Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[Patriot]

Hi,
Pakistani Air Force Generals are not dumb to send Jf-17 to India to perform Strike Mission.They will be used for Interception and Defense only (If Europen AESA Radar is added with Good BVR Missile then it can compete with SU30Mki otherwise no chance in hell).SU30 will shot it down way before it can shot MKI in the current scenario.PAF will most likely send these jets for fight against Mig29, and other jets of IAF.F16 will be taking care of SU30MKI's.

 

[maverick2009]

In Reply to Zob.

The R77 has stated range of 105km versis SD10 70KM.

jf17 pilot will have 2 x SD10 versis SU30MKI pilot 6 x R77

Pesa Bars Radar Versis KLJ10 chinease radar.

In each all 3 fields the MKI pilot has the upper hand.

This is discounting several other advantages like Twin engines = more power.

2 PILOTS versis one

More fuel

More jammers etc.

I am posting another thread on Russian BVR philsophy by an Austrillian Web site which compares all BVR missles including Amraams & SD10..

Theres a great moving graph showing various missle ranges including SD10 versis R77 its fun see post by Maverick 2009 " Russian BVR philsophy "

 

[blain2]

Batman.

Su30mki is not a Strike a Strike fighter its a multi role fighter.

India SU30 MKI is geared to Air DOMINANCE...

Air dominance is a buzz word. You need to get over it. Air Dominance is not a function of one type of aircraft, rather how an air power is employed. Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter? In any case MKI is a MR platform for sure.

With regards the F16 beating S30MKI it was actualy USA F15C equipped with Anraams AND Awacs... support beating a virtually blind SU30MKI which had no Awacs & only training mode radar on.

Not true. There were F-15s too, however the aggressor sqns as well as other units at the Red Flag and at the workup location prior to RF flew F-16s (a better dog fighter than the F-15 in many flight regimes).

Re F16 VERSIS SU30MKI both the USA & Singapore who operate far superior F16s to PAF blocka/b where both tested to the full in Cope india over the last few years.

MKI is a very good platform and a serious threat no denying that. BTW, PAF blk 15 is a better dog fighter than the later blocks. Its lighter etc.

I won,t comment on JF17 has there is no real data avialable for this Chinease fighter. But looking at the design and the cost around $15m each i would be surprised if it matches up to F16 in PAF.

Cost is cheap because that was the intent. However the benefit is that technology is also getting cheaper by the day so a lot more in terms of avionics is being integrated into the JF-17 than was possible with the F-16s inducted 20 plus years ago. Also the comparison that you often hear about the PAF F-16s vs. JF-17 has to be understood in proper context. When someone says that JF-17 would perform to 70% of the F-16s capability, the point being made is about the propulsion and airframe and not avionics. The JF-17 can handle 8 Gs whereas F-16 can do 9Gs. The GE engines on the PAF F-16 have a higher thrust and performance than the Chinese ones. However avionics wise, the aircraft (JF-17) has gear that is in line with what most of the current fighters have.

 

[BATMAN]

Can you explain what multi role means to you?

You had some quite impressive expalaination from PAFAce and Blain2.
SU30 MKI remain more of strike role rather than a dog fighter.

Now I ask you and your colleague; what does dog fight mean to you guys?

 

[sancho]

You had some quite impressive expalaination from PAFAce and Blain2.
SU30 MKI remain more of strike role rather than a dog fighter.

Please read my answer to PAFAce, because his definition of a multi role fighter fits perfectly to the Mki, also I think you didn't read Blain2 post correctly:

Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter? In any case MKI is a MR platform for sure.

Now I ask you and your colleague; what does dog fight mean to you guys?

First, I don’t wanted to offend you, just wondered why you say the Mki is not a multi role fighter, although you admit that it’s capable for strikes and like you said geared for air dominance. That's why I asked you that.
Now to your question, I think a dogfight is a combat of fighter aircrafts WVR and as I said before the Mki has the right qualities for that (maneuverability through TVC, good t/w ratio and speed).

 

[Tang0]

Air dominance is a buzz word. You need to get over it. Air Dominance is not a function of one type of aircraft, rather how an air power is employed. Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter?

Actually, according to Jane's Aviation Review, the official classification of the F/A-22 is "Stealth Air-Superiority Fighter" And I have heard the term Air-Superiority Fighter thrown about fairly often when people talk about the F/A-22. Doesn't make it any less of a buzz word, but there you have it...

 

[blain2]

Actually, according to Jane's Aviation Review, the official classification of the F/A-22 is "Stealth Air-Superiority Fighter" And I have heard the term Air-Superiority Fighter thrown about fairly often when people talk about the F/A-22. Doesn't make it any less of a buzz word, but there you have it...

Air superiority fighter is a term that has been around since the induction of F-15 Eagle. In the Air Force parlance this is not a new term. This Air Dominance term is something that you hear from IAF all the time around their MKI and even their pilots wear shoulder patches suggesting the same. I stand by my point that its essentially a word play. Nothing really different from air superiority.

The only Air Force capable of true air dominance is the US Air Force because its not a matter of a single fighter type being able to dominate an adversarial aircraft, its essentially all of the various components/nodes put together that ensure that the US Air Force can dominate over the other side instead of attaining a theater specific superiority. For as long as you cannot guarantee against the other side taking up Offensive Air Ops against you (IAF cannot while the USAF can), you cannot claim yourself to be an Air Dominance force.

 

[maverick2009]

The Su30 mki ( In IAF ROLE) as i see it is a Heavey weight air superiority platform. I admit that it can perform multi role missions like Naval Support, Strike missions but the IAF will it appears use it as as their king pin in long range Air dominance in South Asia.

The reasons are listed in here.

Firstly it has massive range combat radius of 1000km

Can remain in air for hours at a time

massive payload up 8 BVR/WVR missles

Big radar tracking range with multi target engagement

Most important it can be a mini Awacs and link up to 4 other fighters for command and control.

** If as i highlighted in my other thread India is paying for the development of the Ramjet BVR missle KH172 then SU30MKI is clearly geared for massive improvements in air combat capability in the near future. KH172 missle range 200km and Ibris radar wil track at 400km

Whislt SU30 MKI is no F22 which is a whole generation ahead and indeed inferior to Rafale/Typhoon i don,t believe there is anthing that can live with it South Asia at this moment in time. If Ibris Aesa Radar and KH172 missles are added in later tranches its clear edge will last a while yet.

 

[PAFAce]

Air dominance is a buzz word. You need to get over it. Air Dominance is not a function of one type of aircraft, rather how an air power is employed. Ever wondered why F/A-22 (the only aircraft which dominates any other) is never called an Air-dominance fighter? In any case MKI is a MR platform for sure.

The F-22 is officially an "Air Dominance Fighter" with strike capability (the point I was trying to make earlier, all fighters are multirole in some respect). The Advance Tactical Fighter program was initially planned to produce a pure ground-strike fighter, but due to the emergence of the Su-27 reality, combined with the relative decline of American aerial "dominance", and the fact that it is easier (from an engineering stand-point) to modify an air-superiority fighter for strike role than vice versa (example, F-15), it was later decided that the ATF program should focus primarily on Air Dominance. Strike capability is an added advantage, but was never a primary role for the ATF and the F-22.

"Air Dominance" is not entirely a buzz word, although I agree it's thrown around unnecessarily and undeservedly for many fighters, as in the case of the Su-30MKI. In the military circles, "air dominance" means something very much concrete. Air Dominance includes Air Superiority, but also includes Aerial Information Superiority, Information Denial etc. achieved through stealth, radars, jamming, integrated avionics, overall defence systems integration (satellites + AWACS + intel + air power) and so on. You probably know much more about this than I do.

Here's a good source:
Advanced tactical fighter to F-22 raptor: origins of the 21st century air dominance fighter
By David C. Aronstein, Michael J. Hirschberg, Albert C. Piccirillo

Aronstein and Hirschberg were engineers who worked on the ATF program, and Col. (Retd) Dr. Piccirillo was program head for the USAF Advanced Systems Division in the early stages of the ATF program.

 

[Tang0]

Air superiority fighter is a term that has been around since the induction of F-15 Eagle. In the Air Force parlance this is not a new term. This Air Dominance term is something that you hear from IAF all the time around their MKI and even their pilots wear shoulder patches suggesting the same. I stand by my point that its essentially a word play. Nothing really different from air superiority.

The only Air Force capable of true air dominance is the US Air Force because its not a matter of a single fighter type being able to dominate an adversarial aircraft, its essentially all of the various components/nodes put together that ensure that the US Air Force can dominate over the other side instead of attaining a theater specific superiority. For as long as you cannot guarantee against the other side taking up Offensive Air Ops against you (IAF cannot while the USAF can), you cannot claim yourself to be an Air Dominance force.

Meh, air superiority, air dominance, call it what you will, does change what an aircraft is or is not. I am a native English speaker and the terms have pretty much the exact connotation as far as I can tell.

Dominance of an air battlefield is contingent on the circumstances, and what forces you can bring to bear. Okay, you have 50 F-22's.... What about a couple of high altitude nuclear detonations? All that fancy hardware is now junk. You could probably still land it, I don't know how good the EMP shielding is, but you are not going to be shooting anything down. What if there is a surprise attack on your staging centers? What if all your pilots were killed in a poison gas attack.... Well, you get the picture.

How fast can you bring your forces to bear? How close are your forward staging areas? Can you launch sufficiently many attacks in a short period of time to complete your strategic objectives? Sure if the US decided to launch an aerial campaign against anyone they wanted, no other Air Force is going to stop them. Can they actually achieve the goals they want fast enough to matter.... Maybe.

 

[RajsParadise]

... , Just wondering as to how some fan boy claims actually triggered such a huge debate. Logically you are talking about a 3.5-4th gen air craft which still needs to be tested to impose against a 4.5 gen advanced fighter craft which is nothing but a fan boys wet dreams as Omar might have said. 

 

[maverick2009]

To be fair Raja i have made that point myself.

A mature operational flanker versis a JF17 is not fair in the JF17. To many question marks on aspects of this single engined fighter as yet.

Much better comparison F16/52 V SU30MKI

 

[IceCold]

... , Just wondering as to how some fan boy claims actually triggered such a huge debate. Logically you are talking about a 3.5-4th gen air craft which still needs to be tested to impose against a 4.5 gen advanced fighter craft which is nothing but a fan boys wet dreams as Omar might have said. 

Dude get your facts straight. How do you pose JF-17 as a 3.5th generation fighter jet?

 

[BATMAN]

^^Because, he is indian and JF-17 is some kick *** machine!
got my drift!!!

Just enjoy indian frustration.

 

[BATMAN]

To be fair Raja i have made that point myself.

A mature operational flanker versis a JF17 is not fair in the JF17. To many question marks on aspects of this single engined fighter as yet.

Much better comparison F16/52 V SU30MKI

Do you expect F-16 / 52 to be twin engine!

Pilots flying JF-17 says its performance is higher than F-16's.