F-22 and F-35 superiority

Well, yes, but from a warfighting perspective, saving fuel also means increased on-station/loiter time, which impacts sortie generation requirements, which has other support and logistic impacts such as reduced air to air refueling requirements, which potentially lowers your deployment footprint, which impacts security, admin, ramp space, and so on. Supercruise provides a range of benefits, most of them indirect to an actual engagement. As others have pointed out, M1.5 is M1.5 whether you're supercruising or afterburning. It is the other benefits I describe above that are key.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Willard856]

Supercruise is only a massive increase over a nonsupercruising plane if BOTH aircraft have small fuel fractions and fairly conventional engines.

But, we must renember that the Mig-31 has 19700 litres of fuel with engines on it specifically designed for Mach 2 extended cruise.

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?

Because of the above advantages and it boosts range for aircraft with inadequate fuelfractions like .29.

Because it provides a quick way to, and from battle if an aircraft has an inadequate fuel fraction while reducing. Again, as Willard stated, supercruise, has the only benifits over aircraft like the mig-31:

reduced air to air refueling requirements, which potentially lowers your deployment footprint, which impacts security, admin, ramp space, and so on.

[edit on 31/8/2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Right, so you're going to sacrifice loiter time?

Every aircraft design involves sacrifices, even the F-22. In the case of the MiG-31, loiter time is not an issue, its an interceptor, its supposed to cover alot of ground, fast. With the relatively high wingloading, it is not a dogfighter, as an interceptor it doesn't have to be, so there is no point compromising the main mission to try and give it some skills in ACM.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
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.

Again, MiG-31s are not supposed to "fight", they are supposed to get within missile range, destroy incoming bombers/cruise missiles/fighters at long range, about turn and go home. Not stay and dogfight, or start a standard CAP.

If they start a CAP, it will be at a fixed point, and can be done subsonically. Then, whenever the enemy is detected, the burners are engaged to meet the threat as far from the protected target as possible.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
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?

So you don't have to have a big heavy airframe with alot of its space and weight devoted to carrying fuel.

The MiG-31 is the No.1 interceptor in the world. With supercruise, the F-22 is No.2 as it can go a long distance faster than the F-15/F-16 whatever else you care to name.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
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?

You said:

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

I was pointing out that its about so much more than pure power - otherwise the Trent 900 would be a supercruising beast.

It is mainly about the inlet design and the engines ability to handle very high specific mass flow rates [kg/(s.m^2)] much above the usual optimal design.

Its not the F119-PW-100's absolute thrust that makes it a supercruise, after all, isn't the F135-PW-100 a more powerful engine... yet it cannot handle the higher specific mass flow, thus, it cannot supercruise.

To claim the Mig-31 as the number one at anything, it would have to have a record of doing that thing better than other aircraft. I would argue that the F-15 has more interception kills than the Mig-31.


Also, just my .02 cents on the subject of afterburning. It's more stressful and destructive to the engines, translating into the need for more maintenance per flight hour, translating to the aircraft not being operationally ready as much.

The Mig-25 was/is a very fast aircraft but ask the pilots what happens to the engines after employing afterburner for any extended period. Destruction.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Vanguard223]

Originally posted by Vanguard223
To claim the Mig-31 as the number one at anything, it would have to have a record of doing that thing better than other aircraft. I would argue that the F-15 has more interception kills than the Mig-31.

I would personally recommend taking a look at the success ratio, successful versus total. I don't know how many interception missions each one has necessarily had to take on, but I don't think that the MiG-31 has had quite the work load as the F-15 (which was not only employed by the USAF, but exported to countries like Israel and Japan. So success compared to attempts is probably a better way of judging success. Let's have an example, I like examples.

If we have Air Force A which has a MiG-31 force that has taken on 20 missions and succeeded on all 20, it has 20 victories with a 100% success rate. If we have Air Force B with a MiG-31 force having taken 100 missions while succeeding on 25 of them, you have 25 victories with a 25% success rate.

Although Force B has more victories, Force A is obviously more successful since it has not failed on nearly as many. So try to think about these sort of things as ratios, not totals.

Also, just my .02 cents on the subject of afterburning. It's more stressful and destructive to the engines, translating into the need for more maintenance per flight hour, translating to the aircraft not being operationally ready as much.

Well, not afterburning in and of itself. In fact, even without afterburners the engines would be damaged at speeds at which the engines of the MiG-25 shredded at. It's not because the engine is burning more gas. It's well-suited to burning gas at phenomenal rates. It's that the air is going so fast through the engine that it actually tears it apart. That's why the Mach 3.2 runs destroyed the engines.

Also, the massive engines on the MiG-25 would actually eventually accelerate out of control as air going through them got faster and faster if you oversped it. So that was also a concern, because eventually on a flight you're going to want to slow down. Assuming, of course, you don't burn up from friction or some other hideous fact of physics.

I understand what you're saying about ratios and agree. I think you'll find the F-15 has a better ratio as well.

Our ideas of what constitutes a successful intercept mission may be different as well.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
I understand what you're saying about ratios and agree. I think you'll find the F-15 has a better ratio as well.

Our ideas of what constitutes a successful intercept mission may be different as well.

Very true. Off hand, I can't find comprehensive records of sorties for F-15s or MiG-31s, but I imagine that the Eagle has had a lot more work than the Foxhound. Chances are pretty good that all the sorties and their results are still heavily classified.

Although I still stick firmly to my belief that the MiG-31's design made specifically for interception makes a better platform for it than the F-15, it doesn't in the least surprise me to think that the F-15 has been used in that role before, or that it was probably successful.

Now aside from the MiG-31 wasn't the original thread about the F-22 and F-35?

The MiG-31 may be the best interceptor in the world, but right now we're comparing apples to oranges with the F-22 and MiG-31. Different missions, they do different things. Same with the Trent 900 and PW-119. Also the F-22 has dual PW-119's while the F-35 has a single PW-135. I'd say the total thrust is different.

Agreed on the intake design. But I still hold by the fact that super cruise is an advantage over augmented thrust. For fighters. I'd have to agree that the MiG-31 does not need super cruise as it is an interceptor and would be the last thing you'd want to dogfight with.

And Emile, I made no mention on oil so why bring it into the conversation?

Shattered OUT...

I know the comparisons between the Raptor and the sukhoi/migs are more relevant but nobody has mentioned the Typhoon so far?
As i found on the internet it has already beaten the Raptor, and F-15's in 2 vs 1![2F-15's that is] in training
Source: "internatinal AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006,
issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917.
Anyways i'll be happy if my governement purchase the F-35 when the time is ripe[that raptor is way too expensive], but what makes the Typhoon so unique and special i.m.o is his extreme manouvrability and handling at supersonic speeds[9 G] and the pilot interface..
Sounds silly but if the challengers of the F-22 just turn off their radar and get close[maybe with support of ground control radar/satellite], then it would be an interesting comparison..otherwise







[edit on 31-8-2007 by Foppezao]

Originally posted by Foppezao
As i found on the internet it has already beaten the Raptor, and F-15's in 2 vs 1![2F-15's that is] in training...

I recommend you you to do a search on this topic, this claim has been discussed before and the conclusion is that it is very likely not true, at lest with regard to the Raptor. According to all identified public sources the Typhoon and the F-22 have never flown with or against each other.

As for the F-15E thing, sure, 'something' did happen but it's value in terms of real world combat is not that great. Pilots playing in WVR on restricted corridors is not that realistic of a scenario.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

he MiG-31 may be the best interceptor in the world, but right now we're comparing apples to oranges with the F-22 and MiG-31. Different missions, they do different things.

If need be the F-22 will be required to fill the Interceptor role. If it didn't, then what would?

Same with the Trent 900 and PW-119. Also the F-22 has dual PW-119's while the F-35 has a single PW-135. I'd say the total thrust is different.

The thrust to weight ratio of the F-35 and the F-22 is both about the same so overall thrust does not count. However, the pressure ratio of the F-135 is lower than that of the F-110 while having a higher mass flow. This means that the engine will develop more thrust at lower speeds, yet less thrust at higher speeds compared to the F-110.

F-110 powered aircraft cannot supercruise, so I highly doubt a F-135 powered aircraft could. But we must renember that the F-35 is not designed to supercruise in the first place, so we cannot really compare them.

Thanks.

[edit on 31/8/2007 by C0bzz]

The thrust to weight ratio, combat loaded mil and after burner, is not the same between the Raptor and Lightning II (god that name sucks...). The F-22 enjoys a significant advantage over the F-35. Anyway, the F-119 puts out more than just 35K of augmented thrust but that's for another discussion. In any case I suspect that when the F-35 reaches IOC and more information about it's abilities comes out we will see that it has marginal super cruise capability. Much like the Typhoon given certain load out specifications.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by WestPoint23]

Whatever.

The point was that you cannot compare the total thrust of the F-35 with the F-22 as the t/w ratios are roughly the same depending on loadout and the F-35 cannot supercruise at any Mach number approaching the Raptor because the F-35 was not designed with supercruise as a high priority (if one at all).

___

Holy crap, the F-35 holds eight tons of fuel. All most three times the F-16! Impressive! I have beginning to realise that the F-35 is an amazing plane... much more so than the F-22. Argh...

[edit on 1/9/2007 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz
Whatever.

The point was that you cannot compare the total thrust of the F-35 with the F-22 as the t/w ratios are roughly the same depending on loadout and the F-35 cannot supercruise at any Mach number approaching the Raptor because the F-35 was not designed with supercruise as a high priority (if one at all).

But West said they're NOT the same. So how can the point be that their same if they're not?

Shattered OUT...

Hey, I'm not argueing with you. They are not the same and I thought I said that?

But we must renember that the F-35 is not designed to supercruise in the first place, so we cannot really compare them.

Could I ask a question?

Can four Su-30s band together with there four radars to detect stealth aircraft at longer ranges? I've been searching and searching and searching, and all I've found was the mini-awacs feature.

Thanks.

[edit on 2/9/2007 by C0bzz]

Could you clarify your question? Four separate and equal radar sources means more area coverage and flexibility but not more range, total power output (per unit) or resolution. It does not work that way. The only thing that would get improved via data link is the amount of targets that can be fired at simultaneously by one aircraft given that you can task your buddy with providing missile guidance etc...

[edit on 2-9-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Could you clarify your question? Four separate and equal radar sources means more area coverage and flexibility but not more range, total power output (per unit) or resolution. It does not work that way.

True, but if you have 4 different radars focused on one area you have a better shot at detecting something that has been stealthed. So, whereas you can detect something at range X, stealth would decrease the range at which it would be detected. 4 Radars, however give a much better shot at detecting a stealthed aircraft at any point in time, which consequently increases the stealth aircraft's possibility of detection at longer average range than it would be if only one aircraft was detecting. Doing the math, I think it's actually 15 times more likely to be detected (a bit of probability math on the calculator), which also means it's much more feasible to be detected at longer ranges. HOWEVER! This will not increase the possibility of detection past the maximum range of the radar. The only reason that this is possible is because stealth aircraft should theoretically be detected well within the maximum range. If that doesn't make sense, think of this: You have a better shot at detecting something if you just saturate the air with more radar waves.

For another look at this, if you have the four Flankers spread out such that they get different angles upon the stealthed enemy aircraft, you get an even better shot at finding it. Since you get multiple different angles that are also off the frontal axis (where it is most difficult to detect many stealth a/c) you will be more likely to have at least one aircraft get the lock and uncage.

Moving on with the question, can the other aircraft deploy weapons on that single aircraft's lock? Again: Yes, but with a reservation. If you require your own independent lock on the aircraft before you can unload the target designation duty onto something else, then no. But chances are pretty good that as long as one aircraft has the lock it will update firing information and target position on all within the link. Which, theoretically speaking, could be very nasty and a nifty way of getting (sort of) past stealth.

Moving on again, what if you had something with a beastly radar (like a MiG-31) providing target information from way out there, allowing for huge BVR strikes with some R-172, courtesy of a Flanker attack group? It'd be a severe hazard for any high assets in and around the range of the R-172, which would be 400 kilometers.

Forging ahead with another question: Does the USAF have anything that evenly matches the Russian data links?

[edit on 9/2/2007 by Darkpr0]

Originally posted by Darkpr0

True, but if you have 4 different radars focused on one area you have a better shot at detecting something that has been stealthed. So, whereas you can detect something at range X, stealth would decrease the range at which it would be detected. 4 Radars, however give a much better shot at detecting a stealthed aircraft at any point in time, which consequently increases the stealth aircraft's possibility of detection at longer average range than it would be if only one aircraft was detecting. Doing the math, I think it's actually 15 times more likely to be detected (a bit of probability math on the calculator), which also means it's much more feasible to be detected at longer ranges. HOWEVER! This will not increase the possibility of detection past the maximum range of the radar. The only reason that this is possible is because stealth aircraft should theoretically be detected well within the maximum range. If that doesn't make sense, think of this: You have a better shot at detecting something if you just saturate the air with more radar waves.

Four radar focused on the one piece of airspace to detect a stealth platform doesn't make a lot of sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, the probability of detection doesn't change just because you have four radars looking at that piece of sky. Each radar is a seperate entity, and the equations for detection relate solely to each radar. There is no increased likelihood of detection. Most modern radar operate in seperate channels anyway so that you don't interfere with your buddies returns, and vice versa. So the saturation theory is wrong too. If a Slotback II detects an F-22 at X range, then for every other Slotback II (assuming same aspect, altitude, environmental conditions, power output etc) should also detect the F-22 at X miles. Also, the whole idea of focusing radars on a certain piece of airspace to detect a stealth aircraft suggests a level of knowledge of the location of that aircraft already. While there have been some advances in this area, it is far from perfected, and if four aircraft are all sanitising the same piece of airspace, there is a hell of a lot of sky that isn't being sanitised. Which kind of defeats the purpose.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
For another look at this, if you have the four Flankers spread out such that they get different angles upon the stealthed enemy aircraft, you get an even better shot at finding it. Since you get multiple different angles that are also off the frontal axis (where it is most difficult to detect many stealth a/c) you will be more likely to have at least one aircraft get the lock and uncage.

This is true, in the sense that most stealth aircraft are optomised for RCS reduction in the forward quarter, though the F-22 as I understand it is signifcantly RCS lowered in all hemispheres. So if you have multiple radars looking at different angles, the ones from 45 degrees and around should have an increased chance of detection (recognising that 90 degrees angle off will be beaming the threat radar, which usually puts the target in the doppler notch). But again, for this to be the case, the Flankers have to be focused on a certain piece of airspace, and breaking up your flight like that leaves you exposed, which generally isn't a good thing. You'd have to be very sure where your target is, and that they don't have any friends nearby...

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Moving on with the question, can the other aircraft deploy weapons on that single aircraft's lock? Again: Yes, but with a reservation. If you require your own independent lock on the aircraft before you can unload the target designation duty onto something else, then no. But chances are pretty good that as long as one aircraft has the lock it will update firing information and target position on all within the link. Which, theoretically speaking, could be very nasty and a nifty way of getting (sort of) past stealth.

I'd be interested to know which weapons you think can do this. Yes, an aircraft can fire on another's lock, but without a two-way datalink to the weapon to update the target position (assuming the firing aircraft remains without a lock and EM silent), the missile will be flying on old information until it goes active, by which time the target may have manoeuvred outside the eye of the missile seeker. Newer systems will address this limitation, but until they enter service, the above scenario isn't realistic. Where datalinking has its biggest advantage now is in enhancing situational awareness, and allowing non-voice tactical employment.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Moving on again, what if you had something with a beastly radar (like a MiG-31) providing target information from way out there, allowing for huge BVR strikes with some R-172, courtesy of a Flanker attack group? It'd be a severe hazard for any high assets in and around the range of the R-172, which would be 400 kilometers.

Ah, the mythical R-172. Once it enters service it will be a talking point, but until the Russians solve the myriad of targeting, flyout and carriage issues, the missile is nothing more than a paper tiger IMO.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Forging ahead with another question: Does the USAF have anything that evenly matches the Russian data links?

Link 16

Source

Inter/Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL)

Included in the Communications/Navigation/Identification (CNI) system is an Inter/Intra-Flight Data Link (IFDL) that allows all F-22s in a flight to share target and system data automatically and without radio calls. The Inter/Intra Flight Data Link is one of the powerful tools that make all F-22s more capable. One of the original objectives for the F-22 was to increase the percentage of fighter pilots who make 'kills'. With the IFDL, each pilot is free to operate more autonomously because, for example, the leader can tell at a glance what his wing man's fuel state is, his weapons remaining, and even the enemy aircraft has targeted. Targets can be automatically prioritized and set up in a shoot list with one button push. A 'shoot' cue in the head up display alerts the pilot to the selected weapon kill parameters and he fires the weapons. Both a pilot's and wing man's missile flight can be monitored on the cockpit displays. Classical tactics based on visual 'tally' (visual identification) and violent formation maneuvers that reduce the wing man to 'hanging on' may have to be rethought in light of such capabilities. This link also allows additional F-22 flights to be added to the net for multi-flight coordinated attack.

Supercruising on the F-22 has a very important purpose:
Enabling the F-22 to act as a theatre Airborne GCI of sorts relaying target info to lesser a/c and engaging the remainder.
More the loiter,lesser the tanker double-back time translates to more time in theatre.

The concept of handing over guidance of a missile AFTER Launch to another aircraft is something that is not fiction. I will tryto dig up online info on it.

IDFL can work well with stealth: I'm sure everyone knows why.

Even w/o stealth, a staggered deployment(spreadout echelon-esque formations? ) of IDFL-ed airborne radars can facilitate AWACS-like awareness and thus early visibility to the theatre. Early visibility gives you the option of optimum pre-engagement posturing and/or the bug out option early on.
Again IDFL can serve as a airborne GCI medium.

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Daedalus3]