T-50 easily takes the roll of PAK-DP with similar speed performance to intercept.

LOL nope. MiG-31 is a dedicated interceptor a considerably faster than the PAK FA.

The F-35’s kinematics isn’t that great though, it’s about the same as an air-to-air loaded F-16 with some F/A-18-like high AOA handling. Enough to be competitive but overall unremarkable. No doubt the handling is probably much much better due to advances in flight controls. F135 Growth Option 1.0 will bring the 6-10% thrust increase across the envelope, so it will be interesting to see how much improvement there is with a 45,000 lb thrust class engine.

Take this for what it’s worth. At Nellis Open House, I spoke with an F-35A pilot and I specifically asked about how the aircraft flies compared to other aircraft, including the emerging 5th generation fighters. His response was pretty candid. He stated that the F-35 can’t compare to an F-22, especially in the high subsonic and supersonic region, but then again nothing currently in service really can. But compared to “legacy” aircraft (his words) like the F-15 and F-16, the F-35’s flight performance is no slouch and can easily hold its own and the high alpha abilities is a departure from the F-16 he flew before. On the off chance I also asked what he thinks is the most dangerous opponent. He didn’t answer for the F-35, but he said when he flew the F-16, the most dangerous was the Hornet initially because the nose pointing and JHMCS + AIM-9X can easily catch less experienced pilots off guard.

Take that for what it is.

Did KGB just try to show that the Kirov class cruiser is stealthy?

Is this the same line of retarded thinking about how the T-50 is “stealthier” than the F-22 because its fuselage is flatter?

Having IIR is one thing, but what is the resolution? How much computing power is needed to have real-time recognition? And also, how effective is DIRCM against an AAM? I believe most of those systems are designed against MANPADS, but an AAM might be a bit more difficult to defeat, especially if multiple ones are launched.

Common sense and reading.

Rmax quite simply is maximum distance that the missile can reach it’s target. The missile’s energy is altitude+speed. Take two theoretical missiles with the exact same amount of propellant, same drag and lift coefficients, weigh etc. They are identical except, one has a throttle-able rocket the other a single pulse motor. They are going to have the exact same Rmax 1 (reaching a non-maneuvering target at maximum possible distance), the difference is how they get there. The single pulse rocket motor will have greater kinetic energy initially, the throttleable motor will have greater potential energy throughout most of the flight given the same profile and altitude.(should say “could have” assuming missile is conserving propellant)

The difference is in Rmax 2 (a target with a changing velocity vector), the single pulse motor may not be able to catch up with the target, or a change in target aspect will force the missile to change direction losing energy and therefore max range. The missile with a throttle-able motor can conserve energy allowing it change velocity.

In the context of the Meteor and the Aim-120, the larger NEZ speaks to it’s ability to remain powered for a longer duration. That does not translate to longer range. MBDA is careful in their claim “AGAINST AN AGILE, EVADING TARGET, METEOR’S NO-ESCAPE ZONE—THE AREA WITHIN WHICH, IF A MISSILE IS LAUNCHED, THE TARGET CANNOT KINEMATICALLY AVOID BEING HIT”, they specifically mention it’s performance against a maneuvering target as this highlights the great advantage the Meteor has over contemporary single pulse motor AAM’s.

It is a bit academic, but yes, an Aim-120D could have a longer maximum range flying a ballistic trajectory against a non-maneuvering target. The WEZ would be always changing on a maneuvering target (NEZ as well). The Meteor’s biggest advantage is the WEZ will be greater in a variety of target aspects and speeds, and the NEZ as well.

That is not quite true. With a ramjet, you’re using air in the atmosphere as the oxidizer, which allows the missile to carry all fuel instead of fuel+oxidizer. A solid rocket motor has to carry both oxidizer and fuel for propellant, so a ramjet has higher specific impulse.

Mark me as someone who is unconvinced about Israeli F-35 being used in combat already. What software block does Israeli F-35s even have right now?

Ron Paul as a respected politician? Well, if creationism, denial of climate change, denial of evolution, “religious freedom” is your thing, then knock yourself out.

Since when have I ever given my preference for any politicians other than refuting positions that are bunk?