Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR Miss

[Titanium]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

It seems that the additional contract may have something to do with setting up the infrastructure and training needed to sustain the aircraft. This infrastructure, Libya has little.

Same applies to every aircraft bought from outside, be it f-16 or SU-30... hardly matters.

From what I remember, Dassault canned the Mirage 2000 because it does not cost any cheaper significantly to build compared to a Rafale. The actual manufacturing cost of the aircraft is becoming only a small fraction of the contract price.

When did they realized that? not in 2000's, Rafale was anyway in development since 80's.

Since we are at Mirage 2000/Rafale, Corbato, What exactly do you think Rafale will bring to french airfroce, that Mirage could not?, assuming all the spectra, avionics remaining same for both.

Thanks

 

[Titanium]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

i totally disagree, having the ability to out-turn other planes allow you to be able to lock on to the other plane, stay on their butt, put them on defensive. If you are behind a F-22, it's going to have a much tougher time locking onto you. And having super flight performance helps you to dictate the engagement, it can help in so many areas.

Do you belive stay on their butt tactics any relevance in the netcentric fight with AWACS directed combat???

All the things you talk about is relevant in one-on-one combat, till 90's may be...but with the advent of netcentric awareness .... each fighter knowing the location of friend and foe. In this situation how do you bring the brilliance of a fighter to the fore???
ff
Don't you see the brilliance of Grippen and their combat philosophy here. Would sweden defended its airspace with Gripen and their netcentric infrastructure from SU-30?? or any platform that matter?

 

[tphuang]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Do you belive stay on their butt tactics any relevance in the netcentric fight with AWACS directed combat???

All the things you talk about is relevant in one-on-one combat, till 90's may be...but with the advent of netcentric awareness .... each fighter knowing the location of friend and foe. In this situation how do you bring the brilliance of a fighter to the fore???
ff
Don't you see the brilliance of Grippen and their combat philosophy here. Would sweden defended its airspace with Gripen and their netcentric infrastructure from SU-30?? or any platform that matter?

Of course it does, having a better position than your opponent will always help you in combat. Being able to be chasing after another fighter will always put you at an advantage (even with the advent of the LOAL missiles). That's why the best fighters out there like F-22 and Typhoon also have the best turn rates. The idea that having networked combat wipes out the needs for maneuverability is like the fallacy that BVR engagements have wiped out the needs for WVR engagements. If that's the case, then we can just put these ultra-long range BVR missiles on a E-3C and that would eliminate the need for building fighters.

 

[crobato]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

If we equate TVC to ultra-manuverability, West after studying both TVC and HMS, adopted HMS, rather than TVC, which would have brought Ultra-Manuverability to their Typhoon/rafale/F-16 ..etc.

Incorrect conclusion. The US did adopt TVC, and its right there on both the F-35 and F-22.

 

[crobato]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Same applies to every aircraft bought from outside, be it f-16 or SU-30... hardly matters.

It would apply especially to Libya because the airforce infrastructure is considerably outmoded. If I were to sell anything from F-16s to Mirage 2000s, the contract prices would be very high also.

When did they realized that? not in 2000's, Rafale was anyway in development since 80's.

Since we are at Mirage 2000/Rafale, Corbato, What exactly do you think Rafale will bring to french airfroce, that Mirage could not?, assuming all the spectra, avionics remaining same for both.

Thanks

The Rafale is significantly superior in both instantaneous and sustained turn rates. It would have better nose pointability and high angle of attack.

Firing a HOBS at different aspects do not produce the same % of PK. Firing it at the extreme boresight envelope will not produce the same percentage compared to firing the same missile right at the tail or if the aircraft is pointed at the target.

The Rafale is also faster, and that means superiority in BVR engagement, since it can use its speed to dictate the terms of engagement and is in a better position to run away, still one of the best means to defeat a BVRAAM.

The thing is, what you didn't see with the European canard example is that the use of flexible canards with FBW controls would already allow nearly the same level of super maneuverbility as you would with a conventionally tailed aircraft with TVC. Thus putting TVC on a Eurocanard can result in maneuverbility that may in fact, be overly redundant, which I mean having capabilities that go beyond or have no purpose in a combat scenario. Remember the X-31 project? That combines canards and TVC.

The canards on canarded Flankers are not big enough to be true control surfaces and act more like variable vortice generators for maintaining the aircraft at high AoA.

TVC itself does not improve high speed maneuverbility. What it does is improve low speed maneuverbility, especially near the stalling point. But low speed maneuverbility is the one aspect that is actually being questioned for its future value. What is being sought after is high speed maneuverbility which is more important for combat scenarios, and canards are better suited to that. At higher speeds, aerodynamic surfaces exert greater control authority than TVC vectoring.

 

[unknauthr]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Incorrect conclusion. The US did adopt TVC, and its right there on both the F-35 and F-22.

The F-35B is can vector thrust for take-off and landing, but not during a maneuvering engagement. It does not have "thrust vectoring" in the same sense that the F-22 or Su-30MKI use TVC achieve "supermaneuverability".

In other words, the US incorporated TVC technology into their premier air superiority weapon - the F-22 - but did not believe it was of sufficient value to incorporate into their next multirole fighter, the F-35.

 

[IDonT]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

TVC itself does not improve high speed maneuverbility. What it does is improve low speed maneuverbility, especially near the stalling point. But low speed maneuverbility is the one aspect that is actually being questioned for its future value. What is being sought after is high speed maneuverbility which is more important for combat scenarios, and canards are better suited to that. At higher speeds, aerodynamic surfaces exert greater control authority than TVC vectoring.

I agree, USAF stress the induction of AIM 9X over thrustvectoring in its legacy fighters, even giving the F-15s priority over the F-22. IMO, it is unwise to sacrifice energy and speed just to get a firing solution when you can do it just by moving your head. Of course it would be nice to have both.

Crobato:

The SU-30 MKI has both canards and thrust vectoring. Are these systems considered redundant?

 

[crobato]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

The canards on the Su-30MKI acts more like variable vortice generators, meaning its able to fine tune the way it produce vortices as opposed to fixed edges like LERX. Rather than pure control surfaces, which they are too little to be as effective, compared to the Rafale's for example. The net effect is to improve handling at high AoA, so in a way, it complements the use of TVC.

On the other hand, Sukhoi now probably judges that the benefits does not outweigh the complexity and weight of the devices. The latest iteration of the Su-35 no longer has canards.

This video here is done with an RC model aircraft. Quite a sordid demonstration of super/hyper maneuverbility with both canards and TVC. The aircraft model in fact is based on a J-10.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Titanium]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

Absolutely awsome dispaly, Whether it is hanging in midair, lowlevel flight or the sharp turns and roll!!! Does your J-10 do all this, corbato??

Now do I need one of those Agile aircraft ??? Absolutely!!!!

 

[Titanium]

Re: Is agile, manuverable aircraft relevent in the era of advanced avainoics and BVR

I agree, USAF stress the induction of AIM 9X over thrustvectoring in its legacy fighters, even giving the F-15s priority over the F-22. IMO, it is unwise to sacrifice energy and speed just to get a firing solution when you can do it just by moving your head. Of course it would be nice to have both.

Ofcourse the more the merrier, but there would be a point where the more cease to be of any additional value, as Corbato mention of SU-35 dropping TVC.

Again I would like to bring the Grippen concept, as a practical solution, deviod of Hype brought by likes of Typhoon/rafale/US fighters.

How effective would be Grippen against modern fighters with all the whistles and nice to have features.