How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

[Indian_Patriot]

Considering the size and weight of the aircraft it is pretty amazing how manoeuvrable the Su-30 Mki actually is. The canards seem to act like control surfaces if you check out this video.

.

Some one stated that they don't move, they certainly appear to the moving here!

Make sure you watch the video in HD, truly an epic performance.

The PAK-FA with its all control moving surfaces, centreline internal weapon storage bays, advanced aesa radar, Al-117s engine is going to be a monster! The major flaw with the Mki is the large RCS, the PAK-FA addresses this and some!

Can't wait to see the PAK-FA in IAF colours. Hopefully we go for the single seat variant as well as trying to pit 2 pilots will compromise the stealth and performance and range of the aircraft. We along with the Russians should try to develop an advanced sensor fusion system like the f-35 that enables it to operate effective with the 1 pilot. 5th generation aircraft shouldn't require 2 pilots.

 

[Omega007]

1. Only in 1v1
2. Nope, unless miracles come with TVC
3. Not really, in all these "improvements" the Aircraft will be falling from the sky
4. Nothing to do with TVC, has to do with T/W ratio
5. Not completely, if the other aircraft is carrying a HOBS missile.. it evens it out a lot.. if its a multiple bogey engagement.. TVC brings in nothing.

Not exactly, it is a foolish assumption to think that NATO only plans itself as the aggressor. Considering that its inception has been as a defensive force. TVC is irrelevant in how Western/Israeli philosophies of air combat have emerged.. they focus on energy fights and not on the very regulated concepts used by the Soviets. That means ensuring the aircraft has enough energy throughout the engagement.

India too trains its pilots with energy management techniques, which is why you NEVER see TVC employed by the initial experienced pilots on the MKI demonstrating the jet as it is already maneouverable enough to never really need TVC at any point during a fight if flown by a well taught crew. It is only those who dont know how to fight with the aircraft that end up using TVC.. and as the workups to red flag 2008 showed.. they only end up losing with it.

TVC is being thought up on newer fighters due to the idea that these aircraft form the pinnacle of air combat engagements and hence should be equipped for any and all scenarios. That was the reasoning behind the F-22 including TVC even though the YF-32 was equally or more manoeuvrable aerodynamically than the YF-22. The article posted it also shows that smart F-22 pilots almost NEVER use TVC unless they really need it.

One reason why the Russian Su-30 derivatives need the TVC is because when they are fully loaded with fuel and weapons they handle like bombers due to the weight. Hence they need the extra push to move around at the expense of losing speed rapidly. They compensate for this by having a lot of thrust, yet that too doesnt offer a miracle solution to the problems with post-stall manoeuvring.

So Ill stick to my assessment and that of the author in this article, TVC is pretty much useless for 98% of combat situations.. and when it is needed the pilot should not be in that situation in the first place.

98 or 90??

No, it does not since the canards on MKI are not control canards.
You can see it yourself.
The canards on the MKI are not movable like those on Rafale,Typhoon or Gripen.

To answer your question properly I have tell a little bit about development of MKI.

MKI is a huge beast of a plane.
It has enormous wings and even its tail wings are almost as big as the main wings of smaller jets such as Rafale.
Because huge wings, tail wings, twin vertical stabalizers(as opposed to one) and TVC, MKI does not need canards to make it more maneuverable.

One disadvantage of having a huge plane is that it is detected easily at long range.
To compensate for this, IAF decided to put a very big and consequently very heavy radar in its nose that can detect enemy before enemy can detect MKI.
But this heavy radar made the MKI top heavy which compromised its flight envelope.
To overcome this IAF put canards near the nose to provide enough uplift for the heavy nose.

From next time,do try to watch a few videos of MKI in youtube before opening your mouth.

 

[MilSpec]

IAF decided to put a very big and consequently very heavy radar in its nose that can detect enemy before enemy can detect MKI.
But this heavy radar made the MKI top heavy which compromised its flight envelope.
To overcome this IAF put canards near the nose to provide enough uplift for the heavy nose.

Sir,
Sorry for being blunt, but your story is complete B.S

 

[SQ8]

98 or 90??



From next time,do try to watch a few videos of MKI in youtube before opening your mouth.

Probably 98%.

 

[topgun047]

Considering the size and weight of the aircraft it is pretty amazing how manoeuvrable the Su-30 Mki actually is. The canards seem to act like control surfaces if you check out this video.

.

Some one stated that they don't move, they certainly appear to the moving here!

Make sure you watch the video in HD, truly an epic performance.

The PAK-FA with its all control moving surfaces, centreline internal weapon storage bays, advanced aesa radar, Al-117s engine is going to be a monster! The major flaw with the Mki is the large RCS, the PAK-FA addresses this and some!

Can't wait to see the PAK-FA in IAF colours. Hopefully we go for the single seat variant as well as trying to pit 2 pilots will compromise the stealth and performance and range of the aircraft. We along with the Russians should try to develop an advanced sensor fusion system like the f-35 that enables it to operate effective with the 1 pilot. 5th generation aircraft shouldn't require 2 pilots.

My apologies.
I don't know about that I was simply paraphrasing from an article written by a retired IAF official that I read some time back.
I,wrongfully, assumed that the canards don't move since he said MKI does not need canards as a control surface and only reason they were put in there was to support the heavy nose.


Isn't this what we all here for though ?Isn't this the very purpose of a discussion ?
To get some more information about our interest ?
I guess some people are here just to insult others.
Yahaan to log kutte-bille ki tarah khane ko padte hai...ahh inernet :p

 

[MilSpec]

Probably 98%.

Would USAF, RAF, RuAF, IAF, and even PLAAF invest in a TVC, if there were no combat advantages in TVC.

This is my opinion, not an expert one though.

TVC in combat is not used as shown in airshows, TVC is mostly used to counter aircrafts that have longer sustained turn radius in the by pitching the A/c to get the instantaneous high alpha's and maintaining visual locks in WVR, and not tail sliding to lose KE along with altitude as shown in cobra stunts.

The next handy feature of Balanced beam (Pitch and yaw ) and triangular TVC is to pull STOL's, combined with highest t/w's mean reaction time for launching a squadron is cut down to 1/4th of conventional flight. (both f22 and MKI feature the mentioned tvc)


High Altitude maneuverability: Due to lack of aerodynamic surface availability, TVC is handy to trim and pitch at high altitude and Yes at supersonic high altitude flight. And during trim or pitch the at high altitude, where no combat takes place, the TVC wwont shudder and shake the a.c.

In one of the studies that I read for a F15ACTIVE program states for a 15deg vector in thrust, there is a need for Minimum momentum of jet flow rate is approximate 0.07 force and resultant vector achieved is 0.14 Force. Thus under 15 degrees of trim the loss in axial thrust is quite low and at subsonic rates the aircraft will not bleed energy but will get a 15 degree additional turn advantage without the drag associated with a 15 % larger aerodynamic area.


Trimming and Roll: Thrust vectoring allows for trimming, thus increasing range due to reduced drag. 3D TVC nozzles can also reduce drag by optimising their shape. Apart from trimming, TVC can also increase pitch efficiency, essentially freeing up Tail Planes for better roll performance.

Now Bleeding energy myth: For Sustained turn advantage, if you plot the Cz vs Mass Flow curve for a MKI trying the tightest curve, it will be a short pulse of pitch with , twin pulse of straight afterburner at subsonic speed, that ill be the optimal scheme for an MKI to get into a pattern. Vectored pitch is always followed by a sustained afterburner leveled flight to gain KE. Physics is known to TVC pilots just as well as non TVC pilots.


So when it comes to combat is TVC a game changer, not necessarily, Is it 98% useless... I would disagree.

 

[SQ8]

Would USAF, RAF, RuAF, IAF, and even PLAAF invest in a TVC, if there were no combat advantages in TVC.

7

So far, the USAF's investment in TVC has been confined to the Raptor.. that decision too was made in the 1980s and not today. The Benefits of TVC not withstanding other than manoeuvrability there has been no interest in pushing the technology beyond that. The RAF has so far not employed TVC nor wished for it on the Typhoon since the Arrival of the ASRAAM.. the Luftwaffe has not done so, neither have the Israelis. The PLAAF too has NOT invested in TVC so far nor is it that enthusiastic to do so..which leaves the RuAF and IAF. The Russian investment in TVC was borne out of the need to allow their otherwise lesser trained pilots( pre-breakup the Soviet pilot doctrine was very regimented and hence the drills of air combat were not as practices as one might find in their more elite units) would still have a chance to get kills.

That leaves the IAF, whose training has been traditionally been WVR intensive. In addition it required a large airframe to dominate the east.. the problem with the large airframe is that while it is very manoeuvrable.. it is only so when lightly loaded(this is true for the baseline Su-27 as well). Start loading it with fuel and heavy weapons and it becomes a pig to handle( The Digital Combat Simulator is a nice reference for the Su-27 since it has modelled the aircraft quite accurately). To offset this the TVC comes in useful too, moving the big aircraft around in the air. Yet, in all display videos of the MKI seen so far.. I see little use of TVC.. the aircraft is already very recoverable that it has no use for it. When it is used, the very effect of dropping out of the sky is seen; something that no pilot would ever want themselves to be in... 98% of the time.

 

[MilSpec]

7

So far, the USAF's investment in TVC has been confined to the Raptor.. that decision too was made in the 1980s and not today. The Benefits of TVC not withstanding other than manoeuvrability there has been no interest in pushing the technology beyond that. The RAF has so far not employed TVC nor wished for it on the Typhoon since the Arrival of the ASRAAM.. the Luftwaffe has not done so, neither have the Israelis. The PLAAF too has NOT invested in TVC so far nor is it that enthusiastic to do so..which leaves the RuAF and IAF. The Russian investment in TVC was borne out of the need to allow their otherwise lesser trained pilots( pre-breakup the Soviet pilot doctrine was very regimented and hence the drills of air combat were not as practices as one might find in their more elite units) would still have a chance to get kills.

That leaves the IAF, whose training has been traditionally been WVR intensive. In addition it required a large airframe to dominate the east.. the problem with the large airframe is that while it is very manoeuvrable.. it is only so when lightly loaded(this is true for the baseline Su-27 as well). Start loading it with fuel and heavy weapons and it becomes a pig to handle( The Digital Combat Simulator is a nice reference for the Su-27 since it has modelled the aircraft quite accurately). To offset this the TVC comes in useful too, moving the big aircraft around in the air. Yet, in all display videos of the MKI seen so far.. I see little use of TVC.. the aircraft is already very recoverable that it has no use for it. When it is used, the very effect of dropping out of the sky is seen; something that no pilot would ever want themselves to be in... 98% of the time.

As I said, actual use of TVC is not the same as Airshow displays. Thus 98% of times you won't see a skilled tvc pilot dropping out of the sky.

 

[SQ8]

As I said, actual use of TVC is not the same as Airshow displays. Thus 98% of times you won't see a skilled tvc pilot dropping out of the sky.

Probably because it wont be needed as such. The much critiqued Col Fornoff, and the author of the article say the exact same thing.

 

[MilSpec]

Probably because it wont be needed as such. The much critiqued Col Fornoff, and the author of the article say the exact same thing.

Lets not club fornhoff with clifton here, I am not sure what to make of an expert who thinks MKI's are powered by turmansky's

 

[sancho]

The RAF has so far not employed TVC nor wished for it on the Typhoon since the Arrival of the ASRAAM.. the Luftwaffe has not done so, neither have the Israelis.

That has nothing to do with the missiles, but with the canard design of the EF! Even the Israelis would had designed the Lavi with a maneuverable canard design to improve the performance, although they have maneuverable Python missiles. Just as the Russians kept focusing on canards and TVC, although they had the edge with R73 anyway. You are still trying to reject the benfits of TVC to a standard fighter design, by pointing to HOBS missiles, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

Assram and AIM 9X were not developed to counter fighters with canards or TVC, but to counter the R73
Just as canards and TVC were not developed to counter HOBS missiles, but standard fighter designs.

And when you look at the fact, that the F22 was the last maneuverable fighter design of the US, while Europe, Russia, Israel, or China, Japan and India remain with a high focus on maneuverability, it actually shows that the majority of the world still belives that there are benefits, although all of these new fighters will have HOBS capability.

P.S.

Check this PDF that shows the evaluation of EF consortium companies of the benefits of TVC in general, as well as of their version for the EF:

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j...Z1WFHh-fvl2KP09Fr3K5-Lg&bvm=bv.85970519,d.ZWU

 

[SQ8]

That has nothing to do with the missiles, but with the canard design of the EF! Even the Israelis would had designed the Lavi with a maneuverable canard design to improve the performance, although they have maneuverable Python missiles. Just as the Russians kept focusing on canards and TVC, although they had the edge with R73 anyway. You are still trying to reject the benfits of TVC to a standard fighter design, by pointing to HOBS missiles, but the one has nothing to do with the other.

Assram and AIM 9X were not developed to counter fighters with canards or TVC, but to counter the R73
Just as canards and TVC were not developed to counter HOBS missiles, but standard fighter designs.

And when you look at the fact, that the F22 was the last maneuverable fighter design of the US, while Europe, Russia, Israel, or China, Japan and India remain with a high focus on maneuverability, it actually shows that the majority of the world still belives that there are benefits, although all of these new fighters will have HOBS capability.

P.S.

Check this PDF that shows the evaluation of EF consortium companies of the benefits of TVC in general, as well as of their version for the EF:

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDYQFjAC&url=http://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS2000/PAPERS/RESERVED/ICA0534.PDF&ei=GFHjVPPsBIfbPa-CgJAI&usg=AFQjCNEEqWHZ1WFHh-fvl2KP09Fr3K5-Lg&bvm=bv.85970519,d.ZWU

I am not mistaking anything at all not do I state that HOBS were developed for this or that reason. In fact what you state is something I take as an already taken accepted fact that the aircraft are ALREADY manoeuvrable enough that they do not require any further input. The benefits are already well known, but the cost effectiveness of it is what matters. So when there is a capability that does not provide a plus which will be useful in most combat scenarios, then there is no need for it.

The EF consortium is a consortium of companies that are out eventually to make a profit. Pushing clients to add TVC to their aircraft is in their best interest.

Lets not club fornhoff with clifton here, I am not sure what to make of an expert who thinks MKI's are powered by turmansky's

He may not be an expert, but at the same time he is not completely useless either. He may not have the knowledge on whether the MKI uses SAMTEL LCDs or CRTs.. but there is no doubt that he does know the basics of air combat. His narrative was full of holes, but still based on aerodynamics more than knowing what color the wheel caps are... and Clifton only confirms that.

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

Can someone explain to me what is high off bore sight???I searched for it multiple times but could not the exact or simple answer...

 

[sancho]

I am not mistaking anything at all not do I state that HOBS were developed for this or that reason.

Of course you did, since your argument was, that the RAF did not went for TVC because of ASRAAM and not because of the manuverability of the EF itself.

In fact what you state is something I take as an already taken accepted fact that the aircraft are ALREADY manoeuvrable enough that they do not require any further input.

Which works for the Eurocanards, but not every new fighter is developed with a canard design (LCA, AMCA, JF17, J31, ATD-X), therfore the addition of TVC would benefit the maneuverability, if the fighter doesn't have canards already.[/QUOTE]

 

[SQ8]

Considering the size and weight of the aircraft it is pretty amazing how manoeuvrable the Su-30 Mki actually is. The canards seem to act like control surfaces if you check out this video..

I wonder how much fuel it had and weapons it was carrying when it did all that.

Of course you did, since your argument was, that the RAF did not went for TVC because of ASRAAM and not because of the manuverability of the EF itself.



Which works for the Eurocanards, but not every new fighter is developed with a canard design (LCA, AMCA, JF17, J31, ATD-X), therfore the addition of TVC would benefit the maneuverability, if the fighter doesn't have canards already.

[/QUOTE]

ASRAAM along with the already manoeuvrable EF made TVC redundant, you want to argue on semantics go ahead. I dont have the time for it.

That rests on the argument that the AMCA and J-31 would not be maneuverable enough already that even with a HOBS system they would have problem scoring kills in most air combat scenarios.
Both the LCA and JF-17 are designed to be low cost and light weight fighters, neither of which goes along with the weight and cost of thrust vectoring. The addition of off boresight systems helps makes up for their lack of manoeuvrability as compared to a fighter with TVC.