Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Max Afterburner" channel.

In an A2A focused initial mission set, they will often carry 2x AIM-9X BLK II+ on stations 1 & 11 and 4xAIM-120C7/D for a total of 6 AAMs. Brits will do 2x ASRAAM BLK 6, 2x AIM-120, and 2x Meteor. The new Block 6 ASRAAM has significant BVR capability. F-35s also get to choose whether or not someone will merge with them, and given that choice, better to reach out from the shadows and pull targets into NEZ than merge with them.
5
It was a TF30 issue going through the growing pains of the first fighter turbofan motor development. Fighters were exclusively propelled by turbojets prior to that in the 3rd Gen designs. F-14 intake geometry and airflow mass was designed for the TF30 and F401-PW-400, which was an F100 variant with longer AB augmentor sections specific to the F-14's nacelles, with a larger fan section that had an additional stage to the front end as well, higher bypass ratio than the TF30 or F100. They were only supposed to build 16 F-14As with TF30s just to keep the line open from 1970-1972, then mass-produce the original F-14B/F401 as the fleet standard air vehicle/propulsion combo. USN dumped hundreds of millions of 1970s dollars into the F401, but it was mysteriously abandoned. They later took the original F-14B/F401 testbed (Red & White Tomcat with racing stripe-like paint job) and tested a GE F101 variant in it for the Derivative Fighter Engine program (DFE), as well as in one of the early F-16s. Thus was the impetus for the Improved Performance Engine program in the 1980s that gave us the F100-PW-220/229 & F110-GE-100/129/400 motors for the Viper, Tomcat, and F-15.
3
Some older dual-patch USMC F-35B test pilots who came from Hornets said they use the 28°/sec yaw rate in the F-35 to catch other fighters off-guard doing BFM. Everyone hears what a dog the F-35 is, then is surprised. USAF has a lot of former F-16CM flight leads who are pitch and roll, rate fighters who obviously don't come from the Hornet. The Marine Fighter Weapons Instructors said they go vertical, get separation, stomp on the rudder after squaring over the top, and are nose-on so fast without pulling many Gs because of yaw axis. They snap the nose down faster than their opponents ever expected, and can go out of plane instantaneously too. Subsonic acceleration is better in the F-35, but it bleeds energy faster than a Viper, so it has to be fought to its strengths. Slick Viper big mouth should have the advantage, but isn't in a combat configuration. Centerline tank or ECM pod plus wingtips, 2 & 8 AAMs, and E-jettisoned 3, 4, 6, 7 is roughly neutral with an F-35, depending on fuel state. Add a FLIR to the F-16 and the F-35 should be dominant. Block 4 F-35A with the new motor core generating 47,000lb thrust will bring it up to 1.18 T/W ratio on 50% fuel with 6 internal AIM-120s.
2
Mudhen won't let you max g unless the CFTs are removed. The only time they do that is for Functional Check Flights after major maintenance, otherwise the F-15E is configured with heavy CFTs and weapons that reduce its ability to turn hard.
2
That's a Gripen at 3:36.
2
@grider421 Late 1970s Block 1, 5, and 10 F-16A Radar capabilities are still classified, and the old APG-66 was rendered obsolete in the 1980s by the APG-68, of which there have been 9 subsequent variants. Those are now outclassed by the SABR AESA being installed in 608 late Block F-16CMs. There are still modes and features of APG-66 that can't be discussed 45 years later. F-35's APG-81 is light years ahead of the APG-68, and even better than the F-22's APG-77 AESA.
2
Pilots at the 388th TFW at Hill AFB started calling it the Viper in the late 1970s and it stuck. Official USAF nickname came later as some kind of contest, which pilots just ignored.
2
This is the only SR-71C in existence comprised of the airframes you mentioned.
1
 @Xphyle-tf1do Yup. Donkey and Mover both commented that the Viper isn't even modeled correctly, that it doesn't rate around fast enough.
1
@saltyfloridaman7163 F-35s are also a lot heavier though. Former F-16 drivers say the sustained turn rate in a post E-Jett configuration (4 AAMs) is better than the F-35A, ITR is similar, but nose authority is much better in F-35, high AOA capable. F-16 gets really sluggish when slow.
1
@saltyfloridaman7163 Those are from 2016 and 2019 interviews, well after 3F. I read your comments just fine. If an F-35 is flown by a seasoned Baby Hornet driver, it does a lot better since they’re used to stomping on rudder and using the nose authority. Viper drivers are roll and pitch axis-limited in technique for the most part. None of this really matters due to SA and HOBS, let alone BVR.
1
Typhoon has about a 1.2 T/W ratio, so it's a monster in BFM, and very light, so it can really maintain a tight turn radius while out-rating its opponent as well. So sad to see it neglected in the AESA department though, even with CAPTOR-E being agreed to so long ago.
1
None of the leading and trailing edges are titanium, to include the variable inlet shock spikes and the vertical stabs. Those are polycarbonate with asbestos honeycomb matrix underneath, which are RF transparent mostly. A-12 originally had Titanium shock spikes, but they were replaced with polycarbonate/composites due to frontal oblique RCS blooms very early in the program pre SR-71A.
1
@MaxAfterburnerusa If you look at the Northrop design for the Multirole Fighter program pre-JAST, this looks a lot like the MRF-45E.
1
Broke the windows in my elementary school as a kid right near Plant 42 in Palmdale/Lancaster area when we were stationed at Edwards AFB. Just the loudness of the engines rattled the windows until some cracked.
1
That's 1 of 2 YA-7F prototypes with the extended fuselage and F100 engine.
1
F-35A and B have 28°/sec yaw rate too, with minimal felt g since it's lateral. Those turn rates seem high even for ITR on the Viper. STR is where the Viper excels at FL250 and below.
1
The intake geometry should be fine for AL-31 type motor. Look at the Northrop MRF-45E proposal for reference, which is what this is taken from.
1
@jamesmandahl444 Russia is and always has been dirt-poor. Their leadership puts extreme pressure on their aerospace development community to get modern designs into the air ASAP, which has always involved taking RDT&E done by better-funded programs in the West, then tailoring them to manufacturing techniques in Russia and border states like Belarus and Ukraine. Russia has maintained an army of spies inside the US government, DoD, and aerospace industry for the better part of the last 80 years to gather as much technical data and material samples as possible to skip over most of the extreme costs of RDT&E for their weapons, especially fighter, bomber, and cargo aircraft.
1
This is one of 2 YA-7F prototypes with extended fuselages and F100 motors. Really great plane that should have been produced due to its payload, combat radius, nav systems, and bombing precision.
1
@jonathanpfeffer3716 The contract for Block II+ describes LO features, which distinguishes it from previous variants. The materials you can use also will reduce RCS. On F-35, the 1 & 11 stations are canted outwards so you don't have 90° angles with the LAU missile rail. Frontal RCS should be minimally-affected by carriage of AIM-9X II+, but oblique and side aspect RCS will spike a bit.
1
F-35As, Bs, and Cs have much higher readiness rates than legacy fighters, with insanely-low MMHPFH.
1
Yup. Leading & trailing edges are all polycarbonate composites with asbestos honeycomb substructure matrix for heat mitigation and RCS reduction. Vertical stabs and the variable inlet spikes are the same materials as well, and were on the improved A-12 after they had unwanted RCS blooms at frontal oblique quadrants from the spikes. Head-on was very low RCS though.
1
Common inlet configuration after mid Block 30 production. Works for both Pratt & GE motors used on late Block Vipers. Block 52 has F100-PW-229. Block 50 has F110-GE-129, which needs the big mouth for airflow mass, otherwise it spills.
1
@Dermeister009 Block 52 tend to be Stateside and Foreign Military Sales jets. T-Birds are 52s. Block 50s are generally in overseas-based USAF Squadrons. I remember when Misawa Japan, Ramstein, and Spangdahlem got Block 30s way back in the day. Not sure if Hahn got them, but Aviano later got Block 40s. Kunsan AB, South Korea, got Block 30s as well. Block 30s are now all in Aggressor or Air National Guard units, for the ones still flying. There are even Block 42s in Aggressor service at Nellis that haven't been through CCIP 1, CCIP 1A, or CCIP 2.
1
It's one of two YA-7F prototypes that had the fuselage extended and used a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine common to the F-16. It beat the YA-10 in AX, except it couldn't maintain visual acquisition for re-attack doing CAS, but it had an awesome bombing fire control computer, HUD, and moving map display NAV system that pilots loved. Would have been a much better choice to make those than 700 A-10s. 250 A-10s would have been fine, with either A-7Fs or more F-16s.
1
This is the only SR-71C trainer built from a YF-12A rear fuselage and another salvaged Blackbird front fuselage/nose into an SR-71B-ish training bird for new Sled Drivers.
1
The fuselage/blended wing airframe is the fuel tank. It doesn't have separate compartmentalized internal tanks or bladders.
1
It's taken from the Northrop MRF-45E since wind tunnel and early design work for the basic airframe was already studied decades ago. Russians did the same thing with the B-1A for their Tu-160, the Northrop YA-9 for their Su-25, A-5 Vigilante for the Ye-155 and MiG-25, P-3 Orion, C-130, C-141, YC-14 & YC-15, C-5, etc.
1
@dongiles There was only one C model built from 2 write-offs/salvaged birds and this is it. I recognized it as soon as he showed the hangar and the other birds therein. That YA-7F was the giveaway for me, since it's only 1 of 2 if I recall, and it was on static display outside at Hill AFB museum until recently.
1