Possible steps to counter the rising threat from IAF ?

[asaad-ul-islam]

You misunderstood what I said completely.

The USAF being enamored with BVR does not mean that WVR doesn't matter. It only means that the USAF thought WVR didn't really matter and it influenced their procurement decisions. Coincidentally, that's also why they stopped research on the HMS. In large-scale aerial engagements WVR is almost guaranteed to occur.

no, I don't think you read correctly. I said "dogfighting is still part of curriculum". although BVR engagements will most likely dominate aircombat in the future, WVR engagements will eventually happen.

For HMS/off boresight missiles to be a factor you have to first explain to everyone here what sequence of maneuvers the JF-17 will perform after the merge to get the Su-30MKI into its frontal aspect. I will even throw you a bone and suggest that it doesn't need to be a co-alt merge, though it should be a co-e merge.

what type of question is that? why and how should I explain how the JF-17 will perform? it's funny you ask this, becuase it sounds as if you think the JF-17 is the most sluggish fighter out there, incapable of performing evasive maneuvers. If I can recall, you posted that the JF-17 couldn't keep up with the mediocre LCA, a short while ago-probably on another thread. retired PAF pilots on this forum and PAF pilots on other forums have declared the JF-17 a "winner" in maneuverability against the F-16A.

Yes it is. The helmet mounted sight's effectiveness is negated in a multi-plane scenario in the same way TVC is. But you seem to be enamored with the HMS.

do you have sources to prove that? I can't imagine how HMS would lose its advantages in a multi-plane scenario, when engagement can happen within a few seconds. There might some situations where the effectiveness may be 'negated', but I seriously doubt your claim that it is only as advantageous as thrust vectoring. HMS and modern (off boresight) missiles have far more potential in modern combat than thrust vectoring.

You mean when the pilot described how they acutally put the TVC equipped F-16 into combat trials against non-TVC equipped F-16s the technology wasn't mature enough? So what specifically wasn't mature about it, in the context of the article?

I don't think you understood clearly what I was trying to get at here. I mentioned, very clearly, the tests regarding thrust vectoring with the F-16 MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, and F-18 HARV, and other test platforms were successful, in their own given parameters. However, only after the culmination of experience gained from those successful tests which spanned a decade, was thrust vectoring introduced into service for actual combat.

Of course the size makes a difference. I never claimed otherwise. But the days when wing-loading is an accurate measure of an airframe's maneuverability are long gone.

Simplest example? The Su-30MKI has a superior instantaneous and sustained turn rate over the F-16, any block. The F-16 is much smaller and lighter. How can this be? Please explain.

I'm pretty sure I said larger twin-engined aircraft were less agile than smaller aircraft, therefore, larger twin-engined aircraft are the likely candidates for thrust vectoring technology.

In hinsight showing you what actual F-16 pilots think about an actual F-16 equipped with TVC in combat trials think is pointless. You are not interested in an actual debate here.

I think it's best to stop wasting time here and agree to disagree.

 

[saiko]

Saiko, so far you have been assuming that the TWR, instantaneous and sustained turn rates of JF-17 are inferior to F-16 and Su-30. I have read a Chinese interview with a Chinese and a Pakistani test pilot translated by some guys on a military forum, the Chinese test pilot who had flown F-16 as part of his test pilot training (in the UK I think) said JF-17's horizontal performance was similar to an F-16A, while the Pakistani test pilot (an F-16A pilot) said JF was better in the horizontal axis. If you were to assume JF-17's instantaneous and sustained turn rates were slightly above those of F-16A, how would this affect the outcome? What if JF-17's engine was replaced with the RD-93B putting out 10% greater thrust (I think this would increase TWR to 1.05)?

If it is superior to to a F-16A in the horizontal that is indeed impressive given that the A series was the lightest and nimblest of the F-16 blocks. And this makes things interesting.

But instantaneous turn rate alone would not really improve its chances. Technically it's not instantaneous turn rate itself on the Su-30 that's an a crucial advantage (the HMS has somewhat reduced the importance of this statistic in modern dogfighting), it's how that high instantaneous turn rate is achieved that's important. I abstracted it to keep things simple but here's a more thorough explanation:

The Su-30 achieves its impressive instantaneous turn rate in large part because of TVC. On top of being able to direct thrust to affect its AoA it also changes its AoA at a reduced trim drag penalty than with non-TVC equipped fighters (one of the underrated advantages of TVC). In other words it's going to retain energy better at higher dogfight speeds in high G maneuvers - which complements its post stall maneuvering advantages at low speeds.

But overall, with the upgrades you talk about it becomes a much better fight and here the HMS can be a real advantage. A note about HMS though - when people read about the Israelis getting 25:1 kill ratios against the USN (in part due to pilot skill differentials but largely because of their HMS) they often take that out of context. The F-16 and F-18 are similar in combat performance so the HMS becomes a decided advantage. In the Mig-29 vs F-xx exercises the HMS was again attributed to be the reason why the Mig-29 dominated, but in truth the Mig-29 had better close in maneuverability anyway that it didn't even need a HMS to win most of the time - it just allowed for the Mig driver to capitalize on mistakes more easily. Effectively the HMS allowed pilots in both of these exercises to make an opponent pay (with his life) for a small mistake (and mistakes always occur). Whereas if the HMS equipped pilot made a small mistake, he would probably not end up dead, just disadvantaged.

Back to the JF-17 - keep the following things in mind:

- while the JF-17 would have an advantage with HMS, the Su-30 would have an advantage with TVC. Realistically the JF-17 would have to end the fight reasonably quickly - the longer the fight goes on the less likely the JF-17 is to win. Even with its upgraded TWR the Su-30 still has an advantage there. It also burns less energy with reduced trim drag as discussed earlier. And if the fight gets extremely slow the post-stall maneuvering of TVC becomes a significant advantage - inexperienced Indian pilots letting F-15 drivers dominate them aside.
- everything i'm talking about assumes low to medium-high altitude. at high altitudes twin engined fighters are almost always significantly advantaged over single engined fighters so the JF-17 is not going to want to tangle with a Su-30MKI WVR at high altitudes unless it is confident it can get a kill with an all aspect missile before the merge.

 

[ironman]

The three links you posted contain EXACTLY THE SAME REPORT. The headline says "brahmos... air-to-air missile" but then the report says ASTRA AIR TO AIR MISSILE. Who the hell do you think you're trying to teach? A kindergarten? Go teach a circus you clown.

Firstly learn some lessons about air to air missiles and ramjet propulsion from elsewhere and post some solid reason why it cant be used as AAM.

hints: MBDA meteor, r-77M1 and read something about IDEAS-2008 and procurement of AAM to PAF.

Firstly, that TWR probably includes two wing-tip air-to-air missiles. Secondly, JF-17's TWR will only go up as more powerful engines are integrated (WS-13) and weight is reduced through use of composite materials. Thirdly, we have inside information from a PAF veteran combat pilot that the actual TWR is "much higher" than that. Go tell InAF and your fellow trolls what you think, nobody else here cares.

Seems like this Aircraft guru hasn't got a mere knowledge about TWR.


Weight of the Aircraft = 6450 kg( Assuming that this included
weight of engine ie 1055 kg)

Fuel Capacity= 2300 kg

Then total weight of Aircraft= 6450+2300= 8750 kg

After burn thrust= 81.3 kN

Gravitational constant= 9.807

so = (81.3 / 8750) X9.807

= 0.09112104

TWR = 1000 X 0.09112104

ie = 91.12104

Assumes engine weight included in the weight of aircraft. The best part is without any payload huh...pls keep your inside information and dont scare me ok..

so then... Wanna Join Circus????

 

[qsaark]

Firstly learn some lessons about air to air missiles and ramjet propulsion from elsewhere and post some solid reason why it cant be used as AAM.

I am sure he is right. Brahmos is based on Russian Yakhont and is a supersonic cruise missile. You are probably the first person telling us that it is an air-to-air missile. All the available information on reliable sources says that it is a cruise missile. In theory any missile that can be fired from an Aircraft can be used as an AAM. However, besides seeker, another important property of an AAM is its design, and its ability to maneuver while chasing an airplane. Judging from the weight (2500 kg) and length/dia (8.4m/0.6m), it appears extremely unlikely that this beast can be used as an AAM.

Some medium and long range AAM, their weight, and dimensions:

Missile Weight Length/Dia

Super 530: 275 kg 3.81 m/ 0.26 m
MBDA MICA: 112 kg 3.1 m /0.160 m
MBDA Meteor: 185 kg 3.65 m/ 0.178 m
Astra missile: 154 kg 3.570 m/ 0.178 m
PL-12: 199 kg 3.93 m/ 0.203 m
Vympel R-33: 490 kg 4.15 m/ 0.380 m
Vympel R-37: 600 kg 4.20 m/ 0.380 m
AIM-54 Phoenix: 472 kg 3.9 m/ 0.380 m
AIM-120 AMRAAM: 152 kg 3.66 m/ 0.178 m

 

[ironman]

I am sure he is right. Brahmos is based on Russian Yakhont and is a supersoninc cruise missile. You are probably the first person telling us that it is an air-to-air missile. All the available information on reliable resources says that it is a cruise missile.

Friend, Sure it is not meant for perform the AA.. But because of high maneuverability,ramjet propulsion and guidance system it also can be used as aam, history of A2A missiles confirms this. please read previous posts.

 

[qsaark]

Friend, Sure it is not meant for perform the AA.. But because of high maneuverability,ramjet propulsion and guidance system it can be used as aam, history of A2A missiles confirms this. please read previous posts.

I am not arguing on 'can or can not', I am arguing on its size. No one in the world has ever used an AAM of this size. The heaviest AAM is Vympel R-37, with a weight of 600kg (4 times lighter than Brahmos) and 2 times smaller in length and dia. From which kind of aircraft you are planning to launch AAM version of Brahmos, and how many of these Sumos can be carried on any given aircraft?

 

[ironman]

I am not arguing on 'can or can not', I am arguing on its size. No one in the world has ever used an AAM of this size. The heaviest AAM is Vympel R-37, with a weight of 600kg (4 times lighter than Brahmos) and 2 times smaller in length and dia. From which kind of aircraft you are planning to launch AAM version of Brahmos, and how many of these Sumos can be carried on any given aircraft?

Su-30mki- 2 or may be 4..

 

[qsaark]

Su-30mki- 2 or may be 4..

Su-30MKI has 12 hardpoints and a weapons load of 8,000 kg. Su-33s are known to carry Kh-41s with a weight of 4,500 kgs, on their centreline hardpoint. However, many reports state that the max weight is something like 2,000kg for a centreline hardpoint on the Flanker. So practically, MKI would be able to carry only one Brahmos AAM, if it ever happened. But since you are talking about and AAM version of Brahoms, Indians might as well be able to make stronger hardpoints to carry their Brahmos AAM by MKI. Is there anything wrong with assuming something.

 

[ironman]

Su-30MKI has 12 hardpoints and a weapons load of 8,000 kg. Su-33s are known to carry Kh-41s with a weight of 4,500 kgs, on their centreline hardpoint. However, many reports state that the max weight is something like 2,000kg for a centreline hardpoint on the Flanker. So practically, MKI would be able to carry only one Brahmos AAM, if it ever happened. But since you are talking about and AAM version of Brahoms, Indians might as well be able to make stronger hardpoints to carry their Brahmos AAM by MKI. Is there anything wrong with assuming something.

Yes it is only one i think... link
Indian Air Force Sukhoi jets being retrofitted with cruise missile pods

pls dont mention about this part:
“The aerial version of BrahMos is coming along very well. After being programmed, the missile will be released from the aircraft and will auto-launch towards its target when it reaches an altitude of 50 metres,” the official explained".
After all its only a press meet and clearly stated after 'programmed'. I don't think IAF will change their aircraft's fuselage only for cruise launch.

 

[mean_bird]

Firstly learn some lessons about air to air missiles and ramjet propulsion from elsewhere and post some solid reason why it cant be used as AAM.

hints: MBDA meteor, r-77M1 and read something about IDEAS-2008 and procurement of AAM to PAF.

Honestly, don't make a joke of yourself.

How about you learn a thing or two about cruise missiles and BVRAAMs?

Neither MBDA Meteor nor R-77 are cruise missiles.

Seems like this Aircraft guru hasn't got a mere knowledge about TWR.


Weight of the Aircraft = 6450 kg( Assuming that this included
weight of engine ie 1055 kg)

Fuel Capacity= 2300 kg

Then total weight of Aircraft= 6450+2300= 8750 kg

After burn thrust= 81.3 kN

Gravitational constant= 9.807

Where did you get those from? wikichoopia?

Weight of JF-17 = 6320kg + 2300kg fuel = 8620kg. (source IDEAS 2008 and pac)

so = 81.3 / 8750X9.807

= 0.09112104

TWR = 1000 X 0.09112104

ie = 91.12104

WTF??? do you even know how to divide two numbers?
GO BACK TO PRIMARY SCHOOL AND MAY BE YOU CAN LEARN HOW TO DIVIDE

81.3KN / (8750kg * 9.807m/s²) = 81.3KN/85811.25N = 81300N/85811.25N = 0.947


The real TWR of JF-17 is
81.3KN/(8620 *9.807) = 81300/84536.34 = 0.962

Assumes engine weight included in the weight of aircraft. The best part is without any payload

All aircraft weights include engines and TWR is calculated in 'clean' state i.e without external payload.

We have had enough of your trolling and false information

 

[ironman]

Honestly, don't make a joke of yourself.

How about you learn a thing or two about cruise missiles and BVRAAMs?

Neither MBDA Meteor nor R-77 are cruise missiles.

please read the entire post man ..and the above posts..

Where did you get those from? wikichoopia?

Weight of JF-17 = 6320kg + 2300kg fuel = 8620kg. (source IDEAS 2008 and pac)

please post the link..all the other links showing another way..

WTF??? do you even know how to divide two numbers?
GO BACK TO PRIMARY SCHOOL AND MAY BE YOU CAN LEARN HOW TO DIVIDE

81.3KN / (8750kg * 9.807m/s&#178 = 81.3KN/85811.25N = 81300N/85811.25N = 0.947


The real TWR of JF-17 is
81.3KN/(8620 *9.807) = 81300/84536.34 = 0.962

that is pathetic....from where did u get this formulae?? wikichoopia??

(81.3/8750) X 9.807 now u calculate...

as per your weight (81.3/8620) X 9.807
it will be 0.0924 ie 92.4

All aircraft weights include engines and TWR is calculated in 'clean' state i.e without external payload.

We have had enough of your trolling and false information

I have clearly stated 'assuming'... and about the TWR pls read man with payload it would be in pathetic state tht only i meant..

 

[mean_bird]

please read the entire post man ..and the above posts..

please post the link..all the other links showing another way..


that is pathetic....from where did u get this formulae?? wikichoopia??

(81.3/8750) X 9.807 now u calculate...

as per your weight (81.3/8620) X 9.807
it will be 0.0924



I have clearly stated 'assuming'... and about the TWR pls read man with payload it would be in pathetic state tht only i meant..

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....

Do you even know what thrust to weight ratio is? Man you are so annoying and knowledge-less.

that 9.807 is the acceleration due to gravity that is multiplied by weight to make it a force (measured in newtons).

F=ma unit is newton, where m=mass and a= acc. due to gravity.

Thrust = force measured in newtons
Weight = mass measured in kilograms and multiplied by 9.807 to convert it into newtons.

 

[ironman]

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex....

Do you even know what thrust to weight ratio is? Man you are so annoying and knowledge-less.

that 9.807 is the acceleration due to gravity that is multiplied by weight to make it a force (measured in newtons).

F=ma unit is newton, where m=mass and a= acc. due to gravity.

Thrust = force measured in newtons
Weight = mass measured in kilograms and multiplied by 9.807 to convert it into newtons.

let me complete this copied crap....

ie THRUST WEIGHT RATIO = THRUST/WEIGHT X 9.807 satisfied??

 

[Hasnain2009]

let me complete this copied crap....

ie THRUST WEIGHT RATIO = THRUST/WEIGHT X 9.807 satisfied??

TWR = Thrust/(Weight*9.807)

TWR = 81300/(8620*9.807)

TWR = 81300/(84536.34)

TWR= 0.9617

 

[mean_bird]

let me complete this copied crap....

ie THRUST WEIGHT RATIO = THRUST/WEIGHT X 9.807 satisfied??

That is an incorrect formula. The correct Formula is

THRUST WEIGHT RATIO = THRUST/WEIGHT = THRUST/ (MASS*ACC.)

Just look at the numbers you are getting. you can to try to calculate the TWR of any plane using your formula and then mine and you will find out.

You are getting a value of 92 TWR for JF-17 when even that of a F-16 is 1.095