Jump to content

SU30 vs Super Hornet


SAM77

Recommended Posts

Not everything is classified I agree. Obviously I've misunderstood you and you have reliable official evidence that brings you to the conclusions that Kopp is lying.

Oh, of course I have.

1. Comparing tracking ranges of us radars vs long range detection mode ranges of rus radars on one chart which is misleading. It's like comparing possibility of detecting a small fighter vs large bomber and putting it one one graph naming it "detection range".

2. Missile ranges:

R-27R - 80km

R-77 - 100km

AIM-120C- 50km

Reality check:

R-27R: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3573/86610817.jpg

R-77: http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1843/r7722y.jpg

AIM-120A: http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1328/aim120ranges.gif

 

OLS-30/35 - Carlo claims a detection range for head on encounters 50-60km up to 90km.

Reality check:

OLS-35: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8827/ols35.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 419
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Vault will turn a blind eye to that. His assumtions are better than any source.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Missile ranges:

R-27R - 80km

R-77 - 100km

AIM-120C- 50km

Reality check:

R-27R: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3573/86610817.jpg

R-77: http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/1843/r7722y.jpg

AIM-120A: http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1328/aim120ranges.gif

 

OLS-30/35 - Carlo claims a detection range for head on encounters 50-60km up to 90km.

Reality check:

OLS-35: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/8827/ols35.jpg

 

I've got Carlo claiming the OLS-35 detection range is 27 NM (43KM) from head on and 50 NM (80KM) from the rear. Either way the full complete official paper off the official supplier is what I'm after not brochures off blog sites, that could be anything, that could be out of a catalouge for an export version for all I know. :)

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

 

http://igorrgroup.blogspot.com/2009/10/ols-35-irst-option-for-su-30-family.html

 

R-27R as we know he got wrong.

 

I'd like to see an official envelope chart for the R-77 by either the RuAF or Vympel.

 

AIM-120A envelope from either Hughes, Raytheon or the USAF.


Edited by Vault

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got Carlo claiming the OLS-35 detection range is 27 NM (43KM) from head on and 50 NM (80KM) from the rear

Where did you learn math?:D

27 x 1,852 = 50km

50 x 1,852 = 93

 

Either way the full complete official paper off the official supplier is what I'm after not brochures off blog sites

That R-77 data is from the manufacturer. It was on a military blog? Yes it was, so what?

This was also on the blog.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8296/r771.jpg

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7115/9b1348eseeker2.jpg

Official papers state 50km vs fighter and 80km vs non maneuvering target at high altitude. Do they collide with what you can see here?

 

I'd like to see an official envelope chart for the R-77 by either the RuAF or Vympel.

You've already seen it.

BTW: when you know what is the max range for R-27R (you have official chart) and what is the stated max range (70-80km) and you know what is officially stated max range of the R-77 (80-100km) you know what to expect (20% greater range than the R-27R). This is exactly what you have one the graph I've provided.

 

 

 

AIM-120A envelope from either Hughes, Raytheon or the USAF.

LOL:megalol:

Even if anybody here has it, nobody will post it here without having troubles. I can tell you that russian charts for western missiles are conservative. I've a source (not some website estimation) stating greater range than what we can see on the graph. But well, if official Russian graph is not good enough try to find something better yourself. I won't give you anything more. It seems that even when there are evidence of Kopp's lies you refuse to accept them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you learn math?:D

27 x 1,852 = 50km

50 x 1,852 = 93

 

Nothing wrong with my Math. I converted Miles not nautical miles into KM. So I take it that's a "no" you don't have any information that is reliable?. Is that abstract from a brochure on an export version of the OLS-35 for export versions of the Su-30 and not the unit that's currently in the Su-35BM?.

 

That R-77 data is from the manufacturer. It was on a military blog? Yes it was, so what?

This was also on the blog.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/8296/r771.jpg

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7115/9b1348eseeker2.jpg

Official papers state 50km vs fighter and 80km vs non maneuvering target at high altitude. Do they collide with what you can see here?

 

No it's from a blog, I could easily create that on Photoshop. I'd like an envelope chart from Vympel or RuAF.

 

r7722y.jpg

 

You've already seen it.

BTW: when you know what is the max range for R-27R (you have official chart) and what is the stated max range (70-80km) and you know what is officially stated max range of the R-77 (80-100km) you know what to expect (20% greater range than the R-27R). This is exactly what you have one the graph I've provided.

 

Hmmm.... So you dont have an envelope chart then?

 

Even if anybody here has it, nobody will post it here without having troubles. I can tell you that russian charts for western missiles are conservative. I've a source (not some website estimation) stating greater range than what we can see on the graph. But well, if official Russian graph is not good enough try to find something better yourself. I won't give you anything more. It seems that even when there are evidence of Kopp's lies you refuse to accept them.

 

So I take it as you don't have the AIM-120A envelope chart then?. Wow you know loads about the AIM-120 and you haven't even seen an envelope chart. And you got the gull to call Kopp's sources dodgy ROFL.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though Kopp rightly argues that his article cannot be seen as an endorsment of the Super Hornet buy, he sure shares my enthousiasm for the aircraft:

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/SuperBug.html

 

Were I not convinced by Vault of Kopps utter neutrality, I would a little bit suspect him of bias ... towards the Super Hornet! ;-)

 

Can I add that since then, the APG-79 came to fruition, enabling incredible things like simultanuous A/A and A/G mode, where the backseater does the A/G mission while the pilot simultanuously uses the radar for self-protection in A/A? Or interference cancellation so that you can JAM AND have LPI TWS at the same time (again something that Lockon doesn't model very rightly: if I JAM with Sorbtsya, chances are that my radar range will be very much degraded, if not seriously hampered, in Lockon there seems to be no influence of your own jammer on your radar - am I right in this?).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pod jammers are interfaced with the radar to avoid one degrading the other (in regimes that they 'care' about each other). That isn't something you need AESA for.

 

Oh, and good luck jamming behind you with the radar :)


Edited by nscode

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pod jammers are interfaced with the radar to avoid one degrading the other (in regimes that they 'care' about each other). That isn't something you need AESA for.

 

I need to review the manual for it because I didn't actually pay good attention to mentions of such integration. F-15's TEWS does this (And more), while I've heard Sorbitsya would cause issues, though for example Su-27SM might be doing much better in that respect.

 

Oh, and good luck jamming behind you with the radar :)

 

Yup :P This is why you need a real jammer. The radar can do it well in front-quarter, but it isn't its primary function. And the fact that we have dedicated versions like F-18G still would seem to indicate that AESA isn't putting dedicated jammers out of business yet.

[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

Pod jammers are interfaced with the radar to avoid one degrading the other (in regimes that they 'care' about each other). That isn't something you need AESA for.

 

Oh, and good luck jamming behind you with the radar :)

 

I'm not talking about jamming with the radar. This is possible with AESA, but I mean wit the internal ALQ-165.


Edited by tflash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the original subject... the Super Hornet, in equal quantities, would take the cake IMO. Powerful/streamlined avionics combined with AESA radar, the superior AIM-120C7 and AIM-9X/JHMCS (if equipped) would be a huge advantage. In a phone booth, the Super Hornet's incredible rate employed correctly would nullify the SU-30's TVN advantage in all but the slowest speed regimes. Frankly, thrust vectoring only becomes an advantage post-stall, and if the Aussies' ACM were so bad as to let that go unpunished, no airframe will help.

 

On the practical side, it operates a lot like the F/A-18A/C, which the RAAF is comfortable with. Tactical changes would be made on that foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the original subject... the Super Hornet, in equal quantities, would take the cake IMO. Powerful/streamlined avionics combined with AESA radar, the superior AIM-120C7 and AIM-9X/JHMCS (if equipped) would be a huge advantage. In a phone booth, the Super Hornet's incredible rate employed correctly would nullify the SU-30's TVN advantage in all but the slowest speed regimes. Frankly, thrust vectoring only becomes an advantage post-stall, and if the Aussies' ACM were so bad as to let that go unpunished, no airframe will help.

 

On the practical side, it operates a lot like the F/A-18A/C, which the RAAF is comfortable with. Tactical changes would be made on that foundation.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AIM-9X has 30+ degrees off-bore capability compared to R-73, depending on version.

 

The AIM-120A already has superior range to R-77, and the R-77 only has a marginal improvement in the amount of g it can pull by comparison. The AIM-120C7 is vastly, vastly superior to the 120A.

 

That is not to say those missiles they are not dangerous. But vastly superior? Hardly - they are in fact, at this point, inferior to what the west wields.

[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 AIM-9X has 30+ degrees off-bore capability compared to R-73, depending on version.

 

The AIM-120A already has superior range to R-77, and the R-77 only has a marginal improvement in the amount of g it can pull by comparison. The AIM-120C7 is vastly, vastly superior to the 120A.

 

That is not to say those missiles they are not dangerous. But vastly superior? Hardly - they are in fact, at this point, inferior to what the west wields.

 

+ 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 degrees on one side. ;)

 

Actually we have weapons profile diagrams for both of them; they are not perfect, but we also have ballistic simulation as well as the basic comparison has been confirmed by those in the know - so if you'd rather quote publicly stated ranges which lack any semblance of explanation for the given ranges, be my guest. In other words, the amount of proof you're offering is essentially nothing yourself.

I suggest going over exec's post a few posts back.

[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

30 degrees on one side. ;)

 

Actually we have weapons profile diagrams for both of them; they are not perfect, but we also have ballistic simulation as well as the basic comparison has been confirmed by those in the know - so if you'd rather quote publicly stated ranges which lack any semblance of explanation for the given ranges, be my guest. In other words, the amount of proof you're offering is essentially nothing yourself.

I suggest going over exec's post a few posts back.

 

Oi, my mistake there.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with the assessment of GG. However, when we do a threat analysis, I think it is safe to consider the R-77/AIM-120 differences as marginal. They are the same class or generation of missiles. Make a tactical mistake and you are toasted anyway.

 

Matching AIM-9X would mean waiting for R-74 I guess.

 

The sensor superiority of the Super Hornet is of a totally different order than the supposed missile superiority, no? Due to this the SH can do tactics simply not available to Su-30.

 

On the other side the kinematic disadvantage for Super Hornet seems to me most acute in a pursuit scenario: when Super Hornet has to tail chase an SU-30 it would soon lag behind; it has good subsonic acceleration but at high speeds it is still a speed brake.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sensor superiority of the Super Hornet is of a totally different order than the supposed missile superiority, no? Due to this the SH can do tactics simply not available to Su-30.

 

The supposed sensor superiority of the Super Hornet is of a totally different order than the supposed missile superiority

 

:)

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other side the kinematic disadvantage for Super Hornet seems to me most acute in a pursuit scenario: when Super Hornet has to tail chase an SU-30 it would soon lag behind; it has good subsonic acceleration but at high speeds it is still a speed brake.

That's where AIM-9X and JHMCS would come into play. If the Super Hornet fires one of these it's game over for the flanker. No fancy maneuvers will help you dodge it.


Edited by onehitxzibit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can state in a factual manner that the AIM-120A's range exceeds the R-77. Using "old school" methods of analysing a missiles aerodynamic performance is not accurate enough to use in place of the real data as stated by Eugene Fleeman on the CD-ROM that compliments his book on tactical missile design. However Fleeman does state that the R-77's lattice fins have inferiour aerodynamic performance compared to the delta fin of the AMRAAM.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However Fleeman does state that the R-77's lattice fins have inferiour aerodynamic performance compared to the delta fin of the AMRAAM.

Such fins have some advantages (better maneuverability), but they do more drag.

And one more word about AIM-120A range. There is a shot of F-16 HUD on this forum with AMRAAM selected and target locked. Closing speed = ~1000 knots, altitude 11 000 ft. Max range displayed 19 nm = 35km. Now you can compare this with that conservative Russian diagram for AIM-120A that gives only 31-32km range at that altitude.

Then you can compare it with official Russian chart for R-27R (from MiG-29 manual) that gives this missile only 20-21km range at that altitude and closing speed.

We also know, according to Russian sources, R-77 max range (stated 80-100km) is ~20% greater than R-27R range (stated 70-80km). So the range at 11k ft altitude should be like 24km.

Even if you don’t like my chart for R-77 official data and diagrams corresponds with that chart. For example 20% more than R-27R (35km) for 10km altitude means 42km and this is exactly what can you see on the R-77 diagram.

 

The only MRM missiles that match or I’d even say exceed AIM-120A range are R-27ER and R-27ET. And now we have that new RVV-SD which also probably has similar range to AIM-120A(or even better).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exec are you still living in the fantasy that you know what you're talking about?. Put an AIM-120A envelope chart up thats from Raytheon, Hughes or USAF. I'm not hijacking this thread any more discussing your arm chair analyst fantasies.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exec are you still living in the fantasy that you know what you're talking about?. Put an AIM-120A envelope chart up thats from Raytheon, Hughes or USAF. I'm not hijacking this thread any more discussing your arm chair analyst fantasies.

I gave you enough sources. If you have brain you should be able to understand them.

I gave you various sources, but nonetheless you want me to do something impossible. You know that I can’t give you such Raytheon’s charts so you will still contradict everything I say just because I don’t have that source you want me to have. That’s just trolling. You just want to live in your dream world so badly that you refuse to accept anything. So, summarizing:

1. Two sources for AIM-120A range (one official Russian, and one from a real aircraft giving us range for 3,35km altitude and 1900 km/h closing speed)

2. Various sources for R-77 range (official max ranges + range chart for comparison)

3. Various sources for R-27 range (official max ranges + official chart from MiG-29 manual)

 

Every source closely confirms each other, so I don’t know where’s the problem? This data is all what is needed to know about max ranges of these missiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where AIM-9X and JHMCS would come into play. If the Super Hornet fires one of these it's game over for the flanker. No fancy maneuvers will help you dodge it.

 

Not entrirely correct. If the target is in range but outside the no escape zone and the adversary pilot sees the launch he can still evade.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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