USAF vs Indian Air Force

[BIOLOG]

Sure is.

[Kenan]

I remember there was an online article about downed serbian Fulcrums during the '99 NATO air strikes on Serbia.

 

According to it, the majority of the serbian planes had one or more mechanical failures, EOS was damaged or not working at all etc..most of the pilots were literally sent up without any chances since their own equipement was failing.

 

They (of course) had no AWACS support and they were flying blind, some of them had no functioning EWS so they couldn't even tell if they were shot at.

 

Basically, there was this outrage against serbian air force generals who decided to send pilots under such conditions which offered them very little (if only theoretical) chance of any success.

 

This basically means (IMHO that is) that in most of the cases, NATO (american) air force was dealing with a outnumbered enemy who had no proper logistic support and was in most of the cases, flying blind using their own onboard radars compared to american fighters who had AWACS data link and could be warned of an enemy before their oppononet even knew there was something in the air.

 

Basically, the american and other western pilots had pretty much everything at their disposal. Iraqi & serbian pilots had very little to work with, especially since they were totally dependant on their ground controls and their own onboard radars, which some of those didn't even work ('99 war) + all those guys didn't have as much flying hours nor funds (let alone their own pilot salaries were most likely laughable) which just added another reason why they just couldn't pose any serious threat to their enemy.

[GGTharos]

I don't know about the state of their flying hardware, but I'd take any story of 'totally broken down stuff' with a big grain of salt.

 

Their SAMs certainly worked quite well, and they seemed to have movement and comms well organized as well. I don't buy the 'those poor Serbs' bit for a second - they knew what they were doing, they simply screwed up by doing it.

[Alfa]

Hi D-Scythe,

 

And JJ Alfa, there has been some proof for at least a little bit of vulnerability in Russian radar seekers. Take Ethiopia, where MiGs and Flankers flown by Russian and Ukrainian mercenaries (and native Ethiopian and Eritrean pilots, but they can be dismissed as inexperienced) exchanged volleys of R-27REs - and the Flanker carries a lot of those - only to have to kill each other in a dogfight with R-73s.

 

I have read through several "articles" about the "Ethiopian/Eritrean incident" and what supposedly happened - it was a complete waste of time, that didnt provide even a single piece of factual information.

 

I agree with GGTharos - to say that a single poorly documented(to say the least) skirmish can be taken as evidence for poor performance by "Russian radar seekers", is the worst case of jumping to conclusions based on non-existing information I have seen yet!

 

You even took it a step further and implied, that these idiotic conclusions about the 9B-1101K SARH seeker(R-27R) also cast doubts on the effectiveness of the 9B-1348E ARH seeker of the R-77 - although the latter is totally different technology and a generation ahead of the former....

 

Give me a damn break D-Scythe! :lol:

[Kenan]

I don't know about the state of their flying hardware, but I'd take any story of 'totally broken down stuff' with a big grain of salt.

 

Their SAMs certainly worked quite well, and they seemed to have movement and comms well organized as well. I don't buy the 'those poor Serbs' bit for a second - they knew what they were doing, they simply screwed up by doing it.

 

Screwed up? Like, they could have done better against American Air Force?

 

As for the mechanical failures, you don't have to believe it, but I do.

I know croatian mig-21's are in pretty much poor state and there were lots of local media reports about this.

 

Serbs knew who they were facing against and noone expected nor anyone had illusions those 10-14 operational Fulcrums which were the best their air force had to offer, would be on paar with NATO armada, so there was no reason to be ashamed of so many losses and to try to make up story of unreliable and unfunctionable migs.

[GGTharos]

Edit: Not the place nor time for this.

[D-Scythe]

I agree with GGTharos - to say that a single poorly documented(to say the least) skirmish can be taken as evidence for poor performance by "Russian radar seekers", is the worst case of jumping to conclusions based on non-existing information I have seen yet!

 

Haha, see, this is what I don't get with some of you guys. Firstly, if you all read my post, I did say this was NOT an indication of how Russian weapons would work. Secondly, do you think it's fair to discard this "poorly documented skirmish" as a "waste of time" yet regarding this Indian/U.S. exercise that was *equally* poorly reported and just as vague (with more R.O.E. restrictions to boot) as an indication of the F-15's failing supremacy?

 

There is actually more information reported on the Ethiopian/Eritrean war then there is on the Indo-U.S. exercise. And I said that neither really amounts to anything. Just because everyone seemed to miss the point of my post, I will re-quote myself here:

 

BUT I realize that there are probably some other reasons to contribute to this so we won't take this as an indication of how Russian weapons work in general, just as this exercise is NOT an indication of how F-15Cs are becoming less effective to updated MiG-21s and Su-30s.

 

JJ, you're a great contributer to the Lock On community, but I just feel that it is unfair to dismiss the point of the article as 'B/S.' Fine, the technical aspects of the post (i.e. MiG-29 Flanker) were completely wrong, but can you (or anyone else) confirm that there were not any R.O.E. restrictions placed at all on the F-15s? I don't think so.

 

And as for the MiG-29 Fulcrums not working - funny, I remembered that Iraqi equipment was working perfectly well in the Gulf War: they're KARI air defense system shot down over 40 Coalition aircraft, and they even managed an AA kill on a MiG-25 Foxbat. Ah no, those must've been fluke shots because they're equipment was all broken :roll:

 

Fine, the some of the Serbian MiG-29s were *broken*, but what about all the other MiG-29 kills? Serbian MiG-29 Fulcrums only comprise of 4 of the 11 F-15 A/A kills. Were the other 7 broken as well? :roll:

 

And jsut because we're bashing the F-15's combat record, i.e. if we are to say that the F-15 has NEVER gone toe-to-toe against a worthy opponent, I would like to bring up the MiG-29/Su-27 combat records. Besides the Ethiopian/Eritrean war (which we discounted) and all the times they were shot down by Western fighters (because they were broken), what have they killed? A Cessna? Yeah, those can be dangerous, you know, unarmed and all. :roll:

 

I have nothing against Russian equipment, but I just don't think it's fair to put all of the F-15's failures under a microscope while people turn a blind eye to some black marks on the record of the Russian planes. What kind of thinking is that?

[Kenan]

And as for the MiG-29 Fulcrums not working - funny, I remembered that Iraqi equipment was working perfectly well in the Gulf War: they're KARI air defense system shot down over 40 Coalition aircraft,

and they even managed an AA kill on a MiG-25 Foxbat. Ah no, those must've been fluke shots because they're equipment was all broken

 

As you said yourself, KARI shot them down. Not iraqi Fulcrums or any other iraqi plane. I never said serbian/iraqi air defence systems were malfunctioning. If I did, please quote the exact line. ;)

 

I was clearly referring to serbian mig-29 fulcrums and the article saying some of them had mechanical failures even before they got airborne.

 

As for the iraqi statistic, all those coalition planes were shot down by SAMS and other GROUND based units. I am familliar with the MIG25 report saying it managed to shoot down one of the Hornets but even there I also read reports doubting this, being not 100% sure if the Foxbat IS in fact responsible for the kill (maybe some air defense system).

 

All aside, I don't see what's 'funny' and rolling eyes worthy about my statement regarding broken migs? They DID have mech failures and there is nothing surprising about that.

 

Even LOMAC has this feature enabled for russian jets. Why? Because they DO brake down from time to time, let alone if u don't have funds to maintain those machines. :D

[GGTharos]

And if they have mechanical failures before take-off, YOU DO NOT SEND THEM UP.

 

Of course, some people like doing hopeless things. On the other hand, I doubt this was the case.

 

As for Spreichner's F/A-18 going down due to a MiG-25, it was indeed what happened according to most reports, the kill was achieved with an R-40T.

 

I'd say that analysis of the wreckage would have confirmed that, of course, who's got access to -those- reports, eh? ;)

[olaleier]

:lol: :lol:

 

Ask about this subject on any forum, even the 3D Barbie Horsebackriding forum, and it will end up like this.

[GGTharos]

I'll have to try that! ;)

[SwingKid]

Бедный Чиж... :lol:

 

It is better to ask specific questions, and not general opinions. :wink:

 

From what I understand, the original purpose of the exercise with India was to find "opponent" aircraft that could justify the cost of purchasing F/A-22. So, the original report of "inferior" F-15C performance was simply part of the plan, created to obtain the desired result.

 

The plan partly failed. Instead of creating support for F/A-22, many people rather began to argue for more pilot training, and the punishment of Air Force commanders who did not give it enough attention. So now, there are new stories full of excuses, trying to protect the commanders: F-15C were outnumbered, they didn't use this, they didn't use that.

 

The whole story is deeply submerged in politics. From all the English-language reports and arguments that I read, there is not even one fact that can be learned about aviation technology, and there are also many mistakes and intentional deceptions. We should study the results of real exercises, not dishonest ones.

 

-SK

[Phil_C6]

Hi

This is really interesting:

The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.

 

Have a good day @+

[Alfa]

 

Haha, see, this is what I don't get with some of you guys. Firstly, if you all read my post, I did say this was NOT an indication of how Russian weapons would work.

 

You wrote:

 

"And JJ Alfa, there has been some proof for at least a little bit of vulnerability in Russian radar seekers. Take Ethiopia, where MiGs and Flankers flown by Russian and Ukrainian mercenaries (and native Ethiopian and Eritrean pilots, but they can be dismissed as inexperienced) exchanged volleys of R-27REs - and the Flanker carries a lot of those - only to have to kill each other in a dogfight with R-73s. "

 

If you didnt regard the above as an indication of poor R-27R seeker performance nor thought that it had any relevance in regards to the R-77 seeker.....then why did you post it in response to my post on the R-77?

 

Secondly, do you think it's fair to discard this "poorly documented skirmish" as a "waste of time" yet regarding this Indian/U.S. exercise that was *equally* poorly reported and just as vague (with more R.O.E. restrictions to boot) as an indication of the F-15's failing supremacy? JJ, you're a great contributer to the Lock On community, but I just feel that it is unfair to dismiss the point of the article as 'B/S.' Fine, the technical aspects of the post (i.e. MiG-29 Flanker) were completely wrong, but can you (or anyone else) confirm that there were not any R.O.E. restrictions placed at all on the F-15s? I don't think so.

 

I am sorry D-Scythe, but you are completely missing my point. I think you will find that criticised the article on the Indian exercise because it is full of errors and dubious information - the exact same complaint I had with the Ethiopian/Eritrean ones.

 

My gripe with articles like these is that - although they are hopelessly poor documentations for rather insignificant events - they end up being flogged to death by people(present company excepted) who set out to "prove" some premeditated opinion by deriving idiotic conclusions based on non-existent data :evil: :lol:

 

I have no idea what went on in that Indian exercise, and I am frankly not very interested either - this sort of thing is, even if it had been meticulously documented, useless for predicting the outcome of a real battle.....it is nothing but a "game" where the sides are restricted by all sorts of game rules, of which a most wouldn't apply in reality. I fully agree with you, that it says nothing about how the F-15C would fare against this or any other opponent in real combat.

 

Ok....I think I will leave this discussion on that note :lol:

 

Cheers,

- Jens

[Kenan]

And if they have mechanical failures before take-off, YOU DO NOT SEND THEM UP.

 

I agree, and the point of the article was that the air force generals DID send them up and there was even a mention of them facing court marshal because of sending their men under such conditions.

[D-Scythe]

I have no idea what went on in that Indian exercise, and I am frankly not very interested either - this sort of thing is, even if it had been meticulously documented, useless for predicting the outcome of a real battle.....it is nothing but a "game" where the sides are restricted by all sorts of game rules, of which a most wouldn't apply in reality. I fully agree with you, that it says nothing about how the F-15C would fare against this or any other opponent in real combat.

 

Okay, then I misunderstood you. I thought you meant the whole article, including the point it was trying to get across (which may or may not be true) was BS. My apologies.

 

If you didnt regard the above as an indication of poor R-27R seeker performance nor thought that it had any relevance in regards to the R-77 seeker.....then why did you post it in response to my post on the R-77?

 

I meant that IF we were to take this exercise literally, we should also yada yada yada :D

 

All aside, I don't see what's 'funny' and rolling eyes worthy about my statement regarding broken migs? They DID have mech failures and there is nothing surprising about that.

 

I rolled my eyes, haha, because the fact that Serbian MiG-29s were broken, which may or may not be true, has NOTHING to do with the status of Iraqi MiG-29 Fulcrums in the first Gulf War. Can you say that Iraqi Fulcrums were broken? If not, then how can you deny that fully airworthy MiGs were shot down by F-15s in Desert Storm?

 

So what if KARI shot down all those jets? That just goes to prove that Coaltion air supremacy and training was so absolutely dominating over the Iraqi AF. Can't deny that either.

[Kenan]

rolled my eyes, haha, because the fact that Serbian MiG-29s were broken, which may or may not be true, has NOTHING to do with the status of Iraqi MiG-29 Fulcrums in the first Gulf War. Can you say that Iraqi Fulcrums were broken? If not, then how can you deny that fully airworthy MiGs were shot down by F-15s in Desert Storm?

 

Would apreaciate if u'd find a quote in which I mentioned iraqi migs saying they were broken thus using it as an excuse for their lacklustre performance during Gulf War?

 

I will quote myself for that matter:

 

 

Basically, the american and other western pilots had pretty much everything at their disposal. Iraqi & serbian pilots had very little to work with, especially since they were totally dependant on their ground controls and their own onboard radars, which some of those didn't even work ('99 war)

 

Obviously, by "99' war" I was referring to the NATO air strikes on Serbia no mention of iraqi Gulf War there.

 

As for the Gulf War, didn't the Navy first destroyed most of the GC and SAM assets before the massive aerial battles began? Or they just rushed their pilots to fly over Iraq before taking out most of their major air defense & guidance systems? Don't think so.

 

In modern aerial battle, 90% of the success makes the early detection and engagement of an opponent in BVR conditions.

Those F15's had the edge: they had AWACS telling them where and how many migs took off, their heading, position etc.

 

I'm not quite sure if Iraqis had that sort of a guidance, their migs would be as easily shot down -> and judging by the ammount ie. the number of downed Fulcrums, it's hard to believe US pilots really had to bust their asses off in order to achieve this.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to be a logicall explanation. Either that, or iraqi pilots were total amateurs who didn't know how to operate their own equipement, or simply lacked motivation to even go into the fight.

Or MIG29 must the the worst 4th generation fighter ever produced.

 

All in all, this hardly proves that in 1 on 1 fight between F15 and mig29 , the statistic would be overwhelmingly on F15's side. I'd say it would depend mostly on each pilot's skills, not on AWACS, numbers etc.

[D-Scythe]

 

As for the Gulf War, didn't the Navy first destroyed most of the GC and SAM assets before the massive aerial battles began? Or they just rushed their pilots to fly over Iraq before taking out most of their major air defense & guidance systems? Don't think so.

 

Absolutely not. The opening strikes of the Gulf war were conducted by a flight of AH-64A Apaches (with nav assistance by MH-53s) on an EWR station in Southern Iraq, then the strikers went in through the small hole created, mostly comprising of F-117As and F-15Es on strike missions and F-4Gs, A-6s and F/A-18s launching HARMs and TALDs at Baghdad's SAMs AFTER the F-117As and cruise missiles destroyed their targets. Thus, the SEAD effort was actually only really concentrated in the Baghdad area.

 

Then a five flights of F-15Cs would push north into Iraq as the strikers egressed below them and they would engage any Iraqi fighters that were scrambled to intercept.

 

So yeah, I DO think that the air supremacy battle started before the KARI system was neutralized, and the plan wasn't nearly as reckless as you make it out to be.

 

In modern aerial battle, 90% of the success makes the early detection and engagement of an opponent in BVR conditions.

Those F15's had the edge: they had AWACS telling them where and how many migs took off, their heading, position etc.

 

Wrong again. Many times, there were so many fighters in the air that AWACs couldn't distinguish/confirm if a contact was hostile or not, so USAF F-15Cs often closed in to WVR, ID'd the contacts themselves and shot them down without the assistance of AWACs. Their only 'edge' was their new AN/APG-70 radars with NCTR and TWS, which proved to be clearly superior.

 

I'm not quite sure if Iraqis had that sort of a guidance, their migs would be as easily shot down -> and judging by the ammount ie. the number of downed Fulcrums, it's hard to believe US pilots really had to bust their asses off in order to achieve this.

 

You obviously have no idea what went on during the brief fight for air supremacy over Iraq in Desert Storm. Those F-15C pilots busted their a$$es everyday for the first few days for all their kills, mainly to convince the Iraqis to stop sending fighters up to face them in A/A combat. And it workd: the IqAF started running to Iran when they realized they couldn't hide in their HASs, or fly and fight for their country without getting killed.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to be a logicall explanation. Either that, or iraqi pilots were total amateurs who didn't know how to operate their own equipement, or simply lacked motivation to even go into the fight.

Or MIG29 must the the worst 4th generation fighter ever produced.

 

The only 'logical' explanation is that the USAF was far better trained than the Iraqis were. It had nothing to do with the equipment; in the hands of a good pilot, the MIG-29A would've been just as lethal a U.S. F-15C, considering the ROE, etc. Your conclusion seems to be way off.

 

All in all, this hardly proves that in 1 on 1 fight between F15 and mig29 , the statistic would be overwhelmingly on F15's side. I'd say it would depend mostly on each pilot's skills, not on AWACS, numbers etc.

 

Actually it does. Pilots being equal, would you rather be in an F-15C, up to full spec MSIP configuration as was from Desert Storm on, or in a MiG-29A? The statistic is OVERWHELMINGLY on the F-15C's favour.

 

Now, if it was a MiG-29SMT, things would be different...;)

[GGTharos]

Different how?

 

I'd still rather be in an F-15C with MSIP. ;)

 

The F-15's gonna get that shot well before the MiG gets it. Same thing happens with F-16's and their radars are no slouches. Just less power...like the MiG's.

[BIOLOG]

Well, If it Was MiG-29C... I would have definately chosen MiG... If I had AWACS... I would have Chosen MiG-29A... Espesially if other side didn't have AWACS. Archers+IRST=Eagle's misery, unless he visually spots the missile. And even them he will have to dodge it, which is not an easy task. But I suppose I've chosen miG-29 in any case, of any modification, simply because I love that plane. In the hands of skilled pilot... It's a beast. Btw, pilots being equal, and both quite skillful, I can see a number of ways in which MiG-29 pilot can push for WVR combat. Iraq terrain might be an advantage here. On other hand F-15 pilot might want to keep it's distance. I would imagine, he would rather bug of then go into WVR with MiG-29.

[GGTharos]

Last I heard good pre-emptive techniques made the Archer much easier to bear. On the other hand, the MiG isn't going to be very capable BVR while once it pushes WVR it'll probably have to deal with a missile or two well before getting to use its archers - you know, in that 'sweet spot' (8nm or less) in which a USAF pilot claimed the AMRAAM is a virtual death-ray, while the Archer will be hard pressed to present the same threat at that range.

 

And if the pilots are equal, then the MiG either goes down first or they both go to guns, and then what? ;)

 

Still wanna argue this? ;)

[D-Scythe]

Well, If it Was MiG-29C... I would have definately chosen MiG... If I had AWACS... I would have Chosen MiG-29A... Espesially if other side didn't have AWACS. Archers+IRST=Eagle's misery, unless he visually spots the missile. And even them he will have to dodge it, which is not an easy task. But I suppose I've chosen miG-29 in any case, of any modification, simply because I love that plane. In the hands of skilled pilot... It's a beast. Btw, pilots being equal, and both quite skillful, I can see a number of ways in which MiG-29 pilot can push for WVR combat. Iraq terrain might be an advantage here. On other hand F-15 pilot might want to keep it's distance. I would imagine, he would rather bug of then go into WVR with MiG-29.

 

Lemme guess...the F-15C's AN/APG-70 radar with NCTR and LPI functions coupled with AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles don't work, do they? :roll:

 

AN/APG-70 + AIM-120 = dead lotsa dead MIG-29As that didn't know what hit them

 

I don't know why this is so hard to believe...so what if a MiG-29A cannot beat an F-15C A/A (pilots being equal)? I mean, honestly, I wouldn't expect a baseline F-15A w/ AIM-7Es in 1976 to beat a Su-30MKI w/ R-77s either. What's the big deal? Their technology is literally years apart, and this is not a contest about 'my country can kick your country's a$$.'

 

Especially if you live in Canada, like me ;)

 

And you guys are making it sound like the Archer is some super missile. It isn't, and it is completely dangerous for a MiG pilot to assume so. Remember, the seeker in the Archer is still 1980s technology, without the IIR seekers of the AIM-9X and ASRAAM, so it is just as vulnerable to flares as the AIM-9M. The R-73 is an excellent weapon, but like the AIM-120, its not perfect.

[Guest DeathAngelBR]

If you're going to consider an F-15C with AESA radar, then also have the russian AESA radar installed in the Su-30MKI. The indian flankers should have them by 2006/2007.

[BIOLOG]

О, о, понаскакивали, блин... (can't translate that literally, but it contains nothing offensive, just an exclamation regarding me being stormed by lots of people that think that F-15 is superior in any case)

 

Anyway, if you read my message again, perhaps you notise that I mentioned using terrain... And AWACS... Now, consider this scenario.F-15 flyes in the area. AWACS has a bearing on him and derects MiG-29 towards it. MiG-29 flyes low, uses terrain and IRST to lock F-15 and fire missile preferably at about 5nm, in the rear hempshire. F-15 will never know what hit him. That's just one of possible scenarious when F-15 will be at disadvantage. This scenario is unlikely since in RL, F-15 will most probably have an AWACS as well, however in real life you will not generally have 1 v 1 fight anyway.

 

Also if you think that seekers on AIM-9M, R-73 and AIM-9X are vulnerable to flares to the same extend, you are wrong. AIM-9M should be most volnurable, then R-73 then AIM-9X. Simply because AIM-9X is newer technology.

 

P.S. If you want to bring AIM-9X into play, which is not technically in force yet (although from what I hear it is almost there), why don't you consider modifications of R-73 which are soon to substitute basic R-73Э? For example there is R-74МЭ which has been around for past five years and might be ins slow production even (I say might be, cause noone can tell reliably, lol). It has newer IR seeker and longer (40km) range.

 

P2.S2. I never said that F-15 is worse then MiG-29... I said that there are hypothetical situations where MiG-29 can beat F-15... Same could be said about any two in existance. And don't even start about Raptor, plz...

 

P3.S3. Since when did beaming and anti-missile manuvers stopped working when AIM-120 is within 8nm? Anything can be evaded at any distance. Sometimes just by luck.

 

Anyway this is deteriorating into "my daddy is better then yours!" type of discussion, don't you think? :D

[D-Scythe]

 

Anyway, if you read my message again, perhaps you notise that I mentioned using terrain... And AWACS... Now, consider this scenario.F-15 flyes in the area. AWACS has a bearing on him and derects MiG-29 towards it. MiG-29 flyes low, uses terrain and IRST to lock F-15 and fire missile preferably at about 5nm, in the rear hempshire. F-15 will never know what hit him. That's just one of possible scenarious when F-15 will be at disadvantage. This scenario is unlikely since in RL, F-15 will most probably have an AWACS as well, however in real life you will not generally have 1 v 1 fight anyway.

 

Yeah, and the radar on the F-15 is non-existent? And another thing...chances are the MIG-29A would end up bingo just by flying so low so long and trying to avoid the F-15's huge radar footprint. Try again.

 

Also if you think that seekers on AIM-9M, R-73 and AIM-9X are vulnerable to flares to the same extend, you are wrong. AIM-9M should be most volnurable, then R-73 then AIM-9X. Simply because AIM-9X is newer technology.

 

Haha, that's pretty funny. Hmm, let's see, both the AIM-9M and R-73 were deployed in the mid-1980s about. The AIM-9X was deployed in what, 2003? Yeah, okay! :roll:

 

The R-73 is definitely a lot closer to the AIM-9M in terms of decoy rejection than the AIM-9X. In fact, I would say that they're almost identical; contrary to what you say, their seeker technology is very much the same.

 

P.S. If you want to bring AIM-9X into play, which is not technically in force yet (although from what I hear it is almost there), why don't you consider modifications of R-73 which are soon to substitute basic R-73Э? For example there is R-74МЭ which has been around for past five years and might be ins slow production even (I say might be, cause noone can tell reliably, lol). It has newer IR seeker and longer (40km) range.

 

First of all, nobody brought the AIM-9X into play. I just used it as a technological comparison between missiles, not aircraft. Secondly, the AIM-9X is in service, and probably already in greater numbers than any R-73 derivative in the Russian Air Force, simply because I highly doubt that with the state the Russian economy is in, they would be able to afford a lot of production R-73s at the moment.

 

P2.S2. I never said that F-15 is worse then MiG-29... I said that there are hypothetical situations where MiG-29 can beat F-15... Same could be said about any two in existance. And don't even start about Raptor, plz...

 

Yeah, you know what? Hypothetically, a P-51 can shoot down a MiG-29A, if it had AWACs support and caught the MiG during landing. Your point?

 

P3.S3. Since when did beaming and anti-missile manuvers stopped working when AIM-120 is within 8nm? Anything can be evaded at any distance. Sometimes just by luck.

 

Um, since the ranges get too small? :roll:

 

Anyway this is deteriorating into "my daddy is better then yours!" type of discussion, don't you think? :D

 

For the record, I stated as much in my previous post.