F-15 vs. Su-27

[WHITE CLOWD]

the one in S.Korea between the Su-27 vs. F-15?

[Flanker_man]

the one in S.Korea between the Su-27 vs. F-15?

I'm getting confused here..............

Which 'war games exercise' in South Korea are you talking about ????

Please provide some details of what exactly you mean.

There was a 'competition' between the MAKERS of the Su-27 and the F-15 to supply a fighter to the S. Korean AF - which Boeing won with the F-15K

AFAIK, there was no direct 'exercise' involving both types. They may have been evaluated by S. Korean pilots separately - but they never flew 'against' each other.

If you know any different - please let us know....

Ken

[mickvb]

I'm getting confused here..............

Which 'war games exercise' in South Korea are you talking about ????

Please provide some details of what exactly you mean.

There was a 'competition' between the MAKERS of the Su-27 and the F-15 to supply a fighter to the S. Korean AF - which Boeing won with the F-15K

AFAIK, there was no direct 'exercise' involving both types. They may have been evaluated by S. Korean pilots separately - but they never flew 'against' each other.

If you know any different - please let us know....

Ken

From what I understand the South Koreans went with the F-15K for political reasons, & if the decision had been based on the merits of the aircraft, the Flanker varient would've won. But then winning procurement contracts is useally 90% political (local content/assembly in the right parlimentary district/s, the lobby game, fringe benefit/cost equation in regards foreign relations/trade, etc, etc)

[Arthur]

From what I understand the South Koreans went with the F-15K for political reasons, & if the decision had been based on the merits of the aircraft, the Flanker varient would've won. But then winning procurement contracts is useally 90% political (local content/assembly in the right parlimentary district/s, the lobby game, fringe benefit/cost equation in regards foreign relations/trade, etc, etc)

The Flanker hardly had a chance in the competition. The candidate which finally lost it to the F-15K, reportedly because of politics rather than anything else, was the Rafale.

[seahawk]

This is true in the strict sense.
But real life is sometimes a little bit different.
Otherwise no "Skyguard" in Germany or unofficial encounters between Typhoon2s and F-15Es over the North Sea.
Sometimes an order can be streched a little bit, when all participants kept their mouth. Just near the end of your term in the AF the "flying desk" is worth it. Fighter pilots have to be agressive to be successfull.

Which unoffical encounters. The only encounter known is quite offical. " RAF Typhoons jumped 2 F-15E that were returning from a training sortie. That is usual practice and happens quite often to any NATO training flight. Although it is mostly other aircraft types that are involved.

When flying with non allied nations however the RoE are strict. And there is not a bit of interpretation left for the pilots.

And in general fighter pilots are soldiers and have to follow orders first.

[Sens]

Which unoffical encounters. The only encounter known is quite offical. " RAF Typhoons jumped 2 F-15E that were returning from a training sortie. That is usual practice and happens quite often to any NATO training flight. Although it is mostly other aircraft types that are involved.

When flying with non allied nations however the RoE are strict. And there is not a bit of interpretation left for the pilots.

And in general fighter pilots are soldiers and have to follow orders first.

I still agree with you about that. At Langley both parties did some manouvering in a mixed formation offically. The Flanker-drivers got the impression by that, that they flew the aerodynamical better fighter. The Russians spoke about that. Nothing wrong about that. The F-15-drivers feel still confident to have the better overall weapons-system.
But the USAF itself published a paper, which showed an exchange ratio of different fighters against a "Flanker" in an 1:1 encounter. (The F-15s against Flanker was below one = negativ.) Not a typical encounter when flown as pairs, but enough to show the urgent need of replacements for F-15s/F-16s.
In the meanwhile the political situation has eased a lot and those former reports could harm further exports of F-15s/F-16s. When the Russian side keep this alive to bolster possible exports of Flankers.

[Sens]

The Flanker hardly had a chance in the competition. The candidate which finally lost it to the F-15K, reportedly because of politics rather than anything else, was the Rafale.

Not only. The Rafale will become operational in its F3 configuration 2008 at best, when something like F-15I operated some years (since 1998) with the IDF-AF. The world is never "black" and "white" always!

[Adrian_44]

> WHITE CLOWD
> Hey Adrian 44 ( Or Any one else who might know) who won the wargames
> exersice in 94 in South Korean between the Rus SU-27 and U.S.F-15?
I never did hear the results or anything about the ROE's.
This was also the year the USAF purchased two Su-27's from Russia. I did hear about the exercise between the Su-27's and the F-15's at Langley AFB. The exercise were done over the Altantic Ocean.
I found out about the purchase of the Su-27's in Janes Book of Aircraft page 407 and, (I think) 2000/2001 issue.


> Flanker_man
> http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk...ker_combat.html
I heard two different things, one that the Russians broke formations performed a cobra like maneuver and jumped on the tail of the F-15's and the other was that the two took turns getting on each other's tail and the aircraft in front would trying out maneuver the one behind. Supposedly the Su-27's when in front quickly reversed the position and got on the F-15's tail and the F-15 could not shake them. When the F-15 was in front it could not escape from the gunsights of the Su-27.
Who is telling the truth and who is not I have no idea. I know from my late friend Art Doty that the air exercises not only help teach but, also helping out relations between the two countries.
He told me of one exercise in which his flight of four Tomcats in air engagements another country's air force and the Tomcats were "not" allowed to pull more than five G's! Or, another exercise where the air wing was told there would be no tanker support..... translation -don't use your afterburners.


> Sens
> At least when those Flanker pilots were not ordinary Russian AF ones
That is one thing the American military does during these exercises is to use pilots of various experiences. When the US Navy went Laage, Germany for Operation Red October, only one pilot was an aggressor pilot, another pilot was a "nugget" (new pilot) who had just finished his first carrier tour of duty. The other eight pilots had various levels of experience.

Adrian

[Airsande_plus]

What I have seen is the Russian AF comparison between the Su-27 and the F-15 (and other types such as the F-16, Tornado), prepared in the late 1980s, or early 1990s, where they price highly the F-15's aerodynamic (maneuvering) performance.
But this has been preprared in the era prior the live 'encounters', and the only real-world Russian account (report lets' say) for flying the F-15 is that of RuAF Gen (then Col or Lt Col) Kharchevsky, about his flight on an F-15D during the 'famous' visit to Langley in 1991 (or 1990, I cannot remember the date).

[over G]

Other pilots evaluate the Eagle's maneuvering capabilities as more analogous to MiG-23MLD."

in which conditions????, maybe at medium-high subsonic speeds (400-450 knots), and sustained turn at such speeds, but i doubt that in low level vertical maneuvres

[TEEJ]

A thread resurrection, but I think quite interesting. I found this while spinning through You Tube.

Major General Aleksandr Kharchevsky, Head Lipetsk Aviation Centre at around 02:35 in relation to the 'dogfight' of 1992 in the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s7_xVGH9JI

[DarkDuke]

What the Russians don't say is that when you chart rate of turn (degrees per second) at "9g's", there was no mention of what altitude. The lines indicate that the two are about a two degree separation at 156 mph (12º-Sec to 10º-sec) to the advantage of the Su-27. They become identical at 413 mph and the F-15 slowly edges ahead until 540 mph where the F-15 gains a two degree advantage (24º-Sec to 22º). By 625 mph they are coincident again and will never separate more than two degree until the maximum speed of 905 mph.
In high speed performance the difference between the Su-27 and the F-15 is not clear.

The corner velocities of the two aircraft at "9G's" are;
F-15C -450 @ 25º
Su-27 -393 @ 28º

May I ask the source of these two instantaneous turn rate data?

[uss novice]

A thread resurrection, but I think quite interesting. I found this while spinning through You Tube.

Major General Aleksandr Kharchevsky, Head Lipetsk Aviation Centre at around 02:35 in relation to the 'dogfight' of 1992 in the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s7_xVGH9JI

Interestingly enough -

in the early Nineties, when Su-27 pilots were invited to take part in military training with the F-15.

The rules of the “battle” required the Russian planes to get on the tail of the American jets, then the opponents changed places. In a real battle, this would allow directing a missile and hitting the target. In both scenarios, Sus were victorious. According to someone who took part in those exercises, chief of the Lipetsk Air Force Training centre Major General Aleksandr Harchevsky, due to its high manoeuvrability and thrust-to-weight ratio, the Su-27 gained speed on the upward trajectory faster than F-15.

The F-15 constantly needed to make a kind of a “step” – fly along a straight line for a certain period of time. The Russian pilots took advantage of that – they persuaded the Americans to go upward, at which point they lost speed, and the Sus, having made a sharp turn, found themselves on the tail of the enemy. A moment later and the target was “destroyed”.

From an interview with Simonov posted @ the Telegraph on oct 28, 09.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/6453948/Russia-Now-Interview-with-Mikhail-Simonov---the-inventor-of-the-Sukhoi-jet-fighters.html#at

USS

[haavarla]

A thread resurrection, but I think quite interesting. I found this while spinning through You Tube.

Major General Aleksandr Kharchevsky, Head Lipetsk Aviation Centre at around 02:35 in relation to the 'dogfight' of 1992 in the U.S.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s7_xVGH9JI

Interesting.
I wonder when we'll see an DACT exersise or just a frendly visit between RuAF and USAF again..

How about it, is there any chance at all for RuAF to participate in a RED FLAG in the future?

Come to think about it, the RuAF will have a major in challange airial tanker and logistic support.
Let alone the Russian pilots would have to master English language to a certain degree, they will not be allowed to use thir data link-16 as with the MKI's.

In a hypotetical scenario i think RuAF will not reach up to the same good results as the Indians did at Red Flag 2008, its not just the flying but the whole package..


Thanks

[Austin]

I have put both sides of the argument up on my website at :- http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/...er_combat.html

Ken these links no longer work , can you provide an updated link.

Thanks
Austin

[haavarla]

I still agree with you about that. At Langley both parties did some manouvering in a mixed formation offically. The Flanker-drivers got the impression by that, that they flew the aerodynamical better fighter. The Russians spoke about that. Nothing wrong about that. The F-15-drivers feel still confident to have the better overall weapons-system.
But the USAF itself published a paper, which showed an exchange ratio of different fighters against a "Flanker" in an 1:1 encounter. (The F-15s against Flanker was below one = negativ.) Not a typical encounter when flown as pairs, but enough to show the urgent need of replacements for F-15s/F-16s.
In the meanwhile the political situation has eased a lot and those former reports could harm further exports of F-15s/F-16s. When the Russian side keep this alive to bolster possible exports of Flankers.

Who was the RuAF pilots wisiting US?
Kharchevsky's was there?
Any of the Russian test/display pilots?


Thanks

[Austin]

Russia Now: Interview with Mikhail Simonov - the inventor of the Sukhoi jet fighters ( via BRF )

[Al.]

I have a lingering attachment to the Eagle so I'd like to think that the S Korean's chose her in part because the costs of OPERATING the Flanker would be significantly more than the Eagle. Costs of buying for sure I can see that the Flanker would win.

[ls1 miata]

I have a lingering attachment to the Eagle so I'd like to think that the S Korean's chose her in part because the costs of OPERATING the Flanker would be significantly more than the Eagle. Costs of buying for sure I can see that the Flanker would win.

Very true. The long term maintenance/operating costs of Russian aircraft usually tend to be significantly higher compared to similar Western aircraft.

[Flanker_man]

Ken these links no longer work , can you provide an updated link.

Thanks
Austin

OK - Just uploaded here.

Please lets not degenerate into a 'My Flankers bigger than your Eagle' debate ...

Ken

[plawolf]

But the Flanker IS bigger then the Eagle. Fact.

[UAZ]

Very true. The long term maintenance/operating costs of Russian aircraft usually tend to be significantly higher compared to similar Western aircraft.

I have heard this over and over again. I have never seen credible figures to back that up.
Could be just a myth created by people who believe that anything Russian can not be good.

[ls1 miata]

I have heard this over and over again. I have never seen credible figures to back that up.
Could be just a myth created by people who believe that anything Russian can not be good.

A lot of the technical stuff, like the engines and airframes, have shorter life spans than their Western counterparts. That leads to increased maintenence costs.

[Lonevolk]

A lot of the technical stuff, like the engines and airframes, have shorter life spans than their Western counterparts. That leads to increased maintenence costs.

That's true for the early Mig-29's.....I'm not sure it applies to the SU-27.

The Taiwanese-AF is now saying that the Mirage-2000 is very expensive to maintain so...

[Wilde]

On the other hand they're also cheaper.

But I remember the time when our German Migs were retired. When we needed specific spares we would only get them in packages. For example the landing gear. We couldn't just order a wheel, dampener or braking disc. We always had to order the entire gear, which made it expensive eventually. don't bite me on it, I over-simplified it for the sake of demonstration. Certainly the circumstances played a role, like how we got the Migs in the first place amongst other things. It isn't always as simple as it seems at first glance.

[Levsha]

That's true for the early Mig-29's.....I'm not sure it applies to the SU-27.

The Taiwanese-AF is now saying that the Mirage-2000 is very expensive to maintain so...

... and the Malayasians are now saying that they're going to retire the MiG-29 pretty soon as it's become too costly to keep in service. quiete frankly I have reading reports of Malaysia's difficulties with their MiG-29s for a few years now. It would be interesting to find out how much it costs to maintain the MiG in comparison with the F/A-18C in the Malaysian air force.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-recovers.html

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...=93109&page=16

[obligatory]

I have heard this over and over again. I have never seen credible figures to back that up.
Could be just a myth created by people who believe that anything Russian can not be good.

There is a relation between weight and cost, lighter=cheaper.
I'll pass on the Rus-thing tho.

[haavarla]

There is a relation between weight and cost, lighter=cheaper.
I'll pass on the Rus-thing tho.

Yep agreed.

If we rule out the engines, how do the Su-27 airframe structure futige measure against the F-15?

Even from the early days, the airframe had a deecent % with titanium.

Titanium are expensive, but Russia have/had abundance of it.
One of titanium qualities are stronger endurance against airframe structure futige?


Thanks

[MadRat]

Titanium may be abundant in Russia but the military competes with the civilian sector for the supply.

[haavarla]

Titanium may be abundant in Russia but the military competes with the civilian sector for the supply.

Thats true.
But both the civilian & military sector are gearing up with more and more composite as time go by..

Why, because its much cheaper to manufacture vs titanium.. or atleast it will be in the very near future ones all the Russian aviation fact-lines are fully mature.

Here is an older link on the matter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-superjet.html

Thanks