How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

[SQ8]

That only means that the missile can take more G's but not that TVC wouldn't add turn capability for the fighter too. Wasn't one of the reasons that the YF22 was chosen over the YF23, the advantage in agility that it had thanks to TVC? So it's hard to simply deny the benefits of TVC, when there are plenty of examples that shows otherwise, it's only a question against what you compare it. TVC on a fighter vs a modern gen highly agile missile, or against a canard fighter design, or if you compare it with a basic fighter design.

The YF-22 was thought of in an age when the idea that pointing your nose to kill is important. Todays F-22 rarely gets to the TVC zone, rather its TVC is more useful during supercruise and low observable requirements. As mentioned in the article, the useful TVC turn capability is there only below speed where the aerodynamic surfaces are no longer as effective as they would be, anything else essentially goes into post stall manoeuvring.. a stall is when a wing is no longer producing lift.. hence the aircraft is not only losing speed but also falling. So unless that is the only option that is left, any fighter pilot worth his salt will tell you he is never going to have himself end up in that situation.

Now with todays HOBS missiles able to turn at 60gs.. the TVC fighter can end up going against a C-130 and all his dancing and somersaults will not save him.

Long story short, TVC is good.. but really not worth it today.

 

[topgun047]

The YF-22 was thought of in an age when the idea that pointing your nose to kill is important. Todays F-22 rarely gets to the TVC zone, rather its TVC is more useful during supercruise and low observable requirements. As mentioned in the article, the useful TVC turn capability is there only below speed where the aerodynamic surfaces are no longer as effective as they would be, anything else essentially goes into post stall manoeuvring.. a stall is when a wing is no longer producing lift.. hence the aircraft is not only losing speed but also falling. So unless that is the only option that is left, any fighter pilot worth his salt will tell you he is never going to have himself end up in that situation.

Now with todays HOBS missiles able to turn at 60gs.. the TVC fighter can end up going against a C-130 and all his dancing and somersaults will not save him.

Long story short, TVC is good.. but really not worth it today.

I think, yes, new missiles have indeed reduced the role of TVC but its is still a very useful thing to have but not an absolute game changer.
Some points I can think of.

1.TVC will help an aircraft recover faster after a merge.
2. ?Or dodging a locked on Missile
3.Improve STR/ITR of a jet designed from the ground up keeping TVC in mind to compensate for poor maneuverability(but having other advantages like supercruise as a result)
4.Or increasing climb rate/turn rate at low velocity.This is related to 1.
5. Will be important in case an aircraft with TVC intercepts another aircraft without it or vice versa.Again related to 1.

It does not suit NATO doctrine where they are aggressors fighting into the enemy defenses, never on the backfoot.
They want to go in and out staying out of range on enemy,
They have put all their eggs into this basket.

But it suits Indian, Russian and Japanese needs which is why these countries are planning on incorporating TVC in their next gen jets.

 

[SQ8]

I think, yes, new missiles have indeed reduced the role of TVC but its is still a very useful thing to have but not an absolute game changer.
Some points I can think of.

1.TVC will help an aircraft recover faster after a merge.
2. ?Or dodging a locked on Missile
3.Improve STR/ITR of a jet designed from the ground up keeping TVC in mind to compensate for poor maneuverability(but having other advantages like supercruise as a result)
4.Or increasing climb rate/turn rate at low velocity.This is related to 1.
5. Will be important in case an aircraft with TVC intercepts another aircraft without it or vice versa.Again related to 1.

It does not suit NATO doctrine where they are aggressors fighting into the enemy defenses, never on the backfoot.
They want to go in and out staying out of range on enemy,
They have put all their eggs into this basket.

But it suits Indian, Russian and Japanese needs which is why these countries are planning on incorporating TVC in their next gen jets.

1. Only in 1v1
2. Nope, unless miracles come with TVC
3. Not really, in all these "improvements" the Aircraft will be falling from the sky
4. Nothing to do with TVC, has to do with T/W ratio
5. Not completely, if the other aircraft is carrying a HOBS missile.. it evens it out a lot.. if its a multiple bogey engagement.. TVC brings in nothing.

Not exactly, it is a foolish assumption to think that NATO only plans itself as the aggressor. Considering that its inception has been as a defensive force. TVC is irrelevant in how Western/Israeli philosophies of air combat have emerged.. they focus on energy fights and not on the very regulated concepts used by the Soviets. That means ensuring the aircraft has enough energy throughout the engagement.

India too trains its pilots with energy management techniques, which is why you NEVER see TVC employed by the initial experienced pilots on the MKI demonstrating the jet as it is already maneouverable enough to never really need TVC at any point during a fight if flown by a well taught crew. It is only those who dont know how to fight with the aircraft that end up using TVC.. and as the workups to red flag 2008 showed.. they only end up losing with it.

TVC is being thought up on newer fighters due to the idea that these aircraft form the pinnacle of air combat engagements and hence should be equipped for any and all scenarios. That was the reasoning behind the F-22 including TVC even though the YF-32 was equally or more manoeuvrable aerodynamically than the YF-22. The article posted it also shows that smart F-22 pilots almost NEVER use TVC unless they really need it.

One reason why the Russian Su-30 derivatives need the TVC is because when they are fully loaded with fuel and weapons they handle like bombers due to the weight. Hence they need the extra push to move around at the expense of losing speed rapidly. They compensate for this by having a lot of thrust, yet that too doesnt offer a miracle solution to the problems with post-stall manoeuvring.

So Ill stick to my assessment and that of the author in this article, TVC is pretty much useless for 98% of combat situations.. and when it is needed the pilot should not be in that situation in the first place.

 

[topgun047]

1. Only in 1v1
2. Nope, unless miracles come with TVC
3. Not really, in all these "improvements" the Aircraft will be falling from the sky
4. Nothing to do with TVC, has to do with T/W ratio
5. Not completely, if the other aircraft is carrying a HOBS missile.. it evens it out a lot.. if its a multiple bogey engagement.. TVC brings in nothing.

Not exactly, it is a foolish assumption to think that NATO only plans itself as the aggressor. Considering that its inception has been as a defensive force. TVC is irrelevant in how Western/Israeli philosophies of air combat have emerged.. they focus on energy fights and not on the very regulated concepts used by the Soviets. That means ensuring the aircraft has enough energy throughout the engagement.

India too trains its pilots with energy management techniques, which is why you NEVER see TVC employed by the initial experienced pilots on the MKI demonstrating the jet as it is already maneouverable enough to never really need TVC at any point during a fight if flown by a well taught crew. It is only those who dont know how to fight with the aircraft that end up using TVC.. and as the workups to red flag 2008 showed.. they only end up losing with it.

TVC is being thought up on newer fighters due to the idea that these aircraft form the pinnacle of air combat engagements and hence should be equipped for any and all scenarios. That was the reasoning behind the F-22 including TVC even though the YF-32 was equally or more manoeuvrable aerodynamically than the YF-22. The article posted it also shows that smart F-22 pilots almost NEVER use TVC unless they really need it.

One reason why the Russian Su-30 derivatives need the TVC is because when they are fully loaded with fuel and weapons they handle like bombers due to the weight. Hence they need the extra push to move around at the expense of losing speed rapidly. They compensate for this by having a lot of thrust, yet that too doesnt offer a miracle solution to the problems with post-stall manoeuvring.

So Ill stick to my assessment and that of the author in this article, TVC is pretty much useless for 98% of combat situations.. and when it is needed the pilot should not be in that situation in the first place.

Ok I did a little bit of digging on the role of TVC at high velocities and I found this

During high-speed high-altitude flight classical control surfaces become less effective; at supersonic speeds, center of pressure also moves backwards, resulting in an aerodynamically stable aircraft. F-22 uses thrust vectoring in part to deal with this problem, while Typhoon uses control surfaces positioned in front of the wing; however, close-coupled canards keep center of pressure forward, as well as improving control surface effectiveness. As such, relative rating as outlined remains true in entire speed range, from very slow speeds sometimes achieved in gun-only dogfight up to supersonic speeds.


There you go.TVC increases manouverability at both high and low velocity.

 

[SQ8]

Ok I did a little bit of digging on the role of TVC at high velocities and I found this

During high-speed high-altitude flight classical control surfaces become less effective; at supersonic speeds, center of pressure also moves backwards, resulting in an aerodynamically stable aircraft. F-22 uses thrust vectoring in part to deal with this problem, while Typhoon uses control surfaces positioned in front of the wing; however, close-coupled canards keep center of pressure forward, as well as improving control surface effectiveness. As such, relative rating as outlined remains true in entire speed range, from very slow speeds sometimes achieved in gun-only dogfight up to supersonic speeds.


There you go.TVC increases manouverability at both high and low velocity.

The usage of TVC to improve manoeuvrability at supersonic speeds occurs at the expense of speed itself. Its as simple as the axial thrust idea outlined in the article. Here is another source with the same opinion.
The Aviationist » “Raptor’s thrust vectoring not essential” Eurofighter pilot says in last chapter of the F-22 vs Typhoon saga

However, Thrust Vectoring can also transform in a few seconds an energy fighter in a piece of metal literally falling off the sky, making it an easy prey for those who have been able to conserve their energy.

Moreover, Thrust Vector operation requires the pilot to “create the opportunity” for its usage, spending valuable time in manoeuvring the aircraft to achieve a suitable condition and managing the activation of the Thrust Vector Control.

If you are “defensive” and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn your enemy, but that most likely won’t prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like the Typhoon will conveniently “use the vertical” to retain energy and aggressively reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you for ever, exploiting all its short range weapon array.

If you are “neutral”, when typically vertical, rolling and flat scissors would accompany the progressive energy decay, similarly performing machines would remain closely entangled, negating the opportunity for Thrust Vector activation.

If you are “offensive”, probably stuck in a never ending “rate fight”, Thrust Vector could provide the opportunity for a couple of shots in close sequence. Make sure nobody is coming to you from the “support structure”, otherwise that could be also your last move.

Talking of twin tailed aircraft(F-22,T-50,Su-30MKI,Mig-29UPG), Angles of Attack in excess of 30-35 degrees are capable of creating drag conditions unsustainable no matter the engine/airframe matching, and developing energy decays intrusive of the tactical flying but also of the flight control system protections. Roll rates would also deteriorate at the higher values of AoA and target tracking ability would quickly decay.

Another piece addressing your exact question

Using TVC for maneuvering is beneficial for tailed aircraft, however, at two regimes: at velocities well below corner speed, and during supersonic flight at high altitudes. Simple reason for that is that in these two regimes, flight surfaces are not very effective. At very low speeds (150 knots – M 0,23 – and below), large control surfaces’ deflections are required for turning due to weak air flow, thus increasing drag – and even when surfaces are fully deflected, aircraft responds comparatively slowly. This also includes takeoff and landing; as result, aircraft with thrust vectoring can take off and land at lower speeds and in shorter distance than same aircraft without thrust vectoring; this capability can be useful if parts of air strip have been bombed (though it is always smarter not to require air strip at all). During supersonic flight, tail finds itself in wake behind the wing, which reduces its effectiveness. Thus thrust vectoring can be used to compensate for this effect. Further, at high altitudes (12 000 to 15 000 meters) aerodynamic control surfaces are less effective, and there is less drag, which means that thrust vectoring provides greater benefits and less penalties. As dogfights happen at altitudes of 1 500 to 10 000 meters, and speeds that start in transonic range, thrust vectoring is obviously not effective for WVR – and, therefore, real world combat.

There is a reason why TVC is omitted from most western fighters.. it wont be needed 95% of the time.. and for that 5% it is needed, it is expensive, adds weight to the airframe and is a maintenance hassle. The F-22 is designed to be the ultimate air combat machine.. its TVC ensures that it is able to survive no matter what.

 

[topgun047]

The usage of TVC to improve manoeuvrability at supersonic speeds occurs at the expense of speed itself. Its as simple as the axial thrust idea outlined in the article. Here is another source with the same opinion.
The Aviationist » “Raptor’s thrust vectoring not essential” Eurofighter pilot says in last chapter of the F-22 vs Typhoon saga

However, Thrust Vectoring can also transform in a few seconds an energy fighter in a piece of metal literally falling off the sky, making it an easy prey for those who have been able to conserve their energy.

Moreover, Thrust Vector operation requires the pilot to “create the opportunity” for its usage, spending valuable time in manoeuvring the aircraft to achieve a suitable condition and managing the activation of the Thrust Vector Control.

If you are “defensive” and your aircraft has Thrust Vectoring, you can possibly outturn your enemy, but that most likely won’t prove to be a great idea: an energy fighter like the Typhoon will conveniently “use the vertical” to retain energy and aggressively reposition for a missile or gun shot. Also the subsequent acceleration will be extremely time (and fuel) consuming, giving your opponent the opportunity to tail chase you for ever, exploiting all its short range weapon array.

If you are “neutral”, when typically vertical, rolling and flat scissors would accompany the progressive energy decay, similarly performing machines would remain closely entangled, negating the opportunity for Thrust Vector activation.

If you are “offensive”, probably stuck in a never ending “rate fight”, Thrust Vector could provide the opportunity for a couple of shots in close sequence. Make sure nobody is coming to you from the “support structure”, otherwise that could be also your last move.

Talking of twin tailed aircraft(F-22,T-50,Su-30MKI,Mig-29UPG), Angles of Attack in excess of 30-35 degrees are capable of creating drag conditions unsustainable no matter the engine/airframe matching, and developing energy decays intrusive of the tactical flying but also of the flight control system protections. Roll rates would also deteriorate at the higher values of AoA and target tracking ability would quickly decay.

Another piece addressing your exact question

Using TVC for maneuvering is beneficial for tailed aircraft, however, at two regimes: at velocities well below corner speed, and during supersonic flight at high altitudes. Simple reason for that is that in these two regimes, flight surfaces are not very effective. At very low speeds (150 knots – M 0,23 – and below), large control surfaces’ deflections are required for turning due to weak air flow, thus increasing drag – and even when surfaces are fully deflected, aircraft responds comparatively slowly. This also includes takeoff and landing; as result, aircraft with thrust vectoring can take off and land at lower speeds and in shorter distance than same aircraft without thrust vectoring; this capability can be useful if parts of air strip have been bombed (though it is always smarter not to require air strip at all). During supersonic flight, tail finds itself in wake behind the wing, which reduces its effectiveness. Thus thrust vectoring can be used to compensate for this effect. Further, at high altitudes (12 000 to 15 000 meters) aerodynamic control surfaces are less effective, and there is less drag, which means that thrust vectoring provides greater benefits and less penalties. As dogfights happen at altitudes of 1 500 to 10 000 meters, and speeds that start in transonic range, thrust vectoring is obviously not effective for WVR – and, therefore, real world combat.

There is a reason why TVC is omitted from most western fighters.. it wont be needed 95% of the time.. and for that 5% it is needed, it is expensive, adds weight to the airframe and is a maintenance hassle. The F-22 is designed to be the ultimate air combat machine.. its TVC ensures that it is able to survive no matter what.

So you agree now that TVC can actually improve climb rate.

Essentially we are saying same thing now.I think you just misunderstood my point before.

TVC is useful in certain situations and pilot should decide when he can safely utilize it to secure a quick kill if he is sure he is not at a risk using situational awareness provided by other friendlies and/or AWACS.

And TVC is useful at all speeds.

 

[SQ8]

So you agree now that TVC can actually improve climb rate.

Essentially we are saying same thing now.I think you just misunderstood my point before.

TVC is useful in certain situations and pilot should decide when he can safely utilize it to secure a quick kill if he is sure he is not at a risk using situational awareness provided by other friendlies and/or AWACS.

And TVC is useful at all speeds.

Incorrect, I am saying that TVC can help with slower flight speeds NOT climb rate.

TVC is NOT useful at all speeds.

 

[topgun047]

Incorrect, I am saying that TVC can help with slower flight speeds NOT climb rate.

TVC is NOT useful at all speeds.

1.
I was basing my claim on common sense that since nozzles can point downwards, it means aircraft can go up faster.
Your assertion to contrary made me question if this was one of the times when common sense is deceiving .

But this link says TVC does increase climb rate in a quantifiable way.

Full text of "Optimal Pitch Thrust-Vector Angle and Benefits for all Flight Regimes"

2.
But I thought you agreed with this assertion that I provided


During high-speed high-altitude flight classical control surfaces become less effective; at supersonic speeds, center of pressure also moves backwards, resulting in an aerodynamically stable aircraft. F-22 uses thrust vectoring in part to deal with this problem, while Typhoon uses control surfaces positioned in front of the wing; however, close-coupled canards keep center of pressure forward, as well as improving control surface effectiveness. As such, relative rating as outlined remains true in entire speed range, from very slow speeds sometimes achieved in gun-only dogfight up to supersonic speeds.

It says TVC is useful to have throughout the speed spectrum of a jet, if the jet is designed from ground up to use TVC.
In this case the solution employed by F 22 i.e TVC has lesser negatives than the canards used by Typhoon to solve the same problem.Though it is a partial solution.

 

[SQ8]

1.
I was basing my claim on common sense that since nozzles can point downwards, it means aircraft can go up faster.
Your assertion to contrary made me question if this was one of the times when common sense is deceiving .

But this link says TVC does increase climb rate in a quantifiable way.

Full text of "Optimal Pitch Thrust-Vector Angle and Benefits for all Flight Regimes"

The last text of the link you posted.

Results for a typical wide-body transport
Not sure if the flight characteristics and typical motions are same for it and a fighter aircraft which can pitch beyond what a wide bodied transport is limited to.
2.
But I thought you agreed with this assertion that I provided


During high-speed high-altitude flight classical control surfaces become less effective; at supersonic speeds, center of pressure also moves backwards, resulting in an aerodynamically stable aircraft. F-22 uses thrust vectoring in part to deal with this problem, while Typhoon uses control surfaces positioned in front of the wing; however, close-coupled canards keep center of pressure forward, as well as improving control surface effectiveness. As such, relative rating as outlined remains true in entire speed range, from very slow speeds sometimes achieved in gun-only dogfight up to supersonic speeds.

It says TVC is useful to have through the speed spectrum of a jet, if the jet is designed from ground up to use TVC.
In this case the solution employed by F 22 i.e TVC has lesser negatives than the canards used by Typhoon to solve the same problem.Though it is a partial solution.

Perhaps my english comprehension is different, but I read the effectiveness of TVC till the blue part and the rest addressing close coupled canards, NOT TVC

 

[topgun047]

Perhaps my english comprehension is different, but I read the effectiveness of TVC till the blue part and the rest addressing close coupled canards, NOT TVC

But last line says relative rating remains true in entire speed range, meaning both aircraft.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

@topgun047

India's SU 30 MKI has BOTH Canards and Thrust vectoring

So does the MKI has an advantage ?

 

[topgun047]

@topgun047

India's SU 30 MKI has BOTH Canards and Thrust vectoring

So does the MKI has an advantage ?

No, it does not since the canards on MKI are not control canards.
You can see it yourself.
The canards on the MKI are not movable like those on Rafale,Typhoon or Gripen.

To answer your question properly I have tell a little bit about development of MKI.

MKI is a huge beast of a plane.
It has enormous wings and even its tail wings are almost as big as the main wings of smaller jets such as Rafale.
Because huge wings, tail wings, twin vertical stabalizers(as opposed to one) and TVC, MKI does not need canards to make it more maneuverable.

One disadvantage of having a huge plane is that it is detected easily at long range.
To compensate for this, IAF decided to put a very big and consequently very heavy radar in its nose that can detect enemy before enemy can detect MKI.
But this heavy radar made the MKI top heavy which compromised its flight envelope.
To overcome this IAF put canards near the nose to provide enough uplift for the heavy nose.

 

[sancho]

The YF-22 was thought of in an age when the idea that pointing your nose to kill is important.

Exactly, back in that time you needed a fighter that is more maneuverable than other fighters and that's why TVC was found to be an advantage! Today, with modern delta canard designs showing the F22 it's limits, upgrades with HOBS missiles and HMS are necessary. That however doesn't make TVC useless, because it was never considered to counter a HOBS missile, but as said to counter the manuverability of other fighters, so if you have the aim to improve the manuverability of the fighter TVC is still a proper feature to use (especially for stealth fighters).

Now with todays HOBS missiles able to turn at 60gs.. the TVC fighter can end up going against a C-130

Or against any fighter that doesn't have HOBS capability and when you look around, there are still plenty of them even in modern air forces, including the F35 in strike configs right? How would an F22 engage an F35 strike package, when ge can't lock from BVR ranges? Get WVR and outmanuver it.
Also don't forget that HOBS capability is not magic either! You don't have to turn the fighter to attack, but that doesn't mean that you will hit your target, which obviously will use countermeasures, which are improving too (DIRCM, EM decoys) and what happend when the 2 HOBS missiles fighters usually carry didn't hit?

 

[The enlightened]

Does TVC affect STR/ITR of a fighter jet ?
Both at high velocity and low velocity.

Sukhoi-30 has a STR of 23 without TVC and at least 35 with. The pilot only talks about F-16 model and its experience with TVC. Need less to say, such data need not be extrapolated to all other jets as seems to be done by the esteemed moderator.

Contrary to what may have been reported elsewhere … the Su-30 has a rate of turn of more than 35 degrees when operating in the thrust vector mode. In certain circumstances, this goes up substantially.

Bharat Rakshak • View topic - NDTV Documentary and Vishnu's report on Red-Flag video

 

[SQ8]

But last line says relative rating remains true in entire speed range, meaning both aircraft.

Not how I understand it.