TUDM SU-30 ETA?

[Geoff R. 0]

Remember how the Argentines' relatively small and old air force managed to kick the Brit's arse during the Falklands War through superior tactics? They even used a C-130 to bomb a warship.

 

Anyway, the Su-30s do look nice and fearsome. I notice they have similar paint scheme as our Hornets.

 

 

 

A bit off topic, but your memory of the Falklands Conflict is a bit different from mine. The Argentinian forces exploited the lack of Airborne Early Warning (Gannets retired and before the Sea King AEW Mk.2 came in) to strike British shipping and for sure some of the Argentinian pilots demonstrated extreme bravery and skill - call it tactics if you wish. However, if you compare attack/fighter losses, Argentinia lost 11 Dagger As, 2 Mirage IIIEAs and 22 Skyhawks not to mention 25 Pucaras during the conflict compared to the UK losing 10 Harriers (2 lost in mid air collision, 5 lost to ground fire, 1 slid off deck in extreme weather, 2 lost due to technical problems) ie not a single loss in air-to-air combat. The Brits were numerically at a massive aircraft dissadvantage as well. Hardly an ass kicking. Oh and by the way the Brits won.

 

Geoff

[Mohd Idham 0]

What I would love to see in the RMAF is the built-up and concentration of the fleet to just two types: Su-30MKM (if it succeeds) and F/A-18F Super Hornet. Sell off those F-5s, Hawks and Mig-29. Use the MKM with its N011 BARS and R77 for long endurance air defence (a mirror to the F-14s AWG-9, AMRAAM combo) and use the Super Hornets for strike, interdiction mission. Here's a pair of aircraft that will shift the balance of power in the region to the favor of Malaysia and hold it till atleast 2015-17 when F-35 start making its appearance in the region (Singapore comes to mind).

 

I agree with that.........sell off those junks...those junks burns off taxpayers money rather than protecting...

[KK Lee 5]

Remember how the Argentines' relatively small and old air force managed to kick the Brit's arse during the Falklands War through superior tactics? They even used a C-130 to bomb a warship.

 

During the Falkland war, the Argentinean AF was good at sinking British ships with their exocet Anti-Ship missiles. However, their air to air sorties performed poorly against RN Sea Harrier/Sidwinder 9L.

 

 

[KK Lee 5]

lol...imp raying hard that they take good care of it..forget the 'frontliners' hawk..

 

an interesting article..

January 17, 2004

 

On 16th December, the Thales Group, a large European defense electronics manufacturer, signed a 150 million Euro (approximately $193 million) deal to provide avionics for the 18 Su-30MKM that Malaysia recently ordered.

 

The deal involves the installation of avionics, navigation, identification and optronics systems on the aircraft in Russia, and which will be carried out in partnership with Sukhoi, with integration under the oversight of the Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF).

 

Su-30 is like a Ferrari; exotic, good for showing off, expensive to maintain, keep in garage most of the time and impractical for every day use.

 

Not sure how well Thales avionics, navigation, identification and optronics systems will integrated with the airframe, engine and weapon system. Normally, these system are developed together, so they can perform seamlessly and takes years to perfect.

 

I bet my 2 cents, it will take years before these Su-30 can operate effectively.

 

 

[iwan 3]

iwan,

 

The MKM is an excellent aircraft in combat, no doubt. The ability of Malaysia to sustain a credible MKM fleet in long-run, factoring-in logistical implication and attrition, remains to be seen. Comparing to the Hornets the MKM is a high risk-high reward asset. I am cautiously-optimistic about the MKMs.

 

As for the Mig-29, boy I do hope that they don't waste our tight budget in going after the OVTs. Sell the Migs! Trade those hornets off and get a new fleet of Super instead. Uncle Sam will be more than happy to do so especially when the USMC probably need attrition Hornets to replace worned-out airframe from the Iraq war. Once we reduce the logistical nightmare can we only be able to milk the best out of the MKMs and realise that it is worth persuing a second or third squadron.

Andrew Lim,

 

I don't think it's a matter of it being an overly advance and expensive aircraft. I think what matter most is operational capability. RMAF continues to preech long-range overwater capability coupled with twin engine safety. Few aircraft matches that. If we look at the market:

 

Mig-29N or OVT - RMAF is asking the poor Migs to do too much, in sports car anology is like getting your Kancil turbocharged and expect it to hang in with the Ferrari in a race night-in night-out.

 

RMAF needs to trim back to two types and built on it if we want to have a credible force.

 

Oh yeah, I love those gunship gray scheme on the Hornets and Flankers.

Cheers

lol...what a way to put it..i didnt know the migs were that erm..weak...it is a decent aircraft still right?

about the colors..i wud prefer the skyblue camouflage scheme similiar to the russian planes..looks nice..ours can camouflage only when its going to rain..but who needs camouflage on a plane anyway..

 

to be honest...after reading the posts and comments from u guys..im starting to look at planes from an all new perspective..before this my only source of info was from the internet..no friends sharing the same interest at all and all i knew was the planes capabilities and specs etc. never once did i think about maintaining ,how having 3 types of strike planes could backfire,tactics and strategies etc...lots of new things learned..

[Andrew Lim 1]

During the Falkland war, the Argentinean AF was good at sinking British ships with their exocet Anti-Ship missiles. However, their air to air sorties performed poorly against RN Sea Harrier/Sidwinder 9L.

 

 

The Argentines only had a handful of Exocets (about 10 i think). A lot of the anti shipping missions were conducted with bombs and rockets. They didn't perform as well in the air to air sorties because they only had the rear aspect Sidewinders and not the more advanced all aspect ones.

 

There were even claims that the British aircraft carrier was hit even though this was disputed.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Andrew Lim

[KK Lee 5]

They didn't perform as well in the air to air sorties because they only had the rear aspect Sidewinders and not the more advanced all aspect ones.

 

Agreed with you.

 

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

 

[BC Tam 2]

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

In that case, the RMAF just blew a substantial budget away for thrust vectoring capability on the Sukhoi's !!

 

Anyway, the real way forward is apparently unmanned platforms. Comparative manouverability will become less critical as compared to having the extra bird to send out in case the first one get blasted out of the sky. Ironic, but quantity will take precedence over quality then ?!

[Andrew Lim 1]

Agreed with you.

 

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

 

 

Yep.

 

In the future air wars, especially with our immediate neighbours, we will be exchanging volleys of AMRAAM and R-77 at BVR ranges and be hoping that ours are more accurate than theirs.

 

Unless the SU-30 has stealth capabilities, it probably wont be able to get in close enough to show off its thrust vectoring ability.

 

Also, you cannot use thrust vectoring to fight crimes or terrorism, which is a more immediate threat that our country is facing today.

 

The chances of having our neighbours attack Msia in the near foreseeable future is akin to eliminating corruption in the police force, which is obviously nil.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Andrew Lim

[iwan 3]

Yep.

 

In the future air wars, especially with our immediate neighbours, we will be exchanging volleys of AMRAAM and R-77 at BVR ranges and be hoping that ours are more accurate than theirs.

 

Unless the SU-30 has stealth capabilities, it probably wont be able to get in close enough to show off its thrust vectoring ability.

 

correct me if im wrong but i thought those su30 maneuvers are not entirely for acrobatic reasons but it allows the plane to 'disappear' from the enemies radar for up to 5-7 seconds..thats the closest we can get to being stealth i guess..im confused by that statement actually..if we disappear..does it mean that the enemy cant lock on to us?so what happens if the enemies managed to release their missiles..will 'disappearing' from the radar do us any good against the heat seeking missiles?

[Andrew Lim 1]

correct me if im wrong but i thought those su30 maneuvers are not entirely for acrobatic reasons but it allows the plane to 'disappear' from the enemies radar for up to 5-7 seconds..thats the closest we can get to being stealth i guess..im confused by that statement actually..if we disappear..does it mean that the enemy cant lock on to us?so what happens if the enemies managed to release their missiles..will 'disappearing' from the radar do us any good against the heat seeking missiles?

 

 

I'm not sure how an aircraft can achieve stealth by pulling some special manouvers. Maybe what you mean is that the Su-30 can break radar lock by rapidly changing its location? I'm not sure either as i have not read that article. But AFAIK, SU-30 has not stealth capability.

 

And to answer your last question, disappearing from radar does not help against heat seekers as the missiles rely on heat signature and not radar guidance. An aircraft without a radar can still kill using heat seeking missiles.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Andrew Lim

[iwan 3]

I'm not sure how an aircraft can achieve stealth by pulling some special manouvers. Maybe what you mean is that the Su-30 can break radar lock by rapidly changing its location? I'm not sure either as i have not read that article. But AFAIK, SU-30 has not stealth capability.

 

And to answer your last question, disappearing from radar does not help against heat seekers as the missiles rely on heat signature and not radar guidance. An aircraft without a radar can still kill using heat seeking missiles.

 

i read the article in a forum at flymig.com..still trying to find the article thou..not exactly being stealth but when the cobras or bell maneuvers are performed..the aircraft will lose speed drastically and they mentioned that the radar cant detect(or as what they said,lazy to detect) stationary object in the skies..theres a rational explanation to that which i cant remember..will post them here once i find it..but if thats true..the sukhois will only be safe as long as they dun get fired upon right?

[Christopher Teoh 0]

lol...what a way to put it..i didnt know the migs were that erm..weak...it is a decent aircraft still right?

about the colors..i wud prefer the skyblue camouflage scheme similiar to the russian planes..looks nice..ours can camouflage only when its going to rain..but who needs camouflage on a plane anyway..

 

to be honest...after reading the posts and comments from u guys..im starting to look at planes from an all new perspective..before this my only source of info was from the internet..no friends sharing the same interest at all and all i knew was the planes capabilities and specs etc. never once did i think about maintaining ,how having 3 types of strike planes could backfire,tactics and strategies etc...lots of new things learned..

 

Mig-29s are good aircraft for its intended role. Like every aircraft when used properly it can be effective.

 

Agreed with you.

 

In modern air warfare, aircraft is a platform for weapons delivery. With fire and forget, out of sight missiles, dog fight capability is no longer essential like in WW I and WW II.

 

 

Close-in dog fight is still important. Uncle Sam learned it the hard way in Vietnam when they wrongly believed that fighters are just stand-off platform. Look at Falkland too. Hence we see development of a new generation of aircraft to address the problem. Look at the current Raptor too, as a good example.

 

 

Anyway, look-out for rear facing R-74 on the MKM, designed specifically to ward-off F-22/35 if they do 'surprise' them from the rear.

 

[Denny Yen 0]

As for the “cobra” maneuver is due to thrust vectoring

 

Furthermore, SU-30s superior turn rate is due to its canards and wing configuration. All these qualities do not make it a stealth fighter.

 

Andrew is correct. SU-30 has no stealth quality at all.

 

To achieve stealth, you need 2 qualities: low radar “footprint” and low heat- sound-radar-turbulence “signatures.”

Stealth planes are not 100% invisible. The trick is to fool the radar to interpret the blip as something other than a fighter jet.

 

According to Lockheed-Martin’s brochure, F-22A’s radar footprint is “…the size of a bumble-bee” (no kidding, they used these exacts words). Such low-radar visibility is due to the aircraft’s angular/boxy design, which deflects radar waves.

 

This is supplemented further by special coating/material on its airframe that absorbs some of those radar waves. There is no electronic switch that turns the stealth on or off. Everything is based on the shape and skin materials. To reduce the footprint further, all missiles/bombs are carried internally…even the canon has its own hatch.

 

When you vary the weapons configuration, its stealth quality is compromised.

 

As for low heat and IR emissions, engine exhausts are shielded with special materials and configuration.

 

F-22A’s radar system (wave emissions) was re-designed to prevent enemy missiles from picking up any “scent” and tracing it back to the source.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Denny Yen

[Edwin Yii 0]

to be honest i think the stealth been useful only on special mission as once the first strike had been launch...the stealth is or have been compromised....hence its all back to the basics of piloting...

[KK Lee 5]

i read the article in a forum at flymig.com..still trying to find the article thou..not exactly being stealth but when the cobras or bell maneuvers are performed..the aircraft will lose speed drastically and they mentioned that the radar cant detect(or as what they said,lazy to detect) stationary object in the skies..theres a rational explanation to that which i cant remember..will post them here once i find it..but if thats true..the sukhois will only be safe as long as they dun get fired upon right?

 

During the Vietnam war, all aspect sidewinder and BVR missile was not available, dog fight was inevitable. However, technology has evolved.

 

Older generation of radar ignore return signal that is slower than certain velocity. However, modern radar can be programmed to detect this manoeuvre.

 

Knowing Su-30 is superior in dog fight, enemy fighter will try to launch stand off missiles if possible. If enemy fighter is stealth, by the time Su-30 detect AoA launch, Su-30 may not have enough time to out run the missile.

 

[Denny Yen 0]

Quote from Lockheed-Martin's brochure, "...first-look, first-shot, first-kill..."

 

 

[Christopher Teoh 0]

During the Vietnam war, all aspect sidewinder and BVR missile was not available, dog fight was inevitable. However, technology has evolved.

 

Older generation of radar ignore return signal that is slower than certain velocity. However, modern radar can be programmed to detect this manoeuvre.

 

Knowing Su-30 is superior in dog fight, enemy fighter will try to launch stand off missiles if possible. If enemy fighter is stealth, by the time Su-30 detect AoA launch, Su-30 may not have enough time to out run the missile.

 

 

That was how most folks thought. Technology had become so high and mighty that a fighter is merely a launch platform and void of guns and close-in turn capabilities - so they just stand-off and shoot BVR. The result? Vietnam. Guns were quickly installed (F-4Es), turn slats were quickly scabbed-in (F-4E,G,N,S) so they could close-in and turn with the Migs. What was the lessons learned in Vietnam? Stand-off will never result in 100% kill, you will end up mixing-in in an old fashion grind out dogfight. Uncle Sam swore never to repeat itself again and produced the awesome F-15/F-16/F-18 - fighters that not only will shoot BVR but also tango with you up close. Today's successors, the F-22/F-35 (count the Su-30 in as well), adheres to that same principle as well. Why F-22/Su-30 thrust vector? So it could turn when needed to. If people think that today is all about stand-off and shoot BVR we will have an F-4 incarnation all over again. For every measure there is counter-measure. Offensive technology progresses and so does defensive measures as well. Most pilot will swear to you up and down that it is easier to out-turn and counter a missile than it is to engage up-close. Once the smoke clears form a BVR volley hell you know its time grind it out. BVR and old fashion dogfight goes hand-in-hand.

[KK Lee 5]

BVR and old fashion dogfight goes hand-in-hand.

 

No doubt about that, battle field is always unpredictable and unexpected.

 

 

[iwan 3]

well said..ive included a few interesting quotes from flymig forum regarding stealth etc.

 

right, I feel that i am obligated to clear a few facts here about stealth. As the name goes, Stealth refers to the art of getting in undetected. The major part being outwitting Radar. This is accomplished by RAM (Radar Absorbing Material) as well as in the shape of the aircraft itself. It is designed to de-flect radar waves instead of re-flecting it. So the stealthy aircraft can now travel directly into a Radar without the radar detecting it, or rather, with a neglegible "blip" to pass of as a bird. But in itself stealth means nothing. It takes a lot of planning to atcually get this to work the way it is supposed to, in a mission. Because stealth only applies when you go head-on into a radar.

 

Let me repeat that. Stealth only applies when you go head on into the radar. Little hard to believe i am sure. The Yanks never got around to telling us that. If you want proof then just imagine the F117 with all its angled surfaces heading into a radar and it deflecting away all the radar waves. Now imagine it going about 15-20 degrees to the side. The orientation of the angled surfaces changes completely, infact the angled surface will now de-flect less and re-flect a little more of the radar waves that are comming to it. Thus a lot of stealthiness is lost in this game.

 

But one can plan for this and make sure that by the time the F117 loses its stealth advantage, it is too late for the radar. BOOM.

 

Now there is one grave implication to this shortcomming of stealth. Consider an engagement between the su-30 and the F-22. They both come towards each other head-on from far away. They are both at the same altitude. Now the F-22 has a stealth advantage. But the Su-30 pilot now pulls up and the plane gains just about a 100 meters of altitude. You guessed it - Stealth ability Neutralized.

.

.

Now for a reality check; The F/a-22 uses airframe stealth which dramatically reduces its flying characteristics (see maneouverability) when compared to modern US aircraft such as the F-16. Airframe stealth only works in certain weather conditions, at certain speeds and when the radar searching for it is on a particular angle from it. Therefore if it is raining, the F/a-22 needs to go faster then Mach 1 or the plane searching for it isn't directly behind or in front then it is not really stealth.

 

It may be one day become a reality but as long as planes flying in the air they do create vortex.

Shape of "stealth" aircraft creates even more vortex as they are "aerodynamical mistakes".

Modern radars could trace the bullet trajectory, never mind the aircraft.

While aircraft standing still - many radars would give-up finding it and precisely the missile radars. So it is very much debatable weather "stealth" exist or not.

 

From what I can see - there is no stealth so far on either side of the pond.

[Mohd Idham 0]

You want stealth ?? ok, this is stealth fighter...

 

 

Taken somewhere in Area 51....

[KK Lee 5]

Don’t think ‘Stealth only applies when you go head on into the radar’ is accurate. During Iraq war, F-117 on ground attack sortie never goes straight on to ground or airborne radar, and yet remains undetected.

 

USAF is not that stupid to deploy F-117 and F-22 with limited stealth capability.

 

 

A radar with fast processor can trace air vortex left by aircraft. Believe this processor has yet to reduce in size and power consumption to fit in AWACS. So for fighter radar to detect air vortex is still some years to go.

 

 

[Andrew Lim 1]

Iwan,

 

Thanks for the article. I have read a similar version which says that by pulling the cobra manouver, the SU-30 will slow down significantly to defeat radar detection. That sounds terribly inconvenient as the plane would have to do this constantly all the way to the target. Why don't the pilot just fly level at a slow speed to start with instead of bobbing up and down as if the pilot has some obsessive compulsive disorder?

 

Another thing about the cobra, it looks nice and seems to work well on paper and in movies (Top Gun), but in real life, every fighter pilot knows that airplane speed and constant visual on target is crucial to winning a dogfight. BY doing the cobra, the pilot will lose speed and sight of his enemy. And in modern day combat, very rarely is it one on one.

So while the SU-30 pulls off the cobra move, the pursuing enemy (say an F-16) would zoom past him from under at 3 times the Su-30's speed. and disappear. Meanwhile, the SU-30 would be a sitting duck there with nearly 0 knot airspeed ready to be eaten for lunch by the F-16's wingman.

Edited May 31, 2007 by Andrew Lim

[Geoff R. 0]

Some cockpit shots from http://pilot.strizhi.info

 

 

 

Geoff

[BC Tam 2]

..... the sukhois will only be safe as long as they dun get fired upon right?

Conventional logic says that is correct - but if you look at RMAF's attrition rate even during peacetime operations, may be a bit misleading ....... !