Capabilities & data Comparison- EuroFighter and Su-30MKI

[ajay_ijn]

Can mods transfer this thread to Military Aviation Forum

Surely Typhoon is better than Su-30MKI is many areas.

But i would be more interested to compare Typhoon and Su-37.
The main Advantage of Typhoon over Su-30MKI would be its stealth features.
Brief Technical Comparision of Su-30MKI and EF-2000 Typhoon.
Aerodynamics
EF-2000 has instantaneous and sustained turn rates.

The "Eurofighter possesses a delta CAN pool of broadcasting corporations interpretation for high flight performances and high Agility in all speed ranges. Those under the trunk lying air intakes provide for an excellent flowing against behavior, also with high angles of incidence. The airplane unites a high lift wing with low flight structural weight and very strong engines. It is inherently aerodynamically unstable. Without the computer-assisted control the bird would break out violently upward, it would not be not controllable by
a pilot.

While MKI has High Angle of attack.

Su-30MKIThe Su-30MKI aerodynamic configuration is an unstable longitudinal triplane. The canard increases the aircraft lifting effectiveness. It deflects automatically and allows high angle-of- attack flights. The integral aerodynamic configuration combined with thrust vectoring results in practically unlimited manoeuvrability and unique taking off and landing characteristics.Stability and control are assured by a digital FBW.

EF-2000 Has huge advantage,it is has 7 times small RCS than Su-27.We cannot call it has completely stealthy like B-2 or F-22 but its a stealthy aircraft.
Without extreme stealth characteristics with the development of the Eurofighter was done, one tried only the?natuerlichen as far as possible? To keep as small radar cross section as possible. This entails a considerable cost saving. Such characteristics, like them the F-22 or the F-117a possess are useful only with the employment in spacious even areas in middle or large heights. The Eurofighter however conceived for the BVR employment, for this is sufficient as small a radar cross section as possible. In addition it comes still that for a stealth airplane the weapon load must be carried internally, which limits their extent rather.

Su-30MKI has no AOA limitations which gives advantage to pilot in deploying weapons in any direction.
The term "super-maneuverability" was coined by Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, initiator of the USA's X-31 prototype program, in defining controllability up to 60° to 70° Angle-of-Attack with transients of 120° or more.The Su-30MKI has no AoA limitations: it can fly at even 180 degree AoA and still recover. This high super-agility allows rapid deployment of weapons in any direction as desired by the crew. The addition of another seat means that the pilot is free to concentrate on flying the aircraft while the second pilot can engage targets

Structure
EF-2000

It takes place an arrangement in arrangement in forward fuselage, central trunk, tail, left wing, right wing and vertical stabilizer. The construction took place also under the criterion to create an airplane with as small a radar cross section as possible.
Su-30MKI

The Su-30MKI is a highly integrated twin-finned aircraft. The airframe is constructed of titanium and high-strength aluminium alloys. The engine nacelles are fitted with trouser fairings to provide a continuous streamlined profile between the nacelles and the tail beams

FCS
EF-2000
This been made by a digital, 4-kanaliges Fly By Wire system (triple redundant), which the movements over sensors, implemented by the pilot at the control stick, takes up, into which four existing computers processes and as control signals to the servo actuators attached to the surfaces and flaps passes on. The flight control covers likewise the armament and the fuel supply.
The Flight control of computer (FCCs) is both among themselves and in each case connected with the individual sensors and announcements.
The FCS is likewise responsible for the flight control, which covers not only an autopilot, but also automatic patrol flights and attacks. for the disoriented pilot it gives also still. With manipulation the airplane is brought automatically into an easy climb.

Su-30MKI
For flight control, reliability and survivability, the aircraft has a FBW with quadruple redundancy. Depending on the flight conditions, signals from the control stick position transmitter or the automatic FCS will be coupled to the remote control amplifiers. Upon updating, depending on the flight speed and altitude, these signals are combined with feedback signals fed by acceleration sensors and rate gyros. The resultant control signals are coupled to the high-speed electro-hydraulicactuators of the stabilizers, rudders and the canard. For greater reliability,
Both have similar capability FBW but
Typoon's FBW has triple redundant and Su-30MKI FBW has quadruple redundant.What does it mean?

Cockpit and other avionics
EF-2000


The EF-2000 uses advanced user-friendly avionics which allows the pilot to gain optimum control over the aircraft. The avionics used in the EF-2000 include HMS(heal mounted symbology) system and HUD(heads up display). The EF-2000 has the capability to display the FlIR imagery, flight reference information and weapons management to the pilot. The EF-2000 also has three colour MFDs in the cockpit to show the real time tactical information to the pilot which help the pilot have what is called situational awareness of the battlefeild. The MFDs displav vital information like the digital terrain map, the status of the systems on board and the weapons status. The EF-2000 also features commands using voice inputs. This allows the pilot to enter data and procedures using voice.


In addition it has passive modes and IRST.
Su-30MKI

The SU-30MKI employs extensive use of French (Sextant Avionique) components in the cockpit. A total of 6 LCDs, 5 MFD 55s and 1 MFD 66 for displaying information and accepting commands are used. The six LCDs have a wide-screen, offer image-superimposing and are shielded to make them readable even in bright sunlight. All the flight information is displayed on these four LCD displays which include one for piloting and navigation, a tactical situation indicator, and two for display systems information including operating modes and overall operation status. A VEH 3000 holographic HUD is standard. The cockpit also retains some traditional dial displays as standys.

In addition it has satellite navigation system,Secure HF and VHF radio comm.
It can be also fitted with Imaging IR navgation and has Laser optical locating system and FLIR.

RADAR
EF-2000
As written by turin
EF uses the CAPTOR-Radar. Its a mechanical pulse-Doppler-Radar. Because its mechanical some people claim its an inferior radar. While new radars are not mechanical moved anymore its capabilities are still up-to-date. It has an official range of about 185 km for figher sized AC and around 370 km for larger ones like commercial AC. It can detect & track up to 20 targets simultaniously and uses a special processing channel (next to detection and tracking) for ECM.
The CAPTOR is integral part of the EF sensor fusion system.

The radar offers a multiplicity of air-to-air and air-to-surface modes and is fully and look down capable of of look UP. It can identify and them to priorities assign automatically airborne targets. gelaendedarstellung, ranging or filtering spurious signals caused by waves rank during flights over water. Automatic weapon delivery is supported likewise. The radar is relatively insensitive opposite ECM

Su-30MKI

The forward facing Phazotron NO11M Bars is a powerful integrated radar sighting system. The N011M is a digital multi-mode dual frequency band radar (X and L Band, NATO D and I). Antenna diameter is 1m, antenna gain 36dB, the main sidelobe level is -25dB, average sideobe level is -48dB, beamwidth is 2.4 deg with 12 distinct beam shapes. The antenna weighs 100kg.
For aircraft N011M has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range. The radar can track and engage 20 air targets and engage the 8 most threatening targets simultaneously.
Additionally the Su-30MKI can function as a 'mimi-AWACS' and can act as a director or command post for other aircraft. The target co-ordinates can be transferred automatically to atleast 4 other aircraft
It can detect small surface targets at 50km and Ships at 400km.
It has Another Rearward Facing RADAR
The Su-30MKI also has a NO12 rearward facing radar which is housed at the end of the center section spine or sting and alerts a pilot to the approach of an enemy aircraft on his tail. This radar has a range of 50km for a 3 sqm RCS target and 100 km for large ones.It enables the pilot to fire the R-73RDM2 missile without turning to get a positive lock on the enemy aircraft.
In Radar MKI has slight advantage over Typhoon.
Hope Admin will not be angry for this big message i posted

[ajay_ijn]

I am continuing my previous post as the no. of words in the post exceeded 10,000.
Engine
EF-2000 Typhoon

The Eurojet EJ200 is a state of the art low bypass ratio augmented turbofan engine, which was designed for use on Europe's all new front line fighter aircraft, the Eurofighter EF2000 Typhoon. The EJ200 gives the Typhoon the a unity (1:1) power to weight ratio even at maximum take off weight, and allows the sleek fighter to supercruise up to speeds of Mach 1.3; supercruise being the ability to cruise at supersonic speed without the use of the afterburner. The Eurojet EJ200 features many state of the art design elements, including integrated blade/disk construction, (blisks) wide chord fan airfoils without a need for inlet guide vanes, single crystal turbine blades, an airspray fuel delivery system,

Complete Info:
http://www.topfighters.com/eurofighter_engine.php
Its Engine is truly state of art,SuperCruise till Mach 1.3,Low heat signature,High weight to thrust ratio,specific excess power.
Thrust Rating: 20,000 lbs. of thrust with afterburner
Thrust/weight: 8.7:1
Does Typhoon Engines have TVC.
Su-30MKI

The Su-30MKI is powered by the Al-31FP (P for povorotnoye meaning "movable"), which is a development of the Al-37FU (seen in the Su-37 Terminator). The Al-37FU (FU stands for forsazh-upravlaemoye-sopo or "afterburning-articulating/steerable-nozzle") basically added 2D Thrust Vectoring Control (TVC) Nozzles to the Al-31F. 2D TVC means that the Nozzles can be directed/pointed in 2 axis or directions - up or down. TVC obviuosly makes an aircraft much more maneuverable. Al-31FP builds on the Al-37FU with the capability to vector in 2 planes i.e. thrust can be directed side-ways also. The nozzles of the MKI are capable of deflecting 32 degrees in the horizontal plane and 15 degrees in the vertical plane.

.The aircraft is capable of near-zero speed airspeed at high angles of attack and super dynamic aerobatics in negative speeds up to 200 km/h.


It has 2D TVC which allows aircraft to highly maneuverable in negative speeds upto 200km/h.
Thrust:25000 kg full afterburning thrust

In air-air weapons both have near equal capability
For EF-2000,Meteor BVRAAM,Aim-120 AMRAAM,Sidewinder SRAAM
For Su-30MKI AA-12 Adder,AA-11 Archer,AA-10 Alamos.
In air-to ground weapons
I don't know whether EF can carry Standoff and Cruise Missiles but can carry all the other weapons LGB,Anti-armor.
MKI can carry Most of the Russian Air-surface weapons and in future could be equipped with Brahmos Supersonic Ashm.

Source:
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/info-su30mki.html
http://www.topfighters.com/eurofighter_gen_info.php?id=4
and also some info from previous messages.

[WebMaster]

Thread split from Euro-Fighter 2000 thread in Military Images and Media forum. I am sure it took you time to compile all that thus the posts were not deleted.

Continue!

[ajay_ijn]

Thank u very much admin,it took me more than 1 hour to post the message.
Admin may i know your name,age etc?

[armage]

Do you think the Ef-2000 can perform the Cobra and the Super Cobra?
They both can mach each other, it whoever locks on first...
Also does the Ef-2000 pilots have the helmet mounted sight?
http://www.airtoaircombat.com/compare.asp

[mysterious]

All pilots use helmet mounted sight in such advanced airforces (indication towards those who are going to be using Ef-2000) and its only the less developed airforces whose pilots struggle with that.

[ajay_ijn]

Do you think the Ef-2000 can perform the Cobra and the Super Cobra?
They both can mach each other, it whoever locks on first...
Also does the Ef-2000 pilots have the helmet mounted sight?

Obviously dude EF pilots have HMS.
I don't think EF can perform Cobra or Super Cobra.
Only Su-27 family can perform these kind of maneuvers(In Specific

EF has huge advantage low RCS over MKI and also super cruise.
If MKI's RADAR manages to detect the EF in long ranges and It would be a Fight of equals.

While MKI has no AOA limitations and is highly maneuverable in negative air-speeds upto 200km/h.
In Close ranges MKI's will have TVC advantage and EF will have SuperCruise Advantage.
In BVR Depend on RADAR,MKI's RADAR looks to be effective but it will have to face problems in detection becoz of Low RCS of Typhoon.
Another two advantages MKI has is it can transfer target coodinates to four another fighter aircraft (Like Mini AWACS) .Also has rearward Facing RADAR and can launch much feared R-73 Missile on to the targets behind Fighter Aircraft.

It looks like MKI is not that inferior to EuroFighter.;) The one big advantage would very Low RCS of EF.

However I want experts help on SuperCruise Vs TVC.
Which can give more advantage in air war.

[The Watcher]

as far as i know those super fancy manuveours have nothing to do when it comes time for combat. not in era of BVR! those moves only look good at airshows to please the audience and win contracts. maybe someone with an extra brain cell than me could correct if im wrong? ;)

[gf0012-aust]

However I want experts help on SuperCruise Vs TVC.
Which can give more advantage in air war.

TVC for planes is over rated - it's marketing hype.

Think about it, a manned aircraft can sustain 9G - irrespective of TVC or not. An air to air missile can sustain 30+G - without TVC. If you put TVC on the missile (as has happened), there is no way that an aircraft can "out agility" it.

so, a $500k missile, or a $30m+ plane + $2m dollars worth of pilot.

As for high Supercruise vs TVC - Supercruise with/without a TVC missile everytime. Especially in managed and co-ordinated air space.

Th oft touted advantages applied to Cobras, Mongooses etc were show stoppers 6 years ago - now they're not useful at all. The scenario oft quoted about how they can be used (just after the interview with the head Sukhoi Pilot at the Paris Air Show) is also irellevant now due to tech changes in radar acquisition.

At the end of the day it will get down to pilots, pilots training, combined arms, managed air space and platform.

The platform depends on the others to work, the others don't necessarily need the platform.

[highsea]

Both have similar capability FBW but
Typoon's FBW has triple redundant and Su-30MKI FBW has quadruple redundant.What does it mean?
It means that the FBW systems have back-up paths/components in case of failure or damage. Triple redundant means you can have two failures and the aircraft is still controllable. Quadruple redundant means you can have 3 failures.

Regarding the subject of TVC, there is one advantage of TVC that is often overlooked, and that is the ability to compensate for damaged flight and control surfaces. This was one of the primary objectives of the F-15 ACTIVE program, and having differential TVC integrated into the FCS helps a lot to keep a damaged AC flyable. The manouverability aspect may be overrated, but the ability to bring a damaged AC home is definitely better than punching out over hostile territory.

[Aussie Digger]

The Hyper maneuverability that is possessed by the Su-27/30 aircraft might be useful in some hypothetical "dog fight". But very little air to air combat will take place in that arena in the future. It's all about BVR. In saying that though the Tranche 3 Eurofighter will be equipped with a Thrust Vectoring Control system, (as well as an engine upgrade [already designed] and stated to achieve 20% more thrust, with greater fuel efficiency and lighter engine weight).

In addition the Tranche 3 will be provided with a new AESA version of the Captor radar, the Pirate IRST system and other next gen enhancements. As the Eurofighter Typhoon hasn't even entered operational service yet, I think it's a bit early to really compare the 2, but when that Tranche 3 model comes around, I think those SU-27/30 lovers might be a bit disappointed with "their" bird... The Typhoon IMHO will be the 2nd best fighter aircraft in the world beside the F-22...

[gf0012-aust]

Clarification. I didn't mean to sound so harsh about TVC - it was couched in reference to issues of hyper manouvreability and supposed combat advantages.

[highsea]

I understood what you meant, Gary. I agree with the point. SU-30's are great at airshow manouvers, but that has a very limited use in future combat. The F-22 would be able to do these manouvers also, if the FCS didn't restrict them. Fact is, they are very dangerous moves, and a few pilots have been killed attempting them. One little F-up and it's lights out. 15G's is not good for pilots and aircraft. :(

[P.A.F]

i've seen plenty of videos of the su-27 & su-30 crashing at airshows.

[ajay_ijn]

think those SU-27/30 lovers might be a bit disappointed with "their" bird...
Never,Su-27/Su-30 did overtake the capabilites of F-15/F-16 and capability to match some other western fightes to some extent.
Fans will not get disappointed by Su-27/Su-30 performance except if they expect too much from them like facing F-22 and EF.
They will perform(in a War) Sucessfully of what they were Designed to i suppose
Compared to EuroFighter they are no match.
The Hyper maneuverability that is possessed by the Su-27/30 aircraft might be useful in some hypothetical "dog fight". But very little air to air combat will take place in that arena in the future. It's all about BVR.

True in Future it might be a BVR Combat only,
but EF might face some problems due MKI's RADAR and R-73 Missile if at all it faces a Close Combat.
Does any other fighter have RearWard facing RADAR and ability to fire a Missile Which can flip around and target fighter behind it ??

Another Question is TVC Completely useless in Combat???

In BVR,its RADAR and BVR Missile which play Major Roles,I suppose.
Su-30MKI has the powerful Russian RADAR.N011M Bars.

[Aussie Digger]

I've seen reports (which I can't produce) where US pilots have stated that the F-15, F-16 and F-18 would be able to perform Cobra maneuvers if software constraints were removed from their aircraft. It seems to me a bit dangerous however, and would probably end up with more airshow crashes. Given that these Western aircraft have still had greater export success, I don't think it's worth it personally...

[SABRE]

Only Su-27 family can perform these kind of maneuvers(In Specific

MiG-29 does a tail slide which is almost similar to Cobra.

[Salman78]

I would'nt be surprised if the MKI pilot can't see poop on his radar screen at long range (let's say 100km) since EF2000 is quite stealthy. Supercruise combined with the upcoming Meteor missile will give the EF2000 a major edge over MKI's R-77 Adder.
EF2k pilot's would stay out of MKI's missile range and score a first shot kill with their longe range active seeker.
EF2k also offers the pilot, better situational awareness.
MKI's manoverability is unchallenged but dog fighting is the last thing a pilot wants to be in. so in the highly unlikely scenario of MKI vs EF both or one would be down well before visual.
MKI really beats the EF when it comes to price tag.

[ajay_ijn]

I would'nt be surprised if the MKI pilot can't see poop on his radar screen at long range (let's say 100km) since EF2000 is quite stealthy. Supercruise combined with the upcoming Meteor missile will give the EF2000 a major edge over MKI's R-77 Adder.
EF2k pilot's would stay out of MKI's missile range and score a first shot kill with their longe range active seeker.
Agreed.But EF is not Completely Stealth Aircraft like F-22 etc but has much smaller RCS than normal Fighter,So MKI's RADAR might detect it may at range of say 80-90km.
There Might be a possibility that MKI pilot will Launch R-77 Before being shot down by the Meteor or transfer target coordinates to other Su-30MKI's.
The most Decisive thing would be
At which range Su-30MKI's Radar would be able to detect EF-2000??

[arjun]

euro fighter is capabilitities of whole europe and su-30 is made by just one nation. i think good to do not camper. both are ok in own ways.

[Pendekar]

NO11M Bars phased array radar was design with stealth aircraft in mind. i bet it can detect a B2 at a significant range. it was so powerfull that the carrying aircraft can also act as a mini awacs (a good secondary ability, but why waste a good fighter on awacs role)

I agree that TVC was overrated at some extent. but it still has some advantages and i don't agree if anyone say that TVC development is a wasted investment. concerning the super maneuverability, i don't think that having a super maneuvarable would make a fighter more advantageous over the others. keep in mind that inside those strong and shiny airframe, there is a human pilot on the stick and rudder. no sense of having the pilot crush to pulp by extreme Gs while trying to evade a missile (that's why fighters have countermeasures). even if it was unmanned, or remotely piloted, there's still an airframe limitations. the aircraft might pull a 20gs maneuver and then someone on the ground might notice some familiar looking pieces falling from the sky.

[ajay_ijn]

NO11M Bars phased array radar was design with stealth aircraft in mind. i bet it can detect a B2 at a significant range. it was so powerfull that the carrying aircraft can also act as a mini awacs (a good secondary ability, but why waste a good fighter on awacs role)
Thats exaggeration of the bars Radar.
I never heard that NO11M bars was designed for Stealth Aircraft.
B-2???forget,Its the world's most Fearful Bomber.

Regarding AWACS Capbility they can direct other MKI's for shooting enemy Fighters When Su-30MKI's will move in a Group.

[Pendekar]

is it posible to use a radar from single aircraft to direct missiles launched from several aircrafts?

[umair]

Ever heard of "Datalinks"1

[Awang se]

i do heard a while ago that the russian were developing some kind of anti stealth radar to be install on it's MIG-31s. it's on some article i read from some magazine. i don't remember much since i don't take it quite seriously.

[Kurt Plummer]

I won't cover these in order, since some do not make sense to me but:

1. Triplex (X3) and Qadruplex (X4) is a statement of channel redundancy of the _FLCS_ (FLight Control System, FCS is the FIRE Control System). The principle function of which is to integrate data from multiple axes worth of control surfaces (pitch, yaw, roll, have some /very/ interesting 'mixes') command levels as a function of normal flight. While it is true that this can compensate for some degree of battle damage, the reality is that no jet which is seriously damaged in aircombat is likely to get home and if it does, will probably never fly again, at least in that war. It should also be said that the voting or 'polling' between axes channels is not equal because not all axes have the same degree of redundant paths and some are more critical to safety of flight than others. The one certainty is that, when two channels of the FLCS do not agree and there is no 'tie breaker'; some element of the absolute maneuver authority will have to be lost as the FBW computer effectively downgrades to a more basic 'wings level, nose level' mode of control.

2. The Su-30 is a Piss Poor dogfighter. It is huge. It has NO DIRCM NOR MAWS capability to defeat advanced imaging threat missiles and in an era of 20km heat weapons, the ability to zoom climb 5-10Kft while holding a 6G turn is just next to worthless. All the 'triplane' and 'TVC' capabilities in the world don't mean diddly dip if the missile can out G you across the circle and/or lock on after launch and any 200-240lb weapon on the planet is going to beat a 40-60,000lb airframe on instantaneous loading and reloading pursuit-to-intercept work. Just on the certainties of mass-inertia and Cartesian maneuver schemes (any axis is effectively X:Y split, at any time, _without prior roll_). To which I must add that the '2 fighters, 1 airframe' rule applies to the Flanker far more than it does the F-14 or F/A-22 (it's nearest flying-SAM-site competitors) because those 21-25,000lbs of gas effectively impart hard CG and stress limiters on control surface 'throws' regardless. And without that fuel (and particularly given the extremely poor LRAAM armament ratios) the AL-31's are almost crippling in their radius and combat persistence effects. i.e. the Flanker MUST sprint to energize it's missile mechanic. But it cannot but engage more than a few targets at a time because of the numbers and functional guidance effects of the AAMs themselves. And the combination of closure and on/off nose control all can put it in a very bad situation in terms of coming into a dogfight heavy. And living to get out of it, alive.

3. The NO-11 Bars is theoretically capable of detecting 'generous' RCS targets (say 10m2) at 270-300km or so. FIGHTER sized targets in the range 2-3m2 instantaneously halve this number to roughly 120-150km, depending on various other conditions such as closure and background/EW conditions. NONE of which means that the airframe's 60km Adder or 70-110km Alamo-ER are going to be able to /hit/ those targets. Anymore than 40km AIM-120 and 90km AIM-54 could manage to peg Iraqo MiG-23 and 25 targets which were playing border-crasher games with U.S. fighters. You tac turn 30` one way and then 60` the other to hold a mean base heading on a random ground track and you will double if not triple the effective pole distance which the round must flyout calculate a midcourse HCA intercept angle on.
About the only interesting AAM in the entire Flanker weapons suite is the hypothetical Ks-172 which the Indians have just recently proposed restarting the development of as basically an air to air S-400. THIS is the weapon which will push back the penetrating and standoff C4ISTAR platforms. And, because of their relative signature size and performance class, it is the only one which will provide both a reasonable use of the Flankers 1.1 meter aperture size. And it's overall value:loss metric. Effectively allowing it to fight without being challenged as a standoff assassin.
Such a weapon will, most likely (especially with the booster) completely outclass the Meteor. Yet without it, the Flanker is itself unlikely to be anything but meat on the table because the RVV-AE is not of the same generation as even the R-77M and likely cannot employ even the simplest of 2-way, _digital_ datalinks required for detached support/silent shooter type tactics. Meteor will also almost certainly constant-burn beat the boost-slide kinematic mechanics of the pure rocket weapons.

CONCLUSION:
The Flanker is a very poor design which was intended as a breakout escort platform in a 1970's-80's view of fighting NATO and particularly the U.S. _system of systems_ metric on a very narrow warfront in Central Europe. Because of the Russian Great Wide Nothingness, it does have some range performance advantages but it's abiltiy to operate independently in an OCA sweep mode is compromised by the nature of it's signature, it's weapons compliment and it's tendency to view warfare as a stepped progression to the visual fight rather than something to be fought, entirely, at range.

Such a system metric would be very disappointing in facing even a marginal (local vice netcentric) defensive overlap of ERINT/PAC-3 type weapons or when fighting a threat that could layer offensive attacks without ever leaving the passive-cue BVR attack philosophy of an EA/AEW enabled air shooters and Cruise dominated rollback threat.

Such will continue to be the case so long as Russia cannot afford to develop serious stealth capabilities and India in particular relies on Russian aeronautical engineering that doesn't take the prerequisites of VLO (careful system packaging control and excellence of manufacture) into account.


KP

[adsH]

is it posible to use a radar from single aircraft to direct missiles launched from several aircrafts?

the MKi can have groups of 4 AC spread out over a certain distance, sharing information that’s a datalink capability. how good it actually is on the MKI, my guess would good as any. the Grippen is supposed to have a brilliant Datalink, that one of the good things about the AC, it has something known as the


The Gripen is fitted with the "Tactical Information Datalink System (TIDLS)", which gives the fighter four high-bandwidth, two-way datalinks with a range of about 500 kilometers and very high resistance to jamming. The datalinks allow the Gripen to engage in combat using another aircraft's sensors or from targeting data provided by other defense systems. Data acquired from remote sources is fused and displayed on the fighter's main MFD. The link is fully operational when the aircraft is on the ground, allowing a pilot on standby to have high situational awareness of the battle environment.

One Gripen can provide radar sensing for four of its colleagues, allowing a single fighter to track a target, while the others use the data for a stealthy attack. TIDLS also permits multiple fighters to quickly and accurately lock onto a target's track through triangulation from several radars; or allows one fighter to jam a target while another tracks it; or allows multiple fighters to use different radar frequencies collaboratively to "burn through" jamming transmissions.

TIDLS also gives the Gripen transparent access to the SAAB-Ericsson 340B Erieye "mini-AWACs" aircraft, as well as the overall ground command and control system. This system provides Sweden with an impressive defensive capability at a cost that, though still high, is less than that of comparable systems elsewhere.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3280&page=1&pp=10


This is an Example of the tech I know the Europeans are capable of, allot of Saab stuff is British and American in Origin, I would say the Flight control the Main power plant Etc are all American, the export variant has allot of British stuff so you can assume that the Euro fighter would have a similar or slightly upgraded capability.

Its all down to how useful secure and how cleverly wrapped the whole package of Data link is on the Mki, since its India's first go at it, I would put my money on the Eurofighter.

Saab is a Partner firm of BAE so there probably would be alot of information sharing. But the Swedish are really good at Data links

[ajay_ijn]

The Su-30 is a Piss Poor dogfighter. It is huge. It has NO DIRCM NOR MAWS capability to defeat advanced imaging threat missiles and in an era of 20km heat weapons, the ability to zoom climb 5-10Kft while holding a 6G turn is just next to worthless. All the 'triplane' and 'TVC' capabilities in the world don't mean diddly dip if the missile can out G you across the circle and/or lock on after launch and any 200-240lb weapon on the planet is going to beat a 40-60,000lb airframe on instantaneous loading and reloading pursuit-to-intercept work


Poor Dogfighter,Are u comparing it with F-22 or what??
If it cannot beat Air-air Missile then is it a poor Dogfighter??
and It has been no where mentioned that Su-30 can defeat Air-air Missiles.
I agree that TVC has been exaggerated but it surely gives some advantage in the dogfight.
Flankers have virtually no AOA limitations.
I found a Article about Thrust Vectoring Flight Control Safety.
http://www.airtoi.com/special/spec1.htm

Interview of Designer General of Sukhoi Mikhail Simonov
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html



Supermaneuverability should be looked at as a system of maneuvers for close aerial combat. Once the pilot receives a signal that his plane is being tracked by an enemy radar, the first thing he needs to do is to go vertical. While gaining altitude and losing speed the aircraft starts to disappear from the screens of radars that use the Doppler effect. 10 However, the opponent is no fool either and will counter by pitching his aircraft upward as well. By that time our plane is going vertical and its speed approaches zero. But all Doppler radars can recognize only a moving target. If the aircraft speed is zero or simply low enough to prevent the enemy radar from calculating the Doppler component, for the enemy our aircraft will disappear. He may still be able to track us visually, but he will not be able to launch a radar-guided missile (either active or semi-active), simply because the missile's seeker would not pick-up the target

He says that Flankers can go vertical and approach a speed of Near Zero.
It this prcatical or Publicity for flankers.

About the only interesting AAM in the entire Flanker weapons suite is the hypothetical Ks-172 which the Indians have just recently proposed restarting the development of as basically an air to air S-400.
Can u give me some official source for India proposing.

The NO-11 Bars is theoretically capable of detecting 'generous' RCS targets (say 10m2) at 270-300km or so. FIGHTER sized targets in the range 2-3m2 instantaneously halve this number to roughly 120-150km, depending on various other conditions such as closure and background/EW conditions. NONE of which means that the airframe's 60km Adder or 70-110km Alamo-ER are going to be able to /hit/ those targets. Anymore than 40km AIM-120 and 90km AIM-54 could manage to peg Iraqo MiG-23 and 25 targets which were playing border-crasher games with U.S. fighters. You tac turn 30` one way and then 60` the other to hold a mean base heading on a random ground track and you will double if not triple the effective pole distance which the round must flyout calculate a midcourse HCA intercept angle on.

NONE of which means that the airframe's 60km Adder or 70-110km Alamo-ER are going to be able to /hit/ those targets

Yes,But early detection is always an advantage,It can alert Ground Control Center,It can tranfer Target Coordinates to four other Fighter Aircraft.
Small Correction.
NO-11M can detect 150km targets.An F-16 is said to be detected at 150km.
AA-12 Adders range is 90-100km.
AA-10 Alamo-C has range of 130km.
One variant AA-10 Alamos-E has range of 170km but no evidence of Missile in production.
A Flanker or Fulcrum firing the AA-11 Archer and AA-12 Adder outguns the F/A-18A firing the AIM-9M and the AIM-7M by a significant margin. The Vympel R-73 Adder is a true fourth generation WVR AAM with thrust vectoring and a significant off-boresight acquisition capability using the helmet mounted sight, the follow-on R-73M will have a 20+ NM range and an even greater off-boresight capability. This 232 lb (105 kg) AAM carries a 16 lb (7.5 kg) warhead, and has a useful envelope between 300 metres and 16.2 NM (30 km). The Vympel R-77 (Amraamski) is an active radar guided BVR AAM and is designed to engage 12 G targets, using unique "grid" control surfaces to achieve additional control force at high AoA. The R-77 weighs in at 386 lb (175 kg), and has a useful range at altitude of up to 48.6 NM (90 km). This missile, like the Amraam, uses datalink midcourse guidance and active terminal homing, supports an LOBL off-the-rail active launch mode and has a home-on-jam (HOJ) capability. Carried by the Flanker and Fulcrum, the missile requires the APU-170 pylon adaptor, and a late model AI radar such as the Phazotron Zhuk (Author).
I got an detailed article about fourth Generation AAM's.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
It says that python4 is the best WVRAAM.


Just on the certainties of mass-inertia and Cartesian maneuver schemes (any axis is effectively X:Y split, at any time, _without prior roll_). To which I must add that the '2 fighters, 1 airframe' rule applies to the Flanker far more than it does the F-14 or F/A-22 (it's nearest flying-SAM-site competitors) because those 21-25,000lbs of gas effectively impart hard CG and stress limiters on control surface 'throws' regardless. And without that fuel (and particularly given the extremely poor LRAAM armament ratios) the AL-31's are almost crippling in their radius and combat persistence effects. i.e. the Flanker MUST sprint to energize it's missile mechanic. But it cannot but engage more than a few targets at a time because of the numbers and functional guidance effects of the AAMs themselves. And the combination of closure and on/off nose control all can put it in a very bad situation in terms of coming into a dogfight heavy. And living to get out of it, alive.
I am not able to understand this,Can u explain in more Simpler way.

Yet without it, the Flanker is itself unlikely to be anything but meat on the table because the RVV-AE is not of the same generation as even the R-77M and likely cannot employ even the simplest of 2-way, _digital_ datalinks required for detached support/silent shooter type tactics.
Can u tell me Which other AAM other than Meteor have Two-Way Datalink.
I don't think There are any.
Meteor Is an Excellent BVRAAM.
MBDA Meteor is capable of engaging air targets autonomously, whether fighters, bombers, transport aircraft, AWACS or cruise missiles by using its active radar seeker by day or night and in all weather or dense EW (Electronic Warfare) environments. Meteor’s solid fuel variable-flow rocket/ramjet propulsion system will ensure a range in excess of 100 km and a speed of more than Mach 4 and high terminal velocity. Even when launched from extreme stand-off ranges, the missile will have the energy in the end game to defeat fast, manoeuvring targets. To ensure total target destruction, the missile is equipped with both proximity and impact fuzes and a fragmentation warhead that is detonated at the optimum point to maximise lethality. Guidance is ISN, two-way datalink and active Ku-band radar seeker. It can receive targeting data after launch from the launching fighter, another fighter, or AWACS platforms. The two-way data-link partially solves the IFF problem at long ranges.

[adsH]

2. The Su-30 is a Piss Poor dogfighter. It is huge. It has NO DIRCM NOR MAWS capability to defeat advanced imaging threat missiles and in an era of 20km heat weapons, the ability to zoom climb 5-10Kft while holding a 6G turn is just next to worthless. All the 'triplane' and 'TVC' capabilities in the world don't mean diddly dip if the missile can out G you across the circle and/or lock on after launch and any 200-240lb weapon on the planet is going to beat a 40-60,000lb airframe on instantaneous loading and reloading pursuit-to-intercept work. Just on the certainties of mass-inertia and Cartesian maneuver schemes (any axis is effectively X:Y split, at any time, _without prior roll_). To which I must add that the '2 fighters, 1 airframe' rule applies to the Flanker far more than it does the F-14 or F/A-22 (it's nearest flying-SAM-site competitors) because those 21-25,000lbs of gas effectively impart hard CG and stress limiters on control surface 'throws' regardless. And without that fuel (and particularly given the extremely poor LRAAM armament ratios) the AL-31's are almost crippling in their radius and combat persistence effects. i.e. the Flanker MUST sprint to energize it's missile mechanic. But it cannot but engage more than a few targets at a time because of the numbers and functional guidance effects of the AAMs themselves. And the combination of closure and on/off nose control all can put it in a very bad situation in terms of coming into a dogfight heavy. And living to get out of it, alive.

EuroFighter's HMS coupled AIM-132 (fire and forget) missile would be enough, No flares counter measures would stop it, it locks on to the actual Airframe and guides it way to the Target ignoring the Flares, and it being "Fire and forget" weapon, the EW suite on the SU wouldn't be able to out smart the Missile.

[adsH]

I got an detailed article about fourth Generation AAM's.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
It says that python4 is the best WVRAAM.



I am not able to understand this,Can u explain in more Simpler way.





that’s propaganda I'd say that Our AIM-132 ASRAAM is the worlds best, Pytho-4 is a good Missile but not a match for the next gen of the Meteor, the Range here is not in question since most of the the Airforces that use the AIM-132 (Rafael, F-18, Eurofighter, grippen etc) have the AIM-120 in service. The AIM-132 infringes into the BVRAAM territory (According to Aussie Digger)
And just to Remind you AIM-132 Won the RAAF Contract
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3315

[ajay_ijn]

that’s propaganda I'd say that Our AIM-132 ASRAAM is the worlds best, Pytho-4 is a good Missile but not a match for the next gen of the Meteor, the Range here is not in question since most of the the Airforces that use the AIM-132 (Rafael, F-18, Eurofighter, grippen etc) have the AIM-120 in service. The AIM-132 infringes into the BVRAAM territory (According to Aussie Digger)


Then lets compare the capabilities ASRAAM and Python-4.
I will better make a new thread

[ravi_n_naik]

su30 supermaneuverability has dual use. the airshow thing suggested by many although true, another important use is missile avoidance.In hands a skillful pilot like test pilot Yevegeny Frolov it souhld be fairly easy to avoid a bvraam at close range by sudden maneuvers.

also ability of the Su30 to fly at extremely low speeds can help in emergency landings if the aircraft is damaged.

[ajay_ijn]

su30 supermaneuverability has dual use. the airshow thing suggested by many although true, another important use is missile avoidance.In hands a skillful pilot like test pilot Yevegeny Frolov it souhld be fairly easy to avoid a bvraam at close range by sudden maneuvers.

Its not possible to do so,Do u think nowadays Missiles will allow to do so.
No matter how much high G u have pulled,Su30 cannot defeat the AAM.
And more over it is not always safe for the pilot to do such Maneuvers.

[Pathfinder-X]

su30 supermaneuverability has dual use. the airshow thing suggested by many although true, another important use is missile avoidance.In hands a skillful pilot like test pilot Yevegeny Frolov it souhld be fairly easy to avoid a bvraam at close range by sudden maneuvers.

also ability of the Su30 to fly at extremely low speeds can help in emergency landings if the aircraft is damaged.

The modern air to air missiles are able to pull 30G manoevures while jet fighters can pull a maximum G of 9. I just don't see how any fighter could use its manoevurbility to avoid incoming AAMs.

Avoidance of missiles is achived by active defence measures such as ECM or passive measures like deploying chaff or flare. A pilot should not count on the agility of his aircraft as there is no way a plane could outrun a missile.

[adsH]

see the thing is that Ajay, that ive already got a Post named for the AIM-132, its our New AAM. It won against in performance quality and hecks allot of stuff then its competitor the Aim-9X Sidewinder. Now the sidewinder is what the Israelis use too, they deem it better then there own stuff; (hence they use it) I really don't see how Python-4 can be as good as the AIM-132. The Name suggests that its AMERICAN since its named AIM-132. DOD gave this missile a DOD name after the RAAF’s request. Its Just an Amazing new Missile, its very new its first trial was in Gulf war 2 where RAF deployed it. It won the RAAF RAF contract, the competitors for the contract were Side winders Python and the AIM-132

the Sidewinder and AIM-132 are near beyond visual range (NBVR) and within visual range (WVR) arenas. I hate to say this but the AIM-9X by my count is still primitive in some ways, the 9X has the Same seeker as the AIM-132, the AIM-132 has been designed for internal Weapon bays, I’m sure the 9X has been designed for a similar purpose but the Nick name for the AIM-132 is DOG Fight weapon, and just because the RAAF chose this missile over the 9X, suggests that its better in some ways. British RAF would never of compensated and signed for an Inferior Weapon system.
This is what the AIM-132 is capable of some of the people here think that they can Evade a Missile which has, low drag design, . with Mach 3+ Dual-thrust (boost/sustain) solid-fueled rocket with TVC (and NBVR) and can pull 50 g’s soon as its launched and LOAL, change priorities and is probably the most clever thing up there in the Field.


The AIM-132 is a high-speed short-range rocket-powered missile with a low-drag configuration without any forward flying surfaces. The missile is compatible with all available target designation systems like radar, electro-optical sensors and helmet-mounted cueing sights, and its low-smoke solid-propellant rocket motor provides very high acceleration off the launch rail. Using its four cruciform tail surfaces, the ASRAAM can pull up to 50 g immediately after launch. The main improvement compared to the existing AIM-9L/M Sidewinder, however, is the new Focal Plane Array IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker, which is similar to the one used in the American AIM-9X. This seeker has a long acquisition range, high countermeasures resistance, high off-boresight (+/- 90°) field-of-view, and the capability to designate specific parts of the targeted aircraft (like cockpit, engines, etc.). The ASRAAM also has a LOAL (Lock-On After Launch) capability which is a distinct advantage when the missile is carried in an internal weapons bay. The maximum effective range of the missile of course depends on the exact parameters (e.g. head-on or tail-chase engagement), but a figure of 15 km (8 nm) is sometimes quoted (the true figure is probably higher). Minimum range is quoted as around 300 m (1000 ft). The ASRAAM is armed with a 10 kg (22 lb) blast-fragmentation warhead, which is triggered by a combined laser proximity/impact fuzing system.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3315

[Kurt Plummer]

Ajay_in,

>>

Poor Dogfighter,Are u comparing it with F-22 or what??

>>

The chances of coming out of a WVR fight alive in an imaging/HOBS/HMDS world is about 50:50, at best.

Anyone who employs a 117 million dollar platform as a WVR 'dogfighter' deserves to be put up against a wall and _shot_, plain and simple.

Therefore, the only jet which is superlative at this kind of dice-toss warfare is one which has the following features:

1. Raw Performance + MAWS or VLO

To 'beat the arrow not the archer' or 'the eye, not the bow' of BVR warfare. If you can't transit the BVR phase unmolested, your dogfight abilities are _worthless_ because you will never get a chance to employ them. The twin MiG-29s which were shot down over Serbia were easily the match of the F-15s which took them on. But they never got beyond the roughly 8nm zone by which their HMS and Archer became truly effective.

2. Sacrificable.

Attrition and LER (Loss Exchange Ratio) is what ALL warfare comes down to. If I send 100 MiG-21 Lancers to blow by 8 F/A-22s _on their way to_ killing 20 F-16C.50 or F-35A I must defeat an average of 48 + 80 or 48 + 40 AIM-120 shots.

But you cannot forget the psychological factors. Patriotism to stand tall for your nation in a time of danger must be set against watching your flight and section leads get HAMMERED by 'bolt from the blue' sniper assassins which you cannot even see.

Because not every -human- pilot can be an Eric Hartman or a Steve Ritchie. And once you break the enemy up, they are mission killed even if remaining 20 or so (optimum) jets can continue to fly unmolested by further BVR fires and EVEN ASSUMING we don't ourselves either retreat or move towards WVR through advanced (offensive split=detached support on a 10-20nm separation) geometry setup.

All this because, once tactical discipline and formation cohesion is gone; you won't have TIME (or gas) to round up your people and try-try again.

>>

If it cannot beat Air-air Missile then is it a poor Dogfighter??

>>

Damn straight. It's always the bullet that counts and a huge, range+BVR optimized weapons system is not going to come into the fight in a fashion which gives it advantaged energy vs. the new generation of missiles.

An article from Janes a couple years back in fact mentions that most 'dogfights' are won at altitude with less than 3G on the airframe and NOONE flat-plating their planform because that simply attracts sharks while bleeding the airspeed necessary to clean-in-and-out maintain initiative.


If for no other reason than human-factors (straining against G) such is how the best fights are won because such is the ONLY way you can keep from being fanged out on one threat while another blasts you from behind because you didn't have /time/ to look down into the cockpit and see you SAD showing the datalinked 360-global threat picture from some offboard source.

God knows if there is an active radar IADS in 'shoot on sight' mode, flashing your bowtie in all directions trying to win a circle fight is apt to kill BOTH of you.

>>

and It has been no where mentioned that Su-30 can defeat Air-air Missiles.

I agree that TVC has been exaggerated but it surely gives some advantage in the dogfight.

Flankers have virtually no AOA limitations.

I found a Article about Thrust Vectoring Flight Control Safety.

http://www.airtoi.com/special/spec1.htm

>>

Utterly worthless.

1. Any (manned) jet which retains vertical tails as either an absolute aerodynamic (high speed) modifier or as redundant backup to a TVC failure on a fuel or hydraulically driven nozzle circuit clearly doesn't have the reliability confidence or performance margin to make the weight, complexity and cost of TVC useful.

2. TVC's best principle effects are in _trim_ to high supersonics work not advantaged nose point at low speed. This is principally because all aerodynamic effects are like those of a boat in that you turn one way and the very act of deflecting the (tails) 'into the wind' both decreases the control force and imparts as skidding-inertia effect which must subsequently be cancelled out. Such is made intrinsically harder to achieve when you have a bubble canopy acting as a 'forward rudder' keeling effect. Yet TVC, because it operates closer to the centerline and because it can make micrometric adjustments 'in the lee' of the aerodynamic effects can achieve faster, cleaner, changes in control moment (on/off) and arm (absolute authority from a smaller total force, none of it 'braking'). Perhaps most importantly, IF you have the confidence to do so, a tailless TVC platform has perhaps half the side area 'neo sign' flash effect to radars. Even the F/A-22 has been compared, by one senator, to the Hindenburg when seen at these aspects.

3. Nosehose=G. Acceleration=Window-Of-Vulnerability.

If I have to come below 200-220 knots to get effective highrate pointing /or my I will almost certainly GLC/ then the utility of 'superman' maneuvers is defined, not by the amount of degrees that the jet can bring it's nose up or across. But rather the TIME which I have to have to both 'get into the groove' of slower airspeeds and that which I need to reaccelerate from zero.

Good Fighter Pilots, like cops, never die alone. So your principle worry is always going to be having a fight geometry like this-

X..............You.............Y You can nail one but you can't beat both, even at conventional vs. PSTM turn rates.

And if you cannot get past the BVR phase without taking crippling preattrition, you cannot guarantee coming into the merge at even odds. Or even -knowing- (vs. a stealth threat) where that first-visual shot is going to be happening. 2 seconds after the AIM-120's steam through? 10? 20? Never?

>>

Interview of Designer General of Sukhoi Mikhail Simonov

http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html

He says that Flankers can go vertical and approach a speed of Near Zero.

It this prcatical or Publicity for flankers.

>>

Whoopie.

First off, never use words like 'stupor' to define a _deep stall_ flight characteristic. Second, realize that the 'king of all limitered airframes', the F-16, has had an ability to rock the airframe out of deep stall for almost 2 decades. So the ability to cheat the limiters in specific flight modes isn't all that big a deal, mostly because it only applies to peacetime attrition.

Secondly, the notion of a pulse-doppler system being unable to track a jet moving at zero relative airspeed _above the horizon_ is ludicrous.

Doppler is not something specifically generated on the sensored airframe. It is a change in wavefront physics FROM THE TARGET. The only thing a modern AI (Airborne Intercept) set does is make sure that the phase coherency of the pulse trains is clean enough to exploit the data.

The 'pulse' element is still there and indeed is the _primary_ determinator of what is called HRGPRF or High Range Gated Pulse Repetition Frequency tracking at long range. Because, again, via clean (timing @ rotation) phase separations, you can stack multiple transmission periods within the overall duty cycle and trap the air target like a moth between the pages of a book. Know the 'page number' of the target location and you can instantly turn to the exact area where the trapped insect is. Similarly, you can do the same with the AIM-120 in that you are running a timed flyout and as the weapon hits A-Pole, the missile simply lights off and finds the target anyway.

(1 big shape, clear sky, low clutter threshold).

At which point tracking the jet is simply a function of going HPRF again and using the monopulse 'four fingers of death' to determine angular rates indepedently.

Now, your 'zero airspeed, nose high' TARGET is like unto a fish in a bowl with a handgrenade thrown in.

The shift to AESA and Micromechanical/Noise array technology will make this process even simpler because their will be next to no mechanical-scan limits on refresh (you simply micro-dither a pencil beam across the target) and things like Crosseye jammers will have a VERY hard time monkeying with the phase relationships of a waveform that is effectively random to the point of being pseudo-incoherent (very, very, long stepping thumbprints).

>>

Can u give me some official source for India proposing.

>>

http://www.indiadefence.com/COPE.htm

http://www.indiadefence.com/collab.htm

http://www.indiadefence.com/IAF2004.htm

>>

Yes,But early detection is always an advantage,It can alert Ground Control Center,It can tranfer Target Coordinates to four other Fighter Aircraft.
Small Correction. NO-11M can detect 150km targets.An F-16 is said to be detected at 150km.
AA-12 Adders range is 90-100km. AA-10 Alamo-C has range of 130km. One variant AA-10 Alamos-E has range of 170km but no evidence of Missile in production

>>

See Above, the F-16 with a 3m2 radar cross section is specifically said to be detectable at 120km. I have a feeling that the 'Gold Falcon', having dropped it's tanks and any A2G munitions, would be even less say 1.5m2 and 40-50nm.

The thing to keep in mind about the Alamo is that the 'R-27AE' model never made it. And as long as you are SARHing out a basic model operating on a simplistic radio-tether + autopilot, your scan box (coneal volume) and you total target servicing ratio is going to _tiny_.

Adder is itself crippled by the GDV ('boxkite') tailes which impart a HUGE aeropenalty in straightline cruise flight. My personal bet is that the combination of heavier missiletronics (front end) weight, a larger warhead to compensate for the increased miss distance and the inefficient aero controls more or less offset the 8" tube diameter in terms of total motor impulse advantage. This means that the AIM-120C5 and the Adder are 'neck and neck' for a 20-30nm range category missile. And the AIM-120C7 with the improved autopilot and full-up 'reporting datalink' will probably out range it. Especially since the F-15's own datalinks (albeit IDM rather than MIDS) have an E-3C behind them. And that is a 500nm aperture sir. Which means that when you come up, you will be seen, the Eagles will clean up, ramp up and hit their 'on speed' for VMax throttle settings. And they will be coming at you just as hard as an F/A-22.

NOW. It's 2008 and the 'spacer blank' in the AIM-120C7 is being replaced by a full length (7+5=12") motor extension from the ERAAM program. And a pure rocket missile has 80% of the kinematic performance of the FMRAAM (BVRAAM, whatever) and life get's twitchy-short.

Because the Su-30 is still running with that damn stupid 'combat mix' of weapons, of which 2-4 are WVR useless. 4 are Alamo Short Burns. And your final pair are 'conflicted' between longburn Alamo and Adder stations. ALL of which are high-penalty externa+pylon+fin carriage dragged. D-U-M-B.

As far as GCI goes. NO.

The reason you have fighter air is to have operational (LOS and LINK) independence from fixed GCI locations. As soon as you fight the defensive battle, you end up trading time vs. total attrition and in the U.S. (or British for that matter, though they would use Storm Shadow to offset a small inventory of sublaunch cruise) that means defeating Tactihawk with it's 'holding pen' prepenetration orbits and on-the-fly targeting. As well as the overhead preplanned mission fragging. LONG before the the jets cross the border.

The same can be said, in a way, for the U.S. system of using single-point vulnerability HVAs as our own BMC3/ISR assets. But the reality remains that until and unless you _attack our basing modes_ you will always be predictable based on our knowing when an attack is about to start but you only lofting when you see the actual inbounds (conventional) or explosions (Stealth+CM).

About the only thing that the Flanker can do as an effective aperture platform on it's own is provide a 'hardened AWACS' option for ADSAM cueage (able to rapidly loft and change/retrograde orbits) and while that could be something to think about, without a cheap, 'pursuit' (TurboSAM) OTH missile system to integrate into the ground forces, it doesn't mean much to fighter teams which are themselves FULLY VISIBLE to our radar. And thus cannot be used as a layered terminal defense inside a bastion outer S2A 'blind launch box' coverage system.

>>

I got an detailed article about fourth Generation AAM's.

http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html

It says that python4 is the best WVRAAM.

>>

I respect Dr. Kopps views. However; you should cut all missile kinematic performances in half for any but 30-40K shots. While remembering the R-73M2/K-74 has an autopilot cutoff on TVC to get that extended range (which effectively means you are draggin around 40lbs of ballast for no gain).

And thus both Archer and the Python _V_ (with Derby datalink for true LOAL and a new autopilot for extended range _efficiency_ optimized trajectories in the outer envelope area). are basically aerodynamic endgame weapons which retain terminal energy (after burnout) at the express penalty of DRAG off the 4-in-tandem controls.

The Russian ISRM weapon of the future is the K-30 because it is effectively (depending on whose artwork you believe) either an ASRAAM or IRIS-T clone with imaging (or as close as they can production-yield a seeker) capabilities. While the Israeli's only have the Python around because they took so long getting AMRAAM and the real measure of that weapon will be how many Derby's it replaces in their inventory.

My personal belief is that ramjet weapons are the wave of the future and that the 'inner zone' will be handled by systems like our own Dual Range Missile AIM-120 mod to include PIF-PAF style reaction controls on a more or less zero plenum-penalty backend. Such will be used for anti-missile kills as well as wildly 'lateralized' missile shots into mixed fights from say 8-10nm and 90-100+` of HOBS. They will exploit existing MRM datalink technology to 'get there' more efficiently and more selectively than an SRM and they will still be considered a COE or Contempt Of Engagement device to specifically AVOID (by motor impulse) commiting to a 'dogfight'.

Other than a MAWS-cued 'optical defense' against inbound MRM/LRM; the only _offensive_ role the SRM/ISRM will have in future is likely to be as a weapon onboard an A2A UCAV that you can afford to trade 3 and 4 to 1 against other threats. In this case, if you make something like a stealthy MiG-21 (40X20ft and 20,000lbs) you may be able to get close enough to an inbound strike package to wolf-pack them regardless of initial atttrition. While sending them to 'beat the bushes' (for SAM snakes) over an enemy IADS is also a cheap way to get your foot in the door so as to compress any GAI type launches or gain lookin on snapup ambush lanes from behind masking terrain.

>>

I am not able to understand this,Can u explain in more Simpler way.
>>

The Su-27 and presumeably the Su-30 (with all the extra weight, higher spine and canard-clutter up front), _HAS TO_ burner sprint to get to useful kinematic dominance (say survivability on A-Pole) in any fight. And yet it's weapons integration is so poor it cannot 'argumentatively' exploit it's AESA and Speed advantage to get dominant gambit+cleanup shot counts on the enemy before itself coming into transmerge (radar) distances at which that speed is now a crippling indemnity.

Going fast on burner eats radius in the offensive mission set and without VLO doesn't provide a real guarantee of security because, again, faster is -easier- (more predictable vector equating to longer shot poles) on an impalement basis to area and/or ARH SAM defenses.

Thus the Flanker is crippled by it's weapons mix and it's gas tank from being an effective WVR platform. Because if it comes into the fight heavy on gas it won't be as agile but it will still be as large as ever. And if it 'makes the mistake' of entering a visual fight with BVR weapons still aboard (because it literally cannot employ all of them before the range compresses) then the amount of fuel it will need to expend lugging those damn 500-800lb big-missiles around the corner fight will also effect it's as well as combat persistence factors because the very engines you need to go fast also impose a baseline SFC minimum effective RTB fuel.

This is what most people STILL fail to understand about the F/A-22. It may only have 18,348lbs of fuel onboard. A fraction that comes out to about .28 and is actually less than an F-15C with 3 tanks. But it's total systems synergy (say packaging of select capabilities) is such that it doesn't have to 'commit' to any one fight. And when it does, it will likely score debilitating attrition BEFORE it compresses down to visual distances. So that less fuel is used more effectively. Over a broader, deeper, more initiative stealing radius of action.

The Brits have a similar theory in that their EJ-200's 'smaller bore core' get relatively better SFC in the high subsonics region while their big wings can at last let them transit-high efficiently. Which leaves only the use of conformal carriage super-LRAAM to make up the difference from a 'walking march' degree of better controlled standoff and superior residual (ALARM/ARMIGER) suppression options.

Now beating the F/A-22 or the Typhoon is not that big a deal.

Looking at total A2A losses, the VPAF never really 'beat' the U.S. F-4, all the PRBS to the contrary. But if you are going to fight the Western /System/ you have to do so at the _at the targeting and munitions level_ (stiffarm the ISR and EA, force mission kills via stores dump). And that is not a function of true fighter-on-fighter capability comparison. But rather simply the ability to get up from an unexpected (road base defeats LDSD and AEW) place. Get fast without regard to 'radius effects' (effectively done for you if you are launching from X, firing at Y and recovering to Z over your own ADGE rather than trying for X-Y-X return). And sling weapons which at least /partly/ offset the ARH-BVR danger of trying to defeat any close-escort shotgunners.


KP

[Kurt Plummer]

Total Character Posting Limit...

The VPAF did it, using MiG-17s to break up raids and especially chaff bombers strikeleads so that MiG-21s could snapup or down from an immelman or splitess six. They also did it by having their electronic sniffer people calculate the U.S. SOJAM orbits (which we rarely changed, unforgiveably) and send out Fishbed patrols to throw the RB-66's off station.

The question is whether that is what YOU want to do. With a platform which is not -supposed- to beat the U.S. (do we have a fight with you?) but which is, effectively, your F-15E as well as C in terms of carrying a sophisticated kind of PGM + AShM war to Pakistan.

IMO, playing area defense games with roughly 80 manned jets, especially over an area the size of the Subcontinent is an iffy-success proposition, at best. It would be wiser to invest in uninhabitted technologies. Because those you can send out like bush beaters before the howdah riders and they will soak up AMRAAMs, even if they don't ghost-along past their effective envelope. Certainly a high T/Wr, low drag, 2-4 ISRM (ASRAAM) stealth-UCAV warfare system has a HUGE advantage over the AEW-as-A-100 (Erieye) approach. Because it means that the opfor cannot prevector his own forces towards you.

And thus you have REGAINED what was the principle VPAF advantage of 'delayed detection = under the radar horizon' attack options.

This is critical. Particularly offensively, where you cannot summon the tanking, control and total inventory count to put large numbers of jets over the enemy on anything like a routine basis.

It is also important for what it acknowledges of the AAW mission on sortie generation as a whole: Fly 70%. Manuever 20%. Engage 10%. If you don't have them flying, you risk being a victim of the 10%. But if you fly the mission to the exclusion of your strike warfare capabilities then, for any given statistical attrition figure per raid, you will STILL lose more jets overall. Simply because those 'sophisticated' platforms like the Uber Flanker are not using their payload loft and large apertures as a + to manned-WSO target recognition. Which is what any two-seat, 50 million dollar, platform ought to be concentrating on.

Dropping Bombs Makes History. Arguing hypothetical merits of air to air platforms only serves a purpose when it either prevents the enemy from dropping bombs on you (the Flanker, as presently configured, does not). Or allows you to drop a greater tonnage per flying day. Which the Flanker, as an 'all air warrior' still does not.

>>

Can u tell me Which other AAM other than Meteor have Two-Way Datalink.
I don't think There are any.
Meteor Is an Excellent BVRAAM.

>>

AdlA MICA is rumoured to.

AIM-120C7 does.



KP

[DpS]

I've seen reports (which I can't produce) where US pilots have stated that the F-15, F-16 and F-18 would be able to perform Cobra maneuvers if software constraints were removed from their aircraft. It seems to me a bit dangerous however, and would probably end up with more airshow crashes. Given that these Western aircraft have still had greater export success, I don't think it's worth it personally...

Well, I am an aerospace engineer... lets look at it from Engineering prospective. No US airplane will be able to do this, the onlyones that come close is the F16 modified with VTC. I think in some ways the F15 is politically overrated. I have to say those russian knows how to make planes, true their plane awesome at close range but BVR, russian you need to work more ;) F22 may come close but remember their stealth characteristic limits its maneuverability. Cobra is specialized for the sukhoi 27 family. BTW I heard cobra manuever was found by luck during flight testing, correct me if i am wrong.

[Awang se]

i think the sacrifice maneuverability in F-22 is justified in favor of stealth. there's no way an aircraft can outfly a missile, supermaneuver or not. so instead of vainly pulling nerve wrenching high G maneuver, why don't just avoid the enemy from shooting at u. stealth means they can't see u in time and when they can't see, they can't very well shoot. the idea of F-22 design is to achieve first look, fist shoot, first kill.

[gf0012-aust]

You're a bit incorrect here. There is footage of a Blue Angels Hornet doing a Cobra, half Cobra and IIRC the Mongoose.

It's not specialised for the Su-27 family - it just happens to be the first manned aircraft to do it.

Well, I am an aerospace engineer... lets look at it from Engineering prospective. No US airplane will be able to do this, the onlyones that come close is the F16 modified with VTC. I think in some ways the F15 is politically overrated. I have to say those russian knows how to make planes, true their plane awesome at close range but BVR, russian you need to work more ;) F22 may come close but remember their stealth characteristic limits its maneuverability. Cobra is specialized for the sukhoi 27 family. BTW I heard cobra manuever was found by luck during flight testing, correct me if i am wrong.

[blackzero]

well I do believe that F-16 can pull up the cobra.On 23rd March celebration in Pakistan one PAF K8 trainer did a tail slide manouver.I saw it live on TV.