I won’t bother to respond to Spey & company as this is the same old BS they have been spewing for years & has been dedunked time & time again.

***

They should be hammering the F-35’s true weakness — it’s short range. No enemy will give the US or its allies several weeks to arrange basing agreements with countries near the theater of operations and several months to deploy a multitude of short-ranged airplanes to those bases. Such bases would surely come under attack by IRBMs and cruise missiles armed with conventional warheads. Similarly, enemy ISR (BAMS equivalent) will force the CVBGs to stand off a thousand miles or more to prevent detection and interdiction by IRBMs and cruise missiles.

So there you have it. Your short-legged F-35s will be based far from the theater. F-35 operators will need massive (non-existent) tanker support to fly missions against targets 1500-2000 miles from base. The long distances to be flown will cause the effective warfighting sortie rate to drop to abysmal numbers. And you will need OCA to defeat the enemy’s DCA sweeps against the tankers in their orbits. Maybe AWACS and jammers to help protect the tankers from extremely long range missiles like the KS-172. And you’ll need an expensive logistics circus to support all those airplanes. And it will all have to fit in the footprint of a few highly congested airfields.

Disingenuous BS. The F-35 is a FIGHTER (a F-16 replacement) not a BOMBER (a F-111 replacement). Every comparably sized 4th (& 4.5) generation fighter REQUIRES 2-3 EXTERNAL TANKS to achive the range/combat radius of the F-35A has with internal fuel. Good God, even the F-35B has an internal fuel capacity similar to the F-15C!

Yes, the USAF needs a new light bomber/heavy strike aircraft with ~1200-1600nm (~1382-1842 miles/2223-2964 km) combat radius & payload of at least four ‘2000 lb’ class munitions/16 ‘250 lb’ SDB (preferably eight ‘2000 lb’ class munitions/32 ‘250 lb’ SDB) but THAT IS NOT WHAT THE F-35 IS INTENDED TO BE!

***

There is not 35C prototype yet (i think), what are they waiting for?

Why the Navy is not testing the 35C? can somebody explain it?

CF-1 is currently in ground tests prior to its first flight (which was previously scheduled for Dec 23, 2009).

***

Swap the British Harriers with the Argentine Skyhawks, Etendards, etc. So now the Argies have got Harriers, armed with AIM-9B, fighting at the limit of their range over enemy naval forces while the British have Skyhawks with AIM-9L. Who “wins”? The British, easily.

In other words, the British winning had basically nothing to do with the Harrier airframe, and everything to do with the tactical situation and much better, all-aspect AAMs.

Exactly.

***

F35C – will it work? As of today, no one knows and it certainly doesn’t look good, with little or no Sun on the horizon. The plane is plagued with structural and aerodynamic troubles through and through, even on conceptual level and the list goes on…

Dream on.

Now, mr.Sprey contributed to two most successful combat aircraft designs in newer history and calling him an idiot is well, an idiotic thing to do in the first place. Mr.Sprey co-designed aircraft which were/are yardsticks in their classes and only an idiot (or a man with agenda) can question his expertize. F16 and A10 didn’t become legends because GD/Fairchild’s PR divisions built up consumer’s hysteria around it, but because they proved themselves, over and over again and still do.
So, all you morons that call mr.Sprey an idiot, better take a good long look in the mirror before doing such a thing again, because his designs won and are still are winning wars. 😉

Nice try. Spey & company are idiots because they are lost in a time warp where technology & air combat has not progressed from the early 1970’s (when the A-X & LWF [which lead to the A-10 & F-16 respectively] were developed). THEY EVEN CRITISIZED THE F-16A WHEN IT GREW IN SIZE/WEIGHT/CAPABILITY OVER THE LWF!

True, one may question his possible ulterior motives, errors or even misconceptions (yes, nobody is perfect), but this needs to be discussed/proved on the argumentation level, not cheap shots aimed at dishonoring his person as such and I must say this thread here started to turn into a pigsty.

Which has already been done.

***

Sprey&Wheeler obviously made the mistake claiming that it was the lift fan who generated the deck heating problem while in reality it seems to be the business end of the engine nozzle.

In reality it is completely meaningless which end causes the trouble, the only question is whether the trouble with F-35B exists or doesn’t.

The F-35B is meant as STOVL not VTOL.

***

I am a serious doubter of the value, capabilities and cost effectiveness of the F-35, believing it has a place in a force together with the F-22, but like the Tornado it seems that LM is developing a Mud Mover that will try to be a fighter, whereas the platform it is replacing in many airforces the F-16 was a fighter that became a mud mover. Yes I know the F-16 has always been multi-role but early on its AtoG was strictly limited.

As for cancelling the C Variant, this is very unlikely to happen as it is core to the USN’s re-equipment plans, and it is really the only game in town.

The F-35 was designed to be 2nd only to the F-22 in air-to-air capability.

Early on the F-16’s air-to-air capability was limited…It was not until the Block 15/25 that that it obtained a BVR capability.

***

Looking through the glasses of operational realities past, and possible future realisitc operational requirements, the B-version is certainly the most useless/luxurious.

Sounds a lot like what was said about the Harrier…it HAS proven its worth just as the F-35B will.

Whether the Navy wants/needs a CTOL-carrier version might be debatable, though I say that their chance to get F/A-XX before 2030 is rather very slim.

THE USN VERY MUCH WANTS THE F-35C!

It’s a can of worms. The B-version compromises the whole airframe, even though it more or less started the programme. But what results doesn’t fit the realistically assumed mission requirements any more, esp now that the F-22 is dead.

BS. THE F-35B (USMC Harrier replacement) DID NOT START THE PROGRAM! The ‘JSF’ is the COMBINATION of a USAF F-16 replacement program, a USN/USMC F/A-18C/D replacement program & a USMC Harrier replacement program into a single program intended to save developement costs vs the THREE SEPARATE PROGRAMS through a ‘common’ design. THe ‘death’ of the F-22 has not changed ANY F-35 (A, B or C) mission requirements.

If people think it’s not an option to give LMCO two/three more years to re-design the F-35 (and fill any emerging gaps with SHornets), the C-version is the only one I wouldn’t cancel. Rather I would standardize on it, but also build a twin-seater version. I think in the light of the undoubtly comming (like it or not) drastic reduction in the U.S. manned tactical aircraft inventory that would be the only responsible move.

There is no reason to redesign the F-35 and there are reason why ther are A B & C varients. If a single standardized design met the USAF F-16 replacement, the USN/USMC F/A-18C/D replacement program & the USMC Harrier replacement requirement the F-35 would have been a single standardized design.

And regarding the potential European customers of the B-version: Whatever they plan, for their kind of adventures a (moderized) Harrier is more than enough.

Then why are they chosing to procure the F-35B instead of a (moderized) Harrier?

1. That SoD is actually much smarter than you
2. He has all actual data at hand while you only have fanboy guesswork
3. He has a dozen of advisors, each one much smarter and much better informed than you.

Dream on.

If these people decide to cut the fighters that are no needed or cannot be afforded, then it is utterly unimportant what you think.

But none of those are reasons why the F-22 was cut.

Oh, sure they wouldn’t have because they had so many alternatives.. :rolleyes:

They did. INCLUDING demanding LM to get the F-22 right before accepting it if it wasn’t.

In real chaotic combat environment with multiple emitters it is practically unavoidable that he places the belly of his aircraft directly at an illuminator, sooner or later. Especially if the SAM crews are smart, do not emit constantly and exchange information via datalinks.

If said illuminator isn’t illumitating AT THE EXACT FRACTION OF A SECOND an F-22’s belly is POINTED DIRECTLY AT IT, the F-22 could point its belly at it al long as it is able to stay in the air & it would not matter.

ALR-94…

Last time I have checked F-35 was OVER budget..

Does not change the fact that the ACTUAL flyaway/production cost of the F-35 is tracking below projections/expectations. I know you don’t like it but development (where cost overruns have occured) & procurement costs (where costs are tracking below projections/expectations) are separate.

Surely it was measured but you don’t have a clue about the results.

Yes I do. So do you. You just don’t like the results.

I just hope you don’t mean these marble claims.. 😎

Hope all you want, it won’t change the reality.

My friend has a friend who has a brother who has seen Yeti sitting in PAK-FA..:rolleyes: Hard data or nothing..

Thanks for once again so clearly demonstating your ignorance/disingenuousness.

USAF/DOD are not credible source. I have already demonstrated how easily these claims can be adjusted to fit any agenda.

BS. The USAF/DOD & LM are the only credible sources as it pertains to the F-22’s stealth characteristics (& other such classified information).

You have done no such thing.

All I need to see is accurate measured RCS data from all angles, I will then make my own decision about which one is “more stealthy”.

You will likely never see such classified data.

The problem is basically the facts how stealth really works, and the myth of how stealth “should” work.

No, the PROBLEM is how stealth really works & how people who don’t understand how it works THINK it works (& how they THINK they know better than the people who actually do know).

I’m not claiming RCS reduction is not important, but when one state that is not the invisible thing that will decrease every system’s performance, and that actually it needs support to make it work well, then the discussion turns into a river of tears, about how biased the heretic is…

Stealth doesn’t need support to work well.

***

Then why the 22 is trying too hard to show these routines as well?

To demonstrate its flight control properties.

Why the USAF selected the more maneuverable 22 over the more stealthier 23?

Because it was seen as the more mature, lest risky/costly of the two.

Why the most stealthier aircraft (on IR, radar, etc), the 117 was phased out?

The F-117 ISN’T the ‘most stealthier aircraft’. And it was phased out of service for the same reason the F-14 was – it was deemed too expensive to operate/maintain.

Why the stealth factor was not tested neither in the ATF or JSF flying models?

Because it was known that changes would be made from demonstrator/prototype to production/service airframes & such testing is not cheap. IT WAS DONE ON PRODUCTION/SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE AIRFRAMES! And verified to exceed requirements/expectations.

These cool airshow routines are more important, actually

Only in your alternate reality.

***

Complete nonsense. F-22’s RCS is not constant and features completely different values at various angles. There might be one or few angles at which the RCS equals a metal marble, that is all. By far not enough to say “it’s RCS is equivalent to a metal marble”.

Nobody is saying the F-22’s RCS is the same from all aspects. All aspect stealth simply means it is ‘stealthy’ (much reduced RCS most particularly) from all aspects.

F-35 is nowhere near being “much cheaper” than F-22. Besides that, its RCS reduction techniques are one generation newer and thus more advanced than those used on the Raptor. LM describe them as 3rd Gen stealth compared to 2nd gen of the F-22.

Not yet, but the cost of the F-35 is going down significantly with each & every production lot. By the time the F-35 reached full rate production it will most likely cost less than half what the last 60 ‘MYP’ F-22s cost (yes we all know we procured 4 more after that). And the F-35’s operational costs will be MUCH lower than the F-22’s…

What does it mean “twice the stealth”? Exactly what definition it follows? Are you comparing absolute RCS values or something like “RCS reduction coefficient?

I think they mean that the F-35’s frontal aspect RCS is ~1/2 that of the F-117’s.

It’s not about what they know but what they tell you.

I personally prefer unbiased sources.. USAF is NOT an unbiased source when it comes to F-22. Neither is LM.

I prefer sources which have a clue what they are talking about. When it comes to the F-22 & the F-35 the USAF/DOD & LM are the only credible sources.

***

That information was/is not a quote from a web page, nor a widely promoted document, no marketing garbage there.

It was a scientific (well, semi-scientific) paper, the russian reaction over the stealth issue tell us more about the effectiveness of the technology than the marketing done by LM/Northtop

Except that they don’t have accurate enough data to make such determinations – they are simply guessing where as the USAF/DOD & LN/Northtop have the ACTUAL DETAILED DATA & have actually measured the RCS of the actual airframes to veryfy the data is accurate.

***

Well considering that the F-16’s RCS is ~1m2, do you honestly believe that the F-22 is only .5m2, yet has the sorts of exchange ratios in exercises that it has achieved. Not even Carlo Kopp makes such outlandish claims.

More precisely the frontal aspect RCS of later block F-16Cs (with some degree of reduced RCS vs earlier blocks) is said to be ~1.2m2.

I seriously doubt that anyone outside the USAF/DOD & LM have sufficient data to accurately determine the F-22’s RCS from any aspects (much less from all aspects) so their “0.5m2 overall” simply a guess. Except for some very small (aspect-wise) RCS ‘peaks’ which the F-22 knows EXACTLY WHERE THEY POINT & HOW ‘BIG’ THEY ARE it is unlikley the F-22’s highest RCS from any aspect is 0.5m2.

***

strange thing… you quote that USAF in trying to get more money for the F-22 claims its RCM is that of a metal marble.

No, they are saying the the F-22’s frontal aspect RCS is roughly equal in size to that of a marble. It is assumed they they mean a ‘common sized’ marble for which the most common size is 9/16″-5/8″ which mathematically works out to a circular area of 0.000160-0.000198 sq m.

You never wondered how “the best fighter bar none with 100+ victories against zero losses” (the F-15) became overnight a “second rate fighter” compared to international competition? Strangely, that fact “appeared” about at the time of F-22 acquisition discussions, and was fueled by the USAF… you even got “terrible results” in a couple exercises with india, for example… Strange coincidence, isn’t it?

It did not happen overnight. People a lot smarter than you had forseen it happening eventually & thus the F-22.

Maybe I’m paranoid, but my bet is that the F-15 did not become a pile of crap overnight just as the F-22s RCS is probably much higher than “a metal marble” under almost all aspects of the aircraft. To get to that conclusion, one can just follow an advice given to me by a friend who sells kitchens:

“when a seller tells you something, take it with a ton of salt”.. and he knows what he’s talking about… 😀

Nobody is saying the F-15 has become a pile of crap (overnight or otherwise) just that is has lost its advantage over likely threats. The F-22 is meant to regain & maintain that advantage for decades to come.

***

The F-117 was phased out because it was only stealthy and lacked speed, maneuvarability and sensors.

No, the F-117 was phased out of service for the same reason the F-14 was – it was deemed too expensive to operate/maintain.

F-15 and F-16 on the other hand that has speed, maneuverability and sensors but no stealth was kept and will be flying for a long time. What does that say about the value of stealth?

It says nothing about stealth & but rather says somehting about the cost to operate/maintain the F-117.

Also notice that the ancient B-52 and not so new B-1 is kept even though it has no stealth and only 21 stealthy B-2 has been procured. The stealthy A-12 was canceled and instead Superhornet with RCS reduction was procured. Only 187 F-22 has been ordered and there will be no more.

Notice how we only got 21 B-2s out of an original requirement for 132. :rolleyes:

The A-12 was cancelled due to program mismanagement.

We have ordered only 187 F-22s because Gates is a complete moron.

So far USA has been very talkative on stealth but not prepared to put their money where their mouth is. It will not surprise me if JSF production will be cut short and the large numbers advertised turns out to be much less just like every stealt aircraft project before.

No, the so-called “peace dividend” from the end of the Cold War has resulted in MAJOR cuts in defense spending so the US military has not been given the money to procure what it needs to recapitalize its (basically) 1980’s (& older) forces. If given the money to do so the USAF/DOD WOULD have procured more B-2s & F-22s AND likely reorganized the A-12 program rather than being forced to accept the low cost/risk Super Hornet.

***

Pretty well all 5th gen stealth Aircraft will soon be useless,
with there big weakpoint of noise being there downfall.

acoustic detectors are used today on the battle fields to detect sniper fire and other battle noise, the systems can detect a sniper fire round from a distance even tell you what type of weapon used.

locate the area it was fired from the noise and shockwave.

as current stealth are very loud they will be easy pickings when theses acoustic systems if not allready are perfected to counter Aircraft.
as each type as its own sound pattern picking up a F22 over a F16 will be easy.

Sonar noise sensor heads on weapons have been used for years, .
same will be made for Acoustic air to air or ground to air systems.

and will be hard to defeat once its locked onto the noise pattern.
chaff and flares will be useless.

LOL…

“Acoustic detectors” only give you direction (& only over comparatively short distances) & sound travels too slowy to be able to be used to target a fast moving (near supersonic or even mid-high supersonic) aircraft at high altiudes. Ever hear a commercial airliner & look up to see where it is only to either not find it at all or that it is not at all where the sound came from? AND THAT IS FROM AN AIRCRAFT THAT IS BASICALLY WVR!

***

I personally feel that the biggest drawback of stealth is the effort required for maintaining the RCS on the desired levels. That was mainly the reason why F-117s were withdrawn – they all required grotesque amount of manhours of maintenance prior to each flight.

I also think that this is the reason why the F-35 is said to be much less stealthy than F-22 despite being newer and featuring more advanced RCS reduction techniques – looks like real operational service puts certain limits into RCS values that can be achievable/maintainable in the long term. F-22 can indeed be capable of having ca 0.0002 sqm frontal-aspect ratio RCS but if that requires regrinding each rivet and refilling the whole aircraft ‘s skin with putty, then it probably does not make much sense…

Exactly. See stealth technology is advancing…

Yes, but only to the point which could be achieved using simple and cheap techniques like RAM or inlet blockers.

And just look at how much of a RCS reduction was able to achieved with such ‘simple and cheap techniques’…

Well, it is simple. If there was a reason to have bombers and if stealth was the golden bullet, then the logical outcome would have been to have stealth bombers and retire everything else. Why didn’t that happen?

As already explained, lack of money to do so. And in case you hadn’t noticed pretty much every future combat aircraft currently known/projected utilizes stealth to a significant degree.

***

I’ll probably going to get flamed for this, but I’m going to give it a shot anyway, stealth means absolutely nothing. RCS reduction in a strike aircraft simply means that IADS will become more saturated and high value targets will be blanketed, and even if you manage to get all aircraft emmisions (Radar, heat, sound et al) down to a minimum, you can still be dropped by the modernised version of an old classic, an airbursting flak curtain.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You do not have to fly directly over your intended target to attack it…

as for air to air, this myth of the VLO aircraft knocking off gen 4s from a hundred miles out is just that, a myth, a Raptor say, operation early day in hostile airspace is still going to have to close the distance to increase the kill probability for the missile as even with ripple fire engaging at max range is a hiding to nothing, so it comes down to who has the missile with the largest no escape envelope, the best seeker and the suite of tools to get first shot and while this may be the VLO aircraft, it is not a certainty, especially if it is operating against a first world integrated airborne early warning fleet and gen 4.5 aircraft, and as for operating against a modern integrated naval air defence system, forget it.

Where has anybody said “VLO aircraft knocking off gen 4s from a hundred miles out”? :rolleyes: The fact is the range of the AMRAAM is greater than the range at which current fighter radars are capable of targeting the F-22. Thus the F-22 IS capable of engaging threat aircraft at ‘stand-off/safe’ range (which is still typically <100km/50nm rather than YOUR mythical ‘hundred miles’).

Oh, and the F117 did posess a greater degree of all aspect steath than the F-22, not to mention a far smaller heat sig, however I have no doubt that the F-22 will have it beat from some angles, and of course would fly rings around it

You WISH you knew enough about the stealth characteristics of the F-22 & F-117 to make such an assessment.

***

That is one of the most common fanboy misconceptions I get to see – just because the F-22 is newer, it is automatically assumed that its RCS must be lower than the one of the F-117.

Yeah right. :rolleyes: Just ignor that the USAF/DOD SAY THAT THE F-22 is stealthier than the F-117. Oh yeah & I am sure NOTHING designed today is superior to anything designed decades ago – new computers, TVs, automobiles, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera aren’t any better than those from decades ago…

In reality, the problem with insufficient computing power back in late 70s did not lead to insufficient stealth characteristics rather than to necessity of trade-offs between stealth and flight performance. The F-22 is not curved because today’s computers are so magical that they can create smooth surface which still does not reflect anything back – it is curved because it needs to have good flight performance..

:rolleyes: It is ‘curved’ because technology & computing power had advanced to the point that stealthy curved surfaces could be modeled & their RCS acurately predicted. Not ot mention advances in materials…

F-117 with its diamond shape features a small number of discrete angles with arguably very high return signal concentrations and most of the angles with very low return signal. OTOH, F-22 with its curved shape always has some surface perpendicular towards the emitter, therefore its RCS layout would be dramatically different – fewer discrete peaks with arguably lower amplitude but higher overall RCS level over the whole spectrum. That would result in completely different tactical approach when flying these two aircraft.

I can agree if someone says that F-22 has reduced return signal amplitudes at its highest peaks compared to the highest peaks of the F-117. I can also agree that F-22 has better materials which help reduce its RCS furthermore. I also agree than their stealth characteristics are completely different and not directly comparable.. But that does not make the F-22 stealthier than F-117.. I do not even mention those funny claims about difference worth several magnitudes because they are only taken out of the context, completely obliterating the fact that from most angles the F-117 would very likely be less radar-visible than F-22.

YES IT DOES MAKE THE F-22 STEALTHIER THAN THE F-1117!

Perhaps i’m colorblind but what appear to me as dark blue color for current military spending and cost of past wars says ~45% of total tax.

edited, tnx Rahul

You are not color blind, you are simply looking at a graphic that is total BS.

Defense spending as a % of total government outlays
from 2009 Federal Budget Historical Tables
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 3.1—OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1940–2013
1945: 89.5%
1946: 77.3%
1947: 37.1%
1948: 30.6%
1949: 33.9%

1950: 32.2%
1951: 51.8%
1952: 68.1%
1953: 69.4%
1954: 69.5%
1955: 62.4%
1956: 60.2%
1957: 59.3%
1958: 56.8%
1959: 53.2%

1960: 52.2%
1961: 80.8%
1962: 49.0%
1963: 48.0%
1964: 46.2%
1965: 42.8%
1966: 43.2%
1967: 45.4%
1968: 46.0%
1969: 44.9%

1970: 41.8%
1971: 37.5%
1972: 34.3%
1973: 31.2%
1974: 29.5%
1975: 26.0%
1976: 24.1%
1977: 23.8%
1978: 22.8%
1979: 23.1%

1980: 22.7%
1981: 23.2%
1982: 24.8%
1983: 26.0%
1984: 26.7%
1985: 26.7%
1986: 27.6%
1987: 28.1%
1988: 27.3%
1989: 26.5%

1990: 23.9%
1991: 20.6%
1992: 21.6%
1993: 20.7%
1994: 19.3%
1995: 17.9%
1996: 17.0%
1997: 16.9%
1998: 16.2%
1999: 16.1%

2000: 16.5%
2001: 16.4%
2002: 17.3%
2003: 18.7%
2004: 19.9%
2005: 20.0%
2006: 19.7%
2007: 20.2%
2008: 20.7%
2009: 21.7%

Another good table…
Table 4.1—OUTLAYS BY AGENCY: 1962–2013
Health and Human Services began outspending defense in 1994
Treasury began outspending defense in 1991
Social Security Administration (Off-budget) began outspending defense in 1991

That’s right, beginning in 1994 defense was the 4th largest outlay.

***

80% of USA GDP are so called “services”, and only 20% – industry or other real goods. Whereas military spendings at large part requires industrial goods, food, oil or other “real” goods.

Basically, that means what every GDP percent of military spendings draw much more economical strain (for USA) than for example the same GDP percent for education spendings. USA economic (out of other devoloped countries) have about lowest industrial share in GDP.

In short – look at USA debt. As i said, USA going toward bancruptcy VERY fast. And new F-22 or steath bomber will not help here, quite contrary.

P.S. 45% of taxes going military – bad, bad, bad no matter what GDP share.

You have it backwards. Military spending CREATES industrial goods, food, oil or other “real” goods which in turns creates government revenue through taxes on said goods.

***

Never mind that it makes little sense to look at GDP when trying to find out what’s bankrupting a government. Hint: The GDP isn’t the US government’s annual income.

Noboby is saying that you will find what is bankrupting a nation by looking at its GDP. For THAT you simply look at government outlays vs governement revenues…

However, GDP is a representation of a nation’s economic activity/strength which is THE source of government revenue. And as a % of government revenue & outlays, defense spending is BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES.

To tell the truth, i suspect Russia successfully trying to pull the same trick with US as US with SOI and USSR earlier.

USA going fast toward bankruptcy. Military spendings are already extraordinary and unsustainable.

Anyone thinking Obama cancels new defense programs like ABM, F-22 or new stealth bomber just cuz “flowers and fuzzy bunnies out of his @rse to keep Putin happy” – just deludes itself.

If US lose/will lose its influence and military might – believe me, it will be NOT because of canceled ABM or stealth bomber. It will be because of “canceled” economic. Just as with USSR…

Anyone suggesting putting MORE stress on it and increase defense spendings – draw the end of USA global empire nearer.

BS. US military spending is ONLY ~3% (~4% INCLUDING WOT spending – that’s right the US is bassicly devoting a wopping ~1% of GDP above ‘base’ defense spending to fight the WOT) of GDP. What IS moving the US fast toward bankruptcy is all this BS entitlement spending.

The F22s look cool with those tanks :). I wonder if they dogfight with them.

Yes to both comments.

I don’t know what so hard to understand, the US has been using terms with the same name and different meanings from the rest of the world for years. examples are:-

Gallon. with the US version being smaller.
Pint. with the US being smaller
Jumper. US its a dress – UK its a woolly top.
Suspenders. US there for trousers -UK there for holding up stockings, Pwoer!

and probably the best example
Beer. with the European version being a cool pleasant drink and the US liquid is something you wouldn’t wash your dog in..

So as long as you know there are two versions of Supercruise then the world can keep revolving.

Bingo.

Remember one is >M1 without reheat.
The other is a variable marketing term that is changed on average every 3 years.

To stop this terrible Supercruise arguement you just have to ask which one your talking about “Supercruise” or “LockheedSuperCruiseMartin”.

Cheers

No, one is a technical term that prior to being used by the USAF/DOD & LM to define/describe a revolutionary & unique requirement/capability of the ATF/F-22 was rarely ever used & all but unknown to all but a relative few. The other is a term used by the USAF/DOD & LM to define/describe a revolutionary & unique requirement/capability of the ATF/F-22 (& HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE).

***

Jw

If we are discussing the “LockheedSuperCruiseMartin” we have also to ask the “Vintage year”, if its a 1998, thats one thing, or something like a 2005 “LSCM Vintage”. Two very diferent Vintages…

No USAF/DOD & LM & IT HAS NOT CHANGED!

***

Yawn. GENERAL TERM of supercruise is >Mach 1.0 and I don’t care rat’s fart about what USAF/DOD/LM use.. Comprende?

What YOU fail to comprehend is YOU not caring does not change the reality that when the USAF/DOD & LM use the term supercruise they mean >Mach 1.5.

I have already answered to this nonsense, no need to repeat myself.

It is not nonsense, it is fact.

It ain’t a big deal even now. The whole supercruise thing is only highlighted due to lack of better arguments for spending $300+mil on a stupid fighter.

They are simple playing “me too”. Since the term supercruise as used by the USAF/DOD & LM IS A BIG DEAL they want ignorant fools to believe they have similar capability when they don’t.

And again, thanks for so clearly demonstaring your ignorance/disingenuousness.

***

Sintra – The impression I’m getting is that “Supercruise” is a constant but the “LockheedSuperCruiseMartin” is a variable so you can plug any figure in there you like to get the marketing/fanboy result you want.

Remember complex numbers is all fun and games till someone loses an i.:D

Merry Christmas to All

No USAF/DOD & LM & IT HAS NOT CHANGED!

I won’t get into that fight because my skills are too limited in that area, but on the Mirage 2000 and Rafale, in case of emergncy, the limit is 13g IIRC, perhaps that’s why they choose that 185% instead of 150%.

The Mirage 2000 is a 9 g rated (normal FCS limit) fighter just like others. The ‘difference’ (from US standard for example) is that France/Dassault openly takes advatage of the 150% safety margin & have an ‘overload’ FCS mode (I am sure our French speaking members can site the actual French term) which allows 11 g. Russia is also known for allowing/utilizing ‘overload’. And guess what 9 g rated + 50% safety factor = 13.5 g break point (actually not ALL stresses are linear with g but lets try & keep it simple). I have NO DOUBT that the Rafale is exactly the same in this reguard (aka nothing out of the ordinary just the ignorant/disingenuous presenting it that way).

185% WAS NOT CHOSEN! IT IS WHERE THE RAFALE AIRFRAME ULTIMATELY BROKE! And as I posted before, actual break points well above the 150% MINIMUM safety margin is not out of the ordinary.