That is of course assuming the structure can cope with it – Typhoon is a 9G airframe – limiting the flight load while carrying a heavy mass can be done by limiting maneuver loads to relatively low G. Fatigue loads are a bit more complicated though – and this is where a purposefully designed jet should perform better.

It´s not as completely simlistic as people make out. Here´s Livefist´s synopsis of it:

F-16IN
“growth potential, carefree handling (and automatic sensing of external stores), sustained turn rate, engine change time, and assurance against obsolescence over a 15-year period.”

SuperHornet
“the maturity of its engine design, the growth potential of its engine, assorted performance shortfalls, and issues related to special preventative maintenance”
´assorted performance shortfalls´ being multiple issues even though collapsed to one item here.

It seems alot of commenters seem to focus on A2A kinematics/maneuverability as if it only applies to BVR dog-fights, when that´s the furthest from the truth. In BVR engagements, you very likely want to shoot and then maximize your distance from the opponent so they can´t shoot you back. Things like SUSTAINED TURN (Rafale is best here) keep energy high. Super Hornet is noted to ´sink like a rock´ in hard maneuvers, and it´s aerodynamics just aren´t suited to ANY A2A combat, it´s other positive qualities aside.

F-16IN is undoubtedly an end of the road design, compared to every other entrant, where you have France on board for mid-2020 HEAVY MLU and other eurocanards with similar, if less definite, outlook. So that F-16IN was dropped isn´t a surprise to anybody, Super Hornet had the best chances of American birds, but it had too many compromises built in, and ToT probably didn´t help it either.
——————————————-

@EE: Besides pull an entirely new plane out of their ass, what COULD the US have done differently here?
They offered the only products they have to offer, so how did they ´shoot themself in the foot´? Likewise with Mig.
You might see commentary on how they should have offered F-35, but that´s hardly a mature product with known costs is it?, plus ALL partners would presumably need to sign off on ToT as well. This isn´t surprising, just as nobody lines up their product to compete 1:1 with other manuf´s, nobody´s production/development is lined up completely 1:1, so sometime one side comes out ahead/is more developed, another time they are ´behind´. The US didn´t have as competitive options this time around, though Super Hornet came close IMHO.

Yes, I wouldn´t be unsurprised if IAF trained it´s initial MMRCA pilots in the UK if Typhoon wins (or in France if Rafale wins),
though the Saudis have also trained in Spain, which could be an option… Depends on what training they want to do, it may depend on what IR missile they choose to integrate, it would make sense to train with the armament they will actually use.

Good comments Snow Monkey. You show an understanding of the BVR dynamic which few here manage. BVR tactics are not completely isolated from WVR tactics – in essence BVR adopts many of the same energy management principles that feature in WVR – except now the eye is replaced as the primary sensor. Energy management concepts such as agility/acceleration/maneuverability are actually more relevant now, at the edge of WVR and in BVR than they are in really close in WVR.

I disagree that the Rafale has better sustained turn rates than the Typhoon – especially in medium to high altitude BVR combat. At low altitude & lower speed they are probably more similar – with Typhoon probably reliant on its engines and Rafale having slightly better low speed aerodynamics.

Lm Raptor, any more info?

Twinblade- except my understanding is that the RAF Typhoon should be much more maneuverable and better equipped than the F16s here. In essence for this to happen, something has gone very wrong on the Typhoon side.

MaximumG, i just wonder if it is more of the same- RAF sending inexperienced pilots to an exercise for experience (something the PAF pilots apparently don’t lack)?

I always think its good to have more than one source on any topic, and i am aware that i sound like i’m calling foul again….

The source would need to give permission. All I can say is that the Typhoons are pretty impressive. IIRC during the Singapore competition, a single Typhoon downed the 3 F-16s during the engagement.

http://www.paffalcons.com/specials/paf-viper-pilot.php

Q 16: Any memorable experiences that you would like to share?

A: On one occasion – in one of the international Anatolian Eagles – PAF pilots were pitted against RAF Typhoons, a formidable aircraft. There were three set-ups and in all three, we shot down the Typhoons. The RAF pilots were shocked.

Q 17: Any particular reason for your success?

A: NATO pilots are not that proficient in close-in air-to-air combat. They are trained for BVR engagements and their tactics are based on BVR engagements. These were close-in air combat exercises and we had the upper hand because close-in air combat is drilled into every PAF pilot and this is something we are very good at.

http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/154317/20110530/lockheed-cyberattack-exposes-vulnerability-weapons-manufacturers-f35-securid.htm

Though Lockheed claims the recent hack attack did not compromise the data on its customers, programs or employees as its cyber security team had detected the attack “almost immediately” and had taken “aggressive actions” to protect its computer network, the attack has exposed the vulnerability of companies and shows how cyber espionage is evolving and could become more of a serious threat to governments and companies in the near future.

Please LM, we all friends here..
I still like my standpoint and you do youres. thats ok.
Right now i dont we could settle for “one truth”. Lets agree on that. 😎

Complexity is one term you refer to.
This terms can be adding an extra requirement dimension to the table.
Requirements often counteract eachother.
Thats why, if you only have one “simple” task for a system it can be extremly good at it.
For example, if you design only for top speed it can easily hit mach 5-6. Like the X-15.
If you add more requirements on top of that it will get more and more complex and speed WILL sooner ore later deteriorate.

Look at the F-35A and B. because of the VTOL requirement the combat range have to degrade about 25% from 600nm to 450nm.
That the penalty for making it more complex and adding contraproductive requirements.

Its like making a Sportcar with truckloading capability, it will never happen! Its not doable in the real world! period!
You cant convince me otherwise.
So there you have it, take it or leave it.

Haha Sign enough of the examples. Besides I am not paid to convince you. Try to understand that radio signature requirements and flight performance requirements are aligned enough to allow for high levels of both without implausibly high development and manufacture costs. Id venture as far to say that aligning flight performance and signature management are some of the relatively easy requirements to manage without technical compromise and too much cost. Id say that the sensor and networking requirements are much harder to align with signature reductions at reasonable costs.

LmRaptor, what is your point? The engineer, who you gave an IQ of 228 and $24 bazillion as a budget might be able to do that. But the same engineer could then build an aircraft with even better aerodynamics if he ignored VLO again, because the costs and complexity is an outside argument, that can used for both sides.

You’re clinging to your statement, that having a bay can make the plane better in aerodynamical performance. That is simply incorrect.

I see you have completely missed the point Wilde.. but thats not terribly surprising. It has nothing directly related to genius or IQ. And it has nothing to do with aerodynamics per say because you don’t judge aerodynamics on areas and absolute forces… you judge it on ratios and efficiencies… Which for your 1.5xFlight Performance + VLO design is obviously improved. I don’t care to speculate what you do Wilde – but after reading many of your posts going back to your debates on internal fuel, SFC and wing loading with Schorsch, it is clear to see you don’t approach this business from a technical perspective. The resulting difference in semantics is what really bugs me.

The point you are missing – which probably is compounded by your lack of aerodynamic understanding – is that technical compromises can be transformed into other technical compromises and/or compromises of complexity and cost. But the thing I stressed in my previous post – is what do you judge it against – because its a potentially infinite argument. You judge it against your requirements sheet and/or the current capability standard of other designs. That is OBVIOUSLY because cost and complexity are NOT an OUTSIDE argument, as you put it. Cost is the most common and generally the/one of the most important requirements in any single aero engineering project ever undertaken. Therefore against that reference by which we judge things – namely the capability level required in the specification including the cost cap – we are able then to assess the designs.

Saying an aircraft X with a bay and sufficient scaling is compromised aerodynamically vs. the aviation standard Y and Z without a bay (which perform to the same level or less than X but without the VLO and other advantages of the bay) is complete amateur ignorance. Y and Z of course would likely be cheaper and less complex. But against what the engineers have designed for they are not better aerodynamically.

Having a bay with sufficient scaling and often without Wilde, can make improve your flight performance, it can improve your force coefficients (aerodynamics). It can improve your supersonic performance, your L/D, the aeroelasticity characteristics, vibration characteristics and RCS characteristics. This in both absolute and relative terms.

Unless you don’t understand what I am saying to you… all I can conclude from what you are trying to tell me is that most simple principle. That adding requirement X adds issue/compromise Z to the design. Please try to understand that Z can be transformed in many cases (not all granted given a level of technology) into ££.

I have read youre previous posts, and i see your point. But you kind of missing mine.
Stealth forms make you suffer in design freedom, to make craft for best speed, and agility. Thats all. With that, it means a modern F-15 would have better TWR( even more f-22) and less drag than F-22.
Aerodesigns does not like straight lines as much as a stealth designer likes em.
Also TWR does not apply that much in high speed, and does not reflect aerodynamic drag.

So, one day in the future a less shaped craft with better materials instead will be the winner in the sky. that my 5 cents

F-117 is rely on body shape more than good materials for stealth. F-22 is more of a hybrid of better materials and less shapeing. Do you get the point of what history tells you of the future to come?

Ps. Normal designs also have designrequirements that relates to economics like LCC cost. That does not seem to apply to F-22..so you cant add more power in normal cases.

Sign… I don’t know why you continue pressing this point of yours. It’s fairly basic and rather tedious to hear you reiterate it, as it was never in dispute by anyone – try read my posts properly. I haven’t almost completed a masters degree in this very form of engineering to get you repeating these basics to me.

No one was ever disputing the fact that each requirement produces a certain compromise on the system. Namely… in this case… stealth shaping inflicting size & aerodynamic issues that require engineering solutions to manage. Good aero design will transform these issues into a wide variety of different but manageable compromises that still allow the aircraft to meet the specification or technology/capability level to which you design for. Therefore a F-22/T-50 can be built with VLO & top level flight performance…. & whatever else you want… etc at the expense of cost/complexity.

Now you say well then without VLO I could have designed a fighter with current tech levels that is 1.5 x F-22/T-50 flight performance level. I say that then an engineer can match you and build a jet with 1.5 x F-22/T-50 flight performance level AND VLO – at the expense of even greater cost and complexity. This is the point im arguing Sign. It is often possible – allowing for technology level – to convert technical compromises into other compromises that compare against the reference design – be it the requirement specification sheet or be it the capability level that other fighter jets of the time have achieved. This overall technical superiority is by and large what F-22 has achieved against the current and near term world military aviation standard.

But it has done so by ticking all the capability boxes at the expense of large cost and complexity. Which is the last point that you talk about. Relative economics and WLCC – the US could do it to some extent.