What would u do?
Face it head on?
How silly of me. How could i forget. Of course you would and shoot the missile with your gun.;)

so u want to out run a missile inside a no escape zone. do u know it takes couple of minutes just to go from Mach 1 to Mach 2 assuming ur fighter is even capable of doing.

Pray enlighten us with your definiten of R & D.
And also tell us how many TV equipped fighters did soviets deploy? Better how many prototypes did they have in place when the empire collapsed? When was the work done and did they manage to finish it just like their plasm stealth? When did their TV equipped fighter made their public debutes and so on so forth.

I cant enlightend a lay person with R&D definition. If u think Russians all of suddend discovered TVC in the 90s.

American sure can. But even they don’t seem to all that interested. I mean omitting it from F-35. Does make one wonder Y.:)

By ur definition even Su-34 and MIG-31 are good canidates for TVC. why they are not omiting it from F-22?. They have 10 years of devoping and testing F-22. If they found it useless during those 10 years. They would have omited it.

I do wonder why Russia has not been able to buy any new fighter yet offer all these new fancy engine with TVC on export market.

what is logical connection between buying a new fighter for Ruaf and offering a TVC for export? i cannot see any.

Irrespective of the difficulty with TVC implementation, USA of did modify their old F-16, F-15, F-18 with this tech, and all this back in 90s. From what you say, Russian inductry in this field is way more advanced than any other country. If so, I find it difficult that the biggest exporter of TVC tech has nothing in its own equipped with this lethal technology. Im sure TV would better help those russian pilots to destroy those oncoming missiles with guns…but hey who needs it when their fighter are immune to missiles now. NOw i definitely get the point.:)

There is big difference between modifying stuff for testing and deploying it operationally where the whole doctorine, training, maintainance changes with it. Ur simply not getting this point. Russia was not in position to buy new fighters in 90s. TVC or No TVC. It does not matter.

The point I have been trying to make.
What might suit India or Russia might not suit west/other. But that does not necessarily mean that either of them is right or wrong

why u omit F-22 from it?. TVC is universal just like AESA.

All I can say is, “read the article.” The Typhoon is the product of a development effort that also led to the joint US-German X-31 test program. As originally envisioned, it was expected to incorporate thrust vectoring as a core technology to its design. A decision was made during the mid-1990s, however, to shelve thrust vectoring, because it was expensive, and just wasn’t as important as other elements of the program.

all i can say u dont have money to implement TVC in Typhoon.

The US incorporated thrust vectoring concepts into the F-15, F-16 and F-18 during flight test. The nozzle designs used under both the F-15 and F-16 were nearly production-ready – yet the decision was made NOT to retrofit the US fleet with these nozzles.

The decision not to incorporate TVC into all of these aircraft was a choice – right or wrong – based on the perceived cost and merit of the technology.

Incorporating TVC into F-16C/F-15E/F-18E would be doctrinal change USAF as these are mostly strike aircraft just like Su-34. If US had TVC when F-15C were in production than there is a point. F-22 was expected to be in service in late 90s and it has TVC.

Being that, unlike a ship’s CIWS (the gun you speak of) which is on a pivot, a fighter jet can only fire it’s guns wherever it’s nose is pointing. The jet would have to detect and maneuver into position, which would bleed airspeed and spend precious seconds. Besides, like I said before, a small, extremely fast target like a missile would be damn hard to shoot down. Not only would the pilot’s aim have to be ungodly to hit something THAT small, I figure you would have a one to two second window in which the missile comes into gun range and the missile closes the distance and enters your intake and turns your jet into slag (BTW, if anyone knows the standard range of a fighter’s guns, let me know). Thats all assuming you managed to get into firing position in time, while also considering any other missiles that also happen to be targeting you and all the other threats in the air at the same time. And all the while you were devoting to shooting down that missile, the enemy or his wingmen are already lining up for another attack. And to top it all off, missiles like the AIM-9X and Python 5 vastly outmaneuver jets, pulling up to 50g and what not.

Every heard of Simultaneous tracking and engagment of multiple targets with wide FOV in Flanker? BVR missiles would be used as first line of attack on incoming missiles and aircrafts at considerable distances. and 3D TVC will help in fast point of nose and single burst will destroy incoming missile. even older R-77 is credited with Mach 3.6 intercept. and missiles does not go at constant Mach 4 through out it distance. the further u fire a BVR missile the more chance u gave to the targeting aircraft to take against action that missile. they have very limited fuel 60 to 100 sec burn time. So BVR is not a sure thing agianst equal adversary. thats why better to carry huge stocks of missiles for multiple fire and generous internal fuel capacity for rapid engagine and disengaging. Only newer flanker can do it.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060901/53423015-print.html
Just like the Su-25 Frogfoot ground-attack jet, the Su-34 features a 17 mm armored cockpit. Its cockpit reliably shields the crew and avionics from bullets, small-caliber shells and missile fragments. The ejector seats can be activated at any speed and altitude, even when the plane is on the ground.

Experts have analyzed all recent small wars and armed conflicts involving supersonic aircraft, ECM (Electronic Counter-Measures) systems, heat-seeking, radar-seeking and combined missiles. Along with a study of air-crash causes, their conclusion shows that the integrated Su-34 crew-protection systems are 400% more effective than those of other similar warplanes. The Su-34’s combat efficiency and safety has therefore increased by the same 400%

Well I’m sincerely glad you could at least show something for your claim. But still, are you really gonna take what they say automatically at face value, especially what is essentially product advertising? Sukhoi does it, Boeing does it, Lockheed does it, they all do it. Besides, they said “practically invulnerable”; you said “completely immune”. Thats a big difference. :p

Practically Invulnerable and Completely Immune is not big difference. It is just english translation. the same is Stealth is invisible meaning u cannot detect it at practicall ranges. and Su-34 hasnt been cleared for Export despite Sukhoi showing it. so no need for advertizement.

http://www.royfc.com/news/mar/0805mar01.html
While speaking of the Su-34, the aircraft builders are brief. They answer many questions in short: this is classified information
“So much of everything that is intelligent is concentrated in it. This is an achievement of the leading technologies,” fitter Viktor Izotov noted.

In the assembly hall nearly 40 specialists are working on the airplane. Each of them has his own part of the operation. After they frame is ready, installation of the fighter’s computer stuffing will begin. Satellite navigation, a unique communications system and powerful radar set are concentrated in it, thanks to which the Su-34 will remain imperceptible

explain how u overcome active fires resistence?

http://www.royfc.com/news/jun/2906jun01.html
As a fifth generation combat airplane, the Su-34 is integrated with ground and space support systems (for example, it can use satellite guidance for precision destruction of individual targets) and at the same time it possesses a high level of autonomous electronic and armor protection, successfully overcoming an enemy’s active fire resistance and the use by him of jamming

BTW, I’m curious as to what you said about shooting down incoming missiles with onboard guns. I have yet to hear of anything like that happening, like, ever. Care to explain? You’ll have to forgive my, ahem, doubt, but the day a big clunky fighter shoots down a comparatively tiny metal shaft with winglets zipping through the air at mach 4 is the day Goose comes back from the dead. :diablo:

But hey, to each his own, I guess.

Tiny metals? u have to look at Radar and IRST power in frontal. I am sure Mach 4 shoot down is not a big problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vympel_R-77
Gennadiy Sokolovski, General Designer of the Vympel Design Bureau, said that the R-77 missile can be used against medium and long range air-to-air missiles such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-54 Phoenix, as well as SAMs such as the Patriot. It can also be used against cruise missiles and even precision-guided munitions (PGMs)

Here about export Su-35.

http://www.royfc.com/acft_news.html
It also can detect and track air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles fired at the aircraft

I am sure TVC importance will grows as powerful EW systems are installed into aircraft which are much bigger than tiny missiles.

There is no doubt that had the western airforces wanted or felt the need, they would have incorporated TV into many of their modern aircrafts and not only F-22. Yet they have not felt the urgent need and (even if they did) instead put a lot more emphasis/resources on HMD/HOBS missiles and BVR tactics. While one can argue that 60% air to air kills in GW1 were made within visual arena, that was 17 years ago…and today’s BVR tech/tactics are heck of a lot better than of 1991.

Only EF/Rafale/Gripen/F-22 are new fighters from TVC era with F-22 already have it. and there was simply no TVC develpment available for EF/Rafale/Gripen and developing it will add alot of money to R&D. just look at slow development of AESA for those fighters.
. US use F-16C/F-15E as Strike fighters and F-15C is too old for this.

I can also understand India’s emphasis on TV equipped MKI. The local geography (China/India/Pakistan) means that majority of air to air fights will take place with visual range where TV would obviously provide a plus. Yet with all forces putting more emphasis on BVR and HMD/HOBS, who knows what will happen.

Here I have one final question. Why is it that the ‘Godfather’ of TV, i.e. Russia currently does not have any TV equipped fighters in its inventory. Years ago, I remember an aviaition magazine (possibly ukranian) quoted a russian defence ministry official saying that its was Russian defence ministry decision not to do so (at least for that time). Of many reasons I can only remember one which was that it added around 700 or kg extra weight to the flanker (reducing its TWR considerably).

Russia hasnt added any new fighter except for Su-34 and upgrading old airframse is not worht it. and Fighters EW suites are becoming very powerful and very advanced that nullifies any BVR or any missle advantage (Read Su-34 completely immune from Missile attacks). So we end up in era of using Guns to shoot down incoming fighters and missiles through quick nose pointing through FBW controlled 3D TVC & all around situational awarness provided by multiple sensors (practically detecting missile smokes from considerable distances).
Su-35 is first step (Ultra-Manevourability vs Super Menevourbility of MIG-35/Su-30MKI). PAK-FA will be the second step. Clearly AFM articles hasnt given consideration to all aspects.

Star49 has a history of writing off anything and everything achieved by India, China, Japan etc. as rubish/copying/low tech blah blah blah, he has a pathological inability to accept that these countries are capable of high tech engineering/science. He is incapable of looking beyond military hardware and writes Japan off as a country of low achievement, so who else here lives in a world where Japan is incapable of world beating high tech? I’m sure the average Japanese wishes they could swap places with some of the other “real high tech” countries:rolleyes:

In ability looking beyond military for high tech as if high tech exists without military Science? from where this internet, high end software, satellites, high powered engines, compact nuclear reactors came from?
I feel sorry for Japanese that the need West for rescuing Nissan/Mazda/Mitsubishi/Suzuki/Subaru/Sony and have to built design studios in West for Toyota/Honda to keep them float. and there best minds and resources were not even tied down in defence Industrial complex or direct wars or supporting third world countries wars like Russia did. . Ever thought about Samsung/LG how closed 40 year gap with Japanese in less than 10 years. or more than 1 million immigrants went to Israel that transform into high tech power in 80s. did all of them came from Asia?
You cannot ignore facts just by saying some one is racist. the rest of the countries are not even worth discussing.

Some people here are seriously under estimating the marine engineering expertise and industrial base the Chinese are building up, and with their economic growth they’re going to be in a much stronger position to support a sustained military build up than Russia in the future IMO, if Russia tries to get into an arms race with China it’d be disastrous for them.

Russia is already in arms race with Rest of the World and they will win it just like the previous one. so arms race with China does not matter. Look what China is adding it is not real capability. u can get much more capaiblity with fraction of cost by mere giving avionic/weopons/engines/structure upgrades to MIG-31/Su-27SM/Su-24/Su-24. China has build newer J-10/JH-7/J-11 with far less capability. I am not going into bombers/transport fleet upgradation.
The same is true for naval aviation, missile testing ranges, Submarine patrols in interantional waters, multi fact joint exercies, satellite lauch capability from multi platforms and multi places.
U have to look at Japan. Even if it wants it cannot match medium size power like France in military capability. It is pretty much one dimensional countries.

True, but in the case of SSN’s/SSBN’s I would say that there is no doubt that Russia is building better boats. However beyond that it gets confusing. The largest class of major surface combatant that China has laid down in the last few years has consisted of just 4 hulls. My suspicion is that we will continue to see such small production runs until China gets to the technology level they want.

Of course star49 will chime in with his racist ‘asians cant invent thngs’ BS now.:mad:

Russia has clear lead in SSK/SSN/SSBN and associated missle system in all aspects. as well as Naval Aviation.
you are not going to see bigger boats in Ru Navy becasue they are developing completely new generation power plants independent of Ukriane prduction.
and where is invention comes from?