All planned and even still unbudgeted designs concepts for US's Fighter Jets are inferior to Russian fighter jet now flying! I.e. Russia now has #1 fighter plane in the world, much superior to any apiration on US drawing boards! Thus:

US would easily lose all "dog fights" with the Russians

The SU-30 has Vectored Thrust with Canards. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds. (full stall). Video below demonstrates its ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. etc. It is an ammazing airplane FLYING NOW!

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Notes:

"...Canards and vectored thrust were among many concepts {US has}examined to extend our fighter aircraft performance. Neither our current or next generation aircraft now poised for funding & production can in any way match the performance of this Russian aircraft NOW FLYING in any near combat situation. Somehow the bankrupt Russian aircraft industry has out produced our complex politically tainted aerospace industry with this technology marvel. ..."

See it perfrorm at:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1N-VgAnd_A

Let me see, they have built 10 of these things so far and that's all. Americas Raptor is an equivalent of theirs. There are over 400 Raptors going to be built in the next 5 years. So what do Americans do, stop production and find another type of plane? No, I'd say let them have their planes and so be it. Russia is a Democratic nation and isn't against anyone so what is there to fear, unless you have some type of phobia? You want to use this as a fear tactic don't you. You don't want to say things that can quiet things down , you want to incite a riot, why?:shrug:

...Americas Raptor is an equivalent of theirs. ...I know little about fighter jets. Thus, the opinion of Lawrence Livermore Labs weighs heavily with me. They say the SU-30 is supperior to anything the US has in the "current or next generation."

I have no idea what the Raptor can do. Can it stop forward motion in seconds from full speed, then fall/ fly backwards downward, and then pop up behind any fighter that was chasing it?

I do not know much about "dog fighting" skills of air planes, but even if I did I would not want to be chasing a SU-30 in a US jet that this could happen to. (Suddently it disapears in its own hot opaque exhaust cloud and then is chasing you.) I.e. Fact that the SU-30 is very manueverable, and can even surround itself with its own hot and opaque exhaust (oil augmented briefly to be opaque is easy) seems very useful for defeating missle with both heat seeking and optical terminal guidance which have very poor manueverability at their very high speed. (They are long and relatively thin to achieve the needed high relative speed so they would snap in two if they did turn quickly like the SU-30 fighter can.)

As far as how many SU-30 the Russian now have, I doubt we know. Although under Putin Russian has definitely started to turn back to the cold war (long range bomber flown to US air space, after couple of decades of not doing this, Sending warships back into the Med. etc.) I too do not think there will be Russian/US dog fights next week. My concern is next decade. If Russis does waht it has always done there will be many more SU-30 than US has latest its generation fighters. US has always tried to have the piolets "second to none" and the Russians have been willing to lose some less well trained pilots and have more planes in the air to win the battle. Why do you think they will change this long standing philosphy?

The Raptor is "invisible" to Radar! If you can't be seen, then how do you get hit? :shrug:

By the way, here is the almost same version of the Russian plane, only it was built in America over 5 years ago!

[edit] McDonnell Douglas-BAe/Boeing AV-8B Harrier II
Main article: AV-8 Harrier II
AV-8B Harrier II (1983)
EAV-8B Matador II (for Spain)
AV-8B Harrier II Night Attack (1987)
AV-8B Harrier II Plus (1992) (USMC, Spain, Italy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8_Harrier_II

The Raptor is "invisible" to Radar! If you can't be seen, then how do you get hit? ...You are assuming that the radar is on the ground. All stealth air planes use flat surfaces with radar absorbing coatings on them. The ground based radar beam reflects (mirror like) off the flat surface so does not return a "hit" (reflection) to the ground stations, but when the mirror geometry is by chance correct they are detected in a "bi-static" radar system (Reciever not located at the transmitter. The US's stealth bomber has often been detected when flying thru radar beam from one FAA radar station by a second commerical air traffic control station. - a bi-static detections off the flat mirror like surfaces is not hard if distance is not many dozens of miles.) I believe Moscow has had a well integrated bi-static radar ring net for more than a decade.

Furthermore, with dog fight separations (a few kilometer with missles, I think) the absorbing coatings are not perfect and there is plenty of reflected energy for the SU-30 fighter to detect. For example, a Russian ground based (or even US's own) radar sending energy to the area will scatter / reflect off the US fighter which may be "invisible" to the ground based radar unit, but not to the bi-static system of it transmitting and the SU-30 recieving the signal reflected by the so called "invisible" US plane.

Note the US defend it ships at sea with a bi-static radar system. The high power radar beam "paints" 360 around the ship and can easily detect the tiny fraction of the energy returned by small radar cross objects (such as one humming bird). (A dopper filter is used to keep slow moving tiny birds for being mistaken as target to shoot down.) This same beam is also recieved by the defensive anti-missle launched by the shipin it own defense - I.e. a bi-static system.

Aren't regular fighter jets obsolete, compared to UAVs? From what I've heard, UAVs can be much quicker and can easily outmaneuver most jets because they don't have to be equipped for human pilots. They're therefore not subject to the constraints of the human anatomy.

It'd be interesting to see how a remote controlled aircraft would do against one of these superior Russian fighter jets.

If these Raptors cannot be "seen" how do they see each other?

Isn't there a likelihood of a crash?

Or do pilots use technology other than radar in the air?

/pls to be xcused for ignoranmunces:o

If these Raptors cannot be "seen" how do they see each other?

Isn't there a likelihood of a crash?

Or do pilots use technology other than radar in the air?

/pls to be xcused for ignoranmunces:o
Foolish woman!!..this is no place for you, this is about boys toys...now go away back to the kitchen!!:)

All planned and even still unbudgeted designs concepts for US's Fighter Jets are inferior to Russian fighter jet now flying! I.e. Russia now has #1 fighter plane in the world, much superior to any apiration on US drawing boards! Thus:

US would easily lose all "dog fights" with the Russians

The SU-30 has Vectored Thrust with Canards. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds. (full stall). Video below demonstrates its ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. etc. It is an ammazing airplane FLYING NOW!

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Notes:

"...Canards and vectored thrust were among many concepts {US has}examined to extend our fighter aircraft performance. Neither our current or next generation aircraft now poised for funding & production can in any way match the performance of this Russian aircraft NOW FLYING in any near combat situation. Somehow the bankrupt Russian aircraft industry has out produced our complex politically tainted aerospace industry with this technology marvel. ..."

See it perfrorm at:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1N-VgAnd_A

The russians sure have an interesting jet set,.the MiG 29s and Su-27s of the 80s were quite remarkable and versatile. However it's not speed and power that wins a dogfight! Superior avionics/stealth and counter measures gives a fighter more advantage over it's counterpart.

francois, you're absolutely right. Manned dogfighting, like knights in armor, has been perpetuated past its due for ritualistic, romantic, and marketing reasons. Pilots, and the thousands of pounds of attendant on-board equipment they require do greatly impede a mission requiring rapid deployment, long loitering, and fast acceleration to impact. UAVs can now do all of these things much better than manned systems.

Front-line manned fighters will become purely symbolic as suddenly as heavily-armored knights on horseback did, when it was discovered how to unhorse them and stab them in the armpits. Right now, it's still more profitable to manufacture manned fighters at over $100 million per copy. But the moment cheaper, smaller, and less-glamorous robots start knocking down our knights (and the technology exists now) it will be the definitive end of an era. It's likely that smaller nations may be the first to embrace this technology. For instance, the United States takes air-superiority for granted, because we've never faced a swarm of suicidal UAVs that can be unobtrusively manufactured today in a country such as Iran.

However, UAVs are disruptable and easily fooled, even with Human operators.

and SAM.
They are equipped with transponders so that they can be seen by friendly forces.. and the sky's a big place.. no crashes yet... This is why we need a military sub forum.. so people aren't ignormunces like me...

certainly artificial intelligence is not yet even close to human. Why we still control mmars rover etc from the Earth.

Thus a UAV needs a "unjamable" two link, which will add at least the speed of light delays. I do not think any link is un "jamable" if over enemy high power transmission stations.

About 30 years ago, I worked on a US jamming system. It was done under SAC's QRC 30 (Quick Reaction Contract 30) Money was not of any concern as SAC wanted it "yesterday." I, only a summer student in a four month project was in charge of the power system and ordered aqbout 50 miles of wire of various sizes before I had any idea of what I would need, (I used a few hundred feet of it.) as doing so woulod save a few days, help earn the 100% bonus if proto-type was delivered on time. And it was cost plus contract, so more we spent the more was the profit.

The system's simple comuter used small bi-stable tiny neon lamps as high powered ground radars could probably burn out any transitistors. System had to simultaneously jam many USSR frighters (Their voice coms) as it might be the only SAC bomber still surviving long enough to get close enough to Moscow to drop its nuclear bombs.

that was a perfect vid

/rapture

All planned and even still unbudgeted designs concepts for US's Fighter Jets are inferior to Russian fighter jet now flying! I.e. Russia now has #1 fighter plane in the world, much superior to any apiration on US drawing boards! Thus:

US would easily lose all "dog fights" with the Russians

The SU-30 has Vectored Thrust with Canards. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds. (full stall). Video below demonstrates its ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. etc. It is an ammazing airplane FLYING NOW!

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Notes:

"...Canards and vectored thrust were among many concepts {US has}examined to extend our fighter aircraft performance. Neither our current or next generation aircraft now poised for funding & production can in any way match the performance of this Russian aircraft NOW FLYING in any near combat situation. Somehow the bankrupt Russian aircraft industry has out produced our complex politically tainted aerospace industry with this technology marvel. ..."

See it perfrorm at:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1N-VgAnd_A


whos really behind? Dogfights are a thing of the past, so if you plan for them arent you really the one behind? Fighter pilots dont really ever see their targets anymore, when your radar and ROF is in miles whats the point. This is like saying russians bayonetts are superior so they are "generations" ahead......

Most fighters today only want to get a blip on the radar to shoot their missiles at whatever is out there then leave for another kill. Fighters don't get within 5 miles of each other any longer so the way a fighter handles isn't really important any longer.

francois, you're absolutely right. Manned dogfighting, like knights in armor, has been perpetuated past its due for ritualistic, romantic, and marketing reasons. Pilots, and the thousands of pounds of attendant on-board equipment they require do greatly impede a mission requiring rapid deployment, long loitering, and fast acceleration to impact. UAVs can now do all of these things much better than manned systems.

Front-line manned fighters will become purely symbolic as suddenly as heavily-armored knights on horseback did, when it was discovered how to unhorse them and stab them in the armpits. Right now, it's still more profitable to manufacture manned fighters at over $100 million per copy. But the moment cheaper, smaller, and less-glamorous robots start knocking down our knights (and the technology exists now) it will be the definitive end of an era. It's likely that smaller nations may be the first to embrace this technology. For instance, the United States takes air-superiority for granted, because we've never faced a swarm of suicidal UAVs that can be unobtrusively manufactured today in a country such as Iran.
This post is premature by at least a few decades. In point of fact, as of right now there is no UCAV system in the world that can satisfy the demands placed on manned combat aircraft in all roles. A few instances where Hellfire-equipped Predators have been used in a CAS role have foreshadowed what the future may hold. However, the most advanced dedicated UCAV programs are still in the conceptual stage, some with rudimentary technology demonstrators flying, but none anywhere close to being able to deploy a system operationally. The UCAV systems that do exist (EADS Barracuda, Hermes 450, Boeing X-45, Northrtop X-47) are still in their technological infancy.

In truth, the F-22's successor will probably end up being some sort of UCAV, but the F-22 is intended to fully supplant the F-15C by ~2020 and fulfill the air superiority role well into the 2040s. It will be a while before the RISE OF THE MACHINES.

whos really behind? Dogfights are a thing of the past, so if you plan for them arent you really the one behind? Fighter pilots dont really ever see their targets anymore, when your radar and ROF is in miles whats the point. This is like saying russians bayonetts are superior so they are "generations" ahead......
Pretty much. The SU-30 is a neat airplane, and the OMG COBRA MANEUVER is a really cool thing to see in person. But, like you and a few others have said, maneuverability tends to be pretty far down the list of deciding factors in an air to air engagement. During ODS in 1991 a wide majority of kills against the Iraqi air force were performed at BVR ranges before the enemy had time to maneuver or even respond to being illuminated. During exercises with the Indian Air Force (e.g. Cope India '06) some SU-30s did perform rather well against USAF assets, but the USAF aircraft were under some rather extreme handicaps (no AWACS, no AMRAAMs, no AESA onboard radar, etc.) which severely shrunk their engagement envelope, resulting in many WVR engagements occurring more often than they would have if the ROEs were relaxed and both sides had been allowed to use the best of their technology.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Notes:

"...Canards and vectored thrust were among many concepts {US has}examined to extend our fighter aircraft performance. Neither our current or next generation aircraft now poised for funding & production can in any way match the performance of this Russian aircraft NOW FLYING in any near combat situation. Somehow the bankrupt Russian aircraft industry has out produced our complex politically tainted aerospace industry with this technology marvel. ..."
Can you source this quote? I'm curious where it came from, as LLNL is devoted to nuclear weapons/nuclear energy research, so it strikes me as weird to see them assessing something that normally falls under the USAF ISR or a similar, more specialized intelligence agency. I'd be curious to see the context.

Let me see, they have built 10 of these things so far and that's all. Americas Raptor is an equivalent of theirs. There are over 400 Raptors going to be built in the next 5 years. So what do Americans do, stop production and find another type of plane? No, I'd say let them have their planes and so be it. Russia is a Democratic nation and isn't against anyone so what is there to fear, unless you have some type of phobia? You want to use this as a fear tactic don't you. You don't want to say things that can quiet things down , you want to incite a riot, why?:shrug:
The USAF is set to procure a total of 183 F-22s. The number has been reduced three times since the initial target of 750 airframes was set in 1994 after the F-22 was chosen as the winner of the ATF flyoff. That said, it is starting to look like that number is going to go up again since F-15s have been facing some maintenance and safety issues related to the fact that some of the older airframes have logged triple the flight hours that they were initially designed for, resulting in a few catastrophic in-flight failures (including one death) and numerous restrictions placed on their operations in-theater. The sooner we can build more F-22s the better, from a safety standpoint alone, never mind the fact that the F-22 is sex on wings.

And the pilot still counts mre in a fight than the plane,

Now Billy T if the Su 30 is such a signafacant advance over any U.S. design is the IAF working on this?

AESA radar technology that the IAF can acquire through the purchase of F/A-18E/F Hornets represents a technological edge that is simply too significant for the IAF to overlook. According to unclassified US defense papers AESA provides 10-30 times more net radar capability plus significant advantages in the areas of range resolution, countermeasure resistance and flexibility. These are significant, almost revolutionary numbers.

Using it AESA AN/APG-79 radar a F/A-18E/F can now detect and identify targets beyond the reach of the Super Hornet's AIM-120 Slammer missiles. Though the exact range and resolution of the radar are classified an inference can be made for the fact that the AIM-120 missile has a reported range of over 30 nm. How much over, no one knows at this point. However, it is the author's opinion that once US officials in their negotiation with IAF allude to actual detection ranges that an AESA equipped F/A-18E/F could achieve a lot of jaws will drop at Air HQs

King of the skies! :cool:

I do not see a capability that isn't in the F-22 Raptor already, and there are already up grades comming on line for the F-22, and the fact is that the Su-30 is still nothing but a up graded Su 27.




The F-22 is highly maneuverable, at both supersonic and subsonic speeds. The F-22's thrust vectoring nozzles allow the aircraft to turn tightly, and perform extremely high alpha (angle of attack) maneuvers such as the Herbst maneuver (or J-turn), Pugachev's Cobra,[24] and the Kulbit, though the J-Turn is more useful in combat.[24] The F-22 is also capable of maintaining a constant angle of attack of over 60°, yet still having some control of roll.[24][25] During June 2006 exercises in Alaska, F-22 pilots demonstrated that cruise altitude has a significant effect on combat performance, and routinely attributed their altitude advantage as a major factor in achieving an unblemished kill ratio.[26]


The AN/APG-77 AESA radar, designed for air-superiority and strike operations, features a low-observable, active-aperture, electronically-scanned array that can track multiple targets in all kinds of weather. The AN/APG-77 changes frequencies more than 1,000 times per second to reduce the chance of being intercepted. The radar can also focus its emissions to overload enemy sensors, giving the aircraft an electronic-attack capability.[

King of the skies! :cool:

And I always thought it was King Air that was, at least that's what their motto was. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_King_Air

I will not be making many more (perhaps none) post here as I know little about jet fighters and dog fights. I think all agree that as I said : "dog fight separations (a few kilometer with missles, ..." and as cosmictraveler said: "Fighters don't get within 5 miles of each other any longer so the way a fighter handles isn't really important any longer. ..." that "dog fights" in the modern era are distant engagements where often neither pilot sees the other plane.

This does not mean that the missle rapidly closing on its target can not be caused to miss by a jet which can rapidly switch* to flying "side ways" to stop in mid air and then drop tail first** in a cloud of chaff and opaque hot smoke it is releasing. The atacking missle can only make relatively slow smoove turns and even if it gets close, still needs some terminal guidance. Thus I question the validity of the last part of Cosmictravler's text quoted above.

With reguard to the ref on Lawrence L. Labs, unfortunately I do not have it. I have an old Cornell class mate who is very into airplanes, sends photos from air shows etc. He emailed the link, the LLL text and some of his comments, which I quoted. Little of OP is mine.

I think the term "dog fight" is still useful even if fighters are a few miles apart as not all of the air space is within range of SAMs (and much of want is will be known, except for mobil SAMs, so often the intercept will be (if made) by a relatively short range fighter lunched missle - that is the modern dog fight. Both may get missles off before either missle reaches it target. Thus the "winner" is the plane than can out manuever the attacking missle by things like the SU-30 can do.

I think especially important may be the ability to hide in "defensive cloud" that the target has just made, as that cloud could easily be made of radar chaff and opaque hot gases.
-------------------
*Must play hell with the missel's computer constantly projecting the intercept point to fly to.

**BTW, some moths do this to avoid being eaten by bats. They detect the bat's dynamically changing "chirp" and from it know they are his intended lunch. A small fraction of a second before being eaten, they fold their wings into body and drop, causing bat to fly over them. Seems likely to me that the SU-30 could do the same, but it would start to make the hot opaque chaff cloud a few seconds prior to missle's fly by miss.

Jumpsweet said it best in the comments section of either that video or another:


I will gladly show you why the F-22 is better. The best Russian jet in service right now is the Su-30MK. It has all the updates of the demo Su-35 and Su-37. Ok, now here is how a fight would likely go with a F-22 and Su-30MK.

The F-22 detects the Su-30MK at 190 to 200 miles because of the F-22 massive radar range and the Su-30MK's large radar CS. The Su-30MK would not be able to detect the F-22 before it got to about 12 to 20 miles way because of it's very small rader CS. The F-22 flys in groups of two or more F-22's.

One of the F-22's would then turn off their radar and use it's wingman's F-22's radar to target with. The F-22 with it's radar turn on starts electronic-attack on the Su-30MK's sensors to overload them. Then the F-22 with it's radar turned off uses the F-22 with it's radar turned on and locks on with a MBDA Meteor at 100 miles and fires. Because the Su-30MK's sensors are overloaded it's can't detect the missiles tracking it.

Just to make this fun let's say the MBDA Meteor drops it's tracking. The same F-22 that fired the MBDA Meteor would wait and fire a AIM-120D AMRAAM at about 40 miles. The Su-30MK still can't detect the F-22's because of it's stealth. It's still outside the 12 to 20 miles needed to be detected. Now, if the AIM-120D AMRAAM drops track the F-22 can still wait and fire a AIM9-X from about 25 miles. Three missiles fired and the Su-30MK has yet to detect the F-22.

If the AIM9-X drops lock, then the F-22 could still lock on with a second AIM9-X before the 12 to 20 miles needed for the Su-30MK can clearly detect the F-22. If all four missiles drop lock the F-22 can go into a turn and burn dogfight. Because the F-22 has a higher thrust to wieght ratio if the two fighters bank hard right or left the F-22 will hold it's turn tighter and longer because will not bleed it's air speed as quickly letting it turn inside the Su-30MK.

If the Su-30MK trys to drop to the deck and slow down to use slower speed thrust vectoring maneuvers the F-22 can match it move for move. Now, do you really think all the missiles will miss? I mean really, I respect the Russian jets but they just can't hang with the F-22. Now, if the Russians can make a top level stealth fighter it may match the F-22 but, that has yet to happen.

Need any more proof?

- N

I do not know but think the F22 must leave much more of a radar signature in its hot exhaust gas alone that the relative mild "clear air turblence" that is commonly avoided by comercial passenger liners.

I really doubt that stealth planes are as "invisible" as some here are suggesting. Certainly, not very invisible to bi-static radars as they have often been accidently detected by FAA radars. E.g. the Trenton NJ radar beam bounce off one of the flat surfaces, mirror like, makes a short lived (perhaps only a few seconds) blip on JFK air trafic controller's radar screens.

It is not in the budgetary interest of the USAF to tell how easily they can be detected by bi-static radars, but continuous tracking of them is surely much harder until they are close enough to have accomplished their mission. (Probably not by chance that the stealth bomber came first in the development line.)

Not as into jets as I once was, but I noticed you all keep mentioning the F22. We've got a new toy coming around aswell, the F-35 II Lightning.

In any case, if you're curious about any Soviet jet vs American jet, just watch Top Gun :D

The f-35 is a maintenance hog, and extremely expensive. Much better off with upgrading and maintaining current F-18E/F. (australia only has F/A 18 As and bs:()

The f-35 is a maintenance hog, and extremely expensive. Much better off with upgrading and maintaining current F-18E/F. (australia only has F/A 18 As and bs:()


Intresting observation, as the Plane isn't on line yet.

Projections show that it is much easier to upgrade existing airframes than buy and maintain new ones.

Projections show that it is much easier to upgrade existing airframes than buy and maintain new ones.

But all airframes reach service life limits.

Now post the projections, citation would be appreciated.

The SU-30 has Vectored Thrust with Canards. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping forward motion in seconds. (full stall).
Stop from what initial speed? The SU-30 has a top speed of around 375 m/sec near sea level. If by "seconds" you mean 5 seconds then the plane would be subjecting itself to about 75 Gs of acceleration - which would surely be enough to break the plane into small pieces. Heck, even if the plane could take it I suspect that would be enough to kill the pilot.

You'll note that the people at Livermore Labs said that it out-performs our aircraft in near combat situations. As has already been pointed out, dog fights are very rare; modern air-to-air combat involves missiles fired from very long rages, and an aircraft's top speed and rate of climb are generally far more important than maneuverability.

Pff... that is nothing. Look at these moves by the Raptor !!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faB5bIdksi8&feature=related

I really doubt that stealth planes are as "invisible" as some here are suggesting. Certainly, not very invisible to bi-static radars as they have often been accidently detected by FAA radars. E.g. the Trenton NJ radar beam bounce off one of the flat surfaces, mirror like, makes a short lived (perhaps only a few seconds) blip on JFK air trafic controller's radar screens.

In fact, yes, stealth craft are not completely invisible to all radars. Their composition and design is such that their radar cross section is significantly reduced to something much less than it otherwise would be (for example the B-2 is said to have an RCS the size of a bumblebee wrapped in aluminum foil) and that reduces the detection radius of the aircraft enough to allow them to pass through gaps in an enemy's air defense radar picket line. Due to other design features, the stealth technology doesn't do the whole stealth thing to as great a degree when being pinged with a low-frequency (UHF) radar beam. Fortunately, low-frequency radars are generally not too big a deal for the following reasons:

1) They require a positively obscene amount of amplification to work. This means that you are losing a ton of accuracy. The instant someone makes a completely lossless amplifier they will have solved the detection of stealth problem. They will have also violated every law of physics out there. This means that the radars are inherently lossy and cannot provide a high-resolution track. You may get lucky with a sidelobe paint, which will tell you that something is in your resolution cell, but your resolution cell at those frequencies is huge so it is not useful for developing telemetry for things like SAMs, AAA, etc. Best case, you could get a general area to vector some fighter cover to promptly get shot out of the sky.

2) Due to the whole radar equation thingy (decent link for those interested here (http://earth.esa.int/applications/data_util/SARDOCS/spaceborne/Radar_Courses/Radar_Course_III/radar_equation.htm)) in order to get usable returns without having absurd amplification requirements, you have to maximize the surface area of the radar. This means a bigass array of parasitic antennas, which also means that radar is going to either be on a bigass ship or a stationary building. This leads to "cruise missile up the ass" syndrome because these targets are just begging for it.

Now, a few of my thoughts about other detection capabilities that could be used:

Optical/laser search will detect a stealth aircraft, yes. Problems with this: if the craft is BVR, you're screwed; if the weather is shitty, you're screwed; if its range is pretty limited, you're screwed. I'm pretty sure the best-day range of a laser system is pretty awful (based purely on my own experience directing airstrikes with a GLD in different environments) and the figures I've seen on existing systems bear that out.

Current radars detect stealth aircraft, absolutely. Stealth aircraft aren't completely invisible, the difference is that their sigma (reflectivity) is significantly less than a comparably-sized aircraft. Go up to that neat link I have earlier, read the equations, and you'll immediately note that stealth aircraft have a finite maximum detection distance. You will also note that it is much less than a conventional aircraft, and that the detection distance is well within the standoff range of almost every air to surface missile in service, to include the AGM-88 HARM. Pulsing radar into the sky is like walking through the woods at night with a giant flashlight: you probably won't see shit with your flashlight, but I can guarantee you that everyone in that wood knows exactly where you are and can dispatch you on their terms.

As for a heavily distributed, low power detection network (e.g. cell phone arrays and other multistatic radars), I have heard more than enough anecdotes but haven't seen a white paper about it yet, and it is not for lack of searching. In the off chance that it has been researched and I just can't find the paper in the IEEE, I'll point out a few problems this would have. They still aren't at all designed for target track, they operate at high frequencies (and therefore have a tiny range of detection, although this is offset by the sheer number of them in an industrialized country), and will really give you no better idea than that low-frequency radar when it comes to "where the fuck is this thing coming in supersonic about to bomb us?" Furthermore, low power distributed network radars have been around for ages, and haven't put a huge dent in stealth aircraft so far. Cell phone towers just happen to already be in place, which would make them convenient radiation sources if the technology worked better.

I apologize for the rather disjointed nature of this post, and I realize that it contains well more than what you were discussing, but since I was on the subject I figured I would add what I could and ramble a bit.

It doesn't matter. The cold war is over, we aren't going to fight the Russians.

In fact, yes, stealth craft are not completely invisible to all radars. Their composition and design is such that their radar cross section is significantly reduced to something much less than it otherwise would be (for example the B-2 is said to have an RCS the size of a bumblebee wrapped in aluminum foil) ...This "bumble bee" radar cross section statement is non-sense for a plane with many flat surfaces. The radar cross section is a strong function of aspect angle, even for ordingary objects like cars and airliners. Surely for the F22 it varies by at least a factor of 100 as the aspect angle changes. The "bumble bee" radar cross section I strongly suspect it the nose on radar cross section, which by design is the smallest value in the 4 pi ster-radians. If the any of the F22's large flat surfaces is perpendicular to the radar beam, even a conventional (not bi-static) radar will detect it at significant range compared to a bumble bee's detection range.

...dog fights are very rare; modern air-to-air combat involves missiles fired from very long rages, and an aircraft's top speed and rate of climb are generally far more important than maneuverability.Even the very high flying, Mach 3+, U2 was shot down (with Gary Powers captured alive) several decades ago by USSR's SAM.

I think the part of your text I made bold is false for long range missle engagement. No plane can out run a modern SAM or air lauched rocket. The only way to make is miss is to either decoy it (flairs if it is heat seeking or chaff if radar guided) or to "duck" it at the last second (Be much more maneuverable than the SAM, Which is no problem for the SU-30 and possibly not for the F22 also, but I have not seen what it can do)

Again I am impressed by the SU-30's ability to hid in hot, opaque, chaff cloud it has just made, as we saw in the video of the OP. The fact that it can "dance around" in the air must strongly stress the missel's intercept computers, perhaps even the missle's ability to track it. - Normally, to avoid cloud returns etc, there is a Doppler filter that is a "window bracket" on the target's speed. The SU-30 may be able to achieve same velocity as the near-by cloud. - i.e. "escape out of the Doppler window" used by the missle causing the attacking missle not only to miss, but even to lose track.

The U2 was (very) subsonic. Basically an overgrown sailplane with a jet engine, that we thought mistakenly flew to high to be reached by a SAM. We were wrong.

The Blackbird flew high _and_ fast (M3+) and was never shot down, afaik.

Even the very high flying, Mach 3+, U2 was shot down (with Gary Powers captured alive) several decades ago by USSR's SAM.


Maximum speed: 434 knots (500 mph, 805 km/h)
Cruise speed: 373 kt (429 mph, 690 km/h) a long way from Mach 3+


[edit] Specifications (U-2S)
Data from International Directory,[14] Global Security,[15] USAF Fact Sheet,[16]

General characteristics
Crew: One
Length: 63 ft (19.2 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft (31.4 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.88 m)
Wing area: 1,000 ft² (92.9 m²)
Empty weight: 14,300 lb (6,760 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 40,000 lb (18,100 kg)
Powerplant: 1× General Electric F118-101 turbojet, 19,000 lbf (84.5 kN)
Performance
Maximum speed: 434 knots (500 mph, 805 km/h)
Cruise speed: 373 kt (429 mph, 690 km/h)
Range: 5,566 nmi (6,405 mi, 10,300 km)
Service ceiling 85,000+ ft (25,900 m)
Flight endurance: 12 hours

It doesn't matter. The cold war is over, we aren't going to fight the Russians.
We never fought the Russians during the Cold War, either, but we seemed to find ourselves toed up against their export hardware an awful lot.

This "bumble bee" radar cross section statement is non-sense for a plane with many flat surfaces. The radar cross section is a strong function of aspect angle, even for ordingary objects like cars and airliners. Surely for the F22 it varies by at least a factor of 100 as the aspect angle changes. The "bumble bee" radar cross section I strongly suspect it the nose on radar cross section, which by design is the smallest value in the 4 pi ster-radians. If the any of the F22's large flat surfaces is perpendicular to the radar beam, even a conventional (not bi-static) radar will detect it at significant range compared to a bumble bee's detection range.
Yes, RCS varies infinitely with aspect angle from the transmitter.

that vid overwhelmed

/overwhelmed

/speechless

i bet the tech was stolen from skunkworks

in 1970

It doesn't matter. The cold war is over, we aren't going to fight the Russians.

What about somebody "equipped" with Russian gear?

The U2 was (very) subsonic. Basically an overgrown sailplane with a jet engine, that we thought mistakenly flew to high to be reached by a SAM. We were wrong.
The Blackbird flew high _and_ fast (M3+) and was never shot down, afaik.Thanks (and to Bufallo Roam also) I had them confused in my memory.

I still think, but few seem to agree or comment on (perhaps as they do not even understand the point), that the modern "dog fight" is between the target plane and the missle fired at it from the other plane, which probably is too far away to even see the target.

I.e. If the target can rapidly "duck," it survives, if not, it dies. "Rapidly" means that it can maneuver, especially huge changes of speed and direction, so large (great accelerations) that they either confuse the missle's intercept computer or even let the traget escapes track.*
------------
*by reaching same velocity, wrt the missle, as the clouds, birds, etc. which are locked out (from detection) by a "Dopper window" in the missle's radar reciever. (The velocity of the missle wrt the clouds must be blocked out as the radar cross section of them is huge. - everyone of them would appear to be a "target" if this is not done. All the target needs to do is stall in a cloud and it is safe as missle drops "drops radar track" of it. If the cloud is hot opaque** exhaust from the target, it is safe from optical & IR terminal systems also.) Does no one understand this? Is that why no one comments on the main advantage of the SU-30, even after seeing in the video it hide in its own marker smoke cloud?

**Easily achieved by ejection of a little fuel oil, which as it burns is also a good decoy flare.

A modern IR or terminally active radar guided missile (like the AIM-9X or AIM-120C7) can discriminate from things like ground clutter and the sun, so I don't think it would have a problem finding the aircraft inside of a cloud of moisture or its own exhaust gas. Also consider that antiair missiles are proximity fuzed, so it just needs to get somewhere close by and detonate to shower the target with white hot chunks of tungsten shrapnel.

Even if the Su-30 does succeed in spoofing its attacker for that single shot, how does that remedy the larger tactical picture? The Su-30 will have bled off its airspeed, turned its own sensors and weapons away from the attacker, and allowed the attacker to continue prosecuting the attack, never losing the initiative. The loss of inertia alone would probably be the Su-30's death knell. A missile weighs less, flies faster, and turns tighter than any airplane with a human pilot can (this gets into what hypewaders and a few of us were discussing about UCAVs on the first page).

In other words, I guess it could happen as you describe, but I don't think it would accomplish anything for the Su-30 other than delaying its own demise, possibly increasing the chances of it, so I don't see it is a decisive factor.

What about somebody "equipped" with Russian gear?

"Somebody" will never be a threat to us.

"Somebody" will never be a threat to us.
What are you basing this on?

A modern IR or terminally active radar guided missile (like the AIM-9X or AIM-120C7) can discriminate from things like ground clutter and the sun, so I don't think it would have a problem finding the aircraft inside of a cloud of moisture or its own exhaust gas. Also consider that antiair missiles are proximity fuzed, so it just needs to get somewhere close by and detonate to shower the target with white hot chunks of tungsten shrapnel. ...Ground returns to the radar, like cloud returns, are often large but they are not processed as targets as they fall in the Doppler speed window of the missle own velocity. I.e. they are ignored as they are "stationary" as the SU-30 can be. (Falling downward from it prior trajectory does not give significant velocityt wrt to the missle - sort the same as a wind blown cloud - i.e. approximately same velocity wrt the missle as some clouds.)

I do not know how IR guided (heat seeking) missles discriminates against the sun (as opposed to the also circular hot tail pipe). Possibly some spectral resolution is used. (Sun is nearly a black body at 5000C or K?) If target ejects some oil with the exhaust, I doubt any IR can find the target inside that hot opaque cloud. True missle has some proximaty fuse, but it is not large and may be trigered by chaff, I think.

You mentioned the AIM-9X or AIM-120C7. I vaguely recall them. Are they automous or do they use the energy scattered from radar beam of the launching aircraft? Is some version of them also called the NATO sea sparrow?

It would be better to think of an enemy as a weakling ... for an enemy

What are you basing this on?

One airplane is no threat to the US airforce.

http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-Bug-Su-30.gif

http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-Bug-Su-30.gif

Do you have one with the FA 22 Raptor in comparison?

Do you have one with the FA 22 Raptor in comparison?

that would be like asking for governmental secret data :p

that would be like asking for governmental secret data :p

For just those three types of comparisons? I'd think not.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Su-30MK-BVR-2.jpg

Su-30 detection range vs. F-22

Thanks Dragon, but how about a few words also? I am confused by the diagrams. The right plane in post 55 is the one with the canards so I assume that is the SU-30. Is the larger red sector the region it can detect the F22 in, or the region the F22 can detect the SU-30 in? I.e. a little help please.

Billy...the range diagram clearly shows that Su model has bigger range than F-22

You mentioned the AIM-9X or AIM-120C7. I vaguely recall them. Are they automous or do they use the energy scattered from radar beam of the launching aircraft? Is some version of them also called the NATO sea sparrow?
Both the -9X and the -120C7 are fire-and-forget.

The -120 is a medium ranged missile that uses inertial guidance during the first 2/3 of its flyout until it gets into range of its onboard active seeker (terminal range) and thus the -120 benefits from midcourse telemetry updates from either the launch aircraft's radar or that of a nearby AWACS. If it doesn't get those updates it can still intercept, albeit with a lower kill probability if the target has moved significantly during flyout.

For just those three types of comparisons? I'd think not.
He's right. Even if not, it would be a safe bet that any publicly available data on the F-22's RCS is wildly inaccurate and entirely useless, as that is probably the most highly classified aspect of the entire airplane.

Considering that, those diagrams are also mostly useless unless we know what RCS they are assuming for the F-22, because those theoretical ranges would be largely predicated upon it. It might be the theoretical maximum against a target with a given RCS, or the maximum range limited by software to keep signal processing overhead in check, I dont know. I can guarantee you that it there is no way a Su-30 will get the drop on a F-22, especially if AWACS is airborne nearby. During Northern Edge 2006 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020150) we had F-22s going head to head with F-15Cs sporting the new APG-63(V)3 AESA radar, and our own F-15s never knew they were there before the Raptor pilots were calling them dead. The F-22 is so stealthy and flies so fast that it can get inside weapons range and overrun the defenses before they can coordinate a response.

One airplane is no threat to the US airforce.
But an adversary equipped with many could be. Go back through the major conflicts the US has been involved in since the end of WWII and count the number of adversaries who have been customers of the Russian arms industry. Given that the nations who are currently at odds with US policy are also customers of the Russian arms industry, it is reasonable to use their best as a benchmark for our own systems to defeat. I think that was his point.

Echo3Romeo...brainwashed of US military superiority...lolz

Echo3Romeo...brainwashed of US military superiority...lolz
Playing the jingoism card so soon? Too bad...I was hoping you could provide some additional context into how those pretty graphics were developed.

But an adversary equipped with many could be. Go back through the major conflicts the US has been involved in since the end of WWII and count the number of adversaries who have been customers of the Russian arms industry. Given that the nations who are currently at odds with US policy are also customers of the Russian arms industry, it is reasonable to use their best as a benchmark for our own systems to defeat. I think that was his point.

So once again you (and other with a common thinking) forget, that 10-30 year old military Soviet/Russian equipment vehicles were against top notch just made US equipment. Soviet Union did not sell the latest planes...the countries got what was old and used and was decades old.

And still US planes managed to get hit :D the irony...oh the irony

So once again you (and other with a common thinking) forget, that 10-30 year old military Soviet/Russian equipment vehicles were against top notch just made US equipment. Soviet Union did not sell the latest planes...the countries got what was old and used and was decades old.

And still US planes managed to get hit :D the irony...oh the irony
So are you agreeing with me or what? :confused:

So are you agreeing with me or what? :confused:

heh :bugeye: I am against the US in general... as a Russian citizen I have a duty to protect my homeland against the enemy. I am agreeing with you if you include the fact that past wars had included outdated military equipment vs US newly made.

heh :bugeye: I am against the US in general... as a Russian citizen I have a duty to protect my homeland against the enemy. I am agreeing with you if you include the fact that past wars had included outdated military equipment vs US newly made.
It doesn't pertain to what I was saying, but I'll include it if it makes you feel better. The US, UK, France, et al. do the same thing with the stuff we export. Keep the best for yourself and sell your second string stuff to your friendly customers. Or give them the newest equipment, but a more stripped-down version without all the bells and whistles. It makes perfect sense to keep a corner on the best stuff you can when national security is at stake.

What I was saying is that just because none of a nation's current enemies possess a capability is not a wise reason for them to sit on their laurels thinking all is well. The geopolitical landscape can change much more quickly than it takes to develop and build advanced weapon systems like ships and aircraft. If a nation waits for a threat to appear before they address it, it is already too late. With that in mind, it behooves any nation to keep the pulse of the global arms industry and seek to keep abreast (or, ideally, ahead) of it.

So once again you (and other with a common thinking) forget, that 10-30 year old military Soviet/Russian equipment vehicles were against top notch just made US equipment. Soviet Union did not sell the latest planes...the countries got what was old and used and was decades old.

And still US planes managed to get hit :D the irony...oh the irony

And at the time they were facing 10 to 30 year old American designs, The Israelis have whipped every Russian design sent up against them, using out dated aircraft, Mirage III.

It wasn't until 1969 that the Israelis received our any of our first line fighters, the F-4-E, and that design dates from 1953, the Mig 21 dates from 1955, so they are contemporaries, and the same has happened all down the line, U.S. combat aircraft have always face their contemporary opposite in cold war, and hot war in the Middle East, and the the U.S. designs have always owned the Russian designs, starting in 1950 when we faced Russian and Chinese pilots over the Yalu in N.Korea to today, any were in the Middle East.

Yes our planes do get hit on occasion, but the kill ratio is well in favor of the U.S. designs.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/April2007/eightytwo01.jpg

The F-15 Eagle dates from 1969, and the Mig 23 dates from 1967, again contemporaries. The IAF shot down 86 Syrian MiGs, to 0 loses for them.

F-16 Air Forces - Israel
A total of 92 Syrian fighter (more than 30% of total inventory) were shot down, and Israeli F-16s achieved a 44-0 kill ratio. One aircraft reportedly shot ...
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article7.html

The Raptor is "invisible" to Radar! If you can't be seen, then how do you get hit? :shrug:

By the way, here is the almost same version of the Russian plane, only it was built in America over 5 years ago!

[edit] McDonnell Douglas-BAe/Boeing AV-8B Harrier II
Main article: AV-8 Harrier II
AV-8B Harrier II (1983)
EAV-8B Matador II (for Spain)
AV-8B Harrier II Night Attack (1987)
AV-8B Harrier II Plus (1992) (USMC, Spain, Italy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV-8_Harrier_II

i thought the harrier was british

i thought the harrier was british
The Hawker-Siddeley GR.1 was entirely British, but the AV-8B was extensively redesigned by McDonnell-Douglas before they started producing it. It looks very similar but is a much more advanced and capable aircraft than the GR.1.

The Chinese may throw a wrench into the whole thing, if they leapfrog the technology.

And defense is usually easier than offense - the US needs a serious tech advantage, since it is usually the aggressor. Against Iran, for example.

Comparing technology by outcome, don't forget pilot skill. The US/Israeli etc edge there might be bigger than the tech edge.

All this talk about planes wants me to get in one and blow something up already. Starting with the state tax building.

... Comparing technology by outcome, don't forget pilot skill. The US/Israeli etc edge there might be bigger than the tech edge.Certainly pilot skill dominated a decade or more ago, but in the era where it is unlikey for the pilot to even see his enemy, I think "pilot skill" is much less important than Radars, electronic spoofing, AWAK support, missle systems, and target plane's ability to "duck" in last seconds the closing missle. As some have suggested, soon "no pilot" may be the best option. (Sort of like robots are better and cheaper than maned space exploration.)

Very true, but there is nothing like adaptation, then it will only be a race to make the most intelligent bot. Skill, or that extra cutting edge, whether from a bot or man, will always be neccessary.

Certainly pilot skill dominated a decade or more ago, but in the era where it is unlikey for the pilot to even see his enemy, I think "pilot skill" is much less important than Radars, electronic spoofing, AWAK support, missle systems, and target plane's ability to "duck" in last seconds the closing missle. As some have suggested, soon "no pilot" may be the best option. (Sort of like robots are better and cheaper than maned space exploration.)
You still need people to operate all those systems, and the more complex they get, the more important quality training becomes.

Also, there is as much "organizational skill" involved in an air campaign as there is individual skill of each aviator.

Friend who sent me OP link to video on SU-30 just Emailed F-22 video link (someone sent it to him as a reply supporting the F22.)
F22 video at:
http://www.f22-raptor.com/media/video_gallery/videos/F22_AirShow_Langley.wmv

It did not appear to me to do any "ducking missle" manuevers as the SU-30 did. For example, never flew "flat broadside"* to rapidly stop forward speed or fall / fly downward tail first. All it manuevers were just smooth turns that a missle could follow.

Perhaps F22 has better radar than SU-30 and may get off the first shot (not saying this is the case, but would not be surprised if that is the case) but even if the RCS of SU-30 is higher (Dragon says it is smaller, if I understood him) even a 40% radar advantage to the F22 is only about a 10% advantage in relative detection ranges as the radar return signal strenth goes as the inverse fouth power. Thus, both F22 & SU-30 are likely to get off a missle shot at the other, so which can "duck" the missles best will be the winner.
--------------------
"Flat Broadside" is when the direction of the plane axis is 90 degrees to the direction of motion and full wing area is slamming into the air. - Enormous air drag makes for quick drop of velocity to zero, except for the tail first controlled fall. - Just what some moths do, also at the last instant, to avoid being a bat's lunch.

thanks for the vid Billy. Doesn't look too agile, never liked the raptors. Thats all I have to say. Bring the F-16s/18's, now we're talking.

Just realized that the "flat broadside duck" maneuver (defined in post 73's footnote) is a great aid to surviving the engagement for still another reason:

Even if the F22's missle's intercept computer is not confused by SU-30 suddent drop to zero velocity* AND it flies thru spot where SU-30 was prior to the "flat broadside duck" maneuver AND the F22's missle's proximity fuse explodes warhead exactly at the point of closest approach to the SU-30, which has been in controlled vertical tail first fall, the geometrey is such that the SU-30 presents the least possible hit cross section to the warhead's expanding fragments.

That SU-30 will be hard to kill but the SU-30's missle (a much faster rocket infact) can easily close on the smoothly turning F22. More in my last post about how moths escape bats the same way an SU-30 can escape the F22's missle and discussion of how/why the "flat broadside duck" maneuver can offset the reported lower RCS of the F22.
----------------
*As explained in some earlier posts, the F22 (and all combat fighter's) radar blocks out objects with zero velocity to avoid attacking clouds, birds, weather balloons,** etc. Thus, if SU-30 does achieve very low speed so it looks like a cloud to the F22's missle, then the F22 missle will "drop track" on the SU-30.

**Recall that in the modern dog fight the pilots seldom see their target before firing missle at it.

Great topic. A few dumb questions remain.

1. While ground based Radar has difficulty identifying the stealth planes, how does the air to air missiles find these planes? Is it because the Radar cross section changes up in the Air besides heat signature?

2. Assuming the right technology is set up in a military satellite, can a space based radar in a multi-spectral illumination be able to track these planes from up above?

3. How was SU-30 with Indian Airforce Managed to do so good in mano-amano?

4. Offense is always cheaper than defense. So, rather spending money on the plane, should not the opponent develop intelligent air to air missile technology?

5. How does either plane find the other up there?

Billy T,

*As explained in some earlier posts, the F22 (and all combat fighter's) radar blocks out objects with zero velocity to avoid attacking clouds, birds, weather balloons,** etc. Thus, if SU-30 does achieve very low speed so it looks like a cloud to the F22's missle, then the F22 missle will "drop track" on the SU-30.
Billy T, you are making the mistake of assuming the most advanced missiles use radar of guiding. For example, the AIM-9X missile uses infrared guidance to 'see' the target plane's low-heat aluminium skin surfaces. The technology can distinguish between the actual plane and other heat sources such as flares that could be used as decoys. The missile also has thrust vectoring control that allows it to turn 180 degrees in about 2 seconds, so if it missed on the first pass, it could come back to hit the 'sitting duck' falling tail-first through the air. :D I understood that smoke comming from the SU-30 was just for making the plane's maneuvers more easily seen in the performance demo, not for use in combat evasion. Is that incorrect?

...Billy T, you are making the mistake of assuming the most advanced missiles use radar of guiding. ...I understood that smoke comming from the SU-30 was just for making the plane's maneuvers more easily seen in the performance demo, not for use in combat evasion. Is that incorrect?No I am not. At several kilometers Radar is better, but most will switch to IR for the terminal engagement. That is why in several posts I have referred to the "hot OPAQUE cloud" generated by the SU-30 for it to hid in as it flat spin falls inside after the "flat broadside stopping" maneuvior that ducked the missle's first pass and prevents localization of the SU-30 on subsequent passes (which probably are impossible as with the same velocity as the clouds the SU-30 is lost inside the missle's radar "Doppler window" that is not processed. I.e. at the turn for re attack the missle is more than a kilometer away and can not re-acquire the slow moving* SU-30, which looks to the radar like all the other clouds.)

Yes the pink smoke in the video is just to show more clearly the relationship between the axis of the SU-30 and the direction of motion (especially impressive when orthogonal to each other in the "flat broadside" stopping maneuvior). In combate, the fluid ejected would be a few gallons of oil, to make a dense hot OPAQUE smoke, as I also noted in prior posts.

Summary: The "flat broadside" stopping maneuvior and subsequent flat spin falling casues a "drop track" in the radar systems. (looks just like a cloud). The hot dense OPAQUE smoke cloud makes the IR system blind to the SU-30 inside.
------------------
*Most of the SU-30's motion is vertical so wrt the missle. The SU-30's speed wrt the missle is essentially the missle's speed, or the same as the clouds, weather balloons, birds, etc. I.e. The SU-30 is in the Doppler window that is not be processed for detections.

PS I agree that conventional flares are not much use against integrated radar/ IR system as they are easily discriminated against by the radar's Dopper because normally the target jet is rapidly moving, but the slowly falling SU-30 is at best going to look like a flare to that integrated system. In some sense, the SU-30 can "simulate a flare", and survive even without the hot OPAQUE cloud!

Billy T,
No I am not. At several kilometers Radar is better, but most will switch to IR for the terminal engagement.
Which modern air-to-air missiles use both IR and radar?
That is why in several posts I have referred to the "hot OPAQUE cloud" generated by the SU-30 for it to hid in as it flat spin falls inside after the "flat broadside stopping" maneuvior that ducked the missle's first pass and prevents localization of the SU-30 on subsequent passes (which probably are impossible as with the same velocity as the clouds the SU-30 is lost inside the missle's radar "Doppler window" that is not processed. I.e. at the turn for re attack the missle is more than a kilometer away and can not re-acquire the slow moving* SU-30, which looks to the radar like all the other clouds.)
Your "hot OPAQUE cloud" is useless against the AIM-9X missile I spoke about. Again, Billy T, the missile does not use radar for guidance. It uses a passive IR technology to detect its target, much like a digital camera 'sees' in the visible radiation spectrum. There is no 'Doppler window' for a passive IR system. That hot cloud will only serve to attract it more. The missile does not need make contact with the plane to ignite its payload of explosives. I still believe the smoke emitted (the hot OPAQUE cloud) was for airshow demos, not a designed defense feature for the plane. Do you have any references to the contrary?
Echo3Romeo's post 45 puts everything in perspective, Billy T. Did you miss it?

Billy T, Which modern air-to-air missiles use both IR and radar? I know very little about air to air missles. Most of my experience is with defense of surface ships. I once went to a Canadian company (in the Quebec area) to get data on their FLIR system, but forget which missle it was being added to. (I think it may have been one called the NATO sea sparrow.) The view then was that although "fly out" was with radar guidance (ship illuminates target missle and defending missle recieving the energy scatter by the target is the standard approach for ship defense, except when the first longer range shots fail and the attacker is getting close to the ship.) IR would help the engagement, especially if missle is smart and repeating with delay the radar pulses etc or jamming etc. Also IR can be used alone at short range (but still beyond the CIWS gun range.) The NATO sea sparrow is a shorter range missile than the Standard missles which can at least fly beyond the horizon and engage target if some other ship can illumniate the target (Called "cooperative engagement" and helps keep all ships with a healthy load out of Standard missles.)

Your "hot OPAQUE cloud" is useless against the AIM-9X missile I spoke about. ... Why do you say that? Would not a much stronger and larger extention IR source not both blind* the IR missle guidance and hide any plane inside it? I have several times now stated the OP video's pink streamers are just for the demonstration so we agree on that. I have at least four times now told that a few gallons of oil would be would be ejected into the exhaust to make the combat's hot dense opaque cloud formation.

What is the max range at which the AIM-9X can acquire a target (with no direct up the tail pipe view available) by IR alone? I would be surprised if the F22 could get that close to an enemy which had already launched a missle that was using a ground based radar to illuminate the F22 for the missle to home on the scattered energy. (US almost always is trying to operate over hostile territory.) It would be necessary to first take out the ground radar with a HARM for the F22 to survive long enought to get to the AIM-9X's IR fire and forget launch range I would bet, but I do not know anything but a little physics. How does the IR only AIM-9X avoid going after flares and small decoy rockets?
---------
*Just getting the subersonic missle not to blind itself by the heat of the shock wave and associated accumulation of heat on the IR window is quite a trick (with more than Secret clearance required to go into details). The oil oxidizing in the hot exhaust cloud is much larger and stronger blinding agent. The distant target must be brighter than the local shock wave for detectable signal to noise ratio - This alone limits the acquisiton range.

thanks for the vid Billy. Doesn't look too agile, never liked the raptors. Thats all I have to say. Bring the F-16s/18's, now we're talking.

What do you mean that the Raptor doesn't look to agile?

Do you realize just how small of a area that flight demo was preformed in, it was a areal ballet, he wasn't performing combat maneuvers, he was demonstrating the knife edge control that is possible in the system, he was sky dancing, and in a spacial area that a T-6 Texan would have trouble preforming in, I saw such a demonstration live at the Oshkosh Air Show this summer and had a chance to talk with the pilot.


Awesome!

I am not promising any degree of coherence in my thoughts, which I am sharing with you henceforth.

So the Su-30MKI whatever-whatever can turn up it's own ass. If the missile was good enough to make a head on intercept it'll certainly be good enough to make an intercept on a near-stationary target. You're not going to shake it; it's generally accepted your only hope is to put it on your 3-9 line and MAKE SPEED (or put it on your 6, drop your shit and run if you've got enough distance).

If you're good enough at beaming this will also put you in the doppler notch window, thus breaking the lock and making it extremely difficult for the missile to intercept. And of course I think all this doppler related goodness only matters if you're between radar guidance and the ground.

Doesn't a 40g missile beat a 9g aircraft every time? Also, I should think that a radar that can spot tanks ON the ground could spot an aircraft NEAR the ground

... If the missile was good enough to make a head on intercept it'll certainly be good enough to make an intercept on a near-stationary target. You're not going to shake it; it's generally accepted your only hope is to put it on your 3-9 line and MAKE SPEED (or put it on your 6, drop your shit and run if you've got enough distance).

If you're good enough at beaming this will also put you in the doppler notch window, thus breaking the lock and making it extremely difficult for the missile to intercept. And of course I think all this doppler related goodness only matters if you're between radar guidance and the ground.

Doesn't a 40g missile beat a 9g aircraft every time? Also, I should think that a radar that can spot tanks ON the ground could spot an aircraft NEAR the groundYou are a little confused about the "Doppler notch window." It exist ONLY for essentially stationary objects. (It is built into the processing system so that the Earth, clouds, weather balloons, birds etc. do not get processes as targets. - Thus if the SU-30 can achieve very low speed wrt the missle, for example, by suddenly tail first falling where its velocity is orthogonal the velocity of the missle that was chasing it, then the SU-30 will be treated like all other essentially stationary objects - I.e. missile's radar processing system will NOT consider it to be a target and not even track it. From the missle POV, the SU-30 just dissapeared as if some magic 100% effective anti-radar reflection cloud fell over it.)

If the missle uses only Radar then it is safe, even if it makes no hot opaque cloud. If it has IR terminal guidance, then it could fire forward a small rocket, just before excicuting the "flat broadside" stoping maneuver to continue providing both a hot IR signature and a radar contact for the attacking missle to chase, catch and destroy both that small rocket and itself while the SU-30 hides in the hot opaque cloud and is not a radar target becuase of the Dopper notch drop out of the SU-30.

Your last sentence may be a little exagerated, but is basically correct - no jet can out run the attacking missle, and that includes the F22. There are only main ways to survive the modern fighter jet engagement:

(1) Detect and kill your enemy before he can fire his missle at you. This hard to do as even with 40% lower radar cross-section the detection range is only 10% to your advantage in detection range as the radar signal you detect goes as the inverse fourth power of the separation.

(2) Decoy or in some way jam the terminal engagement of the missle your enemy fired at you. The "flat broadside stopping manueuver" is by far the best "jamming" as it is passive. - If you try to actively jam by radiating energy (microwaves and / or laser) the missle may say: "Thanks for the guidance beam" just before killing you. - That is the way the US's HARM takes out ground radars.

PS I doubt that figher jet's radar can spot "tanks on the ground." (They would be in the "Doppler notch.") About the only way this wold be possible, I think, would exploit what is known as "synthetic aperature" radar to effectively image the tank, but that would require the tank not to be moving and the jet to fly in a straight line nearly over it. It is hard to identify things on the ground even when the pilot can see them. Recall recently a US jet in Iraq (or was it Iran?) killed some Brits in a truck.

An object moving exactly perpendicular to a (Doppler) radar, at any realistic speed, will not be processed.

Although A2A missile no-escape zones are larger than ever, only a handful can run down a fleeing mach 2 jet from more than 10 miles.

And finally, there is one weapon the F-22 has that can't be spoofed, jammed, or dodged. Circling at 50 knots is a great way to get hit by it.

An object moving exactly perpendicular to a (Doppler) radar, at any realistic speed, will not be processed. ...Not "exactly" stationary but a "window" because clouds, birds, weather balloon are not "exactly" stationary. I do not know how fast wrt the ground an object can be and still fall in the NOT processed Doppler window. Even helicopters can not as their rotor tips are too fast, but as no fighter jet except the SU-30 can fly slower than 100 knots I would guess one going 50 knots would be inside the Dopper "NO process" window. Certainly an SU-30 in a controlled TAIL FIRST FALL, WOULD BE INSIDE THE NOT PROCESSED WINDOW

I think some birds can fly at 50 knots and certainly cloud and storm fronts (also good reflectors of radar as larger than seen in commercial airplane radar's "clear air turbulance" detectors.) occasionaly exceed 50 knots. Note that SU-30 would not be going even 50 knots if in the controlled tail first fall after the suddent "flat broadside stopping maneuver." (Well defined in earlier post footnote and shown in the OP video.) I am not sure how the pilot does this, but the canards must be critical to this maneuver and the F22 has none. Does the F22 also have vectored thrust?

I didn't say stationary, I said perpendicular. You could be flying at mach 2 as long as you're perpendicular to the (Doppler) radar, because the radar is approaching you at the same rate as the ground.

Also the weapon I referred to that cannot be spoofed, jammed, or dodged, is the Cannon.

50 knots is arbitrary, and the F-22 also has thrust vectoring. I am not sure if the canards on the Su-30 are stabilators or just stabilizers.

I didn't say stationary, I said perpendicular. You could be flying at mach 2 as long as you're perpendicular to the (Doppler) radar, because the radar is approaching you at the same rate as the ground.
Also the weapon I referred to that cannot be spoofed, jammed, or dodged, is the Cannon.
50 knots is arbitrary, and the F-22 also has thrust vectoring. I am not sure if the canards on the Su-30 are stabilators or just stabilizers.I think we basically agree, but are not communicating well, because I am assuming that the modern "dog fight" is very different than the one of WWII movies. I.e. the pilots never see each other's air plane - it is just a blip/ track on the radars. I.e. Cannons are useless.

They fire missels at each other while still a few miles apart and the "dog fight" is between the missle and its target.

Typically one of the fighters, probably the F22, will detect and fire it missle before the other does; however, long before that missle begins the final intercept maneuvers the other plane has fired its missle also. (This is becase the inverse fourth power law governing the strength of the radar return. E.g. If one plane has 40% lower Radar cross-section than the other, it has only a 10% advantage in detection range.) Thus, it is quite possible that neither plane survies.

The SU-30 would certainly detect and be tracking the missle attacking it loong before their "dog fight" begins. I think it would wait until the missle was close and then execute the "flat broadside stop" and then begin to fall tail first (with some thrust to reduce the acceleration of gravity) and be ejecting oil into its exhaust to make a somewhat vertical hot opaque cloud surounding it to blind the missle's IR guidance.

I am only a physicist and certainly not well versed in the details of modern missle/airplane dog fights, but the Russians must basically agree with me - Why else would they have developed the SU-30's ability to stop and fall tail first in controlled flight? I.e. they too must think this "duck" is very useful aid to making the missle fail.

If I were in the SU-30 I would fire a short-range moderate-speed (sub sonic, if the SU-30 was) rocket directly away from the closing missle (A nice hot tailpipe IR source as well as a radar return for the attacking missle to follow.) just before I began the "flat broadside stop and fall" maneuvor. This would give the atacking missle a continuation of the target track it was attacking and be an easy target for it to kill (by exploding its warhead, and thus removing any threat that after it "understands" that it missed me, it would turn and try for a second attack).

manned fighters will become purely symbolic as suddenly as heavily-armored knights on horseback did, when it was discovered how to unhorse them and stab them in the armpits.
Nanger. Knights became obsolete after the battles of Crecy and Agincourt (English longbows), and then after the invention of gunpowder. "Stabbing them under the armpits" had nothing to do with anything other than several Hollywood movies with glorify the rebel with no armour as much as they do the Japanese Samurai (who, incidentally, suffered precisely the same fate).

and you're all making precisely the same mistake you've always made - assuming that what the americans have in service now, or what they've advertised they will have in service, is all they have. Now that is a rather foolish assumption. The people who advertise what they have, either in service or in development, are the ones who are behind in the arms race. Like a Chinese demonstration of manpower.


Now carry on.

Nonono.

There can still be dogfights with even the cutting edge A/C including support from AWACS and all the gizmo-fuggin gadget wiz-pow gangbang crap they spend way too much on these days. More planes, more chance for a dogfight. There is a point where the opposing airforces close into eachother, yes with some med/long range hits on either end. Then the Awacs guys go "merge" and throw their hands up in the air and pray to Mars/Woden/Jesus, like and other spectator....the dogfight begins.

Yes there is a technology arms race in terms of better missles, better tracking, better ECM/chaff/heatcloaking. To assume the Russians are superior to the Americans in this regard is foolish I would think. The Russians have always been the best at low cost/maximum output solutions. I'm sure the SU-30 has a lot more going for it than vectored flight tricks.

It's the same old story, you can only trade speed for manuverability. Loss of speed in a dogfight usually means you are a dead duck. So if you want to use vectored turn 'n burning you are going to get aced by a fast moving smash n' graber whom has all the time in the world to lock on to your slow ass. If you are "hanging on your tail" you are not moving at all, and even a dumbfire cannon shot becomes easy.

Vectored flight is great at air shows and Duels. Duels are very rare since 1917. It's a nice to have sure. It is not the end all be all. Nothing compares to excellent training, motivated warriors(not trainee airline peelots), and a cadre of elite pilots whom get to fly the very best planes you guys are talking about here.

I disagree with making say the Raptor(a 100+ million A/C) a mainline fighter. The f16/f15s/f18s are still great for U.S. Cheaper and can be mass produced at more places. In a real war you must be able to replace your losses and you will have losses no matter how fancy your equipment is.

...There can still be dogfights with even the cutting edge A/C including support from AWACS and all the gizmo-fuggin gadget wiz-pow gangbang crap they spend way too much on these days. More planes, more chance for a dogfight. There is a point where the opposing airforces close into eachother, yes with some med/long range hits on either end. Then the Awacs guys go "merge" and throw their hands up in the air and pray to Mars/Woden/Jesus, like and other spectator....the dogfight begins. ...NoNoNo. The enemy will fire his Mach 5 missle(s) at you from miles away. The problem of AWAC's limited resolution merging two modern fighter tracks will not happen. (At least one, if not both, will have been destroyed before they are that close.)

NoNoNo. The enemy will fire his Mach 5 missle at you from miles away. The problem of AWAC's limited resolution megring two modern fighter tracks will not happen. (At least one, if not both will have been destroyed before they are that close.)

Billy, no offense, I respect you a lot, but that attitude got a lot of pilots shot down in Nam.

It will never be like that, all the time. Yes sometimes, perhaps even all 4Vs4 engagements and lower nowdays, but not all the time.

Billy, no offense, I respect you a lot, but that attitude got a lot of pilots shot down in Nam.
It will never be like that, all the time. Yes sometimes, perhaps even all 4Vs4 engagements and lower nowdays, but not all the time.Well we will just disagree. At least the professionals designing and buying these expensive new fighters hold my positon. I.e. if you want to live, you had better kill the enemy fighter before you can even see him. That is why all sides are buying these expensive wonders.

Well we will just disagree. At least the professionals designing and buying these expensive new fighters hold my positon. I.e. if you want to live, you had better kill the enemy fighter before you can even see him. That is why all sides are buying these expensive wonders.

Absolutely. No one wants to be Israel in 73'(having to replace an entire airforce because of poor defense vs SAMs).

Dogfighting however cannot be ignored and it doesn't look like it has been, there are still cannons on these new planes.

Even if you are correct, then the U.S is correct in making guided planes. Why risk a peelot if everything is done from 30 miles away? It can all be done from the ground or safety of a carrier or well protected AWACS like A/C.

Then if the SU-30 is such hot shit, you just (manually)ram it with a mach 5 perdator-like drone.

... but that attitude got a lot of pilots shot down in Nam. ...I think most loses were to SAMs in "Nam" - why the US developed the HARM.

BTW, I, a completely independent outsider at APL/JHU with reputation for clear and inovative thought, was called upon by Texas Instrument to review the HARM's target logic and did find an error in it. I can not go into details but it had to do with how the HARM would respond to the obvious counter measure of blinking two identical SAM fire control radars on and off, out of phase with each other - I.e. trying to make the HARM hit neither (the "centroiding problem").

Nam fighter to fighter engagements, when they did occur, is history, never to be repeated.

Wasn't talking about that. Was talking about the "technical"(Egg-head) decision to not mount a cannon on the F4. Perhaps not as many pilots were not shot down because of this, as there were because of "HARM", but one is an honest to god mistake and the other was a really stupid decision.

Wasn't talking about that. Was talking about the "technical"(Egg-head) decision to not mount a cannon on the F4. Perhaps not as many pilots were not shot down because of this, as there were because of "HARM", but one is an honest to god mistake and the other was a really stupid decision.HARM is for "High Anti-Radiation Missle." It is on our side and did not shoot down any planes. It uses the radiation from the SAM's fire control radars (essential to guide the SAMs) to take out these fire control radars. HARM can be fired from considerable distance away. Beyond he SAM range or at least so far the the jet launching the HARM can escape the SAM if the ground radar did survive. - The HARM (not rarely, perhaps often) litterally dives supersonically thru the radiating dish*, so the SAM's control radar rarely survive a "neutralization attack" by a HARM! They are expensive, but well worth it if they save the US plane from a SAM.

I agree all fighters should have a cannon, but for attacking tank trucks, enemy troops, etc when you have established complete control of the air.
------------------------
*I.e. might not even need a warhead, but trust me it has a good one as we want to kill the crew operating the radar. - the dish is relatively easy to replace.

Nam fighter to fighter engagements, when they did occur, is history, never to be repeated.

You do know, in fighter pilot circles at least, they would really tear you a new one on that comment, right?

You do know, in fighter pilot circles at least, they would really tear you a new one on that comment, right?I'll slightly mis quote Einstein on War: "The only thing that has not changed is the way men think."

Admitedly he was referring to the post atomic bomb era, but it certainly applies to most "Nam era dog fighting aces."

Even the generals often think they will be fight the last war, until they learn better by experience in the current one. (part of the reason why we have had several different generals in Iraq. It seems we now have one who understands it is an entirely new type of war. I.e. just "killing enemy" only makes him stronger as it gains recruits, especially in a tribal society like Iraq. Iraq is not a nation, never has been one.)

I'll slightly mis quote Einstein on War: "The only thing that has not changed is the way men think."

Admitedly he was referring to the post atomic bomb era, but it certainly applies to most "Nam era dog fighting aces."

Even the generals often think they will be fight the last war, until they learn better by experience in the current one. (part of the reason why we have had several different generals in Iraq. It seems we now have one who understands it is an entirely new type of war. I.e. just "killing enemy" only makes him stronger as it gains recruits, especially in a tribal society like Iraq. Iraq is not a nation, never has been one.)

Well now we are getting somewhere Billy. I mean really, when the hell are we going to see two modern atomic powered nations, have it out? As you point out we are only seeing asymetric warfare nowadays.

Basically it's ALL a huge waste of money. Just maintain enough nukes to obliterate the planet(I believe the U.S has enough to wipe us all out 3 times over), broadcast a policy of massive retaliation, maintain special forces/intelligence to kill off the little pissant whackos (and marines why not) and save trillions in R&D and military maintenance.

Seems to me it's all penis waving, bragging rights and little else. My plane is better than your plane blahblahblah.

...I mean really, when the hell are we going to see two modern atomic powered nations, have it out?...I hope and expect "never," but that does not mean neither US nor Russia will ever lose a fighter to fighter engagement with each firing missles at the other's plane.*

If it happens, it will probably be an "accident" and not esclate to full nuclear exchange. I would expect it to be some suituation where US or Russia is probing the others defenses - getting data on radar frequences, locations, reactions, etc.** Perhaps over US ships (sort of what the Iranians just did with their fast boats) or US planes from Turkish base flying over Georgia to show support for the anti-Rusian regieme and entering air space the Russains dispute with the Georgians, etc. Russia did just month or so ago send it long range bomber to the edge of the US - prehaps next time some fighters will be with them (Russia does have an aircraft carrier but I think it has never been in the Atlantic, but Russia, under Putin, is sending ships into the Med once again.)

I think it would be very foolish to have only the capacity for nuclear war, as you seem to be suggesting.
---------------------
*If it happens, I hope both pilots die. (A quite likely outcome, if both get their long range missles off.) - That way the chance of nuclear war is less as both can claim "victory" (with loses) and call it "even."
**That is how the US lost a recon plane to China a couple of years ago. The Chinese not only stripped out the sensitive electronic gear and kept one of the engines for study, but made the US pay for shipping the hulk back to Japan. (They had our crew - not much we could do.) It got into Chinese air space, and there were no US fighter close enough to engage the Chinese fighters forcing the US plane to land in China. If there had been, I think there would have been an engagement. Same thing could happen with Russia and there might be fighters from both sides available.

Nam fighter to fighter engagements, when they did occur, is history, never to be repeated.

June 1982: Syria deploys SA-6 surface to air missile batteries in Lebanon's Bekka Valley, in response to the Israeli incursion into south Lebanon, to destroy PLO forces based there. The IAF quickly determines that the SA-6s must be neutralized. Over a two-day period (9-10 June), the IAF destroys all 19 missile batteries in the Bekka Valley. When the Syrian Air Force (SAF) rises to challenge the IAF, they pay dearly for that decision. In air-to-air combat, the final score was IAF: 82 SAF: 0.

On January 4, 1989, two US F-14 Tomcats downed two Libyan MiG-23 Flogger

The USAF deployed F-15C, D, and E models to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm where they accounted for 36 of the 39 Air Force air-to-air victories

An F-15E achieved an aerial kill of another Iraqi Mi-8 helicopter using a laser-guided bomb during the air war.

USAF F-15Cs shot down four Yugoslav MiG-29s using AIM-120 missiles during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force.

To Buffalo Roam:
I did not clealy specify that I was speaking only of F22 vs SU-30 engagements as I thought that was clear from the fact that many prior posts only discussed the F22 vs SU-30 conflict.

But one should always try to be accurate, even if your words are quoted out of original context, so I thank you for forcefully reminding me of this.

Certainly there still will be old fashioned dog fights, just not between US and Russia' first line, most advanced fighters (SU-30 & F22). Those two will kill their target (or be killed) before either pilot ever see the other plane. I suspect that quite commonly an F22 /SU-30 engagment will end with both planes destroyed by the other's long range missle(s).

If you are "hanging on your tail" you are not moving at all, and even a dumbfire cannon shot becomes easy.

My sentiments exactly. Even from a PURELY kinematic standpoint, the F-22 has greater thrust, lower weight, and bigger wings than the SU-30MKI. Being able to reduce your speed to zero in a fancy display isn't as helpful as a SUSTAINED 9-10g turn (don't get me started on how, many pilots can withstand greater than 9gs.)

You can't do a cobra, flat broadside manuever, or any of those spectacular shake-n-bake moves at 500 knots, which is where you damn well better be in any fight.

Suppose you DO shake the NUTS off of the first missile with your flat broadside maneuver, your energy state is now completely fudged for subsequent incoming missiles. I'm not sure how, but I don't think the doppler window thing works once the F-22 has already locked onto the target. It is really that spiffy.

To jadervason:

I think you are too concerned with speed, but we I think agree that no jet can out run a missle unless it has a good head start separation.

What can help it survive is acceleration. I.e. changing the velocity so rapidly that the projected point of intercept changes by miles in less than a tenth of a second. Or what I would and have called "ducking."

The missle will run down the jet with only smoove and slowly turning velocity, like the F22, but may well lose radar track even on a slow plane that can very rapidly stop or revese directions, etc. The missle is constantly up dating (and that that is not a continuous process) where the intercept will be. Might have been continuous projection of the intercept if analogue computers were still used, but the calculation is a sequence of digital steps.) Surely you do not think the missle flys to where the target is "seen" do you? (The radar can know that, but only the range accurately, not very well defined the bearing.)

If IR is used by the missle, then the hot opaque cloud probably blinds its IR guidance or at least hides the SU-30 inside it.

Again: Speed with little ability to "duck" * is not very helpful unless the gap between the missle at launch and the intercept point exceeds the missle range limits.
---------------
*DUCK I.e. to make large accelerations and than includes rapid change of direction at constant speed, quick stopping, etc. The maneuvers that are shown in the OP video will throw the projected intercept point many miles to almost randomly selected points in tens of milla seconds. How will the missle chose which point to head towards?

I.e. I think the intercept solution will be too dynamic for the F22's missle to make any intercept with radar guidance. The hot opaque cloud voids an IR guided intercept, especially if there is a hot small rocket launched along the original trajectory just before "ducking" into your hot opaque cloud.

At this point we will not agree - I am basing my arguements on physics and you on the views you say are those of experienced pilots. - So I will stop. I am sure you understand my POV, and I think opinions of how it was in Nam, etc. no longer apply for the SU-30/F22 engagement with long range missles. I will grant the F22 could win if the SU-30 let it get close. (I.e within cannon range.)

Buffalo is correct however in that the old fashioned dog fight between lessor planes is not gone forever.

There is nothing slow about the F-22, including the way it turns. It can do cobras and GAIN altitude.

I disagree with your standpoint that a missile could be dodged in this manner; if you're in a missile's no escape zone, you can pull 9 g's in any direction and still be hit. This includes sudden deceleration, I believe. And pulling a 9G turn at mach .99 would probably be a lot more effective than a 9G maneuver at sub 200 knots.

If memory serves, many of these missles do something in the order of 20 to 30 gees, ducking a missle capable of turning and accelerating this hard I'd think would be an impressive feat. By the time one recovers from the maneuver, there is likely another missle already very close by.

I'm not expert on this or anything, correct me if i'm wrong!

Billy T


In a modern dog fight speed is life, you loose your energy you lose your life, and actually its been that was since WWII, the one advantage the U.S. aircraft had in WWII in the Pacific was that they were faster then the Zero, by 40 miles a hour or more, now if you let your speed bleed below 200 miles a hour to try and dog fight a Zero, he will eat your lunch, to kill a Zero you maintain your energy hit him on the go by extend out if you don't kill him, come back around and hit him again, that is what I have read from the instructors manuals and class curriculum of the fighter training schools, and from the time I spent in flight simulators in the Military, the Air Force was kind enough to let me do some time in their simulators, that is exactly how it works.

It works the same way in a helicopter, speed is life in a threat environment, even in a helicopter which I can speak of from direct experience, fast is better, use your best attack/approach profile, hit and get out, once you slow down you are vulnerable, and remain so until you regain speed and altitude.

I hope and expect "never," but that does not mean neither US nor Russia will ever lose a fighter to fighter engagement with each firing missles at the other's plane.*

If it happens, it will probably be an "accident" and not esclate to full nuclear exchange. I would expect it to be some suituation where US or Russia is probing the others defenses - getting data on radar frequences, locations, reactions, etc.** Perhaps over US ships (sort of what the Iranians just did with their fast boats) or US planes from Turkish base flying over Georgia to show support for the anti-Rusian regieme and entering air space the Russains dispute with the Georgians, etc. Russia did just month or so ago send it long range bomber to the edge of the US - prehaps next time some fighters will be with them (Russia does have an aircraft carrier but I think it has never been in the Atlantic, but Russia, under Putin, is sending ships into the Med once again.)

I think it would be very foolish to have only the capacity for nuclear war, as you seem to be suggesting.
---------------------
*If it happens, I hope both pilots die. (A quite likely outcome, if both get their long range missles off.) - That way the chance of nuclear war is less as both can claim "victory" (with loses) and call it "even."
**That is how the US lost a recon plane to China a couple of years ago. The Chinese not only stripped out the sensitive electronic gear and kept one of the engines for study, but made the US pay for shipping the hulk back to Japan. (They had our crew - not much we could do.) It got into Chinese air space, and there were no US fighter close enough to engage the Chinese fighters forcing the US plane to land in China. If there had been, I think there would have been an engagement. Same thing could happen with Russia and there might be fighters from both sides available.

So what...then you have another obscure tactical one off meaningless engagement only guys like Buffalo Roam are going to be able to remember.

...the one advantage the U.S. aircraft had in WWII in the Pacific was that they were faster then the Zero, by 40 miles a hour or more, ...You know a lot more of this sort of stuff than I do, but my memory tells me just the opposite. I.e. that the one advantage that the zero had was it higher speed. Are you sure of your statement? If true, is it only true under special conditions?

when falling.

You know a lot more of this sort of stuff than I do, but my memory tells me just the opposite. I.e. that the one advantage that the zero had was it higher speed. Are you sure of your statement? If true, is it only true under special conditions?

Sorry to butt in, but I can tell you this.

At the start of the Pacific war, 1941-42 the Zero was often matched up Vs the F4F Wildcat, which it had every advantage over, except perhaps ability to dive and umm it was made of wood mostly - a paper tiger - wimpy. Why did the 'mericans out kill the zero even in this period?

Ask Jimmy Thatch(ops I think he is gone :( ) he developed the Thatch weave, among other things. A dogfighting tactic of teamwork between the lead and his wingman which negated every advantage the zero had and even capitalized on the Japanese experience pilot perchance to try to engage solo and not as a team. Also this basically made it, given equal marksmanship, a plane toughness vs plan toughness match. The one area the F4F had over the Zero.

Kinda like what i've been trying to tell you Billy. Every "egg-head" mechanical/technical advantage has been often countered by the good ol' stick and rudder seat of the pants, Stud, in the pilot's seat. From Fokker's synchronization gear(causing the Fokker scourge) to the Zero's uber plane status in 1942(and by 1943 it was junk, the F6F had everything over the Zero), to the Nam pilots finding a workaround to bum F4 missles(they were dumbfiring) and no cannon.

The zero is a good analogy of what we might be talking about with the su30 - as far as this vectored ability horseshit. A paper tiger.

Sorry to butt in, but I can tell you this.

At the start of the Pacific war, 1941-42 the Zero was often matched up Vs the F4F Wildcat, which it had every advantage over, ...Thanks, I guess that was the period I was thinking of. I also note that in early WWII the Japanese torpedos were very functional and US's were basically were not at all functional, again from memory. IMHO, US won the pacific war because of "Rosy, the riviter" etc. -I.e. US's installed productive base was just too great for Japan to stop. I seem to recal US was able to turn out landing craft for the invasion in Europe by the dozens each day. etc.

Thanks, I guess that was the period I was thinking of. I also note that in early WWII the Japanese torpedos were very functional and US's were basically were not at all functional, again from memory. IMHO, US won the pacific war because of "Rosy, the riviter" etc. -I.e. US's installed productive base was just too great for Japan to stop. I seem to recal US was able to turn out landing craft for the invasion in Europe by the dozens each day. etc.


There I will agree with you the Japs had excellent torpedoes, they use LOX as a fuel for them, a dangerous practice.

The problem wasn't with our torpedos it was with the detonator, but then the Germans gave us a present, a run up torpedo on a Georgia Beach, and their Detonator system fully intact.

We used their detonators and advanced our torpedoes technology with their technology, and developed wire guided torps.

You know a lot more of this sort of stuff than I do, but my memory tells me just the opposite. I.e. that the one advantage that the zero had was it higher speed. Are you sure of your statement? If true, is it only true under special conditions?

Yes the Zero topped out at 320 mph, the P-40 at 360 mph, and the F-4-F at 320, in level flight, but the American aircraft had a absolute break away maneuver the the Japs couldn't touch, in a dive the VNE of a Zero was 410 mph, and the the force necessary to control the ailerons stacked up as the speed went above 240 mph, and the torque made it difficult to do a highs speed break to the right. The U.S. aircraft had VNE around 500 mph, and easily went in to high speed dives, and then could break up and to the right and Mr. Zero couldn't make the cut.

It was the pilots knowing their aircraft, its strengths and it weakness, and using their aircraft to its best advantage.


Specifications (F4F-4)

Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat with six kill markings (1942).
F4F-4 receives maintenance of its six M2 Browning machine guns.Data from[citation needed]

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 28 ft 9 in (8.8 m)
Wingspan: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
Height: 9 ft 2.5 in (2.8 m)
Wing area: 260 ft² (24.2 m²)
Empty weight: 5,760 lb (2,610 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 7,950 lb (3,610 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 double-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (900 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 320 mph (290 knots, 515 km/h)
Range: 770 mi (670 nm, 1,240 km)
Service ceiling 39,500 ft (12,000 m)
Rate of climb: 1,950 ft/min (9.9 m/s)
Armament
Guns: 6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 240 rounds/gun
Bombs: 2× 100 lb (45 kg) bombs

[edit] Specifications (A6M2 Type 0 Model 21)
Data from The Great Book of Fighters[9]

General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 9.06 m (29 ft 9 in)
Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)
Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)
Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)
Empty weight: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)
Loaded weight: 2,410 kg (5,313 lb)
Max takeoff weight: kg (lb)
Powerplant: 1× Nakajima Sakae 12 radial engine , 709 kW (950 hp)
* Aspect ratio: 6.4
Performance
Never exceed speed: 660 km/h (356 knots, 410 mph)
Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 knots, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)
Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nm, 1,929 mi)
Service ceiling 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)
Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m² (22.0 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb)
Armament
Guns:

2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 machine guns in the engine cowling
2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Type 99 cannons in the wings

Divergence of trajectories between 7.7mm and 20mm ammunitionBombs:

2× 66 lb (30 kg) and
1× 132 lb (60 kg) bombs or
2× fixed 250 kg (550 lb) bombs for kamikaze attacks



Specifications (P-40E)

P-40E in flight.General characteristics
Crew: 1
Length: 31 ft 8 in (9.66 m)
Wingspan: 37 ft 4 in (11.38 m)
Height: 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m)
Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
Empty weight: 6,350 lb (2,880 kg)
Loaded weight: 8,280 lb (3,760 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 8,810 lb (4,000 kg)
Powerplant: 1× Allison V-1710-39 liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,150 hp (860 kW)
Performance
Maximum speed: 360 mph (310 knots, 580 km/h)
Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 435 km/h)
Range: 650 mi (560 nm, 1,100 km)
Service ceiling 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
Rate of climb: 2,100 ft/min (11 m/s)
Wing loading: 35.1 lb/ft² (171.5 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.14 hp/lb (230 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 6× .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 150~200 rounds per gun
Bombs: 250 lb (113 kg) to 1,000 Ib (453 kg), a total of 1,500 lb (680 kg) on three hardpoint