The combat aviation thread

[BigJim]

One thing not many people know, is that I have a large interest in combat aircraft. Sadly the closest I'll ever get to flying in one, is playing on a simulator game on my PC.


So this thread is for us Top Gun wannabees who never got the qualifications for the job we'd have loved (and I can't imagine I'd fit in a fighter cockpit anyway).

When did your interest start and how? How have you pursued it? Ever flown yourself? Got someone in the family or a close friend who does?

What aircraft do you think is the best fighter technically? Which body of pilots is the greatest in your opinion?


Get posting peeps.

 

[AffectionateDan]

:::swings in on BigJim's six o'clock in his Sopwith Camel, twin-mounted Vickers machineguns blazing::: Tapocketta tapocketta tapocketta!

When I joined the Air Force, this was my intention. I'd wanted to fly, and fighters at that. Sadly, reality has a tendency to bitch-slap fantasy such as this. I did, however, maintain fighters, and occasionally as a reward for exemplary performance, one would be given an "Incentive Ride" in the back seat, while the pilot took you out on a simulated mission and basically proceeded to scare the $#@& out of you. I went on two such rides, and I can honestly say that, IMHO, flying in a fighter is better than sex. GOOD sex. It's powerful, heady stuff. Especially when you "bang burner" and the aircraft thrusts you back into your seat, or you pull enough G's that you begin to grey out, G-suit notwithstanding. Or doing an attack run on a simulated SAM-site out in the high desert. Or going ACM against another person also out on their own incentive ride! WHEEEEEEEE! But lemme tell ya what... flying those powerful muthahs is freakin' HARD! Even the seemingly simple task of flying straight and level is somewhat difficult without doing what's called "porpoising" (bobbing up and down like a porpoise leaping out of the water and back down). Those pilots train hard to get good at what they do, I'm telling ya. As far as which fighter is the best, that's impossible to say, unless first you know what mission you're flying. Air Superiority? Battlefield Interdiction? SAM Suppression? Too many variables to count, where some fighters are obviously going to be stronger and outperform their cousins. Personally, right now, today, I tip my hat to the F-15E Strike Eagle. It's got the best of everything, and that makes it versatile for many different missions. But I've been out of the service now for too many years to have any familiarity with the next generation of tactical aircraft coming into the equation nowadays. Everything now is incorporating stealth into the fuselage, and the weapons systems are advancing as well, and the targeting avionics are getting better also. Personally, I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for the venerable F-4 Phantom II, a beautiful, double ugly ol' pig. A generation before, the infamous F-86 Sabrejet was the bad boy on the block, and they're still breathtaking, IMHO. And before that, there were the P-38 Lightnings, the P-40 Warhawks, and the F-4U Corsairs, each with their own unique beauty. Best pilots? My first instinct, despite being former Air Force, is to yield that honor to Naval Aviators. But again, that depends on the mission you're flying. All of the uniformed services has pilots who train to be shit-hot at what they do, but anyone who does it all AND has to land on a small, moving airfield in the middle of the ocean, well, that tips the scales, to me.

 

[BigJim]

I was thinking of the best aircraft at air interception Danimal. I'm sad to say that my choice for the best fighter to fighter aircraft will NOT be popular around here. 😀 After that comparison that was made a few years back after one of the Baltic republics sent over a few Russian jets following the fall of the Iron Curtain, I'd have to say the MiG-29 is the best. Pound for pound, nut for nut and bolt for bolt it's technically the most superior fighter I've ever seen or read about. Of course, I don't know much about the new-ish F-22 Raptor, but I'm sure I will sooner or later.

I keep seeing the occasional article about trips being offered in the back of a fighter to civilians, but they seem to be handpicked. I sincerely wish that they were more widely available, because I'd save like a bastard for five or even ten years to fly in the back seat of a bird like that; even if it was just for half an hour.

I'd agree that naval pilots are probably the best, but I notice you never said which navy Dan. 😀 American I'm assuming?


Yah, the Phantom was the ugliest mutha fucka ever to take to the air, wasn't it? And what the smeg was the deal with the double jointed wings? lol I remember in Iron Eagle II that there was supposed to be a joint force of American and Russian pilot do a mission together and the Russians were flying MiG-29's. The Fulcrum doubles were Phantoms painted in Russian colours. If ever a plan looked absolutely fuck all like the MiG-29 Fulcrum it was the F-4.

 

[BigJim]

Don't believe what you see in the movies...

... because they always fuck it up. Top Gun is the biggest film for getting things wrong. When Maverick is slamming on the breaks to make a pursuer overshoot he's shown actually opening the throttles, when he's supposed to be gassing up some speed, he's shown slamming the breaks on. And why does no-one wear fireproof gloves in that film? Even naval aviators wear them don't they? On the DVD they also fuck up the subtitles all the way through. Apparently Maverick tells Viper that Goose was his rear... Wasn't George W. Bush against that sort of guy joining the forces? Or do the plebs who write the subtitles not do research enough to know what a RIO is? Jay-sus...


Dan... what were those planes that were doubling for the fictional MiG-28's?

 

[General Zod]

Normally I am a W.W. 2/post war tank geek But I do like some aircraft

The P-38 Lightning I just love the way that looks

Gonna get flamed for this,but I do like the JU-87 Stuka dive bomber Wasn't great fighting other aircraft,but was great for dive bombing or strafing

The Harrier I just think that is so cool the way they can take off or land straight up or down I hear it's a real bitch to do that though

I did work on some aircraft when I was in the USAF

B52H bombers and KC135 tankers at Minot AFB in North Dakota Yes the winters ther are cold

F111F the aardvark at Lakenheath England That was my favorite duty assignment area

C-141B at Noton AFB in southern California

F16 A10 and C130 at Moody AFB in Valdosta Ga

I was airframe repair (sheetmetal) at first,but then that carrer field was paired up with corrosion control (paint shop)

 

[BigJim]

Just as well the Harrier is cool, cos it's the only jet the Royal Navy's fleet-air-arm has.

 

[Neutron]

P51 Mustang..

Especially after we put the Brit engine in it. nothing in the world could compare AND they had a 1 for 1 kill ratio even in the jet era.

The best pilots in my opinion were the crazy Brits who flew thw Swordfish in WW2 (In my opinion the most cost effective weapon of all time). I can't imagine flying a fabric bi wing aircraft against WW2 Anti Aircraft and having the awe inspiring record the Swordfish and their pilots acheived.
Scouting, Bombing, Strafing, Depth Charging, Torpedoing. Transport, and even a bit of Dog Fighting. All in an Aircraft that MIGHT acheive 90 MPH if the wind wasn't blowing at it.

Tron

 

[BigJim]

What about the modern era Tron? What do you think is the best fighter today? That's machine mind you; what fighter would be best if each one had a equally good pilot inside it?

 

[AffectionateDan]

I was thinking of the best aircraft at air interception Danimal. I'm sad to say that my choice for the best fighter to fighter aircraft will NOT be popular around here. 😀 After that comparison that was made a few years back after one of the baltic republics sent over a few Russian jets following the fall of the Iron Curtain, I'd have to say the MiG-29 is the best. Pound for pound, nut for nut and bolt for bolt it's technically the most superior fighter I've ever seen or read about.

Ah! Well, in my ignorance, I didn't even consider non-NATO aircraft! And to be perfectly honest, you're right. The 29 probably IS on the cutting edge, if not the best, one of the best damned fighters in the skies today. I'm almost ashamed to admit that they included some innovations into the airframe and powerplants that seem like common sense to us now, but you never saw them on planes we'd built. I balance that out with the knowledge that they got to where they are by emulating us and/or stealing/buying technology from us. But yes, she's a fearsome bird, no doubt about it. I had the pleasure of chatting with a Soviet crew chief at an airshow once, and we proudly showed each other our babies, and while our ability to communicate was difficult, it was damned cool to interact with one of my counterparts from the "other side". He and I exchanged tokens of respect, I traded him the unit patches off my fatigues, and he gave me the pin from his cap, which I still have to this day. I wonder what he's up to today... life's funny, innit?

I'd agree that naval pilots are probably the best, but I notice you never said which navy Dan. 😀 American I'm assuming?

Never assume, Jimbo 😉 Actually, I deliberately left that a blanket statement, because A) I know sod-all about the other nation's armed forces training and capabilities, and B) it just stands to reason that anyone able to take off and land from a small, mobile airstrip is a shit-hot pilot, no matter what country's flag is flying from her mast.

Dan... what were those planes that were doubling for the fictional MiG-28's?

Those were F-5 Tigershark (T-38 Talon with guns and missiles) airframes, gussied up to look Russian. Would've been a hairy battle at "dogfighting" range, but the measly pair of wingtip mounted heat-seeking missiles it sports are SUBSTANTIALLY shorter range than the veritible HOST of radar-guided missiles that the F-14 boasts. The navy birds would've been able to shoot them down from literally miles away without the Migs even getting the chance to come into their own threat range.

The Harrier I just think that is so cool the way they can take off or land straight up or down I hear it's a real bitch to do that though

It IS pretty cool, but it's also a pain for several reasons... it tears up the flightline when they take off like that, so it's rare that they'll let them VTOL on actual runways. Plus, in the field, it betrays their position, from all the shit it kicks up into the air, and it's VERY fuel intensive, cutting way down on their sortie time as opposed to saving fuel on a rolling take off, especially with a combat load. But they sure are a nimble and deadly little package!

B52H bombers and KC135 tankers at Minot AFB in North Dakota Yes the winters ther are cold

The BUFF! Awesome ol' girl! And I worked 135's for about a year and a half at McClellan AFB when I got out. What a maintenance pig!

B52H bombers and KC135 tankers at Minot AFB in North Dakota Yes the winters ther are cold

Why not Minot? Freezin's the reason! Beats the heat!

I was airframe repair (sheetmetal) at first,but then that carrer field was paired up with corrosion control (paint shop)

Ah! Another victim of "Rivet Work Force"! Didn't that suck canal water? They combined crew chiefs with engines and hydraulics... man, did that SUCK!

 

[Neutron]

F 14..

Then again I'n ex USN. I've always liked their size, fair turn of speed, and adaptability. Also they carry some of the longest range Air to Air Missiles in the world. There might be better planes at individual tasks, but I think the F 14 does everything damn well, and most things they do better than even more modern planes.

I know there's some SPECTACULAR jet planes from many different countries, each have their own merits, but I like something that can do it all (note my love of the Swordfish)
And still come home safely with a pilot.

Tron

 

[BigJim]

Re: F 14..

Then again I'n ex USN. I've always liked their size, fair turn of speed, and adaptability. Also they carry some of the longest range Air to Air Missiles in the world. There might be better planes at individual tasks, but I think the F 14 does everything damn well, and most things they do better than even more modern planes.
Tron

than the veritible HOST of radar-guided missiles that the F-14 boasts

The Tomcat is a work of art and function true, but both you guys made a point that is a double-edged sword.

The Tomcat has never (unless this has been rectified recently) been able to fire a F&F RH missile. It carried niner-limas sure, but it's RH capability was restricted to the Sparrow and Phoenix. Unlike the AIM-120 AMRAAM neither of these two could stay locked on to a target if the attacking plane turned away from the defensive one. They both needed the Tomcat to stay locked on all the way to impact. The AMRAAM on the other hand has everything it needs to track and explode on board it. It truly is F&F.

Thoughts?


P.S. Tron, the F-14 does all things? I never knew it had ground attack capabilities.

 

[TKpervert]

Hmmmm, my exposure to combat aircraft consists solely of watching the Discovery Wings channel. Did I ever want to fly one ? Fark no, you can get hurt doing that.

I like the A10 Warthog for two reasons: its ground attack capabilities, and the fact you can blow it into six roughly equal-size pieces in the sky and it'll still fly.

 

[red indian]

Good point Tronny.......

.....at least the Japanese pilots knew up front that they were being sent on a suicide mission!

The swordfish guys had some crazy idea they were going to get home alive. I am sure Tronny has in mind the hunting down and destruction of the Bismark, and the part played by Swordfish pilots.

The Bismark being the German version of "State of the art" battle ship technology did not expect to encounter ancient biplanes in the form of the Swordfish or "string bag" as it was known. Consequently their anti arcraft artillery was not callibrated to track such a slow moving machine. So very few got shot down.

However their heroic actions for king and country counted for nothing when it came to the Royal Navy who fired on the sword fish pilots in order to make sure that the final kill was chalked up as a Navy Scalp rather than the feet air arm. If that is not bad enough, Churchill ordered heavy units such as King George V to stay at sea untill they ran out of fuel. Fortunately the bismark was dealt with before this was required.

I am looking forward to the new JSF project coming to fruition.It as some major problems at the moment regarding weight, but with Rolls Royce cold air fan technonlogy on board how can it fail to be a success!!

 

[tomcav]

I can't believe none of you guys thought of the Su-27/30/35. Migs are good and all, but the bigger, more capable Sukhoi a much more capable airplane. Hell, if it had better avionics, it could beat an F-15. It is much more agile than the american counter part, of course. But that F-22 is sure the best fighter right now...

 

[Neutron]

LOL Suks Are JUNK!!!

How you can even attempt to put them into the Major Leagues is beyond me!!

Dassault, the MIG29 and most US fighters are far better breeds of modern airplanes than the Suk could ever hope to be!
Comparing to the F 15 is meaningless since the F 14, 16, and 18 are all far better airplanes.

BigJim, yes F14s are utilized in ground attack, they make excellent standoff weapons due to their size. They don't excell in the way the A series did, or even the Hornet, but they are passable. I believe the reason they aren't used for close support is their size and the fact they have a known wing cracking problem that caused the USN to put a prohibition on certain climbing rates, unless needed during a dogfight.
I know they have can't fire F and F weapons, then again they were made big enough, and robust enough so that isn't much of a problem, also remember they were designed to operate as an integrated unit with an AWACS and a carrier with all their electronic support.

red hit it right on the head. In fact when I was thinking of the String Bags fabulous record I was more pointing to their outstanding night attack with disabled the Italian Battlefleet at a very critical junction during the war in the Med. That they did this during wartime, to a supposedly alert fleet is beyond comprehension to me.
Also consider their part in waging war on the U Boat in the Artic and up until 1944 they were constantly flying into Trondheim to harrass the Tirpitz.
Here's a plane that Sank 3 battleships, put a torpedo into an Italian Heavy Cruiser that ended up causing the sinking of 3 Italian Cruisers at Matapan. Put torpedos into 2 Modern Italian Battleships AT SEA and led to the sinking of the Bismarck. They also harrassed the Tirpitz causing the Germans to put far more effort into her defense than normal. And sank German U Boats by dropping depth charges!!

Pretty damn good for a plane made out of fabric, and always gets my first vote for the most cost effective war weapon of all time.

Tron

 

[Neutron]

Going In A Different Direction..

Say Bombers, what about the B 52?
And in the piston flight era I'd say the B 24 Liberator.

Tron

 

[BigJim]

Re: LOL Suks Are JUNK!!!

How you can even attempt to put them into the Major Leagues is beyond me!!

BigJim, yes F14s are utilized in ground attack, they make excellent standoff weapons due to their size. They don't excell in the way the A series did, or even the Hornet, but they are passable. I believe the reason they aren't used for close support is their size and the fact they have a known wing cracking problem that caused the USN to put a prohibition on certain climbing rates, unless needed during a dogfight.
I know they have can't fire F and F weapons, then again they were made big enough, and robust enough so that isn't much of a problem, also remember they were designed to operate as an integrated unit with an AWACS and a carrier with all their electronic support.

I have to agree that Suk's are second string to MiG's. It never ceased to amaze me that a plane as old and dated as the 25 Foxbat could rival the Blackbird for top speed. That sucker could break mach 3 for smeg's sake!

One thing I always thought was good about the Tomcat, was that it carried so many cannon rounds. A fully loaded Hornet can carry 570, a Falcon 515. (Any news on the Eagle you Air Foce hounds?) The Tomcat could carry nearly a thousand from what I've seen, which must have been an incredibly useful backup, especially if called upon to strafe.
I'd forgotten that the F-14 could be supported by AWACS and similar. Painting technology like that is similar to what the Jaguar gave to the Tornado during the first Gulf War, albeit at a far more sophisticated level.

For my favourite plane from the West, I'd probably go for the Tomcat, with the Hornet an eyelash behind. With it's LANTIRN compatability and the capacity to use Maveric AGM's and Mk-AGO bombs, it's so damn versatile and self-contained it beggars belief.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Going In A Different Direction..

Say Bombers, what about the B 52?
And in the piston flight era I'd say the B 24 Liberator.

Tron

I'd probably go for the B-17 from ages past. I've got no technological reason for saying that, just that it's a dream to fly and operate on flight sims. It's main weakness was the necessity of the ball-turret because of the USAAF's inability to undertake nighttime operations. It restricted the maximum bombload to 5,000lb, and it was often less if specialised ordanance such as incendiaries or blast bombs were needed. The RAF Lancaster on the other hand could lug up to 22,000lbs of bombs if required to do so.

So the F/F for American and the Lanc for British.


In the modern era there are no heavy bombers in the RAF, so I'd go for either the bomber variant of the Stealth or the B-52.

 

[BigJim]

A question for Tron...

... or any other knowledable person.

Do RIO-less F/A-18 pilots ever go through FWS, or is that purely for fighter specialists and two-man crews?

 

[BigJim]

Tron (or anyone), what is your opinion of the Panavia Tornado?

 

[Neutron]

Is That The Interdiction/Strike CRaft..

That carries about an inhuman amount of ordnance? I thought the Brits stopped producing them in 1998? (Good airplane by the way)

FWS is only for Fighter CRews

Tron

 

[BigJim]

Interdiction and strike is about right. I think it does carry a pretty hefty payload too. Saldy it's now been named the "flying coffin" because of penny-pinching sucessive governments letting it's military go to rack and ruin in the hunt for saved money.

We may well have stopped production but they're still serving, as are tha Jaguar and Harrier.

The new Typhoon is still not in service. Any thoughts on that one?



So only tomcat crews go to Top Gun because hornet guys aren't specialised at soley fighting then?

 

[Neutron]

Yeah But The Fact Is..

With good electronic countermeasures also any decent air craft can be devastating. The only legitimate threat went bankrupt in the late 80s and tore down the wall.

Typhoon, is that the Euro Fighter or it's predesessor?

Yton

 

[BigJim]

Re: Yeah But The Fact Is..

With good electronic countermeasures also any decent air craft can be devastating. The only legitimate threat went bankrupt in the late 80s and tore down the wall.

Typhoon, is that the Euro Fighter or it's predesessor?

Yton

Very true. The Chinese may scare people because of their inhuman numbers, but they're marginally better than the Iraqis from a technical standpoint. In a conventional war the West would wipe the floor with them. We'd get a bloody nose and a few broken ribs I'm sure, but we'd stomp them because most of their stuff is 70's vintage.

 

[BigJim]

Yes, the Typhoon is the Eurofighter. Now the Britfighter because most of the European partners have dropped out of the program.