Su-27/Su30 Vs F-16, which is better
ta...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ken Duffey
The F-16 probably has a better surface finish and paint job - and the
cockpit is more user friendly - but that's about it !
Flack jacket on - go !
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.lindenhillimports.com/flankers.htm
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nickolay Kuzmin
ta...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
>
Su-27/30 should be compared to F-15 and MiG-29 to F-16.
--
"Politics": from poli = many, tics = blood-sucking parasites
Greg Baker
Nickolay Kuzmin <ni...@nlb.siberia.net> wrote in message
news:37B41543...@nlb.siberia.net...
> Su-27/30 should be compared to F-15 and MiG-29 to F-16.
>
Engineers I know who have looked at the Su-27/30 admire the toughness of the
frame. That is the real purpose, they say, of the "cobra" maneuver seen at
airshows - an F-16 may lose its wings.
However, Russian engines still wear out faster than Western European or
American engines, which makes maintenance costs higher in the long run. (If
I had the capital, I would form a company to make high-quality spare parts
for Russian equipment.)
In combat, it depends on the quality of the pilot more than the quality of
the plane. For example, in the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War, the Pakistan Air
Force, equipped with CF-86 Super Sabres, out-flew the Indian Air Force
Hawker Hunters. Another example is the Israeli Air Force, flying Mysteres,
outflying the various Arab air forces equipped with the
then-state-of-the-art MiG-21.
The most recent example is the Dutch F-16CJ pilot who downed a Yugoslav
MiG-29 in the Kosovo War. But the most personal example I know of came from
a pilot friend of my mother.
He was flying an F-51 Mustang in Korea at about 8,000 feet. (The
designation had changed from P-51 between the wars). Four MiG-15s bounced
him. Now, the MiG wreaked havoc among the best prop planes of the Second
World War, including the B-29. A Mustang attacked by four Fishbeds would be
easy meat.
The pilot of the Mustang put the plane into a TIGHT circle and started
heading for the deck. None of the MiGs could get more than one pass at him
as he lined up in the curve, and all of them missed. He made it to low
altitude, among the hills, and made it back to base.
Later, he reminisced that he had encountered a Russian instructor and three
trainees, else he would have been killed.
Greg Baker
Laurel, Maryland
Editor, SPY STUFF Newsletter
Евгений Ожогин
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=
ta...@my-deja.com пишет в сообщении <7ov0ie$ec3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> ...
>anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
>
>
Ed Rasimus
>In combat, it depends on the quality of the pilot more than the quality of
>the plane.
To a point. There are anecdotal instance of gross mis-matches going to
the underdog, but that's the exception more than the rule.
> The most recent example is the Dutch F-16CJ pilot who downed a Yugoslav
>MiG-29 in the Kosovo War.
I miss the quality of pilot versus quality of plane relevance in that
engagement. The aircraft are quite comparable aerodynamically.
> But the most personal example I know of came from
>a pilot friend of my mother.
>
>He was flying an F-51 Mustang in Korea at about 8,000 feet. (The
>designation had changed from P-51 between the wars). Four MiG-15s bounced
>him. Now, the MiG wreaked havoc among the best prop planes of the Second
>World War, including the B-29.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting that MiG-15s were involved in WW II
or that they were remarkably successful in the Korean war against
retro systems. I don't think the record will show that the MiG-15
"wreaked havoc" particularly against WWII aircraft in either case. The
majority of Korean engagements with the -15 were against jet types,
although there were some F-51 and F-82 encounters as well as some prop
driven Navy engagements.
> A Mustang attacked by four Fishbeds would be
>easy meat.
You should note that a Fishbed is a MiG-21. A MiG-15 is a Faggot.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
*** Ziff-Davis Interactive
*** (http://www.zdnet.com)
Paul J. Adam
writes
>anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
For most missions, given equal pilots, the Sukhoi. It's larger, with a
high fuel fraction (means, it can either go further, or stay in a fight
longer), extremely agile, better armed (esp. close-in - at BVR range,
AIM-120 on the F-16 equalises the fight somewhat) and has better
sensors.
The Sukhoi's expensive to buy and maintain, which is a downer.
--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Steva
>> The most recent example is the Dutch F-16CJ pilot who downed a Yugoslav
>>MiG-29 in the Kosovo War.
>
>I miss the quality of pilot versus quality of plane relevance in that
>engagement. The aircraft are quite comparable aerodynamically.
>
Consider quantity of the planes also.
Mary Shafer
> To a point. There are anecdotal instance of gross mis-matches going to
> the underdog, but that's the exception more than the rule.
I can offer the example of an A-4 shooting down a MiG (19 or 21, I
think) but I'm not sure who the underdog is, since the A-4 was flown
by an IAF pilot and the MiG was flown by a Syrian or Egyptian AF
pilot.
--
Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
sha...@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA
Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
For non-aerospace mail, use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com please
Skull
Greg Baker wrote in message ...
>The most recent example is the Dutch F-16CJ pilot who downed a Yugoslav
>MiG-29 in the Kosovo War. But the most personal example I know of came
from
Yeah,i guess it takes a lot of skill to down one old Fulcrum with AWACS
support by your side,in F-16C armed with AMRAAMs and with air superiority!
I guess the event when our Fulcrum driver smoked f-117 under same
conditions i stated suits your example much better!
Keith Willshaw
Skull wrote in message <7p30ch$144$1...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>...
>
>from
>Yeah,i guess it takes a lot of skill to down one old Fulcrum with AWACS
>support by your side,in F-16C armed with AMRAAMs and with air superiority!
> I guess the event when our Fulcrum driver smoked f-117 under same
>conditions i stated suits your example much better!
>
Gee guys make you minds up
You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
Try for a little consistency OK
Keith
Paul J. Adam
Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@compuserve.com> writes
>Gee guys make you minds up
>
>You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
>AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
>
>Try for a little consistency OK
No, Keith, this was _obviously_ three different F-117 shootdowns.
And don't bother with that capitalist "where's the wreckage"?
question. The F-117 is a _stealth aircraft_, so of course the wreckage
is invisible!
Keith Willshaw
Paul J. Adam wrote in message ...
>In article <7p3f43$e26$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
>Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@compuserve.com> writes
>>Gee guys make you minds up
>>
>>You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
>>AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
>>
>>Try for a little consistency OK
>
>No, Keith, this was _obviously_ three different F-117 shootdowns.
>
>And don't bother with that capitalist "where's the wreckage"?
>question. The F-117 is a _stealth aircraft_, so of course the wreckage
>is invisible!
>
Of course and that explains all the B2 Bombers too
Silly me
Keith
John Carrier
> I can offer the example of an A-4 shooting down a MiG (19 or 21, I
> think) but I'm not sure who the underdog is, since the A-4 was flown
> by an IAF pilot and the MiG was flown by a Syrian or Egyptian AF
> pilot.
Almost certainly a mismatch in pilot skill, but don't disparage the A-4.
The single seater, particularly the A-4F with J-52 P408 is an aluminum
assassin. Most fighter drivers who encountered "the fox" driven by a
skilled adversary instructor found they had their hands full.
OBTW, there was an A-4 MiG kill in Vietnam too.
R/ John
John
<bake...@maranatha.net> wrote:
>
>Nickolay Kuzmin <ni...@nlb.siberia.net> wrote in message
>news:37B41543...@nlb.siberia.net...
>
>> Su-27/30 should be compared to F-15 and MiG-29 to F-16.
>>
>Engineers I know who have looked at the Su-27/30 admire the toughness of the
>frame. That is the real purpose, they say, of the "cobra" maneuver seen at
>airshows - an F-16 may lose its wings.
An F-16 would not 'lose it's wings.' The cobra is a high AOA
maneuver, not a high g maneuver. The FLCS on the F-16 simply does not
allow that high an AOA condition.
John
John
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7ov0ie$ec3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ta...@my-deja.com
>writes
>>anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
>
>For most missions, given equal pilots, the Sukhoi. It's larger, with a
>high fuel fraction (means, it can either go further, or stay in a fight
>longer), extremely agile, better armed (esp. close-in - at BVR range,
>AIM-120 on the F-16 equalises the fight somewhat) and has better
>sensors.
Are you saying that a AA-10C is better than the AMRAAM? Where did you
get that idea? Also, realize that you are comparing the top of the
line Russian fighter to a Western 'gap' fighter. So, on a comparison
level, you get a lot more bang for the buck in your falcon.
John
2Fast4U
Someone changed his/their minds very soon...
2Fast4U
Ed Rasimus
>Was that the reason USN used A4 as aggressors in their ACM courses like Top
>Guns....? BTW the Kiwis use A4Ks as fighters as well.
>
Factors would include the fact that they weren't "fighter" aircraft in
the Navy lexicon, so the A/A community wouldn't be familiar with
flying tactically against them; low operating cost; ready availability
as airframes were freed up by conversion to A-7 and A-6; and probably
most valuable: they are roughly the same size as a MiG-21.
Although it isn't immediately obvious in profile, the planform is very
similar to the MiG-21. I recall having an A-4 overfly me in NVN on one
occasion and from directly below the view was very convincing of a
MiG.
Skull
Keith Willshaw wrote in message
<7p3f43$e26$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>...
>
>Skull wrote in message <7p30ch$144$1...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>...
>>
>>from
>>Yeah,i guess it takes a lot of skill to down one old Fulcrum with AWACS
>>support by your side,in F-16C armed with AMRAAMs and with air
superiority!
>> I guess the event when our Fulcrum driver smoked f-117 under same
>>conditions i stated suits your example much better!
>>
>
>
>
>You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
>AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
>
>
It was downed by the Fulcrum driver Ilja Arizanov.
[He had RAM all over his windshield :)))))]
Skull
Keith Willshaw wrote in message
>
>Paul J. Adam wrote in message ...
>>In article <7p3f43$e26$1...@ssauraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com>,
>>Keith Willshaw <keith_w...@compuserve.com> writes
>>>
>>>You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
>>>AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
>>>
>>>Try for a little consistency OK
>>
>>
>>And don't bother with that capitalist "where's the wreckage"?
>>question. The F-117 is a _stealth aircraft_, so of course the wreckage
>>is invisible!
>>
>
>
>Of course and that explains all the B2 Bombers too
>
>Silly me
>
>Keith
Well,it was NATO's Jamie Shea and Co. who claimed that 60% of our tanx have
been destroyed!At least these "kills" were confirmed by the wreckages of 3
T-55's,right?
We had only 5 of them,so 3 makes 60% ,or otherwise NATO would suck and
that is not an option!How can Knights of the Round table do wrong!!!??
Keith Willshaw
Skull wrote in message <7p4rvf$rf1$1...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>...
>
>
>Well,it was NATO's Jamie Shea and Co. who claimed that 60% of our tanx have
>been destroyed!At least these "kills" were confirmed by the wreckages of 3
>T-55's,right?
> We had only 5 of them,so 3 makes 60% ,or otherwise NATO would suck and
>that is not an option!How can Knights of the Round table do wrong!!!??
>
>
Frankly I could care less how many T55's were destroyed.
Who gives a damm. After all that rhetoric about fighting
to the last drop of Serbian Blood for Sacred Land Your guys
LEFT.
You hid from the enemy then You Fled the Field. Understandable
but hardly something to boast about. Another ignominious
retreat to add to that of Slovenia and the Krajina where
the Yugoslav Army Fled the field rather than oppose the
Croat Offensive.
The Miltary I pay taxes to support Did the job they
were paid to do and kicked you guys OUT.
When did yours last do ANYTHING but kill
civilians then run away ?
Keith
J. Thomas Ford
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote in message
> >
> >Skull wrote in message <7p30ch$144$1...@SOLAIR2.EUnet.yu>...
> >>
> >>from
> >>Yeah,i guess it takes a lot of skill to down one old Fulcrum with AWACS
> >>support by your side,in F-16C armed with AMRAAMs and with air
> superiority!
> >> I guess the event when our Fulcrum driver smoked f-117 under same
> >>conditions i stated suits your example much better!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
> >AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
> >
> >Try for a little consistency OK
> >
>
> It was downed by the Fulcrum driver Ilja Arizanov.
Dubious. Got any evidence for that claim?
> [He had RAM all over his windshield :)))))]
--
"God does not need Congress' help, but may God help us if we ever use
religion as a means to our own political ends." - Rep. Chet Edwards
(D-Texas), opposing defeated S. Con. Res. 94, which called for
*mandated* national prayer.
Paul J. Adam
<jr...@nospam.mindspring.com> writes
>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:45:41 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>For most missions, given equal pilots, the Sukhoi. It's larger, with a
>>high fuel fraction (means, it can either go further, or stay in a fight
>>longer), extremely agile, better armed (esp. close-in - at BVR range,
>>AIM-120 on the F-16 equalises the fight somewhat) and has better
>>sensors.
>
>Are you saying that a AA-10C is better than the AMRAAM?
Nope, but AA-12 cued by the Sukhoi's radar looks a good match for
AMRAAM, and the Sukhoi has more fuel, high thrust, and can sustain
higher energy for longer (very important in a BVR duel)
>Also, realize that you are comparing the top of the
>line Russian fighter to a Western 'gap' fighter.
Wasn't my question, just my answer.
Grantland
>
>Keith Willshaw wrote in message
>>Silly me
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>Well,it was NATO's Jamie Shea and Co. who claimed that 60% of our tanx have
>been destroyed!At least these "kills" were confirmed by the wreckages of 3
>T-55's,right?
> We had only 5 of them,so 3 makes 60% ,or otherwise NATO would suck and
>that is not an option!How can Knights of the Round table do wrong!!!??
>
>
We shall fear no evil.
Grantland
Edward Lim
Guns....? BTW the Kiwis use A4Ks as fighters as well.
Ed
John Carrier <j...@netdoor.com> wrote in message
news:rokt3.663$UQ6....@axe.netdoor.com...
John
<Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <37b65523....@news.mindspring.com>, John
><jr...@nospam.mindspring.com> writes
>>On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:45:41 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>><Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>For most missions, given equal pilots, the Sukhoi. It's larger, with a
>>>high fuel fraction (means, it can either go further, or stay in a fight
>>>longer), extremely agile, better armed (esp. close-in - at BVR range,
>>>AIM-120 on the F-16 equalises the fight somewhat) and has better
>>>sensors.
>>
>>Are you saying that a AA-10C is better than the AMRAAM?
>
>Nope, but AA-12 cued by the Sukhoi's radar looks a good match for
>AMRAAM, and the Sukhoi has more fuel, high thrust, and can sustain
>higher energy for longer (very important in a BVR duel)
>
No question the sukhoi has more gas. But how do you calculate the 30
having more thrust than a block 50? Also, what do you mean by 'can
sustain higher energy for longer (very important in a BVR duel)'
John
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
John wrote:
> Are you saying that a AA-10C is better than the AMRAAM?
Some version of AA-10 have more than double the range of the AMRAAM through
they are using semiactive guidance. That however means that Su-27 would
launch its missiles first, F-16 would have to dodge them before firing its
AMRAAMs. Second, more advanced Su family aircraft, like Su-30 can fire
AA-12. This missile have active radar guidance like AMRAAM. It also have
slightly larger range and better maneuverability than AMRAAM. In the worst
case Su-27 said to be able to fire R-33's, similar to American AIM-54.
However, I never saw Su-27 displayed with those missiles.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov
John wrote:
> An F-16 would not 'lose it's wings.' The cobra is a high AOA
> maneuver, not a high g maneuver. The FLCS on the F-16 simply does not
> allow that high an AOA condition.
You right, it would not loose its wings, its engine can flame out.
Yevgeniy Chizhikov.
Yama
>
> John wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that a AA-10C is better than the AMRAAM?
>
> Some version of AA-10 have more than double the range of the AMRAAM through
> they are using semiactive guidance.
Double the range is overstatement. There are no absolute AAM ranges,
but based on numbers I've seen, if we give AIM-120A about 50km
range, then Alamo-C would have perhaps 70km. Alamo is of course
considerably bigger. I've seen similar range numbers for AA-12, but
I've yet to see any reliable report that this missile is actually in
service.
Flanker would have longer detection, tracking & launching ranges
than F-16. At least presently F-16 is better equipped for EW than
most/all Flanker variants. Of course, I am talking about
later/upgraded F-16 variants. In '80s, F-16A would have been toast.
But comparison is sort of pointless, because aircraft are in
different leagues, designed to different needs.
> slightly larger range and better maneuverability than AMRAAM. In the worst
> case Su-27 said to be able to fire R-33's, similar to American AIM-54.
> However, I never saw Su-27 displayed with those missiles.
To my knowledge, no photo showing Flanker carrying AA-9 exists. It
is possible that Sukhoi has advertised only theoretical capability,
or all AA-9's have been reserved to MiG-31 units. I suppose it is
quite expensive missile.
Arie Kazachin
<j...@netdoor.com> writes:
>
>
>
>> I can offer the example of an A-4 shooting down a MiG (19 or 21, I
>> think) but I'm not sure who the underdog is, since the A-4 was flown
>> by an IAF pilot and the MiG was flown by a Syrian or Egyptian AF
>> pilot.
>
>Almost certainly a mismatch in pilot skill, but don't disparage the A-4.
>The single seater, particularly the A-4F with J-52 P408 is an aluminum
>assassin. Most fighter drivers who encountered "the fox" driven by a
>skilled adversary instructor found they had their hands full.
>
>OBTW, there was an A-4 MiG kill in Vietnam too.
>
>R/ John
>
>
The above mentioned event (not in Vietnam) occured in Lebanon on
May 12 1970 when a pair of IAF A-4s led by Ezra Dotan ("Baben"), armed
with anti-tank rockets and 30mm gun (with gunsite calibrated for ground
targets attack) had been jumped by two pairs of Syrian MiG-17s. Ezra downed
one of the MiGs with the anti-tank rockets from almost zero range and after
crazy chase (500 kts at treetop level and inside crevices) downed another
one with the gun.
What are the details of A-4 MiG kill in Vietnam?
******************************************************************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: ariek3.141592...@ibm.net *
******************************************************************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my userID. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |<
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|
J. Thomas Ford
>
<snip>
> The above mentioned event (not in Vietnam) occured in Lebanon on
> May 12 1970 when a pair of IAF A-4s led by Ezra Dotan ("Baben"), armed
> with anti-tank rockets and 30mm gun (with gunsite calibrated for ground
> targets attack) had been jumped by two pairs of Syrian MiG-17s. Ezra downed
> one of the MiGs with the anti-tank rockets from almost zero range and after
> crazy chase (500 kts at treetop level and inside crevices) downed another
> one with the gun.
Thus leading to a philosophical question: is an insanely hazradous
action still insane if one is capable of pulling it off unscathed?
BTW- what is the origin of the quote in your sig?
> ___
> .__/ |
> | O /
> _/ /
> | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
> | |
> | | |
> | | /O\
> | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
> | * / \ o ++ O ++ o
> | | |
> | |<
> \ \_)
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \ |
> \_|
Mary Shafer
> Arie Kazachin wrote:
> BTW- what is the origin of the quote in your sig?
> > ___
> > .__/ |
> > | O /
> > _/ /
> > | | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
> > | |
> > | | |
> > | | /O\
> > | _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
> > | * / \ o ++ O ++ o
> > | | |
> > | |<
> > \ \_)
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \ |
> > \_|
Think about it, an F-4 over Israel has to make really tight turns or
end up over enemy territory. A friend of mine who flew in the IAF
says that at his training base, you'd end up outside the country if
you didn't turn tight enough in the landing pattern.
Gareth Bull
>>AMRAAM, and the Sukhoi has more fuel, high thrust, and can sustain
>>higher energy for longer (very important in a BVR duel)
>>
>
>No question the sukhoi has more gas. But how do you calculate the 30
>having more thrust than a block 50? Also, what do you mean by 'can
>sustain higher energy for longer (very important in a BVR duel)'
The Su-30 has a slight advantage in the engine depertment, it has two
of them. Are you're claiming that the single engine in the F-16 block
50 has similar/better power compared to both engines combined in the
Su-30?
I don't have exact figures for the engines in either plane, but the
two Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F engines in the Su-27 have a combined
afterburning thrust of approx 55,000 lb. The F110-GE-100 in the F-16
block 40 has an afterburning thrust of approx 27,500 lb.
I doubt very much that the 220 series engine in the block 50 F-16
develops *twice* the power of the 100 series engine in the block 40.
The stats I have for the Su-27 and F-16 block 40 give the F-16 a 70
knot speed advantage at sea level, and the Su-27 a 200 knot speed
advantage at high (40,000+ ft) altitude.
I'l
99 TRX-850. DOD #251.
garet...@relax.com.au
MegaShaft_2000
power/weight ratio.
Gareth Bull <garet...@relax.com.au> wrote in message
news:37b8d7db...@news.relax.com.au...
Ryo Saeba
>
seen at
> >airshows - an F-16 may lose its wings.
>
> maneuver, not a high g maneuver. The FLCS on the F-16 simply does not
> allow that high an AOA condition.
>
Agree. Wasn't there a modified F16 with vector thrust engine that also
did all sort of crazy things?? F16's frame should be able to handle
Cobra maneuver.
--
Tsuki-ni kawatte, oshioki-yo!
On behalf of the moon, I will punish you!
Vladimir Malukh
Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> Gee guys make you minds up
>
> You have claimed this One Poor F117 was hit by
> AAA , SAM and now a Mig 29
So, what CIA or Army intelligence say? Or they still
don't know who and how shot that damn F-117?
Well, no wonder then that they didn't know
where China embassy is...
Now seriously.
The first (by time) version I've heard was - MiG-29
shot F-117, the rest ov versions come later.
First version was confiremd by russian military
intelligence. I wouldn't claim that it's most
efficient now -but certainly it has better
sources in Ygoslavia than NATO had ever.
In my opinin the most possible (this is
just scenario) option was:
Most possible F-117 routes were tracked
by some long-wave radars, like Tamara
or old Soviet P-13.
MiG-29 was patroling that area and eventually
come in visual contact with F-117.
Then pilot used either short
range missile or gun.
To be sure AAA guys were shooting the target,
as its location was reported by pilot.
Very possible they hit the target too.
Very possible that SAM also fired,
but I suspect that SAM-3 (S-125) has
capabilities to hit such LO target.
May be only in case of already damaged a/c
with RSC eventually rised.
So, that may be well possible reason why so
differnet descriptions of that hit are.
Vladimir Malukh
-----------------------------------------
Keith Willshaw
Vladimir Malukh <b...@propro.ru> wrote in message
news:37BA982B...@propro.ru...
>
> So, what CIA or Army intelligence say? Or they still
> don't know who and how shot that damn F-117?
> Well, no wonder then that they didn't know
> where China embassy is...
>
I am sure they know
They just aren't telling
Keith
Rob Merrill
Ryo Saeba wrote in message <37B9B809...@yahoo.com>...
>Agree. Wasn't there a modified F16 with vector thrust engine that also
>did all sort of crazy things?? F16's frame should be able to handle
>Cobra maneuver.
Yes. Amazing performance. Anyone got any info on the F-16XL?
Rob
Jim Barr
The F-16XL was still flying out at Edward's with some laminar flow gloves on the wings awhile back.
Jim Barr
DeltaSigma
ta...@my-deja.com wrote:
> anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
The SU-27 is equal to a F-16C with AMRAAM but the SU-30 outperforms the
F-16 definetly. Especially when it is equipped with AA-12 Adders. In a
dogfight situation the F-16 loses for the Sukhois have a better AAM
(AA-11). Only the Israeli F-16s with their Python4 could stand a chance
against the Sukhois.
But the main issue are not the aircrafts but the pilots. Normally,
Russian pilots and all pilots trained according to Soviet doctrine are
somewhat worse than NATO pilots.
Of course, the Israeli Air Force has the best pilots in the world.
Regards,
DeltaSigma
Dweezil Dwarftosser
<def...@viking.dvc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>ta...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
>The SU-27 is equal to a F-16C with AMRAAM but the SU-30 outperforms the
>F-16 definetly.
Yer kiddin', right?
The Su-27 has a weapon control system near par with that of our F-15.
Thus, it is the most potent fighter in the Russian arsenal.
The F-16 doesn't even come close to either the F-15 or Su-27.
- John T.
Alex Fulton
Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
> >The SU-27 is equal to a F-16C with AMRAAM but the SU-30 outperforms the
> >F-16 definetly.
>
> Yer kiddin', right?
> The Su-27 has a weapon control system near par with that of our F-15.
> Thus, it is the most potent fighter in the Russian arsenal.
I was going to say...
Isn't this comparing apples to, well, pears? I mean, I was under the impression
the F-16 was sort of an F-15C 'lite'. It was conceptualized in a competition
for a low-cost fighter.
I would compare the F-15C against the Su-27/30. Perhaps a closer comparison,
but I really can't say which is better (my vote goes to the F-15C, but that is
hardly an expert opinion).
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Alex Fulton afu...@ptcom.net|
| http://www.geocities.com/~dderidex/ Imperial Database |
| List Administrator, Unofficial Star Fleet Battles Mailing List |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|To start or edit a subscription to the Star Fleet Battles list: |
| http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/StarFleetUniverse |
|To view digest archives: |
| http://www.onelist.com/archives.cgi/StarFleetUniverse |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dweezil Dwarftosser
wrote:
>
>
>Dweezil Dwarftosser wrote:
>> >The SU-27 is equal to a F-16C with AMRAAM but the SU-30 outperforms the
>> >F-16 definetly.
>>
>> Yer kiddin', right?
>> The Su-27 has a weapon control system near par with that of our F-15.
>> Thus, it is the most potent fighter in the Russian arsenal.
>
>I was going to say...
>
>Isn't this comparing apples to, well, pears? I mean, I was under the impression
>the F-16 was sort of an F-15C 'lite'. It was conceptualized in a competition
>for a low-cost fighter.
Now I KNOW you're kidding! The F-16 was designed as a low-cost
replacement in the F-5 class: a lightweight ( in more ways than one!)
fighter/attack jet with some limited measure of self-protection
available.
Comparing an F-16 to a full-sized, high-capability aircraft (F-15 OR
Su-27) truly is "apples and pears".
- John T.
Alex Fulton
> Comparing an F-16 to a full-sized, high-capability aircraft (F-15 OR
> Su-27) truly is "apples and pears".
>
> - John T.
That is the point I was making (albeit my wording could use a bit of refinement).
The F-16 and F-15C are in different classes of aircraft entirely - the Su-27/30 are
in the same class as the F-15C.
So, what I was trying to get at was that comparing the F-16 to the Su-27 would not be
a fair comparison. OTOH, if it DID compare favorably then that does not say a lot
for Russian design teams ;^)
mr_awacs
DeltaSigma <def...@viking.dvc.edu> wrote in message
news:37D87C60...@viking.dvc.edu...
>
>
> ta...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > anybody can do comparison between this two jets? and which is better?
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> The SU-27 is equal to a F-16C with AMRAAM but the SU-30 outperforms the
F16Cjock
advanced I mean BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missles, all-aspect missles, TWS
(Track-While-Scan) and/or RWS (Range-While-Search) radar, a Threat Warning
Systems programmed with all of the latest threat emitter recognition software
programs, 9-g capable airframes, etc. but a mediocre pilot flying said
"advanced fighter" pitted against a not so "advanced" fighter with IR AAPHID's
etc. with a highly experienced, situational aware fighter pilot/air tactician
it is conceivable that the not so advanced fighter can win the engagement.
It's not just a matter of which fighter is the better equipped, but of also
pilot ability and skills.
at...@my-deja.com
> Su-27/30 should be compared to F-15 and MiG-29 to F-16.
That is true, its really comparing apples to oranges. The F-16 is a
small light attack/interceptor fighter, the Su-27/30 is a dedicated,
long range high performance interceptor, about twenty feet longer than
an F-16. In terms of sheer performance the Su-27/30 is one of the most
impressive aircraft ever built. It has tremendous power and
power/weight ratio, and eye popping manouverability. But pilots do love
the F-16.