Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SgtPappy on September 05, 2010, 01:45:46 AM
-
During my reading, I stumbled across this page describing mock battles between Su-27s and F-15s in 1992: Weapons and Technology: Su-27 vs F-15 which states:
The scheme of the mock fight was very simple. A Sukhoi was supposed to fly behind a US jet, and the planes were supposed to switch places with one another. A US plane attempted to fly away from the Russian jet, but the Russian pilot caught up with the F-15 very easily.
The planes switched places, and the Su-27 flew away from the F-15 making a turn and gaining altitude. The Russian jet found itself behind the American fighter a couple of minutes later. The F-15 pilot lost the Russian aircraft out of sight and could not escape from it afterwards: the Russian pilot was keeping the F-15 covered.
The site also gives a very brief statement about another mock battle in the year 2000, but I couldn't find anything on the internet about this sortie.
Now very little detail here is given on RADAR restrictions (if any), fuel load, external stores/weapons. However, how would an F-15 fair in a guns battle with an Su-27?
I suppose the higher TWR of the F-15 helps it in the vertical? But Kharschevsky after all, points out that the Flanker's take-off run is shorter and easier which suggests that the Su-27 has better straight line acceleration.
-
Flanker would take the Eagle in a gun battle would be my guess, all things being equal. A guess based on my assumptions and limited knowledge of real world aircraft.
-
also matters about pilot skill, just sayin
-
missile dependant American aircraft.
-
I'm thinking the Flanker would take the Eagle in the guns too, since everything out there suggests that its maneuverability is superior. But as many of us know, turning alone doesn't always win battles.
I'm sure there is something Eagle pilots can exploit, and as mentioned, pilots matter. Sometime last year, I heard an account of an F-16 pilot who states much of USAF fighter training consists of BVR fights. I assume the Eagle pilots were not as adept at the dogfight as USN or Russian pilots.
But does anyone have any information on the 2000 mock battle between the F-15s and Su-27s? There's nothing I can find on this 'battle'.
-
I'm thinking the Flanker would take the Eagle in the guns too, since everything out there suggests that its maneuverability is superior. But as many of us know, turning alone doesn't always win battles.
I'm sure there is something Eagle pilots can exploit, and as mentioned, pilots matter. Sometime last year, I heard an account of an F-16 pilot who states much of USAF fighter training consists of BVR fights. I assume the Eagle pilots were not as adept at the dogfight as USN or Russian pilots.
But does anyone have any information on the 2000 mock battle between the F-15s and Su-27s? There's nothing I can find on this 'battle'.
-
I'm thinking the Flanker would take the Eagle in the guns too, since everything out there suggests that its maneuverability is superior. But as many of us know, turning alone doesn't always win battles.
I'm sure there is something Eagle pilots can exploit, and as mentioned, pilots matter. Sometime last year, I heard an account of an F-16 pilot who states much of USAF fighter training consists of BVR fights. I assume the Eagle pilots were not as adept at the dogfight as USN or Russian pilots.
But does anyone have any information on the 2000 mock battle between the F-15s and Su-27s? There's nothing I can find on this 'battle'.
-
I'm thinking the Flanker would take the Eagle in the guns too, since everything out there suggests that its maneuverability is superior. But as many of us know, turning alone doesn't always win battles.
I'm sure there is something Eagle pilots can exploit, and as mentioned, pilots matter. Sometime last year, I heard an account of an F-16 pilot who states much of USAF fighter training consists of BVR fights. I assume the Eagle pilots were not as adept at the dogfight as USN or Russian pilots.
But does anyone have any information on the 2000 mock battle between the F-15s and Su-27s? There's nothing I can find on this 'battle'.
-
We heard you the first time :rofl
-
The elusive triple post.
-
Woops.
-
The elusive quadruple post.
fixed :D
-
I'd rather hear eagl's opinion, he used to fly one after all.
ack-ack
-
I'd rather hear eagl's opinion, he used to fly one after all.
ack-ack
:aok
-
missile dependant American aircraft.
Yea, with a 104:0 Kill ratio in Eagle, and 74:0 in Viper I think they're holding they're own :aok
-
First off, let me apologize for being so impatient with my browser as to hit that 'POST' button 4 times.
Anyway, hope that Eagl indeed does give his opinion on the matter. So much on t3h interwebz speaks of the Su-27's glorious design destroying F-15's in mock combat.
Although the A2A kill ratios for the F-15/16 are great, they really more principally focus on the BVR capability as the emphasis of USAF fighter design. Whereas the Russians like to dogfight close-in. The emphasis the USAF puts on BVR combat may have been the deciding factor in the 1992 and 2000 "DACTs". No idea what happened in the 2000 battle though as number of respective fighters isn't even mentioned.
-
U.S. F-15 Eagle Kill Records:
5 Iraqi Mig-29 Fulcrums
7 Iraqi Mirage F-1's
8 Iraqi Mig-23's
2 Iraqi Mig-21's
1 Iraqi ll-76
2 Iraqi SU-25 Frogfoots
3 Iarqi SU-7/17
1 Iraqi MI-24 Hind
2 Iraqi SU-22 Fitters
2 Iraqi MIG-25 Foxbats
4 Serbian Mig-29 Fulcrums
1 Afghan MI-24 Hind (F-15E)
2 U.S. UH-60 Blackhawks (fratricide)
Israeli F-15 kill records:
80-92 Mig-21 Fishbeds
several MIG-25 Foxbats
Royal Saudi Air Force F-15 kill records:
2 Iranian F-4E Phantoms
2 Iraqi F-1 Mirages
1 Iraqi Mig-25
Japanese F-15 kill record:
1 Japanese F-15J (accidental shooting by another Japanese F-15J)
US summary of Su30 vs F15 engagement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU
-C+
-
Some of my old posts on the subject might still be in the forums, if you search back far enough...
For this discussion though, it isn't too tough to summarize. Equal pilots, 1 vs. 1., in a close-in guns only fight, a flanker has a great chance of getting the first shot from a position of advantage most of the time. It has both enough slow speed maneuverability and thrust/weight to be able to get and keep an F-15 defensive yet unable to run away. An F-18 has great low speed maneuverability, but it doesn't have the thrust/weight to keep the temporary advantage it can gain with it's high angle of attack capability. The flanker has both.
Throw missiles or even a slightly more complicated scenario in there however, and the systems integration of even the "old" F-15Cs may be decisive. The aim-9X, amraam, and even old aim-7, combined with either the old or new AESA radar, plus the new helmet mounted sight, is utterly lethal because it means that if the eagle driver can *see* the opponent either visually or with the worlds best air to air radar, the opponent is dead dead dead. The joke about "wish them dead" weapons is pretty darn accurate when you consider the new off-boresight capabilities the eagle has.
Not saying that the flanker and all of the fielded missiles available for it are not good either, but on balance I think the eagle is still easier to fly and employ which means faster detection, targeting, and weapons employment with a high Pk. And the real world scenario is never a simple as 1 vs. 1 (or even 2 vs. 2), which means the time from detect to shoot gets delayed. Again however, that is where the F-15 systems are still outstanding. Still, the more recent SU-27 variants are getting better and better, and an F-15 without support is still just an old fighter with good missiles. Which is why it is long past time to replace the F-15. Maybe someday the USAF get an F-15 replacement but that isn't looking very likely for the forseeable future.
And of course the caveat is still don't get into a knife fight with a flanker because he'll turn up his own bunghole and shoot you before you know what happened. The best bet even if you have to do a visual ID is to sneak up unobserved or deny him a shot (classic out of the sun sort of stuff) until you get close enough to see him, get your ID, then run away bravely while your wingman takes him out with an amraam as soon as you are far enough separated to not get fragged.
-
That is a perfect summary. Thanks a lot Eagl! :aok
You essentially confirmed what I had thought about the A2A fight versus the two beasts. Of course the F-22s appearing now are exactly what the US wants when you state "The best bet even if you have to do a visual ID is to sneak up unobserved or deny him a shot (classic out of the sun sort of stuff) until you get close enough to see him, get your ID, then run away bravely".
I suppose to the USAF, dogfighting is truly a dead 'sport', especially since after Vietnam. But I think since they have the tech to do so, why not. It's very efficient in a war/battle.
-
Regarding F-15 kills, an F-15 scored a direct hit on another F-15 with an AIM-9, many years ago. The wounded F-15 flew back to base, held aloft by little more than pure anger at the stupid wingman who didn't realize that live missiles had been accidentally left on his plane before they flew a BFM training mission. Oops.
-
I thought the flankers had off-bore targeting (ie helmet mounted) way before the F-15's? Or is that the -29 I'm think of?
-
I'm thinking the Flanker would take the Eagle in the guns too, since everything out there suggests that its maneuverability is superior. But as many of us know, turning alone doesn't always win battles.
I'm sure there is something Eagle pilots can exploit, and as mentioned, pilots matter. Sometime last year, I heard an account of an F-16 pilot who states much of USAF fighter training consists of BVR fights. I assume the Eagle pilots were not as adept at the dogfight as USN or Russian pilots.
But does anyone have any information on the 2000 mock battle between the F-15s and Su-27s? There's nothing I can find on this 'battle'.
HOLY MULTIPLE POST BATMAN!!!!! :noid
-
First off, let me apologize for being so impatient with my browser as to hit that 'POST' button 4 times.
Anyway, hope that Eagl indeed does give his opinion on the matter. So much on t3h interwebz speaks of the Su-27's glorious design destroying F-15's in mock combat.
Although the A2A kill ratios for the F-15/16 are great, they really more principally focus on the BVR capability as the emphasis of USAF fighter design. Whereas the Russians like to dogfight close-in. The emphasis the USAF puts on BVR combat may have been the deciding factor in the 1992 and 2000 "DACTs". No idea what happened in the 2000 battle though as number of respective fighters isn't even mentioned.
he F-15’s first kill was made by an Israeli Air Force ace Moshe Melnik in 1979, at the beginning of the border disputes between Israel and Lebanon. During these disputes, between 1979 and 1981 Israeli F-15s downed 13 Syrian MiG-21 "Fishbeds" and two Syrian MiG-25 "Foxbats" (the airplane that the F-15 was designed to beat). During Lebanon War in 1982, the Israeli F-15s shot down 40 Syrian Jet fighters plus 1 Syrian helicopter (23 MiG-21 "Fishbeds" and 17 MiG-23 "Floggers" and one SA.342L Gazelle helicopter) without losing a single F-15!
As of 2008, the F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined kill record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat. To date, no air superiority versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/D models) have ever been shot down by enemy forces. Over half of the F-15's kills were made by Israeli Air Force pilots.
from here...
http://www.amazing-airplanes.com/fighters/f-15.asp
now, if ya wanna know just how amazing this aircraft is, watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3K8BfI6BPM
this seems pretty impressive too...
The museum's single-seat F15A, nicknamed "Streak Eagle," broke eight time-to-climb world records between Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1975. In setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted" to nearly 103,000 feet before descending. It was flown in its natural metal finish to reduce weight for the record-setting flights. To protect it from corrosion, McDonnell Douglas Corp. has since painted it in the gray color scheme of most operational F-15s.
-
Some of my old posts on the subject might still be in the forums, if you search back far enough...
For this discussion though, it isn't too tough to summarize. Equal pilots, 1 vs. 1., in a close-in guns only fight, a flanker has a great chance of getting the first shot from a position of advantage most of the time. It has both enough slow speed maneuverability and thrust/weight to be able to get and keep an F-15 defensive yet unable to run away. An F-18 has great low speed maneuverability, but it doesn't have the thrust/weight to keep the temporary advantage it can gain with it's high angle of attack capability. The flanker has both.
Throw missiles or even a slightly more complicated scenario in there however, and the systems integration of even the "old" F-15Cs may be decisive. The aim-9X, amraam, and even old aim-7, combined with either the old or new AESA radar, plus the new helmet mounted sight, is utterly lethal because it means that if the eagle driver can *see* the opponent either visually or with the worlds best air to air radar, the opponent is dead dead dead. The joke about "wish them dead" weapons is pretty darn accurate when you consider the new off-boresight capabilities the eagle has.
Not saying that the flanker and all of the fielded missiles available for it are not good either, but on balance I think the eagle is still easier to fly and employ which means faster detection, targeting, and weapons employment with a high Pk. And the real world scenario is never a simple as 1 vs. 1 (or even 2 vs. 2), which means the time from detect to shoot gets delayed. Again however, that is where the F-15 systems are still outstanding. Still, the more recent SU-27 variants are getting better and better, and an F-15 without support is still just an old fighter with good missiles. Which is why it is long past time to replace the F-15. Maybe someday the USAF get an F-15 replacement but that isn't looking very likely for the forseeable future.
And of course the caveat is still don't get into a knife fight with a flanker because he'll turn up his own bunghole and shoot you before you know what happened. The best bet even if you have to do a visual ID is to sneak up unobserved or deny him a shot (classic out of the sun sort of stuff) until you get close enough to see him, get your ID, then run away bravely while your wingman takes him out with an amraam as soon as you are far enough separated to not get fragged.
nice write up.....
but a question now......you said equal pilots in these aircraft.
how does our training compare to theirs? is it really better>? i mean, do our pilots know their aircraft, and their enemies better than their pilots do?
assuming our pilots and crews are better trained, would that be enough to bring the eagle out on top in a guns fight?
i don't mean this to be offensive to anyone.....just asking. i've never seen a flanker fly, but i did get to see an eagle fly at mcguire....and calling it impressive is a HUGE understatement.
-
The USAF fighter training, not only the initial training but the recurring training, is far more extensive than MOST other military programs. We program in a minimum of approx 250 hrs annually of continuation training per fighter pilot in "peacetime". That is a lot of flying, and most other air forces can't afford that.
Any air force that budgets in that much continuation training and follows flexible "western" style tactics will arguably have pilots who are "equal" to ours.
-
I volunteer an opinion from men like yourself Eagle.
US experts on fighter design and US Combat pilots/instructors say there is a major difference between Russian and American fighter design.
Put simply: The US thinks the Dogfight is dead - The Russians think its more alive now than ever
The designs of each aircraft show that to be true, you yourself said that a Heavy F-15 eagle would be a bit worried if it got close in with a Flanker or 29. And ever since Korea US pilots were told, NEVER TNB WITH A RUSSIAN.
Russian Missile and Radar technology is not as advanced as US Tech atm, but your observations are correct Eagle. Mass production of the Mig 35 and SU-35 has been put up with the Russian (Generation 4++) plan. LC Displays and the latest in Russian Missile and Radar which is now better than US 15 and 16s ON PAPER (yet to be proved) and a Russian equal to the F-22, the Sukhoi T-50.
I think the US should Revamp its military, cause Putin is.
-
In setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted" to nearly 103,000 feet before descending.
No F way it went up to 100kft.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streak_eagle
-
Yea, with a 104:0 Kill ratio in Eagle, and 74:0 in Viper I think they're holding they're own :aok
While remembering those encounters were against two to three decades older planetypes and superiority in radar support and numbers. In the end win is win but a theoretic 1 vs 1 fight might still end differently.
-
While remembering those encounters were against two to three decades older planetypes and superiority in radar support and numbers. In the end win is win but a theoretic 1 vs 1 fight might still end differently.
the israelis do not fight bvr. they've scored kills with missiles, and guns.
-
the israelis do not fight bvr. they've scored kills with missiles, and guns.
They do fight BVR, but the environment is rarely suited for that so the emphasis is short range engagements and less relying on electronics.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streak_eagle
No where there it mentions reaching 100 kft. It does mention that the service ceiling is 65 kft and I know they struggle to get there.
-
Whatever you do don't type "Streak Eagle Records" into Google or anything.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2283
The single-seat F15A on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, nicknamed "Streak Eagle," broke eight time-to-climb world records between Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1975. In setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted" to nearly 103,000 feet before descending. It was flown in its natural metal finish to reduce weight for the record-setting flights. To protect it from corrosion, McDonnell Douglas Corp. has since painted it in the gray color scheme of most operational F-15s.
Streak Eagle is an early preproduction aircraft. Differences in internal structure and systems operation made it too costly to return to operational service. It was delivered to the museum in December 1980 after it was no longer useful as a flight test vehicle.
-
No where there it mentions reaching 100 kft. It does mention that the service ceiling is 65 kft and I know they struggle to get there.
here ya go snarky. :aok
The museum's single-seat F15A, nicknamed "Streak Eagle," broke eight time-to-climb world records between Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1975. In setting the last of the eight records, it reached an altitude of 98,425 feet just 3 minutes, 27.8 seconds from brake release at takeoff and "coasted" to nearly 103,000 feet before descending. It was flown in its natural metal finish to reduce weight for the record-setting flights. To protect it from corrosion, McDonnell Douglas Corp. has since painted it in the gray color scheme of most operational F-15s.
from here
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=621
dam!! beat me to it!!
-
The USAF fighter training, not only the initial training but the recurring training, is far more extensive than MOST other military programs. We program in a minimum of approx 250 hrs annually of continuation training per fighter pilot in "peacetime". That is a lot of flying, and most other air forces can't afford that.
Any air force that budgets in that much continuation training and follows flexible "western" style tactics will arguably have pilots who are "equal" to ours.
After reading much of Tom Clancy's "Fighter Wing", I can confidently say that the US has taken no comprises since Vietnam to make the USAF a much more effective, efficient and highly versatile weapon.
-
Whatever you do don't type "Streak Eagle Records" into Google or anything.
I did. The "coasted" description is missleading. It did not fly at 100kft, it zoomed up there ballisticly, flamed out according to some sources and restrated the engines on the way down. It is an altitude record, but I do not call this "flight". It reached 100kft like a stone hurled into very thin air at Mach 2. The combat aircraft can barely make it over 60kft and still maintain level flight, but this is at very high speed exceeding Mach 2. If you point it up from there, I can see how it shot itself to 100 kft.
The altitude record for proper jet flight is held by the SR71.
source: http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f15strikeeagle/01_03_Development_of_the_Air_Force.php
Computer projections at McDonnell Douglas predicted that the F-15 would easily beat many of the current time-to-altitude records. In early 1975, the Streak Eagle program went into operation, and at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, a modified F-15 broke all existing time-to-altitude records. This one had been stripped of its gun, its radar, some avionics, the tail hook, one generator, some of the hydraulic system, and the flap and speedbrake actuators. Even 40 pounds of external paint were removed. After achieving the 30,000 meter record (98,425 feet), the F-15 continued up to over 102,000 feet before falling over and starting its descent.
-
No F way it went up to 100kft.
Hmm but you just said it did.
-
You say they can "barely make 60,000 feet" as though it's some simple task. :rolleyes:
Still yet you scoff at a fighter flying at damn near 100,000 feet. I suspect those numbers don't mean much to you and you have no idea why so I'll just let you have whatever point you're trying to make.
-
I did. The "coasted" description is missleading. It did not fly at 100kft, it zoomed up there ballisticly, flamed out according to some sources and restrated the engines on the way down. It is an altitude record, but I do not call this "flight". It reached 100kft like a stone hurled into very thin air at Mach 2. The combat aircraft can barely make it over 60kft and still maintain level flight, but this is at very high speed exceeding Mach 2. If you point it up from there, I can see how it shot itself to 100 kft.
The altitude record for proper jet flight is held by the SR71.
source: http://www.flightsimbooks.com/f15strikeeagle/01_03_Development_of_the_Air_Force.php
:rofl keep tap dancing. Obviously a former member of the Clinton defense team
-
Hmm but you just said it did.
Yes, because the description in the quote from the museum led me to believe it was in actual flight. I did not know that altitude records included ballistic zooms.
You say they can "barely make 60,000 feet" as though it's some simple task. :rolleyes:
Still yet you scoff at a fighter flying at damn near 100,000 feet. I suspect those numbers don't mean much to you and you have no idea why so I'll just let you have whatever point you're trying to make.
You don't know the first thing about me. I'll just say that I know how high F15 can get and how it gets there in an actual operational flight not from reading about it. Hence the claim for extra 40,000 feet or so made me jump. You can now go back to you discussion about which plane has the biggest "pitot tube".
-
Whatever you say, ace.
The Streak Eagle still set those time to climb records and did so without the help of your definitions. I don't think anyone ever suggested it was during an operational flight nor would anyone suggest an a line ready fighter be able to do it. The altimeter read 98,000'+ and 102,000'+ getting there under its own power. It flew there.
Personally I'm fine never having been higher than 51,000'
-
Bozon, we were talking about F-15s and their capabilities versus the Su-27, not pitot tubes you lowly troll. You're the one that interupted us with your "I call BS" post without even bothering to google it, and now you're further disrupting the conversation because we called BS on your BS and you were wrong, no matter how much you wish to change this topic's discussion from "Flankers vs. Eagles" to "how to properly define a speed-altitude record because I fubbed". Go grab your coolaid and otterpop from the firdge and go take your nap please while we continue our discussion, or we'll sick Skuzzy on you. Feel free to continue trying to save your grace in your own topic and thread on the subject, we'll gladly continue ridiculing you there.
----
Now, back to the subject.
Great post Eagle, love your input on this. I'm curious though if you wouldn't mind elaborating a little more, what block/model Su-27, F-15 and F-18 are you specificaly refering to in your statement? Are you taking into consideration the most current Su-27 in stock or the most prevolent, versus the F-15E (strike eagle, I know mostly AtG, but "better" and "faster") and the F-18E (single-seat super hornet, again, stated to be "better" and "faster" engine and speed-wise upgrades over its predecesors)?
-
None of the hornets really have the thrust/weight to fully capitalize on their high AOA capability. Even a well flown F-15E has a chance in a dogfight against a hornet if he survives the first 1.5 turns. All current F-15s have an edge against every SU-27 variant I know of, in terms of cockpit ergonomics and system integration. For example, while the mig-29 and SU-27s had helmet mounted cuing systems before any USAF fighters did, the USAF helmet mounted sights are a lot closer to having a hud taped to your face. The original Russian design helmet mounted sights were little more than a "dumb" aiming reticle, and the plane simply knew where to aim the missile based on where the pilot was looking. There wasn't much feedback to the pilot on what was actually going on. The US system was a decade (or more) later and has a ton of features. You can basically cue any system through the sight, validate a lock and see if you're in shot parameters, and shoot, just by looking through the helmet and pushing a couple of buttons on the stick and/or throttle. I don't think you can do that with any production flanker, and that doesn't begin to go into some of the *other* systems integration features of the F-15 (slightly different between F-15Cs and F-15Es, but they both have some neat capabilities).
Plus, the AMRAAM and aim-9x are deathsticks, plain and simple. I can't express how impressed I was with the AMRAAM when I had a chance to dig into the data we have on actual live firings (both tests and in combat). There are better missiles on paper, but none have the proven track record over dozens (hundreds?) of shots like the AMRAAM does. Even the old aim-7 has received upgrades and is still in service because it is still a very good missile. AA-10 and AA-11 are likewise great missiles though, so it may come down to who can run through their identification matrix, cue systems, and take the first shot while denying a shot to the adversary. Classic missile defensive maneuvers haven't changed much, but the ability to shoot from goofy angles has certainly improved for everyone. We don't have true rearward firing missiles like in the movie firefox, but we're not that far away from that sort of ability (shooting someone who isn't right in front of you).
The ability to look out the window at someone and "wish them dead" is here, now, and we didn't have to wait for the JSF to do it. That is a tactical advantage that goes beyond mere single-ship maneuvering capability. A talented pilot who can fully utilize his aircraft's systems is generally worth more than a few extra degrees per second of turn rate, and USAF systems are integrated to the point where even an average pilot can be really effective and act quickly on information gained from multiple sources.
-
double post
-
I've always believed the RAAF should've gone the F-15E/K route instead of the F/A-18F to replace our F-111C's
Tronsky
-
From a bit of research and what Eagl has posted, I think it's safe to say that the infrastructure of the USAF and the efficiency of the integrated systems onboard US fighters gives a high chance of an Eagle winning an Eagle vs Flanker fight.
I read an account of MiG-29s the Germans acquired after 1991 vs some F-16Cs. The F-16 pilots stated they had a tough time in the dogfight:
"In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster..."
but the pilot in the MiG had a higher workload:
"The MiG is harder to fly than the F-16," said Sparrow. "The Soviet airframe is great, but the avionics are not user friendly. After flying in the backseat of the Fulcrum, I got a feel for how spoiled we are in the F-16. I always felt good about the F-16, but I wouldn't trade flying the F-16 for any other aircraft, foreign or domestic.
"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD."
Of course, things have likely changed now. Su-27s are different now, especially after being modernized into the Su-27SM in 2006 with addition of more efficient radar, RWR, countermeasures, IRST system, advancements like the R-77 "Amraamski" on modern Russian fighters etc. Though, as is often seen and what eagl mentioned, the Russians seem to go for the dogfight while the US strives for the most efficient killing machine. The Russian military machine though, still seems to be lacking in resources. An example is that they've really only got 2 front-line high performance fighter designs in service and only 1 IFR tanker. Hence, they've been selling their planes to everyone.