JBodnar39

[F-15 is also a good one. Why it lost against Su-30MKI at that practice in India could depend on (and I think that's the reason) politic games. The US military wanted to suggest to the gouvernment to buy more F-22s. [/quote]

From what I have read, the Su-30's did come out on top, but not by any great margin and there were some mitigating factors that may have helped them:

1. There were no BVR engagments
2. The F-15's that were deployed were not our top of the line versions - they did not have the new AESA radar fitted on many of the C's.
3. The US pilots were straight off of the line - average (for American) fighter pilots)
4. The India pilots were instructors and the absolute best that they had.
5. Engagments were purposefully constructed where the F-15's had to face a superior number of Su-30's in every engagment (this was at the request of the US I believe.

So lets not get all hyped up about the SU-30's performance v the F-15. At best it is an equal to the F-15 in air to air (possibly a bit more manueverable in a dogfight but the F-15C's with the AESA radar are better in BVR roles). An the F-15E is a better strike platform than the Su-30 period

BenRoethig

All you need to do is enlarge the design about 25%, double the thrust, double the fuel load, get rid of external weapons, add all aspect stealth and it would be as good as the Raptor. Then again it wouldn't be the same aircraft. Despite what the Europeans may say the Typhoon and Rafale are not in the same class as the Raptor and Eagle. Nowhere near the range and payload. They're medium fighters like the F-16 and JSF. Also, which is better boils down to how effective stealth really is. If they they can't see the JSF, they can't do anything about it. I'm also intrigued by the JSFs DAIRS system.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

ajaybhutani

U can look at the Ranges of AMRAAM and R77 to see who will hit first.
neither were the SU30's presented top of the line. they were just SU30K's the standard russian export model. and not even MK /MKI.
From what i have read in indian newspapers the indian pilots were a mix of age and experience. what makes u think they were top of the line. Why will india risk showing its top of the line pilots to US .
It was not simply SU30 vs F15. there were other planes involved including Mig21's.
i dont see F15 and Su30 as much different from each other in A2A performance either.
Of course AESA gives you an added advantage on F15 but only provided the AESA is better in range than the BARs on MKi and also compensates for the lesser RCS of SU30 wrt F15. ( if i m right SU30 has a slightly smaller RCS) or else it wont provide too much of an advantage.
Furthermore can someone please clarify on the ranges of R77(indian versions) and the AMRAAM(currently in service in US) . Some open source Claim R77 to be longer ranged. If thats the case it might very well be able to compensate in BVR Mode.

tphuang

the R77M probably has longer range.

ajaybhutani

i have read the same. but i remember someone in the forum saying about the difference in the way ranges are measured by russians and americans ( for missiles). So if someone like jgetti can clarify it would be nice.

JG73

Size is no advantage.

Important is the thrust/weight ratio. Typhoon's is 1.18, F-22's is 1.27. They are the leaders in that point. F-35A's thrust/weight ratio for example is 0.83, Rafale's thrust/weight ratio is 1.04.

The heavier the aicraft is the more fuel it needs for the same distance.
F-22 has a combat radius of 1480km, Typhoon has a combat radius of 1390km (high-low-high mission).

That's the big advantage of F-22 although the Typhoon is made of radar absorbing materials.

What do you mean about "class"??? Typhoon may be smaller but that means nothing about performance. That they are not made for the same profile of missions primarily should be clear.



F-22 and Typhoon do nearly have the same range and 6500kg (7500kg overloaded) payload of Typhoon is more than enough for every kind of mission.
And as you should know: Typhoon is not primarily a strike aircraft.

You can't compare F-16, JSF and Typhoon with each other.

JG73

And don't forget that Typhoon becomes increasingly powerful when it get's AMSAR , Iris-T and Meteor.

Desertfox

I can't help but to reply to such comments from people who care enough to make comparison between neighbouring Malaysia and Singapore Military defences.

Are you really interested to see war between these 2 neighbours or are you just childish enough to write such a post.

Desertfox

Yo *****! Quote "If you are too far away from each other you'd have nothing to quarrel about, would you?"

Tell that to Osama Bin Laden.

Desertfox

Yes according to the doctorine, it is a pre-emptive strike force. Does it say anything about invading and holding Malay trritory and fighting it out?

If it does, according to whom????

Desertfox

Tell that to the indians and Malays and other races in the SAF.

Eh brudder! Grow up lah deh!

GGTharos

[quote=ajaybhutani;141414]U can look at the Ranges of AMRAAM and R77 to see who will hit first. [/quote[

This is an incorrect statement. 'Missile range' is a complex thing, and whatever's reported on websites essentially tells you nothing. The R-77 does NOT out-perform the AMRAAM. This is exactly why the Russian Air Force has asked for a new version, if not alltogether a new missile, to be developed.

Correct. Point is, the F-15's were outnumbered - in addition the F-15's, AFAIK, were to simulate F-16's using SARH missiles - IIRC.

Yet they are.

Again incorrect. An AESA radar provides HUGE advantages overmechanically scanned radars; better and faster and more accurate target tracking, better ECM resistance, and a whole host of other things.

It doesn't actually matter; what matters is te Rtr range - outside this range, you can out-maneuver the missile much more easily than outside of it.

Like all missile launch zones, this one is dynamic and depends on the closure, aspect, altitude and other parameters at the time of launch.

The AMRAAM's Rtr is about 8nm for the A version at medium altitudes, and likely longer at high altitudes, assuming 1000kts head to head closure.

In the same conditions the max range (what the heck is 'max range'? what does 'max range' mean? How is it defined) at medium altitude is about 19nm.

The R-77's ranges are likely to be similar, but the R-77 has its own peculiarities - those potato masher fins create huge amounts of drag somewhere between mach 1 and mach 2, but less drag than conventional fins above mach 2. That missile is going to travel at those speeds somewhere between launch and top speed, and again it will slow down to those speeds as it aproaches its target.

The AIM-120 is also probably the most up-to-date, constantly developed and refined missile in the world. In terms of electronics, it is very likely superior to the R-77. This has implications in how it reacts to ECM, coutnermeasures, and potentnial alternate maneuver paths to deal with counter-measures.
There is a physical aspect also: If the quality of the gimbal on the seeker is better ont he AMRAAM for example, then the R-77 might have a higher miss distance by comparison.

So - the conclusion of all my babbling is: 'If you look at the range of these missiles you'll know who'll hit first' is simply meaningless. And that's is JUST considering the missiles themselves, not tactics, support like AWACS or off-board jammers, the relative capability of the aircraft launching those missiles to detect, successfuly track and engage their targets, the ability of those aircraft to defend themselves using maneuver, ECM, and other counter-measures, and so on and so forth.

Not to mention AIM-120D is getting a 2-way datalink, which may potentnially make it even more difficult to jam/confuse ... plus the larger rocket motor, which will supposedly extend the range another 50% ... plus just /software/ programming which extended the Rtr just by optimizing flight paths.

It's complicated, no?