RMAF's Sukhois to arrive in May — one year late
-
Unlike the mig 29 this mig comes with all the goodies like western world avonics ,radar , latest targetting and missle system . In a way it is a rojak that complement the best of russian and western technology
somehow I believe it is better than our F15 Sg or at least on par. However I do have reservation on the MTBF of the engine , and the operational efficiency and profricenty of operators.
I have read somewhere b4. The MIGs that were lost in the recent war were due to the pilot do not have enough training and insufficient logistics support ,the mig are acutally good aircrafts that would have outperform if they were in the hand of professional forces like USAF or IAF (Israel) C4 battle network system -
Btw, we are talking about the Sukhoi-30MKM here. Not the MiG-MAPO migs.
By definition, Migs are
Single engine
Single Seat
Single use.
I'm not slamming Russian AC for no reason. Their engines are so kick-ass powerful that they need more time in maintenance than western counter parts. Why do you think the Russian AC can perform all those edge of flying limit manuevers? Its cos they almost got a rocket strap to their back to be able to recover. (not discounting pretty smart aeronautical designs. *applauds* )
These Russian beasts are meant for war time operations. They take off, and their engines are pushed to the limits. This was particularly prevalent during the Cold war simply cos the Soviets figured most of them won't be coming back anyways. So its alright to make them maintenance intensive.
For RMAF Ops... Good luck getting flight hours out of those engines. Its gonna cost.
The Sukhoi-27 series are magnificent aircraft to behold at air shows. "WtF?! I didn know planes can fly like that?!" But the combat value behind the stunts? Huge RCS of the Su-30 that can be detected more than 80 miles away by e F-16's "tiny" radar. Does that really help?
Super manueverable, but u can't dodge a slammer if u're within its sure kill zone.
Our initial acquisition cost for the F-15SG maybe higher, but our maintenance wont be a b1tch like theirs. Our upgrade options are plentiful. Theirs? They've got French, Russian and South African equipment all stuffed into 1 turkey. Anytime wanna tamba something, need to consult so many people for integration.
F-15SG will lose to the Su-30? I don't think so. What we save from our maintenance can possibly allow us to buy more fighters to outnumber them. -
Originally posted by stevelim@tuas:one thing is for sure
RSAF is in deep shit with these MIGs around in the event of a conflict
Wait till at least 3 sqn of SU-30s then you start to worry which btw not going to happen!!
In the near future, RMAF with 18 SU-30s + 8 Hornets( Mig-29s are to be mothballed as reported) are less than a quarter of RSAF fighters( 60 F-16s + 40ish F-5s), when our F-15SG come out online, the advantage will tilt even further.
BTW, you guys read the report from Indonesia General abt their SU-30, he said that the SU-30s need 3x the maintenance as compare with western fighters, which mean lower availability. i.e less fighters in the air.
At the end of the day, RSAF will still be flying and RMAF will be long gone by then!!! -
Unlike the mig 29 this mig comes with all the goodies like western world avonics ,radar , latest targetting and missle system . In a way it is a rojak that complement the best of russian and western technology
Nobody in the right mind would put a rojak of systems inside their equipment. Simply because the equipment would have problems working or talking to other systems. And Russian equipment has been known to unreliable.somehow I believe it is better than our F15 Sg or at least on par. However I do have reservation on the MTBF of the engine , and the operational efficiency and profricenty of operators.
The internal workings of the F15K and F15SG are completely different than the original baseline model. You are talking about an entirely different plane. Even the Su-30 is an evolved model over the baseline Su-27 which came out during in the same generation as the `F-15teensÂ’. The Russians are just milking the series until they are unable to squeeze any more.
The F-15SG is better or at least on par with the Su-30. Even the Superbugs are just as good with the installation of AESA and other newer systems. And we will be getting more F15SGs.
Russian aircraft designers do emphasize more agility. But dogfights are a thing of the past now because future planes like the F-15teens can shoot at you with the nose pointing in another direction.
In essence, systems matter now; internally and on other systems. And the Americans certainly have a huge lead in this regard. All the more so with complete detection and surveillance systems which make use of UAVs, AWACs, etc. That is where future of air-forces is.I have read somewhere b4. The MIGs that were lost in the recent war were due to the pilot do not have enough training and insufficient logistics support ,the mig are acutally good aircrafts that would have outperform if they were in the hand of professional forces like USAF or IAF (Israel) C4 battle network system.
The Migs are the contemporaries of the F-16s. We can`t really say which aircraft is better because a lot of variables play a part in a dog fight. It is said that the F-16 outperforms the Mig-29s at a certain altitude and vice-versa.
But as mentioned before, the system upgrades that has been done to the F-16 series already make the latter a better plane than the Mig-29s. An example is the Israeli F-16I. -
Well said guys !
On the integration of the various component , it can be done just have to spend money to write the code.
After the big blunder RMAF made in F18 Acqusition , they should have wise up and improve in their procurement bah. -
On the integration of the various component , it can be done just have to spend money to write the code
Easier said than done. A lot of these companies would not simply release the codes. Try the Americans. It is likely, if not a certain fact, that you would need to work with these companies when integrating these components. How you synergise and bring together these separate entities is a totally different matter altogether. It would not be easy. The Indians had the Israelis to assist them and that took 6-7 years. The Indian MKI had even lesser component parts from other countries. Is the RMAF going to finally operate the Su-30 >2014 in combat ready mode?
Yes, it will probably cost much more in the end. You have not even talked about integration with all the other equipment in the air-force itself or other branches of the military. I doubt the RMAF will buy any more Su-30 until they have resolved all the teething issues which will take a long time to be resolved. Hence, the RMAF would probably be facing the same kind of problems they have always had resulting in a vicious cycle. Getting the Superbugs could be a life-saver. And I think the RMAF officials understand this very well. Oh my, is it a case of deja-vu with the current hornets and Migs? Weird. Old habits die hard huh. -
There is very little chance that the SU-30s would have a chance to fight F-15SG if there is a outbreak of war.
Remember, we did not get the F-15SG to engage the SU30s. Well, if they need to, they can defend themselves.
Why do u need to sacrifice high value/high volume payload deep strikers to engag house-flys?
They have better targets to take care of.
Use the right tools for the right job!
The whole war pic is so complex today that if may not even be a flyer to engage the SU30s.
My 2 cents. -
--> To: Arthas79
From what I understand, both the F-16 and MiG-29 (Cat I config) are most agile at the same altitude regime. The advantage in the level hard turns at lower altitudes benefit the MiG-29 further. The F-16s however, perform better than the MiG-29s in the z-axis, hence they would be better off working the vertical against a MiG-29 in a knife fight.
--> End
Side note. Even superior agility itself is questionable now with the advent of off-boresight missiles that engage at ridiculous aspects. Perhaps the Su-30s agility MAY be able to offer a counter high aspect off boresight missile shot should it get jumped by Vipers with heaters. Then again, its a counter shot... Its gonna get hit by a sidewinder x anyway.
If both sides are aware of each other's presence, and decide to press for the merge, I see no way how the high agility can provide the Sukhois with the close range advantage when we take into account of off boresight missiles. Both sides will trade losses. The Su-30's air frame is however, more survivable than the Viper's i guess. -
I've been following this thread with interest. May I point out a few points in regards to high boresight missile. The idea behind it is that the missile can lock with a target within its aquisition envelope which is around 70 to 90 degrees so that the a/c does not have to turn and point its nose in the direction of the shot. Soon after firing the missile will turn to follow the target which may be on a reverse course of the firing a/c (i'm assuming this as you dont need a high boresight missile to do a tail shot on target). Now a wvr missile burns it's rocket engine for only a short while, around 2 seconds plus minus, which in turns will accelerate the missile to a very high speed, then rely on kinetic energy for the final approach for the kill.Originally posted by Shotgun:--> To: Arthas79
From what I understand, both the F-16 and MiG-29 (Cat I config) are most agile at the same altitude regime. The advantage in the level hard turns at lower altitudes benefit the MiG-29 further. The F-16s however, perform better than the MiG-29s in the z-axis, hence they would be better off working the vertical against a MiG-29 in a knife fight.
--> End
Side note. Even superior agility itself is questionable now with the advent of off-boresight missiles that engage at ridiculous aspects. Perhaps the Su-30s agility MAY be able to offer a counter high aspect off boresight missile shot should it get jumped by Vipers with heaters. Then again, its a counter shot... Its gonna get hit by a sidewinder x anyway.
If both sides are aware of each other's presence, and decide to press for the merge, I see no way how the high agility can provide the Sukhois with the close range advantage when we take into account of off boresight missiles. Both sides will trade losses. The Su-30's air frame is however, more survivable than the Viper's i guess.
In regards to that, if a wvr missile is launched to a target with a hight traverse rate (ie crossing your a/c) or on a reverse course of your a/c, the missile would need to make a sharp turn which in turn will slow the rate of acceleration as part of the energy is needed to make the turn to target. that will leave the missile with less kinetic energy for the final approach for kill as the rocket burn time is still the same. this means high boresight engagement will reduce the max distance of engagement drastically . Take this into account of firing to a very highly maneuverable (i hate to spell this word) a/c which in turn can change its heading quickly and have powerful engines to recover potential energy/altitude and can trade altitude for speed/kinetic energy quickly, the percentage for a high boresight missile to get a kill is reduced. compare that with "legacy maneuvering (that word again)" fighter in which the missile can get a upper hand.
In dog fighting the a/c with the better energy (be it potential ie altitude or kinetic ie speed) will have a much better chance to turn and get a tail position. That in turn will maximise your wvr missile or any missile for that matter. It's not without reason that the raptor has tvc to supplement the agility. I think one of you guys, arthas 79 pointed out :-
The F-15SG is better or at least on par with the Su-30. Even the Superbugs are just as good with the installation of AESA and other newer systems. And we will be getting more F15SGs.
Russian aircraft designers do emphasize more agility. But dogfights are a thing of the past now because future planes like the F-15teens can shoot at you with the nose pointing in another direction.
In essence, systems matter now; internally and on other systems. And the Americans certainly have a huge lead in this regard. All the more so with complete detection and surveillance systems which make use of UAVs, AWACs, etc. That is where future of air-forces is."
This actually echoes a past statement by members of the USAF and the navy, back in the 'nam wars. They requested the f-4 phantom and decided not to put guns in because dogfights are a thing of the past now . They were damn sure that phantoms and sparrow combinations will be the be all and end all. Boy were they wrong. they went and swollowed their pride and eqquipped the coming variants and versions with podded guns. In statements above, systems are good and dandy and all, but if history is taken into account, after the first picket of bvr missiles is launched by both sides, there will still be jinkin' and yankin' and turnin' and burnin' by military aviators around the world.
In regards to statement concerning iraqi mig 29 performance in gw1, my personal belief is that it's down to sheer training and operations failure. There are reports of the luftwaffe mig-29 which gave good account of themselves in dact and also the fpda exercises back in early 2000 between the RMAF migs and the RAAF bugs in which the migs did give good account of themselves also. having the best equipment is fine and good, but it's not the final word. the RSAF have the best equipment in SEA and a good force structure and also good training for her military aviators. that's why they are the best in sea. in the same regards RMAF is not far back in terms of quality of training, and a bit further of in terms of equipment. that said they certainly have proven themselves in various dacts run by fpda and also few of the cope taufan (i think) dact exercises. The TNI-AU is bugged by the quality if the maintenance personnel and also by the recent arms embargo. i'm not sure if the bulk of their f-16s are in flying condition and also the issue in regards to the su27 and 30 (2 of each) which complicates their logistics greatly.
Wah tired already, Ding Chavez signing out. Thanks for the fun forum -
Wah that its insightful.
I also saw the F4 part on one of the documentary . MAybe at this stage we have not reach that kind sophistication of fire and forget even with BVR,off bore missle , apparently the mothership is still important.
I think if we could built the mig 30 ourselves thereby equip our crew with more in depth maintenance knowleage and intergrate the avionics into craft with the best of both world from russian and western world we will have one of the more formiable asset in RSAF.
Just thinking a Mig 30 should be at least 50 % cheaper than a F15 bah -
Dogfighting si the way of the past. The reason why Russians emphasized agility is so that a trained pilot can out maneuver some of the older generation AAMs. However, the newer BVRAAM are fast and quick and harder to dodge. The only way to avoid getting hit is to shoot first before the opponent does.
-
Remember that vietnam was 40 years ago, when missile technology was still in it's infancy. The PK of the missiles back then were far lower then the stuff we have today.
No matter how we do the math, we will come to a point of time where technology advances to a point where it will be no longer practical to dogfight as a large part of your air superiority plan.
This is not to say that dogfighting is dead, but it will no longer be the staple of gaining air superiority as it was in WW2. If the majority of your kills are doing BVR or beyond dogfighting range, then it makes little sense to play up the dog fighting aspect in your equipment and think it will help you gain air superiority. For this reason despite being very capable dogfighters, the F-22 jockeys prefer to use sneak-and-hit tactics that play up BVR and stealth to the max.
Air superiority is gained by being able to wrest control of the air, no matter how you do it. -
Highly maneuverable a/c does not mean it could dodge missile better, if it true then how come Mig-29 has such bad combat record ???
Btw how many G could a modern AAM could sustain?
A manned a/c could sustain max 9G, unmanned one like UAV or missile could I believe easily sustain 11~12G w/o problem, depending on how maneuverable these equipment.
And at speed more thah Mach 2.5~4.
For example Python 4 with speed of Mach 3.5+ plus much better maneuverability as compared with any manned a/c, the locked a/c could only "shake it off" thru ECM against the missile.
Here some good reading , modern AAM are expected to be able high G turn , even up 180deg if necessary:Air launched missiles are typically mounted in a forward facing direction where the nose of the missile is aligned with the nose of the host aircraft. A missile able to reverse the direction of its flight path, e.g., 180.degree. turn, is able to provide a capability to destroy rearward approaching aircraft before they are able to be within firing range of the host aircraft. A combat advantage is also provided in a fly-by scenario where an enemy aircraft passes the host aircraft traveling the opposite direction. If the missile can turn rapidly enough, the enemy aircraft can not escape being defeated. Thus, the time which the maneuver consumes, the velocity of the missile after the maneuver, and the turning radius or distance which the missile deviated from its desired flight path is critical to the life and death nature of the engagement.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6308911.html
Thus, one application exhibiting an immediate need for improved efficiency in maneuvering is an air launched interceptor missile. The intuitive approach to reversing an air launched interceptor missile's flight path based on conventional maneuver control is a steady high-g turn. The missile system applies control force to rotate the missile system's nose to a desired angle-of-attack to achieve an aerodynamic normal force providing a lateral component of acceleration to rotate the missile system's velocity vector and therefore its flight path angle. During the intuitive maneuver, forward velocity is necessary to produce aerodynamic force and to maintain an angle-of-attack. The angle-of-attack is typically limited to reduce the parasitic effects of aerodynamic axial forces, to maintain stability of the vehicle during the sustained maneuver, and to constrain aerodynamic loading beneath the structural limit of the missile body.............
One missile system developed specifically for such demanding maneuvers is the Python 4 manufactured by Rafael Industries and sold by the Israeli government, a line drawing of which is shown in FIG. 6. The Python 4 includes twenty-one (21) flight surfaces to achieve this performance-an inordinately high number of flight surfaces for a missile system that makes it expensive to manufacture and difficult to maintain. One reason for the Python 4's design complexity is the demands of implementing the intuitive approach for reorienting the missile described above and illustrated in FIG. 4. The Russian AA-11 missile system shown in FIG. 7, likewise, implements this intuitive approach to reorient the missile system to perform a 180.degree. turn. -
The tactic I think works well with 3rd generation AAM and not the 4th I believe. The 4th generation of AAM are far more maneuverable than the 3rd.Originally posted by gary1910:Highly maneuverable a/c does not mean it could dodge missile better, if it true then how come Mig-29 has such bad combat record ???
Btw how many G could a modern AAM could sustain?
A manned a/c could sustain max 9G, unmanned one like UAV or missile could I believe easily sustain 11~12G w/o problem, depending on how maneuverable these equipment.
And at speed more thah Mach 2.5~4.
For example Python 4 with speed of Mach 3.5+ plus much better maneuverability as compared with any manned a/c, the locked a/c could only "shake it off" thru ECM against the missile.
Here some good reading , modern AAM are expected to be able high G turn , even up 180deg if necessary:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6308911.html -
general term for air superirity is
1st look 1st kill -
you guys argue the futility of evading 4th gen AAM as if once the missile were launched the later pilot should commit suicide already.
what happen to EW? chaff? flare? do we know what exactly the Su 30 MKM and Mig 29 EW capability? or do we want just to assume that all russian made are inferior?
Nato pilot and aviator almost drained their blod in the face when they knew for the first time the mig 29 and R 27 have high off bor sight capability. At that time that was a thing that they were just trying to implement in the newer missile.
..or when they knew the real effective range of R77 and its capability to be fired without switching on the radar first?
sure ammraam are indeed extremely good and deadly (no dispute on that)...the sparrow well not that good record (does this mean the american are inferior?) the sidewinder were very reliable...but those system are meant to be defeated sooner or later. -
--> Ding, From what i understand, short range missiles tend to burn all their way to the target. Unlike the AMRAAM-Bs that burn, and then rely on inertia to carry itself to its target. In any case, you are right that the missile launched at high-off boresight at a high-aspect target is energy deficient.
However, off boresight launch usually occur close enough that the potential energy loss is negligible.
2ndly, we are not saying that WVR is not possible. But its not likely as a tactic if both sides are aware of each other's presence. Perhaps if there are tactics built around a stealthy ingress, close range WVR shots may be ideal. -
It boils down to training in my opinion, but I am not so sure about the efficacy of the latest missiles against chaff and flare. These days, radar resolution is so good, it might be possible to avoid them.Originally posted by tankfanatic:you guys argue the futility of evading 4th gen AAM as if once the missile were launched the later pilot should commit suicide already.
what happen to EW? chaff? flare? do we know what exactly the Su 30 MKM and Mig 29 EW capability? or do we want just to assume that all russian made are inferior?
Nato pilot and aviator almost drained their blod in the face when they knew for the first time the mig 29 and R 27 have high off bor sight capability. At that time that was a thing that they were just trying to implement in the newer missile.
..or when they knew the real effective range of R77 and its capability to be fired without switching on the radar first?
sure ammraam are indeed extremely good and deadly (no dispute on that)...the sparrow well not that good record (does this mean the american are inferior?) the sidewinder were very reliable...but those system are meant to be defeated sooner or later. -
The whole idea is to avoid getting shot at in the first place, in which case the Pk against you is zero. Countermeasures may or may not work, and if you multiply that Pk by a whole airforce of fighters who have taken shots against them... you're going to take losses.
In which case it makes more sense to spring the trap on the enemy then to head in both aware of each other and play chicken with missiles and see who wins the gambit. -
Dogfighting si the way of the past. The reason why Russians emphasized agility is so that a trained pilot can out maneuver some of the older generation AAMs. However, the newer BVRAAM are fast and quick and harder to dodge. The only way to avoid getting hit is to shoot first before the opponent does.
Not just newer long or medium range range missiles.
Shorter range missiles like the Python-4/5 series and the AIM-9X(which incidentally the RSAF deploys) are so much quicker and agile than the planes themselves; with or without TVC. The current key Western planes are agile and powerful enough to use these newer missiles with maximum effect. Otherwise, you will see TVC engines popping up everywhere.
In addition, no one can argue(where they are combat proven) about the systems(radar, avionics, etc) on board Western machines. The same cannot be said about Russian ones. Even old Mahathir admits that the RMAF ought to have gone for Western equipment.
Also, it is not just about systems on board individual planes but an entire spectrum of other systems and platforms which help combat planes in seeing first, shooting first, evading first, etc. This is no longer a case of plane A versus plane B. The West clearly has the lead in this regard where the decisive power to decide the pace, location, etc of battles are in thier hands.
Countermeasures and ECMs might help a bit. But the latter is more luck than anything else in my opinion. So, clearly, the planes and therefore air-forces with the better over-arching or encompassing systems(internally or in concert with other units) win the day. The West clearly lead in this regard where they will see first, shoot first and claim the airspace first.
What more in Singapore`s case where we have the largest and most comprehensively integrated and advanced air force in SEA.
Also, I happened to ask a pilot during AA2005 about TVCs and he said that at the end of the day it is how you maximise the individual strengths of your plane and the maximise the weaknesses of the enemy plane. Even the humble Harrier can bring down a Mig-29. Of course the Mig-29 can win naturally by using other tactics. -
True.
Harriers have been known to best high performance fighters in both mock and actual combat.
In a knifefight, the Harrier is surprisingly effective, as proven in several mock engagements where it fought the F-14 and won most of the fights through the use of VIFFing. And of course British Harriers managed to best Mirages in actual combat (though the Mirages were operating at their limit when they faced the Harriers).
At the end of the day it's about playing up what you have against what your opponent does not have, instead of going for a simple matchup. -
Gary, I very well believe that new aams can turn 180 degrees and sustain even more that 11 to 12 g no issues. i'm not stating that at all. All i'm saying the energy to make the turn will lessen the overall kinetic energy of the missile.Originally posted by gary1910:Highly maneuverable a/c does not mean it could dodge missile better, if it true then how come Mig-29 has such bad combat record ???
Btw how many G could a modern AAM could sustain?
A manned a/c could sustain max 9G, unmanned one like UAV or missile could I believe easily sustain 11~12G w/o problem, depending on how maneuverable these equipment.
And at speed more thah Mach 2.5~4.
For example Python 4 with speed of Mach 3.5+ plus much better maneuverability as compared with any manned a/c, the locked a/c could only "shake it off" thru ECM against the missile.
Here some good reading , modern AAM are expected to be able high G turn , even up 180deg if necessary:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6308911.html
in an aircraft, be it manned or not, menauvering is all about total energy. total energy is a sum of altitude (potential energy) and speed (kinetic energy) in a fighter doing a turn will bleed of speed, in turn bleed of energy. to regain that energy, the pilot can either trade his altitude for speed by diving or punch his engines and accelerate to regain the total energy. In a wvraam missile, the impulse acceleration by the booster will only last for 2 seconds, after that it relies totally on kinetic energy. that's why bvraams accelerate and gain altitude after being fired so as to be able to convert the altitude to speed during the final approach. Also bvraams has a longer booster burn time. but for wvraam after the boost phase is done the missile will rely totaly on kinetics. if within that period it has to make a turn, the speed hence the kinetic energy will bleed and the missile will have less energy and cannot regain that energy as it cannot lose altitude or accelerate to regain that energy.
That said the current crop of wvraam and bvraam is very capable and have a high PK. As the other forumer pointed out, most of the air superiority will depend on the bvraam for kills. as he also pointed out correctly, dogfighting will be less of an issue. but then again as i said in previous post, after the first picket of bvraams, as history pointed out, there will still be some yankin and burnin. -
ECM Chaff and Flares... These are counter-measures. Things u throw into the air that can HOPEFULLY save your butt.
Now, against radar-guided BVRAAMs, you actually have some things going for you when you get shot at.
First, the travel time of the missile. It takes time for the missile to cover the distance, and if the missile's motor doesn't provide sustained boost, it actually loses kinetic energy for every mile it flies.
Second, Chaff still works with some effectiveness against. Though I will not want to try ECM against the newer missiles like the Adder and the AMRAAMs that have Home-On-Jam abilities.
But against a modern off-boresight and infrared seeking missile. There is little that going for you.
1. At that range, you are almost surely at an inferior energy state compared to the missile.
2. IR Seekers today don't just see blobs of heat. They see IR images, and is smart enough to tell the difference between flares and a legitimate target.
This is why, you really really do not want to force a merge, or a situation where the enemy can use these missile against you. pK is almost 100%. I'll take my chances with their BVRAAMs. -
funny you should mention this, i was just reading about it. the newer amraams have a two stage booster, the first is a high impulse booster to accelerate the missile to mach 4+ and the second stage is a lower impulse for to sustain the missile. looks like the newer amraams is even more lethal ( not that the old ones aren't)Originally posted by Shotgun:--> Ding, From what i understand, short range missiles tend to burn all their way to the target. Unlike the AMRAAM-Bs that burn, and then rely on inertia to carry itself to its target. In any case, you are right that the missile launched at high-off boresight at a high-aspect target is energy deficient.
However, off boresight launch usually occur close enough that the potential energy loss is negligible.
2ndly, we are not saying that WVR is not possible. But its not likely as a tactic if both sides are aware of each other's presence. Perhaps if there are tactics built around a stealthy ingress, close range WVR shots may be ideal.
within the current 4+ gen aircraft, your second statement is correct. -
This is like the best statement so farOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The whole idea is to avoid getting shot at in the first place, in which case the Pk against you is zero. Countermeasures may or may not work, and if you multiply that Pk by a whole airforce of fighters who have taken shots against them... you're going to take losses.
In which case it makes more sense to spring the trap on the enemy then to head in both aware of each other and play chicken with missiles and see who wins the gambit. You dont train to get shot. more important that equipment is your training. rated best in SEA is the RSAF and RMAF. Training is mostly the biggest failure of any airforce. even the USnavy and USAF have failed that, but they have learned and established the best air combat school.