Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
heraldabc       1/8/2012 7:07:06 PM
No.
 
The boundary definition is based on shock-wave formation and heat burden.  
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       1/8/2012 7:39:56 PM
So , at what speed something starts to ge "hypersonic" ?
 
Are actual BVR missiles supersonic or hypersonic ? (M. 4.5+)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    I am not here to educate you.   1/8/2012 7:44:59 PM
In other words I just told you in plain English and you did not understand.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/8/2012 9:36:23 PM
Actually the French define hypersonic as Mach 5+ just the same as the rest of the world, it's not an arbitrary figure.
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Sigh....   1/9/2012 7:58:09 AM
Incompetent, the French, like everybody else who accepts the definition, know when a ramjet fails to produce any net measured thrust. That is about Mach 5 depending on the jet effect and who built the ramjet. Its not arbitrary.
 
I did tell you to educate yourself, i.e. do your own damned work and teach yourself. That is perfectly in keeping with my declaration that I am not here to educate you. 
 
H.

Oh ? 5 minutes ago you told me "educate yourself" on the F-35 thread . Make your mind , sad clown .

 

I ask because for me (and in French) hypersonic means speed over Mach 6 . Not in english ?

 

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Because I'm feeling ornery...   1/9/2012 9:11:09 AM
This buffoonery was addressed to GF, but I was the first to say 'solve it in the weapon" in this thread..
 
Note where the incompetent tries to negate the argument?
 
 
gf :
 
'solve it in the weapon"
 

""absolutely.  its the same nonsense when others get excited over hypersonic platforms - the developments are about hypersonic weapons

its about capability delivery, its not a platform centric issue ""

And this is what the 'expert' said.  

Another pile of horse sh*t . First , AtoA missiles have always been hypersonic to start with even over Nam . Then , capability delivery means nothing without the launching platform , it being a manned or an unmanned aircraft .
 
The last time I looked the only AtoA missiles used in the Vietnam conflict , were a series of American missiles (Sparrow, Falcon and Sidewinder) and a Russian copy of Sidewinder (Atoll) I doubt the PRVAF had access to any SARH air to air missiles at all.
 
From what I know, the Atoll and the Sidewinder of the era burn out at about Mach 2.5. The Sparrow at burnout in the early versions was about Mach 2.5. The later versions (Es and later) reached about Mach 4. None of them were hypersonic in velocity even with the shove of a Phantom II behind them...    
 

Pfff ... 

Hey gf , why Australia is not thinking about putting 8 Amraams under a beefed-up Spitfire since the launching platform is not an issue ? You had some of the best Spitfire pilots in WW2 

Now let us address what the British did with the Spitfire when they found it didn't work in WW II.
 
The British in 1939 discovered that they lacked a suitable air to air weapon to fit to the Spitfire, (the Hurricane, The Beaufighter, the Roc, Skua, and a few other aircraft they had masquerading as fighters.) The .303 Browning machine gun, the primary British air to air weapon they fitted to their aircraft at the time, did not get the job done when it came time to splash a Junkers Ju 88 a Dornier Do 211 or a Heinkel He-111.  
 
As early as 1937-1938, the British knew they were in trouble. But they thought they knew an answer; the FRENCH (actually the Swiss) had developed a reasonably good 20mm bore air-to-air weapon that they were just beginning to fit as a 'motor cannon' to some French fighters and light bombers. This was the famous Hispano Suisa HS 404. After a long difficult and often acrimonious process, the French government was persuaded (blackmailed) into supplying the British with plans, a working weapon, and technical assistance (for once, actually worthwhile) to produce a British version of the weapon. This weapon was introduced in very small numbers at the CLOSE of the Battle of Britain in time to show dramatic improvement in HTK bullet stream, effect against German bombers and fighters when it was used.
 
Net result? The British developed a universal wing to fit to the Spitfire (V forward) that could take a combination of cannon and MGs, or all cannon(preferred in a majority of cases), or all MGs. Later British fighters (Tempest, Typhoon, Beaufighter, Mosquito) tended to sport the Hispano cannon. The Browning .303 sort of faded away, and was relegated to a role as a bomber 'morale' weapon, that actually contributed very little except waste weight, slow the Lancasters down and lessen the useful bomb loads.        
 
So what did the British do when they found their fighters lacked a sufficient HTK bullet stream against a certain target set (schnell bombers and the new tough well-built Focke-Wulfe German fighters)? Did they throw their hands up and say we need a more agile dog-fighter? Nope. They junked the rifle caliber machine gun and went for the CANNON.
They solved their basic problem in the weapon, not the plane.
 
That concludes today's history lesson.
 
And that is also why I don't pay attention to the HORSE MANURE that certain posters throw around, when they claim they know aircraft or military matters in general.
 
H.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/9/2012 11:42:29 AM
It's the same old story though, BW thinks he knows best, loudly states his case and shows his ignorance.
 
AFAIK the only AA missile that came close to being hypersonic was the AIM-54(C?) as it climbed into the upper atmosphere (>100k feet) on a more or less ballistic trajectory - I don't think it was regarded as hypersonic for the obvious reason that only a very small part of its flight would occur near mach 5. 
 
A modified version of this missile with warhead/sensors etc removed to save weight was used IIRC as a hypersonic effects testbed.  
 
It doesn't make any sense for any body expected to travel a medium or long distance through any portion of the troposphere or the lower stratosphere to go hypersonic, you just waste more on your fuel on heat/drag.
 
But it doesn't matter that BW is ignorant of basic concepts, he is still eminently qualified to loudly argue with those who know better. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       1/9/2012 12:26:33 PM
All of this because something was lost in translation in between "supersonic" and hypersonic" ....
Great .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/9/2012 12:35:49 PM
No,
 
Because once again you call people out on principles you have no understanding of.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Correction   1/9/2012 12:36:55 PM
Btw: Re AIM-54C on closer inspection it appears the testbed had to be launched from Mach 2+ to go hypersonic with a reduced payload, so I guess the original missile never came close.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics