# Su-30MK2 vs. F-18 Super Hornet: What is the best?



## Lankan Ranger

*Su-30MK2 vs. F-18 Super Hornet: What is the best?*


----------



## farhan_9909

F-18 a war proven.having AESA operational.

At present F-18SH will beat Su 30,

Su 40's a overrated figher without any real combat experiance..they are just over rated


----------



## Lankan Ranger

*Su-30MK2
*
*Su-30MK2 multi-role fighter is designed to gain air superiority through killing hostile manned and unmanned aircraft with guided missiles in medium-range engagements and dogfights, and surface (ground and sea) targets destroying with all types of weapon, first of all with high precision weapon in individual and group operations in all-weather conditions. The aircraft can be used for training flying personnel to hone their flying and fighting skills.

The back-seater reduces the pilot's workload in long-range PGM encounters, in nighttime operations and on protracted missions with in-flight refuelling.

The main features of the Su-30MK2 fighter are the following:

An improved fire control system boasting enhanced surface-target capabilities;

An advanced cockpit management system

An improved navigation and communications suite

More sophisticated self-defense electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite

An expanded air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons suite with the ordnance mounted externally on 12 hardpoints

An in-flight refueling system

Reinforced airframe and landing gear provide for the aircraft operation with max combat load and fuel capacity with take-off weight up to 38 tones.

The fire control system of Su-30MK2 provides for detection, tracking and hitting by onboard weapons aerial and surface targets round the clock and in any weather.

The fire control system comprises two major subsystems:

fire control subsystem for air-to-air weapon includes radar sighting system, optronic sight system, and head-up display system;
fire control subsystem for air-to-surface weapon provides for the use of a wide spectrum of air-to-surface high-precision weapons, and for the indication of targets designation, flight and navigation data on four 4-&#1093; multifunction displays located on the cockpits&#8217; instrument panels.

The mainstay of the cockpit management system are four colour multifunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and head up-display (in the fore cockpit only). These displays show all required digital and visual target designation, flight and navigation data as well as data on the aircraft systems status. Along with the multifunction LCDs, the instrument panel houses traditional electromechanical instruments, which act mostly as backups.

The radar used on Su-30MK2 in the air-to-air engagement ensures the following:

Searching for aerial targets

Detected targets identification

Attacking the targets with medium- and short-range missiles featuring different guidance

Searching for, locking on and tracking a visual target in dogfights.

In the air-to-surface mode, the radar ensures the following:

All-weather acquisition and positioning of radio-contrast surface targets;

surface targets designation data supply to provide the Kh-31A, Kh-35E, and Kh-59MK air-to-ship missiles application.

Optical-electronic sighting system comprising the Optical location station and Helmet-mounted target designation system (HMS). 

The Optical location station (OLS) of Su-30MK2 is a combination of an infrared search and track system (IRST) and a laser rangefinder/target designator .

It is designed to track aerial targets both in the front and rear hemispheres using their infrared signature. It also can be used for the laser ranging of aerial and surface targets as well as for illuminating surface targets by the laser beam for air-to-surface missiles with semi-active laser homing heads application.

The Su-30MK2 weapon suite includes the built-in GSh-301 30-mm automatic single-barrel high-rate-of-fire cannon with ammunition load of 150 rounds, missiles, rockets and bombs mounted externally on 12 hardpoints under wings and fuselage.

The air-to-air weapon suite includes medium-range missiles of the R-27 type &#8211; R-27T1, R-27ET1 heat-seeking missiles, R-27R1, R-27ER1 semi-active radar-homing missiles, R-27P1 and R-27EP1 missiles; RVV-AE medium-range active radar-homing missiles; and R-73E short-range heat-seeking missiles.

The Su-30MK2 fighter has wide range of guided and unguided weapons used to destroy surface targets.

The air-to-surface guided weapon of the Su-30MK2 fighter consists of the Kh-59ME, Kh-35E and Kh-59MK missiles; the Kh-31A medium-range high-speed anti-ship active radar-homing missiles; the Kh-31P medium-range antiradar passive radar-homing missiles; Kh-29T, Kh-29TE TV-homing missiles or Kh-29L laser-homing short-range missiles; KAB-1500Kr TV-homing bomb and KAB-500Kr (KAB-500-OD) guided bombs.

The unguided air-to-surface weapons include bombs of 500-kg, 250-kg, and 100-kg caliber, cluster bombs, incendiary tanks, and S-8, S-13, and S-25-OFM rockets as well.
*
KNAAPO- Production - Military aviation - Su-30MK2


----------



## jagjitnatt

Its like asking what is better, a car or a bike.
Depends on the role.

Su30 is a great fighter with raw power, F-18 is a smart fighter with high tech features. 
Both will detect each other from a large distance, and both will have good BVR weapons. Where Su30 trumps the F-18 in maneuverability, the F-18 makes up for it using the excellent avionics.

1 on 1, it would be a really interesting combat. Su30 will probably take the crown, but with awacs, smart data sharing, data links, situational awareness, F-18 will take down the Su30.

So they are almost equal, and it all boils down to the pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Lankan Ranger

*F-18 Super Hornet*

*F-18 Super Hornet is a multirole fighter aircraft. The Super Hornet has an internal 20 mm gun and can carry air-to-air missiles and air-to-surface weapons. Additional fuel can be carried with up to five external fuel tanks and the aircraft can be configured as an airborne tanker by adding an external air refueling system.

The Super Hornet is a larger and more advanced variant of the F/A-18C/D Hornet. An early version was marketed by McDonnell Douglas as Hornet 2000 in the 1980s. The Hornet 2000 concept was an advanced version of the F/A-18 with a larger wing and a longer fuselage to carry more fuel and more powerful engines.

Boeing has offered a "International Super Hornet Roadmap" which includes:

Conformal fuel tanks

Enhanced Performance Engines

Spherical missile / laser warning

Enclosed weapons pod

Next-generation cockpit

Internal Infra-Red Search & Track (IRST)

It is about 20% larger, 7,000 lb (3,200 kg) heavier empty, and 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) heavier at maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% over the "Legacy" Hornet.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet


----------



## Lankan Ranger




----------



## GareebNawaz

I hope IAF will get the Superhornet!!!!!


----------



## ViXuyen

Which plane can see the other first on the radar AND have the missile (and range) that can take out the other first?


----------



## SpArK

You made it confusing by putting Su-30mk2(PLAAF)... if it was Su-30 mki, _most_ would have chosen F-18 hands down....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jagjitnatt

5Star said:


> Which plane can see the other first on the radar AND have the missile (and range) that can take out the other first?



The Mk2 and F-18, both will detect each other at almost the same distance. Both have weapons that can only be fired within 60 kms to be effective. So they are pretty even there. The result depends on countermeasures, maneuverability, and no. of missiles.


----------



## BladeMaster

the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.


----------



## 500

BladeMaster said:


> the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features,


These are CRITICAL features.



> an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing development effort in these areas.


All Su-37 versions including most advanced S-35 have huge non canted tails and open engine blades. I dont see any serious RCS reduiction. AESA maybe installed in future, but we are talking about present now.



> What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.


Hornet is extremelly maneuverable aircraft (see Blue Angels) and with JHMCS its not that important.


----------



## BladeMaster

fact is.. superhornets are no match anymore... they are handy to have to keep up numbers, but the latest planes being made by china and russia, crap all over it in almost every aspect

thats why australia is upgrading to the f-35

we are going to disband our f-111's and have 100 f-35 and slowly get rid of the f-18 superhornets


----------



## GareebNawaz

BladeMaster said:


> fact is.. superhornets are no match anymore... they are handy to have to keep up numbers, but the latest planes being made by china and russia, crap all over it in almost every aspect
> 
> thats why australia is upgrading to the f-35
> 
> we are going to disband our f-111's and have 100 f-35 and slowly get rid of the f-18 superhornets


 
Well why worry? No country really poses a threat to you guys so f-35s or not you guys wont be any better or any worse. T-50 and J-20 will in the near future become more superior than any western fighter (5th gen). IF australia was smart they would tell the US to back off and opt for russian and asian tech.


----------



## BladeMaster

reaaaally??

y could of sed that in ww2 then the japanese invaded

right above us, there is indonesia, they have a army of 400+ thousand soldiers, they are bolstering their air force in a big way... if they do and we dont, they will have air superiority in the region, currently we do

indonesia teaches their kids in school, that australia belongs to them, even though they have never settled here or anything

relations are improving between our countrys... but in the end, they are a muslim country with th e believe that they own our country

china is also a threat... and even though we stand no chance against china alone, at least on our own shores, we can hold our own


----------



## BladeMaster

it would be stupid to chose russia or china over america

we have never been that close to those countrys, altho we r getting better with chins

when it comes down to it, if australia was in trouble.. china and russia wouldnt care

america would fight by our side


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

BladeMaster said:


> it would be stupid to chose russia or china over america
> 
> we have never been that close to those countrys, altho we r getting better with chins
> 
> when it comes down to it, if australia was in trouble.. china and russia wouldnt care
> 
> america would fight by our side


america is the most selfish country in world..we cannot surrender our foreign policy and operational freedom of weapons to them.unless they come with fair and square deals and agreements we should not go with them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BladeMaster

well i guess they can be yes

and they always try to get a better deal that favours there side

i guess, my country and america are so very similar, it doesnt cause that much of a problem as it would between india and usa

but at same time you got to think, if things turned sour, it will be india vs pakistan and china most likely, specially if india was winning

who has india got to back them up in the face of china etc?

the enemie of my enemie is my friend... at least if india and pakistan did fight a war, if india on good terms with america and other allies in the region, you might not get ganged up on


----------



## Veritas

Agnostic_Indian said:


> america is the most selfish country in world..we cannot surrender our foreign policy and operational freedom of weapons to them.unless they come with fair and square deals and agreements we should not go with them.


 
India is the most self-less country, NOT


----------



## BladeMaster

veritas brings up a good point

how you percieve america, is how most countrys are, especially the most powerful ones

if your country was in americas position, every other country would saying the same stuff about your country, that you say about america lol

usa been in alot of wars... but without the usa, there would of been a lot more bloodshed and dictatorships going on


----------



## dbc

BladeMaster said:


> the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes.



How do you know this?

A. You have flown a Flanker and Rhino
B. You have access to confidential EM charts for both jets
C. You have no idea what you're talking about but wanted to use the word 'kinemagically' in a sentence.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

BladeMaster said:


> veritas brings up a good point
> 
> how you percieve america, is how most countrys are, especially the most powerful ones
> 
> if your country was in americas position, every other country would saying the same stuff about your country, that you say about america lol
> 
> usa been in alot of wars... but without the usa, there would of been a lot more bloodshed and dictatorships going on


 
i am not a blind opposer i do support nuk deal etc but not the stringent military deals.what ever the reasons unless we offered fair and equal deals and independent/flexible usage of purchased weapons i don't see any reason we should sign deals with america..even if it is to contain china.


----------



## BladeMaster

Death.By.Chocolate said:


> How do you know this?
> 
> A. You have flown a Flanker and Rhino
> B. You have access to confidential EM charts for both jets
> C. You have no idea what you're talking about but wanted to use the word 'kinemagically' in a sentence.



no no and no

it is actually from a defence department report from someone who knows more then you, and most probably anyone in this forum


----------



## dbc

BladeMaster said:


> no no and no
> 
> it is actually from a defence department report from someone who knows more then you, and most probably anyone in this forum


 
Care to share that report with us, was this report prepared before or after Australia decided to spend billions of dollars on the Super Hornet? How do you know what I know?


----------



## BladeMaster

well it not exactly ADF

but it is an independant authority

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker


----------



## RazorMC

I support the Su-30 here. It's designed to be an air-superiority fighter while the F-18's design objectives were more air-ground oriented.

But if you count reliability, then Sukhois are outclassed by American tech. Like it or not, those guys do have good equipment.


----------



## dbc

BladeMaster said:


> well it not exactly ADF
> 
> but it is an independant authority
> 
> F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker



Dr Carlo Kopp why am I not surprised? Dr Kopp is neither independent nor an authority on the Super Hornet or Flanker.


----------



## BladeMaster

do you know him??

why dont you give me some reading material


----------



## Water Car Engineer

I love the Super Hornet!!


----------



## dbc

BladeMaster said:


> do you know him??


 
No I don't, he is just a civilian military aviation enthusiast who spent 90 minutes in a F/A-18 F cockpit in 2001.
This does not make him an expert.



BladeMaster said:


> why dont you give me some reading material



Material for what? I'm not the one making claims -you are!


----------



## BladeMaster

then dont claim im wrong, or this other guy is wrong, if you have nothing to back it up either


----------



## dbc

BladeMaster said:


> the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.





BladeMaster said:


> then dont claim im wrong, or this other guy is wrong, if you have nothing to back it up either


 
I didn't say you or Dr Kopp are wrong, I merely seek tangible evidence that support claims made by both you and Dr Kopp.


----------



## Manticore

diameter of the radar dome -rough estimate
F-18 => ~700mm (APG-65, APG-73, APG-79 families)
SU-27/30 => ~1000 mm (N001, N010 [924mm antenna ver], N011 faimilies)

RCS (m2)
Su-MKI =4
F-18= 1

Radar Ranges 
F-18 APG-65 ~72 km ~ 150 km
TWS of 10 targets at 74 km. HUD acquistion auto lock at ~9 km.
F-18 APG-73 (APG-65 x 1.2) 85 km ~180 km
Su-27 110 km 240 km max


TWR 
1.16 - Su-30MKK
1.15 - F/A-18E/F


----------



## GareebNawaz

^^ I can assure you no one wants Australia for anything except some natural resources and frankly your country is not worth going to war over. Neither do you posess a threat to anyone , nor will anyone really take the effort to have war against you, because apparently attacking Australia is the equivalent of declaring war on USA.


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

what is the real rcs of mki 4 or 10 ?

what is clean configuration ?

with out any weapon or with minimum weapon ?


----------



## below_freezing

BladeMaster said:


> reaaaally??
> 
> y could of sed that in ww2 then the japanese invaded
> 
> right above us, there is indonesia, they have a army of 400+ thousand soldiers, they are bolstering their air force in a big way... if they do and we dont, they will have air superiority in the region, currently we do
> 
> indonesia teaches their kids in school, that australia belongs to them, even though they have never settled here or anything
> 
> relations are improving between our countrys... but in the end, they are a muslim country with th e believe that they own our country
> 
> china is also a threat... and even though we stand no chance against china alone, at least on our own shores, we can hold our own


 
are you insane? indonesia wants to conquer australia?!


----------



## Skull and Bones

Agnostic_Indian said:


> what is the real rcs of mki 4 or 10 ?
> 
> what is clean configuration ?
> 
> with out any weapon or with minimum weapon ?



The clean configuration RCS of MKIs are somewhat around 10-13 sqm, and the loaded RCS is around 20sqm. 
These are from internet sources and the validity of these data are highly dubious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chogy

It comes down to avionics and weapons. Until there is a conflict that demonstrates the efficacy of the Su man-avionics-missiles interface, I'd have to go with the Hornet. Real combat is very, very different from shooting missiles at target drones.

It is like matching a street fighter who has frequent bloody fights with a guy who works out, looks good, but never entered the ring. Really, it's almost impossible to say what the result will be.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## amalakas

Chogy said:


> It comes down to avionics and weapons. Until there is a conflict that demonstrates the efficacy of the Su man-avionics-missiles interface, I'd have to go with the Hornet. Real combat is very, very different from shooting missiles at target drones.
> 
> It is like matching a street fighter who has frequent bloody fights with a guy who works out, looks good, but never entered the ring. Really, it's almost impossible to say what the result will be.


 
I will not disagree. 
I just want to ask, which substantial airforce has the F18 (or any us plane for that matter) ever flown against ? 

unless you deem the iraki and serbian airforces substantial.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Storm Force

Indians have just finished 6 months of testing F18 super hornets for MMRCA competition.

Their (iaf) current benchmark fighter is the SU30MKI.


iN ONE MONTH if the indians pick the sh/f18 as the winner we all get the answer to this debate.


----------



## below_freezing

amalakas said:


> I will not disagree.
> I just want to ask, which substantial airforce has the F18 (or any us plane for that matter) ever flown against ?
> 
> unless you deem the iraki and serbian airforces substantial.


 
Though not substantial, there was Vietnam, against Vietnamese Air Force with Soviet/Chinese SAMs/AAA and Chinese SAM/AA crews.

The end result?

Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3000 fixed wing aircraft and 5000 helicopters downed.

The resultant humiliation forced the USAF to retire the F-105 and develop 3rd gen planes.


----------



## Luftwaffe

With the introduction of SU-35, SU-30 variants will inherit much of it according their Air Force needs. I would not thumbs down SU-30 on the basis of red flag exe or any other word coming from american marketers, F-18's avionics are potent so are the MKIs..

*I'd have to go with the Hornet. Real combat is very, very different from shooting missiles at target drones.*
Irrelevant, if referring to SU series/mki for shooting missiles at xyz so does F-18 what is the point in posting ^

 never enter the rings applies to F-35/F-22 as well LAMO to the post, bravo amalaks.


----------



## Manticore

Agnostic_Indian said:


> what is the real rcs of mki 4 or 10 ?
> 
> what is clean configuration ?
> 
> with out any weapon or with minimum weapon ?


 
Radar Cross Section (RCS)


----------



## Manticore

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. 
F-18E, Rafale 0.75 m2 fighter x 0.62 Situation Awareness


----------



## Chogy

amalakas said:


> I will not disagree.
> I just want to ask, which substantial airforce has the F18 (or any us plane for that matter) ever flown against ?
> 
> unless you deem the iraki and serbian airforces substantial.



I refer again to the man-avionics-radar-missile interface. The Hornet isn't shaped like an F-15 or F-16 (obviously) but the overall weapons system, the radar, its signal, PRF, frequency, combined with the proven performance of the AIM-9 and AIM-120, imply that an AIM-120 shot from an F-18 will be as effective as an AIM-120 shot from an F-15. Same with the AIM-9. I'm looking at it as a weapons system, not as an individual platform.


----------



## lcloo

Although the Serbian airforce and former Iraqi airforce may not be substantial, we do see that the side that detected the opponent first and shoot first win. Also the tactic employ may decide the out-come, if one side has better detection power via AEWAC or even ground radar, then thay have absolute advantage as in Serbian and Iraqi war shown. 

The biggest disadvantage of SU-30MK is the RCS which mean they are more likely to get detected before they found FA-18E/F if both jets have radar of similar detection capability. In major war campaigns, my 2 cents are BVR battles is the most likely scenario, and I would say FA-18 E/F plus AEWAC wins even if SU-30MK2 has AEWAC in support.

In isolated conflicts where air battles between one side who is on CAP, and need to acquire visual positive ID, and the intruder jet which is challenging for a fight, short range dog fight will happen and the vital factor would be pilot's experience and skill. US pilots have the upper hands due to their great exposure to war. Pilots of other nationalities will have to depend on their personal skill and experience, regardless of whether they fly SU-30 MK2 of FA-18E/F. A good example is the fights between F-86 and MIG-15 during Korean war, both machines are considered as having almost same capabilities but with different out-come.


----------



## amalakas

Chogy said:


> I refer again to the man-avionics-radar-missile interface. The Hornet isn't shaped like an F-15 or F-16 (obviously) but the overall weapons system, the radar, its signal, PRF, frequency, combined with the proven performance of the AIM-9 and AIM-120, imply that an AIM-120 shot from an F-18 will be as effective as an AIM-120 shot from an F-15. Same with the AIM-9. I'm looking at it as a weapons system, not as an individual platform.


 
technically speaking, during both conficts, (serbia, Iraq), the allied coverage of the skies was so overwelmng and one sided, that the missiles that were fired from allied planes against those MiG 29s and Mirages etc, could have been fired from C-130s for that matter, the iraqi/serbian planes were export versions with extremely limited capability, flown by pilots nowhere near western or even russian for that matter training, flying blind, mute and deaf, against a force with unprecedented situational awareness. 

Those guys were burned the minute they showed up on radar, they had no idea they were being stalked and targeted .... a cesna could have fired those missiles and gotten a hit.. that was not an engagement, it was a turkey shoot...

so the F18 may be a fantastic platform, but how will it fair when the might of Nato combined assets is not backing it up ?


----------



## ViXuyen

lcloo said:


> Although the Serbian airforce and former Iraqi airforce may not be substantial, we do see that the side that detected the opponent first and shoot first win. Also the tactic employ may decide the out-come, if one side has better detection power via AEWAC or even ground radar, then thay have absolute advantage as in Serbian and Iraqi war shown.
> 
> The biggest disadvantage of SU-30MK is the RCS which mean they are more likely to get detected before they found FA-18E/F if both jets have radar of similar detection capability. In major war campaigns, my 2 cents are BVR battles is the most likely scenario, and I would say FA-18 E/F plus AEWAC wins even if SU-30MK2 has AEWAC in support.


You're assuming that the F-18 see the SU-30 first and fires the missiles at the SU-30 before the SU-30 can detect the F-18; the last time that I check, the F-18 is not a stealth aircraft nor does it have the A2A missiles that can shoot the Su-30 before it got detected by the su-30

As for the Iraq war, I have said this before, it was a war of 1500 domestic version of Allied aircrafts mostly 4th generation against 0 Iraqi 4th generation aircrafts. Let's fact some fact: the Iraq war was not a war that the Allied airforce faced a domestic version of 1500 Mig31,Mig29 or Su27 here. Same thing with Serbia.


----------



## lcloo

5Star said:


> You're assuming that the F-18 see the SU-30 first and fires the missiles at the SU-30 before the SU-30 can detect the F-18; the last time that I check, the F-18 is not a stealth aircraft nor does it have the A2A missiles that can shoot the Su-30 before it got detected by the su-30
> 
> As for the Iraq war, I have said this before, it was a war of 1500 domestic version of Allied aircrafts mostly 4th generation against 0 Iraqi 4th generation aircrafts. Let's fact some fact: the Iraq war was not a war that the Allied airforce faced a domestic version of 1500 Mig31,Mig29 or Su27 here. Same thing with Serbia.


 
Well, until there is a real confrontation between the 2 jets, we are all assuming, arn't we? Now if SU-30MK RCS is 4 times larger than FA-18, and they have similar detection range and power, who would be spotted first? Also, what I mentioned was the in BVR situation if detection was done by radar of AWAC, the accomponied fighter with better AWAC (ie. avionics) and tactics employed should win.


----------



## ViXuyen

lcloo said:


> Well, until there is a real confrontation between the 2 jets, we are all assuming, arn't we? Now if SU-30MK RCS is 4 times larger than FA-18, and they have similar detection range and power, who would be spotted first? Also, what I mentioned was the in BVR situation if detection was done by radar of AWAC, the accomponied fighter with better AWAC (ie. avionics) and tactics employed should win.


 Assuming that the F-18 fighting with AWAC and the SU-30 just by itself. The F-18 can spot the Su-30 first but then what? Does the F-18 have the missiles at such range that can fire the first shot before the Su-30 detect the F-18? No. So there is no such guarantee that the fight between 4th-4.5 gen fighters that such and such fighter should win considering none has the capability to fire its first shot.


----------



## Chogy

> technically speaking, during both conficts, (serbia, Iraq), the allied coverage of the skies was so overwelmng and one sided, that the missiles that were fired from allied planes against those MiG 29s and Mirages etc, could have been fired from C-130s for that matter



Does any of what you said negate at all the proven lethality of the AIM-7M, AIM-120, AIM-9L/M? We have seen in many modern air battles that these weapons simply work when it gets down and dirty. Regardless of how "overwhelming" the numbers, you'd think that at least a FEW NATO aircraft would have been shot down air to air.

It's like an army of 1,000 firing against an army of 100 across a field with small arms. The large army will win, but the small army should STILL have taken a few with them. But in these air wars, they didn't. The sole exception was an F/A-18 shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 in Desert Storm.

For a long-ranged AAM to work, a LOT has to go right in a vicious EM environment. To date, we know the Hornet's systems work; we don't have data on the Sukhoi. Maybe it'll dominate, but I have to go with what is demonstrated effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S-A-B-E-R->

this is what i think abt VS threads






plz dont be offended but vs discussions r very childish


----------



## amalakas

Chogy said:


> Does any of what you said negate at all the proven lethality of the AIM-7M, AIM-120, AIM-9L/M? We have seen in many modern air battles that these weapons simply work when it gets down and dirty. Regardless of how "overwhelming" the numbers, you'd think that at least a FEW NATO aircraft would have been shot down air to air.
> 
> It's like an army of 1,000 firing against an army of 100 across a field with small arms. The large army will win, but the small army should STILL have taken a few with them. But in these air wars, they didn't. The sole exception was an F/A-18 shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25 in Desert Storm.
> 
> For a long-ranged AAM to work, a LOT has to go right in a vicious EM environment. To date, we know the Hornet's systems work; we don't have data on the Sukhoi. Maybe it'll dominate, but I have to go with what is demonstrated effective.


 
yes 100 men should still kill some of the 1000 men, because they know they are there...

in most cases, the airborne targets were picked up by AWACS and fighters were directed there on optimum vectors and had clean shots without the other guy ever knowing they were being targeted. 

Yes that does not negate the fact that the radar-missile combination can hit the target.. I'm just saying it'be good for some conclusions, if the target knew the missile was coming so it could take some evasive action...


----------



## localoca

Lankan Ranger said:


>


 But this plane is SO OLD...


----------



## Thomas

below_freezing said:


> Though not substantial, there was Vietnam, against Vietnamese Air Force with Soviet/Chinese SAMs/AAA and Chinese SAM/AA crews.
> 
> The end result?
> 
> Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 3000 fixed wing aircraft and 5000 helicopters downed.
> 
> The resultant humiliation forced the USAF to retire the F-105 and develop 3rd gen planes.



The talk was about fighter v. fighter not AAA and SAM. The Israeli's in 1982 had probably the best success flying U.S. jets. Shooting down upwards of 90 Syrian fighters with 0 losses in dogfights.


----------



## misterme2

below_freezing said:


> are you insane? indonesia wants to conquer australia?!


 


Lol they need a reason to bolster their BS forces..


----------



## misterme2

This tread is stupid..first of we should be comparing the F 18 to the current choices in the MMRCA competition....not Su 30 MK which is already in the INdian Airforce


----------



## Akasa

STOP POSTING THESE VERSUS THREADS BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE PILOT, DAMMIT

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Harisudan

But i don't think Indians are that big a fools to make Su30MKI a back bone of their fighter squdrons which can be easily detected by the old F16 PAF is having..More over they are Projecting their airforce considering their chines threat and not PAF...If the fact is so obvious that Su30MKI can be shot down easily shot down because of its huge RCS then why do they upgrade it with more and more goodies..Adding stuffs to the same Air frame doesn't make it good or stealthy right...So my hunch is that it has got something which amazes IAF..So the logic is that Su30MkI is perfectly more than a match for anything our enemies put up in the air atleat for the next 5 to 6 years..


----------



## Harisudan

Guys please tell me how to start a thread...


----------



## Chogy

Harisudan said:


> Guys please tell me how to start a thread...



Resurrecting an old thread doesn't work. 

Click the "Post New Thread" button, to the left, near the top of the screen.

BTW My opinion hasn't changed. I'll take the Super Hornet.



> STOP POSTING THESE VERSUS THREADS BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE PILOT, DAMMIT



False. *An old crafty pilot in an F-5 will crush a noobie in a Su-30* = an urban legend, fake, and not accurate.


----------

