By: FBW
- 28th August 2014 at 17:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
huh why that? The F-35A can supercruise at Mach 1.2 and 3+ sorties a day is in the specifications of the plane.
The quite from which the Mach 1.2 number originated is ambiguous at best., some read it as obligatory states " with a bit of afterburner", yet the whole quote makes it difficult to ascertain to what degree the aircraft can maintain speeds above Mach 1. Mach 1.2 may or may not be super cruise anyway depending on the mach cone, critical mach number, generated by a particular aircraft. The KPP is for 3 sorties surge and 2 sustained.
By: Hotshot
- 28th August 2014 at 17:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some pilots have suggested that it could SC at M1.2. For the pilot who said with min AB, which variant was it? The B and C probably can't SC with no AB at all, what about the A?
By: Hotshot
- 28th August 2014 at 17:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right, 3 surge, 4 for the F-35B. And I have no doubt that in the first day of a major war they would try to mount as many sorties as they possibly can, possibly even more than 3.
The problem with the M1.2 SC is that it may depend on internal fuel etc...
By: mig-31bm
- 28th August 2014 at 17:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This tactic of nap of the earth attack could well work against ground targets, radars or other.
it work better again sea target because again ground target if you fly low, you will have trouble with short range AA, shoulders SAM, or flying into mountain,
24 spears would cost a lot! Each would cost probably like 200k, so your attack would cost 4.8 million. Just launch like 8 regular spears straight to the target, one of them will surely hit. Possibly even the spears ( or any other missile ) could attack from different angle to have a better saturation effect. For instance 4 missiles attack from one side at 5 sec interval and at the same time 4 from the opposite direction at 180 degrees. The CIW will be unable to catch them all.
even a short range SAM system like TOR-M1 cost about 15 millions,long range SAM like S-400 cost about 100-150 millions, a destroyer with decent anti air capability cost about 300-400 millions so an attack that cost 4.8 millions to take them out or neutralise them is pretty cheap ( about same cost as 4 aim-120)
don't know about US system but Russian ship have about 4-5 CIWS + Long and medium range SAM, so you probably need more than 8 SPEAR to penetrate them
By: mig-31bm
- 28th August 2014 at 17:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
to be honest, supercruise is quite over rated, your aircraft cruise at mach 2 or even mach 3 not really help a lot again SAM that can easy intercept ballistic missiles (mach 8-15)
By: Hotshot
- 28th August 2014 at 17:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it work better again sea target because again ground target if you fly low, you will have trouble with short range AA, shoulders SAM, or flying into mountain,
even a short range SAM system like TOR-M1 cost about 15 millions,long range SAM like S-400 cost about 100-150 millions, a destroyer with decent anti air capability cost about 300-400 millions so an attack that cost 4.8 millions to take them out or neutralise them is pretty cheap ( about same cost as 4 aim-120)
don't know about US system but Russian ship have about 4-5 CIWS + Long and medium range SAM, so you probably need more than 8 SPEAR to penetrate them
I was not talking about attacking a ship. Against ground radar, you will note that not a single air force wants to shoot 24 missiles at once to destroy a radar. Just put a **** load of submunition in a large cruise missile if you want to achieve that kind of saturation effect.
I really doubt the S400 RADAR costs 100-150 million. That price is probably with all the missile batteries.
By: FBW
- 28th August 2014 at 17:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some pilots have suggested that it could SC at M1.2. For the pilot who said with min AB, which variant was it? The B and C probably can't SC with no AB at all, what about the A?
One issue is that there are two different quotes that people use to contend the point of the F-35 super cruising:
The first was from an F-35 test pilot Hank Griffiths:
"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."
The second was from an Air Force Magazine Quote from Steve O'Brian:
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."
In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.
By: Hotshot
- 28th August 2014 at 17:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
to be honest, supercruise is quite over rated, your aircraft cruise at mach 2 or even mach 3 not really help a lot again SAM that can easy intercept ballistic missiles (mach 8-15)
Supercruising reduces the time you are vulnerable to enemy SAMs and fighters. The F-35 can avoid most SAMs thanks to its stealth. Being faster surely can't hurt. Being faster will help against fighters too, as the plane has more energy at the beginning of the fight, and can escape better. That's the whole point of the SC on the F-22.
By: Hotshot
- 28th August 2014 at 18:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One issue is that there are two different quotes that people use to contend the point of the F-35 super cruising:
The first was from an F-35 test pilot Hank Griffiths:
"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."
The second was from an Air Force Magazine Quote from Steve O'Brian:
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."
In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.
Not to beat a dead horse or anything.....
Ok, we have all seen these quotes many times. For the first one, which variant of the F-35 was he talking about, with how much fuel?
As for the 150miles, I find that weird. Why would it be limited to 150 miles? I can't believe the engine can't be used a full mil thrust for longer than that. That reminds me of the figure of 100nm supercruising range for the F-22. These are probably public figures. The planes probably can supercruise much longer than that.
The F-35 would use more fuel when supercruising, but if it has missiles with significant range instead of just bombs, it would be enough.
I think F-35 operators should use the ability of the plane to supercruise when they can, especially for the first strikes when entering the enemy airspace would be very dangerous.
Hess said Pratt would also be able to apply new technology developments to the F135 engine, which could increase the engine's thrust and fuel efficiency by about 5 percent.
By: mig-31bm
- 28th August 2014 at 19:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was not talking about attacking a ship. Against ground radar, you will note that not a single air force wants to shoot 24 missiles at once to destroy a radar. Just put a **** load of submunition in a large cruise missile if you want to achieve that kind of saturation effect.
I really doubt the S400 RADAR costs 100-150 million. That price is probably with all the missile batteries.
no they probably prefer 1 missiles per target but the more missiles you launch the higher PK you will get , and iam pretty sure they will launch far more missiles to protect their aircraft
The fact that NATO forces were unable to quickly kill off the Serbian SAM batteries forced continuing and ongoing sorties by NATO support jamming and defence suppression aircraft, driving up the cost to drop each bomb delivered several-fold. NATO forces launched 743 AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile rounds for very little damage effect
many submunition on a large missiles is not the same as many smaller missiles , because the SAM may just shot down that big missiles
also a SAM batteries without radar is pretty useless and can be destroy by gun or sth like laser guider hydra 70
By: mig-31bm
- 28th August 2014 at 20:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supercruising reduces the time you are vulnerable to enemy SAMs and fighters. The F-35 can avoid most SAMs thanks to its stealth. Being faster surely can't hurt. Being faster will help against fighters too, as the plane has more energy at the beginning of the fight, and can escape better. That's the whole point of the SC on the F-22.
that all true but
1- Supercruise will reduce range significantly compared to subsonic cruise
2- higher speed = less reaction time if enemy detect you and launch a missiles at you
3- higher speed often mean turn radius wider so you come closer to SAM batteries when try to turn aways
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 29th August 2014 at 02:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As for the 150miles, I find that weird. Why would it be limited to 150 miles? I can't believe the engine can't be used a full mil thrust for longer than that.
ditto, but i can believe that it has to return to base after ~50% afterburner for 150 miles
By: mig-31bm
- 29th August 2014 at 02:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ditto, but i can believe that it has to return to base after ~50% afterburner for 150 miles
fuel consume depend alot on altitude though
even sth like Mig-29 and F-16 can go on full afterburner for along time at very high altitude
Fuel flow depends HEAVILY on speed and altitude. Take F-16 with 7000 pounds of fuel.
For example an F-16 blk50 flying an MIL power will consume 17000 lb/h at M0,9 and Sea Level.
Yet very same F-16 blk50 flying at MAX AB power will consume only 4000 lb/h at M0,6 and 60k feet. (less than 25% of the previous dry thrust condition)
On max consumption F-16 blk50 flying at MAX AB will consume 96000lb/h at M1,3 and Sea Level.
Lowest possible consumption at max MIL power is 1000 lb/h at M0,6 and 60k feet.
If you are looking for max possible time, 1 hours 45 minutes for little F-16 which will not take you anywhere. However minimum time is somewhat useful for a S/L dogfight that is 4 minutes 22 seconds.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 29th August 2014 at 02:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes, because thrust goes down as alt goes up,
its likely that climb acceleration, return & reserve is included in that 150 miles declaration
By: mig-31bm
- 29th August 2014 at 05:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes, because thrust goes down as alt goes up,
drag go down too
its likely that climb acceleration, return & reserve is included in that 150 miles declaration
i dont really get this part
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 29th August 2014 at 05:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
in L.M's 150 miles 'supercruise' example i mean, there is enough fuel to climb, accelerate to M1.2,
maintain that speed for 150 miles, and return to base,
that is my interpretation of that statement
By: Hotshot
- 29th August 2014 at 06:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that all true but
1- Supercruise will reduce range significantly compared to subsonic cruise
In some cases the plane has enough range to be able to supercruise. For instance in the case I am talking about where the F-35 has cruise missiles.
2- higher speed = less reaction time if enemy detect you and launch a missiles at you
3- higher speed often mean turn radius wider so you come closer to SAM batteries when try to turn aways
The plane would take a bit more time to turn but can accelerate away faster. And Mach 1.2 is not mach 2, the plane still has a significant maneuvrability.
With SC, the plane stays in enemy airpace a shorter time so is less likely to be engaged. With its good SA the F-35 will avoid flying within SAM range as much as possible. SC is also useful against fighters flying CAP, and it leaves less time for fighters on the ground to take off and make an interception.
By: Hotshot
- 29th August 2014 at 06:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is that they have the same kind of figure for the F-22, and the F-22 should be able to supercruise much longer than that, all the more that its engines are optimized for supercruise, that is, don't burn that much more fuel in SC.
By: mig-31bm
- 29th August 2014 at 07:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The plane would take a bit more time to turn but can accelerate away faster. And Mach 1.2 is not mach 2, the plane still has a significant maneuvrability.
With SC, the plane stays in enemy airpace a shorter time so is less likely to be engaged. With its good SA the F-35 will avoid flying within SAM range as much as possible. SC is also useful against fighters flying CAP, and it leaves less time for fighters on the ground to take off and make an interception.
it true that high speed is lot more useful for stealth aircraft than a non stealth one
but it may take alot of time to turn , depend on speed ( if iam not wrong at mach 2 fighter like F-14 and Mig-31 have turn radius about 40-60 km and remember they are optimum to operate at high speed , they can turn better at mach 2 than most fighter ) , not to mention , it really hard to avoid pop up threat when you flying fast
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 28th August 2014 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...with a bit of afterburner
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 28th August 2014 at 17:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The quite from which the Mach 1.2 number originated is ambiguous at best., some read it as obligatory states " with a bit of afterburner", yet the whole quote makes it difficult to ascertain to what degree the aircraft can maintain speeds above Mach 1. Mach 1.2 may or may not be super cruise anyway depending on the mach cone, critical mach number, generated by a particular aircraft. The KPP is for 3 sorties surge and 2 sustained.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 17:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some pilots have suggested that it could SC at M1.2. For the pilot who said with min AB, which variant was it? The B and C probably can't SC with no AB at all, what about the A?
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 17:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Right, 3 surge, 4 for the F-35B. And I have no doubt that in the first day of a major war they would try to mount as many sorties as they possibly can, possibly even more than 3.
The problem with the M1.2 SC is that it may depend on internal fuel etc...
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 28th August 2014 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it work better again sea target because again ground target if you fly low, you will have trouble with short range AA, shoulders SAM, or flying into mountain,
even a short range SAM system like TOR-M1 cost about 15 millions,long range SAM like S-400 cost about 100-150 millions, a destroyer with decent anti air capability cost about 300-400 millions so an attack that cost 4.8 millions to take them out or neutralise them is pretty cheap ( about same cost as 4 aim-120)
don't know about US system but Russian ship have about 4-5 CIWS + Long and medium range SAM, so you probably need more than 8 SPEAR to penetrate them
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 28th August 2014 at 17:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
to be honest, supercruise is quite over rated, your aircraft cruise at mach 2 or even mach 3 not really help a lot again SAM that can easy intercept ballistic missiles (mach 8-15)
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 17:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was not talking about attacking a ship. Against ground radar, you will note that not a single air force wants to shoot 24 missiles at once to destroy a radar. Just put a **** load of submunition in a large cruise missile if you want to achieve that kind of saturation effect.
I really doubt the S400 RADAR costs 100-150 million. That price is probably with all the missile batteries.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 28th August 2014 at 17:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One issue is that there are two different quotes that people use to contend the point of the F-35 super cruising:
The first was from an F-35 test pilot Hank Griffiths:
"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said. "So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air."
The second was from an Air Force Magazine Quote from Steve O'Brian:
The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
"Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots," O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to "throw" such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes "through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily." The transonic area is "where you really operate."
In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. "We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen" fighters. The F-35 "compares favorably in any area of the envelope," he asserted.
Not to beat a dead horse or anything.....
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 17:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supercruising reduces the time you are vulnerable to enemy SAMs and fighters. The F-35 can avoid most SAMs thanks to its stealth. Being faster surely can't hurt. Being faster will help against fighters too, as the plane has more energy at the beginning of the fight, and can escape better. That's the whole point of the SC on the F-22.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 18:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, we have all seen these quotes many times. For the first one, which variant of the F-35 was he talking about, with how much fuel?
As for the 150miles, I find that weird. Why would it be limited to 150 miles? I can't believe the engine can't be used a full mil thrust for longer than that. That reminds me of the figure of 100nm supercruising range for the F-22. These are probably public figures. The planes probably can supercruise much longer than that.
The F-35 would use more fuel when supercruising, but if it has missiles with significant range instead of just bombs, it would be enough.
I think F-35 operators should use the ability of the plane to supercruise when they can, especially for the first strikes when entering the enemy airspace would be very dangerous.
The F135 will also be upgraded with 5% more thrust:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-20/business/sns-rt-us-unitedtechnologies-pratt-20131220_1_pratt-whitney-f135-f-35
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 28th August 2014 at 19:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
no they probably prefer 1 missiles per target but the more missiles you launch the higher PK you will get , and iam pretty sure they will launch far more missiles to protect their aircraft
many submunition on a large missiles is not the same as many smaller missiles , because the SAM may just shot down that big missiles
also a SAM batteries without radar is pretty useless and can be destroy by gun or sth like laser guider hydra 70
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 28th August 2014 at 20:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that all true but
1- Supercruise will reduce range significantly compared to subsonic cruise
2- higher speed = less reaction time if enemy detect you and launch a missiles at you
3- higher speed often mean turn radius wider so you come closer to SAM batteries when try to turn aways
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 29th August 2014 at 02:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ditto, but i can believe that it has to return to base after ~50% afterburner for 150 miles
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 29th August 2014 at 02:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
fuel consume depend alot on altitude though
even sth like Mig-29 and F-16 can go on full afterburner for along time at very high altitude
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 29th August 2014 at 02:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes, because thrust goes down as alt goes up,
its likely that climb acceleration, return & reserve is included in that 150 miles declaration
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 29th August 2014 at 05:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
drag go down too
i dont really get this part
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 29th August 2014 at 05:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
in L.M's 150 miles 'supercruise' example i mean, there is enough fuel to climb, accelerate to M1.2,
maintain that speed for 150 miles, and return to base,
that is my interpretation of that statement
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 29th August 2014 at 06:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In some cases the plane has enough range to be able to supercruise. For instance in the case I am talking about where the F-35 has cruise missiles.
The plane would take a bit more time to turn but can accelerate away faster. And Mach 1.2 is not mach 2, the plane still has a significant maneuvrability.
With SC, the plane stays in enemy airpace a shorter time so is less likely to be engaged. With its good SA the F-35 will avoid flying within SAM range as much as possible. SC is also useful against fighters flying CAP, and it leaves less time for fighters on the ground to take off and make an interception.
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 29th August 2014 at 06:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem is that they have the same kind of figure for the F-22, and the F-22 should be able to supercruise much longer than that, all the more that its engines are optimized for supercruise, that is, don't burn that much more fuel in SC.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 29th August 2014 at 07:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it true that high speed is lot more useful for stealth aircraft than a non stealth one
but it may take alot of time to turn , depend on speed ( if iam not wrong at mach 2 fighter like F-14 and Mig-31 have turn radius about 40-60 km and remember they are optimum to operate at high speed , they can turn better at mach 2 than most fighter ) , not to mention , it really hard to avoid pop up threat when you flying fast