RMAF Future; need opinions

[gf0012-aust]

. what do u guys have to say about the BERKUT???( Su-37)

u think it can be as good as the F-22???.

The Berkut was a CTD mule, it was never intended to be a competitor to anything. The Sukhoi Chief Test Pilot made mention a few years ago that in a number of areas the Su-30 was superior.

The Russians persevered with the Berkut because it was part of their development program. The americans dropped the X-29 (their own FSW CTD) because the cost impediments didn't justify against performance parameters.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If I am not mistaken, the Berkut is actually a research aircraft and concept demonstrator.

correct

It is not the finished PAK-FA aircraft. It has been said that the Berkut isn't using the engine which the PAK-FA is going to use.

correct

With regard to the PAK-FA, it is impossible to say how it compares with the F-22 as it has not flown yet and details of its avionics, engines and performance is still sketchy at best.

and its kind of irrelevant considering that Sukhois chief test pilot indicated that the Su30 was superior in some flight regimes

P.S. Sorry gf0012-aust, Won't happen again.

No probs.

 

[nero]

thanks

The Berkut was a CTD mule, it was never intended to be a competitor to anything. The Sukhoi Chief Test Pilot made mention a few years ago that in a number of areas the Su-30 was superior.

The Russians persevered with the Berkut because it was part of their development program. The americans dropped the X-29 (their own FSW CTD) because the cost impediments didn't justify against performance parameters.

.
thanks a lot, really, thanks.

but if u allow me i have another query

it's about the MFI, can someone please tell me the difference between the 1.42 & the 1.44 MFI

also, is the MiG-37 for real or just another concept demonstrator???


.

 

[gf0012-aust]

.
thanks a lot, really, thanks.

but if u allow me i have another query

it's about the MFI, can someone please tell me the difference between the 1.42 & the 1.44 MFI

also, is the MiG-37 for real or just another concept demonstrator???


.

Its probably appropriate for you to start a new thread if its a new topic .

People can get a bit excited if their posts are hijacked.

 

[tiddles]

USAF Hornet

.


not many people know this but it is a fact that the F-22 is actually better than the F-35A.

let me explain, the americans have built the F-35A to mass-export, & replace the old F-16s of it's allies. BUT, BUT, the F-22 is actually not for everyone, not even, israel,who was denied F-22 & was told to buy F-35A.

now, what does that tell u ??

the same thing happened in the 1980's when the F-16 was mass exported,
but the much advanced HORNET was kept aside for USAF only


.

The USAF does not operate the Hornet ,it is operated by the USN & USMC, also - it was exported to Australia and Spain in considerable numbers in the 1980s ,Malaysia and Finland also later bought them, these countries are also still operating them & will be for a few years yet.

 

[qwerty223]

I'm prepared to accept this. But where I disagree with renjer was with regard to the airframe. The Sukhoi 30 airframe is clearly optimized for the air superiority role, the strike role is secondary. Now, this is not meant to be a criticism of the SU-30. The F-15e Strike Eagle is clearly a capable bomber in its own right. But the initial design for the F-15 was as an air superiority fighter, the strike role was assigned later based on the range and power of the airframe, like in the case of the SU-30.[/COLOR][/B]

Why do you think that SU-30 is an air superior airframe? There are many derivative in even 30 series itself. At least, MKI/MkM is a Strike Fighter design.

The airframes have slightly different structure. Some were strengthen, some were lighten. If you have seen the video, Russian Knight land their SUs without landing gear, you will believe it is a strong airframe in anyways.

 

[Tasman]

.


not many people know this but it is a fact that the F-22 is actually better than the F-35A.

Air Power Australia certainly thinks so and some of its spokesmen in this forum have said so again and again and again. But what does this have to do with this thread (RMAF wants more deadly Hornets)?

Cheers

 

[tphuang]

Why do you think that SU-30 is an air superior airframe? There are many derivative in even 30 series itself. At least, MKI/MkM is a Strike Fighter design.

The airframes have slightly different structure. Some were strengthen, some were lighten. If you have seen the video, Russian Knight land their SUs without landing gear, you will believe it is a strong airframe in anyways.

That's not true, mki/mkm are more geared for air superiority. mkk is the one that's more geared for multirole. For example, it has strengthened air frame compare to mki and has greater fuel capacity and such. And it's used for such a role in pla, but mki/mkm are used for air superiority.

 

[swerve]

The USAF does not operate the Hornet ,it is operated by the USN & USMC, also - it was exported to Australia and Spain in considerable numbers in the 1980s ,Malaysia and Finland also later bought them, these countries are also still operating them & will be for a few years yet.

Correct.

Switzerland & Canada also bought F-18 & still operate it, & it received export clearance for other potential customers which chose not to buy it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Correct.

Switzerland & Canada also bought F-18 & still operate it, & it received export clearance for other potential customers which chose not to buy it.

Kuwait also...

France I believe went within a "hairs breadth" of purchasing some for Carrier duties, Thailand ordered some but then couldn't afford them and pulled out and Singapore almost ordered them too, due to their capability, but eventually settled on F-16 due to price.

About right, Magoo?

 

[swerve]

Kuwait also...

France I believe went within a "hairs breadth" of purchasing some for Carrier duties, ...

Damn! I forgot Kuwait.

IIRC the French navy wanted F-18, but the government forced it to extend the life of its old F-8s (at considerable expense - might have been cheaper to lease some F-18) until a French replacement was ready - then took ages to fund it. Politicians, eh?

 

[Todjaeger]

Which F/A-18 is the preferred option? IIRC, the F/A-18 Hornets the RMAF already has are -D two seaters. Would the RMAF like to stay with two seaters and purchase F/A-18F Super Hornets or would they rather get -E variants?

I would think, given that the primary roles looks to be as a strike/maritime strike platform, then the -F would be a better choice. With that in mind, does used Block I -Fs from the USN/USMC sound reasonable? Or perhaps new build Block II -Fs, but equipped with the APG-73 (I don't think the US would sell the RMAF the APG-79 AESA) radar?

Also, are there any expected changes in the RMAF force structure in the near future that could effect what is desired and how it would be operated?

-Cheers

 

[qwerty223]

That's not true, mki/mkm are more geared for air superiority. mkk is the one that's more geared for multirole. For example, it has strengthened air frame compare to mki and has greater fuel capacity and such. And it's used for such a role in pla, but mki/mkm are used for air superiority.

Hardly agree. Mkk was promoted as bomber, more shift towards a striker.

 

[johngage]

Why do you think that SU-30 is an air superior airframe? There are many derivative in even 30 series itself. At least, MKI/MkM is a Strike Fighter design.

The airframes have slightly different structure. Some were strengthen, some were lighten. If you have seen the video, Russian Knight land their SUs without landing gear, you will believe it is a strong airframe in anyways.

1) "Operational experience with single-seat interceptors (including the Flanker B) showed that in a modern dogfight the workload was simply too high for a single pilot, who had to fly the jet and operate the weapons control system while experiencing high G loads"

2) "Cuts in the Soviet Air Force's fighter fleet, the emergence of new and more stringent requirements to interceptors, the sheer length of the USSR's northern borders and the scarcity of airbases in the northern regions of the country, as well as ABCPs and AEW&C placed high demands on the IA PVO. This...prompted the Sukhoi OKB to develop SU-27UB into a specialised two seat interceptor"

3) "Since no changes were made to the aerodynamics, the new interceptor was almost identical in performance and handling to the stock SU-27UB combat trainer. The aircraft passed its trials programme with flying colours and was cleared for production at IAPO as the SU-30"

4) "An export version of the SU-30 appeared before long. By analogy with the SU-27K it was designated SU-30K (kommehrcheskiy)...Starting in the year 2000, however, IAPO and Sukhoi were to upgrade the SU-30K to improve its agility, performance and firepower considerably...The fighter received the designation SU-30MKI (indeeyskiy)"

-Y. Gordon, Flankers: The New Generation (Hinckley, 2001), p. 29, p. 30, p. 33, p. 36.

As I said in my previous post, I am not criticizing the strike ability of the SU-30MKI/MKM. What I am trying to show you is that the pedigree (SU27UB-SU30-SU30K) is that of a two seat interceptor. An interceptor is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft. It is for this reason that I consider the SU-30MKI/MKM to be optimized for the air to air role.

 

[qwerty223]

1) "Operational experience with single-seat interceptors (including the Flanker B) showed that in a modern dogfight the workload was simply too high for a single pilot, who had to fly the jet and operate the weapons control system while experiencing high G loads"

2) "Cuts in the Soviet Air Force's fighter fleet, the emergence of new and more stringent requirements to interceptors, the sheer length of the USSR's northern borders and the scarcity of airbases in the northern regions of the country, as well as ABCPs and AEW&C placed high demands on the IA PVO. This...prompted the Sukhoi OKB to develop SU-27UB into a specialised two seat interceptor"

3) "Since no changes were made to the aerodynamics, the new interceptor was almost identical in performance and handling to the stock SU-27UB combat trainer. The aircraft passed its trials programme with flying colours and was cleared for production at IAPO as the SU-30"

4) "An export version of the SU-30 appeared before long. By analogy with the SU-27K it was designated SU-30K (kommehrcheskiy)...Starting in the year 2000, however, IAPO and Sukhoi were to upgrade the SU-30K to improve its agility, performance and firepower considerably...The fighter received the designation SU-30MKI (indeeyskiy)"

-Y. Gordon, Flankers: The New Generation (Hinckley, 2001), p. 29, p. 30, p. 33, p. 36.

As I said in my previous post, I am not criticizing the strike ability of the SU-30MKI/MKM. What I am trying to show you is that the pedigree (SU27UB-SU30-SU30K) is that of a two seat interceptor. An interceptor is a type of fighter aircraft designed specifically to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft. It is for this reason that I consider the SU-30MKI/MKM to be optimized for the Air Superiority role.

Look forward mate, his reference was still in soviet time.
With all built in strike equipment is a fact that it is no more interceptor. And you should familiar with this new term for you: Multi role. non of the new comer arent multi role.

 

[johngage]

Look forward mate, his reference was still in soviet time.
With all built in strike equipment is a fact that it is no more interceptor. And you should familiar with this new term for you: Multi role. non of the new comer arent multi role.

You still don't understand the point I was trying to make. The SU-30MKI/MKM clearly has a secondary strike ability. The SU-30MKI/MKM does have multi-role capability. But it is still based on the SU-30 design, albeit with canards, thrust-vectoring and new avionics. Now "the SU-30 was primarily designed for the IA PVO which could use its capabilities as a long-range patrol fighter and interceptor to the full"

- Y. Gordon, Flankers: The New Generation (Hinckley, 2001), p. 34.

I am not saying that the SU-30MKI/MKM cannot perform the strike role. What I am saying is that the SU-30 was originally designed for the interceptor/air superiority role, the strike role only came later (in the 1990's) with the increasing availability of PGM's. That is why I argued that the SU-30MKI/MKM is optimized for the air-to-air role, since that was its original design.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am not saying that the SU-30MKI/MKM cannot perform the strike role. What I am saying is that the SU-30 was originally designed for the interceptor/air superiority role, the strike role only came later (in the 1990's) with the increasing availability of PGM's. That is why I argued that the SU-30MKI/MKM is optimized for the air-to-air role, since that was its original design.

I'll play devils advocate here.

F-16 originally designed as a preeminent dogfighter - now a true multi role platform focussing on precision delivery

F-15 originally low order strike, now multi role

B1 - originally low level penetrative strike - now the most widely used long range CAS platform in USAF

B2 - originally LO long range penetrative strike - now able to maritime strike with new weapons options

Mirage - III family and progeny - originally air interception and air to air roles, now multi-mission strike.

design issues influence flexibility issues.

requirement(s) is "king" and influences the end result and implementation

 

[johngage]

I'll play devils advocate here.

F-16 originally designed as a preeminent dogfighter - now a true multi role platform focussing on precision delivery

F-15 originally low order strike, now multi role

B1 - originally low level penetrative strike - now the most widely used long range CAS platform in USAF

B2 - originally LO long range penetrative strike - now able to maritime strike with new weapons options

Mirage - III family and progeny - originally air interception and air to air roles, now multi-mission strike.

design issues influence flexibility issues.

requirement(s) is "king" and influences the end result and implementation

That's very cheeky of you !

But do you honestly think that the SU-30MKM's air to ground ability is as well developed as the aircraft you mentioned above? I don't know much about the Mirage III family. But I am willing to hazard a guess that as an A2G platform the SU-30MKM's avionics are still lacking and untested when compared to that of the F-16I or the F-15E. This is no reflection on the SU-30MKM's potential but the F-16/F-15's air to ground capability has been developed of a great deal of time.

I daresay that the F-18F (which I understand the RMAF is considering for its next MRCA) simply has better ordnance targeting capabilities and ordnance selection making it a superior air to ground platform to the SU-30MKM. But that's just my 50 cents...

 

[gf0012-aust]

That's very cheeky of you !

well, it was an open shot at goal - so was worth doing.

But do you honestly think that the SU-30MKM's air to ground ability is as well developed as the aircraft you mentioned above?

thats the $64k question - but the issue is potential. I don't see anything that constricts the platforms potential. If you look at the israelis and the french, they have a demonstrated history of being able to integrate disparate systems into package specific solutions. The Israelis already did this with the Mig 29 when they specced out a prototype for the Romanians - now granted the price was too high, but the Mig 29 Sniper showed what was possible. At an organic level of integration (as in contracting within the procurement structure rather than pure outsourcing) then look no further than the Indians.

I don't know much about the Mirage III family.

Australia reconfigured her Mirage 111's into OA's and OF's. OA's were ground attack/strike. The OF's were fighters/interceptors. The job is so much easier now as platform role is almost a swap out event. You can literally dial up capability.

But I am willing to hazard a guess that as an A2G platform the SU-30MKM's avionics are still lacking and untested when compared to that of the F-16I or the F-15E.

thats true enough, but thats why countries undertake "spanish civil war" development cycles. (no offence meant to any spaniards)

This is no reflection on the SU-30MKM's potential but the F-16/F-15's air to ground capability has been developed of a great deal of time.

see above

I daresay that the F-18F (which I understand the RMAF is considering for its next MRCA) simply has better ordnance targeting capabilities and ordnance selection making it a superior air to ground platform to the SU-30MKM. But that's just my 50 cents...

I agree, but capability is always a temporal issue and relative to the threat

 

[nero]

MKM-Stealth ?????

'

i read on pakistanidefenceforum.com, that the malaysian MKM is actually a stealth fighter.


isthis true ???


if it's true, then what is the difference between MKM & PAK-FA ???


.