I have wondered if Draken was a copy of BiCH 26 ?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnw1-3JwZfSqNBaC3MCNHOrBXzz0639oKG-PJyAXiYJZ6ulp8h8A

No.
It is a larger design, it is supersonic and it’s a double delta wing, not a single one fused with the fuselage. (it was tested though but it wasn’t stable enough)

But there are similarities.

The most striking difference is that the Draken actually got built.

According to a certain user, it is 15.5 tons empty. He is a bit weird tho, he tend to say really silly things but then again he did say spot on what the wingspan is…

T-50-5 is getting ready, it is on pre flight station.

I think 15.5 tonnes is a bit low. It should be pretty close to the Flanker series. Maybe a little bit lighter. But 15’500 kg? Whats the user/source?

I would say the F-22A ranks high among the controversial. The cost alone when placed against capability is question enough to light a fire.

Compared to the SR71 it is a pretty cheap aircraft. And the SR71 didnt have any weapons.

For the sake of numbers, the SR 71 cost an inflation adjusted 240m$ per peace + extreme flight hour costs beacause of the leakage of fuel.

But ok, fine. I could add the F22 to the list.

On the other hand Gripen is the first jet in modern times that break the cost cycle. And I dont think it fits. Maybe when the “optionally manned system” part reaches IOC.

You have it backwards.

IR sensors typically provide a vector (or bearing) but not the range, especially past the range of the laser rangefinder.

😎

Thats why you have real time datalinks and additional zoom (basic trigonetry helps out a lot). High zoom-level = higher clarity = more pixels covered = better range estimation.

But for exact locations I would say radar so far is the most reliable system.

I think that AIM-120 range questions is actually better place to disscus about missiles range than F-35 Debate thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?97983-AIM-120-range-questions/page2
Please guys back to the missiles discussion here.

Ok, that sounds like a reasonable request. It’s just that the weapons are the rulers that tells if the sensors and other components are good enough or not for the specific task.

But what I really wonder is if there will be any air combat at all in the future (as most fighter jet manufacturers hope for). With the cost of the current machinery why not just bomb the airfields with standoff missiles followed by SEAD and Attack/CAP/CAS? Once the enemy is hindered from using the main airfields along with suppressed air defence you basically have air superiority no matter what you fly.

I had thought to calculate using a similar method, unfortunately there’s a key piece of information missing.

Your data is: 40G
Your assumption is: low altitude

The rest is simple proportional calculation based on air density, velocity and a proportional Cl chart from Wikipedia. You might notice the support text with the chart is a protest from someone who thought that calculation of Cl at different speeds and angles DID NOT require wind tunnel testing …. IE. shape is irrelevant (I bet that every modern aircraft manufacturer is forehead slapping themselves at that revelation)
One glaringly obvious area where his whole argument falls over is with a sphere. Is a sphere going to more manoeuvrable at high speed? How about at a higher angle of attack? You might want to check the source he cited for his information because as with your calculations above, I believe he is missing parts of the picture which destroy his results (GIGO). This is why its important to read the REAL sources when citing Wikipedia, rather than from people who frequently omit certain details.

A really important area where your proportional method falls apart is that the G capability for a missile is pretty much always a structural limit and not a possible, aerodynamic G capability. The control autopilots will prevent the missile from exceeding the structural limit. So the missile is most likely able to pull 40G’s all the way up to a certain altitude using a single control plane, then for a higher altitude range is still able to do 40G’s with dual plane control.

So effectively, this means reference area will be very different in the calculations for different altitudes, as the missile’s autopilots will not allow it to hit maximum aoa at low altitude to reach maximum “theoretical” turn acceleration. Accurate Cl’s also become important as well.

Unless you know specifically what is the maximum altitude at which the missile can pull 40G’s, then the proportional method you’re trying to use will fail and most likely by a huge margin.

I am just showing how it works and producing approximations. Since everything is classified I have to look at the more detailed examples elsewhere.

These are some of the official numbers:
The Astra family is a fairly close competitor to the Aim120, at least when it comes to range and agility. The MkII has a stated range of up to 150km and 40G turn capability. The big difference here is that the numbers for Astra has higher detail, for instance the 150km is for head on engagement at high altitude and the 40G are from “near sea level”.

We also see MKB Fakel that has 60G turn performance at sea level that drops to 20G at 90kft. 20G is what the missile can produce in near vacuum as long as it can use its thrust vectoring.

Patriot Pac 3 missile (not sure what MIM#) can pull 30G after burnout inst @mach 5 or ~20G “sustained”. At mach 4 this equates to ~19G inst or 13G sust. For the Amraam I round everything up.

I don’t think the 40G are the structural limit, mainly for 2 reasons. 1 Astra can only reach it at low altitude (not a structural limitation) and 2 the acceleration of the missile is typically 40-60G, ie already over the structural limit if it would have been 40G.

Shape does matter but the general principle is still the same. And since I go for relations rather than exact numbers I dont even need the exact CL numbers as long as i sort of have the difference between start and end (and I have that with accurate enough data, as long as Im in the right ballpark I’m happy, and I think I am).

Based on how other manufacturers make their claims (as well as Raytheon themselves have in the past) it is fairly likely that the 40G is at sea level. But If I go for the 6kft
I at least buff the capabilities a bit.

Height Temperature Pressure Density
(m) (C) (hPa) (kg/m3)
0000 15.0 1013 1.2<– this is where the maneuverability is at its best and the typical max G is reached.
1000 8.5 900 1.1 <– below this the missile loses 25% of its speed every 5 seconds if it isnt turning
2000 2.0 800 1.0 <– this is where I put the baseline performance based on the Pac 3 missile
3000 -4.5 700 0.91
4000 -11.0 620 0.82
5000 -17.5 540 0.74
6000 -24.0 470 0.66
7000 -30.5 410 0.59 <– this is where the missile loses 25% of its speed every 10 seconds if it isnt turning
8000 -37.0 360 0.53
9000 -43.5 310 0.47
10000 -50.0 260 0.41 <– this is normal cruise altitude
11000 -56.5 230 0.36
12000 -56.5 190 0.31
13000 -56.5 170 0.27
14000 -56.5 140 0.23
15000 -56.5 120 0.19

Once in a turn the loss of speed will increase by a factor of 2-7, ie at 7km alt it will take approx 1,3-2 seconds before it reaches mach 3 and thus has lost 44% of its agility (not exact numbers). But the agility is already 59% of the baseline performance of 20G so we get 20G*0,59Δp*0,44Δv²*1,2ΔCL (not exact but approx), this gives 6,23G @20kft after 2-7 seconds in the turn OR 2-8km. So it is ~15km burn + 2-8km turn giving a 17-23km range at 20kft if 6,2G is enough.

I did mention this one before: Wing Performance Flight Test Manual
from: http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf

And they describe it as follows:

6.7.4.2 MISSILE PERFORMANCE
A big constraint in air-to-air combat is the requirement to point at the target before firing. This constraint is based largely upon missile capabilities. If the missiles are launched from a trail position at a reasonable range, the missile has very little maneuvering to do. On the other hand, to exploit the post-stall technology mentioned above, missiles have to be launched at very low speeds (high angle of attack), probably at a high angle-off. The missile has to accelerate from a very low speed and then perform a hard turn due to the high angle-off. Missile turn performance is a key issue for these tactics, since to a large extent, the missile is a mini-fighter with a slashing attack capability. As the fighter’s requirement for close-in maneuvering diminishes, the demands on the missile increase.

both DIRCM and anti missiles missiles have been used for age :p , but honestly i dont think any pilot calm enough to shot down enemy missiles with his missiles

I mentioned it as a possibility, i think handling incoming missiles will be stressful no matter what countermeasure you use. DIRM in the case of Shtora has been retired because it became obsolete/useless. Modern seekers, like that in the IRIS-T are designed to cope with DIRCM and even if the current filtering isnt enough it is fairly easy get around DIRCM.

I do not doubt your intentions one bit…The problem i have is that the designers of the BVR weapons and the eventual operators base their future strategy on performance of the existing weapons, and planned future weapons. That part of the performance is based on actual hard figures, and performance that is not known to either of us. Having access to all that information most are predicting BVR combat at much greater ranges then what you are suggesting. What does this tell us? To me this tells me that you are grossly underestimating the ability and performance of Current MRAAM’s…

I would not say Im underestimating the performance of anything here. If my assumptions hold up (ie early warning and correct maneuvers in time) then I am correct. If one of these assumptions falls short the result will be longer engagement range.

Our discussion is about missile performance without thrust.
The factors deciding the outcome are the following:
* aircraft maneuverability vs missiles ability to hit it with a charge (this is why kinematics are important…)
* early warning (missiles after burnout give late warning, but at close range they are likely detected before that when they burn… at longer ranges like 30km or so its not certain that the target gets the warning in time)
* target pilots ability to make the right decision and act in time.
* EW

With a late warning (like one would expect at maybe 25-40km) the lower maneuverability of the missile quite possibly could be good enough. I just try to narrow my argument to what we know and can expect. I said before that if I add a new layer of complexity, like assuming that warning systems aren’t as good as advertised or that pilots will have a slow reaction time, or what ever one might add, the whole comparison will become impossible.

All I can say is that the missiles Pk will drop, probably below 50% after burnout, and for every thing that is right the probability gets lower, for everything that goes wrong for the target the Pk increases.

So you are correct that we don’t know the details. But looking at stuff like missile engagement envelopes we get a pretty good understanding on what the real performance is. Meteor will be the biggest step since the Aim120 in the pursuit of the BVR dream. But for every mean to reach a goal there is a countermeasure costing less.