Operational Performace Comparison: Viper, Beagle, and Stubby

So, I just re-did the CAP mission using the updated radar information using the AESACalc. I am thinking about reducing the text in the "blow by blow" section. Maybe get rid of speeds and altitude, just shots and range, and pK?

Speed/altitude provides context, it's all good.

Keep as much info as possible:) Graph with alt and time/or distance of planes and missiles will be also nice to have.

So, I just re-did the CAP mission using the updated radar information using the AESACalc. I am thinking about reducing the text in the "blow by blow" section. Maybe get rid of speeds and altitude, just shots and range, and pK?

IMHO you should keep as much info as possible , though when possible it is better to use graphic illustration than to use text.

I noticed the turn chart for the air to air mode for the F-15SA has a quite sharp drop after corner velocity compared to clean. Is that due to the weight of the CFT and extra fuel or its drag and how was it computed ? With the computed thrust/weight ratios at 36kft are these with afterburner i.e. is the thrust of the -229 at that altitude only around 10 klbf with afterburner, just over a third of sea level rating ?

I noticed the turn chart for the air to air mode for the F-15SA has a quite sharp drop after corner velocity compared to clean. Is that due to the weight of the CFT and extra fuel or its drag and how was it computed ?

I'm looking at the turn chart now.

The "Air" configuration does not show a sharp drop after corner velocity (0.9M in this figure) in the ITS or STR curves. After corner velocity ITR for Air is the same as Clean. After corner velocity STR for air is gradually decreasing. There IS a marked reduction in ITR before corner velocity for Air when compared to Clean due to the drastic increase in weight. Please clarify what you are asking about so I can help.

With the computed thrust/weight ratios at 36kft are these with afterburner i.e. is the thrust of the -229 at that altitude only around 10 klbf with afterburner, just over a third of sea level rating ?

Yes they are in afterburner. If you re-read section 1.3.2 on Thrust to Weight I explain all the factors that go to reduce engine thrust below rated levels.

In this case, at 36,000ft the air density is 29.8% that of sea level. There is also a gearbox loss that is fixed at 15% of rated military thrust, or 2,670 per engine. I also assume an airflow loss at lea level of 1,869lb for friction on the inlet. I double the airflow loss for afterburner due to the increased speed. The airflow loss does get reduced proportionally to air density.

So if we take the rated engine thrust of 29,500lb and move it to 36,000ft at zero airspeed we apply the air density factor.
Now we are at 8,791lb. Take out the gearbox loss next, as the systems being powered by the engine don't care about what altitude the plane is at, they need power. Now we are down to 6,121lb. Afterburner airflow losses is nominally 3,738 but is reduced to 1,114lb due to reduced air density. Now we are down to 5,007lb of installed static afterburning thrust.

But thrust goes up with speed, especially at altitude. My model has a 70% increase in engine thrust for this speed and altitude. That gets applied to the air density corrected rated thrust after airflow reduction (7,677lb) to raise it to 13,051lb. The gearbox, like the taxman, always gets its due, lowering the thrust to 10,381lb.

Thanks you answered all my queries, I was looking at the chart in a descending fashion as a pilot would bleeding energy, I should have said before corner velocity and you explained it was the extra weight. Thanks again for some nice quality work, I also wonder if an air to air mode without CFT scenario could be explored too just to get a more cleaner comparison with Su-35 ? What also was interesting was the clean ITR peaked before corner velocity, at what G was that ?

Thanks you answered all my queries, I was looking at the chart in a descending fashion as a pilot would bleeding energy, I should have said before corner velocity and you explained it was the extra weight. Thanks again for some nice quality work, I also wonder if an air to air mode without CFT scenario could be explored too just to get a more cleaner comparison with Su-35 ? What also was interesting was the clean ITR peaked before corner velocity, at what G was that ?

Don't confuse the terms. Corner velocity is defined as the speed where ITR peaks. It is very weight and altitude dependent.

I have the ability to look at an F-15SA with no CFTs, and even the curiosity, but in the end this is supposed to be an Operational Performance Comparison, and operationally CFT equipped aircraft use them 100% of the time. I specifically checked historical loadouts for F-15Es doing Air Sovereignty missions. CFTs, Wing Tanks, and Targeting pods to go with the Sparrows, Sidewinders, and AMRAAMs.

Realizing there is a problem in my probability calculations. How can there have been a 0.7% chance of both aircraft surviving in the score area when I calculated a one-in-a-million chance that they both survive the dogfight? 17 discrete events that can be at odds with each other as far as which event negates what and how that impacts the odds. I know this much, the odds that the F-15SA survives and the Su-35S dies cannot be below 60%, as it gets two "free" shots that, if they succeed, the Su never gets to fire.

Fixed the probability issue. I was also reminded of the AESA range calculator so I will be using that instead of my own made up formula for determining detection ranges. I will list the tool, and assumptions I am making, in the Systems section of the next release. I will use it for both Radar and ECM considerations. I added the Interception mission for the F-15SA and moved it before the CAP mission for reasons that should be clear on release. I am working on the S-400 "simulation" for the Strike Mission.

What is the target for interception mission?

I was also reminded of the AESA range calculator so I will be using that instead of my own made up formula for determining detection ranges. I will list the too

Stealth flanker had just released the newest version of that calculator, including the cooling capacity of aircraft.
P/s the multipath model of this calculator is broken, so best not to use it

A New sheet, "TR Module cooling constraint" added.

This sheet allows estimate of limit to your AESA radar's emitted power. Based on operating wavelength, Efficiency (PAE), number of operating modules and available cooling capacity.
Notes are provided to aid estimation. It also include 2 real world fighter radar cooling capacity. The MiG-35 and F/A-18E.

Track and Search Spreadsheet.

This sheet calculates the amount of targets the radar capable of tracking at the given detection range. The Equation is based on Mike Golio's book "RF and Microwaves Application and systems". The equation allow calculations of the amount of targets can be tracked by radar on thermal noise condition. Thus if one wish to calculate this part. It is advised to set the Multipath consideration column to "No"
The user is only required to input the desired capacity at the "Fraction of time to search target". The variable is the representative of Radar time and power resources allocation. value of 50% is typical and can be assumed for modern multifunctional radar. Some other types of radar like BMD Radar may allocate more resources to search (say 50-60% or more). The other variables like tracking rates and accuracy are automatically calculated. The sheet assumes that the required accuracy would be 0.02 of 3dB beamwidth.

Modern AESA radar however is expected to allow dynamic allocation of time-power resources. The challenge however is to weigh the frequency (as optimum frequency to search can be earth-sky difference to the one optimum to track) and timing allocations.

The result column now include the numbers of target capable of being tracked.

-Addition of Sanity checks
Every calculations needs sanity check to ensure some validity. Including mine. The sheet now include simple sanity check that will check the result of the calculation and present simple comment on whether the calculations are fine or need adjustments. The sanity checks sections currently includes the following :

1.Whether your radar have enough return pulses to work ?
2.Is the target horizon limited ?
3.Can your radar track more than 1 targets ?
4.Is the target eclipsed or can be detected properly ?

More to be added in the future. Along with hopefully better multipath model.

Wish you all have a nice day

https://www.mediafire.com/file/fdmzssya ... Uua-yFJzQg

Are you using C++, Matlab or Python?

What is the target for interception mission?

A Su-35S. They are pretty much always the "targets" for the interception mission. The interception mission is about the ability of a combat loaded plane to get up to speed and altitude quickly as well as VID a threat aircraft.

Are you using C++, Matlab, or Python?

None of the above. I'm using Excel. Lots and lots of Excel. An older version of my sheet was 37Mb, but I currently have it down to about 11Mb.

garrya, I may look into that this weekend.

Are you using C++, Matlab or Python?

Excel "cell" formulas for the frontend and VBA for the backend (if any).