1) the F-35 will not be available until too late. This requirement is to replace their F-4s. They’ve been well-maintained, but can’t be kept in service until F-35 deliveries could begin.

I know an air force that has some experience with bridge classes from Phantom to a more modern fighter.

I think without the LO-technology an F-22 isn’t really worth the money. The F-18E/F is always an option (especially since seems to have staffed up its marketing department), but from the pure pilot’s perspective it would be a step back in terms of flight performance.
I would consider the Typhoon if the decisive issue was delivery date and performance, but I doubt that it will be of big concern. As many remarked, most important issue is to reduce prices for the American hardware.

I agree with most previous posters, that the B-58 was the absolute cutting edge in 1958. Five years earlier it was impossible to build such an aircraft, and the B-58 was possible due to advances in engine technology, system (small enough for a necessarily small airframe), materials and basic experience with supersonic design. At its time it could penetrate an airspace defended by supersonic interceptors (maybe except the MiG-25, which didn’t enter service before the end of the 60s) with high chance of survival.

A big price to pay for that, I think the B-58 left a lasting experience on all people involved in military procurement. But it really gave the USAF the option to strike some targets off hands to tactical aircraft (range) or other bombers (interceptable), and that even under bad weather conditions.

The fact that all attempts to build a supersonic replacement were halted, even the Soviet refrained from introducing anything similar. Like many US designs, a little bit less performance in favor of overall maturity and affordability would have provided a longer service life to the B-58. But the USAF wanted Mach 2 … (like they wanted M2.5 for the TFX).

Independently of how the Me-262 got its wing back, later German designs continued the trend of sweeping the wings, the main reason is because they understood the effects they produced, the He-162 had for example variants with forward or backward sweep wings.

German scientists learned pretty fast that forward swept is not useful with available material. Other scientists learned that again later.

Now i am not suggesting the Me-262 of 1942 had all the modern technologies you see in a Beoing 777, no i did not say that, what i simply said the basic concepts of modern jet aircraft were already present in the Me-262.

The basic concepts of aircraft are known since centuries, you may lead something to anything. But from the elements that make the B777 a well-selling aircraft, nothing was introduced or in any basic manner known on the Me-262, and if the Me-262 had it was somehow available before and in other countries at the same time (jet engines for example).

The Boeing 747 of course was modified to fill PanAm`s needs for a long range airliner, nevertheless it started its development as a military program; cargo aircraft can fill military or civilian needs, the DC-10, L1011, the B747, the An-124, the Il-76 are a few examples.

The usefulness of the military studies is very doubtful, at best we can contribute part of the engine development to military inputs.

I had this row earlier in the thread.

The Me163 did have wing sweep for transonic drag/buffet reasons. It wasn’t perfected, and they did have problems with high speed tuck.

Agree with the engines. But, I do think I remember reading high level (i.e. Hitler) interference fooked up with the development of the engines in the late 30s.

They understood that transonic drag was greatly reduced by sweeping the wings – while the original hypothesis was simplistic, it was accurate enough.

The Me163 maybe, but the Me262 not. A wing sweep of less than 20° is actually rather useless to reduce transonic drag. The reason for sweep back on the Me262 was CG issues.

1. Would be the 747 why? well this aircraft was the product of a military cargo airplane need by the US and this aircraft revolutionized air travel, has make huge profits and still has found some military applications such as a command post or a laser armed weapon capable of dealing with ICBMs.

I think the influence of the B747 on combat aircraft can be considered zero.

2.would be the F-15 the greatest combat aircraft of the last 30 years

The F-15 benefitted from service with successful air forces and was some part of the reason of their success. The design is not that extremely great, it is a composition of the technology of its era.

3. would be the 707, this aircraft has worked in several roles and make lots of money for their makers from airliner to AWACs or tanker this aircraft really has the things to called the best multi-purpose machine

A useful platform, but interchangable with most aircrafts of its era.

4. Would be the MiG-21, this little fighter brough supersonic aircraft to the poorest and less developed countries has a good combat record and still is in use.

One of the purest supersonic fighters, really useful in its later versions.

5. would be the B-52, this bomber was and is one of the best bombers of all times, even still can launch cruise missiles and make a difference in the combat zone after more than 50 years of its first flight

Was the B-52 be Soviet made, no one would know it today. The B-52 benefitted from its service in Vietnam and the continueing investment over the years. All models before the G-version were phased out more than 20 years ago, with a reason.

6. The Me-262 the father of all the modern combat or jet airliners.

It has some resemblance to a B737-100.

10. the F-117 the only real breakthrough in technology of the last 40 years.

It looked particularly well on CNN, a reason for its “success”.

Lemme guess then, by your “logic” the B-70 had it entered service would have been good for what? Mach 1.5? :rolleyes: And I guess the B-52 was good for Mach 1.5 in testing because it can do 0.86 in service I suppose? There’s saying “testing and in service are two different things” and then there’s taking it to the point of absurdity.

Let me guess that you have no real insight in engineering and hence need to rely on what is written in second-class books, internet sources and funny magazine. Poor you, but if you are happy with it.

You by the way did not answer my questions:
– source for your 700 mile dash
– what kind of “miles”
You don’t know it, right? Have read it somewhere. Sounds cool, doesn’t it?

In my opinion few aircraft have been revolutionary, and to tell you the true, Germany did build the basic technologies that today have evolved and matured into modern aircraft, the first german jets already had guided weapons, the basic aerodynamics and propulsion systems

Hey, I am German. I am supposed to be overly positive towards German design, but the truth is:

So, did Germany build the first jetfighter? Obviously yes.
Was German technology “decades ahead of its time”? No, 3-5 years in some areas, but equally some years behind on other fields.

Already posted. And while it may have been for a record flight I fail to see your point. The B-58 had power to spare and if it can drop a pod weighing X amount from 60,000 feet at Mach 2 in a test why wouldn’t it be able to do it for real? Why even bother with the test? Do they mount boat anchors on them in the “real” world? Do they leave two engines on the ground? You seem to be convinced that a fighter doing Mach 2 clean in a test is the same as a bomber flying Mach 2 LOADED in a test. Not at all the same.

Posted where? Source? Nautical or statue miles?

Did you actually read what I posted, it was actually on this page.

Test results have nothing to do with real life operational performance. Why not?
– test results are done under careful monitoring, so that the last inch can be squeezed out of the aircraft. In real life there are always reserves (despite you are really desperate or stupid).
– test results are achieved by test pilots, who are briefed extensively on their aircraft and the mission
– operational systems are often cut back in performance to gain some additional service life, in case of 50s & 60s aircraft to gain a somehow acceptable attrition level

And why are they so misleading?
You are the real aviation hot shot: you read that F-15 achieved once somewhere M2.fantasy and from now on it is put in concrete: an F-15 can go M2.fantasy. This result was achieved under the best possible conditions. No real hint for real life performance. Test results are only useful if some words are given about there backgrounds. With the considerable reliability problems practically all engines had in the 50s and 60s, test results of that era are even more doubtful.
Anyways, believe what you want.

But then be consistent and say that each MiG-25 ever build was perfectly able to achieve M3.2, because that is fact following your logic.