Su-27 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 17:54
by KarimAbdoun
Another classic Russian-American comparison, 2 of the best fighters to be used during dogfights and interseptions each could be modified to do a variety of missions, at least one of them does.

Add your suggestions

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 18:12
by SwedgeII
Well, I think the Su-27 is better then the F-15 and I think the F-15 is better then the F-16 sooooo The big draw back to the Su-27 is its a huge fricken aircraft, big target. I wonder how well the IRST works on that baby? It could use the IRST and wait for tell somebody turns on a radar and gives them selves away. Radar is a double edged sword, you turn yours on and you give your self away!!! Like shooting tracers… I was wondering about that on the F-22, it must rely heavily on AWACS for vectoring, cause as soon as it fires up its radar, its shouting hear I am stealthy or not!!! The F-16 being much smaller has an advantage in the stealth dept, but that goes away if it turns on its radar to search. And the SU-27 does have better radar. Bigger is always better for radar!!! But on a 1 v 1 with NO outside help the Su has the edge. A better match up is the SU-27 vs F-15… IMHO

Su-27 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 18:39
by Wildcat
Even in BVR combat, the F-16 has advantages over the original Su-27:
1) The aperture of the Su-27 radar is only 60° horizontal and 10° vertical (compared to 120° horizontal for a F-16). It is better than the MiG-29 50° horizontal, but the F-16 radars till provides better situation awareness, though it is less powerful than the big Su-27 radar.
2) The main BVR weapon of the Su-27 is still the R-27, which has not proved to be a very effective missile (Elp should be there to say it :D ). Moreover the R-77 is still unproven as a real-world weapon, and it seems that it has not yet been largely fielded.

Anyway, I wonder if these comparisons between aircraft are really useful. Saying one is better than another does not often make sense: a good aircraft is the one that enables its pilot (knowing the strengths and weaknesses of his/her plane) to win.
For example, the Hornet is good at low speed and high AoA maneuvers, whereas the Eagle is the king a brute thrust and acceleration. So in a dogfight between a Hornet and an Eagle, each pilot would try to get to the situation in which he/she can use the best of its aircraft.
What is paramount is to have well-trained pilots who know how to use the qualities of their jets, THAT has made the difference in the history of air combat.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 19:41
by SwedgeII
any truth to the rumor that the S-27's tail cone contains a small Radar for a rear firing missile

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 20:11
by elp
Problem now is you have Chinese made Su27s which at first had some QC issues but now expect them to be much better off. Also not just the Chinese R77 but some other active BVR missile they have ( indiginous ) that should work. So If you are talking old SU-27, It is no secret I don't like early R-27s. Now though it is getting kinda scary. Newer R-27s might actually work. If the R77 works as advertised it could be a problem. I am very hard on the Ru AF. People issues are what help make an AF work and in the case of the Ru AF, they have people issues with hair on it, so I don't know how consistant you are going to get their gear to work all the time.

WVR I would still pick the F-16. Hard to keep a tally on an F-16 when it is A: small and B: Your rear SU-27 visibility sux. The opposite for an F-16. WVR you will see the SU first. most likely keep a tally on it and your rearward vis is outstanding. Recent history has shown ( http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_278.shtml excerpt below ) that you can still have some deadly WVR jets on both sides show up against each other, and the one that sees the other guy first will get the kill.

The Knife Fight

By September 2001, the situation detoriated further, especially so after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, which made both the SyAAF and the IDF/AF extremely nervous. Exactly this provoked the so far heaviest incident in the recent history of Syrian-Israeli aerial clashes.

On 14 September 2001, an IDF/AF Boeing 707, equipped for SIGINT-reconnaissance, was on a mission along the Lebanese and Syrian coast, collecting Syrian defense informations, monitoring foremost telecommunications and radar tags in the Tarabulus (Tripolis) and Hamidiyali areas. The plane was underway at 520 knots and 30.000ft, and escorted by two F-15Cs, at least one of which carried the newest Python Mk.IV air-to-air missiles.

The IDF/AF flew similar missions in the area at least twice a week for quite some time, and – as usually – the SyAAF scrambled two interceptors to shadow the “ferret”: the Syrians would always monitor the operations of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft, sending either MiG-23s from Abu ad-Duhor AB, or – less often – MiG-29s from Tsaykal, forward deployed at al-Ladhiqiyah, would get the honor to fly such missions over the Mediterranean Sea. So far, the Syrians have always taken care to stay at least some 20 kilometers away from Israeli planes, and never showed any interest in attacking the Israelis.

But, on this day, at 0914hrs, the two MiG-29s sent to shadow the Boeing 707 suddenly turned towards the Israeli aircraft and increased their speed. For the pilots of the two Israeli F-15s in escort this was not only surprising, but also an obviously aggressive maneuver. Due to the short range, there was no time to ask questions: the MiGs turned towards the Israeli planes in aggressive manner, and could open fire any moment.

The leader of the F-15-pair ordered the Boeing to instantly distance from the area and engage ECM systems, and then called his ground control for help and reinforcements (as a result of this call, six more F-15s and six F-16s were scrambled, along a single Boeing 707 tanker). Moment later, he warned the Syrian MiG-29 pilots on the international distress frequency to change their course. As the MiGs failed to response, the Eagles moved into attack.

One of the F-15s attacked the lead Syrian MiG-29 from above, closing directly out of the rising sun, and launching a single Python Mk.IV from an off-boresight angle of 40 degrees. The missile guided properly and hit the MiG above the left wing, immediately setting it afire.

The other MiG-29 banked hard right, apparently heading back to Syria, but it was too late, as the second F-15 was already too close: the pilot launched a single AIM-9M Sidewinder from a range of only 500 meters. The missile slammed into the target, crashing it into the sea.

Both Syrian pilots, Maj. Arshad Midhat Mubarak, and Capt. Ahmad al-Khatab, ejected safely and were recovered by Syrian ships. The names of the involved Israeli F-15-pilots remain unknown.


Other: Most Su-27s have an incomplete AWACs or nonexistant AWACs helping them. When you do something like this, you have to consider who has better support team members also.

IRST is cool. IRST was originally designed as a silent attack. GCI or what ever would get you into position ( obviously with your radar off ) and you could use the IRST to aquire the target once you got into range so as to position yourself. ( good for intercepting bombers ) IRST depends a lot on atmospherics / weather etc. Don't look at an IRST range figure and assume that that range is always "as printed", and don't expect the atmospherics to always cooperate with it's usefulness. I guess it is useful or they wouldn't put it on there. Just don't look at a range figure on the thing ( example 30km ) and assume that is a real number - every day - all the time.

The SU as mentioned is fast and has fuel. This means that assuming it has Situational Awareness, it can chose how it wants to engage and / or draw out the opposition. The F-16 has a little of this ability but not much. Depends on the scenarios- SU defending or offending? F-16 defending or offending? Try not to use a USAF comparison because an opponent in that situation will get sensory overload and / or denial from a wave of different manned.... and unmanned platforms before it even sees an F-16, assuming it's airfield didn't already eat a wave of GBU-31, JDAMs.

Unread postPosted: 20 Mar 2004, 20:36
by KarimAbdoun
Other: Most Su-27s have an incomplete AWACs or nonexistant AWACs helping them. When you do something like this, you have to consider who has better support team members also.


According to an article in AFM, air forces monthly, I quote" The Soviet Air Defense Forces were to a system of ground-controlled interception which removed decision-making from the cockpit and put it in the hands of those on the ground. This slowly changed around the same time the Su-27 Flanker entered service." and there is a picture of 2 Su-27s escourting an A-50 Mainstay AWACS

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2004, 04:57
by elp
Yeah and if I am not mistaken early A-50s had such computer problems that they were effectively a sensor with a datalink to a ground station to process the information. That is always the problem with sensor jets like AWACS, JSTARS etc. Getting all the onboard processing power to sing in tune. Thats why India went for an Israeli solution for their AWACs sensor / computer processing setup. Those A-50 pics do make for a nice photo anyway.

We have been using AWACs operationaly for over 30 years in high ops tempo environments. Decide which system is more useable when the shooting starts for yourself. The other end of that to is that a A-50 / SU-27 setup would be fighting a force famous for using SIGINT effectively to compromise whole familys of Ru Tech datalinks and GCI.

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2004, 16:04
by KarimAbdoun
Let's look at it in another approach, Su-27-35-37-33(derivatives)vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 20 May 2004, 17:48
by elp
Certainly you have to think SU-30.... as that is being fielded now/today. SU-35-37 so far have ended up just being demo birds.

SU-30. Well my first thought is that there are several versions of this jet. Add to that the $$$ needed to get all the weapons certified on it where you can declare it combat ready.

I am all for long range BVR missiles. Thing is though to quote a friend of mine: OSW/ONW has shown us that the farther away you shoot..... the more you miss. ( O.T. an advantage of F-22 is that it can get into a resonable range and get a good PK with AIM120 ) . Most Iran/Iraq war AIM-54 Phoenix kills were against an opponent who had lousy or non-existant threat warning. They never had a chance and were not much more than range drones. An AIM-54 ain't to fast far out, and I doubt that the R77 has much energy way way out based on it's over-hyped range.

So anyway, think about that. Ru-tech BVR doesn't do anything for me. Show me... not a paper diagram with a chart showing a missiles parameters... looks real pretty, but can it fight?

The big SU is ... well... big.... An F-16 can be hard to see WVR, not so with something as big as a SU-3x and that big frame means IMHO that you, the F-16 user, are going to see it first not only WVR, but on radar, far ... far away.

The air to ground stuff again still has a long way to go. The gold standard for combat utiltiy/usefulness/Swiss Army Knife/Versatility is the F-16 Block 5x jet with both fancy HARM ability AND the latest software upgrades, gizmos to do modern PGMs ..... and the wonderful SNIPER pod. I don't just look at A2A, I look at the whole system. Call me when the SU-3x can do near all weather bombing on the cheap.

Again, as for the big SU's performance, it has it, but my other comment is: "Boy... dem big SU's with just a dinky bit of internal fuel in dem, sure dooo put on a fine airshow demo." Also things like the "Cobra" = strafe target. An AIM-9x will stomp that airshow trick stuff out in about 4 or 5 seconds. WVR will become a bloodbath if both sides have high-off-bore-sight heaters. Having said that, not too long after 911, 2 IDF F-15s chopped down 2 Syrian MiG-29s in WVR. They never saw them until it was too late. All the fancy tech is great but in that example.... blah blah blah.... :D

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 02:31
by MiG21bisHZS
KarimAbdoun wrote:Let's look at it in another approach, Su-27-35-37-33(derivatives)vs F-16


There is no Su-37 anymore.The only Su-37 crashed and Russia has not built one since.The Russians are gonna go ahead with the S-37( Su-34 ) Golden Eagle project.

The Su-27/30/33/35 models are better than the F-16.The F-16 Block 50/52 is the only one that puts up a challenge.

USA and India held A2A exercises and the Su-30MKI prooved very leethal to any USA Aircraft.

Someone said earlier that F-16 can beat an Su-27 (An early model) :roll: .. well u r wrong.An F-16 tangles with a pure Cold War Killer it will lose.The Su-27 is built for Speed and extreme manouverability.The F-16 cannot match the Su-27/30/33/35 T2W Ratio and it certainly is not capable of killing it.The Flankers can do souch manouvers like the Cobra ( Puts you 6 o'clock on the plane chasing you), Hook Manouver.This aircraft beats the F-15C, the USA's primary Interceptor.

People, you should do your research befor starting a thread about how a short-medium range fighter can defeat a supermanoeuverable long range fighter/interceptor.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 04:04
by habu2
Spoken like someone who has flown and fought in a real SU-27 no doubt... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 04:12
by MiG21bisHZS
Well who says I haven't :wink: !

I'm only kidding. I only flew in a MiG-21.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 21:36
by Pumpkin
hi MiG21bisHZS, the news on the only 37 is something new to me. Certainly one interesting subject for a careful research.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:The Su-27/30/33/35 models are better than the F-16.The F-16 Block 50/52 is the only one that puts up a challenge.


The Block 50/52 was highly mentioned here (was mentioned once in the Fulcrum comparsion thread). And you emphasized it is THE only block that is able to put up a challenge.

I stand to be corrected. I am under the impression, the 40/42 differs the 50/52 counterparts in the capability to carry the HARM. Perhaps a slight difference in the variant of the FCR. (V5) vs (V9)?

Appreciate if you can share your research with us, what are the qualities of the 50/52, that stand out from the 40/42, to have earned the respect in the comparsion against the Flanker family.

Thanks,

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:32
by MiG21bisHZS
Exactly how to give a good chalange in A2G mode.... the Su-27 is not good in A2G combat at all..... it was made for the long range interception

Now the Su-30 vs the F-16 Block 50 in A2G mode is a bit of a pickle to explain....

Su-30K - A ground attack version of Su-27UB(compatible to F-16C/D)
Su-30MK - Used by Russia and India.. I dont know much about this variant
Su-30MKK - Used by Russia and China, this aircraft has all kinds of capabilities as the F-16(any type)
Su-30MK2 - Used By China .... it has good ground attack capabilities but not a lot of info on it.
Su-30MKI - The best aircraft in service today( has radar so powerful it is refered to as the Mini-AWACS in the RuAF )

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:37
by MiG21bisHZS
SwedgeII wrote:any truth to the rumor that the S-27's tail cone contains a small Radar for a rear firing missile


Yes thats true.... it is used for 360 degree coverage of the aircrafts surroundings.. limit is 40 miles.

Also use to fire AA-11B A backfire version of the Original AA-11A... it fires backwards.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 02:22
by elp
Unfortunately Even the "New" M2 version of the MiG-29 can compare to a Block 4x or 5x F-16. Nor does any SU-3x. Although someday the Indians might get smart and put a real laser pod on it ( LITENING ) That still leaves you without cheap all weather PGMs. So good luck on that.

About F-16 performance. Well like I said the big SU is a threat, with the stress on it being BIG. R-77 ( AA-12 ) to some of you is unproven. AMRAAM on the other hand.... has a combat record. So if you even make it into WVR, after eating that, you still have that size thing again. SU is big F-16 is small. Who do you think will Tally first? hint hint. Hopefully environmental conditions allow for that IRTS to work. You'll need it. AIM-9x will be operational soon so any HOBS helmet heater combo there is a moot point. You can do airshow moves all you want, you'll just be dead.

What I would suggest is that because the FLANKER has some speed and gas that it stands off and avoids WVR. If you want to close in to AMRAAM and later HOBS AIM-9X range, go ahead, but you will give up any advantage you had by standing off.

Cobra = Strafe target, but go ahead and try it. Fortunately FLANKER has a nice ejection seat.

Big SU is a threat. I'd hate to pay the check for it's sustainment every year though. And I'm spoiled. If it can't do a J-Weapon for A2G, I don't really want to see it.

Cylon has some cool photos of a MiG28 over the Indian Ocean. He was with it in an inverted dive. But he can't show them. Restricted and all. Plus I think you can see his middle finger in the foreground of one of his photos. ( Gums did call him a prevert the other day ). Figures.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 05:44
by parrothead
Su-30MKI - The best aircraft in service today( has radar so powerful it is refered to as the Mini-AWACS in the RuAF )


Am I wrong, or does that powerful of a radar on a fighter just scream "HERE I AM!!!" these days? Call me crazy, but I would much rather have a real AWACS give me the info so I don't have to transmit myself. Remember, an enemy can detect your radar before your radar can detect him.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 09:52
by elp
MiG21bisHZS wrote:
Su-30K - A ground attack version of Su-27UB(compatible to F-16C/D)
Su-30MK - Used by Russia and India.. I dont know much about this variant
Su-30MKK - Used by Russia and China, this aircraft has all kinds of capabilities as the F-16(any type)
Su-30MK2 - Used By China .... it has good ground attack capabilities but not a lot of info on it.
Su-30MKI - The best aircraft in service today( has radar so powerful it is refered to as the Mini-AWACS in the RuAF )


Again this is a dream to think that the ground attack abilities can match an F-16.

Even an F-16 with both LANTIRN pods like a BLOCK 4x has full blown night attack ability with PGMs. ...... AND THAT IS OLD technology.

Take a Block-5x and SNIPER-XR and an NVG ( Night Vision Goggle ) jet and and NVG trained pilot. Add to that its ability to do J weapons like JDAM, and guess what? The best a SU-3x could pull off today would be an Allied Force 1999 style of scenario with LGBs or Optical bombs. And this is why I mentioned Allied Force 1999. ( which tech wise might as well have been 20 years ago the way we fight today) You show up with your SU-3x and optical / LGB bombs and guess what? If the target is clouded over by weather... you go home with the bombs still on your racks.

F-16 in USAF service doesn't suffer that problem. And with SU-3x you probably don't have enough $$$ to fire some of those magic bullet A2G missiles for more than a day or so. Good luck. The GLONASS assisted version of the KAB-500 PGM ? Good luck there. No secure topology for a very limited satellite network. Maybe another 10 years. China and India will probably beat Russia to that. I would recommend that India go with the French AASM. One version of that can INS bomb and not need GPS assist. Better than nothing.

Right now for PGM versatility, the SU-3x can't even compete with a JDAM capable, LITENING pod equiped, NVG mod'ed, NVG trained crew, USAF Reserve Block 3x. This setup can all weather bomb and is part of an existing netcentric procedure and method of fighting. By the time SU-3x catches up to that, we will have moved on to something else.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 16:25
by elp
Add to that: in a sales enviornment where the customer has the $$$ , They go with something Like an F-15E or F-16 because it is a complete combat system able to do all things well. Not a jet like the SU-3x trying to play catch up to our 80's air-to-ground tech and then still has some kind of issue that just doesn't smell good when the deal is presented. To assume that a SU-35 could do all the diverse types of missions an F-15K could in the Korea deal is complete fantasy.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 17:39
by habu2
As for visual tallies due to size differences, every Su-27 (and MiG-29) I have seen in flight smoked like J79s in an old F-4 Phantom. The smoke trail was easy to spot, and led right to the jet...

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 19:07
by lamoey
What is the warmup/lineup time of all these new smart bubs relying on inertial guidance like the french AASM? I'm way out of date here, but I can imagine that you need to fire it up way in advance to get it to go where you want?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 21:28
by elp
Warm up time for the INS on the weapon hanging on the jet? Don't know. I have some excellent educated guesses but maybe an ammo troop could answer that so you get the correct answer, unless it is restricted info.... ? Might vary by weapon also. I heard the AASM has been delayed another year but that is second hand info at least, so I don't know if it is true. They were supposed to get all the drops done on it this year and have it ready sometime in 2005.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 22:35
by viper31
MiG21bisHZS wrote:
SwedgeII wrote:any truth to the rumor that the S-27's tail cone contains a small Radar for a rear firing missile


Yes thats true.... it is used for 360 degree coverage of the aircrafts surroundings.. limit is 40 miles.

Also use to fire AA-11B A backfire version of the Original AA-11A... it fires backwards.



Thought this wasn't true. The SU-27 tail cone contains a break parachute, nothing else. There are versions (two-seater, pilots next to eachother => SU-32/34) where you clearly see a larger tail cone than the one that can be found on SU-27 series. An Su-27 simply doesn't have the space to put a back-looking radar. I remember reading that is was being tested on the SU-32/34 series, but don't know if this can be used in real combat.

When speaking about F-16 vs Flanker variant, my 'guess' is (assuming pilot skills are equal,... ) Flanker will win the fight. Doesn't the Flanker have better long range capability and also in dogfight the helmet cued system (srr if spelled wrong) , So the pilot just has to look and lock , manouver a bit and shoot a short range missile.(R-73)

The only 'fighter-experience' I have is from the lock on combat simulation. Probably nothing like the real thing, but I really think it gives you an image of how things work a bit. And flying against SU 27/SU33 series is really hard, those long range missiles do work, in the game of course, dont know nothing about real life

Greetz, Benjamin :wink:

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2004, 03:00
by DEX
I think it is unlikely that the forward looking radar would have an azimuth field coverage of 180 degrees. Azimuth field value is usually less than that, so even if there were a rear facing radar, it still probably wouldn't mean 360 degree coverage. The forward facing radar would cover a certain width and the rear facing radar a certain width.

Anyone have a more educated response regarding this aspect of the radar? Are there 27s with AESA? If they have AESA microwaves then the need to mechanically move the radar is eliminted. In this case, perhaps they do in fact have this coverage?


- Dex

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2004, 05:03
by elp
viper31 wrote:

When speaking about F-16 vs Flanker variant, my 'guess' is (assuming pilot skills are equal,... ) Flanker will win the fight. Doesn't the Flanker have better long range capability and also in dogfight the helmet cued system (srr if spelled wrong) , So the pilot just has to look and lock , manouver a bit and shoot a short range missile.(R-73)




And it was the SU-27 that dominated the MiG-29 in Ethiopea v Eritrea, in close in work, an area the Mig-29 is supposed to be really good at ;) .

I am a simplton. I break down the R-73 ( AA-11 ) into two broad areas. Old ones and new ones. Old ones have less of a HOBs Helmet engagement zone. ( still way better than nothing ). The newer setup ( like what India ?? ) has, is a wider engagement zone.

Right now no F-16 in USAF service has a HOBS_Helmet_Heater setup. That is going to change very soon with the AIM-9x.

Places like IDF have a nice Python HOBS setup on their F-16s.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2004, 23:30
by KarimAbdoun
Unfortunately Even the "New" M2 version of the MiG-29 can compare to a Block 4x or 5x F-16.

How about the newest version the SMT?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2004, 18:01
by nico01a
Hey elp you seem to be a specialist and awfully sure about what you all say about the Su-3x, do you fly it?

And you may just have the finest little gadgets in the world on your fighter with the most expensive lantirn pods and the most cash available to your military to go and make war ... wauw ... ever considered that the world is not all about that?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2004, 05:48
by Lawman
nico01a wrote:Hey elp you seem to be a specialist and awfully sure about what you all say about the Su-3x, do you fly it?

And you may just have the finest little gadgets in the world on your fighter with the most expensive lantirn pods and the most cash available to your military to go and make war ... wauw ... ever considered that the world is not all about that?


Its not cost effective to have an aircraft without the system to back it up. Spending millions of dollors on the weapons transportation to target means nothing if you cant 1. Avoid Enemy Defences (AWACS) 2. ID the target (Sniper/Lantirn/ATFLIR) 3. Destroy the target without tasking multiple aircraft to make up for weapon innaccuracy (PGM).

No Russian Aircraft has ever demonstrated an actual ability to do effective coordinated Strike Missions against a capable defence system. The conflicts over Isreal in the last half century would be a great example. The Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, had the planes to do it but never pulled it off. Why because striking targets isnt as simple as just telling pilots fly to here, drop on what you see. You have to be flexible enough to deal with any change in the battlefield, and have to know whats going on outside of your individual cockpit. On the other hand Western capabilities have been increasing exponentially in the last 35 years with the mentality of building smarter weapons. Individual Strike Packages, operating with command and control can destroy multiple targets from a single aircraft. Indiviual Weapons can destroy multiple targets using sensor fused technology. Just cause you have a great airshow plane doesnt mean your ready to take it to war.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2004, 08:43
by elp
nico01a wrote:Hey elp you seem to be a specialist and awfully sure about what you all say about the Su-3x, do you fly it?

And you may just have the finest little gadgets in the world on your fighter with the most expensive lantirn pods and the most cash available to your military to go and make war ... wauw ... ever considered that the world is not all about that?


We are doing a comparison: FACT: there are no cheap all weather dumb iron kits for the SU-27, 3x to do all weather bombing. If you can prove to me the GLONASS version of the KAB-500 has been fielded ( and not just a PDF file ) ..... So anyway.. Tossing PGMs with the Ru Tech birds has approached maybe the way we did things in the early-90s.. And we havent even begun to address the method of fragging targets in a timely manner which I doubt the command and control support is there for that either, so good luck on that too. Hope you like fair weather or clear night bombing, because that is all you are going to do, unless you want to use a bunch of sorties for one target in not so good weather. We are long past that. This means Ru tech is not in the targets per sortie club ( in any weather with a cheap PGM ) like an F-16 or F-18SH.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jul 2004, 22:01
by Pumpkin
Great discussion, guys. You guys sound right. I am no expert in the subject. I personally like both the Flanker and the Viper. Revert to habu2's comment on such X vs Y thread, I guess we can never achieved a conclusive if not unbiased studies, comparing 2 platforms, as air operations are really fighting as a networked arm these days. Not forgetting the many intangible factors.

Thus far, no real case case studies (Flanker vs Viper) can conclude our debates here. I am afraid, even if there is any, it is only good enough to conclude that particular scenario. Lesson can nonetheless, be learned from combined air exercises.

I am satisfied with the findings from Cope India 2004. Understand you guys have some theories about that exercise. To name a few, we have the F-22 bid and the exercise setup. Pretty much covered in the other thread here.

For the record, I would like to make an unbiased note. I feel the Flanker, particularly IAF Su-30MKI/MK, should be deemed as one of the most respectable adversay against the Viper. I hope any well trained, humble Viper pilot can always treat the Flanker with utmost respect, to survive the fight and live to meet another Russian-made adversay.

just my 2 cent, :)

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2004, 04:13
by elp
Pumpkin wrote:Great discussion, guys. You guys sound right. I am no expert in the subject. I personally like both the Flanker and the Viper. Revert to habu2's comment on such X vs Y thread, I guess we can never achieved a conclusive if not unbiased studies, comparing 2 platforms, as air operations are really fighting as a networked arm these days. Not forgetting the many intangible factors.

Thus far, no real case case studies (Flanker vs Viper) can conclude our debates here. I am afraid, even if there is any, it is only good enough to conclude that particular scenario. Lesson can nonetheless, be learned from combined air exercises.

I am satisfied with the findings from Cope India 2004. Understand you guys have some theories about that exercise. To name a few, we have the F-22 bid and the exercise setup. Pretty much covered in the other thread here.

For the record, I would like to make an unbiased note. I feel the Flanker, particularly IAF Su-30MKI/MK, should be deemed as one of the most respectable adversay against the Viper. I hope any well trained, humble Viper pilot can always treat the Flanker with utmost respect, to survive the fight and live to meet another Russian-made adversay.

just my 2 cent, :)


OT.... Cope India was their few SU-30K models... basically a two seater SU-27 with air refueling ability LOL ( Flanker "C" for yous that like the NATO code name ( cant stand NATO code names, not very descriptive ) . That means nothing more than the mediocre R-27 SARH ( AA-10 ) and HOBS R-73 (AA-11 ) . K is an A2A jet only. Certainly a threat jet, but nothing near what India will have soon. I'll take an AMRAAM F-16 v that.

The real threat is when India gets their MKI ( FLANKER "H" ) jets sorted out to where they are happy. You can count on a much more high threat jet ( think R77 (AA-12 ) Active Radar Homers... Better avionics ( thanks France and Israel LOL ) ( GPS/INS all kinds of cool stuff. And a real abiliy to do some A2G. That is when the fun exercises will start. India is famous for mixing east and west tech. So maybe we will see a LITENING pod on an MKI some day. :o

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2004, 05:23
by SPIKE
The SU 27 will slaughter the F-16 in a one on one.That is if the the pilot is a good one.The 2004 CO COPE in India,proved as a huge shock to us in air to air combat. The "F-15"s did almost poorly against the Su-27, 30, 33B. The Indian pilots are the sh*t.They took out Fighter School graduates in their sorties. So the new Sukhois are definitely the sh*t now. They are the biggest threats for us now. They also have extremely serious radars,and missiles.

Now we are not the kings of the skies anymore, the enemies are kreeping up on us.Thank God for the F-22.

Ciao

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2004, 12:43
by Pumpkin
SPIKE, I guess the experience gained from Cope India 2004 is for the good course. IMO, the Flanker families are respectable, not formiable, let alone invincible. I will go with elp's sentiment. The Viper will be more than capable to put up a fight.

And pardon me, I am not sure I follow your language. :shock:

SPIKE wrote:The Indian pilots are the sh*t.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2004, 19:25
by habu2
Who are these all-knowing newbies that spew this Su-27 Superiority sh*t??? Hmmm???

The Su-27 is '80s technology at best. F-16s have been continually upgraded during their service life, I don't think you can say the same for the Su-27s still in service.

A big part of being a good fighter pilot is being able to maintain proficiency, and that means flying a lot of hours and practicing ACM. You don't get that flying maybe 40 hrs a YEAR like most Su-27 operators. They don't have the money for upgrades, they don't have the money for maintenance, they don't have the money for fuel, and they don't have the money for pilot (and maintainer) salaries. Given that, where are you going to find a good Su-27 pilot AND a good Su-27????

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2004, 20:48
by elp
SPIKE wrote:The "F-15"s did almost poorly against the Su-27, 30, 33B.
Ciao


The only Big SU they went against were some of the very first SU-30s India received- SU-30K's ( A2a only jet ) Which is really just a two seat SU-27 with aireal refueling. NO active BVR, just Semi-Active BVR. They don't have any SU-33B's. I know games like LoMAC are fun but you really need to learn your SU-27 SU-3x varients chapter and verse before you talk about them.

The big SUs are a threat jet for sure. And the Indians are a good air force. Might want to look at these threads for a dose of reality re: Cope India,,,,

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1194.html

and

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 5749#15749

Also the F-15s were out numbered 2 to 2.5 to 1 in a lot of scenaros. Including the Bison ( a modified MiG-21 ) That has BVR ability.

So far most of the press accounts are hype. That hasn't stopped USAF from running to congress to lead the clues there how the big bad plain jane K model SU-30 beat up on them.

Vs. a K model with the crap R-27 and nices HOBS R-73 (AA11) I would still take an F-15 with AMRAAM and AIM9x ( X wasnt at the exercise ).

So the answer is reality. It was an exercise ( with both sides not showing their best stuff ( we did not take the super F-15 AESA's from the 3FS, nor did we have AIM-9x. Just as India did not use the SU-30MKI.

And yeah an F-16 with AMRAAM is more than enough for the K model.

Once the Indians get the SU-30 MKI sorted out, then you have a REAL threat SU-30. R77 (AA12) and thrust vectoring, and better avionics. Nice thing is though, we aren't going to be fighting India. Just as Germany when they had the MiG-29 represented a worst case WVR scenerio with the MiG-29 ( MiG-29 with skilled pilots ) . So too does the SU-30K show that it can be a threat to deal with just on performance. India provided us big SU game experience so we can have an idea on how to deal with other Big SU users. Remember: HOBS heaters will be common for use soon. In the near future, You go WVR v an F-15, F-16 with HOBS AIM-9x, thrust vectoring and nice manuver ability, wont matter much. Both sides with HOBS heaters in WVR is like a bar fight where everyone has a shot gun, not very fun. Keep it real.

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2004, 23:49
by SPIKE
To all who I've offended I am deeply sorry. I was just a little to hot. The SU's are great jets, and so are the F-16s.

There are kick-ass Sukhoi pilots out there. For example Indian pilots average about 300 hours per year, compared to 275 hours for our pilots. And the Sukhois do get updated also. So to settle all the animosity: F-16 is still THE jet and its an awesome one.

And Habu2, I've got much love for you.

Oh, and I know my sh*t on the Sukhois. And yes, I'm a newbie, you are correct.

God bless.
Ciao comrades!

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2004, 16:58
by habu2
IMO it all comes down to "on any given day"... there are so many variables - pilot skill, weapons loadout, fuel state, initial aspect/positioning - that these F-16 vs XYZ threads are just so many electrons wasted. There is no definitive answer. For example the F-117 was supposed to be "invisible" but one got shot down anyway. Not the day before, nor the day after, but on that given day.... wham.

Taking all those variables out what I see is the Su has a big powerful radar but the Viper is a small target to acquire. The Viper has smaller radar but the Su is a huge target to paint. Those kind of factors tend to even out the comparison and it all ends up depending on those other variables I mentioned.

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2004, 17:20
by elp
No biggy SPIKE... and yes the SU is a cool jet. No way around that.

All this crap is so x-y-z fact and figure tech-no-geek that NONE of us can know everything on every single system. Add to that, I am WEAK on big SU ability compared to some of the fanatics out there.

O.T.

The Indian AF is going to do nothing but improve at the rate they are going, so it is a natural fit that the USAF and InAF hang out together and do exercises. There were some InAF guys here looking at the F-15 depot ops some months back. As you might know, InAF doesn't send all there Ru tech gear back to Russia to have it worked on. A lot of stuff like MiG-21 , 23, and 27 and 29 refirb ( what we would call PDM ( periodic depot maintenance ) work is done in country by their own aerospace industry. So yeah you could consider them the most likely AF to take the SU-3x series to the highest level of advancement.

Also think of all the BVR tech they had available in that exercise ( assuming BVR was scored ??? )

French Mirage 2000: 530 Super missile
MiG-21 Bison: R77 ( AA12 ) ( Gee... wonder why USAF pukes said it was the Bison they were most suprised by LOL... a freakin fire and forget active RH fire and forget missile on it ! )
MiG-29 and SU-30K - improved R27 ( AA-10 )

So thats 4 airframes with 3 different types of BVR missiles ( one Active RH ) which offers a depth of ability to weed through. Pretty good really. All that outnumbering the F-15.

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2004, 16:00
by MPJay
Well, there's pilot training as some have said previously, it makes a big difference when you have lots of seat time. Technically they're 2 very different aircraft, with differences in range, specific excess power, instantaneous and sustained turning performance. Close in i'd not want to be in a non JHMDS US fighter especially without the AIM-9X against any Flanker, if he can look at you he can kill you. IMO the F-16 has suffered for some time with the additional weight of systems developed since its inception, which impacts wing loading, thrust to weight ratios and range. The demise of the big wing F-16 concept puts a lot of strain on that little wing it has if its carrying more than just a token AA load, add a belly tank, EW pod, and other associated equipment to allow it to perform in a high threat environment and the turn rate and accel figures start to suffer. BVR it would be in some trouble even if the scan profile of the Russian radar isn't as good, it reaches out quite effectively, missile effectiveness is more of a nod to the Falcon though, the current AMRAAMs if you can get a shot off first have a lot of equalizing potential. You fight to your strengths and try to avoid getting into a situation where you're allowing the threat aircraft to enjoy its advantage.

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2004, 19:05
by Dammerung
An R-27 has a Slightly longer reach than the AIM-120, but it's only Semi Active. If the Su-27 pilot has his wits about him, he will get the first shot. Problem is, not only is the R-27 a BAD missile, the AMRAAM will go active anyway before the R-27 hits: That means, F-16 pilot can Turn Around, R-27 falls out of the Sky. Now, if the Su-27 fires a 2nd R-27(ER Version, one of the better versions), things get complicated, and the F-16 may have to do a Missile evasion: Actually, they both in all likely hood would, then there's wingmen to consider, eventually, it would probably end up in WVR Combat if it was a 4v2 F-16s, like with the Eagles at Cope India- The Su-27 is Pretty agile, but the F-16 is just as if not more agile- The Su-27 does have the R-73, which is a very good missile, but AIM-9X, is almost certainly better- question is what do the Russians have, if anything, that we don't know about? Sure, they're in the dump economy wise, but still... There are just too many factors to consider, but I still think the F-16 is the better aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2004, 19:31
by kneecaps
Heated thread! :D

I don't really think a pure head to head comparison of the Viper vs XYZ is fair....yes a lot of the russian stuff can out manuver the Viper. However thats not really the point, in a real word situation which platform has the overall advantage.

The Viper is the complete package, manoverabillity, good radar, good vis, top quality BVR missiles. When you compare that to a russian offering, what do you have going for it?... good maneuverabillity. That is only helpful if you manage to merge before getting splashed by the wall of Slammers coming at you!

Its about overall combat effectiveness not who can turn fastest in a synthetic knife fight.

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2004, 20:05
by elp
of course the thread name is SU-27 vs F-16. That means you could mention everything:

-Cost of ownership for 10, 15, 20 years.

-Superior air to ground ability of the F-16 etc.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 00:16
by RobertCook
SwedgeII wrote:Well, I think the Su-27 is better then the F-15 and I think the F-15 is better then the F-16 sooooo

So if rock beats scissors and scissors beats paper, then rock must certainly beat paper, right? :)

SwedgeII wrote:I was wondering about that on the F-22, it must rely heavily on AWACS for vectoring, cause as soon as it fires up its radar, its shouting hear I am stealthy or not!!!

Yeah, but if the F-22's target doesn't run away really fast, it's going to get an AMRAAM down the gullet. The main difference between the F-22 and other fighters is that it's extremely difficult to target. It's also not an F-117 or B-2--its goal is to destroy enemy aircraft, not necessarily to remain totally undetected. While the latter could certainly be helpful in achieving the former, either way enemy aircraft are still Raptor-meat. :twisted:

MiG21bisHZS wrote:There is no Su-37 anymore.The only Su-37 crashed and Russia has not built one since.The Russians are gonna go ahead with the S-37( Su-34 ) Golden Eagle project.

Would the Su-47 (not Su-34, which is something else) really offer improved capability over advanced Flankers?

MiG21bisHZS wrote:USA and India held A2A exercises and the Su-30MKI prooved very leethal to any USA Aircraft.

Well, the fact that the F-15s were heavily outnumbered and were restricted in BVR capability (e.g. short AMRAAM range) may have had some influence on the results....

MiG21bisHZS wrote:The F-16 cannot match the Su-27/30/33/35 T2W Ratio

This depends on the respective fuel states of the aircraft, but if you're talking generally about take-off thrust-to-weight ratios, then it depends on whether you actually add up all the numbers for the Flankers. For some reason, "normal" takeoff weights that are commonly listed for Flankers are substantially lower than empty weight + internal fuel (never mind weapons), which artificially inflates their raw performance specifications on paper.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:The Flankers can do souch manouvers like the Cobra ( Puts you 6 o'clock on the plane chasing you)

Note that this tactic only works when Tom Cruise does it, just like in Top Gun. :P

MiG21bisHZS wrote:Now the Su-30 vs the F-16 Block 50 in A2G mode is a bit of a pickle to explain....

Su-30K - A ground attack version of Su-27UB(compatible to F-16C/D)

Nope, the Su-30K is the export (that's what the "K" indicates) variant of the Su-30, and has upgraded avionics. You're apparently thinking of the Su-30M, which is the multirole variant of the Su-30.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:Su-30MK - Used by Russia and India.. I dont know much about this variant

This is the export variant of the multirole Su-30M. I'm not exactly sure how it differs from the Su-30M (perhaps it doesn't), although Sukhoi is beginning to use this name generically for all of the Su-30MK sub-variants. To the best of my knowledge, some of India's Su-30s are "Su-30MKs" that will be upgraded to Su-30MKIs.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:Su-30MKK - Used by Russia and China, this aircraft has all kinds of capabilities as the F-16(any type)

This is the China-specific (the second "K" is for China) variant of the Su-30MK. It apparently has the larger, fuel-bearing vertical tail of the Su-35.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:Su-30MK2 - Used By China .... it has good ground attack capabilities but not a lot of info on it.

These are minor variants of the Su-30MKK. They apparently have some small but necessary modifications in order to use certain laser-guided weapons and to attack ships. They are also being marketed to other countries, unlike the Su-30MKI, which is very specific to India and cannot be exported, due to foreign content.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:Su-30MKI - The best aircraft in service today

This is the India-specific variant of the Su-30MK. It has canards, the Su-37's limited thrust-vectoring system (AL-31FU), and extended rudders on Su-27-style vertical stabilizers (as opposed to the Su-30MKK's larger one). Its avionics are largely of western (mostly French) and indigenous designs and/or upgrades.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:( has radar so powerful it is refered to as the Mini-AWACS in the RuAF )

I thought that in Russia the "mini-AWACS" was the MiG-31, the interceptor of choice for air defense. Its capabilities seem to fit this role better. Sukhoi did try unsuccessfully to sell the original Su-30 to the Russian Air Force as a "mini-AWACS," though.

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2004, 00:47
by Occamsrasr
All these planes are close or similar in performance, and on any given day the variables will more than likely determine the outcome.

If I was an area commander in a war, I would rather have a squadron of F-4 E's with the hottest pilots on Earth that a bunch of factory fresh nuggets flying MiG-29's or SU-(insert number here) that only fly an hour or two a month. As long as these beasts need men then men will be the criteria that deteermine the outcomes.

But that's just my opinion.

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2004, 21:52
by Pumpkin
elp wrote:And it was the SU-27 that dominated the MiG-29 in Ethiopea v Eritrea, in close in work, an area the Mig-29 is supposed to be really good at ;) .


Was revisiting an article to the above mentioned. It is an amazing case study how the Ethiopian Su-27s have gained the total tupper hand in ALL the WVR combats (including a 4 vs 2 disadvantage) and shot down 3(?) Eritrean Mig-29 in separate encounters. Can't help but wonder will the Viper finds the same surprises, if they ever met in WVR :?

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2004, 19:38
by Pumpkin
IDF/AF F-16D intercepted a unarmed Russian Su-27K, intruding Israel airspace, in Jan 1996? :shock:

article here. (sorry guys, it is in Chinese.)

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2004, 19:52
by lamoey
Thats usefull. How many here can read it?

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2004, 19:24
by Pumpkin
lamoey wrote:Thats usefull. How many here can read it?


hi lamoey, there are 2 parts to the article. In the first part, the Chinese columnist extracted the article from IAF magazine and in the 2nd part, he provides his personal opinion. The following is a try on the translation (text in blue). I stand to be corrected on the translation. Alternatively, you can cut and paste some of the Chinese characters (拉马特·戴维) on google. It will returns alternate URL with translated text in English.

The following article is originated from Israel Air Force magazine.

27 January 1996, 15:00, 2 F-16D from 109 “Valley” squadron scrambled from Ramat-David Air Base, for Air Intercept mission after an intrusion alert was sounded.

The F-16Ds were vectored by ground C2 to intercept in the direction of Haifa. Radar contact indicated bogie’s altitude 1500 meter in the vicinity, east of Mediterranean Sea. 2 F-16Ds acquired visual at 15 miles (distance to target), and confirmed intruding aircraft was not armed with any air-to-air missile.

With the closing of the distance between the F-16s and the unidentified aircraft, Israel pilot confirmed it was a Russian-made Su-27. The F-16s continued to close in on the intruder (so close where the feature of the Flanker’s pilot was clearly visible), and the Israel pilot issued verbal warning using fluent Arabic. “You have violated Israel airspace! You’re to leave immediately.” Su-27 pilot appeared to have understood and headed in the west. The 2 F-16Ds returned to base shortly.

Shortly after the 2 interceptors have landed, intrusion alert sounded again. Unidentified aircraft was contacted violating the same area. Another pair of F-16Ds from 109 sqn was launched.

Radar contacted bogie, east of Haifa, heading south, in high speed. 2 F-16Ds approached the target as before. The intruder was again identified as Su-27 and unarmed. Unlike the first intercept, the 2 F-16Ds were armed with missile. Approximately, T-5sec, Su-27 changed course and headed west. With that, the F-16Ds aborted intercept and headed in the direction of Haifa. As the F-16Ds were flying toward Haifa, the Su-27 once again changed course and resumed intrusion path. F-16 pilot consulted C&C. With the instruction from C&C, the interceptors ignored the Su-27 and continued the flight path toward Haifa. A few minutes later, Su-27 changed course and headed west.

While the F-16Ds were about to return to base, upon the completion of combat air patrol, Air Defense radar again made contact of unidentified aircraft (25 mile, feet wet, altitude 5000 meter) approaching Israel. Once again, the F-16s turned to intercept at low altitude (300 meter).

Initial assessment concluded the unidentified aircraft was a Syrian Su-27 (not the same Flanker as per the previous encounters). However, upon a closer examination, the Viper pilot confirmed, the intruder was Russian Navy Su-27. To avoid any unnecessary, international incident, the Vipers broke stalemate and continued CAP in the North. Analysis concluded the Su-27 was probably from Russia aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov.


The following is the comments from the Chinese columnist.

Intrigue point from the article: It is difficult to comprehend why Israel pilots did not identify the platform of the intruder before they realized, it was not carrying any air-to-air missile. One explanation, we can deduce from the HUD picture above is, Israel pilot approached the Flanker at the six o’clock position. Hence, he noticed the absent of the missile before he could identify the platform. However, this leads to another question. How could the Flanker pilot allowed the Vipers to approach him to such proximity. In addition, it is difficult to picture the scenario, if the Vipers have approached in the six o’clock position, how could the Israel pilot be “so close where the feature of the Flanker’s pilot was clearly visible”. The author could have exaggerated the event. In any case, it was a 2 Vs 1 situation. One F-16 could have flown to the side of the Flanker while the other F-16 covering the six (one that has taken the above HUD picture). This speculation could also reason, how the Israeli has positively identified the Flanker belongs to the Russia Navy. The insignia on the tail is too obvious to be missed.

Somewhere in December 1995, Russia aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was passing the Strait of Bosporus into Mediterranean Sea. The Flanker in the above encounters could be a Su-27K from Admiral Kuznetsov.

Another intrigue point: During the first intercept, the Flanker pilot seemed to have understood the warning issued in Arabic, leaving Israel airspace. It is a general knowledge, Arabic is not a common language. Most Russian aviator is not proficient in the language. During the Cold War, Russia consultants stationed in Egypt and Syria did not communicate in Arabic. Their Arab counterparts spoke only Russian for day-to-day interactions. Hence, if the Flanker pilot comprehended the warning issued in Arabic, it could be a Syrian, probably a Syrian test pilot. Last reason could be, the Flanker did not understand the warning, but figured it was a threat. Leaving the area after he realized the 2 F-16s approached him with hostile intent.


It was not mentioned about the label on the 3 HUD pictures. The number probably indicates the 1st, 2nd and 3rd intercepts. Hope this helps. Perhaps any Israel friends here could confirm the content of the article from IAF magazine. The Chinese columnist has probably translated it from Hebrew, that could be distorted.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 19:49
by dionis
Again, like with the Mig-29 topic, people here are comparing the Su-27SK (Flanker B) vs the F-16 Block 50+ variants. Unfortunately, I bet the old Flanker could still be a tough challenge for the F-16E, but things aren't that simple anymore. The Russian Air Force (and Sukhoi) announced a new program for all Su-27SK (Series/Kommercial) variants of the aircraft, with the intent to modernize the aircraft. The possibilities are ALMOST LIMITLESS, but the Russian Air Force will upgrade their aicraft like THIS:

***Su-27SM***

New radar system N010-MSF (NIIR Zhuk-MSF Sokol) Phased Array radar system, capable of tracking large targets like AWACs at 400KM out..tracks 16 targets and engages 6. (Higher end upgrade) and SAR ofcourse..

The other possiblity is keeping the N001, but upgrading it with the Pero phased array antenna (giving 250Km range, 12 track, 4 engage possibility) gives SAR also..

This is still being disputed..any many people the better upgrade to truly make the Su-27 more effective

but both systems blow away any APG-68V(9) or APG-80..

then the ECM system is being upgraded (internally) and PODS are always available, the fly by wire system is being updated, and the cockpit is being updated to look like THIS:

Image

The engines are being upgraded to the AL-31FM versions, which are not thrust vectored but produce 13,100kgf of thrust. (vs 12,500)

2 new hardpoints have been added, making the plane have 12 harpoints. The plane can carry 8,000Kg of weapons (more than the F-16E) and has a much longer range, service ceiling, and is faster. The plane carries internal laser and IR targetting equipment.

Anti ground equipment includes KAB 500/1500 bombs (TV, Laser, GLONASS/GPS guided) YES.. Russian GPS guided bombs! Kab-500SE.. and these are comparable to the US made GBUs..

Kh-25/29 anti-ground missiles.. with all kinds of warheads (Kh-25 is longer ranged and similar in power to the AGM-65, while the Kh-29 is similar or slightly shorter ranged depending on variants, but packs at 4x - 6x more powerful warhead than the AGM-65)

The antishipping weapons can't even be compared, the AGM-84 Harpoon is a joke. The Su-27SM gets the medium long range supersonic Kh-31A, the subsonic long range Kh-35E, or the insanely powerful SS-N-27 Alfa.. of which it can carry 4. (350Kg warhead, 350Km range, subsonic to supersonic flight profile -- hi lo) Then it can carry the Kh-41 Moskit (supersonic, 150KM range antiship missile with 250Kg warhead).. or the insane SS-N-26 Yakhont missile, more advanced Moskit, with a range of 350Km, 250kg warhead and active,passive,IR, command, inertial, gps guidance all in 1, and even an inter-missile link.

The AGM-88 HARM is totally outclassed by the Kh-31P, which is much longer ranged and has a larger warhead.

Air to Air missile are comprised of the advanced AA-10s (R-27ER and ET) which are either semi active or infrared, but with increased range, and even the R-27EA can be made, an active seeker, and easily replace since the missile is modular.

The R-77/AA-12 Ramjet version is also coming into service soon, with a range of 120+ KM and a speed of Mach 5.

The aircraft can also carry the large R-37, which is a long range 300KM anti-bomber/AWACs missile.

The R-73M/M2 are longer ranged and more manuevarable than even the AIM-9X, thanks to their dynamic gas control engines.

We all know the Flanker is more manuevarable (wing size and aerodynamic design).

F-16 holds up? I don't think so..

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 20:07
by DeepSpace
Pumpkin wrote:IDF/AF F-16D intercepted a unarmed Russian Su-27K, intruding Israel airspace, in Jan 1996? :shock:

article here. (sorry guys, it is in Chinese.)


Pumpkin, it's indeed true. On the 27th of January 1996 three Su-27K (Su-33) violated the Israeli air space (one after another). The F-16's were scrambled from the Valley Squadron (F-16D) and from the First Jet Squadron (F-16C).

Here is the article from the IDF/AF Magazine (in Hebrew). It's pretty long, I'll see if I'll manage to translate it.

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 20:23
by Pumpkin
DeepSpace wrote:Here is the article from the IDF/AF Magazine (in Hebrew). It's pretty long, I'll see if I'll manage to translate it.


DeepSpace, good to have THE original article from the IAF magazine itself. I see that the site actually has a English version. Do they not have the article in English too?

Would certainly like to know more about the encounter. If my memories serve, that will be the second meeting between the Viper & Flanker.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 20:30
by DeepSpace
Pumpkin, the website does have an English version, though none of the articles from the magazine itself are being translated, don't ask me why. I guess I'll have to find the time to translate it.

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 20:44
by Pumpkin
Thanks for the effort DeepSpace!

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2005, 02:09
by ACSheva
Very interesting facts you brought to the table Mr Dionis. Ahh yes, the Russian 27-37 are all very formidable jets if in hands of a good pilot. I think that we can find common ground there.

Good Night

Shev

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2005, 09:39
by Pat1
dionis, what exactly to you consider nonsense? Please point out specifics :roll:

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2005, 20:26
by dionis
The Su-27 is '80s technology at best. F-16s have been continually upgraded during their service life, I don't think you can say the same for the Su-27s still in service. < non-sense #1

Again this is a dream to think that the ground attack abilities can match an F-16. <non-sense #2

and i'm too tired to look for more, but I bet I could find another example or two.

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2005, 20:53
by agilefalcon16
How about the VISTA F-16? Would it have an advantage in a dogfight against the Flanker?

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 01:47
by ACSheva
Is VISTA even operational in our service? or is it just a testbed for the test pilot school?

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 02:38
by kacman
None could match the Flanker (with canard and TVC) in terms of maneuverability I believe. But it doesn't really matter because it's all about technology and BVR missile, which Russian is pretty much lagging behind. All are claims but is it really true or proven?

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 03:47
by ACSheva
Russian is pretty much lagging behind


Doesn't the 27-37 have bigger radar than the 16? So it will get a first shot, since it will see the 16 first. Also the Flankers can carry more weapons,gas,and etc. And the manueverability does matter Kackman, if it gets to be a WVR scenario than the Flankers ability to turn will surely give him the edge over the little Viper. After all they are fighter jets.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2005, 21:24
by agilefalcon16
ACSheva wrote:Is VISTA even operational in our service? or is it just a testbed for the test pilot school?


Unfortunately, the MATV F-16 is only a test aircraft, but I do wish that the USAF would have brought into service after its testing was complete. :( I just wondered how well the MATV F-16 would preform against the Flanker.

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 01:49
by ACSheva
Well the Vista would probably have a much better chance at the Flanker than the C model. That Vista sure was a good jet though.

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 14:46
by kubam4a1
I have read that Su-27SM's modernized N-001 radar has about 150 km range, and it can fire at ONLY TWO TARGETS at one time. On the other hand, F-16C50+, especially with new APG-68V9X(M) can attack at least four targets with its AIM-120s. Its range is MORE than 150 km. So it beats both Su-27SK and Su-27SM. But, one-to-one fight between Su-27SM and F-16C would be most probably won by Sukhoi aircraft. The newest F-16C's and D's are comparable to Su-30MKI's...

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2005, 02:01
by ACSheva
Regarding the 27Sm

It does have a better radar Zhuk-Sokol which is a Phased Array radar system, which is capable of picking up targets way passed 150KM,and also can track over (10) targets,and fire a multiple targets also. Outclasses the 16. Now thats a pretty good deal. Judge for youre self.

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2005, 09:41
by kubam4a1
Su-27SM modernized for Russia's AF have only better version of N-001. I think that Zhuk-M doesn't outclass APG-68V9, they are comparable, and APG-80 is much better than Zhuk-M

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2005, 01:16
by ACSheva
The N010-MSF Phased Array radar system,is actually capable of tracking stuff at 400KM out. Thats a pretty good radar man,anyway you look at it.

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2005, 07:03
by toan
N011M:
  • For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range.
  • A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km.
  • A Bars' earlier variant, fitted with a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of acquiring Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km.
  • It can track 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously.
  • The forward hemisphere is ±90º in azimuth and ±55º in elevation.
  • N011M can withstand up to 5 percent transceiver loss without significant degredation in performance.
Therefore:
  1. The effective detective / tracking range of a radar is depended on the RCS of its goal.
  2. The tracking range of the radar is about 3/5~2/3 of the detective / searching range of the radar.
  3. The N011M should have the longer detective / tracking range than AN/APG-80. However, the frontal RCS of Su-30MKI/35 (10~15m2 class) is also much bigger than F-16E/F (1~2m2 class). According to the basic formula for the relationship between RCS and the detective / tracking range of the radar, I don't think that Su-30MKI/35 with N011M will have significant advantage of "First Look" than the F-16E/F with AN/APG-80 in BVR engagement.
PS: The designer of AN/APG-80 declared this radar's detective range is two times of the detective range of AN/APG-68V7, which means it should be able to detect the target with RCS of Su-27's ckass 160 km away theoretically. The MTBF of AN/APG-80 is more than 500 hours, and it can TWS 20 targets at the same time (Which may be increrased to 50 targets in the future).

Source: <a href="http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html" rel="nofollow">VayuSena : A WebSite on the Indian Air Force</a>

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2005, 10:42
by kubam4a1
Su-27SM used by Russia's Air Force has N-001M, NOT N-010. N-001M is only a modernized version of N-001 used in Su-27SK... And it has maximum tracking range 135-150 km. Falcon with APG-68V9 would be capable to beat Su-27SM.., but it could have some trouble with the newest Su-30MKI....

RE: Su-27 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2005, 08:56
by avon1944
wedgeII wrote: I wonder how well the IRST works on that baby?

The IRST is fairly effective in dry climates but the performance deteriorates as the humidity increases. In the combat situation like when in the PGW#1, an MiG.-25PD shot down a F/A-18C, the RWR went on for less than a minute then went off. The MiG.-25 turned on its radar to confirm the position of its target. After that the MiG pilot used his laser to update and confirm the position of the F/A-18. The MiG. pilot fired an R-40 missile which killed the Hornet.

Amagzingly, interviews with Iraqi pilots after the war show they don't credit anyone with a kill the first night. So as far as their official records go, no Coalition aircraft were shot down. Never mind the fact Lt Speicher new flew home to the USS Saratoga or any Saudi bases.

Wildcat wrote:1) The aperture of the Su-27 radar is only 60° horizontal and 10° vertical (compared to 120° horizontal for a F-16).


CORRECTION -That is ±60° horizontally and vertically it is -10° and +30°.

COMMENT: While we may debate whether or not the F15 or F-16 can beat the Su-27, the USAF knows. Back in 1994 "a private firm" purchased two Su-27's and were delievered them by An-124! The Russian spokesman would not say exactly where the Sukhois were delievered but, he did say, the Sukhois were delievered to a place that was sandy (Nellis AFB, the airport in Area 51, etc?)

Janes 1997/98 Pg 405.

MiG21bisHZS wrote:I only flew in a MiG-21.


Howdy, boy you are fortunate!

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2008, 07:03
by 007india
SPIKE wrote:The SU 27 will slaughter the F-16 in a one on one.That is if the the pilot is a good one.The 2004 CO COPE in India,proved as a huge shock to us in air to air combat. The "F-15"s did almost poorly against the Su-27, 30, 33B. The Indian pilots are the sh*t.They took out Fighter School graduates in their sorties. So the new Sukhois are definitely the sh*t now. They are the biggest threats for us now. They also have extremely serious radars,and missiles.

Now we are not the kings of the skies anymore, the enemies are kreeping up on us.Thank God for the F-22.

Ciao


I can't understand what stimulates you to compare Su-30 with F-16 where the former is a twin engined vis a single engined F-16. comparing F-16 to Su30 is like comparing a botched FORD car with Toyota.

you describe pilots as sh*t, this shows your complex of inability to survive a failure. a fighter doesn't determines outcome of a combat but the ability of the pilot. we have downed even F-16 with MiG-21.

your fighter avionics are good to show in holywood movies like Airforce-1

Have a great day

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2008, 03:46
by iJDAM
007india wrote:
SPIKE wrote:The SU 27 will slaughter the F-16 in a one on one.That is if the the pilot is a good one.The 2004 CO COPE in India,proved as a huge shock to us in air to air combat. The "F-15"s did almost poorly against the Su-27, 30, 33B. The Indian pilots are the sh*t.They took out Fighter School graduates in their sorties. So the new Sukhois are definitely the sh*t now. They are the biggest threats for us now. They also have extremely serious radars,and missiles.

Now we are not the kings of the skies anymore, the enemies are kreeping up on us.Thank God for the F-22.

Ciao


I can't understand what stimulates you to compare Su-30 with F-16 where the former is a twin engined vis a single engined F-16. comparing F-16 to Su30 is like comparing a botched FORD car with Toyota.

you describe pilots as sh*t, this shows your complex of inability to survive a failure. a fighter doesn't determines outcome of a combat but the ability of the pilot. we have downed even F-16 with MiG-21.

your fighter avionics are good to show in holywood movies like Airforce-1

Have a great day


The Su-30 was made in 1997 and is on another class from the F-16 on its own, not to mention the fact that those werent trained pilots in the older versions of our aircraft. They sent their best people, with better planes, in familiar territory. If all the pilots were equal, they would have won(Indians). They have better aircraft. Even if the US pilots were better, they had few advantages to help them win. I'd be suprised if they even got a kill. But we have better pilots than those and our F-15/16s are being upgraded with AESA radars and the Aim-120C and later the D variant. We would more than likely win if we went against eachother now.

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2008, 02:11
by Aks_20
toan wrote:N011M:
  • For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range.
  • A MiG-21 for instance can be detected at a distance of up to 135 km. Design maximum search range for an F-16 target was 140-160km.
  • A Bars' earlier variant, fitted with a five-kilowatt transmitter, proved to be capable of acquiring Su-27 fighters at a range of over 330 km.
  • It can track 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously.
  • The forward hemisphere is ±90º in azimuth and ±55º in elevation.
  • N011M can withstand up to 5 percent transceiver loss without significant degredation in performance.
Therefore:
  1. The effective detective / tracking range of a radar is depended on the RCS of its goal.
  2. The tracking range of the radar is about 3/5~2/3 of the detective / searching range of the radar.
  3. The N011M should have the longer detective / tracking range than AN/APG-80. However, the frontal RCS of Su-30MKI/35 (10~15m2 class) is also much bigger than F-16E/F (1~2m2 class). According to the basic formula for the relationship between RCS and the detective / tracking range of the radar, I don't think that Su-30MKI/35 with N011M will have significant advantage of "First Look" than the F-16E/F with AN/APG-80 in BVR engagement.
PS: The designer of AN/APG-80 declared this radar's detective range is two times of the detective range of AN/APG-68V7, which means it should be able to detect the target with RCS of Su-27's ckass 160 km away theoretically. The MTBF of AN/APG-80 is more than 500 hours, and it can TWS 20 targets at the same time (Which may be increrased to 50 targets in the future).

Source: <a href="http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html" rel="nofollow">VayuSena : A WebSite on the Indian Air Force</a>


Nobody knows the actual performance of the Bars in actual service bar the Russians and Indians (and now the Algerians and Malays) - and they arent talking.

Many of the numbers you post above for the Bars are from a source which itself relies on multiple sources and is not too accurate in that respect.

For instance - the Bars can track 15 and engage 4. Not 20 and eight.

And some of the published information- even authoritative stuff - is wrong! Who knows whether the other stuff is correct or not?!

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2008, 04:04
by 007india
The Su-30 was made in 1997 and is on another class from the F-16 on its own, not to mention the fact that those werent trained pilots in the older versions of our aircraft. They sent their best people, with better planes, in familiar territory. If all the pilots were equal, they would have won(Indians). They have better aircraft. Even if the US pilots were better, they had few advantages to help them win. I'd be suprised if they even got a kill. But we have better pilots than those and our F-15/16s are being upgraded with AESA radars and the Aim-120C and later the D variant. We would more than likely win if we went against eachother now.


[/quote]

Again you are comparing F-16 with Su-30; it’s like comparing Dodge with FORD fiesta. Both are different aircraft in their category. I do agree with your fact about trained pilots but not on radar and familiar territory. Why you bring familiar territory here, you are not doing picnic sort of sortie. A best pilot and a capable aircraft are measured in terms when it can survive a dog fight.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2008, 16:49
by Jaistick
007india wrote:
you describe pilots as sh*t, this shows your complex

AFAIK, the bhai was using "sh*t" as in "good". You know how the language is--the Americans will say "this is BAD" to mean "this is GOOD". Difficult onlee. :)

As for this discussion, the Su-30MKIs are in Nellis for Red Flag in a couple of weeks. We'll find out a lot more after that. News is they have left behind their *special* stuff ostensibly because they were assigned A2G role. More likely because they expect a Raptor to be prowling around sniffing at the envelope.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2008, 15:03
by 007india
oh! ya, then one can expect F-22 to go in stealth if its not able to survive

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2009, 14:42
by skyhigh
ROCAF F-16A pilots may have the skill to knock down PLAAF J-11Bs, but it's either easy or hard, depending on the skill of the ChiCom pilots (watch out for the elite PLAAF squadrons).

Unread postPosted: 14 Jul 2009, 13:39
by DarkDuke
Clearly concerning the maneuverability, Su-27 is really surpass F-16.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2009, 04:13
by sprstdlyscottsmn
okay so you are showing a 9-G chart for two non-9G (under combat conditions) aircraft and comparing the results to a true 9G aircraft. The F-15 was known for it maneuverability, yes, but it was its SUSTAINED turn performance that came from it extreamely high thrust and low wing loading. The F-16 is known for being the first 9-G fighter, with lessons learned from the F-15 that allow it to mainatain a 9-G turn and lose speed less rapidly than even an F-15, forget about the heavy Sukhoi. In a sub-400 knot sea level 2 heater only 3/4 tank of gas turnbing fight the Su might, MIGHT, get a great initial turn rate, but it will soon slow down and its turn will too. As for the chart, there is no source so its validity comes into question. I used to make charts like that years ago, and my older charts will tell you that the F-14B was the best dogfighter ever, which its not. Sukhois are very maneuverable for what they are, a long range interceptor. Nothing that weighs in at 30 tons with no weapons is a true dogfighter.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2009, 07:54
by F16guy
DarkDuke

Your graph says Su-27 vs F-15 not F-16. Next, having actually seen the graphs used to compare jets,...this one is not accurate for either aircraft mentioned in the title, no matter what you think...did this come from your copy of a Russian flight simulator product.

Lastly, your english translator is good but still it is not entirely correct.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2009, 18:20
by callsignthumper
LMAO GO GET EM FELLAS :slap: