US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

What do you mean that the Raptor doesn't look to agile?

Do you realize just how small of a area that flight demo was preformed in, it was a areal ballet, he wasn't performing combat maneuvers, he was demonstrating the knife edge control that is possible in the system, he was sky dancing, and in a spacial area that a T-6 Texan would have trouble preforming in, I saw such a demonstration live at the Oshkosh Air Show this summer and had a chance to talk with the pilot.


Awesome!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not promising any degree of coherence in my thoughts, which I am sharing with you henceforth.

So the Su-30MKI whatever-whatever can turn up it's own ass. If the missile was good enough to make a head on intercept it'll certainly be good enough to make an intercept on a near-stationary target. You're not going to shake it; it's generally accepted your only hope is to put it on your 3-9 line and MAKE SPEED (or put it on your 6, drop your shit and run if you've got enough distance).

If you're good enough at beaming this will also put you in the doppler notch window, thus breaking the lock and making it extremely difficult for the missile to intercept. And of course I think all this doppler related goodness only matters if you're between radar guidance and the ground.

Doesn't a 40g missile beat a 9g aircraft every time? Also, I should think that a radar that can spot tanks ON the ground could spot an aircraft NEAR the ground

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are a little confused about the "Doppler notch window." It exist ONLY for essentially stationary objects. (It is built into the processing system so that the Earth, clouds, weather balloons, birds etc. do not get processes as targets. - Thus if the SU-30 can achieve very low speed wrt the missle, for example, by suddenly tail first falling where its velocity is orthogonal the velocity of the missle that was chasing it, then the SU-30 will be treated like all other essentially stationary objects - I.e. missile's radar processing system will NOT consider it to be a target and not even track it. From the missle POV, the SU-30 just dissapeared as if some magic 100% effective anti-radar reflection cloud fell over it.)

If the missle uses only Radar then it is safe, even if it makes no hot opaque cloud. If it has IR terminal guidance, then it could fire forward a small rocket, just before excicuting the "flat broadside" stoping maneuver to continue providing both a hot IR signature and a radar contact for the attacking missle to chase, catch and destroy both that small rocket and itself while the SU-30 hides in the hot opaque cloud and is not a radar target becuase of the Dopper notch drop out of the SU-30.

Your last sentence may be a little exagerated, but is basically correct - no jet can out run the attacking missle, and that includes the F22. There are only main ways to survive the modern fighter jet engagement:

(1) Detect and kill your enemy before he can fire his missle at you. This hard to do as even with 40% lower radar cross-section the detection range is only 10% to your advantage in detection range as the radar signal you detect goes as the inverse fourth power of the separation.

(2) Decoy or in some way jam the terminal engagement of the missle your enemy fired at you. The "flat broadside stopping manueuver" is by far the best "jamming" as it is passive. - If you try to actively jam by radiating energy (microwaves and / or laser) the missle may say: "Thanks for the guidance beam" just before killing you. - That is the way the US's HARM takes out ground radars.

PS I doubt that figher jet's radar can spot "tanks on the ground." (They would be in the "Doppler notch.") About the only way this wold be possible, I think, would exploit what is known as "synthetic aperature" radar to effectively image the tank, but that would require the tank not to be moving and the jet to fly in a straight line nearly over it. It is hard to identify things on the ground even when the pilot can see them. Recall recently a US jet in Iraq (or was it Iran?) killed some Brits in a truck.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An object moving exactly perpendicular to a (Doppler) radar, at any realistic speed, will not be processed.

Although A2A missile no-escape zones are larger than ever, only a handful can run down a fleeing mach 2 jet from more than 10 miles.

And finally, there is one weapon the F-22 has that can't be spoofed, jammed, or dodged. Circling at 50 knots is a great way to get hit by it.

 

Not "exactly" stationary but a "window" because clouds, birds, weather balloon are not "exactly" stationary. I do not know how fast wrt the ground an object can be and still fall in the NOT processed Doppler window. Even helicopters can not as their rotor tips are too fast, but as no fighter jet except the SU-30 can fly slower than 100 knots I would guess one going 50 knots would be inside the Dopper "NO process" window. Certainly an SU-30 in a controlled TAIL FIRST FALL, WOULD BE INSIDE THE NOT PROCESSED WINDOW

I think some birds can fly at 50 knots and certainly cloud and storm fronts (also good reflectors of radar as larger than seen in commercial airplane radar's "clear air turbulance" detectors.) occasionaly exceed 50 knots. Note that SU-30 would not be going even 50 knots if in the controlled tail first fall after the suddent "flat broadside stopping maneuver." (Well defined in earlier post footnote and shown in the OP video.) I am not sure how the pilot does this, but the canards must be critical to this maneuver and the F22 has none. Does the F22 also have vectored thrust?

 

I didn't say stationary, I said perpendicular. You could be flying at mach 2 as long as you're perpendicular to the (Doppler) radar, because the radar is approaching you at the same rate as the ground.

Also the weapon I referred to that cannot be spoofed, jammed, or dodged, is the Cannon.

50 knots is arbitrary, and the F-22 also has thrust vectoring. I am not sure if the canards on the Su-30 are stabilators or just stabilizers.

 

I think we basically agree, but are not communicating well, because I am assuming that the modern "dog fight" is very different than the one of WWII movies. I.e. the pilots never see each other's air plane - it is just a blip/ track on the radars. I.e. Cannons are useless.

They fire missels at each other while still a few miles apart and the "dog fight" is between the missle and its target.

Typically one of the fighters, probably the F22, will detect and fire it missle before the other does; however, long before that missle begins the final intercept maneuvers the other plane has fired its missle also. (This is becase the inverse fourth power law governing the strength of the radar return. E.g. If one plane has 40% lower Radar cross-section than the other, it has only a 10% advantage in detection range.) Thus, it is quite possible that neither plane survies.

The SU-30 would certainly detect and be tracking the missle attacking it loong before their "dog fight" begins. I think it would wait until the missle was close and then execute the "flat broadside stop" and then begin to fall tail first (with some thrust to reduce the acceleration of gravity) and be ejecting oil into its exhaust to make a somewhat vertical hot opaque cloud surounding it to blind the missle's IR guidance.

I am only a physicist and certainly not well versed in the details of modern missle/airplane dog fights, but the Russians must basically agree with me - Why else would they have developed the SU-30's ability to stop and fall tail first in controlled flight? I.e. they too must think this "duck" is very useful aid to making the missle fail.

If I were in the SU-30 I would fire a short-range moderate-speed (sub sonic, if the SU-30 was) rocket directly away from the closing missle (A nice hot tailpipe IR source as well as a radar return for the attacking missle to follow.) just before I began the "flat broadside stop and fall" maneuvor. This would give the atacking missle a continuation of the target track it was attacking and be an easy target for it to kill (by exploding its warhead, and thus removing any threat that after it "understands" that it missed me, it would turn and try for a second attack).

 

Nanger. Knights became obsolete after the battles of Crecy and Agincourt (English longbows), and then after the invention of gunpowder. "Stabbing them under the armpits" had nothing to do with anything other than several Hollywood movies with glorify the rebel with no armour as much as they do the Japanese Samurai (who, incidentally, suffered precisely the same fate).

and you're all making precisely the same mistake you've always made - assuming that what the americans have in service now, or what they've advertised they will have in service, is all they have. Now that is a rather foolish assumption. The people who advertise what they have, either in service or in development, are the ones who are behind in the arms race. Like a Chinese demonstration of manpower.


Now carry on.

 

Nonono.

There can still be dogfights with even the cutting edge A/C including support from AWACS and all the gizmo-fuggin gadget wiz-pow gangbang crap they spend way too much on these days. More planes, more chance for a dogfight. There is a point where the opposing airforces close into eachother, yes with some med/long range hits on either end. Then the Awacs guys go "merge" and throw their hands up in the air and pray to Mars/Woden/Jesus, like and other spectator....the dogfight begins.

Yes there is a technology arms race in terms of better missles, better tracking, better ECM/chaff/heatcloaking. To assume the Russians are superior to the Americans in this regard is foolish I would think. The Russians have always been the best at low cost/maximum output solutions. I'm sure the SU-30 has a lot more going for it than vectored flight tricks.

It's the same old story, you can only trade speed for manuverability. Loss of speed in a dogfight usually means you are a dead duck. So if you want to use vectored turn 'n burning you are going to get aced by a fast moving smash n' graber whom has all the time in the world to lock on to your slow ass. If you are "hanging on your tail" you are not moving at all, and even a dumbfire cannon shot becomes easy.

Vectored flight is great at air shows and Duels. Duels are very rare since 1917. It's a nice to have sure. It is not the end all be all. Nothing compares to excellent training, motivated warriors(not trainee airline peelots), and a cadre of elite pilots whom get to fly the very best planes you guys are talking about here.

I disagree with making say the Raptor(a 100+ million A/C) a mainline fighter. The f16/f15s/f18s are still great for U.S. Cheaper and can be mass produced at more places. In a real war you must be able to replace your losses and you will have losses no matter how fancy your equipment is.

 

NoNoNo. The enemy will fire his Mach 5 missle(s) at you from miles away. The problem of AWAC's limited resolution merging two modern fighter tracks will not happen. (At least one, if not both, will have been destroyed before they are that close.)

 

Billy, no offense, I respect you a lot, but that attitude got a lot of pilots shot down in Nam.

It will never be like that, all the time. Yes sometimes, perhaps even all 4Vs4 engagements and lower nowdays, but not all the time.

 

Well we will just disagree. At least the professionals designing and buying these expensive new fighters hold my positon. I.e. if you want to live, you had better kill the enemy fighter before you can even see him. That is why all sides are buying these expensive wonders.

 

Absolutely. No one wants to be Israel in 73'(having to replace an entire airforce because of poor defense vs SAMs).

Dogfighting however cannot be ignored and it doesn't look like it has been, there are still cannons on these new planes.

Even if you are correct, then the U.S is correct in making guided planes. Why risk a peelot if everything is done from 30 miles away? It can all be done from the ground or safety of a carrier or well protected AWACS like A/C.

Then if the SU-30 is such hot shit, you just (manually)ram it with a mach 5 perdator-like drone.

 

I think most loses were to SAMs in "Nam" - why the US developed the HARM.

BTW, I, a completely independent outsider at APL/JHU with reputation for clear and inovative thought, was called upon by Texas Instrument to review the HARM's target logic and did find an error in it. I can not go into details but it had to do with how the HARM would respond to the obvious counter measure of blinking two identical SAM fire control radars on and off, out of phase with each other - I.e. trying to make the HARM hit neither (the "centroiding problem").

Nam fighter to fighter engagements, when they did occur, is history, never to be repeated.

 

Wasn't talking about that. Was talking about the "technical"(Egg-head) decision to not mount a cannon on the F4. Perhaps not as many pilots were not shot down because of this, as there were because of "HARM", but one is an honest to god mistake and the other was a really stupid decision.

 

HARM is for "High Anti-Radiation Missle." It is on our side and did not shoot down any planes. It uses the radiation from the SAM's fire control radars (essential to guide the SAMs) to take out these fire control radars. HARM can be fired from considerable distance away. Beyond he SAM range or at least so far the the jet launching the HARM can escape the SAM if the ground radar did survive. - The HARM (not rarely, perhaps often) litterally dives supersonically thru the radiating dish*, so the SAM's control radar rarely survive a "neutralization attack" by a HARM! They are expensive, but well worth it if they save the US plane from a SAM.

I agree all fighters should have a cannon, but for attacking tank trucks, enemy troops, etc when you have established complete control of the air.
------------------------
*I.e. might not even need a warhead, but trust me it has a good one as we want to kill the crew operating the radar. - the dish is relatively easy to replace.

 

You do know, in fighter pilot circles at least, they would really tear you a new one on that comment, right?

 

I'll slightly mis quote Einstein on War: "The only thing that has not changed is the way men think."

Admitedly he was referring to the post atomic bomb era, but it certainly applies to most "Nam era dog fighting aces."

Even the generals often think they will be fight the last war, until they learn better by experience in the current one. (part of the reason why we have had several different generals in Iraq. It seems we now have one who understands it is an entirely new type of war. I.e. just "killing enemy" only makes him stronger as it gains recruits, especially in a tribal society like Iraq. Iraq is not a nation, never has been one.)

 

Well now we are getting somewhere Billy. I mean really, when the hell are we going to see two modern atomic powered nations, have it out? As you point out we are only seeing asymetric warfare nowadays.

Basically it's ALL a huge waste of money. Just maintain enough nukes to obliterate the planet(I believe the U.S has enough to wipe us all out 3 times over), broadcast a policy of massive retaliation, maintain special forces/intelligence to kill off the little pissant whackos (and marines why not) and save trillions in R&D and military maintenance.

Seems to me it's all penis waving, bragging rights and little else. My plane is better than your plane blahblahblah.

 

I hope and expect "never," but that does not mean neither US nor Russia will ever lose a fighter to fighter engagement with each firing missles at the other's plane.*

If it happens, it will probably be an "accident" and not esclate to full nuclear exchange. I would expect it to be some suituation where US or Russia is probing the others defenses - getting data on radar frequences, locations, reactions, etc.** Perhaps over US ships (sort of what the Iranians just did with their fast boats) or US planes from Turkish base flying over Georgia to show support for the anti-Rusian regieme and entering air space the Russains dispute with the Georgians, etc. Russia did just month or so ago send it long range bomber to the edge of the US - prehaps next time some fighters will be with them (Russia does have an aircraft carrier but I think it has never been in the Atlantic, but Russia, under Putin, is sending ships into the Med once again.)

I think it would be very foolish to have only the capacity for nuclear war, as you seem to be suggesting.
---------------------
*If it happens, I hope both pilots die. (A quite likely outcome, if both get their long range missles off.) - That way the chance of nuclear war is less as both can claim "victory" (with loses) and call it "even."
**That is how the US lost a recon plane to China a couple of years ago. The Chinese not only stripped out the sensitive electronic gear and kept one of the engines for study, but made the US pay for shipping the hulk back to Japan. (They had our crew - not much we could do.) It got into Chinese air space, and there were no US fighter close enough to engage the Chinese fighters forcing the US plane to land in China. If there had been, I think there would have been an engagement. Same thing could happen with Russia and there might be fighters from both sides available.