Posted on 10/28/2009 9:18:49 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
'Father of Su-27' Simonov: F-15 hater
Mikhail Petrovich Simonov, designer of the iconic Su-27 Flanker, realized after the 1977 first flight that the T-10 prototype was a dog, a fact he explained to the aviation minister in Moscow.
"'It's a good thing, Petrovich, that today is not 1937," the minister replied.
That is one of the incredible anecdotes sprinkled throughout a Simonov feature published today in the London Telegraph. The article is a must read for anyone even slightly curious about aviation history. For example, we learn the lead designer's delightfully Russian reaction to Simonov's proposed solution to the T-10's problem, which involved moving a belly storage compartment onto the top of the fuselage.
"'Why don't you, Mikhail Petrovich, go to your wife," the designer shouted, "and ask her to move her breasts onto her back?! We'll see how useful she will be then!'"
But the best -- and most newsy -- part of the feature is about Simonov's views about the F-15's performance compared to the Su-27. Simonov is obviously biased, but he makes some interesting points. Simonov described what he believes happened when Russian Su-27s and American F-15s 'fought' during a 1990s exercise.
"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"."
Simonov also revealed what he thinks about the Indian's Su-30MKI's recent run-ins with American fighters.
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."
F-15s record speaks for itself.
The records for the Su-27 and Su-30MKIs are...where?
Exactly. Does anyone think in we would use anymore than 25% of the F-15’s capability in such an exercise? Good grief.
A single F-22 could blow a dozen of them out of the sky. Too bad our current president thinks that international cocktail parties depend on having a weak air force.
Ping.
What makes you think we did not go all out?
Or rather why is it that people always think that only the US military plays the fool!!!
The guy is happy about a plane designed in the 90s (SU-30) beating the F-15, a plane designed in the late 60s??? I am glad we could give the old communist a moment of happiness.
Few things to remember here:
1. The Su-30MKI is pretty comparable to the F-15C.
2. The Indian Airforce is pretty darned good.
3. The USAF has been closing down their Aggressor program, so you can expect that maybe dogfighting skills are on the decline. Maybe.
4. The first visit with the IAF was a bit unrealistic from the USAF perspective. No BVR engagments; no AWACs support. It was all “up close & personal” so to speak. Maybe you can envision getting into such a extreme situation, but I rather doubt the USAF trains to it.
5. Maybe the US Fighter Squadron was tanking a bit — but there’s pride involved, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in that.
The SU-30 is a heavier, multi-role variant of the SU-27, which was designed about the same time as the F-15.
The combat air rules of the exercise limited the joint strike capabilities the Americans were best trained for. No Awacs or advanced ground radar vectoring. Certain joint targeting capabilites of the f-15 were also not allowed under the rules of engagement.
The exercise was more of a mano on mano dogfight. A good training exercise for the Americans, but hardly playing to their strengths. Modern air combat is no longer a simple dogfight. The battle is technology heavy and not all of the technology is contained in the fighter aircraft.
BTTT
Now, if you meant the record in Iraq, against foes who had no true BVR capability, flying monkey model planes, were not jamming, and had no situational awareness (eg AWACS), then I am not truly impressed. Replicate that against a foe that is trying (eg China) and Ill do cartwheels. There is a reason the F22 is needed, but sadly the great success of the Eagle against past threats, and the type of foe we have faced, has made some see the Raptor as an unnecessary cold war weapon (to the extent some in FR have said more A 10s should be ordered instead, not realizing without sanitized airspace a Warthog is a decomposing turkey). Sure, the Eagle is a great plane with a great record ...but the opponent did not have teeth, and the conclusion was a given.
Put modern Su 35s now coming out for the Russian airforce against early 80s variant F 16As flown by (say Pakistan), with the Russians having their Awacs, bvr capability etc, and assume the Pakistanis don't have awacs, no BVR shots, and poor training (in reality the Pakistanis have good training, but for this exercise assume the same level of training the Iraqis had). The result would be the same ...a flawless record for the Su.
Call me when the Eagle replicates its record against a foe that is not the aerial equivalent of a baby seal. In other words, giving a 12th grader 5th grade exam questions gives a different marker of ability than if 12th grade questions were provided, particularly when the final exam will be at 12th grade level
BUMP for later read
And a single F-22 is about all we’ll have in the fight.
The pentagon is listening to that single platform siren song and putting all our eggs in the F35 basket.
To extend your analogy to the breaking point, I’m not smarter than a fifth grader. Which leads me to ask this question. Why wouldn’t a force, knowing the importance of the enemy’s tracking systems (AWACS, etc), and knowing how vulnerable they are, target them first, and then mop up their fighters? Again, I know nothing of this, just asking the question to learn something.
That article contains a lot of inaccuracies-
1. The IAF’s Mirage-2000s do not carry nor are equipped to fire the MICA missile. Nor did the IAF show off it’s AA-12s.
2. The numerical scenario of 1:4 has to be put in context because majority of aggressive force composed attack jets like the Jaguar,Mig-27 and Mirage-2000.
Umm, India and France are still arguing over a contract to upgrade the Mirage-2000s. One of the key features of this upgrade is the purchase of the MICA missile-the Indian Mirages can only fire SARH weapons now.
About the AA-12, there have been plenty of sources which have detailed Russian insistence on India to avoid showing the SU-30s radar, electronics and weapons capabilities in engagements as recently as Red Flag 2008.
And when did I don that role???
Yes it does, but that record is against the previous generation fighters the Su-27 evolved from and the F-15 was designed to fight.
Reality check: the F-15 was not designed to be superior forever, just against what it had to deal with at the time and what might immediately follow.
The Su-27 and its variants are designed to beat the F-15, which will soon be 40 years old. The Sukhois are not a MiG-21s and we should take them and those who fly them seriously.
Well, call me a simpleton...
I’ll put our equipment and training up against anyone, anytime and anyplace...
Most of these planes are very easy on the eyes, yet they all look the same piled up in a charred hole in the ground...
It’s who is still flying at the end of the day that counts...
And call me when the Su-27 and Su-30MKI actually down a peer opponent or remotely replicate the F-15s record, kkthx. =.=
Russia has developed very-long-range missiles geared towards specifically bringing down AWACs, and China has purchased a number of these air to air missiles. A recent (some months back) simulation by Rand that postulated a US vs China scenario, with Raptors facing off against waves of Chinese SU-30s, had the US side losing. How? Well, even though in the simulation the Raptors were made totally invincible, with missiles that had 100% probability of kills, the way the Chinese won in the simulation was by taking out the refueling planes via long range shots. While the Raptors did not take any losses, and took down a lot of Flankers, they eventually ran out of missiles and had to head home ...and with no refueling planes to top them up they ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea.
BTW, did you know the RCS of the F-15 is slightly larger than that of the B-52? (yes, you read that right)?
As for the thread ...I think what you said would be incorrect. No one is saying US pilots and equipment would be dog meat. Just saying that as the rest of the world catches up, it is necessary for the US to stay waaaaay ahead. No need for a fair fight. Currently, an advanced model SU-30, or the now coming into production SU-35, is a good match for Eagles. The US combat doctrine doesn't rely on fair matches, but rather a totally unfair sh!tstorm that simply breaks the enemy's back! That's the way to win wars. The Eagle has finally met an airframe that, no hype, is at the very least at par. Hence the need for the Raptor.
BTW, Pukin also believed in this. Before he left, he was the FOREMOST anti-JSF/F-35 FReeper on the forum. He saw that the Us needed something far more potent than the JSF, and that with advanced Flankers coming out (with AESA radars, and later with supercruising engines) the JSF could not cut it. Hence, the Raptor.
I am aware of the RCS of the F-15; likewise, I am also aware of the RCS of the Su-27, Su-30MKI, among some others.
I also recall some saying the same thing concerning Iraq’s IADS. Yes, I understand that China’s IADS is quite different and more sophisticated than Iraq’s. Simply making a notable observation.
I am glad you are aware of the F-15s RCS ...this is particularly good in FR when it is easy to see some FReeper mock the (discrete RCS of the) Rafale or the Eurofighter because it has a higher RCS than the F-22 Raptor, yet are totally unaware of the large signature of the F-15 that is greater than that of the B-52.
You recall correctly about the concerns regarding the Iraqi IADS (the KARI system)....there was certainly a lot of hype regarding it that was not borne out by actual results. However, I am also sure you are aware that the hype was misplaced since the KARI IADS was built by the French Thomson CSF, had the British AMSA management system, and was connected to Soviet sensors and missiles ...all tied to nodes that were easily targetable (e.g. the ADOC in downtown Baghdad), and the soviet style centralized Command and control just fell apart. Also, the IADS was very limited, primarily targeted to stop an attack from Israel (after the attack on the nuclear facility made Saddam realize the need for an IADS) and Iran (after the Iraq and Iran war). It was not supposed to engage more than 40 planes.
Thus, I am glad you are aware that the Chinese IADS, oriented towards far more sophisticated (from both a qualitative technological level, as well as quantitative foe numbers) opponents (primarily, the US, India and Russia) is quite different from the 40-odd plane defense KARI IADS that Iraq had (which, even though it was thoroughly overwhelmed, still manage to down a number of planes ...I wonder how a true and comprehensive IADS would have performed). The system then in Iraq is totally not even close to the system in Russia or China. Ranging from the way the system works, to the radars (range, type, function and speed), to the connectivity and redundancy, to interlocking and supporting systems, to even the missiles (e.g. the SA-2,3 and 6 are like toys compared to the S-300 and S-400).
Thus, I totally agree with your notable observation that the KARI IADS in Iraq is is NO WAY comparable to the type of IADS to be found in (say) China.
The F/A-18 was a second-best aircraft at its initial trials as the Northrop YF-17, back in the 60's when it lost out to the F-16, and frankly I don't think an F-18 could handle an F-16 today, either. It's been a second-best airplane with a Congressional constituency, is about what you can say about it, its entire career. And now, bloated and enhoggified as the F/A-18E/F "Unsuperhornet", it's the equivalent of a Checker Marathon: big, blundering, and suitable only as a ride for VIP's.
>>No BVR engagments; no AWACs support.
From the Indian POV, this may well match the Pakistani AF profile. Excluding Chinese involvement.
I love the smell of a good fighter plane thread in the morning.
Good point. It was kind of like a football scrimmage: designed to test certain things, but a far cry from the 'real thing.'
For the Americans more of an individual and squadron test of oldfashioned dogfighting skills without the AWACS advantage.
.......Countries that cannot afford to build fleets of the most advanced supersonic fighters can afford to build pods with clever software to mount on older airframes. This was brought home dramatically in Cope India 2004, a large aerial-combat training exercise that pitted F15 pilots from Elmendorf against India’s air force, which is made up of the MiG21 and MiG29, and the newer Mirage 2000 and Russian-built Su30. The exercises were conducted high over north-central India, near the city of Gwalior.
“We came rolling in, like, ‘Beep-beep, superpower coming through,’” Colonel Fornof told me. “And we had our eyes opened. We learned a lot. By the third week, we were facing a threat that we weren’t prepared to face, because we had underestimated them. They had figured out how to take Russian-built equipment and improve upon it.”
A small country can buy a MiG21 on the world weapons market for about $100,000, put in a better engine, add more-sophisticated radar and jamming systems, improve the cockpit design, and outfit it with “launch and leave” missiles comparable to the AMRAAM. These hybrid threats are more dangerous than any rival fighters America has seen in generations, and they cost much less than building a competitive fourth-generation fighter from scratch. The lower expense enables rival air forces to put more of them in the air, and because the F15 can carry only so many munitions, American pilots found themselves overwhelmed by both technology and sheer numbers during the exercises over India.
---Courtesy, The Atlantic, The Last Ace - Mark Bowden.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
Well said. The RSAF’s shoot down of Iranian F-4s and Iraqi Mirage F1s is probably the closest thing to a control environment involving the F-15 and in the first case, at least, they had American support. The F-15’s a remarkable machine, but it’s hardly the undisputed king of 4th generation fighters.
We ought to get serious about our national agenda and develop both designs and implement at least to the point of operational readiness the design we like less, as an "insurance policy" on unforeseen weaknesses developing in the lead candidate for any combat role -- "unknown unknowns" as someone said recently. British aviation was just about ruined by the crashes of the DeHavilland Comet in the mid-50's, and the Brits gave away the lead in commercial big-jet design and manufacturing to the U.S.
The Russians used to do that dual-design thing, too. They developed not only the T-54 MBT, but also the T-55. When they brought out the Kotlin DD/DDG for the Red Fleet in the mid-50's, they also built and commissioned at least one evaluation example of the competing DD design, the Neustrashimyy ("Dreadnaught"). They got a solid evaluation of both designs that validated the selection of the Kotlin type for mass production.
They did the same thing, I think, with various Sukhoi, Mikoyan-Gurevich, Tupolev, and Yakovlev interceptor designs down the years, even after differentiation of their combat roles. For example, the Tupolev "Fiddler" design was tasked against B-47's and B-52's and was designed to have long on-station endurance while lugging large and destructive AAM's. The Yakovlev Yak-25 "Flashlight" series and Yak-28 "Firebar", while smaller, were also similarly tasked as strategic interceptors, whereas the MiG-21 was intended (before its mission envelope was stretched) as a short-range tactical interceptor for FEBA interdiction missions, tasked against NATO air-to-mud assets (TAC).
Then, perhaps, the AF will get the number of F-22s it needs/wants and the Navy will get a 5th gen. air superiority fighter. Navalizing the F-23 would be a great place to start since so much work has already been done.
Lots of complications, of course ..... we'd probably want to engine them and supply avionics and weapons ourselves .... still I could see taking delivery of some basic R-27/AA-10's and then using adapter rails to mount AIM-54's/120's etc to their systems, something like that. God, I hope DoD didn't ditch all those AIM-54's.
Bookmark the Air Power Australia homepage on your browser for future reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.