as a matter of fact why dont you tell me whether hes a fighter pilot or just someone who works in the air force - the people who talked about scud being effective in the scud scandal were also from the military side yet werent the ones who operated the patriots in SA and talked sh*t
No, why dont you tell me XD? Can do this all day
2 Likes
so someone gives me a source and i ask them “who is this person” and i should have to explain it?
You dont know who Richardson is ?
2 Likes
for the sake of argument, lets say no. who is he?
cant answer?
No im just debating, weather or not Its worth arguing with a person who cant use google…
His company made the missiles… Himself was an engineer and worked on the phoenix…
2 Likes
source?
You are literally baiting dude…
1 Like
no im asking where did you read that his company made the missiles and that he was an engineer for the missiles? if you read it online you can easily give me the link
2 Likes
Will you keep asking me questions a simple google search can answer ?
2 Likes
yeah not a pilot and is someone who has a secondary gain and potent motivation for talking shit just as the people who talked about scud’s. oh how great the scud did except it didnt.
i remember when we had heckler koch atk and ios make xm25 and talk about how great it was in the brochure only to find out that the soldiers found their talks of capabilities non sense (literally bad)
no he wasnt a pilot, yes his company would benefit from him talking about how “great” and “awesome” the missile is in all of the sittuations in world. im sure the missile going mach 1.3 and being a flying brick is good maneuverability considering missile weight and impulse, even ignoring drag
if you consider that good then go ahead and go use the aim54 in dogfights. im sure that is very good and amazing and high maneuverability!
you can kill those targets flying straight at the missile at the minimum range. that is great maneuverability.
You are beyond “thick”. I already told you the context in which the word “dogfight” is being used, yet, you keep using it in a different context… You can keep strawmanning all you want, but the facts are these:
he said XYZ which you cant trust. Thats fair… But then, why do you trust other “hearsay” when it comes to other weapon systems that we have incomplete data for?
To this day, I have yet to watch an interview or read about a single pilot that said that the AIM-54 was not as advertised or failed to meet their expectations. In fact if I recall correctly, there were pilots that said that the missile worked beyond their expectations…
So where is your data ?? lmao
1 Like
Please leave. Nobody wants to prove you wrong multiple times over just for you to use fallacy to ignore the point. The Aim-54 has a minimum range of around 900m. That’s first.
Second, when they say dogfight they mean ranges within 19-9km. Within visual range. That’s why “ACM” (Air Combat Maneuvering) is named that way. Dogfighting is BFM. The Aim-54 is perfectly capable of operating withing 19-9km, and the 25G obviously explains why this is.
Bonus: The Aim-120 wasn’t incorporated into the F-14 fleet as a whole because the Aim-54 was more than enough for it’s operations at the time. There’s no reason to go that route if the Aim-54 was subpar as you seem to think.
4 Likes
He will ask you for a source for the 900m so you better be ready
2 Likes
I haven’t seen him post a single source but he wants us to do so. I’ll humble him again and he’ll have to pull some fallacy to keep the bait going…
1 Like
yeah im sure that referred to dogfight performance and nothing else
here, let me ask you a question: twice the minimum engagement range of aim-7. is that good maneuverability in dogfights to you? are you going to kill people in dogfights with that? your missile is incapable of killing people other than ones flying into the missile or flying in straight line below 10km
tell me, inability to kill competetive pilots at below 10km is good dogfight performance? that is what the person who sent the document is saying, that its good dogfight performance. thats what was in the document too.