Flying SUPERSONIC with NO Afterburner | Why SUPERCRUISE is so Important? 

the "dumb" tailchase would be a great tactic for an unmanned fighter. just keep the opponent occupied and its no longer able to complete its mission

You should do s video on India's Astra Air to Air missile!

Millennium 7 * HistoryTech if a jet engine produced enough thrust without afterburner and the plane where light enough, could it super cruise?

@@trevoncowen9198 Yes if transonic drag was low

9:45 Could you explain why the F-35 isn't capable of supercruise and why it wasn't considered a design requirement? Is it because it's not necessary for a multi-role fighter, but if so, why are both Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale capable of supercruise?

Check out task and purpose

Same, its incredibly obvious but such an important detail.

Yeah the only thing I thought speed helps with giving the missile higher speed. Kinda like sprinting to throw a javelin. Didn't even know what transonic barrier stuff is.

I learned about the importance of supersonic missile launches from Growling Sidewinder's DCS videos. Great stuff if you want to learn about BVR and dogfighting combat tactics, I am not even that interested in military aviation generally, but that stuff is fascinating.

That would be underestimating the difference in KE, It's square law so a 1.41 increase in speed doubled your KE. If we take an AIM-120D as an example they have about 7MK of KE at mach 0.9 from an F22 at Mach 1.8 they would have a tad over 28MJ. That's a big difference on it's own.

@@sid.h I was about to post this very same thing!

🤣

And the only aircraft to be down by a piece of foam.

But Space Shuttle cheated a bit because it used the most powerful force in the universe. The force of gravity!

Did anyone complain about supersonic booms from the shuttle ? I heard not.

And it had an unlimited range! Maneuverability was a tad bit lacking though

Flattered. Thank you!

Jop, this channel, Mark Felton and GrowlingSidevinder's video from DCS are very nice combination :)

A healthy combat distance a day, keeps the reaper away?

I'd second this. It was able to maintain supersonic without afterburners, so is in "supercruise" at that point.

He is one of the few gaming channels that are focused on the simulation aspect. It is still DCS though.

Is this like diy rc or something?

@@dampmaky nah full on military drone. For science project. It will take me over 4 yrs to build

Don't you have like PTSD with monoengine in canada ?

They F-35 is a more highly advanced aircraft. It’s just that simple.

@@jafr99999 True it is more advanced. But it is more expensive as well and that means less units ready for action and its advanced edge will not help it against the fact about 1-2 hours after a conflict with Russia (even a restrained one) it would have no airfields to operate from in Denmark. And then our aircraft would have to operate from highways, and having the same aircraft as the Swedes would make this a lot easier.

​@@jafr99999 Also Lockheed Martin gave vastly inflated numbers for actual flight vs maintence hours for the F-35, compared to the proven ones provided for Gripen. AND gave as part of the deal with Italy the service contract for EU F-35's to an Italien company. This will mean that we will get a lot less operational aircrafts on hand at any one time.

Yep, mistake, sorry. It is difficult to find reusable content...

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Well for intro cockpit and taxi level shots of a Su-35 this video would be great. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-v6BIUAU1N3U.html&ab_channel=Fighterbomber The channel has some excellent montages of Russian aircraft that can't be beat.

It can also be used to save your a ASSets when trying to emulate a saber dance landing a T-38

Think it has been mentioned many times in his videos, maybe it's too short an answer to dedicate a video to.

Well yeah, that was one of the requirements of the SwAF.

@@michaelkeller5008 The Gripen is underrated because it's the single biggest threat to the US fighter jet industry. The American-dominated media plays it down and the average American doesn't know squat about non-US planes. The average American just assumes that it's inferior because it's a small fighter and not American.

In english, it means, "very logical explanation".

@@yogeshchaudhary2093 thank you 🙏

@@billhanna2148 my pleasure

I'm sorry but the F-35 is not garbage. If you expect the F-35 to fight like an F-16 then yes it will perform poorly. That is not it's role or the tactics that would be applied when flying the bird. You can't judge a fish by it's ability to climb trees. The F-35 is the most integrated airframe to ever fly. The amount of situational awareness it gives the pilot is unrivaled. This allows the pilot to make the best decision at all times with the best information available. SEED and stealthy A2G will be it's primary tasks. Additionally it can feed data back to the AWACS without using it's radar. A typical F-35 A2A engagement might look something like this - F-35 uses passive search to identify enemy aircraft - F-35 sends bandit location data via datalink to AWACS - AWACS commands F-15EX to fire AIM-260 missle from over 100 miles away - AWACS provides guidance into the AO - AIM-260 recieves updated location via F-35 datalink and it's onboard radar for terminal guidance - Splash bandit By the time the bandit knows it's being targeted it's too late to react. Additionally the F-35 could continue to do a strike or SEED mission without missing a step. Fifth and sixth generation air warfare is going to be wild for anyone unable to keep up. It's a completely different way of thinking about air combat. I didn't even mention loitering munitions for air superiority and area denial or autonomous drone swarms used to overwhelm anti air defenses.

That's because all the in service variants required afterburner to maintain supersonic speed The initial prototype was shown to cruise at 1.02 in a clean configuration only - The 1st production variant weighed more and has the parasite drag of the weapons which reduced sustained cruise to 0.94 later variants reduced this further with the increased belly tankage reducing the non-after-burning cruise with weapons to 0.91 This is before considering that super-cruise as a concept is to put you above the peak of transonic drag, where as that places you directly AT said peak

A former captain of mine who previously flew F-15s, told me, that he even supercruised in clean configuration, when flying "cross country".

@@xyzaero9656 My buddy told me the same thing. He confirmed supercruise with minimal A2A loadout and zero unused hardpoints on the C model. He said that zero burner was required to achieve SC, either. So just full military power and he said you were supersonic and solidly past transonic. He didn’t say a Mach number, but I’m left to guess 1.2-1.3 due to him insisting that he was well past the transonic region.

@@DBravo29er the Eagle is still an incredibly powerful machine. I think only the Eurofighter and F-22 have more “raw performance”

@@xyzaero9656 Agreed. The F-22 is properly appreciated but I actually think many don’t understand what a hot rod the Eurofighter is.

@@DBravo29er You are absolutely right, that’s why I mentioned the Eurofighter. I think the Eurofighter is the top dog in raw flight performance worldwide. There is nothing as agile, fast accelerating etc. Once a week 1 or 2 Eurofighters come to my home airport, and sometimes they put on a short “show”, including an unrestricted climb departure and it is just incredible what this airplane can do. They are just basic Trench 1 Typhoon. The Eurofighter is in line to receive larger control surfaces and there is even an option for a 20 percent trust increase, plus 3D trust vectoring. Imagine what such an upgraded Typhoon could do 😁

They HAD IT, for the F-12 . . . it was designed to carry "8" AIM-47A long range "Air to Air" missiles, also known as the GAR-9 . Their RANGE, was 100mi, at Mk-6 . . . its "Radar" was the ASG-18 system, ( The "Father" of the AWG-9 Radar of the "Tomcat". ) Look it up for yourself !.

Interesting comment, thanks

This is 15 years old. There is an F22 pilot in the fighter pilot podcast who talks about supercruise.

@@mignik01 Quoting above PO "The GAO report that the F-22 has demonstrated supercruise is specious and misleading. The reports have merely stated that the F�22 has demonstrated 1.6 Mach flight speeds in pure turbojet (dry) thrust. No report of distance traveled or persistence at those speeds was made. Supersonic speeds in dry thrust bode well, but this capability is not sufficient to achieve supercruise." so yes is it supercruise or not? 15 years old report doesnt mean that it has been superceded. Plus what did the F22 pilot actually said? Without details and just throwing supercruise doesnt mean anything.

@@superchargerone Go to the podcast. You will see it there.

Enter the BAC Lightning - The daddy of Supercruise

I have one thing to say just on the end of the video - energy, and talk of merge. And this is only my laymens view, so not based on absolutely solid science or evidence. But high speed / energy at high altitudes, seems to be a misnomer. Aircraft with wing loading, especially high wing loading - have limited lift at high altitude. Its worth nothing that in NATO tests, no 'fighter' did well against lumbering Vulcan bombers in tests at 45,000 feet. The enormous wing of the Vulcan gave it the ability to still manouver. The fighters were unable to 'turn' at these altitudes in the same way. (In beyond visual range with modern missiles the point is moot, Vulcan dies..) Most dogfighting pre/merge/post merge won't be at high altitude, or if it is, it will be very high speed/low G.. - probably with hard drops into lower altitude..

Concorde is also considered a supercruising aircraft. The reality is that most supercruise capable aircraft use the afterburner briefly to go supersonic, then throttle back and accelerate to higher Mach. Supercruise is generally defined as sustaining Mach 1 or greater. Another thing you mentioned is definitions. The US defines supercruise as Mach 1.5 specifically. Probably because achieving Mach 1 speeds without afterburner really isn't that remarkable. After all, the old EE lightning did it.

@@EEEEEEE354 Well, if it is easy, everyone would do it :) If you really take the US definition, this rules out several planes in the video which are stated as being capable. I adore the lightning. And it might fit someone's definition, as it was very capable within certain tick boxes. Outside of those boxes, it wasn't capable. Phantom came along and had a much wider capability (and was a tremendous plane in its own right...) But it was built as an interceptor, with rate of climb and high speed being doctrinal. If you examine it critically, the RAF never had enough QRA available against any serious raiders, and lack of range was an issue in this area all the way back to point defense spitfire and hurricane. And after the '57 idiotic defense white paper, which basically ruined manned aircraft development in the UK, Lightning was under developed though its whole program. Even with that, there are some things only Lightning could do in its time, and it took some tremendous planes to eventually come and do what it did, only a lot better. It generally left the US century series in its wake. many things are trade offs, especially in old gen aircraft.

@@AdmV0rl0n I don't really go by the US's definition. Most likely what happened is we made it Mach 1.5 because supercruise isn't a particular unique or special capability. Supercruising at Mach 1.5 and above, now thats pretty wild. Can't have a one of a kind super unique fighter if everybody else can do it too lol. I am however, of the opinion that aircraft like gripen that cruise at Mach 1.2 clean are probably not going to be supercruising in actual combat. The aircraft did it in a straight line at 28,000 feet. They say it can do Mach 1.1 with an air to air loadout. Pretty unconvincing... Raptors can supercruise at Mach 1.82, but most pilots haven't seen that on mil power. More like Mach 1.5 operationally. Interesting stuff about the Lightning. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the aircraft myself but I am aware that it was quite remarkable. I happen to be of the opinion that supercruise isn't super important or realistic in combat for most aircraft. When I think supercruise, i think Typhoon, F-22, and Su-57. Millennium brought up some good points, but I guarantee you the lightweights like Gripen and Rafale are going to light their burners when a BVR fight comes along.

@@EEEEEEE354 I think huge amounts get missed in all the hoopla about combat. In reality, if you are BVR you might be high, and you perhaps may keep a conversation around a ranged argument. I don't think people really realise that at high altitude, a lot of engines don't work that well, the air is damn thin, and beyond that a lot of wings don't work well. No one will be pulling 9 G turns at 50,000feet. And when people pull sustained ... say 2g, as much as you may turn, you are burning energy and drag to make that turn and your stall speed is likely a lot higher than at lower down altitudes. In the end most actual dogfighting will drop to middle or low altitude where engines and wings .. work. There is an argument to make specific high altitude missile platforms instead of some of this lunacy. Just build a platform that cruises at 70,000, carries shitloads of evil missiles, ECM and its own AWACS ability, and dominate the area. In terms of the UK, instead of burning Eurofighter airframe hours chasing dumb bear bomber intrusion it would be better. Leave the dogfighting and dancing to the fighter boys.

The main, I don't think so. The main advantage is that you save fuel and that the missiles range boost. But agree that it's an advantage too, especially important for stealth fighters.

@@mwtrolle Saving fuel isn't that big, you might as well go 950kpg instead of 1200, and you can go om afterburner for a dozen seconds to give your missiles a boost

@@tedarcher9120 Except that takes time, and it's an advantage to fire first, and if you have to do so you directly tell the opponent that you are launching your missiles.

@@mwtrolle if you are a non-stealth fighter he already knows where you are, so there is not much point in hiding. But imagine a stealth fighter, super cruising at m 1.8 with only passive sensors, lobbing missiles at non-suspecring enemies

No, there isn't any AFIK. However, the Concorde was a class of its own in respect to many elements.

The XB70 can supercruse at 50% engine powet at M2. While concorde is still sligtly better (about 48% or something, dont bother calculating it now). The thermal efficency increase with speed for a 0 bypass engine, so valkyre would proboly have higher efficency at top speed. For 0 bypass engine there is really not much beside speed that effect efficency. The B1A probobally outpreforme concorde as well in that regard, also being a turbonfan probobly do that prior to M2

@@matsv201 Thank you for your reply! Yes, in calculation speed is a driving factor for efficiency. But beside this fact, I think another important circumstance comes by the design attunement between the airframe, air intakes, engines and nozzles. The cruising speed of Concorde was limited due thermal heating (max. allowed 127°C), since an aluminum alloy was widely used for the airframe. The XB-70 was mainly made of stainless-steel material to sustain the high skin temperatures at M3. This measure made the airplane relatively heavy - for this and probably for other reasons it required 6 turbojets. It also had only two main intakes to feed all their engines - which possibly made the airflow relatively complicated to control and not so efficient as it could have been when using a separate intake for each engine. I think one main secret, what made Concorde so efficient (especially at her time and beyond), was its highly advanced and digitally controlled intake system, which also enabled each engine to operate individually at its best operating condition. An interesting fact is, that even for the younger PANAVIA Tornado, the principal technology of the air intake design and digital control system - as used by Concorde - should have been implemented to improve the engine control in different flight operating conditions and thus to enable the Tornado a better and safer supercruise performance. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavia_Tornado It would be interesting to know the impact in efficiency which is derived by the air intakes systems used in other modern supersonic aircrafts.

​@@karlskrivanek5687 "(max. allowed 127°C), since an aluminum alloy was widely used for the airframe." That is not the reason. The reason is that the air heat up when its compressed by the engine. The amount it heat is relative to the absolute temperature at the intake, so if it becomes to hot, the engines will be unable to add more fuel before the turbine blades melt. There for it need a intake temperature limit. "This measure made the airplane relatively heavy" One would believe that, but that is actually not quite true. XB70 have a empty to full factor of 47% while Concorde have one of 42%. While the steel ad a bit of weight, its far less than one might believe. Also the use of canard and a few other features made XB70 a bit more efficient, also alowed it to use more lift during takeoff. " for this and probably for other reasons it required 6 turbojets" Its actually not the case. The jets on XB70 is far smaller than that of Concorde. The total thrust is actually less even if XB70 is heavier. Even the B1A have considerably lower thrust than Concorde despite being quite a bit heavier. "I think one main secret, what made Concorde so efficient (especially at her time and beyond), " I would say rather that there was a dude sitting at a control panel handling the engines, compare to the 737 that was launched at the same time that did it totally automatically. Concorde actually have 5 seats in the cockpit. One capten, one fist officer, one navigator, one engineer and one instructor seat (only used in certification flights). Behind them was the electronics bay, in steed of under the pilot as in most aircraft at the time. This took up the same space as 12 passenger. Not only that. Most of the space below the floor was either taken up by wheels or by fuel. So there was hardy any cargo space. So most of the cargo was stored in a section int he aft of the aircraft, taking the same space as 12 more seats. This is actually a major contributor to why its so thirsty, because fuel is counted peer seat. If it was 5 seats wide, the avionic bay would fit under the cockpit, also the luggage, and there would still be space for fuel, as well as adding. That would pretty much cut fuel use by 60% "It would be interesting to know the impact in efficiency which is derived by the air intakes systems used in other modern supersonic aircrafts." Well a modern supersonic airliner would use medium bypass engines... like the Boom and Spike is planed to do. This totally of set the math. My calculation estimate that the engine of Boom and Spike have a specific fuel consumption of 28g/kN*s while Concorde have 34. Concords official drag ratio is 7.14, while i calculated Boom to 11.7 and Spike to 10.7. I done this by reverse engineering there numbers, so if there numbers are of, so are mine. Combine it and there is a large advantage for the newer planes, while the advantages become smaler when taking into. anyway, Concorde is so fuel laydend, so even a minor improvement in fuel consumption will give a large effect on the over all aircraft size.

Rumors I have heard is that it would SC up to M 1.8. Crazy good.

I imagine they would've added thrust vectoring to it, which would make it more maneuverable than anything else, man, it's a shame that aircraft lost.

@@MihzvolWuriar From what I’ve heard, its control surfaces were so large that it actually didn’t need TV to perform the exact same low speed maneuvers as the F-22. And, the “Y” tail meant the omission of another set of control surfaces and, thus, the accompanying drag those surfaces bring.

@@DBravo29er I knew about the Y tail, but didn't know about the control surfaces, but that's why I said if they managed to add TV to it, that aircraft would mean serious trouble, and IIRC, it only lost to the F-22 because of the superior lobbying from the NG, is that right?

@@MihzvolWuriar That’s my understanding as well; that it actually demoed the same “air show” moves as the YF-22 did, but after several important minds had been made up. I’ve heard from multiple sources that the YF-23 could perform all of the visual candy that the YF-22 could. Including things that we have been “told” are required TV.... such as stationary tail-stand maneuvers.

With average Air to Air load.

Slats and flaps are maneuvering devices and have a lower structural limit extended than supersonic speeds.

It really neved does. It also depends on the shape of the aircraft. Byt by say 1.3 the effect start getting neglectable. You can design a aircraft to to have a smalet or wider transonic range. A example of a plane that suposed had a very narrow range was the sonic cruiser, hence going all the way ro 0.95 in cruise. Most supersonic aircraft try to have the wide range so they can go over it with a lowet peak.

The drag coefficient is lower, but the drag keeps rising, albeit at a lower pace because ... the coefficient is lower. To accelerate from M 0.7 to M 1.2 (0.5M delta V) requires a larger impulse than from M 1 to M 1.5, same delta V but lower impulse.

@@Millennium7HistoryTech thx . and big fan

Possibly, but I suspect it is still capable with one tank, albeit at lower speed.

As far as I know super cruise is defined as maintain supersonic speed without afterburner with a "typical weapons load". It does not mean fully loaded and not only in "clean configuration".

Define operative....

Starting altitude is in a way the same as speed. Unfortunately high altitude also makes you an exelent target for radar, ground baset irst systems. So there are advantages and disadvantages with it depending on plane and mission.

Sure. But this is clearly talk about intercept with air to air. And no. Speed is not the same as altitude. In physics yes. In this reality no. Because you cannot compensate in starting speed for what the missile gains in thin air. Your MAR is far larger for someone engaging you at high altitude than low.