I'm not a pilot, but... 10 minutes is quite a lot of time, isn't it? At least, there are many thing you can do?
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Especially modern active radar arrays and optical / IR sensors, but also latest gen dish radars are really agile systems. At the distances involved, primarily in BVR combat such maneuvers will not achieve the angular movement to "outrun" the sensors' tracking rate.
Very crude example: if heading 90° off at 480kts, i.e. 8NM/min, it will take you 4s to cover one km. From the targeting radar, at 10km distance that 1km offset will appear under an angle of roughly 6°. Meaning the Radar / IRST (since it itself is also moving) will have to follow at maybe 2 -3°/sec. Reversing direction with those speeds at 9G takes about 9sec. So the sensor has that much time to adjust tracking rate by 6°/sec. Really not much.
Now were there is a point in this is with a multiship against dish radars. When a dish is tracking several targets, or doing search while already tracking some, since it can't split it's beam, it will have to split it's time between the contacts. It remebers location an velocity vector of one target. Then jumps through the other targets it's tracking, then maybe does a few pulses to search for more, and then jump back to were the original target should now be a few seconds later. If you did one aggressive change of direction in the correct moment, you might have gotten off and be lost to the radar.
If you add jamming in this, then it finally becomes usefull.
Although, as I said, it'll be just a few degrees and become progrssively less, the greater the distance.
With todays active arrays, that can actually split & focus beams, the target(s) can be painted constantly, and you just can't outrun light. Same for IR sensors, you can't outrun recognition software and electric motors moving a CCD about with a few °/sec of angular motion.
As such BVR is certainly not "just a marketing hoax". And out of all the technology now available, outturning sensors is probably the least effective to avoid BVR defeat.
Super-maneuverability only really becomes a factor after BVR has been survived, for which Super-maneuverability is itself not really a factor as I stated.
If anything, it's helpfull as last ditch defensive maneuver to dodge BVR missiles, since at the close ranges just prior impact, sudden direction changes finally do produce a large and usefull amount of angular movement and create an angles problem for the missile (today probably rather kinematics than sensor wise).
Barrel Rolls, btw, don't even really change direction. They are essentially a corkscrew along, or around, your path.
Furthermore, they are the base maneuver for what in close distance areal combat is called "rolling scissors", and I somehow have a feeling that is more akin to what you're describing. It's rather BFM, or perhaps ACM, were the fighters are allready almost entangled and not ACT stuff to close the distance to WVR in the first place.
Finally, to sustain your energy, i.e. speed, during high G maneuvers, you need to be in full reheat. Which makes you really hot & visible on IR and burn fuel fast. Or you loose speed and have to accelerate again every time.
Engineer
Major
The correct term is post-stall maneuverability, referring to the ability for the aircraft to maneuver in a stalled situation. However, if a fighter were to enter a stall situation in a dog fight, that aircraft is good as dead. .
There is nothing super about super maneuverability. All that is is a marketing gimmick. It doesn't even make sense to begin with. Modern fighter aircraft can turn at 9G, which already exceeds the tolerance for most pilots and can only be done for a short duration. Suppose there is a true super maneuverability that allows the aircraft to turn at 13G. What would you get? Dead pilots.
The rumor of PLAAF buying Su-35 is just that, a rumor. Russians say China is buying/brought Su-35 at least twice every year, and every time the same Su-35 fan boys are absolutely convinced that that is the real deal.
You may think that thrust-vectoring ability is a sensible reason for PLAAF to get some Su-35, but it actually isn't. Saturn tried marketing a version of Al-31FN with thrust-vectoring nozzle to PLAAF before. If PLAAF wanted thrust-vectoring engines so badly, it could have gotten some then. PLAAF's pragmatic attitude also means PLAAF will never go for an empty promise, and thrust-vectoring being game changing is nothing but an empty promise.
Hummm?? lots of questions about actual combat, for answers I would suggest you study a little of the past Red Flag/Top Gun engagement scenarios, some of the Chinese exercises, and the Brits and Indians with the Typhoons and Su30MKI??
I am no authority on weapons/radars/IRST etc, but I can tell you, you can't shoot what you can not see?? or lock on to?
In a modern combat engagement all the serious business will be taken care of BVR, if you see the bad guy before he sees you, you win! period! Those who dispute the outstanding advantage of L/O, are just flapping their yap, truth is the US and her partners are building and buying an aircraft that is very L/O, the Chinese are building the J-20 which they also proclaim to be very L/O, and the Russians are building the T-50, which they admit is not so L/O in shaping, but they intend to use "active cancellation", so everyone is pursuing L/O to the best of their ability?? if it were not a game changer, nobody would be spending all this money.
A J-15 is being flown by a "Golden Helmet", an SU-33 with the addition of OVT is being flown by a "Hero of the State". Assuming the two aircraft are identical with the exception of OVT on the SU-33, and the two pilots are mirror image practioners of ACM, the OVT will give the Hero an advantage over the Golden Helmet in a few certain limited "scenarios"??, now if the Hero mis-uses his OVT and "blows off his energy" by attempting to turn to tight, then the OVT has become a liability, and the advantage goes to the "Golden Helmet"
Now, this is NOT your day, the bad guy has a solid missile lock, OVT, fancy flying, or wearing your socks "inside out" ain't gonna make it any better, with any modern AAM, you are probably not gonna be having a steak for dinner??? All talk aside, I'm afraid you are not likely to "outturn" the AAM, it has your name and address, and telephone number! So on today's battlefield, L/O is still your best bet, and stay BVR, don't be "drawn into" WVR range because you know you can shoot the bad guy?
Having said all that, I just DO NOT see the Chinese benefitting from the SU-35, they will NOT buy it IMHO. The only reason they would is to help the Russians??
Brumby
Major
Completely agree with the VLO comments but that is only the tip of the ice berg. The game changer is in using VLO with sensor fusion, and the transformational multiplier effect it brings to the battle space throughout the value chain link. In other words, it is not about the individual parts but the whole be it extended or expanded battlespace. In effect, features like OVT, super maneuverability, et al become perhaps rather inconsequential.
Exactly so Master Brumby, and while I am a true believer in "super maneuverability" and OVT, the Eng has convinced me that OVT is certainly not a necessity for the J-20, and if I were to pull the "rabbit out of the hat" and re-open the Raptor line, I would adopt two of the F-135s and forget the OVT. So L/O and Supercruise have turned out to be the Magic Mojo of the F-22, the L/O and sensor fusion of the F-35 will no doubt put that aircraft on an equal footing with the Raptor. For these reasons I believe the Chinese are pursuing both L/O and Supercruise on the J-20, and will attempt to incorporate sensor fusion with their 4 gens just as we are, as you have noted, then we have a true "game changer", as situational awareness of the battlefield, will fuse our Flankers and F-15s to our 5 gens, in fact as you point out, the more systems that are tied into that chain link, the more effective each of those elements become.
They can't turn at 9G in every flight regime.
Brumby
Major
Directly from General Carlisle.
Btw, not all sensor fusion are alike. What is being built into the F-35 is considered level 4 sensor fusion per JDL. All the criticisms concerning the F-35 regarding its delay and cost can be attributed to its software development and not the airframe and flight science. In other words, the future fight will be determined by the software and not the airframe, a point that I don't believe is well understood (not referring to you). The US has a head start for close to 20 years with the F-117 and F-22 and understood much better what 5th gen brings into the fight. The F-35 captures a good portion of this learning from the onset of its development. The Russians with the Flankers took a different route with emphasis on flight dynamics, maneuverability and OVT. Time will tell who is right.
Here, you are missing the point? They don't need to, for example the F-35B has a design load limit of 7 Gs, the F-35C 7.5 Gs, and the A model 9 Gs, reflecting the different operational philosophies of each of our different services? on what is basically the same airframe. The Flanker is a very robust airframe, and while I don't have any numbers for the design load factors of any of the various airframes, I would assume that it was likely a 8-9 G airframe.
From the various flight demo's that we have seen of the Flanker, most are flown to a very high G limit, and most of those flight demo's are flown by OVT equipped aircraft, and I can say for a certainty that super-maneuverability and OVT are far more than window dressing. The Flanker is indeed a super-maneuverable aircraft, and OVT opens up that operating window even further, allowing you to push it into various flight regimes, that without OVT would be a least difficult, if not impossible.
So the Flanker will continue to be a super-maneuverable airframe, OVT opens that up even further? The J-20 has not been displayed in any flight demonstrations, nor have we seen it pushed in any significant way, but I would imagine that it is likely a 7 G or so airframe, the T-50 on the other hand has been flight demoed, and knowing the Russians, it has been pushed to the limits and beyond, (all the cracking and redesign are evidence of that)? so there is little doubt that the T-50 is a 9 G airframe.
The fact that the USAF has dispensed with OVT, while retaining a 9G airframe with a gun is instructive?? yes the fact the the USMC is happy with a 7G STOVL airframe is also instructive?? yes, and the USN with its larger, heavier, carrier qualified 7.5G airframe is also instructive. It also would be well to bear in mind that while the A model is an air-superiority aircraft, its primary design still bears the marks of its A2G birth, and it is truly a multi-role aircraft.
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
AFB, could you please enlighten us ... ...
Assuming without using Jamming and ECM ... ...
1) Is that true that ... ...a super-maneuverable aircraft like Flanker with MAWS can OUT TURN a Supersonic missile, without using Flares and Chaffs ?
And, the physical scientific reason being ... ... ?
2) Is that true that ... ...a Supersonic BVRAAM missile is useless against a super-maneuverable aircraft like Flanker with MAWS ?
Is that true that ... ...consequently a Supersonic BVRAAM missile is useful only against slow moving AWACS, Tankers, or similar non mobile ELINT aircrafts ?
3) If a super-maneuverable aircraft like Flanker with MAWS is performing Pugachev Cobra maneuver, then instead of dropping the nose back down, ...while his Flanker nose is pointing upward, ... can a skillful pilot climb his Flanker almost perpendicularly upward to higher attitude ?
Many thanks for your help.
Last edited:
- Status