How about triangulating between the missile and the plane?

The AMRAAM would probably not reach mach 4 if launched at low altitude, and if it flies at low altitude, it would slow down much faster than at high altitude.

And the F-35 is not a blackbird either…

Also, the F-35s would anyways probably try to enter enemy airspace at full or almost full mil trust at mach 0.9+. And whether the F-35 is at full mil thrust at mach 0.95 or at mach 1.2 makes no difference in thrust output, so no difference in IR signature due to the engine.

A supercruising F-35 at mach 1.2 may have a somewhat higher IR signature, but detection range for a IR source is proportional to the square root of the distance. So if a supercruising F-35 at mach 1.2 has say 20-25% more IR signature, it will be detected 10-12% further, which doesn’t make much difference.

As for going through the transonic regime, using the full afterburner for about 1 minute from mach 0.8 to mach 1.2 may not be the only possibility. Instead, the plane can accelerate to mach 0.95 at full mil thrust, climb 10000 feet, and accelerate during the dive. F-16s are said to be able to reach mach 1.1 when diving. The F-35 may have to use its afterburner at 50% for like 30 seconds during the dive to get to mach 1.2, but not much more.

The problem is that they have the same kind of figure for the F-22, and the F-22 should be able to supercruise much longer than that, all the more that its engines are optimized for supercruise, that is, don’t burn that much more fuel in SC.

One issue is that there are two different quotes that people use to contend the point of the F-35 super cruising:

The first was from an F-35 test pilot Hank Griffiths:
“What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going … you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you’re pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you’re cruising,” Griffiths said. “So it really does have very good acceleration capabilities up in the air.”

The second was from an Air Force Magazine Quote from Steve O’Brian:
The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said.
The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone.
There is a major extension of the fighter’s range if speed is kept around Mach .9, O’Bryan went on, but he asserted that F-35 transonic performance is exceptional and goes “through the [Mach 1] number fairly easily.” The transonic area is “where you really operate.”
In combat configuration, the F-35’s range exceeds that of fourth generation fighters by 25 percent. These are Air Force figures, O’Bryan noted. “We’re comparing [the F-35] to [the] ‘best of’ fourth gen” fighters. The F-35 “compares favorably in any area of the envelope,” he asserted.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything…..

Ok, we have all seen these quotes many times. For the first one, which variant of the F-35 was he talking about, with how much fuel?

As for the 150miles, I find that weird. Why would it be limited to 150 miles? I can’t believe the engine can’t be used a full mil thrust for longer than that. That reminds me of the figure of 100nm supercruising range for the F-22. These are probably public figures. The planes probably can supercruise much longer than that.

The F-35 would use more fuel when supercruising, but if it has missiles with significant range instead of just bombs, it would be enough.

I think F-35 operators should use the ability of the plane to supercruise when they can, especially for the first strikes when entering the enemy airspace would be very dangerous.

The F135 will also be upgraded with 5% more thrust:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-20/business/sns-rt-us-unitedtechnologies-pratt-20131220_1_pratt-whitney-f135-f-35

Hess said Pratt would also be able to apply new technology developments to the F135 engine, which could increase the engine’s thrust and fuel efficiency by about 5 percent.

it work better again sea target because again ground target if you fly low, you will have trouble with short range AA, shoulders SAM, or flying into mountain,

even a short range SAM system like TOR-M1 cost about 15 millions,long range SAM like S-400 cost about 100-150 millions, a destroyer with decent anti air capability cost about 300-400 millions so an attack that cost 4.8 millions to take them out or neutralise them is pretty cheap ( about same cost as 4 aim-120)

don’t know about US system but Russian ship have about 4-5 CIWS + Long and medium range SAM, so you probably need more than 8 SPEAR to penetrate them

I was not talking about attacking a ship. Against ground radar, you will note that not a single air force wants to shoot 24 missiles at once to destroy a radar. Just put a **** load of submunition in a large cruise missile if you want to achieve that kind of saturation effect.

I really doubt the S400 RADAR costs 100-150 million. That price is probably with all the missile batteries.

Some pilots have suggested that it could SC at M1.2. For the pilot who said with min AB, which variant was it? The B and C probably can’t SC with no AB at all, what about the A?