That’s just flat out out false. 50 year old designs are still better than anything any other nation on the planet has.
My point proven
1 Like
SR-71 still beats everything else in speed, and it’s over 60 years old
Not relevant to literally anything
A 50+ year old design, is still better than anything anyone else has. So his original point is true.
2nd person today to prove exactly what my point is saying.
Get your head out of the sand
Find me a non-American jet capable of sustained mach 3+ flight
Not relevant again, never said there was too. You’re only here because “muh USA haz tu be numba 1”.
1 Like
Not too related but I won’t forgive or forget RedEffect’s actual garbage and ignorant video on the Leclerc
That being said, he’s an awful source yes I agree
someone carrying out air defense with a multirole aircraft does not make the multirole aircraft an air defense fighter it’s still a multirole aircraft performing one of the many missions it can
in the end it can do offensive, defensive, against air or ground regardless of how any specific unit uses the aircraft
limited strike capability does not make the jet a multirole aircraft because in the end the design purpose of the aircraft variant was designed to do air superiority and not to be a multirole fighter, that is why they are air superiortiy and aircraft variants designed in multirole are instead multirole fighters instead of air defense fighters or cap or whatever, you don’t name the purpose of the aircraft after how every unit uses it because then the same aircraft would be called “ground strike aircraft” “cap aircraft” “sead/dead aircraft”, and this doesn’t really work
su-35 was designed as multirole, it can perform full capability air defense, or offensive air supremacy and was also designed to perform full capability air to ground missions
But we ARE #1 in high speed, high altitude, manned sustained flight
1 Like
because there is no point in developping these anymore
It would be like saying the brits still hold the record for the fastest steam train, or the US having the largest roads. It’s bigger and on the paper better, but not necessarily the most efficient and dare i say not even useful
If we compare apples to apples, i think we can agree that a Sabre doesn’t get any chance against any fighter that entered service in any other nation’s air forces in the 2000s (50 years older design, as Pangolin was implying)
2 Likes
Stealthflanker’s simulations are generally on a ±60 degree horizontal arc, ±20 degree vertical arc, if that’s what you are looking for. The F16 he did was an A model, no RAM. Median 0.9m^2, average 1.79m^2. Sometimes we find a 1.2m^2 figure for some F16 versions, it’s not too different to that. He did note there’s a spike of 10m^2 and a 0.46m^2 angle as well.
As for the SU35, BBCRF, you weren’t the only one that commented on that. Basically, he justified it by saying the SU35 had major overhauls on its skin, redesigned access hatches for reduced gaps and better alignment, conductive canopy, FSS radome, inlet treatment, etc., while some older simulations had old RAM that he did not update (Rafale).
Finally, he did a KF21 block III prediction some days ago. Basically the whole plane is either RAS or RAM covered, with a flat belly, and faceted EOTS. Claimed a “72% reduction in RCS”, as far as I see in the new graph… it didn’t change much:
2 Likes
Sure, but modernized variants of the UH-1 are still fairly prevalent, same with F-15 which can still compete against other 4.5 gen
except there isn’t 50 years between the introduction of f-15 and 4.5th gen, is there ?
2 Likes
But the F-15 is a 50 year old design. The comparison was between now and 50yr ago , nothing else
that’s a quite dishonest comparison to be fair
you compare the date “still in service” with the date of introduction
not to mention : F-15a of the 1970s wouldn’t have any chance against any 4.5th gen running around in 2025
the only f-15 that can hold a candle to 4.5 gen would maybe be the EX, which did not exist in the 70s, so the affirmation “US tech is 50 years ahead of everyone else” is simply incorrect
2 Likes
Ain’t this kind of irrelevant when the need for these kinds of aircraft are no longer there?
2 Likes
Still makes us ahead of everyone else in speed, with a design over 60 years old
Yes because no one is actively making one, ergo irrelevant. It’s like saying the Russians has the best Supersonic strategic bomber, when they’re the only one that has it
(yes B-1 exist, but their role as strategic bombers has been canned)
3 Likes