Now if hobs missiles make sustained turn rates less important than itr we can see why an airforce with f-16s would worry about an airforce with. M2000s…

Wait wait wait. Lets not make big jumps to even bigger conclusions.

After awareness, energy still rules the fight. That is an absolute. Anyone that says different is full of brown stuff.

Energy improves your launch performance, it also reduces your opponents’ missile Pks. Yes, there are times when you will definitely want to trade energy for maneuvers and yes, response rate and maximum maneuver rate are critical components to a modern fighter – but if you drop too much energy in given maneuver, your staking an awful lot on the outcome of that maneuver – because if you get it wrong then your almost certainly mission-kill (at the very least).

Retaining energy (or bleeding less energy) is always better. But there will be a trade-off in response/maximum rates versus sustained.

On a different topic, talking about relaxed stability and fbws, how did the su27 stack up regarding instability and its fcs?

Analogue FBW on the longitudinal axis only. The heavy radar made the basic flanker stable, whereas the design goal was static instability. Hence the canards on the Su-27M to move the Cp forward.

I don’t have the static margin numbers to hand.

edit: Static margin is ~0, it can vary from positive to negative. The FCS was designed to cope with an unstable margin up to 5%.

While the F-16 is a great AOA performer too.

One of the well known deficits of the F-16 is its AoA limitation of ~ 25deg.

Even unstable 5th Gen A/C will suffer a supersonic penalty, although it won’t be as bad due to them being more unstable than 4th Gen unstable A/C, the faster control actuators combined with better FBW and the higher control authority of the control surfaces mitigate towards better supersonic turn performance.

Just to add to that – a well used technique to improve supersonic performance is to use TVC to trim out the aircraft – leaving your elevators with full authority for retaining pitch response.

Then there is the aeroflex of the wing aerofoil sections from root to tip, using unbalanced composite laminate layups can induce twist into the wing with greater loading, which allows you to tweak your wing centre of pressure a little, especially when you start to crank on the g’s. This can somewhat mitigate the move in c.p. from subsonic to supersonic flight. An extreme example of this technique – albeit in a very different design goal – would be the X-29 or S-37.

Inertia is always a consideration for instantaneous maneuvering. It was always a great strength of the F-16 relative to the F-14/-15/-18. Despite the smaller wingspan leaving less of a moment arm for the ailerons, it also has much less inertia through the longitudinal axis, leading to great response. Any viper pilot would look to work a dogfight towards a scissoring engagement, at which point they’d have the other guy on toast.

Its short beacuse it’s intended for the purposes of stealth.

No. Just… no.

Only poorly designed fighters are getting heavier when more capabilities are added.

Nah, thats just not the case. Equipment always has a weight cost.

There is scope for reducing structural weight of an empty (i.e. without any equipment) PAK-FA compared to Flanker-era technology through use of CNF infused carbon fibre composite, but additional equipment (L-band emitters/receivers in the wing LE for example) will eat that back up.

was the question about that or why the marines have an airwing?

Well, both I suppose.

The overall question is really – what are the USMC requirements for airborne capability?

There seems to basically be 2 schools of thought on the subject:

the marine corps can get a tiny little air force with things like OV-10s or even wwII corsairs that support grunts in brush fire wars
or the marines can just buy whatever the navy does (like super hornets and growlers) and be more useful beyond just themselves. the navy actually prefers option 2, since it doesn’t care about ov-10s or harriers or cobras or hueys

Hmm – the USN don’t appear to be big fans of JSF though. Hence the noises about relegating F-35 to a niche presence on carriers.

what makes the marines valuable is they can be sent to fight brush fire wars, and also augment big fights with their troops and planes if needed. now do they need a custom built aircraft for that? opinions vary i say no, others say yes, people’s opinions differ. but that is one of the reasons why marines get more high end aircraft, rather than just helicopters like the army. the marines (correctly, imho) point out that they need to survive on a 21st century battlefield. the marines assume if the poo hits the fan their planes are going to be running into SAMs and intercepting fighters in which case they either get shot down or don’t fly at all out of fear.

so i tend to think the marines need the super hornet, but not a custom built hover plane, (and ov-10s are pointless by themselves). it makes them capable of more than just brush fire wars too, so when 2 marine airwings show up to kick irans butt, its not just a bunch of prop planes that can’t help anyone, or worse yet, need more useful fighters to protect them

The thing that gets me is – the doctrine… the envisaged operations leading to procurement… is just so dysfunctional.

For instance, take a 21st century battlefield, an environment where double digit SAMs and advanced counter-air exist. Does anyone on this earth really think the USMC would stand to without proper CVN support? That operations of such nature would really be ran off a few LHDs?

Of course not.

So why are they trying to operate a supersonic fighter off an LHD?!? I can’t really fathom how the Pentagon were stupid enough to run with that… and compromise what the USAF and USN will have as a result. To me, if anything, going down the JSF/LHD route has increased the danger to the marines on the beaches as their air support (in terms of CAS, interdiction and air superiority/denial) may be reduced in effectiveness relative to what they could have had.

Does the Royal Navy need its own air force?

In the same way does the US Navy need its own airforce?

and if so, why do it have be stovl planes and ski jumps?

Good question. Very good question.

the marines need their own air force,

Do they?

Does the US Army need its own airforce?

yes marines need airplanes

Why?

But much of the Su-35 is completely new, avionics especially.

Open architecture avionics will not require substantial airframe changes… unlike say due to the loading (or fatigue) on fuselage/wingbox frames being greater than expected.

Much of the airframe is somewhat different as well.

Yes, however, the loading of the airframe is so well understood that the prospect of unknowns causing issues that bite is relatively miniscule. Same for the practically zero chance of it needing aerodynamics mods…