Air war: F18s vs. PLAAF

good point.
the plaaf pilots must fight wisely to win. heres how:
initially, at around 50 km, the f-18 has the advantage
the j-11 pilots must use information from ground radar crews to guide their fightersto the f-18s. ground crews must use sams and jammers to keep the f-18s occupied. the j-11s then use their power engines to rapidly close the distance to the f-18s. by the time the planes are around 15 km apart, the advantage has turned to the agile flanker.

this tactic was originally developed for a mig-29 vs f-15 scenarion, but can quicklyh be adappted for our controntation purposes.

Sea Dog said:

Without getting into comparisons. Here is a couple of links for APG-79. You can draw your own conclusions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I did read all of that. It didn't really give the range/tracking/azimuth information that I was looking for.

My theory about F-18 has always been that since it is developed for truly multirole capability. Especially being a naval version, it is imperative for the anti-ship capability to be great. Which means, the air target tracking would loose out a little bit and not be as effective to an equal calibre dedicated A2A radar. That's why I say that J-10 and flankers could be equipped with less capable radars, but their A2A capability might not be weaker. Also, better manuverability makes it harder for another fighter to lock onto you.

I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18E is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet C, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.

Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)

Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.

MIGleader said:

what!!?? i though an f-18ef for export was 80 million!
well, if the plaaf is on defence, it has an advantage. ground radar can detect the f-18 from farther away, and flankers can be deployed to kill it. the r-77 probably nulls out the aim-120, and plaaf flankers have an hms too. if the j-11s deployed are of the b model, it should fare well against the f-18. j10? just maybe. but losing a some 25 million $ j-10s for a couple 80 million $ f-18s would be a gain for the plaaf.

Click to expand...

The estimated unit cost, including total program expense in 1998 dollars, is $39.5 million for F/A-18 A/B/C/D, and $60 million for F/A-18E/F. I cited $60 million figure because it was USN purchase, and not export.

For export sales, the price will be higher if you include training, support, parts, munitions, etc. I think Malaysia paid about $600 million for 8 F/A-18D's in 1997, that's $75 million each. There were also talks to sell 18 F/A-18F's to Malaysia for $1.48 billion USD, approx. $82 million each. The Russians sort of under-cut the US offer with 18 Su-30's for $900 million.

sumdud said:

I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18 is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.
Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)
Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.

Click to expand...

To make long story short, the F/A-18E/F was the result of several factors, including the cancellation of super Tomcat 21 program, destruction of F-14 tools and molds by Grumman, failure of Hornet 2000 codevelopment project (between US and France), US-DoD's axing of A-12 Avenger II & NATF.

Sure, it'd have been nice for the USN if they could've received A-12 attackers and NATF (carrier version of F/A-22) fighters, but the estimated unit cost for A-12 was $165 million each (1990 dollars) and the NATF would've been even more expensive than the F/A-22 ($200 million?). The USN has more $ than any other navy, but it doesn't mean their wallet has unlimited amount of funds. The F/A-18E/F is a good multi-role platform that fit the budget.

If you look at the design requirements for the JSF, it included "survivability, lethality, sustainablity, and AFFORDABILITY". The USN variant, the F-35C, has estimated unit cost of $55 million, and is reported to have low maintenance cost. This made the program a success, in comparison to the cancelled MRF and A/F-X programs. The JSF is stealthy, equipped with AESA radar, and can carry up to 10 AAM's (2 in bomb bay doors, 2 in bomb bays, 4 on wing pylons, plus 2 on wingtips). There's no reason why the aircraft cannot be used in interception roles.

sumdud said:

I'd think that if you have a fighter, it should be the best it could be.
The F-18 is a good multi-purpose platform, with good general performances, much better than the Hornet, but if its agility and manuverability aren't as great, I'd say it's a bust. On a carrier, I'd ask for a dedicated fighter and a dedicated attack plane, not that it cannot perform each other's roles, just at a worse state.

Integration is great, but sometimes, you just can't compromise the entire deal. (I am only meaning the F-18 fighter case.)

Right now, things are OK (OK only.) since most planes aren't BVR-capable. As long as F-18 don't get bold and get too close.
But as new planes, especially J-XX, come out, and F-18 gets no replacement. (JSF is primarily a strike plane. Unless US decided touse JSF as a fighter...) the hornet is screwed. It can't detect the J-XX, whilewill out-dogfight it.

Click to expand...

The only real drawback I see in this analysis is reduced maneuverability. That's not too bad considering it's likely the F/A-18E is going to get the first shot off. Meaning it still retains the edge in air-to-air. But in the long term, perhaps the USN won't be likely to get rid of the 'C' model for a shorter term a2a support. Right now the F/A-18E is desinged to carry a larger payload to longer ranges to deliver ordnance strikes. It never was intended to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. Only designed to be able to do air-to-air if need be. And it's weapons, sensors, self-protection systems, and ECM suite/jamming should give it plenty of capability for now. It's true, in the future, the USN will have to seek alternatives and re-adjust based on threat assesments. But for now, this systems works. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, this type of aquisition is costly and considered wasteful.

The J-XX stuff is merely speculation. It's not even designed yet. We don't know how effective it will be. You have no idea as to what kind of maneuverability it will field. We don't even know if it will even be a success or a failure. For all we know, F/A-18E will exceed J-XX. We just don't know.

It really comes down to the radars and missiles. SD-10 and R-77 vs AIM-120C/D. I think we all know just how primitive the radar on the Su-27SK was-high output, but inefficient and lacks processing power. The KLJ-3 is currently an unknown. But the APG-79 is a monster.

in WVR, everyone dies. There will be no "tearing PLAAF apart" as a certain member said.

vincelee said:

in WVR, everyone dies.

Click to expand...

I'm not so certain this is true. But I'll say that the late generation Russian fighters seem to have the best maneuverability to deal with this situation. But in the end it comes down to training and situational awareness when it comes to WVR combat. BVR combat is another matter.

Sea Dog said:

The only real drawback I see in this analysis is reduced maneuverability. That's not too bad considering it's likely the F/A-18E is going to get the first shot off. Meaning it still retains the edge in air-to-air. But in the long term, perhaps the USN won't be likely to get rid of the 'C' model for a shorter term a2a support. Right now the F/A-18E is desinged to carry a larger payload to longer ranges to deliver ordnance strikes. It never was intended to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. Only designed to be able to do air-to-air if need be. And it's weapons, sensors, self-protection systems, and ECM suite/jamming should give it plenty of capability for now. It's true, in the future, the USN will have to seek alternatives and re-adjust based on threat assesments. But for now, this systems works. Unfortunately for us taxpayers, this type of aquisition is costly and considered wasteful.

The J-XX stuff is merely speculation. It's not even designed yet. We don't know how effective it will be. You have no idea as to what kind of maneuverability it will field. We don't even know if it will even be a success or a failure. For all we know, F/A-18E will exceed J-XX. We just don't know.

Click to expand...

j-xx probably wont be carrier feilded, or even be used for the navy. if it indeed has internal weapons bays, its multirole ability would be very limited., thus being useless for most naval applications. by the time a naval j-xx comes out, the f-18 would be retired.

so its safe to say the most threatening opponent for f-18s is th plan su-30mkk2. if the mkk2s are used strictly for interception, then the radar disadvantage would be nulled. same with plan j-8s.

This is a good discussion.

In another thread in this forum about "how good are Chinese pilots??" You have to throw that into the mix when talking about any confrontation. I don't know how well they trained or how many flight hours they get yearly to fly. What sort of simulator training do they get?

In this one very important aspect cannot be overlooked. Night flying and all weather flying. The USN is well trained at night flying. How well trained are the PLAAF pilots at night flying also flying at night over water? Anyone know?
I know from firsts hand experience that F-18 pilots fly a lot at night. A whole lot.

In the words of that great American, Ric Flair, "To be the man you gotta beat the man".

Anyone have any ideas about my questions.

believe me when I say that J-10 will be the most threatening fighter F-18 will face. The mk2s are most likely used in attacking missions (there is a reason why China is getting KH-59mk). As for F-18s being replaced before J-xx comes out, that really depends on how fast F-35s are going to be produced. Remember, the Brits are going to get naval versions of F-35s too.

I believe there are simulators for both the mk2 and J-10.