EA/18G Growler

[rjmaz1]

Top speed on the F35 is M1.5., 1.6 on the SH, compared to true Mach 2+ performance on the SU30. And T/W doesent take drag into account......

.... Public top speed for the SU 30K is Mach 2.35, compared to M1.5 on the F35.

You are just as bad as BKNO quoting top speeds.

The SU-30 has variable intakes.

The Super Hornet and F-35 have fixed intakes...

See my post above, which outlines this.

The SU-30 will never hit Mach 2 in combat. The US knows and has learnt from past experience this which is why they went back to the fixed inlets on their latest aircraft.

Thrust has the least to do with speed.. Drag, exhaust velocity and intake design have more to do with speed than the thrust of the engines.

I dont see much point in arguing with you as you continue to post the same information over and over and the majority of it is incorrect.

THE SU-30 WILL NOT HAVE SUPERIOR KINEMATIC PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE F-35!!!! can you please understand this and stop saying otherwise.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Seems to be a lot of rather ridiculous discussion here on air combat. The idea that you can judge comparative air combat capability by a one on one boxing ring type scenario is childish. Would fighter pilots even takeoff if they didn’t have ELINT, INT, JORN, HALE, JOC, AEW&C, ACO, C4ISR, EA, CSAR, IFR, etc all in the game as well? This is like playing chess with only one rook versus one bishop: fun for about five seconds then pointless.

Thats why its called a PLATFORM comparison. i.e. a comparison between plaforms not air forces.

Sure the F-35 and F/A-18E/F don’t have the kinematic performance of a low fuel Su-27 or F-22A. But do they need it? Victory in the face of apparent performance shortfalls is what lead Col. Boyd to develop the OODA loop, the only decent contribution to the theory of war made by an air power theorist.

Warfare is all about decision making. Weapons and the F-35 is a weapon that just happens to use the air to get from X to Y to Z are all about helping the warrior striking first and strike hard. You do that and you win. Ask all those dead Me 262 and MiG 15 pilots if you don’t believe me.

Fire Mission AGRA!

AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm

If you think the quality of a weapons system is irrelevent compared to its likely adversaries then id ask all of the tank crews who burnt alive in sherman's what they'd have to say about it.

I never said this was a comparison between the effectiveness of fighting organisations. I am however comparing the capabilities of the platforms involved.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Heah Ozzy Blizzard do you permission to use this graphic? It’s quite clearly the work of Dr Carlo Kopp and I'm sure he would appreciate people asking before they use his graphics if not paying for it or even better just linking through to his webpage.

I know I'm only new to the DT forum – long time listener, first time caller – but there are people who say what they say and do what they do to draw a paycheque and piracy is theft, except of higher paid rockstars, they deserve it.


Fire Mission AGRA!

AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm

He can sue me! I sighted it as his work and were i got it from. In academic circles that aint plagarism, its how ALL work is done.

 

[powerslavenegi]

The SU-30 has variable intakes.

So does the F-15 eagle and even the Tomcat ,just beacuse the F-35 and F-22 dont have the variable intake does not imply that the technology is obsolete or useless,the mission profile of the two stealth fighters is completely different from the former and hence the way and means to execute the same.

The SU-30 will never hit Mach 2 in combat.

rjmaz we all discuss on weapons systems based upon the data that is available on the WWW,some even might be privy to classified info .Having said that it is an unsaid rule to assume that weapon specs reported consistently on authentic websites be considered accurate,so your comment in this regards is absurd.

The US knows and has learnt from past experience this which is why they went back to the fixed inlets on their latest aircraft.

Fixed inlets on these aircrafts were imployed to keep address maintainance issues and the added fact that most of the air to air combat takes place in the transonic or even subsonic realm.Having said that it is never bad to have an added advantage of Mach number behind you in a war for its a close call up there (even BigE has reffered to the speed advantage of F-15 wrt to the Super Bug in DT).


Moreoever if I be allow to speculate further a movable ramp inside an intake would compromise the stealth of the aircraft (for the RCS of the sircraft would change at different speeds ).

Thrust has the least to do with speed.. Drag, exhaust velocity and intake design have more to do with speed than the thrust of the engines.

Those commemts again are absurd there are well established and proved mathematical equations that account for the above specs.

The guys who design the aircraft do account for the engine thrust , an airplane is built with a definite agenda and mission profile,it is these which govern the A/C performance over and about its envelope which later reflect onto what you call 'intake design,'drag' etc etc.

THE SU-30 WILL NOT HAVE SUPERIOR KINEMATIC PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE F-35!!!! can you please understand this and stop saying otherwise.

You would need to first lay down your definition of Kinematic performance,both aircraft might perform differently at different altitudes and configurations.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You keep repeating the same things.. You clearly show you have no idea what you are talking about. Even the gripen has better performance? Do you even know how fast the F-35 will fly? The goal with the F-35 is to exceed mach 1 without afterburners.

The only information i can provide on the Gripen is that it can cruise at Mach 1.05 with only a pair of missiles. It wont even be able to reach half the distance of the F-35 so again no one will buy the Gripen unless as a short ranged interceptor. Put its maximum external fuel onto the Gripens wings and it will struggle to reach even Mach 0.8. This speed has already been proven in the F-35.

For either Rafale and Eurofighter both of these aircraft need to carry their maximum external fuel to reach the range of the F-35 on internal fuel only. With maximum external fuel neither the Eurofighter or Rafale can only cruise at subsonic speeds. The F-35 then has the performance edge over the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen.

Most of the eurocanards can cruise above Mach 1 with a decent combat load. It has been PROVEN that the Typhoon can cruse at mach 1.3+ with a combat loadout. Since you seem to think that the only thing that grats a kinemetic advantage is cuise speed your statement that the F35 is a BETTER kinemetic performer than the Thyphoon because according to your unsubstatiated claim it can only cruise with a full external fual load, at Mach 0.8. Gee thats so relevent to when the actuall A2A combat is joined where the Typhoon will not have any external fuel tanks! So by your logic the F35 is a better kinematic performer than the Typhoon becaus it can transit quicker.:lol2

WOW The F-35 has a Mach 1.6 speed limit!!!! When is the last time an F-15 or F-14 has reached Mach 1.6 in combat?? Top speed it irrelevant cruising speed is what is important.

[Admin: Scatalogical Invective deleted] Prove it! You make claims that a mach 2+ aircraft like the F15, that is specifically designed to achieve that speed and met those targets easily in testing, cant do it in combat because......... why????? Because of the drag created by an A2A loadout????? lol sure. Dirty, it may not make its clean top speed, but to claim that its top speed is somehow droped by over a third because of an A2A load, and not substantiate it, no way. So your saying the only thing that grants kinematic advantage is crusing speed? Right? I just want to get that bit stright.

The F-35 is not limited to Mach 1.6 because its un-aerodynamic or it lacks thrust. The F-35 is limited to that speed because of its fixed inlets, fixed inlets are required for stealth purposes. BKNO, your lack of knowledge amazes me, you should stop reading facts off goggle. A fixed inlet can only be designed for a certain speed range say between Mach 0.8-1.2, this then gives the optimum amount of air at the correct speed into the engine. The inlet is designed to suit the speed at which the aircraft will operate in most of the time. There is no point putting a fixed inlet designed for Mach 2 when the aircraft will never be used at this speed. Such an inlet would actually reduce engine performance and increase drag at subsonic speed.

In F-14 and F-15's they used variable inlets they allow optimum amount of air at subsonic and high supersonic speeds. These inlets weigh alot and increase the radar cross section of the aircraft. The amount of research done has shown that these aircraft never hit Mach 2, and in real life they usually travel at subsonic speeds with the occasional low supersonic sprint. The US has decided that having a fixed inlet can suit 99% of the mission requirements.

So your saying that variable inlets designed to allow efficent engine performance at sub sonic and supersonic speeds and allow high supersonic performance or Mach 2, are installed on the SU 30, and it cant achieve a speed greater than Mach 1.5 with an A2A loadout, even though the design features you outlined are spesifically designed to allow this to occur? Hmm.... Somehow that doesent really add up. So why exactly have the F14 or F15 never reached speeds over Mach 1.6 in combat again???? You didnt exactly outline that bit did you??? It seems You read YOUR google article wrong. It seems to me what your saying that the F14 or F15 USUALLY only travell in low supersonic sprint, not that they are not capable of travelling faster, and variable inlets werned installed on future variants (i.e. the F35) because of the extra RCS and weight. Funny that the F35 would have an engine optimised for high sub sonic performance, since that is the performance regime its strike and cas roles need. But for some reason all other fighters cant fulfill there design spesifications for some unnamed reason.

Of course for people like BKNO who look on goggle and compare max speed and thrust to weight ratios will think the F-35 definitely has low performance :lol2

Compared to you allmost getting banned for representing high school physics equasions as fact and as evidence to support your argument. I'd go easy on BKNO if i were you, from the few posts he has made its pretty clear to me that he knows alot more about airdoynamics, engine and missile performance than you or me.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You are just as bad as BKNO quoting top speeds.

The SU-30 has variable intakes.

The Super Hornet and F-35 have fixed intakes...

See my post above, which outlines this.

The SU-30 will never hit Mach 2 in combat. The US knows and has learnt from past experience this which is why they went back to the fixed inlets on their latest aircraft.

Thrust has the least to do with speed.. Drag, exhaust velocity and intake design have more to do with speed than the thrust of the engines.

I dont see much point in arguing with you as you continue to post the same information over and over and the majority of it is incorrect.

THE SU-30 WILL NOT HAVE SUPERIOR KINEMATIC PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE F-35!!!! can you please understand this and stop saying otherwise.

See My above post. And stop making unsubstansiated claims. i at least post links to information.

 

[rjmaz1]

So does the F-15 eagle and even the Tomcat ,just beacuse the F-35 and F-22 dont have the variable intake does not imply that the technology is obsolete or useless,the mission profile of the two stealth fighters is completely different from the former and hence the way and means to execute the same..

Yes but the USA has no doubt used the history of both of these aircraft to determine the average speed they travel at during combat. Both the F-15 and F-14 on average would rarely travel above Mach 1.5 and it would be safe to safe the average cruising speed on combat may even be below Mach 1. They would have no doubt used combat speeds from the F-117, B-1b to determine what is realistic for the F-22 and F-35.

The main reason why F-14 and F-15 required variable inlet ramps was because the engines used were crap and needed a regulated airflow. Todays F414 F119 and F135 are much better in this regard. If the F-15 had reliable engines when it first came out they could have used a fixed inlet design that would have limited the top speed to say Mach 1.8. In combat that limit would have rarely been reached if at all. Crusing speed and transonic acceleration would not have been changed with the fixed inlets.

rjmaz we all discuss on weapons systems based upon the data that is available on the WWW,some even might be privy to classified info .Having said that it is an unsaid rule to assume that weapon specs reported consistently on authentic websites be considered accurate,so your comment in this regards is absurd.

I stand by the fact the SU-30 would never hit Mach 2 in combat. The use of such speed would consume so much fuel that tactically its not useful.

*edit* this applies to Ozzy Blizzard. Yes the SU-30 can no doubt hit Mach 2 with weapons on its wings. The fact is it will never do it as it would consume so much fuel the combat radius would be very poor. You cannot travel your entire mission with the afterburners on. Afterburners are used for short sprints and even then they rarely come near the top speed of the aircraft.

The F-22 for example only uses its afterburners for acceleration. Not sustained high speed flight as it does not have the fuel to sustain max afterburner.

The F-15's top speed run involved filling up with fuel, traveling to high altitude and then hitting full afterburner until Bingo... then it landed straight away... Geee thats really usefull in combat.. The phrase slow and steady wins the race is definitely important. That is why the F-15, F-14 and SU-30 will never hit Mach 2 in combat

Fixed inlets on these aircrafts were imployed to keep address maintainance issues and the added fact that most of the air to air combat takes place in the transonic or even subsonic realm.Having said that it is never bad to have an added advantage of Mach number behind you in a war for its a close call up there (even BigE has reffered to the speed advantage of F-15 wrt to the Super Bug in DT)...

Yes i completely agree the F-15 holds a massive speed advantage over the Super Hornet. Both cruising speed and top speed. I never said the Super Hornet was as quick as the F-15. The Super Hornet speed is compromised because it requires exceptional low speed handling for carrier landing. You cannot produce a wing that produces high levels of low speed lift that has low levels of high speed drag while still remaining light. Its not physically possible. A Super Hornet cant hit the deck at 160knots like an F-22 does.

The F-35 has so many compromises in its design that it just shows how advanced it is when it can reach the performance of an aircraft designed solely for that role.

The guys who design the aircraft do account for the engine thrust , an airplane is built with a definite agenda and mission profile,it is these which govern the A/C performance over and about its envelope which later reflect onto what you call 'intake design,'drag' etc etc.

Of course they do take into account engine thrust but it would not be the most important factor.

Exhaust velocity is far more important than engine thrust in the case of the F-22. The F-35's F135 puts out more thrust than the F119 but with a lower exhaust velocity, this greatly reduces the cruising speed of the aircraft, but gives it more thrust at lower speed. This allows the F-35 to travel not quite as quick as the F-22 but with one engine. For example say you had an engine with 100 tonnes thrust but the air coming out of the engine only had a speed of 1000km/h putting this engine in the F-22 it could not travel quicker than 1000km/h.

You would need to first lay down your definition of Kinematic performance,both aircraft might perform differently at different altitudes and configurations.

Everyone here in terms in Kinematic has used the term to describe the ability to disengage from combat by having a speed advantage. So to be able to travel quick for long periods of time. Which would usually mean dry thrust with afterburners for acceleration only.

With this definition the SU-30 wont be any better than the F-35.

i at least bost links to information.

Yes you link to Air Power Australia... well done.

Im not going to post references to all the books and articles ive read in the last 10 years. Most of the good information is not on the internet.. The internet is full of crap and nothing good is worth linking to.. Any classified information isn't on the net anyway.

 

[AGRA]

Thats why its called a PLATFORM comparison. i.e. a comparison between plaforms not air forces.

To consider a platform independently of the system that it is designed to operate in and will operate in is meaningless. As meaningless as it may be its also highly popular and oft confused by the enthusiast of the world – in this case the Armchair Air Marshals – as a valid analysis method. If this discussion is to have any real relevance people need to start looking at how the RAAF will operate against a notional threat air combat force with the various platforms. And realistic scenarios not the ‘outer edge of the crystal ball’ stuff of Backfires over Broome.

If you think the quality of a weapons system is irrelevent compared to its likely adversaries then id ask all of the tank crews who burnt alive in sherman's what they'd have to say about it.

Well that’s one of those great myths isn’t it? That loss-destroy ratios aredependent on the quality of the platform. Interestingly the first time the King Tiger tank went into battle an entire platoon was wiped out by a single Soviet T-34-85. Doesn’t nicely fit the platform comparison so popular with the amateurs no matter how technically credentialed.

He can sue me! I sighted it as his work and were i got it from. In academic circles that aint plagarism, its how ALL work is done.

Somehow I doubt you will do that now don’t I…

Fire Mission AGRA!

AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm

 

[AGRA]

Here is an interesting UNCLASS quote for the information poor:

Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold History of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993, pp pp 230-231:

Eighty miles south of the CAP (Coalition Air Patrol), AWACS called a third time "Bandit west, seventy mile. High. Fast." This time it was real. A pair of MiG-25 Foxbats, flying at 42,000 feet and astonishing one thousand knots - faster than an F-15's top speed - streaked from the Iraqi capital toward Cindy CAP. The two Eagle pilots on CAP, flying under call signs Vegas and Giggle, turned to face the enemy fighters. Giggles, slighty in front of his wingman, fired two Sparrow air-to-air missiles at the lead Foxbat, which in turn fired at Vegas. The foxbat banked north in a sweeping turn at twice the speed of sound, outrunning both Sparrows. Vegas peeled south to avoid the enemy missile. He then re-entered the fight and fired three Sparrow missiles at the second Foxbat, but for reason never determined, none of them left the Eagle wings. Vegas, alarmed, broke south. Giggles fired a final, futile missile at the fleeing MiGs and turned to protect his wingman.

Now Bigum (Lieutenant Colonel Randy) fired. The Sparrow darted from under his plane and climbed sharply before knifing back toward the ground, a sign that the missile had locked onto his target. Bigum watched as the first Iraqi landed and rolled down the runway. "Come on, Bitch" he urged the missile repeatedly. But the Sparrow never made it. The Foxbat had slowed to a forty-knot taxi, and the radar-guided missile could no longer distinguish between aircraft and ground clutter. Then the trail Foxbat floated into view a mile from the western end of the runway, landing gear down. Bigum squeezed off another missile. Again the Sparrow climbed and dived. By this time Bigum had descended to eight thousand feet, directly over the airfield. Only concern at hitting the MiG, he guessed, had kept the Iraqi gunners from firing at such an easy target. As he banked left to escape, the second Foxbat touched down. Bigum saw the curve of the pilot's helmet and puffs of smoke spurt from the tires. Ten feet from the Foxbat's left wingtip, the Sparrow plunged into the runway and exploded. The Iraqi taxied unscathed toward the flight line. The Eagle pilots had fired ten missiles to no effect.

Now what’s significant here? Firstly the 1,000 knots quote, high speed and above that of the F-15s? Well 1,000 knots is only Mach 1.5... So maybe the author got it wrong or maybe rjmaz1 is onto something.

Second point the superior speed of the MiG-25s just enabled them to get away by the skin of their teeth from an AIM-7 equipped threat. If the Eagles had AIM-120s they would all be dead. So much for kinematic advantage when going up against an AEW&C equipped force…

Fire Mission AGRA!

AGRA: Army Group Royal Artillery
Frontage: 750m x 750m
Objective: Inform the Swarm

 

[swerve]

Here is an interesting UNCLASS quote for the information poor:

Atkinson, Rick. Crusade: The Untold History of the Persian Gulf War. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993, pp pp 230-231:

Eighty miles south of the CAP (Coalition Air Patrol), AWACS called a third time "Bandit west, seventy mile. High. Fast." This time it was real. A pair of MiG-25 Foxbats, flying at 42,000 feet and astonishing one thousand knots - ,,,.

Now what’s significant here? Firstly the 1,000 knots quote, high speed and above that of the F-15s? Well 1,000 knots is only Mach 1.5... So maybe the author got it wrong or maybe rjmaz1 is onto something.
...

A quibble:

At 42000 feet, the speed of sound is lower than at sea level - only about 650 mph or 1050 km/h. 1000 knots is about 1850 km/h, i.e. almost M1.8 at that altitude.

 

[rjmaz1]

Now what’s significant here? Firstly the 1,000 knots quote, high speed and above that of the F-15s? Well 1,000 knots is only Mach 1.5... So maybe the author got it wrong or maybe rjmaz1 is onto something.

I am on to something, the truth, yet people argue that. Alot of people on here think the aircraft are flying around at Mach 2 all the time. Most of the time they are traveling subsonic let alone mach 2.. The top speeds of aircraft like the F-15, F-14, SU-30 foxbats are from extended afterburners with a clean aircraft and they use the entire fuel capacity to set the top speed.

It would be very interesting to here from Big-E how fast he usually flies his Super Hornets. I bet he rarely hits Mach 1 let alone going anywhere near its top speed. The F-15's and SU-30's being quicker would hit Mach 1 more often but would still not go near Mach 2 and usually just sit subsonic. Im not saying they wont hit Mach 2 but 99.9% of the time they will not.

Even the enemy foxbats were only flying at Mach 1.8 according to that article... so much for their Mach 2.8 top speed. Detecting enemy Foxbats would probably be one of the rare occasions the F-15's would hit their afterburners for an extended period of time trying to intercept. I bet the Eagles had to return straight to the tanker if they tried to chase the foxbats..

Second point the superior speed of the MiG-25s just enabled them to get away by the skin of their teeth from an AIM-7 equipped threat. If the Eagles had AIM-120s they would all be dead. So much for kinematic advantage when going up against an AEW&C equipped force…

Yes the Mig-25's are doing nothing tactically important. They start off in their territory hit the afterburners and do a short high speed pass over enemy territory and then return to base. Thats not very useful at all and is no real threat to the Eagles. That game is called cat and mouse and is about all the Russian aircraft could do.

Also the range of the AIM-120's in a tail chase isn't very good. By the time the missile reachs the target the enemy aircraft has already traveled a fair distance further.. which means you must get closer before firing. This is why so many missiles were fired and none hit just to the speeds involved. The foxbat can just change direction and its out of the no escape zone of the missile.

In this same situation with the F-35's they would have shot down all the Foxbats. As the Foxbats would not have detected the F-35's so they would have flown right into them. The F-35's would then shoot off a couple AMRAAM's and game over.

The F-22 though game over. It could catch up silently and get a gun kill on the foxbat

 

[Waylander]

The Foxbats fired at Vegas so I think they had missiles.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Pardon my french everyone. the bullpoo comment was uncalled for.

 

[powerslavenegi]

Yes but the USA has no doubt used the history of both of these aircraft to determine the average speed they travel at during combat. Both the F-15 and F-14 on average would rarely travel above Mach 1.5 and it would be safe to safe the average cruising speed on combat may even be below Mach 1.

Again you are not getting the point,the above argument might/might not be an issue we dont know about USAF/USN doctrine doctrine,all I want to convey is just because a particular piece of tech is not on the Raptor does not make it obsolete this very notion is very absurd.

The notion that mostly the aircrafts indulging in Dogfights and ground attack missions would be operating in transonic realm is true,but it an edge in speed will always come handy in tricky situations,F-15's or Flankers ability to go Mach 2+ does give the pilot a shot in the arm.

They would have no doubt used combat speeds from the F-117, B-1b to determine what is realistic for the F-22 and F-35.

:lol2
My my does that deserve a reply ?

The main reason why F-14 and F-15 required variable inlet ramps was because the engines used were crap

Sigh... you definitely need to do a lot of research,variable inlets ramps have themselves nothing to do with engine performance,for a given intake design a ramp widens the window over which the engine can operate efficiently under varying AOA.

F-35 and F-22 have tried to strike a balance in speed and endurance by making trade-offs without compromising on mission objectives,if I go by you argument and somehow mate F-35's/F-22's engine with a Tomcat how good a fighter it will turn out to be as compared to the one with TF30-P-414A engines ;should I conclude that F119 is a crap as compared to TF30-P-414A ?

you see it is the platform that is tailored for a specific set of requirements ,and while pursuing the same it is required to make trade-offs in certain areas so as to gain on areas of higher priority.

Todays F414 F119 and F135 are much better in this regard. If the F-15 had reliable engines when it first came out they could have used a fixed inlet design that would have limited the top speed to say Mach 1.8.

Buddy you need to consistent with your arguments and keep the yardstick same for all your judgements.When F-15 is reported to be capable of M2.5 and the SH as 1.8 ,you cant say that the former cannot achieve the reported speed in combat config while the SH would clock 1.8.

I stand by the fact the SU-30 would never hit Mach 2 in combat. The use of such speed would consume so much fuel that tactically its not useful.

Oh I see so all this while fuel consumption was bothering you ,heck the man behind the joystick is wise enough to keep a track of his fuel gauge ,no one cruises at Mach 2+ ,that capability would be employed only in short bursts in order to gain an edge over the adversary or evasive action.

Yes i completely agree the F-15 holds a massive speed advantage over the Super Hornet. Both cruising speed and top speed. I never said the Super Hornet was as quick as the F-15. The Super Hornet speed is compromised because it requires exceptional low speed handling for carrier landing. You cannot produce a wing that produces high levels of low speed lift that has low levels of high speed drag while still remaining light. Its not physically possible. A Super Hornet cant hit the deck at 160knots like an F-22 does.

Marine Flankers are capable of Mach 2+ and they undertake carrier borne ops comfortably (note Kuznetsov is still smaller as compared to USN carriers).

Exhaust velocity is far more important than engine thrust in the case of the F-22. The F-35's F135 puts out more thrust than the F119 but with a lower exhaust velocity, this greatly reduces the cruising speed of the aircraft, but gives it more thrust at lower speed. This allows the F-35 to travel not quite as quick as the F-22 but with one engine. For example say you had an engine with 100 tonnes thrust but the air coming out of the engine only had a speed of 1000km/h putting this engine in the F-22 it could not travel quicker than 1000km/h.

:nono
Frankly speaking I am surprised as to how easily you twist the facts to suit your argument specially when you have little idea of Thrust and how it is related to exhaust velocity.

For true performance comparasion of the F119 and F135 you would need to tabulate lot more data than just Thrust and Exhaust velocity,latter are dependent on Bypass ratio and the engine temperature(governs the ambi,the fact that F135 has more thrust than F119 but at lower exhaust velocity is influenced by many factors and for a reason.F119 in concept is a leaky turbojet designed to supercruise at high altitude,I guess F135 is more closer to a Turbofan(higher BPR) so as to achieve higher thrust with low SFC as it would need it while driving the vertical lift fan.

Any classified information isn't on the net anyway.

And it isnt available on the off the shelf literature either.Btw are you claiming that you are privy to some :lol2 .

 

[gf0012-aust]

Time for everyone to pause before posting. Otherwise this one is heading off for hibernation.

It would be nice to see less opinion presented as fact.

 

[Wooki]

I would be careful Ozzie

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

To consider a platform independently of the system that it is designed to operate in and will operate in is meaningless. As meaningless as it may be its also highly popular and oft confused by the enthusiast of the world – in this case the Armchair Air Marshals – as a valid analysis method. If this discussion is to have any real relevance people need to start looking at how the RAAF will operate against a notional threat air combat force with the various platforms. And realistic scenarios not the ‘outer edge of the crystal ball’ stuff of Backfires over Broome.

Right. So considering the capabilities regional powers have or are aquireing and its effect on our strategic situation is "meaningless in the extream"????

Anyway we're not the ppl in charge, in case you didn't notice, this is a forum full of "Arm Chair Air Marshals", and this whole thing is for fun. So why cant we analise platforms indipendantly too see which one is a better performer in A2A combat?????? Most of us are after all "Arm Chair Air Marshals", "Arm Chair generals" and "Arm Chair Admarals", and this isn't a job, so why do we have to treat it like one?

Sure, if you want to consider the full fighting capability of the RAAF in 2018 say, with all the capabilites of indonesia or malaysia in that time period, even though they may be equiped with advanced flanker variants (ibis/AL41F/R77M and maybe even A50E) i dont give them a chance in hell. If you want to compare the capabilities of entire fighting formations thats fine, thats another conversation.

PROC have clearly stated an intention to aquire TU 23's. So considering there impact is just fantasy huh??? Damn i hope someone in the RAAF is induging that "outer edge of the crystal ball" stuff and working on some tactics to couter it with the capabilities we will have! But thats right, a platforms capability is meaningless. Lets say they do get it in desent numbers, which i dont think is at all unrealistic. How would the RAAF counter it or i.e. defenend our own airspace from it? Theres your scenario, what do you think??????

Well that’s one of those great myths isn’t it? That loss-destroy ratios aredependent on the quality of the platform. Interestingly the first time the King Tiger tank went into battle an entire platoon was wiped out by a single Soviet T-34-85. Doesn’t nicely fit the platform comparison so popular with the amateurs no matter how technically credentialed.

So the capability of the platform men will be trusting there lives with isnt relevent. I never said that losses were dependent SOLEY on the capability of the platform, how it is employed and supported is more important. However you imply that its capabilities is irrelevent, and in your words discussing them is "meaningless in the extreem". I for one hope that ADF personell in general will be equiped with the most lethal and survivable platforms feasible, in addition to the outstanding traning and tacticle doctorine they recieve.

Somehow I doubt you will do that now don’t I…

I assume your refering to the graph i posted showing aquisition range for varios russian radars and missile seekers. Well, if you actually READ said post you would see that i clearly stated were i got the graph from and posted a link to where it could be found, were it clearly states the authors name, Dr Carlo Kopp. And dont think i edited the link in after you mentioned it, because if you do edit a post, the time you edited it is visable to all members. So to be compleatly honnest, i'm not too sure what your basing this on. Perhaps a means to a "holy" end hey crusader?

 

[rjmaz1]

all I want to convey is just because a particular piece of tech is not on the Raptor does not make it obsolete this very notion is very absurd.

Im the one saying that variable inlets DO NOT make the Raptor and F-35 obselete. It definitely however restricts the top speed of the aircraft, which is never used anyway. BKNO and Ozzy Blizzard are going around posting top speeds to compare aircraft. So they are the ones that are saying not variable inlets make the aircraft obsolete. If the F-22 and F-35 had variable inlets they will no doubt be travelling much quicker and would look better in such unrealistic comparison on specifications.

The notion that mostly the aircrafts indulging in Dogfights and ground attack missions would be operating in transonic realm is true,but it an edge in speed will always come handy in tricky situations,F-15's or Flankers ability to go Mach 2+ does give the pilot a shot in the arm.

The US has no doubt done its research and realised that the F-35 can no doubt perform all its missions and missions of other countries with a top speed of only mach 1.6. The USAF will use information from all sources to create its doctrine. To say information and tactics from the F-117 and B-1b have not been used in the F-35 is ludacris

Marine Flankers are capable of Mach 2+ and they undertake carrier borne ops comfortably (note Kuznetsov is still smaller as compared to USN carriers).

We all know how many flight hours Russian aircraft have in their airframes and engines.. If the SuperHornets were crashing into the deck at 150 knots they wont last long.

For true performance comparasion of the F119 and F135 you would need to tabulate lot more data than just Thrust and Exhaust velocity,latter are dependent on Bypass ratio and the engine temperature(governs the ambi,the fact that F135 has more thrust than F119 but at lower exhaust velocity is influenced by many factors and for a reason.F119 in concept is a leaky turbojet designed to supercruise at high altitude,I guess F135 is more closer to a Turbofan(higher BPR) so as to achieve higher thrust with low SFC as it would need it while driving the vertical lift fan.

You've just re-hashed what i've already said in this thread and others. I cannot be bothered to search my posts to show where i have already stated that.

Dear self-proclaimed aerodynamic expert rimjaz, please stop it! You seem to lack even basic knowledge and you may have noticed not everybody is answering anymore.

Someone just answered my post 46 minutes ago....

Good to see yet ANOTHER air power australia link... I would not put so much trust in someone who is so strongly against the F-35. APA excludes certain info.. and assumes certain things to come to the doom and gloom conclusion that the F-35 is inferior. At the time of that article APA didn't even know the speed of the F-35. They just assumed that because the F-35's public top speed is only Mach 1.6 that it will cruise at less than half that speed which is not true. The F-22's cruising speed is Mach 1.6 yet its top speed is only slightly higher due to its fixed inlets. Its good to see the Australian government does not take any notice of them, it is a shame that some people here believe everything they say as gospel.

Has anyone here who is against the F-35 and Super Hornet providee any evidence other than a link to Air Power Australia?

Also that thrust to weight diagram is incorrect.. Aussie Digger posted some rough calculations which completely contradict APA.

Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, I would be careful Ozzie, as just from my perspective on this side of the pond it seems he can hold a grudge and I did hear (a rumor) that one of his business partners had a protection order placed against him by an Officer in the Australian Air Force.

cheers

w

edit; sorry GF, didn't notice the rest of the posts

Thanx for the heads up. I din't know Kopp could be dangerous. However I did clearly state were i got the graph from and post a link. So i cant see him getting angry about it.

sorry wooki it stays there as evidence :

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just in order to entertain you I hereby present a 2003 article by Carlo concerning the Flanker and it's kinematic advantage over the F-35. I had to dig deep for that! Enjoy!

Dear self-proclaimed aerodynamic expert rimjaz, please stop it! You seem to lack even basic knowledge and you may have noticed not everybody is answering anymore.

mate do you have a link??? Its kind of hard to read, or did you scan it from a magazine?