uss novicehe’s talking about a ‘fair fight’
i’ve got news for you: war isn’t fair
if you allow your enemy a fair fight, you have FAILED
So why would you assume that in a given scenario only the shornet has tactical advantage? More fanboyism i guess. IOWs, this is your admission that in a fair fight, the flanker will have certain clear advantages, which btw, was my entire point before you came up with fantastic ideas about ginormous radar, rcs and what not.
Fact of the matter is that in BVR, turning and burning takes place. Further, lock breaking is definitely something pilots strive for. IOWs, your tirade about
” are you for real? do you have any concept of how this works? i…. NO amount of turning and burning will break the lock that’s just retarded”
is utter BS. So much for retarded!
how do you do that? by being small, both from an RCS and visual standpoint
So tell me, what is the rcs of an advanced flanker (such as a Su-35) with an AAM load out or a super hornet with EFTs and weapons. And considering their radars, jamming equipment etc, also do let us know what detection ranges they’ll get. You seem to be so sure on this rcs crapola that you must have figures. Either that or you are just talking tall.
USS.
uss noviceTwo words. Situational awareness. Outrun, out gun and outlast is meaningless if your enemy sees you and shoots you first. That seems to be the simple tenet that most alludes people like you.
“Alludes people like me”? Is that even english? Learn to make proper sentences before trying to insult others. Jeez, there is nothing to prove conclusively that the shornet will have better SA than an MKI type with 2 pilots, esp. with later models.
USS.
uss noviceHere is something for guys who feel that BVR is all about just firing from far, far away from those who do it for a living:
(in BVR type scenarios) there is still a fair amount of maneuvering, albeit at large distances, and a lot of stand offs due to missile defeating maneuvers at large distances, till such time that a merge takes place..so one guy locks the other break away, turn around, then some one locks or fire and the others avoid etc and a lot to do with keeping a high SA on who is where doing what in large number situations..and in these kind of situations when the Typhoon needs to maneuver aggressively it has a lot of power to enable it to do so..BVR is a lot of cat and mouse stuff, while close combat missile type is more messing around with gun combat taking the cake….the pilots maneuver not just to try break lock-ons to them but also to to stay away from a know threat of better capability or also to defeat the missile after launch…remember the chaps are just not airborne to stay in one place and fight , they have an objective to reach, that necessitates a forward movement…that is the basic premise in BVR combat
This was from the gents who took part in tiffy vs mki engagements in indradhanush.
USS.
uss novicedoes BARs provide 360 degree coverage?
all sorts of ways to sneak up behind someone
– blind luck
– awacs
– ground radar
– the opponent is running a huge radar and saying ‘here i am!’if bars is on, it tells people exactly where you are
if it isn’t on, well good luck finding them
of course you could easily reverse the situation, but the point is that all the ‘vaunted’ advantages of the flanker gain you somewhere between JACK and SQUAT in the real world
Yes, Ditto for the superbug as well.
it depends far more on the situation and surprise and intelligence and tactics and dumb luck
No kidding genius so quit with the blowing out of sky because of ginormous radar sig crap!. Its what people have been trying to say for the longest time.
so it gets into position, fires up the radar and launches the missile before the fat sukhoi can twitch its butt. And by the time its butt starts twitching, its too late because it can’t out burn or turn a missile.
Yeah right, evasive manouvers, ECM etc are something you’ve never heard of. The painted a/c i s’pose just sits still while the missile chases it.
are you for real? do you have any concept of how this works?
if the flanker gets painted at long range, the detection area of radar targetting it is HUGE. NO amount of turning and burning will break the lock
Yes, tell the pilots who do that day in day out that. Mr. SuperDooper Bug on tactics and ACM.
real simple case: radar has a 60 degree field of view. at 50 files, it’s field of view is a circle with diameter of over 57 miles.
you know how when a jetliner is passing high overhead, it is very easy to keep your finger pointed at it, even though it is travelling very fast?
yeah, it’s like that
Yeah and jamming techniques or tactics such as doppler notching are purely airshow manouvers. You do also realize that @ 50 miles (90 odd km), if the flanker simply disengages, turns around and hightails it, the nez of the missile in tailchase reduces considerably. Not to mention the fact that it burns energy/fuel pretty quick as well.
the targetting radar barely has to move at all to keep the flanker in its sights, no matter what stupid antics it tries to pull
There is a difference between getting an optical image and a radar image. So ya, its not exactly “like that”.
with the ‘over the shoulder shot’ (which is coming), the kinematics of the aim-9x will far surpass ANYTHING the flanker can put out, assuming it decides to continue the pursuit. (shornet running > mach 1 AWAY from any missiles and the flanker running > mach 1 TOWARDS any missile)
once again, the shornet triumphs :dev2:
More irrelevant BS. The flanker doesn’t outrun the missile, but missile launches and ranges will be affected by a/c characteristics such as speed, acceleration, altitude or is that too subtle to get through? Under the silly situation you just developed, hope you realize that the “over the shoulder shot” causes the missile to turn around 180 degs and therefore loses energy, range as well? The flanker can again disengage. Point is, it probly has the ability to reengage thanks to extra fuel. Also, under these circumstances, the flanker can probly launch a R27 @ long ranges up the shornets tailpipe as well. The fat bug better run fast.
still has a lower rcs
And I s’pose you have all the details and numbers on this.
true, but what defines ‘better platform’?
A platform that can outrun, outgun, outlast you day in day out. Is that simple enough or should I elaborate further?
all other concerns become secondary
No doubt for super hornet fanboys.
Btw, aircraft kinematics become even more relevant where issues such as RCS are somewhat sidelined by the use of AWACS on either side.
USS
uss novicebut first it would have to realize that there even was a situation
in something like 80% of shoot-downs, the victims never even realizes they are under attack until it’s too late
which is where being a ginormous target, both from a radar and visual perspective is a huge disadvantage
the other person tends to notice you before you notice them
and then it’s all over
You are kidding right? The MKI pilots are sleeping all the time the shornet is lugging its fat butt under its very nose. Or is the shornet a F-22 knockoff that it can come real close without any detection whatever? The shornet absolutely has to come well within BARs range to launch amraams and then has to turn on its radar to direct the missile to the mki. Ditto with the MKI/R77. ONly the latter has a massive advantage in terms of kinematics.
If it is some kind of passive/silent attack, (another shornet is painting the flanker), and the coordinates are provided to the firing a/c, you have to remember that once the rwr warns the MKI that it is being painted, the turning and burning starts. If the lock is broken, the firing shornet can’t do much.
If the shornet decides to use Aim-9X/JHMCS/IRST, it has to come really close. True this will be passive, but then the chances of detection increase considerably. If it is detected, it may need to exit in a hurry; again something it can’t do v.easily as its top speed sucks.
More importantly, the Shornet in all probability has to carry EFTs to match the flanker’s endurance, what does that do to its RCS, first look and all that rubbish?
Ultimately it all boils down to tactics. Thing is, it gets easier with a better platform.
All in all, the superbug is great for the USN as it is mainly used as a bomb truck and for carrier defence or air superiority against opponents that so far have not fielded any true threat. It simply would not have worked if the Soviets were still around. An air superiority type would be needed, and the JSF even though not exactly a tiffy in aerodynamic performance, might provide the needed air superiority through stealth against possible future adversaries.
USS.
uss noviceSamudragupta, you may have misunderstood pfcem, but the fact of the matter is he is right and it doesn’t matter what pilots say or have told you. He was talking about TVC pushing the jets AoA to extreme levels in an attempt to make a really tight turn – something that “Youtube Terry” was also saying. Now this is definitely dangerous – unless ur flying much closer to your jets stall speeds – not something you’ll be doing in a multi-opponent fight. Effectively all this does is slow your jet down like a massive aerodynamic speed brake – while at the same time losing its potential to laterally translate! That ability is prime at much higher speeds – and thats what beats the missile – if you’re lucky.
I don’t think any one disputes your scenario above. burning energy and losing speed are NOT a good idea, however, TVC can help in high speed engagements by:
1) reducing drag
2) allowing better turn rates (without losing speed). IIRC, the mki has better turn rates than the regular flanker for this reason.
3) In a worst case scenario, a last ditch option to fool missiles.
JMT
USS.
uss noviceand my point was that those are irrelevant when it stands out like a glowing beacon saying ‘here i am! shoot me!’
Perhaps that is indeed the case with armchair forum marshals. But as per flanker pilots who do this for a living (and have done DACT with 4.5 generation birds), BVR combat is a “cat and mouse” game requiring plenty of turning and burning. I guess aerodynamic qualities/endurance are not half as irrelevant as you would like to believe. There is a reason why the eurocanards or the raptor fly better than legacy airframes. It is of course simply another matter that the super hornet probly will stand out just as much as a flanker if not more, esp. when an Irbis or AESA flanker comes into being (just a matter of a few years).
i think you’re confusing me with someone else, i never said anything about lpi modes
You were assuming that the radar sig. on the flanker is HUGE (or ginormous as you put it), it doesn’t necessarily have to be so. Esp. in later model flankers.
but it can’t run circles around the shornet’s missiles, which is what really matters
why would it have to? If it feels the engagement is unfavourable, it simply zooms away and disengages, the shornet can’t go after it – it has neither the speed nor the endurance. Otoh, the flanker can come back later and reengage for the same reasons. Btw, missile engagement ranges are significantly affected by launch platform speed, ability to accelerate, altitude etc. So even assuming that the F-18 gets a marginally quicker first look, it hardly translates into a victory.
USS.
uss noviceor the flanker’s ginormous radar signature that will allow the sooper hornet to ‘exit the fight’ by blowing the flanker out of the air before it even knows anything is there
Boss, I was referring to an obvious advantage that the flanker has in its endurance and flight regimes over the bug. It has zilch to do with radar sigs. And what do you know about how the irbis or even the Bars works (can you for a fact say that they have no LPI modes?).
Once you start talking about the radars, ECM, ECCM, jammers etc you start getting into esoteric stuff that neither you nor I are privy to. As far as all other characteristics, the flanker runs circles around the shornet, period.
Btw, such things are extremely relevant to a BVR fight as pointed out by earlier posters and as seen from DACT between the tiffies and the mki.
I take it the last bit in your reply is a pathetic attempt at rhetoric?
USS.
uss noviceThat may well be the case in the slow WVR fight. But its not as simple as getting a radar lock and firing a couple of AMRAAMs in the BVR fight. Supersonic performance, supersonic acceleration and supersonic agility is a key factor in the BVR game! Something the F-22, EF and Rafale have been designed to be best at from their inception. The Flanker series is roughly in the F-15 class – and newer ones exceed it – and the F-15 was the best “KE” BVR teen fighter for this type of performance with the F/A-18 having the worst performance here of any teen.
Don’t forget the massive advantage the flanker gets with its incredible endurance, turning, burning and lockbreaking requires plenty of gas. Further, it can dictate when to pursue of exit the fight at will, not so for the bug. the avionics might offer the bug some marginal advantages at present, but the flanker continues to get updates as well. An Irbis or AESA equipped flanker with TVC, higher thrust engines etc, will make it seriously difficult if not impossible for all other gen 4, 4.5 birds. Only the 5th gen types have clear advantages over the super flankers and at that only the F-22. JMT
USS.
uss noviceQuick question:
what advantages will the AL 31 bring to the Mig-27? Is it possible or necessary to make it more “multirole” since it is somewhat based on the 23 air superiority fighter?
uss
uss noviceYes indeed. There is a fighter specific variant intended for the IAF’s fighters underway. The original system itself with LWS +R118 (which acts as the command & control unit for the entire Defensive Aids) has been tested and cleared on the Hack (the LCA Avro testbed) & is being produced at Alpha Bangalore, for the IAF’s Choppers & Transport fleet.
Ok, even the news report corroborates this:
Isnt this newspiece from the Bonn ILA airshow last year?
Teer, Ankush,
Any idea about the “Mayawi” suite for the LCA? I thought it was an indo-israeli venture. Supposed to be on the IAF JSFs as well. Also will the EADS/DRDO suite have the ELS?
USS.
uss novicethat is not true, as the Mirage is supposed to get a longer life and longer unrefuelled range, that implies airframe and engine changes
it is also getting a new radar
Err, what new engines? Yes airframe life will increase but thats to be expected with most MLUs (including the baaz upg). As far as payload/range increase – it is due to increase in number of hps (6 to 9) iirc.
Point is the baaz upgrade is certainly more extensive and costs less for more a/c.
but if i had to guess, the main cost driver is the MICA missile, which is hella expensive, even by western standards
You may have a point here.
USS.
uss novicethere is only a demonstrator and the factory that would build it (in russia for the initial batch) doesn’t even exist
Hint: it’s also called the MiG-29K. the 35 is based on this a/c, which are being produced as we speak, do you want to see pics?
Gripen-NG maybe
F-16IN no way. the specific configuration might not exist, but the currently in production F-16 block 60 is a heck of a lot closer to the F-16IN than the MiG-29 to the MiG-35 (oh look, operational AESA)
Yes, oh look an AESA that has not even been decided, not just that, an AESA that awaits permission from the USG. Otoh, you have current production of an a/c that shares massive commonality with the 35 in its OLS, engines, airframe, EW suite, radar etc.
if you have the same people doing the same work, there is no inherent reason one would be cheaper than the other
its called upfront fees. Even if indians do the work, while their labor stands constant, the OEM supplier will charge a fee. And that fee is certainly more with the non-russians. Not to mention the extensive experience russia/india has with russian hardware mods. no such prior experience modifying western birds (other than the jag) – wonder why?
in case you haven’t noticed, russia has changed
initial MiG-29K were dirt cheap, new ones were hella expensive
the work you were able to get Russia to do for MKI for that price will NEVER happen again
We’ll see, as of now the russians seem mighty keen on getting things moving.
sure the 29 has been safer relatively speaking than other IAF planes (*cough*MiG-21*cough*), but again, relatively speaking, i believe most of the other MRCA contenders are EVEN SAFER
Cough, cough no other country flogs the flogger like the IAF. Using late 60s built a/c in the 90s/2000s. As for the other MrCA birds, we all know about the mishaps with the f-16. So safe that at AI 09, it had a busted tire thanks to its fat ass. BTw, AM Ahluwalia points to the F-16 as having a terrible crash record in response to the Mig-21 fiasco in india.
not saying 35 would be bad, just not as good
Based on what? opinion or something more substantial?
you cannot compare flying costs across different air forces
fair enough.
1. french are notoriously expensive
the rafale is french. btw, the americans are no cheapies either, the aussie shornet deal is a fine example.
2. you have to compare what exactly each upgrade involved, which is difficult
Whats so difficult? all newsreports point to the M2k being upgraded to dash5 standards (purely avionics). The MiG-29 upgrade is far more extensive, everything from avionics, airframe, engines, IRST, you name it. Much cheaper overall and that too for a sqd worth more a/c.
er yes exactly, they reel you in with superb price and then jack it once you’re hooked, bait and switch
Amazing ain’t it? Despite all their “arm twisting” and “bait and switch” tactics, their hardware still costs a fraction of what the europeans or americans can offer. the MKI @ 8.5 billion. 126 Mig-21s at $ 350 million, 16 MiG-29Ks at 750 million. Shall we go on? Only the Gorky stands out as a sore issue, but guess what even that is settled at mutually satisfactory prices – $ 2 billion including a/c i think. Plus, rumors abound that the Gorky includes a LOT more than just the carrier (akulas and so on).
USS.
uss novicewell if you want to argue costs there are several different costs to consider
an advantage in ONE of them is nice, but you have to look at the TOTAL
1. acquisition
2. development now
3. development for the next 40 years
4. flying costs – fuel
5. flying costs – maintenance
6. attrition ratesbeing able to share existing infrastructure helps with (1) so MiG-35 is probably tops or near tops in this category
but losses in (2) and (3) can easily overwhelm any savings in (1)
(4) and (5) are probably average, and just guessing (6) will be on the lower end
The development of the 35 is nowhere as far behind as some suggest. It is definitely further ahead of the gripen NG or an F-16 IN (that does not even exist). There will be a degree of development cost involved with all the MRCA candidates, only any development/customization is a LOT more expensive with the eurobirds or american a/c.
Take the Su-30 for example, it had to be developed far more than the current 35 requires to reach MKI levels (everything from airframe, avionics, engines etc). Despite this, the entire MKI program including acquisition cost india a mere 8.5 billion $$s. So no, the development for radar, upgrades, or an EW suite will hardly cost india much more.
As far as attrition rates go, the 29 has a pretty solid record with the IAF. this will only improve with the newer, safer version. Look at the MKI.
In terms of fuel costs, the RDs are pretty economical in the first place, where is the problem? Can you put some figures?
The last I checked, the SMT (NOT the M, K or 35) was estimated to cost $ 5500 per flying hour (2000 estimate, pibu artilce – flug revue). the f-16 was about $ 7500 from what i read.
Also, keep in mind upgrade costs, again take a gander at the IAF mirage 2000 upg VS the IAF mig-29 upgrade, the costs don’t even compare.
So, no the 35 will in all probability be the cheapest of them all by a fair margin in terms of ownership costs. In fact expect MIG to pull out all stops when it comes to costs, it may be a LOT cheaper than the rest. 190 fulcrums for $ 10.2 billion will make the MOD drool. Russkis have traditionally scuttled deals with such bargain prices.
JMT.
USS.
uss noviceAnd I even doubt your conseratvie figure given the huge differences between the original MiG-29 and the MiG-35. Airframe, FCS, systems, avionics, cockpit etc. all this is different, hence the entire aircraft. This requires the purchase of new equipment to support all this.
Sure there is not much commonality between the original fulcrums and the 35. But there can be considerable commonality with the upgraded iAF baaz, which is having a serious upgrade. ditto with the IN Ks.
Austin has an excellent point, much of the infrastructure for inducting 35s is already with the IAF. No other MRCA contender offers this, period. It is a huge advantage and the article by Shiv Aroor (despite some flawas) also suggests the same.
USS.
Sign In
