F-22 and F-35 superiority

Guys - the F-22 and 35 are the last manned fighters in the US arsenal. Everything from this point is going to be UAV, so it doesn't matter what the opposition puts up from here on. I've seen some great pics of Typhoons intercepting the Bear. I can't wait to see a pic of a UAV coasting beside a Bear.

There are a lot of people that believe in the idea that the F-35 is the last manned fighter. Personally I happened to think that this is an unfounded idea as not a single production UCAV has been put into service that I know of.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
There are a lot of people that believe in the idea that the F-35 is the last manned fighter. Personally I happened to think that this is an unfounded idea as not a single production UCAV has been put into service that I know of.

Shattered OUT...

Umm... and the Hellfire missile carrying Predator/Reaper is what?

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by StellarX
I am thinking those F-22's are very hungry and that their 'super cruising' ability comes at far less efficiency than is commonly advertised. ANYTHING can super cruise with sufficient fuel and the best super cruise in active duty is certainly the Mig-31M....

Stellar

I think you meant anything can super cruise with the right engine... I don't think that fuel capacity alone reflects an aircrafts ability to super cruise.

Shattered OUT...

No, I'd agree with Stellar on this one - it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you do it.


If you can go 500 miles in an F-22 supercruising at M1.5 on military power, or 500 miles in a MiG-31 on partial afterburners at M1.5 - what does it matter as long as you still have fuel left?

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


That MiG-31 carried almost 17tons fuel, also prove it to supercruise.

It's also my contention that the last fighter pilot (who will sit in a fighter) has been born.

If you can go 500 miles in an F-22 supercruising at M1.5 on military power, or 500 miles in a MiG-31 on partial afterburners at M1.5 - what does it matter as long as you still have fuel left?

The difference is the heat signature which contributes to the overall stealthiness of the aircraft.

Originally posted by waynos

Cheers for the links. I know its not the same thing but that F-22 link states a ferry range of 1,724 miles.

The data might not be in but a ferry range is indeed how far it can go before landing or making a dent in ground...

Not as a 'max' but as 'demonstrated to date'. According to Janes the combat range of the Su 30 is given as 1,865 miles on max internal fuel.

Subsonic at very high altitude with ( i'm guessing four long range r-77 missiles) and plenty of drop tanks and little maneuvering for the first 900 miles or so.

A ferry range is outbound as far as you can go and then land, is it not? Would I be right in thinking that a 'combat range' also allows for the plane to get home again, still on internal fuel?

This would imo be a maximum combat range at high subsonic type intercept speeds with a high speed dash in to launch missiles and a even faster exit to break contact; if the enemy aircraft are sufficiently fueled and armed and numerous, to absorb casualties, they they could easily chase down the Su-30 which wont have sufficient fuel to run or arms to fight with. I think that's a maximum 'everything goes as planned' combat range.

If this is the case then the Su 30 would appear to be nothing short of remarkable, or am I missing something?

That's how it appears and that is not the type of feat us engineers should not easily be able to duplicate in evolutionary development of the F-15. It really is not a issues of one country having better technology but a question of who have the processes and political will to implement it efficiently.

Stellar

reply to post by intelgurl


A paper airplane.

But in all honestly I completely forgot about the RQ-9 as I was thinking of Air Superiority UCAVs exclusively.

And by super cruise I mean the ability to travel mach 1.5 without afterburner. If the MiG-31 uses afterburner to achieve those speeds and cover the same distance regardless of fuel consumption, then it is NOT super cruising. It is using augmented thrust to achieve a certain velocity.

Is the fuel consumption of the MiG-31 and F-22 the same when both of them travel 500 miles at mach 1.5, or does the MiG-31 spend more fuel because it is using augmented thrust?

Like I said, the question isn't really about fuel supply, but it is mostly about engine power and airframe weight.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 29-8-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

reply to post by HatTrick



If the distance between two is over 100miles, what's matter to do with the heat signature?

I agree, there is a big difference in fuel consumption between mil power and burner. For an aircraft that uses burner to sustain the same speed as an aircraft in mil, and go the same range, it is going to (generally) chew up a shed load more fuel.

IR detection at 100 miles is useful for situational awareness. There aren't too many air-breathing assets that can achieve this though. But if you could...

Kamikaze UCAVs for CAP duties make a hell of a lot of sense. More time on station, improved manoeuvrability, cheaper, less CSAR/PR requirements, potential dual use against time sensitive/critical targets, less piddle packs. What's not to like? Much as it pains me to say it, the day of manned combat aircraft are well and truly numbered.

Originally posted by HatTrick
The difference is the heat signature which contributes to the overall stealthiness of the aircraft.

Which does not in any way shape or form affect the definition of supercruise.


Besides - unless you are able to match their speed, your gonna have difficulty prosecuting from the rear quadrant.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
And by super cruise I mean the ability to travel mach 1.5 without afterburner. If the MiG-31 uses afterburner to achieve those speeds and cover the same distance regardless of fuel consumption, then it is NOT super cruising. It is using augmented thrust to achieve a certain velocity.

So what?

If the thing has a supersonic range of over 2,000 km here what does it matter that its using afterburners?

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Is the fuel consumption of the MiG-31 and F-22 the same when both of them travel 500 miles at mach 1.5, or does the MiG-31 spend more fuel because it is using augmented thrust?

Does it matter? With the fuel fraction of the MiG-31 [around 20,000 ltrs or approx 17,000 kgs] it can run the 500 miles irregardless.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Like I said, the question isn't really about fuel supply, but it is mostly about engine power and airframe weight.

Nah, its not got much to do with airframe weight as you'd imagine to be honest, induced drag in subsonics is largely replaced with wave drag in supersonics.


Its all about the engine intake efficiency, and the engine's operating efficiency at those kind of pressures.

Having an engine of large brute power doesn't guarantee anything. For instance the Trent 900 on the A380 can produce up to 95000 lbf of thrust, whereas the PW F119-PW-100 "only" produces a paltry 35,000 lbf or so. Yet the Trent 900 will never go supersonic, but the F119-PW-100 will easily.

I agree that it doesn't matter how you do it aslong as you do it. Renember guys this isn't commercial aviation, this is military. Just let the taxpayers pay for the fuel inefficiently burned

But slight correction:

So what?

If the thing has a supersonic range of over 2,000 km here what does it matter that its using afterburners?

Sorry for being an arse, but a supersonic range of 2000 kilometres is kinda an overstatement. Supersonic range is 720 kilometres actually, or about 450 miles at Mach 2.35. 2000-2500 kilometres subsonic.

Thanks.

[edit on 30/8/2007 by C0bzz]

Ahh right ok.


It was claimed here:

This, together with the lower specific fuel consumption of the D-30F, raised supersonic range to 2 135 km on internal fuel

Exact same here:

The new powerplant necessitated some structural modifications, and the opportunity was taken to increase internal fuel capacity to 19700 liters (4,333 Imp gal) (some estimates suggest 20380 liters/4,483 Imp gal). This, together with the lower specific fuel consumption of the D-30F, raised supersonic range to 2135 km (1,327 miles) on internal fuel, or to 3310 km (2,057 miles) at subsonic speeds. Increased weight reduced operational ceiling to 21900 m (71,850 ft).

But aerospaceweb.org lists the range with max payload as 1200 km.



And the range you've quoted is listed here



Anyways - 400 km at Mach 2.35 would meet my definition of supercruise [my definition being the real-word end-result... i.e. covering a helluva lot of ground very quickly irregardless of approach used]

"Irregardless" is not a real word.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
"Irregardless" is not a real word.

That would depend on who you speak to.



Anyway, irregardless of what the dictionary actually says, a dictionary does not define the words that can be used when writing/speaking a language - it merely explains the meaning of common words that are used in that language.


A language is always in flux, and in a couple of hundred years time derka could be a word. Heck, I use it to wind up a Spanish buddy when he is talking derka-derka-derka, its not in the dictionary, but everyone knows what we are on about

I understand that a lot of people use it but it's a double negative and actually means the opposite of what you are intending it to mean.

I know what you are intending it to mean so it's not really an issue, I just cringe when I see that word used.

Please excuse the thread hi-jack....oh wait, I started this thread...I'm not sorry!

Right, so you're going to sacrifice loiter time?

The difference between mil power and afterburner at that distance is that afterburner will hinder the amount of time the aircraft has to fight. No only is supersonic speeds getting you there faster and at the same time, but also you have more time to fight.

Sure you can kill all your fuel for the sake of the argument, but in the end it's not worth it. If afterburner was the same as super cruise, why invest in super cruise?

The difference between a Trent 900 and a PW-119 is the type of engines they are and what they're used for. You of all people should know that such an analogy doesn't work in this situation. Why compare an airliner high-bypass engine with a military turbo-jet? Because of the thrust rating?

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies



So, the superiority of Super Cruise only is that saving money now.....
Yes, saving your fuel means saving your oil, saving your oil means saving your money.