Lets assume continuous burn: how long before it runs out of fuel ?
We had this discussion before,
i got the impression from a video that it can burn 25 sec, while Mercurius claim around 15 sec IIRC.
Coasting and throttle back works on high alt, but at lower altitudes it will need constant burn to overcome pressure

I tried assuming continuous burn and constant speed, but that is how a non throttleable rocket engine would work. Mercurius said that in a particular trial the actual burn time was 15 seconds, but in order to get the missile to succeed in other trials (where it has performed certain benchmarks, think GF5 is one of them) it has to be able to burn for more than 25 seconds.

You can use the formula from the Aim120 range thread and put in altitude 43kft, V1200m/s and range over 30km. From that you can extrapolate the minimum range if it “cruises” at 900m/s instead. At low altitudes it only needs to stay at mach 2 to have a minimum closing speed of mach 1 (tail chase) or a maximum of mach 3,2 (supersonic target head on). If that extends the range it is well worth it.

I am currently running in full pre-Farnborough mode with not enough hours in the day, so I must be brief.

I have no recollection of citing a 15 second burn time for Meteor. Can anyone refresh my ageing memory? I can remember getting drawn into a discussion of the burn time of the boost phase, and suggesting that the timing someone has estimated from a video was incorrect.

In the AIM coverage diagrams I have seen, the NEZ is much less than the maximum range – perhaps around half.

And that is all you are likely to get from me until after the show.

If my memory serves e well the claim was ~30 seconds or that it is powered all the way to the target with XXX seconds over mach 3 or 4. Ill look for the quote.

Here is one of them:

20 or 25 seconds can’t be right – we know that the ramjet burned for only 15 seconds during this trial.

In the case I cited of the missile flying at Mach 3 plus for several minutes (= 120 seconds or more), we have no evidence that this was a lofted-trajectory shot. If we assume it was made at constant altitude, and accept Cola’s ‘rule of thumb’ table (although we do not know its origin), then the velocity loss after burnout would have been 25 per cent every 25 seconds.

This was my response:

Lets just count the performance here.
V(max) = 1200 m/s
Powered range = ~30km
Glide range, vg speed ~1100m/s = 25s = 28 km
Glide range, vg speed ~790m/s = 25s = 20km
Glide range, vg speed ~590m/s = 25s = 15km
V(min = 506 m/s)

So I got it to at least 25 seconds of burn time, probably more if it throttles down for longer ranges.

The 15 seconds comes from the trial/test firing where the missile only used propulsion for 15 seconds.

Extrapolation of L.M statements:
“F-35 can fly >mach 1 with an itzy bitzy bit of A/B” = translation, its subsonic on dry thrust,
and best performance is had at 36k ft.
As alt goes up, lift goes down and so does speed on dry thrust from this point.
Keep this post in mind if L.M comes out of the closet, and feel free to quote me if you think you can score a point

About that… they have reached m1,65 once.

Do you know if they solved the bubbling and peeling problem after extened afterburner use?

omg, the 650 parameter bs has returned. About F35 getting full capabilities.. why not wait and see? It’s over a year before IOC of the F35A.

There are some interesting pics floating around.

It looks like they are going for more speed and agility rather than range. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up. http://htka.hu/2013/05/11/bemutattak-az-uj-torok-vadaszbombazo-koncepcioit/

Interesting to note is that FS2020 is cancelled in Sweden and moved to FS2025 and the turkish AC is expected to be finished with the designphase after 2023. It seems that the stars have aligned in this project and the next Swedish fighter may be something as wierd as a Turkish/Brazilian and Swedish stealth fighter! 😀

More images here: http://www.network54.com/Forum/248068/thread/1343536992/Likely+Tfx+Designs+3D

Austria is thinking about “let our neighbor do the airpolicing for us”, as is the case for some other European nations.

You are correct. The difference is that Austria has an airforce.

Austria can easily afford to operate Typhoons. It’s a fair bit richer than Israel, for example, which operates (& US aid does not pay operating costs) a much larger fleet of aircraft, with a vastly greater overall operating cost.

Austria chooses not to allocate the money to operate them.

They couldn’t afford to operate them with the old budget either. The costs where too high.

Now lets look at a contender for the F35, Denmark. Military budget is $4,3bn, the Austrian budget is about $3,7bn (2012). The F35 would be bought in grater numbers than the Austrian Eurofighters while cost more per pop to operate.

Do you, or do you not, feel that it is likely that the Danes will end up the same way as the Austrians if they opt for the F35?

Until the recent Austrian cuts they barely flew the airplanes, now they wont afford it at all. For South Africa even the Gripen was too expensive.

@Tu-22M- Overall I agree with your points, what is overlooked is whether the aircraft fits the defense doctrine of the nation making the purchase. I don’t think many, outside of Dassault, would argue that Brazil made a wise choice. The Gripen is a good fit for a nation that: a) has few (if any) regional threats that would outclass the Gripen b) does not have a tradition of spending, nor supporting a large defense establishment since the 1920’s battleship race. c) has not engaged in any expeditionary engagements, overseas deployments, or defense commitments. The Swiss had a similar choice to make and chose poorly by not pursuing the Gripen purchase. Where I disagree is that purchasing three times as many cheaper aircraft is actually a cost savings. I doubt training, spares, fuel, maintenance, on a large number of less sophisticated fighters would be any more affordable.

It is a solid backbone 😉 But for any country having expeditionary forces or that expects to be the aggressor the F35 makes total sense, even in its current shape.