02d2a8 No.627963
Since "dogfighting" is dead, air to air missiles easily match-up fighters' turn radius and bigger is better since you can stuff more high-tec avionics countermeasures and trinkets, why don't fighter-developers orientate towards heavy class interceptors like the past Tu-28 and the proposed Tu-160P and B-1R for front line duty and modified airliners/strategic airlifters as missile-trucks for air-policing?
Imagine a B 747-8 with a practically limitless supply of AMRAAMs, Meteors and chaff/flares, yuge jammers self-defense packages of Air Force One and strategic bombers, laser active point-defense against at least heat-seeker missiles, an interception radar for each frequency and a FLIR on every side of the airframe, the ability to stay on air for half a day, as well as secondary AWACS, EW and tanker capabilities for support of conventional fighters escorts when traditional air-combat warranted. It would probably be also be far more cost-effective than trying to miniaturize all these features for fighter-sized aircraft as the current trend is.
Why is it not happening?
5177ca No.627965
why not use a dirigible airship?
ad078e No.627968
>>627963
>Why is it not happening?
Because you still have to identify a target. Otherwise Malaysian Airways will end up losing a lot of planes.
ffeb32 No.627971
Planes are obsolete anyway. Everything will be missiles.
02d2a8 No.627973
>>627968
>implying visual identification happens with naked eyes
You can fit a freaking astronomical telescope if that was an issue.
13c67b No.627976
>>627963
Because radar profile.
ffcade No.627977
>>627971
You burgers told us the same thing when you sold us the Bomarc fifty-odd years ago.
5b56f9 No.627978
>Since "dogfighting" is dead
Did the Turks embarrass one of your pilots again, OP
02d2a8 No.627980
>>627978
Time for your daily dose of things that never happened, mehmet?
Btw I intended to say
>"dogfighting is dead"
since it's an often quoted line by burgers.
c11266 No.627982
>>627963
>make one huge target
Never a good idea if you can avoid it. In situations where it has proven unavoidable (e.g. carriers) pretty much everything else has to be dedicated to protecting that one expensive target and you lose a lot of flexibility.
c35081 No.628013
>>627971
Tell me more, Mr. McNamara.
931693 No.628015
Against trained pilots in similar planes missiles still miss more than they hit, this is because once the RWR goes off you can pull 9g's, get on the beam, nose down 45deg, light the burners and get an energy kill on the incoming missile, this isn't on option if you weigh 60 tons.
also high g-loading is the primary reason drone fighters are being considered
661fba No.628030
>>627963
Why even include an aircraft at that point?
>The Russian 40N6E SAM has a range of 400km.
>A maximum speed of Mach 12 (4083.48 m/s).
>Can engage targets at a maximum altitude of 185km (giving it at least limited ASAT capabilities).
>Has been tested against targets from 185km altitude down to 'very low' altitude out to its maximum range.
Switch your air assets to AWACs, recon etc, to detect targets as close to the maximum range as possible; relay that data to ground based (E)LRSAM and have them engage from about a hundred times the distance to the horizon. Even with the cost of those missiles it's got to be cheaper to fire them from a truck rather than a multi-million dollar nth gen aircraft.
>But what about muh CAS and muh bombing!
<What_are_SRBMs?.jpg
Even if this plan would be a huge shift, and even if it might be a little less practical, just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that it would cause in the head office at Lockheeb.
02d2a8 No.628034
>>628030
Because airborne missiles by definition have a significant kinetic and positional advantage over SAMs of the same weight.
3f0f9e No.628047
>>628034
>SAMs of the same weight.
But if you're launching them from the ground it's not as big a deal if they're heavy
3f0f9e No.628048
>>628030
So basically the reason we don't do what Russia does is that their military is set up for cheaply defending territory or advancing on their immediate neighbors whereas ours is set up for very expensively projecting power anywhere in the world.
bb2d1e No.628054
>>627963
That might work if you replaced the extremely limited and expensive fighters with cheap drones. Otherwise you've got a good old charlie foxtrot type situation on your hands.
6ad263 No.628055
>>628048
>So basically the reason we don't do what Russia does is that their military is set up for cheaply defending territory or advancing on their immediate neighbors whereas ours is set up for very expensively projecting power anywhere in the world.
Well yeah.
And it was already like that in the cold war, the USSR was never gear up toward force projection (neither actual wartime occupation as Afghanistan proved with most soldiers dying due to a lack of proper logistics and temporary life supporting facilities).
But don't worry the US is totally not an evil force seeking world domination (for Israel). You're totally the good guys in that story. The TV said so.
7cd750 No.628062
>>628015
Ah but you see fellow emu man, thanks to the wonders of IR seeker heads in combination with IRST's with claimed effective ranges of up to 80kms on a sub sonic target, in future pilots might not even get an RWR proc.
661fba No.628065
>>628034
>SAMs of the same weight
Which is why I was suggesting a switch to much larger, faster, SAMs over AAMs that have had every 10th of a gram shaved off them in development.
>>628048
>ours is set up for very expensively projecting power anywhere in the world
I thought that most NATO armies were currently run with the specific intention of transferring taxpayers money to whichever defence contractor donated the most to the US Presidents campaign fund?
8ef6b9 No.628066
>>627980
m8 you're absolutely retarded and your thread is shit. Kill yourself.
931693 No.628076
>>628062
In that case the IRST would tie into the RWR and pick up the massive IR signature of a missile coming off the rails.
Sure being the first to have effective IRST would be an advantage but just like radar it won't be long until everyone has it and is using it as a counter.
02d2a8 No.628078
>>628066
>you're absolutely retarded
>said the roach that capitalizes "turk"
Keep finding burger VPNs, mustafa.
8ef6b9 No.628079
>>628078
Imagine being this much of a sperg
0654cf No.628080
>>628066
>>628079
>>627978
I wonder who could be behind those abhorrent posts
02d2a8 No.628083
>>628065
I see where you're coming from, and yes and airborne advantages become more and more negligible as SAM's size increases, but that's pretty much the point of the OP, there's not a single size advantage of autonomous mobile ground-based missile-carrying platforms compared to larger wide-body aircraft and not a single anti-air or even dedicated anti-ICBM missile that cannot be carried by them not sure if launching the biggest ones, like the ABM-3 Gazelle, would be plausible since there's not an official preceden, but at that point the missile costs more than the vast majority of targets. Choosing SAM over fighter is mostly an issue of cost, not performance.
02d2a8 No.628084
>>628079
>imagine being of lower than 90 IQ
f0ae54 No.628128
>>627963
> why don't fighter-developers orientate towards heavy class interceptors like the past Tu-28 and the proposed Tu-160P and B-1R for front line duty and modified airliners/strategic airlifters as missile-trucks for air-policing?
Fighter muffia.
f0ae54 No.628130
>>628015
>he thinks RWR wouldn't be drawn in false alarms by ECM
661fba No.628143
>>628083
>there's not a single size advantage of autonomous mobile ground-based missile-carrying platforms compared to larger wide-body aircraft
<C-5 Galaxy, $ cost per hour of flight: $100'941
<Average Commercial freight truck, $ cost per mile: $1.38
Are the advantages of launching this theatre/strategic level SAM from the air worth a minimum 7314565% increase in the cost?
a4c84f No.628144
>>628084
Hey Greekanon, why don't you genocide the turks already? You'll be doing everyone a favor.
While you're at it, go for the albanians and gypsies too.
Goddamn do I miss Vlad Tepes. He was an inspiration to us all.
02d2a8 No.628149
>>628143
The C-5 covers 500 miles per hour so it's around $200 per mile and the flight cost includes ground maintenance.
Boeing 747-400 is around $25,000 per hour, around $40 per mile, using approximately $15,000 in fuel per hour.
Air Force One, based on 747-200B, costs $180,000 per hour to operate.
You can see how militarization scales up things and fuel isn't the issue, I seriously doubt a missile truck with sophisticated SAMs requiring more exotic fuel than cerosine, advanced hardware that replaces the pilot and even rudimentary sensors, assuming its interception capabilities are based on centralized early-warning radar, would not scale up the operating cost of a simple diesel-engine platform, that in its civilian use just has to roll on a straight line, way more dramatically than militarization of airliners would.
02d2a8 No.628156
>>628144
I'm afraid that contrary to frequent gyro claims exterminating the roaches on our own is simply impossible in terms of manpower and logistics, especially in times of debt. Our best bet is to keep our strong defense. inform people about the hazards of the infestation and wait for Germoney to snap and go apeshit again.
At the same time Cyprus is following a risky strategy of trying to outjew the jew and turn them against their fellow khazars for oils, we'll see how that pays out…
661fba No.628167
>>628149
Even if I am dramatically overestimating the price difference there is no way that a ground based firing platform is going to be more expensive than an aerial platform.
02d2a8 No.628211
>>628167
Of course but still the aerial platforms have significant advantages, at least for economic superpowers than can afford it.
dab706 No.628265
>>628030
>wailing
>gnashing of teeth
You forgot "rending of garments"
661fba No.628320
>>628211
For those of us that aren't economic superpowers ground based launch would still allow our militaries to just shut down theatre airspace for far lower cost than it would take the enemy to pierce the IADS reliably. I still think that's a reasonable approach to take, and the ground based heavy SAM would allow even NoBudget countries like Belgium to make the multi-billion dollar US Airforce useless - which would be more of a disruptive shift in warfare than the introduction of machine guns.
>>628265
That comes when the SAM contract goes to a company that actually offers them at a reasonable cost.
02d2a8 No.628353
>>628320
Is someone doubting his top5 econ superpower status or just too jaded by the Tornado ADV fiasco?
c11266 No.628362
>>628353
The USA is the only existing superpower and has been since 1991. It's delusional to think otherwise.
02d2a8 No.628365
>>628362
If you can handle a supercarrier one can safely assume you can handle a couple of VC-25-tier aircraft, it would be retarded for let's say France to waste money on them but you specifically have the vast Northern Sea to defend against big formations of unescorted ebul ruskie tupolevs to they point of warranting questionable expenditures like a purely-domestic development of a long range interceptor or marginal advantages to the F-4 and inferior maneuverability, as a matter of fact I think the UK would be the most in need for such aircraft.
661fba No.628370
>>628353
The only economic 'superpower' at the moment is the USA. They're probably not going to last long in that spot, but that's where they are for the moment.
>>628365
>you specifically have the vast Northern Sea to defend
In that case it could make sense to fire them from an aircraft, the cost of maintaining a 24/7 CAP over the North Sea isn't great but I doubt that keeping a large number of destroyers rotating through the the same waters would be anywhere near as effective (or possible) on the same budget.
3942e3 No.628388
because this is a thing + brrrrrrttt
>pic related
bb2d1e No.628394
>>628388
>1.5 kiloton air to air rocket
That seems a little excessive. I can understand the sense behind Annie or Davy but what could there possibly be up in the air that would take that much power to bring down?
f0ae54 No.628425
>>628394
>ungudied rocket
Its compensation for shit accuracy. Just launch in its general direction of Tu-95. Outside its cannon range
>hit!
1eba1e No.628446
>>628394
how suicidal do you have to be to stand underneath the explosion of a nuke?
b1256f No.628469
>>628446
Are you telling me you wouldn't do the same?
27a2b7 No.628549
>>627963
>>628015
Why not fly a bunch of high-speed, high-G fighter drones deployed form an air carrier like in OP? Without a pilot and with an airborne controller, you could probably have near-0 latency and be able to pull as many Gs as any missile. the -G is a HUGE dogfight advantage people dont pay attention to with drones.
nose-down at ~12Gs can literally throw your guts out of your mouth.
28d90c No.628550
>>628446
Just enough to join the army.
661fba No.628560
>>628549
How resilient would these drone need to be to punch through the target aircraft (multiple times per sortie) undamaged? While we're on the subject how fast would they have to be to be moving to maintain flight as they come out of the other side?
a7ab44 No.628569
>>628549
Experimentation has demonstrated that people can survive up to at least 40g, the issue is consciousness after 9.
931693 No.628570
>>628560
There isn't a plane engine in existence that would eat sheet metal and keep going let alone actually hitting the other planes jet core of solid titanium.
bb2d1e No.628573
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>628560
It wouldn't be so much a "plane" as it would be a SLAM made out of solid osmium.
661fba No.628574
>>628570
A rocket engine using liquid oxidiser rather than an air intake wouldn't need to to eat sheet metal, let alone jet core or solid titanium. That could drive the price up a bit though.
>>628573
pic related
27a2b7 No.628620
>>628569
Im sayign ~12g downwards. Being accelerated downwards throws your guts upwards, and there aren't any muscles that keep your organs tied down, they sort of 'hang' from muscles on your ribcage. upwards acceleration (positive g-load) is fine, because its just a more intense feeling of gravity, and your organs are designed to deal with gravity so everythign stays in place but under more load. Downwards acceleration (negative g-load) can tear the muscles that normally hold your organs up much more easily than the other way. I think you'll also pop both your eyes from blood pressure before you actually puke guts but my point stands. Humans can take roughly 1/3d the gs when being accelerated downwards compared to any other direction, and in a dogfight between a piloted fighter and drone fighter, the drone fighter has a significant advantage because of this.
IIRC the test where the man survived 40g was a forward acceleration(not up/down) test, on a rocket sled in nevada. I could be wrong though.
bb2d1e No.628626
>>628620
Has anyone ever tested a liquid cockpit?
931693 No.628630
>>628574
Good point, rocket engines are famous for never exploding and being extremely durable.
>>628626
How would that help? You are weightless floating is water because humans are basically neutrally buoyant not because liquids have some magical anti-gravity force.
27a2b7 No.628631
>>628626
Not to my knowledge. They might have done some really early testing with that on the same fucking rocket sled site, but being submerged in water does basically what a g-suit does anyways.
They both provide pressure all over your body to keep blood flowing to your brain and vital organs.
661fba No.628657
>>628630
Maybe I just play too much war thunder, but think of the amount an airforce would save on ammunition, missiles, and weapons training after adopting the rammer-drones!
13c67b No.628673
>>628670
>he thinks I'm an f35let because I acknowledge radar profiles exist, and that a jumbo jet has a significantly larger one than a single-man aircraft
a600d1 No.628684
>>628683
Friendly reminder that the radar detection range is a function of hypercube root of radar cross section. For every 16 times RCS is reduced, detection range is reduced 2 times.
1005e4 No.628686
>>628573
>the cave base tunnel exit is rifled
These were true followers of the /k/ube.
af623e No.628702
>>628684
It's a dimensional fractal of the time cube you idiot
be9577 No.628704
>>628684
There are only 4 races, White, Black, Asian, and Irish.
615249 No.628790
>>628704
The Ir*sh aren't human though.
b3c11d No.628868
>>627965
i would like to see you get one of those up to airliner speeds, on course, in crosswinds
a600d1 No.628876
>>628702
Hypercube means x⁴ you dolt. Hypercube root is ⁴√x
af623e No.628934
>>628876
>hypercube
Lol stop reading sci-fi novels and pick up a physics book that isn't for high schoolers. Time cube has a mass of y^4, which can be used in the equation to triangulate an airplane in the air using integer potential value division
f7bd56 No.628941
>>628934
>>628876
Fucking radars how do they work?
598d18 No.628953
>>628941
I've got no fucking idea, but I do know that F-35 can't be detected by any of them.
0474d9 No.629028
>>628953
What are radars not operating in the X band?
5190b3 No.629054
>>628953
It's more visible than this piece of shit, which got shot down with a 60s missile back in the 90s when everyone thought stealth was science fiction and no military in the world even bothered to take it seriously.
The world powers have had 30 years to take it seriously and deploy serious countermeasures, and this piece of shit is more stealthy than an F-35.
>>627968
Dumbass that missile was fired by a bunch of paramilitaries who only stole the missile truck. They literally lacked the iff, search, or tracking vehicles which a normal Buk platoon would have.
5190b3 No.629055
>>628704
7 distinct and 1 mullato "race"
be9577 No.629279
>>629055
>7
A disgrace to the hypercube, begone heathen!
fe6d50 No.631323
>>629279
>Not accepting the 7 (well, 6.999 recurring sided) sided meta-cube
How many dimensions are you working with bro?
0ada5c No.631445
>>628573
Wasn’t the city’s entire treasury in that car when superman destroyed it? The absolute mad man.
3bb827 No.631679
>>627963
>Since "dogfighting" is dead
wut
179ead No.631708
>>631679
Quotation mark misplacement:
>>627980
fe6d50 No.631810
>>631679
Dogfighting has been dead for decades bro, replaced by BVR air to air missiles. This thread has been about the potential value in abandoning the idea of the fighter/interceptor and to build S/AAM that can do the same job while being fired from a larger, cheaper, platform. Which part of that do you disagree with?
c28e90 No.631811
>>627971
this. it will be missiles armed with bombs to drop on secondary targets and smaller counter-anti-missile missiles. later models might have lasers for the counter-anti-missile system.
it will be like something out of an apocalyptic russian student cgi film.
37c8e5 No.631896
>>631811
But even the bestest muhssile can and will get spooked by Terrain, so unless you're the Netherlands or Sweden I don't think it'll work out that way.
I'm all for making Macross real though.
9fba2c No.632546
>>627963
They declared dogfighting dead in the 60's and eliminated guns on fighter jets in favor of guided missiles capable of hitting beyond visual range.
Then they got their asses handed to them by planes with guns, put guns back on all their fighters, and started a special school to teach pilots how to dogfight.
And now that stealth fighters that are difficult to lock onto, particularly at long range, are a thing, you honestly think dogfighting is dead and we'll just spam missiles at each other with bombers/fucking airliners?
fe6d50 No.632608
>>632546
>Then they got their asses handed to them by planes with guns
That was due to a political decision requiring 'visual identification' before engaging - and you know it.
bf2144 No.632615
How about we just say fuck it to missiles all together. This decision alone allows to dramatically simplify your plane.
Just fit an auto cannon or two of a suitable caliber, some radar, flir, and a bunch of countermeasures.
Then use your supreme maneuverability and low rcs to fuck up all those meme fighters from close range.
37c8e5 No.632728
>>632615
Also,
>ywn have man-portable air defence fighter drones
fe6d50 No.632739
>>632708
Come back when it's carrying a W53 warhead.
c2db00 No.632775
>>632615
That requires courage and not being a little bitch.
Seriously, stealth aircraft and gun attacks go together like peanut butter and chocolate… yet their ENTIRE structure is compromised by putting missile bays in it!
If you want a missile truck, just fit a dozen Patriot missiles into a square shaped "fighter" with the RCS of the state of wyoming, spam them all at 400km range at the first sensor ghost you have and then run to get rearmed.
Making a stealth fighter into a missile truck makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.
867751 No.632834
>>632615
And just how exactly are you expecting to get into close range where those guns would be effective without getting shredded by missiles? Missiles and radar allow modern birds to engage an enemy beyond visual range. The age of the dogfighter is over.
fe6d50 No.632857
>>632834
Unless you can find a way to fit a reliable CIWS system to the aircraft.
bf2144 No.632860
>>632834
Forgoing missiles allows you to carry a lot more countermeasures for starters.
For IR missiles you now have DIRCM. Maybe something similar can be done for radar. Maybe you could have multiple planes jam the same missile.
Or just tow a radar reflector at some distance behind your plane and call it a day.
f6a923 No.632898
>>632775
Except before the would-be gunner gets within firing range, the IRST and other non-radar sensors on the enemy fighter have already detected you in spite of your low RCS, and have just salvo'd missiles at you.
826804 No.632899
>>628211
>BNS São Paulo
We've decomissioned it in November and replaced it with the HMS Ocean.
43eed1 No.632928
>>632775
>>632898
Why not make a big missile carrying Ara and have it oper8te in concert with small flat-profiled unarmed aside from guns stealth recon lolis?
The lolis would lock up targets with Radar or IRST in case the enemy has a Russian IADS, send over the target data via Satellite datalink to the Ara which can then proceed to spam missiles from 200km range or greater.
c2db00 No.632964
>>632898
Not the point, you use your stealth to maneuver into a good position, like behind the enemy and above him.
>>632928
I only understood half of that.
1005e4 No.632981
>>632860
If the plan involves expecting to get shot at, its a fucking awful and retarded plan.
27a2b7 No.632982
>>632775
>that requires courage and not being a little bitch
Why not split the difference and have a bunch of small, stealthy drones deployed and controlled from an airborne 747 or maybe an a380. No need for missiles since crashing the drone into the enemy is now a valid option, and will probably be a far better option anyways.
A stealthy, single-engined drone half the size of an f-16 with a 20mm chaingun and an EFP warhead on the nose could be able to pull FAR more g's than any other jet partly due to the lack of missile weighing down the wing and the lack of a pilot risking losing consciousness at high g's. Countermeasures are fully optional, saving weight, and fuel can be kept to a minimum as the plane launches at the 747's cruising speed and altitude, so you don't need to burn fuel taking off and climbing.
>>632928
Flying wing fighters can work, watch some r/c flying wing races on youtube and you'll get the idea. They have most/all the tricks for maneuverability already figurred out, its just time to scale it up 5x and stick a radar, jet engine, a 20mm chaingun and an rpg warhead on it.
>>632981
>dont plan on getting shot at
>every option in war is a safe one
>armor is pointless
>defense is stupid
fa77a6 No.632985
>>628446
>he wouldn't stand right under a nuclear explosion if given the chance
1005e4 No.632986
>>632982
Your plan is to literally use "armor" as the first and only line of defense and not the final last ditch saving throw you only want to use if all else fails. This is how you end up with an abortion like the king tiger or maus tank. No, the best defense is not getting shot at in the first place. 9 out of 10 times in any engagement the guy who shoots first wins because getting shot at is a fucking traumatic experience even if you are supposedly "invincible." Why don't you fucking read up on the survivability onion before you say something so stupid that even /pol/ would say that's a dumb tactic.
bf2144 No.633004
>>632986
Low(er) RCS, maneuverability, higher speed, countermeasures, electronic warfare are all can all be improved if you drop the missiles.
>>632981
My plan expects missiles to fail or have severely diminished effectiveness and optimizes for that.
43eed1 No.633010
>>632982
>using a retrofitted civilian chairliner as a C&C+AWACS missile truck
>not using a flying missile boat
>>632986
Armor in modern air combat is a meme unless you're a slow-flying CAS plane or helicopter, component redundancy is far more important if you want your aircraft to have at least a tiny chance of returning home after getting hit.
c2db00 No.633033
>>632982
Early aircraft designers figured out that the LARGER an aircraft is, the LOWER the thrust to weight ratio can be, regardless of how many engines you use.
Simply put, more "skin" is needed for a larger aircraft, larger landing gear to take the mass, and METALS simply have an efficiency limit in which their length produces too much weight for their structural integrity to take.
Which means you have to add more metals to reinforce it, which leads to a spiral of increasing mass.
Ergo SMALLER aircraft have much LARGER thrust to weight ratios.
Picrel, the Boeing AAC used the engine from the F-5 and was about 30% lighter, which meant it had a thrust to weight ratio close to 1. This was thought of as pretty fucking amazing for the time period (1980s) but today we have much better engines and lighter construction materials.
This is the main reason I'm a big proponent of AAC drones, because they'd use F414-GE-400 - but the lack of surface area, extra fuel, missiles/hardpoints, cockpit and landing gear means they would have a weight of 5000lb. That's about 30% by weight airframe, 40% by weight engine, 5% by weight of gun and ammo, 5% by weight avionics, and 20% by weight fuel.
This leads to a thrust to weight ratio over 5:1 which is damn near a fucking rocket! It can fly at mach 2 vertically until it runs out of air. And at that speed, the ballistic path would probably take it out of the atmosphere. Talk about satellite killer, this thing could shoot a satellite with its fucking cannon.
By the way I have a sneaking suspicion the Russians are planning that with S-1000, which has an airborne component as a sensor (AWACS essentially) and ANOTHER airborne component that serves as a launch pad for something, now a lot of people think its missiles but I think it's stealth drones converted from their Yakhont missile, although it won't be a gunfighter they just don't want it widely known because this type of weapon system loses most of its punch if the enemy has it too.
43eed1 No.633041
Invidious embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>633033
Why is Ace Combat becoming more and more plausible with each passing day?
d9f3b0 No.633042
>>633033
What's the upper size efficiency limit for turbofans?
People don't build larger engines than the PW4000 and the D-18T because they can't or because it would be retarded to?
c2db00 No.633043
>>633042
GE9X, although materials science isn't quite there yet, GE thinks they can solve the problem by 2020.
Basically it's so big that if you made it from metals, and hung it from something, it would sag into an egg shape. That's why it's made of composite fibers, which are layered in a way as to prevent sagging.
c944dd No.633045
>>632986
>getting shot at is the same as getting shot
I was just saying that expecting to get shot at is part of war. Sometimes the most effective method of achieving your goals involves getting shot at. That's why tanks are still around. Of course you want to keep those situations to a minimum but sometimes its necessary.
>>633033
the future is getting me really really hard
>>633042
>upper size efficiency limit
>d-18t
>he doesn't know about the ge90
picrel. In general, turbine efficiency scales up well with size, but almost always come into issues with heat buildup damaging the engine, whether its a wind turbine, steam turbine, or afterburning turbojet.
>>633043
The composite engine parts are still just another way to cut weight. They could have made it out of metal, but the structure would be thicker and heavier than it is.
Composite turbine blades, however, are a great advancement that produced tougher and better cooling turbine blades.
d9f3b0 No.633052
>>633043
>for the Boeing 777
>less than 3.5 meters diameter
So we have reached the upper limit of this tech, huh? Are there any theoretical suggestions for the replacement of the turbofan in the foreseeable future?
c2db00 No.633056
>>633045
>They could have made it out of metal, but the structure would be thicker and heavier than it is
There are diminishing returns, because the thicker you make the metal, the more the metal is weighing down and sagging the system. Composite has 3500-4000mpa tensile strength whereas best aircraft alloys we have are 400-500mpa. 8x strength however doesn't mean you can just layer 8x the aircraft alloy to produce the same effect. Because the aircraft alloy weighs more than the composite, it's an equation where the more you add, the more you have to add to compensate for the weight you just added!
>>633052
More or less.
>theoretical suggestions
There is a practical suggestion: nuclear power.
Russian missiles already have engines that heat the air with nuclear power not delicately compressed fossil fuels.
43eed1 No.633080
>>633052
>Are there any theoretical suggestions for the replacement of the turbofan in the foreseeable future?
Not really a replacement per se but the tech behind the SABRE engine is pretty neat.
0f5c30 No.633093
>>633056
>nuclear
This was attempted in the fifties (Convair NB36H and Tupolev TU95LAL), but was ultimately deemed too expensive and not cost-effective.
Interesting story regarding nuclear powered missiles: In 1957, the US commenced Project Pluto, a project to develop a nuclear ramjet to power a supersonic low-altitude cruise missile (SLAM). The missile could theoretically circle the air indefinitely until ordered down onto a target, at which point it would release all of its MIRV warheads, circle around for a few weeks creating shockwaves, and then make a dirty bomb out of itself by crash-landing. They eventually pussied out after concluding the Soviets would most likely build their own in response.
c2db00 No.633107
>>633093
Bro they already did it, it's not theory.
0f5c30 No.633119
>>633107
Where did I say it was theory?
27a2b7 No.633309
>>633056
picrel, a 340mw gas turbine powering a ship and one made for burning nat gas for electricity. Notice how the powerplant one is supported on both ends during transport.
If it doesn't sag inwards, it definitely won't sag into an egg shape if hung.
132505 No.633311
>>628953
<.t Lockheeb Martin