Schorsch“OOOh, they did not tell us every little detail of exactly how they are going to use every single capability in combat, therefore those capabilities are useless”… is that your position?
For most of us, this does not need to be said, but apparently you fail to grasp this simple concept…. SECURITY!!
As in, it would be stupid to tell those outside the Armed Forces… especially the common press (who will be sure to everyone in the world, including possible adversaries)… the full details of what your aircraft can do, and how you are using them.
All that this does is allow counter-tactics to be developed in advance of hostilities, rather than after you have surprised them with those capabilities and tactics.
All that that “deafening silence” means is that the USAF, and its allies who are participating in the exercises, are smarter than you.
Classification of the top speed is childish at best. When going to combat, the top speed will be a magnitude less decisive than the weapons system and tactics. That are the secrets of the 21st century, the clasification of top speed only serves clandestine military leaders. It is also fairly easy to figure out.
SchorschIt looks to me like the F-14 lost political support when it turned out that it will be a very expensive bird, which still lacks any multi-mission capability. The Navy possibly intended to evolve its F-14s into a super fighter (like all aircraft evovled into more and more capable machines), but the budget was cut and the Navy was left with something half useful, half nightmare (in terms of cost, reliability, accident rate).
The flight performance of the F-14 can be disputed and was so quite often. The fact that the Navy later launched a light-weight fighter program which became the F-18 speaks for itself. That the F-18 actually is neither a lightweight fighter nor a cheap fighter is another issue.
The improved Phantom was the F-4L, but was rejected in proposal status. It was able to carry 2 AIM-54, which was deemed insufficient I guess. On the other hand, if a carrier would carry 40-50 Phantoms they could still fly the whole war-load of 96 Phoenix missiles into action.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_23.html
SchorschThe MiG-31 has turbofans 😉
C’est vrai, monsieur!
One thing needs to be considered: turbo-jets behave beneficial for higher Mach numbers, but an afterburning turbo-fan is not much different from an afterburning turbo-jet. And no aircraft (except those two we know and some in absolute clean config) will not break the barrier without reheat. The MiG-31 wins through good inlet and thrust over Mach characteristics. That is no magic, but just an optimization for high Mach numbers. While at the -31 the Russians acknowlegded that 95% of the mission will be flown subsonic. Though the stated ranges for -25/-31 in supersonic are surely impressive, a long run at supersonic speeds is prohibitive in terms of overall range. Even a MiG-31 has to very careful about its fuel status when on reheat.
SchorschLOL. Someone takes you semi-serious for a few days and you start to believe your own bull$hit. What a life you must lead “Super Engineer”. BTW you ever going to post where I said the F-15 and F-4 were good for 700 miles at Mach 2?
I do not consider myself as Super Engineer, but there are people that have some limited insight in flight performance and some that have none at all.
Me: first group
You: Looks like the second for me
SchorschThey give the same max combat speed for the F-15 and the Hornet. I think that says all you need to know about it’s accuracy.
Where is the problem? Do you performance mastermind know what limitates the F-18 at M1.8? It can be excess thrust, it can also be engine related (airflow, N1, etc) or control problems at higher Mach numbers. The thrust might suffice for more, who knows? The guy who made this chart has obviously better access to information than you have.
What really strikes me is the bad fuel ratio of the MiG-29, even worse than the Flogger.
SchorschHuh, so in your book if it’s a US aircraft they can’t touch their published speeds in service but if it’s a Russian one it can not only reach the published speed but exceed it. I can’t believe I’ve wasted time even replying to your posts in this thread.
the book is by an American author, it quotes American pilots and engineers exclusively and doesn’t mention any Russian aircraft in detail. It is called “The Pentagon ParadoX”. Decent reading.
SchorschBecause it is often claimed the YF-23/F-23 was capable of Mach 2.stupid flight speeds 🙂
Who cares. It was a technology demonstrator with an experimental engine. To deduct from this it would have had higher operational speeds is very very bold, especially since there were real design alterations in the airframe for the F-22, which could hacve occured for the F-23, too.
SchorschSchorsch
I will confess you in reality i have no means of confirm or rebuke the information you give me, i have no F-15 manual or the basic performance specifications, i will be honest with you, i can consider the F-15 can reach Mach 2.5 with at least some missiles perhaps two AIM-7 or AIM-120 and two AIM-9 as the MiG-23 does but also i have no way of confirm you that.
why i do think like that? well simply because the Mach 2.5 speed must have a real operational use, i do not think the F-15 will use Mach 2.5 just to use its gun, any way a Missile is not very heavy an AIM-9 must be in the range of 100kg and the AIM-7 and AIM-120 should not weight more than 200kg, i mean with a small percentage of fuel and an few missiles must be able to reach at least Mach 2.3, but of course this is an speculation of my self
I read it in a book only, but this book is this time not written by an aviation enthusiast but is a simple analysis of the F-18 development. In this book one of the chief developers of the F-15 is quoted.
Why does it fly M2.5 anyways when it can’t carry weapons?
Because the design specs for new aircraft are something very political in the Pentagon, including battles between different camps (light vs. heavy, expensive vs. sophisticated, low risk vs. maximum possible). And maybe someone designed it to M2.5 with x amount of drag, then one day a wind tunnel guy said that drag is actually 1.2*x. There goes the payload!
SchorschFirst part fair enough, I had assumed the photo was from above 😮 .
Anyway, why (planform) design it to go Mach 2, if it can actually go Mach 2.2 – if it had been designed correct, it might actually go Mach 2.3 or more without the drag rise. It would be a very silly design choice at best – and pure negligence at worst.
I know the (Y)F-22 uses fuel to cool the leading edges of the wings (for IR purposes), I assume there is nothing to stop the YF-23 doing the same…
Also, its not like we’re dealing with an aluminium aircraft like concorde here. 🙂
Why are you so keen on high Mach numbers? They are insignificant. Nobody asks for them any more. A design even for M2 is silly, better design for M1.6 and have reserves to reach M2 or 2.2 with engine overspeed. That’s it! The rest is dead weight flown around and taken into combat.
Imagine how many high-Mach airframes (including all this funny technology necessary for that) have left a black hole in the North Vietnam soil, shot down by lousy crap-tech Soviet fighters.
SchorschPhantom II
Several Russian writers quoted in several webpages give that figure, how did they get it i do not know, but i guess in 2007 the F-15 is not the most guarded secret and probably the Russians had a rough idea of the F-15 when they designed the Su-27 and MiG-29, they have flown mock combats against the F-15 in 1992 over American soil, they have visited the US and probably also exchanged some information about the F-15 and Su-27, and i think also they knew some information from the nations that have fought the F-15 Eagle.
Also remember the Mach 2.5 is not with supercruise, the F-15 is not a F-22 that can supercruise, and very likely fly at Mach 2.5 fully loaded would mean a short dash gulping lots of fuel, so it is not something to disbelieve the Russians, i guess also computer models can give them a rough idea and i am sure the Russians did some computer models before giving the specifications for even their Su-27 and MiG-29.
i guess the F-15 can achieve Mach 2.5 with less than 40% fuel and for a small period of time, it is probable it can carry a few missiles with it, but fullly loaded i guess is something most likely can not do .
The F-15 can achieve speeds in excess of M2 only when clean. Same applies most likely to MiG-29 and Su-27, whcih are pretty similar in overall design, TWR and inlet design. The external weapons may easily produce more drag on the Su-27 and Mig-29 (no real conformal weapon stations). For speeds in excess of M2 with weapons some compromises have to be made, which are easily visible on the MiG-23 or the Starfighter:
– reduce drag by all costs, even if it compromises pilots vision and flight performance in other areas
– engine power at these speeds, basically means big afterburner and turbo-jet
– optimized inlet, optimized nozzle
Designs like the F-16 are more balanced as they give up speeds over M1.5 (though it reaches M2 when clean). The savings in weight, complexity and lifetime cost (both for engine and airframe) compensate for it. Even if the combat performance per aircraft might be slightly reduced, the combat performance per invested Dollar against a fleet of N aircraft is better (especially when N is larger than my fleet of aircraft).
SchorschUp to what i have read in Russian analysis the F-15 can not fly beyond Mach 2 fully armed and probably fully fueled i mean at its max take off weight.
I am not sure if it applies to all jets but at least according to Russian analysis that is the reality about the F-15 and they claim a MiG-23ML can fly at mach 2.3 armed with two R-24 but they however admitt their MiG-23 won`t fly fully armed but only with two R-24 and half fuel
Nevertheless i think the vast majority of jets can achieve their operational Max speed with at least some weapons, and i think higher speed are achieveable than the operational and manual recommended because the M-23 that is the MiG-23 drone can achieve Mach 2.5 and the MiG-25 Mach 3.2, the same is the SR-71 that can achieve Mach 3.6 for few minutes
The F-15 is said to be no faster than Mach 1.8 with full weapons load. The MiG-23ML can achieve M2.35 (its max Mach limit) with 2 R-23 and around 30% internal fuel (~1200kg), which is nice but purely theoretical. The obscene fuel flow would make the MiG-23 a sailplane after 2-3 minutes. The MiG-23 is obviously able to exceed its stated max Mach number up to M2.5, mostly due to its very sleak airframe (OK, you can’t see sh!t out of the cockpit) and the power development of the afterburner at high Mach (inlet is of importance). But it is unknwon which engine restrictions apply. Same is true for the MiG-25, which runs in danger of engine failure and control loss at such high speeds (aside the long time needed to accelerate). Stated maximum Mach number in the MiG-25 documents (the same that state the top speed of the MiG-23) do not say anything of more than M2.8, so we have to conclude that it is right (either believe both or none).
SchorschFirst I’ve heard of a supersonic “bow-wave” being detectable by radar.
But anyway, I’m again taking issue with peoples perceptions of the YF-23’s top speed.
M = 1/(sin[A])
M is the mach number
A is the angle (at the aircraft’s nose) from the centreline to a line extending from the nose to the wingtip.
Its a very simple rule of aerodynamics.
Work it out (go ahead, grab a picture of both aircraft from above or below and measure the semi-span, and the centreline length to the semi-span location and use simple trig) and the YF-23 has a planform designed around a top speed of Mach 1.8* (ish). The F-22A is around Mach 2.2/2.3.
FSWs are different, they work in a different fashion altogether from RSWs and they can cut the nose shock at much nearer a right angle, which results in alot less problems across the wing.
Can anyone explain to me why Northrop would ignore one of the most basic rules of aerodynamic design… if their aircraft is capable of so much higher top speeds than the…. wait for it…. Mach 1.8* achieved in the flight tests :confused:
* Notice these 2 figures are remarkably similar…. concidence – I think not.
The nose angle is no stop sign for speed, it is just the speed area where the Mach cone still is clear of the aircraft. Possibly the drag rises at M2 for the YF-23, but as I said: more than M1.8 wasn’t really of concern. The need in time and fuel to go there is so much, and it is only 10% faster than M1.8. Design like the F-14 and F-15 were made unecessarily expensive and complex due to this thinking without ever using it in combat (they won’t achieve it anyways with weapons). So don’t step in the same trap.
SchorschThe F-23 was faster, but I think calling it much faster is an exaggeration and speculation.
I don’t think either aircraft pushed the all the way to the max speed.
And much more than M2 is not asked for anyway.
SchorschHardly a failure worthy of that name. The software had a bug that couldn’t handle the calculations when croosing the international date line. Debugged, solved, tested and implemented in a few days. Not that Lockheed Martin had to much airframe for too little wiring or something like that. :diablo:
It just displays that new (just 10-15 years development) sometimes behave funny. That isn’t something specific of the F-22 but normal for complex systems. The more technology and software is cramped in, the more bugs are there.
SchorschAccording to you testing doesn’t reflect reality so why bother doing it?
Actually, I rather said that reality is not like testing! 😀
Which is only partly true: many tests are aimed on proving operational figures. All this performance charts in the manual, they have been validated somehow (at least that is what always stands in the upper left).
But you continue on quoting the flight tests that never were used to validate any operational envelope, but solely to impress the tax-paying public. I don’t know if you pay taxes, but you are surely part of the public, by the lines you write I see that you are deeply impressed by American hardware without any doubts, so the test can be called successful (although it doesn’t have any influence on operational performance, which doesn’t need to bother the [tax-paying] public but only the pilots betting their butts).
Sign In
