Navy AX and A/F-X projects

OK, it could be just weird fantazy of aerospace jewellery maker.
 
LowObservable said:
Right... A-12. Sure.

What it's not, given it does not look like a swing-wing, is an AF/X, since it's not carrier-suitable.

I don't know what it is but it looks like GD... a grown-up F-16XL. Or this, with tails:
Click to expand...

That was one of the artists' concepts for the "FB-22" that USAF was looking at for a while
 
I'd recommend it heartily ;D

I saw a model of the Boeing AX (which it probably is, rather than an AFX) on the desk of their JSF program manager, Micky Michellich, around 1996-97. Sort of a stealthy A-6. AX, if I recall correctly, was an A-12 with some of the requirements, such as LO and internal payload, relaxed.
 
Currently up for bid on ebay. Item number 250258629386.
 

Attachments

  • 2dff_1.JPG
    2dff_1.JPG
    12 KB · Views: 1,125
  • 7bdd_1.JPG
    7bdd_1.JPG
    12 KB · Views: 1,064
  • 45c6_1.JPG
    45c6_1.JPG
    9.7 KB · Views: 563
  • 544e_1.JPG
    544e_1.JPG
    11.8 KB · Views: 563
You know, looking at that model I think it resembles a naval version of the original Lockheed Martin ATF submission. Remember that back then NATF was in the mix so they'd have had to have at least SOME idea of what they were going to do in that area at the time of submission. Anybody know for sure?
 
Why is the nose so much shorter on the A/F-X compared to the earlier NATF concept and the F-22A? It does not look like there would be room for any form of the APG-77 radar.
 
In A/X program of 1991,the contenders were;

Grumman/Lockheed/Boeing
Lockheed/Boeing/General Dynamics (revised F-22)
McDonnell Douglas/LTV
Rockwell/Lockheed
GD/MD/Northrop (revised A-12)
 
Was there really any hope that a variation of the A-12 would be selected after that programs disastrous end?
 
I cant imagine the modifications required to reduce its weight enough. Probably the better solution should be to start design completely new plane with the technologies already developed for the A-12.
 
Saw this on ebay:
0c15_1.JPG

$165 is a little steep though.
 
another mahogany monster made after Flight International drawings
not 'original' one
 
I had read that the Lockheed NATF (F-22N) was rejected, in part, because the plane would be too heavy to operate off a carrier deck after the necessary wing, structural and landing gear mods were made. What was the Lockheed-Boeing team doing to address that in the AFX-635 design? If the second cockpit reduced the internal fuel load, would that necessarily be a net loss of mass? I would assume that if the F-22's top speed and supercruise requirements were relaxed, the structural weight would drop. A telling sign is that fact that AFX-635's PW7000 engines produced less thrust than the F-22's F119's.
 
Perhaps I have not searched hard enough, but I can't find why it wasn't possible to adapt the YF-22 to become the NATF or A/F-X without a variable-geometry setup. Why was the wing configuration of the regular YF-22/F-22A wrong, and if they needed something different, wouldn't a redesigned non-VG configuration be easier?
 
keyword is "landing speed"
LO treated wing angles sweep not good for massive lift devices
 
Is it accurate to call the Lockheed-Boeing AFX Model-653 a navalized two seat variant of the Lockheed F-22 Raptor? The difference in engines has already been noted. PW7000 versus F119. Would the design share other systems with the Lockheed F-22 Raptor or did it evolve into an entirely new plane from the YF-22?
 
The best answer is: Who knows... JSF F-35A and F-35C variants should also be as common as possible, but look how it ended - the level of the commonality is decreasing almost every minute. I think that the AFX-653 should share the same destiny - planned as the F-22 modification, but ended as the entirely new plane, sharing only electronic equipment, weapons, probably ejection seat and some other minority systems.
 
JSF F-35A and F-35C variants should also be as common as possible, but look how it ended - the level of the commonality is decreasing almost every minute.
Click to expand...

Actually, in the areas that really count - engine, avionics and other key systems, this is not the case. Commonality is still extremely high.

Regards,

Greg
 
flateric said:
keyword is "landing speed"
LO treated wing angles sweep not good for massive lift devices
Click to expand...

Hmm, even you have a very large wing area like on the YF-23? I am afraid I haven't studied this sort of thing in a long time.
 
It all boils down to low wingloading and high lift coefficient. The latter requires complex high lift devices (which penalize RCS) and ideally low sweep. The X-32 was doing something nifty with vortex control on the delta wing, but that's like black magic (i mean not easily predictable).
High aspect ratio also helps in keeping the approach angle "flat", otherwise you need lots of alpha to stay in the air.
 
On the AWST article discussing the companies involved and their proposals, it says Northrop joined the General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas team which was proposing the A-12 based design. Yet on Matej's website these pictures are shown of a different Northrop A-X (or A/F-X) model.

I will presume Northrop was working independently on this, so what led to them teaming up with GD and McDonnell Douglas on their proposal? Personally I find this a very interesting looking design.
 

Attachments

  • image015.jpg
    image015.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 2,178
  • image016.jpg
    image016.jpg
    18.7 KB · Views: 864
This was the design that originated in Northrop, but they joined General Dynamics to work on it. Teaming was a very common word in that era and I think that there was not any company, that was able to win that kind of competition independently. Besides, name "Northrop" didn't have very good reputation then, mainly because the overcosts of B-2 (the same situation as with Lockheed during their C-5 program).

And please do not use hotlinking of the images from my web. If nothing more, than I am going to update this particular file, which change the paths and names of the images, so all your links wont work then.
 
According to the previous chart however they joined the GD and MDD team working on that A-12 variant. Did this separate proposal of Northrop and GD just happen to be not included on that list?

I apologize for hotlinking to your site, yet it seems you have changed the path already so they are hosted here.
 
Seems much of the concept art I had thought was Lockheed's NATF, was actually the Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X offer. From what I gather none of the other designs progressed as far as this AFX-653?

From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?

So if the Navy's plans had worked out, a carrier wing in the 2000s would be based around the F-14D, A/F-X, and the F/A-18C or an upgraded Hornet variant? Two variable sweep wing designs sounds mighty expensive to maintain. In that regard (maintainability and cost) it seems like one of the other proposals would have been preferable, even if they were limited to subsonic speeds.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Seems much of the concept art I had thought was Lockheed's NATF, was actually the Lockheed/Boeing A/F-X offer. From what I gather none of the other designs progressed as far as this AFX-635?

From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?

So if the Navy's plans had worked out, a carrier wing in the 2000s would be based around the F-14D, A/F-X, and the F/A-18C or an upgraded Hornet variant? Two variable sweep wing designs sounds mighty expensive to maintain. In that regard (maintainability and cost) it seems like one of the other proposals would have been preferable, even if they were limited to subsonic speeds.
Click to expand...

Lockheed's NATF and A/FX clearly had the same progenitor, but they were optimized differently. NATF was a fighter wit, in the Navy's case, a secondary attack role. A/FX was the reverse. Initially, fighter capability wasn't a priority at all in the latter, but with the F-14D having been canceled, Navy realized it would need to get the first class figher capability elsewhere, so the AX requirement was modified to incorporate that (A/FX would not have had the fighter capability of the F-22 or NATF, but it would have enough for what the Navy felt it would realistically need).

The notional air wing of the late 2000s would have been the F-14D or a derivative (no doubt including the Quickstrike enhancements) and the AX. Had the F-14 been continued, they probably wouldn't have gone for the extra capability of A/FX. On the other hand, maybe they would have tried to "neck down" to one aircraft in which case there would be an A/FX.

There wouldn't be an upgraded Hornet, because with the above scenario, there wouldn't have been any need for one. In fact, at the time Cheney threw a spanner in the works (always want to sue that in a sentence), the F/A-18 was already scheduled to go out of production in the not too distant future. An additional 228, I believe, C/Ds ended up getting ordered partly to fill the holes on the carrier decks that had been created by Cheney's actions but also because the stated costs of the Super Hornet were based on a warm Hornet production line. Had the C/D gone away and they had to restart the line and hire back all the production people, its cost would have been much higher. So, in a sense, there was a significant cost of putting the SH into production that didn't show up as an SH line item.
 
Yet in either scenario (F-14D and A-X or just A/F-X) wouldn't there have been a need for a "light fighter" to complement the costlier designs? Or were they not going to worry about that until the F/A-18s were closer to retirement?

It is unfortunate that so little is available on the other submissions. I hope the respective companies release more information about them someday.

I am guessing that all of the concept art of the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design is depicting the definite AFX-653, but the radome still seems awfully small. I must say I prefer the sleeker design of the version prior to the final AFX-653 design. It certainly made a nice looking test model as Stuka showed.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Yet in either scenario (F-14D and A-X or just A/F-X) wouldn't there have been a need for a "light fighter" to complement the costlier designs? Or were they not going to worry about that until the F/A-18s were closer to retirement?

It is unfortunate that so little is available on the other submissions. I hope the respective companies release more information about them someday.

I am guessing that all of the concept art of the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design is depicting the definite AFX-635, but the radome still seems awfully small. I must say I prefer the sleeker design of the version prior to the final AFX-635 design. It certainly made a nice looking test model as Stuka showed.
Click to expand...

Don't want to go too deeply into this because that will take us off topic, but basically the "light fighter" concept was imposed on the Navy from the outside to begin with. The Navy, with its limited number of carriers (and getting smaller, apparently) is constrained by spotting factor, so you're going to have about the same amount of aircraft aboard whether they're lower capability or not. The F/A-18A/D actually took more deckspace than the strike aircraft it replaced, the A-7, and Super Bug is not a light fighter. Then, of course you get into the situation that whether the lower operating costs offset the lesser capabilities and R&D to get the aircraft into service. Again, another topic for another time.

To give you my thoughts to your question as it relates to AX or A/FX, what I'm saying was that from the perspective of the late '80s, very early '90s, the vision didn't seem to have a plan for replacing the Hornet at all. F-14 and AX (or A/FX) would be doing the work. Remember, Super H. was to be a "bridge" to A/FX.
 
F-14D said:
Don't want to go too deeply into this because that will take us off topic, but basically the "light fighter" concept was imposed on the Navy from the outside to begin with. The Navy, with its limited number of carriers (and getting smaller, apparently) is constrained by spotting factor, so you're going to have about the same amount of aircraft aboard whether they're lower capability or not. The F/A-18A/D actually took more deckspace than the strike aircraft it replaced, the A-7, and Super Bug is not a light fighter. Then, of course you get into the situation that whether the lower operating costs offset the lesser capabilities and R&D to get the aircraft into service. Again, another topic for another time.

To give you my thoughts to your question as it relates to AX or A/FX, what I'm saying was that from the perspective of the late '80s, very early '90s, the vision didn't seem to have a plan for replacing the Hornet at all. F-14 and AX (or A/FX) would be doing the work. Remember, Super H. was to be a "bridge" to A/FX.
Click to expand...

I see, although wouldn't an air wing with ST-21s and A-Xs (or only A/F-Xs) have seemed a bit unrealistic to the Navy due to the post-Cold War cuts?

Regarding the Super Hornet being a bridge to A/F-X, didn't the first SH prototype fly 2+ years after A/F-X was canceled? I presume by the time they new A/F-X was going to be canceled they were stuck with the choice. Naturally few sources today mention the SH was intended to be an interim aircraft like you said.

Not that I think the Super Hornet is a bad aircraft, it is just somewhat disappointing compared to what we could have had.

Back on topic, once A-X became A/F-X, on which proposals (besides for the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design) did work continue? I doubt the revamped A-12 for example would have been suited to the new requirements.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
F-14D said:
Don't want to go too deeply into this because that will take us off topic, but basically the "light fighter" concept was imposed on the Navy from the outside to begin with. The Navy, with its limited number of carriers (and getting smaller, apparently) is constrained by spotting factor, so you're going to have about the same amount of aircraft aboard whether they're lower capability or not. The F/A-18A/D actually took more deckspace than the strike aircraft it replaced, the A-7, and Super Bug is not a light fighter. Then, of course you get into the situation that whether the lower operating costs offset the lesser capabilities and R&D to get the aircraft into service. Again, another topic for another time.

To give you my thoughts to your question as it relates to AX or A/FX, what I'm saying was that from the perspective of the late '80s, very early '90s, the vision didn't seem to have a plan for replacing the Hornet at all. F-14 and AX (or A/FX) would be doing the work. Remember, Super H. was to be a "bridge" to A/FX.
Click to expand...

I see, although wouldn't an air wing with ST-21s and A-Xs (or only A/F-Xs) have seemed a bit unrealistic to the Navy due to the post-Cold War cuts?

Regarding the Super Hornet being a bridge to A/F-X, didn't the first SH prototype fly 2+ years after A/F-X was canceled? I presume by the time they new A/F-X was going to be canceled they were stuck with the choice. Naturally few sources today mention the SH was intended to be an interim aircraft like you said.

Not that I think the Super Hornet is a bad aircraft, it is just somewhat disappointing compared to what we could have had.

Back on topic, once A-X became A/F-X, on which proposals (besides for the Lockheed/Boeing/GD design) did work continue? I doubt the revamped A-12 for example would have been suited to the new requirements.
Click to expand...

keep in mind that ST-21 was an alternative to the NATF, not to A/FX or the Super Hornet. ST-21 was never actually in the Navy's plans, although I wouldn't be surprised if it had gotten built if Cheney hadn't killed the -14D. ST-21, BTW would have probably cost less to develop than the SH, although it naturally would have cost more to buy--but then it would have been far more capable. Alternatively, they could have gone from the F-14D to an A/FX concept, hard to tell since they never got to go down that road

SH at its inception was clearly and repeatedly described as a bridge to the AX (later A/FX), it was one of the arguments used to sell the concept to doubters. As far as choice went, Navy never really had a say in the instigation of the SH program. When the A/FX was sacrificed (partly to preserve the Super Hornet--Hornet had the strongest lobby in the history of naval air), the fact that SH was supposed to be a bridge aircraft was officially forgotten and became No Longer Something of Which we Speak in officaldom.

I don't know for sure how many dropped out when AX became A/FX. Since the program was in a fairly early stage when the change was made, I'd think most would have stayed in and revised their designs. In some cases, they may have already been heading that way.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?
Click to expand...
From what I remember, the a/f-x has bigger radar than the APG-77. The nose looks shorter, but not smaller. I don't know the reason why it's shorter, but my wildly assumption is that so it would provide better Also, the a/f-x would also have improved stealth feature against ground threat than the f-22. However, it doesn't have engines with supercruising features as the f-22 because of weight saving.

EDIT: about the nose being shorter, I meant that it would provide better visibility for landing.
 
donnage99 said:
Colonial-Marine said:
From the shaping and size of the nose it looks like the APG-77 or a similarly sized radar wouldn't fit in there. Was a smaller, less capable radar planned, since this was largely an attack aircraft?
Click to expand...
From what I remember, the a/f-x has bigger radar than the APG-77. The nose looks shorter, but not smaller. I don't know the reason why it's shorter, but my wildly assumption is that so it would provide better Also, the a/f-x would also have improved stealth feature against ground threat than the f-22. However, it doesn't have engines with supercruising features as the f-22 because of weight saving.
Click to expand...

A/FX didn't have supercruise because the missions of the aircraft were different from that of F-22, the Navy, unlike USAF, understood and believed in IRST systems and supercruise does tend to make you hotter, they were more interested in range than supercruise and for their needs they weren't wiling to pay what it would cost. They'd take it if happened to be there (F-14D coud supercruise, but nowhere near as fast as Raptor, and this just happened to fall out; ST-21 would have supercruised faster, but not as as fast as F-22), but the plane wouldn't be marked down if it couldn't. A/FX engines wouldn't have put out thrust of Raptor's, but would use fuel more sparingly.
 
F-14D said:
A/FX didn't have supercruise because the missions of the aircraft were different from that of F-22, the Navy, unlike USAF, understood and believed in IRST systems and supercruise does tend to make you hotter
Click to expand...
And afterburner makes you shines like a beacon on the enemy's IRST. One of the advantages of supercruise is that it would negate the use of afterburner, reducing IR signature. Supercruising engines tend to eat more fuel overall, but at the same time it offers supersonic flight with less fuel consumption than afterburner. This holds especially true for an aircraft that would be tasked with carrier fleet defense intercepting enemies bombers armed with long range cruise missiles. Supersonic flight was very nessecary for such mission. The reason why it doesn't feature supercruise, as I know, is because of weight saving.
 
donnage99 said:
F-14D said:
A/FX didn't have supercruise because the missions of the aircraft were different from that of F-22, the Navy, unlike USAF, understood and believed in IRST systems and supercruise does tend to make you hotter
Click to expand...
And afterburner makes you shines like a beacon on the enemy's IRST. One of the advantages of supercruise is that it would negate the use of afterburner, reducing IR signature. Supercruising engines tend to eat more fuel overall, but at the same time it offers supersonic flight with less fuel consumption than afterburner. This holds especially true for an aircraft that would be tasked with carrier fleet defense intercepting enemies bombers armed with long range cruise missiles. Supersonic flight was very nessecary for such mission. The reason why it doesn't feature supercruise, as I know, is because of weight saving.
Click to expand...

For strike missions, when it needed maximum stealth, A/FX would be operating subsonically, at least on the ingress and predetection phase. Thus, it wouldn't be using afterburners then. The problem from the IRST point of view with supercruise, is that the leading edges of the supercruiser will warm up enough, relative to the surrounding air, that their IR emissions will be detectable. think of it this way: the use of afterburner would be like holding the bright beacon you mentioned; people would easily see where you are. Supercruising would still have you in the dark room, but instead of bright beacon, you'd be holding a flashlight. Not as bright, not as visible from as far away, but still quite detectable at useful distances.

Note that when Lockheed's design evolved from the NATF to A/FX, supercruise went away. Navy simply didn't think they needed it for their mission to the point where they'd be willing to pay what it would cost in range and money to get it. It wouldn't object if it got it, but was not willing to compromise to get it.

Regarding the Fleet Air Defense mission against bombers and cruise missiles, don't forget that A/FX (or even AX with F-14Ds) would be armed with AAAM (addressed elsewhere on the forum).
 
F-14D said:
For strike missions, when it needed maximum stealth, A/FX would be operating subsonically, at least on the ingress and predetection phase. Thus, it wouldn't be using afterburners then.
Click to expand...
What's your point, man? If A/F-X doing strike mission, going subsonically, the A/F-X will not use supercruise. But in missions required the A/F-X to best go supersonically, it has the option to use supercruise which is stealthier in term of IRS and less fuel consumption than the other alternative. Your argument only works if supercruise requires the aircraft to always use it. You are irrelevantly comparing subsonic flight with supersonic flight.
Regarding the Fleet Air Defense mission against bombers and cruise missiles, don't forget that A/FX (or even AX with F-14Ds) would be armed with AAAM (addressed elsewhere on the forum).
Click to expand...
Not bombers AND cruise missiles, but bombers ARMED WITH cruise missiles that engage the fleet from significantly far away distance. The interceptor must be fast to get there before the bombers looses its missiles, or even if the bombers already shot its missiles, the interceptors must get there before the bombers ran away. AAAM provide a significant range against its predecessor, but doesn't make it a magical weapon against these types of scenario.
 
donnage99 said:
F-14D said:
For strike missions, when it needed maximum stealth, A/FX would be operating subsonically, at least on the ingress and predetection phase. Thus, it wouldn't be using afterburners then.
Click to expand...
What's your point, man? If A/F-X doing strike mission, going subsonically, the A/F-X will not use supercruise. But in missions required the A/F-X to best go supersonically, it has the option to use supercruise which is stealthier in term of IRS and less fuel consumption than the other alternative. Your argument only works if supercruise requires the aircraft to always use it. You are irrelevantly comparing subsonic flight with supersonic flight.
Regarding the Fleet Air Defense mission against bombers and cruise missiles, don't forget that A/FX (or even AX with F-14Ds) would be armed with AAAM (addressed elsewhere on the forum).
Click to expand...
Not bombers AND cruise missiles, but bombers ARMED WITH cruise missiles that engage the fleet from significantly far away distance. The interceptor must be fast to get there before the bombers looses its missiles, or even if the bombers already shot its missiles, the interceptors must get there before the bombers ran away. AAAM provide a significant range against its predecessor, but doesn't make it a magical weapon against these types of scenario.
Click to expand...

Aren't we getting a bit testy?

Having supercruise is better than not having supercruise, but the point is that the Navy did not see the benefits gained from supercruise as being worth the cost in money or range for A/FX, so they didn't require it. If you could do it and met the mandatory requirements, you'd probably get bonus points, but it wasn't something you could substitute for the requirements. Supercruise is stealthier than using 'burner, but if the IRST can still detect you at meaningful ranges, its stealth value is diminished. Note that for all Western fighters except Raptor, none of them were required to supercruise. Some do to a limited extent, but that's just fortunate fallout, and none of them as fast and far as Raptor, yet no one is wringing their hands over this.

Regarding the bombers AND vs bombers ARMED WITH, if you can catch the bombers (or tactical acft for that matter) before they launch, you're going to shoot the bomber. If they've already launched, you're going to shoot the missile-- and then shoot the bomber. If you're on the opposite side of the arc when the incomings are detected, and they're approaching launch range, your supercruise probably won't get you there in time to make a difference. Unless you plan to ram, better to send a missile that can travel at four or more times your supercruise.

The point is that, although I agree with them, I wasn't the one who set the specs for A/FX. Those that did weren't willing to pay for supercruise as an absolute requirement.
 
You completely missed it, F-14D. I'm arguing against Navy's decision of not having supercruise requirements, I'm saying that you arguing that supercruise brings penalty in term of infrared signature makes completely no sense. If anything, supercruise helps IR signature.

Same thing about the speed: high speed needed is always desired in aircraft with intercept mission is a no brainer. You want to get there as fast as you can to engage the enemies. That's the foundation behind the f-14 design. Supercruise gives you the ability to do that without penalty in IR footprint and fuel consumption. I'm not challenging navy's decision; like I said, I think the decision is for weight saving, and I'm completely OK with that. However, what I'm saying is that the reasons you made up to justify their decision are clearly illogical, not the decision itself.
 
donnage99 said:
I'm saying that you arguing that supercruise brings penalty in term of infrared signature makes completely no sense. If anything, supercruise helps IR signature.
Supercruise gives you the ability to do that without penalty in IR footprint and fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

Supercruising DOES bring an IR signature penalty compared to subsonic cruising. IR signature is not just about the exhaust plume but very much the airframe heating caused by friction with the air. Flying at Mach 1.6 compared to Mach 0.9 even if you have some kind of IR neutral reactionless thruster is going to significantly increase your IR signature.

Also when it comes to the exhaust supercrusing engines are not necessarily going to produce less of an IR plume. Because thrust is determined by exhaust velocity (heat) and mass flow (volume). Engines like the F119 achieve their high thrust without reheat by increasing the heat and volume of the air coming out of the engine before igniting more fuel in the compressed exhaust. So while it may not look as spectacular to the human eye it could very well be as big, bigger or near as big an IR plume as an engine using afterburner to produce the same thrust.

donnage99 said:
You completely missed it, F-14D. I'm arguing against Navy's decision of not having supercruise requirements,
Same thing about the speed: high speed needed is always desired in aircraft with intercept mission is a no brainer. You want to get there as fast as you can to engage the enemies. That's the foundation behind the f-14 design.
I'm not challenging navy's decision; like I said, I think the decision is for weight saving, and I'm completely OK with that. However, what I'm saying is that the reasons you made up to justify their decision are clearly illogical, not the decision itself.
Click to expand...

The Navy’s DCA mission is very different to the Air Force. The original DCA mission requirement for the ATF had a 100 NM sprint at Mach 1.6 from loiter to intercept. The key requirement for this high speed sprint is to intercept the target before it reaches the area around the CAP loiter. This is because the Air Force is usually based behind the area to be defended (like the Army’s frontline). However the Navy bases its fighters on the thing to be defended (the carrier) so they loiter far away between the carrier and the threat. Because they have to be launched in cycles to sustain carrier operations the importance for the Navy is maximising loiter endurance and sprint to intercept (time) is not as important.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Supercruising DOES bring an IR signature penalty compared to subsonic cruising.
Click to expand...
And I never argued against it. I suggest you get my point first before trying to argue with it.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom