How PAF Should Counter the SU-30 MKI

[Super Falcon]

i personally rate russian SU 37 very very jogj even high to pak fa and also mig 35 is next big thing for countries who want to make their AF next generation specially coutries of muslims becos US never sell us state of art jet like these in their inventory so better to get them against US jets

 

[DARKY]

Darky - Just one correction.

THat is incorrect - modified Su 30 will be capable of carrying only one Brahmos - and not 2-3 Brahmos. Older ones are not capable to carry even one ! This was later confirmed by Sivanthu pillai - even though there is a pic floating around which shows 2-3 Brahmos underneath a Su belly.

Are you talking about this...

Can you explain why there wouldnt be a AWECS cover for PAF once it crosses IB ? AFAIK , PAF erie or ZDK both has the capability to see inside indian IB ! Just the way Phalcon will be doing.

Can they afford to keep their AWACS in vicinity of Indian Border... They would Rather be placed in central areas more to the west.. the geography of Pakistan doesn't permit them the luxury against India... or I should rather say International border... I know most of the IAF Stations on our side is 200-300km inside from the borders... at best they can give the data about 50km Inside which again would be facing heavy ECM environment... while phalcons cover most of their stations even being 150km inside the Indian border.

 

[gambit]

One who never fought will remain invincible... f22 has never seen combat.

This is where you are wrong on at least two levels.

First...While the F-22 has never seen combat, the training we give to our pilots are limited by two main items: altitude and live missiles. Not very many air forces in the world can afford, in terms of available airspace and money, to give that kind of near unlimited training scenarios on an annual basis to their pilots. The altitude limitation is obviously for safety reasons. For live missiles, once a missile is launched, a successful 'kill' rests upon the missile manufacturer, not the pilot. So if you trained as intensively and as realistically as possible up to the point where the burden of the 'kill' falls upon someone/something else, you have gone far more than most. Why do you think deployment to Red Flag or Top Gun are highly prized by foreign pilots?

Second...The F-22 is a component of the USAF, which is a component of the US military, and the US military is the most combat experienced in the world, from fighting insurgents embedded among civilians, to fighting 'set piece' battles as in WW II or Desert Storm, to individual air combats, to close air support of ground troops, to special operations that remains largely unpublicized, and so on...In all these components, their constituents will inevitably have a wide range of experiences at the personal level. Not every A-10 have seen combat, but the A-10 as a weapons platform is proven and its own institutional memory contribute to the greater institutional memory on how to use a dedicated CAS weapons platform. Not every M-1 have seen combat, but put a Desert Storm tank veteran crew into a brand new M-1 and see how deadly the brand new tank can be. If this crew retire, their memory will passed onto the next generation of US tankers in the form of training regiments and scenarios as in as realistically as possible.

Institutional memory is what enabled organizations to sustain themselves and make progress, be it IBM or McDonald's or Microsoft or Home Depot or a military. The more recent the addition to the whole, the more applicable and helpful that new addition will be towards sustainment and progress. For the US military, we got everybody beat in that area, from failures to successes to everywhere in between. We got plenty of analysts, civilians and military, to dissect and debate, especially at institutions like West Point, Annapolis, and the USAF Academy.

Take US on at your peril.

 

[MilSpec]

This is where you are wrong on at least two levels.

First...While the F-22 has never seen combat, the training we give to our pilots are limited by two main items: altitude and live missiles. Not very many air forces in the world can afford, in terms of available airspace and money, to give that kind of near unlimited training scenarios on an annual basis to their pilots. The altitude limitation is obviously for safety reasons. For live missiles, once a missile is launched, a successful 'kill' rests upon the missile manufacturer, not the pilot. So if you trained as intensively and as realistically as possible up to the point where the burden of the 'kill' falls upon someone/something else, you have gone far more than most. Why do you think deployment to Red Flag or Top Gun are highly prized by foreign pilots?

Second...The F-22 is a component of the USAF, which is a component of the US military, and the US military is the most combat experienced in the world, from fighting insurgents embedded among civilians, to fighting 'set piece' battles as in WW II or Desert Storm, to individual air combats, to close air support of ground troops, to special operations that remains largely unpublicized, and so on...In all these components, their constituents will inevitably have a wide range of experiences at the personal level. Not every A-10 have seen combat, but the A-10 as a weapons platform is proven and its own institutional memory contribute to the greater institutional memory on how to use a dedicated CAS weapons platform. Not every M-1 have seen combat, but put a Desert Storm tank veteran crew into a brand new M-1 and see how deadly the brand new tank can be. If this crew retire, their memory will passed onto the next generation of US tankers in the form of training regiments and scenarios as in as realistically as possible.

Institutional memory is what enabled organizations to sustain themselves and make progress, be it IBM or McDonald's or Microsoft or Home Depot or a military. The more recent the addition to the whole, the more applicable and helpful that new addition will be towards sustainment and progress. For the US military, we got everybody beat in that area, from failures to successes to everywhere in between. We got plenty of analysts, civilians and military, to dissect and debate, especially at institutions like West Point, Annapolis, and the USAF Academy.

Take US on at your peril.

I have never questioned the combat performance of f22 as stated before, but if f22 is intended to replace f15's, it should have taken on the mantle of f15 missions to prove what is the operational takedown on the aircraft. there has been immense speculation on serviceability of f22 and it seems USAF doesn't wants to field the f22 for higher operating costs. If it is supposed to be fighter that replaces f15's , why are f15 still carrying out frontline missions and f22's sitting at home?

 

[gambit]

Very true. Also i think the reason back then US needed 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron because perhaps you did not have an ally or friendly formidable air force –having your adversary’s aircrafts- with whom you could carry out Air Combat exercises. So by one way or the other get hold of a adversary’s aircraft give it to 4477th which US did and test and practice and use simulators if the info can be translated into sims.
So did Israel in 1973. Got hold of a latest MiG-21 and practiced (defected Pilot from Iraq). if they had an ally with MiG 21 in their inventory they would have exercised with them too.

Israel had a great run with F-15s against MiG-21s real combat. In their first ever encounter F-15 Vs MiG-21 , they scored on AIM-7, one Heat seeker missle and one classic cannon kill.. all in one encounter 3 kills long range, Medium heat seeker, and Gun

It is good to have information from allies about their experiences with X, Y, or Z. It is better if they have X, Y, and Z in their possession and they share. But it is ALWAYS best to have X, Y, and Z in your own possession to study and experience at your own pace. The further an experience is apart from you in terms of degrees, the more diluted that experience becomes, facts may be deliberately omitted or forgotten, interpretations can be colored by personal biases, environmental factors are not as varied, the list is long.

I am also assuming that SU30 has a higher IR signature – but based on my own humble observations, I haven’t seen SU30 in flesh (rather in metal ) but can only guess that perhaps my theory holds based on Pictures that we have seen of the aircraft – Metal nacelles of aircraft. Engines overly exposed – and reading a bit on IR Signature. Now what i was getting to was that overly exposed Engine IR signature would make it a tad bit more susceptible to IR missiles, in my Initial Post I stressed on all aspect AIM sidewinder.
Usually the rear aspect of the aircraft is best for Heat seeker to score a kill, based on what I was pointing out as Over exposure the side Aspects and certainly top Aspect would give a better IRS and better chances for a AIM-9 sidewinder Kill.

The assumption is not baseless. The engines straddle the fence between being completely enclosed by the fuselage and being 'podded'. A 'nacelle' is a covering, as in how a 'nacelle' covers the podded engine on a 747.

We can see the demarcation of where the engine, as a distinct component, being exposed from the main body. Whether that exposure equals to an increase in infrared (IR) exposure is understandably speculative but also is not baseless.

In IR detection, even a tray of 'fresh-from-the-freezer' ice cubes emit IR radiation. But IR detection is not the same as infrared IMAGING, which is considerably more data collection intensive and processing. Infrared detection merely distinguishes whatever level of IR radiation from a contrast, such as a background. So against a missile that is equipped with IR detection, confinement of direction of IR radiation by an engine is important. A jet engine have an exhaust direction so IR radiation in that direction is inevitable. The engine itself radiate IR emissions through all of its components, from plumbing to panels to 'turkey feathers' or nozzles.

Do we want the enemy IR detector to see this...

Infrared Training Center Message Board

...Or do we want to limit his view to this...

Infrared Signature Modelling and Measurement - BAE Systems

The second view is much more preferable.

In the first view, if we take the IR detector's perspective we would be looking at two items:

- Concentrated heat as in exhaust streams.

- Diluted heat as radiated by engine components.

We do not know if the Su's IR radiation pattern is like the first view but because of the engines' partial exposure from the fuselage or non-covered condition, it is reasonable to assume that the engines' IR radiation pattern will resemble the first view. Keep in mind that the Su's vertical and horizontal stabs may limit viewing angles by an IR detector.

However...Against an IR imaging system, it is a whole different story. An IR imaging system take discrete IR radiation sources, such as that of an engine, leading edges of structures that are heated by aerodynamic contacts, and even the cockpit area, to form a composite of what is programmed to be an 'aircraft'.

In radar detection, we have this EM graph of electrical spikes of the many EM scattering structures...

No difference in principle via IR radiation sources imaging. Only different in medium, or rather freq spectrum, and technical components.

The American AIM-9X went beyond mere IR detection but actually form a composite image of the target via discrete IR radiators produced by the target. The composition capability approaches that of 'thermography', which is actually the first view of a jet engine presented above. That is why the AIM-9X can attack 'all aspect', meaning it does not need high intensity IR radiators like the engines to call 'target', but it can take IR radiations from heated leading edges, heated cockpits, and perhaps even heat from the pilot's face, to form a pattern that based upon programming to call 'target'.

 

[gambit]

I have never questioned the combat performance of f22 as stated before, but if f22 is intended to replace f15's, it should have taken on the mantle of f15 missions to prove what is the operational takedown on the aircraft. there has been immense speculation on serviceability of f22 and it seems USAF doesn't wants to field the f22 for higher operating costs. If it is supposed to be fighter that replaces f15's , why are f15 still carrying out frontline missions and f22's sitting at home?

The F-22's quantity limit its wanted status as a replacement for the F-15. For now, it will serve as deterrent for any adversary seeking to dominate any airspace. If no such adversary exist, no need for its deployment there.

Let me put it to this way as I learned from an old radar mentor a looonng time ago:

Air Dominance - The ability of an air force to compel other air forces (friend or foe) to rearray themselves, usually to inferior postures, and without the need for combat.

Air Superiority - The ability of an air force to achieve complete control of contested airspace and if there are any losses, such losses does not deter repeated assertion of control.

Air Supremacy - He flies, he dies.

Remember - In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rule, but by forcing him to fight under yours. And cheating is allowed.

Low radar observability is the new air combat 'rule' that so far the US have forced everyone to fight under. With only the F-15/F-16 combination, we can achieve 'Air Supremacy' in most contested airspaces of the world. The F-22 is the reserve threat of the same for future adversaries.

 

[Alchemy]

Indians always talk big and think that SU-30 is invincible.Well if it was then we would have seen surgical strikes on Pakistan.Any aircraft ( barring 5th generation aircraft which have stealth technology) flying from Indian side to Pakistan with nefarious intentions will be taken care off.Indian Ego will badly beaten when first SU-30 will be shot down ( Which no doubt will happen on the very first day of war)..The only jet that we can truly call invincible is F22.

Topic is how will PAF counter SU-30MKI and you are bringing Emotions and egos and what not .... Try to explain how you will bring down Su-30 rather than discussing which aircraft is invincible.

 

[Nishan_101]

Although it sounds quite easy but its true that if would have started working on R&D radars and optronics as well as on other electrical and electronic, and tried to build a 200++ Km range A-A Missile that might be two stage rocket then it will be much better for us to use against AWE&Cs as well for shooting down long distance targets as well. So I am still with it that we should utilize our own minds with minor Chinese and Turkish help to start R&D at home and I think the biggest lost of Pakistan is that we have been left behind in Education as well as in R&D. The GoP should take serious measures in this regards and try to make the education of qualitystandard in accordance to ISLAMIC Teachings and try to spend more and more on R&Ds.

 

[MastanKhan]

Ever the optimist Mastan.
For the 15-20 Su's shot down there will also be a corresponding 10-15 of the best fighters PAF has to field. You think that simply by shooting 15-20 MKI's IAF will be disheartened enough to get shot more and more?

Those 10-15 F-16's that PAF loses will mean a MUCH greater loss of firepower for PAF than for the IAF. That means that the next day, PAF will shoot down lesser aircraft than it did the last day!
Even the 2nd rung aircrafts of the IAF ie the Mirage 2000 and MiG 29 are being upgraded to Mirage 2005 and MiG 29K standandards! The 'rest' of the IAF has also trained for fighting, not just waiting for Su's to do everyone else's work.

You set too much store by assuming that the IAF thinks like the fanboys on internet generally and specifically wrt the 'invincibility' of the MKI.
IAF has always been prepared to take losses(something i find most Pakistani's dont accept). Losing MKI's or any other plane is acceptable compared to the damage it causes in return. Like i said before, for every MKI lost, PAF losses a much bigger amount of firepower. Infact most likely the opposite of what you have said will happen.

Hi,

That is all well and good---but once the rate of losses reaches those numbers---the su 30 loses it myth of being untouchable----. For that reason, I beliegve that iaf won't use this aircraft in a conflict as one of the posters suggested---. Rather safe than sorry.

No reason to prove the effectiveness of aim 120 against the su 30 when the same can be observed against the m2k and mig29's etc etc etc.

 

[ptldM3]

SU-27 was purely designed in late 70's for Russian war doctrine vs US.
Keep in mind, no other war theater may be a replica of Russia vs US air combat over Alaska.

History is like, In 70's Russian Vympel had very poor hit rate as compare to US AIM.
So the design philosophy of Russians, was to make an air truck, which can carry maximum BVR.
The application of SU revolves around 'shoot & scoot' game plan.

Some Mig 21’s including those over Vietnam had no guns. If they were as poor as you claim I doubt they would forgo a gun. Moreover, poor hit probability does not always lead to a poor design. A major factor for poor hit probability is deciding when to fire, it’s well known that in a number of conflicts in Africa pilots released their missiles too early to reach their targets.

Point is, SU is good for what it is designed for but any further is no go area for SU.
e.g. Close combats in tight airspace, with presence of AWACS and AESA radars this truck stand no chance even against mig-21.

This is a pretty irrational and bias comment, than again the entire thread is about bashing the SU-30 and most arguments have been based on mere speculation and clouded in irrational logic. The SU-30 is very similar to the F-15 in many ways (including the ‘exposed metal engines&#8216. Are you suggesting that the F-15’s record is a fluke or that it is now outclassed by smaller, cheaper aircraft?

Larger aircraft outclass smaller aircraft by far. Small aircraft are very limited in avionics, range, and payload. By this I mean small aircraft are limited in the size and the amount of avionics they can carry, smaller radars will generally be outclassed by larger radars of comparable technologies. Smaller aircraft also have inherited weaknesses in ECM’s, although they have them, obviously, they are generally less capable. As an example SEAD’s aircraft such as the Growler and Fullback carry very large ECM pods, this would not be very practical on smaller aircraft and assuming such pods were placed on smaller aircraft their already limited range and payload would suffer even more. Of course there are some very technologically advanced smaller class aircraft that have defensive suites that are probably beter than the one found in the MKI, but larger aircraft can always go with bigger ECM pods, jammers, ect.

Now since people love silly comparisons, the SU-30 outright dominates aircraft such as the JF-17. For one the SU-30 has a combat radius of 1,500km compared to the JF-17’s mere 1,300km, all with more fuel and more weapons. To add injury to insult the SU-30 can refuel in mid air while the JF-17 can not. Comparing payload the SU-30 can carry nearly 10,000lbs more that the JF-17, again this is substantial.

Like it or not but the SU-30 is vastly more efficient than smaller aircraft such as the JF-17. To put it in perspective it would take about 3 JF-17 to equal the performance of one SU-30 on a strike mission; and again smaller aircraft such as the JF-17 don’t come anywhere near the SU-30 in terms of range so their theater of operation would be limited. Due to the efficiency of the SU-30 it would take less sorties to complete a mission, less sorties equals less potential losses.

I’m not trying to upset anyone or degrade the JF-17 but my arguments are all counter rebuttals based on public knowledge available for all.

 

[Nishan_101]

I am sure that Erieye as well as ZKD are capable of detecting and engaging the Su-30MKI and don't listen to false news about the tech known to India.

 

[Vritra]

History is like, In 70's Russian Vympel had very poor hit rate as compare to US AIM.

Principally, Russian idea was to overwhelm the incoming enemy a/c with flood of low hit rate, but long range missiles.
It was indeed a very clever strategy considering their own weakness and American strengths.

In the '70s, perhaps, what you've written is true, when the R-23 and R-60 were the most common missiles and the MiG-21/23 were still the mainstay of the Russian Air Force. Dunno if you've noticed, but things have changed slightly since then.

So the design philosophy of Russians, was to make an air truck, which can carry maximum BVR.
The application of SU revolves around 'shoot & scoot' game plan.

No it doesn't.

The Su-27 was a direct counter to the F-15. It was meant to fire off missiles from long range in salvos of 2, each with a different seeker (usually R-77 AR seeker and an R-27 longburn with LOAL IR sensor) so as to confuse and countermine the target aircraft's self defence capabilities. With the increasing effectiveness of seeker technology (all tested at range against the MiG-23MLD, which was modified to simulate the perceived performance of the American teen series, namely the F-16) and missile dynamics, the Flanker was fitted with enough hardpoints to carry 4-5 BVR salvos (the remaining hardpoints for short range missiles) to increase kill effectiveness. This gives it a significant advantage over other existing aircraft, because with its large number of hardpoints, it can carry nearly twice the firepower at BVR/VWR than smaller aircraft. Which is why the development of the multi-rail system for the SD-10 has been so important to the Chinese.

Shooting and scooting is the objective of the Su-34, or the J-11 Flanker derivatives. Flankers like the Flanker-H have multiple mission capabilities. Depending on the threat scenario, either they engage the enemy, or they RTB to refuel/rearm. If they're outnumbered and still being locked on at long ranges for BVR fire, they'll damn well RTB. That's being smart, because everyone in war accepts that bravado gets you killed. If you think you can predict every variable of every dogfight likely to occur over sub-continental skies, be my guest.

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

How can an AWACS engage a Combat aircraft ?

Detection, EW (jamming of sensors, etc.), directing support fighters against said enemy, and so on.

 

[Black Widow]

But the question still remains..

Why dont USAF test F22 in real war scenarios just to validate all claims it made about superiority of F22. You are correct in saying that F22 is meant to deal with more complex and advance threats but shouldn't F22 prove themselves against lower magnitude threats first rather then waiting for future high tech conflicts and getting straight into them without having a single kill.

Coz F22 is Game changer. if needed USA will definitely Pitch it. Till now USAF is fighting with weak airforces like Afghan (if any), Iran, Libya or Pakistan (repetitive air violation). If USAF need to counter china, Russia or India (touch wood), They will use F22 along with F15s and 16s..

 

[PoKeMon]

Coz F22 is Game changer. if needed USA will definitely Pitch it. Till now USAF is fighting with weak airforces like Afghan (if any), Iran, Libya or Pakistan (repetitive air violation). If USAF need to counter china, Russia or India (touch wood), They will use F22 along with F15s and 16s..

I know its a game changer but can you risk a fighter of such mattle to get into high end fights directly without proving its credentials in low tech warfare.

 

[Black Widow]

^Don't forget Growlers

Man, how I envy those

Offtopic: India too is planning similar role fighter. I think LCA TD3 or LSP3 is chosen to test this role. Hope we can see our own Prowler/Growler in coming years.

---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

I know its a game changer but can you risk a fighter of such mattle to get into high end fights directly without proving its credentials in low tech warfare.

Its there plane there strategy , may be they are not allowing world to see/estimate F22 strengths.