Maybe, maybe not. The reason the F-22 has internal weapons is not to achieve lower drag. it’s just an added bonus.

However, AAM’s aren’t too draggy. Anti-ship missiles, LGB’s and other large heavy A2G weapons have more noticable effects on drag, for obvious reasons.

Well considering that one of the selling points that LM/USAF make for the F-22/35 is the lack of draggy external stores, I’d think it would be a safe bet.
I’m just guessing that with the F-22’s requirement for supercruise, that drag was a major consideration.

I don’t see what exactly does it mean because there is a big difference in flight performance between F-16 and F/A-18, actually. F-16 is sports-car like built exclusively for AtoA, only later adapted for AtoG. F/A-18 is exactly the opposite, a limo, great for comfortable low level rides during AtoG missions, with an option of surviving the first AtoA encounter thanks to good nose pointing ability, after that it’s dead meat.

I find it peculiar that someone writes a term *F-16/F-18 performance* because it sounds like *Ferrari F430/BMW 7-series performance*. Looks like the writer has very little clue about what he is claiming since these two have nothing in common. 😉

BTW, I wonder what exactly do Italian AF pilots know about how F-18 flies.:rolleyes: I have serious doubts that they ever tested any.

What they’re referring to by drawing comparisons with both the F-16 and F-18, is the turning/acceleration of the F-16, along with the low speed/high angle of attack of the F-18.

The loser in air combat is the first person who makes a mistake that can be successfully exploited by his opponent(s). F-22 pilots are just as capable of making mistakes as any other well-trained pilot. In the instance where the F-18 pilot violated the ROE to get the killshot, I would be interested in which rule he broke. The fact remains that the Hornet pilot got a solution. And in wartime, all is fair.

The rule he broke was in getting closer than 1000 feet, which was a safety violation. The F-22 pilot follow the rules and disengaged.

They all fall into the “moderate observable” category.

Well the question is what is the upper and lower range for being considered moderately observable?(i.e. is .01m^2 moderately observable too?)
It might also be nice to see some documents that are more recent that late 80s/early 90s.

But I’m also the guy around here that thinks the F-35B is a complete waste of resources and would like to see that program canned.

I think the USMC might disagree with that assessment, considering how much more the B brings to the fight than F-18A-C and AV-8Bs.

The example with Russians is not supporting your argument. Flanker series has originally started as canard-less therefore backward adaptation of the canard Su-35 to canard-less Su-35BM was not expensive, at all, many adapted bits from basic Flanker series could have been used OTS. Besides that, even canard-equipped Sukhois are not canard designs in true sense,they still retain their classic configuration with stabilators. The difference between FCS of Su-27UB and Su-30MKI is much smaller than between Gripen and F-16.

The Russians ditched the canards for several reasons-

A- with the FCS and TVC, there was no agility disadvantage in not having canards.

B- both the Su-35 and PAK FA were going for reduced RCS which was facilitated by their configuration.

C- the Su-35 was going for less weight/drag than earlier models with canards

These were just a few of the reasons, which goes back to my point about engineers coming up with the best mousetrap. If VLO is a requirement given, then it’s highly doubtful you’re going to see canards, especially considering no one has more experience with VLO designs than the US.

Grumman >> Northrop-Grumman
Rockwell >>> Rockwell-Collins >>> Boeing

Whatever Lockheed gained from the US canard programs would have been of a very modest extent.

I think you are underestimating the role tradition and experience plays in development. In most bug companies, the direction is usually set by few key persons, the others just follow. Given the history of Lockheed’s designs I think there is simply no one who would want to push a canard design and at the same time have sufficient authority to actually achieve that.

Do you think that the long history of Dassault’s delta designs is solely based on requirements and that there is no experience, tradition or agenda involved? Yes, after Mirage III even they have flirted with classic layout (Mirage F1) but then nicely returned back to what they do best (Mirage 2000, Mirage 4000, Rafale). Hey, don’t tell me that exactly French have always placed requirements which only call for a delta and nothing else.

You’re arguing from the perspective that LM just doesn’t know what they’re missing by not having canards(and you’re assuming that engineers never change companies, or study things from other engineers), and that’s the wrong perspective. When the statement of requirements is given, the engineers figure out the best way to meet the specifications, and look at the pros/cons of different ways of getting there. The requirements aren’t “we want a plane with a ______ wing layout.” It’s more like “we want a plane that can do the following things _______, and these_______ are the minimum acceptable standards.” You’ll note even the Russians got rid of the canards on the Su-35 and the PAK FA.

Wishful thinking >< fact

The facts are that the LM and Boeing engineers have decided that for the requirements given to them, that they prefer designs that don’t have canards, to achieve the results. It has nothing to do with experience, fear, or not wanting to look too European.