First of all, that is not a developer.
He is also not a legal representative of Gaijin Entertainment.
Second, he is not a Russian pilot.
He has no authority to dictate what is useful or not in the fine arts of taking another’s life behind the controls of a fixed wing aircraft.
Third, no one is referring to cobra usefulness in my previous post. If you like, we can discuss the advantages & disadvantage of such maneuvers?
The Americans discovered such advantages during experimental evaluations of captured Chinese F-7s (J-7) over the Nevada desert in mock dogfights. Though they could not cobra, they had the ability to rapidly decelerate with simultaneous use of their flaps & airbrake inducing a rapid nose up & increase of elevation when chased in close quarters by American test pilots.
You do not understand that in aerial close quarter combat, situational awareness drops dramatically. You have no idea how stressful it is on the mind. Visibility is reduced in the helmet & cockpit. The body is under constant positive & negative G forces. Your eyes are constantly adjusting to keep track of a small object that skims across the open sky & skips across the earth with its background behind it.
Aircraft are intentionally painted low visibility colors to deceive the eyes. You can blink & your opponent is completely gone. You can look down at your instruments for a spit second & by the time you look up your opponent is no longer in the place you anticipated.
Supermaneuvrability can reset the entire momentum of a dogfight. You are hyper fixated on American propaganda.
The biggest lie & cope is that you actually believe Americans when they say supermaneuvrability is not useful, but at the same time it is a requirement for their US exclusive 5th & 6th Generation Air Superiority fighters.
Oh, please, they’re all evil. Look, you take what’s good for you from the text and ignore the rest. The point isn’t what you’re forcing on people. The point of supermaneuverability is that it’s not the ultimate win, it can be beaten. So why are you still standing on it like a little boy? I’m sorry, but you’re too offensive.
I believe I am the only Flanker & Fulcrum fan that generates awareness regarding its poor radar capabilities & the R-27ER’s overperformance.
How is this evident of a blind fanboy? How is this evident of a biased thinking?
No one said this.
A perfect example of an ability to defeat Supermaneuverable aircraft is the F-16. It has one of the most powerful fly-by wire systems in the world that are constantly performing mass calculations many times a second for the most energy effective inputs in control.
However, it too is not perfect. It will not allow the pilot to dump his energy to achieve what would be an easy kill. Rather you must continue to wait & stand-by until you are effectively behind the opponent at an airspeed the F-16 determines optimal & “safe”.
You are not flying the F-16 but merely telling it what to do.
The Greatest Supersonic Ace, an “Ace of Aces” said this. Giora Epstein of the IAF (Israel).
The F/A-18 is more restricted by the fly-by wire because it has poor thrust to weight & had been substantially downgraded from the Air Force’s YF-17 to make it carrier capable. It was exclusively a strike aircraft most of its life, variants (A-D) until the Tomcat stood down & retired. The F/A-18 is not even worthy of a full (F) Fighter designation.
The US aircraft that is most optimal to defeat the Flanker in close quarters is the F-15 Eagle & the F-22 Raptor. At range, the F-14 Tomcat & F-22 Raptor.
These are purebred Air Superiority Fighters. Just like the Flanker. Their first & foremost design objective & entire reason they exist is killing other fighters & bombers.
Note: F-14 Tomcat is an Air Superiority platform. “Fleet defense” against Soviet strategic bombers is no different than the PVO Su-27’s role of territorial defense against American strategic bombers.
No one standing on it like a boy.
You are the one that is getting offended by praise of the Su-27 in the Su-27 thread.
This has more benefit than just some super maneuverability gimmick. It is a good way to improve minimum takeoff and landing distance, which is very important in ACE applications
Does the F-22 look like it needs short takeoff and landing??? Does the US Airforce look like it has a runway distance problem???
Where in your mind would the Americans decide that the F-22 needs STOL capabilities, over an ability to dogfight against Russian 4th & 5th Generation fighters?
Why would the Americans waste money on thrust vectoring capability for an aircraft that does not need short takeoff and landings? Do you know how much it cost to maintain such a specialized capability?
Yes, thrust vectoring has benefits outside of air to air combat. But it is not the reason why the F-22 has them.
I swear to God these dudes look for any reason to avoid the truth. Even the most absurd.
There is no such concept that exist in US doctrine where war would take place & a need for STOL capability in their most advanced fighter. Nuclear war would take place long before that requirement is ever needed.
If the US Airforce cannot afford to construct or maintain a simple runway for the F-22. It cannot afford to fly & maintain the F-22 in the first place. The F-22 requires an immense amount of service and maintenance, beyond your comprehension.
There are 3 capabilities why the F-22 Raptor is banned by American law for export.
Its Radar
Its Stealth properties & aerodynamics.
Its Engine & Thrust vectoring capabilities.
The US holds supermaneuvrability & the best to itself. It does not sell supermaneuverable aircraft.
The Americans will tell you its a “gimmick” & it’s “useless” in aerial combat & then sell your country lesser F-35s. Propaganda, my boy. Beware of it.
Are you blind? That is literally what A.C.E. is! And I didn’t say STOL, I said shortened takeoff distance. Reducing takeoff and landing roll by 1/2 or even just 1/3 significantly increases the number of alternative locations you can conduct operations.
I also didn’t say anything about the F-22, the YF-23 didn’t have TVC and was the better design.
Wait, how short are you trying to land and take off? How short does the takeoff off & landing of the F-22 need to be that it would necessitate a need for thrust vectoring capability? Again Junior, do you know how much it cost to maintain TVC?
You know you are coping for any reason to lie to yourself that supermaneuvrability is a gimmick.
When have I ever specified the F-22? The only one I referred to was 6th Gen/NGAD as it’s the only one being designed since ACEs introduction.
How short? Any reduction increases the flexibility with which aircraft can be dispersed. Even if it’s still 2/3s the length of without that is a significant benefit.