This message shows that you misinterpreted my message, which wasn’t opinionated since it’s literally just shortening what the PLAAF has been saying for years (they don’t want TVC for their 4.5 gens, despite any merits it may have), and you made it about my viewpoint on the matter, which I didn’t include until this message
Of which you then went on a tyrade about how wrong that opinion is, instead of just analysing and discussing the original point of concern, being the Chinese perspective
Not once did I claim TVC was bad because china doesn’t use it, and you can quote any one of my messages because they don’t include any mention of that take; Infact I’d prefer that they utilised TVC on the J-10 and J-20, since it poses more advantages for high AoA/high thrust platforms like those two, which would boost the capabilities of the PL-10, However the PLAAF disagrees with me, the same way it disagrees with you
advantage in dogfight/notching and simplifies some flight control procedures.
but more weight and thrust loss.
it depends on your choice. focus on high speed BVR or a closer range versatility
the thrust loss comes from the reshaping of engine‘s airflow from round to square for 2D nozzle
this is physics.
but in engineering, especially compared to a specific product, this loss can be reduced by improve other parts, and even go beyond old one like your example.
but the loss is still there
??? What has that got to do with anything
This whole debacle revolves around the IRL decision for the PLAAF not to use TVC nozzles on their engines, for doctrinal purposes.
They might not use it simply because they dont believe its worth the increase in cost and complexity tbh. Kind of like how SLAR increase cost and complexity as well.
Ppl seem to forget that armed forces dont tend to buy/design whats “best” because of various other factors, such as cost and politics. People also have a tendency to hyperfocus on a small range of aspects they believe to be superior to everything else.
Which is what I tried to explain yesterday, Chinese Air Force officials have deemed TVC as a marginal benefit that isn’t cost efficient, in a similar vein to how they have chosen to shy away from a gimballing AESA radar, their consideration comes from lengthy evaluation of pre-existing systems (AL-41 in this case) and have experimented with their own tech (WS-10B TVC Prototype) and have chosen not to invest in the technology for their current fleet of aircraft, instead choosing to put more effort into researching and developing TVC for their future aircraft (eg. Stealth friendly 2D TVC engines seen on the new, albeit dubious, 6th gen leaks)
TLDR: According to Chinese Officials,Thrust Vectoring is doctrinally inefficient and too expensive to maintain for the massive fleet of PLAAF/PLANAF 4.5 gens, and as a result they don’t want to allocate funds that could be used for next gen aircraft development, on additional maintainance costs, for something that isn’t doctrinally relevant
This part clearly isnt a guarantee, since they have quite literally shown off a gimbaled variant of the KLJ-7A AESA. I think theres a decent chance the J-16 has a gimballed AESA, since we know it has an AESA, and its almost guaranteed not to be a fixed angle plate. There is the possibility its a fixed flat plate, but the radome shapes lends itself well to a gimbaled AESA, and I’d be somewhat surprised if they went with a fixed flat plate on one of their newest jets.