that's total rubbish. su-30mkk operating radius is 1500 KM and MKI is 1500 KM too.srev2004 said:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/su-30.htm
Has Australia been out-Flanked?
- Thread starter Gekko_1
- Start date
- Status
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/su-30.htm
I have to agree that the Su30 is actually more towards the air defence role. That's why i'm hoping the next batch of MRCA would be the SH.
It could happen if Malaysia can come up with the budget, as Boeing is throwing in a nice maintenance/training/weapons package..... say AMRAAM!
Pursuit Curve... in regards to the Hawk200, I'm goint to quote Adm Tom Conelly of the USN "all the thrust in Christendom won't make a fighter out of this aircraft"
as for weapons and sparepart aquisitions, we bought the MiGs as a sort of 'test' of sorts for the relieability and availability of weapons, aircraft and logistics supply by the russians. also, it was a test of our capability in maintaining and operating a 'full blown' fighter. As you know, before the MiGs, we dont have any real fighters (F-5 not withstanding). As far as I know, we've had no problems in maintaining and operating the aircraft ie the russians have been reliable is supplying parts and expertise. Because of this we have selected the Su30MKM to fill one of our MRCA sqn requirement. Also the russians have been willing to set up a regional maintenance and overhaul center here in Malaysia. The other thing is the russians do not have any limits to what weapons we can or cannot have from their inventory... so we can pick, mix and match with western avionics and weapons ie our Su30 will be having the MICA and the R77 as the BVR missile
That said, hopefully there will be more airex between RMAF and RAAF. To be the best, we have to learn from the best.
It could happen if Malaysia can come up with the budget, as Boeing is throwing in a nice maintenance/training/weapons package..... say AMRAAM!Pursuit Curve... in regards to the Hawk200, I'm goint to quote Adm Tom Conelly of the USN "all the thrust in Christendom won't make a fighter out of this aircraft"
as for weapons and sparepart aquisitions, we bought the MiGs as a sort of 'test' of sorts for the relieability and availability of weapons, aircraft and logistics supply by the russians. also, it was a test of our capability in maintaining and operating a 'full blown' fighter. As you know, before the MiGs, we dont have any real fighters (F-5 not withstanding). As far as I know, we've had no problems in maintaining and operating the aircraft ie the russians have been reliable is supplying parts and expertise. Because of this we have selected the Su30MKM to fill one of our MRCA sqn requirement. Also the russians have been willing to set up a regional maintenance and overhaul center here in Malaysia. The other thing is the russians do not have any limits to what weapons we can or cannot have from their inventory... so we can pick, mix and match with western avionics and weapons ie our Su30 will be having the MICA and the R77 as the BVR missile
That said, hopefully there will be more airex between RMAF and RAAF. To be the best, we have to learn from the best.
Training and Combat Experience
Yes, it is true the Su-27/30 is a far more advance fighter aircraft then the F/A-18. Again many people who post about the topic duels and capabilities between fighter aircraft forget how important training and combat experience is.
Western nations like Australia have an excellent training program for its pilots, and allows them to be well experienced in working alone and with other ally nations. If any conflict did erupt in South Pacific, I am sure Australia would receive support from its allies. This interoperability is crucial when fighting in the modern war. With the exception of China all the other countries operating have very limited defense budgets, and while I don't know the exact amounts, I am sure they are not flying and training nearly as often as the RAAF. While China can afford more training then its poorer neighbors, it followed its strict almost soviet style war fighting doctrine which has been proven to be very ineffective in combat. I have also heard their fleet of Su-27/30's have suffered large amounts accidents and crashes since their introduction into service. So while its seems China and other countries have advantages in a more agile fighter, their training systems will probably ill prepare them for actual combat.
With Australia supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of its pilots have gained actual combat experience. While none of these missions actually involved fighter combat, any experience in a war zone allows pilots to be better prepared for any future conflict. Pilots with combat experience if any are much more likely to survive in combat then pilots who have not. Australia's participation with exercises like Red Flag also give its pilots near combat experience. While no allies fly the Su-27/30, RAAF pilots have received dissimilar pilot training, thus giving them the training in how to gain the advantage in their own aircraft in combat. This considerably better prepares the RAAF for any future conflicts then its neighbors.
While the RAAF doesn't have the biggest bark in its regions it does have one of the largest bites with its training and combat experience over its neighbors.
Yes, it is true the Su-27/30 is a far more advance fighter aircraft then the F/A-18. Again many people who post about the topic duels and capabilities between fighter aircraft forget how important training and combat experience is.
Western nations like Australia have an excellent training program for its pilots, and allows them to be well experienced in working alone and with other ally nations. If any conflict did erupt in South Pacific, I am sure Australia would receive support from its allies. This interoperability is crucial when fighting in the modern war. With the exception of China all the other countries operating have very limited defense budgets, and while I don't know the exact amounts, I am sure they are not flying and training nearly as often as the RAAF. While China can afford more training then its poorer neighbors, it followed its strict almost soviet style war fighting doctrine which has been proven to be very ineffective in combat. I have also heard their fleet of Su-27/30's have suffered large amounts accidents and crashes since their introduction into service. So while its seems China and other countries have advantages in a more agile fighter, their training systems will probably ill prepare them for actual combat.
With Australia supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom, some of its pilots have gained actual combat experience. While none of these missions actually involved fighter combat, any experience in a war zone allows pilots to be better prepared for any future conflict. Pilots with combat experience if any are much more likely to survive in combat then pilots who have not. Australia's participation with exercises like Red Flag also give its pilots near combat experience. While no allies fly the Su-27/30, RAAF pilots have received dissimilar pilot training, thus giving them the training in how to gain the advantage in their own aircraft in combat. This considerably better prepares the RAAF for any future conflicts then its neighbors.
While the RAAF doesn't have the biggest bark in its regions it does have one of the largest bites with its training and combat experience over its neighbors.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
I totally agree with Lancer. The true capabilities of any combat aircraft comes down to the pilot, the training, experience. It is trivial to compare the raw data available regards aircraft range, weapon load, systems etc. Give me pilots that are well trained and motivated, put them in a mature platform that has many resources and history behind it, and I will take on all comers in any aircraft now flying!
Airshow demonstrations of "cobras" and fancy, useless somersaults and energy bleeding tight 9+ G manuevers are great crowd pleasers, but in the real world of aircraft fully loaded, radar screens fuzzy because of jamming, static filled comms and bingo fuel warnings...thats where the rubber meets the runway.
Australia has nothing to fear unless of course said nations also decide to invest heavily in amphibious and naval power. Of course if an over confident nation wishes to find out just how far a combat configured Flanker can fly, and then get its tail feathers shot off over the outback just to say that they have a better aircraft, then be my guest.
Airshow demonstrations of "cobras" and fancy, useless somersaults and energy bleeding tight 9+ G manuevers are great crowd pleasers, but in the real world of aircraft fully loaded, radar screens fuzzy because of jamming, static filled comms and bingo fuel warnings...thats where the rubber meets the runway.
Australia has nothing to fear unless of course said nations also decide to invest heavily in amphibious and naval power. Of course if an over confident nation wishes to find out just how far a combat configured Flanker can fly, and then get its tail feathers shot off over the outback just to say that they have a better aircraft, then be my guest.
kmaster_bhr
New Member
The Australian Air Force, is a professional air force. It certainly has its challenges in Region, as its neighbours are acquiring aircraft that are superior to its current inventory. This will change as Australia recognises that it must change its tactics and its inventory to that it is better equipped to defend itself. Some of these changes have already started, especially with its SF ofrces, its airlift capability, missile defence MBTs and APCs. I
t is still a member of ANZAC and has its committments in the Region and from the USA. Its system of training its crews are far better than some of its immediate neighbours, as are its time spent of equipment and maintenance.
It is a force to be reckoned with for sure.
t is still a member of ANZAC and has its committments in the Region and from the USA. Its system of training its crews are far better than some of its immediate neighbours, as are its time spent of equipment and maintenance.
It is a force to be reckoned with for sure.
8000k.m. with external fuel tanks, or in flight refueling. It can also carry upto 3 cruise missiles.Pursuit Curve said:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
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.
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:
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.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
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:
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.
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:
srev2004 said:
- I'm not an american
- If you were an american and making the same silly statements you'd be getting the same answer
- your very response indicates that you know very little about DACT - and you obviously know very little about the structure of the ROE's for Cope India.
Instead of sticking the hat of patriotism on your head, do some research first about the fundamentals of DACT - and in particular the training profiles that were resquested by the Indian Air Force.
Pursuing a path of patriotic comment will shorten your debating life - especially when people are judged by their competency and background when contributing to debate in general.
You actually do the Indian Air Force a disservice by blowing things out of context.
Hint: DACT is not structured to have a winner or a loser - I suggest that search for the article on DACT in here that was provided by someone who actually does combat profiling for a job.
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:
But I will try not to divert to external examples in arguements next time.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
srev2004 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.....
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:
To view pictures of the Russian Military, Click Here
The commander of the country's long-range strategic bombers, Lieutenant General Igor Khvorov, said the U.S. Air Force is now investigating why its military was unable to detect the Russian bombers.
"They were unable to detect the planes either with radars or visually," he said.
Khorov said that during the military exercises in April, Tu-160 Blackjack bombers and Tu-95 Bears had successfully carried out four missile launches. Bombing exercises were held using Tu-22 Blinders.
By the end of the year, two more Tu-160s will be commissioned for the long-range strategic bomber fleet, Khorov said.
Both new planes will incorporate numerous upgrades from the initial Soviet models, the commander said. The bombers will be able to launch both cruise missiles and aviation bombs, and communicate via satellite.
Now this is another example of relative truth. Everyone thinks their machines are the best and unbeaten. Now you will never know until you engage the enemy in combat. The USA can't even manage to hold Iraq which is open plains and desert.
The Sukhois had their Radar off. Both sides were handicapped, the Sukhois also only used R-77's now, each side had ROE's and it's fair. Please read up on Cope India 2006. The MKI didn't even participate in the F-15 exercise, it was against mirages and Mig-21's.
IAF has AESA too FYI.
Last edited:
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:
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Whisky, I want to be the first one to thank you for your voice of reason.
If anything is to be learned from 50 plus years of evolving Air Combat and technology it is this.
1) Turn and burn is definitely a good thing to have capability in, but airframes are now weapon systems and will probably get the kills long before the merge, that is depending on the ROE
2) You fight as well as you train
3) Numbers do not decide air superiority, information does, situational awareness is the deciding factor
4) Excersises and wargames between dissimilar air arms and ground based assets hone the edge, alot of times a participant will not put all the cards on the table, this tactic allows the other guy to show it all, and those tricks or tactics are used later for countermeasure (of course depending on the relationship between the two or more nations).
5) Western Aircraft have gotten older, but that is because their design and technical excellence has meant a longer life and excellent technology has given them an edge, where in the past it would have meant a new design and role every 5 years.
6) Like the personal computer development, there was a lag between the hardware and the software, it was the same with Tactical aircraft, The airframes were good, but the weapon systems were lagging, now that has changed definitely, weapon systems are keeping pace now with airframe propulsion development
7) Yes, there will always be comparisons and national pride in these forums, those who make wild assertions regarding capabilities are par for the course, but to keep it in context is the job of those who research and speak with facts, not fishing stories. Heym everyone knows I am 10 feet tall :OP
If anything is to be learned from 50 plus years of evolving Air Combat and technology it is this.
1) Turn and burn is definitely a good thing to have capability in, but airframes are now weapon systems and will probably get the kills long before the merge, that is depending on the ROE
2) You fight as well as you train
3) Numbers do not decide air superiority, information does, situational awareness is the deciding factor
4) Excersises and wargames between dissimilar air arms and ground based assets hone the edge, alot of times a participant will not put all the cards on the table, this tactic allows the other guy to show it all, and those tricks or tactics are used later for countermeasure (of course depending on the relationship between the two or more nations).
5) Western Aircraft have gotten older, but that is because their design and technical excellence has meant a longer life and excellent technology has given them an edge, where in the past it would have meant a new design and role every 5 years.
6) Like the personal computer development, there was a lag between the hardware and the software, it was the same with Tactical aircraft, The airframes were good, but the weapon systems were lagging, now that has changed definitely, weapon systems are keeping pace now with airframe propulsion development
7) Yes, there will always be comparisons and national pride in these forums, those who make wild assertions regarding capabilities are par for the course, but to keep it in context is the job of those who research and speak with facts, not fishing stories. Heym everyone knows I am 10 feet tall :OP
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:
Stop spreading and putting in your comments that do not even close to reality.
In future, before you post such comments, please back them up with references. Take this as a WARNING.
- Status