Maolankar is a great stick who executed a steady, straight down the middle approach.
My response was to Austin’s desire to mount MAWS internally on a jet which is already densely packaged. I too believe pylon mounting is a good solution . And the pylons can support towed decoys too.
Which system are you going to eliminate so the MAWS can go inside? the radar? mission computer? display computer?
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Another issue with hypersonic vehicles is avionics/systems cooling. A hypersonic missile, with total flight time of <15 minutes, can use thermal heat sink or evaporative cooling for avionics. A long duration hypersonic drone or manned vehicle requires a cooling system which can operate up to an hour+. Even exotic systems like the Space Shuttle ammonia boiler was marginal for systems cooling. Your expensive hypersonic airplane is useless if the avionics stop working because they got too hot.
Weight limits apply for runway operations. All fuel tanks can be filled to capacity during aerial refueling.
I get the idea of advanced training using an aircraft with lower CPFH than Rafale. Would there be any difference between the Sport and the Tejas apart from the Sport being marketed as a trainer?
I would estimate there would be: 1) a generation difference in computing power and software, 2) significant increase in complexity for cockpit controls and displays, and 3) a significant upgrade to electrical power and cooling to run the new computers and displays. It will likely be a great technical challenge to get all that into LCA’s small airframe. One potential solution would be to make the new capabilities modular by using interchangeable pylon-mounted pods. For example, if the mission requires directing drone wingmen, then the drone control pod would be mounted.
Don’t believe fake news.
USG spent $ billions to fly and maintain MiG-23, MiG-27, MiG-21 and SU-27 under Constant Peg and other programs. Why spend that much money if they were failures?
Another genuine question : won’t a triple flow enhance too much the engine weight? Apparently weight tolerances are quite low on F-35
There are several parameters which are key contributors of an airplane’s predefined performance baseline (aerodynamics, propulsion and mission profile are the contributors with greatest impact). Weight affects aerodynamics by requiring more angle of attack to provide lift as weight increases. And increased angle of attack drives induced drag which negatively impacts range, speed and acceleration (typical performance baseline requirements). Designers use the weight growth curve to assure weight stays under control and the performance baseline is achieved, all other key contributors remaining constant. “All other key contributors remaining constant” is the catch. Adding 3rd stream propulsion performance is not constant with respect to current F135 performance. This allows the design team to re-balance the design to achieve the airplane’s predefined performance. Improved propulsion performance may offset the weight increase. If a great benefit to airplane’s performance can be achieved, the predefined performance goals will likely be altered, e.g. combat radius increase.
Aerostats have shown to be resilient to gunfire because their ballonets don’t lose helium quickly.
I am aware of two aerostats which broke their tethers in Afghanistan. One was gunned by an F-16 until it was out of 20mm ammo (500+ rounds). The other was chased by a helicopter, which filled it with 7.62×51 NATO holes from its machine gun. Both aerostats continued to float away. They eventually came down a couple hours later, but it wasn’t a quick, easy kill.
Another factor in the SAM vs airplane issue is the ability of modern SAMs to rapidly relocate. This design feature was implemented to break the kill chain (Find, Fix, Target, Track, Engage, Assess). It takes time to sort through the camouflage, concealment and decoys to geolocate the SAM with enough accuracy for a kinetic attack with PGMs. The SAM-hunting game can devolve into a game of whack-a-mole.
Range of SDB is very dependent on altitude & speed of launch aircraft.
Altitude. The wings are designed to deploy almost immediately. And the drag of the wings cause the munition to decelerate quickly until the optimal glide speed is reached.
We have discussed this already but the indication that a three stream engine would have to have fit inside the F-35 with the same cross section of the F-135 with better SFC can only be interpreted as an engine having a… higher overall BPR. Geometrically the core will have to be smaller (Ø).
Correct.
And to move the same mass airflow, the core must have a higher EPR and TIT than previous generations. And those technologies exist today in PW1000G and GE9X.
The battle to sell the most fuel efficient airliner engines has introduced technologies which exceeds that of military turbine engines. Airliner engines outsell military engines by a ratio of 50:1, so engine manufacturers know where their profits come from.
To make an engine with a 10:1 bypass ratio work, the core has to achieve a 40-60:1 EPR and use turbine inlet temperatures comparable to military engines, with minor derating to extend blade life. The core turbo machinery turns at extremely high RPM to achieve efficiencies. But the larger diameter fan cannot turn as fast before blade tips go supersonic and material limits are reached, so reduction gears are used to allow the fan to operate at a moderate RPM sweet spot.