=aurcov;1350538]LM didn’t say this.
Damned right, they say; NO F135 isn’t designed for it…
However, why on earth would anyone want to supercruise at 1.1 ? Isn’t here the worst drag region?
NOT with Gripen NO, you’re mystaking F-16 Critital Mach and drag polar for that of a 45* Delta wing…:D
Gripen would likely be fully supersonic at this speed with a drag polar droping a lot faster than that of F-16…
And BTW. Mach 0.95 is NOT far from being as BAD as 1.1 in the case of F-35 33* swept wing either (F-16 is 40* sweep angle) since you can add a 0.05 M+ per 10* sweep as a thumb rule…
The only real advantage would be the optimised supercritical wing profile draging less at this Mach than a laminary with the same sweep angle, NOT the case…
Here F-35 typical ceilings and Machs as you can see it’s predicted at M 0.90 and 30.000 ft with optimum ceiling/cruise about 35.000 ft…
It was obligatory that said the NG will supercruise longer that F 22.
He’s got a point (technicaly).
BTW, I think you consider only the advantages of swept delta winga and completelly ignore the disadvantages of unsuited inlets and most of all, the drag of external weapons.
LOL! Unsuited inlets, YES sir i got YOUR point…
And according to you what exactly makes them SO unsuited to supercruising?
AND weapons drag yes, AAMs mmmmmmmmmmmm. Just for your info a supersonic 1.250 l drag penalty is about <> 0.01M while wingtip AAMs arent draging enough to be part of drag polar computations; aerodynamicaly they are part of the “Clean” configuration.
=Schorsch;1350484]Uninstalled engine thrust in reheat does have similar thrust over Mach and altitude characteristics for both turbo-jet and turbo-fan.
Am not to sure about this one, i.e F119 vs F135 sort of optimisation and we all forgot to mention ceiling i mean tropopause and i think YOU can elaborate there……
Spillage is a problem when intake and Mach number do not fit.
Or pressure recovery limit is reached which is about the same in result, i know i don’t always make myself as clear as you.
I am not sure if there is any major difference between them in reheat.
Problem of an aircraft like the Tornado is high wing loading and limited thrust.
“Lack of” is relative, TWR is just marginaly lower than the German F-4s which are lighter than most…
The RB199 is REALY a slouch at altitude.
Pressure recovery is normally simplified to a pure function of Mach number, which is not entirely correct.
True…
It is also a function of mass flow, and hence of engine actual thrust and altitude.
Isn’t Mass flow related to TET?
Depending on the design point of the whole machine an intake might be ill-suited for other demands. The Tornado was built for low level flight at high subsonic speeds, meaning plenty of dense air available.
I know that Schorsch.
True but the F-3 was considerably redesigned this i believe did involve the inlets not as for design but optimisation of…
At flight Mach numbers of M0.9 at high altitude the intake might have issues getting enough mass supplied to the engine, so that the engine produces less thrust (not enough air to combust all that fuel) than it technically could provided enough mass is available. The engine itself, may it be turbo-fan or -jet, is secondary then.
(corrected, you are certainly right).
The point that i am making here is according to SNECMA (for ex), Bypass ratio will give you an optimim ceiling from design stage, M53 was optimised for 50.000 ft plus and M 2.5, RB199 M 1.1 <> at low level……
This IS what i meant (on inlet pressure recovery)…
No more so then the utter garbage that you come out with kid.
“Utter Garbage” is YOUR definition of proper aerospacial informations, standards etc, we know your type to be imune to it.:D
Just a clue, even Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 have the SAME Core system Architecture than F-22/F-35, so definitly NO it’s nowhere near as close to be as simple as what you try to make it look like.
If i were you, i’d inform myself properly otherwise you are facing a fair amount of pain with a reality strike which generaly leads to denial of it all and not to any learning process…
I was a newbie once but i learnt one thing for sure, it’s better to learn than be trying to talk over your knowledge, after a while you can spot the knowledgeable ones and in this case boy, I LISTEN…
Spitfire9
I don’t understand your comment where you say “in Typhoon’s case”. Are you saying that RR involvement in the F-136 engine or F-35 lift fan diverted development funds from EJ200 development?
Eurojet are WAY OFF SNECMA’s developement and production stage for M 88 upgrades, this also mean that funding have been limited.
Just a clue, corrected with the latest demonstrated technology advances…
Oh thats really definitive proof, a magazine article showing some pictures and exclaiming a 4:1 kill ratio without explaining the circumstances or goals and aims of the excersise. :rolleyes:
Simple: Australian A-F Mirage IIIOs in 1 vs gungifhts…:cool:
Scorpion82
Just out of curiosity, what does the boldened passage mean? “Above all”?
I means: Results; development of upgraded versions suffers BECAUSE Much developement funding is going to the US by submited gouvernements choices….
I guess a TVC equipped and maybe bit uprated M88 or EJ200 will do just fine .
TVC is not even useful in the case of a Rafale, as little more in the case of Typhoon, as for developement of the engines it is very much the same USA “Uber Alles” story in Typhoon’s case that is…
Barry Scott
And lets face it its already out of date already, all the Euro canards are if we are honest about it. External weaponry and fuel, no meaningfull stealth that wasn’t an after thought for marketing purposes, 4th gen electronics and sensors, exclipsed by current Russian fighters in performance also factor in a serious lack of supporting assets to boot.
BOY! That’s worth a full tanker of laughing gas! 
Let us guess; this set of infos comes straight from the Legoland and Associated Toons Channels Forum…
A waste of time? Most certainly not. It’s been the project the European combat aircraft industry needed not only to keep going but also to gain experience at integrating, which they can hopefully apply to future combat aircraft projects. The net benefit to the countries involved should be fairly considerable when you take into account the amount of spin-offs cutting edge fighter programs generate. It’s late and overbudget, as can be said for just about any modern fighter project you care to name, but it’s generated the basis for one of the world’s best fourth-generation descendant types and puts them well in position to do more interesting things in years to come.
As for the aircraft itself, I wouldn’t say it’s a waste of time either. Its avionics have been acknowledged by a Raptor pilot as ‘top-notch’ – not a mild claim, that, is it? – it can carry a very impressive load of stores, supercruise, has exceptional WVR ability with its superlative manoeuvrability, IRST, HMSs and AIM-132/IRIS-T missiles, can easily gain a height advantage to have excellent missile kinematics in BVR and has an AESA radar in the pipeline, can deliver loads of PGMs as heavy as or heavier than any prospective competitor in its class, carries a full countermeasures suite including probably the world’s most modern TRD, is highly network-capable – can’t see much not going for it in its class, actually, except the price issue.
Agreed appart for the comparative to concurent aircrafts in both roles.:cool:
Barry Scott
Whilst French aircraft products are good they are inferior to British products and the Typhoon is a superior product to the Rafale in all respects bar the carrier capable which again is inferior overall except it has the ability to land on a carrier which is one-up on the Typhoon.
You got MORE laughing gas for us please? 
Have a good laugh. “Inferior” Mirage III vs SEA Harrier, F-16, F-14, F-15, and a very British Lightning.
pfcem;1349527]I am quite aware of what DESIGNED MACH LIMIT, supersonic DASH and M 1.5 means.
Well in this case you WONT insist into making L-M own designed Mach LIMIT of 1.6 F-35 “KPP THRESHOLD”.
End of debate.:diablo:
No. The JSF was the accumulation of a USAF F-16 replacement program, a USN F/A-18 replacement program AND a USMC/UK Harrier replacement program. ALL three programs had begun prior to accumulating into the JSF.
Old DoD documentation… = REALITY of the F-35 programme.
JSF was FIRST “architectured” by USMC specialists and USAF only came SECOND to ADD internal weapons and supersonic DASH speed to EXISTING requierements including Harrier II+ Operational ceiling.
Not JUST the strike role, ALL ROLES ALL AIRCRAFT IT WILL REPLACE PERFORM!
Let us guess, OPTIMISATION have NO meaning according to YOU; you’re a revisionist of sort my friend…:D
No, a simple way of describing what the JSF is EXPECTED to be.
I know what it WAS EXPECTED to be before the technico-commercial B-S you feed yourself with took over reality; YOU make up a different set of requierements and specs.
WITH AIR-TO-AIR LETHALITY SUPERIOR TO THE F-16 & F/A-18!
WHERE?
This is not too difficult to achieve and was NOT a requierement in the first place.
BTW it’s the SAME ratio for OURS vs Mirage 2000, so F-35 is “Superior” to what in this role please???:D
It is only when compared to the “in a league of its own” F-22 that the air-to-air lethality of the F-35 appears lacking.
OK we got the picture, another newbie is trying to impress the community.:cool:
BECAUSE THE JSF IS INTENDED TO BE SO MUCH MORE THAN THE LWF WAS!!!
Not in A2A NO.:D
Simple task. USING ACCURATE INFO (as opposed to the FALSE info the “fighter mafia” use to try & fool people into believing that the F-22 & F-35 are inferior to the F-15 & F-16).
The “fighter mafia” as opposed to YOU boy, know what they are talking about.
Better yet, save yourself the trouble & just listen to those who have actually flown them & KNOW the actual relative performance rather than some ‘calculated’ prediction of performance.
STFU my dear sir, i listen to who i KNOW are specialists and not commercials. Got it?
You are the one making a fool of yourself.
SAY you.;)
Requiered Specs and design features which are expressed in KPP THRESHOLDS & similar such MINIMUM goals/requiremnets, not MAXIMUMS.
Requiered specs NEVER were for M 1.6, BOY.
Mach LIMIT isn’t a KPP but a designed LIMIT EVEN in English.
Back to basic training and studies for YOU and the other revisionists.
LOL
YEP!😀
Sign In
