Stillin dear boy,
I don't think anyone is right or anyone is wrong.
I DO NOT DISPUTE the very real advantage manoeuvrability gives you.
FACT: If you have a better-sustained turn rate, skilful and aggressive flying YOU WILL BRING weapons to bear FASTER. I know this.
With equally skilled pilots an F-4 would jump all over an F-104 or a Lighting. Sea Vixens trashed Lightings in ACM, (so I am assured) because or better initial turn rate, and sustained turn below 20K
What intrigues me is the evidence that for one Air Force to gain Air Superiority over another, they do not necessarily have to posses the more manoeuvrable airframes. It seems that other Factors, (Pilots, C3I, Logistics) are far more important.
Now if you not agree with that statement, then fair enough. I am looking for evidence to counter it.
If you do see merit in that analysis, then why does Air Superiority continue to focus on Fighter design?
I accept that JTIDS, Link-16, Meteor/BVRAAM and AWACS receive a good deal of focus, but is the cake split effective, in terms of money and time invested?
I'm not an expert, that's why I ask the question. I'm not in the business of being right.
