If Sukhoi can do it:
Why can't boeing also do the same?
Or this would be too dangerous for the more modern competidors like the F-22 and F-35.
Any reason why the F-15 doesn't have 3d thrust vectoring?
If Sukhoi can do it:
Why can't boeing also do the same?
Or this would be too dangerous for the more modern competidors like the F-22 and F-35.
It's gay and useless
thrust vectoring is a meme
There are at least two F-15s with thrust vectoring, so I'm guessing it doesn't have it on production models because it doesn't need it.
Why is the F-15 so sexy bros
it was made to counter a fictional version of mig-25
Its maintenance heavy system that adds very little to actual combat capability.
Unles you actually intend to get into one on one dogfight, and hope to find enemy just as dumb as you, tv is mostly a gimmick.
It barely makes sense in f-22, due to stealth actually allowing it to get close. But in any non-stealth fighter its just expensive way to impress guys during airshows.
>USA has mass-produced, reliable, cheap platforms
>Russia has expensive, overengineered, unreliable wonder weapons produced in artisanal qualities
The stereotypes were completely wrong.
The Tu-160 never even had it's tooling finished. Every single airframe can legitimately be called handmade which is why it's crazy that russia says they're going to try and reopen the factory line.
I think they have, they made like two of those new ones with a goal of one per year, which mean they will have their goal of 60 (to replace the bears) by 2057.
There is simply no beating American industrial power, meme countries try to compete, smart countries simply buy what ever America is selling, offloading R&D costs to US tax payer.
>smart countries simply buy what ever America is selling, offloading R&D costs to US tax payer.
Even the Bongs from the F-35 program admit this. There's a presentation on israelitetube given by some Bong there since the beginning of the JSF program that said Britain or any other Euro country for that matter couldn't have produced even the radar of the F-35. The R&D budget for the radar, alone, was $900 million. Almost $1 billion USD to design just one piece of the F-35.
>Its maintenance heavy system that adds very little to actual combat capability.
They're also extremely heavy. While only being useful in rare cases. Even then it's not useful, as once you start really putting on AOA you start to increase your drag tremendously. That weight is better off being allotted to fuel, munitions, or both. Yeah, I know about fluidic thrust vectoring, but as far as I know it has never been proven on anything bigger than a scale model or smallish UAVs.
>It barely makes sense in f-22, due to stealth actually allowing it to get close.
IIRC if was to even out the maneuverability of the F-22 across its whole flight envelope. So it would turn just as well at high alt as it would at lower alts and speeds. The F-35 is capable of replicating 90% of the fighter performance of the F-22 while not having TVC, and wouldn't gain much from adding one. It's already capable of 70 degree AOA.
I heard that thrust vectoring in F-22 was there for stall recovery that allowed it to do more extreme maneuvers safely, rather than outright maneuvering performance.
Post-stall recovery is a big part of it, along with the two powerful engines. That's what the power loop to loaded roll during air shows is trying to convey. Though, even the F-35 has great post stall characteristics and recoverability. With the improvements in flight control software, FBW, and the ability to incorporate LEX into the F-35 without compromising its frontal RCS, again, it's able to perform just as well as the F-22. It helps it has one hell of an engine built off the F119 used in the F-22.
it's expensive and high AOA performance can be done far more cheaply with advanced avionics
Doesn't need it
104 - 0 speaks for itself
it's undefeated
thrust vectoring can't make that negative numbers
Thrust vectoring nozzles increase weight, reducing range and acceleration.
that's not true, based on the NASA tests TVC adds more range and less fuel consumption across the board for ACM.
Is that for retro installed TVC or for an aircraft designed around TVC?
The only way I can see that being true is if you have high trim drag, or if you can design a less draggy aircraft around the TVC.
Unless you're at very low speeds jet fighters are turning as hard as a human can handle already. At very low speeds, the performance issue is about control surfaces at low speeds and high angle of attack. It can help in extremely niche situations but overall it's not very useful and it's maintenance heavy. If you can get 90% of the added performance of thrust vectoring by just putting effort into the flight control system then that's a good choice.
To this day I still think the complaints about the oxygen systems in the F-22 were a coverup for pilots passing out after pulling too many g's
>pilots just happened to all consistently pull 10 gs and pass out...on the international date line
Not true at altitude, the problem with pushing high alpha is more about speed loss, at 40,000 ft even an F-22 can only sustain 5G, it can pull more G by losing airspeed but that is very situational.
They tried.
Kinda cool tbh
Better than the other canard eagle
No need for extra manueverbility when you have good BVR
Suck it, Ruskie.
Adds a significant amount of weight and maintenance cost/time for something that doesn't fit the doctrine and is essentially useless outside of air shows.
3D thrust vector is a meme.
America prefers BVR to dogfighting, and the casualty numbers says they are making the right choice
Thrust vectoring and canards have been tested on F-15s since the 1980s.
Just because the Americans don't use it doesn't mean they don't know about it.
They just never bothered.
It's always funny that when russians/Soviets do stuff ppl actually think it's something innovative.
Americans just didn't bother.
Like with the lame khinzals.
Its just an iskander ballistic missile launched from aircraft.
The US was testing the same back in tje 1950s.
>why does a muscle jet from the 70's not have stupid meme technology from decades later
great question
Cause we are just making 35s instead?
the proper question is, why do russian jets have thrust vectoring?
The magic of the F-15 is that it somehow weighs only 12,700kg empty.
For perspective, that's less than the F-35, F-4 phantom, English electric lightning or the F-18E.
Can you explain what the image means? Do the F-106 and B-70 have better aerodynamics than the teen series?
Bear in mind that the left is for coefficient of drag which is proportional, the B-70 obviously has more drag overall, but proportionally it has less.
There are a couple of reasons.
First there is the square cube law: bigger, heavier aircraft generally have a higher sectional density, because volume increases to the cube, while surface area increases with the square.
This is part of the reason why the Concorde was able to fly at Mach 2.0 all the way across the Atlantic with 1970s tech; besides a very well optimized aero and engine setup, it was simply large.
Second is because they are optimised more to reduce Supersonic drag, this is partly because of role (4th gen fighters were optimised with subsonic maneuverability and subsonic range more in mind, 3rd gen for supersonic speed and supersonic range for interception) and partly because they have less thrust overall, owing to older engine designs, and therefore need to be less draggy to reach high Mach numbers.
The F-15 despite being relatively draggy in this comparison, can brute force it's way to Mach 2.5 with it's powerful engines and variable intake ramps, that maintain high thrust at high Mach number.
Also the left chart is for the zero lift drag coefficient, aka flying ballistically, so it's not necessarily exactly representative of real drag in flight at AOA.
For zero lift drag a higher wing loading is beneficial, and wing types like delta wings don't show their large induced drag at AOA.
So what is the chart meant to demonstrate? I don't get the conclusion to be drawn from those numbers if they're not uniformly applicable.
It's mostly relevant in showing the difference in Supersonic drag optimisation between aircraft, at high speeds the induced drag is less relevant as a component of overall drag.
The F-106 was a much more slippery aircraft than the F-15 in the supersonic regime, because it had to be to reach Mach 2.0 with so much less thrust.
The right graphic shows how even though the F-106 is a larger aircraft with more wing area than the F-16, it produces less overall drag in the high supersonic regime, thanks to the highly swept delta wing and the finer, area ruled fuselage.
I see. The F-16 seems to perform almost as well while being better at slower speeds though, signifiying further aerodynamic advancement.
IIRC only the rafael beats it when it comes to lightness to loadbearing ratio.
That's why I like them so much it's a lighter, smaller F-15. It's exactly like if the designers of the F-15 had access to late 80's early 90's advanced materials and computers that's the answer they would have came up with.
In a better world, a canard eagle would have won the USN fighter competition over the F-14 and still be flying today (The F-18E abortion would never need to exist)
>Tfw no conformal tank, strike sea eagle
>Tfw no electronic warfare, twin seat 'night eagle'
>tfw no Niggle
The Sea eagle would definitely get nicknamed the seagull.
Don't let your dreams be memes
i always forget how big warplanes are.
Mandatory listen to about why thrust vectoring is situational.
part 1
part 2
>Why does a plane from the 70's not have the functionality of a plane from the 90's
a real headscratcher that one.
nevermind the F-15 MTD flew before the Su-30
Because american engineers can't innovate (project it onto the chinese). They have to steal german/british/soviet tech.
shit bait
>me using my thrust vectoring technology to pull 9g maneuvers to outmaneuver the incoming bvr missile that can pull 10g+
just joking btw. as we have seen from captured ru pilots, they don't have g-suits.
I believe trust vectoring in America was considered more for short take-off, landing and high altitude maneuverability instead of regular maneuverability. That's the biggest reason it's left on F-22. So the F-22 can """dogfight""" at 60k feet. F-22 was actually conservative in this regard. Today the job would be done with 360° IR sensors and very maneuverable, lock on after launch, datalinked missiles.
Why not F-15? Most certainly cost vs benefit.
You can land very slowly using thrust vectoring and canards.
The thrust vector nozzles can be pointed down to provide more lift for no cost in drag and the canards can pitch up to counteract the pitch down motion providing even more lift.
Add in regular flaps, active instability and the vortex lift effect and it starts to get completely ridiculous.