posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:48 AM
I have to say that to be honest, I feel frustrated at the moment. I can see both the merits and downsides to both your arguments, you are from two
different nations each with a different way of viewing the other, those stereo types are hard to overcome but to be truthful and honest this tit for
tat combat is frustrating to the other members that have to read it.
This aircraft was one of the most advanced types ever produced, its title was pasted on as the F-22 entered service. This is one aircraft in the US
inventory that has actually seen combat in a “Standard” Battlefield.* The aircraft fought well, the only problem being that it fought in a foreign
nations air force, while this in no way degrades the types performance, I am a firm believer that the pilot makes up 60% of the aircrafts ability and
the US simply don’t have pilots with that type of combat experience.
Sadly in my opinion, while this is still a capable aircraft, the newer European Fighters and Russian Aircraft have the edge in regards to either dog
fighting ability, roles or in some cases weaponry. She will serve on in the US, Israel, Japan and Korea but she has been surpassed in nearly all
respects by the newer kids on the block, she a capable fighter, but do not expect her to keep her edge in combat against a well trained enemy.
* What I mean by the Standard battlefield is where the enemy airforce isn’t a single pilot with a beat up Mig.
Yeap you are correct in this respect, in combat most Russian aircraft have merely provided a turkey shoot. I do have some issues with this, the
Russian aircraft are less advanced in terms of avionics, but if you have noticed the trend lately, the Russians have been more than willing to
integrate French, Israeli and Chinese Avionics into their export production models. Vastly improving the models and their combat ability.
The reason of their failure in combat in my opinion, was the Pilots. They simply did not have the training or hours to successfully carry out their
roles, this does not mean that their aircraft are of a substandard construction. The aircraft I believe are a threat to any nation if they are crewed
by well trained pilots and employ new tactics, moving away from the Russian doctrine.
I honestly am on the fence with this one, most weapon systems have never been employed in combat, yet are viewed as the most capable weapon merely by
using data stolen, borrowed or guessed by the parent nation, the US Missiles sitting in the bunkers in the middle of the US, they have never been
tested in combat, yet they have been tested with out their payload, but from that data they are still assumed to be the best.
I would be careful to make snap judgements on Russian missile design, as their naval missile technology is quite advanced, some view the introduction
of the RAM defence system on US combat vessels as a reaction to the new missiles being sold by the Russians. I have little data on R-77 but the little
data that I do have draws a comparison with the early Sparrow [AIM-7] testing record, but the information is old.
I would again ask you to reserve judgement on Russian Missile technology until some new information is released to the public. Until then I ask as a
member that you mark any future comments that you make without backup data as your Opinion rather than hard fact.