@Sens

We posted article from all F-22 pilots including Paul Metz, extracts of their Flight Test Center handooks, it’s not enough for you to understand that twisting datas, standard procedures and history is not making your points, just wasting this forum space and look funny.

Not my kind of game, have it your way if you wish, in real life, Maximum Mach 1.6 means what it says, then weapon firing and flight Maximum Machs are perfectly relevant.

You spent hours writing innacurate and unrelated stuff trying to make point you couldn’t make and being proven wrong, now we try politics as last ressort?

😎

So I am amused about the fight, if a F-35 will briefly reach Mach 1,6 or even Mach 1,8, it does not matter really similar to the claimed speeds for the Rafale, Typhoon or F-22A.

Sure. Even so Maximum Mxh 1.6 translated to M 1.8 DASH you still make up a difference between Dash and operational, sound pretty desperate to me and denying the effect of kinetic eneregy in combat for both aircrafts and AAMs is laughable at least.

pfcem
There is no reason for an inlet capable of Mach 2.0 on an aircraft with a ‘designed Mach limit’ of Mach 1.6 – in fact it would be detrimental as an inlet with a limit closer to the aircraft’s ‘designed Mach limit’ would tend to be be more efficent at lower speeds.

Inlets are designed for an optimum Mach with a particular engine, simple question of pressure recovery ratio.

If the divertless inlet desmonstrated M 2.0 with F-16 it doesn’t mean it will fly at this speed on F-35.

F-35 divertles inlets/F135 combination is optimised for maximum output at sea level and would show the same 40% loss of pressure at altitude and speed than the original F-16 Normal Shock inlet if not more.

This kind of inlet was already used by the Mirage 2000N with the souris (shock cones) fixed in an optimum position for the role (Low altitude), the aircraft was Mach limited WAY below Mach 2.0, while the standard 2000 C/5F could reach Mach 2.2.

This proves that with a different engine, F-35 will not reach the same Mach than F-16, the F-16 clean drags WAY less than a F-35 in frontal area only, while having a higher Critical Mach too.

The F-16 A Normal Shock inlet didn’t allow for a Maximum Mach of 2.0 but was limited by the engine pressure recovery limit being too low, it was finaly limited to M 1.8, while it had been flight-tested up to Mach 2.2 with engine Ts in the red.

It wasn’t until the inlet was enlarged and the F-100PW-220 replaced by F-100PW-229 that the F-16 could be cleared to a Calibrated Airspeed (KCAS) of 800 kt, this limit was only reachable by F-100PW-220-powered F-16 in a dive.

Now i don’t know if you understand how inlet shocks works but if the design is optimised for sea-level it is very unlikely that with the divertless inlet this limit can be uppered without redesign, even less so when one knows that the engine is also designed with optimisation for lower altitudes.

= Read more than 10% losses at Mach 1.6 for a Mach 2.0 optimised Normal Shock Inlet.

The F-16 divertless demonstrator showed that it didn’t involve more losses of pressure at Mach 2.0 with the F-16 engine (most likely F-100PW-229 or above) but these engines are a totaly different design to F135/136 and F-16 without them can reach a slightly higher Mach than 2.0.

The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration—also known as the 240-4—are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml

So, call it all you want, this source show one thing for certain.

1) Maximum speed of Mach 1.67 is a simulated flight-test, eyeballs-out figure which would translate to and validate the actual Maximum Mach 1.6 figure.

2) Best turning performances were obtained with a Combat Ceiling of 15,000 ft.

Now: KPP Status for the 240-X configurations in January 2008:

i am 😀

Can you understand French?

You’ll find the rest from there, if not let me know, downloadble with Real Player, (got them all on my H-D) there are 6 of them in this serie, these girls rocks!

Direct quotes consitute trolling, but wild speculation is sensible?:rolleyes:

Wild speculation is what your group keep doing trying to imply “this means that” when in reality, to aerospacial standards it doesn’t.

It’s a gimbaled design that can rotate.

Requierement for Low RCS leads to a fixed canted array, Thales prefered to focuse on keeping the frontal range under control (No range loss, wide bandwidth) and accepted a slight increas in RCS since the array is now quanted.

A rotating array, quanted will always have a high RCS spot but at variable angle, it might also results in a very small difference, it is in fact two different systems.

Just a short summary for the benefit of all. That nasty behavior ignored.

Please spend less time complaining bout other behavior and try to focuse on posting more accurate information for the benefit of everyone.

:cool:When you are intrested in a related source you can ask about that in a polite way. 😉

I do not need your source i was there, i can read French, i saw the different configurations and know the aircraft, pylons, weapon weights and Mach limits for both firing, flight, in both training and operational configurations.

You do recall something without source and still be unable to answer a simple question about ASTER in France service. As I asked before the number of systems and and year of service entry.

AGAIN i don’t need a source; i got everything to prove how innacurate your interpretation of FACTS and weapon configurations were, and definitely i do not have any interest in SAMP/T, this topic is unrelated to Air Defense aircrafts requierements and specs.

Still missing! Unable to do so? 😀

What was the relevance of the SAMP/T question in the first place?

SAMP/T is only designed to protect sentitive assets, among which airbases; the interception role still falls to the Air Defense Squadrons and their aircrafts, even looking at the number of systems planned is enough to show your points to be wrong.

Air Force (Armée de l’Air)
SAMP/T medium-range system to replace Crotale short-range air-defence systems.
Ordered: 11
Delivered: 2
http://www.eurosam.com/customers.html

SAMP/T won’t change anything to Mirage 2000/Rafale and their weapons Mach clearence, just distracting pple from the fact that you are plain wrong and using inapropriate and innacurate examples.

Serious people give the variants of the Mirage III and do not mix data to bolster the own claim.

Serious people doesn’t make up limits from inacurate interpretations of real-life operational configuration and doesn’t mystake tactical support squadrons with A2G as a primary role for Air Defense Squadrons equiped and trained for the Interception role.
http://escadron1.2cigognes.free.fr/moyens.php

FACT you were plain WRONG pretending that the Mirage III was limited to one AAM only expecially because you took example from the history of an squadron most unlikely to have the same A2A experience to that of a D.A.

Hour ratios for the role was 10%/90% and reverse for the whole of the AdA fleet appart for the FAS which had the Nuclear deterrent role and did even less tactical support.

Within ‘Bad News for the F-35’ I left away several data and details, because we are off-topic already.

Your claims demands proper, detailed answers, again don’t complain.

My claim was that Mach 2 speed capability is not in need and was it not before, with the exception of recce birds f.e. Nothing less and nothing more. 😉

Your claims are wrong:

DASH speeds are more than useful AGAIN you try to conterdict all F-22 pilots talking about A2A role and try to imply something false to make F-35 lack of speed look normal for the role, it is not, speed and ceiling are to the advantage ofthe Air Superiority fighters, f-35 is NOT one.

People do not clear weapons and aircrfafts in combat configuration out of the blue, they do it out of requiered specs, the fact that F-35 specs are much lower for the A2A role doesn’t suit you is no reason to try to reqrite specs and requierements of other aircrafts.

I also agreed you were wrong, by a wider margin though…

The margin in question being the difference between a conceiptual design and the flying aircrafts… :rolleyes:

Did you even bother to look at that link? The guy saying that it’ll do M1.8 is from L-M.

Sorry he never SAID that it’ll do M1.8…

He said he failed to finish first and came second last, which means something else, totaly.

Eurofighter, Dassault Rafale, Saab Gripen, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-30MKI.

Quote:
While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration.
http://www.livescience.com/technolog…hter-jets.html
New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet

By Dave Majumdar, Special to LiveScience.com

Perhaps you ask yourself two questions:

Why is he talking about requierements which doesn’t mean F-35 KPP in particular.

Why does he mention the FACT that F-35 come second last?

= Well probably because it was not going to go to M 1.8 no?

We all know that one of the “concurent aircraft” have a Mach limit WAY below M 1.8 with AAMs and it is one of the Western fighters, guess which one?

Lockheed Martin Twisting reality for PR reasons have a merit, it shows who is aware and who is not not.

So you still fail in your atempt to pass Maximum Mach for KPP. Cheers