It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by planeman
If we stop the clock at 1988 and look at the main in-service versions of both, we find a slightly different picture than what you are painting:
USSR Su-27S Flanker-B -vs- USAF F-16C
But anyway, the main changes are:
* The Su-27 family gained the really long ranged (130km!!!) AA-10 Alamo-C missile in the early 1990s.
* Recent Su-27 versions also sport vastly improved radars
* Both types have gained a true fire-and-forget AR medium range missile (AMRAAM and AA-12 Adder)
* Some F-16 varients now have IRST and HMS, but few have AAMs that compare to the Flanker's AA-11 - this will change as missiles like the IRIS-T and AIM-9X enter survice on F-16s.
* More recent Su-27 varients (usually called Su-35/37 and some Su-30 varients) have 3-D thrust vectoring which gives them superb agility, as has been discussed by others)
*Both types are increaingly employed as two-man aircraft, where the Flanker has a natural advantage due to its great size and power.
* Both sorts have evolved into multi-role and dedicated attack versions, in general the Su-27s carry more bombs. The Su-32 Fullback version of the Su-27 is the mutt's nuts in that match-up and the F-16 can only dream of getting anywhere near it in that respect.
Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
The second most important thing in a dogfight is who sees whom first. First guy to be seen is the loser.
Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander
All this talk about which plane will beat what.........
And it really means nothing when it comes to dogfighting. There are two concepts in the dog fight (I am not talking long range interception with missiles here), but a knife fight. The first is the pilot.
American (and MOST Western Pilots) fly between 15-20 hours a month and generally pull a similar amount of time in simulators.
Russian pilots are lucky to fly 15-20 hours a YEAR and their simulators aren't anywhere near what the West has.
I'll take a US pilot in any of the "teen" fighters you want, (hell I'll even go F-4) over a Russian pilot in a Flanker or Fulcrum any day.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
True, in modern air combat the majority of those that get shot down were never aware of their attacker until it was too late. Primarily this comes down to who has the better situational awareness going into the fight, something the West reigns supreme in. Primarily because of investments in integrated and easily displayed avionics/sensors, net centric data links and information sharing/sharing systems and a large support force of AWACS and other recon/command assets.
American (and MOST Western Pilots) fly between 15-20 hours a month and generally pull a similar amount of time in simulators.
Russian pilots are lucky to fly 15-20 hours a YEAR and their simulators aren't anywhere near what the West has.
I'll take a US pilot in any of the "teen" fighters you want, (hell I'll even go F-4) over a Russian pilot in a Flanker or Fulcrum any day.
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
While the Soviet Union had superb, modern fighter pilot training programs and doctrines during the Cold War, it is hardly the case any longer.
All in all, a good aircraft is only as good as the support systems behind it. The Su-27, Su-35, and Su-37 are all awesome planes, but the awesomeness (if that's a word) is only substantiated by how well its awesomeness can be maintained. Unless the Flankers have sufficiently maintained AWACS and GCI behind it, it will really take the best pilot in the world to make it home alive every time.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
The west tended to give the information to the pilots raw (aka, get it onto their radar screens through datalink etc).
Russia does have the capabilities at its disposal. I'm sorry I haven't got much information on GCI of Russia, here's some information on the current AWACS.
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
In Russia, the ifnrastructure just is not extensive as it used to be so now its a little-by-little system of trading off one for the other at a given time.
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Does anybody know of any books, publications, or websites that actively cover the progress of Russia's military development? I would like to know where exactly they are as of 2007 before continuing to make judgments on their institutional prowess.
Many potential enemies of the USSR and its client states have had a chance to evaluate the MiG-23’s performance. In the 1970s, after a political realignment by the Egyptian government, Egypt gave their MiG-23MS to the United States and the People's Republic of China in exchange for military hardware. These MiG-23MS helped the Chinese to develop their Shenyang J-8II aircraft by borrowing some MiG-23 features, such as its ventral fin and air intakes, and incorporating them into the J-8II. In the U.S., these MiG-23MS and other variants acquired later from Germany were used as part of the evaluation program of Soviet military hardware. The Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer, who had more than 1200 hours flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23ML Flogger-Gs from air bases in Germany and the U.S. as part of NATO's aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded that the MiG-23ML has superiority on the vertical plane over early F-16 variants, is just slightly inferior to the F-16A on the horizontal plane, and has superior BVR capability.
The Israelis tested a MiG-23MLD that defected from Syria and found that it had better acceleration than the F-16 and F/A-18.
Another MiG-23 evaluation finding in the U.S. and Israel reports was that the MiG-23 has a HUD that doubles as a radarscope, allowing the pilot to keep his eyes focused at infinity and work with his radar. It also allowed the Soviets to dispense with the radarscope on the MiG-23. This feature was carried over into the MiG-29, though in that aircraft a cathode ray tube (CRT) was carried on the upper right corner that can act as a radarscope as well. Western opinions about this "head-up radarscope" are mixed. The Israelis were impressed, but an American F-16 pilot criticizes it as "sticking a transparent map in front of the HUD" and not providing a three-dimensional presentation that will accurately cue a pilot's eyes to look for a fighter as it appears in a particular direction.
en.wikipedia.org...
Originally posted by srsairbags
damn good post stellar . . i never knew the mig 23 was evaluated as superior to the f-16( earlier versions) . . .
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I get sick from the kind of bilge thrown around here. You have the near-fascist role-playing game space cadet drivel coming from the Seekerofs and WestPoints, all the way to the childish nationalistic chest-thumping of the StealthSpys and chinawhites. I really didn't want to trash anybody here,
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Address my original post. I am not looking forward to a new discussion where we blast each other...
Originally posted by GT100FV
It'd have to be a very early version, only armed with AIM 9s. I'd put it more on par with an F-4 Phantom.
Originally posted by StellarX
Originally posted by GT100FV
It'd have to be a very early version, only armed with AIM 9s. I'd put it more on par with an F-4 Phantom.
Well i am sure you have good reason to question those quotes and as i always like learning new things feel free to link me to your sources...
Why would he compare fighter versions from different era's by the way?
Stellar
Originally posted by GT100FV
The advantages a MIG 23 would've had over an F-16A were BVR missiles, higher top speed, and perhaps acceleration in some flight realms.