DRDO's Astra Missile at Aero India 2013: Impressive Capability Claimed

[sancho]

While the Su-35 has a clean RCS of around 1 Sq m, having same composite structure but without canards.

Doubtful, not even the Mig 29Ks / Mig 35s should have such a RCS in clean and the Russians only add very little composites to their older design, so that won't be a big advantage either. The main points are RAM coatings anyway and they will be applied on MKI too, if they aren't already.
With coatings and some composites, the main advantage of the Flanker series is the high internal fuel capacity. Compared to other fighters it don't need external fuel tanks anymore, which increases the RCS again:

Using composites and coatings afterwards, generally reduces the RCS about 3 to 4 times, which gives us a hint where the RCS could be.

Interesting fact being.. that like all Modern Air forces.. the IAF is now edging more towards the concept of slash and dash fights rather than maneuverability.

Why do you think so? Aren't canards, TVC, high TWR requirements actually showing the opposite?

 

[SQ8]

It was the need of the hour. Historically we lagged behind when it came to our airforce, its only in the last decade or so that the IAF has been pushing modernization. In the 90s the PAF had a leg up on the IAF when it came to BVR combat, earlier than that it had offset its numerical disadvantage by using modern American fighters over the IAF. The MKI won over the IAF specifically because of its beastly BARS radar, BVR combat and bugging out after taking the first shot have become the norm. We still retain close combat skills though, the cream of the IAF still swears by thrust vectoring and HMDS and helmet mounted targeting systems for high off-boresight shots- even the LCA with its underpowered engine program integrated the HMDS early on for an advantage in WVR combat (the result shows in the MKI and the FGFA).

You may quite wrong there.. it was the IAF that had the leg up on the PAF in BVR with the Mig-23 and R-23 series in the 80's and continued to keep its edge in BVR until recently.
Moreover, while it is always good to retain those skills.. there is no need for expensive TVC on fighters with the HMD..
It was again the IAF that kept the edge with the Archer missile until recently.
If I was to believe another cream of the IAF whom I met here.. then it would be not the TVC but the HMDS that matters.
They all acknowledge that while the glory days of turning and burning were fun.. todays WVR missle has made it almost pointless. since you are no longer pointing your aircraft.. but your head..
moreover, you are never alone in a fight.. never one on one.. shoot and scoot is the practice before someone else takes a shot at you.

The MKI's strength is in its Bars radar.. but that is best exploited up north.. over a wide expanse where there is time to wait for the enemy to come close.. in the west.. its the number of weapons it carries that are its true strength.
If only it could engage with all 12 of its BVR carrying capacity.. it would be quite a bulldozer in the aerial battlefield of the western Indian border.

 

[SQ8]

Why do you think so? Aren't canards, TVC, high TWR requirements actually showing the opposite?

Nope.. those requirements were thought up during the late 80's and 90's.. the EF, the Rafale.. the F-22.. (The YF-23 did not have TVC and instead relied on advanced aerodynamics)
today all those aircraft rely more on BVR prowess and the F-35 on its HMDS(because it was thought up at a later time when it dawned on western aircraft makers that TVC has little to trump over high-g missles).

The Russians are sticking to their TVC systems for reasons less combat orientated..and more marketing orientated.
My opinion is not the only one.. Pilots from Premier Air forces all around the world(other than the Russians) are emphasizing the twilight of traditional ACM concepts.. You may look up Chogy's statements here, Kaiser Tufails statements.. multiple ones from USAF pilots on certain sites.. and so forth.

P.s.. high TWR is always welcome.. not TVC..and canards do not automatically guarantee high maneuverability..

 

[sancho]

Nope.. those requirements were thought up during the late 80's and 90's.. the EF, the Rafale.

I was talking about IAFs requirements, since even today they are insisting of high maneuverability for their fighters, which was evident for the MMRCAs as well.

The Russians are sticking to their TVC systems for reasons less combat orientated..and more marketing orientated.

As i told you in another thread, that's not correct, since most other countries are either developing or evaluating TVC for their fighters too. EF has, Boeig tested it on F15 later, it was offered as an option for the F16, future Rafale upgrades reportedly might have it, China is reportedly behind TVC for their fighters as well, Japan are developing NG fighters with TVC, even AMCA is aimed on TVC to increase it's maneuverability, which shows that despite highly maneuverable missiles, the fighters remains to be aimed on high maneuverability on their own.
The only reason why F18s or F35s are not developed with it is, that these fighters are developed mainly for strikes and BVR engagements, but that holds it's own only against technically less capable fighters.

 

[Dillinger]

You may quite wrong there.. it was the IAF that had the leg up on the PAF in BVR with the Mig-23 and R-23 series in the 80's and continued to keep its edge in BVR until recently.
Moreover, while it is always good to retain those skills.. there is no need for expensive TVC on fighters with the HMD..
It was again the IAF that kept the edge with the Archer missile until recently.
If I was to believe another cream of the IAF whom I met here.. then it would be not the TVC but the HMDS that matters.
They all acknowledge that while the glory days of turning and burning were fun.. todays WVR missle has made it almost pointless. since you are no longer pointing your aircraft.. but your head..
moreover, you are never alone in a fight.. never one on one.. shoot and scoot is the practice before someone else takes a shot at you.

The MKI's strength is in its Bars radar.. but that is best exploited up north.. over a wide expanse where there is time to wait for the enemy to come close.. in the west.. its the number of weapons it carries that are its true strength.
If only it could engage with all 12 of its BVR carrying capacity.. it would be quite a bulldozer in the aerial battlefield of the western Indian border.

Sir I mentioned the BARS and the HMDS specifically because of that. But the IAF in its wisdom has often let it be known that the TVC is still important to them- Karlo Copp had an interesting paper on how low energy bleed maneuvers allowed by the TVC would only complement an aircraft's capabilities in BVR and WVR combat- whether the benefit was significant vis-à-vis the cost is debatable. You're analysis of the MKI though is far more accurate than what even most Indian posters can churn up.

On the issue of who had the leg-up, we'll have to disagree. You should read the papers that the IAF fellows were generating in the 90s (I had some open source copies saved- cannot find them atm for the life of me). True to the paranoia between our nations and obviously their burden of defending Indian airspace at the cost of their lives - the F-16's capabilities were being highlighted in successive paper after paper- the missile package for the aircraft in question was still ambiguous for most people on this side of the border. For us Pakistan's ability to gain true BVR missile on an expedited basis was a nightmare. Only with the late 90s thrust for the SU-30s and the build up of indigenous MRO facilities for the Mig-29s did the the IAF take a charitable look at the MOD.

 

[SQ8]

I was talking about IAFs requirements, since even today they are insisting of high maneuverability for their fighters, which was evident for the MMRCAs as well.




As i told you in another thread, that's not correct, since most other countries are either developing or evaluating TVC for their fighters too. EF has, Boeig tested it on F15 later, it was offered as an option for the F16, future Rafale upgrades reportedly might have it, China is reportedly behind TVC for their fighters as well, Japan are developing NG fighters with TVC, even AMCA is aimed on TVC to increase it's maneuverability, which shows that despite highly maneuverable missiles, the fighters remains to be aimed on high maneuverability on their own.
The only reason why F18s or F35s are not developed with it is, that these fighters are developed mainly for strikes and BVR engagements, but that holds it's own only against technically less capable fighters.

And I gave the reason why this still does not translate into the need for TVC for Air combat.
Development is not translated into usage.. no customer for the EF or Rafale or Gripen has specifically waited.. or asked for TVC.

You seem to ignore that the greatest benefit TVC brings in Air combat is post stall maneuvering.. after Max AoA(Clmax) has been exceeded .. in other words.. it allows the aircraft to maintain a turn even after it has lost lift(along with energy) and is falling from the sky... in almost EVERY definition of Modern Air combat.. if you run out of energy.. you are in a very bad place.
Which is why even when TVC was successfully tested on aircraft such as the X-31, and HARV.. there was no adoption of it by most western fighters.

What TVC does then essentially.. allow the aircraft to point its nose at a target(instantaneous) without actually changing the actual turn rate which depends more on aerodynamics... the Mig-29OVT has a tight turn not because of its TVC..but because the airframe is that good in a turn.. its knife edge maneuvers are due to aerodynamic sideslip.. and not just because there is TVC.
Unlike Russian aircraft.. the F-22 has its TVC through its FLCS.. which means unless the jet is going slow enough.. there is no need for it.. the aerodynamics do it all on their own.. only the Russian jets have it on manual.. which is good for pointing noses.. but at the same time will have aircraft losing energy and being easy bait for smart pilots.

The actual benefit of TVC... and why these future fighters..and especially the Stealth derivatives are considering it.. is its use in maneuvering the aircraft without deflection of control surfaces which compromises stealth..infact the proposed boeing 6th gen fighter is focusing on the usage of TVC for most maneuvers post take-off and landing.. Not because it will exceed energy flight.. but because it will keeps its RCS to a minimum.
Yes TVC will enhance the instantaneous turn rate for these fighters.. but that is nowhere near the priority.
They can turn at a 150 degrees a second.. but the human head will follow that and shoot off a missle that does much much more than that.

Its not that TVC is irrelevant overall.. its irrelevant in ACM.

 

[ANPP]

Nope.. those requirements were thought up during the late 80's and 90's.. the EF, the Rafale.. the F-22.. (The YF-23 did not have TVC and instead relied on advanced aerodynamics)
today all those aircraft rely more on BVR prowess and the F-35 on its HMDS(because it was thought up at a later time when it dawned on western aircraft makers that TVC has little to trump over high-g missles).

The Russians are sticking to their TVC systems for reasons less combat orientated..and more marketing orientated.
My opinion is not the only one.. Pilots from Premier Air forces all around the world(other than the Russians) are emphasizing the twilight of traditional ACM concepts.. You may look up Chogy's statements here, Kaiser Tufails statements.. multiple ones from USAF pilots on certain sites.. and so forth.

P.s.. high TWR is always welcome.. not TVC..and canards do not automatically guarantee high maneuverability..

Maneuverability is the feature of fighter which is not going anywhere for now. You gave a example of YF23, but you know it has much stealth & speed for interception but rejected due to lack of maneuverability compare to F22.

Canards just dont increase a/c maneuverability but also provide more stability and give air frame much more multi-role capability.

 

[SQ8]

Sir I mentioned the BARS and the HMDS specifically because of that. But the IAF in its wisdom has often let it be known that the TVC is still important to them- Karlo Copp had an interesting paper on how low energy bleed maneuvers allowed by the TVC would only complement an aircraft's capabilities in BVR and WVR combat- whether the benefit was significant vis-à-vis the cost is debatable. You're analysis of the MKI though is far more accurate than what even most Indian posters can churn up.

On the issue of who had the leg-up, we'll have to disagree. You should read the papers that the IAF fellows were generating in the 90s (I had some open source copies saved- cannot find them atm for the life of me). True to the paranoia between our nations and obviously their burden of defending Indian airspace at the cost of their lives - the F-16's capabilities were being highlighted in successive paper after paper- the missile package for the aircraft in question was still ambiguous for most people on this side of the border. For us Pakistan's ability to gain true BVR missile on an expedited basis was a nightmare. Only with the late 90s thrust for the SU-30s and the build up of indigenous MRO facilities for the Mig-29s did the the IAF take a charitable look at the MOD.

Ive read it.. and by far it is based on paper assumptions and Kopps rather distorted views in trying to come up with a positive scenario for Eastern fighters.. It is best when quoting a source to look up its credentials..
And a history on Kopp shows why it isnt the best.. even though he has a good base on electronics.. and had a keen interest in avaiation.. it does not work on his objectivity.
because at a critical juncture in his life..in a project he had invested all of his physical, mental and monetary energy.. was shunned by the RAAF in Favor of the F-35..since then he has taken an almost single minded stance on denigrating the F-35 through whatever means possible.. and pushing for the F-22(which is not possible).

The advantage of TVC in BVR shots would be useful in a long range scenario.. for 5th gen fighters..where they can maintain supercruise and maneuver better without compromising their RCS.
It may also provide an advantage in quick shoot and scoot scenarios.. where a launch and quick turns to the beam may be taken.. but in a many vs many fight.. that advantage keeps petering out to a lesser percentage.

 

[SQ8]

Maneuverability is the feature of fighter which is not going anywhere for now. You gave a example of YF23, but you know it has much stealth & speed for interception but rejected due to lack of maneuverability compare to F22.

Canards just dont increase a/c maneuverability but also provide more stability and give air frame much more multi-role capability.

Spoken like a true fanboy..

At no point was the F-22 more maneuverable at any point except below corner airspeed due to TVC.
The YF-23 matched or outperformed the YF-22 in maneuverability in transonic and supersonic regimes during DemVal.(not a vs flyoff.. but rather a benchmark meeting competition.. benchmarks not just in aircraft performance.. but in manufacturer performance and sustainability)
The F-22 needed TVC because above 20 degrees AoA the air flowing over its vertical tails was much less to the airflow being disrupted by the main wing stalling.. the YF-23 in contrast with its ruddervators being out plane still had airflow at high AoA and maintained its high rate of turn even then.

it was not rejected JUST because of Lack of TVC.. it was rejected because in DemVAl it did not demonstrate missile firing capability, had issues with weapons bay arrangement, higher projected maintenance costs.. and most importantly.. RISK.
Northdrop was already falling behind on the B-2 program.. and McDonnel Douglas was about to be sold to Boeing..
Boeing was part of Lockheeds team on the F-22 ..

The YF-22 was judged to be the less riskier design to bring into operational status.. and was awarded the contract..

As for the statement in red.. you cannot fathom the chuckle I just had on that.
I pray.. how do canards increase multi-role capability? How is the Su-37 more multi-role than the Su-35S?

Canards do not offer any stability if the airframe is already unstable.. they do offer reduction in drag and increase in lift where the application is in a close coupled form..
Shut off the FLCS in a Gripen and see it go haywire.

 

[danger007]

The thread title is about Astra missile... not about TVC, CANARDS nor about F-22..... haha.... too much off topic....

 

[ANPP]

Spoken like a true fanboy..

At no point was the F-22 more maneuverable at any point except below corner airspeed due to TVC.
The YF-23 matched or outperformed the YF-22 in maneuverability in transonic and supersonic regimes during DemVal.(not a vs flyoff.. but rather a benchmark meeting competition.. benchmarks not just in aircraft performance.. but in manufacturer performance and sustainability)
The F-22 needed TVC because above 20 degrees AoA the air flowing over its vertical tails was much less to the airflow being disrupted by the main wing stalling.. the YF-23 in contrast with its ruddervators being out plane still had airflow at high AoA and maintained its high rate of turn even then.

it was not rejected JUST because of Lack of TVC.. it was rejected because in DemVAl it did not demonstrate missile firing capability, had issues with weapons bay arrangement, higher projected maintenance costs.. and most importantly.. RISK.
Northdrop was already falling behind on the B-2 program.. and McDonnel Douglas was about to be sold to Boeing..
Boeing was part of Lockheeds team on the F-22 ..

The YF-22 was judged to be the less riskier design to bring into operational status.. and was awarded the contract..

As for the statement in red.. you cannot fathom the chuckle I just had on that.
I pray.. how do canards increase multi-role capability? How is the Su-37 more multi-role than the Su-35S?

Canards do not offer any stability if the airframe is already unstable.. they do offer reduction in drag and increase in lift where the application is in a close coupled form..
Shut off the FLCS in a Gripen and see it go haywire.

Very funny point though. What I know is that F23 was more faster, stealthier and have better low-speed maneuverability.

BTW DEm/Val data is still classified, from where you get it.( it did not demonstrate missile firing capability) plz share with us.
TVC become more valuable in high speed rather than subsonic speed.

I dont take the case of flanker in canards case. For your knowledge just study the case of Rafale & Typhoon's canards situation.

 

[SQ8]

The thread title is about Astra missile... not about TVC, CANARDS nor about F-22..... haha.... too much off topic....

Well it can be returned to Astra.. the HOBs capability.. dual-use.. is all modern thought in air combat..
The idea being to avoid a turning fight..
think of it this way.. previously it was a knife fight.. then a musket fight(the 70's).. then it got out to revolvers and pistols..
now.. everyone has machine guns..so whether you are a nimble boxer or heavyweight..with everyone spraying bullets around in a circle.. you will get shot..

so instead of trying to dance it out... you come running in .. spray bullets..and get out.

Very funny point though. What I know is that F23 was more faster, stealthier and have better low-speed maneuverability.

BTW DEm/Val data is still classified, from where you get it.( it did not demonstrate missile firing capability) plz share with us.
TVC become more valuable in high speed rather than subsonic speed.

I dont take the case of flanker in canards case. For your knowledge just study the case of Rafale & Typhoon's canards situation.

Start doing something called research.. not wiki ones.. or helter skelter.. methodical..
Read up on people like Paul Metz(who was Chief test pilots for both YF-22 and F-22 programs)...and you should be able to piece together things better.

As for the last part.. now you are just being defensive..
The F-35 has zero canards.. and yet is as much or more multirole than the Eurocanards..
The Multi-role capability on them has LITTLE to do with canards..and more to do with software and payload capacity advances.
Its just a case of chasing a folly.. you want insist on a car's excellent interior due to the fact that it has rear wheel drive.. then go ahead.. but you will end up a laughing stock.

 

[Abingdonboy]

+ @Oscar

I think you need to take into account that "stealth/VLO/5th gen" fighters are designed with stealth/VLO in mind and as such all their design characteristics are oriented to VLO/stealth so small wings and a compact body. Any fighter pilot will tell you that the first thing they'd want in their "dream" flying machine is a large wing for greater lift and tighter turning radius. The 5th gen fighters try to overcome their lack of maneuverability with advanced tech. But when you start getting more and more advanced 4.5++ gen fighters (Eurocanards, Gripen-E, MIG-35,LCA Mk.2, "Silent" F-18 and F-15 etc) all armed with long-range, advanced, BVR missiles, have their own "stealthy" features, house AESA radars and advanced jammers then the stand-off ability the 5th gen fighters rely so heavily on is going to be diminished considerably and you can not completely rule out the likelihood of WVR combat then. With these 4.5++ gen fighters being equipped (in most cases) with either canards or TVC (or both) and HMDS these 5th gen fighters are in for a hell of a fight and their supremacy is not assured.


The last time the West completely wrote off the likelihood of WVR combat it massively blew up in their face.

 

[danger007]

Well it can be returned to Astra.. the HOBs capability.. dual-use.. is all modern thought in air combat..
The idea being to avoid a turning fight..
think of it this way.. previously it was a knife fight.. then a musket fight(the 70's).. then it got out to revolvers and pistols..
now.. everyone has machine guns..so whether you are a nimble boxer or heavyweight..with everyone spraying bullets around in a circle.. you will get shot..

so instead of trying to dance it out... you come running in .. spray bullets..and get out.



Start doing something called research.. not wiki ones.. or helter skelter.. methodical..
Read up on people like Paul Metz(who was Chief test pilots for both YF-22 and F-22 programs)...and you should be able to piece together things better.

As for the last part.. now you are just being defensive..
The F-35 has zero canards.. and yet is as much or more multirole than the Eurocanards..
The Multi-role capability on them has LITTLE to do with canards..and more to do with software and payload capacity advances.
Its just a case of chasing a folly.. you want insist on a car's excellent interior due to the fact that it has rear wheel drive.. then go ahead.. but you will end up a laughing stock.

why ill use pistol or revolver.... just i ll launch my astra....

when we are going to induct the Astra....

 

[SQ8]

+ @Oscar

I think you need to take into account that "stealth/VLO/5th gen" fighters are designed with stealth/VLO in mind and as such all their design characteristics are oriented to VLO/stealth so small wings and a compact body. Any fighter pilot will tell you that the first thing they'd want in their "dream" flying machine is a large wing for greater lift and tighter turning radius. The 5th gen fighters try to overcome their lack of maneuverability with advanced tech. But when you start getting more and more advanced 4.5++ gen fighters (Eurocanards, Gripen-E, MIG-35,LCA Mk.2, "Silent" F-18 and F-15 etc) all armed with long-range, advanced, BVR missiles, have their own "stealthy" features, house AESA radars and advanced jammers then the stand-off ability the 5th gen fighters rely so heavily on is going to be diminished considerably and you can not completely rule out the likelihood of WVR combat then. With these 4.5++ gen fighters being equipped (in most cases) with either canards or TVC (or both) and HMDS these 5th gen fighters are in for a hell of a fight and their supremacy is not assured.


The last time the West completely wrote off the likelihood of WVR combat it massively blew up in their face.

The last time they also thought that in 2001 we would be going to Jupiter..
Yet most of those things.. including tablet PC's.. supercomputers.. fast processors.. and miniaturization have come of age.
The missile has come leaps and bounds from what it was.. to compare it to the results of the Vietnam war(which in fact had less to do with missles.. and more do with doctrine) to today is folly.

The next time the west met Soviet aircraft with something called the AMRAAM.. they slaughtered them.. in 95.. all over.
And that was ten years ago..

When the Mig-29 came out in the Luftwaffe.. in one fell swoop at had western fighters outgunned.. not because of high maneuverability.. because the F-16 could match it easily.. but because even in an evenly matched turn.. the HMS Archer combination was able to "score" a kill.

The evolution of weapons takes time... and the missile had reached its evolutionary point where it is pushing dogfights into twilight..
The F-22 gets taken down by an EF because the EF is well built for getting in up close and personal.. but neither employs a HMS missile.. nor is the fact that there is NO way the EF will figure out an F-22 is in the vicinity until it has a salvo of missles on its way.

So while Dogfighitng may not be extinct yet.. its relevance is what is diminishing.. and its form is what is diminishing.
As I said.. its great to have a good strong nimble body when you are going for a pistol shoot out.
But when you have a machine gun spraying all over.. its better to be able to run fast, spray and get out.
That machine gun is the modern missile.. and there is very little chance that "ballets in the sky" will save you from 50g dual mode seeker weapon.

why ill use pistol or revolver.... just i ll launch my astra....

when we are going to induct the Astra....

Exactly.. So you wont come in and try to get your nose to point at him.. you will run in .. look at his way.. fire an Astra.. snap to look at his friends way.. fire an Astra.. all the while with your ECM turned up high and pumping out Chaff and Flares.. and keep your nose pointed at the way out of the arena..
With luck(and some Pk).. you will have killed him, avoided his missile.. and kept his friend from firing at you on your way out.