SchorschSo, in summary, we have Star calling a $1.2bn increase in the cost of a fixed price contract ‘peanuts’ before trying to draw parallel between a scratch designed fighter, requiring harmony between 4 partner nations, and a bilateral contract to refit an old ship. Only in Stars world I guess!.:rolleyes:
Then we have the redoubtable RPG blaming everything on the Indians for not knowing that there was no possible way that the contract was deliverable and might as well have been written on toilet paper. The shipyard obviously being innocent bystanders as the whole contract was put together by dodgy Sergei from the milling shop……. presumably the same guy who had off with the ships engineering blueprints!!! 😉
It does give me heart that, once in every while, a group of foreigners prove that truly bolloxing up a very straightforward project isnt something thats limited to us Brits.
Still at least the Indian Navy can sleep soundly in the knowledge that, should they ever find any ice in the Indian Ocean, that their new ex-Russian carrier is strong enough to plough straight on through it!.
Is there any hint of when this bargain of the ages will be available to start working up its Indian delivery crew – let alone approach commission in the IN?.
Priceless post!
I happen to read only a few posts (mostly from people living in Reading) in this thread, otherwise it would be a daytime exercise.
A question regarding propulsion system: wouldn’t the most cost effective solution be a diesel engine augmented by gas turbines? These engines running in cargo ships all over the world are reliable, simple to operate and have a good power output. For high speed you can install a few gas turbines that have good power per weight, but are less fuel efficient.
Another advantage is that you can (if needed) trade the aircraft’s fuel and the ships fuel, in case of diesel its the same (while most merchant ships use heavy oil I think).
SchorschA grand idea! As pioneered by the Soviets with the Tu114 back in the 50s.
I guess what comes around goes around!!;)
While the motivation for the Soviets was a bit different.
SchorschI am actually not sure on the latter part. if the fuel prices keep going up, flight prices will have to go up even in .eu. Arguably turboprops will be cheaper thus quite likely engendering a “cool i am being economical and eco-friendly” image. This is what I would shoot for if I was to start an airline.
Buy Q400s and call it GreenAir or something 😉
Most airline passengers, especially those that go on business trips, stop protecting the environment the moment they start working. All this environmental stuff is primarily superficial and people like it best, when “the other” (industry, Americans, Chinese, car driver, etc) does something for the environment. If gas wasn’t that expensive, everybody would take a big sßit on the environment with his 8 cylinder SUV.
I agree that people will choose the more cost effective way of traveling. But if your idea shall really have success, better make it a compromise between both worlds.
Schorsch….
You meant it this way, didn’t you?
RCS = 0,01qm = 400km *0,24= 96km,
RCS = 0,001 = 400km * 0,13 = 52km,
RCS = 0,0001 = 400km * 0,06 = 24km
RCS = 0,00001 =400km * 0,018 = 7,3km
(your way of rounding numbers is a bit odd)
These are the “exact” figures:
m² Distance [km]
3 400
1 304
0.1 171
0.01 96
0.001 54
0.0001 30
For those who don’t understand jacksßit:
The returning energy to a detector from an emitter is a function of many variables including the area of the reflector. If we assume that at 3m² and 400km the returned energy is exactly the required threshold, we can use the formula to calculate corresponding distances. The problem: the area is under a “double squareroot” or n^.25 if you like.
SchorschThe problem at the moment is that no appropriate airframe is available. With the A400M a new generation of turbo prop is available that is characterized by:
– new generation engines
– lots of new technologies for noise and vibration minimization
– increase of economical cruise speed by over 10 Mach counts
An A400M can cruise at M0.72, with long range cruise being somewhat slower (about M0.68). Its altitude capability is comparable to an A320.
Considering the high number of flown connections is shorter than 1000km, these seems to be some potential.
A turbo prop flying M0.68 at 33000ft (~250 KIAS) is about 100km/h slower than a jet flying M.78 at 35000ft (~300KIAS). That is 10 minutes penalty on 1000km and about 18 minutes at 1000nm (1850km).
I would position the aircraft somewhere between the current turboprops with up to 70 seats and below the shrinked single aisles (A319, B737-700), basically directly on the CSeries and Sukhoi Superjet. Two TP400 engines are sufficient for that.
Highly important is that passenger don’t really feel like flying in a turbo prop, so it needs to have full jet feeling and at least a little bit jet looking. 😉
SchorschWhy would s’pore requires 100 fighters? s’pore has similar population compare new zealand but new zealand has no air force at tall. I don’t see how s’pore GDP would be able to support that volumn of military spending.
New Zealand has also no country that can reach it with aircraft, except for Australia (after MRTT is delivered) and USA. Both are at the same time NZ’s safeguard.
Schorschdo you also feel the F-15 is over sized for its role?
The F-15C is a bit smaller than the original Suchoi 27 and much smaller than the Suchoi 35.
One must admit that the F-15C is generally a bit low on fuel, but it has three drop tank stations.
The F-15E (and derived export models) are primarily fighter bombers.
SchorschWhere do they park all the aircraft?
What exactly is the purpose of having such a disproportionally large air force?
SchorschQuestion: When using the 1982 Exocet versus naval vessels, what was the distance the weapon could be launched?
And second: Did the firing aircraft have to have radar contact with the ship?
SchorschAs a side note, what does interest me is why the Su-35BM’s ceiling is 2,000m less than the Su-30MKI. In fact, most of the Sukhoi variants exhibit totally different ceilings. :confused:
Ceiling for a supersonic aircraft is normally half way between Mach 1 and maximum design Mach number (if we do not consider supersonic optimized aircraft).
The value is rather academical. It tells you more about the propulsion system than about the aircraft.
It may hurt you, but the smaller Typhoon does show a similar endurance like the Flanker.
The ugly truth: The Flanker still carries the weight it got through the early 1970ies specifications of the PVO. Remember that originally the Soviets only wanted to produce the Flanker specification, but MiG came up with the idea of building something smaller and more fitting for front line service.
To carry 8 AAM into a CAP the Flanker is just oversized. At least the second member of the the 16t+ OEW club (other members are F-14 [earlier] and F-22 [much later]).
SchorschSluggish more compare to F-16? ???
Nonsense, please speak after thinking. The Su-30MKI even can did VR which I never saw F-16 did not even F-22.
“VR” is maybe some kind of maneuver?
Anyways, the F-16A is still the yardstick for turning performance, especially sustained. Were new aircraft gained are in the Mach band over M0.9, below they are mostly on eye level with the F-16.
Doesn’t change the fact that the MiG-31 is just a 4th gen interceptor based on a 3rd gen design. Specialised but not really compareable at all.
I wouldn’t put it in any “generation” at all.
REMEMBER the GOLDEN RULE
It is likely most of BVR/WVR shot will be missed. So end result will be using gun with IRSTBUT …..
su-35BM is like an Airborne SAM
That might be a possibility, while I think before aircraft close into gun range they would exchange IR-AAM. In BVR, if both aircraft clash head on, the aircraft that considers itself in a worse position, will most likely break the engagement.
P.S.: I am still surprised anybody actually answers to star49 when reading his stuff is already waste of time (except for laughter).
SchorschRange with maximal fuel load, km:
Н=0, М=0.7 1,580
Нcr, М cr 3,600
Ferry range: 4,500
with 2 х PTB-2000 external tanks, km
Thanks for 17th repetition of these numbers.
But this is neither a mission nor a radius.
talking about range is more important for an interceptor patrolling and trying to catch up intruders in remote areas, but for a fighter range is not so important because no one has an air to air missile of 4000km of range it is either you run away or you face the Su-35BM for the Eurofighter, if you choose to face the Su-35 also is what is the range of your best BVR missile and what is your detectability.
These is words me not understood fully.
You might have a lower RCS but if your enemy has a radar that still can detect you at longer range and has a missile capable of hitting your RCS is worthless.
That damned RCS. Maybe some people should remember that not only the search radar of the aircraft needs to detect me, but also the a bit less sophisticated active radar in the missile needs to hold me firmly in its eye after launch.
If your Eurofighter is playing the Intruder has few minutes to attack specially if it is intruding in Russia, the home team has always more more fuel to patrol remember the battle of England.
That brings me to an idea: The Stuka was so slow that the doppler filter of the Suchoi’s radar will probably filter it out as terrain clutter.
SchorschF-104G in lo-lo-lo with an atomic bomb went 850 nm or 1574 km.
Max ferry range was 3510 km and max fuel load 6352 l or 4955 kg.4955 kg / 3510 km = 1,40 kg per km in ferry or
4955 kg / 1574 km = 3,15 kg per km in lo-lo-lo strike.Not bad for designs from the 50s, when compared to more recent designs. 😉
But we need to keep in mind that the Starfighter was about 12t NTOW.
The Suchoi is 2.5 times heavier.
To be more exact it makes to divide the kg/km by the aircraft’s weight.
SchorschThe pilot was quoted as saying (paraphrase) “the 20% increase in fuel validated [in flight-tests] a flight (ferry) range upto 4,500km” (without drop-tanks).
Suchoi gives 3400km on internal fuel only, the 4500km is with two 2000l drop tanks. Compared to early Suchoi 27, the fuel volume did not rise only slightly when compared to OEW.
The “20% more thrust” will demand “20% more fuel”.
SchorschFerry ranges? Are you kidding me? What relevance does this have in terms of actual combat performance? Getting your aircraft around empty with full fuel is far less relevant than being able to fly longer missions.
Give me a radius for a relevant mission!
Sign In
