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.
Too bad the world isn't as nice a place as we would all like...
The article is BS. There are a lot of reasons why the F-15 will stay top dog for the next 10 years. Heck, the F-16 has significant upgrades scheduled for the next 15 years. But the planes we're looking at buying now are for 2025+.
When you see that lesser performing non-vectored-thrust German Mig29s now regularly kill German F4s that have superior radar and missiles, you quickly find out that maneuverability is more important than radar and missles. The F15C simply cannot out maneuver older Mig29 or SU27, let alone the modern thrust vector SU30 with improved radar and missles.
In the end, it is a question of statistics. We have to have a superior statistical kill because our foes are far more numerous than we are and can sustain far more losses than we can.
Throw that GPS out the window, learn dead reckoning, visual reckoning and electronic navigation instead. May not be as accurate at first, but a compass with a good stop watch is always reliable. Add to that experience and execution speed, and you gain accuracy with the human brain quickly. Because instead of being distracting punching in routes without any situational awareness aside from awareness of how the computer works, the pilot actualy is looking to program his airplane and environment, and not just a dum computer. don't get me wrong, computers are great to awake a pilot from a situational awareness lapse or temporary confusion, as the human brain is not perfect either, but in no way does the computer teach a pilot to modelise visual, computational and signal data into a geometric picture and precise fences and targets, all the while flying the airplane, communicating and having fun.
Add to that the stress of combat and combat situational awareness, that is, navigating/flying with respect to a moving geography (i.e. enemy airplanes that end up being geographical coordinate that keep moving), you got yourself in a serious mess if you cannot compute or you just hope the computer and radar will effectively do the tracking for you. It's nonsense, a pilot just cannot afford to look down at his radar all the time. A pilot needs to predict and compute the positioning of various enemy aircrafts all the while performing other tasks and looking at other targets. In the end, the integration is done within the pilot's brain while the pilot can only look at one thing at a time. That means the brain must compute and predict what other parameters and geographies are looking like all the while verifying whether this or that parameter tells him he was accurate. The pilot's job, being one of verifying an expectation, as opposed to gaining knowledge of a situation, forbid the reliance on computers and radars, but impose it to always do dead reckoning and only using computers and radars to verify his predictions computed in the black box.
As a marksman in training and aero engineer, I also learned a lot about the US engineers' Rambo like fantasies that have nothing to do with reality. At the university, engineers were like consuming women chosing this or that gadget because it looked cool, instead of creating a fertile ground, within a program or project, for the users and pilots of the devices to pick, choose and design what they wanted. The specialization of those shoping mentality engineering freaks in the US is really killing the tax payer. Add to that the intellectual arrogance and fraternal tribalism, and you have one stupid bunch of people. Sure, they know how to re-invent the wheel, and no wonder they are assigned to such tasks, if not it'd be total chaos in there. Reinventing the wheel, however, is highly inefficient way of disciplining and teaching US engineers.
Whenever you have this co-worker engineer who comes to the range, you see the old guys with revolvers, and this guy coming with this spiffy gear from Rambo-StarTreck, and every one starts laughing. My instructor always teach them a humiliating lesson the hard way, in order to put them back on their spot and to see if they are cut to deal with a man's responsibility at the range.
What he does, he goes to the 400 yard range. He looks at the new guy's gun with scope and all and lets him shoot one. The instructor then berates him how he uses the action, the way the kid cannot even use his scope and then takes the thing himself, sets it up in 5seconds, and shoots a couple rounds, readjusts for drifts and then shoots about 5 rounds in or near the bull's eye (if the gun is any good). Then he hands it over, reteach everything to the new guy and lets him shoot one. The kid shoots and misses the target. He wiggles the gun around, puts it in different positions, squints until his fatigued eye leads start to shake and well shoots another one and misses again. It's always the same scenario.
Then the instructor feigns to get tired of it all. He takes his own gun, without a scope, shoots some, hits the target, with one bulls eye out of every 3 or four shots. The kid with the scope cannot even understand how the scope does not help him better than this scopeless marksman who keeps shooting good groups. Then the kid, if he is smart, starts to think hard about his rambo mentality and starts respecting revolvers and the old bolt action rifle. He learns or asks to learn how to shoot without a scope, he learns how to model his action before doing them, he learns how to adjust, and he starts shooting the target, without the scope. Then he goes with the scope, and he starts shooting the target and does a couple bulls eyes. With the scope he learns how to predict his movements and shakes without the scope. Ultimately the scopless performance approaches that of the scope performance. It is not always good, but this scopeless performance and experience is far more valuable than expenses in technology indeed. It's like putting a 5 year old in charge of a boat because the 5 year old can play video games and can do that with the big boat. Utter nonsense.
However, with that said...............we DO need the F22 and the JSF. Air superiority is mandatory for our way of conducting warfare; we OWN the skies.
If Rumsfeld is looking to cut something, I'd eliminate the B-2 in a heartbeat. Nearly $2 billion per aircraft is worse than ludicrous.
Cheers.
This is not critical data. It's been long known that one can evade dopplers by flying 90° to them and that high maneuverability is a plus in maintaining energy while doing this evasive maneuver.
This article is no bull at all. It does not take a nuke scientist to figure the F15 is no match for the SU30.
If the foot soldier is still good enough today, the F-22 will be good enough for decades to come, especially as a tailless mid-range to long range bomber. The F-22 is ahead of the pack and is not going to be obsolete anytime soon. In fact its competition is touted as being the UAVs, but that is a pipe dream as UAVs' critical datalinks make them visible and choreographed. In fact the F-22 is the best airplane to go with stealth UAV, as a discrete independent operations' platform for UAVs.
Right now we are no match for airplanes like the Swedish Grippen, Euro Typhoon or Russian Su30. The F-22 comes in the nick of time to maintain our dominance over these new technologies that are just coming out.
If Rumsfeld is looking to cut something, I'd eliminate the B-2 in a heartbeat. Nearly $2 billion per aircraft is worse than ludicrous.
B2s are more important the JSF, considering that they can carry nuke strikes in less than 10 min over enemy territory while orbiting. It is the prime first strike capability of our nuke forces. Without it, we cannot have viable missile defense, period.
The F22s can have their own ranged increased too and their speeds enable such bombing runs at closer and smaller airstrips.
Right now we have maneuverable F15Cs with a good radar facing a radar evading SU30 that has a radar in the front and in the tail boom, enabling it to shoot missiles straight backwards, forwards and over the shoulder. In other words, while doing its evading maneuver, the Su30 is still capable of tracking the F15 that has lost it, firing missiles rearward before it has even finished its turn in the F15C's tail to track and insure the kill. The F22's ability to evade radar and maneuvaribility is hence a must. We cannot afford to slack in matters of capabilities as more and more 3rd world nations are acquiring nukes and nuke strike capable SU30s.
THe JSF on the other hand is a bit of bull sh!t as it is touted to be able to replace things like the F111 bomber in Australia. The JSF has very limited capabilities. It is a good bomb truck but has too short of a range. It has not the maneuverability of the F22 hence making it a dubious fighter, the only thing for it being stealth and the vertical takeoff version for forward bases scattered and hidden in territories without runways. Vertical takeoff puts a limit on takeoff weight though.
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.