I concur.

So its a number they just fool around with?

The physical ways of detecting enemy targets are pretty limited so it must be different ways of using the technology. There are still approximately 2 ways to find an enemy target (or three).

1 Target emissions (Heat, radiowaves, radar emissions, contrails)
2 Reflections (Active radar, Semi active radar, UV-light)
3 “Dark spots” or visually (silhouette against background or visual)

Another possible version is hacking old datalinks and get information that way.

But to get 650 different ways one really has got get creative.

EDIT: But checking against a threat database will increase it a lot. One could start with shape, dopplereffect, flight profile (if the target is in a formation or not). By counting all those modes its quite possible to reach 650 parameters.

The old and not so high techy jets will just show a marker in the hud or the LCDs and mark a target, if IFF works it might get colored as friend or foe. Frankly, I dont think it matters that much if the target has been software evaluated 200 times in different ways before its on the screen.

Judging by the context that is what it looks like. To me it looks like the F35 will, when its close enough, be a little bit faster in discriminating what type of target that is being detected. Aka if its a cruise missile or a jet. But by then its very close to the targets and probably engaged already.

You mean exactly like the Mirage 2000 or Mirage III today?

What that small bump on the tail boom? Could that be the new placement of the KS-O? It wasnt there on the T50-1.

Probably mach 1,8.

Its very similar to FA18 (fuselage) and F16 (wings) and has similar thrust/weight ratio ans the FA18.

IDF Ching Kuo thrust/weight: 0,923
FA18 thrust/weight: 0,943

I think it might reach speeds of mach 1,8.

Images:

I think you sort of proved you own maturity level. If they, as a newspaper, are defining supercruise as mach 1,5+ without A/B in level flight then why does this come up as a definition?

Supercruise

The F-22 is the also the first fighter to have the capability to cruise at supersonic speed for long periods of the mission. Previous fighters could only achieve supersonic speed in a “dash”-that is, for very brief periods on afterburner, which quickly eats up fuel. The Raptor, though, will be able to leap across swaths of real estate at over 1,000 miles an hour, do it persistently, and without resort to afterburner. Top speed of the F-22 is classified, but it does have an afterburner for high dash speeds as well.

In the same article:

However, the Joint Strike Fighter assumes the F-22, he said. The JSF does not have supercruise ability, he pointed out, nor is it designed to be an air superiority airplane.

Old news from 2001

And the rest of the world agrees. Supercruise is supersonic speeds without afterburners in level flight. The same newspaper says Pak FA (according to the Russians) can supercruise while they say that the F35 technically isnt supercruising.

There was something fishy about the “supercruise” that made them point out that it technically wasnt a supercruise. I, and others, have theories on what it can be without calling any party a liar. The concept of a dive, low fuel reserves, average speed (not a constant mach 1,2) etc are all plausible and congruent with all available information.

Your statements are not congruent and are basically calling the testpilots liars… and at the same time you dont provide any sources. I think I will trust the testpilots, LMs VP and John Tirpak @ AF magazine over a desktop warrior that has been wrong about 70% of all claims (including ones about the weather).

Provide one source that supports your bs claims, please. Thats all I ask for.

You did not read his. He said that the F 35 can perform at least like F 16/18, i.e. the fighters that will replace.
The max. speed ever used in real wars was something like 1.4M. And BTW, at a max. speed of over 2M (that any of the euros can’t reach, since max. speed is 2M) an fighter isn’t even lightly armed, is no armed at all.

Yes they can. Lightly armed is with wing tip missiles and the flight envelope is usually with those on board.

And please, do everyone a favor and stop claiming supercruise on the F35. It is premature to reach that conclusion (that probably is very wrong). Not even the Bryan himself called it supercruise and he hinted it could be in a dive. In fact they said it “not technically supercruise”.

Only the religious hardcore fanatics of the F35 groupies claim the supercruise numbers for the aircraft. But hey, if thats the case than maybe we can call the me 262 a supercruising jet with a dash of 1 mile. If earth wasnt in the way it could probably supercruise longer in a vertical dive.

Not quite, you cannot compare regular commercial CPUs like the ARM chipset on the iPhone 4S with older architecture, redundancy & cooling utilised in the 2 Hughes’ Common Integrated Processors (CIP) aboard the F-22.

Having said that, the progress of current parallel architecture’s computing grunt vs. power consumption is truly astounding. Using your example of the F-35’s >1 TFLOPS, a similar commercial system available next year:

I know you cant compare them side by side, but performance wise it sort of shows where we are heading. Also I did compare with a computer rigg based on a ATX motherboard that gave 16 TFLOPS at a cost of 3’000$ and power consumption <1000W.

What djcross said was true 10-20 years ago when the F22 and F35 where considered groundbreaking. But at that time an iPhone 4S would have been among the fastest computers in the world.

So being fast in adopting new cpu systems in the non critical systems of the aircraft is more important than having extreme power supplies (only exception is for the radar system because of physics).

@Spudman I just hope they need some recompiling, otherwise they tend to get very very sluggish. That being said, most modern jets are built to be upgraded and I’m happy that goes for the F35 as well.

So the CPU performance isnt the problem today. There is enough capacity in all existing jets (at least if they get new chips) to to all the analyzing. In the tiny Gripen there are 50 computers in the cluster, so by fitting the same amount of graphics cards the performance could be sick (dont want to think about the possibilities for F35. Bruteforcing IFF or encrypted transmissions?).

In 2009 AMD relased the 5970 HD card that alone produced 5 teraflops. Thats three years ago. In one card. Maximum power consumption 438 Watts. So its all about how fast new tech can be implemented and adapted for use in a fighter jet. A 6 year implementation phase for a supercluster could be outperformed by someone using two new chips with a one year implementation time.