If Iran gets J10s, then it would be proof positive that the Israelies had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the J10. Because the first condiction of Israeli help in the project would have been an iron-clad assurance that China would never market the J10 or derivatives to unfriendly ME countries, and they don’t come more ‘unfriendly’ then Iran

Very unlikely Israel still has any influence in the J-10 project, if they ever had any. The Chinese maybe bought Israeli knowledge, maybe employed Israel consultant. Maybe there is a gentlemen’s agreement.
The only thing I could think of is that China still pays for Israeli expertise on avionics. And this connection would be lost if they sell aircraft to Iran.

But China is no penny arms dealer like North Korea. They pick their allies with care, and doing something that clearly opposes the USA would only be thinkable if it offers very decisive advantages for the Chinese that matches the risks. Although the Iran is an important supplier for Chinese energy, the USA is the biggest market for its products, not only toys, but also technology products. If China cooperates with Iran in aviation, it must fear a boycott of aviation products from USA. And that would be devastating for Chinese aviation industry.

And why should they sell their best home-grown fighter? They don’t need the money desperately.

So a very big no-no.

The most surprising thing about that is the lack of intel or at least to give that to those in need.
Similar thing with first engagements between USAF F-16s and GAF MiG-29s with HMS and R-73 in the 90s.
For unknown reasons s the Americans are “in need for bloody lesson” to work-out the right tactic sometimes.
US-flyers did met Japanese over China. Despite that the surprise of the Zero and related losses from 1941.

As my posted screenshot states, I would give half of the bill to overconfidence. It must be a terrible surprise, when an aviator spots a MiG-17 and comfortably uses his tactics, just to find himself in front of one and 37mm bullets passing him. Another reason for the relative success: one hit by a 37mm bullet normally quites the operational life of an F-105D or F-4C/D. The same caliber was be the Wehrmacht as primary anti-tank weapon in the first years of the war.

I think I lost connection to the topic. 😀
Sorry.

It does depend as always. The Israelis had no problems with their Mirage and F-4 against the MiG-17F. They were aware about thats agility at low speed, what they did learn from the 50s already. They used the superior speed of their Mystere IVA to deny that. Going into a constant horizontal turning fight at low speed is suicidal. The advantage of higher performance aircraft is, that those can choose their way of fighting most of the time.
The MiG-17F was outdated in the 60s. But it was still good enough against a less trained enemy and some special roles.

The evaluation in project Have Drill had some unexpected results:
[ATTACH]158246[/ATTACH]
The evaluation showed that results increased after first engagement. I guess that is the reason why Navy trained versus A-4 for quite a while. An F-22 (without avionics, hence purely theoretical) with an equally unwary pilot would run into difficulties. And likewise an F-14 or any other aircraft.

I guess the Israelis – having some comparable subsonic types in their inventory – had more experience with such aircraft. Additionally, at least in 1967, they hardly relied on missiles.

“The tanks could only be used at 16 deg sweep, and for wing movement to 45 deg and 72 deg the pilot was required to jettison the tanks first.”
-international Air Power Review, Vol 14, c 2004

I also have a photograph of a Soviet MiG-23MLA(D?) armed with four missiles and three tanks. It is an unusual configuration. Update yourself.

I have word from several people that worked with the MiG-23 that wing tanks could not be jettisoned. But maybe there are differences between versions. There also may be differences between the particular users, frontal aviation units had different requirements than homeland defence units using the -23P
Update: Tanks could be jettisoned, but pylons were screwed into the wing and wing was fixed in forward position by blocking the sweep mechanism.

“Five main design requirements were identified in the early/mid-1960s during the project definition phase of Mikoyan’s new-generation fighter.
The first of these called for a significant low-level speed increase; the second for an improvement in pilot comfort during high speed low-level flight; the third for a considerable increase in range…”
-ibid

The range benchmark was the MiG-21 with R-11 engine. Not really a tough mark. The MiG-23 had more range than the MiG-21, but it would by today’s standards never apply for “long range”. It still uses a rather thirsty turbo-jet that compensates for the better lift drag ratio. In general, it is correct to say the MiG-23 had a considerably larger range than its predecessor* and could carry more weapons (-21 was restricted to 2 AAMs often). But it is incorrect to say it had much higher range than an later F-104. Maybe some MiG-23 experts enlighten us.

*: the MiG-23 was less designed to replace but more to complement the MiG-21

The F-15E supports your earlier statement that you can get the performance of VG by using powerful modern engines. The F-15E lifts a big load, and its low level dash speed is equal to an F-111. The big wing of the F-15E makes it a better dogfighter, which is a nice to have defensive capability, but that is not the role of the F-15E. The down side to the big wing is the rough ride the crew gets at low level. Lately, the USAF has been making strike missions at medium altitude, so that’s not an issue. But you would agree that a strike aircraft could have better field performance with a swing wing. If the strike mission was for low altitude, I would favor a VG jet. The ride would be smoother, and even if the there is enough thrust for high speed at low level with a fixed wing, with a VG wing you could acheive the same speed at a lower power setting, and thus sustain that speed for a longer time. As usual, the best design depends on what tactics you intend to use.

Slightly different requirements produced completely different aircraft. One must add that the heritage was important. The Tornado stood at the end of a development line that started as vertical take-off nuclear low-level striker. The F-15 was a different beast. The Tornado would accomplish some missions much better than the F-15E, but given today’s mission envelope it performs worse (less range, payload, no air2air capability).

I guess we could discuss ages about the issue while we would increasingly get lost in details.
In conclusion – regarding the original question – one can say that VG aircraft were always the result of specialized requirements. These are:
– good field performance (Tornado, MiG-23, Su-24, F-111, F-14, Su-17)
– low level speed (Tornado, MiG-23*, Su-24, F-111, Su-17)
– high top-speed (MiG-23, F-111, F-14)
– high payload (F-111, F-14, Su-24)
These requirements are very often connected to the Bomb (tornado, Su-24, F-111). In general, these mission requirements have vanished. Some remaining like good field performance (Navy carriers haven’t grown since 1960) can be solved better with different technology.
Basically all swing-wing aircraft have shown considerable technical challenges, sometimes severe problems, and were generally very expensive (F-14). No VG aircraft was particularly “successful”*, just as aircraft tailor-made for a single mission never turn out to become very successful.

*: the fighter version of the MiG-23 was never intended as low level fighter (a MiG-17 is good for that), but I think a fighter-bomber version was eyed from the beginning, -23B and -23BN came from production line same time as -23M
*: “successful” defined as time period in operation, production run, cost effectiveness, application to different missions

we are all thinking of ways to make engines more carbon friendly . Is it not possible to build machines to pull carbon from our atmosphere

Need energy for that. Where do you suppose it to come from? Nuclear, Wind, Solar, …. and you are where we started. Basically, it suffices to reduce the new CO2 emissions, because nature will care about the rest.

That’s because it was a Republic aircraft. Pilots always used to joke that if they built a runway around the equator that Republic would build a plane that would have to go around more than once to take off. The runways kept getting longer, but from the P-47 to the F-84 to the F-105, they always used up every bit you could build.

Especially field performance was no consideration, and early tubro-jets did not really produce lots of thrust at take-off. Common problem for all early turbo-jets, see MiG-21 and Sukhoi-7/9/15. That was the reason to go into swing wings, as landing performance was also miserable. When wing loading became primary focus of design (for turn performance) and engines grew in thrust to weight ratio, the problem became secondary.
Note specific thrust for engines:
J75-P17: 4.2
J79-GE17: 4.6
J85-GE21: 7.5
TF30-P111: 6.3
F100-PW229: 9.6
(Note: that are sea level static maximum A/B thrust uninstalled versus engine dry weight; in reality engine produces less thrust installed and will weight more a working system; finally turbojets will have much more maximum thrust at high Mach numbers)

Yeah it’s good to hear that the A380 is now in service…shame it was years late and millions over budget though!

If it only were millions … :rolleyes:

http://www.gripen.com/en/MediaRelations/SuccessStories/070918_hungary.htm

You must be fair and allow the question who is paying the dinners of those guys who run this website.

But Gripen and Typhoon was the only really good A/C out there, I thought it was good of the Hungarians anyway in their first exercise to knock down about 10 jets using only sidewinder/gun. Would have been nice to know how many times they died but they also flew just two jets together with two italian F-16’s vs. many more on the blue side.

If experience counts the only good aircraft is the F-4F Phantom with 30 years front line experience. And these 30 years are meant for each airframe, last was delivered 1975. 😀