The 732 mile mission radius must assume external fuel tanks.
Which were removed from SDD in 2006 because of too much risk and some bad assumptions that F-18 tanks would work.
Plenty of points there for deception. This might be a bit more clear on radius.
Congratulations. Pudgy can carry a payload.
Allegedly.
Even if the out-going Burbage says they goofed the weight assumptions. Poor weight assumptions means less G and more risk of fatigue and shortened airframe life. The patch should say, "Anything is possible if you are willing to lower your expectations." Duh. But there is more to it than that.
Ouch.
Of interest, 4 gen aircraft or non-5-gen aircraft like the F-35, are unlikely to survive high end threats. Yet an F-16 or F-18 bring so much more to a joint operational commander than an F-35 for every other kind of threat.
For less money.
So what is the F-35 going to have to beat in the air? The equal of a Typhoon or F-22...or worse.
As the engineers say, "kinematics count". The ability to intercept, the ability to run, the ability to enter the battle on your own terms. And, once the AMRAAM is jammed down to the PK of a Vietnam Sparrow, things get real interesting.
There may be a Pacific Pivot. Just not the one the DOD had in mind.
9 comments:
Eric,
I'm not too sure about the referenced F-15 5g envelope. It looks very unlike the declassed SAC manual (PW220, combat config):
http://tinyurl.com/cq8xhyn
/Bjørnar
It's interesting to note that the "Performance at 30000ft" comparison by LockMart has three of their own aircraft (the F-16C, F-22A, and F-35A), but NOT the F-15C. Yet, it *does* include an evolution of the F-15's arch-enemy, the Su-27 (the featured evolved version being the Su-35S).
First, look at the front-view schematic of an F-15...;
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f15/f15_schem_01.jpg
...and an F-22;
http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f22/f22-1.gif
You can clearly see that the frontal area of the F-22A is slightly larger than that of the F-15C. Larger frontal area = more drag.
Now consider the empty weight and fueled weight of these two aircraft (the F-22A on the left, F-15C on the right)...;
Empty Weight: 43400lbs --- 28600lbs
Fueled Weight: 61400lbs --- 40500lbs
...and their thrust;
Military Thrust: 50000lbs --- 29300lbs
A/B Thrust; 70000 --- 47600lbs
This entails that the Thrust/Weight ratios (which govern both climb rate and acceleration) of these aircraft are as follows;
T/W Ratio, Empty: 1.61 --- 1.66
T/W Ratio, Full Internal Fuel: 1.14 --- 1.17
In short, the F-15C has more thrust/weight and less drag than what it replaces!
There's also the annoying little fact that because the F-22A will MELT at speeds above Mach 1.8 (due to it's heavy use of external composites), it's computers force it's acceleration to come to an INSTANT STOP at Mach 1.8. The F-15C, Su-35S, Mig-29A, and even the F-16C all keep going past the Mach 1.8 mark.
From this, it is clear that the F-22A cannot climb or accelerate faster than an F-15C, even WITH external stores on the F-15.
In short, what you've just read is incontrovertible proof that LM speed chart is totally dishonest. It lionizes the F-22 not only by omitting the highest-performing Western fighter of the 4th Generation (as well as the aircraft the F-22A was devised as a replacement for!) but also by using FALSE DATA.
To Blacktail -
In my opinion, forget whether it's M1.8 max, or M2.0 max. That's not worth the true effort nickle and diming over, in regards to effective, actual air combat scenarios... especially when massive fuel consumption rates are coming into play also.
Other than that, you make a fair argument and one which is definitely justified as a debate point.
Anyway, sad to say, but forget also the F-15C altogether in this equation as Boeing simply doesn't make them anymore.
Let's therefore concentrate on the current build F-15E type model perhaps, if we want to further explore and debate the valuation of a further F-15E+ type high performance fighter procurement.
In my opinion, there could/should be a more aero-dynamic tactical CFT developed to configure along the intakes of about 50% the current capacity (eg, 400 gal each side). Either that or perhaps a similar CFT concept could be designed, similar to the proposed Super Hornet CFT's placement and perhaps with a capacity of even around 300 gal each side. (slightly larger than the SH's design).
Then, debate the justified integration of a GE-132 derivative engine, which itself could be further updated in the future with a next-gen augmenter modernization providing even more durable and higher MIL power thrust than the current GE-132.
There might also be a requirement to modify the inlet in order to accommodate such improved thrust and performance characteristics? Not sure.
Maybe top off with a 2-D TVC nozzle, maybe to include the existing 3-D TVC options apparently available with the F100 and F110 engines, but with mechanical functions reduced to 2-D for the F-15.
Such and upgraded model would probably give pretty impressive baseline performance.
Ultimately, you'd want to bring back the proposed F-16XL concept development back into play and powered by same said engine progression.
I know we're going off topic, but such a jet as the last one mentioned would perform with superior clean (2 missiles) acceleration, climb rate and range performance, let alone be operationally most economical... something which might have been of interest for Pacific based operation.
Hello Anonymous
If we want to further explore and debate the valuation of a further F-15E+ type high performance fighter procurement. How about bring back the F-15XX variant?
That was another option I've thought about as a proposed single-seat F-15F variant, which was talked about in this blog about develop a single-seat Strike Eagle for a while now.
That's something the F-15XX can be equipped with a 2-D TVC nozzle, or include the existing 3-D TVC options apparently available with the F100 and F110 engines.
I could also suggest your proposal (that you've posted on this blog at 4:55 PM) about the F-15XX can be equipped with a more aerodynamic tactical CFT developed to configure along the intakes of about 50% the current capacity (eg, 400 gal or more on each side). Either that or perhaps a similar CFT concept could be designed, similar to the proposed Super Hornet CFT's placement and perhaps with a capacity of even around 300 gal or more on each side.
What do you think?
Regards
@ Anonymous
For more information about the F-15XX.
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1990/1990%20-%202652.PDF
Hopefully this link should work.
Interesting. Perhaps something between the old F-15F and F-15XX, Another Peter?
Those are both old concepts of course, so there'd need to be some revisions to bring any such realistic next-gen concept more in-line with a modern day capacity.
A new winged and reshaped F-15x sounds exciting (F119 engine manufacturing has been closed), but in truth it would probably take so many years and billions of funding that it would need to instead be part of a proposed cheap alternative for a 'poor-mans' NGAD Program. Perhaps give a SDD phase completion target for 2022-23? $5-6B R&D? Seek partner development?
In the interim however, which is probably a more critical requirement to satisfy, a gap-filler strategy could most likely include the F-15SA as a baseline... but with an APG82 upgrade and perhaps retrofit w/ some nominal 'F-15SE' RCS reduction later on.
Yes, evaluate, integrate and test an existing upgraded F110 engine derivative too (enabling better durability and easier maintenance first of all, but also improved sustained performance at higher altitudes and improved performance at MIL power). My bet is that improved acceleration when employing MIL power will be a desired spec too, given that every time a pilot goes into reheat to accelerate when at cruise altitude, he's instantly risking giving his position away with said blow torch lighting up on someone's IRST. Whereas, an extra 5-6k lbf MIL thrust might be able to suffice.
And a yes also, for an improved aero tactical CFT design as a retrofit. Something to provide near-equivalent range of the wing-configured EFT, yet with the reduced RCS benefit and probably enabling improved agility and reduced subsonic drag. (Perhaps also providing better lift vs a standard configured EFT equipped wing, when at higher altitude)?
Then maybe a feasible configuration could revert back to the fuselage mounted AAM + the activated outer wing pylon for AIM-9 (or stunner, ASRAAM, A-Darter, etc) too, to round off the improved aero/minimize RCS.
@ Anonymous
Perhaps these good ideas of the F-15XX proposal and other improved features such as evaluate, integrate and test an existing upgraded F110 engine derivatives, improved aero tactical CFT design as a retrofit etc etc should be forwarded to Boeing Co in St Louis.
Patricia Frost
F-15 Program
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
+1 314-234-6996
patricia.a.frost@boeing.com
Im a firm believer in the untapped potential of both the F-15 and F-16 (Im very curious about what a modern XL would look like), and given our current budgets, I find these aircraft particularly appealing. Shared engines mean shared engine upgrades, and given the hits maintenance and training are taking giving crews a familiar platform might pay off big in safety, cost, tempo and effectiveness.
Okay then. Heres a question. Are there any usuable F-14 airframes still around?I know the now defunct F-14 was supposed to get the engines from the eagle, and I think some did to great success. Is that true? If so, I wonder if an upgraded Eagle/Viper engine could be put in a Tomcat based carrier fighter. Now I know the plant is long closed, and the supply chain is long gone, so Im not advocating throwing money at getting all going per say. What Im thinking is that using the F-14 design, and hopefully some airframes, as a starting point for a quick low risk, low cost, F-35C and superbug alternative. Primary goals would be lower cost, especially in the development phase and in sustainment, longer range, greater payload, high op tempo and a rounded strategy for survivability, one that considers multiple possibilities for future air combat.
Given the F-14s history, I would develop it for air combat before ground, as I think that would not prevent a good ground strike capability, in least in terms of a bomb truck. My first change, after the engine, would be to try fitting a fixed cranked arrow wing onto the pancake fuselage. This should give decent performance at multiple speed ranges, lots of fuel, and hardpoints, loose the weight and maintanence headache of variable geometry. Lessen weight, especially with avionics, prioritizing passive and defensive electronis that are off the shelf as possible, and then "whittle" around the plane, looking for less drag and smaller cross sections without forcing a redesign, focusing on the nose, tail, and inlets. True stealth would not be a goal, but less signature all around would be looked at, and not just from the front. Ideally spray on coatings could be used, only against peer competitors, and even then on certain planes, acting aa aces in the whole.
Beyond that, keeping future modification in mind would be a priority if production was ever green lighted. This wont be a game changer, but it would give carrier wings a longer reach, and hopefully an op tempo that would change the numbers game, as well as enough saving to put into readiness, lots of flight hours for training, and future R and D. This might not crush emerging threats, but at this point the goal would be to give us a fighting chance.
Will, I think there are around 75 or so F-14s displayed at museums around the country, and perhaps another 20 or so operating with the Iranian Air Force.
So I think your plan is out of luck, sad to say :(
That said, if you're truly thinking 'cost' though, as your primary driver and focus, there's nothing in the immediate USN pipeline that can beat an 'evolved' Super Hornet pathway.
The Super Hornet would simply crush an F-14 variant in terms of operational costs too.
So if you were willing to cough up some serious money redesigning that F-14 wing as you proposed, reallocate those funds to redesign the SHornut's wing for purpose of improving aero and maybe even USAF would bite and kick the tires?
It you ask me, I think it would be pretty cool to see how an X-32 wing + canard would look on a Super.
Post a Comment