http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04195/345591.stm
Is the SU-30 really that good? Or were the pilots just having an off day?
Is the SU-30 really that good? Or were the pilots just having an off day?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Air Force defeated by India
- Thread starter Red2
- Start date
- Status
Should probably get a review from some of the fighter types on this site. I agree with the above, what were the ROE? In reality, when we go at it in wartime, our fighter guys work in coordination with everyone, meaning the AWACS, the jammers, etc. Could this also be the Air Force's way of justifying the expensive F-22? How many aircraft have we actually lost in air combat since Vietnam? One at the most with over 40 kills. Solid kill ratio in favor of us.
Also, when did Congressman Cunningham fly F-15's against F-22's? As I recall, he tired in 1987. Did he check out in an F-15 recently and fight against the F-22? I think not unless he rode in the back seat.
Also, when did Congressman Cunningham fly F-15's against F-22's? As I recall, he tired in 1987. Did he check out in an F-15 recently and fight against the F-22? I think not unless he rode in the back seat.
American_Ace
AFROTC
I read in the AF Times a while back that we lost 90% of the scenarios, but in most of the exercizes we were outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1, so essentially, that means we not only owned, we pwned the Indians 10% of the time :icon_mi_1
vegita1220
User
"Bombers are now superior to fighters in that role because they can carry a larger amount and a greater variety of ordnance, and can stay on station longer."
Whoever he got that from is a moron...or a bomber advocate who's good with phrasing things "just right." They wanna start basing bombers out of advance bases now? And the -22 has the same range as a F-15C with drop tanks on internal fuel alone.
Anyway, I read in Av Week the scenario was usually about 10 Su-30s vs 4 F-15Cs.
I also remember that the engagements were long range, no ECM, the F-15Cs didn't have the AESA upgrade, and the AA-10s(which apparently have failed miserably in combat usage-no confirmed combat hits) SARH missiles were assumed to be as effective as our AMRAAMs. The AA-10 has significantly more range than the AMRAAM, so you can see where that's going.
Apparently, AESA can be used as a jammer/radar, which sounds pretty durn cool to me. Target the bogey AND blind him.
Whoever he got that from is a moron...or a bomber advocate who's good with phrasing things "just right." They wanna start basing bombers out of advance bases now? And the -22 has the same range as a F-15C with drop tanks on internal fuel alone.
Anyway, I read in Av Week the scenario was usually about 10 Su-30s vs 4 F-15Cs.
I also remember that the engagements were long range, no ECM, the F-15Cs didn't have the AESA upgrade, and the AA-10s(which apparently have failed miserably in combat usage-no confirmed combat hits) SARH missiles were assumed to be as effective as our AMRAAMs. The AA-10 has significantly more range than the AMRAAM, so you can see where that's going.
Apparently, AESA can be used as a jammer/radar, which sounds pretty durn cool to me. Target the bogey AND blind him.
As suspicious as we are that it was rigged.... there IS the possibility that we could come up against an opponent on their terms... not ours. I would feel a whole lot better with F-22's in our AF, not just F-15s.
Though, I could see having a few wings of F-22s as silver bullets, but planning on producing them for a long time. In a sense just a slower phase out of the F-15s.
I would also agree with the article saying that we are getting a little to technical for our massive good. With our current situation... wouldn't we be a whole lot better tripling our force of AC-130s?
Though, I could see having a few wings of F-22s as silver bullets, but planning on producing them for a long time. In a sense just a slower phase out of the F-15s.
I would also agree with the article saying that we are getting a little to technical for our massive good. With our current situation... wouldn't we be a whole lot better tripling our force of AC-130s?
vegita1220 said:
I just read in Naval Institute Magazine that the F-15s in Alaska were just the first to get the Helmet Mounted System. They went up against the Germans and their HMS Mig 29s and dominated them in clost combat.
The F-15C is getting old. It's a 70's/80's era aircraft, just like the baby Hornets. Time for something new. The F/A-22 is very expensive, but I feel it'll be like the Seawolf class of submarines; it will help develop new technologies for new aircraft, such as the F-35 JSF. Staying technologically superior is vital to our military.
To quote UncleFester's quote from another thread, "We the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much for so long with so little, that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."
I believe the F-15s have current technology in them right now... meaning their computer systems are current. Same thing with the Hornets...
I just read in Naval Institute Mag that each block of the hornet is upgraded, and the latest C/D models have pretty much same computers at the E/F; and that older models get depot level maintenance to upgrade them. The big plus with the E/F is greater fuel load and room to grow... which the C/D has used up.
- Status