Are the F-15s aging ?

[onelove]

good title - brings up all sorts of interesting existential questions about relativity and time itself.

However, by most measures familiar to us, yes, today is after yesterday and the F-15 is aging at the same rate as the yogurt in my refridgerator....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DonVito
There are any number of Soviet fighters that offer greater capabilities than the F-15. That said, no F-15 has ever been lost in combat, and it doesn't appear that any of our real-world enemies have any significant ability to challenge our air superiority.

The current F-15Cs and Es have pretty advanced avionics capabilities, and will still hold their own in their intended applications. That said, the design is comparatively ancient, and I support developing the F-22 and JSF as a means for gradually modernizing our fighter arsenal.

The f-15s were outnumbered 3:1 as well.

 

[BCYL]

Originally posted by: kage69

Fighter jets are not going to do much when nukes are flying, and besides, we still have an uncontested navy preventing China or NK or anyone from being able to fly sorties over American soil.

You act like the Navy itself is immune to nukes. If an entire carrier group is taken out by a nuke, that leaves a pretty big hole in the defense, no?
The presence of nukes does not immediately negate the value of fighters either. A squadron of fighters cruising at 50,000ft 100 miles away from ground zero is still a viable asset. There are simply too many 'what-ifs' involved in modern combat for a blanket statement like that to work.

I guess that's why they have those Trident nuclear subs hidden in the ocean, without anyone knowing where they are... this way in the scenerio of a nuclear first-strike by the enemy, these subs can fire enough nukes to level an entire country...

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: BCYL

Originally posted by: kage69

Fighter jets are not going to do much when nukes are flying, and besides, we still have an uncontested navy preventing China or NK or anyone from being able to fly sorties over American soil.

You act like the Navy itself is immune to nukes. If an entire carrier group is taken out by a nuke, that leaves a pretty big hole in the defense, no?
The presence of nukes does not immediately negate the value of fighters either. A squadron of fighters cruising at 50,000ft 100 miles away from ground zero is still a viable asset. There are simply too many 'what-ifs' involved in modern combat for a blanket statement like that to work.

I guess that's why they have those Trident nuclear subs hidden in the ocean, without anyone knowing where they are... this way in the scenerio of a nuclear first-strike by the enemy, these subs can fire enough nukes to level an entire country...

Those subs dont exist. Much like the Star Wars program, its simply propoganda to keep our enemies on thier toes.

 

[MadRat]

Fighting on the modern battlefield is about logistics more than fancy stats on paper. The U.S. can sustain a mission much better than any current potential opponent. Fewer planes are necessary simply because the U.S. equipment flies more often for longer durations. Sustained operations make a huge difference in no time at all.

Some of you have a hard time separating the intercept mission from the air-superiority mission. So what if the Aim-54C can fly 100 miles, it bleeds itself to near zero energy at that range and has to be fired on a slant just to reach the area. Command fire missiles like AMRAAM and the Pheonix are optimal for today's interception missions because they compliment the standoff sensors on American aircraft. They are not really designed for dogfighting since they lose command and control of the missile after a certain point and then becomes a danger to friend and foe alike. (IFF use is trivial while under stress of combat.) Add stealth in the future scramjet fighters and AMRAAM makes a very potent implement for air-superiority. There really isn't much of a mission left for Pheonix now that shipboard missiles, aided by airborne sensors and datalinks between ships and planes, can do just about everything regarding the standoff interception mission.

The F-15C will not logically fight an opponent like India simply because of the latter's inability to protect their supplies from waves of cruise missiles and standoff attack weapons like glide bombs and the myriad of tactical missiles available. Indian fighters would have to have many dispersed bunkers to survive the onslaught, and then know when the window of opportunity would be to engage the American forces. If they did manage to get off the ground then they would still be at a severe disadvantage since the GCI would likely suffer similar attacks.

People need to realize that these pilots in Alaska are unlikely to have recieved training for engagements with enemy fighter aircraft. Few of these guys probably are getting their 22 hours a month in, let alone getting the serious training necessary to fare well in head-to-head engagements. This is why the Navy has the Top Gun school. The Red Flag exercises by the USAF stress a total mission, usually totally devoid of dogfighting, and are centered around the mechanics of team work.

Also realize that the Su-30MK that India had is relatively right off the assembly line, complete with brand new opticals and an automated system to guide the entire intercept via ground controllers. (The pilots merely act as flight engineers while a command center plots out the best combat choices.) One problem with the Su-30Mk is the radome has alot of blind spots; without help this machine is like a hawk wearing bifocals while hunting mice from ground level. The only thing it really has that the F-15C doesn't is the directional thrust nozzles, which are quite useless in most combat circumstances. This model was built more for ground attack then air-superiority so I find it peculiar the U.S. pilots would lose unless it was a canned program to begin with. There is really only one situation where they would likely win and that is if they have brilliant GCI and the F-15C does not any at all.

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: Shockwave
I want to see them drop an Isreali pilot into the cockpit then redo the combat exercise.

Well, IIRC, a joint Israeli-American exercise took place quite some time ago, and the Israelis won by a far margin.

It is to be noted though, that in a full scale war, the USAF will take out IAF without a doubt, mainly because of the great number of crafts that the US can put against it...

That would be interesting to read. Got a link?

I have failed to find a link; but I must admit that I did not do a thorough check. All I know is that when the U.S Navy was here (in Israel) for exericse in 1998, the score was 220:20 for the favour of IAF!

There are some interesting photos taken from IAF Vs. Luftwaffe exericse that took place over Italian air-space at the end of last year.

I like this one the most...

 

[0roo0roo]

http://tailslide.firelight.dynip.com/f15wing.asp

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: Shockwave
I want to see them drop an Isreali pilot into the cockpit then redo the combat exercise.

Well, IIRC, a joint Israeli-American exercise took place quite some time ago, and the Israelis won by a far margin.

It is to be noted though, that in a full scale war, the USAF will take out IAF without a doubt, mainly because of the great number of crafts that the US can put against it...

That would be interesting to read. Got a link?

I have failed to find a link; but I must admit that I did not do a thorough check. All I know is that when the U.S Navy was here (in Israel) for exericse in 1998, the score was 220:20 for the favour of IAF!

There are some interesting photos taken from IAF Vs. Luftwaffe exericse that took place over Italian air-space at the end of last year.

I like this one the most...

Yeah, but I'm wondering what the games were like. I mean the US lost this India one, but the odds were heavily tilted towards India.

I know a lot of people say that Israel has the best pilots, but I'm wondering if there's any conclusive evidence that says this.

This might be similar to people saying that Canada has the best snipers, but recently someone posted that the US placed #1 in some sort of sniper competition. I have no idea if that's true either.

 

[AndrewR]

There are any number of Soviet fighters that offer greater capabilities than the F-15.

Not really. The main problem is the Su-27 derivatives, particularly the Su-30 series. In fact, no other Russian fighters come to mind.

The MIG -21s that are being referred to were probably made in 1971.

No, they weren't. The MiG-21 Bison is a new aircraft. See here.

less than Qty (5) F-15's & F-16's are produced currently each year for our forces, while we sell derivitives to Foriegn Governments

Wrong. The F-16 is no longer produced for the US Air Force. It appears that in 1999 and 2000, Congress authorized the production of 10 additional F-15s (presumably -E) in order to keep the production lines open on the hope that the Koreans would order the -K model (they bought 40). Press release on F-15 production.

Maybe once the terrorists start flying those new Russian jets you can put some of my tax dollars into expensive new jets- until then, let 'em use the perfectly capable F-15's

Sure, because there are no nations out there with access to modern weapons that would ever consider threatening US forces. Why are there always people looking to fight one enemy only or to fight the last war? Want us to build a Maginot Line?

we still have an uncontested navy

With less than 300 ships and not enough being built to increase that number, particularly submarines.

read that it was 4 F15s vs 10 or more of the Indian planes.
In a real conflict it would be the other way around. This is just a stunt to take the taxpayers to the cleaners.

As usual, living up to your handle. In a real war, the US Air Force would definitely be outnumbered because it's going to be several squadrons against a nation's entire Air Force since it won't be fought over US territory. Between Korea and Japan, there are TWO air superiority squadrons. All the other fighter squadrons are multi-role or ground attack/SEAD. Facts are troublesome, aren't they?

Its also worth pointing out the USAF doesnt even have the best pilots in the US, both Navy and Marine pilots get much better training.

Funniest line in this entire thread. Least true as well.

Hard to compare anyways, the F-15 is an air superiority fighter, its job is to kill anything that flies (often before it even gets off the ground) The SU-30 is a long range interceptor, designed to stop incoming bombers, the US equivalent is the bulky F-14.

The SU-30 would have an edge if they were far apart, due to the F-15's lack of long range armament. But in a long range situation, US would launch F-14's. The F-15 is used in situations where its already in your face when you figure out its there.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I'll address the latest misconceptions from MadRat when I have more time. He makes some good points, but there are some significant errors as well. Have to figure out what I can say though.

 

[MadRat]

LOL, the latest misconceptions. Can't wait to hear about them.

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: kage69

Would a dogfight even be common today?

Depends on the situation. A Phoenix missile will reach out and touch at 100 miles. AMRAAMs are around 30 miles. The East has improved it's missile technology lately, so I'm not too familiar on what their specs are up to. Aren't we still using Sidewinders for point defense? Also, just because you launch a missile, it isn't guarenteed to hit automaticallys. There's ECM, flares, chaff, ground-clutter, etc to figure in.

Phoenix is useless against fighter aircraft - it was designed to intercept big, slow, nuke-carrying Soviet bombers.

AMRAAM isn't bad, but modern Soviet missiles outrange it fairly substantially.

 

[AndrewR]

I have to leave much without comment, but there's a few things of note.

Originally posted by: MadRat
Add stealth in the future scramjet fighters and AMRAAM makes a very potent implement for air-superiority.

I'm thinking that this is a mistype -- "scramjet fighters"??? They have only very recently actually flown a scramjet for the first time and then only VERY briefly as a proof of concept more than anything. Maybe you were alluding to supercuise?

There really isn't much of a mission left for Pheonix now that shipboard missiles, aided by airborne sensors and datalinks between ships and planes, can do just about everything regarding the standoff interception mission.

Agreed in part. Phoenix may be a dead letter (never was a very awesome missile except on paper), but the role of the carrier-based interceptor is far from over simply because any missile is limited in range as opposed to an aeriel-refuelable fighter which can also vis-ID a target as well as carry A-S ordnance to destroy a surface target.

People need to realize that these pilots in Alaska are unlikely to have recieved training for engagements with enemy fighter aircraft.

It's mystery where this information is coming from.

That's about all I can say though.

 

[MadRat]

Awww, yes, you found my typo when I meant soupercruze and not scramjet. Such a silly mistake, but back in the day when ATF was young and supercruise was a new concept, the scramjet concept actually overlapped the supercruise concept. It was pretty common to confuse the two. To this day I still usually say scramjet when I mean simply the concept of supercruising. Nowadays we find supercruise in even the newer Russian Sukhoi fighters, so its hardly a leap forward today when compared to what it would have been if they had put it into bleeding edge F-15's back in the day they had already proven the concept. Funny how slow it is that technology sometimes blends into production.

 

[BeauJangles]

I think the other thing we should consider is what type of enemy should the US be prepared to fight in the future? It seems unlikely any of the major powers would ever face off against each other in a military conflict (at least a very large scale one). I think the military needs to rethink what it's role is and develop weapons that are going to help fight wars like the current one in Iraq.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

AndrewR -- what about the new "off bore sight" missiles?

 

[Helenihi]

In a real fight US fighters will have cover from airborne guidance aircraft (AWACS/Hawkeye). The enemy fighters will be destroyed before they even see the US fighters on their radar.

 

[judasmachine]

isn't this just a staged excuse to actually start buying F-22 Raptors, and JSFs? And of coarse air forces all over the world are getting better......... we're training and equiping them, sheesh!

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Helenihi
In a real fight US fighters will have cover from airborne guidance aircraft (AWACS/Hawkeye). The enemy fighters will be destroyed before they even see the US fighters on their radar.

If, indeed, the enemy fighters are destroyed *on the ground*, then AWACS won't be hardly involved at all. JSTARS, maybe, as we are talking a primarily intel-related advantage, here.

Where AWACS excels is in providing a 'picture' of the air around US fighter flights to the pilots. Not to be underestimated, situational awareness is a huge part of the 'fight'.

However, keep in mind, the Russians (and English and French) have aircraft just as capable for exactly the same role.

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I think the other thing we should consider is what type of enemy should the US be prepared to fight in the future? It seems unlikely any of the major powers would ever face off against each other in a military conflict (at least a very large scale one). I think the military needs to rethink what it's role is and develop weapons that are going to help fight wars like the current one in Iraq.

And with what weapons did the Iraqis fight back with? Keep in mind, their military WAS one of the largest in the world at the time of the last war, and we 'won' that one primarily by bypassing as many of their units as we could, cutting off supply and communication lines. (And then engaging in a turkey shoot as the now cut-off units retreated). A decade of embargoes and UN restrictions guaranteed that the second war would be fought against an Iraq nearly already defeated.

I would NOT count on that conflict as 'typical' of future engagements. Certainly, any combat against Iran, India or Pakistan, North Korea, or China would run VERY differently.

The 'type of enemy' we will likely be fighting in the future is one who is being supplied by our former arch-rival, who have lost little of their weapon building skill, and have picked up capitalistic competition idealogy fairly quickly.

FWIW, as much as I like the F-22, I WOULD rather take modernization of our current air force over buying a handful of Raptors. However, don't dismiss this to mean the state of our armed forces is prepared for any potential foe. Our losses would be TERRIBLY high against several potential adversaries - we DO need to modernize, at least. While the F-22 would be cool to have, we don't *need* it, and it doesn't (IMHO) represent enough of a leap in capabilities over modern fighters (appropriately upgraded, of course).

 

[cbrsmurf]

Aren't Russian medium range and short range Air to Air missiles more capable than US ones. Furthermore, Russian ground-based air to air and air to ground have surpassed US missiles right?

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Awww, yes, you found my typo when I meant soupercruze and not scramjet. Such a silly mistake, but back in the day when ATF was young and supercruise was a new concept, the scramjet concept actually overlapped the supercruise concept. It was pretty common to confuse the two. To this day I still usually say scramjet when I mean simply the concept of supercruising. Nowadays we find supercruise in even the newer Russian Sukhoi fighters, so its hardly a leap forward today when compared to what it would have been if they had put it into bleeding edge F-15's back in the day they had already proven the concept. Funny how slow it is that technology sometimes blends into production.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to chalk this comment up to the "air-to-air missiles are ineffective above 10,000ft" one that you had in a discussion a long time ago. I really don't understand how seemingly cogent analysis can be combined with such buffoonery. I am not being flippant -- supercruise capability (cruising above Mach 1 without afterburners) and scramjets (speeds theoretically about Mach 26) are NOT related in any sense, unless you mean they are both above Mach 1.

Which Sukhoi fighters use supercruise?

AndrewR -- what about the new "off bore sight" missiles?

What about them?

While the F-22 would be cool to have, we don't *need* it, and it doesn't (IMHO) represent enough of a leap in capabilities over modern fighters (appropriately upgraded, of course).

So you advocate perpetuating the current fleet of aircraft developed in the '60s and '70s? After almost FORTY years, even a design well ahead of its time is going to be a little long in the tooth (F-15).

 

[CaptnKirk]

Didn't anyone pay attention to my comment about the attrition of assets that is ongoing ?

Not only are our aircraft - F-15 is just one of several fighters in our inventory,
there are many others that are not only 'AGING" - they are flat wearing out.

Unlike the Buff - they just can't keep extending the airframe life to infinity.
Fighter Aircraft endure forces that the bomber fleet doesn't - high G turns,
evasive manuvers, carrier deck launch and arrest - forces that contribute to
an accelerated decline of structural integrity.

Again I will state the obvious - we are approaching the end of life expectancy of
many of our fighter aircraft through fatigue and attrition, they are turned over to
the FANG's for the last few years of servicability, and something needs to be put
in place to serve as our first line fighters - whether or not a threat ever materializes.

Today is 2004, it will take 2 - 10 years to modernize our fleet with F-22's & f-35's.
We only have less than 1/5 of the planes we had at the end of the Korean War,
and in 8 years there will only be 1/4 of that 1/5 left - and thats taking into account
the replacement of aging aircraft with the 22's & 35's - cut them off and there's
nothing coming bown the line, except the F/A-18 E&F's for the Navy.

You really want the Air Force to keep flying the F-15's and F-16's when the worlds
opposing forces are developing new equipment ? And we are equiping some of the
'Friendly' (?) nations with more advanced fighters than our own ?
You really want the kill the 22 & 35 when the aircraft that they replace are already
obsolete and should have been FANG'd years ago ?

 

[MadRat]

AndrewR-

If you want to speak out your ass about the past then at least quote me correctly. Surface-launched missiles were what I said, not air-launched. And it was 12000 feet, sparky, not 10000 feet. If you want to make such flippant comments then at least have the decency to make exact quotes.

btw - Lyulka makes the same engine they use in the MiG 1.42 test program available in limited quantities for the latest Flanker derivatives and both China and India are looking into partnering production which would be several years away. (Remember that Russia turned them down for partnering the export-version fo the AL-31F so it may never happen.) This powerplant does allow the Flanker models to supercruise, although not nearly as fast as a clean airframe (limited to M1.1-1.2 with light wing loading vs M1.5-1.8 for designs like the F-22 or MiG 1.42 that store weapons internally), but technically it is supercruise. Lyulka made a smart decision when they designed this new engine since it will be used in alot of non-military purposes, driving costs down. Supercruise is relatively speaking hardly a new technology as at least two civilian airliner designs could do it back in the seventies...

CaptnKirk-

Your stats are an exageration. You have to realize that in the Vietnam era you could sustain three missions a day for a couple of weeks per fighter before long overhauls. Nowadays, the way the rotating schedules go and the improvements in design, the modern aircraft that replaced those Vietnam era planes can far exceed these goals. The ten to fifteen year old F-15's can still (if prepped) sustain four missions per day for several weeks with a much shorter overhaul period. That kind of change effectively increased your force which means less planes were necessary, which means fewer support personell were necessary. Then add in how in the last five years the support equipment has also greatly improved, making the regular checkups much faster and more information is obtained with each inspection compared to ten years ago. The real danger with this methology is attrition, not necessarily the size of the force.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: MadRat
AndrewR-

If you want to speak out your ass about the past then at least quote me correctly. Surface-launched missiles were what I said, not air-launched. And it was 12000 feet, sparky, not 10000 feet. If you want to make such flippant comments then at least have the decency to make exact quotes.

I honestly remembered the exchange as referencing all missiles above 10k, not SAMs above 12k. Regardless, it's still a ludicrous assertion and one that fundamentally puts other comments into question. Much like supercruise and scramjet. Sorry if that offends you. Nevertheless, you do make some very good points.

btw - Lyulka makes the same engine they use in the MiG 1.42 test program available in limited quantities for the latest Flanker derivatives and both China and India are looking into partnering production which would be several years away. (Remember that Russia turned them down for partnering the export-version fo the AL-31F so it may never happen.) This powerplant does allow the Flanker models to supercruise, although not nearly as fast as a clean airframe (limited to M1.1-1.2 with light wing loading vs M1.5-1.8 for designs like the F-22 or MiG 1.42 that store weapons internally), but technically it is supercruise. Lyulka made a smart decision when they designed this new engine since it will be used in alot of non-military purposes, driving costs down. Supercruise is relatively speaking hardly a new technology as at least two civilian airliner designs could do it back in the seventies...

With whom is that engine FIELDED? Stating that the engine exists on Sukhoi planes, which is how I took your statement, is not the same as having an experimental engine "available" in a developmental program. Yes, I realize that the F-22 is still in testing, but it's only months, not years, away from operational use.

Supercruise in a large, civilian aircraft with multiple (4) engines may not be new, but supercruise in a small design with two engines is. I see your point, however, but it's the difference between ENIAC and the IBM-PC in a sense.

CaptnKirk-

Your stats are an exageration. You have to realize that in the Vietnam era you could sustain three missions a day for a couple of weeks per fighter before long overhauls. Nowadays, the way the rotating schedules go and the improvements in design, the modern aircraft that replaced those Vietnam era planes can far exceed these goals. The ten to fifteen year old F-15's can still (if prepped) sustain four missions per day for several weeks with a much shorter overhaul period. That kind of change effectively increased your force which means less planes were necessary, which means fewer support personell were necessary. Then add in how in the last five years the support equipment has also greatly improved, making the regular checkups much faster and more information is obtained with each inspection compared to ten years ago. The real danger with this methology is attrition, not necessarily the size of the force.

FYI, the F-15Cs here are the oldest in the active duty military and were constructed in 1984, I think I remember reading in the paper. That's 20 years, not 10-15. I'd have to talk to the F-15 maintenance guys here to find out if the statements regarding their overhaul schedules are accurate to any degree. CaptKirk is spot on though -- we have to BEGIN replacing these aircraft now, not in ten years. Once the kinks are worked out of the F-22 and F-35, perhaps the acquisition rates could be lowered with a surge capability put in the production line, but I am sure that our pilots would rather have the very best available NOW rather than later, after it's needed. We can't always choose when we will fight so it's best to prepare ahead of time. Does anyone honestly think that China has NOT noticed that the F-15 is a design which dates to the '60s?

 

[dderidex]

So you advocate perpetuating the current fleet of aircraft developed in the '60s and '70s? After almost FORTY years, even a design well ahead of its time is going to be a little long in the tooth (F-15).

No, of course not.

But F-15s with newer engines, and new avionics (as almost all of them have by now) ARE very solid designs.

We DO need superior missiles - the AMRAAM was...possibly useful in the high-threat environment it was designed for. But, that environment will likely never materialize, and it's shorter range than modern Russian missiles could be a problem someday.

We DO need to keep developing missiles.

We DO need to keep developing new radar systems and new avionics packages.

But, both of these things can be integrated into existing airframes with no effort at all - indeed, it has been going on continously since the aircraft first entered service.

I am merely not convinced (for the cost, mind) of the advantages of supercruise, a *slightly* more stealthy airframe, and vectored thrust (which, when it comes down to it, is about all the F-22 HAS that you couldn't retrofit to the F-15s with no problem). Compare that to the ENORMOUS cost difference, and the fact that the F-22 and F-35 carry a small *fraction* of the ordnance of the F-15. Seriously, the F-22 can carry TWO JDAM ground attack weapons and TWO AMRAAMS....and that's it. The F-15E can carry *FOUR* JDAMS, *FOUR* AMRAAMS, and still carry external fuel tanks. Carrying half as many of the same kind of weapons into combat means you have to make twice as many sorties for the same effect.

Not only that, but the F-15E is a two pilot aircraft - the back seater essentially exclusively there to put the weapons on target. It will, by its very nature, be more accurate with the same weapons than the F-22, in which the sole pilot has a doubled workload vs the Strike Eagle. Half as many weapons planted less accurately for HOW much more cost? I think I'll pass....

(And, of course, the F-22 is supposed to be in an air superiority role, it's the F-35 that will be the primary ground attack fighter....and it carrier less ordnance than the F-22 does!)

 

[MadRat]

AndrewR-

Several designs of fighters are available on the world market that will never go into production because there is no buyer. Technically no weapon system is fielded until its operational, but in no way does that mean it is not available. The AL-41F is a real engine available now in limited quantities. If someone puts money forward then a full production could be scaled up.

It wasn't but fifteen years ago that Dassault was trying to get France to field a sparkling new Mirage III derivative called the Mirage 2000. The french wouldn't buy it so they pushed it unsuccessfully on the world market as a MiG-25 killer, which it realistically was when armed with the Super 530. Unfortunately that missile had a small audience that didn't like the price tag of the combination. Isreal and South Africa took their old Mirage III's and performed re-engine expiriments to push the same Mirage 2000 flight envelopes and tacked on new avionics and weapons systems to make comparable planes for cheap. Guess what, the Mirage 2000 was a solid design on paper but it hardly won any contracts because in practicality it wasn't much of a change from an overhauled Mirage III. So strictly speaking the Mirage 2000 was available but never really got fielded. The Mirage 2000-5 did find a few homes, but that was a follow-on design and not really the original.

The Su-33 and Su-34 with the AL-41F is in the same dilemna. Russia only allows a few nations the chance to field these engines because of the substantial improvements in the design in comparison to the AL-31F. So in this case Russia will kill the export value of the plane because the engine is barred from all but the highest bidders. Realistically they are three years away from a full-fledged cooperation arrangement, making production five years off, which is still better than waiting for new Russian 5th generation developments to be exported to them. India and China would be fools to pass up such a deal.

So when you say the engine hasn't been fielded then technically you are right. From a pragmatic standpoint you are dead wrong, since it wouldn't take more than three years to ramp production in a joint venture. The F-22 will hardly be in force in that timeframe and Sukhoi, combined with Shenyang and HAL, are an imposing potential competition. I doubt the Russians will export the technology unless it affords them a major contract for planes. And even if they do it will probably be somewhat neutered.