Thread needs more F-106s.

So how exactly is Iraq’s attack helo fleet going to look like now? I can’t say I have high hopes for Iraq, I don’t like the prospect of where some of this equipment could end up.

I can agree that i lost my temper, but as a weapon platform the late F15 is, with a large margin, inferior to the Flanker.

The limiting factor today is the missiles.

But we can look at actual public information and take it form there.
Radar: Irbis E has roughly a 80-100% range advantage vs Apg63v2 (the latest AESA in the F15). If we assume the older N011M Bars we “only” get an AESA with 30% longer range in the Flankers.
IRST: OLS35M offers passive target acquisition at 50-90km. Is the IRST-pod even fielded for the F15?
Rear facing radar: Only the Flankers have this.
Kinematic performance: The Flankers excel.
Range: The Flankers excel.
RCS: Both have had substantial RCS-reduction.

So I’m sorry. One of my fav jets (the F15 family) can be called hopelessly inferior when you just compare the platforms as they are by themselves.

The latest radars for the F-15 family are the AN/APG-63(V3) and AN/APG-82. These feature a lot more new technology than the AN/APG-63(V2) which was only produced in small numbers and has a lot more in common with earlier variants of the radar. In fact I’d take my chances with the AN/APG-82 over the Irbis-E.

I’m always skeptical of IRST range figures, but that is a nice feature of the Flanker family. Yet would it give it a major edge? Unlikely. Same with the rear-facing radar.

In terms of kinematics the area where the Flanker has a significant advantage is low speed maneuverability and controllability. The F-15 also has exceptional range with CFTs. With the exception of the F-15SE neither aircraft have “substantial” RCS reductions and both suffer from a rather large RCS.

As the latest Flankers are more heavily upgraded than the F-15, it does have an edge in many areas, but to say that it is hopelessly outclassed is downright false. The determining factor in combat would come down to which air force is better trained and supported.

I’m also extremely doubtful of these claims that the F-35 would be detected before entering effective AIM-120 range. I do however think we need to invest more in a successor to the AMRAAM, not because the design is lacking but rather because we can do a lot better with new technological developments.

The real issue for America in this respect, however, is not the present but the future, in that their politico-cultural hang-ups (e.g. belief in American exceptionalism, reflexive militarism, corporate corruption of government, etc.) are and will continue to hamstring them in adapting to changing circumstances (economic, geopolitical, technological, etc.) raising the possibility that America will only learn and adapt to a changing world the same way most nations have throughout history — through suffering and defeat.

Defeat short of annihilation is the most powerful impetus for change — witness the transformation of the US Army post-Vietnam. Victory, in contrast, breeds complacency.

Abandoning a belief in American exceptionalism isn’t going to help. Of course outside of a historical context I find it hard to believe in when there are so many leeching off the working part of society, when we have politicians like these running our country, when culturally we have been going downhill, and when even our industry and technological base is eroding. I know for a fact there are still many smart, good people working for companies like Lockheed, Boeing, etc. Just as capable as any other aerospace company in the world, yet they are plagued with too many mistakes and screw-ups.

The Scandinavian nations with their very homogenous population sitting on a lot of natural energy sources shouldn’t go around lecturing. In my opinion they are heading to the same cultural dead-end we are, minus the whole class of people who don’t work for a living. The Gripen, which some seem to revere, is pretty much just a modern take on the F-5/F-20. This is not a bad thing, yet it isn’t exactly what the F-35 should be or what the F-22 should have been.

The Super Hornet has rather average performance, but in terms of everything else, cost, avionics, multi-role capability, etc. it is a huge success. If some of that experience could be successfully applied to the F-35, maybe some more progress could be made.

Sustained turn rate of clean aircraft @15.000ft , 50% fuel

– Mirage 2000-5 : 17 deg/s @ M 0.7, 6 Gs
– F-16C Block 50 : 18 deg/s @ M 0.75, 7 Gs
– Rafale : 19 deg/s @ M 0.7, 7 Gs

Su-27 is said to have 22.5deg/s @ M 0.7

I don’t know where you got that Su-27 figure, but I’m doubtful of it. In terms of sustained turn rate the F-16 is still considered to be among the best. AFAIK among the USAF only the F-22 is seen as comparable in that regard. Instantaneous turn rate and high AoA maneuverability are another matter. There the F/A-18 and presumably the F-35 have an edge

The F/A-18 family as a whole isn’t known for having outstanding acceleration, their merits lie in other areas. The F-35C is likely to be an improvement in that category, even if it doesn’t stack up to a clean Block 50/52 F-16C which was the target. Considering the larger wing and tail surfaces compared to the A/B variants, I’m not certain what people expected. There is a reason the USAF wants pure-bred air-superiority aircraft like the F-15 and F-22 in addition to their other airframes. I’m sure the Navy wouldn’t mind something with the high-altitude, high-speed performance they lost when the F-14 was retired too.

Spitfire unless somebody has found a way to land a Super Hornet on a LHD/LHA. Having that production line around does nothing about meeting the STOVL requirement.

The MiG-31 is awfully limited outside of use as an interceptor. I think some can launch anti-radiation missiles, but the Su-27 could certainly do that as well.

Did they ever develop a reconnaissance variant of the MiG-31 like they did for the MiG-25?

Why exactly would the F-35 be limited to a Mach 1.67 speed? I know it isn’t a Mach 2+ aircraft due to intake configuration and other design features. But I’m not seeing the reason it wouldn’t be capable of Mach 1.8+ like the Hornet, Super Hornet, and Rafale.