over GThe lock-on range for the seeker is 40 km,
Nice seeker, any pic of it?
over GThe AWACS itself is no cooperative target. It can go high-subsonic, slow-down, direction and height. Equipped with latest sensors and EW-suit and enough installed electric-power to overpower every fighter installed system. All its defenders are aware, that it is the main figure in every Chess-Game or arial-engagement
Well, you know..that is highly speculative from you….i mean you are talking like if the AWACS can do 9gs turns and gor at 1500 km/h…
Not counting that moving an AWACS will turn in a mess the battlefield for it fighter partners…and not counting with the tons of hot coffee over the radar operators pants 😀
Simple minded. Not the range is the issue, but the terminal phase,
But the terminal phase is actually a surprise, they even would not know or detect, is not that they are knowing or recieving the radar signals from 400 kms..you know?, they would detect the missile on their screens at 200-150 kms..and terminal phase (with active radar) should be arround 10kms..
And your argument of stealthy lurking figthers is out of reason.., of course is the stealthy fashion, that fixs everything, no? …
To reach something in 400 km distance, the launch platform has to be high and fast
well, we all know that..so what is ur point?
that chance is slim.
Well, again..is not a figther with TVC’s..even if they are warned , an AWACS is a big and slow target, with a nice radar return , of course they wont reach 100% accuracy…no missile can do that, but 70% is reasonable against such huge target, 2 missiles can ensure destruction
over GWow guys such a much mess in this thread
The AWACS has a detection range of 400 kms,with such long range missile that means the figther dont need to get very inside the coverage area, also defensive figthers are operating pretty well inside that area
Now of course the AWACS can shut down it radar, pasive tactics relaying on enemy energy source wont work, but most likely these missiles will be aided with the Irbis/bars, so even it can use the huge range of these radars for guidance, i find interesting the Irbis, since it movable antenna can let to the plane to maneouvre while keeping it radar over the target
The key is the range, it let to launch the missile avoiding all the swarm near the awacs, stealthy or not…
over GLol 🙂 Let me quote myself:
But the point is FTD and now AFM use the speeds above as the operational F-22 SC speed. Its not that hard to understand :). Cruise conditions – I repeat are not taken in a dive – the temperature and hence the local speed of sound is fairly constant above the 11 km mark at 216.6 K and the F-22 flies clean with probably 26000lb of thrust in each engine. 4000lb + thrust more than an F-15C with P&W F100-P220 turbofans in afterburner. That could potentially et to Mach 2.5 clean.
Dude, research a bit more about efficiency at such speed, structural limits of the fan blades, and the 22’s engine configuration…..
Ok, this topic is about the JSF/GNG, just dropped the bomb on that M1.5 SC EF claim, which i found striking similar to another case..
over GMate the reports as you seem to be mentioning are probably based on the ATF requirements :). Do you know sometimes aircraft actually have the ability to exceed their requirements? 🙂 When the requirements become standard performance specs – stated by operational pilots then I think you can start using them. Do you still believe the Raptor is limited to Mach 1.8 max speed?
No these were not the ATF requirements, these papers were about the 22’s program overview on arround 2006
Why do you have to come in and spoil it all ? The great member doesnt wish to believe what everyone seems to have accepted as a reality but this is his right to do so !!!
well…sorry mate if i dont have the papers at hand, go and research a bit, then…
What i dont like is how easely you guys fall in such claims, is like a fantasy for you, instead to analyse the real margins of the tech ,for example that speed limit is actually an average value and not a specific one
So if a pilot claims he hit M1.7, that means is the operative velocity?, you guys fall too easy on that, with out any criteria, and that propagates in such wild way, that at some point ….becomes a fact
So basically an ignorant -not being offensive- one sided view of an event, with out any serious opinion, becomes a fact, i dont have any problem with the 22’s reaching M20….but that way to handle the information is what i really cant support
And is EXACTLY what is happening with the EF typhoon
over GAll official papers except the Flight Test Data which says mach 1.72
Man, nobody said the 22 can’t hit 1.7 mach, but then again, you will find test data for other planes with excess from their operative margins, that is the reason why such data have never showed on, for example congressional papers
Did technical papers state that the Mig-25 could fly at Mach 3?
I really dont know, but then again what you are talking is the recon version , not the figther one, and find which version is..
And again they are quoting that famous 1.7, which quickly become popular, in a clearly promotional web-page
over GYeah, we all know that, but the technical papers , reports etc, all the official papers tells M1.4-1.6
“today i flew the 22’s at M1.7″…yesterday i did only at M1.3, oh yeah i reached the M1.7 in a dash dive….or ..it was a cold day, nice temperature to fly
“today i flew my F-4 at M2.6”
“today i flew my F-18 at M2”
that happens for all..and why he said “today”
really, guys try to be a bit more serious
Come on..
over GWell, if somebody says that the su-35 can SC….i will give him my answer
If somebody says that the 22’s or EF can do 1.8/1.5 SC, when all official data -even internal one- is between M1.4-1.6 and knowing the origins of the 1.7/1.8 tale ….then i will give him my answer
over GOver G over the years you seem to have become less ‘anti’ towards anything western equipment – but please read what people are saying
Look, if there would be such crazy claims for the eastern equipments as is done for the western equipments, then you would say im anti-eastern…..
At least in open media i find everyday claims with out any minimal reanonability, analysis or technical opinion, if would be a huge quantity of that crap for the rusky equipment, then i would look anti-russian….
over GMan, a mig-29 can hit mach 2.5, an f-111 M2.6, etc…there are margins, and if you are doing a dive, the speed will be higher
for the foxbat the M3 is only for the reccon version, no pylons
over GThe 1.72 figure was a USAF claim, which nobody knows in which flight profile it was, anyway 0.1-0.2 mach is a reasonable margin over the normal speed, LM later pasted that value it in their web-page, and later that figure become pretty popular…nice how these things works…
All interim papers, either from lockheed internal reports or for the congress claims M1.4, M1.6, or “excess M1.5”
said that before and was attacked for it,
hahaha :D, come on…..anyway, we still dont know how the 35A will perform, i would say the B and C versions will be turkeys, but still there is hope for the A
The practical issue i see for that sale, is the carriage for cruiser missiles, the F-35 internal bays are a bit small, yeah some guys will come here with the “but they are designing special weapons for these bays”…yeah, special small weapons, as a strike plane i see a bit dumb the bombing strike capacity against dangerous targets as SAM’s or other highly protected targets (like ships)
Other thing, is due frequencies of search radars, is most likely that such dangerous strikes (if are done alone) would be done at ground/sea level (like etandars against ships, or apaches over radar stations on the gulf war), so how good is the 35 at sea level?, i have read it dont have ground following radar, the NG has?
And then we have the number of missiles issue, 4 not enough for air combat, really i though it was more, so it should be for a full fighter envelopment 2 AIM-9’s and 2 Amraams…..a bit low, sure are not 6 missiles?
over GCounter-balance it with a MiG-23-style belly fin. Moveable.
With your design you wouldn’t fly staight. If for no other reason for the vorteces hitting it askew.
Do no tail at all. And no canards.
maybe , maybe not, i mean, is possible, that with such solution you will have some kind of rotation/roll effect on the airframe
over Gfunny, funny, funny, M1.5 SC for the EF, M1.8 SC for the 22’s…while official papers keeps the speed for the raptor at M1.6 (even at lower speeds), while i dont know the precise velocity for the EF, but pretty sure is not M1.5 (M1.2 would be more exactly) but of course isolated tests (in which the flight profile is not given in detail -read, diving, special maneouvres,or just a lucky day etc..or the classic…a media mistake) are more important to evaluate the planes performance, such claims have just turned the f-22’s performance…a bunch of non official wisperings…..same goes for the EF…ohh the magic of marketing mixed with politics the media and the fanboish…beautiful…
Now every damned raptor’s lucky day (or even could be a confusion with SC with max. speed) is widely promoted in the media
What is next M3’s raptors?
The funny thing is that exactly the same is happening with the EF…which is next to a batch cut..coincidence?..i dont think so
over GThe question is about the aerodynamics of a single canted asymmetrical tail fin.
Is obvious that you will have a disbalance at even low AoA
On straight line flight it will have an unbalanced stability because the vector is moved to one side, so basically is a mess…
although you can also try a “cranked” fin with a profile like an “S” or an “>”, so you can counterbalance the forces….it could be practical if is well designed, considering the momentum differences ,the upper zone will have more momentum..obviously the solution is not simple, but is possible
I have seen planes with their horrible conformal fuel tanks…if that works, why the “cranked” fin would not work?…..
over GI remember talking with one friend about that issue (for fun only)
Some solutions to evaluate..
1-a whole movable fin (not very practical)
2-to try to design a smaller fin with the redistribution of it area and perimetre (larger fin area farther from the fuselage as in the AA-10 fins)
3-the opposite of (2), ending with some kind of low profile tail…bad for high AoA control
And the best of the best….bend the wingtips downward, removing the tail, but for that you should need some king of dogtooth,is a weird design, is not so simple as you can figure at first, and is not easy as saying “bend the wing” because you will get some aerodynamic problems (althought these problems could be just solved with some kind of hole/slot in the bended wing joint area)
But as franc said it depends in the wave’s angle of incidence
Forget about FBW, it doesn’t solve the real problems
Sign In
