US two generations behind Russian fighter jets

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Billy T, Jan 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    June 1982: Syria deploys SA-6 surface to air missile batteries in Lebanon's Bekka Valley, in response to the Israeli incursion into south Lebanon, to destroy PLO forces based there. The IAF quickly determines that the SA-6s must be neutralized. Over a two-day period (9-10 June), the IAF destroys all 19 missile batteries in the Bekka Valley. When the Syrian Air Force (SAF) rises to challenge the IAF, they pay dearly for that decision. In air-to-air combat, the final score was IAF: 82 SAF: 0.

    On January 4, 1989, two US F-14 Tomcats downed two Libyan MiG-23 Flogger

    The USAF deployed F-15C, D, and E models to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm where they accounted for 36 of the 39 Air Force air-to-air victories

    An F-15E achieved an aerial kill of another Iraqi Mi-8 helicopter using a laser-guided bomb during the air war.

    USAF F-15Cs shot down four Yugoslav MiG-29s using AIM-120 missiles during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    To Buffalo Roam:
    I did not clealy specify that I was speaking only of F22 vs SU-30 engagements as I thought that was clear from the fact that many prior posts only discussed the F22 vs SU-30 conflict.

    But one should always try to be accurate, even if your words are quoted out of original context, so I thank you for forcefully reminding me of this.

    Certainly there still will be old fashioned dog fights, just not between US and Russia' first line, most advanced fighters (SU-30 & F22). Those two will kill their target (or be killed) before either pilot ever see the other plane. I suspect that quite commonly an F22 /SU-30 engagment will end with both planes destroyed by the other's long range missle(s).
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. jadervason Registered Member

    My sentiments exactly. Even from a PURELY kinematic standpoint, the F-22 has greater thrust, lower weight, and bigger wings than the SU-30MKI. Being able to reduce your speed to zero in a fancy display isn't as helpful as a SUSTAINED 9-10g turn (don't get me started on how, many pilots can withstand greater than 9gs.)

    You can't do a cobra, flat broadside manuever, or any of those spectacular shake-n-bake moves at 500 knots, which is where you damn well better be in any fight.

    Suppose you DO shake the NUTS off of the first missile with your flat broadside maneuver, your energy state is now completely fudged for subsequent incoming missiles. I'm not sure how, but I don't think the doppler window thing works once the F-22 has already locked onto the target. It is really that spiffy.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    To jadervason:

    I think you are too concerned with speed, but we I think agree that no jet can out run a missle unless it has a good head start separation.

    What can help it survive is acceleration. I.e. changing the velocity so rapidly that the projected point of intercept changes by miles in less than a tenth of a second. Or what I would and have called "ducking."

    The missle will run down the jet with only smoove and slowly turning velocity, like the F22, but may well lose radar track even on a slow plane that can very rapidly stop or revese directions, etc. The missle is constantly up dating (and that that is not a continuous process) where the intercept will be. Might have been continuous projection of the intercept if analogue computers were still used, but the calculation is a sequence of digital steps.) Surely you do not think the missle flys to where the target is "seen" do you? (The radar can know that, but only the range accurately, not very well defined the bearing.)

    If IR is used by the missle, then the hot opaque cloud probably blinds its IR guidance or at least hides the SU-30 inside it.

    Again: Speed with little ability to "duck" * is not very helpful unless the gap between the missle at launch and the intercept point exceeds the missle range limits.
    *DUCK I.e. to make large accelerations and than includes rapid change of direction at constant speed, quick stopping, etc. The maneuvers that are shown in the OP video will throw the projected intercept point many miles to almost randomly selected points in tens of milla seconds. How will the missle chose which point to head towards?

    I.e. I think the intercept solution will be too dynamic for the F22's missle to make any intercept with radar guidance. The hot opaque cloud voids an IR guided intercept, especially if there is a hot small rocket launched along the original trajectory just before "ducking" into your hot opaque cloud.

    At this point we will not agree - I am basing my arguements on physics and you on the views you say are those of experienced pilots. - So I will stop. I am sure you understand my POV, and I think opinions of how it was in Nam, etc. no longer apply for the SU-30/F22 engagement with long range missles. I will grant the F22 could win if the SU-30 let it get close. (I.e within cannon range.)

    Buffalo is correct however in that the old fashioned dog fight between lessor planes is not gone forever.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 15, 2008
  8. jadervason Registered Member

    There is nothing slow about the F-22, including the way it turns. It can do cobras and GAIN altitude.

    I disagree with your standpoint that a missile could be dodged in this manner; if you're in a missile's no escape zone, you can pull 9 g's in any direction and still be hit. This includes sudden deceleration, I believe. And pulling a 9G turn at mach .99 would probably be a lot more effective than a 9G maneuver at sub 200 knots.
  9. weed_eater_guy It ain't broke, don't fix it! Registered Senior Member

    If memory serves, many of these missles do something in the order of 20 to 30 gees, ducking a missle capable of turning and accelerating this hard I'd think would be an impressive feat. By the time one recovers from the maneuver, there is likely another missle already very close by.

    I'm not expert on this or anything, correct me if i'm wrong!
  10. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Billy T

    In a modern dog fight speed is life, you loose your energy you lose your life, and actually its been that was since WWII, the one advantage the U.S. aircraft had in WWII in the Pacific was that they were faster then the Zero, by 40 miles a hour or more, now if you let your speed bleed below 200 miles a hour to try and dog fight a Zero, he will eat your lunch, to kill a Zero you maintain your energy hit him on the go by extend out if you don't kill him, come back around and hit him again, that is what I have read from the instructors manuals and class curriculum of the fighter training schools, and from the time I spent in flight simulators in the Military, the Air Force was kind enough to let me do some time in their simulators, that is exactly how it works.

    It works the same way in a helicopter, speed is life in a threat environment, even in a helicopter which I can speak of from direct experience, fast is better, use your best attack/approach profile, hit and get out, once you slow down you are vulnerable, and remain so until you regain speed and altitude.
  11. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    So what...then you have another obscure tactical one off meaningless engagement only guys like Buffalo Roam are going to be able to remember.
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    You know a lot more of this sort of stuff than I do, but my memory tells me just the opposite. I.e. that the one advantage that the zero had was it higher speed. Are you sure of your statement? If true, is it only true under special conditions?
  13. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    when falling.
  14. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Sorry to butt in, but I can tell you this.

    At the start of the Pacific war, 1941-42 the Zero was often matched up Vs the F4F Wildcat, which it had every advantage over, except perhaps ability to dive and umm it was made of wood mostly - a paper tiger - wimpy. Why did the 'mericans out kill the zero even in this period?

    Ask Jimmy Thatch(ops I think he is gone

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) he developed the Thatch weave, among other things. A dogfighting tactic of teamwork between the lead and his wingman which negated every advantage the zero had and even capitalized on the Japanese experience pilot perchance to try to engage solo and not as a team. Also this basically made it, given equal marksmanship, a plane toughness vs plan toughness match. The one area the F4F had over the Zero.

    Kinda like what i've been trying to tell you Billy. Every "egg-head" mechanical/technical advantage has been often countered by the good ol' stick and rudder seat of the pants, Stud, in the pilot's seat. From Fokker's synchronization gear(causing the Fokker scourge) to the Zero's uber plane status in 1942(and by 1943 it was junk, the F6F had everything over the Zero), to the Nam pilots finding a workaround to bum F4 missles(they were dumbfiring) and no cannon.

    The zero is a good analogy of what we might be talking about with the su30 - as far as this vectored ability horseshit. A paper tiger.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2008
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Thanks, I guess that was the period I was thinking of. I also note that in early WWII the Japanese torpedos were very functional and US's were basically were not at all functional, again from memory. IMHO, US won the pacific war because of "Rosy, the riviter" etc. -I.e. US's installed productive base was just too great for Japan to stop. I seem to recal US was able to turn out landing craft for the invasion in Europe by the dozens each day. etc.
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member


    There I will agree with you the Japs had excellent torpedoes, they use LOX as a fuel for them, a dangerous practice.

    The problem wasn't with our torpedos it was with the detonator, but then the Germans gave us a present, a run up torpedo on a Georgia Beach, and their Detonator system fully intact.

    We used their detonators and advanced our torpedoes technology with their technology, and developed wire guided torps.
  17. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Yes the Zero topped out at 320 mph, the P-40 at 360 mph, and the F-4-F at 320, in level flight, but the American aircraft had a absolute break away maneuver the the Japs couldn't touch, in a dive the VNE of a Zero was 410 mph, and the the force necessary to control the ailerons stacked up as the speed went above 240 mph, and the torque made it difficult to do a highs speed break to the right. The U.S. aircraft had VNE around 500 mph, and easily went in to high speed dives, and then could break up and to the right and Mr. Zero couldn't make the cut.

    It was the pilots knowing their aircraft, its strengths and it weakness, and using their aircraft to its best advantage.

    Specifications (F4F-4)

    Grumman F4F-4 Wildcat with six kill markings (1942).
    F4F-4 receives maintenance of its six M2 Browning machine guns.Data from[citation needed]

    General characteristics
    Crew: 1
    Length: 28 ft 9 in (8.8 m)
    Wingspan: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
    Height: 9 ft 2.5 in (2.8 m)
    Wing area: 260 ft² (24.2 m²)
    Empty weight: 5,760 lb (2,610 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 7,950 lb (3,610 kg)
    Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney R-1830-86 double-row radial engine, 1,200 hp (900 kW)
    Maximum speed: 320 mph (290 knots, 515 km/h)
    Range: 770 mi (670 nm, 1,240 km)
    Service ceiling 39,500 ft (12,000 m)
    Rate of climb: 1,950 ft/min (9.9 m/s)
    Guns: 6× 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 240 rounds/gun
    Bombs: 2× 100 lb (45 kg) bombs

    [edit] Specifications (A6M2 Type 0 Model 21)
    Data from The Great Book of Fighters[9]

    General characteristics
    Crew: 1
    Length: 9.06 m (29 ft 9 in)
    Wingspan: 12.0 m (39 ft 4 in)
    Height: 3.05 m (10 ft 0 in)
    Wing area: 22.44 m² (241.5 ft²)
    Empty weight: 1,680 kg (3,704 lb)
    Loaded weight: 2,410 kg (5,313 lb)
    Max takeoff weight: kg (lb)
    Powerplant: 1× Nakajima Sakae 12 radial engine , 709 kW (950 hp)
    * Aspect ratio: 6.4
    Never exceed speed: 660 km/h (356 knots, 410 mph)
    Maximum speed: 533 km/h (287 knots, 331 mph) at 4,550 m (14,930 ft)

    Range: 3,105 km (1,675 nm, 1,929 mi)
    Service ceiling 10,000 m (33,000 ft)
    Rate of climb: 15.7 m/s (3,100 ft/min)
    Wing loading: 107.4 kg/m² (22.0 lb/ft²)
    Power/mass: 294 W/kg (0.18 hp/lb)

    2× 7.7 mm (0.303 in) Type 97 machine guns in the engine cowling
    2× 20 mm (0.787 in) Type 99 cannons in the wings

    Divergence of trajectories between 7.7mm and 20mm ammunitionBombs:

    2× 66 lb (30 kg) and
    1× 132 lb (60 kg) bombs or
    2× fixed 250 kg (550 lb) bombs for kamikaze attacks

    Specifications (P-40E)

    P-40E in flight.General characteristics
    Crew: 1
    Length: 31 ft 8 in (9.66 m)
    Wingspan: 37 ft 4 in (11.38 m)
    Height: 12 ft 4 in (3.76 m)
    Wing area: 235.94 ft² (21.92 m²)
    Empty weight: 6,350 lb (2,880 kg)
    Loaded weight: 8,280 lb (3,760 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: 8,810 lb (4,000 kg)
    Powerplant: 1× Allison V-1710-39 liquid-cooled V12 engine, 1,150 hp (860 kW)
    Maximum speed: 360 mph (310 knots, 580 km/h)
    Cruise speed: 270 mph (235 knots, 435 km/h)

    Range: 650 mi (560 nm, 1,100 km)
    Service ceiling 29,000 ft (8,800 m)
    Rate of climb: 2,100 ft/min (11 m/s)
    Wing loading: 35.1 lb/ft² (171.5 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.14 hp/lb (230 W/kg)
    Guns: 6× .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns, 150~200 rounds per gun
    Bombs: 250 lb (113 kg) to 1,000 Ib (453 kg), a total of 1,500 lb (680 kg) on three hardpoints (one under the fuselage and two underwing)

    Specifications (P-39Q Airacobra)

    Bell P-39Q Airacobra at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.General characteristics
    Crew: One
    Length: 30 ft 2 in (9.2 m)
    Wingspan: 34 ft 0 in (10.4 m)
    Height: 12 ft 5 in (3.8 m)
    Wing area: 213 ft² (19.8 m²)
    Empty weight: 5,347 lb (2,425 kg)
    Loaded weight: 7,379 lb (3,347 kg)
    Max takeoff weight: lb (kg)
    Powerplant: 1× Allison V-1710-85 liquid-cooled V-12, 1,200 hp (895 kW)
    Maximum speed: 376 mph; (605 km/h; Redline dive speed=525 mph.)
    Range: 1,098 miles (1,770 km)
    Service ceiling 35,000 ft (10,700 m)
    Rate of climb: 3,750 ft/min (19 m/s; 15,000'/ 4.5 min @ 160 mph (260 km/h).)
    Wing loading: 34.6 lb/ft² (169 kg/m²)
    Power/mass: 0.16 hp/lb (0.27 kW/kg)
    1x 37 mm M4 cannon firing through the propeller hub at the rate of 140 rpm with 30 rounds of HE ammo.
    4 x .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine guns. Rate of fire was 750 rpm x 1 gun in each wing, only 300 rpm each x 2 guns synchronized in the cowl. Ammo: 200 rounds per nose-gun, 300 per wing-pod.
    Up to 500 lb (230 kg) of bombs externally
  18. draqon Banned Banned

    pretty darn slow
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Not in WWII. The fact is that many Russians Aces made their bones in P-39s.

    Jr. Lt. Pavel Klimov: 11 individual and 16 shared kills.

    Lt.Col. Aleksandar Pokryshkin: 59 individual 6 shared kills

    Capt. Alesksandr Klubov: 31 individual 19 shared kills.

    Capt. Pavel Kamozin: 35 individual 13 shared kills.

    and a couple of a hundred more, lucky we sent the Air Cobra to Uncle Joe, so his pilots could do so well.
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Hi Buffalo:

    You are obviously some air plane nut, very knowledgable, so I want to confirm (or correct) a belief I have, from now forgotten source:

    I believe that some WWII vintage fighters, did briefly augment their power by injecting some water into the cylinders.

    My interest in this is related to a set of very careful measurments of my gas milage one summmer. My data made no sense at all, until I realized that the moisture in the air was important, but I could not get the results to be quantatively related. For example on my standard* 100+ mile weekend run to eat home cooked food, I got best milage on a foggy eve even with lights and radio on (I could calculate that extra energy drain.) I never got around to adding a wet rag evaporator to the carborator as wrecked the car** first, but still believe that humid (tiny water drops) air helps as there is plenty of energy to expand those drops in the hot exhaust - I.e. if you can discard exhaust, which is made cooler by evaporating water drops in the volume of the combustion chamber, you are more efficient and powerful. (Pressure on top of descending piston remains higher as water becomes steam, is another way to understand the effect I observed.)
    *Always stopped at the one traffic light even if it was green, had scratch line inside the gas tank filler tube as fill point, always parked in exactly same spot at same two gas station, filling with the same pump, estimated its gage to 0.02 gallons, etc. I was even careful to make sure no gas slipped out of the pump's hose un measured. (I had a used Vespa motor scooter for my summer job commute the summer before and never paid for gas by draining the hose after station closed (First customer next day paid for me, but I was much poorer than anyone who had a car, so did not feel too sorry for that person.) I got free "new" spark plugs, which were used in the oil company I worked for dynamometer testing lab 100 hours, just before each run, etc. Duration of the trip was timed as it progress at several points to make sure I held speed I was testing (Two different ones were used, but only 5 mph different.) Only the air moisture was not carefully controlled, yet my data made no sense until I correllated with weather.

    **Car was old and badly needed a ring job. As I set off for Cornell, I had 24 gallons of oil in the trunk. I called it a "semi-diesel" so wrecking it was a blessing - I could not afford a car, even that old clunker with free oil from my summer job. It is also part of the reason I am sure that the SU-30 could make a hot opaque cloud with a little oil injected into the exhaust. (I never had a problem with anyone "tail-gating" me.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2008
  21. jadervason Registered Member

    Some jet fighters, such as the AV-8B, are also designed/equipped for water injection.
  22. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Billy T, yes you could say I'm a airplane nut, but I'm really a history nut.

    Is this what you are talking about?

    Water injection is a method for cooling the combustion chambers of engines by adding water to the incoming fuel-air mixture, allowing for greater compression ratios and largely eliminating the problem of engine knocking. This effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel, meaning that performance gains can be obtained when used in conjunction with a supercharger or turbocharger, altered spark ignition timing, and other modifications. Many water injection systems use a mixture of water and alcohol (usually 50/50), partly because the alcohol is combustible, while water is not; in addition, the alcohol serves as an antifreeze for the water. Hence, water injection is also often known as methanol-water injection, owing to the fact that the alcohol mixed into the injection solution is often methanol, CH3OH.

    The system was first used extensively on World War II fighter aircraft to increase power upon takeoff and bring up the service ceiling.

    When a intercooler is used you don't need Water injection to get those power boost, and if I am correct it increases the efficiency.

    If I am correct the B-24, B-17, B-29, P-47 and the P-38 were all the aircraft with intercoolers. The rest of the aircraft in WWII used Water Methanol, injections

    As for adding adding a wet rag evaporator to the carburetor, remember that water causes rust, to prevent that from ruining your cylinder walls it need to be methanol-water mixture as the methanol inhibit the rust. But when you add methanol to the water you raise the evaporation rate, so a evaporations system will have a retaliatively short useful life as you drive, the heat from the engine will raise the evaporation rate.

    Back in my younger years when I was really in to the go fast crowed, A 1967 Chevelle, 396 cid. 400 hp. fire breathing go buggy, that sucked fuel like a hungry baby draining a bottle, I added a water methanol system, to improve the gas mileage, it came from some company that I don't remember the name of, could have been Ofenhauser, and as long as I keep my foot out of the back to barrels of the carburetor, I could get 21 miles to the gallon.

    I think SAAB has something like it, but I don't know it it comes a separate system?

    Does that help?
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Yes thanks.

    I think that one should avoid focusing on the "cooling" and note more the fact that you can inject mist of DROPS which take time for heat transfer to convert entirely to steam. This increases the combustion chamber pressure, in the later part of the down stroke especially getting more work out of the same quantity of fuel.

    As far as water injection making rust, that may be a consideration, but I would think more in the muffler than in the combustion chambers as one of the main products of buring gasoline is water already. In any case, I did not worry about it in my old cluncker. A little rust on the cylinder walls might have cut down the worn rings blow-by.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page