It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Super-manouverability...Can anyone have it?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Is super-manouverability only for the Raptors and Flankers of this world or can anyone have it?

Obviousley these aircraft were specifically designed to be super-manouverable but do they have to be? Is it possible for a specific package of parts to be fitted to an aircraft to enable it to become more agile and therefore a more efficient asset to it operators!

I know this sounds like a pipe dream but if you stop and think about it it might just work! You would have to choose the aircraft which are capable of withstanding the extra loads and fatigue stress that the increased agility would impose on the airframe but that still leaves a lot of modern aircraft which would fit the bill i.e

F14, F 15, F 16, F18, Mig 29, Mirage 2000, Rafale etc, etc...the list is endless!

Now by a package of parts I mean either an aerodynamic package which could include a modified leading/trailing edge to the wing, redesigned intake's to compensate for the increased AOA and a 3D vectoring nozzle system which could be retrofitted to either the exsisting engine or to a new more powerful engine specifically designed for that particular aircraft!

For the more advanced aircraft all you might need is new 3D nozzles and a "Patch" to the flight control software!

Imagine what an upgraded Mig 29 or F 16 could do with improved aerodynamics, 3D nozzles and a improved flight control system (F16)!

This would all cost money but if you think of the improvement in performance and agility it could give to a fleet of ageing, say for example, F-16's this might be a very cost effective way of giving your airforce the capability of mixing it with the big boys (Raptor, Flanker, Typhoon) for a fraction of the cost!

I am not saying that they could all pull +12G and be stealthy but it might just give the older aircraft the ability to survive and fight in the modern air combat scenario!

What do you think?


Sv Out.....!




posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Hmmm this has been debated ad-nauseum here in the Aviation forum. However, The EF Typhoon with its Canards et al, is certainly a manuverable a/c. and the vectored thrust of the F-22 puts it in the category as well.

What the real question is this: Is super manuverability usefull in a combat situation? The Cobra is an impressive manuver and looks good at airshows, does it have any use in combat?

Related Thread: Cobra Maneuver: The Truth

No doubt it is an advantage in a dogfight, but you have to factor in all the elements of an a/c including weapons load out as well as pilot skill and training.

Supermanuverability is also of questionalble value in a BVR engagement with or without stealth a/c



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I agree that its value would be limited in a BVR/stealth engagement but when/if it comes down to a gun on gun fight the aircraft which can outurn the other will win!

The point I was trying to make is that is it possible to modify an older generation aircraft to reach the level of performance required to be considered super manoverable and survive an encounter with a fifth generation fighter!

Sv out.....!



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Most likely the cost of upgrading older fighter sircraft with limited airframe life left would be offset by simply producing new fighters that are manuverable from the beginning.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:59 PM
link   
A TVC engine and avionic software upgrade would cost a fraction of the cost of a new aircraft, the Typhoon is already long touted as the likely recipient of such an upgrade, along with the MiG's and Sukhoi's that have already been developed in this way.

Unlike the Russian pair thought the Typhoon upgrade would specifically be applied to airframes already in service as a MLU.

I think you woulf be limited in the types you could reasonably apply it to though. For instance I think the Mirage 2000 would be a perfect candidate but on an F-4 it would be a waste of money (airframe already too old and limited for instance, analogue controls requiring a complete replacement etc).

Therefore yes, I think it is a practical solution for certain, more recent types.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Yes, such an "upgrade" has been done to an F-15...

The F-15 Active with vectored thrust~




posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   
SilentVulcan,

Most PSTM (Post Stall Tactical Maneuver) or 'Super Manning' occurs in the range 170-250 knots, tops. Because the GLC constraints of doing it any faster are way beyond being 'mappable' to the human bionorm. One day a pilot might take an instantaneous (onset rate) 25G that peaked at about 11.5. And the next, he/she might have a nap at half that amount.

Now throw in the density altitude variables by which 250 knots at sea level is 100 away from the stall. But only 20 at 20,000ft.

It should further be noted that the stresses on an airframe, both directly from the nozzle to it's mounting frames and generally in the way the jet is effectively 'bent in the middle' on with combined canard/TVC effects on airframes like the X-31 are vastly different from the normal maneuver modes and would likely effect airframe life remaining in a BIG way.

Indeed, the MATV (ex VISTA) F-16D demonstrator had to be specially rebuilt in the aft fuselage AND have some 400lbs of ballast added to make it work.

And for what?!

You see two guys daning around a circle when suddenly one or the other pulls a 'hook' maneuver and slides the nose across to aid in the weathercock behavior (ultimately, energy conservation) of an SRM.

I see the missile itself, with a bigger motor and lightweight TVC vanes coming across all on it's own. That missile being the AIM-120 AMRAAM modified with reaction control nozzles (like the French PifPaf but with more diverse control modes) as the 'DRM' or Dual Range Missile. 20-25 miles off the nose. Or 7-10 miles in a globe anywhere around the airframe.

At which point you have to start acknowledging that this is not a game of 'dodging bullets' because a missile at the peak of it's kinematic performance is capable of pulling 30-40G in the MRM class and upwards of 60 in the SRM.

That is _easily_ the 'five times' baseline fps energy maneuver performance that an manned airframe (with all it's mass inertia problems) can continuously 'reenergize' out of it's fuel tank.

Furthermore, if a missile with a directional warhead misses by 20ft it's STILL going to do blast and frag damage so you have a hand-grenade in goldfish bowl problem.

To which the ultimate answer is simply: NO UTILITY FOR SUPERMAN IN _ANY_ MANNED AIRFRAME.

If you want to do something useful, either take the aircraft overtop the effective maneuver envelope altogether (100-200K feet would do fine, even against the S-300).

Or develop a means to shoot down the threat weapons, inbound. In this, even the F-22 is -highly- vulnerable to 'if not the invisible indian, then certainly his arrows!' counter intercept.

Devalue the asset. The most maneuverable aircraft on the planet are target drones. Without augmentation and with a topflight console operator flying it to the extremes of it's envelope, there is not a single fighter pilot on the planet that could hang with, let alone /hit/ one.

Scale up a BQM-74 slightly and give it bigger wings to handle the A2A fight. Fit it with a gun and kamikaze logic and concentrate all technology investment in a secure autoland facility and a recognitive optical targeting suite.

The HiMAT for instance would be a good starting point as it completely outflew (with a circle almost twice as small) an F-15, at a constant 11G vs. the Eagle's (then) sustained 7.5.

If such a weapon could be created, using 1950's engine technology (J85 as I recall) and PRODUCED for no more than 5 million dollars, the numeric as well as 'bravery' differential of a 10:1 force structure difference compared to a late model Gen-4/5 manned intercept force would be so high that even the almighty USAF would have a hard time mustering sufficient AAM's to keep from being simply saturated.

Now throw in some front sector stealth. Or a SLID type micro interceptor (it only needs destabilize the missile at about 2,000ft or so) rocket cell similar to the B-52 forward firing chaff systems of yore. And you would indeed have a Red Baron type force that could /defeat/, even a modern airpower.

With zero training. The latter being the true bain of 2nd/3rd world nations thinking they can successfully 'object' to U.S. foreign policy.

CONCLUSION:
I have always said that the chief proof that we are better than everyone else at the /brainpower/ level is that they all choose to follow our lead or the Russian's rather than creating a new paradigm of their own by which to CRUSH the existing force-on-force (thief to catch one) model which yields all mechanical and electronic performance to the /way/ in which your enemy fights. Not merely 'best'. But (developmentally) _first_.

Stupid morons.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 09:24 PM
link   
As I knew even early in 1973, F-14 have done a 70degrees attacker angle of maneuverability that even beyond F-16 and F-18. In TOPGUN, we can see the Tomcat can fly like a butterfly. So I considered that F-14 is the best fighter aircraft with best maneuverability in third generation.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   


In TOPGUN, we can see the Tomcat can fly like a butterfly


Welcome to Hollywood. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the F-14 on the lower side of the manueverability scale? I thought i read somewhere that the Tomcat's size and bulkiness held it back in that category. Some people liken flying the F-14 to driving a Greyhound bus around a racetrack...



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
BT,

>>
Welcome to Hollywood. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the F-14 on the lower side of the manueverability scale? I thought i read somewhere that the Tomcat's size and bulkiness held it back in that category. Some people liken flying the F-14 to driving a Greyhound bus around a racetrack...

>>

Hollywood indeed for both you and Emile are correct.

The F-14 was one of the few jets to hold a stabilized -30 to +80` AOA for quite awhile in the 70's. I wanna say they had to do it by rolling inverte however.

Unfortunately, the conditions where this could be applied in terms of weapons load and altitude/airspeed were freakishly small.

To quote Heater Heatley I believe, the F-14 will turn like a machine gun in a shopping cart, for all of about 4 seconds. Then it runs out of smash and you had better have made your kill because it's going to be mushing along at max lift at drag (wings forward for all to see) trying desperately to swallow enough dinosaurs to get back above 200-220 knots.

OTOH, the F-14 will also hold a fairly high rate (16.7 dps IIRR) sustained EM turn so long as you keep within a narrow speed/altitude band because the intake ramps and operating AOA of a ca. 300 knot turn give it about 60,000lbs of thrust, even with the TF30 (one of the many 'tricks they don't tell you' is exactly how much the ramp and exhaust pressure ratios effect dynamic as opposed to static thrust).

Neither of which means much if you are flying a jet with 18,000lbs of gas and a FletDefAlpha loadout, trying to get radar look angles (coming off a FORCAP) at 20-30,000ft.

Because even with an unload, you are going to be struggling to keep the jet energized while sanitizing the volume and getting ready to get the Phoenix off.

A more common variation of that loadout (only 2 AIM-54 and as many as 3 AIM-7) would be typical for a 'hot' patrol in someplace like Sidra wherein you are also flying lower to keep below the coastal GCI systems.

Either way, the Tomcat's 'fighting lift' curve is directly proportional to the variance between available slats and flaps vs. pancake you can exploit at a given airspeed and AOA combinant. The two curves of high speed, medium sweep (no auxilliary surfaces) and low speed, 'everything hangs' rate and radius meeting at a combination of relatively nose high wallow that burns E, //real quick//.

The result is a 'quick is to fast as agile is to maneuverable' platform which the Israeli's quickly proved (in comparitive evaluation against the F-15) could be beaten, easily, using change up (lo-hi) energy maneuver from a neutral turn in point.

Using these simple tactics, they could and did routinely out horizontal -and- vertical play the Tomcat in the lowly (pre-P408) A-4H.

Later this was also proven out at Top Gun where, inevitably, using visual rules, the F-14s would try to come in high and fast to convert and saddle up in a loaded bat turn down to conserve energy 'just like in the movie'.

The Scooter pilots, intimately familiar with their battlespace, would know where to look and would tally the smoking Toms approach from /miles/ before their rollin and would gently rudder turn into them to deny the missile cone before /stomping/ opposite as the Tomcat' bank angle passed 20-30' and make the kitty's bleed all their energy trying to reverse the inside-out turn.

At which point, depending on where F-14 #2 was (DA or LD), the Mongoose scooters which DID have the bigger engine would either snap one of the element straight up and over (as the F-14 crew gawked) or would start a nested scissors movement designed to spit the belly side adversary out below the Tomcat sill line.

And then they would just play gun lag in behind or make a missile clearance maneuver (totally 'virtual' as the Scooter only had the TACTS pylon) across the top of the circle while the turkey kept bleeding down trying to chase the more energy efficient (low mass, tight to centerline = good rolling moment control and 'reapplication' of lift vector) until the F-14 was waddling around like a ruptured duck. A fact made blatantly obvious as not only were the wings full-forward but the monster stabs tried to make the engine nacelles effectively fly in different directions and often the pilot was not only fighting lift at drag as his nose bunted up. But also some SERIOUS throttle limitations as dutch roll inertias and nose ranke blanked off the inlets and jeopardized the airframe with any rapid throttle excursions.

The best way to employ the Tomcat (or indeed /any/ VG platform where lift is tied directly to sweep) WVR is low in lookup with missiles like the AIMVAL Concept SS-2D which gave you 60+ degrees of boresight on a theoretical 6-10nm motor envelope. Providing you a missile and helmet cue system which could be shot at F-5E's at distance (TVSU/TCS supported IDs) beyond what they could pick up the Tom's distinctive silouhette buried against the ground clutter.

Especally with a working datalink handoff from another Tomcat or E-2 further back, the result is a completely passive _pre-merge_ engagement in which Shoot, Shoot, Shoot, inplace turn and unload to run like scalded cats should puts the Toms out the side of the fight before the F-5's can react to chase (those which are not morted out by the ump).

The alternative is to open up the 'secret capabilities' book and use Phoenix in direct or timed lofts with the trailing element supporting the midcourse phase with shared-channel radar modes. The Phoenix will go about 17-22nm from low and up to 35 _if_ you give it good guidance preloads for the loft.

Either way will kill threats a long ways short of even the radar merge without doing /any/ of the 'pilot sh*t' that Tom Cruise would have you believe requires starting with the enemy at your dead six 'too close for missiles'.

Snort.

Unfortunately for the USN (who always end up 'closer than optimum' for sanity's bogey-bandit-intent sake, even in peacetime) the entire ACEVAL/AIMVAL exercise was rigged toward the radar shot and that meant F-15's on high and the AMRAAM as a driving force in the midzone which should have been ISRM dominanted.

Helmet sights, powered optics and widebore missiles with big motor impulse values went the way of the dodo, only to be 'reinvented' by the Russians who know the first law: "As goes the intercept, so goes the fight'" and designed a vectoring GCI datalink plus simple weapons system handoff doctrine to exploit it.

The result being called the MiG-29 and Archer.


KPl.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Long way to TVC. Sukhoi Su-27LL/PS and the same TF-15A. They looks very ugly!






posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
ch1466.

Thanks for those reply's.....it makes you realise that even with the most advanced A/c (for the time) you can still be beaten by A/c designed in the late fifties to early sixties if you have the tactics and piloting skill's!....something which FredT mentioned earlier on in the thread.

So with these tactics combined with a more agile A/c the airforce which can field this package would be unbeatable in a modern engagment....providing you can get past the BVR attacks first!

Intelgurl, the F15 you referred to, did it have 2D ( as per the Raptor) or 3D vectoring nozzles and was the same A/c fitted with canards to provide a shorter take off and landing performance as I think I have seen pictures of that particular A/c before being tested at Dryden!

Sv out.....!



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Matej. thanks for those photos they answered my question about the nozzles fitted to the TF 15A although they look very agricultural when compared with the ones fitted to the Raptor!

What are the benefits, if any, of 3D over 2D nozzles? 3D will fit on more A/c types I now but what else?

Sv out....!



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silentvulcan
Is super-manouverability only for the Raptors and Flankers of this world or can anyone have it?

Obviousley these aircraft were specifically designed to be super-manouverable but do they have to be? Is it possible for a specific package of parts to be fitted to an aircraft to enable it to become more agile and therefore a more efficient asset to it operators!

I know this sounds like a pipe dream but if you stop and think about it it might just work! You would have to choose the aircraft which are capable of withstanding the extra loads and fatigue stress that the increased agility would impose on the airframe but that still leaves a lot of modern aircraft which would fit the bill i.e

F14, F 15, F 16, F18, Mig 29, Mirage 2000, Rafale etc, etc...the list is endless!

Now by a package of parts I mean either an aerodynamic package which could include a modified leading/trailing edge to the wing, redesigned intake's to compensate for the increased AOA and a 3D vectoring nozzle system which could be retrofitted to either the exsisting engine or to a new more powerful engine specifically designed for that particular aircraft!

For the more advanced aircraft all you might need is new 3D nozzles and a "Patch" to the flight control software!

Imagine what an upgraded Mig 29 or F 16 could do with improved aerodynamics, 3D nozzles and a improved flight control system (F16)!

This would all cost money but if you think of the improvement in performance and agility it could give to a fleet of ageing, say for example, F-16's this might be a very cost effective way of giving your airforce the capability of mixing it with the big boys (Raptor, Flanker, Typhoon) for a fraction of the cost!

I am not saying that they could all pull +12G and be stealthy but it might just give the older aircraft the ability to survive and fight in the modern air combat scenario!

What do you think?


Sv Out.....!


Y'know I have given this some thought and read in a book (sci-fi I think) that these craft in the future had liquid environment that negated the G forces and were better able to handle the craft to the extent that it must have looked like a UFO because "no one" could live through that kind of pressure. Just a thought.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Yes, there is no sue to produce a whole new fighter if there's a cheaper solution. This method is still something that I believe that only small nations with a small budjet would do. Larger countries like USA, ahve the money, and I do think that they rather design a new fighter. besides, I don't think that an "uppgraded" model could ever be as great as a whole new one...



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silentvulcan

Intelgurl, the F15 you referred to, did it have 2D ( as per the Raptor) or 3D vectoring nozzles and was the same A/c fitted with canards to provide a shorter take off and landing performance as I think I have seen pictures of that particular A/c before being tested at Dryden!

Sv out.....!

The only US research aircraft known to have tested 3D nozzle technology are the X-31 and F-15 ACTIVE.

So yes, the F-15 ACTIVE had 3D vectoring.

F-15 ACTIVE


X-31




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Just in case anyone is wondering the F-18 HARV utilized 2D thrust vectoring nozzles and was also limited during tests to airspeeds not exceeding 170 mph.




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join