well man, that was discussed before

i will put you in simple terms, seahawk, if the missile must climb to 10-13km to reach the target, the combat radius is lower at 5-3km, now, with all those sistems near to the border line, its simply stupid attack at low level (obviulsy for not specializated machines).

the mig23 was an much better machine that the f4 in maneuverability terms, the f15a wasnt so good (but it had an respected 7gs corner speed at low level), but at height that plane was penalized by the high bypass turbofans and huge wing area with low aspect,at maneuvres it lost apreciated energy -very aprecciated at heigh if you dont want lost altitude- (in fact the f14 was always considered better at such environment), theres not doubt that the f15c was much better, im not saying that the mig23 was more advanced than the f15s, the eagles have a good design with some problems, but the 23s can make an good use of those problems

the theoric antimatter engine only could be practical on very,very long range space ship, the main problem in such travels are the cuantify of “fuel” that you need (even if you use cessium ions), obviusly with few grams of positrons you wont need a monster reactor or accelerator, but an persistent ionic engine could be better to an alpha centaury travel (but you will need an bigger ship), also the positron rocket couldnt be very efficient, if you want to “burn” directly, you will need an super reflector, but high frecuency photon lose energy easier, the scientifics are working on some uncertainly quantum concepts (the famous antigravity, that isnt antigrav -only an popular name) those concepts could be more interesting, for an aircraft, i think that we could only expect some kind of tokamak fusion reactor, but we must wait at least 100 years.

i think that some guys have satanised the tailess delta concept, that configuration reborned with the unstable design, and is maybe the best for CCV-unstable planes.

now, there are other examples of aerodynamics configurations for 4th generation planes, like the use of relative high aspect trapezoid wings with LEX or the use of lift body fuselage, etc…

well, i think that we must acept that the M2000 airframe is basically an 3-2th generation airframe, but such configuration appeared again with fbw and specially unstable design (that is an aerodynamic 4th generation concept)

“Sorry”, I was wrong about that, would have been enough from you.

comon sens, look , im not an complicated guy, we arent here to fight each to another, i dont understand why you take this very personal

to have an sparrow charge capacity doesnt mean that the plane have an truly bvr sistem, is like to say that the mig21bison is a bvr combat fighter,anyway i havent see many f16 with sparrow, maybe that was modified for later adaptations, i think that was a modification for the national guard