Question about Su-27 and GCI

[RedTiger]

I have a question about the Su-27 and its use of GCI. maybe someone can answer this for me becaue I haven't been able to find an answer yet.

 

Ok, so whenever the subject of Russian fighters comes up, particularly relative to Western fighters, invariably someone mentions reliance on GCI. For the MiG-29, as well as previous fighters and interceptors, this seems reasonable. If you have a large land mass to defend, you may decide to have your interceptors and fighters rely on GCI and forego sophisticated search capabilities.

 

The thing I don't understand is how this applies to the Flanker. You have a long-legged bird that seems to be built from the ground up as an air superiority fighter meant to take the fight to the enemy. This is opposed to the MiG-29 (short legged, GCI reliant) and the MiG-25 (high-speed missile truck, also GCI reliant). It seems like it was intended to be in the same role and class as the F-15 in terms of range, payload, and armament. So, would it rely on AWACS then -- far more than the F-15 has to?

 

Furthermore, you have this same fighter providing air superiority for an ASW fleet. Navies mean power projection and they tend to fight on the water, so no GROUND based radar. I've never seen or heard of a Russian equivalent to the E-2, but I have heard of helicopter-based AWACS. Such an AWACS doesn't sound like it would be anywhere near as useful as one on a plane or GCI, IMO, so would the Su-33 use ship based intercept radar?

 

I guess I fail to see how this fighter could be GCI-reliant when it looks like it was built not to be.

[Flyby]

no don't quote me...

 

I think the idea of an Su-27 being bound by gci is no longer a practice, if it ever was. Maybe for the shorter-ranged Fulcrum, I don't know. But I read somewhere that Russian tactics have evolved. I'd think the FLanker would have bvr capabilites and the pilots trained to operate independently of gci. Now to operate in concert with AWACS, well who wouldn't use that datalink setup?

Flyby

[RedTiger]

I think the idea of an Su-27 being bound by gci is no longer a practice, if it ever was. Maybe for the shorter-ranged Fulcrum, I don't know. But I read somewhere that Russian tactics have evolved. I'd think the FLanker would have bvr capabilites and the pilots trained to operate independently of gci. Now to operate in concert with AWACS, well who wouldn't use that datalink setup?

Flyby

 

I'm glad you brought that up Flyby, because I forgot to make an important distinction. When I say Su-27, I mean the ones modeled in LOMAC. I'm talking more about cold war-era and 90's practices more than what is done now.

[Alfa]

The thing I don't understand is how this applies to the Flanker. You have a long-legged bird that seems to be built from the ground up as an air superiority fighter meant to take the fight to the enemy. This is opposed to the MiG-29 (short legged, GCI reliant) and the MiG-25 (high-speed missile truck, also GCI reliant). It seems like it was intended to be in the same role and class as the F-15 in terms of range, payload, and armament. So, would it rely on AWACS then -- far more than the F-15 has to?

 

I don't know if you could say that it is "reliant" on GCI. It has more to do with the nature of the radar and, aside from sheer power, the radar of the Su-27(N001) is all but identical to that of the MiG-29(N019) in terms of design and functionality - which in turn means far simpler than the F-15 radar(APG-63). The Su-27 does have a few assets over the MiG-29 though that helps it to be less dependent on GCI - e.g. it has a rather sophisticated datalink system that allows fighters to link up and share target information and thereby provide an AWACS-like function.

 

Furthermore, you have this same fighter providing air superiority for an ASW fleet. Navies mean power projection and they tend to fight on the water, so no GROUND based radar. I've never seen or heard of a Russian equivalent to the E-2..

 

There were actually a couple of projects for a Russian naval E2 equivalent - namely the Yak-44(very similar to the E2):

 

...and the An-71:

 

But it seems that both these developments stalled with the fall of the SU and subsequent suspension of the aviation cruiser program, since they would require catapults for launching(the Soviet Union did start building a larger version of the "Kuznetsov class" which would have had two steam catapults).

 

...but I have heard of helicopter-based AWACS.

 

Yes the Ka-29RLD aka Ka-31:

 

Such an AWACS doesn't sound like it would be anywhere near as useful as one on a plane or GCI, IMO, so would the Su-33 use ship based intercept radar?

 

The above mentioned aircraft(and E2 for that matter) are not "AWACS" as such - they are EAW assets. What it means is that they don't control the fighters themselves - rather they down-link their radar picture to a control post onboard the ship, which in turn acts as "GCI" for the fighters.

 

Anyway, no you cannot obtain the same capabilities with a helicopter based EAW asset, but it is still useful as it can provide 3D "over the horizon" detection - without airborne EAW assets, ships can only detect high altitude targets at range, while their onboard radars are restricted by the "radio horizon" against low altitude ones.

[X-man]

I was under the impression that E-2 was infact a AWACS...? :huh:

[Alfa]

Well to be honest I don't know all that much about the E-2, so maybe I am mistaken :) .

 

It is usually refered to as AEW and due to the rather small airframe(not room for multiple controller stations) I assume that there is some "hand-over" of the control aspect :) .

[RedTiger]

Thank you for that, Alpha. I guess when I say "reliant" on GCI I mean that it cannot operate effectively without it. Meaning it can't search for targets, ID them, and intercept or do a stern conversion with its own radar. I was under the impression that both the Fulcrum and Flanker had a hard time with this on their own, the searching part, and relied on GCI to guide them. That seems pretty defensive and not at all conducive to agressively grabbing air space. The only things I can think of is that if this is true, Flankers would have relied on AWACS in place of GCI if fighting thousands of miles from the USSR OR the Soviets never envisioned having to fight any war that far from home.

 

I was under the impression that E-2 was infact a AWACS...? :huh:

 

Ya, me too.

 

EDIT: nevermind about the E-2. :)

[X-man]

From http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=700&ct=1

The Hawkeye provides all-weather airborne early warning, airborne battle management and command and control functions for the Carrier Strike Group and Joint Force Commander

Cheers :)

[GGTharos]

RedTiger,

 

The reason for this is that the Russian fighters are homeland defense aircraft - this is their purpose ... it is -not- taking the fight to the enemy, unlike the F-15, which was built explicitly with the idea that it would be fighting a fight not in its own country's borders, but elsewhere, and it had to bring 'all this stuff' with it.

 

The Su-27's reliance on off-board targeting/direction, as Alfa mentioned, is due to the inherent problems of its radar. While capable of performing its own searches, ECM resistance is poor (in LO, you always get a jamming indication .. in RL, you might never know you're being jammed - you just see an empty scope.

In addition, the SNP (TWS) mode was susceptible to ECM due to slow processors. The same affliction resulted in spurious contacts showing up, and this and other factors also caused lock-on time to be painfully long (on the order of 7-10 sec).

Further, I think you just have to look at how these guys trained to see which aircraft is stronger in BVR ...

 

F-15's: Usually between 25-35k or higher for the fight, limited by engine thrust ... burst to 1.3M to fire missiles, typically always against look-down targets.

 

Su-27's: Trained for combat at a lower altitude block (15-25k) ... imagine, look-up against the high-flying F-15's, but that extra power of their missiles is wasted due to the necessity to climb...also potentially limited by high-altitude engine thrust. (Though admittedly another reason might be that their primary task wasn't really to fight F-15's, but rather, to intercept incoming bombers)

 

Traditionally interceptors have always been built to 'get higher and faster first', and if your interceptor is training to fight lower than the other guy's interceptor, it's probably not a terribly good sign.

 

Basically, the Su-27's and MiG-29's system was built to work well with a locked target and the 'smite' button pushed. Search, as you said, was not so great due to the reasons mentioned. The task of tracking an already locked target and discriminating background clutter, as well as ECCM application is presumably far easier in terms of processing than a search.

 

I think an indication of this is the search notch at long range being somewhere on the order of 350kph, while it's 150kph (or perhaps even less) against a locked target.

[Flyby]

and today?

 

good stuff, but what are avionics like on the modern Su27 air dominance fighter?

Flyby

[GGTharos]

IIRC they're quite similar to a modern fighter like the F-15E or F-16CJ, however it is my understanding that due to some issues with electronics manufacturing, missiles, etc, the Russian radars are still behind what the F-15C is toting ... just not as horribly behind as they used to be ... in other words, the new Su-27's are much more dangerous, and closer to the F-15C than they ever were before.

[Flyby]

rgrt GGT,

nothing like parity to keep the bullies off of you. ;) Hmmm... just think if the USAF bought a few SUs and gave them upgraded radars for use as home defence. It would be good for relations between the Eagle and the Bear (not that it's going to happen anyway). Just a wild thought.

Flyby out

[GGTharos]

I think there's no point in doing so when the Eagle is still a superior interceptor. Besides ... the F-22's and F-35's are coming ... and no Su-27 has anything on'em.

[RedTiger]

So...I'm guessing we can chalk this whole "fighters for homeland defense" up to paying attention to where all your previous wars were fought and perhaps a dash of communist world political theory? I guess I'm still not understanding what they would have planned to do if they had to establish air superiority in a foreign country being attacked by NATO far away from the USSR. Do what they did in Vietnam perhaps? Install GCI, SAMs, fighters and either fight there themselves or advise the indigenous people on how to do it?

 

The Su-27 still seems like a strange choice for a defensive fighter if you also consider the MiG-29 and MiG-25 a defensive fighter. Where does it fit in between the two?

[GGTharos]

The sattelite countries were just buffers for mother Russia ... but remember, the whole WW3 was supposed to be fought in Europe, with USAF bombers coming in over the bering straight or the north pole, and from Guam. Russia would be getting attacked from -many- directions with all sorts of things, aside the main front in Europe, thus the MiG-31's and Su-27's. The MIG-29's were there to defend their own airfields and provide short range air defense to ground attack aircraft and ground forces, AFAIK.

 

Some were tasked with nuking NATO resources (yes, WARPAC plans were to go TACNUKE from day ONE)

 

Also remember, Vietnam was a proxy war for Russia. Officially, they were 'not involved'. Or was that Korea ... either way. But if they WERE to get officially involved, you bet they'd bring a portable GCI post or two, maybe an A-50, and some flankers.

[Flyby]

well...no

 

So...I'm guessing we can chalk this whole "fighters for homeland defense" up to paying attention to where all your previous wars were fought and perhaps a dash of communist world political theory? I guess I'm still not understanding what they would have planned to do if they had to establish air superiority in a foreign country being attacked by NATO far away from the USSR. Do what they did in Vietnam perhaps? Install GCI, SAMs, fighters and either fight there themselves or advise the indigenous people on how to do it?

 

The Su-27 still seems like a strange choice for a defensive fighter if you also consider the MiG-29 and MiG-25 a defensive fighter. Where does it fit in between the two?

Like I said, just a wild idea. It would be nice to see the Flanker here at air shows, even if the USAF had to buy a couple of them. Good for detente, and all that. With it's long legs it could be a nice patrol aircraft. What's this about communist world political theory? Buying, and selling is pure capitalism, not necessarily democratic, but to make a buck or two isn't so bad. In the long run, it's like the game "monopoly". The idea is to get the last coins out the other guys' pocket. ;) Sell a few planes. Make a little money. What's the harm? :D

Flyby out

[RedTiger]

The comment about communist political theory is about what GG described. Ever since Trotsky got the boot, it was "Socialism in one country" and it was believed from very early on that a clash with capitalism (i.e. The West) was inevitable. If you are seriously preparing for war under this ideology you may not feel the need to design kit that can that can take the fight to the enemy, or at least that is my theory. After all the enemy is preordained to come to you. ;) You just have to have a buffer of friendly countries ( :smilewink: ) to protect yourself and your industry in order to launch the all-important Soviet "counter-attack"!

 

Now I wonder, which would have been better in the long run cost efficiency-wise had the USSR not collapsed. Those portable backpack GCIs or the APG-XX radars. :D

[GGTharos]

The real answer: Who'd end up holding ground in the end? :D

Assuming it wouldn't all just end in one earth-sized mushroom cloud.

[RedTiger]

The real answer: Who'd end up holding ground in the end? :D

Assuming it wouldn't all just end in one earth-sized mushroom cloud.

 

I am glad that chapter of human history ended before anyone (or no one) would have had to find out. :yes:

[Flyby]

can't we just all get along? Russia's had an interesting history of people trying to conquer it. Good thing Mother Winter knows how to ruin a party. I think the idea of buffer states seems inherent in the Russian mind due to past invasions, leadership aside. But that seems like old George Bush saying "we're fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" In both cases it sounds to me like "damn the buffer country as long I'm safe" Not cool in either case. But hey. That's just me talking

Flyby out