Thanks mate but I really don’t need a self styled tutor.

I dont try to be one.

Again, i made these points for a very good reason which btw was not as you imply to assume it would be used only at one ceilling or the other but pointing out that mission profiles is given in relevance to best performances; if you already knew all of this then good for you.

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/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet

By Dave Majumdar, Special to LiveScience.com

Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. = Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/081107-f-35-fighter-jets.html
New Fighter Jet: Controversial Future of the U.S. Fleet

By Dave Majumdar, Special to LiveScience.com

Funny like even the most informed about this programe agrees with me, compare this to my rough analysis of its aerodynamics and design points optimisation.

For an aircraft offering a 10 fold improvement in capability, I don’t see this as such an unreasonable rate of replacement. And cosndiering it has a good 20 year lead an any other similar aircraft that might pop up…the urgency isn’t there. Not when its part of a combined arms team made up of F-35s, UCAVs and lots else.

I would not wipe the floor with other aircraft capabilties andreal performances the way you do.

Every single Eurofighter Consortium Partner PR would tell you they have 90% of F-22 capabilities today and that’s not 20 years in terms of technology it’s about a couple of cycles at best, ten years if they stay at the level of T1and their not.

How official is that article anyway? And btw service ceiling of the Su-35 is 59k ft.

Not straight from the flight test center anyway, service-ceiling is not a standard measurement; Absolute Ceiling is.

If you’ll note on that slide, that the optimal cruise altitude is >30k feet. The lower altitudes for combat are more for sensor optimization, rather than engine/inlet optimization.

Combat ceilling and Crusing ceillings are different, the combat ceilling for LWF was 20.000 ft higher.

So you’re saying that if you disagree with a poster, then they should be spoken to condescendingly?

So are you saying that if you post datas which are disagreing with L-M own we should take this as a compliment to our intelligence?

I’m not sure what the top speed of the Rafale is, but M2.24 doesn’t sound completely out of the question.

I’m not sure you know what Resulting Airspeed and Maximum Designed Mach means:

The Mach is a designed Maximum, the speed ONLY an estimated (~) airspeed resulting from the Maximum Mach at an undisclosed celling which happens to be <> 20.000 ft:

Designers only uses Ve to convert them into more useful measurements, Maximum are given in Mach as is the case for L-M documents, the (~) 1.2000 mp/h value is NOT a maximum but an aproximated (~) and still unknown Resulting Airspeed (Ve), which shold be given in kt ifit wasn’t a PR figure.

This is what the industry understands from international standards, not what you understand.

And definitively no, according to these standards a Rafale is limited to a Maximum Mach of 2.0 DASH with a value lowered to 1.8 Operational, with a Ve of 1 290 kt.

F-35 was only requiered to do “Supersonic Dash speed” with a KPP brought early in the programe of 1.5.

-The vast majority of the F-35s that will be produced are the F-35A variant, which are a 9g aircraft.

What difference does it make?

You still can’t claim same performances than were requested for the LW fighter and there are still two variant out of three which doesn’t match your descriptifs.

And now that we are also told that F-35 will “not need to maneuver in combat thanks to EODAS”, this sort of arguments makes even less sens.

-Many nations will be using the F-35 for A2A as well as strike.

That’s only because as opposed the USAF, they do no have the luxury of the Hi-Low couple with F-22 being unavailable for export.

It is quiet clear that the USAF wasn’t even looking at the option of using F-35 for this role before the Commercial interest took over requiered specifications, if it hasen’t been the case, the USAF would be receiving 300+ F-22 in the first place.

-The requirements weren’t just for strike.

Requierement were never similar to that of LWF and this is the point that matter.

Combat ceiling and maximum turning performancers at this ceiling (involving best engine performances) being 20.000 ft under says it all.

The turn rate/roll rate/high alpha/acceleration capabilities were also part of the requirements.

Sorry NO.

You can look to the KPP tresheholds for yourself, the only requiered specification were “F-16 like” maneuvrability in the A2A role and naturaly they wouldbe equal to superior in the A2G role.

The turn rate/roll rate/high alpha/acceleration capabilities are only resulting from design points, not requiered specs.

F-35 was never optimised for the A2A Role but A2G.

LWF was ONLY designed for the A2A role at the time the programe was launched.

As much as I don’t like feeding you i’ll answer this one simply by saying who says the F-35 cannot do a gun strafe?

Thanks i do not need nannies at my age. 😀

And you are right to point out that the strike role involves weapon ranges which are not necessarly stand-off.

Optimisation of the flight profile has nothing to do with anything when a pilot is tasked with supporting the guys on the ground as can be witenssed by other fighter jets in recent conflicts performing gun and rocket strafes at low alt. (And before you say “oh no they don’t” just go and view You-tube or liveleak)

Design optimisation respond to requierements and results in design points which in turn results on performances.

One doesn’t design a fighter meant for maximum combat performances (including turning performances at 40.000 ft) the same way than a strike fighter which envisaged combat ceilling is 20.000 below that.

It’s a simple matter of logic.

Honestly, do you actually think the F-35 pilot would reply over the radio that he’s only optimised for flying at 20,000 feet and therefore cannot offer any help when the guys on the ground are calling in air support? If so than I have no words that can describe such backwards thinking.

This is not an answer to my post is it?

Because Industrial standard involving requiered specs and design points ARE related to combat profiles, even so F-35 Optimisation isn’t that of a Tornago GR, they have their primary role as a common requierement.

And this is not Air superiority, never was and never will be.

Here is an intersting PoV given by USAF specialists at the early stages of F-35 program.

DATE:04/08/99

SOURCE:Flight International
Stealth shackled

The F-22 is as expensive as the JSF will be cheap, and the USAF sees no obligation to take one without the other. In fact, it sees no way to have the JSF without the F-22. At $30 million a copy, the JSF will be an affordable attack aircraft because it does not have to perform the F-22’s stealthy air-superiority mission, the service argues. To reduce costs, the JSF will also be heavily reliant on sensor data from external sources, of which the F-22 will form an integral element.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/08/04/54593/stealth-shackled.html

Now we understand that capabilties requierements have been uppered which in turn increased systems developement cost, but there have been absolutly no talk of redesigning JSF for equaling LWF requiered specs and performances at 40.000 ft since 1999.

You’re pretty much right there I think, I cannot see anyone trying a down low profile with the possible exception of USMC pilots. They will go in low if they want and have done so in current conflicts, however, would they actually need to is another question.
But yes, point taken.

May i ask where a L-M documented combat altitude of 20.000 ft meets up with a A-10 or Tornado GR4 AG low-level mission profile?

Sens
Just a supercritical wing-section! In the future we will have adaptive wings, to have the optimum profile for every speed.

I don’t think you bother to read pple post, perhaps the information provided by those who actually conceived these wings for L-M is too much of a technical step?

NASA defined a particular supercritical wing profile with for design point that “The lowest weight possible would be obtained with a common structural box design that uses variable surfaces on the leading edges and trailing edges to optimize the aerodynamic performances for transonic/supersonic cruise, and transonic maneuvers”.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88410main_H-1957V1.pdf

The above is related to F-22 wingtunnel tests.

Every single modern figter uses variable wing camber or more advanced; Rafale uses adaptive lift configuration as a basis to its aerodynamics at all time.

It doesn’t make the supercritical profile adapted to higher Machs than a laminary, NO, and that’s not the only design feature pointing out to a subsonic optimisation, winsweep and inlet pressure recovery limits are just as well.

Arthur
It takes a really hardcore fanboy to believe that…

And the rest.

When pple start giving you estimated Resulting airspeeds given in PR mp/h as unmovable KPP vs Designed Maximum Mach, i start loosing interest.

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.

What do L-M knows?

Rafale M vs F22 :

Rafale M vs F22 :

Good reminder of the real capabilities of the aircraft.

What else than a good 180*kill on a drone?

Allow me just for bringing back some memories.

The funny thing is:

When we are told about US design we are spoken too like people who never actualy designed such aircraft:

When it entered into service back in 1964, the Mirage IV A was the first European military aircraft capable of sustained flight at Mach 2; it is still the only one in Western Europe.

Production and operational experience
On June 17, 1959, Roland Glavany took off for the first time at 10:20 am. The flight lasted 40 minutes. For its third flight, on June 20, 1959, Mirage IV 01 was authorized to make a flight pass over the Paris Air Show with General de Gaulle among the onlookers. On September 19, 1960, at 05:05 pm, René Bigand took off from Melun-Villaroche in Mirage IV 01 and broke the world speed record over a 1 000-km closed circuit (1 822 km/h). Flight 138, on September 23, corroborated the initial performance and pushed the record on a 500-km closed circuit to an average of 1 972 km/h, flying between Mach 2.08 and Mach 2.14.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-iv.html?L=1

Symposium « French Air Force and Mirage IV » – 2009-10-20
On October the 13th, the symposium “French Air Force and Mirage IV”, supported by Dassault Aviation, took place at the French Air Force Academy in Salon-de-Provence.

Set up by the Air Force, its aim was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first flight of the Mirage IV, on June, 17th, 1959.

Eleven speakers presented a global vision of the program, under geopolitical, political, industrial and operational aspects, with speeches endorsed by pictures or movies.

On the evening, 200 air cadets were given summaries of the conference. Testimonies from General Roland Glavany, test pilot and General Edgar Pintor, former head of an operational squadron, were very appreciated.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/news/headlines/symposium-french-air-force-and-mirage-iv.html?L=1&cHash=8328870e9f

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mbt4_1er-vol-mirage-iv-dassault-aviation_tech

I would like to figure out what would be the supercruising speed of the Mirage IV with two 3 5,000-pound-thrust-class F119 PW-100 on it?

2 Snecma Atar 9 K 2 x 6 600 kgp

2 F119 PW-100 <> x 15.875 kgp

Empty weight: 14 000 kg

Designed for sustained M 2.0.

Can we have another one please?