Replicating TVC equiped Flankers.

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 10:53

http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-tes ... verability

Sukhoi Test pilot Sergey Bodgan wrote:“The classical air combat starts at high speed, but if you miss on the first shot—and the probability is there because there are maneuvers to avoid missiles—the combat will be more prolonged,” he says. “After maneuvering, the aircraft will be at a lower speed, but both aircraft may be in a position where they cannot shoot. But supermaneuverability allows an aircraft to turn within three seconds and take another shot.”


We know that Russian doctrines in WVR combat has differences compared to the E-M centric doctrine of the NATO. They have more emphasis on slow speed post stall maneuvers as opposed to high energy, high G maneuvers that western pilots do.

I'm curious as to how Aggressors flying F-15s, F-16s F/A-18s and T-38s replicate this. Do they use the F-22 for this purpose when practicing BFM?

I'd be surprised if they simply did not practice this under the assumption that "it won't happen anyway because we'll take them out from 50 Km out".

Exercises like Redflag are supposed to encompass all facets of air combat, not just the most likely
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 570
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 16:33

zero-one wrote:http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-test-pilot-explains-supermaneuverability

Sukhoi Test pilot Sergey Bodgan wrote: ... “After maneuvering, the aircraft will be at a lower speed, but both aircraft may be in a position where they cannot shoot. But supermaneuverability ...


... They have more emphasis on slow speed post stall maneuvers as opposed to high energy, high G maneuvers that western pilots ...


Maybe they have more experience with, or anticipate more experience with, a need to dodge missiles?

Desperate.

Alternatively, their airframes and stores are heavy, and their thrust rather less than it needs to be to maintain energy and altitude, so they turn their tendency to stall, lose control and altitude, into a virtual 'virtue'.

Desperate.

Or maybe their engines have been so relatively underwhelming for so long that they have no choice, and just think that way out of necessity, thus must insist that they can win that way.

Desperate.

Or maybe they think western jets don't really have HOBS missiles, and lock and shoot where you look tech, therefore stalling and 3D thrust-vectoring will make all the difference for them?

Desperate.

Do you not question the desperate russian logic?

Should it be taken seriously?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 16:48

Well the logic behind the tactic might be confusing, but I'm curious as to how Aggressors can replicate them.

With a good CGI crew you can basically use any aircraft, even a T-38 to replicate a Flanker, infact this is actually done in practice as well.

WVR, F-16s can do very well simulating a Mig-29 and the F/A-18 can probably do some of the slow speed Flanker stuff, but I'm curious as to how they simulate the latest Russian threats.

who simulates ACM replicating an A-A configured Su-35 or Su-57 (I think they are practicing how to beat it even now)

an F-22 with radar reflectors maybe....or just wait for Cope Inida
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2771
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 18:49

zero-one wrote:Well the logic behind the tactic might be confusing, but I'm curious as to how Aggressors can replicate them.

With a good CGI crew you can basically use any aircraft, even a T-38 to replicate a Flanker, infact this is actually done in practice as well.

WVR, F-16s can do very well simulating a Mig-29 and the F/A-18 can probably do some of the slow speed Flanker stuff, but I'm curious as to how they simulate the latest Russian threats.

who simulates ACM replicating an A-A configured Su-35 or Su-57 (I think they are practicing how to beat it even now)

an F-22 with radar reflectors maybe....or just wait for Cope Inida


In terms of low speed maneuvers, there isn't much that Hornets/Super Hornets can't replicate. Their nose pointing is on par/superior to Flankers. It's only at higher speeds, where they can't fully replicate Flankers. In addition to that, our pilots train against F-15/16/22/35, Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Mirage 2000, Mig-29, Su-27/30, etc... The Russians get no equivalent training.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 21:33

zero-one wrote:http://aviationweek.com/awin/sukhoi-test-pilot-explains-supermaneuverability

Sukhoi Test pilot Sergey Bodgan wrote:“The classical air combat starts at high speed, but if you miss on the first shot—and the probability is there because there are maneuvers to avoid missiles—the combat will be more prolonged,” he says. “After maneuvering, the aircraft will be at a lower speed, but both aircraft may be in a position where they cannot shoot. But supermaneuverability allows an aircraft to turn within three seconds and take another shot.”


We know that Russian doctrines in WVR combat has differences compared to the E-M centric doctrine of the NATO. They have more emphasis on slow speed post stall maneuvers as opposed to high energy, high G maneuvers that western pilots do.






Certain I have seen very similar quotes from US Navy pilots in the past as well - I'm not really sold that the Russians have that much different doctrine as such to any other air force - Are you saying Russian pilots want to get into a position where there is <50% survival even with TVC outside of a last resort?

So regarding slow speed use of TVC only on the Flanker - in the reams of technical data from Yefim Gordon on the Su-27 - TVC was added in the 1990s to two of the Prototypes that were designated Su-35 and Su-37.
This was done originally because although the Su-27 pilot can override the AoA limiter it didn't have enough control to be useful in a dogfight apparently - so TVC was added to provide that control at high AoA.

Similarly the US Navy went to great lengths to make the Hornet fully controllable at high AoA (Like the F-35) but they did it by increasing control surfaces and Fly By Wire software changes to make the SuperHornet. Not only that but they used research directly from Thrust Vectoring programs like HARV and MATV - but they didn't add TVC.

So what is the most useful in terms of being tactically useful if an aircraft gets stuck at very slow speeds and hasn't by some miracle been blown out of the sky already - in theory TVC but the F-35 apparently had better yaw rates in a Helicopter than the MATV (ok was hardly refined) - but again pie in the sky without knowing actual rates.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post12 Mar 2018, 23:11

This video of a C model Hornet with all kinds of control authority, is shocking, but would make for a good aggressor against 5th gen aircraft. Hoping the new trainer has similar characteristics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf5A13a ... 2685709574
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 570
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 00:12

Probably then, the more relevant part of the envelope to missile fighting/dodging is high-altitude and high-speed pre and post-stall management, @ 2/3rds fuel load, plus full or near full missile load, i.e. that's why they expect a stall condition from 'dodging' a MLW detected BVR shot (such as a sudden 135 degree turn away, plus opening range). At least they can then turn altitude back into energy after changing direction in a descending turning fight. In other words, all the TVC does is help smooth recovery and regain stability faster, in thin air, to get the speed back faster in another direction.

The talk about offering earlier missile firing opportunities post-stall, seems to be BS, but I suppose that if you don't have fly-by-wire or TVC, you could have your hands full for a few more seconds, than a Flanker with TVC. In which case it allows THEM to firer sooner than THEY otherwise could, as a Western pilot will not be having such control and stability problems.

In other words, Russian 3D TVC is a mechanical bandaid for the less than stellar high-altitude handling qualities of Su34, Su35 and Su57 - without it.

The Su27 and its derivative types (34, 35, 57) are not all that stable in high-speed high-altitude yaw (an original development problem for the Flanker design) and its high AOA nose-pointing is not stable and progressive. Plus its weight has risen in all versions even as its relatively under-powered engines have slowly improved, so thrust to weight remains sub-par in its derivatives, regardless.

Their 3D TVC doesn't weigh much, but can greatly improve Flanker-family aero handling flaws, and expands its practical useable envelope.

The rest of their guff about 3D TVC combat-edge 'magic' is typical delusional Russian duperman BS.

2c
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial-Dist = LIFE
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 454
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 15:29

That Swiss Hornet demo is impressive, but those high AOA maneuvers are generally all done in the vertical plane. There is a trade off between high Alpha flight and altitude. The jet is popping his nose at some very high AOA, AND he is using God's G (the vertical) to regain his lost airspeed. Notice he is getting very slow, and it is taking some time for him to recover. In the time it takes him to recover (5-9 seconds) he could be dead by another opponent that isn't going to follow him and get slow. And in a 2v2 or many v many scenario, flying that slow and on the edge of controllability is going to probably be near suicidal.

Here is another Hornet vid. And the pilot is generally using his high AOA (over 25 units) in the vertical (watch his HUD very closely, and look at the airspeed and altitude loss as he is popping his nose up at some very high AOA). There is also one example where he pulls some very high Alpha in the horizontal, resulting in him losing 500f/s (if not more) in altitude; Doing the same thing at 15 or 20K ft with weapons will result in greater loss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... fXnCUwG9CQ



F/A-18C pilot Tim Hibbetts generally says the same thing-
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5533
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 18:30

wrightwing wrote:In terms of low speed maneuvers, there isn't much that Hornets/Super Hornets can't replicate. Their nose pointing is on par/superior to Flankers. It's only at higher speeds, where they can't fully replicate Flankers. In addition to that, our pilots train against F-15/16/22/35, Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens, Mirage 2000, Mig-29, Su-27/30, etc... The Russians get no equivalent training.



Yep.

I top.gun guy published a great story about how the F-16N could replicate mig-17, 19, 21, 23 and 29
Choose Crews
Offline

firebase99

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 05:25

f-16adf wrote:That Swiss Hornet demo is impressive, but those high AOA maneuvers are generally all done in the vertical plane. There is a trade off between high Alpha flight and altitude. The jet is popping his nose at some very high AOA, AND he is using God's G (the vertical) to regain his lost airspeed. Notice he is getting very slow, and it is taking some time for him to recover. In the time it takes him to recover (5-9 seconds) he could be dead by another opponent that isn't going to follow him and get slow. And in a 2v2 or many v many scenario, flying that slow and on the edge of controllability is going to probably be near suicidal.

Here is another Hornet vid. And the pilot is generally using his high AOA (over 25 units) in the vertical (watch his HUD very closely, and look at the airspeed and altitude loss as he is popping his nose up at some very high AOA). There is also one example where he pulls some very high Alpha in the horizontal, resulting in him losing 500f/s (if not more) in altitude; Doing the same thing at 15 or 20K ft with weapons will result in greater loss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... fXnCUwG9CQ

I know Tim from Quora!! Great guy. That Hornet punched the number in the video at an air show...wow



F/A-18C pilot Tim Hibbetts generally says the same thing-
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 17:17

ADF, I understand the vertical maneuvers, weight, airspeed, FCS, aerodynamic shape, deceleration, all characteristics of post stall maneuvering. But wouldn't it be a good option for the F-22/35 to train against. The F-16/18 are impressive in different parts of the envelope were as the F-22/35 are competent at both extremes. Also, the new TX would have to be for training purposes.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1481
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 17:55

strykerxo wrote:ADF, I understand the vertical maneuvers, weight, airspeed, FCS, aerodynamic shape, deceleration, all characteristics of post stall maneuvering. But wouldn't it be a good option for the F-22/35 to train against. The F-16/18 are impressive in different parts of the envelope were as the F-22/35 are competent at both extremes. Also, the new TX would have to be for training purposes.


its more complicated than that, the F-22 and F-35 are stealth and not just from the long range RF but also from short ranges in both IR and RF spectrums

so WVR combat against them may be unnecessarily more difficult.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2193
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 18:05

And both are expensive to fly...
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 454
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 18:09

In a perfect world, yes it probably would be. But we (the U.S.) don't have a dissimilar jet with TVC for the F-22 or -35 to train against. And with current budget (yes, sorry to bring that up again) constraints we never will.

As it stands now, the SH would be the best opponent for the -22 or -35 for slow speed/high Alpha training.



Take note, that NSAWC never rejected the F-16 (N or A/B) just because it was limited to 25 AOA.
Offline

strykerxo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 04:40

Unread post14 Mar 2018, 20:47

f-16adf wrote:In a perfect world, yes it probably would be. But we (the U.S.) don't have a dissimilar jet with TVC for the F-22 or -35 to train against. And with current budget (yes, sorry to bring that up again) constraints we never will.

As it stands now, the SH would be the best opponent for the -22 or -35 for slow speed/high Alpha training.



Take note, that NSAWC never rejected the F-16 (N or A/B) just because it was limited to 25 AOA.


Too many variables, they might have to fight each other, a very expensive and deadly proposition. The powers that be must have thought of this conundrum. Maybe they have such confidence in the platform that with a Gods Eye perspective they can engage and disengage at will, only getting WVR when needed.

I find it interesting that most all western fighter aircraft have rejected thrust vectoring and Russia hangs its hat on it.
You can't shot what you can't see - Unknown

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests