New Mars Forums

RobertDyck,

You're the one making claims about a system that never once flew aboard the Arrow, so do that yourself.  If you can't find anything, then all you have left is pure belief-driven speculation.

I've provided independently verifiable facts and evidence based upon publicly released historical data.  Every assertion you've made thus far has been refuted by available evidence.  Whether or not history offends your sensibilities is not my concern.

The basis of my last post is, nobody had a functional BVR missile and fire control system in 1958, therefore your claims about how good Arrow / Astra / Sparrow could've been are emotionally-driven and evidence-free.  Your feelings towards the Arrow override your ability to do basic math, recognize faults in your logic, admit when historical evidence disagrees with your assertions, and view the Arrow program as the developmental failure that it would've become, had Canada pursued it to the point of complete failure.

America did pursue a Mach 3 interceptor to the point of complete program failure.  YF-12A was a true Mach 3 interceptor by recorded flight speed data, but was never an operational system specifically because its radar and missile technologies were far too immature.  All the same radio electronics companies were involved in the development of Astra, ASG-18, and GAR-9 / AIM-47 programs.  What should a rational and logical person make of that?

SN 60-6935, the only surviving YF-12A, was flown to the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 17 November, 1979.

My take is that the tech simply wasn't ready for operational use, and no amount of speculative belief will ever change that.  It just barely worked when maintenance time was irrelevant and every test was scripted to the last detail.  When the AIM-54A was used in more realistic tests 10 to 20 years later, the significant limitations of missiles using tube-based radar electronics were plainly evident to all involved.  This may not sit well with F-14 and Phoenix missile enthusiasts, either, but that was ugly operational reality.  When such weapons did work under combat-like conditions, they never hit their assigned targets more than 50% of the time.  If you fired a pair of Phoenix missiles at a target, then you'd get a kill more often than not.  Unless you're here to claim that 1950s tube-based electronics were more reliable and functional than the mostly solid state AWG-9 and AIM-54A, then any counter-factual line of argumentation is pointless.

I cannot find any recorded historical evidence that RCA's Astra-1 ever flew aboard a test aircraft, so any claims about what it could achieve do not appear to be based upon recorded test results.  RCA lost the ASG-18 contract to Hughes in the spring of 1957 for lack of progress.  Arrow enthusiasts would have picked up on this and added it to their Arrow lore if it did.

The MA-1 radar and fire control system, which was installed on every production F-106 airframe, weighed in at 2,520lbs.  It could lock-up a B-52 at about 40 miles, subsequently extended to about 69 miles following electronics upgrades that came many years later.  In clear skies, the IRST system had a longer tracking range than the radar ever did, and was used as secondary confirmation against radar-located targets.

I can tell you that back in America, Sperry was replaced by RCA in 1956, then RCA was replaced by Hughes in 1957.  RCA was replaced in 1957 because their radar could not meet radar detection range targets of 100+ miles and insufficient progress was made for continued funding.  Why it is that the RCAF thought they eventually would is beyond my understanding.  Hughes was finally able to hit their contractually obligated radar detection range targets.  Development work continued until 1966 when the F-12B was canceled by the USAF.  In short, nothing remotely approaching a "ready-to-use" radar and fire control system existed until long after the Arrow was cancelled.  ASG-18 was designed to fit inside a 40 inch diameter nose, which both the Arrow and YF-12A shared, and both employed a weapons system officer to operate their radar / fire control equipment and launch missiles.  The ASG-18 radar alone weighed 2,100lbs.  As with RCA, Hughes also posted significantly greater theoretical detection and tracking distances, but in operational practice it could lock-up bomber-sized target around 100 miles- same max range as the missiles it was paired with.

Edit:
I should have stated that the ASG-18's 40 inch diameter radar dish was designed to fit in the Arrow and YF-12A nose.  ASG-18 and GAR-9 were first tested aboard a modified B-58 Hustler, and subsequently installed in the YF-12A.  There was some talk of putting ASG-18s in F-4s after the F-12B was canceled, but the largest diameter dish for radars installed in F-4s were the 32-inch dishes associated with the APQ-72 and later partially (AWG-10) or fully digital (AWG-14) equipment.  I don't think a 40 inch dish would fit in the F-4's nose without significant modification and aerodynamic penalties.  AWG-9 radars fitted to F-14s had 36 inch diameter dishes.  I remember seeing those aboard the carriers I served aboard.  AWG-9 was the most powerful radar fitted to an American fighter aircraft until the F-22's APG-77 entered service around 2005, but APG-71 radars fitted to F-15s were likely even more capable, not due to peak power output, but vastly improved digital signal processing capabilities.  I do know that AWG-9 was about 15X more capable of volume search than the most capable F-4 radars.

MTBF for many thousands of discrete electronic components was about 150 hours, so constant maintenance in operation was a near-guarantee.  IIRC, certain radar components required liquid cooling systems, same as the AIM-54A.  From what I understood, the specialized thermal batteries and liquid cooling systems were what limited availability and reliability of Iranian purchased F-14s and AIM-54As.

My pure speculation is that had the advanced flight control features of the Arrow and ASG-18 become part of an operational system, total system weight would fall somewhere between 2,500-3,000lbs.  That means every bit of the engine mass savings provided by the Iroquois engines would've been consumed by the new digital fly-by-wire flight control system, radar, and fire control systems.  Worse than that, AIM-47 was about twice as heavy as Sparrow II, so Arrow would've carried 2 of those missiles at most to remain at MTOW with full internal fuel.  If AIM-54A performance was any indication, that means each Arrow could nominally shoot down a single bomber under combat conditions when equipped with 2X AIM-47A missiles.  If Arrow was equipped with 3X AIM-7E, which also didn't exist until many years later, then it could statistically shoot down zero bombers.  If equipped with 6X AIM-7E, then Pk = 0.48, so perhaps every other Arrow would manage to kill one bomber after a pair of Arrows expended 6-9 missiles per bomber, or maybe not.

Is that really what you wanted to bet the continued existence of your cities on?

America "bet", if you will, that we could build enough early warning radars with integrated GCI for use in conjunction with simplified interceptors to close to within visual range of a bomber and shoot them down using heat-seeking missiles, rockets with small nuclear warheads, or cannon fire, because that was the extent of what 1950s electronics could accomplish with any degree of reliability.  This system, as limited and flawed as it was, also conferred the unintentional benefit of actually knowing what you were shooting at.

RobertDyck,

I'm patiently waiting for a response demonstrating basic understanding of aerospace design tradeoffs.

Why didn't Canada, France, and the United Kingdom pool their design and manufacturing resources, post-WWII?

There seems to be very limited economic trade value, even today, most of it defense-related.

Why doesn't the UK buy metal ores from Canada, for example?

CF-105 was a remarkably good airframe design, but Iroquois was a remarkably inefficient engine design, even for the late 1950s.  By the time the CF-105 flew, the J58 was accelerating 40% less air mass while producing 14-25% more dry thrust and 13% more thrust in burner.  If that's not indicative of a fundamental engine design problem, then I don't know what qualifies.

America doesn't have any issue with purchasing foreign weapons, despite spurious claims to the contrary, but when your design can't meet key performance metrics, it doesn't get purchased.  Engines need reasonable-for-their-time fuel economy when compared with similar American engine designs, not simple thrust output.  When we evaluated how poorly Iroquois engines did on fuel economy, they weren't worth further investment.  We already had more fuel efficient engines with similar thrust output (J58 or J93).  If we were going to design a combat jet around an engine, as all of them are, then we would expect a foreign design to demonstrate parity with American engine designs, and preferably an improvement over existing American engines.  Iroquois was not an improvement, so it was never considered a worthwhile foreign defense engineering project for our government to fund.

If Iroquois was able to demonstrate J58 / J93 thrust output with improved TSFC, I would bet almost anything that we'd fund further development, regardless of what the Canadian government did with their Arrow program.  Throughout the Cold War, the most notable design detail pertaining to British, Canadian, and French fighter jet engine designs was how fuel-inefficient they were, relative to American engines, which is why we rarely bought any.  Now you see quite a few British engines powering American combat aircraft, because they are actual improvements relative to contemporary American engine designs and, beyond geopolitical considerations, that's why we purchased them.

America's Air Force really liked the CF-105 as a platform and concept, but in practice none of the weapon systems or electronics to enable it to function as a self-directed BVR interceptor were remotely close to being ready for combat use.  Nobody had a reliable and operationally usable BVR radar and air intercept missile combination until the 1980s.  For the F-106s that America did purchase in limited numbers, more than a few were lost to accidents, but none of them were used in combat to perform interception missions.  The only combat jet designed in the 1950s which was not well on its way to the bone yard by the 1980s was the B-52, so America would've purchased fewer CF-105s vs F-106s for that same role and then had a more expensive F-106 with nearly identical actual vs envisioned capabilities.

There might have been orders for 180 aircraft for America and 40-60 from Canada, so 100 fewer tails than actual F-106 production.  What actual good would that have done for America or Canada?  The British had already abandoned the dedicated interceptor role by the 1960s when they realized before Americans did, just as Canadian military leaders did, that radar and missile tech was nowhere near good enough.

The F135 engine has almost as much dry thrust (28,000lbf) as the Iroquois has in full afterburner (30,000lbf).  In full afterburner, the F135 (43,000lbf) has 43% greater thrust than the Iroquois.  F135 OPR is 28:1, 324lbm/sec mass flow rate.  Iroquois OPR is 8:1, 420lbm/sec mass flow rate.  That means the F135 will have significantly better fuel economy at any power setting.  There's nothing "remarkably close" about them.

Mass flow rates for American fighter jet engines only vary between 140lbm/sec (J52) and 325lbm/sec (F135), from the mid-1950s to the present day, with the tiny J85 that powered the F-5 and T-38 being the only outlier.  This covers J52, J58, J75, J79, J93, TF30, TF41, F101, F110, F404, F414, F119, and F135.  Higher mass flow rates without significant thrust increases are always indicative of inefficient designs.

The closest Iroquois size and weight analogs were the J75s, but J75s still have 12.5:1 OPRs and 260lbm/sec mass flow rates, with maximum thrust being 29,500lbf (J75-P5A) vs 30,000lbf (Iroquois).  OPR is a major factor in jet engine fuel efficiency, so at max dry thrust the Iroquois was burning an additional 4,050lbs/hr (596gph) at sea level.  For equal thrust, Iroquois was still burning an additional 1,925lbs/hr (283gph).  Afterburning TSFC figures between J75 and Iroquois are quite similar.  This is unsurprising since thrust is also nearly equal.

Any engine ingesting 60% more air mass to achieve the same max thrust output will be fair to terrible in terms of TSFC.  The minor thrust improvement of the Iroquois engine over the J75 was accompanied by a significant fuel burn increase.  That was why Iroquois was never installed in any other fighter jets.  Iroquois was an obsolete design by 1958.  It's a scaled-up J79 in terms of fuel burn rate, except that a scaled-up J79 would have J75 fuel burn rates.  The J58 turbojets that powered the SR-71 were also more efficient, and capable of producing more dry (25,000lbf) and wet (34,000lbf) thrust, at reduced fuel burn rates, when the air intake was appropriately sized.  The SR-71's intake design limited installed thrust because it was deliberately designed for Mach 3 flight speeds at 70,000ft, which meant most of the intake area was "blocked" by its variable geometry inlet.  Despite the dramatic loss of thrust at speeds below Mach 2 for the installed J58 engines, the increase efficiency and suppression of compressor surge at Mach 3 flight speeds was worth the tradeoff for a recon plane flying straight and level at 70,000ft at Mach 3.  Nobody wanting better takeoff to Mach 2.5 thrust and acceleration would ever design their engine inlets the way the SR-71's inlets were designed.

Nothing Was Leared YouTube Channel -  White Liberal News Good For US Means Bad For Us ep 103

"Join us next time when we tell you how much better we are as liberals than everyone else." - Karen

tahanson43206,

Using materials like Alumina and BNNT, it's feasible to produce SCO2 engines with 1,300C TITs and 66% thermal-to-mechanical efficiency, with the weight of Aluminum metal and both absolute strength and strength-to-weight far surpassing any Inconel super alloy at 1,300C.  At that point, there's little to argue over the benefits of this technology.  It will be smaller / lighter / stronger / longer-lasting / more thermally efficient than any competing thermal engine technology.  It's rapidly becoming a close runner-up to Solid Oxide Fuel Cells, but at much greater power density.

Reliable direct conversion (of hydrocarbon fuels) SOFCs are now approaching 5kW/kg in commercialized applications, and they achieve 70% to 80% thermal efficiency.  I've read about lab-scale test articles achieving 8kW/kg.  Plate-out of the electrodes and destruction of the membranes from Sulfur contamination continues to be a problem, although use of Methane vs denser fuels (Propane, kerosene, diesel) ameliorates this problem.  SCO2 gas turbine engines are capable of power densities about 20X that of SOFCs by using CMCs combining Alumina with advanced fiber reinforcements like BNNT.

Do you see those big white components in these gas turbine engines?:

Those are Alumina-based CMCs.  They're ceramic fiber reinforced metal oxide matrix composites (Alumina binder with Nextel fibers or something similar) with some plasticity to them, meaning they behave less like glass rods and more like sheet metal, but with significant thermal shock tolerance.  They're not stronger than metals at room temperature, nor harder than pure ceramics, nor stiffer than Carbon fibers, yet they have a highly desirable mix of those properties combined with greater tensile strength than super alloys at combustion temperatures.  Did I mention how light they are?  They're similar in density to Aluminum.  Even after hundreds of hours of operation, they still look brand new, because they're already oxidized to the point that no additional oxidation is possible.  Have you ever noticed how metals exposed to such extreme temperatures look "rusted" or "blackened" or "every color of the rainbow"?  That is actually surface oxidation damage to the base metal alloy.  After a certain amount of accumulated oxidation damage, they become scrap metal.

A master's level thesis on testing these materials:
All-Oxide Ceramic Matrix Composites - Thermal Stability during Tribological Interactions with Superalloys - Daniel Vazquez Calnacasco - Luleå University of Technology, Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics

A NASA CMC Development Partnership Project with Rolls-Royce and COI ceramics:
[url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150018257/downloads/20150018257.pdf]OXIDE/OXIDE CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITE (CMC)
EXHAUST MIXER DEVELOPMENT IN THE NASA ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE AVIATION (ERA) PROJECT[/url]

The very last slide shows pictograms of the process steps that COI Ceramics uses to make these parts.

Anyone who wants to see practical hybrid-electric aircraft take flight should be onboard with this tech, because every other energy storage and conversion technology is a pretender to their cause.  At the present time, there are no electro-chemical batteries or fuel cells in existence that come within a country mile of the power-to-weight requirements for modern long range turbine-powered and kerosene-fueled aircraft.

Seeing designs with 20-30% increase in fuel economy over existing conventional gas turbine powered aircraft would be pretty spectacular.

This comment from Reddit User "discombobulated38x" is one of the best simplified explanations of current large turbofan engine design that I've seen in awhile:

Grainger Istitute for Engineering - University of Wisconsin at Madison - Raytheon Technologies Research Center - Additive Manufactured Supercritical CO2 Heat to Power Solution - June 8, 2022

With a 1,300C TIT, they're talking about getting 66% thermal efficiency.

That would be a very significant step-change for marine and aircraft propulsion systems, and across a very significant power output range.  The most efficient conventional large turbofan engines are 46% thermally efficient, but only at maximum thermodynamic output.  Extracting two-thirds of the mechanical energy out of the total available thermal energy in every kilogram of fuel burned would be a stunning achievement for gas turbines.  For a 1GWe power plant where all of the core plant components easily fit on perhaps 5 semi trucks, that is jaw-dropping performance.

I will always be a sailor at heart, so I think of it this way:
An 80,000t to 110,000t aircraft carrier nominally requires 208MW of power to move at 30+ knots.  SCO2 gas turbines would be so light and compact that the ship could have a quadruple redundant power and propulsion plant, such that each of the four plants can propel the ship at maximum speed.  Destruction of 3 out of 4 power plant compartments from bomb hits wouldn't slow the ship at all.  Each plant is so much smaller than a steam plant that it can have its own armored engine compartment at the aft end of the ship, because the equipment has a very minor effect on how the ship sits in the water.  The steam plants were so large and heavy that the entire hull from about amidships aft, just below the waterline and all the way to the keel, was filled with various boilers, engine rooms, steam piping, shafting, and backup diesel generators.  With a SCO2 propulsion system, the gallery deck, which is situated just below the flight deck and above the hangar bay, could be almost empty except for the aircraft catapults and arresting gear.  There would be no need to put squadron ready rooms there, staff workspaces, and berthing compartments, because most of the hull would be a cavernous empty space available for the air wing personnel.  This would reduce the carrier's metacentric height and improve stability following battle damage.

For aircraft, existing airframes could just about double their cruising range for no increase in fuel load or engine weight.

I don't know how other people think about those kinds of performance improvements, but I consider them to be a "step change" in engine capability.

RobertDyck,

The problem is with what you think you know that just isn't so.

When China forges crankshafts and American machine shops perform the finishing machining operations, that doesn't mean the cranksahft was actually "made" in America, nor does it mean said machine shop can actually forge a crankshaft.

Maybe you don't make the distinction, but try to assemble an AIM-120 without the radar unit and computer provided by Raytheon or the rocket motor provided by ATK and let me know how that goes.

Lockheed-Martin insists that all depot level repair work be done by a qualified unit if they will still be held responsible for the end result.  This doesn't apply to Israel or most of the F-35s used by the Europeans, for example.  Sign a waiver and take full ownership of the repair work.  If your people screw it up, then it's on you.  Most people who want their product to come with workmanship guarantees are going to take their $20M fighter jet engine back to the factory that made it for refurbishment.  If you're confident in your repair abilities, then sign the damn waiver and take full ownership of all components and any mistakes.  Otherwise, quit whining that the primary contractor insists on repair work to the product they partially "own", by contractual agreement, even though they don't want to, is done at a suitable depot with factory trained techs.  No finger-pointing if one of your depot repair techs doesn't understand the task and the jet crashes as a result.

We've already been over this thorny issue with the GE and Pratt split-contract engines that power the F-14D / F-15 / F-16.

RobertDyck,

I don't recall anyone stating that they're not justified.  Unfortunately for them, they don't have the manpower and coordination to win a land war with Russia.  Their actions in combat are admirable, but courage only takes you so far.  The math doesn't work.  At some point, training, sheer numbers, and logistics become determining factors.  If we put our troops on the battlefield, Russia's war with America will be over shortly after it starts.  I'm pretty sure that's what President Trump just did.  I think his patience in dealing with Russia is wearing thin.

President Trump first made a genuine good faith effort, on behalf of both America and Ukraine, to stop the war in Ukraine.  That was an act of pure generosity and kindness to everyone involved.  President Putin's actions made it clear that he did want that.  Russia has now entered into the "finding out" phase.

During President Trump's first term in office, the Russians and their mercenaries deliberately attacked American troops in Syria.  Our Air Force then decided that a quick terraforming project was in order.  By the time the shooting was over, there were no more Russian troops left.  I'm sure some pieces of them were left somewhere, just not ones that anyone could ever identify.

From the age of sail to the present day, piracy has never stopped, nor has trade.  Your assertion about this and all available evidence are at odds with each other.  Shipping will become more costly at certain times and in certain places.

tahanson43206,

The seals we use are various grades of stainless steels and ceramics, not any kind of plastic.  At the temperatures involved it should be obvious why.  Virtually every modern piston engine uses multi-layer stainless steel gaskets to hold in combustion pressure.  Modern diesel engines use 2,000bar fuel injection pressures and achieve 200bar combustion pressures.  The labyrinth seals do leak some CO2, but we also use other inert gases like Argon to put external pressure on the sealing surfaces to hold the CO2 in.  Argon is a very heavy gas, so leakage through sealing surfaces is less of an issue.  Small Argon filled chambers at each end of the shaft do a good job.  A longer shaft also reduces the temperature gradient so there's fewer leaks associated with thermal expansion.  The other sealing mechanism we use with longer shafts and lower shaft temperatures is lube oil.  Steam turbines already use lube oil.

Stress corrosion cracking can be greatly limited by applying ceramic coatings to the surfaces of the parts.  The tech I'm talking about is no different at all than current gas turbine engine tech.  Steam turbine and conventional gas turbine blades are also very susceptible to stress corrosion cracking.  I've mentioned Silicon Nitride coatings multiple times on this forum, because it's used to coat steam and gas turbine blades, amongst other things.

RobertDyck,

Well, you're still responding, though not in a way that exemplifies the behavior of someone who is more concerned with their nation's defense than complaining about President Trump.  You've made no attempts to engage with the substance of the arguments I've made, and more than a few of your assertions are provably wrong.  You could always make a data-backed logical argument to prove me wrong.  I keep telling myself that you're capable of more, because I still believe you are.

A short YouTube video on the Chinese SCO2 gas turbine power plant used to provide additional electrical power to their steel mill without burning more coal:
CGTN News - World's first commercial sCO2 power generator begins operation in China

Edit:
In case the point isn't clear, that steel mill is also a grid-connected power source.

It would appear that Denmark and the EU are now ready to send ships and troops to defend Greenland.  Problem solved without America having to devote more of our own troops and money to doing what Denmark always should have been doing themselves as a real functional NATO ally.  Deeds, not words.  Talk is cheap.  Mounting a credible defense against an attack never is.

This was posted today:
Denmark, Greenland seek Rubio meeting after Trump remarks

Showing up is half the battle.  When you actually show up and put in the work, both your allies and enemies take notice.  Paying lip service to the idea of defending Greenland is no longer sufficient.  When we station our military forces somewhere, it's not merely for sake of appearances.  We will use it, if need be.  Deterrence works much better when your enemies know, in no uncertain terms, that hostile actions will beget immediate overwhelming consequences.  Men like Vladimir Putin and Xi Xinping only respect real routinely demonstrated military power.  Whether or not our liberals are squeamish about that, or wish to complain that every last dime of public money isn't going to their favorite government handout program, they only sleep soundly in their beds at night because we're both willing and able to fight and win against all adversaries.

As far as "beyond piston engines" is concerned, not to beat a dead horse, but I truly believe that the absolutely incredible power density of Supercritical CO2 systems is the most likely contender.  A 250kW (335hp) SCO2 gas turbine rotor is roughly the same size as the US Silver Dollar.  The heat exchanger power density can reach 700MWth+ per cubic meter.  That means the power turbine, burner, and heat exchanger assembly can be roughly the same size of a shoebox.  It'll be relatively heavy if made exclusively of refractory metals vs RCC, but as far as compactness and thermodynamic efficiency are concerned, nothing else comes close.

My contention is that hybrid electric powertrains are not only possible but truly practical using SCO2 gas turbines and small Lithium-ion battery packs.  At 160Wh/kg, a 26kg battery pack is sufficient for 60 seconds worth of stored electricity to allow the motors to quickly accelerate to highway speeds.

Alternatively, a purely mechanical powertrain using a CFRP flywheel could store 1.976kWh in a 26kg flywheel and deliver a 130kW / 174hp burst of power for rapid acceleration.  The SCO2 gas turbine could be truly tiny.  Now that we have geared CVTs, this new transmission tech would permit optimized power delivery without electronic shifting.

Last but certainly not least, the dramatic simplification of the powertrain using either of these solutions could make cars significantly lighter.