eagleIf the Super Hornet has problems achieving speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 in actual tactical configuration, it indicates a problem with drag. Excess thrust is quite OK for both Hornet versions.
Since the SH top speed is said to be M 1.6, it looks like its drag limited.
eagleHawk-200,Mig-29K,Su-34,F-35,Su-33,Su-25 UBG,Typhoon,
btw Gripen has got a retractable probe.Also count which of those are still flying around.
Note the age of those planes. Almost every modern fighter has a retractable probe.
But thats not the point. If the AdlA demands a fixed probe, why should Dassault design a retractable one? Because sealordlawrence says so? 😀
eagleThe F-15 A & C are 7.5 G airplanes. The F-15E has structural modifications that allow it to go to 9 Gs.
F-15A was a 7.33G airplane at first, but they were later cleared to 9g without further modifications. Though its possible that theres also a peace time g-limit today.
F-15E structural mods allowed a much higher weight and 16000hours of service life.
btw: Fuel tanks and CFTs are all cleared for 9Gs when empty. CFTs are cleared for 7Gs when full.
eagleMach 1.8 with eight missiles.
I’m pretty sure the F-15 is faster with just 8 missiles.
So I think M1.8 includes some external fuel.
In peace time, top speed is limited.
eagleScorpion, it is not the amount of internal fuel but the ratio. I thought F-16 can carry 3 external tanks, that’s what I see in pictures quite often. If you take external fuel of F-15C, then please use the figures for F-16C, too. Stay consistent!
As you know, numbers help. I’ll compare F-15A to F-16A:
F-15A
OEW: 13520kg (29800lbs)
Fuel (Internal): 5260kg (11590lbs)
Fuel (External): 5400kg (11900lbs)
Typical TOW (incl. ext. fuel): ~25600kg (56600lbs)
Fuel Ratio: 0.415
see:
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/fighter/McDonnell_Douglas/F-15.htmF-16A
OEW: 7490kg (16500lbs)
Fuel (Internal): 3150kg (6840lbs)
Fuel (External): 2*1400l = 2280kg (5060lbs)
Typical TOW (incl. ext. fuel): ~13500kg
Fuel Ratio: 0.402
Consistent numbers:
F-15A empty weight is 12600kg, F-15C 13000kg.
On the other hand, 7490kg is the empty weight of the earliest F-16A. That increased later of course. (structural improvements etc.)
OEW I dont know.
The F-16 carries 2 fuel tanks only because it needs the centerline for the external jammer whereas the F-15 has internal ecm equipment. The pod adds some drag too.
Note: The F-16C has additional internal space provided for an internal jammer, but it wasnt used. It also has much more empty weight.
Question: From the F-16A with 7500kg to the latest F-16s with ~9000kg, the fuel fraction (internal fuel only) went from 0.42 to 0.35. Did the range decrease by 16%?
eagleCan the F-15C still outclimb the F-16 when it carries enough fuel to out-range it? 😉
The F-16 offers not just some more degrees turn-rate, it offers full 9g-capability, a superior man-machine interface, much better control systems and superior performance in the area of M0.8 to M1.2. It is also the smaller, less visible aircraft, can generate more sorties and an air force can afford more aircraft for similar expenditures (see Israel). If two air forces with x amount of money engage each other, one with F-15 and the other with F-16, the latter will most likely win. And that is what counts. Anything else is fanboy non-sense.
The F-15 offers 9g capabiltiy too, even more if you really need it. Not that it really counts. F-18 is still 7.5g and it seems to be enough.
I was under the impression that the F-15 is very good in the M.08-1.2 region, better than the F-16. The F-16 is better under 0.8.
As Sens said, more than 4 BVR missiles are usually wasted weight. Of the AMRAAM, 4 make sense. Of the Sparrow, 2 make sense. When really engaging an enemy, who attacks in force and number, there will hardly be the opportunity to fire 4 semi-active missiles.
Missile range can become very low under certain conditions, so that the Sparrow becomes a short ranged weapon pretty quick and the Sidewinder useless. Since the 4 Sparrows are almost drag free, why not carry them. If you wish, you can leave two at home.
The AMRAAM can be used at much closer ranges and can be considered a wvr missile so 6 are carried.
eagleThe only known F-15A combat radius is 1800 km with 3 drop tanks in an AA mission. F-16A range was mostly given with 925 km.
That looks like combat range so I’d say half of that is closer to reality.
A typical European scenario F-16 mission was a one hour flight with two 370gal tanks dropped when empty which comes close to 925km range.
F-15 range is so much higher because it flies higher, with more external fuel and less weapons (relative). Under similar conditions, it would shrink but imho still be higher than F-16s range.
eagleYou have to differ between the F-15 fighter and the F-15 bomber. The A-D models are fighters with no AG capability. Todays F-15s can carry up to 8 AMRAAMs, though a typical configuration comprises 6 + 2 Sidewinder.
The F-15 always had quite a robust A/G capability.
eagleI always thought they were known as YOT or GIB.;)
That works aswell, but isnt the official term 😉
There was no problem to equip the Phantom with later models of engines, like the Brits did with the Spey engine. That cost some top speed, but the aircraft gains in fuel economy and acceleration.
The Brits did that mainly to include a home-grown engine.
The Tomcat was built ready to accept the new engines but they never arrived which shows that although performance of the TF-30 wasnt spectacular, it was good enough for the intended mission.
So basically, even though the F-14 flew with interim engines, it was better than the F-4.
The F-14 had a limited bring-back capability for the AIM-54. So most of the time it was operated with AIM-7 as main BVR weapon at all.
For air superiority missions, the Sparrow was always the weapon of choice. Standard loadout in fighter role was 4 Sparrows, 4 Sidewinders.
Fortunately, the F-14 never had to use its standard fleet defence loadout. I’m pretty sure the bring-back capability would have been the last thing to worry about.
eagleSchorsch, when comparing the F-4 against the F-14A, dont forget the TF-30 engines were only an interim solution. The final F-14A with proper engines would have kicked any Phantoms a$$ with ease.
Rocky, the second crewmember in the Tomcat is a RIO.
(very important 😉 )
eagleWhich actually uses
1. fuel fraction,
2. lift over drag and
3. sfc.
I guess #1 and #3 are better for F-18, can #2 be so bad?
The F-18E carries 700kg less fuel than the F-14, but is around 5500kg lighter. It has smaller, newer engines. It carries much more external fuel. In my book, that should allow the SH to outrange the Tomcat with ease. But still we are debating about range. Something must be wrong.
eagleYes, my bad.
The drag of pylons is strongly depending on the speed and the position of pylons. The Phantom carries its pylon under a quite clean underbelly, so limited inteference drag.
Another thing is the flight regime: just subsonic or transonic?
I think interference drag is a serious problem for the Hornet with its not so famous transsonic performance. But you surely know more about that than I do.
I can understand that the Schweitzer Luftwaffe found the Hornets to be a bit overengineered for their purpose. I never understood why they didn’t just order an F-16A. Best value for money.
Oh, its not overengineered, at least not in the A/A role. A/G wasnt needed and was about equal for F-18 and F-16C anyway. F-16A was not considered.
The F-18 offered a better radar, which is more noticeable in mountainous terrain and theres no AEW aircraft to help.
It has better endurance (not range though).
And it can survive more than one landing on alpine wartime airstrips. 😉
eagleWe use a centerline and right inboard for external tanks. A tank on the left inboard would mask the ATFLIR in some situations. And sitting on an ejection seat for anything longer than a couple hours is not exactly comfortable. Now add to that comming back to the boat at night in bad weather and things get interesting.
OK, that explains it.
It just looks… awkward.
INO, could the ATFLIR (or equivalent) be mounted on the centerline point of the Rhino, or Baby Hornet for that matter? If it could then I would have thought that having the ATFLIR on the centerline would allow you to mount two tanks on the inboard points without the masking problems that you mentioned.
The Baby Hornet surely can. USMC and Spanish Air Force use the LITENING pod on the centerline. But you lose a weapon station doing so. Thats why an adapter to carry the pod on the fuselage station is underway.
eagleThat’s because the weight is high, thanks to successive reinforcing of the plane to fulfill attack duties. Don’t think that you can carry those four AshMs with a lightly built wing.
Because of the way the F-16 is constructed, it gains disproportionately higher weight when the plane is beefed up. As a monoque, you have to reinforce the entire circumference and the tube like structure that makes up the fuselage as opposed to just reinforcing strategic parts of the airframe like the spine as you would with semi-monoque designs.
Of course weight has increased. But still, the F-2 has lower wing loading: 9500kg/35m2 and 8500kg/28m2 for the F-16C. And the latest F-16 variants with CFTs installed probably surpass the F-2s empty weight.
eagleA baby hornet or Rhino could operate safely around the boat without any external tanks for any time period. It would just require more tanking.
Cyclic ops during training is a bit different than cyclic ops on cruise as flight time is much longer on cruise.
Sure, with tanking anything is possible. I was thinking about not including ifr.
Our typical mission configuration, in a Rhino, is double ugly, ATFLIR and an assortment of A/G weapons and a couple of 9x’s. Average flight time on cruise is between 6.5-8 hrs with 2-3 plugs on a tanker. A couple jets will be 3 or 5 wet with an ARS pod and two other jets double bubble, ATFLIR, Sharp pod, an assortment of A/G Weapons and 9X’s. Some squadrons run with a single centerline. We are looking into that as well for cruise as double ugly gives you quite a bit of asymetry. Having max asym gives you a much higher end speed. For example a 56K lb symetrical shot gives you a 150 ish kt end speed while an asym 3 ( or max allowable aysm) shot gives you in the upper 170’s to low 180’s kt shot.
Interesting. I was always wondering why you use the asymmetrical loadout. Why not simply 2 underwing tanks? Is the centerline station not cleared for smart weapons?
And 8 hours in a cockpit doesnt sound very enjoyable.
Sign In
