SU30 vs Super Hornet

[Vault]

Kopp has flown IN a Hornet but he has not operated the Hornet. Kopp is not well regarded in Australian Defence circles.

 

Riptide you make a very good point on Missile storage and Missile prep.

 

Kopp has flown the F-18 check the picture at the bottom of this link. It specifically states that Kopp's flown the Super Hornet.

 

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

[tflash]

Another aspect to consider when comparing performances is the theatre. If combat is supposed to be over sea, then radar performance, RCS, range and speed are extremely important. But if the theatre is some mountains and foggy valleys, max radar range becomes much less relevant and superior manoevrability, a good heater missile and maybe some helmet mounted sight and good DIRCM become significantly more important.

 

The Su-30 is certainly very good in the latter scenario, but we shouldn't underestimate the superbug which is still a quite manoevrable aircraft and has JHMCS and AIM-9X (Or will Australia use Asraam?).

[IvanK]

My point is he has had a couple of Gee Whiz rides in Hornets. There is a huge difference in "Flying" an aeroplane and having a ride in one. He has not operated the aeroplane and would NOT have seen any of the aircraft's real capabilities especially with regards the Weapons system. These sort of rides are carefully controlled and organised so as not to compromise the aircrafts weapons systems.

 

Australia uses ASRAAM on the Classic Hornet and the AIM9X on the Super Hornet

Edited August 8, 2010 by IvanK

[Vault]

That's why I stated he's flown the Hornet. I never said he's taken the Hornet to war or taken part in excersises. You're ex-RAAF you should know that the RAAF are far to proffesional to allow someone to take multi million dollar war machines out for "gee whiz" rides...

 

You know there's a MASSIVE difference in being a pilot who operates the radar and weapons system and the electrical engineer that designs and builds the radar. The electrical engineer knows how the radar and weapons system works on a component level, the pilot is a "button pusher" and knows which buttons to push. The electrical engineer is the "brains behind the buttons". If you think that a pilot knows more about radar and it's associated weapons system than an electrical engineer with a Masters degree you're wrong. Pilots actually make up for a very small amount of the overall knowledge base on any given aircraft.

 

You say he's not well regarded in the Australian defence circles, why are they permitting him to fly their aircraft?, he's obviously impressed someone in the RAAF, you know the RAAF don't just give someone the honour of flying their main air to air fighter for nothing...

Edited August 8, 2010 by Vault

[IronsightSniper]

Pffft...you guys are attacking Carlo Kopp, the source, and not his information. Bias comes with every source, but his information is not unfounded. The Su-30 is kinematically superior to the F/A-18E/F, that which we agree. The electronics of the F/A-18E/F is superior, that is which we agree. But which we don't agree is the advancing electronic technologies of Russia which would be implemented on the Su-30 in the future. RCS reduction, AESA radar, Quantum Well Infrared Photography, and several more. That along with the R-77 and it's variants with the R-27 and R-73 and their variants will conclusively dominate every generation fighter of Ameican or NATO design.

 

From what I can see/know, as over a Naval dogfight, the F/A-18E/F would have the opening advantage. But if the Su-30MK could nudge off the AMRAAMs with some feisty maneuvers, and consequently counter-attack, the Su-30MK would have the advantage, in due part to it's superior close-range capabilities. As for the in-land terrain, I'm just going to shut up, throw my pants into the cup, and put my money on the Su-30.

[IvanK]

"You say he's not well regarded in the Australian defence circles, why are they permitting him to fly their aircraft?, he's obviously impressed someone in the RAAF, you know the RAAF don't just give someone the honour of flying their main air to air fighter for nothing..."

 

 

For the record

The only RAAF aeroplane on the page is an RAAF PC9. All the others are USN/Boeing aircraft :). I know for a fact just how "well" he is regarded in the Australian defence organisation.

 

As IronsightSniper says we are drifting from the thread.

 

Given the thread was a theoretical stoush between Indonesian SU30 and RAAF F18F lets get back to that.

 

I would even go as far as saying the current RAAF FA18A (HUG) would still come out victorious. This is not to denigrate the SU30 but the battle doesn't even start on an even footing. The Indonesian Fighter force is basically non functional. It has a ramshackle handful of differrent types. Its Air to Air missile capability is limited. I am not even sure if it has any R27 capability on its SU27/30's but I will give it credit for that for the purpose of this debate. It takes an Air Force with the equipment, The knowledge,the training, and the support infrastructure to be able to field an effective weapon. The Indonesian Air Force has none of these. In fact there is probably only one other Air Force in the region (in Fighter terms) that has that capability and that is the Singaporean Air Force (RSAF) though Australia has an exceptionally close working relationship with the RSAF

Edited August 8, 2010 by IvanK

[IronsightSniper]

Meh, on the reality basis, the Indonesian Su-30MK are very badly equipped to say the least. K-13's and AIM-9 consists of it's current Air-to-Air capabilities. However, there are future plans to purchase the more modern missiles, such as the R-27, R-73, and R-77. But, this was a hypothetical scenario to start with.

[Vault]

I know for a fact just how "well" he is regarded in the Australian defence organisation.

 

Really? Why's he not liked by the Australian defence organisation then?. Critics of Kopp like yourself are failing to give valid reasons for their contempt. Can you emphaise on your comment above by at least backing it with some information of why?.

[IvanK]

Lets just say I spent a reasonable proportion of my life in the RAAF in the Fighter field and still have close contacts there and leave it at that. I am not going to comment further. Now how about continuing the debate on the subject of the thread ?

[nscode]

Meh, on the reality basis, the Indonesian Su-30MK are very badly equipped to say the least. K-13's and AIM-9 consists of it's current Air-to-Air capabilities. However, there are future plans to purchase the more modern missiles, such as the R-27, R-73, and R-77. But, this was a hypothetical scenario to start with.

 

K-13? On Su-30? :huh:

[IronsightSniper]

K-13? On Su-30? :huh:

 

I do not know if the K-13 is mounted on the Indonesian Su-27/30, but it wouldn't be impossible to do so.

 

Anywho, is there an argument for the F/A-18E/F or can I go home now? :music_whistling:

[Moa]

Master's degree? They're a dime a dozen. I have a PhD in (astro-)Physics [as does 51st Case] and know a reasonable amount about signal processing (having done a fair bit in software and hardware) but that doesn't mean I'm an expert in the field since those who do know the true capabilities (the firmware coders, not the pilots) are not on these forums.

 

Kopp has some interesting information but that doesn't make him right about any particular thing. Some of you are only hearing what you want to hear, specifically: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=954786&postcount=7

 

It is pretty clear that the Su-30 is a dangerous foe 1 vs 1 but that almost never happens these days (and never if the Aussies are smart - and they're nearly as smart as us Kiwis :) ). If you really think the Indonesians could take the Aussies in the air well we're here to wake you up with one of two great lines from the Aussie film The Castle:

"tell him he's dreaming", and

"get your hand off it Daryl!".

[tflash]

One additional argument for F/A-18F is that as I am right it has been wired so that it can be "upgraded" to an F/A-18G.

 

This is a very interesting option, because it means that when F-35 comes into service the SuperHornets can take on this more specialized role.

 

As I said, there are many more things that come into play besides somewhat simplistic comparison of enigine performance, radar and missile range.

 

To give a Lockon example: if you're dogfighting in the Caucasus and can jump out of nowhere on the back of your opponent, an R-73 would do, you do not need R-77 whatever. If of course you are crossing the Timor Sea radar range and missile performance would be absolutely decisive.

Edited August 9, 2010 by tflash

[Vault]

Lets just say I spent a reasonable proportion of my life in the RAAF in the Fighter field and still have close contacts there and leave it at that. I am not going to comment further. Now how about continuing the debate on the subject of the thread ?

 

Ivan to be perfectly honest with you I don't really care what you've spent your life doing, however I'm interested why you and a few others on this forum have so much contempt for Kopp without no apparent justifiable reason.

 

All I see on these forums are alot of irrational fan boys with some agenda to smear the name and reputation of someone who is possibly a critic of their countries choice in military hardware...

[Vault]

Master's degree? They're a dime a dozen. I have a PhD in (astro-)Physics [as does 51st Case] and know a reasonable amount about signal processing (having done a fair bit in software and hardware) but that doesn't mean I'm an expert in the field since those who do know the true capabilities (the firmware coders, not the pilots) are not on these forums.!

 

You're missing the point. My point is he's educated and at least has a clue about the how and why the electronics involved in radar and weapons systems work, which gives him an educated opinion, which you don't have.

 

Kopp has some interesting information but that doesn't make him right about any particular thing. Some of you are only hearing what you want to hear, specifically: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=954786&postcount=7

 

Moa see this is my point, I'm just hearing irrational contempt without justifiable reasons. If someone gave me a reason for their irrational contempt on Kopp I'll STFU.

 

It is pretty clear that the Su-30 is a dangerous foe 1 vs 1 but that almost never happens these days (and never if the Aussies are smart - and they're nearly as smart as us Kiwis :) ). If you really think the Indonesians could take the Aussies in the air well we're here to wake you up with one of two great lines from the Aussie film The Castle:

"tell him he's dreaming", and

"get your hand off it Daryl!".

 

I respect your patriotism and your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The Su-30 is superior to the Super bug in many aspects. The truth is no one on this forum knows the out come in a show down between the two. Kopp makes a very valid point that the Flanker has alot of tactical advantages in combat over the Bug, combat persistence combined with superior handling and performance is not to be scoffed at.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Vault

[Pilotasso]

Vault, your suffering from the same problem you put on others who disagree with you, whoever you were already demosntrated wrong on one exemple. you have NOTHING to back it up yourself.

I think it is you who have to drop the ball of the belief (because thats all you got) that Kopp is speaking of good faith or has even a clue. he makes obvious false statements, such as those GG indicated and the fact Kopp speaks about hardware whose developments were cancelled, never beem brought to service and never even proven to have fullfilled their required specifications.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Pilotasso

[IronsightSniper]

One additional argument for F/A-18F is that as I am right it has been wired so that it can be "upgraded" to an F/A-18G.

 

This is a very interesting option, because it means that when F-35 comes into service the SuperHornets can take on this more specialized role.

 

As I said, there are many more things that come into play besides somewhat simplistic comparison of enigine performance, radar and missile range.

 

To give a Lockon example: if you're dogfighting in the Caucasus and can jump out of nowhere on the back of your opponent, an R-73 would do, you do not need R-77 whatever. If of course you are crossing the Timor Sea radar range and missile performance would be absolutely decisive.

 

Well, the obvious argument is that the Caucuses are not in South West Asia. Chances are, there won't be much Air-to-Air action around any terrain where the F/A-18E/F could take advantage of it's electronics and air-flank the flanker. I do not know of the measurements of any mountainous terrains in South West Asia so I am unable to make an analysis regarding the ranges involved, the Su-30's minimum response times, etc.

 

On another factor, I am curious to see a low altitude battle between the Su-30MK v.s. the F/A-18E/F, with the Superhornet doing the air-flank per se. As it would be a low altitude battle and assuming the Su-30MK would be doing heavy maneuvers in the event of an attack, the range of the AIM-9 or AMRAAM would be heavily reduced, to maybe even single digit numbers of kilometers.

 

It would be very interesting yes, but my guess would be that the first volley of attacks would be devestating, as the Su-30MK would have so very few second(s) to react. However, once the F/A-18E/F has conducted it's first-strike, I have full confidence in the Su-30MK to be able to nudge off any more attacks, and at the same time deliver a punishing counter-strike. Of course, that all depends if any Su-30MK even survives the first strike.

[GGTharos]

Mis-placed confidence. If the Su-30's are attacked first, they are defensive and now at a disadvantage making them easier targets. There are potential fuel issues as this point also. This counts in the opposite direction if the 30's manage to attack first.

'Nudge off any more attacks'? With what, magic? Missiles get harder to evade as distance closes, not easier.

 

In close combat the Su-30 has only one clear advantage over the superbug, and that's evergy. This assume it isn't loaded down like crazy with fuel and weapons, and if that IS the case, that 30 might simply not have the combat endurance to deal with a hornet.

The superbug has alpha/handling superiority (not sure where people are getting the idea that the flanker does it better. It does not), the flanker will probably do better in a sustained turn - again, subject to load-out.

The hornet still has all the advantages in the world with AIM-9X.

Indian Su-30's and Chinese flankers might fare better as they seem to have better avionics to begin with plus additional, unknown-to-us use of weapons for the Chinese flanker like PL-12.

 

 

It would be very interesting yes, but my guess would be that the first volley of attacks would be devestating, as the Su-30MK would have so very few second(s) to react. However, once the F/A-18E/F has conducted it's first-strike, I have full confidence in the Su-30MK to be able to nudge off any more attacks, and at the same time deliver a punishing counter-strike. Of course, that all depends if any Su-30MK even survives the first strike.

[Vault]

Vault, your suffering from the same problem you put on others who disagree with you, whoever you were already demosntrated wrong on one exemple. you have NOTHING to back it up yourself.

I think it is you who have to drop the ball of the belief (because thats all you got) that Kopp is speaking of good faith or has even a clue. he makes obvious false statements, such as those GG indicated and the fact Kopp speaks about hardware whose developments were cancelled, never beem brought to service and never even proven to have fullfilled their required specifications.

 

Pilotasso I don't care who disagrees or agrees with me, if I want to argue my point I will, ok. You can think what you like but my "ball of belief" is allot more credible than yours. Lets compare shall we.

 

Kopp is freelance defense analyst who has published more than 300 articles in trade publications he is a senior member of the IEEE, and is endorsed by the AOC and many other credible institutions. He has won awards for articles on radar and EW. He is a research fellow in military strategy at the Monarsh Asia Institute in Melbourne. His papers are the very foundation of computer science research effort that currently encompasses ad hoc networking, GNSS support protocols, NCW, exploitation of radars for high speed datalink applications. Now that's allot of credibility that's endorsed by multiple institutes and sources.

 

Now lets examine your sources.

 

GG Tharos. Eagle Dynamics beta tester for a sim. Is there anything I've missed?.

 

Now I'm not stating that Kopp has not made mistakes because he has, but like the rest of us he is only human. The person you mentioned who likes to point out that Kopp talks about hardware that's not in service is the same person who regularly quotes the that the 9X has a 360 degree WEZ, the 9X that has a 360 WEZ is not even in service untill 2012! and is unproven. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that called double standards.

[GGTharos]

Pilotasso I don't care who disagrees or agrees with me, if I want to argue my point I will, ok. You can think what you like but my "ball of belief" is allot more credible than yours. Lets compare shall we.

 

No, it isn't - especially when you turn a blind eye to real sources.

 

Now lets examine your sources.

 

GG Tharos. Eagle Dynamics beta tester for a sim. Is there anything I've missed?.

Try 'someone who's seen some of the real aircraft manuals and spoken with people in the know'. Yeah, you missed that. But it gets BETTER. Not only do you NOT need to take GG at his word, because there's stuff out there for you to see yourself, you've had a RAAF combat pilot give you the skinny, and you utterly ignored it. You've also ignored the fact that to a large extent, the RAAF has dismissed Kopp's tactical analyses and done the opposite. Obviously, to spite him, huh? ;)

 

 

Now I'm not stating that Kopp has not made mistakes because he has, but like the rest of us he is only human. The person you mentioned who likes to point out that Kopp talks about hardware that's not in service is the same person who regularly quotes the that the 9X has a 360 degree WEZ, the 9X that has a 360 WEZ is not even in service untill 2012! and is unproven. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that called double standards.

Not only he made one mistake after another, but if he knew there were better sources, he has deceived people. If he did not, then he is remiss as a researcher.

 

And, nice job trying to take what I've said before out of context. ;) I'm well aware the 9X Block 2 is not yet fielded ;)

 

The only one peddling double standards here is you: Unable or unwilling to see the proof and truth, blinded by a bunch of degrees and publications.

Kopp may have some interesting knowledge and good papers regarding some things, but strategic/tactical analysis of air combat does not enter into that set.

[RIPTIDE]

Kopp may have some interesting knowledge and good papers regarding some things, but strategic/tactical analysis of air combat does not enter into that set.

 

 

Not speaking to you directly but to Vault and the rest:

 

If Kopp wanted to make a proper air power analysis he could. In fact he'd probably be one of the best. He has the ability, his EW and radar work and datalink type work is ground breaking and pioneering. BUT he chooses not to... not for been a retard or a bad researcher or failed logic... no... but because he is serving an agenda. Vault and the others... you need to understand that. I'm sure there are some high up in the Oz military command that agree with his agenda and are a bit miffed at the politicians there for various reasons. I bet the intermediate level and the jocks think he's full of sh1t though. Such is life... Kopp is on the same level as Pavel Felgenfauer if you've ever heard of him. He punchs the same story, except Pavel does it for the russians.

Edited August 9, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[Boberro]

Someone mentioned that 30 has great manoeuvrability. So what? Do you really think Cobra will defend plane from being hit? I know some think that Cobra or another manoeuvre will not only defend plane from being hit but also make missiles to turn back to attacker. :D

 

Untill 30 uses manoeuvres long range missile will hit.

 

BTW, I am bit surprised Su-30 uses K-13 :O

[GGTharos]

Actually they tend to point out that Kopp doesn't appear to have a clue as to what a datalink would be used for tactically, and that he has no access to classified information.

 

In that respect, just what sort of analysis CAN he do?

 

Not speaking to you directly but to Vault and the rest:

 

If Kopp wanted to make a proper air power analysis he could. In fact he'd probably be one of the best. He has the ability, his EW and radar work and datalink type work is ground breaking and pioneering. BUT he chooses not to... not for been a retard or a bad researcher or failed logic... no... but because he is serving an agenda. Vault and the others... you need to understand that. I'm sure there are some high up in the Oz military command that agree with his agenda and are a bit miffed at the politicians there for various reasons. I bet the intermediate level and the jocks think he's full of sh1t though. Such is life...

[RIPTIDE]

Someone mentioned that 30 has great manoeuvrability. So what? Do you really think Cobra will defend plane from being hit? I know some think that Cobra or another manoeuvre will not only defend plane from being hit but also make missiles to turn back to attacker. :D

 

Untill 30 uses manoeuvres long range missile will hit.

Now thats just trolling, my Pollack friend. :thumbup::matrix:

[IronsightSniper]

Mis-placed confidence. If the Su-30's are attacked first, they are defensive and now at a disadvantage making them easier targets. There are potential fuel issues as this point also. This counts in the opposite direction if the 30's manage to attack first.

'Nudge off any more attacks'? With what, magic? Missiles get harder to evade as distance closes, not easier.

 

Like you said, the Su-30 has the advantage of Energy. Once it's under attack, any knowledgeable pilot would begin making evasive maneuvers. "Nudge off any more attacks", again, with the maneuvers. At low-altitude against high-maneuvering targets, the AIM-9 and AMRAAM probably just doesn't have the range to kill or disable the Su-30. If you can't maneuver, climb and run.

 

In close combat the Su-30 has only one clear advantage over the superbug, and that's evergy. This assume it isn't loaded down like crazy with fuel and weapons, and if that IS the case, that 30 might simply not have the combat endurance to deal with a hornet.

The superbug has alpha/handling superiority (not sure where people are getting the idea that the flanker does it better. It does not), the flanker will probably do better in a sustained turn - again, subject to load-out.

The hornet still has all the advantages in the world with AIM-9X.

Indian Su-30's and Chinese flankers might fare better as they seem to have better avionics to begin with plus additional, unknown-to-us use of weapons for the Chinese flanker like PL-12.

If you argument is load-out, then I would have no argument as there are no "standard combat loadouts" stats that I could look at and make a guesstimate. Again, you are assuming a battle in a mountainous terrain, where BVR weapons and radars would be of no use. A plain look of the map of South West Asia would not yield man mountainous regions. Most likely, combat would occur during an Indonesian intercept of F-111 or F/A-18E/F attempting to disable Indonesian military infrastructure.

 

BTW, I am bit surprised Su-30 uses K-13 :O

 

Derp, no literature I found specifically said that(in fairness, I have only did one search). All I said was that the current Indonesian air-to-air capacitiy consists of AIM-9's and K-13's.

Edited August 9, 2010 by IronsightSniper