(Sonstiges) Russische Kampfflugzeuge - Gegenwart und Zukunft

[revan]

Halo Phantom ich würde jetzt viel schreiben aber ich habe noch einen schlimmen Charter von der Party gestern und heute also ich beschränke mich daher auf den YouTube Link von dir dazu.


<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml">http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory. ... rnof.shtml</a><!-- m -->

......Comments and Analysis

Despite Col. Fornof having observed Red Flag up close, his comments should not be treated as the gospel truth - there is a possibility that he is ‘playing to the gallery’. His comments carry weight since he is an operational pilot with the USAF but he certainly cannot cover the entire exercise and has no inside knowledge of the way IAF ‘fought’. Nevertheless, even though his comments appear to be negative about the IAF to the uninformed listener; overall he has actually praised the IAF and its performance.

*

The Su-30MKI did not use the data link in the exercise unlike the other air forces. The reason being the HAL supplied system is not compatible with NATO data links – neither is the system required to be compatible with NATO. The speaker clearly mentions that the high fratricide ratio in the kills was because of this reason. While NATO air forces are designed to inter operate with each other and carry out joint missions, the IAF is not.
*

Su-30MKI is equipped with its own data link which can share target information across multiple fighters. IAF is presently inducting A-50EI Phalcon AEW&C aircraft. Red Flag and other exercises before it have seen IAF working very closely with the AWACS crew of the other air force. Operational Data Link (ODL) will be provided to all fighters in the IAF over the coming years.
*

The IFF system used by IAF is not compatible with NATO standard, hence the need for verbal communication with the controller.
*

The aircraft were operating their radars on training mode since the actual signals with which the Bars radar operates are kept secret.
*

The high mix of highly experienced pilots in Ex Cope India, if true, cannot be consistent across all sqns that were involved in the exercise. During Cope India, the 24 Sqn operating Su-30K/MK was first Flanker unit in the IAF and only one of two Su-30 units in the entire IAF at that time. To find a concentration of senior pilots in these squadrons will not be unexpected given that these units will be forging doctrines and tactics and building up a pool of pilots. Per article on Cope India here; “Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.”. Moreover, the mix of experience needs to be examined for the USAF squadrons as well. The aggressor squadron at Nellis and the F-22 attracts the best in the USA.
*

MiG-21 Bison does not have an Israeli radar as noted in the lecture. The type is equipped with a Phazotron Kopyo (spear) unit. The Kopyo radar has a 57km detection range against a 5 m^2 (54ft^2) radar cross section, or fighter-sized target. It can track eight targets and shoot at two simultaneously.
*

Su-30MKI is equipped with Saturn AL-31FP engines, not Turmansky as mentioned in the lecture
*

Soviet era aircraft were designed to operate from poorly prepared airfields. For example; MiG-29 closes its intakes during taxi and take-off to avoid ingestion of FOD thrown up by the front wheels. In this state the engines are supplied air thru louvres located on upper surface of the leading edge. This design feature is at the cost of significant internal fuel capacity and hence has been eliminated in newer MiG-29 versions starting with the K/KUB variants. Flanker come with lighter anti-FOD grills in the intakes as well as wheel fenders that catch FOD. IAF has precautions built into their SOPs – which may be overlooked in case of war or any such exigency. Since the deployment was far away from home base in the USA, with no spares support and related infrastructure it was well worth to observe strict adherence to SOPs instead to being stuck with a grounded aircraft!
*

This is not the first time the MiG-21 Bison has been praised for successes during dissimilar air combat training (DACT) – even during previous USAF exercise and internal IAF exercises pilots are known to have scored ‘kills’ against more advanced adversaries. The small size (lower visual signature) and inherently small radar cross section coupled with modern avionics, radar, effective jammers, precision guided munitions and missiles (R-73, R-77) make Bison one of the best fighters in IAF after Su-30 and Mirage-2000. IAF’s has had good experience with small jets such as Gnat which earned the reputation of “Sabre Slayer” in the 1965 war with Pakistan. The under-development LCA Tejas promises to carry on this legacy when it replaces the Bison.

Under the glare of the world’s attention the IAF pilots, crew and their aircraft have clearly acquitted themselves well in Ex Red Flag 2008. This exercise was the most complex environment IAF worked in, even more than the Cope Thunder exercise in Alaska where Jaguar IS fighters had participated. The challenges faced were because of the operational environment, training rules and airspace restriction where the IAF is not expected to fight a war in any case. Shortcomings must have come up – but then that is exactly why IAF is training for.

So viel zu den Inhaltlichen Fehlern dieses Vortrages . Interessant sind auch Folgende Artikel zur Performance der F16 und F18 gegen die Russen made Technik.



<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-f18-su30-1.html">http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison- ... u30-1.html</a><!-- m -->

Su-30MKI and F-16C and F/A-18E/F

An analysis of air force inventories in the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region indicates that local fighter forces mostly consist of obsolete U.S.-made F-5 and F-4 aircraft. Only a few air forces are armed with relatively new versions of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.

An analysis of air force inventories in the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region indicates that local fighter forces mostly consist of obsolete U.S.-made F-5 and F-4 aircraft. Only a few air forces are armed with relatively new versions of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.

Purchases by India of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters, which have significantly enhanced combat capabilities of the Indian Air Force, and previous sales of the Su-27 and Su-30 fighters to China and Vietnam may determine further development of air forces in the Asia-Pacific region and help maintain the balance of power.

The competition on the Asia-Pacific military aircraft market, made ever keener by the recent sales of the Su-30MKI fighters, requires from potential buyers a clear understanding of basic specifics of aircraft.

The flight performance, technical characteristics and combat capabilities of any aircraft primarily depend on their assigned role, tactical tasks and mission environment. These factors alone distinguish the Russian fighter from its foreign counterparts.

The Su-30MKI design, having retained the best features of the unsurpassed Su-27 air-superiority fighter, boasts enhanced functional capabilities. It should be noted that comparison of the Su-30MKI, a heavy-class fighter, with the F-16C Block 50, F-16C Block 60, and F-18E/F aircraft is largely theoretical, as they belong to conceptually different fighter classes and have their own, preferential areas of combat employment. For example, the F-18E/F version, owing to the F/A-18 basic design, features a more pronounced strike-mission capability, while in terms of dimensions, this aircraft is close to the Russian fighter....

Auch sehr Interessant zum Thema der Überlegenheit der Su27/30 gegen unsere Maschinen.



<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html">http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html</a><!-- m -->

Interview with Mikhail Simonov

"I will never forget the first display flight of the Su-27 in Paris, organized by the British Aerospace along with designers and test pilots of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, - recalls John Farlight - a fighter pilot in the Royal Air Force. - Victor Pugachev was turning his Su-27 360-deg in 10 seconds, the average rate of turn - 36 deg/sec. At that time we could only hope that our next-generation fighter could achieve 25 deg/sec. This is the kind of speed that pilot should be able to turn his plane at to have the entire weapons suit ready for an attack. If we would imagine that our new plane encounter an Su-27 in combat, after 10 second all it will be able to do is to lower the gear and land, if it's lucky. Much of what I've seen at the airshow can be used in real aerial combat. To an average observer an airshow is just a superficial action, but if you are one of the aviation industry experts, a fighter's maneuvering will tell you about its flight limits. Naturally, when you see that there are no limits for an Su-27 or that the aircraft can go vertical, stop, slides down and than resumes normal flight and performs this not once, not twice but time after time, you realize that this is not an exception, not a trick, but a standard. Complexity of this particular maneuver is not in initiating the maneuver but in exiting from it. Usually we are not allowed to exceed 20-25-deg. angles of attack: if we go over it, we lose control of the machine... But the Russians perform their maneuvers, while changing the angle of attack in a wide range, while remaining confident in their control of the aircraft with absolutely symmetrical aerodynamics. The same applies to the engines. The Western engines "suffer" from the strict limitations on the angle of attack. When flying our fighters one has to think about the enemy's maneuvers and about one's own limitations from the aerodynamics point of view, about what a pilot should not do. Of course this is not a very comfortable situation for the pilot. For him it's much easier when he can do anything that is necessary to target the enemy and to pursue him. What the Russians have achieved has astonished us to the bottom of our souls."

With its revolutionary design and aerodynamics, the Su-27 has established new standards in fighter aircraft design. The person, who's name is inseparable from the fighter's creation, is the designer-general of the AOOT "OKB Sukhoi" Mikhail Simonov. In 1995 he was awarded the V.G. Shukhov golden medal and in 1998 he was called "the legend of the year" by the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine. His name can be found in the Hall of Fame of the National Aerospace Museum in Washington, D.C., along with the names of Igor Sikorsky, S.V. Ilyushin, and Verner von Braun. This is the first interview given by Mikhail Simonov to the "Science and Life" magazine, even though he reads our magazine since 1946....

Ok ich lege mich hin wenn Kopfschmerzen weg sind gibt es noch einen Nachtrag.