Eurofighter can do sustained 12g.
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
With a full fuel load and 2000kg of ordinance? Or should we make it external tanks so the fuel payload is comperable? I dont think so.
But then again the Typhoon probably has the F35 pipped on the instentainious turn rate.
Just looked at engines, not that impressive.
These are different mission profiles. The quoted 740 nm radius is from Tom Burbages presentation here in Oslo (p. 25-29):
http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/4_JSF_Capability_89304a.pdf
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
In addition to that, would more than 9g not be a problem for the pilot? In another forum a pilot (or he claimed he was a pilot) said that even 9g is way beyond what they would normally do since they would get tunnel vision and could also faint. He claimed that normally they would not go above 4-6 g.
If the above is not correct I'm sure somebody will correct me
V
I heard it was incorporated into the Eurofighters design.In addition to that, would more than 9g not be a problem for the pilot? In another forum a pilot (or he claimed he was a pilot) said that even 9g is way beyond what they would normally do since they would get tunnel vision and could also faint. He claimed that normally they would not go above 4-6 g.
If the above is not correct I'm sure somebody will correct me
V
(1) A 9G or 12G platform cannot match the turn rate of a 30-65G capable missile - Period. Aircraft also have frame stress alerts which usually go off at 7G to alert the Pilot of overstress.
(2) Extreme maneuvering by the aircraft to escape and evade at "rwr detection" will result in gentle behaviour/manouvre by the missile for the majority of the flight time of that missile. (That means that the missile is not consuming energy and still will have the capability to engage in extremis (depending on flight time issues etc...)
3) If the pilot elects to E&E late in the intercept he runs the risk of not timing the energy curve of the missile anyway.
4) Irrespective of the G-suit - a pilot will not be in that wonderful a condition if he's attempting frame overstress manouvres. Pilots black out even under current G suit technology.
In absolute terms, stating that the frame can handle 12G means bugger all against modern missiles as the missile doesn't overstress at more than 3 times + of the best that the plane can do anyway.
guess where the odds lie with new generation missiles and tighter NEZ's?
(2) Extreme maneuvering by the aircraft to escape and evade at "rwr detection" will result in gentle behaviour/manouvre by the missile for the majority of the flight time of that missile. (That means that the missile is not consuming energy and still will have the capability to engage in extremis (depending on flight time issues etc...)
3) If the pilot elects to E&E late in the intercept he runs the risk of not timing the energy curve of the missile anyway.
4) Irrespective of the G-suit - a pilot will not be in that wonderful a condition if he's attempting frame overstress manouvres. Pilots black out even under current G suit technology.
In absolute terms, stating that the frame can handle 12G means bugger all against modern missiles as the missile doesn't overstress at more than 3 times + of the best that the plane can do anyway.
guess where the odds lie with new generation missiles and tighter NEZ's?
Typhoon and 12g
V
A thought occured to me: presumably the 12g is with a clean a/c. As Ozzy Blizzard pointed if this is the case then 12g is not possible with some payload. However perhaps you can then get closer to what Energo said F22 and F-35 can do, which is 9g which a full load. So the whole idea would not be to be able to do 12g but rather dimension the a/c in a manner that makes it possible to pull more than 4-5 g when fully loaded. Or am I being silly again?
V
Note that endurance and range are two different terms.
The cited 5 hour Gripen figure is probably a notional loiter time with external droptanks. In such a layout range, relative to the extra fuel carried, will be limited by the considerable drag form the external stores. I have no details on the Gripen, but as a comparison two underwing 370 gal droptanks on the F-16 has a drag index of about 35 (percentage relative to the clean airframe), which is quite considerable. The Gripen, being smaller and carrying more and bigger tanks, will be severley hit by drag in such a configuration. Compare this to the F-15 with two underwing 610 gal tanks, which has a drag index of about 25.
That said the F-35 will also be hit by drag from external stores. Somewhat more so, in fact, than a traditional fighter of its size. The wing is so aerodynamically optimized for a clean layout that it does not lend itself kindly to external stores.
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Last edited:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
In short: The F-35 is no slow, cumbersome, wallowing with fuel, sluggish jet; it is a fast jet under actual operational conditions, with plenty of agility and with stealth on top of all this.
In short, the second most lethal fighter in the A2A role.
cheers
In short, the second most lethal fighter in the A2A role.
cheers
I thought the main idea of dodging a missile like the AMRAAM is getting out of its seekers view.
Missile fired at 50km (head on; 6300m altitude), full burner, bank quickly left/right 90 degrees to the missile launch position, nose down 70 degrees until about 1500-2000m then when missile within 2 km, pull the nose up sharp.
Should fly right under you?
Missile fired at 50km (head on; 6300m altitude), full burner, bank quickly left/right 90 degrees to the missile launch position, nose down 70 degrees until about 1500-2000m then when missile within 2 km, pull the nose up sharp.
Should fly right under you?
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Aginst a 50G+ rated missile, no its not the seeker you have to beat. As GF pointed out the achillies heal of any BVRAAM is kinematics. i.e. if you have to try and "outmaneuver" an AAM which is in a high energy state 12G wont save you (even if it was feasible). The name of the game is bleeding of the incomings energy early in the flight path so when it gets terminal (if it has maintained the intecept track) it cant maneuver with you. A BVRAAM's motor only burns for a few seconds, from then on its spending energy it cant get back.I thought the main idea of dodging a missile like the AMRAAM is getting out of its seekers view.
Missile fired at 50km (head on; 6300m altitude), full burner, bank quickly left/right 90 degrees to the missile launch position, nose down 70 degrees until about 1500-2000m then when missile within 2 km, pull the nose up sharp.
Should fly right under you?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
However, the Meteor should be in a high energy state all-the-way, just as the AIM-120D supposedly should be dual pulse. I suspect that it is this latter pulse that effectively extend the "D" range as it convey high Pk at the distal part of the trajectory.
Anyhow, point is that you won't be bleeding missiles in the future the way you did in the old days.
The easiest way not to be shot down with long range high Pk missiles is not to be detected or tracked.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
D might be "dual stage" but it wont have the terminal kinematic performance METEOR will, just the breaks vs ramjet. In any case bleeding will still have a significant effect, METEOR in an optimum flight path will have a much better PK than one pulling high G's to make an intercept track, even if it still has some thrust in the bag. D even more so.
In any case VLO, EWSP and kinematic performance will still have a dramatic effect on even a super missiles PK. I'd like to see a METEOR make an intercept track on an F-22A (assuming it was tracked in the first place). I wouldnt call the target a lame duck just yet.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I'll buy the kinematics part wrt the METEOR and its ramjet. I will however, point out that the F-22 is really in a class of its own on the kinematics side.
But we do have a development where the missiles have increased energy available, better seekers and computational power, two-way updates via datalink and better intercept strategies - all this on missiles that can already endure 30-60g. And it is likely to improve in the future. These missiles will have to catch a manned jet that is limited by what the meat in the cockpit can endure, ie performance is capped.
Well the idea of the banking and nose dive was to cause the missile to have to travel further and bring it down to the thicker air to slow it down (obviously trying to dodge an AMRAAM when it still has a lot of KE is suicide) and the pull up was just to get out of its flight path when it had no more KE to get you.
I think the tactic I suggested probably wouldn't work against AIM-120D/METEOR/R-77M1 due to the high KE.
The faster an object flies the more G's it needs to pull to maintain the same turning circle.
If you calculate the turning circle of a platform pulling 12G at Mach 0.5 and a missile pulling 30G at Mach 3 then you will be extremely surprised.
In fact the turn rate/turning circle of the fighter will be more than double that of the missile
Though if the missile can perform 65G and the aircraft only 9G then the missile wins.
Putting a mountain between the missile and you early enough always works.
Besides, all missiles utilizing doppler experiences problems when the target is near the main beam clutter. Preferably, you have a RWR that can detect the emissions from the missiles active seeker (assuming it is not dual moded ie IR), otherwise, it can be very difficult.
Above, are two means of defeating BVR missiles beyond kinematics. However, they are not as effective as staying out of the NEZs.
guppy
Besides, all missiles utilizing doppler experiences problems when the target is near the main beam clutter. Preferably, you have a RWR that can detect the emissions from the missiles active seeker (assuming it is not dual moded ie IR), otherwise, it can be very difficult.
Above, are two means of defeating BVR missiles beyond kinematics. However, they are not as effective as staying out of the NEZs.
guppy
Grand Danois
Entertainer
How many seconds do a fighter have to do that kind of evasive maneuvering (e.g. putting a mountain in between itself and the missile) after the missile goes active in the terminal phase? 5-6 seconds?
Dual or multimode seekers seem to be the way things are going.
Dual or multimode seekers seem to be the way things are going.
You don't have to wait for missile terminal phase to put the mountain between you and the missile, do you? I did say early enough, didn't I? I may have made a mistake if I didnt.
cheers
guppy
- Status