Is that a forward swept wing on the Berkut?

Yes, the Russians were experimenting with that in the Su-47. Interestingly, despite the potential aerodynamic advantages of that design, they made the same choice the Americans did with the X-29, and elected to go with more conventional designs instead.

I'm guessing here, but fighters already have issues with wing fatigue, and a forward-swept design would magnify them. The decision may have been based on a "nice performance, shame about the maintainability" calculus.

Russia's track record for development and delivery is terrible. India's been waiting how long now for their aircraft carrier? And how many years late is Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility? Pay and delay is the Russian way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Joe, but the Flanker series has yet to see combat. It's possible that Flankers are present in the Islamic Republic of Iran's Air Force. If and when a US-Iran war breaks out, it could make for a combat debut.

At Indra Dhanush, did the IAF finally acquire the ability to perform in-flight refueling? Was it even attempted?

I've found Ethiopian examples of the Flanker that have entered into combat. (I should look these things up, before providing commentary. Sorry about that.)

#2 from Joe Katzman at 6:07 pm on Oct 25, 2007

I remember at least 20 years ago talking about the X-29 with a friend of mine's father in law. He he started as a naval mechanic on the F-6s in the navy in WWII and wound up as senior management with Grumman at the time we spoke. Your mention of the plane brought back some good memories.

I had been under the impression that the gap between our combat aircraft and that of the rest of the world was widening. Is that still true and how may generations, if any, are the rest of the world's aircraft behind the F-22 as far as air superiority is concern?

Mark,

Good on ya for doing the research. Yes, the Flanker series has seen combat, in the Ethiopian/Eritrean war. Eritrea's MiG-29s came off very badly in these encounters, and one of the Ethiopian pilots became the first African female pilot to score an aerial combat kill.

As for pay and delay, it's the way of all technological program that involve R&D. When I was a big 5 consultant, my firm did a survey to find out how many corporate IT projects came in without (a) going more than 3 months over time or (b) going more than 30% over budget.

The result? Under 20%.

Refitting an aircraft carrier/heavy cruiser to eliminate much of the frontal armament and turn it into a full carrier is at least as complicated. The question is whether the final INS Vikramaditya (ex-Admiral Gorshkov) turns out to have the capabilities advertised, and performs enough of a contribution to India's defense and global influence to justify the timeframe and costs. If it does, it's a success even if it was late and over budget.

An IT project that arrives 9 months late and costs $1.5 million instead of $1 million, but saves the company $2 million in the first 2 years, would also be a successful project, by the same logic. Even as a Capability Maturity Model level 3+ firm looks for ways to improve their delivery next time.

With all that said, Russia does have a reputation for delivering products of lesser build quality, and their turnaround time for service or spares is often poor. These experiences, plus India's near-autarkic vision of defense production (which has crippled many, many key projects: Arjun tank, Akash SAM, Trishul SAM, et. al.), have led India to license production of many SU-30MKI components, perform many final assemblies in India, and start up licensed productions of things like engines for its MiG-29 fleet.

TOC,

Yes, for the F-22A... and no/ the reverse for the rest.

I've seen enough reports from multinational exercises and pilots on the end to conclude that the F-22A, which I originally thought was stupid, really is as good as they say. Maybe better - and way, way above anything else currently out there. As "double digits SAMs" (SA-10/S-300 and SA-20/S-400 missiles) proliferate around the world, and aircraft like the Flanker proliferate, its level of stealth and air-air performance will be required to venture into enemy territory and win.

Even stuff like the 4+ generation Sukhoi SU-30MKI/M, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, or Sweden's excellent JAS-39 Gripen (which I'd license produce by the hundreds for the USAF, if someone made me SecDef and gave me the decision) doesn't match the F-22A. It's fair to say that the gap between the F-22 and those aircraft is larger than the gap was between, say, the F-15 and the Mirage 2000/ JAS-37 Viggen.

Now, the "no" part.

The USAF currently depends on F-16s and F-15s for airpower. Many F-15Cs are old enough that they're on flight restrictions outside of combat for some maneuvers, due to potential fatigue issues. The F-15E Strike Eagles are newer and hence in better shape, but they aren't new.

The F-16 is widely exported, in configurations similar to American jets and even in more advanced configurations (the UAE's F-16 E/F Block 60, with APG-80 AESA radar, built-in long-range IR tracking, etc). No advantage there. Furthermore, aircraft like the Mirage 2000v9, MiG-29M multi-role, Chinese J-10 are all very closely comparable to the F-16 C/D, and will have edges in some areas and gaps in others. The 4+ generation fighters noted above (SU-30 family, MiG-29OVT/-35 with thrust vectoring, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen) are all considerably better than an F-16, and very likely better than the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet in air-air combat as well.

The low end of the global fighter market, by the way, is shifting out of western hands and will be filled by the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17, Russian MiG-29M, India Tejas LCA, and South Korea's T/A-50 trainer and light fighter. Only the MiG-29M can match or beat an F-16 in this group, and you have to keep them flying despite Russia's crappy service.

The USA's F-15s are old, but they are believed to maintain their superiority over most contenders aside from the 4+ generation fighters. The British DERA ran a number of simulations when they were considering their options, and came to the conclusion that the F-15 would be slightly inferior to SU-30 family aircraft (and the SU-30MKI/M is better than the example they used) or Rafales, would fall farther behind against the Eurofighter, and would get badly hurt by F-22s, who beat everyone. Anecdotes I've seen re: Eurofighter and F-15s tend to bear that out - the Eurofighter is very likely to kill an F-15 air-air. It maneuvers better, has some minor stealth, can passively target the F-15 at medium range, and is easier to fly/fight with. Some F-15s are beginning to get advanced AESA radar technology, but the Eurofighter project is working on the CAESAR AESA radar and will have them by the early 2010s. Where the F-15 wins is on range, air-ground capabilities (the Euros are just now putting that in Eurofighters), and weapons fit variety (Rafale has an issue there), which is why Singapore and Korea both picked F-15E variants over Eurofighter or Rafale.

If Japan doesn't get export-version (downgraded) F-22s, however, word is that Eurofighter will likely make a sale over there.

In other words, the F-16s, F/A-18s, and F-15s the USA depends on are in fact falling behind the rest of the world, and will fall further behind over the next decade or two.

Of the 3, the Super Hornet may be the most upgradeable; there are rumors that it could be set up for more stealth than the minor amount it has, and I've no idea what it would take to fit the F-22's PW119 or other thrust-vectoring engines into one. If both of those things were possible, it could become a plane that would be able to hold its own against the best near-future fighter competitors. Without that, it's in trouble.

Now, the F-35 Lightning II family. I'll start by saying that the designer's goal is to create a stealthy attack aircraft whose air-air capabilities are at least equal to the F-16's. Look above to see what "equal" means.

The F-35B (US Marines) and F-35C (Navy, conventional carrier version) are going to be designed to 7gs and 7.5gs, respectively, which is less than an F-16, and early figures re: likely thrust: weight ratio, wing shape and its implications for transonic acceleration et. al., suggest that they will meet their "equal to an F-16" goal but are unlikely to exceed it.

The F-35 will have decent stealth, which helps in air-air combat as well - though not so much from the rear, and stealth against long-range infared targeting (carried by planes like the MiG-29/35, SU-30, Eurofighter, Rafale, Singapore's new F-15SGs, and more as they're getting popular) will be a problem because of that single 40,000 pound thrust engine at the back.

The F-35 has no thrust vectoring for supermaneuverability, like the SU-30 MKI/M, MiG-29OVT/-35, or F-22A. It has no canard layout for fast "slew and point" with the new short-range air-air missiles, like the Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale, SU-30MKI/M, and SU-34. Its helmet-mounted sight will let the pilot turn his head and target fighters, but its canard-equipped competitors also have those, and so do many F-16s these days. Its lacks the F-22A's ability to cruise above Mach 1 without afterburner, something only the F-22A can currently do while carrying weapons.

Electronic superiority comes from its APG-81 AESA radar, built-in ground targeting pod (no pylon space required), and an array of sensors built right into the plane all around the aircraft. That last bit is new, something only the F-22 and F-35 do, and the F-35 does more of it. It's also extremely hard to retrofit, as you might image. You kind of design for it up front or forget it, so that will be a lasting advantage. All that is good, and will make the F-35s a very close 2nd to the F-22 as the top ground attack/strike fighter in the world. If the plane has infa-red scan & target capability embedded in a wider circle, it could have a very interesting short-range combat ace-in the hole that wouldn't need maneuverability to target missiles, but the government isn't talking. BUT:

(1) The APG-81 is limited in size because of the F-35's size and nose size, which limits its power;
(2) Other countries are catching up, and are expected to field AESA radars by the time the F-35 begins to enter service in 2012. Non-US AESA radars flying on fighters is even more likely by the time the F-35 really starts delivering a lot of planes around 2015, and many will be bigger than the F-35's;
(3) Integrated computing power and electronics will continue to catch up, via Moore's Law and upgrades, whereas the F-35's aerodynamic limitations can't be fixed without a full redesign because of the stealth issue.

Lesson: electronic superiority is ephemeral, unless it's built as something that can't be upgraded in competitors. The F-35 may match an F-16, but unlike the F-16, which could take on its own era's front line fighters, the F-35 won't be able to do that unless it has some big aces up its sleeve that are not suggested by anything we've seen yet. The reasonable assumption until proven otherwise is that it doesn't have any.

This means the USAF and US Navy will be depending on a set of aircraft (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-35) that will be outclassed by a number of foreign models in the air-air role almost immediately, and are likely to fall further behind over their service lifetimes (F-35 especially, as they will serve to 2040 and beyond).

For the last 50 years, American troops have feared no enemy aircraft, because the USAF and US Navy could clear the skies above them. Beginning around 2015, that's going to start become more and more of a question mark for the Navy, and increasingly so for the USAF as well unless they send F-22s.

At the same time, conflicts like Iraq make anything beyond a small handful of high-end F-35s or Super Hornets a waste - the same kind of surveillance and light strike role can be done by aircraft costing 1/10 as much, by A-10s (which will now serve until 2028), and in some cases by UAVs.

The USA has put itself in a fighter procurement straitjacket it is unlikely to be able to escape - not enough high-end fighters or dedicated CAS/COIN aircraft, too many "in the middle" aircraft that don't quite measure up, not enough numbers from low-cost aircraft, too many aircraft mismatched to the roles they actually fly.

This is coupled with a Navy shipbuilding plan that is producing incredibly expensive surface ships that cannot be built in enough numbers ($3-4 billion DDG-1000 destroyers), coupled with a set of low-end ships as its force numbers backbone (Littoral Combat Ship) that cannot perform fleet defense roles, or fight hostile enemy surface ships.

The consequence is likely to be an erosion of American global power from 2015-2030 at least.

My 2 cents.

Joe,

Thanks for the post. I follow new equipment, but at a distance. I am quite surprised by much what you have said. I have to admit that the Moore's law, now that you have mentioned it seems obvious and rings very true. I am going to read the post a couple of more times and bring myself up to speed on some of the numbers and letters.

Thanks again for taking the time to give that detailed a response.

Terry

Glad this helped. 2 key aerial trends to keep in mind:

(1) Short range missiles have changed. Seek and kill cones of 25-35 degrees have been replaced by seek and kill cones of 90 degrees, with IR imaging capability to tell fighters from flares (Moore's Law again), head on shot capability, and maneuvering capability of 20g+.

In english: escaping one of these is getting damn difficult, so you'd better be able to get that cone on target and fire first. Capabilities like thrust vectoring, canards, and helmet-mounted sights all help in this regard. More of these is better.

The F-22 has thrust vectoring, flight software that can use all surfaces to combine with that for best results (similar to canard slew performance, it seems), and will get a helmet-mounted sight. Plus supercruise to enter and exit the short-range envelope fast.

The 4+ Gen fighters have canards and the helmet-mounted sight, and the SU-30MKI/M adds thrust vectoring to that.

The F-35 has the helmet mounted sight.

(2) Beyond visual range missiles are also deadlier, thanks to Moore's Law, and use active guidance with their own radars plus positional updates from the launching fighter - or even another datalinked fighter, in the newest models.

There are 2 ways to handle this.

One is longer-range missiles, like Europe's MBDA Meteor (120+ miles), or Russia's even longer range Novators now in development (200+ miles). These, plus AESA radars, let a fighter get them before they can get it. Europe's 4+ gen aircraft have some stealth, but mostly they plan to rely on the Meteor's range vs. the R-77/AA-12s as their trump card. Very Long Range AAMs also make great killers of slow AWACs and aerial tankers, which can leave an enemy's force disorganized and dry in a hurry.

To really make this work best, you want Mach 1+ speeds or fast acceleration to that to extend the range of fired missiles, a powerful radar to pick up enemies at long range, and some good friends who can share what they see via options like Link 16 displays or even faster networking options.

The other approach besides longer reach is of course stealth, which lets you get closer before being detected (note: it is NOT invisibility). It's even more evil with datalinked missiles, because you can play up front and vector both your own missiles and other fighters' long-range shots into targets that can't see you. Add supercruise to zip in and out (most fighters can maintain supersonic speeds for very short times - minutes at most), and combat with you becomes a series of drive-by-shootings. The USA went with this option for the Raptor, and to a lesser extent with the F-35.

The F-22 Raptor has full stealth, Mach 1+ supercruise, and a large AESA radar with corresponding power and range. Agile beam frequency constantly switches frequencies, making it near-impossible to play the conventional trick of "trace back the radar to its source." It is limited to comparatively shorter-range AIM-120C/D AMRAAM missiles because MEteor's are too big to fit its stealth-preserving internal weapon bays. It figures to get close enough to use the AMRAAMs.

The F-35 has medium stealth and a small AESA radar with similar abilities to fit its nose. Acceleration so-so, no supercruise. Medium-range air-air sensors uncertain, but may include infared search & track (IRST). May carry some version of the Meteor missile in its internal bays at some future date.

The Gripen's non-AESA radar has been quite a surprise in NATO exercises, and an AESA option is under development, but it has the same limits as the F-35 re: max. radar size. The new version is getting the F414 engine from the Super Hornet, which may give it supercruise with air-air loads only. It will carry Meteor missiles, has low-medium radar stealth, and offers the most "visual stealth" of any design here because it has such a small profile. US Phantom pilots had this problem with MiG-17s over Vietnam, and Hungarian Gripens demonstrated that this factor still works in recent NATO exercises. A pair of Gripens were flying along and an 'enemy' plane went after #1 - never seeing #2, who flew right in and killed him. Hard to do that in an SU-30, let me tell you.

The Eurofighter and Rafale can carry a medium sized AESA radar once it's available, and will pair that with the Meteor missile. They also have medium-range infared detection as an option vs. stealthy opponents (the Eurofighter GmbH presentation to Norway has a great picture of a B-2 bomber as seen on Eurofighter IRST), then fire MBDA Mica IR medium range missiles or just cue position location for a radar-guided AAM, and hope it gets close enough to lock. Good acceleration, and Eurofighter can supercruise, but only "clean" (i.e. no weapons). Engine upgrades to improve this will be a while in arriving.

The SU-30 family has the size to fit a large and hence quite powerful AESA radar when those become available, and has medium-range infared detection as an option vs. stealthier opponents. Its size means it can also mount very big long-range air-air missiles like the Novator or Kh-31 variants, and it has the best flight range distance of any aircraft I've mentioned. VERY dangerous to AWACS unless you can stop it at the outer edge.

Programs are underway to upgrade its engines and give it Mach 1+ supercruise, and we can expect this before 2020. Put this together with the long-range criteria, and you can see how an SU-30MKI with uprated engines for supercruise, VLR missiles, and an AESA radar could be touted as "5th generation."

SU-30 downside: Stealth will never be its selling point. Also, datalinks that produce a shared picture of the battlefield (Link 16 standard et. al.) are now common in Western aircraft - the Russians, not so much and there's no standards compatibility if you fly other stuff.