offline
- Pridružio: 04 Dec 2014
- Poruke: 87
|
mean_machine ::Fina analiza doticne vezbe:
thumkar.blogspot.in/2015/08/su-30mki-vs-eurofighter-typhoon-truth.html
Istini za volju meni je ova analiza poprilicno supljikava iz vise razloga.
U principu to je licno vidjenje autora teksta Vijainder K Thakur-a, (sto realno nije nista strasno jer svako ima pravo na svoje vidjenje/misljenje/analizu), ali sa dosta netacnih ili nepotpunih podataka.
Citat:Did the Su-30MKI outmaneuver the Eurofighter Typhoon 12-0 within visual range (WVR) combat during Indradhanush 4, as stated by Group Captain Ashu Srivastav, who led the IAF Indradhanush-4 detachment to RAF Coningsby, to NDTV?
Certainly, yes! IAF pilots are not inclined to make false claims, or indulge in wanton exaggerate..
Koliko je meni poznato Kapetan Ashu Srivastav ni jednom nije izjavio da su Indijci dobili Engleze sa 12-0.
Taj podatak je objavio Vishnu Som:
ndtv.com/india-news/indian-air-forces-t.....eststories
Poznato je da je on jedini insajder/novinar kome je dozvoljeno da ima ogroman uvid u skoro sve dosadasnje multinacionalne vezbe.
Posto je izrazena sumnja u tako ubedljivu superiornost MKI nad EF2000 u WVR duelu, on se opet javno obratio na Bharat Rakshak forumu kako bi otklonio te sumnje:
Citat:Hi folks ... Just so everyone is clear here ... I stand by my article 100 % ... I accept that there are sensitivities and yes, I was able to access more on-the-record information than many in the UK or perhaps even in some quarters of the IAF would have liked - but the information stands. This isn't to suggest that the Typhoon is not a great weapon. In a real combat situation, its AESA-Meteor combo may have been superior to what the MKI has presently certainly in some flight regimes ... as always, it all boils down to the skill of fighter-controllers, the pilots and of course the platform.
Also ... just so that everyone is clear, the scenarios were mutually decided ... its not as if the IAF designed the engagement scenarios all by itself. The people I spoke to are not lying.
Vishnu Som
Evo nekoliko citata onoga sto je Kapetan Ashu Srivastav stvarno izjavio:
aviationweek.com/defense/indian-flankers-an.....t-uk-skies
Citat:The last time the Typhoon battled against the Su-30 on home turf was in 2007, during the first U.K.-based Indradhanush exercise. At the time, the Typhoon was still an immature warplane with the RAF, which was then building up experience on the type. The Su-30 crews were primarily working with Panavia Tornado F3s, and the Su-30s were hampered by their inability to use their NIIP N011M Bars radar system.
There were also concerns that the U.S. was using one of its RC-135U Combat Sent electronic-intelligence platforms during the 2007 exercise in a bid to gain information about the radar.
This year, however, the situation was markedly different. Both the Typhoon and Su-30MKI have matured, and Indian crews were able to use their radars. The Indians also made regular use of “super-maneuverability” provided by the Sukhoi’s 3-D thrust vector control (TVC) system.
“There were no restrictions on this exercise; we had full freedom,” says Indian air force Group Capt. Ashu Srivastav, who led the Indian contingent to the U.K.
Pilots from both sides refused to comment directly on comparisons of the two aircraft and which, if any, enjoyed an advantage, although one British pilot describes the two aircraft as being “equally comparable.”
“You can only read and brief so much about the Flanker, but it’s not until you are up in the air with them, and against them, that you see what a great aircraft it is,” says Wing Cmdr. Chris Moon, head of the RAF’s 3 Sqdn., the lead British unit for the exercise.
“These are two of the best dogfighters in the world. . . . One is predominantly a rate [of turn] fighter, and the other is a high-alpha slower-speed fighter,” says Moon, describing the Typhoon and Flanker, respectively.
Srivastav, an Su-30 pilot with more than 2,000 hr. on the type, says the Typhoon enjoyed very high rates of turn but adds, “we have a counter for that.”
One Indian pilot tells Aviation Week that they had used the yaw capability of the TVC to remain inside the tight turn radius of the Typhoon in order to keep the Typhoon within missile launch parameters.
It was agreed before the exercise that they would simulate common ranges for both BVR and WVR missiles, rather than the ranges of the actual missile type used on each aircraft.
globalaviationresource.com/v2/2015/08/0.....nush-2015/
Citat:Leader of the Indian Contingent was Grp Capt Ashu Srivastav, a previous ‘Flanker’ squadron commander responsible for bringing the jets into IAF service and holding over 2,200hrs on the type. ‘Comparing the two fighters I have to be politically correct; both have got their plus and minus points, but I am going to say that the ‘Flanker’ probably has more plus points due to its super-manoeuvrability and BVR system is very good’ he said. ‘We are highly manoeuvrable in close combat and we employ the vectoring whenever we need to depending on the combat situation – generally speaking, we use it when we feel that the opponent is in a position where it cannot manoeuvre but we can, and so we can use TVC to still get the shot. We have had no restriction on IRS-T or the radar usage’. But Grp Capt Srivastav was keen to sing the Typhoon’s praises, saying ‘Typhoon is extremely good in high rates of turn and that has been great to see…’ before adding with a wry grin ‘But we have a counter for that…!’
Ovo je jedno od najjednostavnijih i najpreciznijih objasnjenja kako TVC funkcionise.
Nisam citirao izjave Engleskih pilota, ali evidentno je da su poprilicno impresionirani Suhojem i stavljaju ga u isti rang sa Eurofajterom.
Dakle, postoji neki "skriveni" koncenzus da je MKI dominantniji u WVR borbi i da apsolutno moze da pariria Eurofajteru u BVR borbi.
Sada bi se vratio na Vijainder K Thakur-a:
Citat:Ashu Srivastav's inputs to NDTV were precise and very professional. He said that the IAF Su-30MKI aircrew outperformed RAF Typhoon pilots in 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 1 WVR combat using close combat missiles (CCM) within a range of two miles.
The CCM restriction implied that the engagements involved low energy combat, a flight envelope in which the Su-30MKI excels because of thrust vectoring.
Su-30MKI excels in WVR low energy combat because of thrust vectoring. The Typhoon outperforms the Su-30MKI in high energy WVR combat because of its better thrust to weight ratio and high speed turn performance.
Ovo je jedna od nebuloznijih izjava.
Kako je on zakljucio da se WVR borba vodila u okviru letne anvelope koja favorizuje MKI na osnovu dogovorene daljine dometa raketa od 3,2 km meni nije bas najjasnije. U principu to je uobicajena daljina sa koje moze uspesno da se lanisra raketa malog dometa a da bi se raketa uspesno lansirala avion mora da se postavi u poziciju za tako nesto (u odnosu na protivnika) nevezano od brzine kojom se on krece. Drugim recima, ako je avion vec pri vecim brzinama ostvario odgovarajuce parametre za uspesno lansiranje rakete - super, ako je to uradio pri nizim brzinama, opet super.
U principu postoje neke prosecne vrednosti brzina i visina pri kojima se ulazi u, odnosno pri kojima se odigrava klasicna bliska manevarska borba i vezbe se uglavnom izvode u tom opsegu jer se tako najrelanije simulira WVR borba. Naravno da neki avioni imaju bolje performanse na odredjenim visinama ili pri odredjenim brzinama, ali trenutno niko nije javno postavio podatke vezane za konkretnu vezbu sto znaci da je sve vezano za tu konkretnu oblast samo cista spekulacija.
Citat:The CCM restriction implied that the engagements involved low energy combat, a flight envelope in which the Su-30MKI excels because of thrust vectoring.
Ja jos nisam cuo da je neko postavio ROE tako da MKI odmah moze da iskoristi pun potencijal TVC-a, jer su takve brzine nerealno niske za ulazak u WVR borbu.
Uobicajeno je da prilikom ulaska u WVR borbu brzine budu dovoljne da avion moze da manevrise oko svoje "corner velocity". Dakle u vecini slucajeva prilikom prvog zaokreta avion lovac bi trebao da moze da izvuce 8 ili 9G (u zavisnosti od tipa aviona). Prilikom takvih zaokreta TVC je prakticno beskoristan.
Takodje smo iz gore postavljenih tekstova i citata mogli da zakljucimo da su Englezi itekako demonstrirali superiorne ugaone brzine i kineticki potencijal Eurofajtera, ali da je konacni ishod WVR borbi drasticno isao u korist MKI.
Evo citata jednog clana Bharat Rakshak foruma koji se odnosi na ostale delove teksta:
Citat:Thakur is also resorting to speculation TBH. I would caution that his viewpoints are driven by opinion and not data alone. After Cope India, he went on record to state that it was not possible that the IAF could have defeated the US in the exercise because the USAF was so more advanced etc etc. Of course, then we had the Av Week interviews with USAF and a Mirage 2000 pilots comments on the net. Just a point noting that his interviews/data directly from sources when cited as such is great, but his opinion pieces, well, they are opinion pieces based on publicly available data which may/may not be accurate.
He's not also accurate with some of the nitty gritty of some of the systems he publishes in the IDP blog as well. Some have been fixed on feedback. Some remain as is, with the details not matching the actual items.
He notes in this case:
Its Captor M radar emissions are more difficult to detect, track and spoof than those of the Su-30MKIs BARS radar.
This is pure conjecture. One, the Bars has held up very well in EW environments eg Red Flag, in training mode itself.
Actually, the PESA radar has inherently more LPI ability by dint of its architecture, very fast moving beams. He seems to have confused the Captor M as an AESA.
A lot of the actual radar capability is also driven by the software & algorithms. In this sense its worth remarking the Bars is the 3rd gen evolution of the NIIP radar experience moving from the N001 to the Zaslon radar family to the N011 prototype then to the N011M. Sufficient experience of the type (Zaslon was the first mass manufactured ESA for a frontline fighter and remains in service with significant upgrades as the original design was compromised by espionage IIRC). Bars and now the Irbis-E build on it further.
Its Attack and Identification System (AIS) provides better situational awareness and threat handling.
Has to be balanced against the fact the MKI has a dedicated Wizzo and no matter how great the AIS, its not AI aka its own brain doing everything for the pilot and informing him about what needs to be done, as versus the Wizzo who does exactly that and handles the long range combat management and also, A2G, with a very important second pair of eyes. He doesn't address the above doctrinal issue at all.
Thakur states:
Typhoon's AIS includes sensor fusion wherein data from multiple sensors - the fighter's Captor radar, PIRATE Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) and EW suite, as well as off-board radars (AWACS, ASTOR, JSTARS, even other Typhoons) over datalink - is displayed on a single MFD, reducing pilot workload and confusion.
Actually, the DARE Eagle Eye ESM works in the same fashion combining tracks.
AIS automatically exercises Captor radar emissions control (EMCON) based on the composite threat scenario.
The Su-30MKI has a mode wherein the radar detects a target and then maintains EMCON till optimal weapons employment zone.
It has a significantly smaller radar signature than the Su-30MKI.
Has to be balanced against the fact the Su-30 MKI has a huge EW fit, known as the SAP-518 which Thakur ignores completely.
etc.
Point is his "views" seem to be informed from a smattering of PR magazines on the Typhoon but are not really upto date on several MKI details especially the avionics.
Sve u svemu, treba biti vrlo oprezan prilikom donosenja bilo kakvog suda, ali je ocigledno da su ova dva aviona prilicno izjednacena.
Bilo bi interesantno videti kako bi se Su-35S pokazao u slicnim vezbama. Za razliku od MKI on ne bi nikako manjkao u kinetickom delu letne anvelope  .
|
