Dogfight between F-15 and Su-27: Who should be the winner?

The Swiss air force never fought in any wars. Forgive me if I put exactly zero stock in their accounting.

F-35 was chosed because of corruption, nothing else. They have no need for a f-35. wrote:

Especially since Rafale or EF are better than F-35.

Even in the 1990s the west made the AMRAAM a priority and didn't really take dogfighting missiles seriously... HATO was supposed to use the American medium ranged AMRAAM and the British short ranged ASRAAM... except as usual for HATO and America everyone ended up going their own way with the Germans having their own IRIS-T and the British ASRAAM and the Americans adopted the AIM-9X...

The point is that during testing with an F-16 vs a base model export MiG-29 they found the R-73 was a very potent missile and 62% of the time the F16s were being defeated in the dogfight but 100% of the time they were getting shot down.

The helmet mounted sights means the enemy pilot just needed to look to get a lock and the thrust vectoring rocket motor on the R-73 means the missile could perform extreme turns on launch to follow difficult targets in flight.

They found that even in engagements when the F-16 started behind the MiG-29 that if the MiG pilot, alerted by the attack could turn far enough to see the enemy he could launch a missile so even if he was shot down most of the time the F-16 was shot down too.

To succeed the HATO pilot has to shoot down the MiG or Su before they launch their missile or the chances of it being 1 all are very high... which was very bad news for HATO because their planes and their missiles were expensive.

The result was that HATO effectively dropped the WVR air to air missile as an important programme and everyone did their own thing. The result of the tests was the decision to not engage in dogfights with new Soviet fighters... the opposite of their previous tactics where they thought their number twos didn't smell and they could make up the deficit of numbers with skill and quality.

The Su-27 and MiG-29 were built from the outset to fight F-15s and in terms of aerodynamics there is no question they can get the job done.

For a long patch in the 2000s the western aircraft had AMRAAM and improved short range AAMs that leveled things a bit, but these days with R-37 and new model R-77s and even the new model R-73 (RVV-MD2) I would say in the air to air department Russia is back on top... their only real problem is numbers, but having an IADS to fight within would solve those problems and of course having land attack weapons that can hit enemy airfields that western air defences wont be able to stop is an enormous advantage too.

There is nothing more funny than a westernoid fanboy wanking about every single western Wunderwaffe, especially if confronted with the reality.
When introduced in 1972, Soviet medium range R-23 missile outperformed the existing AIM-7 by a solid margin.
And retained this supremacy well into a decade, being equaled only in the early 80s with the introduction of AIM-7M.
There is one serious aspect people usually miss.
Soviet missiles usually carried warheads way bigger and more deadly than its western competitors.
Of course the fact was masqueraded by the western propaganda as being inferior - that is why those needed bigger warheads. It was a clear bullshit.
R-23 proved to be extremely deadly, with most of the kills being de facto a kill of the pilot. The missile exploding 20 m from the target was close enough to make a kill.
If we will keep in mind that by the 80s, the main NATO frontal fighter was F-16 with Sidewinders, the thing starts to be a joke.
When I was talking to NATO pilots who served in the 80s, they were perfectly aware of the fact that it will be a decimation - a head on charge against incoming missiles of much longer range and more deadly payload, only to get in range of AIM-9 ... And most of them joked that even if they would survive that, most probably there would be no airfield to land, as the Soviet frontal bombers will just erase them from the ground.

It is being used more widely than you may expect.
R-73 is the least expensive out there, so it is clearly a weapon of choice against drones. Tens of documented uses by both sides. Well, at least as long as ukrs had planes

In fact, they still have an advantage in air-to-air missiles, and SAMs too. The R-37M missile proved its effectiveness in the conflict in Ukraine. Interestingly, its newer version will be in the internal cells of the Su-57. As for the R-77M, the missile is probably ready. Although it is a pity that Russia suspended the version of the R-77 with a ramjet engine. A Russian meteor, but nothing has been heard about it for many years.

When introduced in 1972, Soviet medium range R-23 missile outperformed the existing AIM-7 by a solid margin.
And retained this supremacy well into a decade, being equaled only in the early 80s with the introduction of AIM-7M.

People in the west also tend to ignore upgrades and improvements over time too... the R-23 was not a bad missile, but it was replaced by the upgraded R-24 and then a special version of the R-27 designed for older aircraft to use.

Vlad didn't like the R-27 very much and the main reason was because like the Sparrow, it was not a brilliant missile, but over time it has been improved and upgraded.

With modern digital solid state electronics a modern R-27 should actually be a very good missile... the US Navy... which is the only American military branch that really gives a shit about air defence continues to use the Sparrow in the form of the ESSM. A surface launched version of Sparrow.

It gives you an idea of how important SAMs are in the US when so many of their SAMs are also either MANPADS or aircraft launched AAMs launched from ground based launchers... Sidewinder is Chapparal, ESSM is Sparrow, and NASSMs is AMRAAM. They also have Stingers and the SeaRAM is based on Stinger and Hellfire components.

A modern R-27 has good potential... that reverse butterfly front wing works like forward swept wings and improves the ability of the missile to perform turns with less drag and more power than a small triangular wing.

The R-27 was tested against a missile with more conventional front and rear controls and it beat it.

Note many in the west claim the rival missile was a Sparrow copy but if you look very carefully at the photos it does not have triangular fins and tail, but was painted to look like a Sparrow. It was an improved Sparrow to see if it would have the best performance and the R-27 beat it in tests.

Soviet missiles usually carried warheads way bigger and more deadly than its western competitors.
Of course the fact was masqueraded by the western propaganda as being inferior - that is why those needed bigger warheads. It was a clear bullshit.

Yes, the western claim is that the controls are not as accurate so it does not get as close nor does it hit the target like western missiles.

The simple fact of the matter is that they are designed to destroy heavy aircraft like bombers, for which a heavier warhead is needed... the fact that it does a better job on smaller targets too is a bonus.

R-23 proved to be extremely deadly, with most of the kills being de facto a kill of the pilot. The missile exploding 20 m from the target was close enough to make a kill.
If we will keep in mind that by the 80s, the main NATO frontal fighter was F-16 with Sidewinders, the thing starts to be a joke.

I have said several times on this forum that the war in the South Atlantic would have been rather interesting if Argentina had turned to the Soviet Union and had MiG-23s instead of Mirages and Skyhawks. Even a basic BVR missile would have changed things dramatically.

Of course if Argentina was getting things from the Soviets then the Americans probably would have given the UK direct assistance with its own carriers.

It is ignored in the west but one of the reasons central and south america is isolated from the rest of the world and appears to be the US's backyard is because the US has an agreement with those countries regarding outside interference with the US promising to protect them from European colonial powers.

In that regard the US failed Argentina and a lot of countries realised that the US can't be trusted and started to listen to Cuba a bit more.

War in Ukraine shows R-73 is less likely to be used than r-77 or R-37M. Actually it shows r-77M needs to be quickly introduced.

As I said, short range missiles like the R-73 make dogfighting too dangerous for both sides if both sides have R-73s and HMS and MiG-29s and Su-27s.

If the enemy launches their missile before your missile destroys their aircraft then there is a chance that his missile will get you and both aircraft will be destroyed.

Much better to snipe at longer ranges... but of course the Ukraine conflict is not WWIII... when you add in European fighters then medium and long range missiles will of course be used as much as possible but when they run out the shorter range missiles and guns come in to play... especially in a very target rich environment...

Some of the more stealthy designs might need to be taken down with guns, but the F-35 is not particularly manouverable which puts them at a serious disadvantage against Su-35s and Su-57s... and MiG-35s with TVC engines too.

It is being used more widely than you may expect.
R-73 is the least expensive out there, so it is clearly a weapon of choice against drones. Tens of documented uses by both sides. Well, at least as long as ukrs had planes

Admittedly I am talk about export models but in cases of air to air combat between Soviet/Russian planes the R-27s are generally used first and often fail, leading to R-73 use, which results in kills. It is a rather potent missile... even today.

The Houthies even have ground launched versions.

Although it is a pity that Russia suspended the version of the R-77 with a ramjet engine. A Russian meteor, but nothing has been heard about it for many years.

They delayed the ramjet model to get the improved solid rocket motor version into service... it is in service, so are they working on a ramjet powered R-77 or a scramjet powered R-77... my guess would be the latter as the challenges and problems are similar but the results will be clearly different.

If you want to make a new sniper rifle, you don't start with a smoothbore matchlock design and go from there...

R-60M would do the job against drones for even cheaper. And they could carry easily 3 instead of 1 r-73.

A good missile but long range missiles are more important.

The R-60M is a good missile, but is not in the Sidewinder/R-73 class.... it is more like an Igla with a bigger warhead and slightly better range.

Very good for what it was designed for, but these days perhaps something like SOSNA might replace it for some aircraft that might otherwise carry an R-60.

An r-37M with an IR seaker would be more interesting to develop. With datalink all the way until it sees the target.

Most likely the Article 815 will have an improved multifunction seeker with AI and a two way datalink... something like the system fitted to LMUR perhaps but using passive radar and active radar and IIR to find targets for itself.

The other potential upgrade will be mini missiles to engage multiple smaller targets, so you launch one missile and as it dives down on the target multiple small independent missiles are released to home in on individual targets like a group of cruise missiles or anti ship missiles or drones or a flight of fighters or bombers within about 15km of each other... One missile launched for multiple kills.

I would add that Sparrow and R-27 were not amazing missiles... like many larger missiles of the time they had relatively big warheads and were intended mostly for shooting down bombers and other targets that don't manouver so obviously going after nimble fighters like the Sparrow did in Vietnam was asking rather too much from such a missile.

It was fired in enormous numbers and got something like a 4% kill probability and I don't think the R-27 if it had been around at the time would have gotten a huge amount more kills.

The thing is that these missiles were analog weapons with simple electronics and the systems were not particularly sophisticated or capable.

Modern models are fully digital however and suffice to say the US Navy still uses the Sparrow in the form of the ESSM as a surface to air missile for use against anti ship missiles and threats close to their ships.

Modern R-27s probably have similar upgrades and also benefit from more powerful rocket motors and improved control surface arrangements.

In fact the R-27T and R-27ET have the same IR sensor as that used in the R-73 so there is nothing wrong with that.

The butterfly main wings with reverse sweep allow hard turns to be performed without bleeding speed or increasing drag by too much... it certainly corners better than if it had the small triangular fins of the Sparrow.