SchorschSorry my friend
But I was ‘not’ implying that the F-111K would have transited from the UK to the Falklands by them selves.
I was just trying to make the point that I didn’t know if ‘the then’ Victor / VC-10 tankers would have been able to air refuel them, as I did not know if the British F-111K was to have been fitted with either a fixed or retractable ‘hose and drogue’ receptor!P.S. Out of interest does anyone know how many ‘top offs’ the Vulcan needed to achieve its attack on the Falklands?
Regards
Pioneer
Ascension-Falkland = 6250km.
SchorschIt does not mean Iran is not capable to design an aircraft
Iran has an aircraft industry and has built different aircraft what happens is probably you do not know them and you want to justify your lack of knowledge saying they need now to build engines which is another way to defend your initial premise but it is not a way to rank an aircraft industry most nations do not built jet engines or engines and do built aircraft
Then I wonder why they still fly around in 1970 vintage F-4Es instead of re-engining them with the new powerful and efficient Iranian turbofans?
Or why they still have F-5s with the never really advanced J85 installed instead of simply building new from the scratch, something like an F-20 (with the above mentioned new powerful Iranian low-bypass turbo-fan engine)?
I might have a lack of knowledge about particular Iranian achievements in the field of aeronautics (which is understandable given my complete lack of interest in this hyped topic), but I do understand technological premises to build aircraft, on the industrial side and on the know-how side.
Everything that came out of Iran so far isn’t worth anything. Advanced copying, license built stuff and lots of smokescreen.
Yes that’s the point; it’s most likely a student project. However the engine can well be a J79 locally built and given the advance in software and computer technology a group of skilled students can use modern FEM and fluid dynamic software to design something more serious than just a nice looking CAD model. It’s this area where Iranian elite universities area ahead of many others of comparable nations and even more advanced ones. What they really lack is first hand experience to handle problems not included in the simulations and advanced production technology and management to produce an advanced industrial product.
You can simulate until your computer starts smoking, it doesn’t put an operational aircraft (let alone a weapons system) on the tarmac.
Some things like a robust industrial base to deliver all kinds of materials (from high temperature alloys to light weight aluminum) is prerequisite. Actually, only a few western countries and Japan have this kind of industrial base (plus Russia, but decaying, and China, but not yet established).
You all need to understand, that an industry that wants to build aircraft and rockets first needs to build basically everything else.
Second thing is that aircraft are build by organizations, by people working together in an efficient manner. No muslim country so far has given birth to anything which looked at least somehow comparable to the average Western company.
All failed and inefficient organizations kept alive by preposterous government spending.
SchorschI am confident to say that the ‘F-111K’ would have a far greater range than the Buccaneer!:)
It ‘may have’ arrived over its target (Falklands Islands), but it would probably only have done so with a minimal bomb load (at least two of the four main wing hardpoints being utilized for the huge drop tanks, that the F-111 uses!). Whether this would be free-fall bombs (say 12 x 500lb) to take out the runway, or more than likely a couple of Paveway PGB per aircraft.
You only have to consider what was possible, with the use of airborne refueling, which the RAF was equipped with (although the F-111 is only equipped with a boom receptor – While the British use a hose and drogue arrangement! (I am unsure if the F-111K was to have been fitted with ‘hose and drogue’ receptor, during its manufacturing?Also unlike the Vulcan attack on the Falklands runway (which I salute for both achievement and skill of its crew and the typical tenacity of the RAF.), which was done at high altitude and directly over the target, if the F-111K was equipped with Paveway’s then it could of attacked the airfield from reasonable stand-off distance and safety.
But then again with the USAF and RAAF tactics of low altitude, ‘terrain following’ attack profile (as used by the RAF Tornado’s), this may have exposed the F-111K’s to the likes of the defending 20mm & 35mm AAA.
I know one thing for certain – if the Falklands airfield was defended by Argentinean Mirage III’s or Dagger’s (as they should have been!) I would rather have been in an F-111K than a Vulcan!But then again it is ‘What If’:D
Regards
Pioneer
The F-111 was required to have a transatlantic ferry range with full complement of drop tanks. There is no way how it could have covered the distance with any useful bombload.
Only if the RAF had the A330-200 MRTT in service in 1982, which I suppose they didn’t.
SchorschWhat is an “F1-11”?
Maybe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Missile_F1-11
The fictional situation arised of the RAF having gone through with their original intention of purchasing the F1-11 in place of the TSR2, and whether it would have had the range and endurance to have completed the ‘black buck’ missions that the Vulcans undertook?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon
2200km required several refuellings.
So, the answer is basically: no.
Because:
extrem weitführende Luftangriffe über eine Entfernung von 6.250 km gegen
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck
[the English article for some reason misses the distance, and the only other group of people stupid enough to cover any remote happening in history in Wikipedia are we Germans]
The Vulcan afforded a crew of 5, so 2.5 times more than the F-111 and a higher chance that bad jokes and pathetic stories are in supply throughout the mission.
SchorschOh yes-it was Air Power Australia, my bad. Anyways, why not just put some J-79’s or Atar 50’s in? They got the B-58 and Mirage IV to cruise supersonically.
Carlo Kopp proves with such idiotic ideas that he has no particular knowledge about the field of aviation. Such an idea is would cost you your job is proposed in a real aviation company, just because it is so stupid and senseless.
SchorschThey said that they have completed the design phase of this stealth aircraft which most likely means that they have a CAD model which flies in simulations.
This is possible, because there have been such projects already in the past. It’s likely not a large supersonic high performance aircraft but nonetheless a serious engineering project. However it’s very unlikely that they have worked out a concept to mass produce such an aircraft not to talk about production technology for an Iranian engine. The industrial capability to mass-produce a modern fighter jet doesn’t exist in Iran at this point.
Take 5 graduate students, a selection of current text books and some time and they design you a fighter. Great. But doesn’t help. There is no particular knowledge about how to do all that stuff.
First thing the Iranians would need to do is producing engines. As long as they don’t do that, we can easily trash all the rest. Fortunately the lack the industrial base.
SchorschF-35C 3,000 km 8,900 kg fuel =2,96 kg/km
Gripen NG
2500km internal 3150 kg fuel =1,26 kg/km
4075km external (1700*2+1100+3150)=7650kg =1,88kg/kmthe add of external droptanks will add 48% higher fuelburn/km with three big droptanks, but still it will never add as much as even remotely come close to F-35:s fuelburn….
okey, so f-35C is by weight 53% bigger(10885kg vs 7100kg) so its not fair. the weight isnt the best parameter to measure the planes sizein this case (frontal area is), but that is the only one availible. Using weight as a size parameter, the difference is still higher even after taken that under considuration.
F-35 has a non flexible fuelburn of 58%(NG with all droptanks)-236%(normal) over the gripen NG. Dont forget the range of the gripen NG at 60% lower fuelburn is 35% higher!so whats the fuzz about?
The bulkyness and/or stealth aerodynamics will add a non-flexible fuelburn/drag that even cant be “compensated” by a clean config*
You just have to choose LO vs Aero. The US has made the step of choosing LO.*This is all subsonic at probably ~0.8 mach.. have no clue of the supercruising condition, even thou this isnt linear to supersonic speeds, i dont see how the game can turn that sharply..
Despite your apparent serious effort, I must say that the available data does not allow to make a detailed assessment of the aerodynamic quality. In the end, both will come out pretty well when clean.
You would help interpreting if you would start quoting the weights first you are using (OEW, Fuel, TOW, Thrust). You’re weight for the F-35 seems far too low.
Then give fuel fractions and the range quoted for the configuration. Your assumptions – true or wrong – will readily become apparent.
If the difference you get is more than 10ish%, you should be very doubtful about your own calculation, maybe trash it and start something more serious.
SchorschActually, 50% wouldn’t be a bad estimate. It’s what I was quoted for the Lightning’s over-wing tanks at the servicing school.
At cruise speed of course.
The Lightning is not the benchmark for today’s aircraft.
50% is way too much.
SchorschNo it isn’t. External tanks require MORE thrust & wing area than internal fuel to obtain the same performance.
So, I guess we’ve seen that you cannot tell cruise performance from combat performance, and that your understanding of the many different aspects of this issue is limited at best.
You’re welcome if you can show me some hard data (weight, fuel fraction, actual fuel burn in different configurations) that supports your claims.
Will be a bit hard to find though.
SchorschI personally think that any country that can develop its own aircraft can also develop its own stealth aircraft or at least aircraft with reduced detectability. The basic principles of stealth are given, formulas and equations are known, prediction software is existing, what is there to be so undoable?
The question remains whether Tehran has enough expertise and money to design their own fighter. If yes, then it likely will have at least some stealth characteristics.
How many aircraft designs came out of Iran?
And how many went into quantity production?
So far we’ve seen one terribly innovative F-5 with twin fins.
Besides, the spending priority of the Iranians is surely not fighter aircraft.
SchorschHawk missile with R73 seeker?
Mighty Allah will guide the slightly modified Scud-A directly to the infidels!
SchorschMore like 30% (+/- a some % depending on specific details) if the tanks are droped as soon as they are empty. More while the tanks are full, less while they are empty – aero drag remains as long as the external tanks are carried but the weight-induced drag is reduced as the fuel in the tanks is burned. AND the longer you keep the external tanks, the GREATER the equivalent % of fuel burned just carrying them (even when empty) is.
What exactly supports your statement?
Do you have charts showing you fuel burn with and without tanks?
I have.
SchorschI said fighters LIKE the Mig-21 & F-5. The closest thing to that today is the Gripen. You are not seriously saying that the Gripen is the most powerful fighter in the world are you…
Pure flight performance hasn’t been THE determining factor in fighter capability/effectiveness for quite some time…
An F-16C with F110 engine gonna fly circles around them.
The minimum size of a fighter today is given by a number of requirements.
Size does have negative effects on performance, as can be seen on both the F-15 and the Suchoi 27.
But is doesn’t NECESSARILY carry THAT much more weight & volume. And weight & drag can be overcome…
Yes, with more thrust and more wing area, eating away all gains. All I try to tell you that the fighter using drop tanks gonna make more use of its thrust and wing area.
So can a fighter with greater internal fuel capacity.
How does the Suchoi 27 release fuel?
Especially for CAP missions with inflight refuelling, chances are given the fighter must engage only minutes after being refueled. The Flanker would need to leave the tanker with only 80% internal fuel to have full maneuver potential. The F-16C leaves fully topped up and in case just gives 1000 gallons external fuel a free glide to the ground, then flying the above described circles around the Suchoi 27.
I am using VERY SIMPLE LOGIC in the hope that those that don’t understand MIGHT at least understand the point.
Simple logic is not always helpful, especially when multi-variant situations are concerned. That flaws your conclusion. History doesn’t support your points, either. The only ones supporting you are the design team of Suchoi until a few years ago, as they switched to external tanks now, too.
The only difference is that unlike passenger airliners, combat aircraft are concerned about more than just the best possible fuel efficiency.
Combat aircraft are concerned about best possible combat performance and other helpful factors (small size), fuel is needed to get there.
Under normal situations, an external fuel tank equipped F-15C will have a higher fuel ratio at combat beginning (after it used basically up all external fuel and dropped the tanks), while the Suchoi 27 have worse and will earlier be forced to disengage (which can be a big issue versus a MR-AAM equipped opponent).
Note that average fighters easily expend their combat fuel in a few minutes.
F-105: A fighter-bomber that proved to be a decent fighter when it had to be.
I think you understood the story wrong, for a big proponent of Suchoi’s design so much adherence to American heroic stories of the F-105 is surprising.
SchorschI must say I am a bit surprised.
From conventional wisdom the Lightning shouldn’t make turns around the Phantom. Wing loading is higher, sweep and geometry don’t really look like it could turn with less induced drag.
Thrust to weight is less, at least below M1.5.
I would call it “double inferior”, even though not with large margin.
The Lightning has far less situational awareness, due to worse sensors and only one crew member (which really kicks in for 2 vs 2 scenarios).
In the armament of the Phantom the lack of an internal cannon is a clear disadvantage (one could assume they would carry one in such engagements, but let’s assume they don’t). I would think that 4 Sidewinders enable more flexibility, especially allows to shoot one to make the opponent defensive.
I can’t see how the Lightning comes out on top regularly, at best they win a few engagements. If full armament potential of the Phantom is used (and can be sued in a particular situation), I don’t think they have much of a chance. Their tactic would be to stay out of harms way and only attack when they can make advantage of superior speed.
SchorschI don’t think Lightning was ever intended to shoot down anything else than a bomber or a recce aircraft. IMHO, it could have had serious problems shooting down a wildly maneuvring target.
According to many people the Lightning was the hottest machine of its time, and many never get tired to say how great the Lightning was. Now, pitching that machine versus the never particularly valued Spey’ed Phantom should trigger some discussion (even the RAF itself wanted Mach 2 and turbo-jets!).
I tried to give the Lightning better chances by ruling out long distance attacks with Sparrow missiles (which doesn’t at the same time mean that aircraft are limited to their own sensors, GCI attacks may well be done, but with some sort of visual identification done before shooting). As neither have all-aspect missiles a pass is required before shooting anyways.
Lightning had painfully short legs, that rules it out for me even if it could take on any a/c 20 km from base.
Please do not make fun of yourself with such claims. Of course the Lightning was short in range compared to other fighters, but if flown correctly it could still stay airborne for reasonably long times. It might be long enough to hear a Gripen driver radioing “Bingo”.
Sign In
