Posted before, but always good….

F-22 to F-35 :

“Mini-me, you complete me.”

Source: Memorable Quotes from Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

:p That’s a good one
On a more seroius note, if the 35 would complete the 22 as the 16 completed the 15, the USAF would have a killer combination.

BS! At least from the 3/4 behind (as in the LM photo in the above link) it looks good (kind of junior Raptor)

Sorry, that’s the link: http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?topic=5785.30

u can check F-18E weight from the same site. it comes to 15.5 tons empty.
15.5 empty+6.5ton fuel+8 ton weopons= 66,000 lbs MTOW of F-18E.
why it should be different for F-15.

You won’t find empty weight on Boeing, NorthropGrumman or US Navy sites. The figures in the .pdf you mention on Boeing site are the take-off or landing weights. Here are some mentions about the empty weight (30,500 lbs.) http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_24.html http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm

The IHT article is the most pathetic BS. You can red more objective articles in Pravda during the ’50…

“The UN Security Council, however, did take up the issue, and in another craven act which will further cement its reputation as an anti-Muslim body”:p …”bowed to American and British pressure”:p …”this year Somalia finally experienced its first respite from 16 years of utter lawlessness and terror at the hands of the marauding warlords”:p … “The best antidote to terrorism in Somalia is stability, which the Islamic Courts have provided”:p …

But the last one is the best:”As in other Muslim-Western conflicts, the world needs to engage with the Islamists to secure peace”. :p

Of course, the world need to “engage the Islamists” but with a couple of JDAMs….

-The RWR is the ALR 56 C(V)1:http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/news_room/02_news/168-2002.htm
-The jammer is the NorthropGrumman ALQ 135 M: http://www.dsd.es.northropgrumman.com/DSD-Brochures/rf/ALQ135M.pdf

Thats 10 missile launches for 6 A2A kills [including Pavlovic kill as A2a and assuming both Radosavljevic missiles would have mission kill].

60% success rate is quite a ways short of the invincible weapon some would have you believe.

May be some of the missiles that missed have been fired out of their NEZ.

Its generally reckoned that the missile has to be around 4 times more manouverable than the aircraft to be able to kill it. Well, current aircraft are designed for +9g, modern missiles are apparently 50g or so. Therefore, improve g suits and aircraft to +12.5g restores parity.

12.5??? that’s a joke, or what? Except the F 15 E, there is no other operational fighter to sustain 9G at full weapon and fuel (internal) load. Now 12.5G????

TVC on jets is really nothing more than pointless added weight and components. More hot metal to guide my missile to. But then again, you might not be up against a modern airforce and then it could be helpful. Because God knows the Mig-29 concept got disadvantages by design, notably in its radar signature.

While TVC won’t help too much in WVR when dealing with modern missiles (9X, Python 4,5), it will help in high speed BVR fight, according to the F 22 chief test pilot:

Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic ‘dogfight’ where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community. Certainly, there is general agreement that it is best to not get slow – ever. With the advent of the helmet mounted sight, 4th generation heat seeking, off-boresight missiles the slow dogfight becomes even more dangerous. ‘To slow or not to slow’ are questions of tactics and best left to the expert fighter pilots of the future. The F-22’s thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed.

http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

Well, if you’ve ever played simulator games, and if they are any indication of aerial combat (which of course they really are not), you’d know, one of the best ways to dodge a missile (say in the F-22 lightening) is to look for the missile plume and attempt to dodge it at the last minute. The next hard bit is to land the aircraft, which is as hard as dodging a missile (particularly true in some simulator games, in others its automated)

The solid fuel rockets that power AA missiles will be exhausted when they will be near the target. For example, the sidewinder burns in ~ 2.5 seconds.

It will still be checking the airspace for other aircraft and the last time i looked the AMRAAM wasn’t included in the list of stealthy aircraft.

Maybe I should reformulate: the only radars that has any chance to detect a VLO plane are long waves radars. But these ones wouldn’t detect an AMRAAM.

My memory must be going bad… I thought the claim was that it could detect cold targets at the maximum range of the Phoenix missile. To a heat seeking device the nose on cross sectional area of a Tu-22 is not very big at all. In fact with its huge wedge shaped intakes the Mig-25 would probably have a similar nose on profile if a shorter wingspan…

yes it can detect “cold” targets at max. range of Phoenix. But the the target they calibrated the IRST is the Tu 22 (the supposed victim of the F 14). And it is not the target RCS that count, but the IR signature. A larger plane has a bigger IR signature.

But angular accuracy is actually better than radar. With the positional information from an IRST you can range a target without having to scan for it. It makes any radar a LPI set because the ranging blip from the radar would be lost in the general background noise.

You are right, the angular accuracy is ~ 40 times (according to LM site) than radar, but to obtain ranging is a little more than a short blimp. Also the target must be tracked, so that means a lot of “blimps” not to mention a multi-targets environment. However, the main concern was bad weather.