The most rational, fair and unbiased analysis yet.
Apparently 12-0 score lines are possible and that's the cold hard truth. However, I stand by the fact that the Eurofighter is a deadly close-in turnfighter and in real world combat scenarios it'll match the Sukhoi toe-to-toe.
Apparently a lot of credit for the Sukhois' superb performance has been attributed to TVC. It's appalling when so many people jump on the TVC bandwagon without any introspection.
TVC helps in two ways-
1) drastically improves instantaneous turn rates (thereby enabling you to point your nose instantaneously towards your target. This is the default position to launch A2A missiles)
2) increase in post-stall maneuverability
But it's got its drawbacks too-
1) you bleed energy fast post-TVC maneuver and that my friends is when you are at your most vulnerable. An alert and well trained opponent would always be waiting for this precise moment to drill your brains out of the sky.
2) TVC works best in low subsonic and above supersonic environments. When supersonic it's tough to achieve high alpha performance without loosing energy rapidly. In such cases TVC + canards help overcome these difficulties. The
problem is the window for creating such optimal opportunities is small in a dogfight.
In the captioned blog the author summarizes- '
Su-30MKI excels in
WVR low energy combat,
Typhoon in standoff &
WVR high energy combat '. Cent percent true and I fear this is where I disagree with the author over some parts of the hypothetical battlefield scenarios.
The Indradhanush exercises' 1 vs 1 or 1 vs 2 scenarios were pure gun-kill simulations and hence were consequently low energy WVR turnfights i.e. in the
low subsonic range.
Modern air combat is a slightly different scenario.
1) Initially both parties flying in at supersonic speeds at high altitudes would engage in
BVR combat. TVC might help as after firing a missile the jet could quickly turn towards its next target. Still BVR is sooo overrated. Why does everybody love BVR much? Awww...scared of getting cut in a knife-fight....you sissy little girl.
2) after both the parties have expended their BVR missiles the surviving fighters; which would still be a considerable number of aircrafts; would meet in the merge. This inevitably would turn into a messy dogfight at high and medium altitudes in the
medium subsonic to high transonic range i.e.
WVR high energy combat. TVC is practically useless in this particular flight envelope due to rapid energy loss. The primary weapon would be the heat-seeking high off-boresight missiles coupled to IRST and HMS. Only those jets which are inherent turn-fighters (highly agile and maneuverable) would come out tops in this scenario, most probably the EuroFighter Typhoon due to it's superior:
- Thrust/ Weight ratio
- max sustained turn rate
- instantaneous turn rates (without TVC)
- visual stealth due to much smaller size
- lower drag due to smaller airframe
- lower wing loading which increases maneuverability
(note- it's high alpha performance is much inferior to the Sukhois)
Majority of the 21st century close-in air combat would take place in this scenario.
3) The last stage would be the mopping up stage and this is where the Sukhois are deadly if the Eurofighters are not able to finish them off in the previous two stages. Now both fighters have run out of missiles, it is guns only and the Eurofighter is low on fuel.
Most A2A kills have taken place when the opponent is about to run out of fuel. The Sukhoi-30 with endurance on it's side would relish such a scenario. No matter what the Eurofighter chooses to do- flight or fight it's doomed. If it chooses to stay and engage the remaining Sukhois on bingo fuel it would devolve into a
slower, low energy turn-fight. This would be a text-book repeat of the 2015 Indradhanush scenario. TVC will be the game changer.
I would like to stress that these are two very different fighters in two different weight classes built for two very different purposes. The Eurofighter is a medium-weight short/medium range point/ area defense fighter built primarily for intercepting Russian fighters and bombers intruding from over the North Sea. Whereas the Su-30MKI is the IAF's primary heavy-class long-range air superiority fighter tasked with carrying the fight deep into enemy airspace and establishing air dominance before our ground troops roll in.
In today's world where anything could be bought by anybody with loads of cash off the shelf, the advantages provided by superior technology itself would be marginal but definitely not overwhelming. The defining factors would always be- personnel skills/ training, superior tactics and a healthy dose of 'who dares wins'.
. So much for the BS being peddled that the Typhoons fought with their hands tied
