JohninMK wrote:Here is another take on it
RAF claims is rubbish. They lost but they don't have the face to admit it.
“Our analysis does not match what has been reported, RAF pilots and the Typhoon performed well throughout the exercise with and against the Indian Air Force. Both forces learnt a great deal from the exercise and the RAF look forward to the next opportunity to train alongside the IAF.”
So lost 0-12 is "performed well" ?
First of all, the purpose of such exercises is usually to study the opponents, learn their tactics and strategy, sometimes without showing the “enemy” the full extent of a weapon system capability (even though the latter is also the “excuse” air arms most frequently use to comment alleged defeats). Then, the kill ratio depends on how the scenario has been set up, with the Rules Of Engagement affecting the number of simulated kills.
Oh so basically they means that they intentionally lost, and all the training is set up ?
In that case, the kill ratio was confirmed but it was also explained that the F-15s were defeated because they lacked an advanced active electronically scanned array (AESA) and were called to fight the Su-30s in scenarios that involved six Eagles against up to eighteen IAF aircraft with no chance to simulate any beyond visual range (BVR) missile shot (due to the Indian request of not using the AMRAAM).
Again AESA is used as the s3xtoy to jerking off the fanboys, but it seems like they do not know what is the true advantage of AESA against PESA.
First, Su-30 PESA already can use dynamic shifted phase, that means it can quickly oscillate the radar beam against the radar antenna. The oscillation speed of Su-30 PESA is slower than AESA, but that is more than enough.
Second, PESA has the significant advantage against AESA in the purity, cleanliness, and power of the signal. Old generation AESA likes in F-22 suffers from the distortion of both frequency and phase. Newer generations AESA of Russia and U.S. today somehow managed to fix it, but still the power is not very high.
Third, the true advantage of AESA against PESA is that, people can put the AESA radar on the aircraft's aerodynamic shape, and the AESA radar is no longer restricted to the traditional radar surface. That is the reason why Russia can put the 10 metre L-band radar on the wing edges.
But the West only put AESA at the traditional position of PESA. Like somebody buys a TV but uses it only to emit light.
Furthermore, since the drills took place during F-22 budget reviews, some analysts affirm the Air Force intentionally accepted the challenging ROE (Rules Of Engagement) to gain more Raptors…
Ah, s3xtoy F-22. The problem is F-22 stealth cloak is even ineffective against Western weather radar. And it is damn expensive.
In this case, for instance, dealing with the ROE, an RAF source said the Typhoons fought “with one arm behind their backs.”
Another typical case of loser's masturbation.
Moreover, WVR engagements, in which the super-maneuverable Su-30 excels, are less likely than BVR (Beyond Visual Range) ones where a Flanker would be much more vulnerable, as Indradhanush 2015 seems to have proved.
Maneuverability is critical for air fight, no matter whether dog fight or BVR. Super-maneuverability enable the fighter to quickly escape the incoming missile, or rapidly jump out of enemy's radar angle. Great maneuverability enable the hunted aircrafts can become the hunting one during a pursuit.
Su-30 is super-maneuverable, while Typhoon and other EU canards cannot have high AoA since the vertical stabilizer will be blocked by the hull and wings at high AoA.
And Su-30 has bigger radar (means greater angular resolution), and the radar vision angle is 240 degree. It can quickly escape the radar vision of Typhoon, while thanks to the 240 degree vision, it can still see and monitor the Typhoon during the drastic maneuverability. And as Typhoon losts the sight of Su-30, Su-30 begins to lock Typhoon.
And that we still have not mentioned the powerful ECM system of Su-30.