PDA

View Full Version : Some guy compared planes........



MIKEMUN
01 Mar 05,, 10:13
By Anatoly Shamin, Alexander Ilgov, Vladimir Stepanov
Central Research Institute #30 of the MoD, Russia

[January 2001]

An analysis of air force inventories in the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region indicates that local fighter forces mostly consist of obsolete U.S.-made F-5 and F-4 aircraft. Only a few air forces are armed with relatively new versions of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.

An analysis of air force inventories in the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region indicates that local fighter forces mostly consist of obsolete U.S.-made F-5 and F-4 aircraft. Only a few air forces are armed with relatively new versions of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.

Purchases by India of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters, which have significantly enhanced combat capabilities of the Indian Air Force, and previous sales of the Su-27 and Su-30 fighters to China and Vietnam may determine further development of air forces in the Asia-Pacific region and help maintain the balance of power.

The competition on the Asia-Pacific military aircraft market, made ever keener by the recent sales of the Su-30MKI fighters, requires from potential buyers a clear understanding of basic specifics of aircraft.

The flight performance, technical characteristics and combat capabilities of any aircraft primarily depend on their assigned role, tactical tasks and mission environment. These factors alone distinguish the Russian fighter from its foreign counterparts.

The Su-30MKI design, having retained the best features of the unsurpassed Su-27 air-superiority fighter, boasts enhanced functional capabilities. It should be noted that comparison of the Su-30MKI, a heavy-class fighter, with the F-16C Block 50, F-16C Block 60, and F-18E/F aircraft is largely theoretical, as they belong to conceptually different fighter classes and have their own, preferential areas of combat employment. For example, the F-18E/F version, owing to the F/A-18 basic design, features a more pronounced strike-mission capability, while in terms of dimensions, this aircraft is close to the Russian fighter.


The famed Su-37 and F-16 side by side at an airshow in Berlin.
The Su-30MKI gets all advanced features of the Su-37 and much more.

The basic tactical and technical characteristics determining the capabilities of any aircraft include its flight performance and avionics and armament characteristics. Their analysis makes it possible to compare aircraft and assess the level of their technical perfection.

The Su-30MKI’s structural and aerodynamic configuration incorporates the latest research and technological achievements. It is a triplane (a combination of conventional design with foreplanes) with a lifting fuselage and developed wingroot extensions. The interaction of the foreplanes and wingroot extensions creates a controlled vortex effect similar to that of the adaptive wing. The F-16 and F-18 designs were developed in the early and mid-1970s. In terms of maximum aerodynamic efficiency, the Su-30MKI, like all Su-27-family aircraft, is unparalleled in the world and outperforms the above foreign counterparts by at least 50 to 100 percent. This is why the latest modernization programs, which gave birth to the F-16C Block 60 and F-18E/F versions, involved the increase of wing span, fuselage length and control surface areas and significantly changed the structural configuration and general layout of their basic versions.

Engines with thrust-vectoring nozzles enable the Su-30MKI to perform such maneuvers as «cobra» vertical reverse, roll in «bell» turn in «cobra» etc. In these maneuvers, an angle of attack can reach 180o. These are not purely aerobatic maneuvers: this supermaneuverability can be effectively used in combat. As for the F-16 and F-18 aircraft, their maximum angles of attack are 30o and 40o, respectively, and they cannot use armament at supercritical angles of attack.

In terms of conventional maneuverability characteristics, all these fighters are very similar. However, according to preliminary assessments, the Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability gives it a 30-percent superiority over its competitors in close air combat. Aircraft multiple capabilities put into the forefront the problem of effective weapon employment. To solve this problem, the Su-30MKI has a copilot/operator to improve the crew’s performance, weapon employment efficiency and provide for group missions.

The role of avionics in aircraft combat employment is ever growing. A number of the Su-30MKI fighter’s subsystems (navigation and communications equipment, cockpit instruments) are being developed jointly with foreign companies. Consequently, these subsystems will be technologically on a par with the best foreign counterparts. The superiority of the Su-30MKI’s radar in terms of target detection range, scanning sectors and jamming immunity makes it highly effective in long-range air combat.

Modern Russian fighters are equipped with an advanced optronic system designed to search, detect, lock on, automatically track aerial and ground targets and destroy them by onboard weapons. An optical locating station and a helmet-mounted sight incorporated by the system provide for effective weapon employment against aerial targets. The high accuracy and jamming immunity of the system interfaced with the onboard radar make it possible to detect targets at a range of up to 50 km and engage them in good time, significantly enhancing the fighter’s overall combat capabilities. The helmet-mounted sights have only recently appeared on foreign fighters. As for optronic equipment used against ground targets, the capabilities of the F-16’s LANTIRN and F-18E/F’s ATFLIR systems are close to those of the Russian-made analog, although foreign developers maintain a priority in this field.

Compared to the F-16C Block 50, a heavy weapon load carried by the Su-30MKI significantly (by 20 percent) reduces the time required to defeat ground targets by one sortie, especially when using aerial bombs. The F-18E/F fighter is planned to have a similar combat load capacity in the future.

Notably, in terms of quantity and types of weapons, the Russian fighter considerably outclasses the F-16C Block 50 and F-16C Block 60 aircraft. Only the F-18E/F is close to the Su-30MKI in this respect.


An Australian(?) F-18 and Su-27 seen together in flight

In terms of target designation angles, maneuverability, etc., the R-73E close-range air-to-air missile in service with the Su-30MKI significantly outperforms similar foreign missiles and is rightly considered the world’s best in its class. The high energy and ballistic parameters of the Su-30MKI’s long-range air-to-air missiles, combined with the capability of its radar, allow it to deliver preventive strikes against aerial targets, including its potential rivals.

Fitted with 12 weapon stores, carrying a full complement of air-to-air missiles and featuring a multichannel target engagement capability, the Su-30MKI fighter can be effectively used to repulse a massive air raid.

The Su-30MKI has a twofold advantage over the F-16 aircraft in the number of simultaneously carried air-to-ground guided weapons, which are also more efficient. High-power guided weapons carried by the Su-30MKI enable it to defeat deeply buried, hardened and superhardened priority targets. The Su-30MKI’s medium-range guided missile can be launched at stand-off ranges. The F-18E/F fighter is expected to be armed with similar missiles after 2005. It will be also equipped with air-to-surface missiles guided by a satellite navigation system, although export deliveries of these aircraft are unlikely in the near future.

Antiradar and antiship missiles in service with the Su-30MKI fighter excel their foreign couterparts in their mean speed.The Su-30MKI’s gun features higher accuracy and better armor piercing capability against lightly armored vehicles. Owing to its unique features which favorably distinguish it from foreign counterparts, the Su-30MKI is rightly considered one of the best multirole fighters at the beginning of the 21st century.

Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance. According to preliminary estimates, in long-range air combat, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 60, F-16C Block 50 and F-18E/F aircraft by 15, 20 and 12-15 percent, respectively, owing to its radar’s greater detection range, higher jamming immunity and multichannel capability, as well as better maneuverability.

he Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability and better air-to-air missiles give this aircraft superiority in close air combat in which it excels the F-16C Block 50 by 10-15 percent, F-16C Block 60 by 20-30 percent (as the high wing loading significantly limits its maneuverability in close-range combat), and F-18E/F by 15-20 percent.


Opposing Forces: IAF Su-30K and PAF F-16 Fighters

In terms of ground strike capabilities, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 50 by 50 percent and the F-16C Block 60 by 100 percent owing to its better surveillance and fire control radar system, higher survivability, better maneuverability, heavier combat load and longer flight range. The F-18E/F, following its modernization which has increased its flight range, armament suite and ammunition load and upgraded its surveillance and fire control radar system, still lags behind the Su-30MKI in strike capability by 15 to 20 percent.

Another distinguishing feature of the Su-30MKI is its high versatility. It can be used as an air defense interceptor, a strike aircraft or a flying command post. It can be used as a leader aircraft of combined fighter groups (including those of light fighters), ensuring their cooperation and concentration of efforts. In addition, the SDU-10MK digital fly-by-wire control system makes it possible to use the Su-30MKI as a combat trainer.

The above comparative analysis of the Su-30MKI’s combat performance and technical characteristics demonstrate that this aircraft is capable of attaining air superiority, repulsing massive air raids, supporting combat actions of other air groups, destroying a wide range of ground and naval targets, and executing various special missions.

The Su-30MKI can operate over short ranges and also fulfill autonomous long-range missions. Unlike the F-16 and F-18 aircraft, the Su-30MKI’s short-range operation will not reveal all its capabilities, yet its advantages here are still obvious. Hopefully, the above assessment will allow potential customers to evaluate the combat capabilities of the Russian fighter and its main rivals on the Asia-Pacific aircraft market.


What pari is credible and what part is not??? Ideas,guys...

MIKEMUN
01 Mar 05,, 10:17
Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'
Aviation Week and Space Technology, aviationnow.com

By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

[May 24, 2002]

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.


"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.


The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.

I know it is old news...........I just need to hear your thoughts...

ajaybhutani
01 Mar 05,, 13:21
Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'
Aviation Week and Space Technology, aviationnow.com

By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

[May 24, 2002]

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.


"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.


The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.

I know it is old news...........I just need to hear your thoughts...

Some points to note about the article.
1. Compares SU30K with F15C(without AESA). The obvious edge russian ac's have is their better airframes while they lack in avionics like AESA.
2. It would be difficult to use it as a base for comparing soemthin like MKI with F15AESA. As both come with greatly increased radar ranges and higher level of ECM's adn rafar jamming.
3. MKI surely is better in WVR. Whats worrying is how effective the AESA os F15 can be against MKI's BARs which will determine the edge in BVR.

Bill
01 Mar 05,, 23:12
"As for optronic equipment used against ground targets, the capabilities of the F-16’s LANTIRN and F-18E/F’s ATFLIR systems are close to those of the Russian-made analog, although foreign developers maintain a priority in this field."

The ATFLIR of the F-18E/F is absolute state of the art FLIR technology.

NATO, let alone the Russians, have NOTHING remotely comparable to the ATFLIR of the Super Hornet(for that matter neither does any other US aircraft either).

Bill
01 Mar 05,, 23:18
During WWII the Japanese Zero would vastly outturn/manuever any aircraft in the US arsenal.

It wasn't even close.

Yet, 'obsolete' P-40B Warhawks piloted by the US AVG(Flying Tigers) completely dominated the Zeros in actual air combat.

Why?

Because the US pilots used the strengths of their aircraft and avoided playing into the strengths of the tight-turning zeros. IOW, the US tactics allowed the less than nimble P-40 to dominate the airwar over China despite an opponent that could literally run circles around them.

A tight turning aircraft is nice, but it is hardly neccesary to win, and win decisively.

What is of FAR more importance is solid tactics built around the capabilities of the airframe you ARE using, and maximizing the enemy airframes weaknessess, along with top notch pilot training.

As a side note, the same was true in Vietnam when poor turning F-4s maintained an impressive 4:1 kill ratio over FAR more nimble Mig-21s.

Tactics, tactics, tactics followed by training, training, training is what wins the day.

Not how small a circle you can turn.

Dima
02 Mar 05,, 04:01
well, they only maintained a 4:1 ratio after the Top Gun training was introduced towards the end of the war, before this was introduced, actually, the losses were 1:1

Bill
02 Mar 05,, 05:28
Top Gun was only for USN and USMC pilots, and only a select few of them.

The main turn around in kill ratio resulted in the mounting of a gun on the F-4, and the re-evaluation of cold war 'missilier' tactics.

For instance, the Gun armed USN F-8 Crusader maintained a better than 10:1 kill ratio vs the Mig-21 throughout the war.

Dima
03 Mar 05,, 04:13
yea, but the F-8 was used in limited amounts(?) that's what i heard at danshistory.com

the Top Gun training was applied to all Navy pilots, can you give me a link stating that it was only to a select few?

highsea
03 Mar 05,, 07:11
Dima, not all pilots go through Topgun, or as it's now called, Strike Fighter Tactical Instructor (STFI) school. The graduates of Topgun go back and act as training officers to their squadrons. The school moved from NAS Miramar to NAS Fallon in 1996. You can read about it here:

http://www.fallon.navy.mil/nsawc.htm

There's some history of the school here:

http://www.geocities.com/merlin_topgun3000/topgunschool.html

Garry
03 Mar 05,, 10:09
As a side note, the same was true in Vietnam when poor turning F-4s maintained an impressive 4:1 kill ratio over FAR more nimble Mig-21s.

Snipe your Vietnam statistics is flawed... and it is not your fault but something residual from old propaganda statistics of 60-es. Although US millitary officially never officially admited that their Vietnam and North Korea statistics was incorrect.... but talk to them and I guess many of them would agree unofficially that you can not rely on those figures. Both parties were providing flawed statistics.... and US had to do that to calm down domestic opposition to the war. Look even number of released POW pilots of B-52 in N.Korea does not match the record of b-52 loses there... Vietnam actual losses were biased even more. You may infer if you look at disclosed figures of millitary budget in those years.... procurement of new AC was too big in 60-es while growth of AF did not support that....

Moreover it is clear that actual Russian delivery of Mig-21 to Vietnam was far below the kill record reported by US AF and Navy. I know this for sure as I looked into manufacturing statistics of a plant which was sole deliverer of MiG-21 to Vietnam in 60-es and early 70-es. Moreover as I understood from millitary expert who was there. Vietnam and Russia were more relying on SAMs rather than fighters - reason? Vietnam simply did not have much piliots capable landing MiG-21 those years. Its AF was created too fast. Moreover after few Russian pilots were shot down on South Vietnam terriotory, Russian Government prohibited Russian instructors participating in combat since late 1967...

Bill
03 Mar 05,, 12:13
It's hard to take any combat stats as rock solid.

So taking in the big picture, i agree with you.

But we can only use the stats we have... as guidelines.

Garry
03 Mar 05,, 13:52
It's hard to take any combat stats as rock solid.

So taking in the big picture, i agree with you.

But we can only use the stats we have... as guidelines.

well the kill ratio was actually reverse of what you stated (around 1.5 to 1) not because US pilots were inferior but because there was simply not enough enemy to equalize Air to Air scores after initially high losses of US AF and Navy in 1965-1971. Later they demolished Vietnam AF completelly killing most of its acces but there were too few of them initially.

I actually find quite humiliating to count bodies of guys from both sides who participated in that battle.... but those were the figures I found in internet....

MiG Losses to A to A
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/usvictor.html

US losses to MIGs
http://home.sprynet.com/~anneled/usloss.html

Some agregated data siting your favorite 4 to 1 kill ratio (which other side does not agree with as Vietnamise simply have never had more than 200 aircraft)

http://www.danshistory.com/airwar.shtml

lulldapull
03 Mar 05,, 16:05
The kill to loss ratios in Vietnam airwar was as follows:

53 USAF/ USN/ USMC aircraft lost to migs!

84 Migs shot down!

These are U.S. figures. Which I outrightly reject! :) There is massive new evidence now of new claims by NVAF jocks! which were rejected by the USAF and attributed to Sam or AAA!

n The USAF kill to loss ratio wasn't even close to 4:1! Not even by a long shot! And in all honesty a good third of the shot-down aircraft by the NVAF were rejected by the U.S. military and quickly substituted by the usual Sa-2 kills! :biggrin: :biggrin:

The nimble Mig-21 was a dangerous opponent, and 12 NVAF mig-21 pilots alone were aces, among 16 others!

Nguyen Van Coc had 13 kills in his PF!
Nguyen Van Bay had 7
Nguyen Duc Soat had 6
and there were 9 others with 6 to 9 kills!

The only way the Top gun jocks finally got the upper hand toward the end of 1971-72 was to use saturation attacks with Aim-7E/F's attacks fired from stand off ranges by a dozen to 20 F-4E's on 2-4 Hapless Mig-21's or Mig-17's!!! And of trying to isolate and attack first the NVAF flight leads! Using 'Disco' EC-121's in concert.

That was the Top-gun secret! :biggrin: Over whelming firepower brought in to bear! Nothing else.

Here's a new site with decent pics of the men and their machines! for now to corroborate my claims! I can direct anyone here to ACIG for a better evaluation.

http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html

Bill
03 Mar 05,, 21:29
Well it's a good thing we have lulldapull here to straighten us all out...

Hey Lull...the sky is falling.

Duck!