Emu

All it takes it for one misjudgement. Nervous stuff.

I don't know personally but the guys on F-16.net are usually pretty clued-up on matters USAF and other sources seem to confirm it only carries 1,000lbers and SDBs.

Only 1,000lb bombs I thought. There was a USAF picture that mentioned a Mk84, but it was incorrectly labelled because the bomb was the wrong shape/size for a 2,000lber. http://www.nellis.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=1556&page=50 http://fineartamerica.com/featured/weapons-loaders-load-a-gbu-32-jdam-high-g-productions.html Long discussion on it here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=26410&start=15 http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=26410&start=45#wrapper They looked too big for SDBs. I'm going for 2 GBU-32s on each side. BLU-110 GBU-32s, one delayed action (or inert?), one impact or less delayed. http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/General-Purpose-Bombs.html Sources seem to confirm: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/September%202014/September%2024%202014/F-22s%27-First-Action.aspx http://aviationweek.com/blog/was-lackluster-f-22-debut?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20140925_AW-05_987&YM_RID=%27email%27&YM_MID=%27mmid%27&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_5

Didn't brake or brakes didn't work or braked to late?

Does the AIM-120 use RF or laser proximity fuse? I noted recently that RF fuses are vulnerable to jamming, the R-77 seems to use a laser proximity fuse.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/lasers-on-a-plane-air-force-wants-fighter-firing-100-kilowatts-by-2022/

Legacy fighters don't even make that clean with 50% fuel at sea level, and you can include F-15, F-16, F-18, Rafale, Typhoon, MiG-29 etc. in that list. I've even asked guys on F-16.net about this and even they say it's BS. Just to put a final nail in this one, according to 'that guy' the F-22 at 20,000ft has twice the sustained turn rate capability of an F-16 with 50% fuel at 15,000ft. Obviously it must have gravity vectoring as well as mere thrust vectoring.

28 degrees per second sustained turn rate at sea level would be impressive. 28 degrees per second STR at 20,000ft would require alien technology.

It's odd but the Indian press actually claimed the exact opposite, as is so often the case in these matters and why I never pay any attention to such reports. http://www.livefistdefence.com/2008/11/livefist-column-vishnu-som-first-hand.html Then you have that remark at 8:10 - 28deg/s STR at 20,000ft. No way. Now I remember this is actually an old video that's been uploaded again recently.

I think he's referring to the horizontal split running along the aircraft. It's sort of a chine I guess.

If you look at the intakes, they have a LERX, and integrally, they form part of the LERX for the wing I believe.

Based on Desert Storm, modern air-to-air encounters seem to be dominated by avionics, weapons technology and training rather than manoeuvrability. If manoeuvrability was the over-riding factor, Iraqi MiG-29s would surely have done much better. If you look at other aircraft development, most time and effort seems to be placed on avionics, e.g. the EF2000 is having an AESA developed but no one much cares about TVC, the Rafale also went for an AESA upgrade with little interest in TVC. I could be wrong but I don't think the Chinese are incorporating TVC on the J-20/31 either. Most encounters will be fought BVR and far-WVR pre-pass. They'll also be many vs many, so even in a dogfight, being able to out-manoeuvre another plane still means that you'll be in front of another one. Then you have the whole HOBS/LOAL/HMCS thing.

Thanks. Second image gave me a 403 error.

Do the missile fins actually stick into the fuselage? I've been looking at pictures trying to get my head around this for a while.

LCITS and LMM.

Ethiopian-Eritrean War 1999, 26th February, Su-27 vs MiG-29. http://www.acig.info/CMS/?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=47

This makes for an interesting view on the F-14s statistics in the Iran-Iraq War: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?180731-Modern-fighter-combat-records

^Are they AIM-7s? The fins look very large for AMRAAMs.

Yeah they did but I haven't heard any verification that they're operational.

Ah okay. 'Pointless' would have made it clearer.

Don't get why the AIM-120 is being described as useless. It's the most successful BVRAAM in history.

So do they set it off or not?:D

It'd be interesting to do an F-16 vs Gripen NG comparison. Here's the official brochure, spec on page 3. http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/Air/Gripen/Technical%20brochure,%20Gripen%20NG,%20English.pdf Empty: 8,000kg (17,600lb) Fuel: 3,400kg (7,500lb) Thrust: 98kN (22,000lbf)

For that one in particular the old displays looked clearer.

The AIM-54 was also very much an interceptor weapon.