That is not a truthful statement, but bias.
You can not compare both aircraft without manuals, test flights, combat operational tactics and pilot experience and training.
If you have ever seen historical accounts of combat aircraft for example Hellcat Versus Hayate, Corsair versus Shiden, Me-109 versus Spitfire, MiG-21 versus F-4, A-4 versus Harrier and so on, you will know such a coarse compassion is as invalid as the Russian statements are.
The Hayate for Example was an excellent aircraft, it was much better than the Hellcat, but it never operated in the ideal conditions it must had operated.
So it is not everything what is written in the manual.
Combat record also lies many things, you will find contradictory claims too.
It will depend who also makes the compassion, i have read F-5 assessments done in Russia, they say for example at some speeds the F-5 was better than the MiG-21 and MiG-23, and Israeli Assesments of MiG-21, they say practically the MiG-21 was better than the Mirage III but the Arab pilots were not using it efficiently.
For example tactics are also important the Zero was practically much more maneuverable than the Hellcat but it was flimsy and with hit and run tactics the F-6F was definitely superior, so if you were a Hellcat pilot the best tactic was hit and run, same tactic a MiG-23 would need against the F-16, or a F-15 against a MiG-29, so it is not like both of you are claiming, it is far more complex.
It also depends in the versions, some Fw-190 were superior to some Spitfire variants some were not, the FW-190A was superior only to some Spitfire versions, not all.
To claim now F-22 is superior to PAKFA now is as invalid as to do the opposite and claim PAKFA is superior.
That is not a truthful statement, but bias.
You can not compare both aircraft without manuals, test flights, combat operational tactics and pilot experience and training.
If you have ever seen historical accounts of combat aircraft for example Hellcat Versus Hayate, Corsair versus Shiden, Me-109 versus Spitfire, MiG-21 versus F-4, A-4 versus Harrier and so on, you will know such a coarse compassion is as invalid as the Russian statements are.
The Hayate for Example was an excellent aircraft, it was much better than the Hellcat, but it never operated in the ideal conditions it must had operated.
So it is not everything what is written in the manual.
Combat record also lies many things, you will find contradictory claims too.
It will depend who also makes the compassion, i have read F-5 assessments done in Russia, they say for example at some speeds the F-5 was better than the MiG-21 and MiG-23, and Israeli Assesments of MiG-21, they say practically the MiG-21 was better than the Mirage III but the Arab pilots were not using it efficiently.
For example tactics are also important the Zero was practically much more maneuverable than the Hellcat but it was flimsy and with hit and run tactics the F-6F was definitely superior, so if you were a Hellcat pilot the best tactic was hit and run, same tactic a MiG-23 would need against the F-16, or a F-15 against a MiG-29, so it is not like both of you are claiming, it is far more complex.
It also depends in the versions, some Fw-190 were superior to some Spitfire variants some were not, the FW-190A was superior only to some Spitfire versions, not all.
To claim now F-22 is superior to PAKFA now is as invalid as to do the opposite and claim PAKFA is superior.
No need to take this personally ace??? really there's not, I am taking exception to the "Russian Nonsense" that the T-50 is in any way shape or form, superior to the F-22 as a combat aircraft. There are 5, yes only 5, -1 T-50 prototypes, they are pre-production proto-types.
They have never flown a combat mission, nor even a serious simulation against any potential foes, the USAF has flown ACM against each of the Russian types, Mig-29s, SU-30MKI's, lots of Mig 21's, and that's just the small list.
Everybody who is anybody?? "knows" what the Raptor is capable of, and will do, we intentionally put the Raptor behind the 8-ball on nearly every adversarial engagement, yet it consistently wins.
I love you as a brother, and I love the T-50 as a beautiful airplane, that has a very fine design, and no doubt fly's very well, even in pre-production form, but we have been waiting for a very extended period, for the upgraded -2 prototypes, maybe they are even "pre-production prototypes" to fly, and yet a year later we are still waiting.
Now getting those 5 proto-types back into airworthy condition after lots of strutctural issues and one engine fire that "totaled the center fuselage" of 055 is a big job, and no doubt those who have accomplished that have done a fine job of repairing and reinforcing those aircraft, but to state that "defense analysts have deemed the T-50 superior to the F-22"????? that my boy, is a "bald faced lie", well seeing its the Russians, they wouldn't consider that a Fib would they??? HEH! HEH!
No, just a "slight embellishment komrade"! and going back to WW-II and trying to pick and choose who was better and who was not, well that's "setting up a strawman", you don't need to do that with your friends here on SDF, and we are your friends, and we do tell you the truth, even when you don't want to hear it, but that's what friends are for.
Love ya Bruda, really I do, but every once in a while, this thread needs a serious "reality check"!
