kilcoo316Absolutely. What a totally futile discussion – as if any future wars would involve ‘strategic bombing’. Excuse me while I, together with all the ICBM manufacturers, share a giggle…
Erm….
Well, lets see.
Did Iraq require strategic bombers? Yeap.
Did Afghanistan? Yeap
Did Kosovo? Yeap
Did Iraq 1? Yeap
Uhm… 🙂
EDIT: OK, maybe the word REQUIRE is misplaced, but they were used.
kilcoo316Scorpion, it is not the amount of internal fuel but the ratio. I thought F-16 can carry 3 external tanks, that’s what I see in pictures quite often. If you take external fuel of F-15C, then please use the figures for F-16C, too. Stay consistent!
Carrying fuel externally is only around half as efficient (in terms of fuel “wasted” due to the extra drag).
Thus, you’d expect the F-16 to go a little further than a F-15A due to its internal/external ratio.
kilcoo316Small mass flow jets (as typical in military fighter engines) are not great at low speeds.
In order to do the vertical bit effectively, you’d need high BPR turbofans.
Making those stealthy is extremely hard.
There is also the issue of gyroscopics with a ducted fan spinning faster than a propellor.
kilcoo316funny that title of this thread is f15, f/a18
There is no real comparison.
As an airframe, the -15 pisses all over the -18.
It can carry more, for longer, quicker.
Sure, various systems inside the -18 can help it, but there is no reason they cannot go into the -15 airframe.
kilcoo316Partially true, because it also shows how good is dogfighting the F-16, yeah it might not have VG inlets but it has very well designed aerodynamics .
It leaves the F-14 as a lumbering heavy weight fighter in terms of dogfighting combat
Prior to the F-22, the F-16 was the best thing the USAF had for dogfighting.
It is to be expected that in a knife fight the F-16 will beat the F-14/15.
In reality, the trick would be getting the F-16 to within knife range.
kilcoo316what is the meaning of FIAT?
Ferrari International Assistance….
oh, no sorry, thats the FIA :diablo: 😀
FIAT means Fix It Again Tomorrow 😉
kilcoo316Then all the pilots would go and fly airliners.;)
You actually think people want to fly in the RAF for the money? :confused: 🙂
kilcoo316Kilcoo – don’t forget that one of the reasons for the high number of officers in the RAF is because the pilots and all FJ navigators/WSOs are commissioned. Although the reason for that decision is much-debated (see, for instance, CG Jefford’s book on RAF Observers and Navigators), this has a lot to do with the proportions being so out of kilter with the other services. It’s not so much a case of ‘too many chiefs and not enough Indians’ but ‘Lots of Indians who wear chiefs’ clothing’.
Civilianisation has, as noted, cut back the number of jobs for which NCOs/Airmen are required and has thrown the figure out even more.
The main issue is probably rank inflation, with a vastly increased number of officers of Air rank, but this is a feature shared across the services, even if it is more noticeable in the air force.
You’d be right with pretty much all that… but the pay grades for full-grade officers will be more than NCOs… (haven’t checked, but I’d be shocked to learn otherwise).
If they went with NCOs in the cockpits, they would save some money, which could then be funelled back into more aircraft or whatever.
[Basically, I think the personnel structure is top heavy… extremely top heavy].
kilcoo316The F-18E carries 700kg less fuel than the F-14, but is around 5500kg lighter. It has smaller, newer engines. It carries much more external fuel. In my book, that should allow the SH to outrange the Tomcat with ease. But still we are debating about range. Something must be wrong.
Its all to do with with the aerodynamic performance of the wing.
Even looking at wing loading the hornet should be ok.
Unladen, the Hornet has a much better wing loading than the F-14.
Lightly laden, it still has a better wing loading than the F-14.
But, start to kit it out with A2G and the customary tanks and you are approaching (if not above) the fully laden F-14s wing loading.
Note also the F-14 has the advantage of lifting fuselage, whereas the F-18 does not.
The aerodynamic problem is a result of the sharp leading edge the hornet is forced to use in an effort to give it adequate transonic and supersonic performance.
kilcoo316F-18E can load 4 AIM120, 4 AIM9 and 3 drop tanks. I would guess that for a CAP mission (which basically consists of loitering) the F-18E with drop tanks will have better endurance and eventually range.
8 missiles on 4 pylons and 3 drop tanks on top of that (4 dry and 2 wet wing pylons)? :confused:
Thats very draggy compared to what could be 4 AAMs on the outboard pylons, and 4 recessed under the fuselage [with two drop tanks under the nacelles].
Which actually uses
1. fuel fraction,
2. lift over drag and
3. sfc.
I guess #1 and #3 are better for F-18, can #2 be so bad?
1 is better for the F-18, 3, again, I would like to think is better. 2 is not, we know its not – given the known limitations of the F/A-18 over Afghanistan vis a vis the F-14 it would seem that 2 is so bad it more than ‘compensates’ (if thats the right term :D) for 3.
With limitations of the 60ies, sometimes strange specifications (Mach2 and short field performance) and the general positive attitude versus more complexity, the swing wing makes sense. Both fighters (MiG-23, F-14) with swing wings have not outlived their predecessors (Phantom, MiG-21), were phased out earlier and never produced in similar numbers, while their successors (F-18) were produced in larger numbers over longer periods.
Yeap, they are more complex, and difficult to maintain – thats a given. Considering they were essentially the first generation swing wing aircraft, I don’t think they were too bad.
After all – how long were the first swept wing aircraft around?
You’ll find a sweet spot where a MiG-23ML will have better acceleration than an F-16, but overrally the F-16 has much better performance, weights less while carrying similar payloads, has comparable speeds in combat (while losing on the top speed), weights 4 tons less when empty, has better fuel fraction, superior range for most missions. That the Soviets started production of the MiG-23ML while the USA/NATO started production of the F-16A, is always an amazing example of superior technology.
Agree with all of that (except the sweet spot – its more of a very large spot IRCC). But again – IMO a naval A2A machine needs to be long ranged and fast – not necessarily maneuverable. If your dogfighting with the enemy, chances are ASMs are already well on the way to your carrier.
Coupled with the low speeds needed for TO/landing, and swing wing becomes very attractive.
Nearly all swing wing aircraft have been designed with a set maximum speed, normally in excess of Mach 2. Take this requirement away, and you’ll find the swing wing superfluent, even in the 1970s.
I can’t prove it but I would guess that latest F-4 models (namely F-4F) will have generally better performance over F-14A, at least when one looks on the overall mission spectra.
See my opinion on why speed is needed above. The -14A had rubbish engines, and was a danger to its crew as much as then enemy.
IIRC the F-14A had nearly half the turn radius of an F-4 [unknown variant] (equal subsonic speeds – 300 kts or something).
kilcoo316Wrong.
Again, not wrong.
See the Israeli pic about that.
Where?
Desperate? Non fires a Mach 4 AAM behind Mach 1,8. It takes just too much time and energy to do so. The F-14D was limited to Mach 1,88!
Looking into details, which does not support your wishfull thinking are ignored always.
behind = above? or behind = below? :confused:
On a naval CAP, the aim is going to be intercept bombers as far out from the carriers as possible, you know that. An F-14 will get up to a higher speed quicker than any F/A-18 – and hold it. This extends the range of their missiles.
It will take time to get within weapons range anyway (the F-14 will shorten that time as well).
Here we get a clue about the marketing intentions of the F-15K.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/index.html
Has someone data about the proposed F-18E offer to India and Malysia?
The F-15E has a mighty range (bigger than I had ever suspected). The K continues that. 🙂
kilcoo316The mission profile in mind and you will find out.
Yes…
long range, endurance, high dash speeds… what have I missed again?
First of all the demand for landing and take-off speed f.e., despite supersonic dash capability.
Oh yeah, missed take off and landing speeds. 😀
Scratch up another plus point for the swing wing.
The MiG-23 did not have a better acceleration than a F-16.
According to the Israelis it does.
BTW on your earlier point on CAP ranges – An F-14 will have a larger engagement envelope by being able to release its weapons with higher KE.
kilcoo316No I claim that you either lack the skills or the will to give counter arguments.
So are you are or you are not saying the F/A-18 has longer range than the Tomcat?
How can an aircraft have less fuel and still fly further?
For someone who presents himself as knowing alot about aerodynamics, I’m quite surprised you don’t seem to consider the L/D ratio as important. I can throw up the Breguet eqn for range if you want (but I’m quite sure you are already aware of it).
What are your sources for range? If you are so well informed, why don’t post some infos like combat radius in configuration xy?
Unfortunately my sources are not so detailed 🙁
(that is not the same as saying they are inaccurate)
You are mixing “huge” and “range”. The Navy has actually feeded so much misinformation to the public about the F-14 that people have started to believe it, including the absolute best marketing trick ever, let it fly in a movie and people believe it is actually agile (with limit g-load lower than that of the Phantom).
Whatever dude.
If swing wings did nothing for speed, drag and range, then why does the B-1 have them, why does the Tu-22M have them, why does the Tu-160 have them and why does the MiG-23 have better acceleration than an F-16?
kilcoo316When 1600 nm is the data for the F-14 from Janes.
When “more than 1800 nm” is the data for F/A-18C and for the F/A-18E is …
Your sources are?
The ferry range of the F-14 is 1,730 nm.
The ferry range for the -18 E is 1,660.
Need I remind you again that drop tanks do not constitute bombs.
The ratio from dry to MTOW is ~15 tons for the F-14.
The same for the F/A-18C and ~16 tons for the F/A-18E.
Both Hornets do have a better fuel fraction on internal fuel at all.
And neither can go as far even with that (which is the bottom line after all).
The combat endurance, CAP 150 nm from CV is 1 h 45 min for the C and 2 h 15 min for the E.
For the F-14D with two ETs 2 h 5 min.Vastly superior?!
Where did you pull that from?
Anyways, again getting to the bottom line – An F-18 on CAP 150nm from the carrier is still not equal to an F-14, solely to the longer ranged interception capabilities.
kilcoo316Wrong. It is an indicator about max possible range capabilities of every fighter. In a combat mission it is well below that.
Non is surprised to learn, that you do not prefer to answere that open data.
Otherwise you have to proof, that you did claim at lot of nonsense.
Errr – no. Not wrong.
Are you gonna drop a couple of empty fuel tanks on the enemy or some bombs?
Ferry range can be an indicator of range yes, but whenever your wet pylons are taken up with bombs then the real range can change.
BTW the F-14 has a better ferry range then the -18 E (1730nm vs. 1600nm), and has a vastly superior combat range (the F-18 E can carry 40% of a ferry fuel load externally, while the F-14 only carries around 20% – the F-18 will lose fuel tanks to bombs). I know the fuel fraction of the F-14 is inferior, but its superior aerodynamic platform in cruise more than makes up for it.
Sign In
