It appears to me that unguided rockets are still better than bombs (and helicopters cannot really drop bombs), but a mostly used due to the lack of guided missiles or their complexity and cost. If a huge platform is available (Mi-24) it can deliver quite a barrage. Against small point targets such as tanks the Mi-24 with unguided rockets seems rather useless.
For a air artillery it looks very useful on the other hand.

In case of aircraft the chance to hit something with unguided missiles is still far higher than with simple bomb aims. But with CCIP technology now integrated into most aircraft I think the unguided rocket is gone, at least from the inventory of developed nations. A cluster bomb is far more effective and unguided missiles have the disadvantage of causing huge drag on the aircraft before and after shooting.

Well…if the pakfa hit a flight performance record -which until now i dont see any on the f-22-, (something that was done by the su-15, f-104, f15, mig25, su27, etc, etc, etc)………i could say it will be better…..

I can undestand a lack of record of speed….but really the 22s lacks any climb record, any sustined speed with load record, etc…

Yeah, it pictures are nice…..but i dont think the russians need to push very very hard to get birth a plane that would be a least in the same 22s performance lvl

You have noticed that these records are as relevant for real life performance as the color scheme of the prototype. The F-22 by the way set a record that will probably not be broken in the near future: sustained level speed without afterburner.

Personally I don’t think the Russians are willing to make the expenditure to arrive at a level comparable to the F-22, especially will they have some issues with stealth, they never have produced a single stealthy aircraft.

As sferrin correctly noticed thrust vectoring is not really new. What is new is on the one hand the necessary integrated flight controls, something that wasn’t possible in the 70ies. And new is the benefit of TVC for supercruise. For “TERROR-maneuverability” TVC looks a bit like wasted weight, I think extreme maneuverability concepts were mostly abandoned in the 80ies.

The fact that neither Eurofighter, nor Rafale use TVC does tell us that it doesn’t is too promising. Especially the Eurofighter consortium had the technology available. The F-22 is limited to vertical thrust vectoring, but with an OEW close to 20t you need to use new concepts an 11t OEW Eurofighter doesn’t need.

Weight is no value in itself, when it comes to combat performance. But it was find out, that there is some relation in building costs at least.
Just for a second thought about that.
Otherwise a Zero fighter will beat a Hellcat with ease or a Bf-109 a Mustang.

Of course, it is not that simple. Theoretically a B747 can be as maneuverable (at least when we look at static values like sustained turn) as a MiG-21 when you install the lift, the thrust and modify the structure.

Two things that let me opt for lowest possible weight.
1: Weight increases cost. Not linear, but in general a smaller aircraft can be operated at lower cost. The F-4 over Vietnam was often a fighter without guns and the only useful armament were 4 AIM-9B missiles. One can have the same performance for less expenditure.
2: Most things can be scaled. A small aircraft can have more range than much larger. There are some items that cannot scaled, that is the pilot and his cockpit, the radar, the missiles and some other items. Therefore we have a practical lower limit to our fighters size, which I would set at 6t OEW (+/- 1t) [or about 10t NTOW], somewhere close to the F-104 or the YF-16. Additionally, volume increases with size and there are some sweet spots (which were all exploited in various designs).

Any additional equipment will with growth factors scale up my aircraft. The useful data provided by you shows that for radar guided missile equipped aircraft the minimum size was about 13-15t NTOW while some designs had severe performance shortcomings (Su-7, F-102). The only two aircraft with some kind independence from GCI and radar guided missiles were about 19t NTOW (F-4B, F-101B, never buy the “A”), funnily both from the same company (McDonnel).

The limitations – as I already pointed out – of the time frame 1960-65 were engines and avionics. When we look at the F-20 using F404 of the early 80ies, we can see what performance can be squeezed out of a small aircraft (while it still was a prototype).

The Phantom proved that it cannot maintain a real advantage although it is three to four times the cost of its adversaries. Hence, if two financially equal countries would fight against each other and both have the same amount of money in the air, the country using MiG-21 would win. That was the conclusion from Vietnam.

When you will see MiG-21s over Saigon and F-4s over Hanoi or
F-4s over Cairo or MiG-21s over Tel Aviv, the MiG-21 example versus F-4 does show some severe shortcomings. You can replace the F-4 with the Mirage III at best. The claims in favour of a MiG-21 are not based on real price finding.
To make fighter comparable in some way, the was an artificial cost ratio per kg of weight empty.
By that the F-4 is roughly two times more expensive than the Mirage III or a MiG-21 built in the West. Lifetime and performance considerations aside.
Smaller designs do suffer more, when in need of upgrades.

Of course, the relation is anything but linear. Also consider the price for training. What I wanted to say is that for the battlefield of the 1960ies, which remained mostly a within visual range daylight arena, the costly and heavy improvements integrated into the Phantom do not justify, at least not from the air defence point of view.
I admit that all conflicts have their limitations in how far they are representative (actually Vietnam isn’t really representative). But a conflict in Europe (and that’s the final mark for any Cold War aircraft) will find itself in a very crowded airspace with nearly no room for BVR engagements. Under such circumstances the side that brings in the best relation of quality and quantity into the air wins. How this relation is exactly weighted, I cannot say. But the Phantom was, at least as F-4C/D not really best value, not as a daylight fighter.

I don’t mean take an unstable Mirage 4000 and remove its FBW. Rather I mean something with a similar canard delta planeform and similar size. Rather like a larger twin engine Mirage III, with canards, leading edge slats, better visibility cockpit, and turbojet engines. Keep it as light as possible. So what we get is something that will out dogfight a Mirage III, yet has better range, and offer a starting point for a ground attack variant.

Why not using the canards with the smaller Mirage III and put a single J79 into it. That’s what you call a Kfir then.
I guess the concept of vortex lift was not sufficiently established at that time to design it into an aircraft.

I see a tendency towards huge aircraft in this group. Though history showed 8at least in the 60ies) that that is the wrong approach.

Ok, here is my take:

I want the AN/APG-59 in the nose. Therefore, I need a twinjet. Basic airframe design I would borrow from the Mirage series, add an deltawing + horizontal stabilizers. (as seen in the MiG-21 for example).
Engines would be a pair of J-79.

The AN/APG-59 was used in the F-4J, which entered service after 1966.
Basically you are proposing a F-4. No matter how you turn it, it won’t get below the Phantoms OEW, especially as I expect you want to add range, multi-role and a second crew member. This fighter won’t by any better than the Phantom models that were used over Vietnam.

[…]
* Empty weight: 16,000 lb
[…]
* Guns: 2× 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon with 500 cartridges

I am very doubtful that your proposed aircraft is realistic in terms of weight. I don’t have weight data on the engine, but a much smaller A-4 already hits the 10000lbs mark with one engine. Your twintail and twin-cannon (two M61A1 with a totally 1000 rounds are about 350kg (or 770lbs)) doesn’t make it any lighter. Two cannons are by the way a bit overkill, I am dubious if the M61 is worth is weight anyways. According to all other nations designing aircraft the answer is no. They used lighter single barrel cannons.

Probably because they were pure interceptors, not fighters!

That’s what I wanted to say, better address your note of wisdom to the proponents of these aircraft, for example Mr. “the F-108 was the best aircraft ever” sferrin.

For me it seems, that the former engineers, did deliver, what was at hand the technological limitations in mind.
People do have a short memory always. When the former ideas about high-speed combat, did not live up to the expectations at first, most of that was corrected later on. We keep in mind that the fighters of the 50s were designed of no more than ten years of first-line service in mind, when being replaced by something new!

I must confess my knowledge about this era is somehow limited, but generally my opinion is that the designs we know today are “the best possible” under given circumstances. I think the problem was the requirement for ever more speed, which required the aircraft to become more optimized for Mach numbers beyond 1.8 (which require dedicated solutions in propulsion and aerodynamics). The rapid growth of engine power and thrust to weight ratio during the early 1950ies had its share.

Today we have to look at the wing-load of the present F-16s, when people do have still the agility of the first F-16As in mind, to recognise, that modern warfare has changed again.

For an F-16A in air2air combat config we are talking about 350 to 400kg/m². We must consider that the F-16 uses vortex lift and variable camber, technologies a bit beyond the 1950ies technology standard. While the F-16 was designed for high AOA (high means more than 12-15°), we need to accept that our fighter won’t do that. The only thing we want to provide is sufficient stability to prevent loss of control beyond 12-15° AOA. AOA above 15° are not desirable anyways as they rapidly slow down our aircraft and the thrust is insufficient to regain that energy quickly enough.