Russian SU-30 Vectored

[Koondawg]

This is simply amazing...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b03_1235060325

KD

[UnderseaLcpl]

whoa....
Pretty crazy.

[SteamWake]

Neat stalls and flat spins but honestly folks have been doing those sorts of things since the barnstormer days.

Still an impressive jet though.

But there is an answer to all that fancy flying :up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpJSviD8D4k

[GoldenRivet]

not all that effective in combat.

seems like you would be able to see that pink smoke from miles away :haha:

[Jimbuna]

Neat stalls and flat spins but honestly folks have been doing those sorts of things since the barnstormer days.

Still an impressive jet though.

But there is an answer to all that fancy flying :up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpJSviD8D4k

You beat me to it :DL

Pity it doesn't have the sophisticated weaponry to back it up.

[XabbaRus]

I think the point SU are making is that the plane is under control at all times..it looks so rock steady.

In combat those moves are moot, but what it goes to show is that in WVR although it is a big plane it can move about the sky.....

Still cool though..

[SUBMAN1]

Americas F-22 does the same maneuvers, and it is fielded. Not a one off like this thing is. Did i mention how much superior an F-22 is to this thing too in every facet or flight regime?

Yawn.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Here - same crap from an F-22 - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f0f_1201863086

Sorry, no girlie pink smoke.

[Oberon]

Put it back in your pants

:rolleyes:

[HunterICX]

Americas F-22 does the same maneuvers, and it is fielded. Not a one off like this thing is. Did i mention how much superior an F-22 is to this thing too in every facet or flight regime?

Yawn.

-S
I hope you know :
F-22 is a 5th Gen
Su-30 is a 4th Gen

not really comparable.

HunterICX

[SUBMAN1]

I hope you know :
F-22 is a 5th Gen
Su-30 is a 4th Gen

not really comparable.

HunterICXTrue. It is not apples to apples.

So, since we are talking about a one off aircraft, a better comparison is the X-31. It is 3rd generation and will do all this nifty stuff.

-S

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Rockwell-MBB_X-31_vectorpaddles.jpg/800px-Rockwell-MBB_X-31_vectorpaddles.jpg

[Raptor1]

I hope you know :
F-22 is a 5th Gen
Su-30 is a 4th Gen

not really comparable.

HunterICXTrue. It is not apples to apples.

So, since we are talking about a one off aircraft, a better comparison is the X-31. It is 3rd generation and will do all this nifty stuff.

-S


It's also a test aircraft, and can't do anything other than use thrust vectoring

[SUBMAN1]

It's also a test aircraft, and can't do anything other than use thrust vectoring

And that is relevant how? Adding a weapons system is a simple affair. The aircraft the body was taken from already have one available.

-S

[HunterICX]

Ha! I raise you

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9761/sopwithcamel.jpg

and its nemesis

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2497/fokkerdr1lerhone.jpg

Times there wherent any silly electronics.
Pilots flew them without the fancy gadgets to keep the plane in control

HunterICX

[SUBMAN1]

Where does the F-35 factor in on this list, since we are on the subject of aircraft???

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7356/su35.gif

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Ha! I raise you



and its nemesis



Times there wherent any silly electronics.
Pilots flew them without the fancy gadgets to keep the plane in control

HunterICX

Don't get me wrong man. My favorite sim of the past was MiG Alley! :D

-S

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder if Russia will actually field this little plane?

http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280

-S

[Nisgeis]

Ha! I raise you

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9761/sopwithcamel.jpg

and its nemesis

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/2497/fokkerdr1lerhone.jpg

Times there wherent any silly electronics.
Pilots flew them without the fancy gadgets to keep the plane in control

HunterICX
Speed beats manouverability every time. Although the tri plane was amazingly manouverable, it was not very fast and as long as the opposing pilots did not try to out fly them, they would win. This always annoys me whenever Pearl Harbour is on, the idiot Ben Affleck character says 'We can't outrun them, so we'll have to outfly them' - well no, don't try that, or you're dead and also you CAN outrun them and you CAN'T outfly them, you blithering moron. I think he got brain damage when he went under water in the daytime and only reached the surface at night. Lack of oxygen is a terrible thing. The Zero was slow, but very manouverable. Later, against the P-38, which was less manouverable, it was dead meat, as long as the pilot didn't try to get into a turning battle. The incredible flipping and flying backwards is only useful if you can fire a missile that will catch your enemy and as you are stationary and he's moving at twice the speed of sound, that's got to be one hell of a fast missile.

[SUBMAN1]

Especially with the high off boresight versions like the AIM-9X. No need to flip around unless you are out of missiles.

Doing simulations against the F-22 though in a guns only fight with me in an F-16 - it is not a fair fight. No matter how you try to get an angle on it, he can not only fly slower than you, but at any airspeed, he can out-turn you. It comes down to only a matter of time till I was shot down.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Okay, I have a question.

As someone who is not a devoted student of modern aerial warfare, I don't quite understand the complexities of the same.

Does the added maneuverability, when coupled with countermeasures, not significantly increase the probability of evading a missile attack?
And does the new SU-30 not have any means of reducing its' radar cross-section to make it less vulnerable to AMRAAMs?

[SUBMAN1]

Okay, I have a question.

As someone who is not a devoted student of modern aerial warfare, I don't quite understand the complexities of the same.

Does the added maneuverability, when coupled with countermeasures, not significantly increase the probability of evading a missile attack?
And does the new SU-30 not have any means of reducing its' radar cross-section to make it less vulnerable to AMRAAMs?
SU-30 is like a giant light bulb in a dark closet when it comes to Radar cross section. Start with the inlets for the engines.

AMRAAMS have reached a point where countermeasures are not reliable, they are so accurate that they have given up hitting the aircraft and instead specifically target the pilot, which is a guaranteed kill of the aircraft. Hence the F-22 was born - the only aircraft that will live in the future are those that can't be detected.

Russian SAM's have gotten just as sophisticated so it will be impossible to have an offensive capability with aircraft in the future if they are not stealth. The Rafael? Good for nothing more than defense. Same goes for the EF-2000. This is the reason Europe wants F-35. An F-15 and F-16 will have even less of a chance in 5 years and be good for nothing more than museum pieces.

-S

[Lurchi]

I still have doubts about the claim that Air-to-Air Missiles are really so accurate and that Stealth really makes you completely undetectable: It seems that still a lot of hot air comes out of the F-22's engines.

To me this all sounds like stuff taken out from the producer's advertisement flyers in order to convince politicians to pump huge amounts of money into their products.

A stronger focus on Stealth was considered for the EF-2000. It was dropped not because it cannot be done but because it would make the plane ridiculously expensive - proven by the immense price tag of the F-22.

Maybe there are better performing planes than the Su-30, although you may find none that is more cost-efficient. Another thing about the Sukhoi is that it is the best-looking fighter out there ... simply a beautiful plane :up:.

[XabbaRus]

I disagree with your last post SUBMAN.

Russian SAMs have got more advanced but there are questions over how reliable and good they really are.

The Rafale is over rated but the Typhoon is turning out to be very capable. Yes the F-35 will be there for first strike but with the DASS the RAF Typhoons have it should be able to handle what is around at the moment.

[SUBMAN1]

...but with the DASS the RAF Typhoons have it should be able to handle what is around at the moment.The key words being, 'At the moment'. My post reflects the near future.

Don't get me wrong though. The EF2000 is incredibly capable in a defensive role. It just won't be suited to the offensive role for the future.

-S

[nikimcbee]

I disagree with your last post SUBMAN.

Russian SAMs have got more advanced but there are questions over how reliable and good they really are.

The Rafale is over rated but the Typhoon is turning out to be very capable. Yes the F-35 will be there for first strike but with the DASS the RAF Typhoons have it should be able to handle what is around at the moment.

Whenever I see how advanced the Russian stuff is, I always question the quality of the manufacturing that goes into the components. AFAIK Russians have issues with quality control in their manufacturing process. Example, do they build their own curcuitboards or does somebody else.:hmmm:

[nikimcbee]

Plus, when was the last time all of this advanced equipment was tested in actual combat situations, not training exercises?

[SUBMAN1]

Plus, when was the last time all of this advanced equipment was tested in actual combat situations, not training exercises?Anywhere in the world that is in conflict. And it works as advertised too.

-S

[XabbaRus]

So when was the S-300 tested in combat? Long Range modern Russian SAMs are not combat tested and as much as I like Russia and Russian kit they also have problems with reliabilty and quality. Though they are trying to imprve on that.

[SUBMAN1]

...I like Russia and Russian kit they also have problems with reliabilty and quality. Though they are trying to imprve on that.That is only a matter of time.

-S

[Jimbuna]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?

[SUBMAN1]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?They don't have to as long as they can completely deny you their airspace at will.

-S

[nikimcbee]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?

With all of the technology manufacturing that has moved to china, I wouldn't be surprised if they catch up quickly.:doh:

[Jimbuna]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?They don't have to as long as they can completely deny you their airspace at will.

-S

But is that not why the US is leaning more towards stealth techniques/equipment?

[nikimcbee]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?They don't have to as long as they can completely deny you their airspace at will.

-S

But is that not why the US is leaning more towards stealth techniques/equipment?
don't worry, HRC will level the playing field and give them the technology.:x

http://d.yimg.com/img.news.yahoo.com/util/anysize/400,http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fnm%2F2009022 2%2F2009_02_21t052338_450x322_us_china_clinton.jpg ?v=2

[SUBMAN1]

But is that not why the US is leaning more towards stealth techniques/equipment?

Exactly the whole point of this conversation.

-S

[Raptor1]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?

I think WWII more than answered that question...

[SUBMAN1]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?
I think WWII more than answered that question...
Not really. The problem is, the allies denied the production capability of Germany by denying German air superiority. If the Germans made the XXI, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of ME-262's, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of the Panthers, or if they managed to get enough fuel to run their army, you might be speaking German right now.

So, if there is an answer to the question of quality vs quantity, WWII showed that quality will win the day any day of the week, but it is all in balance.

A better war to look at to answer this question would be the Isrealie wars. Outnumbered 10 to 1 with MiGs on one side and F-15's and F-16's on the other, they scored 74 kills without a single loss! Sounds to me that quantity means nothing when up against the right quality.

Example - 10,000 screaming people with sticks and stones against a single M1! Who wins?

-S

[nikimcbee]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?
I think WWII more than answered that question...
Not really. The problem is, the allies denied the production capability of Germany by denying German air superiority. If the Germans made the XXI, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of ME-262's, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of the Panthers, or if they managed to get enough fuel to run their army, you might be speaking German right now.

So, if there is an answer to the question of quality vs quantity, WWII showed that quality will win the day any day of the week, but it is all in balance.

A better war to look at to answer this question would be the Isrealie wars. Outnumbered 10 to 1 with MiGs on one side and F-15's and F-16's on the other, they scored 74 kills without a single loss! Sounds to me that quantity means nothing when up against the right quality.

Example - 10,000 screaming people with sticks and stones against a single M1! Who wins?

-S

In Clay Blair's book, he said the US wasn't that impressed with the actual quality of the XXI (the component quality, not the design) All that bombing made a differrence, I guess. I don't remember, but I think he said most of the boats had been slapped together.

[Raptor1]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?
I think WWII more than answered that question...
Not really. The problem is, the allies denied the production capability of Germany by denying German air superiority. If the Germans made the XXI, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of ME-262's, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of the Panthers, or if they managed to get enough fuel to run their army, you might be speaking German right now.

So, if there is an answer to the question of quality vs quantity, WWII showed that quality will win the day any day of the week, but it is all in balance.

A better war to look at to answer this question would be the Isrealie wars. Outnumbered 10 to 1 with MiGs on one side and F-15's and F-16's on the other, they scored 74 kills without a single loss! Sounds to me that quantity means nothing when up against the right quality.

Example - 10,000 screaming people with sticks and stones against a single M1! Who wins?

-S

Of course a certain numbers ratio would make quality better than quantity, but it is often the side that has quantity has an overwhelming advantage in it

That all changes during special cases, where the side with the numbers can't touch the side with the quality, but that rarely happens (10,000 people with sticks and stones can't damage an M1)

[nikimcbee]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?
I think WWII more than answered that question...
Not really. The problem is, the allies denied the production capability of Germany by denying German air superiority. If the Germans made the XXI, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of ME-262's, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of the Panthers, or if they managed to get enough fuel to run their army, you might be speaking German right now.

So, if there is an answer to the question of quality vs quantity, WWII showed that quality will win the day any day of the week, but it is all in balance.

A better war to look at to answer this question would be the Isrealie wars. Outnumbered 10 to 1 with MiGs on one side and F-15's and F-16's on the other, they scored 74 kills without a single loss! Sounds to me that quantity means nothing when up against the right quality.

Example - 10,000 screaming people with sticks and stones against a single M1! Who wins?

-S

Of course a certain numbers ratio would make quality better than quantity, but it is often the side that has quantity has an overwhelming advantage in it

That all changes during special cases, where the side with the numbers can't touch the side with the quality, but that rarely happens (10,000 people with sticks and stones can't damage an M1)

How fast can he re-load?

[SUBMAN1]

As i said - the Israeli war. Outnumbered 10 to 1 against the MiG's. They still shot down 74 aircraft without 1 single loss.

-S

[nikimcbee]

As i said - the Israeli war. Outnumbered 10 to 1 against the MiG's. They still shot down 74 aircraft without 1 single loss.

-S

I'd say training has a lot to do with that. I think, during the first Gulf War, if we switched equipment with Iraq, we would have still kicked their a$$es.

[Raptor1]

As i said - the Israeli war. Outnumbered 10 to 1 against the MiG's. They still shot down 74 aircraft without 1 single loss.

-S

Hmm, are you talking about a single war specifically, or just the whole conflict in general?

[SUBMAN1]

I'd say training has a lot to do with that. I think, during the first Gulf War, if we switched equipment with Iraq, we would have still kicked their a$$es.The Syrians and Egyptians were well trained in the above encounter.

Usually what happens when you lack training is that the pilots would refuse to go up.

And I don't agree with the training portion in Iraq. If they only knew basically how to operate the aircraft and weapons systems, they would have still kicked ass, though maybe not as dramatically.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

As i said - the Israeli war. Outnumbered 10 to 1 against the MiG's. They still shot down 74 aircraft without 1 single loss.

-S
Hmm, are you talking about a single war specifically, or just the whole conflict in general?Whichever one it was in the late 70's, early 80's. I remember reading a pilots account of the conflict.

-S

[nikimcbee]

Not to chage thread subjects, but I'd take the superior training and leadership over the others.

[Raptor1]

As i said - the Israeli war. Outnumbered 10 to 1 against the MiG's. They still shot down 74 aircraft without 1 single loss.

-S
Hmm, are you talking about a single war specifically, or just the whole conflict in general?Whichever one it was in the late 70's, early 80's. I remember reading a pilots account of the conflict.

-S
Hmm, must be referring to the Lebanon War in 1982

Generally, the aircraft numbers were roughly equal, if not slightly in the Israeli's favor in that war (Due to the fact that only Syria participated, unlike previous wars), I have not heard of an engagement where Israeli aircraft were outnumbered 10-1, but I do know that losses inflicted on Syrian aircraft were high, largely due to the fact that the IAF fielded more advanced aircraft and generally better trained pilots

Oh, speaking of that, Soviet-designed SAMs like SA-6 were used very effectively in, at least, the 1970s against IAF aircraft

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm, must be referring to the Lebanon War in 1982

Generally, the aircraft numbers were roughly equal, if not slightly in the Israeli's favor in that war (Due to the fact that only Syria participated, unlike previous wars), I have not heard of an engagement where Israeli aircraft were outnumbered 10-1, but I do know that losses inflicted on Syrian aircraft were high, largely due to the fact that the IAF fielded more advanced aircraft and generally better trained pilots
Hardly equal - http://books.google.com/books?id=mO02czQ9jyYC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=April+1981+and+June+1982+israeli+air+to+air+kil ls&source=bl&ots=PG9rkwk-VX&sig=VrvqNorczwTFajH3OowAoFVBfXM&hl=en&ei=Dq-hSebrF4HasAPl2-3TCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA89,M1

Quality won the day. The final number was 85 to 0 losses.

But back to the original point - technology should and is considered a 'major' force multiplier. That is why a single F-22 is considered equal to having more than 10 SU-35's, and probably even more. You would need to fill the sky with aircraft to make up for the force multiplier.

-S

[antikristuseke]

As much as their weapons systems (Chinese included) are improving, I don't ever envisage them catching up with most of that produced by some western nations, in particular the US.

But that then begs the question: What is best, quality or quantity?
I think WWII more than answered that question...
Not really. The problem is, the allies denied the production capability of Germany by denying German air superiority. If the Germans made the XXI, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of ME-262's, or if they managed to produce decent numbers of the Panthers, or if they managed to get enough fuel to run their army, you might be speaking German right now.

So, if there is an answer to the question of quality vs quantity, WWII showed that quality will win the day any day of the week, but it is all in balance.

A better war to look at to answer this question would be the Isrealie wars. Outnumbered 10 to 1 with MiGs on one side and F-15's and F-16's on the other, they scored 74 kills without a single loss! Sounds to me that quantity means nothing when up against the right quality.

Example - 10,000 screaming people with sticks and stones against a single M1! Who wins?

-S

Though I agree with what your saying for the most part, I would bet on the 10,000 screaming people. An M1 will run out of ammo and fuel and the crew will run out of food and water, though the casualties will be awful, in the end quantity will win the day in that example.

Edit: Would hate to be one of those 10,000 angry mupets though.

[Platapus]

Neat stalls and flat spins but honestly folks have been doing those sorts of things since the barnstormer days.


True but they were not doing it in a 76,000 pound, 53,000,000 dollar aircraft either.:D

They build them good at Sukhoi, eh Ivan?

I would say that an SU-30mk with 6 Vympel's would be a serious threat as long as, and this is most important, the pilot and wizzo have enough training and experience.

The best plane in the world won't do much if the pilot can only fly 10 hours per quarter. :nope:

[nikimcbee]

As i said - the Israeli war. Outnumbered 10 to 1 against the MiG's. They still shot down 74 aircraft without 1 single loss.

-S
Hmm, are you talking about a single war specifically, or just the whole conflict in general?Whichever one it was in the late 70's, early 80's. I remember reading a pilots account of the conflict.

-S
Hmm, must be referring to the Lebanon War in 1982

Generally, the aircraft numbers were roughly equal, if not slightly in the Israeli's favor in that war (Due to the fact that only Syria participated, unlike previous wars), I have not heard of an engagement where Israeli aircraft were outnumbered 10-1, but I do know that losses inflicted on Syrian aircraft were high, largely due to the fact that the IAF fielded more advanced aircraft and generally better trained pilots

Oh, speaking of that, Soviet-designed SAMs like SA-6 were used very effectively in, at least, the 1970s against IAF aircraft

They had plenty of test time in Vietnam.:dead:

[longam]

never mind

[XabbaRus]

OK, going back to the beginning though, who gives a monkeys whether this is useful in combat? Who cares that the F-22 would knock it from the sky? It looks cool, it is cool, and I'd give my right arm to sit in the back seat while that is spinning about.

One thing though, get rid of the pink smoke....make it blue or something.

[baggygreen]

One thing though, get rid of the pink smoke....make it blue or something.You know what they say Xabba, it takes a real man to wear pink...:|\\

Hey, who knows, maybe the pilot was on a swap from the Navy?:salute: