Not either, it’s hearsay, unknown conditions and unproven datas at best vs USAF and L-M own figures.

Our 2000 “does” M 2.5 remember? (And then again we know it from military sources, not a forumer who have seen a TV programe and doesn’t understand the basics).

On the other hand, we are still waiting for you to explain how you expect F-35 to fly faster than a clean F-16 in Mil.

Here is an accurate simulated drag polar of the Viper as published by Edward AFB Flight Test Center.

Its wingsweep is 40*, that of F-35 33*.

F-16 supersonic region stars at M 1.15 and it have a higher Critical Mach than a 33* wing in the M 1.0+ area, the supercritical wing of F-35 drags MORE passed M 1.0 and have a higher drag polar pick value, it is only better before M 1.0 than a 40* swept laminary (reason for the M 0.98 cruise).

Now please show us how you will make F-35 fly faster than passed its transonic region with equivalent to lower TWR, and CRUISE at this Mach considering the exces of DRAG involved.

When L-M publishes datas on mission profiles giving ceillings and Machs, including cruise at M 0,98 for the attention of their customers, there is a reason for that, and these are NOT KPP figures but near-accurately predicted design points and Maximum.

F 18 C has a 24 deg wingsweep and also, its TWR is inferior to the F 35. Yet it can go 1.8M and later block with F404-GE-402 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) can supercruise when clean.

But you are sure that F 35 can’t go over 1.6 M…
________
W108

Really?
Additionally you are in a way stating that the TAC Brawler simulation doesn’t reflect reality.

Secondly the USAF has tied itself to the F35 mast, so it’s hardly going to say that it’s future do it all bird is crap is it.
The US is very good at self promotion, in part the intention is to get opponents and rivals to think that they don’t have a chance..

This type of simulations evalate the bare fighters, not the whole package.
________
Mazda Kabura History
________
VAPERIZERS

The US-simulations are done with the US support in mind. Nothing wrong about that. In a full scale European war in the late 80s such results were much harder to achieve if at all. For the luck of all it was never tested really and all serious people are careful, when it does come to claims from that. The wrong tactic choosen and all the technical gains are gone by that. The nasty surprise of the USAF flyers, when tested against MiG-29s flown by capable pilots or the results from Cope India, which was not taken very serious at first.
To stay fair, none serious air-force is intrested in a selfdeluding behavior at first.
So marketing intentions aside, the USAF in general is a serious air-force like some few others. 😉

TAC Brawler simulations do not consider support (AWACS, dedicated EW planes, tankers, etc.). They are based only on fighters own capabilities. That’s why the huge fuel volume of F 35, its situational awarness, its VLO, put it above EF/Rafale/Su 30/Gripen in the USAF simulations.

BTW, if ful support would be considered, I doubt that there is any AF that can challenge USAF, even if they will use only vintage F 15/F 16.
________
Vapor Lounge
________
Marijuana vaporizer

See such a claim and the graphic of combat efficiency. 😉

http://milparade.udm.ru/27/104.htm

Choose some selected numbers and you will get the related result.
In that very case the claims did come from an avionic and weapons-upgrade.
Similar thing with the LM claim. Before giving some credit to such claims we have to be informed about the selected data. What is the nearest “competitor”? What weapons does it field? What is the avionic-outfit? 😉

I see that on this forum many posters consider LM as a kind of con corporation. It is like they (the companies that form today LM) didn’t built planes such F 104, SR 71, F 16, F 117, F 22, to name just a few.

However, the TAC Browler simulations were performed by USAF, not by LM. I.e. by the buyer , not by the seller!

Those simulations involved a few thousands scenarios. TAC Browler simulations proved to be true true in the ’70, when they predicted that F 15 and F 16 will be unmatched for decades. They proved right in the ’90, when they predict that F 22 will be a top fighter. I doubt that they will be wrong now.

What is the nearest “competitor”? What weapons does it field? What is the avionic-outfit?;)

In these TAC Browler simulations, the other planes (Rafale, EF, Su 30 MK, Gripen, and the unnamed “advanced 4th gen” –probably J10) were considered fitted with AESA radars, advanced EW suites (digital RWR and DRFM) and IRST, “regardless if they will be able to field such systems or not”. Also, the F 35 was considered towards the end of the service life, with 5 % degradation in thrust and 3 % increase in fuel consumption, “while other were given the benefits of the doubt”.

PS Excuse my English-I’m not a native speaker.
________
Weed
________
Redhead Cam

Beesley has had a difficult PR role here because he has lived in difficult times. First years everything was concentrated on creating a marketing image of an F-22 decisively outperforming anything else in the sky. So far it was an easy job. But now, after F-22 has been put to stop and any abroad sales restricted to zero, there are potential customers banging on LM’s gate wanting to operate the flying wonder and LM are now concentrated on trying to make them satisfied with a 2nd class substitute. In order to that they need to create an image that F-35 is not at all that far from the F-22 – thus they need to put those two close together which also means remove the F-22 from the pedestal.

I think they are only two possibilities:
1. LM was lying during the F-22 campaign – the bird is nothing really exceptional and F-35 indeed clomes close
2. LM is lying in the F-35 campaign, the F-22 is indeed a class of its own and compared to that the Lightning II is a lemon which, of course, no customer wants to hear

I personally incline towards option #2 if you ask me..

Beesley is quoted partially by many posters, here. In fact, what he said is that while F 35 “is not far” from F 22 in subsonic, “it is unfair to compare it with F 22 in supersonic“. His opinion is shared by another test pilot, Paul Metz, speaking about F 22 vs. F 16:

The F100-110, -129, and -229-powered F-16s don?t fall very far behind the Raptor in the initial acceleration through Mach. But the race is really no contest at the higher Mach numbers and once on cruise conditions. Nothing can sustain supersonic conditions with the persistence of a Raptor. Load those chase F-16s and F-15s with combat-representative stores and they would not stay with the Raptor during acceleration or sustained cruise.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2000/articles/oct_00/f-22/f22_1.html

There is no contradiction in what Beeslet said, if the full statement is quoted.
________
Bmw cs concept history
________
Universal life insurance dicussion