dig up F-15 😎

Its the high wing and the large side intake that does the trick.
….

Is it me or those engine exhaust nozzles are undersized a bit?

I was alluding to the fact that the MiG-31 also uses D-30, thus “family resemblance”. Looking at the nozzles, they appear to be roughly the right size:

Su-47 also uses D-30F6. The nozzles don’t look the same in those two pics but I am not familiar enough with the D-30 to judge whether that is just a visual effect.

WS-15’s goal is 160-180KN, with burner.

and there were rumors that this thing has a D-30. instead of AL31/WS-10 and field report all said the engine whine is distinct from AL-31 make by the J-10Bs taxi’in around the field.

so there.

Hmm:

Family resemblance? 😉

The planned beach landing bluff that the Marines pulled during GW1 was one of the reasons that the land war was accomplished with such a low Allied loss rate.

If we did not have the ability to do a beach assault then all the Iraqi forces would have been on the border and the the Allied losses would have been much greater

You don’t need to spend billions procuring a whole new fleet of amphibious APCs to (not) sit offshore and act as decoys. We can keep pretending to refurbish the AAVP7A1s for as long as we need them in that role. (As an aside, I always thought Schwarzkopf owed Larry Bond a credit for that move).

Forgetting history again I see. The Marines in GW1 used forward deployed Harriers with great success. They were the only fast jet CAS that did not need refueling to get the job done.

In GW1 the forward-deployed Harriers operated from a 4,000-foot asphalt runway at King Abdul Aziz Naval Base (the famous “soccer field”, so named because there was a soccer field next to the base). Yes, it was the most forward fixed-wing base in the theater, but it hardly required STOVL capability to operate from. The real reason the Harriers operated from there was because their range was so short they would have been an undue burden to the tanker fleet otherwise. And while they may not have needed aerial refueling, they did need plenty of even more expensive and dangerous overland logistics.

The story is the same in Afghanistan, BTW. The USMC likes to propagandize the Harriers, with stuff like “Basing AV-8Bs at FOB Dwyer during the fight for Marjah resulted in 65 percent of their sortie duration being spent on station. In comparison, aircraft based at Kandahar spent 55 percent of their sortie duration on station“. Never mind that “sortie duration” is hardly uniform for all types; I’d rather have an F-15E spend 55% of its flight time over my head than a Harrier spend 65% of its. And if you have to truck all the fuel, supplies, and ammunition all the way out there it’s absolutely not worth it.

Take the Styxnet worm as example; it was supposed that an infected USB stick had infected to control computers of the Iranian Uranium centrifuge facility. Iranians replied that their IT-specialists check any software change of those high security systems and that they had detected the worm before it reached the computers.

Well, but they didn’t

“They succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts,” Mr. Ahmadinejad told reporters at a news conference, Reuters reported. “They did a bad thing. Fortunately our experts discovered that and today they are not able [to do that] anymore.”

When even Ahmadinejad admits stuxnet affected their centrifuges, the damage was obviously of such a magnitude that lying about it would be worse than admitting it happened.

I can also mention that there is no way in a closed system like a IADS to activate the worm on demand.

There’s really no such thing as a “closed system” any more. Air defense systems obviously don’t work in isolation. And unless you are prepared to run wires all over the place, and guard the wires and their interconnections, and ensure that nothing in your system ever connects to anything outside that system of nodes and wires, you are vulnerable.

As others have pointed out, the Israelis were able to do it, allegedly with the help of the U.S. “Suter” system or something similar. And the USAF hasn’t been completely silent about developing that capability.

“So in a BVR engagement a mere 30-degree “check turn” and ramp down to a lower altitude was usually enough to break lock and negate the otherwise “dreaded” Phoenix. “

This is overstating the problem somewhat. The AWG-9 used a special case of TWS to illuminate targets for the AIM-54, not CW illumination, so a target’s RWR would not indicate that the F-14 had actually fired a missile. And in any case the refresh issue that Dildy talks about is only true if the AWG-9 is guiding multiple AIM-54s to multiple targets. Against a single target, the AWG-9 would have no more trouble than any other contemporary radar set at maintaining lock against a maneuvering target.

1. drag plays a secondary role at these speeds. Especially drag of an aerodynamic missile body compared to moving control surfaces.

Drag is an essential factor. Missile bodies, gaps between missiles and fuselage, recesses for conformal missiles, pylons and rails all contribute to drag. The specific effects vary; for example some fighters with semi-recessed missiles actually perform better with the missiles in place than without.

2. F-22 needs to maneuver with bays open and AIM-9Ms extended if it wants to shoot down something.

Only for a few seconds. It’s not going to be flying around bays open all the time in WVR.

Just had a glimpse at few pics. Hard to say, but compared to Rafale or Typhoon, the surfaces of the Raptor don’t look larger related to overall size of the aircraft.

It’s pretty obvious that all of the F-22’s control surfaces are large in proportion to its planform, and in particular the elevators and vertical tails.

Both were designed as 7.X G airplanes – state of the art for the late 1960s.

That changed with F-15E’s redesign for 9 Gs. Higher output engines help late model F-15s overcome induced drag during sustained turns.

Initially F-15As were limited to 7.33gs, later F-15As and F-15Cs are equipped with OWS (Overload Warning System) and are cleared for 9G. The limitation for the F-15 is based on weight, the heavier the ac is the more restricted the envelope at which 9G is allowed by OWS.

Well, i know where the 6:1 came out. Last paragraph from defencenet’s article:

Ah, you are right. When I came across it before, I thought that was a page of comments on an article, I did not realize that claim was part of the article itself. At any rate I agree that the claim is, at best, not supported by anything official.