Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2646
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 01:40

With S-400 the first 25,000 feet is going to be straight up with it rolling to a new angle of trajectory in the thinner air.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 02:21

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So, my model uses a 19 degree loft angle for the AIM-120D currently. Fired from 36,000ft and 1.00M it can physically reach 94nm at 36,000ft before falling below 1.00M. It has a peak alt of just under 82,000ft and a top speed of 4.99M with a 17s motor burn time (3s boost 14s sustain).

Not to give you an example of what I mean by "I can make the max range be whatever I want"
Currently the boost stage lasts 2 seconds and the throttle-able sustain lasts 90s at full power. Minimim thrust is 1/3 of max thrust. Let's leave that be.
Loft of 3 degrees. Climbs to just over 61,000ft 80nm out before bunting over. At the bunt the missile has accelerated to 3.3M. It was able to fly faster at the minimum thrust rating because of how much thinner the air was. The motor is still burning and increases to maximum thrust as it dives on the 94nm "target" hitting it at 3.72M. It is able to have a 1.0M intercept of a target up to 154nm away after peaking at just shy of 73,000ft and 3.97M.

19 degrees of loft and it goes too high to be able to turn down and intercept (195,000ft at 92 miles at 5.7M, it is unable to pitch down)
Hmm, throttle is adjustable 10:1, not 3:1.

Now with the 3 degree loft it climbs at 2.0M for 100+nm where it is light enough and high enough that it accelerates for the next 40nm on minimum throttle. At 140nm it bunts from 80,600ft and 2.3M and throttles up, peaking at 3.5M. It hits the 154nm target now at 3.47M. Theoretical 1.0M intercept flight range? 250nm.

No loft still has the same result as before.

So, with one set of engine parameters and only changing loft, we have max ranges at which the missile flies 1.0M between 79nm for 0 degree loft and 250nm for 3 degree loft. I clearly have to change something to get a reasonable value.

Oh, BTW, my model shows a corner velocity at 36,000ft of 2.61M. With no loft the Meteor can still top out at that speed (accelerating on acquisition) to hit a 72nm target. Only 7nm difference between "NEZ" and "Rmax".

Those are surprising number, i could never have imagine it is plausible for Meteor to reach 154 nm at Mach 3.47 with 3 degree loft. Do you think if SR-71 , Mig-25 haven't retired, then Meteor can be used to shot it down at long range?
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 03:00

Eloise, check these other simulation results if you haven't already seen them. Meteor could well be a 200 nm missile under optimum high altitude conditions.

viewtopic.php?p=415002#p415002

Image

Image
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2646
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 04:26

Can you get any more range with a lofted boost and delay of starting the ramjet on the Meteor after using gravity coming down to an optimal altitude for the motor? Surely the ramjet isn't the same efficiency at every altitude.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1248
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 12:04

They did a lot of work with parabolics in the last 15 years, with a few nations pooling data.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

old_rn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015, 08:57

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 13:32

Those ranges make Meteor a serious AWACS killer?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3955
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 13:58

old_rn wrote:Those ranges make Meteor a serious AWACS killer?


Of course. It would also be quite useful in the South China Sea. The AIM-120D is no slouch, but I have to believe meteor equipped F-35's would be even more effective in that role. And as we know, there's work going on to integrate it into British models, whereas there's no similar effort on the F-22 (or any other American fighter, for that matter).

If it works in the Brit F-35B's, it'd be smart IMO to get it into USMC's B's as well.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 14:15

I doubt the US would pick Meteor for industrial reasons, after all the US was supposed to pick up ASRAAM as the original deal for doing AMRAAM but chose AIM-9X instead. There is a need for a longer range probably faster successor to AMRAAM to suit the new battle environments, probably multi stage would be chosen over ramjet.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 19:08

marsavian wrote:Eloise, check these other simulation results if you haven't already seen them. Meteor could well be a 200 nm missile under optimum high altitude conditions.

viewtopic.php?p=415002#p415002

Image

Image

I haven't seen that
But holy s**t Meteor can fly 77 km at altitude of 1k ft? That is insane
I am disappointed that they didn't follow on with ramjet aim-120
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post24 Mar 2019, 20:05

mixelflick wrote:
old_rn wrote:Those ranges make Meteor a serious AWACS killer?


Of course. It would also be quite useful in the South China Sea. The AIM-120D is no slouch, but I have to believe meteor equipped F-35's would be even more effective in that role. And as we know, there's work going on to integrate it into British models, whereas there's no similar effort on the F-22 (or any other American fighter, for that matter).

If it works in the Brit F-35B's, it'd be smart IMO to get it into USMC's B's as well.

The LREW (or whatever its eventual name) will fill the role, on US jets.
Offline

old_rn

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015, 08:57

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 15:24

wrightwing wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
old_rn wrote:Those ranges make Meteor a serious AWACS killer?


Of course. It would also be quite useful in the South China Sea. The AIM-120D is no slouch, but I have to believe meteor equipped F-35's would be even more effective in that role. And as we know, there's work going on to integrate it into British models, whereas there's no similar effort on the F-22 (or any other American fighter, for that matter).

If it works in the Brit F-35B's, it'd be smart IMO to get it into USMC's B's as well.

The LREW (or whatever its eventual name) will fill the role, on US jets.


As the integration is for all F35 models then why don't USAF and USN buy it now? The USMC will have it when they deploy in future on QE or POW?
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post25 Mar 2019, 21:33

Thanks for the Link marsavian. :thumb:

The Range and speed at high altitude from the Meteor is outstanding. :shock: On concours with the rumors about 200-300 km Range.

Good luck for a Mig-31 to escape that missile at over 60Kft.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3547
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post26 Mar 2019, 01:51

old_rn wrote:
As the integration is for all F35 models then why don't USAF and USN buy it now? The USMC will have it when they deploy in future on QE or POW?

Unit cost, preference for US products would be the top 2 reasons. It's also likely that LREW will be superior to Meteor, so it wouldn't make logistical sense to add another system to the inventory.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post26 Mar 2019, 09:48

zero-one wrote:I've posted this before on another thread, but I personally think that absolute max range is not too relevant in BVR combat.
No one has ever shot down enemy aircraft from absolute max ranges, I think even the Iranian claims which are the furthest kills ever claimed were just around 50 NM which is well within the range of most BVR missiles.

BVR really happens within a 20 nautical bubble, whats important is what you can do inside that 20 nautical mile BVR bubble.
How effective are your ECM, ESM, sensors, data links and RCS, IR reductions within that bubble is what counts. So the Aim-120D carried by an F-22/35 is far more lethal than a Meteor carried by a Gripen.

But legacy missiles don't have the range that modern missiles have and they can't maintain a high speed as long as a Meteor.
missile range estimation 1.JPG

@30k feet: AIM-120 can maintain velocity above Mach 3 for 27 km, Meteor can maintain velocity above Mach 3 for 130 km
Attachments
missile range estimation 2.JPG
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2342
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post21 Apr 2019, 21:24


Awsome work by the fighter pilot podcast.
However at the 22 minute mark we see this

I noticed the F-15 and Hornet labled as unstable.
IIRC the Hornet is actually close to neutral but slightly positively stable at some weights and can eventually become negatively stable as it burns through it's fuel.

But what about the Eagle? Can it afford to be unstable, dont you need to have fly by wire for that? Was it upgraded, or did the post 80s models have it already? A bit confused.
Attachments
Screenshot_20190422-041634_YouTube.jpg
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests