wilhelmSo the plane with the most gas wins? Explains the success of the P-51 Mustang I suppose.
But wait, wait, doesn’t the F-35 have a whole load of internal gas…:eek::eek:
Nothing, but nothing, will beat the Antonov An-225.
An-225 > Su-35S.
It will still be twisting and turning when all the others reach bingo…
wilhelmThe Su-24 is not a “deep penetration strike aircraft” too, it lacks the range in low level compared to the Tornado, F-111 and the Jaguar even.
AR of < 300 nm or < 560 km for Su-24MK and 4 tons weapons. The Russians called it a tactical bomber.
I agree that the Sukhoi is not a deep penetration strike aircraft.
Why, though, do you say the Jaguar has a better radius of action?
The Radius of action for the Sukhoi Su-24 with a 4 ton weapon load is 305nm without external fuel tanks, and a good portion of that at low level.
Now, what is the Jaguars radius with a similar load, with a similar flight profile, without external tanks?;)
wilhelmWas it not given upgraded avionics when they went out to the Gulf?
I was specifically talking about it’s major systems, in particular its Blue Parrot radar.
This was an extremely long ranged radar for it’s day, but was particularly orientated to the maritime role, and in particular toward targets such as the Sverdlov Class cruiser.
It did get periodic updates with other avionics systems, including before the Gulf War.
But never a comprehensive update across the board.
The Blue Parrot for example was a 1950’s analogue radar.
In the mid 1980’s, partial digitisation was carried out on Blue Parrots transmitter, the Blue Jacket doppler radar was replaced by the FIN1063 inertial navigation system, and avionics for the operation of Sea Eagle missiles was fitted.
Other bits and bobs were fitted or removed over the years.
wilhelmHow much of a performance boost would there have been if they SAAF had re-engined the AZ with the RD33?
Quite a bit actually.
Not the least of which was range, due to lower fuel consumtion.
I’ll see what else I can dig up.
The SAAF weren’t happy with other things re the SMR-95. (which is quite different from a standard RD-33 btw)
This had nothing to do with the raw engine performance, but more to do with logistics trails, and TBO rates and the like, which was due to Soviet/Russian philosophies.
The throttle responses from the SMR-95 were much quicker than the ATAR-9K50, but the TBO for the SMR-95 was apparently only 300 hours of flight time. South Africa were getting TBO figures for their ATARS of at least 1200 hours, and most times over, of flight time.
Also, South Africa were able to do deep refurbing of the Atar 9K50, including manufacture of parts.
This was probably partly why, apart from sanctions obviously, why they looked at a developed 9K50 with 10% more thrust.
After the Cheetah programme, and before the Carver would probably come to fruition, the plan was to “re-develop” the Mirage F1’s.
Various redesign proposals were considered, such as redesigned noses, and a fairing at the base of the vertical fin, as can be found on later F-16’s.
A glass cockpit was trialled on one F-1 as part of this programme, this part of which was called Project Neckwar, some of which was later used to upgrade Spanish Mirage F1 cockpits.
Of course, the ending of the Cold War scuppered the F1 modernisation and Carver programmes, leaving just the first part of the 3 projects, the Cheetah, completed.
wilhelmWe cancelled 50 F-111Ks, but instead ordered 43 new build Buccaneers for the RAF and transferred the other 84 Buccs to the light blue.
Historically, the Bucs remained in frontline service until 1994, but had it not been for the end of the cold war the plan was to retain them and most of the Phantoms into the early 21st century alongside the Tornados (both types), so that gives an indication of how long the F-111Ks may have served for theoretically.
I was just going to say the same.
The indicator of potential F-111 service length is most likely mirrored, roughly, in how long the RAF kept the Buccaneer.
What a great pity the Buccaneer was never given updated avionics.
Everything I’ve seen shows a first class aircraft, that could have done with an update electronically.
wilhelmAhh, okay Sens.
No worries.:)
I note they did re-engine an Su-15 with the R-25, in 1972.
Known as the Su-15bis, this had better acceleration, and faster speeds at low and high altitude.
After state acceptance trials with around 80 flights the following year, it was recommended for production.
This never happened though.
wilhelmI know the above.
And I’m not sure whether with English being your second language, you are inferring a fanboy status on to me, or others on the web…
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and attribute it to a lost-in-translation moment.
The Sukhoi official data I have states mach numbers, depending on variant, ranging from Mach 1,75 to Mach 2,16.
In fact, this equates to 2300km/h at 30 000ft, and 2360km/h at 40 000ft.
However, if you do a basic conversion of this, without taking into consideration altitude, you arrive at the figure of 2646km/h, which is the sea level speed of mach 2.16.
This is where I think the confusion sets in.;)
I don’t have my data in front of me, so I cannot recall precisely what altitude Sukhoi mentioned for the Mach 2.1 or 2.16 speed, but I suspect it to be around 40 000ft?
What I’m trying to ascertain though, is whether this Mach 2.1 was a clean speed, or a speed attainable with 2 AAM, as is sometimes mentioned..
I can’t seem to see whether Sukhoi verifies this or not.
wilhelmAnother view, the ungainly appearance is obviously due to the fact that its fitted over the existing circular afterburner but I guess is shows the Sukhoi have done some research in this area.
That’s quite a few years old, and if I an remembering correctly, was part of Sukhoi’s research into their next generation bomber , the T-60S?
wilhelmThat’s a very interesting fact! The F-4 has always been criticised for it’s not-so-efficient aerodynamics. The Su-15, on the other hand, looks like a very clean aero design, almost like a scaled up F-104…
Remember though that this is a maximum red-line speed, and it is dependent bon the variant of Phantom.
I’ve illustrated the fastest Phantom variant down on the deck.
The Su-15 may well have a higher cruise speed. (The Phantom doesn’t have a particularly high cruise speed)
In fact, without checking, I suspect it does.
Whilst not sure of the Phantom, the Su-15 was quite fast when it carried it’s typical air defence load.
Which is obviously an important consideration.
The Phantom with recessed missile load may well be too, although I don’t have figures with me right now.
And lastly, different figures sometimes aren’t directly comparable.
For example, that Phantom low level 100km/h advantage may be comparing a clean Phantom with an Su-15 armed with 2 missiles.
For example, I’ve seen the maximum speed given for the Su-15 as high as 2665km/h, but also as 2230km/h.
I’ve seen that 2230km/h also given as the maximum speed attained whilst carrying 2 K-8/R-8/R-98 missiles.
The Su-15 certainly has the better t/w ratio, and just at a guess, by far the lesser “wetted area”.
As ever, it’s difficult to get a direct apples-to-apples comparison with military machines…..
wilhelmNone had seen that option for many good reasons. Here are some practical ones. Every Russian vessel had its own AD capbility, mainly with SAMs. When that is not enough – every naval base is a high value target and defended by SAM-sites.
For practical reasons it was impossible to operate interceptors in the same airspace with SAMs at the same time. The Su-15 and MiG-25 were too slow for the F-4 at lower altitudes and had no loiter capability there. Just the later MiG-23P and MiG-31 had that. 😉
The F-4 was just over 100km/h faster than the Su-15 at sea level, as a maximum ideal.
The F-4 would have had to carry a high fuel load if it was to be fighting over the Su-15’s territory, particularly at low level. The Su-15, being at home, would need no compromises.
I’m not sure the scenario is valid.
wilhelmDid the SAAF ever use pgms off the F.1AZ?
To add to the AS-30 missile, the Raptor 1 (H2) was also cleared for use off the Mirage F1AZ.
The initial version of the Raptor was operational by the mid 1980’s, and I’ve seen reports that one could be carried on an inboard wing pylon, with the data link pod on the other oposing pylon.
The picture below show that this was’nt the only way the Raptor family was carried.
wilhelmThey do look similar.
They do, but there are also differences, from what I can see.
Both aircraft were designed with a certain amount of rough-field capability in mind.
wilhelmAccording to wikipedia, the wing was designed by BAC. The Adour powerplant is largely a RR design.
Of course. Other stuff was designed by the French.
The original Breguet Br 121 design was selected as the starting point for the 2 countries to co-develop, hence why I used the word “essentially” with regards to its design.
Production was split neatly down the middle, at a 50/50 ratio.
The Ardour also is a joint venture, melding the designs of RR’s RB.172 with Turbomeca’s T-260 Turbolet to produce the RT-172 Adour. The designation suggests it is mostly a RR product, and indeed, RR’s RB.172 was selected for the original Breguet 121.
wilhelmsu-15 was a fighter for the big war, so the individual fighter may be mediocre by western standards but a mass of them would be quite a potent threat to western attack planes
E.g COnsider a war in Pacific between Japan and USSR in the 80s, the attacking F-4s would have to deal with hundreds of Flagons and that would disrupt their missions and force them to dump their offensive ordance to escape the interceptors
USSR in the mid 80s had ~ 400 flagons and nearly 500 Foxbats
The Su-15 was not a mediocre fighter by western standards.
It was an interceptor.
Other western interceptors serving in roughly the same time period include the F-4, F-101 Voodoo, F-104 starfighter, F-106, EE lightning, Mirage III, CF-100, and J-35 Draken.
Whilst obviously every aircraft has its strengths and weaknesses, also depending on design doctrine and resulting operational profiles, I think it is a stretch to call the Su-15 mediocre compared to the ones I’ve mentioned.
wilhelmRIP to the departed.
The A109 doesn’t seem to have had a happy service life with the SAAF, and if I recall correctly, it wasn’t what the SAAF actually wanted, out of the candidates for that procurement.
Sign In
