lunaticfringe

That's quite debatable, depending on the source you're using from the VPAF side, based on their method of recordkeeping of tracking pilot deaths rather than airframe losses as "kills". The famous shot of the MiG-17 getting shredded (used on the cover of the aforementioned Clashes)? Not a kill by those records. And Combat Tree? 1. How many shots do you think from 71-73 were BVR, and 2. How many do you think connected? Combat Tree was a data point; it was not permitted to override other ID methods.

Two problems with that argument: 1. IAF, 1982. 2. "Opportunity" is granted to he who sees first; that is, the F-15 gets opportunities that the F-16 doesn't for the *exact reasons* that Boyd hated it (primarily, weight given to the large radar). For the slim margin that the F-15 sacrifices in the Action step, it dominates the aspect of Observation, Orientation, and Decision based on its relative strengths. A little bit of G (against the A, no margin against the C) can only make up so much, or go so far. And the Eagle holds its own on his concept of fast transient maneuver relative to the Viper, so that's out as well. So no- he doesn't actually need to be forgiven for it. As turkeydriver alluded to: he was captivated with his own scent, and failed to acknowledge errors in perception. And his acolytes are even worse.

And you have no evidence that he cannot stick to them, because the only *specific date* he's given was done *today*. You know, you people really kill me- you do. When the potential release of the MiG-21 module was up in the air based on the separation of the design team, it was made specifically clear by Cobra and LN that information would be provided in an appropriate fashion, and that the delays surrounding the breakup would not be excessive; they weren't. In fact, as some of us know from having followed along quite intently, the extended nature of the delay was on ED's part for integration and release. Yet there was LN, every step of the way keeping people appraised in an honest fashion, and getting innumerable dumps taken on them for it. Now they release the identity of an upcoming project, they're asked for a mid-month update and promise one, we're still mid-month, he *just* promised the actual update for tomorrow during his message today... ...and you're complaining that HE CAN'T KEEP HIS PROMISES!!!1! Seriously- get a grip.

Everybody complaining that Cobra is mean for being late and shouldn't be mean and late are glossing over one detail: He's not late.

I'd have recommended Coram do his homework with regards to how TAC considered Boyd's work (AAS being the syllabus at the FWS as of 1965), but that didn't work to his meme. Neither did that part where the jet he hated even after he fixed it (the F-15) blows the doors off the F-16 in the job he built the latter for with regards to kill ratio.

Ukraine? None- it isn't a member of NATO. NATO nations bordering it? Rotating squadrons. "...have they actually attacked any neighbors yet?" Funny thing about that- the instant the attack starts is when you need the tools in hand. You don't have three to five years for a crash development program, another five for construction, test, and supply, and five more for training and tactical doctrine creation. These things don't simply become available overnight. I skip propaganda and go by history. There is nothing new under the sun, and we are not in some enlightened new age. Voids caused by apparent weakness have always been filled by those with the will to play strongman; the only difference is who is rising to the challenge. That's rather funny, considering how many nations have gone for accelerated NATO alliance membership over the last decade-plus. You think it's hollow to the Vilnius group? Not so much from where they're sitting.

Who is annexing the Ukraine? Who has a military officer class planning a war with the United States for the Pacific within the next fifteen years? Yeah, let's see how practical a wing of F-20s are at threatening a reprisal against Russian or Chinese aggression. Can't get them to the theatre, can't operate over contested territory once they've arrived, and can't launch or recover them by CV. I've seen some funny stuff this week, but that takes the cake.

Greek is quite correct: based on the beating that Iranian Tomcats gave the Iraqi air force, they refused to meet on any terms whatsoever with the United States Navy. When confronted, they ran. In one instance, they almost got lucky, having run from Tomcats (that USAF controllers then refused to grant permission to engage, trying to buy a shot for Saudi F-15s), and almost picked off members of a coalition strike package because that was their first instinct.

It doesn't make the MiG-21 a *good* one, either. :P Even a scent-blind dog can find a bone every so often. Especially when it is being guided by a master who knows the prey like the back of his hand. You know who beat up on F-14s in 4477th MiG-21s? F-14 pilots. F-15 pilots. People who had been exposed to the types time and again, and flown it for thousands of hours. And after that first setup, those same F-14 (and F-15, and F-16, and F-4, and F/A-18 ) pilots turned around and stomped on the MiG-21- it's the nature of the beast. But let's dispense with playtime: Iraq claims five F-14s killed air to air by all types. Iran claims 26 MiG-21s killed air to air by F-14s. Care to explain? The aerodynamics are not. Translation: "HEY, EVERYBODY- for a few seconds, we can use Chrezvichayniy Rezhim and imagine we're a fourth generation fighter! WHOOHOOO!" *We* (being the United States) have operated them all- the MiG-21, MiG-23, and MiG-29, with pilots holding more hours across all types, and generating more hours *in* those Soviet/Russian types, than crews trained within their own system. You want to quote Davies' book to me- how's about that 4477th pilot on DET saving the MiG-21, sitting in the back seat, from an inept, Soviet-system trained guy in a departure? You *really* don't want to play this game. Especially when the Bis' available G chart looks as attached. Hint: an F-14 turns tighter, and has more G available at Mach 0.5 and 15k than a MiG-21Bis has at sea level and Mach 0.6. I hate to tell you, but that constitutes a bit of a problem for the Fishbed. But hey- tell us about what a great dogfighter it is in comparison to a fourth generation aircraft.

The genius at Boeing who thought it wise to order the forms for the Super Hornet adjusted with the 4 degrees of pylon angling based on wind tunnel data, rather than prior to the Navy's desired separation testing, should be shot. Seriously.

Look at the attached page, and tell me if you can surmise how the attached page is an OPSEC problem. As to JPS, he was editor of the *classified* TOPGUN Journal at the time (the analogue to the FWS's "Fighter Weapons Review" and "Interceptor Weapons Review", which were not classified until 1993). He *knew* better. You never show your hand. Ever.

One thing to remember in all this friendly banter and pissing: charts are nice. They're bite-sized for "small" brains. True aero data is better, and doesn't always conform to the charts, because services like to forget: *all* charts are estimates. A pilot didn't keep topping off the tanker and hit every single intersection on the chart. They grab a bunch, and average based on hard and fast rules. Slow speed values on them are generally suspect because nobody sticks around 0.2/0.3 Mach except during TO. Further, the ability to delineate on a Max CL line when everything is running into it is just about nil.

Doesn't exist.

Oh, my bad- in USAF's infinite wisdom, they didn't add the rate delineation to the 15k doghouse. ;)

I gave you one in this thread. And G? Chart not necessary. Give me three pieces of data: wing area, AR, and leading edge angle, you've got your CL. Add weight and altitude pressure? Stall. Speed for available G is a function of stall times the square root of said target G number. Larger wing area, larger aspect ratio, lower angle: lower stall. Lower stall: lower speed for available G.

Yep. The book has no statement of configuration for any of the charts provided, and it has a large volume of them. Figure out the indexing, and you've got a massive amount of goodies for the daily wage the average member of the Workers Paradise.

Actually, it does, and I thought I'd clarified my "conceptual" misstatement with a linguistic one. May have been erroneously lost in the numerous stops/restarts I go through following these threads. The F-14 *sustains* (literally, as in "has") a available G rate advantage in opposition to the F-15 up to Mach 0.65+. It does not hold a "sustained turning" advantage in that range, it simply has higher G available. Now, the relationship between ITR and STR vs. WL is being stated backwards here: ITR is WL (trending higher) and CL/AoA (can offset low). STR is WL (trending lower), thrust, and shape drag. The F-14 has a high ITR because of its CL/AoA authority, not because of its relatively low WL. And it has STR performance because of the WL, not necessarily (or, despite of) relative to thrust. These factors, as illustrated, can offset one another, or can aid one another. The Flanker is relatively heavy, and has massive lift generation at play, thus its ITR is ridiculous. At the same time, it's thrust isn't necessarily enough to offset the higher WL, meaning it's STR isn't as strong as some expect. The F/A-18 has similar massive lift generation taking place, and a low WL. It's problem isn't thrust, but form drag- illustrated by the fact it has trouble punching the Mach, and recovering energy when in the turning fight. The F-14 and F-15 are similar. The former has higher CL/AoA authority, the latter thrust. WL between the two is generally a wash. Subsequently, the Tomcat is going to have more G earlier in the envelope (byproduct of the wing), whereas the Eagle is going to sustain it better over a wider area (byproduct of the engine).

It doesn't. He really should have lost his job over releasing that. Instead, he went total Boyd-acolyte and went bonkers writing about "how the Navy got the process of acquisition on the Hornet wrong (among other things)". Nothing like handing the Soviets exactly what they needed for raw data for the heavy price of $7.95.

Yes. *All* of them can. The requirements for compatibility were different, but it was done for all of them.

A/B? Sure. C/D? No way.

Don't know what Leatherneck's plans are, but by the mid-90s they could all use NVGs in different fashion. VF-11 tested them in-house in the early 90s in their Ds (the linked report noted one, but on their next cruise they had six). Basically, the panels, TID, and HUD had lens filters put over top to filter excess light. The F-14D's were compatible from the start (excluding the aforementioned HUD/TID combo). When the TID was replaced, the same style of panel was used from the other compatible MFDs to replace. This was included in the RIO's seat in the F-14B upgrade.

The Sparrow's is larger, however AMRAAM has multiple generations worth of optimizations to put its 50/40lb explosive (depending on generation) to better use. Maneuverability is going to likely go to the -7 close-in relative to the later versions of the -120, based purely on the size of its control services versus the weight of the weapon. AMRAAM has overhead for some solutions to this based on what you can program it to do, the above is just the "raw". However, neither of these things are what I'm referring to.

He put the tale in a blog post a number of years before I finally got to hoist a few beers with him in person. Good people, and it's always fun chatting with him privately. He's got a connection to a famous F-14 incident that's worth buying a round if you can get him in the right circumstances- it's his story to tell, though, and I don't do it justice.

AE's gonna know the pilot's name for that kind of stunt, because it's going to make the rounds over the entire air wing, if not the carrier group. *Everybody* watching that and seeing panels come off is going to want the name of the guy(s) who just got promoted off ship. Did he mention one? And the F-15/F-14 thing was just fine. Turned into an F-15 vs A6M fight for a bit. Now we're all just shootin' the breeze.

There are a couple of circumstances that the AIM-7 gives performance and employment options which aren't available to AMRAAM that are not widely discussed. I'm not certain how many of those modes remain in use, or if they are if they are limited to the Hornet or are available to the Super Hornet, or even if either aircraft can use them anymore, but said options had been there since the 70's, and I've never seen similar notation for the AIM-120. In a pinch, they'd be handy.