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.

 

Su-27 Flanker: The Truth

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Umm... the Mig-23 wasn't FBW was it? The F-16 was, as such I think it would be easier to maneuver and control under certain conditions. Also FBW would increase the flight envelope in which it could operate under.




posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Umm... the Mig-23 wasn't FBW was it? The F-16 was, as such I think it would be easier to maneuver and control under certain conditions. Also FBW would increase the flight envelope in which it could operate under.



Yes, the F-16 was better in some conditions, the MiG-23 others.



Western pilots who flew the MiG-23 said its handling was similar to something between the F-4E and the Panavia Tornado in some parts of the flight envelope, and more like the F-105 in others. Soviet manuals considered that the MiG-23MLD's performance and handling was superior to that of the F-4E and, according to even western pilots who flew F-16s such as the Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer who had more than 1200 hrs flying F-16s and flew against MiG-23ML Flogger Gs from air bases in Germany and the state of Nevada, in the United States as part of NATO`s aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment; claimed the MiG-23 had superiority on the vertical plain over the F-16, and horizontaly is just slightly inferior to the F-16, he also said the MiG-23ML had better BVR capabilities than the early F-16 variants. The MiG-23 manual also claimed the MiG-23MLD was superior in what respects acceleration and speed and was slightly inferior in agility to the F-16 at low speeds and heights however at very high speeds and altitudes had better turning ability, but admitted that the F-15 has an overwhelming superiority over the MiG-23 family. The Israelis tested the MiG-23 and found that it had better acceleration than the F-16 and F-18.


Unfortunately the above is open-sourced, and I cannot get a 'proper link' to it - so make of it what you will.


FBW does not automatically increase the flight envelope, for instance, can a B-777 manouvre better than an F-4? Do stunt planes have FBW? Nope for both, aerodynamic design is still key to flight envelope.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

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.


As the original material indicated...


The disadvantages a MIG 23 would have would be the instaneous and sustained turn rates, sustained G, roll rate, lower RCS and small visible footprint of the F-16,


The MIG-23 was a "missileer' to start with and the ML version ( same production year when original Mig-23's went in service in 1970 ) were specifically altered for better WVR ability if it could not break off attacks quickly enough or the mission required such engagements.


limited visibility from cockpit, less sophisticated flight controls, increased cockpit workload.


Actually Russian pilots would work less as the planes were basically flown by ground control to the engagement zone. The reduced visibility is not 'important' in the battlefield the Mig-23 were designed to figth in even if it frequently killed third world pilots who tried to do the WVR routine.


I think real world experience has shown which aircraft has been more succesful in air combat.


It has? I got the distinct impression most Mig were lost before they took off considering the pilots manning them. Why does so many pretend that the doctrine on which basis the Mig-23 were build were anything like the doctrine the F-16 were designed for?


As for the F-4 comparison- they're both the same era of design, though the F-4 has had pretty good success against the -23 as well.


Actually the F-4 came into service a full ten years earlier and was a much much bigger plane. I am pretty sure they could have built and operated at least two or three- Mig-23's for the same resource expenditure over the aircraft's service period. I don't think the Phantom had any margin of advantage that could have made up for such disparity.

Not really sure what i should compare the Phantom with as the USSR lacks similar 'fighters' in that era.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I apologize for not knowing the NATO names for these missiles, I learned all of these things in Russian
.


I'm just going to post the NATO names for the missiles I named for clarification of my noted post.

R-27R = AA-10 Alamo A
R-27T = AA-10 Alamo B
R-27ER = AA-10 Alamo C
R-27ET = AA-10 Alamo D
R-27AE = AA-10 Alamo E

R-73 = AA-11 Archer

R-77 = AA-12 Adder



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Since we're talking about Soviet MiG 23 MLDs and F-16 equivalents(blk 15), I thought this narration of a live encounter between the two would serve as a good read on how the two types of a/c matched up in a2a.
Note the relevant F-16 armanent for all purposes was the AIM-9L and the AIM-9P while for the VVS(Soviet AF) it was The R-24.

Also note that both AFs were fielding their best squadrons:

For the PAF it was 2 F-16As of the 14 Sqn(having ample flight hours from 1986-89), both flown by Sqn Ldrs; thus this was more or less the top brass for the PAF

The VVS had 12 MiG-23 MLDs (8 for interdiction bombing in the Kunar Valley and 4 as escort for these 8.
The 4 MiG 23s were flown by 2 majors, one Lt. Col and one 1st Lt. ; notably all from the much feared 120 IAP FA of the VVS(The 120 IAP were stationed in East Germany as FA and revered by NATO apparently).



At 06:06AM of 12 September 1988, two F-16As of the 14th Squadron, flown by Sqn.Ldr. Khalid Mahmood (on F-16A 85-728) and Sqn.Ldr. Anwar Hussain took off from Kamra AB in order to set up a CAP over the Nawagai area. Around 06:40AM, they were vectored by the GCI to intercept two contacts which were closing the Pakistani border at high level in eastern direction. Both F-16s were soon in proper position, but the contacts then turned to the north flying parallel to the border. In fact, there were not only two, but a total of 12 MiG-23MLDs of the 120. IAP in the air that morning, eight of which were loaded with bombs and have got the order to attack certain targets in the Kunar Valley, while four - split in two pairs (Lt.Col. Sergey Bulin with Maj. N. Golisienko, and Maj. S. Petkov with 1st Lt. V. Danchenkov) - acted as escorts. Detecting four additional contacts, the GCI swiftly turned the F-16s towards the new threat, and Sqn.Ldr. Mahmood acquired a total of six contacts, of which four in the forward formation were trailed by additional two coming from behind. The only problem for Pakistanis now was, that the F-16s were still at the level of 3.500 meters, while their targets flew at more than 10.000 meters, and the rear pair of the targets was flying much faster than the first four aircraft. Indeed, the Soviet GCI detected Pakistani F-16s, and advised Petkov and Danchenkov to block them, while the rest of the formation was to turn back towards West. But, the Pakistanis were faster: closing to a distance of 12km, Mahmood achieved a radar lock-on, but his Sidewinders failed to track the target, as the Soviet pilots engaged their IR counter measures. Mahmood started no less but three attempts to acquire, but failed to do so and, after closing to a distance of less than three kilometres, tried for a fourth time. Finally, he was successful, and fired one AIM-9L from a low-to-high/left-to-right conversion attack and 135° aspect angle. His target was MiG-23MLD „Bort 55“, flown by Capt. Sergey Privalov, which engaged his IRCM. The Sidewinder closed, however, and exploded over his aircraft, sending dozens of hot splinters into the wings and the fuselage. The whole Soviet section executed a turn to the West now, with Privalov in tow and Petkov and Danchenkov joining the formation without - as it seems - trying to engage F-16s with their R-24s, while Bulin and Golisienko closed from the north and certainly tried to acquire a lock on. However, Mahmood was already executing a hard port turn underneath the enemy formation, rolling out directly behind it and in a perfect attack position behind no less but six MiG-23MLDs! His radar immediately achieved another lock-on, but Mahmood rejected the lock and switched over to an auto-lock, which automatically selected his two AIM-9P missiles, considered better for stern attack. Closing to a distance of three kilometres, the Pakistani fired another missile at the MiG-23MLD flown by Maj. Petkov, when the GCI warned him of two Soviet aircraft directly behind. Mahmood broke hard into the threat, but found nothing there, only to - upon a turn back to the west - realize that the rest of the Soviet formation was already too far away to be intercepted and almost over the Afghani border. For two F-16 pilots there remained nothing else but to return back to their base.

According to Pakistani reports, this warning of two Soviet aircraft behind Mahmood and Hussain was caused by a radar controller, Sqn.Ldr. Irfan-ul-Haq, misinterpreting a clutter on his scope. In fact Lt.Col. Sergey Bulin and Maj. N. Golisienko were closing from that side, however, their Sapheer-23ML radars were not able to pick-up the lower flying F-16s (probably due to a ground clutter), thus denying them a chance to attack with R-24 missiles. Subsequently they turned towards the West and joined the rest of the formation. Privalov’s MiG-23MLD „55“ managed it back to Bagram (albeit it overshoot the runway and was badly damaged when the nose-leg collapsed), just like Petkov, whose aircraft was not damaged at all.


I doubt there have been any other encounters between the Blk 15 F-16 and the MiG23 MLD(except for the PAF fratricide which we can look into later).

Looks like the F-16 exhibited a sharper turn radius while the MLDs had better
acceleration. The altitudes of both parties(esp VVS MiGs) contributed greatly to neither party claiming a confirmed A2A kill. Also the MiG 23 MLD IRCMs seemed effective restricting F-16 AIM lockons. It would have been an interesting encounter had the MiGs not bugged out.



posted on Jan, 11 2007 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Something I posted elsewhere which is actually very relevant to this thread:




And here I'd like to make another point to guys who posted in the Su-27 thread:
'Soviet-era(and so presumably tactics today) combat tactics for soviet/Russian aircraft were/are highly dependant on GCI and C4ISR'.. You guys are right but this was for a reason.. The VVS(Soviet AF) doctrine was initially(until fighters like the MiG29 and Su27+ came into play) to provide CAS for advancing Soviet ground forces and home fleet defense against NATO/USAF bombers. In these scenarios(esp homeland air defense) Soviet GCI would have 90% situational awareness 100% of the time. So this was never a 'drawback' as such. Deep interdiction missions(where GCI support would be minimal)were never a part of the soviet air combat training regime . Also here's another thing: The VVS was essentially made up of two types of fighter roles : the FA and the PVO.
The PVO was designated for home air defense and these were the guys that flew completely within the framework offered by GCI.
Now the FA(Frontal Aviation) were the guys based in forward areas and these were the top-brass of the VVS. These guys I believe had a separate training regime and operated in a more autonomous fashion as compared to the PVO. The 120 IAP was one such FA sqn and was deployed in East Germany I think: obviously they were the best their country had to offer and were tasked with roles that probably ranged from CAS/CAP to deep interdiction strikes to support advacing armored columns(minimal GCI support). These guys were feared and revered by NATO and for good reason. The FA in concert with the Soviet ground forces would have been an awesome invasion force.
Now with the introduction of the MiG-29 and the Su-27 and the advancements included like radar,missiles,avionics etc.; deep interdiction became much easier and much more autonomous.
Infact though many criticise the MiG-29 for the Soviet-short-legs syndrome(i.e. ridiculously inferior range),
IMHO(and that of the authors of certain articles I've been reading) it is not so much worse than the Su 27 in that aspect when you consider various points like positioning of fueltanks,radar and of course manueverability.
So the MiG-29 was/is good for deep interdiction as well if configured properly.
Moreover with the advent of Su-27 upgrades like the Su-30(MKI is the best of the lot of course! .. no really! ) the dependancy on GCI has greatly reduced.
With powerful radars like the N011M/ZhukM interwoven into AWACS like the Phalcon(InAF) and KJ-2000(PLAAF) the GCI dependancies of the remainder of the aerial interdiction force (J-8s,J-10,J7E/F/P,MiG-21Bison,MiG-21Bis,MiG-27ML,MiG23BN,Mirage 2000,Jaguar etc) have greatly been reduced.
The Su27 variants flying in these AFs(and presumably the Russian AF) themselves serve as mini-relay AWACS.
Note: Since this 'data-feed sharing' happens in the InAF I presume it most definitely happens in the Russian AF(only doctrines may again be different here) and there's no doubt that the Chinese are working towards such a capability if they don't have it already. The only thing is that the Chinese currently don't have a fighter radar of N011M pedigree. I believe the best they have is the ZhukM. Maybe the J10 has something better?

Summary:
The Soviet dependancy on GCI may have been more than average but it wasn't necessarily a disadvantage esp because they flew to doctrines designed specifically for their goals.
Today there is very little dependancy on GCI and C4ISR for any Russian a/c for the reasons mentioned above.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that one should look beyond soviet GCI depedancy when analysing soviet/Russian a/c like the Su 27.
Look beyond geographically and in terms of time as well.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
For a start, I'd compare the Su-27 to the F-15, and the MiG-29 to the F-16.


A Flanker will never roll with a Falcon, and an Eagle will never with a Fulcrum - end of. AKA - in a dogfight, the F-16 holds the aces over the Su-27, and the MiG-29 over the F-15.

It is generally agreed that the F-16 has better high energy manouvering than the MiG-29, but at low speeds, the Fulcrum murders it.

With its lifting fuselage, the Su-27 is meant to be superior to the F-15 in almost all manouvering aspects.


However, both the MiG-29 and Su-27 have a common major shortfall - the straight and short duct length to their exposed fan blade rows. The F-15 and F-16 has similar problems (although not to the same extent).

The Avionics on the F-16 and F-15 are more user friendly than those on the Flanker and Fulcrum (modern prototypes aside).


I'm not gonna say which is "better", as it will only generate arguments, each aircraft has its strengths and weaknesses, and it will be the pilot that brings his strength to bear on the other's weakness that wins.


So you say that F-16 and MiG-29 are better in dogfight than F-15 and Su-27. Really? Let's take a look at the combat record of MiG-29 "Fulcrum"


Air victories: 12 + 1 UAV

1987 MiG-29 (Russia) - 4 x Su-22 (Afghanistan / Mujahedin)
19.01.1991 MiG-29 (Irak) - 1 x Tornado GR Mk1 (RAF)
24.02.1996 MiG-29UB (Cuba) - 2 x Cessna 337 (USA / civilian)
25.02.1999 MiG-29 (Eritreea) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Ethiopia)
26.02.1999 MiG-29 (Eritreea) - 2 x MiG-21 (Ethiopia)
15.05.2000 MiG-29 (Eritreea) - 1 x Su-25 (Ethiopia)
18.05.2000 MiG-29 (Eritreea) - 1 x MiG-21 (Ethiopia)
28.04.2008 MiG-29 (Russia) - 1 x UAV (Georgia)


Losses in air to air combat : 20

2.06.1989 F-15C (Israel) - 2 x MiG-29 (Syria)
17.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 3 x MiG-29 (Irak)
19.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-29 (Irak)
25.02.1999 Su-27 (Ethiopia) - 2 x MiG-29 (Eritreea)
18.03.1999 Su-27 (Ethiopia) - 2 x MiG-29 (Eritreea)
24.03.1999 F-16AM (Holland) - 1 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
24.04.1999 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
26.04.1999 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
4.05.1999 F-16CJ (USAF) - 1 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
18.05.2000 Su-27 (Ethiopia) - 1 x MiG-29 (Eritreea)
14.09.2001 F-15C (Israel) - 2 x MiG-29 (Syria)


And the results are:

F-15 vs MiG-29 : 13:0
Su-27 vs MiG-29 : 5:0
F-16 vs MiG-29 : 2:0



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX







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.


As the original material indicated...


The disadvantages a MIG 23 would have would be the instaneous and sustained turn rates, sustained G, roll rate, lower RCS and small visible footprint of the F-16,


The MIG-23 was a "missileer' to start with and the ML version ( same production year when original Mig-23's went in service in 1970 ) were specifically altered for better WVR ability if it could not break off attacks quickly enough or the mission required such engagements.


limited visibility from cockpit, less sophisticated flight controls, increased cockpit workload.


Actually Russian pilots would work less as the planes were basically flown by ground control to the engagement zone. The reduced visibility is not 'important' in the battlefield the Mig-23 were designed to figth in even if it frequently killed third world pilots who tried to do the WVR routine.


I think real world experience has shown which aircraft has been more succesful in air combat.


It has? I got the distinct impression most Mig were lost before they took off considering the pilots manning them. Why does so many pretend that the doctrine on which basis the Mig-23 were build were anything like the doctrine the F-16 were designed for?


As for the F-4 comparison- they're both the same era of design, though the F-4 has had pretty good success against the -23 as well.


Actually the F-4 came into service a full ten years earlier and was a much much bigger plane. I am pretty sure they could have built and operated at least two or three- Mig-23's for the same resource expenditure over the aircraft's service period. I don't think the Phantom had any margin of advantage that could have made up for such disparity.

Not really sure what i should compare the Phantom with as the USSR lacks similar 'fighters' in that era.

Stellar



The combat record of F-4 Phantom II vs MiG-23 "Flogger"


F-4 vs MiG-23 2.45:1


MiG-23 vs F-4 kills : 11

15.04.1974 MiG-23MS (Syria) - 2 x F-4E (Israel)
15.10.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 2 x F-4E (Iran)
16.10.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4D (Iran)
- 1 x F-4E (Iran)
22.11.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4D (Iran)
28.11.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4E (Iran)
4.02.1981 MiG-23 (Irak) - 1 x F-4E (Iran)
14.06.1987 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 2 x F-4E (Iran)


F-4 vs MiG-23 kills : 27

22.09.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
25.09.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 4 x MiG-23 (Irak)
27.09.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
28.09.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 4 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
13.10.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
7.12.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
21.01.1981 F-4E (Iran) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
26.04.1981 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
1982 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
20.11.1982 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
3.12.1982 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23MS (Irak)
1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23ML (Irak)
14.01.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
03.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-27 (Russia)
11.03.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
15.03.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
15.11.1986 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
22.11.1987 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
14.06.1988 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Irak)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV

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


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.

The disadvantages a MIG 23 would have would be the instaneous and sustained turn rates, sustained G, roll rate, lower RCS and small visible footprint of the F-16, limited visibility from cockpit, less sophisticated flight controls, increased cockpit workload.

I think real world experience has shown which aircraft has been more succesful in air combat. As for the F-4 comparison- they're both the same era of design, though the F-4 has had pretty good success against the -23 as well.



The combat record of F-16 Fighting Falcon vs MiG-23 "Flogger"


F-16 vs MiG-23 kills: 16

7.06.1982 F-16 (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
8.06.1982 F-16 (Israel) - 4 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
9.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
10.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
11.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 6 x MiG-23 (Syria)
24.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
17.01.1993 F-16C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-23 (Irak)


MiG-23 vs F-16 kills: 0



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I am not too familiar with the Su-35/37 "Super Flankers," but my guess is that they are not too far removed from the Su-27 in terms of aerodynamic performance. Or are they?
This is the most telling comment in your monolgue. Whilst you are making some valid points, I think you are also missing some of the context.

Labels like "Su-27" can mean any of a number ofd Flanker or even Fullback varients, just as "F-16" comes in many varients. The more recent varients and capabilities differ greatly from the oldest versions.

So if you compare the older Su-27 varients (which evidently you are), then you ought to compare them against older F-16 varients.

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

In BVR combat the Su-27 has the advantage because it has slightly more versitle BVR missiles and carries more of them. The F-16C of this time would have carried a pair of Aim-7 Sparrows with about 70km range, whereas the standard fit for the Su-27 was 4 AA-10 Alamo-B (70km range) and 2 AA-10 Alamo-A IR fire-and-forget missiles (aboutt 30km range). Given that both the Alamo and Sparrows would typically be ripple fired, that gives the F-16 one shot whereas the Su-27 has three, plus they include fire-anf forget and multiple wavelength attack (both radar and IR). The F-16C's radar is better mind, and the Sparrow has probably got a slightly better kill ratio than the Alamo, but probably not enough to give the lightly armed F-16 the edge.

In the WVR world the Su-27 has a MASSIVE adavantage over the F-16C of the late 1980s, namely the AA-11 Archer missile and associated IRST/HMS targeting. The F-16C may be more agile, but it has 2 (maybe 4 in a 'heavy' load) AIM-9L or AIM-9P Sidewinders which have a maximum range of just 18km and an engagement envelope of only about 15 degrees (going by memory, look it up). Whereas the vastly superior AA-11 had a range of about 30km and an engagement envelope of up to 60degrees off-boresite. The superiority of the AA-11 was proven when former East German Mig-29s joined the Luftwaffe and NATO got a first hande experience of the missile.

It's worth noting that whilst the Sidewinder has some merits, only the latest AIM-9X really compares to the AA-11 and that is not very widely deployed even now - in fact even the F-22s still have old model AIM-9s.

Since the late 1980s, both aircraf tand their resprctive weapons fits have evolved. In general the F-16, though increasingly capable, is really turning into a bit of the Dolly Parton of the skys and recent developmemts have more to do with leveraging US international influence and established production lines than it still being the optimum aircraft.

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.



To have the complete picture, here is the list of aircraft with thrust vectoring:


2D thrust vectoring

F-15 S/MTD
F-22 Raptor
Su-37 "Flanker-F"
Su-30MKI "Flanker-H"
Su-30MKM "Flanker-H"


3D thrust vectoring

X-31 EFM
F-15 ACTIVE
F-16 MATV
F/A-18 HARV
MiG-29 OVT
MiG-35 "Fulcrum-F"
Su-35 "Flanker-E"
Su-35BM "Flanker-E"
Suhoi T-50

Not all this fighter versions are in production, but the technology exists. More important than thrust vectoring is Helmet Mounted Sight with High Off-Boresight Missiles. Regarding dogfight missiles, the AA-11 has a max angle of 60 deg, AIM-9X has 90 deg max angle, Python 4 more than 60 deg and Python 5 can be launched in any direction (full sphere)

en.wikipedia.org...

www.sci.fi...

www.rafael.co.il...


and guess what, US will buy Python 5 missiles, which are operational on israeli F-15 and F-16

www.f-16.net...

www.youtube.com...


If you take a look in the movie at 2:43 that israeli F-15 was flying streight and level when it launched the missile at a target more than 90 deg of it's right wing, and the missile hit it.







edit on 5-6-2011 by kondor because: type error



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join