Read the forum code of contact
By: 3rd April 2015 at 14:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-He described a special thrill in being able to get close to and photograph new Russian aircraft, adding that he had been the first to take a picture of Russia’s Su-34, a new fighter bomber. “That was very exciting,” he said.
Enjoy it while you can, Noggies.... 1.8>1.6
By: 3rd April 2015 at 17:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-He described a special thrill in being able to get close to and photograph new Russian aircraft, adding that he had been the first to take a picture of Russia’s Su-34, a new fighter bomber. “That was very exciting,” he said.Enjoy it while you can, Noggies.... 1.8>1.6
And the speed of a Su-34 - with full bombload and external tanks?
By: 3rd April 2015 at 17:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Come to think of it, I read recently that the top permissable speed of a fully armed and fuel-tanked air-superiority F-15C was mach 1.78. What's the top speed of a similarly configured F-16 (as opposed to a clean F-16)?
By: 3rd April 2015 at 17:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-guessing speed limit is imposed on F-15 because old avionics does not self-restrict g-limit
so any faster would rip the wings off if the pilot decide to turn as hard as he can,
F-16 may have a self-regulating g-limit so no need for speed limit, it would just turn slower to spare structure when loaded
By: 3rd April 2015 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think you are guessing - but generally speaking clean aircraft are faster than well armed ones... So who has got the max speed of an F-16E toting half adozen or more AMRAAM and external fuel tanks?
By: 3rd April 2015 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-during climb on A/B to cruise alt its still subsonic, no more than M0.8,
this climb depleted external fuel tank which is ejected.
Now if we can get data on various fighters carrying 6 x Meteor + 2 x sidewinders.....
By: 3rd April 2015 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Come to think of it, I read recently that the top permissable speed of a fully armed and fuel-tanked air-superiority F-15C was mach 1.78. What's the top speed of a similarly configured F-16 (as opposed to a clean F-16)?
More or less true for an F-15A with F100-100 engines.
Top speed for an F-15C with F100-220 engines, 4 Sidewinders, 4 Sparrows and centerline pylon is Mach 2.2.
No external tanks!
A similarly configured F-16 is impossible, due to missing Sparrow capability or 2 Sparrows at most for other versions. Max. number of missiles is 6.
guessing speed limit is imposed on F-15 because old avionics does not self-restrict g-limit
so any faster would rip the wings off if the pilot decide to turn as hard as he can,
F-16 may have a self-regulating g-limit so no need for speed limit, it would just turn slower to spare structure when loaded
No, it's thrust/drag limited.
I think you are guessing - but generally speaking clean aircraft are faster than well armed ones... So who has got the max speed of an F-16E toting half adozen or more AMRAAM and external fuel tanks?
F-16C-52, armed with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, no tanks: about Mach 1.85
F-16C-52, armed with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, centerline tank: about Mach 1.78
F-16C-52, armed with 4 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders, 2 underwing 370gal tanks: about Mach 1.63
with 3 tanks and 6 missiles, its probably around 1.52
The Block 50 is faster, but the E model is probably closer to the Block 52 with its weight and drag increase.
Unlike the F-15 data, which is from a nice graph, the F-16 data is from my calculations, so take it with a pinch of salt. I've read though an F-16 armed with only wingtip Winders and centerline tank is good for Mach 1.9 so the numbers seem plausible.
By: 3rd April 2015 at 22:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Another thread derailed, well trolled...
By: 3rd April 2015 at 23:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Another thread derailed, well trolled...
Truth hurts..
By: 4th April 2015 at 00:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Come to think of it, I read recently that the top permissable speed of a fully armed and fuel-tanked air-superiority F-15C was mach 1.78. What's the top speed of a similarly configured F-16 (as opposed to a clean F-16)?
I have read in multiple places F-15s never really went above Mach 2 in service with AAMs. And from what I understand they had a lot of difficulty getting the Eagle to have that Mach 2.5 capability (if only nominally).
Same with Su-27 as I understand. Maybe with a couple of R-73s....a pointless loadout for such a big bird.
Kind of a worthless capability it seems...
By: 4th April 2015 at 07:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I have read in multiple places F-15s never really went above Mach 2 in service with AAMs. And from what I understand they had a lot of difficulty getting the Eagle to have that Mach 2.5 capability (if only nominally).
...Kind of a worthless capability it seems...
If you invert the logic, they needed that much thrust to achieve M 1.8 with a load. So they couldn't really design it with less thrust, could they?
Being able to hit 2.5 clean was a bonus. Being able to achieve 1.8 loaded was a capability.
By: 4th April 2015 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you invert the logic, they needed that much thrust to achieve M 1.8 with a load. So they couldn't really design it with less thrust, could they?Being able to hit 2.5 clean was a bonus. Being able to achieve 1.8 loaded was a capability.
True that.
Both the F-15 and the phoon has semi-reeced hardpoints.
Wonder why the Russian never aspired to do the same with the Flanker..
After all they did it with Mig-31 and R-33.
By: 4th April 2015 at 11:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-If you invert the logic, they needed that much thrust to achieve M 1.8 with a load. So they couldn't really design it with less thrust, could they?Being able to hit 2.5 clean was a bonus. Being able to achieve 1.8 loaded was a capability.
One could argue that the intake design could have been made a lot simpler if the top speed while armed wasnt supposed to be above mach 2. The variable ramps and vents wouldnt be needed --> less complex design --> lower operating and manufacturing cost.
By: 4th April 2015 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-One could argue that the intake design could have been made a lot simpler if the top speed while armed wasnt supposed to be above mach 2. The variable ramps and vents wouldnt be needed --> less complex design --> lower operating and manufacturing cost.
Back to the original question.
The Su-34 does not have a variable ramp.
Its an tactical bomber.
It is not designed to loiter in transonic or supersonic speed.
Its designed to operate in subsonic speed and that with a very decent mission range and a decent payload with it..
Those RNoAF F-16 could not escort those Su-34 for long, sinse they do not have any tanker support.
And are stuffed with wetbags and weapons. lots of drag for a small singel engine F16.
By: 4th April 2015 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-One could argue that the intake design could have been made a lot simpler if the top speed while armed wasnt supposed to be above mach 2. The variable ramps and vents wouldnt be needed --> less complex design --> lower operating and manufacturing cost.
And change materials used in the airframe. They could still achieve Mach 1.8 without the excess Mach 2.5 capability.
By: 4th April 2015 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/world/europe/a-newly-assertive-russia-jolts-norways-air-defenses-into-action.html?ref=europe&_r=0
What a load of blatant propaganda!
By: 5th April 2015 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hehe, a Lt General gotto be the Lt General and say what a Lt general need to say ?
By: 5th April 2015 at 10:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-And change materials used in the airframe. They could still achieve Mach 1.8 without the excess Mach 2.5 capability.
That too. Lower cost, no actual penalty. It would be different if they had an armed speed of mach 2+ (like the F22).
By: 5th April 2015 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-An armed F-15A does fly faster than Mach 2. In interceptor configuration with 4 Sparrows, top speed is Mach 2.2 in pursuit mode. That is for a standard day, in cold North American or European skies, surely some more is possible.
Note, the F-15C-220 is good for more than Mach 2.4 in the same configuration, I assume on a cold day it hits the Mach 2.5 structural limit.
The F-15 was designed to counter the MiG-25 afterall, so speeds in excess of Mach 2 were required. Originally, the USAF wanted the Eagle to have a top speed of Mach 2.7, but that was incompatible with its air superiority requirements. The final required Mach 2.5 are a compromise aswell, as speeds over Mach 2.35 are only possible in time limited pursuit mode. So in reality, the F-15 is a Mach 2.3 class fighter like its contemporaries F-4, F-14, Su-27, MiG-29, Tornado ADV etc. They all have variable intakes.
By: 5th April 2015 at 22:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-An armed F-15A does fly faster than Mach 2. In interceptor configuration with 4 Sparrows, top speed is Mach 2.2 in pursuit mode. That is for a standard day, in cold North American or European skies, surely some more is possible.
But armed with Sparrow missiles only, without Sidewinders, and without drop tanks?
Posts: 586
By: DavidIsby - 3rd April 2015 at 00:53
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/world/europe/a-newly-assertive-russia-jolts-norways-air-defenses-into-action.html?ref=europe&_r=0