Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Su-30MK Beats F-15C 'Every Time'
Aviation Week & Space Technology | May 24, 2002 | David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie

Posted on 05/24/2002 11:33:06 AM PDT by The Big Dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Technical
KEYWORDS: f15; miltech; su30; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last
To: The Big Dog
China, for example, has a very rapidly-growing economy which will surpass the US in about 30 years.

And Enrons stock is going to be worth $5,000 a share at that time. too. Arthur Andersen wouldn't lie to us, would they?

China is Enron with a nuclear arsenal and even shiftier accountants.

81 posted on 05/24/2002 3:52:40 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
If you don't care how many pesants you loose, anything that floats can be used in an invasion. so 50% die in the water. Big deal. They've got plenty more...
82 posted on 05/24/2002 3:54:15 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Let's put your son in the cockpit.
83 posted on 05/24/2002 3:56:39 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: null and void
If you don't care how many pesants you loose, anything that floats can be used in an invasion. so 50% die in the water. Big deal. They've got plenty more...

And they get ashore, and the other 50% die there because there's no sealift to resupply their forces.End result: invasion a failure, and the PLA leadership considers shooting the worthless SOBs in Beijing.

84 posted on 05/24/2002 4:06:17 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Train him effectively, no problem. I'd be willing to risk my own neck in that case.

Tell ya what: let's put your son in the cockpit of an Su-30MK, and match him up against pilots who get more ACM time in a month than than the total flight hours your son would get in a year.

Three things win dogfights: training, training, and, last but not least, training.

85 posted on 05/24/2002 4:11:20 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: The Big Dog;Poohbah
Sounds like a cool a/c. Too bad a preemptive strike on it's airfield would leave it a burned out wreck.
86 posted on 05/24/2002 4:14:26 PM PDT by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csvset
Oh, no! We'd NEVER do that! Why, we must fight the enemy one at a time at 30,000 feet instead of killing him by the bushel before he gets off the ground!
87 posted on 05/24/2002 4:17:34 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You persist in being extrordiarily dense.

EVERY US COMBATANT DESERVES THE ABSOLUTE BEST EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING THAT EXISTS ON EARTH.

Or is it that you favor a "fair fight" where our men and women die proportionaly to the enemy?

88 posted on 05/24/2002 4:18:29 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I think you answered my question on this post.
89 posted on 05/24/2002 4:19:24 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: The Big Dog
I can't take this any longer. On the one hand, the F-22 IS needed. Folks don't realize that we're looking for a fighter to ensure dominance in 2025,2030...and the F-15 ain't it. Hell, with all the stuff clintoon sold China, we may be facing a well armed enemy sooner than that...

But lets get real - the military doesn't give classified reports to reporters - particularly classified reports showing the enemy where we are weak. That's crock # 1.

THe Su ain't gonna sneak up on the F-15's radar. It isn't a stealth aircraft. And Amraam is a good missile. Crock # 2.

And the difficulty with the notch tactic is knowing when you are there, and staying there long enough to make it work. Most RWR systems aren't accurate enough to keep you there longer than the missile's memory mode. Crock # 3.

Nor will a notch hide an enemy fighter...the Fighter Data Link (FDL) allows the F-15 to see any enemy fighter anyone else on the data link can find - so how do you notch everyone in the battlespace? Crock # 4.

We don't need to worry about the F-15 falling behind during the next 10 years. But beyond that? You bet. And those who ridicule that statement ought to try maintaining a 30 year old fighter, or flying one limited by Gs to prolong its life.

90 posted on 05/24/2002 4:23:20 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: null and void
You persist in being extrordiarily dense.

No, you do.

EVERY US COMBATANT DESERVES THE ABSOLUTE BEST EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING THAT EXISTS ON EARTH.

And the budget for doing this is not infinite. The USAF has deliberately priced itself out of the TACAIR business with the F-22. If they are unwilling to buy a weapons system that the American taxpayer is willing to support, then that is the Air Force's problem. There are many problems facing the US military right now that are in equal need of solution. The F-22 was designed for the Central Europe scenario, and the rationale for its particular set of design compromises and price tag evaporated in 1991.

The alternatives, given today's fiscal situation, are "do we buy this shiny new fighter?" or "do we make sure our squadrons on the tarmac today are trained, furnished with sufficient spares and weapons, and ready for war?" I will vote for the latter, as we cannot have the former and the latter.

Or is it that you favor a "fair fight" where our men and women die proportionaly to the enemy?

You are obviously the sort of despicable creature who eats its own excrement for sustenance.

91 posted on 05/24/2002 4:29:00 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
I agree.

But the first thing the Air Force is going to have to do is cap the price tag of the fighter to a point where John Q. Public is willing to buy enough of them to fulfill the mission.

Right now, the Air Force is fulfilling Norm Augustine's prediction. Augustine plotted the price tag of new fighters against the military budget and found that in 2054, if trends operational since 1944 hold, the entire defense budget will buy ONE airplane. The services will then take turns flying it.

92 posted on 05/24/2002 4:31:51 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You are obviously the sort of despicable creature who eats its own excrement for sustenance.

I see your understanding of nutrition equals your understanding of the value of an American's life.

93 posted on 05/24/2002 4:32:57 PM PDT by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: The Big Dog
I am all for our forces having the latest technology, but this article is obvious BS put out to prevent Chenny from canceling the F-22 project.

These articles come up every time a DOD budget is under review. It's practically written by the DOD and defense contractors who want to preserve their expensive aircraft programs. The fact that so many people are falling for this BS is a sure sign that negativity works.
94 posted on 05/24/2002 4:36:06 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I'll put money on our pilots - any time.
95 posted on 05/24/2002 4:50:43 PM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: The Big Dog
No, all I believe is that the F-15 is a 25 yr old airframe and it can only be upgraded so far.

Yes, but we aren't even close. There have been a couple of ADCAP F-15s flying at Edwards for at least 5 years with vectorable thrust nozzles and improved radar that would be more than equal to anything they will face in the next dozen years till the ATF is ready. The Airforce has been sitting on it to keep it from killing off the F-22. The F-22 will effectively be obsolete by 2015. That is a damned short life for such an expensive bird.

SO9

96 posted on 05/24/2002 5:02:31 PM PDT by Servant of the Nine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Better safe than sorry.
97 posted on 05/24/2002 5:35:26 PM PDT by The Big Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Nine
Huh??? The F-22 probably won't be obsolete until 2030 or maybe even longer with upgrades.
98 posted on 05/24/2002 5:36:20 PM PDT by The Big Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Look, if it was just me as dictator and the defense budget, we would have the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, the Crusader, AND all of the new weaponry. Also, we would pay our soldiers better.

However, for the forseaable future I see a budget supporting "prescription drugs" and "farm subsidies", etc., etc., etc. I even wonder how much gumption the Republicans would have to cut social programs if they retook the Senate. I see stagnant tax revenues for the next five years (no more capital gans from a bull stock market).

My nightmare scenario is that when we are off fighting Iraq, North Korea will think it's the perfect time to bring a party to South Korea and China will think it's the perfect time to flambee Taiwan. This could happen real soon. Also, what if we have follow on major terrorist attacks over the next few years, like, say, another WTC level attack every other year? This is not too hard to imagine...

Hopefully they will scrounge up at least a little money for *some* F-22s. Then they can build the robot bombers of my dreams after that.

99 posted on 05/24/2002 8:07:38 PM PDT by ReveBM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Good point. I have read that China's 7-8% economic growth in recent years has basically been a lie. Their stats say they are growing that fast, but when you look at the economy from a "forensic accountant" perspective and their growth may only be half that. Basically, some curious economists estimated how much energy China's economy should be sucking up at various growth rates, and how much urban unemployment there should be. Basically, their low energy consumption and high urban unemployment suggest their economic figures are lying by a significant magnitude.
100 posted on 05/24/2002 8:13:37 PM PDT by ReveBM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson