vikasrehmanOk, its all become so confusing.
If ‘The actual design and development work of LCA commenced in 1992’, (im particularly refering to design here) then why do we have an article in Flight in 1989 claiming that LCA’s ‘design has been frozen’???
Now from what I understand (and please correct me if Im worng) a lot of design work needs to be done before you can actually freeze a fighter design??? So either the design work started before 1989 for the design to be frozen in 1989 or the person making this claim was not telling the full truth???
Also if the construction of a 1/7 model model started in 1989, what was that model design based upon? Im sure ir wouldn’t have been the result of a simple meeting about what sort of model we should make, and then we’ll refine the design afterwards.
vikasrehmanThe actual design and development work of LCA commenced in 1992
So PD was finalised in 1988, actual design work on LCA started in 1992, yet the engines to power the aircraft were ordered in 1986? This does not makes sense to me…by this I dont mean that its wrong, rather i do not understand it. Although I know engines can be chosen in advance to test the concepts, but is it norm to choose them years before you start your work on the basic design?
PS. BR is not the most reliable source of information for me (personally). In fact any site which allows its members to express hateful and racist comments so openly will fall into that category for many people.
vikasrehmaniirc it was 1986.ADA assessed it needed 5 basic things:the composite wing ,the engine, avionics, glass cockpit and the fbw.The marut experience had taught that India was still far away from development of the engine so GE-404s were ordered straightaway(for the prototype+LSP) and Kaveri programme was launched.
I think now we have established that the build up of infrastructure and feasibility studies started in 1983 or afterwards…and this does make sense since India needed time to build a basic aviation industry prior to taking up the full scale development of LCA. Now the next question is while all this was going on, i.e. feasibility studies etc, when did India start any actual design work on LCA?
vikasrehmanBtw 560 crore Rs amounts to only 140 million USD.
Quite a lot of money for a country like India back in 80s. I dont know the details but this money was probably not just for feasibility studies and setting up the committees but also for establishing infrastructure??? Having said this I have maintained for a long time that LCA project management was not competent enough for such a project (due to their lack of experience). They thought they could run before they had learnt to walk.
BTW when did India order first engines for LCA?
vikasrehmanSo……its not a clear cut answer. Upto different AF requirements.
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.
vikasrehmanActually they not the same people. Indians now are not the gandhivadi or nehruvian retards who used to be around in the 50’s and 60’s. They are more pragmatic and realize arabs and India have no common stratergic interest.
They are not NOW, but they WERE.
Precisely. You seem to have grasped the point. Its all about strategic interests, which can and do change.:)
The M2k production line was offered to india in the 80’s. Only after they turned it down was anything offered to pakistan. The Marlin is a non starter as it has been scrapped and DCN was trying to sell scorpene itself to PN. PN seems to prefer the german boats though.
France did offer the production line to India in 80, but IAF only became real serious at the start of 21st century in M2K-5 (when everyone was talking of that inevitable order)…similar to M2K-5s that were became close to be sold to PAF in mid 90s by France. Am i right?
Marlin is a non-starter because PN does not want it. OTOH, didn’t France just sell these same scorpenes to IN (and hoping to sell them more?). Now I dont think Scorpene is old gen stuff being offered to PN by France?
Actually whats you point about pakistan buying F16’s with its own money? It would still be a breach of agreement to give one to china or even let them have a look at the avionics. US can put sanctions in that case, though I know thats not why they withheld the F16’s.
I was merely responding to your above comment.
Of course it would be a breach of contract, so no need to do it.
vikasrehmanwhats the difference between head on and tail chase when you are inside 20 to 25 Km zone of BVR missile coming Mach 3 or 4 etc? flipping from head on to tail might slow ur speed further for aircraft.
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 do u think Russia did r&D for TVC in 90s? It means first u dont understand meaning of R&D and u dont have idea of Past history and traditions of particular country.
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.
Let me give you example. Mercedes has all the world Engineering power and money but couldnot turn around Chrysler in 10 years while Poor Renault turn much bigger and wider spread Nissan in less than 3 years into world second largest profits. whats the reason? There is much more involved than simply money for specific cases. Same is true for ICBMs. Germany cant built it like Russia no matter how much money it spends on ICBMs now.
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.:)
and which new fighter Russia bought in past 15 years? TVC is much harder to implement on old fighters. More example There are more than 2000 F-15/F-16 with USAF. how many are now AESA equiped? AESA prices have now become dirt cheap compared to 10 year ago. TVC upgrade goes much beyond than that to certifiy it operationally on old airframes and changing FBW and associated Pilot training to fully exploit that agility. A Pilot who has driven a bomb truck for whole life cannot all of sudden become a Fighter Ace. It is totally different doctrinal concept. It requires years of training/maintainance procedures for TVC nozzles for particular fighter squardons.
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. 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.:)
vikasrehmanhardly matters. PAF already transferred a F-16 to China, so a lot of its technology must already have made its way into Chinese projects through reverse engineering. having sold of F-16s with AMRAAMs, apart from a bunch of other equipment with military aid money, America does’nt really cover itself in glory when it comes to talking about arming Pakistan.
I thought everyone knew that it was Pakistan’s own money they were buying F-16/AMRAAMs etc with.
‘Administration officials, however, insist that U.S. military aid is not involved in Pakistan’s F-16 program. In a teleconference with reporters last month, Richard Boucher, assistant secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, said the F-16 procurement was a Pakistani purchase with the country’s own money.’
Anyway its all about strategic interests. With all due respect let me give you an example. For decades Indian was one of the most vocal critics (at the highest level) of Israeli occupation of palestinian lands and so on. That has somewhat changed over last few years. Indian, Israeli, Palestinian are all same people, yet their geostrategic interest have somehwat shifted.
France has been selling older gen stuff to pakistan for a while.
The potential deal for M2K-5 back in 90s (did not happen because of Pakistan) wasn’t exactly old gen stuff, and neither is the offer of Marlin.
vikasrehmanall i can say u dont have money to implement TVC in Typhoon.
Not implementing TVC on typhoon or any other western fighter is a ‘choice’ based on cost/benefit analysis. For example, Soviet Union put a lot of emphasis on GCI based command system in day while West was more convinced about AWACS capabilites. The two simply made their own choice based on their perception and analyses. If Russia found the money in 90s for such a vital project (which it has only exported so far and not implemented it in its own airforce yet) im sure typhoon consortium would have found the money had they also assigned given it similar priority.
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.
Please read into F-18 HARV, F-16 VISTA/MATV, F-15 ACTIVE, X-31 etc. A lot of research was done in early 90s (with X-31 been designed for the post-stall performance from the outset). Had US/west decided to go for it, there would have been plenty of variants/upgrades of F-16/F-18/F-15 with TV just like flankers and migs.
vikasrehmanWhile a swing by 180 degrees by a TV equipped fighter would indeed bring the nose in line with the opponent, this will not actually alter the flight path of the former as its existing momentum will keep propelling it along the original trajectory. Hence, overall kinetic energy would still be considerable less (and hence the range, speed, and energy of the missile) than if the missile is fired in frontal hemisphere from behind.
Indeed but for the first few seconds of flight the missile will be accelerating directly towards its target rather than pulling a very tight 180 degree turn.
Garry B, I had already agreed with you that by pointing the nose towards your target (instead of trying to make it turn 180 degrees) would of course increase the range/energy of the missile. However, as i said before, while this tactic might work in 1 v 1 engagements, in multi-fighter engagements the very same tactic might prove very costly to you. While TVC will help you decelerate very quickly and turn your nose at some opponent, you will need more than a few seconds to (slow down and) recover your airspeed and that time might provide another of your opponent a fairly good chance to fire on you…and because of your lack of airspeed at that time you will be sitting duck.
Just as importantly getting your shot away quickly could be crucial to survival… you fire at your target from a decent distance… say 25kms but your target detects the ARH of your missile and quickly flips over turns on his radar detects your aircraft and fires a missile back… a few seconds later his aircraft is destroyed by your missile… a few seconds after that his missile destroys your aircraft…
No, you dont waste your expensive BVR missiles like that. At BVR ranges, you detect, do IFF and gain altitude and airspeed to maximise the range and chance of success for your own missile. All that quick flipping will bleed your energy substantially reducing your ability to manuever. Detection will take considerable time unless of course your missile has a LOAL mechanism and you fire it wildly in incoming threat direction. However, since your opponent is most likely to have already turned away from you incrasing his/her fighter’s airspeed and due to your quick flipping the kinetic enrgy for your own missile is probably non-existent (???) the range/energy for your missile will be considerably lower which will substantially reduce it chance of hit. By this time your opponent’s missile is almost guaranteed to have hit you.
In real life, if you detect a BVR missile incoming at 20-25 Km at you at Mach 3-4, all you can do in real life is turn and pray that it does not hit you while deploying countermeasures (unless you want to face it head on:confused: ).
Apart from the US which western airforce has displayed an aircraft with thrust vectoring that could be incorporated into their latest aircraft… ie Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen,…
That’s because probably they did not feel the great need to. Russia which was broke in 90s find the money for TVC R&D. West would have found the money more easily. Besides US which did a lot of research decided to omit it from F-35.
They already had fighters with BVR missiles and HMS and high off boresight IR seekers… (note the R-27T/ET model had the same seeker as the R-73 but the larger body meant a wider field of view of +-55 degrees.)
Precisely. But no fighters with TVC
vikasrehman‘Godfather’ of TV i.e. Russia? Hmm………Interesting statement there….
Hyperwarp, Sarcasm aside, my use of the ‘Godfather’ was an attempt to highlight the extent of TV application on fighters/engines of ‘Russian-origin’.
Whether the concept was first researched in Germany or Ukranians worked on it (as someone pointed out earlier), the point was that there is no other country (to my knowledge) which is more keen to offer TV on its fighters/engines for export. Hope, i have clarified it.
Anyway, won’t the Su-35BM, PAK-FA HAVE TVC? And not just 2D TVC of the F-22 (or bit more advance variant in the Su-30MKI/MKM and even the MKA) but full Asymmetric 3D TVC? Or did I miss something….?
I said and I quote 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. The difference between ‘will have’ and ‘does have’ is not subtle. Russia has been offering TV for export for considerable time now, so the question really was how many fighters does Russia have in its current inventory which are equipped with such a lethal technology.
China also signed a $300m contract in August 2005 with Russia to acquire 100 improved AL-31FN-M1 turbofan engines with bigger thrust (132.4kN) and TVC in both pitch and yaw
plus, plus …
Officially speaking PRCs’ XXJ (J-13?/J-14?) has little info, but unofficially speaking its certainly believed that it’ll be equipped with at least 2D TVC.
plus, plus, plus …
Checkout the Project ShinShin video. Its only a demo project (at least for the moment) but anyway take look. http://youtube.com/watch?v=jRPlnT-PD0A
Once again, are any of those AL-31FN-M1 turbofan engines that China bought intended to equip Russian fighters? Or does Russia plan to buy J13?/J14?.
vikasrehmanThere 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.
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).
vikasrehmanYou are absolutely right flex. This was a classical example of a totally biased and not well researched article. Let me point out a few errrs
France has been one of the few countries which has been selling successfully to both India and Pakistan for decades. It sold Mirage III/V to Pakistan and then Mirage 2K to India and then came really close to selling Mirage 2K-5 to Pakistan in 90s but only managed a contract for upgrade of latter’s old Mirage fleet. It also sold Agosta-90B to Pakistan, then Scorpene to India, and then offered Marlin to Pakistan. Also take a look at US who has been selling to Pakistan for decades and is is also making headways into Indian market. All in all, author’s argument basically does not hold.
I didn’t know IAF is already operating MICA:confused:
US aircraft which appear to be front runners in MMRCA competition will be offered with AMRAAM, something that PAF will be operating in abundance. But may be this thought did not occur to this representative.
Rafale and MMRCA? As if. French waited for years and years, but did not get anywhere with their M2K-5for 126 MRCA. They had to close the production line. They know that the contract with Pakistan will happen with Pakistan ordering 200 (???) or so radars with missiles. The whole contract will be in 100s of millions Euros. Rafale in MMRCA is a massive if and only God know when it will happen.
France has always supported the lifting of EU embargo on China.
Has Taiwan even expressed an interest in french fighters. They want more F-16s, probably the same as PAF equipped with same radar/missile.
vikasrehmanSo while putative pundits can talk about how it can be used and cannot be used, it really is no substitute to talking to an actual user. If this was a peer reviewed article the author would almost certainly have been dinged for not explaining WHY he did not get actual user inputs. Either he did not do his due-diligence (which really calls into question the editorial motive of this piece) or the user simply refused to talk to him (which should not happen if the right questions are posed, but if it did happen the author is justified in stating that the user refused to talk to him)
George, TV is not unique to No. 20/30 in IAF. A number of fighters including F-16/F-15/F-18 have been modified with TV in various experimental programmes, while X-31 was actually designed with this specific purpose in mind. These machines have taken part in hundreds of engagements versus several apponents giving developers a large amount of ‘real’ data to work on. So while the author probably did not approach IAF, he does have some actual input from a number of above mentioned American programmes.
Such articles appearing in these publications are hardly peer reviewed…both you and I know that.
If the Oracles of TVC want to take this as the definitive proof that TVC is useless/not worth the effort we have another scintillating scat for AFM thread.
Once again, no one is saying that TV is useless or worthless. If everyone in world thought that it gives you a definite edge, then all modern fighters in the world today would have been equipped with TV. Even for IAD MMRCA tender, 5 out of 6 contenders are not TV equipped. Anyone would be more than happy to develop TV nozzles for IAF fighters considering the size of order, but I dont think IAF want another TV equipped fighter…or do they? As i stated in a post before, that the idea of TV equipped fighters started in Germany (and not Soviet Union). A lot more money has been poured into related R&D in US than Russia. But the two sides have simply gone their own ways. While Russia seems to have attached a lot more importance to TV (BTW how many TV equipped fighters is Russia currently operating as of today???), west seems to have paid greater attention to other means of making its fighters more lethal. Its just like cold war time, when west relied on AWACS, Russian put a lot more emphasis on Ground based command & control centres. Of course both had advantages and disadvantages, depending on who you are talking to.
Bottomline: There are folks here who think that without talking to No.20/30 drivers this article stand alone as a good example of utility to TVC while I think ignoring the users with the most experience with this TVC tech is simply not an oversight its an example of biased journalism which finds an equally biased audience on forums like this one.
OK. Let me put it to you this way. How about if a sceptic then turned round to you and said, I want the opinions of ‘No.20/30 drivers’ audited and verified by authentic source…something that would inevitably require auditing of IAF classified data. Would this be feasible? Would the mere opinion of these ‘No.20/30 drivers’ (when you dont personally know anything about them) in absence of any hard ‘audited’ data be any less convincing for you?
vikasrehmanYou folks in the UK didn’t learn how to summarize (or it it an issue with comprehension) ? If its “half a page” you can surely “checkmate” my attitude by informing ALL of us what the article said about the MKI. Who did they speak to from the No.20/30? Is is really that hard?
If its that hard…send me a pdf or jpeg I will do it for you.
But its quixotic to assert that this article will be the reference standards when a lot of stuff is just assumed.
Also OP….AFM is from UK? You need to be a bit more innovative when it comes to excuses. TVC from UK too?
George, author does not (???) appear to have spoken to anyone from No.20/30. But that does not decrease the validity of his article a bit. In fact, in opening, he says that in spite of everything the debate between proponents and opponents of TV goes on, and in the end mentions it again by saying that the debate will continue in the forseeble future. He simply puts forward his POVs in this well balanaced article and argues that TV has no effect on the basic peformance parameters of a fighter, e.g. acceleration rate, climb rate, instantaneous/sustained turn rates (other than to decelerate rapidly to the corner speed) etc., which are largely determined by TWR. In fact TV reduces TWR due to extra weight (F-16 MATV’s nozzles weight added 200 kg while similar weight was added to the nose to maintain static margin and to prevent tip-back at take-off and landing).
Having said this, he talks about X-31 and F-16 MATV programmes and how these TV equipped fighters had higher kill ratios in WVR arena against their more conventional opponents. However, he goes on to argue that while supermanueverability provides a clear advantage in 1 vs 1 scenario, post-stall manuevers that bleed-off airspeed rapidly (those seen in many airshows) could leave such a fighter vulnerable in multi-aircraft engagements. This, in my personal opinion, makes perfect sense…while a rapid deceleration might make ur chasing opponent overshoot or let u fire a missile from an acute angle in a 1 vs 1 scenario, this might also provide an excellent opportunity for a second opponent (as u will need time to recover that airspeed) who might be looking to toast u in a multi-aircraft scenario. TV will probably be wonderful in all sorts of engagements if you have an extremely high TWR (not possible with current engines); first would allow you to bleed-off airspeed, and second would allow you to recover it as quickly.
In later parts of the article, the authors suggest that shrinking defense budgets in west, emphasis on BVR/sensor integration and HMD/HOBS were the primary reasons that western AF decided to largely ignore TV. This also makes sense since TV was mainly intended for WVR engagement. If more and more aerial fights are happening at BVR ranges (and the rate will increase) then there is not much point in putting extra weight of TV nozzles on ur fighter. If HMD/HOBS combination means that in WVR arean u could fire a missile from any angle, this also reduces the importance of TV. This is where I would quote an article from Janes, according to which “An F-5 or a MiG-21 with a high-off-boresight missile and HMD is as capable in a 1-v-1 as an F-22,” comments a former navy fighter pilot, now a civilian program manager. “In visual combat, everybody dies at the same rate,” says RAND’s Lambeth. Indeed, he says that a larger fighter like the F-22 may be at a disadvantage. In the early 1980s force-on-force exercises at the navy’s Top Gun fighter school, F-14s were routinely seen and shot down by smaller F-5s flown by the navy’s Aggressor units. An F-22 which slows down to enter a WVR combat also gives up the advantage of supersonic maneuverability.
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr010529_1_n.shtml
Finally,the author talks about a simulation programme where MKI in the hand of a competent pilot who was well aware of Eagle’s intrinsic shortcomings defeated the latter in every engagement. Thus the debate continues…
Sign In
