Eagle

What i meant is the trend is to create lighter aircraft does not mean they are lighter than the previous generation, for Example a MiG-21 is 6 tonnes lighter than an F-16, considering that means that a MiG-21 is the light fighter and the F-16 the heavy weight fighter, the P-39 aircobra is several times lighter than a MiG-21, and the MiG-21 is definitively several times heavier than a BF-109.

The JAS-39 is not fifth generation aircraft, it is a 4.5 generation aircraft, to be a fifth generation fighter any aircraft need the 3 S`: Supercruise, Stealth and Supermaneuvrability, the JAS-39 has not the 3 S`.

The F-35 is a single seat version of the F-22 optimized to be a multirole, but in the air to air it is definitively a lght weight fighter in the fifth generation specially when it can carry ASRAAMs and AIM-9Xs

Yes, very true. One reason why small fighters grow in size in the first place, is that the engines they are build around of, keeps growing bigger and more powerful. Ever since the Sopwith Camel, the general idea of designing a fighter is to build an airframe around an engine. Same with the Me-109, same with the F-16, and same with the JSF.

There is also a greater dichotomy between weight and size.

The F-35 weighs nearly as much as an F-15 but is physically a lot smaller. The F-16C weighs two tons more than a JF-17 and yet the JF-17 is nearly the same length. For that matter there is only a foot of difference in length between the JF-17 and the F-35, but the weight is like 5 to 6 tons different. Of course the wings are much bigger on the F-35 and so on, but not enough to account for that 5 to 6 tons. The difference is attributed to a lot of other things, much bigger and heavier though far more powerful engine, as well as all sorts of avionics and structural reinforcement crammed into it. The F-35 is a lot denser than the F-15, which itself is a pretty beefy airframe.

Sounds like you need a basic course on air-to-air combat.

The F-15 offers a radar with a much greater detection range. It is also faster, and it can operate very high, which means the missiles being fired at BVR range such as AIM-7 or AIM-120 get more kinetic energy thus more range meaning your F-16 despite being armed with AIM-120’s of its own still cannot launch its weapons at the same range as an F-15. Thus, the F-15 not only gets first look with its longer-ranged radar, but it has time to get into a better firing position (i.e. high altitude and high speed), and thus get the first shot, and likely the first kill.

I’m not sure how much the range advantage the F-15 has with its radar. The APG-63 had a detection range of 56nm, which is around 90 to 100km. At that time it was okay, because when the APG-66 first came out, the tracking range was something around 60 to 80km roughly, with the maximum instrument display reading at 140km . When the APG-68 came out, the maximum instrument display reading was 300km, and the detection ranges was anywhere between 80 to 100km.

The closing in the gap was due to the fact that the APG-68 was chronologically released later and enjoy more technological improvements, so that it matched the APG-63. The APG-63 did not get that much updates, with the APG-70 later coming on for the Strike Eagles and the APG-63V1 as an overall upgrade to the APG-70 Strike Eagles and the APG-63 equipped F-15s. The ROK Eagles use the APG-63V1. We will not add AESA here for the moment but stick to the mechanical arrays. I don’t really know what the ranges are for the APG-70 and APG-63V1.

The APG-68 on the other hand, went up to V9, with V10 proposed as an upgrade to the USAF F-16s (but seems to have canceled).

In close obviously the tables are turned, but the whole point of BVR combat is to ensure that the enemy doesn’t get close enough to deal any damage to you.

The truth remaining, BVR combat often generates into WVR fights. Close in speeds are so high, that merge is inevitable.

The F-16 is a very capable air-to-air fighter don’t get me wrong, but in an overall sense the F-15 is a better air-to-air performer. It was designed to be an air superiority fighter though while the F-16 was originally designed as primarly a daylight AIM-9/guns dogfighter.

Both are good at air-to-air combat, but the F-15 is better in an overall sense.

That’s traditional thinking. Yet I wonder how it plays out in exercises. I have yet to see a dominant picture played against F-16s.

Even if the F-15 has a detection advantage, the F-16 has a much smaller RCS. This cuts into the F-15’s detection range. The F-15 on the other hand, has a large signature, the result of this being, the F-16 will detect the F-15 higher than its paper ranges, which is rated against the MiG-21.

Now if you claim that the AMRAAM gets better kinetic push from the F-15’s speed, I can also claim that the AMRAAM seeker has its work assisted by the F-15’s large radar signature, and its work cut out against the F-16’s smaller radar signature.

I doubt that the F-15 will have the instantaneous turn rate of the F-16, which is around 28 deg/sec. STR should be about even. However, I doubt that the F-15 can match the F-16’s sheer roll rate, which as much as 325 deg/sec can be achieved in the first 90 degs. The F-16 also has relaxed stability (the F-15 doesn’t) and LERXs so it can pull those alphas faster and tighter.

By the way, the F-16 was designed by fighter pilots and for fighter pilots in mind.

There are some misconceptions that I like to clarify.

The problem I have with SOC’s article is the JF-17 is just too new! Its not even out of flight testing yet and it doesn’t have a full avionic suite.

It is out of basic flight testing and already has a full avionic suite, though that may be further upgraded in the future. It does appear to be in the stage of testing the avionics, with radar and full cockpit already. The apparent speed and lack of vices in the flight program can give clues about the flight behavior of the aircraft. One can say its off to a very good start.

Development programs tend to be very rocky, and often times frustrating. Even a program that happened went record time like the Ching Kuo had its splash, causing the nickname “I Don’t Fly”.

The answer is ‘educated guess’ based on:

1. The appearance of the aircraft that largely determines its ‘would be’ performance in the air. JF-17 does’nt have the look of a 4th generation fighter. It has no apparent features that would make it as maneuverable as the other 4th generation fighters such as canards. It still lacks full FBW which just adds to the handling problems. It has no stealthy features whatsoever.

This is not completely true. Don’t look at the rather plain fuselage design which kind of reminds me of the F-5E.

If you dont’ have canards, one important feature of 4th gen fighters is having a LERX, and this plane now has good sized ones that will enable it to turn even tighter and do high AoA maneuvers. It even has one 5th gen feature by using DSI for the intakes. Look closely at the DSI and there are clever details like specially design bumps that act like golfball dimple vortex generators. These energizes and lengthens the vortices to prevent the vortices bursting within the length of the aircraft, which creates turbulence.

I also like the way the intakes are designed because they appear to complement the LERX for vortice generation. So far there is only one other design that explored that topic of DSI-LERX vortice interaction and that is the F-35.

The intake is rather unusual since unlike most aircraft, it slightly cants to the upward when intakes tend to cant downward. That is an unusual design decision, but apparently may have something to do with the slopped sides of the nose. Underside nose sloping helps not only route air to the intakes, but also lower the aircraft potential RCS. You can see similar traits with the F-18 and the Rafale, and again you don’t see sloped noses until yoiu are well within the 4th geneation to the 5th generation.

2. It lacks power that is again crucial.

3. A combination of the design plus inadequate power has resulted in fewer hardpoints that again determines the overall capabilty of the fighter.

The lack of power maybe the biggest flaw in the aircraft, but with around 0.9 TWR while the plane has a full internal fuel and four AAMs, that is not bad. The TWR matches that of the Gripen when equipped similarly, and planes like some blocks of the F-16C and the F-18A-D have also dropped under the 1:1 unity ratio mark. Still this is the most noted area where the plane can stand for improvement.

Having seven hardpoints is okay for a plane of this size. The F-16 is also served by the same number of hardpoints. In A2A, there is little benefit to be gained having a loadout greater than 2 IR AAMs and 2 BVRAAMs.

I doubt if the F-16 is really the best CAS plane, similar the F-15.
The F-16 does the work simply because theres lots of them.
A subsonic CAS plane would be much cheaper and deliver more sorties.

Having lots of them is simply what matters. Numbers still and do matter no matter what. As one Russian general said, “Quantity is a quality of its own”.

Subsonic CAS planes are also planes in the light category. Other than gunships, you don’t see heavy planes undertaking this role.

As for AA, I have not really seen how the F-15 can be better than the F-16A to D in exercises. In fact, once AMRAAMs are factored in, it seems to matter even less.

Come here to provoke but only with one after another lies and spam, I never see anyone else can behave to such an extent. 🙁

Another slip of video from CFTE, actually this footage floated online for quite sometime already. It shows CFTE’s research on fighter jet’s high AOA and Post stall Maneuver. Do look out for some J-10’s stun at almost the end of this video( starting from 4’10” onwards) 😎 😎

That’s a really one crazy spin. I find it very interesting that the CFTE has gone into exploring the subject of post stall recovery.

For the J-10 to recover from a stall. all you need is to get airflow into the canards again. Canarded aircraft are in a better position to do that because they can get fresh airflow into the canards compared to getting wake from the main wings to the elevators.

Frankly I was surprised that pilots were testing spin and stall recovery procedures on the JJ-7. The MiG-21 design is not well known for its stall and spin recovery behavior; ask the many pilots who met their fate. The Fishbed is extremely vicious once that started; the CFTC pilots must have guts made of forged steel to do that.

I disagree, the Q-5s roles have been all but completely absorbed either by types now enetering service or likely to do so in the near future.

CAS- nicely covered by the WZ-10 and the J-10s light attack capability.
Long range strike- JH-7A was built for the role and is/will remain far more capable than the JF-17.

As far as the PLAAF is concerned the JF-17 should be considered a complete waste of time, effort and resources, there is no operational need for it whatsoever.

In a way this is true. However, although the JH-7A is replacing Q-5s directly in regiments, JH-7A lacks the Q-5’s sheer nimbleness and fighter like agility although it offers a broad advantage over other areas. There is also a question how fast a tempo you can generate with JH-7A. The Q-5 is cheap and expendable, easily deployable in large numbers in forward air fields, and hit the enemy in a high tempo/mission rate campaign. It is also physically rugged and can get back home after sustaining battle damage, something that is still a question mark on the newer planes. Just remember the plane has two engines, so it can still go home even after one failed.

J-10 is expensive and would be costly to lose to SAM and AA fire. JF-17 does not seem to fit that category as well either, although the L-15 is a potential. But while the L-15 offers much better refinement, it may not offer the same brutish performance as the Q-5. Just to put it in some relative terms, the Q-5 stands anywhere between 6000 to 6400kg empty. Yet the last WP-6 variants are generating 3900kg each and with two of those engines, the Q-5 even surpasses the JF-17 in terms of thrust to weight ratio. In low altitudes, fighting against the plane can be a handful even with an F-16, as PAF exercises bear out.

In my view, even as you upgrade to modern fighter bombers with up to date multirole and air to ground capability, its still a good idea to keep hordes of Q-5s as a backup in the tactical support role. I think thats the PLAAF general idea, which is a reason why we still see fleets of spanking clean and well maintained Q-5s even though J-6s are long gone. I bet you that the Q-5s from regiments replaced by JH-7A are merely moved to another regiment.

The news( in Chinese) is quoted below from one of the largest newspapers in Taiwan,

http://news.yam.com/chinatimes/politics/200703/20070319041536.html

in its report titled ROCAF intends to purchase AV8B to substitute F-16, the newspaper quoted high level military source as saying the premier interest for AV8B is no matter how good F-16 is, it will still be functionless without runway. It also reported that ROC army revised its Helicopter procurement from General type to Attack type plus General type with the same concern. The revision is a direct reflection of ROC desire to have an air projection power free of runway requirement. If say AV8B is still under consideration, the helicopter revision is materialized. We have seen ROC army purchased AH-64 in a rather sudden move. There’re other indications, for example, the ROCAF is looking for oil tankers which it hope can extend its fighter’s staying time in air. All scattered pieces of information if connected into a whole picture: it shows ROCAF is not confident in its runway facility that can support fix-wing fighters.

I have heard of this long time ago already, and I wonder if this is just a repetition. I thought the idea of getting Harriers was dumped.

Its not really a good idea anyway since Harriers have a bad habit of cooking and melting asphalt on runaways. It may not be a good idea to land an aircraft on the same runaway and spot of asphalt where a Harrier has just VTOLed off.

How can you, a chinese kid pretending to be a bangladeshi, a flamebaiter, a noobie, whose most posts are downright crap (water cooled aircraft engines Lol), dare to call SOC, the most senior member, a misguided american kid? Talk about hypocrisy.

I completely agree with sealordlawrence and SOC’s article is one of the best written eye-openers. Pakistan should dump the highly vulnerable and obsolete FC-1 and go for J-10s instead, now that they’ve confirmed that re-export of engines is not an issue.

Where is SOC’s blog anyway? This is news to me.

Addendum. Never mind. i found it anyway. Will make comments later.