JwcookHmm not too sure,
But I’ve never seen such a detailed breakdown of the MMH/FH before or damage tolerances for individual parts, seem 8 joules is the limit for the Composites.
And the 30 year life cycle costs will have changed now:-
Acquisition = 28%
Operation = 12%
Logistics/Support 60%
There was a reduction being promised of 50% in support costs done with tranche 3A so this would have to be factored in.
I thought it was interesting đ
Cheers
JwcookAnd I can see where their mistakes lie, But I want you to post a few so I can show you where the mistake your making is, no point in showing you others mistakes is there.:)
Cheers
JwcookI bet for every one of those you found 10+ that state Mach 1.5 (but conveniently ignored/disregarded them).
Just show me some and I bet I know where your making the mistake.
JwcookNo USAF/DOD & LM & IT HAS NOT CHANGED!
Of course it hasn’t change – its always been whatever they wanted it to be at the time and that’s something that is set in stone until they change it again.
If its ~M1.5 why do USAF DOD’s LM’s own websites define it as :-
The Raptorâs combination of stealth, integrated avionics, maneuverability and supercruise (supersonic flight without afterburner) gives the F/A-22 “first look, first shot, first kill” capability against any potential enemy aircraft
Supercruise is the F-22A’s ability to remain at supersonic speeds without the use of its afterburner, allowing for faster sustained speeds with lower fuel consumption.
and most damning of all from the USAF in 1991 Smoking gun :-
The Advanced Tactical Fighter will also have the ability to accelerate to, and cruise at, supersonic speeds without having to rely on the extra power of an afterburner. [B]This capability, which the Air Force terms “supercruise,“[/B]greatly increases the time the aircraft can fly at supersonic speeds by minimizing reliance on afterburners, which make inefficient use of fuel.
You say it hasn’t changed, all three that your quoting say it has.. who do I believe???:)
JwcookI think you’ll find the Eurofighter and modern FCS controlled fighters have these design goals:-
Two Load Levels:
Design Limit Load (DLL) = Max. Operational Load in Service
Design Ultimate Load (DUL) = Failure Load of Structural Components
– Ultimate Load: 1.4 x Limit Load for all Load cases controlled by FCS
– Ultimate Load. 1.5 x Limit Load for all load cases not controlled by FCS e.g. undercarriage cases, actuator loads, store attachments etc.
– Requirements:
No structural failure at DUL
No permanent deformation at DLL
Buckling of panels must remain elastic at DLL
No buckling at DUL for items where structural integrity is affected by stability
No buckling up to 110% DLL for items where operational function is affected by stability.
Sources
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADP010772&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://dtas2007.fyper.com/userfiles/file/Paper%2009_Dilger.pdf
FCS controlled fighters can have a lower limit “.1” in this case, however the actual load failure point may be much higher in testing, but good engineers will get it pretty close to pass spec.
Cheers
JwcookSintra – The impression I’m getting is that “Supercruise” is a constant but the “LockheedSuperCruiseMartin” is a variable so you can plug any figure in there you like to get the marketing/fanboy result you want.
Remember complex numbers is all fun and games till someone loses an i.:D
Merry Christmas to All
JwcookI don’t know what so hard to understand, the US has been using terms with the same name and different meanings from the rest of the world for years. examples are:-
Gallon. with the US version being smaller.
Pint. with the US being smaller
Jumper. US its a dress – UK its a woolly top.
Suspenders. US there for trousers -UK there for holding up stockings, Pwoer!
and probably the best example
Beer. with the European version being a cool pleasant drink and the US liquid is something you wouldn’t wash your dog in..
So as long as you know there are two versions of Supercruise then the world can keep revolving.
Remember one is >M1 without reheat.
The other is a variable marketing term that is changed on average every 3 years.
To stop this terrible Supercruise arguement you just have to ask which one your talking about “Supercruise” or “LockheedSuperCruiseMartin”.
Cheers
JwcookNow you’ve done it, muddying the marketing waters with facts..
JwcookIf it is a term they coined, they can define it as they wish i guess. Like I said before they should have applied for a registered trade mark on it.
Supercruiseâ˘
You invent it, you define the parameters and keep the name.
We are talking about Supercruise, not supersonic cruise.
Your talking about LockheedSuperCruiseMartin which is now relegated to the terms like a “smidgen”.
The original (and still the best) Supercruise definition is greater than Mach 1 without Reheat.
Spiffingcruise is M1.2 to M1.5, it says so here:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiffingcruise
Cheers
JwcookI have a proposed solution to hopefully rekindle some of the intelligent posts that I now sadly miss….
I was arguing this 12 years ago, so were unlikely to agree on this thread due to the total confusion between the LM definition and the technical term of the same name.
Of course the LM virtual trademarked:diablo: “Supercruise” has a very precise and technical definition that only applies to the F-22 that makes its future common use unlikely compared to the more inclusive term “Spiffingcruise”.
I would suggest that to avoid confusion that anyone using the LM term Supercruise should Bracketed it with LockheedSuperCruiseMartin to avoid anyone with an IQ thinking it was a technical term with the same name.:eek:
All you have to remember is Spiffingcruise is just as tactically useful, it a game changer and gives the aircraft who can Spiffingcruise a clear advantage, for the pre look, pre shot, pre kill scenarios:D (first lookshotkill is so old now).
Who else is in favour of using Spiffingcruise over the now obsolete term LockheedSuperCruiseMartin
Viola problem solved.
Cheers
JwcookI see your all forgetting “Spiffingcruise” this has been defined as the speed above Mach one a fighter can cruise without Reheat – but just below LM’s strict definition of supercruise which allows only the F-22 to use the term Supercruise.
This is been generally accepted since 1998 when I coined the phrase when replying to Carlo Kopp, unfortunately Splendid cruise and sh1thotcruise have not been generally accepted.
1998 Google groups quote:-
Come on Carlo!, this is getting silly, at what Mach Number do you say
“Yup-its got supercruise!.”,either that or we’re going to have to make
up new words like ‘splendidcruise’ for the low side of 1.3 mach,
‘spiffingcruise’ for the high side!!!!. and ‘sh1thotcruise’ for Mach 2
I now call all those that are heartily fed up with the Supercruise debate to use Spiffingcruise so as to make the word Supercruise redundant as its only applicable to one aircraft.
Cheers
JwcookAn F 22 can go close to 600 Nmile at 1.5M. That’s from A to B of course, not combat radius
Where is this Range x Speed stated? or is it as I suspect its two separate figures.
Cheers
JwcookYes, but they fail to mention the distance the EF is capable of SC-ing. As far only USAF released official figures about the speed and distances for F 22 in SC. How long will EF SC at 1.5M, How long at 1.2M With what load, if any? Don’t you find odd that they are vague about this?
The F-22 is vague too, have you got any references to the f-22 rage vs speed?:(
The Typhoon has been quoted as being able to SC as long as there’s fuel.
The SFC of the ej200 is a known – So using max military the Typhoon is capable of roughly ~30 mins in SC or about ~395 miles (but you would need to dead stick the landing:D.)
Hope that helps.
Cheers
JwcookThe only Mach 1.5 I have seen is that Mach 1.5 is possible with uprated engines (presumably EJ220) & a NON ENGLISH page on ONE Eurofighter webpage. Every other credible source says Mach 1.2 or Mach 1.3.
I have been told the Typhoon could achieve M1.5 without afterburner only if it was low on fuel and running away from the fight – this is on present engines.
Thrust vectoring would achieve a 7% thrust increase and allow M1.4 supercruise operationally, thrust growth engines would also improve the numbers.
see Typhoon Upgrades
AIUI present operational usage is ~M1.1/1.2 at non wartime settings.
Cheers
JwcookBy year-end, Eurofighter partners hope to have integration and cost proposals on two key weapons for the Typhoon, while ongoing work on radar and engine upgrades will conclude about three months later.
Service Release Package (SRP) 14 includes the MBDA Meteor rocket-ramjet-powered air-to-air missile and the Raytheon Paveway IV dual-mode precision-guided bomb. The intent is to have Meteor available in 2014-15 for Euro*fighter partners Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K.
The Eurofighter team and engine consortium Eurojet are also still considering whether to add thrust-vector control (TVC) to the aircraftâs EJ200 turbofan. The latest study was begun in mid-2009 and should be completed in the first quarter of 2010. Costs and a development schedule are part of the work.
On the radar front, Eurofighter officials are looking to couple the AESA with a mechanical steering system, a respositioner, to improve performance; others shun the approach for fear it would compromise reliability. Selex Galileo has already test flown a design in the U.K.; it is believed to be under the British Defense Ministry Advanced Targeting Radar System demonstrator. Its âswashplateâ AESA design is also being developed for the Saab Gripen NG.
The U.K. test item used a comparatively slow repositioner, but Eurofighter officials suggest a more rapidâand therefore more technically demandingâapproach may be required for the Typhoon. This is driven, they argue, by the need to quickly move the antenna array at key points in a beyond-visual-range air-to-air engagement.
In the meantime, development issues with the Eurofighter helmet appear to be resolved. An interim model with a daytime-only capability will be introduced. A night capability will be provided by goggles rather than by helmet-integrated night-vision cameras.
Theres some interesting stuff in there about Supercruse too.
Introducing TVC also would result in 7% more thrust in supercruise, possibly offering performance in the Mach 1.4 region
Cheers
Sign In
