US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Billy T, Jan 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    So once again you (and other with a common thinking) forget, that 10-30 year old military Soviet/Russian equipment vehicles were against top notch just made US equipment. Soviet Union did not sell the latest planes...the countries got what was old and used and was decades old.

    And still US planes managed to get hit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    the irony...oh the irony
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    So are you agreeing with me or what?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    heh :bugeye: I am against the US in general... as a Russian citizen I have a duty to protect my homeland against the enemy. I am agreeing with you if you include the fact that past wars had included outdated military equipment vs US newly made.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    It doesn't pertain to what I was saying, but I'll include it if it makes you feel better. The US, UK, France, et al. do the same thing with the stuff we export. Keep the best for yourself and sell your second string stuff to your friendly customers. Or give them the newest equipment, but a more stripped-down version without all the bells and whistles. It makes perfect sense to keep a corner on the best stuff you can when national security is at stake.

    What I was saying is that just because none of a nation's current enemies possess a capability is not a wise reason for them to sit on their laurels thinking all is well. The geopolitical landscape can change much more quickly than it takes to develop and build advanced weapon systems like ships and aircraft. If a nation waits for a threat to appear before they address it, it is already too late. With that in mind, it behooves any nation to keep the pulse of the global arms industry and seek to keep abreast (or, ideally, ahead) of it.
     
  8. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And at the time they were facing 10 to 30 year old American designs, The Israelis have whipped every Russian design sent up against them, using out dated aircraft, Mirage III.

    It wasn't until 1969 that the Israelis received our any of our first line fighters, the F-4-E, and that design dates from 1953, the Mig 21 dates from 1955, so they are contemporaries, and the same has happened all down the line, U.S. combat aircraft have always face their contemporary opposite in cold war, and hot war in the Middle East, and the the U.S. designs have always owned the Russian designs, starting in 1950 when we faced Russian and Chinese pilots over the Yalu in N.Korea to today, any were in the Middle East.

    Yes our planes do get hit on occasion, but the kill ratio is well in favor of the U.S. designs.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The F-15 Eagle dates from 1969, and the Mig 23 dates from 1967, again contemporaries. The IAF shot down 86 Syrian MiGs, to 0 loses for them.

    F-16 Air Forces - Israel
    A total of 92 Syrian fighter (more than 30% of total inventory) were shot down, and Israeli F-16s achieved a 44-0 kill ratio. One aircraft reportedly shot ...
    http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article7.html
     
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    i thought the harrier was british
     
  10. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    The Hawker-Siddeley GR.1 was entirely British, but the AV-8B was extensively redesigned by McDonnell-Douglas before they started producing it. It looks very similar but is a much more advanced and capable aircraft than the GR.1.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The Chinese may throw a wrench into the whole thing, if they leapfrog the technology.

    And defense is usually easier than offense - the US needs a serious tech advantage, since it is usually the aggressor. Against Iran, for example.

    Comparing technology by outcome, don't forget pilot skill. The US/Israeli etc edge there might be bigger than the tech edge.
     
  12. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    All this talk about planes wants me to get in one and blow something up already. Starting with the state tax building.
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Certainly pilot skill dominated a decade or more ago, but in the era where it is unlikey for the pilot to even see his enemy, I think "pilot skill" is much less important than Radars, electronic spoofing, AWAK support, missle systems, and target plane's ability to "duck" in last seconds the closing missle. As some have suggested, soon "no pilot" may be the best option. (Sort of like robots are better and cheaper than maned space exploration.)
     
  14. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    Very true, but there is nothing like adaptation, then it will only be a race to make the most intelligent bot. Skill, or that extra cutting edge, whether from a bot or man, will always be neccessary.
     
  15. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    You still need people to operate all those systems, and the more complex they get, the more important quality training becomes.

    Also, there is as much "organizational skill" involved in an air campaign as there is individual skill of each aviator.
     
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Friend who sent me OP link to video on SU-30 just Emailed F-22 video link (someone sent it to him as a reply supporting the F22.)
    F22 video at:
    http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv

    It did not appear to me to do any "ducking missle" manuevers as the SU-30 did. For example, never flew "flat broadside"* to rapidly stop forward speed or fall / fly downward tail first. All it manuevers were just smooth turns that a missle could follow.

    Perhaps F22 has better radar than SU-30 and may get off the first shot (not saying this is the case, but would not be surprised if that is the case) but even if the RCS of SU-30 is higher (Dragon says it is smaller, if I understood him) even a 40% radar advantage to the F22 is only about a 10% advantage in relative detection ranges as the radar return signal strenth goes as the inverse fouth power. Thus, both F22 & SU-30 are likely to get off a missle shot at the other, so which can "duck" the missles best will be the winner.
    --------------------
    "Flat Broadside" is when the direction of the plane axis is 90 degrees to the direction of motion and full wing area is slamming into the air. - Enormous air drag makes for quick drop of velocity to zero, except for the tail first controlled fall. - Just what some moths do, also at the last instant, to avoid being a bat's lunch.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2008
  17. Chatha big brown was screwed up Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,867
    thanks for the vid Billy. Doesn't look too agile, never liked the raptors. Thats all I have to say. Bring the F-16s/18's, now we're talking.
     
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Just realized that the "flat broadside duck" maneuver (defined in post 73's footnote) is a great aid to surviving the engagement for still another reason:

    Even if the F22's missle's intercept computer is not confused by SU-30 suddent drop to zero velocity* AND it flies thru spot where SU-30 was prior to the "flat broadside duck" maneuver AND the F22's missle's proximity fuse explodes warhead exactly at the point of closest approach to the SU-30, which has been in controlled vertical tail first fall, the geometrey is such that the SU-30 presents the least possible hit cross section to the warhead's expanding fragments.

    That SU-30 will be hard to kill but the SU-30's missle (a much faster rocket infact) can easily close on the smoothly turning F22. More in my last post about how moths escape bats the same way an SU-30 can escape the F22's missle and discussion of how/why the "flat broadside duck" maneuver can offset the reported lower RCS of the F22.
    ----------------
    *As explained in some earlier posts, the F22 (and all combat fighter's) radar blocks out objects with zero velocity to avoid attacking clouds, birds, weather balloons,** etc. Thus, if SU-30 does achieve very low speed so it looks like a cloud to the F22's missle, then the F22 missle will "drop track" on the SU-30.

    **Recall that in the modern dog fight the pilots seldom see their target before firing missle at it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2008
  19. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    Great topic. A few dumb questions remain.

    1. While ground based Radar has difficulty identifying the stealth planes, how does the air to air missiles find these planes? Is it because the Radar cross section changes up in the Air besides heat signature?

    2. Assuming the right technology is set up in a military satellite, can a space based radar in a multi-spectral illumination be able to track these planes from up above?

    3. How was SU-30 with Indian Airforce Managed to do so good in mano-amano?

    4. Offense is always cheaper than defense. So, rather spending money on the plane, should not the opponent develop intelligent air to air missile technology?

    5. How does either plane find the other up there?
     
  20. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Billy T,

    Billy T, you are making the mistake of assuming the most advanced missiles use radar of guiding. For example, the AIM-9X missile uses infrared guidance to 'see' the target plane's low-heat aluminium skin surfaces. The technology can distinguish between the actual plane and other heat sources such as flares that could be used as decoys. The missile also has thrust vectoring control that allows it to turn 180 degrees in about 2 seconds, so if it missed on the first pass, it could come back to hit the 'sitting duck' falling tail-first through the air.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I understood that smoke comming from the SU-30 was just for making the plane's maneuvers more easily seen in the performance demo, not for use in combat evasion. Is that incorrect?
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No I am not. At several kilometers Radar is better, but most will switch to IR for the terminal engagement. That is why in several posts I have referred to the "hot OPAQUE cloud" generated by the SU-30 for it to hid in as it flat spin falls inside after the "flat broadside stopping" maneuvior that ducked the missle's first pass and prevents localization of the SU-30 on subsequent passes (which probably are impossible as with the same velocity as the clouds the SU-30 is lost inside the missle's radar "Doppler window" that is not processed. I.e. at the turn for re attack the missle is more than a kilometer away and can not re-acquire the slow moving* SU-30, which looks to the radar like all the other clouds.)

    Yes the pink smoke in the video is just to show more clearly the relationship between the axis of the SU-30 and the direction of motion (especially impressive when orthogonal to each other in the "flat broadside" stopping maneuvior). In combate, the fluid ejected would be a few gallons of oil, to make a dense hot OPAQUE smoke, as I also noted in prior posts.

    Summary: The "flat broadside" stopping maneuvior and subsequent flat spin falling casues a "drop track" in the radar systems. (looks just like a cloud). The hot dense OPAQUE smoke cloud makes the IR system blind to the SU-30 inside.
    ------------------
    *Most of the SU-30's motion is vertical so wrt the missle. The SU-30's speed wrt the missle is essentially the missle's speed, or the same as the clouds, weather balloons, birds, etc. I.e. The SU-30 is in the Doppler window that is not be processed for detections.

    PS I agree that conventional flares are not much use against integrated radar/ IR system as they are easily discriminated against by the radar's Dopper because normally the target jet is rapidly moving, but the slowly falling SU-30 is at best going to look like a flare to that integrated system. In some sense, the SU-30 can "simulate a flare", and survive even without the hot OPAQUE cloud!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2008
  22. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Billy T,
    Which modern air-to-air missiles use both IR and radar?
    Your "hot OPAQUE cloud" is useless against the AIM-9X missile I spoke about. Again, Billy T, the missile does not use radar for guidance. It uses a passive IR technology to detect its target, much like a digital camera 'sees' in the visible radiation spectrum. There is no 'Doppler window' for a passive IR system. That hot cloud will only serve to attract it more. The missile does not need make contact with the plane to ignite its payload of explosives. I still believe the smoke emitted (the hot OPAQUE cloud) was for airshow demos, not a designed defense feature for the plane. Do you have any references to the contrary?
    Echo3Romeo's post 45 puts everything in perspective, Billy T. Did you miss it?
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I know very little about air to air missles. Most of my experience is with defense of surface ships. I once went to a Canadian company (in the Quebec area) to get data on their FLIR system, but forget which missle it was being added to. (I think it may have been one called the NATO sea sparrow.) The view then was that although "fly out" was with radar guidance (ship illuminates target missle and defending missle recieving the energy scatter by the target is the standard approach for ship defense, except when the first longer range shots fail and the attacker is getting close to the ship.) IR would help the engagement, especially if missle is smart and repeating with delay the radar pulses etc or jamming etc. Also IR can be used alone at short range (but still beyond the CIWS gun range.) The NATO sea sparrow is a shorter range missile than the Standard missles which can at least fly beyond the horizon and engage target if some other ship can illumniate the target (Called "cooperative engagement" and helps keep all ships with a healthy load out of Standard missles.)

    Why do you say that? Would not a much stronger and larger extention IR source not both blind* the IR missle guidance and hide any plane inside it? I have several times now stated the OP video's pink streamers are just for the demonstration so we agree on that. I have at least four times now told that a few gallons of oil would be would be ejected into the exhaust to make the combat's hot dense opaque cloud formation.

    What is the max range at which the AIM-9X can acquire a target (with no direct up the tail pipe view available) by IR alone? I would be surprised if the F22 could get that close to an enemy which had already launched a missle that was using a ground based radar to illuminate the F22 for the missle to home on the scattered energy. (US almost always is trying to operate over hostile territory.) It would be necessary to first take out the ground radar with a HARM for the F22 to survive long enought to get to the AIM-9X's IR fire and forget launch range I would bet, but I do not know anything but a little physics. How does the IR only AIM-9X avoid going after flares and small decoy rockets?
    ---------
    *Just getting the subersonic missle not to blind itself by the heat of the shock wave and associated accumulation of heat on the IR window is quite a trick (with more than Secret clearance required to go into details). The oil oxidizing in the hot exhaust cloud is much larger and stronger blinding agent. The distant target must be brighter than the local shock wave for detectable signal to noise ratio - This alone limits the acquisiton range.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page