List your top tier aircraft per generation

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1098
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 00:13

Because of the Mig-31 long range missiles capability, the only "hands full" will be to avoid being hit by those.
If he fires and banks away, he's gone.

And he can not come WVR because he can not turn.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 08:22

We're assuming that the Mig-31's ultra long range shots will hit.
I'll believe that when I see it.

the longest range kill claims from the Iranian air force are at 50 NM away, the longest from Western sources are 20 NM. so I'm not ready to believe Mig-31s killing 4th gens with reduced RCS and advanced ECM at 100+ NM, not a chance.

it'll need to close in, and once it is at around 50 nm, it will be vulnerable to the F-15. Eagles can dash to Mach 2 for short periods in a combat configuration, then fire AMRAMMs.

Mig-31s can't bleed the energy of the Aim-120 with F-pole maneuvers, due to horrible manoeuvrability. So they'll be forced to turn tail and simply out run it.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 09:56

zero-one wrote:We're assuming that the Mig-31's ultra long range shots will hit.
I'll believe that when I see it.

the longest range kill claims from the Iranian air force are at 50 NM away, the longest from Western sources are 20 NM. so I'm not ready to believe Mig-31s killing 4th gens with reduced RCS and advanced ECM at 100+ NM, not a chance.

BVR shots in the past are done with AIM-7, AIM-120A, AIM-120C, R-27
From aircraft fly either subsonic or slightly above Mach 1
AIM-120-KILLS.JPG

Kinematically speaking, they are no where the same level as R-37 launched from Mig-31 when it cruised above 70.000 feet at Mach 2.6
Only AIM-54 is comparable to R-37, R-33 in size but F-14 can't fly as high or as fast as Mig-31 when it launch them.
zero-one wrote: it'll need to close in, and once it is at around 50 nm, it will be vulnerable to the F-15. Eagles can dash to Mach 2 for short periods in a combat configuration, then fire AMRAMMs

R-37 will reach target first thanks to its much higher speed and better potential energy
zero-one wrote:Mig-31s can't bleed the energy of the Aim-120 with F-pole maneuvers, due to horrible manoeuvrability. So they'll be forced to turn tail and simply out run it.

IMHO, Mig-31 can probably just zoom climb and then AIM-120 can do nothing, unless it is launched at very short distance
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post02 Apr 2019, 14:52

The R-33 flies slightly faster than the ARMRAAM, at mach 4.5.

But as this poster noted, it will be launched at a much higher speed/altitude by the Mig-31, conveying a much longer range and faster closure rate. That matters, even if it misses because it complicates everything from evasive maneuvers to counter-shots.

The only reason the Mig-31 isn't taken more seriously is that it's consigned to Russian borders. Field that baby in Iran, Syria or elsewhere and the game becomes a lot more deadly. In fact, I'd fear it a lot more than any Russian Flanker, including the SU-35. We have a pretty substantial edge in BVR with Flankers, and know how to defeat them WVR too, thanks to the Red Hats.

But dealing with an aircraft that flies twice as fast as an F-15/16, 10,000 - 20,000 feet higher and with extremely long ranged weapons - that's more of an unknown. Frankly, I'm surprised they don't forward deploy even a small number of them, to complicate allied planning.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 09:05

garrya wrote:Only AIM-54 is comparable to R-37, R-33 in size but F-14 can't fly as high or as fast as Mig-31 when it launch them.


Well because we have no R-37 launches in anger, the closest comparison we have is against the Aim-54. And I could argue that the Aim-54/F-14 had capabilities more advanced than the early R-37s. But for now lets say they are roughly equal.

The most advanced variants of the Phoenix had 3 confirmed operational launches with the US Navy, 2 experienced rocket failures in flight and crashed, 1 failed to guide and crashed.

The IIAF reportedly had 285 Phoenix missiles in their inventory and claims to have achieved 78 victories, many of them disputed. The F-14 is also a very fast interceptor just like the Mig-31.
This is not a perfect comparison but it is the closest we can get in the real world.

So, though your strategies of using the Mig-31/R-37 combo sounds formidable on paper, the fact that:
1. similar systems did not achieve their expected success in the real world,
2. Russia's reluctance to deploy them in the front lines,
3. Both Russia and the US's preference on developing and deploying Fighters with weapons that have an emphasis on the medium to short range engagements

tell me that this combo of very fast interceptors and ultra long range missiles are not as effective as they should be.
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 09:46

zero-one wrote:Well because we have no R-37 launches in anger, the closest comparison we have is against the Aim-54. And I could argue that the Aim-54/F-14 had capabilities more advanced than the early R-37s. But for now lets say they are roughly equal.
The most advanced variants of the Phoenix had 3 confirmed operational launches with the US Navy, 2 experienced rocket failures in flight and crashed, 1 failed to guide and crashed

I don't think you realize how much faster and higher Mig-31 can fly vs F-14
This is F-14
F-14.PNG

This is Mig-25
mig-25RB.jpg
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 10:25

garrya wrote:I don't think you realize how much faster and higher Mig-31 can fly vs F-14


Yes I do,
but notice how the slower relatively lower flying F-16 has far more success in air engagements than the F-14.

The super fast, super high flying interceptors are well within the capabilities of US, European and even some Asian aircraft manufacturers. But right now everyone is focused on Stealth, Advanced Avionics and even Super maneuverability.

There are no major requirements for an extreme high altitude, super fast interceptors. I think that speaks volumes.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post03 Apr 2019, 14:51

zero-one wrote:
garrya wrote:I don't think you realize how much faster and higher Mig-31 can fly vs F-14


Yes I do,
but notice how the slower relatively lower flying F-16 has far more success in air engagements than the F-14.

The super fast, super high flying interceptors are well within the capabilities of US, European and even some Asian aircraft manufacturers. But right now everyone is focused on Stealth, Advanced Avionics and even Super maneuverability.

There are no major requirements for an extreme high altitude, super fast interceptors. I think that speaks volumes.


We might get the definitive answer, when and if Russia proceeds with its Mig-41 (Mig-31 successor).

They definitely have the requirement: Largest country (still) when considering total land mass. They need to get to where they're going fast, alternatively staying high/low depending upon the threat and ideally, engage at extreme ranges. The likelihood of very long range BVR kills should be higher than traditional air combat, given the ultimate targets are slow flying bombers and cruise missiles less capable of taking evasive maneuvers.

The Mig-41 will be telling precisely because of the SU-34, SU-35, SU-30SM upgrades, SU-57, PAK DA stealth bomber and "Hunter" drone - they all cost money. Lots and lots of $, which Russia doesn't really have. Something has to give, and I'm betting its the Mig-41. They need competitive front line fighters, which means lots of SU-30SM's, SU-35's and some day, SU-57's. They may not need a stealth bomber, but unless they get moving on that the upgraded TU-160 (there's more $) is going to be long in the tooth before long. They may not need the Hunter today, but it appears more and more tied to the SU-57, so doubtful they'll drop that. They need new SU-34's, given the SU-24's its replacing are rapidly approaching obsolescence.

In short, they can't afford all of these new weapons systems. If it was me, I'd build the required number of SU-30SM's to replace the Mig-31, and in lieu of speed focus on getting a better VLRAAM on it. It has the requisite 2 man crew, great legs, a big radar and ability to carry a LOT of weapons to altitude. It only lacks the Mig-31's speed, which may or may not be made up for with its new very long range air to air missile (VLRAAM).

Will be interesting to see how this plays out..
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1310
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post04 Apr 2019, 17:41

If range-only radar defines gen 2, then none of the three you listed fit the bill. F-5E, F-8E & EE Lightning all had rudimentary search and single-target track systems, although the whole generation thing is a continuum.

Here's a list of early swept-wingers with range-only radars to choose from (some with early-version IR missile capability, AIM-9B, AA-2):

F-86 E,F,H & MK 6
F-100 A,C,D,F
F9F-6 Cougar
later MiG 15s
early MiG-17s/19s
Mystere
Hawker Hunter
Lansen

Range-only radars only provided a slightly more accurate input for gunsight lead computation.....although with a gunsight wing-spanner adjustment you could do without the range input.....but you still needed 20/12 vision to actually find the suckers before they found you. :shock: Those were the days.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2178
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2019, 11:37

outlaw162 wrote:If range-only radar defines gen 2, then none of the three you listed fit the bill. F-5E, F-8E & EE Lightning all had rudimentary search and single-target track systems, although the whole generation thing is a continuum.


I understand, but like you said the whole generations thing wasn't really a concrete rule. Even in 5th only the F-22 fully meets all the criterias mentioned, but I wouldn't dare call the F-35 non 5th gen.

Anyway, I think BVR capability is really what sets 3rd gens apart. I know some F-5s were later upgraded with BVR capability. So I went with the best sub 3rd gen without BVR
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marsavian and 9 guests