Basher54321

Not far off in the case of the USAF - in 1972, 30 kills were by AIM-7 and only 10 by AIM-9 - one reason being the AIM-7E-2 had a higher launch G than the USAF AIM-9s.

The F-16A wasn't actually IOC till 1980 if you want to be totally true. The R-23/24 had the same issues as the AIM-7 so it would be incorrect to assume it was any better - and no the AIM-7F was not used in Vietnam.

What MiG-21 variant is that chart for? The PAF F-104As initially had the J79-GE-11A - same engine as the F-104G with a bit less weight.

Nether the less it might still be correct.

Don't assume anything until you get some better charts - that could seriously be just the drag from the fuselage mounted missiles - neither are stellar performers especially looking at acceleration. The higher thrust C (GE-402) should be a bit better. A1-F18AC-NFM-200

Its under M1.6 on the charts - I thought the FA-18EF had a clean top end of M1.6 so that could be dead on. (Boeing now think M1.8 okay that might have changed!!) You do realise the CF-18 is a legacy Hornet? Saying that the chart for the same loadout on the legacy (with GE-400) shows M1.65 for 2 x AIM-9 + 2 x AIM-7. The AIM-7 has the same DI as the AIM-120 on the fuselage (2 x 4) - the wingtip AIM-9 are DI=0.

The YAL was chemical based - any future HE Laser is probably more likely to be solid state and more compact. The USAF did put out an RFI a few years back - timeline 2030+ Ideally 360 coverage would be desired - and in theory an aircraft would fly in a straight line while the computers do the work to eliminate any missiles or aircraft etc. Also in theory if you get detected and are in range the laser cant really miss - so staying small and undetected may be better without a practical counter. There are likely a ton of issues that haven't been encountered yet so will have to see.

To add to mvsgas some have been seen with the Exelis (originally ELTA) ACAP ECM pod and AAS-42 IRST pod.

Even though intercept profiles do specify high Mach and dropping tanks the intercept speed can also depend on the range - simply put in some intercepts you wont be able to fly at full AB because you wont have the fuel. With a Centre tank F-16s have been flown over M1.8 (above the M1.6 test limit) - although an F-16 with CFTs would likely get there quicker and fly there for longer (less drag + more fuel) and fly there without any limits. No CF-18 is flying anywhere near M1.8 until it has dropped tanks. If you need range & speed you can have 2 x 370 tanks on an F-16 but with a M1.6 limit and it takes a lot longer to get there - in this situation the F-35A could actually get to M1.6 quicker and stay there longer due to lower drag going through Transonic. Of course should add CFTs and a centre tank on a block 60 could put this back in the F-16 favour to M1.6 - but without the other benefits the F-35 has.

Yes that's a big factor - some of those pilots (F-4CD) when interviewed actually said they thought having a gun would put them in more perilous situations - kinda see what they mean. I would add the old school hardware was vastly affected by vibration and the weather - quite a few failed.

Sprey was labelled a Luddite and gadfly even in the 60s when he was a Civvie at the Pentagon - no military experience. Just because he hung around Boyd shouldn't mean he should be considered in the same light. The Coram is an interesting book but by no means the whole story. Every paper Sprey has written since the late 70s displays lack of understanding in the basics of Aero / or what's important in combat and has a distinct whiff of agenda - a lot of it goes against Boyds theories. :thumbup: Comparing the effectiveness of Air to Air Fighters: F-86 to F-18 (Sprey , M, Pierre, 1982)

From the Yefim Su-27 book it looks like the pods were there from the original flanker 1985 IOC - but designation given is L-004 Sorbtsiya-S - Yefim books are detailed but not always sure..... the SPS-171 (L-005) are possibly a later variant of the series.

Su-25T didnt reach IOC till the early 90s - so none outside of testing - Su-25A did all the Astan work. The 80s A-10A pre LASTE didnt even have CCIP or any bombing computer. First version of the R-73 Accepted ~1985 R-27ET/RT ~1987 Sorbstya ECM pods on the Su-27(T-10S) at IOC on info I have Su-25A used all the basic rockets and bombs - laser guided KH-25ML & KH-29L not used till 1986. Sure someone will have more detailed info

One unhappy ex Nam CAS pilot has a different view with accusations it was rigged. If it was rigged you know which way it's going this time :thumbup: I take offense at the statement that the Hog was lots better than the SLUF in the rigged flyoff. Reason Congress wanted the flyoff was that the Hog was also gonna replace the F-100 and A-7 for BAI and some interdiction work. The Double Ugly was gonna be phased out as the Eagle came online. Funny, but we were gonna have a big gap in the mudbeater world until the Viper arrived, and that plane was not a factor in the A-10 design or ops requirements. All we had was the A-7, and USAF had to kill it in order to get the Hog. See my AvWeek editor letter in fall of 1974 if you can find it. Only thing the Hog dominated was strafe effectiveness and its ability to get the nose around quickly for another run or a nape pass. Its bomb accuracy was a joke, and the thing did not even have a real HUD or decent nav system, much less a computer-assisted bombing system that the A-7 had since 1968!!!!!!. It was a WW2 plane with jet motors and a big cannon - a jet-powered A-1 that would have worked wonders in 'nam and be slaughtered over the Fulda Gap or the Sinai in 1973. My immediate boss was TDY for the flyoff and he came back and told us all that the thing was rigged and we were flying planes that would soon go to the Guard. Sure enough, our A-7's went to one Guard outfit after another and the 356th TFS became the first operational Hog squadron after handing their SLUF's off to a Guard unit. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=299954#p299954

Interesting - I do have a 1985 document listing "provisions" for the AIM-120A on the F-14D - although that doesnt mean of course it had everything required to actually carry it. Like the F-16 for example AIM-120 testing was carried out throughout the 80s and I suspect it was also done on a few F-14s. That old magazine could likely have assumed the F-14 would get it not knowing the end of the CW. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-14A_of_PTMC_with_AIM-120_1981.JPEG

Are they recent SM3s?

If the answer is not "out of his Ass" I would be surprised.

Jeez my eyes!! - sadly too many take things without questioning the author or where the info came from.

Trying to nail this down - I think the whole point of this argument is related to the technology and the very different environment Vietnam was. This is something that people who make the gun comparison don't seem to understand. As far as I'm concerned the Gun was still at least joint primary A-A weapon in the late 60s. A lot of kills were with missiles sure - however a lot of missiles had to be fired to achieve those kills and more kills would have been achieved if a gun was available. (An F-4 with no missiles but a gun would still be an effective fighter in that era!) The F-8 had mostly AIM-9 Kills as he points out - however the F-105 had 1 AIM-9 kill and ~27 gun kills. The Navy never bothered with guns on their F-4s (apart from a brief trial with the MK4) and seemed to have a better kill ratio than the USAF by 72 (the missiles had improved vastly and better training (Top Gun) had been made available) - but I think having a gun would still have been preferred by pilots as well. Between 1964 and 1972 there was a large improvement in radar and missile tech and by the early 80s the missiles were getting very good (Falklands/Bekaa). 1991 was vastly different to Vietnam - the missile performance wasn't perfect but it was amazing compared to Nam. Because of the massive tech change carrying a gun for A-A today appears to be like a soldier carrying a knife - there are times it can be used but they are far more risky and limited than they were 50 years ago when flying against MiGs only armed with Cannon and AA-1/2. Personally I think it was a good decision to include it on the F-35A if even just for A-G.

Here's the thing - sneaking up on aircraft that only have RWRs and eyeballs is one thing (relatively easy) - sneaking up on an aircraft with a 360 degree optical tracking system like EODAS is another. You could make a drone pull 40Gs with the effort and money (Be very Heavy) - but it's far easier to make a missile that pulls more Gs - so there is likely no real benefit to it.

We are talking F-16 A-A - you remember you wrongly assumed it couldn't do the job of the F-15C A-A so therefore the F-35 cant do the F-22s job And no I don't think for one second you have any idea on range comparisons with what you define as a "typical" configurations. Yeah I have already told you this It is irrelevant at what range they fired - not that the actual range has ever been documented - they only needed an EID to satisfy BVR and fire- do you have difficulty with English? The F-15s never needed VID as part of the ROE as I have already told you. If you want to refute this then you need to provide a lot more than a very basic understanding :thumbup:

The F-16A certainly had a large range advantage over the F-15A and likely the C without FAST Packs (Seldom used on the C anyway) In an air-to-air configuration, the F-16 has a higher fuel fraction and lower specific fuel consumption than the F-15. An F-15C IP at the Fighter Weapons School, (then) Major Mike "Boa" Straight, wrote an article about this in the Fighter Weapons Review in 1988 or 1989. I'm not just making this up. On-station time, acceleration to intercept speed and range advantages go to the Viper. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 Yes the F-16 has Smaller radar but also a smaller RCS ;) Its not your fault - aero isn't simply big plane is better. AFAIK In all the F-15C engagements the ROE for BVR could be and was always satisfied with an EID only - and IFF failed once leading to a 2v1 Vs a MiG-29. Thats from https://ospreypublishing.com/f-15c-eagle-units-in-combat-pb Other aircraft were not fitted with the required technology like the F-14s to play a part sure - do you have a defined ROE document for 1991 - not the most interesting thing got to say.

In some aspects it does have some advantages - although my point was the USAF changed it into a multi role jet and A-G was its primary role - (political reasons) - so no surprise they went for full on A-G this time. Obviously it was only AIM-9 armed in the 80s but since 1992 has been AIM-120 armed. Errm nope - The ROE allowed BVR in 1991 as long as criteria was satisfied due to the technology advances there had been. The AIM-7M performance was spectacular (compared to the Nam era AIM-7D/E/E-2 when it left the rail (e.g. motor actually fired) - it truly was a different world to Vietnam.

Nope you are way off there - the F-35A being designed with more emphasis for A-G should give some clue. Well yes WVR does matter - for the hell of it I will take LMs figures where they estimated about 7% of combat could be WVR. But WVR does not mean 1v1 or that both sides know of each other presence - never been that way. The F-35A I expect will be taking apart red air in Red Flag WVR just fine and likely doing zero close in turning whatsoever. 1991 is too long ago to compare with today - the weapons and avionics are vastly different - there is pretty much no comparison.