pfcem;1347937]LOL
I dont think it’s so funny you fail to understand the basics…
So you claim that “production” model Mirages with STATED max speed of Mach 2.2 can actually do Mach 2.4-2.5…
…but the F-35 with a KPP THRESHOLD of Mach 1.6 can not do more than Mach 1.6. 🙂
No i DONT. I said it have been flying at more than M 2.2 (I know it but got NO figure to show and i think it is only marginal because software-limited), that the engine was designed for M 2.5 and could be FADEC de-rated at 110kN.
Here from a Rapport on France’s Engine developement from WWII to M 88:
Centre se Haute Etude de l’Armenment.
Histoire de l’Armement
Publication. 2005.
By a commitee of high-ranking engineers and techniciains, mostly from SNECMA and other jet-experienced French manufacturers:
= 1967, after coming back from not emulating the US with M 3.0 capabilties still proposed by SNECMA in 1967. (too expensive).
= Development start in 1970 of a M 2.5 capable engine, the Mirage 2000 is “Bride” through FADEC at M 2.2, M 53 can SEE M 2.5 as pressure limit (regardless of thrust), the airframe doesn’t.
Rated at it maximum output (without looking at self-destructing the engine) you’re looking at a few hours at 110 kN.
Note that it was only matter of MATERIALS and SIMPLE set of modification (in priciple) to make it FULLY M 3.0 capable and that it was realisticaly and succesfuly bench-tested at M 2.5. SO = Demonstrated REAL M 2.5 capabilties.
With such a reduction of engine life-span and airframe fatigue i dont see that point unless you can afford bining both after only as few hundred hours including repairs.
These aren’t nor the Maximum “possible” nor Operationaly achievable targets.
The M 53 was designed for ANOTHER programme (M 2.5 Variable Geometry), the 2000 isn’t designed for M 2.5 but 2.2 (even if aerodynamicaly it can joyously go faster we’re talking kinetic heating LIMIT here).
AGAIN you forget aerodynamic and structural LIMITS, these are fixed by design too including materials (resistance) and Inlets which on the 2000 still allow for a verry high pressure recovery at high-altitude and high-speed.
Compare to the divertless…
On a somewhat related note. I wonder what it is about Mach 1.6 that the USAF likes so much…
It’s the mid-supersonic DASH speed they requiered + 0.1 which is even better; as replacement for the HARRIER II which performances it was based upon as for Operational Ceilling in particular, it is what they wanted.
Supercruise was NEVER a requierement only supersonic DASH speeds.
The USAF specified that these perfs being obtained with the aircraft weaponised, loads in typical A2G configuration being carried internaly.
This didn’t change ANYTHING in terms of DASH speed nor Crusing Mach and i’m curious to know if it is in fact not also G-limited when loaded with anything else than AAMs. (9 times 250 kg pulling on internal pylons?).
It is possible it will do it with two AIMs and two GBUs but it is not designed to fly faster.
The operational LOADED KPP THRESHOLD for the F-22 supercruise was Mach 1.6.
The operational LOADED KPP THRESHOLD for the F-35 top speed is Mach 1.6.
DESIGNED STRUCURAL LIMIT is 1.6.
=wrightwing Intercept=detection in the context of LPI. The whole point of LPI is that it behaves in a manner that doesn’t set off RWR/ESM systems.
NO it aint. You got it all wrong for a starter, EVERY EM emission IS detectable, detecting and INTERCEPTING are NOT the same thing.
And SPECTRA is NOT a simple RWR.
It uses very low power, narrow beams, rapidly changing frequencies, so the foe’s warning systems filter it out as background noise.
We know how it works so does Thales and people who designed RBE2 AESA or RDY/RDY-2.
If you set your system filter threshold too low, you’ll get a lot of false alarms, much like a car’s radar detector when driving past grocery stores, etc…
It got a lot more to do with onboard computing power…
An LPI emission isn’t going to be detected at 200km. If that were the case, why bother using LPI at all, or use any kind of EMCON?
Even 100 km will be good enough.
Let me get this straight, just so there’s no misunderstanding. Are you telling me that you believe that an EF/Rafale can supercruise for 2 hours?:eek::rolleyes:
As long as their range allows for with a central 1,250 l yes.
The F-22 which is optimized for supercruising can only fly 300-350 miles in supercruise(or 150-175nm on ingress, and 150-175nm on egress).
F-22 have much more powerful engines and at equal SFC will naturaly use lot more fuel than a Rafale, it will only supercruise faster.
If we assume that it’s cruising at 1200mph, that’s about 15 to 20 minutes of supercruise, with the remainder of the flight at subsonic.
See above and i believe with “Normal” throttle settings it will do more than that.
The F-22 carries considerably more fuel than either of the EF/Rafale, and without any external stores
It’s NOT what i think it’s what i KNOW.
The supersonic 1.250 l tank drag penalty is = 0.1 M i military power, wingtip MICAS = quasy 0, underwings close to it.
4 MICAs and two pylons arent playing enough on drag to make such noise about it only you dont know it.
(and despite what you think, AAMs, pylons, EFTs affect performance, both in terms of the speed and range the aircraft can travel vs. flying clean).
Clean is computed with TWO wingtip AAMS for the reason i explained.
Of greater relevance the EF/Rafale are in the .1-.5m^2 RCS range
WRONG: Rafale is commonly estimated at 1.m Typhoon 1-.5m…
Sign In
