gf0012-aust said:
except that in the case of the UK they have elected to bypass manned stealth development and have gone straight to stealth UCAV's. France has elected to take a stealth enhancement route to what is likely to be her last manned aircraft and has also gone down the stealth UCAV route.
The Swedes have basically worked on the airborne netcentric development side of things which is useful for both manned and unmanned combat aircraft.
It's probably better to say that they're advancing down a different path - they certainly haven't lost capability or committment.
US F-15s Versus Indian Su-30s
by James Dunnigan
October 14, 2004
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
"More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the "Cope India" air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" of American aircraft to further justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a dramatic example of weakening of American air combat capabilities
Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes* to* India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.*
Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.*
The F-15s flew in groups of 4 against packages of 12 Indian Air Force aircraft consisting of a mix of Mirage 2000, Su-30, Mig-21, and Mig-27 aircraft. The Mirage and Su-30 aircraft were used in the air-to-air role, while the Mig-27 was used as the strike aircraft with the Mig-21 providing escort to the Mig-27s. The Indians also had a simulated AWACS platform and the use of simulated active radar missiles such as the AA-12 and the French Mica, unlike the F-15Cs. This gave the Indian Air Force a fire-and-forget air-to-air missile capability that the U.S. fighters didn't have, a heavily unrealistic assumption in actual hostilities.*
However, the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look." Some of the Indian aircraft radars had different characteristics than U.S. pilots had seen on stock versions of the aircraft, including some of the Mirage 2000s."
I pulled this quote from a web page, and my apologies for that, but it does shed some light on this topic. As for the future of air combat moving in the direction of UCAV, that will bring up some interesting scenarios in any future air combat between manned and UCAV/Manned airforces.
While I look at the SU30 with some respect, I cannot bring myself to consider it in any context except as an evolution of the SU27 family. It may give some hieghtened national pride and breast beating rights to countries that cannot even dream of affording or even developing a F22 of their own, but in the real world of air combat, flying pretty manuevres and bleeding off air speed doing the cobra or whatever other crowd pleasing stuff will equate to a big fat zero on the scale of combat effectiveness.
