SchorschThe Bison was the attempt to build a transcontinental jet bomber and can be regarded initially as failure. When all problems were addressed, the usage of ICBMs as deterrence became more useful.
With a total of 93 built the Soviets never attempted to match the capability of manned bombers like the SAC, actually the Bison may have cost the American tax payer more than the Soviet, as it was overrated both in number and capability (“bomber gap”). The initial prototype was short of any performance target, even the improved variant was still not really capable. Strongest shortcoming was – like in many aircraft of that era – the low power engines with high fuel consumption.
SchorschAnd Soviets were fully capable of making MiG-25 true M3 interceptor as E-155M showed.
The MiG-25 had insufficient lateral control and the engine exceeded its RPM limit when going beyond Mach 3. Have you ever compared the prototype MiG-25 to the production model? What’s your conclusion? Lateral stability becomes a huge issue at Mach 3.
Any remedy to this problem would have compromised the performance of the aircraft in other parts of the flight envelope. There is simply no way of building a compromise between subsonic patrol duty and Mach 3 capability, especially not with the crude technologies employed on the MiG-25 initially.
SchorschI believe that the Blackbird and Valkyrie were the only true Mach 3 aircraft because they were the only ones that could maintain that speed without the engines or airframe being destroyed as on the Mig-25. Most supersonic aircraft top out at around M2.2 because aluminum can’t bear the heat much past that speed. This is why the SR-71 was made of titanium and the XB-70 used stainless steel honeycomb panels and some titanium. There is a reason the Valkyrie and Blackbird look so much different than any other aircraft…
That is true. The T-4 could have been the third but it never arrived at that development level. The MiG-25 lacked the appropriate engines (overspeed and control issues) and the appropriate airframe to be an operational Mach 3 aircraft (red-lined at M2.8). But I would like to underline that the MiG-25 was primarily built as interceptor, not as Mach3 aircraft. Many turbojet powered aircraft of that era with op speeds of 2.1-2.3 could go to 2.6 if boosted a bit. It wasn’t the pure engine power but the intake, lateral control and airframe temperature.
SchorschAs a stand off long range interceptor/bomber destroyer the F3 is a superb aircraft, unfortunately it also shows the dangers of over specialisation as when it’s primary role ended with the end of the cold war it was not very suitable for anything else until they started using them for SEAD. For it’s designed role arguably no other fighter anywhere would have been better, as a general air superiority fighter almost any of the alternatives would have been better. That said, hindsight is a wonderful thing and it was the right aircraft for the RAF at the time it was concieved, if the cold war had never ended and the RAF and NATO had still needed a long range bomber destroyer we’d probably be talking of how great it was. The RAF desperately needs the EF Typhoon for it’s air combat role, although the GR4 is still a magnificent strike fighter.
UK is one of the “transit routes” for global air traffic. I guess most of the RAF sorties are flown for air policing. If it is a blind B767 or a Russian Bear doesn’t change the performance requirements for the aircraft. This job can be adequately done by F3 Tornados. Out-of-territory combat jobs (fortunately) remain the exception.
SchorschTry to read carefully. “In June 1983 the first MiG-29s were delivered ..”; The aircraft official acceptance certifacate was signed in 1984.”
It took till 1986 to push it into full service and debug the systems, before to show it to the public. The Russians were not intrested to repeat their failure with the MiG-23 in 1973, when you are not even aware, that there is some coincedence related to years a decade later.
About the range of the R-530, none disputed that. A weapon to bring down hostile bombers in all weather conditions round the clock.
Similar thing with the “Falcon” carried by the AJ-37 and what the pic does show sent by you. (Similar to F-106A!)http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml
I think the F-16 had similar time frame in some respect.
First flight YF-16 was ’74.
Acceptance for USAF as F-16A was ’75.
F-16A flew and was delivered from ’78 on.
F-16A became operational (I guess it was initial operational capability) in Jan ’79.
First squadrons were deployed about late 80′ or 81′.
So from start of aircraft production to useful squadrons it lasted about 2 years. If the aircraft is mature at production (I think the F-16 was OK in that respect but still had some shortcomings), two years are needed to have a useful capability. Under peacetime it is even longer, German AF Eurofighters are training for over 3 years now and are still not declared operational.
I think the MiG-29 that first flew in ’77 can be compared in some respects to the YF-16 as being more a demonstrator and prototype with only limited resemblence to the later combat aircraft.
SchorschThe only option to do so could have been to support the Backfires past Bodo in northern Norway to help you out.
Which was a bottle-neck for the Soviet long range patrol aircraft. With Norwegian F-16 on patrol and no assets capable of doing real air superiority there any Bear or Backfire was easy prey. Air superiority over Northern Norway was key element of threatening shipping to Central Europe.
In case of a conflict the British Tornados would have forward deployed to Trondheim, Bodo or Andenes. There the chance of facing Russian fighter aircraft was present, while they still had a comfortable home advantage. From Bodo to Murmansk it is still 1000km direct flight (crosses Sweden and Finnland).
SchorschInterceptors were built originally with following requirements:
– all-weather capable
– good climb ability
– interconnected with ground control stations
– heavy weapons (good to destroy a bomber)
– all-aspect (not necessarily BVR) capability
Initially interceptors were faster than average jets, but the F-4 Phantom already had all qualifications for an interceptor. The true difference in my opinion is the different deployment strategy and the different systems. In Soviet Union the interceptors even were organised in a different command.
I think the interceptor was dead mid/end 1960 when radar and all-aspect radar-homing missiles became available for smaller airframes.
SchorschFirst of all, while the Concorde might have had more endurance, the XB-70 cruised almost a Mach faster. Also, the XB-70 never demonstrated its full capabilities even in prototype form. Of course, AV/2 crashed, but AV/1 hadn’t exactly been stretched to its limits. It was limited by people to Mach 2.5 after a small part of the wing came off after a flight above M3. If they would have let it continue M3 flight, there is no telling what it could have done. It also had a greater range than Concorde at 4500 miles.
The Concorde was certified by civil aviation rules to be used for commercial flying. That is one world difference to a military test aircraft. So, from the maturity standpoint, the Concorde was way ahead of the XB-70. To be fair one should carefully check the dates of the Concorde: first flight 1969, 1976 sercive entry. Nearly 7 years of testing.
I guess to really say something about the soundness of the XB-70 design one need to do real research (NASA file server has excellent reports for free!). But it looked like a viable concept.
SchorschQuestion:
Which do you think will be more important, the race to hypersonics or the race to airborne lasers?
I would back lasers every time. It seems with the US chasing a hypersonic bomber they’ve missed a trick :confused:
We haven’t seen a single manned hypersonic vehicle with air-breathing engines until now. So basic technology is still missing. A hypersonic vehicle might be avilable at best in 15 years but I doubt.
SchorschI think the Blackbird’s turn radius at speed was around 80 miles! Interestingly though, the F-12 was credited with a quicker “re-attack” time than the F-106 due to the high speed, despite the exorbitant display of supersonic nonmaneuverability.
The Balckbird has a g-limit of 1.5g above Mach 2.6, which translates into
a turn radius of ~70km for Mach 3. That is to turn direction the aircraft needs a little bit over 4 minutes.
Apart from the SSTs, the only other supersonic extended-cruise airframes I can think of were the T-4, Blackbird, FOXBAT, FOXHOUND, XB-70, Tu-160, and B-1.
I am not sure the Foxhound can do, or the B-1. The problem encountered are two-fold: engine overheat and airframe overheat. Above Mach 2 the airframe temperature becomes a huge issue and can only be avoided by using special materials, like done on the SR-71 or the MiG-25. The SSTs didn’t fly so fast and didn’t need special materials. The Foxhound also used more conventional materials. That limits the sustained speed to below M2.
Actually, I agree with GarryB (which doesn’t happen too often) that the true achievement of the MiG-25 is the sustained Mach2+ capability. If and how this is needed is another issue (obviously they didn’t require it for the MiG-31). The Mach 3 capability sounds more exciting, but I guess only very few aircraft ever achieved this speed. If an aircraft goes M2.79 or M3.02 is a rather academic difference anyways.
Always funny is the supersonic bomber role: with Mach 2 at 70000ft even a tactical nuke is hard to aim, not to speak of conventional bombs.
Schorsch…as per my Typhoon comment somewhere above.
And just because we don’t keep rolling out super futuristic stealth craft, don’t put us down in middle field. We are still streets ahead in many areas…….where we fall is as you say, a government (Note 1) that prefers to spend on other things and so we “Share” our technology with USA….and somewhere between the two it’s sold to Israel for a bung.
(Note 1…Nothing against Labour, I’m against all Politicians from whatever corner/country/colour)
Neither Britain, nor Germany, and even not France (although they haven’t realised yet) can afford an aviation industry that covers the whole range from fighter airframes, over engines, avionics and sensors and finally weapons. It would basically work, but it would be rather uneconomical. The next level is either European cooperation where each participating nation has some specialties and some level of authority, or just buy it somewhere else. While I think that buying something is sometimes the right choice, one must be aware that each lost defense contract erodes the base of the home-grown industry. Britain gave perfect example with TSR.2 cancellation and some other disasters. Some nations like the Netherlands have completely lost all competency and now may compete for landing gear door assembly for the F-35.
In case of the A400M the business case works quite well: first it establishes Airbus (=EADS) more firmly on the military market, which will become one leg of it on the long term. Secondly, it introduces some technologies that may be useful for future (wing, engine, avionics). Of course, the workshare is a disaster and delays will surely occur (while show me any American program where they didn’t occur). Most importantly, the A400M represents the airlifter that other nations truly need. Most countries operate C-130s, which are (as some expressed) do not offer the flexibility needed nowadays.
That the Brits stepped out of Airbus and BAe Systems becomes an American company with some British heritage is its own fault.
SchorschLike many defence programs the A400M enables the manufacturer to gain experience in technology and getting paid for it. That is how Boeing became one the leading manufacturers. Promoting that we spent our tax payer money for outdated American hardware doesn’t seem to be very promsing. That is how the British government made its aviation industry from the second in the world to middle field.
SchorschTry anything certainly up to the F104 after that it does go awry.
Actually back then many had the “X” in front of them. For example there was the XB-46, XB-47, XB-48, XP-80, XP-84, XP-86, XF-104, and so on. XB-70 was assigned it’s designation at a time when it was fully intended to produce them as a bomber. It was not an X-plane such as the X-15 but simply the first incarnation of it’s type and as such received an “X” like just about everything else did in those days.
XP-86, XF-104, XB-29, XB-36, XB-47, XB-52 and for the USN, XF9F-2, XF9F-9, XFJ-1, XF2D-1, XF8U-1, XA3D-1, XA4D-1.
Okay, thanks for the insight.
Anyways, I wanted to point out the rather different design approach of American programs. Technology was normally available when aircraft was cleared for prototyping. The usage of X and Y seems rather random in the 40s and 50s. Maybe a contractual issue.
SchorschXB-52
Which flew after the YB.
SchorschIncorrect, most American a/c do start with a prototype designation of X. Y is pre-production or development a/c designation.
If you want proof then go look up pretty much any a/c type that Amercan has or had. They do generally start with an X version although they can be designated a WS number (weapon system) in the concept phase.
Examples?
Especially from after 1955.
Sign In
