aurcov0.4 M drag penalty vs even 6 AAMs and 2 to 4 pylons???
In short none of you actualy LOOK and observes these diagrams properly, nor do you READ what Nellis Flight- Test Centre says about it.
Drag polar gets lower passed the transonic region and it does even MORE so with sweep angles of 45 to 53* (Gripen to Typhoon.) which drag pick values are also LOWER for the very SAME reason than F-16.
That of F-16 is a comparatively dragier 40*, that’s <> 0.2 M difference to a Rafale in supercruise, with two AAMs less among which two are wingtip mounted in BOTH cases.
The diagram you posed is about the F 16 clean (2 wingtip missiles) and the same F 16 with 6 x 500 lb. bombs, 1 jamming pod and 1 x 300 gal. Of course, on a bigger fighter, with more thrust (EF, RAfale) the drag penalty (for the same payload) will be less the 0.4 M, but not by much. It shows, however, how external loads affect the fighters.
And don’t come tell US that 6 AAMs are even half as draggy as 0.4 M penalty imposed by 6 x 500 lb. bombs, 1 jamming pod and 1 x 300 gal.
I said 6 missiles and 3 EFTs…which is probably more draggy than the load of the F 16 in the diagram…
aurcovThat is true, but I don’t think it was the true question here at all. It’s more about how much is the performance degraded and if it is still sufficient or competitive from a performance (not RCS) point of view. The main question raised here was how much does the AAMs degrade performance and in certain configurations for advanced designs the drag and even RCS penalty is almost (read not 100%) neglicable.
I think is overoptimistic. Look at the F 16 diagram that LordAssap posted. It’s a 0.4 M penalty imposed by 6 x 500 lb. bombs, 1 jamming pod and 1 x 300 gal. EFT and their pylons! Now, do you think that 6 x AAMs will have so much less drag than the 6 x Mk 82? Yes, AAM are sleeker (6-7 inches, vs 10), but they are also longer ~ 3.6 m vs 2m. What about two extra CFT?
As for RCS degradation due to AAMs, what’s the point to argue, since neither the EF or Rafale are VLO? The weapons’ RCS wouldn’t change the overall picture.
On the opposite site the airframe has to be more voluminous and feature all the support structure, hence being more draggy and heavier. Once the fuel is used up the aircraft still has the weight and drag penalty all the time, it’s like not being able to drop external fuel tanks when their fuel is used up, of course in a smaller scale. So basically both assessments a right from a certain point of view.
Well, LM had two options:
A) a classic layout, which would resulted in a smaller, lighter and sleeker airframe, much as EF or Rafale, but that would hang weapons under its belly and impose EFTs,
and
B) a bigger airframe that would allow weapons in internal bays and doubling the fuel amount compares with A).
With VLO a must, I think that B) was the obvious choice.
The natural question is: in these conditions, will B) offer at least comparable kinematic perfomances with A)? LM says yes, when A) is in combat configuration (weapons + EFTs hanging)!
Some will agree (based on either personal preferences, or LM record in delivering high performance fighters so far), others will disagree (based equally on personal preferences, or other more objective criteria).
aurcovDodging corners? You incorrectly stated the ranges of the weapons YOU brought up.
No. First, the real range of most of weapons is not of public domain. But, also, the SDB range you mentioned is max., while the HARM range in its “range-known” mode if considerably higher that in Target Of Opportunity (TOO) mode (also termed the HARM as Sensor HAS, which is a lock-on-before-launch mode) which was the most used mode up to now.
Evidence?
Wrightwing posted a link. I add another (from the manufacturer)http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/rms/documents/content/rtn_rms_ps_hdam_datasheet.pdf
ermmm… AWACS, EWLRS, Interceptors, ELINT ?Other SAM sites working together? One might be on, others off, etc.
Since we are talking about a VLO fighter, the chances of AWACS, interceptors, etc are smaller than in case of a legacy fiughter, while ELINT platforms will need an emmiting attcker. But, as I said, it won’t be a piece of cake and the most dangerous aspect will be a strong networking of an IADS.
Dodge #2?
Why’s that? You said that MALD is not yeat in numbers. I said that the F 35 is not even there. By the time the F 35 will be there, the new version of MALD (thet will include a jammer) will be ready. Where did I dodge? Not to mention that US has already an working decoy that was alredy used with succes: ITALD.
You don’t say? Yet, the APG-77, if it’s going to detect anything remotely stealthy, or even not, is going to be emitting, which means it will light up a good RWR.
Well, let’s see:
The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems. The AN/APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar’s signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.
The principle is the same for the APG 81
aurcovSo youre saying that 40000lb+ cant make a modern jet go faster than 1.6 mach? 😀
I don’t like to repeat it, but …:
While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it’s entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). “I don’t see how that gets you an advantage” Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability.
So, to resume, an USAF general and F15 pilot said very clearly that in the case of F 15, the time spent in >1M totals a few tens of minutes in each plane, in 30 years of lifetime (~8000 hours) and most af these minutes were in periodic check flights. Consider also, that the F15, saw more AA fights than all the other 4 gen fighters added and has a max. dash speed of 2.5 M.
So, without the FCF< we got may be ~ 10 min., at <1.3M in 30 years…
aurcovdo you have one on harrier, f-16? a singlejet that its replacing?
bad aero thingie..
So youre saying that 40000lb+ cant make a modern jet go faster than 1.6 mach?
Putt that amount of thust in any other singlejet att it will go double that speed…:)
Agreed, but that “other singlejet” would probably have a combat radius of 1/2 of the 650 Nmiles of the F 35. Or, if they try to fly that much, they will need 3 EFT, which will penalize them with ~ 0.4 M…
aurcovWith 3 X 1.250 l it can cruise for 2 hours at 100 nm from Carrier.
3.750 l external and 4 AAMs, only marginaly below M 1.0 (0.1 M per tank in drag penalty).
4.750 l internal.
8.500 l total.
6.000 l in this particular (M 1.2) configuration.
14.166% difference and still > 100 mn autonomy at 89% throttle setting at 100 nm from Carrier.
It wasn’t me who said this:
As for the supercruise on the EF/Rafale/Gripen- what is their supercruise range? The F-22 can’t supercruise for its entire mission
About roughly 2 hours i would estimate since they CAN do it with AAMs and a supersonic tank attached at M 2.2. .
:p
aurcovSweet Jesus
Total nonsense.
It´s common practice to jetison the damned “drop tanks” on ATA scenarios when facing a “peer” or “near peer” foe all across the entire NATO. Hell, in severall NATO Air Forces it´s not just common practice, it´s bloody standard procedure…
Especially the Rafale’ 330 gal. ones…
But the best part his that a RAFALE F2/F3 has more or less the same internal fuel fraction that the F-22 Raptor.
Yes, but it won’t fly with all the staff inside as an F 22, which means that more fuel will be proportioanlly consummed, compared to a clean F 22.
aurcovSorry but what is that nonsense about fuel? Air combat is not about range course duration. Sure you need some range/endurance but everything depends on the mission and situation! Claiming a fighter with lower fuel load like the Rafale or Typhoon has no chance to deal with a Flanker which holds twice the fuel is nonsense. And drop tanks can be dropped, IF required. BTW do you realise that Flankers typical fuel load isn’t much more than 5 – 6 t? The reason for this is that a fully fueled Flanker is to heavy to perform well.
Dropping EFT is not as common as you think, it’s valid only in tactical emmergency. What if you want to fight the following day, and you have another emmergency? And yes, I know that Flanker usual fuel load is 1/2 of max.
aurcovWith 1 X 1.250 L and 4 AAMs which IS the MN standard light CAP condifuration, the Rafale supercruises at M 1.2.
With 4 X MICAs it’s M 0.1 IGHER.
For 2 hours I presume?:diablo:
aurcovAs has already been pointed out, an IADS does not consist of one S-300P/PM/PMU or S-400 system. It consists of multiple batteries all networked together. While you’ll have one or two batteries ‘on watch’ for the target, a sensible procedure would be to have several more in silent configuration waiting for a target to be illuminated by the active one. Once it is it can pop up a salvo of missiles that would be coming completely out of the blue for any attacking aircraft and them probably pack up and move again before anyone has a chance to retaliate.
No one said that it would be a piece of cake. And yes, networking is maybe the most dangerous thing, not the individual elements, as formidable as they might be.
aurcovBoy come back with some proper and clearer argumentation please…😀
The argumentation is clear for anyone not blinded by nationalistic brainwash: in order to have some decent combat radius, especially when facing an oponent with 11 tons of fuel such a flanker, a Rafale, would need more than 1 EFT you mention. In these conditions, do you believe that the Rafale will perform better or worst than F 35 in terms of cruise speed, max. dash speed, acceleraton or turn rate?
aurcovSDB has the range of the HARM. Approx 110KM. For a legacy fighter this isn’t too good against a S-300P/PM/S-400 system.
This thread is about F 35, isn’t it?
Not to mention the fact that Russian SAMs have counter-ARM capabilities.
That will work against “classic” HARMs, not against the GPS guided new version.
You aren’t going to geolocate a thing unless the radar is emitting,
What’s the point to buy a $$ SA 300/400 and not use its radar? because, I repeat, when in SEAD-DEAD the F 35 will be silent, so no other way of detecting will work.
The MALD is barely in service. Even then, good luck getting “hundreds” of them out.
F 35 is barely in service too.
APG-77 or IRBIS, LPI isn’t NPI. Go figure. Especially if the aircraft are closer together since they are “blind” because stealth is oh-so-supreme.
Irbis is no APG 77 in term of LPI.
Does your manhood feel threatened?
No, only my common sense.
aurcovWith 1 X 1.250 L and 4 AAMs which IS the MN standard light CAP condifuration, the Rafale supercruises at M 1.2.
With 4 X MICAs it’s M 0.1 IGHER.
Well, good luck to the French pilots going to fight a Flanker with only 5.5 tons, especially the MN ones (the fuel reserve for a carrier-based fighter being around 1.5 tons). For the sake of their widows, I hope the AF provide a substatial pension…
The Eurocanard Mach limitation is not Airframe/AAM related but engine/inlets soi M 2.0 still is DASH speed with 4 AAMs.
-which will accelerate better?
Non context; considering the aerodynamics if you know about them.-which will have a better inst./sust. turn rate?
Non context; considering the aerodynamics if you know about them.
Again, when clean, any of the Eurocanards perform better…in airshows at Le Bourget, Farnborough…
aurcovRight, back to the dummy SAM operators who are blindly emitting. No no, I think it’s the F-35 that’s emitting and getting painted. What sort of stupid assumptions are these? :rolleyes:
There could be 3 (or any number) of sites, of which 2 or 1 are emitting, or they could be awaiting AWACS information from a hundred kilometers away.
And I wish any aircraft without standoff weapons of 300KM + a LOT of luck getting into a site protected by multiple S-300/400 batteries with short/mid range SAM cover and AWACS / other friendly interceptors on station.
Even today SEAD-DEAD is performed silently by the F 16 CJ; they rely on the HTS (Harm targeting system) http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/hts_e/that allow precise geolocation of the SAM radar, in order to launch the HARMS in the most effective mode-“range known”. I suppose that the F 35 would do better with its ESM suite. And even if the SDB has half the range of the HARM, the lower RCS will give the F 35 more survivability compared with legacy fighters.
Anyway what peolpe tend to forget when assesing penetration capabilty of US (either legacy of VLO) fighters in a IADS, is that any large raid will be preceded by a swarm of MALDs. I bet that the operators of SA 300/400 will have a lot of fun trying to sort them from the real targets…
This is the new Keypublishing fantasy eh? Radars are basically worthless, it’s all about passive detection perversion. The lower RCS foe will have hardly advantage whatsoever when he uses his radar, as it will alert the enemy’s RWR, especially if the foe has jamming and a good radar/EOS system in return.
It would be true if the “lower RCS” would use a torch’like radar such as Bars or Irbis. If it uses AESA, good lock for the Flanker pilot. It will be diffcult for the Flanker RWR to detect the AESA, and if the RWR doesn’t pick the signal, you carry those big wingtip jammers for nothing.
As for Flanker vs legacy, it’s not going to matter what advantages you can make when you know where the Flanker is, especially if he’s already tracking you. You are mission dead probably, if not falling out of the sky
Spare us of nationalistic BS. When did Russian fighters (even manned by Russian pilots) show such a devastating superiority? The big Su is a superb plane, but you don’t do it any good by dedicating poems.
aurcovIt doesn’t matter if its “digital’ or not, DAS zooming doesn’t come anywhere near IRST in range.
It doesn’t have to come near IRST in range. An IRST (EOTS, AAS 42, OSF, Pirate) are able to detect (in clear weather) at >100 km. DAS hasn’t to do the same. That’s why the capabilty is called IRST-situational awarness. The spherical coverage, especially backwards and under the belly (where any other fighter is blind, when flying without AWACS and with an enemmy in EMCON), worth the reduced range compared with a chin mounted IRST.
Sign In
