All you need to do is show me the combat radii of each fighter relative to their fuel capacity.

F-16C = 500 to 600 nm

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=103

F-35 = over 600 nm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm

Typhoon = 750nm (air to air)

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2242.html

Yes, but in case you didn’t know, the figures for F 16 and EF are with 3 external fuel tanks! Without them, even the EF would be a point defense fighter…

A more fair comparison would be between an F 35 with half internal fuel, and with, let’s say an EF with 1 (if not 2) external (both planes will travell the same distance from this moment)… Add the missiles and I’ll let you draw the conclusions…

You must be living the same dream in the States.
The F35 is just a 21 century A7. Nothing more.

I doubt that the A 7 radar can locate hostile fighters at 130 Nmiles in A-A, or, in A-G, locate a 155 mm howitzer from 80 Nmiles, while in the same time, tracking 30 planes, as the APG 81…http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/ygs/awst_1-23047798/

aurcov,

I vaguely remember the words “Tiger Eyes”….

But my googling came up with

Quote:
“Sniper Advanced targeting pods, Tiger Eyes navigation pods, and an Infrared Search and Track”

….

What the name of the F-15SG IRST?

Thanx in advance…

Hyper..:o

The IRST is derived from the AAS 42 used on F 14D. In the F 15 K and F 15 SG it is embeded in the pylon that carry the Lantirn navigation pod, as you can see in this picture of the official presentation of the first F 15K. The other (targeting) pod on the F 15 K is an improved Lantirn, while on the F 15 SG is the new Sniper.

Su-35 will need only 3 to 4gs to pull the same manevorability as 9G F-15E.

???

Are you absolutely positive the F-15E is cleared for 9g with a full load (or even tanks alone)? No CAT III or anything like that at 6.5g or 5.5g?

I didn’t say at full load. Full load is 11.5 ton.

Only for a flat topography.

In my example both planes fly at 50,000 ft. I don’t see how a mountain could alter the radar horizon in these conditions. What I want to say that for both aircraft and target flying high, the radar horizon is substantially bigger. Your figures, as you can verify yourself using the table, are for low flying targets.

Assuming a tactical load of 6 MR-AAM (220kg each) and 2 IR-AAM (90kg each) and full internal fuel we arrive at
19.7 + 8.2 + 6*0.22 + 2*0.1 = 29.2t (equals 64400lbs

I thought that the AMRAAM is ~ 160 kg. 220 kg was the weight of the old Sparrow.

The Devil symbol you post shows you are using the same logic as JJ… clearly they would over react and launch a nuclear strike on the US and Europe… no doubt about it… guilty! … not unique this case….

You missed my point: US do not engage in this type of bomber training close to Russian border. Any comment (but strictly about the subject, please) ?

The guy is in no word complaining about the the very existence of the intercepts, he’s complaining about the fact that fighter pilots obviously act like idiots when doing so. Turning circles and loops around a bomber in style ‘hey, let’s see how close do I have to get so that the Russkie banks away!’ is something only a moron does. Whether he’s carrying USAF, RAF or RusAF badge is of secondary importance.

And of course you witness the American pilots acting like idiots (BTW, I highly doubt that a pilot flying a 180 million jet will engage in the stupid stunts, like that Chinese pilot did in 2000 when he colide with the US Navy EW plane).

Now seriously, since when a russian general is a source of trusted information?

What do you mean, “next gen”? Such a missile already exists, and has been in service for several years with the AdlA – the Mica IR. Lock on after launch, datalink, a true BVR IR-guided missile.

Asraam has the range to qualify as a marginally BVR IR AAM, and also has LOAL & a datalink – and has been in service with the RAAF & RAF for years.

This isn’t “next-gen”, it’s live, operational, current generation.

You could add the Python V to the list of operational LOAL/datalink missiles that would qualify as “near-BVR”.

Rather than having a ARH and a Passive radar homing and an IIR homing R-77 they might combine all three guidance methods in the one seeker design so the only modularity needed would be the propulsion and the choice of aerodynamic surfaces.

Multi-guidance would increase the kill probability but the front section will be big. Currently there are few such missiles, but none A-A. IIRC some US Navy Standard II version uses SARH & IR guidance.