Posted on 05/24/2002 11:33:06 AM PDT by The Big Dog
The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.
In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.
"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."
The scenario in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.
If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.
Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.
"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.
Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air-superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.
At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.
The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA- 10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar- guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R- 27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.
The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R- 77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K- 77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.
The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.
Besides, we have already spent billions of dollars on the F-22. It would be a waste if it was just cancelled now.
First, we discover a maneuver gap; second, we get the money; third, we undiscover the maneuver gap. Works every time.
They can't afford the planes AND the aircrews needed to fly them effectively.
Besides, we have already spent billions of dollars on the F-22. It would be a waste if it was just cancelled now.
This report is part of the USAF's usual sleaziness in saving their sacred cow du jour.
If you believe this report, then you also believe that the next major opponent for the USAF is...the Air National Guard component of the several States.
Should we be saving our Confederate money?
Here's the dog in the manger: the F-15C was obviously constrained to straight and level flight in order for this tactic to work. ANY change in velocity or direction that the Su-30MK driver did not prepare for would neutralize the tactic.
This is just an armchair outlook. Does my argument make any sense to people who actually know stuff about the F-15? Also, aren't our frontline forces flying models later than the F-15C (F-15E?), or does the "C" in F-15C just mean it launched from a carrier or something?
Are you sure? China, for example, has a very rapidly-growing economy which will surpass the US in about 30 years. The SU-30 (or maybe something even more advanced like the SU-35 or SU-37) will eventually be within the reach of potential adversaries.
If you believe this report, then you also believe that the next major opponent for the USAF is...the Air National Guard component of the several States.
No, all I believe is that the F-15 is a 25 yr old airframe and it can only be upgraded so far. Eventually, our adversaries will obtain fighter jets which our F-15's will be no match for. Our pilots deserve to go into combat with the best possible equipment we are able to provide them with.
The F-22 is already wired into future USAF budgets, so there is really no reason not to get it.
An F-15 would usually be flying straight and level. He would not change his direction unless he had a reason to, and since the Su-30 is capable of sneaking up close without being detected by the Eagle's radar, the F-15 pilot not know to change his velocity/direction until it was too late. At least that's what I understand from reading that article.
The F-15E is just a strike version of the F-15C. The F-15C is the latest F-15, and it forms the backbone of the USAF. All F-15A's were converted to F-15C's some time in the late 80's, I think, which gave it more powerful engines, a more powerful radar and computer, and some other minor things. There's also the F-15D which is just a 2 seater version of the C.
Can't speak to the plane end of your equation, but as a former tread head I can tell you the 15 seconds for tanks (depending of course, exactly when you started the timer) was absolutely true. It was based on the amount of ordinance the Soviets could drop on any given area at a time. Their artillary numbers were(?) ungodly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.