George J seems to think I’m telepathic and supposed to search for information that kams did not post. George seems to blame me yet he ignores kams made a dyslexic switch and failed to post a link. George also failed to post a link. It seems as if people are trying to blame me for a problem that was started by your mistakes and laziness.
Yet often when I post to support my claims with links and sources to try to persuade others: many try to spin it as ignorant; as if I wouldn’t know the information without the linked sources. Yet repeatedly I see people that prove themselves to be ignorant and arrogant because they don’t support their claims and give links or sources. Instead we are supposed to blindly take your word as self-proclaimed experts.
I often use external sources because I also make mistakes and I’m also not good with language. So I often use sources as kind of a translator or second opinion expressing a similar view with different words.
Mistaken can be considered lying; such as in this case it is lying though it apparently is not deliberate or with malice. Technically to lie is to say something untrue; it does not necessarily always mean that it is deliberate or with malice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Though typically the word lie is used to describe a non-truths that is deliberately misleading or with malice; that’s not always so. Occasionally the word is also used to describe accidental or ignorant untruths.
To the best of my recollection the PAK FA was not discussed in the video, the F-22 was. The PAK FA is a paper airplane (unproven at this time) so its specifications are extremely vague; therefore the aircraft is moot at this time for this discussion.
The F-22 was discussed in the video therefore it is on topic. I feel you’re just trying to dodge the issues of the weaknesses of the flanker family. I was merely pointing out what might be a strength against F-16s or F-15s could be a disadvantage against F-22s or JSFs. You seem determined to dodge the issue. I clearly stated before that I was talking in reference to the F-22; yet you ignored that.
As has been pointed out by others, aircraft typically don’t carry their maximum load anyway; they usually carry less to extend the range and loiter time and to extend the airframe life. Particularly older aircraft that have a lot of hours on them.
Another disadvantage to the more extreme long-range missiles besides cost, maintenance, friendly fire (ROE/visual ID), weight, drag, RCS, IRS, etc…. is that if you launch at longer-range it gives an opponent more time to detect, use countermeasures and evade an incoming missile.
TAIPEI – A new RAND study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled “Air Combat Past, Present and Future,” by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China’s anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the “ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas.”
According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
Related TopicsAmericas
Asia & Pacific Rim
Air Warfare
The report states that 34 missiles with submunition warheads could cover all parking ramps at Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa.
An “attack like this could damage, destroy or strand 75 percent of aircraft based at Kadena,” it says.
In contrast, many Chinese air bases are harder than Kadena, with some “super-hard underground hangers.”
To make matters worse, Kadena is the only U.S. air base within 500 nautical miles of the Taiwan Strait, whereas China has 27.
U.S. air bases in South Korea are more than 750 miles distant, and those in Japan are more than 885 miles away. Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, is 1,500 miles away. The result is that sortie rates will be low, with a “huge tanker demand.”
The authors suggest China’s CETC Y-27 radar, which is similar to Russia’s Nebo SVU VHF Digital AESA, could counter U.S. stealth fighter technology. China is likely to outfit its fighters with improved radars and by “2020 even very stealthy targets likely [would be] detectable by Flanker radars at 25+ nm.” China is also likely to procure the new Su-35BM fighter by 2020, which will challenge the F-35 and possibly the F-22.
The authors also question the reliability of U.S. beyond-visual-range weapons, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. U.S. fighters have recorded only 10 AIM-120 kills, none against targets equipped with the kinds of countermeasures carried by Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s. Of the 10, six were beyond-visual-range kills, and it required 13 missiles to get them.
If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, the authors say it is difficult to “predict who will have had the last move in the measure-countermeasure game.”
Overall, the authors say, “China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena – about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen. Overcoming these odds requires qualitative superiority of 9:1 or 100:1” – a differential that is “extremely difficult to achieve” against a like power.
If beyond-visual-range missiles work, stealth technology is not countered and air bases are not destroyed, U.S. forces have a chance, but “history suggests there is a limit of about 3:1 where quality can no longer compensate for superior enemy numbers.”
A 24-aircraft Su-27/30 regiment can carry around 300 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), whereas 24 F-22s can carry only 192 AAMs and 24 F-35s only 96 AAMs.
Though current numbers assume the F-22 could shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when “outnumbered 12:1 without loss,” these numbers do not take into account a less-than-perfect U.S. beyond-visual-range performance, partial or complete destruction of U.S. air bases and aircraft carriers, possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025, and the possible use of Chinese “robo-fighters” to deplete U.S. “fighters’ missile loadout prior to mass attack.”
The authors write that Chinese counter stealth, anti-access, countermissile technologies are proliferating and the U.S. military needs “a plan that accounts for this.”
George J seems to think I’m telepathic and supposed to search for information that kams did not post. George seems to blame me yet he ignores kams made a dyslexic switch and failed to post a link. George also failed to post a link. It seems as if people are trying to blame me for a problem that was started by your mistakes and laziness.
Yet often when I post to support my claims with links and sources to try to persuade others: many try to spin it as ignorant; as if I wouldn’t know the information without the linked sources. Yet repeatedly I see people that prove themselves to be ignorant and arrogant because they don’t support their claims and give links or sources. Instead we are supposed to blindly take your word as self-proclaimed experts.
I often use external sources because I also make mistakes and I’m also not good with language. So I often use sources as kind of a translator or second opinion expressing a similar view with different words.
Mistaken can be considered lying; such as in this case it is lying though it apparently is not deliberate or with malice. Technically to lie is to say something untrue; it does not necessarily always mean that it is deliberate or with malice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie
Though typically the word lie is used to describe a non-truths that is deliberately misleading or with malice; that’s not always so. Occasionally the word is also used to describe accidental or ignorant untruths.
To the best of my recollection the PAK FA was not discussed in the video, the F-22 was. The PAK FA is a paper airplane (unproven at this time) so its specifications are extremely vague; therefore the aircraft is moot at this time for this discussion.
The F-22 was discussed in the video therefore it is on topic. I feel you’re just trying to dodge the issues of the weaknesses of the flanker family. I was merely pointing out what might be a strength against F-16s or F-15s could be a disadvantage against F-22s or JSFs. You seem determined to dodge the issue. I clearly stated before that I was talking in reference to the F-22; yet you ignored that.
Another disadvantage to the more extreme long-range missiles besides cost, maintenance, friendly fire (ROE/visual ID), weight, drag, RCS, IRS, etc…. is that if you launch at longer-range it gives an opponent more time to detect, use countermeasures and evade an incoming missile.
At this moment there is a Flanker version that pretty much gets close to a F-22 in combat, the Su-35BM has very likely a sustained turn rate beyond 23 deg/s and has supercruise capability, no F-15 version has such capability.
of all the fourth generation fighters, the Su-35 is the closest aircraft in performance and agility to the F-22 and very likely it has a radar almost as good.
The F-15 pilot deliverately compares the the F-22 to make his point stronger.
however he is trying to mention only a simple facts the indian pilots failed to use properly the Flanker.
The reality is the Flanker is unbeatable in agility by the F-15, the F-15 only flew against Indian pilots who did not use properly the Su-30MKI.
next time when those Su-30MKI pilots face the F-15s in a only gun combat they won`t be beaten by the F-15s.
By the way the PAK FA is already in cosntruction
You see the right thing, but draw the wrong conclusions from that.
All the fighters mentioned had their strong and their weak points. With good crews and correct tactics, the winner can be ***!
But to claim that the aircraft is important to that is nonsense.
The Spitfire was in an advantage against the 109 in the horizontal, when the 109 was in the vertical. The Yak-9 was strong at low level, when at height the 109 had the advantage. The main disadvantage of the Yak-9 was, that all were equipped with reliable radios very late in the war. In those times it was something like a data-link to coordinate the own team. It did allow the Germans to face much bigger Russian units till the end of the war, when it was not so against the P-51s.The Me-262 was an exception, because it was a new generation of fighter.
Staying high and fast it was able to engage and disengage at will. A pilot in a Me-262 going into a turning fight against a piston-engine fighter at lower altidudes is committing suicide. The new propulsion-system of the Me-262 did allow it to have a higher energy level to dominate an engagement most of the time.
Something similar is not given between a Su-30MKI and a F-15. The one, who will slow down first by manouvering will loose first. The Russian are aware about that, because they do fire a sequence of AAMs to beat the opponent. The first AAM will slow the opponent down in energy, because the ordinary pilot will start an evasive manouvre most of the time. The next AAM will slow those down further, when not hitting that slower opponent already. By the third AAM, that ordinary fighter had run out of “steam” already.
For modern aircombat the transonic range is the most important. (Mach 0,8-1,3) 😉
What you are saying is not correct and you know it.
In a real combat the F-15 and Su-30MKI are very well matched in the use of air to air missiles.
If you are on a head on encounter or in and tail chase the first fighter using missiles will win.
The Russians do have rearward firing R-73 missiles but i do not think they have implemented that variant
It is not like the Python V capability is unknown to the Russians, but definitively they have been slow to deploy that type of weapon.
however the basic Su-27s and Su-30MKI are in a disadvantage at very short range but at a range of 30km even using AA-11s they are still well matched even the F-15 using Python Vs.
Now you are thinking the Russian missiles are ineffective and the reality is in GWI many dozens even a hundred Iraqi aircraft scaped to Iran even the F-15s patrolling the skies and very likely firing their AIM-7s.
The reality is both F-15 and SU-27 have their strong and weak point but so far as agility is concerned the F-15 is not match
While that might be true and useful against an F-15 or F-16; it’s definitely not the case against the F-22 and is probably not true for the JSF. Myopically thinking the Su-27 having more missiles might be an advantage; however more realistically, more missiles means more weight, a larger RCS, a larger infrared signature, higher drag; that will make you a big easy lumbering target. It also means that not only will you lose your aircraft but you will lose more missiles.
The alleged advantage of having more missiles, can turn out to be a disadvantage when fighting against stealth. You can’t shoot down what you can’t detect, track or lock onto; so all them extra missiles would likely go to waste and actually end up being a disadvantage against an opponent like the F-22.
Well that is not accurate why?
The Su-27 carries all its max fuel internally, it does not need external fuel tanks or FAST packs like the F-15.
Having more BVR missiles means you stay more time farther away, it can carry 6 AA-10s and 4 AA-11s, two missiles more than a F-15
without external fuel tanks or FAST packs
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su27/images/su27_3.jpg
Possibly a neutral view…..
Combat is never predictable. No matter how much prep you do, things will always surprise you. Now the Su-30mki, going on what the chap in the video said, were taken out by F-15’s. The fact is even if the Su-30mki is better..etc…(In my opinion still to be proven) it did not show it in 1V1 WVR. Results are what matter, and the -15’s got them.
To be realistic and neutral is easy just you need to admit some facts:
Fact one, the Su-27 has better turn rate and better climb rate than the F-15, the Su-30MKI has better turn rate than the F-15
This fact means that a regular F-15 can not out turn or out climb a Su-27B nietehr will out turn a Su-30MKI. No F-15 can shoot down a Su-27 unless the pilot makes a big mistake
Fact two, the F-15 and Su-27 have parity in radar technology and bvr missiles. This is reality both aircraft have more or less parity in radars and have more or less parity in BVR air to air missiles.
Fact three: the F-15 has better dogfight missiles, it has better air to air missiles than the Su-30MKI or Su-27B, the AIM-9X and Python V are basicly fifth generation off bored AAMs, the R-73E is a fourth genration missile comparable with the Python IV
This means that the F-15 can beat the Su-30MKI in a dogfight if it is armed with AIM-9Xs or Python Vs
Fact four both fighters have parity in performance, the F-15 is faster but in general the Su-27 has better rate of climb and acceleration
The Su-27 has better TWR ralation and D/L rate but it is slower.
Conclusion:The Su-30MKI being more agile can beat easily the F-15 but big mistakes can make the Su-30MKI being shot down.
This is what the pilot really meant in a guns only dogfight the Su-27/Su-30MKI are the better fighters but mistakes by the indian pilots made them targets and for that reason they were shot down.
Without missiles like the Python V or AIM-9X or big mistkes in flying the F-15 is not the better fighter since basicly its instantaneaous turn rate equals the sustained turn rate of the Su-27.
The F-15 has a turn rate of 16deg/s sustained and the Su-27B of 21deg/s (Su-30MKI 23 deg/s sustained turn rate).
The F-15 has a instantaneous turn rate of 21deg/s and the Su-27 of 27 deg/s.
Fact five the Su-27 carries more BVR air to air missiles and will fight at longer range more time
fact not acknowledged by many but a reality the Su-27 can carry six AA-10s and more AA-12s than the F-15s AIM-120.
Sign In
