Nope. My logic is not flawed. Entire Lavi went to China in 90s. AWACS deal only cancelled in late year 1999-2000. It is logical that Chinese had gleaned enough information in years before that. It was Russian who were delaying availability of IL-76 for AWACS conversion for 3 years alteast.

Yes, your logic is flawed. First off, the Lavi example is ludicrous, as it has never been conclusively proven that any airframe ever went to China, let alone a complete set of documents. Secondly, even if that was true, by the time China would’ve gotten ahold of either item, the Lavi was a dead project and was never to my knowledge integrated with the Python 4 anyway. So Lavi knowledge is completely irrelevant in the scope of the Python 4 argument.

When F-16E was chosen euro was only 80% of dollar value. now dollar is 60% of euro. more than 100% swing.

Oh, so now you admit that economic factors might be involved in defense transactions? Perhaps using the R-73 was cheaper than purchasing and integrating the Python 4.

Just because one nation buys a product does not in any way automatically infer that the product is superior to other comparable systems. There are many other factors that your statement of “If P4 was better than R-73. India/China would have bought it” does not take into account. If you were right that’d mean that the F-15 is superior to the EF-2000 as South Korea bought it.

Another guesswork from you.. 1.There was no major redesign of the airframe 2.NK-321 never was an option at that times, they came in much later in Tu-144LL. 3.The programme was not killed due to development cost, but due to OPERATIONAL cost (read fuel)

Um, there was a significant redesign. The prototype Tu-144, 68001, was considerably different and far less refined than the production Tu-144 and Tu-144D. The wing was altered, the nose was altered, canards were added, and the engine unit was split into two completely separate nacelles.

If P4 was better than R-73. India/China would have bought it in thousands like R-73. they bought alot stuff in 90s.

Did you ever think that perhaps they weren’t offered the Python 4 at that point? Or that they didn’t wish, at that point, to fund integration with their aircraft? American pressure might have precluded any Python 4 sale to China as well, as it did with the Phalcon AEW&C system. Your logic is completely flawed. Otherwise, the F-16 has to be a better aircraft than both the EF-2000 and Rafale as it was chosen by the UAE, right?

Russia used to carry a combination of IR and SARH guided missiles because they’d be ripple fired to increase kill probability due to the two different guidance methods. As to the rest of the R-27’s workings, let me dig something up.

The real issue here is the predominantly western view that if it isn’t the very best then it is not even worth having.

Well I for one am not buying that argument, just like I’m not buying the “Russia only exported monkey versions” argument. Even within the USAF we don’t necessarily view everything in our inventory as the best in the world. What really plays into the USAF’s favor is the quality of the training and maintenance/logistical support. That is what really plays into our favor in an air combat environment, moreso than any individual weapon system we choose to employ.

At the end of the day the C-5 must have a use or they wouldn’t have persisted with it.

Heavy lift of outsize cargo over long distances.

That doesn’t mean it is the best, just because the US uses it doens’t ergo prove it is the best available.

Perfectly true. We use the Super Hornet and not the Rafale-M, we still rely heavily on the AIM-9M rather than the R-73 or even the Python 4 (granted, the AIM-9X is moving along), we use the PATRIOT instead of…ok, yeah, that one is just way too freaking easy 😀

The real issue is that there is a Western stereotype that the Russians cannot produce high-quality military hardware. Anyone claiming such is obviously ignorant of the entire Russian SAM development program, for one, let alone the mere existance of the Su-27 airframe. This all came out of the fact that Russia/the USSR didn’t produce aircraft or other weapon systems on par with the Western offerings during most of the Cold War. True, the MiG-23 is not the F-4s equal, nor is the Su-24 the F-111s equal. But the ignorance stems from a lack of understanding of the requirements which drove the development of a lot of those aircraft. If Russia didn’t want an aircraft capable of matching the F-111 completely, then why is it considered a detriment that the Su-24 doesn’t match the Aardvark? That’s alright, armchair generals and magazine historians will still propagate their myths and ignorance even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. The rest of us will rest easy knowing the real story, laughing at their sometimes completely illogical attempts to paint Russia as some sort of technologically backwards society even today.

I mean just compare the M60 machine gun with the other major general purpose machineguns around the world… the PK, the FN MAG, the MG 3. The MG 3 is a slightly modified MG 42 from WWII and is still in service and is much better than an American M60. Even the FN MAG is better than the M60… a fact proven by the adoption of that weapon by the US to replace the M60 in many roles.

Dude we’ve had this conversation before…talking firearms mounted in your hand and not on your tank or aircraft is right over my head 😀

I really don’t see why the individual inferiority of the average F-15 over the Su-30 in the fighter role means the USAF needs more F-22s.

Because more advanced versions of those Su-30s are being exported. The Pentagon wants to trump up China as some big threat for whatever reason (probably to justify high levels of continued spending if you ask me) and based in part on those two factors, the USAF wants the F-22A in larger numbers to maintain technological superiority. Yes, we’ve already stated that there is a lot more to it than technology, but it does help, especially if you face an actually competent opponent.

The Vietnamese basically beat them by introducing pawns to the game board at the rate they were being taken off and the US was just tired of taking pawns and not being able to get to the king because half the time the king was completely hidden…

If the king was hidden it was due to American politics. Had we been allowed to wage the air war we wanted to, things might have been different.

Demolition Man. Hilarious, silly, obnoxious action and mayhem with Stallone, Snipes, and Denis Leary. One of my favorite movies for no other reason than it’s just completely hilarious to see what they’ve done to society in the future.

Weaponisation is now being taken with Pythons and R 77’s with the indigenous MMR or Elta 2032 to make sure that thunders fall from the sky….

Pythons? Out of curiosity, if they’re actually integrating and testing the Python, why are they always seen carrying R-60 or R-73 inert rounds?

Well, that’s not how a lot of posters on this forum were putting it – apparently it was only because the USSR would only export downgraded versions of the MiG-29 which prevented it from performing superbly over Iraq and Yugoslavia!

That ties back into what I was saying earlier. Pilot skill and operating environment can mean far more than paper statistics or characteristics. In the late ’60s, an F-4D beats a MiG-21 10 times out of 10 on paper due to its ability to engage targets with BVR weapons and a more advanced fire control system. But you could throw those paper characteristics right out of the window after seeing what happened over Vietnam! That’s an oversimplified example, but you get the idea I’m going after.

Garry did also mention that the laughable performance by FRY MiG-29s in the Balkans had a lot to do not with what systems the aircraft was delivered with, but the fact that maintenance and servicability issues within the AF meant that the MiG-29s were often operated (if not exclusively operated) without a working radar system.

Are you referring to the Shah of Iran’s F-14s?
Whatever alterations might have occurred to the AWG-9/AIM-54A on Iran’s Tomcats they were still probably the most sophisticated and lethal fighter aircraft in service in the world outside of the USA in the 1970s.

That’s but one example. A lot of internal systems and whatnot were always altered or deleted from US aircraft for export. So I guess the people who insist that the Russians only sold inferior “monkey versions”, an asinine proposition if they wanted to continue selling aircraft anyway, would have to maintain that the USA did the same thing.

They were certainly miles ahead of Saddam’s export spec MiG-23s and their crappy MiG-21 avionics…

Which is besides the point, really…

No, it’s the ‘quantity versus quality game’ I’m playing.:D

But you’re not, really, because you’re only looking at the paper characteristics and not the entire picture!

Well it certainly looks like that, but what reasons do you think provoked Aeroflot to drop the Tu-144?:confused:

Cost was one factor. Politics was another. By the time the definitive Tu-144D was ready for service, Aeroflot had moved on and dropped the Tu-144 from its schedule. It had become a political item more than a serious program as the lack of Concorde sales killed off any prospect of operating the Tu-144 outside Soviet airspace on reciprocal routing. Restricting the aircraft to internal service, especially during the fuel crisis of the late 70s, drove operating costs up. It made a handful of passenger flights before being yanked after the first Tu-144D crashed due to an internal fire, and it never got back into service in either form. Surviving Tu-144Ds performed various flight test functions in the 1980s and were basically inactive until the Tu-144LL program around the turn of the century, which was the last time a Tu-144 took to the air, signalling the end of a once promising and historically significant aircraft program.

Serviceable as in aircraft that fly on a regular basis, like USAF C-5s, as apposed to aircraft that don’t, like RuAF An-124s!

I bet if we compared Volga-Dnepr or any other carrier operating the An-124’s operating record with that of your average C-5 squadron, your story would change. The C-5 is a notoriously maintenance intensive and problematic aircraft to operate, and that’s when it flys!