EA/18G Growler

[swerve]

Darn right. The Falkland Islands conflict shows the importance of training and availability

The Harriers were inferior on paper to the Mirages, other than their ability to vector in forward flight - which never occured in battle. The Harriers were hugely out-numbered by the Argentine Air Force and Navy fighters. The Harriers didn't have AEW, and the AIM-9L sidewinder was never even used in head on aspect - always fired from the rear so earlier versions would have been just as successful.

In short, the Harriers kept the Argentine Air Force and Navy fighters at bay, and shot down a lot, based on training and system availability, not based on better equipment.

And the fact that the Argentineans were operating at extreme range, where switching on afterburner=swimming home (i.e. death), engaging in a dogfight=swimming, etc, etc . . . . .

The Harriers shot the FAA out of the sky because they were close to base & the FAA weren't. They were outnumbered in total numbers, but not in the numbers in the air over the combat zone, which is what matters, & that was because of transit time, availability of AAR (bugger-all), etc, for the Argentineans. They might have been superior to the FAA in an even fight, because of training, missiles & radars, but that wasn't tested.

It's like a shop. What are the three most important factors for success? Location, location & location.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

And the fact that the Argentineans were operating at extreme range, where switching on afterburner=swimming home (i.e. death), engaging in a dogfight=swimming, etc, etc . . . . .

The Harriers shot the FAA out of the sky because they were close to base & the FAA weren't. They were outnumbered in total numbers, but not in the numbers in the air over the combat zone, which is what matters, & that was because of transit time, availability of AAR (bugger-all), etc, for the Argentineans. They might have been superior to the FAA in an even fight, because of training, missiles & radars, but that wasn't tested.

It's like a shop. What are the three most important factors for success? Location, location & location.

All true.

But there was much, much more behind, getting to this position (location).

For start I suggest you read Vulcan 607 and the storey of Black Buck. This was how the runway at Stanley was bombed and how the whole Argentinean fleet was confined to base requiring their forces to operate at extreme ranges.



Chris

 

[Tasman]

Magoo-Tasman-
Both thanks-
am I harsh on the "super bug" ---YEP-damn right skippy- as Taz said the SH is "stop gap" "second tier"-- the Aussies can spend their money better
just because the US Navy is f-ed up-doesn't mean the Aussies have to be

Words need to be read in context rstro.

I would see the SH as 'second tier' behind the F35. That doesn't mean I don't think that it is a highly capable aircraft. If the RAAF fails to 'bridge the gap" that may be created by an F35 delay it will be acting irresponsiby IMHO. If the F35 doesn't end upwith the RAAF, and the F22 is unavailable for purchase, I could live with an all Super Bug fleet - not my preferred choice though.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

All true.

But there was much, much more behind, getting to this position (location).

For start I suggest you read Vulcan 607 and the storey of Black Buck. This was how the runway at Stanley was bombed and how the whole Argentinean fleet was confined to base requiring their forces to operate at extreme ranges.

Chris

Chris,

I've read the accounts of the Black Buck raids, & I know of the other factors restricting Argentinean operations (e.g. RN subs). All adds to the mix. But the Mirages & Daggers, the only aircraft with a speed advantage over the Harriers & air-air radars, were limited to mainland based operations anyway, as they couldn't have operated from Stanley even if the runway had been untouched.

 

[Tasman]

And the fact that the Argentineans were operating at extreme range, where switching on afterburner=swimming home (i.e. death), engaging in a dogfight=swimming, etc, etc . . . . .

The Harriers shot the FAA out of the sky because they were close to base & the FAA weren't. They were outnumbered in total numbers, but not in the numbers in the air over the combat zone, which is what matters, & that was because of transit time, availability of AAR (bugger-all), etc, for the Argentineans. They might have been superior to the FAA in an even fight, because of training, missiles & radars, but that wasn't tested.

It's like a shop. What are the three most important factors for success? Location, location & location.

All of which demostrate the value of having combat aircraft based as close as possible to the ships and troops that need to be defended and supported. This is a strong argument for fixed wing naval aviation and, in the case of the RAN, it provides weight to suggestions for some F35Bs being acquired that could operate from the large amphibious ships.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

All of which demostrate the value of having combat aircraft based as close as possible to the ships and troops that need to be defended and supported. This is a strong argument for fixed wing naval aviation and, in the case of the RAN, it provides weight to suggestions for some F35Bs being acquired that could operate from the large amphibious ships.

Cheers

Would be nice .... mind you reading some of the post about the JSF being on the egde of a cliff (I thinks this is hopeful thinking to a degree), the additioanl cost of the F-35B and the fact the LHD's have not yet been approved and we ahve an election coming up I see this as jsut a nice daydream at the moment.

Mind you it does resovle a few range issues and allow power porjection outside our tanker supported range if we are opperating solo or with limited outside support.

 

[PETER671BT]

The JSF is on the the edge of a cliff, everyone knows that. If they did cut the short term spending the JSF would go over the edge. Keeping the funds flowing in the short term was the only option if they wanted the JSF to enter production. The cost spiral can still occur if the orders are cut. This seems likely as the US cant keep pulling money out of thin air.

The JSF will no doubt be a good aircraft its just that the US cannot afford it and as a result have severely crippled other procurement programs. The JSF program is like the Iraq war.Financially it would be best if they pulled out, but as it will be messy they just have to keep going down the path and hope they are defeated/bankrupt in the end.


All those specs are completely irrelevent.

The speeds are not realistic. I can assure you now, none of those speeds have ever been acheived during operation. All those speeds listed require the use of afterburners for extended periods of time, 99.9% of conmbat missions do not require this.

Thrust vectoring is also not important, will a 747 with thrust vectoring out perform an F-16?

Yeh BUT 747 don't carry missiles.

 

[alexsa]

Yeh BUT 747 don't carry missiles.

yep and if you try and flick them like an F-16 there is a good chance bits will fall off.

 

[rjmaz1]

Yeh BUT 747 don't carry missiles.

Lets chuck some missiles on the 747!! Watch out F-16 pilots the thrust vectoring 747 with AMRAAM will shoot you down nfloorl:

The point i am trying to make is that thrust vectoring doesn't turn an aircraft into a super fighter. Thrust vectoring adds nothing to high speed beyond visual range combat. Thrust vectoring is good for airshows to help the aircraft turn sharp at very low speeds. Thrust vectoring also has negative aspects of increased weight and cost.

An F-111 with thrust vectoring would still have lower agility than any F-16 or Hornet which both dont have thrust vectoring. The airframe design, aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratio are far more important than thrust vectoring when it comes to agility.

Top speed is also irrelevent unless that speed can be maintained.

 

[Magoo]

Thrust vectoring adds nothing to high speed beyond visual range combat. Thrust vectoring is good for airshows to help the aircraft turn sharp at very low speeds. Thrust vectoring also has negative aspects of increased weight and cost.

And there it is right there folks. RJM - if you honestly believe that TV adds nothing to high speed BVR combat, then you are obviously NOT reading the right websites/references/fairy tales.

Using the F-22 as an example, (and based upon my very limited technical knowledge - Occum, please feel free to step in at any time to either correst me or elaborate here...), imagine if you will an F-22 approaching the FEBA at 55K and Mach 1.7 in a nose-on confrontation with several Sukhois flying at 35K. It's unlikely the Sukhois will see the F-22 unless they are scanning above them with IRST, but as they blast past each other, the F-22 will be able to turn and dive in from above and behind and pick them off at will whilst remaining supersonic. How do you say "What the f&#% was that?" in Russian or Chinese?

Alternatively, and again in a head on scenario, before they pass the F-22 can launch a brace of AMRAAMs at the oncoming Sukhois and then make a quick high energy about-face whilst remaining supersonic and get the hell out of dodge. The TV allows the F-22 to maintain its energy in a high speed turn.

It is NO airshow gimmick nor is its tactical application restricted to WVR dogfights.

An F-111 with thrust vectoring would still have lower agility than any F-16 or Hornet which both dont have thrust vectoring. The airframe design, aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratio are far more important than thrust vectoring when it comes to agility.

Of course it would be less manoeuverable (I can NEVER spell that damn word!), but it's a 90,000lb strike bomber, not a 40,000lb dogfighter! However, TV, if it could be fitted (and it probably is a relatively big "IF") it would make the Pig much more manouverable than it currently is, and thus more survivable.

Top speed is also irrelevent unless that speed can be maintained.

Thus the proposal to re-engine with F119s which would allow, if not a supercruising capability, then at least more fuel efficient afterburner dashes, climb rate and perhaps most importantly, acceleration. I'd personally go for the lower risk and cost (and therefore lower capability) option of re-engining with F110s - plenty of spares now that the F-14B/D has been retired.

Magoo

 

[PETER671BT]

Lets chuck some missiles on the 747!! Watch out F-16 pilots the thrust vectoring 747 with AMRAAM will shoot you down nfloorl:

The point i am trying to make is that thrust vectoring doesn't turn an aircraft into a super fighter. Thrust vectoring adds nothing to high speed beyond visual range combat. Thrust vectoring is good for airshows to help the aircraft turn sharp at very low speeds. Thrust vectoring also has negative aspects of increased weight and cost.

An F-111 with thrust vectoring would still have lower agility than any F-16 or Hornet which both dont have thrust vectoring. The airframe design, aerodynamics and thrust to weight ratio are far more important than thrust vectoring when it comes to agility.

Top speed is also irrelevent unless that speed can be maintained.

F-111 would able to out run su serious fighter,that's my piont,but a super hornet would be better in dog fight.The vecter thrust is usaully fly by wire and wouldn't add much weight to the plane.SU PLANES have advantage in many aspects especially the versions coming out of malaysia and india with close to western style cockpits hug similiar technogoly.The radar is far more impressive than hornets too.

 

[Occum]

Supercruising F-111s

Gentlemen (and any Ladies out there),

The F-111 would certainly supercruise with the F119 or the F110 in lieu of the current donks.

In fact, any engine that would provide an aggregate, sea level static thrust in MIL of 34 klbs (TF30-P-3) would enable the current ALT/Speed envelope to be retained using MIL power settings only, including the max high altitude speed of Mach 2+ . The aircraft doesn't care whether the cans are lit or not, just so long as the thrust required for the particular point in the envelope is being delivered - from down the back end and up front from the intake (suck and blow, RAR and all that other good shit). All things being equal this is basic physics, really.

Before the -109 engines were detuned during the previous engine upgrade, the aircraft could achieve level supersonic flight without the need for burner.

Where did this suggestion for TVC on the F-111 come from? Cost/Complexity/Benefit just does not compute - KISS!!!

As for TVC on the F-22 and the Sukhois, this is certainly not done for airshow gimmickry (flying an air show is not an end all in itself for military aircraft).

By the way, most of the aerospace professionals I know (and whose credibility/respect is untainted by the telling of porkies) principally define the 5th Generation fighter aircraft as one that has :

1. Supercruise ability at speeds and SFCs that make it useful (eg. high productivity in A/A, strike, data hoovering, etc).

2. Full spherical, broad band VLO (better than -30dBSM). Note: 'tis a bit more complicated than this but those who understand will appreciate what is being said here.

3. High agility (better than 4th Gen).

4. Fully integrated avionics

5. Improved R&M over 3rd and 4th Gen.

In the case of the Raptor, TVC goes to the third point.

 

[rjmaz1]

the F-22 will be able to turn and dive in from above and behind and pick them off at will whilst remaining supersonic.

Pulling 9 G at supersonic speeds gives a huge turning circle and takes longer to perform a 180 degree turn. Without thrust vectoring the F-22 could still pull and sustain 9 G turns at supersonic speeds. Yes there will be more drag but the F-22 has more than enough thrust to maintain its supersonic speed even while pulling 9 G.

All the combat moves you mentioned could still be performed perfectly with an F-22 with the thrust vectoring switched off.

manoeuverable (I can NEVER spell that damn word!)

hahah same here. I always type agile or agility instead

Occum no doubt the F-111 would supercruise with the F119 engine. It would also be extremely agile for its size if the thrust vectoring nozzles were retained. Being able to pull 9 G turns in an F-111 will not do any favours to the air frame life.

The dry thrust of the F119 engines nearly reach the same thrust levels of max afterburners on the F-111's current engines so it could indeed supercruise in the same ball park as the F-22.

There are so many different stages that the F-111 could be evolved too. Could just add a radar and AMRAAM or you could changes engines, thrust vectoring, reduced RCS. The more you add the better the F-111 would become, however the cost just keeps going up and up. Have to draw the line somewhere.

With the F119 engines in full afterburner the F-111 could possible be coming close to Mach 3. A small diameter bomb would travel extremely far and the F-111 would defeat most fighters on speed alone with the F119 engines. Out of curiosity did any of the proposals list SDB to be carried internally? If so how many could an F-111 carry? They'd have to loose the pavetack and Laser guided cability though.

If Australia had the money to gamble it could become a good investment. The Super Hornet though is a much safer and cheaper option.

Another option completely would be to buy a handful of B1B's.. these have extremely long range. If we re-engined those with F119's using the original B1A intakes it would be able to strike anywhere in our region and cruise at Mach 2 the entire mission. This is just as crazy as the evolved F-111. Atleast the USAF B1b aircraft have all the avionic upgrades ready except AMRAAM of course.

 

[Tasman]

By the way, most of the aerospace professionals I know (and whose credibility/respect is untainted by the telling of porkies) principally define the 5th Generation fighter aircraft as one that has :

1. Supercruise ability at speeds and SFCs that make it useful (eg. high productivity in A/A, strike, data hoovering, etc).

2. Full spherical, broad band VLO (better than -30dBSM). Note: 'tis a bit more complicated than this but those who understand will appreciate what is being said here.

3. High agility (better than 4th Gen).

4. Fully integrated avionics

5. Improved R&M over 3rd and 4th Gen.

In the case of the Raptor, TVC goes to the third point.

Thanks Occum for the definition. I've wondered for some time exactly what is meant by a fifth generation fighter.

It would also be interesting to know the features of a first, second, third and fourth generation fighter.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

The JSF is on the the edge of a cliff, everyone knows that. If they did cut the short term spending the JSF would go over the edge. Keeping the funds flowing in the short term was the only option if they wanted the JSF to enter production. The cost spiral can still occur if the orders are cut. This seems likely as the US cant keep pulling money out of thin air.

The JSF will no doubt be a good aircraft its just that the US cannot afford it and as a result have severely crippled other procurement programs. The JSF program is like the Iraq war.Financially it would be best if they pulled out, but as it will be messy they just have to keep going down the path and hope they are defeated/bankrupt in the end.

Could you please pass this on to the US Deputy Defence Secretary? He didn't "keep" the funding, he INCREASED the level of funding available to the program. Big difference there me old China.

Maybe you should read the article a bit closer but both HE, USAF, USN AND USMC plus the International Partners consider the JSF a VERY important program.

Thinking it'll be cut is wishful at best.

 

[Magoo]

Thanks Occum for the definition. I've wondered for some time exactly what is meant by a fifth generation fighter.

It would also be interesting to know the features of a first, second, third and fourth generation fighter.

Cheers

I know we've done this before and it's open to conjecture, but my understanding of the (jet) fighter generations based on generally accepted industry definitions is as follows:

1st gen: Swept wings, transonic speeds, (e.g F-86 Sabre, Meteor F.8, MiG-15

2nd gen: Supersonic dash capability, first radars, first AAMs (e.g F-100, MiG-19, Mystere)

3rd gen: Sustained supersonic, better radars, radar guided BVR missiles, basic ESSM etc (e.g. F-4, MiG-21/23, Mirage III, BAC Lightning, F-8U etc)

4th gen: FBW super manouve...maneou...oh damnit bloody agility ok, advanced aerodynamics (e.g multiple control surfaces, twin tails etc) look down/shoot down radars, single mission swing role etc (e.g US Teen series, MiG-29, Su-27, Tornado F.3)

...the most conjectural point of all...

4.5th gen: The bridge between the 4th gen jets described above and the true 5th gen jets, i.e. partial avionics integration, advanced and integrated avionics, AESA or provision for etc (e.g Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-30, F-15K/SG).

...and of course...

5th gen: full avionics and sensor integration, VLO, sustained supercruise, key network ISR or weapons node etc (e.g F-22A, F-35)

Now, obviously not ALL of the jets I've listed have ALL of the features I've listed under each category, but they make the list due to being contemporaries of the leaders of each gen.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Pulling 9 G at supersonic speeds gives a huge turning circle and takes longer to perform a 180 degree turn. Without thrust vectoring the F-22 could still pull and sustain 9 G turns at supersonic speeds. Yes there will be more drag but the F-22 has more than enough thrust to maintain its supersonic speed even while pulling 9 G.

All the combat moves you mentioned could still be performed perfectly with an F-22 with the thrust vectoring switched off.

This from F-22 test pilot Paul Metz in a 1998 interview with Carlo Kopp...

Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic 'dogfight' where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community.

The F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance.

The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15.

The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

Says it all really...

Magoo

 

[Jezza]

Yeh BUT 747 don't carry missiles.

There was a study into a 747 carring cruise missiles by the US.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a320/Jeremy70/B-747cruise1.jpg

 

[old faithful]

Q for Mr Magoo or Occum or those who know...F18F or even HUGs for that matter,how long can they sustain supersonic flight for in a relativly clean A-A intercept with 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x ASRAAM. I know there are heaps of what ifs, lets just call it an emergency intercept mission to get there asap....say 400km, would that be possible?

 

[Magoo]

Q for Mr Magoo or Occum or those who know...F18F or even HUGs for that matter,how long can they sustain supersonic flight for in a relativly clean A-A intercept with 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x ASRAAM. I know there are heaps of what ifs, lets just call it an emergency intercept mission to get there asap....say 400km, would that be possible?

With two ASRAAMs and two AMRAAMs up, probably no more than 10 to 15 minutes before they have some serious fuel issues.

Cheers

Magoo