The F-22 is optimised against not only search and fire control radars – but also against active radars in seeker heads such as what you find in the AMRAAM. According to many and a lot of literature – this is perhaps its greatest strength.
________
Medical Marijuana Patients

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 :).
________
PAXIL DEATH

It is clear to me that I am dealing with a fanboy now. I wanted to give you the benefit of doubt – but after your responses it is clear you don’t argue the topic at hand but rather drift off into your own explanation as to why in your opinion Flankers are better than Raptors.

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.

Like here – you claim I dont cover the 2 concepts in TVC – ie 2D vs 3D – as if 3D for some magical reason is immune to thrust loss at deflections – implying it is used for a maximum sustained turn. Let me stress again – you are wrong.

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.

Again what are you trying to say?

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

YOU – have not given me any data showing that the Su-27B? – not sure what you mean by that exactly – has a better sustained turn rate than an MKI. And in what conditions it achieves these – such as altitude. I’m very skeptical as to if it actually does. But if it does – there could be numerous explanations – leading to one conclusion: more lift – i.e. more thrust – and dont give me static thrust numbers please – i.e. more body lift – FBW which is not exclusive to the Su-35 – perhaps a slightly enhanced wing design.

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.

I can’t make out what your point is.

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.

Lol – the F-22 is far from the perfect design for turning – if engineers wanted the jet to pull 20 Gs that would be the case. No the F-22 is rather the best compromise between all performance specifications for the air superiority mission – and by a large margin – except for cost. And just because it is the most VLO out there doesn’t mean it isn’t right up there as one of the most, if not the most maneuverable/agile fighter around. It is a much more modern design than the Flanker – even if VLO was priority number one – it isn’t hard to imagine that as a newer design – it outperforms the Flanker significantly in the agility/maneuverabilty stakes aswell. Please spare me on Russian studies that you won’t find a link for – that claim the F-22 is more draggy than an SU-27. PR talk is found on both sides of the coin. The F-22 being a large jet has an extremely low frontal area – relative to its size and available thrust – smaller than a clean Flankers – its form drag will be extremely low – relative to its size and thrust – ie a very low form drag coefficient. This is one of the major reasons why it is such a top end supercruiser – being especially drag optimised for those speeds – with 8 missiles in dry thrust the F-22 will outpace an F-15 with 8 missiles in full burner. The F-22s gentle tapered aft design is ideal at minimising seperation drag and its wing position has the best compromise between instability and low interference drag with the fuselage. It flies clean – no pylons – no external munitions and its wings are free of weapons – which means lift generation is never disturbed – by “shapes” effective the lower pressure coefficients. You’d be very surprised at how large objects with the optimised shape – can be less draggy than much smaller objects.

The F-22 turns better due to a compromise between thrust yield and thrust vectoring, high thrust in part helps it turning but the Su-30MKI having less thrust than a Su-27B even surpasses the single seat Su-27B, but is the PAK FA going to use flat nozzles? uhmmm modern stealthy designs like the F-35 do not use flat nozzles.

Again you make little sense – have little understanding of TVC – with no figures – what is this Su-27B? Little understanding on the design choices behind the F-35s nozzle.

Now no one will use thrust vectoring in a sustained turn all the time since simply it will make the aircraft flip over its own axis, thrust vectoring is the only reason the F-22 does the cobra and cobra hook.

Tangent again – in a sustained turn TVC is not helping generate lift at all – no use.

The Su-37 for example can use thrust vectoring to do the Cobra turn

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.

Again – you really show your lack of understanding – people who think the F-35 will be poor in the dogfight will be fairly surprised.

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.

Tangent and irrelavent. The day of the traditional dogfight is limited – while the US uses the F-22 for the AD – not the F-35.

Now why then the F-22 uses thrust vectoring and aerodynamic surfaces in conjuction? well simply because like the Su-30MKI and many missiles this is the best way of turning.

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.

Tangent – with a few irrelavencies – especially as you don’t seem to understand the compromise that comes with TVC – from a performance and signature perspective – but i’d love to see how accurate these renditions are to the actual jet – when it comes out :).

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

See answer above.

The F-22 is basicly limited having a two dimesional nozzles of rectangular cross section, the Russians use a circular cross section, no two flat paddles but circular multi paddle thrust vectoring 3D multi axis thrust vectoring to get better thrust vectoring without so many losses in thrust and allowing to replace many functions done by aerodynamic surfaces.

You clearly don’t understand fluid mechanics – thermodynamics or aerodynamics.

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 old Su-35 could virtually do all the maneuvers the Su-37 could – with a revised FBW – as can the F-22. But these are irrelavent.

The F-16AFTI also was a draggier aircraft than the F-16MATV variant even it was almost as capable in agility

.
________
Lovely Wendie

You thesis is not what all the engineers in the world think about it.

Thrust vectoring like any technology has supporters and opposers.

Also there are several reasons why the people against it base their basic statements.

You can call thrust vectoring system and air drag vectoring system, Thrust vectoring uses the engine nozzles to vector the thrust, air drag vectoring sistems are aerodynamic surfaces that generate drag and translate the force generated to a fulcrum among such systems we have tailplanes or elevons and they do work as levers do.

Both systems have advantages and disdavantages, that is the reason the aircraft designers use them or delete them.

Thrust vectoring has different systems too, the F-22 has flat nozzles with pitch thrust vectoring and by moving the two flat paddles up and down vectors the thrust; the X-31 has a different system it uses several paddles positioned at different angular degrees from each other to vector the thrust, the Su-30MKI uses pitch thrust vectoring by moving the entire nozzle up and down however it has the engine nozzles off bored creating the famous V shape, the MiG-29OVT, the late variants of NASA F-15 ACTIVE and F-16 VISTA in the US and the Su-35BM use thrust vectoring in all directions by just deflecting the nozzle feathers.

Missiles can use several engines to vector the thrust and aircraft have done the same like the Yak-141 or French Mirage Balzac.

The AIM-9X and R-73 use different systems for thrust vectoring too.

Each system has benefits and disadvantages.

Now while turning a missile can use aerodynamic controls or thrust vectoring, missile designers like jet aircraft designers do ponder the wisdom of each system based upon costs and performance.

Now the F-22 has two paddles only, the X-31 increased the number to three, the Su-35BM has increased the number of paddles to each engine nozzle feather so like from a square to a circle the increase of sides it increases the number of paddles.

This system is far more practical since it gives you thrust vectoring in all directions like a polygon aproaches infinity in a circle.

the advantages of thrust vectoring is the freedom it gives and the reduction of air drag, drag rests lift too and aerodynamic surfaces do rest lift and act like aerodynamic brakes losing speed too.

Canards for example rest lift from the main wing, so any gain in a system might mean a loss in performance too, with this you can see, in the Su-35BM the canards were deleted to reduce drag, so there is not such system like you are claiming, thrust vectoring can be used to change direction and that is basicly turning, but aerodynamic surfaces also act like airbrakes and reduce lift too.

So then why engineers use thrust vectoring or canards and tailplanes, well it will simply depend in the level of complexity achieved and the cost effectiveness they can achieve with each system.

I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say – but one needs to pick up on a few points. Firstly if you look at some of my TVC comments in previous posts – you will understand where I stand on it. I have never claimed it is useless – it does have uses. But I’m not so sure its implementation is worth it – when other systems offer similar or better performance across more of the envelope.

For starters I don’t state my my TVC beliefs because I am anti-Russian. I state them because the benefit it gives is not always worth it – whether its on the F-22 or the Su-35BM – if these programs implement it – thats nice and it does have its uses – but they are by no means the most important.

TVC does offer a less draggy solution – especially at the low alpha’s but when engaging in a maximum sustained turn – the loss of thrust due to the component of thrust used in generating alpha and the loss of thrust due to the nozzle fluid mechanics at those deflections is to significant for it to effectively increase sustained turn rates. Added to the fact that those nozzle deflections at the alpha’s required don’t reduce drag significantly enough – like they do at the lower sustained turn rates, that require lower alpha’s – to offset the loss of thrust. Therefore TVC has very little impact if at all on maximum sustained turn rates – hence why the F-22s FBW system doesn’t employ it while in a max sustained turn.

It does have uses at much lower speeds – where pivoting about the engine rather than the centre of lift becomes important – ie max instantaneous turn rates – or if you need to increase alpha at a quicker rate. It does give post stall controlability. But these benefits are being overcome by HMD/HOBs – especially the ASRAAM – with its 360 degree envelope. TVC helps trim the jet at high speed and high altitude.

I also don’t understand what you refer to when you say: “so there is not such system like you are claiming”? Not sure what system – your refering to – and what you mean by “you are claiming”.
________
Pregnancy

You have to prove the Su-30MMI has a sustained turn rate in clean configuration of 23 deg/s with a manual, besides that all what you say makes no sense, then why the F-22 has better turn rates than the Eurofighter and the Su-30MKI has an improvement of 2 deg/s sustained turn rate over the legacy Su-27B despite it has less thrust available and has more drag.

The only reason you say clean configuration is because the Su-30MKI carries no external fuel tanks

The Red Flag pilot – stated the operational turn rates for a clean Su-30MKI – as in with no tanks or missiles…. go watch the youtube videos.

TVC has nothing to do with how a jet turns. If you want to understand it – buy a book on flight mechanics or read some of my explanations in previous posts. The resultant force perpendicular to the velocity vector of the jet establishes turn rates – this is governed by the total lift generated.

TVC is magic. delete that from the F-22 and you will get a twin engined F-35 with less agility

Thats rubbish mate – go and educate yourself before making statements that you don’t understand.

you don’t need to engage TVC all the time..yet, it offers any pilot a very useful addition, which an experienced pilot will use selectively and wisely. what does a regular non-TVC equipped pilot do when he has to resort to a guns-only fight with a TVC equipped Flanker or MiG-35 or F-22?

Guns only – in real combat won’t be a factor if a pilot is sensible – he will just bug out. Unless you can creep onto someones tail – like the F-22 – guns only combat is a non starter for a pragmatic pilot. If he is forced into it – keeping up ones energy is vital – as has been shown in Red Flag.

those turn rates are wrong- there was a clarification provided by an IAF pilot that those rates are actually higher. and anyway, Flankers don’t carry external fuel tanks.

Ah ok :). But they do carry pylons and missiles?

thanks to ? b] TVC [/b] and an incredible T/W ratio.

Non static T/W and overall engine performance – and mainly Lift with FBW integration – oh and being a very unstable platform – TVC allows it to do things well at the very edges of its envelope – whether they are relavent – remains to be seen – I can think of many other solutions.

funny thing is, F-22 fanboys always praise its maneuverability and ability to win dogfights, yet when it comes to running down the advantages of TVC, they’re always at the forefront- driven obviously by the need to defend why the USAF has never had a TVC equipped fighter before that, despite all the results of the X-31 studies.

NASA link

“The X-31 program demonstrated the value of thrust vectoring (directing engine exhaust flow) coupled with advanced flight control systems, to provide controlled flight during close-in air combat at very high angles of attack. The result of this increased maneuverability was a significant advantage over most conventional fighters.“

________
WENDIE 99

I think this guy has a fairly good idea about air to air combat and certainly had some very interesting information to give. I think he can be forgiven about the Mig 21 radar and engine mistakes. India buys into Israeli avionics in a big way so it would be easy to asume this was the case for the Bison and to the average American fighter pilot every Russian engine is a Turmunsky even if it isn’t. Anyway he was clearly impressed with the Bison and regarded it as a serious threat even to the F22 in certain situations.

In the end this is a pilot (probably a graduate of the USAFWC) who was up actually performing these missions. Also watch the speech and read between the lines because he had some rather interesting and worrying conclusions in certain areas:

1) New generation fighter’s from the Russian block are more then a match for Western fighters like the F15/16, if flown well.

2) NATO Link16 is a decisive tactical advantage clearly shown by the outcome of the exercise.

3) New generation Jamming equipment allow fighters to approach into visual range and it appears to be highly effective – THIS WAS PROBABLY THE MOST SERIOUS PART OF THE TALK AND IS CERTAINLY FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!! Notice he even stated the F22 can be jammed until visual and he clearly stated that it hasn’t the missile load to avoid a guns fight and even upgraded MIG21 in enough numbers are a serious threat in that situation.

He concluded with the conclusion that MKI was better then the USAF own legacy fighters but that situation at the moment is mitigated by lack of experience on the Indian side.

I’m amused by his comments about the French but to be fair to them we all play that game if there is the chance to gather electronic information.

All in all a fascinating talk which will probably tweek the tail of the fanboys especially the High Emperor of fandom “Star49” but for those in the know it was very interesting.

Fantastic thread!!!! Despite some poor thread-derailing tactics by the ‘usuals’ – who obviously feel wronged despite many positive points on the MKI and Bison.

As a dogfighter the F-22 really seems to have come into its own. And I $hit you not: an F-22 achieving a sustained turn rate of 28 degrees per second is simply outstanding. Not to mention its less relavent but shockingly impressive instantaneous TVC turn – videographic evidence suggests turn rates well over the Eurocanards and legacy platforms.

1)With the ability to fly the more relavent extremely high end sustained turning/vertical fight.

2)Combining above with last ditch post stall maneuvering and extremely high end instanteous turn rates.

3)Stealthy sneak up tactics

*Potentially makes the F-22 the most potent dog fighting platform in the world. (Especially if it gets an HMD and 9X)

*Size being its biggest problem – and mabye the 9X vs ASRAAM debate.

*Another interesting point raised is that if an inexperienced Raptor pilots pulls more AoA at the 28 deg/sec sustained turn – being impatient – they obviously induce an extremely tight instantaneous turn but lose speed giving the legacy platform the chance to pull up if not nailed from that instantaneous turn and gain an energy advantage for themselves. This highlights the importance of maintaining energy. Even in a jet as impressive as the Raptor – if a pilot gets to eager and forces the kill – ie turns to tight he can lose. But if he plays it safe – his massive sustained turn will overpower his opponent. The difference of 28 vs 22/3 in the case of the F-22/MKI is staggering – also the fact that the legacy MKI airframe of the pulls over 22/3 deg/sec it loses altitude rapidly – where the F-16/15 dont have to pull up to gain altitude to get the kill unlike vs the Raptor.

*It is clear if the MKI is flown well in WVR range it will overpower an F-16/15.

*It is clear jamming on the Indian jets is causing BVR issues for the F-15/16 – effectively allowing for well flown MKIs to beat F-15/16s most of the time by forcing them into the merge.

*It is not clear what he meant about the F-22 being jammed – but I have a few opinions. It is surely possible to employ jamming tactics against the F-22 – but as to how effective they are – is up in the air. From my point I can’t see them being that effective against the platform itself – but I do see how they can negate the AMRAAM.

*The AESA that the F-22 employs is much more jam resistant by nature than M-Scans – its innate qualities make it extremely difficult/if not impossible in some cases to jam.

*The F-22 unlike the F-15/16 employs a highly integrated ESM/MLD suite – which will negate deception jamming – no Bison will creep up on it invisibly – it also has home-on-jam modes and passive targeting modes.

*As a platform I doubt the F-22 has to much trouble in such a signal dense environment. But perhaps the AMRAAM seeker has had trouble against the NG jamming – which will cause serious problems for the US BVR philosophy.

*I dont see NG F-15s and F-16s with AESAs – ESMs having to many problems against jamming and SA – like the F-22. Therefore negating many of the MKIs current advantages. If equipped with HMD and 9X and AMRAAM D – they could perhaps even achieve higher kill ratios against the current MKIs – especially NG F-15s – assuming pilot skills being even.

*But I think the biggest issue is how the AMRAAM copes against jamming – and not the NG aircraft.

*How will AIM-120D cope? Meteor… etc?

By certain measures the UK has the worlds second largest aerospace industry.
________
Rehab community

Can we please not ban star49………….

How much rubbish do we have to read before someone gets rid of him? He is probably one of the main factors as to why this forum has gone down hill over the last few months.