Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Combat Aircraft Comparison stats

This is a discussion on Combat Aircraft Comparison stats within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; This chart is misleading. Too many variables are needed. One thing, you can't go by the thrust values since it ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old July 17th, 2007   #46
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Threads:
This chart is misleading. Too many variables are needed. One thing, you can't go by the thrust values since it is dynamic. You don't know how the engine company acquires it thrust static - uninstalled - value. There are installations losses and air intake ram effect that changes with the airspeed and altitude. at 0 speed and installed, the thrust is LOWER than what is rated.

The empty dry weight changes over there years, in fact, they are higher than what it is cited on the list.

Again so many variables.
JData is offline  
Old August 14th, 2007   #47
Junior Member
Private First Class
kizilsungur's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: İstanbul
Posts: 80
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebMaster View Post
Everyone, please respect this request from gf0012-aust:





Carry on with the feedback.
OK General

Mod edit: Please see the forum rules about posting "one-liner" comments. This is the third one seen recently. Any questions about this policy, please see the forum rules.
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
-Preceptor

Last edited by Preceptor; August 14th, 2007 at 02:46 PM. Reason: One-liner
kizilsungur is offline  
Old January 1st, 2008   #48
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
kay_man's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 287
Threads:
can any1 state in very simple language, where does the su-30 mki , the su37 term inator and the mig-35( claimed as the most agile fighter in the world by the russians) rank in this list.???
kay_man is offline  
Old January 1st, 2008   #49
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
kay_man's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 287
Threads:
u may give reasons for ur opinions ofcourse..

[Mod Edit] I'd like to draw your attention to Rule 18 . . . . http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Your co-operation would be appreciated.

PJI [/Mod edit]

Last edited by swerve; January 1st, 2008 at 12:29 PM.
kay_man is offline  
Old January 25th, 2008   #50
Junior Member
Private First Class
Twister's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 78
Threads:
Cool stats...would be better if comparison on payload, range & ceiling being made??

About Mig 31 aka Foxhound

1. Intercept Role Figther to replace old Mig 25 aka Foxbat.
2. Max speed can reach to 3.0++ Mach (however, engine will gone crazy damage if it's reach that max speed).
3. Equip with latest radar which range around 300km something.
4. Equip with new BVR missile AA-12 Adder
Attached Images
File Type: jpg MiG-31_b.jpg (39.3 KB, 18 views)
Twister is offline  
Old April 10th, 2008   #51
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,007
Threads:
I think these figures are misleading. How could the Su27 be soo underpowered?

Also how is it the JSF's internal fuel load approach the load of Su27?
nevidimka is offline  
Old April 10th, 2008   #52
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
I think these figures are misleading. How could the Su27 be soo underpowered?
Its not soooo underpowered, its T/W ratio isnt that bad. Remember its the 2nd heaviest fighter after the enormous Tomcat therefore its HUGE. Unless they gave it a 3rd engine it wasnt going to get a much better T/W ratio with AL-31 technology. Anyway T/W is only 1 element of kinematic performance, T/D (and intake design) dictates top sprint speed.

Quote:
Also how is it the JSF's internal fuel load approach the load of Su27?
Again that is accurate. Thats one of the bigest advantages of the F-35, the huge internal fuel load. A primary design goal was to carry enough fuel internally so it can do the same job as the F-16 with external fuel. It wouldnt have been much use investing in the whole stealth thing if you had to take big, dragy, RCS compromising external tanks every time you want to do something.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline  
Old April 11th, 2008   #53
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,007
Threads:
I know its T/W ratio is impressive considering its weight, but when compared to the rest of the field, its T/W ratio is poor. Also I hope your right on the other factors determining sprint speed, otherwise It would not be able to keep up to the tail of an F15 in an aerial engagement done long time ago when the Su27 1st came to the US.

I'm still wondering where does the JSF have the space to fill in those fuel tanks to approach the SU27 considering a huge portion of its internal volume is taken up by the internal weapons compartment ans the huge lift fan inside. The Su27 surely has larger internal volume compared to the JSF.
nevidimka is offline  
Old April 11th, 2008   #54
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
I know its T/W ratio is impressive considering its weight, but when compared to the rest of the field, its T/W ratio is poor. Also I hope your right on the other factors determining sprint speed, otherwise It would not be able to keep up to the tail of an F15 in an aerial engagement done long time ago when the Su27 1st came to the US.
Thrust to weight usually determines acceleration and to a large extent climb performance. Top sprint speed is largely dictated by thrust to drag and intake design. Both T/W and T/D are equally improtant.

Quote:
I'm still wondering where does the JSF have the space to fill in those fuel tanks to approach the SU27 considering a huge portion of its internal volume is taken up by the internal weapons compartment ans the huge lift fan inside. The Su27 surely has larger internal volume compared to the JSF.
If you look at the F-35's airframe, notably in the body its actially quite chubby & stout, pluss the blended wing & body provides more room for fuel. You can see the allmost nacelle like tail section that flanks the engine exaust is quite thick. Again its all space to squeese in more fuel for a negilagble increase in drag. Additionally it only has one engine which reduces the space requirement.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg F35_afterburner.jpg (27.5 KB, 42 views)
Ozzy Blizzard is offline  
Old April 11th, 2008   #55
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,007
Threads:
Is there any good read on intake design n placement determining acceleration?

Also on a closer look the JSF does look fat, plus I forgot about it having just 1 engine compared to flankers 2.
nevidimka is offline  
Old April 12th, 2008   #56
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
Is there any good read on intake design n placement determining acceleration?
I know its wiki but it outlines the principles.


"The speed of air entering the compressor of a normal jet engine must be subsonic, even for supersonic aircraft. While this doesn't affect subsonic aircraft, supersonic aircraft face a problem. This is because present design jet engines would be unable to handle the shock waves associated with supersonic airflow, and might be damaged.

Thus, for an aircraft travelling above Mach 1 speed, the airflow must be slowed down to subsonic speeds. In modern jet aircraft, this is done in a variety of ways through design of the Inlet. The complexity of these inlets increases with an increase in top speed. Planes with top speeds over Mach 2 require much more elaborate inlet designs. Thus, most modern aircrafts today rarely exceed the Mach 2 speed, usually limiting their top speed to Mach 1.8-2.0."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sn...personic_Inlet

Some air inlets feature a biconic centrebody to form two conic shock waves, both focused on the lip of the intake. This improves pressure recovery. Some aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter, Mirage III) use a semi-conic centrebody.

Concorde, F-15, Foxbat, A-5 Vigilante use so-called 2D inlets, where the nacelle is rectangular and a flat inlet ramp replaces the dual cones just described. These allow good pressure recovery without spillover through the full range of speeds by matching their angle to the mach angle, but have problems with seals at high speed that is high pressure and temperature (like in a diesel engine). Inlet ramps allow for swept inlet cowls (F-22 Raptor, Joint Strike Fighter) to avoid shocks. They are sealed by viton or a metal sheet bend in direction of the higher pressure. At least one supersonic and one subsonic ramp is used, but for improved seal multiple supersonic ramps can be used. The boundary layer (something which the subsonic pitote inlet avoids by external compression) tends to separate and the smaller boundary layer of the ramp inlet is an advantage compared to the inlet cone. To avoid separation vortex generators are used, which mix the boundary layer with the free flow (or the boundary layer is sucked away through a porous surface, leading to drag). After the fan the hot slow intermixed air is passed by the engine, while the fast cold air is delivered to the engine.

After the engine the comparatively cold bypass air is used as an isolation between the engine exhaust and the walls. Again two ramps can be used to form a variable supersonic nozzle. Often a mirror-symmetric set-up is used with ramps on top and on the bottom.

There is one possibility for a stable, shockless supersonic to subsonic transition. This is used in transonic wings and would ultimately mean to send the air into a looping, forming a vortex: Then the final shock to subsonic speed is oblique with the subsonic region moving from the outside of the vortex to the inside.

Many supersonic aircraft (Eurofighter Typhoon,F-16) dispense with the conical centrebody and employ a simple pitot intake. A detached, strong normal shock appears directly in front of inlet at supersonic flight speeds, which leads to a poor pressure recovery.

Also NASA adds a gap through the whole compressor. Supersonic flow jumps over it by means of ramps, while subsonic flow is able to turn and exit through the gap. In this way a stall is easier to remove [1]. Also there are plans to measure the air in front of the inlet to detect turbulences and adjust the inlet in real-time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone

Basically you usually need a variable intake or something that does the same job to reach high M2+ speed in a conventional jet aircraft, no matter what your thrust to drag ratio is.

Last edited by Ozzy Blizzard; April 12th, 2008 at 12:09 PM.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline  
Old April 17th, 2008   #57
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,007
Threads:
Hey Ozzy, thanks for the read. Btw was wondering what happened to the F16 with DSI demo plane? Why didnt they design new F16's with DSI for export market considering it has advantages in weight saving etc.
nevidimka is offline  
Old August 1st, 2008   #58
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,192
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Yeah, and it weighs about 1 ton... so mini-awacs would be the right description.

I tend to think that the given figures are not too useful. What counts in an air-to-air combat is the package, really, comprising sensor suite, armament, ergonomics and ecm-suite as well. Let alone the capabilities of the pilot, who has to fly, manage weapons, sensors and fight his adversary.

I have no doubt that as a package the F-22 can easily take out any adversary now and in future. BVR sure is the thing that counts these days and I'm sure the F-22 with its sheer power and thrust vectoring is not only good at that And don't tell me that it is a problem the Raptor can't shoot quick enough.
My guess for the second place, however, is the Eurofighter as besides its superior maneuverability connected with carefree handling the captor surely marks the edge of physically scanning radars, the degree of sensor integration (and display!) is enormous, the (yet future) weaponry (ASRAAM, IRIS-R, METEOR) seems to be leading the edge.

I'm not so sure at all about the abilities of the Flanker however. I believe it's capabilities in comparison are wildly exaggerated by its manufacturer and operating air forces like IAF and PLAAF. As there is no doubt that the MKI is the most advanced Flanker variant I will deal with this one:
As I already said in another thread, it basically is a 30 year-old-design and it's stable aerodynamic layout and massive size and weight don't point to extreme agility, do they?
Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times.
So I don't really think it will stand a chance against new generation western designs.

As far as the J-10 is concerned I not only think the avionics are modest at best compared to F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale etc. (not even Pakistan buys chinese radars for their FC-1) but I also think it is underpowered and the structural redesign of the air intake shows that it might be a big step for china's aviation industry but surely isn't a match for decades of experience and design instead of reeengineering and still buying russian planes because of weak performance...

"Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times."



On what basis do you draw this conclusion?
If you compair the F-22 against the Su-30MKI, sure the F-22 has some advantage but bear in mind that the F-22 rely heavy on the support of the AWACS. In fact USAF would never go on a stand alone mission without the AWACS there for support.
So.. The IAF uses AWACS too, then the "battlefield awareness" advantage goes out the window.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html

Last edited by Haavarla; August 1st, 2008 at 04:43 AM. Reason: ...................
Haavarla is offline  
Old August 5th, 2008   #59
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,842
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haavarla View Post
"Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times."



On what basis do you draw this conclusion?
If you compair the F-22 against the Su-30MKI, sure the F-22 has some advantage but bear in mind that the F-22 rely heavy on the support of the AWACS. In fact USAF would never go on a stand alone mission without the AWACS there for support.
So.. The IAF uses AWACS too, then the "battlefield awareness" advantage goes out the window.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html
I think what he meant by that statement is sensor fusion and situational awareness. The integration of various sensor, navigation and comm systems has reached an unparalleled level in platforms like the F-22A, F/A-18F BII and Typhoon. These platforms to not simply present data from the various avionics sub systems but fuse said data into an easy and usable picture presented to the pilot through large LCD displays. Now the MKI has been "glassed" with displays provided by Thales, but that does not mean the information management technology is comparable to 5th/4.5th gen Western equivalents. Collecting and collating data from various sub systems and turning it into usable information is not an easy thing to do, and it is an area which has reached a new level of capability in the platforms mentioned above.

What this advance in information management and presentation does is improves the individual pilots awareness of the battle space around him, which goes far beyond providing an AWACS generated target track or intercept vector. As an example, the HMD in the F-35 will show the pilot where every detected threat and friendly is in 3 dimensions, simply by turning his head, even through the floor. The flanker on the other hand will have to stay 'heads down' trying to determine threat vectors if they are not either visible or in front of the aircraft, while managing the radar/RWR. The advantage this provides is significant.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline  
Old August 6th, 2008   #60
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
Haavarla's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,192
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard View Post
I think what he meant by that statement is sensor fusion and situational awareness. The integration of various sensor, navigation and comm systems has reached an unparalleled level in platforms like the F-22A, F/A-18F BII and Typhoon. These platforms to not simply present data from the various avionics sub systems but fuse said data into an easy and usable picture presented to the pilot through large LCD displays. Now the MKI has been "glassed" with displays provided by Thales, but that does not mean the information management technology is comparable to 5th/4.5th gen Western equivalents. Collecting and collating data from various sub systems and turning it into usable information is not an easy thing to do, and it is an area which has reached a new level of capability in the platforms mentioned above.

What this advance in information management and presentation does is improves the individual pilots awareness of the battle space around him, which goes far beyond providing an AWACS generated target track or intercept vector. As an example, the HMD in the F-35 will show the pilot where every detected threat and friendly is in 3 dimensions, simply by turning his head, even through the floor. The flanker on the other hand will have to stay 'heads down' trying to determine threat vectors if they are not either visible or in front of the aircraft, while managing the radar/RWR. The advantage this provides is significant.

Ok, i see your point, but the F-35 isn't operative yet is it? And how many operative scvadron's of F-22 is there today, 3?
How many scvadron's of Thyphoon is there now?
I mean there how upgraded is the rest of the Tornado, F-18, F-16 and F-15e left in service?
If u compair those with the Su-30MKI...
Haavarla is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 PM.