SchorschAwwww, after hearing so many stories about how F-15E sucked compared to F-111 I slowly start to believe them.
You prefer what you don’t have. The F-111 was designed around the task of delivering The Bomb to the enemy, something that could be done more effectively in the 1980s (Pershing, Cruise Missile). Then many design solutions of the F-111 become dubious, and one might ask why a 20+t OEW airframe is needed for delivering two 2000lbs bombs.
Of course, the F-111 can theoretically load more weapons, it can cope with worse field conditions (the F-15E with PW100 and combat load is the friend of long runways), and it can go 500KIAS on the deck without killing its pilots.
But the F-15E is the better all-rounder.
Most missions of the F-111 can be done using a Tornado, which lacks the show-off capability to drop 48 500lbs bombs.
SchorschA-6F, possibly a souped-up F-14D. Because a carrier is not a littoral combat ship, even though the Soup Borenet tries to make it one. A carrier should have long-range weapons, not short stubby arms.
I guess with hindsight the taxpayer had saved many Dollars if the Navy kept a non-stealthy, non-supersonic, non-goldplated attack option, like the A-6E (or F), or even the A-7 in limited numbers.
F-15G. Because proper SEAD is a nice thing to have.
Maybe – to make it more general – a capable ECM aircraft on a useful platform.
Not sure if the F-15 would have been the best basis, but it would have been an option. I think the current EF-18G is a good idea, as it can be used by all services.
SchorschB-2s-because B-52s are not going to last forever
True. But I guess people were aware about limitations.
F-111- could have performed many more roles than it did
Was a useful aircraft in version F. The rest was more or less crap, outdated in the late 1980s and outperformed in many respects by Tornado or F-15E.
F-14 tomcat 21- because you are kidding yourself if you think the F/A-18 is an interceptor
And you are kidding yourself if you write the term “Tomcat 21”, a design that never existed for a requirement that never existed.
Before going “Super Tomcat 21”, one should go for “Super Phoenix 21” and put it on a regular Hornet.
KC-10- why on earth would you stop at 60?
True, more tankers would help considerably.
F-14- because if they lost a mission when russias strategic bomber stopped patrolling, well…..there back!
The whole F-14 concept based on the AIM-54 weapons system, and hence was superfluent when that system went for retirement. If the Navy wanted so badly, they could develop a truly long range missile, which they could put on any aircraft.
SchorschWhich is exacatly the definition of ‘supercruise’ i.e. the ability to cruise at mach 1+ without afterburner. The emphasis being the word CRUISE. The fact that you need afterburner to get throught the Mach 1 barrier is immaterial. This was covered somewhere else ages ago. IIRC my pointing the same thing out then killed that thread, wonder if it;ll do the same here?
Generally it is only the ability to fly supersonic for prolonged time and distance, basically only limited by fuel. Some aircraft had supersonic cruise ability before.
“Supercruise” is more like a trademark than a fixed aeronautical term.
SchorschIt adds practical value if your weapons have longer ranges than they otherwise would.
Height can be turned into speed at will.
Theoretically, yes, but altitudes about 60000ft need long time to reach.
They might theoretically increase energy height, but for practical purposes an aircraft that simply explodes at 60001ft altitude, would still fly unhindered 99.5% of its service and combat life.
SchorschBeyond 60k special equipment is needed, which is cumbersome and doesn’t help the pilot to fly his mission. Operationally such altitudes are useless, as they can only be achieved with prolonged afterburner use and supersonic speeds (yes, even the mighty mighty F-22 will have to use it).
They are printed everywhere because they impress they laymen (which they apparently do quite successfully) and have no tactical significance (a bit like top speed).
SchorschNo, i’m not bolloking you here, they had requierements for higher ceillings and designed their engines and aircrafts accordingly, since Mirage III, 50.000/75.000 ft. Ops/Maxi, for grace stake the IIIEs which MATRA 530 i serviced even had rocket packs to get there faster remember?
Dont forget one thing; from ALL US the aircraft you can come up with including F-22, the only one with a higher Operational ceilling than a Mirage 2000 is the F-15.
To be honest, I’ll could agree that the low wing-loading Deltas have a slightly higher ceiling, but it is not the max lift but the power that usually limits ceiling in this region (means the aircraft could fly there with reheat activated). So, the higher ceiling would be result of either
– a way superior engine installation, somehow managing to wrench a big percentage more thrust out of the same reference thrust
– a very small induced drag
Both seems fairly unlikely, the drag is supposingly even higher for a delta. Anyways, even if something was better, a 10000ft is not explicable by that.
I rather stay with my flight manual approved values, which are a different kettle of fish than any stuff from testing or whatever source. Also note that technically the ceiling is defined by a level flight with some remaining climb ability.
Maybe the French don’t care about buffet onset.
By the way: higher compression ratio and higher TETs are no unique French invention, but the way forward since WW2 in jet engine technology. The French industry produced respectable designs, but never was a leader in this field.
SchorschI’m afraid you are not on it this time.
French aircrafts are only limited to a 55.000 ft ceiling for safety reasons, the actual Operational ceiling are a little higher, not to mention full-AB Maximas.
At 57.500 ft Mirage 2000 C (M 53-5) acceleration tests were conducted from M 0.9, from Dry to full A-B.
That’s why i insist the F-35 ceilings (Cruise/Combat/Maximum) are a tad lower…
Au contrair!
Even the turbo-jet equipped Phantom F-4F has an op ceiling of 44kft when clean. Down at 40kft when loaded to 46klbs.
That the M2000 makes it a bit higher, OK, that might be. But a full 12000ft more than F-35, F-4F, F-16 or F-18? By all respect, that is bullock.
Does the French have smaller feet, maybe?
SchorschMy rough estimates too, still way off that of a European fighter by a good 10.000ft…
Nope, that is dry thrust ceiling.
A Rafale will equally fail to jump over 45000ft subsonic.
Your quoted ceilings are absolute ceilings, which are normally M1.3-1.5 reheat for current generation fighters.
SchorschThe range of altitudes during the
cruise is 33,200 ft to 40,000 ft.[/B]
Good guess from that:
35-38kft maximum initial cruise altitude for combat loaded aircraft.
45kft maximum operational ceiling for aircraft with reserves and basic armament, so the lowest significant combat weight.
All for dry thrust subsonic.
Schorsch33/40.000 ft. vs a 35.000 ft Ceiling for Harrier II…
Some basic understanding is always helpful.
Ceiling is either defined by
* lift limit: CL_req > CLmax_operating (may be defined by buffet onset)
* thrust limit: THR_req > THRmax
With wing loading and installed thrust a good guess can be taken.
Only civil jets will hit the buffet onset limit.
Normally ceilings for current supersonic aircraft are achieved at M1.5ish.
Subsonic ceilings in dry thrust are normally achieved at M0.9ish.
The F-35 should have a ceiling of 35-40kft when fully loaded, that is in line with the F-18s clean ceiling at high weights. When flying back a ceiling of about 5kft more seems reasonable, all with dry thrust of course.
Jet-equipped aircraft normally achieve best specific ranges close to their ceiling, something like a couple of 1000 feet below it. So, the values given in the mission analysis represent something like ceiling dry thrust minus 5000ft. For military operations the excess power margin is set higher I guess.
I still fail to see any significance.
SchorschAnd they’d be much better suited to deal with PAK-FA and J-XX
For this purpose the USAF must increase the number of artists in its lines. Additionally, some Soviet-style truth-talkers (they’re named this way because what they say is by definition truth) to keep the easy-believers sheered and excited. At last that is what makes the PAK-FA such a dramatic success.
SchorschRe legacy jets: Just two squadrons of those A-7 that are rotting in the desert would answer the fastmover CAS needs in the Stans.
You missed the point entirely: every USAF combat aircraft must either be supersonic or stealthy (and for the army&USMC everything must lift vertically), anything else is an offend to the warfighter.
Compromises only were the taxpayer’s elected people inject some fiscal sanity.
SchorschGood luck waiting 45 minutes for your prop or UCAV to arrive. Listen, go speak to troops who have fought out there, they DO NOT appeciate the thought of some dumb a** slow prop plane taking 45 mins to arrive and would rather a fast mover show up in 5 or 10 minutes and blend the group of sometimes up to 250 very heavily armed ‘goat herders’ to mush. Those guys on the ground don’t give a hoot if the enemy is armed with AK’s as the simple fact is an AK round is still lethel, lets not forget the RPGs and IEDs too which convieniantly slipped past your post, they just want fast effective support that arrives as soon as possible and the only way to do that at the moment is the fast movers, hell even A-10s are to slow for many troops liking, taking alot longer to arrive on station.
It simply cannot be stressed enough that a prop is freakin useless to the guys on the ground.
The “guys on the ground” need to call the support because the support cannot afford to remain on station for long. For the required resource of one F-16 in the battle arena (that is: maintenance personal, fuel, spare parts) 3 to 5 props can be supported, and one is effectively always circling about the guys.
Additionally, a correctly armed prop aircraft can actually hit not well identified targets by strafing them, keeping fire down. Additional eyes in the sky, too.
Without MANPADS or radar-guided AAA the prop is hard to hit, and even hitting it will not necessarily down it.
SchorschThe whole idea of a prop plane is utter garbage to be polite about it. Ask yourself this, would you want to be a guy on the ground having to wait 45 minutes for a prop aircraft to arrive on station only for it to be forced down by trashfire because it has to fly fairly low or would you rather a F-35 with 8 SDB arrive within 10 mins and stay high enough to avoid trash fire therefore preventing your mission from turning into a rescue operation. It really is nonsense all this ‘bring back the props’ buisness.
The prop can loiter at low altitudes for over an hour, something no jet will achieve.
It can use semi-prepared strips closer to the actual battlefield, something no jet can do.
It requires a fraction of the maintenance and fuel, hence lowering the logistic footprint (and thus achieving more sorties with less cost).
It is more survivable than helicopters against RPGs and small arms fire, although it is no match for a modern opponent using MANPADS and radar guided AAA.
Sign In
