the F-111 has 2 swiveling and 1 non-swiveling hardpoint under each wing. One of those pylons can also carry an AIM-9 in addition to it’s normal load. the outer, non-swiveling pylons prevent the wing from sweeping past 26 degrees. It’s kinda neat to see a FB-111 take off with 6 tanks with the outer 2 already pointed in.

Have any “F/A-18 E/F Transonic Flying Qualities Overview” report?

It will be interesting to know what is core of transsonic wing-drop problem…

This may be what you’re looking for:

Transonic Free To Roll Analysis of F/A-18E/F and F-35

And why not?
Most of the fighter bombers need a navigator – it started with the F-4.
Just for another pair of eyes I will take a two seater.
There is actually a great story about the evaluation of the Phantom before been bought by the IDF/AF. In that time the IDF/AF prefered single seaters, so they thought about asking the US to develop a single seater F-4 for them.
Beni (Benyamin) Peled, the AF commander at that time, sent a group to the US, and he told to one of them – “I’m sending you to see if there is a need for a navigator in the Phantom – and the answer is better be ‘no’ “.
In the end they understood the power of the navigator in a fighter bomber like the F-4, and since then the Israeli fighter bombers are mostly two seaters.

Don’t get me wrong… I wasn’t criticizing, just commenting. I believe the IAF is the best, most professional airforce in the world (yes, above the USAF- and that’s coming from someone who grew up in the USAF).

Is there any nation that puts more effort into using 2 seat variants in cobat roles than Israel? Almost every picture I’ve seen of IAF aircraft are 2 seaters. 😎

no my friend lightndatic
the Suko will keep climbing AND accelerating AND putting more and more distance from the enemy (remember t/w superior to 1)
its the other airplane that eventually will run out of power and will give up as you see on the diagram
remember i’m just trying to interprete the idea behind the figure, that’s it, by the way this figure does make a lot of sense to me, that’s all 🙂
kool posting by the way, thanks 😎
Camaro.

Your explanation makes sense if you’re running from an F-4 or F-14/15/16/18 heavily loaded with A/G ordinance as those aircraft and weapons loadouts prevent accelerating vertically. Otherwise, any 4th Gen fighter can hang with the Sukhoi in the vertical long enough to get a shot off while the Sukhoi is at max AB (T/W ratio is at Max AB, remember) trying to get away.

My second assertion is that the Sukhoi can’t slow from a max effort climb into this stall maneuver in time to still hit an adversary that can’t climb with it and desides to extend. It either has to commit to the stall maneuver early enough into the act (which would give the pursuer the time to use the appropriate counter) or stick with a full power ballistic escape run (and he better be popping flares like a madman if he hopes to have any chance). I just cannot see where this show trick would work against a competant pilot in a 4th generation fighter. See my diagram modification:

Whoops, I forgot to do my ‘I’m a new guy’ thread. I too have been lurking for a while and decided to jump on into the pool.

Lightndattic

Good points, I think a airship could be fitted with alot more defensive systems and weapons than a Hawkeye as the weight penalty would not effect performance in the same way as a heavier than air platform.

I guess if you’ve got enough power to run a long range radar, in times of emergency, you could shut it off and re-direct power to engines or jammers. It still seems dicey, though.

The can only see 2 snags of said airships: Vulnerability (at least a Hawkeye can run) and the time it would take to get on station or re-position on a threat axis. As long as you’re going to have a large carrier with cats and arrestor gear, you might as well have an AEW platform that uses those facilities.