Su-30 vs RAAF ALTERNATIVES

[FanBoy2006.01]

D-Scythe: “What US patriotists? A lot of us aren't even American. It's just a fact that the U.S.A. have some of the most powerful and technologically advanced weapons in the world.

 

What *is* funny, however, is reading crap from the anti-U.S./West camp. It's hilarious - "facts" mean nothing to these people. Like thinking that a military program with a R&D budget worth millions is comparable/superior to one that is worth billions (R-77 vs. AIM-120 anyone?). Or that IRST is some super anti-stealth tool and that Lockheed Martin "forgot" to stealth the F-22 from these IRSTs when they designed it.”

 

It all boils down to vanity and pride. One should not confuse patriotism with vanity. If you are a patriot you will be proud about your country but you should not be vain (Think that you are better than others.). “Pride comes before the fall.” In my opinion, one of the main reasons why people like Saddam Hussain were defeated was because he had this attitude that he is better than any body else,and will beat them easily. Thus he will not need to bother himself with them.

 

 

If oposing countries (To the USA.) underestimates their technology and training they will be defeated. Also if the USA will underestimate their enemies they will surely have a day of reconing

 

 

There is a lot of talk about technological superiority on these forums, But there is little talk about economics. Countries like China and India have had huge economical gains for a couple of years now.

 

 

This is information that I can not veryfy (Or spell for that matter!). But I have read that a lot more engineers are trained in China and India than in the West at present (Europe and USA). So they have a lot more engineers to throw at a problem. This will make a difference in the future.

 

 

Here is where I disagree with you D-Scythe. Although an R&D budget worth millions probably (In all likelyhood.) will not compare to one that is worth billions, organisations have the tendancy to spend all the money that are given to them.

 

 

Here is a good example: The USA spent a lot of money on the ADATS anti-aircraft system, that was a total failure (Could track moving targets but could not hit them. Could hit stationary targets but could not track them.). On the other hand, Russia developed the ZSU23-4 Shilka for much less.

 

 

My opinion is that IRST is a great tool. But do you actually want to be the guy that will have to look for a F22 with IRST that can detect him at 20km (Optimistic figure; I guess.) when he can fire an AIM120C at you from 70km?

 

 

D-Scythe I agree with your post, but I do disagree with you on the money issue. It is my opinion that it boils down to the ability of your design team and the resources that they have available to them plus their motvation (So money would make a difference! I just contradicted myself.).

 

 

Which brings me back to vanity. Are we vain enough to underestimate our enemies in times of war?

(D-Scythe I must stress that I do not think that you are vain. I agree with you, but I am using your post to launch my own opinions. That and I had a couple of drinks.).

 

 

I hope that someone will respond to my post and tellme if I am full of crap or not. Please bare in mind that English is not my mother tongue and that I can not spell to save my life.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

... but they don't have stealth.

Says who? CNN or Fox news?

 

Stealth is a term that describes set of features. Not just one. Shape is only ONE method, or one way to achieve REDUCED visibility to radars. Paint is another, although not without problems, because B-2 can not take off when it is raining, and still need more then fifty (50) airplanes in the air to accomplish the mission.

 

The most effective stealth is achieved with combination of features as listed above and below.

 

There is yet another way to achieve stealth, and it looks like you don’t know about it because of your statement above. And I want tell you either, because it is a top secret. :)

 

HINT: Decade or so back, French were really good at it (or so it was presented in the news).

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

It's just a fact that the U.S.A. have some of the most powerful and technologically advanced weapons in the world.

And you can hardly find anybody on this forum, or around the world for that matter, who would disagree. Me first, I agree with that statement.

 

However, there is a difference between the facts and fiction. And often, on this forum (as well as around the world) people tend to loose their focus, loose the sight of reality and wonder into the world of fiction.

 

Regards,

[D-Scythe]

Says who? CNN or Fox news?

 

Says everybody. Name one other stealth fighter in service (or nearing service entry) right now. I can only think of two - the F-22A Raptor and the F-35 JSF. There are a bunch of stealth bombers, but only two stealth fighters.

 

Stealth is a term that describes set of features. Not just one. Shape is only ONE method, or one way to achieve REDUCED visibility to radars. Paint is another, although not without problems, because B-2 can not take off when it is raining, and still need more then fifty (50) airplanes in the air to accomplish the mission.

 

The most effective stealth is achieved with combination of features as listed above and below.

 

There is yet another way to achieve stealth, and it looks like you don’t know about it because of your statement above. And I want tell you either, because it is a top secret. :)

 

HINT: Decade or so back, French were really good at it (or so it was presented in the news).

 

I disagree, at least in the context of an air-to-air, BVR engagement. The term "stealth" can be applied in many ways, true, but the term "stealth fighter" usually describes a jet whose RCS is the size of a bee or small bird.

 

You're also right when you make the point that many 4.5/5th generation fighters have stealthy features (i.e. F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter, Rafale, etc.). However, none of these were designed to be "stealthy" - the low observable technology incorporated into them are only meant to delay detection by a few radar miles. On the other hand, the F-22 and F-35 are designed to delay detection to the point of visual range (i.e. detected too late to mean anything).

 

I see no other plane capable of defeating the F-35 in terms of "first look" and "fisrt shot" than the F-22. I'll repeat it again - it's competitors are not stealthy in the same respect, in the context of an air-to-air engagement.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I hope that someone will respond to my post and tellme if I am full of crap or not.

Well, your post is one of the best I’ve read lately. However, you will be accused of bringing politics and economics into a “pure” technological discussion.

There is a lot of talk about technological superiority on these forums, But there is little talk about economics.

I was warned on some other topics not to bring economics and politics here. I had to withdraw from those discussions.

[hitman]

Someone put this boy on ridalin.

[Guest IguanaKing]

So the data link is “fairly” unidirectional then? From earth towards the satellite only.

 

The datalink signals are QUITE directional, actually. The antenna used to datalink with a satellite has this HUGE thing between it and any "jammers" on the ground. That "thing" is called an airplane. Was my flashlight analogy not clear enough for you? These are not VHF or even UHF radio waves that propogate quite nicely in every direction. They are line of sight only, you cannot jam the signal of a satellite that is on the other side of the aircraft you are trying to interfere with. Sure, you could jam it before it reaches anything on the ground, but that TADIL signal will still be very much untouched and quite useable when it reaches anything above you trying to receive it. Your jammer has lost LOS, just from the aircraft being between you and the satellite. If you were to use a space-based or air-based jammer, on the other hand, that would be a different story. But even then, you'd really only be able to mess with one satellite, and there are several of them at any given time, to provide redundancy.

 

There is no code in the world that can rebuild destroyed radio wave. There are error correction algorithms, however, they can not produce a radio wave that was lost due to jamming. Every radio wave can be jammed. I am not saying that it is easy. I am not saying that the third world countries have technology to do so.

 

Read above regarding LOS.

 

I do know that my Panasonic noise canceling head sets do well “jamming” the unwanted radio waves. And they cost $50 and work for 20 hours on a single AAA battery.

 

Your noise cancelling headset has a small microphone inside each ear piece that picks up unwanted sound coming from the outside. This signal is then inverted and played through the receivers in that headset along with the desired signal. The result is a 180 degree phase difference between the unwanted sound and the cancelling signal, which reduces the amplitude of the composite to almost 0. This has very little to do with being able to jam anything whose wavelength is much shorter than that of sound.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well, your post is one of the best I’ve read lately. However, you will be accused of bringing politics and economics into a “pure” technological discussion.

I was warned on some other topics not to bring economics and politics here. I had to withdraw from those discussions.

 

What you still don't seem to realize, is that discussing economics is fine, IF it is on the topic of the aircraft in question. i.e. How much will it cost to maintain it? How many will be lost in combat, and how much will it cost to replace plane X vs. plane Y? That sort of thing is ON TOPIC, much as Fanboy's economic considerations are...his considerations have a direct relationship to the topic of discussion. The problem is that your views on health care and other social issues have absolutely NOTHING to do with a discussion about aircraft. That's why you were asked to stop.

[Gaizokubanou]

What you still don't seem to realize, is that discussing economics is fine, IF it is on the topic of the aircraft in question. i.e. How much will it cost to maintain it? How many will be lost in combat, and how much will it cost to replace plane X vs. plane Y? That sort of thing is ON TOPIC, much as Fanboy's economic considerations are...his considerations have a direct relationship to the topic of discussion. The problem is that your views on health care and other social issues have absolutely NOTHING to do with a discussion about aircraft. That's why you were asked to stop.

 

I hope that's the case, but last time I tried to bring in cost of aircraft into consideration, I was asked by few forum members not to mention anything political.

[nscode]

The datalink signals are QUITE directional, actually. The antenna used to datalink with a satellite has this HUGE thing between it and any "jammers" on the ground. That "thing" is called an airplane. Was my flashlight analogy not clear enough for you? These are not VHF or even UHF radio waves that propogate quite nicely in every direction. They are line of sight only, you cannot jam the signal of a satellite that is on the other side of the aircraft you are trying to interfere with. Sure, you could jam it before it reaches anything on the ground, but that TADIL signal will still be very much untouched and quite useable when it reaches anything above you trying to receive it. Your jammer has lost LOS, just from the aircraft being between you and the satellite. If you were to use a space-based or air-based jammer, on the other hand, that would be a different story. But even then, you'd really only be able to mess with one satellite, and there are several of them at any given time, to provide redundancy.

 

You couuuld just shoot down (up?) the satellite(s) :music_whistling:

[Anytime]

mmm no, :music_whistling:

 

Link 16 is omnidirectional and small and to jam it you'll need one big jammer and as you can imagine due to the amount of noise it's putting out it wouldn't be around for very long at all.

 

Some insight into the future of TADILS

 

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/av/show_mag.cgi?pub=av&mon=0904&file=networkcentric.htm

 

The datalink signals are QUITE directional, actually. The antenna used to datalink with a satellite has this HUGE thing between it and any "jammers" on the ground. That "thing" is called an airplane. Was my flashlight analogy not clear enough for you? These are not VHF or even UHF radio waves that propogate quite nicely in every direction. They are line of sight only, you cannot jam the signal of a satellite that is on the other side of the aircraft you are trying to interfere with. Sure, you could jam it before it reaches anything on the ground, but that TADIL signal will still be very much untouched and quite useable when it reaches anything above you trying to receive it. Your jammer has lost LOS, just from the aircraft being between you and the satellite. If you were to use a space-based or air-based jammer, on the other hand, that would be a different story. But even then, you'd really only be able to mess with one satellite, and there are several of them at any given time, to provide redundancy.

 

 

 

Read above regarding LOS.

 

 

 

Your noise cancelling headset has a small microphone inside each ear piece that picks up unwanted sound coming from the outside. This signal is then inverted and played through the receivers in that headset along with the desired signal. The result is a 180 degree phase difference between the unwanted sound and the cancelling signal, which reduces the amplitude of the composite to almost 0. This has very little to do with being able to jam anything whose wavelength is much shorter than that of sound.

[Guest IguanaKing]

They are not omnidirectional in the sense of being able to jam them from the ground. The aircraft receiving the signal destroys LOS for the jammer to the satellite.

 

I agree though, if it WERE to be done, you'd need one HUGE friggin' transmitter.

[mikoyan]

you guys seems to know a lot about radars , and jammers , and all that staff. Are you guys aerospace engineers or what ?:smartass:

[Anytime]

They are not omnidirectional in the sense of being able to jam them from the ground. The aircraft receiving the signal destroys LOS for the jammer to the satellite.

 

I agree though, if it WERE to be done, you'd need one HUGE friggin' transmitter.

 

There is no satellite involved in Link 16! :pilotfly:

[Anytime]

They are not omnidirectional in the sense of being able to jam them from the ground. The aircraft receiving the signal destroys LOS for the jammer to the satellite.

 

I agree though, if it WERE to be done, you'd need one HUGE friggin' transmitter.

 

There is no satellite involved in Link 16, it's a LOS link! Some unclass info for you.:pilotfly:

http://www.tpub.com/content/et/14088/css/14088_141.htm

[Guest IguanaKing]

Tactical datalink has a new wrinkle added to it, satellite relay. You can see this in the strange, flat, upward facing antennas that are suddenly showing up on combat aircraft. Besides, I was talking about the datalinks to be used on 5th gen US aircraft. ;) ADS-B uses a simlar principle.

[Anytime]

5th Gen (F-22) uses Link16 "MIDS", soon to be replaced by the JTRS radio, but still using Link 16. One day it will move to an IP based connection but that is atleast 10 years away.

 

Have u got a pic of one of the antennas, you'll probably find that it is just the satcom antenna for the ARC210 or similar radios, it's not used for tacital data links.

 

Back on topic though the Wedgtail radar combined with long range missiles such as the meteor on fighters fitted Link 16 would be an tough combo to beat.

 

Boeing didn't get fined 500 million for selling the radar to Australia for no reason ;)

 

Cheers,

AT.

 

 

 

Tactical datalink has a new wrinkle added to it, satellite relay. You can see this in the strange, flat, upward facing antennas that are suddenly showing up on combat aircraft. Besides, I was talking about the datalinks to be used on 5th gen US aircraft. ;) ADS-B uses a simlar principle.

[Guest IguanaKing]

If this type of technology is being certified for use in the civilian sector, I'm betting the military has already been using it. Granted, its not used for quite the same purpose, but it is a way for aircraft to autonomously monitor each other's locations without the need for ATC radars. Its like TCAS and TIS, only better. That's not to say ATC radars are being phased out, just "augmented".

 

I'm speculating, since that's all we can really do about the F-22s capabilities. ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

What you still don't seem to realize, …

No comments.

That sort of thing is ON TOPIC,…

There is more then one economical aspect. Those aspects that I comment on, are not politically correct. I understand that and I withdraw from such discussions.

That's why you were asked to stop.

And I did stop. I need this forum because I love Lock On and there is a lots of good people here that can help in case of problems. I don’t want to be banned.

[tflash]

I still find the original question worth of debate. It pits the F-35/Wedgetail combo against the Su-30 hordes.

 

If I'm right, the Aussies will buy 4 Wedgetails?

 

In fact, on the Australian side, we will have:

 

- the Wedgetail aircraft with MESA radar and its escort of F-35 in air-to-air config

- tanker aircraft

- F-35 on GAI on mainland bases

- at least Link-16 capability

 

I guess no-one believes the Link-16 will be jammed, seems a phantasy scenario

 

Remaining questions:

 

- what is the actual payload/range of the escorting F-35's

- how far is the reach of the GAI F-35's

- what can the opposition bring in?

 

==> In my view there aren't that many Su-30's around in the theatre?

==> we could assume the regular R-77 becomes available

==> what real radars are planned for the Su-30's in question (Indonesia

has only a few, China, India and Vietnam seem very far away from

Australia or am I wrong?

==> Su-30 seems mostly air-to-ground improved, not air-to-air?

==> can the fact that Su-30's bring in much more missiles offset other

disadvantages?

[Force_Feedback]

Malaysia has ordered like 18 su-30MKMs, don't really know how that would be a threat? And most countries around the world have defense forces, only the Chinese, Russians, Americans (with those 3 making the most threats and attacking other countries) and western Europe (and Turkey) have offensive capabilities in mind, and the numbers to support it.

Look at this country, a small, flat piece of land with lots of export/import and a Zionist culture and goverment. And It had bought like 200 F-16s, okay, the Cold War was on, and Lockheed bribed goverment officials (I believe they still do, the bastards), but what good use does the Netherlands have for so much planes while being surrounded by friendly nations? History repeats itself, last time I heard they were planning on buying 150 JSF (hmm, again, Lockheed Martin, now that's a shocker). So, what are all those planes for? Just to statisfy LM and maybe some military buffs whining about the F-16.

 

Countries like vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia simply don't have enough su-30s to do something against Australia (and they have no reason to attack them either). So what's with this F-22-inspired "I see enemies everywhere" thing? No China will not attack the US, it would ruin its economy (yes, they're both dependant on eachother, no matter what Bush/Jintao might say) and make the whole world die of cancer.

Times have changed a long time ago, and even now people are lagging 20 years behind in their mindframe of this world, this is only helped by the propaganda every nation that uses this medium spreads. Even today the most likely target for all those su-30/F-18/F-16/F-15/F-22/EF-2000 is some group of people operating from within urban areas or some deserted place, trying to overthrow goverments and make the inhabitants of those countries fear everything (like the US post 11-09). Those people were always there, but now they have become the main focus, instead of a nuclear war with MAD.

 

Okay, we can discuss the hypothetical scenarios, but for all those thinking the F-22/F-15C would rule some 'big' country's skies, think again. And I said F-22/F-15C because the people that think that way rarely use the EF-2000/JAS-39/F-16/F-18/Su-30/F-15E as they know multirole in the only way to go these days, and will not keep on hammering about stealth and aerial superiority in a country that has like 15 ancient Mig-21/29s barely flying around.