MigBuster

That's pretty much what John Will has stated on f-16net (possibly why they limited the F-14D to 37 degrees also) - not sure what they really affected. There was an F-16 VISTA with Thrust Vectoring nozzle that demonstrated 100+ degrees AOA and could do the slow controlled spin and cobra type stunts - should be a vid on You tube.

Love this - one of the best docs out there.

Apparently.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26052931

Yeah the F-16 design is as a pure visual dogfighter only - but the USAF wanted it A-G from almost the off - political reasons given (Same for why it didn't carry the AIM-7 till 10 years later) Technically the F-16C Block 40/50 were redesigned internally to meet the USAF requirement to be even more A-G and the F-35A is usually compared with the B50 ( on paper they have comparable TW & WL figures).

They are properly out of control though by the looks of things. As I understand it here they are just switching off the limits on the FLCS using a 'paddle' switch and then pressing the right or left rudder pedal to induce a controlled spin. Pretty much all 3rd gens have that issue

A nice little jet

That is just way too cool!

Surely it's far more sporting to get stuck in a jet glider flying 220kts above an S-300 system - after all think of all the money you saved.

Yes I really like the polished metal effect - great to look at it from that view point

All in 1 photo (likely a model?)

You would assume they mean anyone with a fleet of stealth fighters in 11 years time - or anything that looks like one.....maybe

Air Combat Command's challenge: Buy new or modernize older aircraft After a tense budget battle last year, the Air Force is gearing up to defend what service officials have called a series of hard choices about what to keep and what to dump. With finances tight, the biggest fight is over whether to modernize older platforms or risk a capabilities gap while pushing that funding toward recapitalization programs. Charged with keeping the combat air forces ready to go at a moment’s notice is Gen. Michael Hostage, head of Air Combat Command. He discussed the upcoming budget and challenges the Air Force faces Jan. 27 in a wide-ranging interview. Q. What should we expect to see for ACC in this coming budget? A. We made some very hard choices. The only way you save the amount of money that we are being told we have to cut from the budget is to make entire weapon systems go away. We talked specifically about the A-10, a weapon system I would dearly love to continue in the inventory because there are tactical problems out there that would be perfectly suited for the A-10. I have other ways to solve that tactical problem. It may not be as elegant as the A-10, but I can still get the job done, but that solution is usable in another level of conflict in which the A-10 is totally useless. It does not make any sense to cut the other program and cut A-10s if I have to give one up for the other. I really save the big bucks when I take an entire [platform] and shut it down because I save the squadrons of those airplanes but I also save the logistics infrastructure, the training infrastructure and all of the overhead. Q. Should we expect to see multiple platforms removed from the budget? A. Yes. That is the only way to make the numbers meet, the direction we were given. Now, again, whether the politics will let us do those things are another thing. Unfortunately, if I am told, “OK, we understand about the A-10, you can take half the A-10 fleet” — that, sadly, does not leave me in a very good place because now we have to keep all of that infrastructure that supports the A-10. I get to save some portion of money by cutting certain squadrons, but they will save the large dollars that goes with that infrastructure piece, and now I have to go after squadrons of other airplanes so I reduce the overall capability of the Air Force, and I am in a worse place then I would have been if I just cut the whole A-10 fleet. Q. Do you believe those program cuts can make it through Congress? A. Your guess is as good as mine. With the budget, we told them what we thought we needed to do, and now it is a matter of the politics of things, whether they will allow us to do it. There is a lot of opposition on the Hill, but that opposition does not come with money saying, “Here. You use this money and keep that fleet.” They are just saying, “No, you cannot get rid of that fleet.” But they are still cutting the budget so I have to do something, and, unfortunately, the something that is left is worse than cutting the A-10 fleet. It is far worse for the nation if I have to keep the A-10 and cut a bunch of other stuff because they will not give me enough money to keep it all. Q. ISR is another area that has been politically difficult in the past. Is that impacting your plans? A. Well, we are being driven by politics to take on a weapon system that is very expensive, the Global Hawk. It appears that I will be told I have to continue to purchase Global Hawks, and given the budget picture that we have, I cannot afford both the U-2 and the Global Hawk. I will likely have to give up the U-2. What that means is that we are going to have to spend buckets of money to get the Global Hawk up to some semblance of capability that the U-2 currently has. It is going to cost a lot of money, and it is going to take time, and as I lose the U-2 fleet, I now have a high-altitude ISR fleet that is not very useful in a contested environment. It will change how I am able to employ that airplane in a high-end fight or a contested domain. Q. Are there any programs you would fight tooth and nail for in the budget? A. I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35 because I truly believe the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s. If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade. I have to provide an Air Force that in the middle of the next decade has sufficient fifth-generation capability that whatever residual fourth-generation capability I still have is viable and tactically useful. I am willing to trade the refurbishment of the fourth gen to ensure that I continue to get that fifth-gen capability. I am fighting to the end, to the death, to keep the F-35 program on track. For me, that means not a single airplane cut from the program, because every time our allies and our partners see the United States Air Force back away, they get weak in the knees. Q. So you remain committed to the 1,763 figure that has come out? A. Absolutely. Not one plane less. Q. What about upgrades to the F-22? A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system. But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22. Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be. Q. Has the readiness issue subsided? A. The bottom line is, despite the budget deal, we are still going to the same spot at the bottom of the cliff that we were going to when they started the sequestration madness. They have shallowed the glide path a little bit over the next two years, but we pay it all back in the out years and we still hit at the same spot at the bottom of the cliff. We still have an urgent need to be allowed to reshape our force, to resize ourselves to fit within the amount of money the country is putting for defense, and as long as Congress is stopping us from doing that, we are going to have difficulty making readiness. Q. Given budget constraints, how do you encourage the development of new technology? A. What I am trying to spark is partnerships between labs and industry to produce capability of this leading edge technology that potentially is out there. Q. What areas might have the highest probability of payback? A. Obviously, we are very interested in directed energy. We are very interested in the materials technology that is burgeoning. Nanotechnology is very exciting and holds some great promise. There are some interesting technological areas out there, but I am sure not going to give away secrets of what the cool toys are we are looking for next. I want my adversaries to be surprised. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS04/302020005

Saw this being discussed on f16 and thought of you http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/rates/fy2014/2014_f_h.pdf apparently hourly rate for fixed wing jets - so here's a few from the DOD - F-35A $17,148 A-10C $7,329 F-16C $8,982 FA-18E $10,873 F-15E $20,094 F-22A $21,464 I would have thought the F-35A would have had a similar cost to the F-15E as they are of similar size - but I guess the F-15E is much higher thrust and burns more jet fuel.

Mad

I would say guesstimate and set it relative to other objects. is the value simply just for the clean airframe? - guessing pylons and stores are not considered. The Shornet makes use of some planform alignment form a frontal aspect - although what that really affects...................

Wicked!

Hello folks, A few things for today’s update. First of all, it’s a bit cold in Moscow right now. Catching a LAX-MOW flight is always fun in winter, especially in late January – early February. Board the plane in balmy LA with +82 F outside (+27 C), bam, 12 hours later walk out to -16 F (-27 C). It’s so cold inside my apartment, I literally have to sleep wearing outside clothes under two sets of blankets. Managed to land here during the coldest week of the entire Russian winter. Eagle Dynamics offices are a bit better, especially during the day when the outside warms up a bit. Early in the morning when you just get in though, well, today we’ve been joking about working at Igloo Dynamics. The FW.190 manual is progressing very well. Been keeping me very busy. Sometimes jet lag is a good thing, gives me so much more time to work on those charts and graphics, but working from home at night with the world frozen stiff around me and the winds howling outside, well, it’s quite an experience. The Bf 109 is getting along nicely. Two programmers are working on it at the moment, one dealing with various internal systems, and the second one doing cockpit gauges and animations. The internal systems are pretty much done, there’s just a bit of work left on the engine model. The cockpit is kind of half-baked at the moment, the visuals are a bit messy, especially the connection between the external and the internal model that’s all glitchy. That’s why we’re just going to look down today. I’d rather not show the gunsight and the canopy framework. The P-47 external currently looks like this. Very long process to get the model to this point because so much of the work cannot be shown with screenshots. The model is fully articulated, and has all the internal parts that are all mapped and animated. There’s also a few sub-variants all in there, with and without the dorsal fin, a couple of different propellers. Only one variant is going to make it into the final game, but it’ll be decided later once the programming begins. Otherwise it’s at least a month of extra work for each of the changes in airframe or the propeller. With that, I’m off to the exciting world of Triebsworkanschlüsse and Kaltstartvorbereitung.

Elite Soviet pilots filmed test flying a captured Northrop F5E Tiger II With the capture of the huge air base at Bien Hoa, the North Vietnamese Armed forces were able to supply the Soviet, Chinese, & Polish air forces a number of US designs for evaluation: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e52_1320882209

Thanks for the support Brent - may you enjoy as many years of SF/FE as those before you.