F15E, EuroFighter, LaFale, and Su35.
Which one do you think is the best, and will be the best in the future.
Which one do you think is the best, and will be the best in the future.
F15E, EuroFighter, LaFale, and Su35. Which is the best?
- Thread starter deadtree
- Start date
There have been several topics very similar to this one in the past two months. Prepare for whining. When you say "the best," to what are you referring? Speed, rate of climb, ceiling, ect.?
And its Rafale not LaFale.... excellent fighter in my opinion... 
I'd pick the F15 first, then the Rafale, then the Eurofighter and lastly the Su35...
I'd pick the F15 first, then the Rafale, then the Eurofighter and lastly the Su35...
Tough choice, but I would say...
1. Eurofighter
2. SU-35
3. F-15
4. Rafale
Altrough I'm not sure about 3rd and 4rd.
1. Eurofighter
2. SU-35
3. F-15
4. Rafale
Altrough I'm not sure about 3rd and 4rd.
<< F15E, EuroFighter, LaFale, and Su35.
Which one do you think is the best, and will be the best in the future. >>
F-15E - Dedicated strike aircraft with multi-role capability. Generation 3 design with 4 capabilities.
Eurofighter - Dedicated multi-role aircraft, with design emphasis on overall agility and speed. True Gen 4 design.
Dassault Rafale - Again, like the Eurofighter. Only there is less overall power:weight ratio. More traditional delta wing configuration. Another gen 4 design. Yet first flew more than a decade ago.
Sukhoi Su-35 - Generation 3 and a little bit of Generation for design. Primarily a multi-role aircraft. Built like a tank, at the size of one.
They're all different aircraft, with the F-15E being the most extreme. They're all very capable and their abilities are limited to their pilots. That's how good they are.
<< I quote General Chuck Yeager
"It's the man, not the machine" >>
I agree to a certain extent but if both pilots are equal the machine will dictate the outcome for example if a WW2 Japanese Zero were to fight a US P-51 Mustang........... even if the japanese pilot was an ace the P51 would win unless he was stupid enough to engage in a low speed dogfight.......... were the ace zero pilot would kick his ass.
Cheers,
Aquaman
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The F-15E is the least agile, but it wasn't designed as dogfighter. It's a strike aircraft with air to air capability. I don't think the F-15E has ever shot down an enemy aircraft in its history. The F-15A and C are another story with the debut over the Bakkar Valley.
<< The F-15E is the least agile, but it wasn't designed as dogfighter. It's a strike aircraft with air to air capability. I don't think the F-15E has ever shot down an enemy aircraft in its history. The F-15A and C are another story with the debut over the Bakkar Valley. >>
The F-15 was designed to shoot down the MIG-25, before we knew that the MIG-25 kinda sucked. The F-15 was designed as an inteceptor.
The F-15E is a strike aircraft, not interceptor. The F-15A was designed to challenge the Mig-25, the F-15C is the later update.
<< The F-15E is a strike aircraft, not interceptor. The F-15A was designed to challenge the Mig-25, the F-15C is the later update. >>
And the F-15E is still essentially a 2 seat F-15C painted green. It's the same airframe.
I think it's very hard to do a head to head comparison because you can select different avionics packages for these planes.
But just looking at the platforms,
Su35 (and Su27 derivatives) - the most agile of these, despite it's size, with optional thrust vector engines, good range without external tanks, front and rear radars with bigger range than F15, and able to fire rockets backwards. It can do things that no other plane can.
F15 - very good, excelent track record, but old. Sorta like B52. Tried and true.
There is a reason why F22s are being built at the cost of 250 billion, and that reason is the Su27 and it's derivatives.
If F22 lives up to the stealth hype, it will be very tough to match.
There is also S-37 being built in Russia, which is one weird looking plane derived from the flanker. Unfortunately Suckhoi doesn't have anywhere near as much money to develop it as it did during cold war for Su27.
But just looking at the platforms,
Su35 (and Su27 derivatives) - the most agile of these, despite it's size, with optional thrust vector engines, good range without external tanks, front and rear radars with bigger range than F15, and able to fire rockets backwards. It can do things that no other plane can.
F15 - very good, excelent track record, but old. Sorta like B52. Tried and true.
There is a reason why F22s are being built at the cost of 250 billion, and that reason is the Su27 and it's derivatives.
If F22 lives up to the stealth hype, it will be very tough to match.
There is also S-37 being built in Russia, which is one weird looking plane derived from the flanker. Unfortunately Suckhoi doesn't have anywhere near as much money to develop it as it did during cold war for Su27.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
<< And the F-15E is still essentially a 2 seat F-15C painted green. It's the same airframe. >>
The F15 E model was modified to support USAF air to ground missions.
The earlier A/C models did not have this capability intended.
A certain other country took the D model and developed A/G capability mods leading to the offical E model functionality.
In the 70's/80's the F16 was intended to be the A/G plane replacing the F4.
With the F15 having a longer range and greater payload, the proof that it could be used as a A/G strike platform enabled the E model to be born.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,973
- 291
- 126
<<The F-15A was designed to challenge the Mig-25, the F-15C is the later update.>>
Challenge? More like spank. Realistically the intelligence community pulled off a major coup over the civilian budget folks. They knew right away that the Soviet design was a flying arrow, and nothing close to the bullcrap they presented. The Pentagon wanted more money and plain lying about Soviet capabilities was always profitable in that regard.
<< << And the F-15E is still essentially a 2 seat F-15C painted green. It's the same airframe.>>
The F-15E model was modified to support USAF air to ground missions.>>
The F-15E was designed with integrated targeting avionics, rather than external mounts.
Challenge? More like spank. Realistically the intelligence community pulled off a major coup over the civilian budget folks. They knew right away that the Soviet design was a flying arrow, and nothing close to the bullcrap they presented. The Pentagon wanted more money and plain lying about Soviet capabilities was always profitable in that regard.
<< << And the F-15E is still essentially a 2 seat F-15C painted green. It's the same airframe.>>
The F-15E model was modified to support USAF air to ground missions.>>
The F-15E was designed with integrated targeting avionics, rather than external mounts.
Perhaps the Mig-25 was the wrong target, but the Soviet had the Mig-29 and the Su-27 on the design table, which would outperform anything the west had.
The amusing thing about the MiG-25 was that is could only sustain Mach 3.0+ flight for a max of about 3 minutes or else its engines would literally burn out. The plane itself uses steel and titanium in its construction. So yes, the plane can actually rust. The Soviet Union could not afford to build the plane's surfaces out of entirely titanium (aka SR-71) so instead the Soviets were clever and used titanium only where it was vital to the airframe.
MIG25's main purpose was to intersept SR71s, not to engage in big time air to air combat with other fighters. It's purpose is very direct. It was designed to go up very high, very fast. It did that, and SR71s were retired.
Saying that MIG25's aren't so great general purpose fighters is like saying that nitro powered dragsters aren't very practical grocery getters.
Saying that MIG25's aren't so great general purpose fighters is like saying that nitro powered dragsters aren't very practical grocery getters.
<< Perhaps the Mig-25 was the wrong target, but the Soviet had the Mig-29 and the Su-27 on the design table, which would outperform anything the west had. >>
Lol...with what? Obviously we're forgetting the importance of HOTAS.
*Flanker Pilot*
"Insert key a into slot 1, engage dial two clicks, reverse once. Disengage key, cross your heart hope to die, fire missile."
*Eagle Pilot*
"finger this!"
Splash one busy Flanker pilot.
And from what I recall, the F-15 was everything the MiG-25 was rumored to be. A Mach 2.5+, highly agile aircraft
<<
<< Speed, rate of climb, ceiling >>
All goes to SU-35. >>
I believe the Su27 was the first plane to break the sound barrier going straight up. Since F15 came before Su27, I assume it can't do it.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,973
- 291
- 126
<<I believe the Su27 was the first plane to break the sound barrier going straight up.>>
The F-15A could do it, and so could the F-15C, both in post-takeoff climbs. Most any fighter that is supersonic can do it in post-dive accelleration. Perhaps you meant combat-laden and climbing straight up to above Mach 1 from a post-takeoff position?
<<The amusing thing about the MiG-25 was that is could only sustain Mach 3.0+ flight for a max of about 3 minutes or else its engines would literally burn out.>>
Not really, the problem was called over-spin. This condition is when the pilot loses control of the spinrate of the engine and is unable to decellerate the engine. Most of the time the engine would simply sputter back to a slower spinrate after a couple of hard overspins. The problem is the stress was too much on the turbine assembly and the unit would require replacement. On rare occasions the spinrate would blow the engine apart, which in the MiG-25's case meant catastrophic failure to both engines. (No plating or deadspace to separate the engines from one another.) The MiG-25's engine housing is pretty sturdy and this doesn't necessarily mean complete loss of the fighter, nor certainty that both engines would be completely unpowered due to the multistage designs. Either way, the pair of overspun engines was unsafe to use afterwards.
The F-15A could do it, and so could the F-15C, both in post-takeoff climbs. Most any fighter that is supersonic can do it in post-dive accelleration. Perhaps you meant combat-laden and climbing straight up to above Mach 1 from a post-takeoff position?
<<The amusing thing about the MiG-25 was that is could only sustain Mach 3.0+ flight for a max of about 3 minutes or else its engines would literally burn out.>>
Not really, the problem was called over-spin. This condition is when the pilot loses control of the spinrate of the engine and is unable to decellerate the engine. Most of the time the engine would simply sputter back to a slower spinrate after a couple of hard overspins. The problem is the stress was too much on the turbine assembly and the unit would require replacement. On rare occasions the spinrate would blow the engine apart, which in the MiG-25's case meant catastrophic failure to both engines. (No plating or deadspace to separate the engines from one another.) The MiG-25's engine housing is pretty sturdy and this doesn't necessarily mean complete loss of the fighter, nor certainty that both engines would be completely unpowered due to the multistage designs. Either way, the pair of overspun engines was unsafe to use afterwards.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter