It was a better paper airplane than a real one.

Its service life in the USAF Air Defense Command was very short.
Very little range, endurance or firepower compared to big heavy airplanes it flew with.
Sadly both aircraft were give original ejection seats that on paper sounded great, but in reality killed a lot of pilots.
They should make the people who come up with these paper designs be the one to test them out.

The F-106 could do every thing the F-104 only much longer and better and in a dogfight the Six would eat the Starfighter for lunch.
Lightweight brew-ha-ha sounds great until reality of physics destroys it.

Ignorant assessment. Nearly all the statements you have made are typically irrelevant and besides the point. The F-104 was a lot cheaper to purchase and maintain than an F-106. F-104G was a lot more multirole than the F-106.

Sorry but you have to produce some credible sources on that one.. 100$ a pop!!

Or i could save you the trouble and rais the BS flag.

At the moment I can only find $72 million per plane from Hindustan times – while Mi-17V5 are 21 million a piece.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Russia-bags-defence-deals-worth-4-5-billion-with-India/Article1-980190.aspx

But I have seen 97 million quoted. I wonder where MSphere got his 100 million USD quote?

Fact is, Russian made commercial aircraft are nowadays (An-148, Tu-204SM) barely 15-20 percent cheaper than their western equivalent – why should their military aircraft be any cheaper?

So the plane with the most gas wins? Explains the success of the P-51 Mustang I suppose.

But wait, wait, doesn’t the F-35 have a whole load of internal gas…:eek::eek:

Why don’t we have a Mig-29 family versus Su-35 for a change. After all, what fighter aircraft did the Su-27 eventually shoot down in combat…;)

In this context, American concern for the lives of civilians is laughable.

You could say the same of many other nations – to judge by how they behaved in the 20th century.
But this is an aviation forum, why would we need to?:rolleyes:

a scenario pitting the 2 F22s vs 18 MiG19/21s over the border 😀

what would be the final score? 7 migs shot down vs 2 F22s lost? (presuming no other SK/US fighters)

You could probably use the kill rate of Yugoslav MiG-29s in the 1999 war as a benchmark for any ‘engagements’ between US/SK air forces and North Korea.

In fact, use the aerial kill ratio of the Balkan war throughout the 1990s…

I never understood why the Jaguar is remembered so fondly, on both sides of the Channel.

Perhaps because it done the job it was supposed to do, and done it well?

Not to mention that the thrust problem still remained at altitude, that the Jaguar couldn’t as many Gs, and the lack of radar. So the Jaguar only made sense in a dual fleet Air Force, alongside a fighter type. A rather costly luxury for most countries.

You could say the same about any dedicated ground attack type – A-10, Su-20, Su-25 etc. The French air force obviously liked the Jaguar, the bought over 200 of them.