its part of the discussion on the various planes and their loads and ability
i’m sure ground forces can designate for the rafale too, but at this stage the rafale cant self deploy
if i say anything factually wrong, please correct me
did you miss me saying above that the assm is a good bomb ?

You mean 7200kg missions in afgan was flown more than 0,5% of the missions? or have rafale problems with selfdeploy bombs?

self deploying lgb’s is on their ‘gunna get there’ list
they are going to put the old damacles pod on it ‘soon’

to be fair it wasnt part of the ground hugging mission profile that was planed and the aasm is a good rocket assist bomb
but it seems they are still unable to ground hug properly and the rafale is min height limited, we will see if that is corrected with the new aesa

And rafale have loaded over 7200kg every time in afgan? whats youre point?

maybe that it still cant self deploy laser guided bombs ?

Thank you for the pic of a SH in the low transonic range. The SH offers flight performances similar to the F-35A to come and for both none claimed “supercruise”. 😉

nar mate, thats a plasma cloud :diablo:
as to this SC stuff, the f-15 can SC at m1.3 but that isnt used either
i know there are some makers going ‘me too’ but IMHO only the f-22 has a usable tactical SC
from what i read, if you want SC you change the bypass ratio on the engine or is that for top speed ? either way its not rocket science
some in this thread know what they are talking about
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13568.html

i saw this on f-16 that i found interesting
i guess we can put the terrible massive drag of the f-35 from the naysayers to bed
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/2010/May%202010/0510weapons.pdf
performance design targets that some have already been shown to exceed

mil power, level flight, speed at Sea Level
F-35A & F-35C Mach 1 / 630 KCAS
F-35B Mach 0.94 / 600 KCAS/knots calibrated airspeed
combat radius more than
590 miles for CTOL
600 miles for CV,
450 miles for STOVL.

another bit of data i found
i used empty, although it would be better if they each had fuel for 300nm because of the vastly different fuel fractions when you start using 50% fuel for comparison
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-force-aviation/combat-aircraft-comparison-stats-2551/

T/W empty
f-22 2.21
f-35 1.78
f-15 1.67
tphoon 1.67
rafale 1.54
fa-18c 1.53
f-16 1.52
mig 29 1.52
fa-18e 1.43
su-27 1.41
gripen 1.24

The EJ200 engine has a peace-time rating of 60/90 kN and a wartime-rating of >70/>100 kN for the cost of much lower service intervalls.
The present F135 is tweaked to a max of ~180 kN already when the F119 offers ~156 kN. The life-time cost in mind most of the F119s/F135s will deliver less than the claimed max ratings in peace-time operations.

jack said
i dont know if it is ‘tweaked’ to 180kn because it was design locked in 2004? might even be earlier, and there is plans for more thrust to come at block 5-6 i think and at a major overhaul for those already in service

sens
further to what i said about the f135 being design locked about 2004 and the already planed update for block ~6 or when major overhauls are done
some info has just been released to confirm this

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4671446&c=AIR&s=TOP
“The General Electric Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team developed and implemented third-stage, low pressure turbine vanes made from ceramic matrix composites” to give the airplanes more thrust, range and fuel efficiency due to their lighter weight and increased heat tolerances,

The composite vanes were developed as part of a Pentagon project to develop lightweight, high-strength composite parts that can withstand the incredibly high temperatures found in the “hot section” of a jet engine, according to the report. Other members of the team to develop such parts included the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Pratt & Whitney.

The performance increases expected to be brought about by the project are “projected to decrease production and maintenance costs by over $3 billion” for the JSF’s Pratt & Whitney-built engine, known as the F135, as well as its controversial alternate engine made by GE and Rolls Royce, known as the F136.

im a pleb and havent specifically read up a lot about it, but your first sentence is the most sensible thing i have read so far in this thread
AFAIK for the f-22 supercruise we are talking about a bypass designed engine for it, but even then the f-22 doesnt run at max

in this thread i read that the f-35 is @ 40% power at subsonic and have also read is designed for transonic power
i havent seen the power needed when they load it up with external stores, but your 90% sounds fair then too

we are talking about running the engines at max, arent we
the m88 reduced their max power, so even when the term max is used its relative, there is still a need to know what the story is for service life

i havent seen anything that suggests that you can run an engine at max and expect any life out of it
ground testing results would clear the situation, but i doubt they would publish the time at max before a rebuild is needed
until then we have the guys that work on engines and what they say

@jackjack: I’d be more interested in one single link where a fighter was cruising around in an AA battle, unless he was cought by surprise at the recieving end of an AA missile.

well you better get on google and show us how the jets run around at full speed with ab for any significant service life of the engine or even in the example you suggest
its your claim, so back it up

i think m1.2-3 is the fastest a f-15 has a2a killed at