Russian SU-30 Vectored - Page 2

SUBMAN1 · 02-21-09, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterICX

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!

-S

SUBMAN1 · 02-21-09, 02:31 PM

I wonder if Russia will actually field this little plane?

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

-S

Nisgeis · 02-21-09, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterICX

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

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 · 02-21-09, 10:02 PM

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 · 02-21-09, 10:41 PM

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 · 02-21-09, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 02-22-09, 01:45 AM

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

.

XabbaRus · 02-22-09, 05:19 AM

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 · 02-22-09, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

...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 · 02-22-09, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

nikimcbee · 02-22-09, 01:31 PM

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

SUBMAN1 · 02-22-09, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

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 · 02-22-09, 01:52 PM

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 · 02-22-09, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

...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 · 02-22-09, 01:56 PM

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?

02-21-09, 02:31 PM	#17
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I wonder if Russia will actually field this little plane? http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280 -S __________________

02-21-09, 10:02 PM	#19
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 11,866 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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 __________________

02-21-09, 10:41 PM	#20
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,254 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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? __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

02-22-09, 05:19 AM	#23
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

02-22-09, 01:31 PM	#26
nikimcbee Fleet Admiral Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Patroling the Slot. Posts: 17,952 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Plus, when was the last time all of this advanced equipment was tested in actual combat situations, not training exercises? __________________

02-22-09, 01:45 AM	#22
Lurchi Planesman Join Date: May 2005 Location: Wilhelmshaven, Germany Posts: 181 Downloads: 35 Uploads: 0	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 .

02-22-09, 01:52 PM	#28
XabbaRus Navy Seal Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,330 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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. __________________

02-22-09, 01:56 PM	#30
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,539 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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? __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!