/k/ - Weapons

>>600834

>Now that even the USAF has recognized the F-35 as a meme what would you like to see coming out of the the F-15X proposal?

According to articles, that I am not assed to search and link, the X will completely drop the stealth meme for affordability. That's a bad initiative in my opinion. Reduction of metallic parts for the favor of by definition non-radar-reflective composites does not only reduce weight but can drop the planes radar signature by one or two orders of magnitude with zero aerodynamic compromises and the increase of only a fraction of the planes maintenance cost, with the only possible long term drawback being lower repairability of composite parts. That's why all 4.5 gen-built fighters make extensive use of composites and RCS-reduction measures and if it was so expensive then the Super Hornet would have no reason of existence.

And yes, mass production of F-15SE/F-15SMTD hybrids without the stupid internal bays would be cool but unfortunately the F-15X program seems to be oriented towards simply restarting the F-15C production line.

>>600841

Also as much as it pains me no costumer seems to give a fuck about thrust vectoring anymore due to budget cuts technological complexity and questionable usefulness in air-combat.

We unfortunately are back to the BVR air combat Vietnam era meme.

>>600843

Thrust vectoring is a meme so far as any ACM is to be considered. All your doing is throwing away energy for a questionable gain in changes to AoA and direction. It's not going to save your ass against an opponent who has managed his energy wisely, he'll just yoyo you to death or clobber you with a lag displacement roll. Same as the cobra maneuver, it impresses the kiddies at airshows.

So far as stealth goes, I'd rather have a decent ECM suite and good situational awareness. Stealth is great for sneaking in to pop off a few smart bombs at night time but what fighter pilot wants a wonky airplane in the middle of an energy contest? Stealth designs are not known for having the type of desirable instability that a fighter ought to have.

Then you have other considerations: navalisation, range, weapons bay capacity. You're just not going to get bang for buck out of a stealthy jet if you attempt to deploy it as a front line fighter. Better off using them for SEAD/DEAD

>>600851

>for a questionable gain in changes to AoA and direction

Which might be the answer in a dogfight. Also thrust vectoring benefits are not only dogfight-related. They can theoretically allow lesser loss of energy than moving aerodynamic surfaces for the same turn rate in high speeds and more dramatically they can improve low speed controlability and decrease take off/landing distance and approaching speed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_STOL/MTD#Design_and_development

>Landing on just 1,650 ft (500 m) of runway compared to 7,500 ft (2,300 m) for the standard F-15

>>600853

I'm dubious of any study trying to tell me that thrust-vectoring can compensate from the sheer amount of drag imposed upon an aircraft by its' use. Think about it, you're using the entire airplane as a control surface instead of a very small part.

The runway thing makes it a lot more appealing though.

>>600856

> you're using the entire airplane as a control surface

Actually NO YOU FUCKING DON'T. At worst exposing the aircraft's side is just an inevitability that you would still not avoid using aerodynamic surfaces that BY DEFINITION create drag to exert turning force while thrust vectoring are negligibly affected or drag creating in their own right, most energy lost by T/V is from creating an angle between propulsory force and the aircraft's moving trajectory. The reason T/V can be detrimental is not from use but by abuse that creates situations like a rookie pilot trying to do a multi-track drift with it.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that a motorcycle that can run on its back wheel is worse than one that can't because more retard show-offs get killed by trying to lift it on one wheel.

>>600856

I should qualify by saying that you could probably build a good aircraft around the concept of thrust vectoring if that is your primary engineering focus but I think that attempting to shoe-horn stealth into a design that uses what is, essentially so far as I can tell, engine controlled departure to maneuver then you're going to end up robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It would be best to stick to a pure design that exploits whatever gains can be made by that technology than trying to do "too much" at once. Hence their ought to be two types, your vectored air superiority design and your stealthy jet that can fuck up an enemy IADS and still defend itself. Having both working in unison would be preferable to one mediocre design that does both jobs half as well.

>>600859

> while thrust vectoring nozzles

>>600834

F-15 is kind of like Su-27, both platforms have ridiculous growth potential.

What happened to that F-15 which carried like 40 missiles? Is that still going into service?

>>600851

>Thrust vectoring is a meme

Already shat on you in another thread and can't be assed to write it again so here >>600664

>>600899

Still selling the dogfight meme FSB, go home. You're drunk and your side never had an airforce when "dogfighting"was relevant anyway.

Energy is king nigger.

>>600901

Energy stopped being king when we introduced decent missiles. You going to "yo yo" a missile out of energy? Go home your wife is fucking an emu.

>>600903

>Implying a Mach 2 fighter can't outrun a missile IF IT HAS ENOUGH ENERGY.

A F-104 could wipe the floor with a fucking Su-27 and outrun any shit you fire at it while your silly slav jet flops around and kills people at airshows

>>600908

It can't because the missile has 100:1 trust to weight ratio, it's not even a contest.

>A F-104 could wipe the floor

It could impact the floor maybe, but I doubt it would even see the Su-27 before it got hit.

>>600903

Are you going to out-turn the R-73 then? This isn't like your video games, the only way to survive a missile exchange is to use superior speed and altitude to exhaust the incoming missile's energy.

>>600908

Bad example, the Su-27 is right up there with the F-15 in terms of speed and climb rate.

>>600915

>Are you going to out-turn the R-73 then?

Not sure about the lighter thrust-vectoring Archer/Sidewinder-X in particular but generally you can. Missiles have impressive g-loadings in paper thanks to their speed and thrust to weight but their turning radius is way bigger than the average fighter performing evasive maneuvers. The pilot just has to be aware of the missile and position himself properly before starting evasive maneuvers.

>>600834

>Defense contractor/politician dropping massively overhyped, overcosted, under-preforming project

>In favour of something far less sexy that does a better job and has been 'just werks'ing for a few decades now.

OK. Which one of you guys swapped this timeline for one that's significantly more awesome? This was never meant to happen. Next you'll be telling me that they're reviving the SPIW and .280 round. I thought the deal was that we didn't get anything that fun and in exchange we got ….. wait, what did we get in exchange for that again?

>>600915

>Are you going to out-turn the R-73 then?

Yes? How the fuck do you think an A-10 escapes surface to air missiles on the regular? Turn into the missiles path on a converging vector, and then diverge once you enter the missiles turn radius. It can't do anything.

Aside from standard evasion tactics there are three other things you can do to escape a missile: Kill the other guy before he launches; ECM which works 1/3rd of the time on a good day; and ejection.

There is no way to outrun our EXHAUST THE ENERGY of a mach 4 missile with 150km range when every fight is taking place in ~50km zone.

>>600834

F-15X is F-22.

>>601357

It's an electronic warfare beast.

It's going to be re-engined for more performance, and it already has pretty stellar performance.

And its actually based on F-15E, with the improved airframe, so it can carry way more ordnance (16 x AMRAAM?)

Thing is a brutal BVR missile fencer, a single wing of them backed by an AWACS can take down an entire peer foe air force.

>>600915

>, the Su-27 is right up there with the F-15 in terms of speed and climb rate

Funny thin is that F-104 is much better supersonic cruiser (range) than Su-27 and F-15. It is only beaten by Mig-31. Born ahead of its age.

>>601433

Can you fuck off with the widowmaker shilling.

>>601433

The funniest thing is that it had as much trouble to take off as it had to land with its pilot intact. Probably the only plane in history with which landing was easier than lift-off.

>>600859

> most energy lost by T/V is from creating an angle between propulsory force and the aircraft's moving trajectory.

This loss is much larger than drag loss from aerodynamic surfaces. Wings (stabilizers are wings too) have lift-to-drag ratio in the 10 range. In worst case in the 4-5 range. That means aerodynamic surfaces creates 4-5 units of drag per 1 unit of rage. In worst case, mostly higher. With TVC at 30 degrees angle you create 3.7 units of 'lift" (side thrust) per 1 unit of lost forward thrust.

>>601571

Yes but aerodynamic drag increases dramatically with speed, especially from transonic forward while tv is not affected, and more importantly, tv is performing pretty much consistently at every angle of attack without losing its control with stalls. That said, having thrust vectoring on default combat maneuvering is probably not a good idea but it can be invaluable for defensive maneuvering and opportunistic openings, just put a tv-enabling pinkie-button in the HOTAS controls.

>>601579

>Yes but aerodynamic drag increases dramatically with speed

Lift increases dramatically too. So you need less deflection of stabilizer to achieve same lift (control authority). Ratio between produced lift and drag is … lift-to-drag ratio.

>stalls

This is only where TVM is really useful

>>600945

>A-10

>escapes surface to air missiles on the regular

The US has only had to bomb targets with their A-10s under the luxury of nigh-complete air supremacy, against targets with literally no surface to air capabilities (besides pointing their DshKs upwards). As much as grunts cheer it on for its ability to kill goat herders for them, the A-10 is fucked against a modern IADS that hasn't been degraded.

>>601643

A point for you- Modern SPAAG will eat A-10 alive- not much Pantsir won't

A point against you- The point of deliberate deep C3 strikes is to disintegrate IADS for CAS and CAP over forward airspace, sending any aircraft directly into undegraded IADS is suicide. You need to break up layered support usually via communication disruption both EW and physical

>>600945

Tighter turn radius the A-10 has- but the archer is a snappy turner and its IRCCM and speed will get the better of the A-10 I reckon. You can literally spin in place whereas a faster moving and less maneuverable Camry cannot but the driver will still run you the fuck over- the speed of archer is four times in excess of its target depending on launch distance, and if what you said is true modern missiles would hardly ever be a threat, and BVR combat would be a complete joke. The energy game is still played with both SAM systems and AAM, I can assure you of that.

>>600945

>Yes? How the fuck do you think an A-10 escapes surface to air missiles on the regular?

By picking on people that don't have any? Or at least any left?

Every-time A-10 have been shot at by something not made in the 60's they've been downed.

In fact one was even downed by an antique SA-9…

>>603131

>Every-time A-10 have been shot at by something not made in the 60's they've been downed

You mean like the 50's SAM that shot down the F-117?

>>603312

Draken >> Viggen >>>>> VW Beetle >>>>>>>>>>>> Tornado

>>603395

what's wrong with the TornadoIDS?

>>603520

I don't even know why the ADV receives so much hate. It was okay.

How about this produced under a non-cost plus contract?

Crew: 2 (pilot, co-pilot)

Missiles: 2 × AIM-120 AMRAAM

Bombs: 30 × GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_FB-22

Is there a reason why you couldn't do something like that but use a rotary unity to fit up to 30 Air to Air missiles?

>>603636

Rotary shit generally add frontal frontal surface unless you elongate the airframe which kinda fucks the CoG of the plane and that's a big no for fighters. Maybe for a dedicated hit and run interceptor it could work but you'd need the stealth meme to that safely.

And yes, a redesigned for air-combat FB-22 without the divertless air-intakes would potentially make a very good interceptor for MiG-31's role.

>>603092

If it looks right it flies right. This shit does not look right.

>>603724

>>603717

>>603092

Buy jap F-2, put the AN/APG-83 in the nose, the DSI on it's mouth and the Low-Observable Asymmetric Nozzle on it's ass (which all exist for that engine/shape).

Bam! Instant 4.5 cheapo stealth-ish fighter with crazy good perfs.

Can you hear that?

>OY VEY, MUH SHEKELS, ANUDASHOAH, BUY THE F-35 GOY§§§

>>603717

This man is correct, its an aerodynamically inefficient design.

>>603803

1. Buy F-20 Tigershark design and tooling.

2. Reduce aircraft weight by 15% using some composites instead of all steel.

3. Increase thrust by 23% using F414 instead of F404.

4. Fighter now has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.6 when modern fighters struggle to breach 1.0.

5. Mach 2.2 top speed, 20,000m altitude.

6. Costs $19 million in 2018 money and has a lower flight cost than Gripen.

7. Six medium range missiles, almost as much as a full sized fighter like F-22.

>>603838

How about this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier

but with modern day engines that enable super cruise,and with that rotary bay?

Shouldn't we stick with steel to reduce costs and make maintenance cheaper?

>>603842

That's more of a full sized fighter, I was trying to go smaller…

>>603723

ASF-14 is the superior choice.