What is that hole in Typhoon vertical tail for

I’ve been around here for a long Time.
Don’t act like you don’t know the early LockMart SC stamp.

Yes it started with F-22.
Then F-35 started off as SC requirement very early in its development.
Guess LM thought the Huge F135 was a savoir, and SC was a fact.

Later in F-35 development, it quickly became clear that this was doubtfull.
Then the first report of F-35 KPP came out.
The SC requirement from LM vanished like smoke on the water from their advs divisjon.

Supercruise was never a requirement for F-35
If F135 was designed for supercruise , it would have been similar to F119 engine , The increased BPR eliminates the “super cruise” performance of the F119 as it was not a requirement of the JSF (F-35 Lightening) program

The F-35 can’t do Mach 1.2 in SC.
End of story.

according to pilot it can maintain mach 1.2 without afterburner for 150 miles

By SC deffinition.
The F-15E, EF and Su-35S can.

an F-15E without CFT , EFT , carry only AAM can fly at mach 1.08 without afterburner
There is 1 forum source stated that a clean Su-35 can fly past mach 1.1 on dry thrust , Sukhoi themselves doesnt claim Su-35 can supercruise with AAM either
No one ever deny that EF-2000 can supercruise so i dont know why you bring it up

I do not disgree.
But there was at first the SC F-35.
Then there was the F-35, relaxed SC.
And what you state now, the F-35 not SC.

LockMart at its best..

Its debateble if SC Mach 1.2 with weapons is useful or not..
It least You’re get better accellerating performance up the charts, which could mean less time on AB.

Ok , according to official statement ” F-35 can maintain 150 miles without using afterburner ” the problem is we dont know exactly why it is only 150 miles , it could be that F-35 need to use afterburner to pass the mach barrier and stayed for 150 miles at mach 1.2 before decelerated bellow that , it could be that 150 miles is part of total combat radius ( similar to how they put stated F-22 combat radius included only 100 nm supercruise )…etc.
If you consider what F-15E , Su-35 and Mig-31 did is supercruise then F-35 can supercruise
IF you only consider aircraft that can go at mach 1.4-1.5 in dry thrust with external weapon then obviously none of these aircraft mentioned above can supercruise

So what if it “only” takes 20 years for radar technology to progress enough to be able to detect the F35 at useful range? (no right now it can’t, right?)

Nic

as radar improve, so is jammer, and a stealth aircraft will benefit significant more from jammer than a normal aircraft

mig-31bm this is tiresome because you will selectively chose to answer only what suits you in a classic shill troll mode.

I don’t usually bother because I know it will lead nowhere but what the hell….by the way it’s not you mig-31bm because I know someone else has written the recent answers for you ;D because you can’t or chose not to read what others have written because it doesn’t help your cause (you know whose!), have poor comprehension skills (to give you credit English is not your first language and you must be cheap to do rough and ready trolling (quantity and not quality in lots of “cut and paste” jobs that most people can’t usually be bothered to take to pieces!), and these recent answers are too fluent for you compared to your usual posts…..so my answer is to the remedial team that “helped with the “right” answers.

Quick note to LM people helping mig-31bm with his answers…..why not let bring_it_on answer as he is infinitely more knowledgeable and Mr Brar is a true gentleman as well!

Resort to name calling and insult when unable to win argument by logic or fact :rolleyes: but it ok , that what i would expected from a Rafale bot like you any way

Where do I begin? I know: first stop lying and then repeating the same lie every few sentences….saying something over and over does not make it true!

May be you should take your own advice and started posting fact instead of BS nonsense ? how about that ?

In my earlier post I spelt out it was part development cost and part lifetime operating cost.
Sorry, it’s you that doesn’t understand the numbers and haven’t (or can’t) answer questions posed after you cut and pasted a lot of complicated looking (but not complicated in reality) tables and graphs and had no reply to the fact the operating costs for the F-35 have been pulled out of the air t in three year’s time (mid-2018) because they aren’t real figures but just projections and guesstimates that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on…..on a small number of operational F-35s there is simply not enough data to give meaningful hourly cost rates….the data for the F-16C/D was culled over several years (2008-2010) and that won’t be possible for many years for the F-35.
Secondly, the assumptions for some components of the hourly cost, such as maintenance may be understated by a wide margin….what if they are closer to $20,000 an hour instead of the $10,000 a hour figure? That will send the total program cost well north of $1.5 trillion won’t it!

Perhaps Spudman can do the honours and do a costing where maintenance is $20,000 an hour and continued system improvement costs are many times (say $5000) the $1000 per hour used in the projection for mid 2018?

Of course they are not real figure , they are estimated , how else would you get the cost of the whole F-35 fleet in 55 years ?
you keep pulling the 1.5 trillions number and say it too massive and the development of counter measure would be cheaper , So stop dogging the question now let say you intended to counter the F-35 by using Rafale ,and it would take only 1 Rafale to counter 1 F-35 , how much would it take to develope , buy , operate ,and maintenance 2457 Rafale for 55 years ?
you saying the maintenance cost of F-35 may be understated , how about others program ? how about Rafale ? how about Typhoon ? what make you think their cost isnt understated as well ?

Just read the past few pages….the basic flaw is the constraint in using a single airframe to accommodate the Marines’ vertical take-off model F-35B, which is incompatible with Air Force and Navy requirements…..you get a short stubby fat pig that can fit on mini Marine carriers and this gives it the short legs that require massive tanker support to long range sustain operations….a senator might understand the analogy with Fatty Arbuckle or Oliver Hardy….both are surprisingly quick for fat men! ;D

wow the Rafale bots are really all the same , F-35 have short range ? really
You know what funny , your beloved Rafale would need massive external fuel tank to even match F-35 range , and while F-35 can peacefully doing strike or SEAD , your Rafale will have a hard time evade SAM and enemy’s fighters

The point I was making was that countermeasures will be developed over time that will lessen any advantages due to LO,

I have already explained it , weapon development will often benefit LO aircraft more than normal fighter
better missiles ( more agile , more speed , multi mode seeker , smaller allow more missiles load ) ? => great for LO aircraft since they can shot first and can get closer for their shot
better jammer ( more gain , more transmitting power ) ? => great for LO aircraft since burn-through range reduce significantly as RCS are reduced
better radar ( more range , harder to jam ) ? => great since aircraft with bigger RCS will be detected from further , and stealth fighter can use the advantage in detection time to get into position for better missiles shot ( accelerate to fast speed or climb to high altitude )

furthermore the developing of countermeasures will be relatively cheap compare to the total program cost of the F-35….that is why questioning the value for money….in plain English ‘is it worth it for what you’re getting?’, is a perfectly reasonable question.

as i have repeated like a hundred times , 1.5 trillions dollars included development cost , the cost of whole fleet ( 2457 aircraft ) , the cost of operating and maintain that fleet for 55 years
what would be the cost of your so called “counter measure” with same number , operating for exactly same amount of time ?
say instead of buying F-35 , you bought Typhoon or PAK-FA or Rafale ..etc , how much do you think the fleet cost ( included everything )?

Like the good little troll you are you just posted the KPP (chopping off the UK requirement at the end of the table!)

feel free to post your ” un-chop” version then

What is the point of posting this? We know what they are, but the point that you have avoided answering is that key performance parameters were relaxed so the F-35 could meet the required criteria! That was the whole point but a good troll just ignores it!
!

Firstly KPP is short for key performance parameters
Secondly , If you talking about spec such as sustain G and acceleration time then go to this thread http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?135460-test-pilot-quot-F-35-can-t-dogfight-quot/page7 Andraxxus already made pretty reasonable and accurate explanation why F-35 isnt a pig as you troll like to call it

mig-31bm,

First, you ignore the salient points that you can’t answer and then selectively bring in irrelevant points to cloud the issue.

Your non-sequiturs and red herrings are designed to avoid answering the difficult questions and answering them removes the spotlight on the fundamental flaws.

How big is the F-35 fleet, 130? It’s not big enough to get a handle on actual operational cost yet and when the fleet is big enough we can discuss this at the end of the current fiscal year.

I’ll remind you of the main points that congress needs to know:

No , you are the one who ignore the point and trying to cloudy the issue
where do you think that 1.5 trillions USD number come from ? it not the cost of F-35 development , it is the price of the whole program and 55 years of service life for the whole F-35 fleet ( sustaining – maintaining ..etc )
So you either measure the cost of the whole fleet around 2457 aircraft for 55 years or you measure the cost of 130 aircraft until now , if you want to talk about 130 aircraft then stop pulling that nonsense 1.5 trillions number

..

The flaw in the F-35 is one air frame has to do different jobs for marines, navy and air force. The cost of $1.5 trillion isn’t worth it for what it does.

And you know that how ? what is the evidence you provided to show that F-35 cant do the job ? or it not worth it ?

If Lockheed Martin had to start again it would have a separate airframe for the vertical take-off version for the marines F-35B, and better performing versions for the Air Force and Navy.

And that would make it more expensive , the whole point of the common airframe is to keep the cost down

Forget trying to overcome S-400 and S-500 area denial missile systems, counter-measures to any new system as always will be adopted in iterative improvements to counter at a much lower cost…..the point being it won’t cost as much as $1.5 trillion to do that!

you keep bring up that 1.5 trillions number without understand what it is :sleeping:
it not the cost of the development state , it is the cost of the whole fleet , including operating sustaining , operating , maintaining over 55 years period ( inflation included )
How much do you thing it will cost to develop , buy and operate a fleet of 2457 Rafale or Typhoon ( included things such as fuel tank and targeting pod as well )for the whole freaking 55 years ?
And yes , better radar will be developed in future , better jammer will also be developed in future , better missiles will also be developed in the future
however all of that affected all aircraft rather than just F-35
better radar in future can see VLO from long distance will be able to see none stealth fighter from even further
better jammer in future will help reduce radar tracking range will benefit stealth platform significantly more than a non stealthy platform ( reason have already been explained in previous pages )
better missiles with longer range , better agility will benefit stealth fighter alot more since they can have first look , first shoot advantage

Have I spelt out clear enough that it won’t cost $1.5 trillion to counter the F-35? (no degree needed to understand this fundamental flaw 😉

you have make it clear that you dont actually understand the number.

Because they cannot talk about its performance because key performance parameters were relaxed to make it meet the required criteria, they talk about the situational awareness, rubbish like it can see a rocket flare from 800 miles away, but so can mark 1 eyeballs!

this is actual F-35 KPP

Its low visibility does not make it invisible to IRST and its huge F135 engine can be tracked….

no aircraft is invisible to IRST , however IRST doesnt work well unless the weather condition is good or there is no cloud , for targeting IRST have to rely on LRF which have range of a little over 20-30 km
To detect target at long range ,optical sensor like IRST have to focused ( reduce their FoV ) thus reduce SA significantly
Last but not least, while F-135 is big , it have much higher bypass ratio than Snecma M88 , EJ200 ,or F119 , thus it will likely have lower exhaust temperature , leading to lower IR signature .

All they can do to deflect criticism is to over-sell other aspects ,which in themselves are not directly linked to the actual aircraft, such as EODAS and situation awareness, which when it comes down to it is just the next iteration of sensors (EM, IR and optical and IR) which will also continue to improve over time to reduce any advantage at considerable less cost than the development of the F-35

you have to consider the whole package rather than just the sensor alone by itself
For example :
if the 2 side use the exactly same radar , VLO aircraft will have significant advantage in detection range
if 2 side use the same missiles , VLO will still enjoy higher PK shot since it can get much closer to target
If 2 side use the exactly same jammer ,VLO platform can get much closer since reduce RCS also reduce burn through range
….etc

Without taking drag and weight that is not in F 35 favor you are explaining that it is normal the F 35 do the same than 40 years old design that it supposed to replace ?

and how long do you think Rafale, Typhoon , Gripen can stay at mach 1.6 without external fuel tank? ( since people always want to compare aircraft performance when clean)