Originally posted by ppp
And USA is a generation behind because I have seen articulated lorries that turn better than an F/A-22.
"Thrust vectoring..."
It will be added in the future, but there is no need for it. Many poepl on this forum like to say the worst thing you can lose in a dogfight is speed!
Im sure you are aware of the effect thrust vectoring has on a fighters speed in dogfights! By contrast canards dont cause a large loss of speed. TVC
is a neat trick, but its more useful for taking off with a heavy load (which F/A-22 will never do) or for taking off on short runways.
It can just point the nose up or down, not turn the aircraft as 3D vectoring does. Thrust vectorisng is no use in a dogfight with a fighter equiped
with canards!
I don't think you understand how aircraft maneuver in combat. It is true that the F-22 uses 2D thrust vectoring to vary the pitch of the nose.
However, the aircraft has a phenomenal roll rate independent of thrust vectoring. The aircraft simply rolls to a new bank angle and uses the thrust
vectoring to pitch the nose in any desired direction. This gives the aircraft the ability to point its nose just about anywhere it wants to even as
the opponent pulls high g's to try to get away. If the F-22 gets into a close-in engagement thrust vectoring gives the plane the ability turn
inside the opponent and remain on his tail no matter what he does. This capability is a vast improvement over planes like the F-4, F-14 and F-15 that
were almost always pitted against more maneuverable opponents. As for canards, they have some advantages but become ineffective at high alpha because
of flow separation and low dynamic pressure. Thrust vectoring is unaffected by high angle of attack aerodynamics.
You seem to be a big fan of 3D thrust vectoring, but I should point out that there are no production aircraft in the world that have this ability
because there isn't any significant advantage to doing so given the complexity of the nozzle design. I'm sure you'll say the Su-37 uses 3D thrust
vectoring, but it's really a "psudeo-3D" effect. The designers merely rolled the 2D nozzles off the vertical so that they have a limited effect on
yaw. NASA and German research on the X-31 concluded that the advantages of 3D thrust vectoring simply weren't worth it.
Originally posted by ppp
But Raptor will appear on the PIRATE IRST before Eurofighter will on F22's IRST.
I'm not familiar with the system you speak of, but IR sensors are secondary. As I said earlier, radar remains the dominant method to detect an
aircraft at long range. By the time the F-22 is close enough to be picked up by IR, odds are that it will already have shot you down. As American
Mad Man said, the goal of the F-22 is to detect a target, track it, fire upon it, and destroy it before the adversary even knows you're there.
Originally posted by ppp
Wow...those are the BVR results, the comment was on dogfighting. This proves nothing in respect to dogfighting, unless radar range somehow relates to
turning an aircraft?
I wasn't commenting on dogfighting, just replying to your contention that the Typhoon is "9 points" below the F-22. The comparison provided in the
site I mentioned suggests that the differential is much more significant, at least in the long-range air-to-air role.
I suspect that the percentage comparisons you cited are an overall rating for all classes of combat--air-to-air and air-to-ground. The F-22 was
originally designed purely for air superiority and only recently has taken on a ground attack role. As a result, the aircraft is rather limited in
what it can carry since the internal bays were not sized around large air-to-surface weapons. (Though it should be noted that the latest weapon being
integrated is the Small Diameter Bomb, of which four could be carried in each bay.) The Typhoon, however, was designed from the start as a multi-role
air and ground attack platform. As a result, the Typhoon is much better in the ground attack role since it can carry much more ordnance for that type
of combat. This factor raises the Typhoon's overall score in comparison with the F-22. Nevertheless, the Raptor remains superior in the air-to-air
roll since it is so much more difficult to detect in the first place and it has such exceptional maneuverability.
What is important is that both aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses based on the requirements they were designed for. That's why I dislike
comparing planes against each other--because there is no right answer. If you ever get into aircraft design in an aerospace engienering program,
you'll see what I mean.
Originally posted by ppp
"but this is just food for thought"
Eat some before you post in future
I'm not sure why you're insulting me, but it appears that you are simply a contrarian type of person who likes to stir up trouble, based on your
other posts. I suggest that you learn the fine arts of respect and politeness in expressing your views. You will have far greater success in making
friends and influencing people if you do so.
[edit on 18-8-2004 by aerospaceweb]
