F-15E vs. F-18C

[Rav]

4 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Still the EF2000 is much slower, and addition, the F-15 has a greater combat range - it can prepare the situation for an attack much longer than the EF2000, so it has no chance in BvR. Meteor vs AMRAAM 120D - basically the same missiles, similar ranges, speeds, etc. The F-15 still has a kill ratio of 104:0. I still say that the only fighters that can threaten the F-15 family in real combat are "stealth" fighters. Anyone else could be equal to or even better than the Eagle in maneuvering combat, but not in BvR.

That higher max speed is mostly an advantage on paper since its almost never reached and came from the perceived necessity of beating an overestimated Mig-25. Fighter designers agree, as no modern fighter is mach 2.5 capable, the tradeoffs to reach that are not worth it. The EF is faster in all aspects that matter. Take if from the test pilot that flew both. The greater range on the Eagle is nice, but even short legged planes like the F16 are used very successfully thanks to flying gas stations.

And you are dead wrong regarding the Meteor or rather throttle-able ramjet missiles. Conventional missiles like the AMRAAM burn for the first few seconds after launch and then basically coast to the target, losing energy, especially if maneuvering is required. Being able to control burn rate of a missiles motor provides a lot of of options for increased lethality like adjusting for total flight time, negating the loss of energy when turning, increasing speed during the last few seconds to impact etc. This is a game-changer and calling the Meteor an AMRAAM is misinformed at best.

[dedlike.]

i agree when it comes to speed, i dont think the F15 is gona vastly outspeed the eurofighter, and (what matters most in dcs i find) out accelerate, its great beeing able to go mach2.5, not so great if you spend 10min getting there i would rather take mach 2 and get to it in less than 5 min

when it comes to the meteor, isnt the aim120-d a multistage missile ? it got the initial booster and when close to the target ignites another booster getting it up to speed again

Edited December 2, 2022 by dedlike.

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, Rav said:

And you are dead wrong regarding the Meteor or rather throttle-able ramjet missiles. Conventional missiles like the AMRAAM burn for the first few seconds after launch and then basically coast to the target, losing energy, especially if maneuvering is required. Being able to control burn rate of a missiles motor provides a lot of of options for increased lethality like adjusting for total flight time, negating the loss of energy when turning, increasing speed during the last few seconds to impact etc. This is a game-changer and calling the Meteor an AMRAAM is misinformed at best.

I caution you against outright underestimating the AIM-120D vs the Meteor.  Advantages the AIM-120 have are that it can fly in thinner air for long range shots as it does NOT have an air breathing engine to support.  The AIM-120D also has a much higher top speed (~1M) than the Meteor as the radome of Meteor is not rated for temperatures needed for true high speed flight.  They each have advantages over the other.  

That said, you are not wrong in that " calling the Meteor an AMRAAM is misinformed at best."  They are very different in how they operate and this plays out in what situations one is called for over the other.

Just now, dedlike. said:

isnt the aim120-d a multistage missile ( kinda like a ramjet ) ? it got the initial booster and when close to the target ignites another booster getting it up to speed again

No the AIM-120D uses the same single impulse motor from the AIM-120C5.  All advances in range come from improved lofting and flyout trajectories.

[dedlike.]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Spurts:

No the AIM-120D uses the same single impulse motor from the AIM-120C5.  All advances in range come from improved lofting and flyout trajectories.

huh, didnt think it was possible to get so much more range out of it compared to the C variants with just beter computers basicly

good to know!

[Rav]

21 minutes ago, Spurts said:

I caution you against outright underestimating the AIM-120D vs the Meteor.  Advantages the AIM-120 have are that it can fly in thinner air for long range shots as it does NOT have an air breathing engine to support.  The AIM-120D also has a much higher top speed (~1M) than the Meteor as the radome of Meteor is not rated for temperatures needed for true high speed flight. 

Are you sure high altitudes are an actual problem for the meteor? Wouldn't low oxygen just slow the burn which would be ok for long range shots and could otherwise be compensated  for to a degree with the variable throttle? The service ceiling for the EF is angels 65 and it is optimized for high altitude fights, so I'd be surprised if its primary weapon didn't work in that environment.

Yes, the AMRAAM has a higher peak velocity, but it stays there for a rather short time, if the simulation in DCS is anything to go by. EDIT: Actually both are rated mach 4, but true specs are unknown.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Rav

[falcon_120]

Still the EF2000 is much slower, and addition, the F-15 has a greater combat range - it can prepare the situation for an attack much longer than the EF2000, so it has no chance in BvR. Meteor vs AMRAAM 120D - basically the same missiles, similar ranges, speeds, etc. The F-15 still has a kill ratio of 104:0. I still say that the only fighters that can threaten the F-15 family in real combat are "stealth" fighters. Anyone else could be equal to or even better than the Eagle in maneuvering combat, but not in BvR.

This is quite wrong, the ef2000 has massive acceleration up to M1.8, if I'm not wrong superior to the F15.

On top of that, which is much better it has a confirmed supercruise of M1.2something (this is from memory I need to retrieve the info) with an Air to air loadout (4 MRM + 2SRM) and tanks, which is massive for the air superiority role. Also much better frontal RCS and one of the best mechanical radar it exist so they will both detect each other at a considerable distance.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Nahen]

16 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

This is quite wrong, the ef2000 has massive acceleration up to M1.8, if I'm not wrong superior to the F15.

On top of that, which is much better it has a confirmed supercruise of M1.2something (this is from memory I need to retrieve the info) with an Air to air loadout (4 MRM + 2SRM) and tanks, which is massive for the air superiority role. Also much better frontal RCS and one of the best mechanical radar it exist so that will not be a tactical problem.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

Explain to me what's the point of accelerating, since I can fire a projectile from a greater distance because I have more speed? I have the impression that a lot of people here have no idea what BvR combat is really about... acceleration and maneuverability are not important here, only speed and altitude at the time of launching the missile.

The F-15 doesn't need to reach Mach 2.5, it just needs to fire the missile at Mach 2.3, and that alone gives the missile a range advantage and maneuverability margin. Since AMRAAM D has a range of around 80-90 Nm - it means that launched from a height of 20 km at a speed of 2.2-2.3 Mach will have this range higher by about 20%

The only important issue that can tilt the chances of victory is the question of how far the radar of which aircraft will allow you to effectively detect, mark and attack the target. And here again I will risk that the F-15 radar is probably a "more powerful" radar. Maybe less modern but definitely stronger - sending a stronger beam.

[dedlike.]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb Nahen:

Explain to me what's the point of accelerating

WELL normaly i doupt that you will be cruising around at mach 2.3, simply put, you would only turn on the afterbruner once you get a contact on your RWR or on your own radar, even from 70nm away you wont have time to now accelerate to mach 2.3 untill he already gets to fire at you .. thats why acceleration is inportant... to well... get to your top speeds before getting within missile ranges

Edited December 2, 2022 by dedlike.

[Rav]

5 minutes ago, Nahen said:

I have the impression that a lot of people here have no idea what BvR combat is really about... acceleration and maneuverability are not important here, only speed and altitude at the time of launching the missile.

And I get the impression you never did fly BvR engagements where you have to defeat an incoming missile by diving, turning, then... climbing and accelerating to improve the PK of your next missile

[falcon_120]

Explain to me what's the point of accelerating, since I can fire a projectile from a greater distance because I have more speed? I have the impression that a lot of people here have no idea what BvR combat is really about... acceleration and maneuverability are not important here, only speed and altitude at the time of launching the missile.
The F-15 doesn't need to reach Mach 2.5, it just needs to fire the missile at Mach 2.3, and that alone gives the missile a range advantage and maneuverability margin. Since AMRAAM D has a range of around 80-90 Nm - it means that launched from a height of 20 km at a speed of 2.2-2.3 Mach will have this range higher by about 20%
The only important issue that can tilt the chances of victory is the question of how far the radar of which aircraft will allow you to effectively detect, mark and attack the target. And here again I will risk that the F-15 radar is probably a "more powerful" radar. Maybe less modern but definitely stronger - sending a stronger beam.

It seems to me, you are not very acquainted to how a tactical scenario of any real use in RL works.

As you rightly point out speed in Bvr combat is key, first it gives your missile additional range and second it will make your life easier when defending in a agressive slice maneuver increasing the F-pole and reducing your enemy one.

But having said that, there is no possible scenario where a fighter like an F15 will have time and range to accelerate to something remotely close to M2.3, less so with a full missile loadout. Actually getting to M1.5/M1.7 for an amraam shot with a normal CAP loadout is already massive, and difficult to achieve. With that in mind, the fighter that better accelerate to that launching speed will have an edge. According to pilots, the eurofighter goes from m0.9 (normal CAP speed) to M1.5 with ease and second only to a Raptor.


Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Rav]

19 minutes ago, falcon_120 said:

second only to a Raptor.

At medium load the F22 and EF have almost the same TtW, but the EF has lower drag by having lower wing loading and by not being a stealth design, so I wouldn't be surprised if it actually beat it*.
EDIT: *In a clean configuration only, due to external vs internal weapon stations

Edited December 2, 2022 by Rav

[Exorcet]

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

Explain to me what's the point of accelerating,

Acceleration is everything (almost). Fighters can't fly at max speed. The fly at cruise speed and accelerate in response to threats. This is what makes the F-16 so good at BVR in DCS. It doesn't have the highest top speed, but it will likely be the fastest plane in a BVR engagement because it outaccelerates everything else.

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

 

since I can fire a projectile from a greater distance because I have more speed?

You won't be at speed unless you can accelerate fast enough. The EF-2000 accelerates better than the F-15 and can supercruise. The F-15 is pretty heavily outclassed when it comes to performance in this comparison. Realistically the EF could be approaching Mach 2 as the Eagle struggles to break though M 1.3.

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

I have the impression that a lot of people here have no idea what BvR combat is really about... acceleration and maneuverability are not important here, only speed and altitude at the time of launching the missile.

You get speed from acceleration, and maneuverability is extremely important as well. The better you can maneuver, the faster you can react to threats or defense yourself. Especially if you're going fast. Flying directly at your enemy at Mach 2 is a great way to die.

4 hours ago, Nahen said:

The only important issue that can tilt the chances of victory is the question of how far the radar of which aircraft will allow you to effectively detect, mark and attack the target. And here again I will risk that the F-15 radar is probably a "more powerful" radar. Maybe less modern but definitely stronger - sending a stronger beam.

You need to consider more than radar, like RCS, ECM, and supporting platforms. While the Eagle has an impressive radar, it's RCS is terrible. A low RCS fighter with a worse radar could possible see the Eagle first because of this.

 

  

3 hours ago, Rav said:

At medium load the F22 and EF have almost the same TtW, but the EF has lower drag by having lower wing loading and by not being a stealth design, so I wouldn't be surprised if it actually beat it*.
EDIT: *In a clean configuration only, due to external vs internal weapon stations

 

Lowering wing loading doesn't mean lower drag, especially at high speed. The EF is probably lower drag, but mostly because it's smaller. However the F-22 has a massive thrust advantage, and while it is stealthy, the low RCS doesn't really hurt its drag.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Exorcet

[Rav]

8 hours ago, Exorcet said:

However the F-22 has a massive thrust advantage, and while it is stealthy, the low RCS doesn't really hurt its drag.

At medium load (halfway between empty weight and MTOW) the thrust to weight ratio of the EF is 1.22 and the of the F22 its 1.23. Once the planes get lighter the TtW start favoring the EF slightly.

RCS and aerodynamics are competing design requirements, you can't optimize for one without hurting the other. We are past the heavy tradeoffs required in the F117s design for instance, but the principle still stands.

[Nahen]

13 hours ago, dedlike. said:

i agree when it comes to speed, i dont think the F15 is gona vastly outspeed the eurofighter, and (what matters most in dcs i find) out accelerate, its great beeing able to go mach2.5, not so great if you spend 10min getting there i would rather take mach 2 and get to it in less than 5 min

when it comes to the meteor, isnt the aim120-d a multistage missile ? it got the initial booster and when close to the target ignites another booster getting it up to speed again

 

5 minutes later means you are no longer needed where you were supposed to be.

When it's close to its target, it's on the ground... unless it's towing a fuel trailer to keep its engine running for the full 100Nm of flight... I doubt it...

 

12 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

This is quite wrong, the ef2000 has massive acceleration up to M1.8, if I'm not wrong superior to the F15.

On top of that, which is much better it has a confirmed supercruise of M1.2something (this is from memory I need to retrieve the info) with an Air to air loadout (4 MRM + 2SRM) and tanks, which is massive for the air superiority role. Also much better frontal RCS and one of the best mechanical radar it exist so they will both detect each other at a considerable distance.

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

 

Still the F-15 will fire the first missile at longer range and will have time to fire another while the EF2000 fires its first...

 

12 hours ago, dedlike. said:

WELL normaly i doupt that you will be cruising around at mach 2.3, simply put, you would only turn on the afterbruner once you get a contact on your RWR or on your own radar, even from 70nm away you wont have time to now accelerate to mach 2.3 untill he already gets to fire at you .. thats why acceleration is inportant... to well... get to your top speeds before getting within missile ranges

 

The F-15 is an air superiority fighter, but also a typical "interceptor". This means that it is guided to the target or around it using airspace surveillance systems. And since its pilot knows that there is an enemy out there, he can easily accelerate while being far enough away so as not to risk an attack from a short distance. 70 Nm from the target, the missile is long on its way - I'm sure the F-15 will easily find the target with its radar at 100-80 Nm. I skip the use of datalink and AMRAAM D which can be guided by other radars. So any rocket can be launched with a huge advantage of distance and speed.

 

12 hours ago, Rav said:

And I get the impression you never did fly BvR engagements where you have to defeat an incoming missile by diving, turning, then... climbing and accelerating to improve the PK of your next missile

Ha Ha Let's arrange for any PvP server where we will be 100 miles apart now I bet that only TomCat will have any chance when it comes to DCS and then on TrackView you will see that I won't dive while running away from your rockets, no I'll speed up and do not do some weird dodges - none of your rockets will hit...

 

12 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

It seems to me, you are not very acquainted to how a tactical scenario of any real use in RL works.

As you rightly point out speed in Bvr combat is key, first it gives your missile additional range and second it will make your life easier when defending in a agressive slice maneuver increasing the F-pole and reducing your enemy one.

But having said that, there is no possible scenario where a fighter like an F15 will have time and range to accelerate to something remotely close to M2.3, less so with a full missile loadout. Actually getting to M1.5/M1.7 for an amraam shot with a normal CAP loadout is already massive, and difficult to achieve. With that in mind, the fighter that better accelerate to that launching speed will have an edge. According to pilots, the eurofighter goes from m0.9 (normal CAP speed) to M1.5 with ease and second only to a Raptor.


Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk
 

And once again I see some strange habits of "aggressive" maneuvers to escape from a rocket fired from a long distance while flying at high speed... Also, I invite you to some server ;D

I bet none of you have ever fought above Mach 2 in DCS... What you're writing are some wild theories

I will not relate to the reality of this matter because I am not a fighter pilot and certainly not an Eagle pilot. But in DCS, as I see, you have no idea about BvR combat Or you fly F-16, F/A-18 modules that are completely unsuitable for this type of combat in the reality of DCS ... Hence these "aggressive" maneuvers to escape rocket... In BvR 1v1 total stupidity...

8 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Acceleration is everything (almost). Fighters can't fly at max speed. The fly at cruise speed and accelerate in response to threats. This is what makes the F-16 so good at BVR in DCS. It doesn't have the highest top speed, but it will likely be the fastest plane in a BVR engagement because it outaccelerates everything else.

You won't be at speed unless you can accelerate fast enough. The EF-2000 accelerates better than the F-15 and can supercruise. The F-15 is pretty heavily outclassed when it comes to performance in this comparison. Realistically the EF could be approaching Mach 2 as the Eagle struggles to break though M 1.3.

You get speed from acceleration, and maneuverability is extremely important as well. The better you can maneuver, the faster you can react to threats or defense yourself. Especially if you're going fast. Flying directly at your enemy at Mach 2 is a great way to die.

You need to consider more than radar, like RCS, ECM, and supporting platforms. While the Eagle has an impressive radar, it's RCS is terrible. A low RCS fighter with a worse radar could possible see the Eagle first because of this.

 

  

Lowering wing loading doesn't mean lower drag, especially at high speed. The EF is probably lower drag, but mostly because it's smaller. However the F-22 has a massive thrust advantage, and while it is stealthy, the low RCS doesn't really hurt its drag.

 

F-16 in DCS is good in BvR???? As I can see you don't really know what BvR is...
Speed, speed and only speed, I don't need any acceleration in DCS... I need distance from potential position to target 130-100 Nm and speed combined with altitude. No F-16 will think about jump

Also, I invite you to some server, You see what BvR is all about...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beamscanner]

21 hours ago, F-2 said:

I’ve actually been dying to know if the proposed APG-73 AESA upgrade was related to apg-79. Thank you!

 

do you have any information on what APG-73 AESA would have entailed?

All I know is that the -73 upgrade was sold to the DoD as a future proof radar electronics upgrade. Keep in mind, in the early 1990s AESAs were the talk of the radar community. DoD was not keen on paying for an upgrade that wasn't an AESA. Hughes, Westinghouse and Texas Instruments were all fighting for the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) radar contract around that time. TI won the contract for the GaA antenna array, and Westinghouse won the contract for the radar electronics in the ATF. Hughes had been dealt a huge blow. (ironic considering the blow they had given to Westinghouse in the bid for the F-15 radar decades before)

 

My speculation is that upon losing the ATF bid, Hughes/Raytheon went to work to find an easier/quick solution to get an AESA contract. The solution being: Make the AESA an add-on to an already proven radar. They looked at their own APG-63v1 and built an array that could be swapped out with the planar waveguide antenna with minimal change to the back end hardware. 

 

Hughes/Raytheon was able to frog leap Westinghouse and TI doing this and released the first operation AESA radar, the APG-63v2. Though this could of been due to the delay of the F-22 and not the APG-77 itself. 

 

I imagine they thought they could do something similar with the APG-73 (their Navy baby). 

 

Keep in mind this all gets more confusing as Hughes and TI radar are absorbed into Raytheon, and Northup Grumman absorbs Westinghouse.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Beamscanner

[doedkoett]

I had the opportunity to try the Meteor missile when flying the Gripen E simulator at Saab in Linköping. It´s really a monster missile. Coupled to the ability to "look over the shoulder" with the AESA radar and the great SA provided by the WAD with datalink- and sensor data overlayed over a clean digital map display I felt really invincible. If the Meteor that is said to be included in the Eurofighter module has similar performance, it will be able to reach out and kill anything on the map. After dispatching four enemy aircraft heading for Norrköping I shot down two aircraft that was fleeing across the Baltic sea from a safe BVR distance. In DCS you will have to be "almost within gun range" to do that with an AMRAAM. Maybe the AIM-120D will be equal, better or slightly worse, I don't know. I am not privy to such data. But I do know that the AMRAAM we have in the game is almost toylike in comparison. 

Anyway, modernities aside, I still enjoy good old fashioned vintage aircraft like the Strike Eagle in DCS! 

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, Nahen said:

Speed, speed and only speed, I don't need any acceleration in DCS

You're missing the premise.

Since going from max loiter or max range cruise to a max velocity at launch in the shortest possible time is key, acceleration beats top speed.

3 hours ago, Nahen said:

I bet none of you have ever fought above Mach 2 in DCS... What you're writing are some wild theories

The 1960s just called and they want their tactics back.

[dedlike.]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Nahen:

5 minutes later means you are no longer needed where you were supposed to be.

When it's close to its target, it's on the ground... unless it's towing a fuel trailer to keep its engine running for the full 100Nm of flight... I doubt it...

 

Still the F-15 will fire the first missile at longer range and will have time to fire another while the EF2000 fires its first...

 

The F-15 is an air superiority fighter, but also a typical "interceptor". This means that it is guided to the target or around it using airspace surveillance systems. And since its pilot knows that there is an enemy out there, he can easily accelerate while being far enough away so as not to risk an attack from a short distance. 70 Nm from the target, the missile is long on its way - I'm sure the F-15 will easily find the target with its radar at 100-80 Nm. I skip the use of datalink and AMRAAM D which can be guided by other radars. So any rocket can be launched with a huge advantage of distance and speed.

 

Ha Ha Let's arrange for any PvP server where we will be 100 miles apart now I bet that only TomCat will have any chance when it comes to DCS and then on TrackView you will see that I won't dive while running away from your rockets, no I'll speed up and do not do some weird dodges - none of your rockets will hit...

 

And once again I see some strange habits of "aggressive" maneuvers to escape from a rocket fired from a long distance while flying at high speed... Also, I invite you to some server ;D

I bet none of you have ever fought above Mach 2 in DCS... What you're writing are some wild theories

I will not relate to the reality of this matter because I am not a fighter pilot and certainly not an Eagle pilot. But in DCS, as I see, you have no idea about BvR combat Or you fly F-16, F/A-18 modules that are completely unsuitable for this type of combat in the reality of DCS ... Hence these "aggressive" maneuvers to escape rocket... In BvR 1v1 total stupidity...

F-16 in DCS is good in BvR???? As I can see you don't really know what BvR is...
Speed, speed and only speed, I don't need any acceleration in DCS... I need distance from potential position to target 130-100 Nm and speed combined with altitude. No F-16 will think about jump

Also, I invite you to some server, You see what BvR is all about...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

whatever seems like you wont accept anything else than your view anyways

[falcon_120]

Nahen you are making some ridiculous claims, sorry:

-Everyone in here is talking about RL performance, which it should also apply in a Simulator like DCS (although things like radar and EW will not apply, but yes basic dynamics like speed, acceleration...
-I really don't know where have you get the idea that operationally or even in DCS you will be shooting missiles at over Mach 2. You need like 10 minutes and all your fuel to get to that speed, also an specific climb profile. Not very useful to just launch one missile and go home. You basicaly are taking a super specific use case as the norm. What if you are Caping an area, in a HVA CAP, in a fighter sweep, in a DCA? in any of those scenario you will not have an option to commit from 150nm away to give you the time you need for your M2.0 shots....let alone M2.5 which is no possible with missiles and pylons
-As a prove to this in the 104 kills of the mighty eagle non of them have been even close to that speed. Heck if the Israelis would go to that speed with the eagle they would end up in Egipt XD
-Acceleration is key in Bvr, really. More so than maneuverability. Top speed is not so important if not tactically applicable. Would you take a mig31 over an F15 for Bvr just because it's faster? don't you see a flaw in that logic? The US Air force could very well start reassembling SR71 and given them Aim120s.
-Maneuverability is important, to a certain degree, for the same principle I would take an F15 over a Mig31 I want something able to turn, at the end you either will run out of missiles or someone will slip through and meet you WVR. Or you had in mind an scenary where if Bvr goes wrong you ask to stop and start over? :/
-You are saying than in the context of DCS the F16 is not good in Bvr? Or now you are talking of RL? °_°


Happy to meet for a Bvr fight anytime btw ;)


Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

[Exorcet]

6 hours ago, Nahen said:

F-16 in DCS is good in BvR???? As I can see you don't really know what BvR is...
Speed, speed and only speed, I don't need any acceleration in DCS... I need distance from potential position to target 130-100 Nm and speed combined with altitude. No F-16 will think about jump

Also, I invite you to some server, You see what BvR is all about...

You have things backwards believing that fighters cruise at Mach 2 routinely. Acceleration is what creates speed in BVR combat. Even with 100 mile separation distances, Mach 2+ engagements are unlikely. If anything it sounds like you might play on some very unrealistic servers, maybe this is where you are getting your ideas from?

 

  

6 hours ago, Rav said:

At medium load (halfway between empty weight and MTOW) the thrust to weight ratio of the EF is 1.22 and the of the F22 its 1.23. Once the planes get lighter the TtW start favoring the EF slightly.

RCS and aerodynamics are competing design requirements, you can't optimize for one without hurting the other. We are past the heavy tradeoffs required in the F117s design for instance, but the principle still stands.

When it comes to supersonic performance thrust and drag matter more than TWR. The numbers are so close that they can basically be ignored, even if the EF tends to gain a little more with reduced weight. We also know that the F-22 supercruises much faster than the EF, at least as far as public data is concerned, probably indicating that the F119's are better at high speed than the EJ200's.

RCS and aerodynamics don't actually have to be a tradeoff. The blended shapes we see in modern stealth aircraft are pretty aero friendly. The F-22 has some flat surfaces, but it's not really very different from the F-15 or MiG-25 in that reguard. Even the EF-2000 is a bit boxy on the underside.

Modern computing also makes optimizing RCS and aero a lot easier than it used to be. CFD codes have become very powerful and automated optimization tools exist to refine multiple aspects of aircraft design simultaneously. I know the F-22 is old at this point, but some of these technologies were available to aid in its design.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Exorcet

[Spurts]

On 12/2/2022 at 2:26 PM, Rav said:

Are you sure high altitudes are an actual problem for the meteor? Wouldn't low oxygen just slow the burn which would be ok for long range shots and could otherwise be compensated  for to a degree with the variable throttle? The service ceiling for the EF is angels 65 and it is optimized for high altitude fights, so I'd be surprised if its primary weapon didn't work in that environment.

Yes, the AMRAAM has a higher peak velocity, but it stays there for a rather short time, if the simulation in DCS is anything to go by. EDIT: Actually both are rated mach 4, but true specs are unknown.

 

You are misunderstanding what high altitude means to a missile in this case, and any motor fuel needs a certain fuel/oxygen ratio to burn.  Go too high and that ratio gets too low and the motor flames out.  As to being mach 4... those are unofficial specs for public consumption.  Reading about material limitations of components changes your perspective a bit.

I have seen nothing outside of Wiki to support 65k but I would not doubt it.  I have performance models for these missiles we can use to look at 65,000ft Meteor shot vs 65,000ft AIM-120D shot, both at 1.7M.  Target is flying at 2.5M at 75,000ft (MiG-31 analog).

Meteor

Head On:  Max launch range of 177nm results in the Meteor climbing to just under 80,000ft where min throttle causes a speed of 3.8M.  Speed it maintained throughout most the flight with intercept occurring 105nm from launch location 3 minutes after launch.  Average speed was 3.64M.

Tail On:  Max launch range of 32nm results in the same flyout as above.

AIM-120D

Head On: Max launch range of 193nm results in AIM-120D climbing to 134,000ft where it coasts over 4.0M.  Speed above 4.0M is maintained throughout flight as the missile coasts downhill through thin air with intercept occurring 121nm from launch location 3 minutes after launch.  Average speed was 4.13M.

Tail On:  Max launch range of 48nm results in largely the same flyout as above.

Having the right prediction models for guidance allows you to take these shots where the AMRAAM is fully ballistic at high speed and altitude to drop into a "basket" of where the target will be when it it done playing spaceship.  You can't loft that high without improved guidance performance.  Even the Phoenix launched from 44k and 1.5M (much lower energy shot) lofted to 105k for the long range shot test.

[Cunning_Raven]

Honestly, reading Nahen's stupidity is kind of entertaining..

[Spurts]

To piggyback off my last post: 

The long range AIM-54 test was a 44kft 1.5M launch from 110nm on a 50kft 1.5M head on target.  The missile reached 103,500ft and flew 72.5nm to the impact point.

Last year news reports came out of an F-15 firing an AIM-120 resulting in a kill from the longest distance ever recorded.  Even if we ignore the R-37 claims, this means the AIM-120D flew further than 72.5nm to impact. 

My sim shows the AIM-54 test profile would result in the kill occurring at 76.5nm, and my estimations of onboard power for the AIM-120D indicate the launch could have been from up to 139nm with up to a 96nm flight to impact.

If the AIM-54 test was done with a Meteor I see a 75nm impact point.  I see a max of 135nm and 92nm flight to impact.

What if these planes were on a CAP station of .8M at 34,000ft?

The AIM-120D could still barely make the 110nm launch with a 67.5nm flight to impact.  The Meteor could make the 110nm shot with over 16 seconds of powered flight to spare with a 70.9nm flight to impact.  THAT is the power of Meteor.  It nearly matches a 1.5M 44kft launched AIM-54 from a CAP hold.  No runup.  No acceleration.  No prep.  

 

Sorry the topic of this post was F-15E vs F/A-18C.  Meteor has no place here.  F-15E will be able to get 2 AIM-120C5s higher and faster than an F/A-18C will (assuming it has two), and it will have the stronger radar, so in self escort BVR the Eagle has an edge.

 

[Pede]

5 hours ago, Spurts said:

You are misunderstanding what high altitude means to a missile in this case, and any motor fuel needs a certain fuel/oxygen ratio to burn.  Go too high and that ratio gets too low and the motor flames out.  As to being mach 4... those are unofficial specs for public consumption.  Reading about material limitations of components changes your perspective a bit.

I have seen nothing outside of Wiki to support 65k but I would not doubt it.  I have performance models for these missiles we can use to look at 65,000ft Meteor shot vs 65,000ft AIM-120D shot, both at 1.7M.  Target is flying at 2.5M at 75,000ft (MiG-31 analog).

Meteor

Head On:  Max launch range of 177nm results in the Meteor climbing to just under 80,000ft where min throttle causes a speed of 3.8M.  Speed it maintained throughout most the flight with intercept occurring 105nm from launch location 3 minutes after launch.  Average speed was 3.64M.

Tail On:  Max launch range of 32nm results in the same flyout as above.

AIM-120D

Head On: Max launch range of 193nm results in AIM-120D climbing to 134,000ft where it coasts over 4.0M.  Speed above 4.0M is maintained throughout flight as the missile coasts downhill through thin air with intercept occurring 121nm from launch location 3 minutes after launch.  Average speed was 4.13M.

Tail On:  Max launch range of 48nm results in largely the same flyout as above.

Having the right prediction models for guidance allows you to take these shots where the AMRAAM is fully ballistic at high speed and altitude to drop into a "basket" of where the target will be when it it done playing spaceship.  You can't loft that high without improved guidance performance.  Even the Phoenix launched from 44k and 1.5M (much lower energy shot) lofted to 105k for the long range shot test.

I know this is incredibly off topic at this point, but the meteor is not an "air breathing" missile any more than the AMRAAM or any other rocket powered missile. This is why it is important to note that the Meteor is a ducted rocket and not a ramjet; a ramjet is an air breathing jet engine that uses its momentum to produce thrust, a ducted rocket is a traditional rocket engine that uses ambient atmosphere as its oxidizer instead of carrying oxidizer internally. The purpose of the ducts on a ramjet is to control the compression of the airflow into the engine, the purpose of the ducts on a ducted rocket is to control the oxidizer flow into the active chemical reaction. 

 

In regards to the Meteor specifically, it does in fact translate to a generally lower impulse (even at max burn) compared to traditional motors. However it's required atmospheric intake is dramatically lower than that of a ramjet or scramjet engine so there is no massive performance drop off at high altitudes (leaving aside for a moment the lower motor impulse compared to a traditional rocket motor). 

 

As an aside, there isn't really a way to gauge the maximum range the Meteor could fly without specifics on the boron based compound the fuel consists of or the total battery life of the missile. This is due not only to the unique flight characteristics that come with a ducted rocket using ambient atmosphere as an oxidizer, but also the fact that the Meteor can entirely shut down its motor and reignite it at any time in its flight. The boron-based compound spontaneously combusts upon contact with ambient atmosphere which not only allows for this capability, but also means there is no minimum ratio for the motor to die out, with the exception of total vacuum of course. 

[Scott-S6]

5 hours ago, Pede said:

I know this is incredibly off topic at this point, but the meteor is not an "air breathing" missile any more than the AMRAAM or any other rocket powered missile. This is why it is important to note that the Meteor is a ducted rocket and not a ramjet; a ramjet is an air breathing jet engine that uses its momentum to produce thrust, a ducted rocket is a traditional rocket engine that uses ambient atmosphere as its oxidizer instead of carrying oxidizer internally. The purpose of the ducts on a ramjet is to control the compression of the airflow into the engine, the purpose of the ducts on a ducted rocket is to control the oxidizer flow into the active chemical reaction. 

 

In regards to the Meteor specifically, it does in fact translate to a generally lower impulse (even at max burn) compared to traditional motors. However it's required atmospheric intake is dramatically lower than that of a ramjet or scramjet engine so there is no massive performance drop off at high altitudes (leaving aside for a moment the lower motor impulse compared to a traditional rocket motor). 

 

As an aside, there isn't really a way to gauge the maximum range the Meteor could fly without specifics on the boron based compound the fuel consists of or the total battery life of the missile. This is due not only to the unique flight characteristics that come with a ducted rocket using ambient atmosphere as an oxidizer, but also the fact that the Meteor can entirely shut down its motor and reignite it at any time in its flight. The boron-based compound spontaneously combusts upon contact with ambient atmosphere which not only allows for this capability, but also means there is no minimum ratio for the motor to die out, with the exception of total vacuum of course. 

That ability to selectively coast while retaining the option of burning to maintain speed while manoeuvring make the meteor drastically different. Is the data out there on the missile decision making process in order simulate it properly? Will ED do the work (since it would fall to ED rather than heatblur) or it will it just be an amraam with different stats? (which would be disappointing)