1982?
1991 and 1999 are indeed less useful.

1982 seems great compared with the 1991 campaign because the fantabulous Israel progaganda machine, in the 1991 campaign you have more acurate data

But even israel generals have claimed that the Syrian pilots were not very good trained, like that quote about the mig-25, not counting that the f-15 radar+ sparrow was far better than mig-23’s with mig-21 radar+short range aa-8/2, i dont know if AA-7’s were deployed widely, but i have read about f-15’s hit by aa-8’s and aa-6’s and returned to base

MFI is double engined 🙂 . The exhaust is circular, not “flat”. THere is a lateral projection also ….
P.S. Nobody can be sure that the real LFI really looks like that

I think some Mig spokesmen have said the would use the 1.42 configuration as a base for an eventual 5th gen plane, so i doubt higly any accuracy on these speculations

The only “point” I was making is that here’s a RAF pilot who’s flown the F-22 and he’s saying “it’s the best”. Not “one of the best” but the best. And at the time he was being interviewed Typhoons had already been to Nellis so the notion that Typhoons have whipped the F-22s as Jwcooks “source” would have us believe would seem to be BS.

Seriously , i have read countless claims from pilots, that just some years later have been complete baffling

The guy in the video try to be educated and polite with the USAF, is not a hard claim, is not that you go in a public video and say “but the typhoon is better ins this and that” -even if he has piloted an EF-, i know you sferrin and scotter in your wiked reality believe in that…but that is not the real deal

But yes, i think the F-22 overall is better than the Typhoon, so this is not new

Only fanboys could take that video as a serious source of info, just take a look of all the fanfare of the claims about “dumb TVC’s”, “evil french”, “israel supreme radars” -bet if he would have known if were russian, he would have never said that, and im pretty sure pilots know what is the difference between radars and ECM’s…- done by that pilot about the Red Flag excersices, of course for you that guy must be God..

The main difference between the B-1 and the 160, is that the 160 is a successful project…

The b-1A failed, (blame polititians again, is never the fault of our beloved weapon dealers and engineers :D), the b-1b was resurrected as a low level (subsonic) penetrator, but with a supersonic airframe! overweighted VG design with a max speed well into transonic regime, instead to designing a REAL low level airframe, in this one you can really blame the polititians…and weapon dealers, anyway all happy..so it must be a superb design 😉

If the tornado would have been designed just as low level penetrator, the airframe would have looked like the buccaner….

So the B-1b is a tu-160 wannabe

Another thing is that there is a paradox actually, the main threat of low level penetration (asides of the larger range AAM, granted due the difference of heigh), are the manpads/mobile sams, things that are not taken out in the first nuclear interchange

In a intercontinental war keeping high, keeping fast is safier than low and slow, in the GW that was clear, i will put an analogy with a nuclear war, the Apaches were the nukes taking ground station radars (funny , the f-117’s were not :)), and the f-15’s/18’s, and all the party running in the blind area asre the Tu-160’s, meanwhile the B-1’s using low level penetration will find more problems (like the Tornados).

BTW, neither Awacs or Mig-31 will cover all the airpace, there will be always blind zones , specially if you take out the ground radars, the problem with airborn radars is that they are always moving so in a big area, there will always gaps, that should be the reason of the “undetected” blackjack operations i don’t think it has something to do with any RCS real improvement (if we discart the plasma theory, i thought the russians abanddoned it, but looking on other russian tech/radar developments, i think i was wrong)

All airborne startegic plattaform are not meant as pre-emptive attackers (yes even the B-2), but airplanes are important because if you rely a lot on SLBM’s, you will face some problems, positioning and navigation of the SSBN’s on a complete isolation is still pretty hard, and not an exact science, subs can turn in not so secure plattforms (SSN’s and communication jamming), bombers offer a better counter against a first strike (they will survive for sure), and better plattaforms for hunting mobile ICBM’s

Anyway, Big OffTopic

Same reason they had to have the biggest helicopter, biggest cargo aircraft, biggest rocket, biggest submarine. They like to wave it around, even though the rest of the world sees it for what it is and is sniggering behind their hands at them.

Is not adorable?, she never gets tired of her constant trolling 😀

Happy New Year to all, BTW

I think time is running out for manned aircraft, F-35 is almost guaranteed to be the last western combat aircraft. UCAV’s are not quite yet there tho, so it won’t be obsolete for some years.
What makes much less sense, in fact no sense at all, is why Russia continue to wannabe second in everything USA does!
If they just for once could take the lead instead by bypassing PAK-FA and go straight to UCAV. It must be a mental follow john thing that keeps them second.

I think you are a bit overoptimist about the UAV claim, there is not any UAV project prototype arround on the 20-14 tons weight field, nor a supersonic UAV around

The true is that in theory you can design a f-35 remove the cockpit and instead put more electronics for UAV use, and everything will be fine no? you get the F-35 uav

The true is that for long range communications, the time delay is too much(GOD TOO MUCH!) to consider a fighter UAV, the guy in the ground station will have a 5-10 seconds of information delay against a pilot in his plane, that will be increased more and more adding range

UAV’s will work nicely for pre-programmed missions, but will be a mess for air control, or facing competent enemies

No sir UAV’s doent have that bright future

Russia can clearly do what it wants. Yet, there is a price for everything…..maybe you should considering do a little growing up yourself.:eek:

As for the PAK-FA being more like the YF-23. Please, provide a source!

Which price?, the Haya court will demand medeleyev (or however is named) because he attempted the human rights of the keypublishing forumers?, come on , are you kidding, right?…..right?! 😀

About the f-23/su-27 is just a speculation, nothing more, this thread is about it and some interesting news -thanks for some members-, dont get the big fuss of RSM..neither the yours..

I dont get why all the mess, is clear there is something in some russian hangars waiting to be tested, i was one of the biggest skeptics about the russian 5th gen, the things are a lot more clearer right now.

Russians have all the right to keept it as secret, why all the mess? ppl talking about “open societies” about a high tech military project? grow up….

Stealthy Flanker = close to F-23, i think the “more like F-23” design was clear fro the start -guess i made some comments about that a long time ago-, and since is a lighter aircraft i think they have more freedom to choose the wing design, anyway time will tell

Yes such as when a missile is fired outside its envelope against an supersonic + agile fighter. Thats not when a missile is fired within its NEZ – which is the situation I am trying to describe.

NEZ has more to do with the range / geometry travelled, wondering if you are considering time and exactly position in that graphic