Fighter jets with vector thurst not worth it?

vilters said —

“Many a "real" combat pilot would prefer better SA, better avionix, better weapons, more reliability and more fuel.

If you get a fixed budget to R&D a new combat aircraft?
Do you prefer that money and weight spend on better avionix and more fuel or on TVC?

Just like swing-wings before them, TVC is not worth the weight, cost, maintenance, reliability.“

Shack.

But please Russia? Don't stop building them. I like a good airshow.

Chinese are also in game:
https://defense-update.com/wp-content/u ... un_725.jpg

And they are have serial production of stealths, so it is matter of time when their stealth will have 3d tvc nozzle. WVR is quite possible when stealth fighters clash so tvc could be quite useful for stealth fighter.

Russians add tvc to Flankers because it add 300kg or less to at least 17.000kg empty plane, and mehcanism is simple and reliable.

Historically a lot of WVR combat occurred because of the need for positive identification of the enemy. With the greater prevalence of IRST and better IFF/Radar/datalink this will become less necessary as identification can occur at a BVR distance. Some WVR combat occurred due to BVR engagements not being decisive and engagement distances closing as a result and that will probably always be true so stealth fighters need to make their BVR strikes count.

TVC is a useful addition to your maneuverability toolbox allowing you to point faster and wider than conventional aircraft but with off boresight missiles it is less important than it otherwise might be. I suppose if you are down to gun range it has more value as it will make you more dangerous but how important are aerial gunfights now ? Probably not very as missiles are more effective these days and increasingly make up more of the kills.

TVC is a useful addition to your maneuverability toolbox allowing you to point faster and wider than conventional aircraft but with off boresight missiles it is less important than it otherwise might be. I suppose if you are down to gun range it has more value as it will make you more dangerous but how important are aerial gunfights now ? Probably not very as missiles are more effective these days and increasingly make up more of the kills.

Still if you can have TVC why not? I understand why it is problem with F-35, every kg is relevant because of F-35B but other stealths aren't impacted with STOVL requirement so couple hundred kg of tvc isn't huge deal.

And tvc isn't just for WVR. Stealth fighter can benefit a lot from TVC becuase it can use less its controls and so its RCS would be closer to static model. Also having TVC help when you are jumped by some other fighter and very important in BVR-WVR boarder which is where stealths will fight.

Also having TVC help when you are jumped by some other fighter and very important in BVR-WVR boarder which is where stealths will fight.

No it is only important well within WVR basically at slow speed and short distances where aircraft are roughly in the same arc of the sky at the same time. At higher speeds position in the sky is more important and if you slow your speed excessively to start pointing you will become a relatively stationary target for your much faster foe who will bear down on you. TVC basically gives you targeting options at stall speed where your opponent might not have any control. Non-TVC aircraft like F-35 and F-18 will blunt this advantage as they have excellent directional control at stall speeds. TVC is a useful optional extra but it is not essential to being a great dogfighter as F-15 proved against Su-30MKi and X-31. Remember the US had working 3D TVC prototypes of F-15/F-16/F-18 years ago but chose not to go into production with any of them.

Working off of stale memories, my understanding of thrust vectoring is:

• It's most useful when you're out of energy to maneuver, which is a situation you should be avoiding anyway.
• The F-22 uses thrust vectoring largely for supersonic trimming.
• HOBS missiles mean the nose-pointing advantages are basically moot.
• It's heavier, more expensive, and harder to maintain than conventional nozzles.
• 3D thrust vectoring is really hard to keep stealthy without adding to the issues immediately above.

I remember one of the take-aways from that old video of teh F-15 pilot talking about taking on Su-30MKIs was that while you could evade a pursuer by doing some crazy post-stall thing, by doing so you were basically setting yourself up to be murdered shortly thereafter since you just bled off all your energy.

I don't see what the fuss is about something has been experimented on then abandoned some twenty years ago.

And tvc isn't just for WVR. Stealth fighter can benefit a lot from TVC becuase it can use less its controls and so its RCS would be closer to static model.

3D TVC isn't going to improve your RCS, and signature management systems keep pilots informed with regard to threat emitters/risk of detection/optimum attitudes.

Also having TVC help when you are jumped by some other fighter and very important in BVR-WVR boarder which is where stealths will fight.

Who exactly would be jumping F-22/35s? There isn't a foe in service or development, that can get within visual range, and dictate the terms of a merge, undetected.

So your solution to this problem is to stick four round nozzles out of the fuselage?

3D TVC isn't going to improve your RCS, and signature management systems keep pilots informed with regard to threat emitters/risk of detection/optimum attitudes.

Using differential engine thrust for flight control to reduce RCS (less moving control surface) was done in Nortrhop's Low Observables Bomber Study which lead to B-2.

Here is example of that solution in B-2:

The decelerons have to be opened about five degrees before they are effective, and in normal cruising flight they are left slightly open. However, this undermines stealth, so when the bomber is in hostile airspace, it uses differential engine thrust for yaw control.

With 3D or pseudo 3D engine thrust you can do more then yaw control.

The issue with 3D TVC (which is why the F-22 uses 2D), is that it's not good for signature reduction/management.

Oh, come on. All future WVR should have to abide by strict Hollywood standards to only take place at optimal camera angles.

The issue with 3D TVC (which is why the F-22 uses 2D), is that it's not good for signature reduction/management.

Chinese and Russians new 3d tvc nozzles are LOAN design.

Also you can have pseudo 3d tvc with flat nozzles, you need spaced engines and titled axis as on Flanker.

Serbs did much better job at surviving than what Iraqis did. Most of their SAM systems were intact when the war was over and in that they did really good job. However they shot almost as many missiles as Iraqis did and only managed to shoot down 3 aircraft while Iraqis got about 40. So inversely the NATO did much better job also in avoiding their aircraft being shot down than during DS.

AN/TPS-70 was also actually rather good radar even in 1999 and in some ways better than 64N6E series of radars. It can track larger number of targets and has longer range than most of those Russian radars. It has very low sidelobe antenna, good frequency agility and immediate shutdown of all emissions. All those are very important to avoid ARMs. It's also rather mobile system with short time from operation to movement. In 1999 it was definitely a rather difficult target for SEAD/DEAD efforts.

Back to actual topic though. It seems like there are currently a lot of ways to tackle WVR situations. I'd say these are the main ones:

- High agility and maneuverability without TVC (F-35 being probably one of the best overall here)
- Improved agility and maneuverability with adding TVC (say F-22, Su-57 and Su-35)
- HOBS missiles (pretty much standard nowadays)
- HMS or better yet HMD (Most modern fighters can use them now)
- LOAL missiles which require data links (Modern Western fighters)
- Networking and co-operative capabilities (Modern Western fighters at least, not sure about Russian or Chinese aircraft)

Russians currently only have HMS (no HMD AFAIK) and more importantly don't have LOAL missiles. Possibly their co-operative capabilties are also lower than in Western fighters, especially F-35 and F-22 with their very fast data links. TVC makes some sense for Russians, especially in their largest, most expensive and powerful jets. For F-22 it also made some sense due to not having HOBS missiles with LOAL capabilties and HMS/HMD from the beginning. Of course supersonic flight was another reason to have them. It might well be that F-22 is the last Western fighter to have TVC, especially if directed energy weapons become available for fighter sized aircraft.

Serbs did much better job at surviving than what Iraqis did. Most of their SAM systems were intact when the war was over and in that they did really good job. However they shot almost as many missiles as Iraqis did and only managed to shoot down 3 aircraft while Iraqis got about 40. So inversely the NATO did much better job also in avoiding their aircraft being shot down than during DS.

Or to put it another way, the SEAD campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 was more successful than that of Iraq in 1991, even though less air defences were destroyed.

If air defences are forced to go inactive to avoid being destroyed, then SEAD is still being achieved.

Incidentally, model kits of the USAF F-16 Kai "Night Falcon", as seen in the movie Patlabor 2, will come out on or about 2021/05/31.

Note the air-to-surface missile that blew up the Yokohama Bay Bridge, is fuselage-mounted.

https://hobby.dengeki.com/news/1155830/

『機動警察パトレイバー2 the Movie』幻の戦闘機「F-16改ナイト・ファルコン」がプラモデル化！
アクリルスタンドが付属した限定版も登場！
Amazonで予約受付中

2021/01/07

参考価格: 2,680円（税込）

2021年5月31日発売予定