(and Rafale) where designed to stay over friendly airspace and shoot down enemy planes approaching that airspace.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEER. NOT exactly…
Not exactly “Over” French territory expecialy considering the type of weapons envisaged.
BGLs…
OK, ACX requierement was for an air superiority fighter with A2G capabilities over a 650 nm range, out of something like 5/6 requiered specs, 2 third were for air combat including shooting Helos (!), sustained High G and High AoAetc…
The FACT that Dassault designers manage better A2G capabilties mainly due to their design doesn’t change this.
While ground attack was an important mission the European designers went for the carriage of stand-off weapons, instead of designing an airframe that is able to deliver cheaper munition from inside the enemy defences.
Stand-off came WAY after ACX.
Pak-FA und J-XX however seem to follow the american design and will render the european fighters obsolete, as Pak-FA and J-XX will be able to defeat the euro canards in the airspace they are designed to protect.
Can we laugh?
DATE:17/01/09
SOURCE:Flight International
EU defence chiefs warn of R&D threat
By Aimée TurnerDefence industry chiefs fear that new European Union rules to open up national defence procurement to all European suppliers will threaten vital investment in research and development.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/17/321141/eu-defence-chiefs-warn-of-rd-threat.html
F-35 is NOT mentioned in this article but the subject is covered quiet regularly….
That doesn’t make any sense. If it is still in the high drag region, then why is it unable to cruise faster in the low drag region that follows ?
Very much like ours i believe, A2A configuration; only Gripen sweep angle is FEW * off that of a Rafale.
With an output of over 22,000lb (98kN), the F414G (below) produces 20% more thrust than the Gripen’s current Volvo Aero RM12 powerplant, and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/25/223299/saabs-demo-aircraft-to-highlight-gripen-ng-capabilities.html
With AAMS only i trust it will supercruise at least 0.1 M higher although it already is specified as such in this article, we have other sources saying it already DOES more than 1.1 in its curent (C) version..
1.2 with wingtip AIM-9s.
The 1.1M was indicated by SAAB, so ask them. And of course, grippen NG can cruise faster than 1.1M but not supercruise.
Ho that’s RICH!
But we understand since USAF decided Supersonic starts at M 1.5.
Q: Where do YOU think the SUPER from SuperCRUISE come from?
America we all know is the land of the SUPERHEROES, no reason there for taking the mickey out of everyone else on the planet, so bring-on Superman and consort now to do your computing…
F-22 Supercruise.
In the context of the F-22, supercruise is defined as the ability to cruise at speeds of Mach 1.5, or greater, without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration. July 21, 1999
Release No. 99-07-03
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIF.–
http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/1999/990721pr.html
Looks like they DIDN’T rewrite the book after all. But i’m SURE now, “In the context of” is also a “KPP tresherold” of sort.
Moore, who piloted Raptor 01 for the test flight, says: “The problem was not sustaining supercruise, but keeping it from flying faster.” The M1.5 run was maintained for 3min in straight and level flight at 41,000ft (12,500m). The P&W F119 engines were set at “well below military power in sustaining M1.5. They were below what I anticipated and even what the engineers had anticipated,” he says, adding that the next target is M1.6.
DATE:28/07/99
SOURCE:Flight International
F-22 fights back with supercruise successGuy Norris/LOS ANGELES
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/07/28/54326/f-22-fights-back-with-supercruise-success.html
So we understand why their definition of CRUISE changed too, DONT we?…
Two targets already reached include envelope expansion to 55,000ft and the opening of side and main weapons bays at supersonic speeds.
DATE:28/07/99
SOURCE:Flight International
F-22 fights back with supercruise successGuy Norris/LOS ANGELES
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/07/28/54326/f-22-fights-back-with-supercruise-success.html
Naturaly the targets reported here by incompetent journalists ARE KPP tresherolds and the aircraft will be returned to its manufacturer if it doesn’t meet them as being MINIMUM because you understand they didnt KNOW their designed Mach limits there either.
F-22 KPP tresherolds? What do you boyz knew about them?
The F-22’s flight test envelope has been divided into 10 separate zones, with one aircraft instrumented for high speed testing and the second for low speed. The former will be used for M1.5 plus supercruise tests, while the latter will be fitted with a spinchute in March for increased AoA flights.
DATE:09/12/98
SOURCE:Flight International
F-22 Raptor flight testing clears critical targets
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1998/12/09/45834/f-22-raptor-flight-testing-clears-critical-targets.html
As an aircraft, the stealthy F/A-22 is meeting or exceeding its key performance parameters (KPPs), Welsh says. Radar cross-section has been verified on three airframes and is better than requirement. Supercruise performance – supersonic cruise speed without afterburner – is Mach 1.68, 12% above target. Acceleration, payload and combat radius exceed requirements, while the thrust-vectoring Raptor is meeting its manoeuvrability goal. Detection range of the Northrop Grumman APG-77 active-array radar beats expectations by 5%.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2003/09/09/171081/ready-or-not.html
So for SURE we can’t tell what KPPs are even so these articles were sleeping on my H-D quasy from on-line publication time, SO remember hat these were TEST aircrafts OPENING the flight envelop; not standard production aircrafts with FCS limitations dialed in…
But whatever distinguishes a fifth-generation fighter – and the definition has evolved from F-22 to F-35 – the combination of intrinsic stealth and integrated sensors sets these aircraft apart. It may lack the F-22’s supercruise and thrust-vector manoeuverability, but the F-35 promises a more-affordable, multi-role capability. It will also come in three versions: conventional take-off and landing, short take-off and vertical landing and carrier-based.
DATE:31/07/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Virtual fighter
By Mike Gerzanics
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/31/215810/virtual-fighter.html
What a difference TIMES makes… From 1999 to 2007.
the USAF sees no obligation to take one without the other. In fact, it sees no way to have the JSF without the F-22. At $30 million a copy, the JSF will be an affordable attack aircraft because it does not have to perform the F-22’s stealthy air-superiority mission, the service argues.
DATE:04/08/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Stealth shackled
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/08/04/54593/stealth-shackled.html
Ho NO they didn’t SAY that either you understand, “KPP tresherold“…
OK DUCKY… Where’s Capt’ain America?
Originally Posted by Scorpion82
Back in the later 70s MBB put TVC into equation for PST manoeuvrability. That TVC wasn’t selected in the end for the basic configuration doesn’t mean the aircraft wouldn’t be PST capable.
MBB (Herbst) TFK-90 was a CLOSE-COUPLED canard, quiet different from Typhoon aerodynamicaly and YES as a result, Typhoon suffers from quiet visible AoA limitations which makes the use of PS maneuvres highly improbable without TVC.
Long moment harm canards arrangement was dictated by excessive drag due to the proximity of the inlets but also the canards would mess up the lift over the wing (at 0* AoA) when pitching from <> 25*…
Eurofighter already had a hard time getting the FCS to counter unwanted parasital aerodynamic phenomenons such as TRANSONIC PITCH-UP and Departure at speed below 50 kt (not an issue with integrated canards which doesn’t DEPART, pitch authority remaining).
As a matter of FACT BOTH X-31 (TVC) and Typhoon are limited in Max AoA to 70* for the SAME reasons of lack of pitch control (one of Long-moment harm arrangement drawback creeping out).
Pilots reported that their ability to obtain positive, crisp, nose-down aircraft response was unsatisfactory and that increased control effectiveness was required if the X-31 was to be considered tactically responsive at high angles of attack.
http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Partners/X_31.html
In ther other hand, Gripen demonstrated 90* AoA and Rafale passed 100* AoA and 40 kt negative speed a full COBRA maneuvre without TVC.
Talk about PSTs…:D
seahawk
Quote:Originally Posted by Scorpion82
Back in the later 70s MBB put TVC into equation for PST manoeuvrability. That TVC wasn’t selected in the end for the basic configuration doesn’t mean the aircraft wouldn’t be PST capable.True Eurojet has shown a TVS demonstrator in Spain and tested it. The partner nations just did not order this option and so it was not integrated.
True, where lack of funding does hurt…
Sign In
