28.03.2008, 14:59
As I see it there will never be any absolute proof for aircraft performance.
Even when performance figures are available we can never be completely sure whether it represents frontline performance or an aircraft that has been tuned to give a best show for testing.
My view is that we should accept the "Oleg Maddox" aircraft as they are, in terms of performance. I think there may be a good case for adding different weapon systems when there is clear proof that they were extensively used. Flight models and performance for the existing core non-AI aircraft should be left untouched.
There is plenty of scope for debating performance figures for the new aircraft models, and probably a strong case for looking to refine some of the AI models, the handling of many of which seems unrealistic --- but I'm no expert.
Even when performance figures are available we can never be completely sure whether it represents frontline performance or an aircraft that has been tuned to give a best show for testing.
My view is that we should accept the "Oleg Maddox" aircraft as they are, in terms of performance. I think there may be a good case for adding different weapon systems when there is clear proof that they were extensively used. Flight models and performance for the existing core non-AI aircraft should be left untouched.
There is plenty of scope for debating performance figures for the new aircraft models, and probably a strong case for looking to refine some of the AI models, the handling of many of which seems unrealistic --- but I'm no expert.