wrightwingBased on what?!
An unregulated inlet is a compromise always and optimised for the main operating speed in general, which is the high subsonic to low transsonic regime for the F-35. 😉
The F-35’s inlet design has been tested up to M2.
wrightwingWait. What i’ve read is it will have a max of four (4) AAM’s. Where did you get 6 from ?
Block 3s will initially carry 4. Block 4s on will carry 6 AIM-120s.
wrightwingStealthy pylons for 9X´s?!
Carriage for six internal AIM120 Early?!
That´s when? a decade from now? And have those improvements been budgeted?
Block 4s are supposed to carry 6 internally, and they’re less than a decade away.
If that´s “early and stealthy” can we count a bigger antena/aperture AESA set for typhoon? And the improvement “road map” for the Spectra EW set? 😉
So no improvements to the APG-81 are going to be happening either? The Typhoon is going to be playing catch up, and that’s if these improvements are even funded.
In the time frame for those “stealthy and early” improvements on the F-35A you might very well find that those advantages in avionics capability might very well be on the other plane. Might happen.
(On the other hand looking at the behavior of the European MOD´s and their prospective budgets, you´re probably right)Cheers
Might is the big IF.
wrightwingThe same goes for F 22 too. According to AFA journal the combat radius is 400 Nmiles including 100 Nmiles in SC, but it goes up to 590 Nmiles when flying in subsonic.
These numbers are VERY conservative if the Aviation Week article is close to being accurate(i.e. 41 minutes supercruise).
wrightwingPost #108 on this thread you stated the below, bold my emphasis:
“The F-35 is a BETTER fighter than the Typhoon. One MIGHT have an argument that the Typhoon is a better interceptor but as a FIGHTER, the Typhoon is a decidedly legacy system & Gmbh is trying desperately to down-play the truly game-changing nature of 5th generation fighters like the F-22 & F-35 (as well as update the Typhoon with as many 5th generation capabilities as it can realisticly afford to) in order to minimize the Typhoon’s obsolescence in comparison.
“The aircraft that carries a limited number of air to air weapons without compromising it’s main “asset” is a better fighter. Hhmm interesting logic there.
That’s ignoring the very real possibility that the other aircraft might just be more than capable of being refitted with new or developed avionics over the course of their lifetimes to match or exceed the situational awareness of the F35; if they don’t already match it..By stating that the Typhoon may be a better interceptor you are acknowledging that this aircraft at least has a performance better than the F35.
For those countries that are essentially in the air defence business rather than day one high threat enviroment strike, why does it make sense to purchase an expensive striker rather than an air defender / interceptor?
Here’s the thing- the only advantage of the F-35 that you’re acknowledging is its low observability, while downplaying any advantages in avionics capability that exist. In terms of raw performance, I’m sure the Typhoon is faster, but are the raw performance advantages such, that they are game changing? Based upon remarks of those who’ve flown the plane, its neither sluggish in acceleration or in handling, and it has very good high alpha performance too. Combined with its other advantages, that has to count for something both in BVR and WVR. Shortly after entering service it will have a 6AAM stealth carriage for AIM-120s, as well as stealthy pylons for external -9xs. Yes it’s possible to keep upgrading the avionics on the Typhoon and Rafale, but the question is will the owners have the budget to put all of the latest gee whiz features on, which the F-35 will have from the start.
wrightwingWrightwing,
Mig25’s M3.2 isn’t a theoretical number, but a speed of Egyptian Mig25 sprinting toward Sinai after combat sortie, measured by Israeli Hawkeye. The possible theoretical speed is even higher and I never saw Mikoyan Buro’s official numbers of the model, whatsoever. Therefore, M3.2 became later widely appreciated by various authors, but isn’t necessary a limit.
On the other hand, F22 demonstrated M2, AFAIK…I asked several times if F22 flew even M2.25 and never got reply, so I’m asking again…
Did F22 actually flew over M2 in it’s operational configuration (F-22A) and is there a tachogram of the flight??
Only once we get the answer to this question, we can accept that value. I found a theoretical speed for EF of M2.3, but I don’t go around babbling EF goes M2.3.
I don’t doubt that a Mig 25 can reach M3.2(or maybe even higher), but doing so destroys the engines. Seeing as how a lot of the upper end performance of the F-22 is still sensitive, you’re probably not going to see any brochures, etc…with figures. Metz’s statement wasn’t theoretical sounding, or qualified with a “well it can, but then it’s engines will need an immediate overhaul.”
To state matter of factly like Dare is that it can’t exceed M2 because no brochure mentions higher speeds to me is silly though.
wrightwingWell here is a typical example of what i was saying which was:
Just compare to what you allege i said and we got the 0.4 Mach creeping out of a Klingon device somewhere at Hollywood.
Quiet franckly i have had it with this sort of posts where US aircrafts beats gravity with just wind from a reported test-pilot comment, be it inacurate or plain invention.
There are logical explainations for every facts and those are the SAME for our air forces and aircrafts, since we happen to have pilots graduated from Edward, Eglin or IPER, using the same standards, at least we can understand them.
But of course these doesn’t apply when it comes to comparing ludicrous figures and throwing them at others faces vs evidences that these creepy stories are either stories or perfecly explainable unique facts, not operational standards and datas.
We have squadron noises too over here and performances to make F-22 looks blame from Mirage IVs or 2000 only they weren’t obtain under standard operational settings.
Passed this, Sci-fi is always going to show when people refuse to admit that guys who write the books by which every single air force and test pilots in the west are flying, knows tons more and better than they can ever comprehend.
Personaly i am still learning and i am lucky i love it.
Enough fun had we? 😀
I’m not sure what claims are so outlandish as to require Star Trek technology to achieve. M2.4 is certainly not a ridiculous speed to achieve, especially with 20,000lb more thrust than an F-15, and no external stores.
wrightwingWhere and when exactly did he say that? This claim seem like a Loch Ness monster to me – everyone knows it but nobody has ever seen it. :confused:
If one says that the top speed is over 1600mph, and the actual figure is classified, then that number certainly isn’t less than that. That would be counterintuitive.
wrightwingThis question of yours is a logical nonsense. If you claim something to be true, it’s you who needs to prove it, not the opponents.
I don’t have a proof that Metz never said that F-22 cannot fly Mach 5.6. Does it mean it can?
No one is claiming such a figure. Dare2’s argument is that he doesn’t believe that Metz made any claims at all, because he’s unwilling to believe he’d ever use miles per hour as a measurement, even speaking to a layman.
wrightwingWhat is did understand is that he was only repported to have said….
There are two reasons why i am and will stay more than sceptical in this topic.
1) There is no reasons to believe his comments was repported accurately.
2) There is NO evidence whatsoever that Paul Metz DID says this.
Other than that the very fact that a test pilot think primarily in terms of kt and Mach makes me think it is hearsay and little more than that, i have seen and known a few top fighter/test pilots they never used m/p/h as a measurement standard.
Once again, he was speaking to a journalist, not an aviation expert. He was using terminology that the layman would understand. This doesn’t invalidate the statement.
Sorry NO: The implication is that HE was repported to have said that the actual top speed is higher than the top speed he was willing to confirm.
You keep puting words in his mouth without the slightest evidence that he was repported correctly or even made these comments.
No, I’m not doing any such thing. He said the top speed is classified, but it will do over 1600mph.
Of course it is YOU, the Edward handbook is cristal clear and all i am doing is to read, understand and basically repport what the terminologies are.
You simply dont know what CRUISE is defined by, how and why.
Cruise speed is-is the most efficient speed in terms of distance, speed and fuel usage.
wrightwingThis is exactly the route I don’t want to take. Several MiG-25 test pilots stated they could easily hit Mach 3.0+ if they operated the engine throttle cautiously but I am interested in these theoretical figures exactly as much as in Metz’s claims. I am not implying that Metz is lying but his claims and real operational conditions are two different worlds. I am sure you understand.
But the implication of what he said was that the actual top speed is higher than the top speed he was willing to confirm. That’s why I don’t agree with the Mig-25/Mach 3 analogy.
wrightwingYou have no evidence that he DID or that this was repported accurately either, yet as for the rest you are making use of pure assumptions vs all proper sources and evidences people can throw at you.
Well if the standard that we’re going to use from now on is whether or not we were present when something was said, then you are right. Of course I’m going to have to rethink everything now that I can only accept first hand accounts as being reliable. It wasn’t so long ago where we endless argued over what M2.42 worked out to. Now you’ve changed your approach, and simply dismiss that he even said >1600mph. It certainly makes it easy to debate others, if you simply dismiss things out of hand. Of course if you had evidence it might make for an even stronger argument.
Well, im’ not surprise you comprehed so little about it since they write the standards by which every single western pilot flies and understand how it is done.
Better your standards and procedures allowing optimised subsonic designs with 33* wingsweep to cruise passed their transonic zone with the same TWR then the Viper.
This explains a lot. 😎
I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up, when we were discussing what supercruise meant vs. cruise, but since you are, what’s the wing sweep of an F-104, an F-5, or even an F-18 for that matter?
Sorry: AGAIN you should write people posts even if the technical terms are confusing you, you never know you might just learn something accidentaly.
So for your benefice, i dare quoting myself:
Got it? 😀
There’s only one of us that’s confused by the terminology, and it’s not me.
wrightwingSORRY NO: Paul Metz was REPORTED to say…
So you have evidence that he never said that, and if so would you be so kind as to share it?
Is that SO?
So according to you the definitions given by the USAF flight Test Center of Edward AFB aren’t good enough? 😎
Yes, and not applicable.
It got nothing to do with your extreme simplification of reality, it all got to do with standards, physics and aerodynamics.
Here’s some reality for you. An F-22 can fly further at M.95, than it can if it includes a supercruise leg. The same goes for any other modern fighter capable of supersonic speeds in dry thrust.
wrightwingNO it’s hearsay from someone allegedely repporting having heared someone with quite a bit of experience flying the F-22 saying it and totaly incapable to prove it.
No, Paul Metz said the F-22’s top speed was classified, but could do over 1600mph. Where you take objection is what Mach number that works out to.
Suffice it to say, is that it is about Mach 2.
I’m curious to know what you really have understood from all the technicality of cruising around the highest Mach point of your drag polar.
And more to it, what it will mean for F-35.
In the event that it have the thrust to beat the drag to reach M 1.0 in Mil power, it still will not be supercruising according to every USAF handbooks definition of the words Supersonic and Cruise, if it does pass M 1.0 in Mil, it still will be in its transonic region.
It’s obvious you don’t understand what supercruise means vs. cruise. If an F-22 stays subsonic at its optimal cruise speed, it can travel further than if travelling supersonically. Supercruise doesn’t mean that the plane is flying its most efficient flight profile. It just means that the plane can fly supersonically in dry thrust for a prolonged period(i.e. tactically significant).
wrightwing[QUOTE=Dare2;1501096][QUOTE]wrightwing
let’s use MPH then.
Not either, it’s hearsay, unknown conditions and unproven datas at best vs USAF and L-M own figures.
It’s hearsay from someone with quite a bit of experience flying the F-22.
Our 2000 “does” M 2.5 remember? (And then again we know it from military sources, not a forumer who have seen a TV programe and doesn’t understand the basics).
How fast does it go with a 8AAMs?
When L-M publishes datas on mission profiles giving ceillings and Machs, including cruise at M 0,98 for the attention of their customers, there is a reason for that, and these are NOT KPP figures but near-accurately predicted design points and Maximum.
Even fighters that can supercruise, aren’t flying at their optimum speed for fuel efficiency. Were that the case the F-22 could fly its entire combat mission profile supersonically. The fact that the F-35’s cruise speed is listed as M.98 does NOT mean that it can’t exceed M1 using dry thrust, or even operate supersonically for prolonged periods.
Sign In
