Eurofighter vs Su-30MKI

[Bill]

90-100km is comparable to the AIM-120C-7 P3I missile.

[ASG]

R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100 km.
There are other variants under development. One has an up-rated motor which is intended to boost range at high altitudes to as much as 160 km and is known as the R-77RVV-AE-PD.

source:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Ai...les/index.html

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00137001
----------------
AIM-120C AMRAAM has a maximum range of 26NM or 48km.

source:

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00005003

[Bill]

You quote 'amraam c' as if it's one missile.

LOL, there are FIVE different versions of AMRAAM C.

But i guess you didn't know that...

They are AIM-120C-1, C-3, C-5, C-7, C-7P2I, and the current C-7P3I.

And yeah, your figures aren't right, even for the AIM-120A, which has a range in some modes in excess of 55km.

BTW, the USN is currently developing the AMRAAM VFDR, which is expected to have a range of 200km and a flight speed of Mach 6.

Looks pretty comparable to your 77RVV-AE-PD, eh?

And one other thing, talking about maximum missile range has NOTHING to do with seeker range...

[ASG]

BTW, the USN is currently developing the AMRAAM VFDR, which is expected to have a range of 200km and a flight speed of Mach 6.

Looks pretty comparable to your 77RVV-AE-PD, eh?

NOt just comparable, it beats the R-77 by miles, literally. BTW, at what altitude are you measuring your Machs on?

[Bill]

Mach 4 changes with altitude. At high altitude, mach 4 is MUCH faster than sea level, so the Mach numbers remain constant, even though the speed varies.

An AMRAAM is a Mach 4+ missile at any altitude, but mach 4 up high is a hell of a lot faster than mach 4 down low. An AMRAAM(or whatever) is simply faster at higher altitude because there is so much less wind resistance.

The same is true of bullets. During the Korean war the US WWII fighter aces quickly realized that the same exact .50 weapons they used on piston engined fighters had a MUCH longer range at the altitudes the F-86s and Mig-15s played at, because there was less wind resistance.

Missiles also have much longer range at high altitude, just as bullets, just as the aircraft themselves do.

[uss]

Hello All,

I'm new to this forum (you probly guessed anyway). I have never done anything like this before so you can consider me a real novice - i'm willing to learn. I was following this thread about the su 30MKI Vs the EF 2000 with great interest; however, I still can't come to much of a conclusion as to which is a better plane. One on one (at their current level of development) which would come out on tops? If I can just have about 10 straightforward votes, it would really help. Thanks.

Kind Regards,
USS.

Oh, and one more little criterion to make it easier - both a/c have equally good pilots, no AWACS support either.

[Dima]

well, the Su-30MKI will be able to be equipped with the 400km+ range Ks-172 missile, so in BVR, well, to tell you the truth, even though this missile massively outranges anything America has

actually, sorry my mistake, the KS-172 will only be operable on the Su-35, Su-37, and MiG-31 fighters

personally, one on one, i think i'd have to hand it to the Typhoon, but, since it does cost significantly mroe than the Su-30MKI, the only fair thinig to say, is 2 Su-30MKI vs. Eurofighter Typhoon, they both would roughly equal about $60 million, in that case, it would be very close, i'll give it an analysis tomorrow, and post osme major information

[SwingKid]

Mach 4 changes with altitude. At high altitude, mach 4 is MUCH faster than sea level,

An AMRAAM is a Mach 4+ missile

at any altitude, but mach 4 up high is a hell of a lot faster than mach 4 down low.

Does the "+" in "Mach 4+" stand for:

+assuming the launching aircraft is flying Mach 2 at the moment of launch, and the missile is not lofted

?

After running some simulations, I once concluded the "Mach 4+" figure was mostly hype...

I also thought sound travelled faster through denser media..?

-SK

[Bill]

The + means Mach 4 plus. As in Mach 4 and then some.

And yeah, i reversed the effects of altitude on mach speed.

Whoops. ;)

Here's a good link on Mach 1 at various altitudes:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...e/q0102c.shtml

On AMRAAM flight speed:

"The missile itself comprises basically four sections; propulsion (solid rocket based yielding a top speed of around Mach 4)"

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.ne...AA/amraam.html

Of course the launch/flight profile of the missile, as well as the range, will determine the terminal attack speed of AMRAAM, or any missile, for that matter.

[ajaybhutani]

well, the Su-30MKI will be able to be equipped with the 400km+ range Ks-172 missile, so in BVR, well, to tell you the truth, even though this missile massively outranges anything America has

actually, sorry my mistake, the KS-172 will only be operable on the Su-35, Su-37, and MiG-31 fighters

personally, one on one, i think i'd have to hand it to the Typhoon, but, since it does cost significantly mroe than the Su-30MKI, the only fair thinig to say, is 2 Su-30MKI vs. Eurofighter Typhoon, they both would roughly equal about $60 million, in that case, it would be very close, i'll give it an analysis tomorrow, and post osme major information

WEll firstly Ks172 is a awac killer missile and not the one for fighter jets.
secondly rite now the mki radar cannot even seee till that range leave aside firing that far away. Though till hte time this missile comes in we will be ready with the better radars .The missile targetted at killing fighter planes is an advanced version of R77 with around a 100 miles or range.And yes the MKI is more of a hybrid of SU37 SU35 and su30 taking the best out of all of them . I mean its better or at least comparable to each of them .

[ajaybhutani]

Hello All,

I'm new to this forum (you probly guessed anyway). I have never done anything like this before so you can consider me a real novice - i'm willing to learn. I was following this thread about the su 30MKI Vs the EF 2000 with great interest; however, I still can't come to much of a conclusion as to which is a better plane.

its difficult to come up with a conclusion though we can buy 2 mki's at the cost of 1 EF. which gives mki an edge.

One on one (at their current level of development) which would come out on tops? If I can just have about 10 straightforward votes, it would really help. Thanks.

1. MKI is in service though every batch will be an upgrade of previous.
2. Voting is always biased for even those will vote who dont even know ahout the two fighters . Even then if u want a comparison then create a thread with a vote

Oh, and one more little criterion to make it easier - both a/c have equally good pilots, no AWACS support either.

We normally compare the aircrafts with these assumptions unless otherwise specified in the post.

[SwingKid]

On AMRAAM flight speed:

"The missile itself comprises basically four sections; propulsion (solid rocket based yielding a top speed of around Mach 4)"

http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.ne...AA/amraam.html

Of course the launch/flight profile of the missile, as well as the range, will determine the terminal attack speed of AMRAAM, or any missile, for that matter.

Hmm, "a top speed of around Mach 4" already sounds somewhat more conservative than "Mach 4+ at any altitude." If the launching aircraft is travelling at Mach 2 at the moment of launch, as the F-15 or F-22 are wont to do only at high altitude, that is probably going to contribute significantly to the "top" speed figure of the missile as measured during tests.

The AIM-120 is fast and with fantastic acceleration compared to such slowpokes as the AIM-54 and AA-10, but launched from a subsonic fighter, I have serious doubts it would reach Mach 4 at any point in its flight profile at any altitude, unless fired practically straight down. The reduced-smoke, boost-sustain motor isn't even optimized to achieve maximum speed.

i.e. I go out on a limb and label the AIM-120's "Mach 4+" as carefully phrased "hype." Anyone who "knows" is invited to correct..?

-SK

[Dima]

ajay, where did you get that information from?, the Ks-172 is expected to come into service between 2007-2012, they have already tested it numerous times, yes, i know that the MKI doesn't havea radar with that range, but the MiG-31 does, way longer too, also, doesn't this make you think that perhaps Russia is developing a more powerful radar for its Su-35 and Su-37's if they are to use this missile, also it can be used against fighters, just like the AIM-54 Pheonix was(it won't really be that accurate, but that's where the AA-13 comes in)

that's what i find interesting

100 miles, more like 110+ miles, but who's counting, it can be more though, because since 1 mile equals approximately 1.6 kilomteters, 110 miles would be about 176 kilometers, yea that's close enough, they're developing a version of R-77 with 180+km range, so that will be exciting

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2175&catid=262

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2176&catid=262

the AA-13 is physically similar to the AA-9 Amos, which is also a long range missile,

comparison:

AA-13 has the dimensions of 4.2*0.38*0.7
AA-9 has the dimensions 4.2*0.38*1.2
AA-13 has a weight of 600kg and its warhead weighs 60kg
AA-9 has a weight of 490 kg and its warhead weighs 47 kg
AA-13 has a range of about 300km and a speed of Mach 6
AA-9 Amos has a range of about 160km and a speed of Mach 4.52
AA-13 is guided by inertial+radio+active/passive radarhoming, thus making it you are not able to detect it
AA-9 A is guided by inertial+semi-active radar+active radar(at terminal phase)

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00138001

the Su-37, Su-35, and MiG-31 will also be able to utilize this missile, development started in 1985 and first air tests occurred in 1987, for the Ks-172, development started in 1993, and its first air test was in 1997

[ajaybhutani]

ajay, where did you get that information from?,

Well do a google u'll get it all

the Ks-172 is expected to come into service between 2007-2012, they have already tested it numerous times, yes, i know that the MKI doesn't havea radar with that range, but the MiG-31 does,

ay longer too, also, doesn't this make you think that perhaps Russia is developing a more powerful radar for its Su-35 and Su-37's

Well they arent even inducting SU35/SU37. So why woul they make better radars for them.

if they are to use this missile, also it can be used against fighters, just like the AIM-54 Pheonix was(it won't really be that accurate, but that's where the AA-13 comes in)

Well i bet u dont ahve a source for this stupid info of urs .

that's what i find interesting

AWAC killing m,issiles have that range.

100 miles, more like 110+ miles, but who's counting, it can be more though, because since 1 mile equals approximately 1.6 kilomteters, 110 miles would be about 176 kilometers, yea that's close enough, they're developing a version of R-77 with 180+km range, so that will be exciting

Well 1 mile > 1.7km. and well the attained range will be a big secret . Also the latest AIM120 developments are also targetting the similar ranges. so nothin exciting about it .

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2175&catid=262

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=2176&catid=262

the AA-13 is physically similar to the AA-9 Amos, which is also a long range missile,

comparison:

AA-13 has the dimensions of 4.2*0.38*0.7
AA-9 has the dimensions 4.2*0.38*1.2
AA-13 has a weight of 600kg and its warhead weighs 60kg
AA-9 has a weight of 490 kg and its warhead weighs 47 kg
AA-13 has a range of about 300km and a speed of Mach 6
AA-9 Amos has a range of about 160km and a speed of Mach 4.52
AA-13 is guided by inertial+radio+active/passive radarhoming, thus making it you are not able to detect it
AA-9 A is guided by inertial+semi-active radar+active radar(at terminal phase)

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00138001

the Su-37, Su-35, and MiG-31 will also be able to utilize this missile, development started in 1985 and first air tests occurred in 1987, for the Ks-172, development started in 1993, and its first air test was in 1997

Well lemme make some things clear to u." Russians are not buying any more Mig31/su35/su37 as they dont ahve money for it. "
KH172 is a awac missile And use it against the fighter and u'll be wasting a costly beast.

[Dima]

why don't you prove yourself, i have to go, so i'll respond quickly

how od you know that they're not inducting the Su-35/37, the Russian government is extremely interested in both programs, particularily the Su-37, AND, just to add, the Su-37 is not complete yet, the full version with full specs will be in 2007, and it will be able to reach Mach 3, and a few other features, have to ask my friend, he knows more about that

as Russia's trade surplus grows even faster, and it's budget surplus grows even larger, there will be more money funnelled into Rand D projects as well as acquisition of new equipment over the nest few years

stupid information, you've never heard of the AIM-54 Pheonix being use dgainst normal fighter aircraft, wow, talk about stupid

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm

AIM-54C can better counter projected threats from tactical aircraft and cruise missiles

and although the Ks-172 and the AIM-54 Pheonix are both made for destroying AWACS, tankers etc. they can also be used against fighter aircraft, although it's inefficient(it has a really low chance of actually destroying the aircraft, because a fighter maneuver's much better than an AWACS or Tanker aircraft)

"AWAC killing m,issiles have that range."

?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...G=Search&meta=

1 mile=1.61 kilometers

why do you still think that Russia has no money, do some studying, then talk to me about the Russian economy, it's literally BOOMING

keep track on current events, and then you'll realize Russia is not poor anymore, not even close

although, you are correct that Russia will no longer purchase anymore MiG-31's, but don't rule out the Su-37, which could take it's place and the Su-27's, the Su-35, i don't know where it would fit since the Su-37 is superior to it