Thrust Vectoring

[Feanor]

From my perspective, not really. At an asset level, informational superiority can simply mean that the asset is aware of the presence and/or location of a hostile first (due to onboard sensors, datalink, ESM, whatever since the method is not important for the example) and/or the asset is more difficult for hostiles to detect and track (due to LO features, EMCOMM, EW, jamming, again whatever). It is again a continuation of the maxim that he who sees first, shoots first and he who shoots first usually wins.

In the examples, thrust vectoring does nothing to either increase the ability of a fighter to 'see' potential hostiles earlier or from farther away, nor does thrust vectoring do anything to make a fighter harder to be 'seen' by hostile air, ground or naval forces.

Are you sure that merely being aware of the presence of a hostile GBAD is enough? You might know they're somewhere around before they know you're inbound, but I'm having doubts that knowing about an enemy S-400 btln, covered by a Pantsyr battery on likely approaches, linked up to the Tors of the motor-rifle brigade on the front line, with unspecified quantities of MANPADS and Strela-10s scattered around the woods, is enough to not have to worry about maneuverability. It's all fine and dandy if you have time to rollback the enemy IADS, and bomb them into sawdust prior to major ground operations, but that inherently implies a level of superiority that few countries can count on consistently, and most can't count on at all. Granted while the F-35 is an international project in terms of workload and costs, my impression has been that it's primarily a US project in terms of requirements. Where does that leave other users of the aircraft? Might this not be a case where having a little extra maneuverability could help?

 

[Todjaeger]

Are you sure that merely being aware of the presence of a hostile GBAD is enough? You might know they're somewhere around before they know you're inbound, but I'm having doubts that knowing about an enemy S-400 btln, covered by a Pantsyr battery on likely approaches, linked up to the Tors of the motor-rifle brigade on the front line, with unspecified quantities of MANPADS and Strela-10s scattered around the woods, is enough to not have to worry about maneuverability. It's all fine and dandy if you have time to rollback the enemy IADS, and bomb them into sawdust prior to major ground operations, but that inherently implies a level of superiority that few countries can count on consistently, and most can't count on at all. Granted while the F-35 is an international project in terms of workload and costs, my impression has been that it's primarily a US project in terms of requirements. Where does that leave other users of the aircraft? Might this not be a case where having a little extra maneuverability could help?

While I cannot answer this directly, I can point to questions that would need to be asked and answered (some of which I suspect I could answer) in order to answer the question.

Firstly, would thrust vectoring fitted to F-35's add to the SA of the pilot? I strongly suspect it would not.

Secondly, would thrust vectoring fitted to F-35's make the F-35 harder for hostile systems to detect/target? It might be possible for the shaping and construction of the nozzles to reduce the F-35's signature, but I suspect if it did make a difference, the nozzles would be more likely to increase the F-35's RCS and/or IR signatures.

Thirdly, would thrust vectoring be able to appreciably add to the maneuverability of the F-35, keeping in mind that the g-force limit is what the pilot can handle which IIRC the current absolute max limit has now risen to 11g's for the most capable pilots with modern g-suits? Again, this is not a question I can answer and while I suspect that thrust vectoring might be able to increase the maneuverability of the F-35 a little bit, the aircraft itself is already supposed to be very maneuverable so there could very well be little increase before a pilot would lose consciousness and the net maneuverability (and speed) of a thrust vectoring F-35 is going to be well short of what a hostile surface or air-to-air missile is capable of since most of them operate in the Mach 3+ and 40-g+ regimes.

In the above scenario I suspect that it would be more important to the survivability of the F-35 to evade detection & engagement by the GBAD systems, rather than attempt to outmaneuver and evade inbound SAM's using thrust vectoring, since the use of thrust vectoring would be reactive to the GBAD engaging the F-35, meaning that the GBAD is already able to detect and target the F-35. Even if the maneuvering were to be successful, the F-35's airspeed would likely have dropped and the aircraft would most likely significantly closer to the max effective engagement range of the S-400 and/or other elements of the GBAD. This means that they would most likely just be able to keep launching more missiles and eventually one will score a hit unless the F-35 can get to a position where the GBAD is no longer able to detect/target the F-35, and/or the aircraft is outside the max effective range of the GBAD which could potentially be quite difficult due to the missile ranges claimed for the S-400.

 

[Boagrius]

Are you sure that merely being aware of the presence of a hostile GBAD is enough? You might know they're somewhere around before they know you're inbound, but I'm having doubts that knowing about an enemy S-400 btln, covered by a Pantsyr battery on likely approaches, linked up to the Tors of the motor-rifle brigade on the front line, with unspecified quantities of MANPADS and Strela-10s scattered around the woods, is enough to not have to worry about maneuverability. It's all fine and dandy if you have time to rollback the enemy IADS, and bomb them into sawdust prior to major ground operations, but that inherently implies a level of superiority that few countries can count on consistently, and most can't count on at all. Granted while the F-35 is an international project in terms of workload and costs, my impression has been that it's primarily a US project in terms of requirements. Where does that leave other users of the aircraft? Might this not be a case where having a little extra maneuverability could help?

I think this is a really pertinent post, because it describes possibly the most threatening environment an F35 could be asked to operate in (especially when you also factor in the presence of hostile airpower). Taking on the Russian IADS in Europe would be a daunting task for anything currently flying.

In light of the above, the first thing I would point out is that I doubt any non-U.S F35 operators would seriously contemplate taking on the Russian IADS in Europe without heavy US assistance. In this case you’d still be looking at pitting the western system of systems against its Russian counterparts.

As to the question of kinematics, I think it is an oversimplification to view it and/or maneuverability as a single metric. The reality is kinematic performance can vary across a variety of outcomes in different parts of the flight envelope – being able to turn tightly at certain speeds and altitudes via thrust vectoring is just one of these.

In the hypothetical you describe above, I would submit to you that speed, subsonic acceleration and range would be more relevant than thrust vectored turning capability. Being able to access a higher airspeed would allow the target aircraft to escape the SAM’s WEZ more rapidly, while subsonic acceleration would allow it to regain energy after performing high-g defensive maneuvers at or around corner speed (often around ~400kts). Range would also be an asset in that having more of it allows for more liberal use of afterburner/high throttle settings during said defensive maneuvers.

The one caveat I would add to this is that defensive maneuvers are only going to be helpful to a tactical aircraft around the edges of the SAM’s WEZ. Once the aircraft is inside the no-escape zone (NEZ) of a modern SAM like those found in the S400, there probably isn’t a defensive maneuver that is going to save it – such is the discrepancy between the missile’s 40g+ turning capacity and the aircraft’s ~9g emergency maneuver. To further complicate matters, a skilled SAM operator working as part of a networked IADS isn’t likely to obligingly fire from outside of ideal weapon parameters, but rather do so once an optimal pK has been reached.

What this all adds up to – in my view – is a scenario where not being shot at in the first place is the best way to survive. With that said, I don’t think it is a coincidence that subsonic and transonic performance/acceleration are the parts of the flight envelope that the F35 is known to excel in – they are the precise regions most pertinent to defending/escaping incoming missiles and regaining energy to defend again or enable retaliatory responses. I’m not sure that TVC would be as relevant here.

 

[Boagrius]

As an addendum, I'd use the following video of a USAF F16 defending repeated Iraqi SAM launches in 1991 as an example of the flight regime in question:

You'll note that the pilot uses repeated turn reversals to run the incoming missiles out of airspeed, and continuously descends to regain his own. Also note that the need to repeatedly maneuver and change direction meant the Mach 2 capable F16 scarcely rose above 400kts the entire time. Adding thrust vectoring to the equation might have allowed for tighter turns, but it would have also imposed much quicker bleeding of precious airspeed - not ideal.

In this case the F16 was defending against fairly antiquated SA2s (AFAIK) and the pilot was able to survive the encounter. Substitute in a double digit SAM system and I suspect the outcome may have been more dire. From a kinematic standpoint, though, you'd still want to be able to stay at a higher energy state for longer, and regain spent energy as quickly as possible. In reality, you probably also need something other than kinematics that can disrupt the kill chain more directly - countermeasures, EW and so on.

 

[Feanor]

I think this is a really pertinent post, because it describes possibly the most threatening environment an F35 could be asked to operate in (especially when you also factor in the presence of hostile airpower). Taking on the Russian IADS in Europe would be a daunting task for anything currently flying.

In light of the above, the first thing I would point out is that I doubt any non-U.S F35 operators would seriously contemplate taking on the Russian IADS in Europe without heavy US assistance. In this case you’d still be looking at pitting the western system of systems against its Russian counterparts.

As to the question of kinematics, I think it is an oversimplification to view it and/or maneuverability as a single metric. The reality is kinematic performance can vary across a variety of outcomes in different parts of the flight envelope – being able to turn tightly at certain speeds and altitudes via thrust vectoring is just one of these.

In the hypothetical you describe above, I would submit to you that speed, subsonic acceleration and range would be more relevant than thrust vectored turning capability. Being able to access a higher airspeed would allow the target aircraft to escape the SAM’s WEZ more rapidly, while subsonic acceleration would allow it to regain energy after performing high-g defensive maneuvers at or around corner speed (often around ~400kts). Range would also be an asset in that having more of it allows for more liberal use of afterburner/high throttle settings during said defensive maneuvers.

The one caveat I would add to this is that defensive maneuvers are only going to be helpful to a tactical aircraft around the edges of the SAM’s WEZ. Once the aircraft is inside the no-escape zone (NEZ) of a modern SAM like those found in the S400, there probably isn’t a defensive maneuver that is going to save it – such is the discrepancy between the missile’s 40g+ turning capacity and the aircraft’s ~9g emergency maneuver. To further complicate matters, a skilled SAM operator working as part of a networked IADS isn’t likely to obligingly fire from outside of ideal weapon parameters, but rather do so once an optimal pK has been reached.

What this all adds up to – in my view – is a scenario where not being shot at in the first place is the best way to survive. With that said, I don’t think it is a coincidence that subsonic and transonic performance/acceleration are the parts of the flight envelope that the F35 is known to excel in – they are the precise regions most pertinent to defending/escaping incoming missiles and regaining energy to defend again or enable retaliatory responses. I’m not sure that TVC would be as relevant here.

I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively, but from what I do know, I suspect that that the relationship between a dedicated advanced LO platform like the F-35, and the IADS in the above example, would be different from the relationship between a legacy aircraft and modern GBAD. I think that the SAM operators in question might not have the luxury of waiting for the perfect shot, consider the stand-off range that even many guided bombs have today. Which means they might be compelled to "take the shot" so to speak, in less then ideal circumstances, but with multiple SAMs and from multiple systems, to improve their odds in the situations where they do manage to detect and track the F-35. I can't speak to the role of thrust vectoring per-se, but I suspect that this would definitely require more then just relying to not being detected to achieve the desired results. In fact if we're talking not about a one-off but continued operations in support of friendly ground forces against this sort of threat level, it's virtually inevitable that situations will arise where staying undetected is simply not going to happen.

On the question of where one might encounter such a scenario... let's keep in mind that the S-400 is being offered on the open market. If the Greeks clash with the Turks, they might face something of this nature, anyone going up against China certainly could, India is also on the customer list, and this is just for now. A combination of advanced S-300 (or S-400) variants with sophisticated supporting assets can be found in Algeria, Iran, China, India, Vietnam, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Greece (though the density, and level of supporting assets varies by operator). With Russia specifically you're also facing advanced ELINT and EW capabilities as well as robust hostile air, making the scenario even more complicated. So something similar to the above scenario could be found in a number of future battlefields, making the question a little bit more relevant then simply asking whether Norway could bomb Moscow with impunity.

As an addendum, I'd use the following video of a USAF F16 defending repeated Iraqi SAM launches in 1991 as an example of the flight regime in question:

You'll note that the pilot uses repeated turn reversals to run the incoming missiles out of airspeed, and continuously descends to regain his own. Also note that the need to repeatedly maneuver and change direction meant the Mach 2 capable F16 scarcely rose above 400kts the entire time. Adding thrust vectoring to the equation might have allowed for tighter turns, but it would have also imposed much quicker bleeding of precious airspeed - not ideal.

In this case the F16 was defending against fairly antiquated SA2s (AFAIK) and the pilot was able to survive the encounter. Substitute in a double digit SAM system and I suspect the outcome may have been more dire. From a kinematic standpoint, though, you'd still want to be able to stay at a higher energy state for longer, and regain spent energy as quickly as possible. In reality, you probably also need something other than kinematics that can disrupt the kill chain more directly - countermeasures, EW and so on.

Thank you for sharing, it's an interesting watch.

 

[Feanor]

While I cannot answer this directly, I can point to questions that would need to be asked and answered (some of which I suspect I could answer) in order to answer the question.

Firstly, would thrust vectoring fitted to F-35's add to the SA of the pilot? I strongly suspect it would not.

Secondly, would thrust vectoring fitted to F-35's make the F-35 harder for hostile systems to detect/target? It might be possible for the shaping and construction of the nozzles to reduce the F-35's signature, but I suspect if it did make a difference, the nozzles would be more likely to increase the F-35's RCS and/or IR signatures.

Thirdly, would thrust vectoring be able to appreciably add to the maneuverability of the F-35, keeping in mind that the g-force limit is what the pilot can handle which IIRC the current absolute max limit has now risen to 11g's for the most capable pilots with modern g-suits? Again, this is not a question I can answer and while I suspect that thrust vectoring might be able to increase the maneuverability of the F-35 a little bit, the aircraft itself is already supposed to be very maneuverable so there could very well be little increase before a pilot would lose consciousness and the net maneuverability (and speed) of a thrust vectoring F-35 is going to be well short of what a hostile surface or air-to-air missile is capable of since most of them operate in the Mach 3+ and 40-g+ regimes.

In the above scenario I suspect that it would be more important to the survivability of the F-35 to evade detection & engagement by the GBAD systems, rather than attempt to outmaneuver and evade inbound SAM's using thrust vectoring, since the use of thrust vectoring would be reactive to the GBAD engaging the F-35, meaning that the GBAD is already able to detect and target the F-35. Even if the maneuvering were to be successful, the F-35's airspeed would likely have dropped and the aircraft would most likely significantly closer to the max effective engagement range of the S-400 and/or other elements of the GBAD. This means that they would most likely just be able to keep launching more missiles and eventually one will score a hit unless the F-35 can get to a position where the GBAD is no longer able to detect/target the F-35, and/or the aircraft is outside the max effective range of the GBAD which could potentially be quite difficult due to the missile ranges claimed for the S-400.

This more than adequately addresses the question of thrust vectoring, and I'm left conceding the point to your superior knowledge. However, if you don't mind, I'm still curious whether you could muster a response (however limited) to the specific question posed? You spoke of situational awareness and information superiority, but suggested that merely awareness of the presence of hostile assets (implying, I assume, that they were unaware of you hence the superiority aspect of it) provided a sufficient advantage to negate the threat posed. Do you still think this is the case when dealing with an opponent operating at the level and sophistication described in the above example? Perhaps maneuverability is less significant then I would have though, and perhaps thrust vectoring does not play into it at all, but what degree of information superiority would produce a given kind of outcome?

 

[Boagrius]

I'm not qualified to speak authoritatively, but from what I do know, I suspect that that the relationship between a dedicated advanced LO platform like the F-35, and the IADS in the above example, would be different from the relationship between a legacy aircraft and modern GBAD. I think that the SAM operators in question might not have the luxury of waiting for the perfect shot, consider the stand-off range that even many guided bombs have today. Which means they might be compelled to "take the shot" so to speak, in less then ideal circumstances, but with multiple SAMs and from multiple systems, to improve their odds in the situations where they do manage to detect and track the F-35.

Agree 100%

I can't speak to the role of thrust vectoring per-se, but I suspect that this would definitely require more then just relying to not being detected to achieve the desired results. In fact if we're talking not about a one-off but continued operations in support of friendly ground forces against this sort of threat level, it's virtually inevitable that situations will arise where staying undetected is simply not going to happen.

Also agree with you here. I guess what I am saying is that, of all the kinematic capabilities you would want an F35/other tactical aircraft to have in this scenario, I am not sure that thrust vectoring gives you many/any of the most desirable ones.

On the question of where one might encounter such a scenario... let's keep in mind that the S-400 is being offered on the open market. If the Greeks clash with the Turks, they might face something of this nature, anyone going up against China certainly could, India is also on the customer list, and this is just for now. A combination of advanced S-300 (or S-400) variants with sophisticated supporting assets can be found in Algeria, Iran, China, India, Vietnam, Venezuela, Azerbaijan, Egypt, and Greece (though the density, and level of supporting assets varies by operator). With Russia specifically you're also facing advanced ELINT and EW capabilities as well as robust hostile air, making the scenario even more complicated. So something similar to the above scenario could be found in a number of future battlefields, making the question a little bit more relevant then simply asking whether Norway could bomb Moscow with impunity.

Fair point.

Thank you for sharing, it's an interesting watch.

You are most welcome!

 

[Boagrius]

Just going to take the opportunity to check my understanding/assumptions here with the DT brains trust. It is my understanding that TVC on tactical fighters like the F22 and late model Flanker series allows for greater pitch/roll/yaw rates by redirecting the path of engine exhaust. From what I have gleaned, this generally induces a greater angle of attack during a given maneuver (resulting in corresponding drag penalties) when compared to maneuvers performed with regular control surface deflections. Certainly the TVC enabled aerobatic routines of modern Russian fighters seem to display this kind of aerodynamic behaviour, albeit at low speeds.

That said, I wonder to what extent TVC would affect the amount of G a fighter can "pull" at higher airspeeds? Would adding TVC to a non-TVC jet actually allow it to pull more G? I have been assuming it would but I actually don't know.

 

[John Fedup]

I don’t know squat about thrust vectoring advantages for fighters but I am aware about g- forces. Leave the the high stress g stuff to the air to air missiles and concentrate on situation awareness and LO.

 

[ngatimozart]

From what I understand the purpose of thrust vectoring is to bring weapons to bear more quickly. This would be more applicable for short range missiles and guns, enabling faster snap shots.

 

[Boagrius]

Yes this is my understanding as well. The main benefit seems to be the well documented ability to point the nose (often independently of the direction of travel ie. at high AoA) at lower airspeeds. Potentially handy to have in a low speed, post merge type guns fight (which is, I suspect, why the Russians are so fond of it) but less relevant at higher speeds where control surface deflections generally suffice to achieve the human ~9G limit. The exception to this may be at very high altitudes where the surrounding air is thinner, making it harder for control surfaces to "bite" into it (?).

 

[Todjaeger]

From what I understand the purpose of thrust vectoring is to bring weapons to bear more quickly. This would be more applicable for short range missiles and guns, enabling faster snap shots.

Weapons and nose radome primarily, though there might be a secondary escape/evasion capability.

However, with LOAL and HOBS launch capabilities, the need to have the nose of a fighter pointing in the 'right' direction has significantly diminished, thus also significantly diminishing the need to be able to bring the nose of the fighter around.

 

[Todjaeger]

This more than adequately addresses the question of thrust vectoring, and I'm left conceding the point to your superior knowledge. However, if you don't mind, I'm still curious whether you could muster a response (however limited) to the specific question posed? You spoke of situational awareness and information superiority, but suggested that merely awareness of the presence of hostile assets (implying, I assume, that they were unaware of you hence the superiority aspect of it) provided a sufficient advantage to negate the threat posed. Do you still think this is the case when dealing with an opponent operating at the level and sophistication described in the above example? Perhaps maneuverability is less significant then I would have though, and perhaps thrust vectoring does not play into it at all, but what degree of information superiority would produce a given kind of outcome?

This sort of conceptual question is rather hard to answer, as it is not unlike answering the question of, "how long is a piece of string?"

The basic gist though is that in a LO platform like an F-35, if through an improved SA it be comes aware of the presence of hostile air defences prior to those air defences becoming aware of the presence of the F-35 (which is information superiority), then the flight path of the F-35 could be altered and/or other capabilities utilized in a concerted effort to diminish the effectiveness and efficiency of those hostile air defences. Depending on the methods used and timing, it might be possible for the hostile air defences to become compromised without ever even becoming aware of it. Using a system like the S-400 as an example, an F-35 could potentially 'dazzle' an S-400 radar dish or antenna by focusing multiple APG-81 AESA T/R modules causing the emitter to short out. Depending on the frequency and power available from the AESA modules, that portion of the S-400's radar systems could become damaged and otherwise inoperable until replaced. Given that the damage would be not unlike what happens when someone uses a microwave oven to 'cook' something but left something metallic inside, there would not be something which would automatically clue the S-400 crew in that they were the target of an electronic attack.

Realistically, if the above capabilities are possible, I do not see a need or reason to use thrust vectoring, since the pilot should be able to make whatever course adjustments would be required without needing to rapidly change the nose orientation of the fighter.

To really go into depth on IADS, we should probably create a specific thread just for that.

 

[Feanor]

This sort of conceptual question is rather hard to answer, as it is not unlike answering the question of, "how long is a piece of string?"

The basic gist though is that in a LO platform like an F-35, if through an improved SA it be comes aware of the presence of hostile air defences prior to those air defences becoming aware of the presence of the F-35 (which is information superiority), then the flight path of the F-35 could be altered and/or other capabilities utilized in a concerted effort to diminish the effectiveness and efficiency of those hostile air defences. Depending on the methods used and timing, it might be possible for the hostile air defences to become compromised without ever even becoming aware of it. Using a system like the S-400 as an example, an F-35 could potentially 'dazzle' an S-400 radar dish or antenna by focusing multiple APG-81 AESA T/R modules causing the emitter to short out. Depending on the frequency and power available from the AESA modules, that portion of the S-400's radar systems could become damaged and otherwise inoperable until replaced. Given that the damage would be not unlike what happens when someone uses a microwave oven to 'cook' something but left something metallic inside, there would not be something which would automatically clue the S-400 crew in that they were the target of an electronic attack.

Interesting, thank you for explaining.

Realistically, if the above capabilities are possible, I do not see a need or reason to use thrust vectoring, since the pilot should be able to make whatever course adjustments would be required without needing to rapidly change the nose orientation of the fighter.

To really go into depth on IADS, we should probably create a specific thread just for that.

I think I will make one. Between some of the subjects that came up in the PAK-FA thread, and this one, it's probably overdue.

 

[Boagrius]

Interesting testimony here from IAF Air Marshall Harish Masand:

To summarise, he doesn't place "much weight" in TVC. He says that while it allows an aircraft to gain angles on a single opponent at close range, the consequent loss of airspeed leaves you vulnerable to being killed by any others that may be nearby. This can be extremely problematic in many vs many engagements.

I think this is particularly relevant given the IAF's considerable experience with the TVC equipped Su30MKI - an aircraft he was able to fly DACT against in the MiG29.

 

[Millennium7]

I think, and i admit it is a long shot, there could be a different reason for all the emphasis placed on TVC by the Russians.
I explained it here.
Mod Edit: Read the Forum Rules before posting again. Link to video deleted, as you failed to pay attention to rule #28. The Mod Team will take action if you continue using the forum to promote your channel without an attempt to discuss the topic via meaningful posts to explain your position.

 

[OPSSG]

This forum provides a refuge to members for sane, logical and fact based discussions by all. For that to happen, we need to maintain forum hygiene to ensure we attract and retain members with the same goal. The above warning is an intervention by the Mod Team to maintain hygiene in response to a request by other professionals about quality of posts by a member across multiple threads.

Not sure how to add to this discussion. The correct answer for the F-35 program — is that this is not specified for the program of record. Let me share a quote by Lieutenant Colonel Dave “Chip” Berke was the "Fighter Pilot" podcast, where there was not a lot about the F-35 (except for during the "fast round" Q&A at the end of the pod-cast, from 1 hr 30 on) that is relevant to this discussion. Given Chip has flown on the F/A-18, F-16, F-22 and F-35 he was asked, ‘which fighter would you would go to war with?’ Without hesitation he said:

"The F-35, it's not even close. The Hornet and F-16 were awesome aeroplanes but that's a by-gone era. Those airplanes aren't even close. Raptor is incredible; best manoeuvring aeroplane, but the breadth of information, situational awareness and capacity of the F-35 there is nothing even close to the Lightning. The plane hasn't done well in the media of late - recently it's done a lot better - but anyone on the inside that knows that aeroplane, it is by-far the most capable combat airplane that's ever been built. I wouldn't even blink if you asked me what to go to war in, it's the F-35, it's not even close".​

What is the big difference between the F-22 and F-35 in regards to sensor fusion:

"The biggest difference is the F-35 is fusing radio frequency, electro-optical, infrared and laser. The F-22 is RF only - basically just the radar. So it's the breadth of information and the spectrum out there the F-35 is way, way broader and deeper than the Raptor"​

My guess is that the F-35 designers are aware of the need to design to program spec, especially since the advent of helmet mounted sights to fire air-to-air missiles, sensor fusion, and the tactics related to modern beyond-visual-range combat. Design to spec is important in cost management for any new fighter program.

Frankly, I am astounded by your post, as it seems to focus on a limited low speed flight profile (aka thrust vectoring) that is tactically not as useful when compared to other key specified features for 7G to 9G capable 5th and 4.5 gen fighters.

Keep in mind that missiles like the ASTER are far more capable of tight turns at high speed (at supersonic speeds) and MBDA’s Meteor beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile that can throttle its engine during different phases of flight, that can black-out any pilot, even in modern g-suits. Not only does this mean the Meteor will have more energy to maneuver during the endgame of the engagement, but this capability also drastically increases the size of the missile’s “no escape zone.” Basically, the Meteor has a far greater ability to “chase” and catch enemy aircraft over long beyond visual range (like the AIM-54 Phoenix). Modern beyond-visual-range combat (with the AMRAAM and the Meteor) don't make dog fighting obsolete, they just make it less likely. With off-bore-sight, high agility missiles, dog fighting becomes much more lethal for everyone. Weapons like these become equalizers between highly maneuverable aircraft and less maneuverable competitors. While the high maneuverability found in the thrust vectoring engines is interesting — it is simply not as decisive as it once was.

I hope others will take the time to explain more than I have said here.

I'd expand on this a little to say that - particularly in the US - there has been a shift in focus to certain parts of the flight envelope as far as kinematic capability is concerned. Both the F22 and F35 are designed to perform best at certain operationally representative speeds, altitudes, AoAs etc. Neither is meant to operate at its top speed much if ever - they are combat aircraft after all, not drag racers.

Take the within visual range (WVR) domain as an example. My understanding is that the US approach places an emphasis on killing as many enemy aircraft as possible before a merge happens (if one happens at all). Ideally this results in a WVR fight that favours the friendly side in terms of the energy state of the aircraft involved as well as in terms of raw numbers. This is reflected in the design of both the F22 and F35 - they are aircraft that are well tailored to not just BVR combat in general, but killing before the merge occurs (WVR engagements do not always necessitate dogfights). In the F35's case it also has the option of using AN/AAQ37 to cue AAMs in any direction without anchoring into a prolonged turning fight and bleeding precious energy in the process. This - ideally - also allows it to exit the fight as needed.

To me this makes a lot of sense, since the quality of modern short range AAMs has become, frankly, incredible. We now have SRMs with imaging IR seekerheads that should for all intents and purposes be immune to most (if not all) IR countermeasures, along with high off-bore-sight and lock-on-after-launch capabilities that make it possible to fire them at a target in literally any direction. When you consider the fact that these have been mated to thrust vectoring, 60g+ missiles you have a situation where closing to within ~5nm of enemy aircraft is a very poor method of obtaining favourable kill ratios for everyone.

With that said, I can see how changing threat environments may dictate a shift to more "powerful" aerodynamic performers. For example, I expect the evolution of PLAAF strategic airpower coupled with the tyranny of distance inherent to the Pacific theatre to drive a move towards faster, larger and longer ranged aircraft when the likes of PCA/NGAD eventuate. I wouldn't necessarily expect TVC to be a central feature of such aircraft, as I imagine things like fuel and weapons load capacity, sensor capabilities, data sharing, signature reduction and EW capabilities would take precedence.

In an effort to further hammer home the declining importance of kinematic performance in modern fighters, the air superiority variant F-15C Eagle has a listed max speed at high altitude of Mach 2.5, while the F-22 which is replacing the F-15C in the air superiority role has a listed max speed of Mach 2 at altitude. A similar situation exists for the F-35 when comparing max speeds with legacy fighters that will be replaced with the F-35.

If these specific capabilities were so important, then they would have been included as part of the design criteria. Since they were not, then the relative value for some of the older capabilities one can fairly safely assume has diminished.

Other members, Boagrius, Todjaeger and myself included have posted at length to point out the limitations of TVC. TVC bleeds aircraft speed but it does have value enhancing in a turning fight. A turning fighter bleeds speed or loses energy (and can be shot down by an enemy wing-man). I don’t see how Millennium 7’s post or link to his video on this personal views add to provide context that illuminates for the reader — that it’s a systems level fight, with each platform performing a specific role in a composite strike package and carrying different weapons load-out depending on role (see: Air Power 101 for New Members). This is why the Mod Team decided to delete the link, as he was previously warned on writing too many one-liners and it also fails to address any of the design spec points raised. His link only serves to promote his channel and his personal perspective, without any reference to his sources forming his opinion.

Barring some exceptions, Millennium 7’s YouTube discussions on defence matters leaves much to be desired. In fact, there is no shortage YouTube channels discussing <insert unlikely scenario> or sharing misinformation as fact. We will allow links to a channel if the post has content and the said link provides further details or evidence that adds to the understanding of the topic discussed in the thread. The danger is that some amateurs like Millennium 7 only consider single platforms, they don't understand, comprehend or appreciate that response is about packages and systems. In general, we encourage informed discussions but discourage ‘this vs that’ type of platform discussions as these are unrealistic (see: Why "this vs that" platform discussions are unproductive). In addition, we provide a backgrounder link for context: A brief history of LO

 

[nightsight971]

Thanks to everyone who have posted to my thread (except milli). What is the biggest disadvantage in adding thrust vectoring. In other words, why not?

Is it costs, weight, or wear n tear.

I'm sure its all 3 but what would be number 1?

When I look at the F 22's nozzles, I see it adding to its stealthy design. I believe there are heat absorbing materials in the vector nozzles to reduce the fighter's Infrared Signature as well. Finally, there is added maneuverability if it is needed. So again, why not?

The F 35's nozzle looks like a giant, well rounded, fire pit.

I believe the F 35 would have greatly benefited from having the F 22's thrust vectoring nozzle design for these reasons. Better stealth, better IR signature, and better maneuverability.

The Lockheed guys know what they are doing, so I'm going to guess costs.

 

[Boagrius]

When I look at the F 22's nozzles, I see it adding to its stealthy design. I believe there are heat absorbing materials in the vector nozzles to reduce the fighter's Infrared Signature as well. Finally, there is added maneuverability if it is needed. So again, why not?

The F 35's nozzle looks like a giant, well rounded, fire pit.

I believe the F 35 would have greatly benefited from having the F 22's thrust vectoring nozzle design for these reasons. Better stealth, better IR signature, and better maneuverability.

The Lockheed guys know what they are doing, so I'm going to guess costs.

Actually the F35's nozzle is designed to reduce both RF and IR signature as well. The sawtooth edges (I believe) are derived from the LOAN (Low Observable Axially Symmetric Nozzle) program. The F35 also has a "scoop" under the wing that feeds cool air into the exhaust plume to further reduce its IR signature. A different approach to that found on the F22 but not necessarily an inferior one (it only has the one nozzle after all).

As for TVC, my guess is the biggest downsides would be cost and weight. In the case of the F35 in particular there was a big effort put into keeping the weight of the jet down during its development.

 

[protoplasm]

The weight penalty of TVC would’ve been enough to see it cut at the design stage.

Just a thought bubble, the other issue would be graceful failure on a single engine jet. I know that modern turbines are highly reliable, but the last thing you’d want is the TVC stuck in a position where it is constantly inducing yaw or pitch. It’d be very easy for this to lead to an unrecoverable position.