Thread: F-15C vs. Su-30MKI

Originally Posted by Jay

Yes I am! so what now??

Just prove ur expertise.. any expert is capable of doing that unless of course hes faking..

I already gave you the source, go check Elmendorf website base press release. Besides, with so much crap going on its hard to keep up.

and i gave u a simple fact that it hasnt been updated since a year..

Seems u do cant keep up with a simple conversation like this.. u do need help..

How would I make you to believe 1+1 = 2??

u wont need to i know that and i m good nough at maths.. don worry.. just worry about ur crappy logic..

How would I know ?? I thot its a new feature with F-15 C

the same way i know that the word "thot" u mentioned is not what dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thot
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-quer...t&Acronym=THOT

maybe ur need a autospelling corrector along with a parser..there are a plenty available free just get one.. LOL..

you just proved that, all you do is just google. Its not the specs for (V) 2 radar. Learn the differences between an AESA radar and a regular dopplershift radar.

Why ??So u cant find a (V) 2 vs N011M.??? and still claimed that (V) 2 is better than N011M....

its all about what technology u are able to detect more effectively.if indians can see a F15 at the same time as they see MKI and indian pilots can fire the shots first.. they do have an edge wehter u wanna believe it or not..as u said u are an expert at it..u shoud knwo at least this must simple fact.

I've been thro this details a zillion times. Remember IAF is my country's airforce.

Have u even lived a zillion seconds???...LOL.. can u read that link in a second or in a Milisecond..Y dont u show in simple maths that u can manage it in ur lifetime?..

Google.com. Find the differences between Active and Phased array!

y should i....i want a comparison between N011M and AESA (V) 2.Prove ur claim that V(2) is better

No, it wont. If it does, they'll update the page, its that simple.

they last reviewed it a year back and it means they just claim the responsibility of its correctness with the facts known till the last review date..So things can change .....jsut understand the meaning of reviewing first..

MKI is built based on a "matured" aircraft (airframe) series, Su-27. Only the avionics can be upgraded.

So how come we got a MKI if SU27 is matured and can only be upgraded with Avionics.. where did the canards and higher range come from..and what abt the 3D TVC..is that all Avionics..???? and SU37 terminator.. and just to help u a bit. they can upgrade the radar to AESA...make the wings from Composites..etc...etc..

Err, its one and the same.

So whats one and the same.. u dont know english.. or u arent ready to use ur brain.

burn baby burn!

Again some shit.... y dont u go to a doctor and get ur digestion checked..LOL..

oh yeah, i'll just give you a helping hand, read this for today's assignment...
http://www.vectorsite.net/ttradar2.html

Thanks for the link .But can it prove that (V) 2 has a better detection range than N011M.

Originally Posted by Jay

Err, why would it need it?? F-15's always work under the umbrella of E-3C and Prowler. So you can shove it up!

the way they had E-3C in cope india ??.. And ever thought about the scenario where their E3-c gets shot down..??.. are ur F15's or ur pilots ready for it..?.

Originally Posted by ajaybhutani

Just prove ur expertise.. any expert is capable of doing that unless of course hes faking..

Moron, I dont need to prove my expertise. The whole forum has seen your stupidity.

and i gave u a simple fact that it hasnt been updated since a year..

And that means there was no changes after last year.

Elmendorf's position on the "front lines" during the Cold War and beyond has assured that the current F-15C air-to-air squadron based there receives the latest avionics enhancements for their planes. The 12th squadron was the first to receive the APG-63(V)2 active electronic scanned array (AESA) radar in a secret program. With better range and resolution, the AESA uses a fixed plate of radar elements with radar beams directed electronically across the sky, rather than a constantly moving radar dish with lots of mechanical (i.e. prone to break down) parts. It's the first generation of AESA radars with newer and more powerful versions appearing in the F/A-22 and JSF fighters.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/threa...&lp=1093770115

Seems u do cant keep up with a simple conversation like this.. u do need help..

Ofcourse, I'm always bad when talking to an in-competent person.

u wont need to i know that and i m good nough at maths.. don worry.. just worry about ur crappy logic..
the same way i know that the word "thot" u mentioned is not what dictionary.com
maybe ur need a autospelling corrector along with a parser..there are a plenty available free just get one.. LOL..

So 1+1 = 2 and its a crappy logic?? "Good nough?? " "don worry" ?? So who needs an "auto spelling corrector" ?? you mean spell checker ? LOL!

Why ??So u cant find a (V) 2 vs N011M.??? and still claimed that (V) 2 is better than N011M....

I said its not (V) 2 specs, bcoz (V) 2 Spec is still classified. But on the other hand, you posted APG-63 as (V)2 , with out even knowing that a doppler shift radar is different from an AESA equipped radar, thats like Radar 101 class material. So As I said, you dont know shit about radars and all you do is just google around and post links. So, it would be a waste of time to convince a layman who dont know what an active array element is.

its all about what technology u are able to detect more effectively.if indians can see a F15 at the same time as they see MKI and indian pilots can fire the shots first.. they do have an edge wehter u wanna believe it or not..as u said u are an expert at it..u shoud knwo at least this must simple fact.

Err, if both see at the same time how will a MKI fire first..explain this simple logic. I'm consistently saying his, F-15 C with APG-63 (V)2 will see MKI before the current N011 can see a F-15.

Have u even lived a zillion seconds???...LOL.. can u read that link in a second or in a Milisecond..Y dont u show in simple maths that u can manage it in ur lifetime?..

Its Millisecond, LOL! Now why would you want to argue about my reading speed?? Running out of arguements and getting personal??

y should i....i want a comparison between N011M and AESA (V) 2.Prove ur claim that V(2) is better

they last reviewed it a year back and it means they just claim the responsibility of its correctness with the facts known till the last review date..So things can change .....jsut understand the meaning of reviewing first..

Yeah, its Elemedorf AF official site, so they claim the responsibility of its correctness and it means that officially 19 Sq doesnt have AESA equipped F-15C.

So how come we got a MKI if SU27 is matured and can only be upgraded with Avionics.. where did the canards and higher range come from..and what abt the 3D TVC..is that all Avionics..???? and SU37 terminator.. and just to help u a bit. they can upgrade the radar to AESA...make the wings from Composites..etc...etc..

I said Airframe, so do yu have problems in reading my post now?? MKI is based on Su-27 matured airframe with slight modificaion to the airframe by having canards and alterations to the engine. But the rest of the airframe is very similar to SU-30 MK and Su-27.
To reinforce my arguement,

Besides the Su-33, the basic Su-27 airframe has also been developed into the Su-30, Su-35 and Su-37 fighters as well as the Su-34 bomber.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/su27/

The AL-31FP was only 110Kg heavier and 0.4m longer than the AL-31F, while the thrust remained the same. The first planes delivered were equipped with AL-31F but they could be upgraded to AL-31FP later on without any changes in the airframe.

http://www.hudi.republika.pl/Su-30.htm

So whats one and the same.. u dont know english.. or u arent ready to use ur brain.

If you cant comprhend my post, then do get a lesson or two in English. Not the gibberish!

Again some shit.... y dont u go to a doctor and get ur digestion checked..LOL..

Its a figure of speech, as I said, get a lesson or 2 in English comprehension.

Thanks for the link .But can it prove that (V) 2 has a better detection range than N011M.

You compared a regular doppler radar to N011 and said N011 is superior, so I gave you the link. Read it and understand what AESA means. Then compare it and show me how N001 is superior to (V) 2. I will take it that you didnt read the link and all you do is just google and argue without understanding what it is.

If you still want to argue, argue with these stats,

APG 63:
This radar was theoratically able to search out to 240kms.However, in practice the best they achieved was 180km against a B-52 Bomber(which has a 10m^2 RCS).Because of its high processing power the APG-63 could track targets out to 120km and track 4 of them at this distance as long as they stayed in a 120deg. azimuth cone.Once those 4 targets were tracked the pilot could elect to illuminate continuously one of the targets for an AIM-7 Sparrow shot.

With time the APG-63 was upgraded.The first of the upgrade came with MSIP I which introduced better, faster processors and resulted in a change of designation for APG-63(V).The range and mode of operations remained the same. But now the Eagle could engage two targets simultaneously with Sparrow SAR missiles.

With MSIP II came another upgrade of the APG-63 giving us the APG-63(V)1 which again had new more powerful processors plugged in.This time the new processors rendered the Eagle able to engage 4 targets with Sparrow or fire the new active radar AIM-120 AMRAAM.No upgrades in range was achieved.

In 2001 some 24 F-15A entered service with the new and much improved APG-63(V)2.This is an AESA, or Active Electronically Scanned Array.It's basically a modified APG-70 but for clarity reasons they retained the APG-63(V)2 designation.I won't touch this radar since it's quite complicated and the data regarding it's performance is rather patchy since most it is classified.And in any way it's only active on 24 airframes for the moment.
http://speed.supercars.net/PitLane?v...7&fID=18&tID=0

The F-15K has the Raytheon APG-63(V)1 radar, which despite its designation is more modern than the APG-70 fitted to USAF F-15Es.Boeing has also been cleared to offer the APG-63(V)2, the only operational fighter radar with an active electronically scanned array, or AESA. The (V)2 is in service on a small number of F-15Cs in Alaska. Other new features include an improved version of the ALQ-135 electronic warfare system.
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...1/airfrm20.htm

No. Someone at www.flanker2.com said "it detects targets at 420 km", but what targets and where this data came from, he chose not to specify.
http://forums.airbase.ru/index.php?showtopic=14131


The AN/APG-63(V)2 is a major radar upgrade for the U.S. Air Force F-15C aircraft. Retaining controls and displays nearly identical to those of its predecessor, the AN/APG-63(V)1, the new system adds an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to proven AN/APG-63(V)1 radar components. Addition of AESA technology substantially increases pilot situational awareness, while enhancing reliability and maintainability.

The AESA radar has an exceptionally agile beam, and provides nearly instantaneous track updates throughout the field of vision. Other benefits of the radar include enhanced multi-target tracking capability and elimination of the need for a hydraulic system.


The AN/APG-63(V)2 is compatible with current F-15C weapon loads, features upgraded identification-friend-or-foe and environmental control systems, and enables pilots to take full advantage of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Missile capabilities. It can simultaneously guide multiple missiles to several targets widely spaced in azimuth, elevation, or range.


The Raytheon APG-70 synthetic aperture radar displays high-quality images of ground targets. APG-70 is able to create and freeze the high-resolution ground maps during quick sweeps of the target area, lasting only seconds. USAF F-15s are being fitted with the upgraded Raytheon APG-63(v)1 radar, which has a new transmitter, receiver, data processor and signal data converter.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/


The major part of MSIP II involved the development an upgraded AN/APG-63 radar, which is so much improved that is given the new designation of AN/APG-70. In this unit, the radar data processor memory was increased from 16K to 24K, and its processing speed was increased by a factor of three. The memory capability of the APG-63 radar fire control system was increased from 96K to 1000K and the processing speed was trebled. A Programmable Armament Control Set (PACS) was installed. The new unit has multiple bandwidths for high-resolution ground mapping using SAR technology. Several new radar modes were added, such as track-while-scan, which made it possible to ripple-fire up to four BVR missiles at separate targets simultaneously. The APG-70 radar also had a Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability, which makes it possible for it to detect and direct attacks on enemy aircraft without its emissions being easily seen by the enemy. The new processing power made available with the use of the new APG-70 radar made it practical to make use of Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) technology, which provides the ability to distinguish more reliably between friendly and hostile aircraft. Much of the NCTR technology is highly "black" and very few details are available, but it reportedly makes it possible to avoid a lot of "friendly fire" accidents, such as the one that resulted in the loss of the IranAir Airbus in July of 1988.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_25.html

APG-70 can produce near photo quality images of the ground by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology. SAR imaging is made possible by enhancing the radar returns received from the process known as the Doppler Shift. One job of the APG-70 is to locate aircraft flying close to the ground while the F-15E is flying well above them (20,000 - 30,000 feet above them for example). A pulse radar looking down on the earth would see EVERYTHING -- mountains, buildings, lakes, and the aircraft. This would make it difficult (or impossible) to find an aircraft flying at low altitude. A continuous wave radar (or other radar using Doppler technology) will only "see" objects that are moving (the radar's computer will filter out the speed of the F-15E). Thus, the Doppler shift gives advanced radars like the APG-70 the ability to see aircraft flying at very low altitudes.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-15e.htm

So as you see in the above links, AESA is one superior technology to N011. I dont know yet about N001M with Vetrivale.

Some of these links are from other forums, rest all have links to prove their authentiity.

the way they had E-3C in cope india ??.. And ever thought about the scenario where their E3-c gets shot down..??.. are ur F15's or ur pilots ready for it..?.

USAF didnt field a Combat fighting Squadron fo Cope India. India fielded a veriay of fighters in more numbers, while the USAF just had 6 F-15C's.

The possibility of shooting down an E-3C in war footing is almost next to impossible, so dont even go there.

after reading all that trash I see you have much of wrong data on both R-77 and Su-30mki.....

Flankers frame has a lot of room for upgrades - if you look at initial MTOW and its current MTOW you will see this. Next tested version which is already flying has MTOW increased dramatically through wider application of titanium alloys and composite plastics. This increases the cost but may resulted into increase of MTOW by additional 30-40% to 11-12 tons while keeping same range......

on meneuvrability side not much upgrades are possible - Flankers are at the endge of G force which a human can survive.... that is why its abilities were artificially capped to prevent pilots from such sharp turns.... I really doubt F-22 can perform it with its TV which is only vertical (Al-31FP is a 3rd generation trust vectoring - 360 degrees, 1st was only vertical, 2nd was strictly vertical or strictly horizontal)

there are at least 6 versions of R-77 please let me know which one has proven bad quality and where???? which homming?? You don't know a much but chat a lot........ even the older R-77RRV which was sold to India was tested quite heavily by Indians at their cost and they did not compained yet. Out of 5 tested shots they shot down 4 targets because the last target has been sefldestroyed earlier.... at that was earlier version from 1989... The one which are used now have more than 6 times supersonic spead and more than 3 types of homming combined....


don't site at Arab/Israelly statistics - if they flew same planes nothing would have changed..... western armies NEVER met modern Russian hardware after Vietnam.....

Flankers frame has a lot of room for upgrades - if you look at initial MTOW and its current MTOW you will see this. Next tested version which is already flying has MTOW increased dramatically through wider application of titanium alloys and composite plastics.

True, MKI used lot of composites than Su-27, but still that doesnt discount the fact that MKI is almost matured (atleast the airframe), I dont know what else you can modify.

after reading all that trash I see you have much of wrong data on both R-77 and Su-30mki.....

May be you gotta see who quoted what. I didnt quote any range for R-77, and I dint quote anything for MKI. Can you sift thro the trash and tell me where I quoted it wrong ?? I simply just took the 50 km range that he gave me, for example purposes.

I didnt write this article, its there for you to read. So dont bark at me about the range or my chatting abilities.
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

don't site at Arab/Israelly statistics - if they flew same planes nothing would have changed..... western armies NEVER met modern Russian hardware after Vietnam.....

Again, you are barking at the wrong tree.

All we discussed so far is the radar capability of both MKI (N001) and APG-63 (V)2. So open you eyes and read before "judging" other posts as trash.

Again dont fuckin get personal, coz it wouldnt take enuff time for me to call you the same.

Originally Posted by Jay

Moron, I dont need to prove my expertise. The whole forum has seen your stupidity.

Again y dont u create a poll and see whos more stupid..

And that means there was no changes after last year.

Dude That means they havent updated/reviewed the page in last year.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/threa...&lp=1093770115

How does it help ur cause.... it too says that squad 12 got it first .. u mean to say that no other squadron has it or will get it.in future.If yes then i guess u can simply neglect this one suadron in front of 200 MKI's india will induct.

Ofcourse, I'm always bad when talking to an in-competent person.

Tahts y u are worse even with the competent ones. LOL..

So 1+1 = 2 and its a crappy logic?? "Good nough?? " "don worry" ?? So who needs an "auto spelling corrector" ?? you mean spell checker ? LOL!

u just proved that u need a parser.1+1=2 is a mathematical axiom.And has nothin to do with ur crappy logic.. try reading my post again and plase take help of some sane person around u to understand it.

I said its not (V) 2 specs, bcoz (V) 2 Spec is still classified. But on the other hand, you posted APG-63 as (V)2 , with out even knowing that a doppler shift radar is different from an AESA equipped radar, thats like Radar 101 class material. So As I said, you dont know shit about radars and all you do is just google around and post links. So, it would be a waste of time to convince a layman who dont know what an active array element is.

Its classified so no outsider knows it.And u claim that its better than N011M without any proof.Are u getting an inside information ?? LOL.

Err, if both see at the same time how will a MKI fire first..explain this simple logic. I'm consistently saying his, F-15 C with APG-63 (V)2 will see MKI before the current N011 can see a F-15.

Because indian pilots got the first simulated shots in Cope india .And thus they shall fire first in War too.. ssimple logic.but dont worry u wont understand it ... bec u cant..
u've been consistelntly saying that i m stupid etc. etc.. and that dsnt make me stupid.. the same way ur consistent points made without any proofs/support shall be discarded without any further thought.

Its Millisecond, LOL! Now why would you want to argue about my reading speed?? Running out of arguements and getting personal??

ur comments like

Err, but the sheer stupidy in yur arguements makes me think twice to reply.

Kiddo, dont ask me

remember these lines u started all taht "running out of arguments and getting personal " so face the conscequences.. u didnt listen now and so u dont ahve a right to be heard...

Yeah, its Elemedorf AF official site, so they claim the responsibility of its correctness and it means that officially 19 Sq doesnt have AESA equipped F-15C.

u r right . oficlially only 19th squadron had no AESA in F15C by july 2003 ..simply because it hasnt been reviewed after that.

I said Airframe, so do yu have problems in reading my post now?? MKI is based on Su-27 matured airframe with slight modificaion to the airframe by having canards and alterations to the engine. But the rest of the airframe is very similar to SU-30 MK and Su-27.
To reinforce my arguement,


http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/su27/


http://www.hudi.republika.pl/Su-30.htm

u said

MKI is built based on a "matured" aircraft (airframe) series, Su-27. Only the avionics can be upgraded.

at least back out frm ur statements in a nicer way.


adn yes frm ur own aerospace link

Besides the Su-33, the basic Su-27 airframe has also been developed into the Su-30, Su-35 and Su-37 fighters as well as the Su-34 bomber.

so if su27 cant be changed with anythin other than avionics then where the hell we got MKI,su35 su 37 etc.. ??..

If you cant comprhend my post, then do get a lesson or two in English. Not the gibberish!

hey did take lessons in gibberish instead of english.now i can understand y ur english is so bad.. LOL..

The AL-31FP was only 110Kg heavier and 0.4m longer than the AL-31F, while the thrust remained the same. The first planes delivered were equipped with AL-31F but they could be upgraded to AL-31FP later on without any changes in the airframe.

so the airframe had already been upgraded .. its again simple logic...it does imply that AL31F can be upgraded to AL31FP with great ease and tahts simply because u need to add TVC nozzles at the outlet..

please search for a llink that proves ur point rather than pasting random links and wasting others time.

Its a figure of speech, as I said, get a lesson or 2 in English comprehension.

u need a good psychiatrist.

You compared a regular doppler radar to N011 and said N011 is superior, so I gave you the link. Read it and understand what AESA means. Then compare it and show me how N001 is superior to (V) 2. I will take it that you didnt read the link and all you do is just google and argue without understanding what it is.

Where did i co pare a regular doppler radar with N011..?? or u dreamt that i did it.
[QUOTE]
If you still want to argue, argue with these stats,

APG 63:
This radar was theoratically able to search out to 240kms.However, in practice the best they achieved was 180km against a B-52 Bomber(which has a 10m^2 RCS).Because of its high processing power the APG-63 could track targets out to 120km and track 4 of them at this distance as long as they stayed in a 120deg. azimuth cone.Once those 4 targets were tracked the pilot could elect to illuminate continuously one of the targets for an AIM-7 Sparrow shot.

With time the APG-63 was upgraded.The first of the upgrade came with MSIP I which introduced better, faster processors and resulted in a change of designation for APG-63(V).The range and mode of operations remained the same. But now the Eagle could engage two targets simultaneously with Sparrow SAR missiles.

With MSIP II came another upgrade of the APG-63 giving us the APG-63(V)1 which again had new more powerful processors plugged in.This time the new processors rendered the Eagle able to engage 4 targets with Sparrow or fire the new active radar AIM-120 AMRAAM.No upgrades in range was achieved.

In 2001 some 24 F-15A entered service with the new and much improved APG-63(V)2.This is an AESA, or Active Electronically Scanned Array.It's basically a modified APG-70 but for clarity reasons they retained the APG-63(V)2 designation.I won't touch this radar since it's quite complicated and the data regarding it's performance is rather patchy since most it is classified.And in any way it's only active on 24 airframes for the moment.
http://speed.supercars.net/PitLane?v...7&fID=18&tID=0

The F-15K has the Raytheon APG-63(V)1 radar, which despite its designation is more modern than the APG-70 fitted to USAF F-15Es.Boeing has also been cleared to offer the APG-63(V)2, the only operational fighter radar with an active electronically scanned array, or AESA. The (V)2 is in service on a small number of F-15Cs in Alaska. Other new features include an improved version of the ALQ-135 electronic warfare system.
http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews...1/airfrm20.htm

No. Someone at www.flanker2.com said "it detects targets at 420 km", but what targets and where this data came from, he chose not to specify.
http://forums.airbase.ru/index.php?showtopic=14131


The AN/APG-63(V)2 is a major radar upgrade for the U.S. Air Force F-15C aircraft. Retaining controls and displays nearly identical to those of its predecessor, the AN/APG-63(V)1, the new system adds an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to proven AN/APG-63(V)1 radar components. Addition of AESA technology substantially increases pilot situational awareness, while enhancing reliability and maintainability.

The AESA radar has an exceptionally agile beam, and provides nearly instantaneous track updates throughout the field of vision. Other benefits of the radar include enhanced multi-target tracking capability and elimination of the need for a hydraulic system.


The AN/APG-63(V)2 is compatible with current F-15C weapon loads, features upgraded identification-friend-or-foe and environmental control systems, and enables pilots to take full advantage of AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Missile capabilities. It can simultaneously guide multiple missiles to several targets widely spaced in azimuth, elevation, or range.


The Raytheon APG-70 synthetic aperture radar displays high-quality images of ground targets. APG-70 is able to create and freeze the high-resolution ground maps during quick sweeps of the target area, lasting only seconds. USAF F-15s are being fitted with the upgraded Raytheon APG-63(v)1 radar, which has a new transmitter, receiver, data processor and signal data converter.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f15/


The major part of MSIP II involved the development an upgraded AN/APG-63 radar, which is so much improved that is given the new designation of AN/APG-70. In this unit, the radar data processor memory was increased from 16K to 24K, and its processing speed was increased by a factor of three. The memory capability of the APG-63 radar fire control system was increased from 96K to 1000K and the processing speed was trebled. A Programmable Armament Control Set (PACS) was installed. The new unit has multiple bandwidths for high-resolution ground mapping using SAR technology. Several new radar modes were added, such as track-while-scan, which made it possible to ripple-fire up to four BVR missiles at separate targets simultaneously. The APG-70 radar also had a Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability, which makes it possible for it to detect and direct attacks on enemy aircraft without its emissions being easily seen by the enemy. The new processing power made available with the use of the new APG-70 radar made it practical to make use of Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) technology, which provides the ability to distinguish more reliably between friendly and hostile aircraft. Much of the NCTR technology is highly "black" and very few details are available, but it reportedly makes it possible to avoid a lot of "friendly fire" accidents, such as the one that resulted in the loss of the IranAir Airbus in July of 1988.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f15_25.html

APG-70 can produce near photo quality images of the ground by using synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology. SAR imaging is made possible by enhancing the radar returns received from the process known as the Doppler Shift. One job of the APG-70 is to locate aircraft flying close to the ground while the F-15E is flying well above them (20,000 - 30,000 feet above them for example). A pulse radar looking down on the earth would see EVERYTHING -- mountains, buildings, lakes, and the aircraft. This would make it difficult (or impossible) to find an aircraft flying at low altitude. A continuous wave radar (or other radar using Doppler technology) will only "see" objects that are moving (the radar's computer will filter out the speed of the F-15E). Thus, the Doppler shift gives advanced radars like the APG-70 the ability to see aircraft flying at very low altitudes.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-15e.htm

So as you see in the above links, AESA is one superior technology to N011. I dont know yet about N001M with Vetrivale.

Some of these links are from other forums, rest all have links to prove their authentiity.
[QUOTE]
I dont need to argue since its u who needs to prove taht AESA 63(v) 2 is better than N011M. yes AESA technology is superior.but that dsnt make a specific AESA implementation better than a specific N011M radar.
My question is not which technology is superior. my question is which is superior as in war the superiority in fact its effectiveness of the device that matters and not the technology it uses.

USAF didnt field a Combat fighting Squadron fo Cope India. India fielded a veriay of fighters in more numbers, while the USAF just had 6 F-15C's.

If they had won i would have said they are great
but they lost miserably...

The possibility of shooting down an E-3C in war footing is almost next to impossible, so dont even go there.

So is shooting down a PHALCON which india will get in 2005.And yes an AEWAC takes over teh role of the radars of surrounding friendly fighters.So then Radars makes no difference.


And yes ever heard of AEWAC killer missiles ?? they are under development in many countries and i m not sure wether in service or not.Possibility is next to impossible not impossible .. thers a difference.

Also if u know MKi's radar has been quoted as like a mimi aewac.. jsut to tell u about its searching capabilities.

Originally Posted by Jay

True, MKI used lot of composites than Su-27, but still that doesnt discount the fact that MKI is almost matured (atleast the airframe), I dont know what else you can modify.

as i mentioned in previous posts u can upgrade teh radar ,avionics.,and make the whole wing as composite based. And by the way what all is in plan for modification in F15C that we are comparing it against.??. A F15 ACTIVe with 2D TVC.MKI has 3D TVC.

May be you gotta see who quoted what. I didnt quote any range for R-77, and I dint quote anything for MKI. Can you sift thro the trash and tell me where I quoted it wrong ?? I simply just took the 50 km range that he gave me, for example purposes.

Noone said that u quoted about range of R77 . U just rendered it ineffective wrt AMRAAM as its not battle tested. and are still ready to use a F22 instead of F15 but isnt F22 also not battle tested.? LOL..

and about MKi we have been talking all about MKI in this thread.LOL.. seems u forgot to notice what all u have been writing.

I didnt write this article, its there for you to read. So dont bark at me about the range or my chatting abilities.
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

So it always says that a specific version of Su30 shot down F15 in simulations.
Remember we are talking about MKi vs F15 and not F22..

Again, you are barking at the wrong tree.

y dont u simply say that evone except u barks at the wriong tree..
that would help u a lot of typing effort. LOL LOL

All we discussed so far is the radar capability of both MKI (N001) and APG-63 (V)2. So open you eyes and read before "judging" other posts as trash.

u said in the same post

and I dint quote anything for MKI

at least u should ahve left the same post with comments about MKI..??

Again dont fuckin get personal, coz it wouldnt take enuff time for me to call you the same.

And i thought u had a personal problem with me.. seems u have a feeling that evone is getting personal with u.


Comeon dude, garry didnt even mention whose post hes pointing to.. and u went all over him.... please control ur anger it really wont help u here.

Originally Posted by ajaybhutani

Again y dont u create a poll and see whos more stupid..

Have the honour and do it yourself.

Dude That means they havent updated/reviewed the page in last year.

That means they dont have anything to update with. Cant you understand that simple logic??

How does it help ur cause.... it too says that squad 12 got it first .. u mean to say that no other squadron has it or will get it.in future.If yes then i guess u can simply neglect this one suadron in front of 200 MKI's india will induct.

It says only the 12 Sq got the upgraded F-15's. Not the other Sq. And you hink you can take USAF and USNwith 200 MKI's? LOL..what are you smoking??

Tahts y u are worse even with the competent ones. LOL..

I think you have a typo there, it shud be in-competent.

u just proved that u need a parser.1+1=2 is a mathematical axiom.And has nothin to do with ur crappy logic.. try reading my post again and plase take help of some sane person around u to understand it.

Ofcourse As I said, I do need parser to parse your gibberish. Its like I'm trying to prove a fact to you, AESA is better than Doppler and Passive array radar. (thats why I compared an axiom).

Its classified so no outsider knows it.And u claim that its better than N011M without any proof.Are u getting an inside information ?? LOL.

Though its classified, the ball park range is being discussed in other forums. If you open your eyes and read the sources, you'll get to know. Inside information ?? I guess you meant insider information? LOL.

Because indian pilots got the first simulated shots in Cope india .And thus they shall fire first in War too.. ssimple logic.but dont worry u wont understand it ... bec u cant..

Thats bcoz F-15 C was with out (V) 2 radar. Simple logic, accept it, dont be a snot.

u r right . oficlially only 19th squadron had no AESA in F15C by july 2003 ..simply because it hasnt been reviewed after that.

It cant get any more stupid, it means that the 19th sq hasnt received any AESA equipped F-15 C, if they got it, it wud be updated in their website.

so if su27 cant be changed with anythin other than avionics then where the hell we got MKI,su35 su 37 etc.. ??..

I still stan by my statement, MKI is evolved from a matured Su-27 airframe. You havent proved me wrong. MKI's airframe is not totally new. Yes they made modifications to MKI airframe, but its not new. So I dnt know how much more they can upgrade he airframe, given the fact that they already used composites in the wings to reduce weight.

hey did take lessons in gibberish instead of english.now i can understand y ur english is so bad.. LOL..

Yeah right, your Chinese is really good.

so the airframe had already been upgraded .. its again simple logic...it does imply that AL31F can be upgraded to AL31FP with great ease and tahts simply because u need to add TVC nozzles at the outlet..

It means what it means, TVC's can be added with out changes to airframe.

please search for a llink that proves ur point rather than pasting random links and wasting others time.

If you can only read!

u need a good psychiatrist.

Thanks, I will seek one. But you should be locked in a mental ward, you are terminal.

Where did i co pare a regular doppler radar with N011..?? or u dreamt that i did it.

You have a short memory, what can I expect from a terminal?? This is what you posted, not even knowing what AESA means.

This is APG-63(V)2

Doppler mode: Yes, high and medium PRF
Ground clutter filters: Yes
NCTR: Yes
Band of operation: I/J-band
Scanning: +/-60deg.

Look-down/Shoot-down: Yes
Max search range: 240km
Max search range against a 10m^2 target: 240km
Max track range against a 10m^2 target: 185km
Max search range against a 3m^2 target: 175km
Max track range against a 3m^2 target: 135km

Кто не хочет, пусть не ест...


For MKI The best extract i could find is
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html#8

So dont google and post around stuff even with out knowing what it implies.

If they had won i would have said they are great but they lost miserably...

I didnt say they won, I said MK's had the edge coz they didnt fight with a equal fighter.

So is shooting down a PHALCON which india will get in 2005.And yes an AEWAC takes over teh role of the radars of surrounding friendly fighters.So then Radars makes no difference.

Yes shooting down an AWACS in a warfooting is highly impossible. Given the fact that every Indian AWACS will be guarded minimum by 2 MKI's and assorted other fighters.

And yes ever heard of AEWAC killer missiles ?? they are under development in many countries and i m not sure wether in service or not.Possibility is next to impossible not impossible .. thers a difference.

Yeah, China, Russia already have AWAC killers. Russia already go S-400 and China's go FT-2000. But its still next to impossible to kill in an AWCS, particularly in its home turf. Before the AWACS can enter in to enemy turf, the whole of Ground based SAM and support systems will be bombed to stone age, the Prowler will alomost jam all communications in the field, and use HARM's to destroy almost all airdefense radars.

Also if u know MKi's radar has been quoted as like a mimi aewac.. jsut to tell u about its searching capabilities.

I know that already. If you have E-3 Sentry, it really doesnt matter much. And USAF deploment always has an AWACS, A jammer and then the strike squadron.

Originally Posted by ajaybhutani

as i mentioned in previous posts u can upgrade teh radar ,avionics.,and make the whole wing as composite based. And by the way what all is in plan for modification in F15C that we are comparing it against.??. A F15 ACTIVe with 2D TVC.MKI has 3D TVC.

Radar and avionics, I thot they all are considered as avionics. You the intelligen saviour, I may be wrong.
MKI already has reduced its weight by using composites. The original Su-27 didn have composites for that matter. I dont think F-15's are going to be upgraded with TVC's, its just the avionic package incld an AESA.

Noone said that u quoted about range of R77 . U just rendered it ineffective wrt AMRAAM as its not battle tested. and are still ready to use a F22 instead of F15 but isnt F22 also not battle tested.? LOL..

I see you have much of wrong data on both R-77 and Su-30mki

Actually he did. I renedered it ineffective bcoz its not battle tested and so Russia's claim is frivolous. If you cant get the link between these two, FO.'
I also posted a link which talked about R-77's reliability. It just proves my statement that Russia's claim is fradulent. It wudve been noticed by others if its employed in any battles, hence I said its not battle tested.

and about MKi we have been talking all about MKI in this thread.LOL.. seems u forgot to notice what all u have been writing.

Yes, But I didnt discuss about the other features of MKI, only in the later posts we discussed about airframes in a marginal way. So its you who cudnt follow the discussion happening in the thread. All this while we discussed about the Radar and you posted some sources, compared and claimed that they are APG-63 (V) 2 specs.

So it always says that a specific version of Su30 shot down F15 in simulations.

Yes, the whole discussion is about the F-15's version, whether it was equipped with AESA or not. Yu are just going in circles.

Remember we are talking about MKi vs F15 and not F22..

You did harped about F-22's, but for some reason you stopped your rant. If its against F-22, there is not much to discuss.

y dont u simply say that evone except u barks at the wriong tree..
that would help u a lot of typing effort. LOL LOL

actually other than you'rs rest of the posts are perfectly fine.

And i thought u had a personal problem with me.. seems u have a feeling that evone is getting personal with u.

Personal problem with you? HE HE! Dude, the world doesnt spin around you, aight !!LOL!!

Comeon dude, garry didnt even mention whose post hes pointing to.. and u went all over him.... please control ur anger it really wont help u here.

Now, did I specificaly quote you to reply to that post. why did you replied to that post?? may be self delusion?? you heard voices in your head that prompted you to reply to my post to Garry??

Originally Posted by Jay

Have the honour and do it yourself.

Seems u really dont want to support ur own claims .. its ur job to support ur claims not mine.

That means they dont have anything to update with. Cant youunderstand that simple logic??

please cehck out whats meant by reviewing . They reviewed it last july 2004.A webpage is reviewed to make sure that its updated and in case its not it is updated. So there are two dates mentioned in such webpages. Here in this case they never tried to check out

It says only the 12 Sq got the upgraded F-15's. Not the other Sq. And you hink you can take USAF and USNwith 200 MKI's? LOL..what are you smoking??

U r rite they cant do much damage.And so in teh same way jsut a squadron of F15C with aesa since u claim that they ahve only one. squadron upgraded. can do against 40 MKI's in service in india.


I think you have a type there, i shud be in-competent.

Ofcourse As I said, I do need parser to parse your gibberish. Its like I'm trying to prove a fact to you, AESA is better than Doppler and Passive array radar. (thats why I compared an axiom).

AESA technology is better than Doppler one and Passive array radar one. the range also depends upon how much space and power we have and in MKI we have more space for the radar and thus u really ahve to keep this fact into consideration .For instance for detection of a target i would prefer a 400km range non AESA aewac than a F15 its makes a lot of logical sense. So u do need to compare the devices on the whole and not jsut the technology.

Though its classified, the ball park range is being discussed in other forums. If you open your eyes and read the sources, you'll get to know. Inside information ?? I guess you meant insider information? LOL.

so again where have they proved that AESA 63 (v) 2 is better than N011M radar version on MKI.????. u still c ant fidn it can u?

Thats bcoz F-15 C was with out (V) 2 radar. Simple logic, accept it, dont be a snot.

No i wont unless u prove it .. LOL.. and tats simpler logic.

It cant get any more stupid, it means that the 19th sq hasnt received any AESA equipped F-15 C, if they got it, it wud be updated in their website.

And again i say the website updaters last reviewed the website on july 2003 and thus u cant say.

I still stan by my statement, MKI is evolved from a matured Su-27 airframe. You havent proved me wrong. MKI's airframe is not totally new. Yes they made modifications to MKI airframe, but its not new.

Dont back out now.. u said u can only change the avionics and nothin else.
Yes its not new but its better than F15C.And if su27 is matured and by ur logic there shouldnt be any changes whatsoever except in avionics.
so look at the engine with TVC, canards, increased range all thsi is not avionics. is it?

Yeah right, your Chinese is really good.

Now where did chineese come fomr are u sure u means chineese?? LOL

It means what it means, TVC's can be added with out changes to airframe.

But its not avionics rite??.. and yes u forgot the canards??.. and increased range they all are changes in airframe.

If you can only read!

I dont think anyone in this forum except u has a doubt on my reading capabilities.

Thanks, I will seek one. But you should be locked in a mental ward, you are terminal.

whenever i ahve to reply to ur post i feel like someone locked me in a mental ward with a mental like u .. LOL LOL..,

You have a short memory, what can I expect from a terminal?? This is what you posted, not even knowing what AESA means.

Again as i said then can u prove that AESA 63(v) 2 has a btter range than N011M version in MKI.. i tried but couldnot find a a good link /specifications. can u ??...

So dont google and post around stuff even with out knowing what it implies.

Wel i even helped u half way by posting this but this is all i can help u bec there isnt anythin ..

I didnt say they won, I said MK's had the edge coz they didnt fight with a equal fighter.

u r rite they didnt fight with" a equal fighter " .so finally u wanna say that F15C isnt equal to MK .. it cant be better as u urself say that MK's had an edge as they didnt fight the a equal fighter .So => F15C is inferior LOL..

improve ur english dude

Yes shooting down an AWACS in a warfooting is highly impossible. Given the fact that every Indian AWACS will be guarded minimum by 2 MKI's and assorted other fighters.


Yeah, China, Russia already have AWAC killers. Russia already go S-400 and China's go FT-2000. But its still next to impossible to kill in an AWCS, particularly in its home turf. Before the AWACS can enter in to enemy turf, the whole of Ground based SAM and support systems will be bombed to stone age, the Prowler will alomost jam all communications in the field, and use HARM's to destroy almost all airdefense radars.


I know that already. If you have E-3 Sentry, it really doesnt matter much. And USAF deploment always has an AWACS, A jammer and then the strike squadron.

i'll tell u how.is it possibel The two Air AWAC gourps attack each other definiltely each one ahs limited missiles and so one of them is gonna be out of defence earlier than the other (all supporting squadrons shot down by enemy AWAC defending fighters. ITs possible isnt is .. its war someones gotta loose.
And yes we all have limited AWACS. So one soide is one awac less forthe next attack and they can thus run out of awacs and will have to fight wihout one.. isnt it simple.. LOL LO,L

U r rite they cant do much damage.And so in teh same way jsut a squadron of F15C with aesa since u claim that they ahve only one. squadron upgraded. can do against 40 MKI's in service in india.

Thats a blind logic, a Sq of F-15's will not take any combat missions. Period.
Read about past USN and USAF deployments. Not to mention that eventually they are going to upgrade most of the F-15 squadrons with AESA.

AESA technology is better than Doppler one and Passive array radar one. the range also depends upon how much space and power we have and in MKI we have more space for the radar and thus u really ahve to keep this fact into consideration .For instance for detection of a target i would prefer a 400km range non AESA aewac than a F15 its makes a lot of logical sense. So u do need to compare the devices on the whole and not jsut the technology.

Again target acquistion, detection is different from tracking. Even if they have target aqusition (which is next to impossible with out an AWACS) before 400kms, the pilots will not engage the source, even with IFF. They'll almost get closer to identify the target to make sure that they are not shooting an civilian airliner. AESA provides a nice diagram of the target, the pilot can easily identify it with the airframe charecteristics and beeps while doppler or passive array will just give beeps. F-15 and Su-30 are fairly same size fighters, so the space availability will not matter much.

Dont back out now.. u said u can only change the avionics and nothin else. Yes its not new but its better than F15C.And if su27 is matured and by ur logic there shouldnt be any changes whatsoever except in avionics.
so look at the engine with TVC, canards, increased range all thsi is not avionics. is it?

That still doesnt discount the fact that MKI is based on a matured airframe ?? does it??

Now where did chineese come fomr are u sure u means chineese?? LOL

Ever heard of something called sarcasm?

But its not avionics rite??.. and yes u forgot the canards??.. and increased range they all are changes in airframe.

Increased range? whats that?? You mean increase in fuel tanks size and addition of drop tanks?? Yes, Canards require changes to airframe, but again as I said it still is based on a Su-27 airframe, which is already matured.

I dont think anyone in this forum except u has a doubt on my reading capabilities.

As you say!!

whenever i ahve to reply to ur post i feel like someone locked me in a mental ward with a mental like u .. LOL LOL..,

Ok, quit talking to the mirror.

Wel i even helped u half way by posting this but this is all i can help u bec there isnt anythin ..

You helped me by posting APG-63 as AESA radar? Thanks, but no thanks.

u r rite they didnt fight with" a equal fighter " .so finally u wanna say that F15C isnt equal to MK .. it cant be better as u urself say that MK's had an edge as they didnt fight the a equal fighter .So => F15C is inferior LOL..

Again you are running in circles. The crux of the discussion is, a F-15 C equipped with a APG-63 (V) 2 can hold its edge against a MKI. So your notion in saying F-15C inferior is absurd.

improve ur english dude

Gee! Thanks, I'll, please do improve your gibberish.

i'll tell u how.is it possibel The two Air AWAC gourps attack each other definiltely

Will not happen. AWACS will be heavily guarded and will be at the stronghold of a strike package. AWACS with Prowlers is almost an impossible combination to bring down. So to reach them you have take out most of the fighters in the package and need supernatural powers to guide your missile towards them.

Take the case of Operation Desert Storm, 4 AWACS lead around 5 Sq of allied forces fighter planes. Who's ready to take out 5 Sq of high performance fighter planes which is aided by AWACS??

Often called the "flying nerve centers" of Desert Storm, AWACS planes, orbiting at about 29,000 feet, can keep track of as many as 250 planes at one time over a 58,000-square-mile area and can relay such data as their positions, headings, and speeds to friendly air, sea, and ground commanders and, via communications satellites, to the Pentagon.

Five fighter squadrons, a contingent of AWACS, and part of the 82nd Airborne Division moved into the theater within five days. In total, 25 fighter squadrons flew non-stop to the theater. Within 35 days the Air Force deployed a fighter force that equaled Iraq's fighter capability in numbers.

From Jan. 16 until the Feb. 27 cease-fire, four U.S. Air Force AWACS aircraft were continuously airborne controlling more than 3,000 coalition sorties each day. As a tribute to their effectiveness, despite having to control aircraft flown by pilots from numerous air forces speaking several languages, not one case of air-to-air fratricide was reported.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=171

each one ahs limited missiles and so one of them is gonna be out of defence earlier than the other (all supporting squadrons shot down by enemy AWAC defending fighters.

Heh, AWACS firing stand off missiles against attack fighters is stupid and is just a plain wet dream. This is not a video game. Russia and China are developing ground based mobile missiles just for this sole reason. Its next to impossible to reach a flying fortress in air, by air.

ITs possible isnt is .. its war someones gotta loose.

AWACS will be in the far end (say if their range is 400 miles), it means that they'll secure the operating perimeter one by one. So the noion of killing all your fighters and reaching the AWACS is very slim. Since AWACS can "see" for 400 miles, they can call in re-inforcements if they feel necessary, so the chances of getting close to them is slim.

And yes we all have limited AWACS. So one soide is one awac less forthe next attack and they can thus run out of awacs and will have to fight wihout one.. isnt it simple..

pfff, nice logic, its well known that if you loose them, then you cant have them.

Err, Now I have to eat my own words

19th Sq is equipped with AESA

In addition to overcoming the obvious challenges Alaska presents, the maintenance section also dealt with the squadron jet shortage due to V-2 implementation and high operations tempo. Somehow, they still managed to accomplish the best maintenance statistics in most major categories for any active-duty Air Force F-15C unit, to include the highest mission-capable rate for fiscal year 2000 at 86.6 percent.
http://www2.hickam.af.mil/newsarchive/2001/2001120.htm

The 12th FS brings a unique capability to Red Flag -- its F-15C Eagles are equipped with the Active Electronic Scanned Array radar and Fighter Data Link. The 12th and its sister squadron -- the 19th Fighter Squadron here -- are the only two F-15 squadrons in the world with the radar.
http://www2.hickam.af.mil/newsarchive/2001/2001254.htm

Originally Posted by Jay

Thats a blind logic, a Sq of F-15's will not take any combat missions. Period.
Read about past USN and USAF deployments. Not to mention that eventually they are going to upgrade most of the F-15 squadrons with AESA.

i dont think "we need to discuss squad 19 with AESA or not "any further with ur own proof

Again target acquistion, detection is different from tracking. Even if they have target aqusition (which is next to impossible with out an AWACS) before 400kms, the pilots will not engage the source, even with IFF. They'll almost get closer to identify the target to make sure that they are not shooting an civilian airliner. AESA provides a nice diagram of the target, the pilot can easily identify it with the airframe charecteristics and beeps while doppler or passive array will just give beeps. F-15 and Su-30 are fairly same size fighters, so the space availability will not matter much.

Su30's empty weight is 1.5 times higher and much more.
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp
And the radar size a fighter can be fitted depends more upon the space available in the nose.
I dont think MKI is any smaller than su30 standard

That still doesnt discount the fact that MKI is based on a matured airframe ?? does it??

Ever heard of something called sarcasm?


Increased range? whats that?? You mean increase in fuel tanks size and addition of drop tanks?? Yes, Canards require changes to airframe, but again as I said it still is based on a Su-27 airframe, which is already matured.

Why dont we start again on this point. Lets define maturity first .. my point is that airframe has changed in two forms first the canards and second
the range and thats the source

http://www.geocities.com/redstaraf/s...tml#su-27su-30

Su-30
The Su-30 was designed to meet a PVO requirement for a long-range, high-endurance interceptor that could secure Russia's enormous borders and provide air cover for naval forces. The requirement included a 10-hour endurance stipulation, necessitating provision for inflight refuelling, systems proved for 10 hour's continuous operation and identical twin cockpits housing two pilots, either of whom can assume command at any stage of the mission. Range of the aircraft is given as 3000 km (1,620 nm; 1,864 miles) with internal fuel, and 5200 km (2,808 nm; 3,231 miles) with inflight refuelling

su35 is given as

Range: at high-altitude with four AAMs 3500 km (1,889 nm; 2,175 miles); range at low-altitude with four AAMs 1450 km/h (783 nm; 901 miles); ferry range 4200 km (2,267 nm; 2610 miles); range with inflight refuelling in excess of 6800 km (3,670 nm; 4,225 miles)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...u-30-specs.htm


and while our MKI goes for 8000Km with in flight refuelling.. from the same old vayu-sena link .

You helped me by posting APG-63 as AESA radar? Thanks, but no thanks.


Again you are running in circles. The crux of the discussion is, a F-15 C equipped with a APG-63 (V) 2 can hold its edge against a MKI. So your notion in saying F-15C inferior is absurd.


Gee! Thanks, I'll, please do improve your gibberish.

Now lets review it again. as u urself have mentioned that F15s in cope india had aesa and both mk's and f15s detected each other at the same time. so u cant really call AESA 63(V)2 as better.

Heh, AWACS firing stand off missiles against attack fighters is stupid and is just a plain wet dream.

clearly i means the AWAC group firing the missile i.e. the fighters guiding it and not the awac itself.

Will not happen. AWACS will be heavily guarded and will be at the stronghold of a strike package. AWACS with Prowlers is almost an impossible combination to bring down. So to reach them you have take out most of the fighters in the package and need supernatural powers to guide your missile towards them.

Take the case of Operation Desert Storm, 4 AWACS lead around 5 Sq of allied forces fighter planes. Who's ready to take out 5 Sq of high performance fighter planes which is aided by AWACS??



http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=171


Heh, AWACS firing stand off missiles against attack fighters is stupid and is just a plain wet dream. This is not a video game. Russia and China are developing ground based mobile missiles just for this sole reason. Its next to impossible to reach a flying fortress in air, by air.


AWACS will be in the far end (say if their range is 400 miles), it means that they'll secure the operating perimeter one by one. So the noion of killing all your fighters and reaching the AWACS is very slim. Since AWACS can "see" for 400 miles, they can call in re-inforcements if they feel necessary, so the chances of getting close to them is slim.


pfff, nice logic, its well known that if you loose them, then you cant have them.

Well in case both the parties ahve AWACS then what (as i mentioned in teh scenario).And take my word IRAQ is nothin in front of Americans .. And is also nothin in front of IAF,PLAF RuAF as of that matter.
Clearly when both have AWACS then one of the fighter groups shall be shot down and it will depend on teh combination of better AWAC better fighters better missiles and better training. a complete combination.And sure to win one team will ahve to knock down the other.And frankly because ther hasnt been a awac shot down yet (which is because it never faced another awac battle group) but surely it can be.

Originally Posted by Jay

Err, Now I have to eat my own words

19th Sq is equipped with AESA

In addition to overcoming the obvious challenges Alaska presents, the maintenance section also dealt with the squadron jet shortage due to V-2 implementation and high operations tempo. Somehow, they still managed to accomplish the best maintenance statistics in most major categories for any active-duty Air Force F-15C unit, to include the highest mission-capable rate for fiscal year 2000 at 86.6 percent.
http://www2.hickam.af.mil/newsarchive/2001/2001120.htm

The 12th FS brings a unique capability to Red Flag -- its F-15C Eagles are equipped with the Active Electronic Scanned Array radar and Fighter Data Link. The 12th and its sister squadron -- the 19th Fighter Squadron here -- are the only two F-15 squadrons in the world with the radar.
http://www2.hickam.af.mil/newsarchive/2001/2001254.htm

So clearly now we cant call F15C with AESA as better than SU30 MK and here we are comparing it with MKI which defnitely is more agile higher range and costs 22.5Million only(the expected price of production version in india).

In next 2-3 years time we can expect MKI's to be fitted with AESA. And again since MKI has a bigger nose than F15 we can fit in a better aesa and thus get a further edge against F15 in the only feild it comes near