I was not trying to dispute facts of what it can or cannot do. My problem was with your phrasing, as I said in the first post about that, and has nothing to do with which numbers you assign to supercruise.

If you have a negatively worded working hypothesis (‘no evidence that it can not’), you say that there could be an as of yet not encountered set of parameters that could bring about fulfillment, which with a lack of demarcation leads to an unlimited variety of circumstances that would necessitate infinite retesting, which makes it impossible to validate or falsify this hypothesis, which means it holds no insight while upholding a claim.

It can be easily abused and should be avoided. It’s unscientific.

Or do you think it’d be right to say: “There’s no evidence that I can not run 100 miles per hour.”?

Right: There’s been no evidence that the F-35 can supercruise.
This can be easily proven wrong. The F-35 just needs to demonstrate supercruise.

Wrong: There’s been no evidence that the F-35 can not supercruise.
This can never be proven wrong. One could always claim circumstances like defects, environment, deception, secrecy, spin, intention or others whenever it fails to supercruise.

I hope you see the difference.

I do see the difference, and understand your concern about trying to disprove a negative. My remarks were aimed at the crowd that say categorically that the F-35 cannot exceed M1 in dry thrust. That may or may not be true, but using the fact that LM hasn’t claimed SC, isn’t proof that speeds under their threshold(M 1.5) aren’t possible in dry thrust.

Phrasing it this was isn’t very scientific and doesn’t help to arrive at facts. Putting it this way makes it non-falsifiable and therefore not a valid premise.

Well, it isn’t currently falsifiable, because we don’t know that it can’t. LM/USAF defines supercruise as M1.5 or greater, not just the ability to fly faster than M1 without AB. What this means is that the only thing that can be said unequivocally is that the F-35 doesn’t cruise at M1.5 or greater, without AB. It may very well not be able to break M1 without AB, but no one here can say that with certainty. In fact there’s a great deal about the F-35 that can’t be said with certainty, as we’re simply not privy to all of the details. That being the case, I’m not prepared to say what it can’t do.

Take a look at what the pilots have to say about them, for example, a Typhoon can still supercruise with external weapons, although A/A, which, probably, the same can’t be said for the F-35 with internal weapons. Maneuverability wise with external stores, still very ruddy good.

Respectfully. 😉

The Typhoon can cruise supersonically with certain weapons load. The question is how fast and far can it do this though? As for the F-35, there is no evidence that it can’t cruise supersonically, just that LM doesn’t claim that it supercruises(which by their definition is M1.5+). It may very well be able to cruise in the M1-1.4 region though.

Right. But modern missiles can easily pull in excess of 50g. R-77 isn’t designed to pull 12g, its designed in engage targets pulling up to 12g. Big difference.

How many times can the missile make 50g maneuvers before running out of energy though?

ROTLMAO. Thanks for the morning joke. Due to my respect towards Tango and this news section I will restrain from responding to this pile of nonsense in this thread. Feel free to kick off a new one..

Glad you enjoyed it.

You can have your doubts my friend.The Indian Fulcrums also have HMS and AA-11’s which i believe are handy in a tight spot, and thats according to dutch personnel i think, who flew against luftwaffe fulcrums back in 02-03, could be wrong on the year, i can try and dig up the article if you wish?Also i know the Python, is lethal, but it depends also who gets into a firing position first.Do not underestimate the Fulcrum because of how it has faired in engagements with Western fighters before, while at the hands of inexperienced and lets say not first class Air Forces.It seems to branded with a crap stamp.

Did those Dutch pilots have HMS/HOBS equipped F-16s though? That makes a big difference, as the F-16 will hang with a Mig 29.

I never thought of that! With munitions under the wings the F-35 isn´t even stealthy. Without stealth and supercruise it´s not even a 4,5 gen fighter but more a 4th gen fighter! 😮

BTW, the internal payload (which counts) isn´t that impressive.

It’s still stealthier than 4/4.5 Gen aircraft, and by the time it’d be carrying external stores, the A/A and SAM threat would’ve been significantly attrited. Remember, the internal storage mode is for your Day one, kick down the door missions, which isn’t an option for 4/4.5 Gen aircraft. Remember- it has other internal load outs other than just 2 2000lb JDAMs and 2 AIM-120s. It can also carry 8 SDBs, or 6 AIM-120s(or even more JDRADMs, when those come on line).

For the amount of weaponry the F35B carries more like a 1 Gen fighter…. :p

You mean like this?