You misunderstood what I said completely.
The USAF being enamored with BVR does not mean that WVR doesn't matter. It only means that the USAF thought WVR didn't really matter and it influenced their procurement decisions. Coincidentally, that's also why they stopped research on the HMS. In large-scale aerial engagements WVR is almost guaranteed to occur.
no, I don't think you read correctly. I said "dogfighting is still part of curriculum". although BVR engagements will most likely dominate aircombat in the future, WVR engagements will eventually happen.
For HMS/off boresight missiles to be a factor you have to first explain to everyone here what sequence of maneuvers the JF-17 will perform after the merge to get the Su-30MKI into its frontal aspect. I will even throw you a bone and suggest that it doesn't need to be a co-alt merge, though it should be a co-e merge.
what type of question is that? why and how should I explain how the JF-17 will perform? it's funny you ask this, becuase it sounds as if you think the JF-17 is the most sluggish fighter out there, incapable of performing evasive maneuvers. If I can recall, you posted that the JF-17 couldn't keep up with the mediocre LCA, a short while ago-probably on another thread. retired PAF pilots on this forum and PAF pilots on other forums have declared the JF-17 a "winner" in maneuverability against the F-16A.
Yes it is. The helmet mounted sight's effectiveness is negated in a multi-plane scenario in the same way TVC is. But you seem to be enamored with the HMS.
do you have sources to prove that? I can't imagine how HMS would lose its advantages in a multi-plane scenario, when engagement can happen within a few seconds. There might some situations where the effectiveness may be 'negated', but I seriously doubt your claim that it is only as advantageous as thrust vectoring. HMS and modern (off boresight) missiles have far more potential in modern combat than thrust vectoring.
You mean when the pilot described how they acutally put the TVC equipped F-16 into combat trials against non-TVC equipped F-16s the technology wasn't mature enough? So what specifically wasn't mature about it, in the context of the article?
I don't think you understood clearly what I was trying to get at here. I mentioned, very clearly, the tests regarding thrust vectoring with the F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV, and other test platforms were successful, in their own given parameters. However, only after the culmination of experience gained from those successful tests which spanned a decade, was thrust vectoring introduced into service for actual combat.
Of course the size makes a difference. I never claimed otherwise. But the days when wing-loading is an accurate measure of an airframe's maneuverability are long gone.
Simplest example? The Su-30MKI has a superior instantaneous and sustained turn rate over the F-16, any block. The F-16 is much smaller and lighter. How can this be? Please explain.
I'm pretty sure I said larger twin-engined aircraft were less agile than smaller aircraft, therefore,
larger twin-engined aircraft are the likely candidates for thrust vectoring technology.
In hinsight showing you what actual F-16 pilots think about an actual F-16 equipped with TVC in combat trials think is pointless. You are not interested in an actual debate here.
I think it's best to stop wasting time here and agree to disagree.