Successful combat proven aircraft


Status
Not open for further replies.

Adrian

New Member
May 19, 2004
253
0
0
43
West
#1
To spin off from Hommie - Fav aircraft thread
Let's start this new thread about combat proven aircraft ;)

The F-15 Eagle have been the most successful fighter jet in this era with no combat fatalities till date. Not to mention during desert storm when the Iraqis combat pilots refuse to engaged into aerial combat with the F-15s. Meeting them (F-15) means death wish...
 

glennyong

Senior Member
May 2, 2004
5,587
0
0
Singapore
#3
Made in UK. Harrier... vertical lift off, will actualli solve space constrains in singapore. and it has proven to be a extremely capable aircraft.
 

Adrian

New Member
May 19, 2004
253
0
0
43
West
#4
glennyong said:
Made in UK. Harrier... vertical lift off, will actualli solve space constrains in singapore. and it has proven to be a extremely capable aircraft.
No doubt about it...in fact during the Falklands war(Argentine vs UK), The Harriers dominated the skies destroying most of the A-4 skyhawks in aerial combat. Of course the British lost 2 ships in the midst of the battle.
 

jsbn

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2002
2,944
0
0
Planet Eropagnis
#5
I think the British lost the ships when they are being hit by the French Exocet Sea Missile. Similar to that of the Harpoon.

They managed to get the design and specs of the missiles later on that thawarted the missiles much later in the war.
 

Adrian

New Member
May 19, 2004
253
0
0
43
West
#7
Drudkh said:
MIG-29 Fulcrums and the SU-27?
The Russian only combat proven aircrafts were MIG-15s and MiG-21s... Oh Yes Mi-24 Hind helicopter. Saw action during the Afganistan war in the 80's. Heavily armoured, powerful weapons and can carry 24 troops :) Feared by ground troops.

MiG-29 did saw some actions during Desert Storm.
 

Firefox

New Member
Feb 15, 2004
716
0
0
Bedok
#8
jsbn said:
I think the British lost the ships when they are being hit by the French Exocet Sea Missile. Similar to that of the Harpoon.

They managed to get the design and specs of the missiles later on that thawarted the missiles much later in the war.

Funny.. Didn't they already have Seawolf missle systems by then?

Hrmm.. Maybe there were no frigates with Seawolf systems nearby..
 

Adrian

New Member
May 19, 2004
253
0
0
43
West
#9
Firefox said:
Funny.. Didn't they already have Seawolf missle systems by then?

Hrmm.. Maybe there were no frigates with Seawolf systems nearby..
I think at that time no Seawolf system as yet.
 

karel

New Member
Mar 19, 2005
24
0
0
#10
glennyong said:
Made in UK. Harrier... vertical lift off, will actualli solve space constrains in singapore. and it has proven to be a extremely capable aircraft.
what most people don't see is the fact that harrier use much fuel for vertical take off (because the wing can't provide lift at 0 speed) .... therefore reducing the operating range ..
 

Firefox

New Member
Feb 15, 2004
716
0
0
Bedok
#11
Adrian said:
I think at that time no Seawolf system as yet.
Just checked... The Seawolf was used successfully in the Falklands war.. But they probably didn't have Frigates near the ships to bring down the Exocets..
 

lumen

New Member
Jan 9, 2004
328
0
0
#12
err hmm how abt this ugly looking fella:

the A10 Thunderbolt!
 

sljm

New Member
Dec 2, 2002
308
0
0
38
Singapore
sljm.tripod.com
#13
Firefox said:
Just checked... The Seawolf was used successfully in the Falklands war.. But they probably didn't have Frigates near the ships to bring down the Exocets..
Actually there was .. but the A-4s, but one of the ships that was hit (can't remember which) was hit by a land base Exocet that the argentinians converted from a sea based one. and during the war, HMS sheffield i think was hit by A-4s carrying dumb bombs, the frigate carry sea wolf was hit by a system failure as well as the radar was unable to resolve the aircraft due to them flying low as well as near the sea... (May not be too accurate but from what i remember watching some Cable TV documentary)
 

Adrian

New Member
May 19, 2004
253
0
0
43
West
#14
karel said:
what most people don't see is the fact that harrier use much fuel for vertical take off (because the wing can't provide lift at 0 speed) .... therefore reducing the operating range ..
Actually operationallv, the Harriers dont take off vertically, not that fuel efficient. Therefore ramps are build for them.
 

glennyong

Senior Member
May 2, 2004
5,587
0
0
Singapore
#15
so now.. actualli what we see is that B2s and F117s of the US will be dominating the skys as the Black Ghosts of the skys.. but the bad point is that, they cant do air-air combat ? since they only carry air to surface precision missles.

Harrier fighters to me, although not fuel efficient as what someone mentioned. But we should take into considerations of the vertical take offs and other practical capablities of the aircraft possess.

The aircraft carrier i also a good idea to reduce the amt of airplanes taking off from ground. but if we take singapore into consideration. i believe to my knowledge and experience with navy. the biggest naval base in singapore can only accomodate 1 Us carrier.

so if singapore were to invest 21million or so onto one aircraft carrier and create 2000 vacancies. the most we can own one, and put all our f-16s on them or maybe singapore can buy some f-14 tomcats to use as supporting / assault aircrafts ?

since singapore have submarines. what we are now short of in terms of naval capability is Aegis class naval ships. and Aircraft carriers. i believe the MGBs and Corvettes we have now are good enough since they are upgraded constantly.

the latest aircraft that lockheed is developing for the US Army is kinda cool too ? or was it Boeing or Lockheed that won the contract anyway.. i think its Lockheed rite?
 

afbug

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2004
483
0
0
Planet SG™
#16
glennyong said:
so now.. actualli what we see is that B2s and F117s of the US will be dominating the skys as the Black Ghosts of the skys.. but the bad point is that, they cant do air-air combat ? since they only carry air to surface precision missles.

Harrier fighters to me, although not fuel efficient as what someone mentioned. But we should take into considerations of the vertical take offs and other practical capablities of the aircraft possess.

The aircraft carrier i also a good idea to reduce the amt of airplanes taking off from ground. but if we take singapore into consideration. i believe to my knowledge and experience with navy. the biggest naval base in singapore can only accomodate 1 Us carrier.

so if singapore were to invest 21million or so onto one aircraft carrier and create 2000 vacancies. the most we can own one, and put all our f-16s on them or maybe singapore can buy some f-14 tomcats to use as supporting / assault aircrafts ?

since singapore have submarines. what we are now short of in terms of naval capability is Aegis class naval ships. and Aircraft carriers. i believe the MGBs and Corvettes we have now are good enough since they are upgraded constantly.

the latest aircraft that lockheed is developing for the US Army is kinda cool too ? or was it Boeing or Lockheed that won the contract anyway.. i think its Lockheed rite?
Lockheed Martin won it.

F-35 Joint Stike Fighter site. :thumbsup:

http://www.jsf.mil/index.htm

B2s and F117 are for mission based sorties i think. Bomb and fly away. Not for dog fight.

I dun think F16s are for aircraft carriers. They design the F18s. F14s are for defense of the carrier.

The F22s will replace the F15 eventually and the JSF will complement the the F18s.

3 versions of JSF will be built. 1 conventional aircraft, one vertical takeoff and landing version and a aircraft carrier version.
 

glennyong

Senior Member
May 2, 2004
5,587
0
0
Singapore
#17
afbug said:
Lockheed Martin won it.

F-35 Joint Stike Fighter site. :thumbsup:

http://www.jsf.mil/index.htm

B2s and F117 are for mission based sorties i think. Bomb and fly away. Not for dog fight.

I dun think F16s are for aircraft carriers. They design the F18s. F14s are for defense of the carrier.

The F22s will replace the F15 eventually and the JSF will complement the the F18s.

3 versions of JSF will be built. 1 conventional aircraft, one vertical takeoff and landing version and a aircraft carrier version.
oh. yah.. its time we change our old aircrafts.. hahahahahaah... use JSFs with F-16s... lol.... B2s and F117s althogh are for mission is correct, however should it be hunted ? it has no defence to it...
 

afbug

Senior Member
Aug 19, 2004
483
0
0
Planet SG™
#18
glennyong said:
oh. yah.. its time we change our old aircrafts.. hahahahahaah... use JSFs with F-16s... lol.... B2s and F117s althogh are for mission is correct, however should it be hunted ? it has no defence to it...
Haha those amercians think that no one can design a super radar in future to detect the B2s and F177s. So they realised, they got the F22s or JSF as an escort to a B2 or F117.

Battle of the X planes is showing on NGC now. Boeing Vs Lockheed Martin for the JSF contract.
 

Hommie

Senior Member
Oct 11, 2004
925
0
0
Singapore
#19
Adrian said:
No doubt about it...in fact during the Falklands war(Argentine vs UK), The Harriers dominated the skies destroying most of the A-4 skyhawks in aerial combat. Of course the British lost 2 ships in the midst of the battle.
Its too bad that the Harrier is not supersonic by today's standard, thus the JSF.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.