DRDO's Astra Missile at Aero India 2013: Impressive Capability Claimed

[manojb]

nice video of a2a missile .. i was impressed with the way seeker rotates , like eyeball of fish

 

[ANPP]

Start doing something called research.. not wiki ones.. or helter skelter.. methodical..
Read up on people like Paul Metz(who was Chief test pilots for both YF-22 and F-22 programs)...and you should be able to piece together things better.

Thanks for that, but can you post url because time is costly.:Toungue:

As for the last part.. now you are just being defensive..
The F-35 has zero canards.. and yet is as much or more multirole than the Eurocanards..
The Multi-role capability on them has LITTLE to do with canards..and more to do with software and payload capacity advances.
Its just a case of chasing a folly.. you want insist on a car's excellent interior due to the fact that it has rear wheel drive.. then go ahead.. but you will end up a laughing stock.

First I will say you are neglecting maneuverability because you are overestimating HMS. Although HMS provide pilot huge advantage compare to its opponent. But if any scenario both a/c using same level of avionics, stealth & weapons than surely maneuverability will play much bigger role.

Well upto f35 it has multi role capability, but down side (which you dont see) although it have great maneuverability at subsonic but at high speed it sucks.
Well on second statement I agree with you, avionics & payload are define multi role capability than others. But airframe also a huge point on that, you just can optimize air frame for mainly one/two role & than modified little for other role. So what I say that canards do optimize airframe for other roles.
so for aircraft of equal weight, canards incur less induced drag.
canard aircraft cruise faster than similar conventional designs with the same engine

Now why 5 gen fighter didnt accept canards (except j20)?
For a given payload and landing speed, canard aircraft require larger wings and have higher drag.
When mission requirements like payload mass, cabin volume, takeoff and landing distance, engine power, construction materials, etc. are equally enforced, conventional aircraft are more efficient than canards.

Canards also destroy stealth, although stealth canards also developed as in j20 & many stealth fighter but the fact is that these treated canardsjust give more lift not increase in any kind of flight performance like in typhoon & rafale, gritpen mki.

 

[sancho]

And I gave the reason why this still does not translate into the need for TVC for Air combat.

Who said that there is a need for TVC? The point is, that it improves the maneuverability of a fighter or a missile, that's why a Su 35 with TVC is more maneuverable than a J11, although the base design is the same. Or why an AIM 9X is far more maneuverable than an AIM 9M.
However, TVC is not the only way to improve maneuverability, a good base design does it as well and that's what the delta canard fighter design, or the Python 4 & 5 missile design shows as well. Both uses additional wing/canard surfaces to improve manuverability, so there are different ways to do it and TVC is one.
And again, the only reason why EF operators so far don't wanted TVC yet, is that the EF by design is already superior than most common designed fighters, which made TVC for more maneuverability not needed so far, especially for a fighter that has many other things that needs to be funded first.
However, with the addition of an AESA radar in future, things might be different. Once because the fighter might require additional weight in the back to balance the weight of the swashplate AESA, but also since all the weight additions makes the fighter less maneuverable and adding TVC would be a solution to counter both issues.

You seem to ignore that the greatest benefit TVC brings in Air combat is post stall maneuvering.. after Max AoA(Clmax) has been exceeded

That's one point, but not the only advantage right? It provides fighters or missiles with much tighter turn capabilities in general compared to fighters or missiles with basic design. That's why the Su 35 as mentioned above will be able to outmaneuver the J11 and the X31 tech demonstrator even showed that pretty well:

In 1994, the X-31 demonstrator was fitted with what German program managers called a “poor man’s thrust vectoring nozzle”—three paddle-like vanes that pushed into the exhaust stream—and the results were spectacular. Without thrust vectoring, the X-31 lost twice as often as it won against the F/A-18 in mock combat; with it, the X-31 didn’t lose once in 129 matches.

How Things Work: Thrust Vectoring | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine


Evaluations of the US with all their current generation fighters compared to the F22 with TVC showed similar results, while the delta canard fighters showed, that a modern aero design can equal that advantage too. This is especially important for NG fighters that have to compromise on aerodynamic design for stealth design and where additional wings/canard surfaces also increase the reflection surfaces for radar waves as you confirmed as well. Which again shows that TVC is a useful addition to improve the maneuverability of a basline fighter or missile design!

The problem is, that people generally tend to judge TVC based on the maneuvers we see on air shows and think about dogfights only. The same however is not claimed that often for canard fighter designs, which also are meant to improve the maneuverability and turn rates and might be as helpless against modern missiles.
On the other side people say that modern air combat is mainly BVR anyway and that the biggest threat to fighters are SAMs, but these missiles mainly don't have the benefits of additional maneuverability and countering them also includes outmaneuvering them, which obviously has higher chances with a canard design or TVC than with a basline designs and why most newly developed fighters still have a high focus on maneuverable design capabilities or features like TVC.
That's why I disagree with you that IAF/IN have changed their policies in this regard. For LCA, MMRCA, even for the premature AMCA concepts maneuverability is still a major point for air combat in general and not only for dogfights.

 

[SQ8]

Who said that there is a need for TVC? The point is, that it improves the maneuverability of a fighter or a missile, that's why a Su 35 with TVC is more maneuverable than a J11, although the base design is the same. Or why an AIM 9X is far more maneuverable than an AIM 9M.
However, TVC is not the only way to improve maneuverability, a good base design does it as well and that's what the delta canard fighter design, or the Python 4 & 5 missile design shows as well. Both uses additional wing/canard surfaces to improve manuverability, so there are different ways to do it and TVC is one.
And again, the only reason why EF operators so far don't wanted TVC yet, is that the EF by design is already superior than most common designed fighters, which made TVC for more maneuverability not needed so far, especially for a fighter that has many other things that needs to be funded first.
However, with the addition of an AESA radar in future, things might be different. Once because the fighter might require additional weight in the back to balance the weight of the swashplate AESA, but also since all the weight additions makes the fighter less maneuverable and adding TVC would be a solution to counter both issues.



That's one point, but not the only advantage right? It provides fighters or missiles with much tighter turn capabilities in general compared to fighters or missiles with basic design. That's why the Su 35 as mentioned above will be able to outmaneuver the J11 and the X31 tech demonstrator even showed that pretty well:



How Things Work: Thrust Vectoring | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine


Evaluations of the US with all their current generation fighters compared to the F22 with TVC showed similar results, while the delta canard fighters showed, that a modern aero design can equal that advantage too. This is especially important for NG fighters that have to compromise on aerodynamic design for stealth design and where additional wings/canard surfaces also increase the reflection surfaces for radar waves as you confirmed as well. Which again shows that TVC is a useful addition to improve the maneuverability of a basline fighter or missile design!

The problem is, that people generally tend to judge TVC based on the maneuvers we see on air shows and think about dogfights only. The same however is not claimed that often for canard fighter designs, which also are meant to improve the maneuverability and turn rates and might be as helpless against modern missiles.
On the other side people say that modern air combat is mainly BVR anyway and that the biggest threat to fighters are SAMs, but these missiles mainly don't have the benefits of additional maneuverability and countering them also includes outmaneuvering them, which obviously has higher chances with a canard design or TVC than with a basline designs and why most newly developed fighters still have a high focus on maneuverable design capabilities or features like TVC.
That's why I disagree with you that IAF/IN have changed their policies in this regard. For LCA, MMRCA, even for the premature AMCA concepts maneuverability is still a major point for air combat in general and not only for dogfights.

That may not necessarily be true.. as more AESA concepts that come out may not be of any greater weight than the radars they replace.

The X-31 evaluation was carried out without any concept of HMS and solely based on nose pointing parameters. So while it verifies the effectiveness of TVC under post-stall and/or below-corner airspeed ACM.. it does not solve the issue when supersonic.

Maneuverability may not be dead.. and there is no contest where its usefulness and presence in all modern aircraft is concerned. But this maneuverability is all based on Tran-sonic/Supersonic regions. An EF with TVC.. will turn just the same as an EF without TVC.. their nose pointing may be different( at the risk of overstressing the airframe). So TVC does not bring maneuverability benefits in ACM beyond what I have already written.

A su-35 may fly circles around a J-11 below corner airspeed.. but in the dogfight regime.. it will be matched quite easily.
Include a HMS system on both.. and its 1:1.

BVR missles are countered not just by maneuvering.. and more and more missles are coming online(120D) with 20g terminal maneuvering.. which no fighter.. or rather no human can match.
Yes, maneuverability will still matter.. but nothing that is not solved by existing designs..or rather by aerodynamics.
TVC has a different role to play entirely...at least in the mind of western forces.

The IAF/IN may still be stressing on low speed nose pointing capability.. but I doubt their policies on over-stressing airframe or pilots has changed.

 

[sancho]

That may not necessarily be true.. as more AESA concepts that come out may not be of any greater weight than the radars they replace.

So far most AESA fighter radars are heavier, although the difference is lower when you change it from PESA to AESA, while the difference from pulse doppler radars to AESA seems to be higher. The case of the EF is even more difficult with the addition of the re-positioner, which adds credible weight itself, compared to a fixed AESA radar (one reason why Germany prefered the fixed version). EF officials and several reports have confirmed this already that the T3B might have an issue with the weight balance, which must be countered with weight additions in the rear section, be it TVC or some other counterweight:

Typhoon Partners Focus On Sensor Upgrade

...The weight of the new antenna could shift the Typhoon’s center of gravity slightly forward, which will be offset with ballast in the aft fuselage. However, another industry official notes that adding thrust-vector control to the Eurojet EJ200 powerplant would be a more efficient way to tackle the issue.

Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums - View Single Post - Hot Dog Typhoon thread III

Original link that I saved is sadly dead now.

A su-35 may fly circles around a J-11 below corner airspeed.. but in the dogfight regime.. it will be matched quite easily.
Include a HMS system on both.. and its 1:1.

Doubtful, because HMS is imo not the key, but the capability of the missile with high offbore sight and agility, be it by design like Python 4/5 or with TVC.
J11 with PL9 will still not be a match for a Su 35, even with the older R73, same reason why I said that F16B52s with AIM 9X will have advantages over versions with AIM 9M only, even if both have the same JHMCS.
The reports about the copied A-Darter for Chinese fighters didn't come for no reason and if the missile will be added it will be an important addition wrt close combats.

BVR missles are countered not just by maneuvering..

Not ONLY by maneuvering, but you don't use chaff, flare, or jamming for IR missiles and simply fly straight on right? Maneuvering is part of any defensive tactic to distract the weapon lock.

Yes, maneuverability will still matter.. but nothing that is not solved by existing designs..or rather by aerodynamics.
TVC has a different role to play entirely...at least in the mind of western forces.

As I said, TVC is just one approach, canard designs another, for some fighters the earlier will be the better solution, for others the latter and some even have both. The main reason why these features will be added is the same though, improving maneuverability and the developments for F22, EF are clear examples for it, although it might have more importance in Asia in the coming years.

 

[Jayanta]

Astra and R-77 looks same.
R-77

Yara a missile would no doubt resemble with a missile.....and not a truck.

 

[DARKY]

BVR missles are countered not just by maneuvering.. and more and more missles are coming online(120D) with 20g terminal maneuvering.. which no fighter.. or rather no human can match.
Yes, maneuverability will still matter.. but nothing that is not solved by existing designs..or rather by aerodynamics.
TVC has a different role to play entirely...at least in the mind of western forces.

The IAF/IN may still be stressing on low speed nose pointing capability.. but I doubt their policies on over-stressing airframe or pilots has changed.

A missile has to usually maneuver 5 times the target to score a direct hit... so if Aim 120D does 20g the target aircraft can escape with 6g maneuver avoiding a direct hit and can come unharmed if the plane survives the missile explosion nearby.

The AESA radar you are talking about won't be seen anytime before 2020-25.... such radar once made would allow space for extra surveillance equipment in the nose along with radar.

TVC allows Su35 to maneuver in any direction against a J-11 while in dogfight.... HMD added it can get its missiles right on the engine exhaust of a J-11 more quickly say from 30km or so-- while the J-11 will have hard time following the moves of the far agile TVC equipped Su35 who would rather stay out of WVR missiles circle of J-11 and take its opportunity on its rear part.


Usually the airframe is tested to upto 14gs beforehand... Tejas airframe was tested upto 13g and it was India's 1st attempts with CFCs... we can take the load bearing capability of a titanium Su35 easily at 14-15gs.... now adding TVC doesn't mean the aircraft has to do above its limits the controls don't allow the pilot jump over 9-10gs the stick becomes heavier in a Su30 and the g-limit indicator is always there to warn him.

It works just like another primary control but with greater affect.... as seen many times in airshows too... at times with full combat load.

Maneuverability will remain the primary asset of combat planes even if they mount starwars laser guns on them.... atleast till there's a human sitting there in the cockpit.

 

[SQ8]

A missile has to usually maneuver 5 times the target to score a direct hit... so if Aim 120D does 20g the target aircraft can escape with 6g maneuver avoiding a direct hit and can come unharmed if the plane survives the missile explosion nearby.

The AESA radar you are talking about won't be seen anytime before 2020-25.... such radar once made would allow space for extra surveillance equipment in the nose along with radar.

TVC allows Su35 to maneuver in any direction against a J-11 while in dogfight.... HMD added it can get its missiles right on the engine exhaust of a J-11 more quickly say from 30km or so-- while the J-11 will have hard time following the moves of the far agile TVC equipped Su35 who would rather stay out of WVR missiles circle of J-11 and take its opportunity on its rear part.


Usually the airframe is tested to upto 14gs beforehand... Tejas airframe was tested upto 13g and it was India's 1st attempts with CFCs... we can take the load bearing capability of a titanium Su35 easily at 14-15gs.... now adding TVC doesn't mean the aircraft has to do above its limits the controls don't allow the pilot jump over 9-10gs the stick becomes heavier in a Su30 and the g-limit indicator is always there to warn him.

It works just like another primary control but with greater affect.... as seen many times in airshows too... at times with full combat load.

Maneuverability will remain the primary asset of combat planes even if they mount starwars laser guns on them.... atleast till there's a human sitting there in the cockpit.

thats all a very nice pro-russian philosophy argument.. but its fairly hollow.
Given the "right" conditions.. a mig-15 can bring down a raptor..
but I can make all those "right" conditions in that argument.. or make a claim based on 90% of actual combat reports.

Yes maneuverability will always matter.. (we arent into Airships just yet)..but not so much as you claim.