Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'

Aviation Week & Space Technology | May 24, 2002 | David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

[The Big Dog]

The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.

"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape maneuver permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

The scenario in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those skeptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air-superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defense suppression and electronic jamming roles.

At the same time, there may be more to the simulations than justifying new weaponry, say European analysts. Also at play are some tactical wrinkles being developed for the more effective use of new Russian missile versions.

The combination of Su-30 and R-27ER/ET (NATO designation AA- 10), flown and fought in a competent fashion, also represents a significant threat. Even though the R-27ER is only a semiactive radar- guided missile, the extra maneuvering capability resulting from the large motor is a significant improvement over the basic R-27. Basic Russian air force doctrine has long suggested following a semi-active missile launch immediately with an IR missile launch, such as the R- 27ET. Theory has it that the target aircraft's crew will be occupied spoofing the inbound radar missile, only to fall to the second missile.

The R-27ER, while only semiactive, also outperforms the baseline R- 77 ( AA-12) in terms of kinematics. The R-77 motor has a simple, and short, burn profile, which has resulted in disappointing performance, piquing the Russian air force's interest in developing the K-77M rather than fielding the basic AA-12 in any numbers. The K- 77M (K denotes a missile still in development, while R reflects an inventory weapon) is an upgraded R-77 with improvements that include a larger motor with a burn sequence profiled to increase range.

The oft-touted, but yet-to-be-fielded, R-27EA active variant of the AA-10 could further enhance the Su-30's capabilities, were an export customer to buy the derivative. In terms of one-on-one combat, the second-generation Flanker family presents a considerable threat to aircraft not designed from the outset as low observable, unless they are capable of extended-range BVR missile engagements. For instance, this threat drove the British selection of a rocket-ramjet missile to equip the Eurofighter.

[rotorhawk]

Do you really think that there would be an F-15C flying around by its lonesome self?

Seriously? Without a wingman? Without AWACS or GCI? I think not.

Besides, I don't see a whole lot of Su-30s out there.

[Leto]

Maybe we should just buy the manfacturing rights to the Su-30 and installour superior avionics.

:-)

[strider44]

I can't speak as a fast-mover pilot, but I flew UH-60s in the Army for 8 years. Here's what I worry about: China, undoubtedly our big adversary in the future. We will need an edge in technical superiority to counter their numbers. However, I know how things work in our military, especially in the Army Aviation community. If we spend gobs of money on a new weapons-system, we make up for that huge cost but cutting flight hours for training. Apache pilots have been getting screwed for years. All of them struggle to meet their flight minimums. It's a trade-off. I would rather have an older yet very capable weapons system that pilots can log a lot of flight time on than a new expensive system that sits on the ramp and breaks during pre-flight. We win battles and wars because of experienced, aggressive, well-trained aviators. When I got to Bosnia and budget restraints went out the window, I became a much better pilot, and earned pilot-in-command status as a lieutenant. Ask any pilot, he wouldn't trade time in the cockpit for a better missile. I could go on for days, but I won't. The bottom line, there is no substitute for accumulated flight hours in the cockpit. The simulator is fine for practicing instrument approaches, that's it.

[The Big Dog]

You're right, 1 on 1 engagements happen very rarely. But the fact remains that the F-15 is outperformed by newer technology, both in maneuverability and in radar/avionics, hence the need for the F-22. Maybe not today, but the F-15's will have to be replaced before the end of this decade.

[strider44]

Do I detect the presence of another "real" aviator out there? Any helo pilot knows we are much more skilled than those fast-mover AF wusses. Aim High. Maybe they won't shoot back!

[The Big Dog]

I have to agree with you, there is no substitue for training hours. A USAF pilot in an F-15C will probably beat some third world pilot even in a Su-30.

But I think there are ways to cut costs other than by not producing the F-22. That way we can produce the F-22 and maintain our high levels of pilot training hours. Think of all the useless things the US spends its defence budget on.

[rotorhawk]

OH-58A

AH-1G & Q

UH-1H & M

UH-60A & L

Turned down an opportunity to fly CH47s

et tu

[strider44]

I hope we fund the F-22. I just hope we use the appropraite economy of scale. Make all services use it so we can save money on spare-parts. I know the Navy and Marines would ahve to modify it a little for carrier landings, but that's no big deal. The flight hours is still a huge worry. A good example is the UH-60 program. When I went through the transition after flying Hueys in 1992, I got 90 hours in the Blackhawk before I was qualified. The current transition is less than 30 hours. Yes this saves money, but wait until we invade Iraq again and we start planting pilots because of lack of experience. It will happen. Look at what happened to the Apaches that deployed to Albania a few years ago. 3 crashes before they even come close to combat. Unfortunately, it will take a huge culture change in the military to turn things around. As a commander, I was graded heavily based on my OR rate (Operational Readiness). In my battalion, my commander wanted 90% at all times. But you can't manintain that rate and still give your pilots enough hours to be proficient. We weren't allowed to fly past Wednesday during a typical week because my boss was worried an aircraft would go down for maintenance over the weekend. It was pathetic. I suspect it's similar in the AF. If we field the F-22, I just hope commanders don't get sucked into reporting false maintenance levels to boost their standings. Look what happened to those poor marine commanders in the Osprey program. Those guys got screwed.

[strider44]

UH-1H&M, UH-60 A&L, UH-60 MTP. I got about 30 unofficial hours in a 58. When I was a PC officer in an AVIM I used to go on test flights with my 58 MTP. That was a fun aircraft to fly. But I was pretty much exclusively 60's. Just under 1000 hours total time. I miss it. Now I'm a civilian and corporate whore. But hey, it pays well.

[AppyPappy]

Except that we will probably never meet the Chinese on the battlefield. Korea is about the only possible place and that then becomes a Russia/China issue.

[Poohbah]

An F-15 would usually be flying straight and level.

In a prospective combat zone?

I guess they don't teach the basics of ACM any more. It obviously takes valuable time away from sensitivity training.

[green team 1999]

[fporretto]

Don't be too impressed by the verdict of a simulation. Simulations are usually based on the manufacturer's claims for his weapons platform. I know; I'm a simulations expert, and I've been in the military-engineering world for nearly twenty years. Some of the lies I've been asked to substantiate with a simulation would leave you gasping for breath.

Recall that the MIG-25, which was supposed to be the Soviet wonder weapon in the 70s, could not exceed Mach 2 without melting its engine. Little gotchas like that aren't usually factored into a simulation.

It's possible, even likely, that we could do much better than the F-15C today, but it's unwise to think we're in immediate danger of losing air superiority over any battlefield of current importance because of these simulations of the Sukhoi-30. The true test, as always, is combat.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[strider44]

Don't be so sure we won't square off with the CHICOMS directly. What about the Taiwan ? Would we sit idle if that situation explodes?

[Poohbah]

We'd probably send in a Coast Guard cutter to rescue them after their rowboats get swamped.

How to tell that China is going to "do something" about Taiwan: when Louis Farrakhan gets a consulting contract for a "Million Man Swim."

[strider44]

It's called "Consideration of Others" now. Not sensitivity training. And it still makes one want to vomit

[surely_you_jest]

Helicopters do not fly; they beat the air into submission.

[hchutch]

How would one go about acquiring an Su-30MK? I know some folks have brought MiGs back before. Slap it as an "Experimental" plane for FAA purposes, and make sure the cannon is non-functional, and you've got a pretty nice plane. Better than some dinky Cessna...

*looks down*

I'll stop drooling over the keyboard now...

[strider44]

It certainly wouldn't start with an invasion. A naval blockade, or no-fly zone type of harrassment. It could build from there. We would have to react. Another spy-plane fiasco, who knows. I know we'd kick their ass though, and the rest of the world would have even more reasons to hate us.

[hchutch]

Subamrine blockade. Nearly worked for Germany twice and did a lot of the work for us against Japan in 1944 and 1945. Mine the harbors, and your first airstrike takes out the minesweeping assets.

Taiwan's in a world of hurt at that point.