Who would win? Su-27, or F-16?

BVR is way overrated

Click to expand...

I'd rather say that it finally reached maturity.

The ARH missile could alert the RWR when it goes active and where it's coming from, allowing the target for an evasive maneuver.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that there are 2 types of ARH missiles
-some use inertial navigation (some with mid-course updates from the launching fighter) and go active only in the final part of the trajectory (10-15 miles) - that's the case with AMRAAM
-other are active off the rail - for the whole flight, such as Derby.
I'd say at longer ranges the first method is desirable.
Also, the latest USAF BVR tactics (Kosovo 99, OSW,ONW) are similar to the PVO ripple fire - they usually launch 2 AMRAAMs. If the target evades the first missile, it will be low on energy and unable to evade the second one - happened at least twice with Serbian MiG-29s

googeler said:

I'd rather say that it finally reached maturity.

Click to expand...

I kind of doubt that. I still think BVR is overrated, especially when it comes to range.

Let's not forget that there are 2 types of ARH missiles
-some use inertial navigation (some with mid-course updates from the launching fighter) and go active only in the final part of the trajectory (10-15 miles) - that's the case with AMRAAM
-other are active off the rail - for the whole flight, such as Derby.
I'd say at longer ranges the first method is desirable.

Click to expand...

You are wrong in a way.

What you are describing are two modes of operation that exists in all BVR missiles. They exist in one missile, not two kinds.

Also, the latest USAF BVR tactics (Kosovo 99, OSW,ONW) are similar to the PVO ripple fire - they usually launch 2 AMRAAMs. If the target evades the first missile, it will be low on energy and unable to evade the second one - happened at least twice with Serbian MiG-29s

Click to expand...

Old strategy. They are already doing this in Vietnam. You can do this with SARH and it will be just as deadly. Everyone playing in a PC or console flight sim fights like this and knows this as a basic tactic.

crobato wrote:

I still think BVR is overrated, especially when it comes to range.

Click to expand...

Yes, ranges are overrated; but the system as a whole is very effective and cannot be discounted in any modern military operation which involves airpower. BVR is here to stay and it will only get better.

What you are describing are two modes of operation that exists in all BVR missiles. They exist in one missile, not two kinds.

Click to expand...

OK, but you can't launch an AMRAAM at its max (useful) range active off the rail - its on-board radar simply doesn't have that kind of range

Everyone playing in a PC or console flight sim fights like this and knows this as a basic tactic.

Click to expand...

Sorry, i'm not a gamer. I just wanted to emphasize that in the real world they don't rely on the "one shot, one kill" theory when it comes to BVR.

This is a rather difficult matchup. But I think it goes without saying that a Su-27 could easily get it's nose around quicker on an F-16 from a neutral setup (head-on). The problem is the Su-27 quickly loses most or all of it's energy in that kind of turn and loses it's ability to rate it's nose until it gets some of that energy back. The F-16 on the other hand is highly agile and is able to rate it's nose at low speed because of it's inherent high thrust engine and lower weight design which allows quicker acceleration. Also the limiters on the F-16 will not allow it to do the high AoA energy depleting turn that the Sukhoi jet can do.

If we're talking guns only, I would say that the Su-27 would probably come out on top if it could get around quickly within range and fire an accurate burst of gunfire. But if the F-16 guy is good, he'd probably maneuver out of plane and come over on top of a low energy Sukhoi trying to accelerate to gain enough energy for another turn.

Again, when comparing designs like this, it mostly comes back to pilot skill.

The thrust to weight ratio of the Su-27 is quite high once you're half fuel so it does recover speed quickly. And the Su-27 doesn't lose speed easily from what I've heard except on high AoA maneuvers, but then everything does lose speed in high AoA maneuvers. You either can do a high AoA maneuver or you don't. Given you have more ample fuel, the Su-27 can afford to use its afterburners more.

Its main disadvantage is the large size, which makes it easier to eyeball, and the single engined jet probably rolls faster, so it's in the advantage of the F-16 pilot to do scissors or barrel rolls. Without HMS, the F-16 pilot has a definite disadvantage.

The aggressor pilots in the PLAAF would probably know best how to beat an Su-27. as they know how to do it even with a J-7E.

Short and correct answer is ‘it depends’. The slightly longer but still overly simplified non-answer is:
Su-27 is the first Soviet design to use Boyd’s theories. Although F-16A/B Block 20 is closer to Boyd’s original vision and hence more agile than some of the later blocks, Su-27 is newer E-M design with great aerodynamics. In most circumstances, Su-27SK has better flight performance and greater envelope. However F-16 has better internal configuration, automation, and avionics. F-16’s reduced response time and superior EW ensure the air combat wouldn’t completely one sided. AIM-120 is superior to R-77. AIM-7 is superior to R-27. R-73 is superior to AIM-9. Su-27 could carry more missiles and has a longer range radar, but F-16 has smaller RCS.

That should give you a very rough picture. Beyond that it gets tricky and there are a lot of different variables, public misconceptions, and partial analysis. A lot of things are said in this thread, but that’s not even 1/1000 of real combat. Take one paragraph from the first detailed post:

Totoro said:

sukhoi would use r-27 missiles as its main weapon at long ranges. While it would have to keep a radar lock to use the SARH version, it would probably fire off the IR version at the same time, just to increase its chances. Range on the basic version would be a little bit inferior to f16 but not by much (60-80 km) meaning its quite likely sukhoi would get to fire off its missiles before amraams get to it. Now, with SARH version that's not quite enough as if the sukhoi dies then the missile is useless too, but the IR version would remain on target, given its guidance isnt spoofed.

Click to expand...

Sounds sort of rational and based upon some thoughts, but really missing some critical components such as tactics, EW etc. Russian and Chinese pilots do not always fire SARH and IR missiles at the same time, even if that is a known tactic. Anyone who studies BVR tactics would know that’s not always a compatible move, not to mention the technical danger of IR seeker locking on the radar missile. Another obvious flaw is the discussion of missile range without considering the detection and RCS details.

That is only the first post. If you read the rest of this thread, notice the following:
- Underestimation of impact of avionics and fire control design in air combat. Situation Awareness is not only about raw radar detection performance, but rather the capability of collecting useful information in a timely manner and merging them into accessible knowledge of the battlespace for the pilot. Better automation means more free time and higher accuracy for pilots to act on the OODA loop.
- Lack of discussion of BVR combats and confusion in missiles. BVR tactics are rarely discussed publicly, especially compare to dogfights. Although it may seem to be simple with overused phrases like “fire and forget”, it actually requires high pilot precision and complex formation considerations. Also despite what others might think, ARH is still superior than SARH in almost all situations, any pilots will confirm that.
- Insufficient analysis in Su-27 vs. F-16 flight performance. Lack of real flight envelope comparison means most of statements here are somewhat incorrect. Turn rates, corner speeds, accelerations and other parameters aren’t static, these are all related and changes dynamically with different conditions.