Here, this one couldn’t be clearer…
When they actualy give the Maxi in military power, there IS still an aerodynamic margin up to the DESIGNED Maximum Mach.
NOT in FULL A-B where both engines and airfranes reaches their Maxi.
This explains a lot of dicrepencies occuring with all aircrafts a mid-supersonic like supercruise in the red zone of engine use for example…
This shows clearly one other thing though, F-35 isn’t going to supercruise.
So basically the picture there requires your spin for it to be accurate for the F-22 but in the case of the F-35 it’s accurate “as-is”? You’ll also note there that it gives the F135’s power as “48,000lbs” so is that correct too?
Officials say the F135 engine, rated at more than 40,000 pounds of thrust, is the most powerful fighter engine ever built.
This is what they would have writen had they been given the proper datas…
It is quiet obvious that you’re in a great need of learning a few more things boy, if Edward AFB Flight-Test Centre handbook is your definition of “spin” then i am not surprised you still can believe in Santa-Clauss.
This picture is mostly accurate in BOTH cases and in FULL A-B the maxi are Maxis, no more power to get from the engine is there?
BTW you didn’t comment on my quote showing possible doubts on the source accuracy:
though some “Top Bass” from the same source was clamly saying that F-35 would out-turn a clean F-16 while in FULL A2G configuration which is according to aerodynamc laws, way off this planet’s technology level..
OPTIMISED FOR AIR-TO-GROUND LETHALITY; Who’s spinning what here?
ust an FYI that’s the X-35’s inlet not the F-35’s.
It would make little difference and just would show they actualy used CG simulation earlier in the design stage but i believe you might be wrong there, let’s check on this shall we???
If you’ll notice, that graph also says “Mach 1.5” for the supercruise speed of the F-22. A general who’s flown it is on record as saying he flew at Mach 1.72 without afterburner. So is the general lying or is the picture you have there wrong?
Mate, you got to relativate a little and have a good look at the USAF definition of the word CRUISE to comprehend what SUPERCRUISE realy means, other than trying to imply they ALSO give minimum KPP THRESHOLDS for a fighter which performances are already known…….
If they compare these datas it is precisely because they are KNOWN values including the Operational ceiling.
You’d realised this if you had read the whole document…
Cruising involves a <> 89% power setting to prevent engine wear, put the gaz manet to the dials and you got the difference, this is IF he didn’t use the A-B to get to this speed at all, in short it doesn’t happens everyday (Red line)…
The USAF ALSO give the same 1.5, the 1.72 are the engine/inlet extreme limits and NO, F-22 usualy doesn’t supercruise at this speed or else your engines are going to suffer some…
Maximas are indicated as DASH in the case of Mach, in afterburner it’s a different matter the power output is already MAXI.
=Scorpion82;1347240]LMAO, nice to see you finally give up your twisting and spining about who you are Sampaix.
Sorry say AGAIN?
What an admition of failure from you than starting by a personal attack, your style and favorite tool…:D
HAVE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE…
And thank you for perfectly proving my point of operating at such altitudes on an intercept of a high flying target.
Your point was = They DONT and F-35 Operational ceiling is “Equal” or at least 50.000 ft….
One:
The ceiling given for the F-35 (30k-40k ft) is the practical operational altitude.
IT is the Operational altitude.
The word “practical” is like “cinematics” one fantasy…
Two:
The operational ceiling given for most aircraft is exagerated from an operational point of view.
Not our side of reality, proven by not only the 1/2, MN, AdA, and Dassault but also the old Mirage III handbook showing a difference of at least 25.000ft between Maxi and Operational ceiling.
Three:
The F-35s operational ceiling is for sure 50k ft or more, but the typical altitude band for operations is 30k-40k ft, as the performance/economics ratio is best here.
WRONG AGAIN. It IS optimised for STRIKE, Engine and Inlets for SEA-LEVEL.
Four:
Neither of these aircraft is operated at altitudes of 50k ft plus on a “regular” base as you claim, though all of them are capable to fly at that altitudes.
YES they ARE. Migs aren’t the only possible threats and pilots need to train to stan profiscient…
Five:
The fact remains, aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 for example weren’t designed to operate at 50k ft on a regulare base either, yet the manufacturer and customers state 50k ft as its operational ceiling.
Do they fly CAPs, sweep missions at that alt? Show me a profile here! Cold war is over and MiG-25/31 doesn’t pose a threat any more!
SEE the USAF webpage giving the Operational Ceilling for F-16 EQUAL to that of Raptor at 50.000ft, another aircraft which you don’t know about the slightest..
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=103
LWF requierements were for best turning rates at 20.000 AND 40.000 ft. Not F-35 case.
Six:
It can go higher, like the F-16 or F/A-18 and I bet with you the operational ceiling will be given with at least 50k ft in the future. The fact that the aircraft won’t typically operate at such altitudes remains.
OPTIMISATION of fantasies, expecialy in the case of French AdA squadrons in charge of a territory a 10th the size of the USA…
Seven:
Most service ceilings given in publications are upper limits. Can the aircraft operate there? Yes it can! Does it operate there on a regulare base? No! And why doesn’t it operate there? Because the performance at such altitude would be insufficient!
With a margin of <> 25.000ft you’re quiet the genius here!!!
And BTW try to maneuver at 59k ft and 40k ft you will notice the difference, it’s not all about speed in modern aircombat.
You tell US what the difference IS now in technical term please with a low wingload and high lift???
AGAIN you IGNORE reality: Mirage 2000/Rafale have a low wingload for the purpose of retaining high maneuvrability at high altitude and BOTH engines were optimised for high-altitude ( both high and low in the case of M88 i.e ACX requierements)…
The intercepts of this kind, may still happen, but in most cases the missions flown today are CAP, sweep, escort and in these missions your M2k will normally oeprate below 50k ft.
Etc, etc, etc…
Basicaly trying to demonstrate all the official links and definitions of the word operational and ceillings aren’t right and that AdA squadron specialised in High altitude interception doesn’t regularly fly these mission profiles…
The POINT IS: YOU WERE PROVEN W.R.O.N.G BY ALL OFFICIAL SOURCES INCLUDED: THE AdA AIR DEFENSE SQUADRON 1/2, MINISTERE OF DEFENSE, ARMEE DE L’AIR, DASSAULT AVIATION AND ….. LOCHEED MARTIN.
The cold war is over old dinosaur and air combat has changed a lot since the 60s/70s where you loaded weapons on a MIII (wow you must be an upper expert by that work):diablo:
MORE personal attacks, what excactly is your military credential?
Problem for YOU Migs 31, Sus and Chinese equivalent STILL can fly at these altitudes and there isn’t any other way to stop them be in in France or the countries our forces protect like Iceland for example…
MiG-31 FOXHOUND = Service ceiling: 20,700 m Su-37 = Service ceiling: 18,000
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-31.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm
So all this exercise of style to try to prove Operational ceiling is not what i means is ridiculous to say the least.
Just posted by Rogerout (Thanks a lot) in another topic…
http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevel…Comparison.pdf
MEANING: Buy half of the necessary capabilties to obtain Air FULL Supremacy….
The european and other F-35 clients have forgoten the HI from HI-LO couple methink, though some “Top Bass” from the same source was clamly saying that F-35 would out-turn a clean F-16 while in FULL A2G configuration which is according to aerodynamc laws, way off this planet’s technology level…
Consider: Winload+Lift Coefficient only for instantaneous turn rate, add thrust for sustained and you get the picture.
You probably means this one: http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf
If you believe that the author is better informed on thrust number for F-35 you also have to trust his numbers for things like speed, altitude and turn rates. If they are correct F-35 has to be a real dissapointment if it can’t achieve better with so much thrust. Actually you’d better hope he is totally misinformed or at least made a typo.
Thanks for posting this one…
But quiet frankly, in regard to specification and aerodynamics, i am NOT desapointed nor surprised, they manage 1.6 Mach on a problematic design which considering the aerodynamiuc features (Optimised for high-subsonic) is no small feat…
For the rest i’m very close to regard it as a catastrophic design managent…
In the engine dpt, the maximum thrust is Opitimised for SEA level (STVOL Operation) and inlets are ALSO oprimised for maximum output at sea-level so the whole aircraft is de-facto optimised for low-altitude/high-transonic flight regimes.
=Rob L;1347121]Omg, thunder/sampaix/lordassap at it again lol.
Mr Rob L please keep your familiarities for yourself….
That might be, however since then BAE has surpassed them and will fly Europe’s largest ever UAV in 2009 and Europe’s first UCAV in 2010.
!!!
OMG! The now famous M.I.B.T.Y syndrome (AGAIN)…
PLEASE show US “Europe’s first UCAV” weapon bay please.
Not to mention Fury (weapons released in 2008), Herti (first European UAV will full automatic flight), etc… .
UAV my friend are NOT top terchnolgies, even Serbia is right there…
UCAVs are and as far as Taranis is concerned there is a BIT missing making only an UAV of it…
first European UAV will full automatic flight
No my dear SIR it was SAAB SHARC…
DATE:07/09/04
SOURCE:Flight International
Saab UCAV flies autonomously
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2004/09/07/187083/saab-ucav-flies-autonomously.html
Years? Raven, a finless design, flew fully autonomously in 2003.
3 YEARS for sure.
That is three years after the AVE-D Petit Duc which flew in 2000, but that was only a 60kg, non-autonomous, non-finless design that crashed later on. Dassault didn’t achieve a first fully autonomous UAV than 2008, a full 5 years after BAE.
There again you ONLY ingnore FACTS:
Mike Turner was asking for FULL-SCALE TDP in order to KEEP-UP with “the rest of Europe” in particular Dassault which didn’t NEED design and manufacture expertise for a full-scale vehicle since they are the ONLY European manufacturer to have consistently designed and manufactured Mach 2.0 fighters since the 50 and had it by the bucket…
Here’s a comparison with SOURCES unlike your drivel.
FACT: Dassault designed its own M 2.0 fighters since 1957 BAe did NOT.
FACT: AVE-D was the FIRST European stealth aircraft to fly.
FACT: MoD own technology roadmap stated CLEARLY the UK need ot develop IR superssant technologies (already in use onboard Rafale) only a few years ago and BAe was still flying Hawk trainers with simlilar IR superssant devices more than ten years after M 88 first flight.
How anyone could conclude BAE being behind Dassault from this is beyond reasonable minds to comprehend.
Very simple: You dont win London marathon by practicing W-E runs around your local pub…
You don’t keep design skills high by loosing design leadership to the US (as was the case in the Harrier II programme) or not doing anything else than collaborative design without design leadership and lower shares than 50%.
= Sure… :rolleyes: According to Mike Turner request to MoD.
No, BAE is NOT flying remote controlled 60kg model aircraft as Dassault did a few years ago.
NO they NEED full-scale TDVs to keep-up.
What? 1) Dassault did not get there first if Taranis flies first, which it will.
Wait a minut are you on a time warp? Did = passed, Taranis = UAV, NONE of them have flown yet no?
AND (out of warp) Yes they DID.
European FIRST stealth UAV in 2000 and a 500 kg (source Ministere de la Defense) AVR-C in June 2003, instead of focusing on autonomy they were working on remote control from strike aircraft in a collaborative programme with Boeing.
Not the case of BAe.
NOW please instaed of falsly labeling Taranis an UCAV SHOW us an OFFICIAL stament saying it will be armed and perform weapon release at any time…
HERE MoD definition for UCAV…
2) Dassault has a share in Neuron, not as much work as BAE has on Taranis or Mantis.
Dassault IS design lead and main architect with 50% of the programme share which BTW is WAY above all what BAe managed in their top collaborative programmes since Harrier II.
At design technology stage they are ALSO way ahead with CATIA and the rest with SEVERAL world’s FIRST to show…
Building on the experience gained from recent projects, for the first time in a military project, it will be designed and developed within the frame, a completely integrated PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) environment, through a virtual development platform, allowing Dassault Aviation and its five partners, in six countries, to simultaneously work together on the same design, independently from the location where the work is performed.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/neuron/a-technological-challenge.html?L=1
= Sure… . :rolleyes:
NOW: The also are working on an Opertational version of nEUROn as well as the succesor for Tornados and Mirage 2000 (EFCAS).
Note that the were already producing the first parts for nEUROn BEFORE BAe FIRST METAL CUT for Taranis.
The meaning of this all is that they dont NEED to design and manufacture lower-tech UAVs they can easly afford to focuse on TOP stealth technology for high performance fighters and UCAV since these are DGA programmes and already funded.
Q: CAN Bae show the same from the UK MoD now?
Welcome back to hearth.
Sign In
