Great too, I am pomped up for this, The Raptor is there, The SU-35 is there, The MiG-35 is there, let them all show their mettle. We want it sooner than later at Farnborough and the Paris airshows.folks.

???

The Raptor is, indeed, there. But the Su 35 and MiG 35 aren’t. Yet. Unless you consider that an operational plane is the same with a testbed/technology demonstrator…The only other operational TVC planes are the 40 or so Indian Su 30 MKI.

So sorry, but only the F 22 and Su 30 MKI are there…

MiG-19 first to have GCI datalink?

No, that was the F 86, and the datalink was called SAGE. It was in 1956.

huh? Thats better than the combat radius of an F-22 or F-35 which is about 600nm. How is the Viper going to achieve that? 2*600 plus 1*300 ext. fuel plus CFTs?

No, that’s not better than the range of these planes, because these two achieve some 600 Nmiles/800Nmiles only on internal fuel!

I consider pilot stories sometimes not as the most acurate, but his message is undoubtedly true. Reason may be that the F-18 has in general more drag and that the straight wing will cause an earlier rise in transonic drag.

You are wight, the f 18 is draggy. I found the article and here are some quotes:

In my opinion, the Viper’s biggest strength is its brute force: it has lots of horsepower. The biggest kick in the pants-next to a catapult shot off an aircraft carrier-is the kick from stroking full afterburner in a General Electric-powered, bigmouth Viper on a cold winter morning. With a greater than 1.2:1 thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff gross weight, it takes all of 1,200 feet to get airborne at 160 knots, and the jet can be supersonic just two miles later, if it’s left in burner. The acceleration is unbelievable! If there weren’t a 7G restriction on a fueled centerline tank, I would easily have 9G available to pull straight into the vertical and accelerate on the way up.

The acceleration in after-burner seems to build with airspeed, and it’s really a kick! The faster I go, the faster I go; this is primarily because of the fixed-geometry inlets that become more efficient as airspeed increases. Canceling afterburner (AB) at 300 knots and 2,000 feet AGL does not stop the amazing acceleration. Even in military power, the Viper easily slips above the 350-knot climb speed in a 15-degree climb

Once in the air, the Viper pilot can drill around all day at 350 to 400 knots and still have fuel to spare. If there’s a concern about fuel conservation, the Hornet works best in the 300- to 350-knot speed regime. Roll performance in the Viper is slightly faster than the Hornet’s. A full-deflection aileron roll is eye watering in a clean Viper (about 360 degrees per second) and very impressive in a slick Hornet (about two-thirds the speed of a Viper). One nice feature of the side-stick controller is the capability to rapidly capture a precise bank angle by simply releasing the stick. The jet’s controls essentially freeze when the pilot lets go of the stick, even when whipping around at maximum rate roll. This is real handy in rolling in on a target (both air-to-air and air-to-ground).

In the beginning of the training, it’s difficult to yank the nose around in a minimum-radius, maximum-G level turn without accidentally introducing aileron in it that isn’t wanted. On my first few attempts at a 9G level turn, I tended to ratchet the wings back and forth from one bank angle to another. The side stick feels only the first 25 pounds of pilot input in the longitudinal axis, at which time it gives all 9G (or whatever’s available at that speed). Apparently, I must have also inadvertently applied a small amount of lateral-stick force, and that caused unintended bank-angle changes and the subsequent ratcheting. After a few more tries at a 9G level turn, I learned that by using a smooth, gradual G buildup and by toning down the amount of pull, I could nail a 9G, 360-degree turn while maintaining constant altitude within 100 feet.

This jet can hurt you because it has absolutely no problem holding 9G, especially down low. The Hornet is limited to 7.SG by the flight-control software, even though the airframe can handle 9G; in fact, some foreign versions were going to be sold as 9G jets. The tradeoff is fatigue life. When dogfighting in a Hornet, I rarely see 7.SG, and if so, it’s momentary because I’m usually closing to guns after the second merge and am trading airspeed for nose position.

There’s no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet. But that’s another story. The Hornet flies very comfortably at AoAs of up to 50 degrees and has great pitch, roll and yaw authority between 25 degrees of AoA and the lift limit of 35 degrees of AoA. Most crowds are amazed when the Blue Angels perform the Hornet low-speed pass, which is around 120 knots and only 25 degrees of AoA. There are no nasty departures to worry about, and if the pilot happens to lose control, the best recovery procedure is to grab the towel racks (two handgrips on the canopy bow used during cat shots). On the other hand, a Viper has a 25-degree AoA limiter built into its software, and even fewer degrees of AoA are available if it’s carrying air-to-ground goodies on the hard points. Up against the limiter, the nose stops tracking; in that case, it’s time to drop the hammer and use the big motor to get the knots back, which by the way, happens in a hurry.

Good acceleration, good maneuvrability (especially at low and medium hights), good sustained turn rate, easy to control (allowing the pilot to concentrate less to flying and more to fighting) and a deadly combination JHMCS/9X will give an F 16 a fair chance to fight a Su.

There’s the Mica.

Even if it is not as good as D model AMRAAM (which is very possible although I wouldn’t know), it has the huge advantage of coming also with an IIR version with good off-boresight capabilities.

All in all I would say it is a good trade off, I think IIR BVRAAM are extremely usefull, and will develop even more in the future. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an IIR version of the Meteor at some point.

Nic

The Mica is a good weapon, but i doubt that’s better than an AMRAAM, and i’m refering to the current C7 version, not necessary the D. An Israeli AF general, asked why they still import the AMRAAM, now that they have the Derby, answered; because it has the largest NEZ (no escape zone) of all the AA missiles. As for off-boresight capability, the C7 version has 70 deg. (similar to the field of APG 63 (V)1 in autoaquisition mode)! That’s more than many of the today “dogfight” missiles.

they think in few year less than five the Meteor will be operational

as i said, be my guest.

any way the US lacks an Air to Air missile equivalent to the Meteor

In this very moment, the rest-of- the world lacks a missile equivalent to the AMRAAM (be it the C7, not to mention the D)

But true is that at moderate speeds a fighter like the F-16 can achieve quite reasonable ranges, especially because it can carry very large drop tanks (2x 2270l).

Schorsch, the Viper is considered a rather high speed plane. I posted a while ago an article by a Navy pilot (Hornet) flying the Viper. he was extatic about two things: the lateral joystick and the speed (of course the Hornet is not a good yardstick regarding speed). he said the Viper could go for 450 knots for hours, while in Hornet you are limmited to ~ 350 knots.

surely so u know more than Sukhoi.

For self-protection,that’s enough. Of course, an electronic attack plane can have more. F 18G can have up to 5 external jammers.

what if Su-30 refues to dog fight accur u will lose all the external fuel and later Su-30 can turn around and make short work of F-16.

Yeas, sure…the first to be consummed is the fuel from the external tanks. So even if the Su refuse to fight and the F 16 already dropped the tanks, it won’t leave this one without fuel.

they can even refer to exhaust of missile which is more likely because of 30km range.

Wow!!! Is there a Russian system that can detect a missile at 30 km by its plume????

very low height and speed.

What? A Su would be limitted at ~ 7G in these conditions…

so what can u do at 150km

something like avoiding a straight flight and outflank the bad guy in order to stay out of radar cone?

F-22 the expensive part is the airframe and than the engines.

I meant the most expensive items in terms of avionics.

combat radius of 650nm at what speed, weopons, height etc.

0.8M, 6 AAMs, 30,000 feet…

with external tanks?? and limited weopons and external EW pods.

The f 16 was designed with limited internal fuel, in order to reduce weigh/size. The external bags compensate and are dropped at the smallest chance to engage in dogfight. As fer limmited weapons, 6 AAMs is quite enough. By the way, there are score of F 16s with internal jammers (Greek, Polish, Chilean, Omani, UAE,…)

MKI can trunaround in 6 seconds

And a WWI Foker Dreideker can turnaround in 3 sec…at 100 km/h, so what the point? Where the F 16 really shines is in sustained turn.

in that case F-16 BVR missile will lose its range potentail due to tail chase engagement

BS! a chase engagement refers to the situation where the target is flying away from the attacker from the missile launch; in this situation, it’s true that the effective range will be drastically reduced. A tight turn in the terminal phase (when the Su RWR is triggered by the missile radar) will not make a Slammer to loose the target.

Su-30 has bigger radar less prone to jamming

If an ALQ *** (put whatever you want) could effectively jam a ground radar (hundreds of kWs) it will be a joke to jam an airborne radar (5-10 kW). Not to forget that a “bigger’ radar will make the day for an sophisticated RWR.

The F-16 with 2 AIM-120 and 4 Sidewinder is in my eyes quite a beast. Add to large drop tanks and it will be on station for a while, when engaged it can accelerate, drop the tanks and be pretty fast. The M2-barrier is due to inlet restrictions, the speed region beyond is quite achievable.

I would like to add that an F 16 in the configuration Schorsch mentioned (without the tanks, but with an ext. jammer and a targeting pod) can sustain 9G with full intrenal fuel…something a Flanker can’t.

Of course the Su 30 is more maneuvrable, but as I said the 9X will level the chances.

The F-15 armed with Python V or AIM-9X still can fight with the Su-30MKI on equal terms

I think that an F 16 with JHMCS/AIM 9X can fight on equal terms too a Su 30, except high altitudes. In Cope India 2005 there were 2 “dogfights” between these planes, and in one of them, the F 16 won.

It is true that in terms of pure performances, the F 16 is under the F 15/Su 30, but it still has some advantages: a superb digital FCS that allow an average pilot to fly the plane very agresively, without bothering with limmitation (AoA and G), good aerodynamics (relaxed stability, the extra lift from the strakes an the body, the leading edge flap system adds a lot to performance by reducing drag at high alpha and buffet).

As two, fomer Viper pilots put it on F 16.net:

The ‘secret’ of the old Viper ws it’s ability to put the bat turn on someone, then accelerate rapidly, do it again, and then use high AOA manueverability characteristics to get into a missile/gun firing position. Besides, the limiter allowed you to pull full stick and get the max available performance without being Chuck Yeager. we could roll at 300 deg per second pulling full back stick at 160 knots and 25 degrees AOA.

Times change.

Nowadays, the jet carries Slammers and can shoot enema in the face from 15 miles away with a fair Pk. Can still get into a knife fight, but only as a last resort. Nevertheless, I would prefer the Viper in a knife fight over most any modern fighter. Super vis (better than ANYTHING flying), easy to keep under control, decent avionics and missiles, etc.

The secret was to stay outta the superior ‘nose pointing’ part of the envelope that the delta types enjoyed. Keep the energy up and STILL TURN AT A HIGH RATE. Oh yeah, 15-20 degrees per second is decent if you can sustain it for 10 or 15 seconds. The Hornet, Eagle, Fulcrum and a few more can do that.

The Eagle could always use it’s nose-ponting ability at real slow speed to zap us. But it was a one-shot deal. Secret was to stay co-altitude.

The F-16 was a marvel when first on the street. Could sustain a high turn rate and handled really well at slow speed if you got there ( not a good idea, but what the hell).

The FLCS is built to allow and assist the pilot in exploring all envelopes of the flight regime during maneuvering. The only real downside to the FLCS is the inability to jink. Some say that this is semantics only, but the Viper cannot jink. The trick to counter that is to merely stay offensive. High alpha maneuvering is very nice though. Despite all the help the FLCS gives you, it is still easy to end up in a low energy state if you aren’t flying good BFM. If you can get the jet to corner speed, and use a little bit of vertical to help stay there, you can rate around almost anyone, even Eagles.

As far as slower minimum speed, the slats, the lifting body, and an obscene amount of thrust help the Viper get there. The only time you want to be slow is if you are trying to shake someone out of their tree, or are in a stack.

BFM in the jet is real simple. You don’t need a 9G break all the time, or even most of the time. Just break to corner speed and stay there. I like to leave a few extra knots onboard just to cash in if I want to make someone react to my nose position. Fly lag BFM, not HUD BFM like the harriers do. Or just take it vertical. The Viper is the exception to the rule of “what goes up, blows up.”

The CCIP-enhanced F 16s (blk. 40/42 and 50/52) has upgraded radar (APG 68(V)9), digital RWR, upgraded ALQ 184 jammers, IFF (allowing for the first time the Viper to attack without a clearence from AWACS/GCI), Sniper pod (dedicated AA modes), JHMCS/9X, etc. Also two great engines (229/12)