Eurofighter Typhoon Vs Bugatti Veyron.. Must watch!!

[Bongosamaj]

The article states thus, "The operational part of 'Exercise Indradhanush-2007' began with a series of 1-to-1 air combat sorties. The RAF pilots were candid in their admission of the Su-30 MKI's observed superior manoeuvring in the air, just as they had studied, prepared and anticipated. The IAF pilots on their part were also visibly impressed by the Typhoon's agility in the air."

So ? The article also stated that the Eurofighter Typhoon has longer range AA missiles, better avionics and a smaller radar cross-section(ie, better stealth). Those three as i said, go a long way to neutralize the better manueverability & carrying power of the Sukhoi in the air and as a result are more or less evenly matched. manueverability these days don't mean much, because 90% of air-to-air combat is done on radar anyways & not in dogfighting.

[Ram]

So ? The article also stated that the Eurofighter Typhoon has longer range AA missiles, better avionics and a smaller radar cross-section(ie, better stealth). Those three as i said, go a long way to neutralize the better manueverability & carrying power of the Sukhoi in the air and as a result are more or less evenly matched. manueverability these days don't mean much, because 90% of air-to-air combat is done on radar anyways & not in dogfighting.

And in the same part of the article , it says most of today's BVRAA ( Beyond visual range air-to-air ) capabilities can be neutralized with passive measure like even launching dummy heat flares and one-to-one combat still holds massive relevance today. And in one-to-one combat , its the aircraft maneuverability is what plays a massive role , more bigger role than the range of the missiles.

[Bongosamaj]

it says most of today's BVRAA ( Beyond visual range air-to-air ) capabilities can be neutralized with passive measure like even launching dummy heat flares and one-to-one combat still holds massive relevance today

No, you interpreted it wrong. The article says that 'gun-kills' are the only way of sure-shot confirmation that your target is neutralized but is NOT a relevant aspect of most arial combat because of the BVR capability. And the article clearly mentions that these exercises are NOT a good enough indicator for war but its the best we've got. Take for eg, the whole counter-measure angle. Sure, 1v1, when one plane fires off a missile at another, CMs will work more often than not. But not when an aircraft launches 5 missiles at you and its a squadron vs another squadron (which is the nature of air combat ALWAYS). Then you are quite literally, fooked, as your CM suite will NOT stop half a dozen missiles homing in on you. Besides, heat-flares are a very hit-or-miss aspect of counter-measures and not all missiles are heat-seekers anyways. There are radar-seekers, heat seekers, simple 'line of sight lock' and even laser-painted locked seekers. When you are flying an attack aircraft, you CANNOT carry counter-measures of all types in adequate quantity. In 99% cases, if you establish a good missile lock & launch half a dozen of your missiles at the target, where the missiles are all of mixed-homing variety, you will hit your target.

And in one-to-one combat , its the aircraft maneuverability is what plays a massive role , more bigger role than the range of the missiles.

No. There has been ZERO visual range combat in the last 20 years of air-fights. Yes, absolute nada, zilch, zero. So dogfighting today doesn't count for much. And even in a dogfight, range of missiles matter. Missile lock and counter-measures are electromagnetic probability games and closer the range, more likely you are to hit your enemy. As such, even in a 'head-on 1v1 dogfighting' scenario (which is very rare these days), the ability to launch first is a HUGE tactical advantage- along with a smaller radar profile/cross section (means your plane is harder to spot for the radar/naked eye), it goes a long way to neutralize the superior manueverability of an aircraft. Look, all combat is a game of rock-paper-scissors. There is no sure-shot way of victory/advantage- its how your WHOLE PACKAGE matches up to another package. And in the whole package, ET is an equal combat aircraft to the Su-30MKI. The Su-35 might be slightly better but then again, Su-35 is the most advanced fighter in service from the Sukhoi family. And it is a moot point anyways for us, since Russia won't sell the Su-35 to anybody. Most ariel combat today occurs in simple set-piece tactics : Your squadron flies off for a mission, it spots enemy aircraft on radar, fires all its missiles when there is a missile-lock, immediately makes a 180 and bugs outta there. If there is no chase, after a few hrs, ground-bombing missions are launched ( to drop bombs on ground in the area your enemy squadron was protecting). A Eurofighter Typhoon or a Su-30MKI or a F-22 is not gonna get into much dogfights anyways, so it is a bit useless a scenario to base judgement on.

[Ram]

No, you interpreted it wrong. The article says that 'gun-kills' are the only way of sure-shot confirmation that your target is neutralized but is NOT a relevant aspect of most arial combat because of the BVR capability. And the article clearly mentions that these exercises are NOT a good enough indicator for war but its the best we've got. Take for eg, the whole counter-measure angle. Sure, 1v1, when one plane fires off a missile at another, CMs will work more often than not. But not when an aircraft launches 5 missiles at you and its a squadron vs another squadron (which is the nature of air combat ALWAYS). Then you are quite literally, fooked, as your CM suite will NOT stop half a dozen missiles homing in on you.

I do agree that 1-on-1 dog fights are rare in actual battles but it still holds massive relevance in today world filled with terror threats. Imagine a rogue/disgruntled pilot , taking off in his fully armed fighter and bombing the living hell out of some place. At such circumstances , he HAS to be shot down and the only way to do it would to engage him and not fire BVR missiles and hope he falls. And even say in a actual battle situation , lets say its a squadron Vs Squadron scenario , you dont have a single plane being engaged by multiple other planes. Air Combat, if it comes to that , is always one-on-one.

Besides, heat-flares are a very hit-or-miss aspect of counter-measures and not all missiles are heat-seekers anyways. There are radar-seekers, heat seekers, simple 'line of sight lock' and even laser-painted locked seekers. When you are flying an attack aircraft, you CANNOT carry counter-measures of all types in adequate quantity. In 99% cases, if you establish a good missile lock & launch half a dozen of your missiles at the target, where the missiles are all of mixed-homing variety, you will hit your target.

If you have a mobile target , like a fighter flying at 1.5 Mach, the most common form of missiles are the heat-seeeking ones. I agree there laser guided ones too , but heat-seeking is the most common one. And its funny how mention nonchalantly that " Just launch 5-6 missiles".. It quite simply doesnt work that way. Ammunition is at a premium in a air-combat. You just dont launch 5-6 missiles at your own mercy.

No. There has been ZERO visual range combat in the last 20 years of air-fights. Yes, absolute nada, zilch, zero. So dogfighting today doesn't count for much. And even in a dogfight, range of missiles matter. Missile lock and counter-measures are electromagnetic probability games and closer the range, more likely you are to hit your enemy. As such, even in a 'head-on 1v1 dogfighting' scenario (which is very rare these days), the ability to launch first is a HUGE tactical advantage- along with a smaller radar profile/cross section (means your plane is harder to spot for the radar/naked eye), it goes a long way to neutralize the superior manueverability of an aircraft.

Who said there have been zero instances planes being shot down in a 1-to-1 combat in the last 20 years ? Remember Atlantis , the pakistani reconnaissance air-craft that strayed into Indian territory , was warned to go back, didnt heed to the advice and was shot down by Indian fighters after a short air-battl ? I have said this before and will say it again , 1-to-1 combat still holds massive relevance in today's world. If the stealth and firepower were the only two over-bearing factors , then you wouldnt have fighters getting smaller and smaller, which is what is happening to India light-combat aircraft. All you have is massive bombers , with advanced anti-detection capabilities. And that being the case , maneuverability is the ultimate difference that decides who wins or loses.

Look, all combat is a game of rock-paper-scissors. There is no sure-shot way of victory/advantage- its how your WHOLE PACKAGE matches up to another package. And in the whole package, ET is an equal combat aircraft to the Su-30MKI. The Su-35 might be slightly better but then again, Su-35 is the most advanced fighter in service from the Sukhoi family. And it is a moot point anyways for us, since Russia won't sell the Su-35 to anybody.

You yourself have told that the Su-30 Mki is an export version of the Su-35 and Russia and India have actually joined hands to develop a 5th generation even more advanced than the Su-35. So i dont where you got this " Russia wont sell Su-35 to anyone" from ....

Most ariel combat today occurs in simple set-piece tactics : Your squadron flies off for a mission, it spots enemy aircraft on radar, fires all its missiles when there is a missile-lock, immediately makes a 180 and bugs outta there. If there is no chase, after a few hrs, ground-bombing missions are launched ( to drop bombs on ground in the area your enemy squadron was protecting).

Quite simply no. Laser guided missiles/satellite guided missles require the parent fighter to be in vicinity to be effective and its just not the fire-and-forget scenario that you are painting it out to be.

A Eurofighter Typhoon or a Su-30MKI or a F-22 is not gonna get into much dogfights anyways' date=' so it is a bit useless a scenario to base judgement on.[/quote'] Hell no ! Just look at the countries that have bought the Su-30s and Eurofighters and you will know that there is plenty of potential for a conflict between these countries.

[Bongosamaj]

but it still holds massive relevance in today world filled with terror threats.

No, it doesn't. Terrorists don't fly fighter jets!

Imagine a rogue/disgruntled pilot , taking off in his fully armed fighter and bombing the living hell out of some place.

if you know how the military works, this is NOT a possible scenario. For if the pilot does an unauthorized takeoff, he will be shot-down by his own air force after 1 warning. Period.

At such circumstances , he HAS to be shot down and the only way to do it would to engage him and not fire BVR missiles and hope he falls.

Even if this crazy circumstance arises, the defending nation will quickly sortie a squadron of planes ( 3-5 fighters) & they will all fire off half a dozen missiles each at this rogue pilot. Good luck evading 25-30 missiles homing in on you.

you dont have a single plane being engaged by multiple other planes. Air Combat, if it comes to that , is always one-on-one.

Absolutely false.

And its funny how mention nonchalantly that " Just launch 5-6 missiles".. It quite simply doesnt work that way. Ammunition is at a premium in a air-combat. You just dont launch 5-6 missiles at your own mercy.

I quoted a FACT about air-combat and this aspect has been covered several times by Jane's. And no, you don't launch ANYTHING at your mercy in the air- you do exactly what control tower tells you. You get authorization first to fire then you do- even in heat of battle. Else its instant court-marshall.

Who said there have been zero instances planes being shot down in a 1-to-1 combat in the last 20 years ?

Nobody did. I said that there has been ZERO cases of 1v1 DOGFIGHTING'/VISUAL RANGE COMBAT in the last 20 yrs, except in the case of minor militaries.

I have said this before and will say it again , 1-to-1 combat still holds massive relevance in today's world.

False. It doesn't unless you are a little third world nation still flying 70s & 80s version aircrafts. The article in this thread itself also confirms how rare dogfighting are today!

Remember Atlantis , the pakistani reconnaissance air-craft that strayed into Indian territory , was warned to go back, didnt heed to the advice and was shot down by Indian fighters after a short air-battl

There was no battle. Not even a short one. The Pakistani aircraft was given 2 warnings & then 2 missiles were fired, destroying it, from 75km range ( again, BVR).

If the stealth and firepower were the only two over-bearing factors , then you wouldnt have fighters getting smaller and smaller, which is what is happening to India light-combat aircraft.

Umm..fighters are getting smaller and smaller DUE TO THE STEALTH FACTOR! Do you have any idea how radar and radar-stealth actually works ? Size and shape is a big part of the equation!

And that being the case , maneuverability is the ultimate difference that decides who wins or loses.

No. He who has better radar wins. Its just that simple. Everything else, comes next, including manueverability. I may be flying a bathtub and you may be riding in a nice sukhoi- if my radar is better than your's, you are toast. Its just that simple.

You yourself have told that the Su-30 Mki is an export version of the Su-35 and Russia and India have actually joined hands to develop a 5th generation even more advanced than the Su-35. So i dont where you got this " Russia wont sell Su-35 to anyone" from ....

yes, Su-30MKI is an export version of Su-35. But the whole term 'export version' means it is NOT the same fighter! 'Export version' means that the exported model is slightly inferior to the national version. That is a given, for every nation- Russia, America or European ones. For nobody will export you the absolute cutting edge top of the line stuff they themselves have- its a matter of national security, so they will always give you slightly dumbed- down versions of it. It is true in EVERY SINGLE major arms purchases/acquisitions. Even the F-16s Israel has arnt as good as the best F-16 american squadrons. As per the whole '5th generation' Indo-Russian collaboration is concerned, its still only in the talking stage with Russia already developing their own 5th gen. fighter independently. So far, it means squat for India. And even if India-Russia collaborate, it would basically mean India pours in the money & Russia provides the R&D. And in such a scenario, you can BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR that Russia will keep a few aces up its sleeve & the tech-transfer to India would be of a slightly lower quality than what Russia is capable of. Why ? simply because no country in the world exports the absolute cream-of-the-crop military tech to anyone, not even its bestest buddies.

Laser guided missiles/satellite guided missles require the parent fighter to be in vicinity to be effective and its just not the fire-and-forget scenario that you are painting it out to be

'In vicinity' is still 50-60 kms away. Which is yet again, beyond visual range.

Hell no ! Just look at the countries that have bought the Su-30s and Eurofighters and you will know that there is plenty of potential for a conflict between these countries.

So ? There is plenty of potential of conflict between the nations buying these two weapons of terror but these planes will still not see much dogfighting combat! Every air-force related person i've talked to- in india, to americans or in canada- all say the exact same thing- Dogfighting era is over. It is mostly irrelevant today.

[Ram]

No' date=' it doesn't. Terrorists don't fly fighter jets![/quote'] I didnt mention terrorists. "Rogue pilots" is what i had mentioned, if you had paid attention.

if you know how the military works, this is NOT a possible scenario. For if the pilot does an unauthorized takeoff, he will be shot-down by his own air force after 1 warning. Period.

And does he have to do an unauthorized take-off to fly always ? Even a minor reconnaissance sortie is enough reason for him to get away.

Even if this crazy circumstance arises, the defending nation will quickly sortie a squadron of planes ( 3-5 fighters) & they will all fire off half a dozen missiles each at this rogue pilot. Good luck evading 25-30 missiles homing in on you.

If you have squadron always in ready mode that is.

I quoted a FACT about air-combat and this aspect has been covered several times by Jane's. And no, you don't launch ANYTHING at your mercy in the air- you do exactly what control tower tells you. You get authorization first to fire then you do- even in heat of battle. Else its instant court-marshall.

This is what Wiki has to say about Dogfights. "Superiority in a dog fight can depend on a pilot's experience and skill, and the agility of his fighter when flown at minimum air speeds approaching loss of control (causing a danger of stalling); the winner typically plays to the strengths of his own aircraft while forcing his adversary to fly at a design disadvantage." I dont see the word, " a single plane being attacked by a squadron " anywhere

Umm..fighters are getting smaller and smaller DUE TO THE STEALTH FACTOR! Do you have any idea how radar and radar-stealth actually works ? Size and shape is a big part of the equation!

Oh really ? You must have heard of the B-2 Bomber i suppose and how massive it is. Fighters are getting smaller not primarily because of stealth , but mainly because they can cut down on weight , extract more oompf out of the engine , have a longer range due to increased fuel efficiency and have better agility.

No. He who has better radar wins. Its just that simple. Everything else, comes next, including manueverability. I may be flying a bathtub and you may be riding in a nice sukhoi- if my radar is better than your's, you are toast. Its just that simple.

Not as simple as that. If my fighter is lithe and make some fancy turns , i can out maneuver your radar and outlast your missiles.

yes, Su-30MKI is an export version of Su-35. But the whole term 'export version' means it is NOT the same fighter! 'Export version' means that the exported model is slightly inferior to the national version. That is a given, for every nation- Russia, America or European ones. For nobody will export you the absolute cutting edge top of the line stuff they themselves have- its a matter of national security, so they will always give you slightly dumbed- down versions of it. It is true in EVERY SINGLE major arms purchases/acquisitions. Even the F-16s Israel has arnt as good as the best F-16 american squadrons.

Absolutely incorrect,especially for the Sukhoi-30 MKI. The plane was made better by Indian avionics . what do you expect the Russians to do in return ? Sell under-cut hardware ? No nation that pays billions for these hardware will accept "dumbed down" versions , as you put it.

As per the whole '5th generation' Indo-Russian collaboration is concerned, its still only in the talking stage with Russia already developing their own 5th gen. fighter independently. So far, it means squat for India. And even if India-Russia collaborate, it would basically mean India pours in the money & Russia provides the R&D. And in such a scenario, you can BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR that Russia will keep a few aces up its sleeve & the tech-transfer to India would be of a slightly lower quality than what Russia is capable of. Why ? simply because no country in the world exports the absolute cream-of-the-crop military tech to anyone, not even its bestest buddies.

That is what you think. When it comes to a joint military project, both the partners get the same piece of hardware. Take the example the "BrahMos" . Ofcourse it was Russia that provided most of the hardware including the path breaking scram-jet engine and India was mainly concerned with guidance and re-entry. Does that mean the Indian "BrahMo" are any less superior to the Russian ones ? Sounds hilarious to me.

So ? There is plenty of potential of conflict between the nations buying these two weapons of terror but these planes will still not see much dogfighting combat! Every air-force related person i've talked to- in india, to americans or in canada- all say the exact same thing- Dogfighting era is over. It is mostly irrelevant today.

That is because there have been few and far battles of two equally matched air-forces. All we have seen in the last 20 years is either NATO or the US bombing some puny country with almost useless airforce. Dogfights will never lose their relevance.

[Bongosamaj]

And does he have to do an unauthorized take-off to fly always ? Even a minor reconnaissance sortie is enough reason for him to get away.

Dude,this is a very very rare scenario not even worth thinking about. As i said, if you knew anything about military organization structure, you'd know that this is one of the surest way to getting yourself killed pointlessly (turning into a rogue pilot). A rogue pilot is not a concern for his target nation/people- he will be taken care of by HIS OWN AIR FORCE in no time. Military does not tolerate rogues. It jeopardizes their structure at the fundamental level and all militaries go to great lengths to give the severest treatment to rogues/wannabe-rogues. This is not an issue.

If you have squadron always in ready mode that is.

There is always a squadron or two at perpetual ready mode in every air base for almost every 'great power' nation.

I dont see the word, " a single plane being attacked by a squadron " anywhere

Good. Now go read about ACTUAL AIR FIGHTS in the last 50 yrs- there is no rule about 1v1 and in almost ALL fights, the matchups were unequal in numbers, thus blowing a huge hole in your 1v1 scenario.

Oh really ? You must have heard of the B-2 Bomber i suppose and how massive it is. Fighters are getting smaller not primarily because of stealth , but mainly because they can cut down on weight , extract more oompf out of the engine , have a longer range due to increased fuel efficiency and have better agility.

Yes,really. Fighters are getting smaller and smaller primarily because of stealth. Fact. If you wish to challenge this, i hope you come prepared with knowhow on radar technology. As for bombers- f*ck bombers. I am talking about fighters here. Infact, stealth is the ONLY reason they are getting smaller- the engine power we have these days, a bigger jet is advantageous as it can carry way more fuel and ammunition and if it wasn't for the fact that bigger planes = less stealthy, fighters would be getting bigger and bigger. Infact, with developments in stealth tech, fighters are becomming bigger again. The Su-30MKI and Su-35 are some of the LARGEST fighters ever fielded by man, the F-22 is huger than the F-16, the ET is bigger than the Mirage or Jaguars.

Not as simple as that. If my fighter is lithe and make some fancy turns , i can out maneuver your radar and outlast your missiles.

Only if you are literally an ace pilot (not all pilots are aces) and only then in 1 outta 5 cases. As i said, i will win the odds game if i have a better radar and all war is a game of odds. As per 'fancy turn/outlast missiles', i can tell you have no idea about how missile-seeking and missile jamming works- its always a chance game and when confronted with half a dozen missiles homing on to you, you are almost always toast. As i said, its always a game of rock-paper-scissors. Your higher manueverability aspect is neutralized by a fighter that can fire off its missiles first, is smaller & thus stealthier & with better avionics. Advantage gone. Playing field made level again. Rock-paper-scissors. Comprende ?

Absolutely incorrect,especially for the Sukhoi-30 MKI. The plane was made better by Indian avionics . what do you expect the Russians to do in return ? Sell under-cut hardware ? No nation that pays billions for these hardware will accept "dumbed down" versions , as you put it.

Dude, don't say incorrect when you are arguing simply for the hell of it without any knowledge. Go to wiki and look up the specs of Su-35. You will find that it is a SUPERIOR plane to the Su-30MKI. And yes, damn right- Russia WILL NOT give you the best of the best- nobody will. and your options are to take a slightly dumbed-down version that is still bloody good or miss out alltogether. Easy choice for me!

When it comes to a joint military project, both the partners get the same piece of hardware.

No. categorically false.

Take the example the "BrahMos" . Ofcourse it was Russia that provided most of the hardware including the path breaking scram-jet engine and India was mainly concerned with guidance and re-entry. Does that mean the Indian "BrahMo" are any less superior to the Russian ones ? Sounds hilarious to me.

Yes they are. Russian BRAHMOS has a lesser launch time than the Indian ones as Jane's revealed a few months ago. As i said, if your nation is providing the tech, they will ALWAYS hold back a little, even if its something that makes just 1% performance difference. Why ? because everyone wants to retain some little 'edge'.

That is because there have been few and far battles of two equally matched air-forces. All we have seen in the last 20 years is either NATO or the US bombing some puny country with almost useless airforce. Dogfights will never lose their relevance.

As i said, every pilot i've spoken to, every pilot interview out there tells the same thing- dogfighting is history. Accept it and move on. The current emphasis is 95% BVR, 5% dogfighting. Thats the bottomline. Iraqi air force in the first Gulf war was NOT puny- they had some of the best Russian jets & even their american-built jets were only a few yrs older than the jets America used. Yet, there was no dogfighting, all BVR combat. BVR is the new name of the game, not dogfighting- which is of little or no relevance. And the article in this thread says so ITSELF! I rest my case.

[Ram]

Dude' date='this is a very very rare scenario not even worth thinking about. As i said, if you knew anything about military organization structure, you'd know that this is one of the surest way to getting yourself killed pointlessly (turning into a rogue pilot). A rogue pilot is not a concern for his target nation/people- he will be taken care of by HIS OWN AIR FORCE in no time. Military does not tolerate rogues. It jeopardizes their structure at the fundamental level and all militaries go to great lengths to give the severest treatment to rogues/wannabe-rogues. This is not an issue.[/quote'] I am not saying - that is the ONLY possible scenario. I am saying , that is also one of the scenarios. Ofcourse i am aware that pilots are not allowed to do un-authorized sorties. A few years ago , there were reports of many Israeli pilots being dis-gruntled at the Govt's orders to carry out air-strikes against civilian palestinian targets. That created a lot of ruffles. How much more would it take for a dis-gruntled pilot to veer off the flight plan and bomb some non-civilian targets just out of anger ?

Good. Now go read about ACTUAL AIR FIGHTS in the last 50 yrs- there is no rule about 1v1 and in almost ALL fights, the matchups were unequal in numbers, thus blowing a huge hole in your 1v1 scenario.

You continue to take refuge in technical terms and archival references. I have read several books myself involving air-combats ( Eg - Fist of God ) which gives details description of dogfights. I can even recollect this particular incident when an Iraqi , in much inferior trainer mig-29 goes head to head with an American fighter , tries to con the american pilot by making it seem as though he launched a missile by dis-engaging the auxiliary fuel tank. But the american pilot sees through that trick and blows him down. Now , where is the BVR and squadron against a single fighter here ?

Yes,really. Fighters are getting smaller and smaller primarily because of stealth. Fact. If you wish to challenge this, i hope you come prepared with knowhow on radar technology. As for bombers- f*ck bombers. I am talking about fighters here. Infact, stealth is the ONLY reason they are getting smaller- the engine power we have these days, a bigger jet is advantageous as it can carry way more fuel and ammunition and if it wasn't for the fact that bigger planes = less stealthy, fighters would be getting bigger and bigger. Infact, with developments in stealth tech, fighters are becomming bigger again. The Su-30MKI and Su-35 are some of the LARGEST fighters ever fielded by man, the F-22 is huger than the F-16, the ET is bigger than the Mirage or Jaguars.

You have mis-read my statement. I said stealth is ALSO one of the reasons why fighters are getting smaller ,but not the overaching reason. Its more a combination of stealth , weight , fuel effeciency all put together. And if anyone were to go by your logic , they would call the TEJAS a total failure , considering its the smallest muti-role fighter in the world. And please understand , size of the aircraft has got little do with the weight it can carry or the capacity of the fuel tanks themselves. Simply put , larger, does NOT mean lighter , especially with the development of composite materials.

Only if you are literally an ace pilot (not all pilots are aces) and only then in 1 outta 5 cases. As i said, i will win the odds game if i have a better radar and all war is a game of odds. As per 'fancy turn/outlast missiles', i can tell you have no idea about how missile-seeking and missile jamming works- its always a chance game and when confronted with half a dozen missiles homing on to you, you are almost always toast. As i said, its always a game of rock-paper-scissors. Your higher manueverability aspect is neutralized by a fighter that can fire off its missiles first, is smaller & thus stealthier & with better avionics. Advantage gone. Playing field made level again. Rock-paper-scissors. Comprende ?

Agreed to , partially.

Dude, don't say incorrect when you are arguing simply for the hell of it without any knowledge. Go to wiki and look up the specs of Su-35. You will find that it is a SUPERIOR plane to the Su-30MKI. And yes, damn right- Russia WILL NOT give you the best of the best- nobody will. and your options are to take a slightly dumbed-down version that is still bloody good or miss out alltogether. Easy choice for me! Yes they are. Russian BRAHMOS has a lesser launch time than the Indian ones as Jane's revealed a few months ago. As i said, if your nation is providing the tech, they will ALWAYS hold back a little, even if its something that makes just 1% performance difference. Why ? because everyone wants to retain some little 'edge'.

I will tell you where you theory falls absolutely flat on its face. You must be aware that both Russia and India have the right to independently/jointly market the Brahmos and the missile is produced in both the countries. Say Singapore wants to buy half a dozen Brahmos from India and has to chose its buyer, either India or Russia. How would India feel if all the orders went to Russia, because their missiles had a lesser launch time ? And anyway , could you please provide me with the source of the Jane's article.

As i said, every pilot i've spoken to, every pilot interview out there tells the same thing- dogfighting is history. Accept it and move on. The current emphasis is 95% BVR, 5% dogfighting. Thats the bottomline. Iraqi air force in the first Gulf war was NOT puny- they had some of the best Russian jets & even their american-built jets were only a few yrs older than the jets America used. Yet, there was no dogfighting, all BVR combat. BVR is the new name of the game, not dogfighting- which is of little or no relevance. And the article in this thread says so ITSELF! I rest my case.

BVR is THE thing , i agree. But Dogfights will never lost their relevance.

[Bongosamaj]

. I am saying , that is also one of the scenarios. Ofcourse i am aware that pilots are not allowed to do un-authorized sorties. A few years ago , there were reports of many Israeli pilots being dis-gruntled at the Govt's orders to carry out air-strikes against civilian palestinian targets. That created a lot of ruffles. How much more would it take for a dis-gruntled pilot to veer off the flight plan and bomb some non-civilian targets just out of anger ?

If you are gonna worry about rogue pilots defying their own military & raining death on civillians, you might as well worry about sunspots. For thats just how 'likely' it is.

I can even recollect this particular incident when an Iraqi , in much inferior trainer mig-29 goes head to head with an American fighter , tries to con the american pilot by making it seem as though he launched a missile by dis-engaging the auxiliary fuel tank. But the american pilot sees through that trick and blows him down. Now , where is the BVR and squadron against a single fighter here ?

For every such 'story' you have of the last 20 yrs, there are 10x stories about 'i establish BVR radar lock, i press a button & you go kaboom. I turn away and go back home' . And again, as i said, FACT is most air-2-air combat in the last 100 years of human history has involved uneven numbers of planes engaging each other. And unless you have the same # of planes fighting each other, it is NOT a 1v1 fight!

And please understand , size of the aircraft has got little do with the weight it can carry or the capacity of the fuel tanks themselves.

*sigh* You seriously are clueless on this topic. Bigger size = MORE SPACE IN THE PLANE TO CARRY $HIT! Like..DUH!

. You must be aware that both Russia and India have the right to independently/jointly market the Brahmos and the missile is produced in both the countries. Say Singapore wants to buy half a dozen Brahmos from India and has to chose its buyer, either India or Russia. How would India feel if all the orders went to Russia, because their missiles had a lesser launch time ? And anyway , could you please provide me with the source of the Jane's article.

1. cannot provide source to Janes- Janes is a paid website, does not link except for latest headlines 2. Who says Russia is gonna give Singapore their 'sightly better BRAHMOS' ? They arnt. You are completely missing the point- the point is, NO COUNTRY EVER GIVES OUT 100% OF ITS LATEST CUTTING EDGE MILITARY TECH. They always hold on to that extra few % of performance for PERSONAL SUPRIORITY. And Singapore wouldn't care- since Singapore knows very well that even if Russians were to sell them BRAHMOS, Russia isnt gonna give them the specs for making it slightly faster launch than Indian BRAHMOS. They will get the same one that India did at best, so there is no 'pick-n-choose' between the two based on quality.

BVR is THE thing , i agree. But Dogfights will never lost their relevance.

5% of the story is 'having lost its relevance'. As i said, proof is in the pudding. The article you quoted states dogfighting being of 'bygone eras', every other pilot out there thats interviewed says dogfighting is history and only a 'very rare emergency case' scenario. yet, your mentality is stuck to dogfighting. Fine then, if thats what you wanna believe, keep it up.

[Ram]

If you are gonna worry about rogue pilots defying their own military & raining death on civillians, you might as well worry about sunspots. For thats just how 'likely' it is.

Again, i am tired of repeating. I said , it is one of the scenarios, not the ONLY one.

I For every such 'story' you have of the last 20 yrs, there are 10x stories about 'i establish BVR radar lock, i press a button & you go kaboom. I turn away and go back home' . And again, as i said, FACT is most air-2-air combat in the last 100 years of human history has involved uneven numbers of planes engaging each other. And unless you have the same # of planes fighting each other, it is NOT a 1v1 fight!

Dont get where you are going. For me ,dogfight , in its strictest sense, is 1-on-1. And i have shown excerpts to prove that. You said its almost all the time a squadron of air-craft raining missiles on a single fighter , which doesnt seem the case.

I *sigh* You seriously are clueless on this topic. Bigger size = MORE SPACE IN THE PLANE TO CARRY ! Like..DUH!

Hahaha.. what a ridiculously simplistic assumption ! I guess you would agree that the earliest version of the F-16 would be much bigger than the Tejas. Does that mean that , that version of F-16 could carry more weapons ? Duh ! The Aresenal capacity also depends on the strength of the aircraft structure , the engine capacity , estimated range etc. To actually neglect all these factors and make a statement like " More size , more weapons" is ... well.... dont know what to say actually.

I 1. cannot provide source to Janes- Janes is a paid website, does not link except for latest headlines 2. Who says Russia is gonna give Singapore their 'sightly better BRAHMOS' ? They arnt. You are completely missing the point- the point is, NO COUNTRY EVER GIVES OUT 100% OF ITS LATEST CUTTING EDGE MILITARY TECH. They always hold on to that extra few % of performance for PERSONAL SUPRIORITY. And Singapore wouldn't care- since Singapore knows very well that even if Russians were to sell them BRAHMOS, Russia isnt gonna give them the specs for making it slightly faster launch than Indian BRAHMOS. They will get the same one that India did at best, so there is no 'pick-n-choose' between the two based on quality.

Yes please, keep adding on permutations and combinations. Simple logic - If a product is jointly developed, marketed and produced by two countries ( like the Brahmos) , then both the countries would obviously make the same version. See the point ?

I 5% of the story is 'having lost its relevance'. As i said, proof is in the pudding. The article you quoted states dogfighting being of 'bygone eras', every other pilot out there thats interviewed says dogfighting is history and only a 'very rare emergency case' scenario. yet, your mentality is stuck to dogfighting. Fine then, if thats what you wanna believe, keep it up.

I dont live and die by dogfighting. I said it still holds some relevance. If you cant read and comprehend that, i really cant help you.

[Bongosamaj]

Again, i am tired of repeating. I said , it is one of the scenarios, not the ONLY one.

Err no, it is NOT one of the scenarios. Find me how many times pilots have gone rogue and decieded to take matters in their own hands. Just a few-or even one- would do. The most you get is pilots defecting to another nation but that is usually to a hostile nation garanteed to give the pilot safe haven ( ie, US pilot defecting to USSR and vice versa). what you term as 'one scenario' is not even a scenario in the first place!

For me ,dogfight , in its strictest sense, is 1-on-1. And i have shown excerpts to prove that. You said its almost all the time a squadron of air-craft raining missiles on a single fighter , which doesnt seem the case.

What i said is that air-to-air matchups are NEVER against equal numbers. One side always has more fighters in the combat zone and there goes your 1v1 idea, since disproportionate # of fighters = never 1v1.

Hahaha.. what a ridiculously simplistic assumption ! I guess you would agree that the earliest version of the F-16 would be much bigger than the Tejas. Does that mean that , that version of F-16 could carry more weapons ? Duh ! The Aresenal capacity also depends on the strength of the aircraft structure , the engine capacity , estimated range etc. To actually neglect all these factors and make a statement like " More size , more weapons" is ... well.... dont know what to say actually.

FACT is, aircraft sizes have gotten bigger since stealth technology has improved. Yes, that is a FACT. The Sukhoi family of fighters, marked Su-27 and above, are all LARGER than its predecessors and the Su-30 is bigger than the Su-27, Su-35 bigger than Su-30, etc. Same with American fighters- the F-22 is bigger than the F-16, the F/A-18 bigger than the one it replaced, the F-35 bigger than the F-15, etc etc. So i dunno where you are getting your 'smaller aircraft sizes' stuff from, given that it is a FACT that latest fighters are some of the biggest fighters ever fielded by mankind.

[Bongosamaj]

Simple logic - If a product is jointly developed, marketed and produced by two countries ( like the Brahmos) , then both the countries would obviously make the same version. See the point ?

That is true ONLY IF it is a truely joint venture- ie, everything, including cost & R&D are shared more or less evenly. But this is NOT the case when one nation supplies the $$ and the other nation supplies the tech. for mutual use. In such a scenario, the nation with the tech ALWAYS holds something back because they think of their national security too. They don't know if 5 yrs down the road their 'current friend' would buddy-up with a possible nemesis and give your hard-earned tech to your nemesis. And that is directly evidenced by FACTS- the F-16s America gives out to its buddies- including Israel- are NOT the best F-16s out there, the Sukhoi Russia gave out is NOT the best sukhoi out there, etc etc. Simple logic and simple fact, really.

I said it still holds some relevance. If you cant read and comprehend that, i really cant help you.

And what i am saying is, based on modern aircraft specifications & numerous pilot testimonials, dogfighting is largely irrelevant and you would be lucky to be involved in ONE dogfight in an entire war as the standard Air Force pilot.

[The Outsider]

Major patience hai tum logon mein!!!:haha: Going on and on about some fighter jets, but quite novel for someone like me who has zero knowledge of weaponry etc. Fun read.

[Gaurav]

Euro fighter wings can handle the weight of 35 cars :-O Bugatti is a BEAUTY!

[Ram]

Err no, it is NOT one of the scenarios. Find me how many times pilots have gone rogue and decieded to take matters in their own hands. Just a few-or even one- would do. The most you get is pilots defecting to another nation but that is usually to a hostile nation garanteed to give the pilot safe haven ( ie, US pilot defecting to USSR and vice versa). what you term as 'one scenario' is not even a scenario in the first place!

I dont think so. Say for the example the Pakistani army. It is common knowledge that its army has been perpetrated by many muslim fundamentalist elements who act like a independent authority within the army and have even sometimes plotted to kill the president. What if one of them decides to take it to the extreme and bomb the hell out of the president's convoy ? As far as the army is concerned , anything that CAN happen , has to be prepared for.

What i said is that air-to-air matchups are NEVER against equal numbers. One side always has more fighters in the combat zone and there goes your 1v1 idea, since disproportionate # of fighters = never 1v1.

Air-combat between two asymmetric militaries does involve unequal number of jets yes , but when its comes to the dog-fight , it is 1-on-1 in the strictest sense. I have seen live demonstrations of dog-fights in more than one air-show and always , i have seen only two jets in the sky.

FACT is, aircraft sizes have gotten bigger since stealth technology has improved. Yes, that is a FACT. The Sukhoi family of fighters, marked Su-27 and above, are all LARGER than its predecessors and the Su-30 is bigger than the Su-27, Su-35 bigger than Su-30, etc. Same with American fighters- the F-22 is bigger than the F-16, the F/A-18 bigger than the one it replaced, the F-35 bigger than the F-15, etc etc. So i dunno where you are getting your 'smaller aircraft sizes' stuff from, given that it is a FACT that latest fighters are some of the biggest fighters ever fielded by mankind.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you say - " Smaller size means stealth will improve" Now you say " Because stealth has improved , aircrafts can get larger". And it is just common knowledge that smaller the better as far as aircraft design is concerned. It leaves room to experiment with so many other vital characeteristics.

That is true ONLY IF it is a truely joint venture- ie, everything, including cost & R&D are shared more or less evenly. But this is NOT the case when one nation supplies the $$ and the other nation supplies the tech. for mutual use. In such a scenario, the nation with the tech ALWAYS holds something back because they think of their national security too. They don't know if 5 yrs down the road their 'current friend' would buddy-up with a possible nemesis and give your hard-earned tech to your nemesis.

And that is not the way a technology partnership works. Even in this case , when all India did was to shell-out the millions , it would feel really stupid if it were to come to know that it was sold short. See , there is a difference between military logic , which is what you are talking about and commercial practices , which is what i am alluding to.

[gs]

Apne ko khaali Pak aur China pe technological edge maintain karne ka hai - which is a huge task in itself. It's unrealistic to compete with F-22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon, unless DRDO pulls a miracle - which again is highly unlikely considering the Arjun MBT and Tejas LCA projects. The projects went so far off the timescales that when the prototypes were rolled out, the features that they had were almost obsolete! :confused_smile: It's been an expensive learning experience either way, hopefully future main kaam aayega!

[Gaurav]

Apne ko khaali Pak aur China pe technological edge maintain karne ka hai - which is a huge task in itself. It's unrealistic to compete with F-22 Raptor or Eurofighter Typhoon' date=' unless DRDO pulls a miracle - which again is highly unlikely considering the Arjun MBT and [b']Tejas LCA projects. The projects went so far off the timescales that when the prototypes were rolled out, the features that they had were almost obsolete! :confused_smile: It's been an expensive learning experience either way, hopefully future main kaam aayega!

Yeah for dropping chewing gum packets from air :hysterical:

[gs]

Yeah for dropping chewing gum packets from air :hysterical:

:hysterical:

[Bongosamaj]

maris, i am gonna end this conversation. Clearly because i am getting highly irritated by your intractability despite knowing very little on this topic. Go read up on stealth technology or take some engineering topics in school to do with it, then you will realize how completely incorrect your notions are. But beyond this, its rather pointless to argue with you.

[Ram]

maris, i am gonna end this conversation. Clearly because i am getting highly irritated by your intractability despite knowing very little on this topic. Go read up on stealth technology or take some engineering topics in school to do with it, then you will realize how completely incorrect your notions are. But beyond this, its rather pointless to argue with you.

Err... Was i "intractable" as you put it ? Go check back the posts and see for yourself that I have , on many occassions, accepted what you said. And with all due respect , it is you who has been making comprehensive claims even though your knowledge on this subject doesnt necessarily beat mine by a mile or whatever. And to be honest , you had once claimed that " If an Arrow is shot down, another one can be built in 2 weeks". That didnt provoke me into saying - " Oh no , you are so ignorant , i think we better stop" Did it ? I have raised contentions to points i believe dont add up to the knowledge i have or pure common sense or sometimes both. If you are not comfortable with that, I am afraid i cant help you. Irrespective , we shall stop here. :thumbs_up: