Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

by eloise » 27 Jan 2017, 21:35

steve2267 wrote:Not to be too terribly rude, but perhaps you could take that inquiry over to the

F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale thread?

My bad, just wanna hear Spurt expert opinion, and i want to know how it fares with F-22, F-15 too


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5988
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 27 Jan 2017, 21:52

eloise wrote:Spurt, what do you think about this:
Our take-off mass was 16.1t (10.8t basic and 5.3t fuel) carrying one supersonic fuel tank centreline.

Climbing to 15,000ft into the test area was flown at 350kt, full afterburner and 35° nose-up. In air-to-ground DFCS Stores Position 1 (ST1) at 350kt, mild buffet was encountered at +4.5g with 4t of fuel. In full dry power, a wind-up turn showed that the aircraft could maintain 350kt at +5.0g with just 10° of nose-down pitch.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-334383/

Rafale is so much better than i imagined, sustain 5G in Military power at 15.000 feet, and the speed is only 350kt , That is with 1 supersonic fuel tank.
The value look a lot better than anything else

First, it is not sustained, it is nose down. I'm going to have to go with the speed value being given as indicated airspeed. At 15000ft 350kt indicated is roughly 431kt true (.69M), and 728ft/sec. A 10 deg nose down attitude means the plane had a steady Ps of -126ft/sec. Taking the listed weight, fuel weights, and some rough order of magnitude estimations I guess that the Rafale in question was a C model carrying six MICA missiles and a small centerline fuel tank.

A similarly configured F-16 weighs in at 14.5t at take off, with 4.2 t of fuel and 3.1 t remaining at maneuver (75% of takeoff fuel) and at the same speed and nose angle can maintain 3.2G. Of note is that the Rated Mil T/W ratios are .69 for the Rafale and .64 for the F-16.

So yeah, that is a great value it seems. So much so that I wonder what information is missing. It is heavier but it has a lot of wing but the viper has a lifting tail but the Viper has a bigger fuel tank for more drag but this but that. Not sure what to make of it in of itself. Possible? I guess. Plausible? Sure.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 403
Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

by vanshilar » 27 Jan 2017, 23:51

I'm a little bit confused...what does the nose-down pitch thing mean?


Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3146
Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

by basher54321 » 28 Jan 2017, 00:44

In the turn the nose is pitched down ten degrees so it is losing altitude and likely pulling more G than it would if it was in a level turn. (So not a sustained turn by definition which needs a constant altitude).


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5988
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 28 Jan 2017, 02:25

So scoring is going to have to be scrapped based on having missile reactions. The F-15 scored a whopping 9 points due to the sheer number of missiles fired on each side and the Kh-59s being the only kills. The F-22 pair would have a negative score as they fire three missiles each only to have all targets turn around and head for home after dodging max range shots from a plane they never saw (although I am dubious of the effectiveness of the RWR in a Su-24 after what happened with Turkey). That or I need to not do max range shots? But if not max range what criteria do I use in an intercept?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


User avatar
Elite 2K
Elite 2K
 
Posts: 2339
Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

by eloise » 28 Jan 2017, 02:53

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:First, it is not sustained, it is nose down.

How can the Rafale turn 5G with a nose down ? is it like negative G ?


User avatar
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1396
Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
Location: Colorado

by blindpilot » 28 Jan 2017, 03:59

eloise wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:First, it is not sustained, it is nose down.

How can the Rafale turn 5G with a nose down ? is it like negative G ?


It`s speaking of nose down relative to the horizon banking in a turn. Think of spiraling down in altitude.

Sustained turn rate is by definition holding altitude.

BP


User avatar
Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3300
Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

by count_to_10 » 28 Jan 2017, 14:26

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So scoring is going to have to be scrapped based on having missile reactions. The F-15 scored a whopping 9 points due to the sheer number of missiles fired on each side and the Kh-59s being the only kills. The F-22 pair would have a negative score as they fire three missiles each only to have all targets turn around and head for home after dodging max range shots from a plane they never saw (although I am dubious of the effectiveness of the RWR in a Su-24 after what happened with Turkey). That or I need to not do max range shots? But if not max range what criteria do I use in an intercept?

To some extent, you need to go through an array of strategies for each. An F-22 should be able to get much closer than max range without being detected.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5988
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 28 Jan 2017, 16:11

count_to_10 wrote:To some extent, you need to go through an array of strategies for each. An F-22 should be able to get much closer than max range without being detected.


So I just checked out what would happen if the F-22 pilot waited until he was 30nm closer than he was before, essentially looking at the "Shoot" cue for 60 seconds while he does it, and the end result is the same. The issue is that by the time the the radar goes active the AMRAAM is 42 degrees nose down at a bit over Mach 3 while aiming almost three miles in front of the tagret and seven miles in front of itself. The target pulling a 180 right after the RWR goes off means that aimpoint shifts 2 miles to the side in five seconds, causing the missile to lose an entire Mach of speed. Five more seconds and the aimpoint moves three miles further to the side and a mile further down range. All this last second adjusting has now cost the missile greatly. It is now only 34 degrees nose down and is having to pull up as the aimpoint moves further downrange but it only has a speed of 1.3M and dropping fast.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


User avatar
Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3654
Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

by steve2267 » 28 Jan 2017, 16:33

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:To some extent, you need to go through an array of strategies for each. An F-22 should be able to get much closer than max range without being detected.


So I just checked out what would happen if the F-22 pilot waited until he was 30nm closer than he was before, essentially looking at the "Shoot" cue for 60 seconds while he does it, and the end result is the same. The issue is that by the time the the radar goes active the AMRAAM is 42 degrees nose down at a bit over Mach 3 while aiming almost three miles in front of the tagret and seven miles in front of itself. The target pulling a 180 right after the RWR goes off means that aimpoint shifts 2 miles to the side in five seconds, causing the missile to lose an entire Mach of speed. Five more seconds and the aimpoint moves three miles further to the side and a mile further down range. All this last second adjusting has now cost the missile greatly. It is now only 34 degrees nose down and is having to pull up as the aimpoint moves further downrange but it only has a speed of 1.3M and dropping fast.

Can you model a Meteor to see if it also suffers the same ill effects of the target performing an immediate 180° turn? Also, could you model a theoretical dual-pulse AIM-120E whereby it has a dual-pulse motor and the missile ignites the second pulse at the first sign of major target evasion?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.


User avatar
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
 
Posts: 923
Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
Location: The Netherlands

by botsing » 28 Jan 2017, 16:40

steve2267 wrote:Can you model a Meteor to see if it also suffers the same ill effects of the target performing an immediate 180° turn? Also, could you model a theoretical dual-pulse AIM-120E whereby it has a dual-pulse motor and the missile ignites the second pulse at the first sign of major target evasion?

I second this request. It might give another clue as to why so much money is put into Meteor.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"


User avatar
Elite 3K
Elite 3K
 
Posts: 3654
Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

by steve2267 » 28 Jan 2017, 17:15

As an aside, how difficult would it be to develop a LPI dar for an AIM-120? If the enema never hears the slammer go active...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.


Elite 4K
Elite 4K
 
Posts: 4462
Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

by wrightwing » 28 Jan 2017, 17:59

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So scoring is going to have to be scrapped based on having missile reactions. The F-15 scored a whopping 9 points due to the sheer number of missiles fired on each side and the Kh-59s being the only kills. The F-22 pair would have a negative score as they fire three missiles each only to have all targets turn around and head for home after dodging max range shots from a plane they never saw (although I am dubious of the effectiveness of the RWR in a Su-24 after what happened with Turkey). That or I need to not do max range shots? But if not max range what criteria do I use in an intercept?

What were the assumptions used in the model, in terms of an enemy target being aware of an incoming AMRAAM?


Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5988
Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
Location: Nashua NH USA

by sprstdlyscottsmn » 28 Jan 2017, 18:04

That is why both the Russians and the French have IR NVR missiles. An LPI AMRAAM is only a factor of cost I'm sure.

I fully intend to model a Meteor but with my comparison being U.S. based I can't put it into the comparison. I will however be putting in the ability to target for SM-6 missiles for the Marines and Navy, as both LHAs and CVNs have DDGs in their battle groups. In this, the F-35B may out perform the F-35A.

I assume that once the slant range from the target to the missile is 12 NM the seeker goes active and within a second the targeted planes are beginning to evade.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer


Elite 4K
Elite 4K
 
Posts: 4462
Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

by wrightwing » 28 Jan 2017, 18:32

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That is why both the Russians and the French have IR NVR missiles. An LPI AMRAAM is only a factor of cost I'm sure.

I fully intend to model a Meteor but with my comparison being U.S. based I can't put it into the comparison. I will however be putting in the ability to target for SM-6 missiles for the Marines and Navy, as both LHAs and CVNs have DDGs in their battle groups. In this, the F-35B may out perform the F-35A.

I assume that once the slant range from the target to the missile is 12 NM the seeker goes active and within a second the targeted planes are beginning to evade.

I've seen slightly different numbers (i.e. 12km to 15km), for when AMRAAM goes active. Of course there are also modes, where it never goes active. Using those numbers, how does that change the outcome, in the simulation?


PreviousNext

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests