hopsalotLet me just start by saying that this is getting painful. It is well past time for you to cut your losses and move on.
If it was a drag polar with curves of Cd0 and k against Mach… y’know – something actual engineers deal with – rather than a mere point in space for the uninitiated, then it might be worth paying attention to. As it stands. PR guff.
:rolleyes: They picked the most relevant set of conditions and released their results there. Just because they didn’t dump every bit of data they have onto the internet doesn’t mean what they have released isn’t useful. (Assuming people are able to read the slides… )
Yes it does. FAST packs (or later, CFTs) increased subsonic drag on the two aforementioned by around 10-15%.
Wrong again:
“The flying qualities of the F-16 with CFTs are essentially unchanged when compared to a non-CFT equipped airplane,” said Stephen W. Barter, chief F-16 test pilot and company CFT project pilot. “For most combat flight conditions, it’s as if the CFTs are not even there. The surest way for me to tell if CFTs are installed is to look over my shoulder.”
“The CFTs have very little adverse affect on the F-16’s renowned performance,” said Maj. Timothy S. McDonald, U.S. Air Force project pilot for CFT testing at Eglin. “The aircraft retains its full 9-g capability and flight envelope with the CFTs installed. The drag impact is very small – less than one percent in combat configuration at cruise conditions.“
http://www.f-16.net/news_article781.html
Oops :highly_amused:
Naturally in your expert opinion this just proves that the F-16’s aerodynamics are “crap.”
It didn’t increase drag on the SH at all. Go figure. [just to prevent another facepalm moment – that is not because the CFT designers have suddenly learned how to better design the wetted surfaces.]
Under one set of conditions it did not. I never said the CFTs were without penalty, only that it is perfectly plausible that their drag impact at cruise could be little to nothing. (and indeed, slightly reduce drag)
Range – probably – it’d be nice to be able to plug the info into the Breguet range eqn, but alas we don’t have enough data.
You think it probably increased range? I can see why people would hire you as a consultant! :eagerness: Lets not get too aggressive with our analysis. Are we sure range has increased? :confused:
Endurance – no, we can’t say that due to the data presentation format – the airspeed for max endurance will be quite a bit lower than M0.8
If you get where you are going with more fuel, then you will have more fuel to use while you are there. Understand yet?
Putting it another way, if two nearly identical planes depart on a mission, one of which is carrying 3,500lbs more fuel and has slightly less drag. When they get to the area of operations that means that one jet will have ~3,500lbs more fuel. Want to guess which one will have better endurance? :rolleyes:
Funnily enough, in the middle of that I did mention: “Better to have 10 carriers with more effective air defense and payload-range attackers than 11 with marginal.” But I guess your more focused on reading what you want to read than what is actually written.
😀
Let me spell it out for you. The F-14 was designed to counter Soviet bombers with anti-ship missiles during the Cold War. It was an impressive machine from an engineering standpoint, but it was expensive, maintenance intensive, and single-role. When its mission disappeared with the Soviets, work was done to adapt the F-14 to a striker, resulting in an aircraft that was by that point expensive, maintenance intensive, aging, and multi-role…
In the Reagan years who knows what would have happened, but as it actually happened there was never any chance the Navy would keep the F-14, and certainly not at the cost of a carrier battle group. Again, if you were an expert this would be common sense to you and you would know that you wouldn’t have made it 5 minutes into your hypothetical pitch to cut a carrier to save the Tomcat before people started walking out of the room.
What the Navy needed was a cost-effective multi-role aircraft that would recapitalize their inventory with new airframes with newer technology. They got that in the Super Hornet and they regard it as one of the smartest decisions they have made. Their fleet of aircraft is healthy with many low-hour airframes. They have an excellent aircraft that has done everything they have asked it to, and if they decide to pursue it they can further improve the Super Hornet to increase its range, reduce its RCS, and increase its acceleration. Nobody serious is still thinking about the F-14.
In Afghanistan, the limited payload-range of the SH was shown up quite badly.
Bull, the Super Hornet performed very well in Afghanistan considering the scenario.
Afghanistan is a landlocked nation in Central Asia. Carrier aviation has its place, but Central Asia really isn’t it.
There has been talk of using F-15s with modified PAC-3s for ballistic missile intercept in boost phase. Of course, F-14s from carrier decks would have been ideal for the role. Not an option now that missile platform is gone.
This is what we call a solution looking for a problem. For you the solution it seems is the F-14, now we just need to find a way to justify that solution…
Besides, I can just as easily point to NCADE, ALHTK’s AMRAAM sized competitor for a boost phase intercept missile. Whether either of these missiles is ever pursued is very much in question and is certainly not cause to keep an entire fighter program going for decades in a tough budget environment.
The move from the -14D to the SH marked a significant retrograde step in the carrier’s defensive sphere of influence. No amount of bluster from folks such as yourself will change that.
The F-14 hasn’t been missed, no amount of bluster from folks such as yourself will change that. Carriers today face a lot of threats, but they aren’t Soviet bombers. If China continues to build up its bomber fleet and a need returns we may actually see a successor to the F-14, but there has been zero need for an F-14 for these last 20+ years. You don’t design and build fighters because they are cool. You do it because you need them to do something, and the F-14 just wasn’t needed anymore.
hopsalotI never saw any presentation, can you PrtSc and paste it here ?
It is linked to in the first post in this thread. You can click through the slides. (either by clicking on the right or left side of the slide or by using the navigation bar at the bottom)
Slide 12 shows the conformal tanks adding around 150 nautical miles to a Super Hornet’s combat radius with various loadouts.
hopsalotWell, With the added drag, how much increased range?
Look at the presentation people… they show the range gain with several different loadouts.
hopsalot1. It is a PR presentation. It is barely worth reading. If someone rolled in here using 1 test point for performance characterisation I’d laugh them back out the front door.
As usual around here people seem happy to believe what they want to believe…. and then they want to be taken seriously. You have already made a fool of yourself by spouting off on this subject repeatedly without knowing what you were talking about. Your opinion isn’t really worth much.
2. Read my original post again. It seems you equate me to thinking negligible drag rise was impossible, whereas I started out saying it highlights how bad the original was.
This has nothing to do with how “good” or “bad” the Super Hornet is.
3. That the subsonic drag is insensitive to the addition of two massive volume (and wetted area) increases along the spine indicates: “The original aerodynamics of the subpar-Hornet are even more crap than I thought.”
The results achieved with these CFTs are not that different from the results achieved with the F-15 and F-16, neither of which experienced a large increase in drag at subsonic speeds. Again, take some time to educate yourself before spouting off and you won’t end up looking foolish.
4. That the Boeing official(s) chose to highlight this change (or non change) at a point where performance is not critical indicates “The Boeing official is a bullsh!tter of the highest order”.
Cruise performance is most certainly critical as it plays a huge role in determining an aircraft’s range, endurance and carrying capacity.
5. Much more informed and intelligent people than yourself are content to pay me a great deal for consultation on matters relating to aircraft aerodynamics and structures. Whether that means I know what I am talking about is up to them. But they do keep coming back and it does keep me in beer-money.
Sure thing… :very_drunk:
What is quite apparent from each of your posts in this thread is that you do not know what you are talking about, and don’t even seem to possess the capacity or inclination to perform the very most basic of research.
Pays your money and takes your choices. Personally, if it had come to it, I’d have dropped a deck and used the extra money to get the updated Tomcat. Better to have 10 carriers with more effective air defense and payload-range attackers than 11 with marginal. Although to add to that the end of the cold war no doubt came into the Navy’s decision making. Their thought train no doubt being “Do we need the best possible air defence and heaviest strike when the Backfires are doing no more than gathering rust and all we are doing is dropping bombs on lightly armed mobs?”
More evidence that you have never received a nickle from anyone for you opinion on this subject or anything related…
The F-14 was a cool jet, but its retirement is a reflection of the fact that its mission disappeared and hasn’t been missed for better than twenty years now. The F-14 was designed to combat specific Cold War era threats with a specific concept of operations. That threat has since disappeared and the F-14/AIM-54 combination is thoroughly obsolete. The best argument anyone was able to make for keeping the F-14 around had nothing to do with needing a long range interceptor, but was instead based on the F-14’s potential as a long range striker. Ultimately the cost couldn’t be justified and the F-14 was retired.
hopsalotNah, I didn’t bother to look at the slides.
This is of course why people laugh at forums like this. It is loaded with self proclaimed experts whose analysis inevitably boils down to “is this a plane I like?”
If you can’t be bothered to read what people are talking about you might as well spare us your ignorant comments. It isn’t like you are going to fool anyone into thinking you know what you are talking about when it is 100% clear you don’t.
Unlikely. Very, very unlikely. Drag increases to the square of speed for constant Cd.
Cd here will no doubt jump due to the mach-area compromises of the CFTs.
Great, we have the expert opinion of the same guy who “sniggered” at the thought of the CFTs reducing drag just a day or so ago… :rolleyes: :very_drunk:
The fact is you don’t have a clue how a Super Hornet with CFTs and the enhanced engines would perform but as usual you are just spouting off. Certainly it would be slower than a Super Hornet with the enhanced engines and no CFTs… but it would almost certainly be faster than the current Super Hornet.
Don’t forget, in a warzone, a pilot won’t hesitate to drop an empty external tank (and even munitions) if they badly need to step on the go-go juice. Thats not really an option with CFTs. Therefore you could expect a non CFT SH to accelerate quicker through M1 than a CFT SH when it matters.
I guess you better call up the various F-15 and F-16 operators who use CFTs and let them know they have it all screwed up. :very_drunk:
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course there are tradeoffs when you add CFTs to a jet, but for the most part they are modest and outside of messageboards range and endurance are almost always more important to operators than shaving a few seconds off of a hypothetical drag race.
hopsalotThat chart on #11 is CFTs only, no EWPs.
In other words, it’s a clean airframe and not combat configured.
Of course. That is the whole point, that a Super Hornet with CFT has lower drag than a clean Super Hornet while at cruising speed/altitude.
Obviously once you start adding various external loads drag will rise but that was never what we were talking about. (see his first post on the subject where he makes that clear, “but apparently the drag comparison is between clean aircraft. “)
hopsalotUgh. :rolleyes:
Yes… cruise L/D at Mach 0.5 really matters ‘cos fighter performance is critical in that part of the performance envelope.
Having to deal with clowns that cannot separate the wheat from the chaff is one of the most annoying things about this forum.
Where it matters – drag will either be markedly worse (which is undoubtedly the case) than an already bad airframe, or the original SH aerodynamics are astoundingly rubbish.
An official polishing a turd may fool some clowns on here and F-16.net. It’ll not fool too many that have even the most rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics and of what areas of the performance envelope are important.
Really? You still haven’t bothered to look at the slides linked to at the start of this thread? I wouldn’t be calling anyone a “clown” if you can’t even read what people are talking about.
Look at slide 11 where it is very clear what the test conditions were, .84M and 34k feet. Those are cruise conditions and are very relevant to discussion of drag/efficiency as that is where all fighters spend the vast majority of their time and fuel.
The tanks will certainly impose some penalty at higher speeds, but if that is a concern the uprated engines can more than offset that. (and in the case of the Growler this wouldn’t be a concern)
hopsalot**Snigger**
http://www.aviationweek.com/
I see the drag claim and laugh. It can mean only 2 things:– The Boeing official is a bullsh!tter of the highest order
– The original aerodynamics of the subpar-Hornet are even more crap than I thought.Being semi-serious, I would have thought it possible that the drag could be better because they have been able to mount 4 AMRAAM without having to use those horrible canted inner pylons… but apparently the drag comparison is between clean aircraft.
I am always surprised at just how quick people around here are to make fools of themselves. Read the materials at the link in the first post in this thread, it makes it quite clear that the drag reduction claim is no misunderstanding. This is likely because the tanks themselves generate some lift at cruise conditions. Drag will be higher at transonic/supersonic speeds with the tanks than without them.
See here for another source:
Boeing officials have previously said that the addition of the CFTs does not add any cruise drag, but they admit that the appliqué fuel tanks would have a negative impact on the aircraft’s transonic acceleration because of the increased waved drag. Transonic acceleration has always been a weak spot for the Super Hornet, and many pilots say the aircraft is seriously underpowered compared to other fourth-generation fighters. “You’re talking about something that impairs its performance for an aircraft that already has some performance issues,” Aboulafia says. “But it might be worth it, given the issue of finding an alternative to the F-35C. It’s certainly worth experimenting with.”
This is of course why they are also looking at the uprated engines…
hopsalotIndeed it wouldn’t be worthwhile to refurbish 12 odd Mirage 2000s, but it would have been worthwhile if Brazil & Argentina bought the UAE Mirages and transfer ToT to Embraer so they could upgrade them to 2000-9 standard. Or they could be used as spares for the 2000-9 fleet, which would avoid canibalizing perfectly good 2000-9s.
Sure, or they could just buy a few hundred F-35s, a dozen SU-35s for the aerobatics team, some tankers, some P-8s, a fleet of AEW planes and perhaps make an offer on some of the retired B-1s the US has in storage.
It all costs money though and they either don’t have any (Argentina) or aren’t willing to spend any (Brazil). The idea of two countries that are still relying on modernized F-5s and F1s teaming up to become a regional military power is just silly. That is like saying that I am going to form an NBA team along with a couple of my friends…
hopsalotWhy on earth do people persist with this fantasy that allied planes spend their time trying out their latest jamming and electronic protection systems against each other?
The engineers programming Spectra are going to spend very very little time concerning themselves with developing techniques designed to target Captor. Similarly, the engineers supporting Captor are not particularly concerned about their ability to defeat a jammer that France has never exported.
Think it through people.
Whatever generic techniques either or both jets might have that would be applicable to the other still aren’t something you would want to show off in an exercise. If jamming is used at all it will be intended to simulate a threat. The point of an exercise is to train and improve your skills, not to somehow “win” by showing off every trick you have available.
hopsalotStooping low or not, if the economy falls apart it may be the worst case temporary option as a stop gap and to keep fighter pilots proficient before the US can afford enough F35s. Would be way cheaper than having to rebuild force structure. I think its rational but politically unacceptable.
lol
So the US is going to be reduced to buying planes that China can’t find any use for? Come on man…
Btw the j7gs are far better than you give them credit for.
No, they aren’t.
hopsalotMy comments with red
Chile: F-16 versus Gripen and Mirage 2000. Winner F-16. True
Greece: F-16 versus Eurofighter. Winner F-16. True. Decided on cost grounds as Greece already was an F-16 operator with complete infrastructure available.
Poland: F-16 versus Mirage 2000 and Gripen. Winner: F-16. True. Strictly political decision, much criticized in the EU. Poland has got their share in Iraq for that, bribery doesn’t always have to be only about suitcases full of banknotes
Morocco: F-16 versus Rafale. Winner F-16. Wrong. Winner Rafale. The deal was halted by other factors, related to completely different weapon systems.
UAE: F-16 versus F-15 and Rafale. Winner F-16. This is a tie, actually as Eurocanard will be ordered, as well.
Singapore: F-15 versus Eurofighter and Rafale. Winner F-15. True. I think it was clear from day one.
Korea: F-15 versus Eurofigher and Rafale. Winner F-15. Wrong. Technical winner was declared Rafale. F-15 picked upon immense political pressure.
Greece was driven in large part by cost, but capability/cost is always a consideration. If the two aircraft weren’t competitive to start with then cost wouldn’t have been a question.
The Polish decision was hardly “strictly political,” you just don’t like it. As for some Iraq… spare me your conspiracy theories.
Morocco is most certainly a win for the F-16 over the Rafale. The Moroccans got tired of being jerked around by the French government and Dassault and bought the F-16.
UAE is also a clear win for the F-16. A tie? Seriously? That deal was signed more than ten years ago. If the UAE eventually buys a Eurocanard it will be to fulfill a completely different requirement. (and according to the information available so far it will almost certainly be a split buy of additional F-16s and either a Eurofighter or Rafale purchase. ) The F-16 certainly took the first win. The second contest is likely to be a tie.
Again with the conspiracy theories on Korea. Lets see some facts, not rumors from message boards.
Essentially a tie:
Oman: Ordered Eurofighters along with a F-16 order in the same time frame. True. Funny that you completely ignore the same situation with UAE.
Saudi Arabia: Ordered Eurofighters along with a F-15 order in the same time frame. True. That was completely expected.
That is because the UAE situation is not at all a tie. That deal was designed a decade ago. Any new contest is just that.
Eurocanard wins:
Austria: F-16 versus Eurofighter and Rafale. Winner Eurofighter. Bribery is involved in all deals. Very apparent in Korean F-15K pick. BTW, the main contender was Gripen which was picked but BAe has completely screwed up price offer (we know why)
Bribery is involved in all deals? :rolleyes: This is one of those cases where you think you are being worldly and instead you are just being foolish. Bribery can be a real factor, but it is not a routine part of defense deals in Europe. (nor anywhere else where bribery is outside the norms)
Thailand: Gripen against ??. Winner Gripen though I am not sure any teen series ever competed. Yes, the other contenders were F-16C/D, Rafale, MiG-29 and Su-30 which was very favored by previous govt.
South Africa: Gripen against ??. Winner Gripen though I don’t think any teen series ever competed. Other contenders were Mirage 2000-5 and EADS MAKO.
Czech and Hungary: Leases. They were normally selected in an open competition. The other contenders were Mirage 2000-5, F/A-18C/D and F-16C/D which were pushed very hard, especially in Czech Republic.
Pending orders:Switzerland: Gripen versus Rafale and Eurofighter. Winner Gripen though not against an F-teen. Wrong. RFPs were issued to four contenders, incl. F/A-18E/F. Boeing withdrew first and was not part of the final bidding round.
India: Rafale versus F-16, F-18, Eurofighter, Gripen, Mig-35. Winner Rafale. *No order placed to date.True
The Super Hornet dropped out of the Swiss deal well before the final stages. I suspect Boeing wishes they had stayed in it given how it has turned out so far. We will never know what might have happened if they had.
So where does this leave us?
F-15/16 wins in Chile, Greece, Poland, UAE, Morocco, Singapore and Korea over one or more than one Eurocanard in each case.
Eurocanard wins over the F-15/16 in: Thailand, India (with no contact signed) and debateably Switzerland (with no contract signed).
That is 7 vs 3. Not bad for worn out old designs that can’t compete…
hopsalotOnly if you move the goal posts from your original premise – which was export performance (regardless against what opposition) of the F-16 versus both the Typhoon and Rafale combined. To get 400+ airframes you need to count airframes ordered under contracts signed prior to 2000 (when neither of the Eurocanards was a contender, with the exception of the UAE deal – which I duly counted), repeat orders by the likes of Israel (paid for partly with US money), Turkey (essentially a domestic order, they are even built IN Turkey!), Egypt and Singapore. If you want to count those, fine – compare total production (i.e. 570 vs. 470), as that is then a fair assessment given the pseudo-domestic nature of many F-16 exports. You would hardly count it as an export if, say, Germany decided to up its Typhoon commitment to enable early retirement of its Tornado fleet, would you? Yet Typhoon is a mostly non-German aircraft…
Orders placed before 2000 is one thing, but a repeat order is an order. There is no reason to exclude happy customers from the discussion.
And no, foreign production of an F-16 is not the same thing as Germany increasing its orders. Many export deals include some level of foreign production. (besides, excluding foreign production would reduce the pending Rafale deal to < 20 aircraft given that the remainder are to be produced in India.)
I didn’t (bear in mind that the Gripen is not an Eurocanard for the purposes of this discussion – you didn’t count it as such in your original comment and I stuck to that in my response). My count includes orders by Poland, Pakistan, Iraq and Chile where neither the Typhoon nor Rafale was in contention.
If you don’t want to count the Gripen as a Eurocanard you don’t have to (though it has been the most successful on the export market of the three), but it doesn’t change F-16 production, which is ~500 aircraft since 2000.
Why? Total export orders (non-repeat) vs. total export orders (non-repeat) – seems like a perfectly legitimate comparison to me, and it was your idea originally.
I am comparing export orders to export orders, period. You are the one who seems intent on trying to complicate things. How do you count the Saudi Eurofighter deal? 24 jets? The next bunch are a follow-on order after all and shouldn’t count by your reasoning.
D’you REALLY want to play that card?
Why not? The losers of these deals often seek to spread rumors to explain away their loss… but in the Austrian case there is little doubt what happened. The only question is one of whether or not the authorities will be able to make charges stick. If you can show me a case where there is an actual investigation into wrongdoing then go for it. (not the usual, reporter hears from an unnamed source that plane X scored higher on one part of the evaluation business…)
hopsalotSince when an export order did value a plane? You know what? Ford exports much more then Ferrari…
…and what would you say about a car company that failed to sell any cars?
Car analogies are a lousy way to talk about fighter jets. Price is a major factor in arms deals, but it is never the only one. (besides, lets not forget that in the Indian competition, the Rafale’s only win to date, it won because it was the low bidder over the Eurofighter. Does that make the Eurofighter the Ferrari and the Rafale the Peugot?)
Lets say we are in a dream world. Several planes from a patrol are fully synchronized and data linked.
Plane A sends a radar impulse, and says to plane B it did, with a very precise wave function and moment.
Plane S (stealth) deflect plane A radar wave.
Plane B receive all signals. What happens?
Sure, multi-static radar systems are possible, but they are also extremely challenging and complex. It is also important to remember that stealth aircraft do not merely reflect returns away from the transmitter, they are designed to focus them into distinct beams, preferably up toward space, such that even a receiver off axis will be challenged to track them reliably.
Such an arrangement might help the aircraft using it, but in practice results would be somewhat hit or miss (no pun intended) and you would need to position your aircraft all over the sky to make the system work. (A normal spread would not likely be sufficient given that stealth aircraft don’t reflect signals away by just a degree or two…)
The bottom line is that the aircraft running the multi-static system might be better off than they were without it, but they are still going to be working a lot harder to find the stealth aircraft than it will need to to find them. (and that is what stealth is all about afterall)
hopsalotThe important thing is to remember what the generational nomenclature is — an abstraction designed as an aid to the understanding that originated in a particular context — and what it is not: a feature of reality. And in this context we can observe that one of the chief effects of the current generational nomenclature is indeed to minimise the advances of the Eurocanards over the teen series and Fulcrum/Flanker, and further to suggest an equivalence between the Eurocans and reheated older aircraft (F/A-18E/F, Su-35, etc.) that does not exist. The truth is that the Eurocans are as great an advance over 4th generation a/c as 4th gen was over 3rd. And a further truth is that even if the Americans decide to make an even larger version of the F/A-18 with pylons skewed even further from true, it will still be a child of the 1970s.
Again, wishful thinking entirely unsupported by the facts. The fact is that the US 4th generation fighters have beaten their European equivalents the large majority of the time they have competed head to head. If the Eurocanards had anywhere near the advantage you seem to wish they did it would be reflected in the sales records.
Lets not forget how this whole discussion started, with you making the following erroneous statement:
Comparing F-16 Block 50/52+ or F-18E/F to Rafale/Typhoon is like comparing an upgraded F-4 Phantom with F-15E. Of course they lost — they’re fundamentally older and inferior platforms. Take politics and value-for-money out of the game (as MMRCA Phase I did) and the older jets — incl. MiG-35 — don’t stand a chance.
You were wrong, as I have conclusively demonstrated above. If anything a stronger argument exists that it is the Eurocanards that can not compete absent political factors or bribes.
Incidentally, I’m curious as to which generation Gripen E/F is supposed to belong to, according to those who think Hornet and Super Hornet belong to different generations: Gripen E/F bears exactly the same relation to earlier Gripens as Super Hornet does to earlier Hornets. Indeed, given that Gripen E/F is receiving updated avionics from the outset, it would seem to be a somewhat greater advance over Gripen C/D than F/A-18E/F Block I was over F/A-18C/D.
Who said the Hornet and Super Hornet belong to different generations? They are different jets, but they are both 4th generation aircraft.
The Gripen NG, if indeed it ever proceeds to production, will simply be among the last of the 4th generation designs. It will slot in amongst the Rafale, Eurofighter, F-16 Block 60/70, F-15SA, Super Hornet, Su-35 and Super Hornet.
Sign In
