SU30 vs Super Hornet

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Because that is how you keep up the tempo of operations.

Nice excuse! :) Actually, nice try GG! :)

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

Edited August 10, 2010 by =4c= Hajduk Veljko

[RIPTIDE]

Nice excuse! :) Actually, nice try GG! :)

 

SAM = Stealth STOP!

[Oceandar]

The Aussie don't need to worry about Indonesian Air Force, they exist only to scary pigeons. Its Indonesian Army they should pay attention, they're elite particularly KOSTRAD and KOPASSUS, best of the best in whole Indonesian arm forces.

BTW Australians should sleep well cause we never intend to attack them, not in the past, present and the future

[exec]

In such a low-visibility region, any amount of high-maneuvering will render the AMRAAM a miss

That's of course half-truth. If the AMRAAM arrives with high energy (speed) chances of outmaneuvering it are slim.

 

 

In that case, as long as there are no in-land obstacles, both radars should function at relative efficiency, again, allowing the F/A-18E/F to detect the Su-30MK from over 100 kilometers away, but also allowing the Su-30MK to detect the F/A-18E/F from just over 80 kilometers away.

Well, Russians claim 140km detection range vs 3m2 target. So the tracking range is probably 110km vs 3m2 target. Versus Super hornet it would be like 55km. Add a jamming to this equation and the tracking range will fall to ~30km. Su-30 with RCS of 20m2 will be detected by APG-79 from more than 200km and tracked from 150km at least. AESA are hard to jam, so even if you try to jam the 79 tracking range won’t fall too much.

 

 

Why are you still attacking the source?

Because the source is wrong. If you base your arguments on a wrong source your conclusions will be even worse.

 

Anywho, according to Deagle(that's us by the way), the Irbis-E can detect a target with a RCS of 0.01 meter squared from 90 kilometers away.

Sure, but there is one detail missing. Such ranges are achieved “using long range detection mode within limited sector”. So basically, when you slew to radar to the sector where you know the target is and you use that long range detection mode (which probably takes some time to scan and process) you can achieve such results. Subtract ~30% from that range when you talk about ‘normal’ detection range and again 20-30% when you talk about tracking ranges.

 

Regarding R-77 v.s. AIM-120C, again, according to Deagle, the R-77 baseline has a maximum range of 80 km, while the AIM-120 baseline has a maximum range of 48 km. Okay, so it doesn't exactly have twice the range of the AIM-120, we're very sorry.

If you keep using such “sources” it will get you nowhere. AIM-120A has ~20% range advantage over R-77. And and don’t know if you know, but in terms of range AIM-120A<AIM-120C<AIM-120C-5<AIM-120C-7<AIM-120D.

 

Same also goes for the OLS-35, just search Deagle.com, 50 km detection range against a front-on non-afterburning target and 90 km detection range against a target in it's rear-hemisphere.

The source is wrong. Manufacturer claims max range =<35km.

I will even provide you with a source to prove that I know what I am talking about.

http://img15.imageshack.us/f/ols35.jpg/

 

 

First, russian marketing is very aggressive and quotes figures in different launch/flight conditions as their west counterparts. Russians go by the ballistic range from high altitude criteria.

Second, Westerns go by mach 0.9, angels 33000 or 40000 (depends on source) and missiles end game speed criteria. And that off course makes the Russian weapons look better because we forgot how relevant these conditions differences are for actual combat.

That’s not entirely true. Russians give their max ranges for high altitude (20km) high speed head-on shots (not ballistic shots). These are the most optimal conditions you can have. This is why we can see 70-80km range for R-77R while we see on the diagram that the max range for 10km alt shot is ~35km. But if you fire that missile at 20km altitude vs 20km altitude target the range would grow to ~80km. Often quoted 55km range for the AMRAAM is more or less true – for a shot at 10km altitude. At that altitude (10km) R-77 has ~43km max range vs non maneuvering target.

[Pilotasso]

Just take a look what NATO brought against Yugoslavia few years back. NATO brought ten times more aircraft that what Yugo's had. And those NATO aircraft were latest and gratest against Yugo's MiG-29A (export version)aircraft whose SPO-15 did not work and some old MiG-21's.

 

If technology of AIM-120 and other crap is so superior, why in the world did NATO need 10 TIMES as many aircraft as what Yugo's have?

 

Im sorry haj but in war, sportmanship is rare comodity (was one of WWI casualties). The commanders wanted the war to end FAST. For that, they got every advantage they could afford. Simple as that.

 

What you said is nothing more of a biased excuse and has no scientific objectivity at all.

[Vault]

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

 

So you think you're more credible than Kopp. lol. Enough said.

 

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?

 

Aircraft manuals and dubious sources of information?. lol. Tharos I've got flight manuals and performance charts in my possession that you could only wish for. Does that make me an analyst?...No.

 

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

 

I'm not taking anything out of context you regularly use the block 2 9X as an example.

[GGTharos]

So you think you're more credible than Kopp. lol. Enough said.

 

Are you lacking in reading comprehension or something? I did not say that. ;) In fact I specifically said there's no need to take my word for anything.

 

 

Aircraft manuals and dubious sources of information?. lol. Tharos I've got flight manuals and performance charts in my possession that you could only wish for. Does that make me an analyst?...No.

 

Obviously you have nothing of use, or you don't know how to read or use it. And it seems Kopp does not possess them ;)

 

I'm not taking anything out of context you regularly use the block 2 9X as an example.

 

Yeah, you are. Your MO.

[EtherealN]

So you think you're more credible than Kopp. lol. Enough said.

 

GG doesn't run a "think-tank" that has to run advertising for MMO's on it's site to fund itself.

 

Kopp does.

[Vault]

Are you lacking in reading comprehension or something? I did not say that. ;) In fact I specifically said there's no need to take my word for anything.

 

I stated in post #94 to Pilotasso that my source (Kopp) is more credible than his (You) and you replied in post #95.

 

No, it isn't

 

By stating No, it isn't, You're implying that you're more credible than Kopp.... Yeah right!

 

Obviously you have nothing of use, or you don't know how to read or use it. And it seems Kopp does not possess them ;)

 

Yeah I just like to look at the pretty pictures. Sometimes I print them off and colour them in.

 

Yeah, you are. Your MO.

 

So you're stating you've never used the block 2 9X as an example?.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vault

[exec]

So you think you're more credible than Kopp. lol. Enough said.

Kopp isn’t credible. He clearly has an agenda of some kind. His articles are pro-Russian for some reason. What he likes most is finding strong points of Russian equipment and exaggerating weaknesses of US-made equipment. He also forgets to mention any weak sides of the Russian gear. He also likes to compare possible future Russian equipment to legacy US-equipment (like comparing non-existing K-172 or R-77M to AIM-120C). He also compares different types of data (ranges of radars - tracking ranges for US radars and long range detection modes ranges for Russian radars for example APG-77 vs Irbis-E). He does it intentionally. Why? I don’t know, but it’s obvious that his articles are heavily biased towards Russian equipment. Of course – there are some articles with some very valuable data, but you have to know how to read them – how to filter out the bias. If you can’t see the bias… well, it’s your problem.

[Pilotasso]

I stated in post #94 to Pilotasso that my source (Kopp) is more credible than his (You) and you replied in post #95.

 

 

Your source has an agenda, you have defyed GG to present one proof and lost the wager. You have also been presented with the fact that R-77M and other hardware in Kopps articles are cancelled projects vapourware etc, hence his analysis are invalid form a scientific point of view (if not for the single fact he has no access to enough data).

 

Your the one with argumentative discussion and ignoring the proof presented to you.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Pilotasso

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Im sorry haj but in war, sportmanship is rare comodity (was one of WWI casualties). The commanders wanted the war to end FAST. For that, they got every advantage they could afford. Simple as that.

 

What you said is nothing more of a biased excuse and has no scientific objectivity at all.

I am not talking about sportsmanship. I am talking about how prevailing (or not) is technological advantage. Ask your brother, he knows what was going on over Yugoslavia, but I am sure he is not going to tell us here.

 

BTW, you can be sorry all you want, but that will not change the fact that NATO brought almost ten times more aircraft then what Yugo's have.

[Vault]

Your source has an agenda, you have defyed GG to present one proof and lost the wager. You have also been presented with the fact that R-77M and other hardware in Kopps articles are cancelled projects vapourware etc, hence his analysis are invalid form a scientific point of view (if not for the single fact he has no acces to enough data).

 

Your the one with argumentative discussion and ignoring the proof presented to you.

 

And your source doesn't lol. your source has zero credit. Seriously when was the last time you looked inside the RuAF's weapons facility and checked their weapons inventory?. How do you know what does and doesn't exsist in the Russian inventory?. Let's be realistic here you don't know what exsists it's classified.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vault

[Pilotasso]

Ok, then show me ONE proof. :D

[Vault]

Finally you're getting my point. I can't and neither can you.

[Pilotasso]

I am not talking about sportsmanship. I am talking about how prevailing (or not) is technological advantage. Ask your brother, he knows what was going on over Yugoslavia, but I am sure he is not going to tell us here.

 

BTW, you can be sorry all you want, but that will not change the fact that NATO brought almost ten times more aircraft then what Yugo's have.

 

your politicaly driven comments do not shed any light on this thread haj. I could dreail the thread by saying some of the things that realy hapened in the war including the 10 year period preceeding the NATO intervention but that would simply make your neurons spark and go overflow not to mention break the rules. So I wont go there. I am being brutaly honest with you but I leave this as it is.

[Pilotasso]

Finally you're getting my point. I can't and neither can you.

 

 

you didnt get mine, and *slective blindess alert* :pirate:

 

You can continue to play dumb, I wont continue this discussion with you if you continue to pretend you didnt read half these posts.

[EtherealN]

Return to the topic please.

[exec]

And your source doesn't lol. your source has zero credit. Seriously when was the last time you looked inside the RuAF's weapons facility and checked their weapons inventory?. How do you know what does and doesn't exsist in the Russian inventory?. Let's be realistic here you don't know what exsists it's classified.

Oh boy… well, sure that’s a perfect way to cut all discussion. Who knows, maybe Russians have flying saucers with Mach 20 and turbophasers capability…?

 

There are proofs that some missiles are in early stages of development(like R-77M, K-172) and sometimes the development is frozen due to lack of funding. They didn’t even have money to buy baseline R-77. There are more urgent needs than development of a new super-duper missile. Tell me – why would they want to develop such missile if they haven’t modernized their aircrafts to be able to launch such missile? Now when numbers of aircrafts which are able to fly is getting slimmer and slimmer they must have been utterly stupid to put money in development of a secret missiles which are completely useless for them. BTW: they recently developed RVV-SD (R-77 with bigger motor and probably other upgrades) and the missile is intended to fly with (for example)Su-35BM. Why are they developing inferior RVV-SD if they have developed superior R-77M?

[Vault]

Exec, I'm not cutting the discussion. I'm being realistic. If you want to carry on in the fantasy that you actually think you know highly classified information be my guest. When was the last time you looked inside the RuAF's weapons storage facility? for someone that's never been inside it you seem to know alot. It's your choice to go quoting figures on radar systems that are heavily classified but don't try to mug me off by attempting to use them as the factual basis in your discussion.

 

Sorry if I've brought your fantasies to an abrupt end. But that is the truth.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vault

[exec]

Exec, I'm not cutting the discussion. I'm being realistic. If you want to carry on in the fantasy that you actually think you know highly classified information be my guest. When was the last time you looked inside the RuAF's weapons storage facility?

That’s cutting the discussion. We’ve never been in any VVS weapons storage facility so we don’t know nothing. Close the topic and close the forum, there is nothing to discuss here since nobody knows nothing. :D

 

Maybe they have hangars with hundreds of PAK-FAs ready for combat, who knows - right? I mean – that’s not entirely impossible and for sure it’s impossible to prove that they don’t have hundreds of PAK-FAs. However:

1. We know that this aircraft is in early stage of development.

2. Russians sources claim that the PAK-FA will enter service in 6-10 years.

3. Engines and avionics are in development.

But still, I can’t prove that they don’t have hundreds of PAK-FAs because I’ve never been to any VVS weapons storage facility and I don’t know nothing right?

 

It's your choice to go quoting figures on radar systems that are heavily classified but don't try to mug me off by attempting to use them as the factual basis in your discussion.

Not everything is highly classified. For example Russians freely give us max ranges for their weapons systems (missiles, radars), and those figures are often much better than what you can achieve in real life (for example they give us max range for R-27R at 20km altitude most ‘usable’ altitudes are between 1 and 10km where most. Only MiG-31 or Blackbird fly at such altitudes (20km). Radar ranges are for special long range detection modes within limited sectors and so on.

 

Sorry if I've brought your fantasies to an abrupt end. But that is the truth.

You’ve brought nothing. You’re living in your own world. You can believe what you want if it makes you feel better. Can’t you really see all that bias on Kopp’s website? If you use wrong data you end up with wrong conclusions! I’ll give you an example(very oversimplified):

Ru fighter:

1. missile 100km range

2. radar 150km range

 

US fighter

1. missile 50km range

2. radar 100km range

 

conclusion: Ru fighter is better

 

 

 

true data (or without ‘mistakes’ as you like to call it):

 

Ru fighter:

1. missile range 42km

2. Radar vs US fighter 100km range

 

US fighter:

1. Missile range 55km

2. Radar vs Ru fighter 150km

Conclusion: US fighter is better.

 

So if you still think that using wrong sources isn’t important then we can’t help you.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I was among the first on this thread who said the Australian FA-18 will win over indonesian Su-30 (I don't know Su-30 type Indonesia has) simply because there is more FA-18's, period.

 

When faced with facts you bring politics into discussion. I am not talking about politics. I am talking about 24 aganst 12. That is numerical advantage. I am talking about 1200 against about 130, that is numerical advantage. I am talking about approximatelu 4000 against some 1000, that is numerical advantage.

 

One on one, FA-18 against Su-30, you don't have a clue who would win, and, due to lack of clasified info either side can speculate about its "facts" until the end of time . And neither side is right or wrong.

 

But, when you can't take the "facts", you then bring politics into a discussion. Nice try Pilotasso, but not fare at all.

 

your politicaly driven comments do not shed any light on this thread haj. I could dreail the thread by saying some of the things that realy hapened in the war including the 10 year period preceeding the NATO intervention but that would simply make your neurons spark and go overflow not to mention break the rules. So I wont go there. I am being brutaly honest with you but I leave this as it is.

[Vault]

That’s cutting the discussion. We’ve never been in any VVS weapons storage facility so we don’t know nothing. Close the topic and close the forum, there is nothing to discuss here since nobody knows nothing. :D

 

I cut your discussion. You're the one fantasising that you think you know what weapons the RuAF have and don't have in their inventory. Considering that information is HIGHLY classified your opinion is unfounded speculation.

 

Feel free to talk about anything you want. Just don't use classified information in a factual manner to validate your point of view against me.

 

Maybe they have hangars with hundreds of PAK-FAs ready for combat, who knows - right? I mean – that’s not entirely impossible and for sure it’s impossible to prove that they don’t have hundreds of PAK-FAs. However:

1. We know that this aircraft is in early stage of development.

2. Russians sources claim that the PAK-FA will enter service in 6-10 years.

3. Engines and avionics are in development.

But still, I can’t prove that they don’t have hundreds of PAK-FAs because I’ve never been to any VVS weapons storage facility and I don’t know nothing right?.

 

You can find the official news for the PAK-FA here http://sukhoi.org/eng/ and http://www.mil.ru/eng/1862/12068/12088/12221/index.shtml

 

Not everything is highly classified. For example Russians freely give us max ranges for their weapons systems (missiles, radars), and those figures are often much better than what you can achieve in real life (for example they give us max range for R-27R at 20km altitude most ‘usable’ altitudes are between 1 and 10km where most. Only MiG-31 or Blackbird fly at such altitudes (20km). Radar ranges are for special long range detection modes within limited sectors and so on.

 

Who are the Russian's?. You've been posting figures that are classified on cutting edge radar and systems found in the F-22A and Su-35BM . And you seem to know exactly what the Russian's do and don't have in their inventory.

 

You’ve brought nothing. You’re living in your own world. You can believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

 

Why? because my opinion differs from yours? Because I refuse to play pretend fighter pilots and arm chair analyst's with you?..

[exec]

Just don't use classified information in a factual manner to validate your point of view against me.

 

You've been posting figures that are classified on cutting edge radar and systems found in the F-22A and Su-35BM .

So you’re just contradicting everything without having any arguments at all.

I already told you that not everything is classified, but you refuse to accept even that simple fact.

I already gave you a lot of data from manufacturers or manuals but you also refuse to accept them. It seems Carlo Kopp is the only true source for you.

As I said, it’s impossible to talk with you, because you’ll contradict everything we say, because ‘we don’t know nothing, period’.

Believe what you want, if its Carlo then I’m sorry for you, bye.

[Vault]

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.

 

In Carlo Kopp's world Russian equipment is often 2 times better than in real world.

For example:

Irbis-E with 50% more range than APG-77.

OLS-30/35 IRST with 50-60 (or more) frontal detection range (when we know that its 35km in optimal conditions for OLS-35).

etc, etc...

His articles are biased, period.

 

As I said, it’s impossible to talk with you, because you’ll contradict everything we say, because ‘we don’t know nothing, period’.

Believe what you want, if its Carlo then I’m sorry for you, bye.

 

Bye.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Vault