Eyewitness From the Cockpit: F-15/16 vs. MiG-29

[Raellus]

Although it takes a while to get going, this is a really interesting article about air combat ranging from the late Cold War to the present day, by a pilot who's flown both U.S. and Soviet-era fighter aircraft.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how...lew-1682723379

It's really interesting to read about how combat aircraft match up by someone who's actually flown (or flown against) all of them.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

That was a very interesting read, as much for the insights into the politics of the USAF of the day as it was for the info on the various aircraft.

[RN7]

That was a really good read, great information and stories about US combat jets and their adversaries. I also liked Clifton's opinion of the F-35, " A pig". If only the powers that be would actually listen to the pilots instead of the lobbyists.

[Adm.Lee]

Agreed, a good read.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Fascinating read.

Especially considering the hundreds of millions the US has dumped into coming up with an HMD that wouldn't be out of place at a Daft Punk concert, meanwhile the Soviets invented a clip on wire monocle that works twice as well and when coupled with the AA11 pretty much means death if you get bounced.

It was however "comforting" to know that the vaunted IRST system wasn't really worth a damn.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

It was however "comforting" to know that the vaunted IRST system wasn't really worth a damn.

Yeah, they've been playing that thing up for years. The last instance I saw was in an article earlier this year.

I wish the subject of the interview had first-hand experience in the SU-27 as that's our current rivals' premiere platform (until the Su-50 hits production lines).

With regards to the F-35, I recently read it referred to as "too big to fail". The various government partners have poured so much money into the project so far, that continuing to authorize spiraling cost-overrides seems less wasteful than cancelling the program entirely. I believe such action is called "reinforcing failure". The interviewee's advice to cancel it and put the money into buying more F-22s (and upgrading existing examples with workable tech from the F-35 program) seems wiser to me.

[Matt Wiser]

I agree, and go with the F-16E/F and the F-15 Silent Eagle. Not to mention staying away from this "Send the A-10 to the boneyard" nonsense. Though a workable compromise might include F-35B for the USMC, RN, and RAF, as they do need a Harrier replacement.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yeah, they've been playing that thing up for years. The last instance I saw was in an article earlier this year.

I wish the subject of the interview had first-hand experience in the SU-27 as that's our current rivals' premiere platform (until the Su-50 hits production lines).

With regards to the F-35, I recently read it referred to as "too big to fail". The various government partners have poured so much money into the project so far, that continuing to authorize spiraling cost-overrides seems less wasteful than cancelling the program entirely. I believe such action is called "reinforcing failure". The interviewee's advice to cancel it and put the money into buying more F-22s (and upgrading existing examples with workable tech from the F-35 program) seems wiser to me.

I get the impression that Clifton is not overly impressed with the Flanker derivatives and its Chinese clones. As he said the Flankers are not stealthy and he described it as being slow and its manoeuvrability is not great, so in a WVR scenario it holds no advantage whatsoever over any modern US or Western European fighter. The Flanker would seem to come into its own in a BVR environment and unfortunately there was no information on its capabilities in this arena. However I think any advantage if any the Flankers would have over a Western fighter at BVR would be reliant on technology, and that advantage would be restricted to the F-15 and F-16 generation rather than the current F-22 or F-35. However even an F-15 and F-16 could hold its own against the Flankers in both BVR and WVR environments with upgraded avionics, AESA, long ranged AAM's and engines, and as Clifton stated Western pilot training is superior. In WVR a Eurofighter would certainly give an F-22 a run for its money, but at BVR the only aircraft on the horizon that might really trouble an F-22 would be the Russian T-50 which is an unknown quantity. I don't rate the Chinese at all as their technology is not good and they steal and copy from other countries. However the stats on the T-50 show it to be smaller and less powerful fighter than the F-22, so any advantage the T-50 would have would be in the technology the Russians put into its radar, sensors and missiles.

The chorus of critics of the F-35 seems to be growing louder by the week. The F-35 is just not a good fighter aircraft and its reliant on technology which so far has proven to be unreliable. No US pilot seems to have a good word to say about it, but those who have publically criticised it have been reassigned or censored. Too much money has been ploughed into the project for it be cancelled but John McCain is now the now the chair of the Armed Service Committee and is no fan of the F-35 and he has prolonged the service life of the A-10. After 2016 when Obama is gone it would make a lot of sense to keep the F-35 as an attack aircraft as it is very stealthy and has advanced radar and sensors. However it would also make a lot of sense to upgrade the F-22 and perhaps some F-15's and F-16's for the Airforce, and buy more Super Hornet's for the Navy until the 6th generation F-X fighter enters service in the mid 2020's.