dark light

Scorpion82

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 2,896 through 2,910 (of 4,105 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale News V #2494826
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    It’s the RECO-NG but probabley not a fully functional one, but a store representive item for flutter testing etc.

    in reply to: Supercruising #2494830
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    F-35 was NEVER requiered to be MULTI-ROLE, and de-facto it is designed as a STRIKE aircraft FIRST = OPTIMISED for the role with secondary A2A capabilties.

    So performing AA and AG missions is not multirole? LOL
    Priorities apart multirole is multirole, if the aircraft is more optimised for strike or AA doesn’t matter, if it is designed to perform both roles IT IS MULTIROLE.

    BTW show me a single drawing/grahpic of a concept for the USMC Harrier II replacement!

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2494831
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Air Combat is about STANDARD PROCEDURES that you visibly don’t know of nor have ever eared of.

    Yeah for sure I learned nothing within ~20 years…:rolleyes:

    Typical RANGE is dictated by engine SFCs at nominal altitude and CRUISE is expressed in terms of SFC = lb/nm, typicaly re-expressed in terms of CRUISE at below 90% military power settings.

    This has exactly what to do with my statement?

    Combat load, i.e the fuel weight it is expected to carry when it encounters its threat/target in a typical combat scenario is equivalent in percentage to that of Western aircrafts.

    To use your words do your home work and learn your ABC. NTOW of the Su-27 is ~22 t, there is no way that an operationally configured Flanker holds max. fuel with its normal TAKEOFF WEIGHT, NOT COMBAT WEIGHT!
    The Su-27 was designed as a long range interceptor/escort aircraft. When patrouling a large area or escorting other assets deep into the enemies territory the aircraft would be fully fueled to go that distance, have combat reserves and to make it back home. For stock missions not requiring to travel that far or loiter that long the aircraft won’t be fully fueled and just holds about 5 – 6 t when on TAKEOFF, not mid air on combat!

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2494871
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Dropping EFT is not as common as you think, it’s valid only in tactical emmergency. What if you want to fight the following day, and you have another emmergency? And yes, I know that Flanker usual fuel load is 1/2 of max.

    As I said you drop the tanks IF required. There is not necessarily a need to drop the tanks in every situation when you face a threat. Depends much on the threat itself and the performance achieveable with the EFTs. In the case of the Typhoon the EFTs are virtually cleared for the entire flight envelope. There will be a degration in performance, sure, but the performance is sufficient and the aircraft doesn’t necessarily hold its max number of fuel tanks. Depends on the mission requirements.

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2494925
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    in order to have some decent combat radius, especially when facing an oponent with 11 tons of fuel such a flanker, a Rafale, would need more than 1 EFT you mention. In these conditions, do you believe that the Rafale will perform better or worst than F 35 in terms of cruise speed, max. dash speed, acceleraton or turn rate?

    Sorry but what is that nonsense about fuel? Air combat is not about range course duration. Sure you need some range/endurance but everything depends on the mission and situation! Claiming a fighter with lower fuel load like the Rafale or Typhoon has no chance to deal with a Flanker which holds twice the fuel is nonsense. And drop tanks can be dropped, IF required. BTW do you realise that Flankers typical fuel load isn’t much more than 5 – 6 t? The reason for this is that a fully fueled Flanker is to heavy to perform well.

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2494933
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day1/Davisday1.pdf

    That is one that is online…

    Fine and now we wait and see how much an operationally configured F-35 will weight in reality when development is finished.

    What can still do Mach 1.6 with 3 drop tanks? How fast can it go WITHOUT drop tanks…

    M 1.6 is the cleared speed, it might go even faster and max. speed without drop tanks is M 2.0 (limited by intake arrangement and structure/material).

    Trust me, just like all other performance parameters, the F-35 will EXCEED its Mach 1.6 top speed KPP THRESHOLD.

    We will see in the future.

    in reply to: Rafale News V #2494968
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Interesting that they sent single seaters now, when they have just used Bs in the past. This must be the third deployment of AdA Rafales to Afghanistan. But seems to be the first time they operate from Kandahar. Previous operations were conducted out of Dushabne in Tatjikistan.:confused:

    in reply to: Eurofighter vs Mitsubishi F-2 #2495193
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    That detailed datum didn’t give any informations concerning drop tanks. The impressive photo showed as we seen was a some kind of max limit load not a standard combat load.
    It is conceived that 2 of three paveway bombs was loaded beside main wheels not that couple of additional pylon inboard.

    Take a look at the images from the No.11(F) sqn US deplyoment. You’ll find quite a lot images with 2 tanks + 4 LGB + 1 LDP + AAMs (max number of AAMs not used as just AG training was concerned). That means this configuration is well an operational one, not just a heavy load testing.

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2495200
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Post weight-reduction weights:
    F-35A
    26,664 lbs
    18,307 lbs internal fuel

    F-35B
    29,695 lbs
    13,400 lbs internal fuel

    F-35C
    29,996 lbs
    19,145 lbs internal fuel

    Care to provide the source?

    Even EMPTY drop tanks add MORE than enough drag to decrease performance.

    They do increase drag yes, yet the question is how much in this particular case and is it going to affect the performance. 3 drop tanks and still M 1.6 capable, someting the F-35 has yet to demonstrate CLEAN!

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2495282
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    STOVL engine data from the said brochure:

    Maximum Thrust: 43,000 lbf (191.3 kN)
    Short Takeoff Thrust: 38,100 lbf (169.5 kN)
    Hover Thrust: 39,400 lbf (175.3 kN)
    Main Engine: 15,700 lbf
    Lift Fan: 20,000 lbf
    Roll Post:3,700 lbf
    Length: 369 inches (9.37 meters)
    Inlet Diameter:
    Main Engine: 46 inches (1.17 meters)
    Lift Fan: 50 inches (1.27 meters)
    Maximum Diameter: 51 inches (1.30 meters)

    Bypass Ratio:
    Conventional:0.56
    Powered Lift:0.51

    Overall Pressure Ratio
    Conventional:28
    Powered Lift:29

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2495321
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Well the fact that the official data state 43k lb and just in a single graphic it is 48k lb, leads me to believe this is more likely to be a typo than anything else. But we will be “smarter” in the future;)

    As far as dry thrust is concerned from the PW brochure which states 191.3 kN reheat thrust (19512 kg/42926 lb), the max static dry thrust is 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb) or about the same as the F100-PW-129 in reheat.

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2495350
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    The external tanks would just increase the RCS of the Typhoon and make it even easier to acquire and target. So, while the tanks could be dropped to increase the Typhoons performance. It would likely be targeted and engaged before it knew of a need to drop them…….

    Also, its very likely the thrust of the F-35A (with P&W F135) is not 40,000 lbs but 43,000 lbs. Hey, even a AFA source claims 48,000 lbs………Yet, use the lower number if you like?

    We speak about performance here, nothing else. And no I didn’t use the lower number (40k lb) but the average and so far officially confirmed number (43k lb). The 48k lb figure might be easily a typo all sources so far suggest 43k lb, with 40k lb meaning the thrust class. So 43k lb is safe to assume, 48k lb is not.

    in reply to: Supercruising #2495372
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Even the Super Hornet is listed as having a top speed of M1.8+, so I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the F-35 was in that same class.

    I mean to remember that the top speed is indeed not more than ~M 1.6 on the Super Hornet, while official sources still state M 1.8+. Take it for what it’s worth.

    in reply to: Is the F35 a waste of time? #2495386
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Is that 2 tons less than the AA-1 or AF-1(weight optimized) model? Also, what thrust are we assuming for both aircraft? Lastly, what are the effects of hanging missiles and fuel tanks externally, vs. the clean profile of the F-35?

    It’s 2 t less than the specification stated on LM official website which is 29300 lb (13318 kg) for the F-35A.
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html

    Engine thrust comes from the PW brochure about the F-135 which states 191.3 kN (19512 kg) reheat static thrust.

    Typhoon’s empty weight is 11000 – 11150 kg according all publically available sources and reheat thrust is 2 x 90 kN (9180 kg) reheat static thrust. This excludes reports about increased engine thrust for production aircraft with EJ200 Mk101FOC which is fitted since block 2.

    http://www.eurofighter.com
    http://www.eurojet.de

    Loading 2 SRAAM + 4 MRAAM has almost not impact on performance. Droptanks have some impact, but it is said that the aircraft loaded with 4 x ASRAAM, 4 x AMRAAM and 2 x 1000 l tanks can be flown throughout the flight envelope with almost no degration in performance. (Statement has to be set in relation however).
    But external tanks can be dropped, IF required. The F-35 will have to carry its structural weight and volume all the way at any time.

    in reply to: Supercruising #2495430
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    The F-35 will have astounding acceleration! Especially, from High Subsonic to Low Supersonic Speeds. With a top speed of greater than Mach 1.6 and likely closer to Mach 1.8! This in-turn will make it a extremely capable dog fighter when needed…………….:diablo:

    Mach 1.8 will make it a capable dogfighter?:diablo:

Viewing 15 posts - 2,896 through 2,910 (of 4,105 total)