Too bad for Australia that they wouldn’t be eligible for a F-22 version optimized for ground attack and shipping lane superiority. The F-35 will damn near cost as much by the time it gets fielded in numbers. And to think a boost in F-22 production would probably help in terms of affordability for the American taxpayer…

Isreal extensively used unmanned drones for reconn, sead, and elint in general, which could easily account for descrepancies in air combat victories.

I get a kick out of people declaring interceptors generically to be only good at fighting bombers. Some of them are good at anything but their bomber destroyer mission. Most set themselves apart from fighter roles by their relative longer legs and armaments.

I’m still not buying the fact that an Su-7 optimized for air superiority isn’t better than a MiG-21, especially with the more rugged design in comparison to the latter and the much more attention put into flight control of Sukhois at their higher design speeds. That was such a cop out answer, PhantomII, because you dismiss the reality of that day for the situation. The Su-11 was definitely a more potent system than the lighter MiG cousins with their more granular sensors and heavier weapons. The U.S. used alot of their interceptors over Vietnam in the air superiority role just because they were better equipped for fights in the air. Hindsight proved the missile technology to be too immature for every occasion, but the leading experts in the day thought very highly of them.

The Su-7? How would it have presented a bigger problem to Americans in the air war? First of all it’s an attack jet. It would have been used against American and South Vietnamese forces I suppose, but two problems would be present for it. First of all it has a very short-range, and I would imagine that only targets near the DMZ would be threatened. Secondly, the F-102 and F-104 interceptors on alert in the South would have likely made short-work of any Su-7 intrusions because I can guarantee you they wouldn’t have MiG escorts because all the MiG’s would be needed up north to deal with marauding F-105’s, A-4’s, A-6’s, A-7’s, and F-4’s plus The MiG-17 would be too slow to stay with the Su-7’s and the MiG-21 has an equally horrible range.

The original Su-7 prototype was designed around the air superiority role, complete with three killer 30mm cannon. You probably confuse the original Su-7 with the follow-on ground attack warplane Su-7B. And all Su-7’s, either role, were fast for their day, a strength you’ve seem to forgot. It also had a sturdy construction and powerful hydraulic flight controls, which would of been a big bonus for combat survival during that time period. Its main drawback would of been the requirement for a relatively long runway.

The Su-11? That’s an interesting proposal but it would have only been effective against bomb-laden jets as it was not a dogfighter (either no guns or two draggy gun-pods). Really, the Su-11 would have been more effective against the B-52’s, but that’s provided they could get past the screen of MiGCAP F-4’s.

The Su-11 was more powerful than the Su-9 and carried an i-band radar. The radar was not only an improvement over the original, but it allowed for a mixed heatseeker/semi-active radar homing missile combination, whereas the Su-9 only carried beam riders.

Since a railgun with a 250 mile range is much cheaper for targeting 85% of planet’s surface, it makes the need for tactical aircraft development lessen.

I have a hard time believing Su-35 is cheaper unless they go with Russian crews to maintain them. There isn’t a chance in hell Sukhoi has cracked their maintenance load on those things down below what the Brazilians would spend on an F-16 or their existing Mirage 2000’s. Flankers have low windshield price, high fuel costs and maintaining them is a long term investment. They are better off buying used American F-16C/D’s.

If Egypt needs a MiG-21 replacement then they should be more than happy with Gripen or Mirage 2000-9, which in my opinion make alot more sense than a MiG-29. The newest MiG-29 don’t hold a lick to western counterparts when it comes to long term acquisition variables like overall man-hours tied up into them and the costs of basic spare parts.