Sukhoi Flankers - The Shifting Balance of Regional Air Power

[Weta43]

An interesting update to the earlier article on the relative strengths of Australia's present and future fighter options when comared to modern SU-27 derivatives purchased by regional powers.

You may have seen it - I'd read the earlier one linked from here, but hadn't seen this one.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

 

Regarding the JSF:

 

What happens when the existing OLS-27/30/31 series IRST is replaced with a newer longwave Focal Plane Array device - such as a single chip QWIP device? The result will be a capability to engage opposing aircraft under clear sky conditions regardless of RCS reduction measures. While the supercruising F/A-22A can defeat such techniques by kinematics alone, fighters in the teen series performance envelope will have to contend with BVR shots using the R-27ET, R-77, R-77T and R-77M cued by the thermal imaging search and track set. Similar issues arise with the deployment of modern ESM receivers on the Su-30MK, analogous to a number of existing Western systems. The Su-30MK series can then launch long range BVR missiles such as the R-27ET, R-77T with infrared seekers, or the R-27EP and R-77P with passive radio-frequency anti-radiation seekers. If cued by such sensors or offboard sources, these weapons will permit the Su-30MK to engage the JSF despite the JSF's good forward sector radar stealth performance (Author).

 

 

A clean JSF will have the advantage of a very low X-band radar signature in the forward quarter which will significantly degrade the Sukhoi's otherwise overwhelming radar power-aperture advantage over other types. However, the JSF is not designed to be a hot supersonic performer and like the F/A-18s will need to generously use afterburner to effect an intercept against a rapidly penetrating Sukhoi.

 

This exposes the JSF to detection and tracking by a newer technology IRST, and engagement by a long burn heatseeking or optically guided AAMs such as the R-27ET, R-77T or likely future variants with imaging seekers analogous to the AIM-9R and ASRAAM seekers. With the latter seekers an R-77/R-77M acquires many of the capabilities of the RAAF's superlative ASRAAM, especially jam resistance, but in a long range missile with datalink midcourse guidance. A new two-colour infrared seeker with 10.8 nautical mile acquisition range has been announced by the Arsenal infrared systems house, ostensibly for use on the R-77 series. Professionals might contemplate that these are not 1980s 36T series seekers.

 

Russia and the Ukraine have a competent infrared systems industry - e.g. Cyclone JSC recently described their QWIP single chip thermal imagers with 128x128 and 320x256 resolution, competitive against the latest EU technology and suitable for missile seekers and thermal imaging IRST detectors. Therefore an advanced derivative of the OLS-30/31 series with capabilities similar to the Eurofighter PIRATE thermal imaging IRST, but with better detection range, will be implementable with Russian hardware in the latter half of this decade given the current rate of evolution.

 

In the beam and aft sectors the JSF may be also quite vulnerable to an active or semiactive radar guided missile shot - its beam and aft sector radar signature reduction is much less refined than that in the forward sector. Another factor for the JSF is its radar emission - making it vulnerable to a long range shot with an anti-radiation seeker equipped R-27P, R-27EP, R-77P or when eventually deployed, ramjet R-77MP. While some Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) techniques may reduce vulnerability to anti-radiation missiles, radar modes for closing missile shots typically require high update rates and favour the anti-radiation seeker. Since the R-77/R-77M has a midcourse inertial package - Agat are developing FOG (fibre) gyro technology to avoid dependency on Western Ring Laser Gyro technology - transient loss of the JSF radar emission may not defeat the R-77P/R-77MP - or late model R-27P/EP.

 

Soviet and more recent Russian BVR doctrine has always emphasised firing pairs of missiles, one with heat-seeking guidance and one with radar guidance, to defeat countermeasures. With the option of active radar, heat-seeking and anti-radiation seekers, and by the end of the decade an imaging seeker, the result is a very lethal cocktail from a defensive countemeasures perspective - a defending fighter may only have datalink transmissions to provide warning and no indication of the seeker mix on the inbound missiles. With three of the four seeker technologies passive defeating such weapons is not trivial.

 

On publicly available data the JSF is likely to be detected and engaged by an N011M ESA equipped Su-30 inside the 10 to 20 nautical miles head on range envelope, unless the JSF can get the first shot off and successfully kill the Sukhoi. If the Sukhoi can close with the JSF, all bets are off on the JSF's ability to survive the close in engagement.

 

Another thing I'd never seen mentioned - the R-27P / EP passive anti radar version of r-27 http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-24787.html

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Ohh, look, this article talks about R-27EA missle seeker!

 

This is old article. Dr Carlo Kopp and his comments were dismissed on this forum when we discussed R-27EA aspect of this article.

[Weta43]

Actually, it's not the same article. It's an updated version of that old 2003 article posted in August this year (Last Updated: Sat Aug 11 15:45:31 GMT 2007).

This analysis is an updated and greatly expanded derivative of the two part series published in 2003 (see Resources).

 

Though he mentions those missiles again - it is to say that certain radars were developed to work with missiles of the type, not to say that they are actually in serveice :

 

and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-active missile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like the RVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M. The Irbis-E was clearly designed to support the ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M missile in BVR combat against reduced signature Western fighters like the Block II Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon.

 

As for this:

his comments were dismissed on this forum when we discussed R-27EA aspect of this article

 

Then he must be wrong eh ? :-)

If you google the author (Dr Carlo Kopp) & look at his qualifications & credentials + who's actually commissioned him to write for them, I'd put a lot more faith in what he has to say than most of the people on this forum.

 

Monash University's Bio on Kopp:

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ckprof.html

[D-Scythe]

Then he must be wrong eh ? :-)

If you google the author (Dr Carlo Kopp) & look at his qualifications & credentials + who's actually commissioned him to write for them, I'd put a lot more faith in what he has to say than most of the people on this forum.

 

Monash University's Bio on Kopp:

http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ckprof.html

 

The fact is, he has an agenda - to promote the purchase of the F-22 over the JSF. The supposed existence of the R-27AE helps his agenda, and (regardless of whether it's in service or not), he's exploiting the -27AE as a "possible" near-term threat that the RAAF might have to contend with in the future. The fact remains, if someone really wanted to, the R-27AE can possibly be pushed into service, and despite the fact that nobody wants to, the fact that it can be done "legitimizes" his use of the R-27AE as a potential near-term threat.

 

Nobody "dismissed" Dr. Kopp's comments - it was more a case of some people trying to twist his words to prove that the R-27AE is in service, when it is not. Obviously, this was to promote their own agendas of trying to get the R-27AE back into the game, by using Dr. Kopp's articles as a "source" when he himself also has an agenda...Wait, now I'm confused.

[Mugatu]

Lol, his agenda is to make sure teh RAAF has a fighter that will dominate over the next 20 years! And unforutanetly it only really leaves the F-22.

 

 

2nd thoughts if they won't sell em go the Eurofighter! Much better looking than the JSF.

[Weta43]

I think Mugatu has the answer - Kopp does have an agenda - to get the Aussies to push for something capable of defeating the Su-27 derivatives now arriving in the area.

 

This is because - as someone who actually has the credetials to make such an assesment - he believes that were the Su-27 derivatives that are now in service (albeit in limited but increasing numbers) equiped with the weapons of the type they were designed to carry, but have never done so for economic or political reasons, the JSF is no match for them.

 

The fact that they haven't been rolled out doesn't mean they won't be.

 

The fact remains, if someone really wanted to, the R-27AE can possibly be pushed into service, and despite the fact that nobody wants to ...

 

Russia didn't have the money for anything other than occasional flights of it's long range bombers till recently, but re-commenced them a couple of weeks ago (yes they are saber rattling, but 2 years ago they just couldn't afford the saber ).

They've had no money to upgrade planes & invest in new weapons, but they have money now & are starting to spend it (as are the Chinese). They designed these systems to deploy them - but their economy was in too poor shape.

It's not in such bad shape now.

As soon as they can afford to, they will finish the development & deployment of these weapons systems.

 

The r-27AE may not be what gets deployed, but something will in the not too distant future, & then ( & his position leads me to believe he is in a more informed position than anybody here ) what he says stands.

[Pilotasso]

F-16.net has a dozen threads like this going on. Fact is Australia is just fine and no power is going to threaten it directly, much less with either new aquisitions. Most teen F's can handle the Flanker, I dont see why the F-35 or the F-18E wouldnt.

[Weta43]

Indonesia has in the past said it considers Australia to be part of its 'sphere of influence'

 

As far as "Most teen F's can handle the Flanker, I dont see why the F-35 or the F-18E wouldnt" - no offence - I have no idea what qualifications you do or don't have, but I'm more inclined to take his word for it...

[GGTharos]

And his beliefs are typically dismissed by people 'in the know'. The JSF may not have the range of a flanker, and it may not be purpose built for air dominance, but you'll still have trouble shooting at it, and it won't have quite as much trouble shooting -you-.

 

This is because - as someone who actually has the credetials to make such an assesment - he believes that were the Su-27 derivatives that are now in service (albeit in limited but increasing numbers) equiped with the weapons of the type they were designed to carry, but have never done so for economic or political reasons, the JSF is no match for them.

[tflash]

The question is not Dr. Kopps beliefs, because fact remains that F-35 is only second-best. The question is would the Aussies like to have the F-22 if they could get it from the US. The answer is, I guess, YES.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

And his beliefs are typically dismissed by people 'in the know'.

I rest my case! :D

[Pilotasso]

yes? :huh:

[D-Scythe]

I think Mugatu has the answer - Kopp does have an agenda - to get the Aussies to push for something capable of defeating the Su-27 derivatives now arriving in the area.

 

Just Mugato? Everyone has been saying Kopp has had an agenda since the beginning. The answer is blatently obvious.

 

Russia didn't have the money for anything other than occasional flights of it's long range bombers till recently, but re-commenced them a couple of weeks ago (yes they are saber rattling, but 2 years ago they just couldn't afford the saber ).

They've had no money to upgrade planes & invest in new weapons, but they have money now & are starting to spend it (as are the Chinese). They designed these systems to deploy them - but their economy was in too poor shape.

It's not in such bad shape now.

As soon as they can afford to, they will finish the development & deployment of these weapons systems.

 

The r-27AE may not be what gets deployed, but something will in the not too distant future, & then ( & his position leads me to believe he is in a more informed position than anybody here ) what he says stands.

 

The fact that the R-27AE was to be manufactured in Ukraine sorta decimates its chances of being put into service - Ukraine doesn't want it and since when has the Russians been comfortable about buying weapons from other countries instead of developing their own?

[Weta43]

Whether he has an agenda or not is beside the point & has no bearing on whether the conclusions he reaches are correct. (Who doesn't have an agenda - even on these forums ?)

 

GG said "And his beliefs are typically dismissed by people 'in the know'. "

 

Dismissed & discredited are not the same thing.

 

A link to someone discrediting his arguments would be nice - preferably to someone who is both qualified to make the comparison - and who has no ties to the US military or the US aerospatial industry - because the statements of people with an 'agenda' are not to be taken seriously it seems.

Unless you believe that spokespeople for the US militry don't have an agenda?

 

Regarding this : "The fact that the R-27AE was to be manufactured in Ukraine sorta decimates its chances of being put into service"

 

I did point out in an earlier post that "Though he mentions those missiles again - it is to say that certain radars were developed to work with missiles of the type, not to say that they are actually in service :"

Perhaps I needed to expand & say that he isn't even saying those missiles ever will be in service - just that at some point in the near future (1 - 3 years) something of the type (active seeker, extended medium range) will be fielded.

When that happens his arguments will hold true.

 

 

(He also mentions the R-27AE in so far as he suggests that r-27ER's could be retro fitted with the AGAT 9B-1103M/9B-1348 E seeker from the r-77 (made by Moscow-based Agat Research Institute 54 Malaya Gruzinskaya St., Moscow 123557, Russia), which would effectively bring it to R-27AE specs.)

 

Sorry if any of this sounds terse ^ my boy's waiting to get on the computer to play his new game :-)

[Mugatu]

You can have a look at the ex Airforce Air Marshalls supporting his view. The only person I have seen dismissing his views is Dr Brendon Nelson (Medicine) who is probably about to be investigated for "his" decision to purchase the Super Bugs with out even consulting the RAAF.

 

It really doesn't matter if the AE is in service or not, something similar will be in the next 20 years.

[Mugatu]

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm some interesting reading 4 u :)

 

I rest my case! :D

[Pilotasso]

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm some interesting reading 4 u :)

 

oh RLY?

The article is incorrect:

The Su-27SK is the first PLAAF fighter capable of competing with 1980s U.S. fighters. At medium fuel states the Su-27 can outmaneuver the U.S. F-15, a point twice demonstrated in friendly U.S.-Russian aerial maneuvers.

During an August 1992 visit to Langley Air Force Base, Su-27s from the Russian training base of Lipetsk were able to soundly defeat U.S. F-15s during four exercise “air combat” sessions

 

This occurrence has been released in the press before and the so called manuvers consisted on a friendly meeting where russian pilots broke formation and taunt the F-15's without any notice for mock engagements. There has never been joint exercises, between the 2 countries mainly because none of them wanted to provide some free ELINT for the other.

 

* Edited by moderator

 

Knock off the personal commentary guys.

[Kula66]

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm some interesting reading 4 u :)

 

Interesting comment that the R-77 is limited to M3 ... I thought the 120 is an M4 missile ... Also it would be nice to seem R77 blead energy much faster than the 120 - they are obviously not close in RL!

 

Also mentions (as mentioned in many other places) that standard Soviet doctorine was to file an R-27R followed by a T. If the T was lockon before launch how would this work at the range a 27R was fired? Could this indicate some sort of lockon after launch?

[GGTharos]

Interesting comment that the R-77 is limited to M3 ... I thought the 120 is an M4 missile ... Also it would be nice to seem R77 blead energy much faster than the 120 - they are obviously not close in RL!

 

While I'm not sure wether the 77 can reach M4 or not, I think it's dependent upon conditions of initial launch, just like AMRAAM.

 

The 77's 'bleeds speed faster' issue isn't quite so black and white. The gridded fins turn into airbrakes below a certain mach number (and above mach 1), but actually produce less drag than conventional fins at higher velosity.

 

Also mentions (as mentioned in many other places) that standard Soviet doctorine was to file an R-27R followed by a T. If the T was lockon before launch how would this work at the range a 27R was fired? Could this indicate some sort of lockon after launch?

No, that would a 'you fire in the NEZ' doctrine, where the NEZ for an R-27 might easily be 10km or less (the Rmax at 10000m is 35km, at low altitude it's something closer to 15km, IIRC - for the real missile anyway) At that point an enemy fighter which is turning of in afterburner, is probably lockable by the missile seeker.

 

Also keep in mind that the main target for those aircraft isn't other fighters - it never is. It really doesn't matter how many -fighters- the enemy has flying over-head (well it does, but bear with me here) so long as they can't drop bombs. And bombers -typically- have large IR signatures simply due to their large surface areas.

[Kula66]

While I'm not sure wether the 77 can reach M4 or not, I think it's dependent upon conditions of initial launch, just like AMRAAM.

 

There was a comment in that reference that stated that the 77 was limited to M3 due to heating of the nose cone.

 

As to IR AAMs, the Soviets always seemed to produce IR and SAH versions of missiles - in addition to 27, the Acrid and Apex spring to mind. The Acrid certainly had a significantly longer range than 10km. I'm sure they also expected to attack figthers as well as fleeing bombers, but, if the launch characteristics were heavily mismatched, this wouldn't follow with doctorine of firing the IR shortly after the SAH was fired.

[GGTharos]

If the Acrid is the R-40 then no, it wasn't -really- meant for fighters ... it was meant for the XB-70, for one, it actually featured a datalink with LOAL capability and it was employed at high altitudes, launched at very high initial speed (MiG-25!) so yeah, it had significant range. But this range relates to launch conditions more than the missile itself IIRC.

[Kula66]

Yes Acrid is R-40 ... and you're, it was never design for use against fighters, but what about Apex? Mig-23s weapon - the Soviet match for the F-4.

[GGTharos]

Yes, but the Apex was sub-par compared to its competitor, IIRC (AIM-7).

 

The thermal version of the R-23/24 seems to have gotten most of the kills, but I might be wrong.

 

I recall accounts of MiG-23's using the Apex at ranges of about 9-10km.

[Kula66]

Yes, but the Apex was sub-par compared to its competitor, IIRC (AIM-7).

 

Well, was the Apex ever tested to the extent that the 7 was? And not as publically. Where was it used in real combat? As we all know the early 7s were terrible v fighters - again never designed for such targets.

 

I thought that Apex had a much longer Max range - quoted as 35Km (I know, launch/target conditions allowing - so assume head-on). The IR seeker would not have been able to lock before launch. So how would they fire the IR model "According to doctrine"? I understand that the search FOV of the early IR missiles were very narrow ... but they did deployed them widely and 23s are usually seen with mixed weapon loads IR & SAH with the IR model LOBL.

 

EDIT: Interesting quote from FAS.org "The R-23 and R-24 missiles were superior to the K-25 Sparrow-ski in versatility and range, as well as interference immunity, signal processing logic, and other characteristics" Also quotes the max IR range as 15km .. so I guess your right, the one-two salvo would have been at shorter range.

[D-Scythe]

Well, was the Apex ever tested to the extent that the 7 was? And not as publically. Where was it used in real combat? As we all know the early 7s were terrible v fighters - again never designed for such targets.

 

MiG-23s with Apexes have had plenty of opportunities to prove their worth in the 70s and 80s. Unfortunately, they were butchered by F-15s and F-16s (which only had AIM-9L/Python 3s at the time), so take from that what you will.

 

Furthermore, it is unfair to compare the early Sparrows with the Apex. The Sparrows of Vietnam were over a generation older. By the time Apex entered the fray, the contemporary -7F proved to be a far superior weapon in combat.