F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's confusing me when you switch from ability to turn, roll etc AOA and a pitch up cobra or balistic flip/spin etc, aren't the 2 very different,
as to what's good about 50 deg turn/roll aoa, is like what's good in 25 deg over 10 deg for what you have flown CM, isn't it?
thanks about the chart, I was reading it so wrong
as to what's good about 50 deg turn/roll aoa, is like what's good in 25 deg over 10 deg for what you have flown CM, isn't it?
thanks about the chart, I was reading it so wrong
Last edited by JSFfan; 31st May 2013 at 15:53.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the melting concrete etc etc, does anyone know if there are plans yet to build a dummy Aircraft Carrier Deck, with Ski Jump at Marham? If this was done as I understand it only this area would have to be of the required standard to absorb the downdraft from the F35. It might of course also help training for carrier ops.
It would be a good question to ask at Paris if one can get past the FSB minders and the Armenian gangsters. What the Su-35 brings to the party is 3D vectoring and integrated flight/propulsion control, which allow them to dump the canards (which imposed a speed limitation) and the airbrake (saving weight and volume).
Now back in the late-80s/early-90s there was a flurry of interest out of WPAFB in "agility" as an add-on quality to "maneuverability". Some defined the latter as being a matter of limits and sustained g/speed/altitude envelope, while "agility" was the ability to go from one maneuver state to another under full control. That was the root of the X-31 program, the Herbst maneuver (which is not something that you use when someone is choking)...
Herbst maneuver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... and a few other things.
Maybe the Rooskies take the view that the Su can blast out of a low-speed state so quickly that "thou shalt not lose thine energy" is no longer a commandment.
And as they were the first to have HMS and HOBS missiles (R-73) - which in the real world have sub-hemispheric coverage - I wonder whether giving you more shot opportunities is the idea.
Now back in the late-80s/early-90s there was a flurry of interest out of WPAFB in "agility" as an add-on quality to "maneuverability". Some defined the latter as being a matter of limits and sustained g/speed/altitude envelope, while "agility" was the ability to go from one maneuver state to another under full control. That was the root of the X-31 program, the Herbst maneuver (which is not something that you use when someone is choking)...
Herbst maneuver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... and a few other things.
Maybe the Rooskies take the view that the Su can blast out of a low-speed state so quickly that "thou shalt not lose thine energy" is no longer a commandment.
And as they were the first to have HMS and HOBS missiles (R-73) - which in the real world have sub-hemispheric coverage - I wonder whether giving you more shot opportunities is the idea.
Courtney Mil wrote
Courtney,
Sharkey has covered that question.
Did anyone viff in the Falklands?
Sharkey has covered that question.
AVM Johnson: During the campaign I read newspaper reports about the Harrier's VIFFing tactic, and some correspondents claimed that if you saw an enemy fighter astern you could VIFF vertically upwards or downwards, and if the enemy helpfully carried straight ahead you easily manoeuvred into a good attacking position. Was this tactic used in the Falklands?
Cdr Ward: No. Although the Harrier is capable of VIFFing it is not a good combat tactic because you lose a lot of energy. The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.
-- The Story of Air Fighting Air Vice Marshal J.E.`Johnnie'Johnson CB,CBE,DSO and two Bars, DFC and Bar ISBN 0-09-950330-1
Cdr Ward: No. Although the Harrier is capable of VIFFing it is not a good combat tactic because you lose a lot of energy. The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.
-- The Story of Air Fighting Air Vice Marshal J.E.`Johnnie'Johnson CB,CBE,DSO and two Bars, DFC and Bar ISBN 0-09-950330-1
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed LO.
I doubt that they would be pulling vertical doughnuts in combat but it would be arrogance of the highest degree to discount the airframes ability.
I wonder if the Free Scottish Air Force will be able to afford a squadron or three?
I doubt that they would be pulling vertical doughnuts in combat but it would be arrogance of the highest degree to discount the airframes ability.
I wonder if the Free Scottish Air Force will be able to afford a squadron or three?
Thanks, TEEEJ. As I thought. But I'm amazed that the Bearded Wonder would allow himself to sit in the same room as as an AVM. Unless, of course, the AVM wa writing a book that was going to include his words.
Another gem from Sharkey:
“The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.”
From my experience the Harrier was a poor combat manoeuvring aircraft because of its high wing loading and low maximum speed.
However, if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.
“The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.”
From my experience the Harrier was a poor combat manoeuvring aircraft because of its high wing loading and low maximum speed.
However, if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sharkey achieved quite a lot during the war so it's a shame his behaviour since has turned him into a comical figure for our amusement.
As far as viffing is concerned is the F35B even capable of performing it? The dust bin lid looks like it would rip straight off at any meaningful combat speed.
As far as viffing is concerned is the F35B even capable of performing it? The dust bin lid looks like it would rip straight off at any meaningful combat speed.
You mean converting your 30 ton Mach 2, 9g Fighter aircraft into a 30 ton hovering Helicopter during aerial combat at a time of 60g HOBS heaters?
Might be of some limited value when your down to Guns. in that case the nose pointing ability might be useful to some extent.
So, once the Su has shot off all its 10 missiles and still survived it could even make some use of its Gun if the oppeonent has also emptied his missiles without success.
Does that sound a plausible scenario?
Decide for yourself....
So my question is, what's it for?
So, once the Su has shot off all its 10 missiles and still survived it could even make some use of its Gun if the oppeonent has also emptied his missiles without success.
Does that sound a plausible scenario?
Decide for yourself....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LO
The Sovs/Rooskies didn't/don't design fighters for air shows but have nevertheless spent the past 40 years (since the genesis of the MiG-29/Su-27 designs) trying to make fighters that are predictable and controllable at high alpha and low speed, culminating in the Su-35, which is going to water people's eyes at Paris if the plan to display it stays on track.
Why?
Why?
FA-18 - The answer to why the US did not go that way is fairly simple. The USMC made a priority out of STOVL, the USAF and USN decided in 1991-93 that the next thing they needed would be more A than F, and the USAF was going to get 440-some F-22s, more than enough to groin-kick any conceivable adversary for a while.
Then Clinton/Aspin/Perry emerged, waved their wands and shouted JOINTERIUS LOWCOSTICUS! which drove improved air-to-air farther to the back of the bus than before. Next, the Professor-General Nordens of industry pulled out their wands and yelled EODAS INVINCIBILITAS! to convince more people that "maneuvering is irrelevant."
Read that Clarke story, by the way...
Then Clinton/Aspin/Perry emerged, waved their wands and shouted JOINTERIUS LOWCOSTICUS! which drove improved air-to-air farther to the back of the bus than before. Next, the Professor-General Nordens of industry pulled out their wands and yelled EODAS INVINCIBILITAS! to convince more people that "maneuvering is irrelevant."
Read that Clarke story, by the way...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-3 - 'Fact or Fiction' Question
Is this story about the F-3 'Fact or Fiction'?
THE WILLIAMS FOUNDATION: FACT versus FICTION: (pages 1 & 2)
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...l%2024Mar1.pdf (82Kb)
“...Fiction
The superficially impressive manoeuvrability and power-to-weight ratio of Soviet-designed aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 confers a potentially decisive advantage over Western fighters during within visual range (WVR) combat.
FACT
It has been incorrect for some 20 years to equate WVR potential with platform agility alone. Since the 1991 Gulf War, manoeuvring to achieve a kill has been done by air-to-air missiles, not by platforms. No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’. (A manned fighter involved in WVR combat typically flies at less than half that speed and manoeuvres at a maximum of 9 ‘g’.) No less important than the missile is situational awareness. The classic case study here comes from 1993 and concerns the (British) RAF’s Tornado F-3 air defence fighter.
By the standards of the late-20th century the F-3 was a mediocre performer, handicapped by its modest agility and poor acceleration. Despite the high quality of RAF pilots, the F-3 regularly sustained a loss rate of around 3:1 in exercises against the West’s best fighter of that era, the USAF’s F-15. The turnaround came during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the United States when, for the first time, the F-3s were fitted with Link 16 data links. The shift was dramatic. Overnight, the F-3 became an F-15 killer, reversing the loss ratio to 3:1 in its favour. Situational awareness, not manoeuvrability, was the key. In short, for WVR combat, platform agility is a secondary consideration. It is the system, and in particular situational awareness and the missile, that count....”
THE WILLIAMS FOUNDATION: FACT versus FICTION: (pages 1 & 2)
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...l%2024Mar1.pdf (82Kb)
“...Fiction
The superficially impressive manoeuvrability and power-to-weight ratio of Soviet-designed aircraft such as the Su-30 and MiG-29 confers a potentially decisive advantage over Western fighters during within visual range (WVR) combat.
FACT
It has been incorrect for some 20 years to equate WVR potential with platform agility alone. Since the 1991 Gulf War, manoeuvring to achieve a kill has been done by air-to-air missiles, not by platforms. No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’. (A manned fighter involved in WVR combat typically flies at less than half that speed and manoeuvres at a maximum of 9 ‘g’.) No less important than the missile is situational awareness. The classic case study here comes from 1993 and concerns the (British) RAF’s Tornado F-3 air defence fighter.
By the standards of the late-20th century the F-3 was a mediocre performer, handicapped by its modest agility and poor acceleration. Despite the high quality of RAF pilots, the F-3 regularly sustained a loss rate of around 3:1 in exercises against the West’s best fighter of that era, the USAF’s F-15. The turnaround came during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base in the United States when, for the first time, the F-3s were fitted with Link 16 data links. The shift was dramatic. Overnight, the F-3 became an F-15 killer, reversing the loss ratio to 3:1 in its favour. Situational awareness, not manoeuvrability, was the key. In short, for WVR combat, platform agility is a secondary consideration. It is the system, and in particular situational awareness and the missile, that count....”
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 1st Jun 2013 at 12:57. Reason: New URL for PDF
Spaz - It's sponsored by LockMart (indeed, IIRC, when it was published LM and Chemring were the Williams Foundation's only sponsors).
It's also quite old, including such howlers as:
Additionally, modelling and simulation have developed to the point where the F-35 program can complete a great deal of testing on the ground, where it is cheaper, safer, and easier to fix problems. F-35 flight testing will be conducted largely to validate models, rather than to ‘discover’ what the aircraft will do in flight, as used to be the case.
This claim was dubious in the extreme at the time, and people who had read the Clarke short story linked above knew better:
There was a bombastic tone in Norden's voice that made us suspicious of his claims. We did not know, then, that he never promised anything that he had not already almost perfected in the laboratory. In the laboratory - that was the operative phrase.
Since then that bogus claim has been exploded entirely, as a major cause of overruns and delays, and was one of the major issues identified by Frank Kendall as "acquisition malpractice".
Other things - the Tornado F3's imposition of what the internet kiddies call SURPRIZE
SECKS over the F-15 was done with JTIDS, not L16, and while great fun for all involved depended on an overconfident adversary.
Also:
No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’.
A missile can pull a lot of g as long as the motor's burning. A coasting missile can't, for very long.
One big miss here is the blurred distinction between BVR and WVR. So-called WVR missiles have a lot of range, while supersonic agility, EW and missile-warning make the BVR picture more dynamic.
As for the rest - I don't know what it brings to the argument that hasn't been discussed here.
It's also quite old, including such howlers as:
Additionally, modelling and simulation have developed to the point where the F-35 program can complete a great deal of testing on the ground, where it is cheaper, safer, and easier to fix problems. F-35 flight testing will be conducted largely to validate models, rather than to ‘discover’ what the aircraft will do in flight, as used to be the case.
This claim was dubious in the extreme at the time, and people who had read the Clarke short story linked above knew better:
There was a bombastic tone in Norden's voice that made us suspicious of his claims. We did not know, then, that he never promised anything that he had not already almost perfected in the laboratory. In the laboratory - that was the operative phrase.
Since then that bogus claim has been exploded entirely, as a major cause of overruns and delays, and was one of the major issues identified by Frank Kendall as "acquisition malpractice".
Other things - the Tornado F3's imposition of what the internet kiddies call SURPRIZE
SECKS over the F-15 was done with JTIDS, not L16, and while great fun for all involved depended on an overconfident adversary. Also:
No manned fighter aircraft can compete with missiles that attack at over twice the speed of sound and manoeuvre at 60 ‘g’.
A missile can pull a lot of g as long as the motor's burning. A coasting missile can't, for very long.
One big miss here is the blurred distinction between BVR and WVR. So-called WVR missiles have a lot of range, while supersonic agility, EW and missile-warning make the BVR picture more dynamic.
As for the rest - I don't know what it brings to the argument that hasn't been discussed here.
Last edited by LowObservable; 1st Jun 2013 at 14:03.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exMud:
Sorry, can't let that one go. (And I'll declare my interest here - I served in the FAA as an air engineer and was in the Falklands in 1982, alongside 801 Squadron).
You say that in your experience, the Harrier was a 'poor combat manoeuvring aircraft' - I respect your experience, but compared to any other UK combat aircraft in 1982, how 'poor' was the Sea Harrier exactly? I absolutely agree that compared with the US fighters at the time, it was not a first rate machine, but how about compared to the F3? Or the Jag? Or even the F-4?
You then add in the observation that:
'if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.'
OK, I'll bite. According to the FAA pilots I knew (and still know) the Argies were plenty agressive and 'good stick and rudder merchants' (their phrase, not mine) but tactically poor. They made plenty of efforts to avoid the SHARs, mostly unsuccessfully.
Your observation about the 9L being an excellent weapon is well made. But to use it effectively in the Falklands, flying from small decks in poor weather at maximum range, needed highly trained, agressive and very, very skilled pilots. Fortunately the Fleet Air Arm had them.
Actually, you want to know the key thing you need to get kills? To be at the war and to engage the enemy. That's exactly what the FAA has done since WW2, and that's why FAA pilots have got the kills. (Oh, and I include the RAF guys serving with the FAA down there).
I apologise unreservedly for a slight case of spleen venting, but these were brave pilots doing a great job. Slagging them off like this is, IMHO, 'not on'.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the stuff for real,
Engines
Sorry, can't let that one go. (And I'll declare my interest here - I served in the FAA as an air engineer and was in the Falklands in 1982, alongside 801 Squadron).
You say that in your experience, the Harrier was a 'poor combat manoeuvring aircraft' - I respect your experience, but compared to any other UK combat aircraft in 1982, how 'poor' was the Sea Harrier exactly? I absolutely agree that compared with the US fighters at the time, it was not a first rate machine, but how about compared to the F3? Or the Jag? Or even the F-4?
You then add in the observation that:
'if the opposition aren’t making much effort to avoid you (basically because of lack of training), then you don’t need much manoeuvrability - or skill - to get kills, especially using a magic piece of kit like the 9L.'
OK, I'll bite. According to the FAA pilots I knew (and still know) the Argies were plenty agressive and 'good stick and rudder merchants' (their phrase, not mine) but tactically poor. They made plenty of efforts to avoid the SHARs, mostly unsuccessfully.
Your observation about the 9L being an excellent weapon is well made. But to use it effectively in the Falklands, flying from small decks in poor weather at maximum range, needed highly trained, agressive and very, very skilled pilots. Fortunately the Fleet Air Arm had them.
Actually, you want to know the key thing you need to get kills? To be at the war and to engage the enemy. That's exactly what the FAA has done since WW2, and that's why FAA pilots have got the kills. (Oh, and I include the RAF guys serving with the FAA down there).
I apologise unreservedly for a slight case of spleen venting, but these were brave pilots doing a great job. Slagging them off like this is, IMHO, 'not on'.
Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the stuff for real,
Engines
I'd step away from the outrage as a wise man lets the missile do as much work for you as possible. The skill is day-to-day operating in hostile conditions and coming back alive.