Tbh, I'd start by asking how/what does the OP mean by "overated"? If something is built but never used can it be "overated"?
Nukes were the entire reason why the war never went "hot", so I can't acept being overated. And "capable of destroying only 40 per cent of the industrial potential of each of the United States and the Soviet Union"? Not only I very much doubt that, it also leaves the little issues of the efects on Europe, Middle East, China, Japan... not to mention the clouds of radioative dust.
The F-14 did very well in service in Iran, so I can't acept that count. The F-16 was not designed original to carry long range AAMs, so one can't called it "overated" on that issue alone.
I'd say the A-10 was overated. Good and tough? Yes. Good for generic air support? Yes. The "omg kills all wins war alone" that it's fans seem to think it is? No.
Nukes were the entire reason why the war never went "hot", so I can't acept being overated. And "capable of destroying only 40 per cent of the industrial potential of each of the United States and the Soviet Union"? Not only I very much doubt that, it also leaves the little issues of the efects on Europe, Middle East, China, Japan... not to mention the clouds of radioative dust.
The F-14 did very well in service in Iran, so I can't acept that count. The F-16 was not designed original to carry long range AAMs, so one can't called it "overated" on that issue alone.
I'd say the A-10 was overated. Good and tough? Yes. Good for generic air support? Yes. The "omg kills all wins war alone" that it's fans seem to think it is? No.