First a B-2, now this. Is it age that’s starting to take it’s toll?

So by that answer i detect not only your a bit drunk, lolz, but also that you have no real clue or idea as to why it wasn’t plausable. lol

Hehe. Precisely. What I’m doing is screwing with you since you took my silly little Area 51 joke seriously. I wasn’t serious to start; I sure as hell aint serious now. 😉

As plausible as all the aliens, reptilians, shadow governments and UFOs partying in Area 51 as we speak. :diablo:

As far as I know, the USSR/Ruskies didn’t give official names to their jets other than their designators. I think the Su-47 “Berkut” was somewhat of an exception though.

Even though you didn’t ask, I believe the Su-27 was nicknamed the “crane” and fulcrums were called, well, fulcrums in Russian service. Apparently their crews though the name to be rather fitting. A quick wikitarded browse calls the Bison the “Molot” or Hammer (not sure if it was official or not), and the Tu-160 was nicknamed the “White Swan.”

the MiG-27 with AL-31F-30 will be able to fly at 200 knots without stalling as compared to 400 knots

I dun know ’bout you, but I would hate to fly ANY plane that stalls at 400 knots.

Can you imagine the pucker factor landing at four hundred knots? Gives the term “high speed taxi” a whole new meaning.

^^ Well isnt there a single seat Yak-130 on the drawing boards?

Wouldn’t they be better off getting, say, the Su-25 for example, which would be better suited for the intended role? Even that jet would be able to shoot down any aircraft the LTTE would be likely to use if at all (Cessnas and what have you, I presume?).

As I see it the reasoning behind Boeing pushing the Super Hornet (new toy on the block reasoning aside) is the desire to ultimately drive down the procurement cost of the aircraft by securing foreign orders. By doing that then the chances of the USN acquiring more Super Hornets increases, coupled with the sky rocketing cost of the F-35 and continued delays in the F-35 project and it doesn’t take Washington insider to see what Boeing is playing at.

Ergo, it stands to reason that Boeing would gain little more than the money involved in a small foreign sale of the Strike Eagle as the USAF is not in the market to acquire any more Strike Eagles. Thus far of course the only signed Super Hornet deal is the 24 plane purchase by the RAAF to replace the soon to be retired F-111. The irony of course is that one can argue that the Strike Eagle especially one equipped with an AESA radar and the F110 engine is a more suitable replacement for the F-111 than the Super Hornet.

So, if what you say is true (which makes a lot of sense btw):

Boeing is actively selling it’s customers a less-capable but shinier jet instead of a more-capable and better-suited jet, just to line it’s pocketbook in the long run, all while possibly compromising the capabilities (and safety) of the customer?

I know I’m going to unnecessary extremes with my thinking here but, Dammit to Hell!!! 😡