EF Typhoon, Enhanced Maneuverability

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 11:10

popcorn wrote:Hmmm..
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... ?site=full


Indian Air Force Sukhois Dominate UK Fighter Jets in Combat Exercises


NEW DELHI: In some of the most intense international air combat exercises ever featuring the Indian Air Force, IAF pilots flying Sukhoi Su-30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

In subsequent Large Force Exercises (LFE) which featured combined Eurofighter Typhoon and Su-30 formations, the IAF jets were somewhat less successful but consistently held an edge over the Typhoon.

More...

This explains it:

india-news


Yeah, they said the same thing last time, and we said something different back then as well.

http://twocircles.net/2011jul24/british ... cMrGvlVhLM

'British Typhoons whacked India's Sukhois in joint exercises'


And they said something different to what the USAF said following Red Flag(?) and demanded an apology. Large pinch of salt etc.

Basically there's no way they could beat Typhoon WVR in real life because there isn't a single place in the whole sky their plane can exist without being hittable with an ASRAAM. Whereas an R-73 is limited to +/-45deg OBS, which is why their plane needs TVC in the first place.

When reading an IAF report, it's always best to have this image in mind:

Image

Although to be fair no IAF source actually reported the 12-0, look for the quotation marks, very telling in these matters:

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-a ... ?site=full

Asked about the performance of IAF pilots in these Large Force Engagements, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV his pilots performed "fairly well" though "quantifying [the results] is difficult".


Now if they won 12-0, surely that wouldn't be difficult to quantify? Especially when it already is quantified huh?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 12:10

uclass wrote:
Asked about the performance of IAF pilots in these Large Force Engagements, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV his pilots performed "fairly well" though "quantifying [the results] is difficult".


Now if they won 12-0, surely that wouldn't be difficult to quantify? Especially when it already is quantified huh?


Note that the 12-0 score was reported to be for WVR engagements and the scores for the LFE are those said to be difficult to quantify. Anyway, maybe Sweetman will grace us with his view on how things unfolded.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 12:27

popcorn wrote:
Note that the 12-0 score was reported to be for WVR engagements and the scores for the LFE are those said to be difficult to quantify. Anyway, maybe Sweetman will grace us with his view on how things unfolded.

Well here's the thing on that:

NEW DELHI: In some of the most intense international air combat exercises ever featuring the Indian Air Force, IAF pilots flying Sukhoi Su-30 MKI fighters had a resounding 12-0 scoreline in their favour against Royal Air Force Typhoon jets in Within Visual Range (WVR) dogfighting operations.

The first week of the exercises pitted the Su-30, which NATO calls the Flanker, in a series of aerial dogfight scenarios. First, there were 1 v 1 encounters, where a single jet of each type engaged each other in Within Visual Range (WVR) combat, firing simulated missiles to a range of two miles. The exercises progressed to 2 v 2 engagements with two Eurofighters taking on two Su-30s and 2 v 1 exercises where two Sukhois took on a single Typhoon and vice versa.


See the problem there? Somehow even in 2v1 WVR engagements, with 2 Typhoons vs 1 Su-30, the Typhoon never got a single kill. :D Is that really plausible?
Offline

boff180

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 969
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 10:58

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 12:31

A few discrepancies have been picked up in that report.

Mainly over the reliability of the Sukhois..... which they claim was perfect. "The IAF also encountered no serviceability issues with any of its participating jets"

I spent 3 days photographing them from the fence and on one occasion a Sukhoi didn't launch because of technical failure (I have an airband scanner and the ground abort was very clear).

It's been reported on two further occasions (not witnessed by me), a Sukhoi had to abort and RTB due to technical failure.

That immediately puts the rest of the article in question.

Andy

p.s. Just to prove I was there, here are my shots.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/evansavio ... 4022158093
Last edited by boff180 on 06 Aug 2015, 12:34, edited 1 time in total.
Andy Evans Aviation Photography
www.evansaviography.co.uk
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 12:32

I also noted that the Typhoon's were given a handicap WVR (drop tank):

Image
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 12:41

boff180 wrote:A few discrepancies have been picked up in that report.

Mainly over the reliability of the Sukhois..... which they claim was perfect. "The IAF also encountered no serviceability issues with any of its participating jets"

I spent 3 days photographing them from the fence and on one occasion a Sukhoi didn't launch because of technical failure (I have an airband scanner and the ground abort was very clear).

It's been reported on two further occasions (not witnessed by me), a Sukhoi had to abort and RTB due to technical failure.

That immediately puts the rest of the article in question.

Andy

p.s. Just to prove I was there, here are my shots.... https://www.flickr.com/photos/evansavio ... 4022158093

Noted. The article has all the underpinnings of a North Korean news report.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 13:10

popcorn wrote: Anyway, maybe Sweetman will grace us with his view on how things unfolded.


Obviously the Typhoon won because the F-35 sucks. :wink:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 13:11

uclass wrote:I also noted that the Typhoon's were given a handicap WVR (drop tank):


Why is it such a handicap?
What about the MKI handicap, huge internal fuel Storage, which limit the E M..
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 13:12

uclass wrote:I also noted that the Typhoon's were given a handicap WVR (drop tank):

Image


Probably less a handicap and more a necessity. Flankers have a lot of fuel.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 13:35

sferrin wrote:
Probably less a handicap and more a necessity. Flankers have a lot of fuel.

That doesn't mean that Typhoon is going to hold on to a drop tank in a real life dogfight. Drop tanks were invented for a reason. Clue's in the name.

Wrt fuel fraction. Su-30 - 35.2%, Typhoon - 32.7%. Not a massive difference, especially considering the lower SFC of the EJ200s.

So in short, the Typhoon will have been restricted to 7-7.5g until the tank was empty and suffered a drag penalty, whilst also having restricted missile launch parameters wrt HMCS, HOBS, LOAL etc.

And this seems like a discrete way of saying they were beaten BVR:

Asked about the performance of IAF pilots in these Large Force Engagements, Group Captain Srivastav told NDTV his pilots performed "fairly well" though "quantifying [the results] is difficult".
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 13:50

uclass wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Probably less a handicap and more a necessity. Flankers have a lot of fuel.

That doesn't mean that Typhoon is going to hold on to a drop tank in a real life dogfight. Drop tanks were invented for a reason. Clue's in the name.


No kidding? You mean drop tanks are meant to be dropped? No. Friggin'. Way. :roll: Here's a clue for you - it's unlikely by fight time that there was any fuel at all left in that tank (fuel in ETs gets used first) so the "handicap" would be trivial.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 14:09

sferrin wrote:No kidding? You mean drop tanks are meant to be dropped? No. Friggin'. Way. :roll: Here's a clue for you - it's unlikely by fight time that there was any fuel at all left in that tank (fuel in ETs gets used first) so the "handicap" would be trivial.

Aerodynamic handicap shouldn't be overlooked. And frankly the fuel fraction/range difference after considering SFC is sufficiently small to warrant not having it in the first place. But the report is pure crap anyway. The only way an Su-30 could score any kills WVR is by removing the use of HMCS, HOBS and LOAL from the Typhoon. And as for 2 Typhoons vs 1 Su-30, if RAF fighter pilots couldn't get a kill in that situation, they wouldn't be RAF fighter pilots.

Basically if you read the bits in quotation marks from the IAF and disregard the rest, that's what actually happened, the rest is a journalist making stuff up for partisan reasons.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 14:22

uclass wrote:
sferrin wrote:No kidding? You mean drop tanks are meant to be dropped? No. Friggin'. Way. :roll: Here's a clue for you - it's unlikely by fight time that there was any fuel at all left in that tank (fuel in ETs gets used first) so the "handicap" would be trivial.

Aerodynamic handicap shouldn't be overlooked. And frankly the fuel fraction/range difference after considering SFC is sufficiently small to warrant not having it in the first place. But the report is pure crap anyway. The only way an Su-30 could score any kills WVR is by removing the use of HMCS, HOBS and LOAL from the Typhoon. And as for 2 Typhoons vs 1 Su-30, if RAF fighter pilots couldn't get a kill in that situation, they wouldn't be RAF fighter pilots.

Basically if you read the bits in quotation marks from the IAF and disregard the rest, that's what actually happened, the rest is a journalist making stuff up for partisan reasons.


Oh I don't disagree with that. Just sayin' that the effect that empty tank would have on performance would be minimal.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

uclass

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 15 Feb 2013, 16:05

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 14:27

sferrin wrote:Oh I don't disagree with that. Just sayin' that the effect that empty tank would have on performance would be minimal.

I couldn't quantify it but they must be dropable for a reason. Drag would certainly affect STRs and energy recovery, after all external fuel never gets a plane as far as internal fuel range-wise.
Offline

borg

Banned

  • Posts: 471
  • Joined: 20 May 2015, 10:11

Unread post06 Aug 2015, 15:09

Well, the EF must carry at least one wet bag, if it is to hold up MKI.
If not, then its one of two:

- Bingo fuel, returning to base!
- We need tanker support!

There is important aspect to get the most out of these kind of training exercises, yes?
Imo as much flight hour as possible while the Indians still here.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 30 guests