Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Share

    lulldapull

    Posts : 200
    Points : 243
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  lulldapull on Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:51 am

    It is a tacit acknowledgment now from the so called 'West' that the F-18E/F as well as the JSF/ F-35 are inferior to the Su-30M series.

    This is a fantastic article which clearly shows why the Su-30M is superior to both the Super Hornet and the JSF.

    No wonder the JSF is now delayed and thrown back on the drawing board. Laughing

    http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Sept03.pdf#search=%22RAAF%20alternatives%22
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:18 pm

    The Super Hornet and the JSF have AFAR radar and stealthy frontal RCS. Cy-30 has a powerful radar but isn't low probability of intercept (LPI) and it has a huge RCS. In a long range BVR duel, Cy-30 is at a disadvantage. If it ever gets to the merge, Cy-30 will wipe the floor with SH and F-35.

    lulldapull

    Posts : 200
    Points : 243
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  lulldapull on Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:34 pm

    but Vladimir in radar power aperture alone the Bars out ranges them both.

    That means in a long range shooting match it is the Sukhoi that will have the first shot advantage as the RVV-AE's will be on their way first before the Super bug or the JSF get a chance to launch their AMRAAM's. Wink

    In every department the Sukhoi Su-30MK beats the Hornet and the JSF......except RCS.

    But Dr. Kopp is hinting toward an AESA retrofit by Phazatron.....which again will swing the advantage in the Su-30's favour.

    This also puts credibility toward the Russian federation putting money toward the Su-35BM program.

    And the Su-30 outranges both these U.S. types in endurance with its 'drop tank' free 1600km's radius of action of lots of power, where the two U.S. types will use reheat to try to maneuver with this Russian beast.

    We also know for a fact that in a knife fight the Sukhoi will kill them easy......no doubt about that.....hell it will comfortably take on even the F-22 in a close dogfight.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:27 pm

    The American radars have high energy X-band AESAs, they are equal to if not better in range to a Bars. AESA usually increases the range of radars by 50%. They are also far superior in tracking capability and cannot be tracked back to the source. With the smaller RCS, American fighters will pick up Flankers long before they will be seen giving them 1st-shot 1st-kill. They have the AIM-120D while our new long-range missiles are still in development. R-77M hasn't gone anywhere while the Europeans are dancing circles around us with each success of Meteor. The Flanker is obsolete which is why PAK FA is of the utmost priority.

    lulldapull

    Posts : 200
    Points : 243
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  lulldapull on Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:47 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:The American radars have high energy X-band AESAs, they are equal to if not better in range to a Bars. AESA usually increases the range of radars by 50%. They are also far superior in tracking capability and cannot be tracked back to the source. With the smaller RCS, American fighters will pick up Flankers long before they will be seen giving them 1st-shot 1st-kill. They have the AIM-120D while our new long-range missiles are still in development. R-77M hasn't gone anywhere while the Europeans are dancing circles around us with each success of Meteor. The Flanker is obsolete which is why PAK FA is of the utmost priority.

    The APG-79 on SH and JSF has lower power aperture as it stands today vis a vis the N-011M. That means the 150km's plus surveillance Bars equipped Su-30MK sees them first.

    That also means an RVV-AE is fired first before the Aim-120D.

    Also like the article states very clearly that with R-27P/ Ks-172 Novator equipped Su-30MK escorts will take care of E-3/ E-2 AWACS/ AEW's first so they blind the so called western eyes and ears first so the SH and JSF will fly blind into a long range shooting match against the Su-30MK's. Also both the aforementioned anti-radiation missiles are fire and forget.....so cannot be tracked back to source escorts.

    Like Dr Kopp lays out the case very clearly......that with the upcoming phazatron AESA retrofit, the Su-30's will have no problem against the JSF and SH, but I agree that for the long term ofcourse the Pak-FA is needed to decisively destroy the F-22's and newer stealth UAV/ UCAV's now in operation with the U.S./ IDF militaries.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:17 pm

    lulldapull wrote:

    The APG-79 on SH and JSF has lower power aperture as it stands today vis a vis the N-011M. That means the 150km's plus surveillance Bars equipped Su-30MK sees them first.

    The APG-79 will be able to detect an Su-30MK lighting up its radar anywhere from 300-400km. Su-30 RCS is 20^m2 and has a highly locatable radar, it is like turning on a flashlight and saying "here I am." SH has an RCS of 1 metre and an untracable radar output. It will have the initiative in any fight and with a 100km+ AIM-120D will outdistance the RVV-AE.

    That also means an RVV-AE is fired first before the Aim-120D.

    That means the 120D is fired before the R-77.

    Also like the article states very clearly that with R-27P/ Ks-172 Novator equipped Su-30MK escorts will take care of E-3/ E-2 AWACS/ AEW's first so they blind the so called western eyes and ears first so the SH and JSF will fly blind into a long range shooting match against the Su-30MK's. Also both the aforementioned anti-radiation missiles are fire and forget.....so cannot be tracked back to source escorts.

    There is no such thing as the Novator, it never came into existance. R-27P is an outdated Alamo which doesn't even compete with R-77.

    Like Dr Kopp lays out the case very clearly......that with the upcoming phazatron AESA retrofit, the Su-30's will have no problem against the JSF and SH, but I agree that for the long term ofcourse the Pak-FA is needed to decisively destroy the F-22's and newer stealth UAV/ UCAV's now in operation with the U.S./ IDF militaries.

    An AESA refit of an Su-30 will get rid of the flashlight syndrome of its radar, but it still doesn't mask its huge RCS. Western fighters will always have this advantage until PAK FA.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:37 am

    @lulldapull
    I always thought the Aussies should have given more consideration to the mid 90s offer from Sukhoi for Su-35s to replace the Hornets and Su-34/32 to replace the F-111.
    But secretly I really think what the Aussies should be buying is the Tu-22M3... Twisted Evil


    The APG-79 will be able to detect an Su-30MK lighting up its radar anywhere from 300-400km. Su-30 RCS is 20^m2 and has a highly locatable radar, it is like turning on a flashlight and saying "here I am." SH has an RCS of 1 metre and an untracable radar output. It will have the initiative in any fight and with a 100km+ AIM-120D will outdistance the RVV-AE.

    If you are fighting an idiot that uses no tactics.

    What if one Su-30MKI is scanning looking for Superhornets with the rest of the squad somewhere else with their radars listening for radar returns from their leaders broadcasts. If the Aussies are stupid enough to shoot AIM-120Ds at 100kms then the RHAWs on the Su-30MKIs will detect the incoming missiles and give plenty of advanced warning allowing the emitting aircraft to manouver so that the incoming missile runs out of energy and plummets to the ground.

    Using IRST and passive radar the enemy aircraft could get positional information from their leader and launch a silent attack with the radar silent enemy not knowing what hit them till it is too late.

    There is no such thing as the Novator, it never came into existance. R-27P is an outdated Alamo which doesn't even compete with R-77.

    He is probably refering to the R-27EP, which is the passive radar homing model of the Alamo designed to home in on enemy fighters radars. It was most effective against Sparrow armed aircraft during the guidance phase of SARH where the launch aircraft (say a Phantom or F-15) pointed a radar beam at the enemy aircraft till impact, but it should work OK against AWACs aircraft and the like.
    Such a large low manouver aircraft could be engaged at max range with a good chance of a kill.

    Also swap Novator with R-37M which is designed for use with all the latest Russian fighters.

    An AESA refit of an Su-30 will get rid of the flashlight syndrome of its radar, but it still doesn't mask its huge RCS. Western fighters will always have this advantage until PAK FA.

    Fitting the L band AESAs to the leading wing edges of the Su-30MKI would make it much more effective in hunting low observable aircraft. The Link 12 datalink NATO uses is L band.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:29 am

    GarryB wrote:If you are fighting an idiot that uses no tactics.

    What if one Su-30MKI is scanning looking for Superhornets with the rest of the squad somewhere else with their radars listening for radar returns from their leaders broadcasts. If the Aussies are stupid enough to shoot AIM-120Ds at 100kms then the RHAWs on the Su-30MKIs will detect the incoming missiles and give plenty of advanced warning allowing the emitting aircraft to manouver so that the incoming missile runs out of energy and plummets to the ground.

    They won't be able to detect the SHs since they have LPI AESA. Our RWRs don't have near the channels to process AESA tracking beams. Super Hornets will be able to light up the sky without fear of detection, and Su-30MK with a 20m^2 RCS will show up far out with or without their radar on. The RWRs on an MK won't detect the tracking radar so the AMRAAM will go undetected until it goes active or shows up on radar. By then it is likely too late.

    Using IRST and passive radar the enemy aircraft could get positional information from their leader and launch a silent attack with the radar silent enemy not knowing what hit them till it is too late.

    Using the IRST of the MK is a joke, quite frankly our FLIRs suck balls. That is why we have to buy Domacles targeting pods from the French as well as Catherine FC. We would have a hard time picking it out at 30km much less having any hope of the max range of an AIM-120D. This is where are inferior electronics starts catching up with us.

    He is probably refering to the R-27EP, which is the passive radar homing model of the Alamo designed to home in on enemy fighters radars. It was most effective against Sparrow armed aircraft during the guidance phase of SARH where the launch aircraft (say a Phantom or F-15) pointed a radar beam at the enemy aircraft till impact, but it should work OK against AWACs aircraft and the like.
    Such a large low manouver aircraft could be engaged at max range with a good chance of a kill.

    Also swap Novator with R-37M which is designed for use with all the latest Russian fighters.

    If you want to know what missiles are available, check out the page of the Tactical Missile Corp. You will see these fantasy missiles don't exist. R-77 is the best we have to offer.

    Fitting the L band AESAs to the leading wing edges of the Su-30MKI would make it much more effective in hunting low observable aircraft. The Link 12 datalink NATO uses is L band.

    It won't increase the sensitivity of the main radar which is where all the power is. L-band is just a way for PAK FA to be able to have wide azimuth coverage while turning away from a target. It isn't meant as a long range detection means.
    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Stealthflanker on Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:31 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:

    SH has an RCS of 1 metre and an untracable radar output. It will have the initiative in any fight and with a 100km+ AIM-120D will outdistance the RVV-AE.



    Kinda disagree with this... i don't think SH would have that 1m or according to Yefim Gordon's books 1,8 Sqm RCS , considering that she's still carrying AMRAAM ,Sidewinder and External tanks ..On Wing Pylons and for sure, those things add RCS .

    In my opinion however both Su and Sh would see each other in pretty much same distance


    As for the R-172.. it might be developed with new name as "Hindu K-100"
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:48 am

    Stealthflanker wrote:

    Kinda disagree with this... i don't think SH would have that 1m or according to Yefim Gordon's books 1,8 Sqm RCS , considering that she's still carrying AMRAAM ,Sidewinder and External tanks ..On Wing Pylons and for sure, those things add RCS .

    Whether it be 1m clean or 1.8m loaded, it is a much smaller target than a Flanker to the effect of 20 times. Flanker will increase with its own payload and our missiles are less LO than Amerikans.

    In my opinion however both Su and Sh would see each other in pretty much same distance

    Just no way in reality, Flanker is a far bigger target even without lighting up the radar. Soviet designers did nothing to worry about LO tech. It was all about performance. SH was designed with LO in mind.

    As for the R-172.. it might be developed with new name as "Hindu K-100"

    It never got out of the concept stage. If it existed in a pre-production form it would be at EVERY MAKS air show. The last time a mock-up was shown was in 1994.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:27 am

    Sorry but I think LO is crap.

    There is stealth and there is not stealth.

    LO is making changes to a design to reduce the obvious things that make RCS big.

    If LO was so effective then why bother with the enormous expense of F-35s, F-22s etc.

    Aircraft don't operate in a vacuum, they will have other platforms supporting them like air and ground based radar.

    Even a group of Mig-21s could defeat Super Hornets simply by luring them into a SAM trap.

    External fuel tanks have a much greater RCS than any missile so the Super Hornets in the context of the Royal Australian AF vs an Indonesian Flanker would be at a disadvantage if it needs to get to Indonesia, while the Indonesian Flanker will have problems over Australia, especially with the ground based radar system there.
    With neither aircraft being stealthy then it comes down to the biggest and most powerful radar and pilot skill in using it to get information without giving too much information to the enemy.

    Personally I think if Australia really just wants a strike capability against its neighbours some Tomahawks in their Collins class subs would probably be a much better an much cheaper option.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:Sorry but I think LO is crap.

    There is stealth and there is not stealth.

    LO is making changes to a design to reduce the obvious things that make RCS big.

    If LO was so effective then why bother with the enormous expense of F-35s, F-22s etc.

    The Cy-35BM has taken similar changes as the SH to reduce frontal cross section because we know the importance of LO. If you are facing your enemy you will not appear until much later on their scopes which gives you the initiative. The one with situational awareness before your enemy is the one who is going to win because they can attack the weakest points.

    Aircraft don't operate in a vacuum, they will have other platforms supporting them like air and ground based radar.

    Russian AWACs are so few and ground based data links so rare, you will likely not have that kind of connectivity. VVS operates in a vacuum where only specific fighters can share data. If coming from an AWACs, you will not recieve a data-link to it, you will only get audio vectors, same from the ground.

    Even a group of Mig-21s could defeat Super Hornets simply by luring them into a SAM trap.

    Then they wouldn't have been defeated by MiG-21s.

    External fuel tanks have a much greater RCS than any missile so the Super Hornets in the context of the Royal Australian AF vs an Indonesian Flanker would be at a disadvantage if it needs to get to Indonesia, while the Indonesian Flanker will have problems over Australia, especially with the ground based radar system there.
    With neither aircraft being stealthy then it comes down to the biggest and most powerful radar and pilot skill in using it to get information without giving too much information to the enemy.

    There is such a thing as conformal fuel tanks with RAM coating. The Rafale has an interesting loadout with those tanks plus VLO Scalp EG cruise missiles keeping Rafale RCS at 1^m2. They can penetrate into enemy air space and take out targets deep into their territory.



    The SH can fit a conformal fuel tank forward centre-line with several JSOW on the pylons giving the SH a respectable frontal RCS, although not as impressive as the Rafale with Scalp and a hidden pair of MICA missiles.


    Personally I think if Australia really just wants a strike capability against its neighbours some Tomahawks in their Collins class subs would probably be a much better an much cheaper option.

    I think SHs armed with JSOW-ER will be just fine for striking targets deep inside Indonesia. If Indonesia wants a similar capability they should get Cy-35BM with a reduced signature Brahmos.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:26 am

    he Cy-35BM has taken similar changes as the SH to reduce frontal cross section because we know the importance of LO. If you are facing your enemy you will not appear until much later on their scopes which gives you the initiative. The one with situational awareness before your enemy is the one who is going to win because they can attack the weakest points.

    The purpose of LO is to reduce detection range, but it is a flawed concept to think that a LO is stealth.
    If you could modify an F-15 to become as stealthy as an F-22 they would have done that instead of designing and building the F-22.
    The reality is that a drop in RCS of 80% will not reduce radar detection range by 80%.

    LO designs don't reduce RCS by anything like 80%.

    The radars available to late model Flankers are huge and rather powerful and will have no problem detecting LO aircraft at meaningful ranges.

    Add L band wing mounted AESAs and it will detect even stealth aircraft by their datalink emissions without even emitting anything themselves.

    When the enemy becomes aware of your presence probably has more to do with where you are and what support you have.

    Over Australia it wouldn't matter what the Flankers did as long as the OTH-B radar at Jindali (spelling) is operating normally then the Aussie pilots will probably get information about you first.
    Over Indonesia any ground based radar near the coast should have no problems detecting Hornets or Super Hornets or even F-111s flying over water at very long ranges.

    Russian AWACs are so few and ground based data links so rare, you will likely not have that kind of connectivity. VVS operates in a vacuum where only specific fighters can share data. If coming from an AWACs, you will not recieve a data-link to it, you will only get audio vectors, same from the ground.

    Russian and Soviet AWACS were gap fillers to plug holes, particularly low level holes in the PVOs radar network.
    When operating properly the GCI sent flight commands directly to the aircrafts autopilot to manouver the interceptor into the best position for an interception. No verbal communication was required and the pilot looked at the radar image from the ground radar only turning on their own radar to acquire the target for launch of a weapon.

    Then they wouldn't have been defeated by MiG-21s.

    My point is that if it was just about plane vs plane then the US and the Soviet Union before it wouldn't have been that powerful.
    The Americans call it force multipliers.
    One on one Mig-29s during tests with East German Migs clearly showed superiority of the Mig, mainly because of the high off boresight AAMs and the helmet mounted sights that allowed to Mig pilot to look at the target and acquire a lock without pointing his aircraft directly at the target.

    When it came to combat however with Iraqi Migs, the western pilots had learned the Migs strengths and weaknesses.

    Obviously having an enemy aircraft to fly against made training much easier and much more effective... but look at the Serbian air defence forces during the conflict in Kosovo.
    They didn't train against NATO forces before hand.
    They had no opportunity to examine Stealth bombers.
    Yet their performance was such that from day one through to day 79 no NATO aircraft was safe over Kosovo.

    That is not to say NATO was blown from the sky, but NATO was not able to neutralise the Serbian air defence forces, which remained dangerous from first day to last.

    If they had had equipment that could reach above 20,000ft then they probably would have achieved the impossible and forced NATO to either send in land forces or to withdraw.

    Yet on paper compare the hardware of NATO and that of Serbia.

    The answer is that all equipment has strengths and weaknesses.

    The Serbs knew their equipment and with tactics and training were able to minimise the weaknesses and maximise the strengths to keep pressure on NATO.

    The Rafale has an interesting loadout with those tanks plus VLO Scalp EG cruise missiles keeping Rafale RCS at 1^m2.

    I would suggest that first of all the Rafales RCS is not 1^m2. It might be the average, or it might be the lowest from one specific direction. It will also only be for a specific range of high frequencies.


    I think SHs armed with JSOW-ER will be just fine for striking targets deep inside Indonesia.

    Nothing that some Tors and Pantsirs couldn't deal with, or indeed a flight of Flankers. Smile
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:56 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The purpose of LO is to reduce detection range, but it is a flawed concept to think that a LO is stealth.
    If you could modify an F-15 to become as stealthy as an F-22 they would have done that instead of designing and building the F-22.
    The reality is that a drop in RCS of 80% will not reduce radar detection range by 80%.

    LO designs don't reduce RCS by anything like 80%.

    The reality is LO designs reduce by far more than 80%, more like 800%. Su-30MK = 20, 35BM = 3. That is a near 700% reduction. The Rafale is reduced 10 times more than the Mirage-2000 which is a 1000% reduction from 3m^2 to .3m^2.

    The radars available to late model Flankers are huge and rather powerful and will have no problem detecting LO aircraft at meaningful ranges.

    They aren't huge enough.

    Add L band wing mounted AESAs and it will detect even stealth aircraft by their datalink emissions without even emitting anything themselves.

    L-Band AESAs are weak. They aren't made to replace the main array, just compliment it.

    When the enemy becomes aware of your presence probably has more to do with where you are and what support you have.

    Sure, who is going to have more support, American or Russian fighters? Pretty obvious who has the trump. VVS is so outdated the whole thing should be scrapped to save money for new LO fighters.

    Over Australia it wouldn't matter what the Flankers did as long as the OTH-B radar at Jindali (spelling) is operating normally then the Aussie pilots will probably get information about you first.
    Over Indonesia any ground based radar near the coast should have no problems detecting Hornets or Super Hornets or even F-111s flying over water at very long ranges.

    All RAAF F-111s are to be retired before Christmas because the Aussies know it is an outdated piece of crap unlike our leadership that thinks the Su-24 carrying a WWII bombing computer is going to make it modern. Indonesia doesn't have radar good enough to detect an SH firing a JSOW-ER near its maximum range nor will the SH get close enough for its Flankers to know where it is before launch.

    Russian and Soviet AWACS were gap fillers to plug holes, particularly low level holes in the PVOs radar network.
    When operating properly the GCI sent flight commands directly to the aircrafts autopilot to manouver the interceptor into the best position for an interception. No verbal communication was required and the pilot looked at the radar image from the ground radar only turning on their own radar to acquire the target for launch of a weapon.

    That's funny, Soviet fighters didn't have data links to their autopilots and they still don't. Verbal communication was not only required, it was the only way to vector the fighters. They would get the vector from ground control and would recieve orders to either ID or shoot-down the target. Most of the time it was shoot first and ask questions later.


    My point is that if it was just about plane vs plane then the US and the Soviet Union before it wouldn't have been that powerful.
    The Americans call it force multipliers.
    One on one Mig-29s during tests with East German Migs clearly showed superiority of the Mig, mainly because of the high off boresight AAMs and the helmet mounted sights that allowed to Mig pilot to look at the target and acquire a lock without pointing his aircraft directly at the target.

    When it came to combat however with Iraqi Migs, the western pilots had learned the Migs strengths and weaknesses.

    ROE isn't going to have the fighters chasing MiG-21s anywhere. When you fly a CAP patrol, you have a specific mission and it isn't going on wild goose chases to get you shot down. No one is arguing the superior dog-fight capability of Russian fighters, it can't be beat. What is stated is that USAF owns the BVR fight.


    Obviously having an enemy aircraft to fly against made training much easier and much more effective... but look at the Serbian air defence forces during the conflict in Kosovo.
    They didn't train against NATO forces before hand.
    They had no opportunity to examine Stealth bombers.
    Yet their performance was such that from day one through to day 79 no NATO aircraft was safe over Kosovo.

    That is not to say NATO was blown from the sky, but NATO was not able to neutralise the Serbian air defence forces, which remained dangerous from first day to last.

    If they had had equipment that could reach above 20,000ft then they probably would have achieved the impossible and forced NATO to either send in land forces or to withdraw.

    Yet on paper compare the hardware of NATO and that of Serbia.

    The answer is that all equipment has strengths and weaknesses.

    Yeah, and look at what happened to Serbia, they were pounded into submission. Kosovo is now touting independence and Slavs are helpless to stop it. Their air defence did little to nothing to stop the allied bombardment. The few fighters Serbia did manage to get up were shot down as easily as they took off.

    The Serbs knew their equipment and with tactics and training were able to minimise the weaknesses and maximise the strengths to keep pressure on NATO.

    Get it through your skull, Serbia lost and they lost big.

    I would suggest that first of all the Rafales RCS is not 1^m2. It might be the average, or it might be the lowest from one specific direction. It will also only be for a specific range of high frequencies.

    The Rafale RCS is 10 times less than the Mirage-2000 in clean config which makes it 0.3m^2. The Scalp EG RCS is .1m appiece as well as the RAM coated drop tanks. Easily within 1 metre.
    [quote]


    Nothing that some Tors and Pantsirs couldn't deal with, or indeed a flight of Flankers. Smile

    You can't protect everything with SHORAD missiles, and fighters aren't in the air unless scrambled. Besides, Indonesia doesn't have either missile system.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:13 am

    The reality is LO designs reduce by far more than 80%, more like 800%. Su-30MK = 20, 35BM = 3. That is a near 700% reduction. The Rafale is reduced 10 times more than the Mirage-2000 which is a 1000% reduction from 3m^2 to .3m^2.

    At what frequencies and what angles?

    Most of the RCS reduction for existing aircraft designs focuses around changing the shape of small corner reflectors and applying radar absorbant material in areas that can't be reshaped.
    The new engine intakes on the Tu-22M3 increased the RCS of the Backfire by over 25% compared to the Tu-22M2 but also vastly improved engine performance and fuel efficiency at high speed.
    Such minor shaping and coating is effective enough against high frequency radars, but against longer wave ground based radars that cannot detect shape the entire aircraft reflects the signal and detection range is not effected.

    They aren't huge enough.

    Not huge enough for Stealth aircraft, but certainly good enough against LO aircraft.

    It would be more useful to the Su-35 to have a better AESA radar with good LPI modes than to waste money trying to reduce its RCS further IMHO.

    L-Band AESAs are weak. They aren't made to replace the main array, just compliment it.

    Most NATO datalinks operate in L band. The L band radars on the Su-35BM could have a wide range of uses but most of them will involve listening for emissions to betray the location of otherwise stealthy targets, or to assist in detecting missile launches.

    Sure, who is going to have more support, American or Russian fighters? Pretty obvious who has the trump. VVS is so outdated the whole thing should be scrapped to save money for new LO fighters.

    It is pointless to talk about American and Russian fighters as both will be inconsequential and the real counters will be TOPOL and Minuteman and SATAN.

    The VVS has had minimal funding for the last two decades... how about stop living in the past and wake up.
    The Russian AF is not tasked with matching NATO or the US, even though in many areas it does or exceeds such a comparison. (Only the US and Russia have real strategic bombers for example...)
    Most of the VVS was scrapped in the 1990s when the single engine fighters were withdrawn.

    The problem is that some expect to see the Soviet AF when even the Soviet Union couldn't afford that.

    All RAAF F-111s are to be retired before Christmas because the Aussies know it is an outdated piece of crap unlike our leadership that thinks the Su-24 carrying a WWII bombing computer is going to make it modern.

    Yeah, had a discussion before with someone who claimed the Russian AF was at the level of WWII based on his impression of the South Ossetian conflict.
    Kinda expected better from you however.
    If the Su-24 is a WWII bomber then I guess all that US complaining must have been justified.
    I mean after all during WWII a bombing mission into enemy territory to destroy one factory would require at least 3 trips by at least 500 bombers on each trip each carrying 1,000 to 2,000kgs of bombs to reliably put one or two bombs within about 3km of the target.

    Yeah, them Russian bombers are a joke. Rolling Eyes

    Indonesia doesn't have radar good enough to detect an SH firing a JSOW-ER near its maximum range nor will the SH get close enough for its Flankers to know where it is before launch.

    So many things wrong with this.

    First why?

    Second what could they possibly target?

    And third, considering the size of their border compared with their small population I really don't think little Australia is in a good position to start sht stirring.

    Attack is always easier than defence.

    No one is arguing the superior dog-fight capability of Russian fighters, it can't be beat. What is stated is that USAF owns the BVR fight.

    They can have it. 90% of air combat to date has been WVR.
    With all the air traffic in a modern war BVR is going to cause too many own goals to be worth playing around with too much. Only going to get worse with UAVs and UCAVs.
    And as I stated above I really don't see the point of USAF vs RuAF.
    For a start there are too many variable, and second if it happens then the outcome of it will not really be as important as what it starts.

    I don't completely agree with the dogfight ability of Russian fighters currently as most are not upgraded aircraft from the 1980s and early 90s.
    At the time they certainly had a clear superiority with HMS and high off boresight missiles, but they also had the advantage of BVR IR missiles and still do.
    I would rate the R-27E model SARH missiles as more potent than Sparrow.
    These days however with late model Pythons, ASRAAM, IRIS-T and of course AIM-9X the WVR combat situation has shifted to at least a balance.
    The not upgraded ex Soviet fighters were like clockwork mechanical toys in the computer age just considering what was needed just to launch a missile and guide it to a target.

    Of course new aircraft are coming that solve such issues and other problems as well too, and currently there is no imminent threat making the situation dangerous for Russia.

    Yeah, and look at what happened to Serbia, they were pounded into submission. Kosovo is now touting independence and Slavs are helpless to stop it. Their air defence did little to nothing to stop the allied bombardment. The few fighters Serbia did manage to get up were shot down as easily as they took off.

    A SUPERPOWER and twenty something of its best mates within NATO pounded Serbia for over two months all the while making claims like bombing serbia into the stone age and kicking their a$$e$ in one week. The results were never in question... that is what superpower means, together with the isolation of Serbia from her allies.
    Their air defence forced the allied bombardment up to 20,000 ft and at no time was there any sign that the air defence had been damaged let alone obliterated like the air defence force of Iraq for example.
    The few fighters that did get airborne were in no shape to operate in peacetime let alone in wartime and the person responsible was tried and convicted after the conflict. Corruption is everywhere.
    6 Mig-29s vs all of NATO is another no brainer.
    F-18 Super Hornets in the same neglected condition would not have done any better.

    Get it through your skull, Serbia lost and they lost big.

    Did they really? The fact that they lasted over two months when Allbright was anticipating a couple of days... maybe a week.
    NATO, the most powerful military alliance on the planet was afraid to put ground troops in Kosovo.
    The only reason the Serbs gave in was because the Russians told them to.
    Sure they lost... like the Finns lost the Winter war against the Soviet Union.
    In many ways a better way to look at it was it was Serbias Dunkirk.
    The best result for Serbia that was possible considering the odds against them.

    The Rafale RCS is 10 times less than the Mirage-2000 in clean config which makes it 0.3m^2. The Scalp EG RCS is .1m appiece as well as the RAM coated drop tanks. Easily within 1 metre.

    Again, you give one figure for an aircraft.
    You can give one figure for a steel ball because the direction you look at it isnt effected by shape or material as the shape is spherical from every angle and it is all made of one material. If you paint a stripe of RAM down the front of the steel ball all of a sudden from certain angles the RCS is reduced and the overall RCS of the steel ball is less than it was. From one angle however where all the face of the ball is covered in RAM the RCS will be smaller than the average and also smaller than the original. From another angle where no RAM coating is visible then the RCS will be higher than the average and much higher than the face coated with RAM.
    Most fighter aircraft fly nose high so radar well below the aircraft will get a better view of the belly of the aircraft, while higher flying aircraft will get a more head on view or a view of the top of the aircraft.

    BTW you can't just say aircraft x has RCS of 0.3 and missile y has a RCS of 0.1 so an aircraft x with 6 y missiles must have a RCS of 1x + 6y, or 1x + y + y + y + y + y + y. Equally the average given for an aircraft will be from front on, as will the figure for the missile. From side on the missile might look like a barn door because of reflections with the wing and fuselage.
    There is a reason why all real stealth aircraft have internal weapon bays.

    You can't protect everything with SHORAD missiles, and fighters aren't in the air unless scrambled.

    They don't have to protect everything.

    In times of tension fighters might be on the look out for trouble.

    Besides, Indonesia doesn't have either missile system.

    And Australia doesn't have any Super Hornets either. pirat

    Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
    I seem to be a glass is half full person and you seem to be a glass is half empty type.
    (I have a friend who is an engineer and he is a "you have 50% more glass than you need there" type of guy...)
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:47 am

    GarryB wrote:
    At what frequencies and what angles?

    When RCS figures are stated, it is the frontal aspect.

    Not huge enough for Stealth aircraft, but certainly good enough against LO aircraft.

    Not quite, when an MKI can only pick up a 5^m2 at 130km, a SH can shoot first kill first.

    It would be more useful to theSuu-35 to have a better AESA radar with good LPI modes than to waste money trying to reduce its RCS further IMHO.

    Agree

    Most NATOdatalinkss operate in L band. The L band radars on theSuu-35BM could have a wide range of uses but most of them will involve listening for emissions to betray the location of otherwise stealthy targets, or to assist in detecting missile launches.

    Are you suggesting that it will be able to track Link 16? Because it won't. Its function is to give offboresightt targeting for BVRAAM when PAK FA turns from launch.

    It is pointless to talk about American and Russian fighters as both will be inconsequential and the real counters will be TOPOL and Minuteman and SATAN.

    We have never used nukes against each other and we never will. Conventional power is what matters since you will never be in a position to use nukes.

    The VVS has had minimal funding for the last two decades... how about stop living in the past and wake up.
    The Russian AF is not tasked with matching NATO or the US, even though in many areas it does or exceeds such a comparison. (Only the US and Russia have real strategic bombers for example...)
    Most of the VVS was scrapped in the 1990s when the single engine fighters were withdrawn.

    The problem is that some expect to see the Soviet AF when even the Soviet Union couldn't afford that.

    Who is living in the past? Wake to where we are... behind.

    Yeah, had a discussion before with someone who claimed the Russian AF was at the level of WWII based on his impression of the SouthOssetiann conflict.

    The amount of PGMs used in the 6 day War was near zero so there is merit to the argument. VVS hasn't restocked on smart weapons since the fall of CCCP and most in-stock do not work.

    Kinda expected better from you however.

    You expected a Russian paratrooper to praise and sugercoat our pathetic military state? Look elsewhere for that.

    If theSuu-24 is a WWII bomber then I guess all that US complaining must have been justified.
    I mean after all during WWII a bombing mission into enemy territory to destroy one factory would require at least 3 trips by at least 500 bombers on each trip each carrying 1,000 to 2,00kgss of bombs to reliably put one or two bombs within about 3km of the target.

    B-29s were able to place bombs with a CEP of 83m using their early analog computers. Su-24's new computer places it at 20m flying at lower altitudes. It is a pathetic upgrade for VVS bombers... pathetic.

    Yeah, them Russian bombers are a joke. Rolling Eyes

    Compared to Western accuracy, they are quite a joke.

    So many things wrong with this.

    First why?

    Second what could they possibly target?

    And third, considering the size of their border compared with their small population I really don't think little Australia is in a good position to startshtt stirring.

    Why, because the SH is LO enough to get in for a JSOW-ER strike. N011M doesn't have the range to detect them before launch even if they were airbourne.

    Attack is always easier than defence.

    RAAF has the advantage since they will see Flankers as soon as they take off. They have the initiative whether defence of offence.

    They can have it. 90% of air combat to date has been WVR.

    Really? In the only major air war in the last 20 years, GW1 there were 25 AIM-7 kills to only 10 AIM-9 kills. They are 250% more likely to use BVRAAM.

    With all the air traffic in a modern war BVR is going to cause too many own goals to be worth playing around with too much. Only going to get worse withUAVss andUCAVss.
    And as I stated above I really don't see the point of USAF vsRuAFF.
    For a start there are too many variable, and second if it happens then the outcome of it will not really be as important as what it starts.

    That is why platforms have IFF transponders to avoid fratricide. The better the blue IFF the more BVR shots they are going to take.

    I don't completely agree with the dogfight ability of Russian fighters currently as most are not upgraded aircraft from the 1980s and early 90s.
    At the time they certainly had a clear superiority with HMS and high offboresightt missiles, but they also had the advantage of BVR IR missiles and still do.
    I would rate the R-27E model SARH missiles as more potent than Sparrow.
    These days however with late model Pythons, ASRAAM, IRIS-T and of course AIM-9X the WVR combat situation has shifted to at least a balance.
    The not upgraded ex Soviet fighters were like clockwork mechanical toys in the computer age just considering what was needed just to launch a missile and guide it to a target.

    USAF fighters have actually become worse dog fighters. The new block F-16s and the Super Hornets are less maneuverable than their legacies. Their missiles have evened things out but sometimes you have to go to guns and Russian fighters have the advantage.

    Of course new aircraft are coming that solve such issues and other problems as well too, and currently there is no imminent threat making the situation dangerous for Russia.

    There is always a threat, it is called China.

    Did they really? The fact that they lasted over two months whenAllbrightt was anticipating a couple of days... maybe a week.
    NATO, the most powerful military alliance on the planet was afraid to put ground troops inKosovoo.
    The only reason the Serbs gave in was because the Russians told them to.
    Sure they lost... like the Finns lost the Winter war against the Soviet Union.
    In many ways a better way to look at it was it wasSerbiass Dunkirk.
    The best result for Serbia that was possible considering the odds against them.

    I don't recall Albright setting a target date for an end to operations, SecState wouldn't be the one to determine it anyway. The Serbs lost because they were pounded into submission and a bunch of KLA terrorists came in making hell for them. The Serbs gave in because they couldn't win. The best result would have been Russian intervention, sorry we didn't.

    TheRafalee RCS is 10 times less than the Mirage-2000 in cleanconfigg which makes it 0.3m^2. The Scalp EG RCS is .1mappiecee as well as the RAM coated drop tanks. Easily within 1 metre.

    Again, you give one figure for an aircraft.
    You can give one figure for a steel ball because the direction you look at itisntt effected by shape or material as the shape is spherical from every angle and it is all made of one material. If you paint a stripe of RAM down the front of the steel ball all of a sudden from certain angles the RCS is reduced and the overall RCS of the steel ball is less than it was. From one angle however where all the face of the ball is covered in RAM the RCS will be smaller than the average and also smaller than the original. From another angle where no RAM coating is visible then the RCS will be higher than the average and much higher than the face coated with RAM.
    Most fighter aircraft fly nose high so radar well below the aircraft will get a better view of the belly of the aircraft, while higher flying aircraft will get a more head on view or a view of the top of the aircraft.

    Dassault has released the information that Rafale has 10 times less the RCS than a Mirage-2000. Given M2000s frontal aspect, it is easy to decipher.

    BTW you can't just say aircraft x has RCS of 0.3 and missile y has a RCS of 0.1 so an aircraft x with 6 y missiles must have a RCS of 1x + 6y, or 1x + y + y + y + y + y + y. Equally the average given for an aircraft will be from front on, as will the figure for the missile. From side on the missile might look like a barn door because of reflections with the wing and fuselage.
    There is a reason why all real stealth aircraft have internal weapon bays.

    BTW you can when MBDA gives the figure for the configuration.

    They don't have to protect everything.

    In times of tension fighters might be on the look out for trouble.

    They won't find the trouble when RAAF will know where their patrols are.

    And Australia doesn't have any Super Hornets either. piratt:

    Keep up with the news...


    AMBERLEY, Queensland, March 28, 2010 — The first five Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets for Australia landed at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Amberley on March 26, bringing the next generation in air combat capability to the multirole fighter’s first international customer.


    http://www.aviationnews.eu/2010/03/29/boeing-raaf-welcome-super-hornets-to-australia/

    Perhaps we can agree to disagree.
    I seem to be a glass is half full person and you seem to be a glass is half empty type.
    (I have a friend who is an engineer and he is a "you have 50% more glass than you need there" type of guy...)

    I know what Russia can and can't do. I served in the military for several years in many war torn areas. I am a realist with the knowledge. Learn from it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:32 am

    When RCS figures are stated, it is the frontal aspect.

    The Real RCS will be secret and those released probably the best achieved from a very specific aspect.

    Not quite, when an MKI can only pick up a 5^m2 at 130km, a SH can shoot first kill first.

    Again, interesting numbers... very round and precise.

    Is the target high or low?

    Is it a closing target or a receeding one?

    Is anyone trying to jam?

    F-4s easily out ranged Mig-17s when it came to radar range and although BVR missiles have improved immensely they are still not perfect.

    Are you suggesting that it will be able to track Link 16? Because it won't. Its function is to give offboresightt targeting for BVRAAM when PAK FA turns from launch.

    What I am suggesting is that even the F-22 uses L band datalinks to communicate with other platforms and its own AMRAAM missiles.

    The antennas on the Su-35BM are intended to detect these emissions and their direction to detect and get a rough track on an otherwise non emitting target.

    BVR AAMs don't require continuous illumination of the target unless they are SARH, all that is required is periodic scans to determine if the target has greatly deviated from its flight path to see if a correction to the inertial guidance is required to keep the target in the kill box.
    The AESA in the nose would probably have a wider FOV than antenna in the wing leading edge.
    And finally such datalinks are generally non directional anyway which is why the L band array is an array rather than a simpler cheaper single emitter.

    We have never used nukes against each other and we never will. Conventional power is what matters since you will never be in a position to use nukes.

    It has nothing to do with wishes or intentions, it is currently required Russian policy.
    Never say never.

    Who is living in the past? Wake to where we are... behind.

    Moving from the training park to operationally deployed for almost everything.

    As I mentioned before most of the aircraft currently in the Russian AF was in there in 1995 and in the last one and a half decades has not received a single upgrade.

    On paper the R-77 is a capable missile, but how many in service Russian aircraft can use them is just one example of what I mean.

    No big deal, and perfectly understandable considering the situation and conditions.

    The main area is probably command and control and communications and Intelligence gathering... ie C3I.

    The amount of PGMs used in the 6 day War was near zero so there is merit to the argument. VVS hasn't restocked on smart weapons since the fall of CCCP and most in-stock do not work.

    The primary precision guided munition was not used by the RuAF, but by the Tochka-U and Iskander Army Units.
    The fact that the targets were engaged without leveling everything suggests some skill and potential.

    Glonass guided bombs are probably the cheapest guided munition possible for the RuAF and now that the GLONASS system is being completed it makes sense to start spending on things that use it.
    Last MAKs there was a spending spree on what were described as 14 guided aircraft missiles for air to air and air to surface and air to ship use... sounds like things are changing.

    You expected a Russian paratrooper to praise and sugercoat our pathetic military state? Look elsewhere for that.

    I don't expect any Russian to describe those who serve as being pathetic.
    The Georgian armed forces don't seem to share your appraisal, and neither do I.

    Putting things in context and expecting change is not sugar coating.

    B-29s were able to place bombs with a CEP of 83m using their early analog computers. Su-24's new computer places it at 20m flying at lower altitudes. It is a pathetic upgrade for VVS bombers... pathetic.

    The Su-24 is a low level all weather interdiction strike aircraft, you can't really compare it with a strategic bomber, and if you did let me ask if the B-29 was so gosh darn accurate why was it necessary to simply load them up with lots of HE to blow the roofs off buildings in Germany and Japan and then use incendiaries to fire bomb civilians?
    Comparing that to Russian AF operations in Georgia is certainly beneath me.

    There is a difference between sugar coating rosy sunglasses and being Pavel Felgenhauer. Surprised

    Compared to Western accuracy, they are quite a joke.

    The west has spent an enormous amount of money getting the capabilities it has today, and gets to hone its skills by intervening everywhere it can, yet even in the west the term collateral damage is not something that will go away.

    Why, because the SH is LO enough to get in for a JSOW-ER strike. N011M doesn't have the range to detect them before launch even if they were airbourne.

    Sorry, I wasn't clear.
    I was asking why Australia would attack Indonesia in the first place.
    As I said a surprise attack is relatively easy if you have complete surprise, it is much harder to defend.

    RAAF has the advantage since they will see Flankers as soon as they take off. They have the initiative whether defence of offence.

    Assuming they play by conventional rules and ignore Australian strengths.

    Really? In the only major air war in the last 20 years, GW1 there were 25 AIM-7 kills to only 10 AIM-9 kills. They are 250% more likely to use BVRAAM.

    Rather the exception to the rule however because of the testing with East German Mig-29s showed them how potent they were WVR which forced a change of tactics.
    Equally kills don't show how likely they were to use BVRAAM. Knowing the rather low PK rate of the SPARROW I would expect in every case they probably tried to use BVR weapons to take advantage of the force multipliers like AWACS giving them situational awareness to compensate for the better WVR capability of only a number of enemy aircraft. Despite obviously wanting to use all BVRAAMs it seems they still chose to use WVR weapons too.
    Seems to be saying the opposite of what you are trying to get across.

    That is why platforms have IFF transponders to avoid fratricide. The better the blue IFF the more BVR shots they are going to take.

    Yeah, lots of aircraft have been shot down despite having IFF transponders.
    From Iranian airbuses because of a design fault on Aegis class cruisers, to Blackhawk helos that move into different areas and forget to change their squawk code and get shot down by F-15s that blast by at high speed from 5km range and misidentify them as Hinds.
    ...and that was without anyone interfering.

    USAF fighters have actually become worse dog fighters. The new block F-16s and the Super Hornets are less maneuverable than their legacies. Their missiles have evened things out but sometimes you have to go to guns and Russian fighters have the advantage.

    I have been led to believe that the early use of 9 g fighters was to outfly the seekers in AAMs by moving faster than their angular speed can track. With modern seekers however the tracking speed is beyond anything a manned aircraft can perform so the focus has shifted.
    Don't know how true it is.

    There is always a threat, it is called China.

    The best way for Russia to deal with China is to on the sly suggest to Taiwan that Kosovo was an option. Then the wonderful, powerful western military forces can prove their ability against China... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    The best result would have been Russian intervention, sorry we didn't.

    Russia was in the same position as the US was with Georgia, though ties between Serbia and Russia shouldn't be compared to US ties with countries with oil pipelines they can control.

    I don't recall Albright setting a target date for an end to operations, SecState wouldn't be the one to determine it anyway.

    During an interview before it started I remember her saying it would only take a couple of days, a week at most.

    The Serbs lost because they were pounded into submission and a bunch of KLA terrorists came in making hell for them.

    I disagree. NATO had to resort to hitting infrastructure in Serbia or dumping ordinance because they rarely found real targets to hit. NATO were totally ineffectual in stopping what it called ethnic cleansing and NATO officials would comment that they could watch villages in Kosovo catch fire and start burning but there was nothing they could do, there was nothing to bomb.
    NATO even tried the techmique they used in Afghanistan where the Northern Alliance would move through territory with a few US special forces as spotters.
    The Taleban could either mass up as a force to oppose the NA... and get the Sht bombed out of them, or they could withdraw. Sometimes they fought and sometimes they withdrew but either way they were pushed back very rapidly.
    Same tactics really didn't work in Kosovo because the KLA were not much of an armed force in comparison.
    In the end it was Russian words that ended the conflict, and even then NATO tried to screw the Russians.
    Thank goodness for that British commander Michael Jackson who refused a direct order from his American superior to take Pristina by force (from Russian paratroopers).

    The Serbs gave in because they couldn't win.

    Agree and that was only clear to them after Russia basically said there was nothing they could do to help.

    Dassault has released the information that Rafale has 10 times less the RCS than a Mirage-2000. Given M2000s frontal aspect, it is easy to decipher.

    As I keep saying, the figure released is either an average or a peak low angle, neither the M2k nor the Rafale are perfect steel spheres.

    BTW you can when MBDA gives the figure for the configuration.

    And marketing companies selling products wouldn't lie...

    Keep up with the news...

    OK correction, they don't have any operational Super Hornets.

    I know what Russia can and can't do. I served in the military for several years in many war torn areas. I am a realist with the knowledge. Learn from it.

    I appreciate the information you are able to provide and the context within which you provide it.
    I look forward to learning from your experience, but with respect you are a guy on the internet.
    I have been aware of lots of problems within the Russian armed forces, but what I see are positive moves to deal with these problems and to be honest a more pragmatic ideology when it comes to defence.
    In the west if you make it new and revolutionary you can charge more.
    The west was even better at proganda than the Soviets were.
    The difference is that the citizens under Soviet rule knew it was propaganda.
    Most in the west still believe the cold war was about communism as they sit in front of their big screen TVs made in communist China.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:42 pm

    1) RCS figures are always stated from the frontal aspect since head-on is how most battles start. That is also where most design LO features are incorporated.

    2)You can list all the mitigating factors you want, an SH armed with AIM-120D has the advantage in any BVR scenario. Top-down radar scanning can achieve detection of sea-skimming flight, an MK showing its ass is even bigger than head on, 120D has home-on-jam so ECM resistance will be futile. Only question is will the MK see the launch before he loses time to escape.

    3) The antennas on the Su-35BM are not intended to detect com data-links. They aren't even made for the 35, they are for PAK FA and they aren't going to pick up data-links. Unless it has a triangulation like Kolchuga, the data would be useless.

    The R-77 uses mid-course guidance with a data-link from the aircraft. When you launch you want to make a hard turn to put distance between you and their incoming missile. The main phased array only has a 120 degree pan which makes hard turns impossible to keep missile tone. The L-band AESAs will give PAK FA a 200+ degree pan and the ability to make hard turns and still keep missile lock. That is the main purpose along with increasing total sensor coverage. The same concept is being applied to Selex swash-plate AESAs except they won't need wingtip sensors as the array actually moves.

    4) I will say never because the use of it will mean our end. Don't confuse white paper policy with real intentions. It is only meant to scare our satellite states.

    5) Not only C4ISR, but the weapon platforms themselves. Chief of Defence just had a rountable saying how outdated our weapons are and that all Soviet based research will end. T-95 gone, BMPT gone, BMD-4 gone, Sprut SD gone, Coalition SV gone.

    6) Most of it was in there in 1995, most of it was in there in 1989 too. It is not perfectly acceptable, it is a national tragedy.

    7) Tochka U has a CEP of 30m, it is not exactly a precision weapon. It is a hack job that gets the mission done with shear brute force. The effects of its destruction were felt several hundred metres away from its intended targets. It leveled a couple apartment buildings.

    Most of the bombing was done by the Su-25 and were dumb rounds. Tactical Missile Corp received an order worth 6 billion rubles. Thats €152 million divided among 14 different missile classes, that isn't enough to equip one regiment of Su-34s.

    I don't expect any Russian to describe those who serve as being pathetic.

    Hold it right there pal. I never stated Russian servicemen are pathetic. I stated the equipment the VVS uses is obsolete and that is pathetic. I suggest you repeat what I say correctly or your stay at RMF will be brief.


    The Georgian armed forces don't seem to share your appraisal, and neither do I.

    The Georgian journals seem to think so. They have never stopped criticising our equipment and C&C during the August War, their problem was most of theirs was even worse.

    Putting things in context and expecting change is not sugar coating.

    Miss characterising my words to say I called my fellow servicemen pathetic is not putting things into context. You have a warped sense of the technical capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces. You think Soviet autopilots hooked up to ground based datalinks, that LO doesn't matter, and that an L-band radar can track targets via Link 16. Stick around and learn something if you care to know the truth. This forum will not be a propaganda mouthpiece. It is dedicated to getting at the heart of the Armed Forces Reform.


    The Su-24 is a low level all weather interdiction strike aircraft, you can't really compare it with a strategic bomber, and if you did let me ask if the B-29 was so gosh darn accurate why was it necessary to simply load them up with lots of HE to blow the roofs off buildings in Germany and Japan and then use incendiaries to fire bomb civilians?
    Comparing that to Russian AF operations in Georgia is certainly beneath me.

    Most B-29s over Germany and Japan didn't have the analog computers. B-29s in Korea did and they were able to take out bridges in one run. Su-24s in Georgia were making low-level bombing runs against factories and airports. Putting a 1000kg bomb into one from a thousand metres isn't hard. Note that those Su-24s didn't even have the new targeting computer.

    There is a difference between sugar coating rosy sunglasses and being Pavel Felgenhauer.

    The President, the Prime Minister, the Chief of Defence, and the Minister of Defence have all said the way we fight wars is backwards and that our equipment is obsolete. They aren't sugarcoating it and neither will I.


    Rather the exception to the rule however because of the testing with East German Mig-29s showed them how potent they were WVR which forced a change of tactics.

    If Russian fighters are potent WVR, the chances of a BVR engagement increase. Thanks for making my point.

    Equally kills don't show how likely they were to use BVRAAM. Knowing the rather low PK rate of the SPARROW I would expect in every case they probably tried to use BVR weapons to take advantage of the force multipliers like AWACS giving them situational awareness to compensate for the better WVR capability of only a number of enemy aircraft. Despite obviously wanting to use all BVRAAMs it seems they still chose to use WVR weapons too.
    Seems to be saying the opposite of what you are trying to get across.

    We aren't talking about the Sparrow of Vietnam, we are talking about the AIM-7M/P which was far more accurate. The fact is, the BVR weapon was used 250% more than the WVR. Most of the WVR kills came from the Saudi air force anyway. The only kill by an Iraqi fighter was a BVR as well. All of the kills over Southern Watch were AMRAAM. Vast majority of the kills over Serbia were AMRAAM. With the accuracy of modern BVRAAM, the WVR weapon is far less likely by a factor of 250%.

    Yeah, lots of aircraft have been shot down despite having IFF transponders.
    From Iranian airbuses because of a design fault on Aegis class cruisers, to Blackhawk helos that move into different areas and forget to change their squawk code and get shot down by F-15s that blast by at high speed from 5km range and misidentify them as Hinds.
    ...and that was without anyone interfering.

    Yeah, you can take the massive operational tempo of US forces of the Gulf 20 years ago in the hottest conflict zone since the Second World War and see their fratricide was less than any other conflict, or look at 2003 and see it decrease by several exponents from 1991. The USAF doesn't sit in a vacuum like we do, they actually incorporate new technologies the second it hits the shelf. Our fratricide in Georgia was horrendous for being such a small conflict. Needless to say, USAF is far more confident in taking a BVRAAM shot today than they were years ago and it only increases with the betterment of their IFF.

    I have been led to believe that the early use of 9 g fighters was to outfly the seekers in AAMs by moving faster than their angular speed can track. With modern seekers however the tracking speed is beyond anything a manned aircraft can perform so the focus has shifted.
    Don't know how true it is.

    There is some truth to that, but the main reason their fighters are less maneuverable was the requirement for extended fuel capacity and greater payload which made the fighters far more bulky.

    As I keep saying, the figure released is either an average or a peak low angle, neither the M2k nor the Rafale are perfect steel spheres.

    The figure is frontal aspect, the one that matters most, as I keep saying.

    And marketing companies selling products wouldn't lie...

    They are subject to lawsuits and fines if they do. BAE was fined half a billion dollars last month for that very thing.

    I appreciate the information you are able to provide and the context within which you provide it.
    I look forward to learning from your experience, but with respect you are a guy on the internet.

    I am a guy with 4 years in the VDV, and 6 years in the Military Industrial Complex, also worked with NATO in the Slovak procurement office. If you want to question my assertions, that is fine. But I am not just some guy on the internet. I am THE guy on the internet willing to share my knowledge. So much in fact I was sanctioned for this website by MVD. Be glad in the fact you can come here and get answers, as the RF government would not let it be if they had their way.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16281
    Points : 16912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:48 am

    1) RCS figures are always stated from the frontal aspect since head-on is how most battles start. That is also where most design LO features are incorporated.

    And is an average figure too.
    They are an indication, but I would rather think that accurate figures will be secret.

    2)You can list all the mitigating factors you want, an SH armed with AIM-120D has the advantage in any BVR scenario.

    And a rifle gives an advantage in combat over a knife yet a trained soldier with a knife will use tactics to defeat an untrained person with a rifle.

    Top-down radar scanning can achieve detection of sea-skimming flight, an MK showing its ass is even bigger than head on, 120D has home-on-jam so ECM resistance will be futile.

    The R-77 also has HOJ so all the Flanker has to do is get to launch position and launch before the AIM120 hits and they are both dead... except that BVR missiles are still called missiles... they are not hittiles yet.

    Only question is will the MK see the launch before he loses time to escape.

    An MKI has quite a sophisticated RHAW and ECM setup and would probably have a good chance of survival.
    I don't know what the MK has but it would certainly be better than nothing.

    3) The antennas on the Su-35BM are not intended to detect com data-links. They aren't even made for the 35, they are for PAK FA and they aren't going to pick up data-links. Unless it has a triangulation like Kolchuga, the data would be useless.

    L band antenna that can't detect L band emissions from datalinks?
    What do you think L band AESA antenna would be for?
    They are in the wings because they need to be large due to the frequency they operate in.
    The advertisement I saw states it is designed for the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 family of aircraft.
    You can see that advert at the top of the page here:


    http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/the-l-band-game-changer/#comment-4352

    The R-77 uses mid-course guidance with a data-link from the aircraft. When you launch you want to make a hard turn to put distance between you and their incoming missile. The main phased array only has a 120 degree pan which makes hard turns impossible to keep missile tone.

    Doesn't the R-77 use inertial guidance with updates from the launch aircraft as needed with terminal active radar homing.

    Before launch the aircraft finds a target determines the range and plots to expected position of the aircraft when the missile arrives. It passes that information to the R-77 which then flys to a point in space where it can see the area the target is expected to be when the missile arrives.
    If everything goes well and the target continues at the same speed, altitude and direction then when the missile gets to its interception point it activates its own radar finds the target and then flys at that target to impact.
    If the target turns or changes speed so that when the missile arrives at the intercept point and the target it too far away then the missile will not get the target.
    To prevent that the launch aircraft can periodically look at the target to ensure it hasn't changed direction, height or speed, but if it has the aircraft recalculates the new interception point and transmits this new data to the missile that manouvers to the new interception point.
    Long range shots are unreliable when the launched missile has to constantly manouver to new interception points because the missile can run out of fuel.
    The PAK-FA doesn't need to keep its radar on target constantly, just like an F-16 doesn't.
    The whole point of active radar homing is so that the target isn't warned of the attack by constantly being tracked with a radar beam.

    You might find this interesting to read:

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-06.html

    5) Not only C4ISR, but the weapon platforms themselves. Chief of Defence just had a rountable saying how outdated our weapons are and that all Soviet based research will end. T-95 gone, BMPT gone, BMD-4 gone, Sprut SD gone, Coalition SV gone.

    SPRUT is in service isn't it?
    And you can't justify the expense if T-95 but eventually you will need to replace the T-90 and that replacement would likely be called T-95 even if it doesn't look much like what it does today.
    I remember the Su-27M, called Su-35 being cancelled too.
    Yet Medvedev has signed contracts to produce Su-35S aircraft for the RussianAF.

    What I am trying to say is that cancelling in this sense is OK, because eventually new stuff will need to be developed and with newer technology and the skills of Russian engineers it will only be better when it does appear.

    6) Most of it was in there in 1995, most of it was in there in 1989 too. It is not perfectly acceptable, it is a national tragedy.

    If you mean the new stuff that is in prototype or even developed form but not in service, well that is just going to take time.
    The design bureaus could still plan new designs and make plans with minimal funding.
    They could work on testing prototypes etc.
    For the Military Industrial Complex however, the production side also didn't have money for production except for some exports. You would know better than I that high quality tools plus skilled workforces is what Russia needs but no money and no production is not how you refit factories with new tools or train skilled personnel.
    Russia went through a period where lots of her parts makers suddenly were in foreign countries and even for the ones in Russia there was no work or money and workers started driving taxis to feed their families.
    Now money is being pumped into the system, the fact that they are now freezing some programs is good, that money should be used carefully in the right places, but things don't go from broken to fixed in days or months, it will be years and decades, but progress is being made and opportunities will be created.
    Don't ignore what is wrong and what is bad, but don't focus on it except to resolve it.

    7) Tochka U has a CEP of 30m, it is not exactly a precision weapon. It is a hack job that gets the mission done with shear brute force. The effects of its destruction were felt several hundred metres away from its intended targets. It leveled a couple apartment buildings.

    They weren't after Osama, a SAM missile site covers a significant area so a 480kg cluster munition warhead with a CEP of 30m is the right tool for the job.
    Equally Armoured vehicles parked in a town square is another ideal target for such a weapon... in fact it is easy to think of plenty of targets you could use a missile that comes in so fast there is no warning till it is too late.

    Most of the bombing was done by the Su-25 and were dumb rounds. Tactical Missile Corp received an order worth 6 billion rubles. Thats €152 million divided among 14 different missile classes, that isn't enough to equip one regiment of Su-34s.

    So they are going from almost no precision air delivered non strategic weapons to having some. Sounds like progress to me.
    BTW considering the rate they have been making such weapons in the past I rather doubt they could even manage a really large order to equip the entire force.

    Hold it right there pal. I never stated Russian servicemen are pathetic. I stated the equipment the VVS uses is obsolete and that is pathetic. I suggest you repeat what I say correctly or your stay at RMF will be brief.

    You said:You expected a Russian paratrooper to praise and sugercoat our pathetic military state?

    What is a military force?
    Bits of equipment, camouflaged uniforms? or the people that serve?

    And I repeat, context!

    No money and no new toys for 15 years... while the US alone spends half a billion a year.


    The Georgian journals seem to think so.

    Those Georgian journals are written by the Georgian government... the same government that said it was Russia that started it.
    I am talking about the Georgian soldiers who showed with their feet how pathetic Russian military forces are.

    You think Soviet autopilots hooked up to ground based datalinks, that LO doesn't matter, and that an L-band radar can track targets via Link 16.

    Not all pilots. I was my understanding that the PVO had a more sophisticated set up.

    I did not say L band radar can track targets via link 16. What I said was it can detect and get directional information based on Link 16 emissions.
    The L band radars in question are for Su-35s and Flanker series aircraft to locate NATO aircraft passively and to also seek flying objects that might be LO and Stealthy in X band frequencies but not so stealthy in longer L bands.
    It is a radar, it can emit itself and doesn't need to triangulate anything.
    Detecting an L band signal from a target in front of the aircraft it can electronically scan the forward hemisphere and check the received signals for doppler shifts to find moving objects. A scan with the nose mounted main radar will give an X band scan for comparison. A target that emits L band signals and appears on L band scans but not on X band scans can be assumed to be a stealth aircraft.

    Stick around and learn something if you care to know the truth.

    Always interested in learning something new. Very Happy

    Most B-29s over Germany and Japan didn't have the analog computers. B-29s in Korea did and they were able to take out bridges in one run. Su-24s in Georgia were making low-level bombing runs against factories and airports. Putting a 1000kg bomb into one from a thousand metres isn't hard. Note that those Su-24s didn't even have the new targeting computer.

    So your problem is that the new bombing computer is not good enough in your opinion, that hasn't even been used yet in conflict.
    I would suggest that until your C4I improves and your battlefield intel gathering improves it wont matter what computers your Su-24s have.
    To complain that Russian fighter aircraft don't have the accuracy of western fighter aircraft is to ignore that accuracy means nothing if you don't know where the targets are in the first place.
    Now that Glasnoss is becoming operational satellite guided bombs are much cheaper than guidance computers on aircraft and are not that much more expensive than dumb unguided ordinance.
    Once recon and intel capabilities of the Russian AF is up to spec it makes rather more sense to spend money on cheap guided all weather day night capable ordinance (as opposed to expensive guided day night all weather ordinance like IIR seeker weapons, or even laser guided which are not all weather weapons).

    The President, the Prime Minister, the Chief of Defence, and the Minister of Defence have all said the way we fight wars is backwards and that our equipment is obsolete.

    There is plenty of room for improvement. Obsolete compared to what?
    State of the art is easy in small armed forces, but for big forces you need a lot of stuff, and another large lot of stuff to use in an on going war, and of course extra stuff for reserves. The problem is that everything was neglected through lack of money, but you can't just make all the problems go away with money... unless we are talking about trillions of US dollars and we are not, because you don't want to go down that road.
    They say every army trains to fight the last war they fought. The reality is that there is no army on the planet properly trained for every type of conflict.
    Russia has a period of peace where it can sort things out.
    What annoys me is this talk of obsolete. The Afghans seem to be doing OK with obsolete weapons, the Viet Cong also did OK. Sure they had high loses, but they were fighting superpowers.

    It is like this talk about Australian Super Hornets... they now have uber LO fighters with super BVR capability and long range stealthy weapons that cost them a fortune... they will be nice at airshows.
    The thing is that 20 million Australians probably don't want their airforce bombing the 100 million Indonesians to their north.

    If Russian fighters are potent WVR, the chances of a BVR engagement increase. Thanks for making my point.

    In a sense that is what has driven the west to BVR, however as the figures show WVR combat still happened despite the west controlling the airspace and having situational awareness while denying the enemy the same.
    This is not a choice that suits them because BVR Missiles are more expensive and leads to more mistakes and failures. A target 50km away heading to your left at 800km/h assuming an average speed of mach 2 over that distance for the missile launched the missile will be guided to a point 16km in front of where the aircraft actually is. If at the moment of launch the target turns 180 degrees the intercept point shifts 32kms to the right. Climbing or descending can shift the intercept point as well so a target that manouvers a lot will be an almost impossible to hit target at long range.

    All of the kills over Southern Watch were AMRAAM. Vast majority of the kills over Serbia were AMRAAM.

    Well Duh, American and NATO superiority doesn't come from giving the other guy a chance. They knew from testing that the R-73s carried by the Mig-29s were deadly and the head mounted sights made them even more dangerous in the WVR arena.
    The point is that these NATO tactics of BVR engagements have never been used against an opponent that had comparable BVR weapons like R-27ER and R-27ET let alone R-77.

    It is like claiming all Soviet tanks were rubbish because the way the Iraqis handled their forces in the Gulf War.

    With the accuracy of modern BVRAAM, the WVR weapon is far less likely by a factor of 250%.

    And when the enemy is stealthy or LO and you can't get a lock at BVR?

    One use of AESA is to direct intense radar beams at small radar antennas to physically destroy them. Small radar antennas like the antennas in BVR missiles.

    The figure is frontal aspect, the one that matters most, as I keep saying.

    So you agree that from a design sense that is where the best figures would be and that operationally it would be impossible to present your front aspect all the time... unless the enemy only has one radar.
    From any other angle the figure will be worse. Manouvering will also make it worse through the use of conventional control surfaces.

    They are subject to lawsuits and fines if they do. BAE was fined half a billion dollars last month for that very thing

    There is a game call bullsh!t. You get 5 cards and then you bid for the pot. Each person makes steadily bigger bids till someone calls them a liar. If they call someone a liar and they are not lying they forfeit their money in the pot. You can't fold, if you choose not to bid then you add to the pot.

    Another name for the game is Marketing.

    BTW the fact that BAE was fined suggests I am right and they do lie, or is it only BAE?

    I am a guy with 4 years in the VDV, and 6 years in the Military Industrial Complex, also worked with NATO in the Slovak procurement office. If you want to question my assertions, that is fine. But I am not just some guy on the internet. I am THE guy on the internet willing to share my knowledge. So much in fact I was sanctioned for this website by MVD. Be glad in the fact you can come here and get answers, as the RF government would not let it be if they had their way.

    We seem to be getting off on the wrong foot.

    I respect your knowledge and your opinions, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them, which you accept when you state I can question you assertions.
    My comment that you are just a guy on the internet was not meant to be offensive. I myself just happen to be a guy on the internet too.
    I will also concede that you are not just another guy on this site as you wield the ban stick.
    You have stated some things about yourself and I have no reason to not believe you. I look forward to learning about your experiences and your thoughts on things and appreciate your willingness not only to share but to make the effort to share in English so I can appreciate it.


    But lets be clear.
    I like Russian and Soviet military stuff.
    I couldn't care less if an AKM is obsolete and an M4 is much better because it is more accurate and lighter.
    I also recognise that the Russian Armed forces has been neglected, but I think history has taught us that they are never pathetic whether their gear is ancient or brand new.
    Reform to improve performance is obviously welcome, but change just to be like the US or NATO forces is a step back in my opinion.

    The west would like Russia to become like the west, but the world doesn't need a bigger west, most of it prefers an alternative to the west, which I think Russia can be if it makes good choices.

    The standard of choices seem to have improved after Yeltsin.

    So no hard feelings? respekt

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:42 pm

    lulldapull wrote:It is a tacit acknowledgment now from the so called 'West' that the F-18E/F as well as the JSF/ F-35 are inferior to the Su-30M series.

    This is a fantastic article which clearly shows why the Su-30M is superior to both the Super Hornet and the JSF.

    No wonder the JSF is now delayed and thrown back on the drawing board. Laughing

    http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Sept03.pdf#search=%22RAAF%20alternatives%22

    I`ve reading this stuff for a long time. Something like F35/SuperHornet can not defeat Su30`s/su35, F35 would get slaughtered by modern air defence systmes, F22 is the best, F22 is the only aircraft which can defeat the PAK FA and the Su35 etc...
    The whole site is full of anti-F35/Superhornet, pro F22 articles like this one you posted here
    Even though biased it makes some great analysis and I often use it as reference
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:03 am

    GarryB wrote:

    And is an average figure too.
    They are an indication, but I would rather think that accurate figures will be secret.

    Its good enough to know what they are not capable of doing, and an Su-30MKI is not going to sneak off anyone's radar. A Rafale will...


    And a rifle gives an advantage in combat over a knife yet a trained soldier with a knife will use tactics to defeat an untrained person with a rifle.

    A rifleman will pick your knife wielding ass off at a hundred metres. The same as a Meteor launched from a Rafale at a 100 kilometres. Different situations, same result, you're dead. Same as a 120D too.


    The R-77 also has HOJ so all the Flanker has to do is get to launch position and launch before the AIM120 hits and they are both dead... except that BVR missiles are still called missiles... they are not hittiles yet.

    I don't know what makes you think RVV-AE has home on jam, but it doesn't. The Flanker will never get to launch position unless the 120D misses.


    An MKI has quite a sophisticated RHAW and ECM setup and would probably have a good chance of survival.
    I don't know what the MK has but it would certainly be better than nothing.

    MKI has a decent setup, but its signature is too large even for an Elta pod to mask effectively. An APG-79 or even RBE2-AA would be able to cut through their jamming rather easily. Do you know how hard it is to jam a 1000T/R module AESA? Pretty damned hard.

    L band antenna that can't detect L band emissions from datalinks?
    What do you think L band AESA antenna would be for?
    They are in the wings because they need to be large due to the frequency they operate in.
    The advertisement I saw states it is designed for the Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 family of aircraft.
    You can see that advert at the top of the page here:

    It is a radar, its purpose is to detect radar waves, not VHF/UHF data transmissions. Do you know how subtle those signals are? The antenna is not that sensitive.

    Sorry, don't see what that blog comment has to so with picking up Link 16.

    Doesn't the R-77 use inertial guidance with updates from the launch aircraft as needed with terminal active radar homing.

    Yes, if it turns away it won't be able to receive updates meaning the target will likely get out of the active homing sphere. That would defeat the purpose of giving it data links.

    If you mean the new stuff that is in prototype or even developed form but not in service, well that is just going to take time.
    The design bureaus could still plan new designs and make plans with minimal funding.
    They could work on testing prototypes etc.
    For the Military Industrial Complex however, the production side also didn't have money for production except for some exports. You would know better than I that high quality tools plus skilled workforces is what Russia needs but no money and no production is not how you refit factories with new tools or train skilled personnel.
    Russia went through a period where lots of her parts makers suddenly were in foreign countries and even for the ones in Russia there was no work or money and workers started driving taxis to feed their families.
    Now money is being pumped into the system, the fact that they are now freezing some programs is good, that money should be used carefully in the right places, but things don't go from broken to fixed in days or months, it will be years and decades, but progress is being made and opportunities will be created.
    Don't ignore what is wrong and what is bad, but don't focus on it except to resolve it.

    I have already mentioned how all of our wealth was hoarded since 2000 into the SWF. That money should have been spent on rearmament. The question is, why wasn't it. There are several companies that have survived the drought rather well, Sukhoi, Irkut, Saturn, and Almaz just to name a few. They didn't survive on the state order, they did it through exports. Using these successful companies as examples, we still see that they did not do anything except modernise old Soviet equipment. They had the financial resources to retool themselves, raise wages to attract younger engineers, and develop new equipment. They didn't do it except buying second hand Chinese machines that were obsolete ten years after they bought it. It wasn't money that held them back, it was all the detriments of their own myopic greed.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:49 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    I have already mentioned how all of our wealth was hoarded since 2000 into the SWF. That money should have been spent on rearmament. The question is, why wasn't it. There are several companies that have survived the drought rather well, Sukhoi, Irkut, Saturn, and Almaz just to name a few. They didn't survive on the state order, they did it through exports. Using these successful companies as examples, we still see that they did not do anything except modernise old Soviet equipment. They had the financial resources to retool themselves, raise wages to attract younger engineers, and develop new equipment. They didn't do it except buying second hand Chinese machines that were obsolete ten years after they bought it. It wasn't money that held them back, it was all the detriments of their own myopic greed.

    And yet, Almaz is the 12th richest defense company in the world (and it isn't a major defense company like Lockheed and such, as they are only really designers of one type), and with South Korea (whom has access to all countries technologies) wants the S-400 (more or less, a home built one). For being old soviet junk, they seem to have a lot of leeway and seem to have most people in a scare.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 12:54 pm

    sepheronx wrote:]

    And yet, Almaz is the 12th richest defense company in the world (and it isn't a major defense company like Lockheed and such, as they are only really designers of one type), and with South Korea (whom has access to all countries technologies) wants the S-400 (more or less, a home built one). For being old soviet junk, they seem to have a lot of leeway and seem to have most people in a scare.

    S-400 would be nice if it was complete. Without the long range missiles it is nothing but an S-300PMU2 with its new radar. Although it does have a better OS... Shocked

    Stalingradcommando

    Posts : 33
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2010-04-14

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Stalingradcommando on Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:36 pm

    There is an intresting video when an high ranking USAF officer reports the results of RED Flag, when Indian Su30`s went against F15`s.

    When talking about the F15/F16/F22 and Su30 he says:

    How did they Fly? There is a lot of stuff on the subject in the newspapers and magazines about this airplane. There's a great video on youtube, where somebody shows the F-22 flying its demo, and the Su-30MK, side by side, and he does the exact same demonstration, as the F-22. And an airshow, then can do the same demonstration. The reality is, that's about as close as the airplanes ever get. When you compare it with US airplanes; where does it stand up against the F-16 and F-15, it's a tad bit better than we are. And that's pretty impressive, it has better radar, more thrust, vectored thrust, longer ranged weapons, so it's pretty impressive. The Sukhoi is a tad bit better . But now compare with the F-22 Raptor, the raptor is here. (holds palm way above his head - signifying that the aircraft is much better) OK, next.

    And here`s what Mikhail Simonov (creator of the Flanker) said about the Su30 during an interview:

    The Su-30MKI is considered an unbeatable fighting machine. This has been borne out in air battles with potential adversaries. The first time it was done was in the early Nineties, when Su-27 pilots were invited to take part in military training with the F-15.
    The rules of the “battle” required the Russian planes to get on the tail of the American jets, then the opponents changed places. In a real battle, this would allow directing a missile and hitting the target. In both scenarios, Sus were victorious. According to someone who took part in those exercises, chief of the Lipetsk Air Force Training centre Major General Aleksandr Harchevsky, due to its high manoeuvrability and thrust-to-weight ratio, the Su-27 gained speed on the upward trajectory faster than F-15.
    The F-15 constantly needed to make a kind of a “step” – fly along a straight line for a certain period of time. The Russian pilots took advantage of that – they persuaded the Americans to go upward, at which point they lost speed, and the Sus, having made a sharp turn, found themselves on the tail of the enemy. A moment later and the target was “destroyed”.
    Thus, when the Americans learnt that India had acquired the more advanced Su-30s, they decided to pay them a visit. In their exercises they decided to use the improved F-15. The result of the meeting was 6:4 in favour of the Su-30. However, instead of the Su-30MKI, the Indians used the ordinary training Su-30, a machine without the new radar or thrust vector control. The next time Americans arrived in India, they brought the improved F-16.
    “This fighter jet is smaller and lighter than our Su-30,” says Simonov. “Thus, logically, it ought to be more manoeuvrable and win in close combat. But everything was exactly the opposite. Su-30MKIs were used. The defeat was unquestionable.”



    To be brief. Su30 owns F15/F16 and F22 owns Su30, but taking in consideration that there are no F22 in Asia, yes the Su30 comes out on top

    Links:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/6453948/Russia-Now-Interview-with-Mikhail-Simonov-the-inventor-of-the-Sukhoi-jet-fighters.html
    http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:00 pm

    That USAF colonel was pretty harsh on the MKI. It almost caused an international incident when Indian NDTV picked up the story. Besides his criticism, the IAF said their planes were shot down every time they were targetted by a SAM. That Elta jammer they were carrying wasn't good enough to mask the massive RCS they have. On the other hand, the Rafale escaped every time.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Su-30MK family vs USAF Fighters

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:37 pm