Air Combat Maneuvering Thread

[Engineer]

Supercrusing is related to the engine, why? Eurofighter supercruises and the same is Su-35

You proved my point that supercruise isn't related to stealth, thus disproved your own claim about stealth equating to less performance. In fact, F-22 has higher supercruise speed than both aircraft you mentioned, which indicates better performance.

A few details Stealthy jets have larger cross sections, thus then they can not jettison the internal weapons bays but you can a fuel tank or a missile, also you can have semi recessed weapons stations like Eurofighter

This makes for a thinner fuselage

A non-stealth fighter jettisoning fuel tanks and missiles will fly in battle naked. That's just trading one type of inferiorty for another type of inferiority. With or without internal bay, fighters have to bring weapons and fuels to battle anyway. So a non-stealth aircraft isn't immune from having big frontal area.

An internal bay allows a clean aircraft exterior and increases performance. Eliminating wave drag and extra parasitic drag is more than enough to offset slight increase in frontal cross section. Also, if external stores aren't draggy, there would be no need to develop recessed weapon stations. The action of engineers debunked your argument.

this is the ideal low drag shape, no matter how you try to spin it

You posted an image of a missile, which clearly isn't an aircraft, let alone an aircraft with external stores. Here is a fighter aircraft with external store, and it clearly isn't "the ideal low drag shape".

 

[b787]

You proved my point that supercruise isn't related to stealth, thus disproved your own claim about stealth equating to less performance. In fact, F-22 has higher supercruise speed than both aircraft you mentioned, which indicates better performance.


A non-stealth fighter jettisoning fuel tanks and missiles will fly in battle naked. That's just trading one type of inferiorty for another type of inferiority. With or without internal bay, fighters have to bring weapons and fuels to battle anyway. So a non-stealth aircraft isn't immune from having big frontal area.

An internal bay allows a clean aircraft exterior and increases performance. Eliminating wave drag and extra parasitic drag is more than enough to offset slight increase in frontal cross section. Also, if external stores aren't draggy, there would be no need to develop recessed weapon stations. The action of engineers debunked your argument.


You posted an image of a missile, which clearly isn't an aircraft, let alone an aircraft with external stores. Here is a fighter aircraft with external store, and it clearly isn't "the ideal low drag shape".

Eurofighter brings weapons, in semi recessed stations in fact can bring 6, 4 AIM-120 or Meteor and 2 IRIS-T or ASRAAM AIM-132 and can supercruise

also there is something called in flight refueling

at combat

at take off　it can carry fuel tanks but at combat they can be jettison.
The other thing is size, Eurofighter is very small, in fact even the small stealth fighters like F-35 are heavier for the same WVR combat, also the F-35 is heavier, a F-35 operates at 20 tonnes even it has an engine of 19000 kg thrust, it has not a TWR of 1:1.

F-22 has engines of 15 tonnes of thrust each but it needs to operate at 10 tonnes heavier than Typhoon
in WVR Typhoon has proven it can beat the F-22, Eurofighter does not need Thrust vectoring because it is small, light, but F-22 is not, it is heavy, has a large cross section and flattened sides, T-50 too, without Thrust vectoring is not that good it is heavier

For a stealth aircraft thrust vectoring is a must if it will engage in dogfights, but if it will use DAS and highly off bore missiles like AIM-9X cued with a HMS then it does not.


The Germans said in WVR Eurofighter can beat the F-22, why? simple it does not carry a HMS and can not use the AIM-9X, F-22 has to fight on engines alone.

But in BVR F-22 is king why? internal weapons bays are good for stealth and RCS reduction only that.

But see how many weapons it can carry, then you understand weapons bays have been only used for large aircraft like Tu-160 and B-52 and tactical strikers like A-5 and F-111 in the past, stealth is the only advantage and that is a IF if you can think radars can not detect stealth aircraft

if you need to carry weapons then stealth is a hindrance and it is proven by the fact for a F-35 to carry the same amount of ordanance a Eurofighter carry then it has less agility and needs external weapons stations and the same is PAKFA or F-22

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Augh stealth does sacrifice maneuverability. It's a trade off in design. To gain optimum stealth designers would require to sacrifice some aerodynamic design elements. That is why they are adding Thrust vectoring so they can provide help in the disadvantage. This also is a trade-off since it adds extra weight.

At the end you can't have the best of both worlds and require to balance the trade offs to make the best out of it.

 

[b787]

Augh stealth does sacrifice maneuverability. It's a trade off in design. To gain optimum stealth designers would require to sacrifice some aerodynamic design elements. That is why they are adding Thrust vectoring so they can provide help in the disadvantage. This also is a trade-off since it adds extra weight.

At the end you can't have the best of both worlds and require to balance the trade offs to make the best out of it.

i totally agree with you, to understand why the current aircraft are being developed we have to recall a bit of history.

In 1990 when the YF-22 first flew, the Americans did not know what kind of fighter was the MiG-29, with HMS and AA-11s Archers, the MiG-29 showed the F-16s could not beat it at WVR due to the combination of superior turn rates and HMS.

By the 1990s, the X-31 with thrust vectoring was pitted against the F-18 and F-16s, proving the X-31 was absolutely supreme versus the F-18 and F-16, this is manifested by the fact 1997 F-22 prototype never was intended to use a HMS.

By the late 1990s, the Israelis flew their F-16s with HMS beating the US Navy F-18s in a 200:3 rate this convinced the Americans the X-35 needed HMS and AIM-9Xs.

So this has made the F-22 a fighter dependent upon pure thrust vectoring for WVR combat, since F-35 is not agile they will use DAS and HMD for cueing the AIM-9X in the same way the Israelis use their Python 5.

The recent defeats of F-22 against the Rafale and Eurofighter, has forced the Americans fit the AIM-9X to the F-22, but because the F-22 is king of the BVR combat, they think they do not need yet a HMS for the F-22.

The F-22 is a very good fighter, but in turn rates is not better than the Eurofighter, true it is not worse but is not superior, with the deployment of the Su-35S, the Americans know the F-22 have a rival with supercruise, HMS and Thrust vectoring, they know in WVR the F-22 is not king.

With PAKFA, things will get worse, so then they need a HMS for the F-22

 

[Engineer]

Eurofighter brings weapons, in semi recessed stations in fact can bring 6, 4 AIM-120 or Meteor and 2 IRIS-T or ASRAAM AIM-132 and can supercruise

Recessed hard points got developed because external stores are draggy and bad for stealth. Your above example proved that carrying weapons internally is superior to carrying them externally.

also there is something called in flight refueling

at combat

at take off　it can carry fuel tanks but at combat they can be jettison.

These features are not exclusively available to non-stealth airframe. F-22 can perform in flight refueling, as well as carry external fuel tanks if need to. These features don't change the fact that non-stealth fighters still suffer from drag and stealth penalties due to external stores.

The other thing is size, Eurofighter is very small, in fact even the small stealth fighters like F-35 are heavier for the same WVR combat, also the F-35 is heavier, a F-35 operates at 20 tonnes even it has an engine of 19000 kg thrust, it has not a TWR of 1:1.

F-22 has engines of 15 tonnes of thrust each but it needs to operate at 10 tonnes heavier than Typhoon
in WVR Typhoon has proven it can beat the F-22,

Eurofighter being smaller and lighter still couldn't fly as fast as F-22 in supercruise speed. That supercruise speed for Eurofighter decreases even further with external stores. Your keep on arguing about non-stealth airframe being better, but you have no evidence to show, and examples you raised debunk your own theory.

Eurofighter does not need Thrust vectoring because it is small, light, but F-22 is not, it is heavy, has a large cross section and flattened sides, T-50 too, without Thrust vectoring is not that good it is heavier

For a stealth aircraft thrust vectoring is a must if it will engage in dogfights, but if it will use DAS and highly off bore missiles like AIM-9X cued with a HMS then it does not.

The Germans said in WVR Eurofighter can beat the F-22, why? simple it does not carry a HMS and can not use the AIM-9X, F-22 has to fight on engines alone.

But in BVR F-22 is king why? internal weapons bays are good for stealth and RCS reduction only that.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. That is real world results, not results on basis of some marketing brochuer. Your own example shows thrust-vectoring did not help F-22 in getting on the tail of Eurofighter, so you are actually contradicting yourself. Thrust-vector only helps within your imagination.

But see how many weapons it can carry, then you understand weapons bays have been only used for large aircraft like Tu-160 and B-52 and tactical strikers like A-5 and F-111 in the past, stealth is the only advantage and that is a IF if you can think radars can not detect stealth aircraft

if you need to carry weapons then stealth is a hindrance and it is proven by the fact for a F-35 to carry the same amount of ordanance a Eurofighter carry then it has less agility and needs external weapons stations and the same is PAKFA or F-22

F-22 can carry six BVR AAM and two WVR AAM internally, which is the typical air-to-air load on many non-stealth airframe as well. At the same time, F-22 has the fastest supercruise speed, and defeat most aircraft in WVR. So no, not carrying weapons externally is not a hindrance, and by extension stealth isn't a hindrance.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Internal storage has a drawback of limiting the amount and type of weapons/amount of fuel it can carry.
In other words it's a trade off.
Supercruise is all about power of the engine. No matter how light if the engine doesn't have enough power then it will not be able to maintain supercruise. The opposite is the same since no matter how heavy if the engine is powerful enough it can maintain supercruise as long as it is aerodynamically fit.

 

[Engineer]

Augh stealth does sacrifice maneuverability.

It's a trade off in design. To gain optimum stealth designers would require to sacrifice some aerodynamic design elements.

If that is true, F-22 wouldn't be wiping the floor in exercises.

Stealth and aerodynamics being trade-off of one another was true in first generation of stealth. We have moved way pass that long ago. F-22 shows both stealth and maneuverability can be achieved at the same time.

That is why they are adding Thrust vectoring so they can provide help in the disadvantage. This also is a trade-off since it adds extra weight.

Thrust-vectoring was thought to be of help, but real world exercises showed that is not the case.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

At the end you can't have the best of both worlds and require to balance the trade offs to make the best out of it.

You can, and if you cannot, you can come close to it. F-22 is an embodiment of this.

 

[Engineer]

Internal storage has a drawback of limiting the amount and type of weapons/amount of fuel it can carry.

In other words it's a trade off.

Not really. Internal hard points can be repositioned to adapt to the type of ordinances. External hard points cannot do that, thus are more limiting. As to extra fuel, F-22 can take on external tanks if needed.

A stealth airframe can always carry more, as the diagram above shows. However, we can't make stealth out of a non-stealthy airframe by carrying less.

Supercruise is all about power of the engine. No matter how light if the engine doesn't have enough power then it will not be able to maintain supercruise. The opposite is the same since no matter how heavy if the engine is powerful enough it can maintain supercruise as long as it is aerodynamically fit.

It is more than that. To begin with, Eurofighter has slightly higher thrust-to-weight ratio compared to the F-22, but F-22 can supercruise faster. Yes, power will help, but low drag is also important, and maintaining a clean exterior helps tremendously. This is why when someone claims stealth equates to less aerodynamics performance, it flies in the face of reality.

Supercruise also needs the engines to have high exhaust velocity, which is different concept to high thrust. No thrust can be developed if the air surrounding the aircraft moves faster than the engine exhaust.

 

[b787]

Recessed hard points got developed because external stores are draggy and bad for stealth. Your above example proved that carrying weapons internally is superior to carrying them externally.


These features are not exclusively available to non-stealth airframe. F-22 can perform in flight refueling, as well as carry external fuel tanks if need to. These features don't change the fact that non-stealth fighters still suffer from drag and stealth penalties due to external stores.


Eurofighter being smaller and lighter still couldn't fly as fast as F-22 in supercruise speed. That supercruise speed for Eurofighter decreases even further with external stores. Your keep on arguing about non-stealth airframe being better, but you have no evidence to show, and examples you raised debunk your own theory.

That is real world results, not results on basis of some marketing brochuer. Your own example shows thrust-vectoring did not help F-22 in getting on the tail of Eurofighter, so you are actually contradicting yourself. Thrust-vector only helps within your imagination.


F-22 can carry six BVR AAM and two WVR AAM internally, which is the typical air-to-air load on many non-stealth airframe as well. At the same time, F-22 has the fastest supercruise speed, and defeat most aircraft in WVR. So no, not carrying weapons externally is not a hindrance, and by extension stealth isn't a hindrance.

Internal weapons bays are not new, you simply do not see the reality, internal weapons bays were used in He-111s, B-29s, B-52s Tu-22Ms and only in few fighter/attack aircraft like A-5, F-111 and F-106.

Now why they applied them on stealth aircraft? probably you will say because they did not know they generate less drag! no they did not, they knew that even torpedo attack aircraft of WWII had internal weapons bays like the Judy.

They know since WWI that internal weapons bay reduce the ordnance and increase the size of the aircraft.

The only benefit they offer is they do not generate a radar signature like external ordnance only that, that increase in size comes with more drag.
however if they need more fuel they use external stations and the same goes for weapons

Eurofighter can fly at Mach 1.4 in super cruise mode, but here is the engine, not the aircraft, a supercruising engine has to be highly economical at such speed

 

[b787]

Not really. Internal hard points can be repositioned to adapt to the type of ordinances. External hard points cannot do that, thus are more limiting. As to extra fuel, F-22 can take on external tanks if needed.

A stealth airframe can always carry more, as the diagram above shows. However, we can't make stealth out of a non-stealthy airframe by carrying less.


It is more than that. To begin with, Eurofighter has slightly higher thrust-to-weight ratio compared to the F-22, but F-22 can supercruise faster. Yes, power will help, but low drag is also important, and maintaining a clean exterior helps tremendously. This is why when someone claims stealth equates to less aerodynamics performance, it flies in the face of reality.

Supercruise also needs the engines to have high exhaust velocity, which is different concept to high thrust. No thrust can be developed if the air surrounding the aircraft moves faster than the engine exhaust.

stealth aircraft of WWII

Stealth jet of 1959

I think engineers did not know internal weapons bays require more internal volume increasing the size of the aircraft and affecting the position of the engines plus adding extra air drag
stealth attack aircraft of WWII Grumman avenger with internal weapons bays