Flankers versus Falcons

[GGTharos]

I disagree. A better radar or new missiles don't teleport you in the position you need. Neither do those things refuel you in flight. Yes, on paper an up-to-date F-16 is superior a 1985 Su-27 in BVR. But in reality it would be extremely difficult to make use of that superiority unless the Sukhoi pilot is drunk or generally bad. Basing your capabilities on just that would be stupid.

 

No, but it does get you the first shot, usually. I would assume both can get to where they need to be, and neither is doing self-escort.

Everything else is circumstantial and I can manufacture a scenario that puts the flanker at a disadvantage just as easily.

 

That is why we built the Eurofighter. It has better BVR capabilities compared to hundreds of old Flankers too. But unlike the F-16 it is actually fast enough to get in firing range and make use of it.

 

Well, it's just a superior plane overall, no argument here.

 

Your comparison of Vietnam era F-4 vs MiG-29S is not correct here. The MiG is better in BVR and has slightly more range also. It doesn't resemble the F-16 vs Flanker situation.

 

It does in terms of avionics, which was the point - well, my point.

 

It's not like I rate the Falcon a bad aircraft. Quite the contrary. But in my opinion it is just not a good tool to be used against Flankers.

 

Okay, I won't argue with that either - ideally you'd want an F-15 dealing with them since it is the direct counter-part ... many countries do not have that option however.

 

PS: Yes, I omitted the EF-2000 here, as I personally would expect it to perform far better than an F-15C in this role. It's also a next gen plane, while the F-16/15 and Su-27 are of the same generation.

[maobingyishen]

ok, Let try this,

Say, Taiwan has 120 of F16A/B Block 20 and 40 Mirage 2000-5E. If China want to take them out with only A2A, how many Flankers that China needs??

[Pilotasso]

1200? :D

 

Truth is that Taiwan is at numerical disavantage and also doesnt have same class of aircraft by far. US kept the game balanced by selectively set the tech level they want to sell to Taiwan.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Pilotasso

[EtherealN]

ok, Let try this,

Say, Taiwan has 120 of F16A/B Block 20 and 40 Mirage 2000-5E. If China want to take them out with only A2A, how many Flankers that China needs??

 

Extremely flawed scenario, since said flankers would also be doing the tango with batteries of Hawk and Patriot, as well as the assets of the Republic of China navy. Any type of aircraft is only as good as the role it fills, wherefore context is everything.

 

Example: F22. Superb piece of kit. Worthless against the taliban. (Excepting their SDB capability...) See my point?

[topol-m]

ok, Let try this,

Say, Taiwan has 120 of F16A/B Block 20 and 40 Mirage 2000-5E. If China want to take them out with only A2A, how many Flankers that China needs??

 

Hmm China vs Taiwan? I`d say Taiwan has no chance at all :D

[mvsgas]

To many variable guys.

To properly compare any aircraft you have to get into specifics. What I mean is, specific year, model, country, capabilities, etc.

 

For example, I think a SU-27 from Russia circa 1990 as it was used operationally would have the advantage over a USAF F-16C block 25 as it was used in 1990. IIRC at the time F-16 did not have AIM-120 capability, only in testing. F-16 RADAR, back then wasn't as capable, etc. My point is that to compare aircraft like this, is better to compare specific models. We also have to watch our preferences. I love the F-16 so of course I will by bias in favor of the F-16. Just saying

[sniffer]

For example, I think a SU-27 from Russia circa 1990 as it was used operationally(...)

 

Small correction: First Flankers was operational in 1985 year... 60th IAP (Dzemgi) and 941th IAP (Kilp-Javr)...

 

Don't know what version of Falcons was in use then...

[Frostie]

PS: The one real unknown is DRFM jammers. Those are game-changers, but there's no info out there on whether Russian planes are equipping them and how many sets are available and to whom.

Basically you don't know, which makes your theories about ECM/ECCM - Falcon vs Flanker a load of speculative, heavily biased, tosh.;)

Its impossible to even take a guess at what range an F-16 could lock onto a Flanker and vice-versa.

 

Also an Su-27S uses a N001 radar an Su-27SM uses a N001V radar, I think you'll find them different, sort of like saying an APG-66 is the same as an APG-66(V)2A. Whatever, in both instances the Flanker radar was deemed far more powerful.

[mvsgas]

Small correction: First Flankers was operational in 1985 year... 60th IAP (Dzemgi) and 941th IAP (Kilp-Javr)...

 

Don't know what version of Falcons was in use then...

 

Sorry I did not meant that SU-27 started in 1990, I meant the condition of the aircraft during 1990 (i.e. Avionics, engine type, maintenance, etc.)

[Pilotasso]

Basically you don't know, which makes your theories about ECM/ECCM - Falcon vs Flanker a load of speculative, heavily biased, tosh.;)

Its impossible to even take a guess at what range an F-16 could lock onto a Flanker and vice-versa.

 

Also an Su-27S uses a N001 radar an Su-27SM uses a N001V radar, I think you'll find them different, sort of like saying an APG-66 is the same as an APG-66(V)2A. Whatever, in both instances the Flanker radar was deemed far more powerful.

 

 

Well basicaly I told you before just about anything you can think possible with connectivity on the current falcons has been implemented or will be at some stage, and since you cant jamm all directions except if you use pure noise jammers (old), then... ;)

Edited February 27, 2010 by Pilotasso

[GGTharos]

Basically you don't know, which makes your theories about ECM/ECCM - Falcon vs Flanker a load of speculative, heavily biased, tosh.;)

Its impossible to even take a guess at what range an F-16 could lock onto a Flanker and vice-versa.

 

Basically no one knows - DRFM jammers are a new thing, but not worth much unless produced in numbers. The other part of the equation is that ECCM is already being worked on, and that is known. ;)

 

Also an Su-27S uses a N001 radar an Su-27SM uses a N001V radar, I think you'll find them different, sort of like saying an APG-66 is the same as an APG-66(V)2A. Whatever, in both instances the Flanker radar was deemed far more powerful.

 

The fact that they kept the same antenna is already a big problem. Not that the falcon's radar is super-advanced, but it's already got a leg up in everything but raw power, and even here the design of the flanker's radar antenna takes away from the full power it could use -anyway-.

[sniffer]

Sorry I did not meant that SU-27 started in 1990, I meant the condition of the aircraft during 1990 (i.e. Avionics, engine type, maintenance, etc.)

 

Oh... my bad! :doh: Didn't read carefully ;) :thumbup:

[Frostie]

Well basicaly I told you before just about anything you can think possible with connectivity on the current falcons has been implemented or will be at some stage, and since you cant jamm all directions except if you use pure noise jammers (old), then... ;)

How does this work, in DCS, for Lone wolf pilots who work by themselves and for themselves?

Your F-16 (which version is unknown to me) will be chewing mud from good teamwork before you can say chaff macro. ;)

[Teknetinium]

Are you really serious by telling that F-16 latest block would bring down upgraded Su-27s?

 

Its seems that you think you have as many fighter you like to rotate, while the enemy dont.

 

Su-27 flight whit no tankers can stay double as long time as the F-16 whit tanks. so if u have 4 vs 4 whit no superpower behind you back, you will be in big disadvantage. Special if u can outclimb, out turn, or out speed ur enemy that has double amount A2A missiles as your flight, on top of that you will probably be forced to take action first.

 

it has stronger radar probably first shot cabability, even if the missile dont hit(like your dreams) they will have enough of them to fire at you on till they catch you up and bring you down whit gunz or beloved ET/R-73( they work, you have seen it :)

 

the only thing you have to come whit is that Aim-120c is better then R-77,

that might. Dont forget what F-16 lacks against Su-27 though.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Teknetinium

[Krippz]

Are you really serious by telling that F-16 latest block would bring down upgraded Su-27s?

 

Its seems that you think you have as many fighter you like to rotate, while the enemy dont.

 

Su-27 flight whit no tankers can stay double as long time as the F-16 whit tanks. so if u have 4 vs 4 whit no superpower behind you back, you will be in big disadvantage. Special if u can outclimb, out turn, or out speed ur enemy that has double amount A2A missiles as your flight.

 

it has stronger radar probably first shot cabability, and even if the missile dont hit they will have enough of them to fire at you on till they catch you up and bring you down whit gunz or beloved ETs.

 

the only thing you have to come whit is that Aim-120c is better then R-77.

that might, but dont forget what F-16 lacks against Su-27.

 

Can I have some of the herbal supplements that your taking?!? Your comparing the Su-27's radar to the AN/APG-80 Aesa Radar and actually believe that the Su's radar is superior?? The aperture of the Su-27 radar is only 60° horizontal and 10° vertical (compared to 120° horizontal for a F-16). The F-16 is smaller than the Su-27 and have a more powerful radar so I would think that the F-16's would be able to detect the Su-27 sooner which is an advantage. F-16's are combat proven while Su-27's are not. Most F-16 aircrew have real world combat experience while most Su-27 aircrew do not.

[Teknetinium]

Can I have some of the herbal supplements that your taking?!? Your comparing the Su-27's radar to the AN/APG-80 Aesa Radar and actually believe that the Su's radar is superior?? The aperture of the Su-27 radar is only 60° horizontal and 10° vertical (compared to 120° horizontal for a F-16). The F-16 is smaller than the Su-27 and have a more powerful radar so I would think that the F-16's would be able to detect the Su-27 sooner which is an advantage. F-16's are combat proven while Su-27's are not. Most F-16 aircrew have real world combat experience while most Su-27 aircrew do not.

 

PEASA dose work to, As I know the difference is not in range but how many targets you can lock and how good you fight jammers. :) and upgrades for AESA on Su-30 MKI is already in progress.

Yes F-16 is proven, as the pilots.

 

Anyway I cant wait on till the days F-16 is out for lomac, will be so grate to rubb the wings.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Teknetinium

[FeoFUN]

Your comparing the Su-27's radar to the AN/APG-80 Aesa Radar

How many Falcons is equipped with the APG-80? And what nation's military have such Falcons?

Edited February 27, 2010 by FeoFUN

[GGTharos]

Just the UAE, AFAIK - but in that case, we can pretty much ignore India's planes too, right? :)

[Vekkinho]

First of all I'd like to apologize for not reading entire thread, the reason being that is poor subject that's very likely to turn this thread into "my plane is better than yours" type of quarrel we've already seen so many times.

 

Let me just say that forcing F-16 of any kind, block or type against Flankers is a no-no. If you've got active Flanker wings in the area make sure there are Eagles and Raptors too. Simply, F-16 isn't superiority fighter.

[GGTharos]

Then what is it?

[Pilotasso]

Basically you don't know, which makes your theories about ECM/ECCM - Falcon vs Flanker a load of speculative, heavily biased, tosh.;)

Its impossible to even take a guess at what range an F-16 could lock onto a Flanker and vice-versa.

 

Also an Su-27S uses a N001 radar an Su-27SM uses a N001V radar, I think you'll find them different, sort of like saying an APG-66 is the same as an APG-66(V)2A. Whatever, in both instances the Flanker radar was deemed far more powerful.

 

N001 series radars are rather obsolete for many years as they can only attack one target at a time, with the exception of the N001VE wich can engage 2. No wonder the russians and chinese tryed to ditch them and develop substitutes several times.

 

The APG-66V2A can do 6 (It realy should have had a different designation as it is completely redesigned). Range of both types are measured in different ways. PoAF released the figures of 90km look up, 60 km look down for APG66V2A versus RCS similar to F-16. APG-68V9 and APG-80 do much better even. The later butchers the N001 tripling the range of previous APG-66/68 variants. http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Northrop_Grumman_%28Westinghouse%29_AN/APG-66

 

While the N001 is measured against RCS of full blown bombers (their initial motif of development) setting the number somewhere between 140km and 200km wich is hardly impressive. The APG series surely can match or surpass this figure.

 

The N011 and N035 are both measured versus low RCS targets but then again they are few and far appart, or not even fielded yet.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Pilotasso

[Fahhh]

Then what is it?

 

 

It's what the MiG-29 is. A smaller, less capable fighter with less range, and most importantly CHEAPER to build in large quantities. I like the F-16, it's a beautiful bird in my view.... But why when it can easily take care of the Flankers the US bothered to further develop the Eagle and the Raptor? Why not do it much more efficiently with the Falcon? Something doesn't add up. Maybe they overestimated the capabilities of the Flanker, but what makes you think, you are not doing the exactly opposite thing right now?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Fahhh

[GGTharos]

No ... you want to have overmatch. Further, do keep in mind there are other factors - again, the mainstay flanker is pretty out-dated. Once and if they do better upgrades (Su-35 really comes to mind here) things will change.

 

Back when the F-16 was conceived, it would have had a lot of trouble against a Su-27 or MiG-29, but due to technology trends this has changed, for the moment. Also note that the 'true blue' BVR/Superiority fighter stock is thinning. A sign of the times?

 

It's what the MiG-29 is. A smaller, less capable fighter with less range, and most importantly CHEAPER to build in large quantities. I like the F-16, it's a beautiful bird in my view.... But why when it can easily take care of the Flankers the US bothered to further develop the Eagle and the Raptor? Why not do it much more efficiently with the Falcon? Something doesn't add up. Maybe they overestimated the capabilities of the Flanker, but what makes you think, you are not doing the same thing right now?

[tflash]

I read somewhere an aggresor pilot saying that F-16 block 30 is the best falcon for BFM; it has right engine and no overweight.

 

F-16A MLU and Block 50 are also very crisp, I guess block 60 is more optimized for long range strike with a lot of exta weight and sophisticated avionics. A lot of the avionics upgrades have to do with A2G not A2A.

 

If I compare F-16A MLU cockpit in F4AF with Su-27 and F-15 pits in lockon, I like the CRM radar mode, TWS implementation and HSD.

 

I would love to see F-16 in Lockon of course; I guess IRL F-16 would be at a disadvantage at high alt, in Lockon i'm not sure since high ALT performance in Lockon and missile modelling are not really right.

[Frostie]

While the N001 is measured against RCS of full blown bombers (their initial motif of development) setting the number somewhere between 140km and 200km wich is hardly impressive. The APG series surely can match or surpass this figure.

This is the problem, your using guess work and assumptions to come to your conclusions.

 

Detection range performance figures for many older Russian radar variants are not specified in terms of a target, RCS of 3 to 5 m2 is the usual standard used.