The lift fan in the JSF isn’t designed to give any aid in manuvering, it’s just to hold up the nose of the plane during hover. The doors that cover it open like big double jointed window shutters causing a lot of drag in foreward flight. Why they didn’t just use louvered vents instead is beyond me. AFAIK the Harrier can use its vectoring nozzels to aid in certain manuvers.
The Strike Eagle is still a very capable air-to-air fighter, it’s just not optimized for it. It still carries air-to-air missiles and the gun for self-defense and will take out opposing aircraft if the need (or opportunity) arises - basically, if you’re some MiG 25 pilot who thinks he’s a hotshot, an F-15E will still smoke your ass - although they may have to jettison their bomb load for maneuverablility beforehand. And they won’t do it quite as easily as a pilot in an F-15C would.
To put it in perspective, the F-15E is probably still superior in a dogfight to, say, an F-4 or possibly even an F-15A. Not an F-15C. And in a gunfight, the F-16 probably beats all comers, with the F-18 a close second.
Not sure where modern Russian fighters come in, though some of the fancy “cobra” maneuvers the Su-37 throws out look impressive - and cause chuckles among some of the fighter pilots I’ve been priveliged to speak with over the years. From what I understand, an F-16C could perform the same maneuvers if the flight control computer would allow it, but no American fighter pilot really wants the “ability” to stand on his tail at zero airspeed in a real fight…
The lift fan provides more lift at lower power settings and lower exhaust temps than louvered vents, which leads to better safety, reliability and service life of the powerplant. I think VTOL capability was more important than vectored thrust during normal flight.
Oh, and as far as the variable angle thrust on VSTOL aircraft - that’s not, as far as I know, used in manuevering at all, but just for taking off and landing.
Vectored thrust was used extensivey by Harrier pilots during the Flaklands war and was nicknamed ‘vimping’ which is rather too close to gimping.
There are two ways this is employed sidewards thrust is the more obvious but this is used to try outmanoever a missile, though it can be used to gain a better line on enemy aircraft.
Turning the nozzles forward stops the aircraft in a great hurry, the pilot may well get bruising from th seat harness, but when another aircraft is on your tail, epecially a supersonic one flying well below its combat speed and altitude it works spectacularly, the enemy aircraft simply overshoots past, does not have time to lock on and is then subsequently shot down, British pilots used both sidewinders and machine guns to do this.
No, I mean why didn’t they use them to COVER the lift fan instead of those cumbersome hinged doors.
I think the term you’re looking for is VIFFing (Vector In Forward Flight), although I like vimping a lot more myself. 
Argh. Sorry about that. :smack: That’s a good point.
Possibly stealth issues. May not be as stealthy to have the vents.
Funny no one has mentioned it, but my understanding is that the F-16, from day one, was and remains the most agile dogfighter in the world, bar none.
I’ve seen plenty of air shows and test flights, and the F-15 is no match for the Falcon. That said, I’d agree that the pilot is a huge factor.
Aside from the F22, the F16. The F16 is still undefeated in real life combat. Only one of them has ever been shot down by another airplane, and it was shot down by another F16(a pilot shot down his own wingman by accident, so that doesnt really count).
What about the challenge?!? From what I’ve heard, the Su-37 is still the most maneuverable plane in the world, is it not?
Considering the relative paucity of actual shooting wars that the U.S. has been involved in since the introduction of those planes, does anyone have any detailed information about their combat records against other airplanes.
From here we get a combat history for the F-16 Falcon:
As long as we’re at it, here’s who flies’em:
While I hope it never happens, conceivably you could see F-16s squarin’ off against each other in the future.
There is apparently a new kid on the block:
Finally, a 1997 report states:
That’s out of date by approximately one-quarter of the type’s service life, but the Falcon was looking good at that point.
The J-10 is certainly a lovely plane…
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/aircraft/fighter/j10.asp
And apparently functional, but I don’t think the electronics suite will even vaugely match the F-16’s.
Yes, the J-10 is as lovely as the Eurofighter, which it appears to be a blatant knock-off of…
Well, the SU-37 is sort of a fantasy plane at this point, as is the JSF.
Having seen the video of the SU-37 in action at an airshow, I would have to say it would be hard to beat, especially since it is based on the Su-27 Flanker which as it is, could likely defeat anything in the US inventory given equal pilots.
My friend is a Navy pilot who flies the F/A-18E Super Hornet. He says that in training, a captured Flanker beats them roundly. Not only that, but it has so much fuel it can stay on station for absurdly long amounts of time. He says training goes something like this: 2 Hornets attack the 1 Flanker, the Flanker beats them then orbits on station while the hornets fly home because they’re out of fuel. 2 more Hornets come up and get beaten and return before the Flanker has to refuel.
Also, a bit of a note on the history: The F/A-18 was not intended as a replacement for the F-14, but for the A-7. The F/A-18, along with the F-16 are probably most accurately called fighter-bombers, since their main mission is close air support (of ground troops). Their air to air fighting abilty stems from their need to defend themselves to and from their bombing mission, not as their primary role.
When the government was looking for a light fighter bomber, they had a competition between the YF-16 and the YF-17, in the same way that the F22 competed as the YF22 against the YF23. The winner was intended to become a joint strike fighter to be used by all services (sound familiar?). The YF-16 won the competition and entered service as as the F-16 Falcon.
However, the Navy was displeased with this outcome for a variety of reasons. The official one was that they preferred a dual engine plane for carrier operations, but just as likely they wanted their own plane for pure pride. So the “loser” YF-17 entered service as the F/A-18 Hornet.
The Joint Strike Fighter is in early production right now as the F-35. Far from fantasy, it’s got the contract and will begin replacing F-16s, F/A-18s and Harriers in the US inventory and Harriers and Tornadoes in the British inventory in the next few years.
As for the rest of your post, the point of dissimilar air-to-air combat training is so pilots like your friend can get their asses whipped by experienced aggressor pilots as a learning experience. See, they aren’t “different machines with equal pilots”, they are students in Hornets facing instructors in Flankers. As their training progresses, the goal is for the students to learn from thier mistakes and become better combat pilots who will know how to beat opposing aircraft in the real world.
BTW - the YF-17 was a Northrup design. McDonnel Douglas purchased the work Northrup had done and re-designed the aircraft from the ground up to become the F/A-18 - they are similar from the outside, but the F/A-18 is its own aircraft, hence the new number designation.
Well Kilt, seeing as the neither the JSF nor the Su-35/37 are being flown in regular missions by any force, I don’t consider them to be regular front line planes yet.
Yes of course I understand the point of training, however, these pilots are hardly “students” in the sense that they are regular members of squadrons who have flown real combat missions. They represent the average front line US pilot. I agree that the Flanker pilot is likely an expert, but the fact remains that not only can he handily defeat superior numbers, he can do it for twice as long. The point of my anecdote was to illustrate that if the Su-27 can overmatch (or at least be equal to) the current top of the line US attack plane, then the Su-35/37 would certainly be notably superior.
I’m highly skeptical of this. Planes like thf F-15 and F-16 may have an arresting hook for ground use but are absolutely not desidned for dual role carrier use like the F-4 Phantom. If you can show evidence the F-16 was ever qualified for carrier landings and takeoffs… well, I’ll be wrong. 