IMHO F-16, then F-8 Crusader.
that is always a possibility. I also found one from the other side:
a different number and paint job!!My guess is that a PSed roundel would not be a low vis one but a normal one.
edit;found more pics
I’m the one who photoshopped 212…
Y-8 would be very good for Thailand
Y?
What’s the P-3 carrying? Mines?
They’re probably more effective, except where cost is concerned. However, if high-flying, precision-guided strikes are more survivable than low-flying CAS aircraft, there’s a cost benefit there as well.
I like all kinds of aircraft. When I was a kid, it was the F-16. The movie “Iron Eagle” was, and probably still is, one of my favorites. Now, I like the former-Soviet Cold War era fighters like the MiG-21 and the MiG-29. They’re not as good as their Western counterparts, but they did the job, and when in the hands of a skilled pilot, were dangerous.
I think it still depends on the person in the cockpit, and whomever sees the other first. F-15 is old, but one hell of an air defense fighter. That would be my mount of choice.
Interesting. I’d figure them for Super Tucano operators.
Japan is not going to buy the PAK-FA (T-50). They have the F-35A on order and they’re working on the F-3. Even though the F-3 is a test aircraft, it could easily evolve into a production type.
The Su-33 is capable of STOBAR operations. No Eagle variant can do anything similar.
What about the Super Hornet? It may not exactly match the Su-33 in size, but it is certainly not the lighter F/A-18A/C.
The MiG-21bis could be configured to carry a dual R-60 launch setup on the outer stations with a K-13 on the inboard stations with the usual tank on the centerline station. The MiG-21bis was much cheaper to operate for former-Eastern-bloc countries until better options or requirements for NATO compatibility became apparent. Aerostar and IAI had upgrade programs for the MiG-21 in the 90s, but they never really took off aside from the Lancers in Romania. MiG came out with the MiG-21-93 which evolved into the Bison for India, which turned out to be a nice upgrade.
I think the Typhoons will be stretched as far as possible. They’re relatively new, and very capable compared to what the Russians will field in the next ten years. I don’t see every fulcrum and flanker being replaced by the T-50 within that time span. Additional, newer, capability can be added with nEUROn, or maybe even Gripen E if a low-cost, manned solution is required.
The post(Freehand@)
What made no sense about it?
Without really getting into an us vs. them debate, the West doesn’t seem to need a “Flanker-sized” aircraft. It already has one, the F-15. The F-15 is 9′ shorter than the Su-27, 6′ shorter in the wings, and 1′ shorter in height. The F-15C can carry a heavier combat load than the Su-27 by almost 1,000lbs. The eagle also has a higher max. takeoff weight too. The Su-34 is too dedicated to the air-to-ground role. It has a similar combat radius to the F-15E. They both can carry their own weight in stores, but the F-15E has an advantage, the bubble canopy. I’m not sure if anyone here has ever sat in an F-15, I have (and I don’t fit – too tall), but one doesn’t sit in the aircraft, they sit on it. Visibility in all directions is great from the F-15’s cockpit. The Su-34 crew has very little option to see behind them. In a turning dogfight, you need to see behind you. F/A-18E/Fs recently intercepted Russian Su-34s in the Syrian area of battle, eschewing the very real possibility of an engagement occurring. IMHO, the F/A-18E/F, a very underrated aircraft, would have had no problems dealing with the Fullback.
won’t happen. strong pro-israel lobby in US politics. significant segment of Americans who believe it is their religious duty to prevent the fall of Israel.
I know. I just don’t get it.