F-22 vs PKA-FA thrust vectoring

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 10:42

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).
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5906
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 15:26

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
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3266
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 15:33

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..
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3188
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 17:55

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....
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 18:41

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.
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 18:49

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.
I'm watching...
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post28 Jan 2018, 19:02

Once at the edge or supersonic.....there is not another platform currently fielded that compares to the 22 performance levels........not one
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 01:56

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)
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3266
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 15:21

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:
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5906
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 15:29

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?
Choose Crews
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 17:40

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
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 21:07

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.
I'm watching...
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 22:00

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
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8367
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 22:19

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)?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 139
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post29 Jan 2018, 23:22

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...
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests