I'm a former grunt - so please take my answer below with a pinch of salt.
I think the deciding factor here will be the human element.
Agreed. In any engagement, the human element is vital. Each aircraft model has it's own strengths and weaknesses. The pilot that is able to best exploit his aircraft's strengths will prevail in the engagement. IMO, often times the better pilot using appropriate tactics will prevail in the air-to-air engagement (which are fleeting in nature, where the loser's lifespan is measured in minutes).
One of the basic things you learn in the military tactics is to avoid a head-on attack if possible. You would want to surprise your opponent, which means head-on encounters may not be preferred against a peer opponent and the USAF has not had a peer opponent for a long time (which leads to some observers to misunderstand the nature of air warfare).
When a US strike package arrives (which is of mind-boggling complexity), any opponent has to flee or be shot down. In fact, even selective SAM radars are often shut down so that they can remain a viable threat for a longer duration before they are successfully targeted for destruction. You should read about how the USAF conducts green flag exercises (which is SEAD/DEAD training).
My statement about the ''Su-30 having a clear advantage over the F-15 and F-16'' was in context of a WVR engagement.
I believe that in certain situations a Sukhoi with TVC can provide a decisive advantage in air-to-air combat. The problem is that, in a real fight, a properly trained USAF Eagle driver will want to avoid a situation where he fights at an absolute disadvantage. The USAF is a learning organization that has a repository of knowledge on how to fight (published in the form of doctrine) and how they fight is refined by all the wars they have been in (manifested in tactics and procedures).
My sentence was not worded correctly, my mistake.
No problem.
Though the answer here seems pretty obvious on paper, opinions amongst 'experts' are still divided whether the thrust vectoring and super maneuverability of the Su-30 still provide it with any advantage in a WVR engagement against an opponent equipped with
highly agile off-boresight IR missiles [Sidewinder X, ASRAAM] and newer HMS's like the TopOwl and HHMCS. I have no clue.
As a fellow armchair general, I believe that there's no simple answer. Maneuverability is valued but the question is: What is the cost?
When you add a feature to an aircraft (like TVC) - you add weight. The relevant question should be: Is the feature worth the weight increase? Keep in mind that the US has TVC technology and have experimented with it. They just chose not to implement it on the Eagle platform.
Bonza said:
From what I understand, thrust vectoring and so forth aren't going to be much help when facing a foe equipped with something like AIM-9X. The missile can turn something like 60G, no way to avoid that via maneuver whether you've got thrust vectoring or not.
To add to what Bonza wrote, TVC or not, a target aircraft will never out maneuver a missile if the target aircraft is within the No Escape Zone (NEZ). Once a missile is launched the targeted pilot will have to rely on his aircraft's counter measures. However, not all missile launches will occur in the NEZ. More importantly, not all counter measures are equal as there is a never ending 'arms race' between missile designers and counter measures designers. In this regard, US is the leader in this type of 'black art'.
Until the Adder is fired in anger, we wont know how it compares to AMRAAM
True and the picture is even more complex than just which missile is better. Beyond radar, pilot training, tactics and the countermeasures employed will make a huge difference to the outcome.
IMO this is a big reason why Russian doctrine since the 70's calls for a multiple missile salvo, to achieve maximum hit probability, involving missiles with different seeker heads. With regards to multiple salvos, the same doctrine is used with surface to air missiles.
I believe that the firing of missile salvos is not exclusive to the Russians and given the rapid rate of change in technological developments, any '70s solution would be dated and not relevant to current discussions.
OPSSG, while I'm 'aware' of recent developments regarding the USAF F-15C and E fleet, I'm not as familiar with it as you are. But thank you for the clarification, much appreciated.
You are welcome and once again I hope not to have offended anyone with my frank replies.
