That's what comes of replying to forums late at night.
You're right on those numbers. Thanks.
Combat Aircraft Comparison stats
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
You're right on those numbers. Thanks.Rafale c weights-on at 9.500 kg according to the official figures released by the ministere of defense.
This would give it the following TWR:
Non-AB Thrust TWR: 1.052.
AB Thrust TWR: 1.578.
According to LM Program Brief (PDF Program-Brief-20Sept-2006) the F-35 empty weights are (for a 28.000/43.000 lb F-135):
CTOL: 29.036 lb
STVOL: 32.161 lb
CV: 32.072 lb.
TWR would give us:
Non-AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 0.964.
AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 1.480.
Non-AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 0.870
AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 1.337.
Non-AB Thrust TWR CV: 0.873.
AB Thrust TWR CV: 1.340.
I do think that whoever compiled these datas was misinformed.
This would give it the following TWR:
Non-AB Thrust TWR: 1.052.
AB Thrust TWR: 1.578.
According to LM Program Brief (PDF Program-Brief-20Sept-2006) the F-35 empty weights are (for a 28.000/43.000 lb F-135):
CTOL: 29.036 lb
STVOL: 32.161 lb
CV: 32.072 lb.
TWR would give us:
Non-AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 0.964.
AB Thrust TWR CTOL: 1.480.
Non-AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 0.870
AB Thrust TWR STVOL: 1.337.
Non-AB Thrust TWR CV: 0.873.
AB Thrust TWR CV: 1.340.
I do think that whoever compiled these datas was misinformed.
Frank Hammer
New Member
Those figures use public static power, not real power in combat condition.
Real power depend on By pass ratio, pressure rate, stall margin etc...
For exemple to name an extreme case, M2000 engine with low pressure and low by pass has a bad static trust compare to a F16.However in flight at mach 1 and high altitude, its real power is higher than the F16 engine (high pressure , high by pass) which is better for lower speed and altitude.
Real power depend on By pass ratio, pressure rate, stall margin etc...
For exemple to name an extreme case, M2000 engine with low pressure and low by pass has a bad static trust compare to a F16.However in flight at mach 1 and high altitude, its real power is higher than the F16 engine (high pressure , high by pass) which is better for lower speed and altitude.
This chart is misleading. Too many variables are needed. One thing, you can't go by the thrust values since it is dynamic. You don't know how the engine company acquires it thrust static - uninstalled - value. There are installations losses and air intake ram effect that changes with the airspeed and altitude. at 0 speed and installed, the thrust is LOWER than what is rated.
The empty dry weight changes over there years, in fact, they are higher than what it is cited on the list.
Again so many variables.
The empty dry weight changes over there years, in fact, they are higher than what it is cited on the list.
Again so many variables.
kizilsungur
New Member
OK General
Mod edit: Please see the forum rules about posting "one-liner" comments. This is the third one seen recently. Any questions about this policy, please see the forum rules.
http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
u may give reasons for ur opinions ofcourse..
[Mod Edit] I'd like to draw your attention to Rule 18 . . . . http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Your co-operation would be appreciated.
PJI [/Mod edit]
[Mod Edit] I'd like to draw your attention to Rule 18 . . . . http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
Your co-operation would be appreciated.
PJI [/Mod edit]
Last edited by a moderator:
Cool stats...would be better if comparison on payload, range & ceiling being made??
About Mig 31 aka Foxhound
1. Intercept Role Figther to replace old Mig 25 aka Foxbat.
2. Max speed can reach to 3.0++ Mach (however, engine will gone crazy damage if it's reach that max speed).
3. Equip with latest radar which range around 300km something.
4. Equip with new BVR missile AA-12 Adder
About Mig 31 aka Foxhound
1. Intercept Role Figther to replace old Mig 25 aka Foxbat.
2. Max speed can reach to 3.0++ Mach (however, engine will gone crazy damage if it's reach that max speed).
3. Equip with latest radar which range around 300km something.
4. Equip with new BVR missile AA-12 Adder
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Its not soooo underpowered, its T/W ratio isnt that bad. Remember its the 2nd heaviest fighter after the enormous Tomcat therefore its HUGE. Unless they gave it a 3rd engine it wasnt going to get a much better T/W ratio with AL-31 technology. Anyway T/W is only 1 element of kinematic performance, T/D (and intake design) dictates top sprint speed.
Again that is accurate. Thats one of the bigest advantages of the F-35, the huge internal fuel load. A primary design goal was to carry enough fuel internally so it can do the same job as the F-16 with external fuel. It wouldnt have been much use investing in the whole stealth thing if you had to take big, dragy, RCS compromising external tanks every time you want to do something.
I know its T/W ratio is impressive considering its weight, but when compared to the rest of the field, its T/W ratio is poor. Also I hope your right on the other factors determining sprint speed, otherwise It would not be able to keep up to the tail of an F15 in an aerial engagement done long time ago when the Su27 1st came to the US.
I'm still wondering where does the JSF have the space to fill in those fuel tanks to approach the SU27 considering a huge portion of its internal volume is taken up by the internal weapons compartment ans the huge lift fan inside. The Su27 surely has larger internal volume compared to the JSF.
I'm still wondering where does the JSF have the space to fill in those fuel tanks to approach the SU27 considering a huge portion of its internal volume is taken up by the internal weapons compartment ans the huge lift fan inside. The Su27 surely has larger internal volume compared to the JSF.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Thrust to weight usually determines acceleration and to a large extent climb performance. Top sprint speed is largely dictated by thrust to drag and intake design. Both T/W and T/D are equally improtant.
If you look at the F-35's airframe, notably in the body its actially quite chubby & stout, pluss the blended wing & body provides more room for fuel. You can see the allmost nacelle like tail section that flanks the engine exaust is quite thick. Again its all space to squeese in more fuel for a negilagble increase in drag. Additionally it only has one engine which reduces the space requirement.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I know its wiki but it outlines the principles.
"The speed of air entering the compressor of a normal jet engine must be subsonic, even for supersonic aircraft. While this doesn't affect subsonic aircraft, supersonic aircraft face a problem. This is because present design jet engines would be unable to handle the shock waves associated with supersonic airflow, and might be damaged.
Thus, for an aircraft travelling above Mach 1 speed, the airflow must be slowed down to subsonic speeds. In modern jet aircraft, this is done in a variety of ways through design of the Inlet. The complexity of these inlets increases with an increase in top speed. Planes with top speeds over Mach 2 require much more elaborate inlet designs. Thus, most modern aircrafts today rarely exceed the Mach 2 speed, usually limiting their top speed to Mach 1.8-2.0."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sniperz11/Diverterless_Supersonic_Inlet
Some air inlets feature a biconic centrebody to form two conic shock waves, both focused on the lip of the intake. This improves pressure recovery. Some aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter, Mirage III) use a semi-conic centrebody.
Concorde, F-15, Foxbat, A-5 Vigilante use so-called 2D inlets, where the nacelle is rectangular and a flat inlet ramp replaces the dual cones just described. These allow good pressure recovery without spillover through the full range of speeds by matching their angle to the mach angle, but have problems with seals at high speed that is high pressure and temperature (like in a diesel engine). Inlet ramps allow for swept inlet cowls (F-22 Raptor, Joint Strike Fighter) to avoid shocks. They are sealed by viton or a metal sheet bend in direction of the higher pressure. At least one supersonic and one subsonic ramp is used, but for improved seal multiple supersonic ramps can be used. The boundary layer (something which the subsonic pitote inlet avoids by external compression) tends to separate and the smaller boundary layer of the ramp inlet is an advantage compared to the inlet cone. To avoid separation vortex generators are used, which mix the boundary layer with the free flow (or the boundary layer is sucked away through a porous surface, leading to drag). After the fan the hot slow intermixed air is passed by the engine, while the fast cold air is delivered to the engine.
After the engine the comparatively cold bypass air is used as an isolation between the engine exhaust and the walls. Again two ramps can be used to form a variable supersonic nozzle. Often a mirror-symmetric set-up is used with ramps on top and on the bottom.
There is one possibility for a stable, shockless supersonic to subsonic transition. This is used in transonic wings and would ultimately mean to send the air into a looping, forming a vortex: Then the final shock to subsonic speed is oblique with the subsonic region moving from the outside of the vortex to the inside.
Many supersonic aircraft (Eurofighter Typhoon,F-16) dispense with the conical centrebody and employ a simple pitot intake. A detached, strong normal shock appears directly in front of inlet at supersonic flight speeds, which leads to a poor pressure recovery.
Also NASA adds a gap through the whole compressor. Supersonic flow jumps over it by means of ramps, while subsonic flow is able to turn and exit through the gap. In this way a stall is easier to remove [1]. Also there are plans to measure the air in front of the inlet to detect turbulences and adjust the inlet in real-time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inlet_cone
Basically you usually need a variable intake or something that does the same job to reach high M2+ speed in a conventional jet aircraft, no matter what your thrust to drag ratio is.
Last edited:
Haavarla
Active Member
Yeah, and it weighs about 1 ton... so mini-awacs would be the right description.
I tend to think that the given figures are not too useful. What counts in an air-to-air combat is the package, really, comprising sensor suite, armament, ergonomics and ecm-suite as well. Let alone the capabilities of the pilot, who has to fly, manage weapons, sensors and fight his adversary.
I have no doubt that as a package the F-22 can easily take out any adversary now and in future. BVR sure is the thing that counts these days and I'm sure the F-22 with its sheer power and thrust vectoring is not only good at that
My guess for the second place, however, is the Eurofighter as besides its superior maneuverability connected with carefree handling the captor surely marks the edge of physically scanning radars, the degree of sensor integration (and display!) is enormous, the (yet future) weaponry (ASRAAM, IRIS-R, METEOR) seems to be leading the edge.
I'm not so sure at all about the abilities of the Flanker however. I believe it's capabilities in comparison are wildly exaggerated by its manufacturer and operating air forces like IAF and PLAAF. As there is no doubt that the MKI is the most advanced Flanker variant I will deal with this one:
As I already said in another thread, it basically is a 30 year-old-design and it's stable aerodynamic layout and massive size and weight don't point to extreme agility, do they?
Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times.
So I don't really think it will stand a chance against new generation western designs.
As far as the J-10 is concerned I not only think the avionics are modest at best compared to F-35, Eurofighter, Rafale etc. (not even Pakistan buys chinese radars for their FC-1) but I also think it is underpowered and the structural redesign of the air intake shows that it might be a big step for china's aviation industry but surely isn't a match for decades of experience and design instead of reeengineering and still buying russian planes because of weak performance...
"Even the MKI is way behind western designs as far as sensor fusion, battlefield awareness and so on are concerned.
Russian AAMs didn't do too well against western adversaries in the past while the AMRAAM has an unrivalled combat record in modern times."
On what basis do you draw this conclusion?
If you compair the F-22 against the Su-30MKI, sure the F-22 has some advantage but bear in mind that the F-22 rely heavy on the support of the AWACS. In fact USAF would never go on a stand alone mission without the AWACS there for support.
So.. The IAF uses AWACS too, then the "battlefield awareness" advantage goes out the window.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I think what he meant by that statement is sensor fusion and situational awareness. The integration of various sensor, navigation and comm systems has reached an unparalleled level in platforms like the F-22A, F/A-18F BII and Typhoon. These platforms to not simply present data from the various avionics sub systems but fuse said data into an easy and usable picture presented to the pilot through large LCD displays. Now the MKI has been "glassed" with displays provided by Thales, but that does not mean the information management technology is comparable to 5th/4.5th gen Western equivalents. Collecting and collating data from various sub systems and turning it into usable information is not an easy thing to do, and it is an area which has reached a new level of capability in the platforms mentioned above.
What this advance in information management and presentation does is improves the individual pilots awareness of the battle space around him, which goes far beyond providing an AWACS generated target track or intercept vector. As an example, the HMD in the F-35 will show the pilot where every detected threat and friendly is in 3 dimensions, simply by turning his head, even through the floor. The flanker on the other hand will have to stay 'heads down' trying to determine threat vectors if they are not either visible or in front of the aircraft, while managing the radar/RWR. The advantage this provides is significant.
Haavarla
Active Member
Ok, i see your point, but the F-35 isn't operative yet is it? And how many operative scvadron's of F-22 is there today, 3?
How many scvadron's of Thyphoon is there now?
I mean there how upgraded is the rest å of the Tornado, F-18, F-16 and F-15e left in service?
If u compair those with the Su-30MKI...
- Status