F-15 pilot talks about SU-30MKI at Red Flag

[fltworthy]

IMHO the West has rightly ignored the cost (both financially and drag/weight wise) and reliability issues TVC presents in most aircraft.

I would tend to agree. TVC is not a magic wand, and the cost isn't commensurate with the pay-off. There are other ways of achieving many of the same benefits.

There was actually a good overview of the pro's and con's of TVC technology published in Air Forces Monthly last March. To summarize from the article:

• In a one-on-one, visual range engagement, TVC has the potential to radically alter the outcome of a contest. The US reported a kill-to-loss ratio that averaged 8:1 during trials of the X-31, which rose to 32:1 in guns-only engagements.
  
  
• This advantage eroded, however, in multiaircraft engagements - which is where real combat takes place. US pilots flying X-31 and F-16 MATV development aircraft reported that they needed to practice careful energy management to avoid being bounced in these scenarios.
  
  
• The advent of helmet mounted sights and high off-boresight missile technology was also cited as a leading reason as to why TVC was not pursued further in the West. HOBS missile technology offered many of the same see-point-shot advantages that were claimed for TVC, without adding weight to the airframe and without bleeding off the fighter's energy.

 

[Haavarla]

No matter how skilled the pilots are, TVC is useful for 2 things only.

Post stall maneuvering and high altitude maneuverability.

To counteract that, the system is heavy, draggy and mechanically complex, adding to significant maintenance issues.

Apart from the F-22 which is the most blatant "all the bells and whistles" aircraft around, the West has largely ignored TVC because of this:

In BVR air to air combat it adds little or nothing to an aircraft's capability, but rather detracts because it IS heavy and draggy as previously mentioned.

In strike/recon operations it adds nothing. Again it detracts.

In WVR combat, it adds capability in one narrow area of the flight regime (post stall).

IMHO the West has rightly ignored the cost (both financially and drag/weight wise) and reliability issues TVC presents in most aircraft.

A focus on improved "high G" WVR missiles has largely negated any usefulness TVC offers. Situational awareness is the name of the game, matched with adequate maneuverability. Super-maneuverability won't give you anything more (unless perhaps if you are down to using guns) and WVR air to air combat capabiliy is increasingly irrelevent in modern warfare.

Fair enough, but i think there are some others factors here as well, such as:

1: The ability to recover from a stall much faster with the TVC.
There is a safty issue here, like recovering from a stall in low altetude.

2: Fighters that operates from a Carrier has a lower stall-speed and take-off speed with TVC, again this involve safty in recovery inflight.

Here is an exsample:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k977ueJS-B4"]YouTube - SU-33 discovers "Gurza Podguzova" of "Podguzov viper"(Cobra)[/ame]

Imagine a fighter without TVC here, i think there are several clips on youtube that involve fighters taking a dip in situations similar this one.

3: A fighter with TVC taking damage in wing or rudder would have a greater chance to gain controll, and possible limp back home.

Do you have any info on how much more weight a TVC would add on a Fighter, Aussie Digger?
I don't think the weight is an big issue.
I belive most of the component in TVC is made up off titanium and carbone-like alloys to save weight and add heat resistance, possible some reinforced Ceramic materials too..

Can someone explain to me why the Russian go to such great lenght to aquire TVC on the later Sukhoi fighters if there is so little advantage in this?

 

[Salty Dog]

Can someone explain to me why the Russian go to such great lenght to aquire TVC on the later Sukhoi fighters if there is so little advantage in this?

Re-branding and marketing mate to remain competitive and survive in the worldwide fighter market.

Russia has saved a ton of RT&D money by continuous upgrades vice a spending billions on totaly new airframe projects.

Russia has been simply re-cycling, upgrading, and rebranding their Flanker and Fulcrum airframes. These are proven aircraft for their respective missions. Thus far this has helped keep order their books filled as there are buyers for Flanker/Fulcrum airframes.

There have been no tactical western fighter aircraft models AFAIK that have been retrofitted with TVC. Ponder that one.

AFAIK the RuAF itself does not use TVC in any of it's tactical fighters.

It's proven the RuAF and the rest of the world are not focused on TVC.

IMHO anyone obsessed on the merits of TVC is missing the big picture.

 

[Haavarla]

Re-branding and marketing mate to remain competitive and survive in the worldwide fighter market.

Russia has saved a ton of RT&D money by continuous upgrades vice a spending billions on totaly new airframe projects.

Russia has been simply re-cycling, upgrading, and rebranding their Flanker and Fulcrum airframes. These are proven aircraft for their respective missions. Thus far this has helped keep order their books filled as there are buyers for Flanker/Fulcrum airframes.

There have been no tactical western fighter aircraft models AFAIK that have been retrofitted with TVC. Ponder that one.

AFAIK the RuAF itself does not use TVC in any of it's tactical fighters.

It's proven the RuAF and the rest of the world are not focused on TVC.

IMHO anyone obsessed on the merits of TVC is missing the big picture.

What do u mean with RuAF tactical fighters?
Isn't the Su-33 equiped with TVC?

So what u'r saying is that applying a TVC on a demonstrator like some the Su-35/37 alone, really helped selling flankers to about 20 countries world wide?

 

[Salty Dog]

What do u mean with RuAF tactical fighters?
Isn't the Su-33 equiped with TVC?

Try and find a RuAF tactical fighter in use with TVC.

The Su-33 is Russian Navy, and it does not have TVC.

So what u'r saying is that applying a TVC on a demonstrator like some the Su-35/37 alone, really helped selling flankers to about 20 countries world wide?

While TVC was installed on some Su-30MK variants, I doubt it was a significant factor in their selection. There are only 8 countries that operate Su-30MK variants. Where did you get 20?

 

[Haavarla]

Try and find a RuAF tactical fighter in use with TVC.

The Su-33 is Russian Navy, and it does not have TVC.



While TVC was installed on some Su-30MK variants, I doubt it was a significant factor in their selection. There are only 8 countries that operate Su-30MK variants. Where did you get 20?

Your right, my bad.
I was counting the older Su-27SK exports too...

Ok, poor research on my acount. The Su-33 don't have TVC.
I read someplace that the Su-33 had been upgraded with AL-31FP.
Clearly it hasn't..:unknown

 

[gf0012-aust]

So what u'r saying is that applying a TVC on a demonstrator like some the Su-35/37 alone, really helped selling flankers to about 20 countries world wide?

How many have been sold with TVC?

You can't retro fit to an older fleet - so selling TVC as a marketing opportunity to standard thrust fleets is a nonsense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1: The ability to recover from a stall much faster with the TVC.
There is a safty issue here, like recovering from a stall in low altetude.

thats managed by onboard systems now - FBW takes a lot of that anticipatory effort away from the pilot. computerised post stall converters are faster in reaction time than any human

2: Fighters that operates from a Carrier has a lower stall-speed and take-off speed with TVC, again this involve safty in recovery inflight.

Here is an exsample:

Imagine a fighter without TVC here, i think there are several clips on youtube that involve fighters taking a dip in situations similar this one.

see above + how many carrier based aircraft with TVC exist?
again, its not a correct analogy as US carrier aircraft are CATOBAR - Russians are STOBAR. It's one of the fundamental advantages of CATOBAR over STOBAR (and there are a series of threads in this forum on the advantages of CATOBAR vs STOBAR). recovery is an issue thats covered in current FBW and computerised solutions.

3: A fighter with TVC taking damage in wing or rudder would have a greater chance to gain controll, and possible limp back home.

I guess you haven't seen the USN Hornet testbed that has over 50% of one wing missing to simulate a missile strike. That aircraft can be recovered without loss by the use of FBW and computerised control - no pilot could achieve the same result in a recoverable response time. All that by FBW and a decent engine management system coupled with decent flight management. It's a variation of the tech that exists on F-16's and the F-117

I don't think the weight is an big issue.
I belive most of the component in TVC is made up off titanium and carbone-like alloys to save weight and add heat resistance, possible some reinforced Ceramic materials too..

every kilo of weight adds to flight impediment - adding TVC fundamentally effects the CoG of the aircraft and is essentially a remapping of that aircrafts weight - that means flight management changes etc. The reason why 2TVC was preferred over 3TVC included issues of weight management. Again, consider the fact that the Su27nn and Su3nn family are already heavier "wet" than the F-22. You want to add more weight for dubious benefit?

Can someone explain to me why the Russian go to such great lenght to aquire TVC on the later Sukhoi fighters if there is so little advantage in this?

Marketing and difference. It has advantages in WVR - but WVR was of greater emphasis in 1990-1995 as the BVR developments did not exist - aircraft handling solutions were also not as sophisticated. Its advantages were negated by off bore sight tactical solutions, helmet cueing, all aspect FCS, all aspect seekers, TVC missiles. Plus changes in FBW management, engine management, flight control technology etc were far more cost effective. All of these provide redundancy of solution in the fight.

You seem to think that TVC is a new idea - it's not. The US and the Germans were playing with TVC almost 2 decades ago and decided against it. Some of the reasons are outlined above.

TVC in actual fact has some greater benefits elsewhere - but the pro-TVC proponents only see manned aircraft in its future.

 

[nevidimka]

Hmm.. what is happening to the Su 33 in the video? I guess its an abortive landing, and the plane hanging in the air due to the lower speed it left the plane deck.

Quite impressive the plane managed to build up speed and gain altitude considering the weight of the Sukhoi.

 

[METEORSWARM]

The video has errors.

1 The f-22 was not in that event.
2 Pilots of his Indian are rookies and inexperienced with the su-30.
3 The Indian pilots did not use the new radar Su-30 in his red flag.
4 The Indian pilots used IRST 1st generation and lack of experience shot down one of their own.

France planned to send the Mirage and knowing that the Su-30 will send the Rafale f2 to try to get information from radio, radar scope, etc, to present countermeasures for future aircraft.

greetings

 

[AegisFC]

I guess you haven't seen the USN Hornet testbed that has over 50% of one wing missing to simulate a missile strike. That aircraft can be recovered without loss by the use of FBW and computerised control - no pilot could achieve the same result in a recoverable response time.

Do you know where I can find a picture of that?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do you know where I can find a picture of that?

Unfort not - it was only in the last 6 weeks though. If Abes reading this he might have it as he has disciplined himself to save links. I tend to do "drive bys" unless it directly impacts upon my work....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nope, haven't seen it. But the Hornet is the high alpha aircraft of choice where the wings' aren't producing that much lift so its little surprise.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Found it,

http://www.darpa.mil/Docs/DamageTolerant.pdf

I can't find the video anymore though...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Picture:

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/06/damage-tolerance.JPG

The program is for UCAVs to fly home with massive damage... another nail in the coffin of the pilot.

 

[AegisFC]

Gf0012-aust, Abraham Gubler, thanks for the links, very informative.

 

[cobzz]

Modern fly-by-wire should prevent the aircraft from ever loosing control, thus their is nothing to 'recover'.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Modern fly-by-wire should prevent the aircraft from ever loosing control, thus their is nothing to 'recover'.

no it doesn't. FBW does not mean a capacity to automatically recover a platform from catastrophic (eg kinetic) events.

this system involves traditional fly by wire as well engine management, sophisticated flight management software - and more sophisticated recovery.

there is a vast difference between FBW that stops an F-117 flying like an engineless brick and a platform that can autonomously correct a very unaerodynamic event.

there is a considerable difference between getting a multi engined aircraft to come home on half its engine output and an aircraft that has lost the bulk of its aerodynamics which rapidly changes how laminar flow works.

 

[cobzz]

no it doesn't. FBW does not mean a capacity to automatically recover a platform from catastrophic (eg kinetic) events.

this system involves traditional fly by wire as well engine management, sophisticated flight management software - and more sophisticated recovery.

there is a vast difference between FBW that stops an F-117 flying like an engineless brick and a platform that can autonomously correct a very unaerodynamic event.

there is a considerable difference between getting a multi engined aircraft to come home on half its engine output and an aircraft that has lost the bulk of its aerodynamics which rapidly changes how laminar flow works.

My reply was a response to Haavarla.

Originally Posted by Haavarla
1: The ability to recover from a stall much faster with the TVC.
There is a safty issue here, like recovering from a stall in low altetude.

FBW should peg the AoA at a limit; before it looses control. For example, it is impossible to stall an F-16 as the AoA is pegged at 25 degrees, you can only exceed that and enter deep stall when the element of roll is introduced; which the ancient F-16 FBW was never designed to prevent. Modern FBW is designed for this - thus there is no safety limit from TVC.

 

[gf0012-aust]

FBW should peg the AoA at a limit; before it looses control. For example, it is impossible to stall an F-16 as the AoA is pegged at 25 degrees, you can only exceed that and enter deep stall when the element of roll is introduced; which the ancient F-16 FBW was never designed to prevent. Modern FBW is designed for this - thus there is no safety limit from TVC.

i think we're talking the same language but from different perspectives.

There is a vast difference from being able to maintain a platform in a coherent
flight regime and trying to manage it from the effects of a major induced kinetic/proximity event.

My POV is wrt to managing a platform post missile strike where normal recovery from the pilot would be (highly) unlikely.

there are a couple of critical future planning events in play here.

• 
  as abe said, it takes away another argument for some manned flight events

• it means that there may well be instances where an unmanned platform can still continue its strike mission even though the platform has been structurally compromised - and where a manned asset would have to turn back

ie the priority has shifted from saving a $5m pilot to fight again, to continuing the mission sans interruption and without impacting on any"one" else in the flight. (eg if manned, one other asset might get pulled to ride shotgun for part of the return journey - and this reducing the capacity of the entire flight to follow through to mission termination)