IAF Su-30MKI defeaded UK F3 Tornados. Next the EF2000...

[Groove]

Over Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia (Kosovo was/is Yugoslavia, Serbia), NATO (mostly USA) brought more then 10 aircraft for every aircraft in Yugo inventory. NATO relied on numbers rather then technology. There was multiple fighters (F-15's, F-16's, F-18's) for every Yugoslavian MiG-29A. Yugoslavians did not have ARH’s.

 

Hajduk you know that war or real life conflicts arent about being balanced ? Balance is stuff for games. You use this 1:10 argument for years now. Get over it.

[LaRata]

Over Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia (Kosovo was/is Yugoslavia, Serbia), NATO (mostly USA) brought more then 10 aircraft for every aircraft in Yugo inventory. NATO relied on numbers rather then technology. There was multiple fighters (F-15's, F-16's, F-18's) for every Yugoslavian MiG-29A. Yugoslavians did not have ARH’s.

 

I have you same point of view :) The problem is are some many people that believe today the F-15C and F-16_B52 are not be able to loose in Air to Air combat.

 

Some people say and try to find excuses when any NATO or US combat plane fail in any simulated Air Combat ... some common are ...

 

1. The US / NATO planes have less number than the oponent.

2. No AWACS support.

3. Not similated AIM-120 / AIM-9X.

 

In Kosovo 1999 the NATO have 1,025 combat Planes vs only 14 old and not combat ready Mig-29A. The Mig-29A have no ECM, No Chaff, No avanced Missiles. But the NATO side claims this was a big victory for the NATO planes.

 

_Cope India was not be the only time that the F-15C was defeated. In 1992 RUS SU-27UB meet the US F-15C/D in Alaska. This time the Su-27 winn over the F-15C.

 

I understand in my opinion that the US / NATO side need more training when they have to meet large Air Force that have Pilot well training and equal Combat Planes.

 

Luis "LaRata" Barreto

[nscode]

Hajduk you know that war or real life conflicts arent about being balanced ? Balance is stuff for games. You use this 1:10 argument for years now. Get over it.

 

We are not talking about war here. He is just saying that that war can't be used for the conclusions some have been implying.

[Guest IguanaKing]

We are not talking about war here. He is just saying that that war can't be used for the conclusions some have been implying.

 

True, but it makes a little more sense than all of the "Su-30 pwnd the F-15 and F-3 in scripted exercises in India" hoopla. One was an actual war (with VERY strict ROE, BTW), the other is nowhere close. :smilewink: I guess in these exercises in India, if they weren't scripted, and there WERE actually a decisive victory for one side (which there never is in this type of exercise), it would be a fair comparison of aircraft. The reason I say that is because Indian Air Force pilots get more flight time than most other fighter pilots in the world, IIRC, so their experience is equal to or greater than that of the US and British pilots. The same can't be said for a majority of the other operators of Russian fighter aircraft. So...god help the Americans and/or Brits if we ever go to war with India. :D

[Starlight]

I have you same point of view :) The problem is are some many people that believe today the F-15C and F-16_B52 are not be able to loose in Air to Air combat.

 

Some people say and try to find excuses when any NATO or US combat plane fail in any simulated Air Combat ... some common are ...

 

1. The US / NATO planes have less number than the oponent.

2. No AWACS support.

3. Not similated AIM-120 / AIM-9X.

 

each and every aircraft in the world is designed to be used with some kind of tactic and weapon. if you deny that tactic or that weapon you put an aircraft at disadvantage. At war is the aim of the enemy to put you at disadvantage. In training it can be made to simulate one aspect of the combat... Fighting gunzo the Tornado F-3 is surely beaten by most of today's fighter aircraft in the world. At BVR with all weapons and systems on, it's a different matter. Since we don't have ANY official document that says how both sides fought in this exercise we can't make any useful guess.

 

In Kosovo 1999 the NATO have 1,025 combat Planes vs only 14 old and not combat ready Mig-29A. The Mig-29A have no ECM, No Chaff, No avanced Missiles. But the NATO side claims this was a big victory for the NATO planes.

 

your numbers are a bit exaggerated. NATO aircraft committed to the operations were far less than that... NATO aircraft in theater are another matter.

NATO claims it was a victory because the final goal was achieved. Milosevic was removed and many war criminals were persecuted.

Later analysis, done when the "fog of war" went away, showed that the efficiency of many NATO systems was low, and that many systems performed worse than expected. Being a war, that's sadly translated in more lives lost from both sides.

 

Anyway we're going far OT, I already have my 10% warning for thread-hijacking for much less than this... if I hijacked a thread, you are definitely a terrorist ;)

 

_Cope India was not be the only time that the F-15C was defeated. In 1992 RUS SU-27UB meet the US F-15C/D in Alaska. This time the Su-27 winn over the F-15C.

again that? is this the thread about beating-a-dead-horse??????

 

I understand in my opinion that the US / NATO side need more training when they have to meet large Air Force that have Pilot well training and equal Combat Planes.

It's quite recognized that NATO pilots have some of the best trained pilots in the world. Nevertheless India seems to have good pilots aboard good aircraft too...

 

 

Having said all these things, I don't think we can make useful evaluations from brief press reports filled of propaganda (from both sides) which IMHO is generated just to have more funds allocated for future aircraft.

In this and in many other articles (the other cope india and the alaskan dogfight) there aren't ANY technical documents that explain what happened and how it happened. We have just press reports and rumors. We can't say anything useful from that.

[GGTharos]

So far all conflicts to date have shown that the MiG-29A is is poor opponent for any Flanker or Eagle.

 

I'm not exactly certain how -anything- that anyone has said here detracts from this. Period.

[ViperEagle]

FYI, there has never been any DACT between Russia and the US, not now, and not for the forseeable future. The "DACT" was basically that a F-15 and SU-27 were in a tactical formation, the SU-27 fell onto the Eagles' six, the F-15 pilot tried to shake him for a few moments, and then stopped..this proves...? nothing.

 

So far, the only DACT between Eagles and Flankers has been Cope India 1 and 2.

 

But yes, scripted combat rarely resembles real combat.

[Pilotasso]

So far all conflicts to date have shown that the MiG-29A is is poor opponent for any Flanker or Eagle.

 

I'm not exactly certain how -anything- that anyone has said here detracts from this. Period.

 

Speaking of wich, does anyone know about the specs of the malaysian Mig-29's that suposedly gave the aussie hornets some upsets?

 

Heard some wispers that the migs locked on first to them in exercises. What is the radar on that thing?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Hajduk you know that war or real life conflicts arent about being balanced ?

Who talks about balance. ViperEagle was talking of air war over Yugoslavia and did not mention numerical (10 to 1) advantage of NATO.

Balance is stuff for games.

This thread was not about games at all.

You use this 1:10 argument for years now. Get over it.

Those are facts. What’s wrong with that argument?

[Guest IguanaKing]

Actually, this thread is about games, not actual aerial combat. I think what ViperEagle was saying about the air war over Yugoslavia had something to do with the subject of the thread, training exercises that allow fighter pilots to hone skillsets against dissimilar airframes. I don't think he meant it as a "F-15s pwnd MiGs over Yugoslavia" kind of thing, but I could be wrong. I think it was just being offered as an example of exactly why exercises like this take place, with the rules that go along with them. ;) As far as actual combat goes, nobody ever established air superiority over a battlefield by making bets as to the minimum amount of equipment they could do so with. :smilewink:

[tflash]

Let's be realistic however, I think few people doubt the aging Tornado F.3 is inferior in many respects to an Su-30.

 

To be honest, the F.3 never impressed anyone throughout its carreer. It was a failed attempt to build a fighter out of a truly excellent bomber.

 

At the very best, it could have worked as a longe-range interceptor against heavy bomber fleets, but since these scenario's are foregone, the age of the F.3 simply has passed away. Even in exercises against the Sea Harrier the F.3 had no chance whatsoever, with the Blue Vixen radar proving superior in BVR to the dubious Foxhunter radar of the F.3.

 

That the latest updated F.3's are incredibly better than the totally failed F.2 version doesn't change much. The Typhoon should be a quantum leap in performance.

 

Scripted or not scripted combat, if I where to choose - it's just speculation of course - I guess I would go for the Flanker eyes wide shut.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Totally in agreement with you on the F3, Tflash. But, in light of the past incarnation of this same thread, its inconclusive at best. The Su-30s opponent in the previous incarnation of this thread was the F-15C. That is an aircraft whose type has had an, as yet, unblemished combat record in the air-to-air realm. Don't get me wrong, the Russian equipment is excellent, and I can't honestly say who would win if equipment alone determined the outcome of a Russia vs US scenario (which it doesn't). But, the fact of the matter is that these exercises are scripted, there IS no victor in any of them, and any publication to the contrary is pure BS. I would just as readily dismiss any account of the exercises that gave the US or Brits the victory, because it would also be BS. This isn't like Gun Smoke...its more like Red Flag. :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

So far all conflicts to date have shown that the MiG-29A is is poor opponent for any Flanker or Eagle.

They are different class airplanes.

[Dudikoff]

So far all conflicts to date have shown that the MiG-29A is is poor opponent for any Flanker or Eagle.

 

I'm not exactly certain how -anything- that anyone has said here detracts from this. Period.

 

It's actually not surprising since it wasn't built to fight these planes in the first place and the basic export variant used in these conflicts lacked the datalink and envisaged GCI support which was meant to overcome the radar deficiencies. They were also severely outdated by that time (the updated MiG-29M was never produced) and didn't have Flankers to cover their ass.

[Alfa]

Speaking of wich, does anyone know about the specs of the malaysian Mig-29's that suposedly gave the aussie hornets some upsets?

 

Heard some wispers that the migs locked on first to them in exercises. What is the radar on that thing?

 

The Malaysian "MiG-29N"s are a little special in the sense that they are 9-12 airframes with added "bolt-on" IFR probe and the N019ME(export designation) radar with RVV-AE support - i.e. same radar as the one in the MiG-29S(9-13S).

 

Photo: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0914330/L/

 

- JJ.

[Tovan]

FYI, there has never been any DACT between Russia and the US, not now, and not for the forseeable future. The "DACT" was basically that a F-15 and SU-27 were in a tactical formation, the SU-27 fell onto the Eagles' six, the F-15 pilot tried to shake him for a few moments, and then stopped..this proves...? nothing.

 

So far, the only DACT between Eagles and Flankers has been Cope India 1 and 2.

 

But yes, scripted combat rarely resembles real combat.

 

ViperEagle, there has been at least one about western media keeping quiet about the flanker winnings in mock combat againts the F-15C/D, witnessed bu USAF specialists. Accompanied by an IL-76MD suppost aircraft, two operational Su-27 UBs piloted by MAJ. Gen. N. Chaga, Col. A. Kharchevskiy, and Maj. Ye. Karabasov of the VVS Combat and conversion training center in Lipetsk paid a visit to Langley AFB, VA, home of the 1st TFW. After a warm welcome and a short rest, Maj. Karabasov proposed holding session of mock combat with an F-15 over the base so that spectators could watch. However, USAF officials deemed such a show to be " too militaristic "and offered to hold the session in a military training area 200 km off the coast of Virginia instead. One can hardly blame them for not wanting to lose face in front of an audience if the Eagle lost to a visiting Flanker on its home ground.

 

The plan was that first a two-seat F-15D would try to shake a pursuing Su-27 off its tail, then the two would change places. Maj. Karabasov flew the Su-27, with a USAF pilot in the instructor's seat. A single-seat F-15C flew as chase plane. As the go signal was given the F-15D engaged full afterburner and tried to get away, but the Su-27 stayed on his tail, using full military power or minimum reheat. The Flanker's AOA never exceeded 18 degrees. When it was the Eagle's turn to attack, Karabasov kicked in full afterburner and entered a steep climbing turn. The F-15D followed suit but couldn't keep up. After a 540 degrees turn the Russian got an F-15 in his sights - the wrong F-15, as it turned out - he had inadvertently " shot down " the F-15C chase plane flying further aft! Realizing his mistake, Karabasov made for the other Eagle and soon got another lock-on. Try as he would, the F-15 pilot could not shake the pursuer. This Proved that the Su-27's advantage in maneuverability was due to a more efficient aerodynamic layout, not just a larger lifting area.

 

Source: WarbirdTech series - Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker Volume 42 -

[Starlight]

Let's be realistic however, I think few people doubt the aging Tornado F.3 is inferior in many respects to an Su-30.

 

To be honest, the F.3 never impressed anyone throughout its carreer. It was a failed attempt to build a fighter out of a truly excellent bomber.

 

At the very best, it could have worked as a longe-range interceptor against heavy bomber fleets, but since these scenario's are foregone, the age of the F.3 simply has passed away. Even in exercises against the Sea Harrier the F.3 had no chance whatsoever, with the Blue Vixen radar proving superior in BVR to the dubious Foxhunter radar of the F.3.

 

That the latest updated F.3's are incredibly better than the totally failed F.2 version doesn't change much. The Typhoon should be a quantum leap in performance.

 

Scripted or not scripted combat, if I where to choose - it's just speculation of course - I guess I would go for the Flanker eyes wide shut.

 

 

I'll quote here the caption of one of the first pages of "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston (a writer who knows something about aviation):

"There is no best fighter". Tornado ADV cannot match the F-16 in a dogfight, but the F-16 cannot fly the Tornado's 4 1/2 -hour patrols with stand-off kill power"

 

The Tornado is an interceptor designed to kill bombers BVR. It's no dogfighter, and it was never meant to be so. It'd probably lose a dogfight with any modern fighter, but it's just not supposed to play that game.

 

The fact that the Flankers "shot down" the Tornados in a joint exercise doesn't prove anything.... The main force of the Tornado lies in its weapon systems. Could you know if all weapon systems were used in this exercise? Maybe pilots and WSO were told to avoid certain modes, because flying with all systems on and at their max capability could reveal something to foreign people.

 

At Maple Flag or Red Flag I think one could gather better info about systems/aircraft behaviour, because aircraft are flying over "friendly" territory and against "friendly" enemies ;)

 

This holds true for weapon systems but it can also be true for aircraft themselves. Just think that most aircraft during peacetime fly with "downgraded" engines to lenghten their lifetime, and often with G-limited airframes...

 

I think that most of us evaluate aircraft too much looking at the "charts". Instead there are also different factors which come into play during real ops. Things like failure rates, maintenance needed, sustained performance... they are seldom considered, but they still deserve great value, because in real conflicts they come into play.

 

 

PS: for all those who continue to bring up such news like "aircraft X pwned aircraft Y in an exercise, so aircraft X is definitely better than aircraft Y", well there's another story. In the early Flanker days, some "Gus" were pwned by Mig-23... is Mig-23 better than the Flanker? I don't think so.

[Starlight]

ViperEagle, there has been at least one about western media keeping quiet about the flanker winnings in mock combat againts the F-15C/D, witnessed bu USAF specialists.

 

Source: WarbirdTech series - Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker Volume 42 -

 

 

There are many witnesses that say the opposite... so we could "loop" forever...

 

Anyone could believe to what he wants...

 

If anyone has HUD footage of the thing, that would clear the fog that surrounds this thing, once for all ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

Right on the money, Starlight. :D Its like the stories my friends and I would tell each other when we were teenagers. Our cars always smoked some other dude's car in a street race. The problem with that is...the other guy probably didn't know we were racing him. Add a little alcohol to the story-telling session and the stories get even better. :thumbup:

[britgliderpilot]

PS: for all those who continue to bring up such news like "aircraft X pwned aircraft Y in an exercise, so aircraft X is definitely better than aircraft Y", well there's another story. In the early Flanker days, some "Gus" were pwned by Mig-23... is Mig-23 better than the Flanker? I don't think so.

 

 

Now your discovering that your not fond of dying and that you prefer

staying in one piece rather than disintegrating into small bits of Hair, Teeth and Eyeballs. Well lets see what we can do to help you stay alive.

After all you've been such a shit hot pilot in other sims and the thought that some lowly MiG-23 can flame you at will is disturbing your sleep and causing you to beat your dog.

 

Sound familiar? ;)

[GGTharos]

The plan was that first a two-seat F-15D would try to shake a pursuing Su-27 off its tail, then the two would change places. Maj. Karabasov flew the Su-27, with a USAF pilot in the instructor's seat. A single-seat F-15C flew as chase plane. As the go signal was given the F-15D engaged full afterburner and tried to get away, but the Su-27 stayed on his tail, using full military power or minimum reheat. The Flanker's AOA never exceeded 18 degrees. When it was the Eagle's turn to attack, Karabasov kicked in full afterburner and entered a steep climbing turn. The F-15D followed suit but couldn't keep up. After a 540 degrees turn the Russian got an F-15 in his sights - the wrong F-15, as it turned out - he had inadvertently " shot down " the F-15C chase plane flying further aft! Realizing his mistake, Karabasov made for the other Eagle and soon got another lock-on. Try as he would, the F-15 pilot could not shake the pursuer. This Proved that the Su-27's advantage in maneuverability was due to a more efficient aerodynamic layout, not just a larger lifting area.

 

Source: WarbirdTech series - Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker Volume 42 -

 

And this is where I call BS :)

If you think that a Flanker can just dump an F-15 off its tail with a 'climbing turn', you're being fed something :)

 

Once you're in a controlling position, its pretty much over. This is why DACT /never/ starts with 'someone on the tail'. 8/4 o'clock is the most advantage you'll get in the setup and that's plenty already. What a bunch of BS.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

There are many witnesses that say the opposite... so we could "loop" forever...

However, there are only few who write books and put their names and entire career at what they say in those books. They are not always right, but sure, in most cases they are more believable than street talkers and anonymous sources such as “my friend pilot told me …”.

 

BTW, the story that Tovan quoted is on page 86-87 of that book.

[Guest IguanaKing]

However, there are only few who write books and put their names and entire career at what they say in those books. They are not always right, but sure, in most cases they are more believable than street talkers and anonymous sources such as “my friend pilot told me …”.

 

BTW, the story that Tovan quoted is on page 86-87 of that book.

 

Yes, those people are called journalists, and being wrong a majority of the time doesn't seem to affect their careers in a negative way. :)

[Starlight]

Yes, those people are called journalists, and being wrong a majority of the time doesn't seem to affect their careers in a negative way. :)

 

A good one ;)

[Starlight]

In the world famous Aviation Tech Monthly Week magazine I once read that a single Flanker shot down 10 Eagles while flying backwards in reverse gear... an amazing story, you all should read it!

 

 

Also, I once saw a HUD footage showing that a couple of vintage Sopwith Camels flown by Indian pilots, even if outnumbered, annihilitated at BVR a squadron of F-22 Raptors during Cope India V. The last two Raptors managed to get WVR, but they were no match, the Sopwith Camels did an Indian Kobra, and the Raptors were gone... it was all over, in less than 5 minutes of mock combat...

Now the US is planning to scrap the Raptor program and is trying to buy Sopwith Camels from museums....