SchorschCouldnt the consumption in regards to the F-22 also be caused by the engines? I remember reading way back when they were more like “leaky turbojets” than turbofans, with a corresponding decrease in fuel efficiency.
Supercruise comes with a price. Optimum performance engine-wise is normally at 80 to 90% of the maximum dry thrust (depends a bit, the maximum dry thrust is not physical limit but a design decision).
So, when flying at M0.85 the engines are not at optimum efficiency. However, that does only account for 10% change in actual fuel flow.
The thing with range to the kg, one must be careful about the weight of the actual aircraft.
SchorschWhat about an ultra precise ballistic missile strike? Of course, I know nothing of Israeli ballistic missile programmes but it would be a neat and quick way to resolve all of swerve’s misgivings.
Even the most accurate ballistic missiles still have an CEP of 100m I think, but 250 seems more likely. Even a 2000lbs warhead falling 100m next to a building will not seriously harm it. Windows are out, but it is not totally destroyed. Machinery (like a reactor) normally needs direct hits to become inoperable.
The SCUDs the Iraqis used were purely meant as terror weapon, you cannot hit a military or industrial target with that missiles.
SchorschHow about the US Army C7 that was shot down by a artillery fire at Ha Thanh Vietnam, the shot took the tail of while on short final’s
It was friendly fire, and I think a mortar.
Another bunch of letters being supplied to families.
War is ugly.
SchorschHmm…..Interesting Nick. I guess we will have to wait and see, until the thing flies, well ….. actually not just fly but when the Russians decide to declassify some of the specs.
On a side note:
The 1st flight of the PAK-FA scheduled sometime next year (2009). The F-22 1st flew in late 1997 and the YF-22 1st flew in late 1990! (MiG-1.44 in 2000, Su-47 in 1997).
It would be surprising/disappointing if the Russians are incapable of producing a 5th gen fighter by 2009 which atleast in some ways superior to the YF-22.
Which indicates an in-service date of 2020. At that time the F-22 will be operational for 15 years.
And there is not much to learn from either aircraft’s specs.
SchorschWhat if the Tomcat had got the export orders from Australia,Canada,Spain (winning over the Hornet) and Israel,Saudi Arabia and Japan (beating out the Eagle). One thing for sure would be lower unit cost not to mention a larger market for possible upgrades.
Most of them would be retired by now as better options are on the table, and swing wings have more serious lifetime limitations.
Also what if Iran had stayed on good terms with the west long enough to get the nice arms package they had in the works that included 2x Invincible Class CVs,Sea Harriers,F-16s and E-3s?
I guess most material would be unservicable. It is very tricky to keep aircraft in operation without help from the OEM.
SchorschREAD what I wrote. I said that incorporating stealth does not automatically guarantee you’re going to have inferior aero efficiency to the F-15. Nothing less, nothing more.
Yes, it does. It is a trade.
If the F-35 or F-22 would not be stealthy, they could be much smaller.
But the requirements design the aircraft, in the end not the drag but the ability to do a mission is the key. Time will tell which design performs best.
SchorschHi schorsch, thanks for the reply!
although from what you said, wouldn’t the Rafale design fit your description.. since its roughly the size and capability of the Eurofighter with more attention on lowering its RCS than the Typhoon. Or perhaps a larger Mako
Possibly. None of the present fighters is a bad choice. Rafale is a very good aircraft, as is the Typhoon. The Gripen is perfect for smaller operators. The F-22 the dominant long-range fighter, and the Super Hornet the do-it-all but nothing really perfect aircraft. The F-16 is still a very good aircraft and fulfills all duties a smaller country could ask from a combat aircraft.
The Asian fighters possibly cannot compete and are primarily meant as starting point for future developments.
The Russians have the ability, the key question is: did they set the requirements right so that they produce an aircraft that fits the conflicts of the future.
SchorschThen how about a F15N ? The F15E, is already a better combination of range, performance and payload than SH or upgraded Tomcat.
Give it cannards for hi AoA carrier landings, and a landing gear that can handle the sink rate. Add saltwater protection, folding wings etc.
Cost aside(this is the “what if” thread afterall) is it not better than super Tomcat or Hornet ?Politics aside(you have it) how will it fare against the Rafale M ?
The size and weight of the F-14A was not because Grumman was unable to design a proper aircraft, but because the whole weapon system is so heavy. The decision to use swing wings is correct considering the requirements. Today better solutions are on the table, and the weapons are smaller & lighter. I think neither the F-4 nor the F-15 could have been transformed into a weapon system with better performance than the F-14 in the 1970ies. The F-14 was remarkable in that way that a weapons system that exceeded all existent airborne at that time could still compete against most fighters of that time.
Funnily nobody talks about the proposed USAF variant of the F-14 any more, the USN was very keen on sharing it with the USAF (like they did with F-4, A-7) and by that reduce unit costs. Just the USAF didn’t want it, which was a wise decision.
For the F-15E, I don’t know about the radius with payload. With all the things stuffed under the fuselage it shouldn’t be an overperformer, either. The close to 400nm radius for the SH with 4000lbs payload in hi-lo-lo-hi isn’t that bad, actually better than that of the Tomcat D.
[ATTACH]163111[/ATTACH]
Photo taken on ILA 2008 in Berlin.
Note: the FLIR, the Laser illuminator and the travel pods, but also the many available pylons.
Schorschhad to quote an earlier thread since it is now locked.
what do you think of the Su-47 and MiG 1.42 (or 1.44 whatever it was). Probably not on the smaller side but has a bit more “stealthy” features than the standard flanker.
Both aircraft seem to be stuck in the test stage. In order to develop a new fighter it needs consistent effort on all fronts. A new stealthy fighter is useless without the right avionics (rather put the new avionics into the old aircraft). In the end, Russia was unable to afford any new fighter program in the 1990, only able to keep the capability by financing prototyping and modernization efforts, interestingly only for one manufacturer.
We’ll see how the PAK-FA finally looks like, I think today’s best fighter is about 10-12t empty and a careful compromise between stealth and cost. Something like a Eurofighter with some more stealth features integrated (while the problem with stealth is that you can hardly go half the way: either you reduce RCS by at least 90% (rather 99%) or you can skip that totally).
SchorschI guess the problem with the IOWAs was less the cost of modification, but the cost of operation and maintenance. 1500 people do cost come money.
Speaking of what-ifs though, here is the most radical Snornet configuration considered when they decided on the E along with the ultimate Tomcat (Tomcat II). The drawing says “Tomcat II” but it appears to fit the description of the Super Tomcat 21.
I want to point out that the Super Hornet was relatively straight modification, while any Super Tomcat would have needed considerable re-design to get to the design goals stated here repeatedly. The SH run into some design problems (esp. wing aerodynamics) and has some shortcomings (drag), still it fulfills most specs and was somehow close to budget.
A Super Tomcat would have seen similar issues, and no-one can say that it had been any better.
For any NATF dreams, just look how long F-22, F-35 or Eurofighter needed from design to maturity. The Super Hornet remains the most reasonable choice in times of a limited budget and limited political support for new Navy aircraft (remember: that were the times pre 9-11, when basically USN and USAF put half or their inventory in the desert). The Super Hornet is at least procured in reasonable numbers, it outsells the shiny F-22 by a ratio of 3-1.
SchorschI was really surprised at the low weapons load ability of the Tu-95 compared to the B-52, 9,000kg versus 35,300kg! During the Viet Nam Conflict the B-52 would fly from Guam to Hanoi/Haiphong carrying one hundred and four, seven hundred and fifty pound bombs! A total of 35,300kg weapon load.
Either way both bombers are still very combat capable.
Payload-range wise you can always trade payload for range, but until mid 1960ies the B-52 couldn’t accomodate all the bombs. Fact is that no bomber designed after 1950 was really intended to drop conventional bombs.
Fortunately they never dropped anything else.
I think the Tu-95 dropped the Zar-bomb, which weighted something like 30t or so.
SchorschDon’t know about anybody else but it doesn’t **** ME off. 😉 I just think there’s more to it than “looks boxy, it must have a lot of drag” (just FYI the Foxbat is also “boxy” but is hardly slow) or “compromised for stealth”. Could it have been more aerodynamically efficient if stealth wasn’t a factor? Certainly. Does incorporating stealth automatically confer a lower degree of aerodynamic efficiency than the F-15? No.
I refrain from making detailed assumptions, as just I have no possibility to back them up. Anyways, design of a fighter aircraft normally is an endless line of compromises, where one objective violates the other. As little example: The YF-16 and YF-17, the YF-16 had lower drag but worse high-AOA characteristics (it still suffers from it), while the YF-17 and F-18 obviously have a bit higher transonic drag but have been flown up to 90° AOA (in tests) and are generally very spin resistant. The NASA high-AOA testbed was an … F-18. The careful observer will see similarities between the Suchoi 27 general lay out and that of the YF-17/F-18. Similar problems, similar solutions.
The Foxbat is a pure supersonic aircraft and basically big FAIL when it comes to sub- or transonic flight (biggest FAIL are its engine).
I think the sleekest and most efficient aircraft from transonic aerodynamics point of view are the Eurofighter and Gripen, but they are not stealthy.
SchorschSo, finally, about a year after roll-out the machine is working. Let’s see when it flies. If Power-On progressed well, I think we can see the Dreamliner in the air about August to September, or a year later than expected. Good Luck, boys!
SchorschMy favorite “doesn’t look right” aircrafts are those stuffed with wing fences from the root to the tip. The Soviets made some very weird looking swept wings.
SchorschMy pet peeve is spelling flammers who assume that someone who types “your” instead of “you’re” doesn’t know the difference when in all likelihood it’s more a case of “who cares, it’s the internet”. :p 😉
I always assume that people want to be taken serious with their writing.
When somebody is unable to write proper English, I can see two reasons:
– he isn’t able, which can be compensated by putting a remote country in his Location thing (I don’t mind if a Chinese misses some grammar finetunes)
– he does not want to be taken serious.
Example post 56.
Sign In
