Russian Fighters for American Airforce/Navy: The only prudent solution!

by Robert W. Kress with Rear Adm. Paul Gillcrist, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Editors’ note: In this wonderful piece of aeronautical and political irony, it seems that our newfound but uneasy friends, the Russians, may be our best source of new fighter aircraft. Bob Kress, ex-Grumman VP of advanced programs and chief engineer on the F-14, and Adm. Paul Gillcrist, retired USN fighter pilot, make a convincing argument that rather than spend ridiculous sums for new fighters that will probably show up too late to do us any good, we should buy Sukhoi Su-27 airframes and "Americanize" them with our engines and flight-control systems. Controversial? Absolutely! Logical? Make your own decision.

RIGHT: The Su-27 is bigger than the F-14 and F-15, and its capabilities and economics are so outstanding that a number of nations are in the process of adapting it to set it up as the primary U.S. foe in future conflicts (photo by Katsuhiko Tokunaga).

Soon after Desert Storm, by some inexplicable miscalculation, the U.S. Navy voluntarily opted out of the important sea-based, deep-interdiction mission it had brilliantly carried out during and since WW II. It decided on the early termination of the A-6 program and to scrap the new A-6 "composite wing" program for which Boeing had already been paid hundreds of millions of dollars. This would have carried A-6Fs well into the next century.

In the strike configuration for which it originally had been designed, the F-14D was to have been the bridging mechanism between the A-6 and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). It is hoped (repeat, hoped) the JSF will arrive easily in the next millennium. With the A-6 out of the picture, and until the JSF arrives, the F-14D is the only game in town that has the same punch.

The problem with using the F-14D as the bridge between the two aircraft is that it is on the edge of extinction. In another inexplicable move, beginning about 1990, the U.S. Navy, per orders of then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney, planned to phase out of the F-14 program and, apparently to ensure there would be no second thoughts, ordered the destruction of all F-14 tooling. Incredible!

The F-18 E/F program that is supposed to take over the sea-based, deep-interdiction, precision-strike mission does not have a long-range, high-payload, precision-strike capability, so the F-14Ds are the current workhorse delivery men of the 2,000-pound, LGB/radar-guided bombs in the many trouble spots around the world, as required. The USAF tries to supplement U.S. Navy strikes but is handicapped by diplomatic and political constraints.

Unfortunately, the tragedy does not stop there. The requirement for the Nimitz and follow-on class carriers hinges, most experts say, on its ability to carry out sea-based, deep-interdiction missions. Without the F-14s, Congress will not support the construction of more $3.5 billion Nimitz-class carriers if deep-strike aircraft are not ready on the first day of the conflict.

LEFT: Grumman F-14Ds, as based on the USS Constellation, are on the edge of extinction and are our last Naval aircraft capable of carrying heavy bomb loads for long distances (photo by Randy Jolly).

Somebody in the White House will have to answer the President’s question, "Where are the carriers?" with the reply, "What carriers?" We decided not to build any; remember? The U.S. Navy

The U.S. Navy retired the venerable long-range, heavy-attack A-6 aircraft, not because they lacked their original capability and survivability, but because they were disintegrating due to old age. They went into service in 1962—37 years ago!

LEFT: the Grumman A-6E Intruder, now taken out of the fleet, was neither fast, nor glamorous, but it was rugged, reliable and carried an immense bomb load on long, low missions. It has no direct replacement (photos by Randy Jolly)..

The F-14D has now taken over for the A-6 in the fighter/bomber role as it was originally designed to do. On top of that, when the Tomcat has loosed its bombs, it is a formidable dogfighter! With the 150 or so F-14s left, however, the U.S. Navy can only maintain this fighter/bomber force until about 2010—if it is lucky! And even doing that will require quick funding of restoration efforts to a lot of aircraft.

LEFT: according to the authors, the F/A-18 is simply too small to carry either the fuel or ordnance required by deep interdiction missions.

Cheney’s order of no more F-14 production was a wasteful move that cannot be explained rationally, nor was there ever any reason offered. The effect of the order, however, was to leave a clear path for further acquisition of the F-18A and its desperately needed mission-performance upgrade, the F-18E. The F-18s are good airplanes, but neither version comes close to the payload/range capability of the F-14 or the A-6.

The cake was iced by the acquisition of Grumman by Northrop in 1993—the cat devoured by the mouse, so to speak. Seventy percent of the aircraft on carrier decks at the time were Grumman-built. On the other hand, Northrop had never built a tactically significant aircraft in its entire 60-year history.

The USAF problem is different. The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program resulted in the development of the excellent Lockheed F-22 stealth fighter and the very powerful and well-behaved Pratt & Whitney F-119 fighter engine. The USAF has many upgraded F-15 fighter/bomber aircraft in inventory and could build and upgrade even more. So, acquisition of the F-22 is not as critical an issue, timewise.

The problem lies in the enormous acquisition cost of the F-22 (see Aerospace America, November ’98). The cost associated with introducing it to service would probably result in the forced retirement of many workhorse F-15s. Further, the effects of stealth aircraft design measures on fighter aircraft performance, cost and combat operability have been seriously questioned.

Scale models show the relative sizes of the different fighters. From the left: MiG-29; F-14D; Su-27; F-15; F/A-18. Note the tiny relative size of the F/A-18 (photo by Walter Sidas).

On the other side of the fence, our combined U.S. Navy/USAF fighter/bomber force will face approximately 404 Russian Su-27 Flanker aircraft by 2002 ("Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft"). China has been licensed to build 200 (no license to export—so they say!).

The Su-27 is already known as a premier highly maneuverable fighter. What is less known is that it is a brute of an aircraft—bigger than the F-14 and F-15. It has a huge internal fuel capacity and, like the F-14, can carry a lot of very large bombs in attack roles—neatly hidden from radar detection between the podded engine nacelles. In addition, its external shape results in a naturally low radar signature without compromising its performance. The vaunted MiG-29 is a midget compared with the Su-27—not unlike comparing the F-18 with the F-14. No wonder the world market opts for Su-27 payload/range versus the MiG-29. Even better for our purpose, the Su-27 has already been modified for carrier operations, and it was planned for the first Russian carrier, the Adm. Kuznetzov.

By 2002, the U.S. will be outgunned by an ever-growing number of countries owning the Su-27. The Su-27 has a deep-strike capability that’s on a par with the current 500-nautical-mile U.S. capability, which, by the way, is in the process of rapidly fading to 300 n.m. as the F-14s go out of service and are replaced by F-18s with half the bomb load. The same goes for the F-15, except that its strike bomb load is on a par with the F-14, and it isn’t disappearing as quickly.

We need some more affordable, high-performance "big guys" soon! So what can be done?

Before assuming that the concept of buying Su-27s for the USAF and USN is a whacky idea, let’s first see whether it has some merit. The Su-27 is a known excellent fighter. It has been partially “navalized.” It is a big brute. In the event of a conflict, we will be nose to nose with it worldwide. It exists and is in production, so we could easily buy Su-27 aircraft models as gap-fillers; we already have acquired two for evaluation. To make things even better, the airplane is inexpensive by any standards.?

A recent unofficial quote from a Russian source says that Su-27s can be bought for about $8 million apiece. Perhaps the carrier version would cost substantially more. Compared with F-18E/F costs, the Su-27 may offer enormous procurement savings plus large mission- and combat-effectiveness benefits.

Aviation Week recently announced plans by Australia to replace its F/A-18s and F-111s with MiG-29s and Su-27s. Maybe this proposal is not such a crazy idea after all!

In the long term, we would want to upgrade Su-27 models in thrust and avionics to give us an edge over the worldwide Su-27 threat. The Pratt & Whitney F-119 engine is significantly more powerful than the Russian Su-27 powerplants and can be built with elegant pitch and yaw thrust vectoring. The General Electric F-120 F-23 engine could also be used. Without being specific, the U.S. avionics industry should be able to substantially upgrade Su-27 systems. Cost will be the driver, but here, the Su-27 may be the solution for the U.S. Navy and USAF as interim gap-filler aircraft. For the long term, there are several options:

• Buy bare airframes made to specifications for completion in the U.S. • Obtain a license to build Su-27s in the U.S. without export rights. • Build some parts in the U.S. and buy major subassemblies from Russia for assembly in the U.S. (really a variant of the second option).

On the carrier version of the Su-27, both the wings and the horizontal tail fold. The authors argue that the Russian fighter/bomber can do the F-14’s job at a fraction of the cost of a new, U.S.-built airplane (photo courtesy of Paul Gillcrist).

As a side issue in the procurement of these aircraft, the U.S. would certainly be funding a large part of Russia’s economic recovery, which would help to keep it stable and less of a threat. Obtaining a really good deal on Su-27s should be realistic and beneficial to both countries. It would also further cement the collaboration between Russia and the U.S. in the face of jointly perceived threats.

Somebody (let’s see some hands, folks) should carefully explore the procurement cost and fleet readiness implications of the proposals we’ve presented. Since we’re supposedly retired, this is something we can no longer explore without the help of a major agency.

As long as we’re asking questions about the future fighter programs, what about the JSF program? It is a joint U.S. Navy/USAF/USMC next-generation fighter program! (Heard that one before?) But this time, a dimly perceived USMC VTOL fighter is the objective!

Has anyone figured out that when an engine fails during hover, a twin-engine VTOL will do a rollover very quickly, thus preventing pilot ejection? Even Harriers require quick pilot action to avoid insidious, slow, roll-control loss if the nose was allowed to get too high in a crosswind hover. Many were lost. Thus, a VTOL for the Marines must be a single-engine configuration, which means that it must be a single-engine aircraft. It also means that the JSF will be another fighter in the 30,000-pound class (using the F-119 engine, for example).

You might wonder why we are taking these positions. We could talk about politicians, the specifics of current international events and future perils—of which we know nothing of substance.

What we do know is how we perceived the world unfolding as youngsters on December 7, 1941. Our leaders saw what was coming but were too late to achieve a high state of readiness. So, we listened to the radio and watched “Movietone News” in horror, grief and fear until our industrial capability at last turned the tide.

On the surface, the current world situation is not as threatening, but many world trouble spots may demand military attention via conventional forces and weapons. Events that do arise will do so quickly, leaving little time to build up the military. Our forces must be ready at all times—something that seems to have lost its importance in the last decade. Tactical airpower must be refreshed in strategy and form, unencumbered by politics and corporate interference. In other words, we’ll always need the ability to dash in, drop a lot of bombs and get out. If we don’t do something about the impending vacuum of that capability very soon, we may find ourselves unable to effectively smack some dictator’s backside when he needs it.

In the tables that follow, we’ve attempted to compare the fighter/bomber mission performance of the F-14D, F-18A, F-18E and Su-27. We cannot obtain or use classified U.S. Navy data. However, "Jane’s All The World’s Aircraft" is presumably an accurate source of aircraft data. Tactical missions and loads differ from aircraft to aircraft, but an aeronautical engineer can extract some valid, nearly accurate comparisons and conclusions.

So here we go. We apologize for dragging you through the technical mud! Table 1 compares the F-18A, F-18E, F-14D, A-6E and Su-27 in the long-range fighter/bomber mission. In so doing, some fundamental issues of physics begin to emerge.

TABLE 1 F-18A F-18E F-14D A-6E Su-27 Weight empty (lb.) 23,832 30,564 43,879 27,888 38,580 Pilot and ammo (lb.) 535 535 838 500 500 Mm/no. of rounds 20/570 20/570 20/675 0 30/150 Internal fuel (lb.) 10,860 14,400 16,200 15,939 20,723 External fuel (lb.) 7,431 7,206 3,854 0 0 AAM (2); Sidewinders 472 472 472 0 472 No. of tanks/capacity 3/330 2/480 2/280 0 0 Bomb weight in lb. 4,000 4,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Bombs: no. and type (2) Mk 84* (4) Mk 83 (4) Mk 84 (4) Mk 84 (4) Mk 84 Takeoff gross weight (lb.) 47,130 57,177 73,253 52,327 68,275 Takeoff fuel weight as % of gross takeoff weight 37.5 36.8 27.4 30.5 30.4 * Two 1,000-lb. Mk 83s used in Desert Fox, not 2,000 lb. Mk 84.

The message of Table 1 is that big is beautiful! The F-18A and substantially puffed-up F-18E don’t carry much of a weapon load compared with the big guys. As you will see in the next table, they don’t carry it very far either, in spite of their huge external fuel loads that prevent large weapon load-outs by using up wing store stations. Note the large takeoff fuel percentages: the big boys fly farther on less fuel, as Table 2 shows.

One caution in viewing these numbers; although they have been extracted from "Jane’s," aircraft companies are marvelously innovative at hiding the facts while appearing to be completely candid; we’ve been there. Further, for some numbers in the table and the tables that follow, we have made corrections to establish a common baseline.

Now that we have a common attack mission, let’s address the mission performance and fundamental aero/propulsion issues. Table 2 clearly shows where "big is beautiful" comes from. Look at the radius multiplied by bomb-load factor (R x B). The F-14Ds and the SU-27s have twice the capability of the F-18s, so only half as many aircraft and crew need to be endangered (the bombs are twice as big and in-flight refueling is rarely needed). The mission radius comparison speaks for itself.

TABLE 2 F-18A F-18E F-14D A-6E Su-27 Store stations (2) 2,500 Same as F-18A (4) 2,000 (5) 3,600 (7) 2,000 (2) 2,350 Same as F-18A (2) 2,200 — — (1) 2,400 Same as F-18A (2) 1,800 — — Wing area (sq. ft.) 400 500 565 484 667 Wingspan 37.5 44.7 64.1/38.2 53 48.2 Sea level static afterburner thrust (lb.) 32,000 44,000 55,600 18,600 (*1) 55,100 Attack wing loading (bombs on board) (lb./sq. ft.) @ 60% fuel 100 98 115 94.9 90 Wing loading (bombs dropped) (lb./lb.) @ 60% fuel 90 90 101 NA 78 Attack thrust/weight (lb./lb.) @ 60% fuel .80 .90 .85 NA .92 Thrust/weight (bombs dropped; lb./lb.) @ 60% fuel .89 .98 .97 NA 1.06 Turning drag/lift factor 28.5 24.4 15.9 16.4 25.8 Attack-mission radius in n.m. 290 (*2) 390 (*2) 402 (*2) 500 (*2) 420 (*2, *3) Radius x bomb load (R x B); n.m. x lb./10^6 or 1,000,000 1.16 1.56 3.22 4.00 3.36 *1 No afterburner, *2 "Hi-lo-lo-hi" mission, *3 Probably low, NA=not available

Wing loading and thrust to weight require a bit more explanation. Wing loading at the attack-mission weight simply defines your predicament if you are jumped while carrying a full bomb load. After dropping the bombs, your wing loading is much better, as shown in the table; so is the thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W). Note that the F-18E and F-14D are nearly equal in T/W at .98 and .97 compared with the Su-27 at 1.06. The reason is that the weight of bombs dropped is doubled for the big guys.

The turning drag/lift factor is proportional to the span loading (W/b^2) at a given G loading and indicated airspeed (IAS). It is related to induced drag and is familiar to aerodynamicists. It is the dominant parameter in calculating sustained G. In air-combat turns, the induced drag at a given G level is directly proportional to the span loading. With its wings unswept below Mach .7 via the sweep programmer, the F-14’s induced drag in turns is half that of the other aircraft tabulated due to its big span (squared). And aircraft combat maneuvering at the Yuma range proved that after the initial engagement, most of the time was spent below Mach .7.

Unless congress decides to chill out with the F-18 for the next decade waiting for the JSF, while Russia asks China to help it finance the planes i posted in post 50.

Then we will be facing a threatening china with their indigenous J-10s, and the Sino-Russian Berkerut and Mig1.42(see post 50 for pictures); as well as a bristling air defence system with Sa-500s and radars that can 'paint' stealth aircraft.

Then when young pilots in F-18s start getting shot by stealth Chinese fighters derived from the Berkerut, or even by RAM coated Su-30s (some Indian versions were upgraded with an RAM coating from Russia that reduced their radar signature by 70%) armed with R-77 AA missiles (that are more advanced than the US AMRAAM) then i wonder what the Senators who killed off the f-14 Tomcat will say.

Remember the reason our planes were so effective in Iraq was due to several reasons. 1) We had better trained pilots. 2) We had better planes (the mig -29s Russia had sold to Iraq had been 'dumbed' down by Russia to protect certain vital technologies). 3) We had destroyed all their radar systems. 4) We had a better cordinated attack thanks to AWACS and Orion planes. 5) We saturated them.

However think of an enemy employing upgraded russian fighters (not the dumbed down versions sold to Iraq), with well trained pilots (in a German 'test' well trained pilots in F-15s could not beat well trained pilots in Su-27s), having good ground defence (Sa-500s coupled with radar grid linkage that can minimize the effectiveness of stealth) and jets carrying 'long stick' weapons (the Rateka-77 AMRAAM-ski).

What happens then when our valiant lads fly into the heat of battle against such odds, 7000 miles away in the straits of Taiwan or against Aircraft carriers that the chinese bought Sunburn missiles to defend against (the sunburn was designed to beat Phalanx ship defenses and fly in a 'ripple' fashion where several missiles come in at different altitudes at the same time at mach speeds, and in the terminal stage zigzag...each carrying a potentially crippling warhead).

Chances are such a scenario may not happen. However hoping for daisies and daffodils in the next decade until the JSFs and Raptors start rolling up is risky. Especially for those guys strapped to F-18s.

And if the Australians found it judicious to change their F-18s for sukhois and upgraded migs, then the least the brass can do is consider this (wait a moment. Wasn't the article written by a retired American Rear Admiral, and a former worker at Grumman? The only problem seems to be congress being more intrested in funds for their state getting defense projects than for the lads who will use them)

I can't handle all this stupidity any longer! A stripped down Su costs 8 mill - don't y'all realize the cost of a modern fighter comes from its avionics? A 15/16 would run under 8 million if all you wanted were engines and wings!

And this, "The Su manuevers well at airshows" analysis is c$%p! If I had to bet my life on a plane, I'd bet on the 15. Simulated dogfights show you whatever the rule-makers want it to show. When I flew F-4s, we regularly beat F-15s - during the one year where I kept track, I had a 3:1 kill ratio against them. The F-15 was a better plane, but we were using better tactics.

And dogfighting is disappearing. Yeah, I know those predictions were around before Vietnam - but they are coming true. Airpower made a lot of boasts about bombing, but it took PGMs to make them come true. The missiles & systems being worked today mean traditional dogfighting is over. I miss it - but I'll face the facts. No one gives a tinker's damn how fast you can move the plane's nose - with helmet mounted sights, and the ability in the very near future to use off-board systems for missile cueing - dogfights are over!

And let's talk a little about stealth. One thing that can keep you in the fight is being small enough radar wise to make it difficult - the Su (like the 15) is a flying tennis court! You might as well strap neon signs to your plane saying "SHOOT ME!"

I wish the people on this forum would realize that at least some of us working acquisition & test don't give a damn about contractors or their profits - we only care about winning the next war, and we know a hell of a lot more about what it takes than these bozos.

Honestly i have to agree with you that seeing a Mig 29 landing at Edwards, and then hearing the sounds of American Pratt and Whitneys being emitted by the Mig, and then taking a closer look at seeing the insignia of the 'USAF' seems like something out of the twilight zone! Even if the Cold war is over it is still mighty strange.

Anyway the reason the sukhoi/mig thing is warranted is because in the US there has been a tendency to field aircraft that is ten years before the rest, and then ten years later the Russians introduce the 'competition' that is obviously more advanced than the decade old American fighter.

For example the su-27 (first rolled out in the mid eighties)was the Soviet answer for the F-15 (first rolled out in the seventies). Thus these aircraft have technologies that were not present when the American stuff rolled out.

A good example is the F-16 and the Mig-29 (i emphasize the upgraded Russian version not the monkey models sold to Iraq). The Mig came out almost a decade after the Falcon, and it had integrated etch like the helmet mounted missile targeting system that can shoot off a missile from any angle etc.

Another example is comparing the AMRAAM and the AMRAAM-ski (R77).

So the fear is that ten years from now the F22 Raptors and the JSFs are going to getting churned out at full blast. And they shall be great planes and stuff. Great planes, but possibly obsolete!

However at that moment the Russians and Chinese shall be sending remote controlled drones with slaved AA missiles and possibly some A2G ordnance, and with combat suites to protect them from EMP waves that can fry their circuitry.

Thus when we are flying our Raptors they shall be messing around with stealth drones that can do a 30g turn that would separate human hemoglobin from blood plasma! And our raptors will not be able to pull 9gs without the pilot blacking out. How are they going to defend against a future hypersonic ASRAAM that can turn faster than the devil?

Actually i 'read' an article that stated China was working on some type of stealth concept (and the artist depiction of the manned plane looked 'too much' like an F-22). India is also working on a hypersonic plane (which would be a complement to its LCA lightweight fighter program).

Yet we are just trying to develop todays stealth tech for tomorrows air environment! Actually if some stealth fielded by certain countries can 'paint' stealth, such as the Czech radar that shot down that F-117A in Yugoslavia; or the Australian one that was tracking a B-2 Spirit a couple of years ago at a British airshow; i wonder.... will stealth be obsolete in the future (well, not technically obsolete but only to be used against 'banana republics).

Everyone in the know is saying that UCAVs are the future, drones flitting around at 30+gs and packing AMRAAMS and JDAMS, but strangely we are working on an expensive manned design that is set to come out when other nations are bringing out stealthy drones.

When we could get some Sukhois, amp them up, and use them until our own UCAVs are up and running.

However this argument will meet the same fate of the Israeli Python AA missile (which is the most advanced of its kind) that was shot down for an American version that was not as good. By the way the no 2 happens to be Russian, FYI. IMO i think we should have bought the Python, reverse enginered the sucker, and built our own ASRAAM that was better. And do the same with the SUs, except this time we just give them American engines, and our weapons (possibly that American Python), and use the SUs until our UCAVS are ready.

Then we will continuosly be ahead of the Chinese. And with the rise of Assymetric warfare, when relatively poor nations spend their defense budgets on just a few combat etchs, but techs so advanced that they can counter the most advanced American hardware (eg the sunburn anti-ship missiles by china to use on American aircraft carriers, or the inquiry by Iraq about radar grids that might even threaten stealth craft), this is a real threat. What if some nation purchased the Swedish Stealth Frigates (you should see a picture of them, they are COOL), and armed them with some stand-off surface to surface missiles that have enough manouevrability to beat the Phalanx defense system? Bringing down just carrier would be a great blow!

Thus my reasoning for focussing on what is needed both now, and what is needed in the future. Instead of fielding tech that would be super today, but will be used by everyone and their uncle ten years from now.

And yes, i know that was rife with hyperbole... but the crux of the argument still stands! We need to stop going after weapons systems just to please certain states by giving them defense contracts. Otherwise one day a squadron of F-18E SuperHornets shall try to prevent China from attacking Taipei, and find themselves facing Drones flown by 18yr old Chinese nerds thinking its some videogame. (Again i know that is hyperbole, but i just wanted to drive my point home).

And i have a feeling the 'powers that be' know this, after all it has been happening for sometime now. However with the risk of some carzy kook in some crazier republic with a suicide wish (thus eliminating the deterrence of our Tridents and Peacemakers) getting the handle on the notion of assymetrical warfare, and spending 8% of his nations crude oil income to purchase some Chinese stealth anti-shipping missiles to get at our destroyers, or maybe some hypercavitating rocket torpedoes anchored to the ocean floor near his harbor with advanced acoustic capabilities chilling for our subs. What then. We will still kick their collective a$$e$ since the US will obviously have more combat assets, but they will hurt us and hurt us bad!

And if you think other nations do not think of how to neutralize American military projection you must be dreaming.

Another example is comparing the AMRAAM and the AMRAAM-ski (R77).

So the fear is that ten years from now the F22 Raptors and the JSFs are going to getting churned out at full blast. And they shall be great planes and stuff. Great planes, but possibly obsolete!

When we could get some Sukhois, amp them up, and use them until our own UCAVs are up and running.

And if you think other nations do not think of how to neutralize American military projection you must be dreaming.

I agree with everyone of your assertions... every single one. I just thought the article was interesting and worth some thought.

And while it is true most, if not all, future conflicts will be BVR it should be noted that the SUs come armed with the AA-12 ADDER (Rateka-77) AMRAAM-ski that is superior to the AIM-120 AMRAAM, especially due to its control surfaces that have made people refer to the AIM-120 as 'conventional,' plus the fact the R77 is faster, more manouevrable, can fly 50km more than the AMRAAM, and can switch between three radars in flight! Thus the chances of a Sukhoi finding itself face to face is low, and it can handle itself extremely well at BVR (according to German tests better than the Eagle).

And as for the much touted manoeuvrability of the Sukhoi, all it is is just for show. It is an airshow trick that cannot be used in real life with a full combat load, and its only purpose is to wow spectators and make people want to buy the Flanker. However the reason the Sukhoi does not need the 'cobra manouevre' and all that trick stuff is because of this... the AA-11 ARCHER (Rateka-73). This is the second best short-range missile in the world (the best is the Israeli Python) which is so advanced that it can engage targets LATERAL to the jet! All the pilot needs to do is look at the target and his helmet targeting system does the rest!

Thus the Sukhoi carries an appropriate long stick the R-77 (no.1 worldwide, although some say the Phoenix is a tie) and for short range scraps it packs R-73 (no.2 worldwide)!

And with trained pilots it can mess with the best F-15 there is.

And as for its radar cross section, the Su upgraded terminator is actually smaller in radar than the F-15 (even though it is bigger than the Eagle in size). Actually here is an exerpt from the article:It has a huge internal fuel capacity and, like the F-14, can carry a lot of very large bombs in attack roles—neatly hidden from radar detection between the podded engine nacelles. In addition, its external shape results in a naturally low radar signature without compromising its performance.

Also Russia gave India an upgrade for some of its fighters that could coat them with RAM that would reduce their cross section in radar by 70%.

Thus physical size being a detriment in terms of radar detection is not such a big issue.

In conclusion i do agree with most of your assertions, although for different reasons. I agree all those airshow manoeuvres are for show, and so are the acrobatics.... but because the Su-30 does not need them! It has some of the best BVR capabilities,and in short range it will be sending an R-73 not trying to 'stamd on tis tail.'

I also completely believe that training is everything. Think of what happened in 'nam when the F-4 phantom pilots went for Top Gun training... migs were falling from the skies left right and center! Training is key, and that is one of many reasons why the American airforce is to be feared and respected.

however my point was that if the SUs can be an efficient stop gap until the raptors come about then they would be something to THINK about.

Here are some Chinese stealth designs, and one indian one. The main point ot note is that the Chinese design in particular is slated to be dropped well after the Raptors are flying, meaning that it might be carrying technology that was not avaliable to the Raptor (the Raptor stemmed from the ATF project, which begun in 1983..yep '83).

In June 2001, India was offered 'joint development and production' of a new 5th generation fighter by Russia. Russia has been trying to sell this concept both to China and India for some time, but this time it was made directly to India's Defense Minister. The new fighter will 'counter' America's second 5th gen Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] which too is undergoing flight testing.

The plane we are talking about is Russia's Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi (PAK FA), which means 'Future Air Complex for Tactical Air Forces' : (Russian Name=Wierd Name). It is intended to be the same size as the US JSF but have a mission profile closer to the F-22 Raptor, with air superiority being the primary mission and ground attack and reconnaissance being secondary. Also similar to the JSF, the cost is expected to be about $30 million each. Even the deadlines assumed by the Russians are directly related to the date of entering JSF into the market Enjoy:

The Chinese J-10 stealth

And now the Indian MCA

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.