kilcoo316Considering your earlier comments (different thread) on swing wing aircraft (which were by the way mostly wrong), I see that you stick to your limited knowledge and not really see the real picture. That may be due to limited access to data and unwillingness to really challenge the mostly wrong information flooding through the internet.
What earlier comments?
The one where I posted the mathematical proof about drag increases linearly with Mach number for a swept wing aircraft? [whereas it increases with Mach number squared for fixed wings]
:confused:
If it is that one, the formulae (and proof) did not come from wikipedia. 😉
Sure you can. But neither aircraft in a tactically useful configuration will have sufficient speed to do so. The F-14 may be able to break the sound barrier below 10000ft, but will creep along with M1.2 to M1.4 after lengthy acceleration phase. From 100 scenarios maybe it will outrun a missile which might get an F-18. Most of the time the opponent will launch the missile in a way that no outrunning is possible.
At 10,000ft the F-14 can beat M1.6 (flight journal).
I asked for real life data and you are coming with assumptions.
Like the full operational envelope with attachments is going to be kicking about publicly. 😉
The frontal area is the same. If you refer to the pylons, they don’t really make a difference as long as no MER/TER are carried (which the F-14 cannot do anyways). The speed with a2g payload is limited to subsonic, and no aircraft can afford to get much beyond M0.9 due to excessive fuel flow. You would know if you had some idea on real life flight performance. If the Tomcat goes M0.03 faster in this configuration is – honestly – quite secondary.
The frontal area CANNOT be the same if the F-14 carries 2 weapons in tandem while the F-18 carries them side-by-side.
Your correct in that the speed will probably be payload limited.
Your lifting fuselage is interesting at high AOA, which won’t be flown with a2g loads. The F-18 is better at this regimes anyways and will have lower drag for most lift coefficients.
The F-18 is better at extreme AoA, indeed, its better than anything bar the F-22 (maybe even including it). Going to extreme AoA does make it a bit of a sitting duck though.
Your swing wings garantue some advantage in some regions, so much is granted. The fact that nobody has produced one since the highly specialized Tornado should actually indicate how experts are thinking about swing-wings nowadays.
Yeap – for ground based aircraft, the onus can be on high-lift devices for take-off and then design the wing for transonic maneuvering.
For carried based aircraft, the slow landing & take-off speeds raise different questions. Hence why the F-18 uses a relatively unswept wing.
Although the F-14 versus F-18 discussion seems to be the burner of the next decade in the internet, most arguments are flawed. The F-14 looks cooler, that is granted. 😉
😀
kilcoo316It makes a difference in regard to jamming. Think signal-to-noise ratio.
And if the defending force has a home-on-jam missile (which of course any self-respecting decent military would have)?
kilcoo316Are you able to give a practical example? “Strong” guessing is no substitute.
What of?
Speed helping in outrunning/outlasting an AAM or a super hornet being subsonic below 10,000ft?
kilcoo316Its not Star Trek yet.
Directed energy only works if you can locate the target in time to interdict it. Directed energy also requires a huge power source (relatively immobile) and only works against flimsy structures that have low thermal inertia such as pressure vessels (e.g. ballistic missile fuel tanks).
A hypersonic vehicle will be relatively easy to find due to the thermal signature it will have.
Any nation that would have weapons capable of intercepting it would have infra-red satellites capable of detecting it. [The same network as used for launch warnings would suffice].
Current AESA radar sets are capable of limited directed energy capabilities in frying circuits. Any vehicle will be vulnerable to such attacks without shielding of some sort (adding further weight… if its feasible).
You are correct in saying that the laser station itself would be massive and immobile, however current thinking is a network of extremely high altitude airships/balloons for reflecting a series of lasers onto one target. These balloons can also serve as airborne warning platforms. The US are currently researching into this very concept.
kilcoo316I feel that the question should be ‘Are HM armed forces broken?’ the answer to which is yes, unfortunately.
Years of accountants running the show, political leadership with the backbones of mollusks, middle management and the pc brigade gaining a foothold in the MoD, have reduced the forces to a shadow of their former selves.
Don’t just blame the civilians – the forces have f**ked themselves up too.
I think around 1/3rd of the RAF are now officers – whereas in WWII the ratio
was around 1 officer for 20 enlisted men.
Turkeys do not vote for Christmas, and the officers will not vote to reduce the officer corps.
kilcoo316How about telling us normal cruise speeds of F-14D, F-111C and F-18E with typical weapons loads? Give your result in Mach or kts TAS (mph and kph would be OK, too). You may also provide the fuel flow relative to overall fuel load for one hour at that speed.
The Mach 2.x at the first digit for F-111 and F-14 is out of reach for most missions. Although I agree that the F-18 (any version) is not the fastest aircraft ever designed, the real life speed difference will be surprisingly low.
The F-14 will mince the F-18 (any variant) in any speed or speed/endurance comparison.
The gap will only increase when loaded as the F-14 can carry ordinance in-line along the fuselage tunnel. The F-18 is forced to carry its loadout along the wing span, and this increases its frontal cross-sectional area by a greater proportion than the F-14.
That doesn’t even bring in the bigger frontal area of the F-14 to begin with (thus missile A will have less of a proportional increase on the F-14 than the F-18) – or bring in the optimisation of the swing wings for different speeds, or the lifting fuselage design [all in favour of the F-14].
When F-14 or F-111 start to make anything besides going straight ahead they will lose, now with a big margin.
Agreed, the F-14 would be owned by an F-18 in WVR combat. But (and there is always a but) – if an enemy is within visual range of a carrier fighter screen – the battle has already been lost as the F-18 will most likely have no carrier to go back to.
kilcoo316F-22 is 20 year old technology. The next revolution in air dominance will be the Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of brilliant weapons at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles in less than two hours. (Google “Darpa” & “Falcon”) Targets will never know when its coming due to speed, altitude and stealth. Even if you have spies at the base when it takes off, you’ll never know where its going to strike because if its 9,000 mile strike radius.
I’m being right argumentative in this thread 😀 😀 😀
DEWs are the next revolution my friend – I expect they will arrive in around the same timeframe as Falcon/Blackswift etc.
kilcoo316No fighter can outrun a modern AAM.
May be some people missed, that there is no need of speeds behind Mach 1,6 in modern warfare.
I disagree.
You can outrun a modern AAM – or rather, run away fast enough that it can’t catch you before running out of fuel.
With a clean “super” hornet unable to break Mach 1 beneath 10,000ft you aren’t gonna be able to extend the intercept for too long.
kilcoo316the SH block 2 is far more survivable than than f15 due to its smaller RCS, better radar, sensor fusion and advanced MMI with better situation awarness. plus it is more friendly to maintain.
survivability is a key feature the f15 lacks. pure performance is not everything.
I remember USAF said that survvability, lethality and combat persistence are the key factors of modern air warfare. the f35 was designed with that in mind.
LOL 🙂
The RCS of the “Super” Hornet is not low enough to make a difference – it will be detected by all threats before it gets within weapons range – and that is the bottom line with regards low observables.
The back end of the APG-79 in the Super Hornet comprises the back end of the APG-64 (v)3 IIRC. So the Super Hornet would have no advantage over the F-15 if the USAF got its sh*t together and sorted the eagle fleet.
Sensor-fusion/Awareness – pah, so with the super hornet you see the baddie that is going to kill you a bit earlier – but there is bog all you can do about it. In the F-15, you might see them a bit later, but you can cut and run if need be.
survivability, lethality and combat persistence – in each of these the F-15 is better than the Super Hornet. Don’t let Navy PR speak fool you.
kilcoo316How about leaving it alone and telling the pony tailed latte drinking public relations gurus to go and get a real job 😡
😀 😀 😀
Give this man a medal
Nail on head.
kilcoo316What is really interesting is that they have chosen the Genex for these dreamliner . The genex is not offered on the A350 (GE doesnt supply engine to A350 as of now) .
Now, that is mighty interesting!
Considering the massive effect it would have on maintenance, the GENx must have some real benefits over the Trent…
kilcoo316Leahy is a dick, I tend to ignore everything that comes out of the man’s mouth.
The guys I know work for, or worked for, Airbus are all pretty enthusiastic and pleased about the 787 – its the first big step forward for commerical design in the 2nd century of flight (and its a mighty big step).
kilcoo316Well, no, it doesn’t make sense really. The EU would struggle to object on this point, because FR and EI do not compete in the LH market, and therefore by buying out EI, there would be no loss in the number of competitor choices available to consumers when selecting a long haul service. The fact that FR may choose to sell the LH product menas that there will still be the same number of competing airlines before and after the acquisition on the LH markets.
But can there be guarantees that the same long-haul routes will continue to be operated? A bigger company (say, BA for the sake of argument) buys out that part of the company (getting the slots and a few A330s and whatever else) – what if they decide to shuttle people from Dublin to Heathrow, then long-haul them?
Just checking, and Aer Lingus do daily flights from Dublin to LA, New York, Boston & Chicago, probably more.
Thats 4 convention cities in the US – I reckon there would be a detrimental impact on the Irish economy if those flights were lost.
kilcoo316Boeing and Build Rates
While I have to admire Boeing for their success on securing so many 787 orders, I feel they are over reaching them selves with their proposed 4 day final assembly times. A key element of this strategy has been to farm out all the major core technology sub assemblies to third parties. In some ways this is similar to the Airbus approach but with out the single identity, common standards and the assurance of working to a common goal.
That distributed approach is presenting major problems for Airbus…
The components from suppliers are arriving late, are damaged, and often don’t do what they were supposed to. These problems are dogging the A380, and until the suppliers get their fingers out of their ****, Airbus are pretty handicapped.
kilcoo316I’d reckon Bertie Adhern wouldn’t let them take-over anyway.
It’d be something similar to the Guinness thing – when they were took over, Dellagio were going to move Guinness production from St. James’ to Belgium or somewhere – Bertie put the boot down then, I’d expect him to do the same here.
Sign In
