rjmaz1 Wow someone has an aircraft that can travel Mach 3 for 30 seconds but then runs out of fuel!! Quick lets buy it because it has a fast top speed!!
Kinetiq energy is TRANSFERABLE to weapons and of a primary concern to pilots who devides tactics such as "Lofting" to increase AAM ranges. As for M 1.6 at full A-B F-35 doesnt reach this speed in DRY power either, in FACT it is even doubtful that it will reach M 1.0+ without burners.
A 0.2 M difference is ALSO resulting in a difference in range for the same AAM. Being sarky doesn't get you anywhere.
rjmaz1 Its all about CRUISING!! you always mention top speed in full afterburner. But never the speeds using dry thrust only. A high cruising speed is the only number that should be compared and one that the F-35 performs well
When YOU dont KNOW about the other aircraft you can keep dreaming yes see my comments and dats on the subject below.
rjmaz1 Yes there is a permanent drag penalty, but only 10% compared to carrying it externally. The USA knows the percentage of air time they are carrying weapons or external tanks. I would be happy to have a 10% drag penalty for a minority of the mission providing it gave me a reduction in drag for the majority of the mission.
Really? Well reality proves you WRONG as well as L-M weight issues on the F-35.
rjmaz1 Its all about compromise, the F-35 performs well in many area's, its good speed and stealth will allow it to destroy enemy aircraft without detection. Sure it may not be the best dogfighter but they compromised the agility for speed, range and stealth. Agility of the F-35 is still very good, the instantaneous roll rate that i've seen is better than the F-16 which is an excellent start.
Copy/paste work without a clear understanding of the subject doesn't get you nowhere fast either.
rjmaz1 This is why the F-35 is being ordered by so many customers. I bet the qualifications of the people incharge of buying the F-35 for their respective countries far surpass your qualifications.
NOPE it is due to the US technologic and economic weight plus to a certain extend the absence of clear developement path of its concurent, but things are changing though. As for my qualification you have NO idea.
Now responding to your previous outburst.
rjmaz1 The F-35 has already proven that it can cruise at Mach 0.8 at only 30,000 feet.
OK, let me tell you a little story: A couple of years ago we were still struggling to find some proper datas on our latest, one day while surfing the engine manufacturer website i ended up reading that it actually supercruised during its FIRST flight (19 may 1991 first preproduction aircraft).
The difference here is media coverage, and that of F-35 is totally disproportionate and in many ways also misleading for commercial purposes.
One have to dig hard to SEE exactly what the aircraft is all about; requierements, design configurations, official datas, management press releases and staments etc.
I dont base my "superficial" analysis on specialised press coupures or web search only, it actually took me YEARS (and more recently official data releases) to figure some proper datas for these aircrafts and then again sometime they are still to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Want some examples?
Dassault give its Mach in "Operational" speeds, NOT DASH (0.1 to 0.2 M difference between squadron use and manufacturer datas).
The US manufacturers (L-M, Boeing) uses sometime non-corrected airspeed with a difference of up to 30% depending on altitudes so that the resulting airspeed would gives the novice <> 0.2 Mach above the airframe designed Mach limits when translated in M without correction...
The only way to figure that one out was to know the semi-classified figures of the French aircrafts (Ex-AdA membership and Dassault helps a little) and a close look at NASA flight-test procedures...
rjmaz1 This is the speed it will be traveling at with two bombs, two missiles.
= 2 X 2000 lb + 2 X 2 AIM-120 + 20.120 lb Internal fuel. <> 700 mn.
Source: L-M Program-Brief-20Sept-2006 (PDF).
It would have been an exeptional performance if some concurent aircrafts weren't doing as good to better.
As good in the speed dpt, since i'm unsure of the power output to sustain the Mach 0.95 limit (25,000ft cleared since 99 from 0.9 to 0.95 M) in deep strike configuration but i KNOW about a "Typical" cruising speed of M0.82/347kt, DRY with 3 X 2.000 L, 2 X 2,860lb SCALPs and 4 AAMs, then better in the range and payload dpt (1.000 nm+ vs 700mn+).
Since this test, the aircraft have been also cleared to 5.5 gs with this warload (vs 5.2 in 99), if L-M doesnt clear F-35 for a higher G-load and speeds it will have NO performance advantages in deep-strike configuration over a F-15 K or some 4th generation multi-role.
This configuration and speed was tested by Chris Yeo, a former Senior BAe flight-test pilot on the Typhoon programme at Istres on 23/06/99.
His comments? "In the heavy and high-drag configuration tested, the Rafale performed and handled exceptionally well." so good luck to L-M.
DATE:23/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Combat ready
Just to remind you in case you already knew but forgot, speed and G limitations are due to external loads such as LGBs and fuel tanks and in the case of low-drag L.O AAMs this is becoming more irrelevant with today's TWR and i KNOW this for a fact.
In many cases the limits are dictated by the weapon manufacturers themself, (vibrations being an issue for electronics and weapon airframes during long-range flights), NOT the aircraft capabilities or performances...
rjmaz1 If you have a look at the cruising speed of the F-16 and F-15, its only mach 0.8, not even 500 knots... The F-35 has already acheived this speed at only 30,000feet.
If you have a look at the cruising speed of the F-16 and F-15, its only mach 0.8, not even 500 knots... The F-35 has already acheived this speed at only 30,000feet.
I refer you to my previous comment, what are the US weapons limitations and what are the software-progamed aircraft limits?
More to it, F-15/F16 are 30 years+ old designs and can't compare to the 4th generation multi-roles even so they still can win some competitions in their latest upgraded and re-engined versions.
A F-15K can actually fly at this speed in automatic terrain-following mode at <> 150 ft in deep strike configuration, so does Rafale only 50 kts slower but lower (100ft AGL over land and 50ft over water) and these are only "soft" limits due to the risks of increased airframe fatigue during low level flights, NOT ultimate aircraft performances.
L-M disclosed recently an interesting document on range in this configuration with altitudes ranging from 30.000 to 42.000 ft.
To be fair you have to use an average of 36.000 ft for an optimum for a maximumrange of <> 700 nm+.
This altitude IS consistant of the Operational ceiling at which it is intended to be used bar low-level strike capabilities (Hi-Lo-Hi), being optimised for lower Mach and altitudes than the LWF designs it will replace.
Harrier II Ops ceillings are 30.000 and 35.000 ft.
rjmaz1 I have heard from a reliable source that Mach 1 is the goal at a higher altitude without using afterburners.
I read from L-M FAQ that it is not designed for supercruise and doing so at 0.4 Mach slower than a Rafale with 6 MICAs (as reliable a source as yours) isn't too hot either.
Regardless of some technical descriptive of the word supercruise, from where we're standing it's passed M 1.0 in DRY power, the Mirage III AVON was flying in dry power at M 1.3 in 1963, nothing new there.
As for the power output, some tend to forget that drag increases with the square root of the speed so that computing "power for speed" is just that little more complicated than what we can read in some topics...
What transpires is that some guys try hard to make of it what it is not and F-35 is NOT a full multi-role performancewise because it was never intended to be so and wasn't designed to have this sort of mid-to-high supersonic performances either...
It does have multi-role capabilities though and the rest is the now old debate on how stealth will help it in the A2A role (and for how long), USAF have already answered this one; they want more F-22s.
So regarding the topic subject, and the developement cost of the F-35 so far, i think that for limited L.O features, futur customers are going to pay a high premium with virtualy NO increase in combat performances in both A2A and A2G over curent 4th generation multi-roles.
