Ajay_in,
>>
Poor Dogfighter,Are u comparing it with F-22 or what??
>>
The chances of coming out of a WVR fight alive in an imaging/HOBS/HMDS world is about 50:50, at best.
Anyone who employs a 117 million dollar platform as a WVR 'dogfighter' deserves to be put up against a wall and _shot_, plain and simple.
Therefore, the only jet which is superlative at this kind of dice-toss warfare is one which has the following features:
1. Raw Performance + MAWS or VLO
To 'beat the arrow not the archer' or 'the eye, not the bow' of BVR warfare. If you can't transit the BVR phase unmolested, your dogfight abilities are _worthless_ because you will never get a chance to employ them. The twin MiG-29s which were shot down over Serbia were easily the match of the F-15s which took them on. But they never got beyond the roughly 8nm zone by which their HMS and Archer became truly effective.
2. Sacrificable.
Attrition and LER (Loss Exchange Ratio) is what ALL warfare comes down to. If I send 100 MiG-21 Lancers to blow by 8 F/A-22s _on their way to_ killing 20 F-16C.50 or F-35A I must defeat an average of 48 + 80 or 48 + 40 AIM-120 shots.
But you cannot forget the psychological factors. Patriotism to stand tall for your nation in a time of danger must be set against watching your flight and section leads get HAMMERED by 'bolt from the blue' sniper assassins which you cannot even see.
Because not every -human- pilot can be an Eric Hartman or a Steve Ritchie. And once you break the enemy up, they are mission killed even if remaining 20 or so (optimum) jets can continue to fly unmolested by further BVR fires and EVEN ASSUMING we don't ourselves either retreat or move towards WVR through advanced (offensive split=detached support on a 10-20nm separation) geometry setup.
All this because, once tactical discipline and formation cohesion is gone; you won't have TIME (or gas) to round up your people and try-try again.
>>
If it cannot beat Air-air Missile then is it a poor Dogfighter??
>>
Damn straight. It's always the bullet that counts and a huge, range+BVR optimized weapons system is not going to come into the fight in a fashion which gives it advantaged energy vs. the new generation of missiles.
An article from Janes a couple years back in fact mentions that most 'dogfights' are won at altitude with less than 3G on the airframe and NOONE flat-plating their planform because that simply attracts sharks while bleeding the airspeed necessary to clean-in-and-out maintain initiative.
If for no other reason than human-factors (straining against G) such is how the best fights are won because such is the ONLY way you can keep from being fanged out on one threat while another blasts you from behind because you didn't have /time/ to look down into the cockpit and see you SAD showing the datalinked 360-global threat picture from some offboard source.
God knows if there is an active radar IADS in 'shoot on sight' mode, flashing your bowtie in all directions trying to win a circle fight is apt to kill BOTH of you.
>>
and It has been no where mentioned that Su-30 can defeat Air-air Missiles.
I agree that TVC has been exaggerated but it surely gives some advantage in the dogfight.
Flankers have virtually no AOA limitations.
I found a Article about Thrust Vectoring Flight Control Safety.
http://www.airtoi.com/special/spec1.htm
>>
Utterly worthless.
1. Any (manned) jet which retains vertical tails as either an absolute aerodynamic (high speed) modifier or as redundant backup to a TVC failure on a fuel or hydraulically driven nozzle circuit clearly doesn't have the reliability confidence or performance margin to make the weight, complexity and cost of TVC useful.
2. TVC's best principle effects are in _trim_ to high supersonics work not advantaged nose point at low speed. This is principally because all aerodynamic effects are like those of a boat in that you turn one way and the very act of deflecting the (tails) 'into the wind' both decreases the control force and imparts as skidding-inertia effect which must subsequently be cancelled out. Such is made intrinsically harder to achieve when you have a bubble canopy acting as a 'forward rudder' keeling effect. Yet TVC, because it operates closer to the centerline and because it can make micrometric adjustments 'in the lee' of the aerodynamic effects can achieve faster, cleaner, changes in control moment (on/off) and arm (absolute authority from a smaller total force, none of it 'braking'). Perhaps most importantly, IF you have the confidence to do so, a tailless TVC platform has perhaps half the side area 'neo sign' flash effect to radars. Even the F/A-22 has been compared, by one senator, to the Hindenburg when seen at these aspects.
3. Nosehose=G. Acceleration=Window-Of-Vulnerability.
If I have to come below 200-220 knots to get effective highrate pointing /or my I will almost certainly GLC/ then the utility of 'superman' maneuvers is defined, not by the amount of degrees that the jet can bring it's nose up or across. But rather the TIME which I have to have to both 'get into the groove' of slower airspeeds and that which I need to reaccelerate from zero.
Good Fighter Pilots, like cops, never die alone. So your principle worry is always going to be having a fight geometry like this-
X..............You.............Y You can nail one but you can't beat both, even at conventional vs. PSTM turn rates.
And if you cannot get past the BVR phase without taking crippling preattrition, you cannot guarantee coming into the merge at even odds. Or even -knowing- (vs. a stealth threat) where that first-visual shot is going to be happening. 2 seconds after the AIM-120's steam through? 10? 20? Never?
>>
Interview of Designer General of Sukhoi Mikhail Simonov
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html
He says that Flankers can go vertical and approach a speed of Near Zero.
It this prcatical or Publicity for flankers.
>>
Whoopie.
First off, never use words like 'stupor' to define a _deep stall_ flight characteristic. Second, realize that the 'king of all limitered airframes', the F-16, has had an ability to rock the airframe out of deep stall for almost 2 decades. So the ability to cheat the limiters in specific flight modes isn't all that big a deal, mostly because it only applies to peacetime attrition.
Secondly, the notion of a pulse-doppler system being unable to track a jet moving at zero relative airspeed _above the horizon_ is ludicrous.
Doppler is not something specifically generated on the sensored airframe. It is a change in wavefront physics FROM THE TARGET. The only thing a modern AI (Airborne Intercept) set does is make sure that the phase coherency of the pulse trains is clean enough to exploit the data.
The 'pulse' element is still there and indeed is the _primary_ determinator of what is called HRGPRF or High Range Gated Pulse Repetition Frequency tracking at long range. Because, again, via clean (timing @ rotation) phase separations, you can stack multiple transmission periods within the overall duty cycle and trap the air target like a moth between the pages of a book. Know the 'page number' of the target location and you can instantly turn to the exact area where the trapped insect is. Similarly, you can do the same with the AIM-120 in that you are running a timed flyout and as the weapon hits A-Pole, the missile simply lights off and finds the target anyway.
(1 big shape, clear sky, low clutter threshold).
At which point tracking the jet is simply a function of going HPRF again and using the monopulse 'four fingers of death' to determine angular rates indepedently.
Now, your 'zero airspeed, nose high' TARGET is like unto a fish in a bowl with a handgrenade thrown in.
The shift to AESA and Micromechanical/Noise array technology will make this process even simpler because their will be next to no mechanical-scan limits on refresh (you simply micro-dither a pencil beam across the target) and things like Crosseye jammers will have a VERY hard time monkeying with the phase relationships of a waveform that is effectively random to the point of being pseudo-incoherent (very, very, long stepping thumbprints).
>>
Can u give me some official source for India proposing.
>>
http://www.indiadefence.com/COPE.htm
http://www.indiadefence.com/collab.htm
http://www.indiadefence.com/IAF2004.htm
>>
Yes,But early detection is always an advantage,It can alert Ground Control Center,It can tranfer Target Coordinates to four other Fighter Aircraft.
Small Correction. NO-11M can detect 150km targets.An F-16 is said to be detected at 150km.
AA-12 Adders range is 90-100km. AA-10 Alamo-C has range of 130km. One variant AA-10 Alamos-E has range of 170km but no evidence of Missile in production
>>
See Above, the F-16 with a 3m2 radar cross section is specifically said to be detectable at 120km. I have a feeling that the 'Gold Falcon', having dropped it's tanks and any A2G munitions, would be even less say 1.5m2 and 40-50nm.
The thing to keep in mind about the Alamo is that the 'R-27AE' model never made it. And as long as you are SARHing out a basic model operating on a simplistic radio-tether + autopilot, your scan box (coneal volume) and you total target servicing ratio is going to _tiny_.
Adder is itself crippled by the GDV ('boxkite') tailes which impart a HUGE aeropenalty in straightline cruise flight. My personal bet is that the combination of heavier missiletronics (front end) weight, a larger warhead to compensate for the increased miss distance and the inefficient aero controls more or less offset the 8" tube diameter in terms of total motor impulse advantage. This means that the AIM-120C5 and the Adder are 'neck and neck' for a 20-30nm range category missile. And the AIM-120C7 with the improved autopilot and full-up 'reporting datalink' will probably out range it. Especially since the F-15's own datalinks (albeit IDM rather than MIDS) have an E-3C behind them. And that is a 500nm aperture sir. Which means that when you come up, you will be seen, the Eagles will clean up, ramp up and hit their 'on speed' for VMax throttle settings. And they will be coming at you just as hard as an F/A-22.
NOW. It's 2008 and the 'spacer blank' in the AIM-120C7 is being replaced by a full length (7+5=12") motor extension from the ERAAM program. And a pure rocket missile has 80% of the kinematic performance of the FMRAAM (BVRAAM, whatever) and life get's twitchy-short.
Because the Su-30 is still running with that damn stupid 'combat mix' of weapons, of which 2-4 are WVR useless. 4 are Alamo Short Burns. And your final pair are 'conflicted' between longburn Alamo and Adder stations. ALL of which are high-penalty externa+pylon+fin carriage dragged. D-U-M-B.
As far as GCI goes. NO.
The reason you have fighter air is to have operational (LOS and LINK) independence from fixed GCI locations. As soon as you fight the defensive battle, you end up trading time vs. total attrition and in the U.S. (or British for that matter, though they would use Storm Shadow to offset a small inventory of sublaunch cruise) that means defeating Tactihawk with it's 'holding pen' prepenetration orbits and on-the-fly targeting. As well as the overhead preplanned mission fragging. LONG before the the jets cross the border.
The same can be said, in a way, for the U.S. system of using single-point vulnerability HVAs as our own BMC3/ISR assets. But the reality remains that until and unless you _attack our basing modes_ you will always be predictable based on our knowing when an attack is about to start but you only lofting when you see the actual inbounds (conventional) or explosions (Stealth+CM).
About the only thing that the Flanker can do as an effective aperture platform on it's own is provide a 'hardened AWACS' option for ADSAM cueage (able to rapidly loft and change/retrograde orbits) and while that could be something to think about, without a cheap, 'pursuit' (TurboSAM) OTH missile system to integrate into the ground forces, it doesn't mean much to fighter teams which are themselves FULLY VISIBLE to our radar. And thus cannot be used as a layered terminal defense inside a bastion outer S2A 'blind launch box' coverage system.
>>
I got an detailed article about fourth Generation AAM's.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4.html
It says that python4 is the best WVRAAM.
>>
I respect Dr. Kopps views. However; you should cut all missile kinematic performances in half for any but 30-40K shots. While remembering the R-73M2/K-74 has an autopilot cutoff on TVC to get that extended range (which effectively means you are draggin around 40lbs of ballast for no gain).
And thus both Archer and the Python _V_ (with Derby datalink for true LOAL and a new autopilot for extended range _efficiency_ optimized trajectories in the outer envelope area). are basically aerodynamic endgame weapons which retain terminal energy (after burnout) at the express penalty of DRAG off the 4-in-tandem controls.
The Russian ISRM weapon of the future is the K-30 because it is effectively (depending on whose artwork you believe) either an ASRAAM or IRIS-T clone with imaging (or as close as they can production-yield a seeker) capabilities. While the Israeli's only have the Python around because they took so long getting AMRAAM and the real measure of that weapon will be how many Derby's it replaces in their inventory.
My personal belief is that ramjet weapons are the wave of the future and that the 'inner zone' will be handled by systems like our own Dual Range Missile AIM-120 mod to include PIF-PAF style reaction controls on a more or less zero plenum-penalty backend. Such will be used for anti-missile kills as well as wildly 'lateralized' missile shots into mixed fights from say 8-10nm and 90-100+` of HOBS. They will exploit existing MRM datalink technology to 'get there' more efficiently and more selectively than an SRM and they will still be considered a COE or Contempt Of Engagement device to specifically AVOID (by motor impulse) commiting to a 'dogfight'.
Other than a MAWS-cued 'optical defense' against inbound MRM/LRM; the only _offensive_ role the SRM/ISRM will have in future is likely to be as a weapon onboard an A2A UCAV that you can afford to trade 3 and 4 to 1 against other threats. In this case, if you make something like a stealthy MiG-21 (40X20ft and 20,000lbs) you may be able to get close enough to an inbound strike package to wolf-pack them regardless of initial atttrition. While sending them to 'beat the bushes' (for SAM snakes) over an enemy IADS is also a cheap way to get your foot in the door so as to compress any GAI type launches or gain lookin on snapup ambush lanes from behind masking terrain.
>>
I am not able to understand this,Can u explain in more Simpler way.
>>
The Su-27 and presumeably the Su-30 (with all the extra weight, higher spine and canard-clutter up front), _HAS TO_ burner sprint to get to useful kinematic dominance (say survivability on A-Pole) in any fight. And yet it's weapons integration is so poor it cannot 'argumentatively' exploit it's AESA and Speed advantage to get dominant gambit+cleanup shot counts on the enemy before itself coming into transmerge (radar) distances at which that speed is now a crippling indemnity.
Going fast on burner eats radius in the offensive mission set and without VLO doesn't provide a real guarantee of security because, again, faster is -easier- (more predictable vector equating to longer shot poles) on an impalement basis to area and/or ARH SAM defenses.
Thus the Flanker is crippled by it's weapons mix and it's gas tank from being an effective WVR platform. Because if it comes into the fight heavy on gas it won't be as agile but it will still be as large as ever. And if it 'makes the mistake' of entering a visual fight with BVR weapons still aboard (because it literally cannot employ all of them before the range compresses) then the amount of fuel it will need to expend lugging those damn 500-800lb big-missiles around the corner fight will also effect it's as well as combat persistence factors because the very engines you need to go fast also impose a baseline SFC minimum effective RTB fuel.
This is what most people STILL fail to understand about the F/A-22. It may only have 18,348lbs of fuel onboard. A fraction that comes out to about .28 and is actually less than an F-15C with 3 tanks. But it's total systems synergy (say packaging of select capabilities) is such that it doesn't have to 'commit' to any one fight. And when it does, it will likely score debilitating attrition BEFORE it compresses down to visual distances. So that less fuel is used more effectively. Over a broader, deeper, more initiative stealing radius of action.
The Brits have a similar theory in that their EJ-200's 'smaller bore core' get relatively better SFC in the high subsonics region while their big wings can at last let them transit-high efficiently. Which leaves only the use of conformal carriage super-LRAAM to make up the difference from a 'walking march' degree of better controlled standoff and superior residual (ALARM/ARMIGER) suppression options.
Now beating the F/A-22 or the Typhoon is not that big a deal.
Looking at total A2A losses, the VPAF never really 'beat' the U.S. F-4, all the PRBS to the contrary. But if you are going to fight the Western /System/ you have to do so at the _at the targeting and munitions level_ (stiffarm the ISR and EA, force mission kills via stores dump). And that is not a function of true fighter-on-fighter capability comparison. But rather simply the ability to get up from an unexpected (road base defeats LDSD and AEW) place. Get fast without regard to 'radius effects' (effectively done for you if you are launching from X, firing at Y and recovering to Z over your own ADGE rather than trying for X-Y-X return). And sling weapons which at least /partly/ offset the ARH-BVR danger of trying to defeat any close-escort shotgunners.
KP
F22 may come close but remember their stealth characteristic limits its maneuverability. Cobra is specialized for the sukhoi 27 family. BTW I heard cobra manuever was found by luck during flight testing, correct me if i am wrong.