Can the kfir c-7 carry any large LGB, i.e in the 2000lb class? Does anyone have any information on weapons carriage because It’s quite tricky to find some. Could it carry the Maverick ASM on the underfuselage hardpoints?

will

At Riat the F-22 should be able to do the full display by far, considering the mig-29ovt etc… Also restrictions are very small, bar crowd line, as demonstated by, I forget a F-16/15/Eurofighter climbing to 14 thousand feet.

However Farnborough may be another matter, it might be made to be “tame” as was the Su-37 display in 1997 according to many, as the Mig-29OVT in 2006. Something about thrust vectoring jets makes it seem unsafe, however as everyone knows on this forum its quite the opposite but very safe in no stall speeds etc….:D

Hopefully it wont and it will blow the socks of anything.:D

Would it be based at Lakenheath, rather than Fairford? I thought Fairford sometimes houses the billion dollar B-2, so it must be safe enough for the F-22.

What you are saying it is true however you won`t be able to fly post stall flight, your computers won`t let you but your airframe won`t bring you home, having thrust vectoring thus does help you by increasing the maneuvrability and allowing you to fly where your airframe can not keep you flying if you are fired upon a SAM or an AAM missiles a non thrust vectoring aircraft has less options in what respect agility to avoid the missile

There is no point to get into that situation, you would be like a sitting duck. If fired upon by a sam/any type of modern AAM isnt the change of “dodging” the missile extremely, extremely unlikely??

I know if a sam locked onto me the last thing I would want to do it slow right down to post stall speeds.

TV can be used as a cheaper alternative opposed to expensive off-boresight missile systems such as IRST, ASRAAM.

The only use from a manouverability standpoint is the very slow flight velocity/post stall regime, as using it does alot of energy depeletion. I thought this is where no fighter pilot wants to find himself.

personally I belive an aircraft armed with the sophisticated off-boresight missiles/helmet mounted sight, and one which posses very hight T/W, sustained turn rates, should be more than a match for a thrust vectoring frame.

helllo Eurofighter :dev2:

You say Elephant RAM?

ha 😀

Can the Tu-160 actually fly low level. I dont mean 500ft low level, which most radar defence networks would pick up, but 100ft and less than?

Because as someone mentioned earlier, the B1 has special canards at the front for low level aid, and was designed as a penertrator. The TU-160 does not and pilots have mentioned about the Tu-160 not being the most comfatable ride. Low level, combined with that massive wing/fuselage area surely must make the plane pretty awful low level. If it can:confused:
would it have a limited flight speed, or be able for a supersonic dash?

i love eagle bashing

its taken over twenty years for euro and russians to catch up
😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮 😮

Alot of people make the point of Euro/Russian planes beating the F-15 because alot of other people used to, and still, go on sooo much how much better the eagle was/is than anything ever, ever, so when a few are stuffed on an exercise, makes news.;)

Im not to sure about Russian technology 20-30 years ago, but european in many respects was far better than American. A nice example, TRS-2, Americans and Russians no where near :diablo:

In defence of the eagle. It would have been a sum-what dissapointment if the latter built Su-27 failed to be better.

The Su-27SM to be superior to the F-15I, needs a Python V equivalent and a missile better than the Meteor, i do not know but up to what i know Russia has not deployed yet an equivalent to the Python V, IRIS-T and AIM-132, Israel, Germany and Britan have alredy deployed the Python V, IRIS-T and AIM-132.

You do not need thrust vectoring if you have Python Vs, now if the current Su-27SM is equivalent to the Su-35BM then the aircraft still needs a weapon like the Python V.

If the Su-27SM has supercruising ability then the aircrat is slightly close to the Eurofighter, but still the Eurofighter is more agile if the Su-27SM has not thrust vectoring and with AIM-132 the Eurofighter will rule.

In fact the Su-30MKI is not as capable as the Eurofighter or even JAS-39, weaponry is very important and the Russia has not deployed a weapon as good as the Python V
however up to what i have read the Su-27SM is not an equivalent of the Su-35, yeah it is better than the average Su-27 but is not a Su-35BM equivalent

В связи с тяжёлым финансовым положением в российских ВВС, было принято решение не закупать новые Су-35, а ограничиться модернизацией Су-27 приблизительно до уровня Су-35. Опять же, из-за недостатка средств, Су-27СМ уступал по характеристикам Су-35, но значительно превосходил исходный Су-27.
Here they say the aircraft due to economic limitations still is not a Su-35BM equivalent even despite they originally wanted that, they say it is better than the older Su-27 but still is not a Su-35 equivalent and because of lack of money they could not buy Su-35 niether upgrade the Su-27s to Su-35 level

http://forum.boinaslava.net/showthread.php?t=9231&page=3
http://rusarmy.ru/unit.php?id=49

Giving the su-27 or whatever aircraft thrust vectoring does not make it more AGILE, but more MANUOVERABLE Two very, very different concepts. Are you sure the su-27SM can supercrusie, I though it only will wll the larger engine that only pssibly the su-34/5 will get.:confused:

On supercrusing wing planforms. Surely not only the type of wing, but where the wing is placed on the actual aircraft will determine where the CP will lie, so you could use it to supercruise. But the lighting wasnt meant to anyway, it just happened to do it. I wasnt in the specification like Euro or F-22.

Lol im pretty sure the BAC lightning armed with araam and asraam capability, modern avionics, possible FBW, would give any modern aircraft a run for its money. Be rather like a shorter ranged F-16.