OT - SU-30K vs Rafale in joint exercise

[Weta43]

For what it's worth ... a bit of a reeat on earlier stuff, but USAF must have gotten at least a little surprise on the COPE excercise.

 

Interesting to note: yes - no AMRAAMs at India's request, neither side sent their best planes, and USAF pilots report that the Indian pilots showed a range of experience. ( The 4:1 ratio is apparently how the American pilots train "in house" against simulated foreign airforces and expected to dominate anyway...). It doesn't say so in the bit below but the imulator runs were done (from memory of another site) by Boeing, but the part about only pilots from the States being skilled enough to carry out the manouvers doesn't seem so likely given the other things here.

 

"The Russian-built Sukhoi Su-30MK, the high-performance fighter being exported to India and China, consistently beat the F-15C in classified simulations, say U.S. Air Force and aerospace industry officials.

In certain circumstances, the Su-30 can use its maneuverability, enhanced by thrust-vectoring nozzles, and speed to fool the F-15's radar, fire two missiles and escape before the U.S. fighter can adequately respond. This is according to Air Force officials who have seen the results of extensive studies of multi-aircraft engagements conducted in a complex of 360-deg. simulation domes at Boeing's St. Louis facilities.

 

"The Su-30 tactic and the success of its escape manoeuvre permit the second, close-in shot, in case the BVR [beyond-visual-range] shot missed," an Air Force official said. Air Force analysts believe U.S. electronic warfare techniques are adequate to spoof the missile's radar. "That [second shot] is what causes concern to the F-15 community," he said. "Now, the Su-30 pilot is assured two shots plus an effective escape, which greatly increases the total engagement [kill percentage]."

THE SCENARIO in which the Su-30 "always" beats the F-15 involves the Sukhoi taking a shot with a BVR missile (like the AA-12 Adder) and then "turning into the clutter notch of the F-15's radar," the Air Force official said. Getting into the clutter notch where the Doppler radar is ineffective involves making a descending, right-angle turn to drop below the approaching F-15 while reducing the Su-30's relative forward speed close to zero. This is a 20-year-old air combat tactic, but the Russian fighter's maneuverability, ability to dump speed quickly and then rapidly regain acceleration allow it to execute the tactic with great effectiveness, observers said.

If the maneuver is flown correctly, the Su-30 is invisible to the F-15's Doppler radar--which depends on movement of its targets--until the U.S. fighter gets to within range of the AA-11 Archer infrared missile. The AA-11 has a high-off-boresight capability and is used in combination with a helmet-mounted sight and a modern high-speed processor that rapidly spits out the target solution.

Positioned below the F-15, the Su-30 then uses its passive infrared sensor to frame the U.S. fighter against the sky with no background clutter. The Russian fighter then takes its second shot, this time with the IR missile, and accelerates out of danger.

"It works in the simulator every time," the Air Force official said. However, he did point out that U.S. pilots are flying both aircraft in the tests. Few countries maintain a pilot corps with the air-to-air combat skills needed to fly these scenarios, said an aerospace industry official involved in stealth fighter programs.

Those sceptical of the experiments say they're being used to justify the new Aim-9X high-off-boresight, short-range missile and its helmet-mounted cuing system, the F-22 as an air superiority fighter and, possibly, the development of a new long-range air-to-air missile that could match the F-22 radar's ability to find targets at around 120 mi. They contend that the Su-30MK can only get its BVR missile shot off first against a large radar target like the F-15. While it's true that the Su-30 MK would not succeed against the stealthy F-22 or F-35, neither would it regularly beat the nonstealthy (but relatively small radar cross section) F-16 or F/A-18E/F, they said. These analysts don't deny the F-22's value as an air-to-air fighter, but say the aircraft's actual operational value will be greatest in the penetrating strike, air defence suppression and electronic jamming roles.

 

 

 

Defense Daily

04-01-2004

Air Force Has Positive Impression From Cope India 04 Exercise, Plans Training Changes

Volume: Vol. 222, Issue: 1

 

By Lorenzo Cortes

 

The Air Force's recently completed Cope India 04 exercise with the Indian air force (IAF) was a positive experience for the service that will likely result in changes to certain training procedures, according to the officer who led the American detachment who went to India to participate.

"The exercise overall went very well," Col. Greg Neubeck, 3rd Operations Group deputy

 

 

http://users.senet.com.au/~wingman/cope.html

A recent exercise with the Indian Air Force is causing U.S. Air Force officials to re-evaluate the way the service trains its fighter pilots while bolstering the case for buying the F/A-22 as a way to ensure continued air dominance for the United States, according to service officials.

 

The surprising sophistication of Indian fighter aircraft and skill of Indian pilots demonstrated at the Cope India air combat exercise Feb. 15 through 27 at Gwalior Air Force Station, India, should provide a reality check for those who had assumed unquestioned U.S. air superiority, service officials who participated in the exercise said this week. The event was the first-ever air combat exercise involving the U.S. and India and the most active bilateral military exchange in over 40 years, according to these officials.

 

“The major takeaway for the Air Force is that our prediction of needing to replace the F-15 with the F/A-22 is proving out as we get smarter and smarter about other [countries’] capabilities around the world and what technology is limited to in the F-15 airframe,” said Col. Mike Snodgrass, commander of the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK. “We’ve taken [the F-15] about as far as we can and it’s now time to move to the next generation.” Snodgrass, who has been selected to receive his first star, and two other wing officials spoke with Inside the Air Force June 2.

 

The Air Force has been arguing the absolute necessity of the F/A-22 since the program began. But the performance of the Indians in direct competition against the Air Force’s best fighter, the F-15C, was particularly striking evidence of an endangered U.S. lead in air combat capability, the statements of service officials indicate.

 

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee in March that the results of Cope India were “very revealing,” although he declined to elaborate in a public forum. Privately, other senior service officials have pointed to Cope India as evidence that continued U.S. air superiority is dependent on the F/A-22.

 

Although service officials have been reluctant to detail how the Indians performed against the six F-15Cs from the 3rd Wing that participated in Cope India, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) said in a Feb. 26 House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing that U.S. F-15Cs were defeated more than 90 percent of the time in direct combat exercises against the IAF.

 

Officials from the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf did not provide specifics about how their aircraft fared, but said the experience is causing the service to reevaluate the way it trains its pilots for air-to-air operations.

 

“What happened to us was it looks like our red air training might not be as good because the adversaries are better than we thought,” Snodgrass said. “And in the case of the Indian Air Force both their training and some of their equipment was better than we anticipated.”

 

“Red air” refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the U.S. pilots that simulate the enemy, known as “red” forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability.

 

“We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone else’s technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; we call that ‘red air,’” Snodgrass said.

 

As a result, Air Force pilots are used to flying against an enemy whose combat capability is deliberately limited.

 

“There are manoeuvering limits as well as weapons employment limits, what we believe enemy aircraft may be able to do with their weapons systems, so we try to simulate that in our own airplane with our own weapons,” Snodgrass explained. “It becomes very complex because instead of using the airplane the way it was designed, you now have to come up with rules of thumb that limit what you do and cause you to not perform . . . the way we really would want to in combat.”

The Cope India exercises consisted of air combat maneuvers in which pilots would practice their fighter tactics and fly against each other one-on-one, as well as simulated combat scenarios. It was during this simulated combat, which included both “offensive counterair” and “defensive counterair” scenarios, that the Indians proved the most formidable, according to the 3rd Wing officials. In the offensive counterair scenarios, a small number of F-15Cs would attempt to intercept an enemy strike aircraft en route to a target that was guarded by a larger number of Indian fighters. In the defensive counterair missions, the F-15s would attempt to defend a target against Indian fighters.

 

In these offensive and defensive missions, four F-15Cs were usually flying against 10 or 12 of the same model Indian fighter, according to Col. Greg Neubeck, deputy commander of operations for the wing’s 3rd Operations Group and exercise director for Cope India. The 3rd Operations Group is responsible for the 3rd Wing’s flying mission.

 

The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MIG-27 and MIG-29, but the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MIG-21, and the SU-30K Flanker, also made in Russia, Neubeck said. He emphasized the fact that U.S. forces were always outnumbered in these scenarios, but said the missions proved more difficult than expected.

 

“What we faced were superior numbers, and an IAF pilot who was very proficient in his aircraft and smart on tactics. That combination was tough for us to overcome,” Neubeck said.

 

One reason the Indian pilots proved so formidable is that their training regimen does not include a concept of “red air.” Instead, “they fly pretty much blue-on-blue . . . [a] full-up airplane with no restrictions against somebody else’s airplane with no restrictions, and that leads to more proficiency with your aircraft,” Neubeck said.

 

In addition to reinforcing the need for the F/A-22, therefore, Cope India demonstrated that the service might be able to immediately improve its air combat capability by changing the way Air Force pilots train.

 

“The Air Force is re-examining, from what I can understand, our concept of red air and how we might be able to provide red air to our fighter forces so that we get [the best] training we can afford,” Snodgrass said.

 

Neubeck said the service probably needs to “take off the handcuffs that we put on our red air training aids and allow them to be more aggressive and make the red air tougher than we have in the past.”

 

Although India is a friendly nation, the lesson of Cope India is that almost any nation could surpass the United States’ air combat capability if the Pentagon does not continue to invest in better training and technology, the Elmendorf officials said. At last count, for example, there were over 5,000 MIG-21s active in air forces around the world, Snodgrass said. Even American fighters, such as Boeing’s F-15, are being sold in upgraded versions to countries around the world.

 

“I believe what this demonstrates is that the capacity exists out there for any nation with the appropriate resources and the will to acquire technology and to train their aircrews to be very, very capable,” said Col. Russ Handy, commander of the 3rd Operations Group. “In the long term this could occur in nations outside of the Indian Air Force.”

 

The Air Force will get another chance to test its capabilities against the Indians in July, when the IAF will bring its Jaguar fighter-bomber aircraft to Eielson AFB, AK, for the Cooperative Cope Thunder exercise. The 3rd Wing officers said their pilots had not yet flown against an Indian-piloted Jaguar."

[bflagg]

No. Remember that 12:1 includes strikers.

I disagree ... the 22 is designaed to penetrate hostile airspace and establish air dominance ... it isn't going to find 'strikers' ... its going to find a integrated air defence environment supporting local figthers ... and its designed to go it and kill anything it finds ... I'm sure its a great a/c ... but 12:1 lets be realistic!

 

And you start hanging external stores and you lose steath ... so I doubt it'll do much of that.

 

James

 

It can guide other F22's (and probably JSF, F15, 16) missles also...

so yes.. 12:1 is quite possible.

Remember, 1 uses TWS and everyone launches - radar off.

This 1 22 can guide them all to target....

[Kula66]

[quote="bflaggIt can guide other F22's (and probably JSF, F15, 16) missles also...

so yes.. 12:1 is quite possible.

Remember, 1 uses TWS and everyone launches - radar off.

This 1 22 can guide them all to target....

The ratio was 1:12 ... I think say 1 F-22 and 4 F15s : 12 is fudging the issue greatly.

 

James

[23rd_Drago]

You can disagree all you want, but that's the spec.

 

Specs that are freely available to the public are children stories and fairy tales. Only in Santa Land could one F-22 score a kill ratio of 1:12 against any 4+ generation fighter… extra pylons or not. It’s just another propaganda of Lockheed-Martin to justify F-22 price tag and get more of their fighters on the assembly line.

[GGTharos]

Right. Because the successful 8:1 and 12:1 exercises couldn't possibly be indicative of the truth of the matter ... 12:1. Read it and weep.

 

It isn't exactly impoossible when your opponent isn't even able to take a shot at you bvr while you've got a wall of missiles heading his way.

[wsoul2k]

Right. Because the successful 8:1 and 12:1 exercises couldn't possibly be indicative of the truth of the matter ... 12:1. Read it and weep.

 

It isn't exactly impoossible when your opponent isn't even able to take a shot at you bvr while you've got a wall of missiles heading his way.

 

What Exercises ? 8)

 

have a link i wanna read

[GGTharos]

No, you'll have to find yourself soneone in the know. Reportedly an 8:1 Eagle v Raptor exercise managed to kill one raptor after something like 5-6 repetitions.

[wsoul2k]

No, you'll have to find yourself soneone in the know. Reportedly an 8:1 Eagle v Raptor exercise managed to kill one raptor after something like 5-6 repetitions.

 

This is a BIG number 8:1 8)

 

but this kind of exercise sound like my brother showing to me why i should BUY his car...because it is much bether then my actual Car 8)

 

 

I know know TWS plus lot of missiles and more dont geting the Raptor on radar

 

i have a few questions:

 

1- The Raptor can sustain an TWS lock on 8 tagets at once ?

 

2- The Raptor can sustain an TWS lock on any target if the target have ECM on ?

 

If the answer to the second question is NO...soh teh raptor will have to change to STT or something like that ....and so the others 7 guys will get visual on him...and then ....well i thing he will not survive...

 

even if the raptor use a shot and run tatic we cant do it forever ... and dont know if he can do it 7 times

 

If im wrong can anyone explaim how is posible an 8:1 kill ratio

 

 

sorry for the poor english

[GGTharos]

1. Probably more

 

2. Who knows? No one. There are ways of dealign with ECM that we're not aware of - I don't see why you think a radar needs to go stt o na target it's already tracking, anyway. Your answer is DEFINITELY not correct, and I doubt anyone who -can- give that answer WILL.

 

And by the way, most aircraft don't turn their jammer on until they're locked onto to..otherwise they're HoJ meat.

 

As for flying up, firing, and flying away, then doing it again? For as long as he's got fuel. It'll go faster and it'll get to that speed sooner than you will, and you're not going to be able to fire back, either.

 

8:1 is no sales tactic, it's their training against their OWN aircraft. This isn't some joke like COPE, they're not restricted to using only some of their hardware.

[23rd_Drago]

“If im wrong can anyone explaim how is posible an 8:1 kill ratio”

 

That’s because it’s not possible… not against 8 bogeys simultaneously. Pilot is not a machine and won’t be able to track and engage all 8, not to mention 12, aggressor fighters… especially when the targets are zigzagging in different directions and elevations. AMRAAM’s 20-mile “successful kill” launch envelope won’t help either. F-22 is the best fighter and has the highest kill-to-loss ratio… but let’s be serious.

[britgliderpilot]

This is a BIG number 8:1 8)

 

but this kind of exercise sound like my brother showing to me why i should BUY his car...because it is much bether then my actual Car 8)

 

 

I know know TWS plus lot of missiles and more dont geting the Raptor on radar

 

i have a few questions:

 

1- The Raptor can sustain an TWS lock on 8 tagets at once ?

 

2- The Raptor can sustain an TWS lock on any target if the target have ECM on ?

 

If the answer to the second question is NO...soh teh raptor will have to change to STT or something like that ....and so the others 7 guys will get visual on him...and then ....well i thing he will not survive...

 

even if the raptor use a shot and run tatic we cant do it forever ... and dont know if he can do it 7 times

 

If im wrong can anyone explaim how is posible an 8:1 kill ratio

 

 

sorry for the poor english

 

Ahh, the magic of AESA radar . . . .

 

You can actually maintain what is effectively an STT lock on as many targets as you have power for. Don't think 8 targets poses much of a problem for the F/A-22 right now.

 

So that's eight engagements, ripple-firing missiles as and when they come into range, from an aircraft with a VERY small radar cross-section and heat signature, before anyone else can get a shot off.

 

 

Now, jammers . . . . if the jammers are passive jammers (jamming only the frequencies they detect), then the LPI techniques used on the Raptor most likely mean that the jammers won't make a blind bit of difference. They just won't be able to keep up . . . .

 

Active noise jammers might help, but AMRAAM still has HOJ - from what I'm aware, jamming tactics also require you to know where the bad guy is so you can turn your jammers off and engage at a suitable range.

If it's working properly, you can't tell where the Raptor is - first warning you should get is when the AMRAAM goes active. Fit the AMRAAM with an LPI AESA radar . . . . (hey, that's a cool idea, maybe for the C-7 version) . . . and the first warning you'll get is when your aircraft explodes. Oh Dear.

 

 

 

The limiting factor of the Raptors dominance is likely to be the terminal performance of the AMRAAM - everything else is truly astonishing.

 

The accounts of the current-generation pilots who've been trying to kill the Raptor are mind-boggling . . . .

[23rd_Drago]

“Probably more”

 

That’s the kind of crap Lockheed-Martin is, and been feeding the Congress for a while now… I've been sold in favor of Raptor long time ago on a simple basis... F-15 is getting old and outdated.

[britgliderpilot]

That’s because it’s not possible… not against 8 bogeys simultaneously. Pilot is not a machine and won’t be able to track and engage all 8, not to mention 12, aggressor fighters… especially when the targets are zigzagging in different directions and elevations. AMRAAM’s 20-mile “successful kill” launch envelope won’t help either. F-22 is the best fighter and has the highest kill-to-loss ratio… but let’s be serious.

 

The pilot isn't a machine - the computers in the latest generation of aircraft (F/A-22, JSF) can deal with large numbers of fighters in a largely automated manner.

 

 

As long as the targets are in the forward hemisphere, AESA can track them. You can basically split the antenna into a number of smaller antennas, each tracking a separate target . . . . each "mini-beam" is steered electronically rather than physically.

 

Hence maintaining a lock on 8 widely-spread (both azimuth and elevation) targets doesn't pose a major problem.

 

 

Staying alive at 20 miles when nobody can see you to track you isn't as hard as some people would have you believe.

 

 

 

Sure, the Raptor isn't invincible, but it is bloody impressive. From what I've read, I firmly believe that the aircraft itself has the capability for 8 kills with minimal threat to itself - the question now lies in the PK of the missile :wink:

[wsoul2k]

1. Probably more

 

Probably! ...ok 8)

 

 

2. Who knows? No one.

 

Exacly no one knows...maybe he can do it....maybe not :D

 

There are ways of dealign with ECM that we're not aware of

 

Im confused...if we're not aware how you know it exists :wink:

 

- I don't see why you think a radar needs to go stt o na target it's already tracking, anyway.

 

because no one can prove if it can continue traking (in TWS) if the enemy turn his ECM on ....so i think i will have to travel to lockhed and kill someone to get this info :D

 

And by the way, most aircraft don't turn their jammer on until they're locked onto to..otherwise they're HoJ meat.

 

this is what i mean...if the enemy know an raptor is out there and maybe if he cant sustaim a TWS lock in an ECM enviroment why dont turn it on....BUT They can use an ECM fligth flying behind the group

 

As for flying up, firing, and flying away, then doing it again? For as long as he's got fuel. It'll go faster and it'll get to that speed sooner than you will, and you're not going to be able to fire back, either.

 

Remember we dont know if he can do it in TWS :)

 

so the enemy will get an warning tone...and the enemy can turn away also

 

this will lead to an 0:0 ratio :)

 

and while one turn away the others seven can keep geting closer then geting an visual contact....

 

btw going fast mean more heat....o love mica IR :)

 

 

8:1 is no sales tactic, it's their training against their OWN aircraft

.

 

as you said...who knows ?? if pentagon is thinking in cut off some funds to raptor i really dont know why not showing to then how much valuable the raptor is 8)

 

This isn't some joke like COPE, they're not restricted to using only some of their hardware.

 

im not telling that... i agree the raptor is a good plane...

 

but i really will wait to it geting in service and participating in some exercises ...IMHO think this is a more REAL measure...even if it dont show all of its pontential

 

 

cya

[23rd_Drago]

britgliderpilot... believe what you will… As I’ve been told once regarding government suppliers… take manufacturer’s specifications, divide by two, and you’ll have the product’s worth… 6:1 seems like the most plausible kill ratio for Raptor, hence only 6 AMRAAMs in internal bays.

[wsoul2k]

Hey britgliderpilot how you know if he can do it ?

 

just to know :D

 

 

And how you know the raptor cant be detected at 20 km ?

 

any source ? :D

 

i will wait for the exercises 8)

[GGTharos]

qsoul2k, according to an F-15 pilot, 'The Raptor can be sitting on the F-15's nose and the radar still won't see it'. This is obviously an exaggeration, but the point is..you're not getting to shoot before it does. WAY after it does.

 

As far as the ECm goes, I worded thigns poorly. We're not aware of the exact techniques, but there ARE suggested methods of defeating a numebr of types of ECM, and such methods HAVE been used since teh 60's at least (Nike system).

 

I also don't udnerstand why you think a radar will perform better against a jammer than in TWS ... once you have what you need to get an STT lock, you have what you need to bug the target in TWS. Not exactly a big deal.

 

As for the enemy aircraft flying around with their ECM on, they'll do even WORSE since the Raptor won't even have to trasmit with its radar to fire HoJ shots at them - don't kid yourself, it's not like LOMAC - in real life you'll see the jammer without the radar trasmitting so..no radar contact, and no warning...until suddenly the missile goes active, REALLY close. Boom.

 

It'll take down eight aircraft, dont' worry about it. On 8 AIM-120, maybe 2 planes will get through, and those two will not likely be able to match the 22 in a dogfight ...

 

And you know what? The MICA IR isn't goign to help you squat because the head-on supercruising raptor is probably egenerating about the saem heat as your own plane. In fact, it's probably even cooler, since that's part of its stealth aspect ... in addition, given this performance it'll be launching at you from a comfortable range before you ever know its there. And that's why it's 8:1.

 

In the real world you can't go off dodging missiles like you do in LOMAC. It doesn't work. The US operations over Kosovo proved the AIM-120, and so did the Gulf War.

 

While undoubtedly there were 120's tha missed, each shoot down that we -hear- of is typically a one shot one kill deal, and the pk is stated to be much, much hihger than that of the AIM-7.

[wsoul2k]

Ok GG

 

im trying to find some info on net about rs and others stufs...but it is preaty hard....

 

i have searched in that site SK post some time ago...and find some grapicks about RCS and range detection...but i dont know where the onwer get the info....

 

i will post some pics...just a moment

 

and tks for the fast reply

[GGTharos]

wsoul2k, there was a thread where SK ad I were discussing something - probably missiles - where several links to documents explaining radar stuff were posted ... try looking for that, one of them explains RCS. BTW, are you trying to say that the Raptor isn't stealth? ;) Or do you have some other specific question that I might try to answer? (My guess is that you're wondering what would increase the raptor's RCS? I've heard from a pilot who claims to have seen the Raptor's 'detection range' against a Su-27's radar. Apparently it can be picked up at some distance when operating 'stealth off, ie. radar on, for the most part, and external pylons, but with radar on, the antenna produces slight greater rcs because it's flat face sweeps across the forward quarter. Regardless, it's not good enough. And accoridn got that diagram, the detection range with 'stealth on' is so short its ridiculous)

 

This is going by power only apaprently, and frankly it's really all that maters in this case - if you can't reflect enough radar energy to detect, then that's all she said.

[wsoul2k]

Here it goes

 

 

 

but i found some weird inf there or the onwer ws drunk how in the hell an F-15 can have a 405,0 RCS(m2) in BOLD :)

 

Estimated RCS(m2)

 

F-15 405,0 i Think he just type wrong should be 4,05

B-52 99,5

B-1A 10,0 i Think he just type wrong should be 100,0

Conv. Figther 6,0

B-1B 1,02

Tomahawk 0,05

SR-71 0,014

Bird 0,01

F-22A 0,0065

F-117A 0,003

B-2 0,0014

[GGTharos]

No, the B-1A should definitely not be anywhere near 100.

 

The B-1B received some additional stealthing, but the airframe wasn't changed that much.

 

Also, where did he get the RCS number for the F-22 and B2? The F-22 is said to be STEALTHIER than the 117. This guy's numebers are incorrect if this is true (and why shouldn't it be...)

 

I think SK might have a far more useful comment on this though ... the detection ranges don't seem quite right (or there are additional factors. Radar power ni search may for example be much lower plus, we're not being told what radar output this graph is based on)

[wsoul2k]

No, the B-1A should definitely not be anywhere near 100.

 

The B-1B received some additional stealthing, but the airframe wasn't changed that much.

 

Also, where did he get the RCS number for the F-22 and B2? The F-22 is said to be STEALTHIER than the 117. This guy's numebers are incorrect if this is true (and why shouldn't it be...)

 

I think SK might have a far more useful comment on this though ... the detection ranges don't seem quite right (or there are additional factors. Radar power ni search may for example be much lower plus, we're not being told what radar output this graph is based on)

 

Agree

[wsoul2k]

(My guess is that you're wondering what would increase the raptor's RCS? I've heard from a pilot who claims to have seen the Raptor's 'detection range' against a Su-27's radar. Apparently it can be picked up at some distance when operating 'stealth off, ie. radar on, for the most part, and external pylons, but with radar on, the antenna produces slight greater rcs because it's flat face sweeps across the forward quarter. Regardless, it's not good enough. And accoridn got that diagram, the detection range with 'stealth on' is so short its ridiculous)

 

You guess rigth...but already answer my question with this last post :)

 

I will try find the post from you and SK..i really like this kind of info :)

[Rysi]

Jumping right into the Cope India debate…

 

The Indians were better trained than the US expected.

 

Although in recent years they've definitely gotten more flight hours than their American counterparts, I really wouldn't make a general statement like that. It may be that they're simply better at adapting to varying battlefield conditions: ex. no GCI? No problem. Also, they've had their experiences in a wider variety of aircraft. For example, the Su-30 pilots all have thousands of hours logged on the MiG-21s and other airframes that the IAF uses --- I can't remember what the exact numbers are but they do require a ton of experience in a number of fighters before they can get into a Su-30. I do not believe this is the case for the USAF F-15 pilots.

 

The Indians were outnumbering the USAF something like 12 to 4 in a typical scenario.

 

This is rather like a skewed survey. For one thing, the majority (eight) of the 12 were bombers, not fighters (and only equipped w/ short range self defense AAMs). Second, the F-15's swapped roles with the Su-30s several times as well. This was problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the differing measurement systems used (metric vs. imperial). Third, not all the scenarios had such disproportion in numbers of aircraft between both sides.

 

The Americans weren't using AWACS.

 

But the Indians weren't using GCI. Both sides were equally disadvantaged.

 

Neither were they using AMRAAM - not much data to simulate them well, and they considered it "unfair" when setting up the scenarios. Oops.

 

The Indians weren't using the RVV-AE or Mica, so again, both sides were equally disadvantaged. Not sure where you got the idea that simulating the AIM-120 would be "unfair."

 

Neither were they using their AESA radars (the ones they didn't take to India), for which their modern tactics are formulated.

 

And the Indians weren't using their BARS-equipped fighters either, so once again, we see both sides being equally disadvantaged. The USAF does not operate any significant numbers of AESA-equipped fighters (aside from several handfuls of Alaskan F-15s and some F/A-18Es). In fact, the number of in-service electronically-scanned array-equipped fighters does not differ very much between the USAF and the IAF.

 

Outmatched by technology?

With neither of the latest versions of either side's aircraft being used in that exercise, and the absence of AESA radars, AWACS, AMRAAM, and real tactics, I think it's foolish to draw a conclusion. It's not a representative situation.

 

I disagree (and many analysts and military officials appear to do so as well). Sure it is not demonstrative of the outcome of a real world conflict where both sides would utilize their latest assets but some conclusions can drawn on the effectiveness of certain radar systems, on the capabilities of upgraded versions of older fighters, and on the training of both sides (amongst many other things). IMO it was more representative of an 80's NATO vs. WP conflict especially when taking into account the weapons restrictions.

 

1. The F-15C is it's own bloody AWACS, and with one 15 hanging bakc, the rest could have fired their AMRAAMs without ever turning on their radars - the rear 15 could guide'em all using TWS thanks to a nice feature in the AMRAAM called wingman number (or whatever it is that they call it).

2. The AMRAAM was not simulated, the weapon simulated was a pseudo-AIM-7 with the range cut off at 20nm. That means no multiple target engagements ... and the F_15 with the AMRAAM is SUPPOSED to operate successfully in 4:1

 

The Su-30s (and possibly MiG-29s and Mirage 2000s) could do this as well if they were equipped with RVV-AE or Mica. Both sides equally disadvantaged.

 

3. At least in SOME cases the 'win' was attributed to anyone who got a lock FIRST. Not much 'simualtion' happening there.

 

It was more complex than that. However, in a SARH simulation where your life is not on the line, first-shot = first kill can happen often. I guess to an outside observer it could appear that it was based on who got a lock first, though.

 

4. ECM and other advanced features on either side were NOT used.

 

There is some evidence to the contrary. Several articles have stated that limited ECM was used, and pictures taken from the event clearly show ECM pods mounted on some aircraft (MiG-27).

 

don't kid yourself, it's not like LOMAC - in real life you'll see the jammer without the radar trasmitting so..no radar contact, and no warning...

 

No. Sorbitsya (for example) is a smart jammer and isn't active with no radar contact.

 

In the real world you can't go off dodging missiles like you do in LOMAC. It doesn't work. The US operations over Kosovo proved the AIM-120, and so did the Gulf War.

While undoubtedly there were 120's tha missed, each shoot down that we -hear- of is typically a one shot one kill deal,

 

While the AIM-120 probably has the best BVR kill ratio of any missile, it is still nowhere near 100% (IIRC something around 40% of the known launches have scored hits). Most of these have been within near-perfect launch parameters (around 10NM-13NM at significant altitude) vs. targets that had antiquated or non-functioning RWR (see Kosovo 1999). Even then, reports by Serbian pilots appear to indicate that they were able to visually acquire the inbound missiles and take a last-second evasive action (and sometimes succeeded). The AIM-120 is excellent but it is not a death ray.

As for the Gulf War, I have no idea what you are talking about. The AIM-120 was not in service at that time.

 

and the pk is stated to be much, much hihger than that of the AIM-7.

 

This has more to do with the fact that the pilot is free to take other actions after launch/active terminal homing than anything else. There is nothing to really suggest that SARH missiles are any less accurate than ARH. The AIM-7's pk/kill ratio is worse than that of the AIM-120 for a lot of reasons incl. more difficult combat conditions (opponents which were actually able to shoot back), more easily exploitable ground clutter/doppler notch in those days and less reliable equipment in the past.

 

the detection ranges don't seem quite right

 

They look alright to me. Try experimenting with the base radar formula. As for RCS figures, you can believe who you want to believe... IMO they are pretty close to the real thing. Remember that while the F/A-22 can be said to be 'stealthier' than the F-117, it really depends on aspect and band. From the frontal aspect, its radar is going to reflect significant energy back, and hence the F/A-22 would very likely have a larger RCS from this aspect than the F-117 would.

[GGTharos]

Not GF1. Also read my other posts on jammers. I know :P

 

I also know that in DACT the US has any and all advanced features shut down - that means no jammers for them, not advanced RWR functions, no advanced anything. Period.