Su-30MK vs USAF Fighters

Its good enough to know what they are not capable of doing, and an Su-30MKI is not going to sneak off anyone's radar. A Rafale will...

Maybe when they get AESA radars in a few years time they might but their own radar emissions will give them away. A minimum RCS of 1m^2 is hardly going to sneak off many modern radars.

A rifleman will pick your knife wielding ass off at a hundred metres. The same as a Meteor launched from a Rafale at a 100 kilometres. Different situations, same result, you're dead. Same as a 120D too.

So what you are saying is that the longest range weapon always wins?
RWR, RHAWs, active jammers, chaff, are all useless?

At 100km launch all the target has to do is a couple of changes in direction and the incoming missile will have no energy for terminal manouvers.

AGAT are also developing an active radar seeker head with home on jam capability that has a diameter of 170mm.

The only air to air missile that would currently fit is the R-73 and might be the Su-35S's answer to the F-22. Carry the same number of R-73s as the F-22 can carry AMRAAMs and the fight will go to close range where WVR missiles will mean the potential for imaging missiles with enormous guaranteed kill zones.

Anti BVR missiles... the logical solution to the western adopted tactic of BVR combat.

Equally the Russians have plenty of experience with rocket ramjet powered missiles, from the KUB (SA-6) through the various anti ship missiles like Moskit and Oniks and of course the Kh-31 series. The ramjet powered model of the R-77 should turn the tables on the meteor or at least redress the balance.

The Flanker will never get to launch position unless the 120D misses.

The figures I have seen for AMRAAM show a 50% success rate against targets that had no operating defencive systems. Obviously better than SPARROW, but hardly amazing.

MKI has a decent setup, but its signature is too large even for an Elta pod to mask effectively. An APG-79 or even RBE2-AA would be able to cut through their jamming rather easily. Do you know how hard it is to jam a 1000T/R module AESA? Pretty damned hard.

Which will be good news in about 5 years when the Su-30MKI gets AESA and 1 year when Rafale gets AESA.

It is a radar, its purpose is to detect radar waves, not VHF/UHF data transmissions. Do you know how subtle those signals are? The antenna is not that sensitive.

Sorry, don't see what that blog comment has to so with picking up Link 16.

The advert clearly states that the antenna was designed for Su-35s and Flankers.
The only sensible purpose for fitting such an antenna to such aircraft is to enable them to detect targets their existing radars can't.

Yes, it is a radar, and like all radars it can be operated actively to send out a radar pulse and sense its return to scan an area. It can also listen for signals and determine where they came from. If it couldn't determine where signals came from it wouldn't be much good as a radar would it?
It should detect any emissions in its freqency range and that includes NATO aircraft using link 16 which operates in that frequency range.

Yes, if it turns away it won't be able to receive updates meaning the target will likely get out of the active homing sphere. That would defeat the purpose of giving it data links.

There is no reason why the launch aircraft couldn't turn away and in a few seconds turn back to scan for the target to make sure it hadn't deviated.

The thing is that every time the Flanker scans the target to make sure it is following a specific course it runs the risk of the target detecting the scan and realising it might be under attack.

I am sure there are plenty of companies that need a damn good kicking, but there were also a lot of companies that were not allowed to export because what they made was secret, or simply because no one was buying.

Remember you not only lost industries, you also lost captive markets when eastern european countries started buying NATO weapons and equipment.
Some companies were well managed and some were lucky that they ended the cold war in favour of the current government and with a product that was popular.
Many companies in the US survive because they have factories in certain senators districts... the US armed forces don't even ask for C-17s in the budget because they get them whether they ask for them or not. Incredibly expensive but very high tech you could get 3 An-124s for the same price but with rather better capability.

The point is the makers there are lucky with their product... a product that sells itself... you could hardly compare it with another company making another product.

S-400 would be nice if it was complete. Without the long range missiles it is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with its new radar. Although it does have a better OS...

Beginning to understand your frustration, but as mentioned in another thread until the money actually moves from government promises to the hands of the factories you can understand not much being actually made. Promises don't upgrade tools or hire workers or buy components and raw materials.

Stalingradcommando, you have a point, though you are making it indirectly... against most enemy aircraft currently in service the Su-30MKI is a very good aircraft.
Against a very small few, notably with AESA radars that are smaller or stealthy it has a few disadvantages.

A big aircraft also has advantages too of course as I would say the Su-30MKI is more likely to be able to trade some fuel for a high altitude high speed missile launch to increase the range of its weapons than a smaller aircraft like a F-18E/F or Rafale or Typhoon for that matter.

RCS has little to do with physical size and everything to do with corners and materials, the B-2 is much larger than a Su-30MKI afterall.

A Su-30MKI with AESA and wing mounted L band radar and ramjet powered R-77s or even R-37s/R-100/KS-172s, whatever enters service, is just as impressive as any other less than 5th gen fighter available today.

Vladimir79 wrote:That USAF colonel was pretty harsh on the MKI. It almost caused an international incident when Indian NDTV picked up the story. Besides his criticism, the IAF said their planes were shot down every time they were targetted by a SAM. That Elta jammer they were carrying wasn't good enough to mask the massive RCS they have. On the other hand, the Rafale escaped every time.

To protect the secrets of their top-of-the-line Russian-designed Su-30MKI fighters were operated with handicaps. Su30 pilots flew with their radars off and they had to use US data links

Elta jammers (not even DRFM) are made in Israel, so you can`t blame our industries for that. The problem is not about the RCS. Take the Su34 for example. It`s RCS is at the same size of the Su30MKI but it has much better penetration capabilities. SAP-518 jammers work quite well and can compete with western made jammers like ALQ-99

GarryB wrote:

S-400 would be nice if it was complete. Without the long range missiles it is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with its new radar. Although it does have a better OS...

Beginning to understand your frustration, but as mentioned in another thread until the money actually moves from government promises to the hands of the factories you can understand not much being actually made. Promises don't upgrade tools or hire workers or buy components and raw materials.

Big missile will be produced form Q3 2010 as I read.

Stalingradcommando wrote:

To protect the secrets of their top-of-the-line Russian-designed Su-30MKI fighters were operated with handicaps. Su30 pilots flew with their radars off and they had to use US data links

MKIs can't use US data links. The USAF officer clearly stated they were not in Link 16. How could they? It doesn't have it. Their Elta jamming pods couldn't protect it from SAMs. The RCS of the aircraft is just too large to mask effectively. They weren't even carrying external stores unlike the Rafale with three fuel tanks and escaped all SAMs.

Elta jammers (not even DRFM) are made in Israel, so you can`t blame our industries for that. The problem is not about the RCS. Take the Su34 for example. It`s RCS is at the same size of the Su30MKI but it has much better penetration capabilities. SAP-518 jammers work quite well and can compete with western made jammers like ALQ-99.

The Elta 8222 is a DRFM jammer, so we can blame our industries for that. The problem is RCS because not even the Elta jammers could protect MKI during Red Flag. The Rafales slung three fuel tanks and they still made it through the SAMs without a scratch, they also dusted most of the F-16s. The Su-34 has never entered a high threat situation, would it do better than MKI at a Red Flag bombing range? I imagine the results would be similar if not worse.

The Su-34 has never entered a high threat situation, would it do better than MKI at a Red Flag bombing range? I imagine the results would be similar if not worse.

Different aircraft with different ESM and ECM equipment... apples and oranges I think you say.

Big missile will be produced form Q3 2010 as I read.

It was my understanding that the big missiles are not new and they are simply older missiles with new flight algorithms that fly a lofted trajectory and dive steeply onto the target for terminal flight manouver energy.

This kinda makes it a software issue rather than a hardware issue.

GarryB wrote:

Different aircraft with different ESM and ECM equipment... apples and oranges I think you say.

Su-34 and Su-30MKI... apples and oranges difference? I think not...

Indians chose Israeli jammers over Russian for a reason and it wasn't because they were less sophisticated.

GarryB wrote:
Maybe when they get AESA radars in a few years time they might but their own radar emissions will give them away. A minimum RCS of 1m^2 is hardly going to sneak off many modern radars.

Su-30MKs won't be able to decipher an AESA transmission, the RBE2 has good enough LPI now it can probably get by. A 1m^2 RCS is good enough to drop stand-off weapons to cook and book.

So what you are saying is that the longest range weapon always wins?
RWR, RHAWs, active jammers, chaff, are all useless?

Home on jam > MK jammers, SARH > MK RWR, Multiple-Pulse waveforms > chaff

RHAW is RWR by the way.

At 100km launch all the target has to do is a couple of changes in direction and the incoming missile will have no energy for terminal manouvers.

Meteor is ramjet Mach 4+ missile powered all the way through intercept that can pull over 40Gs. It won't be "jinking and jiving" out of a missile that fast. There isn't time to do much of anything by the time you realise its there if you aren't dead already.

AGAT are also developing an active radar seeker head with home on jam capability that has a diameter of 170mm.

Here is the best from AGAT...

http://www.mnii-agat.ru/expo/334/prod_2847.htm

No home on jam.

The only air to air missile that would currently fit is the R-73 and might be the Su-35S's answer to the F-22. Carry the same number of R-73s as the F-22 can carry AMRAAMs and the fight will go to close range where WVR missiles will mean the potential for imaging missiles with enormous guaranteed kill zones.

What good is R-73 against an F-22 when you will be shot down before you get to R-73 range?

Anti BVR missiles... the logical solution to the western adopted tactic of BVR combat.

Lost me.. I think we need IR BVRAAM. If an F-22 makes a blip on the radar or shows up on OLS, you want an IR missile to intercept and a missile like MICA IR has the range and speed to make an impression up the tailpipe.

Equally the Russians have plenty of experience with rocket ramjet powered missiles, from the KUB (SA-6) through the various anti ship missiles like Moskit and Oniks and of course the Kh-31 series. The ramjet powered model of the R-77 should turn the tables on the meteor or at least redress the balance.

It would be if R-77M had become anything more than just a mock-up. Meteor is what R-77M should have been.

The figures I have seen for AMRAAM show a 50% success rate against targets that had no operating defencive systems. Obviously better than SPARROW, but hardly amazing.

AMRAAM got the name SLAMMER from its first three shots being kills. The only failures of the missiles were in Iraq when F-15s were chasing a pair of Foxbats. They were outrun, I wouldn't call that a fault of the missile. Even if you take those two misses, it still has 9 kills. 9/11 isn't any 50%.

Which will be good news in about 5 years when the Su-30MKI gets AESA and 1 year when Rafale gets AESA.

MKI getting an AESA isn't going to mask its huge RCS. Operating with AWACs is the same difference and IAF plans to operate it that way. The planned upgrade is only talking about adding Irbis which isn't AESA.

The advert clearly states that the antenna was designed for Su-35s and Flankers.
The only sensible purpose for fitting such an antenna to such aircraft is to enable them to detect targets their existing radars can't.

Those antennas are designed for PAK FA, not our ordered Su-35BM. It won't be ready for operation until 2015 anyway.

The sensible purpose is to enable it to give the aircraft 360 degree radar coverage which is what it does along with the other radars on board. It is sensor fusion. I am sure you are aware of the term.

Yes, it is a radar, and like all radars it can be operated actively to send out a radar pulse and sense its return to scan an area. It can also listen for signals and determine where they came from. If it couldn't determine where signals came from it wouldn't be much good as a radar would it?

It should detect any emissions in its freqency range and that includes NATO aircraft using link 16 which operates in that frequency range.

Link 16 is LOS data transmission with a very narrow beam, far too narrow for any little L-Band radar to detect much less track.

There is no reason why the launch aircraft couldn't turn away and in a few seconds turn back to scan for the target to make sure it hadn't deviated.

There is a very good reason why it wouldn't turn back, it is trying to get out of the active homing phase of an incoming missile.

Su-34 and Su-30MKI... apples and oranges difference? I think not...

Indians chose Israeli jammers over Russian for a reason and it wasn't because they were less sophisticated.

Well the difference is obviously not large enough for them to be effective.

It is an Apples and Oranges comparison because each aircraft uses different EW systems to do the job.

Or are you suggesting a Russian soldier firing an AK-105 will have the same results as a US soldier firing an M4.

Different gun, different calibre, different soldier training regimes.

Different planes, different jammers.

Part of the job of an EW suite is to prevent the aircraft flying within SAM range in the first place.

Su-30MKs won't be able to decipher an AESA transmission, the RBE2 has good enough LPI now it can probably get by.

So when they get it it will be useful for both aircraft?

Meteor is ramjet Mach 4+ missile powered all the way through intercept that can pull over 40Gs. It won't be "jinking and jiving" out of a missile that fast. There isn't time to do much of anything by the time you realise its there if you aren't dead already.

With an IR signature and active terminal homing their is the possiblity of shooting it down. Also with home on jam capability towed jammers might be a good idea?

Here is the best from AGAT...

http://www.mnii-agat.ru/expo/334/prod_2847.htm

No home on jam.

Sorry, my mistake, I was confusing the passive radar homing for HOJ.
The seeker could be fitted to R-73s to passively home on incoming active radar homing missiles.

The Flanker could certainly carry enough such R-73s to negate the normal internal load carried by F-35s to make it come down to a WVR fight with imaging IR missiles.

Lost me.. I think we need IR BVRAAM. If an F-22 makes a blip on the radar or shows up on OLS, you want an IR missile to intercept and a missile like MICA IR has the range and speed to make an impression up the tailpipe.

During the period from 1990 to date there were very few Russian AF aircraft in service that could fire R-77s so it is a very under developed missile.
I would expect now that new aircraft able to use the weapon enter service we will see more variants including an IIR model and a passive radar homing model.
The passive radar homing model of the R-27 was intended to engage western fighters firing SARH missiles, but could just as easily be used against incoming active radar homing missiles.
The longest range ARH missile in the Russian inventory would probably be the R-27EA with a flight range of 130km against a closing target.
It uses solid rocket fuel so after the initial high speed acceleration and the longer burn cruise burn it basically falls on the target from altitude using a lofted flight profile.
Ramjet models and models with larger rocket motors of the R-77 are rather likely, plus ARH, Passive radar homing, IIR and combinations are more than likely to be developed for the Russian Armed forces now that it will actually be buying some.

What good is R-73 against an F-22 when you will be shot down before you get to R-73 range?

R-77 with its active seeker with no HOJ capability has been described as being able to intercept large missiles like AMRAAM and HAWK etc.

Fitting its seeker into an R-73 will give you a small light missile that can be fired at any AMRAAMs an F-22 might fire at a Flanker.
A Flanker can afford to carry lots of missiles, while the F-22 is limited to internal carriage.

It would be if R-77M had become anything more than just a mock-up. Meteor is what R-77M should have been.

It was being designed for PAK FA. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't going for scramjet propulsion to allow for higher speeds and longer range than Meteor.

The only failures of the missiles were in Iraq when F-15s were chasing a pair of Foxbats. They were outrun, I wouldn't call that a fault of the missile. Even if you take those two misses, it still has 9 kills. 9/11 isn't any 50%.

First of all the targets were drones with no SA and no jamming or RWR, so it is not that impressive when properly examined.
2 of its kills were Blackhawk helos.

MKI getting an AESA isn't going to mask its huge RCS.

It should mean it doesn't have to blast easy to find radar signals all over the place though.

RCS only applies if you use your radar. When you do that you give away your presence even if only briefly.

The sensible purpose is to enable it to give the aircraft 360 degree radar coverage which is what it does along with the other radars on board. It is sensor fusion. I am sure you are aware of the term.

Except that rear facing radars were not found to be all that useful, which is why the planned rear facing radar for the Su-35 and Su-34 were dropped.

The longer band radar makes the most sense as an anti LO aircraft radar simply because there are two things that make an aircraft stealthy. Shaping that removes corner reflectors and areas that return signals directly back at emitting radars and materials and coatings. Shaping doesn't work at longer wavelengths because with longer wavelengths shape can't be detected. Coatings become less effective when they are no longer a significant thickness in relation to the frequency.

The only problem with longer band frequency radars is they need antennas that are too big to fit in the nose of fighters and missiles. The large component size makes AESAs easier to make of course.

There is a very good reason why it wouldn't turn back, it is trying to get out of the active homing phase of an incoming missile.

Changing heading makes a lot of sense when evading an incoming missile.
If you launch while heading towards a target and do a 180 then you shift the intercept point for his missile by quite a distance. By turning back to get a fix on his position you are shifting the intercept point again. The best way to defeat a BVR missile is to manouver to keep shifting the interception point so the incoming missile wastes fuel and has less or no energy for the terminal phase of the attack.

GarryB wrote:
Well the difference is obviously not large enough for them to be effective.It is an Apples and Oranges comparison because each aircraft uses different EW systems to do the job.Or are you suggesting a Russian soldier firing an AK-105 will have the same results as a US soldier firing an M4.Different gun, different calibre, different soldier training regimes. Different planes, different jammers.

Su-34 is a Flanker anyway you cut it and KNIRTI pod isn't going to be as good as one of the most widely exported Elta pods. Indians tested KNIRTI and didn't want it so that is the bottom line.

Part of the job of an EW suite is to prevent the aircraft flying within SAM range in the first place.

Another problem with Russian missiles and bombs is they lack standoff range. Only the Kh-101 has a standoff ability but the pilot still has to maintain a link to the unit in order to use the joystick to the target. I became really skeptical of the Kh-31 when we sold them to the Americans and they would only go 60km. That isn't much considering the advertised range is twice that. If we are trying to attack an area defended by a Patriot battery I don't think it will survive. There is a reason we go ape shit everytime Patriots are talked about in Georgia. Same reason China losses it over Tiawan, they know that they are going to lose alot of aircraft if hostilities break out.

So when they get it it will be useful for both aircraft?

Rafale can take full advantage of an AESA, it is an LO aircraft. Su-30MKI isn't going to take full advantage of it because the RCS is too large. It might as well take the Irbis. There isn't going to be anything it can do to hide its position.

During the period from 1990 to date there were very few Russian AF aircraft in service that could fire R-77s so it is a very under developed missile.
I would expect now that new aircraft able to use the weapon enter service we will see more variants including an IIR model and a passive radar homing model.
The passive radar homing model of the R-27 was intended to engage western fighters firing SARH missiles, but could just as easily be used against incoming active radar homing missiles.
The longest range ARH missile in the Russian inventory would probably be the R-27EA with a flight range of 130km against a closing target.
It uses solid rocket fuel so after the initial high speed acceleration and the longer burn cruise burn it basically falls on the target from altitude using a lofted flight profile.
Ramjet models and models with larger rocket motors of the R-77 are rather likely, plus ARH, Passive radar homing, IIR and combinations are more than likely to be developed for the Russian Armed forces now that it will actually be buying some.

So thats what you are talking about. The prospect of shooting down AAMs with AAMs is taking a pot shot really. The seekers on R-77 aren't nearly sensitive enough to home in on say an AMRAAM, if you saw the AGAT link it can dectect 5m^2 at 20km, AMRAAM RCS is like 0.05. Then there is the speed, they weren't designed to hit Mach 4 targets. As the missiles approach the angle of attack is going to get steeper and the Gs needed to pull will increase. R-73 can only execute 12G manoeuvres so I don't think it has a chance in hell of hitting an incoming AMRAAM or Meteor. The flight computer won't give you tone to fire anyway.

R-77 with its active seeker with no HOJ capability has been described as being able to intercept large missiles like AMRAAM and HAWK etc.

Who has described it that way? My guess is people separated from reality.

It was being designed for PAK FA. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't going for scramjet propulsion to allow for higher speeds and longer range than Meteor.

Last time it was talked about was MAKS in the mid ninties and it was nothing but a mock-up of an R-77 with a couple nozzles. Nothing since then. As the Europeans found out, the length of a real ramjet missile has to be extended so that R-77 mock-up wasn't a demonstratable concept. The lack of talk in the media for the last 15 years signals pretty clearly that project is dead.

First of all the targets were drones with no SA and no jamming or RWR, so it is not that impressive when properly examined.
2 of its kills were Blackhawk helos.

All of its listed 9 kills were Iraqi and Serbian combat aircraft. The Blackhawk incident was one killed by AMRAAM and one killed by Sidewinder. That isn't a failure of the missile but poor communication by AWACs controllers. AMRAAM in 1994 didn't have the IFF capabilities it has today. It only shows it is capable of hitting low flying helicopters. So if you want to add that to its kills, make it 10/12 or 83% accuracy.

It should mean it doesn't have to blast easy to find radar signals all over the place though.

RCS only applies if you use your radar. When you do that you give away your presence even if only briefly.

When an MKI is coming in with a 20m^2 RCS, it doesn't make a difference. It is too large; radar lit or not. An AWACs won't have a problem spotting it at max range nor would an AESA equipped fighter. An AESA could blast the MKI with radar emissions all day and the MKI won't be able to do anything to pinpoint those emissions. That is the advantage of LPI.

Except that rear facing radars were not found to be all that useful, which is why the planned rear facing radar for the Su-35 and Su-34 were dropped.

REALLY?!? I don't know where you heard that nonsense but the bee stinger on the back is its rear facing radar.

Changing heading makes a lot of sense when evading an incoming missile.
If you launch while heading towards a target and do a 180 then you shift the intercept point for his missile by quite a distance. By turning back to get a fix on his position you are shifting the intercept point again. The best way to defeat a BVR missile is to manouver to keep shifting the interception point so the incoming missile wastes fuel and has less or no energy for the terminal phase of the attack.

If you make a 180 turn your purpose is to outdistance the missile, if it was launched at a great range this is a good strategy. If you launch your missile first you will turn 70-90 degrees putting distance between you and the last place the missiles data-link saw you. The other aircraft will be turning so they won't be able to lock you and the missile will track your last known location. If your opponent has a firm lock on you and isn't turning away, all the jinking and jiving in the world isn't going to save you from their lock. Your only hope is that you will be making the missile pull enough Gs that it will miss.

sepheronx wrote:The debate is moot.

The F-15, F-16 and F-22's have never come against an SU-30 or SU-27. Remember, it is also up to the pilot and not just technology.

Its hardly moot when Flankers are the hottest selling aircraft in the region. India and China will be fielding several hundreds of them and along with the hundred or so that will end up in ASEAN it may well be close to a 1000 aircraft. If you are telling us that there is zero chance of Indian Flankers going against PAF F-16s or Indonesian Flankers against RAAF Super Bugs or PLAAN Flankers against USN Super Hornets you are kidding yourself. There is no likely greater conflict than in that region of the world.

USSR was behind US in technology during the Vietnam war era, and their planes where farther ahead in capabilities then Nam's. But the survival rate of aircrafts and pilots was 40% and less.

If you want to talk about a moot point, you just made one.

[quote="Vladimir79"]

I am not familiar with the quote feature, so sorry for that.

Yes, The Su-30MKI did not use the data link in the exercise but that`s not because the Su30MKI dosen`t have this capability at all. That`s because the HAL supplied system is not compatible with NATO data links. Su-30MKI is equipped with its own data link which can share target information across multiple fighters.

The Indian self-imposed radar restrictions on USAF but restrictions were dictated by the Indians too.
MKI pilots could not use data-links, chaff and flares. IAF had no AWACS on their own.
they had to ask the AWACS for everything. They had no idea of what was happening out there, while USAF and the French had the picture in their HUD all the time. Big disadvantage

Rafales followed Sukhois all the time but they never came into the merge. So did the F22

Stalingradcommando wrote:
I am not familiar with the quote feature, so sorry for that.

Hi-light the text you want in quotes and rap the tags around it. The quick key is in the middle of the option with the two talk bubbles.

Yes, The Su-30MKI did not use the data link in the exercise but that`s not because the Su30MKI dosen`t have this capability at all. That`s because the HAL supplied system is not compatible with NATO data links. Su-30MKI is equipped with its own data link which can share target information across multiple fighters.

The Indian self-imposed radar restrictions on USAF but restrictions were dictated by the Indians too.
MKI pilots could not use data-links, chaff and flares. IAF had no AWACS on their own.
they had to ask the AWACS for everything. They had no idea of what was happening out there, while USAF and the French had the picture in their HUD all the time. Big disadvantage

You said it used US data links. US data links are not compatible with the MKI's Russian links. The MKIs at Red Flag were almost blind because they couldn't link to the AWACs and had to be vectored in by voice. They only put their radar in training mode which reduced their performance but it was still powered high enough for them to engage in BVR battles. The Indians were taking such a pounding in the A2A they said enough of that and on to the other exercises.

Rafales followed Sukhois all the time but they never came into the merge. So did the F22

Rafale's followed behind the Flankers because they didn't want to be fratricides by Indian pilots shooting at friendlies. F-22 wasn't flown at that Red Flag. Rafales entered the merge plenty of times, there is video to prove it and they dusted the F-16s almost every time.



The point I was getting at was that the MKIs were shot down every time they were targeted by a SAM. Using flares would make no difference since the simulated SA-2/3/6/8 are not IR. Using chaff might have made a difference but it all came down to how good your ECM was at protecting you. The Rafale made it without a scratch while MKIs were dropping like flies.

Vladimir79 wrote:

Hi-light the text you want in quotes and rap the tags around it. The quick key is in the middle of the option with the two talk bubbles.

thanks for the advice.

Yes, I actually did a little mistake saying that Su30`s were connected to U.S AWACS. I should have said that they actually reviced instructions orally because they could not use their radars

I said that nor F22 or Rafale ever went against the MKI, did they? The fact that Ralale can easily handle the block 52 F16 dosen`t mean anything, because the Su30 can do that too

Just another thing:
The AESA radar of the F16 dosen`t give any advantage over the PESA of the Rafale, so why should it give the F15/F16 any advantage over the PESA of the Su30MKI or any other Flanker derivative? Except for having a smaller RCS the Rafale holds no other advantage over Su30MKI.

sepheronx wrote:

How?

Because I am comparing what you guys are talking about, just around 30 years prior.

Just 30 years ago? More like 40-50 years ago. Their level of sophistication over Russian equipment has skyrocketed since then so that 40% attrition rate has little meaning. I don't think it was that high back then anyway.

sepheronx wrote: During the exercise, the RAF pilots candidly admitted that the Su-30MKI displayed maneuvering superior to that of the Typhoon.[41]

Total BS, the cited article says the RAF pilots were impressed with manoeuvrability of the MKI but IAF was equally impressed with the Typhoon.

Wiki quotes will be deleted when citing false information.

sorry Vladimir
can you conclude what he said,the sound quality is bad ,i don't understand any thing
by the way
Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

Now you are going all the way back to COPE India. USAF was outgunned 4:1 in each engagement and had restricted BVR. Of course they were going to lose.

Vladimir79 wrote:Now you are going all the way back to COPE India. USAF was outgunned 4:1 in each engagement and had restricted BVR. Of course they were going to lose.

ok can you conclude what pilot said...

1. Indian airfields took longer for their aircrafts to scramble (1 minute, later reduced by the USAF to 45 seconds) to fly, which is apparently longer than how long it takes for our F-15s to scramble.

2. Russian engines were highly susceptible to Foreign Object Debris, at least more susceptible than the F-15 was, which was probably the reason why it took so long for each aircraft to be scrambled, because they'd have to check for FOD thoroughly.

3. Russian engines had 2D Thrust Vectoring, but they had different angle thrust vectoring than the F-22, and when the F-22 did a maneuver that required high usage of Thrust Vectoring in the Pitch angle, it'll have it easy, but when the Su-30MKI did the same maneuver, it'd have a hard time, and when it's about to climb back up, because it has a harder time, it gives the F-15 a window to shoot it down, which didn't happen with the F-22s.


That sums it up for the criticism I'd say.

Many US are braged that during this exercice F-15, F-16, F-22 bested indian Su-30MKI.
The excerpts of US swaggering are here : http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml  In fact,  every US fates is always subject to controverisies. The reality is far to be as shinning as US used to present.
Here is Indian version
http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/03/10/dissecting_a_dogfight_sukhoi_vs_usaf_at_red_flag_2008_33623.html
As you notice the results are far to be shinning, and here you realize that US once they confront an adversary with the same force, the results are pitables. I don't mean that US military, or personnel staff are not competent, not at all, they are very professional. But  each wars they waged, obliged US leaders to create a coalition and US leaders ensured that they are at least 10 vs 1 against a poor isolated country.
Most of the iraqi fighters downed, were downed because they fled to Iran, and not in engagement. Because, I doubt in that case F-15 could best a Mig-29 with a good pilot.

Against Serbia in 1999, US and Nato have nearly 900 aircraft, and Serbia was inside a hard embargo, lack of spare parts, few Mig were able to fly.
The wars occured in Iraq, and in Serbia will be the lasts for US, next wars will be very very harder.

I would be courious if now US dare a war against Syria, as Russia, is decided more than never to help syrian army.
This time, it won't be a happy end for US, but happy end for us.....                     
Haven't we the right to laugh in front of the arrongances's collapse ?

During this exercise you noticed the non presence of the F-22.
The question is why ? If for example, a sukhoi, or rafale downed an F-22, what might be the impact ? If your aircraft is supposed to be the best, it should be a great adverstising if F-22 scored a kill a ration against Su-30 of 100 vs 0, as it would -?- against F-15.

However, US used to prefer a virtual kill ratio, like claimed for example the israelis, when they said that during the Bekaa batlle they downded nearly 100 syrian figters -mig 23, mig 21, su 22- versus 0 losses for the israelis. However to substantiate these claims, no wreckages, no visual proofs from the israelis. However, syrians, like egyptians, used to shout, and photographe themselves in front of israelis fighters's wrecages.

US prefered in fact a virtual 100-0 against Sukhoi 27, it is quite better, and less risky, however, nobody is fooled.