MRCA Discussion - October 2, 2010

[srai]

...

Also in a tail chase, if the plane can do post stall maneuvers when the missile is very close, it can help in breaking missile lock. This is because missiles can't do those maneuvers and would overshoot. Gaur sahab is right (I had told this before as well). If you are being chased by a missile and the missile is a more than 5 miles away, one would be very foolish to do a cobra maneuver. But if the missile is 300 mtrs behind and you did a "zoom" maneuver. It might help a lot because unlike you the missile can't slow down so fast.

If the missile is 500 mtrs behind and if you do a zoom maneuver the missile might not hit you at that moment instead it will describe a radius of turn and come back at you. This close you simply cannot outrun a missile. Also these days even missiles are equiped with TVC - you do a zoom maneuver and it will closely follow you. Your best bet is to jam it -- but then a plane without a TVC will also be able to do it.

...

AFAIK, AAM/SAM missiles are not able to return for "multiple" engagement beyond the single pass they make at the target. The missile makes all the necessary calculations ahead of the impact zone and maneuvers optimally towards that area. New generation of missiles have a better "kill-zone" or "no-escape-zone" radius, which means they are able to hit the target regardless of the target's maneuver within that zone radius because of the combination of the missile's sensors, computing power, speed, maneuverability and EW-counter. This is done on a single pass (and not multiple passes as you are stating) and if it misses the target it automatically destroys itself after a certain time/distance.

I would assume if you want multiple passes, then the missile would need to be a bit slower to do a 360 degree type of turn and have a much wider-IR/RF sensor to re-acquire the target. It would also need a "single-target-only-lock" sensor so that it does not become a loose "cannon" on the fly until it runs out of fuel.

[naird]

Nair sahab, frankly to say that TVC in F-22 and PakFA to show off is the lamest excuse I have heard till now. You are softly alleging that designers and policy makers of the two biggest aircraft making nations add extra weight to their most advanced planes as a show off. Oh and then may be the aircraft guns should be a show off as well.

Roy saaar...i am sorry if it came out TVC in F22 was a show off. I did not mean that. TVC in F22 may well have been a perfectly weighed option by USAF. It was meant to be Air superiority fighter designed to sunset Russian fighters ..and plus TVC had its own advantages in terms of maneuverability. However keep in mind that this was before HMS technology had matured. In fact F22 was conceived Mig 29 was coming out in its own colors with their HMS. So TVC on F22 had its purpose. However IMHO ever since those glory days it has significantly lost its value proposition resulting in TVC not being fielded for USAF next gen F35 and neither on any of the European fighters. Surely if TVC is what its claimed to be - then we would have seen a evolution of concept in the next series of fighters rather than abandonment. With regards to PAKFA - i will reserve my comments.IMO TVC is on a path of diminshing returns - but that is purely my opinion.

Coming to JHMCS. You might lock on to a plane which is at between your 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, but the efficacy of that missile is greatly reduced. you might want to read up on that.

Maybe you are right. But does it really matter ? You would be putting the opposing fighters in a strongly miserably defensive position by then.

Coming back to countering the missile using post stall maneuvers. Well it depends on the missile. If it is acting on it's own radar, if it shoots past the plane there is a low possibility that it will maintain radar lock.

Is that entirely correct ? we are taking in mere meters when a a/c pulls a TVC maneuver , a missile does have a proximity fuse by then. I just feel its too close to comfort. I am not all sure how can plane break down a lock without the use of flares/EW.

If the missile is guided by the radar of the enemy airplane, then the pursuing plane can continue to guide it. However, your assumption that it will be able to do a 180 degree loop and catch the plane again is not correct. In that case, it has to a 360 degrees. The zoom maneuver makes the plane gain 100 metres or so, for a 180 degree turn the missile would have to have a turning radius of 50 metres, which I don't think is possible. For getting inline it has to make a 360 degree turn. Other wise, it will have to fly further ahead and make sure that after the inside loop, it is still ahead of the plane.

In either case the efficacy of the missile after all these missiles would be greatly reduced.

I am not trying to say the TVC plane will not employ countermeasures or jamming. But in this game of catch up where the plane can never outrun or out turn a missile, anon TVC plane can gain by going to a flight envelope which the missile can't match by flying and maneuvering at below the stall speed of the aircraft.

I will agree with you on the maneuver however dont you feel that doing these maneuvers significantly makes the a/c loose its speed..and there by compromise is done with defeating the missile for the first time. Further the a/c becomes a sitting duck during these maneuvers against other a/c's.

It's just an additional option with a TVC plane which a non TVC plane doesn't have.

True.

[nrshah]

Roy saaar...i am sorry if it came out TVC in F22 was a show off. I did not mean that. TVC in F22 may well have been a perfectly weighed option by USAF. It was meant to be Air superiority fighter designed to sunset Russian fighters ..and plus TVC had its own advantages in terms of maneuverability. However keep in mind that this was before HMS technology had matured. In fact F22 was conceived Mig 29 was coming out in its own colors with their HMS. So TVC on F22 had its purpose. However IMHO ever since those glory days it has significantly lost its value proposition resulting in TVC not being fielded for USAF next gen F35 and neither on any of the European fighters. Surely if TVC is what its claimed to be - then we would have seen a evolution of concept in the next series of fighters rather than abandonment. With regards to PAKFA - i will reserve my comments.IMO TVC is on a path of diminshing returns - but that is purely my opinion.

So just because the US/EU does not field TVC, it is on diminishing returns...Great

[Juggi G]

Israeli F-16I Sufa (Storm) Fighter Jet Crash



IAF Suspects Human Error in Fatal F-16 Crash

Analysis : Relevance of IAF Dogfight Training

Miscalculation in Altitude may have Caused F-16I Jet Crash

IAF commander Arrives at Negev Crash Scene ; 2 Feared Dead

Remains of IAF Pilot, Navigator Found After Jet Crash

In September, 2009, Assaf Ramon, son of Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, was killed in a training accident. Ramon was flying an older model F-16 that Exploded .

Major Amichai Itkis (left) and Major Immanuel Levy

[naird]

Roy saaar...i am sorry if it came out TVC in F22 was a show off. I did not mean that. TVC in F22 may well have been a perfectly weighed option by USAF. It was meant to be Air superiority fighter designed to sunset Russian fighters ..and plus TVC had its own advantages in terms of maneuverability. However keep in mind that this was before HMS technology had matured. In fact F22 was conceived Mig 29 was coming out in its own colors with their HMS. So TVC on F22 had its purpose. However IMHO ever since those glory days it has significantly lost its value proposition resulting in TVC not being fielded for USAF next gen F35 and neither on any of the European fighters. Surely if TVC is what its claimed to be - then we would have seen a evolution of concept in the next series of fighters rather than abandonment. With regards to PAKFA - i will reserve my comments.IMO TVC is on a path of diminshing returns - but that is purely my opinion.

So just because the US/EU does not field TVC, it is on diminishing returns...Great

If that's how it sounds then yes that's exactly what it is. US/EU have been pioneers in military technology and i hope you agree with me that they are way ahead of competition especially when it comes to military tech (esp US). So if USAF/EU were even remotely convinced that TVC offers great advantages (coupled with the fact that Russia has fielded TVC on almost all its fighters ) then yes they would have fielded it or made it a neccesity in their next gen fighters.

[Gaur]

If that's how it sounds then yes that's exactly what it is. US/EU have been pioneers in military technology and i hope you agree with me that they are way ahead of competition especially when it comes to military tech (esp US). So if USAF/EU were even remotely convinced that TVC offers great advantages (coupled with the fact that Russia has fielded TVC on almost all its fighters ) then yes they would have fielded it or made it a neccesity in their next gen fighters.

Well, that really is a very flawed thinking. You are entitled to think that US may be leaders in military technology, but to think that Russians are just childish fools who do not understand the technology they have mastered and used for decades is very unreasonable.
To be honest, my personal opinion is that SU was far ahead of US before its fall.
Compare the following:
supersonic Mig-19 vs subsonic F-100 Super Sabre
Mig 21 (which still prove more than a match for F-16, F-15s) vs F-104 Starfighter
Su-27 vs F-15

And I am only quoting the fighters. Check out bombers, tactical transport, space (check their respective records in Space Stations) etc and the Russians will be found worth respecting in those fields too.

IMO, US was not even a match, it was far behind. Russia was the one which first implement HMS in fighters, integrated advanced integrate IRST/OLS for air engagements when US was still hanging IR pods for ground imagery. If SU had not initially been bankrupted and finally collapsed, the aviation world would have been very interesting at present. But then again, to each his own. For me, Sweden with its Draken and Viggen was the only Nation which gained my greatest respect after SU.

However, this is getting way OT here.

[abhik]

I think TVC made great sense to the designers of F-22, MKI, Mig-35 etc because they all fired only fire and forget (by which I mean no communication between missile and aircraft after launch) WVR IR missiles. Which means you have to get your fighter(and the WVR missiles that it carries) behind or pointing approximately at the target, get your missile seeker to lock on before you can launch. I guess the value of TVC greatly reduces as fighters gain the capability to detect and launch WVR AAMs at at any angle.

[Gaur]

^^
IIRC, the above fighters can too fire at extreme angles. I am not sure, but I think that a video is posted in BR by Shiv sir which shows MKI firing a WVR missile (I do not remember which. Perhaps r-73), which makes a 180 turn to strike the target. Again, I am not sure so other members can point out if it is true or not.
However, in any case, the problem is not of firing. The problem is giving missile the maximum hit probability. More the missile has to travel, lose energy, take sharp turns etc, less is its probability to hit the target. That is why the firing a/c has to first get into the right position and line up against the target as best as possible. Whoever does that first is in great advantage.

Added Later: Found the video on BR's video gallery. The AAM doesn't turn 180 degrees. But the target is at an extreme angle at any rate and the AAM does make at least a 90 degree upward turn.

[Indranil]

Pleas e do away with the saar/sir. I don't have enough grey on my head yet .

In fact F22 was conceived Mig 29 was coming out in its own colors with their HMS. So TVC on F22 had its purpose. However IMHO ever since those glory days it has significantly lost its value proposition resulting in TVC not being fielded for USAF next gen F35 and neither on any of the European fighters. Surely if TVC is what its claimed to be - then we would have seen a evolution of concept in the next series of fighters rather than abandonment. With regards to PAKFA - i will reserve my comments.IMO TVC is on a path of diminshing returns - but that is purely my opinion.

F-22 was not built to counter the Mig-29 with HMS!
Eurofighter Typhoon will have TVC in the future.
Even results of US research pointed to a strong case for the TVC. And this was with very rudimentary TVC, if you notice the NASA test vehicles. TVC which added 700 kgs in a single engine bird and yet... Todays TVC engines will add less than 100 kg on a 2 engine bird. One doesn't have to be an AerE expert to understand the significance.

Coming to JHMCS. You might lock on to a plane which is at between your 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock, but the efficacy of that missile is greatly reduced. you might want to read up on that.

Maybe you are right. But does it really matter ? You would be putting the opposing fighters in a strongly miserably defensive position by then.

It matters a lot. As I said, I hope you read a little about off-bore sight missile engagement. There is a very severe impact. No matter where you lock on, the missile is always fired in the direction of the nose of the fighter. If you were to be firing a missile at your six o' clock, it's range might be quartered or less.

Coming back to countering the missile using post stall maneuvers. Well it depends on the missile. If it is acting on it's own radar, if it shoots past the plane there is a low possibility that it will maintain radar lock.

Is that entirely correct ? we are taking in mere meters when a a/c pulls a TVC maneuver , a missile does have a proximity fuse by then. I just feel its too close to comfort. I am not all sure how can plane break down a lock without the use of flares/EW.

It's not in metres but around a hundred metres. As I said you wouldn't bank on TVC alone to save you. But you can do more things with TVC.

I will agree with you on the maneuver however dont you feel that doing these maneuvers significantly makes the a/c loose its speed..and there by compromise is done with defeating the missile for the first time. Further the a/c becomes a sitting duck during these maneuvers against other a/c's.

You mean sitting ducks for the first missile or a second missile fired? You don't seem to agree that the TVC plane will have the first head-on shot rather than a non-TVC plane. But you could read simulations from worldwide about the outcome of such comparisons in BVR. Why not take up the Su-30MKI vs F-15 Eagle comparisons. They have the very same role/weight/TWR etc etc.

Aircraft design is about optimization. If you go for TVC you increase maneuverability but loose agility. Also TVC is complex and expensive to design/implement/operate. Hence, it is a design choice which people make. But if one could build a light TVC which is easy to maitain (which seems to be round the corner), designers will make it part of the designs more often as you are seeing now with most planes.

F-35 is not an A2A aircraft. So if you would say that F-35 is the benchmark to justify whether TVC is required or not would be flawed. F-35 seems to be doing horribly against the Su-35 in simulations all over the world. Even Carlo Kopp from Auzzie land reports 100++: 1 kill ratio in favour of the Su-35. Forget the PakFA and the likes. Note: I am not trashing the F-35. I think it is a phenomenal plane. But your citing it as the nemesis of tomorrow's aerial combat because it comes from "Western" stables is not right. Notice, it has stealth, HMS and the best avionics the world has seen till date, few of the bests if the not the bests WVR/BVR missiles. And yet it doesn't seem to be doing very well in the simulations done by AFs which are going to introduce them as their front line fighters. And it is not one or two simulations. I am yet to read a simulation result where the F-35 does well against a Su-35. The only rebuff has been from LM that it is better than 4 of the planes in the Indian MMRCA. The lesser I write about what the Euro consortium thinks about it the better. F-35 is a phenomenal ground attack plane. But to say it will fare well against the 4th gen ++ fighters in aerial warfare would not be true. It was frankly not designed for it. That was supposed to be taken care of by the F-22 which IMHO is the plane to gun for if you are asking for A2A.

It is also right that you can emulate TVC will bigger control surfaces. However this comes with compromises
1. Doesn't work at high altitude
2. Doesn't work if you are going slow (TVC works best here, the slower the better).
3. Larger percentage of wing area has to be dedicated to the to the control surfaces, which has many side effects. Or you have to build a bigger wing, which also has its side effects.

In short, in aerodynamics you can achieve what you want in many ways. For each way, you would have to compromise on something else. It resides on your judgement on what you want to gain and what you want to lose and how much.

P.S. Mods please create a thread where we can discuss general aviation talk. Thank you.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

Last couple of days on this thread ..we have witnessed arguments on effectiveness of TVC.
What role does TVC plays in A2G missions and CAS roles . Ability to hover might be beneficial to stay in the combat theater and re engage mobile artillery target.

About F35 not having tvc.. i guess F35 B has TVC. F35 A is lightest of the bunch is intended to replace the USAF's F-16 Fighting Falcon, beginning in 2013, and replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II starting in 2028. Both of which are not Air supremacy fighters.

F35C, carrier based a/c is set to replace F/A 18 SH's which again is a multirole and not a dedicated air supremacy fighter....


On other hand F22 Raptor was envisioned to replace F15 strike eagle which is an dedicated Air supremacy fighter. So maybe TVC is intended to be fielded on A2A combat primarily.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

Off topic question ... how many of you think F35 lightening II looks ugly???

[Gaur]

Last couple of days on this thread ..we have witnessed arguments on effectiveness of TVC.
What role does TVC plays in A2G missions and CAS roles . Ability to hover might be beneficial to stay in the combat theater and re engage mobile artillery target.

About F35 not having tvc.. i guess F35 B has TVC. F35 A is lightest of the bunch is intended to replace the USAF's F-16 Fighting Falcon, beginning in 2013, and replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II starting in 2028. Both of which are not Air supremacy fighters.

F35C, carrier based a/c is set to replace F/A 18 SH's which again is a multirole and not a dedicated air supremacy fighter....


On other hand F22 Raptor was envisioned to replace F15 strike eagle which is an dedicated Air supremacy fighter. So maybe TVC is intended to be fielded on A2A combat primarily.

TVC has no role in ground strike. Though, the idea of MKI dropping PGMs while doing a cobra/tailslide brings a smile to my face.

You are right that F-35B has TVC. But that TVC is of different type with different role. It, like the SHARs, is for STOVL purpose and has no role in air to air combat.

Off topic question ... how many of you think F35 lightening II looks ugly???

IMHO, look is the least of F-35's problems.

[Viv S]

Last couple of days on this thread ..we have witnessed arguments on effectiveness of TVC.
What role does TVC plays in A2G missions and CAS roles . Ability to hover might be beneficial to stay in the combat theater and re engage mobile artillery target.

About F35 not having tvc.. i guess F35 B has TVC. F35 A is lightest of the bunch is intended to replace the USAF's F-16 Fighting Falcon, beginning in 2013, and replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II starting in 2028. Both of which are not Air supremacy fighters.

F-35B does not have TVC (the working principle isn't the same as the Harrier).

F35C, carrier based a/c is set to replace F/A 18 SH's which again is a multirole and not a dedicated air supremacy fighter....

The F-35C will replace the F-18C/D Hornet not the Superhornet.

On other hand F22 Raptor was envisioned to replace F15 strike eagle which is an dedicated Air supremacy fighter. So maybe TVC is intended to be fielded on A2A combat primarily.

The F-15C/D is a dedicated air-superiority aircraft. The F-15E Strike Eagle is a primarily a (self-escorting) strike aircraft. It was introduced to carry out deep interdiction missions replacing the F-111 Aardvark.

And while we're on the subject, yes TVC is intended not primarily but purely for A2A combat.

[Gaur]

F-35B does not have TVC (the working principle isn't the same as the Harrier).

True, F-35's TVN is based on YAK-141. However, I was talking more about the function/reason of TVC in F-35B rather than its design and working.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

True F15E St Eagle is a long range stike a/c. Major structural difference is CFT's which cant be jettisoned which also reduces performance. But structurally F15 E inherits all aspects of its air superiority siblings.

F/A 18's replacement looks like F35 C which shares pretty much all its performance feature. Unless US comes up with a new 5th gen a/c, looks like F35 replaces F/A18 sh and F22 replaces F15 StE...

I would really like to see MIG 35 TVC or Eurofighter TVC in IAF colors... Both are Air superiority fighters in multirole clothing.

[Kartik]

To be fair to MiG Corp, it appears that the experience that the IAF had with its MiG-29s during the early 1990s is not a unique one. The ROKAF has had quite a bad experience with their expensive F-15K Slam Eagles as well. DefenseIndustry daily had carried this

Oct 19/09: The Chosun Ilbo reports that the F-15K’s “concurrent spare parts” availability rate was just 16% in 2008, compared to 70-80% for other ROKAF fighters. As a result, cannibalization of flying planes for spare parts skyrocketed from 39 cases in 2006 to 203 in 2007, and 350 in 2008. While the ROKAF has maintained the target 80% availability rate for the fighters, it means that 5-6 of the aircraft are unavailable at any given time. The figures come from documents the ROKAF submitted to Grand National Party lawmaker Kim Jang-soo, who heads the National Assembly’s Defense Committee. Chosen Ibo:

“Cannibalization is prohibited, but authorization can be given by the top echelon when there is no other option…. The Air Force cites a lack of forecasts of “components needs” because it claims to be in the early stages of deploying F-15Ks, and blames manufacturer Boeing for failing to hand over the relevant information.”

There was a recent article blasting P&W, the Korean DAPA and their inexperienced inspectors as being responsible for poor quality inspections which led to serious quality concerns on the F-15K's P&W F-100-PW-229 engines with one particular engine being very badly damaged by FOD and yet being used on board an F-15K that flew over the Atlantic on its way to St.Louis. This was a serious breach and the F-15K could've been lost over sea had an engine malfunction occurred. Upon landing the engine was found to be damaged beyond repair. P&W even replaced for free, one engine due to the poor quality seen on their engines for the F-15K.

One of the three F-15K aircraft delivered by U.S. aerospace company Boeing to the South Korean Air Force (ROKAF) in September had severe defects allegedly due to the poor quality of work at a St. Louis manufacturing facility, industry sources said Thursday.

On Sept. 9, Boeing delivered three of the second batch of 21 F-15Ks ordered under a 2008 contract, following the delivery of 40 F-15Ks under a previous deal in 2002.

But one of the newly arrived aircraft had an engine damaged by foreign objects, and fuel transfer and avionics glitches, the sources said, citing testimony of Korean technicians based at the K2 Air Base in Daegu, about 300 kilometers south of Seoul. The Daegu base is home to the F-15K fleet.

The broken engine built by Pratt & Whitney was immediately replaced with a new one and other problems were repaired, the sources said.

link

Point being, that this sort of a situation can occur even with Western sourced equipment that costs an arm and a leg and especially so for after sales support. the MoD will need to be very vigilant to make sure that the OEM will be held responsible for any such costly glitches. I hope that they sign a water-tight contract in this regard.

[SaiK]

I guess the value of TVC greatly reduces as fighters gain the capability to detect and launch WVR AAMs at at any angle.

wonder if this should be really talked in detail in the pak-fa thread., keeping in mind that the max lock in range would be greater than 400km (min, since N035 Irbis PESA surely could track perhaps Ef2K type RCS) with an AESA or a future AESA with AlGaN could even better these specifications.

Surely, TVC takes a back seat, and the reason why Raptor concentrated not on 3D TVC rather concentrated on lowering the IR and radar signatures.

[Indranil]

Saik sir, if you use any of the present day BVR missile at more than 100 km away you would have wasted a lot of tax payers money . And this is when you launch from a very high altitude at supersonic speed in the in a head on-case.

Change any of these and you can keep subtracting 20km for each one.

[Philip]

TVC,cobra aids "tossing" missiles behind to kill an enemy on one's tail.Check out reports about rearward looking Russian radars/sensors spread at various places on the fuselage.TVC gives one a great close- combat dogfighting capability.

[Indranil]

^^^BAH! I have read that before. I don't see that happening though.
How will the missile detach?
If it does how can you be deterministic about it's position after a "fall" during a maneuver like the cobra where your max AoA is not deterministic?
Can't imagine a fighter pilot to be tugging hard on his stick and right at the apex (God knows when it comes and goes within an instant), he fires a missile. Can you?

Rearward facing radar is not exclusive to TVC planes. Hence citing that as a reading material in support of a TVC planes capability is fairly naive in my humble opinion.

[SaiK]

An actual war would be a combination of both, say 300 Su30 MKs coming from NE direction, I doubt we would be able to interdict them all with BVRs. If we can, then that would be awesome. From our current capability, let us assume until we have about 300 pakfas, we are vulnerable for dog fights.

[koti]

Can't imagine a fighter pilot to be tugging hard on his stick and right at the apex (God knows when it comes and goes within an instant), he fires a missile. Can you?

Actually, it wouldn't be much different from firing a missile while tailing another AC in a dog fight.
Except that you would be making the first moves and your enemy will be following your actions that puts him in some predictable position and thus assist while firing at him.

[Indranil]

It would be very different. When you area in a tail chase, you can see your opponent, you can see the projectile of his plane and yours.

In a Cobra maneuver, most pilots find it very difficult to keep situational awareness during those few seconds. So I read. I don't find it very difficult to believe.

[Philip]

The Russian manoeuvres were not meant to wow viewers at air shows.They were meant for a purpose according to informed analysts.TVC used by the Harriers (VIFFing) have proven their worth too.3D TVC equipped fighters will have a distinct advantage against those without during dogfights.

Some interesting info from some publications.Est. cost of a JF-17 is $10m.MIG-29 $35.The "heavy" MMRCA contenders are all in the region of $75m.The viewpoint was that Pak will be able to make up numbers very easily with large numbers of cheap JF-17s (to counter the IAF's advantage in quality) which will become "the MIG-21 of the 21st century",available to smaller nations as a very affordable fighter.Given these figures,at what genuine price will an LCA,when perfected arrive at and what will its capabiltiies be vis-a-vis the JF-17? I'm wondering about this because of the cost that an MMRCA is going to arrive at.In the numbers game,we have to meet both the challenge from Pak and that of China.The MOD has reportedly asked the services about this and their requirements and at least a 50sqd. IAF will be needed.If you also throw in the PTC's "joker' into the ring,Burma,then we need a far larger air force than even what the planners envisage! Ideally,the IAF should possess by 2020 a force of around 1000-1200 frontline combat fighters.This number will also have to include apart from the FGFA/PAK-FA, tactical/strategic bombers like SU-34s and upgraded Backfires,MIG-31 "AWACs killers"-as Pak and the PLAF are acquiring a large number of the same from Sweden and China respectively.

China will be the mainstay of providing arms to Pak and its quality has drastically improved.It has developed several new classes of subs,aircraft and even artillery and MBRL,which are at least the equivalent of western alternatives and come in at far lower cost.With its clones of the Flanker and two home designed fighters,China can equip Pak with enough aircraft for it to possess an air force of around 600 fighters,about 75% of the IAF's strength.The slippage in numbers of the IAF is very serious and we must acquire at least 300 new fighters before the FGFA and LCA MK-2 arrive.Therefore we must find either an affordable MMRCA,or buy both the "best" MMRCA (since reports say that the Typhoon has been evaluated as the best technically) and also acquire another affordable fighter as the LCA is nowhere maturing in a hurry.IN addition,we will not be able to acquire that many MMRCA's in a hurry even if an aircraft like the Typhoon is chosen as there are other orders already for EU nations.IN case we require another fighter there are three alternatives.F-16IN,Gripen and MIG-35,which should be cheaper to acquire than buying more SU-30s,orders already for 270+.I seriously doubt that the IAF would want the F-16 as Pak operates them and we would be exposing ourselves to US manipulation at a later date in favour of Pak.This leaves the Gripen and MIG-35 as the most cost-effective of the lot.Take your pick!

PS:Reg. situational awareness of the pilot,most aircraft today have pilots helmets "slaved",with all tactical info available on the visor.Plans are afoot to even dispense with all cockpit displays/info leaving only the pilot's helmet/visor containing all info.

[abhik]

^^^
If the aim was to make up for the numbers it would simply be much better to buy used planes of the MRCA we are buying(and/or mirage 2K), like the grippen(about 60 of them are on the block)and of course the most promising F-16(of which more than a hundred are to be retired). Am no fan of the f-16 but we have to be practical.
You have to admire Philip saar's persistence at making a case for the Mig-35

[SriSri]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pak ... eal-06637/

^^^ published last week

[koti]

To add to the TVC.

During Falklands... the harrier's performed spectacularly against the Argentine Mirages.
They got almost all the kills against the mirages in dog fights.

This is inspite of the fact that the Mirages had far superior speed. And even the thrust/weight was favorable for the Mirages, but could bot compensate the TVC like flight characteristics of the Harrier.

Seeker's and radars have come a long way from then, but still it is very likely that any air to air combat can break down to a dogfight.

[Pratyush]

Heavy duty OT post for the thread

Koti,

The example of Falklands is not correct IMO when it comes to TVC. Cause the Mirajes were at the limit of endurance and had practialy no fuel for ACM. If the Argies had IFR for Mirages. The story may have been diffrent. In that situation any other aircraft could have acheaved similar results in a dog fight. If the oponent was similarly constrained WRT ACM.

IIRC, only the Argie A 4 had that ability at that time.

[JTull]

To be fair to MiG Corp, it appears that the experience that the IAF had with its MiG-29s during the early 1990s is not a unique one. The ROKAF has had quite a bad experience with their expensive F-15K Slam Eagles as well. DefenseIndustry daily had carried this

...

Point being, that this sort of a situation can occur even with Western sourced equipment that costs an arm and a leg and especially so for after sales support. the MoD will need to be very vigilant to make sure that the OEM will be held responsible for any such costly glitches. I hope that they sign a water-tight contract in this regard.

Havent't IAF experienced the same recently with Hawks? This is part and parcel of setting up new supply chains. But, I suspect Russians are more likely to do this mischief, perhaps even as a pretext for extracting more dough.

[vardhank]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Pak ... eal-06637/

^^^ published last week

Not particularly new thinking, but interesting if it seems that the decision-makers see it this way, too.

And then there were four...

I had a (very polite ) argument with Singha on this forum, regarding which of its current jets' capabilities the IAF wanted to complement, and it got me thinking on the permutations/combinations that would influence the IAF's choice.

(In all the scenarios below, I'm leaving the FGFA and AMCA out, and regarding the Jaguars, MiG-27s, MiG-29s and even the Mirages as largely bit players. I'm concentrating on the big numbers here. Also, the F-18, to me, is a wild card: it won't be selected unless politics takes complete precedence, and then all bets are off. I would imagine it would fit something like Scenario 2, but it could go any which way.)

Scenario 1:
- The IAF really has very little faith in the LCA (or sees it as a bonus, not the backbone) and needs more or less a direct alternative to the LCA, ie a cheap, multi-role numbers fighter.
- The idea would be to largely have a hi-lo mix of multi-role fighters, with the MKI at the top, the cheap one at the bottom, and the other types as bit players
In this case, it's the Gripen, in an order much larger than the 126, with the LCA coming on as a supplement whenever it's ready. The IAF would then be analogous to the USAF, with one heavy and one light fighter.

Scenario 2:
- The IAF's happy enough with the LCA as a multi-role fighter, and even the LCA-2 should be ready soon-ish
- The MKI is to be used primarily as an A2A fighter, with some deep-strike capability, but not as the primary strike fighter
In this case, the Rafale. Hi-med-lo (MKI-Rafale-LCA). This was my argument, Singha didn't agree. He might be right - maybe, if the IAF sees more of an A2A role for the Su-30 family, it would've selected/will select in future something like the Su-35S, and nuts to the WSO.

Scenario 3:
- The IAF's happy with the LCA-2, but wants it to be a heavier multi-role plane (mission creep here - it's going to take a while before the LCA-2 meets the IAF's new requirements)
- The MKI is to be used as the primary strike fighter, as a bomb truck as well as for deep, unescorted strike missions.
- The IAF wants to replace the MiG-21 directly as an A2A jet
In this case, the Typhoon takes it. Again Hi-Med-Lo, but with very defined roles. And in this case, the Typhoon's lack of A2G ability doesn't matter. This basically was Singha's argument.


I'm guessing Scenario 3 looks the most likely, though my preference in a way is for Scenario 2. What does everyone else think?

[GeorgeWelch]

This is inspite of the fact that the Mirages had far superior speed. And even the thrust/weight was favorable for the Mirages, but could bot compensate the TVC like flight characteristics of the Harrier.

TVC was never used by the Harriers in combat.

The (main) difference was the missiles.

Which again shows how little kinetics have to do with modern air combat.

[Indranil]

Reg. situational awareness of the pilot,most aircraft today have pilots helmets "slaved",with all tactical info available on the visor.Plans are afoot to even dispense with all cockpit displays/info leaving only the pilot's helmet/visor containing all info.

Philip sahab loss of situational awareness during a post stall manoeuvre is not because of the dearth of information. When you do a cobra manoeuvre your instruments are all over the place. You can read about the same from numerous pilot accounts. Airspeed, horizon detection etc are all off by a huge margin, the pilot himself can't see the horizon and can only guess his AoA, but can't be sure. The pilot is trained to pick up cues during the manoeuvre and become fully aware as soon as the manoeuvre comes to an end and the aircraft nose goes down to attain airspeed. So streaming the information to the visor doesn't help in this case.

Philip sir, don't trust me. Just try to find out one account of where a designer or pilot has said that TVC helps him fire missiles in arbitrary directions like tossing a missile behind him. TVC only helps in getting into positions to fire faster or to have control at lower speeds which helps in addition of some manoeuvres like the "hook" manoeuvre.

Also I believe that the TVC will also help in executing some manoeuvres faster like the cobra, the stall turn.

Also notice that for the scissors you could be flying slower and hence at a huge advantage.

[koti]

This is inspite of the fact that the Mirages had far superior speed. And even the thrust/weight was favorable for the Mirages, but could bot compensate the TVC like flight characteristics of the Harrier.

TVC was never used by the Harriers in combat.

The (main) difference was the missiles.

Which again shows how little kinetics have to do with modern air combat.

Harrier never had TVC. That is why I said "TVC like" flight characteristics.

I wanted to highlight that raw engine power or T/W is not just sufficient to win in a dogfight(missiles apart).

Interesting read for those who missed it. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

[Indranil]

TVC was never used by the Harriers in combat.

The (main) difference was the missiles.

Which again shows how little kinetics have to do with modern air combat.

Agreed to the first part.

Am in strong disagreement with the second part i.e "Which again shows how little kinetics have to do with modern air combat".
1. When two modern fighters face off each other, with similar weapons, it's a level playing field again. You would be back to the usage of "little" kinetics to make the difference. This is where F-22 is my favourite fighter. Not only is it superior in its weapons, radar, and sensor suites, it is a supreme A2A platform which makes it the hardest bird to kill in the sky today. I don't know the fate of the F-22s, but if they outlive 2020, they would come with the latest upgrades and will remain one of the top 3 if not THE fighter to beat though designed and developed 2 decades before the rest in its fraternity.
2. If your conclusion were true, then why have fighters at all. Have long range stealth bombers. They have lots of space in their nose. Fit a huge AESA dish and provide the best A2A missiles. Long range, more number of missiles, problems solved .

[Indranil]

I have a newbie question on radars. Care to answer!

[Viv S]

F-35B does not have TVC (the working principle isn't the same as the Harrier).

True, F-35's TVN is based on YAK-141. However, I was talking more about the function/reason of TVC in F-35B rather than its design and working.

Fair enough. Semantics aside, the bottom-line like you said is that it has no real bearing in combat.

[Viv S]

Scenario 3:
- The IAF's happy with the LCA-2, but wants it to be a heavier multi-role plane (mission creep here - it's going to take a while before the LCA-2 meets the IAF's new requirements)
- The MKI is to be used as the primary strike fighter, as a bomb truck as well as for deep, unescorted strike missions.
- The IAF wants to replace the MiG-21 directly as an A2A jet
In this case, the Typhoon takes it. Again Hi-Med-Lo, but with very defined roles. And in this case, the Typhoon's lack of A2G ability doesn't matter. This basically was Singha's argument.


I'm guessing Scenario 3 looks the most likely, though my preference in a way is for Scenario 2. What does everyone else think?

I agree that looks like the most likely, but I don't think the Typhoon 'lacks' A2G ability. Its got a lower maximum payload/range when compared to the Rafale, but it does come configured with most typical A2G weaponry (Paveway/JDAMs/Storm Shadow). Also, as far as payload and range go, nothing beats the MKI.

[Sandeep_ghosh]

how about a vote on MMRCA among BR members....

[raj-ji]

TVC was never used by the Harriers in combat.

The (main) difference was the missiles.

Which again shows how little kinetics have to do with modern air combat.

Harrier never had TVC. That is why I said "TVC like" flight characteristics.

I wanted to highlight that raw engine power or T/W is not just sufficient to win in a dogfight(missiles apart).

Interesting read for those who missed it. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

Apart from missiles, please see the link on the Falklands.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -Nott.html

"As soon as the conflict began, France made available to Britain Super-Etendard and Mirage aircraft - which it had supplied to Argentina - so Harrier pilots could train against them."

Also unofficial reports of French giving the British other sensitive technical information on their aircraft that helped the Harriers get the upper hand.

This article also highlights the difference between the French and the Americans during the Falklands war, nothing new to most of us, but interesting that the US would do this to an ally like the British.

So when Sarko comes to town offering us a deal, it may be hard to ignore despite recent French hiccups.

[shukla]

how about a vote on MMRCA among BR members....

Already had one mate, Rafale won that BR battle. It only makes sense to have another one after the shortlisting or downselect process.