FBWThe problem with the TF30 wasn’t only reliability, even if in good working order, the engine was prone to stalls and surges, esp. with careless handling of the throttle.. While less of a problem for a striker like the F-111, it wasn’t really suited for a fighter like the F-14A..
That is the core of the issue with the TF30. It was reliable, when used in the A-7 and F-111. It was not designed to deal witht the rigors of ACM and would shed compressor blades, besides the stalling issue. It was the first turbofan ever fitted to a fighter.
FBWdid they try it with the F100?
I answered that responding to your post above. The F401 and F100 came out of the ATEGG program. The -401 was the USN development from the same program as the F-100 (same core). It had a larger fan, larger afterburner section (16,400lbs/28,090lbs). It was plagued with the same early issues as the -100. So, again the USN tried to find a replacement to the TF30. The F101 was flown in the F-14 early in 1981, not sure why they waited until 1987 to fit the -110, most likely the expense of re-engining an entire fleet.
In short, they did not try the P&W F100, they did try the -401 (which was the USN derived engine from same program). They wouldn’t have attempted to use the USAF -100, as the USAF was having issues with thier -100’s right up until the 1980’s. That would have put the same trouble prone engine in all three major fighters.
FBWwhy they buying in post 2020 block.
Cheaper- Congress is reluctant to allow block buy prior to IOT&E completion.
FBWAlways wondered why they didn’t go with the F100 on the F-14. They could have used the TF-30s for the first prototypes, it was clear that the F-14 was going to suck with it.
Two reasons:
Money
Issues with the P&W F-401 engine. While the F-100 is considered a extremely reliable engine now, it had considerable teething troubles (hence the GE F-110 alternate engine). The original two F-14B prototypes were flown in 1973, and apparently there were considerable issues in flight test. The TF-30’s were not all bad, SFC was low in non-agumented settings giving the F-14 exceptional range (partially offset by the massive SFC in max thrust, one of the reasons why the F-110 powered F-14’s are credited with better CAP loiter time). Those F-14A’s still had probably the most impressive supersonic maneuverability of any 70’s-80’s fighter. The latter F-110 powered F-14A+(B) and D had the wing gloves disabled.
In any case, the F-14 had to wait for the F-110 to meet it’s performance potential. One could argue that the navy could have acted sooner (early 80’s as opposed to ’87-88), but re-engining the F-14A with F-100 derivative was a non-starter in the ’70’s, as they tried it.
FBWThe best method of sniffing radio vaves are dedicated ELINT platforms. They have large recieving antennas to pick up any signals. Of course they would self be picked up due to obvious reason like Size.
The notion that a fighter jet could easily pick up radio vaves and pinpoint geo-location source of origin, then just fire a radar guided missile looks very good on paper advs and PowerPoints.
In reality your MAW would be the first to discover anything, like an incoming missile..
No, it’s not just the “RWR” (a antiquated term considering the capabilities of new systems) that collects signals. The EW suites on aircraft like the F-22/35 have a half dozen embedded apertures, the main AESA array using receive only, linked with the ICP. The concept of federated sensors serving one purpose each with individual processors is no longer valid. Using the F-35’s system as an example (spare the whole love/hate F-35 discussion for another thread), this is an interesting read on integrated avionics:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/JSF-Integrated-Avionics-Par-Excellence_1067.html
FBWpoor india and china, they think they got a multirole aircraft that can carry heavy
I think they are quite aware of the benefits of CAP over a task force and the role of the aircraft carrier in projecting power regardless of the sortie and strike limitations inherent in STOBAR operations. Both the Mig-29K and J-15 are capable of buddy refueling.
FBWIn reason of this boundary I would guess that neither F 16 Block 70 or the Gripen E should be the favorites in this new competition, because there are at least two aspects that can put the single engine and medium fighter as the F 35A/B/C in highly evidence:
- neither F 16 Block 70 or Gripen E has been developed with naval versions that could equip those aircraft carriers from Indian Navy;
- as the main fact would be that F-35 did not attend the MMRCA competition in which the Rafale F3 won the same, but this has been resulted in the cancellation of purchase from 126 to just 36;
It may be as possibility that the new competition could put such new candidate against the FGFA (PAK FA) from HAL, in this case would be the F 35A/B/C as well as a joint venture that could produces the same in India.
After all there are few countries in the world that could afford to conduct a competition between the PAK FA and F 35, and both the US and Russia had been huge interest in winning this supposed competition.
Indian participation in the Pak-Fa (more specifically FGFA) is not contingent on competition in this “make in India” competition. The is no way the F-35 could meet the stringent requirements for this either. This RFI may end up going nowhere considering MoD has the Tejas, FGFA, Mig-29K, and integration of the Rafale all squeezing the budget for the next decade.
Whatever the case, there is no chance for a FGFA/F-35 competition on this proposed “Make in India” fighter initiative. If I had to use a crystal ball, I would say: Gripen makes sense- already purchasing F414 engines for Tejas, F-16 block 70 would face an uphill battle by those who equate “Pakistan= F-16” , despite the new cockpit, radar, IDAS of the proposed block 70. India would be better served bringing in Saab as a consultant on the Tejas as was offered recently.
FBWMercurius changed his story as I already pointed out, that gives him exactly zero credibility, as do his comments dismissing the act of repair as a conspiracy theory.
It’s obvious a plane can change path, hence for LOAL, it must have a datalink period. Why would they not fit one, ask yourself that?
First off, I read that arguement. You did your best to twist his words, he emphatically stated what he saw and was told. Not to mention he is paid to know such details. No one reading that thought that you did anything but make an arguementative fool of yourself.
Really? so even though the umbilical is still feeding target data until launch, your assuming that a datalink is a must? No, it is not. Especially considering the seeker head has such a large FoV. BTW, here is yet another source stating a difference between the CAMM and the ASRAAM is a datalink:
Sea Ceptor uses the external shape of the AIM-132 Advanced Short Range AAM, but has a new radar seeker (and presumably many other internal changes, although MBDA has not talked about them in detail) and a datalink. It is “radar agnostic” but will be paired with the BAE Systems Artisan 3-D radar on British ships. Its 25-nm range should allow it to intercept the notorious Novator 3M-54E before it deploys its rocket-powered kill stage
http://aviationweek.com/awin/mobile-air-defense-missile-options-proliferate
We can keep going with this, but it’s pretty clear you’ve no idea what your talking about.
FBWOh, no mention of data link here either. Must mean no data link right?
No, both Mercurius (who actually has credibility), and the article I posted, stated that the ASRAAM has no data link. You are going by nothing but your opinion and hopes. We have seen you dismiss respected journals and articles written by experts with nothing but your own forlorn beliefs to counter them before. This is tiresome, learn more, make unsupportable claims less.
FBWIt’s been claimed that ASRAAM has no data link, but we don’t really know that. It has made OTS and LOAL shots and that is damn difficult without a data link, especially from 5+km away at low altitude. Think about that in terms of missile ranges at sea level.
We do know, CAMM specifically mentions the 2-way data link, nothing on MBDA or the development of ASRAAM mentions a datalink. Moreover, the planned air launched version of CAMM will revert to IIR, negating ASRAAM.
Not to mention that said launches specifically state the ASRAAM recieves target information prior to launch, the missile predicts location prior to seeker activation. NO DATALINK, we can safely put that to rest:
http://defense-update.com/newscast/0309/asraam_loal_test_130309.html#continue
FBWOne problem though, CAMM >25km, MICA VL, <20km. ASRAAM >25km, not specific. Ignoring the gas turnover system for cold launch (200mm), CAMM is basically the same missile as ASRAAM, and if it can make >25km from a surface launch, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that from a launch at 40,000ft and 600mph it will go a whole sh!tload further. What’s the range of SLAMRAAM or NASAMS BTW, look it up?
Same basic airframe and motor, totally different guidance. CAMM uses command guidance via the datalink before going active, therefore can fly an efficent lead intercept route. Slant range may very well be “in excess of 25km” in those types of intercepts. The seeker head of the ASRAAM is not going to calculate a lead intercept, hence less effcient, period.
Most likely, both can be “in excess of 25km” depending on launch parameters, or conversly much less. No reason to think that MBDA is shading the range of ASRAAM just because CAMM has the same nominal range.
FBWIsnt F-16 also structure limited to 8.5G above Mach 0.65 according to this ? or do i read it wrong ?
9g limit is the last line. You are looking at the top of the chart at corner speed.
FBWan F119 engine provide more thrust dry than an J75 on max a/b, and 30% more on a/b,
F-106 speed is M2.3 with the ole J75, and unrivaled range in spite of pitiful fuel fraction.
A fighter that rival Mig-31 in speed, and rival gripen in agility, and out-ranges both,
has lower rcs then either, with an operational cost far less than an average fighter.
why isnt it mass produced like VW ?
The F-106 had a maximum load factor of 6g (example at 30,000 ft 6g only attainable between 380-410 knots), that is not even close to any fourth gen or many third gen fighters. The range numbers on wiki and on the front page of the F-106 site are total range, not combat radius. Looking at the flight manual, it had a flight radius of around 625nmi on internal fuel, and around 700-750nmi with to 360 gallon tanks (retained) or 900 mmi dropped.This was in a optimal climb cruise profile. In actual combat radius, the USAF sheet lists 417nmi with internal fuel for an area intercept, and 725nmi with external tanks http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/Tech_Performance_Data.pdf. Not exactly amazing range when you consider that modern AtA combat radius figures include combat time.
There is no reason to think that the range would be better with the F119, nor would the maneuverability approach that of the Gripen. The Atlas Cheetah would be similar in layout to an F-106 with canards. It was more maneuverable than the Mirage III or Nesher it was derived from, but no world beater. Making the Delta configuration efficient and agile took the evolution of FBW systems and negative stability.
FBWdoubt it.. they give maximum range, so, the distance it flies, it does it in a straight line
That is not max range. That is a mission profile, not a glossy brocure “combat radius” that everyone likes to quote for thier favorite aircraft. In fact, L-M could have saved themselves a lot of bad publicity by stating “Over 760nmi combat radius”, comesurate with the common misleading manufacturer claims people spout on here.
But, the KPP is a realistic representation of a AtG combat mission, and 625nmi is impressive with a 2 1/2 ton internal weapons load+ combat time.
FBWYes but that still seems like quite a big difference. I also assume (though may be wrong on this) that the mission profile assumes the bombs are dropped halfway through (i.e. on the target), so the Super Hornet is carrying them (and taking the weight and drag penalties) for only half the mission.
For the F-35, is its mission profile for the SAR also assuming some time at low altitude, or is it purely high altitude for the 625 Nmi? I *think* there was something about changing its mission profile a while back to meet the SAR requirements, I’m not sure if this was it.
The USAF mission profile is not entirely clear. It contains some portions at medium altitude, combat time, ingress/egress at mach .9. Probably very similar to the JSM mission profile released from norway:[ATTACH=CONFIG]248744[/ATTACH]
Sign In
