totoroCurrently, USN has some 150 E and 190 F models in its inventory. Currently, pretty much all of the USN carrier air wings are comprised of one E model squadron (12 units), one F model squadron (12) and two C model squadrons (10-12 units). There’s two examples (Truman and Roosevelt) where instead of a C model squadron a modernized A model squadron still flies.
Starting with FY09, E/F squadrons will start becoming a majority, so i believe in the next couple of years we can see 3 E/F squadrons and just 1 C squadron on each carrier. Though, unless E/F production is extended beyond the current contract, there should remain one C squadron on a carrier with total of 4 squadrons. If there’s a war and more planes need to be carrier, additional squadron is also very likely to be a C model squadron.
Realistically, Gerald Ford will probably fly just E/Fs and F-35s, as delays are more than likely, even more so than in F35 programme. By the time it enters service there should be enough F-35c models going around…
Unless f-35c buy for usn is increased, even when all the aircraft are built and in service there should be, on average, 2 squadrons worth of E/F models and 2 of f-35 models, with most of the additional squadrons beyond that being E/F models.
totoroWell, i dunno. 6 inch spacer mentioned I do remember articles a few years back, allegedly taken from Jane’s, claiming that spacer is just that – empty space, and that they’re waiting for a new rocket motor to be ready (designed for D model) so it can use up that space. But until then, rocket motor in C7 was claimed to be the same as in C5. Before that, if i remember correctly, C4/5 had a larger motor than B model had it before that. Adding less drag due to smaller fins and that explains the range bump from B to C model.
As to why Russian or chinese (or french, for that matter) haven’t done it – we don’t know. Maybe they have. But even if they did, i’m guessing their flight profiles are still not as parabollic as those of late model amraams. I’ve actually played with rocket motor volume, drag and other figures for widely known BVR missiles and assembled a list but extra ranges due to trajectory are hardest to guesstimate. (propellent quality and especially drag coefficients have a much better chance at being similar in all missiles)
totoroI believe lofting trajectories can depend a lot on datalink systems and missile’s seeker/guidance unit qualities. Whereas in the past datalink beams could be made fairly wide, as the technology to detect them wasn’t that good, today’s datalinks are made to be quite narrow, which may require a lot of precise data about the missile’s location. That’s where two way datalinks can help a lot, as the missile keeps updating the aircraft with its precise position (via GPS) and thus the aircraft can keep contact with the missile even if the missile goes quite high up and quite off the axis of engagement. And at the same time, newer seekers offering higher off bore detection also help keeping the missile flying higher for a longer time.
I don’t remember which publication it was, but i remember reading someplace that C7 had 20% increase in hypothetical range over C5. Since drag value is the same, and the only structural difference may be slightly smaller weight (due to the empty space in the missile), majority of that increase should come from additional lofting trajectory.
While D model of amraam used up that empty space, that alone doesn’t add up when we read about 50% longer ranges. So an even higher trajectory, closer to parabollic one, is likely. Reason why it wasn’t used before was elaborate in the previous paragraph.
totoroHow can a 280mm radar seeker be refering to r-77 when the diameter of the body doesn’t go over 200mm? A typo then, perhaps?
totoroMe, me, me! Is it because G limit is a function of speed, among other things? So, with two missiles both having 40 G limit, one going mach 5 and other going mach 3, and both trying to take a turn, the latter one would complete that turn within a smaller area? 😀
totoroif we somehow managed to magically have 18.000 combat ready low tech planes overnight, with all the infrastructure needed for most of them to take off within minutes (enough runways, enough at controllers, etc) then that probably would come as a shock to a highly advanced oponent with just a few hundred planes.
BUT, even if we disregard the infrastructure and coordination issues, the fact remains one can’t switch to the doctrine of such quantity over quality overnight. To build those planes and train those pilots (even a little bit, even if theyre conscripts) would take a better part of a decade, probably more.
During that time, the opponent will adjust its doctrine, so it can better match it. That probably means less high tech stuff and more middle tech stuff – more SAMs, etc. If the 18.000 plane nation is the attacker, why even need stealth? 18.000 j-6s don’t even have radars. They don’t even have RWRs. One could use something of a missile truck, with dozens of missiles per each plane. And so on…
totoroThis is just me guessing but i believe its the same as faceted approach, only applied on smaller scale. Every panel or door has an edge of its own, however thin it may be. From a certain angle, radar waves are sure to hit it and bounce of it. Since one can point and align the serrated edges only in a finite number of directions, they’re always pointed towards front and rear of the airplane where most of the threats will be coming from, scattering the waves to the sides.
Now, while serrated edges are good and most of the time the lack of space doesn’t allow for different approaches, i believe it’s even better to use larger surfaces. As an example look at the trailing edge of main weapons bay door on raptor. Instead of several small ‘triangles’, it has just one, thereby avoiding 90 degree (or close to 90 degree) angles between the bases of two adjacent ‘triangles’, which are known to add to RCS.
That being said, i would assume the increased RCS coming from such points is still overall smaller than having a regular panel with a straight edge, as then the whole length of that edge would be a reflector.
totoroMain weaponbay is, in fact, two separate bays, divided by a very thin…er, divider. 😀
totoroA few comments concerning the air wing and its infrastructure. Which helos are those? They look like eh101s to me. If so, the helo deck might not be large enough for two simultaneous operations. On the other hand, its definitely too big for a single helo to use. Perhaps switching to a smaller helo, say nh90, might help. Or lengthening the helo deck to some 60-65 meters.
Also, if there’s just three helos, it might not be needed to have two landing spaces for helos. there would probably be very little need for simultaneous ops with just three helos.
Since there’s no room for four helos in the hangar, may i suggest getting rid of the asw helicopter? Let that burden befall the other ships in the fleet, surrounding the command ship. And use three aew helos on the command ship, as that way you get at least some kind of useful rotation of the helos on station. With only two aew helos, you wouldn’t be able to move them away from the ship and youd wear them out so quickly that you’d definitely have a gap in the rotation and therefore radar coverage in a matter of a day or two.
totoroLooking at the size of the missile, it was always very apparent max range should be upward of 50km. there’s many reasons why various ‘sources’ said it’s around 15-20 km. Firstly, US seldomly actually gives out real, useful figures for their battle systems. They just say “upwards of 50 km range for amraam, upwards of 25 knots for virginia class sub, in excess of 300 km range for e-3 radar, etc” Naturally, real figures are always higher.
Also, we all know that max range for a missile doesn’t equate to maximum effective range. So while a pac-3 missile may reach 60 or so km, its performance aenvelope gainst various types of threats probably varies greatly.
totoroJust out curiosity, how many gun rounds are used in an average shot? 10? 50? I’d think the number of gun kills for any modern warplane would be quite limited as they just don’t carry that many rounds nowadays.
totoroBut don’t the police helis operate fairly closely to their targets? It’s bound to be much easier to distinguish a car from the surrounding ground when you’re perhaps a kilometer away from the car. Should be a different story when you’re tens of kilometers away, in a plane…
totoroA single vertical stabilizator is not inherently unstealthy. The way i see it, the problem with it arises from the fact that it often forms 90 deg angle with the horizontal stabilizators, which could be seen as unstealthy. But that also depends on the positioning of both the vertical and horizontal stabilizators. We can see on the f22 and 35 that the vertical stabilizators are positioned somewhere in between the wings and the horizontal stabilizators. Had they been positioned more aft, the RCS, when looked from a certain angle, would be bigger.
To sum it up – single tail can be quite stealthy, we only have to be careful with the whole tail stabilizators arrangement, but the same issue really goes for twin tails, as well. At least outward slanted ones. Inward slanted ones could concievably be positioned at the point on the fuselage where horizontal stabilizators (or wings) are, and that could still be fine as they’d form an angle between them that’s bigger than 90 degrees. It really is a matter of flight profile, too. If we have a 5 or 10 thousand meter cruise altitude, outward slanted tails are worse for ground radars but better for air radars, while the inward slanted ones go vice versa. For really high altitudes, inward slanted ones may seem better, as fewer radars would be looking at them from high angles… though, again, active radar missiles would probably still be higher up, coming down from their lofting trajectories. Also, there are some aerodynamic issues with inward slanted tails, there has to be a certain gap between them, which is impossible to do on certain, smaller planes.
totoroDevelopment of new systems in china is probably less transparent than in Western countries. There’s no clear public budget nor is the development journaled with every test and every failure. Basically, i believe they work in silence, away from prying eyes, and when its done they show it off. Multi year or even multi decade development is still very much there.
totoroWhile in the end it is sure to be less draggy than a f15 with weapons, it is still beefier than a plane of its class would be, precisely because of its weapons bays. Of course no one here can know that, but i wouldn’t be surprised if clean f22 is draggier than a clean f15. Naturally, in real world conditions that is not terribly important.
Sign In
