First, send B-1Bs to carpet bomb the enemy with cluster bombs from altitude. Then send in A-10A Warthogs and AH-64D Apaches to take out what is left.

Rocky, F-14 (A,B or D) is not designed for very high speed. At high altitudes it can attain 2,3 Mach only in slight dive. In level flight it could do about 1.9 Mach max, whatever version. That is because of engine design.
A famous, often stated number of 2,34 Mach is what is attained by prototype and in slight dive.

Since it takes a long time and a lot of fuel to accelerate to the last 0.1 Mach, it wouldn’t surprise me that the pilot put it in a slight dive before he leveled out at Mach 2.34. “Max speed” is always in level flight. I can’t believe that all those reference books are that screwed up.

At sea level F-14D attained 1,1 Mach, that is true, but it was in test, not in service.

I can’t believe that an F-14 with 68 deg wing sweep is slower than the F-4 on the deck. Turbofans love thick air too.

Col. John Boyd, a famous fighter pilot and instructor in Nellis Fighter Weapons School, said:
“F-14 is underpowered, performance is so poor that pilots called it The Tom Turkey. It is a lumbering, poor performing aerial truck.”
“In simulated combat it loses energy too quickly and is easy target.”

I have many old books about F-14 in which it is presented as fighter without vices, and even that it is as agile as F-15. All that was, as it is revealed now, a pure propaganda.

Yes, the F-14A has a poor thrust/weight, but it still has very low drag. The F-18 has better thrust/weight than the F-4. The F-18 is a much better fighter than the F-4, but it is still slower than the F-4, F-14, F-15, MiG-29, Su-27, etc, etc, etc. The F-111F is a disaster as a fighter, but its faster than all of them.

As for F-106, in service it is a bit slower than F-4E and F-4 could do 2,15 M in standard atmosphere.
F-106 could do above 2,1 only in record flight.

I guess the little wing pylons would slow down an F-106 a little, but not so much as the pylons and eight missiles hanging off of an F-4 or F-15.

It is true that Mig-25 has no LE flaps, slats etc. Cockpit visibility is not so good but look at other Mach 3 aircraft. Look at visibility in SR-71, X-2, Valcyrie. Mig-25 is by far the best in that respect.

None of those jets was designed to turn, and the MiG-25 is the only one of them that is built to shoot down other aircraft. Compare it to any western fighter and it comes out last in visability.

Mig-31 have LE flaps, LERX and internal cannon. It is a truly awesome fighter interceptor regarding performance, weapons and avionics.

Its an excellent intercepter, but a MiG-21 could shoot it down if it ever got WVR.

Without these, F-15s score record would be practically blank 🙂 we could call these *kill list fillers* 😉

Hey, the MiG-21 was a good fighter in its day. It was the best the Soviets had until the MiG-29 came along. F-4 pilots had a lot of respect for it. For point defense, its was probably the most cost effective fighter in the world.

F-18E/F

😮

Which fighter can operate in a region with characteristics High altitude, High density, cold and nil wind conditions?

Which type of airframe and engine is suited?

At high altitudes you want a very low wing loading and a turbojet engine. Right now I think the Mirage 2000 fits the bill.

BTW, the best flying in the solar system is over Titan. It has low gravity, and a cold, dense atmosphere. On the other hand, you can’t burn the Nitrogen atmosphere. Venus has a very dense CO2 atmosphere, but the clouds are made of sulphuric acid, and its so hot the pilot and avionics would be charred. Jupiter is so massive that you would be over 2G flying straight and level, but on the plus side, you can burn the Hydrogen atmosphere, and you never, ever have to worry about flying into a mountain, and you always have enough altitude to recover from a stall. 😀