The fiasco of the Chinese "Sushki" in the sky over Thailand. Unknown Falcon Strike 2015 Exercise Details

Interesting food for thought in the Russian and Chinese expert communities was provided on December 14, 2019 by the eminent Indian military-analytical portal bharat-rakshak.com, in one of the sections of which were published a graph and a table with previously unknown results of joint flight tactical exercises of the Chinese Air Force and the Royal Thai Air Force Falcon Strike 2015, held in the vicinity of the Thai Korat air base from November 12 to 30, 2015 using heavy multi-role fighters of the 4+ generation J-11A and JAS-39C / D Gripen.

The defeat of the Chinese J-11A in training long-range aerial battles with the Thai JAS-39C / D has a lot of technological justification

Graphic and tabular data, scrupulously compiled on the basis of the ratio of victories and defeats of both types of machines during several stages of the exercises, clearly demonstrated the complete inability of the Chinese J-11s (licensed copy of the Su-27SK from Shenyang Aircraft Corporation) to oppose the Gripen the Thai Air Force both in long-range aerial combat at a distance of 80 km and more (24: 0 ratio) and in medium-range combat at a distance of 20–80 km (64:14 ratio). And only in close air combat (BVB), called the “dog dump” in NATO Allied Forces, the ratio of victories and defeats amounted to 86:12 not in favor of the Thai “Gripen”.

The poorly informed representatives of the “ordinary blogosphere”, who do not have the necessary range of data on the flight and technical characteristics, as well as the technical parameters of the onboard radio-electronic equipment and rocket weapons of the Gripen and J-11 modifications that participated in the exercises, this result caused complete bewilderment, because in their vision, "heavy fighters should maintain confident dominance over light multi-role fighters in long-range air combat, while LFI should counter the potential of heavy twin-engine aircraft in a "dogfight". In reality, this opinion does not have a single technological or operational-tactical justification.

As detailed monitoring of the Chinese segment of the Internet in the last quarter of 2015 showed, the PLAAF command used early modification J-11A multirole fighters belonging to the 6th Regiment of the 2nd Fighter Wing in these exercises. aviation division, stationed at the Suixi airbase, located in the Guandu military district of the province of the same name. Multifunctional J-11A fighters are equipped with modernized onboard radars of the H001VE type of the Panda project, represented by Cassegrain antenna arrays with additional bypass channels for implementing the air-to-surface mode.

Despite the fact that these radars boast a 10% increase in energy potential compared to the early (standard) version of the H001 radar, their noise immunity still leaves much to be desired, and the range of "capture" targets like "JAS-39C / D "(EPR is about 1,7 sq. M) does not exceed 75-80 km, while the standard airborne radars with slot antenna array PS-05A of the Thai JAS-39C / D" Gripen "can" capture "J-11A on a similar distance, because it is well known that the latter can not boast of the availability of means to reduce radar constant signatures, having an effective reflective surface of the order of 12-15 kV. m

Consequently, during the long-range aerial combat phase worked out as part of the Falcon Strike 2015 exercises, the crews of the Thai Gripen and the Chinese J-10A, using the PS-05A and H001VE radars, found each other almost simultaneously, on the basis of which it is still impossible to predict the establishment of air supremacy by fighter units of one or another side. The following question arises: what factors contributed to the unconditional victory of the JAS-39C / D?

First of all, we are talking about simulated air-to-air missiles, the tactical and technical parameters of which were included in the software of the weapons control system (SUV) of fighters, which is responsible for simulating virtual air combat in general and electronic launches in particular. So, if the parameters of the far from the most promising medium-range PL-11 guided air combat missiles, equipped with active radar seekers of the 12B-9E type and possessing an effective range of only 1348-70 km, were entered in the SUV of Chinese J-85A, then the simulation software the armament control systems of the Thai Gripenov with maximum probability the parameters of long-range air-to-air guided missiles AIM-120C-5/7 with an intercept range of 105 and 120 km, respectively, were introduced.

And even if the low-energy PS-39A radars installed on the JAS-05C/D did not allow the Gripen crews to fully realize the range potential of the AMRAAMs, their early launch from a distance of more than 110 km could be possible thanks to the implementation of the HOJ mode (homing on interference; in the case of the use of container complexes by J-11A pilots EW L005-S "Sorbtsiya"), or by target designation from the onboard radiation warning system, capable of taking bearings and calculating the angular coordinates of the radiation source (in our case, the Chinese N001VE radar) at a distance of about 200-250 km. As for the Chinese J-11A, the PL-12 air-to-air missiles mounted on their hardpoints, which have not such "long-lasting" single-mode solid-propellant rocket motors (in comparison with the AIM-120C-5/7), would not have allowed interception of the Thai Gripens at a distance of 90-100 km even if the SPO-15 "Beryozha" onboard radiation warning systems or the KJ-2000 airborne early warning and control aircraft had taken direct part in the target designation process.

To maintain the combat stability of the PLA Air Force in the Falcon Strike 2015 exercises, the use of prototypes of advanced multi-functional fighters of the 4 ++ J-11B generation equipped with promising long-sighted airborne radars with AFAR, as well as with an updated information field for crew cabins, could be maintained , modern terminals for the exchange of information on tactical air conditions and updated software for simulating air combat at medium and long ranges.

The last paragraph provides for the introduction of templates with the parameters of the “virtual” PL-15 aerial combat missiles with integral ramjet engines and a range of 200-250 km. Digital launches of the “virtual” air-blast devices of this type, possessing the highest speed and maneuverability even on the terminal portion of the flight path, would provide the J-11A with complete dominance over the Swedish 4+ generation vehicles.

Comments

[Borik]

They found each other almost simultaneously, on the basis of which it is still impossible to predict the establishment of air supremacy by fighter units of one or another side. The following question arises: what factors contributed to the unconditional victory of the JAS-39C / D?

So probably it all depends on the professionalism of the pilots.

[ccsr]

Quote: Borik

So probably it all depends on the professionalism of the pilots.

And not only the pilots, but also the entire structure of the armed forces, where the capabilities of ground-based air defense systems and the capabilities of the orbital grouping must be taken into account, i.e. the presence of military communications and reconnaissance satellites, the capabilities of radio intelligence units, including reconnaissance aircraft of the Il-20M or A-50 type, so that you can understand who will ultimately win. So, such an analysis can be taken seriously only by those who do not understand how all this will be carried out in a real situation during the war.

[aws4]

yes yes everything you wrote is correct, but the point of the exercises was different.. pure air battles without any ground-based air defense systems, the capabilities of the orbital group, i.e. the presence of military communications and reconnaissance satellites, the capabilities of radio-technical reconnaissance units, including reconnaissance aircraft such as the Il-20M or A-50.. knock knock you read more carefully.. you can also drop a sabotage group onto the enemy airfield so that they can disable all the planes and pilots before takeoff.. and you can also find sooooo many more excuses and opportunities.. sometimes it seems to me that comments are left here only to leave

[ccsr]

Quote: aws4

yes yes everything is correct you wrote only the meaning of the exercises was different .. pure air battles without any ground-based air defense systems

Can you name at least one military conflict between the two states over the past decades, where would aviation be used in its pure form in battles against enemy aircraft?

Quote: aws4

as much as possible oh how many more excuses can I find and opportunities ..

So, in order to push your products to the market, you won’t come up with such fabulous fights - this is especially for the illiterate in military affairs, and professionals already understand that all this is nonsense, and in no real situation of the war of the two states the results of these fights will not help.

Quote: aws4

only the meaning of the teachings was different.

Well, tell me popularly what is the meaning of such exercises and what they give to the troops.

[EvilLion]

Ethiopia vs Eritrea with approximately equal forces. Iran vs Iraq with a mass of both trash on both sides, and advanced F-14s that predictably bent, and all sorts of F-5s predictably not.

[ccsr]

Quote: EvilLion

Ethiopia vs Eritrea with approximately equal forces.

Not funny.

Quote: EvilLion

Iran vs Iraq with a mass of both trash on both sides, and advanced F-14s that predictably bent, and all sorts of F-5s predictably not.

But weren’t they using air defense means and the results of reconnaissance of radio parts? And if someone spared money for air defense, then these are the problems of the belligerents, and not an example of the pure battle of different types of aircraft. I don’t mention about the fact that both sides were helped by presenting intelligence data from other countries, but that was also. So whatever one may say, the planes fought far from in their pure form - this is a fact. And in general, this war is characterized not so much by the use of aircraft as by the use of ground forces, so this example is dubious.

[EvilLion]

Sorry, but the battles between Ethiopia and Eritrea are much more informative than raids on any Serbia with a force ratio of 100: 1, and even that radar does not work.

[ccsr]

Quote: EvilLion

Sorry, but the battles between Ethiopia and Eritrea are much more informative,

I think they cannot be informative, if only because the level of training of the pilots of those countries greatly affects the results of the battle, and their level has never been highly evaluated.

[ccsr]

Quote: EvilLion

Ethiopia vs Eritrea with approximately equal forces.

Better study our experience of the Patriotic War, which clearly shows what real battles are when, with the help of radio reconnaissance, the take-offs of enemy aircraft are revealed:

[knn54]

It will be interesting to hear the opinion of Chinese experts.

[Hexenmeister]

Chinese experts will laugh at all this... in 2015, comparing equipment that both sides have at the level of the 90s, while one side, the Chinese, had the most boring and old G they had, and the other, the best they had, and also in terms of electronic launches... a game of a huge tiger with a small mouse, that's what it is. And the pearl about target designation from "Bereza" is worthy of respect! :)

[tlauicol]

Quote: knn54

It will be interesting to hear the opinion of Chinese experts.

The Chinese in their press scolded the pilots in the summer, and at the beginning of December one of the falcon strike 15 participants made a detailed report on these exercises. Their mood was not festive. Gripeny broke them.
For the last 3 years in a row, the Chinese have not put up su27 against them, but have flown in single-engine j10

[Thrifty]

That is, missiles on the Chinese counter-attacks from the aircraft were Chinese? What can I say, in fact, Damantsev gave little information, there are no the same schedules to which he refers, and so you can only build speculation, which there and how failed. ..

[Tibidokh]

Quote: Thrifty

Chinese counterfeit missiles

J-11 is not counterfeit, but built under the license of Su-27SK. Counterfeit is J-15 (Su-33) and J-16 (Su-30MKK, aka J-13).
In turn, the PL-12 rocket is a joint development of Russian NPO Agat and Vympel and Chinese engine builders.

equipped with active radar seeker type 9B-1348E

[anjey]

Whoever discovered and captured the target, he won, it was so and it will be so, the battle of the PNS, aircraft radar is eternal.

[Vlad.by]

This, like, are you sure that launching a rocket at 100% ensures the defeat of the target ???
Have you heard anything about the probability of defeat? About interference, about missile defense ...

[anjey]

Maybe I spoke too categorically about this concept, but of course I’ll correct myself that I didn’t talk about 100% defeat. Of course, everything is improving, and missiles, which are becoming increasingly difficult to get away from, and means of dealing with them.
Heat traps, dipoles and missiles with TG, leaving in the sun, this is yesterday.

[Skubudu]

The same thing the Americans on the Red flag show. Winning:
Minimum EPR, Radar, Missiles,
Speed, fuel supply.
...Super maneuverability and close combat are for air shows and movies like "Top Gun"
Dog fight in modern aerial combat will not.

[YakimovSS]

Excuse me, where did you get this?
Something tells me that the Su-30MKI do not shine with the "Minimum possible EPR".

[Spambox]

In the case of aim 120 -7 and especially d with a launch range of up to 180 km, neither the Chinese nor we have a chance in a long-range battle. Even if you see it first, you will get a pill from a distance inaccessible to you. Until there is a new missile, smoke on the sidelines.

[TermNachTer]

The airplane is not fighting on its own. In modern combat, various forces and means are involved. The issue must be considered in a complex, and separate parts to be torn out.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: anjey

Whoever discovered and captured the target, he won, it was so and it will be so, the struggle of the PNS, aircraft radar is eternal

This is only if both parties agreed to converge in this place at this time.
"Mom - do not cry" (C)

[anjey]

And what is the purpose of early warning air defense radar (S-400-500), when some aircraft (enemy) break through and opponents fly in coordinates for a polite interception, missiles of complexes in reserve, tactical situations can be different

[Amateur]

Indian military analytical portal bharat-rakshak.com, in one of the sections of which were published a graph and a table with previously unknown results of the joint flight tactical exercises of the Chinese Air Force and the Royal Thai Air Force “Falcon Strike 2015”

Refer to Indian! The portal about the exercises of the Chinese Air Force is the same as referring to the site "Peacemaker" about the Russian-South African exercises.

Cassegrain antenna arrays

SW Mr. Damantsev!
1. Cassegrain antenna arrays do not exist. This is a variant of the parabolic antenna.
2. Cassegrain antennas, Slot antennas, Phased array antennas with an external RF oscillator, AFAR - these are all TECHNOLOGIES for forming the radiation pattern of a transceiver antenna.
3. There are quite complex algorithms for generating transmitted RF antenna signals by an antenna device and processing algorithms for reflected RF signals received by an antenna device.
4. The combination of factors from clause 2,3 determines the distance to reflecting objects, their number and direction vectors to them. This is called "Radar Characteristics".
You specialize in such articles, so besides the names, learn how the radar works and then your articles will be much more interesting.!

[Zaurbek]

Then, there will be a knock on his door at night ....

[Amateur]

Then, there will be a knock on his door at night ...

Only one option: "Eugene! Finally! You could!"

[Tusv]

I will supplement the questions of the user Dilettante, who is not an amateur at all, but just a former amateur. And everyone knows that a former amateur is a professional.
Remind me, Mr. Damantsev, who has ramjet engines in the world?

[Pavel57]

Isn't the European Meteor rocket with a ramjet engine?

[Tusv]

Quote: Pavel57

Isn't the European Meteor rocket with a ramjet engine?

They say. In theory, the ramjet is the simplest, but so far it doesn't fly. And the Americans went further. If it's not a ramjet, then you're lying that Avangards, Tsirkons, and Kinzhals aren't hypersonic.

[Octopus]

Quote: Tusv

ramjet theory is the simplest, only until fig

He flew back in WWII. Only nafig is not needed, as a rule.

Quote: Tusv

you are all about Vanguards, Zircons, Daggers not hypersound

Really lying, but there is nothing to do with the ramjet. Naturally, from ancient times rockets supported hypersound in atmospheric parts of a ballistic trajectory, simply no one had screwed this word before and without reason.

[Pavel57]

You list the ramjet rockets that have been in service with countries since the 50s?

[Kaw]

The J-11A multi-functional fighters are equipped with modernized Panda type H001VE airborne radars, presented by Cassegrain antenna arrays with additional bypass channels for implementing the air-to-surface mode

The H001 radar does not have a Kesegren antenna, but also a slot antenna array, like this Grippen. But the range they have for some reason is very different.

[Hexenmeister]

H001 without any letters at the end was put on its Su-27, and there is the Cassegrain antenna.

[Kaw]

Yes, I was wrong.

[Fraracol_2]

Most likely, Chinese cars are not so bad, but Swedish ones are good.

[sevryuk]

I recognize Damantsev by his walk ... Oh, by the beginning: "Everything is lost, sir, everything is lost"! Or "Fucked up the polymers!"

[akarfoxhound]

class !!! Everything to the point!
Py.Sy. mugs "Witnesses Damantsev"

[rocket757]

Teachings, this is not a fight! they simulate different situations, in order to correctly develop tactics for any cases ... it is justified.
It’s for promotions can \ necessarily different setups, juggling suits.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: rocket757

Teachings, this is not a fight!

But the air defense system is not - an airplane.

[rocket757]

Air defense system is also airplanes too.
All inclusive.

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: rocket757

Air defense system is also airplanes too.

No. The concept of "System" does not imply individual elements of it.
"System" is a system.
According to Wiki, the System (dr. Greek σύστημα "whole, made up of parts; connection") is a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which forms a certain integrity, unity.

[rocket757]

Quote: DED_peer_DED

No. The concept of "System" does not imply individual elements of it.

What is the question then?
SYSTEM, systemic air defense is a lot of things interconnected through team coordination centers. Aviation, as an element of air defense, is a must.
Now, in essence, the article ... there are considered the results

joint flight tactical exercises of the Chinese Air Force and the Royal Thai Air Force "Falcon Strike 2015",

So they are being discussed, not modern network military technologies, in which, first of all, a systematic approach to the tactics of conducting air battles and everything else is manifested.

[DED_peer_DED]

in which, first of all, a systematic approach is manifested in the tactics of conducting air battles and everything else.

A "systems approach" to fighter combat?
The lack of electronic warfare systems and their application on both sides .....
This is a flight.
A systematic approach can only be in the concept of overcoming the "Air Defense System".
System in unsystematic collision of some hawks on others? Oh how!
Do you really think these actions are systemic by definition?

[rocket757]

If for you a systematic approach is only overcoming air defense, there is nothing further to condemn, learn the mate part.

[Nikolai]

It seems that the author pecked at linden or cranberries. Well, judge for yourself: what would the Chinese put on their teachings against a obviously stronger enemy, their obviously weaker equipment - well, nonsense. Do it yourself with your own hands - crap!

[Operator]

Damn, maybe the author can wrap up the story like this - in the elderberry garden (the Su-27 lost to the Gripen), and in Kiev the uncle (PL-12 lost the AIM-120C7)

[aws4]

Su-27 lost to the Gripenam as it is ..

[Ros 56]

And in my opinion someone pretends to be a felt boot just in case.

[Prisoner]

For such headings of a horn to beat off a treba! What, write J-11A is not fate?

[Kosh]

Here the title has the right to life, since the J-11A is the Su-27SK assembled under license from the supplied car kits. In addition, a part took part in those exercises, in which both the J-11s assembled in China and the Su-27SK itself were located, which were delivered entirely from Russia before the licensed assembly began. That is, it is quite likely that the latter also flew in these exercises.

[Hexenmeister]

Can anyone say for sure, in this licensed version for China and "Sorption" was included, or the author remembered about it from nothing?

[Pavel57]

The aircraft's EPR differs by an order of magnitude. It is strange that the detection ranges are the same.

[Saxahorse]

JAS-39C / D "Gripen" can "capture" the J-11A at a similar distance, because it is well known that the latter can not boast of the presence of means to reduce the radar signature, having an effective reflective surface of about 12-15 square meters. m

Indian sources seem to have long surpassed British scientists

Forgive me for this, the projection EPR of a fighter can be 15 sq.m. ! ?? From above from space? But if from the front, as usual, it means the oncoming battle, then the Su-27 is certainly larger than the Grippen, but not by 10 times. The ESR of Grippen in 1.7 is similar to the truth, and the ESR of the Su-27 with a frontal projection of about 1.9-2.0 sq.m.

By all indications, the Thai Grippens were able to pull out a victory in these exercises solely due to the calculated mode of the long-range missile, which can really be launched in advance and then (theoretically) capture a suddenly discovered target. This works well if it is known in advance exactly where and at what altitude the enemy will appear.

[tlauicol]

no, there were ranges of 30-50km. and Su27 (j11) could not do anything. Damantsev had to use the Chinese report of the pilots who participated in the exercises to use, rather than Indian fabrications

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: Tlauicol

no, there were ranges of 30-50km

Hang Manstay and breed squadrons in degrees. All. Hambets.

[iouris]

Quote: "with the highest degree of probability" End of quote.
Probability is a number that can take the values ​​[0 ... 1]. Share also has a number. So, the author, or name the number, or admit that you do not know, then such a probability!

[akarfoxhound]

From the first lines of non-professional "digital" nonsense of performance characteristics from a free translator, immediately the thought - yes, this is Zhenek !!! Twisting nonsense just below, for sure !!!
Gentlemen editors, you would still look for real specialists for publishing articles, engineers, real warriors, designers, representatives of military-technical academies. But! These numerous opuses by Damantsev for people who do not use military equipment may pass, but for those who "use" it, the entire "analytics" of Eugene - well, "crap crap". How many times he substantiated the real inconsistency of his articles point by point, but ... Now, even laziness. Fight with windmills.
P.S. What, again, ban for insulting the feelings of believers in the writings of Damantsev ??? Have a nice day!!!

[Kosh]

The Indians have written some nonsense. Firstly, when did the J-11A, i.e. the licensed Su-27SK, become a 4+ generation fighter? Secondly, where did the Indians get the PL-12 missiles (which the Su-27SK and J-11A cannot launch at all), when the RVV-AE missiles were listed as medium-range missiles by the Chinese side, which was what was in the original Chinese charts that the Indians "analyzed".
True, the performance characteristics of the missiles there were some bullied on both sides, the Thais indicated a range of 120 km on the AIM-160, and the Chinese on the RVV-AE 120 km. Perhaps that is why such simulation results were long-range combat.
https://twitter.com/10969YUKIKAZE/status/1204310460658413568

[tlauicol]

Yes, there were no such ranges there - already at 30 and 50 km the Chinese Dryers were raked in - the Chinese themselves spoke about this on the report, and put up schedules.
and the Hindus write some kind of heresy - well-known liars. Damantsev had to take the source "first-hand" - the Chinese were so tough in their successes

[DED_peer_DED]

First of all, we are talking about simulated

"simulated" enough to understand the WHOLE meaning of the article.
A non-Russian person writes computer text. Who should read it? That's right, a robot is a computer.
Not we, should participate.

[ruslanverchenko]

The Chinese do not need airplanes ... they will fill up with mass (joke) .. but .. they really dofiga ..

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Well, the pearl about target designation from "Birch" is worthy of respect! :)

"I hit a birch and gave an oak ...." (C)

[DED_peer_DED]

Quote: Fraancol_2

Most likely, Chinese cars are not so bad, but Swedish ones are good.

What does the Air Defense System have to do with the performance characteristics of aircraft?

[mmaxx]

Here, the thing is that the Su-27 was handed over to the Chinese as it is, in the Soviet version. With Soviet equipment, which at the time of its creation was not advanced, but was generally outdated when transferring a license. That is, iron is good, but the brains are not very good.
That's all. No professionalism will help here. The most interesting thing is that our MO stubbornly resisted (with someone else’s supply) to such an aircraft as the Su-30. First of all, because of the equipment. Like, we need everything to be the same. Though ugly, but uniform.

[Hexenmeister]

I do not agree. The Chinese had a licensed version with the N001VE radar, and this is already a modernized version that allows the use of missiles with an active radar radar seeker, and to work on ground targets, the regular Soviet Su-27 did not. In addition, even before the Chinese, there was a T-10M, and the H011 planned for it had nothing to do with the H001, which does not confirm the idea of ​​the immutability of the equipment.

[mmaxx]

It is customary for us to glorify the domestic, but all the same - the Chinese got stuff. Another thing is that they did not have the best.
And the same thing was with us at that time.
The fact that the plane flies well does not mean that it is super in everything else.

[Hexenmeister]

Before writing about the trash, you need to go back to the 90s, and compare with what was then in service, and preferably F-15 with a slot antenna and escort on the aisle. Or did you already have the F-22 landmark at that time?

[mmaxx]

F-15 is a very good plane. Just like a system. Even now he is very good. In terms of direct combat on the vertical, it is stronger than dryers.

[Hexenmeister]

The lack of OLS gives the F-15 an outstanding system of the 90s. And it was somehow strange, they talked about equipment, but maneuver on the vertical turned out to be the main factor of equipment ..

[Skubudu]

Quote: Hexenmeister

Before writing about the trash, you need to go back to the 90s, and compare with what was then in service, and preferably F-15 with a slot antenna and escort on the aisle. Or did you already have the F-22 landmark at that time?

F-15 did not lose more than one air battle for a minute

[Hexenmeister]

Well, where does it? It was about comparing the Chinese version of the Su-27 with the F-15 level of the 90s.

[michaelruss]

I will briefly comment on another "masterpiece" by Damantsev. Let's build a logical chain. The Chinese flew a licensed Su-27, which means, in Damantsev's opinion, the Su-27 is a rather weak aircraft and inferior to the Swedish Greenpans. Now let's remember two, no, three interesting events. The first was in the mid-90s, when our pilots visited an airbase in the USA on two Su-2s (and the planes arrived under their own power) and the Americans offered them a training fight with an F-27 Eagle. In this fight, the Su-15s completely wiped out the Americans with a clean sheet. The second event, when the Indians on the Su-30 (modernized Su-27) at the American airbase in the 200s conducted a whole series of training battles with the Americans. Moreover, the Americans used the latest modifications of the F15 and DLRO aircraft, and the Indians were partially prohibited from using onboard radars and building a network-centric network (since the parameters of the Su radars were unknown to them and they either demanded that they be provided or turned off. The Indians turned them off). The result of the battles was 15-0 in favor of the Indians. I think it is not worth mentioning that the F15 was armed with AIM 120))) did NOT help. And the last one again with the Indians, but already against the British on their Eurofighters - 12-0 in favor of the Indians. The British then made excuses: we are not serious, we are pretending and other nonsense. Well, here's what happens: the worst is the F15 Eagle with AIM 120 in the latest modification (15-0 against the upgraded Su27 and 2-0 against the old Su27), slightly better than it is the Eurofighter (12-0). Fights with the F22 would probably have a similar outcome, since the F22 lost a training fight to the Rafael (there are plenty of videos online). In general, the best aircraft in the world is the Greenpin:))). By the way, the Meteor missile (a joint European production) that has not yet been released has a range of 180 km, and the KS 172 as much as 400. And another note to the author. The F22 has an active radar with a detection range of only 120 km. Deprive the F22 and F15 of AWACS support and they will be forced to turn on their onboard radars and then there will be no trace of their reduced visibility at all, and given their low maneuverability, the probability of their evading a missile is 10 times lower than that of the Su27.

[mmaxx]

1. Melee battle over the base - this is not the whole battle.
2. The Su-30 is not Su-27 in terms of equipment. This is generally different planes. And it was created without the opinion of our military. Just experts decided to equip the aircraft themselves. Something like that.

[michaelruss]

I wrote that the SU30 is a modernized SU27. And since the glider is the same, we are talking about electronics and partly a power plant .. But the F15 in the middle of 2000 is not F15 from the 90s, but with the letter M for today, in terms of electronics, yes and according to performance characteristics, this is the best fighter in the United States. As for the design of the aircraft, in fact, like any military equipment, without taking into account the opinion and participation of the military, you apparently do not understand what you are writing about.

[mmaxx]

Su-30MK of all varieties was made for export. Customers did not need the old offal of the Su-27. Therefore, a modern aircraft was made for other countries, for sale. And since the RF Ministry of Defense did not pay anything then, no one asked him.
Our warriors did not buy these aircraft for a very long time. As far as I know, at first it was precisely because it was different from the usual Su-27s.

[mmaxx]

And about the deprivation of AWACS, etc., so the coolest thing is to fight with clubs. Only no one is fighting like that.
Fighting in the air with AWACS is right, and a dog dump is wrong.

[michaelruss]

Read more carefully. The Americans used DLRO aircraft and it did not help them even in a situation where the Indians halved the capabilities of their aircraft in terms of radar operation and enemy detection. And even in these conditions the Americans lost 15-0.
And the second: who in real conditions will you allow to use DLRO in real conditions against an opponent comparable in capabilities? This is a very vulnerable and easily visible target for any long-range air defense system.

[mmaxx]

Su-30MKI is not a Su-27UB. Although outwardly they are the same.

[Skubudu]

Over the past 35 years ... In all wars around the globe.
Absolutely all real air battles between Soviet/Russian-built fighters against F-15, F-16, F-18 fighters were lost without a hit. Yugoslavia, the Middle East... in all wars our planes were destroyed. There is documentary evidence of this. The lies of Serbian pilots about how they shot down American fighters in batches with their MiG-29s without evidence.
We lagged behind and are now lagging behind the USA and Europe in avionics and missiles.
Our radars see far only on paper and missiles were not used at all in real battles. Their performance characteristics are good only on brochures.

[michaelruss]

Never and nowhere in air combat did Soviet aircraft (of comparable generations and years of construction) lose to American ones. There is NOT a single DOCUMENTARY confirmation of American victories (their newspapers are not such) MOREOVER, EVERYTHING IS THE OPPOSITE. It is documented (the number of killed pilots and equipment losses, and even understated) that the losses of US and USSR aircraft in Korea were 4 (5) to 1. That is, for every 1 Soviet aircraft shot down, there were 4 (5) American ones, and the losses of flight personnel were 1 to 5. The situation is similar in Vietnam. There, the Americans lost more than 1500 aircraft. The loss ratio in Iraq is fake and propaganda. Even taking into account that the Iraqi generals were bribed, the aircraft were of outdated modifications (15-20 years out of date), the absence of AWACS systems in Iraq and low qualification of pilots, the Americans were afraid of direct clashes and practiced long-range combat. And even with this, they lost a lot of aircraft, and from old air defense systems, dozens of "invisible" F117 and B2 (all this can even be gleaned from reports, when 100 aircraft fly out for an operation and among them 14 F117, but half of them reach their target). Actually, a similar situation is with the "best in the world" Abrams - corpses at every kilometer.
In Yugoslavia, the same systems were in service as in Iraq (read above). And they shot down the Americans in batches and f-117 filled up at least two. And by the way, do you know that since then F117 and B2 planes have been forbidden to fly outside the United States and are not used for military operations? Why do you think this is suddenly?
Soviet MIG 25s flew over Israel armed with Patriots whenever and however they wanted, and no one was able to shoot them down even once.

[eagle owl]

What pain, what pain: "Dry" - "Gripen" - 16: 0

https://afirsov.livejournal.com/507658.html
Just about Falcon Strike - 15. Whoever wants what he sees

[clidon]

The same garbage as the victory of the Indian Su-30 and MiG-21 over the American F-15.

[EvilLion]

I don’t know where the Indians from infa about the training battles of their main potential adversary and from Damantsev infa, that the 2007 Chinese missile is less promising than the AMRAAM C5 / 7 from the beginning of the 2000s. Moreover, max. their launch range is 120 km, in practice it is determined by the speed and height of the carrier.

In addition, the detection range is proportional to the fourth-degree root of the EPR, so a smaller aircraft, if it is not built using low-visibility technologies, has no particular advantages over the Su-4.

And yet, the victory in the exercises is recorded on the fact of a conditional launch, that is, if the gripena's radar is much newer, and the missile has a longer range, then, of course, they will always be the first to perform a conditional launch.

[ccsr]

Quote: EvilLion

And yet, the victory in the exercises is recorded on the fact of a conditional launch, that is, if the gripena's radar is much newer, and the missile has a longer range, then, of course, they will always be the first to perform a conditional launch.

Recently, the Yemeni rabble, without any piloted aircraft, attacked Saudi oil refineries, protected by the latest air defense systems, and showed the world what kind of scenario a war between a poor and a super-rich country might follow. Draw your own conclusions about whether the simulated battles helped the Saudi pilots repel the attack...

[EvilLion]

If the Saudis are such Sauds, then these are the problems of the Saudis, but against the normally organized air defense in Khmeinim so far only banal mortar mines have succeeded, but this is not so much a puncture as the air defense as the perimeter guards that they were able to get.

A normal army can cope with aircraft models and other Volkssturm.

[Magog]

Why are generations 4 ++ and 5 created? It is precisely in these machines that the main requirement is "super maneuverability", which provides an anti-missile capability, as well as to successfully conduct close air combat - the main type of air combat. The fact that someone there fired long-range air-to-air missiles earlier does not mean victory in the battle. He who confidently wins (conditionally) in the nearest "carousel" is a fine fellow! Maneuvers about nothing ...

[Skubudu]

The BB rocket maneuvers with an overload of 20G and the fighter is able to withstand 11-12G and the pilot inside at 10G will lose consciousness ... Dodging a BB rocket using super maneuverability is useless. What missile defense maneuver? The only missile defense maneuver, if at a great distance your radar detects a missile, turn around from it and try to fly off afterburner. How did the Indian SU-30MKI when Pakistani F-16 missiles were launched on them.
The most belligerent country in the sky, the United States abandoned super-maneuverability in favor of invisibility.
The Jews are also switching to the stealth philosophy...well, and of course they use electronic warfare very well. And they fly and attack the enemy who has ground-based air defense.
Leave over-maneuverability for an air show.

[Magog]

A similar thing has already happened in the history of aviation: "The F-4 fighter for a long time remained the main aircraft of the US Air Force and Navy's air superiority. The Phantom's baptism of fire took place on April 2, 1965 in Vietnam, where aircraft of this type met with North Vietnamese fighters. MiG-17F. Since 1966, the main opponents of the "Phantoms" were the MiG-21F aircraft. The US Air Force and Navy had high hopes for the newest fighter, believing that powerful weapons, on-board radar, high speed and acceleration characteristics would provide the "Phantom" with unconditional superiority However, in collisions with lighter and more maneuverable fighters, the F-4s began to suffer defeat due to the higher wing loading and lower angular turn rates of American fighters, limitations on operational overload (6,0 versus 8,0 for MiGs) and attacks, the worst handling of an American plane ... "

[michaelruss]

Americans are the most belligerent, that's true, but only based on wars with Indians (and all their wars are exactly like that) can you draw a conclusion about how best to fight Indians and that's it. But the experience of wars like Vietnam and Korea says that MiGs were superior to Americans by a head, due to which the losses of aviation in Korea for the USA were 4 times higher, and in Vietnam probably even more (if you take only those battles where our pilots flew and not Vietnamese losing consciousness from overloads due to insufficient nutrition)
The maneuver of evading a missile is done so that it loses the target and not to escape (too big difference in speed). Increased maneuverability also allows the missile to be aimed at the target before the enemy and launched. According to American experts, in case of a collision with the SU-35, American aircraft will need at least 3-4 missiles to guarantee the destruction of the target, but the SUs only need 1. In addition, the same F22 has only 2 long-range missiles, and therefore the probability of transition to combat at medium and short distances is very high, and there the Americans have no chance at all.