Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 184

Thread: Finnish fighter replacement revisited

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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."

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,939
    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.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,819
    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.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,400
    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/

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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."

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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."

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,400
    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/

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    Depends on the range, altitude, target vector, and closure rate.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,939
    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.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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."

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    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.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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 at 19:02.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,685
    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 A´s 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.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,685
    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 they´ve ignored.
    Did i forget to mention that less than six months after the conclusion of the evaluation the Danish Defense Minister tweteed that the Flyvevåbnet 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?

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    575
    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...

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,400
    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 at 20:08.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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."

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    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 at 21:41.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    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."

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    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 at 23:07.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    It takes part replacement to extend airframe hours by 50%, Boeing is FOS if they are claiming a 9k airframe for new buys. That kind of beefing up of structure (especially considering the added stress of the CFTs) would completely screw with the balance & weight of the airframe and would require a lot of new testing & certification.

    btw, The video (starting at 7:10) explicitly says that they take "existing F-18s in the fleet" and extend them out to 9k. No mention of factory fresh 9k lifetimes.
    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 10th May 2018 at 23:18.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,400
    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.

    Difference between M2 and M1.6 is 211 kn.
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    good to know you can add.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    12,132
    btw, The video (starting at 7:10) explicitly says that they take "existing F-18s in the fleet" and extend them out to 9k. No mention of factory fresh 9k lifetimes.
    Boeing has claimed elsewhere that the Block IIIs delivered from the factory would be built for 9000 hrs.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    11
    There have been plenty of claims from Boeing that newbuilt Block III will be 9000 hours. I don't see it being that impossible, they have over 20 years of experience and data on the airframe to identify the key stress points and new manufacturing technologies have been adopted in the mean time.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,668
    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.
    Against who? because neither Gripen nor M2k never lost in combat either (as an example)

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    2,400
    Gripen topspeed is nearly 300kts faster than F-35. No wonder Royal AF has'em too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9x-Zt9jg8
    If it looks good, it will fly good !
    -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


    http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    Too bad that's unarmed
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,939
    Quote Originally Posted by topspeed View Post
    Gripen topspeed is nearly 300kts faster than F-35. No wonder Royal AF has'em too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA9x-Zt9jg8
    What are you smoking? The Gripen C has a maximum speed of Mach 1.8(ish). Operationally stated as Mach 1.8. (Btw, so is the F-18E/F). F-18 armed with 2 Aim-120 and 2 Aim-9 the maximum speed is Mach 1.55.

    And armed Gripen isn’t even 80 Knots faster than an F-35. The Gripen E/F is stated as Mach 2. However, we will see when weights and final configuration are set. Your obsessing about a truly irrelevant topic. When armed there is very little difference between most. The Typhoon has been stated to reach Mach 1.8 with 3 EFT so it is likely it can reach near Mach 2 armed. Realistically, most of the time every one of these aircraft will be carrying at least a centerline tank (except F-35), and be unlikely to reach 700 knots 30-35k feet (not that they would most of the time).

    Edit- added 100 knots by accident.
    Last edited by FBW; 11th May 2018 at 20:07.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,969
    Remind me again of the Gripen's range armed with only 2 AAMs?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES