Yes it is. There is nothing of a generational leap from the US ‘teens’ (& the Flanker/Fulcrum/Mirage 2000) to the Eurocanards.
First of all it would also apply to F-22, then a Mirage 2000 already can spank F-15/F-16.
If fact, about the only “improvement” is extenting the high g flight envelope – which with the introduction of 4th & 5th generation WVR AAMs is not as important as it was when the Eurocanards were designed.
Dismissing what you don’t have with F-35 is yet another way to rewrite history, but infortunately it is the opposite of what every F-22 pilots are saying about kinetic energy.
I guess when it comes to performances the real step backward was made by L-M when they designed the F-35 but it is to be expected because after all it IS a strike fighter as opposed to an air superiority fighter optimised for the role.
Nobody ever said there was any mention of US fighters in their requirements.
You tried to imply it when mentioning US fighters and European fighters requierements.
My quote:
Absolutly NOT and btw, performance-wise F-35 design was taken to a lower level than LWF requierements.
Your reply:
Only in your dreams.
The LWF was optimized for operations from 30,000′-40,000′ & from Mach 0.6-1.6 with maximum turning performance from Mach 0.9-1.2.
That’s NOT 25.000 ft and a DASH speed of 1.6 as opposed to LWF turning speeds which were in a bracked going 0.4 Mach higher than what you write…
Historical fact. YOU are the one trying to revise history.
SAY HE.
No the F-35A was designed to REPLACE the F-16. The LWF was NOT an air superity fighter.
Is that a FACT? (Again?) 😀
It was a WVR only fighter.
WVR superiority fighter yes.
The FX (which the F-15A became) was the US air superiority fighter.
They BOTH were; the famous USAF Hi-Lo couple.
In fact the LWF was just a design concept which was used as the starting point of the ACF.
LWF was a programe with stringent requierements for performances adapted to the Air Superiority role, these requierements are NOT those of F-35 which instead is optimised for the Strike role. io.e lower ceilling and subsonic cruise.
Request For Proposals
A Light Weight Fighter (LWF) program came into being under Packard’s watch. A Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued to the industry on January 16, 1971. The RFP called for a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a gross weight of less than 20,000 pounds, and high maneuverability. No attempt would be made to equal the performance of the MiG-25 Foxbat, the emphasis being placed instead on the most-likely conditions of future air combat–altitudes of 30,000-40,000 feet and speeds of Mach 0.6 to Mach 1.6.
Which resulted into a M 2.0 capable fighter thanks to the combination of requiered Mach and ceilling.
F-35 is NOT requiered to have the same performances at the same ceiling so the M 1.6 is perfectly consistant with its designed role, whatever way you try to spin it.
No the F-35A was designed to REPLACE the F-16.
In the A2A role.
The LWF was NOT an air superity fighter.
You repeat yourself and got it WRONG. TWICE.
The truth hurts, yes and it is WHY you try to rewrite evey stament, document and historical fact to fit your stories of a design which is not what you try to make up it is..
No they are BS which have already been shown to be BS that is contradicted by official program documents.
That’s the best way to describe your posts.
Thats right. In fact the speed requirement states “subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18“. Sorry but there is no way you can claim a design maximum of Mach 1.6 with that as the requirement. :p
No it is NOT, it is a designed Maximum as opposed as a known performance it means that they expect it to reach this designed Max speed, not that it is THE requiered specs which was 0.1 M lower btw.
The F-35 is even expected to demonstrate a dash speed of Mach 1.6+ “with a full internal load” (thats ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel). How fast are the Typhoon & Rafales with ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel vs their designed maximum? 😉
Well if you comprehended the slightest what DASH means then you wouldn’t spend so many time trying to demonstrate whatever you try to demonstrate.
DASH is the SPEED above which it wont go for numerous reasons, design, lifespan and other, no matter the internal load.
End of debate.
And since I feel like demonstrating further that you don’t know what you are talking about & are taking requirement MINIMUMS & claiming them to be design maximums…
SO, READ again, and comprehend what Operational datas are, what they are there for because if it was for you managing the A-F, these aircrafts would have a 5 years service life, a 500% increased operational cost and would be 1000% less reliable.
Length 51.5 ft
Height 14.2 ft
Wingspan 35 ft
Wing area 460 sq ft
Horizontal tail span 23 ft
Weight empty 29,300 lb
Maximum weight 70,000 lb class
Internal fuel 18,000 + lbs
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
Range ~1.200 n. mi
Combat radius 610 n. mi
Power plant One P&W F135 or GE F136
Engine thrust 40,000 lb (with after burner)
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html
How can you discern that from a single picture ?
Look at the aircraft attitude and airspeed, the position of the target…
Lower speed and downward attitude above the target is what you got after rolling out of a yo-yo and pulling back up (It’s ten* nose up), also the target is in a turn (sustained?) and probably trying to loose the Rafale this way, i would go vertical and roll over to counter this, managing energy, Rafale does roll very well at high AoA and low speeds.
HUD informations is always what i read first to understand the situation, in many cases it is easier to figure the scene by doing so and i don’t think this Rafale is turning inside the Typhoon at 190 kt, btw they do the same in the video….
I wasn’t questioning that it’s real just that it looked more like Mirage 2000 HUD symbology, which is quite similar to that of the Rafale.
I know but Scorpion was in his last post, involving it was from Check6 in a dismisive way as if could have been a fake…
Just another HuD shot from the check-six forums.
Sign In
