Warchild, as always you've done mastery work in Flightsim Flight Dynamics, I look forward to giving this a whirl when it all becomes available, better yet my son who's a burgeoning FS pilot(and not long from beginning flight instruction in real Cessna's). He fly's my PC more than I do now.
Anyhow, wanted to make a quick point on one of your previous statements:
Honestly, I have studied this frontwards and backwards for many years and accrued many differing opinions/viewpoints within Military and Engineering communities and arrived at the conclusion that TVC is a complete waste of time and money on any airframe. Well before the Russians ever flew the SU-37, we flew TVC equipped testbeds like the F-15B STOL/MTD, X-31, F-16MATV, and the F/A-18HARV. A lot was learned from those test aircraft and I'm convinced that we could have fielded into service workable versions of the TVC's into most of our front line fighters if we had not been so heavily invested in the ATF program and follow on programs leading the JSF. From all the nomenclature published on the above mentioned test airframes, there is no doubt that 3rd and 4th Gen Fighters could have benefitted from this(aircraft like the F-16,15,18, etc) but there were a lot of issues regarding added weight of the systems for the TVC's and increased maintenance costs and heavier wear & tear on the airframes which were not designed to handle those types of stresses associated with TVC maneuverability in which the latter would certainly accelerate. The other issue is training pilots to handle the extraordinary dynamics of flying a jet post stall almost entirely on thrust at extreme and often disorienting attitudes/forces. It's certainly a more involved process at all levels on tops of already high end performance and cost. Currently, the F-22A is the most fielded TVC aircraft and the SU-30MK/I following it. The operators of these aircraft have ran face first into the exceptional costs of operating and maintaining these aircraft. On the F-35, we are seeing a departure from the F-22 in TVC and focusing on Advanced Radar/Sensors such as the AN/APG-81 AESA and AN/AAQ-37 EO DAS systems coupled with new generation AMRAAM and AIM-9X weapons which are Super-Maneuverable beyond any Aircraft TVC capability and can be fired over-the-shoulder all aspect(within envelope). It's a lot cheaper to make the missile do the work that no plane can currently perform in terms of maneuver envelope. Back in the early 70's, the US NWC was developing a Sidewinder replacement called the AIM-95 Agile Dogfight Missile. It was a small Short Range IR missile in which 3 could be carried per pylon on an F-4 and perhaps more on the then new F-14A at the time. The project was very promising but got the axe when the USAF didn't want it and the Navy was forced to drop it as well staying common with the AIM-9. Someone did pay close attention to the program however. Later when the R-73 came out in 1982, many US analysts took note of the similarities of the Archer compared to the Agile system especially in the TVC and off-boresight design(although the Archer is larger). It was a missile that definitely held an edge over Western SRIR missiles and pilots of Sukhois and Mig-29's and thus an edge over our fighters in close range engagements. In actual combat, so far Mig-29's equipped with R-73's and R-27's have failed to kill a single front line western fighter in BVR or close in ACM engagements(this due to exploiting known weaknesses in Russian hardware in conjunction with tactics and good SA).
Our ATF program that led to the F-22 is still the only 5th Gen Fighter in service at the moment and it and the F-35 will likely remain the only 5th Gen Fighters in service for some time. There has been a lot of discussion about making MSIP/TO upgrades to the F-22 to elevate it into capability and systems commonality with the F-35 as well as possible deleting of the TVC systems on the F-22 to save weight and reduce maintenance loads/costs and slow the airframe wear rates. In the end, what is really going to make or break future fighters(5th Gen and on) is Stealth, RADAR/Advanced Sensor Systems(w/JTIDS or similar D-L capability), Super-Maneuverable Weapon platforms, and Active Self Protection Systems(covering a wide range of threats). Such capability could certainly be added to aging designs(pre-5th Gen) in modular MOH packages at much lower costs than buying or developing 5th Gen designs.
Supermaneuverability in an airframe is very impressive to see, but it's window of significance in combat is all but closed now. Let's face reality, it's highly unlikely any more close in ACM merges will ever occur again. Anything not up to speed in the above mentioned factors will be burning plummeting chunks of metal long before they ever get to use their TVC's.
I remember back in 1956 ( yup, sadly, i'm that old ) when they said the very same thing. Missiles were in, dogfighting out, so they made the F-4. truthfully, if it wasnt for the f-8 crusader, we would have had our buts handed to us in Nam.
The sad truth is, that except for this moment in time, piloted aircraft will have no use for super maneuverability, but, the sadder truth is, piloted aircraft especially in combat, will some day disappear. UCAVs are already springing up ( and i dont like it either ). Supermaneuverability being experimented with and studied now on manned aircraft, will allow those aircraft to track incoming missiles and at the last moment, pull some computer generated 15 - 19 G stunt to jink out of the way, and align itself for a retaliatory reaction. Right now, any of us in here with a minimal amount of familiarization, can sit in a box somewhere and fly a Predator. We dont need the sound, we dont need the movement or the feel of the forces on the plane. we were trained after we flew in FSX a few hundred times. in the future, they wont even need the man in the box, but supermaneuverability will prove its weight in gold in the future of defence. For now though, it lets us dance in the clouds and fly in all sorts of manner with the very eagles we once envied.
and thats why, come hell or high water, i HAVE to find a way to make it work. I will not accept "I Cant". I made a promise..
Pam
Ah, one etra point of interest. Part of the problem we/v had with TVC is that we in the US, havent been able to design seals between the engine and the nozzel that would remain sealed. also, our designs change the shape of the exhaust, crimping it and squishing it, and therefore, making it worthless.. Lyulka/Saturn overcame both of those problems. theirs works, ours?? We have too much negativity and are far too quick to say it cant be done or is useless ( no association meant. I used to be an electronics engineer and the business is FILLED with aint worth it's and cant be dones, like your cool white light bulbs. Those couldnt be done either )..
On, the f-35. It uses two advanced lyulka AL-31F engines with full 3D vector control, inlike the 37 which actually only had 2D vectoring like the F-22. That other stuff you mentioned?? thats there too, and in the Pak Fa, theyve added anti stealth technology.. What kind i dont know.. its scary..
By the way.. your extremely knowledgeable.. Can i pick your brain from time to time please?? I'm not so knowledgeable and i appreciate people willing to talk with me..
