Combat Aircraft Comparison stats

Status
Not open for further replies.

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks go to finiteless for permission in posting his comparison charts here.

Feedback has been welcomed!

Please do not copy this to other sites without advising me first. I have sought permission to have it posted here and I do not want to break the trust granted by seeing it popup elsewhere.

Pictures attached:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

umair

Peace Enforcer
Good accurate and more importantly the colours used are eyecatching and can be discerned from oneanother therefore making a quick glance comparison easier.
Though I would have liked to see a rough comparison between avionics as well.
Plus in order to solve the copyright problem, I think webs should turn it into a members only thread(if it can be done) cause mostly it's an element in the visiting guests which copies and pastes onto other sites.
 

WebMaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Everyone, please respect this request from gf0012-aust:

Please do not copy this to other sites without advising me first. I have sought permission to have it posted here and I do not want to break the trust granted by seeing it popup elsewhere.


Carry on with the feedback.
 

umair

Peace Enforcer
Weapons carriage wether internal(clean)=no drag from external attachments or external(dirty)= you get the drift. ;)
 

berry580

New Member
These data are somewhat misleading, just by looking at the T:W ratio in the graph, it seems like the F/A-18C has higher a T:W ratio than the SU-27, but if you think again, I realised the SU-27 has higher fuel capacity, so meaning if you count by how many fuel it has (litres) instead of percentage, it'll give a better comparison.

Also, wtf is "dry weight"?
 

highsea

New Member
berry, the dry weight is no fuel or weapons. The T:W ratios are calculated by dividing the afterburner thrust by the dry weight. It's just a broad comparison. Weapons loadouts, pods, drop tanks, etc. would change the numbers.

Using percentages makes for a logical comparison, for example, the SU-27 with 25% fuel would have a higher T:W than the F/A-18C with 50% fuel. (assuming no weapons)

And the T:W's do not necessarily translate directly into speed. Unlike tanks, aircraft are affected by aerodynamic forces. :D:
 

JWCook

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
berry580 said:
These data are somewhat misleading, just by looking at the T:W ratio in the graph, it seems like the F/A-18C has higher a T:W ratio than the SU-27, but if you think again, I realised the SU-27 has higher fuel capacity, so meaning if you count by how many fuel it has (litres) instead of percentage, it'll give a better comparison.

Also, wtf is "dry weight"?
Here's an excel worksheet, with the data for some fighters, its a little dated now, as I've not kept it current, you can add your own data, and mess about generally.

It has in the comments fields the calculations used to give the figures for each.

see LINK DEAD

If you disagree with any figures go ahead and change them, theres also a useful conversion calc at the bottom, but as usual please check your results, and yes I know theres a couple of mistakes.

If you want to improve it 'Go ahead', but give me a mention in the footnotes ;-).

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Gremlin29

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
These data are somewhat misleading, just by looking at the T:W ratio in the graph, it seems like the F/A-18C has higher a T:W ratio than the SU-27, but if you think again, I realised the SU-27 has higher fuel capacity, so meaning if you count by how many fuel it has (litres) instead of percentage, it'll give a better comparison.
Not at all misleading, it's cut and dry. Thrust to Weight is exactly that, X number pounds of thrust and X number pounds of aircraft weight. Doesn't matter if 10,000 of those pounds of aircraft weight is fuel or tires, it's stictly a function of weight.

In the military, dry weight means the aircraft is without ANY fluids, ordenance, crew and or special mission equipment (drop tanks, FLIR pods etc.) Dry weight doesn't mean much to anyone other than the pilot. Prior to a flight, a pilot computes the weight balance of his aircraft. He enters the dry weight first, then adds the weight and "station" of each and every addtional item the aircraft is equipped with. Fuel, ordenance, the pilot, special mission equipment and so forth. The operators manual has a diagram that shows the "station" numbers of the aircraft and the pilot idenetifies what station any given added component will be added. These are utilized to factor the "arm" of each component installed beyond the dry weight. With the total arm and weight of the aircraft calculated the pilot will then know what his Gross Take Off Weight and Center of Gravity is. There are limititations (in the operators manual) on Gross Take Off Weight and Center of Gravity. You don't just jump in an airplane and go. Pilots also compute "performance planning". With the weight of the aircraft known they can factor their fuel burn based on their modes and speeds of flight to deduce wether or not they can complete the mission. If you need aerial refueling for example, you have to compute where in the wild blue yonder you will be when you need the fuel, otherwise the tankers wont be there.
 

Pursuit Curve

New Member
The Most important Statistic, and the one that cannot be graphed or Quantified

You put a bad pilot in a good airplane, and he or she fights a good pilot in a less capable or equivelant aircraft.....The good pilot wins every time.

Airframes and the systems are just tools, they don't mean a damn thing if you have more money than brains and experience.

Case in point, the Falklands war, on paper the Supersonic Mirage III should have had a picnic eating Sea Harriers alive, at least on paper, but the operational reality was that the RN had the better pilots, and they weren't flying at the maximum range of the Harrier, so they could defeat a supersonic aircraft with a subsonic aircraft, especially when the Mirage could not loiter and dogfight.

On the other side of that example, Argentinian pilots flew the Skyhawk A4Q, Ex Israeli Dagger ( Mirage 5), both old obselete versions of the Mirage and Skyhawk, without alot of electronic support, and still inflicted potentially crippling damage against the premier Naval Air defense systems in the Royal Navy, and that done through visual bombing, requiring overflying the target. not very healthy thing to do in the late 20th century, or now for that matter.

I will not refer to the Etendarde exocet. That is another discussion of missile performance, not aircraft.

My point, performance stats are such a small indicator of true combat capability, the true indicator is using those capabilities and matching them to realistic pilot/mission planning, and most inpotantly, pilot training and capability.:)
 

Awang se

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Anyone know about MIG-31 FOXHOUND? i don't really give any attention to it until recently and i'm quite impress. i believe it's among the most capable long range interceptor in the world. Long range radar, long range missile, this aircraft could've launch it's missile long before it's opponent can.
 

DoC_FouALieR

New Member
Anyone know about MIG-31 FOXHOUND? i don't really give any attention to it until recently and i'm quite impress. i believe it's among the most capable long range interceptor in the world. Long range radar, long range missile, this aircraft could've launch it's missile long before it's opponent can.
Of course, but it still has to illuminate the target since its missiles (R-33/ AA-9 Amos) have SARH guidance, therefor no "fire and forget".
Moreover, against a stealthy aircraft like the F-22 or F-35, it cannot detect them before those two aircrafts are within the range of their AMRAAMs... However, the MiG-31 can easily travel to M 2.5, which is still quite impressive and useful when taking evasive actions and interceptions.
 

rattmuff

Lurk-loader?
Why not start to compare combat aircrafts special abilities? Instead of stats that doesn't say so much about the aircrafts peformance in combatsitautions. :rolleyes:
 

Big-E

Banned Member
Awang se said:
Anyone know about MIG-31 FOXHOUND? i don't really give any attention to it until recently and i'm quite impress. i believe it's among the most capable long range interceptor in the world. Long range radar, long range missile, this aircraft could've launch it's missile long before it's opponent can.
Mig-31 is improved version of Mig-25, that is all. Nothing revolutionary here.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
itanium7000 said:
Everybody can compare MiG-31 with F22 Raptor? Which combat powerful for attact? And if them join to dog-fight...?
There is no comaparison... F-22 outclasses her in everything except maximum speed but she still has greater sustainable speeds.
 

Big-E

Banned Member
itanium7000 said:
Oh sorry, thanks! And about Su 30 MKK? Is it powerful than F22? thanks again.

Su-30MKI is the best Russian/Indian designed aircraft ever produced IMO. She is a much better strike aircraft than F-22 so in this regard she is more powerful. But nothing takes F-22 in Air-to-air combat... nothing!
 
Last edited:

B.Smitty

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
Feedback has been welcomed!
How much confidence does your source have in its F-22A fuel numbers? I've seen as little as 18klbs up to around the number in your chart. Seems to be a fairly closely held piece of info.

A fella named Brad over on acig.org posted some estimates of the F-22As range & fuel based on open information here.

http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=86222&highlight=f22a#86222

He came to the conclusion that 20,650 lbs of fuel seems like a reasonable number based on other data out there.
 

B.Smitty

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Big-E said:
Su-30MKK is best Russian/Indian designed aircraft ever produced IMO. She is a much better strike aircraft than F-22 so in this regard she is more powerful. But nothing takes F-22 in Air-to-air combat... nothing!
How do you figure? Granted, the current block of F-22s aren't the strikers they could be, but they're still all-aspects stealthy and have an extremely advanced avionics suite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top