Thrust Vectoring

This will be a quickie because there’s not really much to talk about. I keep looking around trying to find more information on thrust vectoring and how it really affects performance/maneuverability, etc. Here’s what I’ve found as well as what I think about it:

While we know that TV is a very interesting concept, what does it actually do? According to a lot of people, it makes seemingly impossible maneuvers possible and makes any fighter jet without it obsolete. Some speculate it is there for supersonic cruise purposes as well, which makes sense for reasons found here in a press conference with Col. Everest Riccioni. I’ve also read that it gives the advantage of maneuvering without moving the control surfaces, thereby avoiding the drag induced by doing so.

But one thing I’ve noticed that I wanted to comment on that nobody else has is the fact that today’s aircraft that use TV to gain high AOA maneuvering capabilities are using it as a crutch. Take a look at all those that have it, the F-22, Su-35, etc. All of them are flying dump trucks!!! The fact of the matter is that all of them are obscenely heavy and would be the most sluggish fighters if not for the magically redeeming qualities of vectored thrust. Even with it, it’s easy to see that fighter jets decades older are still much more agile. Have a look at the quickness that each plane does the Cobra maneuver in these two videos. Then try to guess which one has/needs TV to do it.

MiG-29 OVT

J-35 Draken

To elaborate on why slow speed maneuvering is pointless in my mind I leave you with a couple observations. First, all of it has to be done in full afterburner unless the plane is diving because of the weight of the plane and the amount of thrust needed to keep it up in the air. This does two things: put out a huge heat signature, and waste all your gas. So if enough of it is done, you’re either taking a heater up the tailpipe or running home because you need to refuel. Second, what many people still don’t understand is that it’s not how fast you can turn that wins dogfights, it’s the speed at which you can change the situation so that the enemy can’t cope with what you’re doing. It’s the rate of fast transients, how fast you can dump and regain energy, and from what I see, TV can only help you dump it. Post stall, you either have to dive or ride your afterburners to get your energy back which takes a painfully long time from what I’ve seen, giving a more agile opponent plenty of time to pop a heater right up in there. Anyways, enough of my ranting, I leave you with an afterthought:

Does anyone know what John Boyd meant by “flat-plating the bird”? I’m leaning towards the Cobra maneuver, but I’m not sure. I’ve heard that F-105’s could kind of pull a variant of it, if anyone knows send me a line.

That is, if anyone reads this.

X-Plane

I’ve often been harassed by claiming that I could design a better fighter jet than the F-22. Perhaps what I meant was I could design one that doesn’t completely ignore the history of air combat and exactly what it is that makes a fighter jet win. To that extent, I’ve scribbled down some criteria that I think would make the most badass fighter jet we’ve seen. This is solely for air-to-air and none of that fighter/bomber bullshit. All numbers are assumed to be with a full load on takeoff.

• First, the weight. Since we know that weight is a bad force when flying, let’s keep it low. Instead of an 80,000lb monstrosity (ehem, Raptor), I’m keeping this one under 30K. Lighter if at all possible.
• To give it the advantage in range, I’m putting the floor of the fuel fraction at .35. The lift/drag should be nice and high as well.
• As for the thrust/weight, I’m shooting for a 2.
• The sensors are where I’m a little unsure. While I would prefer it to have an emphasis on passive sensors, I know nobody would even touch it if it didn’t have a decent radar on it. That’s why I’m thinking AESA, just because they can get a decent amount of power into a smaller device. Hopefully that should save on weight.
• I’ve been really intrigued by the X-29 and the results of forward swept wings with vortex flow control. High angle of attack capabilities without thrust vectoring? I like it.
• Of course it’ll have a bubble canopy, and the agility will be incredible.

So for anyone who knows anything about fighter design, what do you think? I don’t really put any emphasis on stealth or top speed or service ceiling but all those are inherent in the design so long as it is kept small, quick, and isn’t aerodynamically sloppy. The Raptor is none of those things, so I’m already a step ahead. Plus, the cost of this fighter will be much less and therefore allow more of them, another key ingredient to winning in an air-to-air battle. So long as it’s not polluted by the current process of acquisition we have running, this would destroy anything flying today in an even cost analysis.

Real fighter pilots probably just had their wet dreams come true.

Air Tactics Pt. 2

I decided to wait until after we got through with our OCA sims to really have a good grasp on how we thought about conducting a full air war.  Turns out, there’s not much actual thinking involved.  It’s still the same 2nd generation attritionist mindset: destroy everything the enemy has and he’ll stop fighting you.  There’s little to no discussion at the tactical level as to what the best course of action may be, and if there is, it doesn’t really matter since the ATO comes out long before the mission takes place anyways.

Granted these were only sims, and designed to give us just an idea of what an actual OCA mission would be like, but I’m still irritated by the lack of consideration of the mental and moral aspects of war.  It’s all about getting bombs on target on time, hey diddle diddle straight up the middle.  The worst indication that our OODA loops are consumed by the ATO was on the last day, where in this particular scenario, our “intel report” declared our communications compromised and that the enemy was aware of our incoming strike.  In my head, this was a great opportunity to be unpredictable (heck, maybe we leaked the info to make the enemy think we were striking) and do exactly the opposite of what the enemy thought we were up to.  Hey, we could throw up all kinds of feints and deceptions to make them react inappropriately and then take advantage!  Unfortunately, I found myself once again correct about our mentality.  The word from above was basically, “deal with it, we’re not changing anything.”

…

I wanted to pull a Boyd and start poking people in the chest and yelling my lungs out about how stupid this was.  We had the knowledge of what the enemy was expecting, what they were planning to do about it, and we did nothing about it!  I calmed myself down for a short while thinking that this may have been a sim-ism and they were just using this as an excuse to challenge us until our instructor informed us that this sometimes happens in the real world.

I just don’t know what to say anymore.