I would not be an expert in this field, so correct me if im wrong.

Let me get the simplest of calculations with the same A/C:

1. 250nm on max military thust, let say mach 0,9
2. 250mn on max military thust, let say mach >1,2 (with a short afterburn)

If the dragkoefficient is about the same, i guess no 2 will burn 0-20% more fuel on the same stretch, depending on special effects (engine, intakes, afterburn time), velocity^2 – >33% shorter burntime etc. BUT will be there >33% FASTER!

Well… at a constant altitude (say 15,000 ft) the actual drag (for a constant drag coefficient) of aircraft (2) will be ~177% that of aircraft (1).

Obviously, I cannot take special effects into account as the variables are unknown, but I’m dubious that the thrust specific fuel consumption of aircraft (2) is going to drop significantly relative to aircraft (1).

Also, isnt that efficient to widen the flight envelope, so that the pilot can use the supersonic speed with much much less penalty as it used to be?

Yeah, but whats the significant difference in supercruise at Mach 1.2 and supercruise at Mach 1.5? (which is really what is being argued, can the Gripen “supercruise”?)

Explain which Flankers have had multiple radars fitted, please.

Is there not an N012 radar for the tailcones of the flankers?

Speculation that they are available for -30 MKI, -34, -35 and “-37”.

L band arrays are for IFF.

I think I posted on another thread about the potential scope of the two L-band arrays, despite the power limitations, for detecting LO adversaries.

Apparently (I’m not a radar specialist) the RCS of a target will increase roughly as a square of the wavelength of the radar targetting it. That will be particularly true for smaller aircraft like the F-22, F-35 or J-20… maybe not so much for the B-2.

The airframe is of course, but the airflow isn’t necessarily, generally even at M1.2 you’re still in turbulent airflows and therefore unlikely to be receiving the fuel efficiency benefits that supersonic cruise (as opposed to augmentor achieved supersonic speed) is supposed to achieve.

Fuel efficiency?

Where’d you get that idea from?

People have a misconception about the transonic drag rise – you’d nearly think they think that drag lowers as you get out of the transonic regime… of course, if that were the case then no fighter would ever have had a top speed of around Mach 1.3… no aircraft, like say, the B-1b or F-100…

While the drag coefficient may reduce somewhat, i.e.

The actual drag force is rising as a square function of velocity… so in reality, there is no magical land above Mach 1.2 where fuel efficiency increases.

They can fly other aircraft/simulators all they want, but 10 aircraft won’t be sufficient to declare IOC. That’s not even half of a combat coded squadron, much less including training birds(and yes they’ll need to fly the actual aircraft).

Yes it would.

Technically 1 aircraft would be enough to declare initial operational capability. Not much of a capability, but if it is able to fire missiles/drop bombs at the other guys in a live war, then it is providing the military with some capability.

Since when is M1.2 supersonic flight? I am aware that SAAB claim that the Gripen NG can ‘supercruise’ at M1.2 however it is widely accepted that the transonic regime for most aircraft is between M0.8 and M1.3.

Mach 1.2 is supersonic because the aircraft is travelling faster than the speed of sound. Always has been, always will be.

Transonic is a term used by us engineers to further detail the local flowfield; as there may be subsonic “pockets” around the aircraft.

The aircraft is still supersonic though – I don’t know where you get the idea that anything above Mach 1.0 would not be treated as supersonic.

what if Canadian foreign interests are threatened and they need to send fighters abroad for operations

Of all “democratic” countries in the world, only the US considers invading another country to be in their “foreign interests”.

then think that what if America doesn’t support that said operation.

Very, very unlikely. Perhaps you could suggest a scenario?

Your simplistic and niave conlcusion that Canada only needs thier CF-18’s is not a realistic one, as realised by the Canadians and thier armed forces.

Yep. Their armed forces will vote to keep an old fighter like turkeys will vote for Christmas.

And jeez, they’d bug the software would they? Have you any idea how these things work, do you think an update can simply be beamed to the relevent aircraft? I have to assume based on what you’ve said that you have no clue whatsoever.

Do you think they’d make a snap judgement and invade in a second?

Wouldn’t be hard for Lockheed to perform some “routine” software updating prior to the rise of tensions.

It also wouldn’t be hard for Lockheed to hack into their own software via the datalinks, they’ll know the weaknesses to exploit. Who knows, they may even have built a back door in it already, and that is why they are so reluctant to hand out the source code.

Do you have any idea how these things work?

Do you have much knowledge of the defence industry? Rumours have existed for years of kill switches in various pieces of French and Israeli military that have been exported.

Yeah, CF-18’s would be good for the next 30 years… :rolleyes:

Yeah… ‘cos someone is gonna attack Canada without the US stepping in.

(Unless it is the US attacking Canada, in which case they’d probably bug the electronics in the F-35s with an “update”)

habs is 100% correct. The CF-18 is good enough.