SU30 vs Super Hornet

[mvsgas]

What are the main differences between a SU-30MK and a SU-30MK2?

How are they different than other MK ( i.e. Venezuela, China, India)

What is the main role of the Indonesia MK2? Air Defense, Multirole, Strike?

 

What would be the main role of RAAF Super Hornet?

How is the RAAF SH different from the USN version? (if at all)

[Krippz]

What are the main differences between a SU-30MK and a SU-30MK2?

How are they different than other MK ( i.e. Venezuela, China, India)

What is the main role of the Indonesia MK2? Air Defense, Multirole, Strike?

 

What would be the main role of RAAF Super Hornet?

How is the RAAF SH different from the USN version? (if at all)

 

 

Su-30MK:The commercial version of Su-30M first revealed in 1993. Export versions include navigation and communication equipment from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

 

 

Su-30MK2:Su-30MKK with upgraded electronics that enabled support for anti-ship missiles.

 

 

Su-30MKV:Export version for Venezuela is most likely to be similar to the Su-30MK2.

 

It is my understanding that the Indian version (Su-30MKI) would be the more capable aircraft with TVC and avionics from Israel, Russia and France.

 

The RAAF Superhornet is no diffrent than the one F/A-18F's currently operating with the US Navy; I'm not certain however if there are any store restrictions on the order. Twelve of the current 24 Australian Superhornets have been wired on the production line for future modifications to EA-18G's. The Superhornets are primarily taking over the role of the exsisting F-111's so anti-shipping, strike, etc.

[pauldy]

Su-30MK:The commercial version of Su-30M first revealed in 1993. Export versions include navigation and communication equipment from Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.

 

 

Su-30MK2:Su-30MKK with upgraded electronics that enabled support for anti-ship missiles.

 

 

Su-30MKV:Export version for Venezuela is most likely to be similar to the Su-30MK2.

 

It is my understanding that the Indian version (Su-30MKI) would be the more capable aircraft with TVC and avionics from Israel, Russia and France.

 

 

That's what I'm talking about.. thing about Russian combat aircraft is that, when they add something (avionics etc..), another capability or perhaps being built for export, the same aircraft gets a new variant designation ^;

 

I think this messy Flanker Family designations could be a nightmare for those who archive files in Sukhoi OKB offices or maybe the NATO Intelligence people.. :D

 

SU-30MKM

The Su-30MKM seems to be the only Definitive Su-30 variant for me..

I mean it's very easy to distinguish the MKM from other Su-30s because of the MAWS antennas, Laser warning devices and such..

 

Edit

ops, that is Malaysia SU-30, my mistake

http://sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/arch/index.php?id=2999

 

So that's 3 pieces of Su-30MK2 and another 3 Su-27SKM in the future

 

Going back to the very topic of this thread.. If TNI-AU will only have a grand total of 6 Flankers, then the RAAF Super Hornets will obliterate them from the sky, that's for sure.. (Not considering other support such as SAMs, AWACs and other fighters maybe..)

24 vs 6.. that's a futile fight..

 

If I'm understanding it correctly, the Su-27SKM seem to be the single seat equivalent of a modern Su-30XXX (Insert any letter/number)

 

Then what would be are it's supposed difference to the Su-30KI that never seem to materialized?

 

(Couldn't forget about this Su-30KI for associating it with a "Hyped" illustration at deviantart lol)

Edited August 18, 2010 by pauldy

[mvsgas]

Ok maybe I did not explain myself properly

Do they have different engine, radars, etc?

I ask, because I know that the SU-30MK (модернизировать коммерческий) is the export

version. But, for example, MKI (модернизации коммерческих Индии) version is very

different that MKK (модернизации коммерческих Китая) AFAIK, MKK has a higher take of

weight and is more specialize for strike/ bombing mission. Also MKI has TVC and more

varied avionics. I know very little to no information on the MK2. I know that Venezuela

(модернизации коммерческих Венесуэлы) and Malaysia (модернизации коммерческих

Малайзии) versions are MK2, or at least I think so, but what are the differences? Just

avionics or are there any other physical, mechanical or software differences when

compared to other version of the MK2?

 

As per the F-18 SH, RAAF only bought F models because it is suppose to replace F-111, Is

that pretty much it Evontroy? So there is not equipment difference? I ask because on the

F-16 ( the one aircraft I have most experience with) is very varied from user to user, I was

just wondering if maybe F-18 SH is the same way. Hell even the SU-30 is so different

depending on the costumer.

 

I also ask because I do not have access to any special info and I base my knowledge on

books I have read about the SU-27 family of aircraft and what ever I can find in the

internet. I figure if ten of us look around we increase our chances to find interesting bits

here and there.

 

PS

Pauldy,

The Russian designations makes since if I understand it correctly. The letters represent the mission or job (i.e. SU-27P, P for перехват)

Number refers to airframe specifics ( modification available, configurations etc) "T," not sure what it's stands for, maybe test (тест) are for prototypes, like Y for US aircraft.

If the system works the way I think it does. There is also the companies designation and the military designation and the NATO designation... Ok, you are right, is very complicated :D

Edited August 18, 2010 by mvsgas

[Krippz]

 

As per the F-18 SH, RAAF only bought F models because it is suppose to replace F-111, Is

that pretty much it Evontroy? So there is not equipment difference? I ask because on the

F-16 ( the one aircraft I have most experience with) is very varied from user to user, I was

just wondering if maybe F-18 SH is the same way. Hell even the SU-30 is so different

depending on the costumer.

 

It's my understanding that they put in a order for 24 Block II Superhornets. I'm trying to locate more information about the order at the moment to ascertain whether or not they do in fact have a customized Block II.

[SAM77]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I forgot about this and have only read up to pg7

 

I am glad that the bias I felt in Kopps work is shared by others

 

midnight here so i start tomorrow

 

33 pages lol

[Pilotasso]

I doubt there were that many N001 to pass around :)

 

 

You would be surprised. You should read about the Su-27 variants and see all of them has that radar listed as a possibility for custumer request. The others are PESA and futerly AESA. Its hard to come by with information regarding wich precise variant of the radar each custumer opted, but every time someone chooses something above a version of the N001 it makes headlines in the internet and magazines. To my knowlege Only China and India purchased better radars, and also opted for the RVV-AE missile. None of the others AFAIK has donne this.

[mikoyan]

What about the Malaysian su-30 , to me it looks like it has tons on new gadgets on it, even more than the the mki from india

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I am not sure that publically available info will tell us what is on Indonesians Flankers. Just like Russians, Indonesians have relatively small number of Flankers and would keep tight secret on some of their capabilities.

 

Potential adversary is kept in doubts because it would not know if Active, Semi/Active or Passive missile is flying (or not flying) towards him.

[EtherealN]

Potential adversary is kept in doubts because it would not know if Active, Semi/Active or Passive missile is flying (or not flying) towards him.

 

Potential adversary most likely finds out eventually through their intelligence services, or good old-fasioned ELINT. (At which point the Potential Adversary needs to conduct their own counter-espionage to ensure no-one finds out that they know. :D )

 

Although, technically, they would definitely know which of those is flying towards him, since their equipment would differentiate between them quite easily.

[spectre]

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.

 

 

Baseline AMRAAM? The AIM-120A that's been out of production for almost 15 years? AIM-120C-7 is about even with the R-77 and the AIM-120D comfortably exceeds it in terms of range, and massively exceeds it in terms of seeker technology. 80km if it's lucky- SH has a fraction of the RCS of the Su-27 series. You're probably looking at detection ranges in the >150 nm range for SH's finding Suhkois. Even so, the APG-79 is LPI, so no matter what the SH is going to get first look by a comfortably margin and be able to dictate to a large degree where and when the engagement starts.

 

Thinking the game stops once missiles are launched is very simplistic. Most Russian missiles are still operating on older technology R-77 is no exception thanks to the post-Cold War defense meltdown while AMRAAMs have been constantly updated. BVR is highly dependent on ECM, something which the US has had a reasonable advantage in for a very long time. Low RCS Super Hornets with towed decoys and comprehensive EW suites they are going to be extremely hard to get a useful lock on. Once they get Growler support and AESA jamming modes, it's going to be even more difficult. Add in even harder to find F-35C's and you have a suicide zone for any Flanker variant around any US carrier.

 

Basically, you're going to see the high-performance Flankers' performance advantages evaporate when faced with a huge situation awareness problem. It's hard to dodge anything when you don't know who the shooters are, where they are, or when they launched their missiles. Once again, even if the Flankers manage magically to get through, at best they're going to get an even loss ratio thanks to High-off boresight missiles.

 

Bet my money on SH anytime anywhere.

 

Cheers,

Edited March 18, 2011 by spectre

[GGTharos]

Your first post and all you do is ressurect some old thread?

 

Incidentally, R-77 had similar range to AIM-120A. Just about all AIM-120C after C4 should have superior range.

[spectre]

Your first post and all you do is ressurect some old thread?

 

Incidentally, R-77 had similar range to AIM-120A. Just about all AIM-120C after C4 should have superior range.

 

 

Thats what I always do when I see someone arguing like Dr.Kopp !

take Sukhoi factsheets and Russian government statements as gospel and dismiss anything similar from Lockheed/Boeing as'groupthink' or 'marketing.'

SH is all over the Flanker...

[GGTharos]

I wouldn't dismiss the more modern flankers. I don't think they're technologically up to par with a SuperHornet, but they're not an insignificant or easy to defeat threat.

[Sov13t]

I wouldn't dismiss the more modern flankers. I don't think they're technologically up to par with a SuperHornet, but they're not an insignificant or easy to defeat threat.

 

A very unusual statement by GG standards. PrintScreened :thumbup:

[topol-m]

A very unusual statement by GG standards. PrintScreened :thumbup:

 

Not unusual at all actually :)

[Sov13t]

Not unusual at all actually :)

 

Usually they are followed with signs of sarcasm. This one seemed legit. Could be wrong though... you never know.

[GGTharos]

I wasn't being sarcastic. A lot of people think that a superior aircraft is defined in a 'this will always shoot you down' manner, but this is only true for a few planes, and followed by reasonably unfair aircraft match-ups, then this can be true. (MiG-29 v Vietnam F-4. Who do you think would win? I wouldn't bet on F-4's).

 

Realistically a 'superior' aircraft is one with a better exchange ratio. The better this ratio, the more superior the aircraft - the idea is that you'll trade x of your fighters for y of theirs. For a long time the F-15C was valued at around 6:1 vs. the Su-27, and I believe that still holds or has moved to 4:1 against the most upgraded (not newest variant, newest upgrade) flankers - note, these numbers are an example and I remember them poorly, don't make an issue of them :P

 

On the other hand, it has been suggested that the exchange ratio of a modern F-15C vs. a new Chinese flanker like the J-11 or an Indian flanker would be around 2:1 or even edging to 1:1 (It seems, they've put in more effort into becoming dangerous than even the Russians did with the Su-35, at least that's the impression I got. Of course, the Russians have an excuse: They have a new stealth plane and new missiles on the way, and personally I think it is smart of them to not waste TOO much money on technology that will likely be soon eclipsed and rarely if ever used anyway).

 

Now, I don't know if they were thinking F-15J's, but either way, the point is that while Russian fighter avionics and weapons managed to stagnate 20 years behind their opposition, they're coming back - I'd say everyone is still playing catchup to the US fighters, but they've closed the gap.

 

The point is, 'catch up' doesn't mean that 'nyah nyah, you'll get blown up 'cause you're worse'. It means the threat becomes more significant as indicated by the predicted exchange ratios.

Edited March 18, 2011 by GGTharos

[Cali]

Who suggested the 2:1 ratio GG? The US is already working on the next Gen fighter.

[Moa]

GG, the F-15 vs Su-27 was 7:1 according to an (unclassified) Pentagon presentation I saw on the web. So your figures stack up (6:1 or 7:1 is pretty much the same: some losses but mostly kickin ass!).

 

This indeed dropped slightly against later Flanker models. I think this information was made available in the push for the F-22 (same reason the 6 F-22s vs regiment of Chinese Flankers study was 'leaked' - so the public outrage could sway Congress to fund more F-22s).

[GGTharos]

I forget Cali, as I said it was a long time ago and the source may or may not have been good (eg. one of those silly RAND reports).

 

Generally reliable sources I've spoken with seem to agree with this trend (they never talk numbers, just who they'd consider a bigger problem).

[GGTharos]

Aha - thanks Moa, that might indeed be right. Glad your memory is better than mine :)

 

Incidentally I got my hands on some actual USAF training scenario (I don't know where the file is now :( ) where they consistently trained F-15's to defend a cabbage patch in 2v4 up to 2v8 scenarios, with the opposition usually being a mig of fighters and strikers. Aircraft included were up to the Su-27, and I recall the document was pre-AMRAAM.

 

GG, the F-15 vs Su-27 was 7:1 according to an (unclassified) Pentagon presentation I saw on the web. So your figures stack up (6:1 or 7:1 is pretty much the same: some losses but mostly kickin ass!).

 

This indeed dropped slightly against later Flanker models. I think this information was made available in the push for the F-22 (same reason the 6 F-22s vs regiment of Chinese Flankers study was 'leaked' - so the public outrage could sway Congress to fund more F-22s).

[RIPTIDE]

Can't really take the DoD figures for face value considering the long long list of revisions that have taken place in its history in terms of real life engagements. I was reading the other the other day about the original stellar reports of destroying scud launchers in the desert in the Gulf War. Some time after a report was commissioned and the figure dropped from ~100 to close to Zero and pointed to the abyssmal performace of the SAR on the 'E'. So, grains of salt to be passed out, form an orderly queue.

[GGTharos]

Can't really take the DoD figures for face value considering the long long list of revisions that have taken place in its history in terms of real life engagements.

 

They are the best and only figures available. They're still assumptions based on intelligence that we know nothing of, but that's the name of the game. I don't think you need a particularly large lump of salt for these.

[RIPTIDE]

They are the best and only figures available. They're still assumptions based on intelligence that we know nothing of, but that's the name of the game. I don't think you need a particularly large lump of salt for these.

If the best and only figures available lead to revisions of an order of magnitude in ACTUAL operations, then yes... I will take the grain of salt. I'll take the whole salt mine. This is something that has happened since Korea. Officially, the loss count inflicted on the enemy were downgraded by 50% in that A2A conflict. And this sort of revisionism seems to be systemic. It's also prevalent in many other defence forces so nobody is unique in this regard.