Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Scorpion82 wrote:

Reports differ, some suggest one kills others two. Whatever the overwhelming victory as reported against the three F-16s for example was not achieved. Of course these DACTs aren't representative for real combat as I pointed out already.

I'm pretty sure that those simulated engagements against F-16s had the aircraft simulating AIM-9X shots. I'd have to imagine the Raptor would have a tough time scoring a guns kill with a limited amount of time on an F-16 as well.

F-16.net Sponsor

The circumstances must be considered as well. I doubt that the engagement against the f-16s resulted out of a similarly scripted DACT. That means the battle may have started under entirely different conditions, with the F-22 playing out its strengths wrt stealth etc. and that the F-22 most likely simulated missle firings as well. Anyway the point is that the Rafale is a rather good dogfighter and has a fair chance of winning agaimst TVC equipped opponents like the Su-30MKI. TVC on the Flanker isn't a guarantee to dominate in WVR against a very manoeuvrae and agile opponent like the Rafale. BVR it's certainly a different story albeit I can't see any serious advantage for the Flanker spare a more powerful radar and somewhat longer ranging AHR AAMs.

Scorpion82 wrote:

The circumstances must be considered as well. I doubt that the engagement against the f-16s resulted out of a similarly scripted DACT. That means the battle may have started under entirely different conditions, with the F-22 playing out its strengths wrt stealth etc. and that the F-22 most likely simulated missle firings as well. Anyway the point is that the Rafale is a rather good dogfighter and has a fair chance of winning agaimst TVC equipped opponents like the Su-30MKI. TVC on the Flanker isn't a guarantee to dominate in WVR against a very manoeuvrae and agile opponent like the Rafale. BVR it's certainly a different story albeit I can't see any serious advantage for the Flanker spare a more powerful radar and somewhat longer ranging AHR AAMs.

The engagements with the F-16s were WVR, but it was AIM-9X/JHMCS versus the F-22 with AIM-9M. The engagement with the Rafales was guns only, which means much closer ranges, and nose pointed directly at target.

Also to consider... the Indian Rafale will have an actual dedicated IRST (Thales/Samtel JV) with which to passively search, track and cue in the BVR... in contrast to the current operational Rafale which apparently relies on MICA IR as the IR.

wrightwing wrote:

The engagements with the F-16s were WVR, but it was AIM-9X/JHMCS versus the F-22 with AIM-9M. The engagement with the Rafales was guns only, which means much closer ranges, and nose pointed directly at target.

What I said... Wink

If I understand you correctly, your point seems to be that the Rafale held its own against the Raptor up close whereas multiple F-16s were defeated. Therefore, the Rafale is a very capable dog fighter since it hung with the best while multiple 4th gen aircraft couldn't. But I think it's an apples to oranges comparison you're making there.

When engaging those F-16s, the Raptor could use missiles. Against, the Rafale, it could only get a gun kill, which can be considerably harder. I wouldn't be surprised if a Raptor had a hard time getting a guns kill on an F-16 if the pilot was given only a limited amount of time.

geogen wrote:

Also to consider... the Indian Rafale will have an actual dedicated IRST (Thales/Samtel JV) with which to passively search, track and cue in the BVR... in contrast to the current operational Rafale which apparently relies on MICA IR as the IR.

I could be mistaken here, but I'm pretty sure the Su-30MKI also has a dedicated IRST. It's tough to say which one is better, but I doubt that either AC has a substantial advantage in that area.

WVR is not the appropriate tactic for F-22's though.
No other radar on a fighter jet equals the Raptor's, so the Raptor, compounded with AMRAAM's, should be able to shoot down any other plane before the OPFOR can take a shot at the Raptor.

icemaverick wrote:

When engaging those F-16s, the Raptor could use missiles. Against, the Rafale, it could only get a gun kill, which can be considerably harder. I wouldn't be surprised if a Raptor had a hard time getting a guns kill on an F-16 if the pilot was given only a limited amount of time.

The AIM-9M isn't exactly known for its off boresight capabilities and requires nose pointing about as much as the gun, of course it's still easier with missiles. The Rafale was equally restricted to guns. Considering the big fuzz some make about the F-22's WVR kills against three JHMCS/AIM-9X equipped F-16s you'd either expect to perform oh so much better against a single Rafale with guns only or you apparently recognise that TVC isn't everything. The discussion apparently evolved out of the claim about the Su-30MKI being "better" WVR due to its TVC.

flighthawk128 wrote:

WVR is not the appropriate tactic for F-22's though.
No other radar on a fighter jet equals the Raptor's, so the Raptor, compounded with AMRAAM's, should be able to shoot down any other plane before the OPFOR can take a shot at the Raptor.

Sure, WVR is not the appropriate F-22 tactic, no doubt. In fact, WVR is likely not the primary tactic for most tactical fighter jets, if possible. But all jets will inevitably need to be both capable and enabled to maintain a superior edge once within WVR, as that point of combat is the likely reality at least in some engagements, in all hypothetical future A2A battles.

And p.s.. give the Red Flag Blue force F-15E with APG-82 and IRST + Sniper, plus a next-gen MRAAM with IIR seeker... and the F-22 will be hard maneuvering and evading much farther out than is talked in public today.

It's more about the systems employed, even more than a superior platform.

Scorpion82 wrote:

icemaverick wrote:

When engaging those F-16s, the Raptor could use missiles. Against, the Rafale, it could only get a gun kill, which can be considerably harder. I wouldn't be surprised if a Raptor had a hard time getting a guns kill on an F-16 if the pilot was given only a limited amount of time.

The AIM-9M isn't exactly known for its off boresight capabilities and requires nose pointing about as much as the gun, of course it's still easier with missiles. The Rafale was equally restricted to guns. Considering the big fuzz some make about the F-22's WVR kills against three JHMCS/AIM-9X equipped F-16s you'd either expect to perform oh so much better against a single Rafale with guns only or you apparently recognise that TVC isn't everything. The discussion apparently evolved out of the claim about the Su-30MKI being "better" WVR due to its TVC.

As you acknowledged, it's easier to get a missile kill, even with an AIM-9M than it is with a gun. Bullets don't guide to targets. I don't think the comparison you're making is quite valid. The F-16 scenario and the Rafale scenario had completely different rules, so there isn't a sound basis for comparison.

The F-22 might have had unlimited time to score a kill against those F-16s. On the other hand, the only thing the Rafale had to do to get a "draw" was avoid being killed for a given amount of time. It's like running away from Mike Tyson for a minute or two and calling it a "draw."

There are certain tactics that can be employed by knowledgeable pilots to defeat a thrust vectored aircraft. But overall, having thrust vectoring is still an advantage. It's like in boxing, there are ways to bring a fight close....but having a reach advantage is still preferable to not having one.

As far as I am concerned TVC is more useful for missile shots than gun shots. It allows you to slew your nose to get the target within that 30-60-90 degree "cone" off your nose. The farther you slew your nose, the less fine control you will have and the less time you will have before you fall out of the sky and need to initiate recovery procedures. So for a gun kill where you need to track a moving target with MOA precision for 1/2 second (in which time a fighter can have moved 300 or more feet) it is better to be using your aerodynamic controls. I am sure that 1v1 even an F-16 could do well in a "gunzo" fight.

Another consideration: range may also be an issue. A TV jet can basically keep turning it's nose to track you at high speed, but may end up going backward to do it, possibly allowing you to get out of range before he does any real damage with his gun.
How long would it take to get out of gun range of a stationary jet?

about 1 second

Scorpion82 wrote:

The AIM-9M isn't exactly known for its off boresight capabilities and requires nose pointing about as much as the gun, of course it's still easier with missiles. The Rafale was equally restricted to guns. Considering the big fuzz some make about the F-22's WVR kills against three JHMCS/AIM-9X equipped F-16s you'd either expect to perform oh so much better against a single Rafale with guns only or you apparently recognise that TVC isn't everything. The discussion apparently evolved out of the claim about the Su-30MKI being "better" WVR due to its TVC.

The AIM-9M has a 60 deg off boresite capability, which is a heckuva lot better than using guns. The Rafale does have impressive WVR capabilities, but the takeaway here, was that it was unable to get into position for a gun kill, whereas the Raptor did several times(especially depending on which account one subscribes to).

60°? More like 60° overall (+/-30°). And two times at best out of six hardly qualifies as "several". The point was that even without TVC and with guns only the Rafale didn't fared too bad. TVC is useful and helps, but it has it's limitations and doesn't guarantee a victory. That'S basically all I pointed out in the first place, next to the fact that I believe that the F-22 has advantages in comparison to the Su-30MKI in this area and as the original question centred around the thread title I concluded that the Su-30MKI isn't automatically superior close in to the Rafale with the latter not suffering from total defeat against what is regarded the ultimate air dominance fighter of this time, in the narrow field of close in combat agility/manoeuvrability I like to add as some here are over-sensitive and read all kind of b*ll into claims.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Su-30MKI vs Rafale