Is that true about chinese SU-30MKK upgrade?

By adding 3D TVC engines to an aircraft rather than 2D TVC engine with canards aircraft. Wouldn't the 3D TVC engines on the aircraft give a heavier overall weight? Thus decreasing the max load of the aircraft?

Click to expand...

I already explained in another thread, that adding canards will give even higher weight as a result of not just adding canards, actuators, motors, but also because of the changes in the aircraft structure. In order to put canards on an airframe that wasn't designed for one, you have to cut the structure, and with that you lose integrity. You have to beef up the remaining spars and members, this will add weight in the front, which you may have to balance by adding more weight in the rear.

Crobato

At higher altitudes, a missile with small fins cannot grip the air with sufficient control authority to be maneuverable, so in fact the higher the altitude, the lower the kill potential of a missile (SAMs included).

Click to expand...

But isn't soemthing still missing here ? In high altitudes where the air is much thinner, there's lesser drag. Therefore the missile has a much greater range and is faster giving it's controll-surfaces better performances. Wich in turn increases it's manneuverability again. I just don't know wich effect is more importand.

Of course the exception are missiles that also have TVC.

Click to expand...

Fairly true, I'd like to add here that this of course only helps as long as the rocket-motor still burns. So if you just manage to stay in a position where the motor will be burnedout until the missile reaches you, you have a even better chance of eveding the missile. (Python5 seems to be somewhat an exception here with it's aerodynamic maneuverability.)
That's why I'm looking forward to see the ramjet powered Meteor wich can still use it's motor in it's outer range envelope.

Finn McCool

The payload problem with missle killing aircraft carried missles could be solved. A flight of aircraft could have one or two planes that carry only AAAMs (is that what you would call them?). The others could carry AAMs. That would actually increase the overall effectiveness of the unit. But still, I don't think that it is an overall good idea.

Click to expand...

I, too, think that's not a practical idea, better fit those AAAM aircraft with conventional AAMs as well and kill the enemy platform (aircraft) instead of just it's ordnance (missiles).
The only AAAM field I can imagine in the medium or long term future are perhaps very short range self defense missiles carried by AWACS/J-STARS to defend themselves against big, long range AAMs (AWACS-killers).

But isn't soemthing still missing here ? In high altitudes where the air is much thinner, there's lesser drag. Therefore the missile has a much greater range and is faster giving it's controll-surfaces better performances. Wich in turn increases it's manneuverability again. I just don't know wich effect is more importand.

Click to expand...

The missile may have greater range, but it still means it relies on catching the target fast enough before it can maneuver. Note a direct contact is not needed, you only need to bring the missile into blast proxmity to the target.

As the air thins, so does the maneuverbility of the missile, but then, that the target plane may not be as maneuverable as well. So it just balances out. But if the plane has TVC, it can still do some crazy maneuvers in thin air that would unlock the missle seeker.

Quote:
Of course the exception are missiles that also have TVC.

Fairly true, I'd like to add here that this of course only helps as long as the rocket-motor still burns. So if you just manage to stay in a position where the motor will be burnedout until the missile reaches you, you have a even better chance of eveding the missile. (Python5 seems to be somewhat an exception here with it's aerodynamic maneuverability.)
That's why I'm looking forward to see the ramjet powered Meteor wich can still use it's motor in it's outer range envelope.

Click to expand...

The thing I forgot to tell is that TVC rocket motors do suffer from parasitic losses, so their thrust is not really as strong as a non TVC one. Please note this is also true of TVC aircraft to non TVC aircraft, you are bleeding thrust.

This is the reason why the Israelis choose not to use TVC. But on the other hand, using aerodynamic controls means that the missile also have more aerodynamic drag, so it balances it out. Somehow the Israelis figured that the penalty of the aerodynamic drag isn't as much as the TVC parasitic thrust loss. In order to regain the missile speed, which is essential for kill probability, you have to burn in a faster rate and that takes off range. But if you add more propellant, you add missile weight.

And of course, when the fuel rans out, the TVC missile just goes ballistic, but the aerofoil controlled missile can still do last fraction of a second flight control changes.

As the air thins out the missle has less air friction to grab onto to turn so the manuverability will be less then if the air was more dense. Same applies for the aircraft so both are still on equal par.

I was looking for the following link for some time but couldn't find it. Now finally I came across it again.
It may be interesting regarding that AAM range/performance discussion we had here lately:


edit: what I forgot, does anyone know if modern AAMs in the terminal phase can go lead pursuit to intercept, or do they still pure pursuite always straight onto the target ?