Is that true about chinese SU-30MKK upgrade?

p2prada said:

missile jammers can be employed by future planes to "fool" enemy BVR missiles

with the creation of anti ballistic missiles possible........maybe an anti air to air missile can be made to make BVR obsolete (we can see that in the hollywood flick "stealth" )

along with advances like stealth( the russian plasma tech will sure be handy ), it will be difficult for a fighter to lock on to a target plane over long distances forcing them to come head to head in a dogfight
it is almost impossible to lock the F-22 unless u are pretty close

so i believe dogfights will remain.

Click to expand...

crobato said:

We can understand why dogfights will remain.

But you have not thought things from another perspective. Why we must _resort_ to BVR, and the real reason why dogfighting will be in decline.

Ironically, the reason is because dogfighting weapons are getting too good. Not because of BVR missiles, but because of helmet sights and high offboresight missiles (R-73, Python 4/5, AIM-9X, IRIS-T) that may be near impossible to dodge and decoy, with their large seeker field of view, digital processing, and their own TVC controls. I have a lot more to fear from AIM-9X than AMRAAM. With HMS it becomes a matter who gets to see who first, visually, then cue your target brackets, lock and fire. The missile can be locked and fired from any position without the nose of the plane pointing to the target. After this, what really is the point of maneuverability. It becomes more important to stay out of the range of such missiles. Hence back to speed and BVR.

Click to expand...

eecsmaster said:

what are you? two?

anti missile missile on a plane? With that much payload and processing power, you're better off dodging the missile. As for plasma stealth, let's say that your opfor just happens to miss a giant radiation cloud, how are you going to use your own radar? Besides, that plasma torch is going to glow like a Xmas tree.

Stop watching dumb sci-fi like Stealth.

Click to expand...

p2prada said:

hi, this is my first post


you are wrong about manouverability not being an important part of the plane.
a Su30MKI is capable of out manouvering any single missile fired from BVR

americans have indicated that it takes 2 of their AMRAAMS ,fired in a few seconds gap, to take down the MKI


it is not always that planes have to fight only long range, dog fights are only a little less important than BVR
dog fights will happen cause of advancements in radar and anti missile systems like jammers etc to stop BVRs
if a BVR missile is stopped, then the planes have to meet head on

I would think that canards are redudant once you have TVC, and this is not likely to be applied as an upgrade to older planes. Simarly, the idea to add canards to convert India's Su-30K to MKI looks to me it has been abandoned, so might only have a radar upgrade.


the canards are already in place and project has green light

Click to expand...

crobato said:

Actually that's not completely correct. The missile requires a much higher G because it has to fly much faster, so in order to make a turn, it generates much higher G. A plane travels in a much slower speed and a tighter turning circle. In effect, you divide by 4 roughly. So roughly a missile with 40G can deal with an aircraft that can turn at 10G.

Another is that the slower you are, the tighter the turn can be. But if you are too slow, your wings will lose lift and you will drop. Or you won't have enough control authority to continue your turn, so you stop turning and you stall. TVC pushes that limit even further. That's why supermaneuverbility as defined is also post stall maneuverbility.

Its possible for a TVC aircraft to evade a BVRAAM. In order to do that, all the aircraft has to do is get out of the missile seeker's field of view. A missile has to maintain sufficient speed for its small fins or wings to have enough control authority. That's one reason why a missile cannot turn tightly enough.

At higher altitudes, a missile with small fins cannot grip the air with sufficient control authority to be maneuverable, so in fact the higher the altitude, the lower the kill potential of a missile (SAMs included).

Of course the exception are missiles that also have TVC. But which ones do? Other than the PAC-3, a few short range AAMs like the AIM-9X and the R-73.

If you have TVC, you can be extremely maneuverable at high altitude too. But of course, as I was arguing before with another person, better to have 3D TVC nozzles than 2D nozzles with canards, which is why I think MiG-29OVT will better the MKI at high altitude. Canards don't have that good control at high altitude either.

Click to expand...

Chengdu J-10 said:

I agree. The increase payload of the anti missle will limit the aircrafts manuverability and thus will suffer big time when the dog fights arrive. I reckon that outmanuvering the missle is the way to go. But though the missles are getting more advance, this is becoming hard.

Click to expand...