3.6 Billion wouldn’t get Belgium 34 of any new western fighter with support until 2030 with the extent of support stipulated. Will have to read through the RFP again but on the face of it, budget seems only sufficient for procurement, spares.

1950’s are tough because of the rapid technological advances (and rapid obsolescence) of propulsion, radar, weapons.
Going to stick with pure day fighters and split the ’50’s into two halves:

First half of the 1950’s:
Mig-15bis (pilot attrition due to spin characteristics would be a concern)
F-86E or F (relatively weak guns)

Second half of 1950’s:
Mig-19 (lack of missile armament is a knock)
Super Mystère (I may be overrating these due to Israeli combat performance)

It seems me that some of the intervention in this discussion ( notably the ones coming from the other side of Atlantic) suffer of a sort of mental block or almost doesn’t even read wht is written.
They seems to be always stuck to always the same point i.e. the overall precision of the weapon used, a point that was never raised up in the first place by others and cannot just get that the critics expressed are about STRATEGY ( they have approached air campaign against ISIS as it were against a conventional enemy luke Saddam Hussen + a sprinkle of drone strike like their were Osama Bin Laden hiding in a cave in Afghanistan) and TACTIC (they as a consequence use their tactical fighters in long range missions over fixed, predetermined targets instead to have them used as a support to ongoing land operations or to autonomously searching their own targets).

Given that they seems not able to shrug them off of this quasi-pavlovian mental habit, I call myself off giving that I have said all what I need to say and I thing that all those that have instead put their own mind on discussion have correctly understood the point I have tried to made.

It is difficult to see someone’s overall point when their post is littered with inaccuracies, from the very first post to the above about:
use of PGM
Accuracy of systems like SVP-24
Tactics and types of munitions used by coalition

Not to mention, I think many of us understood you perfectly. Your M.O. is to say negative things about U.S. equipment, tactics while praising that of Russia, then back off when called out for the errors and obvious issues with your post. Usually claiming you were misunderstood. Those that responded “from the other side of the Atlantic” understood your post perfectly, corrected the errors you stated and reject your overall point as absurd and bias.

Here is a perfect example of the inaccuracy of your statements:

TACTIC (they as a consequence use their tactical fighters in long range missions over fixed, predetermined targets instead to have them used as a support to ongoing land operations or to autonomously searching their own targets

Even the B-52’s operating over Syria carry a mix of GBU-54 (dual guidance) and GBU-31. Which means they can attack fixed targets and targets of opportunity as they appear. The US also shot out a large portion of their AGM-114 stocks, another fact that puts to lie your assessment of their operational tactics.

And again another time, repeat with me: even RuAF use guided weapons, even RuAF use guided weapons, even RuAF use…

…it but doesn’t like sat guided ones and neither SALH is on top of the list.

P.S. The numbers made by the same chief of Gefest are 5-6 meters in ideal conditions and a radius of twenty (Maximum, not CEP) as an average registered during the first two years of russian intervention. Exactly the ones I have reported earlier on #7150 in discorsive form.

And the issue is your repeating numbers that all false on face value. No, Gefest does NOT have a CEP of 5-6 meters…
Ever. (And you conveniently leave off that CEP of any digital bombing system is dependent on altitude, meaning a LOT of the figures listed are for lowest altitude and not necessarily a safe altitude for a particular bombs release for the parent aircraft)

With a large enough yield it does not matter, but…. it does when u have personnel on the ground within the blast radius. Look at the min safe distance for both aircraft and ground personnel for a bomb of different yields then stop repeating b.s. industry placard figures. IF Russia had a sufficient stockpile of Glonass guided bombs, that would be what they would be using, period.

Repeat after me, once an unguided bomb is dropped it is a dumb bomb which accuracy can be affected by hundreds of factors both atmospheric and release oriented which impact accuracy.

18k for gps, tail unit, etc. considering CPFH, it’s dumb NOT to bomb with guided weapons.