I will listen to your advice the day when you manage to follow it yourself... personally, I tend to be exactly as polite as I perceive my interlocutor to be. Also, it pissess me off when I perceive somebody as misrepresenting arguments I had made, which you did multiple times, in addition to your constant utilization of logical fallacies through which you avoid actually answering my arguments (there is a very good example of that in the very post I am replying to right now).
And? I had shown you arguments from qualified engineers, and you dismissed them. I had also shown you results of tests, yet you conveniently forget them with every new reply.
You have no room to lecture anyone about writing. You use slang and shorthands, you double back, you go into complete non sequitors, you utilize logical fallacies, you outright ignore and misrepresent my arguments when it suits you, you deliberately forget facts that are inconvenient to you, you display ignorance of even most basic facts about the aircraft being discussed, and even on the most basic readability level your way of writing is a pain in the ass to decypher.
You have no room to lecture anyone about writing. You use slang and shorthands, you double back, you go into complete non sequitors, you utilize logical fallacies, you outright ignore and misrepresent my arguments when it suits you, you deliberately forget facts that are inconvenient to you, you display ignorance of even most basic facts about the aircraft being discussed, and even on the most basic readability level your way of writing is a pain in the ass to decypher.
Are you? I had given you documents written by aeronautic professionals about utility of close-coupled canards. You ignore them and keep saying how close-coupled canard is a mere control surface and that TVC is unquestionably better than canards. So apparently you believe yourself to be better than professionals that you are now calling on to.
I have not used personal words like liar, dishonest, etc or slangs or -ve words like arguement, lecturing, fallacy. Teens, typical 20s people do it & learn the hard way as they grow up. After reuesting also u r not listening. Nothing has "pissed me off" but if it does to u then it is ur behavioral issue. People should discuss as if it is a live online discussion. If u can misinterpret parts & concepts then anybody can misinterpret ur comments. 1st u misinterpreted engine parts & now external parts like slat, slots & flaps, then u accuse & abuse me as liar, dishonest, claimer, completely wrong, etc.
I didn't dismiss the work of EU engineers but have lagged so far till 5th gen. But I said there r lots of factors involved to make a product & EU also could have made F-22 like jet like they r making FCAS, Tempest, time changes things. The biggest contrast of EU nations is their small size & hence their disagreements. Whatever pics & diagram i hav shared is enough to negate ur accusation that i don't understand basics & i hav asked u to use diagram & drawing. No member will have time & patience to read thesis docs.
I'm a trainer in my office, i do lecture but only on my official topic, otherwise i said i'm nobody to lecture u here, this is not online tution class for aero-engg. students. Yes i use shorthand like u, c, v, r, etc which r used very commonly on mobile. At work i can't carry my personal laptop or access internet on official PCs so i hav to make some replies on my mobile & save draft & continue later. So i have introduced myself repetedly as non-DoD or non-aero-professional but some tech topics not all i understand well due to my qualification. But u have not introduced urself yet.
Yes, canard is just a control surface dependent on minimum air flow while TVC doesn't depend on it. That's how rockets, missiles, satellites, space shuttle, etc maneuver where air flow is not effective. When the non-canard TVC jets reduce speed drastically sometimes to zero & do tail-slide, J-turn, spins, etc then canards don't help until minimum air flow is regained. Some TVC jets don't have canards, some have. If canards & levcons were enough then TVC wouldn't have been required on Su-57 & J-10C. If non-TVC canard jets can remove FCS restrictions then TVC can be negated. I'm merey giving examples of products flying around, there is no question of me being better than aero-professionals when i'm not 1 of them, simple.
Engine exhaust is in hundreds of degrees of Celsius at least. Ambient temperature at high altitude is between -30 and -50 degrees. Basically, the only thing you need to do to shield the engine exhaust with cool air is to take air at something close to ambient temperature.
But the effect will not be that big. At mid to high altitudes where air combat happens, fighters can be detected at significant distance even through skin heating due to air friction - air is simply too thin up there, which means that IR radiation goes a far distance.
In F-117 at least, cool bypass air was used to cool down the heat-reflecting tiles that surrounded the engine nozzle. It also had an extended lip that masked first 8 in of the exhaust plume from below. So... F-35 has the first aspect, Rafale has the second. And optical blocking of hot parts (a la F-22 and Rafale) is
more effective than any kind of cooled down air.
And as I have already explained, Rafale (as with other Eurocanards) is a fundamentally defensive design. So this "enemy can approach from any direction" is much less true for its intended purpose than it is with the F-35.
That being said, the effect of cooling down the engine exhaust
will be significant at much lower altitudes. Air there is both denser and warmer, which helps masking aircraft's IR signature to begin with. This in turn means that any special cooling mechanisms will make much greater difference. Further, mixing hot air with ambient air through usage of notched nozzle is
very effective in 4,3 um band, which is the primary IR band used for detection at low altitudes.
All techniques have to be used in different situation. As gen leap occurs, attempt is made to include previous gen technique + something additional. What Rafale is doing with nozzle gap, some other jets also do, i already said that it is common, cheap technique with ceramics & composites, etc but only for nozzles, not plume. I don't know how many 4th gen jet engines have cooling channel & blade coating & cooling, or if "Indian" Rafales have it. As per my post i shared observation & tried to corelate with M88 pics, that's all. A lot about F-22/35, Su-57 may not be known yet exactly how they do it like liquid cooling, plume shielding, etc. Their diagrams and pics don't reveal much.
And that is why "generations" argument doesn't matter that much. I had already explained you that a well-designed 2nd and 3rd generation fighters can defeat 4th generation fighters.
If lower gen defeats higher gen then purpose of higher gen is defeted, it could be due to overconfidence, bad pilot skills, etc. But passing statements like higher gen is based on some lower gen jet is very controversial when the ne jet has not been revealed yet. Let it be revealed then u can say if some parts or concept i very close to Rafale, etc.
Yet it is ratios that are always used for measuring performance.
yes ratios but not throttle % & ratios come from total values not the other way.
FFS, just in the post I am now replying to, you thought that Rafale had a mechanical radar before upgrading to AESA.
That was Typhoon that was upgraded from mechanical radar to AESA. Rafale had PESA from the start.
Rafale used PESA before upgrading to AESA, not mechanical radar. PESA is not fundamentally different from AESA except that AESA has multiple T/R modules to ESA's one, which means that PESA has only one beam and limited LPI performance. But none of that makes any difference in terms of ability to track a single target. Yet even in Rafale videos you still see that it takes a time to generate a firing solution.
That is no different from what Rafale does.
So what is special about F-35's DAS?
Where did i say Rafale had mechanical radar? I know it was PESA.
Would u say this for Rafale also even after having AESA?
Those videos are of legacy jets with older avionics S/w & radar H/w versions. Why would someone reveal latest capabilities? But u can ask any engineer or tech student in ur circle how fast AESA can work, huge diff. from mechanical radars. RF radiation travel at speed of light, there r beam control & sharpening techniques. But it is all game of S/w now hence programming skills of engineers & computing architecture matter.
I said that the videos are old & then other legacy jets had older H/w mechanical radar & S/w.
And be it comparison of any electronic product - laptop, phone, server or jet fighter's computer, efficiency of circuitry & S/w differs. That's why there are MLUs & country-specific customizations in avionics.
Single target situation is a rare luxury so it is useless totalk on it today.
Rafale might take time to generate firing solution but F-22 will have a spherical sensor-fused lock & continious target indication.
I already explained what is different in Rafale's & F-22's RF & EO coverage + avionics programming differences leading to time taking in generating firing solution like u only said now & losing lock as seen in the HUD video. And u also know what is special abt F-35 DAS, it is a later product hence better sensor & digital image processing with HMDS. Other makers like Dassault, Sukhoi, etc can also do it, they also got intelligent professionals, they actually have something in pipeline, but it will increase the cost of jet.
"Indian" Rafale is the only version perhaps with 3 more SPECTRA sensors but still in horizontal plane, 2 more would be required to look up & down. But so far SPECTRA have included only RWR, LWR, jammer, DDM MAWS other ECM antenna but not a mini radar.
RWR, ECM, jammer antennas do not lock target. in future DDM may have EO locking but from HUD video currently it doesn't seem to have it.
Hene a future F5/6 MLU can incorporate increased # of RF & EO sensors, additional S/w code but cost will increase & better engine to power everything will be required.
So pls don't ask same question again in differnt way. On 1 side u pounce on me telling i don't understand basics & other side u ask me same questions differntly & pretend as if u didn't understand.
Contunuously implementing TVC? Pray tell, where?
With United States, the only aircraft with TVC is F-22. The end.
In China, J-20 might get thrust vectoring.
In Russia, you have Su-30, Su-35, and Su-57.
One common thing is that these are all large, relatively long-ranged aircraft with conventional aerodynamics (except J-20).
I never said that thrust vectoring doesn't have benefits when compared to close coupled canards. But "extreme maneuverability" is not one of these benefits.
Also, this is one of the logical fallacies I had mentioned before that had me so pissed off. Authority has no place in science. I had provided you with documents and citations which show how and why aircraft with close coupled canards do not necessarily require thrust vectoring - and do not require it at all if maneuverability in close combat is your primary design goal. Yet your only reply was "professionals from etc. are employing TVC, therefore your argument must be wrong". That is a clear fallacy, especially since it is not "my argument" but rather an argument made by multiple professionals that is based on actual scientific procedure and research.
I had provided you with links to documents containing the research in question. I will do so again. Read them, and show me why you think that actual, physical data from experiments is wrong.
Continiously means since 1990s there is a product flying & performing well in different nations as i wrote. I also said that there are possible reasons why other legacy jet not upgraded like budget allocation, cost of upgrading big fleet, hesitancy & skepticism, export considerations, etc. F-35's VTOL requirement killed its TVC. But what a future MLU will bring is unclear for all jets. Chinese are making progress with their WS series of engines, may be they tested TVC 1st on J-10C then they may implement on other jets. J-10c is not large & long-range. TVC has nothing to do on size & range otherwise it wouldn't have been tested on F-16, F-18, X-31, MiG-29, just on F-15 & Sukhois.
U must define & give example what do U mean by "extreme maneuverability". Non-TVC jets cannot reduce speed to zero, hover pointing up, then spin, roll, go wherever they want. Only 3D TVC can enable that.
And congratulations, nearly everything you had written is wrong. You had also obviously
NOT read the multiple citations from design documents and aerodynamic studies I had provided previously that discuss benefits of close-coupled canards, yet you have the gall to suggest that
I should engage with "professionals". Why don't
you engage with professionals whose entire research you had just dismissed out of hand?
Close-coupled canard is not a control surface. Yes, it can be used as such. But its primary purpose is that of a vortex-generating high lift device. In other words, what matters with CCC is not its control input but rather its interaction with the wing.
Primary effect of close-coupled canard is energizing air flow over the wing. This leads to delayed stall, leading to improved lift as well as control surface effectiveness at high angles of attack.
Summary:
- good vortex flow stability up to high angle of attack = higher maximum lift due to delayed air flow separation means increased instantaneous turn rate, air flow stability also means control surfaces remain efficient at high angles of attack
- improved lift-to-drag ratios at all flight regimes as a consequence of delayed stall, improved lift and positive trim lift on surfaces
- improved safety due to ability to recover from spin and superstall
Again, close coupled canard improves lifting coefficient and maximum angle of attack due to delaying stall.
- delayed stall resulting in improved lift
- delayed vortext breakdown resulting in delayed stall and improved lift
- improved aerodynamic efficiency
So let's see how your arguments stand up to facts:
Canard is a control surface dependent on enough air flow due to speed, TVC is independent of speed. - Only partly true. First,
close-coupled canards are primarily a lift-enhancement / vortex-generating device, with ability to provide control inputs being a decidedly secondary characteristic. And in their primary function, close coupled canards had shown effectiveness at such low speeds that speed argument is practically irrelevant even though it is technically true.
Control surfaces don't work in stall regime but TVC does. - Correct, but only for classical wing-tail configuration. Close coupled canard allows control surfaces to be effective in post-stall regimes.
Control surfaces help in regaining stable flight in post-stall when sufficient air-flow & speed is regained which takes few seconds but TVC kicks in before it.- For traditional configurations maybe.
Points # 2,3,4,5 which u mentioned - the HUD video shows the limitations & i already said that FCS limitations for "practicality" are worthless if not used in combat.- so F-22's thrust vectoring is useless? Because F-22 has similar operational limitations to what Rafale etc. do.
Now J-10C is a delta-canard with TVC. Can u guarantee that Euro-canards won't implement TVC in future MLUs? Or will u say that TVC on J-10C is foolish?- I have already pointed out that TVC does have benefits even for aircraft with close-coupled canards. But these do not lie in the area of maneuverability.
And Rusian Su-57 is tandem-TRI-plane with levcons+3D-TVC.- It is also a stealth fighter.
I never said TVC is "i win" concept but theory of TVC is to reduce speed hence reduce inertia & G while still maintaining orientation, avoiding stall & attacking enemy before it can attack,that's all. - That is literally what close-coupled canards achieve.
Repeating myself, when i said Rafale will loose >50% of gun-fights, means i considered up tp 40% wins which is excellent figure for a non-TVC 4th gen jet against a 5th gen TVC jet, but u r still not just unhappy but furious & outragious. - I find it outrageous because your claims about close coupled canards are incorrect. You seem to believe that close-coupled canard aircraft are aerodynamically fundamentally equal to long-arm canard or wing-tail aircraft, and that close-coupled canards are merely a control surface. News flash: if they were, nobody would be using close-coupled canards. Canards in such a position simply don't have the moment arm control authority of either long-arm canards or conventional tail. Also, if canards are merely a control surface, how do you explain Viggen? It had fixed canards with movable slats - definitely not a control surface. How do you explain Kfir and Cheetah modifications of Mirage III, both of which have
FIXED close coupled canards? They exist because you are wrong: close-coupled canards are far more than just a control surface.
Why don't u really engage with professionals who worked on TVC globally then we will see how good u r with ur facts. Go comment on YT videos of those ex-pilots & then paste screenshots here. - I engaged with a pilot, and he agreed with me on most points. Not on YT videos though, but through e-mail and on old defunct Indian Defence forum.
Yet you have clearly not read actual research documents. I had shown you, multiple times, documents which show benefits of close coupled canards in terms of post-stall maneuverability and lift improvements, yet whenever you talk about canards you treat them as simple control surfaces, no different from tail or long-arm canards.
I had shown you actual aerodynamic documents which clearly show that close-coupled canards provide most of the benefits of the thrust vectoring. What more do you want?
Control-surface/lift-device, is a general term & tail-plane, canard, aeleron, slats, flaps are specific terms. Fore-plane is a term precursor to canard. Lifting device are fixed & uncontrollable while control surface can be rotated & controlled.
In Kfir, Cheetah, etc where lifting foreplane is fixed it was the start of experimenting with foreplane lifting devices towards canards. Lift was there but no rotation hence they are lift-devices but not control-surface.
In Viggen, it is combination of foreplane & flaps, like a small wing, they actually really call it a 'forward wing" in labeled cutaway diagram. So it is combo of lifting-foreplane & control surface. Also, it doesn't seem to have "movable slats" either in foreplane or in wing. The leading edge of foreplane & outer 1/3rd segment of wing's leading edge are angled down little like slat but fixed. A fixed slat is called "slot" but they drop more like fully extended slat, so Viggen's leading edges of foreplane & outer 1/3rd of wing are intermediate b/w slat & slot.
1st u misinterpreted engine parts & now external parts like slat, slots & flaps, then u accuse & abuse me as liar, dishonest, claimer, completely wrong, etc?
Canard is like moving the tailplane forward, both can be controlled & fully rotate hence control-surfaces. And CCC is specific position w.r.t. wing.
Anything sticking out of a flying cyindrical body generates turbulance/vortex, like LERX, RWR/MAWS sensors, blade antennas, pylons, IFR probe, intakes, pods, etc.
All R&D on CCC is right but i don't need a deep-dive into its understanding bcoz when a jet is near zero speed, if there is no airflow then canard cannot energize anything over wing. If a canard jet goes vertial & reduce speed to zero, if it has T/W ratio >1 then it can move up otherwise simply tip over towards post-stall, just like a stick will tip over if balancing finger is not moved. Here is where 3-D TVC brings balance. When sufficient speed/air-flow is there then Canards can produce roll, pitch but not yaw. At insufficient speed/air-flow u expect a CCC to flap rapidly like a hummingbird's wings?
Even a middle school student observing a wind-mill toy can understand if there is no speed, no wind then no airflow hence no flat flap or blade like object/device like wing, rudder, canard, tailplane can work unless they flap like a bird to hover. So it doesn't really require reading thesis abstracts. And hence there is no question of dismissing any scientist or engineer who worked on canards. So If EVERYTHING i hav written is wrong then R.I.P. physics, school & college & i shouldn't have passed through class-9to12 then engineering college & become an IT engineer.
How F-22 TVC is useless? What are limitations of F-22 which Rafale can do? The Rafale HUD messages like "RELEASE STICK", "RECOVER", "TOO SLOW", "GND AVD"(Ground Avoid) do not indicate that CCC avoids stall sufficiently & reduces inertia & G. TVC jet pilots don't have scream/grunt/gasp so much.
I'm not qualified aero-professional nor it seems u r so pls stop using words like "claim" & introduce urself 1st b4 u use such words, a high-school/college student can also discuss here.
But Repeating myself, the geographical, geopolitical, financial conditions & disagreements led to non-TVC Euro-canards otherwise EU taken as 1 country would have made large long range jet, like u said above, with TVC, like F-22 & Su-57. What if tomorrow EU becomes USE? With Euro currency & NATO u guys r almost there towards USE.
Please engage with someone publicly so that others can verify anytime, anywhere otherwise anybody can "claim" to have agreement with pilots & aero-professionals. I wonder who writes & responds to emails to discuss when forums & Q&A sites have been there since 2000s. The pilot with whom u engaged, what was his nationality & which jets did he fly, what was his name & email-ID? Any pilot who has spoken on media or Expo can be traced.
Let me remind u that unofficial forums r not meant for R&D but easy comprehension & time pass by enthusiasts. No member is going to read theisis abstratcs. Nobody needs a deep dive, keep it simple by drawing, diagrams, pics, keep it interactive & edutainment.
When did I say that Eurocanards cannot be used in offensive missions? Nowhere. In fact, Rafale operated over Libya from day one, when the only other aircraft operating there were US stealth aircraft and French Mirage IIIs. In fact, it was Rafales that provided ECM/EW escort for Mirages.
What I was talking about was design focus. Just as with tanks, where e.g. Challenger 2 and M1 have a defensive design focus (prioritizing armor), while Russian tanks have an offensive design focus (prioritizing mobility). It is same for the aircraft.
So don't divide jets into offensive & defensive jets in the 1st place when Rafale is "omni-role", that's how Dassault projects & markets it.
We "Indians" don't have something like F-22/35 or even near it YET, we don't say "I/We will prefer F-22/35 like jet for air superiority & strike". We give examples of what we have. So as a Croatian, give examples of what u have & what u can make if u hav an aero industry. We know that USA intervened in Yugoslavian wars which let to downing of F-16 pilot Scott O'Graddy & loss of 1 F-117 also. We are also seeing F-35 flying in borders of Ukraine today. That's the reason u can mention F-22/35 in case of full blown war b/w NATO & Russia. So u wanna discuss so much against F-22's TVC but still wanna use it from NATO. Fight ur future wars w/o NATO then we will see.
For god sake please don't compare MBTs with jet fighters, please.
F-22 is a large, heavy fighter with fundamentally BVR design philosophy. We were talking about close combat, and Rafale is smaller and with better aerodynamic design.
Among 4th gen, yes, Rafale has superior aerodynamic design. I also said that it will defeat most non-TVC jets most of the times, that's why our country got it. I also said smaller jets have shorter turning radius & canard jets even shorter. I also said that F-22 w/o TVC would be like stealthy F-15. So u should be pretty satisfied & cease the debate but u r still furious & abusive
F-22 is large & heavy so what, to compensate it got stronger engines. And the ATF criteria was not just BVR but also dogfight, hence the TVC to reduce pilot effort & pain.
That is far from a given. And if there is anything more than two jets in the air, then, again, using post-stall maneuvers is stupid because it leaves you vulnerable to attack by a third party.
When it comes to missile combat, TVC does give advantage in terms of nose pointing authority, but so do canards. Advantage of a TVC jet there is that it is not dependant on air flow, so theoretically, TVC equipped jet should have better nose authority at very low speeds. Theoretically, but close-coupled canards also provide improved nose authority at low speeds, as well as lift improvement.
In gun combat, TVC can enable some maneuvers, but these again are death-or-glory maneuvers where you either succeed or you die, and they can be countered by an attentive pilot.
TVC does provide some benefits even to canarded fighters, but little in terms of ACM...
I have tried to explain all situations also mentioning where TVC won't matter.
Like i said, TVC success = function (strong engines, good FCS & avionics, pilot skills, load conditions). MKI doesn't have good thrust but F-22 has, so MKI will stall & enter post-stall but F-22 won't just like X-31 demonstrated which was also delta-canard but couldn't do it w/o TVC, LCC or CCC didn't matter there.
None to insufficient speed/airflow, no use of control surface actuation unless it can flutter like bird's wings, simple physics of air.
If missiles are there w/o LOAL, TVC jet will fire missiles 1st.
LOAL will render TVC useless.
In gunfight if stong engines are there then there won't be any stall, reduced kinetic energy would be regained quickly w/o traditional high G turning radius & TVC can be engaged repeatedly, that's what ATF team wanted.
If Eurocanards can relax their FCS limits & demonstrate all moves of F-22/Su-57 then only benefits of CCC over TVC can be proven. And what Su-57 has done is combined TVC & canards in form of levcons, best of both techniques.
Documentaries are hardly a substitute for actual research.
That means u don't watch documentaries showing interview of scientists, engineers & test pilots. I can also tell u names of some who worked on ATF team - Paul Metz, Tom Morgenfeld, Steve Rainey, John Beesley, Dave Fergusson, Jim Sandberg, etc. Just put their names in YouTube & have fun.
They also show diagrams, CFD model, assembly, testing footages, some mathematical modelling.
Why use levcons when it already has canards? As for TVC - it might be useful in some aspects, but it is not necessary.
To match requirement of future era, keep business open for countries who can't afford FCAS. Rafales will also retire afte few decades. FCAS is a big jet. A modified Rafale can be a smaller, more economical supplement.
For Draken, probably. Not so for Gripen.
Parked at 70-80 degrees alpha. Maximum AoA was 100 - 110 degrees, IIRC.
For every jet, the prototypes push the limits then a margin is left for safety & a limit is set which is adequate for missions. It was done for F-22,Su-57 also. But TVC jets with good engine & avionics don't require any AoA limit as seen publicly except for G limits for pilot & airframe. The whole idea was to close the gap of FCS limits from beginning for production jets & not just for prototypes.
I could not find any YT video of any Euro-Canard doing the maneuvers of TVC jets bcoz they have limited the FCS for "practicality" like u said which every customer will not buy. If the Americans, Russians, Indians, Malaysians, Chinese wan't it means they wan't it, if the Euopeans don't wan't it means they don't wan't it. Different country has different size, economy, geopilitics, like i repeated. They all will be responsible for consequences of their decisions.
F-15A had empty weight of 25 000 lbs, while F-15C had empty weight of 28 000 lbs, if memory serves me. F-18 has also gained weight over time.
So no, F-16 is not unique.
U r giving every 4th gen jet's example except F-22 & Rafale. F-16,18 are very skinny jets.
12% increase in weight for F-15A to C is hardly anything while for F-16A to E it is 41%. So like i said, the idea is to learn from 4th gen, anticipate future growth requirements, incorporate them today itself as much as posible & be prepared for marginal overhead in future if possible w/o modifying airframe & cardinal characteristics.