All Things Stealth

[Ivanhoe]

Always consider the cost/benefit ratio. Costs include RDT&E, manufacturing, installed weight (which has a maddening feedback impact on MTOW and payload kg-km), lifetime maintenance & overhaul costs (parts and labor), IR signature.

 

Thrust vectoring gives the benefit of increased turn rates and a broader flight envelope at lower airspeeds and higher Gs (and I'm guessing that there's an advantage in keeping the engines spooled up in low-speed high-alpha maneuvers; full throttle plus "downward" vectoring into a sharp turn, then unvectoring at full throttle during the turn exit; no thrust lag).

 

The conclusion from the F-22 workup seems to be that, in 2010 AD, lower RCS and better missiles is way better than turn rates and accelerations. Thrust vectoring back in 1975 would have been truly killer, but not so much now.

[JW Collins]

Yet we made thrust vectoring work on the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 under several experimental programs in the late 1980s. Back before AMRAAM had entered service and long before the AIM-9X. A higher emphasis was placed on maneuverability then as seen by the selection of the YF-22 over the YF-23. Yet only the Russians have applied thrust vectoring to later production models of 4th generation designs.

Edited November 13, 2013 by JW Collins

[sunday]

Eurofighter material on TV also states that TV reduces fuel consumption by way of using TV for trimming, and it could allow to delete even the vertical stabilizer, improving both drag, and stealth

[Mr King]

[Corinthian]

 

Hi beautiful.

[Corinthian]

The conclusion from the F-22 workup seems to be that, in 2010 AD, lower RCS and better missiles is way better than turn rates and accelerations. Thrust vectoring back in 1975 would have been truly killer, but not so much now.

 

Ironic, considering the F-23 was said to be stealthier.

Edited November 13, 2013 by TomasCTT

[Josh]

With the aforementioned new Gen of AAM's, does thrust vectoring bring much to the table?.

I believe with G suits and forced airbreathing, most pilots can handle around 9G's. Modern AAM's can do considerably more.

 

Maybe once the A/C are in the Merge, using cannon; thrust vectoring might come in handy.

 

Charles

 

 

 

The rule of thumb I've heard is that a missile has to be able to do around 5 times the G loading of a manuvering a/c to have a good chance of engaging it. I've no idea how true that is, but I am sure that the missile has to be able to pull harder turns than the aircraft it's engaging. That said with modern WVR AAMs able to pull 60 Gs, I don't think any amount of manuverability is going to help you in the merge. I also don't think there will be dogfights in the historical sense if all the fancy missiles work even close to the way they are avertised: modern helmet mount cued AAMs would seem to make 'the merge' more of a 'pass' where one or more aircraft are shot down. I think the US helmet system and AIM-9X allow the forward 180 degree hemisphere to be engaged (I assume the target has to at least be visible to the pilot and the IIR head, but still). If that's true, are you going to need more than one turn, at most, to engage anything? F-35 will probably expand this to 360 degrees with DAS and a lock on after launch mode, combined with a two way datalink in cases where some other sensor or platform is tracking the target behind you. I'm not sure any amount of manuverability is really going to save you in a future merge against a 4.5 - 5 gen aircraft in good operating condition and I think 'the merge' will resemble two mounted horsement runing at each other and one or both being dismounted...

[ramontxo]

 

 

 

Hi beautiful.

 

 

 

The USAF deserve to go to an all drone force for not buying that.

 

There were rumours in the early 90s this may have been developed from a theatre level penetrator that had been worked on called Astra. Not heard anything more on that, so possibly just a concept that was being worked up.

 

The first ever nominee for the "Sexier than a SR-71" Price

Edited November 13, 2013 by ramontxo

[Mr King]

[tankerwanabe]

Yet we made thrust vectoring work on the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 under several experimental programs in the late 1980s. Back before AMRAAM had entered service and long before the AIM-9X. A higher emphasis was placed on maneuverability then as seen by the selection of the YF-22 over the YF-23. Yet only the Russians have applied thrust vectoring to later production models of 4th generation designs.

 

I recalled the experiment on a F-15. Results were mixed. While it added super maneuvering, the USAF concluded that the system was over weight. I think that's code for "slowing the aircraft down & shortening it range."

 

I wonder whether the Russians kept on going with thrust vectoring because their weapon systems wasn't as advance as the West.

[bojan]

Ugh, their off-boresight R-73 only got matched by AIM-9X, 15+ years later.

[Josh]

The Russians did seem to put more faith in the knife fight than the USAF, based on their WVR AAMs and the thurst vectoring frenzy they have. Is there any US fighter with vectoring besides the F-22 2D system? (Don't mean STOVLs).

[Koesj]

That's a decidedly post-2000 situation though and not necessarily concurrent with foreign developments, how long had the transition into 3D thrust vectoring been in the books for the Russians?

[tankerwanabe]

IMO, Su is the only company placing full faith in the system. I believe that Mig tested the concept but went away from it. Seems to me that the Russians are more interested on upgrading avionics and cockpit ergonomics.

[DB]

As was noted earlier, the claim for the Eurofighter TV system wasthta it would improve fuel consumption and weigh less than the existing convergent/divergent nozzle, presumably due to use of materials that are newer technology.

 

As for implementation, paying for the implementation to an operational standard had got to be put well behind actually getting aircraft that have the full weapon system software fit. Let's have what we bought first, after all there is no credible threat that a TV system deals with more effectively than new missiles and bombs..

[Mr King]

 

[Mr King]

Boeing F/A-XX

 

 

[Ivanhoe]

The production vehicle looks substantially different;

 

[Talyn]

The previous posted pic is a movie prop and can't move unless someone pushes it.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Talyn

[BabyOlifant]

I believe he was kidding with that post, Talyn.

[Ivanhoe]

Surely all female naval aviators look like this;

 

 

complete with high-G push-up bra, apparently.

[Mr King]

Dassault Neuron first flight

 

[Mr King]

[Mr King]

Have Blue

[Max H]

Looks like an f-117, before the lorentz contractions of normal operating speed