What is Thrust Vectoring?

[Nikhil Shah]

For people like me who are less technical in physical theory, can you please tell me what is thrust vectoring? Its pros/cons? etc.<P>------------------<BR>Jai Hind! Jai Jawan!<BR>bharatrakshak@hotmail.com<P><p>[This message has been edited by Nikhil Shah (edited 24-09-1999).]

[reggie]

Try <A HREF="http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/active/glossary.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/activ ... ry.html</A>

[Nikhil Shah]

Thanks.<P>How is Su-30MKI different from the Harriers. I know that Harriers have STOVL capabilities.<P>------------------<BR>Jai Hind! Jai Jawan!<BR>bharatrakshak@hotmail.com<P>

[Nikhil Shah]

Could the SU's have done a better job then M-2000. If you get greater maneuverability with SU-30MKI then Mirage-2000, is it obvious that SU-30 would have done (if we had all of them) a better job than Mirage-2000.<P>Why do we need a transonic plane as a light fighter? Doesn't anything that can at supersonic speed can also fly at subsonic speed? Is it a requirement for a supersonic fighters to fly at supersonic speed to fly unless when they are landing or taking off?<P>------------------<BR>Jai Hind! Jai Jawan!<BR>bharatrakshak@hotmail.com<P>

[Roop]

Nikhil:<P><< If you get greater maneuverability with SU-30MKI then Mirage-2000, is it obvious that SU-30 would have done (if we had all of them) a better job than Mirage-2000. >><P>It is not obvious at all. The success of the Mirage in Kargil had nothing to do with maneuverability, it was all about good ECM (jamming Pak radars) and effective use of precision standoff weapons. Whether the Sukhois would have done as well in this theatre is of, course open, to speculation. I would remind you that the Su-30 is a new aircraft that has not actually seen action (i.e. faced the enemy and fired its weapons in anger) anywhere in the world. Its appearances have so far been confined to airshows and 'cobra' maneuvres that are good for drawing gasps of admiration from the crowds, but not much help in war. Let's maintain a healthy scepticism until the plane proves itself in action.<P><< Is it a requirement for a supersonic fighters to fly at supersonic speed to fly unless when they are landing or taking off? >><P>No, it is not a requirement. The plane can fly at any speed up to its maximum. It's up to the pilot.<P>Regards,<BR>Mohan<BR>

[Nikhil Shah]

Mohan:<P>Thanks for your input.<P>Let's assume that there is another Kargil and India by then has acquired all the Hawks and SU-30 MKI that it needs.<P>What do you think will be used by IAF? We know that SU-30MKI and Mirage-2000 both can fly at the same speed as that of the Hawk. What is the rational of subsonic fighter planes?<P>------------------<BR>Jai Hind! Jai Jawan!<BR>bharatrakshak@hotmail.com<P>

[shiv]

Nikhil<P>It was noticed as early as in the 1965 conflict that planes that do not have swept back wings perform more predictably in the rarified atmosphere at 18000 + feet. If you play with paper or other toy aeroplanes (whose wings basically behave like those of any aeroplane) a broader striaghter winged plane flies slower but generates more "lift" - i.e. it has a better "grip" on the air and can execute turns and manoeuvres at slower speeds and over shorter distances. The sleek swept wing fast aircraft flies much faster to generate the same amount of lift.<P>Imagine yourself as a pilot attacking a theoretical point near the LOC. You need to fly towards the target and may be heading towards Pakistan. If your plane flies too fast you may miss proper identification of your target, miss it and then even end up crossing several Km beyond the LOC while turning around where Alam may kill you with his Chinese atomic catapult. You need a plane that can generate enough lift for slow speed flight and tight turns at high altitudes. The MiG 27 possibly fits the bill, but probably not the MiG 21. The Vampire did well in 1965. The HJT 16 Kiran would work, but its exhaust gives off more IR rays than any flare. The Hawk/Alpha jet would work too, but they are being bought for training purposes. The question is not what would or would not work, but what would work more efficiently.<P>Regarding supersonic aircraft, the "supersonic" bit has probably received undue publicity. Supersonic aircraft are supersonic because they have powerful engines and suitable airframes - and the advantage is not speed alone. A combination of powerful engine and good design can achieve several practical requirements:<P>Such aircraft can carry huge loads of armament and electronics.<P>They can accelerate faster - a useful requirement for getting away from a disadvantageous situation.<P>The more modern supersonic aircraft can perform manoeuvres to escape missiles or attacking aircraft and then reposition themselves to shoot down the attacking aircraft. They need not necessarily fly at supersonic speeds for all this.<P>Both supersonic and subsonic aircraft perform different roles and outperform the other type under certain conditions. The comparison is a bit like saying that if you already own a formula 1 race car, you need not buy any other car and you should be able to manage to get to work and buy your groceries with the Formula 1 alone.<P>

[Ved]

Folks,<P> There's too much hype about the success of the Mirage in Kargil. Look... out of 41 attempts to launch, there were 11 lock ons, 8 which held till after launch, resulting in 5 direct hits! The MiG-21/23/27s, statistically, got better results. Its just that the Mirages had the equipment to video the action, which came into media focus.