Im simply asking questions and trying to have proper discussion.
Thats all.
1 Like
I forget you do that :)
Thats a good thing. Catch you later.
1 Like
True.
Considering that modern engagements are built on BVR, I would say that super maneuverability is more like a gimmick.
Yes, but like I said previously, in war you always prepare for the worst. This is true in life as well. :)
That is exactly they the Navy has Top Gun & USAF Weapon School.
These are graduate level programs to prepare you for when it all goes wrong & you are face to face with 4th or 5th generation supermaneuverable Russian or Chinese fighters in close quarters.
Because in war things will always go inevitably wrong in one way or another. It’s a natural phenomenon & unavoidable. It has a literal name.
The Fog of War.
Good luck with that one
Just type this into Google without the quotes
“filetype:pdf Supermaneuverability”
You’ll notice most studies annotate that it isn’t particularly useful and where it is useful - in a merge, it is solely useful as a form of defense against modern missiles and not as an offensive tactic. Even so, the latest missiles tend to make any physical evasion techniques redundant.
Ofc, having a ability that can give you an advantage in right situations is always nice.
Its just not everyone agrees with that, thats all.
1 Like
Making the fighter much more complex at the expense of reliability, cost, and performance in other areas for an extremely niche benefit is detrimental.
In any case, in a dogfight, you won’t be able to fire a missile at close range because the fragments will hit your own plane.So here supermaneuverability has a clear advantage
2 Likes
That is why Us AirForce decided not to adopt TVC+Canard design for F-15.
1 Like
Visibility was nonexistent over the wing and above too. You need to see your wings & pylons for weapon deployment issues & battle damage assessment.
Another reason.
1 Like
This is where he always gets so close but misses the mark. Pride is the enemy & distorts your sound judgement.
Of course, this is absolutely correct. For the F-15. However, If supermaneuvrability only offered an extremely niche benefit…
Why are the F-22, Su-57 & J-20B operators spending the very costly service & maintenance on them every flight hour??
Because it is much more than a niche benefit.
The benefits outweigh the cost & there is more to it than what Google, or American propaganda tells you.
This isn’t true, modern IR missiles have smaller fragmentation and more precision, directional warheads, etc.
You can’t speak from a trojan high horse when you aren’t learned on the subject. Quit trying to speak from some sense of superiority until you provide sources as some foundation for your tall tales.
they definitely do not have a directional warhead. Second, if you look at the development of missiles. Then the melee missiles only added weight and power to the warhead
2 Likes
I very much would like this community & platform to be the one the few that seeks out a truth together. Rather fall into propaganda and split off to a hyper polarized side of one vs the other.
If we can begin to generate investigations in to technologies & doctrines without declaring one is useless because a F-16 pilot (of course he would) say its a useless tactic & technology.
Trojan high horse is an odd one but I like it. Usually, the enemy sits within the horse to be a Trojan Horse.
What sources? You need Russian pilots saying the capability is useful? Or American? Pick.
Directional warheads are a feature of most gen5 missiles.
Then post sources and stop making stuff up
The Supermaneuvrability is useful? Even when I post sources you do not even read them…
What source do you need? A Russian pilot saying its useful? Or American?
Do you need me to provide official VKS Weapons & Tactics doctrine? Probably a little illegal & hard to find…
Are missiles with thrust vectoring better in close quarters?
Why wouldn’t aircraft with TVC?
The dimensions of the air-to-air missiles do not allow this to be done
1 Like