RE: Flanker parents…

Could be possible that the F 15 and F14 inspired the Flanker?

And what inspired the F15 and F14 ? The MiG 25 ?

I don’t think inspire is the best word to use. Rather, each of these is a response to a percieved threat.
The MiG-25 traveling above 70,000 feet and at speeds of Mach 2.5 or higher was one threat of which the F-14A and F-15A was designed to deal with. The F-14A’s primary threat was the masses of Soviet bombers attacking the fleet with anti-ship missiles. The F-15A was designed to deal with the 3,000 plus MiG-21’s and 23’s over central Europe. (In an WP vs NATO conflict the F-15 was supposed to maintain a 6:1 kill ratio if NATO had any chance of winning!) The WP had a large numerical edge in aircraft over NATO. The USA used quality to challenge the numbers of WP aircraft.
The F-14, F-15 and Su-27 all started in 1969 but, it was Grumman who was able to get operational aircraft in just fifty-one months! The Su-27 (or T-10) was to ambitious in its design. Its specs called for it to be 10% better in all important specs compared to the F-14 or F-15. This caused it to become operational (in limited numbers) fifthteen years later (five Su-27 in 11/86 -PVO).
One of the primary goals of the S-37 (Su-47) was to get computer simulation to the point where it accurately portraid the final results of the design. This is what took the Su-27 so long in developement, the inability to predict the final results of the design would be. This caused the crash of four test aircraft and the complete redesign of the T-10 in 1980 to the Su-27 we know today.
Had the Cold War continued both the Rafale and F-22 would have become operational in the mid-1990s! Only about seven years after the V-VS recieved its first Su-27.
All part of the arms race we know.

Adrian

RE: Sidestick Controller

Not quite. A Siemens-modified He111 was the first, with an electric sidestick, 1942. Then the X-15 and a F-107A. F-16 was the first in series production.

Thank you for the correction and update. Also thanx Flanker_man for your information. I had been under the impression it was all the models.

Adrian

RE: F-15, F/A-18

WP840, you are comparing the F-15E versus the F/A-18E/F. An internal study by Boeing did just that, it revealed the F-15E out performs the E/F in every category except the F-15E CAN NOT, land on a carrier. The F-15E can carry an heavier ordnance load and has a much greater range than the F/A-18E/F.
The US Navy was forced by Congress to do a study on “IF”, the F-15A could replace the F-14A? (A paper study only) The F-14A’s price was rising and Congress wondered if the Navy could use the F-15A instead to save money. The F-15A could not perform the F-14A’s mission. (SEE NOTE)
The F-15A would approach a carrier at a higher speed and higher angle of attack. The effort to further strengthen the frame, re-design the landing gear, add the launch bar/hold back link for the nose wheel, changing many materials to withstand the corrosive effects of sea spray would all go to ruin the naval version of the F-15, the F-15E would be unacceptible for carrier usage.
NOTE;
In a study order by NORAD to be done by the North Dakota ANG in the late-1970’s, to evaluate the four new US jets, one of which would replace the F-106. The bottom line was the ND-ANG found the F-14A to be their first choice as a replacement for the F-106. It was found the F-15A with two Phoenix Missiles had less range and less time on station than the F-14A with six Phoenix Missiles! Second choice was the F-15A, third choice was the F-16A and the four choice was a surprise -to re-engine an F-4 Phantom and replace its radar with the Hornet’s radar. That was the only reference of the F/A-18 Hornet.

The F-18 should have relaxed stability already.

Relaxed stability is not something you can just add-on. It is something that needs to be part of the original design efforts. Relaxed stability is something that requires excess thrust to fully take advantage of that type of capabilities.

Adrian

RE: What a bad jetfighter F-16 it is!

F-16 has been shot down by MiG-23 in confliction between Israel and Syria then also was shot down by Pnavia Tornado in NATO’s exercise!

Can you name an aircraft that has not been shot down in an exercise? Syria ‘might’ have shot down an F-16 but, IDF/AF F-16’s have shot down FIFTY-TWO Syrian aircraft/helos! This includes fifthteen MiG-23’s and twenty-one MiG-21’s -confirmed kills!
A USAF F-16C shot down a IrAF MiG-25 (the first kill using a Slammer Missile), a Dutch F-16A MLU shot down a Serbian MiG-29, Pakistani AF claims seven confirmed kills and, many more unconfirmed kill against Afghan AF aircraft. PAF have claimed no IAF aircraft and the IAF makes NO confirmed kill claims against PAF F-16’s! Greece and Turkey both have F-16’s and there has been combat between the two of them.
The aviation world has a different opinion about the F-16. By the end of 2005 over four thousand, four hundred plus F-16’s have been ordered. Now with Block 50, 52 and, 60 being delievered, the F-16 stands a good chance of producing more aircraft than the F-4 Phantom 2! There were a little over five thousand F-4 Phantoms produced.

While Syria makes many claims against Israeli fighters, very few can be substantiated! There are many websites on the internet as well as in Janes Book of Aircraft (annual) books which list aircraft and even serial numbers of aircraft sent to Israel. If you want to do the homework, you can verify aircraft Israel ordered versus what they have left.

Would it help if it was a twin engine in case of birds going Engine Crazy?

There is no evidence that a second engine would have helped the F-16. Compare the loss rate of the F-16 versus F/A-18! The reliability of modern jet engines is so high that aviation authorities allow ‘twin jet’ airliners to make trans-oceanic flights!

Adrian

RE: Canards and the 4++ Gen. aircraft

the F-22 is the most sophisticated fighter currently in service, both fighters do not use canards.

The F-35 was designed WITH canards! During the six hundred hours of wind tunnel testing of the aircraft at NASA Ames Research Center, was the decision made to eliminate them.
True, canards are an “element” in the integrated design of an aircraft. The F-22 was designed without canards. One thing about the F-22 is, the stablators provide lift for the aircraft, which is why most calculations on weight versus lift are wrong and make the F-22 seem like it is just another in the pack of new aircraft.
Conventional (stable) airframes require downforce from the horizontal stabs to maintain trim. Relaxed-stability (unstable) airplanes do not. In other words, the F-15 wing has to not only support the weight of the structure, it has to generate additional lift to balance the downforce from the tail. An F-22 gets the opposite effect – the wing can actually generate less lift than weight because the tail is helping, creating positive lift. (This, by the way, is a significant portion of the drag savings, as all lift (up or down) generates drag.)
The Americans use canards when appropriate, the B-1 Lancer, XB-70 Valkerie, the F-14A’s glove vanes, X-29, etc.

Adrian

RE: F-22 – the world’s most advanced and capable fighter…..?

The F-22 will go the same way as all its predecessors: overstretched requirements, overbudget development, delayed IOC, continueing problems with the most advanced systems and finally a nice financial back-up from the American tax-payer to Lockheed-Martin and Co.

OVER-SIMPLIFICATION! These are problems you run into with when you produce a new frontline fighter thirty years after the last one.
Overstretch requirements;
Would you prefer marginal improvement over the F-15? To be ‘just’ competitive with the latest being developed. THEN, cry when USAF has to use the aircraft and have the sort of kill ratio we had in Viet Nam?
Overbudget development;
Would you rather have an aircraft that had the problems of the F-14 Tomcat, where one hundred and thirdteen aircraft were lost in crashes?
Delayed IOC;
Write your senator and congressmen…. that is where the screw-up starts!
Continueing problems with the most advanced systems;
Can you name any military system that has made a quantum increase in capability that has not had this sort of “teething period?”
Financial back-up from the American tax-payer to Lockheed-Martin and Co;
Do you think you would have any major complex weapon system today, that is company sponsored?

CNN was using negative hype to dramatize the situation to try to keep viewers attention.

Contemporary news is a buisness, not a public service. Most of the people who work for news services know little about technology other than the latest on laptops and PDA’s. When it comes to weapon systems, they are ignorant and if some information is needed to cover world events (PGW#1, invasion of Iraq, etc.), they grab Janes or AW&ST. When the world event ends then they put away the information. So they remain ignorant!

One thing that is not often discussed when comparing the YF-22 versus YF-23, is that both companies had to write an extensive set of test points or parameters the company needed to validate in flight testing. This one area where Lockeed did a much better job than did Northrop. YF-22 fired Sidewinder and Slammer Missiles during the competition period with the YF-23. Lockeed display a far greater amount of time in the air flying seventy-one missions in ninety days. Add to this the USAF had greater confidence in Lockeed than they did in Northrop.

Adrian

RE: Top Ten Modern Aircraft

4. E-3, the success ratio of the USAF owes alot to its development of AWACs, and reducing the workload of the pilots to a minimum to maintain situational awareness.

Actually, the credit should go to the US Navy with the E-2 Hawkeye which started service in 1961! The E-3 became operational with the USAF in March of 1977. AWACS does provide the fighter pilots with the situational awareness previously only afforded by CGI for its interceptors.

6. MiG-31, still the best interceptor in the world. Who give a sh_t about supercruise if you can stick the burners on for a 1/2 hour?

I disagree with you there, I believe the best interceptor in service with the Russian AF is the Su-27! The war in Viet Nam illustrated interceptors can be forced to dogfight. If forced into a dogfight, I would much rather be in an Su-27 than any variant of the MiG-25/31.

Notable exclusions and reasons why:
F-22: I don’t consider its rivals to have made their appearance yet. [The EF and Rafale are 4+, not 5th gen IMO].

The Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen are most diffinitely fifth generation aircraft. They were designed on a more reasonable budget than the F-22!

Notable exclusions and reasons why:
B-52: A big, fat, slow target on its prime mission of invading Soviet airspace IMO – without fighter cover it would have been a sitting duck.

If that were the case, the Soviet Union would not have withdrawn its missiles from Cuba! The B-52’s were prepared to fight their way into the targets. Killing interceptor bases with Hound Dog Missiles along with Quail Missiles and ECM to get to the target. A huge path through the Soviet heartland would have been made through the PRC!

The F-15 main role in the Bekka Valley was shoot any MiG-25 that would had tried to intercept the Israeli strike formations; or any MiG-23 that tried to scape the F-16 ambush, for the MiG-23s and MiG-21s was either they were going to be shot down by the F-16s at short range or shot at at long range by the F-15s

The F-15 served as ‘top cover’ for the F-16’s and Kfirs. While the IDF/AF controlled the upper altitudes, the low altitudes for CAS were used fairly freely and effectively by the Syrian Air Force!
SEE ACIG’s “Middle East Database -Syrian Tank-Hunters in Lebanon, 1982”
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml

The Most important aircraft of the XX century are aircraft that are associated with a historical moment and a Pilot, example the Wright Brothers` first flight in their airplane at Kitty hawk, the Red baron`s Albatros D III, Lindbergh`s Spirit of st Louis, Paul Tibbets` B-29 Enola gay, Yeager`s X-1, Gary Power`s U-2, Belenko`s MiG-25, and so on

I must disagree with you there. Some of these aircraft were famous because they illustrate to the public as a whole, the tremendous advancement aviation had made.
To that I don’t think the Albatros D III, Power’s U-2 or, Belenko’s MiG-25 should be in this group. The Red Baron’s accomplishment though notable was just part of the evolution of air power in WW1. Gary Powers being shot down by a SAM, simply illustrated something ‘USAF air intelligence’ had known for several years, that height alone offered no security. Which is why Kelly Johnson at Skunk Works had started working on the SR-71 two years before the U-2 was shot down.

the F-15 was quit influencing because it has been a tool to shape History, has the best combat record of modern times and perhaps in the History of combat aviation

True, it was a tool that affected world politics. The best combat record by a wide margin.

I do not think the F-15 will be so ever lasting as probably other aircraft will be

It already has been! There is no other fighter that has been a major power’s frontline fighter/interceptor for thirty plus years. Even if the Cold War had continued and the F-22 had become operational in the mid-1990’s, that still would have provided a long life of over twenty years as the USAF’s premiere fighter. Longer than any other previous fighter. Even the venerable F-4 Phantom 2 in which over 5,000 fighters were built was the pimary fighter for many air forces, was only the primary fighter for the US Navy for thirdteen years and the USAF for twelve years. Still a good life span for a Cold War fighter.
Avionics improvements with insure it will be at least competitive for years to come. Will it be dominant in the future, in my opinion…. NO! At best, it will have a 1:1 kill ratio against the fighters being designed now or under major modifications. A very sad end to such a fine fighter.

Adrian

RE: Viggen on carriers? Feasible or not?

Adrian,
in what circumstances? Internal fuel or with external tanks?

The range figures are based upon the normal configuration to ferry an aircraft from one place to another, good advertisement type stuff.

you haven’t actually answered the question.

Is this the question you are referring to, “Could you tell me how you work out that the A-4 could carry more weapons & have a greater range than the Viggen?” If it is the question, the Skyhawk is just an older but more capable design as an attack aircraft!!

What are your sources? And you haven’t actually answered the question.

US Navy and Douglas Aircraft Corporation. They both boasted the A-4 was the first aircraft to be able to carry a heavier weapon’s load than the weight of the plane itself.
This was current events long before the ARVNET!
When you look at the data from the URL provided by Badger 1968, you will recognize that the A-4 was a fine airplane whos design was ahead of its time!

I think the weapons load question is a case of the usual US practice always having been to quote the maximum theoretical external load (all pylons fully loaded)

This is a common practice in US aerial combat operations (PGW#1, Kosovo, PGW#2, etc). To take off with a maximum ordnance load, minimum fuel load and, proceed to an aerial tanker to fill up the fuel tanks. Bingo fuel is calculated upon getting back to the aerial tanker.

About the 1250 mile ferry range

I use the stated ferry range since there is no standard configuration for maximum range. Even designations such as “Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi” does not tie down enough parameters to really evaluate the effective combat range of a fighter bomber. There is nothing spelled out how far the “lo” is, no standard load of weapon or fuel, not to mention the effects of winds aloft, etc. Ferry range is a measurement of how far a plane can go with the fuel it takes off with, that is all.
The most meaningful comparisons tend to come when you can visit one URL and get the information on several aircraft being compared.

I’m not sure how to interpret the landing speeds in relation to what we know of planes like the Rafale.

It is not just landing speed but also many other factors such as
AoA, not stated in numbers like this are factors such as minimum wind over the deck, etc.

Thanx, Bager1968 for your reference URL.

Adrian