The RAF Lightnings from Gütersloh tried their luck several times, when the F-104G had to follow low level corridors.
The slatted F-4s were formidable performers too.
In autum 1980 I had the opportunity to watch a battle day over Ramat David AB. The IDF-AF pitted its new F-16A/Bs against their F-4Es. But a vertical rolling scissor between both was breath-taking. I never saw such a demonstration of power and agility by a F-4 before. It took a very long time before the F-4 had to drop its nose and was “falling” from the sky. After that watch, I am convinced, that it is no good idea from a MiG-21 driver to go into a “energy-fight” against an experienced F-4 driver.
Flying “constant circles” in a given time did not impress me any longer, when lI got impressions from the power-egg. The F-4F-ICE survived the MiG-29 for different reasons.

Actually the MiG-21 does very well with rolling scissors or any maneuvers with rolling. It has a very fast “snap” roll (right up to 90 degrees). Just keep in mind that planes with short wingspans, low aspect ratios and delta wings, and especially with single engines tend to be quite good with rolls, especially towards the direction where the engine turns. The F-104 and the MiG-23 Flogger are also quite good in this too.

You missed the point. The satellite trajectory can be estimated, plotted and the missile guided to a likely interception point, even with update. For the satellite to figure out that its been targetted, it needs an online MAWS like system and terminal countermeasure systems, (unlikely on account of weight constraints), or last movement trajectory changes – again unlikely, the command has to come from ground based units, which are monitoring its status in realtime and trajectory changes alone can mission kill the sat by using up its fuel. The only reason why these systems didnt proliferate is on account of concerns over weaponizing space and the issue of space debris, which is why protest against the PRC picked up. Otherwise, people would have noted the missile test with interest but not commented- the PRCs security is its sovereign concern after all.

As someone has already pointed out, the test already has happened. That means the technical issues have been considered and dealt with. That means they have the inertial guidance system that can manage this. You have to work based on the empirical event that this has happened.

But a ship is a far harder target. You need to predict a unit which can do a variety of moves to escape, which can get better realtime intelligence, and even incorporate hard kill measures.

A ship hundreds of times larger than a satellite, moving at 30km an hour as opposed to orbital velocities in thousands of kilometers an hour, with a 500kg to 1000kg warhead with a proximity fuse and blast vs. a kinetic kill vehicle that requires direct impact, I can say the hitting the satellite is definitely much harder, not to mention in terms of real time tracking.

In my view, this entire ship killing BM is a load of crock used to play up the PRC threat by Fisher & co.

It was picked up by DoD, ONI, US think thanks like RAND and Heritage Foundation, originally by Chinese essays on this issue.

I would have dismissed it as crock myself, but there now is photographic proof from the PLA itself (yes the pics are official) that they are seriously testing it. Way ahead of what common opinion think the starting tests should be (after this decade).

The PRC itself is going for the far more sensible and achievable AShM angle, and coming up with iterative improvements to its existing AShMs.

You mean the PLAN is doing it. The PLAN does not control these land based systems.

Thats a good use of (at the end of the day) limited money, as no budget is infinite.

The PLAN’s budget may be limited, but remember, these land based systems (anything from a DF-15 and larger) are in the control of someone else (the PLA land army controls up to the DF-11). They belong to the 2nd Artillery, which has its own budget, robust communication and command structure—literally an elite army within an army itself, and which answers to no one but the CMC directly. Lets not forget this is multipurpose; it can also be used to take out air bases, so this is not purely an antiship function.

The “IS” system “istrebitel sputnikov” was the analagous system, to the Chinese ASAT, that the Russians devised for ASAT. It was fielded in 1968. You are congratulating yourselves for mastering technology the Russians cracked nearly 4 decades ago?.

Like Nick says there is a huge gulf in the challenge of tracking and intercepting a satellite and the challenge of localising, identifying, tracking and engaging a carrier group in open water which is, after all, the topic of debate.

The IS system is not analogous to the Chinese system. In fact, the IS system has the kill vehicles already on top of an orbital platform, which greatly lessens the distance traveled, and with it trajectory errors creeping into the flight path. Furthermore, the kill system uses a proximity blast, so it is not a one on one direct contact kill. With proximity explosion, you do not need a direct contact, and this provides you an error margin.

It is conceptual a good system especially since it reduces and makes up for margins of errors. However, co-orbital systems alone can be tracked from the ground and destroyed by other ASAT. Furthermore, there is a limit to the number of co-orbital systems you can put in space, and being observable, can be limited by treaty.

Ground based ASAT is the most difficult of all due to the extreme guidance and tracking requirements. The kill body is not launched from the convenience of space, but from straight from the ground, which means a completely stationary launch point without the speed boost of an orbital platform or a high speed aerial platform like a fighter. But it has many advantages. They are much more mobile and easier to hide, using silos, mobile TELs and potentially, even boomers. With hiding you can deploy any number with plausible deniability under a diplomatic front.

Far more capable. Just didn’t fly as high or as fast. 😉 BTW, imagine an F-104 with an APG-80, four AIM-9Xs and a pair of AIM-120s and a HMCS. Wouldn’t turn like an F-16 but I don’t imagine it would be much fun to play with.

Add a couple of F414s or PW1120. Sorry Scooter, F110 won’t fit on it. The largest turbofan you can fit on it were the Speys.

In theory, brand new F-4s, with modern radars, avionics and turbofans can play with 4th generation fighters in a hit and dash, vertical maneuver game, just don’t turn horizontal. The same can be said of the F-104. As strike fighters, modernized F-4s and F-104s can still do the job equally as well or better.

You will not grasp it as i feared it, despite my very simple Russian example.
Sticking to your view all stealth aircraft are 5th Generation and in that point I can agree someway.

There is nothing like a common defenition, what judges an aircraft 3rd generation or something strange like 4.5. Just some attempts to create something like a defenition. To stay credible, there have to be something like 1 and 1,5 a.s.o.
When the F-86 as swept-wing fighter could pass Mach 1, when the MiG-15s could not and there are many more examples.

Swing-wing did not create a new class as the VTOL example did. Just technical solutions to keep landing-speed and related landing-run under control. The Viggen showed another solution for that problem too.
None claims that the F-16A/B and F-16E/F are a same generation either.
Too many details again?!
The Russian did compare the MiG-23MF to the F-4 in the AD-role, the MiG-23ML to the F-16A/B and the MiG-29A to the F-16C/D, when it comes to the weapon-system. None have to stick to that, like the other way around.

For the benefit of all, why do you not give us the official Western defenition for generations.
When some time is left you can relate a MiG-9, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-19, MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-29 and MiG-31 to that defenition.
If a western example suits more, please try the F-104A built in the 50s with a F-104S.ASA built over a decade later.

You are totally unbelievable. You like to mire arguments full of tedious nitpicking and definition in order to artificially bend arguments for your sake.

If you can agree what is FIFTH GENERATION, you can certainly agree what is 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Generation.

Heck all you have to do is look at the time factors, the doctrinal factors, and the various crucial technology factors. I have already mentioned to you the various factors most would agree that would define generational change.

You can say MiG-9 is first generation, MiG-15 and -17 to be second generation. MiG-19 is between generations, while MiG-21 and 23 to be 3rd Generation. MiG-25 would be 3.5 or in between. Su-27 and MiG-29 is clearly fourth.

Now go empirically prove that the Starfighter and the Phantom are two different generations.

Hi all

Suppose a Su-27 pilot is engaging an enemy target with its IRST, he locks the target with the system. The pilot can fire its R-27R/ER or the IRST can only be used with R-27T/ET/R-73? The IRST can guide radar homing missiles?

Thanks in advance

Not according to the leaked manual or with any faithfully recreated simulations like LOMAC (which revised itself faithful to the manual in later patches).

The IRST is used only with the R-73 and R-27T/ET. The HMS though, can be used with the R-27R/ER.

😀 😀 😀

Indeed utterly predictable.

Bill Gertz
July 20, 2007

New Chinese missiles

China’s military this week quietly showed a new medium-range missile that is part of Beijing’s rapid military buildup of nuclear and conventional forces, according to a new think tank report.

Chinese Internet sites posted a photograph of what specialists say is the new Dong Feng-25 missile that could be used by China in a conflict with Taiwan, or to target U.S. forces in Japan and the region, said Richard Fisher, a specialist on the Chinese military and author of the forthcoming report by the International Assessment and Strategy Center in the Washington area.

“The apparent new medium- to intermediate-range missile constitutes another surprise” from China’s military, the report said. “China’s missile threat is likely to strengthen resolve in Tokyo and possibly Delhi to proceed with increased missile defense cooperation with Washington.”

Little is known about the new missile but the report stated it could have a range of up 1,860 miles or more depending on the warhead.

One Chinese Web site that first mentioned the missile on Sunday stated that it has a range of about 2,000 miles and can carry up to three multiple nuclear warheads.

The report also stated that China’s normally secretive military has revealed a new version of the DF-21 short-range missile, also known as the CSS-6, that is outfitted with an advanced guided warhead.

“The significance of these revelations is that China is upgrading its regionally targeted missile forces, which will soon pose additional threats to, among others, India, Russia, Japan, South Korea and to U.S. forces in the East Asian region,” Mr. Fisher said in an interview.

Mr. Fisher said the shorter-range DF-21 missile is China’s first anti-ship ballistic missile designed to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and other warships. New Chinese radar and photographic satellites are signs that the new anti-ship ballistic missile may be close to initial operational status, the report said.

The new anti-ship ballistic missile poses a serious threat to U.S. ships because “the U.S. does not have anti-missile capabilities to defend large U.S. ships against this threat, so vulnerable targets, most importantly aircraft carriers, will have to remain out of missile range in order to survive,” the report said.

The report also discloses for the first time that China has deployed its third Type 093 nuclear-powered attack submarine, which also was pictured for the first time this week on a Chinese Web site.

China’s government has said nothing about the new missiles and submarines.

Looking at the last statement, the guy is so clueless because all the pictures he mentioned from the Chinese web sites are all from the PLA 80th Anniversary exhibition. That’s already the Chinese government saying something.

It’s also not the DF-21 but the DF-15B.

Technology was jumping ahead in a similar pace like for computers in the 90s, most can remember of 286er, 386er, 486er, …..
When the MiG-21F from the 50s reached Mach 2 similar to the MiG-21PF a few years later. For the Russian the MiG-21F was a first generation Mach 2 fighter, when the MiG-21PF was a second generation Mach 2 fighter a.s.o.
Similar thing with a Mirage IIIC and Mirage IIIE f.e.

You are quoting different versions of the same basic aircraft type. How does that make it generationally different?

In the West we have exactly FIVE generation levels.

First Generation — Me-262, P-80 Shooting Star. The beginnings of the jet fighter age.

Second Generation — The Korean War age, sweep wing designs, hydraulic rudder controls, radar ranging gunsights. F-86, MiG-15.

Third Generation — Level flight supersonic speeds, use of all moving elevators, turbojets with afterburners, Full range pulse doppler radars in fully coned radome noses when applicable, guided AAMs, side intakes when applicable; variable intake for those applicable, first use of RWRs. Supersonic interception. First use of electronic countermeasures. High Sweep or Delta wing when applicable.

3.5 Generation — Above + variable wing.

Fourth Generation — Boyd’s EM theory; Exploitation of vortices in aerodynamic design (LERX); Composite construction; turbofan with afterburners often with nozzles; slotted array multimodal radar; near, in or past unity in TWR (min req .90); blended fuselage construction when applicable; twin rudders when applicable; relaxed stability when applicable; FBW when applicable.

4.5 Generation — Electronic scanning radar, canards.

5 generation — Very Low Observability Design, electronic scanning array radar. Sensor fusion, TVC.

The main difference was a fine-weather fighter compared to an all weather fighter. In Europe for example that was very important, if a fighter at hand could be scrambled every time or had to stay on the ground most of the time.
The “lessons” from Vietnam and John Boyd’s theories did last for a decade only, till the technology reached the exspected level really. The Vietnam War was much different compared to a full scale war in Europe. But I see, too much details for some.

These reasons are shallow, as if you think the difference between the MiG-21F and MiG-21PF should be a full generation. Generational differences are very deep, much deeper than that. The lessons from Vietnam and Boyd’s theories are still with us today. The Starfighter also happens to be a full weather interceptor and night fighter.