TomcatViPI agree that the Pro Grip campaign seemed to have been awkwardly managed as viewed from abroad.
It’s sad, as Switzerland host some major international organisations, hyper-staffed and really vulnerable (lake shores + High range mountains). It shld give them a strong sense of their own responsibilities
Numbers and tasking agility are essential.
TomcatViPIt remain to be seen how the J10 have superior agility or acceleration than an F16.
I have personally already praised its roll-rate. But short from that we know nothing and the aero config does not speak much in favor of a 35 something AoA performances.
And we do not know much about its systems.
TomcatViPUnmanned Flying wings with a central weapon bay are compatible with a Vertical (diagonal in fact) missile launcher stacking more rounds than a belly mounted one (idem with SDB or similar PGM).
In the case of the discussed 90° threat bandit, Bank and Burn (+ conformal antennae ) is the new B&Z.
So tactically, according to Pietrucha, a single UCLASS would positions itself b/w the manned element and the threat thanks to its lower rcs. Once the bandit is in range the UCLASS turn toward the enemy and release some missiles (or B&B). Missiles are guided via conformal AESA in the wings and the data are datalinked to the element’s leader (to help to cut costs of expensive avionics and secure sensible software dedicated to the A2A engagement). Or the kill chain is done only via IR sensor (locate & track (leader radar or Fusion) – Target (IRST on the UCLASS) – .Kill (Aim9x) )
It’s then up to the formation to maneuvre to let the UCLASS rejoins.
Advantages could be that:
– The manned fighter/Main weapon carrier does not have to be as stealthy as the UCLASS (more efficiency at a lower cost + increased dynamics)
– The bandit can only engage in BVR when the formation kills him with WVR missiles (Enhanced KP and lower weight/volume)
– The UCLASS can take in charge post strike BDA, Data communication relay with grd forces during CAS in contested airspace, be the element sensor craft etc..
It’s possible to build a credible economic argumentation around this concept* .
*Well.. at least after some shot of tequila and from the comfort of an armchair 😮
TomcatViPMako HEAT: High Energy Advanced Trianer
Since there is not much news to discuss around the T-X program, may I propose a short digression around the visionary Mako project?
Will the T-X be shaped similarly? What the experience from the defunct EADS project could tell us regarding what the USAF won’t try to duplicate (reading the KPP)?
Reminder:
Mako HEAT was a minimal airframe, high powered trainer concept in line with the long history of small British jets (Vampire, Gnat, Hawk) that have long attracted some strong interest in the Eu Industry.
Some extensive RCS reductions were added to the program to mature the Industry around this technology with a minimal A2A capability as an alibi.
Sadly, the pertinence of initial design goals of a high AoA trainer and High G was wasted by the induction of A2G capability. Intends were to capitalize on the High Specific excess power inherent of the maneuverability and low cost design.
The flight characteristics are very similar to those of a next-generation combat aircraft. Mako HEAT was a single-engine high-performance aircraft with afterburner. It was agile and maneuverable up to a 45° angle of attack, its specific excess power (SEP) compares well with the new fighter generation.
[…]
Mako likewise incorporates the latest generation of technologies – e.g. helmetmounted displays. “Embedded training” including a virtual radar and the simulation of ‘live’ weapons release was available as an option.
[…]
With the GE F414M, a modern high-performance engine has been selected for the definition phase. For Mako HEAT the proven and reliable propulsion system has been throttled down to 75 kN.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236772[/ATTACH]
Crew 2
Number of Engines 1
Ceiling 16,750 meter (54,954 foot)
Max Range 3,700 kilometer (1,998 nautical mile)
Max Speed /td> Mach 1.5
Top Speed at High Altitude 498 mps (969 KIAS)
Max Takeoff Weight 13,000 kilogram (28,660 pound)
Min Weight 8,100 kilogram (17,857 pound)
Payload 4,500 kilogram
Today, a short time after GD withdrawal from Alenia’s T-100/M346 submission, fact is that we can trace back that result to the day of the Mako termination.
Of course 20 years separates the design but some question remains that could be debated:
– would EADS have competed for the T-X and what could have been its chance with a then fully matured design (let’s say that service entry in Eu could have been in early 2010 factoring-in AirbusM tradition with unexpected delays)?
– Would the T-X program have ever existed? What could have been the odds that the USAF could have procured directly some Mako as part of a series of offset or some cooperations linked to the buy of F35or F18E/F by Eu partners (Gmb/Fokker/Alenia/Bae)?
– Wouldn’t have this strategy led to more financial resources in overall for the Eu industry and the different states (200 ordered in the 25-to 35M$/unit price range) ?
And on another ground:
What could be the main design differences between the future T-X and the Mako?
The mockup:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236773[/ATTACH]
The student’s desk
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236774[/ATTACH]
Source:
TomcatViPF18
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236771[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPBig tires, heavy landing gear mechanism, wide track and bulky fitting in the fuselage or less available space for ordinances under the wing. Hence heavier wing structure (carry through spars for example and wider spaced wing mounted pylons) and heavier airframe, more rotating inertia and a lot of small penalties limiting the efficiency of the design.
STOVL pretty much outdated the need IMOHO.
It’s rather similar to SUV in the automotive industry.
TomcatViPThe AgustaWestand/Bristow led team, along with Rockwell Collins’ simulators and Doss Aviation’s training services, is offering to introduce 80-85 AW119s over a four-year period for a cost no greater than the navy is already spending to operate the aging TH-57s.
“The response [from navy officials] has all been positive,” says AgustaWestland North America chief executive Robert LaBelle. “It’s something different so it takes a little while to digest and understand.”
Interesting proposal.
TomcatViPI wonder why they don’t check the re-winging prog of Boeing (T-38).
I know that RUAG has some strong ties with Dassault, but commune senses should prevail (notice that I make the supposition here that it’s the wings that are affected and not some other parts)
Otherwise, IRAN have a credible knowledge of the F5. Might worth to delay the scraping.
TomcatViPIt certainly has been de-fused via the work done on the Mirage upgrade.
That the datalink is fully compatible with all others aircraft in the IAF inventory remains to be seen. At least the AWAC shld do now.
So, it won’t take long, speaking only for the DL, unless some fancy stuffs have to be removed.
Remark that with a mix of upgraded M2K/Raf the IAF get a very coherent deep strike force. It might be that the today Nuclear missile test of Pak is a sign that this hasn’t been unnoticed*.
TomcatViPwell according to that site
certainly explains why all the 6th gen concepts from the US are large aircraft with deltas.
even the Chinese J-20 looks like it prioritizes range and payload over manouverability
The Paper in itself is rather controversial. It generally is so when a lack of imagination dictates the content. What next? does not means that a problem is closed but that you lack a solution.
Regarding the J20, it’s rather more complicated. You have to understand that China was lacking in Wing design (structural loads) and started its design around what it had on hands: the Delta.
Then they had to adapt their design to the requirement (the canards) before changing the requirement due to changes in technology.
I do not think that the large area delta of the 6th Gen artistic rendition have anything in commune with the Delta of the J20.
TomcatViPAaargg too much stealth is blurring my mind.
TomcatViPYes the Navy is adding what it wants in terms of NIFCCA support among other things (5% engine improvements) into the FOD. Money will be put in place this year and the Preliminary design review is in a couple of years for 4A, with DT and OT testing scheduled for late 2020 or early 2021.
I had in mind that a pair of Growler will locate teh Radar and the F35C will sneak in range an be the shooter. Why should it be the other way around ?
TomcatViP“One guy has a little bit of an advantage in WVR and can shoot first, but both folks end up not doing well.”
So now the speculation will turn around “Who is that guy”? (or who’s has that kind of missile?)
And by the way, thank for the good read and the accessibility of all those interesting documents on your scsrib channel.
TomcatViPDo we really have to rehash this same stupidity every month or so? Why not create a “fanboys confused about the F-35” thread?
Better to make that one a sticky, my guess.
TomcatViPIt could also be a manufacturing defect (fatigue life). We know that Stealth requires some new technologies for windshields that comes also at a significant increase in price (see the F16). So nothing to be ashamed here. Test & prototypes are prone to this. This is not as if it happened 5y after service introduction.
Sign In
