Su-35S at Le Bourget -WOW!

[rotornut]

Russia's Su-35S shows art of aerobatics at Le Bourget - English pravda.ru (http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/18-06-2013/124874-russia_le_bourget-0/)

[BOAC]

I can foresee the odd difficulty getting the pipper onto the cockpit of that pesky crittur.........................

[Wander00]

Hmm. Makes "agile" look a bit pedestrian.

[AtomKraft]

BOAC..indeed.

Can't see the pilot of one of these having any trouble pointing his jet at one of ours though. :ooh:

[SpringHeeledJack]

It's impressive just how far the thrust-vectoring has come along in the last 10 years since Anatoly Kvochur started wowing the crowds. Imagine how impressive the next generation of these will be without the G-constraints of a human body inside....

[NutLoose]

The way I see it is the west seem to go with Fads, trying to build different designs of ever changing complexity.... In effect having to start again from scratch on designs


We had the conventional swept winged like the Lightning and Phantom
Then went over to a swing wing like the Tornado
Then swopped over to a delta design like the Typhoon
Next is back to conventional with the F35


The Russians on the other hand have copied the design layout of the F-15 and then through several generations have improved on that design layout getting better and better thus sticking with a game plan and improving it. Which I bet works out significantly cheaper.

MIG 29
SU 27
SU-35

[Boy_From_Brazil]

How many of these can India afford to buy with UK's £300m overseas aid donation?

[glad rag]

I'm sure the septics will be along shortly to reassure us that our hard spent budget isn't buying anything more than a £120 million target...

[smujsmith]

Astonishingly for the Daily Mail, some very good photographs in the paper:

Incredible pictures from the Paris Air Show of world's most advanced jets | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346355/Incredible-pictures-Paris-Air-Show-worlds-advanced-jets.html)

Particularly like the look of the A400M, maybe a bit biased !!!:ok:

Smudge

[zero1]

I don't think the CCCP copied the F15 as such, what they did was create a new aircraft the MIG 29 and then developed other new aircraft from that such as the SU range of aircraft. The Russians are very good at building aerodynamic platforms but they are still some way behind the integrated systems the West enjoy (for the time being anyway...).

Now the next generation aircraft are nearing the completion of the test flying, that's when things will get interesting when the new stealth aircraft goes into production in large numbers to many customers we (the West) cannot sell our aircraft to for one reason or another. :ugh:

Happy landing...

[gr4techie]

what they did was create a new aircraft the MIG 29 and then developed other new aircraft from that such as the SU range of aircraft.

I thought the MiG29 and SU27 were two completely different concepts.

The MiG being designed as a cheap mass produced aircraft and the SU27 being much much bigger, powerful, cost-not-as-much-an-issue air superiority fighter. Like comparing F-16 to F-15.

[passpartout]

Wow indeed.

But you can't do that when you've been smacked in the face by an AMRAAM at 40 miles.:ok:

[orca]

And if you can't keep the pipper on him, well there's no point having a gun is there?:ok:

Excellent we'll do without! (What do you mean we didn't have one in the first place?;))

[barnstormer1968]

AMRAAM at 40 miles............surely you can see the flaw in that (even from a stealth aircraft) given the detecting output of this aircraft.
You would not be a surprise at 50 miles, so why would you at 40?

[orca]

Sorry mate, what is a detecting output?

[LowObservable]

40 miles? GLWT, Passpartout.

[NutLoose]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero1
what they did was create a new aircraft the MIG 29 and then developed other new aircraft from that such as the SU range of aircraft.
I thought the MiG29 and SU27 were two completely different concepts.

The MiG being designed as a cheap mass produced aircraft and the SU27 being much much bigger, powerful, cost-not-as-much-an-issue air superiority fighter. Like comparing F-16 to F-15.


What I was trying to get across was as the design layout remains roughly the same, two engines, two vertical tail planes, conventional wing layout , same aircraft layout, that way each model no matter the differences learns from the predecessor as to how to improve the design, it evolves.
Chopping back and forth, conventional, swing wing, delta, conventional, that evolution doesn't tend to happen as they in effect start from scratch each time, and is a more expensive option because of that fact.

I'm probably totally wrong, but hey ho it won't be the first or the last time

[Heathrow Harry]

bet they can buy a dozen of these for a single F-35 tho.............

[Capetonian]

Watching that Sukhoi perform made me feel quite queasy! Imagine the G forces and the sense of disorientation for the pilot in those loops, spins, and rolls. Amazing.

[Eclectic]

Maybe this will focus attention on Typhoon TVN.

[barnstormer1968]

Orca
I have injured my arm, and so was trying to post with as few words as possible, and then fighting the constant correction of predicting text on my ipad caused by pain induced typing errors, but you have forced me to type more :}

The 35 has a very powerful radar, as do many Russian/soviet types, and it can see all kinds of aircraft at long range. It's all well and good being in JSF, but if the 35 can see you clearly at longer range than the missiles the JSF carries then the stealth is a bit pointless IMHO.

The Americans have already realised they need a new generation of missile in the short range class to counter the latest Chinese/Russian offerings, so it could be said that the 35 comes out on top or equal at BVR, top of the class at short range, and looks to be a good dog fighter too, if the comments of ppruners who have done these things are anything to go by.

I wish the RAF could have some 35's

[JG54]

As has been noted, I wouldn't fancy my chances in one of these in a typical BVR scenario. And, no matter how spiffy it might look to the airshow crowd, would these maneuvers really have any currency in a guns only scenario?? Seems to me that being in a persistent low energy state is probably not such a good thing in that environment...

Regards,

Frank

[BOAC]

Seems to me that being in a persistent low energy state is probably not such a good thing in that environment... - indeed - as with Viffing in the bona-jet, whilst having it uses, the loss of energy could lead to being a 'stationary' target for the No2 Redski.

[keesje]

What I was trying to get across was as the design layout remains roughly the same, two engines, two vertical tail planes, conventional wing layout , same aircraft layout, that way each model no matter the differences learns from the predecessor as to how to improve the design, it evolves.
Chopping back and forth, conventional, swing wing, delta, conventional, that evolution doesn't tend to happen as they in effect start from scratch each time, and is a more expensive option because of that fact.

Nutloose I think general configurations are copied, the trick is in the detail. I think the Mig25 was from the sixties (without implying the F15 was a copy). The russian R&D (Tsagi) did dozens of models and configurations together with a string of design bureaus to come up with the most suitable designs to meet requirements.

What amaes me on the russian fighters is the way they put full thrust on the engines without stalling them at all speeds and angles. The Mig29 could even shut off its intakes for bad /soft runways..
MiG-29 FULCRUM Wallpaper free wallpaper download no19232 (http://imgs.mi9.com/uploads/military/1321/mig-29-fulcrum-wallpaper_1024x768_19232.jpg)

The big sukhoi fighters like the Su-35 have enormous radars, range and weapon load too. And are successfully exported everywhere. Scaring e.g. the Japanese and Koreans..

The Chinese are testing their copies on aircraft carriers, earlier then anyone had hoped. The USN is looking brave with their Super Hornets and JSF but doesn't like it either. Let alone the big Chinese stealth fighters.

[LowObservable]

True, but "persistently low" is less persistent when you have 64,000 lbst motivating 52,000 pounds, which is a pretty conservative estimate with half internal fuel and four AAMs.

[JG54]

I must admit that, as with viffing, I'm struggling to think of much real world utility for thrust vectoring outside of losing control surfaces (either as a design feature - which no-one seems to have done or by damage). Better roll rates maybe?? High alpha landings??

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable than I will be along soon to point out glaring omissions but that's all I've got!

LO, yes, thrust / weight ratio is good but is it really good enough to regain the required energy with sufficient speed in a classical "Knife fight" scenario? I have my doubts.

Regards,

Frank

[keesje]

JG54, I think TV helps the controls at low speed. It also makes it possible to put the aircraft in the optimal angle / reducing drag at high speeds/ moving lift vectors. E.g. on the F22.

[China Flyer]

I'd still prefer 10 of these to one F35...

Numbers count, whichever way one looks at it.

Of a carrier, though, might be different (or not).

[NutLoose]

I always thought this showed off their thrust to weight ratio well

Su-27 Carrier Landing Abort - YouTube

[NITRO104]

I must admit that, as with viffing, I'm struggling to think of much real world utility for thrust vectoring outside of losing control surfaces
Well, in canard configuration you get better direct force control (DFC) and lower approach speeds.
Also, TVNs appear to offer some improvements in speed and reduction in consumption, both of which can come handy.
And of course, you get to do PS flip-flops which always look great on airshow.

[tartare]

Thrust vectoring?
Just an excuse to slow right down and present a lovely big fat target.
Maintain energy...!

[Flap62]

Tartare,

If thrust vectoring is such a waste of time why are both sides running with it (and spending vast amounts developing it) in their top of the range fighters?

[keesje]

Thrust vectoring should have been on the Eurofighter Typhoon all along.

Eurofighter Typhoon thrust vectoring nozzle - YouTube

It was available in the nineties but the top heavy politcal project isn't exactly agile.

Similar to AESA radar. http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/13/9697acfb-e45e-492f-bdeb-35b073e485c9.Large.jpg

The long development cycle (because of post cold war cuts) made the Eurofighter yesterdays technology tomorrow in some critical areas.

Add stealth.

[Eclectic]

TVN increases stealth because control surfaces are needed less. Especially when ordnance is used asymmetrically.
Also it increases top speed, reduces landing distance, increases engine life and increases supercruise speed.
Increased agility is just one benefit.

[Big Bear]

But you can't do that when you've been smacked in the face by an AMRAAM at 40 miles.


Really? Have you seen their EW kit these days? Much better than those who hide their head in the sand would have you believe. :eek:

Bear

[JG54]

Flap62: Possibly for the same reasons (or lack of!) that everyone went crazy for VG a couple of generations ago? Conceptually valid but with not much payback in the real world? Indeed, wasn't the initial thrust (pun fully intended!) behind TVC (at least in the west) aimed at giving the pointy stuff better STOL characteristics?

Eclectic: Rather less stealthy when applied to a big, honking legacy design like Su - 27/30/35 series, surely? And with IRST as it is today, spreading the thermal footprint everywhich way can't be a good thing, can it? As for increasing speed and engine life - how?? I'm just seeing extra weight and complexity.

I do see less reliance on control surfaces and better low speed authority as others have stated but at a cost (the aforementioned weight and complexity) but I'm still not seeing how, in an operational sense, that might lead to fewer Su - 35 shaped smoking holes in the ground.

Regards,

Frank

[Eclectic]

Thrust-Vectoring Upgrade for Typhoon Eurojet EJ200? - Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News (http://defense-update.com/20110209_typhoon_tvn.html)

According to Eurojet, a Typhoon equipped with thrust vectoring nozzles (TVN) could reduce fuel burn on a typical mission by up to 5%, while increasing available thrust in supersonic cruise by up to 7%. Typhoon is already capable of performing ‘super-cruise’ (flying supersonically without afterburner) and the proposed modification will further increase this capability. Other cost saving aspects of thrust vectoring include the potential to extend engine life by reducing operating temperatures at a given power setting. It could also be used to reduce take-off and landing distances and approach speed. Beside the operational cost savings, TVN enhances the aircraft maneuvering as it becomes a ‘virtual control surface’ when coupled with the aircraft flight-control system. Another aspect is improving the aircraft ability to carry an asymmetric weapons load.



TVN for the Eurofighter? - Armada International (http://www.readperiodicals.com/201002/2004745631.html)
According to Eurojet officials, the adoption of the TVN should decrease fuel consumption on a standard mission by about three per cent, while in the afterburner mode the hot section temperature could be lowered. 10° K less during take-off and 10 to 20° K less at high altitude, with beneficial effects on the engine life. As for performances, a seven per cent increase in supercruise mode has been realised during simulations. The TVN would also become a third attitude control system besides the forward canard surfaces and the wing mobile surfaces, thus increasing redundancy and survivability in combat. The TVN also allows better aircraft behaviour when asymmetric payloads are carried, avoiding the need to use mobile surfaces to trim the aircraft, something that considerably increases drag and therefore fuel consumption.

[JG54]

Who'da thunk that? Claimed benefits from the vendor! Okay, if that's so - and I'm not doubting it is, the benefits still don't look like game changers to these jaded eyes.

What about capital costs? What about the complexity and associated maintenance issues (of which surely there will be many). What happens when a nozzle fails in flight?

Regards,

Frank

[Flap62]

JG54

Part of the reason designs such as F15, SU27 etc have honking big engines is to enable them to minimise energy bleed in manoeuvres. If the aircraft is more agile due to TV then there may (note may) be less need for huge power outputs so the engines can be smaller (reducing weight, fuel burn and thermal signature) offsetting the weight penalty of TV gubbins.

[JG54]

Flap62: Understood - there is no such thing as too big a donk! :ok:

The "Big, honking" was primarily used to describe the airframe (and likely radar return from same!) of a jet not optimised for stealth when TVC is touted as being more, um, stealthy.

Regards,

Frank

[AR1]

I started reading this thread wondering how long it would be until the Raptor Brigade reared their heads (From BVR - Obviously..)

Serious question... How are external stores rated when it comes to throwing stuff around the sky. Is it the airframe that gets down-rated due to load, the plyons/stores tanks etc, or the increase in mass that does it?

Clearly this wouldn't be half as exciting with fuel tanks on.

[LowObservable]

A couple more comments about TV:

Sukhoi has said that increased control authority has safety benefits in terms of better departure resistance, particularly in cases such as asymmetric loadings or damage/failure modes.

TV has also been advertised, on occasion, as achieving superior maneuver at less weight/drag penalty than doing the same with bigger aero surfaces, actuators &c.

TV on a round variable-area nozzle does not add a vast amount of complexity. The system that SENER (I think) demoed on the EJ200 involved adding a few double-jointed linkages and three actuators.

[henra]

The 35 has a very powerful radar, as do many Russian/soviet types, and it can see all kinds of aircraft at long range.

And you know this how, exactly?
Any figures with reference RCS of the target?


It's all well and good being in JSF, but if the 35 can see you clearly at longer range than the missiles the JSF carries then the stealth is a bit pointless IMHO.


I'm definitely not a huge JSF fan, but this I heavily doubt


so it could be said that the 35 comes out on top or equal at BVR,

This seems to be far fetched. I wouldn't expect wonders regarding RCS.
The somewhat bigger dish won't compensate for the expected difference in RCS compared to a VLO platform as F-35.


top of the class at short range,

probaly sharing this trait more or less with Typhoon.


I wish the RAF could have some 35's

Although it is a lovely bird I wouldn't expect it to be significantly more capable than Typhoon. Should be rather closely matched.
From what can be read between the lines the current Generation of the SU27/30 is slightly inferior to Typhoon in most (Air Combat relevant) aspects.
This one should correct that, but I don't see a siginificant superiority especially once the €F gets the CAPTOR-E.

T-50 though might be a bit more worrying although maybe not as impressive in Air Show mode.

[henra]

TV has also been advertised, on occasion, as achieving superior maneuver at less weight/drag penalty than doing the same with bigger aero surfaces, actuators &c.


Although this is frequently stated anectdotal evidence for this is scarce - to be polite.
Neither of the current TVC deigns use the Nozzles for sustained turns.

It should be noted that in an longitudinally unstable design (which are practically all actual FBW designs) the aero surfaces only create downforce during the initiation of the maneuver. After that they start creating lift, especially since most unstable designs have an increasing Pitch Moment with increasing AoA.
The instability margin of the EF was limited by the capability of the Canard to get the nose back down from high AoAs.

So in brief, I don't see how TVC will improve Sustained Turn Rate one bit.
It might help g onset rate and thereby ITR from stationary flight.

[Greg Horton]

The near-future version of this Le Bourget flight demo will proceed as usual, moving along through the normal 15 minute long slow-motion thrust vector ballet (just as this 2013 version does), except that along about 13:45 minutes into the show an unmanned drone shows up and starts throwing 15 to 20g turns and 720 degree-per-second roll rates, just toying with the human pilot for about a minute, then at exactly 15:00 the drone blows the fighter out of the sky (after which it wanders off, sniffing around for more targets or a refueling tanker while a long line forms at the vendor's kiosk).

[JG54]

And is that UCAV autonomous or controlled by a Mark One Meat Computer (TM) from a ground station?

If the former, I rather suspect the future mightn't be quite so near...

Regards,

Frank

[barnstormer1968]

Hi Henra

I'm not going to bother to go into a point by point reply, but see you noted I said that many Russian/Soviet aircraft have powerful radars. As to how the flanker E sees (easily) types including VLO's at long range, how to western types see out to long range? The Flanker E is not the only aircraft in the sky, and for a couple of decades data sharing and AWACS have been pretty good at finding baddies.
You know the larger dish of the flanker will be useful, so should note the local AWACS dish will also be pretty good at pointing out VLO's to the flanker, hence it can see them. Coming from a green background, I'm also very aware that NO western aircraft will leave its airfield un reported in time of conflict. The exact route or target may not be obvious, but this technique has been more widely used and refined since the nineties.

Thirty years ago stealth gave a massive advantage, but modern defences react MUCH more speedily, and I'm sure you know that stealth only offers protection at long range these days. I remember how crest fallen some special forces soldiers were when they were told their top secret HAHO drop was all seen on radar from some distance.........and that was twenty years ago. They were convinced they were invisible, as did the USAF over Serbia in F117's.

Stealth may well be the future, but stealth missiles will need to be a major part of that IMHO.

[t43562]

From the article:
"The balance beam also improves safety as it allows the nozzle to close and set itself at 0° deflection in the maximum dry thrust position should the hydraulic system fail."

[henra]

As to how the flanker E sees (easily) types including VLO's at long range, how to western types see out to long range? The Flanker E is not the only aircraft in the sky, and for a couple of decades data sharing and AWACS have been pretty good at finding baddies.

Hmm, that's a bit generic to me. Yes maybe an AWACS might see it. IIf it gets close enough to a USAF Strike package and survives - which in itself is highly optimistic.
Next issue: Do we really know SU-35's DataLink capabilities? Do we assume that the Support aircraft of the Strike package leave the Data Link from the AWACS to the SU and to the Missile totally un-jammed?
Or are we going RAND and assume maximum optimistic values for everything Russian / Chinese and Maximum pessimistic for the western stuff?


You know the larger dish of the flanker will be useful, so should note the local AWACS dish will also be pretty good at pointing out VLO's to the flanker, hence it can see them.


The Problem with that is that the Diameter of SU-35 Irbis-E (0,9m, same Diameter as F15's APG63V3, whereas F22's APG77 has 1,0m) isn't really that much bigger than that of the APG81. The APG63 has 1500 T/R modules, APG77 2000 and APG 81 has ~1200. That would roughly correspond to a 0,8m dish.
edit: To give a perspective that is a factor of aperture size of1,25. For doubling the range you would need a factor of ~10!
/edit.
At the same time the RCS of F-35 is said to be somewhere below 0,01m^2. Su35 will have a really hard time to get below 2 - 3m^2. It is a huge Jet and the Basic structure wasn't designed with RCS anywhere in the mind. And you can't fix that fact with just some RAM coating.



I'm really far from being a F-35 believer. Really.
But concluding from a few admittedly cool Air Show Stunts and some fancy Marketing Claims that an aircraft is far superior to anything out there is highly -how should I call it?- un-scientific. Leave that to the Fanboys on youtube, please.

[SpazSinbad]

Link to a PDF and video here:

Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker-E in Paris - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/sukhoi-su-35s-flanker-e-in-par.html)

[cargosales]

I thought the MiG29 and SU27 were two completely different concepts.

The MiG being designed as a cheap mass produced aircraft and the SU27 being much much bigger, powerful, cost-not-as-much-an-issue air superiority fighter. Like comparing F-16 to F-15.

Completely incorrect I'm afraid.

The guys who designed the MiG-29, basically designed a fantastic wing and then worked out how to add on extras like engines, fuselage etc which disturbed the airflow over that wing as little as possible. Mikoyan didn't think much of the idea so those designers felt unloved and went to work for Sukhoi. Who did go for the idea.

Models of their design duly popped up in the centralised Soviet testing facilities, whereupon Mikoyan said "hang on a mo, we recognise that!"

The decision was taken that Sukhoi would proceed with a larger, longer range version of the design, which would become the Su-27 while Mikoyan would concentrate on a smaller shorter range version of the aircraft, the MiG-29.

I'm sure John Farley will happily confirm all of that (as well as mentioning that he was the first westerner to fly a Mig-29. Lucky bu:*:*er!)

As an aside, the reaction to the capabilities of the Su-35S now is not very dissimilar to that of the West when the peskie Ruskies displayed their wares / gave NATO a horrible wake-up call at Le Bourget 20 years ago with their ability to turn tightly and do what were dismissed then by some as 'party tricks'. Tricks like Pugachev's Cobra which the Sovs have clearly now evolved into something rather special and is a very clever trick indeed.

As someone mentioned in this thread, getting the pipper on the Su-35S might be a tad difficult. I would say that the writing was on the wall, plain and clear for all to see, back in 1993.

A rather nice quote from John Farley is that when, in 1993 at Le Bourget, an F-16 pilot who had just witnessed the display by the Su-27, including a 10 second 360 degree turn and a cobra, was asked by a reporter what he would do if he found himself in close combat with the Su-27?

The F-16 pilot's reply?

"I'd eject!"


CS

[500N]

Cargo

Just read the article on John Farley flying the Mig.
Very interesting.

[Big Bear]

Next issue: Do we really know SU-35's DataLink capabilities? Do we assume that the Support aircraft of the Strike package leave the Data Link from the AWACS to the SU and to the Missile totally un-jammed?



If we don't know about the datalink capabilitiies how do we jam them?

BTW, How good do you think the SU35's support package's EW capability would be - a bit of research might surprise some people

Bear

[John Farley]

In 1970 Hugh Merewether said the Harrier was an example of how an inherently good idea was capable of development (P1127 – Kestrel – Harrier) and for me the Su27’s journey to Su35 is another such example.

I never did see what went on at airshows with the 29 and 27 as other than a demonstration of reliable aerodynamics that could handle enormous angle of attack, later sideslip and even later the rolling moment due to sideslip that comes with a combination of the two. Plus of course an engine intake combination that provided astonishing surge margins under the circumstances. The TVC discussed in this thread is just another step on this journey.

BTW I loved the manoeuvres at idle RPM. Every sound tells a story.

I wonder if those who write off the whole significance of this manoeuvring so far as combat is concerned (thanks to radar/stealth/BVR issues etc) ever stop to think that perhaps an organisation that can engineer what went on at Paris actually understands these other issues as well. In which case stand by for puzzlement when your target at the last moment unbelievably nips out of the lethal range of the missile you just used.

There is no doubt that providing stealth is expensive in design compromises, maintenance and money. Some people might think it better to avoid such issues and look at alternative strategies to cope with an enemy that chooses that route. Think reduced cost, more availability and the simple numbers game.

[LowObservable]

JF - :ok: as always.

Meanwhile, declassified, the official JSF counter-Su-35 tactics manual:

History Curriculum Homeschool | Heritage History presents A Moral Alphabet by Hilaire Belloc (http://tinyurl.com/su35tacman)

[chopper2004]

As I was on business on the Tues at the show, I managed to take quite a number of shots of the SU35S so enjoy please

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/SU35S_Paris_zps765c0ff6.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/SU35S_Paris1_zps99b19f0f.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/SU35S_Paris3_zpsb038dc3d.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/SU35S_Paris2_zpsdd1228c9.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/SU35S_Paris4_zpsba0e3dc8.jpg

Cheers

[henra]

I wonder if those who write off the whole significance of this manoeuvring so far as combat is concerned (thanks to radar/stealth/BVR issues etc) ever stop to think that perhaps an organisation that can engineer what went on at Paris actually understands these other issues as well.


Oh, I wouldn't doubt that. I found the sustained climbing Turn Performance at that speed and AoA truly impressive.
More so that some of this falling Leaf stuff.
Also acceleration was really excellent. A huge plus,
If I were a Pilot facing one of these I would be much much more concerned about the amazing energy conservation capability and SEP also at low Speeds than most of the Display 'donut's' to be frank.


In which case stand by for puzzlement when your target at the last moment unbelievably nips out of the lethal range of the missile you just used.

Of which it will not so much be capable beacuse of the TVC induced nose pointing than energy conservation capability in hard maneuvers.
That post stall nose pointing doesn't really help much to change position in space. In These admittedly spectacular maneuvers the trajectory of the Jet hardly changes. Therefore that doesn't really help shrinking the opponents missile's NEZ.

Again much more worrying also with regard to NEZ is the obviously excellent EM capability of this Jet.

In my pov that thing would be 99% equally lethal w/o tvc.

From a design perspective I absolutely love this thing. But for somewhat other reasons than probably most of the spectators.

I would love to know the STR at 15kft with 45 minutes fuel. Should be super impressive.