It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is typical from you Stealth Spy, not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
You use the same links everytime when it is proven time and again that in the "Cope India" trials the F-15's had every single handicap in the book stacked against them! You make me laugh buddy, and yes, the F-15C is superior to any variant of the Su-30. Now please, go post your propaganda somewhere else.
Originally posted by waynos
For me, Rajkalsa (sp?) posted the definitive report on cope India many months ago and the 'excuse' myths posted by the pro American side on here were busted there and then.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ah yes the famous India cope exercise, well lets see we have outnumber F-15’s not allowed to carry the Aim-120 the standard BVR missile of the USAF.
That's like taking an Abrams and saying your going to go up against T-72’s but you cant use you main gun, only machine guns.
Originally posted by blobby
so the Americans are saying it will take rest world 20 years to play catch up again are they??
well i watched a program last night about nuclear submarines and how USA had 1st nuke subs and they also said YUP you guessed it it would take Russians 2o years or so to catch up, but wait it only took Russians 5 years maximum to catch up and then over take yes over take in nuke sub tech.
and unilaterally declaring that the F-15 can defeat any flanker variant and the Eurofighter by far ... and that's supposed to be unbiased
Originally posted by gooseuk
As for the Americans members on the Forum, Yes those F-15’s didn’t have the new AESA radar, merely because the radar is such a pain to keep it operational, that they couldn’t transport the bulky support equipment in time for the exercise [Source: Air Force Monthly and Jane’s]. Another item, the US will not always have AWACs support, some thing which I have noted that the current crop of US pilots rely on AWACs coverage far to much. BVR engagements, I agree they are the primary weapon of the USAF, but there will be situations where the US will not have the tactical advantage it’s covered by Murphy’s Law As for the two to one advantage, that is written in the US air doctrine, the USAF believe that they could successfully engage and over come any two 2 hostile threats. I would be careful as to say that any service member lied, it doesn’t say much for the people making those statements. As for the F/A-22 argument sure I suppose that’s one way to explain it, it’s a nice easy way not to admit some thing.
As for the other members, Yes the SU 27’s overcame the Americans in a close in engagement, but I have to admit that in most cases, the US air force will usually have the advantage of AWAC’s coverage and EW Support. In a BVR engagement, the F-15’s would have the advantage over the Russian fighters. In a full combat environment with the normal USAF support aircraft for the fighter forces, the dog fighting advantage is limited by the fact that it would be next to impossible to overcome the fighters when they have a complete picture of the battlefield and BVR missiles.
Now you're getting even more out of hand. The Typhoon is debatable, but it's not for here, what we're discussing, is about the Su-30.
Now can I ask you something, would you take an aircraft with an amazing record with proven systems and that has state-of-the-art weapons and radar, or take an aircraft that has seen very little combat, with a virtually unproven radar system and weapons that have been abysmal in combat? R-73 Archer's have only hit fleeing (non-maneuvering) targets, the R-27 has only 1 confirmed kill out of 20 missiles fired in its entire career, and the R-77 which has never been fired in combat.
Both have about the same T/W ratio, and even that varies depending on load outs. And that's another advantage of the F-15, it has low-wing loading, compared to the Flanker's high wing loading which effects its g-load in combat. The F-15C fully loaded can still sustain about 8.6 g's in combat, while the Flanker drops down to about 7.5 fully loaded.
So do the math Stealth Spy, are you going to take a platform with proven capabilites, or take an aircraft with unknown and/or abysmal performance?
Originally posted by waynos
As far as I remember Hockeyguy the Indians didn't have any AWACS suppoort available at all which was why the USAF couldn't have any, by way of evening things up.
Indeed in an excercise where a group of fighters had to defend an 'AWACS' from being shot down an An 24 transport was used as a surrogate AWACS plane. Although it was totally lacking any capability, naturally, it was only there to provide a 'goal' for the other team to aim for.
Your point as merit, there is some thing to be said for selecting weapons and aircraft that themselves have been tested in combat. Most countries prefer aircraft which have either been developed from combat tested systems or designs.
That is where the merits end, you can’t base the capabilities of an aircraft merely off the combat record. There are aircraft and tanks that served in the military that were never operationally used in a Conflict, the British Lightening fighter being a prime example of this situation. I agree that while combat records provide information on how successful the design is, we aren’t always willing to start a war, or for that matter a conflict to provide test data or to provide the “Combat Tested” Seal of approval.
I would be interested to see some of the operational data, that you made claims in regards to the operational abilities of the Russian Missiles, you have to admit that if the US military were not phased by the abilities of Russian Missile technology, they would not be investing funds for a stealth fighter and ECM systems to protect their aircraft. At the minute there is only one nation which has given the F-15 its creditable combat record was not America, it was Israel. It was the only nation to employ it in a conflict against a creditable military force in a hostile environment for which it was designed for.
Also, one note, you seem to be missing the point of the Human Element. These fighters are manned, if they are used by well trained they would be more than capable to give any western pilot a run for their money, this includes tactics. Paper records and specs are nice but when they are employed in combat hidden abilities appear.
I would be careful in not making a clear distinction between, which are your opinions and which are creditable sources. Please provide links.