Forum: Technology

Guys, what are you talking about? What dogfights in air combat of XXI century? When A-A missiles getting range up to ~ 100 miles like latest AIM-120 AMRAAM versions. Were there any dogfights since Gulf War?

AESA radars and A-A missiles will do all the job in any engagement now. The one with better stuff will win.

But if you prefer dogfights, OK. SU-30 MKI gets involved into a dogfight with let's say F-16C BLOCK 52+. F-16C BLOCK 52+ has got true all aspect AIM-9X missiles on board, with great turning radius and high-G maneurabiity as well as reasonable range. What has Flanker got in order to counterpart that Viper? I mean, are there any russian A-A missiles that can match AIM-9X at this moment?

F-16.net Sponsor

Hi Again,
First of all I would like to say that I agree with saintwarrior, nowdays the chances of having dog fights in A real war are so low that the whole comparision should be looked at theoretically, just to learn and to know more about these wonderful aircrafts.
And one thing we do learn is that the Indian/Russian should be taken more seriously.

Further more, our own airforce, the Israeli Air Force which is considered the best or one of the best in the world has won countless dogfights, also because our aircrafts and missilles were better than what our enemies had, our aircrafts are/were more advanced technologically, but these gaps are closing.

Shep1978, I saw A mock/prototype F35 in 2001 not A sukhoi.
By the way I am not causing embaresement to myself, I have A background in aviation and I have done quite somethings in my life so dont patronise me, the only thing you are showing by your aggresive attitude is which kind of A person you are.

As I said earlier I am following this website for several years now and my main goal with these posts was to show the other side, as I said I have noticed that there are few folks here that are rather disrespectful toward any aircrafts, air forces, people and countries that are not American or at the most Western European and there should be an amount of fairness, there should be some balance, well enough said on this matter.

jacob wrote:

rather disrespectful toward any aircrafts, air forces, people and countries that are not American

This is not a disrespect but real view of things. It is an undisputed fact that USAF as well as your native IAF are the most capable air forces at the moment. Cause they got great gear and great pilots that all together can do a great job in any war.

It might look as disrespect, but in reality it is just the response to extremely agressive commercials of Russian military industry, I mean constant statements with key phrase "world's best, unmatched etc." While real wars like Chechnya campaigns and crisis in Georgia show absolutely different evidence. Are you world's best? OK, establish air superiority over the battlefield, provide efficient CAS to your troops down there, minimize the looses. If they cannot do this and all their local conflicts witness that - they are neither the best nor the medium air force.

What even defines 'best'? Pilot skill? Power projection? Aircraft capability? Industry? Etc... Of course the United States has the right amount of everything, so that's not even a question of 'who's number one', so to speak. However, I do not find myself hugely impressed to consider the IAF anything special. In fact, I would grant a few other countries and air forces far more merit and value. For the IAF, having a steady supply of advanced Western defense systems, money, and access to both information and technology goes a long way.

jacob wrote:

By the way I am not causing embaresement to myself

Ok i apolagise for the misreading of your post, I now understand that you saw the F-35 in mockup form and not the PAK_FA, however, without being rude you will definately embarrass yourself by writing about Indian-American excersises in the same manner as you have previously in these threads. What you are doing is ignoring the handicaps that were placed on US forces and trumpting the excersise as a great Indian victory, which is clearly an underhanded way of describing the results.
I understand you are proud but there is a need to keep a realistic attitude when it comes to dealing with excersises with severe restrictions imposed on one force as it will not lead to an accurate picture of the quality of the handicapped force.

Well, India has been doing very fine in pure sciences for a long time and she is rapidly progressing in computer sciences. I admit that aviation related technologies are so much dependent on experience, very much of it.

We will see...

jacob wrote:

By the way I am not causing embaresement to myself, I have A background in aviation and I have done quite somethings in my life so dont patronise me, the only thing you are showing by your aggresive attitude is which kind of A person you are.

As I said earlier I am following this website for several years now and my main goal with these posts was to show the other side, as I said I have noticed that there are few folks here that are rather disrespectful toward any aircrafts, air forces, people and countries that are not American or at the most Western European and there should be an amount of fairness, there should be some balance, well enough said on this matter.

jacob, you may be Israeli, but you do not ubderstand the way Western people discuss things. What you percieve as "dispespectful" or "aggressive", we simply consider truthful, honest discussion. Our ways are different, not better or worse.

Your opinions are always welcome, of course. To give more weight to your arguments, why don't you tell us of your "background in aviation". And posting links to Pravda to help prove your point hardly helps your position.

PhillyGuy wrote:

What even defines 'best'? Pilot skill? Power projection? Aircraft capability?

The "best" category is defined by damage to hostile forces and effective support of friendly forces that air units can do in a modern war. I mean, if strike aircarft are just flying somewhere without seeing any targets and ground forces get cut to pieces - this is not an air force at all.

Each soldier should rely on it's airforce, know that it is able to fulfil any mission in any weather conditions, that there will be an air strike delivered right on the target a few minutes after he calls for it. So best airforce means precise guided munitions, all-weather and night capability, great designation and communication systems.

So far, only USAF and IAF, perhaps some other NATO air forces have got this complex.

Okay folks this is my last post at this thread, no disrespect to anyone that posts after this posting if I don't reply.
It was nice to read everyones opinion in this thread.

Saintwarrior, you are right and I agree that the American Air Force and the Israeli Air Force (my native air force) are probably the best in the world, as I wrote earlier the whole purpose of my postings in this thread was to say that countries/air forces and airplanes that are not western shouldnt be disrespected as they have their strong points too and they are getting better (also thanks to western modernizaion), that's all.

Johnwill, Israel is A western country, second I post at countless "western" websites, astronomy, sports, music, photography, cars, swiss watches, even at A wwe wrestling website! (yeah I am an Undertaker and HBK fan since 1991 Wink

) and at several more websites and so far during many years and various debates NO ONE has told me that I don't understand the western ways/mentality, I can make my point stronger but hey I am not here to argue with you.
I am also sorry but I can't say more about my background in aviation.
I think I have made my point clear and it will be A pleasure for me to post at other threads at this website.

A lovely day to everyone at F-16 Smile

Jacob, I repeat there is no disrespect towards russian aircraft. Believe me, I have also got reasons to have some kind of patriotism for Russian Air Force as my Dad spent 27 years and 6 months in active Soviet Air Force service until retirement as Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. He was a so to say a hard blooded patriot until he saw a pair of German Tornado fighters air-maneuvering over his native airfield (just a couple of miles in front our balcony). He was shocked and I remember his short historical phrase: "They do fly better...". As he saw hundreds of aircraft during his service, I asked him, why do they fly better? He said "Much more agressive, much more relaxed, much less limited than russian pilots".

As concerning Russian military aircraft industry they have one big tragedy, called Su-27 Flanker. That is not the fault of the aircraft itself, but the result of unsuccessfull management of Sukhoi corporation chairman Mr. Pogosian, who declared Su-27 to be somewhat of ultimate airframe back in the beginning if 1990-s. They were telling military command and authorities something like that: "USAF has got F-15 only. Our Flanker is much better, why should we invent anything else? We can export it and make huge money". They were giving new version designations just for marketing purposes, but nevertheless -
SU-34 is a Flanker
SU-35 is a Flanker
SU-37 is a Flanker
SU-47 Berkut is a Flanker
SU-30 is a Flanker

And after 18 years they got nothing but Flanker in the result. They are back in 4th generation, while USAF is already in 5th. That's why I am the fan of USAF now, the only reason is that I do respect clever people making clever decisions in the name of their country and it's people, and hate stupidity.

Its not so much stupidity. Developing a whole new aircraft is risky and very costly. The Su-27 airframe is indeed versatile and has got lots of room for grouth. But since the collapse of the USSR (even a bit earlier) russia simply lacked the funds and time for anything else than modifications. The russian military industry has been as a whole just modifying existing models, not just fighters, tanks submarines, helicopters etc.

Pilotasso wrote:

The Su-27 airframe is indeed versatile and has got lots of room for grouth.

There is no room for growth any longer. This airframe has significant limits for possible upgrades:

1) Engine air intakes are of straight flow construction with huge RCS
2) Radar systems are not weight effective, I mean huge radars with medium capabilities resulting in large nose of Flanker, this adds even more RCS
3) Chassis mounting points do not allow to install either "F-15 styled" CFTs or internal weapon bays
4) A-A weaponry has got extensive wings and stabilizers (look at Alamo series) resulting in additional RCS.

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Pilotasso wrote:

Its not so much stupidity. Developing a whole new aircraft is risky and very costly. The Su-27 airframe is indeed versatile and has got lots of room for grouth. But since the collapse of the USSR (even a bit earlier) russia simply lacked the funds and time for anything else than modifications.

And that could actually be taken as an indictment against the U.S. military-industrial complex rather than a hit on Russia. We spend a LOT of money on our war machine, like double the entire European Union, ten times more than China, fifteen times more than Russia. Assuming Russia can keep up on next-gen fighter development is pretty unrealistic.

PhillyGuy wrote:

What even defines 'best'? Pilot skill? Power projection? Aircraft capability? Industry? Etc... Of course the United States has the right amount of everything, so that's not even a question of 'who's number one', so to speak. However, I do not find myself hugely impressed to consider the IAF anything special. In fact, I would grant a few other countries and air forces far more merit and value. For the IAF, having a steady supply of advanced Western defense systems, money, and access to both information and technology goes a long way.

It's not just the machine though. The man plays a huge role. The IAF puts a lot of emphasis on the man that's flying the machine.

Guysmiley wrote:

Pilotasso wrote:

Its not so much stupidity. Developing a whole new aircraft is risky and very costly. The Su-27 airframe is indeed versatile and has got lots of room for grouth. But since the collapse of the USSR (even a bit earlier) russia simply lacked the funds and time for anything else than modifications.

And that could actually be taken as an indictment against the U.S. military-industrial complex rather than a hit on Russia. We spend a LOT of money on our war machine, like double the entire European Union, ten times more than China, fifteen times more than Russia. Assuming Russia can keep up on next-gen fighter development is pretty unrealistic.

I'm not sure indictment or war machine, are the correct words to describe maintaining an effective military.

Forum: Technology

Sukhoi PAK FA