FBWA RF mission is usually made of 20-25 adversaries: not only aircraft, but also ground-to-air threats, moving and unknown threats etc. In other words, the old fixed scenario has become much more “dynamic” requiring a real-time “combat battlefield” coordinator.
FBWNothing such as ,axcellent persistence, F-35 weren’t the best of blue force duri ng that very exercise… (Rafale were first in last out).
Well, let’s look at pictures of the aircraft taking off. What do you notice? Do you think it is at all possible that their loadout was dictated by mission?
Here is the video of the takeoff on one of the days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL4HDDtu5sQ
Three EFT certainly aids in persistence.
FBWI was told that defense-aerospace was French, which is why they tend to slag off Typhoon and the F35.
De Briganti’s offices are in Paris (technically Neuilly Sur Seine) .
The advertising and downloads on the site are telling. The Dassault full color brochures, ads, archived Fox three magazines leave little doubt where his bread is buttered.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/
FBWReally? Someone should inform Galileo and Beidou.
FBWIt is again expected to double to 500+ Million R&D investment in FY19 and will top a $ 1 Billion by FY20. That is $ 4 Billion + in development that the USAF would have managed to do for this program before the Budget Caps (BCA) expire in FY22 (provided they stick to the plan outlined with this budget) which should allow for greater flexibility in increasing funding (no 60 vote senate threshold for exceeding BCA for example). They’ve also once again confirmed that demonstrative prototypes are part of the program as had been claimed by Frank Kendall previously.
The funding allocated is surprising. The B-21 which one would assume is closer to production only saw a 700 million dollar increase in the budget request. Makes one wonder if long lead items (like the engines) for a demonstrator are being funded in 2018-19 with that jump.
Not a significant amount of funding for the Air Dominance air to air weapon, that is disappointing.
FBWFY2018 budget docs are starting to drop (USN dropped but not USAF, prices in RecFlyaway):
http://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/P…Year-2018.aspxF-35B 20 @ $110.3 mil = 7.6% drop from last year
F-35C 4 @ $108 mil = 8.8% drop from last yearUSAF: http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Budget/Air-F … dget-FY18/
F-35A: 46 ordered with a REC Flyaway of $92.1 mil, a 5.3% drop from last year’s order of 48.
Spuds post was lost in the noise. No boost for F-35A FY2018. The partner nations and FMS numbers make up a significant proportion of F-35 purchases the next few years. Been reading through the budget request, some interesting items (post over in Not- F-35 thread)
FBWInitial contribution of Bring-it-on and Haavarla set a very high standard and everyone there with some exceptions (guess who) proved able to walk this way.
The discussion has been civil and unnecessary. Haavarla is making assumptions. Regardless of your personal feelings, there are those who post based on what they know, and what they research, and those who post based on what they think. You may not like me or my posts, but that really isn’t relevant. If I see something that runs contrary to the what information is available, I will respond to it. It isn’t personal, I don’t know you (I’m sure your a fine person) I may disagree with your views. If you have information to the contrary then share. Seems to me to be the point of a forum such as this. Wouldn’t be a very stimulating place if everyone shared the same opinions or didn’t post information and articles to add to discussions. Even contentious discussions can be interesting and informative.
To go back to the original point (which seems laborious considering most everyone is in agreement), the F-15E is capable of representing a threat such as the Su-35S. Haavarla’s argument was two parts:
The Su-35S is more powerful than the F-15E (thrust to weight). I posted the numbers to show this isn’t true.
The F-15E has an operating empty weight of 33,500 lbs w/out CFT and 37,500 lbs with CFT according to the 1993 flight manual (OEW includes flight crew, etc so it’s a bit higher than manufacturer’s numbers for empty weight), it has 58,320 lbs of thrust (-229 engine). That is an empty thrust to weight ratio of 1.74 w/out CFT, and 1.55 with CFT.
The Su-35S figures are less exact but the empty weight is listed as ~40,560 in a variety of sources with ~63,800 lbs thrust. That gives a rough (empty) thrust to weight ratio of 1.57.
So, based on the available numbers how would you rate his assessment that the Su-35S has a greater thrust to weight ratio? (we will examine his other contention about maneuverability below)
Said so. the F-15E is a strike plane itself, with CFT on its performances get a serious degradation when compared to a clean F-15D, more drag, way less reduced maximum speed (I think that something have been posted about it being limited to M 1,6/1,7 with them on), a way greater wing load ratio and so on.
Now, I have never heard of an F-15E going around without its CFT, also because their A2G pylons are connected to them, so I just assume that even in those exercises it went in its standard configuration.
Obviously, if someone has proof of the contrary, absolutely welcomed.
So now let’s look at the numbers of the F-15E with and without CFT. A clean F-15E (at 43,600lbs) will accelerate from mach .8 to mach 1.2 in 16 seconds at 10,000 feet. An F-15E with CFT (55,600 lbs) will accelerate from .8 to mach 1.2 in about 30 seconds and that is with 12,000 lbs more weight. To give you a comparison, adding 4 Aim-7 (which are carried semi-recessed) at a gross weight of 46,400 lbs slows acceleration from mach .8 to 1.2 to 18 seconds (now consider a fully fueled F-15E without CFT weighs over 47,000 lbs). In other words, weight has a great impact on level flight acceleration, as does drag (the CFT add drag, but so does any external store). The difference in Vmax is about .3 mach (just under mach 2 for a CFT equipped aircraft to mach 2.3 clean).
For turning, the clean F-15E will sustain 7.5g at 10,000 feet (40,000 lbs), the CFT F-15E will sustain 5.9g at 10,000 feet (50,000lbs). The F-15E with four missiles (42,000lbs) will sustain 6g at 10,000 feet.
It is hardly a serious performance degradation, the combination of added weight of a CFT with fuel and drag have a modest impact on performance (though acceleration and vmax are obviously impacted by the added drag). The CFT themselves which have a DI of 20.1 on the F-15E (a single Aim-120 with pylon on a wing station has a DI of 3.4)
l, even a F-15C has several issues in confronting with a baseline Flanker when it came to aerial combat and surely the Su-35 is just another league when compared to a Su-27 also, not just to American 4 gen hardware.
IMHO even for a Typhoon i.e. the best Western 4,5 gen planes when it came to aerial combat would have a very hard task to cope with the 3D TVC ecquipped Su-35S, so let’s image a standard configuration F-15E.
Again, this has been beaten to death over the years. The F-15C has inferior instantaneous turn performance below mach 1, they are roughly comparable in sustained turn performance in the transonic, the F-15 in slightly superior in sustained turn performance above mach 1. Generation 4, 4.5, 5, really does not matter. The numbers do. In traditional maneuverability metrics the Su-35S isn’t going to be much different than the Su-27 (based on lift, drag, thrust, weight). It has the same wing area, likely similar drag, greater thrust and greater weight. The sustained turn performance may not be improved at all. It will have greatly improved agility in the left side of the envelope due to TVC, shift of C.G. aft etc. Likely bettering the instantaneous turn performance, pitch, roll, yaw rates of the Su-27.
Whether you want to believe it or not, there likely isn’t much difference between any of the following: F-16, -15, -27, -35, Rafale, Typhoon, F-22, Su-35S at the traditional dogfighting speeds in the transonic (superiority measured at the traditional 2 degrees per second turn advantage) as that’s where the fourth generation aircraft were designed to maneuver. The differences lie in the left side of the performance envelope( low speed/high AoA, post-stall, yaw rates) and on the right side meaning supersonic performance.
Take the F-22 and our F-15E. The F-22 accelerates from mach .8 to mach 1.5 in 52.4 seconds at 30,000 feet, the F-15E does it in around 60 seconds. Turn performance? The F-22 will sustain 3.7g at mach .8 30,000 feet, the F-15E around 3.2g. And the F-15C numbers are even closer. Does that mean that the F-22 and F-15C/E are the same? No, the F-22 has vastly superior supersonic performance and turn rates, far superior in the agility metrics like pitch, yaw, roll rate, likely superior instantaneous turn performance at most any speed. What is does mean is that at the speeds the F-15 was designed for, they are a close match in traditional maneuverability metrics and acceleration.
To summarize, when talking about the exercises where the F-15E is representing an advanced threat, it has the performance to do so at those transonic speeds that most exercises representing likely combat scenarios take place. It would not be able to accurately represent an Su-35S at slow speeds (or exactly match turn rates), nor a Typhoon at supersonic speeds (for example). The areas where the Su-35S would be greatly superior to the F-15E are in parts of the flight envelope unlikely to be a factor in exercises like Atlantic Trident. It is the analogous capability as a weapon system that matters.
FBWThis isn’t about which jet has a marginal advantage in which part of their flight envelope. The F-15E is a state of the art fighter, broadly comparable to the Su-35. It will have advantages under some circumstances and disadvantages under others.
This should be readily apparent. The actual envelope does not have to be exact to simulate an adversary. It becomes a debate when belief runs contrary to empirical evidence. No one has said the F-15E is as agile as the Su-35S, doesn’t have to be in order to portray the capabilities.
FBWAh yes.. again the assumption that US fly F-15E without CFT at Red Flag.. any source of that?
They could. You seem to think that there is some massive performance difference between the two, if the F-15E was somehow lacking they could slick it off to represent a more powerful fighter. Even adding 1.8 tonnes to the F-15E for the CFT, the numbers don’t show the disparity you seem to assume.
The differences between the F-15 and Su-27 show each with an advantage in various parts of their respective envelopes. The F-15E and Su-35S are both heavier and more powerful than their predessors. I would expect the Su-35S to have a significant advantage on the left side of the flight envelope (especially low speed /high AoA). The Su-35 isn’t going to offer improved sustained turn rates over the Su-27. In other words, where is this massive superiority that precludes the F-15E from representing the Su-35S?
Do you really think a few degrees turn rate at certain parts of the envelope (greatly predicated on weights) makes the F-15E a poor analogue for the Su-35? You’ve not been paying attention to analysis of flight manuals and modeling presented on this forum over the years.
FBWwhat F-15 pilots do, they rely on their good acceleration, climbing and high thrust/speed when turning.
But against an Flanker you can’t accelerate around it, cause the Flanker, especial Su-35S has a tremendous T/W ratio. And you can’t out turn it
Of which none of this has to do with an F-15E representing an Su-35 (or other high end threat) in exercises. Even IF an exercise was focused on ACM, the F-15E would be able to represent an Su-35 in most areas of the flight envelope, the slight advantages or differences between the two aren’t significant enough to discount their relatively analogous capabilities in ACM. In most exercises, ACM is not the focus and the F-15E’s capabilities can be artificially augmented or handicapped to represent threat aircraft.
Hesitant to offer a rebuttal to your above assumptions, as this isn’t the thread, but some simple numbers for comparison:
Predicated on the accuracy of open source material the Su-35 has an empty weight of 18.4 tonnes and 29,000 kg (284.6kN) thrust
The F-15E (-229) has an OEW of 15.2 tonnes without CFT, and 13,227 kg of thrust x2=26,454 (259.4kN)
(edit- in converting for the 90% that use metric, I originally forgot to multiply by 2).
Obviously one can play with fuel loads and configurations to make one appear superior to the other. The bottom line is obvious- Su-35S does not have a thrust to weight advantage, on the contrary, it would appear the opposite is true.
FBWOf course they would have a much steeper learning curve. LO is no magic dust, principles are known, computing power is excessively available, tolerances are being kept much tighter in other industries without any problems.. it’s only a bunch of wannabe fanboys who love to think otherwise because it suits their narrative..
Those fanboys….. almost as annoying and delusional as those that think that there is nothing difficult about designing and building LO aircraft. That takes a special type of wishful thinking in view of the literature, research, and current examples of technical challenges faced by nations trying to build their first LO aircraft.
FBWHuh? So SAAB or Dassault do not have experience building a fully functional airframe with associated radar or EW? And they do not have decades of feedback from Air Force maintenance crews?
On LO aircraft? No, they don’t. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, Stealth aircraft aren’t designed, built, or maintained like legacy aircraft:
1. Avionics systems- The antenna have to be both: embedded into the airframe while not compromising structural strength or function. Usually placed in leading or trailing edges, which present thermal and signature issues. Every leading edge has to incorporate RAS as well. (Recall the modification to the F-22’s wingtip from YF to EMD). Even now, the F-22 is going to undergo “update 6” in order to replace the embedded antennas-
New antennas have to be first constructed. They will be retrofitted onto the airplane. Because of the stealth configuration putting, antennas on is difficult and time consuming,” Cottam said.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/03/14/f22.aspx
This isn’t even going into the complexity of datalinks, radar emissions, etc that are monitored by the CPU/ICP to lower the probability of detection.
2. Thermal challenges- A major issue is building a LO aircraft with sufficient cooling. The current use of fuel and circulation has reached practical limits in the F-22 and F-35. You simply can’t throw a ram air heat exchanger on. There are maybe three or four manufacturers with experience developing solutions to thermal management on LO aircraft.
3. No one outside of the US has feedback employing LO aircraft for decades and the unique challenges for ground crews, maintenance. There are new methods, materials, seals, developed all the time to allow ease of access and repair. If you think that Saab would “easily” develop the proper coatings and seals. That isn’t even discussing the specific tools developed over years of learning to manufacture aircraft with LO coatings. http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/skinning-the-f-35-fighter
It isn’t about the having a sufficient technological base. Given the funding, Dassault, Saab. etc could design an LO fighter, and build a prototype (and in the case of Dassault, they have, in the form of UCAV).
The actual process of mass production, fielding it, and supporting it in operation would require acquiring expertise they don’t have yet. In either case, they would likely partner with a corporation that does have experience.
FBWExperience with stealth? Exactly what experience it is?
Experience building a fully functional LO airframe with associated radar, EW, Comms, and propulsion. Experience with production of LO aircraft and the associated tolerances, decades of feedback from maintenance and ground crew on how to improve access points, tools, processes.
Basically, all the relevant steps needed to turn a 3D computer model or testing mockup into an operational aircraft. Most any defense aerospace firm could design a LO fighter. As recent history has shown, turning that design or prototype into a fighter aircraft is a slow process of learning by experience.
FBWMaybe because in all my post I have said the same thing that you?
And in the most neutral and anodine language that I can find, and you accused me “to just confirm my personal bias” iif this is not getting persoNal, man I didn’t know what it can be.
I read your posts and attempted to understand what you were saying. I came to the same conclusion Loke did, yet you chose to take offense to my response. I apologize if I interpreted your posts incorrectly, but nowhere did I try to offend. “Confirmation bias” does not mean your personal bias. It refers to searching/interpreting information to support your beliefs. I don’t think I misconstrued your beliefs on the value of the recent exercises.
just permitted myself to publish a clearly ironic post (I have also erased a part of it, where I said that such a duel thing could interest just armchair generals like us and maybe the production firms) and you not just missed it completely but use it for a frantic tirade , putting your own though on my account.
So, sorry for being Human and sometimes reacting on the spur of the moment but yes, you totally misunderstood me.
Nothing in my response approached a tirade (your emotionally charged response did). Again, I realize that English is not your primary language and perhaps the meaning of your post was lost in translation. I apologize if my understanding of your posts was incorrect, BUT I don’t think your response was warranted.
Without drawing this out- P.M. me if you want to discuss this further.
FBW@hops- still amazed how pointing out that his opinions just aren’t reflected by the actual exercises was offensive. Loke said the same thing.
In any case, good article from AFM (posted over at f-16.net by spazinbad):
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/May%202017/Turning-Points-Convinced-Bogdan-F-35-Would-Succeed.aspx
Not sure the F-35 program would have succeeded without Bogdan, he might have been the turning point. Venlet just didn’t grasp the urgency or PR nightmare looming. He was like the befuddled police officer waving people by a train wreck, “move along, nothing to see here”.
Edit- not entirely fair to characterize Venlet that way, he helped turn the program around. He just didn’t have the charisma or ability for straight talk Bogdan did. Program went off the rails under Heinz and predecessors.
Sign In
