Sunday, March 06, 2011

Supercruise...whats the definition?

From Strategypage...
The F-22 is still one of only three aircraft (in service) that can supercruise (go faster than the speed of sound without using the afterburner.) In addition to the F-22, the Eurofighter and the Gripen can also supercruise.
Huh?

The Eurofighter and Gripen can super-cruise?

What then exactly is super-cruise? 

And how is it that the SU-27 family isn't on this list...What about the later blocks of F-15/16's?

Is it even viable?  The F-22 can buts it has much shorter legs than the much derided F-35 (I laugh at those who slam the F-35 for being short ranged yet talk about the F-22 being more suited to long patrols over the Pacific...can't they read...the F-35 can fly much further on internal gas).

What is fuel consumption like in S/C?  Has its use been wargamed?  Besides the launch of A2A and A2G weapons during the cycle to give them extra hmmph then what good is it really?

12 comments :

  1. You may think that because the USAF decided to define supercruise to be Mach 1.7, while the Eurofighter and Gripen can only do it at 1.5. This definition was decided on specifically to exclude the European fighters from the supercruise category. Also, the F-22 can maintain supercruise for a longer duration than the European planes.

    Wikipedia has a nice history of supercruise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercruise

    The Concorde was able to attain speeds of Mach 2+ without afterburner and remain at such speeds during its entire Atlantic crossing, a feat unrivaled by any of today's aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thats as good an explanation as any i've heard but what are the practical uses for such an ability?

    it kills fuel efficiency according to the wiki article. and if you're not in a stealthy airframe all it does is help you exit one integrated sam site and enter range of another one rather quickly...you're moving faster but that doesn't actually make firing solutions more difficult for modern anti-air systems.

    how would it play out in a pacific scenario?

    ReplyDelete
  3. solomon i thing this is worth of a post:
    The dead of Mikhail Simonov... the father of the su 27

    regards guillermo

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/world/europe/05simonov.html?_r=1&src=twrhp

    ReplyDelete
  4. here u have more information
    http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/10/father-of-su-27-simonov-f-15-h.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Supercruise = to cruise, at supersonic speed, without the aid of afterburners. In short, big engines, a lot fuel and sleek airframe.

    Once you get external stores on the Gripen and Eurofighter, there wont be much supercruising.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can think of a few practical uses for supercruise.

    It's 1500nm from Guam to Taichung, Taiwan. At 1100kts, a Raptor hopping from tanker to tanker could make the trip in an hour and a half. At 550kts, a non-super-cruiser would take 2.7 hours. Round trip time is 3 hours for the Raptor, and 5.4 for other fighters.

    Assuming max sortie lengths of 7 hours (pilot limited), the Raptor could spend 4 hours on station; other aircraft, only 1.6 hours.

    Tactically, supercruise can help the Raptor set up an A2A engagement in its favor, or reject an engagement if the situation is not favorable.

    Lastly, flying faster and higher can put the Raptor out of the kinematic envelope of many SAM systems that threaten other fighter aircraft. Even if it can't do so the entire sortie, it is still a worthwhile advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  7. that's a whole lot of assuming going on.

    first its that their will be tanker support ... second its assuming that the F-22 will be operating at max altitude. everyone derides the F-35 as not being able to fly high but it should be able to match the F-22's service ceiling.

    next unless the USAF and allied nations change their view of how manned aircraft operate then flights above 60,0000 feet won't be allowed without a space suit.

    lastly can you speak about how supersonic flight affects stealth performance?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, I'm assuming tanker support. Without it, no fighter-class aircraft will sortie from Guam to Taiwan. I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption. BTW, Raptors HAVE been deployed to Guam, so it's not just me saying this.

    The F-35 may be able to match the Raptor's service ceiling on a temporary basis, but it's not designed to live up there like the Raptor.

    Supersonic flight shouldn't impact radar VLO, however it will produce higher IR signatures. Top Coat and dumping heat to the fuel tanks help, but I'm sure it is higher. Then there's the issue of the supersonic boom..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Solomon, as said earlier here the new Gripen can go to about M 1.2 with a Air to air loadout. I have not seen an official release to what that loadout is, so I'll just leave it at that.
    I don't know the reason that the Flanker etc were not mentioned in the report as supercruisers, one reason is perhaps that a few of them can't do it, and some of the planes have no oficcial release of their performance.

    I have seen some tactical simulations were supercruise are useful. But maybe it is one of those things that you have learn to use to have good value of it.

    My 5 cent.
    /RAF

    ReplyDelete
  10. pfffft!

    The F-86 Saber could break Mach 1 in a dive with no burners... where is your super cruise now?
    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't leave us hanging, brother. What are the relevant comparative stats at ranges, speeds and with drops?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sorry James, was it me you were refering to?

    I was not trying to compare Gripen with F-35. I don't believe there are any official numbers on range and speed etc with the different loads on the new Gripen.

    Best Regards
    /RAF

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.