SchorschYou’re comparing the Tomcat to the Foxhound and you don’t even know this? Damn near any source on the Tomcat mentions it.
It was a test though, conducted with drones that flew and maneuvered, but probably didn’t use ECM and probably were so kind to stay within the engagement envelope.
In combat the F-14 never carried more than 4 AIM54 anyway, and more often only two. This has multiple reasons, for example the limited supply of these missiles on carriers and that the objective were fighters rather than bombers.
SchorschNewer model amraams though can be launched on up to two separate targets under launch aircraft direction which has something to do with their datalinking software. No sparrow or early amraams can do this. I’d find it unlikely 70s datalinking tech on the AIM-54 would be much different to an early series amraam, but it is possible I guess due to their sheer size, I would guess a maximum of two simultaneous aircraft direction launches (datalinking) at the end of their service life when the better Tomcat radar was being equipped. But I don’t think even that’s the case, it’s been explained to me before the AIM-54 uses straight SARH instead of datalink mid flight, which puts it back to sparrow territory until the seeker goes active.
As the AIM54 has a ballistic trajectory a SARH mid-course guidance wouldn’t help much. The issue about “simultaneous targets” is probably valid. But in the early 70ies the capabilities of the AWG-9 were quite astonishing.
So far I’ve read of only singular targets engaged one at a time sometimes with multiple launches, by any aircraft type in actual combat records. Most often any variation is multiple aircraft targeting one enemy aircraft and multiple launches on it. Not the other way around.
I can’t categorically say what their capabilities are, but it does certainly appear pilots whether in Eagles or any other modern bird seem to prefer singular target engagements at a time, whether the Israelis or anyone else is the operator, even in a furbee.
I guess the reason is that “multiple targets” rarely appear in real combat. And the chance for an “out-of-envelope” shot is high when firing at fighter targets.
The F-14A’s weapons system was designed to destroy bombers and large ASM. Just like the MiG-31.
SchorschLike Trident I have serious doubts that you can pull 740km of range out of a fighter radar. I would say 300km is the maximum useful. Even the E-3D (the current Hawkeye upgrade) is credited with “only” 370km.
SchorschThe Indian air force has just about operated every type of Fighter produced by the MiG-design bureau – except of course – the MiG-25. Which is kind of ironic considering the IAF already had the MiG-25R in service. Why would the IAF go to great effort and expense to create the technical infrastructure to operate the MiG-25R and not add in a few squadrons of MiG-25P as well?
Probably because the MiG-23M(L) offered similar capabilities at a fraction of the cost. The Mach3-option of the MiG-25 never was of great advantage.
The only useful MiG-25 was the PD-version, but it wasn’t available until late 1970ies.
SchorschOnce again ratings are, for a transonic turn under similar conditions 3G for a Phantom, 7 for a Hornet or Tomcat, 9 for a Viper or Eagle and 5 for a Foxbat, 7.5 for a Flogger and 7 for a MiG-21.
Most aircraft are limited in supersonic turning by elevator authority. The F-4 is a good example (it does more than 3G though). The MiG-21 doesn’t generate more, I also have doubts about the Flogger’s 7G. A swing-wing is excessively stable with wings swept back.
The relaxed stability technology helps this point. The “negative stability” of for example a Eurofighter make those aircraft very agile at supersonic speeds.
5G supersonic for a Foxbat is much too high. Up to 4G if low enough (not at 15km) and light enough. At 20km 3G is the maximum.
Remember that MiG-31 has same wing area and comparable wing loading, will consequently not achieve much more.
Schorsch[…]
Please regard forum rules and refrain from quoting posts directly above yours.
Further on, the F-15 with full internal fuel still beats the MiG-31.
The maximum Mach number is maybe of interest for school children, but we never considered a tail chase scenario here.
I don’t know how the label “attacker” or “defender” is of any relevance. Both aircraft are designed to shoot down other aircraft, just that the F-15 does its job much better at lower cost.
The MiG-31 is tailor-made for a single mission: air defense against targets that don’t shoot back.
SchorschFully loaded no F-15 version can sustain 4Gs at Mach 1.6 at 10km, by fully loaded we mean almost all its fuel and 8 AAMs, since the MiG-31 will fly at supersonics speeds, in order to chase the MiG-31, the F-15 needs fuel, all modern fighters at 5km will sustain 5-6Gs only before 1100km/h and only at combat weight or basicly half fuel, after that speed the overload capacity drops abrutly, at 10km and Mach 1.8, which is a minimun of speed to chase a MiG-31, agility is almost not existent.
Actually, you have no idea. You are dreaming the performance of the F-15 so the MiG-31 has a business case. It does, but it never involved the F-15 as a fighter.
At supersonic speeds the wing loading and the thrust-weight ratio determines the maneuverability. The F-15 rules in both categories over the MiG-31. Wing loading is much smaller, thrust-weight or thrust-drag ratio possibly the same (at Mach 1.5+).
The MiG-31 was designed sacrificing maneouvrability in favour of speed, this was achieved by making an aircraft with engines of 15600kg of thrust each and carrying large loads of fuel, the MiG-31 at full gross weight almost as two F-15 at combat weight, at the speeds the MiG-31 flies there is no need for maneouvrability first because for a 1970s design it was impossible to make a fighter agile at mach 2, basicly at Mach 2.35 MiG-31 aircraft flies straight.
Actually, the MiG-31 is the MiG-25 with increased maneuverability and less speed. The engines are less than ideal for the supersonic regime. The Russians – economical in their sense – used a turbofan developed for an airliner as they didn’t have anything else.
At M2+ every aircraft flies straight.
The weight of the MiG-31 is another liability. The fuel fraction is good, but as I have shown an F-15C with CFTs easily beats it.
The MiG-31 philosophy is kill low flying intruders with long range missiles by passing the scort fighters and with R-37 even killing AWACS.
The MiG-31s philosophy is to have a useful interceptor. The MiG-31 today has no reason for existence any more as any mission can be performed by the smaller, much more agile and affordable Suchoi 27.
The F-15 then fails its mission even if a single F-15 is not shot down, while all bombers and AWACS are destroy the MiG-31 achieves its goal.
Then it flies over Russian corn field with Mach 2.35 to make the corn grow faster …
SchorschAh, the Mach 2.35 is back.
No TF-30 will allow an F-14 to fly at full afterburner 35 minutes with Max fuel.
If the MiG-31 is heavy is because it needs fuel to burn at Mach 2.35, it weighs 48000kg around 18000kg more than a F-15 at full gross weight:eek:.
The F-15 and F-14 carry less fuel so they can fly less time at supersonic speeds.
The MiG-31 is heavy because it is heavy.
It is 22t empty.
The MiG does have quite a bit of internal fuel, however, that doesn’t equate into double the range at supersonic speeds.
The F-15 is another concept, it is a subsonic aircraft that can fly at Mach 2.5 (theoretically but seldom done) just for 1 or 2 minutes because it will run out of fuel, but is a maneouvrable and quick climber that will kill the MiG-31 in close combat at subsonic speeds and low altitude very easily.
The F-15 can fly supersonic for quite a while. All done & tested. External fuel tanks are supersonic. The F-15C with 3 drop tanks has a fuel fraction of .45 at take off.
The F-15C with CFTs but without drop tanks has a fuel fraction of .42.
The top speed of the F-15 with CFTs and 4 Sparrow is still Mach 2. See following chart:
[ATTACH]187700[/ATTACH]
Conclusion: performance-wise the MiG-31 has little to offer when compared to the F-15. Yes, it has a higher Mach number, but the difference is hardly decisive. The F-15 can still pull Mach 2 if necessary, and with a fuel fraction better than the MiG-31.
To turn at 9Gs the F-15 needs little fuel, this condition means it will have less fuel to chase the MiG-31, so while the F-15 will outmaneouvre the MiG-31 at low altitude and subsonic speeds, the MiG-31 will out run the F-15 in a high speed and altitude chase.
Please tell me the scenario where an aircraft makes a 9g turn and then flies supersonic for extended time.
These are different concepts one is a fast interceptor with no close combat ability while the other a subsonic dogfighter with very limited Mach 2.35 speed.
But quite substantial M2.0 speed.
The F-15 can kill the MiG-31 in close combat at subsonic speeds and low altitudes, these means landing and take offs, subsonic cruising at low altitude or refuelling, with R-33s or R-37s and at Mach 2.35, the MiG-31 will out run the F-15 and out range its AIM-120s, even with R-77s the advantage in balistics goes to the MiG-31 due to its fast speed and ceiling.
As soon as the MiG-31 cannot kill the F-15 by long range missile, the -31 is basically dead. Even if the MiG-31 runs at Mach 2.35, it will have to come back some time.
Fun fact: today’s radar technology allows it to put a better sensor into the F-15 than the MiG-31 ever had.
Schorsch[…]
So F-15 will limit its ability to turn at Mach 1.8 and at 10km, becoming as lumbering as a MiG-31 and so F-15 becomes an easy pray for R-33s and now R-37s
You failed to mention that the MiG-31 constantly flies at Mach 2.35 and therefore wins every engagement. Mach 2.35 will provide quicker lunch to Russian pilots.
SchorschThe writing on the wall suggests the Pacific will be the next theater. If that is the case I can understand (somewhat) the reason for cutting F-22 production short because while it’s range isn’t terrrible it’s nothing like what would be needed to deal with those distances. I think they’d want something more like a modern F-108 in function. Imagine a stealthy F-108 that can manuever and is fitted with modern weapons and sensors. Something like that. The biggest obstacle to that (aside from money obviously) is materials. Stealth-compatible materials that can handle the heat and better engines. They’re getting there with the materials. I’ve seen BMI advertised in sales brochures that’s good for continuous 750F operation. How much of it’s strength it retains at that temp I have no idea.
You are a bit obsessed with those 1960 dreams of speed, regardless of cost.
What counts is an affordable solution, which can generate lots of sorties without costing a fortune. The F-22 clearly failed in this perspective.
The individual aircraft has its performance, you are completely focused on maximizing this. But the performance in the battlefield is:
Total Capability = [Capability of Aircraft] * [Number of Sorties per Aircraft] * [Number of available Aircraft]
The F-22 scores in (1), fails in both other.
The future aircraft has to be affordable in the first place. The performance capabilities are second place. Even average aircraft perform well in numbers.
We already had this scenario in the 1970ies, it brought us one of the best aircraft design and the best selling western fighter jet ever: the F-16.
SchorschI’ll checked a number of airliners.net pictures, couldn’t find any evidence of leading edge devices. As those pictures are all landing and take-off, it appears like Trident is correct. But anyone having different info is invited to dispute this.
SchorschI know these projects – at least what is known to public domain.
The biggest question: for which kind of conflict is the future fighter made for?
We haven’t seen a real conflict for ages (which is great), and we have no idea what exactly aircraft need to do in the next.
SchorschMaybe a 4% improvement in subsonic SFC, or 5% less weight. Great for airlines, not really relevant for military applications.
SchorschOk, but the MiG was designed to cruise supersonically and the Eagle wasn’t. Do you know how long can the Eagle fly at full AB? I don’t know, but not not for very long I think.
Any Mach number below M2 can be sustained indefinitely from the airframe’s perspective (heat). The engines: usually no issue, either. I just looked at the F-14A’s operating manual (TF30). It states a maximum time in full A/B of 45 minutes. As fuel would be exhausted after much shorter time, I wouldn’t consider this an issue. The F-18A (F404) and F-14D (F110) do not state a time limit on full A/B operation.
When using drop tanks for the cruise in and they’re dropped at acceleration to supersonic, the flight time at supersonic speeds is considerable, even for an F-15A. Much more for an CFT-equipped C.
Just to give an impression for “conventional” (i.e. not master of the Mach 2.35) aircraft, the F-18A with air2air weapons burns 260lbs/minute at M1.55 and 45000ft. The F-18A has 10500lbs usable fuel internally, so it could fly supersonic for about 30 minutes with 2000lbs reserve remaining (always assuming drop tanks are used before and dropped at or after acceleration).
30 minutes at M1.55 are about 800km.
Just for those who think 720km supersonic is revolutionary. :rolleyes:
SchorschNo, but it gives the Mig the ability to intercept and choose when, and how to fight.
The F-15 can fly M1.8 with full weapons.
So where is the big advantage of the MiG?
Sign In
