Su-30MKI & JF-17 Air Fight

[Myth_buster_1]

Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?

MKI that can pull lets say 12 max Gs can evade 50+ G AAM? thats like saying our IL-78 can evade MKI on tail for a moment.
The only way MKI or any other fighter can evade AAM is by its self protection systems on board the air craft.

 

[Tempest II]

Theoretically yes, but due to the thrust vectoring, and lots of engine power, an MKI has better chances of survival against an AIM120 or SD10 launched from the F-16 or JF-17 respectively quite contrary to the under-powered non-TV JF-17. Can someone explain to me how JF is going to survive from a R77?

Read my earlier post slowly and try to go through the numbers.

You keep the missile at your 3 or 9 o'clock. At some distance, say I kilometer, you turn into the missile. Even when the plane is pulling 5Gs, I explained below that a missile, because of its much great speed, will need a considerably larger radius, even when pulling 50Gs.

Rated at 8.5G, the JF-17 should pull 5Gs. By reducing it speed, it can make a even tighter turn.

Yes, pilot skills and the MAWS needs to be good for the timing window is small.

 

[ptldM3]

What is this 50g missle everyone keeps talking about?

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Read my earlier post slowly and try to go through the numbers.

You keep the missile at your 3 or 9 o'clock. At some distance, say I kilometer, you turn into the missile. Even when the plane is pulling 5Gs, I explained below that a missile, because of its much great speed, will need a considerably larger radius, even when pulling 50Gs.

Rated at 8.5G, the JF-17 should pull 5Gs. By reducing it speed, it can make a even tighter turn.

Yes, pilot skills and the MAWS needs to be good for the timing window is small.

Thats what i meant in my previous posts that beaming the missile will help...thanks for the description.

 

[Tempest II]

What is this 50g missle everyone keeps talking about?

Concerning the 50G, I am taking the number as possed by earlier posters and demostrating that at Mach 4, this 50Gs (if it exists) cannot out-turn a 5G fighter going at 600km/hr.

I used 40Gs because the SD-10 is said to be a 48G missile. I rounded up for simplicity in the calculations.

I do, however think the latest SRAAMs can turn at over 50Gs. I think the Python V.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Wouldn't you consider the black out and red out factor for the pilot when he is taking those G turns as compared to the missiles---which can spin on a dime.

Does the missile really need to hit the plane---what if the proximity fuse goes up 40---50 meters away---the plane can still be severly damaged.

The timing window---I would say that it is time to pull on the ejection handle---no! what do you say.

 

[ptldM3]

How does the SD-10 pull 40g's when the AIM-120 is a 9g missle and the R-77 a 12g missle? What makes the SD-10 pull so many more G's?

And how does a missle withstand 40-50g's without breaking apart?

 

[Myth_buster_1]

How does the SD-10 pull 40g's when the AIM-120 is a 9g missle and the R-77 a 12g missle? What makes the SD-10 pull so many more G's?

And how does a missle withstand 40-50g's without breaking apart?

whats your fking sources that amraam can pull only 9 Gs and thats less then a flanker! are you stupid?

AIM-9X Block II? - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

go through this forum and AIM-9X block II is said to have pulled 100Gs and same is also said about A-Darter.

 

[ptldM3]

whats your fking sources that amraam can pull only 9 Gs and thats less then a flanker! are you stupid?

AIM-9X Block II? - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums

go through this forum and AIM-9X block II is said to have pulled 100Gs and same is also said about A-Darter.

Firstly, I was asking a question, secondly, can you go one post without acting like a clown?

As for the AIM-120 pulling 9g's it's just what i have read, i spend the past half hour searching for the source but i couldn't find it. As for 40-50G missles i have never heard of missles pulling those kind of G's, and that's why i was suspicious of the claim, thus i asked how it would be possible.

And why did you give me a link to a forum? Are forums credible now?

 

[Chanakyaa]

40g ? did i hear it correct ?

 

[TechLahore]

MKI that can pull lets say 12 max Gs can evade 50+ G AAM? thats like saying our IL-78 can evade MKI on tail for a moment.
The only way MKI or any other fighter can evade AAM is by its self protection systems on board the air craft.

If the MKI were to pull 12Gs (it is rated for 9-9.5 according to different sources) a pilot with an exploded bladder would occupy its cockpit and there would be no reason to evade the AAM anyway.

 

[gambit]

Firstly, I was asking a question, secondly, can you go one post without acting like a clown?

As for the AIM-120 pulling 9g's it's just what i have read, i spend the past half hour searching for the source but i couldn't find it. As for 40-50G missles i have never heard of missles pulling those kind of G's, and that's why i was suspicious of the claim, thus i asked how it would be possible.

And why did you give me a link to a forum? Are forums credible now?

Very possible...

Evading the Guided Missile

A good rule of thumb quoted [1 ] is that a missile must pull at least five times the G-load of its target for a successful interception, therefore an aircraft maximises its chances of survival by maintaining a high energy state.

The execution of this desire will either make the missile as a success or break it as junk.

Two crucial factors that can make or break a design:

- Guidance laws
- Control (steerage) mechanisms

There are many types of guidance laws, from the simplistic pure pursuit or collision to the more sophisticated proportional navigation (PN) and many sub categories of PN.

Air-to-air missile guidance for strapdown seekers - Air-to-air, missile, guidance, for, strapdown, seekers, Abstract<br /> , This, paper, presents, results, of, a, study, on, advanced, guidance, for, short, range, air-to-air, BTT, missiles, us

This paper presents results of a study on advanced guidance for short range air-to-air BTT missiles using an active strapdown seeker. The guidance laws, based on modern control theory, utilize an Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) and a Pursuit plus Proportional Navigation type law for autopilot command generation.

The above source is only one of the uncountable variations of these laws.

Second crucial factor is flight controls or avionics in general. Again...From the above source we see BTT, which is...

Nonlinear, Hybrid Bank-to-Turn/Skid-to-Turn Missile Autopilot Design

Abstract : A full-envelope, hybrid bank-to-turn (BTT)/skid-to-turn (STT) autopilot design for an air-breathing air-to-air missile is carried out using the state-dependent Riccati equation (SDRE) technique of nonlinear control.

Bank-to-turn techniques are for noncircular airframes, like the American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Remember...A missile IS an aircraft, no matter its variant. An F-16 is a noncircular airframe. The AIM-9 Sidewinder and others are circular airframes so they usually have skid-to-turn FLCS.

With sufficient structural rigidity, a skid-to-turn (STT) missile can very well pull 20, 30 or even 50g, especially when it employ 'bang-bang' guidance...

Laser Guided Bombs - Smart Weapons

The computer section transmits directional command signals to the appropriate pair(s) of canards. The guidance canards are attached to each quadrant of the control unit to change the flightpath of the weapon. The canard deflections are always full scale (referred to as "bang, bang" guidance).

What bang-bang guidance does is to simply deflect the FLCS surfaces at their maximum rates to their maximum limits. Try steering your car to the local cafe by turning the steering wheel only from stop (bang) to the opposite stop (bang), nowhere in between, hence the name bang-bang guidance. Against ground targets, a guided bomb can get by with bang-bang guidance to orient itself then let gravity do the rest. But against a maneuverable target like a fighter or even bomber aircraft, hybrid guidance laws are necessary and many of them carry heavy prison terms. Any ideas why?

 

[ptldM3]

Bank-to-turn techniques are for noncircular airframes, like the American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Remember...A missile IS an aircraft, no matter its variant. An F-16 is a noncircular airframe. The AIM-9 Sidewinder and others are circular airframes so they usually have skid-to-turn FLCS.

All missles use skid-to-turn which is essentially the missle turning without the need to bank; for instance, an aircraft banking 180 degrees then pulling up to acheive a tight turn can be considered a skid-to-turn, minus the bank. AIM-120, R-77, and SD-10 all use this method.

With sufficient structural rigidity, a skid-to-turn (STT) missile can very well pull 20, 30 or even 50g, especially when it employ 'bang-bang' guidance...

Once an aircraft banks 180 degress it can be said that it utilizes the STT technique, so how does this contribute to G-force? my understanding is that high G-forces are contributed to these factors (these are basic simple forms):

The objects velocity, an appropriate example would be when astronauts get spung around, the faster the ecceloration the higher the G-force. This means a missle is likely to pull higher G-forces at higher speeds.

g-force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of acceleration, not force

Now if and when a missle pulls 20, 40, or 50+ G's its structural integrity would be in jeopardy, for instance, a missle utilizing fins also utilizes servos or something similar; this means the fins are not a fixed flight surface, thus they are controled by a servo type mechanism, this means they would be more vulnerable to breaking off under extreem G-force. The question is can a servo type mechanism support fins at 50+ G's without disintegrating from the missle? And can fins servive the violent force without bending out of shape?

Certain aircraft have been know to warp out of shape when pulled beyond their limit.




General design, and or flight surfaces, such as canards, fins, or tvc; for instance, the R-77 utilizes lattice fins for better manuverability at high speed.

Vympel R-77 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The missile's maneuverability relies on the lattice work fins at the rear. The R-77's overall aerodynamic configuration is more efficient at high speed and high angles of attack than the conventional deltas used on the AIM-120 and most other missiles

The above example is a perfect example of a missle pulling a high G load at high speeds due to the fact that it was designed to opperate under those conditions.

Most missle work off of the same principles, so how does one go from a 12 G missle to a 40 or 50 G missle? This is no small margin.

Also, theoretically many things are possible but does that mean it can be done?

The Chinese are saying the SD-10 is a 40 G missle does the US or anyone else have such a missle? If the US built such a missle i would beleive it to be possible. In short, do such missles actually exist? And can it be varified by an authentic source? This is what i'm trying to find out.

 

[gambit]

Now if and when a missle pulls 20, 40, or 50+ G's its structural integrity would be in jeopardy, for instance, a missle utilizing fins also utilizes servos or something similar; this means the fins are not a fixed flight surface, thus they are controled by a servo type mechanism, this means they would be more vulnerable to breaking off under extreem G-force. The question is can a servo type mechanism support fins at 50+ G's without disintegrating from the missle? And can fins servive the violent force without bending out of shape?

The Chinese are saying the SD-10 is a 40 G missle does the US or anyone else have such a missle? If the US built such a missle i would beleive it to be possible. In short, do such missles actually exist? And can it be varified by an authentic source? This is what i'm trying to find out.

Absolutely...We will go one extreme...Artillery...

GD-OTS Missile Components

Control Actuator Systems (CAS)

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems is the industry leader in high performance, high power rate density, and aerospace qualified electro-mechanical actuator systems. With its heritage starting in 1975 by two visionary General Dynamics’ engineers, it has emerged as the premier developer of innovative and elegant patented designs satisfying the tactical and strategic missile arena.

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems has established itself as the industry gun launched projectile "go-to" supplier for control actuator systems. Versatron has developed a qualified gun hardened (all major components qualified up to 30,000 Gs), building block approach to solving the stringent performance, size, and low cost demands of the next generation smart munitions.

 

[All-Green]

I disagree here, because although JF 17 will be a major boost of PAFs capabilities (1 squad JF and a few F16s with BVR capabilities now vs. over 250 IAF fighters with the same capability), it will still be PAFs least capable fighter in this decade!
All new and upgraded F16 and J10B if it arrives will be more capable, so this fact alone makes this comparison, against the most capable IAF fighter questionable.
The major headache of IAF will not be JF, but these more capable fighters and more over the arrival of AWACS in PAF.
Of course with support of AWACs a JF could down a MKI in BVR, but even an old Mig 21 Bison could down the F16 B52 in the same way, but I guess we agree that this doesn't make the Bison in anyway comparable to the F16 B52 right? Exactly like the JF is not comparable to MKI!

If you just compare the specs of MKI and JF in a 1 on 1, without any other support, or future capability, you can't do other than admit that he MKI is superior. As mentioned so often before in this thread, it has clearly more radar range and has long range missiles, so see first, shoot first in BVR. Also has more speed, better t/w ratio and additional improvements to increase maneuverability (canards and TVC) that even impresses EF pilots, although it won't be equal to EF maneuverability of course.
Even pakistani members should agree that these key facts simply can't be denied in a comparison, by saying MKI using alien tech...!
It has his disadvantages too and will have problems against more capable fighters, but JF is simply no in its league.

JF 17 instead will mainly compete upg Mig 29 SMT, upg Mirage 2000-5 and LCAs of IAF lower end in this decade and the fact that IAF placed all Mig 29 now to the western border, but inducting new MKIs mainly on the eastern borders increases the chances of combats against them. But the odds of JF against these fighters will be better, than against MKI.

Where did i say that in current configuration JF-17 is superior to Su-30? It would be a huge mistake to say so.

The BVR missile kill range however is a tricky thing, it decreases a lot with lower altitude, size/vector of the target, ECM being employed etc.
I am just saying that PAF has a very good record of devising good tactics keeping in mind the strengths of its aircraft, perhaps an F-7 against an Su-30 would have been in the realm of the impossible for PAF, however with JF-17 they will have more flexibility in their tactics and will stand a better chance due to many leaps and bounds in the technology.

It will still be an unfair contest in isolation at this stage but the JF-17 is known to be maneuverable as well with pretty decent avionics.
I reckon that its actual specs are is not disclosed yet so we perhaps need more information to establish just how much trouble it can be in BVR/WVR combat, it is BVR capable so big plus for PAF but it is a small and agile fighter so in WVR at least the visibility will be in favor of JF-17.
Current available specs dictate that Su-30 will regain from energy bleeds faster and has the advantage in going from a neutral to favorable posture but JF-17 will most likely make visual contact first...

In the upcoming exercises JF-17 will be pitched against the other aircraft like F-16s so i think we shall eventually find out how it actually fares.

I agree that it will be the F-16s and FC-20s which will duel with the Su-30 after 2015.
However what i am saying is that in current situation IAF already has had the upper hand, in current and midterm the ongoing induction of JF-17 would start offsetting this disparity since we will have a new fighter ( in numbers) with good technology (even in current configuration) instead of the ancient F-7 airframe which is a brother of Mig-21...whatever upgrade you make these little monsters go through, at the end of the day their design is severely limited and there is not much you can do about it.

In the light multirole category the JF-17 has a good modern design, it uses modern technology and concepts and was intentionally kept modular to begin with, keeping in mind up-gradation and integration of different makes of avionics and weapons...for the PAF it will be an extremely good uplift/morale booster and in few years its numbers with the AEW&C cover will enable much more aggression than what was technically possible just a couple of years ago.