I was recently permanently banned from the site. :rolleyes:

There is your sign.

I have serious doubts the MiG-29 is either ‘Easier Maintenance’ or ‘More lethal dogfighter’ compared to an F-16.

More maneuverable? Probably.
More powerful? Certainly.
More lethal in 1986? Perhaps.

NEZ isn’t even close to half it’s maximum ‘kinematic’ range. It’s much shorter.

R-60E is a tail chaser. The range in tail chase situations is dependent on the required missile displacement. It doesn’t really matter if the launcher is equal in velocity. What matters is the distance displaced during the flight by the target plus the distance from shooter to target at the time of the missile going live. If its maximum acquisition range for the eyeball is 8km then that’s not unrealistic. If its capable of 13km of effective flight then it gives you perspective why 8km isn’t it’s true maximum range.

R-60M is rumored to be head on capable. And I don’t think it was for export.

IAI delivers first T-38 replacement wing

The T-38 wing plan was digitized. They really are one step closer to reviving modern F-5 production.

Part of the problem with missile velocities is the dramatic drop off in lower atmospheric conditions. It’s the whole reason the range graph looks like a mushroom.

So far you’ve argued nothing. If you have something to say constructive then come out and say it. I’ve answered your original comment and you’ve stated no facts. Otherwise you’re being snide and disengenuous.

All aircraft have a CL that sits behind the CG, canard and conventional wings follow the same aerodynamics. The canard can be large or small depending on its function. The X-31 and EF-2000 are good demonstrations of unstable pitch design where the nose wants to pitch up. The function of the small canard out towards the nose is to control this urgency to pitch up. The Gripen and Rafale use much larger canard surfaces to add lift not unlike a tail plane in a conventional wing layout.

The idea that canards add weight, complexity or cost is pure F.U.D. and is a bogus disclaimer painting all canards in a negative light. And btw trainers are typically built much heavier than front-line fighters because they tend to fly much higher numbers of annual hours. They tend to get beat up by the cadets and have to be rugged.

I would be very surprised if they did. A canard adds weight, cost and complexity, three things a trainer can ill-afford

F.U.D.