The subject matter is a moot point with maybe. some exceptions. After much study on the matter and former contract employment within DARPA, I have reached the conclusion that integrated airframe systems and support for Super-Maneuver capability is a total waste of time and money. First off, lets clear the air about what the number truly mean. Turn rates and top speed are important but quite often the performance gaps aren't enough to grant assurance of dominating the battle. It's really more about the tactics/training or the pilot and electronic warfare/radar,weapon systems/fire control, and information/situational awareness bundled into one that decides the outcome as opposed to specific stats on a particular aircraft. In Vietnam, some of our best aircraft were used yet they came up short against older less sophisticated Mig-17F's. The Mig while being old enjoyed a 5 to 8 degree per second turning advantage on jets like the F-4 and F-8. The F-4 had far better weapons and systems but in a "wagon wheel" fight(common to the NVAF tactics), it would get sliced and diced. Through ACM training programs(Top Gun and later Red Flag) our pilots were taught vertical energy tactics that exploited a weakness in the Mig's envelope. As a result, we were able to turn dismal combat results into a rout in our favor in nearly every engagement. One way we learn about what a potential adversary aircraft is capable of is by testing them thoroughly. Days past, we tested nearly every Mig jet from the 50's and 60's(Mig-15's,17's, 21's, 23's, a single Mig-25(static tested only) and learned how to defeat them. We have had access to Mig-29's and SU-27's for nearly 20 years now and the Govt has over 30 Mig-29's including the advanced Fulcrum C variant in our possession. Besides digging into the true weapon systems and radar capability, we do run flight tests and ACM/DACT runs with these planes. One thing I can speak confidently on and that is that our Avionics(as well as Europe and Israel) are not even close to being outclassed by Russian Avionics. I say this not as petty insult but as fact. As one Engineer I talked to who is involved in F-22 and F-35 Avionics Integration and MSIPDEV's said: "The day the Russians pass us in the level in Avionics we are at now and in the future is likely to be the day the Devil has ice sickles hanging from his chin". One area he mentioned where they have an excellent level of development is advanced radar element design but the lack of good filtering and NCTR capability detracts from such design advantages greatly.
At this point, the Global/360 Degree Environment Sensor and Weapons Envelope capability really make Air Combat the most Lethal environment on any battlefield. It's truly frightening compared to days of old even though none of it should ever be considered a cake walk so to speak.
If there is a future conflict involving the F-22, F-35, F/A-18E/F against previous and current generations of Chinese and Russian designs, the Lethal Superiority of the former will be immediately and painfully obvious and over before it becomes grand in any measure of scale. Let us hope it shall not come to pass but better to be prepared with overwhelming technical capability and excellent training than to take anything for granted.
