GoldenDragonWhen you copy, you should copy the best 🙂
GoldenDragonWho are you trying to fool? Firstly, you accept that SARH engagements eliminate multi-targeting, yet go on to quote yet another example of SARH engagements?
This is what I said: I accepted the SARH encounters are “different from multi-targeting in the same sense as ARH missiles.”
Multi-targeting as a concept came before the ARH missile. The term was used for naval weapon systems with multiple tracking and targeting radars. In aviation, it was used for the F-15 when it was armed only with the Sparrow and the F-14 which had the ARH Phoenix and a TWS radar. The term was part of an American body of concepts developed in the 1960s.
The philosophy was of long-range acquisition and standoff engagement allowing NATO forces to fight off larger numbers of Warsaw Pact aircraft.
The whole concept was distinctly non-Russian until the Flanker and Fulcrum which were USSR’s first attempts at creating a “quality” fighter instead of a “quantity” one.
The idea for a F-15 flight was that it should have enough range with the Sparrow to destroy multiple targets (unless they were coming head on.) Track-lockpdestroy, track-lock-destroy before the enemy could even break away or close.
The whole concept depended on the bvr missile that gave time for engagement of multiple target.
The Flanker never showed that it could even shoot anything down with a bvr. It never showed that it was even capable of performing that initial step of hitting a plane out of visual range.
There also is’nt exactly a technological parity between the MiG-23/Mirage F.1 and the F-15C in the first place, is there?
There certain is. Probably a slightly greater one than the technology gap between the Flanker and the F-15. Again, what F-15 could do doesn’t mean a Flanker could do it.
There is no proof historically because the F-15 is designed under an American philosophy of fewer, more sophisticated American machines taking on hordes of cheap Russian ones. The Flanker comes from the opposite system attempting to adapt to an American one.
So it had better prove it first. Again, it could even pass the initial test of carrying and engaging with a successful bvr missile.
Ignore the fact that one MiG-29 did go down due an R-27 and just about everything else. You don’t seem to want to accept that every event has a set of associated causes, circumstances and factors.
Okay, I’ll accept that alleged kill. One possible hit by a R-27 out of more than two dozen? In 2000, the Flanker/R-27 combo has a record poorer than the Aim-7 25 years ago in Vietnam.
It tells me that Russian bvrAAMs are going through a stage today which the US had gone through three decades ago.
BTW, a report following the Vietnam noted that handling during wartime conditions screwed up the Sparrow too. So Raytheon hardened the later models so that the Sparrow in Iraq performed exceedingly well. In 2000, the R-27 still have problems being transported? You kidding me?
What is idiotic is to think that three unsophistcated fighters of limited capability stand any chance against something that’s completely the opposite. It is of course a paper estimate without considering the circumstances (which have to be rather excessively in favour of the LWF), but they can’t be predicted to go beyond the former. In an autonomous operation, with piloting of equal capacity, the Flanker is’nt going to have any problems. It will acheive greater SA and position itself for the engagement, all thanks to it’s powerful sensors.
Three of anything against one is a major advantage. Be realistic. Not only is one plane outnumbered, it is also built by a system with a philosophy of winning by numbers not one that expected that its airplanes would be able to fight against superior odds.
A Russian radar firing a touchy Russian missile sitting in a tropical third world nation that depended on extreme care by ordnance crews to work is a crapshoot just like the Flankers in East Africa. Nothing proves the Flanker/R-27/R-77 combination could do the same job as the F-15/AIM-7/AMRAAM system it imitates.
Again and again we hear people assumng that just because multi-target and bvr warfare works with US/Western fighters, the same would work for an air force outside the West.
That’s pure conjecture and wishful thinking.
GoldenDragonIf my country would be able to afford it, I would always prefer the heavier design. More range, higher speed and cruising speed, larger radars. The heavies can normally deny an combat, the lightweights can’t. If used purely in the defensive role, where range is not that important, light fighters can be sufficient.
I’ve already stated this very early on. You would always take the more capable plane if you have both money and mission for it.
In fact, you could make your “low” be more expensive and capable than your opponent’s “high.”
That is exactly what the US does. The JSF is supposed to be the “lo” component of the USAF with the F-22 at “hi.” If you could afford it, you could make the Su-27SK as your lo-tech “light” fighter and the Su-30MKK as your high. And the other side could put up F-15s and F-16s as their high-low mix.
If you have the money then there isn’t any debate. Go for the plane you could afford.
But if you are not looking into offensive operations the heavy fighter is nothing but a luxury. I state again, there are few air forces in the world that could affect a war. Most air forces are nothing but expensive support arms. The US being really the only exception. They give the least bang for the buck in most countries.
Superior numbers mean nothing if the pilot in the heavy fighter dictates the rules of the engagement.
Not if your lone super fighter breaks down. You have less planes then your missions are limited. Air-to-air engagements are the least important things in a war. The seat of purpose is always on the ground.
The idea of attacking and then running away and then coming back later to finish the job is idiotic. The second you take off, the course of battle could have changed. They might need you there to control the air while something decisive is being played out on the ground.
Super weapons without numbers usually don’t win wars. The Tiger Tank, the Me262 and the Yamamoto Battleship couldn’t hold back the allied tide.
Now when people talk about American aerial dominance, it’s not just quality but quantity. There are more F-15s in the world thank Flankers and there are more F-16s in the world than MiG-29s. Then you have the F-18s.
The USAF/USN not only slaughter you with high quality systems but they overwhelm you with thousands upon thousands of high quality systems.
GoldenDragonWhat excuses? You cannot even begin to compare to a TWS engagement made with AMRAAMs against unflightworthy fighters (Have you read AFM’s coverage and Marhlaim abbas’s letter to them?) to SARH engagements.
Excuses.
Cpt. Benjamin Powell of the USAF shot down a MiG-23 and a Mirage with two AIM-7s during the same operation on Jan. 27, 1991. That was two planes with a SARH weapon for each.
A decade later, in 2000, the Flankers still couldn’t make a confirmed kill with a bvr. Not even in Africa.
It pretty much proves that the Flanker series hadn’t even passed the test of SARH engagement never mind, multi-targeting with ARH weapons.
Had Su-27s equipped with R-77s and fairly well trained/experienced pilots, failed, it’s a completely different matter.
Could, should and all the other what-ifs prove the point that the SU-30 is unproven as a sophisticated fighter. Especially since it comes from an industry with a traditional engineering philosophy that is geared towards mass production meant to overwhelm with numbers not quality.
BTW, the Su-27s were flown by Russians. Why would you assume that any other Flankers would be flown by better pilots?
And the Mirage-2000, Ching kuo, F-35, F-22 or even the FC-1, have?
They certainly haven’t. Which is why I think it is idiotic to think a single Su-30MKI would be automatically better than three FC-1s armed with SD-10s. If neither the R-77 nor the SD-10 work, then it would be three planes versus one in a furball.
You’re active at ACIG are’nt you? Visit the relevant thread before passing off empty statements. Also look up damage due to transportation.
Excuses are rather meaningless statements. Just like a missile that can’t be transported except with extreme care (impossible to guarantee in wartime) is pretty much worthless.
At any rate, just because a F-15 could do the things that defines a heavy fighter doesn’t mean that the Su-30 could. So far the evidence weighs heavily to the contrary.
GoldenDragonAbsoluty inept analogy! The question of “multitarget” engagement does’nt even come into the picture with the Su-27SK not being R-77 capable and only SARH AAMs being used over EE. In contrast, Captain Jeffrey C. J. Hwang used AMRAAMs against aircraft that could barely be airborne and certainly not maintained enough to be fighting fit.
Serbian MiG-29s were less well kept than Eritrean? Excuses. Granted, SARH eliminates multitargeting in the same sense as an ARH weapon but the R-27 is standoff and that is one of the advantages a large expensive fighter has over a small inexpensive one.
A FC-1 firing a SD-10 doesn’t even give the Su-30 that. Not that it really matter anyways since the Flanker series hasn’t proven yet it could hit anything with a bvr during wartime conditions.
Additionally, Tom also notes that the R-27s used suffered from bad maintanance and damage from poor transportation/storage. These are sensitive missiles.
Excuses. Now what makes you think that R-27s or R-77s anywhere else in the world are better maintained?
GoldenDragonvery interesting! The Shafagh! Is it a mockup or the real thing? I can’t tell.
GoldenDragonThose heavies were built for exactly that – Multi-target engagement at longer ranges, enabled through larger and more powerful sensors and endurance, with the ability to dictate the engagement.
That was what the F-15 were built and for that heavy, the concept was proven. An example was made when in 1999 an USAF pilot downed two MiG-29s with bvr AMRAAMs. (1)
But a year later in 2000, Russian-piloted Su-27s from Ethiopia couldn’t make a single confirm hit on MiG-29s with a bvr weapon despite firing off more than two dozen R-27s. (2) The four kills the Flankers got were by turning dogfights.
So again, for the Su-27/30 this concept of concluding multiple engagements beyond visual range is not proven. Just because the F-15 is capable of it doesn’t mean that it could be replicated by the Su-30 just because it is also as large and as expensive.
———————————————————————-
Notes:
(1)http://www.flight-level.com/dogfight/dirk.html
March 26th, 1999, Captain Jeffrey C. J. Hwang downed two MiG-29s from the Serbian Air Force (one piloted by Major Slobodon Peric, who ejected safely; the other piloted by Captain First Class Radosavljevic, who was killed in action as a result).
(2) http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/printer_189.shtml
“Very interesting were also clashes between Ethiopian Su-27S’ and Eritrean MiG-29s. Besides taking out four Eritrean MiG-29s – plus writing another off due to damage received from an air-to-air missile – Ethiopian Su-27s flew many strike missions against the Eritrean ground forces, using unguided rockets and “dumb” bombs, and also escorted almost all MiG-23 deep strikes into Eritrea. Interesting is also, that most – if not all – Eritrean MiG-29s were shot down in close-quarters turning dogfights, where MiGs were supposed to have some advantages over larger and heavier Sukhois. Finally – except one – all the air-to-air kills were reportedly scored by R-73, even if quite a few (up to 24) R-27s were fired, pointing to some possible problems with R-27s, which is otherwise highly praised by quite a few air forces around the world! Supposedly, there should be no significant differences between early and new – or domestic and export – versions of R-27s, however, it seems, that this type so far has a worst combat record than even US Vietnam-era AIM-7Es or AIM-7Fs!”
GoldenDragonHere are two new photos of the 511, including a good profile shot.
From a full profile view, the vessel looks very streamline and resembles the new 054 FFG. It only when you look at it from the front does it look truncated because the beam is very broad compared to most Chinese FFGs.
GoldenDragonIt’ll be eaten by that big blue-fin tuna soon.
GoldenDragonNobody is arguing that a $15m plane is better than a $45m one. If the MKI is three times the price of a FC-1 then it had better be better.
But there is no proof whatsoever that a $45m Su-30 can fight off three $15m bvr-armed opponents. Especially, if the three cheaper planes are fighting at home.
The USSR/Russia’s strength had always been in overwhelming opponents with numbers. This concept of a super sophisticated Russian fighter fending off a swarm of low-tech planes (if a bvr-armed opponent could be considered low-tech) is new and has never been proven out.
GoldenDragonAlso “low” and “high” tech is relative.
The “low” end of the USAF, F-16s armed with AMRAAMS, would be equivalents of heavy fighters for most of the world’s air force.
The same goes for the Japanese and S Korean AFs with their F15s and F-16 derivatives. There’s really no “lo” just “hi” and “not-quite-as-hi.”
There isn’t a set of Sukhois in Asia which would have it easy against the ROC’s 120 F-CK-1s armed with ARH Sky Swords II. NO Asian Flanker force would have a chance against the 150 ROC “low-tech” F-16s with AMRAAMs.
GoldenDragonSo what really big advantage in AA combat does the Su-35 really have then?
In BVR it will have a larger radar than most and therefore the advantage of earlier aquisition. In WVR, it should have the brute force to outmaneuver smaller planes, especially in the vertical.
But you’re paying for those advantages with less airframes. If money were no concern in the world, you would always take the bigger, faster and more expensive one over the cheaper smaller one.
Let’s remember it is the makers of the Su-30 who always advocated that “quantity has a quality of its own.” Russian planes had always worked with the idea of overwhelming opponents with numbers.
So a sophisticated Russian-built fighter like an SU-30 being able to take on multiple unsophisticated opponents is really a new and untested concept.
We know that Western (and German) aircraft have done this – the kill ratios of the Brewster Buffalo, FW-190, Me109, F-86, F-4, F-15 and F-16 over Soviet aircraft are absolutely outrageous – but we don’t know if a Soviet plane could ever do this.
The Flanker has a minor winning record and all of its kills were against other Russian aircraft.
There is no precedence that tells me a $45m Su-30 could do the same to three $15m FC-1s equipped with western avionics, a BVR missile and flown by professional pilots trained in the American-style.
You could make a more valid argument about a F-15J or K could take on three FC-1s because that is borne out by the record of American machines.
GoldenDragonIs this a question about an air force being better off with more smaller fighters/fewer larger ones or about a fight between a single small fighter and a single large fighter?
If it’s the latter, then why bother asking? If you put more money into an larger, more expensive fighter then, of course, it should be better. You’re not going to pay $50m dollar for something that doesn’t give you a better chance at beating something that’s $5m.
So that question is pointless to ask or answer.
But the former question of whether an airforce should buy. for instance, two $50m fighters or 20 $5m ones is a legitimate one.
Larger fighters have greater capacity and endurance and give the option of offensive action. Smaller ones don’t and tend to be defensive.
So if your air force is intent on offensive action, then you would forgo the smaller fighter for the larger one with adequate range and load.
But if you are strictly defensive and you are depending on a ground radar net, then 50 smaller planes are far better than two very expensive ones no matter how capable those two are.
Also, if it is a role of peacetime interdiction and air space sovereignty enforcement then the cheaper fighters are even more desirable as choices.
It depends on the mission of your air force. The truth is, most smaller air forces are defensive. Very few air forces make much of a difference when compared to the army. In fact, the number of air forces in the world with the power to annihilate ground forces and change a ground campaign could be counted with a single finger.
GoldenDragonActually the 750h is not exact, I am pretty sure it’s a lot more than that like 1500h mentioned by Crobato, and thats the meantime before overhauls, the fatal life is many times higher than the MTBO
http://www.acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=439Besides, Russian engines do not require daily maintenance checks and such like Western engines do and on top of all are very cheap to replace.
Also, Golden Dragon, why do you all of a sudden have to get into anti-Russian discussions, and this one being very off topic now.
1500 hours is cited for the AL31 currently the most sophisticated Russian engine family in mass production. The old turbojets from Tumanski, etc. are very cheap to replace, not the AF31 family of turbofans.
This wasn’t “anti-Russian” discussion but was a reply to freter12 concerning China closing the gap with the West. It has less to do with Russia than China’s access to Western technology.
My opinion is that if the EU ban is lifted and China ends up with ToT from SNECMA, then you’d see some closing of the gap. Otherwise, it’ll widen no matter how much China buys from Russia.
GoldenDragonMy first impression is of the F25T too but its dimensions aren’t quite the same. This vessel has a much broader beam relative to the F25T. The Naresuan class is much slimmer but there is definitely resemblance.
Thanks for the opv picture. It does look different from the 511.
Sign In
