If the F/A 18 Super Hornet Wins the MMRCA

[sancho]

Like what? What are the survivability features on the MKI?
What is the sortie rate for the MKI? puh-lease enlighten us..

Who cares, the point was, that you talked about different things, or do you really want to say that the radar range has something to do with the aerodynamic design of the fighter?
That's why I said it does not make sense, distracting with totally unuseful points doesn't make it better.

You wish to discuss aerodynamic features of the two bring it on..

Both feature high-lift devices such as mid-span deflecting leading edges. The F/A-18's leading edge is saw toothed to improve aileron effectiveness. The Su-30 MKI features a canard, close coupled and at level with the mid mounted wings, the canard deflection is limited to a small angle to improve pitch up response necessitated by the heavy radar. The MKI engines are widely spaced which can cause powerful yawing movement due to assymetric engine thrust. One reason why American and European designers like to keep both engines together as close as possible to the aircrafts longitudinal axis.

See now you are really talking about it from an aerodynamic point of view, why didn't you do it from the start?

With few exceptions such as thrust vector and canard both share many design features.

I disagree, the because as I said before, fighters like the MKI, F15s, EF, or F22 are designed for air superiority, F18SH is not! Things like maneuverability, T/W ratios, speed, wing loads... played only a minor role in its design, because the aim was totally different. The F18 was designed to be a carrier fighter, which requires a design suited for strikes and air defense mainly, therefor the fighter designs of it, or the Rafale differs from real air superiority fighters.

Let me ask you something in regard of the aerodynamic capabilities of the SH. Let's say IAF chooses the SH and by the close proximity to Pakistan borders one can't rule out WVR combats between F16 B52 and the SH. But both have the JHMCS + Aim 9 combo, so where do you see the advantages of the SH in such a combat?

and yes the Hornet is a great earth mover unlike the pitch unstable, CG sensitive aircraft you love that no one wants to buy .

The funny thing is that the SH has only 1 customer other than the USN and even the Australians just bought them only as a stopgap, because the F35 is delayed, so what does it tell us about how many countries really wanted the SH?
If an airforce can choose just by fighter performance and on offer are the SH, or one of the above mentioned air superioity fighters, I have no doubt about it which one will be chosen.

 

[kingdurgaking]

No need to thank me, helping ladies is what gentlemen do!

As I said that was just a nitpick, not an arguement. Never said F14 was glitch free!

However am I to assume that you were thinking about F14 and like while commenting that Su 30 mki has similar assymetric thrust issue, since they share widely spaced engines?

If so what about the A10 thunderbolt , it also has similarly spaced engines and is arguably one of the toughest ones out there!




Now, talking specifically about Su 30mki.

Assertion---The MKI engines are widely spaced which can cause powerful yawing movement due to assymetric engine thrust.

So in case of an engine faliure the plane will inevitably fall. It's a significant handicap and this makes mki a bad design.

Reality---India has been operating them since last 12 years (K version). Currently, around 124 are in service.

In all these years there has been only one crash due to engine faliure. That too because the pilot bailed out due to fire alarm going off. Now, does this look like a plane with Assymetrical thrust issue?

People may say that perhaps there have been very few in flight engine faliures and that is why the safety record is so good.......

WRONG! According to this link



So, Su 30 mki has RTB with single engine a number of times, contrary to your expectations.


Finally, another proof from this book....

Here is a scan of a pic in the book

This bird did make it back!




P.S.

Can you provide any link to prove the bold part above, and why the mki sucks in A2G role?

I want to complement your point here.. there is an article written by a MKI pilot how he managed to land with a single engine.. if some one wants i will post it.. MKI can fly with single engine

 

[kingdurgaking]

Who cares, the point was, that you talked about different things, or do you really want to say that the radar range has something to do with the aerodynamic design of the fighter?
That's why I said it does not make sense, distracting with totally unuseful points doesn't make it better.

See now you are really talking about it from an aerodynamic point of view, why didn't you do it from the start?

With few exceptions such as thrust vector and canard both share many design features.
I disagree, the because as I said before, fighters like the MKI, F15s, EF, or F22 are designed for air superiority, F18SH is not! Things like maneuverability, T/W ratios, speed, wing loads... played only a minor role in its design, because the aim was totally different. The F18 was designed to be a carrier fighter, which requires a design suited for strikes and air defense mainly, therefor the fighter designs of it, or the Rafale differs from real air superiority fighters.

Let me ask you some thing in regard of the aerodynamic capabilities of the SH. Let's say IAF chooses the SH and by the close proximity to Pakistan borders one can't rule out WVR combats between F16 B52 and the SH. But both have the JHMCS + Aim 9 combo, so where do you see the advantages of the SH in such a combat?

The funny thing is that the SH has only 1 customer other than the USN and even the Australians just bought them only as a stopgap, because the F35 is delayed, so what does it tell us about how many countries really wanted the SH?
If an airforce can choose just by fighter performance and on offer are the SH, or one of the above mentioned air superioity fighters, I have no doubt about it which one will be chosen.

I have one reservation here.. MKI is a multi role/Swing role fighter.. Why is it called air superiority?? ... I think it can do A2G also right?.. I guess it is can kick more ground bombs.... if it is made to fly ground attack mission...

 

[ganimi kawa]

@DBC, regarding other aerodynamic features---

1.Both feature high-lift devices such as mid-span deflecting leading edges.

2.The F/A-18's leading edge is saw toothed to improve aileron effectiveness.

3.The Su-30 MKI features a canard, close coupled and at level with the mid mounted wings, the canard deflection is limited to a small angle to improve pitch up response necessitated by the heavy radar.

1. I agree.

2.Ok! So F18 has a feature which mki does not. Does it make the hornet a more aerodynamic airframe than Su 30?...............


About the wing of su 30 mki.

a. The wing has high-lift devices featured as deflecting leading edges and flaperons acting the flaps and ailerons. At subsonic flights, the wing profile curvature is changed by a remote control system which deflects the leading edges and flaperons versus the AoA.

b. The interaction of the foreplanes and wingroot extensions creates a controlled vortex effect similar to that of the adaptive wing.

This is why the latest modernization programs, which gave birth to the F-16C Block 60 and F-18E/F versions, involved the increase of wing span, fuselage length and control surface areas and significantly changed the structural configuration and general layout of their basic versions.

3. Can you provide any link to substantiate this?

 

[dbc]

The MKI engines are widely spaced which can cause powerful yawing movement due to assymetric engine thrust. One reason why American and European designers like to keep both engines together as close as possible to the aircrafts longitudinal axis.

I see my above comments on Su-30 MKI and asymmetric engine thrust has ruffled some feathers. If it makes everybody feel better the F-15 also experiences ‘asymmetric engine thrust’ problems.

Many Strike Eagles with the F110 IPE were fitted with an "Automatic Thrust Departure Prevention System (ATDPS)" that automatically reduced thrust in one engine if another failed, reducing the chance that asymmetric thrust might toss the aircraft into a spin or cause structural damage.

The ATDPS system does not eliminate the risk of violent departures due to asymmetric thrust it reduces the risk, at higher MACH numbers the F-15’s ATDPS system may not react fast enough to prevent spin. Here is an image of the F-15’s rear end notice engine separation is not as wide as the Su-30 MKI and yet the F-15 began experiencing ‘asymmetric thrust departures’ after the introduction of higher thrust engines.

In all these years there has been only one crash due to engine faliure. That too because the pilot bailed out due to fire alarm going off. Now, does this look like a plane with Assymetrical thrust issue?

So, Su 30 mki has RTB with single engine a number of times, contrary to your expectations

Re-examine my initial comment, I did not suggest that a single engine MKI will be unflyable it can limp back to base safely as long as the pilot avoids full afterburner on the second engine.

The F-14 NATOPS flight manual warned against excess yaw for this reason. Loss of an F-14 engine results in asymmetric thrust, which can exceed rudder authority, especially at low speeds.After aborting the approach, Hultgreen selected full afterburner on the remaining engine, causing an even greater asymmetry.

Go back and read my comment about the Hultgreen accident, two important points you missed. The first, NATOPS F-14 flight manual warns against excess yaw due to asymmetric thrust. It also warns against full afterburner on the second functioning engine indicating this worsens the problem. The pilot did not heed this warning; perhaps she didn’t have a choice OR she made a fatal mistake?
With proper training and safety features the risk can be mitigated enough to prevent peacetime occurrences as is clearly evidenced by IAF’s operational record of 12 years with the Su-30 MKI. But war operations will expose these issues largely due to pilot and ground crew stress and fatigue that war brings.

The Su-30 MKI isn’t immune to departure due to asymmetric thrust. Assuming engine failure in combat and enemy in hot pursuit, how does one resist the urge to light up the only remaining burner?

Finally, the A-10 is a poor example to bolster your argument it is a sub-sonic aircraft you'd have to mount the engine on the tip of its high aspect ratio wings to induce asymmetric thrust departure.

Quote:
and yes the Hornet is a great earth mover unlike the pitch unstable, CG sensitive aircraft you love

Can you provide any link to prove the bold part above, and why the mki sucks in A2G role?

I was talking about Rafale and not the Su-30 MKI.

 

[ganimi kawa]

1.I see my above comments on Su-30 MKI and asymmetric engine thrust has ruffled some feathers. If it makes everybody feel better the F-15 also experiences ‘asymmetric engine thrust’ problems.



2.The ATDPS system does not eliminate the risk of violent departures due to asymmetric thrust it reduces the risk, at higher MACH numbers the F-15’s ATDPS system may not react fast enough to prevent spin. Here is an image of the F-15’s rear end notice engine separation is not as wide as the Su-30 MKI and yet the F-15 began experiencing ‘asymmetric thrust departures’ after the introduction of higher thrust engines.

.

1. No question of ruffling of feathers, my profs and the HoD have ruffled me so much that I don't have any feathers left!

When read in the context of the whole discyssion on this thread, your post in question appears to be making following assertions.

a. You were comparing F18 and Su 30 mki fo the whole length of the post.

b.Su 30mki had a major brawback that is assymetric thrust as it was having widely seperated engines.

Whereas, it is an issue with every twin engined fighter that is out there and can be tackled with training and technology!


2. F15 is a beautiful craft (I'm one of those rare ones who finds F16 and F18 really ugly). Does it's job well, Assym thrust or not. That is good enough for me.

So, in a nutshell, Su 30 mki is not anyway inferior due to widely spaced engines, that is all I wanted to say! Now, that you agree, peace!

 

[ganimi kawa]

1.Re-examine my initial comment, I did not suggest that a single engine MKI will be unflyable it can limp back to base safely as long as the pilot avoids full afterburner on the second engine.



2.Go back and read my comment about the Hultgreen accident, two important points you missed. The first, NATOPS F-14 flight manual warns against excess yaw due to asymmetric thrust. It also warns against full afterburner on the second functioning engine indicating this worsens the problem. The pilot did not heed this warning; perhaps she didn’t have a choice OR she made a fatal mistake?
With proper training and safety features the risk can be mitigated enough to prevent peacetime occurrences as is clearly evidenced by IAF’s operational record of 12 years with the Su-30 MKI. But war operations will expose these issues largely due to pilot and ground crew stress and fatigue that war brings.

3.The Su-30 MKI isn’t immune to departure due to asymmetric thrust. Assuming engine failure in combat and enemy in hot pursuit, how does one resist the urge to light up the only remaining burner?

4.Finally, the A-10 is a poor example to bolster your argument it is a sub-sonic aircraft you'd have to mount the engine on the tip of its high aspect ratio wings to induce asymmetric thrust departure.



5.I was talking about Rafale and not the Su-30 MKI.

1. Nope! You did "suggest" it covertly, "assert" you did not! That "suggestion" was the whole bone of contention.

2. No need to "go back" and read the hultgreen incident again. Yes, I knew about the NATOPS instructions and enquiry suggesting a possible pilot error. However, i did not mention it for the following two reasons.

a. No need to unnecessarily bismirch the name of a good pilot posthumously, she does not deserve this!

b. My aim was not to diss the F14 or any other american plane (SURPRISE!) but to defend a marvellous aero design that is the mki!

3.Yes every twinner will have an assym thrust issue, including the mki. And yes, you can make mistakes in the heat of the battle. But in the end you have to trust your men and their training. What is the other option, fly only single engined planes?

4.I mentioned the A10 just to show that you were taking a general fact and wrapping it as a specific flaw in the mki design. Point Proven!

5. Then I was wrong! We are in total agreement over this (SURPRISE AGAIN!)

In the strike role the hornet beats the rafale hands down!

 

[dbc]

1. Nope! You did "suggest" it covertly, "assert" you did not! That "suggestion" was the whole bone of contention.

2. No need to "go back" and read the hultgreen incident again. Yes, I knew about the NATOPS instructions and enquiry suggesting a possible pilot error. However, i did not mention it for the following two reasons.

a. No need to unnecessarily bismirch the name of a good pilot posthumously, she does not deserve this!

b. My aim was not to diss the F14 or any other american plane (SURPRISE!) but to defend a marvellous aero design that is the mki!

3.Yes every twinner will have an assym thrust issue, including the mki. And yes, you can make mistakes in the heat of the battle. But in the end you have to trust your men and their training. What is the other option, fly only single engined planes?

4.I mentioned the A10 just to show that you were taking a general fact and wrapping it as a specific flaw in the mki design. Point Proven!

5. Then I was wrong! We are in total agreement over this (SURPRISE AGAIN!)

In the strike role the hornet beats the rafale hands down!

You completely missed the point, the further the engines are from the
aircrafts longitudinal axis the more profound the impact of asymmetric thrust. In any case, I think the discussion on asymmetric thrust has gone on long enough...

 

[Trisonics]

You completely missed the point, the further the engines are from the
aircrafts longitudinal axis the more profound the impact of asymmetric thrust. In any case, I think the discussion on asymmetric thrust has gone on long enough...

Every rookie pilot's first lesson is the do and dont's: When not to point the nose up or when to point it down and these are just the vital lessons that they learn first. Then comes the do and dont's on the machine itself which differs from make and model. So if there was an incident to do with loss of an engine and resulting in asymmetrical thrust, unable to be corrected by rudder ..don't you think one would classify this as "Pilot Error" more than anything else?? If a pilot knows a machine would handle a particular way in a particular situation and if he fails to follow the drill..im not sure how that can be used against the aircraft

 

[ganimi kawa]

You completely missed the point, the further the engines are from the
aircrafts longitudinal axis the more profound the impact of asymmetric thrust. In any case, I think the discussion on asymmetric thrust has gone on long enough...

Come on, give me a break,will ya? Does that mean I wrote about the mki surviving on one engine just for fun?

Anyway, I had a nice discussion with you over this issue and I thank you and others who contributed to this!

Over and out!

 

[Dash]

Source code may be needed for weapons integration, I can't think of any other reason for requiring source codes for our radar. By weapons integration I mean the ability to launch/guide/ data link to Russian or French missiles/bombs in IAF inventory.This task is complex enough to require participation by vendor so I don't really see the value in having radar source codes.

Mission data such as way points, refuel vector and target coordinates are uploaded directly to the aircrafts mission computer you don't need radar source code for any of this...

Understood, so if this requires vendor's participation, is it necessary to keep the source codes and the process the vendor follows to integrate Russian, French and other weapons with IAF?,

Coz in case for a small maintainance we will need boeing or Raytheon to help us and thats too much hassle.

 

[kingdurgaking]

Understood, so if this requires vendor's participation, is it necessary to keep the source codes and the process the vendor follows to integrate Russian, French and other weapons with IAF?,

Coz in case for a small maintainance we will need boeing or Raytheon to help us and thats too much hassle.

But i guess we already have experience in integrating Astra and R-77 with Radars... And i guess IAF is confident of DRDO doing this job... I dont think DRDO needs a Radar Source code for there internal development..

 

[Dash]

But i guess we already have experience in integrating Astra and R-77 with Radars... And i guess IAF is confident of DRDO doing this job... I dont think DRDO needs a Radar Source code for there internal development..

The integration of R-77 came handy as the radar is Russian and Astra is not integrated yet, To integrate a French weapon to a American radar needs vendor's participation, hence its required to part the source code to us and the entire rules on integrating it.

 

[kingdurgaking]

The integration of R-77 came handy as the radar is Russian and Astra is not integrated yet, To integrate a French weapon to a American radar needs vendor's participation, hence its required to part the source code to us and the entire rules on integrating it.

I am talking about the experience for LCA..Radar for LCA is Russian ..I am not sure about it.. As far i know it is our own and we have Israel input.. And Astra we are doing it with MKI.. I guess we haven't taken the help of help of Russia... correct me if i am wrong

Yeah American's dont let others do that... Which is the source of argument for the need for the source code ... I guess IAF wants to integrate more weapons in the runtime as we needed such capability from the recent war... I guess we did demonstrate such capability of doing that .. once again correct me if i am wrong

 

[Dash]

I am talking about the experience for LCA..Radar for LCA is Russian ..I am not sure about it.. As far i know it is our own and we have Israel input.. And Astra we are doing it with MKI.. I guess we haven't taken the help of help of Russia... correct me if i am wrong

Yeah American's dont let others do that... Which is the source of argument for the need for the source code ... I guess IAF wants to integrate more weapons in the runtime as we needed such capability from the recent war... I guess we did demonstrate such capability of doing that .. once again correct me if i am wrong

Everything is fine you said here. however the radar in LCA is not our own and its Elta 2032, which is israeli, and the wepons integration was doen with Elta's help.