Su-30 vs RAAF ALTERNATIVES

[Weta43]

Thought some of you might find this interesting.

 

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Sept03.pdf

[Shaman]

Good, read. Thank you!

Don't worry but this thread will become another F-22 pwns all thread ;)

[Guest Cali]

The F-22 is still the best :music_whistling:

[Pilotasso]

The article makes several missconceptions. It assumes that the JSF's maximum speed of mach 1.6 is to be directly translated into poor acceleration and high fuel comsumption, or that it needs extensive afterburner usage to become supersonic betraying its position to IRST, thus giving the advantage to the Su-30.

 

The article makes emphasis on kinetmatic capability of the flanker and super manueverability, when this plane cannot have them both at the same time. Either it has plenty of fuel and cant turn, or its light for manuever but cant exactly spend the whole time afterburning either. Infact, if you consider both fighters in their best manuever to fuel capability the F-35 may be well paired with the flanker, since this last has a much higher specific comsumption (2X for 2 engines) and the JSF has higher bypass ratio, and may well be able to dogfight with full fuel load.

 

The article also makes mention of russian missiles that do not yet exist and may not even see service.

 

As usual airshow stunts play a major psicological role in this articles view of the flanker because not only it makes pessimistic scenarios for western aircraft BVR low observability, but it even fails to explain how would the flanker be able to hit them without reliable modern missiles.

 

Again it emphatizes supermanueverability. I say this is a huge missconception because this thrust vectored super maneuverability only verifies in the envelope domain where the aircraft has litle if any aerodynamic authority, i.e is flying so slow it will look like its standing still to the attaker. A perfect target, even worse considering the flanker looks like a tennis court hanging in the sky.

 

The only real disavantage I see for either of the wester fighter depicted here is the F-18E's draggy config and its slower acceleration, but theres so much you can hope for this difference except for running away, because IMHO either the F-18E or the F-35 are the likeliest of firing first with realistic chances of a hit. If the flankers fire first, they will either loose lock on the way, or the missiles will. R-27 are not very reliable in their tracking capabilities.

 

Up close it will be up to the best pilot, though I still fail to see the enourmous flanker to be able to get to this range without being shot at multiple times. and then even the Superhornet will hang on its own. Its large wing area makes it draggy but also gives it enourmous aerodynamic authority. Remenber the F-18E has been the only fighter to best an F-22 in a knife fight so far.

 

Looks like an article for poisening publics opinion torwards the govermental military aquisitions choices.

[3Sqn_Sven]

Well put Pilotasso

[Camoman]

There are so many god damn if's and but's in this topic that I dont think we will ever be able to paint a clear picture.

 

BUT, the one thing that still aint making sense to me is replacing the current mix of hornets and pigs for a single airframe. We aussies really are cutting a fine line with the proposed service lives of the current airframes and the entry of the JSF.

[Pilotasso]

Personaly I would choose the Eurofighter typhoon for australian defense but an F-35C or an F-18E would serve them good.

[Camoman]

I think its silly puttin all our eggs in one basket.

 

You cant choose a single airframe to fill all the roles. One for air superiority and one for strike. If separate airframes are chosen then you will choose the best for each separate role because these roles are different. If the same airframe is chosen then you will compromise in both areas. It would be more expensive to have different craft but what is the cost of having a defence. Some ppl say that the threat aint there but as soon as you dismiss it something will pop up. And the US is a good ally as the article states but we cant rely on others to protect our borders.. especially when they are extending themselves already and will be for many years to come.

[Pilotasso]

FOr different types for AA and AG, for grater manueverability for AA and for greater range at AG and economical comonality the combo F-35A and C would be in order.

[Maximus_G]

The article makes several missconceptions. It assumes that the JSF's maximum speed of mach 1.6 is to be directly translated into poor acceleration and high fuel comsumption, or that it needs extensive afterburner usage to become supersonic betraying its position to IRST, thus giving the advantage to the Su-30.

That's true, i estimate the dogfight thrust/weight ratio of f-35 and su-27 to be about the same.

If we take the airplanes' proposed empty weight and known static thrust, then add 3 tons, we get 1.29 t/w ratio for both of them.

 

plane thrust qty total_thr weight wgt+3000 t/w

su-27 12500 2 25000 16300 19300 1,295336788

f-35 18000 1 18000 10886 13886 1,296269624

mig-29 8300 2 16600 11200 14200 1,169014085

[Camoman]

I was in the impression that the C model was better in both respects.

 

F35A F35C

Max Wing loading 130lb/sqft 90lb/sqft

Combat Radius 590nm 700nm

 

I know wing loading aint the answer to manouverability but I was in the impression that wing loading was a major factor. Although a lower wing loading generally means better manouverability it also means slower acceleration higher drag, etc.

Also (does??) the lower max wing loading of the C model mean it cant carry as much payload (say as the A model)..thus limiting it's A2G capability despite its larger range.

[Maximus_G]

Also (does??) the lower max wing loading of the C model mean it cant carry as much payload (say as the A model)

I't vice versa. More weight - more wing loading. So the C model can theoretically carry more payload. But practically, i guess, less wing loading for C is needed to perform its short takeoff from the carrier, and landing too.

[Guest Cali]

:music_whistling:"cough" F-22 "cough":music_whistling:

[Camoman]

LOL yes Cali I hear you but I think ill have to keep dreamin bout that one.

 

2 squadrons of raptors, 2 squadrons of strike eagles and when they finally come along a squadron of JSF to bring up the rear. show me the money...

[GGTharos]

The JSF and the Hornet are both very capable aircraft, and they're equipped well enough to handle the current Su-30 variants - for the time being.

 

Because of the LO, the Su-30 will not enjoy the radar range superiority it used to. It is, however, still a better high-altitude interceptor than either of the other two aircraft. What remains to be seen is the amount of advantage LO and stealth will confer where those aircraft are otherwise restricted (namely range/endurance)

[tflash]

Looks like an article for poisening publics opinion torwards the govermental military aquisitions choices.

 

Don't tell me you never heard of Carlo Kopp?

[Shaman]

F-22 pwns all!

[Pilotasso]

F-22 is not called into this discussion. ^^^^ :P

[Guest Cali]

OK no more talk about this F-22 thingy

[tflash]

Kopp is a F-111 afficionado who in many studies has argued that the Aussies should keep their F-111 fleet longer and upgrade it to use the JASSM.

 

Here, I find him very speculative about possible evolutions: I think we agree not much of the advanced Su-30 threat he describes will actually materialize.

 

I do think he has a point about the IR seeker/IRST threat, though. An Asraam-class weapon coupled with more modern IRST in an airframe like Su-30 could be a very lethal opponent for the F-35, which is claimed by Lockheed Martin to have essentially F-16 class manoevrability.

 

The problem story for Australia is that the F-35 will NOT be operating under F-22 cover, but will have to do with improved SA through Wedgetail EAW and datalink superiority.

 

What about following tactic: dash towards Wedgetail at very high altitude and launch some R-27ER's to keep'm busy; then infiltrate with another pack of Su-30's to surprise the F-35's close-in. Without the F-22's range, area coverage and speed, and given the extreme vastness of space surrounding Australia, I think the F-35's could prove to be overstretched, no?

[Pilotasso]

bear in mind that the F-35 WILL have its own AESA radar. That shouldnt be underestimated.

 

And that the IRST is a secondary sensor. It will never replace the radar. Specialy in cloudy conditions where its basicaly useless.

[GGTharos]

I do think he has a point about the IR seeker/IRST threat, though. An Asraam-class weapon coupled with more modern IRST in an airframe like Su-30 could be a very lethal opponent for the F-35, which is claimed by Lockheed Martin to have essentially F-16 class manoevrability.

 

IRST and ASRAAM vs. Radar+AMRAAM? ... sounds like a second-rate solution to me.

 

What about following tactic: dash towards Wedgetail at very high altitude and launch some R-27ER's to keep'm busy; then infiltrate with another pack of Su-30's to surprise the F-35's close-in. Without the F-22's range, area coverage and speed, and given the extreme vastness of space surrounding Australia, I think the F-35's could prove to be overstretched, no?

 

How about this: Have the wedgetail escorted by a CAP and shoot down the enemy fighters before they even know what happened to them ... stealth+datalink.

 

Surprise is on the STEALTHY side, not the other way around. Also keep in mind that any of this overstretching of F-35's counts for the enemy aircraft also: They can only attack a small part of it before they have to pack it up and go home, and their flight paths become predictable due to the logistical issues. On /home turf/ you /always/ have that advantage.

[Kula66]

IRST and ASRAAM vs. Radar+AMRAAM? ... sounds like a second-rate solution to me.

 

Sounds like a stealthy solution to me ...

[GGTharos]

Second rate. Stealthy in what way? The radar is the primary sensor, IRST is secondary with lesser probablity of detection and lesser range.

It's like running on IRST in LOMAC while an F-15 is painting you - aside from certain ridiculous missile capabilities (or lack thereof) of missiles in LOMAC, it's pretty much suicide.

 

Big clue: The IRST is the secondary sensor on all aircraft that it's mounted on... well, if they have radar.

 

 

The IRST isn't some sort of answer from heaven to stealth. IRSTs were used before even the F-117 was built ... do you really think stealth aircraft would have been built if ISRT or projected IRST technology made them worthless?

 

Do you think the radar would be the primary sensor still if the IRST was really this good?

[Kula66]

Second rate. Stealthy in what way?

 

I'll let you figure that one out for yourself ...