AMRAAM and R-77 performance review

[obrescia]

yes and no

True, Russian pilots in general are said not to get enough flight hrs. Could be looking at the Mig-31M. They’d bring in good pilots/plans/SAMs/operators, (and keep Iranian personnel at a distance the more special the equipment) Even mercenaries operating combat aircraft is not out of the question.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Even mercenaries operating combat aircraft is not out of the question.

so mercenaries with even less flying hours would be useful in a frontline combat aircraft that is almost useless against a modern countermeasure capability.

..........

 

[Feanor]

True, Russian pilots in general are said not to get enough flight hrs. Could be looking at the Mig-31M. They’d bring in good pilots/plans/SAMs/operators, (and keep Iranian personnel at a distance the more special the equipment) Even mercenaries operating combat aircraft is not out of the question.

MiG-31M? What all ....... 2 of them?

EDIT: Again your scenario has no merit. Russia doesn't fly anything of what you could call an advanced Flanker, and the MiG-31 has no relevance to the initial discussion. Hence when I ask for a real world situation where your "nightmare scenario" is possible you come up with this garbage.

 

[DarthAmerica]

MiG-31M? What all ....... 2 of them?

EDIT: Again your scenario has no merit. Russia doesn't fly anything of what you could call an advanced Flanker, and the MiG-31 has no relevance to the initial discussion. Hence when I ask for a real world situation where your "nightmare scenario" is possible you come up with this garbage.

Somebody needs to take a look at a map. Russia isn't going to fight on Iran's behalf over nuclear weapons. Also, these "Advanced Flankers" that keep coming into these discussions don't even exist! Posters need to look beyond the YouTube videos from air shows and arms bazaars to real TO&E.

Most Flankers can't even fire an R-77. R-77T does not exist and more modern Flankers are about equivalent to 1990's era avionic technology. Su-27 is an impressive airframe but it's not some insurmountable weapon by any means.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

I wouldn't say it's 90's avionics. The Su-35BM is actually a testbed for PAK-FA avionics. However the simple point is that the US is not ever going to go up against significant numbers of them within a serious opposing system.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I wouldn't say it's 90's avionics. The Su-35BM is actually a testbed for PAK-FA avionics. However the simple point is that the US is not ever going to go up against significant numbers of them within a serious opposing system.

Being a testbed for PAK-FA has nothing to do with it. The Su-35BM is still 1990's technology AT BEST. It's a significant improvement over the older Su-27s and brings similar capabilities to western jets of 1990's. Also whether or not the USA goes to war with significant numbers of them is irrelevant. The DoD is organized at the system level to deal with large numbers of opponents and this type isn't likely to be operational until 2010. If the Russians or Chinese mass produce this variant then DoD will adjust accordingly.

As far as exports go. Take a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27#Operators

Notice something? Besides Russia, Ukraine and China, every U.S. Navy Carrier is carrying more fighters than there are Flankers in threat airforces. Also look here:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-46157.aspx

By 2011 the US Military will be receiving annually more F-35's than there are Su-27s of any model in most various threat airforces. By 2013 exported Su-27s will be outnumbered by F/A-18E/F and F-35s the exception being Russia and China since they have ~300+ or more but the F-35 deliveries to the US Military alone will surpass 500 within 2 years of that. Heck there are even more F-22's than there are Flankers in most threat nations. I haven't even tallied the F-15's and F-16s that will still be in service or allied jets. Thats A LOT of AMRAAM firing platforms. So qualitatively and quantitatively the Su-27 series is at a massive disadvantage and that will grow bigger everyday. Just based on the numbers it would be extremely unlikely for a Su-27 flying airforce to get air superiority against the United States. We have seen this before during WW II where US war industrial capacity dwarfed what Germany and Japan could produce.

Nations that need to be concerned about the Su-27 would be Pakistan and Taiwan IMHO.


-DA

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Flankers are 2 generations behind current gen US systems in terms of sensors, further behind in terms of HUI and battle management systems, even further behind in terms of support elements, and way way way behind in terms of information gathering and distribution systems (just like the rest of the world).

Airframe performance & kinematics is the only area were Flankers are comperable to US 4th gen platforms, they are simply outclassed by 5th gen. Any notion that any flanker derivative is going to competitive with an F-22A is simply laughable.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Flankers are 2 generations behind current gen US systems in terms of sensors, further behind in terms of HUI and battle management systems, even further behind in terms of support elements, and way way way behind in terms of information gathering and distribution systems (just like the rest of the world).

Airframe performance & kinematics is the only area were Flankers are comperable to US 4th gen platforms, they are simply outclassed by 5th gen. Any notion that any flanker derivative is going to competitive with an F-22A is simply laughable.

Equally laughable is the notion that the Flanker would even outnumber its enemies. Imagine the perspective of an enemy commander or fighter pilot! Is it any wonder why during wars threat airforces don't even try to fight back? Instead they stay on the ground, bury their fighters in the Earth or fly to the sanctuary of a neutral neighboring country.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

Notice something? Besides Russia, Ukraine and China, every U.S. Navy Carrier is carrying more fighters than there are Flankers in threat airforces.

My one correction to your post would be to add India to the list.

 

[DarthAmerica]

My one correction to your post would be to add India to the list.

To my knowledge(and I haven't checked too hard), the Indian Air Force has ~48-50 Flankers in service. I know they are building more under license, probably 100 more or so give or take. But as of now they don't have more than about what a CVN brings in terms of pure numbers AFAIK. That is not to say they don't have a lot of other types such as M2000, Mig-21 snd Mig-29 ect. My point was basically to dispel the fan boy myth of swarms of Flankers filling the skies. Another popular misconception about Flankers is that all can fire the R-77. Russia is in the midst of a big upgrade that includes this capability but a lot of their planes are still firing SAHR guided AAMs.

Just things to consider when just about all the Flankers opponents in most cases will be supported by AWACS and late model AIM-120 variants. For the U.S. Military an increasing number of those platforms are going to be VLO/LO or in the case of the Super Hornet a much reduced RCS. Against a modern opponent most Flankers will be deaf and blind fighting with obsolete missiles.

Generally if you look at the Flanker operators and then look at their immediate neighbors you will see who they are organizing themselves to potentially fight. It sure isn't the United States or major Allied nations. They would already be out systemed at the start of a conflict and all those nice looking Flankers would be running at low altitude to the neighboring country for safety or else!

EDIT: The newer Flankers entering the PLAAF are an issue for the Taiwanese as I've said before. With a modern AAM like the R-77 and proper support from GCI/AEW the PLAAF could cause considerable attrition to the Taiwanese.

-DA

 

[guppy]

I have not posted in a while, so hi to everyone. Let me intro a bit about myself. I am a "defense professional" with a little bit of knowledge and understanding.

It is quite interesting to see that public opinions with regards to American and Russian weapon systems are quite contrasting vis a vis with those in the defense industry.

I believe that the Cope India exercises was mostly a bilateral military cooperation exercise, with the ulterior American motive of justifying for their way over budget, way over schedule F-22s. In the end, they only got 180+(???), much less than what the USAF wanted. That is probably why they still have the Golden Eagles program.

Anyway, the raptors have proven their efficacity at Northern Edge. The aggressors were flying F-15s and F-16s which I believe are emulating threat ECM. Of course, it racks of propoganda, but my personal opinion is that it is not. US law demands that OT&E and DT&E are done independently. When the OT&E results are good, it usually means that it IS good. According to a aggressor pilot (can't find the article), he can't put any weapon system on the raptor after he could finally see it. btw, these exercises have the most realistic (and tough) scenarios in the world and we are talking about AIR DOMINANCE, and not Air Superiority here.

As for the discussion on ESM systems detecting the mid course updates of the AMRAAM, I would think that is entirely possible, and could be used to counter the missile. But there are two points to ponder. Firstly, this will probably work to some extent against the teen series fighters but all this turning and running can get highly uncoordinated and defensive, resulting in extremely low situational awareness ie bad defensive posture. Secondly, assuming one can retain orientation and disposition of all other team mates, what can one do to attack the F-22? Remember that the IRSTs are still mounted forward, detection ranges are poor (relative to radar and range of the AMRAAM) and highly attenuated by atmospheric conditions. This is akin to a blindfolded man trying to fight by listening to footsteps.

The biggest problem I see in the raptor is the lack of legs, relative to the super flankers. The loiter time is not much different from the curren teen series of fighters. In fact, I believe the super hornet will outlast a raptor. This can be a nuisance in a prolonged period of tension where there are probing aircraft from both sides without firing mandates. Perhaps a single flanker probe can outlast 2 waves of fighters? The other problem is the penetration range without tanker support, especially if the country is large (hmmm....). I would personally wish for a raptor with double the loiter and double the ordnance internally carried of course

Oh, if you can build an airborne detecting system with enough fidelity to provide tracking and weapons guiding, you will be richer than Bill Gates because you will have just neutralised the USAF's greatest asset or at least brought it down to a level playing field. Right now, it just ain't fair, but who says it got to be fair?

 

[DarthAmerica]

The biggest problem I see in the raptor is the lack of legs, relative to the super flankers. The loiter time is not much different from the curren teen series of fighters. In fact, I believe the super hornet will outlast a raptor. This can be a nuisance in a prolonged period of tension where there are probing aircraft from both sides without firing mandates. Perhaps a single flanker probe can outlast 2 waves of fighters? The other problem is the penetration range without tanker support, especially if the country is large (hmmm....). I would personally wish for a raptor with double the loiter and double the ordnance internally carried of course

OK, to get straight to the point. What are you basing this on? Not saying you are right or wrong but I personally haven't seen or read anything to suggest the USAF has an issue with the Raptors legs. Now having said that and assuming for sake of argument that your assertion of the Raptor not being much different leg wise than a Teen. The Raptor's ability to dash back and forth to a tanker is something I have read and is game changing. The Raptor will fight in a system designed to take advantage of it's unique performance and minimize it's weaknesses. Can you elaborate a bit please?


Thx
-DA

 

[guppy]

DA,

It is not written anywhere. It is physics. Compare internal fuel capacities and clean all up weight for both aircraft. This methodology was created by John Boyd, arguably the father of the F-15 and F-16, and has been incorporated into current methodologies of aircraft design, implicitly or explicitly.

F-22 => 9400kg fuel divided by weight of 25000kg ~ 0.37
SU-30 => 8200kg fuel divided by weight of 27900 kg ~ 0.29

Of course the pilots are not complaining. Because the figures are comparable with the F-15s and F-16s that the pilots came from. And I also believe that the US DoD has already built their plans around this "limitation".

Perhaps I should reword my last post. Increasing the internal fuel and weapons payloads is part of my wishlist for the F-22. They are not exactly problems unless the US is faced with an equal adversary (not meaning plane against plane). The russians have also designed flankers with greater range and loiter capability (>10 hrs), albeit they are not intended as fighters.

As for supercruising to the tanker, I do not dispute that. However, there is usually a penalty to pay, and that is increased fuel consumption rates. You burn more gas per mile driving at 200 mph than at mph, and although the raptor is a great aircraft, it cannot defy physics. Besides, have you seen the queues at the tankers?

Cheers

guppy

 

[DarthAmerica]

DA,

It is not written anywhere. It is physics. Compare internal fuel capacities and clean all up weight for both aircraft. This methodology was created by John Boyd, arguably the father of the F-15 and F-16, and has been incorporated into current methodologies of aircraft design, implicitly or explicitly.

F-22 => 9400kg fuel divided by weight of 25000kg ~ 0.37
SU-30 => 8200kg fuel divided by weight of 27900 kg ~ 0.29

Of course the pilots are not complaining. Because the figures are comparable with the F-15s and F-16s that the pilots came from. And I also believe that the US DoD has already built their plans around this "limitation".

Perhaps I should reword my last post. Increasing the internal fuel and weapons payloads is part of my wishlist for the F-22. They are not exactly problems unless the US is faced with an equal adversary (not meaning plane against plane). The russians have also designed flankers with greater range and loiter capability (>10 hrs), albeit they are not intended as fighters.

As for supercruising to the tanker, I do not dispute that. However, there is usually a penalty to pay, and that is increased fuel consumption rates. You burn more gas per mile driving at 200 mph than at mph, and although the raptor is a great aircraft, it cannot defy physics. Besides, have you seen the queues at the tankers?

Cheers

guppy

It is indeed physics. And since the details of the F-22's internals are classified to include the technology behind its engines, I would strongly suggest not reading a book by it's cover. I've read that the F-22 has superior range to the fighter it is replacing. In fact I've heard it exceeds the performance of it's predecessor by wide margins. So all that can be reliably said of the F-22 in this context is that it meets it's requirement. Believe me, they didn't spend all that time in development and testing only to discover it doesn't meet the range requirement. These platforms are designed/engineered to a specification. The customer is very clear about what they expect.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

DA,

As for supercruising to the tanker, I do not dispute that. However, there is usually a penalty to pay, and that is increased fuel consumption rates. You burn more gas per mile driving at 200 mph than at mph, and although the raptor is a great aircraft, it cannot defy physics. Besides, have you seen the queues at the tankers?

Cheers

guppy

It doesn't have to violate physics. You cannot tell what type of technology the F-22(or any other classified system) has internally. For all we know it could have an Isomer Heat Exchanger Combustor installed. I say that half in jest but only half because we really don't know. I'd like to see a complaint about the F-22's range before I hold that against it IMV.

-DA

 

[guppy]

Totally agree with you that the F-22 meets its operational requirements currently. No doubt about that. In fact, like I said, it is a great aircraft. I just have a wish list of improvements. When the operational requirements change, as they always do, will the F-22 be able to meet it? Likely yes, but it remains to be seen and to me fuel and weapons load seems to provide a greater buffer.

IMO, I like to think instead that reading covers are important for traces and clues. Physical properties and physics don't lie. For eg, based on physical attributes, one can estimate the theoretical limitations of older generation fighter radars (teen series) based on radar theory. For eg, why is the F-15C's radar better than the F-16C's radar in air to air? Unfortunately, I don't understand enough on newer generation radars. Thus one can derive some useful indicators and that is how experts (I am no expert though) make assessments on weapon systems that they don't have any chance of getting their hands on and making an actual technical and operational assessment. It is just a matter of making an educated guess, which may be right or wrong, and only time will tell.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Totally agree with you that the F-22 meets its operational requirements currently. No doubt about that. In fact, like I said, it is a great aircraft. I just have a wish list of improvements. When the operational requirements change, as they always do, will the F-22 be able to meet it? Likely yes, but it remains to be seen and to me fuel and weapons load seems to provide a greater buffer.

IMO, I like to think instead that reading covers are important for traces and clues. Physical properties and physics don't lie. For eg, based on physical attributes, one can estimate the theoretical limitations of older generation fighter radars (teen series) based on radar theory. For eg, why is the F-15C's radar better than the F-16C's radar in air to air? Unfortunately, I don't understand enough on newer generation radars. Thus one can derive some useful indicators and that is how experts (I am no expert though) make assessments on weapon systems that they don't have any chance of getting their hands on and making an actual technical and operational assessment. It is just a matter of making an educated guess, which may be right or wrong, and only time will tell.

Cheers

I understand. The problem today is that so much of what an aircraft does is hidden inside. Think about it like two Laptops with the same case. Externally they are alike but one may have a HDD many times the size of the other and a much better CPU. Unless you have the opportunity to inspect in detail you seriously can't tell. Even if one of the Laptops is obviously smaller doesn't mean it's the least capable in terms of performance. With so many variables to consider and many of the clues hidden inside the airplane, you can't tell anymore. It isn't like the old days where aircraft were purely judged on aerodynamic capability.

All it would take to completely throw off all these range estimates is for the USAF to be using some kind of advanced fuel or engine technology and we would be none the wiser. I consider myself fairly well informed on a range of topics but I constantly have to remind myself that unless it's my job to know or I have seen it first hand then I probably don't know as much as I think I do. When I forget that certain posters gently remind me. I do agree with you though that there are some obvious things you can pick out if you know what to look for. That is why I'm so interested to read about personal experiences because it's usually better than PR info or what seems to be obvious to the eye.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

To my knowledge(and I haven't checked too hard), the Indian Air Force has ~48-50 Flankers in service. I know they are building more under license, probably 100 more or so give or take. But as of now they don't have more than about what a CVN brings in terms of pure numbers AFAIK.

They have 40 ordered on their first order, 140 to be built under license and another 48 that they ordered recently under an option included in the original deal. Not all of them are flying yet, but overall with 63 MiG-29's, 126 of the new MRCA, and 200+ combat Flanker they certainly bring more then a CVN in pure numbers.

That is not to say they don't have a lot of other types such as M2000, Mig-21 snd Mig-29 ect. My point was basically to dispel the fan boy myth of swarms of Flankers filling the skies. Another popular misconception about Flankers is that all can fire the R-77. Russia is in the midst of a big upgrade that includes this capability but a lot of their planes are still firing SAHR guided AAMs.

Really? So you know for a fact that the Su-27SM's can fire the R-77 and that the R-77 has entered serial production for the Russian air force? Please post links to sources. I'm very interested. I've not found much on the subject and most sources seem to indicate that the R-77 has not entered serial production.

Just things to consider when just about all the Flankers opponents in most cases will be supported by AWACS and late model AIM-120 variants. For the U.S. Military an increasing number of those platforms are going to be VLO/LO or in the case of the Super Hornet a much reduced RCS. Against a modern opponent most Flankers will be deaf and blind fighting with obsolete missiles.

The issue of system comes up of course. The Flankers are also most likely fighting over a friendly AD network with ground-based RLS coverage and their own AWACS. Against the US this isn't much help, but against most other opponents that does matter. There's not many other countries with the SEAD capabilities.

Generally if you look at the Flanker operators and then look at their immediate neighbors you will see who they are organizing themselves to potentially fight. It sure isn't the United States or major Allied nations. They would already be out systemed at the start of a conflict and all those nice looking Flankers would be running at low altitude to the neighboring country for safety or else!

Nobody is positioned to fight the US or it's allies. Even Russia and China rely on nuclear deterrence.

EDIT: The newer Flankers entering the PLAAF are an issue for the Taiwanese as I've said before. With a modern AAM like the R-77 and proper support from GCI/AEW the PLAAF could cause considerable attrition to the Taiwanese.

-DA

You mean the J-11B? Do the Chinese have an advanced AAM like the R-77?

 

[Totoro]

Chinese have the PL-12, ARH medium range AAM. Naturally, there's no proper info on it, but it has entered service with their J-10s, new J-8s and has been seen tested with J11b.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Chinese have the PL-12, ARH medium range AAM. Naturally, there's no proper info on it, but it has entered service with their J-10s, new J-8s and has been seen tested with J11b.

AFAIK it is an R-77, with a Chinese motor and AIM-120 esk aerodynamics. Seeker performance should be identical but range and kinematic performance depend on the motor.