US Air Force's F-22s & F-15s Just Battled One Of Their Most Feared Foes

Foxtrot Alpha ^ | 6/27/2014 | Tyler Rogoway

[sukhoi-30mki]

In what was one of the most outrageous Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) opportunities of the decade, and the first time the F-22 Raptor made a SE Asia international exercise appearance, Cope Taufan brought the US and Malaysian air arms closer together in a wonderfully aggressive manner.

Cope Taufan is a biennial exercise between Malaysia and the US, and it has grown over the past few evolutions to become one of the premier multinational air combat exercises in the hemisphere. For 2014, America's most capable air-to-air fighters were deployed to take part, and sending the Raptor to Malaysia fired a strong message to potential foes and potential allies throughout the region.

The sheer mix of dissimilar fighter aircraft presented by Malaysia's small but potent air force makes sending America's best fighters and crews halfway around the world, at least when it comes to the Massachusetts Air National Guard and their F-15Cs, well worth the investment. Malaysia has both of Russia's most feared fighter competitors currently in inventory, those being the MiG-29 and the Su-30. The MiG-29N is not the most advanced version of the type available, and it will probably only last in Malaysia's inventory another half decade or so, but it still represents the classic MiG-29 threat profile, which is a dangerous one.

This includes eye watering initial turning capability, high-off bore-sight A-11 Archer missile capability, and a capable infrared search and track system. For over two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union, US fighter pilots have been flying basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) against various MiG-29s and even with their many faults (poor rearward visibility, appalling range, a high cockpit workload, etc.) they remain deadly in the right hands.

Malaysia's 18 Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MKMs are a whole different story. They represent a highly capable foe with eye-watering maneuverability via their three dimensional thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles and their canard fore-planes.

Additionally they have incredible endurance and a mix of both high-end Russian and Western avionics, including a capable phased array radar and powerful electronic warfare suite. All this along with the best missiles Russia has to offer on the export market makes the Su-30MKM just about as potent of bandit as you can currently find anywhere in the world.

The F-22 in particular, which is also equipped with thrust vectoring although only in two dimensions (pitch only), may have much to learn from the Malaysia's Su-30s. In the past only limited engagements between the Raptor and the thrust vectoring Flankers have occurred. Maybe at Cope Taufan, Malaysia will allow their pilots to really open up the jet's full range of capabilities, including full use of its radar, and maybe the Raptor will be allowed to do the same, at least to some degree.

In so many ways, thrust vectoring introduces a whole new set of variables that modify the close aerial combat fundamentals that have been academically applied to traditional dogfights for decades. Ones where an aircraft's sustained turning capability and a pilot's energy management skills result in a more narrow range of potential outcomes when compared to fighting an aircraft that is equipped with thrust vectoring and a pilot that knows how to effectively employ it. These new variables are especially present when you are talking about a 1v1 fight where both aircraft can maneuver with confidence in the "post stall" flight regime via the use of thrust vectoring.

For more information on this fascinating and shadowy topic you can read this article and watch the little gem posted below that rocked the defense aerospace world a few years ago:

The Royal Malaysian Air Force also has western aircraft in its inventory, those being eight F/A-18D Night Attack configured Hornets, and a about a dozen BAe Hawk Mk.208 advanced trainers.

The Hornets, purchased alongside the MiG-29Ns in the early 1990s, are extremely capable precision strike aircraft and have seen many upgrades since their delivery. These upgrades make them roughly akin to the USMC's missionized F/A-18Ds assigned to all weather fighter-attack squadrons. They also wear a striking dark gray paint scheme which denoted their night-attack and deep interdiction mission.

The MiG-29 is often simulated here in the US by the F/A-18A/B/C/D, so having the Hornet in the mix alongside MiG-29s that they train with regularly may have been an interesting reality for American aircrews, even if just for comparative and tactics evaluation reasons.

Malaysia's Hawks are used to support their higher performance brethren, but also have rudimentary combat capabilities of their own. Furthermore, the Hawk still remains a potent subsonic dogfighter, and its small visual signature and high maneuverability can give even an advanced heavy fighter a run for its money. They also work great for flying as cost-effective high-speed targets for radar intercept training or to replicate cruise missiles. And we cannot forget that they are also fantastic advanced trainer aircraft in their own right.

This exercise may have also been a good opportunity for the USAF to test the Raptor-Eagle air dominance team, and the tactics that have been developed in relation to it, against a highly diverse and leading-edge foe. It is one thing developing and testing such tactics back in the states against aggressor squadrons that mimic the operations and aircraft of potential enemies, and a whole other thing testing those procedures against a totally unique air arm that possess the real adversary gear in question and intimately knows its advantages and disadvantages.

Although we don't exactly know the different rules of engagement or setups for each sortie during Cope Taufan (how many aircraft vs how many aircraft, what aircraft faced what aircraft, were they defense, offensive or neutral at the beginning of the engagement, what weapons and sensors could each side use etc), but what we do know is that this was a "large force employment" exercise. This means that beyond any strictly air-to-air sorties, there were larger, more complicated training objectives, where packages of dissimilar aircraft fought for or against a common goal. The whole idea is to learn from each other, and that does not mean just fighting each other in mock aerial combat, it means fighting with each other in mock aerial combat of of various forms.

Missions such as suppression and destruction of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, deep interdiction, close air support and others all took place during this exercise and advanced threat simulation assets were deployed for these exact purposes. Also, airlift was part of the exercise in which the C-17A's and C-130J's capabilities were featured, as well as special forces exercises on the ground. The special forces portion of the event were dubbed "Teak Mint" and "Balanced Mint."

In the end Cope Taufan set some precedents when it comes to the scope of a US backed exercise in that part of the world, as well as the advanced nature of the assets involved. The Raptor, after almost a decade of operational service, is now showing up around the globe in more international air combat events than ever before, and its presence in SE Asia is not a random assignment. It represents a clear message to China and other regional powers that America is building stronger ties than ever with countries that don't have a positive relationship with China and those who do, as is the case is with Malaysia.

Over the last century America has learned that sometimes the tightest connections between two nations exist militarily, not diplomatically. Even though America's much touted pivot towards the Pacific has been more of a shuffle, it is clear that the stakes are higher than they ever have been in the region and this means close military cooperation with a wide range of nations, all with varying allegiances to different parties in the region, will be a key feature of America's strategy going forward.

photos via Royal Malysian Air Force & USAF

Tyler Rogoway is a defense journalist and photographer that maintains the website Foxtrot Alpha for Jalopnik.com You can reach Tyler with story ideas or direct comments regarding this or any other defense topic via the email address Tyler@Jalopnik.com

[sukhoi-30mki]

[Gaffer]

The author describes in much detail about the differences and capabilities. Myself, I’d wager that the US planes and/or tactics came up short in the simulated combat and that the actual results are classified.

[Hulka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2siH9W5P4E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfXBoeV86Yo

You would wager wrongly.

While this lecture referenced IAF exercise, it is applicable regarding platform capabilities and piloting skills.

[ClearCase_guy]

Tinfoil hat time:

If the Caliphate asserts itself, expands and starts to become powerful, I think China might have an interest in stepping in to control the oil and reduce the power of Islam.

Our pivot to Asia may be to keep China off the backs of the Caliphate.

[CivilWarBrewing]

Did you watch the videos at link? AWESOME SOUNDS!!!!

Malaysia has a potent array of goodies, and I wouldn't want to go up against any of it. They should've deployed some it in full afterburner upon realizing their flight MH-370 was missing, though...

[Gaffer]

What seems to me most critical in head to head close in aerial combat is the 3-D thrust vectoring. Tail walking it was called in the 80s and 90s.

[minnesota_bound]

I liked one of the comments at the site. So true.

EdE91 Tyler Rogoway
High tech weaponry is fine for Malaysia, but their Air Defence radar system still cant pick up a 777 going rogue in their airspace

[Uncle Miltie]

My recollection of some smart air combat guy was him saying approximately,

“No fighter pilot is ever going to visually see another fighter jet. The better radar / missile combination will destroy the other guy while they are too far away to see.”

Is that right or not?

[tanknetter]

Depends on the Rules of Engagement set by the politicians.

The big reason why a gun was put onto then into the F-4 Phantom (followed by a long-distance TV camera) was because the Vietnam ROEs required a visual ID before taking the shot.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Why does Malaysia have this potent an air force in the first place?

[pfflier]

That was the assumption over Vietnam. Missiles and technology eliminate the need for an airplane that flys well. The F-15 resulted because of that false assumption.

Missile launching platforms are great for the interception role. Guns, visibility and manuverability are essential when too far inside the missile launch envelope.

[Phlyer]

What seems to me most critical in head to head close in aerial combat is the 3-D thrust vectoring.

(To use your phrasing): What seems to me least critical . . . is thrust vectoring. Aerodynamic controls are more effective if you have any dynamic pressure (speed) to work with, and if you get slow you're just a target. Modern missiles don't care if they hit you in the tail or the nose, so rotating your engines 'out of the way' doesn't help.

More important than that, no one has any missiles that can separate reliably (including not losing the target) in a high-angle-of-attack, post-stall regime. The only weapon that works in that case is the gun. The article references the Russian high-off-boresight missile capability, which is really what's required for close-in maneuvering.

The biggest thing post stall maneuvering does for you (as long as you have a gun) is limit the other guy's options. But if you really have to get that slow and close, chances are his wingman will kill you.

Maneuvering that counts is the ability to move your velocity vector around, not just rotate about your own center of gravity. And you need to be able to keep your average velocity high to keep from being a target for the wingman. (Sometimes this means you get slower than your b best maneuvering speed - known as 'corner speed' - for just a moment as long as you can accelerate rapidly after.)

[Gene Eric]

bump

[Moonman62]

Destroy the other guy before he even knows you’re there.

[Gaffer]

You didn’t read “close-in” did you. You automatically went for the distanced missile shot.

[GeronL]

The F-22 should never have been cancelled

[GeronL]

China is close?

[doorgunner69]

Mostly wrong, unless the incoming fighters are undetected like it is hoped the F-22 would be. It could launch missiles and hit before a counter launch can be made.

The problem is if detection is made and the jammers light up. Then all those fancy BVR missile shots are not so likely to hit, and things merge into the classic dogfight.

Most do not appreciate just how effective ECM is in modern air combat.

[Phlyer]

You didn’t read “close-in” did you. You automatically went for the distanced missile shot.

No, actually I did read that. My comments were based on the fact that close in or distant, getting slow is a good way to get dead. You can be on a path to get very close to someone - and if both still have good speed you can be at a low enough angle of attack to allow good missile separation. This often happens with shots 'in the face' at the merge. Or you can be tight on someone's tail and if both are above corner speed you'll be at a shooting angle of attack.

But getting slow enough to be in a post-stall regime means that you are essentially stationary in the air - and that means other guys are going to kill you, even if the one you are fighting does not. The big fallacy of the post-stall maneuver aficionados is the assumption that the fight will be one-on-one. That's just bad tactics - and assuming it will happen is deadly for your side.

However, Viet Nam showed that if the bad guys knows that you don't have a short-range attack (a gun) then he can use that against you. I'm a big advocate of guns on fighters, but it's because it keeps the bad guy further away so that you can maintain more speed and not turn yourself into a missile magnet for all the bad guy's buddies. With integrated fire/flight control it's practical to get gun kills out to half a mile, and that's beyond the minimum range (though not the maximum range) of a good 'dogfight' missile. When the engagement distances overlap, I don't agree that maintaining enough energy to maneuver effectively (move the velocity vector around) only applies for 'distanced missile shots.'

[Gaffer]

Have you seen a late Mig/Sukoi tail walk?