TomcatViPStill a looker.
Thx for sharing!
TomcatViPThe micro-turbofans used in modern corporate jets typically have SFC half that of the military class turbofans. The digitalized Williams FJ-44 is a fuel sipper that can crank out 3500 pounds of subsonic thrust at a .46 sfc for an installed weight of 650 pounds in its biggest version. While not really suitable for dogfighting where a high TWR is preferable, it would dramatically boost cruise range for strike packages that fly in the high subsonic cruise parameters.
The USAF has already used micro-turbofans with stealth coatings for decades, so they are familiar with their usage. Integrating one into a centerline drop tank for F-16CJ’s or for underwing drop tanks on the F-15E would boost range compared to using purely its own power. And with both fighters able to move fuel in/out of the drop tanks, it’s conceivable that they would still operate when the drop tanks hit bingo fuel, so they aren’t lugging around a ton of dead weight.
The concept would work even if instead of a fuel tank, it’s simply a turbofan-integrated ordnance. The B-52 loaded with twelve cruise missiles underwing all fired up at takeoff would be a sight to see for sure. Even ALCM turbofans are rated to fly a few hundred hours whereas their mission calls for but a few. Taking advantage of the most fuel efficient engines underwing just seems like a no-brainer.
Thoughts?
Interesting concept.
A few remarks:
– What happens if dozen of that type of powered fuel tank fall in wrong hands such as in the case with counter ISIS operation ? On of those guy will figure out quickly how to put a wing on it to convert the tank into a 500mi improvised cruise missile
– Most pylon points are not built to sustain that kind of strain (drag at cruise speed + weight + 3000lb range of thrust). Especially if you intend to push the entire system this way.
TomcatViPDirector for Combat Air at BAE Systems said: “[…] We have delivered a capability with all the necessary training and support to make sure it is ready and usable from day one.”
Interesting…
Source:
http://www.baesystems.com/
TomcatViPDon’t teach me how to make CAS please, i learnt how to do it in early 1992… And kept up to date till 05/22/2014…No downwards video link is a HUGE step back. And in contradiction with many Roe’s in asymetric conflicts. Not to talk about implementing an upwards video link only very few countries have (which is the aim of FMV btw.)
By using a Radar reflector/locator positioned by grd troops as a modern 21st version of the old USAF tactics in Vietnam ?
TomcatViPAnyone who can’t understand that 20 F-35Bs and 2 MH-60s on an America class LHA would be an intimidating force to almost any potential adversary short of Russia or China doesn’t have a clue what they are talking about. There are only a handful of navies in the world that could claim to have a capability even roughly comparable.
+1
Don’t forget the added cap with the introduction of MV22
TomcatViPYes. It’s a good project.
But if I was an AW journalist I would have raised the issue of Plasma ctrled that fine and LM knowledge… I am still stunned that they didn’t raise the issue 😉
TomcatViPRather than magnetic bottles containing radioactive material (& if you don’t think fusion reactors will contain anything radioactive, I suggest you do some looking up – not loads of spent fuel, but there’ll still be some hazardous stuff), it might be better to use fusion power to split water & use the hydrogen as aviation fuel.
Yes.
But we don’t know exactly what LMSW is after. The size of the unit suggest a field capable power generation device. Given the new needs in electrical E and the down sizing of fuel supply during war (proliferation of Cruise missile, silent submarines, space based recon/track/target assets etc…), I guess that be able to field an easy transportable power generation system was a need for the DoD to remain credible and state it loudly to ill-advised partners among their coalition.
So, now we have that invention and LMSW that publicize it through a PR campaign in search for a second market and costumers. Since the range of applications are obviously diverse, when they are interviewed on an Aviation mag, they do speak about application on plane. When they will address a crowd of sugarcane planter they will advertise it otherwise 😉
Here is the interview of the Project Manager:
The bottom part of the PR campaign is however that they don’t seem to bother working in a cleanroom or even wearing gloves ??!!!
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/10/AW_10_20_2014_3718.jpg
TomcatViPOk. I probably missed the point. Sry.
But see more this upgrade as a switch of 10 early airframes from, let’s say, the X-35 standard to full IOC 😉 !!
TomcatViPFrance, which has just finished upgrading the first of the Rafale F1s to the F3 standard. This upgrade swaps out essentially all of the Rafale’s avionics for new equipment, but does not include a variety of the features above, including an AESA radar, IRST, towed decoy, etc.
What is France paying to upgrade 10 Rafale F1s? Try 240 million Euros. (~$300million)
$30 million per plane to bring existing airframes up to the current standard.
http://www.janes.com/article/44260/french-navy-receives-first-upgraded-rafale-f3
You realize we aren’t even talking about developing a new airframe yet, right? Nor do either of the two upgrades above include everything on the wishlist.
Before anyone read it, please notice that you made a slight error here. The F1 were interim planes build for the Fr navy that was urgently in need at the time of a new plane capable to replace the Crusader they were still flying*. It has always been planed to rebuilt those plane (I am not sure – maybe Hallow would confirm that point)
Basically those 10 planes were devoid of any real sophistication like you see today. At the beginning they didn’t have any serious A2G or BVR capabilities. This last upgrade is in fact a rebuild to standards with extensive structural modification.
Don’t forget that Dassault at the time didn’t took the time to setup a real production line like you see with the 35 or even the Typhoon (as Sintra pointed out). See them more like hand-crafted products. The standards were high (given the experience of the team) but the plane were basically built in a hangar in small lots.
So to stay focused on your slight mishap, the only critics that can be done on that story is that the fr Navy did pay 1.5 times for the same plane. But 30M$ is cheap if you look at the new cap that the upgrade will bring.
If you had to finger point something in the Raf program this was hardly the right thing (there are some negative points obviously that are becoming increasingly concerning as the time goes**).
*The Fr navy shld have bought the F18C and Dassault would probably have now the privilege to be the only one to propose the old 18 airframe with new avionics on the market and structural upgrade. A failure by any means.
** according to the obvious fact that the plane still lacks customers
TomcatViPSo the Chinese design would have an actuator near a fixed portion of the leading edge (strake) ? There will also have a wide difference btw the Russian one and the Ch part in term of size for the actuator.
Let me repost an interesting picture:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232383[/ATTACH]
I don not have the acute eye of LowObservable to jauge for the exact place, but on the J20, the suspicious container seems to be exactly positioned behind the point where the flow migrate from the intrados of teh LERX to the extrados where the vortex should start.
I have the idea that this is not a coincidence. Note even that the Ru one seems to be much larger.
last bu not least the Germans have the same idea it seems 😉
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232384[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPIs what TomcatViP is referring to I believe.
yes. Thanks!
TomcatViPFrom that second photo, I find it hard to imagine how a short range Missile fits in those conformal wing root bays.
They are probably not conformal missile bays. If you look at the J20, it have the same type of bay but much smaller. No way a missile will fit in it. It is even more obvious.
So if we do consider that with a similarity of shape and placing on the airframe, one is not for carrying a missile, the one on the PakFA is probably also not what most believe.
TomcatViPLow!Observable, your low level insults are putting yourself, with a very strikingly manner, on the fraud part of the list of poster here.
I took the time to dig for you a video still accessible on Youtube (I have another one). Thx for regarding my time with such dedain.
You don’t even realize that to expect any kind of performance from a (generally young) pilot in such demanding, dangerous and costly environment such as an aerial warfare, you have to ensure at first that he can survive (and its weapon system performs) longer than its average opponents. That’s all about stealth…
Sales of product and paycheck of older employee are only marginal to say the least in the equation. 1st perform then make it profitable should be your motto.
TomcatViPEurocopter AS 532 Cougar helicopters for Liban
Part of a 3b$ of Fr equipments financed by a Saudi grant
Short range SAM Mistral system are part of the deal (6km range)
Source:
http://www.janes.com
TomcatViPThe announcement to earmark the funds was made on 6 October by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) FX-2 Project Monitoring Committee.
Source:
http://www.janes.com/
Sign In
