Hey, all you experts, please indulge a “stupid question” from a layman….I am not an engineer.

Aren’t the vertical tails WAY too small? Doesn’t this affect maneuverability very significantly, not to mention the high speed stability/inertia coupling? I thought the reason high speed fighters had big vertical tails was so they wouldn’t swap ends at very high speed.

They are too small, yes, but their meaningfull moving area is much larger than any other design, so it mostly compensates.

Are you nuts?

No, just blind.

On a 9+g fighter, you are seriously trying to suggest they would have a wheel well at the wing root instead of structure?

Well, it’s certainly not the case with the PAK FA. The wheels retract to the airframe because that’s where their well is. It’s not like there is no other 9+ design with wells on the wing. Mirage 2K comes instantly in mind.

So far, “horrendous” might even be a mild adjective for all eurocanards. The F-16 has sold more airframes during the first decade of this century alone than all eurocanards together.

But that is so far, who knows, with so many tenders in progress this may change later on, albeit not dramatically.

It is indeed amusing that many Greek friends have the illusion of taking each and every action of Turkish Air Force as directed to internal politics.

Not each and every action, but a significant share of them. Sadly, I have to admit that the same is with HAF’s action on the other side of the Aegean, though in this case it more like the object of political c0ck-fighting like “oh my my god, we spent hundreds of millions of precious euros for fuel for interceptions every year!!!”-this being the rhetoric of both major political parties… :rolleyes:

Turkish general public as well as Greece simply do not care about what happens in Aegean.

Perhaps the most accurate statement I’ve read for quite a few days. Not that in essence it really matters.

And did I mention that it has anything to do with this thread?

Coud you quote something else? I’ll be glad to correct if you provide some credible data.

?

Where did I say this?

I never said it is.

That was not the question, when it was about the first use of an IRST in the 60s. Even todays IRST are an additional sensor to a radar only.

By the way the first IR-seekers were with AAMs in the 50s.

No, they were even earlier, during the last stages of WWII. Even if you were true, those primitive IR seekers were meant for another thing, not searching the vastness of the skies, nor passing data to FCS.

The IRST is a secondary sensor, true. But if somehow (e.g. jamming) the main sensor -radar- is off, IRST will become the primary sensor. Then a fighter will have an obvious advantage over an another one which does not, in the sense that “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed guy is the king”.

Hmmm, let’s see, …in Iraq the coalition lost ~ 35 A/C to SAMs…in Serbia 3… So sometime it’s usefull to read some history.

Let’s see, I never said the coalition didn’t loose any aircraft, did I? All I said was that the iraqis wasted the majority of their hi-SAM missiles on baits.

So, sometimes it’s useful to read other people’s post before replying.

Additionally, would you care to remind us how many serbian SAM batteries were destroyed by allies and how many allied HARMs were wasted on baits?

So indeed, sometimes it’s usefull to read some history.

Errr, no, as you can see the Turkish, Israeli, Greek, Japanese, German AFs (anong others) got it.

I am not sure about the pics you posted; I don’t see any IRST, you probably refer to undernose gun. But I don’t insist.

You are however definately wrong about greek F-4s; I know for sure they were not received with any kind of IRST, neither were they updated with one later on. So, at least one of your examples is pure fantasy. Talking about history lessons? Please…

Su27/Mig 29 had a more “rounded” package (radar/IRST/HMS/HOBS missile/datalink) and reasonbly good integration of these, but none of the systems taken individually was the best of its kind.

The same is for other fighters too; None of Rafale’s avionics is considered “top of the notch”. But the way all those are integrated, the so called “man-machine interface” is.

So yes. The degree of integration is a way of evaluating the power/advancement of avionics, isn’t it. Especially when the combo you described was not but a wild dream for the americans and their allies at the time and for many years (read: decades) to come. So the MiG-29/Su-27 were hardly inferior in avionics than their western counterparts, quite the contrary, in some respects they were superior, not vastly but still…

Thanks for making my point. 😉

Since a number plate is placed vertically on the carframe, so that it is visible from the side rather than from above, I don’t see how any satellite would manage to get a shot of it.

Am I missing something?

Not kidding at all. The Fulcrum and Flanker were newer aircraft than the Tomcat and Eagle, but with far less capable avionics.

^^^Just a reminder, that post was the source of disagreement. Further on:

Yes, it was. The F 14 A used AWG 9. It was the first radar able to track multiple targets (6) at over 185 km (the range of the Phoenix missile). It became operational in 1972 (the Su 27 was on the drawing boards then). The F 14 D used APG 71, even more powerful:
The only Rusian radar comparable was the Zaslon, but it was in the ’80.

Nope: http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm:

The AWG-9 also had serious problems when introduced into service (perfectly understandable for a brand new system). But that’s not the point. By stating “The Su-27 was on the drawing boards by then”, you just wiped the argument that the PAK-FA, although younger by 15 years, will (read: must) be inferior in avionics. I never got into the ****-fighting as to who-invented-what-first, quite the contrary actually.

BTW, yes the Zaslon was found on the MiG-31 but guess what? We were talking about MiG-29/Su-27…

So ~ 500 F 4s are not enough for you?

No, they are not, for many reasons.

Not quite. The VTAS is a HMS (helmet mouted sight). With such, you are limmited within visual range. The fratricide risk is very high. Tha’s the reason the US droped them, and they were right: in the Gulf war in 1991, the Iraqi MiG 29 used them. The result; two kills. too bad that they were Iraqi too :diablo:. The JHMCS is a HMD (helmet mounted display). In a HMD you got data from the radar and thus you know foe sure that the target is ennemy or not, because is verified by IFF. The first HMD was the Israeli DASH. Note that the present Russian system is a HMS, not very far from the “primitive” VTAS, albeit linked with a more performant missile the R 73. I am not aware of any russian HMD until now.

Thanks for the… “history lesson”, but I never cited russian systems of the eighties as HMDs. Other members did, not me.

Also, I think it’s funny to mention iraqi performance during GW1 in… just about anything. At the begining of the war, they depleted the majority of their hi-SAM missiles shooting down bait drones. Does this say something about the performance of russian radars, or iraqi users? Cause in Serbia it was the other way around. The same in other cases too, such as Peruvian Magics being “incapable” vs equatorian Su-22s.

So, keep your history lesson for yourself.

Can’t you read? If you count only the F 4 (that had the AAA-4) and still you got 5,500 of them! That’s not enough “serious scale” to you?

You just crossed the boundaries of being funny and just entered the territory of paranoia: Not all F-4s ever built incorporated IRST; additionally, no american allies ever receivced IRST-equiped F-4s (AFAIK anyway) unlike soviet allies; finally those primitive AAA-4s were abandoned later on. Strange, don’t you think, if they were so innovative and capable as you describe?

At the end of the day, the fact remains and it’s undisputed: In the eighties, the MiG-29/Su-27 enjoyed the IRST/HMS/R-73 combination, while at the same time, neither F-16 nor the F-15, not even the F-14 (all some 10 years younger) enjoyed anything not even close.

In other respects yes, these two american fighters were sometimes superior, some others not, or not so much.

The best IRST is considered the AAS 42 introduced an F 14 D in 1992.

You can believe whatever you want, or whatever (you think that) supports your theories. It’s a free world, mostly.

It can detect (weather dependent, of course) a “cold” target at > 150 km. By contrast, the best Russian IRST (OLS 35 of the Su 35) can detect a cold target at 40 km. Almost 20 after the AAS 42 !

I doubt it. But never mind, let’s accept for arguments’ shake that it actually can. What makes the OLS35, not superior (not that I ever used that word anyway), but at least comparable, is that it’s slaved to a HMS (which the F-14 never had and latest american fighters only recently received and F-22 still lacks) and can direct HOBS missile (which the F-14 never had and latest american fighters only recently received and F-22 still lacks) R-73 to its target. And… guess what? some 20 years before the Americans, to use your logic…

More than enough to win a battle, even if the adversary actually had an 150km IRST, which he did not.

Probably due to missile limitations at the time, that could really take advantage of a HMS.

No, not probably. Obviously is a better word. But don’t tell me, tell dynamo.

Can you cite any historical aerial battle where fighters equipped with IRSTs dominated fighters withouth IRSTs? Battles are won at the sytems level, not the platform level.

Actually, I was refering to sea platforms, but no, I clearly cannot cite such a aerial battle. But (although that was not my point in the first place) there has not been any serious aerial battle in the last what? 30? 40? years? So, such a question, altough perfectly sensible, is highly hypothetical. Nuclear ICBMs have not likewise ever been used, so no historical use available to be cited. But I don’t think anybody doubts about either their capabilities or their contribution to the outcome of a possible war.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=94384

Post #16 😉 Always makes me laugh when the fanboys go on about the “revolutionary” IRST on the Flanker.

Always makes me laugh when some internet smart *$$ go about their know-it-all, while in fact they haven’t even read, let alone comprehend, the post to which they reply.

I think it’s another IRST too, after all there should be something to compensate the some-what limited vision draw-back of the canopy 😀
and an IRST might work better than mirrors 😀
Also there’s a rumor that T-50 will have two 30-mm guns on board, is there anyone here found the second? I only found one.

A dual barrel perhaps??