F-35 vs. Mig-29

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 12 Jan 2018, 17:11

mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...

Well, like others have already stated here (and IMO, correctly so) the Hornet (legacy) and Super Hornet are probably the most underrated fighter aircraft of the very late XX century and early XXI century while at the same time the Mig-29 and the Flanker family (including the Su-30MKK) are probably the most overrated fighter aircraft of the same very late XX century and early XXI century period.
With this in mind, I "adventure" to say that there's a good chance that the Super Hornet edge over the SU-30MKK is bigger than you (and many others) may think.

splittingatoms · by **splittingatoms** » 12 Jan 2018, 19:03

ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...

Well, like others have already stated here (and IMO, correctly so) the Hornet (legacy) and Super Hornet are probably the most underrated fighter aircraft of the very late XX century and early XXI century while at the same time the Mig-29 and the Flanker family (including the Su-30MKK) are probably the most overrated fighter aircraft of the same very late XX century and early XXI century period.
With this in mind, I "adventure" to say that there's a good chance that the Super Hornet edge over the SU-30MKK is bigger than you (and many others) may think.

I agree with you. I think we've started to see some glimpses of it, since the Paris F-35 display. The recent Superhornet and Swiss Hornet demos seem to be showing some more of their capabilities, doing decent facsimiles of some of the F-35 display. They don't appear to have the energy retention/recovery capabilities of an F-35, but they sure can point their noses all over the place. I think, given the clear upgrade paths which exist (414EPE engine, modified pylons perhaps), the USN would have done something about their performance if it was truly subpar.

gta4 has put together some video clips from airshows which appear to show the Superbugs doing SU-35-like maneuvers with quite a bit more energy on the other end. One can clearly pick and choose to make one platform look better than another, but they certainly look to be in similar ballparks. The SU's are big birds, so it's not impossible to imagine a smaller aircraft having the edge...and that's before we consider avionics.

I also don't believe I've ever read a single word from an actual pilot disparaging the Hornet/Superhornet. They almost always seem to indicate it's one of the hardest opponents there is.

optimist · by **optimist** » 12 Jan 2018, 23:21

mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...

You would need to google up some pilot stories from Malaysia and the US. Malaysia would train the SU and their hornets regularly and may have more stories in print. As I said, there won't be much from the RAAF.

The su-30 may flog the hornet in the guns BFM part of DACT? I don't know and haven't tried to find out. The point I was making and have made on this thread, is that the Russian platforms are a known thing and trained with and against. I do know that is the real world, both on and offboard. The trons, missiles and tactics will reduce the odds of guns BFM combat ever happening between the SH and the su-30, or any other platform for that matter. As you know, it's the last line, not the first. A lot of things have to go wrong to end up in a guns dogfight. Is the wingman asleep, was aegis and sams a waste of money?

gta4 · by **gta4** » 13 Jan 2018, 04:44

By simple reasoning and deduction.

Super Hornet (A/G laodout) can defeat Mig-29 easily.

And Mig-29 can also defeat SU-30MKK easily (MKK is not MKM. MKK has no thrust vectoring)

So.... :mrgreen:

gta4 · by **gta4** » 13 Jan 2018, 04:56

Fun fact:

In terms of subsonic acceleration, Super hornet can easily out-accelerate Su-27/30, and is very close to Su-35.

Su-27, Low altitude, 18920 kg flying wight, accelerate from 600km/h to 1100km/h in 15 seconds. Average acceleration is 9.26m/s^2.

Superhornet, 17241 kg flying weight (definitely more ordnance than a 18920 kg Su-27), accelerate:
from 360knots to 420 knots, in 3 seconds, average 10.28m/m^s
from 420knots to 480 knots, in 4 seconds, average 7.71m/m^s
from 480knots to 520 knots, in 2 seconds, average 10.28m/m^s
from 520knots to 550 knots, in 1 second, average 15.43m/m^s

(From super hornet block 2 flight manual, performance data, Edition Sep. 2008)

And, super hornet has Pirouette maneuver, which allows it to turn tighter than any non-tvc 4th gen.

: F18F fast pirouette.gif (288.67 KiB) Viewed 7302 times

: F18F fast reversal EN.gif (740.41 KiB) Viewed 7299 times

Better nosing pointing + better acceleration = better probability of winning.

During India MMRCA flight test, super hornet's sustained turn rate is 93% as good as that of Typhoon. This is good enough to defeat most Ruskie fighters.

gta4 · by **gta4** » 13 Jan 2018, 05:17

In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered. The most under-powered fighter jets are:

JAS39 C/D, NG (espicailly C/D).

Su-30 family, Su-33 (aka Su-27K), Mig-29 K, which are underpowered with heavy airframe.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 13 Jan 2018, 15:45

"In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered."

Because, amongst those who know such things (because we have flown against them), SH is generally deficient in energy addition compared to its contemporaries.

gta4 · by **gta4** » 13 Jan 2018, 16:04

quicksilver wrote:"In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered."

Because, amongst those who know such things (because we have flown against them), SH is generally deficient in energy addition compared to its contemporaries.

This is because Su-33 and Mig-29K never participated in any DACT.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 13 Jan 2018, 16:26

gta4 wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"In fact I don't know why people keep arguing that SH is under-powered."

Because, amongst those who know such things (because we have flown against them), SH is generally deficient in energy addition compared to its contemporaries.

This is because Su-33 and Mig-29K never participated in any DACT.

Which is irrelevant to the matter of SH energy addition.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 13 Jan 2018, 16:28

mixelflick wrote:Well if that's true, I guess pilot training is the difference. Sorry, but I see no part of the envelope where the SH has a decided edge over the SU-30MKK. I'm open to being corrected, but things are way too close to parity for my liking...

In the 80s it was common for people to accuse the Pentagon of inflating threats, now people are unhappy they don't.

We literally have flankers in the US. Operated by civilians.

We've had mig-29s since the early 1990s thanks Moldova, thanks defectors

People are still acting like these airplanes are terrifying mysteries that need to be stolen by Clint Eastwood or something lol

I don't know how people keep getting fooled by the boogeyman. And I know the Komrade fanboi s think that the latest uber flanker is a game changer in terms of maneuver and energy etc, but it's just basically plugging in New numbers to the same old charts

Only in internet land will stealth be obsolete thanks to Moore's law but in the next breath there is no amount of computing power that can crack the decades old Flanker or Fulcrum EM abilities, even with the real McCoy in a hanger

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 13 Jan 2018, 17:29

XanderCrews wrote:People are still acting like these airplanes are terrifying mysteries that need to be stolen by Clint Eastwood or something lol

LOL, very good one :mrgreen:

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 13 Jan 2018, 18:14

XanderCrews wrote:People are still acting like these airplanes are terrifying mysteries that need to be stolen by Clint Eastwood or something lol

Not to mention that NASIC is a thing...

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 13 Jan 2018, 22:05

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 180952403/

17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^

swiss · by **swiss** » 13 Jan 2018, 23:21

XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/

17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^

Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.

southernphantom · by **southernphantom** » 13 Jan 2018, 23:55

swiss wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/

17 MiG-29 purchased by the US in 1997.^

Thanks XenderCrews. Very interesting to read. So again. A top dogfighter thanks to the Archer and HMCS. But very limited in BVR because of his poor avionics. And not easy to fly.

Whats about the Su-27? I know the US buy some of them. But i assume they are not ready for combat. I mean without Russian avionics.

The Flanker has received more upgrades in Russian service than the Fulcrum, generally speaking. Virtually all modernization efforts have been focused on the Flanker.

As far as ergonomics and how the thing flies, ask someone who has flown one. I'm not your guy for that.