by Zen on 02 Jul 2003 16:20
"Not ignorance, but willing to see real aircraft, not an advertising picture with cool words. "
I do not deny that there has been some 'advertising' but also there has been much denigration of the Typhoon often for political reasons and by its competitors particularly in the USA. Once can hear 'advertising' about any plane made by any company in any country.
"What about a maximal attack angle with this load on supercruise speed (without reheat?)
With extended flaps?
Or in roll?
In climb?
Most if not all of the plane's research and testing flights have been done at military weights with six AAM's along with its airdisplays.
One does not fly a plane at supersonic speed and try a maximum AoA or extend the flaps out fully.
The plane is designed to fly with supersonic agility that means climb, dive, roll, and turn while maintaining supersonic speed.
"I saw here, in gallery, EF-2000 with reheat in climb. "
And that proves what? I've seen aircraft with afterburners lit in a climb and with afterburners not lit and in a climb, so what is your point?
"In other words, you want to say, that 3000-12000 m - zone, where SAM kill good, but at the 15 000 m - SAM abdruptly loose all combat effectivness, and cannot to shoot flying supersonically EF?
Do you mean that pilot in EF can manage higher G, that SAM missle, and outmanevre SAM at the high alltittude soon rather ?
Or it will be great return to high-alltitude and supersonic air combats?
What wiil be doing EF-2000 at supercruise alltitude?
GAS? or cover strike machines? I think that supercruise speed and turn ability is not optimized for real combat, for example, interception of strike aircraft, that fly at M=0,8 near surface, or combat with group of fighters, covering they. "
No but SAM's performance depends on its design and most targets are located under 40,000ft. Missile performance gradually reduces beyond certain altitudes as it does for some SAM's below certain altitudes. Generally the larger the missile the higher it can reach, but as the missile design gets larger the size of its launcher etc makes it more visible and slower to reposition.
Most SAM's are still rocket driven and rely on kinetic energy to coast to their target, every maneuver reduces that store of energy that is always being depleted by gravity as well. Thus if a plane is high and fast and able to maneuver well it can with the aid of decoys, ECM etc considerably increase its survivability against SAM's by maneuvering supersonically forcing the missile to maneuver hard to keep on target and lose more kinetic energy.
G is a relative feature dependant of speed and turn radius. 50 G at mach 4 produces a much larger turn radius than at say mach 2 or at subsonic speed.
It is more difficult to shoot down a supersonic plane than a subsonic plane or do you disagree?
"About engine.
Optimized for supercruise - is mean, that hot contour of optimized engine, eat more air, than one in non-optimized, non-supercruise engine.
If we have better engine on supercruise, its mean, that subsonic qualites will be worse... "
True and the Eurojet is a compromise between supersonic and subsonic performance as most fighter engines are. But they hardly eat more air. Rather they compress the air available more than a subsonic engine and that raises the temperature throughout the engine.
"I know, that cruise mode - its a so mode, when we have maximal fuel effectivity - litres of fuel on km of way.
when we have minimal litres of fuel on kilometer of way - we have cruise speed.
Throttle, is not main indicator.... "
True but one trades efficiency in part for a higher cruise speed.
"But I know, that only Soviet titanium ASM can fly 2Mach at sea level.
And even with reheat, maximum speed of military aircrafts(F-4, F-15) no more than 1500-1600 km\h at sea level.
So, I think that to achive speed more than 1300, and less, than 1600 km\h at sea level - senseless, because of higher drag due the transonic effects.
Thus, NO supercruise at sea level. "
No while it is true that the engineering effort is higher to produce a plane that can fly at Mach 2 at sea level it was considered in the UK as part of ER.134Tin 1952. In which firms competing for tender had to include structural provision for mach 2 at sea level. AWA.166 design offered that by fitting a steal wing and airframe for their design and improved cockpit cooling. This design was considered the best but due to workload Bristol won with the Type 188 (which was rather a disaster).
Steal will do though I agree titanium is better.
The pressure and temperature rises are within the boundaries of materials and the design is dictated by the need for low drag but otherwise it is well within the realms of possibility to produce a plane that can fly at mach 2 at sea level. Controllability to avoid collisions at that altitude at that speed is however a more difficult problem.
A car (really a wingless plane) has exceeded the speed of sound in the USA called Thrust SSC and British built and driven. Thus large vehicles can travel beyond the speed of sound at very low level.
Drag rises at the transonic region at all altitudes for all planes it is the every nature of the transonic region.
Senseless it may be but achievable it is also.
"Its not comprehesive, please, take it with your own words. "
Explain?
There was much argument on weather to make the plane or the missile agile and ultimately we decided that both was the best choice. Much work was done to consider what was best for our defence and supersonic agility won out.
"In other words, when disapper CCCP, "we cant spent money for specialised machines, and make only 1 universal EF" "
I do not deny that specialised machines cost more and that budgets have fallen since 1990. As they have in Russia and throughout NATO save for the USA. Once plane that can perform attack and air combat missions, are cheaper than two different planes of different design. It allows for a larger spares base and wider pool of machines to draw from for a specific mission along with simplifying the training needs and costs.
The plane was originally designed during the cold war for defence against Warsaw pact and CCCP forces. Perhaps you prefer the hatred and suspicion of those days? Peace is cheaper than 'cold war'.
"I think, that weight questions were more important, than aspects of surviving......
But what about unarmored engines?
Fire one, and EF-2000 cant return to base.... "
Wieght is a factor true, but not the only factor.
Unarmored engines…..So who has armoured engines? Few aircraft I have heard of have armoured engines, the A10 being one of them.
If it had only one engine then it would have fallen out of the sky. The plane can limp back home on one engine. But that criticism can be leveled against most if not all fighters.
"I mean little high-speed metall spheres from warhead "
The plane is deisgned to handle damage to some extent as all combat planes are, the systems are capable of self diagnosis and 'graceful degradation' rather than 'catastrophic failure' along with re-ruoting of control signals via multiple fibre optic cables, as are most modern fighters.
"SAM S-200 is designed to carry Nuclear warhead. "
Once a nuke goes off the nature of that conflict will change considerably. If we where to receive intelligence of SAM's being equipped with nuclear warheads in a conflict it would raise a proportionate response and those SAM's would become prime target's for destruction.
Do you envisage war between us then?
"But I cant imagine "supercruise" EF-2000 with 2*1500 kg bombs, or 24*250 kg high-explosive bombs..... "
I didn't say with 2*1,500kg or 24*250kg weapons. With six AAM's (4 semi-recessed AMRAAM's and 2 low drag pylon mounted ASRAAM's) possibly with 2*1,000ltr drop tanks.
Possibly with 2*low drage weapons and fewer AAM's it might be done. I do not make exravagant claims on this. Besides can Flanker 'supercruise' with that load?
"Or Ef-2000 has radar to follow a surface? "
The radar can be programmed to do so if necessary but to the detriment of air search, once AMSAR is available it will be able to perform both functions aparently at once along with other fucntions.
"Because no more Soviet armour brigades in eastern Europe. "
No because that plane is less survivable than it used to be especially against modern fighters and SAM's. And those divisions cost you a lot of money to keep in existence and ready to fight, perhaps you prefer the 'good old days'?
to win without fighting that is the mastery of war
