F/A-18 vS Mig-29 real movie

GGTharos · May 22, 2005

It sucks gas alright.

May 22, 2005

I wonder why the Navy replaced the Tomcat w/a plane w/short legs. Makes no sense, unless your pilots like floating around in their survival raft.

GGTharos · May 22, 2005

The Superbug deals with the short legs IIRC. The 14 is being replaced with the superbug, not the 18C, AFAIK.

It's a pretty capable aircraft, it was originally the competitor to the F-16, so it certainly doesn't lack maneuverability.

Force_Feedback · May 22, 2005

Jeesh, I also hate the F-18, but, after seeing the Swiss one preform at an airshow, well, that thing has pitch authority some TVC planes are dreaming of, and it's LOUD, how the hell can such a small bug make so much noise? It was almost like a Tornado with full AB, ouch.

And is it me, or are all the pilots that fly the f-18 a bit scared of it (ha ha)? Not that it preforms so well, but I think it got to do with its "the computer is flying, you can never over-G it" thing. In either case the Super Bug is a great tanker, and a little bit more agile than the Viking....

Oh well, it's cheaper than the f-14, the US has enough financial problems, no need to add expensive and maintenance dependant aircraft (F-14) to them.

GGTharos · May 22, 2005

Hehe, I saw 3 CF-18's fly by a week ago - they ARE loud. REALLY loud.

As for over-G, yes, you can. You can in fact disable the limiters.

The Superbug's no tanker; it goes farther than the original F-18, it has more powerful engines, and much more modern electronics, wether you think that possible or not. I already has a two-seater version as wdell similar to the F_15E for ground attack and recon, IIRC. The radar it's equipped with puts it on par with an F-15 at least for BVR combat, and the AMRAAM's rocket upgrade (not happened yet, but likely will) will enable it to shoot farther, so it's not a -horrible- replacement for the F-14/AIM-54C/ECCM/SEALED combo but it's not really replacing it, either (you obviously lose range compared to the Phoenix).

On the other hand, the superbug can ptu a lot more BVR missiles in the air than the F-14, and those barrages are significant AFAIK.

Orao · May 22, 2005

Sorry to hurt your sensibility as far as F/A-18 is concerned but the US Navy pilots said that F-18 sux (and not just the kerozen). They have a choice between having more ordonance or extendig their operational radius which is pretty weired considering the fact that F/A-18 is operating from the carrier.

Now concerning the financial problems of NAVY the US could have canceled the F-22 program (completly useless IMHO since there is no more Soviet Union and in all wars the US had absolute air control over the battlefield) and save the money for the NAVY, after all the NAVY is always first to fight and last to withdraw.

Don't you agree with me on this one ?

GGTharos · May 22, 2005

No, I don't. There's no reason to halt development because 'there's no USSR'. What if a new super-power crops up? When what, THAT's when you'll start building? These production runs take -years-.

Yes, I'm aware that tomcat drivers don't like the hornets. However, I also think that the Navy got F-18's because despite their poor range performance, they are CAPABLE AIRCRAFT.

That's like me saying 'The Flanker sucks' or 'The MiG-29 sucks' because their radars were utterly horrible (and they were). But obviously both are capable aircraft, too.

Make no mistake about it: The SuperBug is one of the most advanced and potent aircraft around; it's a real 5-gen plane, with low observability in the front quarter, advanced avionics and weapons, and quite a bit of maneuverability as well.

I don't see the JSF replacing it at any rate.

The hornet isn't famous, and it isn't my choice for a ride, but as I said above, it sure ain't last in the lineup.

May 22, 2005

Thanks for your input GG, as usual you make some good points.

KuostA · May 22, 2005

Cheers I enjoyed that a lot. What a background to film a combat scene- beautiful backdrop!

That's the infamous swiss alps. The swiss AF regularly flys through the barrage of mountains, it really is an amazing sight.

Its a sequence of a video called "Swiss Air Force - Identified" which gives a short overview of the swiss airforce and peaks in that interception of 4 german Mig-29 and the dogfight

Ah, there's also the other part to the full movie out there, capturing scenes of select swiss fighters blazing through the alps.

You got a link to the other sections to the movie?

Orao · May 22, 2005

No, I don't. There's no reason to halt development because 'there's no USSR'. What if a new super-power crops up? When what, THAT's when you'll start building? These production runs take -years-.[/Quote]

Sorry to quote you but this is just a litle bit displaced. Even big chiefs at Pentagon admitted that the F-22 costs too much and therefor changed its role from pure fighter to the "multirole" F/A-22.

But what super-power are you talking about. China ? They are far behind western countries and Russia in all domaines. No sign of advance since the embargo on selling the western military technology is still there. India ? The Western countries are holding them on leash with Pakistan. Indonesia ? They depend on western technology and therefor they will never gain a status of super-power.

Russia ? An old Empire which is trying to rise from its ashes.

And finaly even if there is a new super-power the F/A-22 technology will be obsolete by then.

Now consider this. A plane which operates from ground needs airbase to support it whereas the plane which operates from carrier needs the fleet to support it . For "Iraqi Freedom" operation US had problems to find bases for USAF whereas the NAVY launched its firepower from see.

Now let me quote the famous admiral Nelson :

"Those who control the seas control the ground as well".

On that I wish you the very best day and may the force be with you :D

GGTharos · May 22, 2005

Sure - and by the time that 'new' empire pops up, the F-22 may be obsolete, but if it wasn't built, they'd still be sitting with technology who-knows-how-old while other nations move ahead. It's more than just a numbers game ;)

Cosmonaut · May 23, 2005

Nice Vid Thanks for the link!!

I cant understand why they have the Mig flying for so long with out engaging .. and when the F18 pilot says I’m going vertical I had to laugh, with a Mig 29 on your tail I don’t think that would be the best course of action. I like the Hornet but any Fighter that’s that close behind you .. hhhmm well you’re dead even an F22 wouldn’t escape…oh unless of course it’s a movie ;)

Omega Oska · May 23, 2005

Very nice movie indeed, would be great if he use guns instead of missile.

Orao,

I cannot agree with you. If they don't make the F-22, we won't have a F-22 sim in the future.:P

Orao · May 23, 2005

Orao,
I cannot agree with you. If they don't make the F-22, we won't have a F-22 sim in the future.:P
[/Quote]

LMAO

Reason number one to have it then :D

As for why Mig stays so long in his six without engaging it well it's a propaganda film for swiss air force so the good guy is a F/A-18 very intelengent, handsome driver and the bad guy is a stupid Mig-29 driver.

Ok lets say that IRL at dogfight range the F/A-18 is a cannon fodder against Mig-29

Pilotasso · May 23, 2005

The situation is not so straight forward as that. If they scrap the F-22 (wich they wont) they would have to develop a new one. Or be stuck with light fighters. Theres the other problem, once you loose expertise by NOT building it, then you have to run a lot fatesr in the future when its needed.

The F-22 is expensive but thats because there were cost escalation during it development due to technical problems and that prompted the price to go up to payback the investiment. With such products you wont have the material cost alone on the plane but rather the whole techincal developmentt tag associated with it.

I think its actualy a good thing that they keep the F-22 but in low numbers. Helps with the balance of power if needed without too much hot air been blown because of it.

Orao · May 23, 2005

The situation is not so straight forward as that. If they scrap the F-22 (wich they wont) they would have to develop a new one. Or be stuck with light fighters. Theres the other problem, once you loose expertise by NOT building it, then you have to run a lot fatesr in the future when its needed.
The F-22 is expensive but thats because there were cost escalation during it development due to technical problems and that prompted the price to go up to payback the investiment. With such products you wont have the material cost alone on the plane but rather the whole techincal developmentt tag associated with it.

I think its actualy a good thing that they keep the F-22 but in low numbers. Helps with the balance of power if needed without too much hot air been blown because of it.

Can you say same thing for B-2 and F/A-117 ??? Those planes are the pure product of stealth technology and their numbers are kept to low. But that didn't help to develop faster and cheaper the F-22 program.

Sorry but IMHO the F-22 is a fiasco and they keep it just to keep the election promises. And yes the numbers are all.

One plane no matter how good it is can't cover the entire air space on its own, if you want total domination of the sky over battlefieled then you have to outnumber the adversary.

WW2 showed you this. Germans had better planes but they lost the war to the allies because they were outnumbered. Russinas understood that long time ago and now they are building the planes that can be built quickly and that are reliable (well they still have improvements to make in electronics).

Imagine the following situation. You have one squadron of F-22 against 3 sqds of Su-27. The F-22s will be able to wipe out at least two sqd of Su-27 during sinlge engagement but what will happen when they meet the third sqd of Su-27 ???

It will be their turn to get wiped out. And when you consider figures, one F-22 sqd costs much more than 2 Su-27 sqds. Reality is crude but that is the reality.

Same thing goes for Rafale on french side. That plane is much more expensive than a single Su-27 or Mig-29.

GGTharos · May 23, 2005

Um, actually, Orao, given the F-22's mandate and operational testing, they can potentially take oon 8 squadrons and win. Now note tha I said potentnially ... either way, 4:1 is supposed to be a 'normal' operating environment for the 22.

And yes, I agree that the movie is propaganda. I don't agree however that the F-22 is guns fodder at dogfighting range against a MiG-29 ;)

May 23, 2005

Did anyone say the superbug is a 5th generation aircraft? ROFLMAO!!!!!

Orao · May 23, 2005

And yes, I agree that the movie is propaganda. I don't agree however that the F-22 is guns fodder at dogfighting range against a MiG-29 [/Quote]

I think that you misunderstood me. I made a following supposition. 1 sqd of F-22 takes out 2 sqd of Su-27. They are without ammo "winchester" if you like. They meet one sqd of Su-27 on their way back, they get destroyed because the US wasn't able to deploy more F-22 over given area. Blame who for that, blame the low number of F-22 produced and in use.

I hope that you understand what do I mean.

Two things count during war. Numbers and technology.

GGTharos · May 23, 2005

I see what you mean now - yes, attrition is a problem because there are so few F-22's.

Hitman IF · May 23, 2005

Two things count during war. Numbers and technology.

I suppose that's why the USAF has will have force mix of F-35's as well as F/A-22's. Having something really top notch like the F/A-22 to call on will tip the balance in most fights.

Pilotasso · May 23, 2005

Can you say same thing for B-2 and F/A-117 ??? Those planes are the pure product of stealth technology and their numbers are kept to low. But that didn't help to develop faster and cheaper the F-22 program.

Orao I see where you want to arrive, but your slightly off. The B-2 is simply so expensive for a task it hardly does anymore (relegated to convetional cruise missiles and bombs) that theres simply no reason to build more.

As for the F-117 they simply stoped making them because they are pure AG and if a radar is developed to target it the entire fleet is rendered useless all of the sudden, this compeled the F-22 deveopment with the intention for it to take its place.

Actualy the F-22 is an evolution of the technology gained with experience from the B-2 and F-117 programs. Without them you would probably see an aircraft of the same class as the Super hornet in the US airforce.

Unlike the F-117 Stealth is not the only weapon the F-22 has.

Sorry but IMHO the F-22 is a fiasco and they keep it just to keep the election promises. And yes the numbers are all.
One plane no matter how good it is can't cover the entire air space on its own, if you want total domination of the sky over battlefieled then you have to outnumber the adversary.

The F-22 program is far older than any of the last 4 or 5 elections in the US.

And man if its ever to be used be assure they wont fly alone but with all the support they need, and its not like they are going to be outnumbered by aircraft types that can actualy shoot it down!;)

Fiasco? its has never been defeated in simulated dogfights anywhere...

WW2 showed you this. Germans had better planes but they lost the war to the allies because they were outnumbered. Russinas understood that long time ago and now they are building the planes that can be built quickly and that are reliable (well they still have improvements to make in electronics).

WW2?! what a comparison! In ww2 a fighter could be made in days for a ridiculously low price. What won the war was shear industrial capability to put their mass production to replace all fighters lost in a blink of an eye. Fleets were destroyed several times over and then replenished. just to be destroyed again and renovated yet again!

Today takes years to renovate an airforce. Russians built jets for simplicity and they saw their frind countries been blown out of the sky, droping like flies.

Imagine the following situation. You have one squadron of F-22 against 3 sqds of Su-27. The F-22s will be able to wipe out at least two sqd of Su-27 during sinlge engagement but what will happen when they meet the third sqd of Su-27 ???

It will be their turn to get wiped out. And when you consider figures, one F-22 sqd costs much more than 2 Su-27 sqds. Reality is crude but that is the reality.

Thats higly speculative of your part and seems unresonable to think that the Su-27 owners will replace their aircraft any easier than the US will for F-22 wich by the way vastly surpaces any Su-27 variant in service today. If the F-22's ever go winchester they simply turn back and there very litle to do to stop them from vanishing in the sky.

Dudikoff · May 23, 2005

The Superbug's no tanker; it goes farther than the original F-18, it has more powerful engines, and much more modern electronics,

What's with this "it has more powerful engines" argument? Of course it has more powerful engines. If it hadn't, it would have a lot of trouble just staying in the air considering its increased size and weight. Its T/W ratio is worse than the one previous Hornet version has so that's not actually an argument.

Orao · May 23, 2005

WW2?! what a comparison! In ww2 a fighter could be made in days for a ridiculously low price. What won the war was shear industrial capability to put their mass production to replace all fighters lost in a blink of an eye. Fleets were destroyed several times over and then replenished. just to be destroyed again and renovated yet again!
Today takes years to renovate an airforce. Russians built jets for simplicity and they saw their frind countries been blown out of the sky, droping like flies.
[/Quote]

WW2 planes were not cheap at all. In those days we still used manpower to manufacture them. Today you have machines but the technology got more complicated too and since it's produced in small numbers it remains expensive. But during war time it's different. I beleive that Winston Churchil said " Victory at all cost".

Now for your reference on Russian planes. The only air operation where Mig-29A was involved against NATO and mostly American made planes is the operation over Serbia and Montenegro in 1999. I don't count incedents between IAF and Arabic states.

May I remind you that during that operation NATO deployed more than 600 planes whereas the other side had few Mig-29A (which for most were inoperative) and much more Mig-21 (an outdated plane used for hunting down Tomahawk cruise missiles). Morever the Mig-29A was well known by NATO since Germany had them so there was no trouble for jamming them.

Now you guys don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the USA nor their technology but when I hear things like we should spend several billions just to have few planes which will be so expensive that not even the US can't afford more than 100 front line figter planes well it's just make me think that something isn't OK.

When I was talking about fiasco concerning the F/A-22 I was talking in financial terms.

britgliderpilot · May 23, 2005

Now you guys don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the USA nor their technology but when I hear things like we should spend several billions just to have few planes which will be so expensive that not even the US can't afford more than 100 front line figter planes well it's just make me think that something isn't OK.

When I was talking about fiasco concerning the F/A-22 I was talking in financial terms.

Welcome to some irony - had they built the original number of aircraft, they'd be getting them at a far more agreeable final price :p

Sign In

F/A-18 vS Mig-29 real movie

Recommended Posts

GGTharos

Guest ruggbutt

GGTharos

Force_Feedback

GGTharos

Orao

GGTharos

Guest ruggbutt

KuostA

Orao

GGTharos

Cosmonaut

Omega Oska

Orao

Pilotasso

Orao

GGTharos

Guest DeathAngelBR

Orao

GGTharos

Hitman IF

Pilotasso

Dudikoff

Orao

britgliderpilot

Recently Browsing 0 members