TooCool_12fthe F119 weight some 160lbs more than the F100 one… not that much difference, and the thrust they provide dry is similar to the thrust the F100 provide in AB. now, if in AB the F100s can push the eagle up to M2.5, one can wonder how fast the f119 powered eagle may go, don’t you think?
TooCool_12fThe F-15 won`t do like the F-22, it has smaller wings and more clutter in the airframe even the F-15SE won`t be comparable, no stealth and no wing designed specifically to supercruise.
the F-22 diamond cross section also has fuselage-wing blending, the F-15 is more in the line of the MiG-25 a box with wings
I was sure you’d post something like that… 😀
you talk about “how fabulous STR of the F-22 is”, and when someone points out that its engines do the trick to achieve such performance, and another aiframe with same amounts of thrust would do even better, you switch to another area…
now, talking about surpercruise, again, put same engines in the F-15 and it will probably supercruise above M2.0 (it needs full AB to reach levels of thrust the F-22s engines give dry, so, if you want to compare aerodynamic qualities of the both, you’d need to allow the eagle to the same amouint of thrust), and the F-15 is supposed to reach M2.5 on its “weak” engines…
TooCool_12fso? put same engines into an F-15 and it’ll eat the F-22 for lunch
TooCool_12fbetter order a truckload of A-10C or similar version. should be pretty cheap by “fighter aicraft standards”, has a long loiter time, huge firepower and very good resistance in case of being hit.
of course, you’d make lots of people in pentagon, but also in DoD, unhappy since you may prove that there’s one (more?) mission where there is an efficient platform, doing it better and cheaper than the one they envisioned to spend billions and billions perform it… not very well, in the end 😀
TooCool_12fBy the way the MiG-23 was not a dogfighter if you get a F-5 versus Kfir you will see canards are not of much help for the Kfir.
sorry, but comparing fixed canards with movable ones is apples and oranges comparison: useless
TooCool_12f@ obligatory:
when you read:
“Wind tunnel testing and project work on alternative aft tailed configurations had pointed out many advantages for that particular layout, where perhaps range and sustained turn rate were the most noticeable, granted the technological level of that time. “
you underlined “range” and “sustained turn rate”, while there was another interesting part which is “given the technological level of that time”.
what it does say is that for the knowledge of that time it was that way, but isn’t necessarily that way anymore. It’s just like saiying that it was proven in the 1960’s that “engine in front” was proven to be the most efficient way to build a formula 1 given the technological level of that time, and you undeline just the “engine in front” and ” most efficient”, forgetting that technology has advanced since then – which is hinted by the last part (how many F1 racing cars with front engine do you see these days? 😉 )
TooCool_12fwell, can’t search for links now (gotta leave for the good part of the weekend), but while describing the ergonomics of the rafale’s cockpit, the pilots underlined the fact that all sensors are used simultaneously, they data gathered, correlated and presented on a single screen. So, while in other fighters you would select what sensor you want to display on this or that MFD, you would see its picture on that display alone. if you want to have several sensors data at the same time, you would have to use multiple MFDs and then the pilot mentally constructs the whole picture, decides whether the blip on one MFT is the same on the other, etc… In the rafale, it’s the computer that does it all, and then presents a clear tactical picture (or as clear as possible, depending on the situation) without the pilot ever having to wonder what information came from what sensor
TooCool_12fsorry, didn’t see your post
as for SPECTRA, you won’t know exactly what it’s like even in 2040… unless somebody outside france buys the rafale and lets go the specifications. The french are pretty paranoid as far as weapons systems are concerned… and they’ll probably keep the stuff highly classified for decades, even when it’s completely obsolete 😀
as for being more advanced that other “4.5gen”, the level of integration is higher than any other out there from what’s been said (and no pods, it’s all in the airframe), and then, all data are fusioned into a single display so the pilot has a clear picture of his wherabouts without having to wonder what sensor see what… how efficient it really is? from pilot’s comments one can read here and there: very efficient. numbers? none available in public.
TooCool_12fThe LUFTWAFFE experience showed the STR and HMS of the MiG-29 were the decisive factor by the way why are the greeks still buying F-16s if they are not as good?
maybe because they don’t only consider one factor to decide? some other things can be taken into consideration too, like: other missions, price, international relationships, etc…
TooCool_12fsome things were posted here… man, it’s hard to believe…
jessmo,
I hope you do understand that pilots, while training, don’t really shoot at each other, right? The guy is in “training mode” and when he depresses the firing button, only his onboard system tells him he fired, but nothing really goes off, ok? It’s like on a video game. you play against your buddy, shoot at him, but there’s nothing real coming out of your computer… just a few pixels displayed on your screen, ok?
Now, when you do a “passsive shot”, that means that you don’t emit either. From there on, if you don’t emit anything and only on your own screen you have a displayed message that you fired, what would you expect the oposing aircraft to detect?
@ jackjack
about targeting trucks under trees, have you ever witnessed parasites on TV (image/sound) when a motorcycle passes in the street in front of your house? That happens when the firing system (spark plugs, etc) aren’t shielded, because of high voltage produced and that’s necessary to generate the spark. A normal car/motorcycle that is built to actual norms (and is shielded properly) produces no such visible interferences. The chinese or russian trucks from the 1960’s most certainly did not bother about that at the time.
As far as combat aircraft are concerned, the EM emissions are a vital asset to be maintained under control, so you can be certain everything inside is shielded from emitting unnecessarily just as from being disturbed by enemy emissions. They will most certainly be much more discreet on these matters.
@ jessmo:
But you just said you would use jamming to get to the merge?
if you jam you get detected passively if you don’t jam you die?
you don’t need to jam if you detect no threat. So, if the other guys is just listening passively, your jamming will be in stand by mode and won’t emit anything – no detection there. You jam if there’s an emission against you, so either the other guy uses radar (and gives away his position to you) or its missile has gone active and will be immediately jammed by your defense systems and, as far as the missile is concerned, chances are you detected its launch anyway.
what you don’t seem to understand, or rather, don’t want to understand or admit, is that SPECTRA is a very advanced integrated system that is made especially to detect and defeat EM systems that may be used against the rafale. EM missiles like the AMRAAM are one of its targets and, while the USAF did not want to use the radar on the F-22 in order not to allow the french to record its signature, there’s little they can do about the AMRAAM whose signature is most certainly known by the french at this time. Add to that the historically very low kill ratio of A2A missiles (and against targets having no efficient ECM) and you get the picture: if you rely on EM missiles only, against an oponent using an operational advanced ECM suite, you may very well have to face your oponent from much closer than you’re willing to… and if he has some medium range IR missiles and you don’t, you may end up in big trouble pretty fast, stealth or not
TooCool_12fone can add to that that as I posted a bit earlier, that by manouvering out of plane the strict STR becomes irrelevant as the less turning aircraft won’t just sit and turn in circles. There are several ways to overcome lesser turning ability in guns only environment.
Of course, if you add missiles to the game, especially all aspect missiles, and with off-boresight capability to add a bit more “salt”, the whole thing becomes even more complicated… or simple, depending on which side of the missile you are 😀
TooCool_12fand you expect that people expect what you expect them to expect.. right?
Again, I don’t expect anything, I read a document and then think about what’s been written before taking its conclusions for granted.. and if you expect people to take you seriously, you should stop trying to put your ideas into their heads
TooCool_12fso, basically, it could do anything you would want (coffee too?), but it won’t since there’s so small numbers of it bought that it will be barely able to cope with the air superiority thing and forget about the rest?
you say: if a raptor can go against 6-8 times the odds.. well, “if” it can, it’s cool… the question may be whether it will be the case
For now, it has been ordered in such small numbers that it won’t do anything else but A2A ni any forseeable future. It’s the primary (and basically, only) role fo the squadrons equipped with it, and that’s also why it was simply useless in recent wars where it could have been present.
Overall, the US have a fantastic aircraft to protect their airspace, which probably won’t ever be challenged (I have hard time imagining anyone getting near US soil in case of war to attack the USA) and may, eventually, get involved if ever the US atatcked a country having something like an airforce (not very likely, form the way international politics were played in last couple of decades – war comes fast against those who can’t fight, but not so if there’s opposition in front)
TooCool_12fI don’t expect anything… I simply read what’s posted and then think about it.. and when someone presents a publication as “source” while the very author of that publication says in the publication that the hypothesis for his work are “known as not realistic” I have trouble accepting that as “fact” 😉
TooCool_12fAre inaccurate to who does not like them, they are very likely accurate simple because published data for a similar aircraft, the JAS 39 Gripen has 30 deg/s for ITR and 20 deg/s for STR then those figures are believeable since the difference between a Rafale and a Gripen must be in the region of 2 or 3deg/s of course now you want even more, Gordon also gives logical figures for that reason
there’s no such thing as “similar aircraft” when you have to evaluate specific performance further than “with truckload of margin for error”… they may look similar, especially to someone who doesn’t know squad about aircraft, but the profiles, airflows etc are unique to every type.. that results in different lift/drag caracteristics and, combined with engine power (and ability of the engine to remain feeded with fresh air at this or that AoA, etc…), the FCS programming and so on, results in features that you can’t just consider “similar because that other type looks that way too”.
In the end, when the author himself says:
“This is known as not realistic but I don’t have reliable data to differentiate them”
it seems obvious that he puts equal numbers for both aircraft while having no way to know whether they are, actually, anywhere near accurate.
He continues:
“Non confirmed information indicated higher AoA values allowed for the Rafale (Flight envelop of the Typhoon is still not fully open)”
so, again, he shows his calculations, but gives from the beginning the information that he, actually, can’t say whether any result will be accurate, since he has no way to know whether the numbers he starts with are correct.
Now, what part of “I don’t know what my calculations should be based upon” sound like “reliable source” to you?
Sign In
