Jump to content

Su-27: How to beat F-14 in BVR?


Recommended Posts

Point is though, these curves are going to do nothing to throw off a Phoenix launched at it BEFORE the terminal phase. If I understood JJ correctly, these evasive manuevers (which don't seem to be very elaborate in any case) are executed within several miles of its target during the end game, rather than over BVR where they would be engaged by Standard SAMs or fleet air defense aircraft. It's more a counter to short range defenses, if I'm correct in assuming so.

 

So the point still stands - during the likely point of interception by SM-2 Standards and fleet air defense, the main defense cruise missiles have is either stealth or speed. And back to the original point, the advantages the AIM-120 has over the Phoenix is meaningless as speed and range is more important than agility.

 

Well I would say that for cruise missile interception, the F-14/AIM-54 would be best employed as a forward defence in combination with the E2 Hawkeye for "over horizon" detection....i.e. as a meassure to ingage the incoming missile as far away from the surface group as possible.

 

However, AFAIK only later versions of the AIM-54(-C?) were modified for interception of low flying targets, while the initial version was developed specifically for interception of high altitude bombers before they could bring their ASMs into launch range.

 

But then the F-14/AIM-54 combo is not really my field, so I could be wrong :)

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you're right. The C was the further modified with ridiculous ECCM ... starting to look familiar as far as the purpose of the missile goes...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this isn't a real issue. You have to consider both targets that know they're being attacked and targets that don't ... while it's useful to know each case separately also, the overall combat record consists of everything.

Actually it is a real issue... you, as a one of the loudest protagonists for improving hit % for 120 in Lomac should know the difference. You want to have same hit % for maneuvering targets that was achived in RL on nonmaneuvering ones. :lol:

 

I think the fact that no F-15C has gone down in air to air combat speaks volumes.

Not really :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think the fact that no F-15C has gone down in air to air combat speaks volumes.

Errr...I dont think so. I haven't seen the USAF to fight very good aircrafts. Sure the Mig-29 is a good fighter, but its a short range fighter. The F-15 is an interceptor, its primary function is to destroy targets in BVR. So, the AIM-120 takes the enemy down relatively easy.

 

Also, in all wars in which the USA were involved, there was always an AWACS supporting the other aircraft.

 

So, no, I dont think that destroying 100 targets without any loss, is a great achievement. Remeber that the USA also have one of the largest armies in the world, and numbers combined with technology, make a huge difference. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually this isn't a real issue. You have to consider both targets that know they're being attacked and targets that don't ... while it's useful to know each case separately also, the overall combat record consists of everything.

Actually it is a real issue... you, as a one of the loudest protagonists for improving hit % for 120 in Lomac should know the difference. You want to have same hit % for maneuvering targets that was achived in RL on nonmaneuvering ones. :lol:

 

You actually have no clue, do you? You completely misinterpreted what I wrote :P

 

I think the fact that no F-15C has gone down in air to air combat speaks volumes.

Not really :)

 

Yes, really. Anything else is wishful thinking.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think the fact that no F-15C has gone down in air to air combat speaks volumes.

Errr...I dont think so. I haven't seen the USAF to fight very good aircrafts. Sure the Mig-29 is a good fighter, but its a short range fighter. The F-15 is an interceptor, its primary function is to destroy targets in BVR. So, the AIM-120 takes the enemy down relatively easy.

 

Also, in all wars in which the USA were involved, there was always an AWACS supporting the other aircraft.

 

So, no, I dont think that destroying 100 targets without any loss, is a great achievement. Remeber that the USA also have one of the largest armies in the world, and numbers combined with technology, make a huge difference. :)

 

Sure, it's the whole war machine that counts. Opportunities for other aircraft to shoot down F-15's haven't been scarce either, though - the point is, it's faced with a threat, and it wins. End of story.

 

The quality of the opposition has been low, but a plane that's 'not so good' could have easily done worse against the same opponent. See what I mean?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually have no clue, do you?

Hehe... it would be much better for you if you would be able to keep track on what you had written on this forum :wink:

 

No, it would be much better for me if people didn't misintepret my intentions. ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quality of the opposition has been low, but a plane that's 'not so good' could have easily done worse against the same opponent. See what I mean?

 

Easily? Well could do worse... but easily? ooooooooooooooookaaay. :roll:

 

Yes, easily. Unless the pilots of the opposiing aircraft actually didn't know what they were doing at all, which is a whole class of different, but I doubt this was the case in all encounters.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think the fact that no F-15C has gone down in air to air combat speaks volumes.

Errr...I dont think so. I haven't seen the USAF to fight very good aircrafts. Sure the Mig-29 is a good fighter, but its a short range fighter. The F-15 is an interceptor, its primary function is to destroy targets in BVR. So, the AIM-120 takes the enemy down relatively easy.

 

Also, in all wars in which the USA were involved, there was always an AWACS supporting the other aircraft.

 

So, no, I dont think that destroying 100 targets without any loss, is a great achievement. Remeber that the USA also have one of the largest armies in the world, and numbers combined with technology, make a huge difference. :)

 

Why are you bashing the F-15's combat record? How is a 100+ : 0 kill ratio not a great achievment? What is? A lot of other fighters, like the Tornado, Su-27 and MiG-29, have seen just as much combat as the F-15. What do they have to show for it? A few Cessna kills? :roll:

 

The F-15's combat record is more a testament to the skill of U.S. and Israeli pilots than the quality of the aircraft. Contrary to what you believe, the vast majority of the kills took place WVR, and no matter what you think, a Flogger sitting 3 miles off your flank with Apex missiles is still a threat.

 

On the flip side, you tell me what contemporary plane has an 'acceptable' combat record. All other Western jets besides the F-16 have no confirmed AA kills to boast about, and the MiG-29 and Su-27 haven't been shooting at anything that can shoot back, except each other. But you already said that the Fulcrum was only a short-range fighter, so that fight doesn't count :roll:

 

Now, if you were to say that combat doesn't count as a measure of the quality of the airframe and the pilot, then well, I hope you continue to think so.

 

Think about what you're saying before you say it. Quality of the threat doesn't matter; a threat is a threat and people can get lucky if you give them the opportunity to shoot you down. There's a saying in fighter pilot circles, "I'd rather be lucky than good anyday," and it applies here. An F-117A was brought down by an SA-3 over Yugoslavia by pure luck. Does it mean that the Nighthawk is vulnerable to such a low quality, 1960s era threat? No, and to say so would be stupid.

 

Iraqi soldiers with optically aimed AAA and SA-16 MANPADS accounted for the lion's share of the 41 Coalition losses in Desert Storm. Are they an advanced threat? No. Are they still a threat? Obviosly yes. To think otherwise is contradictory.

 

You eliminate the luck factor by not giving them the opportunity to shoot you down, through sound tactics and extensive training, both of which are routine to F-15C pilots. Since they usually can't eliminate the threat, R.O.E. dictating they need to close to WVR, they must fly and fight in a way to deny their opponents the opportunity for a shot. The fact that nobody got 'lucky' against an F-15 yet speaks volumes.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All other Western jets besides the F-16 have no confirmed AA kills to boast about, and the MiG-29 and Su-27 haven't been shooting at anything that can shoot back, except each other.

 

The Hornet and Tomcat would like a word with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F/A-18 Hornet: 2 confirmed kills, 1 AA loss

F-14: One confirmed Helo kill, unconfirmed number of kills with the IRIAF, unconfirmed number of losses with the IRIAF

EDIT: 4 Libyan Flogger kills; some unconfirmed, probable IRIAF kills.

 

Again, nothing really concrete, and certainly not in the same league as the F-16 and F-15, both with 69 and 100+ kills with zero AA losses, respectively ;)

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you bashing the F-15's combat record? How is a 100+ : 0 kill ratio not a great achievment? What is? A lot of other fighters, like the Tornado, Su-27 and MiG-29, have seen just as much combat as the F-15. What do they have to show for it? A few Cessna kills?
Im not ware of any combats of the Su-27. I know that one crashed on the Ukraine during an airshow, and that's all the action I know of the Su-27. The Mig-29 on the other hand, fought against the USAF several times, I think during the Blakans, in service of the Serbian airforce, a poor airforce we must admit. (light-quality pilot training, lack of maintenace for their aircraft.)

 

The F-15's combat record is more a testament to the skill of U.S. and Israeli pilots than the quality of the aircraft. Contrary to what you believe, the vast majority of the kills took place WVR, and no matter what you think, a Flogger sitting 3 miles off your flank with Apex missiles is still a threat

 

WVR? Sorry for my ignorance but I dont what's that suppose to mean. Maybe its Close Air Combat (CAC) in other terms?

 

A Flogger and any other aircraft are threats, as long as they are armed. And yes 3 miles is a very short distance for a fighter to be at your 3 or 9 o'clock. But how could the King of the Skies aka F-15C let the enemy get so near, when they have an AWACS in the air. Let me guess: ran of AMRAAMs? :roll:

 

Now, if you were to say that combat doesn't count as a measure of the quality of the airframe and the pilot, then well, I hope you continue to think so.

 

Well, I never refered to the pilot on my post. :wink: I only talked about the "airframe". I was comparing the type of aircraft used by the USAF and OPFOR.

 

Think about what you're saying before you say it.
I usually do sir.

 

Quality of the threat doesn't matter; a threat is a threat and people can get lucky if you give them the opportunity to shoot you down. There's a saying in fighter pilot circles, "I'd rather be lucky than good anyday," and it applies here. An F-117A was brought down by an SA-3 over Yugoslavia by pure luck. Does it mean that the Nighthawk is vulnerable to such a low quality, 1960s era threat? No, and to say so would be stupid.

Yeah I remember that Nighthawk incident, bad luck. Yup, I know that if the enemy fires you are in trouble. And as Russian aircraft pilot (in Lock On of course.) I know that better than you, since I have to avoid AMRAAMs sometimes more than one per mission. That's why I never enter in contact with any fighter armed with ARH. I always avoid frontal attacks, and stick on the shadow until the prey is ready to be shot down. (advantages of the EOS).

But you must understand that in life there are probabilities, so the probability of being shot down by Mig-23 is far lower than being shot down by a Mig-29. Of course, it depends on the circuntances. I fyou get a bandit on your six and you don't that it is there, ten my friend, it can be Su-27, a Mig-29 , a Mig-23 or even an Su-17 that you are going to eat dust. :twisted:

 

You eliminate the luck factor by not giving them the opportunity to shoot you down, through sound tactics and extensive training, both of which are routine to F-15C pilots. Since they usually can't eliminate the threat, R.O.E. dictating they need to close to WVR, they must fly and fight in a way to deny their opponents the opportunity for a shot. The fact that nobody got 'lucky' against an F-15 yet speaks volumes.
So you are telling em that the USAF pilots got lucky? You give me reason then. You are telling em that the F-15 pilots got lucky, and the others didnt? Are you trying to tell that it is the pilot the only factor to influence the air battle? I dont doubt that the USAF pilots are very well trained, and that is thanks to your goverment that injects a very generous amount of money for their armed forces, but you are damn wrong. The type of threat is important. Look at the F-15C RWR (?) it even indicates what is the threat. (if it is an Su-27 or a Mig-29.etc)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, we are not talking Lock On. We are talking about the F-15's REAL life combat record.

 

Secondly, you are *completely* missing the point of what I'm saying. My point is that just because a threat is 'low quality,' doesn't make it 'not' a threat. In any of the incidents where the Israeli/U.S. F-15 scored kills, there was an *equally* likely chance that the enemy could've got lucky and shot down an F-15. The reason that none of them got lucky was that the F-15s and their pilots used superior tactics and the strengths of the Eagle to their advantage and *denied* their enemy the opportunity to get lucky.

 

BTW, F-15 pilots close to WVR (or CAC) range all the time to positively ID their target - it's not because they ran out of AMRAAMs (the majority of the kills weren't scored with AIM-120s, btw). You should do some research.

 

Just because a threat is low quality doesn't take away from the combat record of the F-15. A threat is a threat. Look at it from this point of view. Iraqi soldiers brought down more Coalition aircraft with SA-16s and hand-aimed AAA fire than with any other weapon, including the newer SA-6s, etc. By itself, would you see AAA and SA-16 as a threat? No. But does that mean they are not a threat? Absolutely not.

 

The F-15's combat record counts. *Combat* counts - low quality threat or high quality threat.

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look mate, im really tired of this discussion, so Ill make myself understand on my last post.

 

First of all, we are not talking Lock On. We are talking about the F-15's REAL life combat record.
You are missing my point. You REALLY missing ok? I was JUST giving an example. ROFLOL, in what were you thinking when you thought about comparing LOMAC and the F-15 combat record??? :roll: In my anterior post I JUST gave an example, on how to avoid the F-15 and WHY should I do so. Because LOMAC is a SIMULATOR, and because it is a SIMULATOR, it SIMULATES real life. So the AIM-120 is the most powerfull missile in LOMAC and the best missile in real life. Understood? I was just giving an example of how good is the F-15C, NOTHING more.

 

Secondly, you are *completely* missing the point of what I'm saying. My point is that just because a threat is 'low quality,' doesn't make it 'not' a threat. In any of the incidents where the Israeli/U.S. F-15 scored kills, there was an *equally* likely chance that the enemy could've got lucky and shot down an F-15. The reason that none of them got lucky was that the F-15s and their pilots used superior tactics and the strengths of the Eagle to their advantage and *denied* their enemy the opportunity to get lucky.
Im sorry but im not missing your point, unless you want me to explain you what you said before. Yeah, that's what I said on my example about the target being at your 6 o'clock, but you must understand that warfare evolves. You know what that means? It means that the Eagle has fewer probabilities of shooting down an Su-27 than P-51 god damn it. Can't you understand that? Last night I was flying in IL2 and me and my friend got in trouble because our Spitfires couldnt caugh a Ta-150 german fighter, that was much more faster and could destroy using the "kick-and-run" tactic. I know that WWII is different scenario than modern air combat, but my example has the porpuse of telling you why the type of threat counts, and thats enough. But anyway ill give another example this time in modern air combat scenario. An enemy aircraft caughs you by surprise and comes right from your 10 o'clock high to you. What do you do? If you are in an Su-27 you the helmet mounted sight and fire an R-73. If you are in an F-15C you acelerate and try to get your nose towards the target and fire an AIM-9. So in this case the avionic of the plane that you're flying made the diference.

 

Now imagine Floggers that dont have the precious mounted sight, in a dogfight against an F-15C vastly superior in speed and manoubrability?Not a chance, mate.

 

BTW, F-15 pilots close to WVR (or CAC) range all the time to positively ID their target - it's not because they ran out of AMRAAMs (the majority of the kills weren't scored with AIM-120s, btw). You should do some research.
Im not intersted.

 

Just because a threat is low quality doesn't take away from the combat record of the F-15. A threat is a threat. Look at it from this point of view. Iraqi soldiers brought down more Coalition aircraft with SA-16s and hand-aimed AAA fire than with any other weapon, including the newer SA-6s, etc. By itself, would you see AAA and SA-16 as a threat? No. But does that mean they are not a threat? Absolutely not.
But that means that the threats are all classified tha same way? NO! they are classified by low, medium and high. So the better the plane the higher the threat. But why the hell are implying that I said that a Mig-23 is not a threat? I would really like to know. I said that such aircraft have lower probabilities of destroying an F-15. Of course if the Mig-23 is behind the F-15 the Eagle is probably going down.

 

The coalition helicopters got destroyed by the old RPG-7. Its old, but since its not sensible to flares theres no way to escape to that threat. So, I never said that low threats werent threats, and my last sentence just proved what you meant in oyour post. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, F-14's also have some libyan mig kills IIRC. There's even an audio going around which was included with ZZZspace's sounds once. Maybe still is.

 

F-16's got confirmed kills as well.

 

But the F-15 still shines with 100+:0 combat record in AA combat. Most kills were achieved using AIM-7's, not 120's.

 

The Su-27 and MiG-29 competed in teh Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, and the 27's compeltely kicked ass.

 

However, out of who knows how many R-27's that were fired, only one proxed near a mig, damaging it critically. All the other kills were achieved using 73's.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skywall, forget about it. You don't seem to get my point: that the fact the threats the F-15 faced were low quality doesn't take away from its 100: 0 kill ratio. I'm not going to explain my point further to you; if you think combat is a waste and counts for nothing, than good for you.

 

GG, oh yeah, thanks, forgot about the Tomcat Libyan Flogger kills. IIRC, Navy Tomcats also got a couple probable kills while policing the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran-Iraq conflict.

 

But the F-15 still shines with 100+:0 combat record in AA combat. Most kills were achieved using AIM-7's, not 120's.

 

Actually, most kills were probably achieved using AIM-9L/Ms and the Python 3. About the only thing the Israelis did over Lebanon was dogfight, and that war accounted for the bulk of the F-15's kills (over 40, IIRC).

sigzk5.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. It was GF1 that saw a lot of 7's used, and a lot of those missed too ... there's one story about a pair of landing foxbats facing a rain of sparrows all around'em, but no direct hits. ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skywall, forget about it. You don't seem to get my point: that the fact the threats the F-15 faced were low quality doesn't take away from its 100: 0 kill ratio. I'm not going to explain my point further to you; if you think combat is a waste and counts for nothing, than good for you.

Im not saying that the fact that the threats that the F-15 faced were low-qualitiy is the reason why the F-15 has the 100:0. But that helped the Eagle to attain such record. Ok?

 

But it is also a fact that the threats that it faced werent to its level. Thats a fact, and thats why technology counts today.

 

The F-15 is the best fighter around after the F/A-22, thats a also a fact. Im only talking in the technological point of view, and btw, thats also a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Su-27 and MiG-29 competed in teh Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, and the 27's compeltely kicked ass.

 

However, out of who knows how many R-27's that were fired, only one proxed near a mig, damaging it critically. All the other kills were achieved using 73's.

Lol. That only proved how those africans are fools. How can the Su-27 being completly ass-kicked like you said? Easy, the pilots were dogfighting with migs with 100% fuel. :lol:

 

Im just kidding, don't take this post too seriously. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Su-27 and MiG-29 competed in teh Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, and the 27's compeltely kicked ass.

 

However, out of who knows how many R-27's that were fired, only one proxed near a mig, damaging it critically. All the other kills were achieved using 73's.

Lol. That only proved how those africans are fools. How can the Su-27 being completly ass-kicked like you said? Easy, the pilots were dogfighting with migs with 100% fuel. :lol:

 

Im just kidding, don't take this post too seriously. :wink:

 

Yeah ... I was starting to wonder, because I said that the su 27's kicked ass ;). The fighters on both sides were flown by either russian or ukrainian mercanaries to some extent, the Su-27's were flown completely by russians, and also got the first air to air kill by a female pilot for russia. The Migs were flown by ukrainians and whatever county's guys they were loaning/selling them to, but I'd like to emphasize that there were a number of good pilot v good pilot encounters.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-15 is the best fighter around after the F/A-22, thats a also a fact. Im only talking in the technological point of view, and btw, thats also a fact.

 

Eurofighter would like a word with you :wink:

. . . . Just give it a moment to put down its pint and call up its mates from being at home in bed, OK? :P

 

 

 

Otherwise . . . . yeah, this thread seems to have burned out.

 

Hadn't heard that a female Russian pilot got the Su27's first combat kill, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...