I do not imply such a thing and you are welcome to demonstrate that i actually did.

What i said is nothing esle than is said in L-M programe briefs as well as some subcontractors who have done the job on the Divertless Inlets aerodynamics.

Combat altitude is 20.000 ft for a profile involving a cruising speed of M 0.9 at 30.000 ft and the divertless inlets are optimised for maximum output at sea-level, wihtout loss (or presumably) at higher altitudes.

As if every designs were conceive for combat performances at the tropopause (Quiet in fashion this altitude these days) even so they are optimised for strike at low altiudes, engines and inlets optimised for maximum output at sea level and the whole thing well documented.

20k feet isn’t what I’d call a low level strike profile. Perhaps we just have different definitions of low. Most sources I’ve seen have the F-35 flying a higher profile than even 20k feet though(more like in the 25-35k range for strike profiles, and at higher altitudes for A2A missions).

Who’s been rude and pumpous?

How would you describe the tone of referring to a poster as “boy” in any other way?

Now everyone looking at their respective mission profiles and requierements can see for themself that they differs dramaticaly, reading that F-35 will replace F-16 is not giving you nor its requiered specs nor its design points..

The F-35 was designed to meet/exceed F-16/F-18 performance.

I thought Fonk/Sampaix was banned?
When Aurocov mentioned his name in post 372 in this thread Fonk appeared under the name Dare2 in post 375 defending his old account posts.
I’ve never seen such a blatent double identity posting on any forum, ever.

Well there haven’t been too many posters rude enough to refer to others as “boy.” Talk about a pompous ___.

No, not really.
IRST scans much wider temperature band than, what is cooling system able too cool the aircraft down.
However, if an F22 would, by some miracle be able to avoid IR detection of itself, the temperature of stagnation point in front of the aircraft would, in fact discover it’s presence.
So no, you can’t really hide 20t of metal from IR system, that easy.

But you can reduce the range at which it can be seen though, and this is just one of the techniques.

Sure there are, but not on F22. 😀

Source?

And why is it cooled, if the temperature is in check? 😀

It’s cooled because the heat from friction(which all airframes have) shows up better on IRSTs, than cooled surfaces.

It would be nice to provide us with a link to this famous interview instead of giving people the UFO version.

Speaking in the name of “Metz” doesn’t make your case, we’re still waiting, so please oblige our humble request, we are genuily interested to read this document by ourself.

Metz said that the top speed was classified, but that the aircraft would do 1600mph. Using powers of deduction, one can infer

A-that the top speed is not less than or equal to 1600mph, seeing as how that’s the speed he mentioned.

B-the fact that he mentioned it demonstrates that 1600mph is not a classified figure, leaving but one option- the top speed is higher than 1600mph.

We understood that, it makes the 1600 mp/h figure even less credible.

It is possible to damage the RAM without damaging the airframe beneath the RAM. The F-22’s airframe isn’t flimsy- it’s designed to operate at high speeds for prolonged periods.

@Wrightwing

Let’s go another time over this issue, but slow…

1) USAF/pilots confirmed ~600nm range in M1.5 flight regime, after which refueling was needed. Beneficial calculation gives ~12.17 kg/nm (kilogram per nautical mile) of fuel consumption.

Consequence:
SuperCruise radius for M1.5 = ~300nm, at internal fuel (1/2 of 600nm range).
SuperCruise radius for >M1.5 numbers = unknown, although the time in the air is certainly shorter than on M1.5.

2) In “310+100″nm radius equation, F22 actually flies 620nm in SUBSONIC regime and 200nm in SC regime (“310+100″x2). After substituting SC value and some reserves, we get to the number of ~8 kg/nm of fuel consumption in SUBSONIC regime.

Consequence:
SubSonic radius (on internal fuel) = ~440nm -> WITHOUT touching Afterburner or SuperCruise and with VERY limited reserves, so that kinda rules out air-combat allowance and therefore isn’t combat radius, at all. Actual combat radius is even smaller.

I don’t know how simpler to explain this?? Sorry…

You’re missing my point, so I’ll go over it slowly-

The F-22’s combat radius is further than 310/100, or an F-15 on internal fuel for that matter.

I’d take this with a pinch of salt. A common mistake is to convert a Mach number (at altitude) to mph (or km/h) using the agreed ratio for sea level (and a standard day). Undoing the math in the right way is thus often bound to fail.
I mean 1600 mph may translates to Mach 2.1. Because for those who don’t really care/know how Mach number varies with altitude, Mach 2.1 * 762 mph (sea level) = 1600 mph. Almost everybody (wrongly) do it that way.

Just my two cents though. Arguing on maximum speed is pointless anyway, mainly because the theoretical limits can often be exceeded (Mirage III, IV or 2000 going Mach 2.5+ dash comes to my mind, to name a few). Ditto for altitude, G load, etc.

But at altitude, the speed of sound is ~660mph, hence the M2.42. In any event the speed that was quoted was in mph, which is the same at any altitude. Too much pondering is going into a relatively straight forward statement.