IronsightSniper

Oi, my mistake there. As for my proof, I used http://www.deagle.com. :megalol:

+ or - 15 degrees = 30 degrees total :x As for the AIM-120 v.s. the R-77, none of you have given any proof in regards to that. The AIM-120A's stated maximum range is 48 km, compared to the R-77's stated range of a rough 65 km. Hell, my Russian Arms Catalog 2001 states the R-77's range against a fighter size target would be 50 km, still better than the AIM-120A.

Meh, it's been already discussed that the Superbug has superior avionics and RCS, but you have yet to explain and prove how the AIM-120C7 is superior to whatever R-77 variant it's matched with. I do agree the AIM-9X is better than the R-27, but only from it's + or - 15 degrees off boresight advantage. In regards to range and end-game maneuverbility of the missiles, I am still convinced that the R-77 and R-27 are far superior to their Western Counter-parts.

Proof? Where?

So no proof. Nope, haven't seen it, link? And I prefer not to do guesstimate the range with my eyes, as your eyes can deceive.

You just spouting nonsense or you got proof? Apples to oranges. Why would one use the R-27 in a short range fight? Best information regarding the F/A-18E/F's RCS that I found was about 0.1 meter squared. Keep in mind that the Irbus-E can track a 0.01 meter squared target from 90 km away. Pff...you have supplied no proof regarding the AIM-120A's superior range as compared to the R-77. You can search Deagle.com, the site your on, the R-77 baseline's range is 80 km, compared to the 48 km of the AIM-120A.

In such a low-visibility region, any amount of high-maneuvering will render the AMRAAM a miss, and yes, there are no amounts of maneuvering one can do to get rid of everything a hornet can throw at it, but enough to make the Hornet's successful kills "negligible" and allocate for a decent counter response from R-27's. In that case, as long as there are no in-land obstacles, both radars should function at relative efficiency, again, allowing the F/A-18E/F to detect the Su-30MK from over 100 kilometers away, but also allowing the Su-30MK to detect the F/A-18E/F from just over 80 kilometers away. And so can the R-27 or R-73, hell, if you want to argue over numbers again, the R-73M has a 12 km longer maximum range advantage. Why are you still attacking the source? Anywho, according to Deagle(that's us by the way), the Irbis-E can detect a target with a RCS of 0.01 meter squared from 90 kilometers away. Regarding R-77 v.s. AIM-120C, again, according to Deagle, the R-77 baseline has a maximum range of 80 km, while the AIM-120 baseline has a maximum range of 48 km. Okay, so it doesn't exactly have twice the range of the AIM-120, we're very sorry. EDIT: Same also goes for the OLS-35, just search Deagle.com, 50 km detection range against a front-on non-afterburning target and 90 km detection range against a target in it's rear-hemisphere.

Like you said, the Su-30 has the advantage of Energy. Once it's under attack, any knowledgeable pilot would begin making evasive maneuvers. "Nudge off any more attacks", again, with the maneuvers. At low-altitude against high-maneuvering targets, the AIM-9 and AMRAAM probably just doesn't have the range to kill or disable the Su-30. If you can't maneuver, climb and run. If you argument is load-out, then I would have no argument as there are no "standard combat loadouts" stats that I could look at and make a guesstimate. Again, you are assuming a battle in a mountainous terrain, where BVR weapons and radars would be of no use. A plain look of the map of South West Asia would not yield man mountainous regions. Most likely, combat would occur during an Indonesian intercept of F-111 or F/A-18E/F attempting to disable Indonesian military infrastructure. Derp, no literature I found specifically said that(in fairness, I have only did one search). All I said was that the current Indonesian air-to-air capacitiy consists of AIM-9's and K-13's.

Well, the obvious argument is that the Caucuses are not in South West Asia. Chances are, there won't be much Air-to-Air action around any terrain where the F/A-18E/F could take advantage of it's electronics and air-flank the flanker. I do not know of the measurements of any mountainous terrains in South West Asia so I am unable to make an analysis regarding the ranges involved, the Su-30's minimum response times, etc. On another factor, I am curious to see a low altitude battle between the Su-30MK v.s. the F/A-18E/F, with the Superhornet doing the air-flank per se. As it would be a low altitude battle and assuming the Su-30MK would be doing heavy maneuvers in the event of an attack, the range of the AIM-9 or AMRAAM would be heavily reduced, to maybe even single digit numbers of kilometers. It would be very interesting yes, but my guess would be that the first volley of attacks would be devestating, as the Su-30MK would have so very few second(s) to react. However, once the F/A-18E/F has conducted it's first-strike, I have full confidence in the Su-30MK to be able to nudge off any more attacks, and at the same time deliver a punishing counter-strike. Of course, that all depends if any Su-30MK even survives the first strike.

I do not know if the K-13 is mounted on the Indonesian Su-27/30, but it wouldn't be impossible to do so. Anywho, is there an argument for the F/A-18E/F or can I go home now? :music_whistling:

What RIPTIDE said. Besides, we already have a Patriot battalion in Morag, Poland. Not sure why it wasn't reported on or why Russia didn't respond, but anywho, Russia sold surface-to-surface anti-shipping missiles to China before, and to great protest from Washington. ASM's such as the 3M80 Moskit or the 3M54 Klub were noted for their theoritcally capabilities to infilitrate the defensive systems of a U.S.N. Carrier battle group and strike the carrier. It was also claimed that those missiles were "carrier-killers".

Meh, on the reality basis, the Indonesian Su-30MK are very badly equipped to say the least. K-13's and AIM-9 consists of it's current Air-to-Air capabilities. However, there are future plans to purchase the more modern missiles, such as the R-27, R-73, and R-77. But, this was a hypothetical scenario to start with.

Some guy in one of the forums I participated in(he supposedly served), made this response: So far, I'm pretty meh on this. This should stimulate U.S. development of ABM technologies, and probably not laser technologies as energy-based ABM technologies were rendered useless by the Russian TOPOL-M anyways.

Pffft...you guys are attacking Carlo Kopp, the source, and not his information. Bias comes with every source, but his information is not unfounded. The Su-30 is kinematically superior to the F/A-18E/F, that which we agree. The electronics of the F/A-18E/F is superior, that is which we agree. But which we don't agree is the advancing electronic technologies of Russia which would be implemented on the Su-30 in the future. RCS reduction, AESA radar, Quantum Well Infrared Photography, and several more. That along with the R-77 and it's variants with the R-27 and R-73 and their variants will conclusively dominate every generation fighter of Ameican or NATO design. From what I can see/know, as over a Naval dogfight, the F/A-18E/F would have the opening advantage. But if the Su-30MK could nudge off the AMRAAMs with some feisty maneuvers, and consequently counter-attack, the Su-30MK would have the advantage, in due part to it's superior close-range capabilities. As for the in-land terrain, I'm just going to shut up, throw my pants into the cup, and put my money on the Su-30.

Actually, there were 3 sources cited in that statement, you can check Wikipedia and subsequently check their sources.

I am using Defense Analyst range estimates for the BARS(courtesy of Air Power Australia) and USN radar capabilities declaration. Yes, missile ranges vary with altitude, but logically, unless the 2 aircrafts are seperated by several kilometers of altitude, there would be the same amount of reductions imposed on the missiles. Assuming it is a head on intercept, with little altitude deviation, the baseline ranges of the R-77 and other variants of the R-27 will still outrange the AMRAAM. I'll concede the point that the ability to detect an enemy earlier will yield you the advantage of surprise, and subsequently the ability to maneuver yourself to a position which will deliver favorable odds. However, it is highly doubtful that even with a superior fighting position that the F/A-18E/F would be able to capitalize on it's advantage and launch most of it's AMRAAMs before the Su-30MK begin detecting the F/A-18E/F's. I do concur that the F/A-18E/F is superior in it's electronics, but only slightly. An AESA compared to a PESA are different, but not to the degree of radical. As for RCS, the F/A-18E/F's estimated RCS is about 1 meter squared, with the regular Su-30MK at 7-10 meter squared. However, recently, Russia has painted a Su-30 with RAM, which reduced it's RCS to about 3 meter squared. Personally, I view the F-35 as utter crap, to put it blunty. It's to me like throwing RAM onto a F-16 and calling it an air-dominance fighter. Really, with the future introduction of the PAK-FA and the recent halt in production of the F-22, the F-35 would be our front line against potential T-50's. Carlo Kopp at Air Power Australia did an analysis regarding how combat between the PAK-FA and the F-22/35 would go. The F-22 would fare far better than the F-35, apparently. Anywho, after revisiting Air Power Australia, I realized they've already did an analysis between F/A-18E/F v.s. Su-30. It's quite interesting really. http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html Pretty much what we've been arguing no?

True, however, the baseline R-77 is said to have a range between 40-90 km, so for compromise, I'd just say it would be 65 km. Yes, but as I stated before, the maximum range of the AMRAAM for any variant is apparently 48 km, even though the Superhornet can detect the Su-30 from over 100 km away, it would still be out of it's firing range. However, because the Su-30 should be able to detect the Superhornet from 80 km away, that would allow the Su-30 to fire it's R-77 or even it's R-27ER/ET, all before the Superhornet can fire it's AMRAAM's.

Well, to answer your last question regarding the strength of Russian armor, I have to say it's pretty good, if not equal or better to the M1A2. Most T-72's or for that matter, T-80's in the world are export models. Russians have always took something away from the export models, whether it be a Thermal or Night sight or Kontakt-5 ERA. However, the story for Standard models are different. To list the things that one has and other don't: M1A2 Abrams has: Advanced Composite Armor(Chobham) and a Depleted Uranium mesh. It also has the M829A3 Depleted Uranium long rod penetrator, with penetration estimates at 790 mm of RHAe at 2,000 meters. T-90A Vladimir has: Advanced Composite Armor(Probably a modernized Combination-K), integral ERA(Relikt), and Shtora Active Protection Passive-Kill system. It can fire the 3BM-42M Tungsten Heavy Alloy long rod penetrator with penetration estimates of 650 mm RHAe at 2,000 meters. It can also fire the 9K-119 Refleks, with an estimated 900 mm RHAe penetration ability at 5,000 meters. The future of the M1A2 Abrams includes the Quick Kill hard-kill active protection system, with an Electrothermal-chemical gun or the capability to fire long-range ATGM's. The future of the T-90A Vladimir includes the adaptation and possible modernization of the ARENA hard-kill active protection system. Nakidka signature reduction camouflage would also probably be standardized. To be honest with you, I've always been on the side of Vladimir.

Well, I guess I'll be the Devil's Advocate today. I got my money on the Su-30's. They're super-maneuverable, and although don't have an AESA radar but only a PESA radar, still has the superior air-to-air weapon. The AMRAAM is a good missile, but the R-77 baseline model out ranges the baseline AMRAAM and some of the later variants. The R-77M Ramjet variant has a 160 km maximum range, add in a maneuvering target and various altitudes, it's lower but it's still farther than any AMRAAM models I know of. About the radar, the Su-30MK2 has either a Zhuk-27 or N00VE or N011M BARS passively electronic scanned array. The stated Radar cross section of the F/A-18E/F is in the 0.1 meter squared zone. Accordingly, the BARS should be able to detect the F/A-18E/F at about 80 km. I don't have good sources regarding to the maximum launch and maximum effective range of any AMRAAM variants so I'll just go with the Wikipedia claim of 48 km. My prediction is that the F/A-18E/F would be the first to spot the Su-30, as the APG-79 is a pretty good radar and the Su-30 is also a pretty big plane. However, even with the element of surprise, the F/A-18E/F only manages to hit 1-3 of the Su-30MK2, owing to their super maneuverbility. Don't really need to say much here, R-77M are fired at the void between Short and Medium range, then they switch to the R-27s for the short range kills. Not a professional, so can't do an in depth analysis. But, the F/A-18E/F might just take the day owing to their superior numbers. But, I did have my money on the Sukhoi's, so I'd say they'd take home the tactical victory.

Certainly unmanned planes will be the future, UCAV not so recently began making a larger presence and notoriety, all they need now is to go faster, and learn to do barrel rolls and manned planes would be obsolete.

May 30 : A US CH-47 Chinook was shot down, by a MANPADS in the upper Sangin valley, killing 5 American, one British and one Canadian soldiers. Until July 25th, 2010, officially its downing was attributed to small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire in a NATO attempt to cover up the usage of MANPADS by Afghan insurgents.[/url]" A simple search of Wikipedia :D