AndraxxusIn theory, yes. There is no structural limitation, you can put APU-470 (which is the pylon/adapter for R-27) on mid pylons. There is no software limitation either, however standard MiG-29 does NOT have wiring to utilize the R-27 missile from mid pylon. MiG offered this modification for export models (as in the image), but for most airforces, there is no reason for it: Back in 80s, its counterpart F-16 did not have any BVR capability in anyway, and today its simply better to integrate and carry lighter R-77 missiles.
AndraxxusThey are pretty much equal in acceleration, when:
1. The clean F-15E accelerates at the height of 10,000 fts (3,048 m).
2. The clean Su-35 accelerates at the height of 1,000 m.
http://www.knaapo.ru/eng/products/su-35/index.wbpAnd the acceleration will slow down when the height for acceleration increases.
Therefore, I think the acceleration performance for a clean Su-35 at the height of 1,000 m shall be no better than the acceleration performance for a clean F-15E at the same altitude.
There is only a 2000 meter difference which would make very little difference. The values for F-15E is slightly inferior anyway (13,8 vs approx. 14,5 and 8 seconds vs approx 8 seconds)
Also, while both are with 50% fuel, Su-27/35 could reach much greater distances with that fuel payload. Acceleration is very much dependant on aircraft payload. I will explain it further later.
The estimation for Su-35 acceleration mentioned above seems ridiculous.
The real data: it takes the clean Su-35 about 22 seconds to accelerate from 0.5 to 1.05 Mach at the height of 1,000 m.
How could it be possible for the same clean Su-35 to accelerate from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach with less than 24 seconds at the height of more than 9,000 m ?
Most values on that graph is BS. I have flight manuals/aerodynamic booklets etc for most of the mentioned aircraft. NONE of the data on graph actually match them.
I had made this graph some time ago with the data I have:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224589[/ATTACH]
As you can see with 50% fuel; Su-27 does not accelerate well at all; At subsonic its on par with F-18E, inferior to MiG-23MLD. However this acceleration is still impressive considering it can reach 1760 km ferry range with that fuel load. While F-16 or MiG-29 seem vastly superior on paper, they will not even approach the performance of Su-27 IF they are fuelled for same range. With increased range requirement by mission, advantage goes to Su-27; To reach 1600 km combat radius with 4 missiles, Su-27 will take off clean, while F-15E will require both a centerline EFT and CFTs. On such scenario a Su-27S will have better acceleration than -229 engined F-15E or even F-22.
It takes 15 seconds for Su-27S to reach from 600 to 1100 km/h at 1km height. Su-35 does it in 13,8 seconds. It has 8% improvement in acceleration. Draw your own conclusions on how it will behave.
AndraxxusF-15E with -229s, clean no CFT:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224549[/ATTACH]
According to 600-1100 (approx. M0,5 to M0,9) and 1100-1300 (approx. M0,9 to M1,05) times, they are pretty much equal in acceleration. Though F-15C with -220s MAY accelerate slightly better than F-15E with -229. Too lazy to look into that.
Andraxxus9G is not nothing. 9g is where anyone can go. It’s an upper limit until we’ve got something like gyroscopic cockpits. yes some claim 10G. But wait. Hve you ever seen a pilot after it pulled its max G over a brief period of time? He ‘s almost knocked-off. There is a reason why aerobatics pilots learn their choreography on the tip of their fingers: to not having to think. Good luck to you if you are pulling 9G for minutes during a dogfight against my GrandMa flying an F4 Phantom!
9G it for the speed. There is a reason why the 16 and the 35 hve tiny wings. You know that: to turn at a high rate without depleting too much energy. That’s where one of the fruit is in aerial combat. The other one i wich we put so much emphasis nowadays is supersonic fight.
Regarding the X32, in a world where marshmallows can grow on trees, perhaps the DoD will have founded two different planes. But giving that Boeing is heavily involved in the 35, I am not sure that pushing the 32 from Boeing forward for the Marines will have resulted in any economy being done. More the opposite!
*Wait! drop that laptop somewhere before!
Importance of 9G (for at least F-35) is debatable from two POV:
Lets assume F-35 did match the performance of Blk50 F-16 on clean config; At (S/L) max 9G sustained turn rate is 21,5 deg/s, at (imposed) 7,5G limit, sustained turn rate is 20,5 deg/s. With 9G limit, max ITR is 24,8 deg/s, at 7,5Gs max ITR is 24,5 deg/s. So in other words, IF F-16 blk50 had 7,5G limit, it would have comperable ITR and only 1 deg/s inferior STR -that is at sea level-. With increasing altitude difference gets smaller. (at above 15k feet, F-16 cannot sustain 7+Gs) IF -as most people would expect- F-35 cannot match clean blk50, it will have less area between 7,5G and 9G limits, so performance degradation would have been marginal.
Back to F-16s. Imagine one F-16 with 9G limit fighting another F-16 with 7,5G limit. Would it be such great difference? One with lower G limit can always put its available SEP to good use and go vertical. Other one has to follow the climb, so it wont be sustaining 7,5+Gs either.
I am not saying its completely unimportant, but i question. Is it so important to cost few billion $s more? Or delay the entire program a few years further?
No seriously. The post stall maneuverability is all abt pitching fast WITHOUT pulling g. To be convinced, borrow one of your kid’s roller, stand straight on top of it on the tip of your toes and then swirl like hell around the vertical axis*… Done? Ok, seat down for a minute… How much G did you feel? 5? 6? 9+? A mere 2 (sry long time I didn’t do the math on this one but the answer is close by). So with 2+G you was able to get a 180deg turn rate per second. That’s impressive. Do you get it now?
Not impressive at all. Turn rate does not mean the turning the nose, its turning the direction the aircraft is flying. What is the turn rate of an F-5E switching between 0 to 20 deg AOA in quarter of a second? 80 deg/s? No. Same analogy; What is the turn rate of Su-27 making a cobra?, its ~0 deg/s. Or what is the turn rate of a Su-35 on a vertical spin? its ~0 deg/s. I agree has its uses, I agree TVC provides decicive advantages in some cases, but that is still not turning. its nose pointing. Good old fashioned wing lift turn is not only valid, but its still the sole means of turning the aircraft fast.
AndraxxusI think the “joint” program idea is good, but its implementation (at least on F-35) is clearly not. F-35 program should have gone for a more common airframe on A and C variants, and that should have been based on carrier variant, similar to MiG-29K/MiG-35. I ask, what advantage does A variant have over C? An internal gun and 9G capability instead of 7.5G, and that’s it. As F-35’s maneuverability and CAC capabilites againist other 5th gen will always be questionable, I dont believe those “improvements” make any meaningful difference.
The VTOL “B” variant was always risky and should have been considered as a bonus: They should have made F-35 airworthy and combat capable first, than go for a VTOL derivative. If by that time, it turned out to be difficult, there was always X-32; which would then only need to fill the VTOL role.
AndraxxusSo again we have a propeller -non propeller type of situation, that we need to examine.
That we do, however I believe we can run basic explainations about this.
You see american VLO dogma would suggest you don’t use a structure like a levcon because the joint between the movable part and the frame would cause a seam that would generate backscatter from edge diffraction and creeping waves, which would be head on to the incoming radar for frontal RCS. Similar but not identical to the canard approach.
I have to disagree on that. A canard would cause many different radar returns. Like you said a canard would have edge diffraction in front but also at its back by backscatter. As it is an independent body, it will also have its own creeping wave return. It has corners, so it will generate corner diffraction. Also as canard and wing is not continious, there will be interaction echos.
A Levcon on the other hand is attached to the body, very much like the leading edge flaps, which F-22 and F-35 have. Surely it has a discontiniouity, at its pivot, but the gap is smaller than the wavelength of radar. So the radar should see it as continious body, and should not generate a second edge differaction by backscatter, or creeping wave independent of main body. As its rear is merged with body, it wont have interaction echos, and it wouldnt have corner diffraction too. Only additional contribution to radar return by LEVCON is the seam echo from the gap at pivot, which is even present in all the panel attachments, and should be minimal.
AndraxxusHeinkel He 178 back in 1939 looked unlike any other aircraft. Judging by other available planes, it shouldn’t even have flown, simply because it didn’t have propeller. But it did, as the first jet engined fighter it was a revolution in aircraft technology.
In 1939; you two would say;
-an aircraft doesnt have propeller cannot fly, because all aircraft have propellers.
-He-178 is so revolutionary, it doesnt need propeller, because flies by not-yet-undisclosed technologies.
In a sense both ideas can be correct, it would depend on the “not-yet-undisclosed technology” living up the expectations. In PAK-FA example, we simply dont know what VLO tech Russians have, how much of it is on T-50, or how effective they will turn out in realistic conditions.
One thing. When F-117 was built, it was done so by using a part of the Petr Ufimtsev works. However US only had the unclassified part of his works, which only involved calculation of flat surfaces. They couldn’t develop it furhter, and computer tech was insufficient for finite element analysis of curved surfaces by tiny flat surfaces; so F-117 had its faceted shape -which has little resemblance to F-22 or even less to F-35. Now;
-LM claimed an aircraft has to be faceted to be stealthy. judging by this, no following stealth aircraft is actually stealth.
-Judging by looks, one would say as F-22 has little in common to F-117, F-22 or F-35 cannot be stealthy.
-At the time F-117 built, Russians knew how to calculate curved surfaces all along. They probably laughed their ***es off when they saw F-117.
-For the same reason, if they continued to develop technology further; they may well be ahead of US, and they wouldn’t need the shaping F-22 has. Or they may not because they didn’t developed much practical applications, to prove their know-how.
However I question;
-Why spend so much effort do create an inlet with both Ramps, together with paralelogram VLO geometry? 3d supersonic flow, 3d compressions, continiously varying geometry on 3 axis due to 3 inlet ramps… Its WAAAAY more difficult than designing and building a square nozzle, but they did.
-Why build so big composite panels? According to insider info, they are even having quality control problems to achieve that. Why go through the effort if they didn’t know/care?
-If they didn’t know/care, they could have gone for canards, if they only cared maneuverability, or could have put a flat surface for stealth. Instead they invented a new control surface called levcon to achive both. (I say invented because its not present on any fighter aircraft that I know of). Same goes for verticals; small for stealth but all moving for maneuverability; imagine the control difficulties not to mention materials. I mean, why go so much effort in order not to chose between stealth of maneuverability? I dare say, as far as aerodynamic+stealth combined solutions concerned, T-50 is FAR more innovative than F-22+X-32+F-35 combined.
Andraxxus“need”? None. The answer is simple as that.
To evaluate your comment further;
-Us needed to have two types, IMHO simply because (Y)F-22 was far too ahead of its time in early 90s and it was too expensive. With cold war ended, there was no need for such fighter, and requirements for a 5th gen fighter changed completely. New requirements demanded new fighter, hence F-35. I bet if Soviet union didnt broke up, F-35 would be a very different aircraft, there would be navalized F-22s etc etc.
-Soviets did design some new fighters like MiG 1.44 or Su-47 in 90s. However with the cold war ended, their requirements from a new fighter also changed, and PAK-FA is the end result. Although PAK-FA’s performance/weight class expected to be more comperable to F-22, its evolution, IMHO, is much similar to F-35; a relatively cheap all-arounder. If cold war didnt ended, we would be seeing many more stealth and non-stealth fighters from SU.
-EU simply doesnt have the will or capabilty to produce a stealth fighter at the moment. Most EU countries will get F-35, because its the only option (PAK-FA = Russian F-22 = Not for export + belongs to a rather obsolete doctrine)
-Chinese have two types, expect many more, because they simply trying to build a knowledge base for such programs, and they possibly want to test out their design/production capabilities. IMHO neither J-20 or J-31 have specific mission requirements like F-22/35 or PAK-FA, but more in the lines do-what-you-can. I don’t say they are worthless but I am saying after they are matured or even produced in tiny numbers, a new definitive type will emerge which may hope to compete with F-22 or F-35.
AndraxxusThis has been discussed at length in an earlier thread. The Meteor powerplant is designed to burn all the way to the target, even at long range. I have not seen any published statement of missile flight time to maximum range, so cannot give you a numerical value.
All air-air missiles are “boost-coast”, including Meteor. A ram-jet will certainly have longer boost+sustain times, but not all the way to target, not by a longshot.
decelerate, yes
zoom climb or turn away… only if your missiles can be guided by another vector until they become active.
You are forgetting two things:
1- That statment goes to any aircraft/missile combinations, as long as MiG have missiles with greater speed and range, a) it will fire first b) its missiles will reach first even if fired at the same time with the enemy. So when on the offensive it will never have the need to turn away, just put some angle to reduce enemy’s attack range.
2- Zalson’s 140 degrees azimuth, 130 degrees elevation coverage helps there. A 70 degree angle to the target will easily make the opponent’s missile fall short. And at M2.5, a ~50 degree angle climb can be pretty quick in gaining altitude. Combine two and its pretty impressive.
AndraxxusWithout OWS, all F-15 variants are limited to 7,33Gs when clean, dropping to mere 3Gs on extreme 80000 pound asymetric payloads.
However as such limits are always put thinking the worst possible structural loads, there is OWS, which expands the G limits. To clarify with an example.
At 37k lb, a clean F-15C is limited to 7,33Gs without OWS, computer will log anything above as overstressed airframe.
With OWS, computer will continiously vary G limits accordingly to speed/altitude/weight; same aircraft at sea level is allowed to pull 9Gs, however at 20k feet, transonic regime it is still limited to 7,33Gs. Limit continiously varies and is shown in the Hud. at 85% and 92% of the allowable G, warnings are given. Legacy F-15As didnt have OWS, so they were limited to 7,33Gs. However in practice F-15 has no hard G limits, pilot can always pull harder to achieve higher Gs.
F-16 has no direct G limit with respect to payload weight or class but it has AOA limit (cat I/III), which in turn limits the amount of Gs pulled.
To answer the original question no; With decent payload and fuel, they are very unlikely to do 5+Gs let alone 9.
AndraxxusNot by a mile, this is why instability was introduced with 4.5 & 5 gen fighters, built for A2A combat, (exempting F-35 which is a bomber)
for the explicit purpose of remaining agile at supersonic speed.
Also take note on the fundamentally important wing loading at alt.Boeing 747 727 kg/m^2
(Lower=better)
Not really. For a same wing airfoil, if you have half the wing loading (be it half area or twice weight), you need roughly twice the AOA to generate same amount of lift. This is very important when the aircraft is AOA limited (ie slower turning); for example an EF could easily pull 25 deg AOA without stalling, and MiG-31 could never do 50; it would stall long before that (judging by wing area alone). With different airfoils and vortex generators come into play, wing area is insufficient to compare types. F-16 has higher wing loading than Su-27 and F-15, yet it could sustain turns better. Su-27 has somewhere between F-15 and 16, but it has the best instantenius turn rates, etc. F-15 has lowest, and its one of the less maneverable 4th gens.
However, we are talking about high supersonic maneuverability. MiG-31, EF, as an aerodynamic body etc can all produce 20+++ Gs at high machs. At that part of the flight regime, structural limitations prevent aircraft to reach their stall AOAs. Above law still applies, but it doesnt matter if one aircraft is pulling 2 deg AOA and other needs 4 degrees to reach its G limit. Both are in their aerodynamic limits. On the contrary, as Cd increases (more or less) exponantially, having smaller wings at higher AOA can even generate less drag, not to mention it simplifes area ruling.
With same, or even potentially less drag coef. when maneuvering, all it matters is thrust, or thrust/drag ratio to be more specific; an area MiG-31 simply outclasses all other aircraft on that list. That is, we are talking about M1.6+ speeds.
AndraxxusI will repeat, these were not considered a particularly challenging threat for carrier based air to take out. Without proper air cover, including some form of airborne radar these ships would have been sitting ducks. Yes, on paper they have a pretty impressive array of weapons but in practice the US would have been free to strike at will and the end result would not have been in doubt.
After the cold war ended Russia had 4 inactive kirov cruisers (1 incomplete 3 mothballed) and 3 inactive (all mothballed) kiev carriers. They sold all 3 carriers abroad; completed one kirov, currently refurbishing one, and want to (IDK if they will) recomission the other two, despite they are being more expensive than the carriers. They could have easily maintained their carriers and decommision their cruisers, but chose not to. Of course, Russians must be idiots; they don’t know about their ships survivability or capability, but you do? No, Simple conclusion is you are wrong, and if US Navy officials if think like you, they are plain wrong too.
Besides, the Soviets only ever commissioned three Slavas, all in the early 80s. Even if we assumed these three ships were on par with the latest Arleigh Burkes produced 30 years later, and even if we assumed Russia could get all three fully mission capable and out to sea at once
Slava is not on par with arleigh burke;
For anti-shipping, 3 Slavas pack more anti-shiping capability than the entire fleet of arleigh burkes.
For land strike, Slava has half the missiles a standard burke usually carries, but this is irrelevant to the scenario anyway.
As for air defense, Slava has 64 long range and 40 short range AD missiles which is more comperable to Ticonderogas, with the ability to direct 8 long and 4 short range missiles at once, they triple ticos and quadruple burkes in multi-target engagement capability.
With 6 point defenses, they triple the Ticos and burkes too.
Sure they are relatively old, but dismissing them as incapable platforms is utter stupidity.
what threat do you think they would present to the US Navy?
Russian navy is around 1/3 of the US Navy in terms of displacement, that is if they manage to activate all their commissioned ships at once. So as a complete navy in all out war, threat they present is nonexistant, and that is my point anyway. However as a platform, I dont think any US Navy captain would want a slava around in range of its P-500s, let alonge testing it out to find out how threatening they are.
The US is not simply going to say “gee, yeah, they have around 1,000 of those planes but we don’t have anything that can target them. I hope they don’t fly them against us if we end up at war…”
It isn’t and doesn’t need to be an “I win button.” It need only be combat effective and I see zero reason to doubt its capability to bring down a Mig-25/31.
As a recon aircraft the Mig-25 proved survivable
You are contradicting yourself.
During the Iran-Iraq War the Mig-25 did prove capable in its primary interceptor role, but a number were lost in combat to AIM-7 and AIM-54 missiles, proving beyond any doubt that they were not capable of operating with impunity even against 1970s era Iranian aircraft and missiles.
What number were lost actually? 2 IIRC, for over dozen kills? And again, I ask, out of how many attempts to shoot it down?
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War the Mig-25 was ineffective. In a limited number of sorties Mig-25s achieved one kill, and lost two aircraft. Once again the Mig-25 was proven to be vulnerable to the AIM-7.
Are you 6 years old? I dont say AIM-7/54/120 etc is incapable of hitting MiG-25. At right circumstances even a stinger can shoot down a MiG-25, or an F-22 or an B-1/2/52. However in the wrong circumstances, MiG-25 offers some very high degree of immunity to AIM-7/120.
Of the 30+ AIM-7/120 missiles fired to MiG-25 in gulf war, only one shoot it down. In the video you posted you can clearly hear CAC tone of AIM-9.
In the engagements that followed the Gulf War, which absolutely count, another Mig-25 was brought down, this time by an F-16 armed with an AIM-120A.
Like sheytanelkebir said, shooting down a ferrying aircraft is rather easy.
In a given set of conditions? Perhaps you mean conditions other than real world combat operations where they proved quite vulnerable?
Again you are contradicting yourself:
As a recon aircraft the Mig-25 proved survivable
Because, they were recon aircraft, what a complete suprise. What were you expecting? Present an airshow to iranians? How come an aircraft is survivable to a missile if its on recon, but not if its on intercept mission? There is the aircraft, and there is the missile. Survivability is irrelevant to the mission at hand.
The objective of a reconnaissance aircraft is to do more than survive. Grading the Mig-25R as a recon aircraft is difficult because while they proved survivable in that role, there is no information available on how successful they were at actually collecting what they were sent to collect.
Are you admitting MiG-25 can actually survive missiles, but simply cant kill enemy planes?
If that is, I rest my case about MiG-25, as we are talking about MiG-31. And will make a new case; if one aircraft posses higher survivability to enemy missiles than the enemy and can carry a) missiles with better ranges b) more numerous comperable missiles, with sufficient avionics to fully utilize them, doesn’t that equate to better BVR performance; as long as we stick to 4/4+ gen?
Putting aircraft names aside, one with higher survivability and longer ranged missiles will perform better, no? Because that plane will shoot first, make enemy loose SA and energy while evading missiles, and go on firing. If all else fails, it can survive to retreat.
yeah but then to detect , attack sth over the horizon the ship would need support from AWACs , fighter or heli
also the SM-2 now do have IR guide for attack ship over horizon just the same ways as anti ship missile like agm-1
To “detect” a ship, even a satelite feed or an estimate of targets bearing fed by radio is sufficient. Most anti-ship missiles go with inertial guidance first, and switch to radar guidance after they find a target. Larger, longer ranged (and practically more expensive) missiles like Slava’s P-500 or Kirov’s P-700 are much smarter: they work in groups, one climbs to (relatively) high altitude first, detect enemy ships with anti-radation or home-on-jam, than dive and cruise at low altitude on inertial guidance. When missile group close into target task force, one missile pops up with active radar homing, prioritize and designate targets to all other missiles nearby and dives to low altitude again. Missiles switch their individual active-radars only 15-20 km away from target. Those missiles can strike targets 600+ km away without any need of off-board guidance.
As for SM-2, IR seeker is designed to fight off saturation attacks, I dont know if they have any use for targeting other ships.
Andraxxuswell actually SM-2 , ESSM and RAM can all be use for anti ship , a salvo of them would still be quite deathly and since ship are affected a lot by radar horizon , a long range anti ship missiles on a ship isnot very useful
On the contrary, all modern anti-ship cruise missiles posses over the horizon capability. While most sea based SAMs can be used againist ships, this requires guidance by a illumination/fire control radar, SPG-62 for the missiles you mention. This means direct visual contact with the target is necessary, and as such, ADGM missiles have little use in modern ship to ship combat, other than emergency situations.
mig-31 fly at much higher altitude so it more likely look at enemy from the top rather than head on and all aircraft have much bigger RCS from the top even the stealth one , also the Mig-31 have L-band radar which mean stealth of F-22/35 or PAK-FA are basically useless
Like I and others explained, the difference would be 3-4 km at best. Vertical difference: 4 km, range: 50km, simple trigonometry question to determine the angle; MiG-31 will not look to top of anything.
AndraxxusI will leave by saying that while the Mig-31 is most certainly a superior aircraft to a Mig-25 they are very comparable aircraft in terms of their speed and altitude performance and operational concept. If 1970s era F-14s with AIM-54 and AIM-7 and 1991 era F-15Cs with AIM-7 were able to bring down Mig-25s then I think an F-22 armed with AIM-120C7s or AIM-120Ds would feel pretty good about its odds.
Real question is out of how many attempts. 20 MiG-23s hunting lone F-22s repeatedly over a 20 year period will eventually down some. That won’t make anyone say “F-22 is vulnerable to MiG-23” or “MiG-23 can succesfully shot down an F-22”. However same logic fails when we are talking about MiG-25.
AndraxxusHonestly, the threat was essentially gone. If the US needed to sink such ships they would rely on air launched Harpoons which were seen as more than sufficient given the inability of those ships to protect themselves adequately against air strikes. Now that China is rolling out credible fleet air defense in the form of its new DDGs and carrier the US is once again developing a proper long-range ASCM.
Funny, considering a kirov or a slava along with their task forces pack 500++ air defense missiles; layered in long, medium short and point defense ranges. Slava alone can direct 8 missiles at their targets at once, not to mention sovremennys (2 at once) udaloys (4 at once) and other escorting ships. How many hornets can a CVBG deploy? 24? 36? No, the threat is pretty valid, its just the US Navy choses to ignore it. Thats a rather long and irrelevant debate in this topic.
Sorry, but this is not how the US thinks/plans/operates. Back when the AMRAAM was being designed the good old USSR was absolutely the threat and the Mig-25/31 was a big part of the air to air threat. There is zero chance the US would have developed and fielded a missile that they did not believe was capable of bringing down a Mig-25. Even after the Cold War Mig-25s remained in the holdings of multiple potentially hostile states, including Syria, Libya, and Iraq.
Finally, it isn’t like it is a mystery how the Mig-25 would perform in combat. Iraq used them extensively in the Iran/Iraq war and to fairly good effect, though not without losses. By the time the Iraqis flew against the coalition in 1991 and later over the no-fly zones the Iraqis had plenty enough experience with the Mig-25 to know how to employ it in combat.
Over the course of their operational use Mig-25s have been brought down by AIM-7s, AIM-54s, and an AIM-120. Now here we are on the internet learning that they are invulnerable to all Western weapons… :rolleyes:
Zero chance? AIM-120 is also a product of compromises, you cant build a missile that would both work at high and low altitudes very well, and stay lightweight. Its an improvement to AIM-7 and thats it. Its not an I win button.
Like you said it isn’t mystery. In overal course of the arab israeli clashes and gulf war, out of 50+ AIM-7/120 missiles fired, only 4 hit their targets (<8% success rate). Another two downed after the war ended, which I dont count for air-air victory. And these are actually aircraft managed to fire their missiles. In how many intercept attempts they couldn’t even fire at MiG-25, I leave this to your imagination. Records speaks for itself; Does this confirm your point, or mine?
I never said invulnerable. I am saying it is nearly invulnerable in set of given conditions. When conditions change, so does the end results.
Sign In
