Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th July 2016 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Which Flankers? If the plain Su-27SK or J-11, then it's hardly surprising..
By: - 12th July 2016 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it was the other way around. The Tais are not good pilots.
By: - 12th July 2016 at 11:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very recently there was an article about Thai Gripens who defeated Chinese Flankers, something like 4-0, in simulated combat?
but not much info in the English language.
Does anyone know more about about the way they trained and the rules?
By: - 13th July 2016 at 03:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's a scan of the relevant part of the article itself...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246999[/ATTACH]
By: - 13th July 2016 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So they flew several 4 vs 4's and in one of them Flankers lost 0-4.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ive been mistaken then.
but looking at the numbers on those planes, they are some really old versions. the early su27 is comparable to the mig-23 in capability, so its no doubt more modern gripens can dispatch them. in plaaf service, j10s had no problems taking out su27s
By: - 13th July 2016 at 09:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
did anyone else take note on this part: "Chinese appear to have sent their best pilots, Thais said they had never seen anything like it from western air forces"
how many hours do chinese pilots get ?
By: - 13th July 2016 at 09:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the early su27 is comparable to the mig-23 in capability
Say what? Pretty much the only thing they have in common is being limited to SARH missiles only, so by that brilliant logic everything without active radar missiles is "comparable to the MiG-23". And yes, the basic radar antenna design is similar to that used on late MiG-23's, but since the antenna is much bigger and it has better computers, they're not really on the same level at all.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
did anyone else take note on this part: "Chinese appear to have sent their best pilots, Thais said they had never seen anything like it from western air forces"how many hours do chinese pilots get ?
Specific numbers are hard to come by, but it's generally accepted that flying hours have been increased substantially since the mid 2000s, especially for 4th generation aircraft.
I'm more interested in why the Thai pilots think the Chinese sent their best pilots, for all they know their past exercises with western air forces didn't have their pilots show their stuff, or maybe they'd underestimated the Chinese pilots quality to begin with.
I imagine the Flankers would've lost quite badly in BVR, considering they're very early Su-27SKs/J-11As, so that is probably where the 4-0 came from.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering, that Flanker lost in one scenario of many, than it is most probably in scenario of BVR, where Gripen C/D have the most modern radar and AMRAAM missiles and Flanker have basic N001 radar and R-27R missiles. In other scenarios it seems old basic Flanker is still the match to the latest Gripen fighters. But again, we do not know, how effective could be Sorbtsia-S ECM pods with cross-eye jamming against AMRAAMs and R-27ET missiles against Gripens. Also we do not know, if those Flankers China send to Thailand are upgraded to use R-77 missiles and if they are, are they allowed to use those capabilities in exercise. I don't think China have Sorbtsia-S ECM pods and R-77 ot PL-12 missiles with their Flankers on exercise. with Thai air force.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 12:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
did anyone else take note on this part: "Chinese appear to have sent their best pilots, Thais said they had never seen anything like it from western air forces"how many hours do chinese pilots get ?
so you saying Thais in their Gripen had a scenario where they went undefeated against China's best? amazing
By: - 13th July 2016 at 15:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ive been mistaken then.but looking at the numbers on those planes, they are some really old versions. the early su27 is comparable to the mig-23 in capability, so its no doubt more modern gripens can dispatch them. in plaaf service, j10s had no problems taking out su27s
Reread the article. it says Chinese pilot has to do some calculations for BVR shot that often not accurate. how they came to know its not accurate or pilots are mostly key board warriors used to display screens than the old instruments.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so you saying Thais in their Gripen had a scenario where they went undefeated against China's best? amazing
i sort of assumed that, apart from russian show-off test pilots, west has the best regular pilots,
and i didnt expect china would put such emphasis on quality training
By: - 13th July 2016 at 17:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"West" does not really mean much. There are plenty of Western AFs who don't get great flight hours at all, and participate in very limited larger exercises.
USMC was flying between 72 to 108 hours on average in 2015. Hardly world leading, I can only imagine how hours other non-American air arms get in reality.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 17:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USN and USMC numbers are a little tricky since they have adopted a tiered readiness approach so it all depends which units at what readiness level one is looking at. This impacts everything from training resources, materials, manpower and spare parts needed to keep at the desired numbers. USMC won't recover readiness till the second half of the 2020's at the earliest once their F-35B fleet reaches critical mass and post BCA focus leads to results. That is a sequestration related even that has been in force for a few years with the BCA. Can't say much for other forces, but readiness and the capability to counter, particularity the harder threads has suffered a setback since budget control act went into force.
hile these close-in adaptations are possible, the short-term readiness of our current forces
comes at the expense of those who will follow in their footsteps. Even when not deployed, Marine
units are required to maintain higher levels of readiness, so they can deploy on short notice. Tiered
readiness, where resources from non-deployed units are paid forward to ensure that deployed and
next-to-deploy units have sufficient personnel, equipment and training to accomplish their mission, is
a recipe for a hollow force and is not compatible with the Marine Corps’ mandate.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 18:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Reread the article. it says Chinese pilot has to do some calculations for BVR shot that often not accurate. how they came to know its not accurate or pilots are mostly key board warriors used to display screens than the old instruments.
It means that when setting up semi-active radar missile shots, the pilots had to estimate by themselves whether enemy was in missile's no-escape zone. This may lead to wasted warshots when it turns out enemy was not in range after all, or alternatively, flying to closer range than would have been necessary to achieve successful shot.
Remember that those Flankers can't intercept multiple targets, also their track-while-scan capability is probably quite limited so when taking a radar missile shot, they can do little else.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 23:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When a Grippen (or even relatively obsolete blk30 F-16 or F-15C) fires its AIM-120, radar automatically selects appropirate PRF, and there is a time to impact counter on the HUD. When that counter reaches 0, pilot will know target is either hit, or missile missed its target.
When a basic Su-27S fires its R-27RE, pilot is still responsible to watch target vector (shown on the left bottom side of the hud) and switch between MED and HI pulse-repetition frequencies when closure rate changes as target maneuvers. If an approaching target, for example, makes a sharp turn, and if target is far enough, Su-27 will lose its radar lock as it will still be scanning for an approaching target.
And Su-27 pilot has to guestimate how long it will take for missile to travel to its target, and use the chronometer on the instrument panel to guesstimate if missile has reached -and missed- its target, hit it, or still on its way towards it.
Other than that, RLPK has pretty good IFDL and in 4 vs 4, I am pretty confident Flankers' SA will be just as good as the Grippens', and even in STT mode, each Flanker tracking a Grippen will share all its data with other Flankers. With good pilot training to manage the RLPK with its user unfriendliness, its not really suprising to see baseline Su-27S still could stand up pretty well againist modern Grippens with AIM-120Bs in BVR; and I would put my money on Su-27S if it comes to WVR combat.
By: - 13th July 2016 at 23:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i sort of assumed that, apart from russian show-off test pilots, west has the best regular pilots,
and i didnt expect china would put such emphasis on quality training
They've been pretty insistent on increasing the realism of their exercises for the last few years, and for the air force in particular they made some large gains that began since the mid 2000s.
Tphuang wrote a fairly comprehensive blog post about it a few years back, and while some parts may not be 100% accurate and is not up to date, it does give some good background as to what the state of training was in the mid to late cold war up to now.
So increased pilot competency, especially for 4th gen planes, shouldn't really be that much of a surprise.
By: - 14th July 2016 at 00:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When a Grippen (or even relatively obsolete blk30 F-16 or F-15C) fires its AIM-120, radar automatically selects appropirate PRF, and there is a time to impact counter on the HUD. When that counter reaches 0, pilot will know target is either hit, or missile missed its target.When a basic Su-27S fires its R-27RE, pilot is still responsible to watch target vector (shown on the left bottom side of the hud) and switch between MED and HI pulse-repetition frequencies when closure rate changes as target maneuvers. If an approaching target, for example, makes a sharp turn, and if target is far enough, Su-27 will lose its radar lock as it will still be scanning for an approaching target.
And Su-27 pilot has to guestimate how long it will take for missile to travel to its target, and use the chronometer on the instrument panel to guesstimate if missile has reached -and missed- its target, hit it, or still on its way towards it.
Other than that, RLPK has pretty good IFDL and in 4 vs 4, I am pretty confident Flankers' SA will be just as good as the Grippens', and even in STT mode, each Flanker tracking a Grippen will share all its data with other Flankers. With good pilot training to manage the RLPK with its user unfriendliness, its not really suprising to see baseline Su-27S still could stand up pretty well againist modern Grippens with AIM-120Bs in BVR; and I would put my money on Su-27S if it comes to WVR combat.
I'd be interested in knowing which BVR missiles each side had access to simulate.
From what I understand the RTAF only has AIM-120Cs as their only AIM-120 variant in service, which I presume is fitted with their Gripens... though I could be wrong
I think only a few Chinese Su-27SKs and J-11As have been upgraded with active radar homing R-77s, and most still rely on R-27 variants, but the situation is murky. Overall, I think compounding the superior avionics of Gripen (likely including radar performance) with their likely superior missiles, I think the Flankers in this case would've found BVR pretty rough.
More interesting would have been if J-11Bs were sent instead of Su-27SKs and J-11As... but that's never going to happen, not in the foreseeable future.
By: - 14th July 2016 at 02:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SARH requires an illuminator. It calculates lead on your shot. They wouldn't reveal illuminator handshake codes or anything like that
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 12th July 2016 at 06:39
Very recently there was an article about Thai Gripens who defeated Chinese Flankers, something like 4-0, in simulated combat?
but not much info in the English language.
Does anyone know more about about the way they trained and the rules?