pfcem;1351209]It already does & did so long before anyone outside the program had even heard of “JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER“.
FRom DAY one it was a JOINT programme dude, USMN/RN/RAF. = Requiered specs.
Thanks for PROVING yourself wrong.
I didn’t; YOU interpret the whole thing WRONG failing to take requierements and specs into account.
USMC specialists wrote the specs FIRST, then USAF added their requierements later.
What has an operational ceiling “something like” 70,000 ft…
Mig 25/31…
Mirage III 50.000 ft, Mirage 2000 55.000 ft+ Rafale 55.000 ft+ F-22 50.000 ft etc.
Let me guess, the whole mission profile as shown by L-M are KPPs too.
You obviously are living in some kind of dream or other such alternate universe.
AGAIN; S.T.F.U.
That is YOU confusing the XFV-12A with F-14.
NO mate i replied to somone’s post.:D
You are the one who needs to inform yourself.
SURE, i’m not the one making out replacing an aircraft in a role is desigining it for the SAME role it was originaly designed for, expecialy because LWF was designed for Air Superiority and USAF used them in the STRIKE role LATER.
I did. The fact remains that changing the sweep angle from 48 degrees to 42 degrees does not prevent the F-22 from CRUISING without afterburner at >Mach 1.5 and actually IMPROVED performance in some areas of the flight regime.
You’re twisting your wires even further:
Call it “Modified Diamond” if you wish, by virtue of its VORTEX LIFT the 42* swept F-22 wings are crancked delta with all the advantages they have at supersonic regime…
Now perhaps this is too complex for you to comprehend.
This is a tad clearer no? 9 g target MISSED (Structural LIMIT) with at least TWO versions out of three.
Obviously you’re good at mixing powder and water then call the whole thing Coffee and pretend it’s the same thing when separated.
If leading edge sweep angle had been the ONLY difference between the two then it would have had some sort of validity, as it is it becomes irrelevant, F-35 wing is FAR from being designed anywhere near as “like” that of F-22.
We’re talking about a 32*sweep angle at best, pure subsonic wing profile, NO TVC (YES they DO reduce the induced and trim DRAG in an instable, conventional arrangement) and which airframe is also OPTIMISED for lower ceiling and SUBSONIC (Frontal area/Inlets although the USAF version MIGHT inherit from different Inlets).
We’re talking about F-35 which elevator surface is by others standard HUGE and happens to be LIFTING surfaces too. = EXTRA DRAG (see above on TVC…)
That was a slogun for thre F-15.
Knew it you weren’t born yet, Ask John Boyd what the FX programme was all about.
Which STILL was not strickly true as the F-15 did & does have an air-to-ground capability.
Strike Eagle = Structuraly redesigned at up to 75%.
See airframes 71-1291 & 78-0527 as examples thereof…
Yeah hand grenades under my Genuine Chinese Kit would do to qualify for A2G capabilties too according to your standards..
A strike FIGHTER designed to replace the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, et cetera…
In the STRIKE role as it says on the box Joint STRIKE fighter.
I am not the one mistaken & I am not the one projecting my faults onto others…
:D:D:D
Just like the simple concept of a KPP THRESHOLD, appearantly beyond your cognitive abilities.
DUDE, the WAY you try to apply them to designed LIMITS without comprehending what DESIGN LIMITS and OPTIMISATION implies, you are the one who visibly doesn’t comprehend the conceipt.
Sign In
