Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: How Credible is This?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    12 Jun 07
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,297

    How Credible is This?

    Su-30MKI and F-16C and F/A-18E/F

    Military Parade, milparade.com

    By Anatoly Shamin, Alexander Ilgov, Vladimir Stepanov
    Central Research Institute #30 of the MoD, Russia

    [January 2001]

    An analysis of air force inventories in the majority of countries in the Asia-Pacific region indicates that local fighter forces mostly consist of obsolete U.S.-made F-5 and F-4 aircraft. Only a few air forces are armed with relatively new versions of the F-16 and F/A-18 fighters.

    Purchases by India of the Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters, which have significantly enhanced combat capabilities of the Indian Air Force, and previous sales of the Su-27 and Su-30 fighters to China and Vietnam may determine further development of air forces in the Asia-Pacific region and help maintain the balance of power.

    The competition on the Asia-Pacific military aircraft market, made ever keener by the recent sales of the Su-30MKI fighters, requires from potential buyers a clear understanding of basic specifics of aircraft.

    The flight performance, technical characteristics and combat capabilities of any aircraft primarily depend on their assigned role, tactical tasks and mission environment. These factors alone distinguish the Russian fighter from its foreign counterparts.

    The Su-30MKI design, having retained the best features of the unsurpassed Su-27 air-superiority fighter, boasts enhanced functional capabilities. It should be noted that comparison of the Su-30MKI, a heavy-class fighter, with the F-16C Block 50, F-16C Block 60, and F-18E/F aircraft is largely theoretical, as they belong to conceptually different fighter classes and have their own, preferential areas of combat employment. For example, the F-18E/F version, owing to the F/A-18 basic design, features a more pronounced strike-mission capability, while in terms of dimensions, this aircraft is close to the Russian fighter.

    The basic tactical and technical characteristics determining the capabilities of any aircraft include its flight performance and avionics and armament characteristics. Their analysis makes it possible to compare aircraft and assess the level of their technical perfection.

    The Su-30MKI’s structural and aerodynamic configuration incorporates the latest research and technological achievements. It is a triplane (a combination of conventional design with foreplanes) with a lifting fuselage and developed wingroot extensions. The interaction of the foreplanes and wingroot extensions creates a controlled vortex effect similar to that of the adaptive wing. The F-16 and F-18 designs were developed in the early and mid-1970s. In terms of maximum aerodynamic efficiency, the Su-30MKI, like all Su-27-family aircraft, is unparalleled in the world and outperforms the above foreign counterparts by at least 50 to 100 percent. This is why the latest modernization programs, which gave birth to the F-16C Block 60 and F-18E/F versions, involved the increase of wing span, fuselage length and control surface areas and significantly changed the structural configuration and general layout of their basic versions.

    Engines with thrust-vectoring nozzles enable the Su-30MKI to perform such maneuvers as «cobra» vertical reverse, roll in «bell» turn in «cobra» etc. In these maneuvers, an angle of attack can reach 180o. These are not purely aerobatic maneuvers: this supermaneuverability can be effectively used in combat. As for the F-16 and F-18 aircraft, their maximum angles of attack are 30o and 40o, respectively, and they cannot use armament at supercritical angles of attack.

    In terms of conventional maneuverability characteristics, all these fighters are very similar. However, according to preliminary assessments, the Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability gives it a 30-percent superiority over its competitors in close air combat. Aircraft multiple capabilities put into the forefront the problem of effective weapon employment. To solve this problem, the Su-30MKI has a copilot/operator to improve the crew’s performance, weapon employment efficiency and provide for group missions.

    The role of avionics in aircraft combat employment is ever growing. A number of the Su-30MKI fighter’s subsystems (navigation and communications equipment, cockpit instruments) are being developed jointly with foreign companies. Consequently, these subsystems will be technologically on a par with the best foreign counterparts. The superiority of the Su-30MKI’s radar in terms of target detection range, scanning sectors and jamming immunity makes it highly effective in long-range air combat.

    Modern Russian fighters are equipped with an advanced optronic system designed to search, detect, lock on, automatically track aerial and ground targets and destroy them by onboard weapons. An optical locating station and a helmet-mounted sight incorporated by the system provide for effective weapon employment against aerial targets. The high accuracy and jamming immunity of the system interfaced with the onboard radar make it possible to detect targets at a range of up to 50 km and engage them in good time, significantly enhancing the fighter’s overall combat capabilities. The helmet-mounted sights have only recently appeared on foreign fighters. As for optronic equipment used against ground targets, the capabilities of the F-16’s LANTIRN and F-18E/F’s ATFLIR systems are close to those of the Russian-made analog, although foreign developers maintain a priority in this field.

    Compared to the F-16C Block 50, a heavy weapon load carried by the Su-30MKI significantly (by 20 percent) reduces the time required to defeat ground targets by one sortie, especially when using aerial bombs. The F-18E/F fighter is planned to have a similar combat load capacity in the future.

    Notably, in terms of quantity and types of weapons, the Russian fighter considerably outclasses the F-16C Block 50 and F-16C Block 60 aircraft. Only the F-18E/F is close to the Su-30MKI in this respect.

    In terms of target designation angles, maneuverability, etc., the R-73E close-range air-to-air missile in service with the Su-30MKI significantly outperforms similar foreign missiles and is rightly considered the world’s best in its class. The high energy and ballistic parameters of the Su-30MKI’s long-range air-to-air missiles, combined with the capability of its radar, allow it to deliver preventive strikes against aerial targets, including its potential rivals.

    Fitted with 12 weapon stores, carrying a full complement of air-to-air missiles and featuring a multichannel target engagement capability, the Su-30MKI fighter can be effectively used to repulse a massive air raid.

    The Su-30MKI has a twofold advantage over the F-16 aircraft in the number of simultaneously carried air-to-ground guided weapons, which are also more efficient. High-power guided weapons carried by the Su-30MKI enable it to defeat deeply buried, hardened and superhardened priority targets. The Su-30MKI’s medium-range guided missile can be launched at stand-off ranges. The F-18E/F fighter is expected to be armed with similar missiles after 2005. It will be also equipped with air-to-surface missiles guided by a satellite navigation system, although export deliveries of these aircraft are unlikely in the near future.

    Antiradar and antiship missiles in service with the Su-30MKI fighter excel their foreign couterparts in their mean speed.The Su-30MKI’s gun features higher accuracy and better armor piercing capability against lightly armored vehicles. Owing to its unique features which favorably distinguish it from foreign counterparts, the Su-30MKI is rightly considered one of the best multirole fighters at the beginning of the 21st century.

    Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance. According to preliminary estimates, in long-range air combat, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 60, F-16C Block 50 and F-18E/F aircraft by 15, 20 and 12-15 percent, respectively, owing to its radar’s greater detection range, higher jamming immunity and multichannel capability, as well as better maneuverability.

    he Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability and better air-to-air missiles give this aircraft superiority in close air combat in which it excels the F-16C Block 50 by 10-15 percent, F-16C Block 60 by 20-30 percent (as the high wing loading significantly limits its maneuverability in close-range combat), and F-18E/F by 15-20 percent.

    In terms of ground strike capabilities, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 50 by 50 percent and the F-16C Block 60 by 100 percent owing to its better surveillance and fire control radar system, higher survivability, better maneuverability, heavier combat load and longer flight range. The F-18E/F, following its modernization which has increased its flight range, armament suite and ammunition load and upgraded its surveillance and fire control radar system, still lags behind the Su-30MKI in strike capability by 15 to 20 percent.

    Another distinguishing feature of the Su-30MKI is its high versatility. It can be used as an air defense interceptor, a strike aircraft or a flying command post. It can be used as a leader aircraft of combined fighter groups (including those of light fighters), ensuring their cooperation and concentration of efforts. In addition, the SDU-10MK digital fly-by-wire control system makes it possible to use the Su-30MKI as a combat trainer.

    The above comparative analysis of the Su-30MKI’s combat performance and technical characteristics demonstrate that this aircraft is capable of attaining air superiority, repulsing massive air raids, supporting combat actions of other air groups, destroying a wide range of ground and naval targets, and executing various special missions.

    The Su-30MKI can operate over short ranges and also fulfill autonomous long-range missions. Unlike the F-16 and F-18 aircraft, the Su-30MKI’s short-range operation will not reveal all its capabilities, yet its advantages here are still obvious. Hopefully, the above assessment will allow potential customers to evaluate the combat capabilities of the Russian fighter and its main rivals on the Asia-Pacific aircraft market.
    Su-30MKI compared with the F-16C and F-18E/F

    I was wondering if anyone could tell me, at least approximately, how valid this article is? Given that it seems to be somewhat biased, and doesn't come from the most reliable of sources, I'm not sure what to make of it.

  2. #2
    Military Professional wabpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 03
    Location
    Commuting between Dresden and Ft. Worth
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    I was wondering if anyone could tell me, at least approximately, how valid this article is? Given that it seems to be somewhat biased, and doesn't come from the most reliable of sources, I'm not sure what to make of it.
    It's not very valid. The maneuvers it references would lead to the pilot being killed rather quickly. The claim that a Su-30MKI can fly at a 180 degree angle of attack is physically impossible. (It would require reverse thrust and a backward wing to be even theoretically possible.) The cobra maneuver really comes from an AOA of about 38 units, the same as can be pulled in a F-18 or F-16 and far less than what the F-22, F-35, Rafale, Typhoon or Grippen can pull. Thrust vectoring's real value is in lowering the number of G's needed to pull for certain vertical maneuvers.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Jul 05
    Location
    Cochin
    Posts
    806
    Sir,


    The Su-30MKI has a 3-D Vector thrust, Is flying backwards a possibility with this capability?

    Even if Su-30MKI can handle a 180 degree AoA, what will be the impact on the pilot?

    I have seen cobra being pulled by F/A-22,F-15 and MiG-29. But none of them could stand still in the air, while the Su-27/30 could. I dont consider Cobra etc as vital moves in combat, especially when it bleeds so much energy, not good when it is not 1 on 1 engagement.
    Last edited by Adux; 20 Dec 07, at 15:08.

  4. #4
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Adux View Post
    The Su-30MKI has a 3-D Vector thrust, Is flying backwards a possibility with this capability?
    Adux, even a simple bellycrawler like me will tell you no. You need reverse thrust and the only plane right now that has that capability is the HARRIER.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adux View Post
    Even if Su-30MKI can handle a 180 degree AoA, what will be the impact on the pilot?
    He's a bloody pancake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adux View Post
    I have seen cobra being pulled by F/A-22,F-15 and MiG-29. But none of them could stand still in the air, while the Su-27/30 could. I dont consider Cobra etc as vital moves in combat, especially when it bleeds so much energy, not good when it is not 1 on 1 engagement.
    Then what's the point? Please think through your questions before asking the good Commander.
    Chimo

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Jul 05
    Location
    Cochin
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Adux, even a simple bellycrawler like me will tell you no. You need reverse thrust and the only plane right now that has that capability is the HARRIER.

    He's a bloody pancake.

    Then what's the point? Please think through your questions before asking the good Commander.

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for your replies, Please forgive my amatuer questions, You have to understand my forte is Strategic Finance and I am big zero when it comes Physics.

  6. #6
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    2,832
    I have a hard time visualizing the concept of AoA and how I can use the given figures of AoA to determine the capabilities of the aircraft and utility of such manuevers. Can anyone help me out?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Jul 05
    Location
    Cochin
    Posts
    806
    Sir,

    One more Q, How relevent is such manoever's and High AoA when you dont need to point the nose of the aircraft at a target with Pilot's Helmet Cueing system.

  8. #8
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    19 May 06
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    212
    I suspect theres still some launching parameters to meet in order to shoot those off boresight missiles. You still need to pull the nose of the aircraft, within a certain parameter for the helmet mounted sight to work well enough for a good probability of kill.

    I won't speak for the entire Asia Pacific region, but in South East Asia, the Malaysian Air Force is considering additional Sukhoi-30MKM ( derivative of the MKI w/o Israeli mod) and weighing their options against SuperHornets though Boeing has yet to offer them. Their mixture of avionics systems have led to some teething integration issues that have yet to be fully resolved. (it was an accidental leak by one of their own sources)

    Maybe its just me, but I find the article more like an advertisement. Todays air combat arena is about BVR, and acquiring the first look, first shoot. Whoever who can sortie the most, and keep his birds flying, wins control of the skies.

    Factor in AEW/AWACs, ELINT and SIGINT support, Joint Tactical Information Displays, it would be very very difficult for the Flankers to sneak into close air combat range. The Flanker family isn't too hard to pick up on radar, which might cause it to lose the "First Look." When you don't have a first look, chances are you won't get a first shoot if your adversary has AWACS support.

    I doubt its super manueverability will be of much help in BVR, though admit the thrust vectoring may allow the aircraft to fly BEAM to its target, while inducing sufficient yaw to maintain radar lock on the edge of its radar gimbal limits.

    An important note, the primary BVR missile, the R-77 has yet to make its first combat kill. Hence, its hard to see if it can truly measure up against the American AMRAAM.

    The article also failed to mention the maintenance required for the AL-31 engines on the beast. More time spent in maintenance, means less time spent in the air training.
    Last edited by Zaphael; 20 Dec 07, at 18:24. Reason: Spellin err

  9. #9
    ? Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Mar 06
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    966
    Some of the claims made are overly simplistic and quite biased. I think It's safe to say that the Mig 29 has better manuevrability than the SU 27 series. In NATO exercises Mig 29's faced off against F 16's in dog fights. In low speed regimes(which is completely useless in a dogfight or any type of combat for that matter) the Mig 29 has an advantage. However dogfights happen at around roughly 300-500 kts and according to this this is what gives the F 16 an advantge in a dogfight. The main reason why this plane was deadly was due to the Archer dogfight missile and helemet mounted sight. With the advent of the AIM 9X and JHMCS it's no longer a problem. Pulling maneuvers like Cobras jsut kill off all your speed making you into an ideal target and it's an airshow trick simple as that,it just looks cool.

    Code One Magazine: Schlemming with the Fulcrums, F-16/MiG-29 Training in Italy — July 1995

    Also the quote here needs to be taken into perspective.

    Antiradar and antiship missiles in service with the Su-30MKI fighter excel their foreign couterparts in their mean speed.
    Supersonic anti ship missiles are more ssusceptible to ECM. Not to mention these missiles are very large limiting the number that can be carried. Due to their high spped(mach 2.2,2.5, and even 2.9) these missiles have a huge IR signature and this heat prevents them from using passive IR seekers themselves which provide no warning whatsoever.Dual radar/IR seekers are much more immune to ECM and due to the lag in Russian electronics and computer systems I doubt the ECCM on the Moskit is all that good compared to the Harpoon. Anyways abck the topic,they have a much larger IR sig and radar sig and with the SM-2 IIIB with a dual mode radar and IR seker it has no trouble detecting the moskit,not to mention IR sekeers installed on surface ships.Subsonic missiles give you much less early warning when under the radar horizon and due to their low radar and IR signatures are detected much later. They are also much smaller making it easy to saturate a target.

    Russian anti-ship missiles (Stuart Slade)
    World Affairs Board - View Single Post - Carrier killers (an article from JED online)
    Also check out Stoke Penwalt's post.

    SciForums.com - Russia Ready to Vaporize the Jewish State

    the Sunburn was made to explit the weaknesses of the AEGIS with the AN/SPY 1A.The An/SPY 1D is much better at filtering out targets from clutter thanks to the high speed digial computers along with other improvements.AEGIS baseline 7.1 is COTS and has the SPY 1D.
    Naval Technology - Arleigh Burke Class (Aegis) - Guided Missile Destroyers
    cooperative engagement capability - Google Search
    Raytheon RIM-162 ESSM
    Raytheon RIM-116 RAM

    Other improvements have alos been amde since then including the CIWS upgrade,cooperative engagement capability,ESSM(50g maneuvering missile) and RAM. Add that to some Superhornets upgraded with AESA's,AIM 9X's, and JHMCS and factor that inw ith the AEGIS 7.1 and CEC along with the upcoming E 2D Hawkeye and ESSM and RAM the Sunburn is an outdated approach.The SS N 27 Klub would be much more effective since less would be shot down at range.

    All this supermaneuevrability crap of the Sunburn is rather silly.At high speed your turning radius is very large which is no surprise considering has 3X the speed of the harpoon.In order to turn harder at high speeds you need to be able to pull more g's and the Moskit is limited to about 10-11 g's


    I'm 2 lazy to talk about the BVR side of the story Zaphael already took care of that.
    Sorry but no cigar
    (hope this helps)
    Last edited by Shadowsided; 20 Dec 07, at 21:15.

  10. #10
    ? Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Mar 06
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    966
    Plus even though the US doesn't field any TVC aircraft other than the Raptor it doesn't mean It's ignorant of supermaneeuevrability.

    Check out:
    HiMAT
    X29
    X 31
    X 36
    F 18 HARV
    F 15 ACTIVE
    F 15 IFCS
    F 16 MATV
    F 16 VISTA
    F 16 AFTI.

    F 22's despite the

  11. #11
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    16 Nov 05
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by Adux View Post
    Sir,

    One more Q, How relevent is such manoever's and High AoA when you dont need to point the nose of the aircraft at a target with Pilot's Helmet Cueing system.
    A helmet cued system is only good with certain weapons. With most missiles you still need to point the nose. On top of that, with most missiles you still need to KEEP the nose pointed through a good portion (or all) of a missile's flight.

    Plus it might be nice to try and dodge the other guy's missiles, too. If you're shooting at him, he's probably shooting back (unless you're in an F-22).

  12. #12
    Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Oct 06
    Posts
    550
    Quote Originally Posted by urmomma158 View Post
    . In low speed regimes(which is completely useless in a dogfight or any type of combat for that matter)
    Untrue. A lot if not most dogfights mature into a low, slow dogfight. And there it matters. Trying to keep your speed can easily result in giving the other guy plenty enough turning room to launch a missile at you, especially when we're talking about such a nose-pointer as the MiG-29.

    the Mig 29 has an advantage. However dogfights happen at around roughly 300-500 kts and according to this this is what gives the F 16 an advantge in a dogfight.
    They start there. They often don't end there, they end low and slow. Whoever does their initial moves first will typically have the advantage. It's the pilot - for it to be the plane, you'd have to have some huge discrepancies.

  13. #13
    Contributor
    Join Date
    06 Oct 06
    Posts
    550
    AMRAAM is now being integrated with JHCMS and is receiving 'expanded off-bore capability' ... yummy, huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    A helmet cued system is only good with certain weapons. With most missiles you still need to point the nose. On top of that, with most missiles you still need to KEEP the nose pointed through a good portion (or all) of a missile's flight.

    Plus it might be nice to try and dodge the other guy's missiles, too. If you're shooting at him, he's probably shooting back (unless you're in an F-22).

  14. #14
    Military Professional wabpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 03
    Location
    Commuting between Dresden and Ft. Worth
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    I have a hard time visualizing the concept of AoA and how I can use the given figures of AoA to determine the capabilities of the aircraft and utility of such manuevers. Can anyone help me out?
    If I can make this drawing appear, rather than the dreaded red X, here is a visual that might help.



    Angle of attack is defined as the angle at which relative windmeets an airfoil. It is the angle that is formed by the chord of the airfoil and the direction of the relative wind or between the chord line and the flight path. The angle of attack changes during a flight as the pilot changes the direction of the aircraft.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    29 Jul 05
    Location
    Cochin
    Posts
    806
    Sir,

    Thanks for that diagram, I understand when you say it is physically impossible.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Candidates, How would you grapple with Iran's nuclear drive?
    By FibrillatorD in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 16 Aug 07,, 16:11
  2. No credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated in attacks on the US
    By Trooth in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 22 Jun 04,, 23:59

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •