Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK
human7    6/5/2004 1:36:51 PM
Does the Sea Harrier stand a chance?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
ex-98C    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK   6/5/2004 1:41:21 PM
Not in three more years it doesn't
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK   6/15/2004 8:24:14 PM
And the serious answer is "only a small chance". The SHAR has a good BVR weapon in AMRAAM and a good enough radar, which is probably where the fight is fought. The Su-30MKK has a number of BVR weapons, one is untested in combat and the other was found mostly lacking. (Has China been sold R-77 in volume? At the very least, they're trying to build a derivative in the PL-12). Still, the Flankers carry many MORE missiles, up to six for BVR employment. In WVR combat, the SHAR is toast. The Flanker does everything better here and has a HMS queued weapon to boot. The SHAR's VIFF'ing is really a last-ditch defense maneuver and is just going to set it up for the weapon that kills it. On top of all this, the SHAR is going to be in deep you-know-what from a pure numbers perspective, since the Chinese Flanker force being faced is likely to outnumber the British Carrier's air wing by a few times. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK   6/18/2004 3:16:58 PM
How would people have replied if the question had been F15 v SU30? I only ask as the British aviation community considers the Sea Harrier FA2 to be the best British air-air platform and, speaking very generally, better than an F15. I would have thought from your analysis, Shaken, that the chance would be more than "only a small chance" (note: I'm not claiming it always wins or anything stupid like that). You seemed to say that FA2 holds the BVR advantage and Su30 the WVR advantage... Oh, and not 'many' more missiles, FA2 usually carriers 4 AMRAAM I think.
 
Quote    Reply

Ad    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK   6/18/2004 3:53:41 PM
The FA2 does carry four AMRAAMS and its BVR is superior thanks to the GEC-Marconi Blue Vixen pulse-Doppler multi-mode radar with its look down/shoot-down capabilities, as well as two 30mm Aden cannon packs and along with two AIM-9 sidewinder AAMs fitted to side rails on the outbound AMRAAM pylons. The point being that you know the FA2’s weapons will work every time, something the Su-30 can’t be credited with.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    Small Chance was:FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK   6/22/2004 9:50:40 PM
>> (Horrible Sailor) >> I would have thought from your analysis, Shaken, that the chance would be more than "only a small chance" (note: I'm not claiming it always wins or anything stupid like that). You seemed to say that FA2 holds the BVR advantage and Su30 the WVR advantage... (Shaken) My esitimate is based on two things. If the numbers are equal, my guess is the SHAR will give better than it gets in the BVR exchange. Then the rest of the SHARs die in the WVR fight for very limited Flanker loss. (Remember, they've puked their missiles in the BVR fight, they are fighting much more maneuverable opponants that have HMS/high off-boresight weapons). Second, an engagement might pit forty to eighty Flankers against ten SHARs. You are taking a small carrier against a continent (or at least one full air force base). If the numbers were equal the SHAR has a tough time of it. If the numbers aren't equal... bad things. (This does presume that the Russian made missiles operate at least half the time. There have been reliability issues here that could save the SHAR. The AMRAAM is rock solid, works every time and pretty close to one-shot one-kill.) >> (Horrible Sailor) >> Oh, and not 'many' more missiles, FA2 usually carriers 4 AMRAAM I think (Shaken) I'd think ten to four counts as many more. -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

Shaken    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs F-15   6/22/2004 9:53:02 PM
>> (Horrible Sailor) >> I only ask as the British aviation community considers the Sea Harrier FA2 to be the best British air-air platform and, speaking very generally, better than an F15. (Shaken) To be honest, whoever thinks a Harrier FA2 is superior to the F-15 is telling themselve a horrible, horrible lie. The AESA radar in latests F-15C is regarded by the aviation press (Janes, AvWeek) as the best fighter radar in operational service, and most indicate this contest is not close. The Sea Vixen is a decent, if aging, set with a modest radar dish. The F-15C is likely to carry the latest variant of the AMRAAM, which has been under continuous improvement cycle to improve its ECCM capabilities, increase the launch envelope farther off-boresight and otherwise increase lethality. The F-15C integrates AIM-9X and JHMCS and (currently) has hemispheric launch capability. The SHAR can only carry near-boresight capable missiles. The F-15 is a powerful machine able to sustain high-gee turns. It has outstanding aerodynamics for dogfighting. The SHAR is less powerful and has aerodynamics driven by the need to hover. Its high-mounted tapered wing, bulbulous fuselage and unusual tail are not well suited for dogfighting. The unusual engine positioning doesn't allow the Harrier to take full advantage of the Pegasus' power in forward flight. VIFFing is not really useful. It might help defending a cannon engagement, but an aircraft going to get shot by a missile so it doesn't really matter. Harriers are traditionally quite fragile and can be killed by little shoulder fired missiles. Some of this is because the mid-engine attracts IRM to the center of the airframe. (In test, AMRAAM tends to strike aircraft in the pit area. At least, that is the rumor). The F-15 is an absolute tank. Only one wing needed for flight. The F-15 has better out of pit visibility, due to the spine shape and where the wing is placed. The SHAR is smaller and thus harder to see. The Eagle is so big, F-16 pilots call it Rodan. The F-15 has more decoys, is more recently through the upgrade cycle (better pit). It has better jamming equipment available and can carry podded ECM equipment without being burdoned. (Does anyone know if the AESA F-15's picked up a towed decoy?) My guess it this is anyone thinking the SHAR is better than the F-15 is telling a tale of bravado or being blinded by nationalism. Any serious pilot would tell you the SHAR is hosed in this fight. (Not every time, but most of the time. That is a caveat for most comparisons between aircraft). -- Shaken - out --
 
Quote    Reply

HorribleSailor    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs F-15   6/23/2004 3:24:19 PM
Fair enough Shaken, I'm always more than happy to bow to your superior factual knowledge, but in combat trials the FA2 has consistently come out on top v the F15C. Ok, I know you're going to say that combat trials prove nothing, I would rreply that they prove a very little and similarly statistics prove a very little. I'm not claiming the FA2 is overwhelmingly superior to the F15C. I'm not a jet jockey and don't know enough. I'm just suspicious of claims that it would be 'hosed.'.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs Su-30MKK   12/14/2004 6:00:50 PM
What we are doing here is comparing technical specifications to each other in some sort of WW I style dogfight. Modern combat does not work that way. The British would never move a carrier battle group anywhere near a land based Flanker Squadron. The dozen or so Sea Harriers would be quickly overwhelmed by massed attacks. Not that this kind of battle has to take place near land with the range of the Flanker. The British Admiral is more likely to worry about massed anti ship missile attack than fighter sweeps composed of Flankers. Also the sortie rate required to fend off the missiles and Flankers would not be sustainable for very long. The British strategy would likely have them operating well outside the range of land based fighters unless it was absolutely required to do so. If the situation was required, he would likely have to rely on his fleet air defense assets to make up for the lack of numbers. A carrier that is not attacking land or sea targets is not contributing to the war effort. So not all the Harriers would be available to counter the Flankers. That job would likey fall on the tomahawk missiles in whatever SSNs would be with the battle group. And in the face of a truly modern integrated air defense network(i.e. s-300 ect.). The effectiveness of the tomahawks would also be questionable. The only logical choice for the British in this scenario would be to avoid contact with mainland airforces unless he could draw them out over the water through his fleet air defences in small numbers far away for any reinforcements were the warload would be reduced(2 to 4 BVR missiles) in because of fuel requirements. If such a strategy were adopted, the Chinese General would have to weigh the benefit of a few downed Harriers against the loss of his valuable Flankers. And in that case it would be in his advantage to focus his air assets on the carrier itself. Several well placed anti-ship missiles could end the Harrier threat all together at once. In terms of aircraft, the Harrier would have the advantage of electronic systems, BVR weapons, reliability, deployment versatility and pilot quality. The Flanker would enjoy range, speed, altitude, manuverability, Short range AAMs, number of missiles. So to answer your question, it depends on the circumstances of the engagement. But to sum this discussion up. The British Navy does not have the strength to surive long within range of land based Chinese fighters. My own analysis of a potential conflict like this are. China: -10 to 20 destroyed Flankers. -7 to 12 dead pilots. -2 or 3 lightly damaged air bases with under 50 casualties because of the precise nature of modern weapons. Royal Navy: -All Harriers assigned to task force destroyed. -Carrier badly damaged or destroyed. Possibly even captured. -3 to 5 heavily damaged or destroyed surface ships. -1000 dead, wounded and captured sailors. This all assumes some rapidly escalating unpredicted conflict near Chinese waters before Allied forces and RAF units could contribute to the fighting. Within the first 48 Hours. If there is enough interest in this topic I could post a likely scenario.
 
Quote    Reply

zd_376    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs F-15   1/4/2005 3:25:33 PM
Just for the record the SHAR has a 7:1 ratio of kills against f-15s. That is 7 dead f-15 pilots to 1 SHAR pilot and if you want proof read 'Sea Harriers Over the Falklands'. If the UK had the same amount of money the US had we would kick yank arse(not ass, an ass is a donkey!). The point is the UK has far better pilots than the US could hope to have!
 
Quote    Reply

Lightning Rod    RE:FA2 Sea Harrier vs F-15   1/4/2005 3:55:00 PM
That is 7 dead f-15 pilots to 1 SHAR pilot and if you want proof read 'Sea Harriers Over the Falklands'. I'm just a dumb Yank can you tell me about the Sea Harrier VS the F-15 Dogfights in the Falklands. I missed that someplace.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics