totoroWhat is with all the weight talk being incorporated into the max velocity? Once the lift is higher than the weight, only thing that is left is mass, though while giving you more sluggish acceleration, it won’t influence max speed. Basically we’re left with available thrust force at given conditions versus existing force of drag at those same conditions. Give enough force and even a brick will supercruise.
Again, just look at past examples of airplanes, their thrust versus their drag inducing frontal area/shaping. I’ve mentioned viggen, i’ll add f8 versions, delta dart, etc. Planes with more frontal surface and less available thrust have been achieving mach 2. Yes one can argue that some of them have better shaping (delta dart) some have worse shaping for supersonic speeds (like the crusader) and both of them have been approaching mach 2 with slightly less thrust than what EF has dry (first version of f8 anyway). No one is saying EF is going mach too, or even matching f22, but it clearly has the drag/thrust ratio much higher than your usual fighter plane.
totoroIt commendable that croatian industry is going forward and trying to secure sales for a wider variety of ships other than cargo/tanker ships that comprises the bulk of the orders right now. Especially so if we’re talking about privately funded designes (even if they are made as a response to a government issued call for a new ship needed).
That being said, actual plan for the distribution of budget for croatian armed forces, especially procurement of new ships for the navy, is wasteful. Given the recent events in Montenegro and the disappearance of Serbia as any kind of a naval player with zero chance that Montenegro itself would continue any kind of armed navy legacy – need for a well armed navy has diminished.
One can’t possibly afford to build a navy (or any other armed force) to counter all the possible enemies. So, wisely, one chooses to build the force needed for the likely enemy. Unless one is suggesting that Italy will do an invasion, offshore ships are simply an overkill. Actually, if Italy does choose to invade for whatever reason, the strength difference is just so big that no amount of ships croatia could possibly afford would make much difference.
Which leads us to realistic enemies. That was yugoslavia’s navy, on paper. Now even officially that naval threat has passed. On the other hand, Serbia will now have more money to go around for other branches, like the air force. So i would think it’s wiser not to waste money into corvettes, not even into new fast attack crafts, but concentrate on coast guard duties as far as navy goes. Actual defense of the seas can then be performed solely by truck based launchers from the shore and aircraft launched missiles. More money for air force / AD systems is far better management of funds at this point.
totoroI must say i strongly doubt the 100m production cost for EF. First off, its from a newspaper (which sometimes have their own political agendas), and govt officials get misquoted a lot. All that takes is some mixup between currencies, pound euro or dollar or between costs as in production cost, programme unit cost, flyway cost, final unit with support systems cost.
On the other hand we have a published sum for entire contract for tranche 2, courtesy of manufacturer itself. And to top it off there’s actual price of unit cost as seen as austrian purchase. For EF to have production cost of $100m it would mean that EF consortium has lost up to 50 million $ PER plane, or some 1.9 billion $ overall for the whole sale. No PR stunt is worth nearly that much.
On the other hand, that assesment about norwegian f-35 falls quite well in the line of projected costs. Note it was specified as price per unit when divided for the specific price of the purchase of 48 planes intended for norway. I must say i still believe US will get cheaper planes than the others. MAYBE UK will get them same price (at which point hats off to them as they’ve negotiated themselves the best deal ever, getting cheapest programme unit price planes from any country, including US who gave like 90% of funding)
Anyhow, my final guestimates (+/- 2%) would be:
For EF, tranche 2 planes
68 million $ flyaway price, 105 million $ final price for core 4 countries
78 million $ flyaway price, 115 million $ final unit price for export
For f-35A
50-60 million $ flyway price, 85-95 million $ final price for US (maybe uk)
67-75 million $ flyway price, 100-110 million $ final unit price for export
f-35 still having potential manufacturing issues and no actual sales is harder to assertain. Also keep in mind these are today’s dollars, due to inflation some future export, say, 2020 purchase of f-35 is sure to seem relatively pricier (compared to numbers given here) than 2010 purchase of EF.
totoroExactly. 62 million euros is flyaway price also quoted by flugrevue. When you apply the exchange rate of that date to 62 million euros, you will get a price of 69 million dollars payed by austria in 2003 (not 67 as i’ve used the wrong exchange rate before)
Also, in average 2004 exchange rate, 55m euros would equal 68m dollars, not 69. Now, even though 55 versus 62 million euros from year earlier might lead one to think its a production cost versus flyway cost, phrasing says the contract is valued at XX sum. Not the materials/labour. Paricipant countries are paying EF manufacturer XX sum to make and deliver planes. So why the discrepancy in the amount of money? One plausible answer is that original purchasing countries are getting it cheaper than austria did. After all, those countries pumped billions into development of a product that EF consortium can later sell for its own profit. So its possible EF consortium is not really getting much more money over production cost on every airplane. Later on, in export deals to countries that did not invest in the development of program, that’s where the real money is made.
Same applies to US. All those f16s and f15s originally made for US were cheaper for USAF than they were to export customers (inflation included of course). Same principle will apply to f-35, with cheapest relative flyway price being payed by US, more expensive units for UK and then others would pay whatever price is dictated by LM in the open market competition.
totoroWell, it really depends on two things.
A) just how much more expensive will f-35 be over the production cost? After all, LM does want to make money on it. While much of the development cost will in fact be covered by US govt so we can’t realistically talk about 100 million + pricetag per flyaway price for export customer, we’re also guaranteed to see the flyaway price customer is paying being higher than LM’s production cost. If production is 50m, export price must be 55m or 60m or a bit more.
B) then there’s the matter of added cost. No one actually buys just planes on flyaway prices. There’s initial training of pilots/technicians, simulators, spare parts and additional eqipment, guaranteed maintenance, sometimes even weapons cost included. I think Poland payed some 80-90m for their f-16 recently, where flyaway cost was like 45 million.
Austria payed some 109 million for their eurofighter (full price with , though i remember reading they got like a 10-15% discount, being the first export customer, which would put the real price to 120-125m range. As for flyaway cost, well, on eurofighter site in 2004 it said the tranche 2 contract, all 236 planes, is valued at 13 billion euros. In dollars that comes down to some 69m a plane. That is a slight increase over the Flugrevue reported flyway price in 2003 which was then cited as 67m dollars, article talking bout austrian order.
One has to note, however, that contracts for both f-16 for poland and EF for austra includes offset deals to certain extent, plus interest rates, both of which increase the actual price per plane. (in case of austria, flugrevue says interests comprise 292m euros (some $312m at that time) of contract price)
So, it depends on lots of things. Financing, for example. Additional equipment, etc. If flyaway cost ends around $60 million, then full price of an operational plane customer will have to pay for will probably go over $100m. More so with time passing for actual production, delivery, potential program delays and inflation.
totoroWell, like i said in my first post here concerning the matter, its all EADS promo material data. Take for what you will. My point was that the other data – thrust and drag give enough info to interpolate the conclusion of supercruise being quite plausible.
And Vortex, a force pushing the plane is the same, no matter if its generated by a propeller, turbojet, turbofan with reheat or a rocket. if its xx kn then its xx kn. And if you have xxx value of force drag creates for a certain plane at, say, 1.5 mach and at 40 000 feet and if you have engines that create xxx+1 value of thrust – you will reach that speed at that altitude.
totoroPost a link for the mach 1.5 claim.
The EF was not designed for a supercruise requirment as primary objective therefore what were the range requirments that the EF supercruises for and does it need AB to reach those speeds. What altitude does it supercruise in?? And have these claims been verified in testing with 4-6 Aim-120’s and a respectable fuel load???
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html
I also remember singapore’s official statement (no i dont remember the link to news that ive read) back when they were picking their airplanes, saying how eurofighter achieved advertised supercruise ability with given a2a load (i dont remember if it was specified what load it was, could be just 4 amraams) Unlike Rafale for example, which they said did not supercruise despite french advertising it can.
And in the end, it’s really not so unimaginable. There are lots of examples to make comparison from. Take SAAB Viggen, very close to EF in terms of dimensions, with slightly smalller wingspan and slightly taller vertical fin, slightly larger canards. 2500 kg heavier than empty EF (not that weight has anything to do with maximum speed) Not to mention 30 years worth of advances in better high speed aerodynamics. Viggen’s single engine gave it 125 kn thrust and that pushed it to 2.1 mach. It is, i believe, very safe to imagine EF can with 120 kn of thrust achieve a decent supercruise speed. Viggen would regularly go supersonic with its 6 AAMs (on ordinary pylons – more drag) while EF’s 4 amraams are carried half-buried under the fuselage.
totoroEurofighter promo materials (for what’s that worth) claim the plane can sustain 1.5 mach with 4 amraams. With bigger a2a load and fuel tanks that drops to 1.3. Nothing has been said about heavy a2g load but judging by this, it’s likely it can not supercruise with 4 storm shadows coupled with other payload.
Speaking of stormshadow, there is a reason why a missile of that size has a range of just 250 km. Very extensive use of ram. From the beginning the storm shadow has been designed as stealthy platform, more so than Taurus for example, which while has very similar size and shape, has 100 km greater range.
LPI radar (and RWR) is all about software and acquired data concerning opposing radar/rwr systems. So it’s silly to claim one is clearly superior than other when it really comes down to human resources and coding.
JSF’s inability to carry more than 4 amraams internally has already been discussed on this forum. Bays seem to be too short (not necessarily too narrow) for that to be possible. 2 aim9x, however, would probably be doable.
totoroSo just long will the production be going to deliver the 2500+ aircraft? I’ve read that LM hopes to, after scaling up the production over the coming years, finally achieve a rather impressive 110 planes a year figure, for all f35 versions combined. (history would suggest such a ramp up would take years, and probably max production wouldn’t be achieved before 2012-2013) But with huge numbers needed, i wonder when will all the other countries in the program be able to actually induct their f35s in their service. If US takes complete priority (save for UK), it cant be earlier than 2030. I would imagine that’s something LM can’t afford, as it’d mean losing a lot of business to various eurofighters, rafales etc. So it must be that a fair percentage of production will go to foreign partners from the start. Which would then mean that last of the US’s f35s would be delivered as late as 2035 or even 2040, depending on number of planes US wants and foreign countries want to purchase. I guess its safe to say we’ll be seeing f16s and f18s in action for decades to come.
totoroAB thrust of 132 kn is nice but what about max dry thrust? All these figures thrown around (especially that 75 kn claim) seem pretty low, compared to their western counterparts. f-15’s engines would be prime example here. Why such relative low dry thrust for an engine that can go rather high with reheat?
totoroThere has to be something wrong in the question itself as it is impossible that more thrust causes such differece in flight. its impossible to tell just how much thrust has been used at any given time and at certain weather conditions and from certain angles it may look as if afterburners are used when in fact they’re not.
IF afterburners were used to get max thrust, there is no way that plane would stay in mid air or even slide downwards. IF the plane was maintaining its more or less vertical orientation at such speeds it proves no vectored thrust was used.
totoroIts off topic but i’m really curious – what is to become of the navy now? I would assume that cause of the state its in, no one really wants those rusty ships. Serbia doesn’t have access to sea and doesn’t wnna spend money on maintenance and montenegro is too small to afford a proper navy, it too doesn’t want those ships. I would assume there will be an issue over who’s gonna have to pay to get all those ships scrapped. (i doubt you could sell them even in pieces for more money than needed to strip them down of old equipemnt and cut em in pieces)
totoroMKK certainly aren’t a success story for the chinese. PLAAF got its last MKK plane delivered in 2003 and hasnt ordered any more since, PLANAF got its last MK2 in 2004 and hasnt ordered any more since. And in all likelyhood there wont be any more orders. While theyre more capable fighters than early su27s that china procured in the 90s, they haven’t really delivered on air to ground usefulness. MKK is unable to use any laser guided bombs and is basically limited to tv guided and command guided munitions. MK2 isnt much better off, its one major advantage is ability to carry k31 anti ship missiles which are hardly the apex of russian anti ship tech. currently, latest versions of dometiscally produced a5s and jh7s are more capable for a2g and antiship missions which is why no more mkks and follow ups to those models have been ordered.
totoroI’m not gonna saying anything about MKI. But MKK certainly hasn’t proven to be what PLAAF hoped it would be. With it’s improved radar, new irst and ability to carry r-77 it looks like a better fighter than original su-27 that china bought are. But radar is still based on somewhat old tkhomirov N001 and china has been looking for better radars to come from russia. Proposed MK3 variant did in the end have zhuk MS but china did not go for MK3. I guess they got burned too much on MKK and MK2. Truth is – those planes are far from true multirole ground strike airplanes. They are limited to TV/radio command guided bombs and missiles and k31p AR missile. Plus k31a antiship variant for MK2. While it is improvement over basic su-27 today’s strike airplane should have greater versatility – which is what JH-7A offers. Which is why there were no more su30 orders.
totoroJust think of the volume. 5000 liters is 5 meters cubed. That’s vast amount of volume. Looking at the schematics of the gripen, there is no way they can fit so much volume just for fuel in that little fuselage/wings.
Problem is, for pretty much all the new military airplanes exact internal fuel volume is classified so what we can read on the internet are estimates. Older planes, however, are easier to get data for. Very good examples, i think, would be f-5 and especially f-20, which are very comparable in size. F-5 carries 2563 liters of fuel internally while f-20 carries 2868 liters. So the previously mentioned figure of up to 3000 liters seems rather convincing and accurate.
Sign In
