It’s not spin to offer balance and context. Every system/platform/program/plan has the potential to have issues. It doesn’t become newsworthy until these issues arise.

Some evidence for that please?

-TR1

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2008/01/the-truth-about-that-supercrui-1.html

Here’s one, that a few seconds with Google turned up. I imagine if you do a little searching with key words, you’ll find more links corroborating my statement.

Until it has done so, for me it stays incapable to exceed M1.0 without afterburner, sorry, mate..

This would be based upon what exactly? LM has said that the F-35 won’t supercruise (their definition is M1.5 and higher). They’ve said nothing about M1 or higher, but lower than M1.5. Even clean F-16s and F-18s can exceed M1 without afterburner.

28 deg/sec at 20k feet isn’t too shabby.

Ww, at higher altitudes, there’s even less thrust and the weight remains the same, so F22 can only use AB more frequently.

Most of the maneuvers at airshows aren’t at combat speeds, so afterburners are used to quickly regain momentum. Of course there is less drag at higher altitudes too.

Do you think that most dogfights occur at airshow altitudes, and speeds? I’m not saying the F-22 doesn’t use afterburners at all. Just that it isn’t as reliant.

It will be far less reliant on afterburner though, which is the crux.

Get your story straight. 300% or 3 times? They’re not the same.

BTW, there’s this little thing about ‘3 times the range for the same size & power’, as well. APG-79 is bigger & more powerful than APG-73. It fits in the same airframe only if you put a new front end on the aircraft. The ‘three times’ is the top end of a range of two or three times the air-air detection range of APG-73 claimed in a 2006 Raytheon publicity blurb (which actually says “With more power than the APG-73, the APG-79 will have two or three times the air-to-air detection range…”), & doubt has been cast on it by many people. To use a vague claim like that as a basis for a general superiority in range of AESAs over otherwise comparable MSAs of 3 to 1 is not wise.

Now . . . CAPTOR & APG-73: the latter is an upgrade of a radar which became operational in 1983, & was declared operational in 1992. CAPTOR became operational in the early 2000s.

That was only one example I posted. Would you care to address the others?

As for 3x vs 300%, I wonder if you’d give your mathmatical explanation. 1x= 100% 2x= 200%…….