AA finally, good post, now we are talking. This is along the lines of what I am trying to say, I think you’ll catch my drift. The opposite side to this is that the missile has figured out how exactly it will hit the ship. Unfortunately even if the ships computers have figured out where the incoming is likely to be based on current course and missile characteristics this is still a guess, educated but guess nonetheless. There is a number of ways the incoming may alter direction to get to the same point in 3D space (your excellent diagram is 2D, excluding a multitude of close equally valid trajectories the missile may have pre-chosen) without violating its kinematics. Even if the ships computers have software clever enough to figure all out the ship would need to realistically put up more than one projectiles to cover for these (if at all possible) which means that you again arrive at a finite number where saturation and therefore impact is extremely likely. We are far from 100 missiles here, I believe for a tico class that would be about 14-16 missiles to assure a hit even if the ships missiles achieve near perfect hit ratios, safe also to assume that not all ships have tico class capabilities hence safe to assume for other ships will be more vulnerable.

Just to add to his point, here’s an interesting clip of a YJ-18:

Internal AAMs, obviously carried for reasons of stealth and supersonic cruise. Or because someone was worried that the newfangled AAMs wouldn’t stand the external environment.

They look like AIM-4s, so they may as well have left them back at base. 50% chance they won’t leave the rails, and 91% chance they’ll miss if they do.

Quite on the contrary, this is exactly what the JSF was meant to be.. single-engined, light, affordable stealth fighter, with procurement cost comparable to advanced versions of F-16 and operating cost >20% less.

What are the client states getting? A single-engined stealthy fighter, yes.. but in the weight class of Super Hornet and price class above advanced F-15E. 1-to-1 capability comparison gets unimportant when the whole force gets on the very edge of operability due to limited number of airframes available for the given budget.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Look at the continental European NATO operators and the jet fighters they have operated:
Norway – F-16, F-5, F-104, F-86, F-84, DH-115
Denmark – F-16, J-35, F-104, F-100, F-86, F-84, Hunter, Meteor
Netherlands – F-16, F-5, F-104, Hunter, Sea Hawk, F-86, F-84, Meteor
Belgium – F-16, Mirage 5, F-104, Hunter, F-84, Meteor
Portugal – F-16, A-7, G-91, T-38, F-84
Italy – Typhoon, Tornado IDS/ADV, F-16, AMX, G-91, AV-8B, F-104, DH-100/113, F-84
Greece – F-16, F-5, F-4, A-7, F-104, F-102, Mirage 2000, Mirage F1, F-86, F-84
Spain – Typhoon, F-18, F-5, F-104, F-4, Mirage F1, Mirage III, AV-8, F-86

In Europe there has always been a very clear emphasis on lightweight fighters with primary A-A role (preferably single-engined). Only Spain, Italy and Greece have ever operated medium-weight designs in the past and even those always complemented by leight-weight fighters. Now, suddenly, all these forces should switch to super-expensive 25-ton class strikers as the backbone of their fleets? And what for? To get unnecessary stealth interdiction capability at the cost of insufficient air defense which is their primary role..

I’m sorry but anyone who thought a state-of-the-art stealth fighter would cost the same as a Gripen E is the sort of person who gives their credit card and bank account number to random cold callers over the phone. Anyone who believes they believed this is also pretty gullible. Even the non-stealth fighters are far more expensive than legacy planes.

The cost of air defence? The F-35 can’t do air defence now? Why do you think that exactly?

Which might lead a more self aware person to wonder how they reached a conclusion 100% at odds with the design teams that created the J-20, J-31, PAK-FA, F-35, F-22, YF-23, X-32… that is to say essentially every clean-slate design to emerge in the last 20ish years. (yes, I am aware that the F-22 and YF-23 emerged earlier.)

Oh, they were all ‘idiots’, only Pierre Sprey knows what’s up.

Yes, if you prioritize stealth, and are willing to pay the price, go for internal weapons and fuel. Just don’t delude yourself that you can also beat a classic multi-role fighter on performance and versatility, let alone cost. When you see the Russians stop building Su-35s

They’ve been building them so slowly it’s difficult to actually tell whether they’ve stopped or not. There are over 4 times as many F-35s as Su-35s and it’s not even officially in service yet and it was a clean slate design rather than an improved Su-27. As for the Su-35, it actually has a similar internal fuel fraction to an F-35A, so clearly the choice isn’t as one-sided as you think wrt drop tanks vs internal fuel.

Can a stealth fighter win on clean performance? Maybe not, but it has the advantage of actually being clean far more of the time and being able to move into a superior position with an energy advantage before the opponent knows it’s there.

RD – No, I can’t “eyeball” the CG any better than anyone else. But I can look at where the wing is, and where the major pieces are, and compare to an F-22 or anything else.

You are correct that stealth requires internal weapons (or some form of conformal carriage, at a different level). This involves a sacrifice of performance at a given size and cost level. Not hard to understand except for dimwit fans.

So after 5 pages of being wrong you’re now changing the argument? As for ‘dimwit fans’, who was it that thought two 426 gal tanks would quadruple the drag of a 50,000lb fighter again, and argued the point for 2-3 pages, bringing up all manner of garbage about eye-balled CoG being the cause of this amazing drag increase?

No – they were simply run at settings not normally cleared for service use, equivalent to 105 – 110% nominal max thrust. Red lined, if you will!

Perhaps your original thought stemmed from the fact that the five or six Vulcans deployed to Ascension were selected for their (standard fitment) Olympus 301 over the earlier B. 2 201/202’s.

Regards,

Frank

I believe I read somewhere that they were originally rated to 20,000lbf but reduced to 18,000lbf and then increased back to 20,000lbf for the raid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Olympus

Olympus Mk 301
(BOl.21) Additional zero stage on LP compressor. 20,000 lbf (89 kN) thrust.[25] Later Vulcan B2 aircraft plus nine earlier aircraft[N 2] retrofitted.[26] Later derated to 18,000 lbf (80 kN) thrust.[27] Restored to original rating for Operation Black Buck.[28]

Does Turkey have an invitation from the Iraqi government for a ground operation though? Don’t forget this is a sovereign country, intervention has to be by consent.

I’m not out of date about typhoon.

Paveway IV has been cleared for some time.

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2013/07/british-eurofighter-typhoons-qualifies.html

Also referenced in AirForces Eurofighter special. Currently EPW II and Paveway IV are cleared. Storm Shadow is next on the cards, followed by Meteor AAM, then Brimstone II, then SPEAR.

First, we know that the aircraft will burn more fuel in the first 110 nm than the average specific range for the mission.

Second, there is no reason for the relationship between the first 110 nm and the second or third 110 nm &c to be linear.

And there is no “theory” here – it’s a question of explaining the numbers as given by the manufacturer. Hanging on to the empty tanks for the balance of a medium-altitude mission would make some difference, but not enough to explain the tiny range increase for c. 20 per cent fuel.

Dude please give it up already. We know that weight on its own has relatively little impact on drag if the form remains unblemished. You get a marginal increase in induced drag, which is roughly proportional to the weight difference. So for a clean aircraft the difference in induced drag from the first drop to the last drop is roughly a 38% reduction, or a 60% increase from last to first depending which way you do it. That averages out at a 19% reduction in induced drag (or a 30% increase). Induced drag is only a small part of overall drag, so the difference in consumption is minimal.

So again this leaves use back at these tiny drop tanks, containing 2,760lb of fuel each, having to nearly quadruple the drag of a 50,000lb aircraft.

20% extra fuel is also incorrect. Two 370 gal tanks contain 4,800lb of fuel, so two 426 gal tanks contain 5,530lbs, which is 30% extra fuel. The tiny range increase is easily explained if you keep the tanks. If average drag is increased by just over 20% because of the drop tanks, then theoretical range based on an internal fuel assumption reduces from 130% to 108%.

30% multiplier for external fuel tank afaik (might be wrong, but i dont think so)

Probably depends on the tank size. With 3 1000L tanks the Typhoon manages 800km more. 3000L is about 4,800lb. 4,800/11,000 = 0.436. 800/2,900 = 0.276. 0.276/0.436 = 0.63 (63%) Each tank contains a fuel weight equal to ~5% of aircraft loaded weight, which is also the case for the 426 gal tanks on the F-35 except there’s only two of them. Maybe it only works out as 30% when you’re carry 2000+L drop tanks on a lighter aircraft.:highly_amused:

.. especially the future clients…

I doubt any future clients believe the F-35 will be cheaper than a small single-engined non-stealth plane like the Gripen. It will however be far more capable. Only non-engineers and people who’ve never been involved in military projects in their life would believe an F-35 was coming out cheaper than a Gripen. It’s like expecting to run an F1 team for less than a Ford Mondeo.