eagleCan Gripen carry anti-ship cruise missiles like JF-17 which is armed with YJ-83 missiles that have a range of over 255+ km?
Yes, RBS-15. Which is top secret and all so it’s impossible to find public domain sources about it.
But its pointless anyway to compare JF-17 to Gripen. Since the former has DSI, it is superior in every way. You really should compare JF-17 to F-22. Maybe the Raptor stands a chance even though it doesn’t have the mighty DSI.
eaglestill officialy Mauer told “we cannot always afford the better” meaning the gripen NG eventually met the minimum requirement but ended last of the technical evaluation. Other factor like costs and industry participation helped it being chosen.
No one ever disputed the fact that Gripen lost the technical bit to Rafale and EF. It’s nice of you not to ignore on little detail: Its good enough technically, and better on other terms. Finally, you admit that Gripen is the correct choice. 😀
Besides there is currently an inquiry about a last minute fraudulous change of the evaluation ranking to help the gripen NG achieving the minimum requirements. Leaks came directly within the Swiss air Force and were regarded as serious enough to launch an official inquiry.
Is there such an inquiry? Source please.
There is an inquiry about the leaks obviously.
eaglehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diverterless_supersonic_inlet
That can be fitted to every fighter with a fixed inlet. The main gain from that is a better top-speed at first, when below Mach 1,5 it gives no advantage at all. For that reason non get the idea to fit or refit a DSI for the F-16 or better the top-speed of Mach ~2.
It allows the J-17 to reach Mach ~1,8 versus Mach 1,6 and the J-10 Mach ~2 versus Mach 1,8.
Nearly all air combat starts below Mach 1,5 or is winding down after the first maneuvering to transsonic speeds at best. 😎
Are you sure about the better top speed?
DSI has advantages because it reduces weight and complexity. But as far as I can tell, it’s actually worse for supersonic performance because not all of the boundary layer air is prevented from entering the intake. PAK-FA not having DSI hints at this direction.
See this quote from http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=58
The DSI bump functions as a compression surface and creates a pressure distribution that prevents the majority of the boundary layer air from entering the inlet at speeds up to Mach 2. In essence, the DSI does away with complex and heavy mechanical systems.
eagleDoes F-8 have DSI?
Well its supersonic and has no gap between fuselage and intake ie its diverterless. Sort of.
eagleThat is your opinion. In the real world, JF-17 is the first plane that has DSI. Its production prototype (PT 06) flew before F-35’s one did. It became operational before F-35 does, whose future is uncertain.
If we want to be pedantic, what about the F-8 Crusader. :diablo:
Or does the MiG-21 qualify? Or the F-86 even? 😀
eagleIt worked for the F-22 just fine.
Yes, but initially, all the F-22 pilots were former F-15, F-16 or F-117 pilots. Later, new pilots were trained on F-16s if I’m not mistaken. So the question is: are there any F-22 pilots that moved from the T-38 directly to the F-22?
eagleAlmost correct Eagle.;) The only minor error is that 2000 l tanks were never required by the customers, but offered as an option by the manufacturer. Whether that option will ever be exercised remains to be seen.
Thanks for the clarification. Does that mean 1500l tanks were originally required but cancelled?
eagleThere are no 1500l tanks for the EF, only 1000l as of now.
It was planned to integrate Tornado’s 1500l tank and develop a new 2000l tank, but all that was cancelled iirc. Scorpion will surely correct me if I told bs 😉
eagleOthers have said it before but I’d like to dwell here a little longer if I may.
1)Today’s safety requirements are way beyond what was the norm in the early sixties when the Bronco was designed originally. can you even guarantee that this plane is certifiable by today’s standards? All the testing that will have to be made alone will consume millions of dollars…
There are OV-10s still flying today. So I assume it’s certified and safe to fly.
3) Engine-wise the original Garrett turboprops must be at least two generations behind the minimum standard of today, in terms of reliability and maintainability the change must be gigantic. I new engines were selected the changes would be significant and that alone would entail a need for redesigning the wing and fuselage structure to cope with greater power of any new engine.
Not sure about a wing and fuselage redesign. Engines were updated once for the OV-10D, 45% more power. Maybe the airframe can take more, maybe thats already enough power.
4) About the alledged “superiority” of the Bronco’s twin engine I’ll just past this note from the OV-10 Association:
Can a Bronco fly on one engine? (Updated 04/04/01)
Yes. If it fails right after takeoff at low speed and high throttle, however, a Bronco will easily roll several times in a couple of seconds and the crew is advised to eject quickly in such circumstances. If it happens in normal flight, a successful landing can be made by following the normal engine-out procedures. Single engine landings are not a problem as long as there are several thousand feet of runway available. There is no need to eject from a single engine Bronco as long as airspeed and altitude can be maintained. The pilot might have to jettison weapon stores or the external fuel tank if still full to continue flying the plane.5)What about this quote from Wikipedia?
“Operational experience showed that there were some weaknesses in the OV-10’s design. It is seriously underpowered. This contributed to crashes in Vietnam in sloping terrain because the pilots could not climb fast enough.[9] While specifications state that the aircraft could reach 26,000 feet (7,900 m), in Vietnam the aircraft could reach only 18,000 feet (5,500 m). Also, no OV-10 pilot survived ditching the aircraft.[8]” ^ a b Burrows 2010, p. 66.
I understand that was the A version, as mentioned the D has more power.
Also, even if its difficult to fly and land on one engine, I guess It’s somewhat more challenging to fly and land without engine. 😀
6) The double engine configuration generates demand for roughly a double maintenance and logistics effort… That means more $$$ and less market for the Bronco.
Surely the OV-10 is the more expensive platform. Probably not twice as expensive given the same set of avionics though. Engines don’t consume 100% of the maintenance budget.
7) Finally, how long does the USAF really expect/intend to be in Iraq/Afghanistan? How long will the demand for this COIN aircraft last? 2? 4? Years at most? Embraer started out wit a 99 aircraft home order from Brazil, that’s a nice start, right?
Obviously it makes no sense for the USAF to buy anything for use in Iraq (they already left) and Afghanistan. And for the Iraq and Afghan Air Force, something like the Tucano is probably the better choice. That’s what this program was all about.
USAF/USMC is a different story though. I think the Marines at least would like to have something like the Bronco.
On your comment about the state of US aerospace industry I agree… If there is any serious redesign, the whole thing would probably be cancelled due to cost overruns. But thats not the fault of the aircraft. I’ve seen it in action and its STOL capability is really impressive!
eagleHi guys!
As a Brazilian let me put out our perspective on this issue.
1) The Super Tucano is a completely new bird, built from the drawing board with a strong and robust structure and most of all a top notch digital cockpit that would put F-16A/Bs and other “vintage” fast jets to shame. The OV-10 was designed some 50 years ago and its comparison to a brand new CATIA designed attack aircraft. You’d have to create a complete new fuselage that only resembled the original OV-10 , a clearly futile exercise…
Why would you want to redesign the OV-10s fuselage? To save a couple of pounds on structural weight in exchange for many million $? Just leave it as it is.
The way I see it, Super Tucano and OV-10 are not in the same league. If you want something very cheap to bomb some insurgents, the Super Tucano is the way to go. If you want to partially replace A-10 capability, with the higher end replaced by F-35 or alike, the Bronco is superior.
eagle@eagle
I can’t see them modifying the F15I to carry more than one munition, any spare capacity would be best used for fuel. If they want to hit a target harder it would be more effective to stagger the strikes into two closely separated waves.
Depending on max take-off weight, which the Israeli apparently have increased, two bombs on the CFTs instead of one on the centerline increases fuel capacity. It would free the centerline for a third fuel tank.
Another option would be air refuelling in such a configuration.
Maybe you need to put as many GBU-28 on target as possible in one wave, and you have a fleet of 25 bombers, or 50 bombs vs 25. A second wave might not be feasible.
eagleSure, but if they required an internal gun, they could have traded some fuel/range for the gun without weight increase.
Of course, that would mean lower bring back weight too.
eaglePractical operational cruise speed of the F-22A is around 1500 km/h. Cruising at M1.72 is very far from optimum SFC, you could as well ignite the AB on. But it’s good for marketing to show how “better” the F-22 si from the rest of the worldwide fleet.
Practical cruise speed? Subsonic is more practical ie thats where you get optimal SFC.
Still, at M1.8, dry thrust means less fuel consumption than AB thrust.
Where did you get the 1500kph figure? afaik, M1.5 supercruise was the design target. But the F-22 surpassed that at the cost of range (USAF choice).
eagleNo the refuelling probe is located below the cockpit.
B and C don’t have internal guns because USN/USMC didn’t require one.
I would describe F-35As gun as conformal rather than internal anyway. 😀
Sign In
