tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post7098272057010410328..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Maintenance UpgradesComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87916172717989679472016-08-15T06:49:33.623-07:002016-08-15T06:49:33.623-07:00I read this over the weekend:
http://jerryofgarci...I read this over the weekend:<br /><br />http://jerryofgarcia.kinja.com/f-35a-fuel-fraction-findings-1783148610<br /><br />Now I'm all confused. He seems to have a different take on fuel fraction (one I hadn't considered); that being that you can go do high, because the more fuel you bring aloft, the bigger the engine you have to have, and that you can reach an efficiency tipping point. <br /><br />That said, I'm all for big fuel fractions, and he seems to think the F-35A is fine in its fuel fraction and might do better long range because it can be mission capable and still fly clean, unlike other aircraft which look better on paper but aren't as efficient because they have to haul around their ordinance externally (I.E. a Strike Eagle or Flanker looks way better on paper, but load it up with tons of missiles and bombs and the drag makes it worse or much closer). <br /><br />Given the other issues we know the F_35 has, I'm a bit skeptical. But its not something I'd read before. <br /><br />I did try to do some fuel fraction calculations myself to come up with real comparisons, but was having a hard time finding good numbers, and defining some numbers (I.E. what does loaded weight mean) so I left them out. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70314181232953291782016-08-12T06:46:51.904-07:002016-08-12T06:46:51.904-07:00Good point.
How about this, I'm not enamored...Good point. <br /><br />How about this, I'm not enamored with Rafale so much as I am with a nearly 1000 mile combat radius. <br /><br />Give me a plane with a good combat radius, and a good bring back and cruise speed, and I'll be a happy man. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54073584995359563982016-08-12T06:28:05.560-07:002016-08-12T06:28:05.560-07:00I flat out don't believe the combat radius cla...I flat out don't believe the combat radius claim. As you know, you can make almost any claim by manipulating the loadouts and flight profiles. This claim seems ridiculously high. Consider this comment from Wiki on Rafales in the Libyan conflict,<br /><br />"During the conflict, Rafales typically conducted six-hour sorties over Libyan airspace, ... these patrols required multiple aerial refueling operations per sortie from coalition tanker aircraft."<br /><br />That does not lend credence to claims of 1000+ mile combat radius.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9060685136347052892016-08-12T05:52:09.734-07:002016-08-12T05:52:09.734-07:00I don't think we'd ever get the government...I don't think we'd ever get the government or Navy to go for it, but I'm 100% on board with that. If we could license build the Rafale I think it would make a very nice core aircraft for our CVN's. <br /><br />From Wiki:<br />Combat radius: 1,852+ km (1,000+ nmi) on penetration mission<br />Maximum speed:<br />High altitude: Mach 1.8 (1,912 km/h, 1,032 knots)<br />Low altitude: Mach 1.1 (1,390 km/h, 750 knots)<br /><br />With a 1000 nm Combat radius, and coupled with AIM-120D or meteor, the carrier can both perform strike missions from *much* farther out and also perform a good fleet defense role (good range/loiter time + long range of AIM-120D or Meteor)<br /><br /><br />Then there's this: <br /><br />"It is the only non-US fighter type cleared to operate from the decks of US carriers, using catapults and their arresting gear, as demonstrated in 2008 when six Rafales from Flottille 12F integrated into the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Air Wing interoperability exercise.[234]"<br /><br />Finally, doing this might give a kidney shot to US defense contractors. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9627410854847329622016-08-11T17:05:19.831-07:002016-08-11T17:05:19.831-07:00I'm disappointed but perhaps another time?I'm disappointed but perhaps another time? ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-83506762642057934502016-08-11T16:23:49.689-07:002016-08-11T16:23:49.689-07:00Fair enough, a F-14 "Super" would no dou...Fair enough, a F-14 "Super" would no doubt be a better interceptor than the F-35, and would be able to double up as a "Bombcat" still. The challenge with the F-35 is that it is at its weight margins already, and the payload is very limited. That's not even considering the current crop of reliability problems the F-35 faces. <br /><br />Still, I think there are better alternatives. The Dassault Rafale is a good example of an alternative, although it's more of a fighter than anything else (it a good dogfighter and can also carry bombs).AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-9919609441470854092016-08-11T16:20:30.456-07:002016-08-11T16:20:30.456-07:00@CNO
I'm too busy right now to do that in muc...@CNO<br /><br />I'm too busy right now to do that in much detail, but briefly, my thoughts:<br /><br />You are right that a F-14 is not intended to be a pure dogfighter, but it will inevitably in its job get intercepted by enemy fighter aircraft. The problem is that you need either an aircraft that can either outfight or outrun an enemy. <br /><br />Although I have praised the Su-27 variants, it is not a very good dogfighter (better than the F-14, but still not awesome) and although it is at a drawback in transient performance, it does have the option to try to outrun the enemy. <br /><br />As far as a modern F-14 Super Tomcat - what it might look like?<br /><br />It would be faster than the old Tomcat at cruise speed, although maximum afterburner speeds may be unchanged. It's not a huge drawback and cruise speeds are far more important. <br /><br />A modernized missile variant of the AIM-54 Phoenix would have been procured, perhaps extending its range. It would be dangerous against larger aircraft (fuel tankers, enemy AWACs, and perhaps most importantly as a interceptor, enemy bombers). It would not be very effective though against smaller aircraft that are more agile (ex: like fighters). The AIM-54 did not do so well in USN hands historically against enemy aircraft. There are claims though that in the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian F-14s did get several kills against Iraqi aircraft, but keep in mind Iraqi pilots were not well trained.<br /><br />But the reason why I focus on a few characteristics is because we are comparing what a hypothetical "modern" F-14 might do versus an equal technology alternative. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10903496475419482312016-08-11T12:53:32.923-07:002016-08-11T12:53:32.923-07:00Here's a new example of a maintenance upgrade ...Here's a new example of a maintenance upgrade that's in the ballpark of what I'm talking about. This one is for the entire Marine CH-53E fleet. From dodbuzz.com,<br /><br />"... each Super Stallion will spend approximately 110 days in a reset process that will involve stripping the aircraft down and rebuilding it while replacing any aging components."<br /><br />If we can do this, we can certainly do the type of complete maintenance upgrade I'm suggesting.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79757922737705250152016-08-11T06:04:52.934-07:002016-08-11T06:04:52.934-07:00Alt, do you have any interest in doing a guest pos...Alt, do you have any interest in doing a guest post on what a SuperTomcat could have been, today, if we had not gone the Hornet route? It would be interesting to compare what a modern SuperTomcat would look like compared to today's F-18E/F and even F-35. ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59210709990732551292016-08-11T06:02:08.530-07:002016-08-11T06:02:08.530-07:00Alt, you seem to have both an interest in aircraft...Alt, you seem to have both an interest in aircraft and some degree of knowledge. I'd love to be able to use you as an expert source of information and evaluation. You could be a wonderful resource for this blog. Unfortunately, you seem to have only one criterion for aircraft design, fuel fraction, and you seem to have a tendency to pick points out to win arguments rather than perform objective analyses and comparisons. A phillips head screw may save a tiny fraction of a milligram of weight over a slot head screw so, in theory, an aircraft built with phillips head screws is superior. However, in practical terms, it has absolutely no impact. Yet, these are the types of arguments you're making in an attempt to "win" a point rather than analyze.<br /><br />You're also ignoring roles. An F-14, for example, was not intended to be a pure dogfighter. To criticize it for its dogfighting shortcomings in comparison to an F-22, for example, is to completely miss what it was designed to do.<br /><br />I would love for you to be an expert resource for all of us but in order to do that you need to be objective, practical, and ensure that when you make statements that they are based on data. There's nothing wrong with speculating as long as you make it clear that that's what you're doing. For example, I might say that logic suggests, but I have no supporting data to prove it, that the swing wing support structure is heavier than a conventional wing's support structure and my estimate is 20% heavier. <br /><br />You also need to quantify the practical impact of your points. For example, a phillips head screw aircraft is superior to a slot head screw aircraft but the practical impact of the difference is negligible. <br /><br />If you're willing to do this you can be a valuable resource for me and the readers of this blog. If not, I'm forced to discount your assessments which would be a loss of the knowledge you seem to have. What you're doing now is hurting the credibility of your comments.<br /><br />Take the "win the argument" approach out of your analyses and, instead, provide objective assessments and I'll look forward to all your comments!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-21638476670353678882016-08-11T05:41:50.688-07:002016-08-11T05:41:50.688-07:00"I'm sure though that it is quite heavy a..."I'm sure though that it is quite heavy and complex."<br /><br />Was heavier than a conventional wing support structure? Give me a real number and then we'll know. Say, an F-15E/C? Until then, the increased weight is something you're speculating on rather than a fact. Odds are it is heavier but my guess is not by much. <br /><br />As far as complexity, I've seen the public drawings and it doesn't look very complex to me at all. It's actually rather simple. I've never heard of a documented wing swing failure or even any particularly onerous maintenance requirement. Again, if you want to make the claim, prove it. Provide some data or examples of myriad failures.<br /><br />"On the weight on the wings, if an equivalent mass aircraft can carry more weapons, then it is superior."<br /><br />No. It is superior if it can carry more weapons. It doesn't matter where they are. The Tomcat had 10 hardpoints and could carry 12 weapons on those 10 hardpoints (the glove hardpoint used multiple racks that carried 2 weapons each). Potentially 12 weapons is outstanding. The Su-27, I think (check me on this) has an identical 10 hardpoints.<br /><br />Also, wing hardpoints are significant sources of drag. By comparison, the Tomcat's 6 fuselage hardpoints impose minimal drag penalties and are far superior to the Su-27 or any wing-loaded aircraft. You're really not being objective in your analyses. <br /><br />"A SuperTomcat 21 would have been a lot more expensive than a Super Hornet"<br /><br />Come on, now. You can't have any idea what the cost would have been. Besides, it's not the cost, it's what you get for the cost and, again, we don't know what a SuperTomcat, today, would have given us.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35652200016130556542016-08-11T05:01:23.178-07:002016-08-11T05:01:23.178-07:00"A SuperTomcat 21 would have been a lot more ..."A SuperTomcat 21 would have been a lot more expensive than a Super Hornet and would have been inferior in many regards to a Western equal to an Su-33."<br /><br />That isn't what I've read. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. <br /><br />Yes, the ST21 would have been more expensive than an SH. But we're there now with the F-35. And the purchases would have been made in a more permissive budget environment (without sequestration). <br /><br />In return we'd have an aircraft with likely double the range of the SH without gasbags; real top end, and the ability to hoist alot of ordinance. <br /><br />Those 3 things right off make the carriers more effective than they are now; and give us more options for an A2/AD environment. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39856086304825285662016-08-10T21:41:01.976-07:002016-08-10T21:41:01.976-07:00I'd have to disagree with you on the weight pa...I'd have to disagree with you on the weight part, although I will have to check later.<br /><br />I'm sure though that it is quite heavy and complex. Actually in the case of one planned aircraft, the Boeing SST (which was to be an American Concorde, more less), the mass of the box beam and wing pivots was so big that the design had to be abandoned for a delta-winged design.<br /><br />On the weight on the wings, if an equivalent mass aircraft can carry more weapons, then it is superior. The Su-33 for example, can carry weapons on the folding wings:<br /><br />http://www.ausairpower.net/V-MF/KnAAPO-Su-33-4.jpg<br /><br />Yes, there is a penalty for folding wings (cannot sustain high g's), but it's not nearly as bad as for swing wings. Folding wings are a much simpler technology and have been around since WW2. <br /><br />https://i.stack.imgur.com/bm29T.jpg<br /><br /><br />A SuperTomcat 21 would have been a lot more expensive than a Super Hornet and would have been inferior in many regards to a Western equal to an Su-33.<br /><br />I should also mention one other drawback of variable swept wings - the wing loading is high due to small wing area compared to a tailless delta. That would be a drawback for dodging missiles that are incoming and would be really bad in a dogfight.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64450633690786344712016-08-09T19:41:09.125-07:002016-08-09T19:41:09.125-07:00I don't have data for this but I strongly susp...I don't have data for this but I strongly suspect you're taking data out of context or using it in isolation. For example, the Tomcat swing mechanism (do you have a reference for 2 tons? I doubt the number) is almost certainly not a case of two additional tons. If it were a conventional wing it would have spars or some such attaching and supporting structure which would weigh something. The question is not what did the swing mechanism weigh but what was the differential in weight between it and a conventional structure? I suspect (but have no data) that there is relatively little net difference in weight.<br /><br />I strongly suspect that the wing motors do not weigh two tons, as you claim. A two ton motor could lift an aircraft carrier! It might be a two ton capacity motor but that's not the same as the weight of the motor! Give me a reference for that weight.<br /><br />As far as weapons on the wings, the Tomcat did not need them. The Tomcat had plenty of weapon space under the fuselage and on the wing support area. In fact, having the weapons tucked into the fuselage undoubtedly reduced drag compared to conventional wing weapons carry thereby increasing range and speed. It also would improve stealth although the Tomcat was not a stealth aircraft.<br /><br />The swing wing was no more complex than folding wings and was not "delicate". Out of all the gazillion flight hours, there might have been one incident of wing failure. <br /><br />The swing wing also eliminated the need for folding wings which would have saved folding wing mechanism weight and reduced folding wing mechanism maintenance. A significant savings over a conventional Navy aircraft wing!<br /><br />As time went on, the swing wing was no longer needed but it was hardly the horrific monstrosity that so many people now believe. For its time, the swing wing was a successful piece of advanced technology and more than met its requirements. It offered the Tomcat many advantages in its intended role as a fleet interceptor and carrier aircraft.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10524658422870571252016-08-09T19:20:04.968-07:002016-08-09T19:20:04.968-07:00You're repeating my caution to you. You'r...You're repeating my caution to you. You're focusing exclusively on fuel fraction. As I acknowledged, it's a useful thing to have but it's hardly the only, or even most important, design criterion. <br /><br />To use your own example of the Battle of Britain, the fuel fraction of the RAF aircraft was irrelevant. Far more important was speed, maneuverability, and firepower.<br /><br />C'mon, be accurate. There have been very few recorded dogfights that were decided by fuel. Dogfights end in moments or a very few minutes. The Cunningham dogfight was one of the longest on record and it was still over in a matter of minutes and not decided by fuel. If I thought hard enough I might be able to recall one or two out of the many hundreds I've read about. I'm sure there have been many instances where combat was declined due to lack of fuel but that can happen to the most fuel efficient aircraft, not just to short legged ones.<br /><br />A few minutes one way or the other on afterburner is irrelevant. I can't recall a single report of an aircraft ever being shot down because of a couple of minutes less afterburn time.<br /><br />You've latched on to one factor and made it the only factor in your evaluations. Armor, firepower, maneuverability, radar, stealth, etc. are all as important or more important that fuel fraction.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-46830890460761812482016-08-09T18:57:29.612-07:002016-08-09T18:57:29.612-07:00The answer is because the swing wing is a very com...The answer is because the swing wing is a very complex piece of technology that is very delicate. In some ways, it is like a rail gun or the delicate radars on the Aegis.<br /><br />To make the aircraft wings swing, there are a pair of two ton motors in a box that have multiple moving parts. That is mechanically complex (hence maintenance intensive). Needless to say, this complex piece of technology is very expensive. Those "hinges and motors" don't cost a "few extra dollars", they cost a lot of money. The F-111 and F-14 were very expensive aircraft. The B-1 too blew away its budgetted costs. <br /><br />On the F-14, the box itself that did the swinging was about 2 tons and then there is the motor and hydraulics. Within that box are lots of moving parts. That is a huge point of failure. That would mean that for a given fleet size (already reduced by the expensive procurement costs), you would have an inferior flight to maintenance ratio, leading to a much lower sortie rate. The sweep mechanism also uses a lot of space inside the aircraft as well, which could otherwise be used to store fuel or payload.<br /><br />In combat, when the aircraft did fly (you would not be able to buy as many for a given budget compared to a fixed wing because of the procurement costs and those that were bought would not fly as often), you would have an aircraft heavier than a competing fixed wing aircraft because it weighs more thanks to the "swing" mechanism. That would lead to the lower thrust to weight ratio, which leads to a lower cruise speed (because of the extra mass of the swing mechanism). Weight is an extremely important part of any aircraft design. Anything that adds weight is not desirable, more so when it worsens reliability. Although fortunately, the Cold War never turned hot, I suspect that in combat, the swing mechanism would prove fragile. <br /><br />The other problem of course is that adding weight reduces payload and range (even though the swing wing can somewhat compensate for this, it cannot make up for the considerable weight penalty). You'll notice that the "swing wings" don't carry heavy missiles on the wings themselves, unlike conventional aircraft wings. They don't carry as much fuel either in the wing, unlike say a tailess delta which can carry a lot. <br /><br />Basically the mass and reliability problems of the box and hinge negate any of the advantages of the swing wing, plus then some. Not to mention modern technology gives many of the benefits. I should also mention that although I don't have a high opinion of radar stealth, it is not possible to make a very "stealthy" swing wing aircraft due to the shape of the aircraft. <br /><br /><br />I don't have time to look for sources, but here are a few answers:<br />https://www.quora.com/Why-did-aircrafts-stop-using-variable-sweep-wings-like-those-on-an-F-14AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-57238904477186588502016-08-09T18:30:04.820-07:002016-08-09T18:30:04.820-07:00Because fuel fraction is extremely important.
The...Because fuel fraction is extremely important.<br /><br />There's the range part, as defined by the Breguet Range Equation:<br />http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node98.html<br /><br />That directly affects ferry range and combat radius. But it's so much more. <br /><br />If you get into a dogfight, then it is often not the pilot with the most skill, but the pilot that can outlast the enemy that will win.<br /><br />In the Battle of Britain for example, the Luftwaffe pilots were extremely limited by low fuel supplies. Basically a few minutes and they had to turn around. It was a huge and decisive advantage. <br /><br />It's not just pilot skill, it is about endurance.<br /><br />The thing is, you don't have to sacrifice much. You can still build a very aerodynamic aircraft and have a good air to air payload. <br /><br />The other part of the range equation is of course L/D (lift to drag). In other words, more aerodynamic at the most used velocity is better. <br /><br />Plus fuel gives you options elsewhere. You can choose between range versus maximum cruise speed by altering engine thrust levels. Not to mention, cruise speed will be higher to begin with in an aerodynamic airframe anyways because it has less drag.<br /><br />Supercruise is only useful too with a high enough fuel fraction. The F-22 can only sustain around ~225 nautical miles with supercruise because it's fuel fraction is 0.29. That isn't that far and is only a few minutes.<br /><br />Likewise, if you do want to light up the afterburner, a higher fuel fraction can give a few more minutes on afterburner (afterburners can use as much as 10x fuel compared to dry thrust).<br /><br />Another advantage is the reduced dependence on fuel tankers and drop tanks. Tankers are vulnerable and mean that more money has to be spent on the tanker (plus any escorts), which means fewer attacking aircraft. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70530477383704901142016-08-09T12:06:25.319-07:002016-08-09T12:06:25.319-07:00"Drawbacks
- Reduced flight to maintenance ra..."Drawbacks<br />- Reduced flight to maintenance ratio<br />- Reduced fuel fraction (mass of swing wings)<br />- Reduced cruise speed and dogfight performance<br />- Higher cost to buy aircraft"<br /><br />What is with this swing wing bashing?<br /><br />How is a swing wing inherently more complex and maintenance intensive than a folding wing which is not considered to be complex or maintenance intensive?<br /><br />How is the mass of a swing wing significantly greater than that of a regular wing of comparable size? They both require structural reinforcement (spars or some such). The structures simply have different shapes.<br /><br />How does a swing wing reduce cruise speed? The whole point of a swing wing is to allow selection of the optimum angle for any given speed.<br /><br />How does a swing wing hurt dogfighting performance versus a comparable size aircraft?<br /><br />Why is a swing wing aircraft more expensive? Sure, a few extra dollars for some additional hinges and motors but it's hard to see how that's a significant cost increase or a significant portion of the overall cost.<br /><br />If you want to bash the swing wing then offer some data or logic to support it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-79721163317701029122016-08-09T11:58:33.680-07:002016-08-09T11:58:33.680-07:00You seem to have a near exclusive focus on fuel fr...You seem to have a near exclusive focus on fuel fraction as your measure of worth of an aircraft. There are other measures of worth that, depending on the intended function of the aircraft, might render fuel fraction (range) irrelevant. The Tomcat, for example, in its day and intended function had all the range it needed and coupled with the Phoenix missile and AWG-9 radar made the Tomcat a fantastic fleet interceptor. <br /><br />Longer range is always nice to have but once you have enough range to accomplish your mission, you don't really need more.<br /><br />As a ridiculous example, an aircraft could infinite range and endurance but if it only has a single Sidewinder, it's pretty much useless as a combat aircraft.<br /><br />I'd love to see you evaluate aircraft relative to their intended functions rather than against a completely arbitrary and often irrelevant single factor.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-831528412616809012016-08-09T06:33:27.639-07:002016-08-09T06:33:27.639-07:00Fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was t...Fair enough, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. <br /><br />I know you don't like the Tomcat, but even if all the negatives are taken into account, I still think its pretty clear that had we stuck with a SuperTomcat 21 we'd be in better shape than going down the path of the SuperHornet. <br /><br />Would the swing wings have made a maintenance penalty vs. a fixed wing? Sure. But you can make them better so overall maintenance of the aircraft is within reason. <br /><br />A clean sheet design could have been even better. I like the navalized flankers, but nothing like that was on the boards at the time, so the point is moot to me. <br /><br />Given the choice between SuperHornet in our airwings today and SuperTomcat 21 I'm going the latter every day of the week. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-17154935253286101472016-08-08T21:19:14.790-07:002016-08-08T21:19:14.790-07:00The problem is that as swing wings improve, regula...The problem is that as swing wings improve, regular wings too.<br /><br />There will always be a mass and complexity penalty for swing wings. The problem is, is the trade-off worth it?<br /><br />You get:<br />+ Lower fuel consumption on the take-off landing<br />+ Lower take-off/landing speeds <br /><br />Drawbacks<br />- Reduced flight to maintenance ratio<br />- Reduced fuel fraction (mass of swing wings)<br />- Reduced cruise speed and dogfight performance<br />- Higher cost to buy aircraft<br /><br />I'd say the drawbacks vastly outweigh any advantages. IMO, a tailed delta or a tailless-canard delta is a much better design.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3000007667324461112016-08-08T21:11:40.891-07:002016-08-08T21:11:40.891-07:00I should clarify - a Super Tomcat vs an Su-27 at e...I should clarify - a Super Tomcat vs an Su-27 at equal technological levels anyways.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-71623964620030667292016-08-08T21:10:43.518-07:002016-08-08T21:10:43.518-07:00A Super Tomcat would have been significantly infer...A Super Tomcat would have been significantly inferior to the Su-27.<br /><br />It would not have matched the SU-27's fuel fraction and the aerodynamics would not have allowed it to be anywhere near as good.<br /><br />Actually even the Su-27 is less than optimal in some regards. The engines to the rear are too widely spaced. While good for survivability, it comes at a huge cost, a weakness shared by the F-14.AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25590539160468072102016-08-08T08:48:39.026-07:002016-08-08T08:48:39.026-07:00I think we did get our monies worth out of the F-1...I think we did get our monies worth out of the F-14's, but I also think the line was shut down way to early. <br />By the late late 90s it seems there was little effort in doing anything with the Tomcat except flying out its life. I bet that will be the fate for the SuperHornet. <br /><br />The Tomcat was a great naval platform with alot of growth in it. Had they come out with a SuperTomcat 21, or an F-14E with everything the D series had, plus deliberate improvements in maintainability, maybe they could have remanufactured the D's to a higher level like they did the A's. <br /><br />You do bring up alot of good points. It would be really interesting to me to see what a C series hornet in the fleet today would look like compared to its factory original self. <br /><br />No matter what happens, I think NAVAIR is in big trouble, trying to wait for software choked F-35's while flying the wings off of Superhornets and trying to desperately SLEP ancient C's. <br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-65152644186781046912016-08-08T07:07:42.686-07:002016-08-08T07:07:42.686-07:00And that, if I recall correctly, they had to use b...And that, if I recall correctly, they had to use bombcats to open up the war in Afghanistan because the SuperHornets didn't have the range. <br /><br />It could certainly fill the attack role. <br /><br />http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.com