STOVL is a ludicrous idea IMO.

You are forcing more compromises on the airframe than the other guy with CTOL, if his designers can do the job half right, his airframe will be better, end of.

Not opinion, just pure raw fact.

The first ones will be bleeds for the air-intakes I assume [or possibly cooling exit ducts].

The 2nd will be bleeds for the compressor – they will give more flexibility to the design, increasing the stall margin [Allowing the pilot to floor the throttle with less worry of engine stall]

If it was so, that problem was solved long ago. Similar thing in Iraq.
By your logic the main intrest of all Iraqi people is internal calm and security.
That allows economic recovery and wellfare as well as the departure of foreign troops. Someones have other political intrests in Iraq and undermines that.

What are you on about Iraq for? :confused:

I’m talking about Israel/Palestine.

Oh, and the Iraqi thing would be best served by all foreigners clearing out – a country is best sorted out from within.

I skimmed through the first 3 pages, then skipped the rest.

Cliff Barnes was the only poster that actually has a ******* clue about the problem.

I’ve seen the same thing first hand here at home, the more they (IDF) squeeze, the bigger the problem gets. The IDF are just a large recruitment campaign for the bombers.

To solve the problem you must combat the motivation – if the people (Palestinians) are fed, watered, have jobs, and are happy, then they won’t have reason to kill themselves. Its pretty much that simple.

The supercrusing F-22 doesnt have to engage Afterburners to get to mach 1.72 as he can do that w/o afterburners hence supercruise.

But if baddie can get to Mach 2+ with a/bs who has the range advantage of the missile range then?

Ofcourse persistance is important as both aircraft are f-22’s , they detect each other at equal distances however one can launch the Aim-120 from farther out due to the fact that he is allready travelling at mach 1.7 whilest the other has to engage or if he has allready engaged AB is loosing fuel fast therefore if both the aircraft survive a barage then the other aircraft (the one w/o AB) can be more flexible in his afterburner usage as he hasnt used it to get to mach 1.7 whereas the other has wasted all this fuel to get to mach 1.7 only to find him loosing all that energy whilest trying to out manuevre the missile so he’ll have to do it all over again whereas the other aircraft would only have military power and can still hit AB to regain energy even faster

1. You assume they detect and launch immediately.

2. You neglect that the F-22 with supercruise will have to use a/bs to achieve the same flight speed = missile range as the non-supercruiser

3. Indeed it would allow the supercruiser more freedom with fuel issues, but surely you aren’t suggesting the AIM-120 would miss? :diablo:

Say it is an F-22 vs an f-22 engagement and one of the f-22’s cannot cruise at greater speeds then mach 0.9 which one would have the advantage then??? the supercruising f-22A can retain advange by staying outside the firing distance of the slower raptor and the other raptor has to resort to using afterburners just to stay in touch with the enemy’s energy state thereby the enemy has persistance advantage from the start.

Yes, they have an advantage, but it doesn’t mean the mach limited pilot might as well bail out as soon as he retracts gear on take-off.

Persistence?

Persistence is of no importance in launching, your facing the bandit, travelling towards them, its not like you need to keep that profile for a sustained time period, unless you plan on following your BVR shot in for a follow-up, and then you do that transit as quick as possible so you get as close as possible.

Its quite simple:

1. Detect
2. Manouver into favourable launch position -> where the supercruise does have an advantage
3. Attain favourable launch flight profile -> afterburners/supercruise, no real advantage
4. Launch
5. Disingage/Follow-up

The more important advantage that the F-22 has is of course its VLO tech, you are on step 4 while the other guy isn’t even on step 1.

The USN has, with both the F-35C and F/A-18E/F, deliberately chosen to sacrifice some fighter capability in order to gain a very good attack function in the same airframe (to reduce purchase, training, maintenance, and logistic costs)!

This does not mean that they have “made a hash of carrier aviation”, just that they have chosen to have ALL tactical aircraft good at both jobs (for greater mission flexibility), rather than have one type excellent at A-A and mediocre at A-G, and vice versa (which limits flexibility).

This I have never understood [not a personal point against you, but to the wider audience].

Q: What makes an aircraft versatile?
A: Avionics, nothing more, nothing less. Every aircraft has underwing hardpoints, so there is no structural differences, its merely the electronics.

Since electronics weigh sweet F— all in the grand scheme of things, there is no excuse for the Hornet and Super Hornet airframes being ****-poor. They are simply a bad design, one the USN should have never used, and definitely never based a 2nd updated design on.

Could someone please explain what aerodynamic and structural considerations would make an attack aircraft a large compromise over a fighter?