[QUOTE=Dare2;1485447]

What’s the wing sweep on an F-18?

F-18 is designed differently, looking at anotherset of performances at a slightly lower Machs than f-16 but capable of higher AoAs.

Look at F-5s/20s before judging on sweep alone.

Here you are talking transonic perfomances optimisation, not LWF lowest performances vs design…

YF-17 outperformed YF-16 in a few areas but not in the right part of the requiered flight envelop.

This being the case, you sure seem to make a big deal about the supposed limitations of the F-35, without knowing all the facts.

No it doesn’t it only implies a value know for beingthat of F-22, in another stament L-M says it as it is.

M1.5 or better, is the current definition they use. You may choose to disagree with it, but it is what it is.

F-35 wing profile is supercritical and optimised for transonic flight regimes, the fact that is also uses variable wing camber to minimise drag at all speed doesn’t change the supercritical wing own characteristics.

What’s the wing sweep on an F-18?

It only means you don’t know what cruisng means.

I know perfectly well what it means. I just don’t know what speed that it actually happens to be for the F-35.

This quote doesn’t define Supercruise as being M 1.5 but says: the ability to fly faster than 1.5 times the speed of sound without using fuel-guzzling afterburners – is another amazing technology employed by the F-22.

Meaning F-22 supercruise at M 1.5.

I’m afraid that quote does make that claim.

Verbatim-

Supercruise – the ability to fly faster than 1.5 times the speed of sound without using fuel-guzzling afterburners

Anyway the point is, it’s highly unlikely that F35, given it’s drag profile, can fly 500nm at M1.1, with 30 min CAP allowance and 8 AAMs.
Moreover, RAF pilots reported on several occasions, they make M1.3/dry, with 2 EFTs and 8 missiles, although the range is unknown, so you can’t really compare F35 to EF in that sense.

What exactly is the F-35’s drag profile, seeing as how you seem to know its aerodynamic limits? How much drag do you suppose 2 EFTs and 8 missiles causes vs. a clean aircraft?

Who cares…

Well if LM defines SC as >M1.5, then them saying the F-35 doesn’t supercruise just means that it won’t cruise at >M1.5. It doesn’t mean that it won’t cruise at >M1. In other words, one can’t use their statement as proof that it can’t cruise above M1.

Really?

And which plane supercruise at M 1.2 with GE 129/P&W 229 or GE 404 please?

You may want to look back a couple of posts, and you’ll find your answer.:rolleyes:

Fix the inlet system and the F-14D is limited to Mach 1,88 despite the much more powerfull F110 engines. The forced speed limit of the F-14D does come from the inlet-system alone! The USN had come to the conclusion, that some thing like the Mach 2+ of the F-14A is no longer of practical use since the 90s.

The F-14D’s limitations weren’t due to inlets. The speed restriction was to to it’s EO/IR sensors, and it was a measure to extend their life.

My point is, this “HOBS” mode for AIM-120 was only thaught of because AIM-9X Block II wasn’t ready and F-22 didn’t have HMS.

It doesn’t have the design specs to be a true HOBS capable missile, it doesn’t accelerate fast enough and doesn’t have the lift either.

HOBS was developed from the most agile IR AAMs of the time (Python III Magic II) which already had High Off-Boresight maneuvring capabilties but lacked the guidance/seekers to offer the real HOBS envelop.

If these maneuvring capabilties are missing, the problem remains the same, close-on, an AIM-120 wont be able to pull enough g to hit a target 180* behind the shooter in a defensive envelop, that of EODAS detection range.

What you are looking for is a missile that turns straight off the rail and can sustain the turn so as to hit a pursueing target within this buble or else you wont be able to cue it with EODAS or even detect it at all.

Other than that any BWR could be loaded with HOBS softwares it won’t make them capable of close-in defense.

IR AAMs are meant for self defense not offencive BWR.

So what’s the minimum engagement range in the rear hemisphere, in order to meet your definition of HOBS? The -120 isn’t as agile as the -9x, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not agile(it can engage targets at 2km or less).

Oh, and a brief note about clipped wings-

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

…the improved AIM-7E-2 was introduced in 1969 as a “dogfight missile”. It had a shorter minimum range, clipped wings for higher manoeuverability, and improved autopilot and fuzing.

The BWR AAMs (appart for MICA and perhaps some Russian AAMs) are not designed for HOB, Off Boresigh at best.

Late model AIM-120s have good HOBS capability, though the NEZ goes down considerably.

How are the pilot eyes going to cue the AAM itself?

This is not how it works technicaly, you need to have an onborad sensor to cue with the HMS, detect the target is 3D, then this sensor will cue your AAM.

If you use LOAL and third party targeting, then it’s easy to cue the AAM.

SAY WHO? :p

One doesn’t take metal off a structure, reduce the number of spars, ribs and skin thicknes with for a result the same structural load.

As a matter of FACT they all have lower structural limits than 1.5 with even thinner bulkheads for the 7.0 version.

Source please. I’ve yet to see ANY source say that ANY variant of F-35 wasn’t built with the structural margin over the allowable G force. Just because the B and C models have lowered limits over the A, doesn’t mean that they’ve been so structurally compromised, as to not have the 1.5 margin.

The F-4 was built like a brick, NOT F-35.

You may keep trolling.

There’s no F-4 that will hang with an F-35 in a turn, regardless of how you think it was built.