SchorschI don’t think the Su-24 ever had anything like PAVE TACK. I have been told by an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot that the F-111F was a better bomber than the F-15E, which is quite a testament. I would say the F-111F is better than the Su-24.
When we look at the deep penetration mission into defended air space an F-111F with updated ECM is surely more capable than an F-15E due to the larger airframe and better low level flight characteristics.
Overall performance in a conventional war is probably better for the F-15E. Also consider that the F-111F is at least 8t heavier than the F-15E.
———-
The F-111 is first generation swing-wing with lots of design solutions that were changed on later swing-wingers. If the USAF had used a bit more conservative specifications (M0.95 low level, M1.8 top speed) the resulting aircraft would look better.
SchorschDepends on version.
The F-111 is – despite being older – more sophisticated with turbofan engines and – depending on version – very sophisticated electronics. Its maturity however was always miserable.
The Su-24 looks apart from the engine as the more reasonable solution. it does not exceed Mach 2 and apparently stays clear of oversophistication, at least in the initial versions.
The payload was secondary for the originally intended role: it was always nuclear. The F-111 could drop the B61 with reasonable accuracy 300nm behind enemy lines in all weather without exceeding 500ft. For 1970 a respectable achievement.
The Tornado goes same direction and can do the basic job (delivering the bomb) equally good or even better. It does not have the enormous payload of the F-111, while those pictures of an F-111 carrying 24 Mk82 are pure fantasy. In 1991 Gulf War they normally carried 2 to 4 LGB plus one marker in the bomb bay.
SchorschAnother example is the F-16, starting with 6395 kg empty equipped and is over 9300 kg empty equipped now, with same basic dimensions.
While the first value is for the YF-16, which is not an operational aircraf, and the last number is for the F-16F I guess. The F-16C (Block 30) stands somewhere at 7.8t empty & equipped.
SchorschLet’s talk spares availability, fleet commonality, customer (and passenger) resistance, as well as fuel burn and the unwillingness of western financial institutions to back Russian hardware (like it or lump it, that’s a fact).
Asking “which aircraft is better” is a futile question – what do you want it for? It is akin to asking “which is the better car, a Renault people mover or a Ferrari?” Everyone says “Ferrari”, and then the rider of “… and you need to move six kids to school every day in it” comes in, and the answer changes…
The OP has a habit of putting these strange questions on fora everywhere, and then either disregarding, or just ignoring the responses. I vote “troll”….
TA
Of course we can blame the evil Western airlines for not choosing the superior Russian aircraft designs. But considering that in order to earn 1% more Western companies do very wired things, we must conclude, that at least a few airline would take the Il-96 if it was competitive with an A340.
None did, not even those of non-Western airlines.
Actually, even the Russian airlines dislike their own aircraft, despite import taxes.
SchorschEstulation:
Empty weight around 16.5 tonnes (anything beyond that I would see as freak, those 40.000lb have to be with weaponry)
+ 6 AMRAAM, 2 Sidewinder, 20mm ammo, pilot, flare at around 1750kg
+ Internal fuel of around 8 to 8.5 tonnes
= typical take-off weight roughly around 26.5 tonnesThat would put the fuel fraction at t/o very slightly above 0.3 (or around the same as a F-15C). With two 600gal tanks (+ pylons) that might climb to around 0.375 – a more interesting number, but slighly lower than a F-15C with the same two tanks).
(Four tanks seem a more theoretical capability. Sargent-Fletcher would sure like the F-22 to drop four on every hot mission!)Then the F119, around 155kn+ in afterburner, probably around 115kn+ dry. Won’t even start speculating further on this, since I have no idea about the SFC. Only thing I say is, that the thrust/fuel numbers is comparable to a F-15C.
All that does tell me nought, why an F-15C seems to have a 50%+ larger ops radius. Are those F119 so much thirstier? What is missing? :confused:
I guess the F-15C is with external tanks dropped in the mission while the F-22 is without external tanks. The F-22 will probably have higher SFC at M0.85@35kft due to more supercruise optimized engines.
I don’t take the stuff mentioned in Stevenson’s brief 100% serious, many things seem too much dragged to one direction. The mentioned 66700lbs for example are compared to a surprisingly low NTOW for the F-15A.
Additionally, I don’t like the tendency of Boyd’s fellow Sprey to rely overly on digested information like wing loading, thrust/weigh ratio and fuel fraction. These numbers are significant, but only if equal technology fighters are compared. Even Specific Excess power is somehow misleading, it may look good for 1g conditions but worse for 3/5/7g conditions. Wing loading of an F-15 versus an F-22 for example is a fishy comparison.
The F-22 is given with 840ft² (78.2m²) wing area. F-16 has 300ft² (28m²). If we scale the OEW of an F-16C (~8.5t) by wing area we easily arrive at 18t and more. The F-15 has 56.5m² (608ft²) at appr. 13.5t OEW, the F-35A is given with 460ft² (42.8m²) @ 13.5-14.5t OEW. Scale it and you easily arrive at 18t and more. So, OEW per wing area with 18t OEW is still lower than for most other aircraft.
This is a very brave way of finding numbers, I know, but at least a possibility to get into the correct region.
Schorschyup..
That about covers it.. you can move the figures a round a bit, the empty weight is quite mobile:)
It just needs an accurate figure for any one of the parameters and it will get a lot more precise, there have been some excellent sources posted here, which all point to this general area…and your taking the most optimistic view.
Try the figures with a bit of pessimism in the empty weight department, and ‘bobs your uncle’ thats the ‘sensible’ range from the data available.
Cheers
While using some guesstimates on SFC and glide ratio (thank God it’s clean) you can put together a good range/radius estimate, given you have information on the mission profile. Standard air dominance mission will do the job I guess.
At the end of the day the F-35 is always going to win over the F-22 simply because it is in the interest of the Producer (happens to be LMA) that if push comes to shove they’d back down on the F-22 . Their is a very interesting article written by Eric (Member ELP on this forum) with regards to LMA claiming 1 billion in funding to make the raptor exportable and that is a grossly exaterated figure etc etc.
I agree with schorsch that we need less F-22’s and more F-35’s however i am unable to believe that in the current setup that the 183 would be enough . It would strech the system out too thin and would be a hinderance to capability growth (Be it a2a or A2G) . The USAF wants 350 + , I’d rather see them get 250-260 , Plus upgrade all to Latest block configuration and fund for future block (NG data links plus a Targeting Pod of some sorts and maybe even HMS in the 2015 timeframe (i know it is complex and expensive but not imposible – heck we could put it on 70’s tech we surely can put it on the raptor) .
That is a decent balance in my opinon not as much as F-16 , F-15 ratio wise but then again F-35 will have a lot of features of the F-22 specially pretaining to sensors and LO so it is ok for USAF’s needs .
Military procurement decisions are always a balance between the need for particular systems and the need to keep knowledge and capability alive within the industry. The latter is less of a problem for the USA as it has lots of defense projects running in parallel.
Would be kind of strange if the F-16 line is open when the F-22 line is already closed. However, as the involved companies for F-22 and F-35 are nearly similar, a production restart seems quite doable. even possible in the long run would be an F-22B more focused on long-range air superiority mission.
SchorschWe don’t know what the actual figure is – But we have narrowed it down to more sensible figures..
The range seems to be between 18,400 and 21,000lbs, depending on how much you attach to Empty Weight gains over the last few years and cooling problems in the aft both of which would impact fuel usage.
The takeoff weight is defiantly in the high 60’s, which gives it a lower fuel fraction than first estimated :diablo:
Cheers
So, let’s see.
OEW in the “40000lbs class”. We’ll take this literally.
OEW = 40000lbs (includes gun ammo)
NTOW = 66700lbs (from Stevenson’s presentation)
Weapons: 2xAIM9 + 6x AIM120
WW = 2x200lbs + 6x490lbs = 3340lbs
Fuel = NTOW- OEW – WW = 23360lbs
If we assume 21000lbs as upper limit, we can put the lost 2000lbs on weapons and OEW. In the end, we arrive at a fuel fraction of .315, which is quite good and higher than the claims of .275 (Stevenson’s brief) or the somewhere quoted .29.
SchorschThe ongoing battle between the political leadership, the Pentagon desktop warriors and the “warfighting” soldier is epic. And history has proven: they all were wrong and right some time.
The USAF defended its F-15 (although it originally wanted a 20t swing-wing Mach 2.5 superfighter) against the F-16, finally purchased much more F-16 than F-15, now defends the F-22 against any criticism.
Correct is, the F-22 is of no help in current wars and wouldn’t have been even if it have been available in 2003.
Is the F-22 a bad aircraft? I think not.
But is the F-35 the more reasonable aircraft with focus on available aircraft, sortie rates and capability per spent USD? I guess so.
Does it make sense to purchase a limited number of F-22 in order to have a dedicated fighter? Yes.
(By the way: the “limited number” is still higher than most other nations complete air force)
Advantage: With only 183 in service and lots of F-35 to supplement, the F-22 does not need to do a2g business besides releasing GPS-guided bombs on a pre-determined position (which is a no-brainer). That allows pilots to focus on one mission, which always yielded best results.
OEW and internal fuel capavity are still unknown.
SchorschIn the interest of fairness, and to show that I am not a Riccioni accolyte, perhaps this slight intermission is the right time to insert the following quote:
“The F-16 did nothing during the Gulf War.”
The person who said this meant that it hit no high value target with precision bombs, shot down no high value fighters in air-to-air combat. The person saying this seemed to infer that the highly expensive, highly capable platforms were the way for the USAF to go, which is rather surpising considering one of the products he/she championed post-retirement.
Who said it?
The F-16 flew the majority of sorties. It could have done the a2a work, but the F-15 couldn’t do the a2g work. Wars are normally not won by bombing the single high value target or shooting down the enemy fighter, but it is a collaborative effort and numbers do matter.
The F-16 achieved a very good mission rate by the way.
Schorschdoesn’t this aircraft come into competition with the other new Russian aircraft, the Tu-334 (relatively new)? Also the An-148 also comes to mind..
Both designs are dead born and more oriented on specific CIS needs. The Sukhoi may have limited success on Western markets, depending on its economics and the characteristics of the engine.
Schorschon a side but related note. Lately I’ve been playing this PC game called “Air Management” in America its known as Aerobiz. Its an airline simulation game.
You can buy the Il-96-300 or the A340 for your airlines. Based on the game at least, the Il-96 was cheaper but its higher maintenance and gas costs took a higher chunk of the total revenues of a route while the A340 costed more than twice as much as the Il-96 but had significantly better gas and maintenance costs. Even after several months, despite the A340 being cheaper/more profitable to operate.. it took a very very long time to make up for the costs of being twice as expensive than the Il-96. This of course is just a game 🙂
And the author knows his figures from sources like this one.
Airlines in the world know real life figures.
Airline operate A340.
SchorschFrom his “F-22 Brief” one can see that Stevenson put the F-22A at 66700lbs loaded weight in standard a2a configuration. Usually that is standard weapons plus full internal fuel plus OEW.
If we consider the combat load at 1500kg (6*AIM-120 + 2*AIM-9) and take Stevenson’s fuel fraction of .275, we arrive at an OEW of roughly 20.5t (incl everything beyond missiles and usable fuel).
With .29 the OEW drops to exactly 20t, which is more realistic and comes close to the “40000lbs-class” empty weight figure that was once quoted on USAF website.
Anyways, the information from the USAF website seems to be FUBAR.
The obvious weight problem explains somehow the limited excitement in some circles, even within the USAF.
40000lbs=18160kg
SchorschThe Draken made it! First prototype flew 15-10-1955, retired from Austrian service November 2005. That could have been deliberate. Just think of the fuss if they’d been retired the day before the anniversary!
These Hunters – yes, more than 50 years after first flight, but flying as targets, with civilian pilots – does that really count? Nice that they’re flying, though.
Nice pic of one –
While again the Austrian “Air Force” is not really the benchmark. If they had once ordered an Me-262 (this design has at least some Austrian heritage), it would have made its 30th anniversary in Austrian service, too.
In 2010 or 2011* I think the B-52 enjoys 50 years of continued service, for a single airframe!
*the last B-52H rolled out April 1962, so assuming 1960 or 1961 for the first H-models is a reasonable wild ass guess.
SchorschWell, the MiG-15, -17, -19 and -21 all survived in service past the 50th anniversary of their first flight. The MiG-15 only in Albania, and the -17 and -19 only in their Chinese variants, but nevertheless. And the MiG-21 is still in widespread service.
And I disagree about the Hunter. True, it hasn’t been in continuous service, but there are those ex-Swiss ones which have been given brand new British military serials.
While MiG-15/17/19 are primarily operated due to the lack of cash of the operators, while the F-4 still does service in nations that actually can afford replacements. In fact, for air policing and interception modernized F-4 still do a valuable job.
The MiG-21 is a different story, less capable than the Phantom for interception duties it still carries most attributes that characterize a “great” design.
SchorschThe phantom is still a great platform even today; it’s big, which means you can easily upgrade it and it can carry a competitive payload; probably the main reason why it managed to outlive other fighters of it’s generation like the F-5E and Mig-23. Give it modern engines (F135s? :eek:), modern avionics, and ASEA and you have a poor-man’s F-15E. Have you any idea how badass that would be!?
And I never did understand why people call it ugly. I think it looks fine for a fighter; hell, I’d go out of my way and call it beautiful.
Rather F404 and APG-65 plus avionics of the F-18D. If space and weight is critical I get rid of the cannon. The Phantom is not the most agile in the really close knife-fights, but with all-aspect IR-AAM this is of no concern.
I then have a very useful interceptor, a capable fighter aircraft (though not the best) and a very powerful fighter-bomber.
Sign In
