For “first night” the current capability is either 2 JDAM (1000lbs), or 8 x SDB. That’s enough.

Later on, where stealth is less important, the Raptor will carry external stores. People tend to forget that. That would be 4 x 2300 kg! That’s even more that the F 15 E can carry under wings.

Pushing the tail back is intended to give greater authority on the stabs by extending the length of the arm between the elevators and the center of the aircraft. The relationship between the elevators and the engine nozzles should not be as important as the elevators towards the central point of the plane. For that matter, for the F-16 or the Su-27, one can say its the engine nozzle that is pushed back

.Of course, what it counts is the the position of the stabs relative to the aircraft body, not to the nozzles,but I want to point the difference between the two arrangements. Nevertheless, you got the idea– the F 22 stabs are pushed back.

BTW, it is not only the lever effect you mentioned that counts. The “pushed-back” stabs act better at high AoAs because they are not obstructed by the wings.

The leading edge sweep is the crucial and primary factor for creating the delta wing vortex structure. The aspect ratio of delta wings is defined as AR = 4/tan(D), AR<3, where D is the leading edge sweep angle. Delta wings are mainly characterized by sweep angles around 60deg (or higher) which are better suited for supersonic cruising and known for the non-linear aerodynamics. Both the F-22 and Su-27 have the same LE sweep angle of 42degree which is not a delta wing!!. The F-22 has a trapezoidal wing planform just like the Su-27. The equation AR=B^2/S should not be applied(misleading), bcs you still get low-aspect ratio(as deltas) when you design a trapezoidal wing with e.g. LE/TE 20deg. See my point?

So, F 22 has a trapezoidal wing? That a new one! Maybe you care to expain this fact to the LockheedMartin engineers, who (in their dumb ignorance) are convinced that they had designed a diamond wing…On the LM corporate magazine CodeOne is a two-part article, describing the evolution of YF 22 aerodinamics: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/oct_98/oct2a_98.html Let me quote for you:

By mid-August 1987, the configuration choices had been narrowed to five, represented by Configurations 595-7 (baseline with trapezoidal wings, four tails, and eight missiles); 612 (baseline equivalent with six missiles); 613 (trapezoidal wings and twin tails); 614 (diamond wings with four tails); and 615 (diamond wings, twin tails, and twin side inlets). By late August, the diamond-wing four-tail Configuration 614 won out.
“The fundamental reason for going to a diamond wing was that it provided the lightest configuration and gave us the best structural efficiency and all the control power we needed for maneuvering,” Mullin explains. “The biggest consideration was its light weight. Weight drove the decision.”

“A diamond wing has more square feet of surface area, but is more structurally efficient,” adds Renshaw. “The longer root chord provides a more distributed load path through the fuselage. Multiple bulkheads carry the bending loads. The design provides more opportunity to space the bulkheads around the internal equipment. It also provides more fuel volume.”

“The structural engineers wanted a diamond wing because it provides a larger root chord, which carries bending moments better,” Hardy notes. “The aerodynamicists wanted a trapezoidal wing because it provides more aspect ratio, which is good for aerodynamics. Dick Heppe, the president of Lockheed California Company, made the final decision, and he was right. The aerodynamics were not all that different, but the structure and weights were significantly better. So we went to a diamond shape. The big root chord, though, moved the tails back. Eventually we even had to notch the wing for the front of the tails. If the tails moved farther back, they would fall off the airplane.”

But I’m sure you can say that it is a trapezoidal diamond…:diablo::diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo::diablo: :diablo: :diablo: :diablo:

About the YF 17. You wrote:

That basically proves what I`m telling here from the beginning. The YF-17 performed those combat manuevers up to 52deg AOA only!!! what is not even a half of “controversial” COBRA manuever(120 deg AOA).

You are mixing the max. sustained AoA with max. transient AoA. The YF 17 in a Cobra-like maneuver can go well above the 52 deg. And by the way, the high AoA performances, as well as the impressive pitch rate of the YF 17 is due less to the wing (which was altered in the navalization process to became the not-so-great wing of the F 18), but to the LERX and most of all to the large holes cut in the LERX. However, these induced a huge drag and were filled almost entirely on the F 18.

The orginal F-16 was supposed to be a lightweight fighter….. not really a bomb-truck…..

Yes, but considering that F 16 XL lost the competition to F 15E, it is clear that what they really needed then was a bomb truck…

In 1991 the US wound not have dare to attack China or India why? simply they were more powerful than Iraq or do you think Peking now Beijing was an easier target?
or what a about New Delhi easier to attack than Bagdad come on?

It’s not a question of “dare to attack” or not. In 1991 US attacked Baghdad because it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait, not China or India.

There are some weird people that really think that from time to time, US generals become bored decide to attack one country or another.

In the end i think it will get the same judgemet as the P-38 of WW II fame.

A wery good a/c, but phased out because other planes could do the same job, at half the cost.

P 38 phased out??? It was, actually, the only fighter that was continually produced from before Pear Harbor until Japan surrender in September ’45!

…and that is helping to build selfconfidence, but history has tought us that we do repeat mistakes. The aircraft defence systems, electro-optical and electronic countermeasures, towed decoys, chaff/flares are improving year by year, so your super AMRAAM and the 9X might be as useful as the sidewinders in sixties!!

Oh, now you enlightened me!

I do realize now that everybody else is improving its countermeasures, while those silly Americans has only arrived to the D version of AMRAAM (that only has improved kinematics, a better loft profile, GPS, fiber optic INS, a brand new new radar seeker, better processors, two-way datalink, improved ECCM…). Poor dumbs…

a proven tactics by the US since Gulf war to bomb everything with cruise missiles and then send their 100million$ air superiority fighters to secure the area. So far, so good for them.

???

These air superiority fighters (F 15, I presume), are ~ 30 mil, not 100 mil.

Anyway, i fail to understand how the fact that a large raid is preceded by a cruise missile barrage, proves that US will not have a clear picture od A-A situation.

Amigos, sory to bust your “US-way-of-thinking” buble but not all future air engagements are going to look like Desert storm where there are 600 warplanes with the full cover of dozens of AWACS and ground air-controlers, against an enemy of 100 planes with no radar cover, no operational AA “umbrella” and so on. You are as near sited as all those bozos back in the 60s that created the F4B (No Gun), F102 (No Gun), F106 (No gun),…and so on, who said that you do not need a gun when you have such efficient missiles. Only to have the best Long range BVR combination in US inventory (F14+AIM54) to go through TOPGUN in order to learn close in combat tactics because the other planes had their buts kicked over the skies of Vietnam, by small agile cheap fighters with guns.

You seems to ignore the fact that things had changed from the ’60. It is true that the missiles in that era were a joke. The Sidewinders needed back then a hot “target”, which means that one should position behinnd the ennemy aircraft, and because the missile could acquire its target in a narrow cone, to pray that the ennemy wouldn’t jink. About the first versions of Sparrow, I don’t even bother to elaborate.

However, from the begining of the ’80 things did change. The first to notice that were the Argentinians and Syrians when they were butchred by the all-asoect Lima version of the Sidewinder. And in Desert Storm, Sparrow did show what BVR means (most of the kills for that matter).

Nowadays we are talking about the AMRAAM and the 9X…

Do you think that in caase of a war between China and Taiwan with US intervention, you will have the clear skies situation you need for a clear BVR fight?

Me? No, but USAF yes.

Over the Aegean, there is air combat taking place every day between HAF F16s and Mirage 2ks and THK F16s, and believe me, every THK or HAF pilot would drool to have a ride like a SU35 with all its pack of tricks.

And in your opinion, the skirmishes over the Aegean sea could be considered war???