aurcovThat may result in better sustained turn rates for especially subsonic speeds as energy spillage is not that huge. However, today the instantaneous turn rates are more important and nobody really optimizes for best LoD at higher G-loads any more. In the end, the F-16 represents a more or less perfect design solution for the sustained turner.
Not acording to a reputable source (AFA). They said the sust. manoevrability was important during Vietnam era, when the WVR missiles were only useful againts hot tragets (engine exhaust). Back then it was important to overturn your oponent in order to get in his tail, in order to have a chance to fire. hence, sust. maneuvrability was a must.
When the firts IR missiles became all-aspect with the advent of Sidewider 9L, the inst. maneuvrabilityy sudden become more relevant, because it was no longer necessary to position behind the enemmy. So, inst. maneuvrabilty matters was more important.
However, nowadays, with the introdduction of HMD/HBOS the sust. maneuvrability once again is more relevant than inst. one. A few deg./sec. for the first 2-3 seconds, would not bring you such a big adantage when both have these items. On the contrary, sust. man. would allow you to conserve energy. In the end, an F 16 could be more interesting.
aurcovThat’s totally mind-blowing! I doubt there is any missile out there that has the performance needed to intercept such a target even without any counter-measures.
Any missile if fired within its NEZ woud do the job, especially WVR ones. A Python 4/5 can pull 60 Gs, an 9X over 80…
aurcovWhat I’ve read and calculated……….
http://www.airpower.at/flugzeuge/eurofighter/faq.htm
Wendigkeit – Wie wendig ist ein Eurofighter Typhoon? Kann man bei Überschallgeschwindigkeiten noch rechtzeitig vor der Staatsgrenze umdrehen ?
Der Eurofighter Typhoon ist was die Wendigkeit betrifft eine Klasse für sich.
Im Unterschallbereich ist das Flugzeug instabil in der Längsbewegung und fliegt bei hohen Unterschall-Geschwindigkeiten Kurvendiameter von wenigen hundert Metern.
Im Überschallbereich ist das Flugzeug instabil in der Seitenbewegung – bei Mach 1,5 kann ein Kurvendiameter von 6 km ohne Geschwindigkeitsverlust geflogen werden
English Translation by the Translator:
(Please correct me if the English translation below for the above Germany article has anything wrong….)
Agility – as an Eurofighter Typhoon is agile? Can one turn with supersonic speeds still in time before the state border?
The Eurofighter Typhoon is which the agility concerns a class for itself. In the subsonic region the airplane is unstable in the longitudinal movement and flies with high subsonic speeds curve diameters of few hundred meters. In the supersonic range the airplane is unstable in the lateral movement – with Mach 1.5 a curve diameter can be flown by 6 km without losing speed.
Personal calculation:
According to the formula of BFM, Turning raduis = Speed * Speed / G-loading.
# Turning radius = 3 km = 3000 meters.
# Speed = 1.5 Mach = about 440~442 meters/sec at the height of 35,000~50,000 fts.
Then the G-loading should be 440~442 * 440~442 / 3000 = 64.5~65.1 meter / sec2 –> About 6.6G
So, according to the Germany declaration mentioned above, the Eurofighter should be able to pulled up to 6.6G without losing speed during the Mach 1.5 flight.
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0807/news/010807_typhoon.htm
The new version (Tranche I, Block5 fighter) fully utilizes the Typhoon’s digital flight controls system, hence improving maximum load flight envelope to 9g at subsonic speed and up to 7 g for the supersonic speed.
Impressive. Just is there a mention in what conditions is this 9 G sustained? Because it metters. An F 16 C or an F 15E can sustain 9G with full internal fuel load and ~1.5 tons for the Viper (more on the E) of weapons. AFAIK these are ther only ones.
aurcovInteresting, thing was I was talking about the F-22 though never mind as I have learnt some good info! Thanks.)
🙂
Sorry for the typo, of course I was talking about F 22
aurcovThe F-22 at the altitude it flys at would have alot of trouble lasing the target from what I have been told by an F-16 crew chief who new about designator pods, something about electrical arching above 15k feet. The newer pods are said to be better and not have that issue but lasing from 60k isn’t likely for technical reasons. I’ll try find out more.
The F 33 doesn’t carry laser designator and can’t drop LGBs. Instead, it uses its radar in A-G modes and drop GPS guided bombs (2×1000 lbs. JDAM or 8×250 lbs. SDB). BTW, the precission of AESA radars in A-G is far better than a targeting pod. I posted a few weeks ago, in the F 35 thread, an article from AvWeek. The reporter was allowed on the BAC 1-11 that NorthropGrumman uses as testbed for the new APG 81 radar for the F 35. In A-G the radar can “see” a barrel of a howitzer from 150 km…These A-G modes have been implemented on the APG 77.
aurcovA:
1. Eurofighter has already equipped PIRATE IRST, Lightening III FLIR pod, DASS with towed-decoy, and Data fusion techonology since Tranche I Block5 fighters.
http://www.eurofighter.com/news/article263.asp
The Block 5 capabilities can be described as full air-to-air and initial air-to-ground capability with full carefree handling. The aircraft is cleared for the 9g envelope as intended, with additional features such as sensor fusion, the full Direct Voice Input, enhanced GPS, the DASS (Defensive Aids Sub-System) countermeasures including automatic Chaff and Flare dispensers, radar air-to-surface modes including ground mapping, and initial FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red).
I didn’t say that the DASS is not operational, just it’s not yet fullly integrated
2. AN/ALE-55 is the product of BAES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/ALE-55_Fiber-Optic_Towed_Decoy
http://www.baesystems.com/BAEProd/groups/public/documents/bae_publication/bae_pdf_eis_fotd.pdf
My mistake, I was thinking at ALE-50
It is theoretically possible to use the F-22s MLD system to cue the AIM-9X. It has 360 degree coverage and will always have the location of enemy fighters within its scopes at WVR. As a result it may prove to be a much faster and more accurate form of cueing than say an HMS – especially if the software guys are confident it won’t miss anything the eye wouldn’t and if they are confident that it is at least as good as the eye with regard to NCTR.
I don’t know. The MLD is quite sophisticated, see the second video here: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/MissileLaunchDetector/index.html . However, the F 22 lacks the HMD to project these images. The F 35 HMD would allow the pilot to actually see the target. Without the visual confirmation, it would be risky to fire. I would bet more on the ALR 94. It is supposed to be accurate enough to cue an AMRAAM (of course if the ennemy is using its radar). If the 9X blk. 2 will have LOAL, I would put my money on it instead the MLD
aurcovAIM-9X is a big step-up fomr previous Sidewinders, even without JHMCS (and most of the aircraft carrying it today are not, in fact, equipped with JHMCS it will take years to field that on aircraft already flying). Of course JHMCS steps it up even more.
F-22 apparently can’t be fitted with JHMCS because of cockpit mapping issues, USAF says they’ll cue AIM-9X with the radar. Of course, USAF is not a big proponent of IR anyway, early in the F-22 program they proposed eliminating internal carriage of Sidewinders completely.
Among of the planes that received 9X without JHMCS are some oder F 16 of the Air National Guard. This solution won’t offer the +/-90 deg of the JHMCS+9X, but “only” +/- 70 deg (the field of the APG 68 radar), wich is some significant improvement over the /-30 deg. of the old 9M.
Radar slaved stearing can the AIM-9 since 1977 with the AIM-9J SEAM [Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode]
The only little advantage is LOAL, but limited by the small AESA viewing angle of +-60°. The AIM-9X need finder feedback for HOBS and this is intern not possible without JHMCS. The F-22 in fact is a bad AIM-9-platform without LOAL.
SH and EF are better platforms for HOBS.
The SEAM is not LOAL; it’s still LOBL. For LOAL, you need a datalink. For now, IIRC, only the Israeli Python 5 has it. Future 9X block will get it too, by replacing the older TDD (target detecting device) with a new (and smaller) one and using the space to cramp the datalink.
1. AESA radar: EF-2000 may get it formally after 2014. It may…
2.Fast computers based on PowerPC chipsets: Already equipped in Tranche II fighter.
3. Fiber optic databus: Already equipped in Eurofighter.
4. Multi-sensor integtration and 3rd gen IRST/FLIR: Already done and equipped in Tranche I, Block5 fighter.The DASS isn’t yet integrated…
5. Towed decoy: the towed decoys of F/A-18E and Eurofighter are from the same manufacturer……….wrong, the decoy of the SH (ALE 55) is from Raytheon while the decoy on the EF (Ariel 2) is from BAE Systems…
6. HMD: EF-2000 will get one formally after 2009 or 2010.It will…
I repeat: I was not comparing the EF with SH; I just said that many of the technologies on the SH are far for “proven” and some are not (yet) present on the more expensive EF, wich is considered state of the art. BTW, not even the economies of scale won’t justify the price difference: there will be ~700 EF and 480 SH…
Wouldn’t the JHMCS really even the odds between the Raptor and Lighting in a close WVR engagement. As the Lightning is very similar to the Raptor in many flight profiles. With the JHMCS helping to close the gape with the others………makes you wonder. Not that is really matters………..both are on the same side.;)
Not quite: the F 35 has a more sofisticated HMD than the JHMCS and will work coupled with the DAS, that offer spherical coverage (imagine a Sniper/ATFLIR/Litening-like system but one that ofer a 360 deg. field of vue, allowing target detection/recognition/tracking at 40 km in clear weather and project these information in the HMD :diablo: ).
aurcovThe AIM-9X and AIM-120D is at the moment not avaible.
The Increment 3.2 add AIM-9X and AIM-120D by 2012.
correct about the 120D, wrong about the 9X;it was introduced more than 5 years ago:
The Navy conducted RDT&E on the F/A-18C as lead platform for JHMCS, but fielded it first on the F/A-18E and F aircraft of VFA-14 and VFA-41 respectively in time for OIF in 2003.
[U]http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Joint+Helmet+Mounted+Cueing+System /U]
By now many F have already JHMCS for both crewmembers:
The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] Oct. 9 delivered the first factory-installed, dual-cockpit F/A-18F Super Hornet Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) to the U.S. Navy, providing significant improvements to in-flight crew coordination.
The JHMCS allows flight crew members to rapidly acquire and designate a target simply by looking at it. The two-seat variant places a JHMCS helmet on both crew members, giving each the capability to aim weapons and sensors as well as a visual indication of where each crew member is looking.
Boeing delivered the enhanced aircraft to the VX-9 Vampires of Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, Calif., and is scheduled to deliver 77 of the two-seat JHMCS-equipped aircraft to the U.S. Navy over the next three years.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jhmcs/news/2007/q4/071010b_nr.html
aurcovNon at a guess, though i’m sure you will have a que of people here waiting to tell you about next years upgrade or the one in five years time etc etc whilst forgetting that the present time is what actually matters, especially if s**t hits the fan and they are needed next week they (and the RAF) are going to look pretty damn stupid. I can see it now in a press conference about the latest war and the RAF guy announces “we have lost 10 pilots and thier jets today but fear not because in four years time we will have an AESA radar!”
The Eurofighter has an HMS and the AIM-132 ASRAAM (far faster and with better range than AIM-9X), probably the world’s most advanced digital IRST unit (PIRATE) (not present on the F-22), seventy-two computers (with space for easy expansion, not like, oh, I don’t know, the technology refresh plans that were scuppered for the F-22), TRD towed decoys (other models also available, and they use fibre-optic links) (not present on either the F-22 or F-35), the DASS integrated sensor system, and is currently undergoing integration tests with a variety of PGMs such as the Paveway bombs and Brimstone ATGMs. And what on Earth do you think they’ll be fighting before they get CAESAR?
Just goes to show what a bit of research will do, hey? Also, nice going using the deaths of RAF servicemen and women as a point of humour.
Wow, cool down boys! :p Never said the EF is a bad machine, or that is better than EF. Just reminded to a poster that the SH isn’t exactly “proven” technology…and it still cost 1/2 of an EF…
aurcovDifficult and depends if you wrap development costs into, the SH is a very affordable type built upon proven technology with extensive economies of scale.
Proven technolgy? Such as AESA, fast computers based on PowerPC chipsets, fiber optic databus (1000 faster than mil 1553), multi-sensor integtration, 3 rd gen FLIR, towed decoy, JHMCS/9X, not to mention the capability to launch every A-G in US inventory? How many of these “proven” technologies are present on EF?
aurcovSorry, while the APG-79 just entered Squadron Service. It will be retro-fitted to the enter fleet. Further, the AIM-9X and JHMCS has been is services for years…………….
Note: I believe 2-Squadron currently operate Super Hornets with the APG-79 with more to follow shortly.
Raytheon designed, developed and fielded the world’s first operational AESA for Air Force fighter aircraft and has delivered more than 100 APG-79 AESA systems to the Navy, out of a total order of 437.
That was in July 2008.(http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology/rtn08_fas/news/racr/)
aurcovBoth have their advantages and disadvantages but the positioning of the IRST on the Su-35BM means that:
– It need not be at greater altitude than a potential target in order to spot it, enabling it to fly low and avoid radar detection while maintaining full visibility
– The IRST can be cued by the HMS and vice versa (big advantage in WVR)
– It can scan for targets anywhere off to effectively one entire side and the entire front half of the top hemisphere
The tradeoff is that it is not fantastic in a ground attack mission and is not ‘ideal’ in that the lower left hand side of the aircraft is unable to be scanned. These are however significant advantages when compared to a belly-mounted configuration in an air-to-air scenario.
The first US IRSTs were on F 102 and f 106 in late ’50. They were like in the Su (above the nose). Later they put them under the chin (F 4, F 8, F 14). May be they know better than you?
Again the EOTS is a long range sensor. Coupled with the upward nose (that allows a a 30 deg. uplook) a F 35 can see targst well above it. BTW that EOTS is not “belly-mounted”
Again, in the WVR fight the DAS will take care (including cooperation with HMS and situational awarness).
However, if you want to continue this verbal ping-pong, I’m out…
aurcovBelieve it or not, a Sukhoi can also roll.
So, why is the IRST position on the F 35 wrong and on Su is OK?
aurcovDAS is more than a simple MWS. It provides some 30-40 km (depending od weather conditions) coverage. For situational awarness in WVR, that’s more than enough.
aurcovFunny how cheap are some claims, automatically it must be better because some LM PR guy said that and is mounted on the f-14…not saying the russian hardware is better (not saying is worse), but that is an old unconfirmed claim, that is repeated again and again..
The F 14D IRST was in service from mid ’90, so the info about it doesn’t come from LM. The AAS 42 IRST had to detect (in clear weather, but this apply for any IR device) a “cold” (incomming) Tu 22 at launching distance of a Phoenix. That’s ~ 165 km. A fighter-size target at ~ 100km. This was then, now the improved IRSTs shoud perform better. These IRSTs are based on the AAS 42, and were sold to SK for F 15K, to SG for the F 15 SG (the first being delivered recently) and for future deliveries for SuperHornets (mounted in mid fuel tank-not very good solution, but the easiest). For the latest IRST (Su 35), the Russians claim ~ 50 km for a “cold” target and 90 km hor a “hot” target (the hot engine exhaust facing the IRST). Also, the Russain IRST has no ranging capability, using the laser rangefinder, while the AAS 42 will do the ranging. So, yes, big difference.
@aurcov: Whether or not it has the capability to elevate if fitted in a targeting pod, that doesn’t change the fact that when mounted under the nose the aircraft is in the way! And if it can’t scan above the aircraft the F-35 has to be at the same altitude to get a lock on an aircraft with its IRST at all and higher if it wants to actually observe the aerial battlespace.
Not counting that in close combat (and even BVR) the IRST must look the upper hemisphere, because it must be with the direction of the planes turn to keep the IR contact.
If you look at the EOTS position, you will notice that situated where the chin starts to climb in a ~ 30 deg angle. Since the EOTS will serve as IRST (that’s a BVR sensor) a 30 deg. angle is more than enough to observe distant targets situated 3000-4000 m. above the F 35. Also, if in a situation when the F35 is at low level and need to scan above it, the pilot can roll its plane180 deg. and fly inverted a few seconds. (BTW what if a target is under the Su? :diablo:)
For close combat, it is the DAS that would provide full-sphere situational awarness at ~40 km, which abot the same distance a Russian IRST will cover only ~ 120 degree frontal.
Sign In
