3D Thrust-Vectoring and Supercruise

[red_fox77]

Okay. Great to know. How much is a F-16? An Apache chopper?

Still I think it is a waste of money. I don't want to guess how much of those AIDS brake drugs you could get for the price of one kickass fighter jet... or how many mountain gorillas you could save (probably more than there is alive today). Hope you don't think I'm way too much out of topic.

cheers.

F-16 are about $30M. And I love it when hippies talk of buying drugs (legal or not) and saving gorillas with the money. So what happens when we get our ass kicked in the next war? Think there will be any money left over for saving gorillas? Nope, it's called reparations.

Go invent somethign that makes you a lot of money and then you can save the rainforest or whatever you chose. It's the business of the government to keep us defended and provide basic social services. Not to save the gorillas in a country that produces as much coke as coffee.

Ranting here, sorry.

 

[red_fox77]

The MiG 1.42 is still way cooler. And better, as it is very unlikley to ever fight in a real battle, thus saving hundreds or thousends of human lives. .

Hundreds of thousands huh? F/A-22 is a better plane than every MiG flying right now. The Su-Flaker can probably outfly the F/A-22, but doesn't have it's speed or stealth advantage and would most likely lose the engagement.

As for the subject question i have two points:
1. I find it hard to believe that it would be impossible to construct a jet engine capable of supersonic flight without the use of an afterburner.
2. The mechanics of directing the thrust, may it be flaps or a moveable nozzle, is of no importance for the definition of "thrust vectoring".

1. OK, but believe it. Most military jet engines actually push gas out at supersonic spesds, but the aircraft doesn't get above mach because of drag. The F/A-22 has two of the most powerful jet engines on it, hands down.

2. Wrong. Are you just trying to agrivate people?

 

[dhanyaprakash]

hi! i want to know...what are the measures taken for stealth in thrust vectored aircraft.
and is there anything called puff in thrust vectoring.

 

[ajSpades]

Talking with an F-22 test pilot from Edwards gave me a lil insight into how the Raptor is able to attain supersonic speeds without the use of an afterburner. The F-22 initially climbs to an altitude between 40000 and 45000 feet. At this altitude the air is less dense, which produces less drag on the aircraft. At military (approx 70-80% max power) the F-22 goes into a shallow dive, increasing its speed past Mach 1 to approx Mach 1.5. Once the aircraft has pushed through the sound barrier the drag on the aircraft reduces, allowing military power to sustain its supersonic speed. The Raptor is then able to return to operating altitudes (30000 - 35000 feet) while remaining supersonic.

This method of supercruising is not necessarily an issue of having the required power to muscle through the sound barrier and increased transonic drag. It has been theorized that other aircraft (F-4, F-15, F-111, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale) may be able to "supercruise" using this technique. However, because I am not privy to how the other aircraft may or may not be able to supercruise I cannot comment on those. In several flight simulation games (Microsoft Flight Simulator, Janes F-15, and Lock-On Modern Air Combat) my friend and I have been able to attain supersonic flight without afterburners with an F-15 in the clean configuration and internal fuel only using the above mentioned technique. However, these are merely simulations and cannot be relied on as how actual aircraft may be able to supercruise.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...and better, as it is very unlikley to ever fight in a real battle, thus saving hundreds or thousends of human lives. The main drawback with all machines of destruction is that they are nothing but machines of destruction, monuments of our evil and bloodthirsty souls. "If you don't want anyone to drop the bomb, don't build the bomb" is the way we should think, not "lets build the bomb before anyone else does" because maintaining the terror balance is the easiest way to put everything else out of balance. We waste far too much energy and money on increasingly advanced and ingenious ways to killing each other, instead of trying to live in harmony. And peace.

Still I think it is a waste of money. I don't want to guess how much of those AIDS brake drugs you could get for the price of one kickass fighter jet... or how many mountain gorillas you could save (probably more than there is alive today).

I prefer to let nature decide what happens to the mountain gorillas

I'm afraid your have a terribly narrow-minded view of the world around you. Utopian pipe dreams of world peace are utterly impossible due to human nature, an unfortunate but real trait of our species.

I would prefer our military remains as up-to-date as possible to assure we are able to defend ourselves from the many people around the world that do not share your sentiments of living in harmony.

 

[Sojourner01]

Of course. Because even though the enemies you could beat hands down in the 70s are using the same old ex-soviet crap today and haven't advanced at all, you still need more advanced weaponry.

Military technology is a racket, plain and simple.

 

[Danger]

You know, what started out here as a very interesting discussion of aerodynamics has become so political that I can't stand to read it any more.
ajSpades and Mech... your posts were quite in line with the way that things should be done here, and I learned a lot from both of you. Thank you. Unfortunately, I'm bailing out of this thread because of the aforementioned political biases. Catch you on the flip-side.

 

[FredGarvin]

Military technology is a racket, plain and simple.

Care to expand on that comment? Please enlighten us how that is. I am especially interested since I work on a few military R&D programs.

 

[Sojourner01]

Care to expand on that comment? Please enlighten us how that is. I am especially interested since I work on a few military R&D programs.

Governments fund and purchase military equipment and projects that aren't necessary, for a variety of reasons. Cases in point: F-22; unnecessary; the current heavyweight fighter, the F-15, is already superior. Commanche and Crusader; canceled after huge expenditure because they were tactically worthless.

The major guilty party, of course, is the US. Is the US any better at winning wars now than it was 30 years ago, after huge expenditure in arms development? No, it is not. The main reason, as far as I can see, to heavily fund arms development is to keep those companies afloat. You'd want to do this for two reasons: Firstly, jobs and economic growth. Defence industries employ large numbers of highly skilled personnel and are major customers for many other industries. The high salaries of their skilled workers serve to invigorate the economy. Secondly, those companies are always around in case the government they contract for gets itself in dodge and really needs some rapid development of new technology. The idea that large military budgets spent on the latest high tech toys are necessary for the safety of a nation is a complete fallacy.

 

[RainmanAero]

I think I'll step in here if no one minds, given I know something about these things...

F-22; unnecessary; the current heavyweight fighter, the F-15, is already superior.

Incorrect, and under-informed. Do you know the RCS (that's Radar Cross Section) of an F-15 as compared to an F-22? Hardly superior. And moreover, since the F-15 does have a larger RCS, its chance of being detected and detroyed (and thus the loss of a life) can be statistically and physically be shown to be quite a bit higher than the F-22. These are facts, not underinformed opinions such as you have offered. Do you know that the F-22 is much more fuel efficient because of the Supercruise capability? That is superior to the F-15 and ANY other country's supersonic fighter.

Commanche and Crusader; canceled after huge expenditure because they were tactically worthless.

Again, a trite response that is vacuous in its facts. For the time when the Comanche was first built (development, not production) the Comanche fit the tactical need at that time. In the intervening years the operational scenarios changed from battlefield encounters to what we are seeing now in Iraq, where a weapon system like the Comanche would not bring the benefits of its cost. The decision to NOT continue the Comanche to full-scale production was a prudent one. But that has absolutely no bearing on the technology developed during the DEM/VAL phase. I served for a time as the lead flight control systems engineer on the Comanche before it was terminated. There are many technologies that were developed on that program (similar to the F-15 vs. F-22 comparision above) which can and will be carried through on future vehicles and in retrofits. Again, you are passing judgement on these vehicles only from what you know, and I can tell you know fairly little technically, for you are not taking the technical factors into account.

Is the US any better at winning wars now than it was 30 years ago, after huge expenditure in arms development? No, it is not.

By what metric are you coming to that conclusion? You can't just expect to throw out a naked assumption like that without supporting it with real numbers and hard facts. Are you aware of the combat casualty rate? Do you know how much it has gone down since the Vietnam era? That is a metric that would definitely prove your naked assumption incorrect.

The main reason, as far as I can see, to heavily fund arms development is to keep those companies afloat. You'd want to do this for two reasons: Firstly, jobs and economic growth. Defence industries employ large numbers of highly skilled personnel and are major customers for many other industries. The high salaries of their skilled workers serve to invigorate the economy. Secondly, those companies are always around in case the government they contract for gets itself in dodge and really needs some rapid development of new technology.

These are two reasons, but not the primary reason. The primary reason is to always strive for better... not only because it assures you of having the best weapons, but because it leads to breakthroughs and technological benefits (ever hear of GPS and Internet? Both came from DoD) that can eventually benefit the whole society. But another reason is one you infer but never state outright... that is the fact that "one you lose technical dominance, it is downright difficult, if not impossible to ever get it back." Or as a admired president from our 60s said about our quest for the moon "'We do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard." (JFK) That, in and of itself, is worth the investment of society, even if no war is ever fought again (fat chance).

The idea that large military budgets spent on the latest high tech toys are necessary for the safety of a nation is a complete fallacy.

And again I must tell you that you are very one-sided in your analysis. That is not an insult, it is simply a fact. You have overlooked facts (such as the force multipler and life-saving benefits of stealth) to serve your agenda.

I'd suppose you think the F-35 is not needed because the F-18s and F-16s are "good enough", huh? And if you think so, I can give you some public facts about the JSF and what it means for force modernization and operational availability, to name just two metrics.

Let's talk hard facts, shall we? And we will see if you are even aware of some of the facts I deal with every day in my job.

Rainman

 

[FredGarvin]

Governments fund and purchase military equipment and projects that aren't necessary, for a variety of reasons. Cases in point: F-22; unnecessary; the current heavyweight fighter, the F-15, is already superior.

For how long? The Sukhoi with thrust vectoring is flying, and quite well at that. How long until Russia starts stamping out copies? How long does it take to develop a fighter? That is not a reactionary endeavor. Once you realize that you are getting your butt kicked, or that the enemy is close to kicking your butt, it's too late. That is the attititude of new weapons design. To stay AHEAD of the curve. Also, technically superior does not tell the entire story. The F-22 is also expected to help save operational costs in the long run.

Commanche and Crusader; canceled after huge expenditure because they were tactically worthless.

As a former Army aviator, I can tell you that your comment about the Comanche is not true. I had the opportunity to work on a part of the Comanche. The aircraft was flying and in working test flights when it was cancelled. There were a lot of reasons it wass cancelled, the top one being budgetary constraints, especially with the war in Iraq looming. The Crusader...well...not every military project is a success. However, I will bet you 10:1 that we will see something in the future that was possible due to work on that program.

The major guilty party, of course, is the US. Is the US any better at winning wars now than it was 30 years ago, after huge expenditure in arms development? No, it is not.

Actually, it is. Have you seen the statistics on things like pinpoint munitions vs. conventional bombing? In Desert Shield we covered more ground, faster than any other military action. If anything has lagged in our war fighting is on the political end. Since we're asssigning guilt here, shouldn't you also be deriding all of the foreign governments that do the same thing? We hardly corner the market on government funded military research.

The main reason, as far as I can see, to heavily fund arms development is to keep those companies afloat.

You will be hard pressed to find any company that relies completely on government contracts.

You'd want to do this for two reasons: Firstly, jobs and economic growth. Defence industries employ large numbers of highly skilled personnel and are major customers for many other industries. The high salaries of their skilled workers serve to invigorate the economy.

So the government putting money back into the pockets of its civilians through work is a bad thing? FDR did it and he is considered a saint.

Secondly, those companies are always around in case the government they contract for gets itself in dodge and really needs some rapid development of new technology. The idea that large military budgets spent on the latest high tech toys are necessary for the safety of a nation is a complete fallacy.

I'll let you in on a little secret...our military has it's own, very large R&D development branches in each service. They are responsible for just as much development as us civilians. The main thing our government would need in a time of crisis would, most likely, be in the manufacturing sector's capabilities.

There are many leaps in technology that would have never happened or would have been greatly delayed had the prize of a government contract not been there. Great innovators like Sikorsky, Piascecki, Grumman and others owe their level success to their early military contracts. The governement is a great stimulus for innovaion that spills over to the civilian market sooner or later. Do you think you'd have a GPS in your car, or on every major ship and airplane today if it wasn't for the military?

 

[russ_watters]

We're done here...two years later.