I think it’s a matter of doctrine, the european companies are busy with UCAV’s for strike, and seemingly intend to have 4.5 manned fighters for defence.

and you dont see the hole in your logic, do you
i would like to see the white paper that you formed your conclusions on

What he is trying to say is that it fulfills the same function as a VG intake, namely, supply the air to the engine at a velocity of around 0.4-0.5Mn under all conditions with the minimum of losses. It just does it without all those heavy and expensive to make movey bits, that also cost alot more in maintenance during the a/c’s lifetime.

thats right and the f-35 guys arent trying to say any different to that
it controls supersonic boundary layer to m2
no one has said that the f-35 does m2

no i think you are missing the point,
the dsi works to m2, there is no tuning of that supersonic boundary layer control for any specific speed by the dsi
even if the f-35 had a max of 1.4, the dsi design would control supersonic upto m2, it makes no difference

other tuning/design of the intake and engine would be for subsonic, transonic and supersonic required performance and most focus is in the subsonic & transonic region, as i see it

Actually, Sens is right and this is only partially true and as usual you’re omitting crucial factors.
First of, F16 being able to fly M2 with JSF’s inlet doesn’t mean absolutely anything, due different engine and duct length/volume.
True, inlet’s bump is used as a pressure generator, but isn’t “speed optimized” and at some point chokes, thus adding to the overall drag and eventually limiting plane’s speed.
So, if JSF’s speed KPP was M1.6, it’s very unlikely that LM’s engineers built it’s intakes for M2, since that would be wasting of resources (intake’s volume and front area), which could (and probably are) better spent on extra fuel, weapon bays, or some similar part of the aircraft.
This is a common mistake when assessing some plane’s capability, since those are built around KPPs, not frivolously.
It’s funny watching certain ppl claiming that an air force is still “discovering” some type’s abilities, even 15 years after the model took off.
That, of course, are stories for children and vast majority of plane’s abilities are known before the prototype has been built.

So, to clear the statement you’ve posted…the JSF’s inlet bump does all that, BUT in an F16/F1X0, which is by no means true for JSF, or some other plane for that matter.

it is a simple statement that the divertless intake controls supersonic boundary layer up to m2.0, not that the f-35 will do m2.0 max

Let’s remember that Boeing went with a variable inlet for the x-32, and Lockheed went with this diverted inlet thingy (a nice/cool name -so typical in the US industry- for a faired FIXED inlet optimized for certain speed) after their experiences with the magical plasma-coil-alien F22’s inlets….:D

not only the b2, f-22, there is a reason we call our f-35 “Sparky” 😎
read their publications on electrostatic (plasma) control of inlet and exhaust flow
http://www.mecheng.osu.edu/gdtl/

my contribution was that i knew sens was mistaken and i was suggesting to sens to look up about the ‘detailed’ testing that was done for the f-35 inlet design, the website’s can explain it much better than i could
he seemed to dismiss this idea with a ‘have you ?’
given that this has been talked about on numerous threads here and where sens and i have participated in, he wouldnt take people saying it was tested as correct this time either

it is obvious that i have or i wouldnt know that the detailed information is available, there is even pictures of both sides of the f-35 intake joined together in the testing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F-35_Divertless_Supersonic_Inlet_F-16.jpg

i think you should google the f-16 intake tests for the f-35, instead of makings silly assumptions

Your answer to yourself matches Rationalization (psychology)

In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses[1]) is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, to differentiate from the original deterministic explanation, of the behavior or feeling in question.[2][3] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29

so you think that our RAAF probably wont ever use the f-35 top speed is rationalisation ?

while you’re using big words, look up sublimation, its what eurocanard fanboys do when looking at the f-35 capability

1.6 is what they decided they needed, if they wanted 2.0, that would have been the max in the specs
if it now does more, so be it but it isnt a requirement
and if the acceleration thrust improvement in blk 5-6 gives more top speed, so be it
but again its only the fanboys who will care

the f-35 a,b,c all have a max speed of 1.6, yet 2 have quite different weights, wings and fuselage
the f-35a being the better for max speed
what are they going to do ?
restrict the f135 the slow the f-35a down to 1.6 ?
if they can do that without reducing acceleration, i wouldnt care

fanboys are funny