What next, the Navy F-4 record should be seperate from the USAF one because of their differences in the nose and reinforcement? Give it up
how come that ever western state praised it when they had the cance to fly it?
certainly because it is just such a bad airframe
if the Navy F4 didnt have a radar id say it wouldnt count into the record
lol
so if it was called F-8G (for ground attack) instead of A-7
it would also count into the loses of the F-8?
Isn’t this relative to the Su-27?
Irrelevant and false hypothetical
Mig -29 9.15 is still worse the contemporary flanker (90s su-35) in every way other than thrust to weight… they even got the same top speed on the deck
Genuinly read first before you try to answer me
I already deeply explained the design concept of the mig-29 and im not doing it again just cause your ADHD brain cant be bothered to read something longer than 200 symbols
It is very much relevant because that is what the Mig-23BN is
your reluctance to awnser that simple question shows how disingenuous you are
I don’t even think modern mig-29 has an esa radar ever in service, they all got n010 or a variation of it
idk if you count the MiG-35 as a MiG-29 (I definitly do, lol)
but the MiG-35s are supposed to have PESA as their standard and AESA as export options for buyers
(there are also airframes in the russian airforce with AESA)
Pesa Version:
I thought the mig-35 in service currently has n010 not a pesa/aesa, the pic u posted was a demonstrator mig 35
I read it, it’s the cheap heavily exported jet that was sold to many of the Soviet allies. It wasn’t a true air superiority fighter. Just like how the F-16 was the cheap heavily exported jet that was sold to many of the American allies. It also wasn’t a true air superiority fighter.
Neither was meant to be the peak of their respective countries
It didn’t happen because they are 2 different but very related aircraft and it is reflected in the naming
They (A-7 and MiG-23BN) have substantial differences in airframe and wing structure to make them more suitable for strike purposes over their fighter counterparts. Infact both of them have a lower top speed as well. The only standout is that the A-7 is now a subsonic aircraft.
Both Navy and AF phantoms are still performing largely the same roles. And the airframe differences between the two are nowhere near as extreme as they are on the MiG-23BN/A-7 compared to their fighter counterparts…
same for the Mig-23BN
it has a completly reinforeced airframe a different cockpit and a different nose
while having a weaker engine, no radar and with more hardpoints for carring bombs
stop being disingenuous and awnser the question with a yes or no
1 Like
The actual airframe and performance differences on the A-7 are far greater than MiG-27/23BN though
What dawg?
both are air superiority fighters.
But the Americans actually wanted Air superiority - that was their main goal of the F16A
The design was made to counter enemy Fighters.
The Soviets opted for a Air superiority fighter/interceptor design capable of getting CAS out of the sky.
The 29A had the capability to down opponents - but was primarly intended to minimize damage from CAS - not fight other Fighter aircraft
No, because the difference on the A-7/F-8G to F-8 is bigger than the one between MiG-23BN and MiG-23