Most combat aircraft since the 1960s could exceed mach 1 without afterburner EE Lightning, F-104 etc – when they are clean! Are people seriously saying that the F-35 can’t do at least M 1.2 in dry thrust, bearing in mind the massive power it has behind it.
Can A Su-35 supercruise with a full complement of armnament hanging from it as opposed to just reaching M1.2 when its clean…

It’s a question of aerodynamics and engine thrust. Aircraft won’t supercruise at SL, but at higher altitudes and the thrust generation there and in relation to Mach number is what matters, not the static thrust. And is there any source confirming supercruise for the Su-35 with “full load” and with any figures at all?

“Just” 😉 Credit where it’s due, that is only negligibly less than the old figure and still a very impressive fuel fraction. Fuel capacity is the least of the F-35’s problems I’d say.

The emphasis was on the empty weight which is still stated with 29300 lb. The fuel load number indicates that the data were updated however. So no suggestion of an empty weight of 26XXX lb as touted by some here since years, because a single document says so, while all newer up to date official sources contradict that. All kinds of reasons has been found to explain that, such as the website wasn’t updated and what not.

@Marcellog,
and what does this article prove? Does it state the F-35 achieved M 1.2 on dry thrust? No it didn’t! So what’s your point?

@ww,
I’m certain if the F-35 goes supersonic on dry thrust LM will happily shout it out and speak about supercruise. 😉

Exec,
you aren’t that dumb, why are you playing that game? An equally sized airframe with much more internal volume to accommodate almost 3 times the fuel, weapon bays and targeting sensors compared to an F-16, an engine >6 t more powerful, yet equal acceleration and you still don’t see that the F-35 MUST be more draggy than a clean Viper by a fair margin? That’s illusionary, not to say ignorant! Is it really that difficult to get that point? In the end what matters is the performance in combat configuration and that’s where the F-35 scores as its drag won’t change! In other words trading clean drag for combat drag.

@Exec,
according Beesley the F-35 accelerates about as fast as a clean F-16 blk 50. Outaccelerating F-16 chase aircraft which might be older models and hauling around drop tanks is not such a great achievement. Given that the F-35 has about 50% more weight an thrust, while not being much larger than the F-16 one could expect an even better acceleration. That it’s “just as good” indicates that the F-35 is somewhat draggy, because acceleration is first and foremost a function of thrust/drag ratio.
And for the record the F-16 was first and foremost designed as a fighter to supplant the F-15.

mrmalaya,
did you read the link I provided in my last post? It states:

The disclosure raises the demonstrated sea-level thrust for the F135 above 50,000 lb.

The 50° AoA comes from simulations and has not been demonstrated in real flight. It’s trimmed flight anyway not combat manoeuvring.

The M1.6 weapons release speed has been stated in one article. Basically nothing which I see a reason to doubt it.

@LordJim,
the RAF originally intended to support an active fleet of 137 Typhoons with 232 aircraft, including attrition reserves etc. As you said there would have been 7 frontline squadrons. The current plan is for 5-6 frontline squadrons with an active fleet of 123 aircraft and a total of 160. Rotating airframes in and out of service to spread flying hours was part of the reserve concept to be able to sustain operations with the required number, for the scheduled period.

@Hawkeye,
Greece cancelled the deal with Eurofighter and has launched a new open tender, which hasn’t advanced much since then however.

@Floyd,
you seem to be unaware of the limitations and assume that anything will work perfectly regardless of the conditions. Only a fool or someone with know real understanding of how these things work can come to such a conclusion. An AAM is actually not a CRM it is a much smaller and faster target. Detecting it with radar is difficult up to date, if not impossible. The IRST isn’t of much help either and the quoted range performance is under optimal conditions usually for an afterburning target. The missile’s rocket motor won’t burn long and we have the reference of the MiG-35’s SOAR MAWS which reportedly detects BVR missiles at about 30 km. The IRST in this case will just give you a bearing anyway like the RWR. This isn’t enough to calculate a firing solution and if a missile is underway and you know about it you’ll most likely turn away and try to outrun it at the same time you are not able to counter fire, which would require sufficient target data which may not be given anyway. You magically assume that all missiles will miss and that the Su-35 will ever be able to turn the table and is magically able to win the fight.
Is it really that difficult to understand that you’ll be disadvantaged as soon as the enemy fires at you while you don’t even see him or have adequate data to do something about it?