crobatoA trainer typically uses virtual displays for radar in the modern day. I cannot imagine the L-15 having much room for a real one. And the Yak-130 should be totally outclassed in performance, allowing the Saeghe the option to engage in hornet nest range or otherwise.
The L-15 will have radar, and the respective radars for the Yak-130/L-15 would approximately be the same size as whatever you can put on the Saeghe. (The Yak-130 will get a Russian radar while the L-15 can get a Chinese one, with other foreign radars as options).
I don’t see how the Yak-130/L-15 would be totally outclassed in performance. The aerodynamics for this trainer is a generation ahead of the Saeghe/F-5E, with integral body blending, LERX, and even variable camber which the Saeghe seems to lack. In terms of understanding and exploiting vortice management, the trainers are a complete generation ahead. That’s all going to show in a turn fight with the trainers turning inside, using higher angles of attack, stall and spin proof handling, better low speed responses and pointability. All in all, this means the trainers will get to point their nose at the opponents first.
crobatoIf you have a bigger or more powerful engines matched to a smaller inlet, the result would be faster acceleration and faster response at lower plane speeds, engine RPM and at lower altitudes. But you’re going to have a serious drop off beyond that—higher engine RPM, higher plane speeds and higher altitudes.
If you want an automotive example, ask any hot rodder about the relationship between carburator and intake manifold venturi diameter sizes (and shape) to engine power. If you take the same engine, no change in compression ratio or engine tuning, slap it with an intake system with bigger venturis, you get better power at the top end but you can lose response at the low end. Likewise, with smaller venturis, you get better response at the low end at the expense of top peak power (your peak power lowers but moves down to a lower RPM range, becoming more accessible). Sometimes making your power peak too high in the RPM range will gain you total overall power but not acceleration, because it now takes more time for the engine to reach that power peak.
These principles affect all internal combustion engines. The execution varies but not the idea. For a jet fighter, its not just the intake ramps but the shape and the diameter of the entire intake duct leading to the engine. Useless to make an intake much larger than the duct radius, there is a certain ratio to that too.
Most engine-duct combinations look for a certain sweet spot. You want high power but you don’t want it too high or you lose acceleration and response at lower speeds and RPM.
crobatoIts too small for a low powered reactor. For a low energy density reactor, like HTGR or thermal gas reactors, you would need a much bigger sub, as the ratio of displacement vs. hydrodynamic drag favors large subs. Something of this size prefers a very high energy density reactor, and a liquid metal cooled reactor is the best bet if they want to quote something as revolutionary. Besides, this is something the Russians have good experience on, including a floating power plant. The Russians don’t have experience or any working example of a low energy density reactor like HTGR; that’s something the Chinese and the Japanese have direct experience on, as they are the only ones currently having working examples of.
crobatoClearly, the F-404 would be a better solution for any F-5 conversion. Yet, the point is what would be available to Iran……..:rolleyes:
Think about using something like the RD-33, engine used on the MiG-29…of which a single engine variant exists as the RD-93 for the JF-17. These planes might just be demonstrators before actually fitting one in.
Another possibility are the Russian engines used on the Yak-130/L-15 project. The diameters, weights and thrust figures of these engines are very similar to the engines used on the F-5E, and there is room to push them further.
crobatoIIRC the F-15K got F-110’s as well, its all quite intriguing, there must be something giving it the sales edge for the new gen eagles?
Crashing some ROK F-16s with PW engines did.
crobatoIn any case there is more 093 and 094 pics here, uploaded by tphuang. The 094 here appears to be the one that might have the tail appendage.
crobatoFirst, the Russians did have “small” nuclear subs before that is powered by a “revolutionary” nuclear power plant. They had the Alfa class, which is even smaller and faster. It is powered by a very efficient liquid lead cooled nuclear reactor, that is actually quite safe (no one really died from it—just compare that to other Soviet reactor designs) but has a problem if the coolant solidified. Which meant that the reactor had to keep running even on the dock. Liquid lead’s density means it captures heat better, due to the far higher atomic cross section vs. water molecules, and acts as a radiation shield by itself. It does not have a radioactive isotope, and it does not explode like steam. Its danger is being poisonous when ingested and can be corrosive. But even then, liquid lead cools rather quickly and by solidifying, becomes its own safety control.
Despite the logistical issues of maintaining the reactor, the system did work despite the lower technology available then. And I think its worth revisiting the concept given the technology available now. I suspect that is what the Sarov sub is. a revisit of the Alfa.
crobatoIt may work but your fuel consumption is really bad, and its a rather smoky engine too. Using the 404 made better sense because of this, not to mention the 404 being lighter and having a better weight to thrust ratio. You’re reinventing the Starfighter if you want a J-79.
The F-5E design cannot take much weight as wing loading seriously goes up with its small wings.
crobato[QUOTE=Scooter;1169214][QUOTE=crobato;1165365]
I wonder if the J-79 from the F-4 would be to large for a F-5G/F-20 type conversion???
It may fit but not in a fwo engine configuration. The way this new fighter looks to me, its fitting two engines that are bigger than the previous ones, but not big enough to put it in a single engine arrangement.
crobatoIt seems odd to me too and I don’t have any explanations. But remember when the first time TAS pods appeared on Victor III tails, people thought they were MHD drives.
crobatoUnlike many internet commandos posting in this thread, I have been to the AIMDs at Lemoore, Miramar and Beaufort and hands-on examined Fs and Cs in assembled and unassembled states on multiple occasions. The design execution and integration in the fuselage, cockpit and empenage is excellent (except for that spreader bar thing when the engine bay doors are open). But I shake my head and wonder WTF the designers were thinking when it came to the wing.
You have a good explanation but I would leave it to the guys who actually drive that thing to have the final judgment if the wing is crappy or not.
crobatoThe SuperHornet excels any other aircraft design in provoking discussions absolutely free of knowledge or insight in fighter aircraft performance, either requirements or actually tested. It leads to people writing posts with contents like “crappy wing” or “terrible aircraft”, which just don’t suite these people well. It always implies that pure idiocity was at work when the aircraft was designed.
Attached to these discussions is the nearly similar BS-based claims on the global superiority of the F-14. It gets really funny if someone actually tries this with technical figures, just to fail and embarass himself (as, using accepted performance criterias, the F-14 even loses against an F-4 Phantom).
I myself find the SuperHornet entertaining. It also helps to find out where people truly stand in terms of background knowledge.
True true true.
crobatoYes, IFF and fratricide is a big problem with BVR missiles. It limited the F-4 in Vietnam. But as you wrote, AWACS helps, IFF transponders help, and work has been done on radars that can identify the target, but I don’t know if the F-15 has that capability. Tactics, like utilizing preplanned kill boxes, can be used, and there are team tactics where one fighter flies ahead and identifies the target so another can shoot from a greater distance (although it seems to me that the spotter is going to get shot down a lot).
So far for now, the F-16s actually gotten the Advanced IFF first.
The AIM-120 was a huge improvement for the F-16, but the radar on the F-15 is still going to give it the first shot advantage.
How?
Assuming both planes are armed with Sparrows (MLU’ed and National Guard F-16s can), the F-16 can still detect the F-15 long before the F-15 reaches the range it can fire its Sparrows. And firing at max range means only losing the missiles, you have to fire well within maximum ranges to get your NEZ. This means literally, you don’t have a first shot opportunity at all.
You have to remember that the F-16 also has a considerably lower RCS than an F-15. The F-15 is actually frontward, radar conspicuous. Whatever radar range and emission strength the APG-63 has, it would be countered by the F-16’s lower RCS, while the F-16’s APG-66/68 is weaker, the F-15’s large RCS would assist in that detection.
For better or worst, in turn rates, the F-15 is better than the F-16 at higher altitudes due to its lower wing loading, but the F-16 is better at lower altitudes thanks to its higher wing loading.
crobatoTo be honest it looks like neither a pump-jet nor a TAS housing. It’s too slim and elongated to be the former and too bulky to be the latter. Perhaps it’s a small pontoon or scaffolding for maintainance to some part (rudders, screw) of the stern? Not to mention that I’d be shocked if either 093 or 094 did NOT have a TAS anyway, that would put them at a *serious* disadvantage compared to any of the world’s permier submarine navies.
I had a thought, that the tube might actually be an MHD propulsion unit for testing. There had been rumors that China appears interested to test this concept. Its a bit far fetched, but remember, when the tail TAS first appeared on the Victor III series, many thought it might be an MHD or caterpillar drive.
crobatoI had the impression it is phony. If you see any major changes on the Varyag, it would surely come out of the Chinese BBS first.
Sign In
