Super Flanker videos!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

a skilled pilot wouldnt LET a mig pilot do it

Besidesif they are in a high g turning fight the sukshoi wouldnt be able to pull off the cobra when puilling sustained 7g and goign 350 kt. only way it would work is if a pilot was stupid enough to rush in right away full burner too fast to turn n stuff

[mighty gorgon]

PS-do you have the direct link to that vid?  I'd like to see it to analyze better.  (Most of the translations are simply "demo" "airshow" "manuevers" etc--and I effectively get about 33Kb connection, since the lines here are so bad)

The URL of the movie is this one: http://www.brazd.ru/video/c0003/v000320.avi. I had to try it a couple of times until I got the download... WARNING, it is a 42 Mb clip of an amateur movie at an airshow... I guess in Russia. Check also the following movie: http://www.brazd.ru/video/c0002/v000295.avi (30 Mb), it is a Su-30MKI at MAKS 2003. I guess is the movie from which they got the photo you posted at the beginning of this thread.

Regds,

G.

(and now...where is my Su-30????)

[David Hingtgen]

Shin Densetsu---the Flankers have about a 200-400kt range for doing the Cobra, they can set it up and exit it pretty quickly under many conditions. Unlike an F-18 which needs 30 secs of prep to do the "slow pass" at an airshow, a Flanker can do a Cobra immediately before or after just about any other move.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

sweet. I did not know that. thats pretty insfor a big fighter like that. David am I correct in my theory of fighter doctrine in US training? Like I always here to NEVER pop the boards in a dogfight from naval aviators. and from what I understand, in US ACM they never say to follow full burner against a flanker...straight ahead..I mean that would mean the flanker could cobra and nail you right there. I think teh best way to ffight a flanker is to follow it but not too close. Avoid any kind of scissors. minimum gun distance is still far enough to not trail a flanker too close. Key is to maintain high energy and not stray too close.

[David Hingtgen]

Honesetly I have no idea, never read about Flanker-specific tactics.

I will say that Flankers have insane acceleration, and it's very hard to "get away" from them, no matter how much lead-time you may start off with. Don't turn your tail on it, it WILL catch up quickly. Also, they can carry many missiles, especially short-range ones. Unlike US planes which usually have only "medium-range radar" and "short-range IR" for missile options, Russia basically uses the same designs, scaled up or down, with various seekers. Thus a short-range IR, short-range radar, and the medium-short, medium, and medium-long range versions as well, both IR and radar. It's not uncommon to see a Mig-29 or Flanker carrying 10 missiles, each one different! They will usually have the "perfect" missile for any given moment---just not very many of that type.

There were originally going to be basically 2 Flankers--long-range interceptor, and close dogfighter. Well, all you really need to do to get a "dogfight" Flanker is to not load it up too heavily. Flankers are huge, with massive fuel and missile capacity. Ever notice you never see drop tanks on a Flanker? Doesn't ever need them. Can fly plenty far enough on internal fuel, even while carrying many large long-range missiles. That's a LOT of weight. So if you just load a half-dozen small missiles, and like 1/3 fuel, you've still got the range/payload of a small fighter, but the raw engine power of the Flanker--thus a super-powered dogfighter.

US nightmare scenario: Soviet bombers escorted by Flankers. When the Flankers get to the US (they are a LONG ranged plane when fueled up, and refueled off the Russian coast), they've used up a lot of their fuel and long-range missiles "busting in", and are now light with short-range missiles, and can likely beat any local F-16 or F-15 stationed at the bases the bombers are attacking.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hmm i guess the best way to fight it is energy zoom and climb as well as split S like hell. Faster reversing direction that way rather than full zone 5 bat turning. No wonder they said ud get torn upm in fleet defender if you fought a bunch of those. David, I know the Tomcat cant manuever and do the stuff the flanker does, but how canit fare against it in a knife fight?

[David Hingtgen]

Well it's got the bat-turn, which is just as "last-ditch energy-sucking" as a Cobra, and can surprise the hell out of somebody to fire off a missile.

But close-in low-speed is not its forte. Really, a Tomcat wants to go fast (and high). It can outmanuever a lot of planes if its transonic (.8/.9 to 1.2/1.3) or higher. When the wings are swept back, the wing-gloves REALLY start working in conjunction with the outer wings, the lifting fuselage is "working" and even the intakes are making a difference, and basically it's all blending together to the point that you practically have a flying wing, and the effective wing area surpasses 1,000 sq ft. Lower wing loading than even a lightly-loaded F-15 or even the YF-23. That means you can MOVE. However, you will bleed energy like a delta-wing when doing so. (That means more than an F-15/16/18 would) Also, at high altitudes, the otherwise sucky engines of the F-14A really are in their element, and will produce more thrust than just about anything but an F-15. (Super Tomcats actually have a much lower top speed than an F-14A, due to this). (and that's why F-4's are still pretty darn fast as fighters go, despite having low power and lots of drag--the engines were designed for high-alt high-speed operation, so they really shine there)

The F-14 is still one of the all-time most aerodynamically efficient aircraft. Swing-wings are amazing.

Edited April 28, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Hey David, do you have figures or could you point out any site where they show how the output of the different jet engines vary with altitude?

I keep seeing the power/height charts for the piston fighters but never any for the jets.

[David Hingtgen]

Not that I recall. I have very very few numbers for jets. A lot of the comparison just comes from speed/climb stats for "same plane, different engines". As well as some of the basics for turbofans---the higher the bypass ratio, the more power and acceleration at low altitude, but less power at high altitude. And a pure turbojet will beat any turbofan at high altitude, but suffer tremendously at low altitude. (Wanna go real fast real high? Get a turbojet. But expect to take forever to takeoff and climb there and slow acceleration once you're there). There's no perfect engine, except of course the F120 in a YF-23, which could switch between a turbofan and turbojet, and be the most powerful fighter engine ever under any condition.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

? Get a turbojet. But expect to take forever to takeoff and climb there and slow acceleration once you're there).

Sorry I don't get that bit. A turbojet at high alt would still have slow acceleration?

Oh, and I see you are still sore about the YF-23.

[David Hingtgen]

YF-23 soreness: yup.

Turbojet acceleration: as a rule, they themselves take more time to accelerate. As in "how long to go from mil power to max power". Which can be quite a few seconds. 10 secs is a long time in a dogfight, which is the amount of time a turbojet can take to spin up. As for "aircraft acceleration rates in level flight at high altitudes/speeds for turbofans vs turbojets" I'd have to go see if I have info on that. (I'd have to vote turbojet as the winner there, since the faster you go, the more edge the turbojet has, even overweighing its high-alt advantage).

Basic jet propulsion theory: increasing the momentum of the air passing through. Momentum=mass x velocity. To make thrust, you accelerate air's velocity. And more air being accelerated will create more thrust. The velocity of the plane is subtracted from the velocity of the jet's exhaust for calculating thrust. (Since it's the DIFFERENCE in velocity--if the jet is going 400mph, and thus the air entering the engine is going 400mph, and your jet exhaust is 400mph, you didn't change the air's velocity at all, thus no thrust) Thus, the faster you go, the less thrust you make, even if all other conditions are identical. (assuming constant exhaust velocity)

Turbofans mainly move lots of air (mass) moderately fast (velocity). Thus at low alt (dense air, and large volumes of it) they reign supreme, but the higher they go the worse, since the air's thin. Also, the faster they go the worse they are, since they don't move the air all that fast to begin with. If you're only pumping out air at 900mph, and you're going 800mph, that's only a 100mph increase in the air's velocity--which is like an F-15 idling. Not much power.

As opposed to turbojets, which move moderate amounts of air very quickly. At high altitude, the thin air doesn't hurt much, since they don't really rely much on air's mass, they rely on increasing its velocity. High speed--their exhaust is SO fast the speed of the plane doesn't reduce the thrust that much. But at low altitude, they are moving so little air (even though it's thick) that their increased velocity isn't nearly compensation enough to make as much thrust as a turbofan, since a turbofan at this point is moving such large quantities of thick air.

Basically--the difference in air mass moved is greater than the difference in exhaust speed, for a turbofan and turbojet. A turbojet's exhaust may be twice as fast, but the mass of a turbofan can be five times or more as great. A turbofan is generally superior in all categories, since it is quieter, faster-accelerating, more fuel efficient, has fewer parts, less maintenance, and runs cooler---but a turbojet at high-speed high-alt flight will produce a lot more thrust which is a single but important advantage---which is important for a fighter jet---so it's always a compromise.

[SupremeKaioshin]

15. It's a Flanker. It can recover energy like *that*. Most powerful engines in service tend to let you do that. Same reason F-16's pull 9G all day long--bleeds energy in an instant, but they've got so much power they don't really care.

Wouldn't 9G's kill a human pilot? Guld Bowman could do it

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

nope not 9. sustained 12 could kill a pilot. 40gs is what navy pilots are subjected to in catapults but they survive since its only for a few seconds. flanker is ratedd over 12gs in terms of airframe structure durability last i heard.

[ewilen]

US nightmare scenario: Soviet bombers escorted by Flankers. When the Flankers get to the US (they are a LONG ranged plane when fueled up, and refueled off the Russian coast), they've used up a lot of their fuel and long-range missiles "busting in", and are now light with short-range missiles, and can likely beat any local F-16 or F-15 stationed at the bases the bombers are attacking.

I've been refraining from commenting on this thread since so many "which fighter is better" arguments end up sounding like the South Park Weapons episode ("I got you with my turbo-ray", "No you didn't because I have a gamma shield", "Okay, then I follow up with a boson torpedo", "My jamming device makes it turn around and attack YOU!", etc. etc.) and generally ignore soft factors (doctrine, pilot training) and not-so-soft factors (infrastructure, numbers)...but I have to ask...

If the Soviet Union reconstituted itself and the Russkies were thinking of sending long-range bombers over the US, don't you think things would be bad enough that they'd use ICBMs/SLBMs/cruise missiles? Which would render the whole Flanker-escorting-Backfires (or whatever the Sovs have that could reach US soil) scenario moot. (Not to mention being a real nightmare.)

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

yea but we're talking fighters here. m,ore likely a war starts out conventional and if stuff really hits the fan then nuclear. I doubt theyd start nuking right away. anyways lets keep this on the flanker.

has the US tested any flankers yet? I know they bought some a while back from a country that bought them form russia. I was 2 of them i believe. KNowing they operated some migs for testing anfd aggressor training i feel that they did the same to the flankers.

[uminoken]

David, may I point you to www.bradtz.ru (the site is 100% in russian)? they have several movies for each flanker variant... some even 30/40 Mb (for the 35/37 there are 20 clips). I am not sure of the quality however. The site went down when I got my broadband connection, but it is up again (but a bit unstable)... There is one particular movie in which a '37 goes up and does what looks like a "vertical kulbit"... Wow!!!

Link for Shukoi here, others (mig, etc) should be 'round there.

Anyone else having problems with the videos on the Russian site? I managed to get one, but now even that link isn't working

ETA: they work eventually, but you have to try the link about 20 times

Edited April 28, 2004 by uminoken

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

15.  It's a Flanker.  It can recover energy like *that*.  Most powerful engines in service tend to let you do that.  Same reason F-16's pull 9G all day long--bleeds energy in an instant, but they've got so much power they don't really care.

Wouldn't 9G's kill a human pilot? Guld Bowman could do it

9Gs can be endured by trained pilots but at 9Gs, the pilot is mainly just riding it out. He isn't going to be able to twist his head around and punch all those fancy buttons on his dashboard during the 9Gs.

Another reason why HOTAS is a good idea.

Edited April 29, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[ewilen]

yea but we're talking fighters here.  m,ore likely a war starts out conventional and if stuff really hits the fan then nuclear.  I doubt theyd start nuking right away.  anyways lets keep this on the flanker. 

has the US tested any flankers yet? I know they bought some a while back from a country that bought them form russia.  I was 2 of them i believe. KNowing they operated some migs for testing anfd aggressor training i feel that they did the same to the flankers.

We got a bunch of MiG 29's from Moldova, but I don't think the US has acquired any Flankers yet. If we had, it would probably be mentioned here, since the author of that report has done a very comprehensive job, and the latest revision was only a few days ago. On the other hand, the US recently conducted exercises with India, which probably provided a good deal of (classified) information on the Flanker.

You're right of course that a war with...pretty much anyone would start as a conventional conflict before conceivably escalating to nuclear weapons. But if the Russians sent bombers over the US, they wouldn't get very many sorties out of them before they had no bombers, no matter how effective the Flanker escort might be against American intercepters. (BTW, wouldn't the intercepters' job be to take out the bombers rather than getting into a furball with the escorts? And when bombers are coming in, surely you can forget restrictive ROE requiring visual ID.) So they'd be sacrificing their bombers, enraging the American population, and probably causing very little damage of military significance.

Finally, the sources I've seen give the Flanker a ferry range (which I assume means one-way with minimal stores) of 4000 km. This is about the distance from Ugolny, one of the easternmost Russian airfields in Siberia, to Seattle. So Flankers would definitely need tankers to escort any bombers to the Lower 48, and unless it was a one-way mission, fuelling would have to take place well off the Russian coast both coming and going. I wonder what the American carrier groups, not to mention fighters stationed in Japan, Alaska, and Hawaii, would be doing in the meantime?

The most effective tactic of Russian bombers--whether engaging in a nuclear strike or conventional--would be to fire long-range cruise missiles, turn around, and return to base. These missiles have ranges in thousands of km. The only effective defenses against such tactics would be to intercept the bombers before they reached their launch point, destroy them on the ground, or intercept the cruise missiles themselves after launch. It would be more realistic to consider how Russian fighters/interceptors (including Flankers) would affect those scenarios.

Edit: P.S. I know I'm showing my age by mentioning Backfires. The Russians would use Blackjacks and Bears.

Edited April 29, 2004 by ewilen

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

I would think that in a conventional war, the Flankers would be protecting the bombers from the carrier battle groups as well as the above mentioned fighters from Japan, Alaska, Hawaii. Will be quite suicidal to run all the way into US coastal waters IMHO, so the bombers should be launching from miles away.

They'll probably hit Okinawa before they hit the continental US.

edit: Blackjacks? Don't they only have like less then 10 of em operational?

Edited April 29, 2004 by Retracting Head Ter Ter

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I did hear that the US did aqquire 2 SU-27s from a country that russia was exporting too. When they were still in the cargo planes, the US bought them from that country. ITs in the magazines I believe. All I heard is that the US bouight 2. I have no idea if the US was able to fly them or not. David back me up if you know about this too. Ewilen that is an AWESOME site.

if anything if a war started I believe russia would try to take out the carriers first. That way they have seapower and coastal defense would be down. Possibly a mass strike with numerous blackjacks launching kitchen and other ASMs, with low flying flankers flying fast and ambushing fightesrs after being catapulted. (SU33) I can see numerous SU-34 platypuis being used to supplement the bombers and being that superhornets will defend the fleet in the future, the higherups having a hard time dealing with the fact that thee hornet aint no F-14(HAD to add that in )

SU-33s got canards so their AOA manueverability in the high AOA zone has to be better. with that in mind, not only will pilots have a hard time intercepting all the ASM,s they will havea hard time dogfighting the flankers as well. Su-33 is the kuznetsov and other russian carriers main frontline fleet defense and being that budget is low and russian carriers dont carry as much aircraft, wiping out the flanker fleet would definitely leave the kuznetsov open to air attacks. I belive they only carry one swquadron of SU-33s. So as long as they can be wiped out hard and fast after the bombers, I believe the naval carrier war would be towards the US favor.

god this naval and flanker talk reminds me of that USNF game.

[mighty gorgon]

Anyone else having problems with the videos on the Russian site? I managed to get one, but now even that link isn't working

ETA: they work eventually, but you have to try the link about 20 times

Yes I do... but as you say, you must keep on retrying...

[ewilen]

Yes, the Russians have a very small force of Blackjacks. Ukraine inherited them from the USSR, and Russia accepted them as payment in kind for some energy debts if I'm not mistaken.

Anyway, this whole scenario points up how much would have to happen before Russia could even begin to think of starting an 8th Airforce-style air campaign over the US. Even if you think the Flankers would be dominant in an intercontinental bomber escort role, Russia would first have to wipe out all our Pacific rim air assets. Otherwise, we could probably just let the Flankers go by, knock out the tankers, and watch the Flankers drop in the drink on their return trip.

[Sephiroth]

Just to add to the scenario...who says that the Russians would be alone in their fight against the US? What if another world power, like China for instance, got involved and supported the Russians?

[ewilen]

Yes, and what if Brazil joined in?

We can spin all kinds of scenarios, some of them bordering on the paranoid, and possibly inappropriate given forum rules against political debates.

But yes, it is true that if the whole world ganged up on the US, we might be in trouble. Food for thought.

[BLESS]

Great videos!

Ive got 2 questions:

How long does a flanker take to acquire a lock with short range missles to firing it?

David pointed out that the cobra maneuver is useful in an offensive role, so is the flanker able to fire (using missiles) at a target during executing this maneuver or is it primarily used to change directions very quickly then going after the target?

[Sephiroth]

Yes, and what if Brazil joined in?

We can spin all kinds of scenarios, some of them bordering on the paranoid, and possibly inappropriate given forum rules against political debates.

But yes, it is true that if the whole world ganged up on the US, we might be in trouble. Food for thought.

You can belittle my inject all you want, but is it really so far fetched as to be "paranoid" to think that other countries wouldn't try to align their resources and military strength with one another in an event such as this? All the scenarios mentioned above were pretty much one-on-one ifs...I simply tried to evolve the scenario to be more realistic. Of course it wouldn't be the whole world against the US, but to think the enemy would be alone is wishful thinking...welcome to reality.

[Sephiroth]

Great videos!

Ive got 2 questions:

How long does a flanker take to acquire a lock with short range missles to firing it?

David pointed out that the cobra maneuver is useful in an offensive role, so is the flanker able to fire (using missiles) at a target during executing this maneuver or is it primarily used to change directions very quickly then going after the target?

I'm not sure, but I'd hate to be the pilot that had to find out the hard way...

[ewilen]

Even if a midair 180 or a Cobra enabled an SU-27 to gain a lock & fire on an enemy, it raises the questions:

1. Why not use helmet mounted sights and missiles with off-boresight IR seekers? No need to turn the plane when you can just turn your head.

2. While you're dumping energy and focusing on one bad guy, what's his wingman up to?

I agree with David, this thread is best devoted to the remarkable aerobatic capabilities of the Flanker.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

heat seekers take a lot less time to lock on. with that said it wont take as long. i amguessing after the initial pass the flanker could cobra 180 degrees and using the helmet sight in coordination withn off boresight targeting could fire at the target before the manuever is even done. that sthe best way i believe.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

1. Why not use helmet mounted sights and missiles with off-boresight IR seekers? No need to turn the plane when you can just turn your head.

2. While you're dumping energy and focusing on one bad guy, what's his wingman up to?

1. Not sure if turning the plane slighty towards the target would help the energy of the missile (i.e. missile doesn't have to waste too much fuel twisting backwards).

2. Probably exchanging harsh stares with the Flanker's wingman.

[ewilen]

1. Point taken, although missile is also going to have an energy deficit to overcome when the plane is flying backwards or sideways.

2. That's why I raised the numbers game back in this thread. How many frontline fighters does the US have vs. Russia?

2a. Add in pilot skill/training. I wonder how many Russian pilots can execute those Flanker stunts.

2b. Add in what happens before the merge, with AWACS playing a large factor.

Taken in isolation, the effectiveness of the Cobra or other amazing maneuvers in WVR ACM is an interesting topic (though I'm unaware of an experienced US military pilot having anything good to say about it--stick-in-the-mud-ism? sour grapes?). In context though, I doubt it looms large.

[Lindem Herz]

1. Point taken, although missile is also going to have an energy deficit to overcome when the plane is flying backwards or sideways.

At least, the missile would buy the Flanker enough time to turn back and fire another one (most likely the real kill shot) while preventing the enemy from doing the same.

Btw, the Flanker's real name is Zhuravilk, Журавлик, which translates into Crane(the bird, not the machine).

Quite fitting, if you ask me.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

2a. Add in pilot skill/training. I wonder how many Russian pilots can execute those Flanker stunts.

2b. Add in what happens before the merge, with AWACS playing a large factor.

Taken in isolation, the effectiveness of the Cobra or other amazing maneuvers in WVR ACM is an interesting topic (though I'm unaware of an experienced US military pilot having anything good to say about it--stick-in-the-mud-ism? sour grapes?). In context though, I doubt it looms large.

2a. No idea. I really don't know how hard it is to execute the Cobra and all the other fancy slides. I remember when I was playing the old Flanker sim, the damn cobra move was hotkeyed to a keyboard button.

2a+ I wonder if any Chinese or Indian pilot has pulled off a Cobra. Any film evidence?

Anyway, I don't think the Cobra or the fancy low speed slides would do much in a missile fight (BVR or WBR). It probably only works if both sides are going gun to gun. A low speed gunfight between a Harrier and a Su-35 should be interesting...

[David Hingtgen]

I thought Crane was only a common nickname, not official. Like Warthog or Viper.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I think the cobra would only work if the US pilot was stuipid enough to go full burner at the flanker assuming the flanker pilot hjas no idea hes behind. With that in mind I am sure the flanker plays heavily in ACM practice with our military. Last I heard and read, Russian air crews and the forces they train in other countries are HEAVILY dependant on GCI. This is the reason German F-4 squadrons were able to take on german mig 29 pilots with a higher mock kill ratio after reunification....mig crews were far too reliant on GCI. Flanker is dependant on GCI or at least was I ma not sure if it still is.

The cobra can be deadly provided the pilot taking on the flanker aint an idiot going full burner on the flanker when its on the flankers 6.