Aircraft VS super thread!

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Ugh. I wish they wouldn't call the Super Hornet "Rhino". That one's already taken by the F-4.

Edit: so, did the article mention any difference in tactics? How did the Super Hornets try to compensate for lack of thrust?

most likely trying to outturn or do split S which could use instantaneous pitch along with gaining speed through a dive. F-15's strength lies in it's power and speed. Super bug's is high alpha.

I never thought of the superbug being a truly marvelous dogfighter but I am very interested on how it compares to the A-6F in the strike role.

[hellohikaru]

I never thought of the superbug being a truly marvelous dogfighter but I am very interested on how it compares to the A-6F in the strike role.

The Bug would be most likely inferior in terms of payload, range, sensors and i prefer side by side seating for a striker rather than tandem. A-6F is a bombtruck. And probably make a better tanker than both Superbug and S-3 Viking

The Bug would be better able to defend itself although it might need to dump its ordnance before taking on anything more than a cropduster.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

I never thought of the superbug being a truly marvelous dogfighter but I am very interested on how it compares to the A-6F in the strike role.

The Bug would be most likely inferior in terms of payload, range, sensors and i prefer side by side seating for a striker rather than tandem. A-6F is a bombtruck. And probably make a better tanker than both Superbug and S-3 Viking

The Bug would be better able to defend itself although it might need to dump its ordnance before taking on anything more than a cropduster.

I agreee, with all those bombs, the super bug woul have too much drag to fight someone close in WVR. If there is a unsuccesful BVR shot I gues the best thing to do would spir the strike package in portions and dump some ordanance and dogfight. In a long range strike the super bug should have at least gun ammunition, 2 sidewinders, and 2 AMRAAMs at least for self defense.

[David Hingtgen]

Based on what apparently happened at Farnborough this year, I'm thinking the F-15 has far better high-alpha performance than is generally believed, check this out:

F-15E in a high-alpha tail-slide.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

HORY CLAP THAT IS BEAUTIFUR!!

David what exactly did happen? Did it just do a tail slide or more high alpha? I remembver being able to pull this off in the Jane's F-15 sim.

From my time in the sim, the F-15 CAN pull high alpha in turns but bleeds airspeed like a mother. Always felt like my joystick wasn't calibrated right though........

Anyt other cool things occur at farnborough?

[David Hingtgen]

Well it is a Lakenheath F-15E, which means it has -229 engines. This is the "F-15E with the high-power engines stripped down to air-to-air" scenario, with a far superior power/weight ratio than an F-15C. You'll note the CFT's aren't attached and there's no WSO. It's effectively an F-15D with 25% more thrust. This combo has a ratio not far off from your standard Flanker.

And the F-15K should weigh less, and have even more power...

30 years, and the F-15 STILL rocks. Big engines+big wings=awesome fighter, period.

Edited July 29, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Well it is a Lakenheath F-15E, which means it has -229 engines. This is the "F-15E with the high-power engines stripped down to air-to-air" scenario, with a far superior power/weight ratio than an F-15C. You'll note the CFT's aren't attached and there's no WSO. It's effectively an F-15D with 25% more thrust. This combo has a ratio not far off from your standard Flanker.

And the F-15K should weigh less, and have even more power...

30 years, and the F-15 STILL rocks. Big engines+big wings=awesome fighter, period.

David what makes teh F-15K stand out? I know its for the South Koreans, and it is the newest version, how does it fair against the Su-37 and against the latest block E model USA version eagles?

[David Hingtgen]

The F-15K will probably be the best F-15 overall. It is designed to fill both the F-15C's and F-15E's roles. It is basically a lightened F-15E with better engines. Don't think it'll have CFT's, but should have most/all of the targeting equipment, etc. Was originally slated to have 29,000lb F110's, but I think they've upped it to 32,000lbs, same as the latest F-16C's. Note that the F-15C has 23,400lb engines. That is a SERIOUS power increase. More than even F-14D vs F-14A.

Air to air, it should easily beat any other F-15. Better radar, more power, and without the drag/weight of CFT's. Also has the structural strengthening of the E so it can pull more G's with more weight than the C. For strike, it won't have the range/payload of the E, but should be just as accurate and all-weather capable.

[Nied]

From what I've read the F-15K will have CFTs. The only export variant that I had heard of that couldn't carry CFTs was the F-15S (though that has been reversed).

The F-15K should be one hell of a dogfighter. In addition to it's higher thrust it also gets full AIM-9X integration, a JHMCS helmet mounted sight (which can target the AIM9Xs), an IRST (via a new mode added to the LANTIRN pods), and posibly an APG-63(V)2 Radar active electronic scanning radar.

[Noyhauser]

Okay here is a little challenge for you guys. I'd like you to do a Vs comparison between the F-35 and any contemporary light weight aircraft, preferably a Gripen, or in a pinch, the Eurofighter. As you guys know, Canada is a lvl 2 partner nation in the project. I think its a waste of our money so I'd like a bit of feedback from you guys on it.

Also If you could do it, I'd like citing from sources. It may come in handy.

[Graham]

Can't be bothered to cite sources (sorry), but from all I've read, IIRC, both the Gripen & Eurofighter, let's throw in the Rafale as well, should be far superior in the A2A arena than the F-35, i.e. more agile, more weapons, better sensors, more thrust and better visibilty.

All those planes should also have a better payload for A2G when compared to the F-35 just using internal weapons bays. Not sure how the F-35 compares when using the optional pylons tho, but then of course it losses it's sole advantage of stealth.

If I was doing procurement for a nations airforce for a multi-role fighter, I'd probably chose in order of preference bassed on cost and performance: - 1st Eurofighter, 2nd one of the upgraded F-15 varients, 3rd Gripen, 4th one of the upgraded F-16 varients, 5th Rafale and lastly F-35.

Graham

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Okay here is a little challenge for you guys. I'd like you to do a Vs comparison between the F-35 and any contemporary light weight aircraft, preferably a Gripen, or in a pinch, the Eurofighter. As you guys know, Canada is a lvl 2 partner nation in the project. I think its a waste of our money so I'd like a bit of feedback from you guys on it.

Also If you could do it, I'd like citing from sources. It may come in handy.

no sources but i ssay FAS.org

Lets compare Eurofighter Typhoon9trance whatever whichever the one is the A2A asskiller with gun installed)

Advantage for JSF

1-Stealth

2-AESA radar

Advantage for Eurofighter

1-slight supercruise(i believe this is possible with ONE engine as wel)

2-BETTER AOA and manueverability

3-MORE weapons payload in A2A. Maybe even strike

4-FASTER

Even against teh F-16....the SF may carry more advanced weaponry like the new laser its getting, but the F-16 is better equipped for A2A and tons more manueverable.

Sprry top bring a2a up but come on if your needing a GREAT light wweight fighter to replace the F-16 and succeed it, it damn well SHOULD be able to outknife the viper!

me personally would rather see more bigger multiroles, or mission dedicated planes. If your going to do multirole go with tomcat, phantom, or eagle size. Can't cram everything into something small and expect it do something with stuff spaced out in a plane with generous size.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Can't be bothered to cite sources (sorry), but from all I've read, IIRC, both the Gripen & Eurofighter, let's throw in the Rafale as well, should be far superior in the A2A arena than the F-35, i.e. more agile, more weapons, better sensors, more thrust and better visibilty.

All those planes should also have a better payload for A2G when compared to the F-35 just using internal weapons bays. Not sure how the F-35 compares when using the optional pylons tho, but then of course it losses it's sole advantage of stealth.

If I was doing procurement for a nations airforce for a multi-role fighter, I'd probably chose in order of preference bassed on cost and performance: - 1st Eurofighter, 2nd one of the upgraded F-15 varients, 3rd Gripen, 4th one of the upgraded F-16 varients, 5th Rafale and lastly F-35.

Graham

F-35 would suffer a LOT of drag as well with full external payload as well. THe plane aint really that much of a fast mover AS is and some variant is even OVERWEIGHT. Hell some even say the harrier is better.

[Noyhauser]

I'm hesitant to include rafales, Eurofighters ect, because they are completely different in concept as fighters. They are not light weight fighters, instead they are heavyweight fighters like the F-22/F-15 ect, therefore any comparison is not fair. This is reflected in the relative cost of each fighter, which is why the F-16/17/18 were developed in the first place, so that the USAF, Navy could have a mix of high technology fighters, with cheaper more manuverable lighter fighters . Thats why im looking for true alternatives to the JSF, because a country like canada, turkey, norway ect, won't purchase a Eurofighter or another heavyweight fighter, preferring to replace their lightweight fighters with more advanced versions. The Gripen however is a Light weight fighter that is in that same market, as is the f-16.

FAS is also not a great site at all. They don't update that much anymore, and their documentation is spotty at best. I'll use it to illustrate a point online, but not much else.

Edited August 4, 2004 by Noyhauser

[David Hingtgen]

This comes up a lot:

FAS.org is DEAD because it's now globalsecurity.org. Globalsec updates like 50 times a day.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

dont know if I should say this but perhaps MIg-29M, the new Korean KT trainer, and...dunno what else are comparable to JSF for ligth weight fighters. Could the F-2 count>?

Me honestly, I just think the JSF is a waste of money and priority, and teh F-16 block whatever is new that the UAE bought, is a more capable fighter. JSF's main strenth is stealth, its no dogfighting demon from hell hell bent on taking on everything A2A like the falcon could be.

Then again, for such a successful plane to be replaced, surely flak is expected for the replacement no?

[ewilen]

David, are you sure FAS.org is dead? In any case, I was under the impression that globalsecurity.org is not directly affiliated with the Federation of American Scientists, even though a lot of the text is the same on both sites.

About the current question, obviously we'll have to see once the F-35 reaches production, but another factor to consider is (again) maintainability/lifecycle costs.

Also, I'm surprised that a Flanker variant doesn't figure somewhere in Graham's list, at least for the sake of argument. Not that it's a lightweight figher.

Edit: Ah, I see what happened...John Pike, who did the military stuff for FAS, left FAS and started globalsecurity.org.

I also see that he has a bit of a sense of humor: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys.../fa-37-pics.htm

Interesting...

We would like to build a collection of other fake airplanes that have appeared in movies or on TV. If you can help us build this collection, please contact us  with the information.

Shall we help him out?

Edited August 4, 2004 by ewilen

[ewilen]

Attempting a JSF/Gripen comparison...first let's get some sources out of the way...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...t/jsf-specs.htm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/gripen.htm

http://www.airforce-technology.com/project...ipen/specs.html

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/specs.html

The JSF is bigger and has a higher max. takeoff weight. JSF empty weight 22500-24000 lbs; Gripen 14300-18700 lbs. (the higher number is "basic fighter configuration", so it may include internal fuel and a couple of missiles). JSF max. takeoff weight 50000-60000 lbs; Gripen 27500-30800 lbs.

JSF has about twice the thrust. Thrust:weight ratio (based on empty weight) of JSF is 1.54, of Gripen is about 1.25:1.

As we know, the JSF has stealth, the Gripen doesn't.

The JSF is more expensive to buy (may not be in above sources, but I've seen prices elsewhere); ownership is a separate issue, on which I have no numbers.

The Gripen is available sooner.

That's all I have for now.

[ewilen]

Another pair of useful references:

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRJAS39.htm

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm

Let's see...combat radius...

F-35 600-800 nm (depending on source and version--assuming not the V/STOL variant); Gripen about 430 nm. Both are capable of inflight refueling. Note: the last source gives Gripen a 1620 nm radius with maximum external fuel tanks--don't quite know what to make of that or how to compare with F-35.

Regarding cost, I'm less sure about the comparison I made earlier. The F-35 is generally projected to cost about $40-50 million each depending on whether the buyer is a member of the original "team" of countries behind the program. Not sure about flyaway cost of Gripen.

Edit: Gripen flyaway cost is apparently in the $25-30 million range. Obviously the projected cost of the F-35 is subject to revision upward as time goes by.

Edited August 4, 2004 by ewilen

[David Hingtgen]

This'll explain the FAS/Globalsec link:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/staff/pike.htm

So technically, no, they're not the same. It's just the same head guy/web designer/info.

[Noyhauser]

Umm the FAS is a huge organization that does a lot of different things other than military analysis, and is completely different from Globalsecurity. What you are suggesting it effectively that Ford and Toyota are the same company because they had the same CEO at one point in time (they never did but that is really the point), which of course isn;t true.

[David Hingtgen]

Only decent weight/power comparison is combat weight, which is arbitrarily defined as half of max internal fuel, and a "decent" weapons load (go for half).

So an F-15's combat weight would be the base weight of the plane, half internal fuel, 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs, and about 600 rounds of 20mm.

F-14's are usually calculated at 4xSparrow, to average out the wide range of missiles possible (Phoenixes really skew the average weight, they weigh as much as 5 Sidewinders).

PS---20mm ammo weighs .56 lbs each, for an M61. You'll have to look up Euro stuff yourself.

[Coota0]

First you have to decide which F-35 you're comparing (has it become the F/A-35 yet?) The USAF Version is the lightest, while the Naval one is heavier. The Marine Corps' version can't get off the ground. I don't think the Royal Navy or the Marines will end up buying the F-35.

On paper it's a great idea, but they tried to make one aircraft do to many things. I think the Royal Navy and the Marines will end up passing on the F-35 because it litterally can't get off the ground. I figured the Marines had planned on loading it up with external weapons as well as internal, since their version will rarley if ever be used for a penetration strike. So if the Marine's version can't get off the ground now, what about with the extra weapons?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

First you have to decide which F-35 you're comparing (has it become the F/A-35 yet?) The USAF Version is the lightest, while the Naval one is heavier. The Marine Corps' version can't get off the ground. I don't think the Royal Navy or the Marines will end up buying the F-35.

On paper it's a great idea, but they tried to make one aircraft do to many things. I think the Royal Navy and the Marines will end up passing on the F-35 because it litterally can't get off the ground. I figured the Marines had planned on loading it up with external weapons as well as internal, since their version will rarley if ever be used for a penetration strike. So if the Marine's version can't get off the ground now, what about with the extra weapons?

stated before, multirole only works good on BIG fighters, not small light weight. Unless i is the F-16 bu as noyhauser pointed out, that and the YF17 were never even conceieved as multirole to begin with, the F-16 just happens to excel at it but in no way does it carry a weaponsload comparable to the F-15E in terms of payload.

JSF is too small and crammed to do everything its asked. Its like asking an F1117 to carry an F-111 weaponsload and add on a bunch of external fuel tanks and some JSTARs randome for extra multirole. OK not that bad but you get the point.

For sake of argument lets use F-35C navy,...not as heavy as marine but heavier than airforce.

[David Hingtgen]

Yes, but the only part of FAS anybody cared about is the "specs on military equipment" part of their website, which is almost always the first result to come up in google, and is the #1 reference people list whenever they mention an F-15's speed, M1A1's weight, cost of an AIM-120, etc.

And with Globalsecurity's "specs on military equipment" being 99% identical, I figured it was a good idea to point out why, and why it is now the "preferred" reference/source. (Of course, 90% of the text of BOTH sites about planes is pretty much a giant quote from World Air Power Journal, it's usually faster/easier to search their site than go through my 50 volumes of back-issues)

[ewilen]

Noyhauser is specifically asking about F-35 vs. Gripen for Canada's purposes. If Canada buys it, it will be the F-35A (conventional non-carrier version), so that's the point of comparison.

Going by David's standard for weight, let's see if I can revise my thrust:weight calculations. To reiterate:

Only decent weight/power comparison is combat weight, which is arbitrarily defined as half of max internal fuel, and a "decent" weapons load (go for half).

So an F-15's combat weight would be the base weight of the plane, half internal fuel, 2 Sidewinders and 2 AMRAAMs, and about 600 rounds of 20mm.

F-14's are usually calculated at 4xSparrow, to average out the wide range of missiles possible (Phoenixes really skew the average weight, they weigh as much as 5 Sidewinders).

PS---20mm ammo weighs .56 lbs each, for an M61. You'll have to look up Euro stuff yourself.

Gripen max internal fuel is 2270 kg, half that is 1135 kg, which is 2497 lbs. I'll go with 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM and 80 27mm rounds. (That's 2/3 of the 120 max; look here and here. Yes, I'm using robotechresearch as a source in this case, because they in turn refer to Jane's and Periscope. Also note that only counting 80 rounds is slightly generous since I believe the gun stores spent cartidges instead of ejecting them.)

Globalsecurity.org (which I'm henceforth going to use for all data unless noted otherwise) has Sidewinder at 190 lbs., AMRAAM at 335 lbs. This Eurofighter page gives a weight of 270g for the Mauser ammo. 80 rounds * 270 g = 21.6 kg or about 48 lbs. Total "reasonable weight" is thus

14300 (empty) + 380 (Sidewinders) + 670 (AMRAAMs) + 48 (bullets) + 2497 (fuel) = 17895.

That's a little less than the "basic fighter configuration" I cited earlier. Thrust is 18100 lbs. (afterburner) giving a T:W ratio of 1.01 based on my "reasonable weight". It's 0.97 based on the "basic fighter configuration". This site uses slightly different inputs to arrive at a T:W of 0.94.

Now for F-35A. Various numbers for internal fuel; I'll go with the Flug Review, which is highest at 8300 kg. Half that, converted to pounds, gives us 9130 lbs. I'll once again assume two Sidewinders and two AMRAAMs--this makes the F-35A nonstealthy. (I don't know if it might be possible to carry two AMRAAMs and two ASRAAMs internally. I doubt it, but if it were possible, the JSF would be a 61 lbs. heavier although stealthy.) Like the Gripen, the F-35 will use a 27mm Mauser, and since I can't find the amount of ammo carried (if indeed that has been settled at this time), and since the weight of ammo is a small factor, I'm just going to assume the same amount/weight as the Gripen. Total "reasonable weight" is thus

22500 (empty weight F-35A) + 380 (sidewinders) + 670 (AMRAAMs) + 48 (bullets) + 9130 (fuel) = 32728 lbs.

Thrust is at least 37000 lbs., giving a T:W ratio of 1.13.

However, this site gives a T:W ratio of 0.83. This is rather a large discrepancy, and it is attributable primarily to the fact that the 0.83 figure is based on a "normal takeoff weight" of 19000 kg (41000 lbs.). Underlying this is a supposed empty weight of 12010 kg (26422 lbs.) and perhaps different assumptions about armament/fuel. Overall I'm inclined to trust my calculation; for one thing, it agrees with the ratio cited in this article, which is otherwise critical of the F-35.

That's all I feel like doing for now. Maybe later I'll look at wing loading and electronics.

Edited August 5, 2004 by ewilen

[ewilen]

More generally, Noyhauser, what missions does Canada have in mind for the F-35?

Edited August 5, 2004 by ewilen

[Noyhauser]

hanks Ewilan, I was going to say the same thing about the Export version vs the Gripen. Although I'm somewhat interested in the Canadian case, my question is aimed more at the F-35's position in the International fighter market. My belief is that the F-35's joint development process has not been for any sort of technological or industrial benefit for the US, rather it has suppressed any European rival to the F-35, in order to ensure its export sales. The most successful fighter in modern history has been the F-16, and the F-35 looks to surpass that because there is no equivalent fighter, beyond the Gripen that can fit in its role. For its own measure, the Gripen is doing fairly well. I think the Czechs have renegotiated a deal to buy them, and the South Africans have ordered them as well. The only country I can see building a rival to the JSF is France, but after the Rafale debacle, I'm doubtful that they will be interested in going alone again, and most of their allies are already locked into the JSF program as is.

Therefore, I see the F-35 as being the next F-16, unless the Eurofighter consortium builds a stripped down version of the Eurofighter that can maybe steal the upper end of the jsf's market. That might happen if the UK Pulls out, and as we discussed earlier, that is getting more and more likely because of the STOVL variant's weight problems. Where the question lies is how Britain will deal with it. The Purchase of the two new fleet carriers by the royal navy is a HUGE political hot potatoe. The ships are a matter of political pride for the Blair government, and they have staked a lot of political capital on it. If the JSF falls through, they will need a replacement, or they will have to redesign the aircraft carrier for conventional landing and takeoff systems. So that will be an interesting question

In Canada, the F-35 will become a replacement for the CF-18s, which by about 2012 will have been in service for over 25 years. Current doctrine for the CF-18 really means it does one of two things. The first sovereignty flights over Canadian territory(and occasionally US territory if need be) as part of NORAD. Since September 11th that mission has taken a new urgency, which means being able to shoot down a terrorist aircraft (read hijacked airliner). The second major mission will be air to ground or air to air missions, usually as part of a coalition as what occurred in Kosovo. Although NORAD and territorial defence will take up 95% of the operations that they operate, the 5% multinational coalition operations will be the most intensive operations that they participate in.

Personally, I’m not happy that we are getting the F-35. I'd rather get fewer Eurofighters, which would be more capable and effective for the few multinational missions that we do undertake. However Canadian procurement is not about capabilities, its about domestic offsets, and how much money Canada could make off of the deal. And the F-35 will haul in a LOT of money. There is a lot of talk that the international training center for the F-35 export versions will be located in Canada, and a significant part of the production will take place here. That means Canada might actually make more money than they actually invest in buying the fighter, because X part or all foreign pilots for all the F-35s will be built/trained here in Canada.

Edited August 6, 2004 by Noyhauser

[ewilen]

That's pretty much what I thought about the mission. Which could be rephrased as Canada "doing her share" in collective security--a pretty thankless job. In my opinion, if Canada can come out ahead financially, you should go for it even if it means having a slightly less capable fighter.

I'm not so sure that EF is superior to JSF, by the way. Especially when you consider that the toughest job for the Canadian Air Force is almost certainly not going to be intercepting airliners or air-air combat (who is going to be on the other side?) but bombing in conjunction with US or UN interventions. If so, stealth should count for a lot, as should range, payload, and numbers (which goes hand in hand with replacement cost).

JSF obviously wins on the stealth and numbers areas.

External stores capacity of JSF is 6805 kg vs. 6500-8000 kg for EF 2000. Not clear if JSF gets "extra credit" for its internal bays. The EF 2000 has 13 external weapons stations (not sure how this is counted); the JSF has 7 external plus two internal and two wingtip missile rails.

Ground attack radius for F-35 appears to be 600-700 nm. For EF 2000 I see about 750 nm quoted for a hi-lo-hi mission profile.

So on the surface I see the JSF being about as capable as a nonstealthy tactical bomber, but you can buy a lot more of them, plus you can use it as a stealthy bomber. If Canada also comes out ahead financially, JSF looks like a winner. But that's only provided the JSF actually materializes at the price and capabilities which have been promised.

[Noyhauser]

Well Canadian fighters have been mostly limited to providing CAP in previous conflicts, due to their inability to drop bombs (Kosovo, up until the end of the conflict) or for political reasons as in the first gulf war. It the First gulf war, the prime minister of the time didn't want casualties with canadian forces, so limited their role to second line CAP.

In the end its almost assured that Canada will buy the JSF. There is so little political interest on the nitty gritty issues of defence (such as which plane we should buy, ect) that buying the JSF is almost assured.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

hmmmm I think canada shoould just get some F-16E or whatever the UAE is getting. THose seem very awesome...not to mention possibly cheaper to procure.

Sorry but I just see the F-35 as the "stealth mcnamara plane"

[Lightning]

does Canada even have a Navy or Aircraft carrier?

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

nope, no aircraft carriers. Do not know about a navy. The F/A-18 is good at multirole and hell probably cheap, so that is why canada opted for it. Yes it can do well off carrier as well.

I have read about the avro plane from canada...first FBW interceptor. Anyone care to elaborate and compare its abilities to the phantom, america's top 60's interceptor?

[VF-19]

does Canada even have a Navy or Aircraft carrier?

Navy: Yes (but laughable)

Carrier: No. But we used to (something that surprised me very much when I found out about it).

[Coota0]

Wow even South American countries have carriers!