Connect with us

Aircraft comparison

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

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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).

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Aircraft comparison

Comparison between Comac C919 and A320 aircraft

Comparison between Comac C919 and A320 aircraft

The COMAC C919 and the Airbus A320 represent two significant players in the narrow-body commercial aircraft market, each reflecting its manufacturer’s vision for the future of aviation.

The C919, developed by the Chinese aerospace manufacturer COMAC, aims to challenge established Western dominance with its advanced technology and cost-effective design. In contrast, the Airbus A320, a stalwart of global aviation for decades, continues to set benchmarks for efficiency, safety, and passenger comfort.

This comparison explores the key differences and similarities between these two aircraft, highlighting their design philosophies, performance metrics, and market implications.

How the Comac C919 similar from the A320 and B737 Max:Click here

The COMAC C919, predominantly built using aluminum alloys, is equipped with CFM International LEAP turbofan engines. It has the capacity to accommodate between 156 and 168 passengers in its standard configuration.

Advertisement

This twin-engine jet features a six-abreast economy cabin layout. Initially, it offered options for either CFM56 or IAE V2500 turbofan engines, though the CFM56/PW6000 combination was exclusively used for the A318 model. It can accommodate 195 passengers.

COMAC C919 vs. Airbus A320: A Comparative Overview


Length: The C919 measures 38.9 meters (127.6 feet) in length, slightly longer than the A320, which is 37.57 meters (123 feet 3 inches) long. This extra length provides a marginally larger cabin for the C919.

Wingspan: Both aircraft share the same wingspan of 35.8 meters (117.5 feet), indicating similar aerodynamic properties and potential for comparable fuel efficiency and performance.

Height: The C919 stands at 11.95 meters (39.2 feet) in height, surpassing the A320’s height of 11.76 meters (38 feet 7 inches). This difference is relatively minor but may impact cabin space and cargo hold configuration.

Advertisement

Aircraft comparisons between the comac C919 and B737 max 8:Click here

Weight: The COMAC C919 has a maximum takeoff weight of 42,100 kilograms (92,815 pounds), slightly less than the A320’s 42.6 tonnes (93,900 pounds). The A320’s marginally higher weight suggests it may be able to handle slightly more payload or fuel.

Range: The C919 offers a range of 4,630 kilometers (2,500 nautical miles), which is shorter compared to the A320’s range of 6,112 kilometers (3,300 nautical miles). This extended range of the A320 makes it better suited for longer routes and provides airlines with more operational flexibility.
Nearly twice as much as the $50 million that analysts predicted, comac c919 price is roughly $91 million. That is comparable to the cost of the Boeing 737-800 and the Airbus A320neo, which, as of 2021, are estimated to be $106 million and $111 million, respectively.

Continue Reading

Trending