Best air superiority fighter jet? Interested in what /k/ has

>>31710054

Including cost, F-35.

Without cost, F-22, F-35 and Typhoon.

>>31710054
>Is it a tie between the SU35 and F15?

It's most certainly neither of these aircraft.

>>31710054
>interested in what /k/ has to say
Buckle up, buckaroo, you are in for a ride.

File: F18 Typhoon.jpg (348KB, 1924x1282px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1924x1282px

>>31710054
F15 has no place in the 21st century.

F22, (RAF) Typhoon and SU35 would be considered top of the pile. the best of those three (and many of those below) entirely depends on the circumstances in the engagement.

>>31710098
F35 is not an air superiority platform and it never will be asked to perform that role for top tier air forces.

>>31710105
I'm an /o/ fag and I'm just taking what I know about cars and applying it to planes. Criticism welcome.

In order for a car to be a "supercar" you would want it to be as light and have as much power as possible. You don't want it to do a shitton of things like go off road or have room for the entire family, right?

I would feel that same concept apply to planes. Forget stealth and do away with the internal payload and have a one seater. Make it super light - this would give it better speed, maneuverability, range, more room for weapons, etc.

Does that sound like a good concept or no?

Really just interested in the subject atm. Idk why lol.

What jet is considered the best?

>>31710054
American here, with my arm-chair airforce command, I'd pick the Rafale over the F-35 for air superiority, in a vacuum that is.

>>31710133
Doesn't the internal bay or the F22 (what gives it some of its stealth) hold it back? Limited weapons and maneuverability or what?

File: j3ban44vxdfebjsmwipu.jpg (34KB, 800x387px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x387px

>>31710148
In a nutshell stealth helps avoid missiles. The concept of stealth aircraft has yet to be proven in real combat though.

>>31710054
The answer is so obvious OP

>>31710175
*stealth fighters

>>31710133

>F35 is not an air superiority platform and it never will be asked to perform that role for top tier air forces.

And yet it's still better than almost anything, but OP signified cost, which is included too as it's not that expensive comparitively. Outside of absolutely "designed for" air superiority jets, the F-35 will wreck face. SU-35's, F-15's etc, F-35 eats them.

>>31710175
Isn't stealth just like the body armor vs armor piercing round debate? Someone makes a better body armor, then someone else makes better armor piercing rounds.

Is stealth that important?

>>31710204
It's not really a good comparison. A stealthy aircraft will always be detected at a shorter range in comparison to a non-stealthy aircraft. Even if it's detected it still helps. Body armor either stops the bullet or it doesn't.

>>31710054
f15, f22, f35, typhoon, su35

2 seats are nice for some roles but are not needed in fighters

File: F+35+vs+a+10+having+a+stealth+fighter+would+be+pretty_e11b22_5573900.jpg (57KB, 713x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 713x720px

>>31710188
The one thing I do know about fighter jets is that the F35 is a joke. Shit can't do anything right.

>Helmets still don't work
>Small wings, shit turning radius
>VTOL makes it heavy as fuck
>It was having trouble beating F15 in simulators and the tests said it sucks
>Support wise, A10 is so much better and has a bunch more weapons

IDK what the US military sees in the F35. Should have went with something more simple, design wise like an F15.

Does my logic make sense about weight and power for dogfighting or are there another forces at play?

>>31710154

>2016
>Picking a fighter with no BVR missile, a small radar, maximum 55k feet ceiling, no positive t/w and only a one way datalink for air superiority

It's a good jet but come on.

At least it looks sexy.

>>31710258

Ah, I see, you're either a shitposter or desperately need to learn more.

Go look up the "F-35 myths" series on youtube first.

>>31710258
Dear god this is painfull to read. Put some effort into the shitposting, or dont post at all

>>31710258
>Does my logic make sense about weight and power for dogfighting or are there another forces at play?

Just for one thing, off-boresight launching and LOAL make traditional factors in a dogfight far less relevant. Maneuverability is still important for other purposes, but not really for that when you can launch a missile at a target 90 degrees off your nose.

Dassault Rafale guys

>>31710154
As a French I love the Rafale but you can't compare it to the F-35
It does perfectly what it's supposed to do with France political agenda in Africa (+Nuclear capability) and it's fucking sexy but it was never meant to be a 5gen aircraft

>>31710315
The only advantage it has over the Typhoon right now is an AESA radar. Once Captor-E enters service the Typhoon will be superior to it in the air superiority role in every way (and probably already is despite it's lack of an AESA).

That said if I was only going for one aircraft i'd go for the Rafale over the Typhoon, since the Rafale is a far better ground pounder. But in regards to the air superiority role the Typhoon is Europe's big daddy.

>>31710204
The gist I get of modern war (non-expert)

All of these systems are interlinked. It's never going to be 1 airplane vs 1 airplane dogfight. There will be a whole network of assets and intel behind each airplane. Stealth's advantage is that it requires far more resources and critical pieces of network to fight against it.

Meaning in any engagement the side with stealth has the advantage. Due to the other side having to activate a lot of resources and give up their positions in order to detect stealth.

The idea of plane vs plane is sort of like saying who would win in a fight between seals and delta. The modern battlefield is not single asset vs single asset. It's network vs network. So the seals with CAS would blow up the enemy by calling in for support, not say in a man to man gun battle or whatever.

In an actual world war it's unclear whether planes would even be activated for A2A combat or if the pilots would be too busy figuring out how to survive the new wasteland that is Earth.

>>31710133
>F15 has no place in the 21st century.

Being as how its better than both the typhoon and the su-35, no.

Mig-25/31

>>31710378
>Being as how its better than both the typhoon and the su-35, no.

Not really. It's got better speed and a better radar, and arguably better munitions in regards to the Su-35, but both of those two have their own advantages over the F-15, such as IRST and a lower RCS.

That said the F-15 is hardly done as an aircraft, and the new 2040C upgrade has the potential to really make it a lasting combatant.

File: Typhoon with SPEAR 3.jpg (25KB, 445x301px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 445x301px

Better ground pounder for now. Brimstone, Spear3 and the common munitions module are game-changers for Typhoon.

>>31710438

Should be in response to >>31710348

(Spoiler - I love them both)

>>31710432
IRST is a meme, man. The F-15 effectively has IRST due to its AIM-9s on its wingtips.

Low RCS is all the typhoon has on the F-15, and its not low enough to matter because neither bird will be fighting clean.

File: 1397087771632.jpg (1MB, 1240x1574px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x1574px

>>31710148
Nope. Of course, you do want a good thrust-to-weight ratio (which generally means a lighter plane), but putting all the emphasis on being light ends up hurting more than helping. Avionics are probably the most important part of the aircraft, and generally more potent avionics for a fighter (radars, countermeasures, IRST, etc) are going to be larger and heavier for better systems.

Stealth is another important factor. Getting the first shot off in an engagement is crucial, as it forces the other guy to start making evasive maneuvers (if they even detect the missile, which doesn't always happen). What stealth does is reduces the range at which a radar can detect you. That means that a stealthy plane will likely detect a non-stealthy plane before the opposite happens, allowing it to get the first shot off.

Generally it sounds like you're working with the popular perception of a fighter - a close-in gunfighter where you're very, very close to your targets. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the reality of the situation since the '60s. Just like how CAS has shifted to sitting at medium-high altitudes lobbing PGMs, fighter combat has increasingly moved towards standoff engagements and all-aspect missiles, making the old dogfighters less relevant.

>>31710438
True. It really sucks for the Rafale, as it has alot of potential but the French aren't willing to bring it to that full potential by using foreign munitions. There's nothing really wrong with the AASM for instance (aside from being hilariously more expensive than JDAMs for not much more capability), but it's hardly up to the standard of things the Americans and Brits are making like SDB-II and Spear 3. And the lack of a anti-radiation missile is really horrifying.

>>31710530

To be fair, Typhoon doesn't have an ARM either. Spear3 has a SEAD role though, just it functions by chasing the SAM from a database similar to Brimstone's, just with the range to actually do it this time. (Not that Brimstone is short ranged, but a more safe range).

That said, the F-35 is clearly the UK's intended SEAD platform. Spear3, ARMs on standby purchase whenever wanted, and because it's a goddamn F-35.

I don't even know what the Rafale's next A2G munition is. I've not seen a single integration contract from the French in god knows how long. It's like they're almost done with it or something.

>>31710601
I've seen references to the Typhoon being able to carry the AGM-88, though i'm not sure if they actually do so. Still, the Typhoon has the Tornado and soon the F-35 to complement it with HARMs if need be (and there's a AARGM-ER in development designed to boost range to 300km and fit inside an F-35's internal bay), and the Rafale doesn't, so it's more important for it to have the capability.

And the logical thing to do if they're committed to the AASM is to move forward with a tri-mode seeker. Though it'd honestly be better for them to just buy Spear (I don't really see them getting SDBs), and for all I know that is actually what they're planning to do.

>>31710695

Nah, defo don't have the AGM-88. Was going to have ALARM, but then SDSR 2010 happened.

I'd be surprised if they bought Spear3. Brimstone was offered many many times to the Rafale, and the French Air Force wanted it every time. Dassault kept saying no.

>>31710148
Su-27 and F-15 are like 90s Jap sports cars, and their modernized variants are modified variants.
F22 and F35 are like the R35 GTR when it first came out.

>>31710378
>i know fuck all the post

>>31710054
>Interested in what /k/ has to say.
I'm sorry but you came to wrong place, there's no rational argumentation or discussion here regarding Russian military hardware, only incessant shitposting by fatniks and vatniks.

>>31710054
>redpill me
where do you faggots come from?

>>31710258
Hey bro, me and some friends were going to go watch the new Batman movie that just came out, Dark Knight Rises, wanna come?

>>31710432
>[F15 has] better speed
Only stripped with afterburner. Typhoon is faster in every other way. F15 cant even supercruise ffs.

>better radar
Straight no. Even though it's PESA CAPTOR is still the only tripple band radar flying.

>arguably better munitions

ASRAAM > Sidewinder
Meteor > AMRAAM
Paveway and JDAM are basically identical
Brimstone > SDB

>>31710054
In terms of all-round, including cost, the F-35A. How many fighters that cost ~$80 million can go 8:0 against AESA-equipped F-15s?

Not including cost, the F-22, although against VLO targets the F-35 might win again due to its IRST systems.

>>31711976
CAPTOR is an X-band only radar, I don't know where you get the idea that it's anything else.

>>31711976
>arguably better munitions

Note this

>>31710432

>arguably better munitions 'in regards to the Su-35'

>tfw CO was one of the two navy test pilots for the X-35
>tfw talk to him about the program often enough
>tfw have to read people shitposting, who are so far off from the truth
>idk I keep putting myself through this

I kinda want to show him /k/ so he can laugh at the daily f35 thread

>>31712099
Not that anyone will believe you, but go ahead and give us his general impression instead of just pussyfooting about it.

>>31710054
Handing is meaningless when it comes to air to air.
This isn't the 1950s

It comes down to who sees who first.
And who fires an Air to air missile first.

So the f35 is king.
A very overpriced king

File: 1474801652183.jpg (111KB, 632x838px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 632x838px

>>31710054

My question is, how the fuck do the Slavs make a plane that is even remotely competitive with stuff like the Typhoon and Rafale and newest F-16s and SuperBugs?

Their budget is literally like $250 per month.

File: h4.jpg (549KB, 1205x800px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 1205x800px

>>31710054

That's not even a real question.

>>31712495
Their budget is similar to Britain and France, both of which can make good planes.

That said their only planes that are really comparable with the newest Western aircraft are produced in pretty small numbers. Not that many Su-35s and the Mig-35 barely exists.

>>31712129
He (and most pilots that have flown it) love it. They admit there are kinks to be worked out, but he stressed that this was the case with every single plane ever. The technology is so advanced, which means a few more kinks.

The general consensus is excitement towards the horizon.

>>31712022
>I don't know where you get the idea that it's anything else

>i dont know anything more about CAPTOR so it's impossible you know more

>>31713133
I was curious about your claim and so I did look for articles or anything suggesting that the CAPTOR is a "triple band" radar; I didn't find a single mention, only that it was an X-band, 8-12GHz radar.

File: F-35 Audience Participation.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>31710523
Here we go. Someone who knows what they're talking about. Modern day, the 'hard' benefits of light weight, speed and maneuverability are still useful, but not as much as they used to be. The F-35 is still no slouch however, and has characteristics of both the F-16 and 18 IIRC. These days, it's mainly the weapons and how utterly lethal they are that's changed the game. Everyone is in the dark, everyone has a flashlight and a gun. But the moment someone turns on that light? That radar? They know you're there just as you do too. You can try getting closer instead, or set your light to low of course, but it's all a tradeoff.

Meanwhile stealth is the asshole with a Sam Fisher getup and NODs. You die when he says you die.

File: F-15C-Eagle-mods[1].jpg (117KB, 800x665px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x665px

F-15C is my favorite fighter of all time. Its no F-22, but with the upgrades its received (and will receive) it'll hold its own in combat against most anything else.

Most of our F-15C/Ds have been upgraded with new AESA radars (E's already have them afaik) and JHMC and will soon be getting new wings (with 16 AA missile capacity) which will let them serve until the 2040s.

>>31710432

> but both of those two have their own advantages over the F-15, such as IRST and a lower RCS

Typhoon probably, but Su-35 has the RCS of a flying blue whale, and F-15 is already a flying elephant in that regard.

Seriously, the Su-27 series are gigantic aircraft, their RCS is anything but small.

File: ECR 90.png (584KB, 729x514px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 729x514px

>>31713240
RAF Typhoon Haynes Owners' Workshop Manuals 2013

>>31713602
That's channels, not bands, buddy.

File: ee46c1618c79359b622cfc4804a2905e[1].jpg (2MB, 2000x1240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1240px

>>31713581

The SU-35 has a huge RCS because of its shape... size doesn't have anything to do with RCS. just felt the need to correct the record :^

>>31713602

>pulse dopplar

aren't they replacing that right now with AESA?

>>31713723

It's so mind-bending that the massive B-2 has a lower RCS than the comparatively smaller stealth fighters escorting it.

>>31713602
What >>31713637 said; a band is a set of frequencies; VHF is a band, UHF is a band, X-band is a band, Gorillaz is a band but not a band, etc. Having 3 processing channels simply means that it can do 3 things simultaneously. By comparison an AESA can technically hundreds of things simultaneously.

>>31713742
They are, although CAPTOR-E has been taking ages.

>>31713767
The top-mount engines help a lot, and can't be used in a fighter because it screws with the power output, especially on a high angle of attack.

>>31713767
Only to VHF, etc, the F-22s are stealthier on X-band.