Forum: F-35 Lightning II

jetblast16 wrote:

Quote:

It's going to be a while before other nations can make a supercruising fighter.

That's true, but it is inevitable IMHO. True, only the F-22A Raptor
has the "known" ability to cruise at speeds beyond Mach 1 on military
power for now at such a high rate. We all know that currently the US
is the strongest military in the world due to its system of systems and
logistics. But the point was, that there are already some jets with
super cruise capability, even when carrying some A2A loads. Trust
me, I fully get the minimal super cruise ability on some 4th gen jets
and how transformational the Raptor is in its ability to fly stealthy at
high altitude and high sustained speeds. Super cruise is really from the
engines, so developing a brand new jet may not be necessary for some
nations or even us on some of our other jets besides the Raptor. Granted,
they still have to carry externally unlike the Raptor.

Sigh...

...it's more than that. There is a lot of technology in the Raptor that allow it to do what it does and nations that can barely keep Mig-29s operational or can figure out how to get WS-10s to work right aren't going to be going IOC with supercruise for another decade AT LEAST and by then we are looking at the FX.

Don't fall for the ECD hype either. Those planes do some cool things re: avionics but truth be told they are in the same family of aircraft as the late model F-teens and won't be supercruising. Just work some SFC calculations and see for yourself. I have rough data on a clean configured Typhoon attempting this and lets just say that if you plan on going far then be prepared to eject rather soon. Add the kind of weight/drag associated with combat configurations and just forget about it.

There are reasons why we use weapons bays. There are reasons why fighters like F-15, F/A-18E and F-22/35 are so big. The legacy fighters have limitations inherent to their designs. Only through very extensive redesign ala Hornet ---> Super Hornet can this be rectified to even make it possible and even then it's a different aircraft.

-DA

-DA

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

Super cruise is really from the engines, so developing a brand new jet may not be necessary for some nations or even us on some of our other jets besides the Raptor.

Actually, DA's got a point there. Supercruise is a really hard thing to do because of drag. The drag of the airplane increases with the square of the speed, so the faster you go, the more force you have pushing back against you (and this increases exponentially). Add external stores and it's going to be awful hard for the a/c to supercruise at all, let alone for significant amounts of time. Even with conformal stores it is difficult. There is a reason the Raptor has been PUBLICLY acknowledged to supercruise at M1.7, and there is rampant speculation that it may go even higher than that. Engine technology is only a part of this: you have to have a very slick airframe and to go that fast you have to have weapon bays. At least with the tech we have now. The Eurofighter ppl overhyped the "supercruise" on their jet, but even they put it at M1.2-3 with minimal A2A weapons. You also have to wonder, how much will this supercruise last? Even the F-22, which was designed from the outset for supercruise, can only do it for 25-30 minutes.

And you won't solve the problem by just making the a/c as slick as possible because then you have to consider its maneuvering potential. Slick a/c of the past (Think SR-71, Thud, Century series interceptors) did not maneuver well because there are design compromises when designing an a/c for speed AND maneuverability. This is a problem the F-22's designers seem to have solved quite well. And even then they felt the need for thrust vectoring. It's not an easy problem.

What does this have to do with the subject matter in this discussion?? Also, let's not forget we are dealing with fixed inlets here, but that's besides the point.

These posts have nothing to do with the subject. Anyway, the F-22A
super cruises because of several factors, including its internal weapons
storage, but the engines are the biggest factor in getting it to cruise
the way it does. Even if you could carry internally, that does not
necessarily mean you can exceed Mach 1 in military power and sustain it.
It's the engines that are the corner stone. Advances in propulsion
, where more core engine thrust is available before "reheating" the
exhaust gas stream makes the biggest difference. Lastly, ALL jets suck gas like there's no tomorrow, so even though a Typhoon can super cruise, it is limited, even like a Raptor, but not by as much.

jetblast16 wrote:

These posts have nothing to do with the subject. Anyway, the F-22A
super cruises because of several factors, including its internal weapons
storage, but the engines are the biggest factor in getting it to cruise
the way it does. Even if you could carry internally, that does not
necessarily mean you can exceed Mach 1 in military power and sustain it.
It's the engines that are the corner stone. Advances in propulsion
, where more core engine thrust is available before "reheating" the
exhaust gas stream makes the biggest difference. Lastly, ALL jets suck gas like there's no tomorrow, so even though a Typhoon can super cruise, it is limited, even like a Raptor, but not by as much.

For Goodness sake Typhoons don't "supercruise" except in marketing nonsense.

-DA

Quote:

Even if you could carry internally, that does not necessarily mean you can exceed Mach 1 in military power and sustain it.

I have read/heard of alot of a/c that could supercruise when clean. F-16s, even the Concorde could do it. Aerodynamics play a huge part in supercruise, if they didn't, most of the 4rth gen a/c could probably do it with the new engines. The fact that they don't with a useful weapons load is proof.

People please, its as simple as TW ratio and aerodynamics. As long as there is something hanging outside the "window" it will be slower, until the window is closed. The concorde "could" do it? LOL Yes of course it could, but its airframe was optimized for this, nothing else. Buts lets get back on the subject matter. WHO IS ELP?? From what I have read so far: USAF brat come USAF photographer come Journalist who despises any delay in the F-35 program because of powerpoint presentations vs. actual timelines of such said program. "Wild Claims, Unproven, 2% flight hours so far vs. what was supposed to be now". As I have said before and will say again, its easy to be a critic when you are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the consequences. IMO ELP is an armchair quaterback who will never be satisfied as he thinks his opinion is best. But yet he is not on the floor engineering this system and simply laying on the worst case scenario to justify his posts. People are usually justified as leaders and followers. Leaders dont't accept the status quo or opinion to lead them forward. So, ELP what are you?? You have yet to lead me forward. I follow those who choose to move forward no matter the difficulties, because that is what is what makes us who we are today. As an ex-pat by the way, I have to question your bias since you obviously have your opinion "APA" opinioned. I have yet to see any country with our resources or drive to accomplish what we have done. Your shortmindedness disappoints me to say the least.

I am not sure where to put this so I will stick it to ELP since he is the one whining about the progress of the program. Interesting article in DoD Buzz. Some excerpts:

Quote:

One of the top Joint Strike Fighter officials outlined the arguments he will present Wednesday to OSD’s Program Analysis and Evaluation office, the Joint Evaluation Team, and the Cost Improvement and Analysis Group about why the program is not an additional two years behind schedule.

Crowley said the program’s software development “has been better than planned” in contrast to the JET’s estimate that it would grow substantially. He pointed to the fact that, although the program is in the early stages of flight testing, they have “never had a jet abort because of software.”

Finally, the issue that probably means the most in terms of pushing the program out of its scheduled envelope, is flight testing. The program projects 12 sorties a month but the JET thinks this is probably too optimistic, Crowley said.

Boil all this down and Crowley said he believes the JET is judging JSF by the false standards of past programs because they don’t have data from programs managed as JSF is being developed and managed. They are being conservative, in effect, because they don’t how else to be until the JSF program proves them wrong.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/29/lockm ... ainst-jet/

It seems to me that not only do people like ELP fail to realize that the weapons and sensors are now more important than absolute performance, they also do not understand that the JSF development program has been planned form the start to be conducted differently than those of the past.

By the standards you gave ELP is no thought leader cywolf32.

Quote:

Finally, the issue that probably means the most in terms of pushing the program out of its scheduled envelope, is flight testing. The program projects 12 sorties a month but the JET thinks this is probably too optimistic, Crowley said.

Wonder why JET deems this too optimistic? 12 Sorties a month doesn't seem like a lot...

ELP wrote:

Yet still real. After long range SAMs are beat down, any other SAM threat is fish in a barrel with today's weapons and ISR. An F-15, F-16, etc can contempt of engage most lower tier SAM threats with JDAM from up high.

WOW! If this is ELP's understanding of SAM systems, it should be enough to discredit him as a reliable source for ANY future air system. "Lower tier" systems are still extremely capable against 4th Gen fighters. Take for example the SA-6 (which has a notoriously high rate of success). How do you plan on dropping a GPS bomb on one of these? Are you planning on getting satellite images, generating coordinates from those images, then going out to drop a GPS bomb on it 48 hrs after the images were taken? If you do, you'll most likely make a nice crater where the SA-6 used to be. They make all modern SAMs mobile for a reason, and after Desert Storm most countries have figured out that moving your SAM systems frequently is a must, even if it's only a quarter-mile or so. And if you actually find the SA-6 while it's on the move, how the hell are you going to hit it with a GPS bomb, by magically predicting the coordinates of where it's going to be at your bomb's time of impact? Good luck. Even laser-guided bombs don't make the task of hitting a moving target too much easier. With IAD's acquisition radars sitting hundreds of miles behind the launchers, it's not even required for the launch platform to turn on their radars and let all the HTS pods start sniffing for them. The controllers will simply tell the SA-6 operators when the aircraft is within its engagement zone, and then the SA-6 will quickly turn on their system and have a missile airborne in no time. Just ask pilots who flew in Bosnia how difficult this tactic was to counter. And a HARM vs an SA-6 both launched at the same time...which one do you think is going to get to its target first? I wouldn't want to be the one playing chicken. Further that with the fact that most older systems are receiving upgrades all the time, and are not the same systems that were built in the 60's and 70's.

Hey, guess what the best way to counter this still extremely potent threat is...hmm, did someone say stealth? Yup, you guessed it, which is why the Air Force and its pilots want it so bad.

Tinito_16 wrote:

Sure, right now there is NO sophisticated IADS to penetrate, and there won't be for some time. When that time ends is anybody's guess, which is why we should have the capability.

Take a look at N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and especially China, and then see if you feel that way, unless you feel SA-10s, 20s, and multiple areas of dense, overlapping engagement areas are not sophisticated. Plus, all of these countries are very real potential hot-spots for the U.S. and allied nations.

DarthAmerica wrote:

The Chinese are up and coming but trust me when I tell you that the threat from them is over exaggerated and that they can barely even make military jet engines from the 1970s-1980s era.

If anything the threat from China is under-exaggerated. The military they have now has advanced about 3 decades since the late 90's, and continues to do so at an alarming rate. The J-11 and J-10 are using indiginously produced engines, which are in the high 20s thrust class. They are most certainly capable of producing modern jet engines by any expert's account.

Quote:

If anything the threat from China is under-exaggerated. The military they have now has advanced about 3 decades since the late 90's, and continues to do so at an alarming rate. The J-11 and J-10 are using indiginously produced engines, which are in the high 20s thrust class. They are most certainly capable of producing modern jet engines by any expert's account.

Code3, I agree with you. Their technology has RAPIDLY advanced in recent
times (past 20 years) and will continue to do so. They will produce a
super fighter, its just a matter of time. Why do you think that USAF brass
were so keen on getting as many Raptors as possible for the "future war".
To counter what the Russians and Chinese are now working on.

This whole ELP thing has really evolved into the below:

Tinito_16 wrote:

Quote:

Finally, the issue that probably means the most in terms of pushing the program out of its scheduled envelope, is flight testing. The program projects 12 sorties a month but the JET thinks this is probably too optimistic, Crowley said.

Wonder why JET deems this too optimistic? 12 Sorties a month doesn't seem like a lot...

You have got ZERO work experience on these issues and you aren't an engineer!!! You don't know why any number of sorties is good or bad yet you are championing and argument you clearly don't understand. It kills your credibility and referencing JET is what's called an appeal to authority!

Describe in your words what an acceptable monthly sortie rate would be and why? Include the test plan, issue tracking and resolution? If you can't do that you should not be taking these positions.

-DA

Code3,

You are so out to lunch on this stuff as to be laughable. You are mentioning IAD that don't have weapons you describe and you cap it off by proving you don't know about the PLAAF threat. Seriously most of you need to focus strictly on learning.

-DA

I know this is Wikipedia... but what about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-21_Growler#Deployment

See, for example, the bit about Iran and PLAAF.

[/quote]
Code3, I agree with you. Their technology has RAPIDLY advanced in recent
times (past 20 years) and will continue to do so. They will produce a
super fighter, its just a matter of time. Why do you think that USAF brass
were so keen on getting as many Raptors as possible for the "future war".
To counter what the Russians and Chinese are now working on.
quote]

And where is the hard evidence that Chinese tech is advancing oh so rapidly?
The US put a man on the moon and that was 40yrs ago.
China has yet to put a man in space.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Who is Eric L. Palmer?