SchorschSu-27s are designed for long range patrol and air superiority. In such roles they will spend long periods away from their bases. They need lots of missiles for combat persistence. In the defensive role they might have a strike package of bombers and fighter bombers to deal with, or indeed the initial strike of hundreds of cruise missiles. For such a role having 10 missiles mounted would be very useful.
To successfully use missiles against agile targets, or let’s say anything else than lame bombers, a fighter needs to engage afterburner and accelerate as much as possible. After one attack the fuel would run low anyways, of it would at least not be enough to continue operations. Possibly the designers had in mind that the sophisticated missiles of the Su-27 were not in stock at each airport, so the aircraft could ferry its own missiles to a forward bases.
SchorschIts GIUK, Greenland Iceland United Kingdom. Russian bombers can and do make there way there.:rolleyes:
Sure, but not supersonic bombers. BTW, to go there they need to pass Norway oder cross NATO land. Why wait until Island?
Why not use a Mach 3 aircraft? In fact why use a supersonic aircraft at all.:rolleyes:
I didn’t say something against supersonic aircraft, but way go all he way to M3 if it doesn’t yield any advantages for the mission?
So there’s no possiblity of a 3rd option? The technology used in the YF-12 and F-108 (Basically XB-70) was very different. The Blackbird used titanium, the F-108 would have used stainless steel honeycomb. The Blackbird used bypass turbojets while the J93 was a low-pressure turbojet without the complexity of the bypass ducting, valves, and ejector doors, flaps etc. The F-108 would have used JP-6 while the Blackbird used JP-7. The F-108 was intended for mass production (and designed with that in mind) the Blackbird never was. So what are the compromises you’re referring to? It couldn’t pull 9Gs? Big deal, why would it need to? Couldn’t accelerate as fast as an F-104? Again, why would it need to?
Aha, and you really think that would have come together, work well for a small buck? Truly, an F-108 would have consumed so much funds that USAF would have flown F-4s until the early 80ies as mainstay aircraft.
I guess the cancellation before anything was designed indicates that even the USAF of 1959 considered the technological risk too high. Despite that, they really couldn’t figure out a mission.
SchorschOr alternatively it could do the sensible thing and actually build an aircraft that the Russian Air Force feels it needs, you know satisfy their own requirements.:rolleyes:
And who actually knows what the Russian air force needs?
SchorschSo I can’t assume they’d have met the design perameters but you’re free to assert they wouldn’t have? :rolleyes: Lots of systems succeeded in meeting their design specs back then, some even surpassed them.
My speculation comes from the simple understanding of the trade-offs one has to do for a Mach3 aircraft. Either you get a very expensive bird like the Blackbird, which is close to unusable for normal squadron service. Or you get a flying compromise like the MiG-25.
And first of all: the USAF had an aircraft that could perform the mission.
I can exactly see Sferrins point, use could certainly have been made of the F-108 both over and around North America and in the GIUK gap and North Sea.
Why hunt subsonic jets and turbo-props with Mach 3 interceptors? The distance between Island and UK is good for F-4 with triple drop tank. No need for dogfight anyways. No Russian supersonic bomber would have made it into the “GUIK” gap, at least not if he uses supersonic speed at any time. Minimum radius required is 3500km, which actually reduces the possible aircraft to Tu-16 and Tu-95.
SchorschA 15ton aircraft is the practical end of Russian aviation export. Russia should aim foremost on affordability.
SchorschI see we are getting into the USA vs USSR discussion again. MiG-23MLD obviously does not see the change in concept, started partly with F-15 and finished with F-16. It is not just TWR, it is so many items.
The thing the USN was most afraid of was to take over an Air Force design. And the USAF was very afraid of USN aircraft. The YF-16 was started partly because the fighter mafia told people in the Pentagon that the USN was working on a LWF concept, and that it could end in the USAF having to take over the USN design.
SchorschNot saying we should or shouldn’t have done anything different but an F-108 type would have given is a larger radius of action, better radar (the ASG-18 had look-down, shoot-down capability), and more effective missiles over the deployed fighters of the day and let’s not forget that just because it would have entered service in ’64 or thereabouts doesn’t mean it wouldn’t still be being used into the 80’s or later. At that point you’d have Fencers, Foxbats (recon), Backfires and so forth to deal with. Not to mention they’d have been able to assist in the Backfires vs CVN scenarios of the day if operated out of the UK and Iceland. For someone to complain that they’d have been an extravagance because it didn’t take a Mach 3 interceptor to deal with a Mig-17 is extremely short-sighted and shows a gross lack of imagination.
The F-108 never came beyond mock-up, and detailed design wasn’t even started. Your performance figure is pure speculation, and when one compare the gap between promised performance and actual performance, especially of design in 1960s, we can assume that F-108 would have been another billion-dollar mediocre aircraft, something like the American MiG-25, which can be rated a desaster in episodes for the first 10 years of development.
Almost sounds like the Fighter Mafia type who think we should still be flying with six .50 calber machine guns and a gunsight drawn on the windscreen and forget about those fancy, gold-plated radar gizmos. 😉
Actually, for European theatre most US aircraft were completely ill-equipped. The usage of BVR missiles was most of the time out of question, and with distances very short a combat radius beyond 200nm was only rarely necessary.
SchorschBoth eight or twelve missiles is a lot! Makes an airframe at least as voluminous as the F-22 (AIM-120 are pretty small), equals at least 25 metric tons take-off weight on a counter-air mission. Equals a lot of money per airframe. Think a mix of four internal plus (perhaps wingless) external missiles is more realistic, internally max six.
And shows a very optimistic situation analysis, where the fighter can engage his opponent from distance several times. The 4 BVR-weapons of Phantom and Eagle were already optimistic (especially as they were semi-active), the weaponry of the Su-27 a bit wasteful, too. I would guess that normally the fighter gets one real opportunity to fire his missiles. Afterwards he should get the hell out of there. The avilable burnertime is independent of airframe size, and a large aircraft with many missiles is threatened to run out of fuel before running out of weapons.
Is information available what empty weight class the PAK-FA Wunderaircraft is aiming at?
Su-27: 16ton
F-22: 14-15ton
JSF: 12 -13ton
EF2000, J10: 10ton
Rafale, F-16: 9ton
Gripen: 7ton
I think they should aim between 8 and 10, making it useful replacement of the F-16.
SchorschBut German recce Tornados seem to work ok.
http://english.people.com.cn/200704/06/eng20070406_364295.html
Btw when will Typhoons do some CAS exercises ?
One might add that the “Recce”-Tornados are fully capable Tornados, basically IDS. The surface2air threat in Afghanistan can be considered low I guess. Usable MANPADS are short in supply, and helicopters normally much better targets.
SchorschErrare humanum est, when it comes to FBW and relaxed stability. Aside from that, it is the ratio of drag-thrust, what makes the difference in the flight envelope.
About the F-100 example and Boyd.
Yak Nevo from the IDF-AF introduced the “let him pass” in the 50s, but in reality it was used by several “aces”. It was a small line of skilled flying and stalling.
In an one versus one training session it does work. Using it against a skilled pair, it may kill you. Experienced fighters will disengage and never fight to terms unfavourable to them contrary to such training combat. So the MiG-17F posed no serious threat to IDF-AF fighters, when not surprised.
It is reported that Boyd extensively briefed American pilots in Vietnam on maneuvers like the high yo-yo.
http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page100.php
SchorschThe reason for that is more due to the fact that the Mig-23 has been equiped with a variable inlet giving no significant thrust losses at M1.8. The F-16 fixed inlet has a very poor thrust efficiency past M1.6. The same case with the single seater Su-22 vs doubleseater Su-22, one has the variable inlet, other one does not.
I think no matter what speed you talking about the Mig-23 will always have lower transonic/supersonic drag than the F-16.
martinez,
thanks for the comments. I think the drag will be lower for the F-16, however, I cannot prove it. The MiG-23 will definitely lose speed much quicker, so drag is higher for anything going beyond 1g flight. The example of the MiG-23 was not to make any pointless comparison, but to show the different design decisions taken on two very focussed aircraft: the MiG-23 as a very supersonic aircraft with remarkable top speed, and the F-16 with remarkable acceleration. I think the MiG-23 still is one of the fastest tactical aircraft when it comes to top speed (considering practically achievable top speeds, not the often quoted M2.5 of an F-15, which are more theoretical).
The different inlet system on the MiG is known to me. I tried to have a useful installed thrust over Mach model, which is not easy even with data available.
My point is that he was preaching BS theories something like the “energy is life”, but doing entirely opposite things…Do you copy now??
A clever guy I must say, wonder how much dollars he made when doing dogfights with his colleagues ….
I think Boyd’s E-M focussed on restoring lost energy. And SEP is exactly that: the ability of an aircraft to restore its energy level. If one uses this for climbing or acceleration is not important: energy is energy, kinetic or potential.
The SEP at 1g unveils some information, even more important is sometimes to compare 3 or 5g SEP. In this regime one can compare the energy loss in a maneuver. Here difference between two different design approaches, for example MiG-23 and F-16, become even more apparent.
@michelf
Nice post.
SchorschWhy the CF-105 over the longer range, faster, better radar F-12 or F-108? I realize the F-12 had some logistical issues to solve (which were for the most part) but the F-108 was designed from the outset for line service.
And finally have another fanboy aircraft without tactical use. How would that alter the exchange ratio in any thinkable conflict?
The Russians had about 100 jet bomber with range to US at the end of the 60ies. No supersonic.
Know the story about 1960 elections? Kennedy told people about the bomber gap. When he came to office intelligence told him that the Soviets actually had no significant bomber force.
SchorschAgree with Sens.
Making the chart I linked above I learned a lot about thrust over Mach and altitude. These characteristics are very depenedent on the design decisions of the designer. At M1.8, the MiG-23 has a better TWR than an F-16. At M0.8-1.2 it does not. At M1.8 the MiG-23 will have less drag than the F-16, at M0.8-1.2 it does not.
Generally, to design something that flies beyond M2 in tactically significant configurations will have huge drawbacks on all other areas of the design.
Top speed and maneuverability are two different shoes. The Soviets opted for the speed (see MiG-23, -25, Su-15). Later they also went for more maneuverability, but retained top speed (see MiG-29, Su-27). The pursue for a lighter airframe did not surface in the Soviet air force. The MiG-29 was very maneuverable, but still they stuffed in all the things the F-16 omitted.
“Boyd’s” aircraft was and is the F-16, which was not the aircraft of the Air Force. All the political things about the F-16 let someone doubt the general ability of the military to chose their own military.
SchorschTurns out, when data is available it is not so difficult. However, needs some programming. Thank God for Matlab.
[ATTACH]156310[/ATTACH]
Surprisingly the results are not so far off from flight test approved values.
SchorschI think both yourself and Bring_It_On both have valid points. I know a good few people who fly very regularly (150+ sectors a year) who have no interest whatsoever in aircraft yet know very well the types they prefer to fly on. Many others, as you quite rightly say, simply don’t care as long as the points you mention are good.
Paul
I guess all the mentioned points correlate with the age and type of the aircraft. Means: airliners offering best service and are highly rated for passenger comfort normally can afford newest aircraft, as they normally belong to the top airlines of the world. But it is not strictly causal. I am just thinking of this new business-only carrier that operates from Gatwick. They have used B767, and I think their concept wouldn’t pay off using new aircraft.
Sign In
