LmRaptorWait a minute, Bush and Mcain-both hardly flower carrying peaceniks wanted to kill off the F-22. Gates doesn’t want anymore F-22. These are intelligent people who get to see A LOT of data and info that we can only dream about. And they conclude that 187 is enough. I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Obama doesn’t know anything about defence, if Gates and Powerful Senators like Mcain wanted more F-22s, the USAF would get more…
The airforce who set up and compile most of that data have claimed on countless occassions that they want more F-22s – with 187 being the high risk option – 243 the medium risk and 381 the low risk approach. It has been confirmed recently that Gates and the DoD have no study that actually vindicates their decision at all. They were pushed for this after congress demanded the information… the fact of the matter is the F-35 is a business for america and the F-22 isn’t – it’s as simple as that. People who opposed the SecDefs decision making were fired. People with a much more intimate understanding of air ops than Gates…
LmRaptorRecently took the young lad to Cosford Airshow and he was overwhelmed by the power and the noise of the Typhoon and the Vulcan, But he asked me a question today about THRUST and how they determine the THRUST figure of an engine, both JET and PROP, So what reference (if poss)could i use to demonstrate just how much thrust the likes of the Typhoon generates. ie a simple household fan(for want of a better comparison) may generate say a pound of thrust, so it would be a stark comparison to the might of the typhoon……………I reallyh hope the above makes some sense 😮
Hey mate – I can help! Jets generate thrust which is listed commonly as a mass – which in the earths gravitational field can be converted to a force. Jet engines are tested both statically and uninstalled on the ground and – dynamically and installed on an aircraft. Since they produce a force – they can be tested by the equivalent of a large and powerful newton meter/scale – almost like weighing a weight. For example – the Eurofighter which uses two Eurojet – EJ200s – generate 40000 pounds of thrust combined -statically at sea level, which is the equivalent of 40000/2.2 = 18181 kilograms of thrust! This can then be converted into a force using F=ma(newtons law) — F=18181*9.81(earths graviational acceleration) which then equals 178363 Newtons of force! What this means is if you used the 2 EJ200s to vertically lift a mass in earths graviational field at sea level – you lift a mass of just over 18 tons and accelerate!
LmRaptorKid, read carefully kindly, before rushing to reply and tilting at a windmill. I clearly mentioned the tactics work if the missile is NOT already in the NEZ. Thats the entire point of tactics, so that you dont get caught like a deer in the headlights within the missiles NEZ. With twelve odd war rounds, and much cheaper ones to boot, the Flanker isnt exactly running short of options.
Firstly I will quote your response to WW:TVC can help in using up the energy of a missile by making rapid turns which a missile uses up its energy to keep track of, even using proportional navigation. The aircraft has fuel to spare, a missile usually doesnt. Of course, these are done at a distance from missile launch, not when the missile has you in its NEZ at close range.
WW and I were both refering to countering a missile within NEZ – by literally outmaneuvering it. So by you countering WW – I assumed you had the same point of view. I’m glad to see you understand that this really isn’t practically possible.Secondly gramps you either don’t understand the physics behind TVC or you don’t understand Pro-Nav – but either way your wrong. Please old chum – tell me how TVC helps by making rapid turns which uses the energy of your missile up? Where is your logic? You say your Flanker is going to conduct TVC turns from miles away to out range the missile??
Mate, you first need to understand the concept of axial translation – in your forward (X) – lateral (Y) – vertical (Z) – axes, to understand why you are wrong. How do you beat a missile kinematically??? By translating as much as possible in as little time as possible away from the missile by making it use up as much energy as possible in order to hunt you down!! How does one translate as much as possible?? Not by pushing your jet to TVC dependent AoAs – as the optimal translation speeds are quite high and require relatively low AoAs – nothing your ordinary control surfaces on any F-22/Eurocanard/F-16/F-18/F-15 can’t handle! So be my guest – do a rapid turn 30NM away from the missile with your Flanker – lose loads of energy – and wait for the Pro-Nav to register it as a lower rate of lateral/vertical/forward translation which then requires an even smaller response from the missile to counter.
Go read up on energy maneuverability theory!
And yeah, unfortunately for you, this tactic works – missiles dont have infinite fuel.
Unfortunately for you, you first need to understand the basics of flight mechanics before you can qualify the effectiveness of your theories.
Almost all the missiles out there are not dual pulse but single motor & use up energy rapidly in the maneuver phase. TVC Flanker pilots can & will keep maximum standoff by not going into supersonic, use TVC to rapidly change their position vector again & again, Hopefully you understand why this is quite silly now…. and use the AL-31F’s rapid spool up to regain energy You have quite a bit of faith in your engines to assume they are going to be putting them up to any where near the energy state required to beat an inbound missile kinematically – even if its outside NEZ -if you keep slowing down with your “rapid” TVC maneuvers.. Fuel isnt a raging concern either with the amount the Flanker carries.
I have heard this argument countless times – it was spawned out of the late 70s and has been with the Flanker series ever since. In Europe however we have now gone through 3 NG designs that aren’t derivatives but rather clean sheet designs that utilise a newer more modern approach to air combat… a philosophy of top end supersonic performance!
The Flanker is a superb subsonic airframe with a supersonic dash capability but the F-22 and the EF have been designed from day one for the supersonic realm – to accelerate – maneuver and maintain high Gs at high altitudes. Mabye it’s advisable to read why the EF consortium opted out of going for the promising but less mature non-gimballed AESA over the more conservative M-Scan – to actually fully understand their philosophy and how it was designed to kill the Super-Flanker with very high kill ratios!
When you understand how long it takes for your Flanker to accelerate to high Mach No’s – i.e around Mach 1.6+ from its lower altitude – by virtue of subsonic flight you will understand how outdated that concept is against an agressive formation of EFs that don’t opt to play Cat and Mouse – and it’s not like the EFs are going to struggle to find the Flankers.
You need to get your head outta the academic sand, and actually meet combat crew and people who do this for a living. Listen and then learn. Argumentum ad infinitum aint gonna get you anywhere.
Lol – the fact is I am surrounded by professionals who have worked and continue to work for the MoD-BAE-EADS-RAF-RR- to name a few – for years and years. I listen and learn from them daily – chaps who actually design the weapons we talk of.
Samudragupta didnt misunderstand squat. PFCEM made a ill founded reference to Red Flag and Youtube terry – who was found to have been speaking from his posterior. The Mountain Home KR says it all.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html
The simple fact is that the TVC equipped MKIs didnt pull the stunt that Terry claimed nor were they that vulnerable.
The IAF has had the MKI for six years now – in those six years, those planes have set the benchmark for CCM with their Sura-K, R-73E and TVC. Ask the Malay eval team who saw what the MKI could do before they went for the MKM.
Irtusk,
Gee, so “silent attack” is such a key criteria that all of a sudden a pod mounted IRST has to be rushed into service?
Lessee what Boeing says, shall we?
http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2009/q1/090311a_nr.html
Gee, any mention of silent attack there? Nope!!
Says it out in black and white as to what Boeing is pitching the IRST for.
The last moment move towards an ad hoc jury rigged IRST clearly indicates the problem posed by modern DRFM equipped jammers in the battlespace. Heck, as and when AESA based jammers get fielded, theres a massive improvement in ERP on the cards, its clear why the IRST is being fielded.
LOL, but whatever floats your boat.
Cheers
LmRaptorFair enough. Why don’t you pop round Bristol, you can read some of the work done on flight dynamics/mechanics and you’ll understand that it’s basic physics – 101 stuff – or rather you could talk to chaps who have been advanced project managers on powerplants and TVC and fully understand its impact. Mabye they will convince you. Or mabye look at what the F-22 does.
LmRaptorLook, with a Su-27 without any TVC.
The FCS take care of any over-controlling, you can’t tailslide or flip the aircraft cause the FCS wont let you right?
It simply doesn’t move the controll surface on the aircraft that exctent.Good to see you understand!
With the Su-35 BM, it uses the regular controll surfaces more than the Su-27 describe above.
What you are trying to say is with the BM we expect the jet to push the envelope when it comes to its AoA margins at higher speeds with its FCS engaged. I agree – it’s whats expected! This would be done by increasing the horizontal stabilisers deflection angle to an extent that you didn’t with the Su-27!
To compansate for this the FCS simply counter with the nozzle a little.
But this is where you don’t understand it enough unfortunately! There is no need to use TVC to compensate haavarla! The control surfaces on the jet have the capacity to compensate by rotating at alarmingly high speeds – while allowing the engines to keep thrusting in its required perpendicular to lift position! You don’t therefore use TVC at these relatively high speeds as your control surfaces have enough airspeed over them to create the required lift/or loss of it to affect a rapid enough change in AoA!
haavarla – UNLESS you are at low speed and the resulting small deflections from your control surfaces is to small to affect your rate of change of AoA rapidly enough – you are not going to be using TVC to maneuver! Its ideal for a big jet down slow to move all its mass when u start losing control authority from your control surfaces – other than that NO! The yanks don’t with the Raptor and your pilot says its used to maneuver at low speeds specifically!
This way the Su-35 don’t oversteer and get the tailslide in hard turns, cause the FCS kicks in and “ballance” it trough the whole turn.
Yes but TVC is not needed to achieve this – infact its detrimental to sustaining performance here!
This way it can actually perform more AOA in 360 turn over the regular
I know my English are a little rusty here.
Thanks
Cheers
LmRaptorYou got it wrong.
What did I get wrong?
The new FCS software are controlling the TVC too on the Su-35 BM!
Bud I speculated that would be the case with Su! I never said that the BM lacked this! Afterall this is the logical thing to do – the same solution the F-22 adopted! But something you need to understand is the F-22 doesn’t use TVC in maximum sustained turns! That’s because if you understand the physics behind flight mechanics/dynamics – you’ll realise if anything using TVC at this point drops your thurst perpendicular to your lift vector – therefore dropping overall lift and therefore dropping potential turn rates and radius! At these speeds the standard control surfaces can maintain the required AoA!
Just like u decribe, but its not just another controll surface!
Its ontop on everything else, get it?What is there to get? TVC acts in the same manner as all the other control surfaces – it’s not something magical on top!!! It changes AoA and it can simulate increased chamber!
Its like Sukhoi test pilot Sergei Bogdan describe here:
Capish?
Capish?
Sukhoi pilot Sergei Bogdan underscores the benefits of vectored thrust at slow speeds.
Pls don’t do the “this is a probeganda crap..
All sources i have seen on that new FCS on the Su-35 BM are greatly improved!Who said otherwise??
Many people don’t take this improvment in..
Huh??
Thanks
Cheers
LmRaptor“Just like Anatoliy Kvotchur do an 360 in about 10 sek and comes out with ample speed, in the case of the Su-35BM it can do it in a tighter turn due to more thrust, better FCS and with the TVC..”
More thrust yes! TVC – no! It’s not going to make a difference here! The likelihood is the FCS won’t employ the TVC – around corner velocity – if they are fully integrated as on the F-22!
In order to “balance” the forces on the jet – TVC is not vital either – it’s just another control surface in effect – other control surfaces can do the same job without deflecting thrust from its forward velocity vector.
Nice vid btw – the jet looks great!
LmRaptorHuh?? No one doubts that the equivalent of traction control can improve the handling performance of FJs – but TVC is only a control surface in effect and this therefore can be be handled by another of the FJs control surfaces – in the above stall regimes of flight!
Sorry but what’s tighter wide AoA?
LmRaptorUSS – TVC reduces trim drag at supersonic speeds and gives added control authority for small deflections when the aircrafts control surfaces are suffering compressibility affects.
It doesn’t really increase your rate of turn at all if your flying close to your corner velocity – infact it might well drop your maximum sustained turn rate!
Additionally a top end Su-35BM with all those improvements you mention doesn’t make it impossible for all other 4.5+ gen birds to kill. It might be incrementally more difficult – but that’s exactly the kind of jet that the Typhoon was designed to face – and a similar bird to the one JOUST was reported to simulate.
LmRaptorLhasaSun – I’m sorry bud, but you’re simply wrong on TVC and also you’re wrong on evasion tactics, especially with reference to the conversation in this thread. The fact of the matter is you aren’t going to out maneuver an NG-SRAAM thats fired within NEZ! What you might do is break its lock – but if you can’t do that, all overusing TVC – ie pushing your AoA to 40+ – is going to do is kill you quicker.
Samudragupta, you may have misunderstood pfcem, but the fact of the matter is he is right and it doesn’t matter what pilots say or have told you. He was talking about TVC pushing the jets AoA to extreme levels in an attempt to make a really tight turn – something that “Youtube Terry” was also saying. Now this is definitely dangerous – unless ur flying much closer to your jets stall speeds – not something you’ll be doing in a multi-opponent fight. Effectively all this does is slow your jet down like a massive aerodynamic speed brake – while at the same time losing its potential to laterally translate! That ability is prime at much higher speeds – and thats what beats the missile – if you’re lucky.
LmRaptorIf it puts the JSF under threat.. guess what and in this case who’s going to be canned!
LmRaptorIf your within the missiles kinematic NEZ – assuming it’s an NG WVRAAM – you can put as much TVC on your jet as you want – you’re not going to out-maneuver it.
All TVC does, talltower, is change your AoA – it doesn’t turn your aircraft.
Cheers
LmRaptorBut don’t helmet mounted sights and missiles like AIM-9X render close in agility somewhat irrelevant? So what if a Su-30 can do a Xg turn, it still can’t out turn that missile. And with APG-79 cueing AMRAAMs at maximum range? I note the RAAF aren’t downplaying the Rhinos A-A ability.
That may well be the case in the slow WVR fight. But its not as simple as getting a radar lock and firing a couple of AMRAAMs in the BVR fight. Supersonic performance, supersonic acceleration and supersonic agility is a key factor in the BVR game! Something the F-22, EF and Rafale have been designed to be best at from their inception. The Flanker series is roughly in the F-15 class – and newer ones exceed it – and the F-15 was the best “KE” BVR teen fighter for this type of performance with the F/A-18 having the worst performance here of any teen.
LmRaptorYeh I wouldn’t take Schwartz to seriously on suddenly not wanting any more F-22s. It’s abundently clear the top brass have been silenced. And remember he still thinks 243 is the “safer” option.
LmRaptorWow, thanks so much Steve, your experiences are truely amazing. I can’t thank you enough for sharing them.
Sign In
