I don't know anything about the capabilities of modern fighter jets, but I was impressed by the maneuverability of this Russian Su-30MKI, as seen in these videos.
Russian SU-30- Vectored Thrust with Canards. As you watch this airplane, look at the canards moving along side of, and just below the canopy rail. This is a video of an in-flight demonstration flown by the Russian SU-30MK fighter aircraft. You'll not believe what you are about to see. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping in less than a second. Then it demonstrates an ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. These capabilities don't exist in any other aircraft in the world today. Take a look at the video with the sound up. This aircraft is of concern to U.S. and NATO planners. We don't know which nations will soon be flying the SU-30MK, hopefully China isn't one of them.
Here are links to lots of videos about this jet:
Link (Thanks, Hudson!)
the latest
latest episodes
MARK SAID:
"but I was impressed by the maneuverability of this Russian Su-30MKI..."
Aside from it's "maneuverability" let's not forget that a fighter jet like this is designed to kill people...lots of people.
what father brown said.
its a guilty love afair one has with devices like that. It is without a doubt, a beautiful plane. The technology is impressive yeah, and just look at that style.
pity its built to kill.
We can has a thrust vectoring 2
Raptor F22 -
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UnU1xyBCte0
But can it transform into a hot anime girl...?
I believe this maneuver is called the Kulbit. A couple of Russian planes can do this as well as the US F-22. This will probably be a standard maneuver of fifth generation fighter aircraft.
if boingboing were to pow-wow with schactman and the rest of the defensetech writer staff, they would tell you that there aren't any "fifth generation" soviet aircraft flying or even in any real development, and that their avionics and weapons packages are greatly inferior to the US and other NATO fighters. PRC would have to fly many hundreds of them to gain air superiority over the F22.
Still, it's amazing. Check out the Dryden research page for a research plane called the X-31.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/X-31/index.html
now if we could only get that kind of maneuverability into my commuter bus...
I second Mr. Meat Popsicle. Russia's ability to field "fifth generation" fighter aircraft is shot, and they simply aren't keeping up with various Western developments in other areas of fighter aircraft design.
The kind of maneuverability that's being shown here is really only of use in fighter vs. fighter combat, something that isn't really relevant to any of the conflicts occurring today. Being able to outmaneuver a NATO aircraft in a dogfight isn't relevant if most fighter vs. fighter combat is taking place a beyond visual range, either.
We might have thrust vectoring too, but if this is anything like the SU-27 and its Split-S manuever, then the Russians have us beat again. Sukhoi is a very impressive design house that has always pushed the envelope, making planes do things that planes should never be able to do. Sure it's a war machine - but it's also a really damned impressive bit of engineering.
"The kind of maneuverability that's being shown here is really only of use in fighter vs. fighter combat, something that isn't really relevant to any of the conflicts occurring today. "
Maneuverability doesn't just lend itself to battle. Flat spin recovery is amazingly important and it seems like this aircraft could recover from some very bad aerodynamic malfunctions more easily than today's jets.
The Sukhoi Su-27 I believe has been doing things like this for a while now. It was in fact the test-bed for the thrust-vectoring system.
As for the arguments that maneuverability isn't useful when engagements are beyond-visual-range, they made that argument in the Viet Nam era too. We've solved the technical problems since then, but that doesn't help. The problem is that it doesn't matter whether the planes and missiles can hit targets the pilot can't see. If you look at the various Iraq wars, the rules of engagement were early on changed (because of friendly-fire incidents) to prohibit engagement until after the pilot had visual identification. If you aren't allowed to shoot until you're in visual range, you will end up in a close-in dogfight no matter what your aircraft and weapons are capable of.
quote:
We don't know which nations will soon be flying the SU-30MK, hopefully China isn't one of them.
No, China will be flying the SuClone 30MK which besides having similar capabilities will be plagued by 50% less operational range but, on the other hand, will be able to broadcast digital MP3 copyrighted music for free and also to scan unprotected wireless networks and spread all sorts of software malwares :D
This and the F-22 are impressive machines indeed, but its worth noting that they are mostly obsolete in regards to current warfare. I suppose obsolete is an incorrect term, is there a word for being too-advanced? Post-obsolete?
My point is, all the Vectored Thrusts, Canards and Kulbit Maneuvers in the world will do bupkis against a single 17 year old with an AK-47 planting IEDs on the side of the road. Urban warfare has no place for fighter jets. Perhaps in the occasional ground support mission... in which case one would be serving as less a fighter jet then a bomber.
I find it hard to believe we will ever see another traditional style Dog Fight ever again in modern combat. Even if the US, Russia and/or China ever have fisticuffs, I wouldn't worry about who has the faster jets, I'd be more concerned with who has the better fallout shelters.
#11: Ahh, those neo-modern weapons like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin-Nagant !
IANAE in this field but I would direct people to the ever informative War Is Boring blog, which does a great job of keeping tabs on changes in military hardware.
The basic gist of things as I understand it is that projects like the Joint Strike Fighter and similar fast attack, air to air combat aircraft are largely irrelevant in modern conflict. And that is a very good thing for the average person. The need for aircraft like the F22 or Su-30MKI means that the military is expecting large scale warfare against militarily advanced nations. We focused on fighter technology a great deal when we thought that we would be having WWIII with the USSR.
However, in current conflicts the real need for airpower is defined by precise and long loitering aircraft. Blowing up a building with a 500lb bomb from an aircraft barreling through the air at super speed because it contains 6 terrorists that might be planting IEDs on busy roads is not exactly a "hearts and minds" kind of strike. It increases the likelihood that innocent civilians will receive collateral damage.
Something like a gunship can loiter over an area known to be dangerous and talk directly to forces on the ground, providing them with better perspective. Then it can engage enemies with pinpoint accuracy using much smaller armaments than a 500lb bomb.
For those that are curious:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i45/19.pdf
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/air-force-eyes-.html
KurtMac:
Nuclear weapons make fighting between major world powers improbable, but the Cold War has shown us that fighting between major powers and proxies can occur and that the proxies will be armed by a major power. The US high kill/loss ratio of WWII was whittled away in the Korean and Vietnam Wars by advanced Soviet aircraft. And the Stinger missiles supplied by the US to Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghanistan War were very effective. This only goes to show that even though you aren't fighting directly against another major power, you might still have to deal with their advanced weapons.
Additionally, while urban combat is certainly an important type of warfare, it isn't the only type of warfare. If an enemy can choose a battle, it will always choose your weak spot just as you would attack an enemy's weak spot if you had the choice.
WoW, very cool!...if you can manage to find enough skilled pilots to fly it as it's demonstrated and manage to keep it in the sky then you got your self quite a capable threat. The AV-8B Harrier (and to some degree the V-22 Osprey) is great examples of this. It take a very rare and talented pilot to fly these types of vector controlled aircraft at their potential. Even then mistakes and misevaluations are made and boom, no more fancy airplane.
...Besides the area of the dog fight is pretty much over. It's all about "fire and forget" from kilometers away before you even get a chance to see your target. Though I can see how that kind of maneuverability would be useful in evading the odd missile or two.
@ 1 & 2.
There's nothing wrong with killing people. It's why you kill people that is important. Do it for the right reasons and it's noble, for the wrong ones hideous. If we hadn't killed people the Nazi's would still be in power over all of Europe, noble. If Hitler hadn't killed people we wouldn't have had to, hideous.
And having invoked Godwin's Law I now declare myself the loser of this discussion and will move on.
-abs
dogfights will happen again, definitely. it'll be F22s and F15Es against Iranian F14s and Su27s or a slew of chinese fighters. we have had the luxury of fighting against nations with little to no functioning air force, since we can pick our battles right now.
we've been through one nuclear cold war, it will be a similar situation if we get into one with china.
"Neutralizing the Insurgents. Whether
the AC–130 finds insurgents on its optimized
flight plan or rushes to the aid of a friendly
ground force, it has the ability to attack the
insurgents nearly instantaneously when
cleared by the JTAC and his ground force
commander. It can do this because of its
precise fire, low-yield munitions and ability
to communicate and confer simultaneously
with every level of theater Army, Air Force,
Marine, and SOF command and control.
While immediate fire on the insurgents
is often preferred, certain situations will
require further analysis and preparation.
The AC–130, with 4 hours of loiter time
and the ability to refuel in air, can wait for
a ground or heliborne quick-reaction force
to be mustered to assist with the situation.
These forces should be ready to move immediately,
knowing the well-practiced ability of
the AC–130 to vector small ground units to
the target area quickly and safely. Once on
scene, the quick-reaction force uses the situational
awareness and precise firepower of
the gunship to help assess the situation and
neutralize the enemy, if required."
Its not to say that we shouldn't be ready for massive aerial battles... its possible that they could happen. But the reality is that these type of aircraft are not in high demand in current conflicts. Its a very interesting hardware problem from the point of view of the military (US and otherwise). We are literally in need of propeller driven aircraft... welcome to the 21st century? right?!
Ah, the "We'll hit the brakes and they'll blow right by us." maneuver. It's a dogfight maneuver that relies on the element of surprise. As featured in Top Gun and the original Battlestar Galactica miniseries. And the Russians have been boasting about their ability to do it for years.
So, other than the fact that no-one will be surprised, and the Americans would forgo the dogfight and toss a missile at them from beyond the Su-30's radar range, it should go swimmingly.
Urban warfare has no place for fighter jets.
Clearly you haven't watched the end of True Lies enough times. Give the governor of California a Harrier and he'll beat the terrorists every time!
the AV-8 Harrier pioneered vectored thrust and has been around for a while.
Yes, China DOES have the Su-30MK. They ordered an enhanced version from Russia with an upgraded structure to have a higher load-out capacity (34.5tons vice 30.5tons). China also has ordered an upgraded version called the Su-30MKK2, which is designed for precision attack and does C4ISTAR.
On the plus side, the USA is not the prime target for China...that would be Taiwan.
Oh yeah, source: http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/su30.asp
In reference to California's governor, once the machines get ahold of this we're all in trouble.
It really frightens me that so many people on this little message board know so much about fighter planes, weaponry and war.
Maybe it's the evil influence of 90s video battles games come to fruition.
The world doesn't need another pretty flyboy plane, the US should reallocate the $$ to a close air support plan, so it can properly support the groundpounders. The A-10 is long in the tooth.
Are we really anticipating a war with China? If so, the world economic collapse seems to be more relevant than issues of air superiority. China is buying these fighters because they want to waste billions on cold war era defense just like us!
I, for one, think it's adorable. :)
It's worth pointing out that the obvious rival to the Su-30MKI -- the F-22 Raptor -- has stealth tech and can fly a mile above the Su. That's worth more than a bucket of tail-stands.
So, let's say you are producing a war plane that is stuffed to the gills with electronics and you anticipate supplying this thing to a world market, mostly to countries that don't have the technical ability to make their own.
It's likely those customers won't have the inclination or ability to dig through the deep details of the hardware or software to figure out exactly what all of it does.
Anticipating that at some point in the 20 or 30 year lifespan of such hardware it might be directed against you or your allies, maybe you'd put some subtle back doors into it? Nothing obvious, just a little something that would ensure that you would always prevail when you come up against that hardware.
For an example of the evil subtly that could be injected into such a system, refer to the classic article "Ken Thompson and the Self-Referencing C Compiler"
father brown sez
"It really frightens me that so many people on this little message board know so much about fighter planes, weaponry and war.
Maybe it's the evil influence of 90s video battles games come to fruition."
not likely. i'd chalk it up to interest in cutting-edge technology and international politics, which often hinge on what nation has what military capability.
Codesuidae, the US and other nations export "sanitized" versions of their hardware to other nations, without the advanced equipment that really gives them the edge in battle. there's always the spectre of having say, Japan or Egypt sell some of it's tech to someone we don't like, say Myanmar.
RE: #29 posted by bricology
"That's worth more than a bucket of tail-stands."
Those tail-stands might prove pretty damn useful tho when you're trying to shake a missile that has lock on you.
RE: #26 posted by Father Brown
"It really frightens me that so many people on this little message board know so much about fighter planes, weaponry and war."
Why does that frighten you? The people that know the most about weapons and warfare and the destruction that can result are also usually the ones that are least likely to want to actually use them in a real war.
It's cool tho to use them in a video game.
Instead of thinking that these weapons are designed to kill - think of them as being designed to help keep you from being killed.
Whats with the China Bashing?
Meh. Those low speed maneuvers are impress only airshow attendees. Hovering still in a dogfight only gets you killed.
And a huge airbrake aft of the cockpit?? That's so 1974.
Watching one of the video - the one really selling that machine - made me feel very unreal and I wondered who these people are that - one, sell these thing, and - two, buy these things. Here is what I came up with
http://www.merlinsilk.com/2007/12/05/the-russian-sukhoi-30mk-can-do-amazing-stunts/
Spooky!
Merlin
This is 25-year-old tech. The British Harrier "Jump-Jet" deked the Argentine airforce out of its pants in way back when in 1982. Taking off straight up means you can pack more fighters onto a smaller carrier. And VIFFing (Vectoring In Forward Flight) meant that an Argentine fighter on your went goes screaming past you when you figuratively "hit the brakes". In a few seconds the dogfight changes from him being on your tail to you being on his tail. Let's just say the Argentines lost a lot of dogfights.
Father Brown @26: Not in my case, I'm a relic of the Cold War, and in the seventies I invaded or defended the Fulda Gap many, many times, using nothing but paper maps and cardboard counters. If you think big fast jets are scary, you should try using (virtual) 100 kT nukes in West Germany, where the average distance between villages and towns is about the blast radius of a 10 kT weapon.
Thing is, if you're convinced that all future conflicts are going to be COIN operations and plan accordingly, then someone will try and take advantage of that by performing a conventional operation, e.g. grabbing Taiwan, claiming the newly forming North-West passage or taking back Texas. So, to be sensible, given the inertia of the weapons development and procurement process, you have to plan for any type of conflict you can imagine. Plus, the military-industrial-entertainment complex does love those big baroque weapons. And, Cold War dinosaur that I am, so do I.
I think you folks are seeing the vertical stall and recovery just fine but missing how the canards are used for quicker deceleration and maneuverability.
If you do a search on the jet itself it is very much a "5th Generation" aircraft in both structure and the avionics package. Although I am not fond of technology designed for the sole use of harming people, I first heard of this jet because Israel, India, and Russia jointly developed it to fight against rebel and terrorist groups. I'm not sure why anyone is considering the capabilities in air-to-air combat when this was long replaced by guided missiles.
This aircraft, along with the Su-33, Su-37, and so on is a further development of the SU-27, which could do several of these same maneuvers in the late 1970's, WITHOUT thrust vectoring such as "Pugachev's Cobra" where the aircraft pitches up over 90 degrees while still maintaining the flight level.
You can actually fly the Su-27 and Su-33 if you play the game Lock-On, in a very realistic way.
I'd like "Father Brown" to explain exactly why it's a bad thing for people to know a lot about "weaponry and war."
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool peacenik; I think war is almost always the racket General Smedley Butler told us it is. I grew up going to anti-Vietnam-War demonstrations. And I think the more that people like us know about "weaponry and war," the better.
Many aspects of "weaponry and war" are tons of fun. Including many situations in which people are in fear for their lives--but, in the crisis, connecting to one another on a deeper level than they'll ever achieve at any other point in their lives. Until we understand this, really understand what human beings get out of one of our oldest pasttimes, we'll make very little progress at the project of making wars less likely.
There's no virtue in ignorance. None.
There is another way.
I have to disagree with the large number of people saying that such maneuverability is completely useless in the world of today's fire-and-forget missiles. I've been watching the History Channel show "Dogfights." While a number of the modern engagements use beyond visual range weaponry, rules of engagement or technical failures force pilots to engage in close, turning dogfights more than you'd think.
As one example, in tonight's program, a pair of F-15C Eagles were on patrol in Iraq. After the initial engagement of a pair of MiG 29 Fulcrums, one MiG got away. As they turned to leave the combat area, an unidentified aircraft appeared behind them. In order to protect themselves, the Eagles had to turn toward the bogey. As they closed at high speed, they still could not identify the aircraft. Eventually, AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) identified the aircraft as an enemy . The F-15's IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) system tagged the aircraft as a friendly. In order to resolve this discrepancy, one of the F-15s had to close to visual range and engage what turned out to be a MiG 29 in a turning dogfight.
Moral of the story: There will continue to be dogfights for the foreseeable future. If you don't have aircraft that are capable of holding their own in a dogfight, then the enemy will strive to engage you in dogfights as often as possible. On a larger, strategic level, the same principle applies. If you do not maintain a suitable capability in every area, the enemy will find your weak point, and attack there. You can see that in our current "War on Terror." The insurgents are not generally attacking our heavily armored M1 Abrams or M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicles. They tend to choose to attack the HMMWV (Humvee) convoys as they are more susceptible to the weapons that are available to them. On another level, they are choosing to attack us as insurgents because our military force is at its weakest in the counter-insurgent role.
I'm not an expert in these topics, but I do sense the usual anti-Russian bias that contaminates much of American thinking. The Russians have developed many impressive aircraft and associated technologies. They are the ones who can automatically apportion munitions deployment across airframes. Sometimes the Russians are better than us at some things. They are better at chess, usually, for example. There mathematical development is great. Their academic system is rigorous and probably more meritocratic than ours. They delineated all of the topologies for switching power supplies long before they could be practically realized, as an example. Wonderful at mainframe software. Not to mention literature and music.
But regardless, there seems to be this jejune need to view their culture as backward, despite all evidence. Why is this?
there seems to be this jejune need to view their culture as backward, despite all evidence. Why is this?
For the same reason we think that the "Orange Revolution" was a spontaneous expression of anti-Russian nationalism (and that the good guys won) or that Hugo Chavez is a dictator.
I'd like to point out that the ability for a plane to do this:
a) Isn't a first
b) Is in no way linked to combat effectiveness
c) Requires Vodka
this is just beautiful :)
It looks great!
Though, it won't get a chance to show off while against f-22. Even some loss at manuvrability will be more than compensated with stealth.
Father Brown @26: Not in my case, I'm a relic of the Cold War, and in the seventies I invaded or defended the Fulda Gap many, many times, using nothing but paper maps and cardboard counters. If you think big fast jets are scary, you should try using (virtual) 100 kT nukes in West Germany, where the average distance between villages and towns is about the blast radius of a 10 kT weapon.
Thing is, if you're convinced that all future conflicts are going to be COIN operations and plan accordingly, then someone will try and take advantage of that by performing a conventional operation, e.g. grabbing Taiwan, claiming the newly forming North-West passage or taking back Texas. So, to be sensible, given the inertia of the weapons development and procurement process, you have to plan for any type of conflict you can imagine. Plus, the military-industrial-entertainment complex does love those big baroque weapons. And, Cold War dinosaur that I am, so do I.
Ha, I second Patrick (and was going to, even before I saw it was Patrick who said it.) I'm a Quaker, and one of the first times I really thought about non-violence was as I was learning karate. I'll leave further belaboring of the parallel to the reader.
I guess that's why all the 5th gen fighters have canards (Eurofighter, Gripen & the Typhoon)
The F-22 can only thrust vector for pitch.
This lil russian badass is capable of 3d thrust vectoring, and is in service with the Indian Air Force. Pretty sure the billions of dollars the IAF is pouring into Sukhoi and Mikoyan ensures the chinese will only get their hands on it if they produce a pirated copy, cause that's how they roll.
With a $200 million price tag, I doubt the F-22's going to see frontline service anytime soon. Its a prestige plane so some medal laden fart can boast about the number of wings under his command. Even when it flies, they'll be sure to restrict it to certain altitudes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eeiqMn7xb_Y
Go to 1:45 for a closeup of the engines.
aenertia: What's with the China bashing?
h, thy sck whl bg f dcks? Where you been?
shooosh: h, thy sck whl bg f dcks? Where you been?"
I've been in Iraq.
Father Brown (1), please excuse my impatience, but I doubt that anyone's going to miss the fact that fighter jets are instruments of war.
Kurtmac (13), fighter jets aren't intended to counter 17-year-olds who devise roadside IEDs.
Maybe we'll see more dogfights; maybe we won't. I would have sworn that horse cavalry would never be seen again until the first photos came out of our war in Afghanistan. War has a way of upsetting expectations. You never know what the other guy is going to bring to the party.