[DesertFox]

I am curious if there are any disadvantages of Thrust Vectoring? Is it prone to breakdown more often?

There have been testbed F-15, F-16, and FA-18 fighters with it but none have every reached production.

As well, the Rafale, Grippen, and Typhoon do not have it.

[Scott Cunningham]

Cost, complexity, and weight (it takes a MUCH beefier nozzle to stick straight into the jet blast and turn it in different directions).

[Garth]

Return on investment when it comes to cost of manufacture, incorporation and maintainability. Also adds weight to the airframe.

[DesertFox]

How much do missiles such as the AIM-9X with its off bore site capability and greater agility compensate for thrust vectoring on a fighter?

[DKTanker]

I would add that perhaps an aircraft most benefits from thrust vectoring if it is designed from the outset to utilize it.

[DesertFox]

The F-15 test bed has a reduced take off of something like 1/5 of the original F-15 :o

[Scott Cunningham]

takeoff is usually not an issue with military aircraft (other than an overloaded C-17 or B-52) , its the landing that requires huge air strips.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Heavy and complex system. Complexity means more more cost to manufacture, more cost to maintain, less reliable.

[JOE BRENNAN]

DesertFox, on Sun 7 Feb 2010 1623, said:

There have been testbed F-15, F-16, and FA-18 fighters with it but none have every reached production.

As well, the Rafale, Grippen, and Typhoon do not have it.

But some production variants of Su-27 series do (for example Su-30MKI and Su-35) as does the F-22. The F-35 won't (not including downward vectoring for STOVL in F-35B), but the main mission isn't air superiority. The recent Russian PAK-FA prototype didn't obviously have this feature, but production versions might. Likewise improved Chinese J-10 versions might. The advantage can be at least partly duplicated by off boresight missile capability, plus all-around synthetic vision as in F-35. In fact manueverability with the aim of pointing nose at a target, either with vectoring or aerodynamic surfaces, can be so duplicated to at least a degree. I wouldn't say vectoring is a dead concept though.

Joe

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 07 February 2010 - 1424 PM

[Ivanhoe]

The added weight is also at the aft end of the a/c, where it has the most negative possible impact on longitudinal balance and stability. If you know you're going to have a vectoring nozzle during preliminary design, you can adjust the wing & tail areas and locations to compensate, but doing a bolt-on after the aerodynamic configuration is set in stone is not so good.

[Scott Cunningham]

Its like swing wings. They are better in many respects, but the cost/complexity/weight penalties mean we don't even consider them anymore.
I think the B-1 and Tornado are about the only aircraft still in service using them (maybe an SU-24 here or there).

Advantages sometimes do not outweigh the costs

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The Australians still use the F-111, at least for a short time longer.

Scott Cunningham, on Mon 8 Feb 2010 1156, said:

Its like swing wings. They are better in many respects, but the cost/complexity/weight penalties mean we don't even consider them anymore.
I think the B-1 and Tornado are about the only aircraft still in service using them (maybe an SU-24 here or there).

Advantages sometimes do not outweigh the costs

[Arthur Hubers]

Scott Cunningham, on Mon 8 Feb 2010 1256, said:

I think the B-1 and Tornado are about the only aircraft still in service using them (maybe an SU-24 here or there).

Quite a few Su-24s actually, MiG-23, Su-17/20/22 (all three in a number of countries), Tu-22M, Tu-160, F-14 (still in use with Iran)

[sunday]

The 3D TVC proposed for Typhoon does not seem very heavy at ca. 80lbs extra/engine. However, I reckon my opinion is not authoritative.

That data was found in this page, with some aviation engine pron videos in it.

[Sebastian Balos]

sunday, on Mon 8 Feb 2010 2316, said:

The 3D TVC proposed for Typhoon does not seem very heavy at ca. 80lbs extra/engine. However, I reckon my opinion is not authoritative.

That data was found in this page, with some aviation engine pron videos in it.

From that text, I get the impression that they are more keen on getting a better supercruise capability than maneuverability. The design seems to be very similar to the US Aven tested on F-16.