So we have an aircraft that entered service a decade ago, an aircraft of uncertain configuration and development status, and an aircraft that exists as drawings alone. Even by ‘vs.’ standards this is rather questionable.

For once we agree…

How about Optimus Prime:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235480[/ATTACH]

Versus…

The Kraken! :

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235481[/ATTACH]

I wonder how much Indian bureacracy will put potential foreign partners off. If a country sees an opportunity of co-developing with India but needs things to happen according to schedule because it will need to retire old frames in x years etc, teaming up with a partner saddled with administrative nightmares seems very risky to me.

They are notoriously difficult to work with, no doubt. They also seem to think they can get everything on a silver platter, a state of the art aircraft, 100% tech transfer, complete local production, and all at an affordable price and on a reasonably short timeline…

If they had just signed a contract for some essentially off the shelf aircraft they could have already received all the planes they needed…instead here they are 10 years later with an unworkable contract and still flying Mig-21s.

This is a perfect example of why the whole tech transfer business is usually a waste of time for everyone involved. Usually by the time the new technology is assimilated it is no longer current, and that assumes it is ever truly assimilated at all. Typically this can only happen if the country in question already has an advanced industrial base.

Look at Brazil, in many ways they are almost a best-case scenario because they already have a significant domestic aviation industry, but they are going to be “jointly” developing and producing a derivative variant of a 4th generation fighter, without a domestic engine or avionics, and only becoming fully operational in the early 2020s.

Similar timelines would apply to India if they signed the MMRCA contract today. They would be lucky to have their first “domestic” production aircraft enter real service by 2020, twenty years after the Rafale entered service and roughly 30 years after the first Rafale C prototype flew…

This finally sounds like it may be the real deal.

I wish I could say the Egyptians were getting something they actually needed, but this is certainly a big win for Dassault.

Any word yet on what variant/weapons they are getting?

Sorry, but I have to ask, how old are you. . .because what you have wrote has no sense whatsoever?!

This is from the text you posted:

“When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds.”

Missile travel time till impact was 30 seconds.
That is all you need to calculate the distance missile flew if you have the speed of the missile. What is all that talk about Mig-29 flying in that direction F-16 flying in this direction. . .?

Luckily we have the speed data for the missile in the text you posted:

“The AMRAAM, credited with a speed of over 4,000km/h,would be capable of covering a distance of more than 33km in 30 seconds. According to RNLAF personnel at Amendola, the head-on missile intercept took place 18km from the lead F-16.“

What I find funny is that they simply used AIM-120 top speed for calculation and got the 33km for the range missile is fired on Mig-29.
That is painfully unrealistic because missile doesn`t have the instant acceleration, it takes time to reach top speed. AIM-120 from that era doesn`t have the motor burn time of 30 seconds which means it can not sustain its max speed for that long. In other words, the missile will start to decelerate and if we rightfully assume that missile needs to do a little bit of maneuvering its average speed would be far less than 4000 km/h. If we for example take average speed of 3000 km/h for 30 sec. flight, we get the range of 25 km.

Far more realistic, and I can`t figure it out how did you come with more than 50 km shot?

On a second look, my math is indeed off. (though so is yours…)

If we assume (for simplicity) that the AMRAAM does indeed travel 4,000km/h then you could quickly calculate how far the AMRAAM traveled in 30 seconds.

You are correct that the AMRAAM wouldn’t average 4,000km/h, but you also have to account for the fact that the Mig-29 was likely flying toward the missile. You have to add its speed to the missile’s. (remember, when people talk about a missile’s range they are actually talking about the distance between the target and the shooter at the time of launch, not just the distance covered by the missile itself) I would say that it is quite possible this was a 30+km shot. Still well into BVR territory, even if this had been during the day.

What? There are only 9 confirmed AIM-120 kills so far its introduction. Both R-73 and AIM-9 missiles have more kills than that.
Of that 9 AIM-120 kills, 5 have disclosed (IDK about reliability but) firing range;
In 1992, F-16 againist a MiG-25, at 6 km
In 1994, F-16 againist a J-21, at 12 km
In 1999, F-15 againist MiG-29, at 10 km (Capt Jeff Hwang)
In 1999, F-15 againist MiG-29, at 25 km (Lt.Col Rodriguez)
In 1999, F-15 againist MiG-29, at 10 km (Capt Mike Shower)

You may argue whether 25km is WVR or BVR (IMHO its both), but rest are all clearly WVR ranges despite shot by a BVR missile. One MiG-29 were also shot down by an AIM-7M due to AIM-9 being unable to lock, (another MiG hit the ground same day while turning with F-15s)

This is one of those long running points of confusion among a certain crowd on the internet…

Let me start by saying that by no reasonable definition is 25km ever WVR.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225505[/ATTACH]

What constitutes “visual range” varies widely depending on the aircraft involved and the conditions. Sure you might technically be able to “see” an aircraft several dozens of miles away under exactly the right conditions. (if the aircraft and/or its contrail is illuminated by a setting or rising sun against a dark sky…) That doesn’t mean you are suddenly “WVR” and in a dogfight.

Even at a range of 10-12km you are only at the very edge of WVR combat in the sense of BFM/dogfighting and you might not even be within visual range in a literal sense if conditions are less than ideal and/or the aircraft you are looking for is small.

The next thing you have to consider is that when people talk about a missile’s range, they are generally referring to the distance between the launch aircraft and the target at the time the missile is fired. In head-on engagements the target aircraft will actually cover a significant portion of the distance itself. If an intercept occurs at 10km, 12km, 15km, or whatever, the missile was quite possibly fired while the target was farther away.

For example:

“At 19.30hr local time four F-16AMs took off from here for a fighter escort mission to protect one of the first NATO strike packages. After an in-flight refuelling over the Adriatic Sea, the flight crossed over Albania into Serbia. Upon entering Serbian airspace, they were informed by AWACS that three MiG-29 aircraft had taken off from an air base near Belgrade,” Col Abma said.

That base is understood to have been Batajnica, home of the Yugoslav Air Force’s only MiG-29 unit, the 127th Fighter Aviation Squadron ‘Knights’. Col Abma said: “The four F-16AMs headed out toward the threat, working to detect the MiGs on their own radars. Subsequently, one of the MiGs was picked up by all four F-16s. When within range, our flight leader fired one AMRAAM against the MiG. It was an instant hit, after a flight of 30 seconds.”

The AMRAAM, credited with a speed of over 4,000km/h,would be capable of covering a distance of more than 33km in 30 seconds. According to RNLAF personnel at Amendola, the head-on missile intercept took place 18km from the lead F-16.

“The pilot involved visually saw a fiery explosion. At the same time, the AWACS recorded that the MiG disappeared from the scope,” Col Abma said. “We have never seen the other MiG-29s, but around the same time two US F-15s shot down two of those aircraft.“

Col Abma said that the rules of engagement (ROEs) for air-to-air engagements require that the target has been tracked by AWACS throughout its flight, and that four other parameters also must be met. Other RNLAF officers said that among those are a positive IFF identification and an approval from the mission commander.

Flying in the air defence role, the F-16AMs at Amendola each carried four AMRAAMs, two external fuel tanks and a Northrop Grumman ALQ-131 ECM pod. In addition four of the eight aircraft also carried two Raytheon AGM-65G Maverick air-to-ground missiles each.

http://kosova.org/post/Operation-Allied-Force-How-Dutch-F-16AMs-shot-down-a-Mig-29

Several points to consider from this account.

1. The missile impacted the target 18km away, but given the time of flight it is likely the missile was fired at a significantly greater range.

2. Although the pilot saw the explosion(at night), even in daylight this would have been a BVR engagement.

3. With wing tanks, a jamming pod, and (in the case of 4 aircraft) Maverick missiles in addition to the AMRAAMs these F-16s were not in an air show configuration.

4. Two other Mig-29 kills took place that same night, and considering that it was night… both were easily BVR.

The pilot from the article has actually been posting in the comments section as well. He offered these additional comments on the F-35:

Being an adherent to the saying that a wise man acknowledges his mistakes and a fool defends his; I was probably a little harsh on my assessment of the F-35. But those opinions were formed through my exposure to things going on at Nellis. Did I bite off on chaff? I will stand by my comment that the three variants and the required commonality between the three results in performance penalties, especially for the A and the C models.

After discussions with an old engineer friend of mine, who was also one of John Boyd’s guys, the F-35 actually has a higher fuel fraction than the F-22 and, therefore, potentially better range. I also talked to someone who recently checked out in the Lightning II and his description of fuel burn rips holes in my previous opinion. Scratch that off the list.

The new F-35 pilot was also impressed with acceleration in a certain subsonic speed regime. So I’ll concede that. The F-35 will never have the raw dogfighting potential of the F-16, but the different customers bought off on that. Not a requirement? I always figured it was better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it. A former HH-60 pilot and coworker of mine always jests about fighters not really needing guns. The previous statement is my normal comeback.

Regardless, the fighter pilots that fly and will fly the F-35 could take any airplane they get and figure how to be lethal with it and dominate any enemy. Of than I’m certain.

So, in the end, the Lightning II is not such a pig after all. It has great avionics and will do fine. The program has still cost too much and has been poorly managed by the DoD and Lockheed/Martin. But that’s another story.

Would I still rather fly the Raptor? You bet. I guess in the end you got to dance with what brung ya. In my case, back to the beginning with two tails and two engines. The Raptors do mostly air-to-air (as far as I know); and for that mission, mission planning isn’t much more than filling out a line-up card. At my age now, that’s all the attention span I’ve got.

I’d also build more Raptors and upgraded Vipers and Eagles. Heck, I want it all. Back to the Ronnie Reagan 40 fighter wings and a fighter jet in every garage!!

Peace out,

Spanky

Seems to be a pretty reasonable assessment overall, funny how quickly peoples’ opinion of the F-35 changes once they get past some of the hysterical “sky is falling” reporting that is so common in the press and actually talk to a pilot who has flown one. Sadly, this demonstrates that the press have had some success in their anti-F-35 campaign, sufficiently so that even some otherwise well informed individuals have a negatively skewed view of the F-35.

The good news is that the community of actual F-35 pilots is growing rapidly at this point.

Instead of providing another dozen of emoticon loaded reponses, please do something useful for a change and provide the actual range for AIM-120A/B AMRAAM fired against a target at the same altitude. Head-on and tail-on, thank you..

Review time again it seems.

Andraxxus claimed: “R-27RE has 234% range of AIM-120B; its effective KILL range is 31% greater than AIM-120A’s MAX range. “

The problem of course is that that assumes the launch aircraft is shooting with the maximum allowable altitude difference between the launch aircraft and the target. Do you know what the max altitude difference is for the R-27ER is? … 12km (39,370 ft)

Are you getting it yet? :confused:

Our friend is making claims like: “if you ve F-16 pilot, irrelevant if enemy’s missile has low PK because its SARH, there is a 2-3 minute flight in the 60km zone where enemy can shoot and you can’t.”

All based around the idea that the R-27 has vastly greater range than the AMRAAM… so long as the Mig is flying ~40,000 ft higher than its target. :stupid:

If you can’t see how that is a breathtakingly dishonest way to structure a comparison you require some serious remedial education.

Like I said, this is an APA/fankiddie comparison of the worst kind. Grab a number that is perhaps true under some extraordinary circumstances (40k ft altitude difference) and then take that number and try to apply it to a completely different scenario, leading to ridiculous conclusions.

In response to your question about the range of AIM-120A and AIM-120B, Wikipedia claims 55-75km for AIM-120A/B. Of course I don’t know how far an AIM-120A could go if you fired it at a target 40k ft lower than your aircraft… :rolleyes: