What's the World's Best 4.5-5 Gen Fighter

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 17:34

sergei wrote:"
NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

So you have access to NEZ data for the C7? Let's see it.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 17:38

mrigdon wrote:
To be fair, the SR-71 was never sent into combat.


The SR-71 actually flew over a few different wars and had a number of SA-2s fired at it (e.g. SEA conflict )
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4347
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 17:58

sergei wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Sergei, those parameters are misleading at best. Things like range depend on altitude, speed, and payload. As for the max payload, please take the time to create an hypothetical max payload for the Su-34, and list your info source. I'll do the same for the F-15E.

When people talk about the maximum values the default is implied that these parameters are achieved with the most favorable conditions and it is typical for all manufacturers.

2xHibiny (L-175B)+2xRVV-AE(R-73)+16 AB500+4 X31(24 AB100)

2.19-2.40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-deXUEHKEY


I'll do you one better sergei. For the sake of this discussion, I am NOT counting any payload that includes fuel. This means I am not using any drop tanks nor am I counting the CFT weight against the payload even though they are removable.

2xGBU-28 for 9152lb on wing stations
1xGBU-24 for 2323lb on centerline station
4xMk-84AIR for 8040lb on CFT stations
4xAIM-120 for 1352 lb on wing A-A stations
LANTIRN for 1141lb on inlet stations
Suspension equipment for 1502lb
Total external payload 25,012lb or 11,369kg.

Replacing the GBU-24 with a 610gal tank would increase the payload to 12,261kg, but I am not using fuel.

With THIS payload the F-15E is so heavy is exceeds max weight if all 22000lb fuel is loaded, so 4000lb fuel is not used to be able to take off.
Keeping 2000lb fuel in reserves the F-15E with THIS payload and shortened fuel load will be able to travel 930+km at sea level without dropping ordinance, essentially ferrying the payload. If it does drop the 8,870kg of bombs, it can do so up to 500km away and still return to origin with the reserves.

At worst case range, Sea Level and full Mil power the whole way, it can "ferry" 520km or drop at 266km and RTB.

At optimum cruise it can "ferry" the load 1,570km or drop it 950km away and RTB with reserves.

All this with the heaviest load possible without the use of external fuel tanks and only using 73% of the internal fuel capacity.

My information comes from the publicly available F-15E manual.

Sergei, this is how you do a debate based on numbers.

sergei wrote: 2xHibiny (L-175B)+2xRVV-AE(R-73)+16 AB500+4 X31(24 AB100)

Khibiny: I do not see weights provided, wingtip stations used
2XR-73=210kg, outer wing stations used
Looking at the Su-27 manual I see 1xAB500 for each tunnel station and each nacelle station but 2xAB500 for each wing station. This gives the Su-34 a total of 12AB500 using all the non-AA stations, four on each wing, four under the body. 6,000kg. we are four shy of your number here. Can you explain with supporting evidence?
Looking in the manual I also see racks of 6AB100. These look to be one each for all stations, tunnel, nacelle, and wing for a potential total of 8 racks for 4,800kg. unfortunately for your example, all stations are already filled.

details, Sergei, details. I want to have an intellectual debate with you but you need to step up what you bring to the table. Please don't rely on Youtube videos. I cannot view them most of the time and there is often a language barrier. If there is something specific during the time you mentioned then can you give me a description of it?

And your request for my F-14A turn documentation? see attachment.
Attachments
F14A_turn.jpg
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 18:40

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:With THIS payload the F-15E is so heavy is exceeds max weight if all 22000lb fuel is loaded, so 4000lb fuel is not used to be able to take off.
Keeping 2000lb fuel in reserves the F-15E with THIS payload and shortened fuel load will be able to travel 930+km at sea level without dropping ordinance, essentially ferrying the payload. If it does drop the 8,870kg of bombs, it can do so up to 500km away and still return to origin with the reserves.

At worst case range, Sea Level and full Mil power the whole way, it can "ferry" 520km or drop at 266km and RTB.

At optimum cruise it can "ferry" the load 1,570km or drop it 950km away and RTB with reserves.

All this with the heaviest load possible without the use of external fuel tanks and only using 73% of the internal fuel capacity.

My information comes from the publicly available F-15E manual.

Do these calculations take the drag index into account ?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4347
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 19:06

f4u7_corsair wrote:Do these calculations take the drag index into account ?

Yes, loaded DI of 107, DI after drop of 62
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mrigdon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2015, 22:03

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 22:10

basher54321 wrote:
mrigdon wrote:
To be fair, the SR-71 was never sent into combat.


The SR-71 actually flew over a few different wars and had a number of SA-2s fired at it (e.g. SEA conflict )


It was never tasked with attacking another plane or a target, though. It's job was to fly as fast and as high as possible and get pictures.

Mig-25s were used in air-to-air combat and shot down. I just don't know if any Mig-25s sent on reconnaissance missions were ever shot down. There's a story here about a couple of Mig-25RBs being shot down when they were used as bait http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=263262#p263262. If the U.S. had ever done anything similar with the SR-71, it might have gotten tagged as well.

The Mig-25 obviously lags the SR-71 in performance in high-speed high-altitude, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't an effective reconnaissance plane. You can't just compare airframe losses, though. You need to break down what mission was being flown by the Mig-25.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post29 Apr 2015, 23:58

sprstdlyscottsmn

"publicly available F-15E manual" publicly available F-15E load was all time and mission with fuel tanks, link yours source please so we can see what is possible "4xMk-84vsCTF".
800ml combat radius only with fuel tanks and load = 2x A2A, 2xMK84 as A2G not your 11,369kg mix.
"Looking at the Su-27 manual " don't do it, look at the Su-34 manual.

"F-14A turn documentation?"
Bad resolution almost can not see anything, have any better or link original source ?

P/S find only 1 mission without fuel tank and it was A2A.
Attachments
Su-34_Hardpoint_&_Armament_arrangement.PNG
Last edited by sergei on 30 Apr 2015, 00:36, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 00:05

mrigdon wrote:
basher54321 wrote:
mrigdon wrote:
To be fair, the SR-71 was never sent into combat.


The SR-71 actually flew over a few different wars and had a number of SA-2s fired at it (e.g. SEA conflict )


It was never tasked with attacking another plane or a target, though. It's job was to fly as fast and as high as possible and get pictures.



Erm - Let me put it another way - it carried out numerous recon missions during conflicts and was fired upon thus it saw combat.

It didn't have the ability to launch weapons - those A-12 versions were never developed.
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 00:08

popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote:"
NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

So you have access to NEZ data for the C7? Let's see it.

30km against hard target.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 00:19

sergei wrote:
popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote:"
NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

So you have access to NEZ data for the C7? Let's see it.

30km against hard target.

What? That's all you got? Post a link to your source for everyone to see.
Also, you posted "MiG 31 wins" when discussing missile armament. So post the NEZ data for the Russian missile so we can compare with your C7 claim... waiting with bated breath.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 00:33

"2xHibiny (L-175B)+2xRVV-AE(R-73)+16 AB500+4 X31(24 AB100)"
I just discovered the error: not 4 X-31(24 AB100) but 4 X-59(2 KAB1500)+2 KAB500(12 AB100)

Hibiny (L-175B)weight at RVV-AE(R-73) class .

2xR-73+2xRVV-AE+16 AB500+4 X-59+12 AB100 = 13510kg with 75% fuel=9000kg
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 01:18

popcorn wrote:NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

So you have access to NEZ data for the C7? Let's see it.
30km against hard target.
What? That's all you got? Post a link to your source for everyone to see.
Also, you posted "MiG 31 wins" when discussing missile armament. So post the NEZ data for the Russian missile so we can compare with your C7 claim... waiting with bated breath.


Do you know the difference between C5 and C7 ? : "Improved fuse+Improved homing algorithm( and thus greater max range but it have little effect on NEZ)

NEZ for RVV-AE 20-25km .

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 01:52

sergei wrote:
popcorn wrote:NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

So you have access to NEZ data for the C7? Let's see it.
30km against hard target.
What? That's all you got? Post a link to your source for everyone to see.
Also, you posted "MiG 31 wins" when discussing missile armament. So post the NEZ data for the Russian missile so we can compare with your C7 claim... waiting with bated breath.


Do you know the difference between C5 and C7 ? : "Improved fuse+Improved homing algorithm( and thus greater max range but it have little effect on NEZ)

NEZ for RVV-AE 20-25km .

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html

So your reference is a 15 year old article full of speculation? And based on that you are able to editorialize the performance (red text) of a missile that at the time was under development... amazing.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

sergei

Banned

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2014, 22:56

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 02:57

popcorn wrote:
sergei wrote:
popcorn wrote:NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

So you have access to NEZ data for the C7? Let's see it.
30km against hard target.
What? That's all you got? Post a link to your source for everyone to see.
Also, you posted "MiG 31 wins" when discussing missile armament. So post the NEZ data for the Russian missile so we can compare with your C7 claim... waiting with bated breath.


Do you know the difference between C5 and C7 ? : "Improved fuse+Improved homing algorithm( and thus greater max range but it have little effect on NEZ)

NEZ for RVV-AE 20-25km .

http://www.x-plane.org/home/urf/aviatio ... s/aam.html

So your reference is a 15 year old article full of speculation? And based on that you are able to editorialize the performance (red text) of a missile that at the time was under development... amazing.


I find it easier to make copying the part phrase than manually type a page of text.

"This document last modified 2009-09-15"

AIM-120C-7 development began in 1998,the development was completed in 2004.

P/S Nevertheless you can specify your data and reliable sources.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1705
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Apr 2015, 03:58

sergei wrote:"you said Mig-31 is Stealthy "
I don't said that . I said MIG-31 RSC irrelevant.

RCS is always relevant sergei
bigger RCS will let enemy detect, attack you from further, also make it harder to protect yourself by jamming
Mig-31 if it was as Stealthy as a F-22, F-35 will be super dangerous
sergei wrote:NEZ for Aim-120C7 not very good compared with a maximum range and Meteor is not in service.

NEZ of any missiles is much much shorter than their kinematics range, often 1/4 to 1/3 of their maximum range, unlike in Video game, in real life you cannot launch AAM from 200-300 km again a fighter and hope that it will hit
Meteor is in LRIP, you can find many pictures of Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen carried them around

sergei wrote:"Mig-25 no matter what version cant stay high and fast as long as the SR-71
it's supersonic combat radius and cruise speed is far inferior to SR-71"
I return your argument to you:
Go to F35 vs A-10 at CAS.

F-35 have much better LO and SA characteristic than A-10, it's weapon also have better range, sensor
In recon role what does the Mig-25 have better than SR-71?
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests