How could you make the F-16 equal to Su-37 in agility?

[MATMACWC]

I GOT IT!!! You can make it a 2 seater, take out the radar and all the avionics, load it with less gas, let it crash at a few airshows as WALLA, the F-16 will perform as well as the SU-37.

Please, the SU-37 shown at airshows was a ringer with all the advantages I have listed. Oh by the way, how many are front line aircraft???

[Pumpkin]

Well, the Su-30MKK and Su-30MKI are derived from the Su-35/37. They're most certainly front line.

[parrothead]

Pumpkin, I think he was just pointing out that the actual SU-37 isn't a real frontline jet . I just can't wait to see the Raptor really strut its stuff at airshows!!!

[Pumpkin]

Pumpkin, I think he was just pointing out that the actual SU-37 isn't a real frontline jet .

Well parrothead, I'm sure that was the common understanding. And I guess my response meant to point out, the actual thrust vectoring capabilities of the Su-37 is now found in Su-30MKI and it is a real frontline jet. I believe the technologies employed to facilitate agility is the discussion here, not the number game.

cheers,

[ACSheva]

Im pretty sure the 30MK/I/33 can perform air to air/ground just as well as the 35-37. And yes those are real frontline jets with a few lucky countries.

ACSheva

[blain2]

So guys agility aside, what you are left with is the various components, avionics and armament. When comparing these catagories, does the F-16 not have a much better track record in terms of the MTTR and MTBF of the components involved (essentially pointing to higher sortie rates and quicker turnarounds)? Afaik, the quality and life of the various components on the Russian equipment is fairly limited.

Secondly, as someone has mentioned in the previous post, wrt having a AIM-9x/JHMCS and AIM-120 combo on the Viper, how would the F-16 be at a disadvantage then against the Su-30/37 variants? For some reason, I am do not see what the great advantage the Su30/37 would have over an F-16 which is equipped as such. Range of the Su30/37 and its radar not withstanding, what other capabilities are there where it can come off well against the viper in a WVR or even at a BVR engagement?

[ACSheva]

Maybe because the Su can see the Viper first, of course it all depends on which F 16 block its facing. And its more manueverable in a WVR scenario. And dont the new Su's carry more weapons, in range wise. But allot of it will depend on the F 16 block that its facing.

ACSheva

[Northax]

Agility and sustained turning rate, I believe at higher speeds, an F-16 MATV (3D thrust vectoring) with canards thrown on it will win over the Su-35/37/30MKI.

The F-16 is about half the size of an Su-37! That, together with 3D TVC and canards, I'd most definitely put my money on the F-16 being more agile... at higher speeds. Slow speed, I don't know for sure, since the F-16s' wing is smaller. An F-15 ACTIVE or F-18 HARV would probably do better in this area since they have more wing than an F-16.

Real world air-to-air combat takes place in the high speed regime, I believe.

As I've said this as well on another forum: I think Russia takes advantage of their slow-speed maneuverability at airshows to make the audience (not just civilians, but countries seeking to buy military fighter aircraft...) go 'ooh... ahh', and push them to buy their aircraft in light of this. But, I think we all know, going slow in REAL COMBAT is counter-productive! ESPECIALLY against an AIM-9X!

In my opinion, the reason why we (the U.S.) never threw TVC and canards on military production F-16s, F-15s and F-18s, is: We're replacing them pretty soon with the stealthy F-35 and F-22. Canards will be counter-productive to the F-22/35 since it'll make'em less stealthy; stealth is their MAIN advantage in combat. In REAL COMBAT you want the first sight, first shot, thus giving more chance for the FIRST KILL. Maneuverability of the actual aircraft is secondary in real air-to-air combat; especially in light of current missiles (AIM-9X) being able to pull 2-3x more G turns than any manned aircraft is capable of doing for atleast the next 100-200 years; and helmet mounted sights being able to point way faster than the nose of any current manned fighter can.

Anyway, in real combat, you'll want stealth over maneuverability, at the start of any mission. Stealth, together with BVR capable radars and missiles, is the best place to be in combat; it lowers the risk of you being shot down, while heightening the risk of your enemy being shot down.

Exemple: Would you rather have a sniper rifle and ghillie suite on a long, wide-open field? Or an M-4 with your basic BDU, standing out like a sore thumb?

Sure, you can 'maneuver' easier with an M-4, but your sight and accuracy is limited; and plus, you're not very well hidden, so you'll most likely be spotted way before you spot the Sniper.

With the sniper rifle and your ghillie suit blending in with your surroundings (stealth), you'll most likely have first sight of the enemy; therefore, giving way to having the first accurate shot, and ulimately the first kill. This is combat, not competition in a game to make an audience go 'ooh' 'ahh'. Many must realise that. Great agility and nose-pointing with an aircraft was great in WWII for dog fighting, but things have somewhat changed.

Don't get me wrong, it's good to have, but in my opinion, it's not the MAIN thing you want to think about when flying a fighter aircraft presently with the others having stealth advantages over you; while also having 2D TVC, AIM-9X and HMS.

The F-22 has 2D TVC, so it'll have very good maneuraverability also; but again, this is secondary to it's main advantage: Stealth

The X-32 had TVC also, but it lost out in competition to the X-35. So the F-35 willn't be as maneuverable as the F-22. But, atleast it has stealth, to give it the advantage in BVR.

Now, the F-16 block 60 has AESA radar, and as said before, is about half the size of an Su-3X; so, it'll be harder to spot WVR and BVR, while having extremely great range with that AESA radar.

[agilefalcon16]

I've been waiting for someone to revieve this thread. Northax, I agree with you that the a MATV Viper with canards attached would give it an advantage over a Su-35/37/30MKI in a high speed fight. But at low speeds, I'm not sure either (Too bad General Dynamics didn't give the Viper a slightly larger wing area). But still, even without a larger wing and canards, the MATV F-16 preformed incredibly. It was eaisly capable of 86 degrees AoA, and was capable of going well beyond 100 deg. Here's what I found incredible, that aircraft can even fly BACKWARDS for a brief period of time. Here's two great links that explain the MATV F-16's capablities, and its experience when it faced off against other Vipers.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/articles/jul_94/jula_94.html

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1994/articles/jul_94/jul2a_94.html

True, stealth does prove to be more useful today than maneuverability alone, so the Raptor could probably defeat any aircraft as the target aircraft would never see it coming. But still, after the MATV F-16 program, the USAF
should have updated the last Vipers that would be expected to be in service until at around the year 2020 to have the MATV engine nozzel. I mean how much stress really would it put on the F-16's airframe if it had the MATV nozzel? I don't think the MATV F-16 had any stress related issues. Even though thrust vectoring probably would never have showed its worth, I really, REALLY wished the USAF would have installed it on the newest Vipers, at least then it would be considered a worthy adversary against agile 5th generation fighters, like the Raptor, and the Typhoon.

[IndianAirForce]

Not going to happen unless you big changes are made.

Advantages of Sukhoi:

• Big fuel tanks so no need of drop tanks
• Super Maneuverbility
• Designed To compete with F22 raptor and the new generation of fighters
• Thrust vectoring

I've see the Su-37 in action. The moves it can do are excellent. The only other aircraft that can do the moves the Su37 can is the raptor.

Bottom Point: The Sukhoi Design Bureau made this aircraft to compete the new generation of airpalnes like the raptor. The F-16 ins not in that generation. Sure changes can be made but still that will not be enough, anyways why would the USAF spend money upgrading the F-16 if they have the raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter. For right now the F-16 is doing awesome. But 10 years from now, the top aircraft will be the JSF,Raptor, Su 37, Gripen, Rafale, Tyhoon, Su 30, and Mirage 2000-5.The F-16 is my favorite aircraft.

[Northax]

First off, the only place I've ever seen any Su-35/7 do super-maneuverable tricks, is slow speeds (below 180 knots, or so); The F-16 is known to be more maneuverable (read: agile) at higher speeds, compared to the Mig-29, without canards or TVC. Throw 3D TVC and canards on an F-16, and I believe it'll be more agile than an Su-37...at higher speeds.

I think if we want to compare against slow-speed maneuverability and agility, we should turn our eyes toward the F-15 ACTIVE, which has a lot more wing area compared to the F-16; better TWR, as well. The F-15 ACTIVE has 3D TVC and HUGE canards, way bigger than any Su-35/7, or ANY aircraft for that matter. The bigger the canards, the more lift you'll get; the more lift on a canard, the more maneuverable the jet will become. Modify it's FBW, and I'll bet it'll whoop any Su-3X in a maneuverability contest, any day.

Then again, the F-16 MATV with 3D TVC alone has been said to spin in mid-air like a helicopter.

[ACSheva]

First off, the only place I've ever seen any Su-35/7 do super-maneuverable tricks, is slow speeds (below 180 knots, or so);

Well of course, because it was an airshow. You arent going to show youre sh*t by going at 500+ knots. You want people to actually see youre capabilities. But it sounds like you havent seen much of the new Sukhois.

If you look at some videos containing the performances of the Russian Knights, Strizhi. You will see the jets do the same stuff going at 300+ knots. not any slower than our TBirds, or the Blues. You will be surprised.

think we all know, going slow in REAL COMBAT is counter-productive! ESPECIALLY against an AIM-9X!

You have to understand Northax that dogfights arent going to happen at Mach 1 speeds. The Russians know that, I assure you and so do we. Each plane has its sweet spot. Bassicly he wants you to get fast/slow, and he will turn like a dime on you. Yes the 16 has a better manuverability in a fast setting, but it doesnt make the Su any less capable. All he has to do is to get you slow, and he got you. Its all design.

And I agree with Indian AF, the new Sukhois are like a bridge between the 4th and the 5th generation jets. The F 16 is a fourth generation jet. You cant make it to be a Su, actually you probably can but its not worth it. Save it for the Raptor.

Shev

[agilefalcon16]

First off, the only place I've ever seen any Su-35/7 do super-maneuverable tricks, is slow speeds (below 180 knots, or so);

Well of course, because it was an airshow. You arent going to show youre sh*t by going at 500+ knots. You want people to actually see youre capabilities. But it sounds like you havent seen much of the new Sukhois.

Yeah, but they may also not want to make the Su-35/37 go too fast while pulling insane maneuvers, as they can over G the pilot (If the "cobra maneuver" or the "super-cobra" is performed the wrong way, it can cause serious damages to the pilot and in fact, has attributed to numerous deaths of pilots at 15g's from what I've heard.), and so they won't put too much stress on the aircraft's airframe (Since the Su-30MKI/35/37 is strongly based on the Su-27, which wasn't originally designed to use thrust-vectoring, like say the F/A-22 was).

[ACSheva]

Very good point. Very good. Im sure that speed is a very big variable when you're striking up a Cobra.

Shev

[MATMACWC]

Lag...Lag....Cobra all you want, Fox 2.....Fox 3.....Viper 1 Kill Hostile Su......