SintraA smaller plane will lack ability to carry same sensors and payload of P-8 and will cost almost as much as P-8. The main saving will be in fuel cost per hour flown.
The diference in acquisition costs between a P-8 and something like a C-295 MPA equiped with FITS is massive, we are talking of something like 3X to 4X more.
The Airbus offer to the RAF was around 50 million Pounds a unit (number taken from the public submission to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, this number is higher than what the Portuguese Air Force payed for theirs), the 2014 “Fly Away Unit Cost” for a P-8A is 179,812 million dollars (http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/14pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf page 230), throw in a typical FMS deal and that number doubles.
SintraLong endurance is a metric which cannot be met by a fighter engine with SFC of 1.0 (dry) and 2.0 (afterburner). Long endurance requires an SFC on the order of 0.5.
Since Navy wants their UAVs quickly, they cannot wait 6-7 years for a mil-spec high bypass ratio engine to be developed and must use a COTS engine from a business jet or small airliner with a bypass ratio of approximately 5::1.
Very good point. Thanks for the input.
SintraIf it was F-14 size then it would need two F110’s or F100’s. Current plans publicized to date involve no more than a twin F404 powered version.
Unless the Navy stuck “Mach 2.35” and “the ability to go supersonic while carrying six huge AAM´s in external pylon´s” in the KPP´s, a pair of F414 would be fine. Think of the Douglas A-3, it was bigger and heavier than the Tomcat, but had (roughly) half the thrust.
If its all automated I don’t know why you wouldn’t go single engined with F135.
A sensible possibility. I would imagine that if the Navy RFP does indeed call for a very high end craft, we might see a few designs with an F135.
SintraAESA programe in 1990s? where is that evidence.
There´s an ungodly number of articles in places like Janes, Flight Global, Aviation Week, etc, that cover this issue, the Chinese have developed airborne AESA radars, its a fact. In this forúm the likes of Deino have, for years, been covering chinese developments, read their texts.
On another note, the KJ2000 is not an A-50E and its radar is indeed Chinese. If you want to search for a foreign source of “inspiration” for the radar try Israel, not Russia.
A interview with one of the developers, right here:
http://www.china-defense-mashup.com/radar-expert-unveils-the-development-of-chinese-kj-2000-awacs.html/2
SintraThe grainy photo matches exceedingly well the shape of the Boeing X-45 Phantom Ray.[ATTACH=CONFIG]226820[/ATTACH]
SintraAs Loke says, the Swedes use a unique blend – buy, team or design – for components and technologies, and it varies from model to model (Volvo didn’t like being shut out of the 39E engine, Saab may do the radar for the C/D+) but with some consistent features (EW has always been developed locally and is related to a strong national SIGINT capability). The core skill is putting everything together from these diverse sources.
On top of what you, Loke and a few others have written, throw in a small airframe.
SintraOr there is a Martian spacecraft buried under Uppsala. Take your pick. 😉
The Martian spacecraft is at Lynkoping, not Upsala… Everyone knows that…
I´ll get me coat
SintraLet me ask you the same question. If the Rafale could indeed operate at relatively close ranges given the threat scenario, why were the expensive SCALP-EG missiles employed during the conflict?
One of the main reasons given at the time was CSAR.
The CSAR helicopters didnt had the range to cover the entire Lybian TO.
SintraExactly, people just can’t accept other people’s PoV. I think the PAK-FA is a better choice in an either/or situation and I explained my reasons why. Suddenly there is a deluge of people with various reasons from misconceptions of M2K production lines being sold to India, to the Rafale being sold as a nuclear bomber aircraft to India. That idea is so ridiculous, the only other think I could think of is the Tu22 M3.
Glad you got the point. 🙂
Dear God…
All those articles in Air International, Flight, Air et Cosmos,etc, that i´ve read across the eighties and the nineties quoting chaps from Dassault offering to sell to India severall batches of Mirage 2000´s (sending the “dash-5” prototype to every IAF “picnic” for years) and then offering the entire production line were my imagination?
SintraIf as you say it is important, then India also has the option for the Tu22 M3. But all that is moot.
This topic is going straight into the dogs…
The last TU22M was delivered in 1997, the production line is closed for more than a decade and a half, and unless the Russian Air Force was prepared to forego severall dozens of their best shaped Backfires, something that they are not, the chances of it entering IAF service are about nill.
SintraYou integrated a good radar, a helmet mounted site and MICA onto a FC-1 and pilots are able to get within AMRAAM range, then that could give Typhoon pilots something to worry about for sure.
By the time that upgrade was finished the FAA would have in its hands an airframe broadly equivalent to a F-16 MLU Tape 5/6, without much of an improvement (if any) over the original JF-17, wich had lost its main virtue, low cost.
SintraFigure A9-12 is for an F-15 with 4+4 missiles, but centerline pylon only, and at 102% engine trim. ~68 sec from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach, but at 40k feet.
Figure A9-14 is for an F-15 with 4+4 missiles and centerline fuel tank, 102% engine trim. ~90 sec from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach, at 40k feet.
Figure A9-21 is for an F-15 with 4+4 missiles and centerline fuel tank, 97.7% engine trim. ~95 sec from 0.8 to 1.2 Mach, at 40k feet.The engine used is the F100-PW-100 though, I imagine the -220 engine provides faster acceleration. And at 46k pounds, probably full internal fuel.
For the F-16C-52 with -229 engine (flight manual available here, I can’t guarantee my calc is correct though):
Weight with 6 missiles, full internal fuel and empty centerline fuel tank ~30k lbs
Drag index 69At drag index 50 and 40k feet, numbers are (Figure A8-13):
92 sec at 28k lbs, 118 sec at 32k lbs from 0.82 to 1.24 Mach, or around 105 sec at 30k lbs.
At drag index 100, 30k lbs and 40k feet:
151 sec from 0.82 to 1.24 Mach.
At drag index 69, that is around 120sec I guess.What are the numbers for the F-18?
Anyhow, 8 seconds below KPP for the F-35 is not much. More depends on which F-16 model they used as benchmark. As you can see, a 4k lbs weight increase means acceleration goes up by 26 sec. And the F-16-52 is quite heavy, 20200lbs according to the manual. A block 30 jet or even a standard USAF block 50 model should do better.
Excelent job Eagle (but i was expecting Scooter to do it 🙂 )…
For the record, with an Index drag of zero (a clean aircraft), a F-16C-52 with the -229 engine at 28k lbs will be doing from mach 0.82 to 1.24 in 74 seconds, plus the “eight seconds lost”, and we are talking of 82 seconds, this in theory should be very near the absolute best in terms of accelaration for a completely clean F-35A ( computed with the available information, wich is to say, scarce and not particulary reliable), if we go with numbers of the classical Hornet, and if i didnt made some obvious mistake, thats 15 seconds more, that would be the worse possible accelaration for the clean “Dave A”. The numbers for the F-15C with the external fuel tank and the 8 AAM´s are (roughly) in the middle. Offcourse that these calculations are unreliable, but they are interesting nonetheless.
The numbers for the Classical Hornet are right here:
http://imagery.vnfawing.com/downloads/a1-f18ac-nfm-200.pdf
The numbers for 30K´s are on page 328 to 321, not quite Viper or Eagle like (has expected)
Cheers
SintraWhile there are many factors that caused prices to rise, the butchering of the ramp-up and max build rate are the main drivers of the increased prices in LRIP.
Yes, i agree.
SintraThey would be more accurate if they would stop backing away from Concurrency commitments and blowing the build rate increases.
Are you sure? Because even before the postponing of the production ramp up, the chaps at the Budget comptroller were getting their predictions wrong, year after year, and by the way, did you notice that the numbers in that document (the 2014 Budget) are a bit lower for LRIP7 (look at the cost of the severall components that are covered by LM work and make the sum) than what was actually signed with LM?
If they cant get the numbers right for a contract that was signed a few months after the release of the Budget documents, i can only imagine how those predictions will turn out three years from now.
But yes, i do agree, if the ramping up was not curtailed the numbers would be lower.
SintraI very much doubt a loaded F-15C with 4 AIM-9’s, 4 AIM-120’s, and even one external fuel tank could hope to come close to out accelerating clean F-35A.
Unless you care to provide a credible source. I consider such a statement bordering on ridiculous!
Respectfully,
Scooter
“Bordering on the Ridiculous”? “Respectfully”?!
You have a very interesting way of showing “respect”…
The USAF F-15A/B/C Flight Manual has enough credibility?
The numbers that you´ve asked, (an F-15C with four AIM-7, four AIM-9P and a central external tank) are on page A9-16, more specificaly “Figure A9-12”.
The exact numbers for the three Dave versions are not public we only know that the KPP´s were designed around the F-16 and the F/A-18A/C (clean), we also know that Dave A failed the KPP´s (Mach 0.8 to 1.2 at 30K) by eight seconds, the B failed by 17 seconds and the C for whooping 43 seconds. Now if we pick the F-18A/C numbers (public) and add these “failed seconds” above and compare with the charts on that manual… You can figure it out by yourself. If we pick the Viper numbers then its a more rosy scenario.
On top of that we actually know, from LM themselves, that there´s another Western aircraft (i am not talking of the Raptor,) with dynamic performances not dissimilar to the F-15C, that outruns a F-35A while being “combat loaded” (i would imagine that this means 8 AAm´s and 2 external 1000L fuel tanks, but again that was not stated in the paper), its the same aircraft that goes to mach 1.8 with three external fuel tanks, you can figure it out what aircraft i am talking about; by the way this LM presentation was made before the FY2012 Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report recommended reducing the F-35’s performance requirements.
Far from being “ridiculous”, based on the numbers available is entirely arguable that on part of the flight envelope an F-15C configured for the typical ATA mission (with external fuel tanks) is very, very competitive with a clean F-35A in climbing and acceleration (well, the F-35A cant even be competitive with the Eagle at the top end speeds and altitudes, it simply doesnt get there).
So yes, i dont have the charts to exactly compare the two aircrafts, the numbers for Dave are not public, but that doesnt make my statement “ridiculous”, I call it an educated deduction wich may be right or wrong.
On the other hand may I ask why you believe that I am incorrect? Do you have any type of numbers from a “credible source” that proves without a doubt that I am incorrect?
Sign In
