marcos

Just like bias was showing for all those people who claimed that no engagement had even taken place for ages after it was stated that Typhoons had killed Raptors in a training dogfight. Many claim a perfect training record to this day. Another pilot story? Did the F-16s have HMS in this dogfight? Now whose bias is showing? Are you seriously claiming it will still be undetected at the limits of visual range (8km) against AESA and IRST? I think it's more a case of your fantasy stealth..... to go with your fantasy MRAAMs.

You mean the 'counter story' that emerged from Mr. 'I know an F-22 Pilot' after about a year or so of all fanboys flat-out denying that any engagements had ever taken place? No..... I didn't forget that thread.:megalol: No. There is no 'stealth' in WVR, or even inside 20km (being conservative). Furthermore, even when the F-22 gets its AIM-9X it still won't have HMCS, making the OBS capability next to useless. http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2013/02/01/381748/f-22-raptors-need-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-to-take-full-advantage-of-aim-9x.html Obviously the last sentence is bollocks, because no 3rd generation aircraft I know of has HMCS, nor would they stand a chance. Author obviously isn't gen savvy, but the quotes are relevant. The other relevant factor is that the kill probability of SRAAMs is far greater than that of MRAAMs.

I think he means the fact that the F-35 is currently set to fill the roles of the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B and maybe the A-10 too depending of US DoD/Congress.

You still haven't really stated why it's misinformed. It's a simple matter of fact that even an F-22 will run out of radar stealth before 20km against AESA radar, even by the most generous estimates. That's assuming IRST stays off its scent until then. And newer WVR missiles are less prone to tricks than old ones, simply because people have investing in thwarting those tricks. There's only so much you can do to mask thermal image. At the end of the day you have 2 huge engines and a shed-load of electrical equipment that will bake if heat isn't released somehow. The plane with the best manoeuvrability will still come out of top, pilots/avionics being equal.

In the F-35 the F135 will manage about Mach 1.2 according to available figures but that isn't a very good speed to cruise at because it's in the transonic region, and it's a higher BPR engine, so it's not as good for generating the fast exhaust jet that you need for supercruise. Always best to delegate a task you can't do yourself.:P

Great points. One could well raise the question of whether the whole 3-in-1, multi-role requirement has actually driven up cost and complexity rather than reducing it, certainly where the F-35B is concerned. Would it have been cheaper/easier to build the F-35A to be as good an F-16/18 replacement as possible, then work out how to navalise it and just start with a clean slate for the F-35B?

I guess we can live in hope for the day when all these weapons might be qualified.

That is a nice video.

The article is definitely 'off' with some figures but equally, some people are considering AMRAAMs and BVR intercept to be magical fail-safe technology. The range claims for Gen 4.5 IRST are just as ridiculous as the effective range assumptions for AMRAAMs against Gen 4.5 fighters. IRST is probably about as likely to see an oncoming stealth fighter at 90km as an AMRAAM is to hit an oncoming Gen 4.5 fighter from 90km. It certainly can't lock from that distance. Don't really agree with that argument. Stealth fighters will not remain 'invisible' all the way up to WVR, nor probably even 3 times WVR. Neither with respect to radar nor IRST. And the 100deg off-boresight capability of weapons like the ASRAAM and Python 5 together with HMS make merging from a position of advantage virtually impossible. That statement has no basis in fact. Exactly and some fairly broad assumptions have been subconsciously made about range vs success rate. The nice clean BVR bottle-on-a-wall shooting gallery envisioned is probably a fallacy.

Sure it does theoretically but put it in a live operational environment against EW, ECM and TRDs and it may fail even at that but its success rate against a target manoeuvring at 9g even without that would be a lot less than 100%.

:megalol: Fairplay. That was good.

Utter rubbish..... again. Does a drone have RWR/MWS/ECM/Jamming/TRD/9+g manoevrability at supersonic speeds? The stealthiness of the aircraft has no affect on the stealthiness or performance of the missile itself. The missile's energy is one issue. Its ability to turn is another, even assuming it's not distracted/blinded and is still actually attempting to hit the right target. Interesting point but data acquired oddly enough from a heavy stealth protagonist suggests that the AWACS targeting a Rafale/Typhoon/PAK-FA etc. would be well within Meteor/R-33/R-37 kill range. If you take a typical RCS for a 4.5th gen fighter (0.05-0.1m^2), there's some very real problems actually getting the seeker head of a BVRAAM to lock onto that from outside the ranges at which IRST is probably useful in conjunction with something like a MICA IR. Stealth is obviously an advantage but there are a lot of issues with the theory of the hypothetical 6-kill BVR Raptor/Lightning II.

Sea King

Good luck finding them.:D I was working on the assumption of max dry thrust for supercruise and assuming the figures would be at a cruise-like altitude. Other than that I can't find any more information.

The important question is how well a clipped-fin AMRAAM will do from long range when it's not used against a target drone. But most of the figures in there are BS.

Iran's fighter claims debunked (in case they needed to be): http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/aviation-experts-debunk-iran-stealth-fighter-jet-claims-182601002.html

Su-24 - spot the difference More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Ilya_Muromets

Driving an F1 car is something that I can put into a word, but it's not repeatable. I'd rather be in the air too. Seems safer somehow.

Yes but it's proven nothing because the F-35 has none of the handling advantages that the F-16 has. Err... no. You showed a graph of an F-15 with 9,000lbs of fuel and the F-16 has 7,000lbs. The difference in STR was massive. 9g over 4 times the speed range. Well at least you're actually reading things now. If only you could read them correctly. perhaps if you can't understand such a graph and post incorrect equations, you should read more and type less. It's what you say now.:smartass: No. They wrote it for a laugh. Well, given that you couldn't understand the F-16 turn graph, it's no wonder my explanation was lost on you.

Well it takes 2 to argue and I think I presented my case better - something reflected by the fact that the subject was changed by Exorcet. It was until Exorcet changed the subject and tried to make the rather perverse case that the F-16 being better than the F-15 and the F-22 being better than the F-15, would make the F-35 better than them all, or something along those lines. Even though the F-35 was neither wing loading, nor inertia going for it. But if you can get out of trouble, or get a kill, before your energy is lost, that's all that matters. Hence why the F-16 can perform well against the F-15 in dogfights despite worse STR. A seasoned F-15 pilot would probably try use the STR to make the F-16 climb whilst turning, burn off excess energy and take it into thinner air. Well now, I didn't say it had no effect. I suggested that the effect of a drag index of 50 (most likely 1 or 2 drop tanks) seemed to have little affect on drag because the acceleration figures were virtually the same as was the fuel consumption. The weight for the turn graph was also 26,000lbs, so those tanks were empty. They were probably factored in because the F-16s fuel load is so small without external tanks. If anyone can present evidence showing that the F-16 has a better STR than the F-15 clean then I'm eager to see it, but for now the evidence isn't there. We've looked at more than charts. We've looked at specifications, opinions on specifications and specification non-compliances. And that's what we've looked at. Hence why I can't for the life of me understand why Exorcet brought the F-16 up. We all know the F-35 has stealth and avionics but how much does that remove the need for traditional fighter performance? That came from studies where 1 plane would get a free shot at 1 plane. Meanwhile, in stealth protagonist world, we have delusions of a half-dozen consecutive BVR kills from 100km against Gen 4.5 fighters. None more so than the F-35. That reason is very much theoretical at this stage. Which is why it's a big bet to sacrifice everything else for it. And of course the need for external carry is also an issue wrt that 'big picture', ref. range etc.

Yeah he did but we've lost a post in the transition. If not, why is he arguing with my first post on this page? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668365&postcount=1101 he also said this: Not sure what he's even talking about anymore really. I started with the premise that the F-15 has better STR but the F-16 has better roll response and less inertia for changing direction quickly, which would include instantaneous g but more specifically how fast it reaches that instantaneous g. It's lighter and can change direction faster due to lower inertia and faster roll response. I've already mentioned that.

Hey. I don't give a shit whether the F-16 is better than the F-15 or not. You brought it up. I've forgotten what it even has to do with the F-35. Probably nothing. I've already pointed out that a drag index of 50 makes little difference to drag, certainly not enough to explain the massive chasm for the sustained 9g speed range: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1668499&postcount=164 If you don't like the graphs, find your own. Don't see why I should do all the work. You made a statement saying the F-16 has better STR, back it up. I've posted the best graphs I can find, showing that it's most likely another fallacy on your part. Nope. Says it's generally based around a fuel state of 50% post weapons release. I take that to mean that that's the case unless it specifies otherwise. Now note how the table has specific sections for the CTOL. Coincidence. Top 2 rows of table 15,000ft. Last one - sea level. It's fairly intuitive if you think. I was trying to avoid another circle jerk where you ignore everything and also trying to avoid leaving the range argument, which you'd already lost.