MarcellogoBecause the Su-27 was designed for greater speeds. It’s all about drag in the speed range and its relation to thrust, with the engine intake combation designed for it. The Su-34 retains the basic design, though it lacks the ramps to achieve greater thrust efficiency at higher speeds and is probably somewhat draggier as well. The principal limiting favtor here, however is the intake.
Ok, explanation accepted. Also because it was an explanation, not some cheap insults.
Still the question was another one and is still unanswered : given that someone pretend that F-35 is a true multirole fighter and not a strike oriented one, why it is still slower than Hornet, Super Hornet, Fullback, JH-7 Snow Leopard, that are all instead considered to be, the more, the less like so?
Because, after more ten years from the first flight we still have not any sure information about what is its climbing speed? Someone would maybe like to avoid some uneasy comparison with F-16 or maybe even F-4?
MarcellogoBut those upgraded MiG-29’s stayed mostly vapourware. Of course Su-24 was in most ways much more capable, but it is also expensive to maintain and requires crew of two and has poor reliability record. Su-17 would have been simpler while sharing same engine than Su-24.
Wasn’t there some upgrade allowing 6 missile hardpoints?
Because the need for a cheaper plane was fulfilled by the Su-25, Su-17 was/is a very good plane but is not a long range striker nor a CAS plane just a zoomer, one of those 3gen niches that were superseded by multirole fighters.
It was the same there: Tornado and AMX were retained G-90, Alpha Jet and Jaguars were retired and nor we, nor UK nor Germany had multirole fighters the same when it happened.
MarcellogoWell why don’t you explain why a tactical bomber like Su-34 with fixed air-intakes, carnards, large humpback for fuel12,400kg and side-by-side crew cockpit has a higher speed regime over F-35A? I mean sinse you seem know..
Thanks haavarla but not worry about it: the response would as always involve something about inner load, stealth not need it, it will have a greater SA etc, etc, etc…
EDIT: and instead not, this time is a new one :Su-34 is faster because it was designed so.
F-35 is not draggy, only like to take it slow…
MarcellogoDraggy is not an absolute term. A SU-27UB is draggier than a normal one, the Su-34 even more but as a whole Flanker and Fulcrum have a very convenient aerodinamic formula.
Drag generally affect the maximum possible velocity attainable: as soon the latter grow one would face a proportionally greater resistence.
So a su-27 would reach 2,35m while a Su-35 would stop at 2,25 and a Su-34 at 1,8 givrìen that F-35 just reach 1,6m go figure its own drag.
2nd and 3rd planes were often faster than their actual substitutes as their turbojet engines were optimal for supersonic velocities and permitted a sleeker design.
Obviously they payed it a lot in terms of fuel consumption in all phases of flight so they were replaced by Turbofans that almost can reduce it in the subsonic range.
It happened also in the case of MiG-31 i.e. in a plane designed for long range supersonic cruises.
MarcellogoWell, there were planes even bigger and heavier than the Flankers: just think about F-14 and F-111.
Let’s say that the costructive formula the Soviets developed i.e. blended wings and engine pods with its characteristic of great solidity, great free volumes and reduced drag worked well if not even better on very big planes than on medium sized ones.
In the west there is a divide between Europeans, that having lesser spaces to look at usually are not greatly interested in long range planes and the USA and even more the USN that have instead a more definite interest in the bigger ones.
MarcellogoI would say that super cruise dies have it uses for example quick reaction engagements, chasing airliners over the sea etc. How much use it is for primarily a light bomber aircraft is yet to be seen. Does buzzing through a countries air radars at Mach 0.9 or 1.2 really make that much difference? I imagine the F35 has to be subsonic to drop weapons anyway. Also a consideration has to be given to fuel consumption at different speeds. I imagine a lot of planning goes into missions as to what speed they fly etc. You don’t want to run out of fuel on the way home just because you want to push the throttle hard for a few mins.
+1
MarcellogoNot quite sure what exactly your point is, mig-31 is a very specialized aircraft, much like the SR-71, it sacrifice almost everything for speed, so it wouldn’t be so surprised that it surpassed others aircraft in that specific specifications
complaint that f-22 doesn’t have more supersonic range than mig-31 is like complaint that PAk-FA cant carry as much weapons as the B-52
And the F-35 is an A2G specced aircraft able to reach just 1,6 M, so bother about supercruise or anything relating to interception or air superiority role for it should fall into the same category you describe, still we are there debating about a totally secondary characteristic for a plane like it by days.
And as a side note: Mig-31 has an excellent supersonic maneuvreability just what it lack to quite all other planes except F-22 that concentrate instead in the subsonic or transonic range.
Marcellogopart from mig-31 , no others fighters can do that , so it a moot point , and the mig-31 have to sacrifile various others characteristic such as agility and signature management
Yes, I know and?
I mean, still an impressive feat for a plane that went out more than 35 years ago.
It is a plane designed for a certain well specific role and still doing it flawlessy after all this time.
For all the rest there is a specific member of the Flanker family available.
So I for an example I wouldn’t call supercruise a “buzzworld” in case of the Raptor as MSphere do, as in this case it’s a convenient way to get a long range highly supersonic cruise while retaining a great maneuvrability in the subsonic/transonic range.
The first one in nowhere near the one of the good old 31 but probably it was never intended to be like so, they just forget to even mention it in the brochures…
Fact is that every plane has its own flight pattern and charachteristics, so to be ideal for certain roles and maybe just sufficient in others.
Certain times it seems me however that the F-35 defenders (and, at the contrary, also the haters) seems to forget this part of the deal and consider it as a sort of magic bullet, that thanks to something called SA (and also this term would need to be examinated throughtfully IMHO) can forego all those petty materialistic limitation that phisics impone over all others planes in the world, like air resistence, drag and maybe also gravity.
MarcellogoOh, it seems that I have created a monster with my pretty simple question.
I have even tried to stop it at first, see post #2385 buts IT’S ALIVE, IT’S ALIVE!!!!
More seriously, I think we are actuallyovertinking it and someone is spending too much time in trying to transform a secondary byproduct result of certain technical choices into a capital feature of the plane itself, able to made it or something absolutely unique (see last TomcatVIP post) or make all project fall down into pieces.
IMH umble and unheard opinion it’s just something (almost in F-35 case) that SOUND SEXY ON BROCHURES but has not any real operative meaning.
Or to say it in another way:
My plane is able to supercruise woo-ho, it can go for 151 miles at 1,2 mach without using afternburner, Whoo!
Not like your obsolete junk that need AB to travel over mach 1!
Yes, I concede you that after having done that it still travels 720 km at 2,35 mach but that’s is not supercruise, not supercruise at all, I won, I won!
MarcellogoSurely these are different shades of gray?
:eagerness:+1;)
MarcellogoEven admitting that what reported in the article is true, nothing implies the Su-34 doing the second run were the same making the first one: they can be just another shift coming to work or just the same ones back to Latakia, refurbished and back into action as soon as the cat went away.
Regardless of the way they made it, operative outcome is always the same: CAS (loiter) has beaten Zoomers just another time.
MarcellogoThe question is whether the F-35 can actually do this in the first place. A while ago it was stated it could sustain mach 1.2 with very little afterburner. So to speak min AB setting. Suddenly its “once there it does it on mil power”.
To come back to your question there are some limited scenarios were a limited supercruise capability can be useful. For example when fleeing out of hostile airspace or if you intend to pass more dangerous areas more quickly. It can be useful for certain intercept scenarios and it can help to cut down reaction times further to accelerate to even higher speeds for a BVR engagement. It can also help to position yourself faster. It’s still not the same as cruising at f.e. M 1.5+, but it nonetheless gives you a 1/4 to 1/3 speed advantage over cruising in the high subsonic region.
This might be the clearest I have heard from Lockheed Martin test pilot Elliot Clemence (Dec 2015)
The current plans are its not going to be super-cruise capable. Now what super-cruise is referring to is the ability to sustain above Mach one — perhaps Mach one point five without being in full afterburner, or being in afterburner in general.
Really its just a question of super-cruise sounds pretty advanced and pretty nifty, but in order to super-cruise you have to burn pretty much just about as much fuel to stay at that Mach than using the afterburner.
So it doesn’t have much utility for what we do – we are more or just as interested in the ability to carry a lot of fuel and be airborne for a long period, or sustained period of time as we do in being able to stay above Mach one for a sustained period of time. So the airplane does not super-cruise, but it does go M1.6, 700 knots as designed.
I would take this two post as an example of a critical, not partisan way to address things.
So, I consider the question I have expressed fully answered by the sum of these two replies.
MarcellogoJust to be clear the F-35 nor most other fighter jets always require AB to pass the transonic region. Far more common is a bunt, where the aircraft trades altitude for speed and passes through the transonic region mostly effortlessly. This is one of the reasons that straight and level acceleration times are somewhat useless, as no pilot in their right mind would try to accelerate straight and level to pass through M1 compared to a simple bunt maneuver. It is faster and uses less fuel to reach altitude at a lower speed, bunt over through the transonic region and then continue to climb, or accelerate level, while above M1.
But that is exactly the point. The fact that most combat aircraft are optimized for that (which is understandable, given requirements and technology limitations) means that those who offer meaningful performance increase over that level do have a real-life advantage.
Yes, even in the ’60s you could go supersonic on mil power if that was all you wanted (first Draken prototype broke sound barrier without afterburner, on a climb) but when you loaded up weapons, fuel and avionics even attempting it usually wasn’t practical. However nowadays there are technical means to do it while carrying useful warload and some planes have been designed to take advantage of it. I’m sure they wouldn’t have bothered if it was judged completely useless.The rationale to be faster is to be faster. When you’re faster, you dictate the terms of the engagement: you can force an engagement on your terms, and disengage again on your terms. It is a very basic parameter of warplane performance.
Not quite, a direction change is far more significant on the kinematics of interception than an increase in velocity. If an aircraft has a SAM launched against it, unless the airframe is within the range of no escape of the missile, flowing cold and forcing a tail chase, even at the same velocity as before missile launch, can void the SAM intercept far better than an increase in speed.
Stealth, velocity and altitude can play together to make a jet invulnerable to SAMs. (As long as the jet pilot doesn’t do something stupid, like try to overfly the SAM battery).
Stealth reduces the detection and tracking range of the SAM’s fire control radar. Reducing the detection range also reduces the SAM battery’s timeline to complete the intercept.
Velocity (especially supersonic velocity) reduces the jet’s time spent in a potential engagement zone and increases the lead a SAM has to take to intercept the jet. When the jet changes heading, the SAM has to make a drastic heading change to maintain its lead on the jet. That drastic change in heading consumes the SAM’s energy, especially severely if the SAM’s motor has burned out and the missile is coasting.
High altitude and respectable slant range forces the SAM to expend lots of energy to climb and increases the time of flyout to the intercept point. If the SAM flyout takes too long with drastic heading changes, the stealthy target could fly out of the range of the SAM’s fire control radar, if the SAM doesn’t run out of energy first.
And there is always the SPJ fallback as a last resort.
I am used to thank people taking their own time to respond me but in this case I feel a little like in that saying of old of the astronomer pointing at the stars and thecrowd looking at the finger.
I am making a question about supercruise i.e. the ability of a plane to travel supersonic without using AB and more specifically about the performances of F-35 in this field and I find myself in a discussion about the various uses of supersonic velocity in modern air combat and much more specifically in avoiding SAM…
As a side note, I find somewhat strange that the most trivial usefulness of a higly supersonic velocity into intercepting an attacking target was not even mentioned: maybe the current situation of one sided use of air power has taken a deep hold in our collective mentality.
In every case , please, let’s back to the core question: the ability of the F-35 to supercruise at 1,2 for a limited time and distancehas a tactical significance? And if someone say yes, please explain me in which cases as the ones you mentioned in your posts clearly refers to whole different velocity and range performances or better said refers to something completely different than supercruise itself.
MarcellogoThat is a very narrow view. Not every potential customers has same practical requirements. It is understandable that USA needs F-35 to be a major strike asset and as such, sacrifices some supersonic performance for range & payload. But not all air forces have similar priorities.
Still I don’t get it.
Is such ability something that was actively sought i.e. there is a precise requirement for it or its just something that was found during the trials and added to the database.
There were several planes able to fly supersonic in military mode (Mirage III, Bac Lighting etc) but it was never considered something relevant as it happened just in clean mode and at an high quote.
Fact is that planes usually are optimized for operating at an higly subsonic or, in very limited cases, into a supersonic cruise mode.
Now 1,2 mach is instead just above transonic velocity, with all related turbulences: to get there F-35 would in every case need to use AB and also when it reach such a velocity it would still operate in a not optimal regime.
So, I repeat again what is, operatively speaking, the rationale of it?
MarcellogoHigh and fast (supersonic) is used to defeat SAMs by causing them to run out of energy before they reach the point of intercept. Use stealth plus random, well-timed changes in course and altitude similar to the maneuvers used by USAAF bombers in WWII to defeat German and Japanese flak. SR-71 used those tactics during 2+ decades of operations to defeat 1000+ intercept attempts.
High and fast =/= from supercruise. Same with supersonic cruise mode and supercruise.
When facing a missile launch one try to reach the highest possible velocity and acceleration, not just to optimize the fuel comsumtion not going into AB.
And face it, even at its maximum possible velocity a F-35 would never able to use such tactics.
Sign In
