aurcovThe Tornado MRCA first flew on 14 August 1974. The MRCA project was to produce an aircraft to perform in the tactical strike/reconnaissance, air defence, and maritime strike roles, allowing to replace multiple aircraft at that time in use by the partner nations. The contract for the Batch 1 aircraft was signed on 29 July 1976. Production ended in 1998. The Tornado was designed as a low-level supersonic ground attack bomber, capable of taking off and landing in short distances. This requires good high-speed and low-speed flying characteristics. In order for an aircraft to be operated efficiently at both high and low speeds, variable wing sweep is a desirable feature. Short field landing capability was considered essential in order to enable the aircraft to operate from short strips on potentially damaged runways and taxiways.
Tornado ADV first flight was late October 1979. The Tornado F2 (sometimes written as F.2) was the initial version of the Tornado ADV in Royal Air Force service, with 18 being built. It first flew in early March, 1984. Tornado F3 made its maiden flight in late November 1985. ADV entered service in 1986. It is a long-range, twin-engine aircraft, originally designed to intercept Soviet bombers as they came in from the east to strike the United Kingdom. It was designed as interceptor rather than as air superiority fighter. Its primary purpose was to carry a large number of missiles and fly them far from base over the North Sea and Northern Atlantic; once on station it needed to have good endurance, and then be able to engage and destroy targets at long range. These targets were envisaged to be formations of Soviet bomber aircraft, the engagement of which would not have required significant air combat manouverability. For this reason, dogfighting capabilities would always be a secondary consideration. Tornado F3s will retire from RAF service in April 2011.
The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a twin-engine 4.5 generation carrier-based multirole fighter aircraft. The Super Hornet is largely a new aircraft. It is about 20% larger, 7,000 lb (3,200 kg) heavier empty, and 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) heavier at maximum weight than the original Hornet. The Super Hornet carries 33% more internal fuel, increasing mission range by 41% and endurance by 50% over the “Legacy” Hornet. The empty weight of the Super Hornet is about 11,000 lb (5,000 kg) less than that of the F-14 Tomcat that it replaced, while approaching, but not matching its payload / range. Designed and initially produced by McDonnell Douglas, the Super Hornet first flew in 1995. Full-rate production began in September 1997. The Super Hornet underwent U.S. Navy operational tests and evaluations in 1999, and was approved in February 2000
Tornado GR4 (IDS – interdiction-strike variant))
4× light duty + 3× heavy duty under-fuselage and 4× swivelling under-wing pylon stations holding up to 9000 kg (19,800 lb) of payload, the two inner wing pylons have shoulder launch rails for 2× Short-Range AAM (SRAAM) each
Maximum speed: 800kts IAS Mach 2.34 (2,417.6 km/h, 1,511 mph)
Range: 1,390 km (870 mi) typical combat
Ferry range: 3,890 km (2,417 mi) with four external drop tanksF/A-18E
Hardpoints: 11 total: 2× wingtips, 6× under-wing, and 3× under-fuselage with a capacity of 17,750 lb (8,050 kg) external fuel and ordnance
Maximum speed: Mach 1.8+[13] (1,190 mph, 1,900 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) clean plus two AIM-9s
Combat radius: 390 nmi (449 mi, 722 km) for interdiction mission
Ferry range: 1,800 nmi (2,070 mi, 3,330 km)I.e. Tornado carries 1 ton more ordnance/fuel over twice the combat range faster than F/A-18E?
Nope, the Hornet radius is so small in this type of mission because it is hi/lo/hi profile (the plane flies most of the mission at low altitudes were the fuel consumption is 2/2.5 times more than when flying high, and that’s true for any plane). For exemple in a Hornet booklet (I can’t post it because it is 7 MB) the radius for missions with high altitude flight profiles (fighter escort and maritime attack) is over 800 Nmiles.
As for max. speed you should know that it is a thoretic value. It is true OTOH that the varaible geometry Tornado could fly faster than the rather draggy SH.
aurcovIt isn’t that simple. If I look at my working contract, I can see several clausules aimed as deterrence against me providing sensitive information to public or competition once I should quit. They are both of prohibitive (e.g. penalties) and motivative nature (extra “loyalty” bonuses). Note that I am not in Mr.Beesley’s position and the information I got would harm my company not even close compared to what damage to Lockheed’s PR/sales Mr.Beesley could theoretically cause.
I think that this man’s silence and obeyance regarding what he says publicly or privately costs the company a small fortune and this will remain so for quite a time to come. It would be a gross omission from the side of the employer if they hadn’t thought about this in every detail and simply let their employees or ex-employees with access to sensitive information go out and spill the beans publicly …
******* inbelieveble!
“Silence and obeyance”?
aurcovThis question is roughly as intelligent as a question who is qualified to define female beauty.. How do you define pretty, very pretty and gorgeous?
The analogy is poor. Some man (woman :p) may have different opinion on female beauty. Howver, stealth is technology. here there are no opinions/tastes, there are only dB or m2. And is a field were 30 yers and billions make LM qualified to define stealth.
aurcovChinese media lift silence on J-20
The English-language Global Times newspaper, which is published by the Chinese Communist Party, has broken China’s media silence on the J-20 program today. The story is headlined “Rumored stealth jet undergoes tests: report”, and is careful to not confirm or deny the J-20’s existence. China also seems to be trying hard to avoid looking provocative. The Global Times article quotes a Chinese military expert, Li Daguang, who pours cold water on comparisons of the J-20 to the Lockheed Martin F-22.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/01/chinese-media-lift-silence-on.html
aurcovFrance WANTS to wait that long! It’s not like France must wait that long!
Defense budgets are not under pressure in UK, Germany, Italy and Spain? Only in France?
aurcovLink 16 supported about 100 kbps?
that’s alot.
Actually 256 kbps, and the the new version 1,2 Mbps by compression.
aurcovIt is a long way from Link-16 to the level of sensor fusion found on Gripen/F-22/F-35, wouldn’t you say ?
Not sure where the original came from, as it is written on many places,
i think @signatory on militaryphotos will be best able to provide/explain the technical specs, (and perhaps provide a pdf) and he is found here.http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?84527-Gripen-News-Thread/page175
As intersting as the IFDL of the Gripen might be, there is an absolute necesity for all US/NATO fighters to have Link 16: you can receive info from the extensive inteligence network (AWACS, Rivet Joint, Compas Call, JSTARS, EA 6, EA 18, etc). This can save your ass…
As for the Swedish IFDL, is impressive, but it can be detected (being in “L” band), so you need a “stealthy” IFDL, such on F 22 or F 35 for a 5 gen. plane.
aurcovThat leaves Meteor, but it’s going to be bought in large numbers by several countries, & we have the biggest share IIRC. Ditching it in favour of more AIM-120 seems like cutting our own throats.
Well, according to some sources, you’ll have to buy more AMRAAMs…
France does not expect to receive the first of its 200 Meteors until 2018. That is later than expected and a reflection of the severe budget pressures the defense ministry is under. But from an export perspective, the commitment now is probably more important than reality.
For Eurofighter, getting a similar commitment also is on the agenda, but the protracted talks with the core government buyers — the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Spain — leave the group trailing. Industry officials hope to get their buyers on-board this year.
If France will have to wait ’til 2018, when will UK get some Meteors? 2019, 2020?
aurcovPretty much everyone because it’s blatantly obvious that any manufacturer will define the terms to suit their PR agenda.. Therefore I accept no LM’s own definitions of supercruise, no LM’s own aircraft generations and no LM’s own definitions of LO/VLO. And for that matter, no self-invented definitions from any other manufacturer, as well.
If you want everyone to take LM’s word for granted then you should, in return, equally take EADS words for granted, as well. According to EADS, Typhoon is more a Gen5 fighter than F-35 because it meets more Gen5 criteria..
http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/showthread.php?t=12904&page=1
What do you say now? :rolleyes:
OK, the EF is more 5th gen. than F 35, but still isn’t VLO (:p), as they (Eurofighter GmbH) said… SO, again, who’s more qualified than LM to define stealth?
aurcovThe F-35 was developed as first day striker with many low observable characteristics. Most people take it as such.. So far so good..
Throughout the years, the “fanboy crowd”, greatly aided by LM’s marketing propaganda has evolved the F-35 to an ultimate warfighting machine, unbeatable in A-A, with agility and maneuvrability approaching that of the F-22A, VLO stealth, wiping the floors with Typhoons/Rafales easily, costing $50mil a pop. Fanboys invented F-35’s supercruise, its M1.67 top speed, characteristics of its avionics suite, even those mysterious 2000+ kg weight savings which are not mentioned even on LM website. None of this is supported by anything except Lockheed or pfcem and I refuse to take that as conclusive evidence, unless supported by verified test results. If that makes me a part of the “naysayer crowd”, then I proudly stand to this name and furthermore demand OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE – not LM ‘s marketing claims or Lockheed test pilot stories.
You can start with that M1.67 top speed claim. I’m still waiting for a document proving that M1.6+ figure was an official requirement.
For now, the F-35 stays a M1.3 capable aircraft.
Other things aside, do you really believe that the F 35 max. speed will remain 1.3M ? (:p, :D, :diablo:)
aurcovIts called the Saab Gripen NG. 😉
:p
aurcovHehe.. pls define “Means you are totally Stealthy”?
Do you mean LM “Means you are totally Stealthy” 😀
Do you know anyone more qualified to define stealth than a company that actually built 3 such planes?
aurcovaurcovI have seen the thrust-versus-time curve for the Propulsion Enhancement Program motor used in all AMRAAM models from the C-5 onwards and can confirm that it is of the boost-sustain type. For the original motor used on the A and B models, the thrust in sustain mode was about half that of the boost phase. On the PEP motor, the decline in thrust from boost to sustain was gradual, but the sustain burn was not as long as before.
The performance increase obtained by the 5 inch increase in motor length was a fairly modest one – about a 10% increase in the propellant charge that translates into a corresponding 10% increase in the total impulse.
But as Djcross has stated “The healthy percentage of weight in an air-to-air missile is propellant. Less propellant = less range”. Unfortunately AMRAAM put on weight between the standard and PEP-motored versions. So the increase in missile performance that resulted could not have been as great as some have estimated.
According to a Raytheon presentation that I have seen, for a target flying at the same speed and height as the launch aircraft, the useful range provided by the new motor was increased by about 9% for a head-on shot, 12% for a beam shot and by 20% in a tail shot.
In the introduction to Jane’s Air-launched Weapons, the editor comments on the difficulty of obtaining meaningful range figures, saying that for the more capable all-aspect missiles he is citing the best range that the system can achieve, rather than the kinematic maximum of the missile propulsion system.
So, as I said before, he is quoting a figure of 50 km for an unidentified variant. If that is for a missile for the original motor, we could take a figure of around 55 km for the original extended-motor variants.
For my own purposes, I’ve been using a figure of 55 km as a realistic maximum range for the versions with the original motor, and no-one has complained. So I’d assume 60 km for the C-5 version and around 100 km for a D model flying an optimised lofted trajectory against a head-on target.
Mercurius, always a pleasure when you post in a thread.
Now, the “D” is said to have a double pulse (double impulse?) motor. It is this second motor that gives the “D” the supposed range, not only the lofted trajectory (that the last two “C” submodels already had). This (smaller) motor starts in the moment the missile’s sensor detects the target, so the missile is relatively close to it. Because 1) the missile already is flying faster than the launching plane (when the first motor should accelerate the missile from ~ 1M to 4M) and 2) the missile is lighter because the first motor is consummed, this second motor will allow the “D” to regain sufficent speed to do its job. Regardless of the fact that before the second engine ignition, the missile speed already declined to a value that will make the interception doubious for older AMRAAMs.
But again, that’s rumors (AvLeak and similar).
aurcovQuestion regarding the Su family of aircraft: What percentage of their makeup is composites? In addition to that, do composites make a big difference in an airplanes performance or radar signature?
The reason I ask, is that it’s quite easy to get the makeup of eurocanards, but not so much for the SU-27, Su-30, Su-35 family.
For example, the Typhoon: The airframe surface area is made of 70% Carbon Fibre Composites (CFCs), 15% lightweight alloys and titanium, 12% Glass Reinforced Plastics (GRP) and 3% other materials. In other words, metals make up only 15% of the materials used in building a Eurofighter Typhoon.
Wrong. The 15 % metal is valid for the skin only, not for the all A/C structure.
Sign In
