totorowow, those main doors for the lift fan sure are huge. And they seem to stay at 90 degrees to the plane when opened. Was that really the best solution? when performing short take offs with limited vertical thrust – how will that go? That door will be creating huge drag, even at low take-off speeds.
totoroThat being the fly away price, the final system cost price per aircraft, with support, training etc would be some 20 mil more? A little shy of 80 million? That’s decent. Newly built f16 block 60 wouldn’t be any cheaper.
totoroI don’t know about HUGE advances in stealth. Like with every other technology, there is a (flexible) wall of diminishing returns. No matter how much time or money you invest into something, the benefit will start to get smaller and smaller. So while to get from lets say RCS of 1 sqm for a given objetc to 0.1 youd need X amount of time and money, to get from 0.1 to 0.05 you’ll need 10X. Of course i’m pulling those numbers out of thin air, they’re for illustration purposes. Just like with airplane speed, technology for going over mach 3 is old news. But to just double that requires huge advances that are just not feasible today. So while, reduction of RCS will continue, like any other tech, i doubt there will be leaps in advances, its more likely any advances will be incremental.
totoroMax range isn’t even that important here. What i’m more interested is how does one simulate overall performance of an AAM? Missile’s turn rate, missile’s seeker performance, ECM resistance, fuze precision, warhead performance during various manouvers, etc. Just how accurate can all those be? I am guessing it all has to be based on actual data from real missile firings – but then, that data should be available to all the mica users, no?
totoroIve got a question. Just how are those simulated AAM firings performed? How can one underestimate a simulated firing? Or does each side keep its simulated missile very secret? But then, how can anyone be sure its performance is a realistic portayal of the real thing?
totoroSurely you meant phifty phabulous phyears. 😀
totoroI think mi-171 (and 172) are just designations for export. In Russia they’re still called mi-17 something… As for whiz bang models, i know mi-17sh (or mi-171sh) is fairly new. Some examples were ordered by czech republich (among a couple of other countries) and they feature enlarged sliding door on the side, loading ramp in the back, nose radar, and as it also meant to have a secondary attack role, some have IR supressors on the exhausts and armor plates around the cabin. Cockpit is still a far cry from today’s standards, though – but i guess it’s still the best bargain for a medium transport helo for that money.
totoroI’ve taken the size difference into account, that’s why i said MICA probably has 20 km range and not more. While I don’t know how much the seeker, guidance and fuselage weigh on each missile, we know that without the warhead mica weighs 100 kg while ESSM weighs 241 kg. So that is 140% more. Also, Volume of the rocket motor section is some 300% larger on the ESSM. On the other hand, ESSM is a draggier missile with 150% larger area. Sure, it’s hard to quantify all those things, and we can’t possibly do a precise measurement but it is safe to say that MICA should have at least potential to reach out 20 km, if its programmed flight profile lets it. (we also don’t know what flight profile ESSM uses to reach its proclaimed 50 km range)
totoroYep. Looking at its size, it is hard not to conclude VL MICA can reach a lot farther than 10 kms, which is probably only a placeholder figure for the media anyway, while the actual range would be kep confidential. If ESSM can reach to 50 kms, not THAT much smaller MICA can surely reach 20 km, if not more.
totoroI’ll give it a shot, since the point is fantasizing, not listing real airplanes. I’d definitely go for a true dogfighter, as now we know the technology in 1965 just wasn’t there to truly rely on BVR. (perhaps by the very end of 60s it got a bit better but topic isn’t that specific)
I’d use a single engine for greater fuel efficiency, a large wing with medium sweep, prefering manouverability over top speed. Mach 2.0 would be quite enough, or in more realistic, combat conditions, something around mach 1.7 would do.
I would have it carry a two person crew, both for the BVR fights (it was not so easy to keep the target illuminated and do bunch of other stuff at the same time, at least not for a single pilot) and for any possible secondary ground attack requirements.
I would use side intakes so I can have a fairly spread apart landing gear – allowing for enough underbelly space for conformall carriage of 4 BVR missiles. Wings would be positioned high up, forming a large lifting surface with the body plus allowing plenty of underwing space for various weaponry and tanks.
I am guessing some 9-10 tons of weight, 16-17 meters of length and 10-11 meter wingspan would be enough to pull all that off, while providing for enough room for a decent internal fuel load. I guess turbojet would have to installed though a turbofan engine would be prefered, of course. Also, definitely a gun would be carried, as well, if possible, as some kind of crude EO sensor just behind the radome, on the underside.
totoroI must say the EJ200 bypass ratio is surprisingly high…
totoroHey, i agree with you. Like i said, most of any mission for any plane happens in subsonic regions. Having so much thrust in that subsonic region is a great thing. Having the flexibility to trade range for agility is also a great thing. I don’t doubt f35 will make a decent dogfighter with its fuel tanks half (or more) empty, especially in today’s age of HMDs and LOAL missiles which are great equalizers for any platform.
It is a fine multi role plane and its only real weak point MAY prove to be its price. If i was selling gripens i would actually try to go in the opposite direction from the high tech gripen demonstrator. Make a variant which is even cheaper than basic gripen. Move away from the eurofighter/f35/whatever market and into the budget market – where it’d wipe the floor with various russian and chinese products, even without political baggage those come with. (not that gripen doesnt carry its own political baggage, which an unfortunate thing for SAAB) But they’d have to hurry – russia is once again investing in R&D, as is China. Losing another decade trying to fight the likes of Eurofighter and F35 might prove costly – as the low cost market segment in 2020 may be completely different from today’s. Chinese planes may not only be cheap(ish) then, but they might also offer comparable to western planes performance.
totoroNaturally, T/W ratio has little to do with top speed, be it on dry or wet thrust. And sadly we can’t quantify aerodynamics to get precise data. We can, however, see that f-35 is a fat plane, looking at it head on, a plane with a large cross section. One has to put those 18400 pounds of fuel somewhere, after all. Furthermore, the wings give away its subsonic nature, with their sweep angle and thickness. Lastly, the high bypass engine is another clue as why F-35 is unlikely to supercruise. Its tremendous thrust applies at subsonic speeds. While the speed of airflow into the engine does add a little bit to the thrust, as long as we keep it subsonic, at the same time the speed of the plane kills the benefit of thrust added by the bypass section. Once we go over mach 1.0, bypass thrust gets marginalized – which is not necesarrily such a good thing if we have an engine which has such a high bypass level.
So, just looking at installed static thrust ratings of engines won’t really tell us that much, at least not without some other info to go with it.
That being said – F35 with half or even a third of its fuel tank full is probably one of most agile planes in the subsonic region. Agile in this context meaning highest acceleration. And one could argue that that is what really counts in real world conditions – subsonic performance.
totoroI’m pretty sure it’s classified. It is an important figure – lots of things can be deduced from it. Plus the fact there are so many different guesses about the internal fuel load around – that just confirms to me no one out of the loop really knows.
And even though the pilot probably was talking in general terms – when you say ‘same amount of fuel’ – that can’t be 50% or 200%. It should be in general vicinity of the actual figure.
I have been seeing the figure of 18.000 pounds of fuel thrown around a lot – and i must say that coincides well with f-22’s size. I’ve compared lots of planes in f-22’s size class – plus some slightly smaller ones and some slightly bigger ones. It does seem that 18.000 is a very realistic figure. Even if the pilot rounded up f-35’s fuel to compare it to the Raptor, while in fact it’s a bit less – even so it should carry no less than some 15.000 pounds. And that is a HUGE amount, considering smaller, lighter plane with an engine more optimized for slower speeds and smaller fuel consumption.
EDIT: Sintra, thanks a lot! Didn’t know about that one! 🙂
totoroHas the amount of internal fuel in the f-22 ever been officially disclosed? I must say it really surprised me that a test pilot would disclose such a piece of info to the public – that the f-35 carries the same amout of fuel as f-22. Could it be it was deliberate misinfomation?
I remember i’ve seen various figures thrown around for f-22’s fuel, ranging from 5 to 9 tons. While 5 seems a bit too little, 9 ton figure doesn’t really mesh with the ‘same amount of fuel as f.35’ statement, as I just can’t see how on earth would over 10 cubic meters of fuel fit into a f-35.
Sign In
