PDA

View Full Version : Su-30 Versus RAAF alternatives



lulldapull
13 Jun 04,, 04:35
Hey folks here is that same article again from the Ausie magazine "Aviation Now" before that God-damn server shorted out last week! Goes to show some god-damn buffoons out there what the su-30 is really capable off, even against potential 5th Gen types like the JSF among others. Its a great read, and there is no need to panic. Just enjoy:

http://home.gwu.edu/~adit/page1.jpg
http://home.gwu.edu/~adit/page2.jpg
http://home.gwu.edu/~adit/page3.jpg
http://home.gwu.edu/~adit/page4.jpg
http://home.gwu.edu/~adit/page5.jpg
http://home.gwu.edu/~adit/page6.jpg

Garry
04 Jul 04,, 18:49
just wanted to add economic side of the game.....

the price of JSF is 28mln+ while SU-30MK is in 28-35mln range (India in long-term will get it cheaper), while F-22 Raptor is 102-146mln range. Even without consideration of higher Australian economic power it may put 5 JSF agains 4 SU-30MK. If we add to the picture that Australia can support higher budget for hardware this ratio will be even higher. On other side Asian states can put against each F-22 Raptor slightly more than 4 SU-30MK withe same budget.....

Hence in my view Australians are better off having 5 JSF instead of 1 F-22 Raptors, or at least have only few of Raptors. This arithmetics makes JSF a better response to growing number of SU-30ies in the region.

Of cause the best would be simply having their own fleet of Flankers with advanced western avionics :)
but it will require ability to think in new terms where Russia is not considered a potential enemy but rather a normal commercial supplier. Indeed NATO states are far away from this reasoning

ps. Russia has won WWII tank battles with T-34 model more due to its low cost and fast manufacturing speed than just due to its undoubtfull superiority to German middle tanks

lulldapull
08 Aug 04,, 06:25
Hey that makes sense Garry! good analysis. Even I agree that the su-30 series is getting a little too rich for these malaysia's and Indonesia's blood. Although for them nations that are 'damned' by the west the Su-30 represents the only response that has a very good chance of blowing an F-15E/ F-18E/F out into a pile of shit! :) Although the JSF will fare better than the super Honet or the Eagel, but still the Flanker can hold its own gainst it.

The Raptor on the other hand will take down any Flanker..( they just aint got anything in the performance class of the APG-77, or atleast not until the PAk-FA matures )...in the newer world airpower journal I have been reading up on the work that seems to have been restarted on the pak-Fa project as well as the rival OKb Mig rejuvenating the LFS/ LFI concept. I about fell over backwards and went into god-damn convulsion when I first saw the picture of Irans new fighter with the ******ty ass name of "Shafaaq" :biggrin: .....Boy that was a dead give away......

P.S. Hey what did you think of this article?

troung
10 Aug 04,, 19:02
More of fear mongering of the yellow people and their flankers…

First off these Flanker fear stories from Australians have been going on before Indonesia got any and before Malaysia ordered any. Neither of those nations is hostile to Australia.

Seems more like a handful of people want F/A-22s down under…

lulldapull
11 Aug 04,, 03:39
More of fear mongering of the yellow people and their flankers…

First off these Flanker fear stories from Australians have been going on before Indonesia got any and before Malaysia ordered any. Neither of those nations is hostile to Australia.

Seems more like a handful of people want F/A-22s down under…


It is atypical for the pussy Aussie's to over hype the fear! Even though the Flanker is vastly superior to anything the Aussies currently boast off, the real reason lies in the long overdue JSF program to start delivering something. it also appears that Australia is so far the biggest foreign contributor to the JSF program with more than 175 milion invested in R&D alone. :biggrin:

Man it must really feel like a kick in the nut-sack to know for certain that the now 20 year old Flanker design can bust their brand new JSF's in the ass! :biggrin: :biggrin: Hey Troung what do you think of this killer article? :)

Rudolphuss
12 Aug 04,, 12:12
Hey Troung, Lulli. How's it going?


Hey Troung what do you think of this killer article
What article?

lulldapull
15 Aug 04,, 00:48
Hey Troung, Lulli. How's it going?


What article?

Dude the links I have pasted up there in my first post! :)

bison24
19 Aug 04,, 23:28
Im pretty sure the JSF cost is $40 million per plane (earlier figure was $70 mil each).

Se7eN
20 Aug 04,, 22:43
The RAAF is retrofitting newer avionics in their current F-18's to extend the lifespan closer to 2020.

Those RAAF F-111's with the AGM-142's did a sweet job in Iraq too.

I look at Australia as such a close ally that they can rely on the US to back them up if the need arises. I think it's wise for them to spend some cash to retrofit their current aircraft to extend the lifespan as opposed to blowing cash on new ones.

Let the US waste the money ;)

lulldapull
21 Aug 04,, 18:05
The RAAF is retrofitting newer avionics in their current F-18's to extend the lifespan closer to 2020.

Those RAAF F-111's with the AGM-142's did a sweet job in Iraq too.

I look at Australia as such a close ally that they can rely on the US to back them up if the need arises. I think it's wise for them to spend some cash to retrofit their current aircraft to extend the lifespan as opposed to blowing cash on new ones.

Let the US waste the money ;)

Yeah no kiddin man. Check this out:

Aussies hope “Pigs” fly until JSFs arrive

by Reuben F. Johnson

One of the oldest U.S. combat aircraft still operational in the world today is in the Asia/Pacific region. Ironically, how much longer it remains in service and the future for the air force that operates it depends on a new-generation fighter that will be largely built in the same Fort Worth, Texas aircraft factory where it was manufactured some 40 years ago.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is one of the Level III partners on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, but in the meantime it is holding on to its General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark–or “the Pig,” as RAAF pilots sometimes refer to it–and is the only air force still flying the aircraft today. RAAF pilots and planning staff have some long-stated reasons for continuing to operate the F-111.

“First, we have a tradition of going a long way for a fight,” said one RAAF pilot to Aviation International News. “Secondly, the Pig is the only platform that there is today that goes that long way, drops its load and then runs away fast.” What concerns RAAF officials is whether or not the F-35 will–as advertised–be able to replace the fleet of 35 F-111s and squadrons of 71 Boeing F/A-18 fighters. It is a major challenge for the F-35 to match the range/payload of the former and the air-to-air performance of the latter.

As a combat aircraft, the F-111 has an exemplary record. During 1991’s Operation Desert Storm in Iraq, strike formations of some 40 F-111Fs destroyed more than 100 armored vehicles in one night of concentrated air attacks. Over the course of the short conflict, the 66 F-111Fs that the U.S. Air Force deployed in theater destroyed 1,500 Iraqi tanks and mechanized vehicles. It was also the only aircraft in the conflict to deploy GBU-15 bombs and the 5,000-pound laser-guided penetrating GBU-28.

The RAAF is being very methodical and deliberate about the process of taking delivery of the F-35, and the current security environment has as much to do with what might seem like contrariness as the traditionally laborious RAAF decision-making process. As senior RAAF personnel look around the region, they see it turning into “a big lake populated by an increasing number of Sukhoi Su-27/30s.” Currently, India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia either have the Russian fighter in their inventories or will soon take delivery of them. Last year, Malaysia signed a contract for 18 Su-30MKM models.

These Su-27/30 acquisitions are what prompted Australian defense minister Robert Hill to scrap a plan to retire the Aardvark in 2006–far ahead of the original date of 2020 to withdraw the F-111s–and to keep the fighter-bomber in service for the time being. “I can make a strong case for keeping the F-111s,” he said. “It’s all about strategic risks.” He also said that it would be gambling to assume the F-35 would be delivered on time. The number of months required to train RAAF personnel, establish the appropriate information technology systems and integrate the aircraft into Australia’s inventory also remains a question mark.

Indonesia, which has traditionally been the major state of concern to Australian defense officials, has already taken delivery of two Su-30MKs and two Su-27SK models, and is anticipated to acquire more aircraft for a total of three to four squadrons within the near future. These Russian aircraft in Indonesia, continued Hill, “typify the modernization of capabilities that is occurring throughout Southeast Asia.”

The Su-27/30’s air-to-air performance leaves some RAAF personnel also questioning whether the F-35 is actually going to be an adequate replacement for the F/A-18s, as well. We are concerned, said one officer, that with the U.S. Air Force emphasis on using the aircraft for air-to-ground missions that the JSF may be “too much S and not enough F when matched against these Sukhois.”

Lockheed Martin, which now owns the Fort Worth plant where the F-111 was built and plans to assemble the F-35 in the same facility, has stated that while it understands the concerns of export customers, it is not worried about the vulnerability of the F-35 versus contemporary Russian fighters like the Su-27/30.

“The F-35 is beyond anything out there now other than the F/A-22,” said LM spokesman John Kent. “If it should get into a dogfight–which it should not, given its advanced radar and its BVR (beyond visual range) missile capabilities–it is still a 9g-

capable fighter like the F-16. The whole idea of the F-35 is not to back away from F-16 and F/A-18 aerodynamic performance levels but to add all modern advances now available today to complement that level of performance.”

longbow66
05 Sep 04,, 17:26
Enough of the sales pitches already!

You guys seriously underestimate us Aussies! We were talked into F18's on the basis that 2 engines are better than one (er, built in redundancy, etc)... now were being talked into a single engined "paper" plane - the cost of which will very likely blow out and may not have long term competitiveness when it arrives. There are lots of us down here that are sceptical of this whole F35 deal. When we buy something we need to get maximum value-for-money.

The RAAF has, for a long time maintained a technical superiority over neighbouring air forces which is being rapidly eroded. The appearance of SU27/30's on our doorstep is causing quiet alarm - we need to buy aircraft that guarantee air superiority, and that's not something that the JSF can 100% promise - but then what are our alternatives?

I think F22's and Eurofighters are out of our price range and Russian aircraft would be too contentious for our politicians to stomach (dumb reasoning, I know). The US is leaning on us big time to go JSF (and, as somebody mentioned, we've stumped up development cash and promised to buy 100) - but there's quite a lot of people praying this aircraft doesn't turn out to be one giant white elephant.

Unfortunately I think that JSF is pretty much our only viable option.

As for F111's - yep, we love those suckers - but they're so old now it's getting hard (read expensive) to keep them combat worthy. Oz is going for cruise missiles as a stop gap (which the locals don't like)

Got any B1 Lancers you don't need lying around doing nothing?

lulldapull
06 Sep 04,, 15:25
Enough of the sales pitches already!

You guys seriously underestimate us Aussies! We were talked into F18's on the basis that 2 engines are better than one (er, built in redundancy, etc)... now were being talked into a single engined "paper" plane - the cost of which will very likely blow out and may not have long term competitiveness when it arrives. There are lots of us down here that are sceptical of this whole F35 deal. When we buy something we need to get maximum value-for-money.

The RAAF has, for a long time maintained a technical superiority over neighbouring air forces which is being rapidly eroded. The appearance of SU27/30's on our doorstep is causing quiet alarm - we need to buy aircraft that guarantee air superiority, and that's not something that the JSF can 100% promise - but then what are our alternatives?

I think F22's and Eurofighters are out of our price range and Russian aircraft would be too contentious for our politicians to stomach (dumb reasoning, I know). The US is leaning on us big time to go JSF (and, as somebody mentioned, we've stumped up development cash and promised to buy 100) - but there's quite a lot of people praying this aircraft doesn't turn out to be one giant white elephant.

Unfortunately I think that JSF is pretty much our only viable option.

As for F111's - yep, we love those suckers - but they're so old now it's getting hard (read expensive) to keep them combat worthy. Oz is going for cruise missiles as a stop gap (which the locals don't like)

Got any B1 Lancers you don't need lying around doing nothing?



Hey dude, as is out of the box the JSF or the F-18E/F are inferior to the MKI flankers current weapons/ radar suite! Its pretty much a certainty that the short legged and over weight JSF will have a tough time against the MKI. And wiith the newer batch of the MKI's sporting KH-31's or the moskits that will go to Indonesia next year the situation will get bleaker still. I still believe that strike capability wise the F-111's still represent a solid punch to any would be aggressor, and the tomahawks if introduced by the U.S. in the region will have a negative impact, as it would force the Indonesians or malaysians to counter that possibly by covert acquisitions of photo copied M-9/11's from Pakistan or North Korean Scud C's. So it will get interesting in the next few years. :)

P.S. To be honest with its current specifications the JSF just reminds us all of what the F-104 was purported by that idiot Kelly Johnson to "have been" :biggrin: Turned out that the F-104 was quite possibly the worst combat aircraft ever developed! Had there ever been a european war, these F-104's would have fallen out of the sky like flies!

longbow66
07 Sep 04,, 15:51
Hey dude, as is out of the box the JSF or the F-18E/F are inferior to the MKI flankers current weapons/ radar suite! Its pretty much a certainty that the short legged and over weight JSF will have a tough time against the MKI. And wiith the newer batch of the MKI's sporting KH-31's or the moskits that will go to Indonesia next year the situation will get bleaker still. I still believe that strike capability wise the F-111's still represent a solid punch to any would be aggressor, and the tomahawks if introduced by the U.S. in the region will have a negative impact, as it would force the Indonesians or malaysians to counter that possibly by covert acquisitions of photo copied M-9/11's from Pakistan or North Korean Scud C's. So it will get interesting in the next few years. :)

P.S. To be honest with its current specifications the JSF just reminds us all of what the F-104 was purported by that idiot Kelly Johnson to "have been" :biggrin: Turned out that the F-104 was quite possibly the worst combat aircraft ever developed! Had there ever been a european war, these F-104's would have fallen out of the sky like flies!

Whaddya expect from a plane with virtually no wings! I'm no pilot, but if I were, I reckon I'd like to have some gliding ability! F-104's were a kind of motorised javelin - not the sort of thing I'd like to be fighting MIG's in.

But seriously, whilst the F111's have been our "ace-in-the-hole" for a long time, they really are becoming increasingly difficult to keep combat ready. Some second-hand refitted and upgraded Tornado's might be a reasonable alternative...
although they're getting long in the tooth too, they have a good track record.

There doesn't really seem to be the choice of aircraft there used to be since the US aerospace industry cannibalised itself and the European's got into a big group-hug. Our needs are very specific and the Government seem to have thrown themselves into this one largely through a lack of choice.

The Sukhoi is one hell of a fearsome aircraft and why would you buy into something that was potentially obsolete before you'd even built it! Even if we could afford F-22's, there's no guarantee that we'd be allowed full-spec versions anyway - sometimes Congress doesn't like other nations to have access to leading-edge US military technology, best mates or not.

You made the observation earlier (haven't figured out the quote thing yet!)

"First off these Flanker fear stories from Australians have been going on before Indonesia got any and before Malaysia ordered any. Neither of those nations is hostile to Australia".

Fair enough - we don't have too many problems with Malaysia (although Mahathir Mohammed used to give us a hard time) - but Indonesia, hmmm, remember fundamentalists targetted Westerners in Bali and Indonesia is the worlds most populous Muslim nation. Whilst I'm not implying that all Muslims are fundamentalists, there is a distinct risk that an event could turn popular Indonesian opinion against Australia. We came very close to hostilities over East Timor a couple of years back. Sometimes I suspect it's only the ANZUS treaty (with NZ barely participating, does that make it the ANUS treaty?), and therefore potential US military intervention, that has prevented us from exchanging blows.

That besides, the "fear stories" turned out to be ACCURATE! :)

I'll agree that going for Tomahawks to replace F111's is a risky decision. So far everyone in the region (bar the PRC and DPRK) have avoided getting into missile races. We're possibly breaking that general goodwill and that's the last thing we need down here!

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 04,, 03:45
At least as far as the Canadians are concerned, the CF-104s were worth their weight in gold. They were nuke delivery platforms (makes me wonder why we ever trained CAS with them).

And let's look at the other side. MiG-19s and MiG-21s. Hardly, Rolls Royce of the fighter world.

Garry
08 Sep 04,, 08:16
The problem of Matching Su-30MK is now all over Asia... US Millitary luckilly helped to Sukhoi by leaking information about Cope India Mock Fights. The original goal was to support F-22 but strong by side result was killing F-15 - US currently second major export warplane....

The problem is that too few may afford F-22 which is in range of US$100-142 m, and only few of those who may expect any deliveries by 2010......

So the situation may bring a handfull of new orders for Su-30MK.
For Sukhoi this is a unique chance to get enough resources for a developing new generation fighter with the cash brought by this opportunity.
- develop new engine with supersonic cruising
- develop and apply new antistealth radar
- upgrade frame to increase payload
- newer weaponry
_________________________________



Shooting down F-15 to save Raptor?

By Peter Spiegel The Straits Times (Singapore)Asia News Network
800 words
11 August 2004
The Korea Herald
English
(c) 2004 The Korea Herald

It started as one of the dozens of military exercises the Pentagon conducts with friendly governments each year - operations that are as much about bilateral diplomacy as about testing military capabilities.

However, the exercise carried out in February, involving mock combat between the United States and Indian air forces over the skies of Madhya Pradesh in central India, has taken on a life of its own. The reason? The U.S. lost.

Not only did the U.S. aircraft lose, but they lost repeatedly. According to one member of Congress briefed on the exercise, the U.S. Air Force's top fighter, the F-15 Eagle, was defeated more than 90 percent of the time in simulated dogfights with Indian pilots.

As a result, reports on the exercise have not only reached the highest levels of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill but have traveled around the world to military procurement agencies in Singapore and South Korea. As details gradually leaked out, the exercise has become one of the prime topics of gossip at global air shows and arms fairs.

It has also opened a rare window into the overlapping loyalties and increasingly cut-throat competition that mark military procurement in an age of shrinking defense budgets.

The exercise, known as Cope India, was conceived almost two years ago as part of thawing relations between New Delhi and Washington. Some Pentagon officials saw improved diplomatic ties with democratic India as a way to balance the growing strength of communist China. It was the first combat training exercise between the two air forces in more than 40 years.

However, Pentagon planners also had an important military goal: U.S. air force pilots had never gone up against the Su-30 Flanker, the latest Russian-built fighter designed by Sukhoi, which India began to acquire in 1997.

Many Cope India details remain classified. Accounts conflict: Some say the F-15s lacked the U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated radar, others that the Indians used special helmet-mounted targeting systems unavailable to U.S. pilots, and yet others that the Americans were outnumbered at least two to one.

Whatever the reasons, the U.S. Air Force might normally be expected to keep such a defeat under wraps. But in recent weeks, senior officers have begun leaking information about the exercise, freely admitting their technical inferiority. "We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were," said General Hal Hornburg, head of the U.S. Air Combat Command.

The reason for the sudden candor has little to do with the F-15, and much more to do with another high-performance aircraft: the $72 billion F/A-22 Raptor, a new stealthy combat jet the U.S. Air Force is desperate to save from congressional and Pentagon budget cutters.

The craft has come under fire from those who say the U.S. no longer needs a fighter originally designed to fight the next generation of Soviet MiGs. So senior officers have decided the risks of revealing the inadequacies of the F-15 are outweighed by the opportunity to convince the government to keep buying the higher-priced fighter.

"Something like Cope India, when we find some of our advantages aren't as great as we thought they might be, leads me to remind people we need to modernize our air-to-air capability," said Gen. Hornburg.

Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F/A-22 Raptor, has been more than happy to play along. In recent briefings, senior executives have made thinly veiled references to Cope India.

"The bottom line is, the U.S. no longer has a technological combat advantage, based on aircraft versus aircraft," said Mr. Ralph Heath, the Lockheed executive overseeing the F/A-22 Raptor.

It would seem only natural that the F/A-22 Raptor's largest sub-contractor, Boeing, would play along too - except for one problem: Boeing makes the F-15. The company recently won a competition to produce F-15s for South Korea and is engaged in a heated contest to build 20 for the Republic of Singapore Air Force.

"We were concerned," said Mr. George Muellner, head of Boeing's air force business.

In an effort to save the F-15 from the Pentagon's self-inflicted wounds, General John Jumper, the air force chief of staff, recently briefed Singapore officials on the Indian exercise.

Caught in between is Sukhoi itself, which does not seem to know what to make of the mixed American messages.

"We feel part of a game," protested Mr. Alexander Klementiev, Sukhoi's deputy director-general. "But we are not participants in that game."

Document KORHER0020040810e08b00007

longbow66
19 Oct 04,, 17:46
Yeah, well that doesn't make me sleep any easier... this whole JSF thing kinda stinks... Frankly, I think the US aerospace industry has lost the plot...

CAN ANYBODY OUT THERE OFFER US AUSSIES A COMBAT AIRCRAFT THAT WILL GUARANTEE AIR SUPERIORITY? (cue: sound of crickets chirping)

-{SpoonmaN}-
20 Oct 04,, 10:11
I agree that we have no reason to fear our neighbours. First of all beause they have no desire AT ALL to attack Australia, and also because none of them are anywhere near being able to, and won't be for a very long time.
Secondly, I think that the JSF will be a good buy as long as the cost doesn't blow out (Which is a very strong possibility).
I figure that we do need something bigger, scarier and longer ranged, bought in smaller numbers to back up the JSF.
Perhaps we should wait and see whether or not the proposed strike versions of fifth gen fighters (Like the "FB-22" concept) come to fruition.

lulldapull
22 Oct 04,, 04:30
See the dilemma facing us all or shall I say will be in af ew years of the f-22's induction into Service with various forces is the reality of the PAK-Fa's service entry! This will cause another riot in the western Aerospace defence companies once again, not too different than what this Flanker, specially the su-30MK series has revealed itself to be, a real nightmare!

These god-damn Russians are gonna do the same exact thing as they did with this Flanker! The pak-Fa will enter service a good decade after the F-22's service entry!, ( After they have throughly analysed the F-22's performance charachteristics)! and will undoubtedly have a similar edge against it as does this Flanker currently enjoys against virtually all Western types!!

you know one of the simple facts that is always overlooked when we compare the F-15 for instance vs the Su-30 is the reality check that that flanker is a 15-20 year newer airframe than the Poor F-15! , and with these umpteenth variant of the Su-30MKKK to the God-damn nth order! :biggrin: ....the edge also goes to the Russian fighter in terms of the latest phased array systems being incorporatd in the Flanker! The Saturn Lyulka's are also an engine to be reckoned with! tough and highly resistant to abrupt/ turbulent flow and virtually stall/ flameout proof! With newer variants boasting a substantial improvement in TBO!;) Also INMO the basic 27 and these newer 30MK series are totally different animals in many aspects! it is astonishing to see the Russians have finally designed a highly capable, and for the first time froma western point of view, a truly multi-role machine!

But it is an almost 5th Gen fighter save for Stealth characteristics! I am afraid that once this Pak-FA whose capabilities are already being touted as un-god-damn believable based on S-37/ FSW plus the Super manoueverability concept and the AESA radar blah blah blah!, it will force everyone back to the drawing board!

The f-22 will take down any Flanker! but its the pak-Fa that worries me! now with both chinese and Indian billions being pumped back in Unkal's Putin's Ass, by default! the future for the Pak-Fa actually looks very bright!

lulldapull
22 Oct 04,, 05:07
At least as far as the Canadians are concerned, the CF-104s were worth their weight in gold. They were nuke delivery platforms (makes me wonder why we ever trained CAS with them).

And let's look at the other side. MiG-19s and MiG-21s. Hardly, Rolls Royce of the fighter world.


Hey dude in all honesty the pakistani AF was the only AF in the world to have operationally usd the F-104 in 2 wars both as an interceptor and as a low level strike aircraft! In both wars we quickly learnt that as soon as you slowed down, it was as if the starfighter suddenly became a God-damn dump truck with an extremly pathetic turning radius! :biggrin: :biggrin: It was a terrible aircraft to fly, let alone fight in! With an approach speed in excess of 200knts it left very little margin for error!

We challenged all IAF types in the two wars, and during the Dec 71 war the IAF FL's busted our F-104's in the ass at least twice! 2 were confirmed lost in quick aircombat with the Mig-21FL convincingly outmanouvering the type despite being flown by very experienced PAF pilots who had more than a 1000 hours on the type! :) And a further 2 PAF F-104A's were damaged by the IAF's number 229 'Scorpions squadron' Mig-21FL's on the last day of the 71 war, leading the IAF to make further premature claims! in both cases the FL managed to out accelerate and easily out manouvered the F-104's on the deck! :)

We got lucky in 65 because the couple of times the F-104s met the F-13's in combat, they were able to get away by hitting the throttle on the deck! ( But 6 years later the Russians had learned and improved the R-11F and its performance was substantially improved)!

Also the FL carried the GP-9 as a back up to the un-reliable photo-copied Atols! :)

So I beg to differ with you vis a vis the Mig-21 vesus the F-104!

P.S. FYI, the PLAAF F-6's ( Mig-19's ) have shot down numerous Taiwanese F-104A's in dof-fights over the Straits! Also a couple of F-104C's of the USAF have fallen victim to prowling PLAAF F-6's over Hainan Islands! :)

If that idiot kelly Johnson ever pulled the wool over the eyes of the USAF, boy he did a fantastic job of it! :biggrin: :biggrin: he was a poor and impractical designer! you could see his designs from the Lockheed P-38 lightnings ( which were the easiest targets for the Fw-190's cuz they couldn't turn, and manya time were shot down in droves by the luftwaffe, until being relegated to ground attack duties, wher they performed better purely due to their ability to swoop in fast due to 2 engines )!to the P-80 shooting star to this pathetic F-104! All no doubt inferior to their Soviet counterparts!

kelly johnson should only be given credit for the U-2 or the Sr-71 during his tenure at Skunk works! He was brilliant there! but in the combat aircraft arena, good luck! :)

Franco Lolan
27 Oct 04,, 02:21
lulldapul , i dont mean 2 impugn ur credibility,
can u plz post sum articles/links/etc on the Air to Air PLAAF v. Taiwan AF + PLAAF v. USAF engagements?

lulldapull
27 Oct 04,, 17:06
lulldapul , i dont mean 2 impugn ur credibility,
can u plz post sum articles/links/etc on the Air to Air PLAAF v. Taiwan AF + PLAAF v. USAF engagements?


Sure thing man! Anything you ever wanted to know bout a mig-21 you just let me know! :)

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_246.shtml

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_245.shtml

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_170.shtml

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_327.shtml

With regards to the IAF mig-21FL victories, the PAF acknowledged that the kills made by FLT LT Arun Dutta and B.B. Soni were infact true! The other 2 kills made by N. Kukreja and I.S. Bindra were in fact premature claims and turned out to be close calls! The 2 PAF F-104A's were in fact damaged, and one of them recovered, and returned to the RJAF, from whom it was 'borrowed' from :) And like I said another original NMF F-104A of the PAF became the victim of S-57 batteries around Amritsar radar, trying to starfe it with its 20mm!

Sadly the F-104 turned out to be a very poor aircombat type! :)

lulldapull
27 Oct 04,, 17:16
Hey while you are at it, check this out! INMO it has always been the EAF that busted the most israeli ASS with their Mig-21's!! Shamelessly the IDF also got in the habit of covering up their losses like the USAF did in vietnam where a mig-21 would be trailing a strike group of heavily laden F-105's or F-4D's and suddly it would drop its centrline, cut in the reheat and rocket up behind em! And from the very juicy position of being in the blind spot/ full view of the fun-hole, ( And still God-damn undetected) launch both its Atolls and then almost immediately bank hard right and dissappear in the low cloud canopy leaving one or two F-105's or F-4's tumbling out of the sky, and the USAF pilots wetting/ Soiling their overalls :)

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_271.shtml

Now many a cheap 2 cent *** in the USAF has attributed such a loss to an Sa-2! Many a time, because it was embarrassing that how come some bullock cart driver in God-damn Vietnam can first of all transition to a supersonic type and then if that ain't God-damn enogh manage to shoot down the F-4's and thuds in droves??? :biggrin: :biggrin:

There is overwhelming new evidence that the Mig-21 back in the day was an outstanding combat type! :)

Even now during Cope India the upgraded 21-93/ Bisons of the IAF were praised by the ANG F-15C pilots! :)

The Mig-21 menace was finally defeated when the Top Gun schools strated devising direct tactics to counter the performance envelope of the mig-21! They finally suceeded with the best possible solution which did not allow the mig to get close enough, concentrated on getting the flight leads first, and then F-4's just pummeled the one or two migs with dozens of Aim-7E's and F's from as far as 20 miles out! :biggrin: :biggrin:

Visigoth
13 Nov 04,, 05:08
Looks like the RAAF is in the same situation as the CAF,replacing their F-18's with a platform they'll have to live with for the next 2-3 decades at a cost of billions.Not a decision to be taken lightly, yet both have signed on and committed millions to the JSF development phase .I see someone quoted 28 mil per F-35,great propaganda to get as many countries to commit for this cheap bomb truck, as USAF calls it.How could the JSF possibly cost less than a block 60 F-16(50 mil).Traditionally new aircraft always go way over budget,GAO are already projecting cost to come in at 50-70 mil each.Don't forget the F-22 is now around 270 mil for only 214 aircraft .This is all about political manipulation and aggressive lobbying,trying to get the many airforces of the world who need to replace worn out equipment,to sign on board,corner the market and keep unit cost down for themselves for what is essentially an F-16 replacement.Not in any one's wet dream could the JSF replace the F-111 in terms of range and payload i.e strike capability.As for replacing the F-18,a great multi-role platform albeit with short legs,what was the original requirement that led both countries to select a twin engined aircraft 20 years ago and how has that changed?Well the CAF needs to patrol vast inhospitable areas,unfortunately with 3 droptanks,fine if you don't need to turn and burn.As you may know the attrition rate for the F-16 is somewhere around 5.5 per 100,000 hrs and F-15 is 3.1 per.Even JASDF F-2 pilots are uneasey about ocean patrols in a single-engined fighter.To keep costs down USAF admits JSF won't have F-22's sophisticated radar,avionics and other systems that make an air superiority fighter, so much for the interceptor role.Quoting a Lockheed-Martin spokesman,"with it's stealth and bvr capabilities it shouldn't have to get into a dogfight".While low rcs is a crucial element of a new fighter's design, to sell this lame dog on its invisibility is wishfull thinking.The F-117 shot down over serbia was acquired visually at dusk, the pilot recognizing it's silhouette,using irst to lock on and downing it with a single misile.According to an intelligence report,"China is developing a new radar system capable of detecting Americas most advanced stealth aircraft.Instead of emitting electromagnetic energy pulses which bounce off an airsraft betraying its shape and size,this new system depends on analyzing fluctuations in commercial tv and radio signals filling the air.In short, it would be nice for a western airforce to admit the incredible value and true multi-role performance of the SU-30,build it under license with western avionics and have themselves an outstanding performer with long range-loitering capability.It probably will never happen,Russia still being perceived as{ the other side}.Any reasonably intelligent airforce type,they must be rare in Canadas DND,would see the only options as F-15k,Typhoon or Rafael as Korea did in their recent competition,granted they were under enormous political flak.Considering the F-15k costs as much as JSF likely will,which would you rather go into combat tomorrow with.Rafale is around 60 mil,Typhoon 70 mil both excellent true multi-role fighters although with less payload,range and top speed than the Eagle.It would be nice to see both countries do a serious fighter competition between these 3 birds and pick the one that best suits their needs according to the pilots that will fly ,fight ,win or die in them ,not some politicians.

-{SpoonmaN}-
16 Nov 04,, 00:13
I doubt that the USAF would be prepared to license-build Russian aircraft. If what you say is correct, then perhaps the USAF should work on their own development of the Eurofighter, and then they could sell that to us.

dave angel
26 Nov 04,, 16:58
the RAAF needs a long range aircraft - because of the shear size of its possible combat theatre and the relatively small number of aircraft compare to the geographic land mass - and because its likely maritime nature it probably 'should' have two engines. it needs an aircraft that can do CAP loiter as well as anti-shipping/long range interdiction.

sounds like the eurofighter, F15E or tornado IDS/ADV. the lead time is also important here, the JSF has an inservice date for the aussies of what, 2010-15?

the aussies shouldn't pay for the 'stealthy' element of the JSF, any engagement they take part in will be at a phenominal distance from the base, and therefore there'll be droptanks, and because of the sparcity of cover the aircraft will almost certainly be loaded with external weapons as well, rendering the stealthy technology totally redundant.

by using the new UAV's the aussies can stay behind a survailence screen and reduce their manned maritime patrol aircraft costs. by buying a proven AWACS/BVR capability they could take the most extreme 'dog-fighting' requirement out of their new aircraft, thats the bit that is most difficult to match with the other objective requirements.

not perfect, but cheaper than buying two types of aircraft.

PaulG
28 Nov 04,, 05:54
Why not just get the SU30? If its as good as they say and cheaper no doubt.

dave angel
28 Nov 04,, 09:33
Why not just get the SU30? If its as good as they say and cheaper no doubt.

if the aussies can get the right licencing agreement that allows them to totally control the supply and spares chain to maintain the SU-30 regardless of future political changes then they should go for it.

thats the rub, if they can't get the right agreement they could end-up like iran, airfields full of hi-tech, top-of-the-range aircraft that can't fly for want of spares.

obviously the aussies would have to make modifications to ensure that the aircraft was compatible with the US/NATO supply chain - weapon systems, refueling ports and air-to-air refueling capability.

as a matter of interest, do the aussies use probe-drouge or the boom method of the US air force?

ajaybhutani
28 Nov 04,, 10:27
if the aussies can get the right licencing agreement that allows them to totally control the supply and spares chain to maintain the SU-30 regardless of future political changes then they should go for it.

thats the rub, if they can't get the right agreement they could end-up like iran, airfields full of hi-tech, top-of-the-range aircraft that can't fly for want of spares.

sinve they will buy in lagre numbers so they can surely aford to get the production linewhich will make the fighter cheap and also make sure that they donot have to worry about the spares. But will russians allow that?? i realy donot know...:D



obviously the aussies would have to make modifications to ensure that the aircraft was compatible with the US/NATO supply chain - weapon systems, refueling ports and air-to-air refueling capability.

I think modufications must be donne more or less by indians as their MKIs are a mix of inidan russian french and israeli avionics . Buying a version similar to MKI can help them reduce the work. and also remove teh not so good russian avionics..

Felix
28 Nov 04,, 17:37
thats the rub, if they can't get the right agreement they could end-up like iran, airfields full of hi-tech, top-of-the-range aircraft that can't fly for want of spares.


You're not referring to the F-14's out of the time with the Shah do you?

Felix
28 Nov 04,, 17:38
Why not just get the SU30? If its as good as they say and cheaper no doubt.

Nice idea!

btw if they want to dupm money senslessly they can also get the Eurofighter...

PaulG
28 Nov 04,, 18:31
We already started receiving ya sissy helicopters (Tiger) Felix.

I read the other comments to my Q, seems to me if the region is using the same plane, with minor differences, then the region will benefit regarding servicing and spares. There is a political factor i spose, i'm not sure on the procuremnt issues and contracts. We should be more involved with the region anyway rather than being so close to the US on these matters.

lulldapull
28 Nov 04,, 19:07
Looks like the RAAF is in the same situation as the CAF,replacing their F-18's with a platform they'll have to live with for the next 2-3 decades at a cost of billions.Not a decision to be taken lightly, yet both have signed on and committed millions to the JSF development phase .I see someone quoted 28 mil per F-35,great propaganda to get as many countries to commit for this cheap bomb truck, as USAF calls it.How could the JSF possibly cost less than a block 60 F-16(50 mil).Traditionally new aircraft always go way over budget,GAO are already projecting cost to come in at 50-70 mil each.Don't forget the F-22 is now around 270 mil for only 214 aircraft .This is all about political manipulation and aggressive lobbying,trying to get the many airforces of the world who need to replace worn out equipment,to sign on board,corner the market and keep unit cost down for themselves for what is essentially an F-16 replacement.Not in any one's wet dream could the JSF replace the F-111 in terms of range and payload i.e strike capability.As for replacing the F-18,a great multi-role platform albeit with short legs,what was the original requirement that led both countries to select a twin engined aircraft 20 years ago and how has that changed?Well the CAF needs to patrol vast inhospitable areas,unfortunately with 3 droptanks,fine if you don't need to turn and burn.As you may know the attrition rate for the F-16 is somewhere around 5.5 per 100,000 hrs and F-15 is 3.1 per.Even JASDF F-2 pilots are uneasey about ocean patrols in a single-engined fighter.To keep costs down USAF admits JSF won't have F-22's sophisticated radar,avionics and other systems that make an air superiority fighter, so much for the interceptor role.Quoting a Lockheed-Martin spokesman,"with it's stealth and bvr capabilities it shouldn't have to get into a dogfight".While low rcs is a crucial element of a new fighter's design, to sell this lame dog on its invisibility is wishfull thinking.The F-117 shot down over serbia was acquired visually at dusk, the pilot recognizing it's silhouette,using irst to lock on and downing it with a single misile.According to an intelligence report,"China is developing a new radar system capable of detecting Americas most advanced stealth aircraft.Instead of emitting electromagnetic energy pulses which bounce off an airsraft betraying its shape and size,this new system depends on analyzing fluctuations in commercial tv and radio signals filling the air.In short, it would be nice for a western airforce to admit the incredible value and true multi-role performance of the SU-30,build it under license with western avionics and have themselves an outstanding performer with long range-loitering capability.It probably will never happen,Russia still being perceived as{ the other side}.Any reasonably intelligent airforce type,they must be rare in Canadas DND,would see the only options as F-15k,Typhoon or Rafael as Korea did in their recent competition,granted they were under enormous political flak.Considering the F-15k costs as much as JSF likely will,which would you rather go into combat tomorrow with.Rafale is around 60 mil,Typhoon 70 mil both excellent true multi-role fighters although with less payload,range and top speed than the Eagle.It would be nice to see both countries do a serious fighter competition between these 3 birds and pick the one that best suits their needs according to the pilots that will fly ,fight ,win or die in them ,not some politicians.

Excuse me pal, but the F-117 was downed by an Sa-3 "Goa" sam of the Serb Air defence regiment! It was at first believed to be a 'Grail' that was guided by the newer Russian passive low frequency version of the 'Straight Flush" which the Serbs had recieved as emergency shipment。But it turned out to be the good old Sa-3's 'Low Blow' that acquired the low signature of the F-117.

in all honesty the Russians have upgraded their 'Grails' with the new microwave technology which can passively detect the lowest RCS around! egypt was the first one to publicly acknowledge that fact.

low RCS is no safe guard against newer passive microwave technology. Besides the Russians continue to use the good old Radio command coupled with IR seekers to still pose a significant threat even on ancient airframes such as upgraded Sa-2 Guidelines! :) Also the Russians have a couple of systems capable of detecting the F-117A bomber. For example, there is the mobile 1R13 EWR station (capable of providing targeting info to SAM systems and Air Defence commands). This station can also easily guide an interceptor to the F-117A.

Topic: White Water

STRATFOR: Implications of an SA-3 Shoot Down of Stealth

STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update
29 March 99 - 0736 GMT

The U.S. Defense Department has thus far refused to comment on how the F-117 Stealth Fighter might have been shot down over Serbia, however, speculation has centered around Yugoslavia's SA-3 surface to air missile batteries. The F-117 wing being shown on Serbian television is peppered with irregularly sized and spaced holes, suggesting the aircraft was brought down by shrapnel from a large proximity fuzed warhead. While this could have resulted from either an air to air missile or large caliber anti-aircraft artillery, Serb attempts at interception have thus far ended up as one way trips to the ground and AAA in the concentrations the Serbs can employ would have had to be very good or very lucky to bring down the Stealth. This leaves SAMs, and particularly the SA-3.

The SA-3 is a low to medium altitude SAM, fired from a static launcher. It has a maximum effective horizontal range of 22-25km and a maximum effective altitude of 12-18km, depending on the missile variant. Initial targeting comes from separate, van-mounted long-range radar, which feeds information to a trailer mounted fire control radar. The missile itself has a doppler radar proximity fuze. If an SA-3 did down the F-117, it would indicate that, for the right high-value target, the Serbs are now willing to utilize the anti-air assets they have until now been withholding. With three separate radars, the SA-3 in action makes a bright shiny target for any SEAD mission operating in support of the F-117 bombing mission.

More interesting than the willingness of the Serbs to use the SA-3 at this time is the apparent fact that the missile’s fixed launch site was not previously identified by NATO reconnaissance and destroyed. Of course, the most interesting feature of this incident is the fact that, unless a lucky altitude or time-fuzed AAA round or an infrared AAM downed the F-117, the supposedly radar stealthy aircraft was apparently destroyed by an active radar guided weapon. There are three possible explanations of this. First, the Stealth is not invisible to radar, it just produces a very small radar signature. Maybe it was not small enough. Second, there have been allegations that the Stealth’s radar-absorbing paint is ineffective or at least less effective in the rain – something akin to the invisible man walking through paint. Finally, Russian scientists recently claimed to have developed a radar that can detect stealth aircraft. If this is true, and played a role in the shoot-down, it would mean that Russia is not only violating the arms embargo against Yugoslavia, but is sending the very latest state-of-the-art equipment to the Serbs.


Also here's another one:

Stealth gives a plane a mask, but not a cloak, experts say
By Warren E. Leary, The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- The loss of an American stealth fighter in Yugoslavia on Saturday did not represent a failure of its radar-evading technology, experts said Wednesday.
The F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter-bomber, which went down 30 miles west of Belgrade, probably because of enemy fire, represents an early version of technology that is becoming increasingly common in military aircraft.
The technology, including materials and design features that cause the craft to absorb rather than reflect radar beams, was not expected to make planes invisible to radar, but rather to reduce an enemy's ability to detect them.
The exact cause of the F-117's loss has yet to be determined, but senior Pentagon officials, speaking on condition that they not be identified, said the plane was tracked for a time by Yugoslav military radar and probably was hit by a Russian-made SA-3 surface-to-air missile.
American military officials have not disclosed the operating conditions of the plane at the time it was lost, or how long it had been visible on radar.
But private military experts say that under the right conditions, stealth aircraft can be detected in a variety of ways, including with certain radars. Still, they said, the planes have great advantages over conventional warplanes without such "low-observability technology."
"No one ever said the F-117 was an invisible plane that could not be shot down," said John Pike, a military affairs analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. "It would be obviously incorrect to say this represents a failure of the technology.
"Stealth technology is not like a 'cloaking device' from 'Star Trek.' In the real world, it makes an airplane difficult to detect, but not impossible."
No warplane can be made totally undetectable. But the ability to make the Nighthawk and future models less obvious to radar and other sensors is improving in an effort to stay ahead of technology to detect them.
"This is like a cat-and-mouse game between technologies," said Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based study group. "The U.S. has been ahead in its stealth technology for a while, but this kind of technical monopoly is unusual and can't last."
Stealth features extend to the plane's two jet engines. The air intakes for the engines are covered with a mesh to keep radar signals from hitting spinning turbine blades, intensifying the signals, and engine exhaust exits the plane through slits that mix it with cold air, reducing the craft's infrared heat signature.
The F-117 can show up on radar screens in a number of ways, experts said, including by making sudden maneuvers at low altitude that can reflect signals to receivers in the area. Such turns and maneuvers are more likely over the mountainous terrain of Yugoslavia than the desert terrain of Iraq.
Further, experts said, when the plane opens its bomb-bay doors to drop its 2,000-pound "smart" bombs, the doors produce a large radar "reflection" that can disclose the aircraft's location.
"The plane is most vulnerable to detection when it drops its bombs," Pike said.
The bombs themselves show up on radar screens, allowing an enemy to track them back to their source.
The Air Force recently started coating the Nighthawk's bombs with a radar-absorbing coating, Pike said.
Krepinevich said the type of enemy radar and its position also could help in detecting a stealth plane.
The F-117 operates more effectively when American forces know the position of enemy radars so the plane can find its way through holes in a defense screen, he said, and tightly placed or unexpected radars operating at certain frequencies can detect the plane.
Newer stealth aircraft like the B-2 bomber and the F-22 fighter have designs dramatically different from that of the F-117. The new planes have a more curved and streamlined appearance that developers say makes them even less detectable.
Designers are incorporating stealth features into many new, more conventional warplanes, experts said, to lessen the possibility of detection but not necessarily to avoid it entirely.
"You want the advantage of seeing the enemy before he sees you," said Daniel Goure, deputy director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "even if it's only for a couple of minutes or a few seconds. If stealthiness allows you to get off the first shot, it's worth the effort."

dave angel
28 Nov 04,, 21:16
You're not referring to the F-14's out of the time with the Shah do you?


my understanding, and i hope you'll correct me if i'm wrong, is that the iranian air force F-4 and F-14 aircraft operational availability figures have suffered seriously since the loss of spares support since the early eighties and that canabalisation has been required to keep some of the original aircraft in the air.

i can't remember what the original delivery figures were, but i remember recently reading a BBC (i think) report saying that fewer than ten of the original F-14's were still flying.

lulldapull
29 Nov 04,, 03:00
my understanding, and i hope you'll correct me if i'm wrong, is that the iranian air force F-4 and F-14 aircraft operational availability figures have suffered seriously since the loss of spares support since the early eighties and that canabalisation has been required to keep some of the original aircraft in the air.

i can't remember what the original delivery figures were, but i remember recently reading a BBC (i think) report saying that fewer than ten of the original F-14's were still flying.


Actually they did have problems during the Iran/ Iraq war! and for some time afterwards! but since the 90's the iranians have reverse engineered many of the sub systems on both the F-4's and F-14's! :) the F-5 has also been successfully reverse engineered! and iran now has the capability to totally manufacture both the F-5 and the Bell model 214 "Isfahan"! The Ah-1J cobra has also been reverse engineered by HESA and several dozen new ones been inducted in the 'revolutionary' armoured core.

The F-14's and F-4's have also been adapted to carry and launch the Mim-23 Hawk Missiles! And IRIAF F-14's have been seen carrying a full compliment of both the Phoenix and the sparrow/ sidewinders.

Besides currently I doubt if the IRIAF places much faith in its F-14 fleet! Their main strike force comprises of the 32 or so Su-24 Fencers, and airsuperiority component dependant for the most part on the 53 or so mig-29B's, with R-27ET/ TE-1 as well as R-73 capability. :)

That right there vastly outstrips anything the F-14 ( save for the phoenix, which I still don't have much faith in ) can bring in to bare considering the fact that they still have the pathetic/ third class TF-30's! :)

Now dont get me wrong, but the F-14D is a much more capable aircraft, compared to the early 'Tomcat', and after hearing first hand how pathetic the F-14 actually is from one of our IPMS chapter presidents, who was a WSO/ RIO on the Tomcat for the better part of his 40's! I have zero faith in the Tomcat and its much touted Phoenix! :)

Tom Cooper can say whatever he wants to say about the tomcat in the new Osprey book "the iran Iraq war"! but there is strong evidence from the 80's that the Iraqi AF bested iranian pilots on many ocassions specially during the latter part of the iran Iraq war! Despite the israeli's keeping the F-5 and F-4 fleets up to reasonable operational levels! :)

At least 6 Tomcats fell to the Iraqi AF Mirage F-1's and Mig-21MF's, and another dozen lost to operational accidents despite being flown by the best in the IRIAF!

Garry
29 Nov 04,, 06:00
Stealth gives a plane a mask, but not a cloak, experts say
By Warren E. Leary, The New York Times

"

Yes this is right. But I would add GIVES A GOOD MASK BUT TAKES USEFULL LOAD AND AERODYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.... it is a trade off

ajaybhutani
29 Nov 04,, 08:11
Yes this is right. But I would add GIVES A GOOD MASK BUT TAKES USEFULL LOAD AND AERODYNAMIC CAPABILITIES.... it is a trade off
it all depends on how good teh trade off is . Adn in case of stuff like F117 and F22 its still debatable ..

Felix
29 Nov 04,, 11:31
my understanding, and i hope you'll correct me if i'm wrong, is that the iranian air force F-4 and F-14 aircraft operational availability figures have suffered seriously since the loss of spares support since the early eighties and that canabalisation has been required to keep some of the original aircraft in the air.

i can't remember what the original delivery figures were, but i remember recently reading a BBC (i think) report saying that fewer than ten of the original F-14's were still flying.
I was just asking because I would not consider the original 30 year old Tomcats high tech top of the line fighter any more (like you claimed in your post).
IIRC the Iranians got 12 F-14s and at the moment 8 are still operational. So it's not that bad as they don't get spares since the 1970s.

dave angel
29 Nov 04,, 13:27
I was just asking because I would not consider the original 30 year old Tomcats high tech top of the line fighter any more (like you claimed in your post).
IIRC the Iranians got 12 F-14s and at the moment 8 are still operational. So it's not that bad as they don't get spares since the 1970s.

one assumes that they didn't buy them to sit in hangers with no engines.

while the current fighting capabilities are open to question, what is not open to question is that they bought into a system that depended of foreign spares and when the political situation changed those spares dried up.

hence, because they had no control over the spares chain they ended up with a large number of very expensive paperweights.

so the lesson for today is: manufacture your own spares.

Felix
29 Nov 04,, 20:05
one assumes that they didn't buy them to sit in hangers with no engines.

while the current fighting capabilities are open to question, what is not open to question is that they bought into a system that depended of foreign spares and when the political situation changed those spares dried up.

hence, because they had no control over the spares chain they ended up with a large number of very expensive paperweights.

so the lesson for today is: manufacture your own spares.

manufacture your own fighter!

troung
29 Nov 04,, 22:52
"I was just asking because I would not consider the original 30 year old Tomcats high tech top of the line fighter any more (like you claimed in your post).
IIRC the Iranians got 12 F-14s and at the moment 8 are still operational. So it's not that bad as they don't get spares since the 1970s."


Iran got 79 and 59 are still operational...

Felix
30 Nov 04,, 06:41
Iran got 79 and 59 are still operational...
Well, that'S even better than my initial estimate...

ajaybhutani
30 Nov 04,, 09:42
Well, that'S even better than my initial estimate...
itans bet in ar will not be its F14 but the mig29 it has in similar numbers as they are not facing any sanction related probs. and also no deficience of missiles/repairs

Felix
30 Nov 04,, 20:10
itans bet in ar will not be its F14 but the mig29 it has in similar numbers as they are not facing any sanction related probs. and also no deficience of missiles/repairs
Well, personally I regard the MiG-29 a much better aircraft then the F-14

ajaybhutani
01 Dec 04,, 06:26
it surely is .:D

jgetti
07 Dec 04,, 22:46
Hey that makes sense Garry! good analysis. Even I agree that the su-30 series is getting a little too rich for these malaysia's and Indonesia's blood. Although for them nations that are 'damned' by the west the Su-30 represents the only response that has a very good chance of blowing an F-15E/ F-18E/F out into a pile of ****! :) Although the JSF will fare better than the super Honet or the Eagel, but still the Flanker can hold its own gainst it.

The Raptor on the other hand will take down any Flanker..( they just aint got anything in the performance class of the APG-77, or atleast not until the PAk-FA matures )...in the newer world airpower journal I have been reading up on the work that seems to have been restarted on the pak-Fa project as well as the rival OKb Mig rejuvenating the LFS/ LFI concept. I about fell over backwards and went into god-damn convulsion when I first saw the picture of Irans new fighter with the ******ty ass name of "Shafaaq" :biggrin: .....Boy that was a dead give away......

P.S. Hey what did you think of this article?

Your assumption that the JSF is a more fit fighter than the F-15E/K for air superiority is a mistaken assumption. The F-15 (set aside the tainted and biased COPE India '04 articles to sell the F/A-22) is still the air superiority fighter of choice in the world until F/A-22 becomes operational. The aircraft which flew in COPE India did not have the latest avionics suites, engines, or the AESA radar. Not to mention the F-15's were going up against multiple foreign aircraft simultaneously

"In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to Col. Greg
Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing’s 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India."

and were flying under restriction as designated by the USAF. In it's latest and greatest configuration, it is more than a match for the SU-30.

lulldapull
08 Dec 04,, 03:16
Your assumption that the JSF is a more fit fighter than the F-15E/K for air superiority is a mistaken assumption. The F-15 (set aside the tainted and biased COPE India '04 articles to sell the F/A-22) is still the air superiority fighter of choice in the world until F/A-22 becomes operational. The aircraft which flew in COPE India did not have the latest avionics suites, engines, or the AESA radar. Not to mention the F-15's were going up against multiple foreign aircraft simultaneously

"In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to Col. Greg
Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing’s 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India."

and were flying under restriction as designated by the USAF. In it's latest and greatest configuration, it is more than a match for the SU-30.

Hey man, I know the exercises were handicapped for a reason! in the newer World Airpower Journal, it clearly and very explicitly states that in " one " of the exercise 4 F-15's were pitted against a dozen IAF fighters, which included 4 - 6 mig-27L's coming in low to simulate an attack! flying immediate cover were 2 Bison's/ 21-93's with RVV-AE simulation pods for acquiring the targets out to 50 miles! and flying top cover were 2 - 4 Su-30k's or 2 - 4 Mica equipped Mirage-2000H's!!

The strike configured Mig-27's didn't engage the F-15's! They just tried to get through the F-15'CAP! :) it was the bison's and Su-30's that totally out did the F-15C's with their fire and forget R-27/ 77 or Mica simulated shots!

Although i admit that without the handicaps of not having the AMRAAM simulation/ acquisition pods in that Particular exercise, it obviously had its effects!

Anyway here is a better article from one of the sources:

More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the "Cope India" air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" of American aircraft to further justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a dramatic example of weakening of American air combat capabilities

Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.

Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.

The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities.

However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look." Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.

Now that being said, you also gotto understand that India didnot use the MKI! It only used the K flankers! :)

The MKI's bars radar has a 300km range buddy! it totally outclasses even the AWG-9's wattage and power, and will most likely burn right thru any type of ECM just thru sheer wattage!! It is a mini AWACS all by itself! And the running joke in the IAF currentl is that the rear warning Sirena on the MKI/ 27M boasts a 60km warning range! Thats pretty much the forward range on PAF's F-7PG's Grifo-7's!! :biggrin:

jgetti
08 Dec 04,, 14:52
Hey man, I know the exercises were handicapped for a reason! in the newer World Airpower Journal, it clearly and very explicitly states that in " one " of the exercise 4 F-15's were pitted against a dozen IAF fighters, which included 4 - 6 mig-27L's coming in low to simulate an attack! flying immediate cover were 2 Bison's/ 21-93's with RVV-AE simulation pods for acquiring the targets out to 50 miles! and flying top cover were 2 - 4 Su-30k's or 2 - 4 Mica equipped Mirage-2000H's!!

The strike configured Mig-27's didn't engage the F-15's! They just tried to get through the F-15'CAP! :) it was the bison's and Su-30's that totally out did the F-15C's with their fire and forget R-27/ 77 or Mica simulated shots!

Although i admit that without the handicaps of not having the AMRAAM simulation/ acquisition pods in that Particular exercise, it obviously had its effects!

Anyway here is a better article from one of the sources:

More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the "Cope India" air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" of American aircraft to further justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a dramatic example of weakening of American air combat capabilities

Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.

Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.

The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities.

However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look." Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.

Now that being said, you also gotto understand that India didnot use the MKI! It only used the K flankers! :)

The MKI's bars radar has a 300km range buddy! it totally outclasses even the AWG-9's wattage and power, and will most likely burn right thru any type of ECM just thru sheer wattage!! It is a mini AWACS all by itself! And the running joke in the IAF currentl is that the rear warning Sirena on the MKI/ 27M boasts a 60km warning range! Thats pretty much the forward range on PAF's F-7PG's Grifo-7's!! :biggrin:

Clearly you do not understand the capabilities of the AESA radar.

jgetti
08 Dec 04,, 16:07
Hey man, I know the exercises were handicapped for a reason! in the newer World Airpower Journal, it clearly and very explicitly states that in " one " of the exercise 4 F-15's were pitted against a dozen IAF fighters, which included 4 - 6 mig-27L's coming in low to simulate an attack! flying immediate cover were 2 Bison's/ 21-93's with RVV-AE simulation pods for acquiring the targets out to 50 miles! and flying top cover were 2 - 4 Su-30k's or 2 - 4 Mica equipped Mirage-2000H's!!

The strike configured Mig-27's didn't engage the F-15's! They just tried to get through the F-15'CAP! :) it was the bison's and Su-30's that totally out did the F-15C's with their fire and forget R-27/ 77 or Mica simulated shots!

Although i admit that without the handicaps of not having the AMRAAM simulation/ acquisition pods in that Particular exercise, it obviously had its effects!

Anyway here is a better article from one of the sources:

More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the "Cope India" air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" of American aircraft to further justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a dramatic example of weakening of American air combat capabilities

Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.

Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.

The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities.

However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look." Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s.

Now that being said, you also gotto understand that India didnot use the MKI! It only used the K flankers! :)

The MKI's bars radar has a 300km range buddy! it totally outclasses even the AWG-9's wattage and power, and will most likely burn right thru any type of ECM just thru sheer wattage!! It is a mini AWACS all by itself! And the running joke in the IAF currentl is that the rear warning Sirena on the MKI/ 27M boasts a 60km warning range! Thats pretty much the forward range on PAF's F-7PG's Grifo-7's!! :biggrin:

I think one thing we agree on clearly is that there is no one aircraft that is better than another aircraft. There are aircraft CONFIGURATIONS that are better than other aircraft CONFIGURATIONS. Everyone knows that the F-15 and SU-30 are formidable aircraft. To determine which one is better would depend completely on their configuration.

Now the MKI certainly has superior radar than the standard F-15C or even most F-15E models. I can take nothing away from the aircraft, it is a badass. However, if you're trying to decide which airframe is the best air superiority fighter, you would have to compare the best configuration to the best configuration. The F-15C's at Elmendorf with the AESA radar are going to get first look, first shot, first kill on an SU-30 MKI. The same goes for the F-15K's which will have an even further enhanced AESA radar, the latest and greatest avionics package, and the GE F110-P129 engines with greater thrust than the Elmendorf birds.

lulldapull
08 Dec 04,, 16:13
Clearly you do not understand the capabilities of the AESA radar.


Dude puhlese! Like I said the Aesa in the APG-63 V1/2 increases the situational awareness and combat potential for the F-15C driver! But as is the airframe for the F-15 is getting dated!

And having personally talked to the newer F-15E drivers with those large CFT's even they admit now that the aircraft loses its manouverability when toting those! :)

In a knife fight the sukhoi will bust the F-15 in the ass pretty much every time! The MKI's already can reach mach-2.4 ( with 2x R-73's and 2 R-77's) with the uprated AL-31F's! F-15 is limited to Mach2.0 with 2 large tanks and 2 Aim-9's plus 2 Aim-120's!

In the longer range RVR scenario, they boast a smaller RCS than the boxy and very reflective F-15. And I seriously doubt the effectiveness of the AMRAAM, which currently stands at par with the Aim-7, in terms for kills for launched missiles!! :)

Also the R-73 with the HMS negates much of the F-15's close in fighting capabilities! Ony recently rectified with the introduction of the Aim-9X. :)

INMO with the introduction of the Ks-172 Novatar missile, the USAF will be denied the traditional advantage of controlling the combat with the AWACS advantage! The E-3 or E-2 wont be safe anymore out to 300Kms!

Already Cope India showed that without the Awacs and ECM/ ELINT edge that the USAF enjoys, it quickly got down graded to just any other AF! :)

Jgetti, buddy, you gotto understand that not every AF in the third world is comparable to a defunct and isolated sanctions hit IraqiAF, where possibly none of the Aircraft were fully opeational with severely degraded GCI infrastructure.! :)

Believe me there are many competent AF's out there in the third world.

Praxus
08 Dec 04,, 16:22
In the longer range RVR scenario, they boast a smaller RCS than the boxy and very reflective F-15. And I seriously doubt the effectiveness of the AMRAAM, which currently stands at par with the Aim-7, in terms for kills for launched missiles!!

Any evidence?


INMO with the introduction of the Ks-172 Novatar missile, the USAF will be denied the traditional advantage of controlling the combat with the AWACS advantage! The E-3 or E-2 wont be safe anymore out to 300Kms!

Any proof the KS-172 is effective? Hell any proof it has the range it does?

lulldapull
08 Dec 04,, 16:33
here is the latest article rom "inside the AF"

USAF: Indian Exercises Showed Need For F/A-22, Changes In Training

© Inside The Air Force

By Hampton Stephens

[June 4, 2004]

A recent exercise with the Indian Air Force is causing U.S. Air Force officials to re-evaluate the way the service trains its fighter pilots while bolstering the case for buying the F/A-22 as a way to ensure continued air dominance for the United States, according to service officials.

The surprising sophistication of Indian fighter aircraft and skill of Indian pilots demonstrated at the Cope India air combat exercise Feb. 15 through 27 at Gwalior Air Force Station, India, should provide a reality check for those who had assumed unquestioned U.S. air superiority, service officials who participated in the exercise said this week. The event was the first-ever air combat exercise involving the U.S. and India and the most active bilateral military exchange in over 40 years, according to these officials.

“The major takeaway for the Air Force is that our prediction of needing to replace the F-15 with the F/A-22 is proving out as we get smarter and smarter about other [countries’] capabilities around the world and what technology is limited to in the F-15 airframe,” said Col. Mike Snodgrass, commander of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK. “We’ve taken [the F-15] about as far as we can and it’s now time to move to the next generation.” Snodgrass, who has been selected to receive his first star, and two other wing officials spoke with Inside the Air Force June 2.
Exercise Cope India 2004 - IAF Su-30 and USAF F-15C in formation

The Air Force has been arguing the absolute necessity of the F/A-22 since the program began. But the performance of the Indians in direct competition against the Air Force’s best fighter, the F-15C, was particularly striking evidence of an endangered U.S. lead in air combat capability, the statements of service officials indicate.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee in March that the results of Cope India were “very revealing,” although he declined to elaborate in a public forum. Privately, other senior service officials have pointed to Cope India as evidence that continued U.S. air superiority is dependent on the F/A-22.

Although service officials have been reluctant to detail how the Indians performed against the six F-15Cs from the 3rd Wing that participated in Cope India, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb. 26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF.

Officials from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf did not provide specifics about how their aircraft fared, but said the experience is causing the service to reevaluate the way it trains its pilots for air-to-air operations.

“What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought,” Snodgrass said. “And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated.”

“Red air” refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the U.S. pilots that simulate the enemy, known as “red” forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability.

“We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone else’s technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; we call that ‘red air,’” Snodgrass said.
Exercise Cope India 2004 - USAF F-15C and IAF MiG-21 Bisons (MiG-21 Upgrades) in formation

As a result, Air Force pilots are used to flying against an enemy whose combat capability is deliberately limited.

“There are manoeuvering limits as well as weapons employment limits, what we believe enemy aircraft may be able to do with their weapons systems, so we try to simulate that in our own airplane with our own weapons,” Snodgrass explained. “It becomes very complex because instead of using the airplane the way it was designed, you now have to come up with rules of thumb that limit what you do and cause you to not perform . . . the way we really would want to in combat.”

The Cope India exercises consisted of air combat maneuvers in which pilots would practice their fighter tactics and fly against each other one-on-one, as well as simulated combat scenarios. It was during this simulated combat, which included both “offensive counterair” and “defensive counterair” scenarios, that the Indians proved the most formidable, according to the 3rd Wing officials. In the offensive counterair scenarios, a small number of F-15Cs would attempt to intercept an enemy strike aircraft en route to a target that was guarded by a larger number of Indian fighters. In the defensive counterair missions, the F-15s would attempt to defend a target against Indian fighters.

In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to Col. Greg Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing’s 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India. The 3rd Operations Group is responsible for the 3rd Wing’s flying mission.

The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MIG-27 and MIG-29, but the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MIG-21, and the SU-30K Flanker, also made in Russia, Neubeck said. He emphasized the fact that U.S. forces were always outnumbered in these scenarios, but said the missions proved more difficult than expected.
Mirage-2000s and F-15s fly over the majestic Himalayas

“What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome,” Neubeck said.

One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of “red air.” Instead, “they fly pretty much blue-on-blue . . . [a] full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody else’s airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft,” Neubeck said.

In addition to reinforcing the need for the F/A-22, therefore, Cope India demonstrated that the service might be able to immediately improve its air combat capability by changing the way Air Force pilots train.

“The Air Force is re-examining, from what I can understand, our concept of red air and how we might be able to provide red air to our fighter forces so that we get [the best] training we can afford,” Snodgrass said.

Neubeck said the service probably needs to “take off the handcuffs that we put on our red air training aids and allow them to be more aggressive and make the red air tougher than we have in the past.”

Although India is a friendly nation, the lesson of Cope India is that almost any nation could surpass the United States’ air combat capability if the Pentagon does not continue to invest in better training and technology, the Elmendorf officials said. At last count, for example, there were over 5,000 MIG-21s active in air forces around the world, Snodgrass said. Even American fighters, such as Boeing’s F-15, are being sold in upgraded versions to countries around the world.

“I believe what this demonstrates is that the capacity exists out there for any nation with the appropriate resources and the will to acquire technology and to train their aircrews to be very, very capable,” said Col. Russ Handy, commander of the 3rd Operations Group. “In the long term this could occur in nations outside of the Indian Air Force.”

The Air Force will get another chance to test its capabilities against the Indians in July, when the IAF will bring its Jaguar fighter-bomber aircraft to Eielson AFB, AK, for the Cooperative Cope Thunder exercise. The 3rd Wing officers said their pilots had not yet flown against an Indian-piloted Jaguar.

lulldapull
08 Dec 04,, 16:40
now don't get me wrong guys, in a any scenario BVR or Knife fight, the F-22 will strike down any Flanker! :)

Super cruise, combined with exceptional manouverability bestowed by excellent ( 3 dimensional) TVN along with the first ever FLIR/ IRST linked to possibly a new Gen IR missile! And above all a stealthy airframe over the Su-30! backed up by a new type of AESA radar much better than the Apg-63's V2! :)

The Pak-Fa will be able to handle the F-22! Not the Su-30.

Praxus
08 Dec 04,, 17:44
Are you aware of the conditions under which the practice took place in India?

In most cases we were outnumbed by over 2 to 1. On top of this we did not use AWACS.


now don't get me wrong guys, in a any scenario BVR or Knife fight, the F-22 will strike down any Flanker!

Super cruise, combined with exceptional manouverability bestowed by excellent ( 3 dimensional) TVN along with the first ever FLIR/ IRST linked to possibly a new Gen IR missile! And above all a stealthy airframe over the Su-30! backed up by a new type of AESA radar much better than the Apg-63's V2!

The Pak-Fa will be able to handle the F-22! Not the Su-30.

The Pak-Fa also doesn't exsist yet.

lulldapull
08 Dec 04,, 18:01
Are you aware of the conditions under which the practice took place in India?

In most cases we were outnumbed by over 2 to 1. On top of this we did not use AWACS.



The Pak-Fa also doesn't exsist yet.


Yeah I know dude! but checkout the very first post in this therad! Read about the comparison of the Su-30 vs the JSF and the F-18E/F! :)

The outnumbering scenario was designed to replicate a strike package with escorts! The F-15C's were the defenders!

Not in all the aircombat scenarios were the F-15's outnumbered! :)

man I am just baffled about that 90% figure! Outnumbered or not thats a very high and ridiculous number! :eek:

jgetti
08 Dec 04,, 19:43
Dude puhlese! Like I said the Aesa in the APG-63 V1/2 increases the situational awareness and combat potential for the F-15C driver! But as is the airframe for the F-15 is getting dated!

And having personally talked to the newer F-15E drivers with those large CFT's even they admit now that the aircraft loses its manouverability when toting those! :)

In a knife fight the sukhoi will bust the F-15 in the ass pretty much every time! The MKI's already can reach mach-2.4 ( with 2x R-73's and 2 R-77's) with the uprated AL-31F's! F-15 is limited to Mach2.0 with 2 large tanks and 2 Aim-9's plus 2 Aim-120's!

In the longer range RVR scenario, they boast a smaller RCS than the boxy and very reflective F-15. And I seriously doubt the effectiveness of the AMRAAM, which currently stands at par with the Aim-7, in terms for kills for launched missiles!! :)

Also the R-73 with the HMS negates much of the F-15's close in fighting capabilities! Ony recently rectified with the introduction of the Aim-9X. :)

INMO with the introduction of the Ks-172 Novatar missile, the USAF will be denied the traditional advantage of controlling the combat with the AWACS advantage! The E-3 or E-2 wont be safe anymore out to 300Kms!

Already Cope India showed that without the Awacs and ECM/ ELINT edge that the USAF enjoys, it quickly got down graded to just any other AF! :)

Jgetti, buddy, you gotto understand that not every AF in the third world is comparable to a defunct and isolated sanctions hit IraqiAF, where possibly none of the Aircraft were fully opeational with severely degraded GCI infrastructure.! :)

Believe me there are many competent AF's out there in the third world.

You're blowing smoke up the wrong person's ass, I'm an engineer on the F-15.
I regulary converse with pilots from all over the world who fly this bird. I know this aircraft inside and out, understand it's capabilities and the capabilities of it's competitors very well. CFT's ENHANCE the aerodynamic characteristics of the jet. Any degradation of performance would only be due to the additional bomb stores available on the CFT's for the E models, which the C models DO NOT have. I'll give you that it has a horribly large RCS. However, the SU-30 doesn't exactly leave a small footprint in the sky either. The dated airframe arguement says nothing about it's maneuverability characteristics, and I'm confident that you do not know it's limitations. and you CERTAINLY do not know the limitations of the AESA APG63 V2 radar, so don't even pretend to snow people with your holy grail of aircraft knowledge.

lulldapull
08 Dec 04,, 21:54
You're blowing smoke up the wrong person's ass, I'm an engineer on the F-15.
I regulary converse with pilots from all over the world who fly this bird. I know this aircraft inside and out, understand it's capabilities and the capabilities of it's competitors very well. CFT's ENHANCE the aerodynamic characteristics of the jet. Any degradation of performance would only be due to the additional bomb stores available on the CFT's for the E models, which the C models DO NOT have. I'll give you that it has a horribly large RCS. However, the SU-30 doesn't exactly leave a small footprint in the sky either. The dated airframe arguement says nothing about it's maneuverability characteristics, and I'm confident that you do not know it's limitations. and you CERTAINLY do not know the limitations of the AESA APG63 V2 radar, so don't even pretend to snow people with your holy grail of aircraft knowledge.

Okay man you know it all! I am just a dumb ass, as is this article, or the dozens of articles ppl posted here! :)

And as a reminder about CFT's that they do have a weight and performance penalty! They do extend range, but the manoeverability is affected due to the thousands of pounds extra weight! And a weight that cannot be jettisoned while in combat! :) its only a good loadout for the f-15E, configured for the Air to ground role.

jgetti
09 Dec 04,, 14:45
Okay man you know it all! I am just a dumb ass, as is this article, or the dozens of articles ppl posted here! :)

And as a reminder about CFT's that they do have a weight and performance penalty! They do extend range, but the manoeverability is affected due to the thousands of pounds extra weight! And a weight that cannot be jettisoned while in combat! :) its only a good loadout for the f-15E, configured for the Air to ground role.


Point taken,, I was refering to the aerodynamic improvement. CFT's reduce aerodynamic drag on the aircraft, increasing its cruise capability under MIL power, as well as aerodynamic performance. But you're right, F=MA.

CFT's were originally created for the C model (air to air role only). Naturally they add more weight to the aircraft, but unlike drop-tanks, they improve aerodynamic performance. While they increase wing loading (when filled), they reduce aerodynamic drag. The CFT's in essence add more INTERNAL fuel holding capability. Any aircraft full of fuel will not perform as well as an aircraft that's got less. An F-15C with CFT's of equivalent weight to and F-15C without will perform better than the F-15C without.

lulldapull
09 Dec 04,, 14:58
Point taken,, I was refering to the aerodynamic improvement. CFT's reduce aerodynamic drag on the aircraft, increasing its cruise capability under MIL power, as well as aerodynamic performance. But you're right, F=MA.


Alright.....


Hey I was gonna tel you that this guy in our IPMS chapter whi is a ANG F-16 driver told us when he was giving us a tour of the ANG station out here near Glenview about what one of the F-18 drivers did with his F-18! :biggrin: :biggrin:

The Russians were doing cobra's and tail slides over his base, and he just told his sqd. mates, that he ain't gonna let no russian impress the crowds on his base! :biggrin:

He got up, got in his F-18 took it staright up while the Su-27's were landing, Did a full nose high tail stand at 100knts, followed by a quick cobra! All in one shot! :)

Ppl couldn't god-damn believe it! :biggrin: He did get reprimanded/ written up by his boss when he landed though! :biggrin: The F-18 is not built to take those types of structural stresses caused by those abrupt manouvers!

I still believe the the F-18 is the most manouverable type in service!, and thr E/F will be the definitive version! The F-16 cannot even do a tail stand! :)

jgetti
09 Dec 04,, 16:31
Alright.....


Hey I was gonna tel you that this guy in our IPMS chapter whi is a ANG F-16 driver told us when he was giving us a tour of the ANG station out here near Glenview about what one of the F-18 drivers did with his F-18! :biggrin: :biggrin:

The Russians were doing cobra's and tail slides over his base, and he just told his sqd. mates, that he ain't gonna let no russian impress the crowds on his base! :biggrin:

He got up, got in his F-18 took it staright up while the Su-27's were landing, Did a full nose high tail stand at 100knts, followed by a quick cobra! All in one shot! :)

Ppl couldn't god-damn believe it! :biggrin: He did get reprimanded/ written up by his boss when he landed though! :biggrin: The F-18 is not built to take those types of structural stresses caused by those abrupt manouvers!

I still believe the the F-18 is the most manouverable type in service!, and thr E/F will be the definitive version! The F-16 cannot even do a tail stand! :)

Wicked! I'd love to see that! The LEX's on those birds sure keeps the AOA pretty limitless. I've seen the Blue Angels perform a few times and they rock ass! Naturally, they keep the G's within spec though. I think the Navy is really gonna love the Superhornet,,, it's finally giving them the legs they wanted with the original one. Now if they could just do something about those F414 engines..... Probably isn't too much you can do with a fixed geometry inlet though.

jgetti
09 Dec 04,, 22:16
Yeah, well that doesn't make me sleep any easier... this whole JSF thing kinda stinks... Frankly, I think the US aerospace industry has lost the plot...

CAN ANYBODY OUT THERE OFFER US AUSSIES A COMBAT AIRCRAFT THAT WILL GUARANTEE AIR SUPERIORITY? (cue: sound of crickets chirping)

Trust me, all the crap articles out there slinging mud all over the F-15 are just what that article title says,, killing the F-15 to save the F/A-22. There are lots of big dogs in the Pentagon that are afraid the F/A-22 program will be cut (it narrowly escaped the chopping block more than once),, and with good reason. It's so damned over budget and behind schedule it's pathetic,,, AND as those same pentagon big whigs know that the longer the F-15 is around, the more likely the F/A-22 will be cancelled (or at least reduced to a smaller specialty fleet like the B-2's). Opponents of the F/A-22 in US congress want to kill it because it's so damned expensive, and they see it as unjustified because the F-15 can still maintain air superiority over anything out there. That's the pentagons biggest fear,,, NOT that the F-15 can't maintain air superiority anymore.

They want their new airplane and they want it bad. Even if it means killing the best thing currently around in the process. COPE India was the perfect opportunity to secure the F/A-22's fate,,, throw some less than top of the line C models out there, limit the capabilities they do have,, and let the liberal media take care of the rest. It had NOTHING to do with the performance (or lack thereof) of the F-15,, it was all politics. The F-15E's have very similar capability to the F-15C's in terms of air superiority (let alone AESA which IS an option for an F-15E derivitive i.e. the F-15K. The E model is frequently written off as a strike aircraft with diminished air superiority fighting capability which is untrue. The E retains the air superiority role, only decreased by it's increased payload capabilities for strike.

You wouldn't believe the internal termoil at Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) on the issue of the F-15 and F/A-22. All the guys in St. Louis (heritage McDonnell Douglas) want to keep the F-15 alive as it is an outstanding strike fighter which can fly very long distances, loiter, bomb the crap out of things, and fight it's way back home (and it's made in St. Louis). All the guys in Seattle (where the Boeing portion of F/A-22 is based) want the F-15 dead. It isn't that the boys in St. Louis want the F/A-22 cancelled or don't think it's justified, it's more that they don't want their strike fighter killed in the process. Are they saying that the F-15 is a better air superiority fighter than the F/A-22??? HELL NO. Only that it is still better than anything else out there.

For whatever reason, an F-15E derivitive wasn't chosen to replace the F-111's. However, it is by far the closest thing out there (let alone a B-1) that can match it's strike capabilities in terms of range and payload. In addition, you could have gotten long range air superiority capability similar to that of the F-15C.