What is the greatest Air Superiority Fighter? - Page 2




 
--
 
March 16th, 2015  
LeEnfield
 
 
Surely this needs to be broken down to decades, as what was a great fighter in WW 1/ 2 and did a fantastic job is over shadowed by the jet age, and even that needs to be broken down.
March 16th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Surely this needs to be broken down to decades, as what was a great fighter in WW 1/ 2 and did a fantastic job is over shadowed by the jet age, and even that needs to be broken down.
Why?

He asked a specific question and provided the generation of aircraft he wanted the answer for...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Think Tanker
Greetings, now, this is a competition of the greatest air superiority fighters of the 4.5 generation of aircraft
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamidreza
Su-35 is my choice.
I have to admit I used to follow the development of Russian aircraft quite intently but have in recent years simply lost interest I am not sure how the current batch of Russian fighters stack up against its western counterpart, I am told their AAMs have come a long way recently but I have no idea whether their avionics have improved to a point where they are competitive with the west or not.
March 18th, 2015  
The Think Tanker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Why?

He asked a specific question and provided the generation of aircraft he wanted the answer for...





I have to admit I used to follow the development of Russian aircraft quite intently but have in recent years simply lost interest I am not sure how the current batch of Russian fighters stack up against its western counterpart, I am told their AAMs have come a long way recently but I have no idea whether their avionics have improved to a point where they are competitive with the west or not.
They have some interesting developments in the MRAMM and SRAAM field (Short and Medium range air to air missile, for those who don't know)
And their development of the R-73 and R-77 missiles gives them a good counter to western AMRAAMs and Meteors, however, the R-77 is still barely fielded, its like the F-35 of missiles.
Also, the T-50, while showing promise, has been delayed several times, much like the F-35 as well.
--
March 20th, 2015  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Think Tanker
They have some interesting developments in the MRAMM and SRAAM field (Short and Medium range air to air missile, for those who don't know)
And their development of the R-73 and R-77 missiles gives them a good counter to western AMRAAMs and Meteors, however, the R-77 is still barely fielded, its like the F-35 of missiles.
Also, the T-50, while showing promise, has been delayed several times, much like the F-35 as well.
So in your opinion how close is the best Russian fighter to being able to foot it with the best NATO fighter assuming pilots of equal ability?
March 20th, 2015  
mmarsh
 
 
One not on the list: Swedish Saab JAS39 Gripen

Pros: Smaller and lighter and than Rafale and Typhoon II, faster than F/A-18 and F-16. Can operate on any type of runway.

Cons: Expensive (although operations cost is cheap), lesser payload due to smaller size.
Slightly Inferior Performance compared to EF2000 and Rafale.

My Favorite is the Rafale.

Pros: Its superior to everything on that list except the SU-35. Possibly the best NATO fighter aside from the F-22. Aircraft Carrier Capable.

Cons: Much more expensive that other 4.5 Gen aircraft, although not as expensive as the EF2000, F-35, F-22A.
March 21st, 2015  
The Think Tanker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So in your opinion how close is the best Russian fighter to being able to foot it with the best NATO fighter assuming pilots of equal ability?
That is a very tough one, the Russians develop a lot of great fighters at a very low cost, however, I do believe the Su-35 takes the cake, being a incredible WVR fighter, also, its payload is astronomical, similar to that of a F-15E
March 21st, 2015  
The Think Tanker
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
One not on the list: Swedish Saab JAS39 Gripen

Pros: Smaller and lighter and than Rafale and Typhoon II, faster than F/A-18 and F-16. Can operate on any type of runway.

Cons: Expensive (although operations cost is cheap), lesser payload due to smaller size.
Slightly Inferior Performance compared to EF2000 and Rafale.

My Favorite is the Rafale.

Pros: Its superior to everything on that list except the SU-35. Possibly the best NATO fighter aside from the F-22. Aircraft Carrier Capable.

Cons: Much more expensive that other 4.5 Gen aircraft, although not as expensive as the EF2000, F-35, F-22A.
Yeah, I do count the JAS 39 as a 4.5, just slipped my mind (not omniscient :-3) also, the JAS 39 is relatively cheap for a 4.5 gen, costing about half that of a Block. III Super-Hornet.
However, I do not believe in strictly saying any aircraft on the list is superior to another. The Rafale, while an excellent aircraft has the disadvantage of a relatively poor AESA array (especially when compared to its American and Russian counterparts) and its sub-sonic maneuverability is nothing worth of much admiration (although, in super-sonic, that's a different story)
Just keep that in mind :-3
 


Similar Topics
JF-17 Vs LCA Tejas
What should fly in the Iraqi Air Force?
Pilots say new U.S. stealth fighter has no equal
Differences between Army and Air Force
Chinese military aircraft present situation