I was having a foreing policy/geopolitics class in University,

>>28478539
In pure dogfighting they're on pretty equal footing, but pure dogfighting isn't a good metric to measure a good combat aircraft these days.

America believes that dogfighting doesn't take place in a modern war, and that's reflected in their jets. Russia doesn't think the same way.

>>28478846
Then why was a russian aircraft that was supposed to be good at avoid being hit by missiles shot down in syria by a downgraded version of the already obsolete f-16?

>>28478871
Ironically, if you like dog-fighting it's very hard to beat the 'obsolete' F-16.

Running clean the Viper has remarkable agility and thrust-to-weight.

>>28478539
As far as SU-30 vs F-15? The F-15 has never lost an air to air engagement or been shot down by hostile fire. It's expensive, however.

File: 1425306151093.webm (758KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 640x480px

>>28478871
>why didnt the incredibly old ground attack aircraft dodge an AIM-9X?

>>28478894
>or been shot down by hostile fire.
Several have been shot down by SAMs.

>>28478929

but Khibiny can detect threats instantly and jam any American weapon system "dumb and blind".

>>28478997
>Khibiny
Which isn't installed on any Su-24

>>28478539
Depends on what model of the F-15 we're talking about. The F-15 of today is more equivalent to a Su-33 at the minimum than a -30.

File: DSC2054.jpg (918KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

918KB, 1200x800px

>>28478539
This will probably answer you..

Worth the watch, very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA1mZF3FQhc

>>28478894
>F-15 has never lost an air to air engagement or been shot down by hostile fire
It also has never encountered neither Su-30 nor Su-27 and was shot down by SAM.

>>28479490
>Posting a known video of a Lockshill test pilot
>Shills for Lockshills

>>28478959
>>28479501
Yes please to post source.

>inb4 RT

Brazil must buy F35. It will be easier to interlink with Chinese J20 and Brazil F35. For friends purposes

>>28479559
What?

Did you even see the video?

>>28478539

so the answer is "it depends".

here's a partial list of the variables: fuel state, weapons on board, fatigue, training, experience, GCI/AWACS support, other players, sortie goals, maintenance, weather, time of day, doctrine, mutual support, ROE, intel, pure luck, angles, detection capabilities...

>>28478539
Where the hell does everyone get the delusion that the F-15 is a bad dogfighter? The ones from the 493rd at RAF Lakenheath in simulated AtA take RAF Typhoons at one to one kill ratios in dogfights.

Modern russian planes are a pile of shit
This isn't the cold war anymore
And missiles actually work now

>>28479646
>19/20 January 1991 : F-15E-46-MC, 88‑1692, c/n 1101/E076, of the 336th FS, 4th TFW, USAF, was shot down by a Soviet made SA-2E missile during Operation Desert Storm. Both crew members ejected and were POWs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses#1990s
One line above there's one shot down by anti-aircraft artillery.

>>28481749
Doesn't count.

>>28481749
Pretty sure the point before was that it's undefeated in air-to-air combat.

>>28481796
pray tell why?

File: pic1_9.jpg (34KB, 564x384px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 564x384px

>>28478539
Su-30 turns better

>>28478846
F-15 was designed to be a superior dogfighter. Russians saw that and designed the Su-27 to one-up F-15 in dogfighting.

File: 1345364371456.png (27KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 200x200px

>>28481842
>or been shot down by hostile fire

>>28478894
>The F-15 has never lost an air to air engagement or been shot down by hostile fire.
There are rumors that an israeli F-15 was shot down by a Foxbat but the incident was hushed down for obvious reasons.

>>28478871
>why was a russian aircraft that was supposed to be good at avoid being hit by missiles shot down in syria
by design, Su-24 avoids being hit by flying supersonic at treetop level.

The mission profile did not call for it because Russians had air superiority in syria. They did not expect a backstab by Turkey.

>>28478894
>The F-15 has never . . . been shot down by hostile fire.
Yes, it has.

File: f-15.jpg (134KB, 964x538px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 964x538px

...

The SU-27 has better airframe but thats it. Everything else is better on F-15.

What's the current price on both planes?

>>28481004
>Where the hell does everyone get the delusion that the F-15 is a bad dogfighter?

Literally no one has suggested anything like that.

File: 1639477_-_main.jpg (56KB, 752x423px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 752x423px

Engagement between two fighters will decided by the amount of energy the fighter can generate and control.

So if your little fighter isn't supercruise capable it will just end as easy prey.

>>28482001
That was from when an F-15E that was incorrectly loaded, went into a spin and crashed in Libya; the pilots ejected and were rescued (at the expense of a bunch of Libyan civilians).

>>28481843
I'm guessing his argument is because it was a mudhen, not a Charlie, and therefore, in the strictest technical sense, not the same plane.

>>28478539
Actually, F/A-18F

The reason why Brazil bought Gripen instead is because Wikileak...uh, leaked about NSA tapping into their phone, even el presidente, so they cancelled the deal in retaliation
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg2-6F9JzKAhWXCo4KHftHCdcQFggkMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F12%2F19%2Fbusiness%2Finternational%2Fbrazil-snubs-boeing-in-jet-deal.html&usg=AFQjCNHOrVhsB939IyEBngendMdT8Fh1jQ

>>28482904
>wikileaks
>not the big deal to produce the Gripen in the own country and export rights.

Gripen NG > F-18 anyway.

>>28482118

mudhens and C-models are incredibly different.

source: i fly mudhens.

>>28481885

instantaneous vs sustained? altitude? also who the hell labels an aviation chart in kilometers/hour?

>>28482104

see >>28480968

>>28482106

fuel imba. the jet is hard to spin.

>>28482979
In term of what?

Gripen is meant for those who wanted a cheap replacement for early block F-16. Even the swedes made them because they can't afford to buy F-16 in sufficient number

>>28482104
Sprey plz go

>>28482994
>Even the swedes made them because they can't afford to buy F-16 in sufficient number

You seriously think that an indigenous fighter program is cheaper than buying second hand US cold war relics?

>>28483046
>relics
>gripen
>planned in the 70s
>first flight is in late 80s
>introduced in late 90s

At least F-16 is relevent in its era. Gripen is already obsolete before being mass produced.

>>28483105
>Gripen introduced November 1997
F-16 introduced August 1978

Face it, the F-16 is hopelessly obsolete.

>>28482986
>who the hell labels an aviation chart in kilometers/hour?
yeah, should be in meters per second instead.

at least it's not in rods per hedgehog or whatever archaic units the burgers still use.

>>28483120
Yes and it took them less than 5 years from first flight to full production, unlike gripen.

Face it. Gripen is already obsolete even before they came out from production line. What makes you think the swedes came out with NG variant so soon?

>>28482986

lel at you flying mudhens

>>28483159

f-15e wso. i've been on /k/ for a while.

>>28483154

knots, and it's international

>>28483164

point stands. wso's don't fly the jet ;)

what do you do, make the pilot coffee?

>>28483158
>it took them less than 5 years from first flight to full production
...and another five years from lawn dart to a usable plane

>>28483158
>Gripen is already obsolete
gripen sells like hotcakes because it 's great value for money. yes it's not the top fighter but most customers don't plan for WW3 they just need it for airspace policing.

>>28483170
then why is there a stick and throttle in the back?

>>28483175

Don't get me wrong, you fly IN the jet. There may even be a division of labor. But who's the a/c commander?

>>28483185

and you don't expect me to take the jet if he's trying to fly us into terrain?

i'm not a UPT washout. i might go there later in my career.

but "i fly f-15e's" is a perfectly accurate statement as a WSO.

>>28483173
>and another five years from lawn dart to a usable plane

Yes and what is gripen crash rate?

>>28483173
>sells like hot cakes

Which is not. Even those who bought them struggled to keep them in the air (South Africa, Hungary,etc)

>>28483193

Its a lot of fun rustling jimmies of bag wearers.

>>28478539
>I was having a foreing policy/geopolitics class in University, the subject was military strategy
What's the name of the class, friend?

File: 1392864482042.jpg (105KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1024x576px

>>28483173
>gripen sells like hotcakes

>>28483243

it's a lot of fun getting flight pay and taking 1/4 the time to get ready in the morning because i don't have to deal with blousing straps or a belt or buttons

>>28483275

>implying I wear any of those things

>>28483294

how 'bout flight pay?

i enjoy my couple hundred extra a month.

>>28483491

cool story bruh.

>>28483568

it is a cool story, thank you.

>>28478539

I would give the edge to the Su-30 for superior maneuverability, but it's pretty darn close. Depends on the version, really. If the F-15E is allowed, then I pick that because it's a fucking beast with more powerful engines, upgraded avionics, and air-to-ground capability.

>>28483775

it's not gonna go well at the merge for a laden-down F-15E vs anything modern.

>>28478929
>turkey
>using the aim-9x while calling fox 3

It was an aim-120b

File: Grinpen NGBR.jpg (269KB, 1024x665px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1024x665px

We actually bought gripens because we wanted tech and build here by Embraer.

>>28482986
The flanker outperforms the F-15 in both instantaneous and sustained turn rate. Good luck to any Flanker pilot who even manages to get that close, however.