Aircraft VS super thread!

[Noyhauser]

Well Let me clear some stuff up.

We do have a navy. Its small, we got some good frigates, some very good SSKs, Old DDHs and a bunch of other stuff. The last Carrier, The Bonaventure, was retired decades ago. We don't really need carriers.

As I alluded to before, canada makes its defence procurement decisions based on "domestic offsets" or in laymans terms, how much of the money canada spends on procuring a program is invested by the contractor in Canada. That usually requires the contractor to invest money to build plants or buy parts from canadian distributers. Most smaller countries do this. Only the UK insists on a Laissez faire decision system, but they by 90% british anyways so that is a lie.

Why did we get the CF-18? Well Waaaaay back in 1982 canada held the New Fighter Aircraft competition between, guess who? The F-16 and F/A-18. They were neck and neck, and one was not judged to be better than the other. Then politics got into it. Quebec (the french speaking province in canada which is a thorny political problem) said that the General dynamics bid was better for canada because its offsets would give that province a big boost. That prompted the Minister of National Defence at the time to stand up in parliament with figures that refuted that fact and said the F/A-18 overall had better offsets, and quebec would not get screwed (he was right, most of I think a wing assembly for ALL F/A-18 is/was done near Toronto, meaning Canada made a profit on the F/A-18 from the or). The Fighter was not chosen on its merits, it was done on how much money canada would save.

The F-35 is going to be another case of this. Why would be buy F-16s if we could make potential millions as a partner to the F-35 production? As I said before canada will be the likely home of the F-35 training program, for all export version pilots. that means every single Export F-35 that is built will have its pilot trained in Canada. Canada already has extensive facilitites for this (as we have several nato training centers) and the proximity to the US, therefore we could make a lot of money. This is not to speak of the money that can be invested into canadian production facilities to build parts for the F-35.

Edited August 10, 2004 by Noyhauser

[Nied]

Well the Gripen is a lot smaller than the F-35. the Gripen is on the small side for lightweight fighters (almost as small as the F-5), while the F-35 is on the large side of the lightweight fighter (mainly due to the fact that it is designed to carry much more of it's fuel internally). The Eurofighter is all the way on the other end of the scale, definetly a heavyweight fighter, it definetly would be more capable than the F-35 but far more expensive too. I always felt that a good fighter for Canada (perhaps better even than for the US) would be the Super Hornet. It's got the advantages of comanality with their current mainline fighter, only with longer range (at a lower speed yes but most of the time these planes will be flying slow CAP missions over the Canadian coast or the Yukon), lower maintnence costs (I hear that's really killing the CAF right now), and a larger useable load (for all those NATO missions Canada has been participating in).

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm I think the Super bug is great for canada as well. Actually I think all teen fighters are better than teh JSF, which again I think only does well due to stealth.

Super hornet would be GREAT for canada and heck the CAF already has hornets so the transition shouldn't be too hard.

Guys naany info on the avro interceptor? hmm

Avro interceptor vs F-4PhantomII A-S

Avro has FBW but I am not too knowledgable but since these 2 are within same time frame I believe they could be comparable.

[Noyhauser]

Shin, you read my mind. I've recently got in a nasty argument on another board about the Arrow vs the Phantom. Now to be honest, Im not that great at aerodynamics because, well Im not trained in it at all. Go look up wing loading. I think the Arrow has half the wing loading of the Phantom, but I wonder how effective are the control surfaces on a delta wing vs a conventional fighter like the F-4. This should be interesting. Also note that the Arrow has a combat radius of 480 NM. It was unlikely to get the sparrow II, and its radar was not complete. So we don't have much to go on.

All your arguments should realize one thing at the end. The cost of the Avro Arrow, would have been 1.1% of canada's entire GDP (and 10% of canada's government expenditure f) for three consecutive years (1959~62) had it of continued. In the end canada averted one of the greatest financial disasters the world might have ever seen had it not been for the government of that day.

[Noyhauser]

Actually its the RCAF, Royal Canadian Air force, because we are part of the Queen's dominion.

All jokes aside, the maintence costs of the airforce are mostly due to the age of a lot of its equipment and the unbelievable operational tempo these units have been put under.

Also the super bug vs the F-35, it still makes more finanical sense given that the F-35 is still in development to go for the F-35 than buy some already done superbugs. Thats how you have to think about the canadian government. Even though the unit might not be the best, if the Canadian Defence industrial base profits, then you get chosen, its as simple as that.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hmm. Guys I do not know if you noticed, but a few months back IRan made a mod to one of their existing F-5s. Added another TAIL fin!! Loooks like a YF-17. WOnder how this fairs against a normal F-5E.

also something puzzles me with the F-14. What exactly are it's best strengths in a dogfight? While it is defninitely more of an interceptor, it is still a nasty scrapper...but what are its most useful knife fighting tactics? I know with the phantom, the phantoms speed was the best asset. But the tomcat is niether the 9g falcon nor the Sr71 in terms of speed...so how would one effectively bring it home and nail ass in the big turkey?

I know for flanker it is high alpha, falcon it's ability to regain energy quick and its just plain nimble. Phantom is it's zoom and climb and dive.

[Nied]

Iran has a pretty impressive aerospace industry, especially for a country under as many trade restrictions as it. Any pictures Shin?

[David Hingtgen]

F-14's strength? Basically, everything. Swing-wings rule.

The F-14 is quite literally good at everything. Not the BEST or "top 2" for most things, but pretty good. High-alpha, rolls, turns, acceleration (w/GE engines), speed, climb-rate (again, GE), etc. It just can't be all that all the time, it'll depend on what position the wings are at. It can change how it'll handle as fast as it can move its wings. It'll never out-alpha the Hornet, but it'll beat many planes in that category under many situations. Won't out-roll the F-5, but with the wings out and spoilers up it can make a 90-degreee bank like *THAT*. Wanna accelerate fast in a straight line? Put the wings back.

PS--also, the F-14 is superior to the F-4 in every aspect AFAIK. And presumably at least matches the F-8's nigh-legendary dogfighting agility.

PPS---F-14's do like to spin though, possibly the all-time worst fighter in that regard. Needs more yaw stability---but there's really no room for more ventral fin and more v.stab and still fit in a carrier's hangar.

Edited August 11, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Chronocidal]

Hmm.. is there a statistic somewhere that says how many Tomcats were lost to spins?

I just finished reading something about one Tomcat NASA had some fun with.. they added canards to the nose, and changed the avionics somewhat.. somehow they linked the roll control with the rudder control in the flight computers, and it made the plane able to stay stable at about 70 degrees AOA. Don't know how that compares to the standard Tomcat though.

[David Hingtgen]

Best number I can find is 35. So that's about 1/4 of all F-14 losses.

[Nied]

Actually its the RCAF, Royal Canadian Air force, because we are part of the Queen's dominion.

All jokes aside, the maintence costs of the airforce are mostly due to the age of a lot of its equipment and the unbelievable operational tempo these units have been put under.

Also the super bug vs the F-35, it still makes more finanical sense given that the F-35 is still in development to go for the F-35 than buy some already done superbugs. Thats how you have to think about the canadian government. Even though the unit might not be the best, if the Canadian Defence industrial base profits, then you get chosen, its as simple as that.

Well I was more pluging for the Rhino as an alternative should the JSF fall through. The F-35 certainly wont be a bad plane for the RCAF (I knew I was forgetting a letter), it has most of the same advantages as the Super Hornet plus stealth when necesary, even though A2A is only a secondary mission it should still be able to do it's job quite well in that area. It actually has a slight edge on even the F-16E in thrust to wieght when configured for air to air, with the added advantage that it would be carrying the bulk of it's weapons and all of it's fuel internally, while the F-16 still keeps everything (including big draggy droptanks) on external pylons.

[ewilen]

Look at the lower picture here for the Iranian F-5 mod.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hmmmmm I still thnk the F-165 would be the better dogfighter, more manueverability.

Overall I do hope the JSF program does well but I lost a lot of hope in it. Heres to hoping the next ,multiroler is F-15 sized, at least then there is not a lot of compromises.

Anyways, anyone know if the air force F-15E's will get any of the advancements that the F-15K will get?

[ewilen]

hmmmmm I still thnk the F-165 would be the better dogfighter, more manueverability.

Why do you think so?

Edit: By the way, according to F-16.net, the F-16E has a standard air-air mission weight of 29,000 lbs., and its engine produces 32,500 lbs. of thrust with afterburner, giving a T:W ratio of 1.12. I.e., no better than an F-35A. Add to this the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) the F-35A will have thrust vectoring. The F-16E has CFT's which should help with the drag issue somewhat, but so far it looks like an F-35 would be more maneuverable than an F-16. (Yes, I know there's more to it than just thrust:weight and drag.)

What is interesting is that some accounts indicate that preliminary design concepts for the F-16E would have incorporated thrust vectoring and other enhancements which would have made it superior to the F-35 in most respects except stealth, at a cheaper cost, but Lockheed realized this would hurt the market for the F-35 and chose a less radical upgrade for the F-16E.

Once you add in electronics, I think you can see that the choice of airplanes for a given country isn't a matter of the plane's potential, but how much of that potential the manufacturer and its government is willing to sell you. The manufacturer wants to market to a certain niche so as not to cannibalize sales of other products (which probably offer a higher margin); the government doesn't want to give away strategic capabilities which could be copied or used in unapproved ways. (E.g., we might not want to sell something which would give the buyer an advantage over another friendly country.)

Edited August 11, 2004 by ewilen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

eh this is a debate about which is the better dogfighting aircraft, not the better potential for manufacturer or country.

No the F-35A does NOT have thrust vectoring. It's menioned in one of the JSF high gloss books from a while back. The F-35B does but its only because its VTOL.

SO marketing and budgetary constraints and technology leaks aside, no I don't believe the F-35A is the better dogfighter. The canopy, though extended, and other things such as limited A2A weapons carriage, hweck in the book they described how it was mainly for a multiservice strike fighter rather then a definitive F-16 replacement.

The F-16E's increased thrust compensates for the added weight and drag of the CFT, one of the reasons the higher thrust engines were chosen to power it to begin with. Hell I do not even thinkn the F-35A could outaccelerate the F-16E, by sources I read, the F-35A can't even pass mach 2. Nor was it made to dogfight well.

So in some cases some may ask ,"then shin why did u even bother in comparing the 2?"

simply put, its another case of a good plane being replaced by a average plane.

TO replace and F-16 i'd imagine the fighter would also hjave to be more manuverable and a better fighter than the F-16 close in. But this is not the case.

THis is not like when the F-14 and F-15 replaced the F-4, bnoth planes surpassed the F-4 in almost every scenario.

Can the JSf do that to the F-16? I doubt it. Maybe in strike, certianly in stealth, but F-16 is just a tough lil bugger to beat.

well....the JSF can dogfight the hell out of an F117 though.

[Skull Leader]

I just finished reading something about one Tomcat NASA had some fun with.. they added canards to the nose, and changed the avionics somewhat.. somehow they linked the roll control with the rudder control in the flight computers, and it made the plane able to stay stable at about 70 degrees AOA. Don't know how that compares to the standard Tomcat though.

There are pictures up at MATS of this tomcat (albeit not very good ones)... I had to wonder how well the canards improved handling, especially at full sweep with "zone 5" selected.

I ask because the glove vanes were ruled to be "not a big enough difference" in increasing handling at high speeds (and thusly were de-activated on all B upgrades and omitted altogther from Production Bs and Ds)

Is there a point where the airframe just can't be maneuverable? Obviously NASA's research didn't come to much fruition... as no service tomcats have canards

[Skull Leader]

Shin, you mentioned that someone called the JSF a "replacement" for the F-16.... I agree that this certainly doesn't seem to be the case, but I want to present a hypothetical situation here...

would the F-2 serve as a decent replacement for the F-16? I know the aircraft are similar, but I hesitate to call them the same plane (I don't know a lot about them). I Just know the F-2 is nimble as all hell and will fly like shhit off a shovel... Why has the US never invested in this?

Just curiosities... I know very little about USAF aircraft or their derivatives.

Edited August 11, 2004 by Skull Leader

[ewilen]

eh this is a debate about which is the better dogfighting aircraft, not the better potential for manufacturer or country.

People are asking different questions all over the place.

No the F-35A does NOT have thrust vectoring.

Okay, after some more looking, I see you're right.

SO marketing and budgetary constraints and technology leaks aside, no I don't believe the F-35A is the better dogfighter.  The canopy, though extended, and other things such as limited A2A weapons carriage, hweck in the book they described how it was mainly for a multiservice strike fighter rather then a definitive F-16 replacement.

But you're not providing any performance numbers. I've shown that the T:W ratio of an F-35A should be at least equal to a similarly-loaded Falcon. And furthermore, performance tells only part of the story when it comes to effectiveness; sensors, fire control, and weapons loom at least as large.

The F-16E's increased thrust compensates for the added weight and drag of the CFT, one of the reasons the higher thrust engines were chosen to power it to begin with.  Hell I do not even thinkn the F-35A could outaccelerate the F-16E, by sources I read, the F-35A can't even pass mach 2.  Nor was it made to dogfight well.

The original specification for the JSF is that it will perform as well as an F-16 or better. How that will shake out over development is another question, but the data we've got so far suggests that's a reasonable expectation. Acceleration and top speed aren't well correlated; as far as dogfighting is concerned, top speed is relatively unimportant.

TO replace and F-16 i'd imagine the fighter would also hjave to be more manuverable and a better fighter than the F-16 close in.  But this is not the case.

I've yet to see data supporting the point.

THis is not like when the F-14 and F-15 replaced the F-4, bnoth planes surpassed the F-4 in almost every scenario.

Can the JSf do that to the F-16?  I doubt it.  Maybe in strike, certianly in stealth, but F-16 is just a tough lil bugger to beat.

This is true. The emphasis with the F-35 is stealth, which for a bomb truck is a major improvement. Getting stealth while maintaining performance and not breaking the bank is the key to F-35's success or failure.

[Nied]

Ewilen coverd most stuff pretty well but I thought I had a few more things to add.

The canopy, though extended, and other things such as limited A2A weapons carriage, hweck in the book they described how it was mainly for a multiservice strike fighter rather then a definitive F-16 replacement.

The canopy is very similar to the one on the F-15, the only version that'll have bad reward visibility is the F-35B.

here:

The F-16E's increased thrust compensates for the added weight and drag of the CFT, one of the reasons the higher thrust engines were chosen to power it to begin with. Hell I do not even thinkn the F-35A could outaccelerate the F-16E, by sources I read, the F-35A can't even pass mach 2. Nor was it made to dogfight well.

The F-16E with a full A2A load has an inferior TW ratio to the F-35 with a similar load. Furthermore the F-16 may be able to reach mach 2, but not carrying any useful amount of fuel or weapons (clean except for two sidewinders which actually lower drag when the on the wingtips). The F-35 may not be able to reach mach 2 but it can reach higher speeds while carrying a useful amount of fuel and wepons (two AMRAAMs and two sidewinders on the wingtip if stealth is not desired).

TO replace and F-16 i'd imagine the fighter would also hjave to be more manuverable and a better fighter than the F-16 close in. But this is not the case.

But it is. The F-35 has a slight edge on the F-16 in A2A, and it easily beats it in a strike mission (which is the F-16s main job).

[David Hingtgen]

Somewhere on Lockheed's site there's something about "The F-35 has comparable performance to the F-16" when talking about agility. And it's Lockheed's own ultra-pro-JSF site. If the F-35 could meet or beat the F-16 in that category, they'd be certain to mention it every other sentence. Instead, it's merely comparable. (Or they use some other very similar term, I forget, but I know we discussed it in a previous thread about the JSF)

PS--I'm not at all a fan of F-16's with too many things added on. Heck, I don't like the Block 40's because of that. Best line I've seen this week regarding the F-16F:

"Hey, if you stripped off all that junk, you could probably make a nice light-weight fighter out of it"

I've never liked heavily modified aircraft. Better to start from scratch, or do like the Super Hornet and actually redesign it from the ground up. Don't just keep tacking parts on. F-15E is such a great design (IMHO) because so little had to be done to it.

Exception: if the redesign actually looks more "right" than the original. But this usually only applies to stubby airliners, that look better-proportioned when stretched. And the stretch usually outsells the original several times over.

Edited August 12, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

A lack of a ringing endorsement is hardly evidence of inferior maneuverability.

Without hard data on stuff like wing loading and departure caracteristics we don't have much to go on besides TW and drag, where the F-35 wins.

[Noyhauser]

One thing you should know about the F-35.

Most US and UK programs now practice what is called Evolutionary Acquisition

The aim of EA is not to deploy a platform with all the bells and whistles at the time of service introduction. Rather, the Defence department plan to upgrade the F-35 after the initial introduction with different technology. This prevents the whole fighter from being held back by technology that is not mature enough when other aspects of the fighter can proceed into manufacturing and fielding. This saves the DoD a lot of money, as platforms are not delayed by immature technologies like traditional block programs are suceptable to. There are two kinds of EA, "spiral" and "incremental". Spiral means that new capabilities are designed as requested by Users in the field. Incremental is when the DoD purposely sets out what upgrades they will pursue from the outset of the project. Both require the contractor to build a fighter that is able to absorb major upgrades in the future. The US military now has what it is called "open systems" that prevent a manufacturor from obtaining a propriatory relationship with equipment so that they can prevent other manufacturors from bidding on evolutionary contracts.

So while the F-35 has no thrust vectoring now, it is quite likely it has been designed to be upgraded in the future for it. The US first wants to build a fighter and field it. It won't be fully capable until several years into service and ready to go. This however is not like traditional upgrading of fighters because there is understanding within DoD that procurement is an ongoing process, and that Major modifications are a part of the F-35's life cycle in the future.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I've never liked heavily modified aircraft. Better to start from scratch, or do like the Super Hornet and actually redesign it from the ground up. Don't just keep tacking parts on.

You.......don't...like...the......Super VF-1S?

[David Hingtgen]

Only in battroid mode. My fave VF-1 is an armorless 1J in fighter mode.

[ewilen]

Not to pile on, but, again, I don't think either Nied or I would claim the F-35 offers a quantum leap in WVR/dogfighting ability compared to the F-16. The point is that it will be about as good as an F-16 in that area (with reasonable prospect of slight to moderate improvement), and much better than an F-16 in BVR combat and strike roles, due to stealth. This is why I'd argue that Canada is smart to go with the F-35--at least if the RCAF hopes to operate in a bombing role. (One incentive might be lingering discomfort over Canadian troops being bombed by an American jet in Afghanistan.) If anyone remembers Gulf War I, when we were up against a reasonably well-equipped air defense system, there were a good number of strike aircrews that were killed or captured. Stealth should cut down on that occurrence.

Edited August 12, 2004 by ewilen

[Graham]

But it is. The F-35 has a slight edge on the F-16 in A2A, and it easily beats it in a strike mission (which is the F-16s main job).

What gets me about the F-35 for A2A is that it can't carry Sidewinders in the internal bays. I've read that the shape of the airframe partially blocks the seeker heads. Also, of course no internal gun on some varients. Which means with a standard load of only 2 x AIM-120, it would be OK for medium range or BRV combat, but pretty much defensless in a knife fight.

Of course, I'm sure that with external pylons fitted, Sidewinders could be carried, but then the F-35 losses it's stealth advantage.

Graham

[hellohikaru]

Maybe the final version of the F-35 would look different from the ones flying now just like how YF-22 looked so different from the final F/A-22A Raptor. Maybe bigger to carry all that junk inside to maintain stealth.

[ALLAN]

A couple people in my classes work at Lockheed in Ft worth and they said the jsf is still overweight by like 1000 lbs. They are taking every suggestion on ways to get the weight off. One of my teachers that worked at lockheed had to quit because of problems he was dealing with on the F-22.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yes specifically thre F35B is overweight. My assumptions of the JSF being inferior in A2A is from many books I have read and articles over the years while in high school comparing it to both the falcon nad F-22. I am certain that improvements could be made to top the F-16...but you gotta admit that lil bugger is hard to beat.

DOes anyone know if the EA-18G will have a gun? I know it is supposed to replace the Prowler...and it outdoes it in self defense and multiroling, but does it retain a gun? If it does...by goly it'll be my fav hornet incarnation yet!

[ewilen]

But it is.  The F-35 has a slight edge on the F-16 in A2A, and it easily beats it in a strike mission (which is the F-16s main job).

What gets me about the F-35 for A2A is that it can't carry Sidewinders in the internal bays. I've read that the shape of the airframe partially blocks the seeker heads. Also, of course no internal gun on some varients. Which means with a standard load of only 2 x AIM-120, it would be OK for medium range or BRV combat, but pretty much defensless in a knife fight.

Of course, I'm sure that with external pylons fitted, Sidewinders could be carried, but then the F-35 losses it's stealth advantage.

Graham

Well, first, there's the potential of using ASRAAM/AIM-9X/Python with lock-on-after-launch (LOAL).

But let's discount that--after all, it's not entirely fair to equip the F-35 with vaporware loadouts and not give the F-16 the benefit of potential upgrades as well.

In the context of an F-16 comparison, we should be using the F-35A, since that's what the USAF and RCAF will be buying. In that case, we have an internal gun. And if we want to go knife fighting, we give up stealth to equip with two Sidewinders, and we wind up with the same loadout as the Falcon at same or slightly better performance.

So--assuming development goes right (admittedly not a 100% certainty)--the F-35A is like having an upgraded Falcon, only with the added versatility afforded by the Stealth option for certain bombing and air-air missions.

[Coota0]

DOes anyone know if the EA-18G will have a gun? I know it is supposed to replace the Prowler...and it outdoes it in self defense and multiroling, but does it retain a gun? If it does...by goly it'll be my fav hornet incarnation yet!

No Gun. I believe I read that the gun would scew with the jamming equipment when fired, and there wouldn't be room for it anyway, so the compartment is being used for more sensors and jamming equipment. The EA-18 will however always carry sidewinders on it's wingtips, and is capbale of carrying both AMRAAMs and HARMs along with it's jamming pods.

[David Hingtgen]

Wing loading (calculated by moi):

F-35A at combat weight: 71 lbs/sq.ft

F-16E at combat weight: 97 lbs/sq.ft

(weights based on what appeared a few posts ago)

Some comparisons:

F-16C Block 30: 88 lbs/sq.ft (the best air-to-air Fighting Falcon)

F-15C: 66 lbs/sq.ft

F-14: 90 lbs/sq.ft (this can be lowered by sweeping the wings--when the wings are back the gloves become more effective and make more lift, and can increase the effective area, and can approximately match the F-15's low loading--but only at higher speeds) I think the "effective" wing area when swept is about 800sq ft on the F-14, because the wings and gloves act like a giant delta wing. Best-case wing loading: 64 lbs/sq.ft. (but with huge energy bleed in turns)

F-4J: 78 lbs/sq.ft

F-8E: 68 lbs/sq.ft

F-18C: 91 lbs/sq.ft

F-18F: (really rough guess): 81 lbs/sq.ft

F/A-22: 65 lbs/sq.ft

YF-23: 60 lbs/sq.ft

[ewilen]

Yup, that's what I get for the F-35A, with a wing area of about 460 ft^2.

Some variation in wing loading data for existing planes out there, e.g.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1996/0296grayt.asp

Or also http://p214.ezboard.com/ffighterplanesfigh...icID=8402.topic (Some data there might be metric)

Anyway, if we can agree that the F-35A has lower wing loading than even the F-16C, I think that suggests it would have a better ability to make sustained turns in level flight.

Other elements in dogfighting are roll rate and instantaneous pitch rate...I'm not sure we can calculate likely values for those, much less find the actual numbers for the F-35.

[Nied]

What gets me about the F-35 for A2A is that it can't carry Sidewinders in the internal bays. I've read that the shape of the airframe partially blocks the seeker heads. Also, of course no internal gun on some varients. Which means with a standard load of only 2 x AIM-120, it would be OK for medium range or BRV combat, but pretty much defensless in a knife fight.

Of course, I'm sure that with external pylons fitted, Sidewinders could be carried, but then the F-35 losses it's stealth advantage.

Graham

ewilen keeps making my points for me, but I do have some stuff to add.

I don't think that the F-35's stealth is intended to be used at all times for all missions. The Impression that I have is that it is intended for deep strike missions where the twin AMRAAMs are intended more for self defence than attack. In a knife fight the F-35's stealth is practically useless, so complaining that it can't dogfight while stealthy is sort of redundant.

In an export situation it gets even better. All F-35s are cleared to carry ASRAAMs with lock on after launch in the internal bays along with AMRAAMs (so the F-35 can take over for the Sea Harrier). So the RCAF or any other export customers can purchase the ASRAAM and get a completely stealthy aircraft with full A2A capabilities. I actually find it hard to beleive that the DoD hasn't been pushing for Lock-on-after-launch capability for the AIM-9X so that something similar can be done with US F-35s.

Edited August 13, 2004 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

Well, the F-5 just blows away most anything in roll rate, it's seriously like 720 degrees per second. Wonder what its improved brothers the F-20 and X-29 can do...

But for major fighters, I think the Flanker is quite high for its size and should definitely be investigated.

F-14's can do a hyper-quick 90 degree roll, but 180 and 360 rolls wouldn't be simply 2x and 4x the 90-degree time.

Generally, roll rate and sustained turned rate are opposite ends of the same scale. High roll rate=low turn rate, and vice-versa.

Instantaneous turn is more determined by pitch rate and alpha capabilities than anything else. (since it's basically "roll 90 and pull back sharply")