F-16 (blk 50/52) versus SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder 3

Northax · by **Northax** » 10 Jun 2005, 16:56

Note: I said PROBABLY.

I didn't say it was proven fact! But logically thinking about what you'd do to impress someone, wouldn't you set up your opposing enemy against a maneuver or tactic you'd practiced for years, instead of a new unproven tactic? Of course you would. Therefore, my theory, in my opinion, stands. They probably used scenario's they've practiced with and/or against many times, and probably placed USAF F-15s in the most vulnerable spots. But, that's just the add-on. The main thing is, F-15s were outnumbered 3 times over.

Funny how anyone could brag about that, eh?

Anyway, I think USAF should get Block 60 F-16s and then go there; they'll have AESA radar, much better.

Viperalltheway · by **Viperalltheway** » 14 Jun 2005, 14:49

They don't even need to buy new block 60s to have the AESA. Current F-16s can be upgraded to carry the APG-80 for about 2-3 million.

That may sound expansive, but you get about twice the range of the V(9) and better resistance to jamming. So the aircraft has MUCH BETTER BVR capability.

dimik · by **dimik** » 15 Jun 2005, 04:03

not necessarily, how long was Cope India planned for previously? also, if you wanted to impress him someone else, you would do the same, but America didn't, therefore, you cannot state that India was practicing for this exact "episode" and react ina specific way, planning everything, they cannot predict the moves that the F-15 pilots would have committed, and thus could not react to this in a simulated environment realistically

well, you have to give it to them, they were beat 9/10, but it wasn't just Su-30K's, this was MiG-21BIS', MiG-29's, MiG-27's and Mirage 2000's

in reality, the F-15's were outnumbered by 1.5

there was an excercise in which a group of 4 MiG-27's were on a attacking mission, and were defended by 6-8 MiG-21's, therefore, outnumbered by 1.5-2, the MiG-27's would have just been easy pickings, many of the scenarios were randomized in this order, with others utilizing Mirage 2000's and MiG-29's or a combination of both

2sBlind · by **2sBlind** » 15 Jun 2005, 04:51

Exercises like this aren't meant to see "who's got the better air force". Whenever we do a multi-national (or even between our own squadrons), the point is to train against a "red" air that simulates what we would expect our enemy to do, performance and tactics wise. Cope India is no different than anything else - it WAS NOT full-up Eagles fighting. The idea is to simulate an enemy's weaknesses so you can learn if your theories to exploit them are valid. Do India's potential enemies have AMRAAMs? Do they have AESA radars and the best trained pilots in the world? The answer is no, so there was no reason for the Eagles to be full-up. Had they been full-up it can be debated forever on who would have "won", but there are so many variables from number of planes to AWACS to tactics that the only answer is the standard fighter pilot answer, "it depends".

Now, why did the "a$$ kicking" that the Eagles took get so much publicity? The Raptor. What better way to convince Congress and America that we need the F/A-22 than to tell them our best A/A guys got whopped by India???

If India had trained forever for this exercise and used everything that they had in their book - good, we now know more about them than they do about us. It's just not good business to let the other guy know exactly what your capabilities are, another reason we don't go full-up against many people, if any.

ACSheva · by **ACSheva** » 17 Jun 2005, 02:11

Ohh so we played down to the Su's on purpose. I dont think we did. I think that its just time for the 15 to go into retirement, thats why the 30 prevailed. Something tells me that people look at the 15 as the best jet ever built, even now. It was for a long time, but its just going out of its prime. It was a good pilot in a better jet, thats it.

Shev

Biggen · by **Biggen** » 17 Jun 2005, 04:54

ACSheva,
Do you know anything about Cope India? Or any international exercise the USAF participates in?

I don't even know why I'm asking...since the answer is obviously 'no'. :oops:

ACSheva · by **ACSheva** » 19 Jun 2005, 02:47

Then why ask?

What I said is true Biggen, if you wish to add something please do so.

Shev

VPRGUY · by **VPRGUY** » 19 Jun 2005, 08:42

ACSheva wrote:Ohh so we played down to the Su's on purpose. I dont think we did. I think that its just time for the 15 to go into retirement, thats why the 30 prevailed. Something tells me that people look at the 15 as the best jet ever built, even now. It was for a long time, but its just going out of its prime. It was a good pilot in a better jet, thats it.

Shev

I think you're wrong on this one, too. Ask any weapons school guy in an F-5 to fight almost anything out there (F-15/16/14, or your vaunted SU) and odds are he'll hand the other guy his a$$. But tie his hands so the other guy can learn against him, and he'll lose.

Ditto with an F-15 vs a Su-30. We don't go into an exercise (nor does any other country) and hang it all out and do everything we possibly can, to win. That defeats the purpose of the exercise, and who wants to show ANYONE else exactly what all they can do exactly? Rather, we go into exercises to learn how to play together, and practice against tactics we're likely to face with an opponent. Until the bad guys have the good grace to show up to the exercises so we can practice fighting against them, someone has to 'play' bad guy- meaning you use his tactics and fly like he would, which means no matter how shit-hot your airplane is, you can't use it to its fullest.
I'd bet good money India (or whoever cope thunder was with) didn't fly their SU's to the fullest, and we surely didn't fly our F-15's to their max either. I understant you like the -30, sheva, but it isn't the gods airplane like you seem to make it out to be- no airplane is.

ACSheva · by **ACSheva** » 20 Jun 2005, 01:33

but it isn't the gods airplane like you seem to make it out to be- no airplane is.

I agree. Im just trying to add a bit of balance, because if you read many of the other posts on this site it seems like the F 15 will be ruling the skies for the next 748 years. Just read some in the other "vs" threads. And we know that it will not. The jet is past its prime, that exercise was no surprise. Why is it so hard to admit something sometimes. Have agood one...

Shev

MATMACWC · by **MATMACWC** » 26 Jun 2005, 05:14

Allright VPRGUY, I've tried this one with ACSHEVA before.... it's not that you cannot win, its that some people are just a little biased and a little mis-informed. And that is OK, everybody has there favorite airplane and thats cool!! All's I gots to say to a Korea guy is HARUUMPH!! GO FIENDS.

Biggen · by **Biggen** » 28 Jun 2005, 03:57

ACSheva,

if you wish to add something please do so.

Ok, I'll ask some questions. (ACSheva answers only please. There are a few of you out there, not making ridiculous statements I might add, that know these answers, but let's just let him flail.)

What was the size and altitude of the airspace used in Cope India?
What was the max range missile shot allowed?
Was the max range missile shot allowed the same for all players?
What self-imposed restrictions did each side use?
Which side would retreat out of the airspace in order to avoid a loss?

Last question: If you do manage to find the answers to the previous questions, does that scenario sound like a true evaluation of the performance of either side's aircraft or pilots?

ACSheva · by **ACSheva** » 29 Jun 2005, 05:03

What was the size and altitude of the airspace used in Cope India?
What was the max range missile shot allowed?
Was the max range missile shot allowed the same for all players?
What self-imposed restrictions did each side use?
Which side would retreat out of the airspace in order to avoid a loss?

First of all I would like to thank Dr Biggen from CNN for the interview. ;-)

Its really nice. But I cannot answer those quistions, and NEITHER CAN Dr Biggen. I assure you. But It seems that our jet got waxed by a bigger, better, more manueverable plane, and some people now want to make up excuses for why it happend. No one can argue with that.

But what I do know is that the SU 30 got a shot on our F15 before the F15 could even detect the SU 30. Therefore the first man to shoot the missile will MOST likely win the fight. Correct? Nice try son, you can go home to mama now.

Shev

VPRGUY · by **VPRGUY** » 29 Jun 2005, 05:38

ACSHEVA wrote: I agree. Im just trying to add a bit of balance, because if you read many of the other posts on this site it seems like the F 15 will be ruling the skies for the next 748 years. Just read some in the other "vs" threads. And we know that it will not. The jet is past its prime, that exercise was no surprise. Why is it so hard to admit something sometimes. Have agood one...

Ok, re-read:

VPRGUY wrote:...Rather, we go into exercises to learn how to play together, and practice against tactics we're likely to face with an opponent. Until the bad guys have the good grace to show up to the exercises so we can practice fighting against them, someone has to 'play' bad guy- meaning you use his tactics and fly like he would, which means no matter how sh*t-hot your airplane is, you can't use it to its fullest.

If you read some of my posts, you see that I agree with you- the F-15 is getting out dated, as is the F-16. I am fully behind the F/A-22 and the F-35 for that very reason, even if they aren't adding up to everything they were promised to be- they're still leaps and bounds beyond what we're flying now. But, with all due respect, you seem to be ignoring the fact that this was an exercise.

If this had been actual combat, we really don't know who would have won, because I am still willing to bet that neither side played to their fullest potential. Now, I agree the SU series are pretty good- I'll also be the first to say that I think a MiG-29 would beat an F-16 in a WVR guns fight (I've talked to F-16 pilots who will back me up on that one), as the SU-27 would probably beat the F-15 in the same fight.

Very rarely is combay so vicously one-sided that someone completely dominates the others, when both sides have good equipment and good training/tactics. If we went to war against a country with good pilots and, say, the SU-30, I have no doubts we would lose some jets (again, I know the -15 doesn't dominate like it used to). I also have no doubt we'd knock a bunch of their airplanes out of the sky too.

If you look back in history, the MiG-19/21 were better dogfighters than the F-4; once we learned how to fight them we cleaned house. The Zero was a better fighter than the P-40 and old F-4's (and the F-6 and P-38 by many standards) but we beat them too. And the russians took tired old P-39's and beat Bf-109's and FW-190's, flown by combat-seasoned vets. In every case we lost airplanes, but in the end we learned how to fight veteran pilots in more maneuverable airplanes and came out on top. (More history- the top US ace in Europe got most of his kills in a P-47 ("Gabby" Gabresky, I believe); the top pacific ace got his in a P-38 (Richard Bong); neither of those were the most maneuverable fighters in theatre, but they knew how to fly their aircraft to the fullest and knew how to beat the other guys tactics. That is what wins wars).

Overall, I can't say it is wise to base so much of your theory on one
exercise. There is nothing wrong with liking an airplane, but look at all sides, too. Every jet has weaknesses, and the right tactics can beat them- even if it is a tired old F-15.

Biggen · by **Biggen** » 29 Jun 2005, 06:12

But I cannot answer those quistions

Exactly my point. You don't know enough about the exercise to give an informed opinion. Now that you've acknowledged that fact, those who are reading this thread can identify your posts as uninformed.

NEITHER CAN Dr Biggen. I assure you.

Quite wrong. I know the answers to each of those questions, or I wouldn't have posted them.

But It seems that our jet got waxed by a bigger, better, more manueverable plane, and some people now want to make up excuses for why it happend. No one can argue with that.

A very good example of an uninformed statement.

But what I do know is that the SU 30 got a shot on our F15 before the F15 could even detect the SU 30.

And exactly how do you know this? That statement is completely false, and would be laughed at by anyone who knows much of anything about the two aircraft. Since you've admitted you don't even know the maximum range shot allowed by the aircraft involved you have no way to make the comparison.

Therefore the first man to shoot the missile will MOST likely win the fight.

Not true - unless the missile fired can't be defeated, which is almost never the case.

I'm really not sure why you're trying so hard to prove how good the IAF aircraft are or how bad the F-15 is compared to them. If you had any idea what you were talking about and could make some valid points about why the Eagle needs to be updated/replaced, etc. then you would have some credibility. However, since you can't make any good points, I can only conclude that you are a troll, just trying to stir up an argument.

danhutmacher · by **danhutmacher** » 29 Jun 2005, 07:22

I think that even with the restrictions that were put on the F-15s they should have been able to do better than they did.

They key to winning in ac is the pilot and the training that he(or she) hasd recived. That has been proven over and over in peacetime and in wartime.
The US AF F-15 community has apparently switched to a BVR mentallity. When that was taken away from them the were unable to cope. Whichs shows POOR training in the F-15 community.

Hopefully they have gone back to the drawing board and revamped thier training and are not whining about the ROE.