Basher54321

No override switch as such (no not the MPO switch either) - technically however the AOA limiter can't stop every situation - for example if you ever heard of a deep stall it is when the F-16 gets stuck between 50 to 60 degrees AOA. In that airshow video above it is pitched up <25 degrees AOA - which is standard for an airshow - you cant bypass the limiter in that situation. The only F-16 that had the limits removed I know of and demonstrated high Alpha cobras etc in controlled flight was the MATV/VISTA with to Thrust Vectoring - ( 125+ degrees Alpha).

No biggy it's all relative - you can overcome weight and drag with adequate thrust and lift. 3 very different designs - all achieve their design goals in different ways aerodynamically - the F-16 probably being the most radical (F-35/22 use some similar design concepts)

Spot on - it's the whole package that is important!

Nothing stopping any force having a single tank or no tanks for QRA I suppose - that is still a viable combat loadout. Carried stores are mission dependent really - but even F-16s on CAP over the CONUS often have 2 wing tanks so max top speed is limited to around M1.6. Yes they can jettison them and get far better performance - but you still have to put up with the drag and extra fuel consumption before hand - then if you drop them they are not cheap - but on the other hand this was never a major issue before! F-16E Blk60 with CFTs and 4-6 missiles (no pods) wouldn't have the range but would be near M2.0 capable being much faster and accelerate great from take off. Internal EWS/Sensor fusion / FLIR and AESA radar make this bird fantastic IMO. The US F-16s can only dream of the above - also notice Sniper pods are sometimes used for long range ID further affecting performance.

No way to tell without EM charts A plausible intercept profile consists of a clean F-35 - or maybe with 2 x AIM-9X on the wings - only a short range intercept with no tanks would see the 16/18 likely best it for acceleration - but with far less range. The only application where the F-16 needs minimal stores is probably this:

Just reading some comments between some ex F-16 /A-10 pilots on here re subject (last 2 pages) - love all the different view points http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&start=1335

You should be :doh:

Was looking for 1-4-2015 as the date - but no just standard clueless journalism.

No - copy & paste error I expect

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option. Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson. The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test Wing for developmental testing (DT). The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards has six F-35As, two F-35Bs and a single F-35C dedicated to DT work, as well as a further set of aircraft allotted to the Joint Operational Test Team. Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC). The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B IOC is targeted for later this year, the Air Force’s F-35A in 2016, and the U.S. Navy’s F-35C in 2019. “When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010. The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.” “Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA. An “aggressive and unique” approach has been taken to the high AOA, or “high alpha” testing, says Nelson. “Normally, test programs will inch up on max alpha, and on the F-22 it took us 3-4 months to get to max alpha. On this jet, we did it in four days. We put a spin chute on the back, which is normal for this sort of program, and then we put the airplane out of control and took our hands off the controls to see if it came back. We actually tweaked the flight control system with an onboard flight test aid to allow it to go out of control, because it wouldn’t by itself. Then we drove the center of gravity back and made it the worst-case configuration on the outside with weapons bay doors and put the aircraft in a spin.” The aircraft has been put into spins with yaw rates up to 60 deg./sec., equal to a complete turn every 6 sec. “That’s pretty good. But we paddled off the flight-test aid and it recovered instantly,” he says. Pilots also tested the ability of the F-35 to recover from a deep-stall in which it was pushed beyond the maximum AoA command limit by activating a manual pitch limiter (MPL) override similar to the alpha limiter in the F-16. “It’s not something an operational pilot would do, but the angle of attack went back and, with the center of gravity way back aft, it would not pitch over, but it would pitch up. So it got stuck at 60 or 70 deg. alpha, and it was as happy as could be. There was no pitching moment to worry about, and as soon as I let go of the MPL, it would come out,” Nelson says. Following consistent recoveries, the test team opted to remove the spin chute for the rest of the test program. “The airplane, with no spin chute, had demonstrated the ability to recover from the worst-case departure, so we felt very confident, and that has been proven over months of high alpha testing,” says Nelson. “It also satisfied those at the Joint Program Office who said spin chute on the back is not production-representative and produces aerodynamic qualities that are not right.” Although there are additional test points ahead where the spin chute is scheduled to be reattached for departure resistance with various weapons loads, the test team is considering running through the points without it. With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft., speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9g, test pilots also say improvements to the flight control system have rendered the transonic roll-off (TRO) issue tactically irrelevant. Highlighted as a “program concern” in the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2014 report, initial flight tests showed that all three F-35 variants experienced some form of wing drop in high-speed turns associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves. However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.” http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

According to an old A-4 driver - the A-4 slats worked by gravity and sometimes during high G loads one of them would stick closed or open - thus leaving asymmetric slats - aka you lose if it happens at the wrong time. (Blue Angels also bolted them shut it seems) The F-5N/E was the MiG-21 simulator - overall turn performance was said comparable to the MiG-21F-13 when physically tested against it.

Thats a very good video thanks for posting AFAIK ACEVAL/AIMVAL was mainly F-15 & F-14 (Blue Force ) v F-5E aggressors (Red Force) as in the F-14 shot down twice as many F-5s.

SCANG have Block 52s - got them post 1991.

An upgraded Su-27 / F-15 makes no difference really - hence PAK-FA / F-22 etc etc

Could the F-15E actually carry 4 x AIM-7 on its body without CFTs? was it actually wired up for that? Also note that weight will also vary depending on current fuel load - E carries 18000+ lbs with CFTs

Although they do deploy to any conflict ANG units are often CONUS interceptors so VID of foreign aircraft is useful.

Not looking too hopeful for the Su-35 it must be said.

The E is a lot heavier at empty for one and almost always wearing CFTs - has more thrust as well.

Thank you for the evaluation Nope am Gen X - but do not want to write 37 pages of answers to answer all of these tangents you keep going into. I don't state or give "complete factual evidence" to anything neither the US or the VPAF sources - kinda the point really! I also don't dismiss sources from good/credible sources either - a lot of it actually matches up with the US side. I also fail to see why you find it difficult that someone might consider using non US information - it doesn't really change anything regarding kill claims - which itself is always up for argument. It was a half arsed attempt to get the subject back on topic actually TD Yes but like any sources you can make any number of assumptions at what happened - and you have to take them for what they are. I just prefer to have an open mind about things I guess because there are often other things for e.g. no SA-2 indications on an RHAW scope as you well know never stopped SA-2s being launched.

I would like to think that you were not arguing for the sake of it and just do not understand what I am getting at - hopefully the later is the case - in which case dont worry you have plenty of time to do some research on the subject. ;)

I love that you have just turned up to have an argument :megalol: - are you the site Troll? I have all those reports - you need to understand this Even the US do not know how many kills they really got - pilots never got to see the jet go down in every situation. The VPAF records are just as good as the US records - I am not saying they are 100% but they give a better picture than just the US side. A lot of the Pilots were shot down without trace - nobody saw them get blown out of the sky. Those old reports you have are accurate to the best of their knowledge at the time - but are inaccurate to what may have really happened. Bare this in mind - a lot of aviators had no idea what hit them - they might see a SAM launch sure but it is not necessarily what takes them down. You need to consider what a stressfull environment this is - multiple things to concentrate on suddenly you get hit............... Apolgies again to SithSpawn ................................................................................................... PS The F-14 was used over SEA and it maneuvered.

It was a bit tongue in cheek - so I am guessing English is not your first language?

I generally like to have both sides of the story not just one side from 1973 - but that's just me ;)

Okay calm down - am not here to argue - just because something doesn't conform to your assumptions does not make it incorrect.

Well the source has been given - they matched up VPAF losses and claims with US losses and claims based on the available records. Combat Tree was a name for an IFF system consisting of APX-80 - they were allowed to fire without getting visual confirmation. Its not about what I think - there is one account of a kill at night from an F-4 - so in that regards they didn't verify the target visually .