star49This is what i was saying through out this forum that smaller RCS aircraft will have the first shot on bigger RCS aircraft in BVR combat all else being equal.
This is from the same scenario analysia of F-15 vs Flanker.
Roy Braybrook,In control of the sky: aerial dominance
Although low in the pecking order for the AIM-9X, the F-16C/D is already cleared to use the AIM-120. In the specific air combat scenario described earlier, the relatively lightweight F-16C/D is reported to out-perform the F-15 by virtue of its smaller radar signature. This allows it to approach closer to the Su-30MK before being detected, and thus provides an opportunity to fire a preemptive AIM-120.By the same token, the diminutive AIM-120-armed Saab/BAE Systems Gripen could well out-perform the larger Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale in this particular situation. A Gripen armed with the Meteor and the short-range BGT Iris-T will be a very serious proposition indeed. On the other hand, larger fighters such as the F-15, Typhoon and Rafale will always provide better warload radius performance than a lightweight.
star49Just a quick question! Wouldn’t China be a much more direct threat to India rather than Pakistan?
Pakistan policy is to make India only concentrate on Pak c and that is happening. They cannot think about anything else in this world only threat from Pakistan. .
star49Absolutely. That is why India is building them or paying for them with their own cash.
They are not asking them as freebies in return for “arresting terrorists” :rolleyes:
India cannot ask for free F-16 thats for sure because it has done nothing. Pak has created conditions in early 70s which led to Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
star49Actually
1)the 70mn for MKI is for all the deals and such, but if you included all the same things that the MKI deal included such as all the infrastructure for local building and such, any plane would be much more expensive. As for MKM, yes that was a pretty high price that they paid for if you include all the extra expensive avionics they acquired from different countries.
2)Its Su-27SKM not Su-30SKM.
But IAF is buying 190 of MKI and price still comes to around $70M ( even more now with unit cost going up to $45 at HAL). -MKM deal just show how expensive this aircraft is when buying off the shelf almost approaching F-15K.
star49Try and look at it this way…
MiG-25’s replacement as the front-line interceptor: MiG-31.
MiG-21’s replacement as the short-range tactical fighter: MiG-29.
They didn’t really have an air superiority aircraft or decent escort fighter, so that niche is filled by…the Su-27.
Why you have to look back wards to justify future decisions. Su-27 generous fuel capacity provide more use of after burner and hence better chance of rapid response over greater area.
Every thing is becoming multi role and verstile. The thing is to think ahead of time.
star49Soviet economics didn’t really matter in terms of defense, they spent whatever the hell they wanted without looking back. It cost them in the end, sure, but if they wanted 400 MiG-31s, they got 400 MiG-31s.
And if there was a need for F-14s to defend against Soviet bombers, then why wasn’t there a need for the MiG-31 to defend against the new US ALCMs? Remember, the S-300 SAM system initially was only command guided and had a rather short range when compared to the current SAGG-guided 48N6 missiles. They were in the middle of the Cold War and needed something to counter the ALCM and bomber threat effectively. A tactical fighter like the Su-27 would have been unsuited for the role as it was designed to operate in a GCI-heavy environment. GCI radars from that era would have had a tough time detecting or tracking the ALCMs, so a new weapon system was needed. Hence the MiG-31.
IF economics does not matter than why even bother with MIG-29. Every thing can be done by Su-27. Just increase the numbers.
Instead of going MIG-31 way make more specialized Su-27 for that role. As both are from airbases.
F-14 is a Naval fighter and F-15 is ground fighter and there is possibility that at time F-15 was/is difficult to customize for carrier role on the other hand the job of MIG-31 can easily be done by Su-27. I am not that much against MIG-31(as it is further development of MIG-25) but MIG-29 which is completely useless.
star49Then why the F-14? Was it part of a failed doctrine, being intended for a similar role to the MiG-31?
And now you say there were separate roles for the aircraft, as opposed to the same role. Which one is it?
Was the size of Soviet economy equal to US that they have to blindly follow everything that US does? They were not smart enough in the game.
Any there is need for F-14 for defending the carriers against large bomber formation because Soviets were unable to built light Su-30 size aircraft at right time. F-14 came way before it.
star49Then Mig-25 entered service much before Su-27 …
I was pointing to the fact the large nose size of Su-32 derived from Su-27 as some members have mentioned that large size of MIG-31 is impossible or difficult to customize for Su-27 series aircraft.
star49If they were all intended for the same role, you’d have a point. As they weren’t, you don’t.
All those separate roles originate from failed Soviet doctorine that bankrupted the nations with too much of population involved in military complex.
We’re not talking latest models here, we’re talking about the original aircraft.
I wrote same is the case with previous generations.
Even in original role F-16 beats MIG-29 in range and payload not to mention only 6 hard points for fulcrum.
star49Mig-31 entered service long time back..
Where as Su-32 is still not in service..
Development of Su-32 from Su-27 platform shows possibility was there they didnot plan it at earlier time.
star49Agility amounts to very little when trying to intercept bombers and cruise missiles… sensor range and missile performance as well as the ability to share information between aircraft and ground stations is what counts there.
Fitting the Mig-31s radar and systems as well as missiles to an Su-27 would not be possible and not be that useful as the radar for the Mig-31 is very large and very specialised. The Su-27 design is optimised for manouver, whereas the Mig-31 is designed for speed.
How much speed do you need to intercept slow moving bombers or cruise missiles. And there is not that much difference in there top speeds. How large is MIG-31 radar. certainly not bigger than Su-32 radar.
How difficult would it be to fit the F-14s systems and weapon onto an F-15 or vice versa?
Not difficult if need is there.
The F-16 was developed as a cheap light day fighter that could outperform Mig-21s in the air by about 30% in every parameter. The whole idea of making it multipurpose/multirole and more capable and sophisticated opposed the original idea of a cheap light capable fighter.
Every thing develops with time. compare basic Su-27 with Su-35.
And the F-15, F-14, F-5, F-18, and F-16 was an efficient program? Considering that all Soviet engines of the time were relatively short life models that were made of relatively cheap lower tech materials than those in the west I would prefer two engines than one and in the end cost was never a factor anyway. BTW they do have a large carrier and they use a variant of a land based fighter operating from it… when was the last time the US managed that?
F-15 and F-16 are efficient interms of engines and weopons.
Mig-29s are still selling… and have more customers than Typhoon and Rafale combined…
And both are performing their role in service.
They are not in same price.
star49They were developed and optimized for different, important roles at the time. Why is that so hard to understand?
It is not hard to understand. There is no point in developing 3 aircraft for developing essentially the same role of Air superiority. Is there any other aircraft in USAF beside F-15 for that role.
So the US can do that but not the USSR? F-16/F-15 is the equivalent to the MiG-29/Su-27.
F-16 is not equivalent to MIG-29 in strike role. Thats for sure just compare the range and payload of latest block F-16 with MIG-29SMT. Same is the case of previous generations. Russia has right decision only upgrading Su-27.
So now the FLANKER was pointless as well? Maybe they wanted twin-engine reliability. Does that make the F-18 pointless as the F-16 could have been navalised? It should, if your line of thinking is applied.
Flanker is not point less. Time has shown. You can make argument about F-18 upto certain extent because of presence of F-14. Even that you cannot make convincingly because F-14 and F-18 were developed and deployed in different time period. While Su-27, MIG-29 and MIG-31 came roughly at the same time with similar interception role.
star49If Pakistan is worrying about it’s airliners being hijacked, forget the F-16s and invest more in security. Regardless, which Islamic extremists are going to hijack an airliner and point it at a bunch of Muslims? You can also use SAM systems to destroy huge radar targets like that as well if you feel the need. And what about the BVR H-4 that supposedly arms the Mirage IIIs? Is it that much lesser of a weapon than the AIM-120? And I’d bet that a few well placed cannon rounds or an AIM-9 to an engine or two would bring down an airliner with little or no effort, unmaneuverable targets that they are.
If you think a little bit deeply. Both Pak military and civilian leadership is under severe threat from Islamic extremist.(after over 35 years of policy change) And the Airline does not need to be originating inside Pak. It can simply come from Middleast or Central Asia and suddenly turn for building on the ground. Mirage does not have the acceleration and response time of F-16 nor the staying power for combat air patrol.
star49The Su-27 doesn’t have a weapon system optimized for those tasks.
So it was so difficult to put MIG-31 system and weopons on Su-27. Both are large fighters.
Can an F-16 carry 10 AAMs? No it can’t. That was the purpose of the Su-27. It had a rudimentary secondary A/G capability, but it’s mission was air superiority and 10 AAMs gave outstanding combat persistance. A/G carrying capability is pointless in the case of the Su-27 as it wasn’t tasked for such roles.
F-16 was developed more for strike and short range interception. Long range escorts and interception was F-15. The point is that Soviet Union was developing 3 twin engine interceptors at same time and they even dont have large aircraft carriers like US. Every thing was point less. Su-27 is fine fighter and it was shown by its great export and develoment potential. Both MIG products failed miserably in post Soviet era.
star49Good one!
1. The Su-27 was not a twin-seat aircraft when developed, although there was the Su-27UB trainer a little later.
2. Two entirely different missions-the Su-27 was the air superiority aircraft designed to fight over the battlefield and escort long-range strike aircraft, the MiG-31 an interceptor designed to defend Russia against cruise missiles and bombers.
So Su-27 cannot intercept cruise missiles or bombers? I think Su-27 has more staying power on and hard points than MIG-31. Agility and acceleration also matters in quick interception.
If the MiG-29 is pointless for those reasons, then so is the F-16. The MiG-29 and F-16 served as low-cost complements to the Su-27 and F-15. Granted, both of them have evolved into multi-role fighters, but they were a way for the USSR and USA to get more aircraft for their money.
From what ever publicly available the price diference between F-15 and F-16 is far more than the price difference between Su-27 and MIG-29. More over single engine fighter is more cheaper to maintain. And F-16A carries more payload than earlier Su-27. MIG-29 is completely worth less.
Sign In
