Question:

Can TVC in combination with forward canards (like the EFs’) increase lift and thus sustained turn rates, by vectoring thrust downwards, in speeds above CV or ever in the supersonic area?

No greg it won’t help. Due to the fact that TVC vectoring thrust downwards and a canard angled to help the jet pull positive G are counteractive forces. The canard raises the AoA of the EF – whats needed to induce a turn, while adding a small amount of positive lift aswell. Whereas the TVC vectored downwards pushes up the ar$e/backend – therefore canceling out the overall AoA of the jet. Without any angle of attack the lift from the wing won’t be great enough to turn it – it just will assume straight and level flight. As the TVC “fights” the canard.

Even if one could somehow defy physics and get the two to work in sync – the jet would get no benefit from it. As the relatively tiny force from the vertical component of the TVC would be a “drop in the sea” compared to the force generated by the lift from the wing – just compare a jets linear accleration in g’s to its angular accleration when making a turn due to the lift force from the wing in g’s: 1-2-3gs max vs 9+gs in modern fighters. So while you get this tiny force upwards that in real world acts at the jets ar$e – you also drop/lessen the horizontal force used to thrust the aircraft forward from the engine – this drops the TWR in a sustained turn (which is crucial – like a human breathing air) – as it is used to overcome the large increases in drag experience in a turn. As such you lose some velocity component in the lift equation – which shows the L is proportional to V^2. Which therefore drops the wings lift and its turning ability – which would otherwise be greater – if you had just kept the full thrust horizontal/dont use TVC – as the force generated by the wing is much greater than the vertical component from TVC – while dropping its TWR is going to bleed that velocity quickly, ie not suitable for a sustained turn. But this is impossible anyway.

So in conclusion it won’t help the EF with canard’s – soley because they are counteractive forces.
________
TICKETMASTER GIFT CARDS

Its not a match for it. It won’t be – let’s not feed the troll. Whatever incremental radar performance it has – just like the IRBIS – it will still fall far short of the F-22s RCS asymtote. Perhaps suited to JASSM like 0.01 RCS targets – but thats a far cry fromwhat your going to get against an F-22. Stupid statements like: “to deal with f-22 in WVR, su-35bm or mig-35 will be sufficient , as they have 3d tvc , while f-22 has 2d tvc“ – show his grasp of modern fighter aviation.
________
Watch american dad on ipod

He is refering to the F-22s weapon bay.

IRAF_PILOT are you allowed to answer my question?
________
IPAD GUIDES

The Typhoon really won’t have any issues in the agility envelope compared to the TVC equiped Su-XX.

At speeds above post stall say when air becomes compressible round Mach 0.3 TVC has no real effect in a sustained turn – the wing does the turning. If you look at the non TVC Su-35(old) and the TVC Su-37 – at practical combat speeds there was no real maneuver advantages found in the Su-37, once the FBW was designed to compensate. Why – because for sustained turns – the only thing that turns the jet is lift – generated by the wings/body. The same thing would be the case in the F-22 – if we removed its TVC – in most flight regimes it would retain its turn rates. TVC only comes into play once the jet is flying so slowly the lift generated by the wing to turn the jet is not the main force – where the aircraft now pivots around its **** or engine(which becomes the main force) – also known as post stall manuevers – ie cobra – kulbit etc.

This is due to the fact that all TVC does is change the angle of attack of the jet – rapidly. This has the effect of rapidly raising lift around the wings which in turn increases turn rates. However this has a side effect – massively increased induced drag from the wing and the increased form drag – this quickly drops the airspeed around the wing – which in turn drops the lift. Thus for a sustained turn the increase in drag cancels out the increase in lift. So all the TVC does at realistic combat air speeds – is give the jet one hell of an impressive instantaneous turn – which then leaves the jet in a much lower energy state not suitable for top end sustained turns as it has lost the velocity component that is vital to lift produced; as lift is proportional to velocity squared. This leaves it a sitting duck in any combat that isn’t one on one – where sustained turn rates become more important than a single snapshot. Hence why the F-22s FCS disengages the TVC at certain speeds. Look at this for an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo65qpEdOl8

Thus for minimum turn rates TVC doesn’t help (sustained turn rates). The wing dictates that.

It does increase post stall performace.

It can help to a certain degree in an instantaneous turn – where a sudden snapshot is required. That is if you are below certain speeds and are in a one vs one environment – which means retaining energy becomes less important. Hence why TVC isn’t used to turn jets at high supersonic speeds – the change in AoA would induce huge stress on the airframe – which would result in and rapidly slow the jet to subsonic, if they survive the stress.

It can help the control surfaces up high where the air is thin – to change aircraft AoA – which lets the wing turn the jet – where less induced/form drag is experienced – yet where less lift is produced aswell.

Finally it can make small corrections to the jets trim – at supersonic speeds as it induces less drag than the elevators/ailerons/flaps – therefore helping increase a jets range.

So in conclusion: Pilots focus on energy management – they never want to get low and slow. Therefore TVC advantages in post stall envirnoments are very limited/negated. Pilots want to keep up the velocity in a dogfight to impose a KE advantage on their WVRAAMs – they need it for the sustained turn which is much more important in a dogfight – especially if it isn’t one vs one. A pilot may use a post stall maneuver in a dogfight to only find he has lost so much energy in killing the target with it – that he is in turn killed by the targets wingman. All in all – sustained turn performance is much more important. It helps a lot more in a standard non HMD/HOBs engagement and in HMD/HOBs engagements – where post stall is virtually negated – but sustained turning and energy managment can keep you at the edge of the enemies weapon systems – thus increasing your survivablity and lethality. Thus when Russian fanboys come talking about TVC equiped Su’s in a dogfight – all they are doing is sprouting the airshow ignorance. The EF therefore has no handicap when taking on the new hyper Su-35, unless the pilot is daft enough to go down to post stall speeds or airshow speeds – it will clearly match it at combat subsonic speeds and start superceding it as it gets into the transonic and supersonic regime.
________
Avandia Lawyers

Incorrect..the MKI will have capabilities the Typhoon also lacks.

Other than the ones I have pointed out, such as range, two man crew etc – please explain to me what you are refering to? I wonder if you are refering to the MKI’s TVC, if so please explain to me what tactical benefit it offers over the EF.

Sorry! But where do these figures come from? The 4th scale law pretty much ensures that the range differential from the 1 to 3 Sq Mtr figures dont matter much! And we know the MKI can engage targets of the same. As far as tactical advantage is concerned, not really – because the MKI would have backup AWACS and will remain passive anyways, till it gets into engagement range. Pretty much nil, I am afraid, unless one goes stealth in the complete sense.

According to the the EF team – and BAE – the EF has an RCS better than the F-16(which has a frontal clean RCS of 1m2) – if you believe them its better than anything other than the F-22/F-35. According to the RAF the Eurofighter’s RCS more than exceeds its requirements. Other statements such as 4 times better than the Tornado – and source (107) in wiki claim it has an RCS under 1m2 clearly show there has been significant work done towards RCS reduction. Now is there any similar literature on the MKI – or does it have the same RCS as a vanilla 27 (which is reported to be 5m2 + from all the sources I have). Now of course this is very much dependent on the situation such as EFTs/angle to the emitter/etc and if you refuse to believe what you might simply label PR talk. But taking conservative estimates of the EFs RCS to be 1m2 vs 5m2 that still offers a tactical advantage – thats a detection range of 67 % – even if we take 1m2 vs 3m2, thats 76% – or if we go for a pro EF view 0.5m2 vs 5m2, thats 56%. Now surely this can’t be applied to a First Look, First Shot, First Kill concept – especially against a Flanker with AWACS support, and especially since those are optimal RCS values not including maneuver envelope – but as you said yourself it would surely allow the EF to skirt around the BVR fringes and take up a position completely unexpected – now is that not a tactical advantage? The point is – a passive EF will be a lot more stealthy than a passive MKI – no matter which way you cook it.

Tanks are expensive!And if one needs to keep jettisoning them each time the BVR game appears- ouch!!
And if the EF needs tanks to keep up with the MKI, then that is a RCS advantage lost, if it ever were a tactically significant advantage to begin with. And the EF has 4 conformal munitions? But why? The MKI would play with 12 AAMs- that would be its standard A2A fit.

Damn – 12 AAMs – we don’t want to futher reduce its performance characteristics against a Typhoon – its sounding like a missile truck now. But if one doesn’t believe in the advantages of supersonic performance – then fair enough.

In your opinion is very correct! I will be as forthright as you were with my statement.

Because your claims dont stand up to any real life claims whatsoever and are indeed “nonsense” as you said.

In “real life”, as obtained from real operators, these so called advantages are best restricted to fanmags. In real life, fuel is so critical, that subsonic intercepts & brief dashes are all that matter & the EF’s so called supersonic performance is hence constrained. Its of marginal utility, to use an economics turn of phrase.

But thats all it is designed for – marginal utility as you put it – im not claiming the thing is in AB for 12 minutes straight. Im saying it will use short bursts – to go in for the kill. Acclerate quickly – turn quickly – run quickly – and since it can SC all it will need to do is break the sound barrier in AB and then maintain speed in dry thrust – especially in fleeing. Don’t be patronising mate – I have been exposed to many actual operators including the (proud but humble) MKI pilots – EF pilots – F-15 pilots – F-16 pilots – Tornado pilots and to a very limited degree online F-22 pilots. At my uni – many lecturers have worked for the MoD – back/reverse-engineering many captured Soviet systems. Many have worked for big UK/US defense contractors. Its not like I don’t grill them as much as I can.

FYI, the Tornado handles like a brick even otherwise & never was meant to serve as an fighter aircraft (as compared to a bomber). So its ridiculous to even bring it in. The simple point is that the EF’s supersonic performance is nowhere as great to make a difference that would be in anyway construed as overwhelming.

No one is saying its overwhelming – I am pointing out it is the reason legacy type aircraft – even top end ones such as the MKI with support are suffering inferior kills ratios against the Typhoon in international exercises.

It can go supersonic all it wants, and go bingo fuel. I will remain subsonic, increase my standoff viz the EF armament & use my TVC to increase the dynamic range equivalents for the EF weaponry.

Can you explain the physics of what you are trying say here?

Sorry, this is absolutely wrong and you need to speak to real operators, there is no such “essentiality”.

That is correct – there is no essentiality as you say, for legacy platforms, especially the MKI series. The Eurocanards however – especially the Typhoon are designed with a different philosophy in mind; they are designed to be aggressive – quick accleration – high top end speed with weapon loads and tanks, unlike legacy platforms. It negates the need to make massive – expensive fighters which would be impractical for Europe. Many real operators that you speak of don’t have the capabilites of the EF – they rely as you say on tactics such as contempt of engagement. Unless the MKI detects the EF way out through AWACs – I’d love to see the MKI try to contempt of enage a fast passive Typhoon. Just the initial turn and accleration would bleed energy – then with its 12 AAMs try and run to a more defendable position. Mabye against a F-15.

I can assure you that there have been many actual BVR exchanges in detailed engagements, where both sides remained firmly in subsonic, and played a detailed cat & mouse game, exchanging locks and attempts to gain the tactical advantage.

Of course – and I would bet my house on it that they involved legacy based mach 2 dash platforms. 1970s/80s early 90s tactics. Don’t assume the engineers haven’t moved on from designing the legacy type platform.

Again – wrong. You might even want to do the exact OPPOSITE. To get the best performance from your weapons system by NOT operating in look down mode, even with medium PRF selection.

Or you might want to get the KE boost it gives you. The potential energy boost it gives your jet and hence the survivability boost it adds.

I am sorry, but you are just quoting the EF fan stuff without any real world input. Please spend some time with actual operators, and you will change your views about the amount of complexity involved in BVR or any ACM for that matter. Almost all you have said is a virtual copy from EF press material – and unfortunately, almost ALL of it, is “this way is the only way”, which is plain wrong.

Real world input – despite what the Typhoon drivers are saying? Where they sprout this so called “PR nonsense”? They aren’t going up against handicapped opposition and then bragging about it – this is not Cope India. I can assure you I fully appreciate the complexity involved in BVR – and I was not claiming it has all the answers – or that it overwhelms opposition like the F-22. I can also accept the Tiffy philosophy won’t work in all engagements, of course! But I was simply modeling a problem – like an engineer does – in a simple manner – to best highlight this next gen philosophy. I am not saying ACM is always as simple as that – but what I am saying is the the philosophy affords the Typhoon advantages the MKI will have a tough time achieving parity with. They have options that are better than the contempt of engagement philosophy. Its not like the Typhoon is a Lightning – its not short legged – in practical terms the range advantages afforded by the MKI won’t be that significant – look to what scorps has just posted. You can’t assume the MKI has all the support(such as tankers) and the Typhoon doesn’t. Finally I would rather stick with the engineers who actually are the brains behind the world of air combat. They make the toys – the parameters – the rules – and the operators get to play and hone their skills. The Typhoon way isn’t the only way – and I apologise for making it sound so – nor is it essential – but for a non VLO platform – it is the best way!

I dont blame the EF guys, they have to sell their bird…but its way overdone.

Again dear sir. I can assure you that if an EF force would go against a F-15SG/K force backed up by proper support (E3’set al) with the SGs having AIM-120D’s, the blood would flow either ways.

With the latest delay to the D – a redesign of its internal circuitry – Meteor might be online by the same time. And when all that “top end” Indian support – thats just maturing, when was the first time they used AWACs? – gets compromised? Would you want the more reliant or the more autonomous jet – with the better avionics fit?

Its one thing for Brit sites to rabble rouse about having shown them F-15s, but the reality will come when large force packages operate.

Which has already been simulated in large scale exercises – where the Typhoon has done very very well by all reports.

One the MKI is not the Tornado. Second, there is no guarantee who will detect whom first. Third, there is no given, that the MKI will be alone..fourth, there is no given that Fighter group B units go supersonic…they might very well withdraw and maintain a defensive CAP to pull A in, and ambush him with additional assets..what then? See, the BVR game is by NO means simple. Who in whose name is speaking of one BVR engagement?? Why would the first engagement occur succesfully? The entire game of BVR is to win! That doesnt mean attacking and following through at step 1 itself!

Of course not – but I’d rather be in the jet with the top end but usable performance, transonic-supersonic. Why have the MKI’s suddenly gone on the defensive :)? As I have said – I am trying to present it as a simple model – only to highlight the advantages of the Typhoon – I’m not claiming BVR/ACM is indeed like this. There are many factors that can swing it for the Typhoon or the MKI – but it is clear the Typhoon has some advantages over the MKI – and assuming similar support on both sides it is not hard to imagine how the Typhoon would achieve a superior kill ratio – I’m not saying 4.5 to 1 – but 2 mabye 2.5 to 1 who knows.

The simulations were quite frankly, per what has been declared on this forum, junk. They were valid for a decade back, against the then Soviet industry.

There are people in this forum with more knowledge than others – and while many may dislike their views – they are continually exposed to information that quite frankly is a lot more candid than any operator could provide. You may distrust their motives – but it is clear they are exposed to information that the plebs such as myself aren’t exposed to.

There are no longer range/shorter ops – think of it as a flow. Staying power. I have more range and twice your numbers, who stays there longer?

Terminology – long ops/short ops you get my drift. Numbers aren’t really what I’m debating – slightly longer range vs superior performance + long range weaponary + better avionics fit.

Sorry, this is absolutely wrong again. The EF avionics are by that logic, equally a political mess with a Europe jobs program contributing to it. The MKI program sees avionics selected by a single user, integrated by a team again led by that user to his MMI needs & which is why the program has achieved so much more faster.

You are missing my point – I’m saying the EF avionics weren’t just off the shelf goodies that have been around for sometime – they were all designed specificaly for the jet and intergrated as one from the ground up. Which makes one question how well the MKI’s picture of the battlefield is fused – and how his MMI compares – and how well these systems combine. The MKI probably needs a faster upgrade program – namely because by all logic it is behind in some respects. Thats not to downplay Tarang or the indigenous efforts of the Indian team – but the Europeans probably have quite a bit more practical experience not to mention a bigger budget.

Please look under user Pit’s posts for the status of Russian AAM programs.

Posted by Pit:

Russki missiles in R&D:

NPO Novator:

Izd 172S-1 or K-100-1.

OAO KTRV:

(Mid-Range Missiles)

Izd 170-1 (short upgrade of R-77)
Izd 180 (big upgrade of R-77)
Izd 180PD (prospective upgrade of Izd 180 using ramjet engine, no clear situation right now)

(Short Range Missiles)

Izd 760 (big upgrade of R-73 with all-russian equipment using technology evolved from K-74 and K-74M programs that used Ukrainian stuff)
Izd 300 or K-MD (altogether new SRAAM for PAK-FA)

(LRAAM)

Izd 810 (upgrade of Izd 610M/K-37M for PAK-FA)

Now, there are US$ 2.300 millions planned for tactical weaponry for aircraft under the shield of the GPV-2015 program. Off course in that money there is a lot of other systems…

Some interesting tips:

K-30 R&D was stopped in 1997.

Ramjet R-77 R&D was stopped in 1999.

R&D for what it’s now Izd 172S-1 (K-100-1) started on 1984.

Accord to some reports, Izd 760 would be designated “K-74M2”.

Izd-170-1 was mentioned in one brochure for the Su-27SM, at Lipetsk Air Show, 2006.

Export version of R-77 is called Izd-190.

IR and PRH R-77 version were tested but not accepted to service.
Most of the current AAM and ASM developments at Russia obey the pattern of not using ANY ukrainian components on it. That’s one of the reasons behind why never K-74 and K-74M appeared as final systems (and now Geofizika is handling the IR seaker and getting experience into it) or the Izd 180 leaves the lattice fins (actuators are Ukranian by Luch). Same history for Kh-59M and other ones.

There is a KAB-250S-E version in development (250 Kg GLONASS/GPS guided bomb)

________
Chocolatik

It seems like we won’t be coming to an agreement over this whole debate afterall :), which is good as it makes the world interesting. I would like to again point out the context I raised this issue with: namely that the EF is the best A-A performer available to the IAF including the MKI. Obviously in reference to the current FJs they operate and the ones in the MRCA competition.

*I wasn’t comparing capabilities such as A-G, RECCE, SEAD, ANTI-SHIP etc. It was from a purely A-A standpoint.

*I wasn’t refering to cost or numbers aquired as a factor. I was simply assuming that the IAF would purchase 126 AC of whatever type. If the EF were to be picked – my point was it would offer the best A-A capability. Cost-benefit analysis is a completely different story.

*The mature MKI has capabilities the Typhoon currently lacks – but they are mostly unrelated to A-A performance. Whereas contrary to that perception the Typhoon currently has A-A capabilities the MKI will always practically/realistically lack.

*Hypothetically – by the time the IAF takes its first deliveries of the EF what will they lack in the A-A department?

*It won’t be lacking an HMD.

*Nor an IRST+Laser Range Finder (one that won’t be limited to 3 kms vs aerial targets).

*Nor will it lack LWR.

*Or fully developed MAWs.

*Full DASS which includes a Towed Decoy – with a fully integrated modern RWR – which should be at the very least on par with the Tarang if not considerably superior taking in all factors.

*DVI

*Full MIDS – which has been developed with a wealth of experience – currently lacking in India due to the fact they are relatively new to the AWACs/Net Centric warfare. Platforms such as the Tornado have proven its capability.

*ASRAAM which will give the EF an advantage over the MKI in the dogfight. To be honest the MKI equipped with the R-73 will be at quite a disadvantage when facing the ASRAAM.

*We can beat around the bush all day – but the fact is the EF will have an RCS advantage over the MKI – no matter what the IAF have done to rid the baseline Su-27 of its 5m2+- RCS. Despite the fact that you will claim conjecture here – the fact is the EF will have an RCS at worst that is better than the F-16s and at best as BAE claim – 2nd to the F-22/JSF. Whether that is in the 1m2 to 0.5m2 to 0.1m2 range head on or something else – all we know is it won’t be to far from those figures.

*Using the 4th root law – it is apparent the RCS reduction measures will offer some tactical advantage.

*External stores argument – the EF can jettison tanks – and go in with 4 conformal munitions that again shouldn’t add significantly to the RCS of the jet. Make of this what you will – I can understand it is nothing but conjecture – but it is conjecture accepted by people generally in the know – even if their allegiances are suspect :).

*With reference to the Typhoons supersonic performance advantages – dismissing them is probably as bad as dismissing the MKI and its abilities. Claiming that opposition with equally good operators – flying good aircraft – with excellent support makes supersonic/performance advantages irrelavent is in my opinion nonsense.

*By that logic – all one would need to do is upgrade the avionics on the Tornado – fit it with the new HMD being developed for the EF and take that into the fight. The Tornado currently being one of the best BVR platforms in the world with its datalink/AMRAAM/AWACs combo has been chopped down in excercises by the Typhoon. No matter what the avionics/systems engineer tells you – there is no substitute for performance. So called 4.5 gen aircraft wouldn’t have a point.

*Supersonic performance/agility for non VLO platforms is crucial and even to some degree important for VLO – being able to make high G supersonic turns without bleeding the same amount of energy as an older platform gives a distinct NEZ missile advantage assuming similar missile range.

*Accelerating rapidly from subsonic to Mach 1.6+ is essential for the BVR game. SC has some benefit here – but for the sake of having little information of the EFs capability in this regard I won’t stress it.

*High altitude performance – such as turning/acclerating at high altitudes again essential.

*These parameters are where the EF has an advantage over most of the oposition it faces. This is the reason it is scoring well in national and multinational excercises. Because being part of the system doesn’t make irrelavent the true advantage of performance – that is not the case now days in WVR as much – but in BVR performance is essential.

*Lakenheath F-15s are reportedly being routinely trounced by EFs throughout the UK – which probably highlights the importance of this KE advantage over the view point that systems engineering is becoming completely dominant.

*An example: 1 EF + AWACs(A) vs 1 Tornado + AWACs(B) – both using AMRAAM C5 and MIDS communicating with the AWACs. The AWACs(A) detects the Tornado first – alerts the EF which climbs and acclerates. Shortly afterwards Typhoon is detected by (B) which alerts the Tornado – which climbs and acclerates. The Typhoon and Tornado close – the both traveling at Mach 1.6 + but the EF being able to operate at higher heights has a height differential. Both fighters start to enter the nominal NEZ of the C5 against a target with the kinematic performance of the Tornado – They both fire and the Tornado is downed while attempting to crank away as it uses AWACs (B) to guide its missile. The Typhoon on the other hand having impressive top end performance hands off its AMRAAM to its AWACs – just after it had kept the Tornado on the edge of its gimbal for sometime – and advantage in BVR that M-SCAN possess – essential without AWACs or support. It then cranks and dives maintaining much more speed than the Tornado had in a similar maneuver. It outruns the missile as it has the speed to drop its NEZ. Now of course this is extremely oversimplified – and please excuse my tone if it comes across as arrogant and simple because that is not my intent – but it does demonstrate the performance advantage the Typhoon has that no sensor/system is going to negate fully.

*The Typhoon is essentially a point defense fighter in terms of internal fuel. But that doesn’t mean it automatically bingo’s after one BVR engagement with AB use – especially with tankers in the so called system.

*I don’t believe in DERA kill ratio’s for the Tiffy on current missiles but I can see how it could achieve positive kill ratio’s against the MKI.

*In longer range ops the Flanker becomes a lot more flexible than the Typhoon no doubt.

*MMI in high intensity conflict with jamming, hostile ROEs and SAM threats will stress even the two seat MKI – a more computerised EF type solution is essential – that being said who knows what the Indians have in the MKI – but if I were a betting man I’d be in the Typhoon – especially since the MKIs avionics are a collection of different systems from South Africa/Israel/Russia/India and probably more – whereas the EFs cockpit has been designed from the ground up for MMI by a dedicated team and not as an afterthought.

*As for Russian BVRAAMs my sources say the R-77 Ramjet RnD stopped in 1999. The K-172 program had RnD dedicated to it as early as 1984 – which says a lot. Whereas Meteor is a reality.
________
Suzuki Fr80 History

Mig vs Firebar vs Star