The F-14’s rear seater and its long range lens probably gave it an edge under the rules that they played under. The F-15 probably held the edge when you removed the political baggage. You never know what rope binds their hands when the inter-services play friendly games like that.

MSphere,

I will agree that you did not bring up NK in this thread. I must have had too many threads open and incorrectly crossthreaded the first page of this topic on the night I posted that. However, you are wrong about GW1 and Vietnam being against opponents with obsolete or trash weapons.

There is this little thing called reality that evened out the fight in both environments. In Vietnam the Russians were countering our equipment arrivals tit for tat. It wasn’t until the kinks were worked out of the F-4 that American pilots held a clear technological advantage over the North. And even then the North was well versed on how to neuter those advantages once they became aware of their introduction. Wishful thinking did not make their weapons obsolete by any stretch of the imagination.

And during GW1 the Iraqis were well equipped with modern technology. Numerous planes were struck by their missiles but thankfully the allied forces held a numerical advantage and pent them up into limited areas of free operation. The F1EQ wasn’t exactly obsolete against the vast majority of the Allied Force. Nor were their MiG’s which broke through fighter sweeps intent on destroying them. If the Iraqi pilots weren’t under supplied with feul they had a realistic chance to do much more than they did. Quite frankly the guys at the top expected large numbers of losses.

Don’t underestimate a fighting force you see on paper. What you don’t see are factors concerning logistics and variables centered around operations that are omitted. It’s the sum of the entire force structure. Neither the North Vietnamese nor the Iraqis were particularly defenseless.

That is exactly where we disagree. Both in Vietnam or GW1 the enemy had none or very little state-of-art weaponry.

I am glad that you’re trying to think instead of me but it would be probably better for both of us if you wouldn’t.

– if I was trying to deny NK’s ability to put up a fight, I would be talking about NK, not Vietnam.
– if I was suggesting Afghanistan would be the norm in the coming decades, I would be talking about Afghanistan, not Vietnam.

Anything else I need to add?

You really haven’t added anything yet, so I guess it would be pointless. If you felt like I was doing the thinking for you then perhaps its because you needed to do some thinking in the first place. Suggesting that the enemies during Vietnam and GW1 had “none or very little state-of-art weaponry” is nonsense. They may not have had the material to the same scale, but both examples you’ve cited were far from without state-of-art weaponry.

China has so much to lose if they let NK get too powerful nuclear-wise. They can’t reign in the dictator at some point.

Neutered not obsolete. There is a difference. The coalition took losses from some of their weaponry that could only be overwhelmed. The lessons in GW1 led to new tactics and weaponry for GW2.

Cheaper to buy, maybe, but to maintain the crews and aircraft it will more than make up for it. Buy from an established designer or buy a cheaper knockoff of a Russian design… Not a hard choice.

I agree with Meteor being beneficial to Japan in the short term, but no need to go Eurofighter if you can add the missile to the Eagle’s software they already own. The Typhoon doesn’t have the raw radar advantages over the Eagle to justify the effort. If Meteor can’t be integrated with the Eagle then they are better off jockeying for the AIM-120D.