My twenty cents worth

The nature of COIN / CAS role is to be able to fly at a speed, which allows both the identifying and accurate engagement of the enemy, which could be in close contact with friendly troops.
History has shown that in the COIN / CAS mission, the aircraft needs to have good staying power in both terms of loitering time and the amount of ordinance it can both carry and deliver.
The beauty about the Douglas A-1 Skyraider, although designed as a torpedo-bomber, which would latter make it an excellent COIN / CAS platform was the fact that it was designed with almost five hard years of combat experience behind it.
This enforced the need for a very strong design, which could take the abuse of battle damage, which was primarily from ship and ground based anti-aircraft fire.
Also due to its primary intended area of operations – the expanse of the Pacific, the Skyraider would have an excellent range, which would later translate into an outstanding loitering time on station, as well as an extremely heavy offensive weapons load.
Yes some would argue about the viability of modifying trainers to perform the COIN / CAS role.
Granted converted trainers are to often seen as a cost effective means to do this very important mission, which is so neglected by many air forces.
But as the United States was to find in their attempt to find a replacement for their venerable Skyraiders, the conversion of the likes of their North American T-28 Trojan trainer into a COIN / CAS aircraft was nothing more than a band aid fix.
For the T-28 Trojan’s lacked the ruggedness, payload, range and loiter time of the Skyraider.
This would be the case in the push and fashion of converting modern turboprop trainers.
1/ They are very vulnerable to battle damage, as they were not designed with this
mission in mind.
2/ They are very limited in the weight and volume of weapons they can carry
3/ They more often than not lack built in guns and ammunition storage to be effective in
COIN / CAS missions. And when they are fitted with gun, they are pylon / hardpoint
pod mounted, which takes away other offensive weapons, and are limited in the
amount of gun rounds carried.
4/ It way too many cases the carriage of external offensive weapons usually means that
fuel and or range has to be sacrificed – which negates important loitering time on
station!
5/ Flying in combat conditions, with heavy weapons loads, usually shortens the life span
of the trainer very quickly
6/ Trainers by their nature and role that they were designed for are not designed with
combat damage and battlefield survivability factored in, which will make them very
vulnerable to basic battle damage.

The capability and need for the Skyraider by the United States was such that they attempted to modernize the basic design, with the replacement of its piston engine with a much more powerful turboprop engine in the form of the Allison XT40-A-2 turboprop engine. But as in the case of to many other ambitious American aircraft programs that were also designed around this troublesome coupled engine design, they would be cancelled.
This Turboprop powered Skyhawk, although some what very different in visual appearance, due to the needs of the XT40-A-2 was designated the Douglas A2D-1 Skyshark.

Post World War Two there have been very few dedicated / purpose-built COIN/CAS aircraft built, let alone put into service in any substantial numbers
– FMA IA 58 Pucará
– North American OV-10 Bronco
– Sud-Aviation SE.117 Voltigeur
– Tupolev Tu-91?

Today with the exception of the likes of the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II and the Sukhoi Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’, there is still a great neglect for the very important COIN role.

I am a firm believer in ‘if it’s not broken, and then don’t fix it’
Hay I would be happy with a ‘new-built’ and modernized Skyraider, which would incorporate a modern and reliable turboprop engine, IR Suppression, advanced prop design, a two-man cockpit armoured bathtub arrangement to protect crew, FLIR / thermal imaging sensors, zero-zero ejection seats, self-sealing fuel tanks, composite materials incorporated into its construction and protection, built in high capacity flare/chaff launches, cockpit HUD’s ‘Pave Penny’ laser spot tracker pod, RWR and GPS

Now people will argue that –
‘It would be slow’,
‘It would be vulnerable to MANPADS’
‘It doesn’t have stealth’

Well my response will be that it has, and will continue to perform a neglected role, which is unfashionable to air forces the world over that likes and prioritizes high-tech fast movers, at extravagant costs, over what military history has shown and proven as workable.
I see a modernized Skyraider being far more capable of surviving in the sky over a COIN war, than that of the makeshift, limited and very vulnerable modified trainer aircraft that are being marketed as a cheap alternative to a dedicated platform.
In the COIN role, the greatest threat to an airplane is the gun first, and the MANPADS second. For the low-altitude operating nature of COIN, means that MANPADS have very limited firing time at the target, as opposed to a fast and high flying ‘fast mover’
In response to those that think with out stealth in modern warfare you are dead!
The average insurgent armed with an AK-47 rifle on the ground will shot at your aircraft just the same with the intent of killing you with stealth or without stealth features.
I leave you with this question!
How many Post WWII aircraft have been shot down by rifles, machine guns and AAA?
How many Post WWII aircraft have been shot down by SAM’s?

Regards
Pioneer

Sorry
But I must say, what with the dog breakfast called the A-12 Avenger II, and the continues delays and cost blow outs of the F-35 program, I am amazed that the U.S Navy has allowed itself to be without the range and payload delivery capability of the likes of the Intruder since February 1997!
Regardless of all the hype about fighter escorting and EW support aircraft, the wars that the United States has been envolved since 1997, would still have been served more effectivly by the Intruder (even if upgraded to A-6F standards) until the F-35 Lockheed Martin, and politicians finally gets their acts together and put it into service.
10+-years without this capability is quite pitifull!
And before everyone jumps on the band wagon – no the F/A-18E/F has not replaced the Intruder or its capabilities!
At the end of the day the U.S Navy has a lot of questions it should be answering, in regards to what it has and is doing!
They are not doing themselves to many favours

Regards
Pioneer

I’ll give you this Mr. Simonds – you are passionate about what you think!
You wouldn’t be an officer by chance?

What a load of rubbish. The US fighters chose NOT to fire to attempt to minimise blue on blue engagements. This says NOTHING about their lack of capability to do so.

This is my point exactly!
The IFF is not reliable enough to use the full capability of BVR missiles the majority of the time.
How many wars is the likes of the United States going to fight without large numbers of their own air assets?
No offence to my American brothers in arms, but hell every time I operate with or near U.S forces, we fear blue on blues, but there always one sided!

By the same logic, Australia, which ONLY launched precision guided munitions in 2003, is an example I suppose, of the fact, that they can ONLY launch PGM’s?

Another bolt out of the blue Mr. Simonds
The only thing I know about air-to-surface and PGM’s is when my FAC calls it in it takes out the target and no more rounds are coming our way

No, not all AMRAAM kills have been WVR. Dutch F-16’s downed Serbian MiG-29’s at greater than 25 miles with an A variant of the missile…

I do stand corrected!
This engagement did slip my mind!
But this is a very small percentage for a massive cost of R&D and production of missiles and radars for a given return!
Was the Serb aircraft a direct threat, or was the AMRAAM shot just a good opportunity to play with the toys?
Hell I’ve taken out enemy strong points with Javelin ATGM’s just because I could, even though a SRAAW would have done the job!

Subsequent variants of AMRAAM have improved capability…

They (USAF & USN) said the same for decades with Sparrow AAM series
And they never really got it right until the Brits came up with the Skyflash AAM, which was superseded by the AMRAAM!

WVR combat is akin to a “knife fight in a phone booth”. It is extremely lethal and all the agility in the world matters little, when both sides operate helmet mounted sighting systems and missiles with a high off-bore site capability. No pilot in his right mind, WANTS to enter such a fight…

Hay isn’t this a quote from the same Lightweight Fighter Mafia, you dislike so much?
Again history has shown again and again, that although ‘no pilot in his right mind, WANTS to enter such a fight..’ it is a fact that this is how most air-to-air combat has happened, predominantly with cannon and WVR missiles, and very few with BVR.

As to the F-15, it is currently sitting at around 101 air to air kills for no air to air losses. Give it a break, it’s living up to it’s reputation and not just in the hands of USAF pilots, either…

As someone has already stated – when has the F-15 Eagle ever really been up against a really professional and skilled adversary?
I still believe that the true test of the F-15 Eagle would have been a NATO vs. Warsaw Pack war – but that’s only hypothetical!
I’m not knocking the F-15 Eagle per say. (Although I liked the Fairchild Republic ‘FX’ design better – somewhat smaller, lighter and cheaper!)
Its more the case of the U.S military’s BVR kill mentality and want, against the facts of air combat history
How many Aim-7 Sparrow have been produced, and at what cost?
How many kills to launches of Aim-7 Sparrows have there been, and at what cost?
Now compare these to the facts of WVR AAM’s like the Magic, Sidewinder, Atoll and Aphid, and the kills to launches they have achieved.
I would find it’s some what interesting though if you were to ask the USAF and its pilots to chose only one of the two designs of the F-15 or F-16 which design would they select.
Again I use the Israeli Air Force as an example, for I think that they are one of the best, and most battle experienced air forces since WWII.
Why is it, even though the IAF has had the likes of the mighty F-4E Phantom II and F-15 Eagle, equipped with Aim-7 Sparrow BVR AAM’s since the 1973 War, not very often employed this BVR kill capability?
After all, if the BVR kill capability was workable, Israel of all countries, with one of its biggest fear being war of attrition, would surly employ this kill capability from day one of any hostility.
But instead the predominant air-to-air kills caused by the IAF have been WVR!
Why is that?

Regards
Pioneer

The Iraqi Air Force pilot skills were never in the league of the U.S pilots
The Iraqi Air Force never trained to the same level and standards of the USAF, USMC and USN.
The Iraqi Air Force as a whole acted to an antiquated and restricted C3 system.
The Iraqi Air Force was an arm of a dictatorship, which did what it was told, when it was told.
The Iraqi Air Force MiG-29 fleet was small, still very new and untried – they never stood a chance.

‘You could put an 18-year old kid, full of spunk into the capsule of a F1 racing car, and his ability to get the full capability out of this state-of–the-art car is very limited.
But you put in a professional driver, with lots of training and experience, and he will drive that same F1 through bends in the race circuit, which would make the 18-year old drive puke his guts, and possibly never drive again!

What would be interesting is say giving the Israeli Air Force a couple of Squadrons of MiG-29’s, and about 8-12months to familiarize themselves and train to the full capability and limits of the design, and then send them to a Red Flag or Top Gun meet!
Now I wuld pay top dollar to see this!:D

One should not forget that when the Luftwaffe began to incorporate the former East German MiG-29 into their Order of Battle, the MiG-29 became the challenge to many NATO air forces, and their best pilots in dissimilar air-to-air combat.
And in most cases the Luftwaffe MiG-29 rained supreme!

As a last point – look what the Indian Air Force piloted Flankers did to the USAF piloted Eagles!

Regards
Pioneer

I have thought about posting this type of topic for a while now.
So thanks for starting it.
Could we maybe make it a little more generic, so that it doesn’t just center on the
Jas-39
Typhoon
F/A-18E/F
K-50
Tiger

I.e. I have some costs on –
Douglas (McDonnell Douglas) A4D-1 / A-4 Skyhawk
Estimated Cost – $860,000 [1955$] per copy for the first 500 units.

Avro Vulcan B.1
Estimated Cost – Sterling 538,000 per aircraft (195?);
Sterling 760,000 (1956) (Olympus 12 engines)

General Dynamics F-111A/C
Estimated Cost – $100 million (In 1963 for 24 x Australian F-111A’s)
(The Australian F-111C program began to rapidly increase in
price from the initial estimate of $100 million in 1963, the
costs were $142 – $205 million in 1966; $237 million in 1967
; $266 million in 1968; and $300 million in 1969)

Northrop N-156 (F-5A Freedom Fighter)
Estimated Cost – 1961 – In negotiations with USAF, Northrop offered a firm
fixed price of $450,000 based on a minimum order of
650 aircraft.

Boeing (McDonnell Douglas/Hughes) AH-64 Apache
Estimated Cost – 1996 – $18-million.

Boeing (McDonnell Douglas) F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Estimated Fly-away unit cost – US$ 43,6 million (by US GAO in 1996.)
(1996), total program cost for 548 aircraft is
estimated at US$47,3 billion for USN & USMC
– US$53.8 million (2007)

Any way that’s my twenty cents worth!:D

P.S wouldnt it be some what of interest to work out what the likes of say a new built McDonnell Douglas A-4 Skyhawk would be worth in todays dollars?
(Just a thought!):confused:

P.P.S. I don’t think we will know the true costs of military equipment and what nations tax payers actually pay – when one takes into consideration ‘the brown paper bag factor’;)

Regards
Pioneer

Mr. Simonds

Some great point made mate!
Have enjoyed your company!;)
I suppose that these types of conversations have been going on ever since the-
– Spitfire vs Bf-109 fought
– MiG-15 vs. F-86 Sabre argument
– YF-16 vs YF-17 argument
– F-16 vs MiG-29 argument

And I guess they will continue!

Regards
Pioneer

Dear Mr Simonds

No offence intended
as follows

Were they even available for lease? At any rate, any leased Supers would still need fuel. They would need weapons and sensors. They WOULD need infrastructure and spare parts, spare engines and simulators, spare JHMCS and EW systems etc.

As you can read for yourself at DSCA, the acquisition cost for the aircraft and supporting equipment (engines, radars, EW systems etc) comprises USD $3.1b. The remaining USD$2.1b is the cost to run the Supers for 13 years and buy a weapons package.

These are costs you don’t avoid by leasing…

I understand the different between leasing and charity
I was not implying that the good old US of A was just going to give us the Super Hornets!

But at the end of the day these Super Hornets are only supposed to be a ‘stop-gap’ measure to cover up the fact that the Australian Government of the day stuffed up with their ‘jumping in boots and all’ with committing the RAAF (and the whole of the ADF!) to the F-35 program.
So being the good allies that we have been with the United States, since the Second World War, yes I think they could have done us a deal with a lease arrangement of Super Hornets!
After all it is not a new thing to lease combat aircraft.
With an ironic bit of deja-vu, didn’t the RAAF & Australian Government of the day in the 1960’s not commit to an advanced ‘joint service aircraft’, which promised the world in capability and cost value, whilst it was still on the drawing board, and not even built, let alone flying yet?
Oh yes the TFX program (The F-111)!
But at least that time the United States Government was willing to lease an alternative ‘stop-gap’ aircraft until the bugs were ironed out.
This lease was 24 x McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II’s.
I must admit I have no idea what the deal was or how much it cost Australia, but we leased them and used them, without committing massive amounts of infrastructure ‘balls and all’, for the simple reason that they were just a ‘stop-gap measure’, until the real aircraft we had committed to was ready!
So what is to happen to these Super Hornets when the F-35 is finally delivered?

I take it you haven’t read the Kinnaird Report? You think an RFP wasn’t given to Boeing? Where did the infamous “powerpoint brief” come from then? Thin air?

No sorry mate, I have to admit that I do not read everything!
Can you lead me to a source for this?

Remember AIR-6000?

Yes – That’s the ‘so-called’ competition that many aerospace companies responded to at their expense and effort, just to be flogged off half hardily.
I do not blame the RAAF for this, as it was interfered with by politicians so much!

How does potentially adding the most capable tactical EW aircraft in the world to the RAAF Orbat, which contains precisely NO offensive EW capability at present, make this situation “worse”?

I have no objection to giving our pilots the best chance possible to achieve their mission and return home alive.
But up until this decision the RAAF was more than happy enough to have neglected this reality of the paramount importance of EW/ECM and SEAD for how many decades (even after the lessons learnt over Vietnam and the 1967 & 1973 Arab-Israeli wars?

The Super Hornet squadron is funded fully for 13 years. The F-111 capability, of which there are only 17x airframes left, costs $1.95b for the same period, just to support the aircraft. That’s with NO sensor, weapons or avionics upgrades, whatsoever.

Mate do not get me wrong – I am not one of these advocates that think the F-111 can soldier on until the year 2099……….
Its most unfortunately though – especially after the disaster of the fuel tank cleaning issues and those poor ******s, who have succumb to cancer related illnesses, in relation to cleaning them, that the government would support a F-111 SLEP program, to allow the F-111 to continue in service until the F-35 was excepted into RAAF service.
Ok there would be costs in upgrading them (but when I say upgrade, I do not mean re-make the F-111 from the inside-out, as some advocate!)
But this would surly be cheaper, what with flight training system already in place, existing maintenance facilities etc…….than the introduction of a completely new make of aircraft, new engines and avionics – all requiring ground crew retraining etc… for what only 13-years, just to have them retrained again for the F-35?

Why are these aircraft going to require any greater training or support than that provided for the F-111 capability, or the existing Hornet capability, for that matter?

New type/generation engines, new advanced radar, new and advanced avionics, new and advanced ECM system…………………………………….

Well RAAF definitely disagrees with you there. Admittedly the Super Hornet cannot match the range of the F-111, but then name a tactical fighter that can? The F-15E can’t. This is because the F-111 is NOT a tactical fighter, but rather a bomber.

No the Super Hornet can not match the range of the F-111 – we both agree!
As you have said yourself the F-111 is a strike bomber and not a Tactical Fighter!
And although the F-15E can not match the F-111’s range it is better on range/payload than the Super Hornet full stop.
And this is very important in a strike interdiction role.
The Super Hornet will also need far more airborne refueling support to achieve any worthwhile range.
No I must stick with ‘my’ preference for the Strike Eagle over that of the Super Hornet!

The Super Hornet has proven itself a most effective “strike-interdiction” aircraft in US Navy operations. How exactly is the Australian perspective going to differ?

After the USN got rid of it’s Grumman A-6 Intruders, followed by the debacle of the Avenger II program, the USN had no other choice but to commit to the Super Hornet, as its prim strike interdiction aircraft.
The US Navy has the advantage of usually naming the time and place of were and when they are going to launch strike-interdiction missions – as they operate from floating airfields – aka ‘aircraft carriers’. This often negates the range issue!
Australia on the other hands for both political and infrastructure reasons usually operate from the continent of Australia!

Does the US Navy fly un-escorted non-LO bomber aircraft into the face of high end enemy IADS and fighter networks? That seems to be the role you envisage for the F-111.

Even Airpower Australia and the likes of Eric Palmer at least allow that a fighter will be needed to “kick down the doors” or whatever hyperbole one prefers to use, before the F-111 can go anywhere NEAR such an environment.

I never claimed this!
Again the RAAF has been happy to have put their F-111’s and the crew in harms way since the F-111 was put into service.
So with the RAAF Super Hornets, are you saying that they will be escorted to their targets by…….other Super Hornets or would they just dual-role and self -escort and strike?

I’m guessing you don’t know much about sortie rates, but at least try and understand that even if you operated an F-22/F-111 combo, of 50 aircraft of each kind (the basic APA proposal and the one which Eric Palmer has clung onto) having 50% of your force sitting on the tarmac whilst the other 50% sorts out all the threats that makes 50% of your force useless, is NOT going to do your joint force operations, rate of effort, much good…

Sorry I don’t know where this came from.
But if we (the RAAF) was to get F-22’s, I would probably be happy to for go the F-111’s – only after the F-22 were delivered and in service!

A bit more range, yes. A few more bombs, PGM and otherwise, yes. How many more standoff weapons do they carry? How much more range, exactly?

With conformal packs, the range/payload gained by the F-15E, would still be far better than the Super Hornet, which would have to give up offensive payload for drop tanks to get anywhere near the range of F-15E.

Once again, are F-15E Eagles, available for lease? Do you plan on using fuel, weapons, sensors and maintain an inventory of spare engines, parts, EW kit etc, for your Eagles?

Again in regards of the leasing of F-15E’s – that’s called politics, and at the time John Howard was smoking Bush’s pole that hard and that much, I do not think it would have been to difficult to achieve!

I’ve never purchased a car without tyres and an engine before, and expected it to do the quarter mile!

And what standard Eagle are you advocating? A 1980’s era USAF spec F-15E or a more modern F-15SG perhaps? Like Singapore’s? Do you want an AESA radar or not?

As I have stated – any Strike Eagle would be better as a Strike-Interdiction platform than the Super Hornet!
Depends how good little Johnny was with Bush’s pole!!!!

Do you want a fast jet to replace the F-111 in 2010, or not? I’d suggest you think hard about this, because rightly or wrongly, come December 2011, there will be NO operational F-111 capability in Australia. The capability IS being wound down already and indeed the LAST F-111 Navigators (ACO’s) course finished in November 08.

There are NO more pilots or ACO’s being trained for the F-111 anymore and long term logistical support is being switched off. Airframes will be retired from 2010 and the last F-111 will be flying in RAAF colours in 2011.

Do ‘I’ want a fast jet to replace the F-111 in 2010, or not?
Hell I just want an assurance that the F-111 replacement will be vigorously evaluated, if manned, that its crew is given the best chance of survival, the chosen platform will tie into the over-all ADF strategy, rather than the RAAF just purchasing it because its ‘fashionable and shinny’ (as I think a lot of the thinking / fantasizing of the JSF / F-35 was and is by the RAAF and the then Defence Minister!)
As I have said the F-111 is finished more on the grounds of politics, than anything else.
So what is done is done!

[QUOTE][Can an F-15 Strike Eagle capability be stood up in that timeframe? Neither RAAF nor Boeing think so…/QUOTE]

Well I think Boeing would be saying this!
Hell they have had no luck as yet to sell its Super Hornet to anyone, with the exception of the RAAF!
No wonder they have a boner about this sale.
They have put big bucks into the Super Hornet (Opps I meant the American Ta Payer did!) marketed and flogged a dead horse all around the world to try and get a single sale.
And hay what do you know – South Korea and Singapore opted to purchase the Strike Eagle instead!
What does this tell you?
I have worked with the Singaporean Army on many occasions, and they take their defence real serious (maybe we should take a page out of their book!!!).
They are not in the habit of purchasing a weapon or platform because a Boeing Aerospace executive could **** against the wall, and show in an air show performance of the Super Hornet (in a clean configuration) doing its thing.
No South Korea and Singapore chose the Strike Eagle, (yes even though an older in airframe design!) as being more capable and better money value / capability.
Oh and did I mention that I’m pretty sure that Andrew Peacock – (ex-Federal Liberal Party MP, who had a lot to do with Australian Defence!) was an executive at Boeing Australia?
Jobs and deals for the boys I ask you?

James Stevenson, head of the fighter mafia. What a credible source. Out of interest, this is what the VERY same James Stevenson thinks of the F-22.

Don’t know about you mate, but I don’t believe everything I read.
As far as head of the fighter mafia?
Did the USAF ever threaten to put a horses head in his bed?
He wrote ‘The Pentagon Paradox’ many years after the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 were in service, so I think you’re a little geographically embarrassed there mate!
Have you read ‘The Pentagon Paradox’?
There is some very interesting info in there, regardless of what you think of him!
Did you read his earlier books on the F-14 and F-15?
In fact most of the criticism we wrote about the F-18, A-18, F/A-18 Hornet and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet has proven to be correct.
Oh and no I haven’t read the F-22 article yet!
But I will take a look – thanks

[QUOTE]What “carrier-based” equipment makes so much difference to it’s weight and can be removed?[QUOTE]

I hate to say it mate, but when I’m on leave I will dig out my copy of your mates book ‘The Pentagon Paradox’ – for there is information in there that gives the manufacturers (General Dynamics/LTV’s and Northrop/McDonnell Douglas’s figures as to the additional weight attributed to carrier capability incorporation into the respected YF-16 to F-16N and the YF-17 to F-18.
But I think it was something like 4,000 lb’s additional weight contributed to the carrier compatibility F-18 (note I use the designation of the original F-18 as opposed to the later F/A-18A Hornet)
In the end this is relevant, in terms of range and Power to Weight Ratio

There is no such aircraft fighter aircraft as the SU-32 in the Russian inventory.

Yep stuffed up that one!
Late night, dreaming of home, dreaming of wife………………:diablo:
Woops back to subject!

The SU-33 is a Russian naval fighter. How many operational carriers does Russia have? The closest thing they have is the Admiral Kuznetsov and it’s “operational capability” is dubious at best. However won’t the SU-33 be weighed down by all it’s “carrier-based and operational needed equipment”, given it IS a carrier based aircraft too? (Admittedly one which operates from Ski-Ramp equipped carriers and therefore is payload limited anyway). Or have those magnificent Russian engineers found a way to circumvent this issue, too? Just as they apparently have avoided large RCS in their fighters despite incorporating NO observable LO features, have found ways to avoid Western ESM despite having old tech MESA radars installed in their most modern fighters and have found a way to avoid incurring drag, despite carrying enormously heavy payloads externally on their non-LO fighter aircraft…

Suffice to say, if the Russians sent it against the Canadian Air Force, it would be in significant danger, indeed. Despite the 12x SU-33 aircraft it sometimes carries…

The Russians have SU-27, correct. It is a significantly older aircraft than the Super Hornet but it performs quite well at airshows. I guess that makes it an obviously formidable air combat aircraft…

Mate as for the Su-33 and Russian carriers…………………………..that’s all pretty deep and all.
Sorry I used the designation Su-27/32/33 as a generic description.
I didn’t even give the Su-33/Russian carriers a thought.
**** is that tub Admiral Kuznetsov still afloat?
As for your analogy about the Su-27’s performance as an airshow freak show of sorts, well I have seen the Super Hornets performance at air shows also!
I wasn’t all that impressed.
Especially when the older F-16, still turned tighter and climbed faster.
My ideal comparison of the Su-27 and F/A-18E/F would be to fuel them to operational standards, put on a standard weapons load, then get them to do their aerial dancing until they each reach ‘bingo fuel’

Regards
Pioneer

P.S. lets keep this a good forum and not a pissing comp:)