Finally! Someone with actual numbers in his hands (albeit incomplete);

you see a big “1” inside a circle right??? Sometimes, reading the remarks at the right side actually helps when it says “Above 20000 feet, empty tank is authorized to 800 knots/1.8M”. Above 660knots/1.5M, OWS information is invalid..

Thanks, but for MK-84 there is no caveats around maximum carriage speed, just rules about jettison speeds, carrying with Aim-7 mounted behind…etc. So it seems the M1.19 speed limit still applies to this weapon.

non-CFT F-15Cs have no such restriction

Incorrect, I deliberately used the non-cft specs for all screenshots. These rules are not imposed because the aircraft doesn’t have the power to reach those speeds, they are there because the immense drag under the high dynamic pressure or high G will cause stress on the pylons and possibly damage the aircraft and sometimes the weapons themselves. Its not something that will differ much between aircraft models or whether they have CFT’s mounted or not.

Also, you’ll notice on the rules for the lantirn pod screen that it requires a CFT fitted. So with weapons requiring it, CFT’s must be fitted, not that they make a whole lot of difference to these limits.

Also, in case you havent noticed, I have posted from F-15E manual

No, it seems you’re posting from the F-15A-D manual…. document ID is on the right of your screenshot.

Again, the big 2 and 3 in circles leads to remarks. Since 20+ years have passed, i bet they installed the so called “improved radome” on the pods, and lifted that restriction?

I’d be willing to bet there are some very big restrictions due to the ram air turbine on the ALQ-99 and any other pod using similar power generators. Yes noticed that about not being able to drop the pod. So funny that any aircraft carrying an external jammer is likely to be run down by the F-35.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217727[/ATTACH]
BAL = Basic aircraft limits, for AIM-9s for both carriage and employment. For AIM-7M, carry it all speeds and fire it up to M2.3 or 800 KIAS.

Funny thing is, AIM-120 missile has drag index of 4; a Mk-84 bomb has 9. People have no problems believing F-16 will perform just fine with 6 AMRAAMs, but give a bluescreen when we are talking about 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Mk-84.

Englighten me.

Has someone been a naughty boy or am I missing something?

Did you forget to post a few crucial parts of those stores limitations tables in regards to the max speed comments and MK-84?

F-15 with MK-84’s: M1.19 at 30k ft (remember lowest airspeed is taken)

Couple external tanks?

Cluster Bombs, around M1…

What about something similar to the SDB rack for the F-15, less than M1…

Lastly and ironically, what about a jamming pod to help hide the legacy fighter, albeit not as effectively as an AESA fitted stealth aircraft. M0.76 speed limit.

I bet if you get your hands on GR1F-16CJ-1-2, you would see the same limits, possibly worse, maybe due to pylon and wing configuration.

If I haven’t misread the document, wouldn’t it be ironic if it turns out that the chubby little stealth fighter will be the one chasing down the mighty tiffy/rafale/gripen/su-35 when they had no option but to instantly turn and run when shot at from outside the range where they can counter?

Maybe they’d have to drop their stores (not cheap if you’re carrying a pair of $10-25 million jamming pods) and scarpa. That could get really expensive if a whole flight of fighters had to dump, turn and run INSTANTLY when shot at like someone intimated earlier in the thread.

Also just noticed the G limits imposed by external weapons too, wow it’s quite restricting dangling your gear out in the wind.

I thought we all agree on this.. When a missile runs out of fuel and Thrust, its pretty much become SPEAR rather than an ARROW. It loose 75% of its agility and it drops quickly Down to being a STONE as it try to follow a target…
This is pure physics and Logic, Why is this so hard to understand!?

“Some” people agreed on this, others went and read detailed books on the subject such as “Missile Guidance and Control Systems” and largely discarded the arguments. The presumption that a missile will need to pull extremely high constant G for an intercept I believe is fundamentally flawed.

Consider an aircraft turning at high altitude when a missile is fired from 60-70km. The best he can do prior to intercept is move 9km left or right of his original position relative to the missile’s initial heading during that time. As missiles use a leading collision course to intercept their targets, a missile launched from 60+ km needs to turn less than 10 degrees (I think roughly 1G yaw required if you calculate the arc against speed over that range) to intercept a target that has done all he can to move out of the way during the missile’s flight. A second shot from the attacking aircraft a few seconds after the first when the target trajectory is known requires very little midcourse turning at all from the missile (turn prior to boost)

At end game the missile isn’t jumping on the tail of the target and duplicating its every move and closing slowly like in some cartoon (pure pursuit guidance is considered by the book I read as the least efficient guidance method of many methods mentioned). In reality the missile is leading the target by quite some distance while keeping its target within it sensor’s field of regard. In the final intercept stages, the targeted pilot is not watching the missile in his rear view mirror inching up on him while he’s dodging left and right. In reality he cannot see where it is and the missile which has a frontal visual size smaller than a basketball is covering the last two kilometres to intercept in less than 3 seconds.

Something interesting to note in the text is that at no point does it mention that thrust is an absolute “requirement” for successful interception, nor does it mention lack of thrust greatly lowering single shot kill probability. It’s clear from the formulas that dynamic pressure is the key ingredient to increasing lift -> turn rate and pitching/yawing moments. Also missile bodies contribute QUITE a lot of lift, and the text mentioned…

“Specifically, in an aerodynamically manoeuvring missile, the function of
the control surfaces is to exert a moment so that the missile can develop an angle
of attack (AOA), and thereby achieve lift from the body and wings (if any). (Note
that in some applications, a wingless airframe relying only on body-lift is preferred.)”

So be sure to correctly calculate your reference area when doing your lift and turn rate calculations.

Another thing not taken into account earlier when comparing aircraft manoeuvrability to missiles is that control surfaces on missiles can deflect in multiple planes at once, increasing their G capability by 41%, 2^0.5.

There was a whole lot of stuff in the text which debunked much of what was said about missile interception at range. I think to definitively call the last remaining argument against the effectiveness or detection range advantage as “all agreed” is quite premature. Maybe when you convince the designers and air forces in US, China and Russia and all partner nations that this is the case and they stop production of their obsolete technology, then you may have a leg to stand on in this regard.

I think someone mentioned earlier that pilots DO react instantly to incoming missile shots. That raises an interesting situation. If a flight of 4 aircraft are fired on once by a single stealth fighter, do they all start evasive manoeuvring immediately or do they wait to see the missile trajectory? Seems like a pretty good capability for stealth fighters to be able to turn around an entire flight with no chance of retaliation. If they don’t turn, it significantly increases dynamic pressure for the missile during end game. win win

Can’t recommend enough that you get some real aircraft performance stats, estimate the missile as best you can and draw up a diagram so you can see the geometry of the scenario.

A few touch-ups to the earlier calculator I posted.

Basic assumptions are:
– 50,000ft launch altitude for the purpose of air density and missile deceleration after coasting
– Aircraft starting, max speed and turn rate configurable. I use a clean F-15 turn rate chart (at 40,000 ft) to select turn rates for a A2A loaded typhoon at 50,000. In all likelihood this is overkill and the typhoon is not that capable.
– Typhoon acceleration is based off F-15 in clean config and with only 7000lb of fuel. I “could” tweak it a bit to simulate a slight dive.
– Missile acceleration is still not correct (anyone got sources on how to work out acceleration from specific impulse, mass and fuel? Also sources on fuel use during coasting for ramjet missiles?) so I assume 10 seconds burn, 15 second sustain.
– Missile deceleration is calculated each second based off speed and air density. Source was an old post on this forum.

Still a bit missing. http://i.imgur.com/6V080gD.png

[ATTACH=CONFIG]217003[/ATTACH]

A couple interesting conclusions I’ve drawn from playing with the variables.

– Apart from a large detection range advantage, launch altitude is king. The decrease in drag and subsequently lower deceleration as altitude increases is enormous. Example. Missile peak deceleration is around 130km/hr/s at 40kft, 80km/hr/s at 50k, and around 40 at 60k.
– Launch speed doesn’t seem as important as people keep saying, especially at lower altitudes (this would probably be related to the missile acceleration calculation used). The benefit of an extra 500-600kmph launch speed is nullified within a few seconds of deceleration after burnout at 40,000ft and lower.
– Stealth aircraft have a much bigger advantage the higher they and their adversary fly. The combination of missile range increase and turn rate decrease for the target greatly enhances range. Missiles using ACM’s for turning will add to this advantage.
– At high altitude and against stealthy aircraft, the targeted pilot is better off flying at his best cornering speed, rather than high supersonic speeds when going into combat against known stealth fighters. When he need’s to manoeuvre, he can turn much faster (double the high speed turn rate) and decelerate away, giving him a better opportunity to escape. High speed just decreases his turn rate and increases the stealth fighters’ a-pole range because of the high closing speed.

Summary:
If I haven’t missed too much with the calculations (really wish I could calculate missile acceleration and coasting times better, too much on my plate to learn rocket science this week. Will add vectoring later), stealth aircraft should do VERY well at high altitude regardless of kinematic performance. Detection advantage (a buffer between firing and being shot at) is all important so attention to detail with forward aspect RCS and emissions stealth are the most important factor for high altitude fighting.