China Flanker Thread II

[MiG-29]

Pitch rate and roll rate are not equivalent to turn rate. I recommend you to consult a flight dynamics dictionary before you start using terminologies that you don't understand.


Ah yes, ITP. The company which is desperately trying to sell TVN to Eurofighter owners. The reason I mentioned this is that they authored the above paper, so talk about conflict-of-interest! The lack of customer of their TVN speaks volume about the so called enhanced capabilities. ITP isn't even given a chance to test their TVN on a real aircraft. Real air force spoke with their actions which are louder than words of an arm chair general such as yourself.



The reality is that instead of just sticking two engines with TVN into the Su-27, achieving performance increase had Sukhoi went through all the trouble to redesign the airframe, adoption of new materials, and use of new engines. They followed the approaches shown by the graph below. This is a fact which contradicts your fairy tales with regards to TVC.


Another reality is that for as long as China had relied on Russia, China never purchased any TV engines for its Flankers or J-10s. China also has its own research on TVN, which you can see in this picture that dates back to 2002. If China really wants TVC as you claimed but have no help from Russia, they could have adapt their own TVN to existing Al-31 in their inventory. China didn't do so.

Finally, China chose not to purchase the Su-35 as they consider it as an inferior product. You can claim how J-11B doesn't perform as well all you want. Your uninformed opinion doesn't alter the fact that superior products such as J-10 is available, and soon J-20. I will repeat what others have posted on another forum:

mathematics and tests do not agree with your fallacies and half trues, the enhacements TVC nozzles will add to a J-11B versus a J-10, will be highly appreciated by the Chinese pilots, in fact the Chinese aerodynamists know TVC nozzles increase turn rates.

Considering an airplane with adjustable nozzles , like the Harrier, the thrust term in
Eq 6.29 could approach unity. Thus, an incremental 1 g is provided by the thrust lift . The
contribution from thrust lift is illustrated in figure 6.16

Figure 6.16
INSTANTANEOUS TURN PERFORMANCE WITH VECTORED THRUST
Significant improvements to instantaneous turn performance are realized at low
airspeeds . At high airspeeds the vectored thrust contribution is small
http://aerosrv.cls.calpoly.edu/dbiez..._ch6_TURNS.pdf

in fact this chinese study shows they know about it

The increased persistent speed and the instantaneous turning
rate are upgrading the aircraft mobility. For example, an
increase in the maximum limits shifts the left boundary in
Fig. 3, thus upgrading the turning curvature of the aircraft and
reducing aircraft drag, so that the persistence turning boundary
curve moves upward, thus increasing the persistence turning rate
of the aircraft. As indicated by the computation in reference
[4], with respect to the aircraft having control with thrustvectoring,
not withstanding how fast is the initial aircraft
speed, the time required to turn the aircraft 180deg is
apparently smaller than for other craft; these planes include
conventional aircraft, the airplanes for reduced rate of turn,
and aircraft controlled by direct force. Due to the greater
increase in the instantaneous turning rate, the aircraft agility
is apparently upgraded; this is more advantageous to air combat



PRELIMINARY STUDY ON EFFECTS OF THRUST VECTORING
By: Zhao Baokai
English pages: 13
Source: Feixing Lixue, Vol. 12, Nr. 1, Marcy 1994;
pp. 23-27
Country of origin: China
Translated by: Leo Kanner Associates
F33657-88-D-2188
Requester: NAIC/TAAX/Gary Wedgewood
Approved for public release: distribution unlimited
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA299898

so of course a J-16 or J-11B with thrust vectoring will turn better in air combat
if upgraded.

[Dizasta1]

I believe J-16 is meant to be China's version of Su-30MKK with more emphasis on ground attack capability.

Then you can say that the J-16 would be comparable to the F-15E Strike Eagle or the Su-30MK Flanker? If so, then what sort of ground attack weapons would the J-16 employ? Would there be any stand-off missiles like the JASSM, SCALP or TAURUS cruise missiles? Would the J-16 have a Synthetic Aperture Radar? Would it have AESA radar? Also, would the J-16 have targeting pod for deploying weapons or would the targeting system be integrated within the aircraft .... something like a conformal targeting system, embedded in the aircraft's airframe?

[Engineer]

mathematics and tests do not agree with your fallacies and half trues, the enhacements TVC nozzles will add to a J-11B versus a J-10, will be highly appreciated by the Chinese pilots, in fact the Chinese aerodynamists know TVC nozzles increase turn rates.

On the contrary, there is no fallacy in my statement. Pointing out facts that you are unwilling to accept is not a fallacy, and I again recommend you to look up a dictionary before using words that you don't understand. By facts, I refer to the lack of interest of China (and European air forces) in adopting TVN to their aircraft and how Sukhoi had to make substantial changes to Su-27 airframe to create the Su-35. The conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that merely adding TVN to an existing aircraft isn't worthwhile. Modification or air frame, reduction of weight, and increase of T/W ratio remain the most viable methods in increase an aircraft's performance. You can quote papers all day but at the end, actions from real air forces will always contradict you.

Considering an airplane with adjustable nozzles , like the Harrier, the thrust term in
Eq 6.29 could approach unity. Thus, an incremental 1 g is provided by the thrust lift . The
contribution from thrust lift is illustrated in figure 6.16

Figure 6.16
INSTANTANEOUS TURN PERFORMANCE WITH VECTORED THRUST
Significant improvements to instantaneous turn performance are realized at low
airspeeds . At high airspeeds the vectored thrust contribution is small
http://aerosrv.cls.calpoly.edu/dbiez..._ch6_TURNS.pdf

Equation 6.29 shows that when C_L is zero (when no lift is created), the aircraft can still obtain normal acceleration. Essentially, this equation refers to VTOL capability on the Harrier, which is not applicable to aircraft with rear-end TVN such as the Su-35. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Figure 6.16 shows TVC is useless above corner speed due to load limit. Below the corner speed, post-stall maneuver starts to have significant hence you see that increase in ITR. The problem is that ITR disregards effects of energy lost and isn't sustainable, which is what made the F-22 lose to the Eurofighter and result in the situation described in this video.

in fact this chinese study shows they know about it

The increased persistent speed and the instantaneous turning
rate are upgrading the aircraft mobility. For example, an
increase in the maximum limits shifts the left boundary in
Fig. 3, thus upgrading the turning curvature of the aircraft and
reducing aircraft drag, so that the persistence turning boundary
curve moves upward, thus increasing the persistence turning rate
of the aircraft. As indicated by the computation in reference
[4], with respect to the aircraft having control with thrustvectoring,
not withstanding how fast is the initial aircraft
speed, the time required to turn the aircraft 180deg is
apparently smaller than for other craft; these planes include
conventional aircraft, the airplanes for reduced rate of turn,
and aircraft controlled by direct force. Due to the greater
increase in the instantaneous turning rate, the aircraft agility
is apparently upgraded; this is more advantageous to air combat



PRELIMINARY STUDY ON EFFECTS OF THRUST VECTORING
By: Zhao Baokai
English pages: 13
Source: Feixing Lixue, Vol. 12, Nr. 1, Marcy 1994;
pp. 23-27
Country of origin: China
Translated by: Leo Kanner Associates
F33657-88-D-2188
Requester: NAIC/TAAX/Gary Wedgewood
Approved for public release: distribution unlimited
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA299898

so of course a J-16 or J-11B with thrust vectoring will turn better in air combat
if upgraded.

The major problem with these studies is that they do not take weight penalties into account. They do not compare two identical aircraft where one fitted with TVN while another without. What they do is they consider both aircraft being fitted TVN with only one employing the TVC. It is a no-brainer why the aircraft carrying all the weight of a TVC and doesn't get to exercise any of the capabilities would lose. The situation is strikingly similar to the heyday of variable-geometry wing, where everyone concerns with the advantages and nobody considers the implication of adding such a wing. In the end, such design proved to be impractical and abandoned.

The reality is that PLAAF doesn't adopt TVN to their aircraft. Likewise, RuAF doesn't add TVN to its existing fleet of Su-27 and Mig-29, while no aircraft in USAF uses TVN aside from the F-22. You may claim China is not as technological advanced to do so, and you may claim that Russia lacks money. However, neither problem exists with the US, which certainly can add TVN to existing F-15, F-16 and F-18 but didn't. For example, the US experimented with MATV on an F-16 which never went into service.

Such is the difference between science and engineering.

[Engineer]

Then you can say that the J-16 would be comparable to the F-15E Strike Eagle or the Su-30MK Flanker? If so, then what sort of ground attack weapons would the J-16 employ? Would there be any stand-off missiles like the JASSM, SCALP or TAURUS cruise missiles? Would the J-16 have a Synthetic Aperture Radar? Would it have AESA radar? Also, would the J-16 have targeting pod for deploying weapons or would the targeting system be integrated within the aircraft .... something like a conformal targeting system, embedded in the aircraft's airframe?

You are asking questions that no one could answer, as there is very little information on the J-16. However, the following observations can be made so far:

1. The nose gear on J-16 has two wheels.
2. The radar dome of a J-16 is gray instead of black like the J-11B.

Observation 1 suggests the new aircraft will carry more load, which in turn suggests a strengthened airframe. Observation 2 has similarities with the development of J-10B, which also has color change with the radar dome and carries an AESA radar.

[IronsightSniper]

On the contrary, there is no fallacy in my statement. Pointing out facts that you are unwilling to accept is not a fallacy, and I again recommend you to look up a dictionary before using words that you don't understand. By facts, I refer to the lack of interest of China (and European air forces) in adopting TVN to their aircraft and how Sukhoi had to make substantial changes to Su-27 airframe to create the Su-35. The conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that merely adding TVN to an existing aircraft isn't worthwhile. Modification or air frame, reduction of weight, and increase of T/W ratio remain the most viable methods in increase an aircraft's performance. You can quote papers all day but at the end, actions from real air forces will always contradict you.


Equation 6.29 shows that when C_L is zero (when no lift is created), the aircraft can still obtain normal acceleration. Essentially, this equation refers to VTOL capability on the Harrier, which is not applicable to aircraft with rear-end TVN such as the Su-35. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Figure 6.16 shows TVC is useless above corner speed due to load limit. Below the corner speed, post-stall maneuver starts to have significant hence you see that increase in ITR. The problem is that ITR disregards effects of energy lost and isn't sustainable, which is what made the F-22 lose to the Eurofighter and result in the situation described in this video.



The major problem with these studies is that they do not take weight penalties into account. They do not compare two identical aircraft where one fitted with TVN while another without. What they do is they consider both aircraft being fitted TVN with only one employing the TVC. It is a no-brainer why the aircraft carrying all the weight of a TVC and doesn't get to exercise any of the capabilities would lose. The situation is strikingly similar to the heyday of variable-geometry wing, where everyone concerns with the advantages and nobody considers the implication of adding such a wing. In the end, such design proved to be impractical and abandoned.

The reality is that PLAAF doesn't adopt TVN to their aircraft. Likewise, RuAF doesn't add TVN to its existing fleet of Su-27 and Mig-29, while no aircraft in USAF uses TVN aside from the F-22. You may claim China is not as technological advanced to do so, and you may claim that Russia lacks money. However, neither problem exists with the US, which certainly can add TVN to existing F-15, F-16 and F-18 but didn't. For example, the US experimented with MATV on an F-16 which never went into service.

Such is the difference between science and engineering.

You can actually blame price reasons. Simply said, the current F-15, despite being an aging air frame, is still a really damn good plane, and as such, doesn't really require, of all things, an engine upgrade, that would cost billions given the size of the fleet.

[Air Force Brat]

You can actually blame price reasons. Simply said, the current F-15, despite being an aging air frame, is still a really damn good plane, and as such, doesn't really require, of all things, an engine upgrade, that would cost billions given the size of the fleet.

Guys, I have confined my comments primarily to the Flanker in general and the Chinese Flanker in particular, rather that be moderated, I would suggest that the aerodynamic components of this conversation be moved to the aerodynamics thread. But the assertion that the Eurofighter is superior to the F-22 is simply bunk, Dr. Song himself is highly complementary of the F-22 and stated that the TVC allowed for supersonic manuevering without increasing its RCS, to say that the US not retro-fitting TVC to the F-15, F-16, F-18, is proof that it doesn't work is also nonsense, and the guy who posted that is way to smart to believe that crap. To say the Chinese Flanker is superior to the Russian Flanker from which it is license built is also nonsense. The Chinese and the Russians continue to upgrade and tweek the Flanker airframe, it has proven itself robust and agile in all its iterations, even the Su-34 puts on quite an aerial display as illustrated at Maks 2011. As Deino has pointed out there is no reason to equip a strike fighter-bomber with TVC, but my own observation is that it is quite helpfull A2A IMHO? Sorry Deino, feel free to move any of this you need to?

[MiG-29]

Equation 6.29 shows that when C_L is zero (when no lift is created), the aircraft can still obtain normal acceleration. Essentially, this equation refers to VTOL capability on the Harrier, which is not applicable to aircraft with rear-end TVN such as the Su-35. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Figure 6.16 shows TVC is useless above corner speed due to load limit. Below the corner speed, post-stall maneuver starts to have significant hence you see that increase in ITR. The problem is that ITR disregards effects of energy lost and isn't sustainable, which is what made the F-22 lose to the Eurofighter and result in the situation described in this video.



.

read algebra linear it seems you flunk the subject

THEORY
6.3.1 MANEUVERING
An airplane inflight has a velocity vector which defines its speed and direction of
flight. The capacity to change this vector is called maneuverability




In maneuvering, the forces of lift, weight, thrust, and drag are altered to generate
linear or radial accelerations. The radial acceleration causes a turn in the horizontal, in the
vertical, or in an oblique plane. Forces which cause a radial acceleration include: weight,
sideforce, lift, and thrust ( although thrust is easily included in the lift and sideforce terms ).
later we talk



and learn a fact

Total lift is expressed as the sum of aerodynamic lift and thrust lift.
L = CLq S + TG sin αj



The only reason Europe has not fit the Eurofighter TVC nozzles is lack of money and political will

and a fact


SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE
The concept of sustained maneuverability is used to describe the airplane’s ability to
maneuver at constant altitude without losing energy and without decelerating.

http://aerosrv.cls.calpoly.edu/dbiez..._ch6_TURNS.pdf

Fig. 3.- Increased Sustained Turn Rate with TVNs

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubF...051-PSF-11.pdf


Study hard my friend do not flunck once more physics and linear algebra
China has not TVC nozzles at least not operational to my knowledge and no J-11B with TVC nozzles at least publicly

[Engineer]

read algebra linear it seems you flunk the subject

THEORY
6.3.1 MANEUVERING
An airplane inflight has a velocity vector which defines its speed and direction of
flight. The capacity to change this vector is called maneuverability




In maneuvering, the forces of lift, weight, thrust, and drag are altered to generate
linear or radial accelerations. The radial acceleration causes a turn in the horizontal, in the
vertical, or in an oblique plane. Forces which cause a radial acceleration include: weight,
sideforce, lift, and thrust ( although thrust is easily included in the lift and sideforce terms ).
later we talk



and learn a fact

Total lift is expressed as the sum of aerodynamic lift and thrust lift.
L = CLq S + TG sin αj

I'm glad that you have finally taken my recommendation and look up terminologies that you do not understand. However, blindly copying definition of terminology does not make you an authority of the field. Rather, as you so desperately mine quotes to make it appears thrust vectoring enhances lift, you failed to realize the above equation has nothing to do with thrust vectoring. Variable αj in this particular equation is the alpha angle of the aircraft.

So, it seem that you have flunked Math and simple English, as evident by your misinterpretation of the meaning of "thrust lift". You need to go back to the basics as flight dynamics is a subject too complicate for you.

The only reason Europe has not fit the Eurofighter TVC nozzles is lack of money and political will

That is incorrect. If a military system has practical advantages, lack of money will not stop a country from acquiring it. For example, lack of money doesn't stop Britain from buying nuclear submarines and an aircraft carrier. When a system has little practical advantages, countries will not invest their money, and this is the case with TVN. Europe's action is mirrored by that of US and China.

and a fact


SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE
The concept of sustained maneuverability is used to describe the airplane’s ability to
maneuver at constant altitude without losing energy and without decelerating.

You are not telling me anything that I don't know already. To improve sustained turn performance, one could either increase T/W ratio or L/D ratio as according to the diagram below. T/W ratio can be increased by increasing engine thrust, or employing composite to reduce aircraft's weight. L/D ratio can be increased through redesigning the airframe.


In fact, the above methods are employed by Sukhoi in the design of Su-35. This is a significant effort but necessary. TVC engines does not add lift, thus employing TVC does not bring about significant advantages. This is why Russia doesn't simply stick TVC engines into existing Su-27.

http://aerosrv.cls.calpoly.edu/dbiez..._ch6_TURNS.pdf

Fig. 3.- Increased Sustained Turn Rate with TVNs

http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubF...051-PSF-11.pdf

It is noteworthy to point out that the paper was authored by ITP, the company which is desperately trying to sale its TVN. It is no-brainer why they would claim TVN offer such advantages. That is not to say they have not performed studies, but studies like the above always ignore disadvantages such as weight penalty. The situation has much similarities to the heyday of variable-geometry wing, where everyone concerns with the advantages and nobody considers the implication of adding such a wing. In the end, such design proved to be impractical and abandoned. However, the lack of interest shown by European countries shows that TV practical advantages.

Study hard my friend do not flunck once more physics and linear algebra

China has not TVC nozzles at least not operational to my knowledge and no J-11B with TVC nozzles at least publicly

That goes to show that China also realizes TVN offers no practical advantages. This is similar to how European countries do not

[Deino]

Gents ... would You please continue this discussion in the already existing "aerodynamics-thread" ???

Aerodynamics thread

It's sure a most intersting read for some members here with an interest related to propulsion, aerdynamics and structural issues ... but I highly question its interests (at least mine ) in members interested in "China Flanker" related news.

Thanks,
Deino

I will later clean that tread and move everthing "off topic" ino the tread mentionend above.

[Deino]

Gents ... would You please continue this discussion in the already existing "aerodynamics-thread" ???

Aerodynamics thread

It's sure a most intersting read for some members here with an interest related to propulsion, aerdynamics and structural issues ... but I highly question its interests (at least mine ) in members interested in "China Flanker" related news.

Thanks,
Deino

I will later clean that tread and move everthing "off topic" ino the tread mentionend above.

[MiG-29]

China may buy at least 48 S-35 jets By He Shan
4 Comment(s)Print E-mail China.org.cn, August 30, 2012 Adjust font size: China and Russia are negotiating contracts regarding the acquisition of Russian Su-35 fighter jets, according to deputy director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of Russia Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, the Global Times reported Wednesday.

The contract mainly focuses on the number of jets that China can purchase, the nation would preferably acquire in between 48 and 50 of them, whereas Russian concerns lie more with the risk of leaked expertise secrets.

In the long run, Russia may resume its supply of air defense arms including that of S-400s to China. Moreover, China may also become the first overseas buyer of the Ilyushin Il-476, a multi-purpose four-engine strategic airlifter designed by the Ilyushin design bureau. If the two countries continue the terms and conditions in their contract of 34 Ilyushin Il-76s and four Ilyushin Il-78s, which was inked in 2005, the amount of money involved will reach billions of U.S. dollars.

Analysts believe that China's rise as a global power has provided Russia with new opportunitiesn the fields of military and political cooperation between the two countries.

Russia took up a second spot for world arms sales in 2011, according to the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade (CAWAT) think tank. The nation's annual arms exports doubled over the past six years, from US$6 billion in 2005 to over US$13 billion in 2011, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in July.

In 2011, Russia sold nearly US$2 billion worth of weapons to China, accounting for 15 percent of Russia's total arms exports.

China may buy at least 48 S-35 jets - China.org.cn

[A.Man]

China may buy at least 48 S-35 jets By He Shan
4 Comment(s)Print E-mail China.org.cn, August 30, 2012 Adjust font size: China and Russia are negotiating contracts regarding the acquisition of Russian Su-35 fighter jets, according to deputy director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation of Russia Vyacheslav Dzirkaln, the Global Times reported Wednesday.

The contract mainly focuses on the number of jets that China can purchase, the nation would preferably acquire in between 48 and 50 of them, whereas Russian concerns lie more with the risk of leaked expertise secrets.

China may buy at least 48 S-35 jets - China.org.cn

September 1, 2012

At the end of last month (August 2012), there was not a single Su-35 sold to China.

Will China order Su-35's from Russia? The answer: BS Walking & Mig-29's fate away or lost in the air!

[Schumacher]

September 1, 2012

At the end of last month (August 2012), there was not a single Su-35 sold to China.

Will China order Su-35's from Russia? The answer: BS Walking & Mig-29's fate away or lost in the air!

To be more precise, not a single Su35 sold anywhere in the world including the most recent loss where even traditional Sukhoi user Indonesia chose legacy F16 over the super-duper Su35 with its magical TVC.

[Hyperwarp]

Shall we all take a few steps back and take the "Wait & See" approach regarding this claimed Su-35 deal?

[Lion]

Shall we all take a few steps back and take the "Wait & See" approach regarding this claimed Su-35 deal?

No... Not even a fat chance. With PRC official spokesman already previously denied such rumour. There is not even 0.0001 percent chance any rumour is going to materialise. Probably Russian sell each Su-35 at $100 each then the probably PRC is going to get a few of it..