If we was to take the words of pilots and aerodynamic engineers then F-35 can cruise at mach 1.2 , it just need the afterburner to go throught the transonic area first
any jet will have significantly less range when fly supersonic , even the one like f-22 or pak-fa

Question about F-35 supercruise is IMHO one of such ones in which there is a divide between sought of a given performance just to appease customer and its practical utility.
What is the tactical advantage that F-35 would achieve supercruising at 1.2 for roughtly 120km wasting an huge quantity of fuel instead of a normal higly subsonic one + a supersonic dash when needed?

It is not the F-22 that would reach throught it a speed superior to the maximum one many fighters have at full AB.
Neither is the MiG-31 that, although not having it, still goes farther and faster with AB on on than the same Raptor supercruising.
Below certain speed and certain range the capacity of remaining supersonic without using AB (above all if you still need it to get there) is just something that just look fancy on brochures (and discussion forums).

I think everyone here would appreciate this : estimate performance of US aircraft :

Appreciate a lot.
A little surprised about the F-16C not being able to reach 9G (although in corner V it show all its qualities).
In every case it show how apparently similar absolute numbers hide very different handling characteristics.

Well, not much transparentcy in the PakFa program wouldn’t you say.

Anyway, when the oxygen jab of F-22 came up, it is also reported problems with the F-18 or was it SH oxygen feed..

If my memory serves me right, there was a spanking new OBOGS for PakFa a year ago..?
Wonder if other units like Flanker has faced similar problems with oxygen filters? I think Flankers use onboard oxygen tanks which has to be replaced regulary?

I was not referring to you dear Havarla but to the same ones you were responding with your post.

So I was asking him/her not to brag about something until it is done already: PAK-Fa has just had its fair dose of mishaps during its own development , so better wait a little more before selling the bear’s skin (no pun intended, russian friends).

wow ! really !
why would US deny the ally that would be at the very front ability to defend ?

Maybe for the same reasons they denied permission to their oldest Predator and Reaper customer to install weapon on them until few months ago?

* * * W A R N I N G * * *

PAK-FA pictures haven’t been posted in quite some time.

This thread risks being quite dull without pictures of PAK-FA

* * * W A R N I N G * * *

LOL MadRat, all this , actually overstretched, discussion sprang out by a picture of a PAK-FA carring OFAB bombs, so no, it’s not fault of lack of imagines.

And you complain about forum posters being smarter than Sukhoi… So what’s the purpose of integrating/test flying dumb bombs on a 5th generation high performance fighter aircraft? Participating in a fun exercise called Avia Darts? What’s the actual operational benefit of it? And on top of that who says Sukhoi is doing it on their own? Industry provides solutions to the problems raised by the prospective customer(s). Sukhoi does what’s contracted for, it’s certainly a RuAF requirement for whatever reason. It’s about as rational as buying a 500.000$ Ferrari living in the wilderness with no streets around.

If your definition of rational is spending 40000$ for delivering a 17kg TNT charge and spending a further 200k bucks to made it able to nail a moving pick-up please go ahead.

Russian prefer to spend their money into the targeting system aboard of their planes instead than in the ammo itself, precision is just slightly worse but the cost is way inferior. Note that there is nothing special in it as also US have similar targeting systems: on A-10C and AC-130 , obviously

Said so Russians (and Iraqi and Syrians also), let’s repeat it the N time, use a lot of guided weapons the same as you can verify just looking the Syrian campaign thread: KAB-500s, Kh-25 and 29 and obviously a ****load of AT-6 and 9 from helicopters (but also in this case Mi-24P with S-8 and 30mm gun are still the most widely used).

What is the OFAB 270?
I have not heard of this before.

OFAB 250-270 to be 100% correct.
Not two different items but the extended name of the bomb in picture.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246420[/ATTACH]

Nothing like a gross weight clearance or specifics of the envelope have been released (other than corner speed for 240-3)

The first mention of the 9g maneuvering requirement with full fuel once air to ground weapons expended is in the oft mentioned Bowman paper.
Second is from http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2012/november%202012/1112fighter.aspx
There are other documents but these two come to mind.

Of all requirements making no sense at all, this beat everything IMHO…
How is possible that a plane in a normal combat environment has still full fuel after it has dropped its own payload :confused:
It can be possible just in case it make aereo refuel in the way back home but in this case it would be in a quite safe position in itself.
For the rest I repeat my pledge: may the critics list almost a pros of F-35 and the enthusiast almost a defect of it, please?
Just to see if they have some self-judgement left or are just playing a part…

SDeems me quite absurd. In a real mission even if a plane start with full fuel it will consume a consistent part of it BEFORE to even come close to drop the payload