To bolster your claim we are all intrested in the related data. 😀
At the moment, there is a deafening silence about reliable data about the F-22A!

Aside from that, none do challenge the first look and first shoot advantage of the F-22A.
:diablo:

Did not have had the F-4s the same advantage over the MiG-21s in the 60s?

Well unless the Flanker/J-10 can cruise faster than M1.8, have a higher sustained turn rate of 28 deg/sec(and even higher instantaneous turn rate), the ability to see the Raptor long before the Raptor sees them, fire a missile at the Raptor before the Raptor can get a shot off(BVR), etc…, I’m not sure where I’m blowing sunshine.

As for the F-4s in Vietnam, they may have had first look, but they didn’t necessarily have first shoot due to weapon limitations/ROE(due to IFF and weapon limitations). Suffice it to say, the Raptor will have significant advantages in terms of how soon it can fire following detection/tracking, compared to the Flanker/J-10, as they’ll be well within the NEZ before even detecting the Raptor.

A-10 it looks like you dont get the difference between flying in clean config and flying dirty. Thanks for your usual biased and uniformed anti-western response Over-g – if it makes you sleep well at night – fine :).

He’s also misinformed when he states that the production F-22 is draggier than the YF-22. The changes that were made, were done to improve aerodynamics/RCS reduction, not to degrade them.

NO …. we are talking about the J-10 (at least that’s what the tread’s title says !)

Once again a tread ruined with all these “my Flanker” is better than Your … xyz-type !

Deino 😡

In the big picture, you’re quite correct. I think you’re frustration is with those that are in the “my Flanker” is better than Your … xyz-type !” crowd though.

We always get back to the same old story. Comparing clean 4/4.5 Generation Fighters to the F-35………………not to mention Mach 2+.

?

Where’d the F-35 come in here? We’re talking about the Su-35BM.

Your F-22 example does not cover all the designs seen in thrust vectoring systems used in combat aircraft, the Su-30MKI does not use flat nozzles, niether the Su-35BM and it seems the PAK FA won`t use them either.

Once again- 3D TVC is not inherently > 2D. Sustained turns are not dependant on TVC at all(F-16, Typhoon, Rafale all have high sustained turn rates and no TVC). The Raptor has a higher sustained turn rate than the Flanker, regardless of whether the Flanker uses canards or 3D TVC. 3D TVC is heavier, more complicated, and has a higher IR/RCS signature. If whatever advantage it provides doesn’t outweigh these negatives, or the solution can be achieved by other methods, it just isn’t worthwhile.

You are generalizing because you have two bias concepts, one is the Eurofighter does not use thrust vectoring, and the second is the F-22 does not use multi axis thrust vectoring.

What bias? Both aircraft have demonstrated that 3D TVC isn’t necessary for extreme agility.

let us start with the Su-30MKI, you have not explained me the following.
Why the Su-30MKI has a higher turn rate than the Su-27B, you could say canards but the Su-33 uses the canards mostly for STOL, only the Su-35 has improved agility thanks to FBW flight programs

Okay let us suppose only the canards are used, however it does not explain why to include thrust vectoring in the Su-30MKI and obviously it is not due to STOL needs.

The -35 lost the canards as the Russians were able to achieve the desired performance with TVC and the FBW, without the added drag.

You seem to think the F-22 is the perfect design for turning, but russian studies claim the F-22 is draggier than a Su-27 simply because of the need of carrying weapons internally, it has a big cross section, inducing high drag.

uhmmm modern stealthy designs like the F-35 do not use flat nozzles.

This was to save money, not to optimise the RCS from the rear aspect, where it is least needed.

Internal carriage has a lot less drag than external carriage, which is how the Flanker will be operating in combat.

The F-22`s cousin the F-35 is a mediocre aircraft in agility and basicly uses the same configuration the F-22 does with exception of the inlet and single engine configuration.

This assertion is based upon what? Certainly not by anyone that’s flown the F-35. You might want to read this article as a balance to Carlo Kopp’s and Pierre Sprey’s opinions.

http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html

“In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor,”

“What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor”

The F-22 has an earlier type of thrust vectoring, no like the modern Su-35BM
The australians know a Su-35BM will beat the F-35 in dogfight.

3D was looked at, but 2D was decided upon for it’s advantages in IR/Radar signature reduction, and the fact that 3D wasn’t needed to achieve the required agility.

[B]any aerodynamic surface in an aircraft has a two dimensional arm vector lever, tailplanes are either up or down; the vertical rudders are left or right and use them asimetrical you only get roll, however a three dimensional thrust vectoring Nozzle will help you to generate less drag and delete some aerodynamic surfaces, then in the Su-35BM they deleted the drag inducing canards and Mikoyan omitted all togather them, in fact the PAK FA seems to have really small vertical fins, not like the huge F-22 rudders, in fact the PAK FA seems at least by artistic renditions that is using a body blended wing fuselage with a lifting fuselage of higher lift internal weapons bays.

Whatever drag the large control surfaces add is made up for by internal carriage of weapons. The Flanker pays a penalty for external stores.

If you use a little logic then you can see the two dimensional thrust vectoring nozzles in the F-22 are doing no more than a increased lever force for the horizontal tailplanes, so despite they are helpful they are not as usefull as the multiaxis thrust vectoring nozzles in the Su-35BM [/B]

Useful in what way? Has the F-22 had any issues with agility, AoA limitations, etc.. due to its design?

This system like in the F-16VISTA or MiG-29OBT make aircraft more agile capable of doing the helicopter, cobra turn and many other maneouvres.

The Raptor has demonstrated all of these manuevers. The important thing to take away is how an aircraft performs in combat conditions, not airshow conditions.

Thrust vectoring is used in conjuction of the aerodynamic surfaces however the loss of speed is not as you are trying to claim. if used in conjuction with the aerodynamic surfaces and as a trimming device the aircraft won`t have a significant loss of speed due to inertia or the first law of newton, even in a turn you won`t change abruptly its speed, therefore the use of thrust vectoring has benefits if used wisely as a trimming device, further more a twin engined fighter can use more wisely thrust vectoring

The Su-37, Su-35 and Su-30MKI still have many aerodynamic surfaces, the Su-35BM and MiG-29OBT have already deleted or omited the use of canards, in the MiG-29OBT even there is no need for ventral fins like in the Su-35BM thanks to multi directional thrust vectoring.

The F-22 has not such system, in fact the F-22 is rather primitive as a thrust vectoring powered aircraft, since it used two dimensional pitch only thrust vectoring to retain low IR signature.

The main advantaged enjoyed by the F-22 it`s excess of thrust, allowing it to beat the Eurofighter, Su-30MKI and J-10 to put some examples.

however the Su-35BM uses a more a advanced system with a plus it has 29000kgf of thrust, has less drag than a Su-30MKI and 4000kgf more thrust.

Such aircraft already can boast a very likely 28-25 deg/s sustained turn rate.

-I’m not sure primitive is the word that comes to mind with regard to the Raptors TVC. 3D isn’t necessarily > 2D, if you can achieve the desired performance without the increased IR/Radar RCS/weight penalities of the more complicated system.

-do you have a source for the Flanker having a sustained turn rate of 25-28 deg/sec? How much additional dry thrust does the -35BM have over the MKI?
That’s the more relevant number, as max AB won’t be the default setting in a turning fight(or under most circumstances if the pilot wants to have any endurance). Additionally the T/W ratio hasn’t increased so dramatically, that you’re likely to see 4-7 deg/sec improvements.

hahaha now we have to think the F-22 uses Thurst vectoring for STOL.;)

You are denying a simple fact, in a turn an aircraft has several vectors acting giving a resultant, one is lift, other is speed, but flaps, elevons, elevators and thrust vectoring act perpendicular to the speed fligh path vector, therefore thrust vectoring can be used in a turn to improve the turn rate as elevons or tailplanes are used, however it has a price, as the first law of mechanics of newtons states, this will result in a loss of speed

So your lift vector is modified by the vectors produced by the elevons elevators and thrust vectoring nozzles.

Now you have no firm evidence to claim the max sustained turn rate of the Su-30MKi is 23 deg/s since you have no aerodynamic manual to support it and by the way the F-15 has a max sustained turn rate of 16deg/s the pilot never said the F-15 has better turn rate and the Su-27 single seater has a max sustained turn rate of 21 deg/s, so a heavier and draggier Su-30MKI has better sustained turn rate than the sinlge seater Su-27B thanks to Thrust vectoring nozzles.

Better sustained turn rate, or instantaneous? If TVC is being used to turn tighter, then with the loss of airspeed, the max turn rate won’t be sustainable.