McDonnell Douglas F-15 STOL/MTD - Wikipedia
The development and testing of the AL-31FP was completed in 1994 (1988-1994)…
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
2 Likes
Are you?
iirc TrickZZter is above Smin
No, he isn’t.
I am not the one declaring a military capability is useless & a gimmick.
:)
Is that so, so what is position? Headmaster Community Manager++ ?
:)
Lol this dude is bothered because he got caught misrepresenting facts once again. Just relax, making all kind of rather disrespectful statements to the staff & program.
But you are the one who claims the opposite without any solid experience and evidence.
The strange thing is, if you’re not a pilot, why are you pretending to be one?
I follow what the Airforce’s of each nation say & monitor their actions. Not following propaganda. The Entire Russian Airforce says it. Americans say it (outside of propaganda) they use it. The Chinese use it.
How do I act like one? Reciting research, history, design trends??
You are making it sound like I am telling people what is useless or not. :)
The aircraft all discussed are supermaneuverable. the burden of proof is on those who say it’s useless in dogfights. Its very silly you guys are going this route & are so certain. You must be fighter pilots, right?
F-22, Su-57 & J-20B are supermaneuverable why?
Would you like to share those source?
Not telling but rather claiming.
Su-37/35, F-15 NASA and similar aircraft are also super maneuverable but that doesn’t prove your point.
Supermaneuverability is nice and can give you an advantage in the right situations, but that doesn’t mean it will always give you a clear advantage.
1 Like
I go to work lil bruh. Ask @BBCRF or any other Flanker fan.
I know you just got up so ready to go etc. But later ok?
Yes you are right.Supermaneuverability gives an advantage.But it is not omnipotent and useless at supersonic speeds
3 Likes
I agree! Why are you getting at me all sideways then?
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