SchorschMy understanding is that the V-22 flies twice as far, twice as fast with twice the payload of the existing helicopters. When I’ve heard them flying the Osprey has also been much quieter.
I’m not denying that the V-22 has issues, but these four parameters all sound like very important improvements for this type of aircraft.
Richard.
When I read right the V-22 can load 8 tons when operating vertical, that is 10 tons less than a CH-53E. Both have similar empty weight (15 tons).
My conclusion for other (especially European) armed forces is that a good helicopter in the CH-53E-class is Ok and should be combined with a small/medium (C-295-size) STOL conventional transport, eventually one that includes direct lift technologies. So you can bring down the field requirement to less than 1000ft and hence operate from road strips.
The V-22 is a great aircraft nevertheless, but consider the price tag. For that you can get an A380 fleet of 150 aircraft (means: 150 A380 for ~250 million a copy plus ~14 billion development). And that for bringing 26 men faster into combat zone? Please, that is just obscene!
And imagine: The first V-22 flew in 1989, that is 16 years before introduction and 18 years before first deployment (although there was war in ’05 already).
SchorschFirst metal cut did occur on MSN037, and some long-lead items are possibly produced. These will either go into scrapyard, will be put in storage or integrated into normal series aircraft. I guess the parts specially designed for the freighter will first go into storage as Airbus will continue with the freighter program once it has figured out how to do it.
SchorschSorry to show my ignorance. Is a GTF the same sort of concept as the Unducted Fan test flown on a Boeing 727 a few years ago?
Thanks in anticipation for your time and trouble.
Be lucky
David
A GTF is a Geared Turbo Fan, means a gearbox between low pressure spool and fan disc allows the fan to rotate slower and the LP-compressor faster, thus gaining on each’s efficiency. It isn’t a revolutionary concept, but is supposed to increase fuel efficiency by some percent.
CFM56 may be 25 years old, but it is continuously improved. The CFM56-7 (B737NG) don’t have to much in common with the -3 (B737-3/4/5) or -2 (DC-8, B707). Therefore it would be nice to know compared to which engine they will gain 15%. I don’t think this is meant as saving compared to latest CFM56 variants.
I read an article myself about LEAP56 and understood it was amodest improvement program. The fact that they don’t make it a new engine despite the serious interest of the market shows that it doesn’t really involve new technologies.
The P&W6000 GTF has some hopes of powering an intermediate A320 replacement. The A320 has the advantage of providing enough space beneath its wing. The LEAP56 engine might be a similar alternative for updated B737NG, but I think that Boeing needs to update the airframe, too, which doesn’t make too much sense in case of the A320.
SchorschAnd the Japanese must’ve stole that from the Eurofighter guys.
And finally the origin is some German proposal from the late days of the war, like always. :diablo:
I guess the Chinese could really have used Israeli input on flight control system design. Designing a canard is not so extremely difficult. Other issues like level of instability (if at all), structures and control system design are unknown and will remain unknown. It is my conviction that below the skin the J-10 is a rather conventional design.
SchorschIt depends on a lot of things.If the the aircraft can manage to manoeuvre decently with a a2g missile load then why not?In that case the operative procedures will be developed as such by the concerned airforce for that particular aircraft as to upto what extent it is allowed and when to let go of the weapon load and save itself.Also depends on pilot confidence.And it is more possible if the concerned aircraft is very good at BVR.We have seen profiles of aircraft eg.Su-30 operating with A2G loads with BVR a2a missiles,antiship loads plus a2a missiles.Many other aircraft IMo are very capable in operating in this mixed configuration..Typhoon,rafale etc..Also has been helped more by the newer radars with interleaving modes.
Another thing is that in case of the imaginary scenario where J-10s strike against US ships,maybe they strike first after approaching undetected and then they get intercepted by US aircraft they can still try to fight then off and return,where as aircarft like the Su-24 would be sitting ducks and have to go low and fast in the hope of saving themselves.
Attacking US ships will be one of the few possibilities to strike back. Another would be to strike bases on the Arabian peninsula or Iraq, if Iraq is used as basis (which is unlikely).
First of all not the aircraft matters but the weapon used. No aircraft would dare attacks like the Argentinians did in 1982 (dropping Snakeyes while making direct passes over the ships).
With anti-ship missiles any aircraft is a sitting duck (the J-10 possibly more so than a Su-24). It doesn’t have the speed to really run (limited to subsonic), it is severely restricted in maximum overload (normally 5g max) and it makes quite a good radar target. If engaged by hostile fighters the only option is to drop a2g weapons and run (or take the fight, which is normally a bad idea, as the attacker will engage in advantage). In Iraq 1991 American aircraft could fight off a MiG-21 and still continue their mission. But that was with huge weapon advantage and AWACS guidance. The Iranians will not enjoy airborne control and when attacking ship concentrations with jammers more powerful than a fleet of airborne jammers, they will fly in a world of electronic darkness.
Don’t get fooled by funny pictures implying A2G and A2A mixture. If an aircraft uses its A2A weapons for defense on a strike mission, it will drop the rest of the stuff quickly (at least when the adversary is not a Alpha Jet). A2A means you are fighting for your life!
SchorschThe B-1 is far better in everything except range. It lifts a bigger payload with a shorter takeoff and the A model was more than twice as fast. Granted you could redesign a B-52 to trade fuel for more weapons, but its still slow, even if you reengined it with modern turbofans or whatever.
Interesting that currently more B-52H are active than B-1B. :diablo:
Put any jet engine you want into a loaded F-105D, and it will still eat up more runway than a loaded Tornado.
I don’t dispute that. With the F-105 you have taken the least useful example with very inefficient supersonic wings and straight low power turbo-jet engines.
But I dispute that the Tornado is only gaining through its VG-wings. The VG on the Tornado are reasoned by several (contradicting) requirements. Better compare the Tornado IDS and the F-15E (both rolled out at the same time, designed at the same time (F-15A) and having turbo-fan engines). Turns out, that there is no real big gap, actually the F-15E excels in pure flight performance, but of course is no low-level penetrator.
Ok, lets make it the F-104S vs MiG-23M. Both were in production at the same time, both were single engined, single seat fighters optimized for air to air combat at very high speeds (faster than current fighters are optimized for). Armament was equivalent – two SARH and four IRH missiles plus cannon. Besides the better field performance, the MiG-23M has far more range. I’m sorry if the MiG is bigger. All I have to work with is what went into production. I don’t have a VG F-104 or fixed wing MiG-23 to make comparisons with. You could make a good argument that the F-4E is a closer equivalent (but its bigger than the MiG-23M 😉 ).
Who says that? Sources? I have problems finding specifications of the M-version at all, all quote the ML, which is a different beast. The MiG-23 carries two SR-AAM and two MR-AAM and one external tanks, while the -104S has same missiles but three tanks. Once again: advantage of the -23M is (besides its higher maximum Mach number) its better field performance, but I refuse to see any range advantage. We need not to discuss the inherent disadvantages of the F-104 when it comes to maneuvering.
Maybe I should have selected the MiG-23BN, which has the intake ramps to take advantage of what the wings will allow, but either MiG is faster. But the empty weight of the MiG-27 is very little more than the Jaguar. The old guesstimates that I have handy are 7850Kg for the MiG, and 6800Kg for the Jag. If max takeoff weight is so much more for the MiG, you can thank VG! :p
Jaguar A: Empty: 7000kg; MTOW: 15700kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar#Specifications_.28Jaguar_A.29
MiG-27 K: Empty 12000kg: MTOW: 20700kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-27#Specifications_.28MiG-27K.29
A classical example how a smaller jet has similar performance as a larger jet, with exception of field performance, the reason for all this VG headache.
Yeah, because most fighters are fixed wing with high sweep. As they slow down, they have to increase AOA to get enough lift at altitude, and drag shoots up. VG aircraft cruise with minimum sweep (or very close to it) because drag is so much less at lower speeds. High lift low sweep wings allow the pilot to throttle way down and fly for much longer and with greater efficiency. (let’s not refer to B-70, please) Its the same for cars and jets.
Basically wrong. At Mach 0.75 to M 0.85 most aircraft have their sweet spot in terms of cruise efficiency. Going slower, even when a swing-wing is available, normally doesn’t yield much. You forgot to incorporate the installed engine and its SFC. A MiG-23 with straight turbo-jet won’t win anything when going slow, an F-14 maybe more, but still: it doesn’t reason the installation of a swing wing. The Tomcat has the swing wing because of field performance (or carrier performance) and heritage combined with high dash Mach number. That’s it.
SchorschSurely if the Iranians want to strike US vessels they will use boghammers at sea or suicuide boats in port rather than a wave of expensive fighters?
The Iranians will (or should) know by now that symmetric conflict with US armed forces will most likely end in disaster, whereas asymmetric conflict seems more promising (in case there is conflict at all).
Well sinodefence says range is >1300 km without refuelling.And its a good strike option.Although they have some Su-24s having longer range.But Su-24s would need escorts,which the J-10s can manage without.
Marketing, but not really good stuff. First of all, we need to figure if we talk about range or radius, the later being range divided by roughly 2 (normally more like 2.5). Second, we need to know if these distances involve serious combat fuel flow (low level dash, afterburner usage). Finally, the configuration needs to be known (a2a, light a2g or heavy a2g).
And about escorts: you either go in with a2g loads or you go in as a fighter. You cannot fight an F-18 just while delivering your ordnance. Normally, a lock-on by an F-18 50nm before target is reached means soft kill of the mission: drop all bombs, get the hell away. If the F-18 pilot (and his tactical officier) are wise, they lock on when you are already in lethal missile distance. Boom, there you go.
SchorschAtleast it gives Iran a long range fighter able to take shots at US warships deep into the Persian gulf.
Who said the J-10 has long range?
The Persian Gulf is at max 150km wide, no need for long range strike aircraft.
And striking American combat vessels is – in my humble opinion – not a very good idea.
SchorschPayload/range improvements wasn’t the point in developing the B-1.
Speed, advanced avionics/TFR were.
Hard to beat range and payload of a B-52 (its fuselage is nothing but a bomb bay and fuel tank with a cockpit attached) with a smaller plane.
Right.
Like many/most/possibly all swing wing aircraft it represents the result of contradicting requirements. I guess the swing wing is dead because contradicting requirements are dead.
SchorschThe 24 aircraft are based on technology and components provided to China by Israel following the cancellation of the Lavi project in the mid-1980s. The engines of the J-10 are Russian-made.
Which means the Russians need to agree to this deal, at least inofficially.
The estimated operational range of the aircraft, with external fuel tanks, is 3,000 kilometers, which means Israel falls within their radius of operation.
Wet dreams. Never ever will they achieve a 1500km tactical radius.
During the 1980s, Israel Aircraft Industries, along with U.S. firms, developed a multi-role aircraft that was considered the most advanced of its type at the time.
Nah, “most advanced” of its time is a bit too much. Besides that, the J-10 doesn’t have so much in common with the Lavi.
First J-10 exports.Another small problem for the USAF to contend with.
Cost of each one at 40 million ..pretty expensive I would say,when you can get an Su-30 at 45-50 mn.
I would like to know the political price.
SchorschB-1 vs B-52
Like comparing B737-200 and A321 and relating the increased payload range to FBW on the Airbus. And I rather doubt the B-1B has any real advantage over the B-52H in terms of payload-range.
Tornado vs F-105
The next interesting comparison (at least the weight is close to similar): comparing RB199 of a 3rd generation combat jet against J75 of first generation supersonic jet makes me sad and sorry. Do your homework first!
F-14 vs F-4 or F-18E
I guess we had this discussion. The F-14 by the way carries less ordonance than either aircraft.
MiG-23 vs F-104
Apart from the field performance I can’t see big difference, except that the MiG-23 is 50% heavier and is optimised for higher Mach numbers. Note also that the F-104G was leaving production when the Flogger really entered it (with MiG-23M). Again, kicking in two aircraft that completely changed their mission and specifications over their various versions makes me doubtful you know what you are talking about. We can have any result we want depending if we take F-104S against MiG-23S or F-104A against MiG-23MLD.
MiG-27 vs Jaguar
Do you have dependable performance figures for those? I rather doubt. Note again that you compare two airframes of which the heavier weights 80% more than the lighter. It is like comparing a B777 with an A380.
VG gives the F-14 an excellent ability to loiter on station for a long time. It also reduces cruise speed, which increases range.
Maybe, but please: reduced cruise speed will give additional loiter, never range. Best range for most fighters in a2a config will be at M0.8 or close. Also remember that you compare a turbofan engine (TF30 with ~1 bypass ratio) against a pure turbo-jet. A TF-equipped aircraft with fixed wings wouldn’t give that much lower loiter times.
SchorschThe new thing about the carrier ops of the USN in 44/45 was their long duration without visiting a port, although keeping a substantial sortie rate. That was possible due to escort carriers having spare aircraft on board. ANother factor was probably the more reasonable weather of the Pacific (compared to North Atlantic).
I don’t think the USN had such a high attrition in crews as they gave special attention to that. The Japanese however suffered heavy losses each time they went into combat, even when winning the engagement. After normally two to four sorties against defended targets most aircraft and crews were expended. Compare with operations at the Salomonen Islands. Possibly also due to Samurai mentality of the Japanese airmen.
Schorsch“Interestingly, EADS estimates that the Super Hornet has an RCS 20 dB lower than the original F/A-18C/D, getting close to the values for aircraft like the F-22 and JSF.”
Uh, yeah. . . :rolleyes:
20dB is a factor of 100, means the SH has 1/100 the RCS of the normal Hornet. With that you actually get close to the F-22.
SchorschNice to see you back, Schorsch.
I rarely click in this subforum.
Interesting statistics. Where did you get them from, may I ask?
German Wikipdeia entry.
Interesting. There’s a long way to go there, but it’s hardly surprising, and I’d not turn to a Uni for moral toughness.
The Technical University of Berlin was founded under the special allowance of the British occupation (Berlin was until 1990 formally not part of Western Germany). It is written in the founding rules of the university that no weapon research is allowed at the TU Berlin.
SchorschExcept that von Braun (probably) knew the conditions endured by those forced to build the weapons he used his science to produce.
But he wasn’t directly in charge. That prevents him to be a war criminal. From the moral point of view I agree and I think WvB could have done more to alleviate this issue. However, I must confess I haven’t spent enough time studying his works. I may add that the whole issue with forced labor is a (sadly) bigger topic today than was in the 60ies. Think: that were the days when German fighter bombers were supposed to use American nukes in combat under the command of former Wehrmacht officers.
Sign In
