Demystifying
The Su-37 Super Flanker
Compiled by John Sponauer
A video has been making the online rounds lately, showing the amazing maneuverability of the Sukhoi Su-37 "Super Flanker" fighter aircraft. With a modern "glass" cockpit and thrust-vectoring, the technology in the Su-37 has led some commentators to suggest the aircraft is ahead of even the next generation of western fighter, the F-22 Raptor.
When I first saw the video (available here: http://www.artbell.com/video/su37.mpg), I asked several
professionals I know who are either active duty or former fighter pilots. I
inquired as to what combat value they saw in those moves
and/or what role thrust vectoring had in ACM or missile avoidance. I also speculated
that US strategy would most likely be to make sure they were dead at radar-guided missile range, rather than come in close to "dogfight" at
Su-37. Here's the responses back that I got. Sincere thanks to them for answering.
Each reply will be separated by a line.
I asked two SimHQ.com guys first....Andy Bush is a former USAF Fighter Weapons School instructor, flew the F-4 Phantom in the Vietnam War, and also flew the F-104 and A-10. He currently flies for American Airlines. (READ AN INTERVIEW WITH ANDY BUSH)
When it comes to how maneuvering defeats a missile, it's all about being able to move quicker than the missile can
follow. A "bat turn" type of maneuver changes the aircraft attitude
but not position...from the missile's perspective, it becomes a stationary target.
This "super maneuverability" is more of an answer to yesterday's air
combat environment than it is tomorrow's.
Vince "Beer Camel" Putze flew the F-4D, F-4E, F-16A/B, and the
F-16C/D. He currently flies for FedEx.
Thrust vectoring, while an asset to performance,.. is more for the 'close in visual fight' verses another aircraft . I don't think It really
provides any great advantage for last ditch missile defense,.. for two reasons. The first is the fact that thrust vectoring is for LOW speed flight
where aerodynamic limits to control are being experienced.. Thrust vectoring allows the fighter to use brute force to 'point the nose' and use offensive
weapons. Second, at 'Tactical' airspeeds, where the last ditch defense should occur, thrust vectoring will provide minor, if any additional turn
capability... just look at the incredible 'G' onset rate the F-16 has already ! The pilot could not handle ANY MORE!
This inevitable brings us to the question.. Should we even develop it ? My short answer is yes.. for MANY reasons.. Some are... What happens
when you run out of missiles and still have bandits left? .... What happens if you
are RTB. Winchester.. and you get jumped by a guns only adversary that is in the same situation?
I also asked three active duty miltary aircrew. The first, in no real
order, is an F-15C pilot who prefers that his name, callsign, or unit not be used. When he refers to his F/A-18 experience, he is referring to an
exchange he did with the US Navy.
In
my opinion, the thrust vectored Flanker would be stupid to use that end game for 2 reasons...first, he won't be able to slow down or
maneuver enough to generate a miss...remember, he really doesn't
"move", he just pivots, and it takes a few seconds for him to decelerate enough to do
this. So, the missile would probably schwack him anyway, but if it didn't,
he'd be out of knots and ideas after that...no energy to maneuver. When I started doing air-to-ground in the Hornet after all of my Eagle time, I
quickly realized that all I was doing was was BFM'in a statonary object...the target...and hat is even easier than hitting one that is moving
and fighting back. The Flanker who blows all of his knots to defeat a BVR missile will simply be a strafe rag suspended at altitude.
Now, this maneuverability would come in handy in a close in fight to point your nose at the other guy and shoot. We have taken a more novel
approach...he helmet mounted sight. Yes, they have one, but theirs is akin
to drawing a reticle on your sunglasses, and ours has all of the features of the HUD and works at much higher off boresight angles. Now you don't have
to point, you only have to look...
In an email exchange last year, he told me the following, which he also said I could share, because it's related to this discussion.
We do fight differently in the visual arena. But, you were right on...my job is to
make them either blow up at 20nm or turn and run like the camel loving girls that
they are. Either way, I have done my job. We train and fight
completely differently than they do, and this is evidend in the way their jets are set
up. WE work with AWACS, but are also very capable if forced to work autonomously. The Slotback is setup to be run by a guy getting
instructions from GCI or AIC. My radar tells me the altitude band that I am searching,
his tells him the altitude difference from him (GCI says "He's 3000 M above
you"). His radios and INS are preset on the ground and cannot be
changed. Heck, GCI can fly his jet through the datalink. NO STINKIN SCOPE DOPE IS
GONNA STEER MY JET!!! So, the big differeence lies in the way we employ. 
If you want to smack Bears and Backfires at 80+NM, send in the Tomcats. If you want to take out multiple groups of 3rd
gen fighters BVR, send in the Eagles. If all you want to do is get into a turning fight (hopefully those 20NM Alamo shots miss), then the Hornet and
Viper are probably better (although a well flown Eagle will hold it's own with both).
The next pilot flies an F-15E Strike Eagle. Again, no name, callsign, or unit.
Vector maneuvering and thrust vectoring is not useful at all against a missile that is already in flight or against an opponent who is just about
to pull the trigger, but it would have advantages both offensively and defensively.
Offensively it's advantage is obvious - it can point it's nose darn near anywhere within a few seconds. This is primarily useful in a close-range
dogfight and modern short range missiles can go so far off-boresight that the ability to shoot someone not right in front of you is not unique to the
flanker, but it still has advantages. The trick is that generally you must
get a positive ID on a bandit before killing him which COULD drive into a close range fight, so being able to shoot without saddling up on a bandit
you've just visually identified could be useful.
This leads into the defensive advantage - Assume an F-16 must visually identify a flanker before shooting him because maybe both friendlies and
hostiles are flying them. (This sort of thing happened in the gulf war
with the Mirage F-1). If the flanker sees the viper before the VID pass and
before the VID fighter's wingman puts a missile in the air, the flanker could rotate and shoot before the F-16 got close enough to view the national
markings. You simply can't get within 5 miles of a flanker that sees you without being seriously threatened by him, regardless of his heading or
speed.
Of course, the flanker pilot sits deep inside the cockpit with relatively poor visibility so a stern conversion will limit his ability to see you
first, but still it's sort of like trying to bite a porcupine - no matter where you attack from he can still swat you with his quills.
As you said, better to shoot him at 20 miles.
One more note on how useless this is to defeat missiles - A missile is pretty stupid, and it is programmed to hit targets varying from stationary
helicopters to Mig-25's at mach 3. The way to beat a missile is to either confuse it's guidance, defeat it's logic (requires intel and luck), or maneuver hard to create a miss distance that is survivable. An AMRAAM requires
well over 9 G's to defeat following a medium range shot, so slowing down and flopping around will just ensure that the missile scores a direct hit
instead of blowing up next to or in front of the plane.
Another note specifically about the video - During the very first roll, see the plane start a right hand roll after it gets partially upright? Then see the roll accelerate to become a full aileron roll? I believe the initial roll was an uncommanded roll due to aero or gyroscopic forces, and the pilot saw he couldn't stop it and then elected to continue the roll to make it look like he intended to do that. I've seen that exact same roll departure in almost every flanker video I've watched, with the only difference being how the pilot deals with it. It's the nature of high AOA flight that you may depart, and it's one more reason why that high AOA flopping around isn't all it's said to be. Watch other vids and look for rolls or yaws (or both) as the plane finishes it's high AOA stunt and you'll probably see that almost every time the plane falls off to one side or the other at around the same time during the maneuver.
That's speculation, but I've seen it too many times for it to be just me :)
The fifth person I asked is a US Navy RIO (Radar Intercept Officer) with experience in the F-14, F/A-18D, F/A-18F, and other US Navy aircraft. He is a Top Gun grad. Again, no name, call sign, or unit.
OK, watched the MPEG clip. Neat aerobatics. I've done a couple of
the last ones in the FA-18F.
[referring to whether the goal would be to kill such a bandit with a
long-range missile shot]
That's the goal in any air combat engagement. Dogfighting is to fighters what hand-to-hand
combat is to infantry soldiers. They prefer their rifles, we prefer BVR.
Dogfighting is defensive in nature, not offensive. Most folks forget that when playing
flight sims, because dogfighting is
outrageously fun!
[referring to whether the Su-37 moves would be good for defeating a missile]
No, not really. These AIRSHOW aerobatic maneuvers are to demonstrate the ability to get the Flanker's nose onto a target first when fighting. With today's guided missiles, the guy who gets his nose on the enemy first with a shot opportunity will probably win the fight. In this regard, the maneuvers are very impressive and tell me that with a highly maneuverable missile, this Flanker could be a tough fight in the visual arena...so long as you forget that there are probably only a handful of pilots in those countries who would buy this jet that could do these tricks. Don't think they are easy because an experienced test pilot is doing them.
To defeat a missile, be it SAM or A/A, the name of the game is GEOGRAPHIC DISPLACEMENT,
ie, you have to move the jet an appreciable distance across the sky when you maneuver.
That means you have to have speed on the jet, and all these maneuvers are slow-speed and offer no
displacement in the sky. They are relatively static.
It's a common mistake, though, to equate nose position with velocity vector direction, although the whole point of this clip is to show that the two are radically different. Once the target is slow, the missile doesn't have to make a lot of large magnitude corrections, which is what causes a non-lethal miss. Today's missiles, be they radar or IR guided, will not be confused in the least by these flips and such. The speed delta isn't that great, and the jet isn't displacing itself in the sky. All the missile wants to do is rendezvous with the target. If the target is slow, the angles problem is also small, and the rendezvous is easier.