SchorschIt’s the third time that I post it. In the last conflicts, BVR rulez!
Thanks for it. But the graph has one shortcoming: it uses very scarce data but provides very smooth trends. The details are not known. Such a graph might look good, but it fills huge gaps of information with a simple line. For any serious reasoning it is useless.
SchorschWhat? I thought it exploded at Mach 1.8. :rolleyes:
No, the warranty expires early.
———-
On a more serious note:
Higher limit Mach number translates into higher temp limits for airframe and engine. The aerodynamics are not that difficult up there, at least not for an aircraft with huge vertical stabilizers and beaucoup horizontal stabs. Anyways, we are talking with high probability of a theoretical option, something that is not exactly recommended in the flight manual and will put the aircraft into the shop afterwards. Just like the M2.5 of the F-15 or the M3 of the MiG-25.
SchorschAnd no Eurocanard has…
top speed greater than 1600 mph
>> Designers around the world agree that Mach numbers above 2 are overkill. BTW, 1600mph are M2.41, which is a bit much even for an F-22.
Mach 1.78 sustained cruise without afterburner
>> Correct. That is an F-22 singularity28 degree/sec sustained turn rate
>> Says who?no AoA limit
>> Pretty much irrelevant. Achieving high AOA is no objective in its own. Su-27 and F-16 both had AOA-limits, still were very maneuverable.
No, because if it ever needs to go faster than Mach 1.78 for any reason it can light the afterburners & go faster.
I would like to know, how many additional weight and compromise this “can” cost the designers. Someone remember the story from the 1990s about an aircraft with 14t OEW. Last time I checked we have been at 19t. Thrust to weight, wing loading and fuel fraction all no big improvement over the F-15.
SchorschCheck my link from post #43, page 63. If that’s true your story goes down the drain.
Cheers, Cola
I know that presentation, I used it to do and verify some simulations, and I arrived at the conclusion I gave.
SchorschHardly!! One Mig25 from the gulf war evaded 2x AIM54, 3xAMRAAM and several AIM7s in the same engagement. Admittedly it didn’t shoot anything down itself but the missiles left in its wake were almost certainly worth more than the airframe.
In 1991 the few Iraqi pilots actually taking of were faced with a tremendous amount of opposition. When flying M2+, a MiG-25 is actually hard to catch and out-of-envelope shots will mount. So, “evading” is possibly the wrong wording. A MiG-25 cannot evade an AMRAAM if the MiG flies within its lethal radius.
SchorschI’d be very interested to get an actual figure for how many BVR kills there have been in the history of aviation…
I think the few times these weapons were used are insufficient to draw any conclusions from it. Tests tell us more, and that all major air forces consider active radar medium range missiles as their primary air defense weapon.
In fact, these never was an all-out war between two major air forces since the end of the Korean War, the 1982 Bekaa Valley episode may be considered an exemption, but here many specialties applied.
Schorsch1.You got absolutely no evidence for this, I can suck whatever nonsense from my finger, too. *Hell, Rafale is space capable but it has artificially imposed limits so it does not enter the orbit*, how does that sound?
2.What cannot be utilized/deployed, does not count. Designing a fighter allegedly capable of doing M2.42 and then limit it to M1.X is pure waste of money and weight. It has been done before (read F-14 or Su-24), only idiots would repeat the same mistake.
In case of the F-22 the excess thrust requirement resulted in the capability of achieving more than Mach 2. It is like cars that in order to quickly accelerate to 200 km/h have enough power to achieve 270 km/h, still are limited to 240 km/h.
SchorschIn service is a question of someone ordering them. The R-33S is already 200+ KM range, which is very high.
They are huge, but that does not matter. They have massive warheads and high kinetic performence. They have been rated for 12G targets.
The NEZ might not be 400KM, but it’s a hell of a lot higher than medium range AAMs.
The ranges, again, are still higher than medium range AAMs, which is what counts.
200km still requires a cooperative target.
Note that while the Phoenix has active homing for terminal phase, the R-33 requires illumination by the launch aircraft. Get the launcher to turn, and you’ll be out of harms way.
Using R-33 versus stealthy fighters, actually who came up with this totally stupid idea in the first place?
Agreed…Tomcat+Phoenix combo wasn’t withdraw because it was incompetent, but because it was too expensive. I’m sure USN would like to see their F14D still on its decks, if they had enough founds.
If catching fighters had been its primary mission, the Phoenix would never have been designed in the first place. Both Phoenix and R-33 are designed to catch incoming bombers, using them against enemy fighters requires the targets to be mildly stupid or badly equipped (like the Iraqis).
The MiG-31 is no big performer. Sure, it has a high top speed, but I doubt any advantage below Mach 2 over F-15 or comparable aircraft. The MiG-25 was a sitting duck in most parts of its flight envelope and only excelled above Mach 2.
SchorschIt also has to be taken into account the amount of compensation Airbus has been offering for the delay of the 380s. SQ got those A330s at throw away prices from Airbus on this account.
Still they didn’t get them for free, I would rather think they got them basically for the cost of production, which represents a round-about 50% discount on list price for most aircraft models. Airbus lost profit, but in the end no cash.
SchorschI don’t know if the B747 was considered Boeing’s must stunning success ever 1.5 years after EIS. Actually, I doubt so.
“Break Even” is nice, but the development is paid for mostly. Each A380 leaving the hangar is now making actual positive cash.
The A380 is a bit more than just another long-haul jet. But if it is successful, only time will tell. I don’t believe any analyst, as both opinions are equally easy to reason. Richard Aboulafia throws **** on the A380 on any occasion, while others are investing billions into it. Sometimes money counts more than educated opinion. And I guess Aboulafia knows that his opinion is just that, and he has a 50/50 chance of being right.
In the end, it is unlikely the A380 will be so terribly successful. But it is equally unlikely that it becomes a failure. Remember: there won’t be any new comparable aircraft in the next 15 years at least.
SchorschHow many times can the missile make 50g maneuvers before running out of energy though?
0.33 times.
SchorschThe TSR.2 did use the state-of-the-art with its conventional engines. That limited its growth potential seriously. I guess the decision for the F-111K was not only for budget reasons.
SchorschNot fully ageed :D; As I think there are probably whole sites dedicated to comparing the TSR with the F-111 I’ll leave that stone unturned here.
I think the Tornado was an even more ingenious solution than the F-111 though, esecially for western Europe at that time.
What did BAC do to get a bomber out of a limited airstrip with good low-level characteristics? That was the required mission.
They didn’t want to use swing wings for obvious reasons and relied on thrust and blown flaps. OK so far. And they sticked to available engines.
I guess the aircraft did the mission requirements, but would it have been “better”?
Answer is no. Very good indicator are the Russians. They actually built the Su-24 with the TSR.2 wings and decided for the swing wing. They had to stick to turbojets as no turbofans were mature, and ended up having a fairly poor aircraft when put against the F-111. And they’ve been fairly late, the Su-24 became operational in the mid 70ies or later.
The TSR.2 surely was a good design, but its technology didn’t match the F-111 and consequently its performance fell short. If the customer doesn’t want that additional performance, so be it.
The Tornado with swing wings and turbofans did the same job at 40% lower weight.
SchorschSome great posts, much appreciated !
The other option at the time was also the BAC deal involving the Mirage IV fitted with Rolls-Royce Spey engines, now that is one I’d have liked to have seen 😀
Actually, we had a discussion about it.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87704&highlight=Mirage+Spey
I recommend reading it, one the more technical discussion going on in this forum.
SchorschWell to begin with you just lost half your strike punch if half of them just bring fuel for the others. But it is an fuel advantage when the tankers has the same cruise speed as the strikers, F-18E is also much less visible then Viking which may make a difference when fuel-escorting.
An F-18E can carry 3 massive 480gal external tanks, still carry ECM and Targeting pod. It retains 4 pylons for payload (assume a 1000lbs GBU each). In such config it is no performer, still better than an A-6E.
In such config the mission radius will still be in the 500nm class, especially if no ingression at sea level is required. That doesn’t sound that much (compared to an A-6 for example), but the very same aircraft can be used for fleet defense the next day.
The usage of the Super Hornet eliminates the need for tankers in the first place. If tankers are needed, it is more likely they top up the aircraft 100nm after take-off, so the number of tankers is lower than the number of strikers.
Sign In
