Russia's Sukhois shift the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific

[vector7]

AUSTRALIA: Wary of Asia Pacific’s Modernising Militaries

September 23rd, 2008

Global Geopolitics Net Sites / IPS
Tuesday, September 23, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.
Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Sep 23 (IPS) - Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has warned that Australia needs to prepare for ”the increased militarisation” of the Asia-Pacific.

In a speech to the Returned and Services League’s (RSL) national congress on Sep.9, Rudd spoke of the need for Australia to build up its defence capabilities as the region becomes wealthier.

”The Asia-Pacific region will become more prosperous and its population will continue to grow,” Rudd told his audience.

He said that the ”region will be home to the largest and most dynamic economies in the world” by 2030. ”As nations grow and become more affluent, they also update their military forces,” argued Rudd.

The Australian leader’s assertions have garnered considerable attention here, where historic fears of the nation’s Asian neighbours have been somewhat compounded by the resurgence of China.

Figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) show that military expenditure in the region — based on market exchange rates — is indeed on the rise. Nations in Asia and Oceania allocated funding worth 219 billion US dollars to their militaries in 2007, representing a 52 percent increase on 1998 levels.

But while this increase is indicative of global trends — all regions have increased military spending since 1998, according to SIPRI. The Americas saw the biggest leap, up 63 percent, while Europe’s increase was the smallest, up 16 percent — there are concerns in Australia that the nation is at risk of falling behind its neighbours.

Ron Huisken, from the school of Pacific and Asian studies at the Australian National University, says that as a general rule, when a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) increases, so does its military budget.

”And everybody’s GDP is going up in Asia. Most of them are going up faster than ours,” he says.

Despite this, Australia was ranked 14th in the world by SIPRI in 2007 in terms of overall military expenditure.

While the United States — which was responsible for a massive 45 percent of the world’s military spending last year — headed the list, other nations in the Asia-Pacific region were also among the world’s big spenders in terms of defence budgets. China, Japan, India and South Korea all spent considerably more than Australia.

But South-east Asian nations have also boosted their military capabilities, particularly in their navies and air forces, according to Lachlan Colquhoun, assistant secretary of Southeast Asia affairs in the Australian defence department’s international policy division.

Fronting a parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s relationship with ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) on Sept.12 — three days after the Prime Minister’s speech — Colquhoun acknowledged the investments in military forces made by Australia’s immediate neighbours, but cautioned against describing the situation as an arms race.

”I think it is fair to say that we do not see an arms race in the region, but there is a substantial military modernisation,” he told the parliamentary committee.

This comes at a time of increasing concern that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is being spread too thinly. Currently, some 4,000 ADF personnel are on duty in operations around the world, including major deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, the Solomon Islands, and East Timor, with smaller components in Sudan, the Sinai, and Israel, among other places.

In order for Australia to prepare for what he described as ”the emerging security environment” in the Asia-Pacific region, the Prime Minister said that the acquisition and development of military technology is to be the rock on which Australia’s future security lies.

Rudd wants such technology to be supported by the development of key capabilities — enhanced naval and air force capabilities and ”the best trained, best commanded forces possible.”

To pay for the ADF’s update, the Prime Minister has signalled an increase in ”the real growth of the defence budget by three percent per annum to 2017-18.”

According to Huisken, however, this amounts to a paltry increase in spending.

”That means the ADF will never get above two percent of GDP and there are pronounced limits on how many capabilities you can ask them to excel at,” he opines.

”There is a huge difference in an ADF which is specialised to do Solomon Islands-type operations [where Australian forces lead the regional assistance mission, known by its acronym, RAMSI] or large-scale disaster relief, humanitarian operations like tsunami-response, and an ADF that can help cool animosities in the Taiwan Strait, for example, at some point in the future,” says Huisken.

But with Rudd wanting to prepare Australia for an altered security environment in the Asia-Pacific in the coming years — ”the demographic changes in our region will mean that by 2020 when we look to our north, we will see a very different region to the one we see now. One where population, food, water and energy resource pressures will be great,” he said — he is keen to build on Australia’s existing relations with its neighbours through diplomatic means.

Although he noted that Australia’s alliance with the U.S. ”will remain the bedrock of our strategic policy,” Rudd wants Australia to comprehensively engage with Asia and the Pacific.

Economically, Asia is becoming more important to Australia, with China now the nation’s biggest trading partner and Japan also a major market for Australian products, as well as a large supplier.

Australia has been keen to conclude free trade agreements (FTA) in the region too. The country has existing FTAs with Thailand and Malaysia, and last month finalised negotiations for a region-wide FTA with ASEAN and New Zealand.

But Australia also has defence ties with many nations in the region — including Japan and most of the ASEAN nations — and Kevin Rudd wants to expand security cooperation with the regional giants, China and India.

Although this burgeoning interconnection between Australia and its neighbours may yet be crucial in avoiding conflict in the region, it will not guarantee the prevention of hostilities, says Huisken.

He cautions that prior to the First World War, interdependence among nations rivalled that of today.

”And yet that conflict still broke out,” he says.

[vector7]

Posted on September 22, 2008 - by Venik

The Joint Strike Fighter Dilemma

Australia NATO

As Australia is considering buying a hundred Lockheed-Martin/Boeing F-35A fighter-bombers for USD 83 million a piece, reports have emerged that the much-advertised stealth aircraft was comprehensively defeated by Sukhoi Su-35 in August 2008 during classified computer-simulated war games in Hawaii conducted by the USAF with participation from other NATO members. While Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin officials hotly dispute the reports, at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia’s Defence Intelligence Organisation were said to have witnessed the simulation. The West Australian newspaper reported earlier this month that F-35s have been “clubbed like baby seals” by the simulated Su-35s.




Lockheed-Martin F-35A Lightning II


Originally, Australia opted for the most “basic” version of the JSF - the F-35A, which lacks short or vertical takeoff/landing capability. Over the past few years the cost of this aircraft ballooned some 54% to $83 million for each aircraft bringing the total cost of the program, should Australia choose to go forward with it, to USD 16 billion. To put this amount in perspective, the latest Sukhoi Su-35 costs about $65 million and the Su-30M retails for less than $45 million. An article in Jane’s Defence Weekly by noted combat aircraft expert Pierre Sprey and defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler was highly critical of the JSF:

“It is too fast to see the tactical targets it is shooting at, too delicate and flammable to withstand ground fire and it lacks the payload and especially the endurance to loiter usefully over US forces for sustained periods as they manoeuvre on the ground.”

On the other hand, pitting the F-35 against the Su-35 is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. The American aircraft was designed primarily as a light strike aircraft with air-to-air capability, while the Russian Su-35 is a heavy air-superiority fighter with ground attack capability. The Su-35 is faster, has longer range, higher payload, and it can carry a greater variety of weapons than the F-35. And for every F-35 you can buy two Su-30Ms or one Su-35 with about USD 20 million to spare. While Australia’s South-East Asian neighbors are buying Sukhois, Canberra has its eyes set on overpriced Lockheed products. For some time now Australia has been trying to get the US to lift export ban on the F-22, which would be a much better match for the Russian-made jets but comes at a mind-boggling cost of USD 138 million.


Sukhoi Su-35

Australia is too deeply entangled with the US military-industrial complex to make the right choice here. If Washington lets them, the Australians will buy the F-22 - the most expensive production fighter aircraft ever built - and, if not, then RAAF will be flying the “baby seals”. It is interesting that Australia even joined the JSF project in the first place, considering that it had no need for STOVL capability but has a requirement for maximum range in excess of 1,500 nautical miles, which F-35 cannot deliver. However, politics takes precedence over common sense wherever Australia’s defense strategy is concerned. And so Australia is betting on Lockheed’s “stealth”, which, apparently, is not a big problem for Sukhoi’s powerful new radars.

[vector7]

Australia's fighter jets 'clubbed' by Russians


The Joint Strike Fighter, Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, has allegedly been
failed dog fighting trials against Russian and Chinese jets.
Photo: Supplied

September 11, 2008 - 10:04AM

The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets used by Russia and China.

The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported.

The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said.

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report.

"This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News.

"This is not real life."

Senator Minchin said he had a classified briefing on the JSF from its US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin which had promoted the aircraft as the most advanced jet fighter ever.

"I can't really say much about it, but this is a phenomenal aircraft.

"As our chief of defence Angus Houston has said this is a most extraordinary aircraft, it is the right aircraft for Australia."

The multi-purpose fighter would be the backbone of the United States military, Senator Minchin said.

"We are fortunate to be in it and the government should move to make the decision to acquire it."

WA Liberal backbencher Dennis Jensen said he had spoken to a third party with knowledge of the final classified test results who had claimed the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois, The West Australian reported.

He said the government should demand that the US Government sell it the F-22 which was already in operation instead of the JSF.

A response was been sought from the government. AAP

[vector7]

Saving Billions on Air Forces

The Sukhoi Su-35S 'Super Flankers' (above) or the new Sukhoi PAK-FA should be purchased instead of the Joint Strike Fighter. (Image: www.sukhoi.org).

Air Forces are an essential part of Australia's Defence Force - but billions can be saved by buying more cost-effective aircraft.

Australia's Air Force is comprised of about 70 operational F/A-18A "Hornet" fighters. Regrettably Australia's formidable fleet of F-111's has been retired half way through the aircraft's service life.

24 new F/A-18 "Super Hornets" are being delivered from 2009.

All the F/A-18As are now technically obsolete and unable to compete with the advanced Sukhoi Flankers now becoming the standard fighter plane across the region (See: APA's 'F/A-18A vs. Sukhois'). This is made worse by the emergence of the Chinese J-20 and Sukhoi PAK-FA stealth fighters.

Replacing the 70 F/A-18A with a new fighter is reasonable - the question is which fighter.

Cancelling the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

The previous government decided that the few Sukhoi Flankers (costing $A60 Million each) deployed by our neighbours are such a serious threat that they need to be countered with 100 Joint Strike Fighters (costing $A160+ Million each). These will replace all the RAAF's existing combat aircraft.

Here are some of the major problems with the JSF:

• Cost. Air Power Australia estimates the cost of 100 JSF aircraft is up to $A33 Billion Dollars ($US160-$US230 million each). See Coffin Corners for the Joint Strike Fighter .
• Range. The short range of the JSF means they would have to be refuelled several times to fly across Australia.
• Single-Engine. This makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure.
• Speed. The top speed of the JSF is only 1.6 Mach placing it at a significant disadvantage to Mach 2.4 aircraft such as the super cruising Sukhoi. Wing and engine intake geometry is optimised for sub-sonic flight - so more powerful engines cannot fix the problem even if they would fit in the small JSF airframe.
• Radar. The nose geometry of the JSF limits the aperture of the radar. This makes the JSF dependent on supporting AEW&C aircraft which are themselves vulnerable to long range anti-radiation missiles and jamming. Opposing Sukhoi aircraft have a massive 1 meter radar aperture enabling them to detect and attack at an JSF long before the JSF can detect the Sukhoi.
• "Partial Stealth". It is argued that these disadvantages are offset by the JSF being "partially stealthy" in that it has low frontal visibility to millimetre-band radar. However, this is of little value against VHF radar using meter-long wavelengths. Russian engineers are now producing advanced VHF radar systems for the Sukhoi and for ground-based system such as Nebo SVU. As explained by Air Power Australia, this exposes most fighter-sized 'stealth' aircraft. While the radar technology will only improve, the stealth characteristics of the JSF are locked-in with its flawed geometry. more...
• Unavailability. The JSF is not expected to be fully operational before 2018. As a result the previous government planned to spend $6.6 Billion on purchasing 24 Super Hornets as an interim solution. (While the Super Hornet is a major step up from the old Hornets it is still inadequate compared to the latest Sukhoi Flankers or even the F-111 it is supposed to replace. See Air Power Australia's Media Release on this topic.)
• Weight. The JSF seems to have a serious weight problem and may be unable to take off with a full load of fuel and weapons making it even more dependent on air-tanker support. See Air Power Australia's The Biggest Loser for more on this topic.
• Only Four BVR Missiles. The JSF can only carry four air-air missiles (AAM) for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. By contrast late model Sukhoi Flankers can carry a wide range of AAM on twelve hard-points.
• Classified Components. The JSF is likely to have a range of components that are 'off-limits' to the ADF and can only be serviced in the US. (Australian Aviation, April 2009)

Air Power Australia JSF Analysis

See Air Power Australia's detailed analysis of the JSF weaknesses.
APA research shows the JSF will be unable to survive an encounter with existing Sukhoi, let alone the new Sukhoi PAK-FA.
What other fighter aircraft are available?

Looking at the specifications of available fighter aircraft suggests that Sukhoi has the best aircraft for Australia where range is so important.
Except for partial X-band stealth, the JSF rates poorly with other fighter aircraft.
The Raptor is still included here as it is currently the world's best fighter plane - but Australia cannot buy it and production has been cancelled.

Aircraft	Approx1 Max Range (km)	Engines	Super- cruise	Approx Max Speed (Mach)	Thrust/ Weight	Thrust Vectoring / Canards 2	Very Low Observability to Radar2	Approx ($M USD) Cost
High Capability Aircraft
Chengdu J-20 (Not recommended for Australia.)	5,000+?	2	Yes	2+	?	Yes	Yes	?
Sukhoi PAK-FA (Available from 2015)	5,000	2	Yes	2.45	1.4	Yes	Yes	70?
F-22 Raptor 4 (Cancelled 6/4/2009)	3,200	2	Yes	2.4	1.2	Yes	Yes	140
SU-35S Flanker	4,000	2	Semi7	2.4	1.1	Yes	No	60
Su-34 Fullback	4,500	2	No7	1.8	0.7	Yes	No	60
F-15E Strike Eagle	3,900	2	No	2.5	1.1	No	No	100
Low Capability Aircraft
F/A-18E/F Rhino	3,300	2	No	1.8	-	No	No	1006
SAAB Grippen	2,400	1	No	2.0	0.9	Yes	No	60
Dassault Rafaele	1,800	1	?	1.8	1.1	Yes	No	70
Eurofighter Typhoon	1,400	2	?	2.0	1.3	Yes	No	110
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter /Lighning II (Available from 2018)	1,200	1	No	1.6	0.9	No	Partial	1225

Notes

1. Australia is about 4,000 km wide. Aircraft designed for European use such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Mig-35 or SAAB Gripen have too short a range for use by such a large country as Australia. (Actual range varies with mission.)
2. Thrust vectoring directs the thrust from the engine and provides high manoeuvrability. Canard fore- planes also improve agility. Aircraft without either are not likely to be very agile.
3. Sukhoi licences the manufacturers of Sukhoi planes and parts in several countries including India and China. Australia could buy entire Sukhoi aircraft and build the avionics, consumables and weaponry locally. Many companies in Russia, Asia, Israel and Europe manufacture Sukhoi components. (Sukhoi is “open source”)
4. Latest (12/3/10) official price. F-35A price is estimated to be between $160 and $230 each by Air Power Australia.
5. The ADF is purchasing 24 F/A-18E/F for $A7.6 billion, or $A316 million per aircraft.
6. The Su-35S is the first non-US fighter with substantial sustained supersonic cruise capability. (APA) more...
7. The Chengdu J-20 is included for comparison only. Australia should not buy aircraft from non-allied government-owned aircraft companies even if this was possible.

Aircraft data varies widely between available sources, especially range and price. Arguably range should be replaced with internal fuel. Contact us to contribute.

Air Power Australia Rating

Fifth Generation Fighter	F-22A Raptor (Discontinued. APA's Choice.)	T-50 PAK-FA (Prototype - NewAustralia choice for future.)	J-12/J-XX (Chinese)	F-35 JSF Lightning II (Lib/Lab choice.)	Su-35S NewAustralia choice.)
APA Score	+2	+5	0	-8	+2

See the full Air Power Australia comparison at Is the JSF Really a Fifth Generation Fighter?.

Australian Sukhoi Flankers

Sukhoi SU-35S (www.sukhoi.org).

"In strategic terms the Su-35S is a game changer, as it robustly outclasses all competing Western fighter aircraft other than the F-22A Raptor. Deployed in significant numbers it is capable of changing the balance of power in any region where this occurs. This reality does not appear to be widely understood in most Western air forces, or DoD bureaucracies." - Air Power Australia. 23/8/09.

Sukhoi licences the manufacturers of Sukhoi planes and parts in several countries including India and China. Australia could buy entire Sukhoi aircraft and build the avionics, consumables and weaponry locally. Many companies in Russia, Asia, Israel and Europe manufacture Sukhoi components.

So instead of buying 100 JSF Australia could build about 70 Sukhoi 'Super Flankers'. The existing 30 F-111 could be replaced in a decade or so - if required.

While the Sukhoi does not have the partial stealth characteristics of the JSF it does offers significant other advantages:

• Range. The Su-35 has an effective range of about 4,000km compared to about 2,200 for the JSF. This means the JSF would have to be refuelled to fly from Perth to Brisbane and would require significant air-tanker support to operate outside of Australia's maritime boundary.
• Safety. The Su-35 has two engines instead of one on the JSF. This improves the safety and reliability of the Su-35 over single-engined designs.
• Manoeuvrability. The Sukhoi's ability to 'turn and burn' greatly improves its ability to escape the missile envelope of an enemy fighter. (JSF proponents view this ability as irrelevant seing as JSF are invisible and all-knowing due to 'the system' providing the JSF pilot with perfect knowledge of all enemy fighter locations).
• Speed. The Su-35 is a Mach 2.4 aircraft while the JSF is limited to about Mach 1.6. The replacement of the existing AL-31 engines with new AL-41 engines will provide Sukhoi aircraft supercruise ability - the ability to efficiently cruise at supersonic speed for long distances. Only the much more expensive F-22 Raptor is capable of doing this for extended periods now. Non-supercruising fighters such as the JSF or the F/A-18E would be wholly uncompetitive against the much cheaper supercruising Sukhoi.
• Cost. The Su-35 compares well with the projected price of the JSF of $A160 Million each. The Su-35 is also an existing aircraft whereas the JSF is still under development so its true price is unknown and is rumoured to be escalating towards $A200 Million each.
• Radar. The Sukhoi has a huge 1-meter diameter radar bay which can accommodate the most powerful radar systems fitted to any combat aircraft. This will enable the Sukhoi driver to detect and destroy partially stealthy aircraft such as the JSF.
• Weapons. Various Russian manufacturers produce a wide range of sophisticated air-air missiles (AAM) and seekers on 12 hard-points. The JSF can only carry four AAM. These can be combined in various combinations. Sukhoi can carry a large number of AAM and typically would fire salvos of several different types at a target to defeat any particular counter-measure the target could use. Sukhoi can launch at over Mach 1 imparting more momentum and hence range to the missile. More...
• Availability. Sukhoi fighter aircraft have previously been delivered in about 4 months to other nations. The JSF will not be operational until 2018.
• Multiple Suppliers. The Sukhoi Design Bureau licences several manufacturers to build Sukhoi aircraft. The Flanker is like an "open source" aircraft - many manufacturers from Russia, Europe & Asia are already competing to build parts and weaponry that are Sukhoi-compatible. Ideally one of the existing Sukhoi manufacturers could establish a production facility in Australia. (Note too that Australia would be a major customer if it ordered 70 Su-35. This is a much bigger and more lucrative deal for Sukhoi manufacturers than the orders for any ASEAN nation. Australia would not be an expendable 'second tier' customer.)
• Proven Design. Sukhoi fighters are the front-line fighter for many nations including Russia, India, China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Ukraine, Chile, Venezuela & Indonesia.
• Networking. Sukhoi aircraft are typically networked to each other and other defence assets such as ground based radar capable of exposing 'stealth' aircraft. Australian Sukhoi should be able to be networked to existing RAAF assets such as Jindalee over-the-horizon radar, Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft and RAN submarines. This would give Australian Sukhoi a clear advantage over any intruding Sukhoi, along with the obvious advantage of the Australian Sukhoi being closer to base and fuel.

Reality Check Q: What nation (other than the USA) could threaten Australia if it was armed with 70 x Su-35 Super Flankers plus 30 x F-111 plus 6 x Wedgetail AEWC plus 6 x Collins Submarines plus the Jindalee Radar System?

A: None.

Q: If this is true, why spend $16 - $20 Billion on the clearly inferior JSF fighter planes instead of $6 Billion on Super Flanker aircraft?

Australian PAK-FA?

Sukhoi PAK-FA or T-50 prototype on the day of its first flight, January 2010. (Source: Sukhoi News).

With the cancellation of the US F-22 Raptor in April 2009 the PAK-FA is now set to become the worlds best production fighter plane - and for half the price of the far inferior JSF.

Air Power Australia research indicates that unless the F-22 program is restored and upgraded, the PAK-FA would even defeat the F-22.

If Australia should look to augmenting Su-35 aircraft purchased in the short term with a small number of PAK-FA aircraft to ensure air-superiority over Australian air space. PAK-FA are likely to become available in about 2015.

See also APA Sukhoi PAK-FA Imagery and Multimedia page.
F-22 Raptor Cancellation

On the 6^th April 2009 Secretary of Defense Gates has called for production of the US F-22 'Raptor' to be phased out by fiscal year 2011, leaving the USAF with 187 fighters.

The cancellation of the F-22 will make Sukhoi aircraft the most capable production fighter planes available. It also marks a historic shift in air-power from the US to Russia and the countries that use Russian defence technology. This will be compounded by sales of the Sukhoi's stealth fighter the PAK-FA in 2015.

It had been suggested by Air Power Australia and others that Australia should purchase the F-22 instead of the JSF. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has stated: "I intend to pursue American politicians for access to the Raptor". As only 40 or 50 of these aircraft would have been required it is possible that they could be purchased for about the same amount as the JSF. Since the stealth characteristics of the Raptor are far better than the smaller JSF the Raptor has a clear advantage over existing Sukhoi aircraft.

However:

• The whole project has now been cancelled.
• No F-22 has ever been exported to any country - even Israel. (In February 2008, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had no objection to sale of the Raptor to Australia, but Congress would have to change the law.)
• Any exported F-22 would be less capable than the US version and Australia would have limited access to sensitive technologies on the aircraft. This raises the question of whether we would really own the aircraft and whether it can be "turned off" remotely by one means or another. (Locally built Sukhoi would be totally "ours".)
• There is nill chance of the F-22 being manufactured locally. We would be totally dependent on a continuous stream US-supplied parts to keep the planes flying. (Sukhoi licences India & China to manufacture whole aircraft now.)
• Export approval would only be likely for nations that could be relied upon to back the US in any conflict. Australia's independence and freedom of action is likely to be eroded by such a purchase. (Sukhoi are exported to anyone with the money.)
• Choosing the F-22 does not yield any cost saving over the JSF.

Hardening and Distributing Bases

Hardened Aircraft Shelter at Volkel Air Base, Netherlands (Source: Wikipedia)

Most of the RAAF's aircraft are based at a few bases and have no protection from surprise attack. They also have very limited supplies of fuel at the base and a limited capacity to replenish these supplies.All key RAAF assets should be distributed across Australia in hardened shelters.

Ideally these bases would be some distance away from the coast as the most likely source of a surprise attack would be submarine-launched cruise-missiles. These measures would greatly increase the difficulty of mounting a surprise attack and the likelihood of it succeeding. (See APA's Hardening RAAF Air Base Infrastructure for more details.)

Video: Su-35 BM Technology and Weapons



Video: PAK-FA Flight Test

[vector7]

Russia's Sukhois shift the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific

March 5, 2013 Rakesh Krishnan Simha

The Australians are attempting to take evasive action against the threat posed by the Sukhoi Flanker in Southeast Asia.

Related

• Russia’s chances on the Indian arms market. Part two
• FGFA model debuts at Bangalore air show
• Putin may clinch $7 bn arms deal in India

Can the BRICS rule in a world without the West?

Sukhoi combat jets have been inducted in large numbers in the air forces of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Source: Sukhoi.org

Gregory Clark, a former Australian diplomat, says about his countrymen, “They prefer to keep Asia and its peoples at a distance.”

Distance and the lack of long-range aircraft in the Southeast Asian air forces have for decades offered a sense of security to the Australians. But today that security is being eroded by the arrival of super-maneuverable aircraft like the Sukhoi 27 Flanker and Sukhoi 30 Flanker C. These combat jets have been inducted in large numbers in the air forces of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam.



The arrival of the Sukhois has evened the odds in the Asia Pacific theatre. Australian pilots, who considered themselves top guns flying their F-18 Hornet and F-111 Aardvark fighter bombers, now are having to faceoff with the Flankers that are superior in almost every aspect. According to Air Power Australia, “The acquisition of Russian designed Sukhoi Su-27SK and Su-30MK series fighters by most regional nations now presents an environment where the F/A-18A/B/F is outclassed in all key performance parameters by widely available fighters.”

Australia’s Defence Today magazine says, “From a strategic analysis perspective the acquisition of such advanced weapons by marginally stable nations such as Indonesia or other regional players should be of genuine concern – and this is aside from the staggering numbers being purchased by China. The threat equation (to Australia) is predicated on the presence of both capability and intent but, historically, the capability dimension has always been lacking – whatever regional intent toward Australia there may have been. However, this level of capability is changing with plans to buy advanced aircraft and weapons.”

It adds, “The arrival of long range weapons like the Sukhoi and its suite of modern missiles coincide with important and strategic economic developments in Australia’s north, presenting an entirely new strategic context to consider.”

Long legs

While the Flanker’s maneuverability – especially the Pugachev Cobra move – is legendary, it is the range of over 3000 km which gives the aircraft a decisive edge in aerial combat. This allows it to perform repeated probes and U-turns – a Cold War Russian tactic – that can leave its opponent disoriented and vulnerable in a dogfight. Chasing the Flanker would be one of the most hazardous jobs in aviation.

In fact, the Flanker’s incredible range can easily be doubled by aerial refuelling and it is conceivable that Indonesia, which is Australia’s No.1 bugbear, would one day acquire tanker aircraft. In the interim, the Indonesians pilots can extend their range through buddy refuelling, where half their Flanker fleet refuels the other half.

Missile threat

The Flankers are known to have 12 hard points – more than any other aircraft. This feature allows it to literally pack a lethal punch – an entire arsenal of missiles and smart bombs. The Russian weapons bureaus have developed a vast armada of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles – including cruise – that in some cases have no equivalent in NATO armouries. The 94 Hornets in Australia’s air force are extremely vulnerable against the Flanker’s much superior beyond visual range missiles.

The Australians are also worried about the vulnerability of the gas platforms and industrial assets on their eastern seaboard. Defence Today elaborates: “From a weapon’s standpoint, a single supersonic Raduga 3M-82/Kh-41 Sunburn, MBRPA 3M-55/Kh-61 Yakhont or subsonic Novator 3M-54E1 Alfa anti-shipping cruise missile could effectively cripple if not destroy any of these large facilities in a single strike. These missiles were designed to cut small warships in half and inflict critical damage on large warships – and the sad history of industrial accidents and fires in petrochemical plants and offshore rigs suggests that even a single hit would be likely to start uncontrollable fires.”

US carriers – a big fat target

The arrival of the Flankers in the Asia Pacific has also increased the vulnerability of the United States’ nuclear powered aircraft carriers. The American military has wargamed situations where these massive CVNs go into battle against Sukhois armed with anti-ship cruise missiles, and the missiles have won every single time.

In the past these nuclear powered carriers, protected by a ring of support ships and AWAC aircraft, and of course their own fighter jets, were able to sail into any troublespot without fear. That’s history.

Today, any American carrier that attempts to come close to, say, China’s shores would be targeted by Flankers based on land, and firing their missiles from safe distances. As Defence Today quips, “The attackers then fly home and watch CNN for bomb damage assessment.”

Basically, the Flanker may have ended the era of American gunboat diplomacy.

Pilot skill

Australia’s air force is not big but it considers itself well-trained and butch, with pilots who like to think they are a bit like Maverick of Top Gun. They train according to Western standards and admittedly this can be a decisive factor in war. However, pilot skill, like modern hardware, can be imported too. India’s pilots, who are known to be among the world’s best, are now training Malaysia’s air force. The Chinese and the Indonesians too will find air aces to train their pilots.

F-35: Australia scoots for stealth

There is a reason why the Indian Air Force describes the Su-30 MKIs as its "Air Dominance Fighter". The aircraft is a generation ahead of any other aircraft – bar the stealth types – in the skies. The MKI version is actually superior to the Russian Air Force's own Flankers, which is a result of Russia's policy to provide its trusted customers with export versions that are half a generation ahead of its own base models.

As the realisation dawned on them that the Flanker had degraded their defensive and offensive capabilities, the Australians decided to go for the stealth option and placed an order for 100 units of the F-35 fighter.

How will that decision impact the Flankers? Now, that’s an entirely different story.

Canberra needs a new strategy

Paul Keating, a former Australian prime minister, once said that Asia is a place to fly over en route to Europe.

Robert Gordon Menzies, another Aussie premier, said about Southeast Asia and the South Pacific: “The risks in this corner of the world have increased.” That was at the height of the Vietnam War.

Clearly, Down Under they have learned nothing about mending fences. The country, which considers itself America’s local sheriff, has continued to distance itself from its emerging Asian neighbours. In effect, Australia has painted itself into a corner.

[vector7]

Found some interesting stories about the Flanker vs the Eagles starting back from 1992 and seeing how Obama has shifted the away from the F-22 Raptor...

White House aides insisted F-22 be removed from Obama speech venue

Exclusive: White House aides insisted F-22 be removed from Obama speech venue

Wed, 12/02/2009 - 4:08pm



When President Obama spoke to troops at Alaska's Elmendorf Air Force Base last month, the unit there parked a shiny new F-22 fighter plane in the hangar. But according to multiple sources, White House aides demanded the plane be changed to an older F-15 fighter because they didn't want Obama speaking in front of the F-22, a controversial program he fought hard to end.

"White House aides actually made them remove the F-22-said they would not allow POTUS to be pictured with the F-22 in any way, shape, or form," one source close to the unit relayed.

Stephen Lee, a public affairs officer at Elmendorf, confirmed to The Cable that the F-22 was parked in the hangar and then was replaced by an F-15 at the White House's behest.

The airmen there took offense to the Obama aides' demand, sources told The Cable, seeing it as a slight to the folks who are operating the F-22 proudly every day. They also expressed bewilderment that the White House staff would even care so much as to make an issue out of the fact that the F-22 was placed in the hangar with the president.

A White House official, commenting on background basis, told The Cable that yes, there were discussions about which plane or planes would be in the hangar, but that they were not meant as an insult to the pilots and other personnel who work on the F-22. The official couldn't elaborate on why the White House aides felt it necessary to get involved in the matter in the first place.

The official pointed to Obama's speech to the troops that day, where he praised both the 90th Fighter Squadron, known as the "Dicemen," and the 525th Fighter Squadron, the "Bulldogs," both of which operate the F-22.

Even so, the Air Force personnel thought it odd the White House wanted to display the older plane rather than the more advanced plane that, in the eyes of its supporters, represents the latest and greatest in American aviation.

The Obama administration fought hard and successfully to cut off production of the F-22 at 187 planes, a number Defense Secretary Robert Gates endorsed but that was hundreds less than originally planned and about half of the 381 planes Air Force leadership lobbied hard for in the years preceding Obama's inauguration.

"It's one thing to be against further production; quite another to slight the folks who are flying them in the operational world," one source said, adding that "the F-15 pictured was put into service roughly around the same period when Obama graduated from college. It's vintage.

Flanker vs Eagle
There has been talk of mock combat between Su-27's and F-15's when a Su-27 and a Su-27UB made a goodwill visit to Langley AFB in the USA.

Depending on whose story you believe - the Russian's wiped the floor with the Americans (according to the Rusians) - or there was no mock combat - the Russians cheated and turned what was some formation flying into air combat and caught the F-15's off guard (according to the Americans).

I make no conclusions - I am just reporting what has been claimed.

This is from Andrei Fomin's book on the Su-27............

One of the first opportunities to make an unbiased comparison of the Su-27 and F-15 in action occurred in August 1992 when two Su-27UB combat trainers flown by pilots Col. A. Kharchevsky and Maj. Ye. Karabasov of the Russian Air Force’s Lipetsk-based Combat Employment and Retraining Centre paid a visit to Langley AFB (Va.) – the home base of the 1st tactical fighter wing of the US Air Force.

During the visit the first ‘joint manoeuvring’ of Su-27UBs and F-15Ds in the flight arena took place. At the time, Ye. Karabasov flew the aircraft with the rear seat being occupied by an American pilot, with two Americans flying the opposing Eagle.

Speaking afterwards with a local newspaper reporter about which aircraft was better, the American pilots, hiding a certain embarrassment, noted that both fighters were good and had more or less similar performances. But when speaking with their Russian opposite numbers and technical experts, they acknowledged the unsurpassed superiority of the Su-27. The Eagle failed to get on the Flanker's tail while Maj. Karabasov’s vigorous manoeuvring allowed him to keep the F-15 in his sights nearly all the time. The mock combat ended after several unsuccessful attempts by the F-15’s pilot to change the situation for the better.

The Su-27’s impressive superiority over the Mirage was shown during the joint Russian-South African tactical exercise held from 16 September until 20 October 1995 at the South-African air bases Hoisprut and Louie Trinchard. The Russian side was represented by a Su-30 and a Su-35 - as well as by a MiG-29 and a MiG-29UB. The Flankers were flown by Sukhoi test pilots V.G. Pugachov, Ye.I. Frolov and I.Ye. Solovyov - Their South African counterparts flew Mirage F.1AZ aircraft as well as Cheetahs (a Mirage III upgrade). The Russian fighters won all dogfights – both one-on-one and one Russian against two SAAF opponents. The Russians also displayed an impressive long-range advantage.

This a repudiation found on the internet.....

SU-27 v F-15 DACT urban legends
Tue May 21 16:32:21 2002
198.26.123.37

Okay, I can't stand it anymore. Twice in the last month there have been threads here talking about Flankers fighting Eagles in Summer '92 and having their lunch. After this last time I decided to check on it. I was surprised, first of all, that I had never heard about this before. I flew Eagles in the 94FS at Langley, which was the squadron that
went to Russia then hosted them when they visited the U.S.

With my usual impeccable sense of timing I managed to leave the squadron shortly before all this happened, but I still personally knew and and had flown with 90% of the pilots assigned to the squadron at the time and 100% of the pilots that flew in these exchange visits.

Somehow in the 10 years that have passed they had failed to mention to me in numerous conversations about this very subject that any DACT occurred, I don't think so!

In addition to still flying for the Air Force Reserve I work as an F-15 sim instructor at Langley; which means I'm current on the latest F-15 progams and performance, surely there would be some record (classified or unclassified) of this apochryphal event and the lessons learned if the Eagle had been beaten so badly.

There isn't, period dot.

Rather than relying on all this hearsay I contacted three pilots that I was stationed with at Langley, and who flew in Flanker backseats, gave Russian pilots Eagle rides and flew Eagles in formation with the SU-27's and are still flying the F-15. I passed on the Air Forces Monthly "story" as quoted, and after they had stopped laughing hysterically the bottom line they told me was this: the amount of DACT that took place between Eagles and Flankers in Summer 1992 was...NONE, nada, zip, zero, nyet, a big doughnut.

DACT was not just frowned upon or discouraged; it was forbidden, mainly for two reasons. Nobody wanted the political heat/fallout that would result if one of the jets went out of control and crashed or, worse, if they had a mid-air in the hard maneuvering that DACT implies. Second, despite recent warm feelings toward the Russians nobody was going to allow anything remotely classified to be passed on, so the F-15's were flown radar, TEWS, PACS panel, ICS off. When all your weapons systems are turned off it becomes pointless to fly DACT, unless you're planning to recreate WWI, WWII, and Korea by fighting guns only.

In which case give me an A-10 that can turn up it's own ass and has a big gun.

What actually did occur (and probably the loose basis for this "dramatic story") was that, in addition to single ship backseat rides the F-15's and SU-27's went out and flew tactical formation with each other (line abreast 1 to 2 miles apart with 2000 to 3000 feet vertical spacing). During 90 degree turns in this formation one aircraft turns first and passes 3000 to 4000 feet through the 6 'o clock of the second jet to go, at which point that second jet starts its turn in order to roll out line abreast but with both jets pointed 90 degrees off the formation's original heading.

During one of these turns the Flanker, rather than continuing to the expected heading, stopped at the Eagles dead six for 3000 feet. After several seconds of wondering what the Hell the SU-27 pilot was doing the F-15 pilot spent 20 seconds trying to shake him and was unable, and then stopped, which proves? Basically nothing.

In the fighter community nobody starts 3000 foot perch setups at the defender's dead six, because staying behind somebody after that kind of start is on a par with clubbing baby seals in its level of difficulty. Instead the offender actually moves to the defender's 4 or 8 'o clock for 3000 feet before starting the fight. Even then in this more difficult setup the offender still stays in an offensive position 95% of the time. The 5% he doesn't is usually a result of him grossly porking up his BFM. It should be emphasized this was a single event, unplanned, unexpected, and half-heartedly done and not some series of "mock dogfights."

As Paul Harvey says "that's the rest of the story" straight from participants in the event not some second, third, or fourth hand magazine article or internet rumor which just repeats what somebody else wrote. In the future if you want to argue the merits of the two aircraft please spare us the repetition of this non-event as proof and stick to comparing them based on their airframe/weapons performance as published.

Regards,
Murph


Another piece about DACM between the Russians and South Africans translated from a Russian magazine article...

Under the agreement on technical and military cooperation between the air forces of the South African Republic and Russia, Hoespruit AB hosted an exercise between 16 and 30 September in which two MiG-29s participated, with a similar exercise hosted in 11-20 October by Louis Trinchardt AB, in which a Su-30 and a Su-35 (tail number 709) took part. The magazine’s Vladimir Ilyin interviewed a participant in those hallmark exercises, Col. Leksandr Nikolayevich Kharchevsky, Deputy Chief, Science, Lipetsk Combat Training and Conversion Centre. The name of this pilot has been repeated mentioned in the aviation-related press.

In the summer of 1992, Col. Kharchevsky and Maj. Karabasov flew their Su-27UB combat trainers over to Langley AFB, U.S., where they staged mock battles with McDonnel Douglas F-15s, won by the Russians.

“Aleksandr Nikolayevich, what was your role in the [South African] exercise?”

“In addition to fighting mock battles, I was responsible for flight preparation, organisation and safety during the exercises.”

“How would you characterise your ‘opponent’, the SAR Air Force?”

“We encountered with Cheetah (upgraded Mirage IIIs) and Mirage F.1 fighters. The pilots were a 15-16-personnel joint team from both air bases.

“Special mention should be made of the South African pilots’ skills – they are excellent. Our military pilots and their civilian colleagues from design bureaux (Taskayev and Antonovich participated on behalf of the MiG MAPO and Sukhoi’s participants were Pugachov, Frolov and Solovyov) were unanimous that, compared with military pilots from other countries met by them, South Africans proved to feature the best professional skills both theoretical and practical. They are proficient in virtually all dogfighting and long-range air combat techniques, their antiradar and antimissile evasive manoeuvring skills are beyond reproach and in the air they feel like fish in water. In flight they decelerate to zero speed, stall, accelerate again and in doing so use all capabilities of their aircraft while keeping tabs on the opponent.”

“Obviously, their combat experience gained in Angola came in handy?”

“Certainly, they have it alright. The meet of the matter is they succeeded in retaining that experience and basing their combat training on it. Credits for that goes to the SAR Air Force commanders.”

“Flight ours they had logged must have mattered too, mustn’t they?”

“Sure, our hosts had no lack of avgas – they get it as much as they need. Their fighter pilots log about 250 flying hours yearly. They fly virtually daily, except Saturday and Sunday, with one or two sorties flown per day. In short, they maintain excellent shape.”

“Could you compare the South African pilots with their American counterparts you have met?”

“I believe, the South African pilots have one-upped the Americans in some respects. Americans talked a lot of dogfighting but, I’d say, were not too hot on fighting actual dogfights. We had to nudge our US colleagues to make them fight, while the South Africans were gagging to lock horns. Their very first question was, “When do we start mock battles?” When I asked them about how they see US pilots whom they met often enough, they virtually mirrored our opinion that our American pilots’ self-confidence and gung-ho are not always substantiated.

“Before we came to South Africa, the SAR Air Force somehow believed that us Russians do not conduct free dogfighting (probably, this was the opinion made on the basis of the information provided by the South African pilot who had been on loan to Krasnodar’s air force academy to fly the MiG-29). Therefore, our hosts had a reason to believe that, in spite of their older aircraft their excellent flying skills would beat us in furballs.

In the first mock battle, which I fought with a Cheetah flown by a nice lad and top-notch professional pilot named Kazino [sp.?], I saw with my own eyes that the opponent’s mastery of his bird was perfect. He was unafraid to decelerate and always kept tabs on the fluid situation… What I beat him with was the Kolokol (Bell) manoeuvre which enables one to immediately gain tactical advantage when performed properly. With me pulling off the Kolokol, the Cheetah raced through, with me dropping onto her in no time.

It took my opponent some time to realise what had happened… Although from the tactical standpoint, loss of speed, as a rule, equals loss of advantage. However, when employed right, the Kolokol in some situations can earn you a sure victory: literally 20 seconds are enough to attain complete advantage in combat, even though certain risk persists, of course.”

“It is known that during your visit to Langley AFB there was so-called ‘joint manoeuvring’ held by Su-27UBs and F-15Ds, in the course of which one aircraft was supposed to tail the other, with their roles being swung on order. What kind of mock battles did you fight in the SAR?”

“They resembled real encounters as much as possible. The “rules of engagement” were as follows: one aircraft was supposed to search for its adversary at an altitude of, say, over 7,000 m, with the other doing the same below 6,000 m. None of the two was allowed to change its echelon until its pilot had a visual on his opponent. The target spotted, no holds were barred.”

“Did your hosts win any dogfights?”

“First we had a few one-on-one dogfights – two to three battles in a sortie. We locked horns in a furball – he who got on the opponent’s tail is the winner. Then we are ordered away from each other again for another go… South-African pilots lost all dogfights to see with their own eyes that their aircraft were no match for the MiG-29.

Following that, the hosts said that they had prepared a surprise for us in a long-range engagement. Indeed, the first long-range encounter was almost a draw. Based on gun camera recorders (I should admit that their data recorders are much superior to ours, everything is recorded on tape and one can use a Sony VCR to watch the tape and make his conclusions), the missile range was the criterion for determining the winner: our ranges proved to be only 2-3 km longer than those of the opponents: at an altitude of 6,000 m a SAR pilot ‘launched’ a missile at a range of 33 km.”

“But Aleksandr Nikolayevich, as far as I know, the South-African Air Force has none of such missiles in its inventory.”

“Right you are. We asked them the same question. At first, they tried to duck it but then admitted that the computer was programmed to ‘fire’ a hypothetical future missile. On our part, we ‘used’ organic R-27s. It should be acknowledged that even though the South Africans failed to win the long-range battles either (no doubt, our materiel proved to be superior of theirs), we still were surprised by the top-notch fighting skills of the hosts. The South Africans proved that they were proficient in all up-to-date tactics of both short- and long-range combat (for instance, they managed several times to break off our lock-on by skilful manoeuvring).

At first, all the mock battles we had were one-on-one, then a single MiG-29 would fight two adversaries. In such a situation everything looks quite clear: pursuing one opponent, you leave your tail vulnerable to the other. And our hosts realised this full well. However, we used tactics that made our opponents re-from from a frontal formation to a ‘column’ formation and then, having let the forward bandit go, we would attack the rear one, i.e. we did our best to show that we knew how to fight against two opponents.

“Also, mention should be made of the South Africans’ excellent visual target detection skills, especially those used on the head-on course.”

“How were fighters guided in long-range battles?”

“Only by commands of the ground controller.”

“What were safety measures during the exercise?”

“All safety measures were agreed upon beforehand. There were no disagreements on them: it is easy to deal with professionals. In fact, only once we had some disagreements – it was following the failure of the ground-based guidance radar, which made the planned mock battle a sort of hairy. The hosts insisted that every fighter carries its organic radar for the pilot to know his whereabouts. But what about a lock-on break-off or the radar’s failure?

“The South Africans realised this full well but they were very tempted to fly anyway. I told them: “No radar, no long-range encounters.” They summoned repairmen who fixed the radar overnight. See how keen they were to fight?”

“The press reported the SAR teaming up with MiG MAPO to re-engine the South African Cheetahs and Mirages with Russian-made RD-33 engines. Did any re-engined fighter take part in the exercise?”

“As far as I know, there is only one Mirage in South Africa, which is powered by a Russian-made engine. However, it has not completed its trials yet, so it took no part in the joint exercise. I think that no matter how hard one tries to upgrade the Cheetah and Mirage F.1, whatever engines are installed, these aircraft are unable to pull of what fourth-generation fighters can, even though the Cheetah features a good fire control radar. Its acquisition range is just 8-10 km shorter than that of the MiG-29, with its lock-on range being 5-8 km shorter, depending on the altitude. The radar features a stable lock-on. Our radars was virtually unable to jam it, even though we did or best to do so with our more powerful radars.”

“How did Sukhoi fighter perform in South Africa?”

“They were OK too. We would put a South African pilot in the back seat following a 30-minute ground school, and they would handle the fire control radar quite well in the air and could ‘fight’ against his compatriots supervised by our instructors.

“And us flying the Su-35 had to have four mock battles per sortie. The matter is we tried to save the service life of this prototype, therefore we offered to complete the whole number of mock battles with the minimum number of takeoffs and landings.

“However, our trick failed and we had to made all 28 sorties scheduled, with South African pilots managing to conduct almost as twice battles as planned.

“We put up a good fight in all situations, showing what our planes and pilots can do. However, the we fought, the more South Africans wanted to fight. They said they wanted to learn and train. Finally, I had to put it bluntly that we were no trainers, nor simulators, we had come to the SAR not as instructors, rather to show them our materiel for them to fall in love with it and buy it.”

“Well, one can see their point – they are pilots.”

“Yeah, but our mission was not provide training, we were tasked to showcase Russian planes and prompt the South African Air Force to buy them.”
“What’s your opinion of the SAR Air Force?”

“I happened to fly with nearly all South African pilots who were taking part in the exercise and I saw with my own eyes that their skills were high, real high. Each of them was worth his mates. There were 12 pilots organic to the squadron and 27 aircraft.”

“How come there are so few pilots?”

“I guess this is due to economic considerations. They have a lot of reserve pilots who could be quickly recalled to active duty, with the rather lean cadre being able to maintain their top-notch combat skills. To my mind, this approach could be put to use by the Russian Air Force too: it is the optimal approach from the money-saving and flight safety point of view. Better provide superb training to a limited number of pilots who will be able to accomplish any mission than ‘spread’ flying hours and gas amongst a large number of personnel who will be able just to take off and land.”

South African pilots, especially fighter jocks, retire very young, below 41. They normally get jobs with civilian airlines where they are paid handsomely. At the same time, they remain part of the Air Force reserve.


“How were Russian pilots treated in South Africa, given that the SAR was regarded not so long ago as a hostile power, the ‘bastion of apartheid’, with the South African military sharing a similar attitude to the Soviet Union?”

“The commanders of the first air base, Hoespruit, gave us a cold shoulder. Fancy that – an An-124 arrives with a General Gavrilov-led delegation on board and accompanied by a pair of MiG-29s, we are met by a squadron leader, a lieutenant-colonel. Sure, this is not really in keeping with military courtesy. The air base commanding officer was said to be away, at an important golf tournament. We made acquaintance with him three days later, in a bar, where he did say hello to our delegation. He did his best to handle all issues, including signing the joint flight programme, via his deputies at the level of deputy squadron leaders. However, we received a very warm welcome at the Louis Trinchardt air base. I guess everything depends on a specific person.”

“How did the Russian and South African pilots treat one another?”

“They hit it off right away, even though they tried to bend the arguments a couple of times. You see, it ain’t easy for a fighter pilot to admit he lost a battle. Therefore, we had to prove our wins very clearly.”

“What use do you think the exercise had?”

“I think, the exercise proved to be more useful to the South Africans pilots. The matter is they fought the aircraft of another generation, far more advanced ones. And we had a chance to gauge combat training of pilots from a different air force and compare it with that of the US pilots.”

“The aircraft you brought to South Africa were designed for a somewhat different climate. How did they behave in the southern hemisphere?”

“Without a hitch. The MiG-29s had not a single malfunction, let alone failure. not a single sortie was delayed. The same is true for the Sukhoi planes. The only snag was hit by the Su-35: it was very hot, and hour planes were too large to fit the hangars available and had to be left outside. As a result we had to fine-tune the automatics of its engines.”

“Were the Mirages and Cheetahs as reliable as hour planes?”

“I wouldn’t say so. They had their failures and delays. At tomes, an aircraft of hours would take off and theirs wouldn’t. Mind you, hour hosts had substitutes and we had only one combat aircraft.”

“What did your South African colleagues think of our aircraft?”

“They gave them a high appraisal. In particular, they noted their high manoeuvrability, controllability and ease and reliability of maintenance.”

“So, what would you say about the business outcome of the exercise? When are our fighter going to be fielded with the South African Air Force?”

“Participants in exercises are no decision-makers, theirs is to evaluate aircraft.”



Russian fighters superior, says Pentagon

30.06.2004 | Source:

The American military amazed Moscow and the Russian media by saying that Russian-made fighter planes were superior to their American equivalents. How can these flattering revelations be explained?

General Hal M. Hornburg told USA Today that India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multi-role fighters have been successful against F-15 C/D Eagle aircraft in mock combat. In fact, the Indians won 90% of the mock combat missions.

USA Today reported: We may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we thought we were, said Gen. Hal Hornburg, the chief of the Air Combat Command, which oversees U.S. fighter and bomber wings...The F-15Cs are the Air Force's primary air superiority aircraft...[and] the results of the exercise [were] wake up call.

The Inside the Air Force official newsletter also discussed the "Russian victory," and reported even more details. F-15 C/D Eagle fighters were pitted against not only Su-30 MKI fighters but also MiG-27s, MiG-29s, and even the older MiG-21 Bisons, which also performed well. The fighters not only defeated the F-15s but the French-made Mirage-2000 as well. According to the Washington ProFile Web site, the results of the exercises surprised the American pilots.

Meanwhile, Russian military experts and aircraft designers did not seem surprised by these victories. The Sukhoi general designer, Mikhail Simonov, has repeatedly told RIA Novosti and other news agencies the Su-27 Flanker and the Su-30 MKI, a modified version of the Flanker, which are now in service in the Indian Air Force, were developed in the 1980s in response to the F-15 Eagle. Moreover, Soviet designers had stipulated far superior specifications. Consequently, Russian experts were not particularly surprised that the performance of the fighters matched their specifications.

Why did an American general publicly admit this fact four months after the exercises?

India's Su-30 MKI fighters and F-15 C/D Eagles from Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, engaged in mock combat exercises in February 2004.

However, no one mentioned that India won three of the four exercises at the time.

Russian fighters first defeated their US rivals when Sukhoi and MiG fighters had just started being shown at international aerospace shows in the early 1990s. At that time, several Su-27 fighters, under the command of Maj.-Gen. Alexander Kharchevsky, the head of the Lipetsk center for retraining air force pilots, went to Canada to demonstrate their impressive potential. (President Vladimir Putin flew in a Su-27 to Chechnya.)

Instead of missiles and artillery shells, Russian and American fighter planes used aerial cameras to record their mock air-to-air battles. American fighters were disappointed to learn the results of exercise - their cameras had not captured any Su-27s. The Russians, however, had filmed their rivals' vulnerable points from just about every angle.

Russian pilots owed their impressive success to the Su-27's spectacular performance and its substantial thrust-to-weight ratio. The fighter's unsurpassed performance has already become well known throughout the world because no other fighter (except MiG fighters) can execute such impressive stunts as Pugachev's Cobra and others.

The F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 have wide turning radii. Russian fighters, on the other hand, can turn on a dime by merely switch on their afterburners.

Apart from in Canada, MiG-29 fighters also fought mock air battles with South Africa's Mirage-2000s. Again, the Russia planes defeated their enemies.

Chief designer Arkady Slobodskoi, the supervisor of the MiG-29 program, said, "if our plane is within range of an opponent and has a direct shot, the enemy can be considered destroyed. It only takes 5-6 machine gun bursts."

The United States, which is aware of the impressive combat potential of Russian fighters, had even purchased a squadron of MiG-29s from Moldova after the Soviet Union disintegrated. (That squadron was deployed at an airfield near Chisinau.) Germany, which had obtained a number of MiG-29s after reunification, helped repair the Moldovan fighters. Both Germany and the United States now use these aircraft to train their pilots, so that the pilots can cope with the 7,000 Russian fighters in the world. Britain's Military Balance magazine estimated that India had more than 500 Russian-made fighters. It was therefore not surprising that Indian pilots could defeat their American rivals, despite the U.S. Air Force's intensive combat-training programs.

On the other hand, American pilots have not confronted any serious adversaries for a long time. The U.S. Air Force dominated the skies over Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Iraq in 1991 and 2003. Iraqi planes were grounded during both campaigns. Therefore, mock combat is the only way to amass experience.

The long standing American Air Force mentality prevents its pilots from confronting their Russian counterparts because any possible setback would be detrimental to morale. An American Air Force pilot must be convinced that he can and must defeat the former "theoretical enemy." At the same time, these problems do not exist for mock combat exercises against Indian pilots because any defeats can be explained by inadequate training.

Why did the United States inform the world about its setbacks? Neither Russian, nor U.S. generals like to do this.

The explanation lies on the surface: The U.S. Congress discusses defense spending for the next fiscal year every June and therefore, top American military officials started talking about events in February 2004 now.




F-15 AGAINST Su-27



The Cope India �04 air battle exercise (DACT) in India had been carried out from February 16 till February 26, 2004 at the Gvalior air base (Madhia Pradesh State). It was earlier planned to begin the exercises on February 14, but invited American staff in number of 130 persons, has only arrived to the air base in this day. From the Indian party the crews of Mig-21 Bizon tactical fighters, Mig�27ML, Mig-29, Mirage 2000�, Jaguar, Su-30��, and also Il-78 transporter-refuelling aircraft had been involved in the exercise. The participation in the exercise of Su-30MKI aircraft was earlier planned, but Indians refused to exhibit this version, and confined only by Su-30��, not equipped by the system of thrust vector deviation in flight.

The American Air Forces were presented by six single-seat F-15C tactical fighters and by one KS-135 transport-refuelling aircraft. Particularly, the crews of F-15C aircraft (No. 84-0023 and 84-0028) from 19th squadron structure of 3rd Wing of the USA Air Forces, deployed at the Elmendorf Air Force Base (Alaska state) had been attracted. The general outlines of the joint exercise carrying out were defined in September, 2003 during visit of the chief of staff of the Indian Air Forces Srinivasapurami Krishnasvami to the USA. The Americans were going to study in practice the flight performances of a new heavy, but super-maneuverable Su-30MKI fighter. As the exercises results shown, and possibilities of Su-30MK were more than enough for the Americans.

The similar exchange by experience has been started earlier. In October 2002, India and USA carried out a joint action with participation of military cargo aviation. The same year the program of exchanges on the two countries pilots training was started. Under the representative of the India Air Forces, three Indian pilots visited the USA for an inspection of the American system of flight support and made several flights on two-seat F-15D plane with their American colleagues before the Cope India �04 exercises.

In July 2004, the Indian party planned to participate at the Co-operative Cope Tender international exercises, which should be carried out on Alaska.Il-78 air fuel tankers, recently bought in Russia should be participated in non-stop flight to Alaska for the first time in the Indian Air Forces history. Until now it was considered, that the perfect flight performances of Su-27 family fighters compensated with interest by very good avionics, which used for the American planes equipment.

The warning systems installed on F-15C fighters (AN/APG-63 radar station, AN/ALR-56C system of the warning on radar illumination and REB AN/ALQ-128 multi-mode system) allow theoretically detecting the opponent earlier, than it would detect American plane. It should give the relevant advantage in an air fight, as time saving required for decision making, sighting and missiles launch.



However the Indian pilots refuted the American conceptions on fighting capabilities of their plane. Makhmud Makmakhon, Deputy Chief of India Air Forces Staff has told in this connection: �the Americans expected from us the actions in terms of the western doctrine of fighting aircraft application, but we choose the Soviet model, and as a result gain the upper hand over the opponents�. Finally, the absolute superiority remained on the side of fighters of Sukhoy Company. They won each two from three battles, in which they took part. The Indian pilots have inverted the American conceptions on the fighting aircraft tactics. They used optical-electronic systems of the plane in its training fights, not switching on the radar station, which allowed them to approach insensibly to the Americans on the distance of �aimed shot from onboard gun�.

During the dogfight, the less manoeuvrable F-15C had a few chances to survive. Thus, under the Indian command reports, Americans were �shoot down� not less than 20 times. During the fights it turned out, that Russian radar stations exceed the American ones. They targeted F-15C even on a mountain�s background at the distance up to 60 km. The radar station of the �opponent� in such conditions were �blinded�, and not distinguishing a target on a background of multiple reflections from the mountain�s benches.

The Americans made a detailed report under the exercises data, which is still remained as classified. But something has filtered through the applicable regime restrictions, and it, quite for sure is connected with the forthcoming approvals of the new military budget for 2005 financial year, and, specially, with allocations for development and operational development of perspective F/A-22 fighter, intended to replace F-15 aircraft in the units. So, it became known, that F-15C aircraft, equipped concerning the old AN/APG-63 radar station, instead of its new AN/APG-63(V)2 version with long-rang, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar has participated at the exercises from the American side. This radar station is specially designed for detection of small-sized and low-visible targets at the tactical ranges of application.

To the end of 2002, 18 of F-15C/D fighters of 3rd Wing were equipped by this radar station. It was also noted, that F-15C plane has considerable echoing area, which increase the probability of its defeat by the Soviet missiles of air-to-air class. One of the experts in tactics of fighters has furthermore declared that the IR-signature of the plane is �three times more, than in most fighters�. Therefore, Indian pilots of Su-30�� also prefer to act in a passive mode (without the radar station switching on) with help of election-optical systems. On the other hand, it was noted, that as Indian and American pilots with their radar stations assistance were able to find out each other �almost� simultaneously, however the Indians were frequently opened out shooting first and won a fight. Training level of the Indian pilots was other surprise for the Americans.



If the American pilots have annual flying time about 250 hours, that, under the Indian pilot�s words, they have had not less than 300 hours flying time. The most of aviation flights for combat training of the USA Air Forces are made considering the opponent equipment having the obviously underestimated performances and the training level of the opponent, supposed by the Americans (underestimated as well). The Indian crews on the contrary practise its training considering the full performances of the best opponent�s planes and its crews as well. The Cope India �04 exercises have also shown, that and out-of-date planes after its substantial updating and equipped by a new avionics and air-to-air missiles shall not be disregarded.

The Indian Mig-21 fighters, being upgraded by such way, are the serious challenge, which not always may be easily parried. The official representatives of the USA Air Forces noticed, that until recently during all exercises the crews of 3rd Wing acted with 2:1 numerical superiority, that, under the command of Air Forces opinion, it is considered representative of majority of battle situations.

Generally, here�s all that things which are an obstacle for the bad dancer (equipment of the Indian planes is better, as well as manoeuvrability, and the pilots training is more better, and more Indian pilot�s flying time, and tactics is different). In short, all is different from the order, imagined by the Americans. And at the same time unexpected (but required for political considerations!) conclusion is made: to gain an air superiority over the Indian pilots, the American pilots, so said, are required to be equipped by a low-visible fighter having advantage above the opponent at the first shot expense, provided by the radar station with long radar range and ability of data co-ordination, coming from external gauges, i.e. with such performances, which should have F/A-22 perspective fighter, slowly going into the series production.

To made such conclusion it was not required for the Americans at all to face in the air with Su-30MKI aircraft. God forbid, if the �fifteenths� would lose it totally! Then the sceptics should have the objective question: where is the guaranty that new F/A-22, developed so excruciatingly long, such expensive and complicated, will not also lose to the plane such as Su-30MKI. The other question has brewed as well: how long the USA Air Forces during his crews training will keep the opponent �for an idiot�, without the real consideration of its fighting capabilities? The command of the USA Air Forces amazed by this exercise outcome has decided under its own initiative to expand the manoeuvres, scheduled for 2004.

The American F-16 fighters, being basic tactical planes of the West should participate in the exercises on the territory of India. It is scheduled to carry out training fights with Mig-29 aircraft being on arms of the India Air Forces. These fights are interesting to the Indians by the fact that Pakistan their potential opponent has these planes on arms, though its early series - F-16A/B with the obviously underestimated possibilities. To avoid final disgrace (before its western allies as well, who are persistently persuaded to replace their planes by F-16 perspective multifunction fighters, developed under JSF program) during these exercises, it was decided to involve a pair of the American early radar detection warning and communications planes (AWACS).

These planes will help to control air fights and provide the target indication of the fighters. It is a good possibility for Indian to check such system efficiency before purchase of A-50 Russian planes with similar destination. However, such example was already met at the military operations history, as in 1982 during armed conflict in Lebanon target destination to the Israeli planes was made from the American �-2� carrier plane with the same destination, loitering overseas near the Israeli coast. A sad outcome for the Syrian aviation was obvious. The Americans cunning a little about of Su-30MKI plane performances and desire to try their power, since it was already found long ago, that F-15 fighter loses in air fight to the simple Su-27 serial plane, on which base Su-30MKI multifunction fighter has been designed. The participation of Su-27 planes in international air shows gave a quite good idea on its flight capabilities. However, exhibitions, display flights, and also more than 40 set-up world records, gave not a tangible idea on the real fighting capabilities of this plane. In 1987 the aviation world has for the first time in practice seen manoeuvring performances of a general standard Su-27 fighter, going into service to the air defence forces of the Soviet Union.

September 13 of this year, the Norwegian �-3� Orion patrol plane from of 333rd Wing of Air Forces of Norway, dislocated at Andoya Air Base, was making �a general reconnaissance flight above Barents sea� according to the message of the Norway defence minister, and to be exact it tried to observe the group of the Soviet combat ships in the neutral waters of Barents sea, and, to be even more exact, above the international waters to north from Murmansk, in 48 miles from the nearest coast of the Soviet Union. Vasily Tsimbal, the pilot of Su-27 fighter from 941st fighting regiment of 10th air defence army received the order to made training interception of the Norwegian plane and prevent laying of echo-sounding buoys by the plane. It was a first flight for interception of the real target for the young pilot. Coming closer to Orion Tsimbal tried to force it to change course, but it ends nothing; a �stubborn� Orion continued its task performance. Under the statement of the defence minister of Norway, Su-27 approached �-3� from the left side for less than 1.8 m distance. And than unexpected thing had happened.

Orion crew made a decision to get rid of the persistent opponent and used a standard trick - to sharply decrease the flight speed, supposing the opponent fighter was not be able to fly near at such low speed and should certainly started to stall. However Su-27 continued its stable flying just under the Orion. The �-3� pilot, having lost sight of the �twenty seventh�, started to manoeuvre, and as a result, the right outer engine propeller has hit the left-hand fin of the fighter. However, it is may be said by another words: �twenty seventh� pilot during his manoeuvre had touched Orion�s propeller by its fin. The propeller had been destroyed, its wreckage scattered with a high speed and punched the fuselage of Orion, and therefore a depressurisation had happened. The radio-transparent tip of Su-27 fin was damaged. Orion had been forced to leave the patrol area, and Su-27 has safely returned to its home base. Without specific estimations of both planes crews� actions it should be mentioned, that planes of the Norwegian air forces (in NATO and specially the Naval Forces of the USA interests) were persistently carried out the air and echo-sonic exploration near the Soviet territorial waters, attempting to control operating of the Soviet submarines.

However after that incident an obvious recession in the reconnaissance activity of the Norwegian aircraft had happened. Su-27 flight performances allowed it to manoeuvre in dangerous proximity from the patrol reconnaissance planes. After that case the US Air Force command has seriously become thoughtful for the first time that a real Su-27 and F-15 engagement could be turned out not for the benefit of the latter.

Many illusions were also destroyed by the �Storm in a desert� operation in which F-15C fighters, performing air patrol to prevent Iraq planes transportation into Iran, had missed in general 148 planes, including 115 combat ones. After the episode with the Norwegian �-3� Orion patrol plane in 1987 there was not an opportunity to show flight possibilities of Su-27 fighter before its modern opponent for this class fighter.

�Twenty seventh� did not participate in combat operations. Certainly, Su-27 has repeatedly displayed its high manoeuvring performances at numerous international air-shows, but it were still display flights inside a very small airspace in densely populated districts with all inherent in this case limitations. But soon an opportunity arose for Su-27 to meet in the training air fight with the plane, against which it had been developed, and namely with the American F-15 Eagles fighter of air superiority conquest. And this meeting became a real �sighting shot into a head� for the Americans.

In August 1992, the delegation in structure of the pilots Kharchevsky, the colonel (now in a rank of the general-major and heads the Centre), E. Karabasov major, and the head of the delegation N. Tchaga, general-major, head of the Lipetsk Center of combat training and re-learn of flight personnel has came to the Lengly American Air Base with friendly visit. Two two-seat Su-27UB aircraft and Il-76 military cargo aircraft were included into structure of the command as �technical support�. During the visit the Russian side has offered to the Americans to carry out the training air fight.

The Americans were politely refused to do so in the all public eye, referred to an extensive air traffic in this area and high density of the population in spite of the fact that the air base, certainly, has had its own air zone closed for flights or temporarily closed for flights of civil airline planes, and private planes. Finally, the Americans have organised, so-called, �joint manoeuvring� (training air fight) a little further from another's eyes, i.e. eyes of its own citizens, in the Atlantic Ocean waters. At Langley (do not mix with Langley place near Washington, where the CIS headquarter located) 1st Wing of tactical fighters, considered as the best aviation unit of the USA Air Forces which pilots have high flight qualification, the excellent tactical preparation and is piloted the most advanced fighters is traditionally dislocated.

As for Americans they made sole flights of F-15 fighter, according to it the Soviet pilots could define weak and strong points of this aircraft. As A. Kharchevsky told later, �� we have seen, that somewhere it �makes sites� to increase velocity, counted its turn on seconds and so on. That is, many F-15 performances have become clear to us�. For joint manoeuvring the air zone in 200 km from the Atlantic coast of the USA in an echelon of heights of 2500-8500 m was chosen.

Two-place Su-27UB (the Russian pilot in the front cockpit, the American, commander of this air base in the rear one), F-15D (American pilot in the front cockpit and the Russian air attaché, who was pilot too and helped as an interpreter - in the rear), and also two-seat F-15D as an escort and observation plane, in the rear cockpit of which was the photographer with camera were directed to the flight zone. The conditions were typical for a dog fight: attack from the aft hemisphere side (AHS) and the attempt to be held �on a rear� of the opponent, which one, in his turn, try to destroy the attack and go into the AHS of the attacker by himself.

F-15D attacked by Su-27UB played a target role in the first �round�, hereinafter it was supposed to change places. For American �Eagle� a problem �to shake� the Russian fighter from a tail has appeared impracticable. But the �twenty seventh� kept the opponent in a sight without special efforts. The place change had increased a breaking in results even more. Su-27UB attacked by the American by a fast climbing turn on a complete after-burning was broke was loosing contact with the enemy, and after full one and a half turns the �twenty seventh� came into �fifteenth� tail and has made capture of the target.

After Su-27UB �defeated� F-15, it was turned out, that it �has removed� driven evident by this action, by which absolutely not guilty F-15D escort aeroplane has appeared. After that the Russian pilot has attended to its real opponent - two-place F-15D. And that completely has lost from a view Su-27UB and had been forced to request the escort aeroplane on a site of the opponent. At this time the �twenty seventh� has gone to F-15D tail and, remaining undetected for it, strongly retained it in a sight, which was reported from the escort plane.

The American repeatedly tried to gone from the sight of pursue �twenty seventh�, but all its attempts appeared in vain. The pilots rotation in the �fighting� planes cockpits has not enter any surprises to the results. And the second Russian pilot had �beat� the new American pilot in the F-15D cockpit as well. Celebrated American �Eagle� was disgraced by Russian fighter with the Su mark, which this time was in air superiority on short-range approaches to the USA territory. Certainly, this friendly meeting of the potential opponents results were not lighted by the American mass-media�s in order to prevent spiteful questions of the tax payers, about on what, really their money does spend.

The total of offensive instants experienced by the American pilots became the revision of many of basic principles of activity of the US Air Forces, concerning forming of the order for a new engineering and updating of one being on arms, aircrew training and tactics of fighting aircraft combat application. Among the prime problems were updating of F-15 and F-16 basic tactical fighters, enforcing of works on development F/A-22 Raptor fighter of 5th generation. Despite of difficulties of operational development and deploying of series production, F/A-22, under the Americans opinion, already showing its obvious advantages compares to F-15 and F-16.

Alex Grinkevitch, major of the US Air Forces participating in development of tactics of air superiority conquer and aircrew training, informed on his impressions from tests series made at polygons of the Nellis Air Force Base. Nevada, in which pair of F/A-22 fighters acted against mixed forces of an �aggressors� who included eight F-15 and F-16 fighters. �We enter the zone with a speed, corresponding to M =1.5 at the 15240 m altitude and the �opponents� were already dead in five minutes�. As he said, the pair made a minor manoeuvring with visual distance, and 30 seconds were required to take the position for F-15 or F-16 aircraft shooting, at the same time the weapon of F/A-22 was already prepared for the fight�