It wasn’t me who said this: :p

No it wasn’t and i think i duely corrected with correct figures which isn’t everyone’s case… 😀

Here is the reason for my mystake:

Combat air patrol loiter time…………………………..Over 3 hours
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/aircraft-characteristics.html?L=1

Read: With 3 X 2.000 l.

This becomes 2 hours at 100 nm from Carrier with the MN standard 1.250 instead.

As for the M 2.2 obviously i meant 1.2, one doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to see this.

For the sake of their widows, I hope the AF provide a substatial pension…

Again, when clean, any of the Eurocanards perform better…in airshows at Le Bourget, Farnborough…

Boy come back with some proper and clearer argumentation please…😀

I will spare the comments, just FACTS:

Please COMPARE…

Note that the F-35 related ones were originally posted by dwightlooi at f-16.net.

I once tried to explain what defines transonic and supersonic DRAG…

Stop flooding with nonsense that has NOTHING to do with my comments.

Same sort of response (see above)…
Aerodynamics have EVERYTHING to do with your comment, unless you believe they play no part and that the subject here is submarine in which care we talk HYDROdynamic.

SO, resulting from all the ABOVE mentioned basics:

A typical Drag Polar From Nellis AFB Flight Test Centre and from another source for F-16 below (where it shows the definition of the word “Clean” in the case of aircrafts with wingtip mounted AAMs)…

WHY would Rafale wingtip mounted AAMs not being LOW/0 drag (because of their potision) when that of other aircraft are?

A good illustration of HOW the shockwave actualy propagates at different RATES over the airframe, the root of the word “supercruise” are there, an aircraft in ONLY fully supersonic when ALL its airframe is OUT of its transonic zone…

F-35 wing is optimised for high subsonic speeds:

Supercritical profile with a <> 0.011% drag penalty over a laminary for the SAME thickness ratio.

Sweep angle of <> 33* (vs 48*).

Delta wingplans have a markedly lower supersonic drag….

And THIS is why:

From the Critical Mach point to Max Drag polar point to end of supersonic zone point, this is what happens over a wing surface.

Note that the Mach values given are ONLY fully variables; valid for a given Thickness ratio, sweep angle and wing profile…

Something ELSE, F-35 elevators are actualy LIFTING surfaces at 0 G which is of course NOT the case for the instable delta canards, meaning in MOST cases they will have a LOWER induced Cd (from lift).

This FACT means: To compute the effect of drag resulting by LIFT one should take into account the LARGE elevator surfaces of F-35.

Weither the canards are of course FULLY part of DRAG control (FCS) sequencies in the entire flight envelop involving 0* (floating) AoAs simply because they only counter pitch-up moments in subsonic and can also be used to reduce TRIM drag in supersonic.

Rafale, is designed like a BRICK, which is the only REAL compromise to navalisation, it was structuraly designed with a much higher Maximum structural Limit of 1.85, so all in all you can SEE for yourself with their size/weight ratios which designers have managed the most effiscient compromise…

=Schorsch;1348170]You wouldn’t fly over enemy SAM sites and rely on your Mach 2 speed, do you?

Of course NOT!

You are right to point that out but i am terribly sorry, appart for knowing they used their Electronic Attack capabilties i canot give away more than that, expecialy because i do not know more.:D

No dude, Raven flew in Australia, not the UK. Sharc was the first to fly autonomously in Europe, but the question is who designed the first European autonomous UAV, and that imo was BAE with Raven, just ahead of Saab and everyone even LAssap accepts that, WAY ahead of Dassault.

WRONG: There is no point into trying this one against BAe own doc, it is cristal clear that you cant even make sense of these vehicles roles and their systems functions.

Give up you’re proven to be wrong AGAIN: FIRST FULLY autonomous flight for a BAe UAV was done with Corax in 2005.

Raven did some autonomous flying in 2003, in Woomera, that´s Australia.

They ALL did to some extend, even AVE-D, for the simple reason that they needed some level of autonomy for flying them level without struggling too much; we’re talking about the FULLY autonomous issue.

Sintra;1348116]Mick

Good post, very informative.
Now let´s just hope that his Majesty MOD doesn´t can two thirds of the SUAV(E) program…
“Let´s just buy some more Reapers and get done with it”.

Cheers

Agreed. I don’t think MoD will CAN anything considering the strategic importance of SUAV(E) but they might ressort to collaborative programmes by lack of funding for a fully indigenously designed UCAV, expecialy in regard to the service intercontinantal strike requierements which dictates a LARGE airframe with air-refueling capabilities adding to cost.

pfcem;1348034]I understand SO much more than the basics. What IS funny is how you accept that an aircraft that WAS designed for a max speed KPP THRESHOLD of Mach 2.2 (not sure France used/uses the same type of specification terminology but the point is the GOAL was a top speed of AT LEAST Mach 2.2) can in fact do so.

Sorry mate you still are confusing yourself to knots.

1) Mirage 2000 LIMIT is NOT aerodynamic but the RESULT of a choice in MATERIALS and Kinetic heating.

No surprise there, most combat aircraft are in fact capable of exceeding their “stated” max speed.

When it is NOT Kinetic heating problem then it become aerodynamic and result in a STRUCTURAL LIMIT too, value and importance of which you still can’t grab expecialy in the case of F-35, which MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL LIMITS were lowered by the SWAP team to regain control of their weight target…

BUT somehow you are living in some kind of dream world where the Mach 1.6 KPP THRERSHOLD (combat loaded) for the F-35 means that it was designed NOT to exceed Mach 1.6.

NO my dear SIR, YOU are dreaming of a M 1.6 KPP THRERSHOLD vs a “Mid supersonic” requierement which is basicaly the SAME and this gives you M 1.5 NOT Mach 1.6.

The result is a GAIN of 0.1 Mach passed this KPP THRERSHOLD which seems to prevents you sleeping, you should try F-35 programme archives it might help, i’ll spare you the LWF programme ones you’d be snoring by then…

You are confused so I will try again.

Sure Thing For U… What does this spell like, mate?

I wonder why the USAF chose Mach 1.6 BOTH for the OPERATIONAL (combat loaded) KPP THRESHOLD supercruise speed for the F-22 & the OPERATIONAL (combat loaded) KPP THRESHOLD dash speed for the F-35. Why not Mach 1.4 or Mach 1.8 for example?

USAF only requierements weren’t for MORE than M 1.5 originaly…

And don’t give us that BS that the F-35 was designed around being a replacement for the HARRIER II.

Always been designed for this role YES and around Harrier II+ performaces in it.

It is quite clear that the F-35A (primarily a F-16 replacement) was THE driving force for the JSF with the F-35B & F-35C ADAPTING that overall design to those alternate requirements.

WRONG: Original customers for the JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER were always the RAF/RN and USN. = HARRIER II/II+.

What the USAF did with F-16 later on, hanging everything they possibly could from under them bar the mess kitchen sink doesn’t change the FACT that it IS designed as a LIGHWEIGHT AIR SUPRIORITY FIGHTER.

Not a STRIKE aircraft.

= Replacing an aircraft doesn’t MEAN designed like one, YOU still CAN’T grab LWF requierements were totaly DIFFERENT as for, Maximum AND Operational Ceillings, Turning rates, Instantaneous AND Sustained at 20.000 AND 40.000 ft.

NOTHING like this with F-35, only an Operational ceilling comparible to that of Harrier II+ which BTW is NO higher than 40.000ft altitude at which the LWF were OPTIMISED in order to be able to out-turn a Mig 21 big time with two AIM-9s, (and that they did).

USAF requierements for Internaly-mounted weaponry and Mid-supersonic DASH didn’t change the previous requierements.

Exactly! I did not use so many words but that IS what I said.

Internal WEAPON bay doesn’t change DESIGNED Max Mach.

ALL of the F-35’s design (performance or otherwise) is based on a combat load of two 2,000 lb JDAM (F-35B reduced to 1,000 lb JDAM during weight reducyion program) & two AMRAAM.

No mate it IS designed around aerodynamic SOLUTIONS for an optimisation for the role = STRIKE at LOWER CEILLING and SPEED than F-16 was designed for (LWF requierement) and BTW the REAL example of LWF requierements is NOT F-16 but F-18 simply because it respected it to the letter (no requierement for M2.0) and was way better at higher AoA (and around transonic speeds) weither L-M got more of their envelop and flight charateristics in the 1.4 region of Supersonic than Northrop.

The only reason WHYYF-17 Cobra lost to YF-16 was DRAG (shorter range) and perhaps the fact that it was a twin engine when the A-F already had one with F-15.

This M 2.0 capability you keep thinking of, trying to get F-35 designed Mach limit for a KPP THRESHOLD is in reality 1.8.

No, KPP THRESHOLD. The DESIGNED STRUCURAL LIMIT is classified data that YOU do not have but I can GUARANTEE that it is HIGHER than the KPP THRESHOLD.

Bullsh!t by the bucket are classified too?

What does MID-Supersonic value and aerodynamics means to you?

Repost

E=Scorpion82;1347972]Do you actually take into account that the Joint Strike Fighter was designed to replace the AV-8B, A-10, F-16 and F/A-18 in USAF/USN & USMC service?

NO it WASN’T.

It was designed around a set of REQUIEREMENTS which took inot acount the primary ROLE as first designed by the two main customers, the UKs and the USN.

USAF, regardless of the aircrafdt it will replace now only added the specification i given.

Internal weapon and supersonic Dash speed.

More to it, it was primarily as a STRIKE aircraft in THIS particular role weither the F-16 and to a lesser extend (Navalisation) F-18 are issued form a LIGHT Air Superiority LWF programme.

The requierements for which are TOTALY different from that of F-35.

So technicaly like historicaly it is innacurate to say it was designed to replace them because it is only their A2G role it does replace by design.

The F-35 is the modern counterpart of the F-16 in the USAFs Hi/Lo mix and it is meant to complement the F-22 in AtA!

Please quit with the SNAPS pronto, Scorpion…:D

In USN service the F-35 will replace the F/A-18 which was the USNs Lo part of the Hi/Lo mix (the Hi part being the F-14).

Airfix award for the highest level of confusion in the history of the programme F-35 debates in forums.

Apart from your posts I have never seen any reference which states design structural limit. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Structural LIMIT is defined by structural load factor.

International standard for fighter aircraft is today 9 G + 50% = 1.5.

To achieve the SWAP team goals for weight targets the design team (SWAP) did indeed limit (lower) these limits below 9 G since there isn’t ANY margin for the 9 g version and that the others are limited to 7.0 and 7.5 G.

This mean THINNER airframe materials.

Medium and supersonic speeds LIMITS follow the same rules based on airframe resistance to aerodynamic strain and since the designed limit was already M 1.5+ or Mid-supersonic DASH by requierement, since the last design configuration there isn’t ANY real structural margin on them.

The F-135 engine is derived from the F-119, while being optimised for subsonic cruise. The intakes has been tested up to mach 2 on a F-16 if the information someone else posted before is correct.

With the main effect achieved at SEA level with the recovery of 3.000 lb of “lost pressure AND a slight loss in max Mach as the F-16 i capable of marginal (0.05) Mch 2.0+.

So what is left? You speak about the wing sweep and structural limit. Is it stated anywhere that the airframe wouldn’t survive M 1.6?

LOL!!!

When it comes to the wing sweep, the F/A-18 has an even lower wing sweep angle, yet it’s top speed is given with M 1.8 and it has very simple, fixed intakes either!

[/QUOTE]

You realy lack a LOT of informations dear.

Critical Mach/Sweep angle comparisons At equal tickness ratio AND wing profile only you can compare sweep angles…

It IS and indication that the aircraft can’t reach M 2.0 when the F-16 CAN, but BTW there was NO requierement for M 2.0 and the difference in speed between F-16 and F-18 in on DRAG..

Wing profile is NOT supercritical for both as far as i know, and engine INLETS are designed for M 1.8, F-16 A WAS limited to M 1.8 too before a larger inlet and higher pressure recovery level was achievable by the engine allows it to reach M 2.0+

More moderate swept wings only means that F-18 critical Mach and drag pick polar are higher and that it was optimised to respong to requierements below that F-16 designers chosed.

As a result it was better at lower speed and higher AoA than F-16 (YF-17 Cobra and NOW F-18) and could be navalised…

F-18 is derivated from the LWF looser and was optimised for such speeds by design even so a THIN moderately swept wing as that of the F-5s and F-20 was chosen (Northrop designs trademark)..