They could hook up with PC-9Ms with AIM-9X, NSMs and PGMS like JDAM, Hellfire and/or Paveway and whatever.

I’d rather have the 220km Klub on anyship than a 300 km Yakhont. The Alfa is a much better weapon to tackle Carrier Groups, and not only that but its smaller and lighter=more can be carried.

This is a very large and complex aircraft, which not only will be expensive tobuy and operate, but it will be a maintenance nightmare. There is no way you’ll get this thing ready in a short time to intercept bombers. The only possibly roles for it could be air superiority and strike/recoinassance.

Remmber the A-10 was plagued by the same problem.

Mach 4? The A-12 and Mig-25 were technological marvels of their time yet they could not reach those speeds. The A-12 could reach m3.3 or something like that but it couldnt sustain it for a very long time.

Just not worth it.

thats very niceee..

sta ima Milose?

F-16A had/has AIM-7 capability. Egyptian, Jordanian and US AD ones for example.
In the multiple dogfight of the 70s/80s of limited value, when the rules of engagement demanded visual indification first. AD was and is a different arena with 24 hours fighting capability. Today the AIM-120 is the universal weapon for F-16A too. (BE,NE,NO,DK…)
Cheaper to maintain is based by what?

Those were added later on, but all original F-16s didnt have Sparrow capability, which put early F-16As at a disadvantage at BVR against Mig-29As and M2KAs.

The M2K is a little cheaper and easier to service than the F-16. It’s not a real great margin, but it is cheaper and easier to service. Afterall, it is lighter, has less gas I think and of course

When it comes to F-16 vs M2K, in dogfights the M2K should take it at higher altitude, while F-16 at lower altitude, while at BVR they both should be equal.

The F-16s would’ve had a pretty hard time in dogfights against massed Mig-23s and Mig-21s, and not only that but they’d have problems at first in BVR against Mig-23s. The F-15 was available in such small numbers. When the Su-27 and Mig-29s came in large numbers, or any decent numbers, they’d have slaughtered the F-16s hands down in dogfights, because the F-16 simply had no BVR weapon, and as we all know well, the Mig-29s/Su-27s with HMS+R-73 would’ve slaughtered any F-16s in dogfights, especially Mig-29s.

It was such a mistake not to give F-16s Sparrows early on. Also you must remember that USSR had quite a few Mig-25s, Su-15s and others while Mig-31s were starting to enter service.

NATO not only had such a huge problem with being outnumbered, but their biggest problems was massed WARPACT bombers and interdictors flying over and bombing the crap out of NATO’s airfields and in process destroying everything on them and around them. In first few days of war, NATO would’ve been pretty much on it’s knees struggling, which would force it to go nuclear.

Cockpit visibility is starting to matter less and less. In the 3rd-4th generation is mattered less, since a Mig-29 with HMS+Archer and poorer visibility was still a better dogfighter than any F-16 which had much better visibility. Look now for ex the JSF, it’s cockpit visibility is rather poor.

5.5-6mn? thats still exensive. The much bigger Mi-17 doesnt even cost that much.