LFIRR would be similar to the Yakhont, Brahmos, ASMP or the US Navy’s ALVRJ etc. Essentially solid fueled booster and liquid fuel for the ramjet. A Solid fueled ducted rocket would be similar to the Meteor, or Cayote that uses solid fuel all around. Advantages of the former approach was the ability to throttle and thereby extend range, which VFDR also enables hence that capability in the Meteor and GQM-163.
Given the HSAD demonstrations, and the ARC’s subsequent acquisition by Aerojet, there is a chance that Raytheon offer something that utilizes a solid IRR using the stack that was pursued for the earlier demonstrations. Challenges would be meeting the program milestone timeframes and staying on cost. Given they own the baseline AARGM – Orbital would naturally be in a much stronger position.
See – https://www.scribd.com/document/324634615/US-Navy-Ramjet-Development
Are you sure there is a solid fuel booster in ASMP-A?
So after all that screaming, crying , finger pointing, that the best you come up with? and you tell me that iam too lazy to read the links? did you read the link i gave at all?
That article has been brought up in the link i posted, not once but many times, i even brought the quote here in the post right above yours. Here is an honorable mentionAgain, i already mentioned this as well, and i even brought the quote here
.
So you gave me hints where to find relevant information even though susch info were mentioned by me already?.
The G limit by FCS is not, in any ways, shapes or forms similar to G limits due to lack of lift. To put it in simple term, when you put weapons on Rafale heavy AG station, the FCS limit the maximum G you allowed to pull from 9G down to 5.4G, and that limit will be there regardless of the altitude where Rafale flying at. But that does not mean the Rafale will generate enough lift to make such turn at all altitude. Why? because air density change with altitude.
Lift = CL * ( v^2 ) * d * A * 0.5
As the d factor change dramatically along with altitude
unless Rafale has a different way of generating lift ( namely anti gravity devices or magic) , it’s maximum g limit will not be the same 5.4G at all altitude.
And it even more nonsense to say such limit is the sustain turn rate limit, because to have a sustain turn, not only the wing-body need to generate enough lift, the engine need to generate enough thrust to counter the drag too.
Moreover, Picard exact statement was : ” In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.
which mean he need to compare them in the same condition which is 15K feet , mach 0.8 . If he take the sustain turn performance of Rafale at sea level then compare it with the F-35 at 15K feet then he is even more of a moron because that would be similar to me compare the speed of the F-35 at 30K feet with speed of the Mig-25 at sea level then declare F-35 is a much faster aircraft .structure G limit isnot the same when different load are used, when the Rafale carry 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles, it won’t be able to turn as hard or roll as hard compare to when it is equipped with only 2 Mica
Did i say ANYTHING opposed to that? Did i endorse Picard’s claims? I just gave a rough idea where to find sources so as to critically (in its scientific meaning) read article. Nothing more nothing less, still you keep flaming me for having claimed things I DID NOT SAY.
Sign In
