SchorschFor years jet VTOL light transports have been featured in science fiction films: Aliens, Contact, X-Men, others(?). With the advent of the F-35B, could it be that the technology to build a useful jet STOVL light transport is at hand? Imagine an aircraft powered by two Pratt & Whitney F135 engines with a cargo compartment between them, packaged in a stealthy airframe. This aircraft could take off conventionally from an airbase or road, which would allow it to lift a heavy load. It could then penetrate undetected deep into enemy airspace, perhaps at supersonic speeds, and then land vertically after half its fuel has been burned, making it much lighter. It could deposit a squad of soldiers, or maybe even a HMMWV, (or an Aston Martin, lol), and fly home again. It would allow commando raids into heavily defended airspace, or a general Air Cav assault, where a pokey V-22 would fear to go.
A civilian version could be a buisness jet to remote locations, or a fast way to avoid city and airport congestion.
Would it be too expensive to develop and produce? Or would it be worthwhile? Or would it be just so cool that it needs to be done?
Something comparable was tested 40 years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31
For the development costs of such an aircraft you could actually bribe all terrorists in the world. Rather send in two or three helicopters and risk to lose a bird. A helicopter with large fuel tank can go pretty far, and it can go pretty low. If you chose the route carefully, you get in and get out.
SchorschF-18C costed merely USD $ 29 millions and the F-18E USD $57 millions yeah see that Israel paid 80 million for the F-15I and now you can get cheaper F-18Es even for USD 49 million dollars😉
You are writing big BS based on fishy sources.
The numbers given by USN are the results of complicated, multi-year contracts, and if development is included is unknown. You would show some very very basic insight if you would include inflation to some extent. But as I am a nice guy, I’ll show you.
See, start 1980 with 29 Million USD, have a 2% or 3% inflation and end up 2006 with 48 or 63 Million USD.
[ATTACH]157691[/ATTACH]
SchorschThe combat radius of the F-15A was given in a magazine some years ago, it must be still here somewhere. Take into account that the F-16A was limited to 370 G tanks at that time and would have carried only 2 of them, while the F-15 carried 3 600 G tanks and had ~2/3 more internal fuel. F-15C radius is given with 1970 km.
Scorpion, it is not the amount of internal fuel but the ratio. I thought F-16 can carry 3 external tanks, that’s what I see in pictures quite often. If you take external fuel of F-15C, then please use the figures for F-16C, too. Stay consistent!
As you know, numbers help. I’ll compare F-15A to F-16A:
F-15A
OEW: 13520kg (29800lbs)
Fuel (Internal): 5260kg (11590lbs)
Fuel (External): 5400kg (11900lbs)
Typical TOW (incl. ext. fuel): ~25600kg (56600lbs)
Fuel Ratio: 0.415
see:
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/fighter/McDonnell_Douglas/F-15.htm
F-16A
OEW: 7490kg (16500lbs)
Fuel (Internal): 3150kg (6840lbs)
Fuel (External): 2*1400l = 2280kg (5060lbs)
Typical TOW (incl. ext. fuel): ~13500kg
Fuel Ratio: 0.402
So, we are talking about a 3% relative advantage of carried fuel. Breath-taking.
AFAIK Sparrow was not supported before the AN/APG-66(V2) of the F-16ADF/block 15. Initial F-16A/B lacked a radar altimeter as well, which is part of the minimum flight equipment for night operations.
But it was technically possible. Even the F-20 could home and shot Sparrow. It was a decision made by the USAF, and it was clearly in line with the assumed missions and the experience made in Vietnam and other conflicts (Middle East), where practically zero kills were BVR. And the decision was right as proven in 1982.
Though structural changes for higher MTOW and service life the F-15E is airframe wise much closer to the A-D, than the Super Hornet is to the Hornet.
Of course there are a lot of other changes.
Sure, but it is a completely different aircraft in terms of mission and avionics. Would be interesting to know if they fixed the inlets on the F-15s as they don’t need it anyways.
Schorschinternal fuel = 6780 kg (6681 kg according the manual)
That is real capacity and unpumpable amount. Normally the total fuel is used for figures, while actually just the smaller number is truly available. Often oil and other materials are not considered in OEW, either. Performance figures of military fighters are so often manipulated, it makes one really sensitive for the details.
SchorschWhy compare them as strike aircraft???. The F-15C design philosophy was “Not a pound for air to ground.” The F-15E v F-18E is the only sensible comparison, and the F-15E is much better.
Truly? I thought that was for the F-15A.
Please define much better: Range-payload? I am assuming you are on another ill comparison of shiny test flight figures with pessimistic operational fugures. What was the top speed of the F-15A again?
The F-15A was too short ranged, so the F-15C carried more fuel. The F-15 can also out-climb the F-16, but most of all, the F-15 can carry a much more powerful radar, which is very important. The F-15 now carries SIX AIM-120. The F-16 is very manuverable, but the F-15 is the superior fighter.
Can the F-15C still outclimb the F-16 when it carries enough fuel to out-range it? 😉
The F-16 offers not just some more degrees turn-rate, it offers full 9g-capability, a superior man-machine interface, much better control systems and superior performance in the area of M0.8 to M1.2. It is also the smaller, less visible aircraft, can generate more sorties and an air force can afford more aircraft for similar expenditures (see Israel). If two air forces with x amount of money engage each other, one with F-15 and the other with F-16, the latter will most likely win. And that is what counts. Anything else is fanboy non-sense.
As Sens said, more than 4 BVR missiles are usually wasted weight. Of the AMRAAM, 4 make sense. Of the Sparrow, 2 make sense. When really engaging an enemy, who attacks in force and number, there will hardly be the opportunity to fire 4 semi-active missiles.
SchorschThe only known F-15A combat radius is 1800 km with 3 drop tanks in an AA mission. F-16A range was mostly given with 925 km.
I won’t believe those numbers.
The early F-16s were relative limited in comparison to the F-15. They weren’t BVR capable, had to operate at day in good weather, much less powerful radar, no IFF etc.. Newer F-16s are more capable but still lack behind in BVR combat performance. You have to see the missions which both aircraft were designed for.
The F-16A wasn’t a day fighter, it was planned as such, but the avionics even in the first aircraft were quite sophisticated. The radar was surely no AWG-9, but it was very capable. The missing BVR-capability was a political issue. The radar allowed the integration of Sparrow missiles, but as I said, that would have endangered the Eagle. Remember that the F-16 was force-feeded to the USAF by the department of defense.
Though there might be more F-18 customers, the total number of F-15s is about 30% higher. And the F-15 is still in production, the original Hornet is not.
You call the F-15E the original Eagle? Bold step. 😀
SchorschThere is no real comparison.
As an airframe, the -15 pisses all over the -18.
It can carry more, for longer, quicker.
Sure, various systems inside the -18 can help it, but there is no reason they cannot go into the -15 airframe.
Different mission, different aircraft. The F-18 can do things the F-15 can’t. That the F-15 is the better high&fast fighter is undoubted, but as multi-mission strike fighter the F-18 is better, at least when you compare F-15C versus F-18C.
Do you have useful numbers for F-15 combat range? I read that the F-16A actually had more range than the F-15A, but nobody was allowed to say. It was always agreed to never say anything bad against the F-15, so no smart congressman might ask why the airforce need such aircraft anyways. The F-16 was actually better in nearly all respects, except maybe for top speed and the maximum weapons load, but homing in 4 SARH-Sparrows against an armada of MiG-23 and MiG-21 remains doubtful at best. The Soviets got it right when they carried only two SARH-missiles per aircraft, good in average for one BVR-kill. The rest is normally dead weight.
Also interesting: compare F-15 export orders against F-18. Scratch F-15 customers that procured F-15 before F-18 became available (~1982).
SchorschWhat will be the use of the French Armed Forces for such a huge Helo as the Mi-26? We have allready NH-90 on order, either in the land variant for the ALAT, and the navalized variant for he Aéronavale… That’s enough fur our forces!!
What are currently our geopolitical engagements ?Maybe France just thinks of buying Mi-26s in the water-bomber variant… as it is often suggested!!
Considering current main tasks of the army, a heavy lift helicopter is one of the most urgent things they need. It can be used for anything from disaster relief to special forces missions. Things that are truly unneeded (for Germany and France) at the moment are:
– submarines
– tanks
– supersonic fighter
– attack helicopters
And guess what, three out of the four items above are currently procured!
SchorschSo what would of happened if Grumman was told to adapt the F-15’s wing to the F-14 fleet; could it still remain carrier capable?
The answer is: yes, but …
The swing-wing was the fancy way to go in the 1960ies. Of course it has serious advantages, but it has disadvantages, and with some distance we see that variable geometry aircraft haven’t been very successful.
But how could a fixed wing F-14 work?
The basic problem is weight. The F-14 was shaped by its weapon system and some other requirements. For example Mach2 requirement, relatively low approach speeds, but still some remaining agility. The basic problem of the F-14 is the 18 ton OEW.
The F-14 is like other design as the F-111 or the B-1A the result of extreme “gold-plating”. USN and USAF issued quite challanging requirements partly for the sake of it.
SchorschBut as sales have shown the 788 has captures a huge market and the -9 is selling out its slots aswell . Airbus have sized the 350 very well given that boeing allready had a successfull product with over 500 sales by the time airbus launched (or rather re-launched) . The A350 and 787 arent much different in Fues. width despite the XWB affix (this is nothing like a 330 , 777 difference) . The only thing that is different is the wing , the 350 wing is very well built for high capacity and around the -1000 , probably the sweet spot for the 350 wing is between -900 and 1000 varients (you would probably know better then me) , whereas the sweet spot for the 787 is much lower (in capacity/size) ie in between the 788 and 789 . Boeing can probably do a strech to a 787-10 but would most likely have to sacrifice on range/payload (with their standard 20% strech) . I beleive that if boeing is willing to spend 2-3 billion$ in developing a new wing , undercarriage for the 787 more optimized for HGW then they can compete well with the 350-900 and 350-1000 , given that the 350 is only about 5 inches (?) or so wider then the 787 IIRC .
What say you?
I say: well put!
Boeing aims foremost on its present customers of the B767 and those who have procured the A330-200 and -300, which Boeing acknoledges have sold well. It was in my opinion never intended to replace the B777-200, but the -10 would do so. Stretching it further would compromise the original plan.
Like always the airframers are making each others business difficult. The B787 caused Airbus to more or less replace the A330 earlier than planned. The A350 will cause Boeing to replace the B777 earlier than planned. Replacing the B777 is indeed difficult, as benefits would be low, I think ~10%.
SchorschThe A350-1000 @ 325-350 seats (depending upon configuration) and the 7773ER @ the same would serve them well . But then again if they needed something higher then the 772er’s they would have ordered the 3er . Goin into the future i can see them with both 787-10 and 350-1000 @350 seats . With BA the 748 would most likely seat around 400-410 pax so a 2 holer 350-1000 should offer excellent RASM-CASM .
Some interesting comments from BA –
The A350-1000 wasn’t sufficiently defined for us to be confident to order the aircraft,” he says. “We also wanted more certainty about what Boeing’s response will be.”
While the A350-1000 is the main focus of the Airbus offering for the next campaign, it will also include the A350-900, says Boyle. From the Boeing stable, he expects candidates to range from “evolutions of the 777-300ER to something more radically new, as well as the 787-10”.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/02/217311/more-ba-long-haul-orders-to-come.html
So no 748 in contention .
That is what in my opinion Airbus is aiming at. Many airlines operate B777/A340/A330, but no B767-200. So, they have a gab in the lower twin aisle region. Obviously they are comfortable with that. The A350 covers practically everything from A330-200 (would be A350-800) to A340-600/B777-300 (=A350-1000). It is also not totally impossible that the A350 gets another stretch, the infamous double-stretch. Looking at the numbers that would be possible, then of course with restrictions in payload range and considerable development cost. Thinkable earliest some years after the A350 goes into test and service.
SchorschAlso known as the most expensive, most powerful, noisiest and lowest performance of the variants….by those who flew it and the subsequent non Spey engineed versions purchased by the RAF.
It was, in short, a poor relation in overall performance terms. Whilst it represented a quantum leap in many aspects for the contemporary RAF it did not represent a viable or desirable F-4 variant, it was a dead end development.
I read other accounts.
Real improvement would only be achieved with a dedicated engine, which would have needed a greater scale development.
Whilst the performance of the airframe is one aspect of the procurement decision the real driver is financial and political.
The F-14’s greatest service weakness was its maintenance burden …
The F-14’s cost was challenged from the day it took off. That is was a maintenance intensive aircraft (to be honest, no aircraft of that time and definitely not the Phantom, either, was maintenance friendly) was discovered later. Aircraft price is somehow linear with weight. And in terms of weight, the Tomcat always dominated everything in the air! :diablo:
SchorschHas any bothered to look back in 1975 when McDD proposed an upgraded F-4 Phantom 2 as an alternative to the high priced F-14A. The F-4 had LEX that changed position depending on the need. Paperwork was done on how much the performance would improved with higher thrust engines.
They went so far as to have a fly-off! It was not even close, the F-14 outmaneuvered the F-4 in the horizontal and vertical planes. Even when the F-4 was allowed to start at the F-14’s “six”, the F-14 was able to completely shake the F-4 in less than twenty seconds. When the F-14 started on the F-4’s “six”, the F-14 kept the gun piper on the F-4 until the exercise was called off. That ended McDD’s efforts to get the US Navy to look at the F-4 again.
This source says there wasn’t even a prototype.
Called F-4L or Model 98FOA.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_23.html
I haven’t found anything despite intensive Googling. Even the cavediggers at secretprojects don’t seem to know. Can you give a source for your statements?
SchorschFor air superiority missions, the Sparrow was always the weapon of choice. Standard loadout in fighter role was 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders.
Fortunately, the F-14 never had to use its standard fleet defence loadout. I’m pretty sure the bring-back capability would have been the last thing to worry about.
Truly? Each carrier only had limited number of Phoenix available. To have 24hr screen, you cannot have much more than 4 Tomcat in the air at station, another 4 on their way to or from station. At least 2 or 4 on short alert. So if each Tomcat carries 4 AIM-54 and needs to sink at least 2 before landing, they carrier force would run out of Phoenix within a week (4 Tomcats at station, 2hr each, makes 24/2*4=48 sorties a day, or 96 AIM-54 sinking each day).
Maybe under wartime conditions they can come home with 4.
SchorschDonno.. when we would be able to use nuclear energy to fly the commercial planes..
Only as powerplant to produce and energy carrier like hydrogen.
Not directly in aircraft.
Substituting other parts of global traffic energy demand with hydrogen makes more sense, for example cars, as they emit water vapor in the lower atmosphere without consequence, operate close to human noses (hydrogen engine does not emit any pollutants, is less noisy) and uses much more energy. The increased weight and/or lower range of a car wouldn’t matter that much. Using hydrogen on aircraft would be less fancy.
Sign In
