SU 30 Question

[aquietguy]

https://youtu.be/DBVafIdbsqk

Saw this acrobatic display montage of the SU 30. Very impressive. The question is how relevant would these maneuvers be in an actual battle space? Would love for Gums or any other pilots to give there oppinon.

[mixelflick]

[quote="aquietguy"]https://youtu.be/DBVafIdbsqk

Saw this acrobatic display montage of the SU 30. Very impressive. The question is how relevant would these maneuvers be in an actual battle space? Would love for Gums or any other pilots to give there oppinon.[/quote

Not a pilot, but I'll take a crack at it...

In a word, I'd say the maneuvers are "limited" in their relevance.

It might be useful during a 1 vs 1 encounter, but in a fur ball losing energy leaves you exposed, with not many options for getting it back fast (enough). Look at it this way...

1.) The US was researching thrust vectoring long ago with the X-31
2.) The US has by far the most $ available to build it into its jets, if deemed worthy
3.) The US has only done that in one instance: The F-22

The Russians will tell you that it can also be used to defeat pulse doppler radars and air to air missiles. Perhaps. But the applications to me seem few and far between. It adds weight. It adds cost. It increases complexity. And perhaps most relevant of all, several jets can pull off thrust vectoring like maneuvers , without the thrust vectoring. The Super Hornet and F-35 come to mind. I've seen a Swiss Hornet pull off incredible thrust vectoring like maneuvers, and that was a simple legacy version. Lockheed themselves found no advantage going beyond 50 degree AOA. When you throw in the fact that everyone has HOBS missiles today, you begin to see their point.

I think the Russians got a lot of attention early for their post-stall airshow antics. Attention helps sell fighters, and they desperately need to sell fighters. It's nice and all the SU-35 can point its nose around in any direction, but it's not going to get a chance to do that if an F-15's AESA out-performs its PESA, and the AIM-120D can out-stick the R-77. Certainly the R-27.
Throw in the fact the Eagle carries the AIM-9x and now all of a sudden that nose pointing ability looks a lot less impressive and useful. There is no Flanker (thrust vectoring or not) that's going to pull an AOA greater than the 9x...

Just my 2 cents...

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

To add to what mixelflick said...

Not only did the US research TVC with the X-31, they also built and flew TVC equipped versions of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. How many of those got TVC implemented?

[juretrn]

I don't think it would be a stretch to say that MATV, VISTA etc could be considered as fall back "upgrades" just in case stealth on a thoroughbred (ATF) fighter turned out to be not really viable.

[swiss]

To add to what mixelflick said...

Not only did the US research TVC with the X-31, they also built and flew TVC equipped versions of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. How many of those got TVC implemented?

Indeed. Also didn't have the EF.

I think this is the best prove, that several other tools are more important, even in a dogfight, then TVC.

[charlielima223]

The question is how relevant would these maneuvers be in an actual battle space? Would love for Gums or any other pilots to give there oppinon.

I'll explain it like this... remember that seen with in Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Arch when Dr. Jones is in the market place looking for Marion and then he comes to that dude wielding the sword doing all these tricks for it and then Indiana pulls out a gun?



While its really cool to see, such displays are merely a byproduct of true capability. I would agree with mixelflick's comment. Russian aerospace put to much emphasis on aerobatic displays and thrust vectoring as the end all be all. Yet in the age of AESA radars, All Aspect HOB missiles, and STEALTH... a flanker trying to use such maneuvers in an engagement would be the man using the sword vs the guy using the gun.

[zero-one]

I'll explain it like this... remember that seen with in Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Arch when Dr. Jones is in the market place looking for Marion and then he comes to that dude wielding the sword doing all these tricks for it and then Indiana pulls out a gun?

I actually don't like this analogy. a person can run at a max speed of around 5 to 10 km/h while a bullet from Indy's gun which is widely believed to be a SMITH & WESSON .455 would have a muzzle velocity of aroun 200 m/s

Air to air missiles have an absolute max speed of around Mach 2, some can go up to Mach 4 in certain conditions, wile fighters can go up to Mach 2 in certain conditions as well, probably Mach 1.5 when configured for A.A

So its almost like shooting a person that can run almost as fast as the bullet you're shooting him with.

Don't get me wrong, I get the analogy. You can't rely on maneuvering alone to dodge missiles. I think maneuvers can be useful if used in conjunction with ECM, chalf, flares, hopefully you also have a reduced IR or RCS signature. All these things working together may increase your chances of surviving a missile shot.

Currently the Aim-120 has one of the highest successful hit rates of all missiles at around 60% depending on the sources.
Most of the victims are actually highly maneuverable Mig-29s.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-hit-p ... AM-missile

However they we're also the poorly equipped Serbian models which some claim didn't even have working radars, so I'm not really sure they knew when to exploit the maneuverability of their platforms.

[mixelflick]

Man I keep reading about how all these Mig-29's shot down were "early models". That may be, but the implied assumption is that if they were newer models, the result might somehow be different. I don't see it that way, not at all. It's not the model that's important, but the pilot.

And on that score, Iraqi Mig-29 pilots were no slouches. They took their best pilots and put them in Mig-29's, and they got trounced every time they came up against US F-15's. I'm unaware of any F-16's downed Mig-29's (at least in Iraq). There may have been some F-16's that downed Serbian Mig-29's? I know for a fact US F-15's downed Serbian Mig-29's.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that well flown Mig-29's don't fare well vs. US F-15's. And I rather doubt if they were flying upgraded versions, the results would have been much different..

[swiss]

There may have been some F-16's that downed Serbian Mig-29's? I know for a fact US F-15's downed Serbian Mig-29's.

As far as i know, they were 2 Serbian Mig-29 shot down by F-16. One was an American F-16C and a F-16 MLU from the Niederlands.

[vilters]

Combat standpoint.
There is a saying : Lose energy = Lose fight.
Modern close air combat is all about energy management and getting within weapons shooting parameters.

As you can see in the vid => Each of those "airshow demo's" bleeds his energy close to zero. Until he can regain that lost energy? => He's a sitting duck waiting to get shot at.

Technical standpoint is 3 way.
a- It reduces MTBF (Main Time Between Failure), decreases serviceability and increases maintenance down time and cost.
b- Weight => You can use that weight in a better way with more fuel or more/better weapons.
c- Modern missiles make the "final kill turn" for you. You don't "have" to point the nose "on target" any more.

To evade incoming?
Ok, you "can" perhaps defeat the first missile, but then he's back to combat rule nr 1.
Until he regains the lost energy, he is a sitting duck.

Russians are good at airshows.
Fighters are for combat.

[awsome]

Not only did the US research TVC with the X-31, they also built and flew TVC equipped versions of the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. How many of those got TVC implemented?[/quote]


TVC comes into it's own for maneuvering way way up high where there is not enough air density for control surfaces to act on. That is why the F-22 has a simple form of TVC. Maybe the Russians plan to fly higher...

[wrightwing]

I actually don't like this analogy. a person can run at a max speed of around 5 to 10 km/h while a bullet from Indy's gun which is widely believed to be a SMITH & WESSON .455 would have a muzzle velocity of aroun 200 m/s

Air to air missiles have an absolute max speed of around Mach 2, some can go up to Mach 4 in certain conditions, wile fighters can go up to Mach 2 in certain conditions as well, probably Mach 1.5 when configured for A.A

Where are you getting that from? Aside from SRAAMs, most medium/long range AAMs are M4+ missiles (not to mention the added kinematic energy, if launched at supersonic speeds.) Unless they're outside their NEZ, they're not going to be maxed out at M2. As of right now, the only 2 fighters are capable of getting anywhere near M2, in combat configurations (F-22 and Mig-31.) No fighters, including the previous 2, are going to be spending a great deal of time at M1.5, nor will most missile shots be in a tail chase attitude.

So its almost like shooting a person that can run almost as fast as the bullet you're shooting him with.

Fighters aren't flying anywhere near close to the speeds of AAMs (within their NEZ.)

[zero-one]

Where are you getting that from? Aside from SRAAMs, most medium/long range AAMs are M4+ missiles (not to mention the added kinematic energy, if launched at supersonic speeds.)

The same laws of physics are applied on aircraft and missiles, so if aircraft cannot reach their absolute max speeds all the time even when clean then why would we assume that missiles can.

An AMRAAM can reach Mach 4, operating word is "can". You may be assuming that it accelerates to mach 4 after launch, climbs at mach 4, dives at mach 4, executes maneuvers at Mach 4. Well I'd need evidence to believe that.

thats my main problem with the gun vs person analogy, the bullet is easily 100 times faster than the target, while in air combat, the missile is only 2 or 3 times faster.

As of right now, the only 2 fighters are capable of getting anywhere near M2, in combat configurations (F-22 and Mig-31.)

Yes I agree, but even at Mach 0.9 thats still 25% the absolute max speed of the missile. You know whats a better analogy, shooting a speeding formula 1 car.

Fighters aren't flying anywhere near close to the speeds of AAMs (within their NEZ.)

Look my point is simple, the Indiana Jones analogy is too flawed. the swordsman had no way to escape the bullet which is easily 100 times faster than him.

A missile even at it's absolute max speed (if it manages to get there at all) is only 4 times faster than a combat configured aircraft's max speed.

Indy's meme is often used to downplay the importance of Kinematics in today's networked environment and I get that.
But Kinematics is not useless as the meme would have you believe. Stealth does and SA does not negate the need for kinematics it just compliments it.

heres what Lockheed had to say:

Stealth is just one enabler of a 5th Generation fighter and in actuality we’ve had stealth in the past, but until the F-22 it wasn’t coupled with combat agility. Consider the B-2 and F-117. Both are very stealthy but lack agility, so much so that they could only be deployed at night.

https://sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-3 ... y-fighter/

[element1loop]

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that well flown Mig-29's don't fare well vs. US F-15's. And I rather doubt if they were flying upgraded versions, the results would have been much different..

Well, they most likely won't be facing F-15s any more from this time next year.

I read this yesterday and all I can say is the MiG'35' version that's to be acquired looks to be one very disappointing aircraft.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... draw-close

[knowan]

Combat standpoint.
There is a saying : Lose energy = Lose fight.
Modern close air combat is all about energy management and getting within weapons shooting parameters.

As you can see in the vid => Each of those "airshow demo's" bleeds his energy close to zero. Until he can regain that lost energy? => He's a sitting duck waiting to get shot at.

Technical standpoint is 3 way.
a- It reduces MTBF (Main Time Between Failure), decreases serviceability and increases maintenance down time and cost.
b- Weight => You can use that weight in a better way with more fuel or more/better weapons.
c- Modern missiles make the "final kill turn" for you. You don't "have" to point the nose "on target" any more.

To evade incoming?
Ok, you "can" perhaps defeat the first missile, but then he's back to combat rule nr 1.
Until he regains the lost energy, he is a sitting duck.

Russians are good at airshows.
Fighters are for combat.

Don't forget the Su-27 has sub-par acceleration compared to other 4th gen, so it is disadvantaged at regaining energy.