I wanted to be honest with you, for that reason I quoted all the article including this piece of shit :
Typhoon FGR4: Britain’s best
Armament rating 8.0/10
Max Rate of Climb 65k ft/min
Service Ceiling 65k ft
Max Speed 2.35 Mach
Fuel Economy 0.68 km/l
Unit Cost $125m
Probability of winning cannon dogfight 66%
Sukhoi su-30Mk1: Russia's best
Armament rating 8.5/10
Max Rate of Climb 60k ft/min
Service Ceiling 56k ft
Max Speed 1.90 Mach
Fuel Economy 0.58 km/l
Unit Cost $47m
Probability of winning cannon dogfight 34%
Aviatia.net claimed that the Probability of winning cannon dogfight is 66% for the Typhoon, and only 34% for Sukhoi, they dared to claim that the Typhoon is more manoeuvrable than Sukhoi. Well, if so, why didn't you win ? Another piece of shit subjective western pov. In front of the evidence of their defeat, they tried to justify by this uglly comment
The RAF source also stressed that the Typhoons had effectively been fighting “with one arm behind their backs” as they did not make full use of their more advanced weapons systems.
It is like football match,when the defeated team always invoke the referee, "if we loose, it is not because we loose, but because of the referee
". What did they mean ? IRST ? We could assume that Typhoon's IRST could indeed detect the russian plane at 90 km, meanwhile the Sukhoi could only detect at 50 km. And after ? As we've seen previously, the air-air missiles are useless against either Typhoon, or Sukhoi. They could easily dodge them, as they are the two manoeuvrable. Radar ? We've seen that the air combat could only end in dogfight, hence with gun. What is the interrest of your radar, AESA or not ? You have a powerfull hardware, useless.
In fact do not pay attention about these stupid uggly comments in all western media including inside a supposed neutral newspaper. They are all like that.
I remember, that in beginning of the nineties RuAF send their Su-27 in the US on their common exercise with US F-15 fighters and win their dogfights. Of course USAF or RAF will claim, they didn't fight with full capabilities, but IAF also didn't. USAF and RAF use all AWACS and data link network in their exercises, while IAF was limited, as they don't have their own A-50 AWACS with them and maybe even not using their own data link network as it is not compatible with NATO Link 16. There were other limitations too, which were equal for both sides.
Awacs, Elint are only useful against poor, isolated countries under blockade. Against Iraq and Serbia US outnumbered them, and all serbians, and iraqis secret hardware were between US hands. There were easy to jam them. In spite of that, the victory was hard for US. Moreover countries like Russia has its own powerful Awacs, Elint, and jammers.
NATO likes to have exercises with using all AWACS and data link network capabilities against opponents, who doesn't have them and have to rely on their own sensors and than claim, how they are far superior against opponents.
To say simple, Nato like to play against easy opponents, in order to claim an easy victory. But nobody is fooled.
It would be also interesting to see results from similar exercise between Malaysian Su-30MKM and US F-22 fighters. For now it is only known, that Su-30MKM was the hardest opponent to F-22.
I could certify that it will be the same. Americans are well aware about their hardware's capacity.
Not just the RAF but the USAF. Maybe there are some very good reasons the Flankers have not been back at Red Flag since 2008.
If they are back one day. Nobody is fooled, and everyone knows very well about the full capacity of US air fleet.
This in an Indian view of 2008, like this RAF exercise their view is a bit different to that of the host.
It is not only the indian pov. In nearly all exercises US have problems, but they cleverly hide them. There is a long time ago, nearly 30 years ago. There were exercises between belgium F-16 and french Rafale. The Rafale easily outmanoeuvred all F-16. There was a shame for US.
In fact european countries at the end of 60's understood that all US hardware could not match with soviet hardware in order to protect them. The Vietnam, arab-israel wars demonstrated that the ability of US military industry to overcome soviet hardware was doubtful in the best case. If not a disaster. For that reason, UK, like France, Germany, Italy developed their own aircraft industry. Do not forget that the F-4 Phantom II was a disaster, like Corsair II, the F-105 was cancelled. The credibility of US industry was very low in all matters. The ability of the F-15, F-16, F-18 to overcome all soviet hardware contrary to what it seems was, and still is doubtful. The only aircraft that could match with soviet was F-14. But its price was too much expensive.
Well you are going to tell me that see Gulf War I, and Serbia's war. Yes, but see the context. In Gulf War I, Meanwhile Iraq had only few hundreds of modern aircrafts, no more than 200, US built up 3.000. The losses for Iraq including its Mig-23 ML, Mig-25, MIg-29 was around 40. US losses acknowledged 40. The real scale of US losses was around 100.
During Serbia's war it is really important to not forget that Serbia could barely build up 6 of its malfunctionning Mig-29. All of them lack of spare parts, their radars could not run etc..If Serbia could build up just 50 aircrafts it was a feat. US coalition built up.....900.
Since the begining I believe that soviet -russian- hardware could easily match to all western hardwares.