This high speed stuff is all well and good…

However for a naval aircraft it has to be reconciled with good performance at 0 m/s forward speed and 0 ft altitude.

Not easy in the slightest.

I would expect the main focus of the solution will (as linked with ADVENT) take the form of variable camber (and twist) which will allow a turbofan engine to operate as:

– low BPR in high speeds
– high BPR in low speeds

So that propulsive efficiency can be maximized and the core potential more fully utilised.

At this point I’m not sure whether the variable shape blades would be limited to the upfront fan stages, or whether the compressor/turbine blades could take advantage of it too. If I had to go with one right now, I’d say fan stages only.

But will it ever pass mach 2 with a nominal load-up.. NEVAH!! Not even close.

How sure are you of that?

With 3-5 AAMs, I’d have no trouble believing Mach 2 is possible.

You don’t need to go over Mach 2 to be an interceptor by definition.

True, but it damn sure helps!

Yeah, i don’t doubt that PAK FA will be able to supercruise just fine, but i just don’t understand the need of having such a huge afterburner. Its max speed is limited to Mach 2,

Where did you hear/read this? It is the first I have heard of it (not saying its not true, just I’ve never heard it mentioned till now).

Furthermore, is such a limitation only applicable to the prototypes in test, or will it extend to service variants?

Regarding afterburner – it would fit well with Russian maneuverability doctrine to be able to quickly add to (or prevent bleed of) the aircraft’s energy state. There is more to combat flying than straight lines and top speeds. 🙂

On the MiG-31’s range:

I was reading a book that had pilot interviews from the KAL 007 incident. Those who remember it may recall that in the days following the US sent a squadron of F-15s from Alaska along with an E-3 to either Japan or SK don’t recall which, and were told in not so many words to be aggressive and if the opportunity presented itself, to make an example. Fortunately cooler heads higher up found out and immediately put the brakes on THAT attitude but in the meantime the USSR sent some Mig-31s into the area as a counter. In the words of one of those Eagle pilots “the Mig-31s made the run down (about 600 miles IIRC) at Mach 2.6”. Mach 2.6 for 600 miles is nothing to dismiss whether they used afterburners or not. This isn’t meant to start a pissing contest of “who would have won the Migs or the Eagles” but just to point out that if you’ve got the gas and you don’t need to manuever then what does it matter?

You forgot the sarcasm emoticon Amiga500 😉

Having worked with both I am not in any way being sarcastic.

Airbus is no longer an engineering company run by engineers.

It is some kind of bstartised “services” company run by bean-counters (procurement) and project managers – and unsurprisingly neither group has a scooby about how to efficiently design and build a plane.

BAe (at least as far as any I’ve worked with) haven’t forgot the basics – to manage an engineering project you must first understand the engineering of the project.

But consider the fact that Gripen NG has exactly half the thrust than F-18E, same engine but 1 vs 2,
Yet it is ~1/3 faster, and it is clear that aerodynamics
can more than compensate for lack of thrust in sustained speed,
and even more so after M0.8

Now now…

Just because the Hornet (all variants) are a piece of crap aerodynamically, doesn’t mean a comparison of it to the gripen can be applied on a more general basis.

For instance, how does an F-15 compare to an F-16?

Also, as you probably know drag squares with speed subsonically, and as an even higher function of speed when supersonic. Inlet design is particularly important at high speeds, but grunt is still critical.

Amiga,

Understand that the reason the Navy exists is not solely to operate aircraft.

The Navy exists to effectively safeguard the country’s interests.

A CATOBAR carrier will do that much more effectively (and I guarantee, cheaper over full life than the STOVL crap).

The simple fact is that I can show you images of an F-35B operating off a through deck. I cant show you images, yet, of an F-35C catching a wire.

And?

So?

I can show you videos of a Rafale in service performing useful jobs right now.

I can show you videos of a Hornet in service performing useful jobs right now.

Both are possible options on a CATOBAR carrier.

Worldly and knowledgeable proclamations about the state of F-35B are precisely worthless then.

They are worth a helluva lot more than people sticking their heads in the ground and ignoring reality.

The very simple fact is that if the 35B variant gives the 450nm strike radius advertised even without 2000lb internal carry it gives the capability required.

450 nm?

ha ha ha ha.

The F-35B is slated to have around 2/3rds the combat radius of the F-35C… which is currently 690nm compare the fuel fractions at OEW and MTOW and yes, it is around a 2/3rd ratio…

But, a STO F-35B will never be able to hoist anything like the payload an F-35C will for the same fuel load… which means compromised payload range.

Of course… I’ll not mention the Rafale’s combat range, otherwise it gets a little embarrassing.

and 2 billion quids worth of catapults and arrestor gear.

So the price is now 2 billion is it?

It seems to have an inflation rate of 10-15% on every post you make…

To try and make the claim that F-35B also has training requirements is an absurd statement.

Yep… ‘cos all fast jet pilots train in vertical landings on moving targets that have extremely turbulent air flow.

F-35B’s operational flexibility would be a key enabler to UK deployed airpower. Understand that we NEED F-35B to work for Carrier Strike to work.

Buzzword buzzword buzzword from what appears to be little more than a powerpoint expert.

As, the way it stands, no-one has answered the simple question of how we put extra (RAF) squadrons, quickly, on a CATOBAR deck when we need to augment the NSW component.

Pretty simple really.

There is always more than 1 pilot per plane.

If the RAF gets F-35C… then I’m sure you can connect the dots.

Suitable aircraft, with trained pilots…

Small, operational, details like that not being something you would consider though eh Amiga?.

Such an obvious solution never occurred to you no?

Probably because you didn’t want to see it.

I could go on but I wont bother.

Don’t – your already embarrassing yourself enough as it is.

On the proviso that F-35B meets its projected performance figures there is nothing unachieveable with the STOVL hull that is defined in Carrier Strike.

That sentence in itself almost displays embarrassing levels of ignorance of the realities of the situation.