SU30 vs Super Hornet

[exec]

So, 1 picture of the HUD of a F-16 decisively proves that the AIM-120 outranges the R-77?

Even that one picture is enough. But we have Russian sources confirming that picture (diagram from Russian manual).

 

I don't think so buddy. Also, the maximum ranges in that picture of the R-27 goes from 72 to 130 km, compared to the 100 km on the export R-77. I really don't see how the miraculous fact that the AIM-120 outranges them all are present.

That’s for different versions of the missile. We are talking about R-27R.

R-27ER should have greater range than R-77 or AIM-120.

[Pilotasso]

Absolute ranges of SARH VS ARH are meaningless because the first missile is obsolete and the second can be fired in stealthy attacks, i.e. the Su has to hard lock its adversary prompting immidiate countermeasure while the reverse scenario has the SU realising the impending attack most likely when its too late leaving him only to guesses as the fight starts.

 

If you consider the mainstream AMRAAM, the AIM-120C-5 and C-7's, the advantage of range of the R-27ER evaporates. As it should. The AMRAAM is a 21st century missile while the ER is 20+ years old.

[nscode]

Absolute ranges of SARH VS ARH are meaningless because the first missile is obsolete and the second can be fired in stealthy attacks, i.e. the Su has to hard lock its adversary prompting immidiate countermeasure while the reverse scenario has the SU realising the impending attack most likely when its too late leaving him only to guesses as the fight starts.

 

Not really. Your point of view comes mostly from LO experience of magic RWR. The reality is, you NEVER know for sure if there is a missile inbount, unless you actually see it (and no, AMRAAM trail isn't invisible). Hard lock vs TWS makes no difference. In both cases, you are left to guess and assume that there IS a launch.

[exec]

Not really. When you hard lock a target then you warn him that you are close enough to hard lock him and that probably you are preparing/considering attacking him. When you select a target in TWS mode he gets no warning. His RWR only tells him that your radar is active and scanning(but when there are many aircrafts airborne there are a lot of pings coming in).

[Pilotasso]

Not really. Your point of view comes mostly from LO experience of magic RWR. The reality is, you NEVER know for sure if there is a missile inbount, unless you actually see it (and no, AMRAAM trail isn't invisible). Hard lock vs TWS makes no difference. In both cases, you are left to guess and assume that there IS a launch.

 

Im aware of that. But also its only in lockon that you play chicken with STT lock warnings. ;)

 

And TWS will always warn you when a SU has gone STT indicating imminent attack. Further, it WILL indicate launch warning if the onboard electronics has been programmed to sniff the missile datalink signal after provided ELINT. The Su will likely never get such hints with TWS attacks. All he can do is suspect.

 

 

So one way or another my last post stands.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Pilotasso

[nscode]

The same way you don't play with STT lock, you don't play with TWS in range. Chances of picking up datalink before it's too late are slim anyway.

[exec]

The same way you don't play with STT lock, you don't play with TWS in range. Chances of picking up datalink before it's too late are slim anyway.

Understand – not the same way. There could be dozens of fighters airborne with TWS on and you get dozens of pings. TWS is just like saying “I’m just looking around”. Each of these fighters might see dozens of contacts on their radar screens and you don’t know which is going to be attacked. When you hard lock somebody it’s like saying “hey, I’m aiming at you, I can shoot you any moment now”

[Pilotasso]

Your mistaken code. TWS is for scanning mainly (any shots are guided by computers memory, not directly by target ilumination), and STT to attack using sepcific guidance frequencies. Hence the discrimination of threat level they both represent for onboard passive sensors. While TWS uses normal scanning frequencies masking any attack, STT instantly gives away the flankers intentions. More: when the flanker pilot switches STT he basicaly looses all infromation on other targets. So h will never do this before he realy needs to.

 

The datalink I was talking about becomes active at missile launch and can be sniffed down if the other side has ELINT.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Pilotasso

[MoGas]

I like such topics, it gets me over the low hours from our dedicated server.

Edited August 17, 2010 by MoGas

[nscode]

Understand – not the same way. There could be dozens of fighters airborne with TWS on and you get dozens of pings. TWS is just like saying “I’m just looking around”.

 

Understand - dozens of TWS pings is not "just looking around". It's "we're gonna get you, better do something about it". What that something is depends on tactical situation.

 

The datalink I was talking about becomes active at missile launch and can be sniffed down if the other side has ELINT.

 

And is not pointed towards the target, since the missile is not flying a direct path. The datalink signal doesn't have to bounce all the way back, so the power is much lower than the main signal. Thus, you can forget about detecting sidelobes.

 

Further more, what makes you so sure that the new Flankers need to STT all the way for SARH? The much older Zaslon will happily guide 4 SARH at once, to sepparate targets. Now, that may be partially due to missile design, but doesn't mean that something can't be done to optimize other missiles without this built in. All the missile needs is datalink in first stage, and STT when it goes auto.

Even Su-27's Zhuk had a 'secret lock' mode (Russian versions only), to make the other guy think it is still in search mode, while it's actually STT.

[GGTharos]

Understand - dozens of TWS pings is not "just looking around". It's "we're gonna get you, better do something about it". What that something is depends on tactical situation.

 

I think his point is that STT = go defensive right now. This was demonstrated in the gulf war when a MiG-29 locked onto an F-15C, and its pilots went defensive immediately. Why the MiG pilot did not launch, no one knows.

 

And is not pointed towards the target, since the missile is not flying a direct path. The datalink signal doesn't have to bounce all the way back, so the power is much lower than the main signal. Thus, you can forget about detecting sidelobes.

 

Further more, what makes you so sure that the new Flankers need to STT all the way for SARH? The much older Zaslon will happily guide 4 SARH at once, to sepparate targets. Now, that may be partially due to missile design, but doesn't mean that something can't be done to optimize other missiles without this built in. All the missile needs is datalink in first stage, and STT when it goes auto.

Even Su-27's Zhuk had a 'secret lock' mode (Russian versions only), to make the other guy think it is still in search mode, while it's actually STT.

 

Zaslon is a PESA radar; it could switch the beam from one target to another in 20ms, and effectively keep all four target in STT track. With a maximum of 4 targets, you're looking at getting illuminated a little over 10 times every second - much, much different from TWS, and different from STT as well for sure. This likely contributes to the missiles not being exactly great against fighters especially if launching many simultaneously or if you're guiding and searching. Probably just dandy vs. bombers and cruise missiles, though!

And by the way, not sure what this 'secret lock' mode is other than TWS, since there's pretty much no way for an RWR to mistake STT for something it isn't ... I wouldn't be surprised if a miniraster was picked up as STT.

[GGTharos]

So, 1 picture of the HUD of a F-16 decisively proves that the AIM-120 outranges the R-77? I don't think so buddy. Also, the maximum ranges in that picture of the R-27 goes from 72 to 130 km, compared to the 100 km on the export R-77. I really don't see how the miraculous fact that the AIM-120 outranges them all are present.

 

There is no miraculous fact. In the case where they are shot at a high altitude, high closure target (we're talking 60000', mach 2, non-maneuvering) all of these missiles, save for the 27R, meet or exceed about 100km. The problem is that if you want to know which one is the better missile, at least in range, you have to compare the shots UNDER THE SAME PARAMETERS. If you take R-27ER being shot out of orbit vs. AIM-120 being launched at 20000', no duh you'll get a bigger number for the ER.

This is the problem with the sources you keep citing: They do not reflect data that helps you make a realistic comparison.

 

As for GG, what reasons are there to deny them as "useful" sources? And really, one pilot telling me what to feel about another guy is not something I would trust.

 

The reasons to deny them as useful sources is that they do not match reality as illustrated by RL HUD footage, actual combat/aircraft operator charts, and pilot testimony; in other words, the ranges themselves might be true, but you don't know what conditions they are true for.

You should have gotten that hint from the charts I provided.

 

In any case, any chances of a F/A-18E/F meeting a equally trained/equipped Su-30 would most likely occur in the Pacific or Mediterreanean, as for AWACs and ECW, that's a whole nother argument. Even though I like the Su-30 and it's compliment of missiles, in reality, the Su-30 in Indonesia that the Superbugs in Australia might be facing are: low in numbers, poorely trained, poorely equipped(AA-2 ffs), and above all else, logistically incompatiable to the Superbug.

 

So yeah, in a realistic scenario, the Superbug would reign supreme over Indonesia, you can make a good plane but it won't work without good pilots.

 

The only advantage the Su-30 has in a fight with the superbug is top speed and energy, no matter what (current) technology you equip it with. Pilots being equal, the F/A-18E/F is simply a more advanced, more powerful aircraft with better weapons and sensors in general.

If you want a really capable flanker variant, you need a Chinese aircraft, or one of the new Su-35BM's. Those are much more dangerous and their loss exchange ratio will be more favorable.

[exec]

Understand - dozens of TWS pings is not "just looking around". It's "we're gonna get you, better do something about it". What that something is depends on tactical situation.

No, I think you don’t get it. When you’re ping by a radar in search mode you actually don’t know where exactly the adversary is. He even might be 100 or more kilometers from you. He might not even be interested in you. He might just scan the space in front of him just in case, or he might be chasing some other targets, or he might just want to know what to avoid. STT tells you that the adversary is close enough to maintain stable lock and is interested in you, that he’s got you in his sight, that right now he’s lost all other tracks and tracks you alone. He can fire anytime now. That’s a BIG difference.

 

 

 

And is not pointed towards the target, since the missile is not flying a direct path. The datalink signal doesn't have to bounce all the way back, so the power is much lower than the main signal. Thus, you can forget about detecting sidelobes.

I don’t think that’s true. I think it depends on sensitivity of the RWR.

 

Further more, what makes you so sure that the new Flankers need to STT all the way for SARH? QUOTE]

This is how those missiles are guided – by radar but semi-active. You need a wave for the missile to ride on it. With PESA/AESA radars you can form several beams for the missiles.

[GGTharos]

I don't think RWRs really know what to do with an M-Link. It could come from someone who is not targetting you. It doesn't seem like a very useful signal to rely on.

 

I don’t think that’s true. I think it depends on sensitivity of the RWR.

[exec]

I don't think RWRs really know what to do with an M-Link. It could come from someone who is not targetting you. It doesn't seem like a very useful signal to rely on.

Maybe. I just don’t think it’s impossible to detect.

[X-man]

This is how those missiles are guided – by radar but semi-active. You need a wave for the missile to ride on it. With PESA/AESA radars you can form several beams for the missiles.

No, the missiles use datalink the first phase of the flight. So if the radar can get enough data from TWS, it should be able to use that until the STT is required for the terminal phase... If this is at all implemented I dont know...

[GGTharos]

You mean the R-27 family? This is correct, though AFAIK the radar set in the 27S/29A/B/S version does not generate an M-Link until you go STT and launch.

This could be wrong of course, and there might be a TWS-launch-to-STT mode where STT is delayed for some part of the missile flight :)

There was some suspicion that F-15C did this with Sparrow, but in the end all evidence points to the opposite for now.

Even for ARH there have been statements that the best guidance from the plane is STT.

 

 

No, the missiles use datalink the first phase of the flight. So if the radar can get enough data from TWS, it should be able to use that until the STT is required for the terminal phase... If this is at all implemented I dont know...

[X-man]

You mean the R-27 family? This is correct, though AFAIK the radar set in the 27S/29A/B/S version does not generate an M-Link until you go STT and launch.

This could be wrong of course, and there might be a TWS-launch-to-STT mode where STT is delayed for some part of the missile flight :)

There was some suspicion that F-15C did this with Sparrow, but in the end all evidence points to the opposite for now.

Even for ARH there have been statements that the best guidance from the plane is STT.

Yeah I meant the R/ER :) And too I doubt the TWS-launch-to-STT feature was ever available in the 27S/29A/B/S but it's not far fetch'd if it were :)

[nscode]

I think his point is that STT = go defensive right now. This was demonstrated in the gulf war when a MiG-29 locked onto an F-15C, and its pilots went defensive immediately. Why the MiG pilot did not launch, no one knows.

 

And I agree with the STT = go defensive part. But, I add that TWS + he's close* engough also = go defensive.

 

 

*you get distance from other sources (if no picture - go defensive)

 

Zaslon is a PESA radar;

 

I know, but I'm not clear on what these Su-30s are using.. I assumed PESA too.

[GGTharos]

And I agree with the STT = go defensive part. But, I add that TWS + he's close* engough also = go defensive.

 

 

*you get distance from other sources (if no picture - go defensive)

 

Ah yes, I agree ... that is something practiced even in FC1/2. Those who do not tend to claim that F-15C's are super-powerful ;)

 

I know, but I'm not clear on what these Su-30s are using.. I assumed PESA too.

 

Ah, yes, sorry - I lost the thread there for a moment. Depends on the Su-30 version :)

I have not seen any indication that R-27 family can be used like this, but PESA might be flexible enough to pull this off. Depends mostly (IMHO) on whether you can program an M-Link channel for the R-27 on the fly.

Pure speculation, naturally :P

[Pilotasso]

AFAIK only India is using PESA's, all tother have the good old N001. Im calling this from memory correct me if Im wrong.

[nscode]

I doubt there were that many N001 to pass around :)

[pauldy]

I'm just curious.. What Flankers does the TNI-AU (Indonesia Air Force) have right NOW? I mean their current inventory..

 

I remember reading about a "Su-30KI" a few years ago.. I initially thought it was some sort of Single Seat version of the Su-30MKI for India..

 

...turns out it was intended for Indonesia but alas~ they only seem to have procured Su-27SK's that doesn't even have Thrust Vector.. (Is this correct?)

 

 

 

Anyways.. I'll honestly say, the Flanker Family designations just messes up with my head~~

 

I mean one Flanker Variant seems to get an "Brand New" Designation when it receives some forms of upgrade or additional parts... then another name designation again it it receives another upgrade.. or better yet.. will have a different Aircraft model name/numbering altogether

 

Something like, Su-27 -> Su-27XYZ -> Su-30ABC -> Su-30EFG and so on....

 

I dunno, maybe my memories about aircraft names had been shuffled badly or so.. ^^;

[Pilotasso]

Its the Su-30MK and MK2. However it says little as they are totally customer configurable.

[mvsgas]

SU-30MKM

 

Edit

ops, that is Malaysia SU-30, my mistake

http://sukhoi.org/eng/news/company/arch/index.php?id=2999

Edited August 17, 2010 by mvsgas