Theres plenty out and about for it.
The basic operating principle is already present on the ADAD system found on the Stormer, but its a 20 year older system and has less comptational aide which is the limiting factor on PIRATE.
Depends on what you mean by video output
It’s as simple as; if the detecting element is monolithic (and doesn’t utilize pseudo-imaging techniques) or some form of array of independent detecting elements.
A monolithic detector cannot produce a useful output in an identification sense, but doesn’t need (as) complex electronics to find and track targets, since it can reuse methods and techniques used for the radar.
In game those that do have a video output get access to an extra camera mode(used for navigation, I guess), instead of also having access to independent IR/EO based search & track functionality as found on the US F-8E / MiG-23MLD.
Otherwise aircraft like the F-14 & F-8E, F-4 etc. could substitute the regular Radar Based Search & Track phase of a radar missile engagement for the IRST, with the radar based systems only being used for transmitting missile guidance commands, it should also make the Radar ignore both chaff, flares and notching (since simultaneous use of both methods also allow sum and difference feedback loops to generate corrections to the antenna train angle and so retain angular precision).
1 Like
[insert wiki-esque paragraph]
You’re saying that IR systems without imaging capabilities are given as a IRST such as on the MiG-23 or MiG-29 whereas electro-optical-esque systems with the ability to display an image are treated like guidance pods functionality.
Somewhat.
There is an arbitrary distinction made in game that causes them to lose access to the “Search and Track” functionality that these systems should retain, which they erroneously lose with the criteria seeming to be if a video output is provided (For VID purposes), and as such can no longer be used as an independent alternate sensor, in place of being slaved to the Radar and so effectively makes them entirely redundant and not provide any actual benefit to having the system slaved to the radar, outside of some limited capacity for VID.
Thus the upcoming implementation of the PIRATE sensor for the Eurofighter will likely not break with the established precedent of said familiy systems being dysfunctional considering what is known of the performance characteristics and capabilities.
And based on bug reports that yet remain “to be actioned” for similar systems that it is unlikely that this would change, and that reducing expectations that the system would be at all useful when implemented is probably for the best considering said precedent.
1 Like
@MiG_23M I’ll reply here to save derailing the Flanker thread any more. Aside from the bypass ratio what is your reasoning for believing it cannot supercruise? It’s kind of hard to follow the discussion in the Flanker thread because of the amount of flanker related posts between each Eurofighter post, and I can’t find all your posts through your profile as it’s private.
The EJ200 uses a bypass ratio of 0.4, while the F119 and M88 use 0.3, but beyond that they seem pretty similar. Contrary to what you claim the EJ200 actually has a slightly lower turbine inlet temperature than the F119 or M88, and the pressure ratio is nearly the same for all three:
| Engine | Bypass ratio | Turbine Inlet Temperature (K) |
Pressure Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| EJ200 | 0.4 | 1,800 | 26:1 |
| M88 | 0.3 | 1,850 | 24.5:1 |
| F119 | 0.3 | 1,922 | 26:1 |
And the F119 is also a much larger engine than the EJ200. The EJ200 is better in terms of thrust to weight ratio.
| Engine | Mil Thrust (lb) | Max Thrust (lb) | Mass (lb) | Mil TWR | Max TWR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EJ200 | 13,500 | 20,200 | 2,180 | 6.19 | 9.26 |
| F119 | 26,000 | 35,000 | 5,000 | 5.2 | 7.0 |
14 Likes
You want a high mass flow rate, aided by a high exhaust velocity. (High dry thrust rating)… Lower bypass ratios and higher pressure ratios assist this greatly. Higher pressure ratios come with additional heat. Having a higher bypass helps alleviate some of this heat but comes at the detriment of higher parasitic drag around the core that is not aiding mass flow rate or the overall pressure ratio much if at all. Any air that can escape around the core after some point… will.
Yes it is not a directly comparable engine which is why I tried to compare mostly to the RM12 and the M88. The static numbers for T/W on the F119 are worse but it is almost guaranteed that the dynamic thrust numbers especially dry are considerably more than the EJ200. The Eurofighter has an advantage when it comes to wave drag but is mitigated heavily when ordnance is carried compared to the F-22.
Still, the F-22 is said to accelerate faster dry than the F-15 does wet beyond the sound barrier and it was stated that the Raptor actually had more issues slowing itself down to the target cruising speed of 1.5M than it did getting there in the first place. They would accidentally pass the target speed often and needed to cut power to stay in the efficient range. Here is the original quote;
“Sustaining the target Mach was not difficult for the Raptor,” said Col. C.D. Moore, Combined Test Force commander, at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. “The difficulty was keeping the Raptor from going faster than the target speed. Yesterday the airplane demonstrated that it can achieve awesome speed, flying above 1.5 Mach at a low power setting, for a sustained period of time. No other fighter in the world can do that.”
Moore flew yesterday’s mission, piloting the first flight-test F-22 off the assembly line. He was pushed by Raptor 01’s two powerful Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 engines to speeds greater than Mach 1.5 during a two hour flight over Edwards.
“The F-22 is designed to dominate future air combat by integrating supercruise with advanced avionics and stealth,” said Brig. Gen. Michael Mushala, Aeronautical Systems Center’s F-22 program director, commenting about the significant milestone.
Jet engines typically will produce better fuel efficiency if they can sit at a given velocity with an exhaust velocity similar to the free-stream inlet velocity. Since this is not possible for a low bypass turbojet which requires an exhaust velocity much greater than the inlet’s - there must be a compromise. High bypass turbojets are most efficient in this regard because the exhaust velocity can be much closer to the cruising speed of the aircraft, but this is not the case when discussing turbofans for fighter jets.
Fighter jets cannot utilize high bypass turbojets because they require much higher excess thrust. To accomplish this while maintaining some of the benefits of the bypass primarily for cooling or afterburner performance (but also to some degree of efficiency), they utilize a low bypass turbofan.
So, a compromise must be made. The exhaust velocity must be high enough to produce the necessary dry thrust to propel the fighter beyond the sound barrier and up to the efficient speed range but not high enough that it is not efficiently cruising at such an airspeed. The F-22 clearly found a compromise, and actually is over-built for the purpose as it tends to run past the efficiency range and accelerates too much in certain conditions beyond the target of 1.5M as stated in the quote above. Still, it can be very efficient as it is stated that they conducted a 2 hour flight where at one point they were supercruising up to 1.5 mach.
@Flame2512 It is totally off topic but I wanted to inquire because perhaps the EJ200 shares similar technology that I just didn’t know about;
The YF119 of the F-22 was chosen over the YF120 of the YF-23 because it had fewer parts and was made of cheaper materials - potentially being lower risk and saving them a lot of money. The YF119 became the infamous F119 engine of the F-22 with its’ fancy thrust vectoring nozzles and whatnot. So what could be more complex than a TVC supercruise capable engine?
The YF120 had a variable bypass ratio and was made of materials that could handle much higher heat and pressure ratios. The engine was adaptable, capable of changing the pressure ratio and other flow stream patterns to be efficient at much higher supersonic speeds without the use of the afterburner than the F-22, which we know could already supercruise at 1.5+ mach.
So I suppose my question is;
Does the EJ200 have such technology and it just isn’t discussed often? I know the design ques that make supercruise possible for turbofans are rarely discussed in online forums so it would not surprise me if they just hadn’t discussed such a thing. This is also what makes the F135 capable of supercruise as well. The AL-41 variants used in the Su-35 and the Su-57 have a variable bypass ratio that allows them to supercruise (up to 1.1 and 1.3 mach respectively, somewhat poor due to the high bypass ratios they start with).
I haven’t seen anything about it here and I don’t see anything suggesting it in the pictures of the design as compared to the YF-23 schematics seen on other aerospace forums.
Additionally, as recently as 1995 the Royal Navy actually believed that to have an engine in the Harrier capable of supercruise would be to have one that is too large, and ‘uneconomical’. If I am correct, the EJ200 was already well underway at the time. This contributes a small portion to my argument that if the EJ200 is capable of supercruise, it would not be doing so efficiently.
There is an additional study in the aforementioned pdf (page 51?) that goes over 9 different engine configurations, some similar to the EJ200 and others are variable cycle. One of the criteria for comparison is supercruise performance and it discusses temp limits, bypass ratios, etc.
There are also materials that indicate the Eurofighter needs the afterburner to get supersonic before he can pull the throttle back and settle into dry mil thrust cruising in supersonic flight.
Of course, this could also just be an attempt to get there faster and into that envelope where supercruise becomes most efficient, or however efficient the EJ200 can get that is.
A yes, because a harrier has a similar airframe to the Typhoon. So if the FAA, for the Sea Harrier thought it would be too expensive and large to fit a single engine within the harrier capable of both VTOL and Supercruise (let alone handle carrier operations) then it clearly means that the Typhoon cant supercruise with its 2 engines and more aerodynamic (and likely lighter) airframe
4 Likes
It is discussing engine technology requirements for future aircraft including the Typhoon, not just for the Harrier. I also detailed this section here;
I advise you read it before making comments that appear to ignore 90% of the substance of my post. Warning; the also British study for next-generation engines determined that a 0.4 bypass ratio is actually overall going to negatively impact supercruise performance if you tune it for low SFC in supersonic conditions while maintaining a slightly better overall SFC when afterburning by comparison. It REQUIRED a 2000K (1750C+), although more optimally 2150K (1880C) temperature limit just to maintain a supercruise around 1.36 mach. This is potentially damaging to the engine, or at the very least it is going to reduce the lifespan considerably when compared to an engine with lower bypass ratio or a variable bypass ratio.
Irrelevant to the Typhoon if its discussing the harrier.
The document provided I beleive is outlining the early requirements that would go on to be adopted by the USMC for the F-35.
Didnt flame already cover this above? Perhaps you should re-read his comments before commenting.
Not even in game yet and you are trying to get ahistorical nerfs of the Typhoon
5 Likes
I already answered that, I don’t think it is fuel efficient super cruise and I think it’s particularly bad for the lifespan of the engine if the Eurofighter is essentially forcing the thing to cope with those conditions to allow for supersonic flight on dry thrust alone.
Little in the game has been historical since the MiG-15 and Sabre were top tier and last I checked the service life of the Typhoons engine is not a consideration for gameplay so what exactly do you think I’m trying to nerf?
No. Both are UK built engine recommendations and requirements. These studies are likely referenced and expanded upon for 6th Gen aircraft development in Europe.
Trying to remove the ability for the Typhoon to supercruise
So you haven’t been reading anything I’ve been saying at all?
Everything you’ve posted in the last few hours in this thread has read for me as if you are challenging if the Typhoon could even supercruise.
My argument is that if it does super cruise it is not doing so in a fuel efficient manner compared to it’s peers and certainly worse than the F-22, F-35, Su-35, Su-57, etc.
For an engine of the Typhoon’s parameters to do so is to put excess stress on the motor and likely reduce its lifespan faster than necessary. Given that it accelerates quite well with the afterburner I could see them foregoing the capability in practice during peace time to extend the service life of the engine.
I would question heavily the performance of the motor and how fast it could super cruise. Likely not more than 1.3 mach or so in usual conditions. This is likely achieved at 36k feet as well, per the UKs specs and due to that being the baseline for all their future engine projects.
Most sources claim more like 1.5 mach and that supercruise can be achieved without the use of reheat
and also sources that state low fuel burn
and can the F-22 supercruise at sea-level?
2 Likes
I will be honest, that means nothing. It allows the pilot to do so, yes. After all using AB makes it faster. But nowhere it says pilot HAS to use afterburner to pass mach 1. also, if engine needed AB to pass mach 1, it would not be able to supercruise, as without it it would slow down under mach 1. Using AB to pass Mach 1 is much fster compared to going full dry, but as other sources confirmed, supercruise can be achived on dry. (Yes, i saw what you wrote under the picture)
4 Likes
U guys are doing the mistake again to srgue with MiG_23M.
That can be as bad as starting am argument with alvis.
Leads absolutly nowhere because those guys are so convinced of their own opinion and can never be wrong
10 Likes