F-35 vs Su-30/35

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:23

hythelday wrote:Yup, 16% mission capable rate is hard to beat! Also, zero A/A victories is quite impressive. :doh:


You generally read the statements to which answers are given?



" 16% mission capable rate is hard to beat! Also, zero A/A victories is quite impressive."

What does this have to do with "Its energy performance" ?
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:25

ricnunes wrote:
terrygedran wrote:
gta4 wrote: They are even worse than an obsolete Mig-29.



And none of the other 4 gen plane come close to Mig-29 on this performance characteristics.


cough... F-16 cough.... :roll:


Free to share how F-16 beat Mig-29 in energy performance.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:26

hythelday wrote:
Yup, 16% mission capable rate is hard to beat! Also, zero A/A victories is quite impressive. :doh:

It doesn't have zero A/A victories. It has 6. Against Drones, Helicopters, and Non-Combat aircraft. It has in turn been shot down 18 times. The Su-27 however can claim an "undefeated" status at 6-0, five of which are MiG-29s. Clearly energy performance does not equal combat effectiveness in of itself.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:28

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: Clearly energy performance does not equal combat effectiveness in of itself.


But it's very strange that it needs to be explained.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:39

In 1998, the German magazine Flieger Revue published an article that talked about the superiority of the MiG-29 as it was used by the German Air Force since 1987 on the F-16. According to the author, the MiG-29 slightly exceeds the F-16. In particular, it is a pilot's helmet with a sight that represents decisive superiority in close-range air combat. In the presence of a helmet with a sight, the MiG-29 pilot can capture the air target earlier, even before the normal corners of the target capture and destroy it. During training flight training at the NATO Airborne Training Center Desimomann in Sardinia, it was revealed that the MiG-29, when used in conjunction with a helmet with a sight and R-73E missiles, is superior to all western fighters.

Air Force Germany and the United States over Germany. Mig-29 showed absolute superiority over the F-16 (49 wins out of 50), and in close combat the ability to capture the target in 30 times more space than the F-15. In several training battles against NATO pilots on the F-15C, F-16C and Mirage 2000C, the MiG-29 showed an advantage. The advantage in helmeted target designation combined with the ability to attack far from the direction of the flight was retained until 2002. This advantage was strongly felt in the training battles also over the F-14 and F-18, which were conducted both in Germany and in the US, using those bought in 1997 In Moldova
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3255
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:50

And yet the F-15 has actually destroyed actual MiG-29s in actual war. I have read many of those training accounts as well, and yes they all say that the GAF MiG-29 with HMS and R-73 was all but untouchable in WVR, they all also lament the poor cockpit layout and design for BVR work.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:51

MiG-29 Flight Hours and Numbers:

Flying data for the Russian Air Force has been almost impossible to get. However, in August 1992, Colonel General Deinekin, CinC Russian Air Forces, presented a sortie summary (in hours) of one day's flying. The totals are broken out by each branch of service.

Russian Air Forces (VVS) 6798 (78.9%)
Russian Air Defense Forces (VPVO) 980 (11.4%)
Russian Naval Aviation (SNA) 432 (05.0%)
Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF) 409 (04.7%)

---------------------------

8619 hours

At there peak employment, there were less than 450 x MiG-29's operating in the Soviet Tactical Air Force (VVS) service. No MiG-29's were assigned to the National Air Defense Forces (Voyska-PVO). Considering what we know about their readiness, we can assume that on a daily basis the fleet was maintained at around 81% mission capable rate
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 22:58

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And yet the F-15 has actually destroyed actual MiG-29s in actual war .

And this only shows that war is not a knightly duel.
Weapons are effective as far as them skillfully manage.
And Mig-29 was not skillfully manage(in the values of the Air Force).
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
  • Warnings: 5

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 23:05

terrygedran wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And yet the F-15 has actually destroyed actual MiG-29s in actual war .

And this only shows that war is not a knightly duel.
Weapons are effective as far as them skillfully manage.
And Mig-29 was not skillfully manage(in the values of the Air Force).


Or alternatively, it has very many other drawbacks which negate any superiority it has on 1 metric.

The "non-Russian pilots are crap and that's why MiGs always lose" argument is rather strange, given that all those non-Russian pilots were trained in Russia in Russian tactics. That implies a failure in training. Which implies that Russian pilots aren't so good either. Which brings us back to point A.

Circular reasoning.
Offline

terrygedran

Banned

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2017, 14:48

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 23:19

arian wrote:.

The "non-Russian pilots are crap and that's why MiGs always lose"



Nope, just Nato pilots too good and there are too many .
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 23:51

arian wrote:The "non-Russian pilots are crap and that's why MiGs always lose" argument is rather strange, given that all those non-Russian pilots were trained in Russia in Russian tactics. That implies a failure in training. Which implies that Russian pilots aren't so good either. Which brings us back to point A.


There was a big problem with bullying in the Russian conscript forces. Whether this is still there is unknown to me. However, everything I have read suggests that career/contract military personnel are quite professional. I conjecture there are training deficiencies in rare skills, as seen during the accidents during the recent Mediterranean deployment of the sole Russian aircraft carrier. But I would not count on a Russian training deficiency with nuts and bolts type activities like flying Su-27s, Su-30s or Mig-29s or operating a tank, etc.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
  • Warnings: 5

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 23:57

talkitron wrote:
arian wrote:The "non-Russian pilots are crap and that's why MiGs always lose" argument is rather strange, given that all those non-Russian pilots were trained in Russia in Russian tactics. That implies a failure in training. Which implies that Russian pilots aren't so good either. Which brings us back to point A.


There was a big problem with bullying in the Russian conscript forces. Whether this is still there is unknown to me. However, everything I have read suggests that career/contract military personnel are quite professional. I conjecture there are training deficiencies in rare skills, as seen during the accidents during the recent Mediterranean deployment of the sole Russian aircraft carrier. But I would not count on a Russian training deficiency with nuts and bolts type activities like flying Su-27s, Su-30s or Mig-29s or operating a tank, etc.


I'm not saying there are deficiencies. I'm saying the logical conclusion of "non-Russian pilots have poor skills" is that so would Russian pilots. They are both the products of the same training schools. His response is then that it's not training deficiencies, it's "NATO pilots too good". Ok, but that's exactly the same thing.

And there's the examples of Russian vs. Russian (or ex-Soviet) pilots in lots of conflicts yielding similar results: MiG-29 down for nothing to show for it. There we are controlling for background of the pilot, and MiG always losses regardless of the opponent (unless its a Cessna). So the plane must have some serious deficiencies even against similar pilots and similar weapons and similar support systems, regardless how pretty it looks in airshows.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 00:24

arian wrote:I'm not saying there are deficiencies. I'm saying the logical conclusion of "non-Russian pilots have poor skills" is that so would Russian pilots. They are both the products of the same training schools. His response is then that it's not training deficiencies, it's "NATO pilots too good". Ok, but that's exactly the same thing.


I agree that saying that NATO pilots are good is the same thing as saying Russian pilots are bad in a warfare scenario where only one side can win. I also believe that Russian fourth generation fighters are remarkably inferior to western fourth generation fighters in specific areas, like the ground attack modes of radar, as has been discussed here from a technical perspective.

Still, I imagine USAF pilots are better than say pilots from a Gulf air force who receive pilot training in the US.

From impressions I get from reading about Cold War land forces, I suspect the Soviet land forces were better trained than the land forces of other Warsaw Pact countries. Flash forward to the first Chechen war and the Georgian war and so forth and Russian troops performed badly because of general training deficiencies due to budget cuts and because they had not trained for those specific scenarios. But then the light infantry performed well in non-combat duties during the annexation of Crimea and the overall ground forces seem to be capable of what they are ordered to do in eastern Ukraine. So I don't see an overall training problem in 2017 for Russian forces who might see combat duty in a regional conflict. I do suspect Russian military personnel are better trained than say the forces of Belarus or Kazakstan or whatever Russian ally or purchaser of military hardware you want to name just because Russia is the center of military activity in its sphere. So I believe that some aspects of the poor performance of Russian-origin military hardware in past wars are, probably, the training of non-Russian operators and poor strategies by their commanders.
Offline

nathan77

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2015, 07:21

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 05:57

talkitron wrote:[... But then the light infantry performed well in non-combat duties during the annexation of Crimea and the overall ground forces seem to be capable of what they are ordered to do in eastern Ukraine. ...


I don't disagree with this. Although, has Russia even formally admitted troop involvement in Ukraine? Although it is the worlds worst kept secret.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm not sure though that what happens in regards to 'ground forces' is the same as what happens in the Air Force. I.e., can you claim that the Australian, British, Italian and Norwegian F-35 pilots at Luke's Air Force base are given a lower level of instruction than the USAF pilots? From what I can gather, they train with each other day in and day out.

However, I fully admit, I'm not sure how the Russian's do things.
Offline

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post14 Aug 2017, 06:08

nathan77 wrote:Anyway, back on topic, I'm not sure though that what happens in regards to 'ground forces' is the same as what happens in the Air Force. I.e., can you claim that the Australian, British, Italian and Norwegian F-35 pilots at Luke's Air Force base are given a lower level of instruction than the USAF pilots? From what I can gather, they train with each other day in and day out.


This I don't know. I just suspect Gulf pilots have lower career pressures to perform at the highest levels and are selected with less competition. I read Dan Hampton's book Viper Pilot and he was pretty negative on Egyptian F-16 pilots. Egypt is admittedly a poorer country per capita than Gulf countries and those F-16 pilots probably were primarily trained in Egypt, not the US.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ricnunes and 6 guests