"Ultra Hornet" Takes Flight

[PFunk1606688187]

Interesting,Weapons Pod? On This new Hornet.......

 

It looks like some kind of experimental torpedo from Star Trek.

 

I half expect to find a picture of it in the Enterprise shuttle bay with Mr. Data scanning it with a tricorder.

[Exorcet]

F-35 can supercruise? You do realize that supercruise =/= going supersonic without burners, right? Because if that is your definition, that is laughable at best.

Fine, in straight and level flight without losing speed. Let's add a useful load too, which may knock out the Su-35.

 

I'm pretty sure it knocks out the F/A-18E.

 

Maneuverability might be an open question, but i have yet to see anything impressive done by F-35. T-50 has already shown such things. And in weeks time, F-35 will be obliterated in that respect. Besides, there is no argument there, TVC + LEVCONS...

TVC adds nothing to the "no argument" factor. It's hardly decisive. It adds weight, but does not add degrees per second which isn't good.

 

When it comes to flight profile it isn't know indeed, but everyone knows highest range comes at height, not at low altitude. Basically T-50 and F-35 won't be much different in flight profile i suspect, like it or not T-50 has better range.

Proof? Height is? Different aircraft have different cruise speeds and engine performance at different heights. It doesn't sound like you know where any of those are for either plane.

[NOLA]

Fine, in straight and level flight without losing speed. Let's add a useful load too, which may knock out the Su-35.

 

I'm pretty sure it knocks out the F/A-18E.

 

TVC adds nothing to the "no argument" factor. It's hardly decisive. It adds weight, but does not add degrees per second which isn't good.

 

Proof? Height is? Different aircraft have different cruise speeds and engine performance at different heights. It doesn't sound like you know where any of those are for either plane.

 

You are still getting it all wrong. I did not mention Su-35, i was talking about Su-35S. And yes, those two are very different planes. There is no information on if Su-35S went supersonic without AB with or without weapons, but i am holding my button on either light load or none. That wasn't the point anyway. Point being one cannot make a new definition of "supercruise" just to fit F-35 neatly under it. That would diminish the term, and would make F-22 having "super-duper-super cruise". (afterall it goes atleast 1.7 mach without AB which is higher than F-35's top speed). And YF-23 would also need a new enchased version of super cruise...

 

Are you trying to say YOU know the flight profile? Because i made it perfectly clear i don't. Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

 

Interesting, can you enlighten me as to what is it ment by that exactly?

 

Again, going mach 1.00000000001 without AB is not supercruise.

 

Super cruise was basically a requirement starting from ATF days and hence the definition of it should be based on that requirement. And that requirement said mach 1.5 without AB (which YF-23 and YF-22 managed to go over without any problem), and also with a decent load iirc. (not full load)

 

Basically F-35 cannot supercruise, it can go supersonic without AB. Again, that is something Tu-128/EE Lightning/Su-35S can do, so hardly anything special.

[GGTharos]

Supercruise was 'with afterburners' until it was re-defined for the F-22.

The F-35 can cruise at around M1.2, and if that isn't supersonic cruise, I don't know what is.

 

On the other hand, the F-35 has no supercruise requirement, so I don't see what the complaining is about.

 

PS: Await hyper cruising planes here... :D

[NOLA]

You can twist and turn it any way you like, but F-35 does not supercruise anywhere near the speeds F-22, YF-23 or T-50 is capable off.

 

Not to mention the extremely short short range it can do its slow dash. 1/3 of F-22's and T-50's in fact. Rafale can probably sustain it for longer, can't say about Eurofighter. Again, F-35 falls short.

 

I have still not seen a single good argument against the points i proposed.

Edited August 15, 2013 by NOLA

[GGTharos]

Probably because you were told to take them to the F-35 thread.

 

You can twist and turn it any way you like, but F-35 does not supercruise anywhere near the speeds F-22, YF-23 or T-50 is capable off.

 

I have still not seen a single good argument against the points i proposed.

[Exorcet]

You are still getting it all wrong. I did not mention Su-35, i was talking about Su-35S.

I did not mention the Su-27M, I mentioned the Su-35. Which version doesn't matter, I've seen nothing indicating supercruise with a combat load.

 

 

That wasn't the point anyway. Point being one cannot make a new definition of "supercruise" just to fit F-35 neatly under it.

Didn't stop LM from doing just that for the F-22. Supercruise is supersonic without AB unless you look at F-22 media, then it's 1.5.

 

I'm using the first one.

 

That would diminish the term, and would make F-22 having "super-duper-super cruise". (afterall it goes atleast 1.7 mach without AB which is higher than F-35's top speed). And YF-23 would also need a new enchased version of super cruise...

It's all supercruise, just like Mach 1, 2, and 3 is supersonic.

 

Are you trying to say YOU know the flight profile? Because i made it perfectly clear i don't. Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

No, but I also didn't say "like it or not, I'm saying this is fact".

 

 

Super cruise was basically a requirement starting from ATF days and hence the definition of it should be based on that requirement. And that requirement said mach 1.5 without AB (which YF-23 and YF-22 managed to go over without any problem), and also with a decent load iirc. (not full load)

That would be the ATF/USAF definition then. Doesn't change that over M 1 without AB is still supercruise.

 

 

You can twist and turn it any way you like, but F-35 does not supercruise anywhere near the speeds F-22, YF-23 or T-50 is capable off.

Nor was it meant to, we all know this, so what's the point?

 

Not to mention the extremely short short range it can do its slow dash. 1/3 of F-22's and T-50's in fact. Rafale can probably sustain it for longer, can't say about Eurofighter. Again, F-35 falls short.

When was the range released?

I have still not seen a single good argument against the points i proposed.

[Phantom88]

I wonder if this MFD is implemented in The Advanced Hornet?

[falcon_120]

Supercruise is the abbility to go supersonic for an extended period of time without the need of using afterburners.

That the raptor is capable of an impressive supercruise performance that is unmatched is another matter. For instance the eurofighter is said to have M1.3 supercruise with 6 AAMs.

[ФрогФут]

The F-35 can cruise at around M1.2, and if that isn't supersonic cruise, I don't know what is.

It does not go through the sound barrier without AB and it only keeps that M for what 10-15 minutes?

[Pilotasso]

They all give a little push thru transonic barrier with AB, then they cruise in dry thrust. Since the F-35 has longer legs than the raptor my guess that it can hold at least as much time in 1.2 mach as the raptor can at 1.5 in the worst case scenario.

[countto10]

You wouldn't cruise at Mach 1.2 because of the transonic drag regime.

[NineLine]

It does not go through the sound barrier without AB and it only keeps that M for what 10-15 minutes?

 

 

By definition of supercruise, isnt using AB to get there not supercruising?

 

I read this in an article on the F-35:

 

The F-35, while not technically a "supercruising" aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.

 

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.aspx

[countto10]

By definition of supercruise, isnt using AB to get there not supercruising?

You would pretty much always use AB through the sound barrier AFAIK because it actually reduces fuel consumption, which is why the Concorde always used it going through Mach 1.

[NineLine]

Well I thought that was the big deal about the F-22 and its ability to reach speeds over Mach 1 without using afterburners...

 

You would pretty much always use AB through the sound barrier AFAIK because it actually reduces fuel consumption, which is why the Concorde always used it going through Mach 1.

[SkateZilla]

coulda swore the official name was "Advanced Hornet"

[SkateZilla]

It looks like some kind of experimental torpedo from Star Trek.

 

I half expect to find a picture of it in the Enterprise shuttle bay with Mr. Data scanning it with a tricorder.

 

[SkateZilla]

I wonder if this MFD is implemented in The Advanced Hornet?

 

The Advanced Hornet is supposed to have:

CFTs, External Enclosed Weapons Pod, EPEs, and 11x19 Large Format Touchscreen Display.

 

Among other small improvements.

[countto10]

Well I thought that was the big deal about the F-22 and its ability to reach speeds over Mach 1 without using afterburners...

You can probably start a car in 3rd gear but you wouldn't because it isn't efficient. For the same reason, the extension in the time required to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2 without AB makes it inefficient as regards both time and fuel, so it's a lose-lose. For the similar reasons, you wouldn't cruise between Mach 1.0 and 1.2.

[NineLine]

Ok, but getting to those speeds without afterburners is part of the stealth package isnt it? Using afterburners increases the possibilities for detection on radar does it not, also I dont think comparing it to starting a car in 3rd gear is far as thrust before afterburner is still probably quite substantial...

 

By no means am I an expert, and I am asking to better understand, but I always thought supercruise was getting past the speed of sound without the use of afterburners. Otherwise it doesnt sound so super :)

 

 

Edit:

From LM website:

These engines, with their unique thrust-vectoring nozzle and integrated stealth characteristics, give the F-22 the capability to supercruise, or achieve Mach 1.5+ speeds, without the use of afterburners.

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/f22/f-22-capabilities.html

 

You can probably start a car in 3rd gear but you wouldn't because it isn't efficient. For the same reason, the extension in the time required to go from Mach 0.8 to 1.2 without AB makes it inefficient as regards both time and fuel, so it's a lose-lose. For the similar reasons, you wouldn't cruise between Mach 1.0 and 1.2.

Edited August 28, 2013 by NineLine

[countto10]

I'm thinking the acceleration phase would be outside the threat zone, so it wouldn't matter, a shockwave could probably be detected anyway. You could accelerate without AB but it would take much longer and probably consume more fuel too.

 

The car example was a little exaggerated but it was the best I could think of. I thought the F-22 could achieve Mach 1.6 without AB anyway?

[Pilotasso]

1.75, according to info I read over at F-16.net.

[SkateZilla]

The F-22 Conserves Fuel and Lowers IR Signature by not using afterburners to Accelerate to and maintain supersonic speeds. That's its only advantages.

 

Even with Non-Afterburning SuperCruise,

The F-22 Still uses more fuel than running the same dash at say Mach .8.

But that's the same for any SuperSonic Fighter.

 

The F-22 Still burns Considerably LESS Fuel than other Fighters at mach 1.0+ though.

 

So if the Flight plan calls for SuperSonic ingress to Target Area, the F-22 would be able to do so without lighting the burners and leaving a ridiculous IR Trail, as well as not have to burn excessive amounts of fuel.

 

AS for Gears Comment.. there isnt Gears in a Jet Engine, Only RPM.

 

And to Maintain Mach 1.0+ requires alot more RPM than it would to maintain Mach .8,

Higher Engine RPM = Higher Fuel Flow = Lower Combat Radius.

 

So It's Like Driving the Highway at 55 MPH and 3500 RPM vs 70 MPH at 6500 RPM (in the same gear, or in a 1 gear car).

 

Which is gonna burn more fuel?, the 70MPH at 6500 RPM.

[tflash]

Please stay on topic:

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130828-907639.html

[tflash]