It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to kill Super Hornets Russian style

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Browsing through the latest articles on the Air Power Australia website I came across this article by a retired Russian airforce colonel. He was asked a simple premise, could an airforce equiped with Flanker's and Russian air defence sytems defeat the Super Hornet or F-35? His answers are surprising. He claims not only can they, but that Russian designers have specifically studied and planned for this need.

What I found very interesting was the following quote,

Asian countries advise of being tired of loss-of-face from domination of air by Australia’s Hornet and F-111. New aircraft come onto Asian region and old Hornets and F-111 retire, so balance of power in air combat can change. American dollar is falling like broken lift, but even so Russian aircraft remain still much cheaper. Asian clients ask me - can Russian aircraft do the job over Super Hornet and F-35 JSF? Is acceptable by them to post APA NOTAM – Asian clients say give back face.
and if you want substitute the Australian references for US or others. And for that matter the Asian clients for anyone else with the cash and a potential future axe to grind against western or western equiped airforces.

Of course the good Colonel is in the business of selling advice and will talk it up, but then so are the Lockheed and Boeing marketing departments. The fact that they can give a logical and plausible technical explanation of how they plan, train and equip for this, should be taken as a warning not to rely on these second tier fighters as first tier assets on there own. Something about lots of eggs and a basket spring to mind.


What I really love is the nick name he gave the FA-18E/F, Super Fries!.


LEE.




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   





He obviously took pop shots off at america which makes me think hes biased in his views. Probably still pissed about the evil ugly americans who dissolved his beloved USSR in the late 80's early 90's. As for his claims. Typical arrogant narcistic cold war speak from a cold war era caveman (something the soviets were world renowned for). Implying that russia knows anything and everything about the JSF and Raptor is giving the Russians more credit then they deserve (and only feeds the self loathing idiots like this man). they simply wouldnt know any better. Neither would you or me. Nothing more to see here, move along now.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
The proof is usually in the pudding, as it were. All through the history of military interchange (a clean phrase for war) between countries using Eastern Block hardware, and US built hardware, usually shows the American stuff cleaning up the boards.

No... I'm not anti-anyone here, just stating what I "believe" to be factual.

So... If I'm right, don't shoot the piano player. If I am wrong, PLEASE don't shoot the piano player.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Second "tier" fighter? Only to select 5th generation few. The article is flawed and focuses on very questionable premises and parameters while ignoring current and near term future capabilities. Talk, as they say is cheap but the good Colonel needs to make a good buck from it.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
What would you expect the good Colonel to say? We would get smoked? Its unlikely they will comment on the capacities with any sort of accuracy. It would be hell on a country that it totaly dependant on export sales to keep thier production lines open eh?

Its rather simplistic to base it on plane on plane anyway. You have to factor in pilot quality, SEAD, C3I (aka AWACS et al.), outside intel, and network centric warfare etc.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
The good colonel has every reason to talk up his product, but his comments regarding 'face' in Asia makes perfect sense.

While Russia does not have the economic power at the moment to bring new generation aircraft into service, I have absolutely no doubt that they are designing systems that are aimed at defeating any perceived threat (as you would, obviously - you don't design aircraft to be beaten, do you - what do you think the designers at MiG and Sukhoi are doing right now, designing light aircraft?). The key to the success or otherwise of such systems, it seems to me, lies in oil rich countries paying for the development of such systems, and while the US continues to alienate such countries, that becomes ever more likely.

The arguments I read on this board indicate that people have a perception that the US is technologically in the lead for one of two reasons - 1. the economic power of the US enabling funding of research and development, or 2. a blind arrogance that anyone outside the US is a blithering idiot!

Certainly I can agree with the first argument, and the key for Russia to turn that around is to have someone else pay the bills.

For those who tend toward the second argument, may I remind them that when Su-27, MiG-29 and Archer first became known they came as a huge surprise to the West, with regard to their capabilities and the original solutions that the Russians had applied to meet quite demanding requirements. This situation came about primarily due to arrogant complacency (the F-15 could handle everything in the US future scenario!). The feeling at the time in the West was that the Russians just copied everything (check out the first published intel drawings of the Mig-29 - F-16 copy) and that they would remain behind technologically (although just what they copied to produce the MiG-21, has always eluded me).

Unfortunately, in some of the postings I see on this board, I can see the same arrogant complacency.

If one follows Westpoint23's or West Coast's arguments, then the Malaysians must be imbeciles (which they aren't) for selecting Su-30 over the Super Hornet - they could afford either and both were offered. If the Super Hornet is superior then this does not make any sense at all - unless the the US was only offering such a downgraded Super Hornet that the Su-30 was the better solution - an example of forcing the customer into someone else's arms (pun intended), or a delusion that a downgraded Super Hornet is superior to the Su-30 (as offered). What makes these correspondents believe that they know more about Su-30 (for example) than the people who bought it in preference to US equipment?

If your forces are in the position that they don't have the equipment to win a foreseeable engagement, then you plan on obtaining, or designing equipment that will do the job, or you buddy up with someone who can do the job for you - any other view is totally ridiculous. That the US will not negotiate with some countries (indeed won't even talk to some), FORCES them to buddy up with someone else. People do not sit back and say - oh S**t we are defenseless, oh well, never mind! They attempt to do something about their deficiencies and they don't aim for second best!

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 7/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat

If one follows Westpoint23's or West Coast's arguments, then the Malaysians must be imbeciles (which they aren't) for selecting Su-30 over the Super Hornet - they could afford either and both were offered. If the Super Hornet is superior then this does not make any sense at all - unless the the US was only offering such a downgraded Super Hornet that the Su-30 was the better solution - an example of forcing the customer into someone else's arms (pun intended), or a delusion that a downgraded Super Hornet is superior to the Su-30 (as offered). What makes these correspondents believe that they know more about Su-30 (for example) than the people who bought it in preference to US equipment?


You hit the nail on the head IMO.
The point isn't whether the Ruskie was boasting or not.
Its whether what he said has any substance or not.
The Malay Su-30s are supposed to be of the highest Su-30 caliber around; probably one of the best Su-30 packages around.
So figuring if the Super is better than the Su-30 is the order of the day. Not the motivations behind the Ruskie article etc etc..

And as for the article, what it says is quite simple:
the Su-30 can outsee and outshoot the superbug at BVR;
it can outmanuever the superbug at WVR.

Opinions on why that is wrong or not are welcome..



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I'm quoting some key phrases in the article which we can concentrate our discussions on:


when Super-Fries carry weapons and tanks on pylons, see about 200 km with N011M radio-location system


Only the MKI and MKM versions have the N011M.


Can dance around outside Super-Fries' missile range and use Sukhoi radio network [Editor: TKS-2 intraflight digital radio datalink / network] to make sure no Sukhois in range of Super-Fries' missile


Using inter a/c secure datalink transmissions of radar data to make full use of N011M eyes.


Omega advisor in back of Sukhoi help here as fighter controller


AWACS/AEW on the Su Side?



Stay until Super-Fries reach Bingo [Editor: only fuel remaining to get home] and run for home – cannot escape at Mach 1.6 when Sukhoi make 2.35 – take R-77 or R-27 in pants


Tire out the Superbug?


Two seat combat aircraft better – make space for some more Omega advisors to help fight


Missed this one in the beginning. Talking about how two heads on the cockpit makes for many more options than just one.

EDIT: Correction: Omega Advisor is navigator/Weapons officer sitting behind the pilot.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
So just sit out of range and then take a pot shot at the tail of the enemy. Wow things have changed. forget tactics lets just runaway from the guy till he is tired and we can kick him in the pants. I personally don't think that tactic is one I would base my airforce on.

You mentioned the fact that it will out manuver the Rhino at WVR. Can anyone post any statements on this becuase I'm under the impression that while not the end all and be all the Bug is a threat still and if it can take a pot shot at a F-22 (not saying the pilot didn't break rules or wouldn't of been a sitting duck) the fact is that the plane can be throwen around to getting off the first shot which can be the difference.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Canada_EH,

Both sides have been using that tactic for years, especially in strategic recon...... cruise in at high level with your Bear or KC-135, wait for the fighters to launch and then turn away, stay outside their range until they head home on bingo fuel and come cruising back in.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Excellent points Wombat, not to show disrespect to Westy but I agree that there is an almost arrogant complacency surrounding both the FA-18E/F and to a lesser but no less real extent the F-35. As you point out the Malaysians while not the greatest planners, are not stupid. They had the choice of both the Super Hornet and SU-30 and chose the Flanker. Seems there experience in the 90's with choosing a mix of FA-18C/D and Mig-29 taught them a thing or two. It is also interesting to hear the experience of the Finn's who operated a mixed East/West fleet for many years. They found their Fishbeds to be a quite reliable and acceptable aircraft. There is also the experience of India and the performance of their Flankers in exercises with western airforces. Lets hope all this hypothesizing is never put to the test.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
If one follows Westpoint23's or West Coast's arguments, then the Malaysians must be imbeciles (which they aren't) for selecting Su-30 over the Super Hornet...


Not at all, we do not know the requirements of the Malaysians as well as any contract agreements which might have favored the Russians given they are more lax and supportive on the whole technology and maintenance part, amongst other things. At any rate a Super Hornet flown by Malaysia would not be as effective or as capable as one flow by the US Military, this is not a particularly hard point to see. Also, I don't think there is much complacency when it comes to US systems but it is clear that the Rhino still suffers from PR surrounding the Hornet series and it's unfortunate situation. Technically speaking it is one of the most advanced fighters the US has to offer, regardless of how capable someone thinks it is.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
the Su-30 can outsee and outshoot the superbug at BVR;


With a lower radar signature (even with weapons), AESA radar and the AMRAAM-D I do not see this as very likely.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
it can outmanuever the superbug at WVR.


The maneuvering capabilities of the Flankers are questionable when combat loaded and the Super Hornet is no slouch, then there's also the AIM-9X and JHMCS.


Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
...wait for the fighters to launch and then turn away, stay outside their range until they head home on bingo fuel and come cruising back in.


That tactic and would not work well against the US, in terms of air to air or air to ground engagement, although against other nations it could be plausible.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Westy,

I did make the point that the Malaysians may have been offered a downgraded Super Bug, which might have made the Su-30 package a better overall aircraft, so it is incorrect to deduce from the purchase that a fully stocked example of either would be the best proposition for their requirement. However, if the US did offer a downgraded SH, then might I suggest that the US was deluding itself that the offered combination was a match for the Su-30. On the other hand if the offered SH was 'full-function' then the decision should indicate something significant to SH salesmen and the US in general. I certainly don't believe that the Malaysians made the decision on price.

I am interested in why you think that Malaysian aircrew would be less capable or less well trained than US crews. I see no reason for making that assumption. Malaysia is a pretty affluent Westernised country that takes its defense pretty seriously (but concentrates on defense rather than deployment). The fact that you don't see them at Red Flag, for instance, is that they, like India are non-aligned and wish to remain so. You are also very unlikely to invite them either because they are a Muslim nation, but a very Westernised one.

I agree with you that the tactic mentioned would not really work with a force with the capabilities of the USAF or USN. Yes, the returning interceptors would certainly be covered by another overlapping interception. But, shucks, in the case of a carrier, it would put some pressure on jet fuel stocks and would be a damn annoyance! Unlike the strategic recon situation, I would expect that tactic to be used by a number of attacking aircraft approaching from different directions simultaneously or in waves, which would certainly keep things moving along!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 8/8/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
I am interested in why you think that Malaysian aircrew would be less capable or less well trained than US crews.


That is not what I meant, the US has more systems available which would enahnce the overall effectiveness of any fighter. Force multipliers and force enhancers, the issue of force structure, tactics, training and doctrine is second, I really did not mean anything against Malaysia.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Daedalus3
it can outmanuever the superbug at WVR.


The maneuvering capabilities of the Flankers are questionable when combat loaded and the Super Hornet is no slouch, then there's also the AIM-9X and JHMCS.


This is another thing I wanted to touch on. I have yet to see a Su30 do its airshow routine with a full weapons load out which I have seen the Rhino do.


Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
...wait for the fighters to launch and then turn away, stay outside their range until they head home on bingo fuel and come cruising back in.


That tactic and would not work well against the US, in terms of air to air or air to ground engagement, although against other nations it could be plausible.


Can you expand? I tend to agree with you on this point since really its a roll of the dice to see who gets the upper hand in this style of engagement.

Oh and Wombat the point you just consided on the fact that the USAF in the mentioned tactic wouldn't be at a dis-advantage was my base since you expose youself at that moment to the F-22 thats sitting above the Rhino. In the sale of the plane sure you don't have the advantage of the Raptor but that doesn't stop another Rhino from getting into that postion to cover the other.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Can you expand? I tend to agree with you on this point since really its a roll of the dice to see who gets the upper hand in this style of engagement.


First let me say that the issue is not black and white and that there are systems and platforms who's effect on the battlefield cannot be properly assessed and or predicted, more about that later.

Now, in any likely engagement with the USN and for that mater USAF several conditions are a given, constant tanker support, AWACS support in combination with other support systems which I will mention later. Against a non major Pacific force the US is likely to enjoy an overwhelming amount of situational advantage due to the large, capable and survivable force that is AEW. In light of these conditions lets consider this tactic of "contempt of engagement" by means of outlasting and maneuvering away from the enemy. True a Super Hornet does not have more un-refueled combat range, more endurance and or better speed. However what the USN can do to address these shortfalls is to use AEW assets to track any Flanker from launch to landing. Given this constant coverage of it's flight route and tactics a high tempo in terms of constant air ops can be established. Super Hornets can be launched in waves by which they can be timed to have overlapping coverage ensuring that the Flanker force reaches bingo fuel first, unless of course it chooses to engage. While one group of Hornets finishes off CAP and heads to either a tanker on station to refuel (quicker option) or back to the carrier. The group coming up can fill their tanks slightly utilizing the buddy fuel system from those Hornets leaving to head back to the carrier or tanker for more fuel and weapons. While this would no doubt put stress on a carrier it's nothing it can't handle with the supply support they receive. And if we feature two battle groups each could take turns temporarily relieving the other of high tempo operations. But in this scenario the Flankers still remain alive, although totally ineffective. If we introduce AEGIS picket ships with their SAM umbrella into the equation the operational freedom of the Flankers almost disappears. Not only would they have to get past the ships to engage retreating Hornets assuming that my scenario never happens. But they would have to stay clear of the ships as well as the Hornets, this would give the Hornets free reign within the SAM umbrella. Furthermore the enemy could be jointly targeted by a placement of picket ships which ensures total coverage and stand off range. This also brings me to the point that a Flanker can just play with the Super Hornet and take pot shots without risk due to it's speed and supposedly more capable radar/weapon systems. As I mentioned previously the Super Hornet will feature an AESA radar, a smaller RCS relative to the Flanker and the AIM-120D (IOC 2008) with a significant improvement in NEZ and total range, as well as a mid course update capability. With AWACS support the Super Hornets could easily position themselves to maximize their LO characterizes while also staying clear of the Flankers radar cone. In this case they would have first look and first shoot capability which the Flanker would not be instantly aware of. Passing guidance to AWACS or picket ships they can choose to return back and deny the Flanker the ability to engage or they can press home the attack and severely cripple the enemy force.

Underlying all of this of course are factors whose contributions cannot be easily determined such as tactics, training and the use of specific systems like EW aircraft, ships and their electronic/weapons suites and the respective ECM systems of both parties.

Also not mentioned in this scenario is the upcoming F-35C of the USN which, I have no reservation saying, will make any future Flanker force seem insignificant. Then there is the USAF which, presuming the Flankers are not carrier based, is very likely to be present operation out of forward deployed bases. That too will make any future Flanker force seem insignificant given the wide array of capabilities the USAF offers and the force multiplying affect that they have.

Lest the topic of Anti-AWACS come up, the good Colonel is featuring missiles which are not close to being operational, if ever, but instead have been ongoing programs for some time now. And the issue of simultaneously attacking AEGIS ships while engaging the carrier air group with the USAF present is, of course, open to debate.


[edit on 8-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I agree. Some hypothetical matchup of a single F/A-18 Super Bug vs a single SU-30 series, is just not going to happen in any foreseeable scenario.

Granted the SU-30 series are capable aircraft, but the Super Bug has a lot of interesting electronic toys on it too. I am not the biggest fan of it, but it is not a plane to be taken lightly.

USN would be intentionally placing AEGIS ships where they can be used as a SAM trap.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Second "tier" fighter? Only to select 5th generation few. The article is flawed and focuses on very questionable premises and parameters while ignoring current and near term future capabilities. Talk, as they say is cheap but the good Colonel needs to make a good buck from it.

AH UH!! ever scince StellerX came showing U.S. sources admitting Russian stuff is good in other threads, I see your no longer posting like you used to in 2003-2005 saying stuff like Russia's stuff is weak that article is just Russia trying to look tough



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Nice assessment Westy.

The Malaysian purchase, is of course an entirely different scenario, as I would imagine that they see themselves as not being at odds with America. I would suggest that they are more interested in defending themselves against China or perhaps Myanma. Horses for courses, as they say.

The Winged Wombat



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
What would you expect the good Colonel to say? We would get smoked?

That would be refreshing if the good Colonel would amit the truth, don't you think? I have a feeling those neato Colonel pins are like crackerjack prizes.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join