SchorschNot so simple.. First it is stealthy.. God only knows what RAM materials are incorporated. Second, it must withstand accidents, bird strikes etc. Third, the plexiglass layer is said to be the largest single-molecule product in the world.
I would still estimate a brand new Modena.
Fourth: It is an aviation part = x2
Fifth: It is a military item =x2
Sixth: It is purchased by the government =x2
I heard something about 200.000 USD. Equals 4 SmartBombs dropped into the ocean.
SchorschMany Argentinian bombs failed to explode because the aircraft were unable to fly high enough to release them with time to arm without being shot out of the sky – the fleet was hardly ‘unable to defend itself’ although improvements were clearly needed. Sadly we have no SHARs at all now so we had better hope Dubya’s Super Hornets aren’t busy the next time we want to go to war.
If the majority of the British fleet loses several ships against an enemy with a handful of modern ASM and generally a bunch of unsuitable aircraft, how well can the defence be called?
It showed again how vunerable ships are against air strikes and that only aircraft can actively control airspace and deny it to intruders. The RN concluded, that they need real aircraft carriers as replacement.
Schorsch@Shalav,
after reviewing your posted document (thanks for that 🙂 ), I must say that I have some remarks.
1.
WIG is of no concern. While on the deck there is no significant lift dependant drag, afterwards the Flanker is out of WIG. Considering the guesses one have to make (CD0), WIG is “bean-counting”.
2.
The ramp does not change the Angle of Attack. The AoA is effectively zero when the Flanker leaves the ramp. The aircraft does not rotate, it gains vertical clearance to the gound and effectively some additional meters of altitude to accelerate. After leaving the ramp it needs to rotate in order to have bigger-than-zero AoA.
The ramp is called ski-jump. That hits the nail.
Your document uses a rather simple equation of the friction, too. The lift does not increase constantly until the aircraft lifts up. Normally it needs to be rotated. Especially fighter aircraft have very low wing incidence, they produce only minor lift at zero AoA (different to airliners, which have wing incidence angles of several degrees).
SchorschThe Mirage had neither any radar warning nor had they any fuel for air2air engagement. Their tactic was to be in and out in shortest possible time. Under these favorable conditions and with plenty of radar information the complete British fleet was unable to defend against conventional bomb attacks. I think everybody in the RN was afterwards sobered by the inadequacy of the air defence. The FA.2 was the minimum one could request after such a disaster.
The Russian tactics only worked under some cirsumstances. Target needed to be detected and a Harrier with external fuel can loiter for some time 150nm away from the carrier. However, normally support of American Tomcats would have been very helpful.
SchorschSchorsch
Please if you noticed i pasted that webpage just to cite an example but i also said what the webpage said in a very brief translation, i do speak four languages and i am learning currently russian, so please at no moment i just pasted the webpage without any brief explanation of what it says for brief it is.
Writing french to me believe is not going to be a big challenge because i am fluent in spanish and portuguese and i can read more less italian and little french and by the way i even understand Japanese and i can write it and read it a little .
The only think i wanted to show is an authentic russian webpage where they claim F-15s and F-16 shot down by MiGs and as Flex pointed out that if someone does not speak russian has less chances of see a wide view of Russian aircraft combat records.
Flogger,
These claims can all be followed back to one source. A lot of Russian/Soviet authors have used these claims, they are even in the ACIg list of kill claims. However, the whole thing can be traced back to a marketing and image-repair effort made by the Soviets. These claims did not even come from a Syrian source.
Good luck in learning additional languages. I speak two, learned and forgot another one and currently I am despearing at the fourth.
A votre sante!
SchorschI think he is pointing out at the fact that if someone is unable to read such texts, then his opinion is strictly one-sided and influenced by one side only..
Das ist doch alles Schmarn!
Flogger, lue et approve?
SchorschVery conclusive!
What exactly do you try to prove by quoting this kind of texts? Should I start in German? Do you think that looks clever?
SchorschOK, I was not exactly true with land-based to carrier conversion. I focussed on newer designs.
MTOW is a number chosen and published. It is however not a constant. A Jumbo Jet cannot take off at MTOW when departing fully loaded from Mexico City at an August afternoon. Hence the MTOW is not the MTOW. Does that make sense? :confused:
The Su-33 will not take-off from a standing carrier under zero-wind conditions with MTOW. TOW under these conditions is much lower. The TWR is also no static relation, it changes significantly with temperature.
The author did in my eyes not bother too much about it.
I think it was proven by now that under favorable conditions (ship at high speed with some head-wind, temperature at Russian average) the Su-33 can take off with close to full MTOW. the safety margin is unkwnon for these kind of operations.
SchorschJets still have a justifiable mission. They can be faster in an area. Additionally are they more survivable in some situations than UAVs.
Air forces normally do not reflect the present state of technology. They reflect a mixture of doctrines, specific thinking and available systems. If an air force buys something and is faced with its obsolesence ten years later, they usually are reluctant to phase the system out. See how some nations used old airframes for other roles or defined new roles. Having a few RF-4E doesn’t hurt if you have a fleet of F-4s anyways. However, it is unlikely that the nations will keep the RF-4s after they phased out the normal Phantoms.
SchorschAgain, not quite. The comment above notes rightly that the FA2 pilots want to play to the aircraft’s strengths. The Blue Vixen is the only targeting radar designed around AMRAAM, consequently it is the most effective for this missile currently in service. The Sea Harrier proved in the Falklands and in numerous exercises against other NATO air forces that in a dogfight it can more than hold its own, even against land based air superiority fighters like the F15 and F16. Other recent articles about the phasing out of the SHAR reflect this and note some of the unique tactics employed by SHAR pilots in combat to considerable effect.
I didn’t say it loses all the time. A “modern” dogfight is not very likely to happen. the Harrier has an advantage of low IR signature due to high thrust without afterburner. However, the Harrier has some serious disadvantages (esp. lack of afterburner).
The Falklands were a special thing as you cannot call these engagements dogfights. The Falklands showed, that fighters on the edge of their combat radius can succesfully defeated by a Harrier, even more effective if an MRAAM is available. If the Harriers had to fight similar engagements within the air2air radius of the Mirages, the result would have been less desirable. After all, the real winner of Flakland air2air engagements was the AIM-9L though the performance of the Harrier was astonishing.
SchorschGollevainen,
you should take this quote too serious and better see in a general sense.
The author is right when he claims that operation of supersonic fighter aircraft with static thrust/weight-ratio smaller than 1 will be of very limited use for those kind of operations. However, an aircraft can phyisically take off with TWR smaller than 1.
This TWR=1 does only fit for
– supersonic (=aerodynamic optimisation for higher airspeeds)
– fighter (=quite heavy)
aircraft. Aircraft with lower wing loading and different aerodynamics may take-off under these circumstances with TWR lower than 1.
Another factor is the safe and unrestricted operation. Under giood wind and temperature conditions, accepting some risk, the TOW will be pretty close to MTOW.
After all, the solution of the Russians is more a stop-gap, having carrier-based aircraft without the cost and complexity of catapults and especially the need for special carrier aircraft. As one can easily see, the Russian aircraft are the first aircraft ever that went from a land-based design to carrier based design. The other way round was very frequent.
SchorschVery interesting discussion. I did not resemble the equations yet, but want to throw in some additional points. Especially I think there is a huge difference between peace-time ‘safe’ operation and war-time ‘surge’ operation.
The TOW will be highly dependant on temperature and winds.
Very interesting to see the B-25 for the Tokio-Raid taking off from the Hornet.
Did anybody calculate the effective angle of attack after leaving the Skijump? Consider this when thinking about other designs. The Su-33 has completely different aerodynamic characteristics including lower CLalpha. A Harrier or Su-25 will have advantages in low speed regime.
SchorschBelow is quote from a Royal Navy Sea Harrier FA2 pilot in an article in the International Air Power Review vol. 16.
“Our tactics are based around the capabilities of our jet. For instance, we do not like to go into the visual arena. We much prefer engaging our targets from long range and that is why our main configuration comprises four AMRAAMs. For target designation, we use our left thumb to move a target-marker on the radar screen. When faced with multiple enemies, we can ripple-fire our AMRAAMs in quick succession.”
From a mission point of view, it looks like the Sea Harrier FA2 could be considered as a modern-day single-seat F6D Missileer in effect. Of course Sea Harrier FA2 could bomb as well, although no better than the Harrier GR7.
Cheers,
Sunho
Not quite. The FA.2 still holds some reserves for WVR combat. No pilot really wants to go within visual range, especially not in dogfight range, because you tend to lose oversight here. In combat gainst most aircraft, especially at lower altitudes, the Harrier will be inferior in top speed manouvers but equal for lower speeds. A Harrier FA.2 was designed under the impression of the Falklands, which identified the threats for the Britisch fleet as fighter-bombers and long range bombers. Both would not be in the mood for a clash against the Harrier. Against land-based fighters on air2air missions the Harrier would not be competitive. After all, it is a stop-gap measure for a stop-gap carrier.
SchorschOf course no F-16 will go far with both inner pylons busy with bombs. Additionally the performance is low. However, considering middle European theatre, they can still hit a 100nm distant target (think of countries like Israel). The average distances on strike missions were pretty high in both American Gulf Wars and Vietnam. Much lower strike distances for Iran-Iraq and Israel-Arab conflicts.
The Amrican aircraft have normally more flexibility built in. The Russian standard tactical air defence fighters (MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-29) were single mission fighters and optimised for their task. The training of their crews was also optimised. They didn’t carry any air2ground capability and were not intended to do so. The pursuit for multi-role aircraft was a necessity in the west due to growing cost and complexity, the Russian finally realized that when MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-24 were eating up money in an unprecentended rate. Before that, single mission aircraft were standard. the doctrine in the Soviet Union never had a strong focus on air2ground strike, which is probalby due to heritage. The Americans fought WW2, Korea and Vietnam with high priority on air strike, however, its effectiveness is mixed and the money spend on air strike sometimes was inadequatly spent considering the result (esp. Vietnam).
SchorschCivil aircraft like the B707 or the DC-10 have approach speeds of 110 to 130 knots. These mean 1.3 times Stall Speed with full flaps in dense air. In 8.000ft you can multiply that with 1.3 due to lower air density and have 140 to 170 knots. These speeds are for aircraft at landing weight. Tankers have fuel to give away, they are not empty.
If a jet tanker needs to refuel a helicopter:
– the tanker needs to be very light (=only some pounds of fuel left)
– go in full or nearly full flap configuration
– go in undesirable altitude
and then a helicopter might have the chance to catch him.
Possibly a C-17 might perform a little better. But in general the design speeds of jets and helicopters are too far away.
Sign In
