PAK pilots on Sukhoi's

[DARKY]

Also depends on how many dogfights will go supersonic.. majority of fights that have occurred have stayed transonic.
TVC is a big help, there is no doubting that.. back when the F-22 was envisioned it was the best option to defeat anticipated opposition forces and allow for first shot. It was also envisioned that the stealth on the F-22 would couple with its TVC to allow for sudden surprise slash and dash attacks on unsuspecting enemy formations.
The same cannot be said for the high RCS sukhois, which are visible to the enemy from a large distance.. both electronically and visually.
Moreover, the current crop of missile systems with high pk's even at 60g maneuvering make the whole idea of TVC's less effective than previously thought.
The much maligned leak of the red flag brief also highlights a design flaw in the TVC used by the Russians. . it generates a lot more drag compared to the ones on the F-22.

Does the RCS thing matter much on a 4th Gen. aircraft face off when you have ESA radars on your plane with high power and aperture ??.. along with data-link capabilities ??
It would be strange If any 4th gen... plane be whatever its size gets unnoticed beyond the BVR engage range of AMRAAM in case when High aperture ESA are scanning with additional mechanical steering to cover more area... along with data-link capabilities which allow the plane to see what other of its kind is watching.

In red flag 2008... a batch of young rookie IAF pilots were sent to have a learning experience... who were pulling their throttle at the sight of F-15 coming... which is done usually in PC or Play Station games.

 

[DARKY]

TVC is used for two main purposes - One is to give aircraft vertical or short takeoff and landing ability and second is to give aircraft higher maneuverability. Purpose one serves best for carrier aircraft and JFT is not meant to be a carrier aircraft. Higher maneuverability is an edge during dogfights, JFT focuses more on BVR engagement than combat of maneuver at short range.

JFT was developed to be a cost effective aircraft, adding TVC factor in its design would have made it costly. Its BVR engagement ability handsomely nullify higher maneuverability of its opponent..

TVC has many other advantages also... search for the TVC development on EF2000 you'll get a .pdf document of about 4mb download and read it it has a brief explanation with graphs and visual graphics... along with statistical data.

 

[Storm Force]

Emmie.

Do you understand the term AOA (angle of attack) typically a NON TVC fighter will have a maximum AOA of 40degress. MANY as low as 30 degress.

THE F22 & SU30MKI/SU35 have AOA of double that. This means they can engage and disengage at angle that are not possible on 99% of fighters.

TVC is the new thing on all the best fighters ir fifth generation ie F22,, PAK FA,, j20 and SU30MKI 4 generation. and soon TYPHOON F3...

America USSR &UK are not spending millions on TVC just for STUNTS as PDF members tell you.

 

[blain2]

Lets put things into perspective too. TVC is not the be all and end all of aviation either and is not a new concept either with flight testing conducted on programs as early as General Dynamic's MATV. Also not all future aircraft will have TVC. The larger and heavier the aircraft, the better the chance of increased maneuverability with TVC against agile, smaller aircraft. This is essentially the thought process. The TVC killer in close in combat is definitely the HOBS AAM solution, however at standoff ranges, there would be benefit.

High AoA tactics have other challenges including loss of energy which can be used against such aircraft. Secondly, in 1v1 flying, the TVCs can do quite well, however beyond that, most TVC tactics would be fairly challenging to employ.

Realistically speaking, having TVC aids more with flight controls in normal flight regimes than in the employment of combat tactics (not suggesting that the two are not related).

 

[Emmie]

TVC has many other advantages also... search for the TVC development on EF2000 you'll get a .pdf document of about 4mb download and read it it has a brief explanation with graphs and visual graphics... along with statistical data.

Excuse me, what's your point? Are you trying to compel me to read stuff about Eurofighter, one on MMRCA list? I know you guys can go for EF.

I'll suggest you to reread very first line of my post... I said TVC serves "two main purposes", didn't say serves "two purposes".. The word main had something attached but it seems you might have missed that.

Anyway thank you very much for your advice...

 

[DARKY]

Lets put things into perspective too. TVC is not the be all and end all of aviation either and is not a new concept either with flight testing conducted on programs as early as General Dynamic's MATV. Also not all future aircraft will have TVC. The larger and heavier the aircraft, the better the chance of increased maneuverability with TVC against agile, smaller aircraft. This is essentially the thought process. The TVC killer in close in combat is definitely the HOBS AAM solution, however at standoff ranges, there would be benefit.

High AoA tactics have other challenges including loss of energy which can be used against such aircraft. Secondly, in 1v1 flying, the TVCs can do quite well, however beyond that, most TVC tactics would be fairly challenging to employ.

In addition to size etc... the shaping and placing of engines is also important to fully utilize TVC in best possible way....
IMO... the flanker series and T-50 are the best planes for TVC not only due to their shape... but the engine spacing and the lower fuselage design... which has a big gap... hence making the plane stable in high speed flight... while the ones like EF-2000 and J-20 would have difficulties in quick recovery If maneuvers are done at high speeds and full load.

 

[SQ8]

Does the RCS thing matter much on a 4th Gen. aircraft face off when you have ESA radars on your plane with high power and aperture ??.. along with data-link capabilities ??
It would be strange If any 4th gen... plane be whatever its size gets unnoticed beyond the BVR engage range of AMRAAM in case when High aperture ESA are scanning with additional mechanical steering to cover more area... along with data-link capabilities which allow the plane to see what other of its kind is watching.

In red flag 2008... a batch of young rookie IAF pilots were sent to have a learning experience... who were pulling their throttle at the sight of F-15 coming... which is done usually in PC or Play Station games.

The first para depends on the situation, and the opposing aircraft as well.

The second one is incorrect, it was a mix of both experienced and inexperienced pilots. And both found themselves humbled by US pilots who knew how to fight.
Your comment on PlayStation and PC seems to ridicule IAF training, that the IAF just sends kids on jets after a few hours on simulators and expects them to be able to fight. If that is the case, they will be slaughtered even by someone in a 3rd gen F-7.
I still cant get what do you mean by "pulling the throttle".

---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:02 PM ----------

In addition to size etc... the shaping and placing of engines is also important to fully utilize TVC in best possible way....
IMO... the flanker series and T-50 are the best planes for TVC not only due to their shape... but the engine spacing and the lower fuselage design... which has a big gap... hence making the plane stable in high speed flight... while the ones like EF-2000 and J-20 would have difficulties in quick recovery If maneuvers are done at high speeds and full load.

???
Is that a rule?
Prove it.. you are always asking for links.. I want one on this.

 

[foxbat]

Indian Mig-29 and Mirage-2k are BVR capable?

even Mig 21s Bisons have BVR capability

 

[DARKY]

Excuse me, what's your point? Are you trying to compel me to read stuff about Eurofighter, one on MMRCA list? I know you guys can go for EF.

I'll suggest you to reread very first line of my post... I said TVC serves "two main purposes", didn't say serves "two purposes".. The word main had something attached but it seems you might have missed that.

Anyway thank you very much for your advice...

I would love to see rafale as the winner simply due to its superior passive sensors... any 4.5th gen aircraft which a clear edge from Su 30MKI or Su 35BM is the Rafael... which can simply switch off its radar and let its passive sensors work... making it flankers very hard to spot it and track it.... besides it also has excellent ground attack capabilities where it uses it passive sensors again to kill a SAM battery as far as 60km... without the enemy even detecting it.... such technologies don't exists in EF2000.

Besides there are main other purposes also... thats why I asked you to read that document... It applies for TVC in most of the cases and is a generalized assessment... would not change if PAF buys EF2000 the next day.

 

[Emmie]

Emmie.

Do you understand the term AOA (angle of attack) typically a NON TVC fighter will have a maximum AOA of 40degress. MANY as low as 30 degress.

THE F22 & SU30MKI/SU35 have AOA of double that. This means they can engage and disengage at angle that are not possible on 99% of fighters.

TVC is the new thing on all the best fighters ir fifth generation ie F22,, PAK FA,, j20 and SU30MKI 4 generation. and soon TYPHOON F3...

America USSR &UK are not spending millions on TVC just for STUNTS as PDF members tell you.

Man I thought we were talking about JFT only, didn't we?

I don't deny benefits of TVC... What all I tried to inculcate to that fellow "JFT never meant to have TVC"

 

[Storm Force]

I can only assume that The Russians with their late model flankers and their NEW fifth Gen FGFA & America with F22 saw enough in TVC to make the investment on this type of capability.

Extreme agility and huge increase in AOA can only be good for the pilot flying the plane

HECK if the Euro fighters want TVC

 

[DARKY]

The first para depends on the situation, and the opposing aircraft as well.

The second one is incorrect, it was a mix of both experienced and inexperienced pilots. And both found themselves humbled by US pilots who knew how to fight.
Your comment on PlayStation and PC seems to ridicule IAF training, that the IAF just sends kids on jets after a few hours on simulators and expects them to be able to fight. If that is the case, they will be slaughtered even by someone in a 3rd gen F-7.
I still cant get what do you mean by "pulling the throttle".

A similar case existed in cope-Indias now don't tell me only kids were sent there from USAF, who knew how to fight.... there were a few experienced but not the vintages, to learn TVC experience one need 600-800 flying hours atleast may be thats why the pilots of F-22 and Su-30mki are the ones notching most flying hours annually... as compared to other non TVC planes.

Pulling the throttle towards yourself and making the tvc go towards perpendicular direction along with tail fins...

???
Is that a rule?
Prove it.. you are always asking for links.. I want one on this.

Definitely not a rule however If you talk from an aerodynamics expert he/she would explain better... about how can a plane loses control and how the spacing between engines help in negating that while using TVC... sorry I don't have any links for you on this... however If any one is here from aeronautics department I would love to see what he/she has to say on this.

 

[SQ8]

Definitely not a rule however If you talk from an aerodynamics expert he/she would explain better... about how can a plane loses control and how the spacing between engines help in negating that while using TVC... sorry I don't have any links for you on this... however If any one is here from aeronautics department I would love to see what he/she has to say on this.

Perhaps I should have elaborated on my sentence, by knowing how to fight I did not generalize the whole USAF, but those that knew how to employ their aircraft..the red flag video has references to this.

TVC may need exp, but I believe on the MKI there is an option not to use it..via a simple push button.
I think by the throttle you mean the control stick. since to most people..pulling the throttle towards yourself would reduce engine power and the effectiveness of TVC at any speed.
The MKI fleet is going to be the backbone of the IAF western sector for a few years. The IAF better get a lot of hours done.

Ill ask a relative of mine who works at Bombardier about the whole wide spacing thing..since examples of the opposite exist which were VERY stable in high speed flight..

I also quote this from a member on another board whom I got to know. He was an engineer at GD and worked on both the F-111 and F-16.

The question asked was this.

So my last post spawned a new question. How much maneuverability does TVC add over legacy aircraft at high Mach? Anyone who has flown a legacy fighters at well above mach one, how well would an F-16 (or any other legacy fighter) do a high G turn at these speeds? Is there a restriction on G's your allowed to pull in any given fighter at higher mach numbers, or is the airframe designed to handle its max G at its max speed capable? I'm sure stresses have to increase more with very high speed when turning hard... :?:

the answer

Ok, tanktop, here we go with dumbed down answers--

1. TVC adds zero maneuverability at high mach.
2. An F-16 can turn just as well at high mach (in terms of g) as at lower speeds. Turn radius will be greater, but that's physics for you.
3. Some fighters are not designed to maintain maximum g at high mach numbers, some are. They can do whatever they are designed for.
4. Wrong, stresses do not necessarily increase more at very high speed when turning hard.

Furthermore...another post

I would think at speeds over mach, thrust vectoring will help - If I'm not mistaken traditional controls aren't as responsive over the speed of sound, due to the compression of the air in front of the aircraft. Not sure though.

The reply

You are correct that some controls "are not as responsive over the speed of sound". Ailerons and rudders fall into that category, as they tend to lose effectiveness at higher speeds, not simply subsonic vs. supersonic. Way back when horizontal tails comprised a fixed stabilizer and a moveable elevator, the same problems occured, loss of effectiveness at high speeds.

However when jets came along, one piece all-movable horizontal tails were developed, and they did not suffer the same losses.
Note that surfaces which lose effectiveness are all trailing edge surfaces. What happened was that as speeds increased, the higher pressure loads on the control surfaces caused the fixed surface (wing, vertical fin, stabilizer) to twist in the opposite direction and develop a force opposite to the desired control force, thus reducing the effectiveness of the controls.

Since all modern fighters use all-moving surfaces (tail or canard) for primary pitch control, pitch responsiveness of the airplanes is just as good at high speed as at moderate speed. Only a pure delta would use a trailing edge pitch control surface - are there any of those left? Orville and Wilbur used all-moving canards over a hundred years ago,


But we still use ailerons for roll control and rudders for directional control. Do they still suffer from loss of control effectiveness at high speeds? Sure do. At high speeds, most modern fighters would have un-acceptable roll rates if they rolled with ailerons only. So at those conditions, roll commands are also fed into the horizontal tails. Remember, tails do not lose much effectiveness at high speed, so they are very good at rolling the airplane there.

On the F-16 pitch responsiveness is so high at all apeeds it has to be tamed to prevent over-control. Filters and time lags are programmed in to handle that task. Without them, the airplane would be unflyable.

However..and quoting the interview you did...another post was made, to which the reply was.

good question of course. In reading Paul Metz's interview he states that trim drag can be reduced by using TV. Sounds reasonable, but please consider that trim drag is a small fraction of total drag, being much smaller than induced drag in a hard turn. He also states that all airplanes lose control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. As I stated earlier, that is true for ailerons and rudders, but not for horizontal tails. The reason more HT deflection is needed is not loss of effectiveness, but that airplane lift moves aft, requiring more pitch moment from the tail. Yes, TV can help at high speed, but the gain is not major.

He also states that using TV allows the HT to provide roll control at low speeds. Fine, but the HT is not needed for low speed rolls, as the ailerons and rudder can do the job. Roll commands are sent to the HT, but that is primarily to move the tail out of the aileron slipstream.

On another thread.. a question about the usefulness of TVC was posted. Reply by a member who is an F-16 pilot.

It depends. TV is a huge bonus in any aggressive, high-g maneuvering. You're right in that it is a huge "feel good" to me, but do I really need it? If I understand what you're asking, it is whether or not this type of maneuvering is needed. As a -16 pilot, I would love to have that capability but bottom line is that we haven't ended up in that situation very often - like you said. Our HMCS with the 9X, AMRAAM, & SNIPER should make it unnecessary to get TV. You can see that choice in the non-selection of TV in the F-35.

(BUT I STILL WANT TV NOZZLES)

And.
http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article7.html

What was your impression of the MATV?

Maj. Henderson: The MATV jet was a really outstanding aircraft. It's been funny to see the fuss made over some of the maneuvers that the thrust vectoring Flanker has made at airshows over the last few years. We accomplished them all several years ago in our jet. But, since we didn't do airshows (our goal was a tactical evaluation of the technology) hardly anyone knew about it. The funny thing is that most of those maneuvers are of very limited use in a tactical fight. As far as the MATV jet, it was quite a difficult jet to fight. Once you got the feel for when and how to use the thrust vectoring, it was almost unbeatable in any one vs one fight. When involved in one vs two fights, it was almost an even fight. I actually felt that I had the advantage when I passed two bandits in a high aspect merge. It is a shame that all of the F-16s could not be modified with the kits.

 

[DARKY]

Perhaps I should have elaborated on my sentence, by knowing how to fight I did not generalize the whole USAF, but those that knew how to employ their aircraft..the red flag video has references to this.

TVC may need exp, but I believe on the MKI there is an option not to use it..via a simple push button.
I think by the throttle you mean the control stick. since to most people..pulling the throttle towards yourself would reduce engine power and the effectiveness of TVC at any speed.
The MKI fleet is going to be the backbone of the IAF western sector for a few years. The IAF better get a lot of hours done.

Ill ask a relative of mine who works at Bombardier about the whole wide spacing thing..since examples of the opposite exist which were VERY stable in high speed flight..

I also quote this from a member on another board whom I got to know. He was an engineer at GD and worked on both the F-111 and F-16.

The question asked was this.



the answer



Furthermore...another post


The reply



However..and quoting the interview you did...another post was made, to which the reply was.




On another thread.. a question about the usefulness of TVC was posted. Reply by a member who is an F-16 pilot.



And.
http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article7.html

MKI has several switches which are there to perform different maneuvers which can't be done by pilot.... the TVC is also controlled by the control stick... however the higher the throttle... the more force you need to apply on control stick... the movement of nozzle and elevator fins are coupled as is the case in all TVC planes.

I had once quoted the Su 30MKI's performance against the F-18, F-16 bock 52 and F-16 block 60 on a certain thread... which I got from the vayu sena tripod.

Here I quote that once again.

Aircraft combat capabilities are usually assessed using complex efficiency indicators defining aircraft overall performance. According to preliminary estimates, in long-range air combat, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 60, F-16C Block 50 and F-18E/F aircraft by 15, 20 and 12-15 percent, respectively, owing to its radar’s greater detection range, higher jamming immunity and multichannel capability, as well as better maneuverability.

The Su-30MKI’s supermaneuverability and better air-to-air missiles give this aircraft superiority in close air combat in which it excels the F-16C Block 50 by 10-15 percent, F-16C Block 60 by 20-30 percent (as the high wing loading significantly limits its maneuverability in close-range combat), and F-18E/F by 15-20 percent.


Opposing Forces: IAF Su-30K and PAF F-16 Fighters

In terms of ground strike capabilities, the Su-30MKI outperforms the F-16C Block 50 by 50 percent and the F-16C Block 60 by 100 percent owing to its better surveillance and fire control radar system, higher survivability, better maneuverability, heavier combat load and longer flight range. The F-18E/F, following its modernization which has increased its flight range, armament suite and ammunition load and upgraded its surveillance and fire control radar system, still lags behind the Su-30MKI in strike capability by 15 to 20 percent.

Su-30MKI compared with the F-16C and F-18E/F

Using TVC at high speed is a big No to to new bie pilots... however they too eager to use them... as any pilot would... same wasthe case with Red flag where rather than outmaneuvering the opponent with speed they started using TVC making them look as an easy target..

The 2nd last person who very correctly says don't need TVC on their planes....I would like to see what has he got to say when T-50, J-20 etc become fully operational and planes like Su 30/35 get AESA radar on them... along with JHMCS controlling the heat seeking missiles as they do in F-35....

Do ask your relative about the engine spacing and lets us know what he has got to say on that... as far as my limited thinking on the subject goes the vehicle with wheels separated would be going out of control lesser than the one with wheels close by..
same with planes when the speed is very high and secondary control surfaces have very little to do... the use of TVC can imbalance the plane more often than in case with the one with engines having space... (besides that the wing shaping and area also comes into play.)

 

[MastanKhan]

MK,

I'm not so sure but I read somewhere ---an interview with Singapore air force F-16 pilot, where he mentioned during WVR exercises MKIs employing TVC in decent speed in dog fights.

If TVC is so redundant, then why did Americans added it in F-22? may be Gambit or Chogy can answer it.

Hi,

The F 22 is not designed for close combat----it will launch its BVR's from a distance and scoot----. So, the bvr on the F22 is for a totally different purpose than that of the SU30----. The F 22 would rather run away from the battle field than get into a wvr----.

As for the machine gun on the F22---it is redundant---. There was no place for it on this aircraft---it just added useless weight and took space that could have been used otherwise----.

You did not mention what speeds would the su30 could perform the cobra----.

People also don't understand that the missiles don't need to hit the aircraft----they can explode when they sense the proximity as well and let the shrapnel and concussion from the explosin do the rest.