Why is the U-2 still in service while the SR-71 is not? - Quora opinion piece

C Stuart Hardwick

When you fuel up an SR-71, sitting on the ground in the hot sun, the fuel dribbles out on the tarmac. That’s not an apocryphal tale, it’s really true.

When you want to start the engines on an SR-71, you can’t use a standard airport start cart, you have to shackle each engine up to a pair of big V8 muscle car engines. Then, to get the fuel to ignite, you have to inject a special, toxic, high temperature hypergolic chemical mix similar to rocket propellant.

So you do all that, and you get the thing into the air, and you have to have a tanker waiting, just for you. You can’t take off with full tanks, and you can’t fly very far without them—or with them for that matter.

So you fill ’er up and accelerate to cruising speed. Only then do the tanks heat up enough to expand and seal up the leaks.

So you refuel—a few times—and you get to wherever you need to go—which is going to be deep inside the territory of somebody who wants you dead, because otherwise, why are you up there? And while you are flying around at bat-outta-hell speed, if you pull off your glove and touch the wind screen, you’ll burn your hand.

And if you flame-out for any reason, you only have three shots per engine at restarting, because it’s not like you can do it by clicking an igniter plug. You have to carry enough of that hypergolic restart mix to handle contingencies, but not enough to turn the aircraft into a bomb.

Flying the SR-71 was dangerous and fabulously expensive. So as soon as the military decided they could get by without it, they retired it.

That’s a shame too, because the SR-71 is the closest thing to a space plane ever built.

---

If you like science, you might enjoy my free award-winning scifi sampler.

British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2 - most interesting military jet - Quora opinion piece

What is the most interesting military jet? What makes it so intriguing?

Alex Patrick, B.Sc (Hons) Digital Media Technology

Answered Mar 28 · Upvoted by Damien Leimbach, former Avionics Technician at U.S. Air Force (2001-2007) and Daniel Dvorkin, former Medic at U.S. Air Force (1989-1997)

I'm going to throw a controversial one into the ring, the British Aircraft Corporation TSR-2.

I think it’s fascinating, not just for what it was or what it could have been, but for the entire history of its development and events leading to its untimely demise.

TSR-2: The intended state-of-the-art supersonic strike and reconnaissance aircraft for the RAF, envisioned in the late-1950s,designed and built in the early ’60s and summarily executed in 1965.

Designed to be extremely fast at both low and high altitudes in order to penetrate air defences as well as scouting them out from afar.

Using two Bristol Siddeley Olympus reheated turbojets (a development of which would later be used in Concorde), all-moving tail planes and smaller delta wings with turned-down tips, it ensured the aircraft was immensely fast and swift to take off.

Add to that, cutting-edge computer systems to process the multiple ground-tracking cameras and side looking radar. It was the most advanced aircraft in the world, in 1963. Filling the low-altitude strike, high-altitude reconnaissance and nuclear-deterrant gaps with one supersonic aircraft.

The one flying TSR-2 flew 24 times, going supersonic once over the Irish Sea. With reheat on one engine (problems prevented both), it accelerated past the escort Lightning, which was required to push itself to its limit in order to keep up. The TSR-2 could cruise at Mach 2.1, above 37,000ft, with a theoretical top speed of almost Mach 3 at 45,000

To this day, its cancellation is controversial.

So many factors contributed to its downfall… Pressure from politicians to cut the program that was extremely expensive, pressure from the Royal Navy to stop the aircraft that could see them relinquish their submarine based nuclear deterrent (Lord Mountbatten was a staunch anti-TSR-2 activist), likely pressure from the Americans that would see the UK gain a top-spec aircraft to compete for sales with the in-development F-111… all were factors, with cost looming largest.

1965 saw a change of government and a swift cancellation of the program that Labour had campaigned against for years. The aircraft and parts under construction were ordered to be destroyed. They were burned and scrapped, however several were not.

Several already built were simply sold for scrap hence two survive today. The gap it was designed to fill was instead filled by the proven Blackburn Buccaneer and Phantom II before the Panavia Tornado could properly fill the void.

There’s a lot more to it than the bits I mentioned, but I think it had a fascinating… and tragic history.

Why was the F-14 Tomcat withdrawn from US navy service? Quora opinion piece

by Arthur Hu

".....The decision to replace the Tomcat with the Super Hornet leaves many scratching their heads to this day. That said, the Tomcat was a product of the late 60s utilising the TF30 engines and AWG-9/Phoenix system of the failed F-111B. The result was a supersonic interceptor using the swinging version of the A-6 wing and landing gear. The F-111 was an unfortunate Frankenstein amalgamation of 'gee-whiz' features, some like afterburning turbofans which weren’t mature enough to work very well, and some like ejecting crew capsules, swing wings, and rotating pylons that nobody will be foolish enough to ever design into an airplane again after they went out of fashion. The USAF never had much use for the Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix which was similar to the missile that was meant for the Mach3 YF-12 interceptor variant which also needed to detect and zap bombers from 100 miles away, the USAF never had much success with any of the Falcon missiles which were used in the Delta Dagger and Delta Dart in internal missile bays. Those planes usually only fired in pairs so they only had 2 shots.

In actual combat situations the Phoenix was actually only fired in combat a couple a times, and by Iran at that. It was said that the “dogfight” mode button was the “eject Phoenix missile” buttons. One major advantage of the F-14 vs. the doomed F-111B is while it was a point design that could ONLY carry 6 long range Phoenix missiles that the F-14 was a complete superset of the F-4 - it could carry 4 Sparrows conformally and 4 Sidewinders, plus an internal M61 gatling 20mm gun plus any bomb load the Phantom could carry. The F-111 had a specification list hundreds of pages long, but it wasn’t until Mach 2 F-105 Thunderchiefs were completely humiliated by hit and run subsonic MiG-17s at Dragon Jaw bridge which were upgraded versions of the same MiG-15 so thoroughly trounced by the F-86 over Korea that both the Navy and USAF realized the F-111 would not be able to replace the Phantom in air combat roles. One Navy admiral remarked that all the thrust in Christendom would not make the F-111B a fighter. The Navy started with the idea of a VFAX that would handle dogfighting and bombing, but Grumman just built a VFAX that was big enough to carry the giant AWG-9 radar and heavy Phoenix missiles plus whatever the Phantom could haul.

But if you think the Hornet is from a more advanced era, the Hornet design was pretty much set in place about the same time frame, Northrop took the F-5 design, put in slightly bigger engines, and move the the wing top of the fuselage with twin tails, it was downized to produce the F-17, upsized to the F-18A/B which was somewhat smaller than a Phantom carrying just two Sparrows conformally.

The Super Hornet was proposed to address complaints that the Hornet was a great plane but didn’t have the range of a heavy fighter like the Phantom, Somewhere along the way, somebody had the brilliant idea of using it to replace the subsonic A-6 after the A-12 Dorito stealth plane program cracked up, and one more requirement added was replacing aging Tomcats. One issue was cost and complexity of the swing wing and older systems which cost more to maintain than the newer Hornet.

Two other factors according to one conspiracy theory is that the Mcdonnell Douglas lobby had more clout with the secretary of defense and managed to favor the Super Hornet and destroy all F-14 tooling to boot. Keeping the F-18 designation was a bit of a scam because you can’t just put on a bigger wing, by the time everything including the engine is upsized, pretty much nothing is in common in terms of parts, and it’s a completely new airplane, so it’s more like going from 1st generation to 2nd generation Taurus pretty much only the nameplate is the same and it looks similar. The old F3D had to be redesigned for another engine after the infamous J46 debacle. The original idea of the hornet was to get a plane cheaper and smaller than the F15 Eagle or Tomcat but loaded up it’s about the same weight as size as either plane plus it loses two conformal missle stations.

The downside to the Super Hornet is that it’s basically an upsized lawn dart with a small wing. In fact for all the people that laughed at the F-105 Thunderchief as the worst dogfighter in history, the Super Hornet loaded up is heavier with a wing the same size, but has much more thrust and same radar missile capability as the Phantom which the Thud lacked. It’s much dirtier, especially with “toed-out” pylons than the Tomcat which can also spread out wings for efficient cruise, or pull them back for supersonic cruise, and has wider wing-body effect so you get more lift than just your main wing loading which doesn’t count fuselage area might lead you to believe. Tomcat can carry 4 sparrows conformally in the tunnel between engines or tuck bombs back there and leave the wings COMPLETELY CLEAN WITH A FULL BOMBLOAD where the Super Hornet has to spread them out on numerous pylons across the wings. Depending on which accounts you choose to believe, the Tomcat is much faster and burns much less fuel, and I’ve never heard that the SH had the range to do missions to Afghanistan like the Bombcats did. The F-14 was actually never designed to be a point design like the f-111 which was ONLY a bomber in the A-model and ONLY a fighter in the B Navy, it was designed with hardpoints and avionics, and in Bomcat configuration pretty comparable to the F-111 bomber or Strike Eagle.

There are various arguments as to whether the Tomcat or Super Hornet is a better dogfighter but the F-14 with swing wings and blended wing/body is a very efficient platform across all speeds, and was the first swing wing plane to use wings forward with automatic sweep for dogfighting. The SH has a fixed relatively tiny lawn dart wing that is a compromise at all speeds. The SH loses the Phoenix but it was never really useful in combat, and weighs about the same as an attack bomb load, the Sparrow form factor AMRAAM provides similar active seeker capability where you can fire without having to actively paint the target with your radar with gives away your position and prevents you from turning around to get out of Dodge.

The Soviet Flanker was their answer to both the Eagle and Tomcat, actually a family with carrier and land based and even a FB-111-ski side by side seating bomber and our answer to that is currently the Super Hornet. The Fat Flanker replaces the swing-wing Fencer but keeps the side by side seating. The SH now performs pretty much every job except helo, Hawkeye radar or cargo delivery where in Vietnam you’d have A-4 an A7 light attack, A5 recon, A6 medium attack, A3 tanker, F8 daylight or F4 all weather fighter and A1 ground support attack all over the place and now everything is either a Hornet or Super Hornet. Eventually the F-35 could take over as the one plane that does everything but they’ll have to work out the bugs and expense. The other option if old Robert McNamara were still around would be to ask why the USAF Navy and Marines couldn’t all standardize on Super Hornets for new planes that work until the F-35 kinks are worked out. That’s what happened with everybody flew the F-4 for every mission. There is an enhanced super-duper Hornet which puts fuel in a conformal pack on top of the fuselage and has a pod which works like a weapons bay which can clean up some of the stores that would end up on a pylon, and the Navy is buying some of those gizmos...."


by Joe Duarte


"....In 1989, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (during the Bush Sr. administration) refused to procure any more F-14D aircraft. He dismissed the F-14 as “1960s technology”, which was arguably true – the contract was awarded in January of 1969, first flight was in 1970, and IOC was declared in 1973 (but don’t ever believe an IOC declaration). He also derided the F-14 as a “jobs program” (which is unfortunately true of a number of defense projects, like the F-35.).

So SecDef Cheney pretty much killed the F-14, though it took another 15 years or so to retire them completely.

Note also that in 1989 the Cold War was coming to an end, which likely factored into Cheney’s thinking. The F-14D variant was a pretty decent upgrade, but it was unlikely to see much combat.

The F-14 in general didn’t have much of a record of success. In its entire history, it never destroyed a single target with its flagship Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile. The handful of times it launched a Phoenix, it missed. (I'm ignoring the combat record of Iran’s F-14As and their Phoenix missiles in their war with Iraq, since credible data is unavailable.) In American service, all the F-14 ever did was shoot down two obsolete jets – a Libyan Su-22 and Mig-23 in a couple of engagements in the 1980s, plus an Iraqi Mi-8 Hip helicopter. And an F-14 somehow got shot down by an ancient Soviet SA-2 SAM in Iraq – maybe the ECM was defective or something (similarly confusing is how LCDR Scott Speicher's F/A-18C was shot down by an old R-40/AA-6 missile – war is full of mysteries).

The Tomcat didn’t have the stellar kill ratios of the F-15 or F-16. Granted, the F/A-18 family that replaced the Tomcat doesn’t have much of a track record either. The Navy hasn’t had top-tier fighters or attack aircraft in a long time, which could be a problem in the not too distant future. For ground attack, the A-6 Intruder was outstanding, and the A-6F was fantastic, but they never built it. A-6Fs would be great even today in uncontested airspace or supported by Growlers and such (and as A-10 Warthog replacements). For air combat, an F-23 tailored for the Navy would be a doomsday fighter, at least as good as the F-22. It’s faster and stealthier than the F-22, and that was true in the 1990s. They could do even better now, with the lower maintenance stealth coatings of the F-35 program, better sensors, tiny anti-missile missiles (think of something the size of a Stinger or smaller to take out incoming SAMs and AAMs), and other tweaks. (The Air Force chose the F-22 over the F-23 – in the 1991 ATF competition – not because it was better, but because of perceived project management issues, and possibly because the government was mad at Northrop at the time. The F-23 was the better fighter on most variables.)

To add to the cost of service argument, there was also the aircraft's role mission. The F-14 was built strictly as an air interceptor. Other words Air to Air combat only and the Navy had A-6’s to fulfill Its Air to Surface missions. When the F/A-18 (Fighter/Attack) came along it was designed to fulfill both roles. Which eventually fased out the A-6’s. The F-14 was retrofitted to perform ground attack but the plane was not designed with that specifically in mind. The F-14 and also the F-4 were amazing air to air planes. They were brutally fast and agile and did a great job at what they were designed to do. But technology eventually caught up with them and the F/A-18 was just more efficient at the job. Also there is another aspect which is maintenance. If you look on the flight deck now it’s pretty much just F/A -18’s, Helo’s and E-2 Hawkeyes. Hornets have taken over the E/A 6B, S-3 Viking and F-14 roles. Why..well it’s a lot easier to stock parts for one airframe than four. By the Hornet taking over multiple roles, there are that many less “different” parts they don’t have to keep in inventory. That is one of the main goals. One plane that does everything. The F/A-18 has now been fitted for Fighter/Attack, in flight refueling, electronic warfare and probably other platforms that used to take multiple different planes to cover...."

What do the American navy think of the new British aircraft carrier HMS QE II?

by David Crawford, former British Army Infantry Officer (1974-1994)

 The QE class of carriers are a totally different breed from the US Navy super carriers; they are a new concept of carrier.

No catapults - no point in having catapults as their are currently no 5th generation cat -launched aircraft, other than the F35 conventional carrier variant, so why build a new ship to operate obsolete air assets requiring additional, space hungry plant and equipment ( Cats and Arresters), so reducing space for the air-wing and other assets.

They are the first true multi role naval carriers, ideally suited to UK naval policy and doctrine. She is capable of operating a substantial air-wing of F-35B’s, she can act as a pure helicopter carrier operating every type of chopper in the UK inventory including Chinooks and Ospreys, she can carry mixed wings of helicopters and strike aircraft without any modifications, she can carry a full Royal Marine Commando, plus support troops and HQ as standard. In short she is the worlds first Fleet Strike, Helicopter, Support, Assault, General purpose carrier that can fulfill every role currently requiring a host of different platforms. She can do everything the UK needs, from global power projection, intervention, and humanitarian assistance, without any conversion or additional costs.

Much is made of her not being nuclear powered and reliant of fossil fuel replenishment. The biggest new US nuclear carriers still require to be replenished, their nuclear power plants do not provide dry stores or food, aviation fuel or munitions so topping her bunkers up is no big deal. The RN and RFA are well equipped, practiced and experienced at such things. Plus the US carriers ability to cruise for 20+ years between a 4 -5 year long refuel does not diminish the requirements of her conventional escort and supply ships to refuel and replenish from auxiliaries.

The fact the QE class are not nuclear powered, along with her size, is a major advantage. The majority of the UK’s overseas territories do not have huge harbours and many of our allies will not allow nuclear vessels into their ports. There is no point in having a flagship that can’t visit, replenish or be repaired anywhere but at home or in the USA.

Costs alone make the QE class world leaders - two multi role carriers for 3 billion? Manned by a very small crew, future proofed, easy to maintain and no harbour/port limitations. The US could probably build 10–12 of these for every Gerald Ford class carrier they currently plan to build, reflect on that : 1 nuclear carrier with an air-wing of about 75 aircraft, requiring a crew of 4300 men, 10 QE carriers, total air-wing of 700+ aircraft and total crew of 6700 men. What is the most flexible, cost effective “bang for buck” deal?

Cmdr. Nathan Gray RN, Makes the first ever F-35B Lightning II jet take off from HMS Queen Elizabeth on Sept. 25, 2018. Royal Navy Photo

If you place the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, Eurofighter 2000, Gripen, Rafale, Mig29, Su-27, MiG-25, and the Harrier in an aerial arena and ask them to dogfight to the death, which is the last one flying?

by Shawn Derrek, Sim Pilot on F-15C, Su-27/33, MiG-29A/G/S, Su-25/T

Let me give you a definitive answer. It depends. Dont believe me? Ask any former fighter pilot or someone who knows what he's talking about to answer this. I bet they will say the same. Given the infinite amount of factors eg. Aircraft loadout, fuel, weight, altitude, airspeed, missile pK, countermeasure effectiveness and the general concept of who shoots first will win etc, it is literally not possible to answer your question. Anyone who says otherwise is not considering these or does not know what they are talking about. I can however, give you a likely winner.

PS: I won't talk much about gun kills, as it's a simple concept and you're normally going down if someone guns you. Did I also mention the probability of a missile hitting a target when it is dispensing countermeasures is literally like rolling a dice? You never know the outcome.

Now prepare yourself for a very long article on the capabilities and vulnerabilities of each aircraft. For simplicity's sake, I will use the best combat loadout that is normally taken for each individual aircraft.

F-14 Tomcat

check.

Now, it is worth mentioning that the F-14 was designed for fleet air defense and is more of an interceptor than anything else. It can dogfight, just it isn't very good at it.

The F-14 normally comes equipped with 4x AIM-7 Sparrows (semi-active radar guided), 2x AIM-54 Phoenix (active radar guided) and 2x AIM-9 Sidewinder (heatseeking) missiles and a 20mm M61A1 Vulcan. As you can probably tell from it's combat loadout, it has a fair bit of long range firepower, not so much on the dogfighting side of things. That being said, the F-14 could dogfight sufficiently well given it had enough energy. However, the wing sweep on the F-14 was commonly complained about, as it was a dead giveaway on how much energy the aircraft had retained. In a dogfight, if you lose energy, you lose the fight (some Russian aircraft excluded). Now, at close ranges (especially furballs), most fighter pilots would use heatseekers as they are more maneuverable and are generally better suited for close ranges. Now, as previously mentioned, I can't give an answer. No one can. But I will state the one that is most likely to survive. Moving on.

F-15C Eagle

The F-15 is a remarkable fighter, with absolutely no losses in aerial engagements. Now, that might lead you to believe the F-15 is invincible. I can tell you it isn't. I know how it flies, how it handles under different situations and how the weapon systems and countermeasures work. The main advantage of the F-15 is in fact, it's maneuverability and missiles.

The F-15C comes equipped with a load of either 4x AIM-120 AMRAAM (active radar guided) and 4x AIM-9 Sidewinder (heatseeking) missiles OR 6x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-9. The F-15 has the same Vulcan that is used on the F-14. For the best case scenario, I will use the first loadout. With 4 heatseekers, the F-15 definitely stands a better chance of maneuvering for a kill against a target, and has more ordinance to hand feed to said target. The aircraft, despite it's delta wing design, turns pretty hard at speeds at or above 300 knots, and could pull some pretty high alpha at speeds lower than 300 knots for snapshots at targets. However, all US aircraft are conditioned for long range BVR combat. Thus they share common similarities with each other. While the AMRAAM is definitely better against maneuvering targets compared to the Phoenix, it still isn't the best at close ranges.

F-16C Fighting Falcon (Viper)

This is something I have to stress right from the beginning. The F-16 is a VERY GOOD dogfighter. The main advantage of the F-16 is its maneuverability, which it excels in. Having a relaxed static stability/fly-by-wire system, the F-16 was designed to be unstable from the get-go, and that's where it gets it's maneuverability from.

The F-16 can carry a load of 6x AIM-9s to go with its Vulcan cannon. This makes it shine as a dogfighter and it can pull hard turns and maneuvers that some aircraft just can't do because of their respective aerodynamic qualities.

F/A-18C Hornet

It should be noted that the F/A-18 was not designed solely for air combat. Then again, so did the F-16, so the F/A-18 should be pretty good right? Well, it depends. The Hornet can pull some pretty insane Alpha and turns fairly tightly for an aircraft of its size and weight. In a dogfight, it stands just as good a chance as any other aircraft. With a HMCS, the F/A-18 has the ability to lock on to any aircraft within the aircraft's visual cueing cone.

The Hornet can carry a maximum load of 4x AIM-9s and 2x AIM-7s OR AIM-120s. I'm actually running out of ideas on what to say here, until we get to the Russians at least. You know the drill. AIM-9 is good. AIM-120 can even used but it not the most ideal when really close to an enemy aircraft.

Mirage-2000C

Ah the good ol' Mirage-2000. It's a fun aircraft to fly. Not so much in the way of dogfighting though. I wrote an answer for this aircraft a few days ago regarding air combat. Now, the Mirage is a delta wing design, which means less lift. But, unlike the F-15, it doesn't have traditional control surfaces. The Mirage uses elevons that function for both roll and pitch, which is the same as the F-15. The only problem, being they are mounted on the wings themselves, which equates to less pitch control at low speeds, thus not making it the best dogfighter out there.

The M-2000 is equipped with 2x Matra Super 530s (semi-active radar guided) and 2x Matra R-550 Magic IIs (heatseeking). It can hold it's own in a dogfight, but I doubt it does too well in a furball. If you really want to know, at low speeds, the delta wing on the Mirage limits it's pitch authority so bad that the 3rd gen F-5E can turn with it.

Eurofighter Typhoon (we're halfway down the list, YAY!)

The Eurofighter Typhoon. Very beautiful aircraft indeed. Unlike traditional delta wing designs like the M-2000C, the Typhoon is exceptionally maneuverable at both low and high speeds, thanks to it's fly-by-wire system and use of canards. The Eurofighter is one of the best on this list, and may very well win in a furball. The reason behind this is it has a HMCS and lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability. However, let's not jump to conclusions.

The Eurofighter carries… err… well I'll be completely honest. I don't really know the amount of air to air weaponry it can carry. However, the typical Eurofighter carries 6x AIM-120 and 2x AIM-132 ASRAAM or IRIS-T (heatseeking) missiles. Since we can't really talk about how good the missiles are because it's impossible to predict real life situations, I won't bother.

JAS-39 Gripen

I don't really know what to say for the Gripen. It is essentially a Eurofighter by aerodynamic design, with a similar fly-by-wire system and canards for improved stability and maneuverability and a HMCS as well. Therefore, I will move straight to the weapon systems. Besides, I don't really know the Gripen that well, so I won't pretend to.

In the best case scenario, a Gripen may carry 6x AIM-9s OR IRIS-T OR A-Darter (heatseeking) missiles.

Dassault Rafale

WHY DO THEY DO THIS? It's pretty much exactly the same as both the Eurofighter and the Gripen in terms of agility, avionics and weapons. Can we skip this one?

The Rafale can carry a number of Magic IIs and MICA (radar guided/infrared homing) missiles.

Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-29S

Now we're getting to the fun stuff. Like the American aircraft, I actually don't need to refer to any external sources for this. Now, the MiG-29's armament is different depending on the model, so I'll use the MiG-29S. The Fulcrum can perform hard sustained turns for long periods and is excellent in the dogfighting department with it's powerful engines and most importantly, the High Off Boresight (HOBS) missile capability and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensor which gives the Russian aircraft a major edge in close ranges. By simply pointing his head and looking at an enemy aircraft, the pilot can lock the target and launch a missile within a +-60° cone in front of the aircraft. It doesn't help the offending pilot that the Russian R-73 heatseekers are supermaneuverable and can literally turn almost 180° for target interception.

The MiG-29S is capable of carrying 2x R-77 (active radar guided), 2x R-27ER/ET/R/T/P (radar guided/heatseeking depending on model) and 2x R-73 (highly maneuverable heatseeking) missiles. The highlight here is the R-73 which is, for lack of a better word, stupidly maneuverable, though limited in range compared to its counterparts from other countries.

Sukhoi Su-27

One of my personal favourites. I know her like the back of my hand. The Su-27 is supermaneuverable, can turn incredibly tight, is able to perform Pugachev's Cobra to either snap it's nose close to an enemy for it's pilot to use the HMD and HOBS missiles or to break the radar lock of an enemy aircraft. It has a very long range and carried a huge complement of missiles.

The Flanker carries multiple loadouts: 6x R-27ER/ET/EP/R/T/P, 2x R-73 and 2x wingtip mounted SPS-171 “Sorbtsiya” ECM pods OR 4x R-27ER/ET/EP/R/T/P, 4x R-73 and 2x wingtip mounted SPS-171 “Sorbtsiya” ECM pods OR 4x R-27ER/ET/EP/R/T/P and 6x R-73.

I know where to find a manual for it if you want one.

Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-25

Ugh. I'm not even posting a photo. The MiG-25 is a bad dogfighter, like very bad. It's only advantage was it's speed, and that was only at high altitude. It is slower compared to other aircraft at sea level. Plus, with a maximum G-loading of 4.5G, it doesn't really do well.

The MiG-25 carries a load of 4x R-40RD/TD (long range semi-active radar guided/heatseeking respectively) OR 2x R-23 OR 2x R-60 OR 4x R-73.

Harrier

Remark: This thing isn't a very good fighter. In fact, it isn't one.

As far as I understand the Harrier, it uhh… just won't survive in a furball. The MiG-25 stands a better chance. No, really.

The Harrier can equip 4x AIM-9s. For the fancy AV-8B Plus, which actually has a radar fitted, it can fire 6x AIM-120s. For self defense mind you.

Conclusion

Now comes the likely winners of the furball. I say winners because I can't say. It only takes a missile to destroy an aircraft, and it doesn't matter where said missile comes from. Whether it comes from an A-10 or F-5.

So the likely winners would be: F-16, F/A-18, Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale, MiG-29 and Su-27.

Note: The Harrier is a good aircraft, I can tell you that. But by no means is it a dogfighter even with VSTOL nozzle capabilities.