I for one love the Mig-29A, but I get the impression that many here regard Soviet tech as being inferior, even when comparing a plane such as the SU-27 against something that's totally unrelated, like an A-10. And I know about more than half of you are violently opposed to my belief that the Su-27, after considering all aspect of a2a combat, can take out a 1990's era Eagle any day, any time, if operated by a pilot of equal skill. The R-73 just kicks the ass of the sidewinder hands down.

It all comes down to pilot skill eventualy. If you are talking about BVR, i think f15 has an advantage over the su27 or mig29. As for dogfights, the russian aircraft can probably outfly the f15 in a slow-speed fight, as for in a high speed dogfight, the f15 can outturn them with ease. So its up for the pilot not get engaged into a high/slow speed fight.

avionics wise, Russian aircraft, well, are not great.
A common concept that must be taken into account is why people view russian aircraft inferior is because of the appearance of bad maintenace, bad pilot training, and the little emphasis russian aircraft designers have played on high tech stuff like BVR, stealth, thrust vectoring, yadda yadda yadda.
A psycological and economic direct and indirect result of the Cold War, you could say.

smoking_ace420,as for the Su-27 comparision with an A10, well that is just a complete unreasonable comparrison, as far as I'm concerned. The Su-27 is a fighter for BVR and close range dogfighting. The A10 is for ground attack in in Close air Support role. Period.
design and operational history wise, the Su-27 should dominate the F15. But as I stated above, and the fact the USAF is the largest and most extensivley equipped and trained air force in the world, then the tables are somewhat reversed in the F15's side.

Nothing unreasonable at all about the A-10 vs. Su-27 comparison, in the context of the question that was asked about the two in this forum. The A-10 easily outturns pretty much any fighter aircraft. The question, in this forum, was about the A-10s ability to outturn an Su-27.

It wasn't a question about who's airplane sucks or not, it was just a question of turn rate.

About pilot training. The Russians provide the best possible training to their military pilots, but they have a funding problem. Flying an aircraft is a highly perishable skill. If you don't get enough time in the air, you are not going to be as sharp as the guy (with equal aptitude) who does...there's no mystery about that. BTW...on the issue of the R-73 versus the AIM-9, I am fully in agreement that the R-73 is the superior missile.

erhaps the suhoi 27 does not suck. As you want to put it. But overall Russian design sucks. Just compare the durability of engines and airframes. Now the Russians have had some good designs. But they have never overcome the West in Material science, or electronics.
Take into consideration that Communism is and extremely inefficient system of governance. And hence vital aspects of the industry that were needed to support the aviation industry were ignored. The Americans have better engines, this allows for bigger aircraft. Better electronics.
Communism simply is not able to cover all aspects of the industry, seen as it is a command economy. Just look at Russian vs. American hardware and industry today. And you will see this. So perhaps the suhoi 27 is a better design, and perhaps given the right industry the Russian designers might have built superior planes. But they didn’t have the means to create adequate aircraft given their corrupt system of governance. Engines are vital! Speed is life.
The Russians produced crappy engine after crappy engine, although their designs were sometimes better. When the engine suck, no amount of skill cam compensate for that in the long run….

Why do you say the Russian Engines were poor? Perhaps in terms of lifespan but they seem quite capable from what I have read. The real problem with Russian planes has always been avionics and electronic systems which lagged behind the west. However in terms of aircraft design, they produced some awesome plans. The su-27 with the avionics of a late block F-15 is as good as anything.

Still,in the end, it comes down to the pilot more so than the plane. Just look at the middle east air battles. The Israelis have stated many times that the Egyption/Syrian Pilots were awful and that if they traded planes, the outcome would have been the exact same!

Russian engine TBO, 100-150 hours? BAAADDDD!!!

then how come the US is putting so much emphasis on steatlh and other stuff like that?
Is it because the Russian are not interested, bothere, unable, what?
Was there ever such thing as a Russian sealth plane?

I will have to agree here, the total failure of what is communism failed to produce decent materials, hence soviet design, even when superior had crappy engines. Perhaps there were some exceptions from this, but overall communist countries have failed totally in the field of engines and material science.

quote:

Originally posted by PantherF15:
then how come the US is putting so much emphasis on steatlh and other stuff like that?
Is it because the Russian are not interested, bothere, unable, what?
Was there ever such thing as a Russian sealth plane?

If there was, I'd say it's pretty damn good!

Russian / Soviet Material Science lagging behind the West? Utter Bogus!

The aft forgotten thing is, despite their inferior industry Russians often made scientific discoveries head-to-head or ahead the West.

Actually material science is one of the areas they're really good at. There is a reason why *real* military analysts keep such a keen eye on the new AL-31 engines the Su-30xx series will be fitted with. They're good. So good, that they're in the same league as the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 that powers the F22.

No, they're probably not as good as the P&W...but I don't give a damn! Super-cruising Su-30xxx planes in significant numbers, with good training, in SE Asia as well as the pacific are a damn hard nut to crack!

http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html

Even now military analysts are swearing at the idiots who want a "budget" airforce that's simply not up to the task of handling such a beast.

Please keep attention on the phrase I used: in significant number with good training.

The American Airpower can steamroll all the 3rd world countries it wants - and will probably do it with glee and charm - but that still won't prove it can do the same to a developed adversary who has the bucks to maintain a significant airforce.

YES! The F22 is BETTER than ANYTHING out there. It is still DAMN EXPENSIVE and is UNAVAILABLE OUTSIDE the US.

The US can probably go toe-toe with any 4th gen airforce and give them a bloody-nose with their superior technology. (But kill 'em with steam to spare? I wouldn't bet on THAT. Contain, beat, keep in check - SURE. Total War against Russia? - NO GO).

Meanwhile everybody else is contemplating a frightening reality of Russian weaponry that is more than capable of countering their own.

Russian Planes aren't better or worse than Western ones. They're simply DIFFERENT. They were built with different capabilities, a different doctrine in mind.

Judging by appearances is the worst you can do...after all the T-34 DID win the 2nd WW. There's more to war than who has the bigger guns or sharper blades.

...all in all an upgraded Su-27, AKA the Su-3x variants demand much contemplation.