SU30 vs Super Hornet

[GGTharos]

at what ratio? 10 against 1?

 

Engagements were mostly 1:1.

 

btw guys i am remembering when i was young a video on TV of a mig 29 chased by a bunch of f 16 in Serbia and finally shot down? Is there really such a video or i am delusional. It would be interesting to see.

 

You're delusional. There was something about an elusive Orao or similar ground attack aircraft.

[Alfa]

Well.... it sounds always better than "our advanced plane has been shot down by poor enemy", doesn't it? :P

 

Well I don't know about that - personally I think it sounds better than "our advanced jet just fell out of the sky again and we don't know why" :D

 

But maybe it really was malfunction hmmmm

 

What nscode said :)

[nscode]

And that would be Bosnia. But actually, it might be that graphic of the time when F-117 came in between. Who knows, can't mind dig :D

 

Anyway, just becouse one aircraft activly engaging, doesn't make it 1:1. Blue were never forced to go alone. Reds were.

[Pilotasso]

Let me then tweak your imagination: The F-117 downing was immediately announced. So why would an F15 cause of crash need to be so secretive?

[LARGE]

Engagements were mostly 1:1.

 

i find that hard to believe, how many mig 29 did Yugoslavia have? 10? and what about iraq.. the biggest part of their planes were dug up from the sands after the war

 

Edit: i dunno why e keep saying serbia

Edited March 23, 2011 by LARGE

[GGTharos]

Anyway, just becouse one aircraft activly engaging, doesn't make it 1:1. Blue were never forced to go alone. Reds were.

 

In the context of an engagement it doesn't matter. From the moment those F-15's called 'Judy' they may as well have been on their own.

 

 

i find that hard to believe, how many mig 29 did Yugoslavia have? 10? and what about iraq.. the biggest part of their planes were dug up from the sands after the war

 

Pretty irrelevant. The number of planes they ended up in a fight with were of equal numbers.

 

You can argue that NATO had more fighters until you're blue in the face; yep, they had more support, yes, if they were shot down someone else would pick up, but in the end the engagements looked reasonably fair in terms of numbers.

[Alfa]

Let me then tweak your imagination: The F-117 downing was immediately announced.

 

I don't need imagination because, unlike yours, my memory is fine.......the F-117 downing was definately not immedeatly announced. In fact it was initially outright denied.

 

So why would an F15 cause of crash need to be so secretive?

 

Its not about secrecy......vanity rather.

[Alfa]

In the context of an engagement it doesn't matter. From the moment those F-15's called 'Judy' they may as well have been on their own.

 

Pretty irrelevant. The number of planes they ended up in a fight with were of equal numbers.

 

You can argue that NATO had more fighters until you're blue in the face; yep, they had more support, yes, if they were shot down someone else would pick up, but in the end the engagements looked reasonably fair in terms of numbers.

 

What a load of bull GG.

 

Do you honestly believe that a fighter pilot going up against an enemy with the odds so massively stacked against him can perform on equal terms with his immedeate opponent and just ignore everything else going on around him?!.

 

We are talking real war where you life is on the line......not Lock-on.

[GGTharos]

I honestly believe that you aren't in any position to call bull.

 

What a load of bull GG.

 

Do you honestly believe that a fighter pilot going up against an enemy with the odds so massively stacked against him can perform on equal terms with his immedeate opponent and just ignore everything else going on around him?!.

 

We are talking real war where you life is on the line......not Lock-on.

[Alfa]

I honestly believe I am.

[EtherealN]

The worse end of the derail removed. Get back on topic or I'll do more than just delete your posts.

[vanir]

lol, I was going to post about the OP topic but now I'm wondering if I'll derail where the thread has gone? Is this a Russian vs American doctrinal/technology/political culture thing again?

Well if both are patriotic then there's no way to win that argument is there?

 

I was going to say, what I heard from various sources was the SuperHornets were marked by RAAF doctrinal approach as shepherded Pig replacements. Primary role is force interdiction, air superiority will be handed to F-35 when they finally get here, I suppose the remnant old Hornet fleet until then whilst the SuperBugs will probably function as conversion trainers for the JSF pilots in the meantime.

Given to the strike sqns rather than fighter sqns.

 

So I shouldn't think the RAAF SuperBugs in a hypothetical 2015 confrontation would be performing the kind of missions to fight the Flankers' kind of fight. JSF will be doing that.

 

I could be way off, but that's what I thought.

[nscode]

It's not about wining the argument. It's about removing some degree of mindlessness from the usual '<insert side> pwns all!!!1'.

 

It is somewhat like the anti-evolution pseudoscience. Even if one day the theory of evolution is proven to be wrong, their silly arguments and "proofs" will still be false.

[FanBoy2006.01]

I think we should stop asking if aircraft A is better than aircraft B and start thinking about how one would counter aircraft A with aircraft B in regard to what we already know about the two.

 

In regard to Aus Super F 18 vs Indo Su 30. If you are going to fight towards the strengths of the Hornet (Or any other oponent.) you are going to loose!

 

Su 30 outnumbered fact. Su 30 less capable (Older gen.) AA missiles. etc.

 

So talking Hornets on directly is foolish. Must devise plan to attain surprise.....etc.

 

Let us rather think of ways of how to fight with or against certain weapon systems.

Edited March 26, 2011 by FanBoy2006.01

[FLANKERATOR]

AFAIK, and with similar pilots level, the super hornet should dominate the BVR fight, The APG-79 AESA combined with the radar signature reduction features should give a first see, first shoot capability to the F/A-18E/F. This is of course given the current state of the fighters in service. Russia is making enormous improvement in AESA technology but nothing officially announced in service yet. Untll then, The Super Hornet will most likely have the last word in a BVR engagement.

 

On the other hand, the Su-30 is outclassing the Super Hornet in term of speed, acceleration, climb performance, turn performance and most importantly thrust to weight ratio. So when you mix all these advantages with passive acquisition and tracking sensors, it becomes very obvious that the Super hornet is severely handicapped in a dogfight against a Flanker.

[Alfa]

I think we should stop asking if aircraft A is better than aircraft B and start thinking about how one would counter aircraft A with aircraft B in regard to what we already know about the two.

 

What do we know about the "two" then? :)

 

"The Su-30" is an even more loose description than "The F-18" would be.

[GGTharos]

turn performance

 

No.

 

thrust to weight ratio.

 

Yes. Don't turn with a Hornet (just as you shouldn't turn with a flanker if flying an eagle).

 

So when you mix all these advantages with passive acquisition and tracking sensors,

 

No need for anything passive. In addition, most NAVY aircraft have always had major datalinkage happening - probably plugged right into AEGIS.

 

it becomes very obvious that the Super hornet is severely handicapped in a dogfight against a Flanker.

 

Nope. And if it's turning ability wasn't enough ... AIM-9X.

[vanir]

Well the force interdiction role of the RAAF pigs was to pop a vulcan in the bay with iron bombs under the wings and use it for reach, probably similar the lines the thuds were used in vietnam but wider ranging.

 

As far as I know the SuperBugs are going to be shepherded for the same role, in the strike squadrons not meant for air superiority tasks. Say in a conflagurated argument over Timor.

 

So I'm guessing we'd be talking about Flankers on a long range intercept who'd be best off going for the tanker and its JSF escort anyway (superbugs will be doing hi-lo-lo-hi so need a refuel on the way out).

 

But that aside if they want to go the superbugs directly, say preserve a high value target they're going to have to play the superbug's fight.

I'd say they'd be at a terrific disadvantage doing that unless they can get them coming in over water, fairly unlikely unless they can do Mach 50.

 

Even one-for-one I think the Flankers have serious problems taking superbugs in this scenario. At best you'd be looking at a mission kill with equivalent losses neither side can afford. And here the saving grace of the superbug is a much higher survivability, Flanker pilots will be trying twice as hard to do the same work.

 

Tharos is right though, I read an RAAF report of major ADF concerns being modern frigates in the equation of any regional conflict. One of these can really change the game in the South Pacific so another primary superbug role is prelimenary anti-shipping before any ground strike missions.

On the flipside of that coin I'd say it's fairly likely we'll place a frigate before even thinking about long range air operations, which will undoubtedly act as a datalinked command/controller. I mean we don't have awacs so that's the doctrine, navy/marine style long range aerial operations, air force style home defence.

[Pilotasso]

Dont think the RAAF is doing its purchases based on the threat of Indonesia at all. TNI can hardly be called an airforce. It has numerous types in service but only has a hand full of each and then with low mission readiness rates, rampaging obsolescence, lacking equipment, weapons etc. There is no contest, at least not for now. Things could change in the future though regarding some of the possibilities of chinese and korean aircraft purchases in quantity.

[vanir]

Agree, I don't believe the ADF envisions any problems with Indonesia, it was just the handy hypothetical to provide an example of threatened territorial interests, which they do need to consider. More about strategic development than identifying potential aggressors I'm sure.

 

But what it is doing its purchases based on is RAAF doctrine, carried over from the Mirage/Pig/Hornet outlay. The superbugs are being handed to the strike sqns and the JSF will go to the fighter sqns. And whether we use Indonesia or some other figure, a hypothetical "rogue state" the strategic doctrine for national security and territorial interests remains the same.

[revalence]

Where did all the posts go?! I'm not done with my popcorn!!!