For the sake of Europe…I hope I am wrong 😉 . Although…we do have common words…even with Slovak…I`m not sure which words…but there are (I think branza *syr*…meaning cheese). The best example of common words with Polish I can give you (besides “kurwa” which means “curva” in Ro, I`ll let Mr. S find out the meaning of it in English) is my name, Bogdan.

I have a question for you all. Why is naming a plane so important to you?

What you should have discovered by now is that supercruise means flying over 1M without AB :diablo: :p 😀 Something that, I repeat, your beloved Flanker isn’t capable (and no Russian plane will be for some years). As well as maneuvring at high speeds/high altitudes in the way the Raptors does..

As you might or not know…Raptor is a 5th generation fighter. They wanted it to supercruise since it was a gleam in the designers mind. On the other hand our beloved Flanker is a 4th generation fighter that the designer thought it should be maneuvrable. Supercruise wasn`t in the mind.
We could compare Su-27 with…let`s say…F-86 Sabre ?

So..let me get this straight: the supermaneuvrability of the F-22 *the fact that it uses the latest in flight control TVC+conventional flight control surfaces* is very usefull (I remember reading some threads here where the F-22 was hyped…to some God-like level) in a dogfight…but the supermaneuvrability of the Sukhois and MiGs is just a waste of time. One can wonder here if the supermeuvrability is useless as read here…why the F-22 has it? This is all I read here.

Of course our views about fighters differ. If we all were thinking the same it would be a boring world. I find it easy to build a super maneuvrable plane than building a state of the art with the latest in avionics. That`s what the Russians did, in my view. Built a plane with very good handling characteristics and now they put the latest in avionics. In my view a fighter plane should be ready for ANYTHING! BVR, WVR…dogfights…anything. Not wishing that the future air battles will limit themselves to BVR or whatever type of battle. That`s why the F-4 didn`t had a cannon installed..because of that wishfull thinking. In my view I find it more logical the approach of the Russians into building tha plane. You may not agree with me…that`s your right….as I don`t agree with you.

Lightning II & Spitfire II both sound very bad.

I’m not sure what the new name should be, but the two above names should be taken off the list.

Wasn`t the F-22 Lightning III ? so…F-35 Lightning IV ? What`s the fuss about the name?

Amen to that, sealordlawrence

The PZUs (dust protectors) can be fitted to a Mi-8 also. But it`s a Mi-17 alright. The Russians don`t call it Mi-17…but Mi-8MTV. I`m not sure what version is the one in the photo.

What does George W Bush have to do with WWII?

Nothing…maybe he got some ideas from someone…but he was long gone before 2nd world war. The senior tho` does. He was a pilot, wasn`t he?
But I was reffering that throut the history there was a person that thought conquering the world by war is a good thing….Alexander the great…Caesar…maybe Napoleon?…..and..2nd world war`s favourite…who else?…non other than….Hitler.

And to get finnaly on topic after posting so much off topic…I think Jamaica`s air force is useless. They have the bong bomb. The most powerfull natural weapon on Earth…period! 😀