EA/18G Growler

[Aussie Digger]

No F35 is in squadron service either, so i guess we can discount it in the future then? It is designed to supercruize. It was designed for the MiG 114 IIRC. However if it did it would only be in the ballpark of the EF2000 and not the F22 taking drag into account. If these engines put out 40 000lb of thrust a peice (and thats a conservative estimate) whether it counld supercruse or not it would be an outstanding kenetic performer, outclassing any other fighter, apart from the F22, in this respect. And it is in LRIP and should be offered on the flanker market in the next 5-7 years.

Yes and it's superlative range will decrease, the engine time between failure (already a MASSIVE problem with the Su-27/30's, even for users such as India which CAN afford to maintain it's aircraft properly) will increase and it's "superlative" maneuvre performance like all other aircraft with external stores will still remain limited.

Hence the point of SH's performing their airshow routines with external stores attached. Seeing as those you and Dr Kopp etc are so impressed with raw performance, you should at least question why Sukhoi's don't seem to carry any stores when carrying their "astonishing" maneuvres.

ok so were only going to look at the right here and now again are we AD??? Like this second right now. Not tomorow or the day after. How about in 2025??? unless the fighter does not emit enything at all it CAN be detected by ESM. To state that all emisions made by the F35 will be unditectable for the next 30yrs is a great example of best case planing, AGAIN.

Well the F-35 will benefit from an LPI radar, a more advanced EW suite and high levels of "stealth". I guess you're right only the Russians are "preparing for the future"...

Once again you're confusing detection with targetting capability. F-22's are so LO that pilots as recently as Red Flag 07 have been quoted as saying how difficult it is to target F-22 even when they CAN actually see it. Does this suggest anything to you? To me it says that F-22 is stealthy in the IR spectrum as well.

The 10 further years of development and research into these matters, won't assist the F-35 in this regard though will it?

Still looking at this magical 5 to 10 yr timeframe??? Does it make you feel better not to consider fuftre posibilities or threats that might make one worry??? What happens if PLAAF or IAF aquire bases in SE asia??? And with the massive expansion in the PLAAF and IAF going on your quite happy to assume that current tanker capabilities will not significantly increase in a longer timeframe. All Flankers can buddy refuel ( i know this is no substitute for tankers) which eases the load on the tanker fleet, which is increasing in both air forces in the short term, lor alone the long term.

In the current political/strategic situation in SE asia the PLAAF's closest bases would be in Mynmar or Yu Lin NAS. This is a long way from our shores i agree. However peacefull expansion by PLAAF in particular in SE asia is not at all unlikely. Whether you like to think about it or not we will be looking at a multipolar world in 20 yrs. And althout the US might still be able to defeat any other nation in battle, many nations will be looking toward PROC as a major political, economic and military ally, and bases in SE asia that can be used by PLAAF, that are much closer than Yu Lin, have to be planed for in the future. To simply discount this posibility because it is not likely in the strategic climate we find ourselves in today is yet annother example of short sighted thinking and best case planing.

Have you forgotten that article I already posted about the planned AND FUNDED AND IN DEVELOPMENT for the SH? Have you forgotten about the enhanced performance or reliability engines for SH , have you forgotten about Boeing's "Block III" SH variant that it is developing?

Are you unaware of the Block upgrade program that is already planned for F-35?

The West and RAAF ARE aware of developing threats. Our combat aircraft ARE funded for regular upgrades that they expect to meet these threats with. Thinking otherwise ignores reality.

Why is it that in any future scenario the threat nations will allways be using current capabilities such as the IAF's "3x IL 76" tankers, when we are using AIM120D, Wedgetail and F35? You really are unwilling to consider anything that can not accuratly be predicted, ie outside of a 5 to 10 yr timeframe.

Wedgetail and AIM-120D WILL be in-service in less than 5 years and F-35 might be (it is projected to be). A Chinese carrier will NOT be, nor am I aware of Chinese plans to build airbases within strike range of Australia.

Can you point to ANY evidence that indicates they have ANY intention to whatsoever?

RAAF would no doubt be glad to see it, because they're obviously unaware of it, right?

 

[Aussie Digger]

But the $20bn we are spending on the primary platform for the RAAF (the primary defencive arm) can not simply be undone. That platform will be the mainstay of the RAAF even if spending increases due to incresing threats, so the choice of platform is seperate from future spending increases. The quote you were refering to was adressing the tendency of some members to dismiss future threat's because they might not happen.

What $20bn is this? NACC has a project budget of $15.5bn. Don't you want to discuss "facts".

This is the most likely scenario i agree. However this could be said for the rest of the ADF. We can not however mould our force structure around that assumption. The defence of australia or indipendant action has to be the primary consideration.

So an SH or F-35 don't have utility in both roles?

If the F22 becomes available at around the time of the (hopefull) F18F retirement in around 2020, I would be very very supportive of its choice over the 4th squadron of F35's. If however the F35 becomes too expensive and we end up with a 50-50 mix or in the worst case, if project Archangel sucseeds, we may find ourself with 4 squadrons of SH's. This would be a very bad thing IMO.

What APA don't point out is that if no further orders emerge for USAF, the F-22 production line will likely close in 2010.

Gonna be a mite expensive to start it up in 2020...

An expansion in the RAAF to 5 or more squadrons, especially when equiped with 5th gen variants, is very unlikely unless we are at war ore are direcly threatened, due to the masive cost. In any other scenario apart from a slow build up to a major regional war we will have to fight with what we have. So what we choose to equip orselves with is of real, long term importance.

As a matter of fact, long term we are likely to operate 4x manned squadrons and several squadrons equipped with unmanned UCAV's. 7x RAAF Squadrons is not out of the question, according to some who are a bit more knowledgeable about defence acquisitions than most of us...

 

[rjmaz1]

I dont see the drag of a couple of drop tanks and AAMs being as massive as you are arguing. We are talking about engines than put out 80 000lb's or thrust combined.

Yes it is massive. It really affects the speed of the Suhkoi's and will allow the F-35 to travel quite quick for its size.

Have you ever stuck your arm out your car window at 100km/h?

My 5 kilo arm all of a sudden requires the same amount of energy as bench pressing 80kilos. Now imagine 1000km/h your arm would get torn off. The drag is insane!!!

Each of your drop tanks at 1,000km/h would easily require 5,000lb of thrust to sustain speed. If that thrust is not available then the plane will slow down or afterburners will be required.

Big-E will probably be able to give us some numbers on how fast a super Hornet can cruise at with 5 fuel tanks and with no fuel tanks. Would i be correct in assuming 500 knots without tanks and 300 knots with 5 tanks?

I still stand by my comment that even the higher powered suhkoi's will only just manage to reach the speed of the F-35. Current Suhkoi's will infact be slower than the F-35 but still much quicker than the Super Hornet.

 

[Magoo]

At what speed???? At high altitude and low speed i find that statement about the F111 highly unlikely.

It's true. The extra drag of two additional aux tanks would more than offset the amount of fuel that can be carried by those tanks - the only way this would be countered is if you drank them first then punched them off sgraight away - a bit of a waste of aux tanks really. Pigs only deploy with two aux tanks.

The six F-111s that deployed to Red Flag recently flew Amberley-Kwajelin-Hickam-Nellis, all without the aid of A2A refueling.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Yes it is massive. It really affects the speed of the Suhkoi's and will allow the F-35 to travel quite quick for its size.

Have you ever stuck your arm out your car window at 100km/h?

My 5 kilo arm all of a sudden requires the same amount of energy as bench pressing 80kilos. Now imagine 1000km/h your arm would get torn off. The drag is insane!!!

Each of your drop tanks at 1,000km/h would easily require 5,000lb of thrust to sustain speed. If that thrust is not available then the plane will slow down or afterburners will be required.

Big-E will probably be able to give us some numbers on how fast a super Hornet can cruise at with 5 fuel tanks and with no fuel tanks. Would i be correct in assuming 500 knots without tanks and 300 knots with 5 tanks?

I still stand by my comment that even the higher powered suhkoi's will only just manage to reach the speed of the F-35. Current Suhkoi's will infact be slower than the F-35 but still much quicker than the Super Hornet.

I really wonder where you get your numbers from RJMAZ...although i have my suspicions

Although it'd be nice to be able to supercruise around all day, in reality there's only one jet around that can do that, and that aint for sale! The rest is just marketing.

The rest will all pretty much enter a merge situation (if it even gets to that point) at similar speeds (~600kts), and it'll be the one with the superior SA and training who will most likely win the day. Even if all other things were equal, the jet with the ability to turn while maintaining energy (not speed, energy...there's a difference) will likely be able to best control when he engages and when he disengages. With weapons on board, I'd back the SHornet in this scenario. Big_E?

But things aren't going to be equal...

For those interested in looking into the future, both SHornet and F-35 have funded Block upgrade development paths which will keep those jets relevant from a tactical and support viewpoint throughout their service lives. The Sukhois...well, you buy a fleet, and then you're pretty much on your own until Russia decides to do a mid-life upgrade program, plus unless you have a tight government to government relationship with Russia (like Australia, like it or not, does with the US), I imagine the support for those jets in service will also be pretty suspect too.

Stop comparing airplanes on paper guys and look at the real world. Sure, there's probably not an Aussie amongst us that wouldn't like to see a squadron or two of F-22s with kangaroos painted on them, but unless things change politically (on both sides of the pond), it aint gonna happen. Therefore, we've gone with what I believe is the next best, ...actually, the ONLY option, the F-35. And in the meantime, the F/A-18F will provide a good operational transition and learning capability, and potentially the lower of a two-tiered fighter force once the F-35 does arrive.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[knightrider4]

Ea-18g

Speaking of upgrades if the RAAF decide to keep the SH's then it would seem logical to morph them into Growlers I hear its a simple upgrade fro a block 2 Rhino.

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}
but unless things change politically (on both sides of the pond), it aint gonna happen. Therefore, we've gone with what I believe is the next best, ..

Cheers

Magoo

Interestingly there's an Australian federal election sometime 2007 and the US elections are in Nov 2008. The incumbent Australian federal government is currently looking decidely on the nose. I believe the same could be said for the US Republican party as well.

Heck, as we all know, Pigs DO fly!
(Mind you if Uncle Johnny can't wheedle some Raptors from George Dubya then who could?)

rb

 

[alexsa]

Interestingly there's an Australian federal election sometime 2007 and the US elections are in Nov 2008. The incumbent Australian federal government is currently looking decidely on the nose. I believe the same could be said for the US Republican party as well.

Heck, as we all know, Pigs DO fly!
(Mind you if Uncle Johnny can't wheedle some Raptors from George Dubya then who could?)

rb

Don't get too excited the ALP cut defenct to the bone last time they were in and were responisible for underarmed ANZAC's, intial Collins contracts and even initated the Sea Sprite project.

They are great for pollicical grandstanding wihtout putting much thought to it. their comment re more smaller LHD's being a case in point as the systems and crew ahve to duplicated over more hulls making this a much more expensive but less effecitve option.

IF the can buy F-22 you can expect a lot of other projects for disappear and, I would bet, the number would be low.

 

[phreeky]

Without getting into a political debate, but for the purpose of discussing possible future military situations, I don't think there are too many portfolios where the ALP has the same members as last time they were in power (defence included).

I would be interested to hear more details of what "they" would do with our defence force though, prior to an election.

As for the SH purchase, one that is ultimately a replacement for the F-111 (and therefore the discussion of its A2A capabilities seems somewhat irrelevant), from what I've read, and not being a military expert it's all I have to go on, it seems like quite a sensible purchase - in terms of its capabilities, acquisition timeframe, and ability to introduce into service at a rapid rate.

The discussions for the last x number of pages seems to be based on one of:
1) them being a replacement/suppliment to the F/A-18A/Bs currently in service, either generally or whilst undergoing barrel replacement, and the government lying over the reason for their purchase; or
2) the SH remaining in service as a multi-role fighter when the F35 enters service; or
3) the F35 being a failure, and the government buying more SH to result in an all SH fleet

The first option is an interesting one, something I don't personally doubt given the requirement for the barrel replacements.

The second option I somewhat like the idea of, I'm not a fan of a single-type force, especially for the reasons of a grounding of an aircraft type. Additionally for the capability for the SHs to be upgraded to a G variant in the future.

The third option sounds like an ugly situation, however would I be correct in assuming that if a large number of problems arise in the development of the F35, that the aircrafts capabilities in certain areas would be greatly reduced rather than a complete scrap of the design, resulting in a more specialised aircraft?

 

[rjmaz1]

I really wonder where you get your numbers from RJMAZ...although i have my suspicions

Basic physics and fluid dynamics.

If an aircraft in clean config has a top speed without afterburner of 1,000km/h and its maximum dry thrust at that altitude is 30,000lb... then the drag of that aircraft is also 30,000lb.

As drag has an exponential increase with speed then if you add five refueling tanks and its airspeed does drops a third then that suggests the drag of the aircraft has pretty much doubled. In that case that would mean the drag of each dop tank would cosume over 5,000lb of thrust at 1,000km/h.

Very draggy indeed. Thats why the Suhkoi's will never supercruise with weapons. It will most likely sit around Mach 1 in the transonic region. This drag is also why the F-35 will travel faster with less power and will also be able to sit up around Mach 1.

To hammer home how fast the F-35 will be... The F-22 can cruise without afterburners at Mach 1.6 if you comepletely shut one engine its dry thrust will be halved. Does that mean the speed is halved? No drag is expenential so it will travel much quicker than half or Mach 0.8. The F-22 with ONE engine only could cruise at Mach 1.1~1.2.

The F-35 has one engine. Its one engine has more power than the F-22's and the aircraft is smaller and lighter. Even though its not as streamlined Mach 1 at dry thrust is completely realistic. It has such a large fuel fraction and with only one engine consuming that fuel it could sustain Mach 1 for the entire mission. Unlike the F-22 that has the same amount of internal fuel but now shared between two engines so the F-22 will probably travel long distances at transonic speeds not supersonic.

Thats why Carlo Kopp's idea that the F-22 can perform twice as many missions is totally incorrect. At most they could perform 10-20% more missions but we could afford 50% less of them If you allowed the F-22's to cruise around at Mach 1.6 their fuel consumption is now double that of the F-35 so they will have to be refueled twice as often. So the F-22 would require inflight refueling more frequently.

 

[rjmaz1]

As for the SH purchase, one that is ultimately a replacement for the F-111 (and therefore the discussion of its A2A capabilities seems somewhat irrelevant)

Not true at all. Just because its twin seat and the F-111 crew are going to fly them does not mean they are F-111 replacements.

All the missions currently performed by both the F-111 and Classic Hornets have been listed. Originally the Classic Hornets were going to perform all of those missions. As they are so worn out the Super Hornets were needed to help out and share the workload.

Everything i have seen suggests the Super Hornet will be the front line air defence aircraft as well as our front line strike aircraft. The Classic Hornets will be used but will either sit alongside or even behind the Super Hornets.

This allows the Classic Hornets to have their radar's off and just use the information provided by the Super Hornets. The USAF uses this with their AESA equiped F-15's.

As the Super Hornet is so similar to the Classic Hornets im surprised that they didn't add a couple Super Hornets into each Classic Hornet squadron. The Super Hornets will then be the lead aircraft and improve the situtational awareness of all the other Hornets. This is how the USAF has its AESA F-15's sitting inside squadrons of normal F-15's.

 

[phreeky]

Not true at all. Just because its twin seat and the F-111 crew are going to fly them does not mean they are F-111 replacements.

I guess you could always ignore the rest of my post...

"The discussions for the last x number of pages seems to be based on one of:
1) them being a replacement/suppliment to the F/A-18A/Bs currently in service, either generally or whilst undergoing barrel replacement, and the government lying over the reason for their purchase; or
2) the SH remaining in service as a multi-role fighter when the F35 enters service; or
3) the F35 being a failure, and the government buying more SH to result in an all SH fleet"

The government has always stated they are an F-111 replacement, and (as above) I've mentioned this may or may not be true........however it is view of the government, at least publicly, that this is the reason behind their purchase.

To argue this point, you are arguing the governments truth - a much more political issue - and one that completly changes the dynamics of this argument in general.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Not true at all. Just because its twin seat and the F-111 crew are going to fly them does not mean they are F-111 replacements.

All the missions currently performed by both the F-111 and Classic Hornets have been listed. Originally the Classic Hornets were going to perform all of those missions. As they are so worn out the Super Hornets were needed to help out and share the workload.

Everything i have seen suggests the Super Hornet will be the front line air defence aircraft as well as our front line strike aircraft. The Classic Hornets will be used but will either sit alongside or even behind the Super Hornets.

This allows the Classic Hornets to have their radar's off and just use the information provided by the Super Hornets. The USAF uses this with their AESA equiped F-15's.

As the Super Hornet is so similar to the Classic Hornets im surprised that they didn't add a couple Super Hornets into each Classic Hornet squadron. The Super Hornets will then be the lead aircraft and improve the situtational awareness of all the other Hornets. This is how the USAF has its AESA F-15's sitting inside squadrons of normal F-15's.

Operationally they may INDEED do as you suggest, use the AESA and other sensors/datalinks etc to enhance the capacity of the legacy Bugs, whilst letting the Legacy Bugs do the weapons carrying work, however organisationally the SH IS the replacement for the F-111.

It's equipping 1 Sqn (the operational F-111 Sqn) and are to be based at RAAF Amberley...

Can't get much more definitive than that...

 

[Tasman]

Although it'd be nice to be able to supercruise around all day, in reality there's only one jet around that can do that, and that aint for sale! The rest is just marketing.

The rest will all pretty much enter a merge situation (if it even gets to that point) at similar speeds (~600kts), and it'll be the one with the superior SA and training who will most likely win the day. Even if all other things were equal, the jet with the ability to turn while maintaining energy (not speed, energy...there's a difference) will likely be able to best control when he engages and when he disengages. With weapons on board, I'd back the SHornet in this scenario. Big_E?

But things aren't going to be equal...

For those interested in looking into the future, both SHornet and F-35 have funded Block upgrade development paths which will keep those jets relevant from a tactical and support viewpoint throughout their service lives. The Sukhois...well, you buy a fleet, and then you're pretty much on your own until Russia decides to do a mid-life upgrade program, plus unless you have a tight government to government relationship with Russia (like Australia, like it or not, does with the US), I imagine the support for those jets in service will also be pretty suspect too.

Stop comparing airplanes on paper guys and look at the real world. Sure, there's probably not an Aussie amongst us that wouldn't like to see a squadron or two of F-22s with kangaroos painted on them, but unless things change politically (on both sides of the pond), it aint gonna happen. Therefore, we've gone with what I believe is the next best, ...actually, the ONLY option, the F-35. And in the meantime, the F/A-18F will provide a good operational transition and learning capability, and potentially the lower of a two-tiered fighter force once the F-35 does arrive.

Cheers

Magoo

For my money this is one of the most balanced posts that I've seen in this thread and it reinforces the fact that the current option is the best one.

I also think Australia is fortunate to have a program that is actually seeking to replace its present generation of combat aircraft on a one for one basis.

Without getting into a political debate, but for the purpose of discussing possible future military situations, I don't think there are too many portfolios where the ALP has the same members as last time they were in power (defence included).

I would be interested to hear more details of what "they" would do with our defence force though, prior to an election.

I would also be interested to hear what the Labor Party would do in the defence arena rather than what it wouldn't! As alexsa suggests there is not much to be excited about based on past performance.

I think that cancelling the SH contract and scrapping our participation in the JSF program, presumably at some cost both in dollar terms and in terms of our defence relationship with the US and American industry, has the potential to set Australian defence back a decade. The ALP would certainly need to be absolutely certain they could get the F-22 before they eliminate present plans and even then they would need to back up such a force with either the FA-18F or the F-35 for the strike role, given that every month that goes by makes a resurrection of the Evolved F111 concept more difficult. I can't see how they could possibly claim that they could get the F-22 until (and if!) they are actually in government and have negotiated directly with the US government. They would also be negotiating with an American government that would most likely be highly unimpressed with them wanting to walk away from the SH/F-35 program.

As for the SH purchase, one that is ultimately a replacement for the F-111 (and therefore the discussion of its A2A capabilities seems somewhat irrelevant), from what I've read, and not being a military expert it's all I have to go on, it seems like quite a sensible purchase - in terms of its capabilities, acquisition timeframe, and ability to introduce into service at a rapid rate.

The discussions for the last x number of pages seems to be based on one of:
1) them being a replacement/suppliment to the F/A-18A/Bs currently in service, either generally or whilst undergoing barrel replacement, and the government lying over the reason for their purchase; or
2) the SH remaining in service as a multi-role fighter when the F35 enters service; or
3) the F35 being a failure, and the government buying more SH to result in an all SH fleet

The first option is an interesting one, something I don't personally doubt given the requirement for the barrel replacements.

The second option I somewhat like the idea of, I'm not a fan of a single-type force, especially for the reasons of a grounding of an aircraft type. Additionally for the capability for the SHs to be upgraded to a G variant in the future.

The third option sounds like an ugly situation, however would I be correct in assuming that if a large number of problems arise in the development of the F35, that the aircrafts capabilities in certain areas would be greatly reduced rather than a complete scrap of the design, resulting in a more specialised aircraft?

If the F-35 program does fail the F-22 would almost certainly be ordered in enlarged quantities by the USAF and the export situation for allied countries left high and dry by such a failure may well be changed. That would leave the RAAF with the option of a mixed force of F-22s and FA-18F/EA-18Gs.

Another possibility is that if F-22 export restrictions are relaxed down the track and the future strategic situation warrants it there is always an option for a change in direction when the time comes to look at the fourth squadron of the NACC, with F-22s replacing the FA-18Fs.

In the meantime it seems from my observations that the RAAF is obviously very happy with the direction it is taking.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

For my money this is one of the most balanced posts that I've seen in this thread and it reinforces the fact that the current option is the best one.

I also think Australia is fortunate to have a program that is actually seeking to replace its present generation of combat aircraft on a one for one basis.



I would also be interested to hear what the Labor Party would do in the defence arena rather than what it wouldn't! As alexsa suggests there is not much to be excited about based on past performance.

I think that cancelling the SH contract and scrapping our participation in the JSF program, presumably at some cost both in dollar terms and in terms of our defence relationship with the US and American industry, has the potential to set Australian defence back a decade. The ALP would certainly need to be absolutely certain they could get the F-22 before they eliminate present plans and even then they would need to back up such a force with either the FA-18F or the F-35 for the strike role, given that every month that goes by makes a resurrection of the Evolved F111 concept more difficult. I can't see how they could possibly claim that they could get the F-22 until (and if!) they are actually in government and have negotiated directly with the US government. They would also be negotiating with an American government that would most likely be highly unimpressed with them wanting to walk away from the SH/F-35 program.




If the F-35 program does fail the F-22 would almost certainly be ordered in enlarged quantities by the USAF and the export situation for allied countries left high and dry by such a failure may well be changed. That would leave the RAAF with the option of a mixed force of F-22s and FA-18F/EA-18Gs.

Another possibility is that if F-22 export restrictions are relaxed down the track and the future strategic situation warrants it there is always an option for a change in direction when the time comes to look at the fourth squadron of the NACC, with F-22s replacing the FA-18Fs.

In the meantime it seems from my observations that the RAAF is obviously very happy with the direction it is taking.

Cheers

Agreed, I doubt many (except no doubt APA) would doubt the capability of a dual F-22/F-35 force, if it's good enough for USAF, how could it NOT be good enough for Australia?

But again the cost issue raises it's head. The cost of an F-22/F-35 force would exceed even APA's assessment of the cost of our existing plans, and unless Labour can somehow manage to cancel our existing plans without incurring any financial penalty AND convince the US Government to change it's own law, find the money to pay for a AUD$10b + F-22 acquisition AND get them built in the time frame that we need, I don't see how it's going to improve ADF capability...

Not sure even "Bomber" Beazley would like to take on THAT plan and he by far has been the Labour Minister most interested in Defence in recent memory...

 

[Magoo]

Basic physics and fluid dynamics.

If an aircraft in clean config has a top speed without afterburner of 1,000km/h and its maximum dry thrust at that altitude is 30,000lb... then the drag of that aircraft is also 30,000lb.

As drag has an exponential increase with speed then if you add five refueling tanks and its airspeed does drops a third then that suggests the drag of the aircraft has pretty much doubled. In that case that would mean the drag of each dop tank would cosume over 5,000lb of thrust at 1,000km/h.

Very draggy indeed. Thats why the Suhkoi's will never supercruise with weapons. It will most likely sit around Mach 1 in the transonic region. This drag is also why the F-35 will travel faster with less power and will also be able to sit up around Mach 1.

To hammer home how fast the F-35 will be... The F-22 can cruise without afterburners at Mach 1.6 if you comepletely shut one engine its dry thrust will be halved. Does that mean the speed is halved? No drag is expenential so it will travel much quicker than half or Mach 0.8. The F-22 with ONE engine only could cruise at Mach 1.1~1.2.

The F-35 has one engine. Its one engine has more power than the F-22's and the aircraft is smaller and lighter. Even though its not as streamlined Mach 1 at dry thrust is completely realistic. It has such a large fuel fraction and with only one engine consuming that fuel it could sustain Mach 1 for the entire mission. Unlike the F-22 that has the same amount of internal fuel but now shared between two engines so the F-22 will probably travel long distances at transonic speeds not supersonic.

Thats why Carlo Kopp's idea that the F-22 can perform twice as many missions is totally incorrect. At most they could perform 10-20% more missions but we could afford 50% less of them If you allowed the F-22's to cruise around at Mach 1.6 their fuel consumption is now double that of the F-35 so they will have to be refueled twice as often. So the F-22 would require inflight refueling more frequently.

That just about does me...

I failed physics at a high school level, and even I know that your reasoning is totally... bunk! Can someone out there with a better understanding of this stuff help me out here!!!???

Geesh...

Magoo

 

[Grand Danois]

Something like this? Cd is drag coefficient.

http://www.aerorocket.com/VisualCFD/IMAGES/V2CD.gif

Also, airframes and engines can be optimised for a particular flow regime: subsonic; supersonic.

A component of drag is from lift generation. I'd assume it would be fairly constant regardless of speed.

Two bits.

 

[Tasman]

That just about does me...

I failed physics at a high school level, and even I know that your reasoning is totally... bunk! Can someone out there with a better understanding of this stuff help me out here!!!???

Geesh...

Magoo

Me too Magoo - I'm another failed scientist (and would be fighter pilot! ). However, I have great confidence in your knowledge of fighter aircraft and tactics!

Cheers

 

[Occum]

Yep....Total Bunk

That just about does me...

I failed physics at a high school level, and even I know that your reasoning is totally... bunk! Can someone out there with a better understanding of this stuff help me out here!!!???

Geesh...

Magoo

You are right in your assessment - this is total bunk. A good example of presumptive reasoning from an assymetric position in knowledge. The JSF (nor the SH) are designed for sustained or even optimal supersonic flight. Even a cursory look at such things as the aerofoil sections (optimised for mid to high sub sonic flight) and wing sweep angle (< 35 degrees for JSF and <27 degrees for SH) shows this. Citing aeronautical or mathematical terms does not necessarily mean the person doing the citing understands what they mean.

 

[rjmaz1]

Ok some good reading for you guys...

Power
The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by:

Link to formula

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

Now this explains why the Super Hornet is slow.. Why the SU-30 will never supercruise and why the F-35 will be pretty quick for its thrust to weight ratio.

Also a 35 degree wing sweep on the F-35 can easily allow it to cruise at mach 1 effeciently.

The F-22's wing sweep is 42 degrees and it can cruise at Mach 1.6, i dont see how 35 degree's could not allow the F-35 to acheive Mach 1 cruise. Which it does from the reports i've seen.

This is just to show how the Suhkoi has no kinetic advantage at beyond visual range over the F-35