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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2005, 16:56
by AKH33
Indo-US joint fighter exercise in November

New Delhi, April. 6 (PTI): Indian Air Forces frontline Sukhoi, Mirage 2000 and upgraded Mig Bisons would cross swords with the United States Air Force F-16 fighting falcons in the second series of joint fighter exercises in November this year.

The pilots of the two air forces would match their skills in close range as well as beyond visual range combats over Kalikunda airbase in West Bengal. In their first test of wits, the Indian pilots had got the better of their American counterparts in Gwalior last year.

But the contest that time had been between the US F-15's and the Indian SU-30's and Bisons. And the US air force this time are bringing in their Fighting Falcons that too of Batch 50-52's, the latest upgrades series.

According to top IAF officials, 8 to 12 American F-16's would be taking part in the exercise 'Cope Thunder Three' and India, besides the Su-30MKI and SU-30K, would field the Mig-27s, Mirage 2000 and Mig Bisons.

The US officials have been very keen to have a closer look at India's just acquired SU-30MKI. In the past, New Delhi has spurned invitations for the frontline fighters to visit America for taking part in multi-nation air exercises.


Source: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NEWS/news ... ewsid=2077

An excellent way for the IAF to improve pitting itself against the best, this is what we have been waiting for!!

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2005, 17:42
by parrothead
Awesome news :D !!! I just wish I could be there with 'em to watch all the action! I think this will benefit both sides and I think the Viper pilots will have a ball :thumb: !

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2005, 20:32
by ACSheva
Ohh yeah baby,

Here we go again. Man I can't wait to see the final results.

ACSheva

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 08:04
by RSAF-G2
Ha, let's just hope the IAF will come to terms with its real performance and not create sensational reports of how "mighty" their SU-30s are...like what happened in the last RSAF-IAF exercise.

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 15:18
by nikos
Well, we should blame the human factor.
Anyway if equally skilled pilots used Su-30 against F-16, the Flagon would outperform the F-16 in all terms. It is just a different class of aircraft. A fair play is F-16C/D against MiG-29S. There has been a wargame between Luftwaffe and USAF wich had shown that actually.

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 16:36
by VPRGUY
So I wonder- are both sides actually going to play balls-to-the-wall, or are they going to tie the USAF's hands (like they did with the F-15's) so the Indian AF can train against us?

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2005, 21:52
by Viperalltheway
It'll take F-16Ds.. 4 more guys are gonna this time for PUBLIC RELATIONS..

http://www.metallizone.com/videos/one_high.asx

Block 50s CCIP + V(9) + AIM-9X + AIM-120C-7 + AWACS.

lol..

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2005, 02:35
by parrothead
OK, time to kick some a$$$$$$$ :thumb: !!!

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2005, 23:09
by ACSheva
I bet that's what they are saying.. :D

Shev

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 03:31
by ghostrider883
Yeah I'm getting tired of this crap. Send the best vipers in the AF, and with an AWACS of course....

Time to kiss their a$$$$$$$!!!


Only time will tell... this isn't some low grade Soviet stuff that the IAF is flying....

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 04:16
by ACSheva
Yeah, just ask the F 15 pilots.

:P
Shev

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2005, 08:42
by kubam4a1
It depends if F-16s have AIM-120Cs, as well as V9 radar. We have to wait for the results.

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2005, 07:16
by Northax
ACSheva wrote:Yeah, just ask the F 15 pilots.


Oh, you mean the F-15 pilots that were outnumbered 12 to 4? With a scenario the IAF made up, which they've probably practiced against for years? And took away F-15s AESA rader? And limited the F-15s missiles 20-30 nm range? Hmm, yeah, good point... lol!

Sorry, but it wasn't just "The Su-30 whooped USAF F-15s butt!" It was way different than what most think. They put major limitations on the USAF, and created a scenario they've probably practiced against a thousand times over. So, keep living in denial, if you so wish. :)

Here's a short quote from a link you can go to and read the whole thing...

The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts

RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2005, 07:41
by ghostrider883
well then, even IAF Su-30s were not the top end Su-30s(MKIs)......so a F-15C with a downgraded radar versus a Su-30 with "not so" good radar is a equal match i think...
besied the upgraded MiG-21 Bisons shocked the americans more than the Su-30s....

Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2005, 22:26
by dimik
Northax wrote:Oh, you mean the F-15 pilots that were outnumbered 12 to 4? With a scenario the IAF made up, which they've probably practiced against for years? And took away F-15s AESA rader? And limited the F-15s missiles 20-30 nm range? Hmm, yeah, good point... lol!

Sorry, but it wasn't just "The Su-30 whooped USAF F-15s butt!" It was way different than what most think. They put major limitations on the USAF, and created a scenario they've probably practiced against a thousand times over. So, keep living in denial, if you so wish. :)

Here's a short quote from a link you can go to and read the whole thing...

"The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts


The odds were either 10 vs. 4 or 12 vs. 4

Also, it wasn't just the Su-30K's that were operating, there were missions in which 4 MiG-27's were on an attack mission, and there were 6 MiG-21BIS' tasked with defending them vs. 4 F-15's, in many misisons, half of the aircraft were attacking, while the other half were defending against the F-15's were were on intercept course

How do you know that India has been training for this very excercise and event for years? Huh, please, you have no proof to confirm this.

RE: Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2005, 16:56
by Northax
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. :)

RE: Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2005, 14:49
by Viperalltheway
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.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2005, 04:03
by dimik
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

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2005, 04:51
by 2sBlind
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.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2005, 02:11
by ACSheva
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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2005, 04:54
by Biggen
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:

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2005, 02:47
by ACSheva
Then why ask? :D

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

Shev

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2005, 08:42
by VPRGUY
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.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2005, 01:33
by ACSheva
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... :D

Shev

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2005, 05:14
by MATMACWC
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.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2005, 03:57
by Biggen
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?

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2005, 05:03
by ACSheva
  • 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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2005, 05:38
by VPRGUY
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.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2005, 06:12
by Biggen
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.

RE: Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2005, 07:22
by danhutmacher
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.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2005, 00:33
by ACSheva
AW&ST wrote:Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'

By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie/Aviation Week & Space Technology - May 24, 2002

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.

"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot" an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S.warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that couldmatch the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.

The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA-10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar-guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large tcv motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R-27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R-77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K-77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.

Quote:
Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance. According to preliminary estimates, in long-range air combat, the Su-30MK outperforms the F-16C Block 60, F-16C Block 50 and F-18E/F aircraft by 15, 20 and 12-15 percent, respectively, owing to its radar's greater detection range, higher jamming immunity and multichannel capability, as well as better maneuverability.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.


This is concluded by proffesional avia analysts I might add. 8)

Bigget, you can't argue worth a penny about this. You need to stop, seriously. When you ask quistions that you youreself cannot even answer.

The 30 is a better jet in most of the aspects that a jet is judged by. And YES it does manuever better than the 30 year old F15. Dont be foolish, and try to say that the F 15 will out manuever the Su 30. Because it will NOT. Look at the videos of what the 30 can do, and than look at the 15s stuff. Not even talking about the range, speed, and the weapons here. That should give you a good start.

Shev :D

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2005, 04:12
by dimik
ACSheva wrote:
  • 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


actually, Shev, you are erronous; both aircraft detected one another at the same range, yet the Su-30K was able to get the first shot off

I'm going to attempt at providing an analysis of which aircraft would be "better" when it comes down to an A2A duel.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2005, 04:59
by Biggen
ACShuvit,

Nice article. Gee, I've never seen that one before...

First of all, what makes you think that the F-15/16/18/whatever can't use the same manuevers against the SU-30?

Second of all, anyone who knows anything about fighters can see all of the holes in the article.

For instance:

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile.


So they're saying the SU is sideways as the F-15 approaches. If we accept the premise in the article that this would actually work (no progress in the last 20 years) then in order to stay "invisible" (never mind that we're talking about the largest fighter in the world here) the SU must stay sideways to the Eagle. Now, if the SU turns toward the Eagle, then it isn't exactly invisible anymore, is it? When the Flanker turns toward the Eagle, it will be seen by radar, relocked and shot almost instantly. Hmmm. I guess that's not a good idea so the SU will have to stay sideways all the way to the merge. Wait a minute, that will allow the SU to be shot by a heat seeking missile. :)

Damn! :evil:

So how does the SU get "to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile"? Since the archer has roughly a 60 degree off-boresight capability, it must turn out of the "clutter notch" in order to fire that missile...and be shot by an amraam...or it can stay in the notch and get shot by an aim-9...

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that couldmatch the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi.


Ya think?

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2005, 06:45
by cru
This is concluded by proffesional avia analysts I might add.


Yeah sure... :lol:
That's an AvLeak article... the same magazine that said that ramjet AMRAAM were used in Desert Storm...
And YES it does manuever better than the 30 year old F15. Dont be foolish, and try to say that the F 15 will out manuever the Su 30. Because it will NOT

But it WILL! If you talk abot slow speed maneuvers (specially designed for rusophile aviation fans...) yes, the 30 is a marvell. But no one pays 40 mil $ to entertain crowds... Except for the Indians... :lol:

But if we are talking about the speeds a dogfight take place (0.8-1.2 M), than NO, the marvelous 30 does not maneuver better than the "30 years old"F 15... The 15 accelerates better and has a better sust. turning rate at supersonic speeds.

Not to mention that beaming could work in an 1:1 scenario; but this is verey unprobable. In "real life" the F 15 has MIDS datalink that give him situation awarness.
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.


Again: yeah sure :lol:

If you are talking about Cope India result, the USAF has been "beaten" in BVR not in WVR!

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 03:45
by ACSheva
The 15 accelerates better and has a better sust. turning rate at supersonic speeds.


The Su MKI has a more powerfull engine, it will out climb, and out accelerate the 15. And since when are dogfights held at supersonic speeds. Probably NEVER. The 30 has a tremendous advantage over its enemy.

the USAF has been "beaten" in BVR not in WVR!


If you get beat in BVR, than there is NO WVR. Why? cause youre dead. You lost.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 07:03
by cru
The Su MKI has a more powerfull engine, it will out climb, and out accelerate the 15.
:shock:
The MKI has 2 AL 31 FP, each of 12,50kgf... The weight of the MKI is ~ 18 tons. So the T/W ratio (with the plane empty) is 1.38... The F 15 C has two P&W F 100-220, each of 10,500 kgf. The weight is 12,5 tons, so the T/W ratio is 1.68...More powerfull engines don't help if the plane has the weight of a small bomber...
The 30 has a tremendous advantage over its enemy
.

:lol: see this:http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/SwingRole/

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2005, 07:05
by cru
I forget: click mission effectivenss

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2005, 11:34
by CheckSix
Looks like propaganda data without scale!

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2005, 13:16
by Viperalltheway
Ok, what this exercise shows is that the F-15 is in serious trouble with sparrow like missile at close range against active missiles armed fighters at a numeric disadvantage of 3 to 1. Unbelievable isn't it?

Now send AESA equipped F-15s -better multi target capability, more resistant to jamming and so on.. - with 100km AIM-120D - available next year -, and see what happens..

Drawing the conclusion that the F-15 is outdated because of this exercise is completly ridiculous. That exercise only showed that it takes a good radar and long range multi-target active missiles.. DUH..

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2005, 01:40
by danhutmacher
I would like to know the details of each enagement and what the roe was for this exercise.
I haven't been able to get much info from open sources. What I have been able to get is that the F-15s were just plain out flown.
The history of aircombat has shown that it's the pilot, his training, and then the Aircraft that provide for the winner.
I hope that the USAF has studied this exercise and has adjusted it's training as a result.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2005, 04:54
by toan
danhutmacher wrote:I would like to know the details of each enagement and what the roe was for this exercise.
I haven't been able to get much info from open sources. What I have been able to get is that the F-15s were just plain out flown.
The history of aircombat has shown that it's the pilot, his training, and then the Aircraft that provide for the winner.
I hope that the USAF has studied this exercise and has adjusted it's training as a result.


Some details about four F-15Cs of USAF versus twelve mixed Su-30K/Mig-29/MIRAGE2000-5/MIG-21 fighters of IAF.

The F-15C which played the exercise at that time didn't get AESA radar, and capabillity of AIM-120 firing stimulation was also limited as if the USAF was using AIM-7M, but not AIM-120 at that time. However, all of them had equipped JHMCS + AIM-9X + Data-link at that time, but it was still useless when they are out-numbered by the fighters of Indian air-force, and most of them had R-77 or MICA for stimulating....

http://www.nxtbook.com/fx/books/raytheo ... eek-oct04/

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2005, 06:15
by danhutmacher
Hey Toan,
It seems that what I feared was true. The F-15 drivers got cocky and went in with stupid tactics.
Given what the ROE were for the excerise they should have adjusted their tactics accordingly. What's said is that from the articule they are going to blame it on not having the AESA radar and not on the fact that they used bad tactics.
Hopefully they will learn from this and not keeping whineing about not having the AESA radar.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2005, 04:14
by ACSheva
Drawing the conclusion that the F-15 is outdated because of this exercise is completly ridiculous.


Well certainly. Thats why the F 22 is taking over. :lol:

Shev

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2005, 10:05
by CheckSix
How many F-15Cs are sheduled to be equipped with AESA?

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2005, 05:31
by danhutmacher
The last I knew only the 18 F-15s assigned to the third fighter wing in Alaska were supposed to get the AESA.

But with the budget cuts to the F-22 I think that the air force will find the money to upgrade more.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2005, 23:34
by 2sBlind
It seems that what I feared was true. The F-15 drivers got cocky and went in with stupid tactics.

Given what the ROE were for the excerise they should have adjusted their tactics accordingly. What's said is that from the articule they are going to blame it on not having the AESA radar and not on the fact that they used bad tactics.

Hopefully they will learn from this and not keeping whineing about not having the AESA radar.


So.... they went in without AMRAAM or their full capabilities, which they will ALWAYS have in combat; and they didn't have a tactic for it.... I wonder why not? Come on, you think those guys actually train and think about a situation like that? Hell no! They train to go full up and use everything that will realistically be at their disposal, not how to fight with cuffs on. That's why their "tactics" weren't right for the situation, and you have no idea what the ROE for the exercise were and what the F-15s were supposed to simulate. I have no doubt that the -30 is one hell of an airplane, but so is the Eagle.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2005, 06:23
by danhutmacher
If they are training right they should have back up tactics for when the AMRAAM DOES fail or the politiction put on ROEs that prohibit it's use.

Besides the AMRAAM is NOT the wonder weapon that everybody thinks. It has a performance envlope like every other missile and it CAN be beaten.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2005, 16:23
by 2sBlind
True, anything can be beaten, but it sure tips the scales in our favor when we use it.

to shev

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2006, 19:36
by pak_falcon
no body can compete indians and there jets(oops).even their russian masters can`t.this is what shev wants to declare.....
just visit their own airforce sites and every one will come to now the exact figures of their demos.against pakistan airforce in different wars...
the skills of piolets may be equal but technology can`t be...and the fact is this that americans are far a head in all that respects..F\A-22 RAPTOR is the sole answer to every querry........

RE: to shev

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2006, 23:52
by Asif
pak_falcon

Before we ban you for restarting any blatant flame wars I recommend you actually learn how to spell and us grammar in English. Theirs a great tool in this forum called 'SpellCheck'. The button appears in the options when responding to posts. Try using it!!

To others, recommend you don't reply to this. Anyone does then this whole posting gets canned or responding posts get trashed.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2006, 20:11
by hansundfranz
2s blind,
in all training exersies generic missiles are used.

This is done to keep the real capabilites f a missile secret and to make hit miss calczulations humanly possible (the generic missiles envelopes are fairly simlified)

Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three !!!

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2006, 02:54
by Aks_20
RSAF-G2 wrote:Ha, let's just hope the IAF will come to terms with its real performance and not create sensational reports of how "mighty" their SU-30s are...like what happened in the last RSAF-IAF exercise.


The IAF never created any reports, those were media claims and is well aware of its real performance- and lets face it in a real war the RSAF would lose. Furthermore, its the RSAF which is coming again to India this year- why? The IAF per its own reports has just stated:
MKIs performed well, so did the Mirages (I presume new ones with new radars) and MiG 29s
Bisons- not so well.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder T

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2006, 02:58
by Aks_20
Northax wrote: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. :)


The IAF wasnt out to "impress" anyone. The F-15s are supposed to be "outnumbered" whilst practising against inferior aircraft arent they? Take a look at the tech the IAF fielded- all easily far behind the USAFs F15Cs in the exercise, and the actual A2A numbers were more balanced 6 vs 4, rest strikers- and both sides exchanged the role.
Only massive handicap was the lack of Slammers, but even so- the results would have been 50% each odd and that itself would be a wakeup call for the USAF.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2006, 03:04
by Aks_20
toan wrote:
danhutmacher wrote:I would like to know the details of each enagement and what the roe was for this exercise.
I haven't been able to get much info from open sources. What I have been able to get is that the F-15s were just plain out flown.
The history of aircombat has shown that it's the pilot, his training, and then the Aircraft that provide for the winner.
I hope that the USAF has studied this exercise and has adjusted it's training as a result.


Some details about four F-15Cs of USAF versus twelve mixed Su-30K/Mig-29/MIRAGE2000-5/MIG-21 fighters of IAF.

The F-15C which played the exercise at that time didn't get AESA radar, and capabillity of AIM-120 firing stimulation was also limited as if the USAF was using AIM-7M, but not AIM-120 at that time. However, all of them had equipped JHMCS + AIM-9X + Data-link at that time, but it was still useless when they are out-numbered by the fighters of Indian air-force, and most of them had R-77 or MICA for stimulating....

http://www.nxtbook.com/fx/books/raytheo ... eek-oct04/


IAF has no Micas or even simulated them, Av Leak screwed up. Also the a/c were spilt into strikers escorted by bouncers- and latter went up against the F-15s, so the numbers were not necessarily as lopsided as made out.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2006, 03:06
by Aks_20
cru wrote:But it WILL! If you talk abot slow speed maneuvers (specially designed for rusophile aviation fans...) yes, the 30 is a marvell. But no one pays 40 mil $ to entertain crowds... Except for the Indians... :lol:
.


Been following your comments for some time on this board- quite the little racist we have here with all that Indian baiting, plus of course u were banned from AFM for exactly this and the comments on Indians not being blonde and blue eyed and hence jealous of the USAF. Grow up.

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2006, 17:00
by pafpilot
hello everyone.
I just wanted to add something to this topic.
In aircombat, You dont win ONLY when you have a superior aircraft.You win when the pilot in the plane is using his head and knows the fullest of his aircraft.
I am not trying to flame up a war or something,just trying to give an example:
You see what really happened in Indo-Pak war of 1965 was that F-104 was much feared by the IAF, yet it shot down some of them.Similarly in 1971, MiG-21s were shot down by PAF SABRES.
What i want to say is that, every aircraft has some shortcomings and they are compensated or tried to be compensated by the pilot sitting in it.So dont base your posts on JUST TECHNOLOGY but account for everything.
THNX
Umar

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2006, 05:01
by avon1944
Aks_20 wrote:IAF has no Micas or even simulated them, Av Leak screwed up

You are incorrect! According to Janes Book of Aircraft 2004/2005 also credits the Indian AF having MICAs for the M-2000. So, the Su-30s had simulated AA-12s and only the F-15s did have SARH missiles -a generic Sparrow Missile.
The USAF practices the usage of its technical advantage in BVR, so limiting them virtually to WVR combat, hurts them badly. The F-15s were the only aircraft to not have HMDS. The Bisons and Su-30MKs also had HMDS. What would you expect the results to be.

Another thing that was stated in another AW&ST article was that after the exercise explained in the 10/04/04, there were exchange rides. The USAF spokesperson stated the USAF piloted Su-30MKs consistently won against F-15Cs flown by USAF pilots. Now, was this real or some artificial aerial contest, I don't know.

In addition to the USAF spokesperson stating the sucess of the Su-30's, this was echoed by congressman Cunningham discussing the results during a congressional session in the summer of 2004.

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 13:27
by 42
Well I see that our Su-fanatics tend to leave a nice clue out of every discussion. It is known that Su-30s, when loaded with total fuel load are a little more maneuverable than the Starfighters. Cheers!

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2006, 16:21
by RoAF
It is known that Su-30s, when loaded with total fuel load are a little more maneuverable than the Starfighters.

Not a Su fanatic here, but most combat planes manouver like an elephant when fully loaded with fuel and stores.
Also, contrary to western jets Su-30s do not carry external tanks, so you'd expect them not to have a full fuel load when they enter combat.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2006, 11:24
by 42
RoAF wrote:
It is known that Su-30s, when loaded with total fuel load are a little more maneuverable than the Starfighters.

Not a Su fanatic here, but most combat planes manouver like an elephant when fully loaded with fuel and stores.
Also, contrary to western jets Su-30s do not carry external tanks, so you'd expect them not to have a full fuel load when they enter combat.
Think twice RoAF.You just said that SU30s don't have a maximum fuel load,because they don't carry external fuel tanks.OK.Viper's max.speed is 2+ Mach.My Cessna doesn't have a maximum speed because it will be all over the place if it flies faster than 120 knots.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2006, 13:23
by RoAF
42, I didn't quite understand what you are trying to say. Please explain further.

I was saying that if a Su-30 takes off with a full fuel load, by the time it reaches the "enemy" some of the fuel is consumed, so it's more maneuvrable.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2006, 14:41
by 42
[url]Also, contrary to western jets Su-30s do not carry external tanks, so you'd expect them not to have a full fuel load when they enter combat.[/url]OK now it's clear.But still,the fact that they can't carry fuel tanks is of no impotance...Fighters that carry them could jettisson them if they need to...In addition,Falcons can even dogfight with full fuel load and A-A loadout<Greek falcons do it everyday,since we are in love with our neighbours from the east>...Su-30 with full fuel load would fight the way astarfighter would...

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2006, 07:36
by danhutmacher
Has any one noticed that the press hasn't reported on Cope India 2005 when F-16s with AWACs took on the IAF?

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2006, 19:50
by Grounded1971
danhutmacher wrote:Has any one noticed that the press hasn't reported on Cope India 2005 when F-16s with AWACs took on the IAF?


Some accounts of the event do seem very ill-informed but there was plenty of press coverage:

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/nov/17us.htm

(Ok so he can spell AWACS but thinks the F-15 is a Tomcat! Curious).

Other reports make it clear that there were mixed formations:

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=58513

Of course Stars & Stripes refuses to elaborate much on anything:

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sec ... chive=true

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2006, 09:18
by danhutmacher
hey grounded1971 thanks for the links. Judging from the articles I would say that the F-16s did much better than the F-15s in 2004. Although I still have not heard much about the results.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2007, 11:23
by falcon_sgd
can anybody tell us about the 100%correct results?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2007, 23:27
by Cad
the pilots...

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2007, 10:29
by falcon_sgd
have SU-30s any combat record or its superiority is just based on fiction?we all know that F-16s have goood record

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2007, 19:24
by Cad
the best combat record is allways no combat record... :D

RE: Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2007, 00:29
by F16wedge
No USAF block 50's have a V-9 radar or C-7 capability.

RE: Re: RE: F-16(blk 50/52) Vs SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder Three

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2007, 10:21
by Pilotasso
...none of wich would make too much of a difference compared to V-5 or C5 anyway. They are basicaly improvements not entirely new hardware.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2008, 22:59
by Aks_20
avon1944 wrote:
Aks_20 wrote:IAF has no Micas or even simulated them, Av Leak screwed up

You are incorrect! According to Janes Book of Aircraft 2004/2005 also credits the Indian AF having MICAs for the M-2000. So, the Su-30s had simulated AA-12s and only the F-15s did have SARH missiles -a generic Sparrow Missile.


For crying out loud, Janes is just gassing. I invite you to show me one operational Mica round in the IAF at present. The IAF Mirages have RDM's not RDYs as well.

The USAF practices the usage of its technical advantage in BVR, so limiting them virtually to WVR combat, hurts them badly. The F-15s were the only aircraft to not have HMDS. The Bisons and Su-30MKs also had HMDS. What would you expect the results to be.


Nobody restricted the USAF from employing slammers. It was their hubris which let them down. They came to India expecting a third world AF unable to employ modern BVR tactics and got surprised. Second, the USAF birds also had HMDS per what I remember. They didnt have AESA but their APG-63s were far better than all the IAFs fighter radars - the MKIs didnt take part.

Another thing that was stated in another AW&ST article was that after the exercise explained in the 10/04/04, there were exchange rides. The USAF spokesperson stated the USAF piloted Su-30MKs consistently won against F-15Cs flown by USAF pilots. Now, was this real or some artificial aerial contest, I don't know.


This was a simulation done internally. Doubt whether the USAF got a detailed look at the MKIs performance.

In addition to the USAF spokesperson stating the sucess of the Su-30's, this was echoed by congressman Cunningham discussing the results during a congressional session in the summer of 2004.

Adrian


$$$$$

RE: Re: RE: F-16 (blk 50/52) versus SU-30MKI - Cope Thunder

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2008, 21:20
by blain2
USAF at CI05 did not have JHMCS on the Vipers.

You are right that IAF does not have MICA. They do have Matra Supr530Ds though.

The MKI did take part in some of the DACT missions. This was stated by the USAF F-16 pilot who actually went to CI05. Mods here know that his posts were later on removed due to obvious reasons.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-16 (blk 50/52) versus SU-30MKI - Cope Thu

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2008, 23:09
by Aks_20
blain2 wrote:USAF at CI05 did not have JHMCS on the Vipers.


Again - dont mix up events. The F-15s that came did have JMHCS- which is what I referred to. And the RSAF Vipers that came to India had HMDs as well.

You are right that IAF does not have MICA. They do have Matra Supr530Ds though.


Which is as limited, in fact more so than the Sparrow!

The MKI did take part in some of the DACT missions. This was stated by the USAF F-16 pilot who actually went to CI05. Mods here know that his posts were later on removed due to obvious reasons.


Again, I was referring to Cope 1 and not Cope 2! And in Cope 2, the MKI DACT was window dressing to be honest, it was only WVR, with limited TVC.

But the USAF got a better deal than the Brits did, recently - they got to see almost nothing!! In India though, it was a better exercise- with MKIs in WVR and BVR, though with restricted modes vs Tornado F3s + AWACs.

And the RSAF got the most thorough workover - good experience to learn from about the MKMs- no doubt played a serious role in their decision to go for heavy fighters and not more F-16s with the F-15SG.

Ten engagements vs the MKIs BVR & WVR - the Vipers lost each one. But to the RSAFs credit, they ran even with the MiG-29s (though the MiGs in IAF service are non upgraded vs the latest available & only now has an upgrade deal been signed) and they did quite well against the Bisons, in fact winning the bulk of the duels.

While the IAF was justifiably happy about the MKI performance, they were perplexed about why the Bisons- which did well in CI-1 & CI-2 against F-15s and Vipers, didnt do equally well vs the RSAF.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2009, 03:54
by avon1944
Concerning the comments about the InAF wanted mainly WVR engagements, I recently read that the InAF wanted the 12:4/3:1 odds in air combat because they felt these are the sort of numbers they would see in a conflict with Pakistan!