Why would the cockpit display for a 5th gen Chinese fighter be in English?

My guess is that by reducing symbolism, it gets more easy to adapt and display information.

Instead of large vessesels, i would opt for the Stridsbåt 90, armed with Hellfire. PRB, will have to resupply from sea, even if they succeede in landing. Equip the 2 costal battalions with them. You now have the ability to strike fast, hide and redeploy forces along the coast.
The Stridsbåt 90 was designed to act as a costal guerilla vessel against superior Soviet numbers, it is ideal for this job.

For the rest i dont know.

Yet:)

Note that i used the word “zoom” I did not say that the Mig can sustain a turning fight with a F-14. But it can du something like a high speed yoyo, use the wide engagement angle of the Zaslon radar to get a missile shot.
After that, it is of course wise to extend.

Not mine. If you have read whole thread you’d understand that this is not me who popped with whole this “Foxbat is more maneuverable than the Tomcat”.

Sorry if i blamed you personally for bringing up the F-14 turn performance as a “death card”

I was just trying to get my point across. With its design beeing centered around speed, powerful radar and long range missiles. The Mig-31 is made to let its missiles do the maneuvering.

Allso on to the point Schorsch is making about the cost and special mission design of the Mig-31. Aside from the defence of mother Russia, Together with the TU-160, the Mig-31 forms a deadly adversary to US Carrier Groups. It must thus be seen as a political tool. The cost and limited versatility must be viewed in this respect.

The R-33’s ability to hit a fighter-sized target under ECM is questionable. Those missiles were meant for larger aircraft – tankers, bombers, AWACS, etc.

If the guy in the Mig fires his first pair of R-33 in range, but outside noz, yes it is likely that the F-teen gets out of harms way.

He will however have to use the superior turn performance to turn away from the Missile (and the Mig)

This means that his fight is purely defencive from this time on. (his nose is pointed off the target, he can not fire his own missiles)

No, sorry its me claiming that turn performance is of little relevance. The Mig-31 can use its superior missile range to force its adversary to use its turn performance to turn away from inncoming missiles.

Thus dictating the terms of the fight.

The reason i call them fanboys is that they go on about the turn performance, as this is the only advantage the US fighter has.

Does corn grow faster when MiG-31 overflies it with Mach 2.35?

No, but it gives the Mig the ability to intercept and choose when, and how to fight.

Could be, could be. But ppl seem to assume that Iran and Russia are friends. They are not. Its a pretty complicated relationship they have. Russia keeps stalling the S-300 deal for example. (Seems the Iranis have given up on them now, and will try and get what monney they can back instead). And Russia keep comeing up with new reasons for not finishing their constructions of the reactors in Busheer and Natanz. Plus Russia now has a president that is way more pro-US and pro-Israel than Mr. Putin was, so dont expect a sudden improvement of the Irani-Russian realations any time soon.

Cooperation with the chineese (and to a lesser extent with DPRK) seems like a better path forward. China depens heavily on Iranian oil and gas to fuel its economy, and does not want to see any increased sanctions an any cost.
China is Irans only major friend (sort of). Question is though what the chineese can contrabute with R&D wize.. But IMHO a futer “Iranified” J-10B would probbably be the best option for IRAF.

Can you fill me inn more on the relationship between Iran and China ? Wonder why they dont buy JF-17 from them instead of this silly F-5 thing. If they can opt for local assembly, it will still be useful for domestic industry.

May it be because China is reluctant to do so ?