boring thread

[StobieWan]

Getting back to the earlier point about it not all being about the spear chucking end of things, one good example in recent times has been the Tornado F3 ADV - not a brilliant aircraft for ACM, having a pair of engines that perform best below 20Kft, excess longitudinal stability (a hangover from it's mud mover flight profile) and generally not being a sparkling performer.

On paper, easy meat..til it got upgraded with Link16 - at which point it's beefed up situational awareness turned it into a very good interceptor, taking input from AWACS and integrating that into their picture of the battle. It was still a lead sled with all it's limitations but suddenly admitting you'd been shot down by an F3 went from a "Bwahahah..." event to a glum nod and a "Yeah, me too"..thing.

 

[Volkodav]

I find it interesting that many amateurs are quite prepared to believe that ground and sea based SAMs can swat any aircraft from the sky and can even make modern LO platforms superfluous but can not comprehend that a modern, networked platform with state of the art systems, its greater horizon, situational awareness and kinematic effects of its own forward speed on carried weapons can actually provide greater effects over greater ranges than surface based systems.

Basically if it is flying and it is networked then what ever they are up against is going to have a pretty hard time of it unless they are also networked and have equivalent or better situational awareness.

 

[bdique]

Getting back to the earlier point about it not all being about the spear chucking end of things, one good example in recent times has been the Tornado F3 ADV - not a brilliant aircraft for ACM, having a pair of engines that perform best below 20Kft, excess longitudinal stability (a hangover from it's mud mover flight profile) and generally not being a sparkling performer.

On paper, easy meat..til it got upgraded with Link16 - at which point it's beefed up situational awareness turned it into a very good interceptor, taking input from AWACS and integrating that into their picture of the battle. It was still a lead sled with all it's limitations but suddenly admitting you'd been shot down by an F3 went from a "Bwahahah..." event to a glum nod and a "Yeah, me too"..thing.

@nanoland, one thing to remember is that the Singapore Armed Forces has been harping on and on about developing a 3G Armed Forces. Crudely speaking, it is like Link16 but for the Army, Navy and Air Force to have a shared situational awareness. StobieWan gave a great example of how having the big picture can be a force multiplier, helping older, potentially irrelevant aircraft become deadly in a whole new way. If that can happen for the Tornado, can you imagine how that will value-add the F-15SG?

Out of curiosity, nanoland what is your suggestion to the problem that the F-15SG is not suitable for the RSAF?

 

[StobieWan]

Here's another good quote from the Cope brief. After discussing the professionalism of the Indians, and congratulating them on zero training restriction violations (always nice, the RAF used to violate the crap out of altitude restrictions to get in low during the bomber exercises)


"You know what was happening is that they didn't have the datalink with the Awacs. Big internet data links. The Koreans, the French and us could see the complete picture on the HUD, but the IAF had to ask the AWACS. they would ask about a target ahead, "Contact on my nose 22 miles, friendly or hostile?" Awacs would say "No hostile within 40 miles of you" then "Fox2." (laughs) The first two days they got hit bad, they were getting shot down while waiting for answers so they decided to kill the other guy fast without knowing.. better you die than me. So they had a fairly high number of fratricides. But they took the fratricides very seriously."

Knowing who the other guy in the HUD is, immediately, and knowing if they were a threat or not made a huge difference. In that situation, an F5 with a pair of winders and LINK 16 is better off than a Flanker with all the bells and whistles but no links.

Radio waves are more of a deal than thrust vectoring or whatever else the internet stat junkies like to short stroke over.

 

[swerve]

...... (IIRC F-15C's now have AESA)...
-Cheers

Some, but not most. As of June 2013, 'more than 46' APG-63(v)3 radars for F-15Cs were reported as having been delivered, & 24 more had just been ordered. 178 were originally scheduled for upgrade.

 

[RobWilliams]

Basically if it is flying and it is networked then what ever they are up against is going to have a pretty hard time of it unless they are also networked and have equivalent or better situational awareness.

One great way I've heard it put is that the way to think about a combined network of systems like a web. To seriously damage the web you need to disconnect several components from eachother but then consider that the web itself is fighting back and repairing itself at the same time.

 

[t68]

Here's another good quote from the Cope brief. After discussing the professionalism of the Indians, and congratulating them on zero training restriction violations (always nice, the RAF used to violate the crap out of altitude restrictions to get in low during the bomber exercises)

I think it was GF who said sometime ago that whilst theses exersise are good the restrictions placed on certain aircraft and limit certain aspects of the aircraft make certain aircraft better than they appear, in other words it's not what would most likely would happen if the gloves where off.

 

[the road runner]

Radio waves are more of a deal than thrust vectoring or whatever else the internet stat junkies like to short stroke over.

You hear that so much on the internet ,that thrust vectoring is a major advantage to an air craft ,and jets that dont have thrust vectoring are inferior.How dose thrust vectoring help you when a missile is locked on to you and pulling 40G's in a turn.

Its funny how people dumb down a debate.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You hear that so much on the internet ,that thrust vectoring is a major advantage to an air craft ,and jets that dont have thrust vectoring are inferior.How dose thrust vectoring help you when a missile is locked on to you and pulling 40G's in a turn.

Its funny how people dumb down a debate.

Its simple maths that eludes some

ave G force in 4th gen aircraft before stress frame alerts start singing = 7g
max G force tested in 4i/5th gen aircraft if using latest G suit tech before pilots blackout =11g
missile G force turn rate = 40g

guess who wins the sustain and turn G force issue...

granted there are a whole pile of other variables such as end of energy issues for missile etc, but the belief that thrust vectoring on an aircraft = game changer against missile, let alone an all aspect off bore missile or one with it's own TVC management is a joke

some of the debates just get dumber and dumber and yet are still trotted out as a hallelujah moment - esp the Sukhou vs US aircraft debate

and people wonder why we ban the "x vs y" threads.....

 

[OPSSG]

s is the way you should reply to the forum user? Please click on the link and read the article

vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html

AND

Another link is theboresight.blogspot.sg/2009/07/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html

No offense, but I get the impression you will not be staying here long. The first link your provided is hardly something to consider credible at this point.

For starters, the article is nearly 12 years old, a great deal more is now known about the capabilities of certain systems, and many systems in service in 2002 have been upgraded or replaced. Secondly, the article opens with the title of but the first part of the opening sentence of the second paragraph is which means that it is NOT 'Every Time'.

Secondly, reading through the article it references simulations done in a Boeing facility in the US. Being a simulation, the performance data coming out cannot be better than the data going in. In other words, if the simulation capabilities for the Su-30 aircraft and missiles are greater than in real life, the sim results would be skewed towards the Su-30. Given that the sims are 12+ years out of date, and pre-date a HOBS WVR in US service and a number of other capabilities developed and/or entered service over the past decade... (IIRC F-15C's now have AESA)

Thirdly, from what was mentioned about the sim itself, that was still a platform vs. platform comparison. The Su-30MK's were given an advantage because their nosecone is larger, so the radar array inside can be larger than that of an F-15C. Aside from the potential issue of just how sensitive/accurate an Su-30MK radar actually is (i.e. sure it can be bigger, but was it actually more capable?) the sim ignored the fact that an F-15C in a warzone would be operating as component of an Integrated Air Defence System, and that much of the detection/tracking of enemy fighters would be done by allied AEW aircraft like the E-2 Hawkeye, E-3 Sentry, and now even more aircraft...

<snip>

Many thanks for taking the trouble to the reply to the very illogical, A vs B on air warfare discussion by nanoland. I appreciate the effort, as nanoland has a demonstrated inability to read and understand even the sources he quotes.

Training to fight for control of the air is a lot more than just buying platforms or even upgrading them to keep these platforms threat relevant. An air force fights as a system, in any system, the quality of pilots and how they are trained matters. By way of background, RSAF pilots deploy to Luke to receive upgrade training after being qualified as wingmen. "As an operational squadron, we work to get pilots through advanced upgrade training," said Lt. Col. Ryan Nudi, 425th Fighter Squadron's director of operations. "It typically takes two years and 60 to 70 upgrade sorties, including two upgrades while they're here and typically one upgrade per year. Then they return to the operational squadrons in Singapore." Pilots receive their two-ship upgrade, which means they can now lead a wingman into combat and their four-ship upgrade certifying they can lead three other aircraft into combat. RSAF pilots rotate through the squadron every two years, with a change-over of 10 pilots every year. "We typically fly 14 sorties a day," Nudi said. "That's about 280 sorties a month and 1.3 to 1.5 hours per sortie to meet the pilots' training requirements."

I find it interesting that many amateurs are quite prepared to believe that ground and sea based SAMs can swat any aircraft from the sky and can even make modern LO platforms superfluous but can not comprehend that a modern, networked platform with state of the art systems, its greater horizon, situational awareness and kinematic effects of its own forward speed on carried weapons can actually provide greater effects over greater ranges than surface based systems.

Basically if it is flying and it is networked then what ever they are up against is going to have a pretty hard time of it unless they are also networked and have equivalent or better situational awareness.

I am not optimistic that nanoland can even comprehend what was said for his benefit - that modern air warfare is a systems event - which I note is explained in Air Power 101 for New Members. On the 20th anniversary of Peace Carvin II, a video was released that noted the following:-

PCII 20th Anniversary Video - YouTube

The 425 fighter squadron has taken part in a number exercises, including 13 Red Flag (Nellis), 4 Red Flag (Alaska), 9 Maple Flag, 9 Combat Archer and 3 Forging Sabre.
​

By way of background, Combat Archer is the US Air Force's air-to-air weapon system evaluation program at Tyndall AFB. It is mainly at Combat Archer that Singapore's Vipers get the opportunity to fire the 92 air-to-air missiles over the years (for details on Combat Archer see this USAF video: [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdguCv9hHJA"]Combat Archer Air-To-Air Live Fire - YouTube[/nomedia]).

And Combat Archer provides Singapore with a validated capability to shoot-down enemy fighters, in any contest for control of the air - especially since we have are far more mature in developing our full spectrum capabilities than many Su-30 operators in the immediate region.

@nanoland, one thing to remember is that the Singapore Armed Forces has been harping on and on about developing a 3G Armed Forces. Crudely speaking, it is like Link16 but for the Army, Navy and Air Force to have a shared situational awareness. StobieWan gave a great example of how having the big picture can be a force multiplier, helping older, potentially irrelevant aircraft become deadly in a whole new way.

If he can't read a pinned 101 thread, I doubt he can understand more complex issues raised and discussed here. For those who are interested in details, please read my post on 'Singapore Air Power Summary in 7 Points' (Part 1 of 3) (Part 2 of 3) and (Part 3 of 3).

 

[ethesham]

This websites retarded if your even allowed to compare two fighter planes

 

[RobWilliams]

No, we've just seen dozens of fanboys all over the internet who love those kinds of threads and it turns into such a petty sh*t-slinging mess that it's not worth the grief when everyone from the ignorant commenting on performance of systems with which they have no real knowledge while claiming it to be definitive to the chest thumping nationalists who would swear blind a certain country *always* has the best technology come in and give their opinion on a scale so lacking in depth that it effectively reads like "I like this one, this one is red, i like red".

How we prefer to do this kind of thing is with a scenario in depth, for example, with Brazil's F-X2 fighter program there were naturally elements of comparison. But because it wasn't as basic as X v Y between the competitors it became comparisons both including the performance of the aircraft as well as ToT, pricing (which IS important) and enduring costs, threat perception, aircraft uses, air doctrine, weapon inventory, current air fleet and the integration of said aircraft into the fleet and a whole host of other topics.

Talking "It goes this far with this number of bombs/missiles" as the depth of the argument is worthless, look on Wiki for that kind of information. We're fans of genuine discussion with actual merit in the discussion* rather than - effectively - playing top trumps with internet stats.

As an aside, the popular 1 v 1 dogfight comparison plenty of people froth at the mouth at to discuss regularly reads as the biggest pile of BS i've ever read never including any sort of discussion based in reality about what would actually happen.

 

[wormwood]

I can see both sides of the coin here, but I sympathize with the OP. Not being able to compare capabilities in a military forum? That's all the military is about. A competition. It's the meat and bones of military conversation. Ignorant chest thumpers could always be warned and banned. I'm new here so I really don't know much about the place (I'll admit) except that there seems to be a ton of knowledgeable people here. It just seems (on the surface of things) not being able to compare countries or systems platforms is really deflating and and severely handicaps military conversation.

 

[Bonza]

I can see both sides of the coin here, but I sympathize with the OP. Not being able to compare capabilities in a military forum? That's all the military is about. A competition. It's the meat and bones of military conversation. Ignorant chest thumpers could always be warned and banned. I'm new here so I really don't know much about the place (I'll admit) except that there seems to be a ton of knowledgeable people here. It just seems (on the surface of things) not being able to compare countries or systems platforms is really deflating and and severely handicaps military conversation.

Well, if you see a lot of knowledgeable people here yet no "x vs y" threads, what does that tell you about the value of those threads? It really isn't the "meat and bones" of military conversation. I think you'd benefit from reading the Airpower 101 thread for an overview of how we approach discussion on certain topics. Have a read, let me know what you think:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/air-power-101-new-members-12457/

EDIT: The intro to Low Observability is something you might find interesting too, it too is stickied in the Air Force forums.

 

[RobWilliams]

I can see both sides of the coin here, but I sympathize with the OP. Not being able to compare capabilities in a military forum? That's all the military is about. A competition. It's the meat and bones of military conversation. Ignorant chest thumpers could always be warned and banned. I'm new here so I really don't know much about the place (I'll admit) except that there seems to be a ton of knowledgeable people here. It just seems (on the surface of things) not being able to compare countries or systems platforms is really deflating and and severely handicaps military conversation.

When the premise of the discussion is "which one is best" it has zero worth, what exactly is 'best'?

• Different aircraft with different uses are key, a country may not be looking for an A2A fighter but more of a bomb truck, so the bomb truck is best for that countryr
• Vice versa, a country might want an A2A platform, so the one better at air superiority would be 'better'
• Finances, a country might have X requirement which would be 'best' solved by Y aircraft but if it can't fund that aircraft or keep them flying in any acceptable condition then a cheaper version would be 'best'.
• A country might want strong transfer of technology so if a fighter does not include that in the sale, it would not be 'best'
• What do they plan on doing with the fighter? Planning for a regional competitor, NATO mission involvement, multirole capabiilities, they all have different things which would be 'best'.
• Missile inventory, fighter X already has another customer who has integrated a significant proportion of your missile inventory and future inventory, from a financial standpoint that could e a component considered as 'best'.

No scenario, no worth. There is no 'best' if there's nothing to base it around otherwise it'd be like comparing an offroad truck with a sports car, each one is best depending on the scenario and what you want to do with it.

a 1 v 1 scenario is so constrained that it's not a viable situation in real life.

 

[Feanor]

The only real context within which a comparison of that sort has merit is when a customer is comparing two different products and deciding which to buy. If you look over the discussion here, a contextual comparison in a situation like this does occur, and it's not prohibited by the mods. Usually a comparison like that involves more then the platforms themselves, as has been mentioned, ToT comes into play, commonality with existing assets, political relationships, etc.

 

[gf0012-aust]

CREF what has been said by all the others.

in addition the other reason why we have an aversion to x vs y threads is because platform vs platform discussions are fundamentally useless.

platforms act within the construct of a system event, they don't operate in absentia of a whole pile of other multipliers such as awacs, sat feeds, a broader operating picture etc... even when air forces do an assessment against other competitors they run those comparisons against combat vignettes where other force contributors are in play.

if you look at threads where there are platforms under discussion its always around system events.

a platform vs platform discussion is basically meaningless and disingenuous as its ignoring the real constraints.

about the only thing that can be measured are physical dimensions as even the platforms real performance stats are not published.

I can tell you from first hand exp that performance data for in service combat aircraft are derated when published. physical dimensions are accurate, but even data such as fuel capacity and range is deliberately inaccurate. that includes weapons systems etc.....

 

[StobieWan]

And a lot of the discussions then centre around anything folk can grasp at from dissimilar air combat as well..trust me, it's usually a completely pointless chest beating exercise. There's plenty of places folk can play these games, this is one of the places you *can't*.