Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finnish fighter replacement revisited

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    there is no clue that it is while carrying 4 AMRAAMS and fuel for 760 nmi
    That is the A2A config shown to Israel which is the slide where the 760nmi came from.

    IIRC the F-35 hit mach 1.61 in testing. Besides, mach 1.6 is for full A2G load-out so it is 3300lbs heavier than in A2A mode.

    That being said, even the vaunted F-15C with a top speed of mach 2.5 has never gone faster than 1.4 in combat.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

    Comment


      Less than some others. And i do not care really about 20 or 30 secs to cross transsonic.
      That is an important metric for fighter aircraft (far more than max airspeed in level flight). And you might not care, but in terms of fuel consumption it matters greatly.

      For every one of the alleged supercruise capable aircraft (other than the F-22 which had specific KPP to meet for supercruise), all that is available are vague statements. We know that the F-22 can accelerate through the transonic in military power, we also know they usually use augmented thrust to accelerate above transonic regime faster. What about Rafael? At what weights, with what external loads can it accelerate to supersonic speeds in military thrust? How long does it take at different DI? Get my point? It does matter.

      Supercruise is not a marketing pitch. It was part of fighters requirements in Europe (specially F-22) in order to cross western Europe quickly.
      Yes, of course I am aware of the supercruise requirement from the original ATF program. The F-22 didn't meet the original goal, but it does have a representative combat mission radius for which part was to be in supercruise. What about the Rafale? Do you have any documents related to the development of the Rafale that had a stated mission radius was to be performed in supercruise? Any document related to the specific requirement from ACX program regarding supercruise? Love to read them....

      There is no + to the mach 1.6, and afaik (i may be wrong) there is no clue that it is while carrying 4 AMRAAMS and fuel for 760 nmi.
      You are in fact wrong; 700 knots, full fuel, full internal weapons... period.

      FBW you know perfe tly those data are not public.
      I am aware, so when you claim useful supercruise time/distance for Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon... what are you basing this on? We know the Typhoon can supercruise with x number of missiles and EFT. It shows the power of the aircraft, but it is a useless metric without knowing range, a representative mission combat radius. We do have one for the F-22 (at least what is publicly disclosed), and while impressive, it's not what was envisioned when drawing up ATF requirements.

      Adaptative cycle engines arent a new thing btw.
      No, but the third stream adaptive cycle engines of AVENT-AETP are a new concept.

      Comment


        That being said, even the vaunted F-15C with a top speed of mach 2.5 has never gone faster than 1.4 in combat.
        I am glad you wrote. the airframe is built with old technology and un upgradable for sustain high performance.

        Comment


          Mach 1.6+ while carrying 4 AMRAAMs & fuel for 760nmi (ie more fuel for AB use) not fast enough for you?
          --

          It is more than enough for me, but Mig-31 reaches M3.
          If it looks good, it will fly good !
          -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


          http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

          Comment


            And my AMRAAM reached Mach 4+, so?

            Given that it's an "interception" and not a tail-chase and that I know where you are (and going) while you have no clue as to where I am, the f-35 is in the superior position to plan the engagement.
            "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

            Comment


              the airframe {F-15C} is built with old technology and un upgradable for sustain high performance.
              It does not have to sustain high speed to reach high speed...

              The main limiting factor was fuel, not "old technology".
              "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

              Comment


                And my AMRAAM reached Mach 4+, so?

                Given that it's an "interception" and not a tail-chase and that I know where you are (and going) while you have no clue as to where I am, the f-35 is in the superior position to plan the engagement.


                Will the AMRAAM catch the bandit if shot from a M 08 aircraft ? Does in run outa juice ?
                If it looks good, it will fly good !
                -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


                http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                Comment


                  Depends on the range, altitude, target vector, and closure rate.
                  "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                  Comment


                    It is more than enough for me, but Mig-31 reaches M3
                    You have still failed to explain how the difference in maximum speed between the five entries makes a significant impact on the interception mission. Especially given that (when armed) there is roughly a 150 Knot difference between the slowest entry (F-18E/F) and the fastest (EF Typhoon). The middle three are all 700~790 knots.

                    Comment


                      There is also the issue that the Mig will never be flying at M3 unless he knows that he is under attack or is intercepting another aircraft. Given the VLO nature of the F-35, good luck with that.
                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                      Comment


                        Danish numbers were heavily criticized. F-35 life cycle cost is impossible to compute (see Uk lawmekers inquiries), and the way danish estimated other lifecycles was -at best- disputable as they did not use the same sources, numbers etc. For each plane.
                        Danish lifecycle numbers are not good reference for Finnish competition, as they assumed complete dependancy on ALIS and global spare pool, which, as we already estabilished, does not suit to Finnish requirements - at least not to same extent than Danish.

                        Only thing Danish evaluation flat out told was that Super Hornet has lower unit cost than Typhoon or F-35 (but it was not said how much). From this it seems that Typhoon's unit cost at very least is not signifantly cheaper than F-35, and probably more expensive.

                        Comment


                          You are aware that a "Global Spares Pool" includes parts that are in Finland itself, right?

                          One of the main takeaways that I saw in the Danish eval was the acknowledgement that it takes more 4th gen to do the job of the F-35 on a purely airframe-hours comparison. This is because the F-35 is an 8k hours airframe from the factory and the F-18/Eurofighter are not.
                          Last edited by SpudmanWP; 10th May 2018, 19:02.
                          "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                          Comment


                            Only thing Danish evaluation flat out told was that Super Hornet has lower unit cost than Typhoon or F-35 (but it was not said how much). From this it seems that Typhoon's unit cost at very least is not signifantly cheaper than F-35, and probably more expensive.

                            The acquisition/procurement costs for 34 Eurofighters were 28.1 DKK Billion, 38 SH F would have cost 30.9 DKK Billion and 28 Dave As would have cost 15.4 DKK Billion... According to the Danish evaluators the Danish MOD would pay the URF (less than what even the Pentagon pays...) for the acquisition of Daves, but to acquire Phoons they would have to pay by unit what GB payed to develop an acquire the dam thing... Amusing.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                              One of the main takeaways that I saw in the Danish eval was the acknowledgement that it takes more 4th gen to do the job of the F-35 on a purely airframe-hours comparison. This is because the F-35 is an 8k hours airframe from the factory and the F-18/Eurofighter is not.
                              Another amusing take from that evaluation, the Danish heavily used a 2014 German Audit Office document in order to calculate the Phoon sustainment costs, on that same document its stated that the Luftwaffe estimates a 8400 flight hours life service for the aircraft, this particular bit theyve ignored.
                              Did i forget to mention that less than six months after the conclusion of the evaluation the Danish Defense Minister tweteed that the Flyvevbnet would need more than 28 Dave airframes because with those numbers they couldnt handle all the missions that a 44 Viper fleet could? OH REALLY?! How about 38 airframes?
                              sigpic

                              Comment


                                One of the main takeaways that I saw in the Danish eval was the acknowledgement that it takes more 4th gen to do the job of the F-35 on a purely airframe-hours comparison. This is because the F-35 is an 8k hours airframe from the factory and the F-18/Eurofighter are not.
                                That difference is largely academical and if you checked the Danish calculations, it had very little impact on the end result.
                                F-16 is also nominally 8000-hour airframe. F-18 is nominally 6000 hours. Last time around, F-18 won...

                                Comment


                                  You have still failed to explain how the difference in maximum speed between the five entries makes a significant impact on the interception mission. Especially given that (when armed) there is roughly a 150 Knot difference between the slowest entry (F-18E/F) and the fastest (EF Typhoon). The middle three are all 700~790 knots.
                                  --


                                  Are you sure the Gripen cannot do M2 with 2 Sidewinders for instance ?

                                  Last time I talked to an american aircraft designer he said the fighter jockey will give his right nut for some extra speed when a missile is on his tail.
                                  Last edited by topspeed; 10th May 2018, 20:08.
                                  If it looks good, it will fly good !
                                  -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


                                  http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                                  Comment


                                    Given that the F-15C (you know.... the one that has never lost in combat) has never gone above mach 1.4 in combat then m1.6 should be just fine.
                                    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                    Comment


                                      F/A-18 Block III or post-SLEP is 9000 hours.

                                      Although there are flight hours and flight hours, FiAF flight hours are very BFM intensive with little ferrying, they found out that Hornets don't last as long as specified with their usage.

                                      But that's a good example of the discrepancies in the Danish evaluation.
                                      Last edited by pesko; 10th May 2018, 21:41.

                                      Comment


                                        Post SLEP is just that, fixing issues. New "Block 3" jets off the line are not 9k jets.

                                        Just think how long an F-35 SLEP could extend the life, 12-16k?
                                        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                                        Comment


                                          No, it's a 9000 hour airframe from the get go.



                                          In any case, this is unlikely to be a major performance criteria for the FiAF.
                                          Last edited by pesko; 10th May 2018, 23:07.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X