Aircraft comparison

Is India’s Su-30 is better than Pakistan’s F16. which is better?

The F-16 Fighting Falcon and the Su-30 Flanker are two renowned fighter jets used by various air forces worldwide. The F-16, crafted by the United States, is famed for its agility, state-of-the-art avionics, and versatility in both air-to-air and air-to-ground operations.

In contrast, the Russian-designed Su-30 excels with its superior range, powerful engines, and exceptional maneuverability, making it a formidable opponent in air superiority roles. Both aircraft showcase the pinnacle of military aviation technology, reflecting their respective countries’ design philosophies and combat strategies.

The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon is an American single-engine, supersonic multirole fighter aircraft. It made its maiden flight in January 1974 and was introduced into the USAF in August 1978. The F-16 features a frameless bubble canopy for improved cockpit visibility, a side-mounted control stick for easier handling during maneuvers, and an ejection seat reclined 30 degrees from vertical. As of 2023, it is the most widely used fixed-wing aircraft in military service globally, with 2,145 F-16s in operation.

The Sukhoi Su-30 is a twin-engine, supermaneuverable fighter aircraft with a two-seat cockpit and an airbrake located behind the canopy. It is versatile, capable of functioning both as an air superiority fighter and a strike fighter. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is currently considering extending the operational life of its Su-30 MKI fighter jets, which have been in service for over two decades.

Length: The F-16 has a length of 49 feet 5 inches (15.06 meters), while the Su-30 measures 72 feet (21.935 meters), making it notably longer.

Height: Standing at 16 feet (4.9 meters), the F-16 is shorter than the Su-30, which has a height of 20 feet 10 inches (6.36 meters).

Range: The F-16 boasts a combat range of 295 nautical miles (339 miles, 546 kilometers), whereas the Su-30 extends its range to 3,000 kilometers (1,900 miles, 1,600 nautical miles) at high altitude, emphasizing its longer operational reach.

Engine: The F-16 is powered by a single General Electric F110-GE-129 engine, generating up to 29,500 pounds of thrust with afterburner. In contrast, the Su-30 utilizes twin Saturn AL-31FL/FP afterburning turbofan engines, each capable of producing 27,560 pounds of thrust with afterburner. While the F-16 relies on a single engine, the Su-30 benefits from dual engines, enhancing its power and redundancy in flight.

Speed: At high altitude, the F-16 achieves a maximum speed of Mach 2.05 (1,353 mph), whereas the Su-30 matches this with a maximum speed of Mach 2 (1,320 mph, 1,140 knots).

Service Ceiling: The F-16 reaches a service ceiling of 50,000 feet (15,000 meters), whereas the Su-30’s service ceiling stands at 56,800 feet (17,300 meters), providing superior operational altitude capability.

Fuel Capacity: Internally, the F-16 can carry 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) of fuel, whereas the Su-30 accommodates 9,400 kg (20,723 lb) internally, indicating a larger fuel capacity for extended missions.

Gross Weight: The F-16 has a maximum takeoff weight of 42,300 pounds (19,187 kg), while the Su-30 can take off at a maximum weight of 34,500 kg (76,059 lb).

Empty Weight: The F-16’s empty weight is 18,900 pounds (8,573 kg), lighter than the Su-30 which weighs 17,700 kg (39,022 lb) when empty.

The Su-30 is renowned for its robust airframe, exceptional maneuverability in all axes, and its iconic “cobra” maneuver. The tactical effectiveness of the cobra maneuver has been a topic of debate for decades, with no clarity its practical application. Designed originally for ground-attack roles, the series incorporates features such as canards, thrust-vectoring engines, and a long-range phased-array radar to excel in air-superiority missions.

Ukraine is anticipated to receive its first batch of F-16s this summer. Russian military expert from the US-based Institute remarked that using American-made fighter jets for offensive strikes into Russia currently lacks strong military justification.

Israeli F-16s have demonstrated superior performance over Su-30s due to enhanced pilot training, cohesive group tactics, and extensive combat experience. In contrast, Ukrainian pilots, historically trained in Russian combat doctrines, face challenges in achieving similar proficiency levels, exacerbated by comparatively limited exposure to sustained combat scenarios.

Aircraft comparison

Comparison of the Indian built Tejas MK1A vs South korean FA 50

Today, we’ll explore two remarkable light combat aircraft: the Tejas MK1A and the FA-50 Golden Eagle. Both fighters are designed for versatility, making them ideal for various missions, from air-to-air combat to ground support.

The Tejas MK1A, developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in India, and the FA-50, a product of Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI), are both advanced aircraft equipped with modern technology and features.

10 Fascinating Facts About India’s AMCA Fighter Jet

In this Article, we will compare these two fighters in terms of their specifications, performance, capabilities, and roles in modern air forces. Let’s dive in and see how they stack up against each other!

Tejas is the second supersonic combat aircraft developed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), following the HF-24 Marut. It took its first flight in 2001 and was inducted into service with the Indian Air Force (IAF) in 2015. Currently, Tejas holds the distinction of being the smallest and lightest aircraft in its class of supersonic combat jets.

On the other hand, the FA-50 is South Korea’s first indigenous supersonic aircraft and is one of the few supersonic trainers in the world. Development of the T-50 began in the late 1990s, with its maiden flight taking place in 2002.

Russia Seeks Talks with India, Offers Tu-160 Bombers at Unbeatable Prices

The FA-50 boasts a higher production rate compared to the Tejas. Over the past 15 years, Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) has produced nearly 200 variants of the FA-50, while Tejas has seen a lower production output.

In terms of international sales, the FA-50 is actively in service with multiple countries, including Indonesia, Iraq, the Philippines, Thailand, and Poland. Notably, Malaysia opted for the FA-50 over the Tejas, citing the FA-50’s strong service record as a key factor in their decision.

Here’s a SPECIFICATION of the Tejas and FA-50

Length: The Tejas measures 13.2 m (43 ft 4 in), making it slightly longer than the FA-50, which is 13.14 m (43 ft 1 in).

Max Takeoff Weight: The Tejas has a maximum takeoff weight of 13,500 kg (29,762 lb), compared to the FA-50’s lighter weight of 10,722 kg (23,638 lb).

Fuel Capacity: The Tejas has an internal fuel capacity of 3,060 liters (810 US gallons), while the FA-50 has a slightly lower internal fuel capacity of 2,655 liters (701 US gallons).

Powerplant: Both aircraft are powered by General Electric F404 turbofan engines, but the Tejas utilizes the F404-GE-IN20 variant with 48.9 kN (11,000 lbf) thrust dry and 85 kN (19,000 lbf) with afterburner. The FA-50 features the F404-GE-102 variant, producing 53.07 kN (11,930 lbf) thrust dry and 78.7 kN (17,700 lbf) with afterburner.

Maximum Speed: The Tejas has a maximum speed of 2,220 km/h (Mach 1.8), which is significantly faster than the FA-50’s maximum speed of 1,837.5 km/h (Mach 1.5).

Combat Range: The Tejas has a combat range of 739 km (459 mi), whereas the FA-50 has a much longer range of 1,851 km (1,150 mi).

Hardpoints: The Tejas features 9 hardpoints with a total capacity of 5,300 kg, while the FA-50 has 7 hardpoints capable of carrying up to 5,400 kg of payload.

Cost: The Tejas is priced at approximately $40 million per unit, whereas the FA-50 ranges between $30 million to $40 million per unit, making the FA-50 potentially more cost-effective depending on the variant chosen.

Weapons
When it comes to weaponry, the Tejas MK1A offers a wider range of options compared to the FA-50 Golden Eagle. The Tejas MK1A is equipped with beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles, allowing it to engage targets at greater distances, enhancing its combat effectiveness in air superiority missions. Additionally, it can carry precision-guided munitions for accurate strikes against ground targets, as well as standoff weapons, which can be launched from a distance to minimize exposure to enemy defenses. This diverse armament enables the Tejas to perform a variety of roles, from air-to-air combat to ground support.

In contrast, the FA-50 also features a respectable armament capability but has a more limited selection. It can carry air-to-air missiles like the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-120 AMRAAM, as well as precision-guided bombs. However, its focus leans more toward close air support and light strike missions rather than the extensive versatility that the Tejas offers.

Naval Variant
The Tejas Mk1A has a naval variant designed for carrier operations, which is still in development. This version includes upgrades like a nose droop for better visibility during landings and takeoffs, a strengthened undercarriage, and an arrestor hook for safe landings on aircraft carriers.

In contrast, the FA-50 does not have a naval variant. While it’s versatile for different missions, it’s not designed for carrier operations, limiting its flexibility compared to the naval Tejas, which can operate from both land and carriers.