is it apropriate for the LCA to have speed of 2.5 and above
- Thread starter XEROX
- Start date
I doubt its as fast as 3 or even 2.5PJ-10 BrahMos said:
i think its more like 1.8 max at high altitude. the problem is Structural integretory ai think those speads and the that fact thet you can't possibly have powerfull enough jets to place in that litle jet an exampl of 3.2 plus mach capable jet is teh SR71 the USAF project for hih spead hihg altitude surveilance, it is still the unbeatable maned AC spead barier breaker.
ENIOR CROWN SR-71
References
U-2/SR-71 PHYSIOLOGICAL SUPPORT PROGRAM AIR COMBAT COMMAND ACCI 11-459 : 10 MAY 96
SR-71 - High Speed Research NASA Dryden
SR-71 Photo Gallery
John Stone's Lockheed Blackbird Homepage
"Oxcart Story" the CIA's story of the life and death of the A-12 program.
"The U-2's Intended Successor: Project OXCART, 1956-1968" A later version of the CIA's A-12 history.
"Fall of the Blackbird", Art Hanley's discussion of why the SR-71 program was killed in 1990
THE SR-71 REACTIVATION October 1994 - March 1996 by retired Master Sergeant Christopher W. Bennett
SR-71 Blackbird back in business Released: Jan 30, 1997
SR-71 Blackbirds by Leland R. Haynes
List of all U-2 and SR-71 units, their bases, OLs and Dets
Soviet Analogs to U-2 and SR-71
Blackbird Survivors - Where are they?
Skunkworks Digest Archive
Developed for the USAF as reconnaissance aircraft more than 30 years ago, SR-71s are still the world's fastest and highest-flying production aircraft. The aircraft can fly more than 2200 mph (Mach 3+ or more than three times the speed of sound) and at altitudes of over 85,000 feet.
For its reconnaissance mission, the aircraft was outfitted with an advanced synthetic aperture radar system [ASARS-I], an optical bar camera and a technical objective camera wet film system. All were once part of the aircraft's original equipment.
The SR-71 was designed by a team of Lockheed personnel led by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, at that time vice president of the company's Advanced Development Projects, known as the "Skunk Works." The first version, a CIA reconnaissance aircraft that first flew in April 1962 was called the A-11. The similar A-12 had a lower radar cross section. An interceptor version was developed in 1963 under the designation YF-12A. A USAF reconnaissance variant, called the SR-71, was first flown in 1964. The A-12 and SR-71 designs included leading and trailing edges made of high-temperature fiberglass-asbestos laminates which among other features contributed to their reduced radar signature.
Its existence was publicly announced by President Lyndon Johnson on Feb. 29, 1964, when he announced that an A-11 had flown at sustained speeds of over 2000 mph during tests at Edwards, Calif.
Development of the SR-71s from the A-11 design, as strategic reconnaissance aircraft, began in February 1963. First flight of an SR-71 was on Dec. 22, 1964. The YF-12s were experimental long-range interceptor versions of the same airframe and were first displayed publicly at Edwards on Sept. 30, 1964.
The Air Force needed technical assistance to get the latest reconnaissance version of the A-12 family, the SR-71A, fully operational. Eventually, the Air Force offered NASA the use of two YF-12A aircraft, 60-6935 and 606936. A joint NASA-USAF program was mapped out in June 1969.
The NASA YF-12 research program was ambitious; the aircraft flew an average of once a week unless down for extended maintenance or modification. It made 90 flights between 16 July 1971 and 22 December 1978.
The SR-71 is a delta-wing aircraft designed and built by Lockheed. They are powered by two Pratt and Whitney J-58 axial-flow turbojets with afterburners, each producing 32,500 pounds of thrust. Studies have shown that less than 20 percent of the total thrust used to fly at Mach 3 is produced by the basic engine itself. The balance of the total thrust is produced by the unique design of the engine inlet and "moveable spike" system at the front of the engine nacelles, and by the ejector nozzles at the exhaust which burn air compressed in the engine bypass system.
The Blackbird weighs about 34 tons empty, and can carry another 20 tons of special JP-7 jet fuel (enough for about two hours of flight time) in its fuselage and wing tanks. In flight, the fuel is redistributed automatically to maintain the plane's center of gravity and load specifications. Because the Blackbird was designed to expand during flight, it has had a history of fuel tank leaks on the ground.
The airframes are built almost entirely of titanium and titanium alloys to withstand heat generated by sustained Mach 3 flight. The aircraft's largely titanium structure is coated with a special radar-absorbing black paint that helps dissipate the intense frictional heat resulting from flight through the atmosphere at faster than three times the speed of sound. It also gives the plane its distinctive "Blackbird" nickname.
Aerodynamic control surfaces consist of all-moving vertical tail surfaces above each engine nacelle, ailerons on the outer wings, and elevators on the trailing edges between the engine exhaust nozzles.
Although most news reports characterize the SR-71 aircraft as `radar evading', in point of fact, however, the SR-71 was one of the largest radar targets ever detected on the FAA's long-range radars. The FAA was able to track it at ranges of several hundred miles. The explanation offered was that the radars were detecting the exhaust plume.
The SR-71A accommodates two crew members in tandem cockpits. The pilot flies the aircraft from the forward cockpit, while a systems operator monitors sensors and experiments in the rear station. For high-speed, high altitude missions, both crew members must wear full-pressure suites that resemble those worn by the early astronauts.
Congress appropriated $100 million in the fiscal year 1995 defense budget to reactivate two A-model jets and one B-model pilot trainer aircraft. The Air Force program office for the reactivation of the Blackbirds is at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. They are operated by Air Combat Command.
The move to reactivate the SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft was not unopposed. Critics looked at the SR-71 's limitations--it can effectively operate only in good weather and cannot transmit the images it collects directly to those who need them--and concluded that the aircraft should be retired.
Specifications
Primary Function:
Strategic Reconnaissance
Contractor:
Lockheed-Martin Skunkworks
Power Plant:
2 Pratt and Whitney J-58 axial-flow turbojets with afterburners
each produces 32,500 pounds of thrust
Length:
107.4 feet (32.73 m)
Height:
l8.5 feet (5.63 m)
Weight:
140,000 pounds (52,250 kg) Gross takeoff weight
80,000 pounds (30,000 kg) JP-7 fuel weight
Wingspan:
55.6 feet (16.94 m)
Speed:
over Mach 3.2 / 2,000 mph (3,200 kph)
Range:
over 2000 miles (3200 km) unrefueled
Altitude:
over 85,000 feet (26,000 m)
Unit Cost:
Crew
2
Inventory:
Built Lost
A-12 13 5
M-21 2 1
YF-12 3 2
SR-71A 29 11
SR-71B 2 1
SR-71C 1 0
Aircraft
Tail #
MODEL
Disposition
60-6924
A-12
Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA (AFFTC Museum)
60-6925
A-12
Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, NY
60-6926
A-12
crashed 24 May 1963, CIA pilot ejected safely
60-6927
A-12
Museum of Science/Industry, LA (Stored at Skunk Works)
60-6928
A-12
crashed 05 January 1967, CIA pilot killed
60-6929
A-12
crashed 28 December 1967, pilot ejected safely
60-6930
A-12
Alabama Space and Rocket Center, Huntsville
60-6931
A-12
Minnesota ANG Museum, St Paul, MN
60-6932
A-12
crashed 5 June 1968, CIA pilot killed
60-6933
A-12
San Diego Aerospace Museum
60-6934
YF-12A
destroyed on landing 14 August 1966
60-6935
YF-12A
USAF Museum, Dayton, OH
60-6936
YF-12A
crashed 24 June 1971, crew ejected safely
60-6937
A-12
Storage, Plant 42 (Skunk Works)
60-6938
A-12
USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park, Mobile, AL
60-6939
A-12
destroyed on landing 9 July 1964, crew ejected safely
60-6940
A-12
Museum of Flight, Seattle
60-6941
M-12
crashed 30 July 1966 , pilot survived, LCO killed
64-17950
SR-71A
destroyed on takeoff 11 April 1969, crew ejected safely
64-17951
SR-71A
Pima Air Museum, Tucson, AZ (NASA YF-12C 937)
64-17952
SR-71A
crashed 25 January 1966, pilot survived, RSO killed
64-17953
SR-71A
crashed 18 December 1969, crew ejected safely
64-17954
SR-71A
destroyed on takeoff 11 April 1969, crew ejected safely
64-17955
SR-71A
AFFTC Museum, Edwards AFB, CA
64-17956
SR-71B
Operational, NASA Dryden FRC, Edwards AFB, CA
64-17957
SR-71B
crashed 11 January 1968, crew ejected safely
64-17958
SR-71A
Robbins AFB Museum, GA
64-17959
SR-71A
Air Force Armament Museum, Eglin AFB, FL
64-17960
SR-71A
Castle Air Museum, Merced, CA
64-17961
SR-71A
Kansas Cosmosphere & Space Center, Hutchinson, KS
64-17962
SR-71A
Reserve Fleet, Plant 42, Palmdale, CA
64-17963
SR-71A
Beale AFB Museum, CA
64-17964
SR-71A
SAC Museum, Offut AFB, NE
64-17965
SR-71A
crashed 25 October 1967, crew ejected safely
64-17966
SR-71A
crashed 13 April 1967, crew ejected safely
64-17967
SR-71A
Operational (USAF), Det 2, 9th SW, Edwards AFB, CA
64-17968
SR-71A
Reserve Fleet, Plant 42, Palmdale, CA
64-17969
SR-71A
crashed 10 May 1970, crew ejected safely
64-17970
SR-71A
crashed 17 June 1970, crew ejected safely
64-17971
SR-71A
Operational (USAF), Det 2, 9th SW, Edwards AFB, CA
64-17972
SR-71A
National Air and Space Museum, Washington D.C.
64-17973
SR-71A
Blackbird Airpark, Palmdale, CA (Det 1 ASC)
64-17974
SR-71A
crashed 21 April 1989, crew ejected safely
64-17975
SR-71A
March Field Museum, March AFB, CA
64-17976
SR-71A
USAF Museum, Dayton, OH
64-17977
SR-71A
destroyed in takeoff accident 10 October 1968
64-17978
SR-71A
destroyed in landing accident 20 July 1972
64-17979
SR-71A
History & Traditions Museum, Lackland AFB, TX
64-17980
SR-71A
Operational, NASA Dryden FRC, Edwards AFB, CA
64-17981
SR-71C
Hill AFB Museum, Hill AFB, UT
Aerodynamics are usually the limiting factor to a designs VNE (velocity not to exceed), aside from thrust which is useless if it's unable to overcome the drag created as speed progresses. Also as adsH pointed out, strutural limitations become an issue as the aircraft experiences more extreme stresses at higher speeds. It's one thing to to achieve a certain speed, it's another to be able maneuver. None of this answers the question however.
Are speeds in excess of Mach 2 necessary? Depends on the aircrafts intended role. Speeds in excess of Mach 2 are only useful in trying to "catch up" to a threat, and hence "intercept" becomes the operative word.
Are speeds in excess of Mach 2 necessary? Depends on the aircrafts intended role. Speeds in excess of Mach 2 are only useful in trying to "catch up" to a threat, and hence "intercept" becomes the operative word.
Ok what i have heard is that LCA not going to be Front line or any sort of frontline A TO A attack role it will primarily be used for Defensive roles, so i would say 1.8 mach that is claimed for it is a great spead. it will, i think it will be used for ground attack so a large number of Hard-points (which it has) will provide adequate ability to deliver the maximum number of Ordinance on the battle feild. it has a future but i doubt any better then the SU-30 which is going to be built in INdia.PJ-10 BrahMos said:
PAF" is the SR-71 here in a museum where in sheffield it think that warrants a vist then
absolute speed is something that needs to be factored in with the following:
mission tasking (interdiction, CAS, Strike etc...)
platform profile (is it designed for HS interdiction)
weapons load out (will the weapons fit balance out the absolute speed envelope? - why will absolute speed enhance the capability of the task - not the plane)
is the plane acting in isolation or part of an integrated solution? If so it's one element in a package to ensure that a capability and an outcome can be achieved)
what will it's principle threats be? (ie a SA-6 can still hit a high speed jet as well as a Learjet)
in short - top speed does not make the fighter perform any better unless the above is considered
mission tasking (interdiction, CAS, Strike etc...)
platform profile (is it designed for HS interdiction)
weapons load out (will the weapons fit balance out the absolute speed envelope? - why will absolute speed enhance the capability of the task - not the plane)
is the plane acting in isolation or part of an integrated solution? If so it's one element in a package to ensure that a capability and an outcome can be achieved)
what will it's principle threats be? (ie a SA-6 can still hit a high speed jet as well as a Learjet)
in short - top speed does not make the fighter perform any better unless the above is considered
I dont think you would require supersonic speeds in subcontinental conditions. We saw in the 71 War that this speed was rarely used due to fuel limitations. And the LCA doesnt have much of a chance of evading Pakistani BVR capable interceptors by simply flying off at top speed even if its a 2.2.
top speed really doesn't mean much at all, a higher supercruise speed is relevant depending on the platforms design and typical taskings.
otherwise it's meaningless.
otherwise it's meaningless.
lalith prasad
Banned Member
it has been tested at m1.4 and at an altitudeof 15000metres according to the pilot it handled very well even better than the mirages in the iaf.and by the way if lca cannot evade paf bvr interceptors then the chances of paf jets evading iaf bvr interceptors or a bvr equipped lca are equally slim.also it is not max speed or max alt that determine wether one aircraft is superior to the other .it is the supercruise speed gf0012 has said and world class avionics thats what makes f-16 such a good fighter
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
GF, high speed can indeed be relevant, higher speed confers greater range and kinematic performance to an air to air missile for example, (one of the main advantages of the F/A-22 "Mach 1.5" Supercruise) and can be important on strike missions. True an SA-6 can shoot down a high performance jet the same as it can a Learjet, but the task becomes much harder and less certain when the aircraft is flying faster. Low Level penetration still depends to a certain degree on high speed and is still a useful tactic that can be employed. I think with the LCA the designers should be aiming for a Supercruise capability rather than outright speed. Cruising around at Mach 1.5 for extended periods is much more useful than being able to fly Mach 2.5 for a couple of minutes at best...
What you have just said is absolutely true, what I was trying to get across is that absolute speed as a measurement of superiority is shooting loose.Aussie Digger said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Oh I see, how silly of me... :roll
yeah, sometimes I give a compressed answer and assume that people understand the way I think.Aussie Digger said:
Too busy checking emails and not enough time adding clarity.
:roll
darklegent
New Member
Mind u..... all fighters that have been high on mach have been very low on agility.
The faster u fly the slower u turn.
The faster u fly the slower u turn.
I doubt there will be any significant differences appart from few Naval requirements. but i think the Indian Navy is more interested in Mig-29 MKI for there air wing, if LCA is introduced in the future for the NAVY it may just be shadowed by the Mig-29's in the fleet.PJ-10 BrahMos said: