probad

only super hornet can buddy fuel we are getting legacy hornet, not super hornet

a simple number like a top speed is meaningless -- you have to ask questions like how quickly you can get up to that speed, at which altitude, at what weight, and how long you can sustain it for.

combat is an attitude if you only gave me a car i will still find a way to **** up your day with it that aside though combat exists in a larger context. an obvious example would be the issue of collateral damage -- noncombatants are not fighting, sure, but it doesn't make them a nonfactor in combat operations. if you want to simulate the realities of combat, can you really stop with only combat units? in any case you've missed the train on the discussion by a couple months. go search for the topics if you actually care about peoples viewpoints on the matter.

this is just another one of those fantasies that works out great in your own head where everyone is a clone of yourself with your same goals and interests, where every engagement scenario is perfect and ideal, and where all your enemies are always nice and cooperative.

r-27t in headon engagement vs cool target, no cm (mig-15) 10km - radar acquire 7.5km - seeker acquire, launch, unlock target 5km - target begins maneuvering works as advertised

seems awfully superficial and prejudiced of them though when you think about it

you already made a fc4 thread making another one wont change the answer.

hornet would theoretically be the more dominant aircraft but considering the skill gamut across the audience the reality is gonna end up all over the place.

lines that cant be crossed...

of course this is what happens when you firewall the throttle and barrel around at m1.2+ on the deck. at 600knots ias you are pushing against a ridiculous amount of air when you try to maneuver, and it's doubly bad for the stol-friendly wing of the viggen. 'very fast' is a relative term when flying at near stall speeds for fuel efficiency is common in the military. medium to high subsonic is fast enough when you're skimming the treetops. note when you go in for an attack run you accelerate to ~.8-.9 mach and the obvious implication that you cruise below that. realize you have been misled by stupid general knowledge authors who regurgitate sensationalist phrases without understanding what they mean.

i'll expect it once i see it.

if they dont have a fix worth putting out yet... they dont have a fix worth putting out. sometimes you just have to wait until the entire goose is done cooking.

it's like getting your friend to hold your drink for you. yeah sure now you don't have the drink in your hand (the drink in this case is a capability like turning), but in exchange you can go run around and do things that other guy holding his drink can't. and this "friend" that allows you to not have to hold your drink anymore are inventions like missiles or tactics like multielement attacks. advancements never come free of charge. you just shift responsibilities off onto other stuff to free yourself to achieve once-unattainable goals. get used to the idea that there are critical elements to your airplane that aren't bolted onto the airframe. sure, disengage as much as you need to because the disengage is just another maneuver in the long fight.

yeah you dont know. you have no factual basis for logic to operate off of. you're just running on envy and desire. you're mad you got punished for trying to trade against a better missile, that's all there is to this thread. maybe try setting up an engagement scenario where you actually stack the cards in your favor next time.

and you would be wrong ir missile was shot first because the risk of the seeker getting distracted by a preceding missile's motor was very real.

what justification do you have to expect that one of the earliest r-27 versions would have irccm on par with an aim-9m?

just as an addendum on the mental approach thing, one shouldnt ever feel "bad" about having "only a few" options, because some options are more powerful than others. in any case, so long as you have even one move that the other guy can't match, you can win.

your obsession with honorable maneuver trading is whats killing you everything is fair, abuse the tools you have and dont look back.

that said though heaters will be the primary threat so bring your eyeballs.

ironically enough the deeper you go into these comparisons the less practical relevance they end up having.

seems a bit narrowminded to apply american standards to russian actions to the main point though it remains to be seen if these will actually fly or if they're just taking a visit down to sit pretty for the satellites.

radial and rotary are different designs and shouldnt be casually confused.

not that much in the grand scheme of things, military budget of most countries is below 5% gdp. even the united states' budget represents only 3.3%.

sentiments that are not being borne out by reality. - at $95mil a pop (and expected to go down to $80mil) they are already cheaper than the super hornet, ef2000, and rafale (hehe did you forget you had to buy tgps for these?) - how many f-35 mishaps can you actually name? in over 125,000 hours of operation now the f-35's most significant incident that im aware of is a engine fire on the ground. f-35b has had zero incidents. and it's in demand: italy is recieving them, japan wants them, and even israel wants b models despite having a's. by the way, even though it's given the b designation, the stovl version is the original baseline f-35 design. it's a purebred shortfield aircraft, an actual realization of the long sought dream of an agile supersonic shortfield aircraft -- and then some, because back during the depths of the cold war they couldnt imagine an aircraft doing all of that while also being an invisible eye of sauron. what does politically driven even mean to you? do you somehow think other aircraft did not have to pass through political circles? do you think there somehow weren't any political interests behind other aircraft programs? do you think that not buying f-35s is somehow less politically motivated than buying them? (yes you know exactly who im talking about) these are rhetorical questions of course since we can't get into a political discussion here, but i think you need to learn some history before you go off making assertions like these which, frankly, i don't think are even your own. its kind of hilarious in a very sad way that nations like qatar, saudi arabia, and india (despite already having money in the su-57) who aren't in the clubhouse all want in on the f-35, while our nearest neighbor is outright refusing one of the greatest gifts to military aviation to date.

unlike the mig-15 the mig-17 has better transonic controllability, it has a radar ranged gunsight (derived from the sabre's no less), and it can carry aams. these are all significant features that materially give the sabre and mig-17 common capabilities not available to the mig-15. if you think an airplane starts with how its named and ends with how it looks, then you haven't learned a damn thing about airplanes.