SchorschI knew this would be brought up, and it’s a argument full of holes. I admitted the Lightning had speed and climb better than the F-4, and thus in some cases, it could outfight the Phantom in close.
You dare to question the unsurpassed performance of the Lightning?
Prepare to get banned, this is a British forum!
SchorschAWACS is not a fighter like Su-34 that it can achieve supersonic crusie at tree height …
I think this little sentence demonstrated impressively how we have to value the posts and statements of Mr star49.
SchorschIt is unique design and, in fact, the only one possible for any efficient Mach 3 fighter.
For an efficient Mach 3 aircraft that is the less desirable solution.
Especially as the MiG-25 is not allowed to fly Mach 3, and wasn’t flown in service (different than the SR-71, which achieved best ranges when flying at Mach 3). The most efficient Mach 3 aircraft is the SR-71, which could cruise at those speeds. I don’t know about the XB-70, I guess it had the potential to fly even more efficiently at Mach3+.
The MiG-25 didn’t cruise above M2, it dashed.
The chosen design is hence a compromise between a conventional and a pure supersonic optimization, hence it loses on both sides.
The Russian designers, rightly, thought that it is not enough to have Mach 3 a/c which will be capable only for a streight line flights.
When flying above Mach 1, the maneuverability of the aircraft is severely compromised by control authority. What you write is basically BS. The maneuver capability is somewhere around 2g for supersonic flight and at maximum 3.8g for subsonic flight. All clearly shown in the manual.
SchorschAlmost any threat to an AWACS will be seen by the AWACS, normally before the attacker has tracked the AWACS. As such, any attacker has to come with considerable overkill, means numbers. The attacked AWACS can decide if he runs or sends in his resources.
So I think an AWACS is not a sitting duck. Even if it was, the resources necessary to down it will strain my opponent, and maybe offering me the option to attack. An AWACS may also be a good trap luring enemy fighters into my own airspace and engaging them under favorable terms.
SchorschBecause those greater aircraft capabilitites are very expensive and won’t add greatly to survivability in the future given the rate of technological increase of sensors and missiles.
I think the argument goes something like: Swing wings, variable geometry inlets, thrust vectoring, and real stealth all cost a lot of money and contribute to unreliability. Given that sensors, electronics, and missiles are where the action is (rate of improvement is greater), why spend money on all that stuff when buying a greater number of airframes will put more sensors and more missiles into the air?
Exactly. Mach2-capability and thrust vectoring may enable an aircraft to have some great performance figures, but in 9 out of 10 engagements it will have no effect. The capability to have more missiles, aircrafts and sensors in the sky does have an effect on most – if not all – engagements. For fleet defense, it is is most of the time the pure presence of combat air patrol that stops a potential foe from attacking. If the aircraft patrolling are able to fly Mach 2.0 or M1.7 is rather academic.
As the deck and hangar space of a carrier is limited, the Super Hornets do pull much more capability out of the limited resource “carrier”.
Additionally, modern electronics and sensors, as well as improved tactics, allow to build less capability into the particular airframe.
SchorschI think the early jets didn’t really expand the capabilities of the latest prop fighters. A real step forward were the swept-wing subsonic and transonic fighters like MiG-15, F-86 and Hunter.
If we look at fighter capabilities, the Eurofighter is a major leap forward. The first time since the Spitfire that the RAF really possesses an air superiority fighter that is on par with all currently operational designs.
SchorschJust came into my mind, if you were to chase a flying saucer, what aircraft would you choose for that?
I originally though about Raptor but then an idea came into my mind – do ETs use something as primitive as radars, at all?
EE Lightning, maybe?
There is only one aircraft that can handle an UFO.
An aircraft that handles like a spacecraft.
And that is – according to this very convincing sign – the MiG-25.
[ATTACH]165136[/ATTACH]
And now we know why all the Alien stories come from the USA: Because they were not protected by the Unsurpassed Interceptor, that hunts down an SR-71 with ease and still has fuel to spae when an UFO is attacking.
[there is a remote possibility that the Aliens came to USA because they didn’t like queuing for food and other benefits of planned economy, but that is wild and irresponsible speculation]
SchorschIn fact both statements are correct.
You may choose which one to pick, depending upon which angle of view you address the problem.A pure physicist would pick the “g-load” one. When a vehicle turns it actually accelerates. This acceleration is perpendicular to the speed vector, which is why, most people find it difficult to understand. But it is still an acceleration.
Which means the vehicle needs energy to perform it. If the engine thrust cannot compensate for that, airspeed will bleed.On the other hand, a aeronautical engineer might prefer the hi “angle of attack one”. In order to turn the pilot pulls the stick backwards to get more lift, and thus increases his lift induced drag.
Actually, the acceleration (or force) needed to turn the aircraft is perpendicular to the velocity vector, so that physically no work is performed (no work, no energy). What costs the work is the creation of a force, which is achieved by deflecting air that passes the aircraft. The energy you get on the gas station ends up as turbulent air, a wake vortex and hot exhaust gas. And of course: noise. 😉
SchorschDon’t deceive yourself.
I am not deceiving myself but applying some basic lessons about vertical loads. At the same time I am not hinging my whole argument on one single event and disregard all design logic.
The F-22 Raptor capabilities are overrated greatly. It can not attain 2 Mach even in afterburner !!!
Hilarious!
SchorschOn Swerves comments, its a mystery as to why the RAF don’t opt for a few of their tankers to be given booms, to help with their own larger aircraft such as the E-3D (which I beleive had dual capability for boom or drogue), C-17’s and A-400M (I know it is an option)
Also will the American f-35s be equiped with probes? (I am guessing both the B and C models will be).
The FSTA is not frozen yet. And if they are wise they at least keep the option of a boom. The A330-200 MRTT for Australia does it have anyways. So it would be stupid to not order it, or at least order the stuff needed to install it even if they don’t order the booms itself from the onset.
SchorschThat is nothing but a wet dream & shows you know nothing of how tankers operate. The number of booms necessary to fulfill the need trumps the amount of fuel each tanker needs to transfer & sortie planning always has a significant reserve capacity to accoodate contingencies. And that is even with the KC-135 much less the significantly better KC-767AT. And of course when you do need A LOT of fuel for comparatively few receivers, THAT IS WHAT THE KC-10s (& its replacemment) ARE FOR.
The KC-767AT exceeds the stated offload requirement by more than 25,000 lbs for the desired radius or exceeds the stated radius requirement by more than 500nm for the desired fuel offload. And in the real world if you look at the historical average offload per sortie, the KC-767AT is capable of DOUBLE the average (for Operation Desert Storm & Operation Allied Force at ~1,500nm, for Operation Iraqi Freedom at ~1,000nm & for Operation Enduring Freedom at ~500nm).
Quit trying to change the requirments/missions to fit the KC-30.
True flexibility is when your infrastusture can support more tankers than are needed to do the job & you can operate them from the most effective & efficient locations. Or similarly, your tankers don’t take up SO much ramp & parking space that you still have significant room for other assets rather than having to displace so many other assets in order to accomodate your tankers. And because your tankers (when used for airlift) carry the same number of pallets (actually +1) or roughly double the passengers &/or patients as your workhorse transport [the C-17] you don’t have to make up an alternate load plan for them.
One can have wonderful discussions and gives pro and contra for one aircraft. But there is one fact out there that clearly shows what is considered best for the USAF: the decision of the USAF.
That went clearly in favor of the larger tanker.
The decision was overturned by the GAO not because it considered the Air Force to have made a poor choice but because it violated its own rules and apparently favored one contender.
Anyways, if you questions the USAF’ decision you have to question the general ability of the armed forces to choose their equipment.
Does the USAF know what it truly needs?
History doesn’t really answer that question.
The currently most numerous combat aircraft in the Western (or entire) world would never had been built if the USAF had made the decision on their own.
SchorschIt is well documented that MiG-25 withstood more that 11g. The wings were slightly bent but it landed safely.
This put MiG-25 structure strenght in the F-4 class , which experienced similar incident.
The F-14 would break under such overloads.(Note that F-4C,E manual says that its max G load is 8.5, and the F-14A manual says max load is 6.5 G.)
No no, Mr Aeronautical Engineer, you have to understand structural dynamics and don’t get fixed on load factors. A static load of 11g applied to a Foxbat wing will break it. Period.
A very brief load peak might be tolerated with substantial structural damage. Metals don’t break immediately.
Normal ultimate load testing requires the aircraft to withstand ultimate load (1.5x limit load) for 3 seconds without breaking.
Once again you are comparing manual data that includes safety and peacetime margin with less than well documented one time incidents. You are basically relying on the hear-say of one author that fits your views. It couldn’t be more pathetic.
With no safety margin and below the weight limit, a Phantom can easily come out of an 11g situation without substantial damage or survive a 13g situation without breaking apart mid-air. An F-14 will withstand a 10g load for 3 seconds (certified), is most likely able to withstand brief load peaks in excess of 12g.
Conclusion:
You don’t have any idea what you are talking about, neither structures, nor aerodynamics, and even not performance.
SchorschI have seen pictures of planes dumping excess fuel, can most planes do this? Also where is the discharge port on most planes as this is something i don’t recall seeing. Is this done on a regular basis or only in wartime when the plane needs to lose weight fast?
Only very few military aircraft can do it. As far as I know the F-111 is able to dump fuel. Normal aircraft don’t need to do it as they have a landing weight that allows them to land with full internal fuel or they can easily get rid of it by using reheat at low level.
SchorschNow, concerning the real/supposed/official performance of Soviet/Russian tech: Soviet military hardware was very officially designed with several levels of “limitations”. For example, the official “G-force limitation” could well be beyond the military “combat” limitation and be in turn below the real max. G-limit. The reasons for this are multifold and would vastly expand the scope of this post, so I won’t elaborate here.
The practices in Soviet military aviation are not unlike elsewhere in the world. In order to achieve a maximum of safety and minimum attrition, peacetime limits often have additional margin, that may be used up in case of conflict. Mixing these up and comparing standard peacetime limitations to special war settings is invalid, and that is what firebar does all the time.
– in a famous incident in the mid-80’s, a Foxbat survived a 7G and returned to base before safely landing with critical rivets simply blown away and the canopy incrusted in its casing
Oh, we heard about 11g before. Anyways, a 4.5g aircraft should withstand a 7g load for a short time, though structural damage has to be expected. As usual with load factors the actual weight and other factors are important, it is after all no surprise.
– a Tu-95 returned to base with its upper fuselage resembling a waffle after surviving a violent dive recovery
And where is the actual surprise?
– what was the range at which the infamous Ukrainian S-200 downed the civilian Tu again?
Too much for the civilians it killed. Using such incidents to show us the supremacy of Soviet designs is pathetic at best. How far did the cloud of Tschernobyl reach? Another big achievement!
– what was the range that the famous pilotless MiG-23 covered before crashing somewhere in Western Europe again? 😉
One way range with no fuel “landing”, when compared to radius with reserves and actual landing, is something like factor 3.
SchorschHe does have a point that there is but one source alone which says that the engines would overheat/tear out at >2.8M and that is not a reliable yardstick when other sources say different.
Interesting stuff..but the basic thing that strikes me is that going to 3M is of limited tactical significance vs 2.5 M, whats the difference really in practical operational terms for you end up guzzling more fuel.
The engines were prone to overspeed issue (too much RPM), means they could get out of control. The air flow is very sensible under such conditions, a compressor stall might easily lead to the loss of aircraft and pilot.
However, more speed is always good news. But from M2.7 to M3.0 it is only an increase of 12%. In the end, the magic “3” does take firebar away, while other users know that it does not decide about live or death most of the time. Most SAMs could take out such a target in the late 1960ies, even the SA-2 had a chance to take out an SR-71 (even though it was very limited and could be avoided by the SR-71). The SR-71 again had noticeably higher energy level than the Foxbat.
BTW, does anyone know how total flight hours at Mach 3 compare to each other between A-12/SR-71, XB-70 and Foxbat?
I mean the MiG-25 was procured in large numbers, according to firebar they must have amassed thousands of Mach3-hours.
Sign In
