Basher54321

Too simplistic - even if the empty weight figure is accurate a static thrust figure gives no idea of actual dynamic thrust in flight - and then you need to account for Drag which is another unknown. EM charts would be better.

This has some info on the BFM tests in January and may give some idea - may need to register http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

The actual leaked report was posted earlier - doesnt give much but includes what was being tested, some config and pilot experience https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb No denial on the leaked report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/07/01/pentagon-says-damning-report-of-f-35-troubles-doesnt-tell-the-entire-story/ https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog

http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/ Nope - that one makes sense - and you would hope so considering it is written by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Who says there is a contradiction here - Metz doesn't compare with any front tailed jets does he. Where is the account?

Many years ago an F-22 test pilot (Paul Metz) put this in an interview. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

F-15E manual states 728 US Gals each F-15C Air Force Standard Characteristics gives 1464 US Gals total in both CFTs

Means that mother nature does not always provide clarity in the provided information. Jamming pods and area Jamming also screwed up the RHAW gear a lot. The FireCan could apparently relay information to the Fansong the same way as Spoon Rest/Flat Face etc. In another case you might have been jamming the uplink and get no launch warning at all due to track on Jam techniques.

You can get a false Positive / Negative on any RWR gear - let alone back then - the inputs don't come with CRC checks unfortunately. Today LPI techniques and AESA would suggest massive issues for basic RWRs - so a change to multisensor/spectrum detection can only be a good thing.

Yes - but a good example of how the RWR is determining signals from the tracking radar. The Fan Song still has to do all the tracking - it just relays the information to the missile differently.

Looks correct - would have thought the exact implementation should be dependent on what you can take from the specific radar being picked up. Looking at the Nam era AN/APR-26 Launch Warning Receiver regarding SARH SA-2 (slightly different) - that triggered a launch on the signalling change to high PRF from the Fan Song but did not signal an actual launch - only that one was imminent. The kit would measure the intensity of the azimuth and vertical scan signals from the Fan Song radar to determine that it was that aircraft actually under attack - not the wingman. There are some good manuals on F-15C radar procedures from the early 80s that show the desired tracking mode is high PRF and the radar would continually attempt to switch to this when tracking a target in AIM-7 (MRM) mode. There is no indication of any change when the AIM-7 is launched - so again just a switch to high PRF was likely the RWR launch warning trigger. To complicate things further the radar could still launch AIM-7s in a Flood mode if the radar cannot switch to hi PRF (On the other hand SA-2xs could be launched optically or in HOJ in the 60s.) I have no info on AIM-7 employment post 1990.

Basically (as I understand it) at launch the enemy radar will change the signal it sends to Continuous Wave type so it can guide the missile. The enemy radar then must maintain the lock to guide the missile until it hits - so the RWR will keep sensing the CW signal until the missile hits you or the lock is broken for whatever reason.

Vector strobe displays were not that specific - AFAIK for example you had just a bearing line from the centre of the scope where the length of the line to the rings would indicate signal strength. For some reason the actual manuals for these are harder to come by than more modern types - but somebody has them. Some of the F-4s had a panel as well like this attachment - where the AAA / AI is indication of airborne type and AAA using similar frequencies. The F-14A as part of ALR-45/50 around their Nam deployment had a similar block of lights added to the front right canopy frame you should find.

Airborne radars could be picked up on Nam era RHAW vector scopes - even the MiG-21-F13 ranging radar......albeit at very short range. Be very surprised if this wasn't the case with any RWR in the 70s either considering the limited frequency range radars worked in back then.

At a guess the 45 was a basic strobe vector type display - whereas the upgraded 45F was more like a TEWS display.

They will be flying in Red Flag type exercises you would expect. The RAF will no doubt run evaluations when they have both. CAPTOR E is being funded but no idea when it might be integrated into Typhoon operationally.

Countermeasures have proven very effective in previous conflicts - obviously different generations of flares and missiles were in use - however even if you know a missile is coming at you then you are generally defensive or dead - so you are already at a disadvantage. The F-35 is supposed to be getting a NG DIRCM by Block 5 - potentially the only effective thing against imaging missile types - but even then there is no way anyone can say this will totally negate missiles. Currently the WVR environment would appear to be suicide for all involved - but I have a good idea how the F-35 aero design could be of benefit.

Yes IRSTs and a 360 EODAS that can auto track and lock any target 360 degrees means this is somewhat unlikely.

According too whom exactly?

Hummingbird wanted to change it to 65-70 which is where I thought we were now. The 1969 USAF / USN comparisons for the F-13 are the best I've seen - but can be used as a basis for speculation on the other versions perhaps.

The bis is beyond your 1970 end time - on the other hand it is basically the ultimate production variant like the F.6 - but really the MiG-21F-13 and F6 both were active between 65-70. There are a ton of MiG-21 versions. The PF types and PFM saw a lot of action and added more fuel and radar (bigger nose cone) - different engines - and a GP-9 gun pod for some countries (thats the 23mm pod mentioned above). The MF I mentioned before was the export version of the SM and came in around 1970 so you could consider that still. The F-13 - although shown to have slightly less endurance than the F-8E in the report did better than I thought it would for a point defense interceptor. The Lightning was also considered short legged - but neither were intended to operate that far from home bases.

Been there done that - and it doesn't match up with reality at all (too simplistic - too many things not accounted for) - also note what Random says RE climb and range - not simple figures (btw the lightning F.6 has the highest WL in my figures of the 3 - figures vary with sources for empty weights etc ) Range - what was the flight profile and loadout Climb - what was the Start altitude/speed/angle of climb / loadout / weight EM charts are better. On the F-8 the leading edge flaps droop automatically on jacks when the variable incidence wing is raised. You will note they tried raising the wing to improve slow speed in those bits I posted - but didn't make much different to slow speed handling Benefits of high lift devices on modern jets come from computer control and optimisation in the turn.

AIM-9C/D/E/G in this period D/E/G being rear aspect IR only (D got the F-8 kills without checking) AIM-9C was the only all aspect version being SARH - never fired in combat that I know of (K-13R was Soviet SARH type in the 60s - again never used??)

AA-2 was used a lot in combat - Arab v Israel wars 60s - 80s / VPAF / Iraq in the 80s of my head. In the 60s one Israeli historian claims Israel captured some AA-2s when taking over the Sinai in the 60s and wired them for use - they thought they were superior to the Shafrir 1 (which was terrible) - the first AA-2 was literally an AIM-9B copy though by accounts. No comment on Redtop / Firestreak performance - both had restrictive firing parameters as described in the manual - as you would expect. I think the MiG-21F-13 magazine held 60 rounds - but only 30 were usually loaded - something like that. ( I am aware the MiG-21F had 2 cannon and thus 2 * 60 round magazines)

I am talking about the top of the canopy. I have accurate figures for most of the F-8 versions - however if you want to go to 1965-70 there is something even better than EM charts for a MiG-21F-13 v F-8E comparison - that being the once secret 1969 "Have Doughnut" report which was the physical evaluation of an acquired MiG-21F-13 - this was flown against a variety of USAF and USN aircraft. If only there was similar for the Lightning! In it the MiG-21F-13 was said to have overall turn performance very similar to the F-5E/N - one reason why the F-5 was the MiG-21 simulator. Here is some snips of info on F-8E v MiG-21F-13 performance.