Does Spectra use a pod for the actual jamming component of the system? Or does the Rafale’s radar do that?

How did Bill Sweetman end up writing for the TheDailyBeast? More of a tabloid site than something as credible as Aviation Week.

The J-31, claimed by some to be the F-35 without the STOVL compromise looks to be about the same length as the real F-35. I don’t see much to suggest that the F-35A or F-35B suffer much from this supposed compromise. It was never built to be a Mach 2 capable machine and it isn’t a matter of Lockheed “polishing a turd”. After all the USAF was supposed to have a large force of F-22s which could exceed Mach 2 with a full internal weapons load without trouble.

The F-35C is somewhat compromised however due to the larger wing. Yet I’m guessing the transonic buffeting issue as opposed to just “poor design” is the primary factor for the acceleration problems there. On the other hand the Super Hornet doesn’t have great acceleration either.

The Navy was thrown into the JSF program after a series of prior failures. The A-12 Avenger II and NATF produced no results and the follow on A-X (later renamed as A/F-X) program was in an early stage when it was cancelled. I believe A-X had started at a time when the Navy thought they were still going to continue with major F-14 upgrades that would serve for another 20 years or so.

I believe the decision to go ahead with a CATOBAR variant of the JSF occurred back when the Super Hornet program was facing a lot criticism. At the time a relatively cheap variant of the JSF to replace the “classic” Hornet would have certainly been appealing. Yet where we are now the JSF has faced a lot of delays and cost increases and the Super Hornet has been rather successful. What the Navy needs is 5th generation multi-role fighter that is significantly more capable than both the F-35C and Super Hornet. Yet such an aircraft would make the F-35C buy look cheap and be an uphill battle for the Navy to get support for. Theoretically if we had continued F-22 production and development some common avionics or engines could be shared, but it’s too late for that.

[QUOTE=Andraxxus]MiG-25 can dash at M2,83 when armed with 4 missiles. Ability to exceed its mach limit in a way allows this.[quote]
That is true, yet the M3.2 figure is just as rare as the F-15A hitting its top speed of M2.54. Plus the sort of damage that can/will occur makes it an unsound as opposed to just rare/unlikely practice. Using the Vmax switch would require an inspection of the engines back at base but it wouldn’t destroy them.

No one is denying that? Bias, and pro-F-15 defense aside, comparison is strictly about F-15 pilots claiming to go M2.5 to catch MiG-25s. Which is irrelevant of any qualities F-15 offer, its beyond the abilities of F-15. Mach number limitation aside, a clean F-15A is not a bit faster than a clean MiG-29 on real life conditions.

Denying what? Bias? It is within the abilities of the F-15 but just under ideal conditions. Chances are that this is true for some Soviet aircraft specs as well, especially considering some of the limited fuel loads of some of their fighters.

True, at lower altitudes MiG-25 is limited to subsonic, and at medium altitudes remain comperable to any other fighter. Does this change the fact I am stating? That MiG-25 is WAY faster than F-15?

At upper-medium altitudes in terms of speed, yet not in other factors. The MiG-25 is only truly great a performer at high altitudes where it was intended to intercept aircraft like the cancelled B-70 or SR-71.

[quote]
Untrue; just like flight envelope this -again- is a difference in its design altitude, can you say an F-15 can sustain turns better than a MiG-25 at 50k feet? or 55k feet where F-15 can’t go supersonic? At 75400 feet, there wont be an F-15 other than zoom climb, but MiG-25 will still be achieving some sustained turns.
[quote]
Well I don’t really have a MiG-25 flight manual but yes, of course the MiG-25 has the advantage where the F-15 can’t or can only barely sort of fly.

F-15A manual, IIRC posted the clean level flight envelopes to someone a few posts ago.

Yes; To quote the flight manual; “Vmax Switch: Use of Vmax Switch is prohibited. The Vmax switch is below the left canopy sill. The switch has a guard which is wired down. When the wire is broken and guard raised, the switch may be placed to Vmax which arms the system. With the system armed, throtle in MAX AB, and airspeed above MACH 1.1, the engine control schedules a 22C increase in FTIT and 2% increse in rpm. Main engine and afterburner fuel flow is incresed about 4% and thrust is increased about 4%. Maximum continious time in Vmax is 6 minutes. Each use of Vmax must be reported so that a hot section borescope inspection may be performed. Maximum total Vmax time before engine overhaul is 60 minutes.”

As you can see, this is not an ordinary operation. The very description starts by saying its prohibited, the switch itself is not only safety guarded but also wired, and it has high probability of damaging the engines. Its comperable to overspeeding a MiG-25. Also while Vmax is allowed for 6 minutes, airframe limitation section marks area between M2,3 to M2,5 as “time limited pursuit” and limits it to 1 minute.

Less an airframe limitation and more about preventing engine damage. There is a time limit on how long the canopy can deal with the heat at such speeds, but supposedly the safety margin there is more than sufficient to deal with the time the F-15 can maintain such speeds. I’ve heard P&W types claim that that even the F100-PW-100 could exceed the airframe’s limits but the engines would be destroyed in the process, much like those of that Syrian MiG-25 that hit M3.2.

Regardless I’ll agree that the F-15 reaching near M2.5 speeds is not an ordinary scenario. Yet you seem to take issue with quoted F-15 specifications using that figure when you just as often see M3.0+ or M3.2 figures quoted for the MiG-25 despite such speeds being similarly impractical.

With Vmax switch on on STD DAY, F-15A is only fast as Su-27S (M2,35). When off, its fast as MiG-29 (M2,25). No dreams about it catching a MiG-25/31.

What do we know about the conditions the top speed of the Su-27 is achieved at? Or the MiG-29 for that matter? Yes the F-15 couldn’t hope to catch a MiG-25 at altitude by sheer speed. It would have to be a coordinated interception, the same thing that would be necessary for the MiG-25 to engage the aircraft it was designed to counter.

This, again turns into a MiG-25 discussion, which was not my intention. However if we are going into it;
We have to consider MiG-25 belongs to a 3rd generation of fighters. While MiG-25 is only regarded for its speed, it also had the best radar/missile combination for BVR combat of its time. Its unfair to compare it with F-14 or F-15, just as it would be unfair to compare F-4E with Su-27 or MiG-31. (Though I will do such comparison later).

Best missile/radar combination for BVR combat? For engaging bombers and other large targets perhaps. The R-40 (AA-6) were bomber killers less than ideal for engaging fighters. Considering all of the many variations of the AIM-7 and the radars associated with it, comparison can be difficult. Yet starting with the later models of the AIM-7E which introduced some solid state electronics and then the AIM-7F, the missile was much improved earlier early variants and actually had a decent chance to hit a fighter. I don’t know how the R-23/24 (AA-7) on the MiG-23 performed but the Soviets did move to the R-27 (AA-10) rather than upgrade that design.

When we look at 3rd generation fighters and interceptors, apart from MiG-25, there were F-4 and Su-15 in heavy class, and F-5 and MiG-23 in light class.

Lets debate, which one of those 4 fighters could confront MiG-25 in BVR combat? None of them had any single metric that gave an advantage to play. MiG-25 has the ability to engage/disengage at will, flies above both their flight envelope, and their missiles’ target envelope, it has longer ranged radar, longer ranged missiles etc etc etc.. In 1970; MiG-25 would have simply dominated the skies.

Well some later 2nd generation fighters or interceptors such as the F-106 do blur the line between the notion of this 2nd and 3rd generation. That said it is true that the competition could not compete with the MiG-25 in its realm. Yet when the MiG-25 was at lower altitudes it lost its edge. It didn’t have a real look-down shoot-down capability so its utility The XF-108 was cancelled and despite the impressive performance of the YF-12A it didn’t go anywhere primarily due to McNamara. Congress authorized the funds for 93 aircraft but McNamara used a legal loophole to prevent the USAF from using those funds for the F-12B. He went so far as to destroy the production tooling (used for the SR-71 as well) to ensure the program was dead. The only USAF interceptor he would have allowed would be a variant of the F-111. By the time McNamara was gone the emphasis on the traditional intercepdtion mission had vanished and the USAF had new priorities.

It would rule the upper skies for sure, but considering the MiG-25’s lack of a real look-down shoot-down capability it isn’t going to rule lower altitudes. Even if it goes down to meet the F-4s at their typical altitude it will be on much more equal terms that may even favor the F-4. If the enemy is conducting low level strikes the MiG-25 is of little use. Ruling the upper skies won’t do any good if you return to base to it destroyed. So naturally the MiG-25 has to be part of a larger air defense plan. The MiG-25 was a lot for a single pilot to handle which is a disadvantage when you don’t have support from assets on the ground which typically guided it to interception.

The MiG-31 is a huge improvement in all of these regards but the enemy aircraft (and their missiles) have also vastly improved over that time. In the end dedicated interceptors are simply not ideal for taking on enemy fighters.

Lets reverse the roles; SU makes the Desert Storm, and tries to achieve air superiority with Su-27s, MiG-31s. Those aircraft are supporte by AWACS and GCI radars, all use datalinks, and are in overwhelming numbers. Opposing force has poorly maintained, poorly flown F-4s, poorly armed with obsolete AIM-7Es.
1- Do you think its possible for a lone F-4 will able to dodge eight AWACS/ELINT-assisted and fully datalinked Su-27/MiG-31s and be able to mission kill the aircraft they are escorting?
2- Do you think its possible for two F-4s to shoot two approaching Su-27/MiG-31s before they do, and evade all of the 10 R-27RE/R-33 missiles fired by four of them?

You may disagree, but for me, both scenarios are mathematical impossibility and I think this tells why speed is extremely useful.

Would would be the American equivalent of the Iraqi MiG-29s?

The real world equivalent of that first scenario is a bit different from what you seem to think. From what little I’ve been able to find it looks as if those F-15s weren’t tasked with escorting that EF-111A. So a MiG-25 bypassed the F-15s, fires off its missiles at the EF-111A, misses, and than gets out of there. The EF-111A aborts because it doesn’t know where the MiG-25 went off to. Considering that a MiG-25 isn’t something an AWACS can easily just “lose track” of, there probably wasn’t one nearby. I’ve never been able to confirm if this event actually happened either.

In this second scenario, two F-4s could theoretically get the jump on two Sukhois or MiGs, yet evading all of the missiles fired in return isn’t very likely. The F-4 simply doesn’t have the raw speed to do what those MiG-25s did. Of course the F-4 is a different sort of aircraft able to do many things the MiG-25 can’t. You’re comparing apples and oranges here. The fact is the United States never fielded a direct counterpart to the MiG-25.

The Russians talk about building a new interceptor to replace the MiG-31 but if a new air superiority fighter (like the T-50) can be adapted to use the long-ranged AAMs necessary for this role (even externally), it really isn’t worth the cost. The only way this may change is if/when hypersonic aircraft and cruise missiles become a reality. Although even then the missile may be more important than the aircraft.

It would probably be good for unit costs if they don’t end up cutting production to a very small number of airframes like the B-2.

Of course regardless of final costs of the crazies will start screaming about “THE 2 BILLION DOLLAR BOMBER” AND “THINK OF WHAT WE COULD WASTE THAT MONEY ON INSTEAD”.

Doesn’t stop the stealth brigade from sticking their head in the sand.

Stealth brigade sticking their heads in the sand? People have been “stealth is dead/doesn’t work” since it first became a topic of discussion publicly. And the real world proof of this is a lucky SA-3 downing that F-117A at relatively short range? An aircraft that BTW doesn’t have its own ECM or EW capabilities and that had been using the same flight path repeatedly due to poor mission planning. I guess the rest of the Nighthawk’s career didn’t count for anything. That one shot down aircraft means the entire program was a failure, good to know.

Or is it this other “example” of an SR-71 with a radar cross section the size of a large conventional fighter being seen by a static S-band radar site in Sweden from the side that means stealth is a laughable concept?

So obviously stealth doesn’t work and for the past 30+ years all of the morons in the United States armed forces have been fooled by Lockheed and Northrop sales teams? I guess those new Chinese and Russian fighters (not to mention European UCAVs) means that the rest of the world must be morons too. If only they had been reading internet commentary, they would know better.

Stealth isn’t some magic that makes it impossible to detect an aircraft. Yet LO design is today a fundamental aspect of aircraft survivability to be factored into everything else when developing any sort of aircraft.

Nice work. Doesn’t seem that damning of the F-35 either although I’m sure the critics think it’s downright terrible. Don’t know how this thread became about the F-22 however.

“F-35 beating a F-16 in a gun fight is laughable to none.”

If you get in a gun fight while piloting an F-35 you’re doing something wrong. But that aside, don’t forget about all of the years veteran F-5 Aggressor pilots were scoring kills on pilots flying the vastly superior F-16. A flight of skilled pilots can avoid being caught up in a battle of simple sustained turns.

IIRC the Gripen is also commonly specified at 9g instantaneous.