New fighters for Greece.

[Atilla [TR]]

Have you got a link, as I'm quite interested in reading the rest of that.



I know it is 0430 in the UK for me at the moment, but i'm sure there are only 2 Euro Delta designs available for purchase.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5525.html

Scroll down a little past halfway. Also 3 delta's Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen.

 

[rjmaz1]

It's no slouch in A2A and stealth is probably a bigger asset than top speed. How about displacing into an advantagous position without your enemy noticing you? Or being able to do a more fuel efficient intercept, because you need to worry less about being spotted? This translate to better use of the speed and fuel that is available.

Yes having extra fuel/range over the enemy aircraft translates into a speed advantage.

Fuel = speed.

Adding further to your points.

If you dont have enough fuel you have to remain subsonic to perform the mission as efficiently as possible. Stealth also allows the F-35 to take a more direct route to ground targets which is the same as your intercept scenario. This gives a further increase in combat radius that cannot be calculated by a simple fuel consumption calculation that members like Dr Freud was so fond of. Atleast we now have a 30 day break until those calculations return

A Eurofighter for example may be able to cruise dry at Mach 1.3, however it may have to cruise at Mach 0.8 to reach a distant target to improve its range. On the other hand the target may be close enough for the Eurofighter to cruise at Mach 1.3. But with the F-35 extra fuel its can fly 30-50% further than that target. The extra fuel allows the F-35 to hit the burners over enemy territory turning the speed advantage in favour of the F-35 now travelling at Mach 1.5. Technically this is not "supercruising" as afterburners are being used but it is travelling fast and just as efficient if you average across the entire mission.

If an aircraft had a huge amount of fuel then it could be classified as cruising regardless of the fact that afterburners are used. Its only in fighter aircraft where fuel capacity limits afterburners to mere minutes of usage. This is why a generic fighter definition of crusing meant no afterburners. It is more of a range issue. If an aircraft cannot travel far enough to perform its mission even if it can exceed Mach 1 without afterburners then it is not supercruise capable. It will cruise subsonic to be meet the requirements. Even the F-22 takes a massive range hit when supercruising compared to transiting subsonically this would be even worse for the Eurofighter.

Getting off topic a now. The Rafale, Gripen and F-35 sit right in the high drag transonic regime (Mach 1.1). It would be stupid to "supercruise" as you could simply cruise 20% slower (Mach 0.8) and get a 50% increase in range. Its not worth it for taking such a massive hit in range for such a small increase in speed. This is why these aircraft should never be classified as supercruising aircraft. The F-22 should be classified as a supercruising aircraft as it can fly twice as fast as Mach 0.8 yet its range is only approximately halved halved. If a Gripen, F-35, Rafale or Suhkoi were to travel at Mach 1.6 their range would be less than a quarter of their subsonic range. Now thats definitely not cruising.

I do admit that the Eurofighter is a border line supercruiser though.

Stealth is great but speed is still very important though. If an aircraft was extremely stealthy but could only transit at 200 knots it would not survive. However as the F-35 is just as quick as every other fighter except for the Eurofighter and F-22 then it has no problem here.

;142996]I am pretty sure you will not have enough speed to out run the missile which came from a invisible plane!

Actually in a tail chase an F-22 could hit Mach 2 within a few seconds making it extremely difficult for a medium range mission to hit. By reaching half the speed of the missile itself you effectively halving the range of the enemy missile.

 

[ASFC]

I know it is 0430 in the UK for me at the moment, but i'm sure there are only 2 Euro Delta designs available for purchase.

Apologies Atilla you were quite right there are three, I knew it was too early in the morning to post :dunce

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Apologies Atilla you were quite right there are three, I knew it was too early in the morning to post :dunce

That`s ok I have those moments as well.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Maybe not now, but when tranch 3 comes out. around the time Greece will make the purchase, it will be a mature plattform.
and the advantage of JSF, technology wise, will be none existing.
im still suprised that lockheed martin with a budget of over 300 bill usd. can´t achive something better.

Just curious, but how do you know? Do you know the exact RCS on the F-35? Well then you must work for Lockheed martin! On top of that Eurofighter Tranche 3 has not even come out yet, only people who work for Eurofighter would know what the Tranche 3 is going to have! So you must work for both Eurofighter and Lockheed Martin well i strongly doubt that.

 

[swerve]

..
If an aircraft had a huge amount of fuel then it could be classified as cruising regardless of the fact that afterburners are used. Its only in fighter aircraft where fuel capacity limits afterburners to mere minutes of usage. This is why a generic fighter definition of crusing meant no afterburners. ....

There is also the question of the efficiency of the afterburning engine. The SR-71, XB-70, MiG-25 & MiG-31 were designed to be relatively efficient with afterburners, as well as having large fuel loads, enabling sustained high speeds. They "cruised" (& the MiG-31 still does) supersonically in afterburner. The term supercruise was used for this phenomenon, in the days before the quasi-religious idea that any use of afterburner sullied the purity of supercruise. The term was used in a purely functional way. Could the aircraft sustain supersonic speed? If so, then it was cruising supersonically, & therefore supercruising. Whether afterburner had been used to get through the high-drag transonic zone (it can actually be more efficient to do so in some cases, a quick burst of burner to accelerate quickly using less fuel than more gradually acceleration through the transonic zone at peak dry thrust), or whether it cruised with afterburners, didn't affect that.

 

[Feanor]

So is it correct to call those aircraft supercruise capable? Or will I be torn to pieces by a mob of religious F-22 fanatics?

 

[rjmaz1]

Could the aircraft sustain supersonic speed? If so, then it was cruising supersonically, & therefore supercruising.

Every aircraft that ever broke the sound barrier using afterburners would then be classified as a supercruising aircraft. They could sustain supersonic speed. Sure it might only be 50 miles, 100miles or 1000 miles, but where do you draw the line?

An SR-71 can fly further with afterburners than most aircraft can without afterburners. It is cruising at Mach 2+ as thats the speed it travels on a mission. Is that supercruising?

An unarmed F-111 can travel at mach 1.6 approximately the same distance that an F-22 can, however the F-22 doesn't require afterburners. Does the F-111 have supercruise then?

So is it correct to call those aircraft supercruise capable? Or will I be torn to pieces by a mob of religious F-22 fanatics?

Draw the line where you want.

However if you do draw a line prepare to be critisied by the mobs of Eurofighter, Gripen and F-22 fanatics.

If you draw the line of any aircraft that can sustain Mach 1+ with or without afterburners then you have hundreds of aircraft types that can supercruise. So it would be incorrect to draw the line here.

However if you draw a line where an aircraft supercruising has a range no less than half of its most effecient cruising speed then that only leaves one combat aircraft above that line.

 

[swerve]

Every aircraft that ever broke the sound barrier using afterburners would then be classified as a supercruising aircraft. They could sustain supersonic speed. Sure it might only be 50 miles, 100miles or 1000 miles, but where do you draw the line?

As you say, it's all a question of where you draw the line. There is no absolute answer.

Draw the line where you want.

However if you do draw a line prepare to be critisied by the mobs of Eurofighter, Gripen and F-22 fanatics.

And if you draw a line which differs from the One and Only Eternally (since ca. 2005) True and Holy Line, As Decreed by the Most Revered Lockheed Martin, be prepared to be torn to pieces for your heresy by the mobs of F-22 fanatics.

C'mon, just accept that there isn't One True Number.

 

[rjmaz1]

C'mon, just accept that there isn't One True Number.

You must accept that there is not one level of supercruise. There are many levels, each with difference degrees of value.

The 4th generation aircraft producers are trying to market their aircraft in a way so that potential buyers associate their speeds with that of the F-22. Saab is effectively trying to cash in on the "supercruise" buzzword that was unheard of until the F-22 was created. Its original intent was to highlight the speed advantage that the F-22 has over every other fighter. Saab is effectively lowering the definition to a level that most 3rd and 4th generation fighters can reach.

The uneducated reader on here may see the words "supercruise" in a thread for the Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter or even a future Suhkoi. They will then associate it with the speed of the F-22 where the term for the last 5 years has been associated with. This is false and i will continue to post in every thread with the goal of pointing out that they aren't even in the same class. Aircraft like the Gripen should not be associated with the word Supercruise in any shape or form. We never used the term previously on other aircraft with equal performance to the Gripen.

 

[swerve]

You must accept that there is not one level of supercruise. There are many levels, each with difference degrees of value.

I've been arguing that for a few years, against the quasi-religious fervour of the F-22ists, who constantly repeat their mantra "Only the F-22 supercruises!".

1. The term supercruise is merely a shortening of supersonic cruise, a term which was around long before the F-22. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to remember it being used about Concorde, when it entered service, & it was neither a new term, nor a new concept, at the time. The USAF previously used it about the (afterburning) SR-71, for example. The shortened form "supercruise" wasn't the voguish term it now is, but was used back then. It wasn't invented for the F-22.

2. In case you haven't noticed, Saab recently (last month, at the Gripen Demo roll-out) said about the JAS-39C that it might supercruise "only on a cold day in Sweden". That's been quoted on this forum, & you should easily be able to find the original. I've never seen supercruise touted as one of the selling points of the Gripen. Can you show me where you've seen this done, by Saab.

 

[rjmaz1]

I've been arguing that for a few years, against the quasi-religious fervour of the F-22ists, who constantly repeat their mantra "Only the F-22 supercruises!".

Out of curiosity where do you draw the line?

Or are you of the belief that you can draw the line anywhere or that you shouldn't draw a line at all?

Im arguing the same argument but at the other end of the scale. Too many aircraft are desperately trying to obtain the "supercruise" label. It may not be the manufacturers directly but fan clubs of the aircraft.

You may dislike that the F-22 fan club is pegging the scale too high to make the F-22 the only supercruising combat aircraft. I however, dislike if someone pegs the scale too low so that aircraft not representative of its combat configuration can be labeled as a supercruising aircraft.

At least we both agree the scale can be pegged anywhere between these two extremes and that its unwise to even draw a line at all.

Can you show me where you've seen this done, by Saab.

"With an output of over 22,000lb (98kN), the F414G (below) produces 20% more thrust than the Gripen's current Volvo Aero RM12 powerplant, and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson. Ground testing up to full afterburner use has been completed, and aircraft integration took place in March."

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...raft-to-highlight-gripen-ng-capabilities.html

 

[SlyDog]

Well...but if the future technological development make it easy to achieve what everybody today would call "supercruise" - did it mean that definition for "supercruise" have to change - so just a few types of aircraft can "achieve" it?

On the other hand, 1.1 Mach (as SAAB stated) are maybe a bit low to call "supercruise". But at least they gave a "figure" (1.1 Mach).

 

[Feanor]

So can we all agree that supercruise is the ability to cruise at supersonic speed (above Mach 1) within it's mission profile?

 

[JohanGrön]

"With an output of over 22,000lb (98kN), the F414G (below) produces 20% more thrust than the Gripen's current Volvo Aero RM12 powerplant, and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson. Ground testing up to full afterburner use has been completed, and aircraft integration took place in March."

Now you're not comparing with the current Gripen 39 C/D! The stats above is for the Gripen 39 NG with the F414G powerplant :

 

[swerve]

Out of curiosity where do you draw the line?

Or are you of the belief that you can draw the line anywhere or that you shouldn't draw a line at all?

Im arguing the same argument but at the other end of the scale. Too many aircraft are desperately trying to obtain the "supercruise" label. It may not be the manufacturers directly but fan clubs of the aircraft.

You may dislike that the F-22 fan club is pegging the scale too high to make the F-22 the only supercruising combat aircraft. I however, dislike if someone pegs the scale too low so that aircraft not representative of its combat configuration can be labeled as a supercruising aircraft.

At least we both agree the scale can be pegged anywhere between these two extremes and that its unwise to even draw a line at all.

Yep, more or less my position. I don't think you can draw a line, only establish a roughly-defined area of transition. My preferred definition of supercruise is that it's supersonic cruise (i.e. exactly what it says on the tin), however achieved. The ability to sustain supersonic speed long enough for it to be considered cruising. That's a fuzzy definition, but the only problem I see with that is the people who demand precise numbers, e.g. how long is long enough. I don't care how that supersonic speed is achieved, & how an aircraft gets to it. E.g. anyone who says "Concorde wasn't supercruising when it flew at Mach 2 for 2500 miles on dry thrust, because it used afterburner to accelerate through M1, & it's only supercruise if you never switch on your afterburners". That sort of idiocy is what makes me call some of the F-22 fans quasi-religious. In a different context, they'd argue about angels & pins.

I object to the F-22 fan club because its definition is derived from what the F-22 can do, and has changed over time to exclude other aircraft which have demonstrated the ability to meet the definition as it was. That is crudely, blatantly dishonest. Their behaviour offends me, & I cannot accept the validity of any definition which has been arrived at through such intellectually dishonest means. If they used a generally accepted pre-existing definition, & fortuitously only the F-22 met it, I wouldn't complain.

"With an output of over 22,000lb (98kN), the F414G (below) produces 20% more thrust than the Gripen's current Volvo Aero RM12 powerplant, and will enable supercruise performance of Mach 1.1 with air-to-air weapons, says marketing director Magnus Lewis-Olsson. Ground testing up to full afterburner use has been completed, and aircraft integration took place in March."

Gripen NG, not current Gripen. Future capability. BTW, GD pointed out elsewhere that Gripen should have a narrow transonic "hump", because of its shape, which points up the vaguenes in the definition of supersonic flight. Different aircraft have different upper limits to the transonic zone. Aircraft A could be flying faster than B, but A could be solidly in the transonic high drag zone & burning fuel like mad, & B far enough out of it to be cruising, to be able to sustain its speed comfortably. The quasi-religious lot demand absolute purity, complete supersonic airflow over the entire airframe, regardless of functional criteria.

 

[Vivendi]

According to a recent posting at keyforum, it seems the Greek Defence Minister has said in an interview that they now have a short list consisting of F-16, SH, and Typhoon. Rafale did not make it to the short list according to this report.

There was a link: http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php however my Greek is not that good...

Could anybody from Greece confirm this report?

If true, it is rather interesting that Rafale again has lost -- OTOH perhaps not entirely surprising. I may be wrong but my understanding was that Greece is looking for a multirole but with main focus on the a2a role and for that the Rafale may not be the strongest.

My guess would be F-16 or SH would be the most likely choice -- although many claim the Typhoon is stronger a2a than at least the F-16, the Typhoon is probably too expensive.


Comments from the experts?


V

 

[eliaslar]

You are right Vivendi, according to Greek media, yesterday there were some announcements made from the defense minister. From those announcements it seems that Rafale didn't make it to be in the short list, which now includes F-16 (maybe a version with AESA radar and new engine if it is possible), the F/A-18E/F Super hornet and the Eurofighter.

Most analysts here in Greece agree that great role in the final decision, about the new fighter, will play the upcoming meeting that Greek Prime Minister will have with President Obama, maybe in 2-3 months. If the US change their stance and start supporting the Greek positions in certain matters, then i'm sure the new fighter will go to US companies.

About the Rafale case, i would like to see it in service in Greek colors. But because it is politics after all and there is a big pie to share, from that pie the French side took the new frigate program with the 6 FREMM and the 15 new Super Puma SAR helicopters. Also Greece is a member of the Neuron UCAV consortium, which also is a French program. So i don't think it would be fair if the French took the Rafale also.

 

[harryriedl]

You are right Vivendi, according to Greek media, yesterday there were some announcements made from the defense minister. From those announcements it seems that Rafale didn't make it to be in the short list, which now includes F-16 (maybe a version with AESA radar and new engine if it is possible), the F/A-18E/F Super hornet and the Eurofighter.

Most analysts here in Greece agree that great role in the final decision, about the new fighter, will play the upcoming meeting that Greek Prime Minister will have with President Obama, maybe in 2-3 months. If the US change their stance and start supporting the Greek positions in certain matters, then i'm sure the new fighter will go to US companies.

About the Rafale case, i would like to see it in service in Greek colors. But because it is politics after all and there is a big pie to share, from that pie the French side took the new frigate program with the 6 FREMM and the 15 new Super Puma SAR helicopters. Also Greece is a member of the Neuron UCAV consortium, which also is a French program. So i don't think it would be fair if the French took the Rafale also.

It not a failure for the French gov but is for dassult through as its another failure to export the Rafale which is deeply troubling

 

[falcon7x]

According to a recent posting at keyforum, it seems the Greek Defence Minister has said in an interview that they now have a short list consisting of F-16, SH, and Typhoon. Rafale did not make it to the short list according to this report.

There was a link: http://www.defencenet.gr/defence/index.php however my Greek is not that good...

Could anybody from Greece confirm this report?

If true, it is rather interesting that Rafale again has lost -- OTOH perhaps not entirely surprising. I may be wrong but my understanding was that Greece is looking for a multirole but with main focus on the a2a role and for that the Rafale may not be the strongest.

My guess would be F-16 or SH would be the most likely choice -- although many claim the Typhoon is stronger a2a than at least the F-16, the Typhoon is probably too expensive.


Comments from the experts?


V

this article sounds strange, it looks like a misreading. it would be surprising that greece defense minister do such formal statement during this meeting. such decision would be inconsistent. If greece AF priority is a2a aircraft, ok eurofighter is in the lead but rafale is quite similar even he is supposed to be a bit less competitive but this remains to be proved. in any case he is better than F16 whatever the version, F18 super hornet and even more with gripen, so wait and see.