Sweeden for Sweeden it's so perfect for Sweeden no one else wants it, the SAABs are mostly the same, they're perfect for what Sweeden will be doing and for them that's all that matters..........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> Sweeden design a lot fo their own equiptment for their own use, and most of their kit is indended to fight a defensive war defending Sweeden's varying terrain, take the S-tank for example, designed by Sweeden for Sweeden it's so perfect for Sweeden no one else wants it, the SAABs are mostly the same, they're perfect for what Sweeden will be doing and for them that's all that matters..........


 Agree - and I think our young friend here is somewhat clouded in what the Gripen could do outside the Sweedish military requirement. The Swedes build great hardware but they usualy have a specific purpose as shown here....


----------



## ozumn (May 6, 2006)

so what can the F16 do that the Gripen cant?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 6, 2006)

the question that you should be asking is what can thes Swedes ask of the F-16 that the Gripen can't do, if you base it on just what the Swedes want of an aircraft then the Gripen wins.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

ozumn said:


> so what can the F16 do that the Gripen cant?


 Simply - drop a lot of bombs and stay in the air longer. The Gripen is a better interceptor and dogfighter in my opinion....


----------



## lesofprimus (May 6, 2006)

The Grippen sucks ***....


----------



## plan_D (May 6, 2006)

I couldn't pass this up, as it definately wasn't a typo. It's not Sweeden, it's Sweden. I don't know why this extra E was implanted, maybe it's something English people do naturally as we seem to make "Eng-A-Land" out of England during the World Cup ... where the second A and third syllable come from I will never know. 

They're Swedes, they speak Swedish and come from Sweden! And lanc has hit the nail on the head when mentioning Sweden's doctrine. The Gripen was designed for Sweden, which is a defensive nation. The only other nation I can think of that's in the same kind of situation and would benefit from Swedish doctrine, and equipment, would be Finland.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The only other nation I can think of that's in the same kind of situation and would benefit from Swedish doctrine, and equipment, would be Finland.


 Yep - they they have procured SwEdish aircraft....


----------



## ozumn (May 6, 2006)

well 3 countries have it besides Sweden, and more will buy it


----------



## ozumn (May 6, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> The Grippen sucks ***....



WOW nice hill billy comment


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2006)

I have to agree with general opinion the thing is a defensive weapon it does not have any range figure out the cruising speed and range and it with combat load its maybe good for an 1 hour of flight making it basicly useless for larger countries with larger areas to defend it is however ideal for Sweden a smaller land mass with Swedens neutral stance.No major power has selected the thing nor will any because it is not the weapon system to suit a modern power and it probably because of cost and development will more then likely be the last combat a/c made wholely in Sweden even the Swiss with similar requirements to those of Sweden opted for the F18 and neither of your neighbours thought the 39 was a viable option. However it probably puts on a good air show


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

ozumn said:


> well 3 countries have it besides Sweden, and more will buy it


 Yea, Saab will sell a "few."

*Total F-16S delivered or on order as of 2005:*

United States Air Force: 2507 (some sold to other countries) 
United States Navy: 40 
Other air forces: 2401 
Royal Bahraini Air Force: 22 
Belgian Air Force: 160 
Chilean Air Force: 10+18 
Danish Air Force: 78 
Egyptian Air Force: 220 
Hellenic Air Force: 170 
Royal Jordanian Air Force: 24 
Indonesian Air Force: 10 
Israeli Air Force: 382 
Italian Air Force: 34 
Royal Netherlands Air Force: 213 
Royal Norwegian Air Force: 72 
Royal Oman Air Force: 12 
Pakistan Air Force: 40 
Polish Air Force: 48 
Portuguese Air Force: 45 
Republic of Singapore Air Force: 60 
Republic of China (Taiwan) Air Force: 150 
Republic of Korea Air Force(ROKAF): 180 
Royal Thai Air Force: 61 
Turkish Air Force: 240 
United Arab Emirates Air Force: 80 
Venezuelan Air Force: 24 
Total number manufactured: 4,426


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 6, 2006)

That's a whole lot of Vipers. 

Lanc and pb pretty much nailed it I think. The Gripen, like many Swedish weapons, was designed primarily with the defence of Sweden in mind. To that end, it fits the bill quite nicely. Ya gotta give the Swedes credit though. They design and build some class A stuff for themselves, and they certainly know what they need. The Gripen is a perfect example of that.


----------



## pbfoot (May 6, 2006)

The fact being Sweden must be given huge credit for the Gripen no other country of its size even comes close to them in combat aircraft design . Very few countries are as capable as the Swedes in being self sufficient in combat aircraft they've stayed in the game much longer then most countries


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> That's a whole lot of Vipers.
> 
> Lanc and pb pretty much nailed it I think. The Gripen, like many Swedish weapons, was designed primarily with the defence of Sweden in mind. To that end, it fits the bill quite nicely. Ya gotta give the Swedes credit though. They design and build some class A stuff for themselves, and they certainly know what they need. The Gripen is a perfect example of that.





pbfoot said:


> The fact being Sweden must be given huge credit for the Gripen no other country of its size even comes close to them in combat aircraft design . Very few countries are as capable as the Swedes in being self sufficient in combat aircraft they've stayed in the game much longer then most countries


 Agree on both counts.....


----------



## ozumn (May 7, 2006)

Thing is every country on that list is a possible gripen buyer. can some one give me some numbers all i hear is that f16 got longer range and why would a country give a **** about range if thay want to defend? but no numbers, Finland bought f18 the fools hehe they had to pay so much more for that. Norway and Denmark is back in the race again, seems they are getting tired of waiting for a new fighter.


----------



## Gnomey (May 7, 2006)

Agreed Joe and pbfoot. The Grippen is perfect for Sweden and other countries in a similar position but does not have the ability to do as many roles as the F-16. A lot of countries would want an aircraft that can do everything (similar to the F-16) rather than one that can only do one thing (the Grippen) and have to buy another one to forfill the other roles. It is not cost effective which is why more countries have bought the F-16 than the Grippen because the F-16 is a more cost effective aircraft than the Grippen.


----------



## ozumn (May 7, 2006)

I just heard some rumors so dont take it to serius, first it seems Austraila would be interesed in buying a gripen called supergripen with a new enging and the Eurofighter, gonna have to dig up some more on that so called supergripen.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2006)

Total JAS-39 'Gripen' orders/deliveries as of May 2006:

Swedish Air Force : 5 JAS-39 Prototypes; 107 JAS-39A; 15 JAS-39B; 50 JAS-39C; 13 JAS-39D. Total : 190.
Czech Air Force : 12 JAS-39C; 2 JAS-39D.* Total: 14
Hungarian Air Force : 12 JAS-39C; 2 JAS-39D.* Total: 14
South African Air Force : 19 JAS-39C; 9 JAS-39D.** Total: 28.

* Leased from Sweden/SAAB. 
** Nine JAS-39D dual-seaters to be delivered 2006-2008. Nineteen JAS-39C to be delivered 2009-2011. 

Taking the range issue to hand. South Africa had to fight the Bush War with the Mirage F.1 which had a maximum ferry range of 1160 NM. When fighting combat these aircraft were at the extent of their range, which greatly hampered the operational availability. The JAS-39C achieves a range of 1619 NM which admittedly is 459 NM further, which would have given them a much better roam time over the battlefield. Then, we take the F-16C/D which can fly 2,100 NM which would allow penetration into your opponents air space with great ease. And offence is the best defence. 

How far could the JAS-39 carry two 2,000 lbs bombs and 2 AIM-9? The F-16 can carry that ordance 740 NM into enemy air space and still come home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2006)

plan_D said:


> opponents air space with great ease. And offence is the best defence.
> 
> How far could the JAS-39 carry two 2,000 lbs bombs and 2 AIM-9? The F-16 can carry that ordance 740 NM into enemy air space and still come home.


 BINGO!!!



ozumn said:


> Thing is every country on that list is a possible gripen buyer.


And they were too 30 years ago when Saab tried to sell the Draaken, a great plane for it's day with limitred of forigen sales...


ozumn said:


> can some one give me some numbers all i hear is that f16 got longer range and why would a country give a **** about range if thay want to defend?but no numbers,


I posted the range numbers for the F-16 earlier. The F-16, F/A-18 and Typhoon all have way longer legs than the Gripen - and I'm not even bringing the F-22 or F-35 into the picture!!!

Range means endurance - the longer you're in the air and the more ordanance yuo carry the better you're going to defend youself - what good is having the world's best interceptor when you only remain airborne for 20 minutes with AB?????



ozumn said:


> Finland bought f18 the fools hehe they had to pay so much more for that.


Fools? The bought a proven combat aircraft that has double the range and payload of the Gripen - evedently their military is seeing something the Swedish AF isn't. Here are the numbers just for clarification...

Specifications (F/A-18C Hornet)
General characteristics
Crew: 1 
Unit Cost: $39.5 Million 
Length: 56 ft 0 in (17.1 m) 
Wingspan: 40 ft 0 in with wingtip missiles (12.3 m) 
Height: 15 ft 4 in (4.7 m) 
Wing area: 400 ft² (37.16 m²) 
Empty weight: 24,700 lb (11,200 kg) 
Loaded weight: 37,150 lb (16,850 kg) 
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 51,550 lb (23,400 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× General Electric F404-GE-402 turbofans, 17,751 lbf (79 kN) each 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.7, 1,127 mph at 36,100 ft (1,814 km/h at 11,000 m) 
Range: 330 mi combat on a hi-lo-lo-hi mission; 2,070 mi ferry (535 km / 3,330 km) 
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) 
Rate of climb: 50,000 ft/min (254 m/s) 
Thrust/weight: >1 
Armament
Nine pylons – 2 wingtip, 4 underwing, and 3 fusalage, carrying up to 13,700 lb (6,215 kg) of missiles, rockets, bombs, fuel tanks, and pods 
1x 20 mm M61 Vulcan internal gatling gun 
Missiles: 
Air-to-air: AIM-9 Sidewinder, AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-7 Sparrow 
Air-to-ground: AGM-45 Shrike, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-88 HARM, SLAM-ER, JSOW 
Anti-ship: AGM-84 Harpoon 
Bombs: CBU-87 cluster, CBU-89 gator mine, CBU-97 CEM, Paveway, JDAM, Mk 80 series, nuclear bombs. 
Avionics
APG-73 radar 

Compare them once again...

Specifications (JAS-39 Gripen)
General characteristics
Crew: 1-2 
Length: 14.1 m (46 ft 3 in) 
Wingspan: 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in) 
Height: 4.5 m (14 ft 9 in) 
Wing area: 25.54 m (274.9 ft) 
Empty weight: 6,620 kg (14,600 lb) 
Loaded weight: 8,720 kg (19,200 lb) 
Maximum Take-Off Weight: 14,000 kg (31,000 lb) 
Powerplant: 1× Volvo Aero RM12 (GE404) afterburning turbofan, 54 kN dry, 80 kN with afterburner (12,000 lbf / 18,000 lbf) 
Wheel track: 2.4 m (7 ft 10 in) 
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 2 
Range: 800 km (500 mi) 
Service ceiling: 15,000 m (50,000 ft) 
Rate of climb: m/s (ft/min) 
Wing loading: kg/m² (lb/ft²) 
Thrust/weight: 0.63 
Armament
1x 27 mm Mauser BK-27 cannon 
6x AIM-9 Sidewinder 
4x AIM-120 AMRAAM or MICA 
AGM-65 Maverick, KEPD 150, or various other laser-guided bombs, rocket pods. 



ozumn said:


> Norway and Denmark is back in the race again, seems they are getting tired of waiting for a new fighter.


 Time will tell to see if they buy the Gripen, in the mean time they still operate F-16s....

The the bottom line to this debut is FIGHTERS MAKE MOVIES, BOMBERS MAKE HISTORY.' If you're going to market a successful fighter in today's market, it better be able to do a number of things and one of those is to drop a lot of bombs!!!!


----------



## Henk (May 7, 2006)

Ok, wait. The thing that should be said is that the SAAB Gripen is a great all round aircraft for those countries who can not afford the Russian, US and UK aircraft. 

The Mirrage is one of the best aircraft I have ever seen, and people also said it sucks, because it can not perform as well as the US aircraft, does that make it crap? I think that the Gripen is a great aircraft for its price and for the stuff it can do and the systems it has in it. 

I think the SAAF made the best deal when they bought the SAAB Gripen. The US aircraft are truly to expensive, but I must say they have lots of fancy sh*t in them. 

Let me say this again guys, THE PILOT MAKES OR BRAKES THE DOGFIGHT NOT JUST THE AIRCRAFT. Your aircraft can do many fancy sh*t and go as fast as hell, but if you can not use every part and I mean every little part of your aircraft to the best of its capability's then you are screwed.

I will buy the Gripen and train my guys to use everything they can out of there aircraft and let them learn there own tragedy's. It is a great aircraft for what it can do and for its price, but I would not know compared to the F-16, I truly do not know, seeing is believing.

Henk


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2006)

Sorry the F-16 speaks for itself. It wins hands down in my opinion over the Grippen.

The grippen is a good defence inteceptor and probably does that role over the F-16 but that is not really what the F-16 was designed for.

The F-16 does its job great and that is:

Dogfighter
Fighter Bomber
Recon
Ground Attack
Bomber
and the list goes on and on.

The Grippen has to do for Sweden what a number of aircraft do for the US. 

Interceptor: F-15/F-22
Fighter/Fighter Bomber: F-16/F-18

You see in the end it does not matter. The Grippen would not stand a chance against the F-22 and probably not the F-15 because of the range of the F-15s radar. Besides what will 107 Grippens do to 2000+ F-16's? Not much.


----------



## Henk (May 7, 2006)

Well our airforce is now over 2000 combat aircraft. The SAAF only bought so few aircraft to be able to build the rest ourselfs. The deal states that they must buy some aircraft and buy the rights to build it your self.

Well, I will still stick with the Mirrage and Gripen, they do what they should do. The F-16 is a great aircraft, but I think that so much is not needed to whip a**. 

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2006)

Henk you make valid points, especially with regards to costs and pilot and that's why many nations will go with something cheaper and opt for an "offset" program where they will ultimately build the aircraft themselves, and as you also say the pilot makes or breaks the aircraft, that centers around training and flight hours, a cost many contries cannot deal with...

Here's information about the RAF

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1441/MR1441.appd.pdf

But as you say the pilot makes the aircraft - the SAAF did very well with it's Mirages against Angola, at the same time the Iraqi AF lost several of their's in A to A without even coming close to a kill....

In essence - if you could afford it, the F-16 is going to give you "more bang for your buck."


----------



## ozumn (May 7, 2006)

Well i cant stand this any more, Gripen is best modern fighter now and i dont care about bombs put them bombs on and see how good you can fight, and for now on im gonna call the f16 a bomber.


----------



## ozumn (May 7, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Besides what will 107 Grippens do to 2000+ F-16's? Not much.



107? and where would them 2000 f16 come from? if we talk war.


----------



## ozumn (May 7, 2006)

some random facts
Saab Gripen 
Low-cost, low maintenance multi-role 4th generation fighter jet 

Length: 14.1 m 

Span: 8.4 m 

Height: 4.5 m 

Empty weight: 5700 kg 

Normal take off weight: 8500 kg in fighter configuration 

Payload: 5300 kg 

Fuel, internal: 3000 litres approx 

External: 3800 litres 

Max take off weight: 14000 kg 

Range: 3000 km ferry range 

Max speed: M 1.15 (1400 km/h) at sea level, close to Mach 2 at altitude 

Acceleration: M 0.5 to M 1.1 at low altitude in 30 s 

Turn performance: 9 G sustained, G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), min -3 G, 20+ deg/s sustained, 30 deg/s instantaneous 

Climb rate: <100 s from brake release to 10 km altitude 180 s approx to 14 km 

Ground turn around: <10 min with a crew of six
Engine: Volvo Aero RM12 (developed from GE F404 with the changes being at least new fan, afterburner flame holder and accessories, partly to make it more suitable to a single engine aircraft) 
Max thrust: approx 54 kN, 80.5 kN with reheat, airflow 68 kg/s, compression ratio 27.5:1, mass 1055 kg, overall length 4.04 m, diameter 0.884 m, inlet diameter 0.709 m 

Radar: Ericsson PS-05/A pulse doppler radar (can count anchored ships and follow road traffic at at least 90 km and detect typical fighter sized targets at 120 km). 

Total mass 156 kg, antenna assembly 25 kg, antenna diameter 0.600 m, 
Max power consumption 8.2 kW (114/200V 400Hz AC) and 250 kW 28V. 

Predicted MTBF: 170 hours (air operation) Cooling air: 85g/s at 0oC, Cooling liquid: 3.5kW to be absored. Electrical interface: MIL-STD-1553B data bus and fibre optic video output to the display system. 

Air to air scanning at 60 (at first 50) deg/s in either 2 120 deg bars, 2 60 deg bars or 4 30 deg bars. Surface mapping and search across 5 x 5 km to 40 x 40 km with GMTI speed adjustable by the pilot. 

Four basic air to air modes: Track While Search, Priority Target Tracking gives higher quality tracking for multiple targets, Single Target Track gives highest quality data, Air Combat Mode for short range search and automatic target capture. 

Targeting pod: Litening, with FLIR and laser designation. 

The Gripen's built-in armament consists of a single Mauser BK-27 27 millimeter cannon, housed in a fairing on the aircraft's belly, offset to left to the rear of the engine intake. Given the aircraft's relatively small size, it generally carries guided weapons to ensure maximum combat effectiveness. 

Possible external stores include:
Air to air missiles (AAMs). The primary AAM is the Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, and the Gripen's PS-05A radar can guide four of these weapons simultaneously. Sweden is the only nation approved by the US to perform flight tests of AMRAAM, and Swedish AMRAAMs have minor modifications to fit Swedish specifications. Other possible AAM stores include the French Matra Mica; the British Aerospace Sky Flash, built in Sweden as the "Rb-71"; and the Anglo-French MBDA ramjet-powered Meteor BVRAAM or German BGT IRIS-T AAM, now in development. IRIS-T is a short-range heat-seeking AAM with "off-boresight" capability. The Flygvapnet intends to obtain the IRIS-T to replace Swedish-built Sidewinders. 

Antiship missiles, such as the SAAB RBS-15 turbojet-powered sea-skimming missile. A precision land-attack version of the RBS-15 is now in development. 

Air to surface missiles, such as the Raytheon AGM-65 Maverick, built in Sweden as the "Rb-75", as well as the "BK (BombKapsel) 90 Mjoelnir" guided gliding submunitions dispenser, also known as "DWS-39". The Mjoelnir was developed by Daimler-Benz Aerospace (now part of EADS), with the Gripen as the first intended flight platform. Of course, dumb bombs and unguided rocket pods have been qualified as well.
The aircraft is controlled by a digital fly-by-wire (FBW) system with triple redundancy and an analog backup. The analog backup system provides a simple, reliable capability, and is automatically activated if two of the three digital FBW systems go down. The pilot can also activate the analog system with the push of a button. The Gripen was designed from the outset to use the FBW system, which was evaluated on a modified Viggen. The FBW system compensates automatically for the degree of instability built into the Gripen to increase its maneuverability. The FBW system also allows the aircraft to adapt to combat damage, for example using differential control of the canards to fly the aircraft if the ailerons are disabled. 

The Gripen pilot can switch operational role in flight. 

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions. TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere. 

The Gripen can take off and land in less than 600 meters (2,000 feet). Once deployed to a road base, the Gripens are serviced by a ground crew of six, including one highly trained specialist and five minimally trained conscripts. A service team can refuel and rearm a Gripen in ten minutes. The Gripen features an auxiliary power unit (APU) to reduce its dependence on ground systems, and the fighter's onboard digital systems include "built-in self-test" capabilities that can download diagnostic data to a tech's laptop computer. Service doors to critical systems are at head level or lower, allowing easy access by technicians. Pilots using the Gripen flight simulators have performed simulated carrier landings, without an arresting hook; it seems a bit unlikely that this will ever be done in practice, however. 

The operational cost of Gripen is 50 per cent lower than any other aircraft in its class that is currently, or planned to be, in service. It is twice as reliable and easier to maintain than its competitors. 

Features under development for future Gripens include:
An electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar based on the PS-05/A, now being developed by Ericsson. An AESA consists of an array of programmable "transmit-receive (TR)" modules that can operate in parallel to perform separate or collaborative functions, performing, for example, jamming and target acquisition at the same time. The AESA will provide enhanced multimode capabilities, as well as extended range for beyond visual range missiles. It is scheduled for introduction in the 2005:2010 timeframe. 

Improved defensive countermeasures, including new towed decoys and missile and laser warning systems. 

The "OTIS" infrared search and track (IRST) system now under development by Saab Dynamics and being tested on a Viggen. OTIS will provide multiple modes for both air to air and air to ground combat. 

The Thales "Guardian" helmet-mounted display (HMT), now being evaluated on the Gripen for cueing the IRIS-T and other smart weapons.
The Gripen's digital architecture makes software upgrades straightforward, at least as such things go. Possible software improvements include new radar and datalink modes; a new terrain-referenced navigation system; and a fully autonomous precision landing-guidance system. In the long term, SAAB is looking at a new engine, such as the General Electric F414 or a thrust-vectoring version of the EJ2000 engine used on the Eurofighter; conformal fuel tanks or a fuselage stretch for greater range; a wide-angle HUD; a binocular helmet-mounted display; a direct voice-command system; and an advanced missions support system


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2006)

ozumn said:


> 107? and where would them 2000 f16 come from? if we talk war.


 Right here...........

Total F-16S delivered or on order as of 2005:

United States Air Force: 2507 (some sold to other countries) 
United States Navy: 40


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 7, 2006)

ozumn said:


> Well i cant stand this any more, Gripen is best modern fighter now and i dont care about bombs put them bombs on and see how good you can fight, and for now on im gonna call the f16 a bomber.


 It's not invincible - it out classes the F-16 in air-to-air combat but its not an easy kill - even F-18s could take on the Gripen!!! That's the point. If the Gripen was so superior it would be able to take on 4 or 5 times its number and win - something the F-15 and F-16 has been able to do until recent times - now it's more like 2 and 3 to 1, Cope India proved that.

We haven't even brought up the F-22 or F-35 - both of them will befar superior to the Gripen or anything else fielded anywhere in the world - period!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2006)

ozumn said:


> Well i cant stand this any more, Gripen is best modern fighter now and i dont care about bombs put them bombs on and see how good you can fight, and for now on im gonna call the f16 a bomber.



Dont get your panties in a bunch because people dont agree with you. That is life!

Besides while the F-16 is bombing then the F-15s and F-22 will do the dog fighting and protect the F-16s. Then when the bombs are spent the F-16s will join in the fight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2006)

ozumn said:


> 107? and where would them 2000 f16 come from? if we talk war.



Well lets see the United States has over 2000 F-16s. And where would they come from well lets see there are bases in Germany like Rammstein and oh yeah I forgot about something the United States has hundreds of KC-135s and other refuelers that can refuel them in flight. Would not be a problem reaching the Grippens.


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well lets see the United States has over 2000 F-16s. And where would they come from well lets see there are bases in Germany like Rammstein and oh yeah I forgot about something the United States has hundreds of KC-135s and other refuelers that can refuel them in flight. Would not be a problem reaching the Grippens.



so you are talking about a war USA vs Sweden?


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2006)

You stated _"...if we talk war."[/i, Oznum. Providing you were offering the question seriously, Adler answered in kind. The U.S has over 2,000 F-16s. At this moment in time it's estimated that they'll be 246 JAS-39s come 2011. 

I think the F-16 is winning a bit on sales. Even if you delete the sales to the U.S, it's still beating the Gripen by over a thousand. Calling the F-16 a bomber would just lead to embarassment on your part, as the F-16 is quite clearly a fighter. In an air-to-air configuration it's one of the most agile planes on the planet, and would be a hard kill for all it's contemperies. In air combat, you're going to be dead if you mistake a F-16 for a bomber ... just because it can drop bombs._


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

but you all say its a better fighter because it can carry more bombs, i thought this was a poll about the best fighter and the f16 isnt better then the gripen and if there was a war i think the usa would have to fly them from the states to sweden, so what good is 2000 f16 then. This is from a Pilot who traind with the Finnish f18 he told me that 1gripen took out 6 f18 they could not see him i doubt that a f16 can do that, im looking for some truth behind that i have learnd that you cant belive all what them pilot say.


----------



## plan_D (May 8, 2006)

And I heard from a F-16 pilot that he took out 20,000,000 MiG-29s before breakfast. 

You are misunderstanding the point of the majority of people here. They are talking from a customer point of view, the F-16 is superior because of it's multi-role ability. That is what customers want, a plane that gives you more value for money. 

In air-to-air ability the Gripen is superior to the F-16, correct. But the F-16 can take the fight further into the enemy homeland than the Gripen, and offence is the best defence. The Gripen also would not have an easy time fighting the F-16, or the F-18 for that matter. 

Your argument seems to stem from "I'm Swedish, so anything Sweden build is the best," - fact of the matter is, I'm British and the F-22 (an American plane) is the best. The F-16 shows more value for money than the Gripen, as does the F-18; F-15; F-22; F-35. Basically, the Gripen is a specialised unit with little or no use outside of it's own scope. Hence the reason it's customer list is so small ... outside Sweden it has three customers, two of which are only leasing the equipment.

If the U.S fought Sweden, it would use F/A-18s operating off aircraft carriers in the North Sea, which would fight their way through the Gripens and go on to flatten their bases. If F-16s wanted to join in the fight, air-to-air refueling comes to mind.


----------



## ozumn (May 8, 2006)

plan_D said:


> In air-to-air ability the Gripen is superior to the F-16, correct. QUOTE]
> 
> Well isnt that what a fighter should do? not drop bombs.


----------



## Henk (May 8, 2006)

FlyboyJ, the thing is that the SAAF and the SADF have not been so good as it has been during the Angola war, but the assholes who were causing these problems are not there any more and things are looking up for now. The thing of the Gripen is that you save in maintenance and with the cost of the aircraft that you can spend more on training. 

The problem in South Africa is that the black pilots are having problems with flying the fighter aircraft and does not make it most of the time, they can not make the landings and thus were sent to Botswana for testing there because the said the instructors are racists, but Botswana tested them and came to the same conclusion, they can not land and thus not make it.

South Africa are quite famous for its safety record when it comes to its aircraft. The SAAF were very happy with the Mirrages and the upgraded Merrage F1, the Cheetah. 

Here is a pic of the Mirrage and then the Cheetah (the grey one). I got it from a site where they talked about a game that is based on the Bush War in Angola, a flight simulator.

Mirrage:






Cheetah:





I think that the Mirrage are mostly not even talked about and its success is also mostly forgotton.

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2006)

Very Cool! I spent time in Botswana with the BDF and their F-5s....Same situation...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2006)

ozumn said:


> but you all say its a better fighter because it can carry more bombs, i thought this was a poll about the best fighter and the f16 isnt better then the gripen and if there was a war i think the usa would have to fly them from the states to sweden, so what good is 2000 f16 then. This is from a Pilot who traind with the Finnish f18 he told me that 1gripen took out 6 f18 they could not see him i doubt that a f16 can do that, im looking for some truth behind that i have learnd that you cant belive all what them pilot say.



That is not the point. 

Besides within 24 hours the USAF could deploy whatever it needs to bases in England and Germany (ever heard of RAF Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Rammstein and Spangdalem AFB) and from those they could reach well into Sweden.

Besides plan_D hit the nail on the head. The F-16 overall is a more superior aircraft because it can do a wider roll.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 9, 2006)

ozumn said:


> but you all say its a better fighter because it can carry more bombs, i thought this was a poll about the best fighter and the f16 isnt better then the gripen and if there was a war i think the usa would have to fly them from the states to sweden, so what good is 2000 f16 then. This is from a Pilot who traind with the Finnish f18 he told me that 1gripen took out 6 f18 they could not see him i doubt that a f16 can do that, im looking for some truth behind that i have learnd that you cant belive all what them pilot say.


 He may be correct, but think about this - the Finnish AF F-18s have The AN/APG-73 fire-control radar. The Hornet's onboard computer is manufactured by Valmet. They might not of had an upgrade since 1998 or 99 so the scenario is possible. The US aircraft (F-16 and F-18 ) are going to be equipped with much more powerful radar and I doubt the same thing would happen if an exercise was conducted against US aircraft....

Given the right scenario the Gripen would most certainly take out multiple targets if it could stay on station long enough to do so.


----------



## ozumn (May 9, 2006)

Got some more info about them f18 they were almost fully armed i guess thats why it was easy must have been like a big blimp on the radar screen.

And Adler if the US for some reason was going to war against sweden im not sure that eu would let them use there air space oh and yeah still think gripen rules


----------



## lesofprimus (May 9, 2006)

Are we forgetting that the AWACS would have picked up that Grippen long before the Grippen locked in ANY American aircraft, let alone the F-18 with a superior radar set...


> if the US for some reason was going to war against sweden im not sure that eu would let them use there air space


Have u ever heard of something called Aircraft Carriers and Cruise Missles???

A war with Sweden would end very quickly pal....


----------



## Hunter368 (May 9, 2006)

ozumn said:


> Got some more info about them f18 they were almost fully armed i guess thats why it was easy must have been like a big blimp on the radar screen.
> 
> And Adler if the US for some reason was going to war against sweden im not sure that eu would let them use there air space oh and yeah still think gripen rules




A war between USA and Sweden?????? lol Thats funny, calling it a war would be alittle ....... over stating it..... more like a "war game" or "target pratice".


----------



## ozumn (May 10, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Are we forgetting that the AWACS would have picked up that Grippen long before the Grippen locked in ANY American aircraft, let alone the F-18 with a superior radar set...
> Have u ever heard of something called Aircraft Carriers and Cruise Missles???
> 
> A war with Sweden would end very quickly pal....



we hace AWACS akso and the cruise missiles would be taken care off by BAMSE http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/ and the carriers can the sub take out dont think it woukd be a walk in the park we are not some Arab nations but yeah US would easy win if it was a suprise attack and offcurse i think US would win in the long run but it would not be easy as you would think well thats what i think and have to think, and now im off to invade US playing Canada in Doomsday hehe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2006)

ozumn said:


> we hace AWACS akso and the cruise missiles would be taken care off by BAMSE http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bamse/ and the carriers can the sub take out dont think it woukd be a walk in the park we are not some Arab nations but yeah US would easy win if it was a suprise attack and offcurse i think US would win in the long run but it would not be easy as you would think well thats what i think and have to think, and now im off to invade US playing Canada in Doomsday hehe.


 Sweden doesn't have AWACS aircraft the size and capability of E-6s or ES-3Bs that could "blind" almost all of Europe with only 3 or 4 aircraft - Fighting Sweden wouldn't be a walk in a park - Sweden has a very well trained military designed to fight for a limited amount of time and then conduct guerrilla operations. It's whole military doctrine is to make an invasion painful for anyone who might try....


----------



## ozumn (May 10, 2006)

No we dont have the size but still have AWACS, dont have any stats on them so i dont know if they suck or are great.


----------



## ozumn (May 10, 2006)

We are sending Gripen to Alaska this summer for some exercise, seems to alot of nations going there, any one have some inside info on that?

Pretty cool to go to Alaska with so short range.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2006)

ozumn said:


> No we dont have the size but still have AWACS, dont have any stats on them so i dont know if they suck or are great.


 The Swedish AF only has one SAAB 340B available to do AWACS work, hardly enough to stop a sizeable force but probably capable enough to impede a localized intrusion. SAAB developed the SAAB 2000 ERIEYE AWE&C system, which seems to be a great short range platform but i think the airframe size would limit it electronic capability and it seems this system is being exported at this time, but looking at the Boeing E-3 you're probably looking at triple the price and four times the capability. Again I think you're in a same situation with the Gripen vs. the F-16 or Mirage 2000 - mission costs determining requirement...


----------



## ozumn (May 10, 2006)

we have 6 S 100B Argus and 2 S 102B Korpen not saying thay are UBER or so just saying we have them.


----------



## pbfoot (May 10, 2006)

ozumn said:


> We are sending Gripen to Alaska this summer for some exercise, seems to alot of nations going there, any one have some inside info on that?
> 
> Pretty cool to go to Alaska with so short range.


well as you already stated the last time they crossed the pond they took the same route all light aircraft use when crossing more then likely Prestwick or Shannon to Keflivik then Narsasaquac or Bluie west in Greenland then Goose Bay or Gander that is the same route as any light shortranged a/c has used since crossing the Atlantic was commonplace even seen a Bearcat F8F use that route as well as Helicopters


----------



## ozumn (May 11, 2006)

oh Bearcat thats a nice plane btw.


----------



## Henk (May 11, 2006)

Well talking of war, the thing is that the US have the man power, the Navy, the airforce and the technology, but I think that on the ground the US can kicks a**, but it depends on the will of the guys you are up against and the tactics used against the invader that will be the turning point of a war.

Lets take a example that I know very well. The Anglo Boer war. The UK had the most superior army and technology of that time, but they still got nowhere. They did take over Pretoria and most ground of the Boer nations, but still could not win the war man to man. They had more men than the Boers and still could not win. 

To fight on the ground in a other country is not a easy thing. You can learn the maps and still it would not budge. Guruala war fare is the thing you can not crack or get controle of. Today the US would bomb South Africa into little peaces and burn the airfields and docks, but on the ground it can turn nasty.

South Africa developed most of their systems themselfs, has one of the best artillery in the world, the G-5 and the G-6. The Rooivalk attack helicopter can whip a** and so can our airforce. The thing of SA is that airfields is not easy to get to, but can be destroyed. We do not have any bombers like the US nor Aircraft Carriers, but our coast is a sun of a b**ch. 

The way I see it that the US can take over much ground, but against Gorilla war fare they are not so good. The thing in Iraq is that those stupid sun of a bitches that is fighting against the US forces now, suck, that is not Gorilla war fare that is terrorism at its best. 

Your guys must really have the will to fight and must be hard a** sun of a bitches that you wont leave near your daughter. Take the Bush war in Angola, the South African Army fought against more superior enemy and airforce, but they still did not get the South African Army or Airforce to go down on their knees, but who won at the end, the communists, because the South African forces pulled back. 

The way it looks to me that the guys in Iraq that fight in the US Army does not really want to fight there. They do not have the will anymore for that bullshit.

You may have the technology and man power, but it still does not mean that you will win the war.

Henk


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2006)

Henk said:



> The way it looks to me that the guys in Iraq that fight in the US Army does not really want to fight there. They do not have the will anymore for that bullshit.


 Now I don't know where your hearing or reading that - Adler was there and he'll tell you different. The guys that have gone to Iraq ARE NOT conscripts - they joined the military freely and there are many who have done 2 and 3 tours. My brother is a 2 tour Vietnam Vet, 56 years old and is still waiting orders to go to Iraq - he views himself as a professional soldier and will fight anywhere when called upon, there are many serving in the US military with the same sense of duty and dedication. As usual I think you're only hearing the negative press. Currently 125,000 soldiers are trying to police 7 million Iraqis.


----------



## Henk (May 11, 2006)

Yes, I understand what you are saying , but are they not sick of it and want to go home and not be left with that mess?

The worst thing of war is that some guys come back totally mad and does not recover from it other have nightmares and sociological problems. Some of the guys who came back from Angola also never came back human, they changed for the worst.

What I meant is that do they fight with the spirit that they started with under the influence that there is weapons of mass destruction. Now it has turned into a war against real nasty terrorists.

What is the morale of the men there for real, no bullshit guys I mean do they really want to come home or still fight?

Henk


----------



## pbfoot (May 11, 2006)

Henk your artillery was built in South Africa but designed by a guy called Gerald Bull who was not South African but the probably the best ballistic engineer you should read up on him and see what he did with the 16" guns from the US Navy


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2006)

Henk said:


> Yes, I understand what you are saying , but are they not sick of it and want to go home and not be left with that mess?


many of those there don't consider it a mess...


Henk said:


> The worst thing of war is that some guys come back totally mad and does not recover from it other have nightmares and sociological problems. Some of the guys who came back from Angola also never came back human, they changed for the worst.


My brother did 2 tours in Nam - was never the same..


Henk said:


> What I meant is that do they fight with the spirit that they started with under the influence that there is weapons of mass destruction. Now it has turned into a war against real nasty terrorists.
> 
> What is the morale of the men there for real, no bullshit guys I mean do they really want to come home or still fight?
> 
> Henk


Many of the ones I've met (they were from Fort Carson) are proud of what they did and have stated that the media doesn't give a good account of what goes on there. One guy I met said the ones he really enjoyed seeing killed are the non-Iraqis, terrorists from other countries that wanted to go there to fight. I was told that they make up about 10% of the combatants.

No soldier wants to be detached from family but it seems most of the US soldiers in Iraq still have high morale and there are still many stateside willing to go over there.....


----------



## davparlr (May 11, 2006)

Henk said:


> Yes, I understand what you are saying , but are they not sick of it and want to go home and not be left with that mess?
> 
> The worst thing of war is that some guys come back totally mad and does not recover from it other have nightmares and sociological problems. Some of the guys who came back from Angola also never came back human, they changed for the worst.
> 
> ...



You have been listening to some slanted info. Almost all soldiers want to come home from war. Who wants to be shot at compared to sitting with a loved one around a home fire? And there will always be someone to complain and always a news man willing to listen to that one complain. In truth, I think the forces in Iraq are highly motivated and believe that they are offering the Iraqis an opportuny to have democratic government. Gee, what a evil objective to have. They also believe that that government will make a more stable middle east, and therefore, help stablize the most volatile and troublesome area of the world. This is different than Vietnam, which I am a veteran. There, many soldiers were drafted and morale was low. They still stayed and fought and won every battle, only to be withdrawn by polititians, who lost the war. Still they fought for 10 years, the longest war in American history. Nobody who knows our troops in Iraq think that they are angry, if they are, its against lousy news reporting that deceives the public of what they are doing.

You are right about guerrilla warfare. It is a dangerous war, even with powerful forces. Especially if one is too civilized to use the brutal techniques of the Nazis. I do believe the American armed forces are strongest military the world has ever seen, but warfare in the jungle or mountains against a determined, well supported guerrilla group would be deadly. However, with the new weapons available, supplies will be severely limited to the terrorist. The terrorist in Iraq are not supported by the majority of Iraqis.

To answer you question, they want to come home, but they believe in winning and they will fight!


----------



## Henk (May 11, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Henk your artillery was built in South Africa but designed by a guy called Gerald Bull who was not South African but the probably the best ballistic engineer you should read up on him and see what he did with the 16" guns from the US Navy



I know about him. He made that mother of a gun from the barrels of 16 inch guns and later were killed by the Israelis because he was building this big gun for Iraq. He tried to smuggle it into Iraq making as if the parts of the barrel was for oil pipes and almost succeeded. He was also jailed for solding the specs to the South African Government during the Apartheid era and the Angola war.

He sold the plans or specs of the 155mm Howitzer guns that was later used in the G-5 and G-6. The G-5 is a towed artillery and has the best pin point shot you will ever get from that kind of artillery. The G-6 is a mobile artillery with the 155mm Howitzer. I have seen one of the G-6 at the Joburg Military Museum and it is a monster of a war machine. The G-6 is a 6X6.

The G-6:


























She is lovely. 

That is actually great to hear that the guys in Iraq still have great moral.

Henk


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

Even using guerilla tactics, you cannot defeat the U.S in a war. It is the single most powerful military that this world has ever encountered. In comparitive terms to other militaries of today, it far exceeds anything in history. Even the Royal Navy in it's heyday was not as far advanced above other nations as the U.S military is now. 

If the U.S had to fight South Africa, or Sweden, or Britain, or India, or Iran ... or anyone. It has the economy and military strength to wipe out any chance of defeat within a few days. 

The U.S could simply station it's massive fleet in the oceans around it's target nation, and slaughter it from the air. The only nation in my list with any chance of survival, or the biggest delay, would be Britain because the Royal Navy could answer in kind with it's own fleet. But it would only cost more lives and not secure a victory. 

Once the airfields and HQ of the nation had been smashed. The U.S could land it's Marines and Airborne with great efficiency, the equipment available to them is unsurpassed. Any land forces would be blown away by the USAF and USN, and the land forces would be simply mopping up. The only real problem would be the guerilla warfare afterwards, of which the nations with the greatest trained special forces would be the most deadly ... but this isn't going to stop the U.S. Iraq has lost the war, the U.S has done what it wanted to do. And the losses are tiny in comparison to past conflicts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 15, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> many of those there don't consider it a mess...
> 
> My brother did 2 tours in Nam - was never the same..
> 
> ...




You just hit the nail on the head my friend. The media does not cover what we are doing over there. They do not cover the good will that we bring, the schools that we have the built, the fact that Baghdad has plumming again. They show only the death and the bad things that happen and us soldiers get the blame for it. I hate the media and so does just about every other soldier that I know. 

When we were in Iraq I hated flying the media and I told them that. I asked them why can not show what we are doing and they just grinned and said it was there job.

About the moral you are correct as well. We all hated being away from our families and friends for over a year but we did the best we could and we became a family in ourselves and we helped each other through it and together with this "military family" that we became we kept each other in good spirits and made the best of it.

These memories with my fellow comrads I will never forget and will allways remember and I will allways love my fellow soldiers that I went to war with as brothers.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 15, 2006)

AMEN!!! PREACH ON BROTHER ADLER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 15, 2006)




----------



## 102first_hussars (May 16, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> Henk your artillery was built in South Africa but designed by a guy called Gerald Bull who was not South African but the probably the best ballistic engineer you should read up on him and see what he did with the 16" guns from the US Navy





Yes, he also tried developing the the so called 'Super Gun' for the Iraqis before GW1, then being assasinated by possibly Israeili or American secret services


----------



## Gnomey (May 16, 2006)

Good stuff Adler!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2006)

Thankyou, thankyou, I will be here all week!


----------



## lesofprimus (May 16, 2006)

Henk said:


> I know about him. He made that mother of a gun from the barrels of 16 inch guns and later were killed by the Israelis because he was building this big gun for Iraq. He tried to smuggle it into Iraq making as if the parts of the barrel was for oil pipes and almost succeeded.





hussars said:


> Yes, he also tried developing the the so called 'Super Gun' for the Iraqis before GW1, then being assasinated by possibly Israeili or American secret services


Henk beat ya to it hussars...


----------



## syscom3 (May 16, 2006)

When I was working in French Guiana, I had to transit through Barbados. Those barrels were abandoned on the beach near the airport and I saw them wehn we took off.

I have to check my video's from back then. I might have grabbed a quick shot of them rom the airplane.

One thing I remember, is they were huge, even from altitude. looked like huge sections of pipes from an oil refinery.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 17, 2006)

Did any of the surviving pieces survive and end up in museums or anything?


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2006)

In the American Hanger at Duxford there is a part of the super gun and to be honest, unless you were told that it was part of a gun you would decribe it as part of a pipeline.

There was a huge stink over here at the time. The company that built it was British and technically it wa a difficult thing to make. They knew that it was way over specified for a pipeline and tipped off the security services. The company were told to carry on building it and let MI5 know what was going on.

When the mud hit the fan the goverment denied everything and had the company directors charged for arms offences. Fortunately the company had a number of records that made the charge unsustainable. They had even a advertising film made showing the 'pipes' under construction showing that they could produce such technically difficult pipelines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2006)

Okay cool.


----------



## Peppst3r (Nov 2, 2006)

If the F16 is bether, why did 2 gripen(griffins) "kill" 4 F16c in a simulated combat.

jas39 gripen isn't made for single fligh or with one wingman, its primary roll is to fly in a group of 4, then it becomes wery dangerus.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 2, 2006)

Peppst3r said:


> If the F16 is bether, why did 2 gripen(griffins) "kill" 4 F16c in a simulated combat.
> 
> jas39 gripen isn't made for single fligh or with one wingman, its primary roll is to fly in a group of 4, then it becomes wery dangerus.



And a P-3 Orion sunk the aircraft carrier Kittyhawk in simulated combat. Your point?

F-16C - block 25, 20 years old, try against a block 60 F-16 which is more in line with your precious Gripen....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2006)

Peppst3r said:


> If the F16 is bether, why did 2 gripen(griffins) "kill" 4 F16c in a simulated combat.



What were the conditions of the flight? Who was flying it? What kind of package was in the F-16? There are so many factors that play into it.



Peppst3r said:


> jas39 gripen isn't made for single fligh or with one wingman, its primary roll is to fly in a group of 4, then it becomes wery dangerus.



That does not say much about the Gripen. Think about what you are saying. As a single aircraft or when only in groups of 2 or 3 it is not dangerous. 

Most airforces have there aircraft fly in tandem such as 2 aircraft as wingmen. 2 F-16s let alone 1 are very deadly...

Not saying the Gripen is not a good aircraft. I think it is a great aircraft but what makes the F-16 better is its vesatility. The F-16 can be used in so many roles and is highly effective in all of them.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 2, 2006)

And the Gripen is not effective in multi-role? That was the top level requirement for its development. I think that FBJ hit it on the head. Against a Block 60 and you have a more even fight. Put an AESA radar in it and the Gripen likely wouldn't stand a chance. But you can't knock the Gripen. It does what it was designed to do...air-to-air, air-to-gnd, air-to-sea and recon all in one rugged package with excellent commo equipment for situation exchange. I wouldn't feel undergunned if that was my primary aircraft.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 2, 2006)

no.1-f22 Raptor
no.2-f-35 lightning II
no.3 F-16
No.4- EF-2000
No.5-SU-37
No.6-F-15 Eagle
No.7 F-14 Tomcat
No.8 Mirage 2000
No.9 F-18 Hornet
No. 10 Mig 29


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 2, 2006)

Wow. One of your top ten is no longer in service too. No Gripen. No Rafale. Care to break them down by model version?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> And the Gripen is not effective in multi-role? That was the top level requirement for its development. I think that FBJ hit it on the head. Against a Block 60 and you have a more even fight. Put an AESA radar in it and the Gripen likely wouldn't stand a chance. But you can't knock the Gripen. It does what it was designed to do...air-to-air, air-to-gnd, air-to-sea and recon all in one rugged package with excellent commo equipment for situation exchange. I wouldn't feel undergunned if that was my primary aircraft.



I am not knocking the Gripen. I think it is excellent aircraft but I dont see that the example he gave against the F-16 is a legit arguement against the F-16.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2006)

does no one else think it odd hussars has no number 3?


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am not knocking the Gripen. I think it is excellent aircraft but I dont see that the example he gave against the F-16 is a legit arguement against the F-16.



Agreed.

And leave it to Lanc to catch that one.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 2, 2006)

Hold on, maybe #3 is a stealth bird of some type. So stealthy, it even covers the number.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

You mean its probably this aircraft here.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 3, 2006)

Add an AESA radar to any of those aircraft and the list quickly changes. I would rank the F-18E/F higher up for that exact reason.


----------



## timshatz (Nov 5, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You mean its probably this aircraft here.



That's the one.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 8, 2006)




----------



## CrescentMoon (Aug 17, 2007)

i dunno... i'd be hesitant about attacking the gripens. i can imagine a scenerio: a squadron of f16's is set to attack the enemy's key bases and operations. the area is uneven forest terrain. scattered throughout hidden points are gripens, about the size of a large van, quickly getting off the ground on short, makeshift runways. by the time the f16's realized they missed these initial targets, the gripens are already in the air, locking in their radar. f16's are deciding whether to continue their mission or to counter, they scramble around, lose formation. a few volleys of missiles, maybe both sides get some kills, and we're in dogfighting range. gripens comes standard with hmc, f16's afaik does not, gripens easily takes out f16's. yeah, i think vipers are great machines, but the gripen is designed for quick response, hard to kill on the ground, and anti-air measures. it's a tie for me.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 17, 2007)

CrescentMoon said:


> i dunno... i'd be hesitant about attacking the gripens. i can imagine a scenerio: a squadron of f16's is set to attack the enemy's key bases and operations. the area is uneven forest terrain. scattered throughout hidden points are gripens, about the size of a large van, quickly getting off the ground on short, makeshift runways. by the time the f16's realized they missed these initial targets, the gripens are already in the air, locking in their radar. f16's are deciding whether to continue their mission or to counter, they scramble around, lose formation. a few volleys of missiles, maybe both sides get some kills, and we're in dogfighting range. gripens comes standard with hmc, f16's afaik does not, gripens easily takes out f16's. yeah, i think vipers are great machines, but the gripen is designed for quick response, hard to kill on the ground, and anti-air measures. it's a tie for me.



And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.


.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 17, 2007)

Me no understand.
Are you guys planning a war against Sweden? 
What likely scenario would the US attack Sweden? You had a Volvo which spent too long in the shop!

The Viggen and the Draken were some of the coolest looking jet fighters ever built.


----------



## CrescentMoon (Aug 17, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.
> 
> 
> .



then you agree, that fighting gripens with f16's isn't a favorable scenerio  

are there planes that's better suited for quick response and still manage to be competitive with the enemy other than the gripen?


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

For me i love the great classics for instance:
1) The Harrier-just a great little plane with so many uses in the modern field the falklands proved that this little dog has a big bite.
2) Lightning- Maybe it is outdated by thirty or so years but this little bugger was faster than the F14, F16 and F15. (Information from Air Combat mag i have) 
3) F15 Looks really cool so fast and sleek.
4) F22 raptor in the modern field this is the pinnicle of aircraft design. (for now)
5) Su27- Maybe it is in the stone age with reguards to electronics however it is like all russian things - its cheap and it works as well as doing what it should.
oh crap can't think of any more at the moment i'll get back to this in a moment.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 17, 2007)

Aussie - the harrier??? Talk to some pilots and maint crews of those damn things... not exactly the pinnacle of successful design.

Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

keep going down i screwed up a post.....


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Mkloby- I have read Commander "Sharkey Wards" autobiography of the falklands and from what he had to say you had enough missiles to nail two mirarges thats enough isn't it, anyway the new harrier is a ground attack so it must have some payload capacity.



mkloby said:


> Aussie - the harrier???
> Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???



Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?


----------



## Glider (Aug 17, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Aussie - the harrier??? Talk to some pilots and maint crews of those damn things... not exactly the pinnacle of successful design.
> 
> Taking off vertically with a half bag of gas and no ordnance - that's not very useful, is it???



More than a little harsh. When the chips are down the Harrier has delivered in spades for over 25 years. As for the pilots, yes I have talked to them and it was always the plane the pilots wanted to fly, before any other aircraft in the RAF. As for its ability as a fighter, the Sea Harrier had a remarkable record against the F15's/F16's at Red Flag excercises. 
To maintain its always been petty reliable being designed from the start to operate away from an airfield. I admit, an engine change in the field is more than a little tricky but then again an engine change away from an airfield is a little unusual for any plane.
As for its payload a verticle takeoff does limit things but that isn't normal procedure, a rolling takeoff being the norm. The ski jump makes a huge difference at sea and I have always wondered why the USA didn't follow this practice.


----------



## renrich (Aug 17, 2007)

Can you see an A6 loaded using a ski jump?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> And then, this one time at band camp, the F-16's were not flung into the air haphazardly. The tacticians were actually competent.
> 
> 
> .






Thanks for that!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't you avartar a helicopter ?



Helicopter is not a jet....

Different mission and different capabilities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2007)

From what I heard the Harrier is a maintenance nightmare compared to other aircraft. An engine change involves removing the wing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2007)

Yeah I talked to some Harrier mechanics in Iraq and they said it was a pain in the ass to work on. 

I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Aug 17, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I talked to some Harrier mechanics in Iraq and they said it was a pain in the ass to work on.
> 
> I am sure though that the pilots who fly it love it.



I agree Joe and Chris I have heard the same things.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 17, 2007)

One of my good buddies is a former AV-8B engine guy - he loathes the harrier! Goes on and on about how he hated working on the thing day in and out.

And Aussie - my avatar is a helo... so what?


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 17, 2007)

Never mind Mkloby its an Aussie thing   
all meant in good fun....
Anyway i don't know much about the engine maintainence on a harrier so i'll take your word for it. Anyway mkloby as Glider said the norm for a harrier taking off under heavy load is a ski ramp after a rolling takeoff. THe verticle feature is however extremely usefull in a number of ways as i'm sure you already know.


----------



## Graeme (Aug 18, 2007)

On the topic of VTOL.

I know the project never progressed...but never understood the 'why'.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 18, 2007)

Graeme said:


> On the topic of VTOL.
> 
> I know the project never progressed...but never understood the 'why'.



The Rockwell XFV-12A was waaaaaaaaay underpowered . . . it had a second-generation low bypass-ratio turbofan (a P&W F401) that didn't provide enough thrust to get it off the ground, even with 1/4-full fuel tanks, let alone any armament. It would be another 25+ years before we were able to develop an engine with a high enough thrust-to-weight ratio to allow vertical flight for a supersonic aircraft (the F-119 engine in the F-35 develops approx. 36,000 lbs. of thrust for takeoff).


----------



## Graeme (Aug 18, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> The Rockwell XFV-12A was waaaaaaaaay underpowered . . . it had a second-generation low bypass-ratio turbofan (a P&W F401) that didn't provide enough thrust to get it off the ground,



But they still built a prototype. This is what I don't understand. The 'lab tests' revealed that there was only enough thrust to lift 75 per cent of the aircraft. Why prove the point, by building the plane?


----------



## The Basket (Aug 18, 2007)

The Harrier is designed to fly from short runways and improvised airstrips.

It can do things no other jet can do.

To compare to say a F-15E is a little misleading. If the runway has been damaged beyoynd repiar the Eagle goes nowhere. 

The Sea Harrier has one of the best kill ratios of a modern jet. And against a west equipped airpower.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 18, 2007)

The Basket said:


> The Harrier is designed to fly from short runways and improvised airstrips.
> 
> It can do things no other jet can do.
> 
> ...



I believe it also has a mishap rate about 4 times that of an F/A-18 in US service. Don't quote me on that one, though.

In a couple short years when the F-35 is out - the Harrier alone won't have that capability any longer.

Also - don't forget the pilots that US and Brit harrier drivers went up against have nowhere near their level of training.


----------



## Glider (Aug 18, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I believe it also has a mishap rate about 4 times that of an F/A-18 in US service. Don't quote me on that one, though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Graeme (Aug 18, 2007)

Glider said:


> The ski jump makes a huge difference at sea and I have always wondered why the USA didn't follow this practice.



Russians had a shot at it, aboard the _Tbilisi_ in late 1989 with MiG-29s and Su-27s. Take-off runs, depending on weight, varied between 330-600 feet. The short run benefited from the use of deck-launch 'restrainers', which were hinged planks, raised ahead of the mainwheels to allow the engines to be run up to full thrust before the aircraft was released. Deck-end speed was 75-85 knots.

But as renrich pointed out, a loaded A6...?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 18, 2007)

Graeme said:


> But they still built a prototype. This is what I don't understand. The 'lab tests' revealed that there was only enough thrust to lift 75 per cent of the aircraft. Why prove the point, by building the plane?



The developers had originally thought they could increase the thrust by ducting part of the engines thrust at takeoff 'to "augmentor" flaps in the wings and in the oversized canard. By dragging free-stream air through the flaps and increasing the mass flow, the augmentor flaps would boost the engines thrust by 70 percent - in theory' (Quoted from _Joint Strike Fighter: Boeing X-32 vs Lockheed Martin X-35,_ by Bill Sweetman). As static tests with the engine running at military power showed, these estimates were grossly overstated. So, it wasn't a case of "them" building an aircraft that they knew was underpowered, but one in which the theory did not live up to reality.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 18, 2007)

Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
either model ???


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
> either model ???


none of the above.....


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 19, 2007)

Jesus that's not exactly good on it's part oh well i guess it wasn't really designed to be a supersonic plane with all the bulky gear that gives it the ability to go VTOL


----------



## Graeme (Aug 19, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> As static tests with the engine running at military power showed, these estimates were grossly overastated. So, it wasn't a case of "them" building an aircraft that they knew was underpowered, but one in which the theory did not live up to reality.



Hmm..I've been under the impression that shortcomings in the Thrust Augmented Wing (TAW) had been revealed at Rockwell's "whirly-rig" stage, but pressed on hoping the problem could be overcome by experimenting with the prototype.

Must have been a huge disappointment/embarrassment for Rockwell. In 1975 Company President Jim Tichenor told a reporter that, "It'll make the Harrier as dead as the dodo". One company history book, 'Rockwell-The Heritage of North American' (1986) makes no mention of the saga or the XFV-12A, at all.
Bill Gunston states that when Rockwell was pressed, "they explained that they failed to achieve the desired augmentation ratio, (1:6), in the ejector ducts, but there was more to it than this". 

Thanks for your input SoD Stitch


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 19, 2007)

Sir Winston Spencer Churchill onec said this which in the circumstances i think is rather approporiate if a little wrong in this case anyway:

Eating words has never given me indigestion. 
Winston Churchill 
He also said this:

Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement. 
Winston Churchill


----------



## Graeme (Aug 19, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Was the harrier supersonic in level flight ????
> either model ???



Could have been.

Russians did.

Now go outside, and kick the footy for awhile!


----------



## The Basket (Aug 19, 2007)

The Harrier performed excellently in the Falklands.

The Harrier isn't supersonic but so what?

Tanks aren't supersonic. The Apache isn't supersonic.

The Harrier was the ONLY successful VTOL aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 19, 2007)

You have the remember the Harrier was not designed to be a interceptor or air supperiority fighter like the F-15, F-14, F-16 and so forth. 

The Harrier was designed to be used in ground attack and support missions. That is why the US Marines bought it and why other nations such as England use it.

To compare it to aircraft such as the F-15 and so forth is a bit foolish in my opinion.

The Harrier is a great ground attack but does not come close to the A-10 in my opinion.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 19, 2007)

Graeme said:


> Could have been.
> 
> Russians did.
> 
> Now go outside, and kick the footy for awhile!



WTF dont have a footy however will ride motorbike at soonest oppotunity....


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2007)

The Harrier was simply designed to operate in areas where other aircraft could not. It cannot actually be compared to any other aircraft except in individual parts of operation; the reason is that no other aircraft can do what it does. 

The A-10 is the better ground attack aircraft, but then the Harrier can be there at the FOB and get to action to quicker. The best picture of the Harrier I've seen is of one landing in a tiny clearing in a forest, not even a helicopter could land in that situation. Consider the Harrier a fast attack helicopter ... because that's all it really is but without the rotors.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 22, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The best picture of the Harrier I've seen is of one landing in a tiny clearing in a forest, not even a helicopter could land in that situation.



Sure it can. Ive landed in many tiny clearings with as little as a foot clearing the rotors.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The Mig-25 was sh*t but a gem, it's a dog but a Thoroughbred. It was designed to take down one aircraft that never materialized and when pitted in other roles it suffered sadly. It didn't have an ejection seat...


I took this tread out of the dusty shelf only for one purpose - once for all: MiG-25 HAD an ejection seat (the good old KM-1, installed on MiG-21 , Su-7 and on other planes)!   The seat of the Belenkos airplane was dismantled and removed for a closer investigation. 




> its just that the Su-27 wasn't the unstable...they don't have very advanced avionics, they designed the Su-27for stability and tweaked it for more maneuverability and agility


Su-27P avionics was much better in comparison with such of F-15A and roughly equal with the avionics of the F-15C


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2007)

Ramirezzz said:


> I took this tread out of the dusty shelf only for one purpose - once for all: MiG-25 HAD an ejection seat (the good old KM-1, installed on MiG-21 , Su-7 and on other planes)!   The seat of the Belenkos airplane was dismantled and removed for a closer investigation.


Belenko has stated in his book, in numerous publications and in LIVE appearances prior to his death that the MiG-25 in his squadron had NO ejection seats. This has been confirmed by other former Soviet MiG-25s drivers who have either immigrated or defected to the west. It seems however in later years (Post 1976) the MiG-25 did receive a seat.

Perhaps this was a little incentive to remain gamefully employed with the Soviet Air Force?!?!?


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Belenko has stated in his book, in numerous publications and in LIVE appearances prior to his death that the MiG-25 in his squadron had NO ejection seats. This has been confirmed by other former Soviet MiG-25s drivers who have either immigrated or defected to the west. It seems however in later years (Post 1976) the MiG-25 did receive a seat.


As far as I know Belenko was the only MiG-25 pilot who defected to the west . In fact, before 1989 he was the only pilot of the soviet Air Force and PVO who has defected. 
Back to the question:
I have 3 different books with the description of the construction of the Foxbat, unfortunately all in russian. They all confirm the presence of an ejection seat even in the prototype plane and in the earliest versions ,both fighter and recce - MiG-25P and MiG-25R respectevly.
So according to the information in these books there was an ejection seat KM-1 installed on the first versions of the MiG-25R (1967),which was changed later to the more advanced KM-1M. MiG-25P was equipped with this seat as well (V. Iljin, M.Levin, Sovremennaja Aviacija,M.,1992).
The only changes were made after Belenko's defecton was the completely changed "friend-foe" system which became useless after his betrayal - that costed about 2 billion soviet rubles - the development of the first soviet aircraft carrier was cancelled due to this reason, than a better radar was installed and some other changes in avionics were made.
And quite frankly, can you imagine a mach 3 plane without an ejection seat? I highly doubt any pilot would climb in that airplane even to make a touch-n-go training flight - the Soviet Union was not known for a very human treatment of its own citizens,but we shouldn't exaggerate THAT much.
As for Belenko, I don't know why he lied all the time on that issue -he could have his reasons for this. BTW, are you sure he's dead by now? There're some rumours in Russia now and then , that he was killed in a plane accident 2 or 3 years ago , but then, I saw an interview with him dated 2005 or something like this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2007)

Ramirezzz said:


> As far as I know Belenko was the only MiG-25 pilot who defected to the west . In fact, due to the 1989 he was the only pilot of the soviet Air Force and PVO who defected.
> Back to the question:
> I have 3 different books with the description of the construction of the Foxbat, unfortunately all in russian. They all confirm the presence of an ejection seat even in the prototype plane and in the earliest versions ,both fighter and recce - MiG-25P and MiG-25R respectevly.
> So according to the information in these books there was an ejection seat KM-1 installed on the first versions of the MiG-25R (1967),which was changed later to the more advanced KM-1M. MiG-25P was equipped with this seat as well (V. Iljin, M.Levin, Sovremennaja Aviacija,M.,1992).
> The only changes were made after Belenko's defecton was the completely changed "friend-foe" system which bekame useless after his betrayal - that costed about 2 billion soviet rubles - the development of the first soviet aircraft carrier was cancelled due to this reason, than a better radar was installed and some other changes in avionics were made.


I believe that it was possible that the squadron Belenko was in, considering its proximity to the "west" did not arm their seat - again just a theory based on what Belenko said.




Ramirezzz said:


> And quite frankly, can you imagine a mach 3 plane without an ejection seat? I highly doubt any pilot would climb in that airplane even to make a touch-n-go training flight - the Soviet Union was not known for a very human treatment of its own citizens,but we shouldn't exaggerate THAT much.


You have valid points however I could see trainers so equipped with the seats and that training done at an inland base. As far as ejecting at Mach 3 - I wouldn't know what is worse - ejecting or staying with the plane although I know there have been successful MiG-25 and SR-71 egresses.


Ramirezzz said:


> As for Belenko, I don't know why he lied all the time on that issue -he could have his reasons for this. BTW, are you sure he's dead by now? There're some rumours in Russia now and then , that he was killed in a plane accident 2 or 3 years ago , but then, I saw an interview with him dated 2005 or something like this.


It's funny - on an other forum I corresponded with another fellow from Russia and he stated that a lot of Belenkos statements were lies - especially after his book was published. There were rumors that he was killed in a car accident about 2 years ago, I haven't seen anything confirming that. I think a lot of the media confused him with Alexander Zuyev.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I believe that it was possible that the squadron Belenko was in, considering its proximity to the "west" did not arm their seat - again just a theory based on what Belenko said.


The only problem is that the fighter regiments equipped with the MiG-25P, the type which Belenko has flown, were PVO regiments, that means they _all_ were situated in the proximity to the border - some in Cola Peninsula near the Norwegian/Finnish border and some in Chukotka near Alaska and some in the Far East of Russia , where the Belenko's regiment was deployed. 
AFAIK the only measure to prevent possible defection (just not to fill fuel tanks to 100%) was made _after_ Belenko's infamous flight and only in his regiment.



> You have valid points however I could see trainers so equipped with the seats and that training done at an inland base. As far as ejecting at Mach 3 - I wouldn't know what is worse - ejecting or staying with the plane although I know there have been successful MiG-25 and SR-71 egresses.


The flights on trainers are very different kind of situation - a training plane like L-29, MiG-15UTI or T-39 can usually make a safe landing without engine power from every pattern section exept crosswind. Moreover, it has pretty decent chances to survive even after a landing in a field somewhere nearby the airbase 
Now imagine a beast with a 37 t of normal takeoff weight - if both engines fail it will fall from the 500 m alltitude just like a brick without a slightest chance to survive.
The trainers don't go supersonic - and I'm talking not about Mach 3 - without ejection seat you dont have a chance even at lower speeds.


> It's funny - on an other forum I corresponded with another fellow from Russia and he stated that a lot of Belenkos statements were lies - especially after his book was published.


Personnaly I think the only reason to such statements was his wish to "sell" himself in the new country which was at the peak of Cold War- he just told people what they wanted to hear. For me , he was neither a fighter against the system nor the person, who betrayed only to fill its bank deposit with a cash - if you read some details of his biography, you'll come to conclusion that he was an "adventurer" of the worst kind , who wanted to change something in his life in a very radical way, even at the cost of betrayal of his country and regiment.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 29, 2007)

Ramirezzz said:


> Personnaly I think the only reason to such statements was his wish to "sell" himself in the new country which was at the peak of Cold War- he just told people what they wanted to hear. For me , he was neither a fighter against the system nor the person, who betrayed only to fill its bank deposit with a cash - if you read some details of his biography, you'll come to conclusion that he was an "adventurer" of the worst kind , who wanted to change something in his life in a very radical way, even at the cost of betrayal of his country and regiment.


Exactly what the Russian in my other forum said....


----------



## GeorgeSanders (Jan 29, 2008)

1. su-37 super flanker
2. F/A-22 Raptor
3. f-15 eagle
4. eurofighter typhoon
5. f-35c lightning II
6. saab gripen
7. F/A-18E/F super hornet
8. F-14D super tomcat
9. mig-29 fulcrum
10. f-4F Phantom II


----------



## F-14 (Jan 30, 2008)

My morden 10 are as follows

Dassault Mirage III

Gurrman F-14 Tomcat 

Su-27/30 Flanker 

MiG-21 Fishbed 

MiG-29 fulcrum

SPEPCAT Jaguar

MiG-27/23 Flogger

MiG-25 FoxBat 

Folland Gat 

North American F-86 Saber


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 30, 2008)

So the F-22 and the F-15 arent on ur list at all??? Oh, u only have 11 posts, that explains it....


----------



## F-14 (Jan 30, 2008)

well iam not a G8 fan of the Raptor or of the F-15 for that matter 1 reson being the F-15A/S is operated by the RSAF (the Royal suadi Air Force ) the resons for that is puerly political but the Reson for not choosing the Raptotr is because it is a relatively new Combat platform and has not being tested in battle


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2008)

What does the fact that the F-15 is operated by the Saudis have to do with whether the aircraft is good or not?


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 30, 2008)

My top 10 list and in no particular order....

Vought F-8 Crusader
McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Mig-21
Dassault Mirage III
English Electric Lightning
Grumman F-14 Tomcat
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
Mig-31
Su-27


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

the f-14 is really good i don't get why they put it out of sevice and now china can get f-14 parts from the black market


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 1, 2008)

fly boy said:


> the f-14 is really good i don't get why they put it out of sevice and now china can get f-14 parts from the black market



From where? Iran? And why in the hell would China want to buy F-14 parts anyway? I think they'd rather be buying Su-27 parts, since that's what they're flying; last I heard, there weren't any F-14's in the Chinese air force (but I could be wrong . . . . NOT!).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 1, 2008)

fly boy said:


> the f-14 is really good i don't get why they put it out of sevice and now china can get f-14 parts from the black market



Please pull the trigger!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Feb 1, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Please pull the trigger!



LMAO!


----------



## fly boy (Feb 1, 2008)

listen the f-14 parts are for their aircraft to make for themself


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 1, 2008)

fly boy said:


> listen the f-14 parts are for their aircraft to make for themself


What F14s do they have to make parts for? they make their own fighters radars and firecontrol systems and weapons etc etc


----------



## F-14 (Feb 2, 2008)

The guys @ the US DoD were mad the F-14 before the OPIraqi Freedom was given A2G Capability to deliver PGM's


----------



## F-14 (Feb 2, 2008)

besides the US has dediced not to Clear F-14 parts from its inventroy due to the fact that The IRIAF might get their hands on it


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 2, 2008)

fly boy said:


> listen the f-14 parts are for their aircraft to make for themself



What are you talking about?

Its the Iranians that are trying to get F-14 parts for there aging F-14 fleet.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Its the Iranians that are trying to get F-14 parts for there aging F-14 fleet.


its the same continent


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 2, 2008)

F-14 said:


> besides the US has dediced not to Clear F-14 parts from its inventroy due to the fact that The IRIAF might get their hands on it


Actually most F-14 parts have been destroyed along with many whole F-14s that were recently chopped up. There were even some taken from museums.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Feb 5, 2008)

Ok, here goes. My top 10 in no particular order:

Dassault Rafale
MD F-4 Phantom
Republic F-105
Dassault Mirage 2000
IAI Kfir 
Saab Gripen
Sukhoi Su-27
Eurofighter
Grumman F-14
MD F-15 

(anyone know the current status of the F-15s? I know there have been several crashes due to weakened/faulty beams. The aircraft were grounded pending investigation. The problem seems to have been corrected and the F-15 allowed to fly again, then just in the past few days another one crashed in Hawaii. Are they grounded again?)


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 16, 2008)

Is this the best F-14 photo ever taken?


----------



## supin (Jun 20, 2008)

1- F 22 Raptor
2- Sukhoi Su-30 MKI
3- Dassault Rafale
4- Eurofighter Typhoon
5- F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet
6- Mig-35
7- F-15 Eagle
8- Saab Gripen8- Mirage 2000
9- F-16 Falcon
10- Mirage 2000


----------

