First...Lay of the 'sir' stuff. Am a pretty easy going guy. Very informal. Polite but blunt when necessary. Jeans and open collar over suits. That is why I never rose above stupor-visor rank. I thank you for your respect but no need to go that far.
Its really nice to see you back sir, I have a simple question, as a pilot sir how do you see the lighter/smaller/ agile fighter jets (Gripen,JFT,LCA) go up against heavy class which is extremely maneuverable (likes of SU-35/30) in WVR fights, in the south asian prespective im talking about the likes of F-7 PG's (Mig-21's), JF-17's etc going up against heavy jets like the Mig-29 and SU-30...
What are the pros and cons of both... Thank you for your time sir....regards
I learned from my days in the USAF a long time ago:
In a fight, you win by forcing your opponent to fight under your rules, not by you fighting under his.
Every man has weaknesses. So does every fighter. Whatever advantages that one fighter has over the opponent, each advantage is a rule. This has been proven over and over.
For example, the Zero was superior to most American fighters in maneuverability, thanks to light armor, so the agility advantage is a rule. Zero pilots forced many American pilots to fight under that rule and many American pilots lost.
On the other hand, American fighters have heavier armor and guns and those advantages are rules so if a Zero is shot, maneuverability may not mean much because so many vital flight components are quickly damaged/destroyed. American fighters are heavier so as long as there is sufficient altitude, a dive offers a good escape out of the agility advantage/rule the Zero pilot was trying to imposed upon the fight. But if there is insufficient altitude and a dive is not possible, then the Zero pilot effectively trapped the American fighter under the Zero's rule.
Each man must jockey to position himself where his rules are imposed upon his opponent in the shortest time possible.
4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The product of Project Constant Peg, the unit was created to train USAF pilots and weapon systems officers, and USN and USMC Naval Aviators and Naval Flight Officers to better fight the aircraft of the Soviet Union.[1] Some 69 pilots, nicknamed Bandits, served in the squadron between 1979 and 1988, flying MiG-17s, MiG-21s and MiG-23s.
During the Constant Peg program, the MIG-21s flown by American pilots familiar with its advantages/rules taught many American pilots painful lessons to their egos, including pilots who flew the powerful F-14s and F-15s. Many of them lost to the lighter and more agile -21. The Red Eagles instructors often put themselves into inferior positions at the beginning of the fight and turned the tables on their students. Or during the fight they would coach their students on how to maintain the superior positions to defeat the -21.
The point -- which often disappoint many -- is that it is not possible to put two aircrafts side by side with all of their features and say 'This one will win every time.' If we are talking about the Sopwith Camel versus the P-51? Then yes, we can do that. If we are talking about the A-4 versus the F-22? Then yes, we can do that.
The greater the generational gap between the technologies of the opponents, the greater the odds that the one with the superior technology will be able to impose its advantages/rules over its adversary, and do it over a greater range of capabilities. In the old days, it was pilots' eyes and ears as all passive sensors, today it is radar (active), EW antennas (passive) and infrared (passive) as sensors. In the old days, it was drop tanks, today it is drop tanks and air refuel. And the list goes on.
The technological gap between the fighters you listed are not as great as the examples I gave. That mean it falls back upon the war planners and the pilots to exercise their creativity based upon how well do they know theirs and their adversary's hardware. That is why the US invested so much into acquiring foreign fighters like the Constant Peg project. The less you know the less options you can create for yourself and the greater the risk of losses in war. The wise war planner listen to those who operate the hardware and put their lives on the line and who knows the limits of what they can do.