I just don't understand why is the fulcrum harder an opponent in the dogfight than the flanker? The flanker is more powerful, turns and rolls faster, and flys by wire--Of course when it doesn't carry too much fuel. Perhaps only because it's easier to spot?

The Fulcum has another big disadvantage in a dogfight: short legs. It can't stay in afterburner for long, whereas the Flanker has a lot more options.

My understanding is that the MiG-29 was originally designed more or less as a replacement for the MiG-21 and MiG-23, i.e. a short range fighter that would operate under strict GCI control and ideally make a single pass at high speed. Unlike the MiG-21 and MiG-23 it has very good maneuvrability, but it doesn't really have the range or systems to sustain the fight on its own. The Flanker, on the other hand, is a real air superiority fighter.

(My comments refer to the early MiG-29 models, since the later ones have added more capabilities.)

The Fulcrum is fluff. Damn good looking fluff, but fluff none the less!

Early 9.12 and 9.13 models were great with a tight GCI network over the old allied eastern bloc countries.

Pushing west would have been hazardous at best for the MiG-29 however given its short legs and over reliance on ground control. Factor in a ****e radar and less than impressive engines reliability-wise and it didn't look good.

Once "C" model Vipers came onto the scene sporting the AMRAAM, the writing was on the wall for the Fulcrum and in reality things haven't looked good for it since, despite all the "amazing" upgrades offered by MiG (SMT, blah).

Even third world African "airforces" have a preference for the Sukhoi designed product.

Forget the Fulcrum, Flanker is the real deal, just ask the Chinese.

Yes, I love the Fulcrum for what it was meant to be, but it's going nowhere fast and in the meantime everyone is talking Flanker.

That a bird that big can kick so much butt so hard and so throughly well given its austere pedigree scares me, and it should scare all of its potential rivals.

Flanker, now that's a purebred.

Yeah but the writng's on the wall for the Flanker now with the F22, no?

...Oh and Ironwulf, both our Oz Pigs and Hornets would suffer at the hands of the Su-27 should they venture too far from their comfort zone too.

I see the irony in mentioning the old cold war era within an SE Asian context too. I think there is some validity in arguing that Australia (and without a doubt NZ too) is the Australasian "poor eastern bloc 'power'relying heavily on the superpower mother" country (ie the US), and probably has been for the last decade, or atleast after we dissolved a permanent presence in Malaysia (RAAF Butterworth).

Wedgetail EW or not, we don't have any real power projection at all. Perhaps the closest thing we have to power projection is our Navy DDG's and are they even still serving? If they are, they must be very close to being scrapped.

I'm getting way off topic so I should leave it at that!

Not really. The F-22 is unlikely to be exported, at least not in quantity. And most of the Flanker users are not likely to fight the US.

Like Jeepster said the Flanker is selling big in places like Africa and Asia, and those countries are much more likely to end up fighting their neighbors. It's interesting to note that after the last Ethiopian-Eritrean war the losing Eritreans bought...Flankers.

Except the Taiwan theater, possibly?

Well, one major buyer of the Flanker is China. Whether or not the US and China ever get into a conflict is a question that may not be answered.


The Jedi Master

Of course. But overall I think people focus too much on East-West type scenarios when thinking about future conflicts. First of all no one really wants to fight the US or NATO in a conventional war anymore, and secondly countries tend to fight their neighbours a lot more than they fight distant superpowers.

China, for example, fought short wars with both Russia and India in the 1960s and still has unresolved border issues with both (and with Japan). In addition the Chinese have also fought Vietnam. Pakistan has fought India three times since the 1960s, and the Arab and Muslim countries have fought more against each other than they have against the US or even Israel. Most of the countries in Africa seem to have border issues that could escalate into shooting wars at any time (like Ethiopia and Eritrea), etc etc etc.

Anyway, the intention wasn't to bore people with a long listing of third war conflicts but to show that neighbours usually fight neighbours and that we tend to miss that because of our (understandable) focus on conflicts involving the West. From a simming viewpoint it's a pity though, since most of these conflicts involve scenarios that are much more interesting and don't require artificial play balancing either.

There is apparently still Korea with many countries messing together but after all yep! A good point. Totally agree on this one. Especially the last sentence

Jeepster:

I dunno about the F-111s being out of action... obviously I would not expect them to go head to head with SU-27s, but for their role I dont see them as being outdated in light of likely threats. The F-111 proved its still a viable platform against most threats in GW 1. Its not like we have lines of SA-10s waiting to get us, and even if we did, the current line of thinking now is forget jamming, forget spoofing... get down low and go go go, and thats what the F-111 does best.

I don't buy into the need for stealth and all that crap. I swear its Lockheed etc trying to push their products to get ROI. Sure, modern SAM systems would detect most standard fighters without even cracking a sweat, but they know that if they turn on, they could be on the receiving end of a HARM, which is uncool. If they never turn the damn radar on, what good is stealth?

I find it almost mocking that certain neighbours in SE Asia will have a whine because we bought a couple of dozen bargain basement priced F-111G's from the US, but will go buy almost 100 of Russias finest.

Anyway, getting way off topic. I did remember Australia did consider the F-15 and F-16 before selecting the F/A-18. The F-15 was nailed because of cost, the F-16 because (at the time) it had no real BVR capability.

Now we're looking at the Joint Strike Fighter to replace the F-111s. Whats wrong with the F-15E? Its just what the doctor ordered as far as I am concerned. Who is going to risk their top dollar stealthish aircraft when they can do the same sorts of 'show of force' with the much less expensive hardware.

As far as the now aging F/A-18 fleet goes, I dont see anything wrong with the SuperHornet taking its place. Longer legs and bigger weapon load is right on the money. Good airframe life too since we dont slam them into carrier decks

Sorry, bit of a thread hijack, but I brought it back to F-15s in the end

Yes Ironwulf I agree on the Super Hornet. It's a great jet from what I've read and seen, and personally I think Australia would be much better off investing in the Hornet in the long term both from operational and political/financial points of view.

The Strike Eagle is a gem as well, as has been proven time and time again. No doubt both Boeing and the South Koreans must be rubbing their hands with glee at securing an order for their GE powerered jets! Wow, what a combination!

Makes me wonder though; with the F-15 production line reopened, would there be any merit in manufacturing new built fighter models a la the "C"? A General Electric powered fighter version to fill the void left by the downsized Raptor order quota could be an interesting and worthwile endeavour for the US, and Australia could slot in nicely with developmental costs which would no doubt be far less than what we'll be expected to pitch in with the JSF program.

I really wish it would come down to Hornet vs. Eagle for Australia. A mix of Super Bugs and upgraded "A" models (similiar to the US' A plus model) or maybe an exclusively Eagle offensive capability in the form of factory fresh new generation GE powered fighters and "E" model striker versions. Now that would be sweet!

Simple fact is though, we'll end up with shtinky JSF's. Blaaaaaaaaaaah.

Is the JSF so bad? Surely, as a next-gen fighter it must be superior to F18s in some ways?

Its superior in cost... and without a conflict requiring its technologies its going to be a huge waste of moolah for a country that can't afford it.

Which is more effective against enemy Air defence... 1 JSF or F-22 or the 2 or 3 Superhornets you could buy instead for around the same money.

Finally I guess from a daytime strike perspective... some 50+ year old anti-aircraft barrage fire techniques could turn your very expensive strike aircraft into a big pile of scrap pretty quick.

Personally I think they have the right idea with the F-117 and B-2. Dedicated stealth. Let them go in and take out the hard stuff, then let more conventional air superiority methods kick in - wild weasel, sweep missions etc.

Of course we (being Australia) would never get that gear even if we could afford it, so may as well get a numerically/technically superior force and just borrow some if we need them

so you're saying the only difference between JSF and Hornet is cost? Seems unlikely - why bother developing it at all? It must be able to do SOME things the Hornets can't or the US/UK etc. governments wouldnt have invested would they????? Surely JSF isnt just a job creation program

"Is the JSF so bad? Surely, as a next-gen fighter it must be superior to F18s in some ways?"

In some ways, perhaps. But the real questions should be "Do we need it, can we afford it, is there a better option"?

Sure it might be better in some ways but not in all. And if we are better served in other ways then perhaps the other options are the way to go?

I'm not sure about the JFS. It smells bad. The one airframe does it all thing has been tried with mixed success. Maybe the Phantom came close?

Just because somethings newer doesn't always mean it's better.

I would think its benefits are mostly defensive (ie: stealthiness) or at best operational (VSTOL) but not offensive - I wouldn't think I'd be too wrong in saying that most of the offensive systems available to the JSF/F22 are available in the current technology fighters or will be soon.

Using defence spending to create jobs to make unemployment seem artificially low? never!

Heh heh

Lol I like your cynicism, a man after my own heart heh heh.

I think its offensive capabilities must be pretty fearsome though as I've just read that it's gonna replace both the F16 AND the A10 so its payload must be quite big!

It has a brand new radar, is supersonic and stealthy too so my guess is it will kick some serious behind.

Cynicism is just another word for realism in my book

My understanding (based on what I saw on the JSF on Discovery) was that it was a replacement for the AV-8B not the A-10, which would make more sense.

I think the A-10 is going to be around in one form or another for a very long time