eagleCurious though. F-16 has way more room than Rafale; how does Rafale carry 6 without puncturing its own tanks?
Unlike the TER, Rafales AT 730 rack ejects the stores almost vertically:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237024[/ATTACH]
eagleIt doesn’t have to be the SH. Maurer just mentioned “an american type”. Typhoon isn’t completely out aswell. It’s “not a favourite”. I wouldn’t bet money on EF though. Listen to the orginal interview here, in french: http://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/6715979-l-achat-d-avions-de-combat-pour-la-suisse-sera-a-nouveau-evalue-en-2017.html
eagleF-16C (PW-229) with 6x GBU-12s, 4 AAMs, 2x370Gals 1x300Gal EFT + CFT + LANTIRN (Drag index 250 data points)
Minor point: with fuel tanks, max. number of GBU-12 is 4 (slant 4 configuration). Deploying fins from LGBs mounted inwards could penetrate the fuel tanks.
eagleYes, but you must admit its still funny. Not least because you know you’re in trouble if the SH is your yardstick :very_drunk:
eagleI did not say that these capabilities are exclusive of the F-35, just that the F-35 has them while today’s SH does not.
Not sure if serious?
Because in reality, todays Super Hornet, unlike todays F-35, can actually carry 14 AAMs: [ATTACH=CONFIG]237003[/ATTACH]
We’ll have to wait a long time before we see twin AAM launchers on an F-35, if ever. Not that it’s a particularly useful feature.
eagleF-5 is unbeatable in operational cost, but it would need better acceleration to be a credible interceptor
It would need modern avionics above all, and modern weapons. The F-5E is a day fighter only.
I believe 44 of the surplus Swiss F-5’s went to the US Navy, and are very much in use in adversary training. All were low hour and in great shape. I wonder in hindsight if the Swiss regret letting them go?
There are still enough F-5s left. More than 26 are not required though. If they hadn’t been sold, they would sit arorund in some caverns. Swiss AF received 110 Tigers btw.
What Rii says, why bother at all? Other than beeing cheap to operate, what are they really good for? I.e what combat duties does the Swiss AF have in mind for the old ladies, should the ****e one day hit the fan?
In theory, they are required for the air defence mission as 32 Hornets are not enough for that role. 60-70 are required but recently, the air defence mission has gone out of fashion somehow… air policing is en vogue nowadays. Maybe because officials wanted and still want to sell new jets to the public and air policing is the only thing they can come up with. Nevermind you can have 24/7 air policing with less than 32 fighters…
What the AF really wanted was to reintroduce A/G and recce capabilities with the Gripen while at the same time have (nearly) enough jets for a credible air defence capability. I don’t know if those plans are still current, I think no one knows. That imho is a major problem: No one really has concepts about what the AF should be capable of. If they do, they fail to communicate them properly. Minister of defence Maurer’s pro Gripen campaign was really poor. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he secretly doesn’t want new fighters. He seems to be an infantry only guy to me.
eagleJust noticed that Switzerland has found cracks in 16 of its fleet of 36 F-5 aircraft. 10 are to be retired, reducing the fleet to 26 (of which 6 with cracks are to be repaired before returning to service).
I wonder if replacement of the F-5 will be considered again soon. If that does transpire, would the Swiss public approve spending on an F-5 replacement or would Switzerland simply operate its F-18’s more as more F-5’s retired? I presume the remaining 20 aircraft without cracks needing repair will develop cracks too as time goes by.
There are plans to go ahead with the next evaluation in 2017 with new jets in 2020. But who knows, plans change. And of course there’s always the referendum.
The Hornets already are flying more often and this will increase as 24/7 QRA is being introduced.
Are there any secondhand F18 out there that could be purchased to standardize to a all F18 fleet while they decide on what eventual replacement is?
No. Only the Finnish Hornets and possibly the 8 Malaysian examples are the same C/D versions. Or were, they’ve probably undergone different upgrades since the 90ies.
All other Hornets are not only different, but also more or less completeley worn out. Well except the Kuwaiti jets maybe.
Many years ago there were reports about the Swiss AF showing some interest to buy the Malaysian D fleet. But those were most likely just rumours.
I wonder why they don’t check the re-winging prog of Boeing (T-38).
I know that RUAG has some strong ties with Dassault, but commune senses should prevail (notice that I make the supposition here that it’s the wings that are affected and not some other parts)
Otherwise, IRAN have a credible knowledge of the F5. Might worth to delay the scraping.
The T-38 wing is different. But RUAG certainly is capable to produce spare parts on their own. Thing is though, no one wants to.
Besides the recently found cracks, the F-5 fleet is in good shape anyway. It’s just not wanted anymore and upgrades cost money no one wants to spend on outdated platforms.
Isnt the Swiss af still has a few more stored f-5 airframes?
Theoretically they could restore those to flight by swapping over all good parts fron the cracked airframe.
I don’t know how many there are left. There were 42 operational a few years ago. But they don’t want to operate more than 26 anyway until the scheduled retirement in 2018, otherwise it wouldn’t be problem to repair the other jets.
eagleSo the F-22 fuselage is full of holes:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236542[/ATTACH]
But the T-50 fuselage isn’t?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236543[/ATTACH]
From paralays drawing. There isn’t much difference regarding heavy holes if you ask me. Didn’t they have to reinforce the structure between engines?
eagleBut armed with Sparrow missiles only, without Sidewinders, and without drop tanks?
Yes. Sidewinders wouldn’t be of much use against MiG-25s anyway. It is a useful configuration for a point defence interceptor.
The first and foremost Arab threat to Israeli air supremacy was the MiG-25, operating from Arab countries, routinely overflying Israel unhampered…
…with the arrival of the Eagle, MiG-25 flights over Israel ceased to take place…
…As formerly mentioned, one of the prime reason for the developement of the F-15 and its acquisition by the IAF had been the MiG-25 Foxbat, which had frustrated the IAF in the early 1970s. On February 13th, 1981, an opportunity was finally awarded to the F-15 to engage the Foxbat, and in the first worldwide kill of the type, an IAF F-15 shot down a Foxbat…
…Most kills were made with either the AIM-9 Sidewinder or the Israeli Python 3 short range missiles, a few (including the various MiG-25s) were shot down with the AIM-7 Sparrow, while a number of aircraft were cannon kills.
excerpts from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/f15.html
eagleKh-31 frontal view of launch from Su-34
Looks nice, but is CGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut4Vs1swYrw
eagle@Eagle, read the above again a starting point DI of 0 would be a clean airframe. Also, read the note at the bottom of first post. I’m well aware that you can add up the various drag numbers from the stores list. There are, however, no acceleration numbers for those. DI of 50 is a good starting point as you calculated yourself for an aircraft with centerline and wing pylons with 4 aams.
Actually, a clean F-16C airframe has a drag index of 7 😉
I agree that DI 50 is a good starting point. Less than that is also possible, though unlikely in a real loadout. So at DI 50, top speed is Mach 1.85 vs 1.6 for the F-35. That, imho, is a valid comparison. Now, since the F-35 is not thrust/drag limited at Mach 1.6, it will still have some reserves at that speed. The question is: more than the F-16 at Mach 1.6? I think not, I bet an F-16C @ DI 50 will out accelerate an F-35 from lets say M 0.8 to M 1.6.
It takes an F-16C-52 ~110 seconds @ 30.000 feet, the F-16C-50 needs ~85 seconds if I’m not mistaken. Unfortunately, we probably won’t have solid F-35 numbers for some time.
@ hopsalot: great, some data for the -402 engined Hornet. Do you have more?
eagleAn armed F-15A does fly faster than Mach 2. In interceptor configuration with 4 Sparrows, top speed is Mach 2.2 in pursuit mode. That is for a standard day, in cold North American or European skies, surely some more is possible.
Note, the F-15C-220 is good for more than Mach 2.4 in the same configuration, I assume on a cold day it hits the Mach 2.5 structural limit.
The F-15 was designed to counter the MiG-25 afterall, so speeds in excess of Mach 2 were required. Originally, the USAF wanted the Eagle to have a top speed of Mach 2.7, but that was incompatible with its air superiority requirements. The final required Mach 2.5 are a compromise aswell, as speeds over Mach 2.35 are only possible in time limited pursuit mode. So in reality, the F-15 is a Mach 2.3 class fighter like its contemporaries F-4, F-14, Su-27, MiG-29, Tornado ADV etc. They all have variable intakes.
eagleThat would make the lowest drag index listed zero, wouldn’t it.
Steps of 50 doesn’t mean less than 50 is impossible. Data for some drag indexes is provided, you have to interpolate for the exact drag index of your configuration.
btw, drag index with 4 AAMs and centerline pylon is 36. That is a realistic loadout.
6 AAMs or 4 AAMs with centerline tank is 51, so yes, 50 happens to be a good reference point too.
eagleTrue, they are those nations unlikely to see combat as well. The last 30 years has shown that most aircraft flying in harms way are not loaded with 4 aams. Look at the typhoons that have been scrambled to intercept Russian bears, they are not flying clean in any sense of the word.
Actually, NATO’s QRA jets fly with 4 AAMs quite often, 6-8 in some cases. The RAF likes to fly with 8 AAMs it seems.
If you’re thinking about tanks, those can be dropped should the need arise. So yes, in an air to air scenario, and that’s not just interceptions, you need to compare flight performance with 6-8 missiles.
eagleCome to think of it, I read recently that the top permissable speed of a fully armed and fuel-tanked air-superiority F-15C was mach 1.78. What’s the top speed of a similarly configured F-16 (as opposed to a clean F-16)?
More or less true for an F-15A with F100-100 engines.
Top speed for an F-15C with F100-220 engines, 4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows and centerline pylon is Mach 2.2.
No external tanks!
A similarly configured F-16 is impossible, due to missing Sparrow capability or 2 Sparrows at most for other versions. Max. number of missiles is 6.
guessing speed limit is imposed on F-15 because old avionics does not self-restrict g-limit
so any faster would rip the wings off if the pilot decide to turn as hard as he can,
F-16 may have a self-regulating g-limit so no need for speed limit, it would just turn slower to spare structure when loaded
No, it’s thrust/drag limited.
I think you are guessing – but generally speaking clean aircraft are faster than well armed ones… So who has got the max speed of an F-16E toting half adozen or more AMRAAM and external fuel tanks?
F-16C-52, armed with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, no tanks: about Mach 1.85
F-16C-52, armed with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, centerline tank: about Mach 1.78
F-16C-52, armed with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, 2 underwing 370gal tanks: about Mach 1.63
with 3 tanks and 6 missiles, its probably around 1.52
The Block 50 is faster, but the E model is probably closer to the Block 52 with its weight and drag increase.
Unlike the F-15 data, which is from a nice graph, the F-16 data is from my calculations, so take it with a pinch of salt. I’ve read though an F-16 armed with only wingtip Winders and centerline tank is good for Mach 1.9 so the numbers seem plausible.
Sign In
