Not Quite
Su-27K 
Beats anything but a F-22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon.
A Superhornet isn't in the running.
True a Su-27 ramp takeoff is limited to 80% max gross weight, but that's plenty for air to air missions 
Posted on 12/22/2005 2:06:56 AM PST by F14 Pilot
TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. - The Air Force's new F-22A Raptor is such a dominant fighter jet that in mock dogfights its pilots typically take on six F-15 Eagles at once.
Despite the favorable odds, the F-15s, still one of the world's most capable fighters, are no contest for the fastest radar-evading stealth jet ever built.
"The F-15 pilots, they are the world's best pilots," said Lt. Col. David Krumm, an F-22A instructor pilot. "When you take them flying against anyone else in the world, they are going to wipe the floor with them. It's a startling moment for them to come down here and get waylaid."
The F-22A officially became ready for combat this month with a squadron of 12 Raptors on standby for worldwide deployment at Langley Air Force Base, Va.
Those who know the Raptor best say it represents a major leap in U.S. warfighting abilities. At this Florida Panhandle base, where all Raptor pilots are trained, instructors say the jet's stealth, speed and ability to electronically scan the battlefield from the air are far superior to any other fighter.
"This is what's next," Krumm said. "The stuff that we have is great and it's capable, but this is what's next."
The Raptor, originally designed for air-to-air combat, was expanded to include a ground attack role. Pilots dropped bombs from Raptors for the first time last weekend in training exercises at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada.
One of the challenges is finding pilots for the single-seat Raptors, formerly designated F/A-22 to emphasize its ground attack role. The Air Force looks for experienced pilots with a background in fighters and bomb dropping, said Col. Matthew Molloy.
Raptor pilots are former F-15 pilots who have flown a two-seat version, the F-15E Strike Eagle, and also have ground attack experience. The F-16 Fighting Falcon is the Air Force's only other jet that flies both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.
Eventually, the Air Force plans to take students straight out of pilot training into the Raptor program, Molloy said.
Critics say the Raptor is too expensive at a time when the U.S. already dominates the skies, and that it was designed for a high-tech enemy that no longer exists - the Soviet Union.
The Air Force puts the Raptor's price tag at $160 million per plane, but outside experts estimate they cost more than $350 million each when research and development expenses are added. So far, the Air Force has 56 Raptors, including training and test fighters, at Tyndall, Langley, Nellis and Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
The current budget plans call for about 180 Raptors, but the Air Force wants more. Tyndall has the largest contingent at 23.
Military leaders say the plane will ensure American air dominance for years to come.
"In any air-to-air fight out there, it is a hopeless mismatch," Krumm said. "What we are more concerned with are countries that want to deny us air space by purchasing surface-to-air missiles and that kind of stuff. Those are very lethal to the way the U.S. deploys."
The Raptor is designed to be especially proficient at taking out such ground-launched missiles because of its speed and stealth. That's something military leaders say could be needed in a fight against potential enemies including Iran or North Korea.
"We want to kick the door down so the air space is clear for any (aircraft) you want to go in," Krumm said. "Someone could come in flying a Cessna 172 with a pistol if you wanted after we're done."
The Raptor's dogfighting capability adds a new dimension to the Air Force's fleet of stealth aircraft. Krumm compared the earlier F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit to cockroaches.
"They want to sneak in, drop their bombs, and sneak out again. They have absolutely no wish for a fight," he said. "They don't have air-to-air missiles, they cannot maneuver that well or anything else. Our airplane is entirely offensive. Not only am I stealthy, but I'll also hunt you down and kill you if you get in my way." And then there is the Raptor's super cruise capability that lets it fly at supersonic speed without using fuel-guzzling afterburners as required by other fighters. "That saves us a lot of gas and opens up a whole host of things when you start talking about dropping bombs," Krumm said.
"You can imagine if you are 60,000 feet doing mach 1.9 (about 1,400 mph) and these bombs are flying out of your airplane, the swath of hell you can produce going through a country saying 'I'll take that target, and that target'."
Twelve Raptors will head to Alaska in June for their first routine peacetime exercise deployment.
In the meantime, the instructors at Tyndall's 325th Fighter Wing will continue looking for the Air Force's top pilots to fly the world's best fighter jet.
"Langley rapidly needs pilots and we are trying to produce pilots to keep up with the production of the airplanes," Molloy said.
Krumm said one issue is that the plane is single-seater, which means only the most experienced fighter pilots, capable of flying such a high-tech plane solo, will be selected until the program becomes more routine. "When you strap on $160 million of taxpayer money, it's by yourself with me nervously flying alongside you going 'Please don't screw up, please don't screw up,'" Krumm said.
This sort of reminds me of the Germans' "Tiger Tank" and the Sherman M-4. The Germans had the best, bar none tank in the world..firepower, armor....that could cut a swath through the enemy easily....What they did not expect, though, was the NUMBER of Sherman M-4s that the US could produce, nor the number of T-39s that the Russians could produce. What they lacked in armor and firepower, they made up with speed and numbers, pure and simple.
The Raptor IS probably the best, but we don't have enough and can't afford what we'll need....
Not Quite
Su-27K Beats anything but a F-22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon.
A Superhornet isn't in the running.
True a Su-27 ramp takeoff is limited to 80% max gross weight, but that's plenty for air to air missions
Not VSTOL. The Chinese would operate a licenced produced Flanker variant from Varyag.
I think that was the whole point in the excercise. India is not building it's air force to compete against us, so we didn't throw what we are trully capable at them. Rather, we simlulated the kind of adversaries they would be likely to face in a confrontation (ie Pakistan or some other "Stan").
That is $350 million well spent!!
Joe, Cope India 2005 was an exercise designed for one purpose: To alay the Indian fears of newer F-16s in the hands of the Pakistanis.
Cope India 2005 pitted our F-16s against their Su-30s, and our F-16s were not permitted to use AIM-120 missiles. They could only use Sidewinders and guns, and could not use their in-cockpit data link to share radar information among the pilots. The U.S. was simulating Pakistani F-16s with Pak tactics and Pak equipment.
The fact that the Indians cleaned our clocks was a good thing.
See tagline.
What is next after this great plane?
Hear hear.
Great news. Now -- what will it fight?
Well, it's good to know my emails are getting through! I love that they're still thinking of me. I could probably still haul a sidewinder, though, if'n it'd help the cause.
HF
We sent F16's to that scrimmage. No AWACS, nothing fancy. We lost as expected.
It's only right that I get to own one of these.
The "Tiger Tank" analogy is not a good one. The Tiger had a major defect: it wasn't mechanically reliable. It was best used on the defensive as a kind of Tank Destroyer. Out in open country it was slow and suseptible to breakdowns. Not a very good offensive tank.
One of the features of these modern aircraft is the lower maintenance hours per flight hour. The "Up Time" on these planes is going to be one of their strongest features.
"I do remember a few years back that Israeli pilots embarrassed US pilots during war games."
The Israeli pilots are amazing, but you have to be careful about such war games scenarios, as the rules/scenario are generally (and intentionally) stacked heavily against the US.
Do the New England Patriots play their full defensive package in a pre-season game? No. They play straight "Cover 2" in the secondary and they basically don't disguise their Blitzes -- that is if they blitz at all. Any college quarterback would look good with no pressure. I suggest the USAF is holding back in several key areas in any wargame against a foreign power -- even a friendly one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.