I’m very well aware of both. That doesn’t change the fact that DAS does not provide the same tracking abilities as the Flanker’s large forward sensors, as was seemingly suggested, though its coverage is much better. And as I said EOTS is, while good, on the bottom of the aircraft, meaning the F-35 has to be at significantly better altitude than an adversary in order to use it to track him.

The IRST could be used from any altitude. The F 14D had an IRST (that outranges the Russian systems by far) mounted in the same place, under its chin. It is offered now in a poded version for F 16: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/IRST-Product_Card.pdfAs you can see the elevation is +/- 70 deg.

I don’t think the F-22 flew against the mig with the Israel jamming equipment, although I may be wrong. And actually he did say that the F-22 should retain it’s cannon and although I don’t remember the exact wording my understanding was that the reason he wanted to retain the F-22 cannon was that he was not entirely confident that the Mig would not be able to jam the F-22 — and according to aviationweek (or was it the DEW line?) this guy had been an F-22 test pilot.

L

He mentioned that the cannon is needed because there are only 8 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders

There is a PAK-FA prototype already made, it’s basically being readied for air testing. It could be, but your own question (where are the f 35?) is more apppliable to PAK-FA (:p)

The Su-35 is well ahead of the F-35 in terms of readiness. Possibly, but only because the Su 35 is basically an improved Su 27, while the F 35 isa new plane. BTW, there is only one Su 35prototype flying; there are two f 35 (A&B) flying as in this moment (:))
——-

The MiG-21 jammers were from Israel, ok, so what?

The Russian industry is on par or ahead of Israel in most respects in terms of technology development.Are you serious?

If the MiG-21 could jam, imagine what kind of systems you can mount on the Su-35?Again it was not the MiG 21 that created problems for conventional radar-equiped F 15/16, but Israeli jammers. And comparing Russian jammers with Israeli is not advantageous for the Russians(:))

What about all the countries that will fly F-35 but may have no access to F-22? And what about a country withouth F-22 but with early-block F-35 that faces the Russian version of SU-35?

That’s the scenario Norway could be facing in the high North…

L

I believe that even without F 22 Norway still will be advantaged using the F 35. The reason is commonality with other 8 NATO countries using F 35…

The Su-27 has better TWR ralation and D/L rate but it is slower.

Hardly. The F 15 C is 13 tons empty and has 2 x 10500 kg of thrust; the Su 27 is 16 tons empty and has 2 X 12500 kg of thrust.

Which reminds me the MTF AFB F-15 pics show an AIM-9X, so he goes into a knife fight and does not use his AIM-9X and switches to guns? SO that must mean the Guns >>> AIM-9X. After all he said they used Guns.

It could be:
– Either the ROE obliged them to use “notional” missiles; I remember that in Cope India both parties used WVR and BVR notional missiles (actually these had a limited range and a limited off-boresigt angle);
– Or the MKIs were too close after the post stall maneuver. I assume you are aware that there is an inferior limit for any missile. In fact, if someone fires a missile (WVR or BVR) to a target too close, the missile won’t explode, because the fuse won’t arm for a few seconds. It’s for pilot own protection — the blast could be more dangerous for its own plane.

This guy is talking through is @ss during a Daedalian meet.

According to AvLeak (http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/RED11058.xml&headline=USAF%20Pilot%20Critiques%20Red%20Flag%20Action&channel=defense ), he was breifing some retired USAF generals about the Red Flag. So he’s adressing to some guys that know a few things. Apparetly, someone filmed this.

There is nothing simple or cheap about an AESA upgrade. Yes, Northrop-Grumman Electronics and Raytheon are both marketing AESAs that can be retrofit to legacy airframes, but they are far from “drop-in” systems.

• In all cases, the airplane will have to be disassembled and re-wired for electrical power, communication to & control of the new radar.
• The cockpit controls and displays will have to be upgraded as well if all the AESA modes are to be used.
• The weapons management computer will require a modification if AESA cues are to be used to automatically generate targeting coordinates for GPS aided weapons.
• If the electronic attack and high bandwidth communication modes are to be used, the electronic warfare suite and communications suite will require modification also.
• While the new AESA radar may not require more electrical power and cooling, all the other upgraded stuff probably will. That drives generator and environmental control system upgrades.
• Those generator & ECS upgrades rob additional power from the engine, which increases fuel consumption and reduces available thrust.

There is no free lunch. By the time you are finished upgrading all the systems, it probably would have been cheaper to buy an F-35 or F/A-18E/F.

As for integrating new weapons, it depends on the design of the weapon. If weapon designers adhere to the specifications for standardized interfaces for suspension, power and communication, the integration is relatively easy. The integration becomes a matter of stores separation testing, jettison testing, writing an OFP upload, and training the aircrews and munitions maintenance technicians.

Actually, both RAytheon and NG do offer retrofit AESAs for f 16 (RACR and SABR): http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/sabr/index.html http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/racr/ The NG video shows that no changes are needed at the structure or at the electric and cooling systems. I assume that the Raytheon product offer the same (it can also be tailored for F 18 C/D). Also, the Raytheon APG 63 (V)3 for F 15 C is a “plug and play” AESA: http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_017911.pdf

Take the tests of AIM-7 Sparrow (reliability claimed around 70-80%) and reality (around 16%)..

Reliability isn’t the same as Pk. A missile could work perfectly well; but if you fire it outside its envelope (enemy to far or too lateral) it will still miss.

In reality, even a slight performance up hand will not mean a thing, since Russia can crush some smaller nation / force that has 10 Patriot sites and 100 F-22s or F-35s, and the US can crush some smaller nation / force with 10 S-300/S-400 sites and 100 Su-35BMs or PAK-FAs.

Smaller nation with 100 F 22???? Do you realize the even the US will have only 185? As for F 35 how many nations (big or small) will have 100 of them? As far as I know only UK and Australia. Hardly small nations. Of course Israel will have ~ 100, but Israel is Israel — in this case size is irelevant.

I provided the details form ’81 onwards simply because that’s where the book commences

I understand, but prior to 1991 war, BVR weapons performed poorly. OTOH, from 1991 and after, BVR dominated.

Could you provide the source of that graph

It’s from a Brazialian site:http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/bvr04wvr.html, but it was copied from a US site (I don’t remember which, but I clearly remember the colored graph; it could be AFA).

and also advise whether it shows actual kills bvr versus wvr or whether it shows simply the weapon (cannon, wvr aam or bvr aam) used without reference to the actual range at which the weapon was used?

I see. Well, I read too in some papers that a part of what could be considered BVR by weapon type, were actually WVR if range was considered. IIRC the recent “infamous” Rand study states that around 1/2 of the AMRAAM “BVR” kills were WVR. But there is a catch. Other (equally serious sources) clear this aspect: they were fired from F 15/16 chasing enemmy planes. Firing a missile to a running fighter, reduces the range to less than 1/2 the range of a missile fired to an incoming plane. If the same missile is fired at low level, the range will further shrinks. An AMRAAM fired when chasing the target, at low level, will have a smaller range than an Sidewinder fired in frontal aspect at high altitude! But this does not mean that those AMRAAMs didn’t performed as expected: in the same situation, a Sidewinder would’t hit the target.

On the F16 topic i confess that i had focused on the USAF use of the aircraft and hadn’t thought of the Israeli combats in the early ’80s, so fair point there. However i did state “vast majority of it’s life”; from ’91 onwards the F16 has spent it’s time largely bombing desert, by my maths thats getting on for 20 years for an aircraft that has been in service for give or take 30.

That the F 16 was transformed from a formidable WVR fighter into a fighter-bomber (it was the USAF workhorse in 1991), it’s a testimony of how good the original design was. That the same fighter-bomber became a good BVR fighter with the C/D introduction and especially after the blk. 40/42 and 50/52 were CCIP-ed, it’s a mesure of the versatilty of this little big plane.