As far as my literature goes the ATF requirement and the USAF definition has always been: sustained level speeds of mach 1.5, or better, without the use of afterburner while in a tactical weapons loadout.
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Grand Danois
Entertainer
12 internally carried AMRAAMS/ASRAAMS?
So what would "RAND" want to have on CAP over Taiwan? 6 F-35A or 6 F-22A?
6 x 12 missiles = 72 Flankers @ Pk=1...
Go AFRL !
Not much faith in Mr. Eastwood, eh?
So what would "RAND" want to have on CAP over Taiwan? 6 F-35A or 6 F-22A?
6 x 12 missiles = 72 Flankers @ Pk=1...
Go AFRL !
Not much faith in Mr. Eastwood, eh?
From a Norwegian forum:Don;'t make the mistake of thinking that supercruise is fuel efficient. While only full military power is applied and no reheat for the F-22 to reach those speeds requires a lot more fuel consumption than at efficient cruise (Mach 0.8) the difference is actually quite huge. 100 NM at supercruise (~M 1.5) equals about 300 NM at efficient cruise (~M 0.8) for the F-22. That is with a 200 NM supercruise stage mission range is reduced to 820 NM (range not radius) on a full tank of gas. The F-22 flying at M 0.8 can fly 1,200 NM (range not radius) the same as an F-35 at similar speed.
The original designers of the F-22 for the ATF RFP had a much higher fuel fraction so the aircraft could get a lot more out of supercruise. But since its importance was seen to be less and less in a network centric environment (who needs speed of flight when you know what's going on around you) fuel got cut by 1/4-1/3 during detailed design.
Considering the altitude limitations of the F-22 and supercruise its hard to really see the benefit in weapon's launch compared to the F-35 as the later can dash before launch. With the F-35's weapons bay growth potential to up to 12 internal carriage AMRAAM/ASRAAM (according to USAFRL), it's DAS and LOAL capability and better sensor integration it will be a superior ATA platform to the F-22.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/TheDocumentFile/Strategy%20and%20Concepts/0908AirDominance.pdf
The author seems to disagree with the conclusion that F-35 will be superior in a2a compared to F-22?
V
Both that Norwegian webpage and the USAF Association report are heavily based on the writings of the Australian "Air Power Association". In many cases the 'facts' they are quoting are wrong in fact and certainly wrong in extrapolation. I'm quite happy to go on the record and compare what I've written and published with their stuff any day of the week.
Comparing the F-35 on a strike mission profile to the F-22 on an ATA mission profile for ATA effectiveness is part of the problem. The F-35 can fly an ATA mission just as well as the F-22. When flying ATA with four internal AMRAAMs the F-35 won't be flying so low, it will be well above 40,000 feet. With the initial weapon's bay configuration you will need two F-35s for each F-22 (about the cost differential anyway!) but with the new configuration that limitation won't be an issue.
To this more leveled equation what the F-22 brings to the table is 14 minutes of Mach 1.5 supercruise but altitude limited to between angels 25 and 45. What the F-35 brings is Link 22 (so it can take secure feeds from AEW&C and other NCW stuff), automatic flying, point and click engagement, spherical IRST, next generation weapons like HEL and hypersonic missiles, high rate sortie generation (so each F-35 produces twice the effort of each F-22) and so on.
Think in Russian!
http://thinkinrussian.org/
US DARPA has developed thought control systems with feedback and everything... Its been for limb replacement for combat amputees. I'm not sure if there is any 'speed' advantage to be gained over arm and stick control but certainly going through the multi-mode functions of a modern cockpit it would help. Also to stop the Clint Eastwoodiski from stealing the thought control F-35 you need a chip in your brain to make it work.
That was originally a requirement, not a definition. To say "the the ATF must supercruise at X" does not mean that X is the definition of supercruise, any more than "the ATF must fly at X altitude" means anything less than X isn't real flying.
BTW, personally, I think that if "supercruise" means anything, it means "supersonic cruise", & to me that means sustained supersonic flight however achieved, & whatever means is used to accelerate to supersonic speeds. One can quibble only over how long is "sustained", but IMO a reasonable definition of that word for this context would preclude the use of afterburner to maintain that speed for all except a few specialised types (e.g. SR-71), as most aircraft would run out of fuel too quickly with afterburner on for their flight to be "sustained". Any "definition" tailored to a specific aircraft, or even requirement, is far too artificial, too contrived, for me to take seriously. Call it "ATF cruise", or "F-22 cruise", if you like. That makes its specificity clear, and allows "supercruise" to be used for such as Concorde, which never carried "a tactical weapons loadout", but beat the F-22 hollow on speed, range & payload on dry thrust.
Combat Radius (NM)Aussie Digger said:
Combat Radius F22(NM) Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 310+100nm
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
My personal estimate is That Gripen NG is on pair in terms of range, inferior in terms of speed, and superior in term of persistance at supersonic speed.
I was referring to fuel efficient compared to afterburnerAbraham Gubler said:
When I contacted Dryden re the definition a few years ago (I sent it off to carlo kopp to give him an aviation engineers view of the real world), they stated that it was:
Supercruise is simply supersonic cruise flight with "dry" engines, meaning without the use of afterburners.
-Answer from a Dryden engineer
Beth Hagenauer
NASA Dryden public affairs
Before the advent of the ATF and F-22 supercruise was used to describe an aircraft that would spend its operational mission at supersonic speeds. Aircraft like the B-70, SR-71, F-103, F-106, F-108. In particular through much of the 60s, 70s and early 80s it was a term used to describe a Mach >3.0 aircraft and the kind of capabilities they bring to the table. A lot of people got excitied about this and have transfered some of the boost you get from a >80,000 feet Mach >3.0 platform to a <50,000 feet, Mach ~1.5 platform. Even though the difference is enoromous. In this graphic old school supercruise is yellow and current supercruise is blue.
Since the current C/D Gripens is considered to be the best available 4:th generation fighters considering the situational awareness offered to the pilot you don't seem to be up on par with the Gripen NG capabilities (understandably as it is not in service anywhere yet).
Cheers
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I was not aware that the current Gripen was as capable as the Super Hornet, Rafale or Typhoon. You don't happen to have some stats do you?
Guys we're getting very close to this vs. that category. There is no such thing as the "best" fighter be it 4th gen. or otherwise. There are simply aircraft that perform better in some missions profiles, in certain conditions (i.e. the right tool for a job). I'd suggest that the statement before this one just kind of gets ignored, as so far this discussion has been very interesting and I've learned quite a bit.
It'll be a deep mole. A Russian immigrant living in the USA for many years, that was on the KGB payroll all along. Oh snap. I totally fit the bill (if you ignore the part where I left Russia when I was 12
) Actually here is a lengthy article/essay about the RM12 (in swedish). It elaborates very detailed about the modifications made on the original GE F404, in the realm of 50% (the RM12 is considered a swedish design by GE).
http://www.idg.se/17.108/2.1085/1.174315
You make me look dumb somtimes GD
I perhaps should read ahead before replying ...
The C/D is not en par with the Block II Super Hornet. It doesn't have the same grunt behind the cockpit processing the sensors and other data feeds like the Block II. As to the Gripen NG I was invited to the launch last year in Sweden. Unfortunately the free ticket was only from London so I couldn't go. It will be an impressive weapon system but is really designed to compete with the post Block 60 F-16s Lockheed Martin will try and sell to those who need aircraft before the F-35 is available for mass export (2020s).
I know DT does not look fondly on X vs Y comparisons because so many are so subjective about them. But the guy spending the most money usually ends up with the best toys.
There's more to situational awareness than pure hardware prestanda. I'm more thinking about the MMI and the presentation of available information to the pilot.
I have heard nothing but praise of the current Gripen C/D situational awareness and MMI from pilots being subjected to it (and this includes pilots not normally flying the Gripen).
I don't doubt it but the Gripen does not have a HMI lead over the Super Hornet. Certainly not in the league that the F-35 has over everything else. The Rafale has its own uniquely French approach to HMI which explains why no one else has brought it. Is it any better to the Super Hornet/Eurofighter/Gripen/etc... nope but it certainly looks different.
But what data processing does is fuse information and present it in a much simpler and more direct form. The Block II has the most advanced computer system flying (including over the F-22) and can do things to the sensor input of the various sensors that won't be seen until the F-35 is in service.
Frankly this is more important than mere presentation. If one aircraft is telling you that the threat is out there 60 seconds before the other aircraft then you have more than enough time to read it on a crappy display system (which isn't the issue anyway).
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Combat Radius (NM)
Combat Radius F22(NM) Mission 1 (Sub+Super) 310+100nm
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html
My personal estimate is That Gripen NG is on pair in terms of range, inferior in terms of speed, and superior in term of persistance at supersonic speed.
I was referring to fuel efficient compared to afterburner
That website notes that the 310nm + 100nm range is achieved primarily through sub-sonic cruise with a "supercruise" dash of 100nm included...
Personally I very much doubt the Gripen will achieve anything even close.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I may be wrong, but my understanding was that Gripen NG will have a new (and according to Saab) substantially improved MMI. Since Norway considers to buy Gripen NG and not C/D presumably the NG MMI is the more relevant one. We do not know much about it unfortunately.
It is also my understanding that the computers in NG will be different from what's in C/D. I believe Saab actually wants to wait some more years before "locking" some of the electronics components, arguing that Moores law can give you a substantially improved performance by waiting another year.
I have also been worried that this will turn into a "X vs Y" --- clearly the F-35 is a 5. gen stealth platform with a huge R&D budget, as a "non-expert" it seems to me that it will be superior in many ways to all other fighters out there.
However, and this could also be the thing that causes LM some headaches(?) RNAF have specific requirements, and the question remains -- what if both a/c actually meet those requirements? Most people on this forum would say that one should then pick the one that exceeds the requirements the most, i.e. the "best" a/c. Some people (including many politicians) may argue that one should pick the cheapest a/c that meets the requirements, or use other criteria like "offsets" to pick a winner.
I have alluded to this earlier: part of the problem can be that current 4. gen a/c are generally "good enough" for most missions Norway would need to embark on, mainly because Russia is so far behind -- the other part of the problem can be that F-35 is so much better than other a/c that unless the requirements are very narrow they fail to highlight the advantages provided by F-35. So, communication is a key word here. I suspect that's why LM has stepped up it's presence in Norwegian media the last few weeks. LM needs to communicate this to people in Norway, since it is not obvious to the non-expert.
V
- Status