Read the forum code of contact
By: - 22nd February 2004 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems to me that in more recent times, there is less emphasis on WVR combat, and more on BVR, where maneuverability might be of less importance than speed..?
By: - 22nd February 2004 at 20:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Shouldnt simplicity, maneuverability, engines capable of long range and good lifting ability plus good countermeasures and other factors be more important than speed?"
well, the thing is, most engines with good power output would likely make the plane using it go supersonic.
and the ability to go supersonic is not just abt speed, but also about energy. the faster a plane flies. the more energy it has to twist and turn, which in turn helps with manoverability.
"To acheive these speeds though takes the use of afterburner in most if not all cases, except for the F22 with its supercruise, and thus the use of a lot of fuel.In combat though high maneuverability, heavy external combat loads and need for range is generally preferable to speed so why the need for supersonic speeds in anything except recon aircraft like the Blackbird?"
well most a/c will jeterson all none-essentual loads before engaging in aa combat, so the extra load of weapons is not that big a deal in real life.
and anyhow, the afterburners are almost only used in short bursts in times of crisis, and it is generally preferible to have a plane that is a little bit more expansive but more serviverable then a cheaper plane that is likely to get shot out of the sky as soon as it is seen by the enemy.
im sorry this reply isnt better worded, but im in a hurry and must go in a min. if there are things that i said that u cant understand, please point them out and i'll reword them at a later time.
By: - 23rd February 2004 at 03:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
go try fighting an F-15 in an A-10. that's your answer...
IMO an important factor here is the "fight or flight" option... the power to decide whether to engage your opponent or not. a simple, maneuverable, long-ranged and cheap A-10 cannot run away ("refuse engagement") from an F-15 under any circumstances, but will have to fight on the F-15's terms and lose in any case. speed, power and stealth thus give this "refuse engagement" option that allows you to avoid fighting when in unfavorable circumstances and press the battle in favorable ones. It's a great advantage. that's why the F-22, with its speed, stealth and excellent sensors, has such a fantastic advantage in modern air combat, whether BVR or WVR.
and speed and altitude give a big boost to AAM range in BVR engagements too.
By: - 23rd February 2004 at 06:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The higher speeds are most useful for transit times and, as "wd1" said, for setting the rules of the engagement. Interceptors historically have been rather high speed aircraft in order so that they could react, climb, and quickly reach the interecept point of a target-i.e., transit time. Also, many strike aircraft have this for quickly reaching a target area with surprise, so that they could then attack usually at a lower speed, and then leave the area quickly. Very little (if any?) combat takes place at supersonic speed. Determining when and how a fight will take place is rule number one, so the advantage of higher mach speeds will allow one to do this better than their enemy. Is all-out high speed so necessary today? No, but it is nice to have if you can afford it.
By: - 23rd February 2004 at 09:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by wd1
...speed and altitude give a big boost to AAM range in BVR engagements too.
That's the key right there-the faster you go, the more kinetic energy you impart to the AAM at launch, and the farther it flies. A supercruising fighter like the F/A-22, which can tool around at Mach 1.5 on a regular basis, has an edge even before you factor stealth into the mix.
By: - 23rd February 2004 at 09:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by SOC
That's the key right there-the faster you go, the more kinetic energy you impart to the AAM at launch, and the farther it flies. A supercruising fighter like the F/A-22, which can tool around at Mach 1.5 on a regular basis, has an edge even before you factor stealth into the mix.
Slowly with that numbers, SOC. Supercruise alone is an issue of fuel economics rather than kinetic energy of a missile at launch. Any other supersonic aircraft can speed up to M 1.5 prior to launch by using its afterburners whenever necessary, as well. Of course, at proper altitude. And that counts for Raptor as for any other a/c, since the F-22 is aerodynamically nothing exceptional. As well as there is a little use of supersonic speeds with CAP missions, IMHO.
Posts: 179
By: ForkTailedDevil - 22nd February 2004 at 20:29
Most of the serious fighters and a few of the bombers in use today have Mach speeds in the region of 2.5.To acheive these speeds though takes the use of afterburner in most if not all cases, except for the F22 with its supercruise, and thus the use of a lot of fuel.In combat though high maneuverability, heavy external combat loads and need for range is generally preferable to speed so why the need for supersonic speeds in anything except recon aircraft like the Blackbird?Shouldnt simplicity, maneuverability, engines capable of long range and good lifting ability plus good countermeasures and other factors be more important than speed? Answers and explanations on a card please!