You have alreay contradicted yourself.

So, if x-istan or x-ia acquires the SH, they have the most capble carrier fighter in the world???

That would of course require some follow-on investments like an aircraft carrier, which would look great in the midst of the Gobi desert.

However, no chance versus the MiG-25.

Have you considered the qualities of the Rafale? Yes, the F/A-18E/F is a good all around aircraft but, the Rafale has these qualities also. If I were on a carrier being attacked by Su-27’s carrying ASCMs escorted by AA-12 armed Su-27’s, I would rather be in Rafale.

In exercises, Rafale pilots report that the F/A-18Cs are harder to kill than a F/A-18E/Fs!

Adrian

The MiG-25 is the one only unsurpassed fighter aircraft.

For the past 40 years, the USN’s primary weapon against hostile surface combatants is the SSN. Aircraft could find surface combatants and relay coordinates to the SSNs and the SSNs would take care of the problem. Surface combatants were too dangerous to approach (SAMs) unless you were willing to escalate to toss delivery of nukes.

For small surface crafts without SAM protection, Rockeye cluster munitions delivered by A-4/6/7 or F-4 would take care of the problem, or Walleye if available.

Is it that much safer for a nuclear submarine to get in the vicinity of dedicated ASW-ships having sonar and ASW helicopters on board?

The British didn’t exactly have no air defense, still they took a number of direct bomb hits. Aircraft have a number of advantages even versus SAM-protected combatants: They can attack in large numbers and saturate defense and attack from different directions.
Even the Kara class does only have two radar illuminators (Tico class has 4). Don’t know how the SA-N-3 exactly works.

I think a dedicated strike with SEAD assets and a large number of aircraft will cripple most ships. Although losses are likely, the exchange rate of two fighter bombers in exchange for one surface vessel isn’t that bad. Better than losing an entire SSN with crew.

Below is Ed Rasimus’s post about land-based USAF Phantoms’ anti-ship tactics in the 1970’s.

Dunno where you were in the early ’60s, but Walleye didn’t come into the inventory into quite late in the ’60s and even then wasn’t used in any great numbers. Attempts in SEA were minimal and the results from first generation LGBs were offering much better results.

Bullpup B was deployed in large numbers but the small warhead made it a poor choice for ships (along with the highly vulnerable delivery profile). The AGM-12C version had a bigger warhead, but still demanded a long, straight, post-release flight by the delivery aircraft to successfully guide the weapon. Still minimal size for a warship.

I was doing TASMO tactical development during the mid ’70s with the F-4 out of Torrejon Spain. (TASMO=Tactical Air Support of Maritime Operations, i.e. attack by land-based air of naval vessels–a NATO term). We would have liked third-generation LGB, but only the F-111Fs out of England had that, so we primarily planned with the available bombs which were the Mk-8x series of GP low drags.

Concept was strictly roll-back with packages on average of 12 aircraft, usually with chaff support, doing low altitude ingress to pop-ups on the first combatant encountered. Pk ranged in the neighborhood of .8 for these with a seaworthiness kill (stop the vessel manuvering potential).

Sunho

Pretty much the tactics used by the Argentinians: Attack with conventional bombs. Given the sophistication of Soviet ships, their shear numbers at open sea and their massive support by airborne sensors (warning: all ironic) a pretty successful tactic. We’ve seen the performance of 1970ies tech British destroyers versus such attacks and it wasn’t that amazing. Send an entire wing of F-4Es versus a group of ships, equip them with 12 500lbs bombs each, and the chance is good some orange boats float the water afterwards. Some losses must be accepted however. When aircraft attack alongside dedicated SEAD assets the success of the ships is reduced.

What do they know? Next to nothing. 😉

You won’t find a single man on this planet that has flown or fought in both Su-35 and Typhoon. That means, the most knowledgeable people one can speak to are the pilots that have flown at least one type. But…. 100% of the Typhoon pilots will claim they wipe out the Super Flanker’s a$$ any day of the week. At the same time, 100% of the Su-35 pilots will claim that creaming a bunch of Tiffies is like stealing a candy from a child. :dev2: Who can blame them?

Even if, hypothetically, Typhoons met Su-35s in a fight and one side scored kills, that, too, would not mean a thing. Su-35 fanclub would blame non-functioning radars, incorrectly stored missiles or limited training. Typhoon fanclub would blame bad fuel (very probably from Russian crude, hahaha), spies in the airforce headquarters (preferably of French origin) or, in extreme situation, quickly claim the loss as SAM or AAA kill. 😀

As you can see, the whole debate is simply not worth killing time with. 🙂

Then any discussion regarding the performance of two aircrafts is wasted time? I wonder why I still see you around, by normal logic this quoted post was the last one for a long time.

Forgive me if this is in the wrong forum, but…

From my understanding, the primary carrier-borne anti-shipping duties of the USN was in the form of harpoons off of FA-18Cs during the 80s and 90s. This is to be presumably carried on by FA-18Es and F-35s of the next generation.

But what about the previous generation? During the time of the ol’ F-4 phantom in USN service? What plane was tasked with anti-ship warfare off the carriers? And was it still practical to, say, use maverick AtG missiles or iron bombs off an A-7 or A-6 against enemy surface combatants?

And for that matter, how was anti-ship combat carried out by the earlier generations, right after the old methods of torpedo/dive bombing was outclassed?

And a related question: is it viable to use guided precision bombs in the anti-ship role against a modern armed naval ship (Using the Kirov class battlecruiser as an example)?

Good question. I honestly don’t know, but I know that Soviet surface combatants were very few until the end of the 60ies. That fighting those ships had no priority is also visible with the surface ships of the USN, take as example the USS Long Beach (CGN-9).

I guess the USN relied on submarines. Also, the early anti aircraft missile systems could easily be saturated.

I certainly give you a point. But one thing is a fact – despite all the uber-tech-reasoning and wing loading/TWR coefficients where Typhoon seems to excel over anything by decades… it still flies like a brick. And before you flood my response with uninterruptable flow of another technical arguments, yes I know the aircraft are not for airshows.. yes I know the FCS limits.. yes I know the supercruise.. but still…. I have yet to remember ever having seen anything as sluggish as the EF was… Don’t ask me why… I like the jet a lot and keep fingers crossed for more export orders but what it can do in the air looks astonishingly boring. Even on youtube videos.. Now, kill me for that.. 😉

When that is your opinion, there is no reason to argue about it. I just don’t like it that people take conclusions from that performance at airshows to hinge their argument for increased combat effectiveness. I’ve seen the BO-105 making loops and stuff the Eurocopter Tiger haven’t done (at the same airshow), but still I wouldn’t conclude the BO-105 is the better helicopter.

I do not use wikipedia as a reference , can you be less vague please “some” and “advantages” are less than helpful.

See graph I posted last page. If it fits your needs, you can get precise numbers from it.

I thought The Flankers had been flown with external stores and fueled in response to comments like yours and were able to perform the same routines?
I agree that Airshow routines dont tell you much but its a fact that the flanker in most of its versions is unmatched in WVR by anything the US is flying now except the F22.
With the addition of the ER and ET versions of the R27s + R77 it is also a formidable BVR aircraft unmatched by all except the F22 and APG79 equipped F18s.
From what i have read this forum is full of either US Fanboys who simply will not entertain the suggestion that the Russians have any technology that even equals theres, or the polar opposite.

The graph I have attached a few posts ago shows that a Suchoi 27 has less specific excess power at 3g than an F-15A (both at 50% internal fuel). No one here would doubt that the Flanker in any version is a very powerful fighter aircraft with some unique advantages, but statements like “the flanker in most of its versions is unmatched in WVR by anything the US is flying now except the F22” do not hold any water.

Aside the fanboys you’ll may encounter there is reasonable argueing.
What I find astonishingly common between many (not all) “Flanker-fanboys” is the obvious lack of serious knowledge on aircraft performance or any other relevant science for this issue.