Combat Aircraft Comparison stats

[Boolag]

You put a bad pilot in a good airplane, and he or she fights a good pilot in a less capable or equivelant aircraft.....The good pilot wins every time.

Airframes and the systems are just tools, they don't mean a damn thing if you have more money than brains and experience.

Well said..(Kinda getting off topic a little, but heres something for ya'll to take a look at.)
For those interested heres a link showing what the Pilots of the RNZAF Air combat wing(R.I.P.) were capable of, Flying A-4k Skyhawks in Air-Air exercises Vs. the best aircraft several nations in the Asia pacific reigon had to offer..including Malaysian Mig-29's +Aussie F/A-18's

http://www.gibstuff.net/a4_alley/index.html and then goto 'Kiwi A-4's in flight' and check out the vids ATA 1-4.
To Quote Ross Ewing, Author of 'Requiem for the Skyhawk'-"the RNZAF Kahu Pilots were experts at 'Knife-fighting in a PhoneBooth' "

 

[Apocalypse]

Su-30MKK is best Russian/Indian designed aircraft ever produced IMO. She is a much better strike aircraft than F-22 so in this regard she is more powerful. But nothing takes F-22 in Air-to-air combat... nothing!

I think you mean Su-30 MKI. MKK is the Chinese variant which was built primarily for ground attack and close air support. You're right about F22 being the best A2A fighter, its because of stealth and other factors.

 

[Big-E]

I think you mean Su-30 MKI. MKK is the Chinese variant which was built primarily for ground attack and close air support. You're right about F22 being the best A2A fighter, its because of stealth and other factors.

Yeah, everyone jumped on me 3 months ago when I mistyped that. Why am I still hearing about it?

 

[kams]

Yeah, everyone jumped on me 3 months ago when I mistyped that. Why am I still hearing about it?

Just edit the typo in your post...or you may hear it again after 6 months

 

[riksavage]

"The F-22: not what we were hoping for"

I note with interest in the Military Aviation section the very high pedestal the F-22 is placed upon when compared to European / Russian combat aircraft in service, or about to enter service.

Of interest, and offering a less than flattering overview, is an article in this weeks Janes Defense Weekly, Opinion Section titled; “The F-22: not what we were hoping for" written by Pierre Sprey, one of the three designers of the F-16, and James Stevenson, former editor of the USN Navy Fighter Weapons School’s Topgun Journal.

In a nutshell they claim the overemphasis on stealth and reliance on Beyond Visual Range (BVR) kills is not a watertight solution, providing the following examples (quotes from article):

“Billions of dollars were spent trying to perfect long-range radar missiles to achieve BVR kills, kill rates as high as 80 to 90 per cent were promised when projects were sold. Success rates in actual combat were below 10 per cent. Simple more agile, shorter-range infra-red missiles and guns were far more successful and effective.”

“Stealth harms the F-22’s quick firing ability. To retain stealth, the gun and missiles must be buried behind doors that take too long to open to exploit instantaneous opportunities. The air-force will argue we are wrong and the F-22 has excelled in air-to-air exercises against all comers. However our information is that these are a ‘canned’ engagements in which the F-22 is pitted against opponents in joust-like scenarios set to exploit the F-22’s theoretical advantages and exclude real world vulnerabilities.”

These views clearly represent the ‘opinions’ of the two authors concerned, but do open up the possibility that the expense, over emphasis on stealth and reliance on BVR and associated radar technology may have been too great a sacrifice when cheaper and quite capable alternatives are on the market (Typhoon fro example).

Alas I do not have the time to type in the full article, but should you have cahnce it makes for interesting reading.

 

[B.Smitty]

Of interest, and offering a less than flattering overview, is an article in this weeks Janes Defense Weekly, Opinion Section titled; “The F-22: not what we were hoping for" written by Pierre Sprey, one of the three designers of the F-16, and James Stevenson, former editor of the USN Navy Fighter Weapons School’s Topgun Journal.

In a nutshell they claim the overemphasis on stealth and reliance on Beyond Visual Range (BVR) kills is not a watertight solution, providing the following examples (quotes from article):

“Billions of dollars were spent trying to perfect long-range radar missiles to achieve BVR kills, kill rates as high as 80 to 90 per cent were promised when projects were sold. Success rates in actual combat were below 10 per cent. Simple more agile, shorter-range infra-red missiles and guns were far more successful and effective.”

I don't think they do justice to their cause by including at historical BVR statistics dating back to Vietnam.

If you look at Gulf War and beyond (with the advent of AMRAAM), you'll see a far higher BVR kill rate and far fewer WVR kills (and no gun kills outside the occasional A-10 vs helo).

These views clearly represent the ‘opinions’ of the two authors concerned, but do open up the possibility that the expense, over emphasis on stealth and reliance on BVR and associated radar technology may have been too great a sacrifice when cheaper and quite capable alternatives are on the market (Typhoon fro example).

At $100-120-ish million each, Typhoon really isn't that much cheaper. We might as well stick with the F-35, which may end up in this price range, when all's said and done.

The authors are right in that numbers matter in a fight. And it doesn't look like we're going to have large numbers of F-22s. However it's unclear we'll ever really be able to use large numbers of fighters in likely future scenarios, given increasingly limited basing options around the world.

IMHO, if we really want cheaper, we need to look at upgraded F-16s. At $30-ish million flyaway, you can't beat 'em.

Either that or A2A capable UCAVs.

 

[riksavage]

Link

Big-E - Unfortunately I read a hard-copy version of the article. You have to subscribe to read the online copy.

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't think they do justice to their cause by including at historical BVR statistics dating back to Vietnam.

Sounds like the "lightweight fighter mafia" taking a pot shot at BVR and the F-22. Think I have heard about using data that doesn't apply from these guys before...

 

[B.Smitty]

Sounds like the "lightweight fighter mafia" taking a pot shot at BVR and the F-22. Think I have heard about using data that doesn't apply from these guys before...

Up until ODS, I would've agreed with them. But the advent of ARH missiles seem to have turned the tides towards BVR (for the moment). Perhaps when stealth is widely available to all sides, or some other asymmetric response is developed, things will be different.

HOBS WVR missiles make the close range fight basically a crapshoot, so we should hope that BVR becomes the norm, IMHO.

If it ever comes to pass that BVR is invalidated, I have a feeling we'll have to shift to 100% A2A UCAVs or MALI-style hunting munitions because we just can't accept anywhere close to a 1:1 loss ratio of F-22s to Flanker/Fulcrum/Fishbed/whatever.

 

[Grand Danois]

Up until ODS, I would've agreed with them. But the advent of ARH missiles seem to have turned the tides towards BVR (for the moment). Perhaps when stealth is widely available to all sides, or some other asymmetric response is developed, things will be different.

HOBS WVR missiles make the close range fight basically a crapshoot, so we should hope that BVR becomes the norm, IMHO.

If it ever comes to pass that BVR is invalidated, I have a feeling we'll have to shift to 100% A2A UCAVs or MALI-style hunting munitions because we just can't accept anywhere close to a 1:1 loss ratio of F-22s to Flanker/Fulcrum/Fishbed/whatever.

I have thought a stealthy F-5/F-20 type fighter with IR sensors and IR HOBS WVR/HMCS could be an interesting option.

However, IMHO it'll be a long time before any OPFOR figures out to deal with the stealth/BVR combo on a 1:1 basis. And a lightweight fighter is still poor choice for the expeditionary type of missions of the USAF does.

UCAVs will probably be it in the end.

It's not that I am very knowledgeable on fighters and their tactics. I just happen to be wary when data is being cooked.

 

[zoolander]

How would a chinese J-10 compare to the latest F-16s. They are in the same class and have very similar designs. Just by capability alone.

 

[powerslavenegi]

How would a chinese J-10 compare to the latest F-16s. They are in the same class and have very similar designs. Just by capability alone.

Which Block are you talking about,moreover as of now what sort of a Radar and armaments is J-10 equipped with(not much info is availbale about it).If we assume J-10 having Russain R-27and 77 then I dont think it measures upto F-16(Block 50 or above) armed with Aim-120 and Aim-9x.

 

[Ths]

This comparison really illustrates how well aluminium is wrapped around an engine - and is quite good for that.

It shows the jump in generation, that is smaller than I had expected it to be; but it leaves Eurofighter, F-35 and F-22 in a slightly higher class, whereas the Rafale is a bit of a disappointment - it is simply to small.

The other 75 percent is engine performance, because you can mess up a good engine; but cannot build a good fighter around a bad engine.

These technical discussion tend to degenerate into - for comparison - the importance of the potters wheel for the roman civilisation.
The truth is that it is not to difficult to build a good fighter, provided you have the engine.

The jump with the F-22/F-35 generation is in quite another place.

If you are stringent in discussions there are different military levels:

A. The technical: Is my hammer better than yours.

B. The functional: Does I wield a hammer better than you.

C. The tactical: Do I hit the nail better than you.

D. Operational: Do I hit the right nails better than you.

E. Strategic: Am I better finding and deciding the right nails.

F. Grand Strategic: Am I better deciding if nails or screws are to be used.

The operational option with the F-22/F35 combination is far superior, as it involves the concept of an AIRBORNE tactical reserve, which other countries only to a miniscule extend are able to apply.

As i said; to give the right answer you sometimes have to ignore the question.

 

[onslaught]

Mig-31 is improved version of Mig-25, that is all. Nothing revolutionary here.

I don't know if you want to call it revolutionary, but MiG-31 FOXHOUND was the first plane with phased array radar

The MiG-31's datalink is pretty impressive too

The only bad thing is the Mach 3...imagine what it does to the engines and airframe

 

[Big-E]

I don't know if you want to call it revolutionary, but MiG-31 FOXHOUND was the first plane with phased array radar

The MiG-31's datalink is pretty impressive too

The only bad thing is the Mach 3...imagine what it does to the engines and airframe

I guess you could call it revolutionary for the Russians... they haven't accomplished much more on radars since then. The problem with FlashDance as opposed to other US AESA radars are the passive mode is practically non-existant. It is the most powerful radar ever put into an aircraft and it's feedback is rather high. Once it lights up it is like a mini-AWACs saying "Hello I'm here!" to the world.

 

[Falstaff]

Yeah, and it weighs about 1 ton... so mini-awacs would be the right description.

I tend to think that the given figures are not too useful. What counts in an air-to-air combat is the package, really, comprising sensor suite, armament, ergonomics and ecm-suite as well. Let alone the capabilities of the pilot, who has to fly, manage weapons, sensors and fight his adversary.

I have no doubt that as a package the F-22 can easily take out any adversary now and in future. BVR sure is the thing that counts these days and I'm sure the F-22 with its sheer power and thrust vectoring is not only good at that And don't tell me that it is a problem the Raptor can't shoot quick enough.
My guess for the second place, however, is the Eurofighter as besides its superior maneuverability connected with carefree handling the captor surely marks the edge of physically scanning radars, the degree of sensor integration (and display!) is enormous, the (yet future) weaponry (ASRAAM, IRIS-R, METEOR) seems to be leading the edge.

I'm not so sure at all about the abilities of the Flanker however. I believe it's capabilities in comparison are wildly exaggerated by its manufacturer and operating air forces like IAF and PLAAF. As there is no doubt that the MKI is the most advanced Flanker variant I will deal with this one:
As I already said in another thread, it basically is a 30 year-old-design and it's stable aerodynamic layout and massive size and weight don't point to extreme agility, do they?
Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times.
So I don't really think it will stand a chance against new generation western designs.

As far as the J-10 is concerned I not only think the avionics are modest at best compared to F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale etc. (not even Pakistan buys chinese radars for their FC-1) but I also think it is underpowered and the structural redesign of the air intake shows that it might be a big step for china's aviation industry but surely isn't a match for decades of experience and design instead of reeengineering and still buying russian planes because of weak performance...

 

[Ths]

I think the reason for the big radar in the Foxhound is that there aren't to many other sensors around where it is/was foreseen to operate. The Russians has the transsiberic railway to protect, not so much the tracks; but the ICBM's along it.

 

[vivtho]

I'm not so sure at all about the abilities of the Flanker however. I believe it's capabilities in comparison are wildly exaggerated by its manufacturer and operating air forces like IAF and PLAAF. As there is no doubt that the MKI is the most advanced Flanker variant I will deal with this one:
As I already said in another thread, it basically is a 30 year-old-design and it's stable aerodynamic layout and massive size and weight don't point to extreme agility, do they?
Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times.
So I don't really think it will stand a chance against new generation western designs.

F-15C Eagle: Length: 19.44 m Span: 13 m Empty Weight: 12,800 kg MTOW: 30,845 kg
F-22 Raptor: Length: 18.90 m Span: 13.56 m Empty Weight: 14,366 kg MTOW: 36,288 kg
Su-30MKI: Length: 22.10 Span: 14.70 m Empty Weight: 12,700 kg MTOW: 38,800 kg

As you see, while the MKI is the biggest in terms of size, it is actually the lightest of the trio. And the Indian AF has done a good job in selecting the avionics fit of the type. And a final very important point... The MKI is here now and has been in active squadron service for quite some time, while the Raptor and the Eurofighter are more recent.

Finally about the performance of AMRAAM against ex-Soviet missiles...
Firstly, let me say that I agree that of all medium range missiles in service today, the AMRAAM is the best. But IMO it is far from the wonder weapon it is claimed to be.

 

[Ths]

Vivtho: To me the comparison spells a less than excellent engine, using to much fuel.
But You are right about one thing. The Flanker is here, and used by a competent Air Force like the Indians it can achieve results.

 

[tphuang]

F-15C Eagle: Length: 19.44 m Span: 13 m Empty Weight: 12,800 kg MTOW: 30,845 kg
F-22 Raptor: Length: 18.90 m Span: 13.56 m Empty Weight: 14,366 kg MTOW: 36,288 kg
Su-30MKI: Length: 22.10 Span: 14.70 m Empty Weight: 12,700 kg MTOW: 38,800 kg

As you see, while the MKI is the biggest in terms of size, it is actually the lightest of the trio. And the Indian AF has done a good job in selecting the avionics fit of the type. And a final very important point... The MKI is here now and has been in active squadron service for quite some time, while the Raptor and the Eurofighter are more recent.

Finally about the performance of AMRAAM against ex-Soviet missiles...
Firstly, let me say that I agree that of all medium range missiles in service today, the AMRAAM is the best. But IMO it is far from the wonder weapon it is claimed to be.

I honestly have no idea where you got the mepty weight number from, but check this link
http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_specs.htm
even su-27 basic model is at 16 tonne+, there is no way MKI is lighter than it.