Jimmy

Nobody in their right mind is gonna go into a turning fight with a full load of A2G ordnance/drop tanks. If anything that's an advantage in that situation, because if you ARE going into a turning fight you can dump the extra weight. And its the weight that has the greatest impact, not the aerodynamics.

How exactly do you think radar lock is broken? If yanking the joystick hard (so to speak, hurrr) is all that did it, I wouldnt suck so bad at Falcon 4.0.

GGTharos

You could notch, but then you're pretty defensive ... if you haven't launched a missile by then, you should be basically in trouble.

Aby The Liberal

Exactly. And more so when it comes to long range strategic missiles, pep talks are much better than the real thing. For example the range of Trident, Skiff and Jalung in Wikipedia and their actual tested ranges...

Tin Man

As Jimmy just mentioned, no manouvering with tanks and bombs, just missiles. I think that can be said of any aircraft, with the possible exception of the F-22 whose monster engines might negate weight issues to a degree.

On AMRAAM C-5, I think it is odd that MOD didn`t go for C-7, which is said to be a big improvement over C-5? The "D" or C-8 version with extended range will be in production in December 2007, is a supposed Meteor rival so I can see why the RAF didn`t opt for it.

Not sure who would have an edge BVR, if we believe the hype about CAPTOR and N011-M Bars, they will both see each other before AWACS does!!! I know the "users" have been impressed with CAPTOR. A BVR fight though is not just about radar, it`s about energy state, defensive aids, good IFF! (an oxymoron!).
I do wonder about the sensor fusion in the Su-30 MKI though having it`s systems "cobbled" together so to speak compared to the kit in Typhoon which is all automated, I wonder if the lighter workload for the Typhoon pilot negates the help the WSO can give to the fight in the big Su?

ARCHER, that Damocles pod looks a nice piece of kit! Litening III for the Typhoon will be ready in the next few months I hear, ready for the `Stan after that!

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

uss

Never said anything to the contrary.

Not so much an advantage as if you could carry that same fuel internally.

Really guys you make it sound as though BVR combat is all about sitting pretty in your fancy fighter and firing shots off into the air. My guess would be that its a lot more complicated than that - as an attacker, you'd probly need to suddenly increase speeds and gain energy to reduce closure after detection of targets, then engage, manouver and then disengage - all at pretty high speeds.
AGain, God forbid, if you find yourself on the receiving end and your RWR/MAWS lights up - you may have to do some fancy manouvering to get out of the situation (break lock/detection) - for example by doing a beaming manouver or even reduce speeds.

IOW, you don't have to be get into "a turning fight" but still have to maintain a very good ability to turn and burn to execute BVR tactics . If as you point out, the EFTs will be shed, you realize that also means that your ability to reengage will probly be lost and your mission might very well be a failure.
My point is, there is a lot of high speed manouvering involved in BVR and EFTs/ordinance will come in the way unless dumped, which is where the Flanker series enjoys a pretty good advantage apart from its huge fuel capacity.

GOing back to the original context, all of this if you go back a few posts is related to the idea that the ability of the typhoon to supercruise with EFTs is going to be of any direct use in BVR tactics. It was my reply to 'Hello' that Tin Man refuted by pointed out that EFTs/ordinance does not have much impact on the drag/TWR of the typhoon since it can supercruise with them.
My point is quite simple really - in many a BVR type scenario, your ability to supercruise with EFTs is hardly going to matter cause you'll probly have to shed the load. IOW, while such a load might not have a drag/weight penalty while cruising, it could be a bane in combat.

REgards,
USS.

Jimmy

My mistake then...it sounded to me like that's what you were getting at.

In a WVR fight this is completely wrong. If we're talking a DCA CAP, where loiter time is key, its an advantage in that you dont have the aerodynamic drag associated with external stores. But if you're in a maneuvering situation, extra weight that cant be shed (internal vs external fuel) it can hurt you. Of course, if the guy dropping his tanks doesnt have tanker support and he's a long way from home, he's in trouble no matter how the fight ends up.

You're right, its a lot more complicated than that. A successful BVR intercept isnt just fancy flying, its precision. Its knowing exactly what you have to do, what you're going to do, and when you're going to do it. And its maintaining situational awareness on everything going on around you while you count off the seconds/miles/switch actuations while the fit hits the shan. Oh, and actually following through with your plan accurately.

Getting into a turning fight might not be a bad idea, depending on what you're armed with and what your opponent is armed with. If your opponent has superior BVR capabilities but you own the WVR realm, guess what you want to do: You want to merge with that bastard and make his wife claim his hair, teeth and eyeballs in the morning. You dont want to engage at standoff range, I dont care how much fuel you have.

Yeah, there's high speed maneuvering. But a 50, 60, or 70 mile intercept does not take long. F-15Cs for example (not the most fuel efficient jet on Earth) have MORE than enough gas to make that intercept, even taking a launch and leave shot then turning back in for a merge. If they'd just punched tanks, they're in good shape for a while. Even F-16s have plenty of gas for this. As far as the Eurofighter, I have no idea...I've never worked with them (I'd like to though, that'd be an awesome TDY).

If the point is that its situationally dependent, you're absolutely right. There are pros and cons to damn near every facet of every aircraft. A capability in one situation could easily become a liability in another. Personally, I think you overstate the value of the Su-30's internal fuel load. On a stealth aircraft it would be a huge benefit. The Eurofighter's RCS would certainly have benefitted from it. But in a 4th gen fighter...yeah, it could be good, but if I were designing it, that wouldnt be my priority. Or even in my top 5.

uss

just to reemphasize the point about heavy duty manouvering involved in BVR, here is what an IAF jock had to say about working out with the RAF in the latest Indradhanush exercise
posted via BR:
No doubt, precisely what above mentioned jock is getting at - you want to play to your strengths.

Actually, one feels that you cannot emphasize this advantage that the flanker enjoys enough -
The su 30MKI is more than just a typical 4th generation a/c and its ability to carry HUGE amounts of internal fuel is definitely a strong factor that makes it so different from other 4 gen fighters. it is one of the key parameters in allowing the flanker series to evolve further. Most other 4th gen fighters such as the teen series (unless totally revamped ala Shornet) will get chewed up pretty easily by the likes of a typhoon or Rafale in almost every performance criteria. IOW, having large amounts of internal fuel results in
1) lack of EFTs thereby reducing drag
2) increased ability/hardpoints to carry weapons and still maitaining decent aerodynamic performance
3) Tremendous endurance to dictate engagement/egress

JMT.

Regards,
USS.

Jimmy

I agree with most of what that pilot says. The things I disagree with are doctrinal, so there's no reason to debate it.

I've watched plenty of BVR engagements and even flown in a few (fighter jocks have an awesome job), and I've pulled about 8 Gs a few times. Yes, maneuvering takes place. But you're not just yanking and banking. Its all based on SOMETHING. He makes a good point about trying to keep your SA as high as possible, looking for a mistake to exploit, or an opportunity to use your system to its full potential.

I dont want to make it sound like a large internal fuel capacity is a bad thing. But its not the greatest thing in the world. There are plenty of times where its a great capability. There are times when its a liability. That's all I'm trying to say.

uss

jimmy,
I get your point.

regards,
USS.

YellowFever

I'm inclined to stay out of this argument since you guys pretty much know all the technical stuff better than I ever hope to know.
(Besides, this is turning into another "this missile has this much range and that missile has that much range so this a/c will win argument)

But danggit, I said this before and I'll say it again, those Indian Su's are outright the prettiest things flying in the world.
Pure eye candy...

__________________
...If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space!

Garry

Hi MrFirst, unfortunatelly you are right. Just one correction - MKM is also far beyond capabilities of the most modern Su-27SKMs (12 of them are in serice)..... not speaking about conventional Su-27 and Su-27UBK which make bulk of the Flankers currently in service.

It would take few years at full capacities of Russian aircraft plants to upgrade them to MKI/MKM level..... and agreement of Ministry of Defense to use foreign components....

kams

They do have nice curves in right places...

MrFirst

To use foreign components? That's impossible, they'll never do that for Russian Airforce's planes.

Mekstizzle

Any reported results from this exercise, or is it still on going?

Tronic

Direct results; those wont be released.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory