What's new

How PAF Should Counter the SU-30 MKI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Continuing on the post..

TVC usage in combat was first advocated by Dr Wolfgang Herbst who was one of the initial pioneers of Post-stall maneuvering.
He was also a driving force in the X-31 program. Aircraft like the X-31 and F-18 HARV would achieve extremely high ratios of kills against conventional aircraft.
When these results were applied to computer simulations based on AIMVAL however, it was found that the kill ratio's dropped significantly as the number of aircraft increased in a scenario. When the same systems were tested with the in-developed Aim-9x and JHCMS.. the advantage dropped to zero.

If you have issues with the colonel's testimony..
here is one from a test pilot associated with the F-16 thrust vectoring program..called the F-16 MATV.
These programs were not conducted for showing off at airshows like the Russians do, but for actual practicality. And were done MUCH before the Russians came up with it, but show-offs attract fan boys and non-serious people which gets attention.


this is the interview and a brief CV of his from the site F-16.net

Major Henderson grew up in Oregon where he attended Oregon State University and was a ROTC cadet. He went to Vance AFB for my pilot training, and started flying the F-16 in March 1985 as a "Viper Baby" - going to the jet right out of pilot training. His first assignment was at Nellis AFB flying F-16A's in the 428 TFS. He stayed there until 1988, leaving just before the wing closed down. From there he went to MacDill AFB to become a F-16 RTU instructor pilot. He transitioned to the F-16C (block 30 big mouth) in 1989 and went back to Nellis in 1990 to attend the Fighter Weapon School. Following graduation, he returned to MacDill for another two years.


Major Jim 'Magic' Henderson
In 1992 he was headed back to Nellis again for a job at the 422 Test and Evaluation Squadron. In 1994, he moved down the street at Nellis to become an Instructor at the Weapons School. In 1995 he briefly moved to Tucson AZ to instruct at the Guard/ Reserve Weapons School. However, that school was closed 6 months later so he went back to Nellis until the end of 1995. During the first part of 1996, he was attending the Dutch language school in Monterey CA, in preparation for his exchange assignment to Holland. He arrived in Holland July of last year and is currently assigned to the 323 TACTESS in Leeuwarden, where he is an instructor pilot for the FWIT and part of the MLU test team.

Interviewer: Do you have particularly fond memories of a specific deployment or exercise?

Maj. Henderson: The most memorable and enjoyable period during my time in the Viper was a two week TDY to Edwards AFB in November of 1993. While assigned to the 422 Test Squadron, I was the Program Manager for the Tactical Evaluation of the MATV aircraft. That was the F-16 that had the thrust vectoring nozzle installed. Me and a buddy (Jayboy Pearsall) got in on the ground floor of the development of the jet. The sole reason for it's development was to see what sort of tactical advantages this new technology would give it in close in combat. We were able to decide how and what we wanted to do with the jet to answer that question. Up to that point in time, most of the research on thrust vectoring had been done in simulators. We would get to be the first to try out all of the theories, in a real operational jet. After a good portion of the year was spent on planning we headed out to Edwards to get checked out in the MATV jet. Both Jayboy and myself were checked out in it. We also brought along a couple Vipers and pilots from Nellis to act as the bandits. For that 2 week period I either flew the MATV jet or as a bandit, twice a day. We got to do real tactical fighting against some of the best Viper drivers around in a totally new kind of jet. I've done a lot of fun things in the Viper, but nothing has co me close to topping those two weeks.

Interviewer: What was your impression of the MATV?

Maj. Henderson: The MATV jet was a really outstanding aircraft. It's been funny to see the fuss made over some of the maneuvers that the thrust vectoring Flanker has made at airshows over the last few years. We accomplished them all several years ago in our jet. But, since we didn't do airshows (our goal was a tactical evaluation of the technology) hardly anyone knew about it. The funny thing is that most of those maneuvers are of very limited use in a tactical fight. As far as the MATV jet, it was quite a difficult jet to fight. Once you got the feel for when and how to use the thrust vectoring, it was almost unbeatable in any one vs one fight. When involved in one vs two fights, it was almost an even fight. I actually felt that I had the advantage when I passed two bandits in a high aspect merge. It is a shame that all of the F-16s could not be modified with the kits.

So the people that actually test the practically of the system in Air combat testify how utterly pointless it gets in an actual tactical scenario. Sure, in the one off chance that an aircraft like the MKI goes up against a single non-TVC aircraft.. it will probably win with a 98% chance. But add more fighters, with Helmet mounted sights.. and off boresight missiles.. and that percentage drops to 50%.

Now lets get down to how the MKI's unique TVC, which increases its maneuverability...also ends up giving it a disadvantage that is pointed out by the colonel because that is probably what he heard. But then again, some fan-boys whose ego was bruised concentrated only on his inaccuracies in determining the type of radar or engine and not on the main focus of what he said.

Aircraft like the F-22 have their TVC mounted in a vertical plane.. so when they do go post-stall.. and the airflow over their wings is being disrupted.. the line of thrust is still within the plane of motion and so generates little drag other than along that line of movement.
the MKI's TVC is canted at some 32 degrees to the horizontal(or in a V) to allow it to achieve better roll and yaw rates(as it is a BIG jet) at slower speeds. However, that V thrust remains when the nozzles deflect up or down.. and hence the thrust isnt just going along a line of motion.. i.e it is not propelling the aircraft along a single vector component in simpler terms...but in two(or more realistically).. hence the aircraft doesn't achieve the acceleration along its intended flight path as quickly as compared to say a standard Su-27 and so the air-flow does not achieve pre-stall ability as quick as say something like an F-22.
So not only does the aircraft fall out of the sky as stated... it takes longer to recover from that post-stall situation than say something line an F-22.
Hence, an advertised "capability" on the MKI has actually becomes a disadvantage in actual combat.. since adding that thrust within a fluid fight at say even 450 knots...generates greater drag as compared to something like the F-22 which is why it ends up as dead meat for a pilot that knows how to use his machine vs a pilot that does not.

Now dont get me completely anti-TVC.. it may help a lot in the MKI especially because you have two heads and the second pilot may use that chance to fire an off-boresight heater at its enemy. But that only works out in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 2 scenario.. with the effectiveness decreasing.
today's combat with missiles able to do this..
The advantage of maneuvering becomes a moot point.. since TVC helps you to get a tighter circle.. quicker.. you are still limited by the number of G's you can pull(yeah.. that is an actual limitation otherwise you will tear your wings off or kill your pilot).
So somebody at 450 knots can get to a 9G turn with or without TVC at the same rate... but if he uses the TVC to go anything beyond that he is dead or his aircraft will have its wings torn off. Below that, TVC holds an advantage.. if a pilot has managed to get himself into the situation where he is low on speed (energy) then TVC will save his life IF only the other pilots wingman does not have a lock on him. Anything beyond that, is an advantage not worth having.. and anything with multiple fighters engaging in a frenzy with off-boresight missiles.. its pointless.

NOW, as to why the west may persist with TVC in the form of fluidic vectoring later on is not post-stall maneuverability.. but stealth, fuel economy and its effectiveness in supersonic maneuvering M1.5+.
The F-22's TVC does not just give it post-stall capability.. the F-22 without TVC is still a VERY maneuverable aircraft..
its TVC helps in the primary field the F-22 was designed to fight and engage.. at high altitude.. and silently.
RCS is effected by even the smallest bumps and nicks.. which is why aircraft like the F-22 will always be maintenance intensive.
In flight, these aircraft employ a lot of CPU crunching power to make sure that their RCS levels are not effected too much by the deflection of ailerons and elevators. Here, TVC adds the ability to induce changes in direction by a small deflection of thrust which keeps RCS fairly constant as compared to using control surfaces but that is dependent a lot on nozzle design.
Secondly, aircraft like the F-22 and eurofighter were designed to be able to engage at high-altitudes, low pressure with long range missiles(that need both potential and kinematic energy) at high speed.
TVC allows these aircraft to maintain better maneuverability at these speed ranges as the effectiveness of control surfaces reduces and relatively larger deflections are needed(which not only generate drag but drive the RCS up). So the TVC on the F-22(and possibly the EF) will allow them to achieve maneuverability at these flight envelopes with less consumption of fuel, maintaining RCS and impart energy to their BVR shots.(which is what has the Chinese interested in it for their J-20)

Now how does this play out for the MKI??

Well, for one. the RCS advantage of the TVC is pretty pointless.. with a radar cross section that will be seen by even the crudest of 70's radars.. the TVC on the MKI holds no use for it in RCS control.

Second.. High speed kinematics and high altitude launches..
this is one advantage the MKI may have, provided it is able to exploit this scenario... possibly unlikely for the western theater but quite possible for the northern one.

Third... Fuel consumption.. here the aircraft can maintain an ideal AoA for the regimes of flight while pointing thrust in the optimum direction.. something the MKI could exploit.. had it been thought up with this in its FLCS...but most reports suggest a focus on maneuverability rather than anything else.

Lastly... STOL ability.. not sure if Ive seen any Sukhoi exploiting this.. but TV does allow for shorter landing and takeoff roles.

Now..the PAF is inducting HOBS heaters.. and IS going to engage the IAF 80% of the time(due to proximity of bases) within each others missile envelopes.. so the advantage that most of the capabilities brought in by the aircraft keeps getting reduced.
EXCEPT one.

RANGE..and TWO HEADS.
The MKI's range not only allows for it to maintain a longer loiter time, it gives it the ability to bypass Air defense areas or simply fly a long route around them to give the IAF the option to attack from multiple sides and really stress the PAF's resources.
This also means that PAF's force multipliers will be under greater threat as the IAF can use the MKI's to literally fly out of their detection range..and then fly back in into less covered sectors by interceptors to attack them.

TWO-HEADS.
In BVR engagements, sorting targets is a headache while flying.. the second pilot will be able to sort out the targets faster and employ weapons more effectively. In WVR engagements.. he may be able to employ weapons better if the fight ever goes into a turning one.. but that too will give him an advantage in certain situations. He will also be able to call out bogies and provide a situational awareness addition to the pilot.
In a strike role, the second pilot can work on the attack while the pilot concentrates on flying the aircraft and keeping the aerial threats in focus.

THESE, are the things that the PAF(and all other actual professionals and enthusiasts) keep in mind when looking at an aircraft like the MKI. They see the range and payload and how these offer tactical advantages in various scenarios.
They then see its effectivness within the system that is the IAF, and how it may be used within known and unknown tactics to their advantage, this is correlated with intel reports on the IAF to then formulate a counter strategy.

On the other side of the fence, the IAF does the same, it thinks where its strategies may be compromised.. where its actual advantages lie..and how best to employ the MKI within the IAF's joint force.


The rest, fanboys.. who are impressed by a doodle of numbers presented by the manufacturer.. or impressed by interviews of pilots published by companies(both in Russia and in the US)..or write ups by people with agendas(Wheeler, Kopp etc)..may continue to copy off write ups by single people.. and take a single PoV because they are too darn lazy to do some actual research.

Cheers.

P.S.. not following the 5 min DMZ whatever..?? :confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FOR ME THE BEST OPTION FOR PAF WAS 150+ F16 C/D/52 for tackling the su30 mki threat.

Political reasons PAF may feel this numbers of falcons maybe difficult at present.

IN WHICH CASE THE J10/FC20 has to be the answer meduim term

THE J10/FC20 is the closest fighter in size TWR and performance to a F16/52/f16/60 ...
 
American F16 VIPER PILOT assessment on SU30MKI V F16/52/60

Latest version of the F-16 Vs. SU-30MKI/SU-30K :: F-16.net

I think the pilot knows far more than me & you

Oh yeah, one more thing to remember is that the Su-30 is a two seater so it has an inherehnt advantoge over a single seater in having someone who gets to dedicate his/her attention to the instuments at BVR and then is a second set of eyeballs WVR. The Navy if ordering a lot more F model Hornets than planned for this same reason. I believe this is also why MOST export Eagles are 2 seaters.

Is the most important factor to consider.. in the 1 vs many scenario.
 
FOR ME THE BEST OPTION FOR PAF WAS 150+ F16 C/D/52 for tackling the su30 mki threat.

Political reasons PAF may feel this numbers of falcons maybe difficult at present.

IN WHICH CASE THE J10/FC20 has to be the answer meduim term

THE J10/FC20 is the closest fighter in size TWR and performance to a F16/52/f16/60 ...

With the upcoming AESA on J-10, and continued development of the FC20/J10 program, it is destined to be better than F-16 in Long term.

F-16 is 1960s-1980s tech. J-10 is evolving on that, but at a faster pace as it does not need to reinvent the wheel.

PAF with it's current budget wont go for a big twin engine plane like the J-11/SU27s, hence it only leaves one option, J10.

Maybe J-31, but lets see. The most important thing is, by the end of 2014 PAF should 100 or so capable BVR fighters. By the time MMRCA materialises for IAF, PAF may have more options.

Next year is a big year for Pakistan.

Chief of Army Staff retires, Chief Justice Retires, President and Parliament time is also over. Depending on who comes in, it would be down to economic growth and defense spending.
 
Continuing on the post..

The 2 operators and the range part are very valid arguments. The ability to surprise an enemy from a different path is as good as stealth (ok now please nobody say I am saying MKI has stealth.)

But, don't you think, that radars of the aircrafts also play an important role? Have read all sorts of stuff on the radar on board the MKI, but, none on what its actual capabilities maybe. Isn't this a more dangerous point, since, its not known (or maybe just not known in the public domain)?

Another point I keep hearing is that an MKI may direct other fighters with the help of its radar to a target? Will this not be a tactical advantage? But, then again, will not this be useful only in the interception phase, since then you are flying over your own turf. Another point may be that the planes may be detected by an Airborne Sytem across the border. So how does this come into play? If they were on an offensive mission they may anyway get detected by ground based radar?
 
Dont take that away from him. Even in a lost match, the losing side has the right to boast about a good play ;)

Especially when some cheap, used up excuse of a country claims victory while the actual victor stays on the side lines!
 
With the upcoming AESA on J-10, and continued development of the FC20/J10 program, it is destined to be better than F-16 in Long term.

F-16 is 1960s-1980s tech. J-10 is evolving on that, but at a faster pace as it does not need to reinvent the wheel.

PAF with it's current budget wont go for a big twin engine plane like the J-11/SU27s, hence it only leaves one option, J10.

Maybe J-31, but lets see. The most important thing is, by the end of 2014 PAF should 100 or so capable BVR fighters. By the time MMRCA materialises for IAF, PAF may have more options.

Next year is a big year for Pakistan.

Chief of Army Staff retires, Chief Justice Retires, President and Parliament time is also over. Depending on who comes in, it would be down to economic growth and defense spending.






No matter how much gadget you put on J10 or F16, Its not match for Heavy class fighters (F15s and Su27 family). Recently comparative excercise btwn Chinese Su27s and J10s shows that.


AESA in J10 and F16: No answer to Powerful Huge MESA radar of Su27s.

Solution: Only way to counter Su27 family is Large number of SAMs, or have F15/Su27.... :)


NOTE: RCS plays no role in 4th gen fighter, The powerful radars can detect J10/F16 much before J10/F16 can lock on Su27. The Su27 can lock before(or at same time) F16/J10 lock on it..
 
Jian-10+%28J-10B%29+Active+Electronically+Scanned+Array+%28AESA%29+RADAR+fc-20++People%27s+Liberation+Army+Air+Force+%28PLAAF%29++Pakistan+Air+Force+%28PAF%29+AL-31FSD-10+PL-12+BVRAAM+PL-8+10+ASR+HMS+IFR+%285%29.jpg


this is the ansar

That may be the answer to Indian acquisition of Rafale (if it does indeed materialize in this decade!). Answer to MKI is our JF-17! As a purely defensive power (atleast initially while the numerical odds are in favor of the opposition), JF-17's would be complemented by AWEACS & SAM Systems as well as ground based EW/ECM/ECCM systems.

As the Indians boast of the actual power of the BARS radar on MKI's and it's classified performance, the performance of radars on JF-17's is also highly classified and so are the problems of both of these systems.....well atleast the problems of JF-17's radar, if any, are yet classified unlike those of SU-30MKI's that were evaluated and rejected by the Chinese!! No wonder IAF is in such a rush to upgrade the Radars on their MKI's.

Also, note the performance of Russian Jammers on their jets in the Russia/Georgia war in which the Russians were unable to jam their own SAM systems!! No wonder the Chinese have to further advance and modify almost all their acquisitions as most are unreliable. Only the Jets with Israeli pods hold threat, others hardly any jamming worth another look. And I will not even bother to write about the Indian pods!

It's yet no wonder still that the Russian Jets have to carry so many AA missiles whilst the opposition is considerably satisfied with half that on their fighters. Furthermore, is there a single example of a Russian BVR score........the icing here is that the PAF had always been aware of the poor performance of Russian BVR missiles and hence their comfort in not acquiring it until the purchase of AIM-120C5! And the whole world is aware of the ratio of Jets downed in head to head contests.
 
Especially when some cheap, used up excuse of a country claims victory while the actual victor stays on the side lines!

See... While I decided to take the role of a gracious victor, you are just acting like a sour loser and have started abusing nationalities etc..
 
The 2 operators and the range part are very valid arguments. The ability to surprise an enemy from a different path is as good as stealth (ok now please nobody say I am saying MKI has stealth.)

But, don't you think, that radars of the aircrafts also play an important role? Have read all sorts of stuff on the radar on board the MKI, but, none on what its actual capabilities maybe. Isn't this a more dangerous point, since, its not known (or maybe just not known in the public domain)?

Another point I keep hearing is that an MKI may direct other fighters with the help of its radar to a target? Will this not be a tactical advantage? But, then again, will not this be useful only in the interception phase, since then you are flying over your own turf. Another point may be that the planes may be detected by an Airborne Sytem across the border. So how does this come into play? If they were on an offensive mission they may anyway get detected by ground based radar?

As far as the classified is concerned, the same radar was evaluated by the Chinese and was rejected as it had serious problems. The shortcomings of this radar overwhelmed the advantages it held. Secondly, while the MKI uses it's radar to direct other jets or for whatever other purpose, it sends out a massive RCS.....you know where I am getting at, right?

See... While I decided to take the role of a gracious victor, you are just acting like a sour loser and have started abusing nationalities etc..

It's not the nationalities that I have a problem with, honestly. You wouldn't believe the number of close Indian friends I have. It's the continuous lies and propaganda that sort of puts me off some of you guys as if anything could have been achieved alone. I'd much rather we all stay real.
 
F-16 is 1960s-1980s tech. J-10 is evolving on that, but at a faster pace as it does not need to reinvent the wheel.

F-16 may be a 1970 design,but it is not 1960-80 tech. All these blocks 15, 25, 40, 50, 60 are a result of and testament to upgrades with new tech.
 
That may be the answer to Indian acquisition of Rafale (if it does indeed materialize in this decade!). Answer to MKI is our JF-17! As a purely defensive power (atleast initially while the numerical odds are in favor of the opposition), JF-17's would be complemented by AWEACS & SAM Systems as well as ground based EW/ECM/ECCM systems.

As the Indians boast of the actual power of the BARS radar on MKI's and it's classified performance, the performance of radars on JF-17's is also highly classified and so are the problems of both of these systems.....well atleast the problems of JF-17's radar, if any, are yet classified unlike those of SU-30MKI's that were evaluated and rejected by the Chinese!! No wonder IAF is in such a rush to upgrade the Radars on their MKI's.

Also, note the performance of Russian Jammers on their jets in the Russia/Georgia war in which the Russians were unable to jam their own SAM systems!! No wonder the Chinese have to further advance and modify almost all their acquisitions as most are unreliable. Only the Jets with Israeli pods hold threat, others hardly any jamming worth another look. And I will not even bother to write about the Indian pods!

It's yet no wonder still that the Russian Jets have to carry so many AA missiles whilst the opposition is considerably satisfied with half that on their fighters. Furthermore, is there a single example of a Russian BVR score........the icing here is that the PAF had always been aware of the poor performance of Russian BVR missiles and hence their comfort in not acquiring it until the purchase of AIM-120C5! And the whole world is aware of the ratio of Jets downed in head to head contests.

There aren't any J-10B coming as of now.... you've had enough BS on this here on the forum.

You are trying to compare a large aperture(990mm) and highly powerful(7-10KW) Phased array radar with a small sized(660mm) and low powered(550W) slotted planer array... there can't be any competition here since both of them are of different generation even If you make either of them super classified.

The Chinese were never offered BARS... It must be noted that they are yet to demonstrate a fully functional fighter borne Phased array radar.

If IAF is going for an Upgrade on Radars its keeping up with the latest development among the best militaries around the world.. they are building a 1st class air force and that has got nothing to do with what Pakistan or China are doing or having... in simple words If PAF is still relying on primitive technology doesn't mean the rest of world has to do the same.

Electronic Jamming is a cat and mouse game... Georgia was the dumping ground for old soviet weaponry new jammers and ECMs were hardly used... specially the SAP-14 and SAP-518 stand off jamming and ECM pods which can be used only by Su30MKI and Su35 version in the RuAF... the newly inducted su34 is being currently integrated with those ECM and Jamming pods.

Chinese Jammers are the last things to be trusted by any airforce... must be the reason we are yet to see them in any country outside China... there have been interesting encounters between PLAAF Su27/J-11 and IAF Su30MKI aswell as PLA S-300/HQ-9 and IAF Su30MKI aswell as the Chinese Destroyer Type52C and Su30MKI... and I won't give the outcome here as to trigger troll attack by the CCP brigade... however I would like to mention that most of time the results were satisfying... mainly due to the training and superior tactics by IAF Chinese can any day say that in the Su30MKI was forced to return but by then It had done its job.

Multiple AAM ensure Higher chances of kill... even French have Mica with different seekers... while the USAF also used AIM-7 along with AIM-120... Chinese too use a mix of R-27(different version), R-77, SD-10 and other missiles... something dissimilar to what you have been saying about PAF... doesn't mean rest of the world must not If PAF can't.

Russians have scored BVR kills when needed... we can say the same about Chinese BVR score or for that matter any score on a 4th/3rd gen. fighter.

Aim-120C5 are from the stock retired from the use of USAF they now prefer Aim-120D... PAF didn't have the option to choose they were forced to take.
 
SU 30MKI is a twin engine flight.

1. if one engine damaged then with other it can manage, this is not the case with jf 17.
2. The forieng object damage is a big problem in jf 17. so the paf air force will have too many deaths due to single engine failure.
 
@Oscar, Great post!
The on-paper analysis of Su30MKI characteristics with equal JF-17/F-16 in the air looks 'all good' in Sukhoi's favour. Chinese Su-27SK/UBK fighters in Ex-Shaheen-I hardly surprised PAF, it was a good experience to fly against such IRST+BVR equipped fighters. There is nothing much an aircraft brings on the table than the methods and strategies its employed with.

When such IAF vs PAF engagements are seen in complete war scenario, then the balance gets fairly equal. PAF with medium and long range SAMs, BVR equipped F-16, JF-17 and F-7PG and up to 10 AEW&C/ELINT/EW aircraft is definitely not an easy adversary. JF-17's (seen on PDF as a weak opponent against MKI) flexibility of use, its weapon configurations options and its deployment numbers will be the key plan of PAF.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom