that's total rubbish. su-30mkk operating radius is 1500 KM and MKI is 1500 KM too.srev2004 said:the MKI has a range of 8000 K.M. The F-18 is no where close to that.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/su-30.htm
that's total rubbish. su-30mkk operating radius is 1500 KM and MKI is 1500 KM too.srev2004 said:the MKI has a range of 8000 K.M. The F-18 is no where close to that.
8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.Pursuit Curve said:8,000 km is a long way to fly to get shot down! Especially when you consider that there is no AWACS support. BUt 8,000 KM! Hmmm, can that be qualified please, or is that the maximum Ferry range? Not combat range!
perhaps you need to look at the ROE's for Cope India 2005 (not 2006) and comprehend the nature of DACT before making statements that seem empirical.srev2004 said:8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.
The SU-30 MKI is the best Russian variant Jet. It has never been fully used against any other plane. People don't know it's radar capability. It's radar was switched off during Cope India 2006.
The ROE's handicapped both sides, each side didn't use their best equipment, but the Indian could afford to perform better, how? Their maximum potential is better than the Americans especially in Cope India 2006.gf0012-aust said:perhaps you need to look at the ROE's for Cope India 2005 (not 2006) and comprehend the nature of DACT before making statements that seem empirical.
Quoring DACT as evidence of a platforms superiority unfortunately is not something that implies credibility.
I suggest that you search within DT on a summary that was made about the Cope India exercices. Within the body of that response, I also provided a comprehensive breakdown of DACT to deal with these kinds of assessments.
So India's potential is greater than the USA's potential is it? That's nice. Unfortunately potential does not equate to combat power. If America attacked India, with the intention of invading, the exact same result as has happened in Iraq on 2 occasions would occur. India would be utterley defeated militarily.srev2004 said:The ROE's handicapped both sides, each side didn't use their best equipment, but the Indian could afford to perform better, how? Their maximum potential is better than the Americans especially in Cope India 2006.
The Sukhois Radars were shut off during the exercises, atleast the US planes had their radars on. The 30's were feeding of Mig-21 Bison radars and relaying it to other fighters, acting as mini awacs. So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten. There are two perspectives to every story, and my understanding of being an intern at HAL tells me that the Indians beat the Americans in both exercises fair and square because we train for Nuclear powers such as Pakistan and China, while America trains for powers such as Iraq and Iran, mere pushovers compared to the previous two.
I think the su-30k's were still equipped with N-001E radar, so it's probably a good thing they didn't turn on their radar. I believe su-30Ks were also using their IRST in the exercise to detect F-15s. Actually, that's one of the few good things about flankers. It's one of the first fighters to have IRST. Also, you have to realize that Americans loose out a lot more when their BVR capability is restricted, because F-15 just isn't as maneuverable as su-27 variants. In real war situation, USAF would never put themselves in that kind of scenario.srev2004 said:The ROE's handicapped both sides, each side didn't use their best equipment, but the Indian could afford to perform better, how? Their maximum potential is better than the Americans especially in Cope India 2006.
The Sukhois Radars were shut off during the exercises, atleast the US planes had their radars on. The 30's were feeding of Mig-21 Bison radars and relaying it to other fighters, acting as mini awacs. So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten. There are two perspectives to every story, and my understanding of being an intern at HAL tells me that the Indians beat the Americans in both exercises fair and square because we train for Nuclear powers such as Pakistan and China, while America trains for powers such as Iraq and Iran, mere pushovers compared to the previous two.
srev2004 said:So yeah, what you say is just an excuse to get out of being beaten.
Australia flies US export variant planes and is situated close to Asia where it could be outflanked. This is still relevant because USAF planes versus IAF planes is indirectly Australian planes versus Indian planes.WebMaster said:And what does this thread have anything to do with USAF or India? Nationalistic bragging aside, please try to stick to the topic.
The avionics for the LCA were simulated on a simulator built for a F-16 XL and the LCA avoinics improved performance by 30%, this is just one example.Aussie Digger said:So India's potential is greater than the USA's potential is it? That's nice. Unfortunately potential does not equate to combat power. If America attacked India, with the intention of invading, the exact same result as has happened in Iraq on 2 occasions would occur. India would be utterley defeated militarily.
There are no "2 sides" to this argument at all. America is THE pre-eminent military power on earth and has been for the last 60 years. America only trains for Iraq and Iran you say?
Has it forgotten about Russia, China, North Korea and developing military capability in India, Pakistan and numerous other Countries around the world?
As to best equipment, the USA has F-22 Raptors in operational service now. If they truly wanted to trounce India, they would simply deploy them and your Sukhoi's would not stand a chance irregardless of whether their radars were switched on or off.
I am not an "intern" at HAL, but I know for a fact, that working there would not give you any particular insight into the capability of the USAF.
It's good to be proud of your military forces. Many people are on these boards. Making fanciful statements however, makes you appear foolish. There's no need for it. Talk up the achievements of your military forces, by all means, just don't go overboard is all.
Cheers.
srev2004 said:8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.
The SU-30 MKI is the best Russian variant Jet. It has never been fully used against any other plane. People don't know it's radar capability. It's radar was switched off during Cope India 2006.
Moscow, Russia: Russian military planes flew undetected through the U.S. zone of the Arctic Ocean to Canada during recent military exercises, a senior Air Force commander said Saturday.Pursuit Curve said:Srev, the unrefueled range of a B 52H is 16,093 KM, you are trying to say that the Su 30MKIhas a 8,000 km range, with cruise imssiles and external tanks?
Also, do not forget that the F 15's at Cope India were not ASEA equipped.
This amazes me more and more, the F 15 was first flown and introduced into service in the seventies, and it still rules the skies in every engagement, that is , every engagement where there are real missiles flying!
By responding to your post, I digress.....
The B-52 is a different Class. if you want to compare it, compare it to the T series bombers that India has. Anyways there were more than one engagement with India regarding exercises. There was Cope Thunder 04,05. And Cope India 04,06. RSAF and Sindex. And the USN and Indian Navy also engaged in exercises.Pursuit Curve said:Srev, the unrefueled range of a B 52H is 16,093 KM, you are trying to say that the Su 30MKIhas a 8,000 km range, with cruise imssiles and external tanks?
Also, do not forget that the F 15's at Cope India were not ASEA equipped.
This amazes me more and more, the F 15 was first flown and introduced into service in the seventies, and it still rules the skies in every engagement, that is , every engagement where there are real missiles flying!
By responding to your post, I digress.....
F16-XL data was never provided to India. It is still classified. Nor a simulator was ever provided. I know this for sure as a former Senior Manager with the General Dynamics-International Sales Team.srev2004 said:The avionics for the LCA were simulated on a simulator built for a F-16 XL and the LCA avoinics improved performance by 30%, this is just one example.