All of which doesn’t change anything to the FACT that ENERGY is a MOST for ALL pilots and this in BOTH BVR and WVR scenarios.

Energy-Maneuverability by John Boyd.
http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/boyd.htm

Aircrafts have been designed around his theories since the F-15 (FX programme).

Of course, the same thing goes for 99% of people who ‘discredit’ him…

Perhaps not but he have got enough knowledge and credential to make a proper analysis.

Which is way out of reach of most writers we know… :dev2::dev2:

standard day (15°@0ft).
Under those conditions, even the Rafale will hardly win this “trophy”.

FIRST: which “standards” are YOU using?

It’s 15° at sea-level for a starter (International Standard), 0ft (over Mt Everest?) means nothing and if it does to you you’re up for some serious misshaps in flight kindda the Thunderbird F-16 pilot who forgot to set up his altimeter properly…

SEA level is where the Milibaric scales starts, lapse rate is −6.5 °C/km up to the Tropopause, begginer’s book; Navigation and Geography.

US standards are also different to International standards BTW.

SECOND: YOU keep pretending to KNOW otherwise than BOTH Rafale pilots AND Dassault representatives, (to keep the famous forum LEGENDS alive???).

(We had more than enough of this don’t you think so?)

Rafale CAN supercruise in EVERY A2A confifuration. i.e. 4 MICAS = M 1.3, 4 MICAs + 1 X 1.250 L tank = M 1.2.

It also CAN supercruise with TWO tanks although we weren’t specified at which Mach you can bet M 1.1 and still supercruising because its critical Mach is lower than that of a F-16, i bet you know WHY…

The FACT that Dassault doesn’t use this as a commercial point (WHY should they, their Mirage III Avon supercruised in 1963) doesn’t mean you can allow yourself to make such comments expecialy because they are totaly empty of sense.

I think the geezer who mentioned this at the Paris Airshow knows a tad more about his aircraft than you do, SAME for the 12F pilots who mentioned these FACTS, involving the use of External tank as well.

To finish as opposed to what you still believe, supercruing doesn’t depends on TWR but transonic DRAG.

@haavarla

Never mind, we’re faced with people who believe Eurofighter and L-M are the only proper manufacturers on hearth….

Just a question:

WHY do you guys think that Rafale’s external tanks are ALL supersonic?

The 1.250 l is not G limited, the 2.000 llimited to 5 G when full but they BOTH are cleared for M 1.6…

Clearly, when empty their weight and drag isnt affecting the aircraft flight envelop enough to justify them being jettisoned, engagements scenarios only involves high-g maneuvres in case of threat avoidance or engagement.

In the second case, the tanks will be empty. = 9 g/M 1.6. 😉

jbritchford = ‘What will the F-35 do so much better than the F-22 that will justify both its additional development costs and greater cost per unit than legacy style systems?’

Air to groud as a bomb truck?

The US or NATO is unlikely to go to war with any nation with stealth capabilities in the forseeable future. If they do, then the F-22 can ensure air dominance and attack high value ground targets.

Agreed, more to it as the “Service” once stated, they never intended to go to war with the F-35 WITHOUT the F-22, what people tend to forget is that this couple inherited from the Hi-Lo doctrine of the 70’s and that original requierements (and therefore design features) of F-35 were for a supersonic replacement for the Harrier II+.

This gives F-35 what i regard limited Air-superiority capabilties considering the USAF requierements for it and current 4th generation fighter performances:

1) Supercruise.

2) High Max Ceilling.

3) EM Low Observability

4) IR Low Observability.

5) High maneuvrability.

F-35 responds ONLY two out of five of these requierements.

The current requiremenet is simply for cheap, non stealthy CAS aircraft with multi role a2a ability, like the F16 or the Gripen.

Curent yes but that which made the design characteristics and thus the performances weren’t for a true multirole, only for limited A2A as with the II+…

Just a speculative note; would it have been a cheaper/easier option to navalise the Raptor for the USN than develop F-35C?

I don’t think so, it is in FACT a lot more difficult to navalise an aircraft designed for a land-based role than the other way around…

I DO apreciate your non-nosense and objective aproach to the subjects you tackle… Happy New Year to ALL. 😎

SAAF against Angola and Cenepa war (Ecuador vs Peru) may provide few useful insights, as well.

Several kills for no loss, the F1 was doing quiet well, but i wouldn’t sware about the opponents training though…

Rafale is sooo sexy!

Well the Old man used to say that a good looking aircraft is an aircraft which will fly well…

Happy New Year to ALL. 😎

NASA defines supercruising as being able to sustain level flight at 95% dry thrust at Mach 1.0+. But in essence what you stated was correct, to have enough engine power to cruise at Mach 1.0+. Little details such as having large fuel reserves, and low drag are also necessary to make the plane practical.

Adrian

According to Nellis AFB Hanbook, CRUISE is defined by engine power output (stabelised).

Typicaly 89%, below 90% for engines of 4th generation fighters.

There is a fundamental difference between Mach (as in the speed of sound) and being supersonic:

An aicraft airframe is not entering supersonic regime at ONCE due to variations in the compressibility effects around it, generaly it is accepted that DRAG and Sub, Trans and Supersonic regimes will be computed using wings characteristics (because of the complexity of simulating the rest of the airframe even today).

This means that it have to be defined in terms of REGION as for SUBSONIC, TRANSONIC and SUPERSONIC.

Generaly, for a similar wing profile and thickness ratio, the width of the transonic region (and the amount of drag) will depend on the wing’s sweep angle.

So for a similar TWR in military power, some aircrafts might not be able to supercruise when some would do it easly.

Example, the Mirage 2000 technicaly supercruise at M 1.1 because all of the airframe is supersonic weither at the same Mach a F-16 doesn’t, since its transonic region ends only 0.05 M later.

The reason is the Mirage’s much steeper sweep angle resulting in a narrower transonic region, which starts later in the Mach scale, with a lower DRAG pick and supersonic region starting earlier.

So technicaly supercruise can be defined as: The ability of an aicraft to CRUISE in militaty power out of its transonic region and (of course) above M 1.0.

Happy New Year to ALL 😎