What's new

Su-30MKI - Super Sukhoi Upgrade Program.

I understand the need for SFC to demand miniaturized warheads, but can't the current gen warheads even with this reduced yield be used to take out HVTs like CCS, FOBs, staging areas with high troop density, enemy TBM launchers etc before the full retaliation with our BMs?
I mean, the SLBMs, Nirbhays and ALCMs (nuke tipped) will be tasked to take out high priority targets while the IRBMs deliver the bulk of nuke warheads. So, the MKI's with their BrahMos will play an integral role during the second strike, don't you think?
Potentially the Indian Nuclear doctrine will see its N warheads capped at 120-150 max. We may have fissile materials available but will not have large warhead numbers.

Since we do not have what you call as massive thermonuclear bombs in Megaton capacity, the yields at 150Kt and 200KT seems standardized ones. The SLBM since they are completing the triad and is for second strike preference will carry heavy warheads.. An example is K15 with reduced warhead of 500kg to maximise range and with standard warhead weight of 1000 kg for declared range of around 750-800 km. The K4 is even more heavier at around 2 tonnes of warhead suggesting either a process of a much heavier warhead or multiple mini ones aka MIRV.(3x450kg)

It is true high priority targets take precedence but in the same manner Indian N yield being limited portfolio advocates all warheads to be of nominal size which guarantees adequate deterrence.

A simple analysis like say if Nasr has a warhead around 10-20KT (assuming) then Prahaar with 150km also has 200kg warhead but then India has never talked about a 30-35KT warhead mounted on Prahaar. The missile is N capable but as i said earlier the doctrine as of now dont dictate the lower threshold less than 100-150 KT warheads owing to limited numbers. The standardized 150KT has been our planners first choice simply bcz of easier stable replication and commonality of the warhead across each and every missile set that comes under SFC.

A combat Control system or Forward Operating Base or Staging area with high troop density, tactical TBMs etc - each one of those potential scenarios will see first Hight Explosive munitions or the new Thermobaric type warheads being deployed. IF and when India sees a Tactical warhead of N design being deployed, the doctrine now states India can take on the action of neutralizing first with area wide neutralizing mechanism like Pinaka with such war heads (conventional).

If the engagement heads towards nuclear, there is no limit as India does not have a doctrine stating some targets lower yield and some targets higher yield differentiation. if escalated, the tactical TBM will be met with a 450KG warhead of 150KT to not only deter but also make clear that our strikes sizes wont be small mini ones.

Sadly i would have liked your option and enable 20% of the warheads to be sub 50KT types but for that we need minimum 200-250 warheads so that such warheads with reduced weight design stands at 40-50 in numbers and rest standardized size at 200 implying only 2-3 variants from low, medium and high yield. But as of now its medium and high and perhaps we may never see Low since our doctrine and posture does not permit that.
 
And most important the Strategic command asked for the SU-30MKI-- 40 nos under the strategic command, and at that time there was no Rafale there.



Problem with dropping the Bomb is that the fighter plane has to come close to the target to deliver, but doing so close to SAM, and air defence system, and near enemy space. With Cruise Missile, it could be done from the Strandoff and our own space.



Depend on how you think. Do you want a 125 Million a piece bird, with 2 dedicated Pilots to be used to drop the dump bomb, and not doing what it is specialized i.e Air Superiority. For you information Jaguar and MIG 27 both are the speciallized ground attack fighter aircraft, and what does it means, that they are fitted with the ground radar, not the A2A radar, and Jaguar, with its NAV attack device on its nose can deliver those dumb bomb precisely where it should be placed. And yes offcource both are certified to fly at low altitude with the drop load, which MKI don't pocess. Jaguar can fly at the tree top level at the supersonic speed with the long range aka deep strike capability.
MIG-27 have the bullet proof armour around the area where the Pilot sits, needed, when you attack the armoured formation with its 4 50mm guns, it will cause the havoc when from the sky its coming to the enemy doing straffing fire (same which was tried during the Kargil war, at the high altitude which was never attempted before anywhere with this bird, but the gun fire at such rate causes the engine to flame out)and this plane can take the enemy machine gun fire which your other fighter plane cannot.


t give.



OK.

I said carpet bombing not Close Air Support!
 
Flanker on a dance floor:bunny::bunny:
12671839_1033790226682852_5876613917663524554_o.jpg


@Abingdonboy @Oscar @Vauban @Taygibay @PARIKRAMA
 
question-is there plane of integrating brahmos with naval mig29?

No

A quick trivia questions:

First question
Most public records in net says India uses Nuke delivery via Mirages and Jaguars.
With the Super 30 upgrade will the upgraded Sukhois will be used for N delivery?

No. Only as a last resort if at all.


Brahmos NG or say Something similar like ASMP ALCM will be used for high value targets for precision strikes via conventional warheads or augmented for N Strikes via N warhead?

Specify what is the target. Counter force or counter value? It is unclear what do you mean by high value.

@PARIKRAMA So far in your posts you have somehow been talking about deployment of nuclear weapons in dumb bomb via aircrafts, something that I have not understood. What makes you think that the Indian doctrine today relies on toss bombing? And I am seeing free fall dumb bombing in nonconventional role being touted. If am mistaken then apologies for the same, but who is going to be doing that? The An-32s and IL-76s have also stopped their carpet bombing practice years back, and the fighters have no role envisaged for these right now in conventional ops.

Additionally your above contention of limitation of Indian nuclear stockpile being limited to the figure you have quoted is probably about two decades late in coming. You need to understand that the Indian nuclear posturing is not minimal deterrence against Pakistan, but against China and Pakistan combined. The stockpile is much higher - rest assured. Additionally, if you do in fact study the development of Indian nuclear weapons over the past decade and a half, the shift has moved to more sub-kiloton warheads rather than the yield as being touted in ranges above the nominal bomb.

I read in the thread a member stating the deployment of the weapon some kilometers above the ground. Whenever such reference comes up for discussion, these become loose terms. The idea is to speak with the Nominal bomb and extrapolate depending upon that.

One also needs to understand the concept of nuclear planning and targeting. What I have so far seen in the thread being discussed is something that shall never ever come even close to employment stage, let alone have any such consequences.

The Indian nuclear doctrine is very clear and unambiguous, contrary to what the people feel. It states that in case of any CBRN attack, India reserves the right to retaliate with weapon of own choice to cause 'unacceptable' damage to the enemy.

When a statement like this is made, one needs to understand the clarity which exists. In short, India has clearly spelled out that it shall and will be willing to consider retaliation with a nuclear device even in case of a chemical attack on its forces. Or, it may choose to ignore the attack altogether. The flexibility provided by the this statement is tremendous. One needs to be very clear that any use of Chemical/Biological weapons (banned by BWC and CWC both India and Pakistan, also I think, being signatories) is in itself a strategic task. There is nothing known as tactical nuclear strike. Any employment of a nuclear device by opposing forces will put our responses in the realm of strategic (namely the GoI has to take a 'political' decision on type of retaliation).

Moving to the nuclear weapons, a 20 KT nominal bomb will have zero radioactive fallout at 190 meters AGL approximately. At a tactical level, the deployment of a nuke will be a counter force application and the aim will be use the ground after elimination of the opposing forces in the area. Hence, need for minimal fallout. In case of absolute effects, 450 - 500 AGL meters will see maximum effects. It works out to about 500 odd casualties with a 20 KT warhead for a division sized force in defenses (keeping in view the deployment patterns and area occupied by the forces being concentrated). If indeed a nuclear strike is ordered for EMP utilization in knocking off the C2I and C3I and so on of the opposing force, the strike will be in excess of 10000 meters AGL.

India has majorly moved in to subkiloton sphere in order to better control the political aspects of any potential nuclear strike by the opposing forces. The intent will be demonstrated, retaliation will be claiberated and multipronged, yet the targets will remain limited to counter force and not countervalue, thus increasing the probability of conflict resolution at the earliest and enabling better conflict management.
 
Last edited:
The dance does nothing in multiple aircraft fights, at best it will help it turn around a disadvantageous position to an advantageous one , until the other aircraft kills it anyway.

More importantly, against modern missiles like the Piranha, PL-10 and Darter... it as good as the guy in the back seat scratching his back.

The MKI is already a good energy fighter, the TVC was a short sighted add on taken while under the spell of the Russian marketing ploy. All it does is add on weight for an advantage that of use in perhaps only 5% of scenarios.
 
The dance does nothing in multiple aircraft fights, at best it will help it turn around a disadvantageous position to an advantageous one , until the other aircraft kills it anyway.

These Dance shows the capability of the fighter planes, its agility and the FBW, TVC aided flight profile. I agree with you that the air display maneuvers are different than the tactical maneuvers.

More importantly, against modern missiles like the Piranha, PL-10 and Darter... it as good as the guy in the back seat scratching his back.

MKI is a air superiority fighter plane, and its advantageous for the airsuperiority fighter plane like MKI to keep distance from the bogey, and shoot them from long distance. No fighter pilot want to indulge in dog fighting. As far as BVR, its more of positional tactics and the one who is at better position wins the fight aka position F and E.

The one in the back seat is not only a WSO, but also can fly the MKI completely, thus giving the MKI effective over long distance, important for the two front war perceptive, as far as MKI is concerned. Huge N011M bars radar, not only give a distictive edge over the adversories, but can also act as the passive sensons. The OLS-30 in MKI also gives the distinctive edge, which is evident in the fact that during the duct exercise the Mirrage 2000 and Mig 29 of IAF were shoot down even before they could detect MKI.

The MKI is already a good energy fighter, the TVC was a short sighted add on taken while under the spell of the Russian marketing ploy. All it does is add on weight for an advantage that of use in perhaps only 5% of scenarios.

TVC was a short sighted ?? Are you kidding. TVC is not only allow MKI to quickly point its nose toward enemy, but also removes the AOA limit from the aircraft, that's why EF-2000 is now moving toward TVC nozzle, and is also present in F-22 Raptor.
 
The dance does nothing in multiple aircraft fights, at best it will help it turn around a disadvantageous position to an advantageous one , until the other aircraft kills it anyway.

More importantly, against modern missiles like the Piranha, PL-10 and Darter... it as good as the guy in the back seat scratching his back.

The MKI is already a good energy fighter, the TVC was a short sighted add on taken while under the spell of the Russian marketing ploy. All it does is add on weight for an advantage that of use in perhaps only 5% of scenarios.


I read this comment many times from you sir. I just want to know if missiles perform that good against fighters than why you, whole world and we are spending billions of dollars on fighters. Enemy just need one missile, costs few lakhs of dollars, to blow up million dollar baby.

Instead induct few 10s of big or small awacs. Weaponized them. That is actually the cost effective step. Lesser amount of new platform and such platform can petrol a larger area. All those militry guys are fools.....according to your latest thesis.

Please , no no nope. Fighters are inducted because they are good for ground attack. Ohh! common sir, dont give this argument. Missile and precision guidance munition tech is now so much improved that we can destroy target by launching weapons 10s and 100s km far.
 
I read this comment many times from you sir. I just want to know if missiles perform that good against fighters than why you, whole world and we are spending billions of dollars on fighters. Enemy just need one missile, costs few lakhs of dollars, to blow up million dollar baby.

Instead induct few 10s of big or small awacs. Weaponized them. That is actually the cost effective step. Lesser amount of new platform and such platform can petrol a larger area. All those militry guys are fools.....according to your latest thesis.

Please , no no nope. Fighters are inducted because they are good for ground attack. Ohh! common sir, dont give this argument. Missile and precision guidance munition tech is now so much improved that we can destroy target by launching weapons 10s and 100s km far.

You are thinking incorrectly. Missiles are good against fighters , and even better against large targets. The world spends on fighters due to their capability against each other.

What you are saying is that because the whole world now has guns, why dont they switch to knives
 
TVC was a short sighted ?? Are you kidding. TVC is not only allow MKI to quickly point its nose toward enemy, but also removes the AOA limit from the aircraft, that's why EF-2000 is now moving toward TVC nozzle, and is also present in F-22 Raptor.
The MKI cannot exceed its G limits which it achieves anyway with its aerodynamics, it exceeding the AoA creates massive drag which makes it drop out of the sky like a brick.. making it an easy kill for even a F-4 phantom. The EF is not going towards TVC for its starting customers but those foolish ones who fell into the lure of TVC.
 
The MKI cannot exceed its G limits which it achieves anyway with its aerodynamics, it exceeding the AoA creates massive drag which makes it drop out of the sky like a brick.. making it an easy kill for even a F-4 phantom. The EF is not going towards TVC for its starting customers but those foolish ones who fell into the lure of TVC.

FCS won't allow such condition to happen, when it falls like a brick, unless Pilot over authorised it.

Sorry Offtopic Sir but,
TVC was actually part of MBBs early design concepts (TKF90) throughout the 70s. That this concept was working has been demonstrated with the X-31 and ITP and MTU started with work on a 3-D TV nozzle as early as 1994. The nozzle was extensively tested on the bench rig and even high altitude chamber. The nozzle was able to deflect 23.5° in any direction at speeds of up to 110°/sec. This was long proposed as a potential feature of Tranche 3 aircraft, but there was no operational requirement besides the customers so that the programme didn't progressed any further. At one point RR was working on a 2-D nozzle as well but abondoned it. In the meantime ITP has continued the work and presented the current concept. The reason why TVC wasn't considered before was mainly on cost/benefit grounds. The new nozzle is optimised for minimum weight penalty and low cost, by using as many parts from the existing nozzle as possible. The advantages might now offset the lowered tradeoffs.

To discuss thrust vectoring, we must first know how non-TVC aircraft behave. Major parameters that impact aircraft’s performance are:

  1. weight
  2. lift, which can be approximated through wing loading
  3. excess thrust, determined by thrust to weight ratio
  4. drag
One of advantages of thrust vectoring is allowing aircraft to enter and recover from a controlled flat spin, yawing aircraft without worrying about rudder, which looses effectiveness at high angles of attack. However, aircraft using close coupled canards instead of thrust vectoring have also demonstrated flat spin recovery capability, example being Saab Gripen. But while thrust vectoring reduces drag during level flight, thus increasing the range, close-coupled canards add drag and decrease lift unless aircraft is turning, thus improving the range.

But to see what impact thrust vectoring has on combat performance, we have to take a look at parameters I have defined above. Mass of aircraft determines inertia – thus, heavier the aircraft is, longer it takes to switch from one maneuver to another quickly. This results in slower transients, making it harder for pilot to get inside opponent’s OODA loop – in fact, mass is defined as a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to acceleration (to clear common mistake in terminology, acceleration can be in any direction – in fact, what is commonly called “deceleration” is mathematically defined as “acceleration”). But to actually turn, aircraft relies on lift. Lift is what allows aircraft to remain in the air, and when turning, aircraft uses control surfaces to change direction in which lift is acting, resulting in aircraft turning around imaginary point. It can be approximated by wing loading. But turning leads to increase in angle between air flow around the aircraft and the aircraft itself (this angle is called Angle of Attack), which results in increased drag. Increasing drag means that aircraft looses energy faster, and once fighter’s level of energy decays below that of his opponent, he is fighting at disadvantage. Loss in energy can be mitigated by excess thrust, which can also be used (usually in combination with gravity, aka downwards flight) to recover lost energy. All of this leads to expression “out of ideas, energy and altitude”, which basically means “I’m in trouble and have no way out”. Nose pointing allows aircraft to gain a shot at opponent with gun, and was crucial for gaining a shot at opponent with missiles before advent of High Off Bore capability, which shifted requirements more in direction of ability to sustain maneuvers at or near corner speed (minimum speed at which aircraft can achieve maximum g loading; it is usually around M 0,6 – 0,9). It must be noted that, while lift and excess thrust of aircraft can be approximated by wing loading and thrust to weight ratio, heavier aircraft will require higher thrust to weight and lift to weight ratios to achieve same turn rates as lighter aircraft.

Thrust vectoring, as its name says, results in shifting of the thrust. Due to modern fighter aircraft’s center of gravity and center of lift never being behind its nozzles, shift in thrust results in aircraft rotating around its center of gravity, resulting in massive increase in Angle of Attack. Thus, comparision non-TVC aircraft turning and TVC-equipped aircraft turning would look like this:



This is result of forces described above acting on aircraft. In this model, assumption is that aircraft can reach angle of attack required for maximum lift both with and without thrust vectoring, which is true for all close-coupled-canard aircraft, but not necessarily for tailed and long-arm canard arrangements.

Thus, forces impacting turn ability of non-TVC and TVC aircraft would look like this:



It can be seen that thrust vectoring increases angle of attack, and thus drag (as entire airframe at high AoA drags far more than just control surfaces plus airframe at far lower AoA), while reducing thrust avaliable to counter the drag – and, in case of very high AoA values, lift avaliable to pull aircraft around. While TVC can improve turn rate even at combat speeds, it happens only if aircraft is unable to achieve angle of attack that is required for maximum lift, one example being F-16, which requires 32 degrees AoA for maximum lift but is restricted to 25,5 degrees by FCS due to departure concerns. Angles of attack in excess of 35 degrees are unsustainable, however, due to massive drag they cause, resulting in very large energy loss, turning fighter into a deadweight in very short order. “Benefit” of extreme AoA values is also not unique to thrust vectoring aircraft: while TVC-equipped X-31 achieved maximum controllable angles of attack of 70 degrees (compare to 60 degrees for another TVC design, F-22), whereas close-coupled-canard delta-wing Rafale and Gripen are able to achieve controllable Angles of Attack that exceed 100 degrees, with Gripen being able to sustain Angle of Attack of 70 – 80 degrees. Further, X-31 without TVC was unable to achieve more than 30 degrees of alpha, even momentarily, whereas without TVC F-22 is limited to 26 degrees, though not due to issues of lift but rather controllability. As such, TVC actually improved instanteneous (and possibly sustained) turn rates of both aircraft by allowing them to reach angle of attack required for maximum lift, which is between 30 and 40 degrees of AoA. Aircraft that use TVC during combat to achieve angles of attack beyond lifting capability of wing actually sink in the air, as opposed to turning, but if they are unable to achieve maximum lift capability without TVC, then TVC does indeed improve their turn capability. Close-coupled canard configuration, on the other hand, drags less in turning than TVC one as it achieves same lift at lower angle of attack, resulting in far lower fuel consumption. This is important as in visual-range fight, most kills have been historically made when one of aircraft fighting ran out of fuel; thus aircraft with less fuel consumption per unit of weight is (assuming similar fuel fraction) more likely to win the fight. Specifically, maximum lift for close-coupled canard is greater than that for just wing at any AoA past 10 degrees AoA; in configuration analyzed in this thesis, lift is greater than baseline value by 3,4% at 10 degrees AoA, 34% at 22 degrees AoA, 9,4% at 34 degrees AoA, 7,2% at 40 degrees AoA and 18,3% at 48 degrees AoA. Thus aircraft does not need to achieve as high AoA for same lift to weight and lift to drag values, consequently allowing pilot a choice (assuming other values are similar) wether to achieve same turn rate as opponent and outlast it due to using up fuel far slower than it is case with fuel-hungry thrust vectoring maneuvers or try to outmaneuver it with higher turn rate.

Neither is main “benefit” of thrust vectoring, post stall maneuverability, anything new. Aside from close-coupled canard designs, which have extensive post-stall maneuverability, Russian Su-27 has demonstrated stall recovery capability and post-stall maneuverability. It is also important to note that John Boyd was able to do Cobra in F-100, and other pilots did it in J-35 Draken. While TVC certainly improves post-stall capability, capability by itself is useless in multi-bogey scenario, as it bleeds energy very fast. As such, thrust vectoring is tactically useless for most fighter aircraft, especially in age of high-off bore missiles, as usage of thrust vectoring would leave then slow-moving aircraft very vulnerable. Further, Cobra – one of main “poster maneuvers” for TVC – is easy to see in advance, and if done, leaves fighter without energy and at opponent’s mercy; so while usage of TVC may surprise pilots that do not know what it allows, it is suicide agains pilots that are aware of it.

TVC does not necessarily increase security either, as resistance to departure and superstall which it provides are inherent advantages of close-coupled canard designs. However, it does allow non-close coupled canard configurations to recover from these conditions.

Using TVC for maneuvering is beneficial for tailed aircraft, however, at two regimes: at velocities well below corner speed, and during supersonic flight at high altitudes. Simple reason for that is that in these two regimes, flight surfaces are not very effective. At very low speeds (150 knots – M 0,23 – and below), large control surfaces’ deflections are required for turning due to weak air flow, thus increasing drag – and even when surfaces are fully deflected, aircraft responds comparatively slowly. This also includes takeoff and landing; as result, aircraft with thrust vectoring can take off and land at lower speeds and in shorter distance than same aircraft without thrust vectoring; this capability can be useful if parts of air strip have been bombed (though it is always smarter not to require air strip at all). During supersonic flight, tail finds itself in wake behind the wing, which reduces its effectiveness. Thus thrust vectoring can be used to compensate for this effect. Further, at high altitudes (12 000 to 15 000 meters) aerodynamic control surfaces are less effective, and there is less drag, which means that thrust vectoring provides greater benefits and less penalties. As dogfights happen at altitudes of 1 500 to 10 000 meters, and speeds that start in transonic range, thrust vectoring is obviously not effective for WVR – and, therefore, real world combat.

In level flight, thrust vectoring allows for trimming, thus increasing range due to reduced drag. 3D TVC nozzles can also reduce drag by optimising their shape. Further, thrust vectoring can add STOL capability to otherwise-CTOL aircraft, but it is always better to look at simpler, lighter and cheaper options. If aircraft lacks roll authority, TVC can be used for pitch, freeing up tail control surfaces to improve roll rate – examples of this are F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon.

TVC (especially of 3D variety) can also provide ability to quickly point nose in a certain direction, but this is only useful in one-on-one gun-only dogfights (which do not happen in real world) as it leaves aircraft with seriously depleted energy and thus vulnerable to opponent’s wingman, and/or its target if attack was not successful. This is especially problematic in age when HOB capability is becoming increasingly common. But even in such unrealistic dogfights, TVC does not garantee victory. In upper set of images, F-22 is seen from Rafale, pulling a turn; OSF is clearly visible, showing that Rafale’s nose is pointed towards the F-22 (allegedly, Rafale won 2 out of 7 engagements; further, while IRST does have high off-bore capability, video camera is fixed):
 
FCS won't allow such condition to happen, when it falls like a brick, unless Pilot over authorised it.

Sorry Offtopic Sir but,
TVC was actually part of MBBs early design concepts (TKF90) throughout the 70s. That this concept was working has been demonstrated with the X-31 and ITP and MTU started with work on a 3-D TV nozzle as early as 1994. The nozzle was extensively tested on the bench rig and even high altitude chamber. The nozzle was able to deflect 23.5° in any direction at speeds of up to 110°/sec. This was long proposed as a potential feature of Tranche 3 aircraft, but there was no operational requirement besides the customers so that the programme didn't progressed any further. At one point RR was working on a 2-D nozzle as well but abondoned it. In the meantime ITP has continued the work and presented the current concept. The reason why TVC wasn't considered before was mainly on cost/benefit grounds. The new nozzle is optimised for minimum weight penalty and low cost, by using as many parts from the existing nozzle as possible. The advantages might now offset the lowered tradeoffs.

To discuss thrust vectoring, we must first know how non-TVC aircraft behave. Major parameters that impact aircraft’s performance are:

  1. weight
  2. lift, which can be approximated through wing loading
  3. excess thrust, determined by thrust to weight ratio
  4. drag
One of advantages of thrust vectoring is allowing aircraft to enter and recover from a controlled flat spin, yawing aircraft without worrying about rudder, which looses effectiveness at high angles of attack. However, aircraft using close coupled canards instead of thrust vectoring have also demonstrated flat spin recovery capability, example being Saab Gripen. But while thrust vectoring reduces drag during level flight, thus increasing the range, close-coupled canards add drag and decrease lift unless aircraft is turning, thus improving the range.

But to see what impact thrust vectoring has on combat performance, we have to take a look at parameters I have defined above. Mass of aircraft determines inertia – thus, heavier the aircraft is, longer it takes to switch from one maneuver to another quickly. This results in slower transients, making it harder for pilot to get inside opponent’s OODA loop – in fact, mass is defined as a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to acceleration (to clear common mistake in terminology, acceleration can be in any direction – in fact, what is commonly called “deceleration” is mathematically defined as “acceleration”). But to actually turn, aircraft relies on lift. Lift is what allows aircraft to remain in the air, and when turning, aircraft uses control surfaces to change direction in which lift is acting, resulting in aircraft turning around imaginary point. It can be approximated by wing loading. But turning leads to increase in angle between air flow around the aircraft and the aircraft itself (this angle is called Angle of Attack), which results in increased drag. Increasing drag means that aircraft looses energy faster, and once fighter’s level of energy decays below that of his opponent, he is fighting at disadvantage. Loss in energy can be mitigated by excess thrust, which can also be used (usually in combination with gravity, aka downwards flight) to recover lost energy. All of this leads to expression “out of ideas, energy and altitude”, which basically means “I’m in trouble and have no way out”. Nose pointing allows aircraft to gain a shot at opponent with gun, and was crucial for gaining a shot at opponent with missiles before advent of High Off Bore capability, which shifted requirements more in direction of ability to sustain maneuvers at or near corner speed (minimum speed at which aircraft can achieve maximum g loading; it is usually around M 0,6 – 0,9). It must be noted that, while lift and excess thrust of aircraft can be approximated by wing loading and thrust to weight ratio, heavier aircraft will require higher thrust to weight and lift to weight ratios to achieve same turn rates as lighter aircraft.

Thrust vectoring, as its name says, results in shifting of the thrust. Due to modern fighter aircraft’s center of gravity and center of lift never being behind its nozzles, shift in thrust results in aircraft rotating around its center of gravity, resulting in massive increase in Angle of Attack. Thus, comparision non-TVC aircraft turning and TVC-equipped aircraft turning would look like this:



This is result of forces described above acting on aircraft. In this model, assumption is that aircraft can reach angle of attack required for maximum lift both with and without thrust vectoring, which is true for all close-coupled-canard aircraft, but not necessarily for tailed and long-arm canard arrangements.

Thus, forces impacting turn ability of non-TVC and TVC aircraft would look like this:



It can be seen that thrust vectoring increases angle of attack, and thus drag (as entire airframe at high AoA drags far more than just control surfaces plus airframe at far lower AoA), while reducing thrust avaliable to counter the drag – and, in case of very high AoA values, lift avaliable to pull aircraft around. While TVC can improve turn rate even at combat speeds, it happens only if aircraft is unable to achieve angle of attack that is required for maximum lift, one example being F-16, which requires 32 degrees AoA for maximum lift but is restricted to 25,5 degrees by FCS due to departure concerns. Angles of attack in excess of 35 degrees are unsustainable, however, due to massive drag they cause, resulting in very large energy loss, turning fighter into a deadweight in very short order. “Benefit” of extreme AoA values is also not unique to thrust vectoring aircraft: while TVC-equipped X-31 achieved maximum controllable angles of attack of 70 degrees (compare to 60 degrees for another TVC design, F-22), whereas close-coupled-canard delta-wing Rafale and Gripen are able to achieve controllable Angles of Attack that exceed 100 degrees, with Gripen being able to sustain Angle of Attack of 70 – 80 degrees. Further, X-31 without TVC was unable to achieve more than 30 degrees of alpha, even momentarily, whereas without TVC F-22 is limited to 26 degrees, though not due to issues of lift but rather controllability. As such, TVC actually improved instanteneous (and possibly sustained) turn rates of both aircraft by allowing them to reach angle of attack required for maximum lift, which is between 30 and 40 degrees of AoA. Aircraft that use TVC during combat to achieve angles of attack beyond lifting capability of wing actually sink in the air, as opposed to turning, but if they are unable to achieve maximum lift capability without TVC, then TVC does indeed improve their turn capability. Close-coupled canard configuration, on the other hand, drags less in turning than TVC one as it achieves same lift at lower angle of attack, resulting in far lower fuel consumption. This is important as in visual-range fight, most kills have been historically made when one of aircraft fighting ran out of fuel; thus aircraft with less fuel consumption per unit of weight is (assuming similar fuel fraction) more likely to win the fight. Specifically, maximum lift for close-coupled canard is greater than that for just wing at any AoA past 10 degrees AoA; in configuration analyzed in this thesis, lift is greater than baseline value by 3,4% at 10 degrees AoA, 34% at 22 degrees AoA, 9,4% at 34 degrees AoA, 7,2% at 40 degrees AoA and 18,3% at 48 degrees AoA. Thus aircraft does not need to achieve as high AoA for same lift to weight and lift to drag values, consequently allowing pilot a choice (assuming other values are similar) wether to achieve same turn rate as opponent and outlast it due to using up fuel far slower than it is case with fuel-hungry thrust vectoring maneuvers or try to outmaneuver it with higher turn rate.

Neither is main “benefit” of thrust vectoring, post stall maneuverability, anything new. Aside from close-coupled canard designs, which have extensive post-stall maneuverability, Russian Su-27 has demonstrated stall recovery capability and post-stall maneuverability. It is also important to note that John Boyd was able to do Cobra in F-100, and other pilots did it in J-35 Draken. While TVC certainly improves post-stall capability, capability by itself is useless in multi-bogey scenario, as it bleeds energy very fast. As such, thrust vectoring is tactically useless for most fighter aircraft, especially in age of high-off bore missiles, as usage of thrust vectoring would leave then slow-moving aircraft very vulnerable. Further, Cobra – one of main “poster maneuvers” for TVC – is easy to see in advance, and if done, leaves fighter without energy and at opponent’s mercy; so while usage of TVC may surprise pilots that do not know what it allows, it is suicide agains pilots that are aware of it.

TVC does not necessarily increase security either, as resistance to departure and superstall which it provides are inherent advantages of close-coupled canard designs. However, it does allow non-close coupled canard configurations to recover from these conditions.

Using TVC for maneuvering is beneficial for tailed aircraft, however, at two regimes: at velocities well below corner speed, and during supersonic flight at high altitudes. Simple reason for that is that in these two regimes, flight surfaces are not very effective. At very low speeds (150 knots – M 0,23 – and below), large control surfaces’ deflections are required for turning due to weak air flow, thus increasing drag – and even when surfaces are fully deflected, aircraft responds comparatively slowly. This also includes takeoff and landing; as result, aircraft with thrust vectoring can take off and land at lower speeds and in shorter distance than same aircraft without thrust vectoring; this capability can be useful if parts of air strip have been bombed (though it is always smarter not to require air strip at all). During supersonic flight, tail finds itself in wake behind the wing, which reduces its effectiveness. Thus thrust vectoring can be used to compensate for this effect. Further, at high altitudes (12 000 to 15 000 meters) aerodynamic control surfaces are less effective, and there is less drag, which means that thrust vectoring provides greater benefits and less penalties. As dogfights happen at altitudes of 1 500 to 10 000 meters, and speeds that start in transonic range, thrust vectoring is obviously not effective for WVR – and, therefore, real world combat.

In level flight, thrust vectoring allows for trimming, thus increasing range due to reduced drag. 3D TVC nozzles can also reduce drag by optimising their shape. Further, thrust vectoring can add STOL capability to otherwise-CTOL aircraft, but it is always better to look at simpler, lighter and cheaper options. If aircraft lacks roll authority, TVC can be used for pitch, freeing up tail control surfaces to improve roll rate – examples of this are F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon.

TVC (especially of 3D variety) can also provide ability to quickly point nose in a certain direction, but this is only useful in one-on-one gun-only dogfights (which do not happen in real world) as it leaves aircraft with seriously depleted energy and thus vulnerable to opponent’s wingman, and/or its target if attack was not successful. This is especially problematic in age when HOB capability is becoming increasingly common. But even in such unrealistic dogfights, TVC does not garantee victory. In upper set of images, F-22 is seen from Rafale, pulling a turn; OSF is clearly visible, showing that Rafale’s nose is pointed towards the F-22 (allegedly, Rafale won 2 out of 7 engagements; further, while IRST does have high off-bore capability, video camera is fixed):


I am guessing its a very good technical explanation.8-)

I will try to divide and read part by part daily..:D
 
TVC (especially of 3D variety) can also provide ability to quickly point nose in a certain direction, but this is only useful in one-on-one gun-only dogfights (which do not happen in real world) as it leaves aircraft with seriously depleted energy and thus vulnerable to opponent’s wingman, and/or its target if attack was not successful. This is especially problematic in age when HOB capability is becoming increasingly common. But even in such unrealistic dogfights, TVC does not garantee victory.:

Ill ignore the rest of the copy paste because its repeating something that has been copied and pasted here and everywhere for ages before you joined.

That is the only relevant bit to why the IAF bought into the TVC hype and is now paying for a capability that is useless to it in most cases.
 
This was misreported, the two stories (SFC's request and Brahmos launch capability being added to MKIs) were put together when they are entirely unlinked.

As @PARIKRAMA has stated, the MKI's electronics aren't hardened for N-delivery nor are they certified for low level deep penetraton strike missions as would be required for the N-delivery role
both, please elaborate why would you need low level penetration for nuclear delivery? This low level penetration is highly overrated btw. as long as you have a some compressed air and a ejector rack like an AKU-58AE, you should be fine. There is a good reason why Mig27 dareIII specifically moved away from low level flight patterns.
As far a electronics not hardened, i don't buy that argument at all. Delivery is delivery you can stuff anything in the payload from nukes to cows...
VSHORADS and Shoulder fires along with ground array radar has rendered this low level flight patterns absolutely suicidal. You want air delivered nukes, you need to rely on strike packages, or CM/BM solution.
The idea of sneaking in a nuke is not at all sensible.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom