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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
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


If you disagree with something I said please post a reply, otherwise don't waste time with pointless ad hominem attacks.




posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
With a lower radar signature (even with weapons), AESA radar and the AMRAAM-D I do not see this as very likely.


Well then one can cry Irbis-E and ramjet Adders.
In any case the Su-30 will have a tracking solution around the same time Superbug will with the AESA. Then its all about how many you can let loose, make count and the evade the incoming one(s).
In that Dept the Su has advantages.



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.


No they're not, well not atleast to the people who operate them.
It suffices to say that flankers operators(atleast the ones I know personally) are not going to assume manueverability brownie points on full weaps load and only actually confirm/refute that assumption in live fire situations.
It suffices to say that everything has been tested and it continues to be tested and fine-tnued.

Nobody's claiming that the flanker behaves just as smoothly when loaded as compared when it is empty.
Similarly, I'm sure you and the others are not claiming that the superbug maintains the same manueverability with and without weapons/fuel load.

There is an obvious reduction in both cases; but the point is which one is more manueverable after crunching-in all the T/W reduction etc numbers.

The Su for instance will lose around 20% percent of its t/w ratio when fully loaded. Simple math and physics. Just put in the numbers and you get the answers. Hence just as the 'airshow-manueverability' card is shallow, so is the 'full-load manuverability reduction' card.

What matters are the base line numbers because the isn't much difference dry weight is going to make to the original ratio.

Yes there are certain allowances/compromises on full loadouts that are very very airframe centric; i.e. varying from airframe to airframe.
We can discuss those w.r.t. the flanker and the superbug though I believe not may of us have the complete understanding to undertake such a study.
Kilcoo comes to mind though.

Finally, I do agree that the JHMCS and the AIM-9X are not pushovers but that system can be mated onto lesser gen a/c as well.
Again they are (like the weapons dry weight) addon constants on both sides that will not change the original baseline comparisions.
I agree that the AIM-9X is supposed to have a ~30% off-boresight advantage over the Russian operational equivalent, but hey its not that simple is it?



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
. 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.


I didn't read the entire post but I saw this at a glance and thought it to be relevant to what I've posted above.

Again the Flankers(N011Ms and beyond) can do the same with(and more importantly without!) AWACS.
IMHO the first look and first shoot here is quite comparable even with AESA.



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.


Now that my friend, you would have to explain.


There a few involving articles on ausairpower(not sourced from 'good colonels') that discuss the same. Im not saying that ausairpower.net is the final word on flankers, but IMO they have one of the best publicised flanker infobases on the net coming from western sources.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
May I say Westy that was an excellent breakdown of how the USN could close down a Flanker force. Of course this also points to how much effort would be needed to do this. A smart opponent may use such tactics to stretch and pull a US force in a number of directions to an uncomfortable level, particularly if they have a decent sized force of fighters. And if they operate modern well handled subs this will add a further threat vector that could limit how near or far a CBG could safely operate to an opponents territory. Imagine a simultaneous attack from a mass of anti ship missiles fired from an airborne attack whilst a couple of subs are stalking the carrier.

However this only deals with a US centric scenario. If we look at the possibillity of a country that has received FA-18E/F's in conflict with another that is equiped with a Flanker variant, the tactics by neccesity have to change. In this case it is true that the Bug's lower RCS will allow it to remain hidden for longer but how much longer? If facing a Flanker fitted with an AESA, will the Hornet acquire the Su-30 outside of its engagement envelope? And does either side have AEW? These are the kind of muddied waters where a competently used Flanker force could have a nasty surprise for a Super Hornet operator. And afterall that was the point behind the article.


Second "tier" fighter? Only to select 5th generation few
And here in lies the potential problem Westy. If the "Teen series" fighters wrap up there production in the next 5-10 years, the US by it own choice may only have one second tier fighter aircraft to offer for international sale. Given that only 3-5 operators will probably be given access to the full spec aircraft and maybe only a dozen more at most to any variant, That still leaves a lot of customers out in the cold. If the US is going to snub them then they are going to go somewhere else, even some of the downgraded F-35 customers might see this unfavourably and look elsewhere. This creates potential enemies instead of potential allies. A far better solution would be to allow 1-3 operators to acquire the F-22 and open up the F-35 to a few more operators to the full spec system. In addition continued upgrades of the F-16 and F-15 should be explored. Imagine an F-16XL like development with post Block-60 sytems and an F-135 engine. Or an F-15E+ with an AESA, chin arrays and F-119 powerplants. Im afraid if the US doesnt do this it will loose customers, allies and eventually price itself out of being able to develop its own systems without the cash and production numbers that international sales bring.

LEE.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The maneuvering capabilities of the Flankers are questionable when combat loaded and the Super Hornet is no slouch




Ach.... now.



While the "S"H is pointable, its energy conservation is crap.



The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown.


- Hornet pilot in Flight Journal



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
While the "S"H is pointable, its energy conservation is crap.


Still, the Rhino has good nose pointing abilities in the low speed realm. I'm not going to claim it has great energy gain abilities but at the same time it does not need to. That's not where it's fight is at. With the current maneuvering capabilities that is has plus it's avionics and weapons package the Horent shoud be able to stay defensive in WVR until it can get out of it (should it find itself there for some strange reason).

Lee and Daedalus, good points, I will get back at you guys later as I have to leave for work shortly and don't have the time now.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
if you remember that `kill` (loose term of course) from the super bug against the raptor - ignoring the details behind it and look at the angle and energy state , that hornet would have been dead if a hard kill wasn`t achieved - it through everything into a massive change of direction but look at the hud details , the speed dropped massively in only a handful of frames! so it might well be able to swing its nose but teh cost is too high for any real wvr maneuvers.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
It could use some better engines...if I were the navy, I would give it some thrust vectoring F-100s and than it would be the match for anything in the sky right now.

Its an excellent BVR aircraft, strong radar, great armament.

One thing about that photo of the super hornet killing the Raptor...notice that the F-22 is in a steep dive and probably at a good speed, and the piper from the hornet is directly on it. I bring this up, because the bullets being fired at THAT MOMENT would not have hit it due to lead time...the hornet didnt lead it at all. Dont take me wrong though, I know it got it in the end, but I just want to point out that is not the frame that shows the kill.



posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
While the "S"H is pointable, its energy conservation is crap.


Still, the Rhino has good nose pointing abilities in the low speed realm. I'm not going to claim it has great energy gain abilities but at the same time it does not need to. That's not where it's fight is at. With the current maneuvering capabilities that is has plus it's avionics and weapons package the Horent shoud be able to stay defensive in WVR until it can get out of it (should it find itself there for some strange reason).



That is ok for WVR manouvering (assuming 1 on 1).


But it is very bad for BVR shadow boxing prior to engagement.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
But it is very bad for BVR shadow boxing prior to engagement.


That is bad for BVR assuming One on One with no support, likely? Don't think so.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
In any case the Su-30 will have a tracking solution around the same time Superbug will with the AESA.


Against the Rhino? Against a common target I might agree. Also, besides unknown performance specifications the Super Hornet can do a number of things with its AESA which we really can't factor in here.

Link 01
Link 02
Link 03


Originally posted by Daedalus3
In that Dept the Su has advantages.


How do you figure? I think load-outs would be similar and the AESA/Super Hornet combination should have a greater capacity in terms of simultaneously guiding missile and tracking targets, according to public sources.


Since 2003, more details have also been revealed about the N-011M BARS ('Panther') hybrid phased array radar designed for the Su-35/37 and supplied on the Su-30MKI and likely the Su-30MKM. The BARS phased array assembly is mechanically steerable to +/-55 degrees off-boresight, providing a total field of regard in azimuth of +/-100 degrees off-boresight - in effect the combination of mechanical array steering and electronic beam steering provides full forward hemispherical coverage. NIIP claim a 3 dB noise figure three channel receiver, and an average transmit power of 1.2 kW, with 1 kW in illuminator mode for semi-active missiles. Air-air modes include Track While Scan for 15 targets and concurrent engagement of four, raid assessment and Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). Air-surface modes include real beam mapping, Doppler beam sharpening, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imaging, Ground/Maritime Moving Target Indicator (GMTI/MMTI), target position measurement and GMTI tracking of two concurrent targets. Aerial fighter sized targets have been acquired at 76 NMI, and moving tanks at 25 NMI.

Link



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Similarly, I'm sure you and the others are not claiming that the superbug maintains the same manueverability with and without weapons/fuel load.


Not at all, my views on the maneuverability of the Super Hornet are quite clear, as are my views on WVR combat.



Originally posted by Daedalus3
Again the Flankers(N011Ms and beyond) can do the same with(and more importantly without!) AWACS.
IMHO the first look and first shoot here is quite comparable even with AESA.


I disagree. In my opinion the AESA/Super Hornet combination will have better results. Lower signature (relatively), more functions and capability (resolution, multi function, processing power, LPI, etc…) The NO11M is a great radar but still not comparable to an AESA. Without AWACS the Flanker would be at an even greater disadvantage, in terms of early detection and tracking.


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Now that my friend, you would have to explain.


Is it really that hard to accept? Advanced avionics and sensors, situational awareness comparable to the Raptor, VLO design, enhanced range and endurance, next generation data link capability etc… Perhaps with the exception of prolonged WVR engagement any Flanker would be at a severe disadvantage against the F-35.



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
It could use some better engines...if I were the navy, I would give it some thrust vectoring F-100s and than it would be the match for anything in the sky right now.

Its an excellent BVR aircraft, strong radar, great armament.

One thing about that photo of the super hornet killing the Raptor...notice that the F-22 is in a steep dive and probably at a good speed, and the piper from the hornet is directly on it. I bring this up, because the bullets being fired at THAT MOMENT would not have hit it due to lead time...the hornet didnt lead it at all. Dont take me wrong though, I know it got it in the end, but I just want to point out that is not the frame that shows the kill.


yea the thrust vectoring f-100s.just like the su-37.it may be not the frame but the raptor was found with a system problem

quite recently.maybe the problem why it got shot down.or its a fake. the third is the part where the mig 25R foxbat-B's first kill was actually a hornet in its battle.


[edit on 10-8-2007 by SW phsyco]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by kilcoo316
But it is very bad for BVR shadow boxing prior to engagement.


That is bad for BVR assuming One on One with no support, likely? Don't think so.


Run that by me again?



You honestly trying to say flight elements won't manouvre and 'troll' around seeking the high-ground before engaging each other BVR?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Just a quick entry into the discussion here. I'll only join in if people really start bashing the Su-30 with regards to the Super Fries (which will now be my name for the F-18 E/F, just because it's funny
).

What were the weapons packages coming along with each purchase? This is a very relevant thing to look at. We know, for example, that a Super Fries squad will be significantly empowered by AWACS support. But if the Su-30s just happened to be supplied with an R-172 missile, that advantage is quickly diminished in a shower of flaming debris. Or what if the Super Fries came with huge loads of AIM-120s while the Su-30s did not include the R-77s? Etcetera Scenaria.

Just wondering if anyone knows the numbers that were proposed to go along with each proposal with regards to weaponry. If none were coming, what weaponry systems would be offered for further purchase?




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.


I've yet to see a Super Fries outdo a Su-30 display even unloaded
. Could it be the overpowering sex appeal of the Flanker?




Most likely.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
What most are forgetting is that the Su-30s in most AFs today will also have some if not considerable AEW/AWACS support.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Hey, this is my first post on this site, so here it goes...

First off, I'd just gotta say how impressive this thread has been. I've been on a lot of different forums and have seen threads heat up pretty quick over the debate if Russian fighters or American fighters are better.

I also just want to point out a couple things (don't know if these have been brought up or not - don't have that great of a memory of what everyone said), but first, I think that we would never, EVER sell a country, no matter how close our ally, a state-of-the-art American fighter that is decked out with the newest electronic equipment, radars, avionics, weapons, etc (it's called secrecy, and you won't see maximum performance of our fighters at some simple airshow). Japan has been hoping the F-22 would be up for grabs, but so far, it looks as if that fighter is a US exclusive.

Also, just a couple of quick corrections (and please don't think I'm some guy coming out of the blue): The AIM-9X has a 90 degree off-boresight capability, along with a thrust vectoring engine. I'm not quite sure what new tech the AIM-120D has. I don't even know how many Gs it can pull. But seriously, we can't expect the United States to actually tell us what our technology can do. In our Navy ships, we don't even disclose its max-max speed. We just say something like "30+ knots."

And again, on the topic of strategy, I completely agree with most of the things said on this thread. However, just a few facts about the AESA radar: it is incredibly hard for an RWR to pick up the signals sent out from the AESA. The AESA is capable of active jamming, as well as picking up stealthy targets. The AESA is also capable of acting as a communication system. The AESA radar is also practically anti-jammable.

As for tactics, the USN has TOPGUN, which covers everything from closing in on the enemy, engaging the "bad-guys," and squadron tactics.

I might have more stuff coming up. I'm completely open to any false information I might have accidentally posted, but I won't go down unless I'm confronted with hard-core evidence, so...

-AFP01



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I just re-read the original article by the Russian colonel (retired), as well as some of the very first posts in this article.

First, Malaysia has been trying to get their hands on the Super Hornet for some time now, apparently (according to Aviation Week). They were not able to purchase it this time, so they opted for the Su-30MKM. They hope that sometime in 2010-2015 that they will be able to get the Super Hornet. So, apparently the Su-30MKMs are just temporary fighter aircraft until they can get Super Hornets. Surprisingly, the only country that has actually been able to get a hold of the Super Hornet is Australia. All other countries currently operating older Hornets either cannot afford the new Super Hornet, or have not been offered the Super Hornet, probably because of high-end technology on the newer aircraft.

It kinda reminds me of the F-22, and how we won't sell it to other countries, close allies or not (except, of course, we did give the Super Hornet to Australia).

-AFP01



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
The DoD was talking about a sale of 18 Super Hornets to Malaysia as far back as 2002, but no sale ever took place. They also have offered them to India, and identified several other potential customers but with only Australia taking them.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
errmm..
The Su-30MKM is quite comparable to the SuperBug, if not better and more versatile. So Malaysia is not going for a 'lesser' option.

Secondly India is being offered 126 SuperBugs, AESA inclusive etc etc..
I'm not sure if they're offered AIM-9X and/or the AIM-120D. If there are other countries that have been offered the same then I see no reason why India should be offered the same.

However if India does actually choose the SuperBug over the MiG-35, Rafale, Typhoon,F-16(Blk 70) and Grippen is yet to be seen.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join