Match Up

[Skyviper]

I go to work with a retired Marine he used to work on parachute for ejection seats. And from time to time we have great discussions about the F-18's he was around, and the A-10's Harriers Cobras etc.

 

Tommrow I'm going ask him these questions when we have time(he's the closest thing to a combat pilot I ever met sooo it wouldn't hurt I think.) But you guys are more of an expert on these matters than I am. Yeah I can recognize the planes in a heartbeat but as far as what they can do I have very limited knowledge.

 

This is a non scientific pole and its ojective is to see if, when it comes to dog fighting, SKILL or EQUIPMENT or a combination of two play a majo part toward the victory. As well as to see if the Americans( U-S-A..U-S-A!!!..sorry) or the Russians have the better equipment.

 

My Vote U.S.A all the way. In WW2 the germans had the better equipment... sortof(im thinking about the panzer tank and 109s that were pumped out by the hundreds everyday but I've been wrong before so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong)... but the Allies still won. Which is why I think Skill and proper equipment is the decidding factor.

 

So What do you think?

[Skyviper]

Forgot to mention both scenarios have the planes head to head and in visual range of each other all fully armed.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Skyviper

[Typhoid]

Forgot to mention both scenarios have the planes head to head and in visual range of each other all fully armed.

 

In visual range at "fights on"?

 

change my vote to the SU-35's across the board.

[Slartibartfast]

Su-35 as its possibly the meanest knife fighter.

[ezlead]

I think our equipment is is probably equal to theirs until you get to the F-22. There we have the edge.

Rookie pilot vs 2 aces=Rookie gets his A%% handed to him.

95% skill/ 5% equipment.

[MoonGoose]

from my ignorance, i say equipment.

 

even a rookie pilot in a F-18 with strong ECM, BVR capabilities, AWACS support and reliable AMRAAMs can shot down a su-35 with a Ace inside.

In a dogfight, things are inverted... a skilled pilot can win against a rookie pilot even with a lower performance plane and lower performance armament (but near impossible for a Su-35 to get in short-range and stay undetected).

 

more the tech advance, lesser the skill needed?

Formula races are the same... now formula cars have electronic shift with autoclutch and autoblip, rev limiters, traction control, ABS, stability control. so less skill is required.

While decades ago, upshift and downshift required skill, skill in braking to not lock the wheels, skill in acceleration to not spin the wheels... now you just drive fast as you can, you only need to start braking there, follow the best race line, shift with a button in the steering wheel.

i think the example fit in.

[ezlead]

It's called tactics.

You learn to fly or fight or drive the best you have at the time.

You don't fly or fight the enemies fight,you make him fly or fight yours.

You don't drive the other guys race,you drive your own.

Tactics=Skill.

Edited July 17, 2010 by ezlead

[MoonGoose]

It's called tactics.

You learn to fly or fight or drive the best you have at the time.

You don't fly or fight the enemies fight,you make him fly or fight yours.

You don't drive the other guys race,you drive your own.

Tactics=Skill.

 

indeed... tactics=skill, skill=knowledge, experience, talent.

 

but a rookie in a Ferrari can beat Schumacher driving a Fiat Duna...

 

 

 

[hgbn]

Not if the rookie crash before the finish line

[hgbn]

It's no use having superior equipment if you cant handle it. Not knowing the limits of your self and the given equipment is a sure way to lose.

[MoonGoose]

It's no use having superior equipment if you cant handle it. Not knowing the limits of your self and the given equipment is a sure way to lose.

 

well a rookie is anyway a pilot... i will surely crash before closing a canopy.. but even a rookie is supposed to know the basis of his aircraft... am i wrong?

[hgbn]

Well a rookie driver knows the basic of a car to. But don't know how to drive at the limits. it's no use to go fast if you don't know when to brake. To late and you crash. The same about a aircraft and its pilot.

[ShrikeHawk]

If the F-22 pilot let the Su-35 WVR, then he's already made a rookie mistake. The F-22 should be ghost. All the enemy ever sees of it is its missile boring in for the kill.

[MoonGoose]

If the F-22 pilot let the Su-35 WVR, then he's already made a rookie mistake. The F-22 should be ghost. All the enemy ever sees of it is its missile boring in for the kill.

 

yeah... so equipments win! +1

[hgbn]

Dream on bud There is no way that two aces would lose to a rookie. He might get one of them. But gets toasted by the other in the process

[FastCargo]

MoonGoose,

 

First, ezlead was a actual combat pilot, he's been there, done that, "Got my ass shot at by SAMs" t-Shirt...maybe it's just me, but I'd probably defer to him in terms of what makes a good combat pilot judgement call.

 

Secondly, because a pilot is qualified in that aircraft, doesn't make him an expert in that aircraft. All the real pilots here can tell you of the bros who are mission qualified in an aircraft, go up for a sortie against some of the squadron tactics officers, or Weapon School grads, or combat vets, and come back asking what the hell just happened. I've flown with a guy who actually liked flying A model Eagles instead of C models, because he could regularly school guys at it...guys with superior equipment.

 

Hell, I'll even tell you of a guy who actually was an exchange pilot with the Polish AF. Call sign 'Snapper', he was an American who was an instructor pilot for the Polish, teaching them how best to use the MiG-29...because the training they got from the Russians was subpar at best. I know, I instructed those guys as part of their transition to the F-16. They were done a disservice...the training they received would have gotten them slaughtered had there ever been a conflict.

 

Even our own history has shown superior equipment can be outflown by inferior equipment with a skilled pilot...ask the Rhino guys who were foolish enough to be pulled into a turning fight against a MiG-17 with a good stick at the controls.

 

FC

[shotdown]

My Vote U.S.A all the way. In WW2 the germans had the better equipment... sortof(im thinking about the panzer tank and 109s that were pumped out by the hundreds everyday but I've been wrong before so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong)... but the Allies still won.

 

 

It was actually the oopossit with tanks. allies had the best tank (T-34) and the numbers (by far) while the germans had the skill.

About the planes, I think late war allied planes were as good as those used by the germans. The allies had the advantage of numbers and (at least the western allies, I'm not so sure about the soviets) training

Edited July 17, 2010 by shotdown

[MoonGoose]

Fastcargo,

 

first, i enjoy talking with real pilots (like ezlead and others) about something i like to know more... flying. (as i never held a stick of a fighter neither i saw one for real).

Sure ezlead is right, and sure these relaxing polls about "who will win 1vs1" aren't a debate about who is the best pilot here. (and i'll never win.. im not a pilot )

 

don't misunderstand me... i like to get precious advices from people that made military aviation to the highest standards.. but i don't really understand if your point is to "snob" me or what... i really respect pilots... was my dream as a young child and i never realized it (no money for school and italian aviation isn't so exCiting like USA one)

 

so returning in topic, i wrote that in a dogfight i THINK that skill is really what get the job done. maneuvering skill, knowledge of the plane, knowledge of combat moves, knowledge of physics and more...

 

i just thought that from LONG range, who has the better radar, longest range and reliabily missiles, ECM and AWACS support, would win. Assuming the rookie at least knows how to use a radar and to arm a missile.

if the skill of the ace pilot is so high to dive fast at 100 feets to put noise on the lock or using evading moves to counter the slowturning longer range missiles to get in range for a lock and fire... well then yes the rookie with better equipment surely lose.

 

i was just wondering if the rookie with active homing missiles could fire and forget while the ace have to mantain painting the rookie to get his payload going there, was a big gap. even for an ace... but surely im wrong.

 

but is a relaxing stress free thread and i just write cos i like this forum.. go easy on me

 

EDIT: typo... exciting... not exiting heheh

Edited July 17, 2010 by MoonGoose

[Skyviper]

Hey thanks guys. It was really cool to hear from real combat pilots too.

 

but (im still looking to get schooled here) could somone explain to me what makes the Su-35 so dangerous in a closeup dog fight? And what planes would you use for either scenario to send

up against the Su-35's BVR or sight on?

 

And please remember that I'm not trying to diss any plane or country, or pilot(you know you're awesome )

 

BTW couldnt talk to the boss about this...today was a bad day the moment we stepped onto the job site.

 

indeed... tactics=skill, skill=knowledge, experience, talent.

 

but a rookie in a Ferrari can beat Schumacher driving a Fiat Duna...

 

 

 

 

 

Priceless

[Skyviper]

Not if the rookie crash before the finish line

 

 

Ha! Sounds like something a buddy of mine would do! And I'd laugh my tail off too. Off topic here he test drove somekind of motorcycle and the first thing he does is wreck it lol he's ok but the bike dinged up really good. Ok back on subject. Both of you made a good point on the equipment vs skill question. And both of you made really funny post...those are keepers.

[MoonGoose]

Heh i like those threads too because we can talk of "what if" and be well known about this is theory... cos i really hope there will be no need in the future to fight against.

 

i wish the wars could be fought only in a flight sim tournament

 

we're all friends!

[JediMaster]

I don't know, the Su-35 is a big "what if" as there aren't any operational ones to really analyze. There are only Su-27s and Su-30s in numbers. How good would it be? What are the odds that it would have an avionics failure of some type during a mission? A broken airplane has a MAJOR disadvantage.

 

The Hornet has great reliablility after over 20 years of working on them. The F-22s weren't that good when they entered service, but they've gotten a lot more reliable as they've been used. Let's face it, Russian airframe are reliable, but their engines and avionics do NOT have that reputation although they're improving.