Thats all because of the massive attack your countrymen put on him. It was a PR move, not a professional one.
He actually praised the MKI in the end but that is beyond your jingoism orientated approach.
Oh sure, trolling in front of your retired buddies(Daedalians) and posting that on youtube, is soooo professional.
And of course the news of the 'good' colonel's indiscretions automatically makes the Indian media liars.
Let me tell you sir a TRUE post exercise or a post mission briefing would never be televised or recorded for the general public.
And of course "praising"(condescending) the MKI will surely make all his over the top wrong claims right.Sir truth is not relative but absolute.
There is also a transcript if you wanna judge for yourself how right he was.
All you are quoting is the manufacturer.. who will automatically praise what he has flown.
At no point does he even talk about how his rate's will factor into a scenario.
And I have no idea where the general designer assumes that conventional aircraft like the F-16 and F-16 CANNOT deploy weapons beyond those angles of attack.. what possible logic is there? Please use aviation sources other than the marketing side?
What I quoted was not from the manufacturer but the "30th Central Scientific Research Institute, Russian Ministry of Defence" which has now merged with the MoD RF 4 CRI.
If there is anyone that'll know about real time tactics assessment it is them.
Their tasks are as follows:
- Threat assessment and forecasting.
- Defining operational and technical requirements.
- Monitoring defence industry progress on the Russian Air Force acquisitions.
- Performance evaluations of the newly developed aerospace technologies and complexes.
The most common possible logic is that it comes from them and I will bet you on their word as they are directly related to the development of warfighting skills.
I have little use for "aerial ballet" videos.. make your point.. how is that TVC effective ?
The pilot claims that it can recover from any stall maneuver.. if he is USING TVC to GO post-stall to maneuver..
If the airflow over his wings is already disrupted due to him EXCEEDING the AOA.. then where is the recovery?
What do you mean by where is the recovery?
When the angle of attack exceeds its critical value the plane automatically enters stall. And now the post stall begins where the recovery takes place.
When the air flow is disrupted or flow separation that is at the critical angle of attack the separated flow is so powerful that further increases in AoA results in less lift and more drag after which the TVC along side other necessary control surfaces take over.
Disrupted airflow basically means flow separation and nothing more.
The fly-by-wire as we know manipulates the control surfaces along side the thrust vectored engine nozzles without the pilots input during the post stall.
"EXCEEDING the AOA" does not mean the MKI is flying beyond the AoA that is impossible. It basically means that it has reached the critical value of its AoA and thus is recovering in the post stall.
what is he recovering from???
He is already falling from the sky..
SIRJI what he is recovering from is the stall, post stall does not automatically mean you are falling. True it results to a fall in height as that is what we have learnt from the olden days but those were olden planes and MKI is no olden plane.
TVC prevents this fall that is if the maneuver is performed right.
The thrust from the engine is applying an appropriate force that is why we see a 'hang time', therefore NO he is not falling from the sky.
It looks like its defying the laws of motion coz in this case the object itself is applying asymmetrical force.
You do understand what happens in a post stall?
In a post stall control surfaces like ailerons and elevators don't work thus the use of thrust vectoring. I hope you have atleast heard of the term "post-stall technologies".
In order to perform the Cobra (in this example, in a Su-27 Flanker) the pilot reduces speed to approximately 275 knots in level flight. S/he then must disable the AOA limiter on the Flight Control System, as this serves to limit the airplane to angles of attack not exceeding 30 degrees in normal flight. Once this is accomplished, the pilot sharply pitches up the nose of the airplane. If the speeds are right and the pitchup is done properly, the aircraft will rotate around its horizontal axis until the nose is past vertical - the single-seat Flanker can achieve between 110 and 120 degree AOA! - while continuing to move in its prior flight path as the maneuver is too quick and there isn't enough energy to allow the airplane to climb as it pitches up. Once the pilot has reached the desired attitude, s/he sharply increases throttle and releases the stick. The airplane has managed to rotate back past vertical on the initial rotational energy of the pitchup maneuver; once it approaches vertical, however, the rear half of the aircraft (now the 'lower' half) generates much more drag than the front (or 'top') half due to the larger cross-section of the wings and stabilizers. This will cause the rotation to stop and then reverse, the nose pitching sharply 'down' relative to the airframe, back into level flight. The throttle added during the maneuver will, if done properly, prevent the airplane from losing any altitude during the process. In sum, the maneuver should take no more than a few seconds. The aircraft will exit the maneuver at around 135 knots, which means it is in a fairly precarious position until it gains airspeed. The MiG-29 and Su-27 are both designed to have extremely large tolerances for airflow deviation into the engine inlets. This is what permits them to perform this maneuver without suffering an engine unstart (normally). In addition, their postive lateral stability and clean lines reduce the risk of a full stall during the procedure. They have high thrust-to-weight ratios as well. The MiG-29 must enter a climb of around 30 degrees before performing the Cobra as it will not recover quickly enough to avoid losing altitude. Vehicles known to be able to make the cobra maneuver are the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker family (from horizontal flight), and Mikoyan MiG-29 (from a 30 degree up angle). Thrust vectoring aircraft (such as the Sukhoi Su-30, Su-37, Su-47, MiG 1.42, F-22, F-15 ACTIVE, F-16 MATV/VISTA, and NASA's X-31) should be able to perform this maneuver more easily, though note that the air intake still needs to be able to handle the air inflow. The Eurofighter Typhoon should be able to perform this maneuver, as long as the engines stay lit.
His statement has fooled the likes of you into thinking TVC is some magic that will keep an aircraft falling from the sky in a stall.
When all that it gives is the ability to change AOA after a stall.. so yes, you can recover faster by pitching your nose down or adding assymetric thrust in a spin..
But reach that situation in air-combat and you are being blown out of the sky.
Oh no no no don't delude yourself into assuming that that is what we think, you yourself are thinking that the MKI is a "magic plane".
What we believe is that TVC can kick some major @@s and although it can't stay as long as per your standards as it does not have "magic", it can stay longer than its opponents.
you just explained TVC and yet you won't except it outcomes.
I'll show u after just a bit, the advantages of the AoA provided by the TVC and how it is necessary in air combat.
And of course the Indian pilot is not considered as an expert so we happily breeze past his claims after all the "good" colonel's words are set in stone.
The only actual advantage that you have quoted and is valid are the two heads.. but that too reduces itself as the number of aircraft in the fight increases.. where the two heads will help land a kill quicker in 1vs1.. by the time its gets to 5v5 the advantage goes down exponentially.
That are principles of studies in aircombat such as ACEVAL.. please read up on them before coming up with the usual pseudo air combat ideals like Kopp..
Oh so do tell what advantage does non TVC planes have in the 5v5s that TVC planes don't?
No one claims that TVC can help dodge any missile or that it will be used in literally every phase of the flight or that it can negate everything.
TVC is only 1 aspect of the plane, its the complete plane that we brag about.
If you really wanna go there then the MKI again has quite an advantage with 2 radars more than enough for off-boresight detection and 1 IRST probe for passive detection, 12-14 hardpoints thus can carry more armaments, data linking with other MKIs, et cetra.
But that's a whole another thing.
When you are considering ACEVAL or AIMVAL the very implication of a TVC is to be considered lest what's the purpose of reading a paper on air-combat maneuvering when you are judging a pure vectoring fighter or a supermaneuverable TVC fighter by evaluations done on conventional fighters?
And please what is with you continuously attacking Kopp? I am not even basing my statements on any of his claims.
His resume itself will be enough to frighten both of ours combined so his words do carry weight regardless of your prejudices.
.. how is that TVC effective ?
For instance, consider an aircraft that has an excellent
turn rate at a given speed. Another aircraft, on account of,
say, an inferior T/W, may not be able to achieve such high
rates. However, it may have excellent abilities to point
quickly, perhaps through Post Stall Maneuverability
(PSM) and Thrust Vectoring (TV). In combat, where
aircraft turn into each other and seek firing positions by
pointing at the adversary, the second aircraft may actually
have a greater chance of winning, although it may not turn
as quickly as the first aircraft. This suggests that a superior
performance rating in terms of traditional metrics does not
immediately translate into combat superiority, which has
to be evaluated using agility metrics.
According to Herbst, the first variety of combat was played out in most simulated
engagements by the two dueling aircraft first maneuvering into a head-on situation. If the
subsequent weapons exchange was unsuccessful, both aircraft then attempted to reverse
course as quickly as possible for another exchange. Hence the fighter with the better turn
rate was able to maneuver for a shot before his opponent, and was more likely to win the
engagement. Put in another way, the fighter that was able to reverse his velocity vector
faster was more likely to win the engagement.
.
.
.
.
In short, a pure vectoring fighter (PVF) would have a similar or greater advantage over a
supermaneuverable, Thrust Vectoring fighter (STVF) than a supermaneuverable fighter(SF) has (and has demonstrated) over a
conventional fighter (CF). The primary reason for that advantage is very straightforward:
the SF or STVF remains controllable in the post-stall region, and can therefore perform
maneuvers that a CF cannot; hence the combat advantages enumerated in the previous
section. Likewise, while a SF or STVF is controllable in post-stall, a PVF theoretically
would have the same control power in the post-stall region as it does in conventional flight (since its controls are independent of the external air flow). Therefore, it would be
able to outperform a SF or STVF in post-stall, and consequently would be the most
capable fighter aircraft possible until a breakthrough in engine technology comes along.
So this basically translates to the fact that modern aerial warfare won't exactly involve too much dog-fighting(or it could depends on the parameters) however when it does the TVC plane will have an edge most of the time.
All you have posted is copy paste logic instead of countering the statements.
Sirji you too have posted your arguments based on copy pasted knowledge,of course you'll find a difference between the question and answer if you are willing to put a double standard on ur arguments and not do the same for my rebuttals.
I don't see why some people will incessantly try to show that the TVC is of no use when almost all the powerful AF's
(Your beloved PLAAF included) are continuously opting for it, when 6th gen fighters are based completely on TVC and when there is underlying proof of how well it has performed and is performing.
