None of the Su-34s have thrust vectoring.
Su-34M’s engines are the standard engines at this time.
Thrust vectoring engines are expensive to maintain and on a non-airshow platform it makes no sense to equip.
The most maneuverable aircraft in the world use conventional engines for weight saving.
The F-22/F-35/Su-35S/Su-30MKI/Su-30MKM/Su-30MKA/Su-30SM/Su-30SM2/Su-30SME/Su-57/Su-57M aircraft have Thrust Vector-controlled engines and are not exhibition samples…
The F-35B only has thrust vectoring and that for landing and takeoff.
F-35 is for V/STOL, it serves a carrier purpose.
Su-30s are used in airshows.
F-22 is used in airshows.
Su-57 is used in airshows.
Thrust vectoring engines either serve a real purpose [V/STOL] or exist for airshow reasons.
The most maneuverable aircraft in the world is Rafale and Typhoon, neither of which use thrust vectoring.
Gripen flies very poorly compared to how it should, but you see, it is a minor nation light fighter (not an f16) so it can’t possibly fly well. After all, only America can make planes that fly well.*
But yeah, missing the centreline ordnance, don’t even bother trying to bomb with it.
*Gripen’s FM has been nerfed into the ground past what even the blatantly wrong documents used to sell a competitor claim.
In the shortened takeoff mode, the nozzle works coolly (B-Roll) for the first 3-4 minutes of the video… Медиа-кит
I still don’t know for sure if the J-35/J-15/J-20/J-10 IS INSTALLED OR NOT?
Su 34 can use the Kh38’s seeker for thermal targeting. It also has exceptional zoom in this capacity, though you can also slave the seeker to ground tracking radar. I was screwing around with it a lot on dev.
All your conclusions are very controversial…there is no desire and no time to collect facts for a dispute…
Su-57: 1.1 TWR
Su-30MKI: 0.97 TWR.
F-22: 1.08 TWR.
Rafale: 1.03 TWR.
Results:
Thrust vectoring is not a maneuverability increase, it’s an instantaneous increase below 700kph, even less really.
Every country has meddled with thrust vectoring engines.
F-16, Su-30, Su-57, earlier J-20s, F-15, J-10… and each time every country concludes that the mass increase from thrust vectoring engines, as well as maintenance requirements, does not add benefit outside an instantaneous turn.
It’s cool, really cool for airshows, but it’s not useful in-practice.
No pilot is going to use a single instantaneous turn below 700kph that’ll marginally work against a superior opponent, let alone get that slow against an opponent to begin with.
On top of that, War Thunder needs new flight model standard for active thrust vectoring.
Maybe with HOBS missiles? I don’t think a guns only dogfight will happen in a modern battlefield.
This fight is not an indicator…The F-22 is a supersonic interceptor by definition…
Raphael’s promotional session is expensive…Let me remind you that Rafale had practically no export contracts in 2013, nevertheless, 8 more years passed and France persuaded the UAE (the contract was signed during the visit of French President Emmanuel Macron to the UAE in 2021) on such terms… Объединенные Арабские Эмираты ведут переговоры о софинансировании разработки новейшего французского истребителя Rafale F5 | ВОЕНКА Российское и зарубежное военное обозрение | Дзен
Let’s go back to the F-22…
Myth 10: The F-22 has supermaneuverability.
In fact: The Raptor’s subsonic maneuverability is at best consistent with 4th generation fighters - strict stealth requirements are affected. He does not need an OVT to reach supercritical angles, but on the contrary, to quickly get off them - unregulated air intakes do not like large angles of attack. The F-22 nozzle roughly corresponds to a round nozzle in the range
M=1-1.2, inferior in other ranges. Due to better
integration with the fuselage, the external resistance is lower for F-22 flat nozzles in a narrow range
M = 1.3-1.5, corresponding to the speed of the supersonic throw during interception. In the F-22
, the requirement of low visibility has led to a noticeable simplification of forms. Of course, the layout is integral, but there is no wing influx, its role is played by the edge
of the outer surface of the air intake. There are no vortex-forming shields,
wing ledges. In this regard, the aerodynamics of the F-22 is close to the MiG-23 or F-14. The integral vortex aerodynamic layout gives approximately 1
units of normal steady-state overload, which is approximately equivalent to
reducing the load on the wing from 350 kGf/m2 to 300 kGf/m2. Due to the requirements of low visibility, the F-22 wing had to be made flat,
the fuselage was also typed with flat surfaces. The potential of the Raptor’s aerodynamics is revealed at supersonic, where it has an advantage.
Export contracts mean nothing other than cost of the vehicle and restrictions the company puts on countries.
Lockheed allows countries to build spare parts domestically for their aircraft, and sometimes outright build the aircraft.
Boeing flat out allows countries to build their aircraft.
Saab recently allowed countries to build spare parts and aircraft.
Sukhoi allows countries to build their own aircraft.
That’s why they have exports while others don’t.
“Super maneuverable” is itself a myth, as this means aircraft that cannot retain energy for extended engagements.
Su-57 will lose to Rafale just like F-22 did. More AOA = less long-term maneuverability.
F22 is 2D thrust vectoring, Su57 being 3D and meanwhile it prioritised manoeuvrability so not necessarily u can compare them, like how Su27S (J11A) managed to beat JAS 39C in short range dogfight.
China doesn’t have a TVC yet.
Where did this information come from?
You don’t have the right idea about TVC at all.
^^^
Your thoughts are correct, except that without TVCs at subsonic speeds, the F-22 will be worse than almost any 4th generation aircraft
Ahahaha, Rafale is doing very badly in STR.Because delta wing with canard is very bad at STR and good at ITR
J10B TVC demonstrator, the tech is there.