SU-30 Deterrence

[Tiger Shark]

Is it possible to compare F-16 with SU-30. Plese Post Factfull Post

Regards,

Tiger

Edit: You guys make discuss Su-30 versus any aircraft in PAF inventory in this thread.

 

[Tiger Shark]

As far as my opinion is concern I wouldn't want my life to depend on having to keep a tally on an F-16 in wvr combat. You loose sight of it, it could be all over for you. On the other hand the big SU would be easier to keep a tally on. If you have the opportunity,.... sit in a SU- single seater or a SU-30 two seater and try and see directly behind you. Now try the same with the F-16 The Israelis will have their helmet / heater combo up and running someday, etc. etc.BVR- So far the R-77 which we are all supposed to cower in fear at its mention is ... unproven in combat. Not to mention vendor support isn't exactly the picture of health. Not so with the shorter ranged AMRAAM.

Next. The big radars in the SU.... hard to say. Going head to head it will be trying to pick up a very small F-16 target, so lock up range is as far as public consumption goes: Unknown. On the reverse you have some pretty high tech radar on the F-16 trying to pick up an incredibly huge target like the SU.... who will detect first ?

Since the title of the thread is X vs Y. I look at an combat aircraft as a complete system. Now if you are talking A2G... If you had a "bomb comp" today, the F-16 would win, by virture of a large menu of proven all weather PGMs. Until the SU gets something like the highly capable and inexpensive JDAM, (backed up by a secure C3 network ) it's all weather bombing ability is limited. Look at all the toys the Polish are getting in their deal. We are talking about weapons that have been out and proven. Not some inert display model hanging from a SU at an airshow. Like it or not the F-16 ability in A2G = kicking a$$ with pockets full of class... in all weather. Furthermore: A recent article in Aviation Week points out a glaring problem. There is an interesting reason the SU-30 is a 2 seat aircraft. Up to this time SU has been unable to make a single seat multirole aircraft. They can't do it yet. They haven't figured out a suitable man/machine interface with the avionics to handle the workload so as to do A2A and A2G in one jet with one person. The F-16 and F-18 have had this ability for years

 

[miroslav]

On paper when Gnats and Hunters were compared to F-83 they didn't stand a chance; but still they managed to bring down some F-86's.

Miro

 

[Tiger Shark]

Originally posted by miroslav@Jan 5 2006, 03:22 PM
Su-30MKI analysis

Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance.

Link

Miro

[post=]Quoted post[/post]​

NEW DELHI SEPT. 5. The only complete squadron of India's frontline Sukhoi-30 fighters has been grounded following detection of "nicks'' in the engine blades. The Indian Air Force wants the defective parts replaced free of cost but the manufacturers are reluctant because the warranty period has expired.

The IAF has threatened to stall a long-term contract for the supply and indigenous manufacture of improved versions of this plane unless its makers made amends immediately, informed sources said.

Other sources in the Air Headquarters admitted to the problem of nicks but said flying had been staggered prior to their despatch to Russia for routine checks. Planes are regularly checked and nicks of a certain size and amount are permitted. Otherwise the blades are changed. According to warranty terms, these planes of `Sukhoi-30 MK' make are due to be upgraded by 2006.

India currently has 28 Sukhoi planes based at the Lohegaon IAF base at Pune. The first batch of 18 is of Sukhoi-30 K make (NATO name `Flanker&#39 and arrived in 1997-98. The remaining 10 of the improved `MKI' make arrived recently. The problem, according to informed sources, is with the first lot comprising the No. 24 Hunting Hawk squadron, the IAF's main high performance fighter fleet. With slight modification, these planes are considered ideal for delivery of nuclear weapons because of their long range. They are certain to find a place in the newly created Strategic Forces Command, which will oversee all nuclear delivery systems such as warships, submarines, missiles and aircraft.

Informed sources said the rub lies in the fact that the IAF currently has too few multi-role combat planes. The number will increase after 22 Sukhoi-30 MKI arrive from Russia, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) makes another 140 and some French planes are purchased in due course. As a result, the IAF does not want to wait for a couple of years for the scheduled upgrade of these `K' variants to `MKI'.

Other sources, however, were confident that the crisis would blow over. "Nicks happen all the time but the contract with Sukhoi is for a very long period. Their people have been at hand at the base for some time and will continue to be around till all the three versions of the plane are ready," said the sources.

Informed sources point out that the main reason for the selection of Sukhois over competitors such as Mirage-2000 was the considerably lower costs, including life cycle costs. Irkut should, therefore, make an exception and take a close look at these aircraft, especially because the 18 planes, on an average, are only halfway through their technical lives.

However, the Russian company has never been busier. Last year, it accounted for nearly one-thirds of the total Russian armament exports and this year it began supplying Sukhoi planes to Malaysia besides the two lucrative tie-ups with India and China. It appears to be a tough call for both IAF and Irkut. The problem with Sukhoi spares has not occurred for the first time.

IAF officials say that in the past, poor product support as a result of the failure of Irkut to supply the spares already contracted for had led to decrease of average serviceability from 69 per cent in 1997-98 to 62 per cent in 1998-99.

This was because the price quoted by the manufacturer was inconsistent and abnormally high which resulted in delay in finalising the general spares contract

The IAF has threatened to stall a long-term contract for the supply and indigenous manufacture of improved versions of this plane unless its makers made amends immediately, informed sources said.

 

[Tiger Shark]

Here is Something interesting

USAF vs. Indian Air Force -- Cope India 2005
by Trent Telenko at December 5, 2005 04:55 PM

First, The USAF is not bringing all of it latest equipment to the Cope India exercises. In neither Cope India 2004 nor Cope India 2005 did the USAF bring in its AIM-120 "Slammer" fire and forget radar guided air to air missile. This makes a huge difference in exercise outcome.

For example, in Cope India 2004 the F-15 were using Sparrow semi-active radar guided missiles, which require the F-15s to illuminate a target rather than turn away immediately after launch and avoid visual range combat entirely. Using Sparrow, the F-15s have to close to visual range in order to guide the Sparrow all the way to target. More importantly they can only illuminate one target at a time while multiple fire and forget Slammers can be fired at several different targets.

The result of being limited to the Sparrow allowed a numerically superior Indian force in Cope India 2004 to tie up the F-15s in dogfighting Mig-21s after the initial Sparrow volley while the strike group of Mig-27's got to the target the F-15s were defending.

Second, the Cope India 2005 exercise was set up so the USAF was not using its latest doctrine. The wide spread deployment of the Link 16 data link and AIM-120 Slammers in the American F-16 force is revolutionizing how it does air combat. Voice control is rapidly shifting to data link control of beyond visual range (BVR) combat.

In the Cope India 2005 exercise, the F-16s were limited to voice only air control without Slammers. From the article:

One USAF controller working aboard an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) plane told reporters at Kalaikundi Air Base that he was impressed by the speed in which Indian pilots responded to target assignments given them by AWACS. The AWACS, while operated by Americans, was acting as a neutral party, feeding target assignments to both Indian and American pilots during the exercise. In most cases, the Indians responded to target assignments faster than the American pilots did - a surprising fact, given that this was the first time Indian pilots had used the American AWACS capability.
Training and Doctrine

Let me walk you through the equipment and doctrine variables here that the Christian Science Monitor either ignored or used as throw away lines out of context.

1) Equipment

a) The Indian SU-30 Flankers's are Russian F-15 analogs, air superiority fighters, with French electronics. The F-16s, in contrast, are multi-role strike fighters. The Flanker was designed after the F-16 was with the full intelligence the KGB provided on the to Soviet Design bureaus. The Flankers have bigger diameter radomes for the air superiority mission so their radars will see the F-16s sooner than the F-16s will see them given equivalent vintage electronics.

Russian Su-30's have long-range infrared search and track telescopes so the Su-30's would have visual engagement at longer-range than F-16s, which lack them. (Those sites are standard equipment for the under development F35.) This means the Flankers can engage with their Russian made AA-11 Archer infra red dogfight missiles sooner than the F-16s can with their Sidewinders.

c) The Russians sell their Su-30's with A-11 Archer off bore sight dogfight missiles and helmet-mounted sites. The USAF hasn't yet achieved full deployment of its AIM-9X Super Sidewinders with the equivalent helmet mounted site on F-16s. I suspect the F-16s involved in Cope India 2005 did not have these toys.

2) Doctrine

a) The rules of engagement (ROE) were all within visual range. The USAF avoids visual range air-to-air combat if it can help it. This is because exercises have shown that two modern fighters with well trained pilots, modern off bore sight dog fight missiles and helmet mounted sights to aim them tend to commit mutual suicide when they come in visual range of one another. The ground combat ditty "That you can see you can hit, and what you can hit you can kill" applies in spades to visual air combat.

The USAF F-16s are almost all Link 16 and AIM-120 Slammer equipped. USAF BVR engagements with AWACS are now increasingly data and not voice. In this exercise the AWACs were "neutral" and gave voice only instruction to both sides pilots. The Indians are trained regularly to use to ground based voice controlled intercepts. The F-16s pilots were less well trained at this.

c) Air to mud is the primary training mode for F-16 jocks due to wartime demands and USAF operation budget driven training hour’s cuts. The air-to-air training the F-16s do get concentrates on the most likely air-to-air combat the USAF intends to use -- BVR engagements with full AWACS digital support. The upshot is that in Cope India 2005 the F-16s were not using their primary air-to-air training to engage the Indians.

d) The USAF does not fight "Fair." When the USAF shows up to air to air combat with lethal intent, as opposed to international exercises, it also shows up witht the full panoply of electromagnetic combat capabilities. The non-US side of any air-to-air combat will have difficulty establishing radio communications between aircraft sections, let alone the command, control, communications and intelligence (C3I) necessary for ground controlled or AWAC controlled intercepts.

So lets sum up the implications here. The Indian Su-30's were operating within their services training and doctrine to full equipment capability -- which exceeded that of the F-16 in the air-to-air role.

While the F-16s were not using their best equipment and were operating on back up air-to-air procedures that were outside the majority of their training. Nor were they operating with the full combat support environment they use in war.

Reporting

My conclusion from reading the CSM article is the reporter knew nothing about any of the above. He wanted headlines to grab eyes and sell advertising.

Frankly, even if the reporter did learn enough to understand the implications, he would have wrote it the same way. Even if the F-16's did well vs. the Su-30s, he would not report it that way because it does not grab eyes.

Lets face facts, if the reporter used the following 'throw away' paragraphs from a retired Indian Air Marshal, and Indian blogger and an F-16 pilot as the basis of his article:

Indian Air Marshal:

"The Sukhoi is a ... better plane than the F-16," says Vinod Patney, a retired Indian Air Force marshal, and former vice chief of air staff. "But we're not talking about a single aircraft. We're talking about the overall infrastructure, the command and control systems, the radar on the ground and in the air, the technical crew on the ground, and how do you maximize that infrastructure. This is where the learning curve takes place.
"So let's forget about I beat you, you beat me," he adds. "This is not a game of squash."
Indian blogger:

Another blogger, Forgestone, advised against such "chest-thumping." "Coming out on the winning or losing side of a scorecard doesn't change their large technological edge, their resources, their experience, their talent, their geostrategic position," he wrote, referring to the US Air Force. More recently, an American pilot who participated in the exercise, added his own two cents on the blog.
USAF Pilot:

"It makes me sick to see some of the posts on this website," wrote a purported US "Viper" pilot. "They made some mistakes and so did we.... That's what happens and you learn from it." The point of the exercise, he said, was for the USAF and the IAF to train, learn, and yes, play golf alongside each other. "For two weeks of training, both sides got more out of their training than they probably would in two months."
The headline would have read:

Indian Fighters 'Beat' American F-16s Under Severe Handicaps In Exercise -- both sides learned much

That headline frame just does not grab eyes to sell advertising, which is the primary job of the Main Stream Media. Remember that fact the next time you read a gloom and doom story about the American military


Regards

Tiger

 

[Tiger Shark]

According to the military information I've gotten:

# The frontal RCS of the fighters:
1. Su-30MK: 10.0~15.0 m2+
2. Su-35 with LO enhancement: 3.0 m2
3. MIG-29S: 5.0 m2
4. MIG-29SMT with LO enhancement: 1.0~1.2 m2
5. F-16 series: 1.0~1.2 m2

# The air-to-air detection capability of the fighter's radar:
1. AN/APG-68 V5 (F-16C/D): 75 ~ 85 km for RCS = 5 m2 target
2. AN/APG-68 V9 (F-16 I): 95 ~ 110 km for RCS = 5 m2 target
3. AN/APG-80 (F-16 E/F): 130 ~ 160 km for RCS = 5 m2 target
4. NO-11M (Su-30MKI): 200 ~ 250 km for RCS = 10 m2 target
5. ZHUK-ME (MIG-29SMT): 120 km for RCS = 3 m2 target


According to the formula:

a. The maximal detection range for F-16C/D (AN/APG-68V5) to other fighters in head to head engagement:
1. Su-30MK: 90 ~ 100 km+
2. Su-35 with LO enhancement: 65 ~ 75 km
3. MIG-29S: 75 ~ 85 km
4. F-16 and MIG-29SMT with LO enhancement: 50 ~ 60 km

b. The maximal detection range for F-16I (AN/APG-68V9) to other fighters in head to head engagement:
1. Su-30MK: 115 ~ 130 km+
2. Su-35 with LO enhancement: 85 ~ 100 km
3. MIG-29S: 95 ~ 110 km
4. F-16 and MIG-29SMT with LO enhancement: 65 ~ 80 km

c. The maximal detection range for F-16E/F (AN/APG-80) to other fighters in head to head engagement:
1. Su-30MK: 155 ~ 190 km+
2. Su-35 with LO enhancement: 115 ~ 140 km
3. MIG-29S: 130 ~ 160 km
4. F-16 and MIG-29SMT with LO enhancement: 85 ~ 115 km

d. The maximal detection range for Su-30MKI (NO-11M) to other fighters in head to head engagement:
1. Su-30MK: 200 ~ 250 km+
2. Su-35 with LO enhancement: 150 ~ 185 km
3. MIG-29S: 170 ~ 210 km
4. F-16 and MIG-29SMT with LO enhancement: 130 ~ 175 km

e. The maximal detection range for MIG-29SMT (ZHUK-ME) to other fighters in head to head engagement:
1. Su-30MK: 160 km+
2. Su-35 with LO enhancement: 120 km
3. MIG-29S: 135 km
4. F-16 and MIG-29SMT with LO enhancement: 90 ~ 95 km

 

[Tiger Shark]

So the F-16 with APG-80 would have no radar range disadvantage against the Su-30MKI.

Add to that:
the F-16 has an AESA radar, which is harder to jam and detect.

the F-16 has a much smaller RCS, so its ECM would be more effective. ( and jamming power decreases in 1/r2 so theoretically since the RCS of the F-16 is 1/10 that of the su-30, with equal ECMs the F-16 can get about 3 times closer)

the F-16 should be able to fire AMRAAMs without turning on its radar, and still be able to guide the missiles.

the AIM-120D should give the F-16 the first shot against standard R-77, even if it launches from a lower altitude and at a bit slower speed.

the AIM-120D probably has a significantly higher pk than the R-77.

the F-16 could be armed with long range missile.

WVR, the F-16 is not disadvantaged.
The F-16 with APG-80, AN/ALQ-165 and AIM-120D could even be superior to the su-30. The su-30 has the advantage of being slightly faster, having better endurence and being able to carry more missiles however. And if it's armed with R-77Ms it has the advantage again, unless the F-16 is able to jam it..

 

[Tiger Shark]

KS-172 (AAM-L) and R-37 (AA-X-13 ) are the Russian missiles that are mainly designed for destroying western AWACS. The KS-172 is the air-to-air variant of S-300V/SA-12, and R-37 (AA-X-13 )is upgraded from R-33 (AA-9).

KS-172:
Manufacturer: Novastor

Length: 6 m

Diameter: 0.4 m

Weight: 700 (KS-172-S1 for exportation) to 750 kg (For Russian AF)

Warhead: 50 kg

Maximal speed: 4.0 Mach+

Maximal effective range: 300 (KS-172-S1 for exportation) to 400 km (For Russian AF)

Effective range of altitude: 3 to 30,000 m
R-37M:
Manufacturer: Vympel

Weight: 600 kg

Warhead: 47 kg

Maximal speed: 6.0 Mach

Maximal effective range: 240 km
According to the declaration of the manufacturers, both of these two missiles will have enough capability to engage the targets like fighters, bombers, cruise missiles, and even the approaching AAM/SAM. However, because the two missiles are so big and heavy, even the large Russian fighters like Su-30MKI and Su-35 can only carry two missiles once a time, and it is needless to say that the huge missiles like these will increase the RCS of fighter significantly, while decreasing its agiity and maneuverability greatly at the same time ~ very negative effect for air-to-air combat.

The fighter must detect, track, and identify its enemy at first before it has chance to lock and then fire its missile toward its enemy. Theoretically, the maximal effective detection range and maximal effective tracking range of the most modern Russian fighter's radars today to the different targets could be:
F-15C (RCS=10 m2): 200~250 km / 135~170 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

F-18C (RCS = 3 m2): 150~185 km / 100~125 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

F-16C (RCS = 1.2 m2): 118~148 km / 78~100 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

JAS39 (RCS = 0.5 m2): 95~118 km / 64~78 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

F-18E (RCS = 0.1 m2): 63~80 km / 42~54 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

EF-2K (RCS = 0.05~0.1 m2): 53~80 km / 36~54 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

F-35A (RCS = 0.0015 m2): 22~28 km / 15~20 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)

F/A-22 (RCS < or = 0.0002~0.0005 m2): 16~21 km / 10~14 km (Max. detective range / Max. tracking range)
If Su-35/Su-30MKI use KS-172 or R-37 to against the western fighters today, any western fighter with frontal RCS equal or less than F-16C and the BVRAAM of AIM-120D to Meteor class will be able to handle Su-35/Su-30MKI with KS-172 or R-37 very well. The very long range of KS-172 or R-37 is almost meaningless at this time, since the Su-35/Su-30MKI&#39;s radar can&#39;t track or even detect the target (Any western fighter with frontal RCS equal or less than F-16C) at the distance beyond the effective range of AIM-120D and Meteor. The fighters with extremely low RCS such as F/A-22, F-35, and perhaps EF-2K, may even be albe to conquer Su-35/Su-30MKI + KS-172 or R-37 with just AIM-120A/B theoretically

 

[miroslav]

TigerShark

come to the point.

AS your MiG-29 V/S F-16 thread you have come here to the conclusion by urself that the F-16 is better than the flanker.

No wonder China has/going to have more than 400+ Flnakers (Su-27/30).

They must be stupid coz they have to fight against the Taiwanese F-16&#39;s.

Also where is the link for your Su-30 grounding article.

Man, the IAF has 3 Operational squadrons and none of them is grounded.

Also read this.

SUKHOI 30MKI PROJECT VETRIVALE

By Dr. K G NARAYANAN
Former Chief Adviser DRDO & Director
ADE (Aeronautical Development Est) & DARE (Defence Avionics Research Establishment)

During the last week of September 2002 attention of the Indian public and media was taken up almost entirely by the third phase of J&K elections, terror in Akshardham and of course the ICC Championship matches at Colombo. Another event of far reaching importance which occurred during this week did not therefore receive the prominence it deserved in newspaper columns and in public focus. This was the induction of a new multi-role supersonic fighter aircraft in the Indian Air Force. Addressing the gathering in a public ceremony at the Pune Air Force Station, the Defence Minister Mr. George Femandes lauded the success achieved by this remarkable acquisition programme in the face of unhelpful criticisms and other hurdles. As the CAS put it, "initially the skeptics doubted our ability to achieve such an enhancement in operational capability; when the weapon system became a reality, the same people turned around to question why the IAF needed such awesome capabilities&#33;"

The Su-30MKI is considered to be the &#39;ultimate&#39; evolution of the Su-27 originally developed by the Sukhoi Design Bureau in 1982 as a dedicated role air defence fighter (NATO code name Flanker). The multi-role capability now provided in the IAF aircraft includes air-to-ground attack, interdiction and long range strikes (in conjunction with mid-air refueling capability) in addition to the original air interception role. The Su-30MKI comes to the IAF with attack capabilities more advanced than what is available to most other air forces of the world including the Russian Air Force, thanks to a bold and farsighted approach taken by the IAF. The newness of the approach lies in the fact that the Ministry of Defence contracted with Sukhoi for these fighters to be supplied with significant upgrades in its manoeuvering, precision navigation and weapon delivery capabilities than what had been developed by the Russians until then.

The IAF also demanded that the upgrades be achieved with the incorporation of new & better Customer Furnished Equipment (CFE) including a significant element of Indian-developed avionics. It is obvious that a pro-active approach such as this was not without risks in the acquisition of a complex weapon system such as the Su-30. The major technical risk lies in the area of system engineering of the total weapon platform with newly introduced constituents. There is also the management challenge in convincing the Russian principals and others of the technical advantages of bringing in new &#39;western&#39; and Indian avionics to co-exist with original Russian equipment. Judging by the remarkable results, the system engineering, integration and management complexities of such an acquisition project incorporating equipment from Russia, France, Israel and India have evidently been handled competently by the Indian team. It is to the great credit of all the principal players in this major programme that No. 20 Squadron ("Lightnings"), famous for its exploits with Hunters in the 1965 and 1971 wars, has now been inducted with this new and advanced operational capability within a period of 6 years from "go". More squadrons will follow and IAF rightly expects these to be the pride of its friends and despair of its foes.

It is a matter not merely of national pride but also of great practical advantage in terms of costs and maintainability that many critical elements of the new avionics suite of Su-30 MKI are designed indigenously. Advanced avionics were developed by DRDO under a project code named "Vetrivale" (a Tamil name for the victorious lance carried by the youthful Lord Karthikeya or Murugan, a son of Parvati and Shiva) in close collaboration with the PSUs and the IAF. Indian avionics have been received and acknowledged enthusiastically by the Russian principals. The core avionics designed by the Bangalore-based Defence Avionics Research Establishment (DARE) consists of Mission Computers, Display Processors and Radar computers which are now manufactured by HAL&#39;S Hyderabad Division. The other DARE product Tarang RWR which is manufactured by BEL at its Bangalore facility, alerts the pilot to all surrounding "threats" such as radar-controlled guns and missiles for initiating evasive action or counter-measures. Tarang which was originally designed for the MiG-21bis modernisation programme is now a standard fitment in most of IAF aircraft. The DRDO has effected transfer of technology for the manufacture of all avionics to the PSUs after establishing the design soundness of such equipment through evaluation of prototypes. These avionics equipment have also been certified for their airworthiness in meeting the demanding standards of Russian military aviation. The integrated communication equipment and radar altimeters are of HAL&#39;s own design, already well proven in other aircraft applications. The cumulative value of such indigenous avionic equipment is estimated to exceed Rs. 250 lakhs per aircraft.

The expected size of the Su-30MKI fleet of IAF is around 180 aircraft. A very beneficial effect of this approach, in the IAF entrusting all of the core avionics to a single development agency, is that DRDO has been able to design the 3 on-board computers with maximum commonality of hardware and software amongst them using a modular approach to design. This obviously results in major cost and time savings in development; it also benefits the user in maintenance and spares inventories. In fact the DRDO has gone a step further and come out with a new design of the Core Avionics Computer (CAC) which can be used with a single module adaptation across many other aircraft platforms. Thus the CAC which is derived from the computers designed for the Su-30MKI will now be the centre piece of the avionics upgrades for the MiG-27 and Jaguar aircraft as well. The CAC was demonstrated by DRDO at the Aero India exhibition at Yelahanka and attracted a good deal of international attention. Taken together with the systems already developed indigenously for the LCA (such as the Digital Flight Control Computer and HUD), clearly Indian avionics have a significant export potential in the burgeoning global market for avionics modernisation.

Not only does the induction of this new &#39;Air Dominance Fighter&#39; signify a quantum jump in the combat capability of the IAF; it also marks the success of a new beginning in co-operative ventures between the IAF, DRDO and Defence PSUs to great national advantage. "The Su-30MKI is a product of unique and successful experiment in management and cooperation in the field of design, development and production between Russian design and production establishments, Indian Defence R&D Laboratories, the IAF and HAL," stated Air Chief Marshal S. Krishnaswamy in his message issued on the occasion of induction of the new fighter. The significance of the success of Vetrivale and other similar indigenous programmes go far beyond their immediate financial impact in as much as they free India’s Armed Forces, even incrementally, from the debilitating shackles of imported equipment. Such large scale imports drain the limited modernisation budget of the Services, compromise security in some cases and progressively drive national technological and industrial capabilities backward. Coming as it does in the prevailing ambience of cynicism regarding indigenous capabilities and synergy between the Armed Forces, DRDO and DPSUs, the Vetrivale success story deserves to be told - and told more widely.

<div class='bbimg'></div>

Miro

 

[Tiger Shark]

Originally posted by miroslav@Jan 6 2006, 11:51 AM
TigerShark

come to the point.

AS your MiG-29 V/S F-16 thread you have come here to the conclusion by urself that the F-16 is better than the flanker.

Miro

[post=5156]Quoted post[/post]​

My Dear Brother Miro

That&#39;s a big statement.
How many hours a years do China&#39;s pilots get dog fighting?
Have China&#39;s pilots ever train against other types of aircraft?
Does China&#39;s Su-27/30s use AA-10s or AA-12s?
Has any Pak F-16s ever visited China? So how do you know they can beat a F-16 in combat.
Can China&#39;s fighters operate with out ground controllers? You know any radar can be jammed up to a point.
Your be surprise how long a F-16 with the right gear can keep the Flankers missiles on its rail.
Remember also besides the scaled down Flankers China has almost every other aircraft is out classed by Taiwans Mirage 2000s and F-16s. The older types like Mig-19,21 and so on don&#39;t really help China&#39;s air force as much as you think they can.Taiwan does have AIM-120s and their Mirage have MICA&#39;s I don&#39;t see the China&#39;s flankersa ranking the floors with Taiwan&#39;s fighters.

Regards
Tiger

 

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Tiger Shark@Jan 9 2006, 01:27 PM
My Dear Brother Miro

That&#39;s a big statement.
How many hours a years do China&#39;s pilots get dog fighting?
Have China&#39;s pilots ever train against other types of aircraft?
Does China&#39;s Su-27/30s use AA-10s or AA-12s?
Has any Pak F-16s ever visited China? So how do you know they can beat a F-16 in combat.

[post=5243]Quoted post[/post]​

Ok then think about us the IAF.

We have had wargames with US/Singapore/Thailand F-16&#39;s. Recent Cope India-2005 excersice also gave us a good hand on the Amriki AWACS.

IAF pilots have Su-30 pilots have even flown the Thai F-16&#39;s.

Your be surprise how long a F-16 with the right gear can keep the Flankers missiles on its rail.

Get that right gear and then face IAF. Both your threads MiG-29 V/S F-16 and MKI V/S F-16 will be closed.

Miro

Miro

 

[Thunder]

Originally posted by miroslav@Jan 9 2006, 03:13 PM
Get that right gear and then face IAF. Miro

Miro

[post=5247]Quoted post[/post]​

Miro is right, and so is Tiger shark. F-16 equiped with the right radar and missiles will give any flanker out there a very hard time. But as miro said. PAF is&#39;nt getting any of that stuff, so i would say the favor is in IAF&#39;s hand. Mig-29s however are&#39;nt much of a match since F-16 can see it and kill it right out of the skies, but in a dogfight. Mig-29 has the upper hand sicne it&#39;s one of the most mounverable jets out there and will out mounver any western fighter out there.

But then again like i said in a another thread before, alot of things happen in the war. You might see F-16&#39;s vs mig-21s or F-16&#39;s vs MKI&#39;s. A F-16 vs a SAM or a Mirage vs anti air craft guns.

 

[Hammad]

We can&#39;t judge the battle by comparing two aircrafts through forums. The F-16s that Pakistan is acquiring will have almost all of the stuff, except for certain weapons, but i have heard that AMRAAM is to be confirmed, as Pentagon, views that it is ok to transfer AMRAAM if in the region there already is a cabaility of it, and so of course Pakistan should be able to get it, but even with these chances. Pakistan must lobby hard for it.

 

[Salmaan]

The radar detection range of a Su-30 MKI is far greater than a Block-52 F-16 (140-160 kms). Even an LCA can match a Block-52 F-16 in terms of avionics. The MMR of LCA is said to have a range of 100+ kms.

It would be better to compare an F-15 to the Su-30 MKI.

 

[blain2]

Originally posted by Salmaan@Jan 20 2006, 05:59 AM
The radar detection range of a Su-30 MKI is far greater than a Block-52 F-16 (140-160 kms). Even an LCA can match a Block-52 F-16 in terms of avionics. The MMR of LCA is said to have a range of 100+ kms.

It would be better to compare an F-15 to the Su-30 MKI.

[post=5532]Quoted post[/post]​

Until you came down to blk 60 which has very comparable detection ranges to the MKI. LCA is still up in the air. Can&#39;t say much about it.