We do tend to lose perspective when we think of "now" as "cutting edge" because the truth is every moment is either cutting edge or compromise.
The suits in every tech age think they've suddenly revolutionised needing to have at least a clue about air combat before they tell pilots what they can and can't have to work with. Look at the F4 and guns. Every age has the same drips thinking they know best for everyone and hiding behind some new technology to say it. People never change. The new age is AI pilotless aircraft? What trash, they thought that in 1917 ffs. Every generation thinks that. The day of the fighter is over, bombers are in. In 1940 an Italian pilot is upset because monoplanes sacrifice pilot skill for speed. In 1950 fighters don't need to be flyable under Mach 1 anymore (shame about landing accidents). In 1960 aerial marksmanship is a thing of the past. In 1970 doing Mach 3 is beneficial. All of these examples are soap opera.
Consider the US introduced teen series composite fighters in the 70s and updated them in the 80s whilst the Soviets updated their 60s designs, the Soviets introduced new fighters in the 80s, so the US does another update on their 70s designs and starts projects on their replacements, on it goes. The same premises are brought up every new paradigm shift, because it isn't a paradigm shift it's a repetitive system, robots were going to take over the world in the 50s, the 70s, of course every time a wow sparkly new tech refinement is introduced those evil robots are going to take over again.
So this all makes the thread more about perspective than technology. Do you prefer the Block 30 Viper to the Block 50 for example, pilots remark the Block 30 as delivering the best control translation. But the Block 50 takes down contemporary enemy a/c easier. The 30 feels nicer but the 50 does move harder.
Still the USAF training centre (some docs at the F-16net site) remarks the Fulcrum actually has some advantages over Vipers because being inherently stable the pilot has the option to switch off the safety control system. It can beat Viper AoA limiters by doing this and come around on one for Archer snapshots at impossible moments. The Luftwaffe did this all the time in NATO training, Block 50 Vipers just plain couldn't beat them in BFM but the Vipers actually return much higher airframe performance figures like av-airspeed, etc. The Viper a higher performing plane like a Ferrari compared to a Ford.
Yet at the same time at least the Viper b.50 has distinct advantages over the Fulcrum in terms of outright performance and airframe strength. The b.30 is rated as equivalent to the Fulcrum on those points and combat successes would come down to pilot skill alone, but Fulcrum pilots on average must work harder to achieve the same BFM results (poor cockpit view, unreliable airframe strength, old school ergonomics and pilot equipment).
The Russians are like that, they prefer workmanlike to luxurious. Luxurious doesn't survive its first Russian winter.
Some people are like that, they prefer workmanlike to luxurious too.
And all this avionics bizzo, in fighter pilot terms if you ask me, as a mere commentator but still, it's luxury. A fighter pilot will fire an air rifle from a Wright Flyer if he has to.
The suits in every tech age think they've suddenly revolutionised needing to have at least a clue about air combat before they tell pilots what they can and can't have to work with. Look at the F4 and guns. Every age has the same drips thinking they know best for everyone and hiding behind some new technology to say it. People never change. The new age is AI pilotless aircraft? What trash, they thought that in 1917 ffs. Every generation thinks that. The day of the fighter is over, bombers are in. In 1940 an Italian pilot is upset because monoplanes sacrifice pilot skill for speed. In 1950 fighters don't need to be flyable under Mach 1 anymore (shame about landing accidents). In 1960 aerial marksmanship is a thing of the past. In 1970 doing Mach 3 is beneficial. All of these examples are soap opera.
Consider the US introduced teen series composite fighters in the 70s and updated them in the 80s whilst the Soviets updated their 60s designs, the Soviets introduced new fighters in the 80s, so the US does another update on their 70s designs and starts projects on their replacements, on it goes. The same premises are brought up every new paradigm shift, because it isn't a paradigm shift it's a repetitive system, robots were going to take over the world in the 50s, the 70s, of course every time a wow sparkly new tech refinement is introduced those evil robots are going to take over again.
So this all makes the thread more about perspective than technology. Do you prefer the Block 30 Viper to the Block 50 for example, pilots remark the Block 30 as delivering the best control translation. But the Block 50 takes down contemporary enemy a/c easier. The 30 feels nicer but the 50 does move harder.
Still the USAF training centre (some docs at the F-16net site) remarks the Fulcrum actually has some advantages over Vipers because being inherently stable the pilot has the option to switch off the safety control system. It can beat Viper AoA limiters by doing this and come around on one for Archer snapshots at impossible moments. The Luftwaffe did this all the time in NATO training, Block 50 Vipers just plain couldn't beat them in BFM but the Vipers actually return much higher airframe performance figures like av-airspeed, etc. The Viper a higher performing plane like a Ferrari compared to a Ford.
Yet at the same time at least the Viper b.50 has distinct advantages over the Fulcrum in terms of outright performance and airframe strength. The b.30 is rated as equivalent to the Fulcrum on those points and combat successes would come down to pilot skill alone, but Fulcrum pilots on average must work harder to achieve the same BFM results (poor cockpit view, unreliable airframe strength, old school ergonomics and pilot equipment).
The Russians are like that, they prefer workmanlike to luxurious. Luxurious doesn't survive its first Russian winter.
Some people are like that, they prefer workmanlike to luxurious too.
And all this avionics bizzo, in fighter pilot terms if you ask me, as a mere commentator but still, it's luxury. A fighter pilot will fire an air rifle from a Wright Flyer if he has to.
