Skip to comments.
Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'
Aviation Week & Space Technology
| May 24, 2002
| David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie
Posted on 05/24/2002 11:33:06 AM PDT by The Big Dog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-119 next last
To: surely_you_jest
Maybe so, but it sure is fun, and requires more skill than fixed-wing flying. Yah, it's loud and slow, and ugly, but we're damn effective in a tight spot, in bad terrain, under goggles. The low-level manuevers we pull off at night would make your hair stand on end.
To: surely_you_jest;strider44
Helicopters do not fly; they beat the air into submission.Actually, they just vibrate so badly that the Earth rejects them.
42
posted on
05/24/2002 2:19:01 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: hchutch
The interesting question is wether or not we would let them get those subs in place. You know we're active in that area. Aren't the CHICOMS still only diesel capable anyway? Do they have nuclear subs yet? I don't know how many fast-attack subs we have over there. With at leat two carrier battle groups we must have a dozen or so subs. Any Navy pukes out there to verify?
To: hchutch
Sure, a submarine blockade MIGHT work.
Until the Chicom boats just kinda...had unfortunate accidents.
And COMSUBPAC is forced to report that they've lost 40+ practice torpedoes...
44
posted on
05/24/2002 2:20:32 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: strider44
The Chicoms have nuclear submarines. However, the only clear and present danger those boats pose is to US sonar technicians' hearing.
45
posted on
05/24/2002 2:21:43 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: strider44
Sounds absolutely sportin'!
As for hair standing on end, well, maybe. If I had enough hair left for that to happen. I am, you see, folicularly challenged . . . .
To: strider44
They have some SSNs, but they also have a LOT of diesel-electric boats. And we might be lucky to have a half-dozne attack subs available. IIRC, we went down to a force of 50 SSNs. Figure rotation, maintenance, all that sort of stuff, and the number actually deployed gets to about 12 to 16 in both fleets.
It's like the "Lightweight Fighter Mafia" put it: Two simpler aircraft, if used properly, can beat a single more advanced aircraft.
47
posted on
05/24/2002 2:22:45 PM PDT
by
hchutch
To: The Big Dog
"If the maneuver is done correctly." During my Air Force stint I spoke with many Viet Nam era pilots who trained with Iranian, Pakistani, and other Third World pilots who came to the US for their training. At that point many of the US pilots suggested to me that the mechanical abilities of these "camel jockies" were minimal.
In the case of piloting a jet fighter the phrase, "It's the pilot stupid" applies. Any Russian/Soviet equipment comes with the training which is dissmilar to that of the US. Just read "Eye of a Tiger" and there is no doubt that cultural differences can effect air tactics. In a dictatorship, (Iraq for example), top down directions stifles the junior officers ability to "make it up as you go along". That's why our allies, including the Saudis, were successful and the Iraq Air Force fled to Iran!
To: Poohbah
I can imagine the memo Rummy sends to Powell.
"We're sorry, we didn't realize that our torpedo tubes were LOADED..."
49
posted on
05/24/2002 2:24:02 PM PDT
by
hchutch
To: Poohbah
Sort of like a bad nickel, I guess. It is not nice to fool Mother Nature.
To: Tai_chung
For example....
To: hchutch
Naw. Rummy would just look at Powell and say, "Wasn't us. Don't know anything about it. Gotta get back to the five-sided wailing wall and chew out the CNO--looks like his boys have managed to lose 40 practice torpedoes in just over a week."
52
posted on
05/24/2002 2:26:03 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
To: The Big Dog
This report mentions that the Russian fighter is being exported to China and India. I wonder if the radar the article refers to is the export radar or the latest equipment our guys are using.
To: Poohbah
True. Then, of course come the pictures of subs with brooms tied to the `scopes.
Then comes Rumsfeld's secretary: "A Bill Gertz is on line one, asking for comment about some submarines that returned with brooks tied to their periscopes. He left his number. Can you call him back?"
54
posted on
05/24/2002 2:31:03 PM PDT
by
hchutch
To: The Big Dog
since the Su-30 is capable of sneaking up close without being detected by the Eagle's radar. . . Yup, like an F-15 is going to be up there by its lonesome. It does not matter whether the Su-30 is capable of being detected by the F-15's radar when there is an AWACs around the battlefield. I seriously doubt it can avoid being detected by the AWAC's (or other airborne warning systems) radar. The AWAC can give the F-15 a head's up, and the Eagle will have the Su-30 for breakfast, lunch, or dinner -- or maybe a midday snack depending upon the time of day.
The author of this article, you, and Saddam Hussain are falling into the battle trap. The U.S. military does not fight battles -- it conducts campaigns. So while Hussain is preparing for the Mother of All Battles, we prepare for a campaign to kick him out of Kuwait. Similarly, the author of this piece posits air combat as individual duels between two aircraft, while the USAF plans integrated campaigns.
The "superiority" of the Su-30MK in single combat against the F-15C is about as relevant to victory as the superior range and broadside weight of the Yamato against an individual Iowa-class battleship.
To: strider44
Ignore it. We seem to have many reincarnated British from 1919 - 1939 now inhabiting the bodies of certain otherwise sane American Conservatives (not to mention those of nearly all Liberals). "Peace in our time.""Beyond the end of history.""No more great powers conflict." "A New Era Beyond War.""It can't happen here." Etc.....
To: hchutch
I guess we could count on the Brits for another couple of subs too. That's some shocking stats though. I thought we had more boats in the water than that.
To: hchutch
The PRC's numerous IRBMs with tactical nuclear war heads make things much less certain.
To: strider44
I'm not precisely sure on the exact numbers, but I know we are in the 50-60 range on attack subs. And that is for BOTH fleets.
Clinton gutted our submarine force. Retiring the early 688s was a bad move, IMHO, and we should have built 20 or so Seawolf-class SSNs to keep a force of 80 subs, plus the 18 Ohios.
59
posted on
05/24/2002 2:35:16 PM PDT
by
hchutch
To: hchutch
True. Then, of course come the pictures of subs with brooms tied to the `scopes.Easily handled: outlaw the practice before they get back to port.
Then comes Rumsfeld's secretary: "A Bill Gertz is on line one, asking for comment about some submarines that returned with brooks tied to their periscopes. He left his number. Can you call him back?"
"Gosh, Bill, you can do just about ANYTHING with Photoshop these days."
60
posted on
05/24/2002 2:35:53 PM PDT
by
Poohbah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-119 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson