Nied

I think that the Block 6 valks in DYRL are simply representative of you're average in service valkyrie circa 2031 (and there had to be some in service otherwise the Spacy wouldn't have had reason to upgrade them to VF-1X standard later on). Most likely the block 6 update happened after VF-1 production ceased, or at the very least after VF-4 production started (the VF-4 has a slightly cruder version of the VF-1 Blk6 cockpit).

The J-8 is just an enlarged Mig-21/J-7 with a new nose grafted on (one that looks suspicously like the Mig-23's). And the SH-5, while more orginal, is also very close to the An-12/Y-8 in design. In China's defense I should note that while it does have a passing resemblance to the Japanese F-1 and the Jaguar, the JH-7 is a unique design (though it won't win any beuty contests). China seems to have a problem fostering creativity in it's aerospace industry, They've yet to come up with more than a handful of designs that are signifigantly original, lord knows they have the potential but they've failed to live up to it at almost every turn.

THe Sv-51 does indeed have X-31/YF-21 style paddles for 3-D thrust vectoring. In batroid mode they splay out to form three toed "feet."

I've alwasy had some trouble with the idea that the VF-19F/S are just space optimized fighters intended for regular line use. For one we never see them used that way, and second the claim that they had yet to reach full production yet doesnt sit right with me either. In an age where giant mobile factories can churn out whole starships in a matter of months I find it hard to beilieve that only a squadron's worth of fighters could get built over the period M7 takes place. The existance of an S model points more to the F/S pair being intended for a special forces role instead of a mainline fighter (it is certainly used that way in M7, and all other S models contemporaries are specifically identified as SF). I could see a situation where both Shinsei and General Galaxy submited proposals to the Spacy for a SF fighter, the GG design won but Shinsei held on to the design and shopped it around to cash strapped colonies and colony fleets as a cheap way to upgrade thier SF squadrons. Or alternatively the Spacy turned down a space optimized VF-19 and chose instead to replace most space based VF-11Bs with -11Cs, so Shinsei tweaked the design and sold it as a cheap SF fighter. Either seems more plausible than the idea that they couldn't build them fast enough.

I don't think it has anything to do with looking down on Non-western designs, just Chinese. The Chinese have yet to build an original aircraft and the J-10 certainly isn't changing anything (the picture you posted makes it pretty clear how heavily it's based on the Lavi). There are plenty of non-western designs that are completely original (the Indian LCA is a perfect example) but there aren't that many Chinese ones.

I would do you one better Graham and say that the VF-19 was never intended to completely replace the VF-11, at least with the Spacy. The VF-19 seems uniquely suited for trans-atmospheric operations, while earlier VFs are either stuck in an atmosphere, or stuck in space (while equiped with FAST packs at least). The '19 would be perfect for the UNS Air Force (the Compendium lists the UNAF as the primary customer for the Excalibur), where it could deploy from terestrial airstrips directly into space without the need for expensive booster rockets, and it would have the effectiveness of a FAST pack equiped VF-11 once it got there. In this case the UNSAF and Spacy units likely to see lots of trans atmospheric combat would be the most likely to receive the Excalibur, while units based in deep space (like the M7 fleet and most other colony fleets for that matter) could easily make do with cheaper VF-11s with upgraded FAST packs.

The whole argument that the high vis markings are bad for a wartime situation is a red herring. Navy planes are almost constantly being repainted at sea anyway (that's how older planes like the F-14 and A-6 get to look so mottled, spot re-paint after re-paint). It shouldn't be too hard to cover over the high vis markings with some water based paint if a war breaks out. I think someone in the Navy has just gone on a power trip.

Based on what we see of it in Dynamite 7 (no spoilers here) and in the lineart, I would say that the VF-19P is a cheap export designed to be sold to cash strapped colony worlds and the like. The P's head apears to have a more primitive optics system than other VF-19 variants (and may have cruder avionics all around), and it lacks the big multi use weapons bays in the legs, replacing them with VF-5000 style micro missile launchers.

Kinda off topic from what we've been discussing here But I found a pretty interesting article on the Raptor the other day. RAPTOR UNWRAPPED Alot of it looks to be a little sketchy (the Raptor will carry more than six AMRAAMs once the compressed carry version comes out? I thought the C model was the compressed carry version), but some of it is pretty neat stuff that I haven't heard of before. Certainly the idea that AESA radar is powerful enough to jam hostile radars just by focusing the beam is pretty cool and has the potential to turn the Raptor into a pretty deadly SEAD platform.

F-35B (assuming it can get pass its weight problems) Vs Harrier is easy. F-35 all the way, it has far more thrust, far better avionics and is supersonic to boot (and the stealth factor doesn't hurt wither, it makes disengaging far easier). F-15K vs Su-37 (or some Super Flanker derivative like the Su-30MK): While the F-15K will be the ultimate Eagle, the lack of thrust vectoring and the inferiority of the AMRAAM Sidewinder pair to the R-77 and AA-11 mean that even the F-15Kickass could lose. F-22 vs Su-37: The F-22 has a slight disadvantage in sensors and agility. However it's superior thrust and stealth means that the Raptor has greater freedom to disengage and re-engage on its own terms. Leathal wepons like the Archer don't do a lick of good against an AMRAAM shot out of nowhere.

The UK will still launch helicopters and ground attack Harriers off of their carriers (GR.7 and GR.9), although they will have to rely on SAMs or NATO allies for air defence. I have heard of proposals to take the Blue Vixen radars out of retireing Sea Harriers and install them into the noses of GR harriers, turning them into a Birtish version of the AV-8B+.

Well in US military missions the Mig sweep and CAP missions will really be the realm of the Raptor, the F-35 will at best serve a suplementary role. Acording to most of the material I have read, the standard A2A arment for the UK version is going to consist of 2 AMRAAMs and 2ASRAAMs. There's certainly no space issues with loading both, and the bomb rack is supposed to be capable of carrying A2A ordinance.

Aparently they're too expensive for the Japanese, and they're days are numbered. The F-2 had a proposed american cousin which would have had many of the same traits as the F-2 (bigger wings strengthened fuselage) but this never came to be.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

Man the Japanese just know how to paint an Eagle up good! My favorite is the one where they painted a giant dragon on the back of the plane clutching the JASDF roundels on the wings.

From what I've read the F-15K will have CFTs. The only export variant that I had heard of that couldn't carry CFTs was the F-15S (though that has been reversed). The F-15K should be one hell of a dogfighter. In addition to it's higher thrust it also gets full AIM-9X integration, a JHMCS helmet mounted sight (which can target the AIM9Xs), an IRST (via a new mode added to the LANTIRN pods), and posibly an APG-63(V)2 Radar active electronic scanning radar.

It's interesting that the official sources come up with terms like "gun-destroyer," when the most aplicable naval designation would be Monitor (a small ship of shallow draft with a large weapon or weapons usually used for coastal bombardment).

There's an article about F-15s mock dogfighting with RHinos in the new issue of Aircraft illustrated (it's a British mag but you can find it in most Borders or Barnes & Nobel's). While most of the article is an interservice variation on the old stand up comedy routine about the differences between white people and black people (Air Force pilots walk like this, while the Navy Pilots walk like this) it does confirm my suspisions about the Rhino. Boiled down the Rhino lost most of the time because it just didn't have the thrust to win the fight. The Eagle and Shornet are about the same wieght but the Rhino has about 6,000 lbs less thrust. I don't know if I mentioned it in this thread or another but I definetly think the Super Hornet needs better engines, a good pair of 35,000 lb F135s would definetly help the Rhino with most of it's problems (except drag but in most situations the extra thrust would compensate).

The picture I saw wasn't from any video game, it was a painting of a F-23 in RAF markings being escorted by UCAVs. I doubt that the YF-23 will be able to carry much of a warload unmodified, it has the same disadvantage as the F/A-22 with the added disadvantage that it mounts them vertically, meaning no mixed loads (that design also conributed to the Air Force chooseing the YF-22, they were worried about the YF-23's mechanism jamming). Like I said before the F-22 doesn't have much of a stealth or drag disadvantage once it's tails are removed. While the idea of a YF-23 derived strike plane is neat, the cost and maintnence advantages of the F/B-22 ought to put it over the line.

Something to consider about the F/B-22. Much of the drag and stealth disadvantages the YF-22 had up against the YF-23 would be eliminated along with the F/B-22's tails (it's one of the things I always thnk about when someone mentions re-designing the YF-23 for TVC, a F-22 could have it's tail chopped off with as much design work, and make up the it's stealth/speed deficiency and be even more maneuverable to boot). The F/B-22 is also supposed to feature a new weapons bay that is both deeper and longer so that it can stow full sized weapons. Having said that I've seen artist's concepts featuring an enlarged YF-23 with a cockpit not unlike the F-111's that looked pretty cool.