Ehh!
If marketing director Magnus Olsson said “Today’s Gripen can supercruise but only on a cold day in Sweden,” – How could he have “forget” to mention “but only on a cold day” -as he said it ? 😀
By all means, gimme a statement from an official L.M guy state anything bout supercruise on F-35 😉

LM didn’t say this.

No, it was a statement that with ~20 percent more thrust and 300 extra kg, it WILL supercruise M1.1
And its a good bet that with the experience gained from God-knows-how-many-thousands-of-hour-flying-Gripen ,its well documented what power is needed to keep Gripen at any specific speed.

Missed the main point–contradictory declarations/statements=marketing BS.

And no, i’m not going to specify how many minutes Gripen NG can supercruise, but from all the specs i’ve seen so far, it will supercruise considerably longer then F-22 Raptor can ever hope to accomplish.

:p Officially, the F 22 has combat radius of 400 Nmiles with 100 nmiles supercuise at 1.6 M. So, adding the time on combat area, this would give a 250 Nmiles supercruise at 1.6M + 300 Nmiles subsonic cruise. Feel free to insert the figures for NG.

I’m tellin ya wrightwing is by far closer to the issue when he pose the question what setting is needed by F-22 to keep it even with Gripen in speed in supercruise, it’ll likely even out, but then again F-22 no longer has any speed advantage.

OK, let’s adopt your logic: if you consider 1.1M being supercruise, I bet that the f 22 could “supercruise” at 1.1M longer that NG. However, why on earth would anyone want to supercruise at 1.1 ? Isn’t here the worst drag region? In this time, the F 35 would cruise smoothly at 0.9 M. Do you think that the difference between 1.1M and 0.9 M at those heights, would bring any sgnificant advantage?

F-22 ~29 minutes
EF Typhoon ~35 minutes
Gripen NG ~41 minutes
🙂

I see that you persist.

Again: you can’t take the total time an engine can run on mil thrust as the time that engine will supercruise!
By this twisted logic, a Su 30 with 11 ton of fuel will supercruise for an hour, while an F 15 E with 15.5 tons will do it for 1.5 hours. Everybody knows that ‘s not true.

The NG had yet to go >1M, but some people are convinced that it will supercruise 2xRaptor!

Even if it will supercruise, I wonder for how long with 3.175 tons of fuel! Or they plan to supercruise with those new, fat 1700 liter EFTs…

Has pointed severall times, the basic numbers are mach 1.2/1.3 with 8 AAM´s for 250 NM with a 30 minute reserve. Those numbers are in every Eurofighter GMBH presentation to every single one Air Force for (at least) the last two and a half to three years. Most of those presentations are classified, but the 2006 Norwegian was de-classified, it´s public, and you can confirm those numbers in page 53 (or around that, i dont have the document right now).

Thanks, it’s the first time I see something specific about EF supercruising.

But, can you elaborate:
-250 Nmiles is the total time on SC (which would give ~ 100 Nmiles combat radius in SC alone + 50 Nmiles on intercepting area), or the combat radius?

-I don’t know what 30 min reserve means for EF users: that amount of fuel should be preserved except emergencies, or it is the time the EF cruises , at <1M for the rest of the sortie?

I’m really intersted.

No, it indicate how long time the engine will run on max dry thrust on internal fuel before the internal fuel tank is empty, and as you saw, F-22 can fly max dry thrust 80% of the time that EF Typhoon can.
And a paltry 58% of the time the Gripen NG can fly on max dry thrust.:eek:

Let’s suppose for a minute that the figures for the 3 engines are accurate:

-in your opinion, if 2 (or 3) engines are able to run the same time in max dry thrust on internal fuel, this means that they are similar in performances? :p

-for sake of demonstration, let’s assume that the above is true; in this case, in your opinion, this means that this engine will automantically provide any plane the capability to supercruise? I.e. regardless of shape of that plane, drag, or the fact that the plane carry weapons externally or EFT? Since the F 414 is on SuperHornet, based on your ideas, this one should supercruise too? :p

As for the debate on supercruise to be or not to be, i’ll live it to others to provide links for now…
at least i provided one 🙂

That’s a fanboy site to say the least. I meant a specific statement, such of those made by LM/USAF: the F 22 can supercruise at 1.6-1,7 with full weapon load.

Originally Posted by sferrin
Which part of “clean Block 50 F-16” do you not understand? Besides, when has an F-16 ever went into combat with just two wingtip AAMs and internal fuel?

I’d say most wartime encounters with Israeli F-16s happened just like that. 😉 So, the answer is, quite a lot.

I bet that those F 16s that raided Osirak or the Tunis PLO headquarters had only 2 Sidewinders…:p OTOH, over Bekaa Valley (100 km away from the bases) probably had only Sidewinders (but more than 2). So, it depends.

LM claims the F-35 will be as manoeuvrable as the F-16/18, neither of these aircraft can fly any PST maoeuvers close to that of the F-22 with its TVC. If the F-35 is able to do that (and I doubt it) it would mean the F-35 exceeds the manoeuvrability of the F-16/18 by a fair margin.

The combat-ready F 35 (2.7 t of weapons and 8t of fuel)was compared with clean F 16/18 in terms of sustained turn rate.

BTW for your info F-22 wing IS a crancked DELTA generating VORTEX lift like EVERY dselta wing, I thing Signatory had a good point there… = DRAG.

Enuff said.

For your info:

“The fundamental reason for going to a diamond wing was that it provided the lightest configuration and gave us the best structural efficiency and all the control power we needed for maneuvering,” Mullin explains. “The biggest consideration was its light weight. Weight drove the decision.”

“A diamond wing has more square feet of surface area, but is more structurally efficient,” adds Renshaw. “The longer root chord provides a more distributed load path through the fuselage. Multiple bulkheads carry the bending loads. The design provides more opportunity to space the bulkheads around the internal equipment. It also provides more fuel volume.”

“The structural engineers wanted a diamond wing because it provides a larger root chord, which carries bending moments better,” Hardy notes. “The aerodynamicists wanted a trapezoidal wing because it provides more aspect ratio, which is good for aerodynamics. Dick Heppe, the president of Lockheed California Company, made the final decision, and he was right. The aerodynamics were not all that different, but the structure and weights were significantly better. So we went to a diamond shape. The big root chord, though, moved the tails back. Eventually we even had to notch the wing for the front of the tails. If the tails moved farther back, they would fall off the airplane http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/oct_98/oct2a_98.html

…:p