Russian SU-30 MK video

[Baitman]

wonder what will happen when the Chinese start making Radar and missiles for the soviets?

[mechanic]

the Chinese already provide the UK with them, it's called bonfire night. 

[LLogann]

Please keep in mind, this plane has been modified and is non-military.  We do the same exact thing.  For airshows, the planes are removed of most combat components, reducing the weight as much as possible.  Call it cheating?  Nah, airshows are for private citizens and not military buyers.

For a better explanation of the problems with the SU-30 MKI (Indian version) check this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlJndMO1O80

ANd then a head to head with the Raptor as spoken on in previous video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za3KfMFKLk

[humble]

Whats interesting is the explanation of the different vectoring dynamics and surprising sustained turn of the F-22. From what I gather the SU-30 is basically going blind to the merge relying on its own jamming as a mask...so basically its relying on getting to close in combat vs the f-15/16 where its sustained 22 deg/sec turn rate and vector thrust will give it an edge. Separate from its much greater pure dog fighting ability the F-22 will be able to engage the SU-30 BVR. What I really found interesting is the idea that the real threat is from older refurbished planes like the bison that have upgraded BVR capability...

[Babalonian]

As others have said, the F/A-22 wasn't designed to get it's hands dirty.  It's designed to cruise stealthfuly within striking range of it's ordinance (well beyond visual or most enemy countermeasure/detection range), drop it's ordinance and run/hide.  

I'd be interested to see how the SU-30 holds up against a F-35 though (ignoring the fact that, much like with the F/A-22, the SU-30 will be dead before he knows the F-35 is out there).

[iTunes]

As a matter of Interest here, where in the heck do you boys get all this Information from? I've never heard of the SU 30 or whatever it's called till now, that Russain crate comes over as a cross between an La7 and a zeke by the looks of things.

[Babalonian]

I think (from my horrible memory) the SU-30 is an upgraded SU-27 that was developed in the mid '90s.  It's a beutiful aircraft that, in my own opinion, was built to fight in air battles that haven't been common since the end of WWII (gun-range dogfighting, turning-n-burning, w/e you want to call it).  Compared to the SU-27 I think it has an increased range of up to ~3,000 N-miles, which I think was the SU-27's main drawback (it's lack of range compared to other craft of the time).  The SU-30 also has upgraded electronics and such, and it operates with two pilots, much like the F-14 tomcat, which in itself is an edge above other one-pilot aircraft imo.

[macerxgp]

Close, but you're just off on the range liability. The Su-27 was developed as the long range counterpart to the short-range MiG-29. The MiG was for short range defense, and the Su as a long range interceptor.

[Babalonian]

I recall reading somewhere about the SU-27 having lack-luster range capabilities, or at least it did when the newer SU-30 came rolling out for comparison.    I know the MiG-29 had horrible range, so i guess it wasn't hard to develope a longer range fighter (the SU-27) and then improve that design to be even more efficient (the SU-30).

[humble]

As others have said, the F/A-22 wasn't designed to get it's hands dirty.  It's designed to cruise stealthfuly within striking range of it's ordinance (well beyond visual or most enemy countermeasure/detection range), drop it's ordinance and run/hide.  

I'd be interested to see how the SU-30 holds up against a F-35 though (ignoring the fact that, much like with the F/A-22, the SU-30 will be dead before he knows the F-35 is out there).

Thats what I thought but listening to the briefing its clear the F-22 is a significantly better dogfighter then anything else in the world by a wide margin and it retains a gun pod specifically for close in work....

[Dream Child]

No, the F-22A is very stealthy. It's RCS is the size of a pea. And making the assumption that sonar is in any way comparable to radar is simply not true. You can't make a 'phased-array sonar'. You can do that with radar, which makes the F-22A (and all other aircraft equipped with AESA radar) able to avoid detection. The AN/APG-77 has, as I said before, LPI, low probability of intercept properties. Phased array radars are especially difficult to detect, because they do not have physically deflecting modules. Phased arrays use solid state transceivers, which have traverse speeds in the 10's of nanoseconds.


So yes, the F-22A is VERY stealthy.

I'm not sure how much you know about radar. Based on you using sound bites from (name your source here) for your arguments, I'd say you don't really understand what's going on. Active radar is essentially the use of electromagnetic waves, emitting them out, attempting to bounce them off of a target, and then detecting the reflected waves back at the receiver. This necessitates the travel of the waves at twice the distance of the target, so if the target reflects the waves perfectly, you will be able to see the target at the maximum range that the radar can detect anything. This also means that if I'm looking for electromagnetic waves, assuming I have as sensitive a detection device as the radar that sent the waves, I can see the source at 2 times the distance as the radar can see our fictional perfect reflection. In real life, that distance is much greater, as no aircraft reflects electromagnetic waves perfectly.

Being stealthy requires that you 1) can't bees seen by enemy radar (awfully big subject) 2) can't be seen by a person (the reason stealth is only really good at night, and even that can be defeated) 3) don't emit electromagnetic radiation 4) don't emit heat (electromagnetic radiation in the infrared spectrum) and 5) don't make audible sound. All of the claims about how stealthy plane x is requires assumptions about the enemies abilities and that the enemy doesn't make some breakthrough that renders your "stealth" obsolete. Any of these items can be defeated.

[macerxgp]

Low probability means low probability. It's not a surefire thing. It is not 100% stealthy, nothing is. There are ways to decrease its odds of being picked up, but not completely. 

[Dream Child]

Low probability means low probability. It's not a surefire thing. It is not 100% stealthy, nothing is. There are ways to decrease its odds of being picked up, but not completely. 

  Saying something is "low probability" means absolutely nothing without knowing what percentage chance we're speaking of, and also knowing what assumptions are being made about the detection equipment used by the enemy. Neither of those items are published (rightly so, as it would delve into national security issues), so we're left with sound bites from the PR arm of the manufacturer.

  As far as trying to be 100% stealthy, to do so would require you to match all of the surrounding electromagnetic noise, so you can't be perfectly quiet, of more specifically, you can't block the surrounding radiation without generating a matching level. An example of this would be to fly a black plane during the daylight. I can see it, so it's not very stealth. If I fly a black plane at night, I can still "see" it if it crosses in front of a lit object such as a star, so it's still not as stealthy as we would like it to be, but it's better than during the day.

[saantana]

This debate is nonesense.

You are all forgetting the cost of a raptor vs a flanker.

One pop of a raptor and the US will stop the war due to 'high casualties'.

And do you seriously think that the ruskies don't have things up their sleeves for these pretty shiny gray planes you call invisible?

Like the detabe of the missile defense system in Europe. Russia already has manouvering low level ballistic missiles capable of dodging anything, and that was before US missiles proved they can actually hit something flying STRAIGHT!

You surely must travel outside of North America someday 

Americas main problem is China, not the ruskies IMO.