These topics do tend to become proxies for disconcerting general points of view, ignorances and misconception and hence will often carry ill will sheathed in discussion. Even heavily moderated forums find this.

For example Graham Adlam’s post #25 displays a remarkable political ignorance as counterpoint to fairly relevant comments made by JDK, however arguing them further is to detract the thread from topic. One can only say it is disconcerting and leave it be, or open a separate thread for discussion of international and domestic German politics in the interwar period, the Reichstag model of parliamentary government enforced by the Treaty of Versailles and its shortcomings, and how Hitler was placed in power and by whom.
It is simply childish to continue, into adulthood the assumption that in parliamentary democracies populations all get together with the authority of the masses and elect their favourite randoms into leading office, it’s tantamount to the assumption monarchs inherit their rule by magical swords pulled from stones.

The only government which actually attempted to work on the basis of direct political representation in policy was the Bolshevik (meaning “majority rule” but in practise unionist thugs run everything).
Parliamentarianism isn’t Bolshevik, and the Reichstag was modelled on Westminster (pointedly mentioned in Mein Kampf).
And Hitler’s emergency powers of State were given to him by Hindenburg, not the People nor even the Reichstag, for the purposes of answering a domestic terrorist threat (assassinations of local politicians and major arson by extremists, the burning down of the Reichstag marked the high point, the marketing of this wasn’t much different to the US war on terror today and the institution of the Patriot Act and other mediaeval US policies like Special Rendition, it’s a direct parallel).

Secondly political and intellectual views are not national phenomenae, to suggest otherwise is to make a claim of eugenics, which just happens to be the exact form of racism the Nazis had. They were quite intellectual about it, at the same time completely stupid. Saying Germans have more tendency to a given political view than British is beyond ridiculous and lay in complete ignorance of the fact that you have an identical subject in both cases, human beings and inherently the discussion is of environmental conditions among which any humans are likely to react similarly, no matter if the parents that spawned them copulated and conceived standing on a rock in Wales at the time or in Siberia. It would make absolutely no difference.

For prosperity I support monuments to the RAFBC crews that lost their lives. Not sure I support one for the BC command structure as it is in part a political body and it does bring up the many controversies. It’s like a monument to bullets instead of people shot by them.

My family’s from Bremen, I’m first gen Aussie. Unfortunately grandparents were indeed faithful Nazi however, but at least I got a few anecdotal insights growing up to balance out topical research, certain things I recall my grandparents pointing out as misconceptions have since appeared in mainstream publication. Some things they had misconceptions themselves, mostly about the organisation and role of the SS which was presented to the general public very differently to its actual functions.

Passing on awareness to later generations doesn’t mean slamming them politically backwards with the same animosities and hard feelings as the time generated, that was in part the environment of war. It means taking a step back and finding ever more reasonable ways to view the facts, research, collate and reiterate them, without personal agendas. Patriotism is a personal agenda.

Iran has no nuclear weapons. The only suggestion they ever had or could develop nuclear weapons in the immediate future was an ambiguous NATO Intelligence report that they received around a dozen cruise missiles from Ukraine in 1991 in a black market weapons deal (Kitchens I think). Bush used this for justification of the Bulgarian US tactical bases and stockpiling ammunition dumps in Romania as part of a mutual assistance pact with that country. The US also sent military advisors to Georgia.
This also sparked the troubles with the Russian Federation which centred upon the European Missile Defence project of the Bush dynasty.

In any case it was confirmed in about 1998 the cruise missiles received had conventional warheads and that Iran has no nuclear capability. At all. The only thing they have, which is a crime in the United States is a shoreline on a major oil table. They can access the Caspian Sea oil table directly with wells, the US wants it.

It was an unusually reasonable post by Schorsch but nevertheless in CWC combat trim the MiG-31 is 25 tons, not 40 tons. That’s with 4000kg of fuel plus (CWC) weapons.

At 25 tons the Foxhound has comparable wing loadings and finepoints as any other all metal 4th gen fighter type. This continual persistance of dogging the MiG-31 as an ocean liner in fighter manoeuvrability is just erroneous.

It’s not as manoeuvrable as the teen series, but it aint that bad. It’s better than any 3rd gen.

It’d be helpful if we left out disengenuous comments. The 6 target capability was with AIM-54s, not Sparrows. Every AMRAAM model, from A-D has had multi-target capability.

This isn’t accurate either. Theoretically, if an F-15 was carrying 8 AMRAAMs, it could engage 8 targets simultaneously. Of course this wouldn’t be the likely situation. More often than not, you’d have more than 1 missile fired at a single target to help improve the probability of a kill(and this is true with Russian planes too).

More inaccurate commentary- F-14s early on demonstrated firing 6 Phoenix missiles at 6 targets. Early AMRAAMs had multi-target capability too. The Sparrow never had multi-target capability.

I’ve been talking with development staff for the DCS series of flight sims who state based on their research of all qualified sources the early series amraam doesn’t have multi target engagement because of its single datalink channel, but current versions have two datalinking channels. Their sources include military pilots who I’ve also spoken to (staff members at the combat ace forum, one is ex-B-1B pilot, another is an ex-Viper pilot but I haven’t spoken to them myself specifically about the amraam thing, this is from the ED development team for the DCS).

Also the AIM-54 test I’ve just become aware of, as I continued researching since my post yesterday and found test footage of the Tomcat prototype, presently the only example I’ve been able to find of multiple, simultaneous target engagement.
However noteworthy is the presentation of the test data is ambiguous and it may very well be that each subsequent missile was fired after the previous one went active. For one it has been stipulated on said forums (which whilst not an academic reference certainly, as mentioned the culture of membership is often very qualified), that the AIM-54 do not use mid course update by datalink (the R33 does), but is straight SARH until the seeker goes active.

So firstly the AIM-54 should have no capability more than sparrows for multiple target engagement until the seeker goes active.

Secondly the wording of the Tomcat prototype test firing presentation (I have the original footage on dvd I bought at the ABC shop yesterday) was that “due to the range of the targets, at one time there were six missiles in the air at the same time” but the footage shows quite some delay between the firing of each individual missile, so that it is realistic to me that it was facilitated by active seeker homing and not multiple datalinking procedures or multiple frequency SARH channels (although the latter is also a possibility but even so I do not think it is a normal operational procedure and that multiple frequency radar emission is meant for ECCM and not multiple target engagements).

The AWG-9 could track 24 targets at once and attack six at once. Also, how about comparing the Zalson to the APG-71 (the radar in the F-14D) rather than the ancient AWG-9?

“The APG-71 was a 1980s upgrade of the AWG-9 for use on the F-14D. It incorporates technology and common modules developed for the APG-70 radar used in the F-15E Strike Eagle, providing significant improvements in (digital) processing speed, mode flexibility, clutter rejection, and detection range. The system features a low-sidelobe antenna, a sidelobe-blanking guard channel, and monopulse angle tracking; all of which are intended to make the radar less vulnerable to jamming.

The system itself is capable of a 460 mile (740 km) range, but the antenna design limits this to only 230 miles (370 km). Use of datalinked data allows two or more F-14D’s to operate the system at its maximum range.”

Some of these radar capabilities are manufacturer release data under a veil of national security, it is my contention they are figurative expressions since it is demonstrated actual multiple engagement capabilities of sparrow are single targets at a time, same with initial amraams but the newer models can launch on two targets if they are to receive course updates from the launch aircraft.

In other words it appears the expression “engage six targets simultaneously” in actual service use translates to piggybacking up to six multiple frequencies on one target lock. It is an expression therefore of ECM resistance and not multiple target engagement in real world terms.

Because of english translation the Russians are more direct, when describing their radar capabilities directly from translation, they say quite clearly rather than “engage so many targets at once” they say, “this set piggybacks (two or however many) multiple frequencies on a target lock to improve ECM resistance.”
That’s the hint.

Of course active seekers on missiles change this nomenclature but only once the seekers have turned active (at close range), then the director aircraft can switch lock to another target, not before.

Newer model amraams though can be launched on up to two separate targets under launch aircraft direction which has something to do with their datalinking software. No sparrow or early amraams can do this. I’d find it unlikely 70s datalinking tech on the AIM-54 would be much different to an early series amraam, but it is possible I guess due to their sheer size, I would guess a maximum of two simultaneous aircraft direction launches (datalinking) at the end of their service life when the better Tomcat radar was being equipped. But I don’t think even that’s the case, it’s been explained to me before the AIM-54 uses straight SARH instead of datalink mid flight, which puts it back to sparrow territory until the seeker goes active.

Also about half the Tomcat fleet remained 14A just with updated engines to the end so had AWG-9.

Remembering that we are talking about things still classified and prone to disinformation and loose terminology under military secrecy, what we would want to reference is actual combat records demonstrating multiple simultaneous target engagment with missiles under launch aircraft direction at the same time, onto more than one target, and even then restrict our assumptions to only that number on record for aircraft type.

So far I’ve read of only singular targets engaged one at a time sometimes with multiple launches, by any aircraft type in actual combat records. Most often any variation is multiple aircraft targeting one enemy aircraft and multiple launches on it. Not the other way around.
I can’t categorically say what their capabilities are, but it does certainly appear pilots whether in Eagles or any other modern bird seem to prefer singular target engagements at a time, whether the Israelis or anyone else is the operator, even in a furbee.

So my question is naturally, does anyone have any solid example of multiple targets being engaged by a singular aircraft with simultaneous missile launches under launch aircraft course update control, ever anywhere?

I reiterate that I think it is an expression of ECCM capability of the radar set during traditional single target engagement and not one of multiple target engagements in real world terms. It’s just using loose terminology the way military security would have you, but whilst maintaining export market interest by expressing in some fashion at least, your product’s superduper new capabilities.

Also those features you described don’t deal with ECM, they deal with signal clutter.

The maximum wing loading on the Foxhound is about 50% greater than the Eagle but it has nearly three times the internal fuel capacity, max power loading is similar. Ideally turn combat would be at minimum necessary internal fuel loads.

Once again ratings are, for a transonic turn under similar conditions 3G for a Phantom, 7 for a Hornet or Tomcat, 9 for a Viper or Eagle and 5 for a Foxbat, 7.5 for a Flogger and 7 for a MiG-21.

I’m going to go with these published figures over all the salesmanship speculation by self proclaimed aeronautics experts.

Again I’ll reference Foxbat appraisals, keeping in mind the Foxhound is a much newer, greatly improved aircraft with better capabilities.

Western Fighter Comparisons –

Lest you think that I am implying that the Foxbat is not a capable aircraft, especially in performance, you might consider the abilities of Western fighters. The F-16 can just barely squeak past Mach 2.0 with a pair of tip ‘winders. The F-14 can only manage Mach 1.81. And the mighty Eagle is only good for Mach 1.78. The Foxbat can outclimb all of these fighters by a healthy margin, and has a mauch better supersonic endurance than the best Western fighter. Furthermore, the Foxbat has demonstrated the ability to outrun all U.S. frontline fighters at low altitude. The Foxbat is hardly a dud.

Gulf War Experience –

Did you know that a MiG-25PD recorded the only Iraqi air-to-air kill of the Gulf War? It dropped an F-18C on the first night of the war–then went on to fire another missile at an A-6 and buzz an A-7, all while avoiding escorting F-14s and F-15s.

An isolated incident? How about the single Iraqi Foxbat-E that eluded eight sweeping F-15s then tangled with two EF-111As, firing three missiles at the Ravens and chasing them off station. Unfortunately, the Ravens were supporting an F-15E strike, and the EF-111’s retreat led to the loss of one of the Strike Eagles to a SAM. Oh BTW, the Foxbat easily avoided interception and returned safely to base.

There’s more. When F-15 pilots were fighting for the chance to fly sweeps east of Baghdad late in the war, itching for a chance to get a shot at an Iraqi running for Iran, they weren’t expecting the fight that a pair of Foxbats put up. Two Foxbats approached a pair of F-15s, fired missiles before the Eagles could get off shots (the missiles were evaded by the Eagles), then outran those two Eagles, four Sparrows and two Sidewinders fired back at them. Two more Eagles maneuvered to cut the Foxbat’s off from their base (four more Eagles tried, but were unable to effect an intercept), and four more Sparrows were expended in vain trying to drop the Foxbats.

The Iraqis had a total of twelve MiG-25PDs at the beginning of the war, of which maybe half were operational at any given time. Imagine what trouble they would have caused if there had been more. The Foxbats, when well flown, proved capable of engaging allied fighters and avoiding them at will. Only the limitations of their weapons proved a problem.

Once again nobody is calling the Foxhound superman in a plane. Hardly. The only concession being requested for consideration is that it is a dangerous modern warplane that doesn’t deserve such ridiculous contentions such as handling like the Titanic and only being capable of engaging satellites.

It isn’t “a Blackbird only not as good” which so plainly is the agenda of contention here.
It doesn’t fly like one, it doesn’t operate in the same envelope as one and doesn’t have anything like the mission criteria of one. Most importantly it doesn’t fly like one.

It flies much more like a regular warplane with a similar construction and weights/measures than it does something like a specialised X-plane being taken out of its element.

You can’t get an Eagle air superiority handling from something that was designed for upper performance envelope, but keep in mind the Eagle and its kind are a huge leap forward from 3rd and 2nd gen types like the Fishbed and Phantom, even F-111 (the RAAF name for it is the Pig though it’s a term of endearment and there’s no question as to its musclebound performance capabilities).

What is being completely discounted is the fact virtually all 2-3rd gen warbirds were single purpose designs too with limited genuine multirole capability, the Phantom was a window to the future sure but still loaded and in service it doesn’t dogfight like a Hornet, a Hornet can literally run rings around a Phantom and despite being capable of impressive high speed runs on a closed circuit it is an extremely circumstantial event, Fishbeds are celebrated as more manoeuvrable and faster in every way to a Phantom most particularly at altitude (Phantom’s excess thrust gave it some low alt advantages over Fishbeds).
And average in service speed capabilities were actually reduced somewhat from the close of the 2nd gen hotrod era, which could routinely nudge past 2 Mach in combat trim. It dropped to more like a mid 1.6 Mach loaded in service average but with a limited multirole capability and much better handling. You wouldn’t try to dogfight a Viper in a Starfighter and clean and prepared the maximum speeds were the same.
The new era of 4th gen seemed to develop further the transonic capabilities of warbirds, the emphasis on dogfight and intercept capability, with a genuine multirole functionality.

Hence they’re superb, Eagles, Vipers, Hornets, they’re brilliant. Probably better than the Foxhound/Fulcrum competition of their time (Eagle was a bit ahead of its time).
Nobody’s arguing with that.

But Foxhounds aren’t ocean liners designed for the Blackbird’s job. They’re warbirds, maybe not as good as certain contemporaries in given circumstances, but surely you’d feel a bit outdone in Phantoms and F-5s if some were coming into your combat zone. The published figures seem to directly infer this, with only personal argumentation without truly celebrated reference to counter it.

I still say a complacent Eagle pilot is in trouble against one even in CWC if he started acting like he had every advantage and could just wade in like Clint Eastwood. He would have to think very carefully, and use his aircraft advantages against the Foxhound’s disadvantages, keeping in mind it could go the reverse way just as easily.
Foxhounds do have certain performance advantages contemporaries just don’t, and they’re not as disadvantaged in thick air and handling and technology as is being claimed, not according to celebrated sources such as I don’t know, Mikoyan and MiG pilots.

Most of the arguments against the Foxhound here fit the Foxbat more, and don’t even fit that as much being some of it was Cold War propaganda (such as its inability to engage fighter like targets at lower altitudes capably, proved wrong by combat experience in the Middle East).
And there is a complete absence of data to deride the Zaslon/R33 package. There’s no reason it should not be regarded as claimed by the manufacturer, which is capable and effective among western contemporaries.

I dunno guys, it always seems to degenerate into competitive refute of certain modern warbirds combat capabilities, the Flanker is no good, or the Eagle is no good, or the Foxhound is no good and the Foxbat was a waste of money.

All I wanted was the concession that under some conditions a Foxhound is a genuine threat to a modern force, conditions which are the entire purpose of effective military strategum and combat tactics.

Yet for example…there seems to be this ridiculous contention the Foxhound is like the Blackbird as a dogfighter. It aint. It’s nothing like that.

What do you suppose the turning circle of a Foxhound at M2+ would be, in terms of a 180/360 degree turn? Slightly better than an SR-71. Certainly not enough to evade an AIM-7M if launched within correct parameters.

Not slightly better than an SR-71. Blackbirds are restricted in bank limits and aren’t allowed to make more than 1.5G turns at speed, for aerodynamic reasons mostly and the fact the inlet geom thrust control at high Mach means you flameout if you lay down any G in a turn. At similar speeds Mikoyan claims a 5G figure, but we’re not talking about cruising at 30km altitude and 3.2 Mach here, more like 13km and a 2.8 Mach dash.

The Blackbird is more like an X-Plane than a warbird, the Foxhound is more like a warbird than an X-Plane. The closest comparison for a Foxhound for weight, layout and structure would be an F-111 which was originally designed for the Tomcat’s role.

In any case if making a turn comparison, the Foxhound turns much more like an Eagle than a Blackbird. But then if we compared the Foxhound among familiar interceptor warbirds it is much closer to a Phantom for handling than an Eagle. It’s pretty much exactly halfway between a Phantom and a Tomcat.

Attributing Foxhounds with Blackbird like handling is one of the utterly ridiculous misconceptions frequently claimed about these warbirds.

The fact is a complacent Eagle driver can get downed by a persistant Fishbed, in a dogfight. In exactly the same fight a Foxhound will probably do the same thing.

It isn’t a modern dogfighter no, but don’t confuse being roughly like a heavy 3rd gen in the 4th-5th gen age, with handling like an ocean liner.

In the exact same transonic turn attempt/conditions a Phantom will do 3G, a Hornet or a Tomcat will do 7G, an Eagle or Viper will do 9G and a Foxhound will do 5G.
Use that as your measure.

Speculation versus speculation Kapedani. I prefer mine. You may yours, that’s your right. It’s just speculation.

I have detailed combat reports of Ethiopian versus Eritrea encounters, including commentary by surviving pilot. Like I said, I prefer my speculation to yours.