F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 12:56
by gta4
First thing first, PKA-FA DOES NOT HAVE 3D TVC! It is still useing 2D TVC, as revealed in Russian's bureau of intellectual property:
T-50 2d tvc.jpg


Secondly, F-22 has 20 deg of deflection, while Russian has only 15 deg of deflection. This makes F-22 much more agile in the pitch axis, at least judging from airshow moves:

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 13:12
by hythelday
gta4 wrote:at least judging from airshow moves


I sorry but that is stupid. Airshow videos are only good for seeing what a plane can do, and are worthless as comparison between two jets, because there is no reference for speed, turn rate, altitude and whether a maneuver was best possible or not.

In addition: what is "3D" TVC anyway? Is it when nozzles become longer? F-22 can only control pitch with TVC. Flankers and PAK FA can use TVC to influence yaw too, even if the picture you provided is, in fact correct and not a simplification/misunderstanding.

Your post with numbers from flight manuals are much better that these "airshow video comparisons".

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 13:22
by gta4
You think T-50's TVC can affect YAW because it is a 2D TVC that moves in a "V" pattern, right?

That is not true. If it wants to create YAW moment, one nozzle mush pitch upward, while another nozzle mush pitch downward. As a result, while it generates the YAW moment you need, it also generates the ROLL moment that you don't want. This is called "parasitic moment"

So, the plane cannot yaw with TVC, because it always has the tendency to ROLL OVER instead of proper yawing.

Oh, do you mean PKA-FA "yawed" during airshows? That was a falling leaf departure that every plane (even without TVC) can do. F-22 can do it much faster:
F-22 heli turn.gif

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 13:30
by hythelday
You are entering wewuz territory here.

As I said: airshow videos and footage from flight testing is not a "proof" of anything because 1) there are no numbers involved 2) there isn't a reference point.

F-22 can only pitch with TVC. Russian TVC can pitch and also influence yaw rate. Whichever system is "better" or makes plane more agile is a whole different story.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 13:33
by gta4
Russian TVC can pitch and also influence yaw rate
-----------------
Prove it.

I have proven that it can not yaw because it has the tendency to ROLL OVER.

And, please prove that "15 deg deflection is better than 20 deg deflection"

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 14:11
by hythelday
gta4 wrote:Russian TVC can pitch and also influence yaw rate
-----------------
Prove it.

I have proven that it can not yaw because it has the tendency to ROLL OVER.

And, please prove that "15 deg deflection is better than 20 deg deflection"


You seem to imagine arguments just so you can post more gifs from airshows as "proofs", because you want me to prove things I never stood by.

To recap, me statements, nothing more, nothing less:
1) Footage from airshows and flight testing is not a proof of anything since there is no hard data on the maneuvers performed, and as such cannot be used in plane comparisons.
2) F-22 can only control pitch because F119 nozzle only moves up or down. AL-31 can also move nozzle laterally, whether or not this also causes roll is irrelevant because F119 does not have this feature at all (unlike STOL/MTD P&W F100, HARV GE F404, VISTA GE F110 which I know about, just in case). HOWEVER never did I claim that one system is superior to another. MOREOVER system performance is driven in large by design specifications - e.g. YF-23 was as maneuverable as YF-22 without TVC at all - which is why I do not automatically declare one system "better" for the lack/presence of certain features.

You should stick to the numbers and flight manuals, as you once did. Those posts were much better.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 14:27
by gta4
AL-31 can also move nozzle laterally
------------------
Prove it.

Su-37, Su-30MKI all have 2D TVC which only moves up and down (in a V pattern). Not laterally.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 15:00
by gta4
YF-23 MANEUVERS AS GOOD AS YF-22?

This is what I have read:

"YF-22 demonstrated 60 deg controllable AOA. YF-23 claimed to have very high controllable AOA but only demonstrated 22 deg. USAF emphasized so much on maneuverability so it chose YF-22."

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 15:04
by gta4
I think hythelday can't understand the difference between "deflect laterally" and "deflect vertically in a V pattern".

The former generates yaw moment without generating unwanted roll moment. The latter must generate parasite roll moment.

We can't talk with illiteracy. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 15:40
by XanderCrews
Image

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 15:58
by XanderCrews
Image

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 17:32
by botsing

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 18:08
by hythelday
gta, let me get this straight, you define 3D vectoring as "ability of nozzle to deflect in any direction of 360 deg circle freely just because it is cool" as opposed to "ability to deflect nozzle in a way that assists aircraft maneuver in pitch, roll and yaw"? Because according to your definition there are no operational aircraft with "3D" thrust vectoring, and Raptor is a "1D" TVC aircaft.

I may be illiterate, but I do know how simple vector math works. By deflecting left nozzle UP and LEFT, and right one DOWN and LEFT pilot assists plane in yawing to the left (as seen in Xanders picture up&right corner). Alternatively, if left nozzle is deflected DOWN and RIGHT, while right one is deflected UP & RIGHT the plane yaws to the right (as seen in Xanders picture down&left corner). Pitching momentum is created by deflecting both nozzles UP (but in different directions), while I guess roll could be assisted by deflecting one nozzle more than the over.

I'll let the people of the forum be the judges. If there's really something I understand wrong about Russian thrust vectoring I'll accept it. I'll put it my signature too.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 18:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
with the V shaped TVC it can produce Yaw, and yes there will be an accompanying roll moment. The roll is likely desired and if not then a proper FCS can counter the roll moment with inside (direction the nose is yawing) aileron dropping to hold the wing up which in addition also increases the asymmetrical drag pulling the nose in the desired direction for pure yaw.

TVC does not operate in a vacuum, as the Su-35S clip shows.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 20:56
by juretrn
Agreed, such video comparisons are worthless. Airshows are airshows and combat is combat, little relation between the two.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 01:18
by alloycowboy
gta4 wrote:YF-23 MANEUVERS AS GOOD AS YF-22?

This is what I have read:

"YF-22 demonstrated 60 deg controllable AOA. YF-23 claimed to have very high controllable AOA but only demonstrated 22 deg. USAF emphasized so much on maneuverability so it chose YF-22."


Given the large vertical tail surfaces on the YF-23 I would say you are greatly mistaken.


Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 01:22
by rheonomic
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:with the V shaped TVC it can produce Yaw, and yes there will be an accompanying roll moment. The roll is likely desired and if not then a proper FCS can counter the roll moment with inside (direction the nose is yawing) aileron dropping to hold the wing up which in addition also increases the asymmetrical drag pulling the nose in the desired direction for pure yaw.


Expanding on this, as the control effector suite becomes more complicated it results in the control allocation problem, where the FCS determines the best way to use the effectors to achieve the commanded moments based on the model of the aircraft's control effectiveness.

I'd really like to see what kind of allocator the PAK-FA/Su-57 uses, as it seems like there are some, uh, interesting deflections:
Image

I'd guess the LEFs are scheduled, but the other surfaces appear to be allocated.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 07:29
by hythelday
alloycowboy wrote:
gta4 wrote:YF-23 MANEUVERS AS GOOD AS YF-22?

This is what I have read:

"YF-22 demonstrated 60 deg controllable AOA. YF-23 claimed to have very high controllable AOA but only demonstrated 22 deg. USAF emphasized so much on maneuverability so it chose YF-22."


Given the large vertical tail surfaces on the YF-23 I would say you are greatly mistaken.



When I said YF-23 maneuvered as good as YF-22, I meant first and foremost the fact that both aircraft satisfied USAF requirements for maneuverability. F-22 achieved high angles if attack only after it was declared a winner (which wasn't because of its greater agility). YF-23 engineers were confident it could expand envelope past the bounfaries achieved during ATF fly-off. I.e. F-35 can do 50 deg AoA without TVC - and that is only a software limitation on operational machines. Test aircraft were flown in a controllable fashion at greater AoAs.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 13:33
by gta4
botsing wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV3zE6yZviE :mrgreen:


These picture clearly shows that the nozzle can not deflect laterally. It just deflects vertically in a "V" pattern.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 13:35
by gta4
hythelday wrote:gta, let me get this straight, you define 3D vectoring as "ability of nozzle to deflect in any direction of 360 deg circle freely just because it is cool" as opposed to "ability to deflect nozzle in a way that assists aircraft maneuver in pitch, roll and yaw"? Because according to your definition there are no operational aircraft with "3D" thrust vectoring, and Raptor is a "1D" TVC aircaft.

I may be illiterate, but I do know how simple vector math works. By deflecting left nozzle UP and LEFT, and right one DOWN and LEFT pilot assists plane in yawing to the left (as seen in Xanders picture up&right corner).


You are making the same mistake again.

It can not assist yaw because it generates ROLL MOMENT. The aircraft will roll instead of yaw.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 13:40
by gta4
And, why do you keep ignoring the fact that 20 deg > 15 deg?

Given the presence of "V" pattern, the maximum useful deflection is even inferior than 15 deg. It could be only 13-14 deg.

However, I strongly doubt you can understand this due to your limited math and physics knowledge.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 13:49
by gta4
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:with the V shaped TVC it can produce Yaw, and yes there will be an accompanying roll moment. The roll is likely desired and if not then a proper FCS can counter the roll moment with inside (direction the nose is yawing) aileron dropping to hold the wing up which in addition also increases the asymmetrical drag pulling the nose in the desired direction for pure yaw.

However, aileron loses effect at low speed. There is no way to counter the ROLL moment.
Aileron don't even generate roll moment at high AOA. It generates yaw moment (proverse yaw effect).

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 16:19
by f-16adf
The F-22's tail booms would probably be in the way for a 3D nozzle. And to put an extension on the engine would be heavy and costly aka F-14D F110. LM engineers probably thought the Raptor doesn't need 3D nozzle. Maybe not cost effective in the long run, and probably not very stealthy (and might further expose IR signature from rear).


Notice in videos the F-22 (and from what I was told) TV nozzle is linked with stab deflection (from the stick imput).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH1gufgmopA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPsF6KnR34



Su-35 is a button-

Here is Su-30:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYi1e4pOQJw

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 00:46
by popcorn
Why entail the penalties of 3D TVC ( eg. weight, cost, complexity)when you can achieve the same performance with 2D TVC plus generous control surfaces and sophisticated CLAWs?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 00:53
by juretrn
popcorn wrote:Why entail the penalties of 3D TVC ( eg. weight, cost, complexity)when you can achieve the same performance with 2D TVC plus generous control surfaces and sophisticated CLAWs?

Does "3D" TVC really weigh that much more than "2D"?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 01:06
by rheonomic
popcorn wrote:Why entail the penalties of 3D TVC ( eg. weight, cost, complexity)when you can achieve the same performance with 2D TVC plus generous control surfaces and sophisticated CLAWs?


TBH TVC is pretty overrated except in limited circumstances.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 01:20
by hythelday
gta4 wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:with the V shaped TVC it can produce Yaw, and yes there will be an accompanying roll moment. The roll is likely desired and if not then a proper FCS can counter the roll moment with inside (direction the nose is yawing) aileron dropping to hold the wing up which in addition also increases the asymmetrical drag pulling the nose in the desired direction for pure yaw.

However, aileron loses effect at low speed. There is no way to counter the ROLL moment.
Aileron don't even generate roll moment at high AOA. It generates yaw moment (proverse yaw effect).


But does sprstdlyscottsmn also have limited math and physics knowledge, like me? I mean, he's only an aerospace engineer.

gta4 wrote:And, why do you keep ignoring the fact that 20 deg > 15 deg?


I am ignoring it because I never made any statements regarding "the fact that 20 deg > 15 deg" either in this thread or any other.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 11:06
by zero-one
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I talked to a military journalist once and he said that the Raptor doesn't need TVC for yaw control because of its canted tail design.

The canted tails capture the high pressures generated by the vortecies in the chined forward fuselage allowing the vertical stabilizers to affect control at near zero airspeed or even when falling belly first.

This is why the F/A-18 and F-35 can still do Flat spin maneuvers even without yaw TVC.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 13:50
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
This is why the F/A-18 and F-35 can still do Flat spin maneuvers even without yaw TVC.


Partly I think because this AFAIK only applies to the FA-18E/F, not the FA-18A/C. The Super was designed with a goal to elliminate the high AoA handling issues the Legacys had - which required an increase in control surface size and a full up fly by wire system (the magic that brings it all together).

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 16:03
by tailgate
Greets Zero-One.......first, IMO, I think the complexity of developing 3D tvc for the 22 in its current configuration would have been interesting. I also think that once it was found to have superior yaw rates throughout it really wasn’t needed.

Now the Russkies decided for some reason that they “neede” 3d tvc for the PAK. I can tell you from this pilot’s perspective that you aren’t hiding those tailpipes from anything!, especially in the rear 180 degree corridor. The heat signature would be extreme and from what I see, all the “stealth” is frontal only. Not sure how that benefits you with the ability of today’s sensored platforms?

Basher, I agree with you, I only think it applied to the echo/foxtrot, but I believe the engine upgrade alone provided a significant boost in this area.......my 2 cents

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 16:25
by vilters
Everything you put on an airplane has a weight, a technology, a MTBF, and can ground an aircraft.
The end question is a balance : Advantage versus disadvantage.
Is that last 1% of performance worth the weight, maintenance, failures, operational status?

If the primary mission is BVR?
Are we gonna put a lot of weight; risk and effort in WVR?

In brief : Trust vectoring is for airshows and not required for BVR.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 18:52
by milosh
tailgate wrote: Now the Russkies decided for some reason that they “neede” 3d tvc for the PAK. I can tell you from this pilot’s perspective that you aren’t hiding those tailpipes from anything!, especially in the rear 180 degree corridor. The heat signature would be extreme and from what I see, all the “stealth” is frontal only. Not sure how that benefits you with the ability of today’s sensored platforms?


New engine and new nozzle, nice comparison from first flight test (new engine and old engine):
http://imagehosting.io/images/2017/12/06/Izd30mf.jpg

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 18:55
by rheonomic
zero-one wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I talked to a military journalist once and he said that the Raptor doesn't need TVC for yaw control because of its canted tail design.

The canted tails capture the high pressures generated by the vortecies in the chined forward fuselage allowing the vertical stabilizers to affect control at near zero airspeed or even when falling belly first.

This is why the F/A-18 and F-35 can still do Flat spin maneuvers even without yaw TVC.


Essentially if you design the aero properly and have sufficiently sized control effectors you can maintain control power pretty well over a large part of the envelope.

For the F-22 in particular the verticals are huge, which 1) helps maintain directional stability and 2) results in more rudder area and thus more control power.

basher54321 wrote:Partly I think because this AFAIK only applies to the FA-18E/F, not the FA-18A/C. The Super was designed with a goal to elliminate the high AoA handling issues the Legacys had - which required an increase in control surface size and a full up fly by wire system (the magic that brings it all together).


As far as I remember the legacy Hornet always had a full authority digital FBW FLCS.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 19:50
by basher54321
rheonomic wrote:
As far as I remember the legacy Hornet always had a full authority digital FBW FLCS.




Quite possibly yes (assuming the first As didn't start Analog) - anyway according to the US Navy part of the success of the increased level of control is down to higher integration of the FCS in the Super Hornet. The Legacy had a fly by wire system sitting along side a conventional hydraulic setup - but the Super ditches all that in favour of FBW only so there were some major changes in the Super not just in the coding.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 20:08
by rheonomic
basher54321 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
As far as I remember the legacy Hornet always had a full authority digital FBW FLCS.




Quite possibly yes (assuming the first As didn't start Analog) - anyway according to the US Navy part of the success of the increased level of control is down to higher integration of the FCS in the Super Hornet. The Legacy had a fly by wire system sitting along side a conventional hydraulic setup - but the Super ditches all that in favour of FBW only so there were some major changes in the Super not just in the coding.


This paper from NAVAIR makes it seem like the main changes were 1) additional control effectors and 2) allocation of the control effectors (vs mixing e.g. ailerons and aym HT for roll, sym HT for pitch, etc. as done classically) to ensure reconfigurability and sufficient multi-axis control power, and 3) redesign of the CLAWs for better perofrmance at high AOA etc.: Operational Lessons Learned from the F/A-18E/F Total Flight Control Systems Integration Process

(only skimmed it so far but looks like a very interesting paper)

Also it looks like the legacy Hornet was FBW but had a mechanical reversionary mode that was removed in the Super.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 23:16
by XanderCrews
The 3D VC on the flankers and what now looks like Pakfa is one of those examples Id like to mention to the Russia Stronk krew when they start going on about the brilliant simplicity of Russian design.

I have no clue why it isn't a much more simple 2D that would also take away some learning curve and vastly simplify the handling but here we are

One could even question why it's there at all really. The F-22 has it for the prime reason of very high altitude cruising in thin air.

That ain't the Flanker but whatever

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 23:22
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:
In brief : Trust vectoring is for airshows and not required for BVR.


Explain the F-22 vilters.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 23:32
by vilters
I don't have to.

The F-35 "explains" the F-22. No Trust vectoring any more.
For the mission?
It is not worth its weight, maintenance, reliability, the trouble.

For the F-22?
If they could do it all over again?
Be sure that "weight" would go to fuel.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 23:58
by XanderCrews
vilters wrote:I don't have to.

The F-35 "explains" the F-22. No Trust vectoring any more.
For the mission?
It is not worth its weight, maintenance, reliability, the trouble.

For the F-22?
If they could do it all over again?
Be sure that "weight" would go to fuel.



Try again. The F-22 has TV specifically for high altitude flight, and of course they are by extension used for BVR since the F-22 would be up in the thin air plinking away

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 00:13
by h-bomb
XanderCrews wrote:
vilters wrote:I don't have to.

The F-35 "explains" the F-22. No Trust vectoring any more.
For the mission?
It is not worth its weight, maintenance, reliability, the trouble.

For the F-22?
If they could do it all over again?
Be sure that "weight" would go to fuel.


Try again. The F-22 has TV specifically for high altitude flight, and of course they are by extension used for BVR since the F-22 would be up in the thin air plinking away


Sorry but he is right. The F-22s vectoring system was to originally include a thrust reverser. The decision for the 2D rectangular exhaust was determined by the requirements for thrust reverser. It was deleted for weight and cost reasons. Hindsight 20-20 the F-22 would have had a system more like the F-35 LOAN with thrust vectoring. After the requirement was abandoned and the rest of the aircraft design was essentially ready, now we have the current system.

https://books.google.com/books?id=uCI5K ... 6&dq=F-22+"thrust+reverser"&source=bl&ots=q-zHVGhP7b&sig=_vRURnvd_dDDsq6D1f_NfupxnSo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib18WmovnYAhWJqFQKHdkFBIkQ6AEIYTAJ#v=onepage&q=F-22%20%22thrust%20reverser%22&f=false

I would to see a pilot interview or quote that claims they need thrust vectoring for high altitude flight. The F-15 was certified to 80K and limited to 60K in service. Nothing I ever read claimed that the F-22s vectoring is for high altitude flight. Do you have a quote or article that supports this?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 02:12
by Orangeburst
H Bomb

Xander is correct that the primary purpose for thrust vectoring was high altitude, "where air is thin", trim control iirc. It was quoted many years ago in AFM or CA by a prominent USAF officer.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 02:46
by tailgate
I would to see a pilot interview or quote that claims they need thrust vectoring for high altitude flight. The F-15 was certified to 80K and limited to 60K in service. Nothing I ever read claimed that the F-22s vectoring is for high altitude flight. Do you have a quote or article that supports this?


The Eagle was cleared for said heights, but had to maintain high energy state for obvious reasons. The TVC allows for control of the aircraft in attitude and angular respects and even allows control when airflow spoils over normal flight controls.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 02:59
by popcorn
The Raptor was designed to dominate high up in the rarefied heights and TVC is a key feature allowing it to do so.


http://www.ausairpower.net/API-Metz-Interview.html

Kopp:

There is some debate in the fighter community about the relevance of thrust-vectoring in this day and age of Helmet Mounted Displays and 4th Generation heaters. What advantages do you see in having thrust vectoring, and how does it influence both instantaneous and sustained turning performance in the F-22A?

Metz:

Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic 'dogfight' where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community. Certainly, there is general agreement that it is best to not get slow - ever. With the advent of the helmet mounted sight, 4th generation heat seeking, off-boresight missiles the slow dogfight becomes even more dangerous. 'To slow or not to slow' are questions of tactics and best left to the expert fighter pilots of the future. The F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.[/b]

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 03:25
by f-16adf
Tailgate flew the F-22 (and F-15,F-16), he knows what he is talking about here-

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 05:45
by tailgate
Thanks for the support ADF, but no worries. The premise here is tvc allows the 22 to do lots of things throughout its flight envelope. High altitude flight control just being one. I always found myself in the 30-40k range though, the 22 had outstanding capabilities there.

I know that for along time, russkie engines were just not that reliable and required allot maint man hours to achieve just nominal longevity, one thing we had a good advantage in. I confess, I haven’t kept up........but unless they have really made significant progress in this area, I wonder how much more work adding 3d tvc has caused to the equation

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 10:42
by milosh
XanderCrews wrote:The 3D VC on the flankers and what now looks like Pakfa is one of those examples Id like to mention to the Russia Stronk krew when they start going on about the brilliant simplicity of Russian design.

I have no clue why it isn't a much more simple 2D that would also take away some learning curve and vastly simplify the handling but here we are

One could even question why it's there at all really. The F-22 has it for the prime reason of very high altitude cruising in thin air.

That ain't the Flanker but whatever


Complex design :|

Saturn TVC:
http://avia-simply.ru/wp-content/upload ... AL31FP.jpg

It is 2D tvc nowhere near complexity as real 3D tvc (american or russian).

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 15:26
by XanderCrews
tailgate wrote:Thanks for the support ADF, but no worries. The premise here is tvc allows the 22 to do lots of things throughout its flight envelope. High altitude flight control just being one. I always found myself in the 30-40k range though, the 22 had outstanding capabilities there.

I know that for along time, russkie engines were just not that reliable and required allot maint man hours to achieve just nominal longevity, one thing we had a good advantage in. I confess, I haven’t kept up........but unless they have really made significant progress in this area, I wonder how much more work adding 3d tvc has caused to the equation



My Point being it's more than just "air show tricks". Vilters has a habit of grossly oversimplifying things, then a touch of outspoken ego, and here we are

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 15:33
by mixelflick
I listened to a good AW podcast with Billy Flynn re the F-35 and thrust vectoring. He worked on the X-31 back in the day and made several good points about why the F-35 was NOT designed with thrust vectoring.

Basically, the added cost and weight weren't worth adding a touch more to its high AOA capability. Having seen the Paris demo, I'd have to agree. And I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface. In the case of the Raptor then, I have to believe its application in the supersonic realm is where it's most useful..

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 17:55
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:I listened to a good AW podcast with Billy Flynn re the F-35 and thrust vectoring. He worked on the X-31 back in the day and made several good points about why the F-35 was NOT designed with thrust vectoring.

Basically, the added cost and weight weren't worth adding a touch more to its high AOA capability. Having seen the Paris demo, I'd have to agree. And I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface. In the case of the Raptor then, I have to believe its application in the supersonic realm is where it's most useful..

Exactly. When you have a short time window, as well as a small amount of airspace, there's only so many things that can be demonstrated. The F-35 demonstrated power, energy retention, low speed handling, outstanding pitch and yaw rates, etc....

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 18:41
by tailgate
XanderCrews wrote:
tailgate wrote:Thanks for the support ADF, but no worries. The premise here is tvc allows the 22 to do lots of things throughout its flight envelope. High altitude flight control just being one. I always found myself in the 30-40k range though, the 22 had outstanding capabilities there.

I know that for along time, russkie engines were just not that reliable and required allot maint man hours to achieve just nominal longevity, one thing we had a good advantage in. I confess, I haven’t kept up........but unless they have really made significant progress in this area, I wonder how much more work adding 3d tvc has caused to the equation



My Point being it's more than just "air show tricks". Vilters has a habit of grossly oversimplifying things, then a touch of outspoken ego, and here we are



You are absolutely correct. People ( no insult intended here) need to realize “air shows” and “ demos” for what they are.....

Most are heavily restricted.......examples.....

Noise abatement
Hazard LOS to show center
Min/Max AGL restrictions
G restrictions !
Etc,etc.......

These are “shows”. Once potential buyers are formally introduced, the “ back room” talk starts about true aspects of the aircraft and its potentials, logistics, and everything related (Vilters). And like a “ car” you never buy what’s on the showroom, always upgrades and packages to consider for the dollar...lol

I don’t put allot into air shows and what you see. Talk with people within the programs and they will shed light on the platforms true details, within OPSEC, of course.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 18:49
by Scorpion1alpha
I listened to a good AW podcast with Billy Flynn re the F-35 and thrust vectoring. He worked on the X-31 back in the day and made several good points about why the F-35 was NOT designed with thrust vectoring.

Basically, the added cost and weight weren't worth adding a touch more to its high AOA capability. Having seen the Paris demo, I'd have to agree. And I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface. In the case of the Raptor then, I have to believe its application in the supersonic realm is where it's most useful..


Yeah, and did Flynn also mention that the Lightning’s primary role isn’t to achieve air superiority? Or by adding TV and driving up cost would have been exactly what the Lightning DIDN’T need…oh, never mind. It failed miserably there.

TV was designed into the F-22 from day one. It’s integrated into the FLC and CLAWs from day one. The nozzles (pedals) are shaped the way they are for a reason. And they perform just fine.

Like some already mentioned, TV enhances the F-22’s maneuvering performance at high speeds and high altitudes where the thin air (the regime the Raptor routinely operates at) renders control surfaces less effective. The F-22’s pedals can be considered two additional control surfaces; that and along with its other design features allows it to maneuver around up there like a slick F-16 at 20K. Get any other fighter up there with the F-22 and they'll struggle mightily.

That’s just high and fast. Down slower and lower and nothing turns or cuts corners like the F-22. TV allows it to get from one maneuver state to another quicker and with more control which can make the maneuver useful (i.e. can make for a more stable platform for a gunshot for a higher degree of hit probability). This doesn’t even include some of the very unique combat maneuvers it can do that isn’t shown to the public due to classification.

Roles and responsibilities. The F-22 has these bells and whistles because these are the things necessary to achieve air superiority, both at BVR (preferable) and BFM. Instead, it achieves air dominance.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2018, 19:02
by tailgate
Once at the edge or supersonic.....there is not another platform currently fielded that compares to the 22 performance levels........not one

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 01:56
by gta4
Please make some critics to the following reasoning:

Aircraft A: equipped with TVC that can deflect 20 deg vertically (such as F-22).
Aircraft B: equipped with TVC that can deflect 15~17 deg to any direction (such as F-16MATV or F-15ACTIVE)

Aircraft B can use lateral deflection to yaw. However, aircraft A can easily match this maneuver because it can turn with 90 deg banking angle, so a deflection of 20 deg is used to assist the turn, while for aircraft B, only 15 deg is used to assist the turn.

Aircraft B can also turn with 90 deg banking angle, but no matter how it turns, at most 15 deg deflection is used to assist the turn. So aircraft A always has a theoretical advantage.

And, when turning with 90 deg banking angle, the centripetal force from wing could also assist the turn. Conclusion: in order to maximize the turn performance, it is desired to turn with 90 deg banking angle and maximize angle of TVC deflection in the vertical (the F-22 configuration)

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 15:21
by mixelflick
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
I listened to a good AW podcast with Billy Flynn re the F-35 and thrust vectoring. He worked on the X-31 back in the day and made several good points about why the F-35 was NOT designed with thrust vectoring.

Basically, the added cost and weight weren't worth adding a touch more to its high AOA capability. Having seen the Paris demo, I'd have to agree. And I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface. In the case of the Raptor then, I have to believe its application in the supersonic realm is where it's most useful..


Yeah, and did Flynn also mention that the Lightning’s primary role isn’t to achieve air superiority? Or by adding TV and driving up cost would have been exactly what the Lightning DIDN’T need…oh, never mind. It failed miserably there.


Honestly, it was a long interview - I can't recall if he did mention it. If he didn't, I can see where they are very relevant points. Knowing what I've learned from the conversation here, if I were the pilot I'd love me some thrust vectoring (all things being equal).

But I'm not paying for it either. Well, sort of - via taxes. Why didn't someone from the Air Force/Lockheed-Martin call me? I would have set them straight.. :mrgreen:

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 15:29
by XanderCrews
Scorpion1alpha wrote:Yeah, and did Flynn also mention that the Lightning’s primary role isn’t to achieve air superiority? Or by adding TV and driving up cost would have been exactly what the Lightning DIDN’T need…oh, never mind. It failed miserably there.



That's a bit of a cheap shot, don't you think?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 17:40
by tailgate
i Am not sure about that......the 35 may be multirole but has a robust a/a engagement regime.....what do I mean.......maybe excluding the 22, you go up against it, you gonna get smoked

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 21:07
by Scorpion1alpha
Knowing what I've learned from the conversation here, if I were the pilot I'd love me some thrust vectoring


If you were a pilot, you would. You would find TV benefits every aspect from basic everyday flight handling qualities to aggressive maneuvering. F-22 guys experiences that every time they’re up.

That's a bit of a cheap shot, don't you think?


I’m a realist so I call it like it is. This isn’t about the Lightning, but I’ll say this: It promised so many things. It’ll be very good in some and live up to the requirements on others and I expect it to be a worthy replacement for the F-16 and F-18s…eventually, whenever that day will be. But saving money (as a program goal), no it did not.

i Am not sure about that......the 35 may be multirole but has a robust a/a engagement regime.....what do I mean.......maybe excluding the 22, you go up against it, you gonna get smoked


I do agree the Lightning will be good in the A2A role. Better be. With all that money spent on it, I expect it to have a credible A2A capability. You and I both know that is thanks to the F-22 know how in senor integration, battle management and tactics learned from the Raptor community. And yet, you and I still know the Lightning ain’t no F-22 in an air fight.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 22:00
by tailgate
Greets.....according to a few fellows I have spoken with it has the AI, SA, and SF that the 22 has, and although I think it does not have the high end performance of the 22, it doesn’t have too. Like it’s big brother, you can’t see it, can’t put weapons on it and it’s performance is outstanding, considering.......

I have asked a bud of mine who is still flying 15’s what were his thoughts......he said two words to me......and I quote ‘Holy Crap’. This guys has over 5 grand in the Eagle. I trust his judgement......lol. Give the 35 about 5-7 to mature and I think it will be lethal in every regime, jmho

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 22:19
by SpudmanWP
If he is already saying "Holy Crap", why do you think it will take another 5-7 years to "mature" (is Block 3F not enough)?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2018, 23:22
by tailgate
That’s my point, all airframes go through maturity in stages. If he says that now, what will it be like then after more upgrades, technical upgrades, etc, etc. I remember first flying the 22 and thinking where do we go from here if this is already sensational and yet blocks, software, and upgrades later here we are. In my opinion from when I started the journey, the 22 gained about 10-20 percent more lethality from where it started...

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2018, 03:01
by element1loop
tailgate wrote:"... I have asked a bud of mine who is still flying 15’s what were his thoughts [facing F-35 in air combat].....he said two words to me......and I quote ‘Holy Crap’. This guys has over 5 grand in the Eagle. I trust his judgement..."


Nominating that for inclusion in the "Favorite F-35 Quotes" thread.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2018, 09:05
by zero-one
tailgate wrote:I think it does not have the high end performance of the 22, it doesn’t have too. Like it’s big brother, you can’t see it, can’t put weapons on it and it’s performance is outstanding


This is amazing coming from a Raptor pilot. I remember once having a lengthy discussion around here regarding the claim of a Brit exchange pilot saying that his 9Xs could not lock on the Raptor.

Without JHMCS or HMIT, the F-22 has already shown it can fare just fine. In an engagement eight years ago, two F-22s were to take off and engage eight F-15Cs from the 65 AGRS, all equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS. One of the Raptors ground-aborted, so the second jet took off single-ship as fragged. The engagement started beyond visual range and finished within visual range, with the Raptor killing all eight of its opponents before any were able to even get a shot off.

“I can’t see the [expletive deleted] thing,” said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron at the time. “It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”


https://fightersweep.com/2526/helmet-mo ... -the-f-22/

The site is credible to me and I believed it. but some people couldn't and claimed that this story is false and that there is no way an Raptor could survive a 9X equipped fighter at WVR.

I disagree, I think supermaneuverability combined with Stealth has its place.

Can you confirm or shed some light on this story Tailgate? Please and thank you :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2018, 14:37
by gta4
Well, I remember reading that years ago, and it was 1 raptor vs 8 F-16Cs (not F-15C).

I still remember USAF wanted to test how F-22 perform in dogfight against multiple enemies. A raptor (without JHMSC) went against three 4th.Gen (with JHMSC) in WVR, and raptor won. Anyone can find that article?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2018, 15:01
by tailgate
Greets Zero.......yep, the 9x is pretty lethal. Coupled with HOBS, HHOBS, LOAL, it definitely is nothing to be messed with. There are some others out there too that can bring the same capabilities.

It was the one thing “ we “ always heard.....” can’t “ bring weapons to bear. It’s one thing to know what you have, how to use it, and know it’s caps......but sucks when none of it works.....the 22 will frustrate even the best.

One of my all time favs......SH driver out of Oceana on a 2vs 6 DACT out over the water........IIRC, deck was 15, scattered 8 to 15 with 10 mile vis.........challenging......” 3 of us dead, what the hell was that?, got 2 an 5 yelling defensive/evasive inbound, have no idea where the threat is. After 3, score is 0 and 12. I put eyes on you in that last engage but couldn’t get anything to lock, really f******* frustrating, thought about guns, finally decided to flip you off”. We all had a good laugh and racked it up to good training.

In the 22, I “ manage “ the fight. I pick when, where, and how to engage.

One guy out of Oceana summed up a DACT training by asking if anyone remember the movie “ Star Trek, Wrath of Kahn, when the Klingon Captain asked Kirk.....I can see you Kirk, can you see me”.....lol. I’m surprised I remember that.....lol. Good times with fellow aviators....

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2018, 15:13
by tailgate
zero-one wrote:
tailgate wrote:I think it does not have the high end performance of the 22, it doesn’t have too. Like it’s big brother, you can’t see it, can’t put weapons on it and it’s performance is outstanding


This is amazing coming from a Raptor pilot. I remember once having a lengthy discussion around here regarding the claim of a Brit exchange pilot saying that his 9Xs could not lock on the Raptor.

Without JHMCS or HMIT, the F-22 has already shown it can fare just fine. In an engagement eight years ago, two F-22s were to take off and engage eight F-15Cs from the 65 AGRS, all equipped with AIM-9X and JHMCS. One of the Raptors ground-aborted, so the second jet took off single-ship as fragged. The engagement started beyond visual range and finished within visual range, with the Raptor killing all eight of its opponents before any were able to even get a shot off.

“I can’t see the [expletive deleted] thing,” said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron at the time. “It won’t let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me.”[/quote

Yep, lead GA due to ECS, wing fragged and bagged all of em, even got two in wvr. They were humbled and frustrated......lol


Yep, lead ground aborted due to ECS, his wing fragged and bagged all of them, two of them wvr......they were very humbled and frustrated. Lol
https://fightersweep.com/2526/helmet-mo ... -the-f-22/

The site is credible to me and I believed it. but some people couldn't and claimed that this story is false and that there is no way an Raptor could survive a 9X equipped fighter at WVR.

I disagree, I think supermaneuverability combined with Stealth has its place.

Can you confirm or shed some light on this story Tailgate? Please and thank you :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2018, 22:32
by XanderCrews
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
I’m a realist so I call it like it is. This isn’t about the Lightning, but I’ll say this: It promised so many things. It’ll be very good in some and live up to the requirements on others and I expect it to be a worthy replacement for the F-16 and F-18s…eventually, whenever that day will be. But saving money (as a program goal), no it did not.



I would say that the jury is still out on that. If the F-35 lives up to the hype. Starts replacing other types that weren't envisioned or created less need for new types ( that would also result in big delays and costs overruns) And over time it could well be a money saver with simplified logistics. etc. It might be a very high cost up front that saves big in the long run, which would be a wonderful change from the "make it in a day, sell it in a night, fix it for the next 50 years" shoddiness we were seeing from some contractors.

That the JSF program has had huge problems from a program standpoint I don't deny that. But considering its far from the only program that's happened to, especially the last 20 years, I would say it gets beat up on unfairly.

The F-22 was a single role fighter for one service in one country = overbudget and expensive

The F-35 multi role fighter for multiple services in multiple countries = overbudget and expensive.

At one point we might start to realize the procurement system is the root cause, and that the individual programs are the symptoms rather than the disease.

Dont ban me bro.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 01:27
by rheonomic
XanderCrews wrote:At one point we might start to realize the procurement system is the root cause, and that the individual programs are the symptoms rather than the disease.


*cough* dfars *cough*

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 01:50
by icemaverick
Xander makes a great point. I don't think there are ANY advanced fighter aircraft projects that ended up on time and budget in the last 20+ years.

-The Eurofighter was years delayed and over budget. 623 built and there are some upcoming orders from Middle Eastern countries. This is probably the most successful recent project.
-The Rafale was years delayed and over budget. Despite entering service in 2001, fewer than 180 have been built so far and a few small export orders have been placed.
-The F-22 is a capable aircraft but it has been capped at fewer than 200 due to cost/budgetary issues. They had originally hoped for somewhere around 600.
-There are currently 6 flyable Su-57 prototypes built, the new engines are years away from entering service and there are concerns about costs spiraling out of control from the Indians, who are bankrolling part of the project.
-J-20 and J-31: To be honest, I haven't been following these programs very closely but there have been only a few prototypes built. The Chinese recently decided to buy Su-35s, which is interesting.
-LCA Tejas: they started this in the 80s and they are still working on this one. It has entered limited service but it's got major technical problems and deficiencies that are still being addressed.
-KFX/TFX/HAL AMCA/Mitsubishi X-2: it's unclear whether these are real aircraft or just vaporware. They range from being models and drawings on paper to early-stage prototypes. Either way, a long way from entering service...let along being successful.
-Gripen: they have built fewer than 300. But when the NG/E comes along, it will be a world beating 6th generation F-35 killer :roll:

If the Navy went about developing a separate carrier-capable jet to replace the F-18, would they have avoided the ugly politics and cost overruns that tend to be a feature of these grand undertakings? What would the Marines be flying right now if they pursued a separate design to replace the Harrier?

For all its flaws, the F-35 project does seem to have costs under control at this point. Production is ramping up and --barring a major catastrophe-- it will be deployed in very large numbers....certainly larger numbers than anything currently in the works. So while the jury is still out...the odds are looking pretty good right now.

Just take a look at Lockheed Martin's stock price since 2013....

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 02:18
by Scorpion1alpha
XanderCrews wrote:
Scorpion1alpha wrote:
I’m a realist so I call it like it is. This isn’t about the Lightning, but I’ll say this: It promised so many things. It’ll be very good in some and live up to the requirements on others and I expect it to be a worthy replacement for the F-16 and F-18s…eventually, whenever that day will be. But saving money (as a program goal), no it did not.



I would say that the jury is still out on that. If the F-35 lives up to the hype. Starts replacing other types that weren't envisioned or created less need for new types ( that would also result in big delays and costs overruns) And over time it could well be a money saver with simplified logistics. etc. It might be a very high cost up front that saves big in the long run, which would be a wonderful change from the "make it in a day, sell it in a night, fix it for the next 50 years" shoddiness we were seeing from some contractors.

That the JSF program has had huge problems from a program standpoint I don't deny that. But considering its far from the only program that's happened to, especially the last 20 years, I would say it gets beat up on unfairly.

The F-22 was a single role fighter for one service in one country = overbudget and expensive

The F-35 multi role fighter for multiple services in multiple countries = overbudget and expensive.

At one point we might start to realize the procurement system is the root cause, and that the individual programs are the symptoms rather than the disease.


Good points and well stated.

XanderCrews wrote:Dont ban me bro.


LOL!

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 08:25
by zero-one
tailgate wrote:One guy out of Oceana summed up a DACT training by asking if anyone remember the movie “ Star Trek, Wrath of Kahn, when the Klingon Captain asked Kirk.....I can see you Kirk, can you see me”.....lol. I’m surprised I remember that.....lol. Good times with fellow aviators....


Thanks for all that Tailgate. that was pretty impressive. In the 22, do you still need to be good at ACM? cause they can't lock on you, not even with a 9x, they can't see you and you pick and choose when and where to engage. To me its like an airline pilot can just hop in and fly CAP as soon as he learns the basics of how to fly the thing.

This is also in line with Chip's comments on why Speed and Maneuverability were the least impressive things about the Raptor. Do you agree with this? Did you even need the Raptor's kinematics at any point? Or is it a luxury thats nice to have but don't need.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 14:37
by tailgate
Don't confuse can't and won't here, it was hard but not impossible. And yes, we trained constantly for ACM. Any aviator here will tell you that you know your bird. Know what it can and can't do. We always teach the basics.

I grew up in the Eagle as a student of the "guns kill". So as an 'IP" later in the years I always emphasized ACM. It's just good sense.

As far as the Raptor was concerned, it is an air superiority machine. Would i prefer BVR, yes, but would not hesitate to "mix it up"

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 15:21
by zero-one
tailgate wrote:As far as the Raptor was concerned, it is an air superiority machine. Would i prefer BVR, yes, but would not hesitate to "mix it up"


Awesome stuff tailgate, there were a lot of times where folks (both here and elsewhere) told me that Raptors would prefer a full mission abort and fight another day if they can't achieve the kill BVR rather than risk a WVR fight where most of the advantages are gone.

It seems to me that this is opposite of what Col. Max Moga said in his interview on the final episode of Dogfights, he basically said the same thing you did. If the situation called for a merge, he will not hesitate to commit to the merge. This was sadly dismissed as nothing more than "made for T.V. drama" by some.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 15:32
by playloud
tailgate wrote:One guy out of Oceana summed up a DACT training by asking if anyone remember the movie “ Star Trek, Wrath of Kahn, when the Klingon Captain asked Kirk.....I can see you Kirk, can you see me”.....lol. I’m surprised I remember that.....lol. Good times with fellow aviators....

[nerd]Just an FYI, that was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, not Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Also, the Klingon was "General" Chang.[/nerd]

But yeah, it totally fits.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 18:02
by tailgate
Thanks Play.....not a big Star Trek guy myself but I did remember that ( or parts....... :wink: ). His name was Cmdr Nick Koles, and we were good friends thru the years. He really believed and was instrumental in making sure his aviators got all the training hey desired

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 18:09
by sprstdlyscottsmn
playloud wrote:[nerd]Just an FYI, that was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, not Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Also, the Klingon was "General" Chang.[/nerd]

But yeah, it totally fits.

[nerd] It's been forever, is that the one with the Bird of Prey that can fire while cloaked?[/nerd]

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 18:49
by playloud
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
playloud wrote:[nerd]Just an FYI, that was Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, not Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Also, the Klingon was "General" Chang.[/nerd]

But yeah, it totally fits.

[nerd] It's been forever, is that the one with the Bird of Prey that can fire while cloaked?[/nerd]

That's the one!

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 19:57
by charlielima223
To me the one thing that stands out about the Raptor is how much excess power the thing has.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 17:29
by mixelflick
charlielima223 wrote:To me the one thing that stands out about the Raptor is how much excess power the thing has.


And if some of the comments are to be believed, the F-35 too (in subsonic realm). Granted, not as much as the 22 but as 2nd best and given the excess power aircraft like Typhoon have... mighty impressive.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 00:48
by charlielima223
mixelflick wrote:
And if some of the comments are to be believed, the F-35 too (in subsonic realm). Granted, not as much as the 22 but as 2nd best and given the excess power aircraft like Typhoon have... mighty impressive.








All three are amazing performers in their own right.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 16:41
by mixelflick
Typhoon really is something. But if I have the $ I'm buying the F-35. Similar performance, better range, SA and VLO. Can't imagine paying the same or more $ for a non VLO jet...

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 12:04
by popcorn

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 17:09
by swiss


Holy moly. Thats really impressive! :shock:

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 23:04
by popcorn
What is that maneuver called?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 23:11
by SpudmanWP
popcorn wrote:What is that maneuver called?


It's titled.. "Blocked by my Company Firewall"...

Come on people.. Youtube it.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2018, 23:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Just looks like the top of a Power Loop.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 07:34
by gc
Now look at this inverted forward somersault.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... t-altitude

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 07:56
by popcorn
gc wrote:Now look at this inverted forward somersault.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18 ... t-altitude

look at what I posted...

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 13:11
by gta4
This is by far the fastest pitching up/down performed by a fighter jet. Faster than the whole Flanker and Fulcrum family:
(clip from Lt. Metz's lecture)
22 fast pitch.gif

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 13:17
by popcorn
Lt. Metz?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 16:28
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:This is by far the fastest pitching up/down performed by a fighter jet. Faster than the whole Flanker and Fulcrum family:
(clip from Lt. Metz's lecture)
22 fast pitch.gif


That's quite a bit more "aggressive" than the power loop performed at airshows I've been to. Is this something new, or is it part of an airshow routine OR maybe operational testing?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 16:39
by tailgate
There are several maneuvers that are still classified. TVC in the Raptor is used more for high altitude performance than BFM performance.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 16:41
by geforcerfx
mixelflick wrote:
That's quite a bit more "aggressive" than the power loop performed at airshows I've been to. Is this something new, or is it part of an airshow routine OR maybe operational testing?


This was at altitude, more safety margin so they can push a bit harder.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2018, 23:40
by swiss
tailgate wrote:There are several maneuvers that are still classified. TVC in the Raptor is used more for high altitude performance than BFM performance.


Hello tailgate.

What surprises me is, we always hear Su-30/35 TVC makes them extreme maneuverable in low speed, low altitude. So what is the difference from the Raptors TVC. Which is useful in high speed and high altitude? The shape of the nuzzles?

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2018, 15:37
by mixelflick
swiss wrote:
tailgate wrote:There are several maneuvers that are still classified. TVC in the Raptor is used more for high altitude performance than BFM performance.


Hello tailgate.

What surprises me is, we always hear Su-30/35 TVC makes them extreme maneuverable in low speed, low altitude. So what is the difference from the Raptors TVC. Which is useful in high speed and high altitude? The shape of the nuzzles?


That's part of it, as I'd imagine they have a much lower RCS and likely IR too. Think I read somewhere where it's a lot more useful at altitude and supersonic vs. when used for subsonic high AoA maneuvers. The Flanker's engine is pretty robust, and it's a good thing - I'd hate to see the asymetric thrust in that thing if an engine quit. Speaking of which.. I wonder what happens to an SU-33 when departing the ski ramp if and when that happens?

When the F-14 got her GE F-110 motors, they could no longer use afterburner on takeoff. The asymetrical thrust made recovery impossible. I have to believe the SU-33 is in the same boat, but they don't really have the option. With no catapault, it's burners or bust..

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 00:50
by nutshell
gta4 wrote:This is by far the fastest pitching up/down performed by a fighter jet. Faster than the whole Flanker and Fulcrum family:
(clip from Lt. Metz's lecture)
22 fast pitch.gif


H.. O.. L.. Y.. F... U.. C.. K...

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 00:54
by gta4
nutshell wrote:
gta4 wrote:This is by far the fastest pitching up/down performed by a fighter jet. Faster than the whole Flanker and Fulcrum family:
(clip from Lt. Metz's lecture)
22 fast pitch.gif


H.. O.. L.. Y.. F... U.. C.. K...


Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBQUkEliW4Q&t=2666s
At 43:50
This is why I always laugh at those who boast Sukhoi's Cobra or Tailslide.
Not even close.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2018, 02:34
by white_lightning35
So at 54 minutes into that video, the speaker emphatically says that the TVC is only used in slow speed maneuvers. I find that curious, as we have many conflicting statements saying otherwise.

Re: F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2018, 00:26
by swiss


Thanks for the link. Very interesting and informativ. Impressive how long it goes from the first Idea to the finished plane.

@ white_lightning35: Yes same here. But its seems only the F-22 has also benefits from TVC in supersonic speed.

But one of the must important statement from Paul Metz, and he confirms what several other Fighter pilots mentioned, when you get slow in a Dogfight, you are dead meat. Especially with todays IIR missiles.

The answer was/is already here.

Scorpion1alpha wrote:Like some already mentioned, TV enhances the F-22’s maneuvering performance at high speeds and high altitudes where the thin air (the regime the Raptor routinely operates at) renders control surfaces less effective. The F-22’s pedals can be considered two additional control surfaces; that and along with its other design features allows it to maneuver around up there like a slick F-16 at 20K. Get any other fighter up there with the F-22 and they'll struggle mightily.