Fighter jets with vector thurst not worth it?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 14:44

As stated elsewhere, the US pioneered thrust vector technology and experimented with it 20 years ago. It was abandoned for several reasons, the most likely being it didn't convey any particular advantage (when taking all other factors - i.e. HOBS missiles - into account).

My understanding from pilots is that its suicide when used anywhere outside of a 1 vs 1 engagement, and even then its dicey. American 4th gen fighters have all had at least some experience dogfighting the F-22, and increasingly the F-35. The post stall flight regime is no mystery to them, they know how to fight a thrust vectoring opponent. Almost all US fighters can perform well or adequately at higher AOA (F-22, F-35, F/A-18).

The forthcoming Super Eagle also has new flight control software and a FBW control system. Pilots have already made comments about its newfound ability to "get slow" and slew the nose around. Wouldn't surprise me. The F-16? Well, its the one US fighter that's high alpha limited. That doesn't mean it'll be a sitting duck though, far from it. A well flown Viper is a danger to anyone WVR, and its BVR capabilities are getting a new lease on life with that new AESA they're installing.

The Sea Harrier was capable of VIFFING. Never heard of even one account where it was used. Not in the Falklands anyway. Instead, they defeated kinematically superior Mirages with superior training, tactics and the all aspect AIM-9L. Then the last word in (Western) WVR dogfight missile technology..
Offline

Gamera

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 23 May 2005, 07:54

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 15:31

https://ameblo.jp/mm-museum/entry-12077576400.html

BTW, back in 2007, a Japanese modeller built an 1/32 JASDF F-15 Kai "Eagle Plus".
Note 2D vector nozzles.

I guess: despite the canards, it had a built-in gun?

Then in 2008, he built an 1/32 USAF F-16 Kai "Night Falcon".
Note 3D vector nozzle.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 17:57

Gamera wrote:https://ameblo.jp/mm-museum/entry-12077576400.html

BTW, back in 2007, a Japanese modeller built an 1/32 JASDF F-15 Kai "Eagle Plus".
Note 2D vector nozzles.

I guess: despite the canards, it had a built-in gun?

Then in 2008, he built an 1/32 USAF F-16 Kai "Night Falcon".
Note 3D vector nozzle.


Wow, that's quite the F-15 modification! Looks great IMO. I really dislike the extra large canards on the F-15 ACTIVE, but the thrust vectoring seen in this model is outstanding. He certainly had a clear vision of what he wanted to accomplish!
Attachments
F-15 ACTIVE.jpg
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1280
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 19:53

mixelflick wrote:As stated elsewhere, the US pioneered thrust vector technology and experimented with it 20 years ago. It was abandoned for several reasons, the most likely being it didn't convey any particular advantage (when taking all other factors - i.e. HOBS missiles - into account).


As I understand Americans worked on 3D round nozzles which are PITA, while Soviets and later Russians focused on 2D round nozzle, which is lot easier to developed in something really usable.

Second reason why Soviets didn't need to focus on 3D tvc is Flanker design, with spaced engines it can achieve pseudo 3D tvc just with tilted nozzles:
Image


Also USAF didn't want TVC just for better WVR capability of fighter, in fact in 1980s tvc was seen as must have in 1990s for this situation:
Image

But then cold war ended and with budget cuts so tvc was logical thing to be cut.

Russians on other hand had excellent 2D nozzle so why not developed it especially when money wasn't big problem becuase India wanted Flanker with tvc.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5066
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post19 Jan 2021, 20:17

mixelflick wrote: I really dislike the extra large canards on the F-15 ACTIVE

the Hornet Stabilators?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4319
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post20 Jan 2021, 15:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: I really dislike the extra large canards on the F-15 ACTIVE

the Hornet Stabilators?


LOL, right...

Milosh - I was referring primarily to the X-31 I think it was (that used paddles)... https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/ ... -DFRC.html

Interestingly, they did some DACT with what sounds like 4th gen fighters of the time.

"At Dryden an international team of pilots and engineers pitted the X-31 against comparable but non-thrust-vectored aircraft to evaluate the maneuverability of the X-31 in simulated air combat. The test team included NASA, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Air Force, Rockwell Aerospace, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Daimler-Benz (formerly Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm and Deutsche Aerospace). The X-31s outperformed other aircraft lacking thrust vectoring through use of post-stall maneuvers, and achieved a potential kill ratio of 30 to 1".

So this begs the question... why wasn't it incorporated onto US front line jets? Very strange indeed. The year though was 1992/3ish if I recall correctly, and all aspect HOBS AIM-9x had yet to be fielded on US 4th gen fighters. That didn't occur until Nov. of 2003, almost 10 years later. The USAF lead platform flying with it was the F-15C, and with the USN it was the F/A-18C. Of course today, they fly regularly on F-15's, 16's, 18's and both the F-22 and F-35. They're up to block II or III, not sure but it's a much more capable missile today vs. when originally introduced.

That had to be it really, what else could explain it? Nothing else in the performance of those jets really changed, with the exception of stealth of course in the case of the F-22 and 35. If you think about it, it makes all the sense in the world. Equipping your jets with the AIM-9x is a hell of a lot cheaper than retro-fitting thrust vectoring on all your jets, and no jet (not even the SU-57, LOL) can out turn an AIM-9x.

I think they made the right decision. Especially given the high AOA capabilities found in the F-22 and 35, not to mention the F/A-18 and forthcoming Super Eagle. In the latter's case, there have been "hints" dropped by Boeing/test pilots that between the new FBW control system/flight software, the newest Eagle will be much more agile in a high AOA environment (without thrust vectoring). I guess we'll see...
Offline

Gamera

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 23 May 2005, 07:54

Unread post21 Jan 2021, 17:43

Meanwhile, a 4DX version of the movie Patlabor 2 will open at Japanese cinemas on 2021/02/11, Thursday.

In the movie, the callsigns came from the Wizardry RPG: Wyvern, Wizard, Priest, and especially Trebor.

https://www.famitsu.com/news/202101/18213028.html

『機動警察パトレイバー2 the Movie 4DX』が2月11日より公開
東京に“戦争”を再現したテロリストを追う、第2小隊最後の出撃を劇場で観よう

2021/01/18
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2921
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Jan 2021, 09:17

Gamera wrote:Meanwhile, a 4DX version of the movie Patlabor 2 will open at Japanese cinemas on 2021/02/11, Thursday.

In the movie, the callsigns came from the Wizardry RPG: Wyvern, Wizard, Priest, and especially Trebor.

https://www.famitsu.com/news/202101/18213028.html

『機動警察パトレイバー2 the Movie 4DX』が2月11日より公開
東京に“戦争”を再現したテロリストを追う、第2小隊最後の出撃を劇場で観よう

2021/01/18

Only one call sign matters.... tiltowait!
Offline

Gamera

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 942
  • Joined: 23 May 2005, 07:54

Unread post22 Jan 2021, 11:45

madrat wrote:Only one call sign matters.... tiltowait!


But before you could cast Tiltowait, your level 1 Bishop needed to successfully identify the invisible item slot 9 for a shipload of experience points.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests