Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

exec wrote:

Lates PAK-FA requirements. Initially it was like 1,8-2,0 Ma, but after some time they've lowered it to 1,5 Ma.

Is there a link to a source available?

Quote:

Becouse there is no reason why the PAK-FA should be dramaticly more agile than the F-22.

Well no one spoke about "dramatically" better. But given the lifting body design I could imagine that the T-50 might enjoy an edge in some areas, particularly low speed manoeuvrability.

Quote:

So the F-16 is also a supercruising fighter.
No, really - Su-35 doesn't have supercruising engine and wasn't designed to be supercrusing fighter, especially with big missiles under wings.

The AL-41F1S is stated to enable the Su-35 to supercruise and there are numbers like M 1.2+ floating around. How long and in what configuration would be interesting to know.

Quote:

Higher hi-alt sustained turn rate, better T/W ratio...

Well I agree that the F-22 is likely to enjoy an edge in this area (high alt), but I wouldn't be to sure that it will hold an edge at lower speeds.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Su-35 3D TVC? Not true. - True
Not true.

The AL-41F1S features a rotating nozzle which is referred to as 3-D. The Su-30MKI has 2-D TVN.

F-16.net Sponsor

Scorpion82 wrote:

Quote:

Becouse there is no reason why the PAK-FA should be dramaticly more agile than the F-22.

Well no one spoke about "dramatically" better. But given the lifting body design I could imagine that the T-50 might enjoy an edge in some areas, particularly low speed manoeuvrability.

So? The F-22's body is a lifting body design too.

Scorpion82 wrote:

Quote:

Higher hi-alt sustained turn rate, better T/W ratio...

Well I agree that the F-22 is likely to enjoy an edge in this area (high alt), but I wouldn't be to sure that it will hold an edge at lower speeds.

My money is with the F-22 in a "low altitude, lower speed" BFM fight because the Pak Fa/T-50 prototype has yet to prove anything and no production representative airframes with the go-to-war stuff exists. When that operational aircraft shows up (and who knows when that'll be), changes including weight gains, are guaranteed.

Pak-Fa's capabilities overstated? Well, that depends on who you ask and in what area you refer to. Some capabilities have clearly been overstated by Carlos Kopp and Co., For instance: its all aspect stealth. At this point, the prototype doesn't look very stealthy to me-look at the fairings on the leading edges that reportedly house the L-band AESA radars, the huge "tunnel" on the underside of the fuselage that accommodates the weapon bays, and the round engine nozzles. All these decidedly unstealthy features will presumably make it vulnerable to detection by many airborne radars(first thing that comes to my mind is the long range detection of the E-3 AWACS), not to mention the ground based systems, if its bearing deviates from its optimal, stealthiest profile(presumably head-on, frontal engagement).

On the other hand, the aerodynamics and agility of the Pak-FA were probably not overstated. The Russians historically seem to place a heavy emphasis on aircraft performance and kinematics(ie., MIG-15, MIG-29, SU-27/30/35) and in these areas, they often manage to surpass their Western counterparts.

Just my 2 cents

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

My money is with the F-22 in a "low altitude, lower speed" BFM fight because the Pak Fa/T-50 prototype has yet to prove anything and no production representative airframes with the go-to-war stuff exists. When that operational aircraft shows up (and who knows when that'll be), changes including weight gains, are guaranteed.

I disagree, the F-22 is built around a supersonic airframe. Also most of the USAF designs are built for High speed maneuverability as opposed to the slow speed.

I can't say much about Altitude. But the F-22 will probably be better at any altitude.

svenphantom wrote:

I disagree, the F-22 is built around a supersonic airframe. Also most of the USAF designs are built for High speed maneuverability as opposed to the slow speed.

I can't say much about Altitude. But the F-22 will probably be better at any altitude.

But have you seen a Raptor demo at an airshow! If it's supersonic performance is better than it's slow speed performance; the PAK-FA better be seriously worried about even meeting the Raptor's performance!

TEG

Low speed maneuverability? How long can survive an a/c that performs at low speed? Seconds?

Even if I consider that the subject F-22 vs. PAK-FA should at least wait for the engines and radar (for T-50), back to that table that compare F-22 (+2) with PAK-FA (+5) and 4Gen++ SU-35S (+2). I remembered an older post ... I think is about Red Flag-08: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E it's SU-30MKI, but SU-35S should be close to MKI. Just my Two Cents

opinion.

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

This is just bullshit. Australian Flight Test Services is like a ten person company. To claim that their only motivation in this is financial is just wishful thinking on Conan's part. Whilst Kopp and Goon developed the proposal to upgrade the Australian F-111 fleet and purchase F-22A's as a replacement for the Australian F-18A's they were never going to be involved in the actual work. This work was always going to be carried out by the guys who maintain and repair the F-111's now; Boeing Defence Australia at RAAF Base Amberley, the DSTO (Defence Science and Technology Organisation, kind of Australia's DARPA) and the RAAF's Aircraft Research and development Unit.

Conan likes to complain about APA's bias and misleading articles but he's not averse to dropping a couple of lies in himself if the opportunity presents itself. To claim that Kopp and Goon stood to make financial gain from the upgrade of the F-111 and that this is their sole motivation for maintaining the Air Power Australia website is just a shallow attemp to mislead readers and to smear the reputations of authors whose views he disagree with.

Unlike you Jeff, I actually do my own research before swallowing something whole.

1. AFTS was deregistered as a company in 2005. Here is the download from ASIC's website confirming this:

Extracted from ASIC's database at AEST 10:17:56 on 28/02/2010
Name AUSTRALIAN FLIGHT TEST SERVICES PTY. LTD.
ACN
008 083 565
ABN
89 008 083 565
Type Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Registration Date 10/09/1985
Next Review Date 10/09/2005Deregistered &nbsp22/04/2005
Status Deregistered Date
Locality of Registered Office not available
Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission

So it's not like "10 guys". It is precisely "no guys" because the company didn't win the contract work they bid for under AIR-6000 and folded shortly thereafter. With no further work and various other problems, Goon had no choice but to wind the company up. The fact that it operated out of his house in Mawson Lakes, South Australia and he had to sell that place for personal reasons, didn't do wonders for it's ability to trade either...

Out of interest, they did actually win some contract work from RAAF once upon a time, a set of cargo panniers for AP-3C Orions in fact. These were most profitably employed hauling cartons of beer, by the RAAF, though the bomb bays had to be kept pressurised or they tended to explode... I know of 2 other dealings, with RAAF that are not so complementary but I'll save them. No need to throw muck. You can read it at their website whenever you wish...

2. Kopp has admitted publicly that he stood to gain royalties from this work, including, apparently if Australia ever purchased F-22, because "they thought of it"...

The F-111 work wasn't going to be done by them, I agree. This is part of what makes their "offer" so outrageous. They intended to win the contract work and then sub-contract ALL of the actual work out to defence industry that actually had the capability to do it. Meanwhile, they sat back and enjoyed the royalties due because of the "brilliance" of "their" idea...

Mea culpa Conan, I stand corrected. The tale just sounded so ridiculous that I assumed you’d made the whole thing up. Silly me. So Kopp is writing all of these articles out of spite now is he? Wow, the guy really holds a grudge doesn’t he? How many years is it now? You’d think he’d get over it wouldn’t you?

Conan wrote:

Funnily enough, your tinfoil hat conspiracies aside, the Williams Foundation is comprised of former RAAF Senior officers (including a previous Chief of Air Force) and they have conducted their own analysis, printed reports of same and support RAAF's opinion on the best way forward for it's future combat fleet.

Gee whiz, do you mean to tell me that the PR organ bought and paid for by Lockheed Martin did studies that back up Australia buying the JSF! Well now obviously I’m all turned around on this thing.

Conan wrote:

They also support the Super Hornet. Are we to infer then that they are on the payroll for Boeing as well? They never advertise Boeing though...

Well the JSF’s running a bit late isn’t it. When was it originally supposed to enter service again? Gee, so they support the purchase of a “gap filler” to cover their asses and the asses of LM. Your right, how could I be so wrong about this?

Conan wrote:

They are also sponsored by Chemring. Do you see a fanatical obsession with promoting the greater use of IR flares within ADF as a result of this sponsorship from them?

Well if the JSF ever gets into a fire fight they’ll be using a sh*t load of them, might as well get them on board nice and early.

The timeline’s the thing Conan. Kopp’s and Goon’s articles slamming the JSF and the F-111 early retirement appear fairly regularly. Williams Foundation appears. Kopp and Goon articles disappear and sudden flurry of JSF “puff” pieces begin.

Your right though, it’s probably just my imagination.

Conan wrote:

It's easy to throw mud, much harder to find solid evidence to base it on though. Something you seem to find very difficult to locate...

I do, I do, I have a little girl who takes up a lot of my time. You seem to have excellent sources though don’t you. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about Goon’s former dealings with the RAAF (these are common knowledge?), a good deal of information about who’s on the board of the Williams Foundation (just off the website no doubt)

Conan wrote:

Quote:

To return to the subject of this thread, Kopp's consulting jobs for DSTO were all about capability projections for the region. He writes most of his articles from this perspective. He does get over enthusiastic but he's talking about the situation we'll face if mature versions of these thing's start popping up all over the world like the various flankers do now.

So, providing unsolicited "analysis" and submissions is considered "consulting" now is it? I suppose phoning someone in defence, begging off and asking them to call you back is consulting then too?

How do you know they were unsolicited? More “inside” info?

And avoids the subject of the paragraph which was that he’s all about capability projections, not just what’s bolted to the aircraft this week.

Seriously though, I do apologize for calling you a liar before, I’ll try not to do it again.

[quote="Conan"]

jeffb wrote:

That's just it Shep it isn't an established fact. It's exactly the opposite of an established fact! Kopp and Goon are analysts not entrepreneurs, suggesting that the RAAF would hand over the upgrade of 40 odd airframes of Australia's most capable strike aircraft to a couple of analysts is laughable! The idea itself is just STUPID! Talk about jump the shark. Tell me Shep, do YOU believe a professional air force would do something like that? Seriously? Because if you do I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. Wink

LOL.

Conan wrote:

So, according to you, it is established "fact" that Goon and Kopp spent years of their professional lives formulating a formal response to a request for proposal for Australia's fighter replacement project out of the goodness of their hearts, is it?

The "Australian Industry Solution" was NOT a submission to the project office or a minister. It was a proposal to supply a capability to the Australian Defence Force from a group who were at that time, part of the Australian Defence Industry.

Kopp has admitted publicly, though without much evident relish, that they expected certain royalties to flow to them, should their proposal be selected.

It was a commercial proposal plain and simple and a direct rival to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Eurofighter, SAAB and Dassault, all of whom made the exact same sort of response in relation to their own products to the AIR-6000 request for proposal. Try and paint them as patriots if you wish, but they provided a commercial proposal to Defence, plain and simple.

Quote:

All the maintenance and upgrades of these aircraft are handled by Boeing Australia at Amberley in Queensland:
http://www.defence.gov.au/TeamAustralia/weapons_integration_aircraft.htm
They've been doing it for years, they did the block upgrade of the F-111 avionics and hardware, why would the RAAF go anywhere else? LOL.

Actually Boeing holds the support contract and sub-contracts out to contractors such as Rosebank Engineering, Tasman Aviation Enterprises and other engineering companies.

AFTS expected to do the same...

See my previous reply.

The theory that he’s now just trying to crap on everyone because he didn’t get his precious, precious money is a bit thin though isn’t it?

Conan wrote:

geogen wrote:

Re: upgraded F-111/F-22 export scheme by APA... I personally think it was a valid proposal at the time and should be respected as such. I simply have to question the motives of those outright bashing the general concept. (other than mere point scoring on this Kopp guy). The near-militant opposition to the concept though only loses credibility imho.

Except F-22 can't and never could be exported...

Well yes and no, the Obey amendment can be changed/removed. If you have the votes. A completely new act could be written overriding the Obey amendment, again, if you’ve got the votes. The appearance of a “Raptorski” could get that particular ball rolling again especially with the Japanese and Israelis.

Conan wrote:

Quote:

I mean, what could $30-40m investment per F-111 do today in terms of a 6,000 hr upgrade platform?? Is this a legit debate or flat out not? And perhaps... in lieu of export F-22, could there be another comparative alternative to F-35A, providing IOC squadrons sooner than 20018/19? Let's at least get real with this whole discussion folks (if we're going to engage in it going forward) and not get entrapped in the cheap, tit for tat cirucs of personal attacks to make ones point... my 2 cents.

Except it won't be $30-$40m per airframe, but rather more like $300-$400m per airframe...

It is a FACT that it cost Australia $600m and 8 years of development work just to integrate the AGM-142 Raptor missile onto the F-111 aircraft.

Why?? What the f**k went wrong? And why didn’t they walk away when it became obvious that it was much, much harder than they though?

Conan wrote:

The "Evolved F-111" upgrade is talking about replacing the extant TF-30 engines with a more supportable and more powerful engine (F100 or similar) and re-engineering the airframe to suit the new engine, adding a new radar system, a complete new avionics system, a new EO/IR targetting system (internals anyway with extant Pavetack cradle mount), new EW system and a completely new weapons inventory.

RAAF estimated this work just for 17x platforms would cost in the vicinity of $5 Billion, is anything but low risk and estimated, based on previous upgrade work, that the development of this upgrade and risk reduction measures would take no less than 10 years...

I'd suggest that is a conservative estimate based on the issues with the AGM-142. The complete re-development of the aircraft besides the basic airframe is anything but a trivial exercise and would absolutely dwarf any such program, including the Hornet Upgrade Program in complexity, cost and overall risk.

Not a complete new avionics system, that had been put in during the AUP/BUP hadn’t it? Kopp’s proposal just talks about a new radar and a glass cockpit. How much did it cost to change over the TF-30’s in the F-14’s? If we stick to just the simple engine upgrades this process shouldn’t cost dramatically more just because we’re the ones doing it. Choosing the worst case modification example is a bit extreme isn't it? Is the AGM-142 adaptation a fair comparison?.

Conan wrote:

All this to get a new level of capability from the Pig, but one that is still completely vulnerable to any credible fighter threat, without escorting fighters in a region "flooded" with high-end Sukhoi fighters...

Sorry, but either their analysis stands up or it doesn't. Irrespective of which fighter of choice you personally like, you can't believe their (IMHO) fairy tales about the fighter threat posed within our region and then credibly argue our primary strike aircraft should have no credible air defence capability...

They most definitely shot themselves in the foot with THAT argument...

Very Happy

Wait a minute though, you can’t have it both ways! If you can adapt it to carry AIM-120D’s then with the AN/AGP-80 radar they’d still have an advantage over a big radar target like a Sukhoi because of the D's range; and if they bugger up the missile shot they still have a chance to run away at mach 2.0+. That’s not an option a JSF is likely to get. You guys claim that the JSF is invincible with AIM-120D’s that invincibility extends from the AIM-120D’s long range doesn’t it? You always get to shoot first, right?
Confused

cfg wrote:

Low speed maneuverability? How long can survive an a/c that performs at low speed? Seconds?

Even if I consider that the subject F-22 vs. PAK-FA should at least wait for the engines and radar (for T-50), back to that table that compare F-22 (+2) with PAK-FA (+5) and 4Gen++ SU-35S (+2). I remembered an older post ... I think is about Red Flag-08: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E it's SU-30MKI, but SU-35S should be close to MKI. Just my Two Cents

opinion.

Pretty close, bigger engines on the 35 for one.

Yep, apparently the F-15s and 16s "pwned" the Su-30MKIs at Red Flag. I wonder though how much of that was aircraft capability and how much was pilot skill?

jeffb wrote:

How much did it cost to change over the TF-30’s in the F-14’s? If we stick to just the simple engine upgrades this process shouldn’t cost dramatically more just because we’re the ones doing it.

If you used F100-PW-229s you're talking ~$5 Million per engine, or the F119 would be about $10 Million each motor. One then has to consider spare engines (about 20% of your total) spare parts, tooling, training, FLIGHT TESTING, etc.

Flight testing is where the cost would get you!

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

jeffb wrote:

The theory that he’s now just trying to crap on everyone because he didn’t get his precious, precious money is a bit thin though isn’t it?

It's not Kopp's only motivation. He writes for Defence Today magazine in Australia and very occasionally others (though the list of companies prepared to employ him has dropped significantly ever since he has entered his "anti-JSF" crusade) and the majority of these articles that create so much controversy usually appear in that publication first.

His argument that he is not commercially motivated is therefore patently absurd.

The problem I have with Kopp is that he is disingenuous. He IS a smart guy but assumes he is the pinnacle of Defence Analysis and the master of technology and if you don't agree with him then you are simply wrong.

He is arrogant beyond belief, which is extremely rich considering he has never spent a day in a military force nor in Defence Industry (beyond his involvement as a self-appointed analyst and subsequent involvement in the "Australian Industry Solution") and the closest he has had to REAL involvement with a defence force as an analyst is 12 months spent at the University of New South Wales as a visiting Fellow for research purposes (UNSW is the University where ADFA - Australian Defence Force Academy, earn their civilian degrees in science, art and business/governance subjects).

That he then lectures at length on these topics in his self-appointed role as "defence technology master", when he doesn't have access to the correct information, simply shows how arrogant he is.

For instance, he has written extensively about the overmatch of the SU-30MKM that Malaysia (Royal Malaysian Air Force - RMAF) has purchased compared to the F/A-18A/B HUG jets operated by the RAAF.

Now RAAF have been exercising against RMAF aircraft for years (we are Five Power Defence Arrangement partners after all). The lessening of RAAF's advantage in comparison to the (then) new MiG-29 aircraft acquired by RMAF in the mid-90's led directly to the capability proposals eventually included in RAAF's Hornet Upgrade Program and led to the restoration of RAAF's technological edge against the RMAF and similar forces.

Now RMAF has gone and bought SU-30MKM which is a different level of threat than the MiG-29's, but Kopp doesn't take into account the intent behind these upgrades in his work, though I've little doubt he actually understands them, he simply relies on parametric (aka - empirical) "analysis" to generate his outcomes.

The RAAF on the other hand, wargames these matters and ACTUALLY undertakes dissimilar air combat training to assess how it's fighters will perform against such a representative threat. The F-15A/C for instance has superior kinematic performance to the SU-30MKM and the RAAF has extensive knowledge of this aircraft, including it's own pilots flying the platform on exchange programs. It has tested extensively it's HUG Hornets performance against higher performing aircraft and knows how to fight such a threat.

The problem is though, that this is very difficult to prove empirically and therefore Kopp and Goon dismiss it. The reason they do this, as I keep harping on, is they have a pre-established end-point argument, which is that Australia SHOULD be acquiring an F-22/F-111 combination of aircraft and simply nothing else would do.

Even if you proposed an F-22/B-1B force combination for Australia (which would provide far greater firepower and range capability) Kopp and Goon would summarily dismiss this argument in favour of "their" model...

I appreciate your intended civility from now on and will do the same.

Cheers,

Conan.

jeffb wrote:

Gee whiz, do you mean to tell me that the PR organ bought and paid for by Lockheed Martin did studies that back up Australia buying the JSF! Well now obviously I’m all turned around on this thing.

Also from their website:

The Foundation is an independently funded, not-for-profit institution. The Board invites sponsorship from organisations or individuals wishing to contribute constructively to a forward-looking Australian defence policy. Sponsors will be acknowledged in the Foundation's publications and media releases.

Management, Organisation, and Financial Arrangements

The Foundation is managed by the Board. No Board member will receive any remuneration from the Foundation's accounts. Consultants may be engaged on a commercial basis as required.

Administrative services are provided by the RAAF Association.

So which part do you want to believe? Your own (and several others, Eric included) baseless accusation that they are a PR organ for Lockheed Martin, or what THEY state that they are?

Conan wrote:

They also support the Super Hornet. Are we to infer then that they are on the payroll for Boeing as well? They never advertise Boeing though...

Well the JSF’s running a bit late isn’t it. When was it originally supposed to enter service again? Gee, so they support the purchase of a “gap filler” to cover their asses and the asses of LM. Your right, how could I be so wrong about this?

Quote:

Well if the JSF ever gets into a fire fight they’ll be using a sh*t load of them, might as well get them on board nice and early.

The timeline’s the thing Conan. Kopp’s and Goon’s articles slamming the JSF and the F-111 early retirement appear fairly regularly. Williams Foundation appears. Kopp and Goon articles disappear and sudden flurry of JSF “puff” pieces begin.

Your right though, it’s probably just my imagination.

Goon and Kopp have been un-challenged in any formal way in years. They've had a free ride that entire time to write and pronounce whatever fancy took their respective minds.

Now that another group has popped up, that provides a differing point of view, you're engaged in precisely the same character assassination that you profess is such anathema to open and fair debate.

What a fair minded approach. IF anyone should dare venture a different opinion, un-provable accusations must be hurled at that at any possible opportunity.

Now there is even a flare conspiracy going-on...

Is it so strange that a not-for profit group should seek sponsorship? You lap up APA's words and yet they derive funding from a variety of advertised services on their own website. Not one word about that! I even saw a Defence Housing advertisement on their site the other day and let us not forget their proposal for F-111 upgrade work.

Does this mean that they are nothing more than simple hypocrites? Railing against the Government and Defence due to their oft alleged incompetence AND actual corruption on the one hand and yet gleefully accepting the revenue in exchange for advertisement from the very organisation they disparage so much on the other...

Who is more worthy? A group who states openly they are not for profit or one who does not?

Quote:

I do, I do, I have a little girl who takes up a lot of my time. You seem to have excellent sources though don’t you. You seem to have a great deal of knowledge about Goon’s former dealings with the RAAF (these are common knowledge?), a good deal of information about who’s on the board of the Williams Foundation (just off the website no doubt)

Some. I have a friend or two from my time in Defence, yes and I have an account or two of some of Goon's dealings with defence, but I won't be sharing the real "beauties" I'm afraid. He is such a litigious fellow in real life...

I do not personally know any of the persons on the Williams Foundation board, nor anyone who contributes to their program.

I do happen to agree with the majority of the little they have actually said so far, however.

Quote:

How do you know they were unsolicited? More “inside” info?

Let's just say it's a well-known habit of his and Goon's, to offer unwanted advice...

Quote:

And avoids the subject of the paragraph which was that he’s all about capability projections, not just what’s bolted to the aircraft this week.

Good for him. Unfortunately the quality of these projections leave an AWFUL lot to be desired.

I'm still looking for the full squadron of SU-30's Indonesia are supposed to have in 2010.

I'm still looking for the "AWACS Killer" missile that is supposed to render all Western ISR obsolete.

I'm still trying to reconcile why it is that parasitic drag effects Western fighter aircraft, but not Russian and so on.

svenphantom wrote:

I disagree, the F-22 is built around a supersonic airframe.

Sure, the F-22's design is optimized for the supersonic regime, but the beauty is it’s also designed to be just at home in the low and slow fight too.

Like TEG pointed out, the Raptor Demo Team regularly takes a fully operational ready to go-to-war F-22 and demonstrates impressive slow speed maneuvering at airshows across the U.S.

Personally, it puts a big smile on my face whenever I see the demo...but not for the reason most might think. What impresses me even more about the demo profile (as previously flown by Max and now Zeke) is some maneuvers they ARE NOT showing you.

svenphantom wrote:

Also most of the USAF designs are built for High speed maneuverability as opposed to the slow speed.

Disagree. Performance degradation, specifically focusing on maneuver capability, occurs as fighters (not just U.S. designs) go faster and higher. You don't think, for example, an F-16 or F-15 be able to have their best corner speed/velocity at 50,000ft at 1+ Mach, do you?

The F-22 is the first fighter that "likes" the supersonic regime. It "likes" to live there and handles itself as if subsonic and in the 20,000ft+ altitude range.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:

svenphantom wrote:

I disagree, the F-22 is built around a supersonic airframe.

Sure, the F-22's design is optimized for the supersonic regime, but the beauty is it’s also designed to be just at home in the low and slow fight too.

Like TEG pointed out, the Raptor Demo Team regularly takes a fully operational ready to go-to-war F-22 and demonstrates impressive slow speed maneuvering at airshows across the U.S.

Personally, it puts a big smile on my face whenever I see the demo...but not for the reason most might think. What impresses me even more about the demo profile (as previously flown by Max and now Zeke) is some maneuvers they ARE NOT showing you.

svenphantom wrote:

Also most of the USAF designs are built for High speed maneuverability as opposed to the slow speed.

Disagree. Performance degradation, specifically focusing on maneuver capability, occurs as fighters (not just U.S. designs) go faster and higher. You don't think, for example, an F-16 or F-15 be able to have their best corner speed/velocity at 50,000ft at 1+ Mach, do you?

The F-22 is the first fighter that "likes" the supersonic regime. It "likes" to live there and handles itself as if subsonic and in the 20,000ft+ altitude range.

Yes, this is blasphemy and will get me banned, but...

People have been using the word "Foxbat" in this thread. Didn't the "Foxbat" live at and love supersonic speeds?

In all seriousness, the Raptor and my favorite jet do have a wee bit in common. Fast as hell from the blueprints onwards.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Overstatement of PAK-FA capabilities?