garrya

Another advantage of single engine fighter like F-16 is that they roll really fast , can be almost 2 time faster than F-15 and even superior than F-22 at low AoA

Iam aware that it is a clean chart , however both F-15 , F-14 are massive aircraft so i think it is unlikely that an aim-120 would really affected their performance Another factor need to consider is logically speaking aircraft would have lauched a 2-4 missiles fromBVR before get into the merge ,it quite unlikely that aircraft get in dogfight with total amount of missiles they carried from start .For expample : i dont think F-14 would have dogfight with AIM-54 , AIM-7 is not that much better either NASA did many test as well and they also tested different set up too and regradless how many test they did i think it still partly affected by human factor and the set up like you said earlier Thank you I think the incident should be treated as the exception rather than the rule, there is also incident where F-15 turn 15G or Mig-25 turn 10G and pilot survive , but i think we can all agree that it not something that can always happen , if turning 9G make not much different to F-14 airframe then i think it is unlikely that they would have limited it down to only 6.5G , surely you can argue that they want airframe to last longer but F-16 , F-15 have 9G limit and they still working now even after F-14 retired About F-14 G limit here is something i can find http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625 Which is what iam really confuse and skeptical about , because at 10K feet the max sustain turn rate of the 2 aircraft isnt much better than 6G ( within the structure limit of F-14 ) and F-16 already have quite significant advantage at mach 0.85 , so by logic at sea level till 5000 feet where F-16 can turn 9G ( much higher than F-14 structure limit ) it would totally dominate F-14 at mach 0.75-0.85 range And i think i did read somewhere that F-14 pilot say F-16 is a monster at sea level ( not sure that an F-14A or D though ) Can you posted F-14 turn performance at sea level ? Or 5K feet ? ,i want to see them

Btw can you upload F-14D flight manual or tell me where you got it ? ( like the link and stuff )

a bit of an extreme example is the SR-71 , at low altitude it is slower than most other fighter , cant even go pass mach2 until 50k feet , but at high altitude it is faster than any jet aircraft ever buit

sorry I don't quite follow what you mean by the situation is the same from sea level to 35000 ft 2 aircraft have complete difference aerodynamic and inlet , iam pretty sure there would be difference , I don't have the chart for F-14 , but at F-14D limited by the 6.5 G limit should turn a lot worse than an F-16 turning at 9G :noexpression: from sea level to around 5000 feet by contrast going high altitude( 37k feet up ) the variable inlet of F-14 should allow it's engine to have much better pressure recovery result in better T/W and speed than F-16 . wasn't there only 1 or 2 dogfight between F-15 and F-14 ? and they also affected by the same criteria you listed above ? as I understand it F-14 is good at slow speed around mach 0.55 , while corner speed of F-16 , F-15 is is around 0.8- 0.85 mach , so I think the climb ability of F-15 , F-16 should be much better ( they literally have extra 366 km/h to trade for altitude ) , so F-14 better stick to horizontal turning and nose pointing but its horizontal turning is worse than X-31 btw according to this chart F-15 sustain G limit at 10k feet is 8.5 G , so shouldn't it be much better than both the F-16C and F-14D ? . actually iam under the impression that even though sometime pilot managed to pull extreme G , the limit are there so that the pilots wouldn't accidently break their airframe ( same reason why there is G limit when you start carry heavy bomb and missiles ) also seem like all Navy aircraft have that limit F-18E , F-35C also have limit of 7.5G , the F-14 probably have lower limit because it's swing wing is more fragile nevertheless , I think it really hard for an aircraft that have G-load of 7.5G (or lower )to sustain 9G as long as the one that doesn't have Glimit ( or have limit at 9 G )

I don't think it would stay the same even if 2 aircraft use exactly same engine they still have complete different inlet system and different aerodynamic like the F-15 vs F-16 , at sea level the F-16 dominate but at high altitude the situation is revert anyway at 10000 ft wouldn't F-16, F-15 vs F-14 be similar to F-16 , F-15vs X-31 ? ( the F-16 , F-15 will use their speed , T/W advantage to dictate the engagement )

Radar at pre amraam perid probably not good in lock down /shot down role so it likely that F-16 can get in close by take advantage of ground clutter But you are right that an AIM--54 is better than AIM-7 in BVR role I think defeating AIM--54 should be easier than defeating a AIM-120 especially at close range F-14 has better radar but F-16 has low RCS so they probably balance out

I checkedthe manual again , and yes you are correct:thumbup: my bad , should be more careful when reading the manual. , it quite surprising how a small missiles can add so much drag to F-16 Still wouldnt it more logical if they launched some of their missiles at each others before get in to the merge ? BTW do you have the graph for F-14 turn rate at sea level or 5000 feet ? , I wonder how it fare again F-16 at these altitude ? At high altitude then I bet F-14 is better since F-16 is (for all intend and purpose ) a slug at 50000 feet

Alright , I just open the manual again , 2 aim-9 on station 1 and 9 have total drag index equal 2 so drag index of F-16 with 6 Aim-120 is 4 +16 = 20 And adding the centerline tank then total drag index equal 27

This bring an interesting point if you look at the graph At 10k feet both F-14 and F-16 have compatible sustain turn rate (P=0 )of around 14-15 degree per seconds But F-14 achieve that at mach 0.55 while F-16 achieve that condition at mach 0.85 , that mean while F-14 have smaller turn radius , f-16 will have more speed to go vertical

Drag index of AIM-120 it self is zero I think , as shown in this photo , AIM-9 on station 1 and 9 have drag index equal 4 , but AIM-120 on station 1 and 9 have drag index equal 0 Oh and since 2 aim-120 at wing tip have drag index of 0 already , you left with 4 Aim-120+ lauch-129 +adapter = 4*4 = 16 There a centerline pylon but judge by the size I think it has lower drag index than wing tank pylon Total drag index of 6 aim-120 +centerline pylon = 23 I think

What if F-16 was armed like this ? Belly tank dropped in dogfight , 6 Aim-120 +pylon have drag index of 16

According to flight manual , aim-120 + launcher + adapter on station 2, 8 , 3 ,7 of F-16 , each have drag index of 4 Seem reasonable enough

Drag index of 50 may be too high for f-16 in a dogfight don't you think ? 2 external fuel tank on F-16 only have drag index of 35 With 2 EFT +1 ALQ-184 F-16CJ have drag index of 53 An F-16 with 6 AIM-120 will have drag index of only 16 rather than 50

turn rate = [1091*tan(bank angle)] /[true air speed in knots] G-load is 1/cos( bank angle) We can estimate what the fastest sustainable turn rate of F-14 compare to F-16

I don't have F-14 manual so can you post it ? I only have something like this. In general F-14 is better at slow speed while F-16 is good at high speed , but stay slow isn't favorable in dogfight , enemy will go vertical quick and try dash attack Oh and by the ways what is the respective combat radius of F-14 vs F-16 with same mission profile ? I think we should equalize their fuel load before making comparison , 26000 lbs is f-16 with 100% fuel I think ?

Here is the summary of the test between X-31 vs F-14 , F-15 ,F-16 and F-18

Iam almost certainly sure that F-16 is much better than F-14 in WvR with 4 AAM and 50% , it will likely wax F-14 in dogfight Do you remember the X-31 program ? , NASA decided to test the effectiveness of thrust vector control , so they let the X-31 dogfight with F-18 , F-14 , F-15 , and F-16 X-31 totally wax F-14 and F-18 in close quarters with kill ratio of some where close to 8:1 , however when face off again fighter F-16 and F-15 , these airforce fighter were able to get superior kill ratio again the experimental thrust vector control X-31 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Flying_Beyond_the_Stall.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi9-q2B3ZPKAhXGXBoKHfdwCyI4ChAWCCYwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFB5xpHIh7QXt9pnrz_xL47ULmYsg&sig2=o11QHvLGwyqhIbBVKpoP6w

the point of using F-5/T-38 is that they are small and hard to see in WVR engagement , and iam sure F-22 wax T-38 too , we only see the painting without knowing actual kill ratio so it may give a false impression that T-38 wax F-22 in WVR , it isnt nevertheless , F-16 would be fair more dangerous than both F-14 and T-38 in dogfight

T-38 likely train again F-22 at WVR , with that small radar i dont think T-38 can be much of a threat to other fighter at BVR

The point is his number and assumption are absolutely ridiculous and factually wrong 1) for example he said this : ''2005/2006 tests between the F-22 and the F-15 assumed: a) a force ratio of 2 F-15s for each F-22 a realistic ratio would be 2,2x advantage in procurement numbers * 2,19x advantage in sortie rate = 5 F-15s for each F-22'' :megalol: so if there is 10 F-22 in the mission then the red force will have 50 F-15 ? how many air force even have 50 F-15 ? or this ''. Taking into account cost and sortie rate, 12 F-22 would be expected to face 102 F-16Cs '' great very realistic , when was the last time we have 102 F-16 not from USA all in the air at the same place ? 2 ) he said this too : '' a radar guided BVR missile Pk of 0,65 (it was 0,34 in Desert Storm against non-maneuvering (cooperative) targets with no countermeasures; incidentally, Pk of 0,65 gives the F-22 two salvos with Pk of 95,7% each, meaning that only one in 22 F-15s might come to the visual range, whereas Pk of 0,34 would give two salvos with Pk of 64,1% each, allowing one in 3 F-15s to the visual range – and that is assuming that they fired salvos instead of simple additive '' while Mig-29 9.12B didnt have an internal jammer it still have chaff and flares and radar Mig-25 PD even have new N-005 Saphir-25 (RP-25M) Pulse-Doppler radar with look-down/shoot down capability and it have chaff and flare too so his statement that Iraq aircraft are cooperative target that dont try to evade the target is ridiculous 3 ) Iam almost certainly sure that whoever the operator , mission planning of Red flag know more about tactic than Picard and then he put load of other bs comment ''Agressors also “simulate” older Soviet aircraft, newest being Su-27 and MiG-29, latter of which does not have shining turning performance thanks to high wing loading'' :megalol::megalol: clearly dont understand aerodynamic

In red team vs blue team combat there are variety of aircraft used as aggressor from T-38 to A-4 to F-16 , F-15 , the F-22 done exercise with Typhoon too

Factually wrong article :noexpression: with many hole ex he said USAF aircraft can't jam but most USAF aircraft can carry jamming pod : ALQ-131 , ALQ-184 , there are delicate jamming platform as well EA-6B , EA-18G He said no USA aircraft have IRST except F-35 but actually targeting pod like ATFLIR , SNIPER-XR , LITENING all have air to air IR tracking functions And written by Picard ? :megalol: , that guys have the reputation of making up random formula and posting nonsense to pump up his favorite aircraft (Rafale ):megalol:

but D-30F6 on mig-31 is a turbofan engine, and with very high bypass value too ( similar to F-135)

yes it is, but i don't understand Russian so i don't know what they write in it Btw, how can Mig-25, Mig-31 fly much higher and faster than Su-27, F-15, Mirage IV?