[NeonSamurai]

Yes it can hit 6g's+ with tanks and air to air weapons loadout, but pilots try not to do that as you overstress the airframe which cuts back on the life exectancy of the plane. Fully loaded out there is a computer G limiter which limits it to no more then 3.5g. If they get into a furball the first thing they do is jettison all external tanks and air to ground ordinance.

The main advantage the F22 has in a turning fight is its vectored thrust engines which can angle up and down along the vertical axis, which definatly can help improve its turn radius and rate, and also helps it get nose on for a weapons launch more easily.

As for enemies who could deny the US air control in a war, none of the countries the US is likely to attack can. Of course the US does like to start fights with 2nd-3rd world countries where the US has both technological and numerical superiority, and also far better trained pilots. But the US certainly isnt forgetting the possibility of conflict with an enemy that does have a proper airforce and continues to develope new anti air weapons and equipment.

[bradclark1]

[NeonSamurai]

Name one country post world war 2 that the US got into an armed conflict with that wasnt third or second world with a vastly inferior military vs the US. That's my point. The only incident that comes even close would be when China got activly involved in the Korean war.

So naturaly they do well militarily when going against countries with very poorly trained pilots and other military personel, vastly inferior (usualy) equipment, that is often not even properly maintained. It would be hard not to.

[The Avon Lady]

[Deathblow]

[TLAM Strike]

[GunnersMate]

Does anyone have any pictures of that F-16 that had a delta wing without the elevators?

[JSLTIGER]

It was called the F-16XL, and was a competitor to the F-15E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F-16xl.jpg

[NeonSamurai]

Ok from the top..

It is true and that was my point from the other thread. I dont meen the us is going around picking fights with everyone nessisarily, but wars they have started (or got involved with if you prefer) pre vietnam (before the technology gap realy started to widen) were all against 3rd or 2nd world countries with largely inferior militaries. Conflicts the US belive they can easily win. They dont go toe to toe with armies that are even close to their own capabilities if they can possibly avoid it.

Countries the US is not likely to attack in the near future... the EU, Russia, China and other similar countries with modern armies and realtivly top line equipment (granted russia is slipping quickly). These are about the only countries that have any chance of denying the US air control in a war for any period of time. Every other country just about on the planet either doesnt have the numbers (planes, pilots, etc), or technology equality, or training programs to do it. Because of this the US would be very unlikely to get into an armed conflict with any of those countries (diplomatic relations asside) unless their hand was forced, due to the likely very high casualties.

Yes Russsia was involved in Korea, but they were acting more as advisors/suppliers unlike China which activly got their military involved in the conflict.

Iraq's military was only considered formidable vs the other countries surrounding them. Though they did have some very recent soviet equipment, the vast majority of it was obsolete dating back to as far as WW2. Their Command and Control was poor, and most of their military was poorly trained other then the republican guard and not very well equiped. Though their troops were as you say battle hardned, their expirence was vs another military similar to their own (Iran), not the ultra modern US military and similarly well equiped and trained western powers. Not to mention the Iraqi airforce was horribly trained and other then a few mig-29's very poorly equiped. The fight was no contest especialy in the air, the only question was the number of casualties inflicted on the coalition's side. One of the biggest problems the Iraqi's had was they had all this equipment which was generations apart. Trying to mix 40's grade techology, with 50's 60's 70's and 80's generation equipment. Its no surprize that they failed and the US was able to exploit that.

As for the decisiveness of airpower, one could point to the WW2 bombing campaigns of the allies which contributed a significant ammout to the allied victory as being the first example. However you are correct in that the first Iraq conflict demonstrated just how much air power could realy do. But the airforce didnt win it alone either.

Yes in Vietnam their anti air defence over Hanoi was quite successfull, but this was also partly to do with the rediculous target rules coming out of the pentagon, where one day you could target SAM sites and the next day you couldnt or risk a court martial. Alot of things were very badly handled in the Vietnam conflict both on the ground in south Vietnam and the air war over North Vietnam. Also back then the technological gap wasnt quite so dramatic as it was with the first conflict in Iraq. In Vietnam alot of the new US weapon systems were untested and very crude and military planners had put their air to air eggs into one basket, missles, which proved fatal. The air to air kill ratio is more telling then the US air kills vs total number of F4's shot down in total. I belive it started out at around 2-1 US-NVA and droped to almost 1-1, then the us started putting guns back on their planes, and also started the Top Gun school which taught pilots how to dogfight, after that the kill ratio went up to 6-1. Plus the NVA didnt put up very many aircraft to begin with. I could make a very large thread just on why the US lost vietnam, or what went wrong with the air war over North Vietnam for that matter, im just lightly scuffing the surface

Anyhow back on the original topic

That F-16XL prototype/test version photo is alot closer to the scale you can see in the photo of the J-10 on the first page, though the J10 im pretty sure is even bigger. Look at the cockpit and pilot to give it a sense of scale, also the wing mounted ir missles on both (and remembering that the chineese/russian ir missles tend to be a bit bigger then their NATO counterparts). The J-10's wings are mounted alot lower on the frame like the Lavi vs the 16 and 16XL. To me though the J-10 looks more like a recently designed large Mig fighter but single engine with wings, tail and landing gear placed similarly to an 16, and 2 canards placed above and ahead of the wings. Though there are several similarities, there are also numerous differences between the 3 design wise. One thing is for sure, judging from that photo, the J-10 isnt a copy of the Lavi, thought it probably has copied several of the design concepts.

[DeepSix]

[TLAM Strike]

Back off topic: On that note, interesting note the North Koreans sent pilots to fly for the North Vietnamese Air Force. The true scale of the Vietnam War tends to be ignored.

[NeonSamurai]

Yes there were russian pilots flying Korean marked Migs, but unofficialy as advisors China however got heavily involved with ground troops, pilots and equipment of its own and clearly marked as so. Russia on the other hand tried to maintain deniability of their own involvement.

Yep there were some North Korean pilots in nam, also many russian advisors (though not many Chinese this time as the vietnamese have a long history with chinese, invasions etc, and dont exactly trust them).

[TLAM Strike]

Oh and lets not forget the activities of Russian Submarines off Korea. They almost tired the same sh@t in Vietnam as well.

[Deathblow]