SchorschI think that UCAVs are widely overrated and that they will not fulfill any useful combat mission in the next 10 years at least. Although a pilot is expensive, he adds serious capability. He increases survivability and flexibility.
In the end, the fact that a friendly human is out there fighting, increases the awareness that war may be costly and that sending people (and not just machines) into combat represents a liability.
For intelligence an unmanned vehicle makes more sense and UAVs serve since more than a decade good services.
Actually, the definition of “UAV” is fishy at best.
SchorschHonestly, though, as a poster stated above……the records of air forces operating carrier-designed aircraft has been pretty good over the years. F-4….A-4…..A-7…..F-18…..Buccaneer…..etc……and they’ve done pretty well for themselves.
The first delivered F-4F Phantom (37+01) is still in service today, after 30 years and about 8000 flight hours.
SchorschWhen we look at other aircraft that went from deck to land, we see some success stories. I guess that some carrier requirements translate into better lifetime for land-based operations.
Some requirements (low approach speed for example) actually go pretty well with some performance requirements and growth options.
Especially today the few percents less in some performance criteria do not count so much for overall combat performance.
Schorsch[…]
Thanks for the insight.
Always interesting to read first hand accounts.
In a real life conflict so many things have to be taken into account, breaking it down to flight performance (what do frequently I must admit) doesn’t yield useful conclusions.
SchorschThat’ s a good question, are the Hornets offered to India going to be completely “denavalised”?
I mean will they enjoy a reduction in airframe weight by not having to carry the extra strengthening and reinforcing needed by shipborne fighters to carry out high energy landings on carrier decks?:confused:How much weight could a Super Hornet hope to loose in such a process, 500kg, a 1000kg?:confused:
500kg would be optimistic. Re-designing the airframe is expensive and requires extensive re-testing. The offer wil probably turn out to be not very competitive.
If the USN allowed a slight increase in approach speed, the Su-33 (with the new -35BM engines to supercruise admittedly) would already meet those goals.
Now, the Suchoi is not exactly a Boeing or Lockmart design. As such, it was never considered I guess. Now, I think your point is that the aircraft you propose is technically feasible. Actually, I don’t dispute that, I just think that the organsiation called USNavy would fail to define an aircraft that exceeds the SH’s performance considerably without excessively exceeding its price tag.
The E/F was broadly tied to the A-D configuration, which was tied to the YF-17, which was not conceptually designed to run off a carrier. Its limitations are a result of its ‘political’ heritage – if McAir/Boeing had been allowed a free hand, they could instantly have made some major modifications to the layout and obtained improvements.
I wonder, the Navy had two options and quite a lot of money at hands when defining the F-18. They could have got the F-16 navalized, which is – depending on which accounts you believe – a vastly superior or vastly inferior aircraft.
An F-14 Super Tomcat would be tied to the legacy F-14, too. The unbuilt aircraft always excel in great performance, the actually built aircraft always fall short of it. I guess that each aircraft being realized is fated to be called a “failure” on internet fora. I admit that I cannot free me of responsibility for that. 😀
SchorschOne would have to assume so, as the Air Force and Navy Variant of the JSF have different wings for this very reason. However, that would be a question for an engineer or program manager working at Boeing.
I guess partly a political decision. The Navy advertised the SH as modification, knowing that a new aircraft had a good chance of getting cancelled. And a new aircraft means new risks, new technical challenges. We (or better: you) have the SH now, and we can fill pages with its inabilities. But a whole new aircraft could have run in similar problems, considering that the same requirements would most likely not produce the carriercapable, supercruising, M2.0 fast, 800nm radius, dogfighting 4x 2000lbs bombtruck. Actually, such an aircraft is impossible.
SchorschAs far as I am aware the Typhoon and Rafale have carefree handling. I know for sure the F-22 and Gripen does.
I am not sure, but with TVC I assume the MKI has carefree handling (at least with regards low speed high-A end of the envelope).
There is 5 in service aircraft designed in the same timeframe as the Super-Hornet. 4 have carefree handling, the 5th I’m not sure about but would believe it does.
Have you flown the aircraft, assisted the tests, did you do the simulations? Many aircraft are advertised care-free, but there are limitations. Especially at low speeds and wild maneuvering, the control authority of the system might not suffer to save the day. That’s how at least one Gripen got lost. As there is no global certification for fighters that approves that claim, I expect always some holes.
SchorschBTW, I am still waiting for the answer on what advantage does it bring when F-18E/F needs less artificial augmentation than the F-16.
I wanted to express that despite several disadvantages the F-18 is no “crappy” aircraft. It is a design that focused on some aspects more than other, and thus achieves very good results in some aspects, and in other not.
The F-18 is clearly superior to the F-16 in high-AOA handling and is less restricted in usable AOA. The F-16 has serious limits and can get in trouble when handled incorrectly. The legacy F-18 instead is close spin-resistant (can’t say for the SH).
If this is an advantage is open to ones interpretation. In the times when artificial stability was still unproven, it constituted a useful concept. The same way the MiG-29 designers went, and had to pay their price for.
One can appreciate such details, and can discuss if they make sense and what are the reasons for these design decisions, or one can call it a “crappy aircraft”. Sorry I lack respect for those who say the latter.
So what – all modern design aircraft have carefree handling.
I don’t think so. They may be care free in some areas, but a generally carefree aircraft is hard to achieve.
Which means your energy state is ****, have the USAF/USN changed doctrine from energy maneuverability?
Actually, some basic assumptions of Boyd’s original EM-Theory are compromised by modern technology. In a head-on-head fly-by with subsequent dogfight, the ability to “through the nose around” might be advantageous to achieve an early missile shot.
Whats your speeds like with ordnance, particularly with the two inboard pylons in use?
Also, accelerations, how are they, again, with inboard pylons in use?
If those pylons are used for a2g loads, the aircraft is limited to subsonic speeds anyways, like basically all aircraft. Acceleration is just no viable mean of performance assessment here.
Yeap. Unless the whole doctrine of energy maneuverability in combat has been chucked out the door, the S-H is gonna be pretty crap.
Partly, yes. When Boyd “learned” his business missiles were new. They proved unreliable in the next 10 to 20 years. Since beginning of the 1980s, missiles are completely new sort of beast. When within the inner firing envelope of a missile, no speed advantage or acceleration in the world will save you.
SchorschFrom your comment is is obvious that your background is aeronautical engineering. Despite this, the quality of arguments you have provided in this debate so far do not reveal that at all.
Aha, what kind of comments do you expect?
For the rest: if you write serious questions you get serious answers. The stuff you wrote above is just BSing.
SchorschUpcoming?
I have no idea about your educational background, different than me you are not giving any clue in your profile. Considering your comments here it can’t be aeronautical engineering.
The engineers did the best job they could within the brief given them – the YF-17 was all right as a LWF for the USAF. It was not all right as a naval aircraft, yet they couldn’t do a bespoke design. It still doesn’t change the bottom line – its a crap airframe.
As for better solutions, the Rafale and Su-33 both are better than the S-H.
Su-33: You tend to overweight aircraft, I hope your choice with women is better. 😉
The Rafale can hardly achieve the performance goals for approach speed set by the USN. If these make sense, I think they are a bit too low. The F-18 has outstanding high AOA stability and needs less artificial augmentation than the F-16.
SchorschWhat is missing is not linear thinking but the real fact the Russians relied on IRST systems a lot, these systems were capable of fire the AA-8 and AA-11 the later with a range of 35km.
You won`t get too much advantage is you are armed with the same weapons, it is true new radars can be useful when you have same weapons, however all the american fighters with the exception of the F-14 lacked optical and infrared detection systems.
Funny, this statement has nothing to do with your previous, where you hailed BVR and the ability to fire semi-active radar-homing missiles with the help of radar.
BTW, a useful multi-mode radar can give pretty much the same information, it is even less weather-dependent (though detectable, to admit that).
SchorschC’mon – read that in context.
“The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet’s cockpit design, and its avionics controls and displays. The only jet that I’ve flown that is better is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.”
He is saying the cockpit & avionics in the S-H are better than anything he has ever flown.
He is saying that he would choose the F-18 over the F-16 for combat, and that even more so with the Super Hornet. I mean, all that talking about flight performance, isn’t combat performance the final goal and everything else just indicators which help us to figure it out?
For an upcoming engineer you show surprisingly little appreciation for your colleagues’ work. Criticizing something is OK, but to call something crappy, one must come up with better solutions that fit into the frame.
Schorsch[…]
Thanks for proving my points. As I said, BVR-capability is not everything.
SchorschErm, could you point out where it was said the E/F has a more flexible wing than the A->D please.
Oops. I meant more rigid.
It has a crappy wing, and is a terrible aircraft. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all evidence to support that is not going to change reality.
Fun fact: the pilot you have quoted to find the F-18 extremely slow to accelerate has rated the Super Hornet as his aircraft of choice.
It’s definitely more fun to fly the Viper, but the Hornet is the aircraft that I would want to take into combat. The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet’s cockpit design, and its avionics controls and displays. The only jet that I’ve flown that is better is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Another major consideration is the Hornet’s capability to take a surface-to-air missile (SAM) up one tailpipe and still make it home on the other engine, as was demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf War.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200306/ai_n9262073/pg_6
Doesn’t that somehow compromise your statements?
Further on, with some basic engineering education, I would refrain from calling something a terrible aircraft. The people that worked on it have a trillion times more experience in that field. If they call their design terrible, I would buy it.
SchorschF-16A versus MiG-23 early 1980s
advantages are for both sides, in agility terms the F-16 wins, in BVR armament the F-16A did not have any, the MiG-23 wins armed with R-24, perhaps you might not know it but some russian reports have said that the early MiG-23MLD agressors could even defeat MiG-29s and Su-27s at BVR
The MiG-29 did enjoy a total advantage in the early 1980s, the F-16 A did not have any BVR weapon.
The F-18 is more or less in the class of the F-16, however early F-16 were in the niche of the MiG-21 and Mirage III
As I say, linear thinking. In battles over Middle Europe BVR weapons would hardly be used. Even MiG-29 need to identify their targets. You very much overrate the BVR-capability and its usability for such situations. The time a MiG-29A needs to track and lock a target, and fire a missile, when working independently, would actually allow a head-on closing F-16 to fire a Sidewinder. The MiG-29 would have to decide if he goes down as well or tries to avoid missile hit (and losing its target, as BVR weapon is semi-active). In the end, most MiG-pilots would prefer to use IR-AAM only under those conditions.
The early F-16s were the most price effective combat aircraft since long, like the MiG-21 and Mirage III.
Sign In
