By: obligatory
- 7th February 2016 at 11:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles
That alone does not matter.. It all depends on if it's sufficiently easy to perform so that it can be used regularly.. With the F-35 I strongly suspect that you need to use a lot of burner to crawl through the transonic region to M1.2 and
Su-27 with 4 aam take around same time as F-35A to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2
then after switching it off the speed slowly degrades to M1.0 which takes those mentioned 150 miles. If that is true, then it's not an operationally viable capability which saves fuel or increases range, just an useless PR stunt....
you would be surprised that apart from SR-71, Mig-25/31, concorde , others aircraft doesn't stay in supersonic for long, even F-22 only include supersonic leng of 100 nm in its mission profile
By: mig-31bm
- 7th February 2016 at 11:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't believe this means what it sounds like: aircraft accelerates to M1.2 then maintains M1.2 in level flight on dry thrust for 150 miles. I see no reason why it should only be capable of maintaining M1.2 for 150 miles flying level. That suggests that the range of F-35 is 150 miles @ M1.2 + distance required to reach M1.2 and that does not add up to me.
Or may be that flying supersonic consump alot of fuel so only a tiny bit are included in mission profile, F-22 itself only include 100 nm supercruise in its combat radius
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 7th February 2016 at 12:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supercruise is just a marketing gimmick, a leftover from the Raptor times where it was presented as the end goal in order to highlight its kinematic abilities. But in reality, supercruise is just a tool to achieve more supersonic range.. That is the parameter which should be considered decisive..
Despite the trumpeted unparalleled kinematics, the F-22 is not the king of cruisers.. MiG-31 is.. right, it can't supercruise... but it can do 720 km @ M2.3+. With or without burners is of secondary importance.. Of course, there is the question of IR signature but IMO, the aerodynamic friction kind of balances that out... plus the fact that interception of a target soaring at M2+ would be an exclusive domain of radar guided missiles, anyway..
I remember a quote which stated that the F-35 had roughly the same range at M1.5 as the F-22 (in the ballpark of 100 nautical miles).. That the F135 soaring at full burner would be only marginally less fuel efficient than a twinpack of F119s at full military thrust.. In my eyes, that does not make the F-35 kinematically impressive rather than makes the F-22's speed advantage much less practical than originally thought.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 7th February 2016 at 14:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG-31, without doubt.. F-22, too.. But F-111 and F-15, how did you come to that conclusion?
Probably the same method you use...
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 7th February 2016 at 14:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles
We have "troll pilots" now? That is really a new low, even for you.
Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 7th February 2016 at 14:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably the same method you use...
Ah, you mean the same method you use when talking about F-35's unparalleled situational awareness? :eagerness:
By: Spitfire9
- 7th February 2016 at 14:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 7th February 2016 at 14:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?
Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 7th February 2016 at 15:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.
Given that the F-35 can sustain M1.2 with an internal load.... not sure the point you are trying to make.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 7th February 2016 at 15:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?
Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..
Not sure which stats you are looking at.... as usual.
New
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere
- 7th February 2016 at 20:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supersonic range.. did you even care to read the discussed topic?
By: Loke
- 7th February 2016 at 22:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?
Company test pilot Magnus Ljungdahl says the aircraft was flown to a speed of more than Mach 1.2 at 28,000ft (8,540m) above the Baltic Sea, and adds: "Without using afterburner I maintained the same speed until I ran out of test area."
The Gripen Demonstrator has demonstrated the capability to supercruise at Mach 1.2, and exceed Mach 1.6 on afterburner. Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.
Anyway; why do we care? supercruise is probably not very useful... nuff said.
For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.
By: Loke
- 7th February 2016 at 22:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.
Gripen E does not fly yet, so the Demo is the closest we get for the time being. According to the latest rumors E will be somewhat heavier than the Demo, on the other hand:
Gripen engineers say that they have still to optimise the air intakes, which they expect will boost engine power by another 25%.
According to this article Gripen c dry thrust is 1.2kg/s and afterburner is 4kg/s. Ill give you the engine burn times dry and wet Measured on rm12 but with the gripen E's fuel(internal).
This is only theoretical max burns. And with not exactly (but very close to, engine).
Full dry thrust maximum burntime = 1.2kg/s*60=72kg/min. Internal tank on E version is 3400kg/72kg=47,2 minutes
Full wet thrust maximum burntime= 4kg/s*60=240kg/min. 3400kg/240=14,16 minutes
Ill give you an example......
Now if you max dry thrust a gripen e , it will fly somewhere between mach 1.1 mach 1.25 depending on load of stuff BUT having started with say two droptanks (subsonic), which where dropped before engagement and returning back with pretty much full tank.
It is very likely that Supercruising back for say 47,2 minus 12 minutes for safety ...35minutes would be quite possible. With the result in a quick and IR-low return and rearm. The range with mach 1.2 (having left the battle and all) is converted to 1468kph.
So 35 minutes would be 856,3km flown. Super cruise on internal one direction.
Now it could be used to get close without being seen and with a very low reaction time for the enemy and a whole lot of other type of tactics.... I am not a pilot, but to be able to get out without using the burner to maintain high speed, just has to feel good. Leaving the sound behind makes the overflight dead silent until they already passed, making it harder to position.
Talking super cruise in general the only speed that is worth anything, is a usefull one an that would be a cruise for most fighters between 1-1.3 where 1+++ is rafale eurofighter and gripen e and the 1.3 might be f-22. F-22 get bingo fuel in no time, maxing out its dry thrust. Unfortunately that is true for most "high" powered aircrafts.
Max speed super cruise is nothing to look at. Check the fuel and just use math and you will see that only lower speeds are useful.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 7th February 2016 at 11:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the troll pilot start out admitting it isnt supercruise in a technical sense,
so we can conclude it cant maintain mach 1.2 in level flight, or even mach 1 for that matter.
We also know from another confirmation it takes "a teeny weeny bit of a/b" to stay supersonic,
so: the probable scenario is accelerating above mach 1.2 with a/b,
and then slowly decelerate on military while descending, and it drop below mach 1.2 after 150 miles
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 7th February 2016 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-15 = variable intake
F-111 = variable intake, variable geometry wing, load of fuel
Su-27 with 4 aam take around same time as F-35A to accelerate from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2
you would be surprised that apart from SR-71, Mig-25/31, concorde , others aircraft doesn't stay in supersonic for long, even F-22 only include supersonic leng of 100 nm in its mission profile
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 7th February 2016 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Or may be that flying supersonic consump alot of fuel so only a tiny bit are included in mission profile, F-22 itself only include 100 nm supercruise in its combat radius
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 7th February 2016 at 12:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supercruise is just a marketing gimmick, a leftover from the Raptor times where it was presented as the end goal in order to highlight its kinematic abilities. But in reality, supercruise is just a tool to achieve more supersonic range.. That is the parameter which should be considered decisive..
Despite the trumpeted unparalleled kinematics, the F-22 is not the king of cruisers.. MiG-31 is.. right, it can't supercruise... but it can do 720 km @ M2.3+. With or without burners is of secondary importance.. Of course, there is the question of IR signature but IMO, the aerodynamic friction kind of balances that out... plus the fact that interception of a target soaring at M2+ would be an exclusive domain of radar guided missiles, anyway..
I remember a quote which stated that the F-35 had roughly the same range at M1.5 as the F-22 (in the ballpark of 100 nautical miles).. That the F135 soaring at full burner would be only marginally less fuel efficient than a twinpack of F119s at full military thrust.. In my eyes, that does not make the F-35 kinematically impressive rather than makes the F-22's speed advantage much less practical than originally thought.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 7th February 2016 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Probably the same method you use...
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 7th February 2016 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have "troll pilots" now? That is really a new low, even for you.
Gripen says it can "supercruise" at M1.1 with a couple air to air missiles at its ideal altitude, and without turning... That is clearly a super useful capability.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 7th February 2016 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, you mean the same method you use when talking about F-35's unparalleled situational awareness? :eagerness:Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 7th February 2016 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mmm... something that it would be useful to do becomes useless when F-35 can't do it. At least you're consistent - anything the F-35 can do that other types cannot is of the utmost merit; anything F-35 cannot do that other types can is of the utmost unimportance.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 7th February 2016 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Clearly, Gripen won't get very far at that speed, as we have already discussed a month ago. The problem is: neither will the F-35.. you have a fighter with weight, price and fiuel volume comparable to F-15E, with almost ridiculous 191kN thrust and still you end up with parameters marginally better or worse than the tiny JAS39. In reality you can't fly faster, won't get further or carry more than the Gripen at these speeds. Then what is all that power, thrust and weight good for?Remember, every 4kg of the F-35 cost roughly as much as 1kg of gold, it would be wise to keep the weight as low as possible..
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 7th February 2016 at 15:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Given that the F-35 can sustain M1.2 with an internal load.... not sure the point you are trying to make.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 7th February 2016 at 15:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure which stats you are looking at.... as usual.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 7th February 2016 at 20:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supersonic range.. did you even care to read the discussed topic?
Posts: 147
By: OooShiny - 7th February 2016 at 20:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting way of thinking about it.
Incidentally, every 1.3kg of Rafale costs the same as 1kg of gold. I'm sure if they keep escalating the price they can reach parity.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 7th February 2016 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 7th February 2016 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So like MSphere to invent a fanboy measure of aircraft cost without considering that it makes his favorite planes look bad...
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 7th February 2016 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We have discussed that quite extensively.. the Swiss eval scenario using Gripen D..Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 7th February 2016 at 22:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
From: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-celebrates-supercruise-test-success-for-gripen-321428/
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/12/visit-to-gripen-saab-executives-say.html?_sm_au_=iMVS4R6FJjP4QV5T
Anyway; why do we care? supercruise is probably not very useful... nuff said.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 7th February 2016 at 22:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For the last time..... The Gripen Demo is not the Gripen E/F. I do not doubt that the E/F will have some capability to active supersonic speed without afterburner in some marginal way (Like a multitude of other fighters that could reach Mach 1.1-1.2 without 'burners). The operational utility of the E/F's capability in this regard is still to be determined. It is a bigger, heavier, aircraft than the modified Demo airframe.
Posts: 3,280
By: Loke - 7th February 2016 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Gripen E does not fly yet, so the Demo is the closest we get for the time being. According to the latest rumors E will be somewhat heavier than the Demo, on the other hand:
Posts: 121
By: Urban - 7th February 2016 at 22:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@hopsalot ".. and what is the Gripen NG's supersonic range?"
http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174315/reaktionsmotor-12---bade-vacker-och-stark
According to this article Gripen c dry thrust is 1.2kg/s and afterburner is 4kg/s. Ill give you the engine burn times dry and wet Measured on rm12 but with the gripen E's fuel(internal).
This is only theoretical max burns. And with not exactly (but very close to, engine).
Full dry thrust maximum burntime = 1.2kg/s*60=72kg/min. Internal tank on E version is 3400kg/72kg=47,2 minutes
Full wet thrust maximum burntime= 4kg/s*60=240kg/min. 3400kg/240=14,16 minutes
Ill give you an example......
Now if you max dry thrust a gripen e , it will fly somewhere between mach 1.1 mach 1.25 depending on load of stuff BUT having started with say two droptanks (subsonic), which where dropped before engagement and returning back with pretty much full tank.
It is very likely that Supercruising back for say 47,2 minus 12 minutes for safety ...35minutes would be quite possible. With the result in a quick and IR-low return and rearm. The range with mach 1.2 (having left the battle and all) is converted to 1468kph.
So 35 minutes would be 856,3km flown. Super cruise on internal one direction.
Now it could be used to get close without being seen and with a very low reaction time for the enemy and a whole lot of other type of tactics.... I am not a pilot, but to be able to get out without using the burner to maintain high speed, just has to feel good. Leaving the sound behind makes the overflight dead silent until they already passed, making it harder to position.
Talking super cruise in general the only speed that is worth anything, is a usefull one an that would be a cruise for most fighters between 1-1.3 where 1+++ is rafale eurofighter and gripen e and the 1.3 might be f-22. F-22 get bingo fuel in no time, maxing out its dry thrust. Unfortunately that is true for most "high" powered aircrafts.
Max speed super cruise is nothing to look at. Check the fuel and just use math and you will see that only lower speeds are useful.