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

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7

[@brucebaxter6923]

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

[@simonsays582]

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

[@trevoncowen9198]

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

[@brucebaxter6923]

@@trevoncowen9198 Yes if transonic drag was low

[@GonzoTehGreat]

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?

[@alexandertheissl808]

The absolute Best Supercruising plane was the American Space Shuttle its reach around Mach 25 without any engine trust wenn it comes back to land 🙄🥴😄👍. Sorry joke

[@kenfelix8703]

🤣

[@armatacalanca962]

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

[@feluke8396]

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

[@mvd4436]

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

[@whtbobwntsbobget]

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

[@dsdy1205]

Would have never occurred to me that the main reason is to help the missiles skip the transonic barrier! Great video as always!

[@cannonfodder4376]

Same, its incredibly obvious but such an important detail.

[@aksmex2576]

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.

[@sid.h]

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.

[@gordonlawrence1448]

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.

[@moonfly1]

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

[@MarcusPereiraRJ]

I follow many channels related to military technology but you are the only one presenter who doesn't treat us like idiots and give us a glimpse of the science behind the equipments. Thank you very much for it and congratulations.

[@swanygaming6668]

Check out task and purpose

[@MihzvolWuriar]

This channel is the best source for quality combat aircraft content, I knew a lot about supercruise, but he still managed to teach me some things.

[@guyfleetwood8004]

Thank you Millennium 7. I got so tired of all the wanna be experts on you tube, then I found the Millennium 7 channel, and it was the first thing I ever subscribed to on anything on the internet, ever. No joke.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Flattered. Thank you!

[@Hermod_Hermit]

You are right up there with Mark Felton and Forgotten Weapons when it comes to really, really good military related videos. Your topics might be a bit different, but the quality you deliver leaves noting to be wished for.

[@robertsvihorik9033]

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

[@kre4ture218]

I love your content, especially because you’re on of the only military science channels who gives European fighter jets the love they deserve, especially my boy Eurofighter

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Paul Gillchrist who test flew a Northrop F-20 Tigershark on evaluation, attributed it with "Supersonic Persistence" Where it would continue to sustain supersonic flight, after the A/B cut out.

[@jeanvaljean9293]

So good to ear commun sense, real things and no fanboy bro science I haven following from the start and no regret, not even once Thanks buby ! Keep up !

[@maximus8746]

Something I get rather mad at is that there is a common misconception around in the internet that the Rafale cannot supercruise with any payloads which I have debunked repeatedly. I'm happy you took the time to check many of these facts cause in most of your videos they seem to be spot on.

[@truquichan]

I love your terminology: "When close is too close" to "healthy distance"

[@cravinghibiscus7901]

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

[@drawingboard82]

Great video, thanks! I slightly disagree about Concorde as a supercruising aircraft because AB was only used for a very short duration in comparison to it's ability to cruise for hours at mach 2. I would describe it as a supercruising aircraft. The SR71 has a similar ability to cruise at high speed, which it achieved using the opposite method, of constant afterburner, exactly as you said.

[@veedubgeezer]

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

[@watdeneuk]

You have become a channel that I first like the video, then watch the video. Awesome content man, great stuff.

[@Feuerschaf]

Btw. the MiG-29A/MiG-29G can supercruise, too, without afterburner. Mach 1.3 @ 10000m, likely clean. It can enter supercruise without afterburner by climbing above that altitude and then go into a shallow dive. Just fyi.

[@Manbemanbe]

Another great video reminding me that, however much I think I know about planes, there is still so much interesting info out there!

[@Pranith_]

Informative.... good video. Loved the background music..

[@EdD-ym6le]

*_WHAT !!!! THE F35 CAN SUPERCRUISE BACKWARDS !!!_* Great channel 👍

Thank you! I can only suggest GrowlingSidevinder's video who is a DCS player and explains a lot about BVR fights. He says the same/similar you can her in these videos.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

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

[@ankurmittalrcv93mittal14]

everything is so perfect in videos you my man just need a good mic & better audio quality.... everything else i love is already there

[@festol1]

KZbin gave us a lot of "Top 10" lists for the "best fighters" or "best military aircraft" in the world.... ... but also gave us the Millennium 7 channel! :)

[@vickydroid]

Another Sunday treat, thank you for another illuminating video whilst doing my chores, kinetics is such a good topic and I was re-watchhing your missile vids last week so this was extra good, I love how educational your body of work is individually and together.

[@ahmedkamel3862]

Thank you for the great info

[@nostromokg]

Nice video, well explained as always. Hello from Serbia...

[@ELMS]

Un altro video fantastico. Hai una capacità unica di spiegare idee e concetti complessi in un modo che chiunque può capire. Grazie.

[@apatrioticamerican3803]

Very well done video. Very informative and very well explained. Thank you for making this!

[@damaliamarsi2006]

I had some bad Mexican food supercruise right through me. I heard the sonic boom when it came out. Also I am barely over 3 years old but I go by Jupiter years.

[@ahadubaraki7881]

Your vids are helping me Im designng my own drone. Thanks keep it up

[@dampmaky]

Is this like diy rc or something?

[@ahadubaraki7881]

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

[@rapidsqualor5367]

I like the graph at 4:45 In your video, "The Waist of the Fighter - Understanding the Area Rule" you taught us about wave drag and the area rule. In this graph, it seems to show the "ideal area rule" shape for 0.9mach would be quite different than the ideal shape for 1.3mach ?

[@steffenjespersen247]

Great video and the lack of Supercruise is one of the main reasons why I find it incredible stupid Denmark took the F-35 instead of example the Swedish Gripen. Interceptor is one thing the F-35 is not. Also we know that in a conflict in the Baltic Sea all our airfields will get hit by cruise missiles 30 min after it starts.

[@jafr99999]

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

[@steffenjespersen247]

@@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.

[@steffenjespersen247]

​@@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.

[@ericstefko4852]

the Gripen is beautiful. Hey Canada super cruise is something we need to forget the F35 and F18 and go with the Gripen

[@k3lzZz]

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

[@michaeldickson2634]

Nice piece of work...great production.

[@kenfelix8703]

Again pure information no political BS thank you 🙏🏿

[@luislealsantos]

Great video as usual. Pertinent information and clear explanations. Thank you

[@piyushtripathi550]

Such a great and informative video.... amazing

[@TheEmolano]

I thought it was only to safe fuel, really useful feature!

[@veyev4320]

Great insight! Thanks

[@fieldlab4]

The dynamics of opening a missile bay door and dropping a missile into a supersonic airstream must be interesting. I'm guessing there are some trade secrets around that. Interesting facts: The first jet fighter with a known supercruise capability was the YF-17 prototype. Even the A-12 could not super cruise that I know of. Some older aircraft might have been able to supercruise by using afterburner to become supersonic, and then throttling back. Some notable planes that were pretty fast: XFCU-8 Crusader III prototype, the F-106, the YF-23 prototype was reputed to be much faster than the F-22. It's speed is still classified, probably just to protect the reputation of the US Air Force. The F-111 was damn fast, faster than an F-15 at sea level, though in many ways an overly ambitious, problematic aircraft from a previous generation. A dangerous plane. My opinion - the F-35 is garbage but has good avionics and fancy though highly toxic radar absorbing paint. Speed has actually been downrated because they will literally burn their own tails off. I do not believe they are even supersonic at this point. The primary reason for the f-35s performance is a super rated afterburner which has been tacked on to it. Otherwise it has no more real thrust than the F-22 engine. It's just a feature to impress generals at air shows by burning up all it's fuel in a few minutes. But they are right that it's main power is just networking, radar and fancy missiles. The basic airframe is garbage though.

[@ImperiumLibertas]

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.

[@nitinrathi5776]

Truly very informative. Keep it up .

[@srinivasvaranasi1645]

Interesting presentation!

[@markjmaxwell9819]

This guy would be lost without his AI assistant.... 😂😂😂😂

[@deadeye4520]

Very informative!

[@bigblue6917]

No mention of the first military aircraft capable of supercruise to go into service. The English Electric Lightning which went into service back in 1959

[@bengrogan9710]

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

[@BennyCFD]

Great info as always........Can you make a video on why some fighter manufacturers go with two engines over one Like the Gripen and the Eurofighter.

[@mwtrolle]

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

[@felipe69420]

Fantastic video, one thing I would point out is that afterburner isn't always just for combat and emergencies. Every hornet takeoff is in ab.

[@donwilson1307]

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

[@arthurvandeman]

fantastic knowledge, esp on aam + supercruise (energy). brill.

[@cannonfodder4376]

Informative as always! Although I am a bit miffed that you used Su-30SM footage in place of the Su-35S.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

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

[@cannonfodder4376]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Well for intro cockpit and taxi level shots of a Su-35 this video would be great. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGeleoh3ipaBabc&ab_channel=Fighterbomber The channel has some excellent montages of Russian aircraft that can't be beat.

[@JO-mx3rz]

Afterburners don't typically 'double the engine thrust'. Engine thrust usually increases about 40 to 50 percent, give or take, for most fighter engines. Super cruise engines will burn less fuel when flying at super sonic speeds than after-burning equivalents. However at sub sonic speeds they tend to burn more fuel than engines that do not super cruise. Ironically they also burn a little more fuel in afterburner as well. While the f-35 doesn't super-cruise its engine is more efficient than the f-22 engine from which it was derived, when flying at sub sonic speeds. As a result the f-35 has much more range than the f-22, for this and other reasons. The f-22 apparently can only super-cruise for a limited period of time, which limits its capability in many situations. It's a nice capability to have, but like anything it has limitations.

[@shaider1982]

Huh? The Gripen E/F can supercruise?! 👍

[@AvroBellow]

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

[@AvroBellow]

@@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.

[@jayakrishnanm2975]

came again with amazing content thanku very much sir.

[@DBravo29er]

The F-15C can actually supercruise with two pylon-mounted A2A missiles (sparrow or sidewinder); i.e. a relatively clean configuration.

[@xyzaero]

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

[@DBravo29er]

@@xyzaero 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.

[@xyzaero]

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

[@DBravo29er]

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

[@xyzaero]

@@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 😁

[@twisted4872]

Good stuff

[@nv3796]

Wow... learned so much !!!

[@AdmV0rl0n]

I was under the impression that the EE Lightning could supercruise. In review, this comes down to wether people tightly define as per the US originators definition, or more loosely supersonic without afterburning. This gets into a lot of beer argument at the bar. I shall take a slightly different view. I love the Lightning. But the ability to fly supersonic without lighting up the afterburners was good because that plane drinks fuel at ungodly rates, the pilots need to have a 3rd sense for knowing where the nearest in flight refueling tanker is, and the fuel gauge is monitored more than the early radar :P Super cruise is a very interesting subject. I have to note, that Eurofighter seems to have really terrific performance in this area. Sir, side note, your videos are top class. Has to be said! Cheers!

[@AdmV0rl0n]

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..

[@EEEEEEE354]

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.

[@AdmV0rl0n]

@@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.

[@EEEEEEE354]

@@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.

[@AdmV0rl0n]

@@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.

[@alandaters8547]

Great video, you explained a lot. But it also reminded me of what could have been. The YF-12 interceptor would not have been able to "supercruise" because it used an afterburner/ramjet feature at cruise, but its performance would have been phenomenal (superduper cruise?). Based on the SR-71 range of over 2,000 miles at Mach 3.2 , the YF-12 would dwarf any of these modern planes. How long can they supercruise at only Mach 1.5? Add 4 AIM-54 missiles with modern guidance systems, launched at Mach 3 and 80,000 feet and the threat would have been awesome. Increase its stealth and electronics and a modern YF-12 would be very impressive.

[@montanabulldog9687]

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 !.

[@patrichausammann]

Good video! And here you receive your 500th like for it.

[@karlskrivanek5687]

Very interesting video, but regarding Concorde I want to put some additional information, since the supercruise capability at M2 was a crucial design requirement, being essential to fulfill the transatlantic mission. If I understood your supercruise definition correctly, i.e. if supercruise must only be achieved and maintained without the use of re-heats, - then you are right - Concorde could not practically operate in this way. Nevertheless, a differing supercruise definition might allow to cover an enhanced supercruise regime, e.g. respecting the case of Concorde. Concorde used re-heats, but only for about 50 - 70 seconds during take-off and then again for 10 - max. 15 minutes for accelerating from M0.95 through the transonic region, resp. partly for climbing up to M1.7, just enough to build up sufficient pre-compression inside the unique air intake system. At supercruise, the intakes provided 7.3:1 in front of the first compressor stage, thus enabling 82:1 in the Olympus turbojets. During the climb phase above M1.7 - i.e. even after the re-heats were cutoff - Concorde still continued accelerating. Supercruise potential: The engine power even had to be reduced to prevent the airframe from thermal overheating caused by friction. Regarding the thermal barrier (127°C), Concorde usually supercruised at M2.02 (M2.04). By this values the thermal efficiency of the propulsion unit was approx. 43%. Actually, I don’t know any aircraft which was or is capable to supercruise under comparable conditions as Concorde did.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

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

[@matsv201]

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

[@karlskrivanek5687]

@@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.

[@matsv201]

​@@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.

[@atlet1]

Thank you for this informative video! Here is another enlightening comment on the subject: Everest E. Riccioni , Col . USAF 2/10/2005 8:48:59 PM " The F-22 has not yet demonstrated effective supersonic cruise The USAF has never appreciated that speed without persistence is meaningless. Proof� Six USAF aircraft capable of Mach 2.2 never exceeded 1.4 Mach in combat over North Vietnam in 10 years of war, in hundreds of thousands of sorties. The F-15 has never demonstrated its performance guarantee of Mach 2.5 flight in a combat configuration on a realistic combat mission profile. The USAF has the wrong definition of supercruise �(supersonic flight in turbojet thrust, i.e. without using an afterburner. Cruise means covering distance efficiently. Fighters with wings properly sized for subsonic maneuver achieve efficient supersonic flight at altitudes of 60,000 feet requiring partial afterburning thrust. This may be unknown to the testers since the test program limits testing to below 50,000. The proper cruise condition may remain unknown. All supercruisers cruise at very high altitudes using some afterburning (i.e. ramjet) thrust-MiG-31, SR-71, as did the many designs that I have studied, generated, or supervised. (Detailed aerodynamic-thermodynamic analysis is available upon request.) 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. Proper data are global radius of action and global persistence plots as functions of speed and altitude, for rational missions. These data must be then compared to those of the F-15 and the ancient F-104-19 to establish progress. For example , the 40 year old F-104A-19 has twice the supersonic radius of the 20 year old F-15C at 1.7 Mach, and out-accelerates it at Mach 2.2.Compare! In comparison lies the proof of progress. " I am not saying it ... Cheers .

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Interesting comment, thanks

[@mignik01]

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

[@superchargerone]

@@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.

[@mignik01]

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

[@sichere]

Enter the BAC Lightning - The daddy of Supercruise

[@sarass2197]

👍.great learning more about supercruise.

[@lxcien4867]

Actually the Concorde engineers did call a function of the Concorde Supercruise. I am talking here of the Ability to stay supersonic without using the afterburneres. This function is also called Ramp smoothing which reduces the air intake speed to a subsonic speed by using small ramps inside the intakes. This only worked above mach 1.3 explaining why it needed afterburners to go supersonic in the first place...

[@practicalshooter6517]

Rien de tel que de regarder "Millennium 7" a 8h (US time) un Dimanche matin.

[@michaelpaparelli3227]

Would have loved to see the performance of the YF-23 if it would have gone into production. Thank you for the video.

[@DBravo29er]

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

[@MihzvolWuriar]

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.

[@DBravo29er]

@@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.

[@MihzvolWuriar]

@@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?

[@DBravo29er]

@@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.

[@neti_neti_]

बहुत तार्किक प्रस्तुति।

[@yogeshchaudhary2093]

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

[@billhanna2148]

@@yogeshchaudhary2093 thank you 🙏

[@yogeshchaudhary2093]

@@billhanna2148 my pleasure

[@chavdarnaidenov2661]

I was thinking that the main advantage of super-cruising is, to be able to achieve a concentration of forces in an unexpected sector. That is, to keep the defender guessing where he should meet the enemy and make him lose time. If my guess is true, the defender would have less need for economical super-cruise. Because, thanks to simple geometry, he has to cover shorter distances. But now I see that a high speed of approach is also important for killing interceptors with air-to-air missiles. Well, the whole tactics of an attack and a defence are starting to look terribly complex. They overwhelm the capacity of the human brain. And there will be no learning-curve. Only one try. In that case the defender will be forced to simplify the task, by grabbing the initiative. By a preemptive attack on airfields, carriers, radars, satellites . If he has appropriate missiles. (Seems, at least one defender has such missiles).

[@fabienhyvert2319]

Excellente vidéos. Lerci

[@mosca3289]

Super communicator!

[@tedarcher9120]

The main advantage of supercruise is that is is much easier to see an afterburning aicraft with an infrared sensor without giving up your location with radar

[@mwtrolle]

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.

[@tedarcher9120]

@@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

[@mwtrolle]

@@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.

[@tedarcher9120]

@@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

[@tolson57]

I gave this a thumbs up just for the opening montage!

[@wizard380]

alot of videos about gripen and rafale but very few about eurofighter

[@MajSolo]

as you say going fast is safer but turning is more difficult it is easy to generate high G and that is what is needed to force the missile to use high G as the intercept point moves around in sky. I think some missiles don't use lead pursuit while they are traveling to the target since the pilot then can make the missile start maneuvering loosing speed, but the missile need to use it when closer or risk missing. So defending pilot need not start manuver immediately and he has his countermeasures onboard chaff/flare and jammer ( which he can flip on and off if the missile has home on jam capability ) and if he can do the doppler notch perfectly it is nice but might die trying. it differs between pilots how many G they can take and for how long should affect what the pilot tries to do. if the two sides merge, and have similar performance, you might have to slow down to corner speed to make the sharpest most efficient turn you can make. This is not a fixed number but depends on how loaded the aircraft is with fuel and weapons. You seen WWII fighters drop their droptanks as the fight starts. Or multirole fighter doing air-to-ground mission should need to jettison all the bombs to be able to win the dogfight. There is also another speed called corner velocity but is unclear to me what it is. It is a higher speed, maybe it is the highest speed at which you still can still generate maximum degrees per second in a turn. The addition of offbore weapons might also affect if the pilot wants to slow down or not. So I want to hear more about tactics and speed. Have anything changed the last 20 years? Are the latest versions of missiles basically the same as the first version or have they gotten a brain upgrade?

[@sshray1115]

11:10 velocity pursuit , proportional, optimal 'lob', midcourse guidances

[@klaojaju]

“Supersonic flight is not a big feature of the F-35,” Clark said. “It’s capable of it, but when you talk to F-35 pilots, they’ll say they’d fly supersonic in such limited times and cases that - while having the ability is nice because you never know when you are going to need to run away from something very fast - it’s just not a main feature for their tactics.”

[@joshafc41]

You missed the whole point of the video

[@davewolfy2906]

If nobody else has said - English Electric Lightning.

[@wkelly3053]

A retired USN pilot told me that early F-4B's which had a slick wing and no slotted stabilator could exceed Mach 1 without afterburner...yes, that is useless trivia now. BTW, I wouldn't know an Su-30 from a 35. I'm an old school jet fan.

[@bjornnordstrom]

Interesting! They say also SAAB 35 Draken (operational 1960) had that ability (to reach supersonic speed without using afterburner). images.app.goo.gl/YVvCcwKEjcvWZt4R8

[@patrickchase5614]

I disagree that the Concorde was "not technically a supercruise aircraft". It was able to cruise at M2 for multiple hours without afterburner. The fact that it needed a touch of reheat to accelerate through M1 doesn't detract from that in any way. I suspect that plenty of the other aircraft on this list need either afterburner or a "dive-climb" acceleration profile to punch through the transonic in all but the cleanest configurations.

[@AnonymousAlcoholic772]

Super cruising sounds like a favorite evening past time In San Francisco

[@supremeleader5516]

Amazing video love from india

[@tanzidane]

Excellent information here. 👍

[@grizzly6699]

Very insightful.

[@Carlos-cy4uc]

Very interesting, but as a little indication and as personal opinion, su 57 has not operative internal bays, try to investigate about that😉

[@tiagodagostini]

Define operative....

[@almazblanco6676]

The old NK-32, installed on the original Tu-160(years 1987 - 1994) is widely known as the most powerful engine of a combat aircraft in the world. The NK-32 engines, originally installed on the Tu-160, had a mass of 3.7 tons with a length of 7.5 meters and a diameter of 1.8 meters. The power plant is capable of developing thrust up to 14 thousand kilograms-force (137.3 kilonewtons) and 25 thousand kilograms-force in afterburner mode. Tu -160M(year 2018) is ​​a completely different machine. Outwardly everything looks the same, but the engine and flight range, power and everything is different. Tu-160M(maximum take off weight: 275 tonnes) has NK-32-02 engines that includes new blades for the compressor and turbine, as well as more efficient cooling. The aircraft is capable of reaching supersonic speed(2.2 thousand km / h) in afterburner mode and holding it for 45 minutes. The main and back-up electronic systems of the NK-32-02 engine should provide a bomber flight for up to 30 hours. Fuel supply and hydromechanical regulation systems must operate at near-zero and negative overloads up to 2.7 g and at temperatures from -60 to +50 degrees Celsius. The minimum service life of the product should be 12 years, with the possibility of extending the service life to 21 years. Finally, the NK-32-02 engine must be resistant to the effects of the damaging factors of nuclear weapons.

[@ak99-to1gz]

I find typhoon to be quite beautiful. Something about it is unique.

[@bitanchowdhury4028]

Rafel is the most beautiful looking Fighter jet presently under services.

[@slmyatt]

You had a "Six" pilot that said his F 106 needed afterburner to get there, but could supercruise and maintain suprsonic speed.

[@largeadam]

Concorde required after burners for take off and to break Mach 1. However, it could supercruise at Mach 2, at 60000 feet.

[@pauljs75]

And perhaps a tiny subtle feature of supercruise... Less time to target on a long mission, less pilot fatigue.

[@itstheeconomy2101]

IMO the Eurofighter's supercruise advantage could be greatly hampered by its inability to use it with an external fuel tank.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

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

[@bjornnordstrom]

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".

[@joshafc41]

It can supercruise with 2 fuel tanks at around Mach 1.2 roughly. This was mentioned by a pilot in an interview on hushkit. It was also stated to be able to supercruise with 2 tanks by a journalist who had a ride along in the Typhoon and wrote an article on it on the aviationist. It was also said to be able to supercruise with bombs according to Mike Sutton another interview on aircrew interviews. So it is quite capable. The Typhoon is apparently able to supercruise with weapons and fuel tanks in hot or cold weather. There were reports that the Rafale was not able to supercruise in hot conditions. Only the Gripen E was said to be able to supercruise but whether clean or with carriage was not mentioned.

[@lycossurfer8851]

@9:58 , no that happened 1/4 sec after you said that ;-)

[@MultiZirkon]

03:29 Did the F-104 used slats and flaps in cruise? Even in subsonic cruise with external stores that would sound like a suboptimal design... ??

[@FirstDagger]

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

[@ibrahimylmaz6944]

Awesome video

[@sichere]

The EEL Lightning was the first jet to supercruise

[@mandoreforger6999]

There is a 0% chance of knowing with certainty whether the F-35 can supercruise. Official statements claim that it can supercruise for 150 miles or so. It is surprising that anyone would claim to know with certainty that it cannot. The rumor is that it can supercruise indefinitely, though it will lead to excessive erosion of the stealth coatings. This seems like a fairly solvable issue. But seriously, given the clean configuration and no external fuel tanks, and the fact that has 2X the dry thrust of a JAS Gripen E and only 1.5X the empty weight…it seems likely that it’s Supercruise potential is about the same as a Gripen E The reality probably is that it can almost certainly supercruise for longer distances at altitude in the thin air and a bit lighter fuel load. The physics pretty much guarantee it. The drag coefficient between an F-35 and a Gripen E with a fuel tank are going to be virtually identical. This is just something that probably is best not advertised, so you really have to be a bit gullible to believe it can’t supercruise. It is probably discouraged in peacetime (for maintenance reasons) and fully encouraged during wartime missions that might require it. There is zero benefit to publicizing such capabilities.

[@tiagodagostini]

The thing is 150 miles is not CRUISE.. that is DASHING. Cruise is an already old term and means a large leg of travel.

[@christianm1533]

It's a factor. More important than starting speed is starting altitude. Fighters that can climb and build great speed while climbing stand a better chance than not. You'll light everything up, drop stuff you can afford to drop, climb as fast and as energy efficient as possible and try to calculate optimal launch position. If engaging at BVLOS you'll never engage at military thrust, supercruise or not. Unless you want to die that is. Supercruise makes things easier. Patrol range, starting speed etc. But if you have fuel to spare, power and a fast fighter (high T/W, low loading), you'll probably still come out on top, given similar metrics.

[@sorennilsson9742]

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.

[@christianm1533]

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.

[@operator0]

Notice which plane is not on the list? It's only the most expensive aircraft development project in the last 50 years, the F-35.

[@davidtuttle7556]

And obama killed the F-22 production in favor of it. With an ATG loadout, the F-35 cannot go supersonic. And the Russians can now track it. If they can track it, they can kill it. What a total waste of taxpayer money. Also, Donald kept yhe program moving forward, so its on him as well. Why we killed the F-22 is beyond me. It is certainly a better air defense vehicle.

[@pratikpal5565]

Does going supersonic contribute to the skin of the aircraft heating up, don't they need special coatings?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

The paint is designed to withstand temperature and abrasion. Very expensive, but if you use it for your car it will remain pristine. Just joking.😀

[@amzalkamel3009]

I think that with the variable cycle engine, the supercruise issue will be solved for the f35 from what i've heard

[@EEEEEEE354]

It's not really an issue. They wanted range, not supercruise. The F-35A interestingly enough has greater range than the raptor even though it's smaller. Supercruise is way overhyped.

[@dyren7437]

@@EEEEEEE354 Supercruise is not meant for extended range. As millennium explained excellently, fuel consumption at supersonic speed is still higher in mill power, than travelling at mill power subsonically. It is used for going into combat, where having high energy is the difference between live and death. Supercruise is not overhyped at all, as millenium explained greatly, but i guess you didnt even watch the video and went straight for posting uninformed comments.

[@EEEEEEE354]

@@dyren7437 "they wanted range, not supercruise" what part of this statement makes you think that I believe supercruise increases maximum range? Come on now, don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the F-35 is a multirole fighter with a variety of of missions besides air to air combat. Supercruise was never a design objective of the aircraft. Range in internal fuel was. Supercruise is not needed for the F-35's role. This dude is claiming it's a "problem" when it's not. So yeah, I did watch the video, it just seems like you can't read. Do I need to break down english for you? "They wanted range, not supercruise". Saying "not supercruise" means that range and supercruise do not go hand in hand. I was NOT saying Supercruise was for extended range. I was saying the F-35 was optimized for range INSTEAD of supercruise. Who TF are you calling uninformed if you can't even read? This is why the F-22 has a combat radius of 590 nm internal fuel, and F-35 760 nm internal fuel. in fact, no supercruise capable aircraft can even approach the F-35's range on internal fuel. Supercruise limited range. The reason I'm saying Supercruise is overhyped is because it is not always necessary for the mission at hand. The F-35 is a strike fighter with kinematic performance of an F-18 or F-16. It was never designed to supercruise. It's fantastic air to air capabilities are achieved through superior sensors, electronic warfare, and stealth. Supercruise is just another point to make, it's not the end of the world if you don't have it.

[@dyren7437]

@@EEEEEEE354 Reading your last sentence: "supercruise is way overhyped" made me think you were talking about supercruise in general, not just for the f35. Reading it again it makes more sense.

[@EEEEEEE354]

@@dyren7437 read it right the first time. I absolutely hate when people like you misconstrue what I'm saying. Everything was clear, there should be no misunderstanding. Supercruise isnt overhyped just for the F-35. It's overhyped in general for an aircraft with more missions than just killing other fighters.

[@leiyue1411]

Chinese military media announced j20 can achieve supersonic cruise last July.

[@gort8203]

At about time 7:40 I think you misspoke when you said supercruising without AB still uses more fuel than cruising at supersonic speed. I think you must have meant to say it still uses more fuel than cruise at subsonic speed. This points out that the term supercruise is a bit of a misnomer because it is not actually the normal cruise speed of the aircraft. It is a tactical or combat speed that can be sustained without use of AB, proving tactical advantage at greatly reduced fuel consumption compared to AB, and fuel is life unless you're on fire. I would like to know if you have any references specifically linking energy maneuverability theory to the development of supercruise, because I don’t see a real link. Energy maneuverability theory about superior performance in a dogfight and rewards high T/W and low wing loading, and afterburner is likely to be used heavily even though these fights occur at mostly subsonic speed. Fighters were designed for superior energy maneuverability before supercruise became achievable in fighters. Supercruise is about covering a lot of ground quickly while conserving fuel when positioning for and while engaged in a BVR missile fight, as you correctly mention in the latter part of the video.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

OMG! You are right! I listened to that passage a dozen times and I didn't catch it! Apologies. It is exactly as you say.

[@N330AA]

Pretty certain Concorde could break the sound barrier without reheat, it just took longer and burned more fuel in the process.

[@matsv201]

If I remeber corectly it had to flaten the triectory or even go inte a shallow dive. Aslo it need the afterburner to take of with full load due to low speed inefficency of concorde wing. I did a few calculations of spike and boom and there wings is about 30% more efficent at low speed.

[@foux7061]

Kind of annoying how secretive about fighter capabilities our military is, probably because they are actually a mess with 70% of the budget stolen.

[@Ni999]

Yeah. No.

[@allsome5675]

Oh boi where do I even start?