User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 6:50:55 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait wut?  the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!  Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 6:54:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I still think the F-14 was the sexiest off the teen series fighters.. Gotta disagree. F-14 got all the Hollywood press, but the F-15 is just a freaking sexy airplane. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/F-15,_71st_Fighter_Squadron,_in_flight.JPG Air Force One and Harrison Ford disagree that the F-14 got all the Hollywood action Will Smith sez that F-18 gets Hollywood action too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 8:55:32 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because with it out the speed had to be too high to make a tight turn, and when it was moving it was very G limited, and when it was out it had one good turn to piss away all the knots. it was physically unable to hit the merge at blow through speed and then decide to enter a turning fight. The wing prevented it from a solid transition to a dog fight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Tomcat for it's time was good for what it was designed to do, but the swept wing was a liability and no upgrade in avionics was going to change that. This is an interesting claim. Why was swept-wing a liability? Because with it out the speed had to be too high to make a tight turn, and when it was moving it was very G limited, and when it was out it had one good turn to piss away all the knots. it was physically unable to hit the merge at blow through speed and then decide to enter a turning fight. The wing prevented it from a solid transition to a dog fight. Interestingly enough, the planned Naval variant of the F-22 (cancelled in the early 90s) was to be a swing wing plane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 9:36:03 PM EDT
[#4]
I wouldn't say cancelled, because it never really started. The swing wing ATF was really just a proposal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2014 10:44:32 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer I just learned over the weekend neither Mil pilots, or Mil air maintainers are the end all of aviation knowledge! So I wouldn't put too much trust in 1 & 2!! And 3 & 4 are really knowledgable in their prospective fields, but don't fair very well outside that envelope!! Is it better to know a little about a lot? Or A lot about a little? I've been vexed by that problem for years!
Wait wut? the pilots and maintainers know more as the day to day end user. What are you talking about? Is my sarcasm meter broken?
For example, in the 60's the engineers that designed the 727 said it couldn't sustain inverted flight. My dad was a 727 captain for national then pan am. Anyway, a senior captain with national, WWII pilot, flew one if their 727-100's from Miami to Jacksonville, inverted. http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=68930 Okkkkkk. The guy has a lifetime of professional flying. From flying dc3, dc4, Connie's, mig15, dc6, 727, and on and on. He didn't fly it inverted but he's got some great stories. You guys would love to hear them. He was shot down in Africa. Lol he flew c130's in Honduras during a well known event. I could go on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:08:17 PM EDT
[#6]
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker.
In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:38:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:45:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. It's ok to admit you don't understand |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 1:52:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Ausairpower is to Aviation News the same way The Daily Show is to the Nightly News. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:09:43 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's ok to admit you don't understand Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. It's ok to admit you don't understand I haven't flown one. Maybe you have. Maybe its legit. Maybe it isn't. I am sure Chinese generals are staying awake thinking about the magical helmet on the F35 and the see through features. But there is a very defined history of overstating enemy technical capabilities to justify procurement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:26:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. So, is stealth the way to fix the math, or a bigger stick? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:30:29 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, is stealth the way to fix the math, or a bigger stick? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. So, is stealth the way to fix the math, or a bigger stick? I've long said that the US needs a better AAM more than it needs a better fighter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:32:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've long said that the US needs a better AAM more than it needs a better fighter. But that isn't the decision we made, and we're mortgaging the DOD for it, like we nearly did with the B-36. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:36:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:38:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. Because as adversary radars improve, we need to be able to hold that radar/aircraft at risk before the threat can enter his optimum WEZ. Airframe speed, missile end game and radar performance are the key variables. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:41:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because as adversary radars improve, we need to be able to hold that radar/aircraft at risk before the threat can enter his optimum WEZ. Airframe speed, missile end game and radar performance are the key variables. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. Because as adversary radars improve, we need to be able to hold that radar/aircraft at risk before the threat can enter his optimum WEZ. Airframe speed, missile end game and radar performance are the key variables. Mach 4 certainly seems fast enough for a kinetic kill on a fighter, and a warhead certainly doesn't hurt. Upgrade the radar on it and possibly use a radar absorbing coating if you have to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:41:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:49:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. New sensors aren't new hardware? Better radar doesn't mean much if you get shot before you can employ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:50:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. Considering we have a variant with a 97nm range I'd say we're good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:50:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
New sensors aren't new hardware? Better radar doesn't mean much if you get shot before you can employ. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. New sensors aren't new hardware? Better radar doesn't mean much if you get shot before you can employ. New sensors aren't new production equipment for a new airframe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 2:57:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. Too bad Russia isn't really sharing their toys with China anymore, after years of unlicensed copying of their engines and other tech. China is quite a ways behind in their engine tech, part of why their new "F22/F35" copies aren't that worrisome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:03:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is nothing to do with "air support" this is monkey stomping fixed targets in an impotent display of conventional airpower. aka what we are doing now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
] Drones, sure. Cruise missiles bring their own set of issues. Nice to have, but using them can be tricky. Not that fixed wing support is everything it's cracked up to be. This is nothing to do with "air support" this is monkey stomping fixed targets in an impotent display of conventional airpower. aka what we are doing now. Racist! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:11:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But that isn't the decision we made, and we're mortgaging the DOD for it, like we nearly did with the B-36. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've long said that the US needs a better AAM more than it needs a better fighter. But that isn't the decision we made, and we're mortgaging the DOD for it, like we nearly did with the B-36. I agree with both of you on this. Have we had an F-35 thread lately?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:24:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, just banned camp. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the return of cmjohnson? Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? No, just banned camp. What happened? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:41:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering we have a variant with a 97nm range I'd say we're good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. Considering we have a variant with a 97nm range I'd say we're good. More is better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:43:34 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
New sensors aren't new production equipment for a new airframe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. New sensors aren't new hardware? Better radar doesn't mean much if you get shot before you can employ. New sensors aren't new production equipment for a new airframe. I'm curious about the reason you believe that. "New sensors" don't magically appear on a shelf, chances are any that would be reused from other programs must be repackaged in order to fit the volume available in a new application, and details such as the aperture must be redesigned to play with the new airframe shape and all the other equipment. Repackaging, incorporating new wiring and sometimes cooling, programming so the add on talks to the rest of the vehicle and it's carriage airplane, shock and vibe and other environmental testing to verify the redesign has a prayer, new flight clearances (i.e., lots of flight testing) for every vehicle and rack combination that will carry the modified weapon, plus all the documentation. The public thinks it has to be simple. It's not, it's complicated airplane and rocket science, and that's just the engineering, design, and fabrication part of the job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:52:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The public thinks it has to be simple. It's not, it's complicated airplane and rocket science, and that's just the engineering, design, and fabrication part of the job. No way. Bigger battery to get more power out of the radar and paint some RAM on. GTG! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 3:54:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm curious about the reason you believe that. "New sensors" don't magically appear on a shelf, chances are any that would be reused from other programs must be repackaged in order to fit the volume available in a new application, and details such as the aperture must be redesigned to play with the new airframe shape and all the other equipment. Repackaging, incorporating new wiring and sometimes cooling, programming so the add on talks to the rest of the vehicle and it's carriage airplane, shock and vibe and other environmental testing to verify the redesign has a prayer, new flight clearances (i.e., lots of flight testing) for every vehicle and rack combination that will carry the modified weapon, plus all the documentation. The public thinks it has to be simple. It's not, it's complicated airplane and rocket science, and that's just the engineering, design, and fabrication part of the job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. New sensors aren't new hardware? Better radar doesn't mean much if you get shot before you can employ. New sensors aren't new production equipment for a new airframe. I'm curious about the reason you believe that. "New sensors" don't magically appear on a shelf, chances are any that would be reused from other programs must be repackaged in order to fit the volume available in a new application, and details such as the aperture must be redesigned to play with the new airframe shape and all the other equipment. Repackaging, incorporating new wiring and sometimes cooling, programming so the add on talks to the rest of the vehicle and it's carriage airplane, shock and vibe and other environmental testing to verify the redesign has a prayer, new flight clearances (i.e., lots of flight testing) for every vehicle and rack combination that will carry the modified weapon, plus all the documentation. The public thinks it has to be simple. It's not, it's complicated airplane and rocket science, and that's just the engineering, design, and fabrication part of the job. This. Adapting equipment from one airframe to another can be very expensive and time consuming. It can even go down to minutiae such as a mainboard shape do to vibration resonance induced failures(I'm sure that is not the correct term AeroE, but you understand what I'm describing?) That is a general reason for removable external sensor pods. But those have their own issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 8:31:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. Yeah, but don't they need new engines, then, or am I thinking of something older? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 9:09:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but don't they need new engines, then, or am I thinking of something older? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. Yeah, but don't they need new engines, then, or am I thinking of something older? It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 9:36:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. Yeah, but don't they need new engines, then, or am I thinking of something older? It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. What are the consequences of doing that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 10:38:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm curious about the reason you believe that. "New sensors" don't magically appear on a shelf, chances are any that would be reused from other programs must be repackaged in order to fit the volume available in a new application, and details such as the aperture must be redesigned to play with the new airframe shape and all the other equipment. Repackaging, incorporating new wiring and sometimes cooling, programming so the add on talks to the rest of the vehicle and it's carriage airplane, shock and vibe and other environmental testing to verify the redesign has a prayer, new flight clearances (i.e., lots of flight testing) for every vehicle and rack combination that will carry the modified weapon, plus all the documentation. The public thinks it has to be simple. It's not, it's complicated airplane and rocket science, and that's just the engineering, design, and fabrication part of the job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. New sensors aren't new hardware? Better radar doesn't mean much if you get shot before you can employ. New sensors aren't new production equipment for a new airframe. I'm curious about the reason you believe that. "New sensors" don't magically appear on a shelf, chances are any that would be reused from other programs must be repackaged in order to fit the volume available in a new application, and details such as the aperture must be redesigned to play with the new airframe shape and all the other equipment. Repackaging, incorporating new wiring and sometimes cooling, programming so the add on talks to the rest of the vehicle and it's carriage airplane, shock and vibe and other environmental testing to verify the redesign has a prayer, new flight clearances (i.e., lots of flight testing) for every vehicle and rack combination that will carry the modified weapon, plus all the documentation. The public thinks it has to be simple. It's not, it's complicated airplane and rocket science, and that's just the engineering, design, and fabrication part of the job. This is spot on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 10:43:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are the consequences of doing that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. What are the consequences of doing that? Replacement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2014 10:52:37 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What are the consequences of doing that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. What are the consequences of doing that? Of exceeding the ITT? Bad, very bad shit. Best case, the engine just doesn't make as much power as it should. Worse case, the turbine section comes apart and the SHTF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 6:10:22 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Replacement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. What are the consequences of doing that? Replacement. Or, a lesser impact of degraded performance over time and shortened service of the engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 3:39:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of exceeding the ITT? Bad, very bad shit. Best case, the engine just doesn't make as much power as it should. Worse case, the turbine section comes apart and the SHTF. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. What are the consequences of doing that? Of exceeding the ITT? Bad, very bad shit. Best case, the engine just doesn't make as much power as it should. Worse case, the turbine section comes apart and the SHTF. I wondered about the second ... because when shit gets hot enough, it gets rubbery, and clearances are pretty close in there. From what I understand. If "a" touches 'b" shit flies in all directions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 7:44:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach 4 certainly seems fast enough for a kinetic kill on a fighter, and a warhead certainly doesn't hurt. Upgrade the radar on it and possibly use a radar absorbing coating if you have to. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. Because as adversary radars improve, we need to be able to hold that radar/aircraft at risk before the threat can enter his optimum WEZ. Airframe speed, missile end game and radar performance are the key variables. Mach 4 certainly seems fast enough for a kinetic kill on a fighter, and a warhead certainly doesn't hurt. Upgrade the radar on it and possibly use a radar absorbing coating if you have to. A Mach 4 kinetic weapon has to be a magic bullet to disable a fighter, and one with a warhead needs magic fusing; calculate the time required for a Mach 4 weapon to pass completely through a fuselage that is 10 feet across. Use the speed of sound at sea level, that's close enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 9:25:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A Mach 4 kinetic weapon has to be a magic bullet to disable a fighter, and one with a warhead needs magic fusing; calculate the time required for a Mach 4 weapon to pass completely through a fuselage that is 10 feet across. Use the speed of sound at sea level, that's close enough. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. Because as adversary radars improve, we need to be able to hold that radar/aircraft at risk before the threat can enter his optimum WEZ. Airframe speed, missile end game and radar performance are the key variables. Mach 4 certainly seems fast enough for a kinetic kill on a fighter, and a warhead certainly doesn't hurt. Upgrade the radar on it and possibly use a radar absorbing coating if you have to. A Mach 4 kinetic weapon has to be a magic bullet to disable a fighter, and one with a warhead needs magic fusing; calculate the time required for a Mach 4 weapon to pass completely through a fuselage that is 10 feet across. Use the speed of sound at sea level, that's close enough. Contact detonator? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 9:28:40 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of exceeding the ITT? Bad, very bad shit. Best case, the engine just doesn't make as much power as it should. Worse case, the turbine section comes apart and the SHTF. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... Of exceeding the ITT? Bad, very bad shit. Best case, the engine just doesn't make as much power as it should. Worse case, the turbine section comes apart and the SHTF. wouldn't that technically be the fan hitting the shit?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 10:13:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Contact detonator? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. Because as adversary radars improve, we need to be able to hold that radar/aircraft at risk before the threat can enter his optimum WEZ. Airframe speed, missile end game and radar performance are the key variables. Mach 4 certainly seems fast enough for a kinetic kill on a fighter, and a warhead certainly doesn't hurt. Upgrade the radar on it and possibly use a radar absorbing coating if you have to. A Mach 4 kinetic weapon has to be a magic bullet to disable a fighter, and one with a warhead needs magic fusing; calculate the time required for a Mach 4 weapon to pass completely through a fuselage that is 10 feet across. Use the speed of sound at sea level, that's close enough. Contact detonator? Do the calculation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 10:23:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do the calculation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Contact detonator? Do the calculation. Oops ... bad calculation removed.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 10:45:06 PM EDT
[#42]
~2 milliseconds; 10 ft / 4400 ft/sec = 0.0023 seconds.
That poses a fusing challenge. I worked on a problem that was worse, 1000 ft/sec in a 6 to 10 inch target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2014 11:54:21 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. MIG 25 goes Mach 3+ too. Yeah, but don't they need new engines, then, or am I thinking of something older? It was an issue with the fuel control unit that caused the problems with the engines in the -25. But yes, when the throttles were advanced full stop, the engines tended to exceed their ITT limits. According to Victor Belenko in his book "Mig Pilot", every time the 25 got up to those speeds the engines were in a runaway condition that always lead to the engines destruction. I'm curious to know how that kind of speed leads that engine to have a runaway fuel controller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 12:02:50 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happened? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
the return of cmjohnson? Did he go to the great PC flight simulator in the sky? No, just banned camp. What happened? He made a number of COC violations over his time here. He was a social retard prone to talking out of his ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 10:37:32 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. Quote HistoryQuoted:
A little long in the tooth, but still relevant article comparing the Super Hornet to the front line PLAAF Flanker. In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. While that assessment may or may not be true, and while the turning fight is important, most kills happen long before kinematics come into play. Avionics and weapons are the most important factor in surviving to the merge. The russians make bomb proof stuff, but they lack the techological capability in avionics and weapons. But my experience is dated, so it might be off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 10:39:31 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. The tube, the motor, and the warhead are not the expensive parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 10:43:02 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. First kill in an A2A fight is critical, because if done correctly, kills the commander and causes chaos and distraction in the rest of the enemy causing them to make mistakes. First blood is critical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 10:45:53 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Considering we have a variant with a 97nm range I'd say we're good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. Considering we have a variant with a 97nm range I'd say we're good. The max range number is not important, the max range number against a maneuvering ECM target is important relative to the threat capability. To be clear, I am not commenting on whether that number is accurate or inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 11:30:34 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The max range number is not important, the max range number against a maneuvering ECM target is important relative to the threat capability. To be clear, I am not commenting on whether that number is accurate or inaccurate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why do we need a better AAM? Just upgrade the sensor packages in it to employ existing stock without having to manufacture new hardware and shit. One would have to assume standoff is useful regardless the domain. Considering we have a variant with a 97nm range I'd say we're good. The max range number is not important, the max range number against a maneuvering ECM target is important relative to the threat capability. To be clear, I am not commenting on whether that number is accurate or inaccurate. Pk vs somebody running a KG300 is important too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/28/2014 12:37:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was a social retard prone to talking out of his ass. I'm shocked people like that are on the internet. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
