Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Franco-German next generation fighter

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • TomcatViP
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2011
    • 6059

    No. Why would some someone carry-on with large fins when efficient carriage inside a WB dictates to minimize them? Fins are draggy, bulky and add complexity to your logistics. The less the better when you can rid of them. Is the Mica a super alpha missile? No. Is the Mica a super long range missile that use glide boost better than others? No.

    Comment

    • stealthflanker
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Sep 2015
      • 1009

      Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
      No. Why would some someone carry-on with large fins when efficient carriage inside a WB dictates to minimize them? Fins are draggy, bulky and add complexity to your logistics.
      How about design the IWB to accommodate those weapons you have first then optimize the missile later ? Chinese have similar layour in their PL-10 and happily make J-20 Internal Weapon bay accommodate them. We also have Iris T, Which German doesnt really care for much that it deviates so far from what it was originally ASRAAM.

      Fins and logistics, Are you for real ?

      The less the better when you can rid of them.
      The less is better when your design needs it.


      Is the Mica a super alpha missile? No.
      It has TVC so it's very maneuverable. So yes

      Is the Mica a super long range missile that use glide boost better than others? No.
      No but again what the hell is wrong with having strakes ? Can i have some numbers ?

      Seriously. I'm having difficulty seeing whether your post is simply not well thought out or plain flaming.

      Comment

      • halloweene
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2012
        • 4343

        Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
        No. Why would some someone carry-on with large fins when efficient carriage inside a WB dictates to minimize them? Fins are draggy, bulky and add complexity to your logistics. The less the better when you can rid of them. Is the Mica a super alpha missile? No. Is the Mica a super long range missile that use glide boost better than others? No.
        Nope, but mica NG will be dual boost (and a "smart" dual boost, MBDA dixit)

        Comment

        • TomcatViP
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2011
          • 6059

          Fins and logistics (not our Nordic friends): If you need to airlift a box that has twice the volume and 10 to 20% more mass (think at the box material etc...) 200 times a week during war operation, this will impact directly your logistical train, cutting frontline units from needed supply etc... Logistics means choice: operational choices first and mainly.
          So I am not joking. I am simply here taking into consideration the big picture beyond the marketing slides.

          Super Alpha: I should have wrote Uber Alpha that you understand. The Mica, although having good performances is nothing beyond the market top 5 and those fins are for nothing into that of the achievement reached by their competitor. The trend for A2A long range missile is to lower their occupied volume. China has less restriction since, once again, they don't see weight has a direct constraint impacting their cost. In high cost countries like France and Germany, airframe weight tend to skyrocket design cost. The less the better (hence the small size of the Rafale instead of the M4K). Having bulky missiles will directly induce an increase in cost that can be assumed greater than any benefits (in fact MDBA intend to run two missiles program nearly in parallel!).


          Seriously. I'm having difficulty seeing whether your post is simply not well thought out or plain flaming.
          Despicable... Especially when branding other has flaming trolls. Taking a bit of time to reflect on the above should not be something beyond your reach
          Last edited by TomcatViP; 10th June 2019, 21:27.

          Comment

          • Blue Apple
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Feb 2009
            • 395

            Various missiles finspans

            MICA : 480mm
            AIM-120A/B: 625mm
            AIM-120C5: 447mm
            ASRAAM: 450mm
            IRIS-T: 447mm

            Hard to see anything unusual with MICA's configuration.

            Of course, folding fins would be nice, they'd reduce the overall span to 320mm (well below the competition). And MBDA's CAMM already feature such tech so it's doable but from doable to done in a reliable fashion with all separation issues in case of failure solved is another matter...

            Comment

            • xena
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Nov 2012
              • 141

              Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
              Fins and logistics (not our Nordic friends): If you need to airlift a box that has twice the volume and 10 to 20% more mass (think at the box material etc...) 200 times a week during war operation, this will impact directly your logistical train, cutting frontline units from needed supply etc... Logistics means choice: operational choices first and mainly.
              AFAIK fins are not mounted on transport. So the box remains small.

              Comment

              • TomcatViP
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Nov 2011
                • 6059

                I have to say that this conversation is weird. and I am not sure Xena that the MIca has fins that are mounted before the missile being mated to the pylon's airframe.
                Anyhow, I will incline to the general opinion here as illustrated by Blue Apple. No fins/smaller footprint will be good. Hence why a NG when the programmed service entry date will be so close to the future NGF (to object of my remark)?
                Last edited by TomcatViP; 11th June 2019, 18:41.

                Comment

                • halloweene
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2012
                  • 4343

                  NG will be introduced way before F4 standard, not to talk about NGF. Intently confusing transport box and "mounted before da da da"? FACT is Mica has longer range, better pk + interdhnageable sensors. Many things sidewinder do not have.
                  Please take infos first, talk later. Thanks (hint i gave you a new info two posts above)
                  Last edited by halloweene; 11th June 2019, 19:49.

                  Comment

                  • Ozair
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Oct 2015
                    • 821

                    Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                    NG will be introduced way before F4 standard, not to talk about NGF. Intently confusing transport box and "mounted before da da da"? FACT is Mica has longer range, better pk + interdhnageable sensors. Many things sidewinder do not have.
                    Please take infos first, talk later. Thanks (hint i gave you a new info two posts above)
                    Longer range than sidewinder sure. Not sure how you can claim MICA has a better Pk given it has never been used operationally. The interchangeable sensors really isn't a selling point unless you bought a French aircraft pre Meteor and had the awful selection of previous generation french missiles available to you. Even then, MICA RF was always shorter ranged than AIM-7, AIM-120, AA-10.

                    Comment

                    • Blue Apple
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Feb 2009
                      • 395

                      Even then, MICA RF was always shorter ranged than AIM-7, AIM-120, AA-10
                      Always? At its entry in service, MICA had a range similar to the AIM-120B and larger than the AIM-7M. Yes, the AIM-120C5 has a longer range but that's more a "we miniaturized stuff so we get extra room for more powder" than the result of a hard requirement for more range.

                      Hence why a NG when the programmed service entry date will be so close to the future NGF (to object of my remark)?
                      To be able to use the MICA NG on the NGF? That would be an obvious design goal for the weapon bay designers (along with IRIS-T, SBU-54 or even the ASMP-A).



                      Comment

                      • Sintra
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Aug 2007
                        • 3845

                        Originally posted by Ozair View Post
                        The interchangeable sensors really isn't a selling point unless you bought a French aircraft pre Meteor and had the awful selection of previous generation french missiles available to you.
                        ?
                        In what particular way the likes of the Magic, Magic 2 and Super 530F/D were awful by comparison with their contemporary equivalents?
                        Their combat record seems to be pretty decent, there are quite a number of Migs, Sukhoi, Phantoms, Tigers, Tomcats and even a Viper and TU-22 that ended in the receiving end of a French pre Matra Mica AAM and decent PKs for AAMs are a recent thing.

                        Cheers
                        Last edited by Sintra; 12th June 2019, 13:07.
                        sigpic

                        Comment

                        • Ozair
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2015
                          • 821

                          Originally posted by Blue Apple View Post
                          Always? At its entry in service, MICA had a range similar to the AIM-120B and larger than the AIM-7M. Yes, the AIM-120C5 has a longer range but that's more a "we miniaturized stuff so we get extra room for more powder" than the result of a hard requirement for more range.
                          Sorry yes correction, MICA was comparable to but almost certainly never longer ranged than AIM-7M (although active seeker provided significant tactical improvement but MICA IOCed 16 years later) and comparable to AIM-120B under similar launch conditions. Still significantly shorter ranged than AA-10C. Incidentally the AIM-120C range increase was also a result of lofting profile changes and most certainly arrived as a result of a requirement for an increase in range.


                          Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                          ?
                          In what particular way the likes of the Magic, Magic 2 and Super 530F/D were awful by comparison with their contemporary equivalents?
                          Their combat record seems to be pretty decent, there are quite a number of Migs, Sukhoi, Phantoms, Tigers, Tomcats and even a Viper and TU-22 that ended in the receiving end of a French pre Matra Mica AAM and

                          Cheers
                          530 series was heavier with smaller warheads and less range than contemporaries. Magic went all aspect almost ten years after AIM-9L. Both were difficult to integrate onto non French platforms.

                          Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                          decent PKs for AAMs are a recent thing.
                          Agree, hence why the claim by Halloween was meaningless.

                          Comment

                          • halloweene
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2012
                            • 4343

                            Ok let's clear a fewpoints (the last before i write an article). Mica NG will have dual datalink AND will be networked and part of FCAS.

                            Comment

                            • TomcatViP
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Nov 2011
                              • 6059

                              but why a Mica body when you have at least a full decade of wind tunnel testing available in front of you?!

                              Comment

                              • OPIT
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Aug 2005
                                • 901

                                Cost reduction

                                Comment

                                • Marcellogo
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2014
                                  • 1830

                                  Maybe for the same reasons because our ASPIDE missiles despite not having a single bolt in common with AIM-7E still retained its external body (that we were already licence producing): to quickly adapt it to existing launchers.
                                  Because of it, there is still someone around that, contrary to all evidences, still consider it a derivative of the Sparrow and not a completely different product as it is.

                                  Ought to remember how ASPIDE itself passed from fixed to foldable and finally to a new fixed, low encumber cropped delta fins that fit the same in the ground launchers but greatly eased manutention and handling.

                                  MiCA, like Aspide is also a ground and sea launched missile so IMHO it make a lot of sense to deploy an advanced version of it for those uses i.e. to not being forced to trash existing launchers or a.t.c. to not limit performance of the new one in order to made it fit in them.
                                  .
                                  Last edited by Marcellogo; 14th June 2019, 08:22.

                                  Comment

                                  • halloweene
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2012
                                    • 4343

                                    SCAF as of today

                                    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9AojbUXsAAaGDF.jpg

                                    to me there are some close looking points th the facet study (can't find the photo)

                                    another one. Finally looks like YF23

                                    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9AnQfJXoAADeMP.jpg:large
                                    Last edited by halloweene; 14th June 2019, 09:57.

                                    Comment

                                    • Blue Apple
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Feb 2009
                                      • 395

                                      Maybe for the same reasons because our ASPIDE missiles despite not having a single bolt in common with AIM-7E still retained its external body (that we were already licence producing): to quickly adapt it to existing launchers.
                                      Bingo. Pylons/adapters/containers aren't cheap so it's one element to consider.

                                      But for flying platforms, you also need flutter tests with all possible combination of loads on the wing, tests that have to be conducted at different altitude and speed. That gets really expensive real fast.

                                      And when it comes to A2A weapons, it's even worse: you also need to ensure same separation of the weapon under extreme flight conditions: high AoA, 9g+ turn, negative g's... So for each hardpoint, you need thousand hours of simulation, hundreds of hours flying instrumented mock-ups and tens of launches if you want to open the full flight envelope.

                                      IIRC, for the first AIM-120C versions, they had to add a ballast behind the guidance unit to keep the same weight & balance even though the new unit was much smaller/lighter. Then they designed a larger engine to take advantage of the extra space & weight.

                                      Comment

                                      • TomcatViP
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Nov 2011
                                        • 6059

                                        Every pound of weight added to that extra bulky WB is another pound of fuel that have to be carried... And at 11G, that's a minimum of 11lb per extra lb added to the total. Then fighter cost is function of weight. And that's is not linear: more weight, more parts, more working hours... And then, you are toasted.
                                        I think seriously that someone should have a look at that contract. There is no way this would save any money. 10y ago, as I said before, I would have agreed. But now it's too late, irrelevant and counter-efficient.

                                        Get a Deliveroo credit and start bunkering yourself in a tunnel.*


                                        Originally posted by Blue Apple View Post

                                        IIRC, for the first AIM-120C versions, they had to add a ballast behind the guidance unit to keep the same weight & balance even though the new unit was much smaller/lighter. Then they designed a larger engine to take advantage of the extra space & weight.
                                        Nice to know!

                                        * A wind tunnel
                                        Last edited by TomcatViP; 14th June 2019, 21:12.

                                        Comment

                                        • TomcatViP
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Nov 2011
                                          • 6059

                                          Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                          SCAF as of today

                                          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9AojbUXsAAaGDF.jpg

                                          to me there are some close looking points th the facet study (can't find the photo)

                                          another one. Finally looks like YF23

                                          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9AnQfJXoAADeMP.jpg:large
                                          Miam Miam!*

                                          Notice the strakes (on the nose) and... The verticals that are back!


                                          *Yum Yum

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X