Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

[zero-one]

The 1970s was great time in aviation as nearly all major fighter projects placed a premium on Kinematic performance because of Vietnam and because of all the new technology available.

it was a real turning point in performance which resulted in the teen series, The Raptor, F-35, the Typhoon Etc.

But just for fun, whats your worst post 1970s ACM platform and why?
I'm not saying these things are bad because I think any 4th gen can win against even a Raptor in a gun fight given the right pilot.

But which ones will be at the greatest disadvantage compared to it's contemporaries.

My oppinion.....

the Sea harrier,

If I'm not mistaken, all other harriers post 1970 are classified as attack aircraft so they won't count,

but the sea harrier was actually classified as a "Strike fighter".

to me, that means it was intended to take out other fighters.

And yes I know it was the star Air superiority platform of the Falklands, but I think that was largely thanks to the excellent RN pilots that flew them and the Aim-9L.

It's not a duck by any means, but I think compared to all other fighters, post 1970s, it would need the most skilled pilots to compensate. it would be at a disadvantage on almost any metric.

Anyway, its just me

[marsavian]

Sea Harrier was fine, great thrust/weight ratio, great climb rate, good turn rate and limited vectored thrust. My vote goes to the MIG-23 whose poor record speaks for itself and whose only good point was acceleration.

Sea Harrier hanging with an F-16

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=f ... rage&hl=en

VIFFing

https://web.archive.org/web/20080416131 ... -1,00.html

[zero-one]

hmmm yeah Mig-23 was pretty bad, but it was fast though. You can do hit and run with it. Harriers were pretty much stuck there

[madrat]

F-105G

[marsavian]

hmmm yeah Mig-23 was pretty bad, but it was fast though. You can do hit and run with it. Harriers were pretty much stuck there

We are talking about ACM though not supersonic tail chases. I see the F-35B/C as the Sea Harrier's spiritual successors and I am pretty sure would have an equally very positive kill ratio if ever called upon and they are not going to tail chase a MIG-23 either .

[zero-one]

We are talking about ACM though not supersonic tail chases. I see the F-35B/C as the Sea Harrier's spiritual successors and I am pretty sure would have an equally very positive kill ratio if ever called upon and they are not going to tail chase a MIG-23 either .

good point, But I'll have to disagree with the F-35B/C as a Harrier successor.

In ACM, those 2 models are Hornets in my opinion. High AOA capability and tight turn radius with less than 9G limits. They may have better energy and acceleration which is the only gripe against the F/A-18

[zero-one]

F-105G

This is pre 1970s though. I think they rolled out 1967

[element1loop]

F-105G

This is pre 1970s though. I think they rolled out 1967

mid 1950s development

[zero-one]

I did a review and quickly found other platforms that may be even more inferior than the Sea harrier

-Hawk 200
-F-CK-1 (Is it just me or does that look like a certain...word)
-potential armed version of the M-346

but all of these would look like the F-15 against the new worst ACM platform in my opinion, the YAK 38,

With a T/W ratio of less than 1:1 and wing loading at around 81 lbs per square feet at EMPTY Weights, no LERX, body lift, dog tooth or even maneuvering slats I think....This could really be F-105's food

[hythelday]

Forger isn't a ACM platforn - it's a shturmovik - ground attack plane. It didn't even have a radar, neither for A-A nor A-G. That's like saying Frogfoot was a bad ACM machine.

My vote also goes to MiG-23. Purpose built for air-to-air, it is responsible for a lot Israeli aces: subpar compared to the platforms it was supposed to match, kinematically, in terms of avionics and in weapons department. R-60? Don't make me laugh.

BTW is Tejas a valid contender?

[zero-one]

I don't know, granted that there is such a small amount of info about it.
Wikipedia classifies it as a "VTOL fighter". If it was just an attack aircraft, then yes its off the hook.

I'll agree that the Mig-23 was pretty bad,

Tjas, it does have the GE-F404 as the powerplant, so you can bet it'll do well in going back and forth between Idle thrust and max AB, its not susceptible to compressor stalls and such and can even survive a tail slide. Thats one heck of a good engine strapped on that plane.
Some publicly available Indian graphs show that the instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-16.
It is a Delta after all.

What about the Hawk 200?

I still give it to the YAK-38, unless you can prove that it was actually not a fighter

[marsavian]

Better still, how about the Hawk and Tornado ADV ? Surely no problem for Tomcats and Hornets in ACM ? Think again ...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16 ... n-training



I can see a trend with your way of thinking though, subsonic bad, supersonic good. That's what all the Harrier detractors thought before the Falklands but not one was lost to any supersonic Mirage.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... ir.375305/

[hythelday]

I don't know, granted that there is such a small amount of info about it.
Wikipedia classifies it as a "VTOL fighter". If it was just an attack aircraft, then yes its off the hook.

I still give it to the YAK-38, unless you can prove that it was actually not a fighter

Well unless you can read russian then you'd have to take my word for it. It's an attack plane, mate:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... AvabxzsWEA




There's no radar. The device in the nose cone is some sort of auto-pilot actuator for control surfaces, called САУ-36, I assume it stands for система автоматического управления.

Its only guided weapons were IR-AAM R-60 and an ARM Kh-23/25 (that apparently required additional guidance and targeting pod)


It only had a MiG-21 ballistic sight.

Forger was quite a remarkable machine, actually. It flew from the ship earlier than Sea Harrier and also was baptized in combat before Harrier (some sorties from ground bases in Afghanistan)

[zero-one]

Better still, how about the Hawk and Tornado ADV ? Surely no problem for Tomcats and Hornets in ACM ? Think again

Ecactly, ive seen that clip. It took clever tactics employed by the RAF to compensate for the diaadvantage the Tornoado had against the Tomcat.

I'm not saying the Tornado is bad, I'm saying its just at a disadvantage in performance terms.

I can see a trend with your way of thinking though, subsonic bad, supersonic good. That's what all the Harrier detractors thought before the Falklands but not one was lost to any supersonic Mirage.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... ir.375305/

Its actually the power that makes supersonic flight possible that I see as an advantage. Usually that means better energy and better acceleration.

In the 1st post I mentioned that all or most of these planes can take out any aircraft even a Raptor given the right pilot and tactics. So I'm not hating on the Harrier, i love that thing, but compared to others, I'd have to say shes at tail end of my list.

[basher54321]

Tornado ADV F.2 definitely a candidate - would have to check but seem to remember it turning up with balast where there radar was supposed to be. It was bought up to speed after about 10 years as the F.3 but the airframe was an interceptor only and didn't have the performance or agility associated with 4 Gen (Okay nor did Tomcat A)

The Forger seemed more like the Kestrel - almost like they didn't get to develop it properly and had to carry those dead weight engines around in flight.

The point of the Harrier FAA defence as I understand was to intercept the large Soviet Naval recon jets that would have found the fleet and directed the Nuclear bombers - as proven in the Falklands it wasn't really much cop as an interceptor against low level Daggers etc. Subsonic it seemed pretty good to a point.