It does not work that way. In Korea the Russians managed it to surprise the UN-flyers during CAS-work. In most cases the UN-flyers even blamed AAA only. Some kind of free hunt. In Vietnam the MiGs were used as interceptors operating under ground control and observation. Their main task were the mission kill. You can not avoid a constant SAM-threat, radar-guided AAA or interceptors. Seeking a tactical surprise with hit and run attacks can be enough. Surviving such first interceptor attack will rise your chances considerably when the surprise is gone. 😉

I am aware most of these opponents were with radar intercept control. and has AAA/Sams etc.

my point is if F-4 (or any oneelse) choose to loiter at 30Kft 300 kts protecting trucks then F104 would not slow down first and start a turning fight at 30K ft. speed and altitude advantage in start of a fight always makes the fight loop sided. deadly if your opponent (F104) is built as an energy fighter.

doesn’t matter if initial surprise is gone. he will choose his own attack vector and make his own surprise.

F-35, F-22, PAK-FA – come on be seriouse. It does not matter the least whether it is on par with them or inferior because huge interstate wars are impossible in today’s world. The only thing this bird will ever kill are some third world rebel camps, in case it gets exported…

Well,
US and Japan keep yaping about “threats coming from China”, while it rings china with bases F-22s and B-2s. and openly talk about some mass aerial combat senario above taiwan.

some times people are not dumb and can see and hear things other people say and do, do ya you know? 😉

how would the military industrial complex make any money?

Correct. But the ones doing the A2G will decide where the related A2A will take place really. 😉

I think we forgot the lessons of Vietnam/Korea/WWII too soon.

speed kills. if some guy comes from way above coming at your ordance truck like a missile you would toss your bomb and run wouldn;t you?

If you are lucky you might escape this pass but your mission is shot.
at this point after you caught your breath you can either run away, or try to climb out of the thick air and turn and fight , he is coming at your on the second pass.

sooner or later this will be turn bad for you.

if he is smart he will not fight a horizontal fight and never let his speed dip below M0.9

The YF-23 had a far larger main bay than YF-22 (and F-22). The only problem was the sidewinder bay which is part of ther reason the F-23 had a longer fuselage.

If I remember correctly YF23’s bay is in the forebody behind cockpit and NLG bay, that was the only location left. any more growth would have come from in form of purtuding the outer mold line. YF22 on other hand between its long intake has room to grow.

the problem with AIM9 was that it was not really possible to eject and shoot.

What did the F-4 have over the F-104 that made it a better ac. After all they both had the J-79 engine(s). One had a gun, stubby thin wings and a T tail, while the other had no gun, bent wings and a tail that looked like it was falling off. Other than the second seat and maybe some updated electronics, why was one a much better plane then the other.

dave

F-4 early models were a bit of a handful to fly.
F-104 too, but at higher speed it is a delight.

F-104 pilot just have to remember to stay above M1 and 40000 ft and don’t get into a low speed low altitude turn fight. stay vertical and drill F-4’s brains out.

…

see my reply in blue

I think they chose a safer and the most popular path – intakes at the side F-22/F-35 style, and narrowly situated engines, result – very bulky airframe. Raptor’s problem is short legs, so they probably tried to find/create some space for fuel and made J-20 longer.

I think they were juggling the choices between lifting body type aka T-50 and the canard/lex/delta combo they were trying to do. Mr. Song’s original paper talked about this problem. basically the choice is that a flattened blended wing-fuselage can not realistically mount the canard up and above the main wing.
One thing one does not do often is to get inside of the chief aerodynamicist’s head on a particular project. what his reasonings are initially and see the final product. this might be an exception.

I don’t see such long and heavy aircraft to be in the same class as F-22 and T-50 in terms of maneuverability. Also it will need monster engines to SC, but even then DSI intakes will put its limits.

I think you may be surprised. you still hasn’t see its actual weight class. human eyes are deceptive.

YF-23 and T-50 designers were more original, they were able to create internal bays without bloating the whole design.

if I remember correctly (or not), original YF-23 had problems fitting in larger bays that AF wanted. I do not know whether they will be successful in that regard if they choose to kept the development going.

I think they chose a safer and the most popular path – intakes at the side F-22/F-35 style, and narrowly situated engines, result – very bulky airframe. Raptor’s problem is short legs, so they probably tried to find/create some space for fuel and made J-20 longer.

I don’t see such long and heavy aircraft to be in the same class as F-22 and T-50 in terms of maneuverability. Also it will need monster engines to SC, but even then DSI intakes will put its limits.

YF-23 and T-50 designers were more original, they were able to create internal bays without bloating the whole design.

May be The reason some think it is “bloating the whole design” because they choose to use an upper wing mounted on top of fuselage. by contrast F-22/-35/T-50 all have mid mounted wing. also. notice the landing gear strut attachment location. should give some indication where they have their main load bearing structure laid out. This thing’s structure reminds of X-32 actually…

also, remember, doesn’t matter how much lift one’s fighter’s body can generate. the lift-over-drag is still better on a pure wing. :-).
with its Canard-LEX-Delta combo this thing may have deceptively smaller on paper -wing loading.