Now would be a good time to get those f-16 operational.

There are allies in Eastern Europe that would love to do exactly that…

From Canada telenovela…

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/cabinet-has-not-yet-reviewed-fighter-jet-procurement-report-says-harper-as-opposition-parties-push-for-ope

This will end up like Korea… if Canada sets the bar high then only the F-35 will be able to meet the requirements. (which is what happened with the original requirements in Korea)

If they set the bar low they may get more bids, but what is the point if what they really want is a next generation aircraft?

The issue here is the disconnect between valid complaints about the program and the internet view of a modern combat aircraft. If the argument centers on the IOC slippage, cost over runs, concurrency/ software problems, they are all valid and a major concern. Where the criticism loses reality is when the arguments start centering on capability. Many critics may start with arguments over affordability, or developmental problems but the their real agenda is: “F-35 doesn’t look like x, doesn’t turn at x rate, can’t fly at mach 2 (despite the reality that most modern fighters rarely approach mach 2 in combat)”. The Australian Parliamentary hearing was telling, the Senators started with delivery and cost questions, yet quickly pulled out the APA playbook of the “Super Sukhoi dogfight threat”. The answers from the Airforce were candid and telling.

Despite your labeling me as a F-35 fan club member, I’m not an unabashed supporter. The development of the aircraft until the re-baseline was scandalous. The slippage with software integration should concern everyone whose nation is buying the aircraft. Operating costs?, projections are just that, I will wait until there are a significant number of aircraft in service before passing judgement on that. As for capability? Critics want to attack the aircraft for what it is not instead of recognizing the capabilities that the F-35 brings to the table. It does not seem that those in the military that are to operate the aircraft are the least concerned about the capabilities that the F-35 provides.

A pretty fair summary. Nobody questions whether the F-35’s development has been troubled, but if you don’t recognize that it offers a really unique and highly desirable set of capabilities you are living in a fantasy world.

It just happens that i recently re-read an old issue of Air&Cosmos about their Lakehurst campaign and Foch carrier testings in Air&Cosmos 1455, jan 94. Progressivity was well… A completely different concept from LM’s. Tenths of tests were wrapped in few weeks, including hard landings, no tail hook issue, some minot landing gear reviews, heavy config tests etc. Please read it, compare and enjoy.
They didnt need to review the structural survey of jet’s landing gear (wasn’t it originally sensed to be designed for deck landing) was needed…

…and a mere 20 years later there have already been over 30 Rafale Ms delivered!

:rolleyes:

0:21 – Hind gets hit by a MANPADS and makes a forced landing.

I am not completely sure whether the Hind landed or just flew away. Landed is plausible but the video doesn’t seem to show it.

In either case you have to admire the bravery of the second helicopter for immediately returning to the fight. You can see it firing its cannon at the 2:00 mark.

Some testing news

F-35B

F-35 Lightning II aircraft demonstrated air-to-air combat capability, completed the first flight test with the next level software load and accomplished a landing at the maximum test speed and drop rate.

In the Point Mugu Sea Test Range airspace off the Central California coast, an F-35B demonstrated the jet’s air-to-air combat capability when it sequentially engaged two aerial targets with two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) during a Weapon Delivery Accuracy mission.

Test pilot Lt. Col. Andrew ‘Growler’ Allen tracked two maneuvering drone targets, making the very first dual AMRAAM shot from any F-35 variant, and the first live AMRAAM shot from the F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant….

F-35A

Flying from Edwards Air Force Base, an F-35A flew a 1.9 hour mission with the first-ever load of Block 3i hardware and software. Block 3i is the next level of capability and is planned to support U.S. Air Force F-35A IOC in 2016….

F-35C
The F-35C, designed for aircraft carrier operations, completed a landing at its maximum sink speed to test the aircraft’s landing gear, airframe and arrestment system at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. “Five sorties were conducted, building up the maximum sink rate test condition of 21.4 feet per second, which represents the maximum sink speed planned for this test,” McFarlan said. During the tests, the F-35C did three arrestments, several touch and goes and one bolter. The landings were to demonstrate structural readiness for arrested landings on an aircraft carrier at sea.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/150529ae_f-35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html

Some more (resized)

Original size and more pics here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/

Dark days for the “anything but F-35” crowd. 😎

Shouldn’t be, the Mig-25 was a flawed aircraft. The link i posted before gives some idea of how the paper performance of the aircraft failed in reality. It could not in fact reach Mach 2.83 armed with four missiles and had warnings about speeds above 2.5. It was limited to 2.2 g at full load and 4.5 overall. Not to mention pilots were warned about instability when manuvering flying high and fast. Yes the radar was powerful, but this was at a time when west was fielding pulse doppler with look down/ shoot down capability. The Mig-31 was a needed and vast improvement and apparently the VVS thinks highly enough of them to refurbish/ modernize them at a time where they are looking to replace other assets. The negative views of the Mig-25 don’t reflect some western bias, it was a flawed aircraft like the Mig-23. The west has had it’s fair share i.e.: f-102, f-104, tornado ADV, B-58. Not to say that these aircraft were failures, but flawed.

I agree that the Mig-25 was a deeply flawed and misunderstood aircraft. The Mig-31 did introduce many significant upgrades, but it still must be considered in the context of its mission.

I don’t see why people here seem unable to examine aircraft on anything other than their merits as air superiority platforms.

Neither F-14 or MiG-25 decisively beat the other.

What do you consider 9 kills with 0 losses?

From Wiki, but citing an article Air and Space Magazine.

You are comparing 1.4 meter electronically scanned radar to a 922mm mechanically steered radar. You can compare APG-63 with N001 of Su-27 at best, then your point would be debatable. You can’t compare F-16’s radar with Su-27, or MiG-29’s radar with F-15. Same applies here, you cant even compare MiG-31’s radar with F-15 or Su-27.

Um, of course you can compare these radars. I hate to break it to you but antenna diameter is not a measure of performance independent of other factors, and even if the Mig had the theoretical performance advantage the real-world advantage would have to account for each aircraft’s RCS. (where here again the Mig-25/31 measures up poorly)

Not suprised, as you are uncompromisingly biased toward western equipment. What edge are you talking about exactly? AIM-7D missile had lower ceiling than MiG-25P; Putting, every factor aside; AIM-7 has ZERO Pk againist a MiG-25P operating high enough.

I am biased toward real world results. The AIM-7 has dozens and dozens of confirmed air to air kills, including at least two Mig-25s. Comparing the maximum altitude of the AIM-7 to the Mig-25 is pretty meaningless because the Mig-25 wouldn’t be operating there. (unless perhaps it were departing the fight entirely) Go read the article linked to earlier in this thread.

R-40 was a big missile, because a) it needed to maneuver at very thin air at altitude. Simple aerodynamics, more fin area more lift/maneuverability you will get. You can safely bet the house that R-40 missile will be FAR more maneuverable -and useful againist other fighters- than AIM-7 at above 40k feet. b) as air pressure is low at high alt., it needed a big warhead to buildup enough heat to create the air pressure required to kill its target, which AIM-7 clearly lags behind.

You are wrong, sorry. I also don’t know why you struggle to accept the sources that have been presented in this thread and others. The R-40 was absolutely not intended for use against fighters, we have numerous sources stating that. The AIM-7 on the other hand has scored kills on many dozens of fighters and a target at 40k would be well within it envelope.

Yeah right…. Tell that to the downed F-18’s pilot in gulf war. Two missiles, one IR one SARH guided are fired. Thats the doctrine for all soviet and current Russian aircraft. A rapid manuver from a approaching target (tracked at High PRF) would break the radar lock, and silence the RWR. Pretty happy scenario for the IR guided missile as IR seeker is now looking at the AB plume of the target, and as target is completely unaware of the second missile.

Yes, a Mig-25 scored Iraq’s one air to air kill of the war, but that tells us little in this case given that the F-18 wasn’t maneuvering.

What you fail to understand is THIS apperantly. MiG-25/31 DO enter the engagement at M2.5+ and 50k+ feet. That is actually what makes them unique in reality. M2.5 intercepts is what they are DESIGNED to do, and what they ROUTINELY do. Apperantly its you who fail to seperate specs from the reality.

No, they don’t. Go read the article provided again which spells this out clearly. If a Mig-25/31 attempted such a tactic the best it could hope to do would be to make a single pass before departing the fight completely. This sounds good in video games but it is not how these aircraft operate in the real world.

Now trying to prove your point with false facts? A PW-100 engined F-15C will not even accelerate to M2.0 with 4x AIM-7s and 4x AIM-9s on a STD DAY. A MiG-25/31 will go M2.83 on a STD DAY with full complement of air to air missiles. A MiG-25 could go M2.7 and 21+km altidude even with 4 FAB-500. Surely top speed is not directly related to accereation, but that should give an idea how much thrust MiG-25’s inlet/engine provide, and how much thrust it will have at M1.5.

I had actually started writing a long detailed response, and then I realized what a waste of time it would be. We have the actual combat results of the Mig-25 in the Iran/Iraq war and Desert Storm/NFZ. We have the results of an evaluation with the participation of an actual Mig-25 and pilot. We have the testimony of the pilot himself…. yet you find none of these convincing and would prefer to believe what you want. Go ahead I suppose, just don’t expect me to join you in fantasy land.

Not directly againist MiG-31, but they did developed F-22 to counter MiG-31, Su-27 and MiG-29. If US agreed with YOUR assesment, that F-15 had way better radar, missiles and equipment than MiG-31, Su-27 and MiG-29, there wouldn’t be any F-22 today.

I suggest you quote me when you want to attribute something to me.