Speak for yourself, you visibly didn’t read what is written in the doc you posted.
If had, you would have figured that he doesn’t mention the F-16 in the topic of superstall but the fact that it posses an Alpha limiter as I was saying, so your little literature doesn’t serve your cause and certainly don’t support you calling people names, when it comes to mistaking A-C, testing flight envelops, spin recovery and post-stall maneuvring on the topic, you should apply them to yourself. For the reason for F-16 AoA limitation see DRYDEN Flight test reports

Do you think you can divert the attention away from your claim earlier?
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852444}[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852445}[/ATTACH] ​​​​​​​

Actually Rafale performed Post stall maneuvers, the Herbst maneuver among them, controled flight below 30kt during a mock fight vs a Mirage 2000, this is a lot more relevant to AdlA and M.N than a 50* AoA Op limit, a guy like Yves Kerherve, Rafale M test pilot and chief test pilot for the Rafale program at the time conclusion were: We don’t need TVC. I’ll take his specialist word over yours any time.

so Russian engineer didn’t know anything when they put TVC on Su-30 , SU-35 and Su-57 ?
Besides, flying slow at high AoA is not a thing out of ordinary.

Gripen at 90* AoA demonstrated that it could initiate a yaw movement with ailerons inputs and stop them the very same way, that’s what CONTROLED flight means, not getting your hands off the stick and wait for the A-C to recover by itself.
You won’t do that with a F-16, boy, and spin recovery doesn’t equal to controlled flight in post-stall situation, if you cannot see the difference between the two, there is no point having this conversation in the first place, regardless of the biased opinion of those who probably doesn’t know a bit about Gripen or Rafale high AoA test flights, and btw however hard they tried, Rafale test pilots during high AoA flight test (AoA relaxed FCS) never managed to put it into a superstall, that’s arodynamics vs FCS “twicks”.Yes they do, Rafale low speed nose pointing capability is one of its most remarked capabilities, ask any pilot who got into a dog fight vs them, it can roll at 80kt and even lower than that, THIS is what CONTROLED flight means, and they are much less prone to loss of control than conventional A-Cs like the F-16 I quoted for example, which also mean that they CAN initiate maneuvers and stop them at those AoA, you really think post-stall maneuvers like that Gripen or Rafale pulled during testing are done without full 3-axis control?
In your doc, they put F-35 into a SPIN to test its recovery capability, from there I am standing this doesn’t qualify as post stall maneuvers

You are so full of ****
For the so called 100 degrees AoA test, Gripen was put into a spin an see how it recover with flight control system inputs, exactly what happened in F-16 and F-35 spin test, they all initiate a yaw movement with ailerons/rudder inputs and stop them the very same way, but that doesn’t mean they all have the same level of nose pointing authority, just because your aircraft can recover from a spin at high AoA doesn’t mean the same aircraft will have usable control authority for post stall maneuver in combat, because able to recover or roll at high AoA is not enough, your yaw maneuver at high AoA need to be accurate. That why Gripen was designed to return to normal flight when pilot go to high angle of attack

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgripen II.PNG Views:t0 Size:t698.3 KB ID:t3852421″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852421″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tGripen recovery.PNG Views:t0 Size:t706.6 KB ID:t3852420″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852420″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

And for your information, in F-16 spin test, the pilot didn’t just let his hand go off the stick and wait for the aircraft to recover by itself
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tF-16.PNG Views:t0 Size:t465.9 KB ID:t3852428″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852428″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

Now for the full of it hilarious bit.
What exactly does this have to do with its Ultimate Structural Load limit I keep mentioning?
An A-C with a lower margin than the standard 1.5 will have a 10.5 g, with 1.2 Ultimate Structural load like E-F, you perfectly can test it a 9.9 g to see how it behaves it doesn’t mean you will pull 11.0 or 10g without problems, and its Operational Load limit is firmly 9.0G.
If you cannot comprehend what is written you should try to at least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with material you didn’t understand in the first place, the 0.9g beyond the operational limit mention should have grabbed your attention before you decided to show off.
0.9 G over an operational limit is common in flight testing, it is designed to explore the behaviour of the A-C passed those Op limits, nothing fancy there, but of course for fanboys it is SOOO exiting, missing the point totally, so back to the topic of designed Ultimate Structural Load, come back when you digested it, if ever, a clue: The standard is 1.5, that of all F-35 have been lowered.

It really much does, especially with your comment that somehow Eurofighter and F-35 will l be popping rivets and breaking bits long before they reach 10G-11G, yet F-35 had been flown to 9.9G, 0.1G is such a long way heh?

The standard is 1.5, that of all F-35 have been lowered

Mind telling us where you pull this from? your behind?
or you cannot comprehend the difference between Ultimate structure limit and sustain G limit at Mach 0.8 15k feet? seem like you should least learn the minimum so as not clutter the topic with terms you didn’t understand in the first place

where does it says F-35 performed post-stall maneuvers again?

Let me guess, you don’t know what is a pedal turn

Even pre-IOC,this jet has exceeded pilot expectations for dissimilar combat. (It is) G-limited now, but even with that, the pedal turns are incredible and deliver a constant 28 degrees/second

https://www.heritage.org/defense/rep…and-concurrent
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852442}[/ATTACH] ​​​​​​​ [ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3852443}[/ATTACH] ​​​​​​​

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1.PNG Views:t0 Size:t255.8 KB ID:t3852419″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852419″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

This is one area where Rafale is hard to beat, but not everyone actually knows why, looking at the AoA hard Op limit is very deceptive for the reason I explained, US aircrafts are not AoA limited the way French A-C are, to the exception of F-16 which can get into a superstall passed the FCS-limited AoA, it is an aerodynamic limitation, not structural, but if you look at the raw numbers of demonstrated AoA during testing, none of them actually came anywhere close to 100*, not the TVC-X-31, not the F-18, none of them X or F whatever.
Put into this context, 70* AoA is not that impressive, I mean Saab Draken pulled Cobra maneuvers for decades, John Boyd was doing this in a F-100, what matters is the level of control the A-C retains once departed, post-stall manoeuvring requires control.[/SIZE][/FONT]
Gripen also demonstrated post-stall maneuvers, those characteristics are specific to close-coupled canards which are naturally resistant to stall, retain control and do not risk superstall, but they both are AoA limited for operational reasons, it is a choice, not an incapability.

Keep trolling
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t40OijeR.png Views:t0 Size:t716.4 KB ID:t3852386″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852386″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

https://aviationweek.com/defense/f-3…hter-maneuvers

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgiphy.gif Views:t0 Size:t2.42 MB ID:t3852387″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852387″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

F-14 had been tested to around 90 degrees AoA

[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tgiphy.gif Views:t0 Size:t1.73 MB ID:t3852390″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3852390″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

F-15 also

Getting to high AoA and yaw departure, spin resistant tests are very common, most fighters must go through with that including Rafale and Gripen, but that doesn’t mean they suddenly have the same level of control over nose pointing at high AoA like a F-35 or Flanker with TVC.
When was the last time Gripen or Rafale did something like this:

or this

As for the issue of G limitation, there also the forum legends are hard to kill, to resume, if you believe the advocates of “they all can do it”, an A-C with no structural load margin will not break parts pulling as many Gs as Rafale, sorry but in the case of E-F the Ultimate Structural load is 10.8 G, meaning you’ll be popping rivets and breaking bits long before you reach this, at which point you will simply shred the A-C apart and I believe it is the same for the F-35 for the same reason.

At that time, Griffith had taken one of the initial F-35A test aircraft to 583 KCAS (exceeding Mach 1.2). Now, as the pace of testing continues to accelerate despite earlier delays caused by an inflight dual generator failure, and problems with the integrated power package (IPP), the jet has been flown to Mach
…………The aircraft has also been flown to 9.9g – which is 0.9g beyond the operational limits.

^ i tried and get 7.5 km

Placing design, size and performance limitations on the weapon (by optimizing for tactical fighter carriage) when ample number of long range strike bombers are available and in the pipeline would have been quite stupid decision. There are other programs at or in the same TRL ballpark that will be more suitable for tactical fighter carriage so there is no pressure to field an AL BGV that is performance limited because of fighter carriage optimization.

Is there any hyper sonic weapon available for tactical fighter carriage?

The thing is that. You will not know which missile have anti radiation warhead nor a warning unless they already launched.
Plus you should not confuse Anti radiation with HOJ. Though both are passive there are clear differences. Namely that the former is specifically designed to engage emitting target while the later is an operating mode using existing hardware.
You can easily see that Anti radiation missile seeker is designed with wideband antenna like spiral or conical and use interferometer method in extracting target angular position. while HOJ missile is basically your AMRAAM with HOJ mode.
and turning off radar is basically a loss of situational awareness. Your enemy may have mixed type of seeker, while the ARM one might be fooled, you might lost another IR or radar homer coming. This is why it’s preferable to have towed decoy or an expendable decoy in ARM situation

You are right that HOJ is not the same as anti radiation missiles but IMHO, they can be countered the same way. Turning off radar is only one of the option at close range, at such distance missiles can be tracked by other sensor such as DAS.
But i get your point,
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:tGen-X decoy.jpg Views:t0 Size:t336.3 KB ID:t3851552″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3851552″,”data-size”:”full”}[/ATTACH]

Also anti-radiation heads exist, that can lock onto you radar emissions.

Allow me to answer this for of MLight too, anti-radiation seeker are not useful against fighters because:
1. They home on what is emitting so they can’t chase aircraft who run away or simple have their radar offline when missile reach terminal phase
2. Same as above, anti radiation head can be countered with terrain bounce jamming (shine your radar, jamming beam toward the ground surface and let the missile hit reflection lobe)
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”medium”,”data-attachmentid”:3851473}[/ATTACH]
or blinking jamming (2 assets alternatively switch their jamming beam on then off)
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”medium”,”data-attachmentid”:3851474}[/ATTACH]

Which figure ? The recent one i posted was mix. Only those having (R90) is 90%. Rest are taken from open source with no adjustment. Recently however i decided to cut down everything to 90% Detection probability to give a more “standardized” looks.

The one for J-31 i meant