plawolf
Lieutenant General
So it's completely inconceivable that American fighter jocks might have an attack of sour grapes because they don't like to lose?
Firstly, adding pointless bold text is about as effect as shouting out random words when you are talking.
Secondly, all you have demonstrated is a lack of basic understanding of basic aerodynamics how TVC works.
Number 1, with TVC, as with a conventional tail, you are pushing the tail one way in order to point the nose in another. That is inherently a less efficient means of moving the nose than just applying force directly on the nose as a canard does.
Number 2, what does drag do? It slows a plane down, which is bad as you seem to understand. But what happens when you use TVC to redirect the thrust of your engines to point, say, 30 degrees down instead of directly behind your plane? You turn the nose of the plane faster, but you also loose a proportion of your thrust as it is no longer pushing your plane forwards at the most efficient angel. Yes the engines are still giving out as much thrust as they always did, but not all of it will be pushing your plane forwards now. That also slows your plane down, which is also bad.
Now which of the two bads is worse is not something easily determined by prodding a model airplane but requires complex calculations and probably also advanced computer modeling if not real live test flights. That's where all the eggheads with the relevant PhDs and supercomputers come into their own, and I would be far less arrogant in thinking I somehow know better than them just because I look at some clips on youtube if I were you.
As I have been trying to hammer home, your much vaunted integrated TVC concept is no cutting edge concept, it's exactly the same principle as all existing modern FBW with the only different being TVC has been integrated into the FBW just like every other control surface. If anyone else bothered to put TVC on their planes, it would do exactly what the Raptor's TVC would do, and it would just need an upgrade of the existing FBW systems and software to take into account the TVC instead of a brand new design.
Adding TVC to existing modern fighter FBW would be like installing a new joystick to your computer. The hardware is new and you will need to install the corresponding software for your system to make use of it, but the underlying principles of how a joystick will work is exactly the same as what the computer already uses to interface with your keyboard and mouse. You do not need to buy a new computer or operating system to use the new joystick.
As for the vids, well do you have any concept about the different between an airshow stunt with zero practical value and real combat relevant maneuvers? Your Raptor 'backflip' is a perfect example of the former while that Typhoon demo is a good example of the latter.
If you knew even the most basic things about modern air combat, you would realize that firstly, the moves in that Raptor demo is worse than useless in a real dogfight (the American pilot's gleeful comments about just switching to guns and drilling away when they were talking about Indian MKIs pulling similar TVC tricks spring to mind throughout that demo), and that secondly, the Raptor was not demonstrating the agility of it's airframe with that routine - it was demonstrating the amazing TWR of it's engines.
As I have said, the Raptor's airframe is distinctly conventional (i.e 3rd gen) when it comes to maneuverability. It is only with those ridiculously powerful engines that the whole packages can even challenge 4th gen concept fighters like the Typhoon in a dogfight (and kick the butt of other 3rd gen designs like the F15/16/18), and that in itself is quite a respectably achievement.
The difference in the agility of the airframes can be seen quite clearly in the speeds at which the planes were giving those displays.
As everyone here should know, the faster you go, the longer it takes you to turn your nose. With 3rd gen conventional designs, they tend to drop well into subsonic territory when they engage in dogfighting, because in doing so, they surrender a great deal of energy/airspeed and they cannot regain it fast enough to get close to supersonic speeds so long as they continue to turn hard and stay in the dogfight.
The biggest conceptual change the canard delta design brings is improvements in transonic maneuverability, whereby the airframe is able to make good turns without sacrificing so much airspeed/energy that they can engage targets in a dogfight when still retaining supersonic speeds, or high enough subsonic speeds that they can go supersonic again without much bother or time.
The tactical advantages this big superiority in airspeed and energy gives to the pilots of canard deltas is massive, and would go a long way to explaining why the J10 is able to so comprehensively kick the butt of the mighty Flanker in WRV, and also why the Europeans were so confident that their Eurocanards had nothing to fear from Russian super-Flankers. I would expect this point to be demonstrated beyond all doubt when India starts doing DACT between their new Rafales and their MKIs.
Now, getting back to the F22, as I have said, it's airframe is distinctly 3rd gen, however, it does have those mighty 5th gen engines, and they would account for a great deal. However, looking at the recent Red flag results, it would appear that the extra power of those mighty engines is just not quite big enough to overcome the difference in airframe design and the Typhoon has nothing to fear of the Raptor in WVR combat.
