In a purely turn based fight what is the best airframe available?

>>31198370
>implying dogfighting is even a thing anymore

>>31198381

>Radar can't see through terrain
>Radar can still only see a limited axis in front of the aircraft
>ROE still restricts BVR engagements in situations that aren't all out war.
> high off boresight and LOAL are a long way from being useful in a turn fight.

But yeah sure, there will never be another dogfight. Air forces just do it for fun.

File: eurofighter_heavy_vortex_riat10.jpg (174KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 900x600px

>>31198370
hey there

>>31198370
If its a thing about dogfight, the equation is easy.

What turns the closest ratio? Add good protection on the hull without adding TOO MUCH weight and add some insane thrusters and there you go.

>>31198655
no.

>>31198370
My money would be on an F-22 in any maneuvering fight, although a PAK-FA could probably match it. On paper, both have similar wingloading, airframe limits, and P:W ratios. Their IR missiles both have similar high off-bore capabilities. Really, without either flying both or seeing an engagement between the two aircraft, we can't really say which plane would have the advantage.

>>31198469
IMO, the Typhoon is probably the best fighter on the market from a strategic standpoint (operating cost vs. general effectiveness, basically). It's also one of my favorite aircraft in existence. I think it's pretty fuckin' neato.
However, I can't say I'd want to put one against a hard Gen V like the F-22 or PAK-FA, especially in a knife fight. The lack of thrust vectoring/supermaneuverability is a rather severe handicap in the merge.

File: DSCN0180.jpg (4MB, 5120x2880px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5120x2880px

>>31198685
Having seen Gripen, F22, Typhoon, Rafle, F16, Mig 29, F18 and F35B all performing maximum rate turns on the same day at RIAT I can assure you that F22 is not at the top of the pile.

From timing in my head using the runway as a reference point for the start and end of the turn, the maximum turn rate goes;

Rafle
Typhoon
F22
F18
Mig-29
Gripen
F16
F35B

The top four were all around 13 seconds (27deg/sec)

The next four being 14 - 15 with F35 being just below 18.

Pic related

>>31198685

Both the stealth aircraft are worse at pure turn fighting than the 2d thrust vectoring + Canard Su-35.

But it's pointless because nobody turnfights, and sustained turns bleed energy, which is complete insanity in an environment with helmet cued missiles.

>>31198733
>The lack of thrust vectoring/supermaneuverability is a rather severe handicap in the merge.
And this shows that you basically don't know a fucking thing about modern BCM. Thanks for that and warning before I wasted time seriously responding to your question.

>>31198797
>Having seen Gripen, F22, Typhoon, Rafle, F16, Mig 29, F18 and F35B all performing maximum rate turns on the same day at RIAT I can assure you that F22 is not at the top of the pile.
So... low altitude, low energy/velocity turn rates are the same thing as performance at 40,000ft and 500 knots? Ok.

Question: Are you 12 years old, or are you really this into fighters yet this fucking ignorant as to how they actually work?

File: Passing the torch.jpg (51KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 960x640px

>>31198831
>But it's pointless because nobody turnfights

There has yet to be a conflict that does not have turn fighting

>and sustained turns bleed energy, which is complete insanity in an environment with helmet cued missiles

Helmet cued missiles still have a launch envelope. especially for close-in engagements.

As mentioned in >>31198441 high off boresight is still a long way from where it needs to be for engaging a maneuvering target without the launch vehicle turning.

My money would be on an RAF Typhoon (yes the air force matters) because of the high turn rate . AoA, T/W. Also factoring in the responsive Mauser cannon, IRST, ASRAAM, helmet system, decoys and acceleration (partly covered by T/W)

>>31198907
Educate me, then.

>>31198938

>thinks targets will suddenly appear at close range at 40,000 feet

>what is terrain masking

It's almost like you missed the point of the whole thread.

>>31198965
>There has yet to be a conflict that does not have turn fighting
I would love to see any kind of source for this assertion.

Specifically, examples from:
>Falklands
>Desert Storm
>Yugoslavia
>Iraq part II

>>31198995
>It's almost like you missed the point of the whole thread.
It's almost like you made a thread postulating a circumstance that hasn't happened in the real world since Vietnam.

File: pausedattherighttime.png (1MB, 950x820px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 950x820px

>>31198370
The F-5.
No airframe can out turn the F-5.

Fight me.

File: 460552_10100815522473276_295374522_o.jpg (87KB, 984x918px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 984x918px

>In a purely turn based fight

A prop powered bi-plane with some AIM-9Xs on it.

If we're talking about actual, existing, modern aircraft... well, then probably a Super Tucano, again with some IR missiles on it.

Of course, this is assuming it really is a purely turn based fight.

If any kind of energy based tactics are allowed, and we go right back to modern 5th gen fighter types.

>turn based games
Charizard

>>31199073
>stubby little wings
>turning well

M8...

>>31199018
>aircraft haven't engaged in wvr turn fighting since Vietnam

Holy shit look at this retard.

https://youtu.be/PIUowqD0uY8

>>31198370
Sopwith Camel.

>>31198797
>F-35 has almost as high a wingload as a B-52

Yeah, not surprising it handles like a fucking boat.

>>31199001
There is well documented dogfighting for three of those conflicts. Iraq 2 is barely worth mentioning as an air war.

Did you seriously think harriers were shooting down argies bvr with sidewinders? Wow.

>>31199132
I now want to see a WW1 era biplane equipped with a modern 20mm or (better yet) 30mm gun just to see the hilarity that would ensue when it tried to fire it.

>>31198965
>There has yet to be a conflict that does not have turn fighting

There has yet to be a conflict that does not have DOG FIGHTING.

There are two main styles of dogfighting - turn fighting, and energy fighting. Energy fighting has been the dominant form since the middle of WWII.

File: (You).png (362KB, 523x592px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 523x592px

>>31199106
>What is AOA.
>Implying all digfighting takes place at stall speed.
Apply yourself.

>>31198987
Start with this. He does a good job of explaining the drawbacks of trying to use TV in a BCM situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E
Start at 6:40

And then:
https://theaviationist.com/2013/02/21/raptor-vs-typhoon-us/
>Thrust Vectoring is one of the design elements that can contribute to create a certain advantage during close air combat by generating impressive pitch and yaw rates, but only in a limited portion of the flight envelope at velocities well below “corner speed”.

>However, Thrust Vectoring can also transform in a few seconds an energy fighter in a piece of metal literally falling off the sky, making it an easy prey for those who have been able to conserve their energy.

>Moreover, Thrust Vector operation requires the pilot to “create the opportunity” for its usage, spending valuable time in manoeuvring the aircraft to achieve a suitable condition and managing the activation of the Thrust Vector Control.

>If you are “defensive” and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn your enemy, but that most likely won’t prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like the Typhoon will conveniently “use the vertical” to retain energy and aggressively reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you for ever, exploiting all its short range weapon array.

>If you are “neutral”, when typically vertical, rolling and flat scissors would accompany the progressive energy decay, similarly performing machines would remain closely entangled, negating the opportunity for Thrust Vector activation.

>If you are “offensive”, probably stuck in a never ending “rate fight”, Thrust Vector could provide the opportunity for a couple of shots in close sequence. Make sure nobody is coming to you from the “support structure”, otherwise that could be also your last move.

>>31198987
>>31199217
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379/1683500255
>Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton is one of the most experienced aggressor pilots ever, having flown the F-15, F-5, F-16 and the notorious MiG-29. He's been in dogfights with pretty much every fighter out there and he's an instructor at the prestigious Fighter Weapons School. Now he's here to share his expertise with you.
RE: TV
>First, a little thrust vectoring history. The USAF tested a 3D nozzle on the Multi-Axis Thrust Vectored F-16 in the early 1990s. It was found that thrust vectoring was really only useful at speeds below 250 knots (with the F-16; the speed will vary with other jets). Above that speed the jet had enough g available and was maneuverable enough that thrust vectoring didn't add anything. Also, at high speeds, if the nozzles start to swing the jet violently around you're apt to induce unacceptable loads on the airframe.

>Thrust vectoring, whether 2D or 3D, is a two-edged sword. If you're going to use it, you'd better kill me now. Ever seen videos of the Super Flanker spinning around like a top and doing back flips at an airshow? First off, the jet is slow – not a place to be in a multi-bogey environment. Second, when thrust is steered off-axis the axial component of thrust is decreased. Axial thrust pushes the jet (and wing) through the air at a speed required to maintain lift. Take away forward thrust, take away speed and lift. Go back to the videos. What's happening? The Flanker is dropping like a rock at slow speed (no lift is being produced by the wing). If the Flanker pilot does not kill me now, the other edge of the sword is about to fall. He's automatically building in vertical turning room for me and it's going to take an unacceptable amount of time for him to get enough smash back to take it away due to his low airspeed. If I'm still alive I'm turning him into a strafe rag.

>>31198370
Is this the HUD of another 5th gen, or a 4th gen?

>>31199174
It would fire and keep flying, weight and balance would be a greater concern.

>>31198987
>>31199217
>>31199227
>I flew enough BFM against the Raptor before I retired where the new Raptor pilots were discovering there's a time for thrust vectoring and there's a time to leave that club in the bag.

Then read this whole breakdown:
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/usefulness-of-thrust-vectoring/

>>31199073
I bet the F-20 can :^)

>>31199113
>Holy shit look at this retard.
>https://youtu.be/PIUowqD0uY8 [Remove]
From your own source, at 0:56
>the Tomcats and MiGs clashed in a supersonic dogfight

Are you so retarded that you believe this to be a turn fight? Fucking read about the engagement, you retard.

>>31199171
>There is well documented dogfighting for three of those conflicts.
Then you should be able to source them easily. I'll wait.

>Did you seriously think harriers were shooting down argies bvr with sidewinders?
Did you seriously believe that all-aspect sidewinders required a turn fight to achieve engagement envelope?

>>31199175
This. This whole post. OP is fucking retarded.

>>31199232
Its a rafle, so basically a 4th gen hud unlike typhoon

>>31199276
Hopes Deleted.

>>31199278
Watch the video dumbass. You clearly see a turn fight.

Hurr a literally nobody presenter dropped the word supersonic so it can't have turning despite the pilot struggling to get sidewinder lock.

>>31199171

The Harriers had the all aspect AIM-9L, while the Argentinians only had the rear aspect AIM-9B. The first aerial fight had the Argentinians trying to get behind the harriers for a rear shot, while the Harrier simply shot an AIM-9L while going to the merge and killed the Mirage III.

>>31199217
>>31199227
Thanks. I've sort of fallen out of the loop with modern air combat for the past decade or so. Interesting to see how theories and practices have developed as we sort of bridge between Gen IV and Gen V fighters.

>>31199406
>Watch the video dumbass. You clearly see a turn fight.
No. What you see is energy fighting tactics, which the US has been using since WWII. The fact that you do not understand this vital difference in basic BCM tactics highlights your lack of required education to comment on this topic.

Educate yourself. Show your ass less.

>>31199287
I'm not going to waste my time spoon feeding an idiot who thinks all Falklands engagements were head to head sidewinder kills with no BFM

>>31199441
see this anon >>31199412 who even gave the specifics. There were ZERO turn fights in the Falklands.

If you were correct, you would have found a single source by now.

>>31199422
>willing to learn
Cheers mate. Sorry for being snappy early on. You get a little jaded around here.

If you blow through all that and want more reading on the current state of things, come on back.

>>31199473
No worries. 4chan's not the friendliest place ever, but that's gonna stop me from keeping my mind open. You can learn something from any community.

>>31198370
>Turn-based fight
Who let you out of the nursing home

>>31199438
>Gets so btfo he needs to start throwing insults.

Dogfighting happens.

The Falklands contained BFM combat.

The video shows turn fighting.

And there is a wealth of information a Google search away that will prove all of this. Plus the engagements in other late 20th century wars. (i also find it amusing you skipped 1991)

>>31198370

Bf-109 with some sidewinders strapped to it.

ITT Americans pretend dogfights don't exist because they can't compete.

>>31199570
>The Falklands contained BFM combat.
Once again. Source, please.

>The video shows turn fighting.
You wouldn't know what a turn fight is if it happened in your colon.

>And there is a wealth of information a Google search away that will prove all of this.
Yet, curiously, you are unable to provide any of it.

>Plus the engagements in other late 20th century wars. (i also find it amusing you skipped 1991)
See >>31199001
>>Desert Storm

>>31199587
>ITT Americans pretend dogfights don't exist because they can't compete.
F-22 performance at Red Flag most emphatically suggests otherwise.

File: SPAD_XIII_040510-F-1234P-019[1].jpg (123KB, 1000x657px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1000x657px

>>31198370

If all you care about is having a tight turn radius, then this is your bird. Nothing can out-turn a SPAD.

>>31198797
This list actually makes sense. Delta+canard configuration is quite a turner. Although I think the F-22 didn't use its full maneuverability on purpose.

I thought Rafale was underpowered, though.

>>31199570
>>31199587
Jesus fuck. Would you morons at least educate yourselves to a basic level on the subject? Please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers

>>31199570
Your thinking is... two-dimensional.

(KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!)

File: 0cb01ae01a70191effce0a9d289f2711.jpg (60KB, 736x588px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 736x588px

>>31198370
Fokker Dr.I. Could literally turn on the spot
>You shoot at him
>He pivots on the spot, returns fire, then pivots back on his original course, all while maneuvering to your 6

>>31199132
nope, Fokker Dreidecker would out-turn it

>>31200071
dog-fighting isn't all turning. A Bf-109E is an objectively superior dogfighter to the Dr.1 despite being much less manoeuvrable. Likewise the camel has a considerable advantage in speed to the Dr.1 and so a good pilot would be able to use that to his advantage and blast it.

also:
>Kaiserbooing
this is new

>>31198370
>turn based
Nigga air combat isn't some JRPG.