Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

comparing fighter performance of the same generations; important factor in war

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    ]
    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
    What does this number matter?........
    L/D helps thrust, if a/c has lower T/W it can make it up with better L/D (important at high g and at 1 g).

    When you have already mentioned Belenko..I read his book (MiG Pilot) about 30 years ago. Now you do not need Belenko to find out MiG-25 details. Now we can see that Belenko was telling one story and Barron (US co-author) modified it (we can guess motives) and published.
    I want each of us to make ourself 'procedure' in order to deduce a/c abilities (airframe/engine/radar/missiles) and not depend on orchestrated public opinion (as we can do in other human life aspects).

    If we know min 1g speed, instantaneous turns will be known..generally..(or wing loading + CL), if we know span loading (√weight/span) along with thrust we will know how much a/c holds energy in turns, fuel/weight is best range or radius indicator, dynamic T/W will tell most about sep, max speed with and w/o reheat. If we know L/D, picture will be more complete. Applies for Me-109, F-86, Mirage, Su-27...

    [ATTACH]29575[/ATTACH
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by adriann View Post
      ]L/D helps thrust, if a/c has lower T/W it can make it up with better L/D (important at high g and at 1 g).
      You're looking at this upside down. The flanker turns better than an F-15C on average, the F-15C out-climbs the flanker like a mad dog above about 5km. But like Chogy said, what are you talking about? Instantaneous turning capability for the F-15C is inferior to the flanker's, period, end of story. What more do you need to know? It won't matter if the F-15 guy plays the vertical right, just like his ability won't matter if he doesn't. But that's just 1v1 - and the flanker's turning ability will only matter in reality if it ends up having to merge on equal footing with an eagle - which it won't, because the eagle now has superior WVR weapons - at least for now.
      I don't know why you're stuck on turning. These details are neat when you want to simulate DACT in a flight sim or something, but they're not really useful in comparing the aircraft. The differences between these two are so classic that it's really up to the pilots.

      I want each of us to make ourself 'procedure' in order to deduce a/c abilities (airframe/engine/radar/missiles) and not depend on orchestrated public opinion (as we can do in other human life aspects).
      Chogy is a bigger authority on this than any source you've presented so far, since he's flown the Eagle (IIRC).

      If we know min 1g speed, instantaneous turns will be known..generally..(or wing loading + CL), if we know span loading (√weight/span) along with thrust we will know how much a/c holds energy in turns, fuel/weight is best range or radius indicator, dynamic T/W will tell most about sep, max speed with and w/o reheat. If we know L/D, picture will be more complete. Applies for Me-109, F-86, Mirage, Su-27...
      I have no idea why you need it; you really don't. A qualitative knowledge is good enough, but it's easy enough to say that under the best of circumstances, a flanker will have an ITR or about 32deg/s, while an F-15C will have about 25deg/s. The Flanker will will be able to sustain more G at slow speed than an Eagle, the Eagle will be able to to sustain higher g at higher speeds all day long in practice, where a flanker pilot might not be very comfortable; there are a lot of ways to use your speed/climb/turn, and your L/D ratio won't reveal that to you. What you need is BFM training ... only then will you realize that while those numbers are nice, they don't tell you all that much.

      Comment


      • #48
        Manoeuvrability? 'Knife fighting' Why even bother ?



        Point taken?
        Ego Numquam

        Comment


        • #49
          Beautiful, perfect, Chunder. I didn't know how else to say it, and along comes this video that says it for me.

          Sensors, weapons, stealth, battlefield intel via AWACS and datalinking, supercruise, HOB missiles, trumps L/D numbers, T/W, instantaneous/sustained turns, and other classic performance parameters.

          We have offloaded the dogfight into the missile. And they work.

          The priorities to be engineered into a fighter have changed. What we see in the F-22 epitomizes this shift. What is impressive is that the F-22 can still turn up its own ass. With the F-35, we have an extremely advanced jet that would possibly lose a 1 V 1 turning fight vs a Su-27 when both are equipped with AIM-9P (stern aspect) equivalent weapons... The poor F-35 doesn't even have a HUD. Sacrelige! But it doesn't matter, because an engagement of that sort is only in the minds of air show attendees who get excited watching high AOA maneuvers.

          Comment


          • #50
            Chogy Reply

            "...We have offloaded the dogfight into the missile. And they work..."

            Even I get it. Your airframe now becomes a missile truck and sensor-platform. When sensors are properly networked through links with airborne C3I platforms you become part of a fighting system. If coordinated and operated properly, you'll live to fight another day atop that very expensive missile truck.

            This tax-payer says that's a good thing.

            Thank you for wisely spending my money.:)
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #51
              To The Dude's point....that also allows you to successfully conduct multimission in a multirole aircraft.

              To the sensors, etc, it lives and breathes across our whole military. Recall 3ID attacking northward in a sandstorm and keeping situational awareness thanks to Blue Force Tracker in all of the combat vehicles. Coupled with thermal sights it allowed infantry and armor to attack in near zero visibility.

              And now the pilot at 20000 feet can share with the rifle platoon on the ground what he is seeing in real time to change the maneuver.

              Game changer
              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
              Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #52
                Ok,even I get it,but why bother with the pilot at all?Robin Hood can be taken by an arqebusier or musketeer.The pilot,an embodiment of human physical and intelectual perfection naw can be taken by a a few geeks driving drones.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                  Ok,even I get it,but why bother with the pilot at all?Robin Hood can be taken by an arqebusier or musketeer.The pilot,an embodiment of human physical and intelectual perfection naw can be taken by a a few geeks driving drones.
                  Well, if we didn't have pilots then what would the cool guys do in the military? Besides no need for flight suits would cause a world wide glut in leather and zippers!:whome:
                  “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                  Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by GGTharos View Post
                    You're looking at this upside down. The flanker turns better than an F-15C on average, the F-15C out-climbs the flanker like a mad dog above about 5km. But like Chogy said, what are you talking about? Instantaneous turning capability for the F-15C is inferior to the flanker's, period, end of story. What more do you need to know?

                    Chogy is a bigger authority on this than any source you've presented so far, since he's flown the Eagle (IIRC).
                    I didn't want to say who has better performance, Flanker, F-15, Typhoon...I think that if () better than F-15 in anything, it is not that significant...but I liked to 'cross' their graphs. If it is bothering, as I see, I will not insist.

                    I'm not here to doubt anybody's authority. I'm here to learn.

                    Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                    Manoeuvrability? 'Knife fighting' Why even bother ?
                    video=youtube;
                    Point taken?
                    Don't be so enthusiastic about that IC AAM capability. It was seen 25 years ago on AA-11.
                    I said that export MiG-21/AA-11 could have achieved 50:1 ratio against Typhoon or F-18 WVR decade ago. But real life is not video-game. Anybody with war in mind should count on 'blood & tears' to achieve the goal.

                    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                    The priorities to be engineered into a fighter have changed. With the F-35, we have an extremely advanced jet...
                    I totally agree with opinion on F-35, for that (acceptably high) cost, you can't get better.

                    Cheers !
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                      We have offloaded the dogfight into the missile. And they work.
                      I can think of one flaw in that logic. The Russians/Chinese sends up a bunch of MiG-21s as missile magnets exhausting your inventory.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        OoE Reply

                        "...The Russians/Chinese sends up a bunch of MiG-21s as missile magnets exhausting your inventory."

                        Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant!

                        Comrade Colonel, will you be leading this mission?
                        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by adriann View Post
                          Don't be so enthusiastic about that IC AAM capability. It was seen 25 years ago on AA-11.
                          I said that export MiG-21/AA-11 could have achieved 50:1 ratio against Typhoon or F-18 WVR decade ago. But real life is not video-game. Anybody with war in mind should count on 'blood & tears' to achieve the goal.
                          Oh, that was just demonstrating off bore sight manoeuvrability visually.... so it becomes an unquestioned fact. I have never seen an AA-11 video, anywhere. So that means I have to rely on what you say. Which I don't.

                          Yep, it's a promo video

                          But we know EO DAS works and is networked.



                          Your MiG 21 won't be fighting against an aircraft. It will be fighting against a system, any amount of them, maybe even SM missiles.

                          Think of it this way. It is like an aircraft attacking a Surface fleet. It will be up against an AEGIS system.

                          Things like EO DAS mean the plane is no longer point and shoot. It is the equivalent of a Sailing ship trying to get broadside to a Dreadnought with 360 radar coverage, with Turrets.

                          Bottom of the line is, the mantra of 'it's the Pilot not the plane', is an old cliche, because the pilot is now operating a node that is part of a multi spectrum, multi redundant, targeting, information gathering system.
                          Don't be so enthusiastic about that IC AAM capability. It was seen 25 years ago on AA-11. I said that export MiG-21/AA-11 could have achieved 50:1 ratio against Typhoon or F-18 WVR decade ago.
                          So you concede that, you have not yet grasped how the west plans to fight war, and why we are dropping hundreds of billions of dollars on a platform - that somehow can all be achieved by a MiG21? Price is reflective of engineering input & development. If the Russians tried to do that now, it would bankrupt them like Reagan bankrupted them in the 1980's.

                          By the way, Missile equivalents to the AA-11, existed a decade ago The posted video of missile trials are a decade old.
                          Last edited by Chunder; 09 Jul 12,, 01:19.
                          Ego Numquam

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by S2 View Post
                            Comrade Colonel, will you be leading this mission?
                            I don't like sitting down on the job.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              I don't like sitting down on the job.
                              Your an engineer, your scared of heights and prefer holes like a mole. But then again when most people see a tank and think target, I thought joy ride.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Chunder View Post

                                Your MiG 21 won't be fighting against an aircraft. It will be fighting against a system, any amount of them, maybe even SM missiles.
                                The works both ways. Vis a vis China long range s-300/Patriot hybrids, medium and short range SAMS, guns and lots of older fighters and an increasing number of decent 4g fighters. Even the rumor of an operational AshBM affects any future air battle over Taiwan by reducing the number of conventional SM's the navy can add to the fight. Its not system v solo, but system v system.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X