Not at all except to make the amricans even more proud of their accomplishments. The mig’s would get stomped right after getting off the ground. The only reason the migs that did well did so was because they were more agile than the phantoms. The -23… not so much.

You know before you guys went ad hominem at one another this thread was pretty darn interesting.

The germans had quite some trouble absorbing the “ossies”(east germans) and the process still isnt entirely complete. It did seem to have worked out fine though. Germany is an OK place to live and the living standards in the east have gone up immeasurably.

I don’t see why that couldnt happen in Korea as well. Shure there will be some resentment towards the (seemingly) backwards and strange northies that gobble up all the tax money, but in the end it’ll all be good.

What I utterly fail to understand is the reasoning behind all the rhetoric. It sounds so much like one of them ugly little chihuahua dogs barking up a storm at a big bad pitbull knowing they are both safely chained up. All it shows is that you have a lot of bark, and proving the other side can’t or won’t bite at the yapping b’stard. Does the west come off as effeminate because they don’t shove a boot down Kim’s throat? I don’t think so. War is bad for bussiness.

The range figures given out in these brochures are not 100% accurate. It would be silly to tell all the world the exact specs of your defensive weapons, would it? You want the attacker to underestimate your defenses, thinking he’s still safe when WHAM!.

On the other hand, it makes sense to exaggerate on the capabilities of your offensive ones. You want to make your adversary go defensive as soon as his RWR goes off. Even if the PK (probability of a kill) is in practice very low, the enemy has no way of knowing it and will have to expend his energy in assuming a defensive posture.

Air-launched missiles will therefore in practice have much smaller practical ranges compared to the ranges given out in public data than surface-launched ones.

Fedaykin made an important point in comparing the AIM-7 to the AIM-120. The prediction algorithms (the way the missile reacts to the targets’ movement) are far more advanced in newer missiles, IE they are smarter. This makes their practical range greater, because they dont have to waste their precious energy in unneccesary manouvres.

In my experience with (simulated) air combat, using the airbrake is very much a last ditch measure. You do not want to be lowering your energy if there’s even the slightest chance of you having to go defensive against a new thread (such as a new bogey or a surface-air missile).

That said, it can be a very handy asset in certain tactical situations such as sliding onto the saddle from a higher energy state (ie from above), suddenly decreasing the $%#@ out of your turn radius to surprise a bogey with a sudden firing solution or “doing some of that pilot $h!t” when a bogey is glued to your rear end.

Popping the boards will kill your airspeed pronto. You need to be very certain you can afford to be a wallowing pig while your kite claws back its smack. Someone who is out of airspeed, out of altitude and out of ideas is a very easy target for anybody out there.

Spudman great find, actually those are different bits of ordnance. The first one you posted is a sniper pod, for targetting and such as used in the a-stan. the second one is quite interesting as it shows a bone festooned with the new ALCM-2 stealth cruise missiles that were mysteriously decomissioned a couple years ago.

… except it’s not! interesting! what are those things in your second pic spud? perhaps the reason the AGM-129 was suddenly cancelled? aerodynamic test shapes for the agm-129 programme?

Also aerodynamics. Wingtip missiles help make the wing more efficient.