Continuing on the post..
TVC usage in combat was first advocated by Dr Wolfgang Herbst who was one of the initial pioneers of Post-stall maneuvering.
He was also a driving force in the X-31 program. Aircraft like the X-31 and F-18 HARV would achieve extremely high ratios of kills against conventional aircraft.
When these results were applied to computer simulations based on AIMVAL however, it was found that the kill ratio's dropped significantly as the number of aircraft increased in a scenario. When the same systems were tested with the in-developed Aim-9x and JHCMS.. the advantage dropped to zero.
If you have issues with the colonel's testimony..
here is one from a test pilot associated with the F-16 thrust vectoring program..called the F-16 MATV.
These programs were not conducted for showing off at airshows like the Russians do, but for actual practicality. And were done MUCH before the Russians came up with it, but show-offs attract fan boys and non-serious people which gets attention.
this is the interview and a brief CV of his from the site F-16.net
So the people that actually test the practically of the system in Air combat testify how utterly pointless it gets in an actual tactical scenario. Sure, in the one off chance that an aircraft like the MKI goes up against a single non-TVC aircraft.. it will probably win with a 98% chance. But add more fighters, with Helmet mounted sights.. and off boresight missiles.. and that percentage drops to 50%.
Now lets get down to how the MKI's unique TVC, which increases its maneuverability...also ends up giving it a disadvantage that is pointed out by the colonel because that is probably what he heard. But then again, some fan-boys whose ego was bruised concentrated only on his inaccuracies in determining the type of radar or engine and not on the main focus of what he said.
Aircraft like the F-22 have their TVC mounted in a vertical plane.. so when they do go post-stall.. and the airflow over their wings is being disrupted.. the line of thrust is still within the plane of motion and so generates little drag other than along that line of movement.
the MKI's TVC is canted at some 32 degrees to the horizontal(or in a V) to allow it to achieve better roll and yaw rates(as it is a BIG jet) at slower speeds. However, that V thrust remains when the nozzles deflect up or down.. and hence the thrust isnt just going along a line of motion.. i.e it is not propelling the aircraft along a single vector component in simpler terms...but in two(or more realistically).. hence the aircraft doesn't achieve the acceleration along its intended flight path as quickly as compared to say a standard Su-27 and so the air-flow does not achieve pre-stall ability as quick as say something like an F-22.
So not only does the aircraft fall out of the sky as stated... it takes longer to recover from that post-stall situation than say something line an F-22.
Hence, an advertised "capability" on the MKI has actually becomes a disadvantage in actual combat.. since adding that thrust within a fluid fight at say even 450 knots...generates greater drag as compared to something like the F-22 which is why it ends up as dead meat for a pilot that knows how to use his machine vs a pilot that does not.
Now dont get me completely anti-TVC.. it may help a lot in the MKI especially because you have two heads and the second pilot may use that chance to fire an off-boresight heater at its enemy. But that only works out in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 2 scenario.. with the effectiveness decreasing.
today's combat with missiles able to do this..
The advantage of maneuvering becomes a moot point.. since TVC helps you to get a tighter circle.. quicker.. you are still limited by the number of G's you can pull(yeah.. that is an actual limitation otherwise you will tear your wings off or kill your pilot).
So somebody at 450 knots can get to a 9G turn with or without TVC at the same rate... but if he uses the TVC to go anything beyond that he is dead or his aircraft will have its wings torn off. Below that, TVC holds an advantage.. if a pilot has managed to get himself into the situation where he is low on speed (energy) then TVC will save his life IF only the other pilots wingman does not have a lock on him. Anything beyond that, is an advantage not worth having.. and anything with multiple fighters engaging in a frenzy with off-boresight missiles.. its pointless.
NOW, as to why the west may persist with TVC in the form of fluidic vectoring later on is not post-stall maneuverability.. but stealth, fuel economy and its effectiveness in supersonic maneuvering M1.5+.
The F-22's TVC does not just give it post-stall capability.. the F-22 without TVC is still a VERY maneuverable aircraft..
its TVC helps in the primary field the F-22 was designed to fight and engage.. at high altitude.. and silently.
RCS is effected by even the smallest bumps and nicks.. which is why aircraft like the F-22 will always be maintenance intensive.
In flight, these aircraft employ a lot of CPU crunching power to make sure that their RCS levels are not effected too much by the deflection of ailerons and elevators. Here, TVC adds the ability to induce changes in direction by a small deflection of thrust which keeps RCS fairly constant as compared to using control surfaces but that is dependent a lot on nozzle design.
Secondly, aircraft like the F-22 and eurofighter were designed to be able to engage at high-altitudes, low pressure with long range missiles(that need both potential and kinematic energy) at high speed.
TVC allows these aircraft to maintain better maneuverability at these speed ranges as the effectiveness of control surfaces reduces and relatively larger deflections are needed(which not only generate drag but drive the RCS up). So the TVC on the F-22(and possibly the EF) will allow them to achieve maneuverability at these flight envelopes with less consumption of fuel, maintaining RCS and impart energy to their BVR shots.(which is what has the Chinese interested in it for their J-20)
Now how does this play out for the MKI??
Well, for one. the RCS advantage of the TVC is pretty pointless.. with a radar cross section that will be seen by even the crudest of 70's radars.. the TVC on the MKI holds no use for it in RCS control.
Second.. High speed kinematics and high altitude launches..
this is one advantage the MKI may have, provided it is able to exploit this scenario... possibly unlikely for the western theater but quite possible for the northern one.
Third... Fuel consumption.. here the aircraft can maintain an ideal AoA for the regimes of flight while pointing thrust in the optimum direction.. something the MKI could exploit.. had it been thought up with this in its FLCS...but most reports suggest a focus on maneuverability rather than anything else.
Lastly... STOL ability.. not sure if Ive seen any Sukhoi exploiting this.. but TV does allow for shorter landing and takeoff roles.
Now..the PAF is inducting HOBS heaters.. and IS going to engage the IAF 80% of the time(due to proximity of bases) within each others missile envelopes.. so the advantage that most of the capabilities brought in by the aircraft keeps getting reduced.
EXCEPT one.
RANGE..and TWO HEADS.
The MKI's range not only allows for it to maintain a longer loiter time, it gives it the ability to bypass Air defense areas or simply fly a long route around them to give the IAF the option to attack from multiple sides and really stress the PAF's resources.
This also means that PAF's force multipliers will be under greater threat as the IAF can use the MKI's to literally fly out of their detection range..and then fly back in into less covered sectors by interceptors to attack them.
TWO-HEADS.
In BVR engagements, sorting targets is a headache while flying.. the second pilot will be able to sort out the targets faster and employ weapons more effectively. In WVR engagements.. he may be able to employ weapons better if the fight ever goes into a turning one.. but that too will give him an advantage in certain situations. He will also be able to call out bogies and provide a situational awareness addition to the pilot.
In a strike role, the second pilot can work on the attack while the pilot concentrates on flying the aircraft and keeping the aerial threats in focus.
THESE, are the things that the PAF(and all other actual professionals and enthusiasts) keep in mind when looking at an aircraft like the MKI. They see the range and payload and how these offer tactical advantages in various scenarios.
They then see its effectivness within the system that is the IAF, and how it may be used within known and unknown tactics to their advantage, this is correlated with intel reports on the IAF to then formulate a counter strategy.
On the other side of the fence, the IAF does the same, it thinks where its strategies may be compromised.. where its actual advantages lie..and how best to employ the MKI within the IAF's joint force.
The rest, fanboys.. who are impressed by a doodle of numbers presented by the manufacturer.. or impressed by interviews of pilots published by companies(both in Russia and in the US)..or write ups by people with agendas(Wheeler, Kopp etc)..may continue to copy off write ups by single people.. and take a single PoV because they are too darn lazy to do some actual research.
Cheers.
P.S.. not following the 5 min DMZ whatever..??
TVC usage in combat was first advocated by Dr Wolfgang Herbst who was one of the initial pioneers of Post-stall maneuvering.
He was also a driving force in the X-31 program. Aircraft like the X-31 and F-18 HARV would achieve extremely high ratios of kills against conventional aircraft.
When these results were applied to computer simulations based on AIMVAL however, it was found that the kill ratio's dropped significantly as the number of aircraft increased in a scenario. When the same systems were tested with the in-developed Aim-9x and JHCMS.. the advantage dropped to zero.
If you have issues with the colonel's testimony..
here is one from a test pilot associated with the F-16 thrust vectoring program..called the F-16 MATV.
These programs were not conducted for showing off at airshows like the Russians do, but for actual practicality. And were done MUCH before the Russians came up with it, but show-offs attract fan boys and non-serious people which gets attention.
this is the interview and a brief CV of his from the site F-16.net
So the people that actually test the practically of the system in Air combat testify how utterly pointless it gets in an actual tactical scenario. Sure, in the one off chance that an aircraft like the MKI goes up against a single non-TVC aircraft.. it will probably win with a 98% chance. But add more fighters, with Helmet mounted sights.. and off boresight missiles.. and that percentage drops to 50%.
Now lets get down to how the MKI's unique TVC, which increases its maneuverability...also ends up giving it a disadvantage that is pointed out by the colonel because that is probably what he heard. But then again, some fan-boys whose ego was bruised concentrated only on his inaccuracies in determining the type of radar or engine and not on the main focus of what he said.
Aircraft like the F-22 have their TVC mounted in a vertical plane.. so when they do go post-stall.. and the airflow over their wings is being disrupted.. the line of thrust is still within the plane of motion and so generates little drag other than along that line of movement.
the MKI's TVC is canted at some 32 degrees to the horizontal(or in a V) to allow it to achieve better roll and yaw rates(as it is a BIG jet) at slower speeds. However, that V thrust remains when the nozzles deflect up or down.. and hence the thrust isnt just going along a line of motion.. i.e it is not propelling the aircraft along a single vector component in simpler terms...but in two(or more realistically).. hence the aircraft doesn't achieve the acceleration along its intended flight path as quickly as compared to say a standard Su-27 and so the air-flow does not achieve pre-stall ability as quick as say something like an F-22.
So not only does the aircraft fall out of the sky as stated... it takes longer to recover from that post-stall situation than say something line an F-22.
Hence, an advertised "capability" on the MKI has actually becomes a disadvantage in actual combat.. since adding that thrust within a fluid fight at say even 450 knots...generates greater drag as compared to something like the F-22 which is why it ends up as dead meat for a pilot that knows how to use his machine vs a pilot that does not.
Now dont get me completely anti-TVC.. it may help a lot in the MKI especially because you have two heads and the second pilot may use that chance to fire an off-boresight heater at its enemy. But that only works out in 1 vs 1, 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 2 scenario.. with the effectiveness decreasing.
today's combat with missiles able to do this..
So somebody at 450 knots can get to a 9G turn with or without TVC at the same rate... but if he uses the TVC to go anything beyond that he is dead or his aircraft will have its wings torn off. Below that, TVC holds an advantage.. if a pilot has managed to get himself into the situation where he is low on speed (energy) then TVC will save his life IF only the other pilots wingman does not have a lock on him. Anything beyond that, is an advantage not worth having.. and anything with multiple fighters engaging in a frenzy with off-boresight missiles.. its pointless.
NOW, as to why the west may persist with TVC in the form of fluidic vectoring later on is not post-stall maneuverability.. but stealth, fuel economy and its effectiveness in supersonic maneuvering M1.5+.
The F-22's TVC does not just give it post-stall capability.. the F-22 without TVC is still a VERY maneuverable aircraft..
its TVC helps in the primary field the F-22 was designed to fight and engage.. at high altitude.. and silently.
RCS is effected by even the smallest bumps and nicks.. which is why aircraft like the F-22 will always be maintenance intensive.
In flight, these aircraft employ a lot of CPU crunching power to make sure that their RCS levels are not effected too much by the deflection of ailerons and elevators. Here, TVC adds the ability to induce changes in direction by a small deflection of thrust which keeps RCS fairly constant as compared to using control surfaces but that is dependent a lot on nozzle design.
Secondly, aircraft like the F-22 and eurofighter were designed to be able to engage at high-altitudes, low pressure with long range missiles(that need both potential and kinematic energy) at high speed.
TVC allows these aircraft to maintain better maneuverability at these speed ranges as the effectiveness of control surfaces reduces and relatively larger deflections are needed(which not only generate drag but drive the RCS up). So the TVC on the F-22(and possibly the EF) will allow them to achieve maneuverability at these flight envelopes with less consumption of fuel, maintaining RCS and impart energy to their BVR shots.(which is what has the Chinese interested in it for their J-20)
Now how does this play out for the MKI??
Well, for one. the RCS advantage of the TVC is pretty pointless.. with a radar cross section that will be seen by even the crudest of 70's radars.. the TVC on the MKI holds no use for it in RCS control.
Second.. High speed kinematics and high altitude launches..
this is one advantage the MKI may have, provided it is able to exploit this scenario... possibly unlikely for the western theater but quite possible for the northern one.
Third... Fuel consumption.. here the aircraft can maintain an ideal AoA for the regimes of flight while pointing thrust in the optimum direction.. something the MKI could exploit.. had it been thought up with this in its FLCS...but most reports suggest a focus on maneuverability rather than anything else.
Lastly... STOL ability.. not sure if Ive seen any Sukhoi exploiting this.. but TV does allow for shorter landing and takeoff roles.
Now..the PAF is inducting HOBS heaters.. and IS going to engage the IAF 80% of the time(due to proximity of bases) within each others missile envelopes.. so the advantage that most of the capabilities brought in by the aircraft keeps getting reduced.
EXCEPT one.
RANGE..and TWO HEADS.
The MKI's range not only allows for it to maintain a longer loiter time, it gives it the ability to bypass Air defense areas or simply fly a long route around them to give the IAF the option to attack from multiple sides and really stress the PAF's resources.
This also means that PAF's force multipliers will be under greater threat as the IAF can use the MKI's to literally fly out of their detection range..and then fly back in into less covered sectors by interceptors to attack them.
TWO-HEADS.
In BVR engagements, sorting targets is a headache while flying.. the second pilot will be able to sort out the targets faster and employ weapons more effectively. In WVR engagements.. he may be able to employ weapons better if the fight ever goes into a turning one.. but that too will give him an advantage in certain situations. He will also be able to call out bogies and provide a situational awareness addition to the pilot.
In a strike role, the second pilot can work on the attack while the pilot concentrates on flying the aircraft and keeping the aerial threats in focus.
THESE, are the things that the PAF(and all other actual professionals and enthusiasts) keep in mind when looking at an aircraft like the MKI. They see the range and payload and how these offer tactical advantages in various scenarios.
They then see its effectivness within the system that is the IAF, and how it may be used within known and unknown tactics to their advantage, this is correlated with intel reports on the IAF to then formulate a counter strategy.
On the other side of the fence, the IAF does the same, it thinks where its strategies may be compromised.. where its actual advantages lie..and how best to employ the MKI within the IAF's joint force.
The rest, fanboys.. who are impressed by a doodle of numbers presented by the manufacturer.. or impressed by interviews of pilots published by companies(both in Russia and in the US)..or write ups by people with agendas(Wheeler, Kopp etc)..may continue to copy off write ups by single people.. and take a single PoV because they are too darn lazy to do some actual research.
Cheers.
P.S.. not following the 5 min DMZ whatever..??
Last edited by a moderator:
