No, what you and pfcem are trying to say is that Dassault wouldn’t have known in advance the structural limits of the wing. That’s basically calling them incompetent fools.

I am saying no such thing. What I AM saying is that all aircraft are designed/built with a safety margin & that 150% of anticipated stresses is pretty much a standard requirement that MUST BE MET & that is it NOT uncommon for airframes to exceed that requirement by a significant margin.

If Dassault designed their wing for 150% and it broke at 185%, heads would roll in the engineering department. This was a deliberate decision to either increase the airframe life, allow for higher g-load limits (anticipating new flightsuit developments) or increase MTOW/payload – or a combination of all three.

150% is ‘just’ a standard safety margin. It is NOT uncommon for airframes to exceed that requirement by a significant margin (for various reasons). Of course being that the Rafale airframe broke at 185% is a result of it being designed/built with the intent of exceeding the 150% standard safety margin (that or someone messed up along the line & the airframe ended up being over designed &/or built as a result).

THE problem is the BS assumption that the Rafale is the only modern fighter that exceeds the 150% standard safety margin. Even worse the BS that only the Rafale is able to pull 11 g. ANY 9 g RATED FIGHTER IS STRUCTURALLY CAPABLE OF PULLING 11 g!

LM cannot redefine a technical term just because their PR dept sees fit.

1) Not LM. The USAF/DOD & LM.

2) They did not redefine the TECHNICAL TERM, they chose to use a rarely ever used & all but unknown to all but a relative few TECHNICAL TERM to define/describe a requirement/capability of the AFT/F-22.

Back in 1998 even LM quoted Supercruise as ability to achieve and maintain supersonic speeds for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners in their Code One, their latter pathetic attempts to corner out competition leave me completely unimpressed.

No, in a single article in Code One magazine in 1998 a single author…

That vs HUNDREDS of USAF/DOD/LM documents/official press releases and other official & unofficial comments before & since. :rolleyes:

***

LM has just changed the definition after it became clear that other types would fit the definition as well. And supercruise = supersonic cruise, it’s an appreviation.

No, the USAF/DOD & LM began using >Mach 1.5, THEN others decided they wanted to play “me too” & beagn to claim their aircraft could cruise at >Mach 1.0 without afterburner (it was not a requirement of their aircraft nor was it an ability they had previously touted).

There, corrected that for ya..

No, it was correct as I posted it.

PURPLE TEXT IS COPY & PASTE FROM OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

so we have a typhoon slapping a f-22, a f-22 slapping a rafale and a rafale slapping a typhoon

No, we have an unsupported made up story (that has been told & retold over & over & over without one once of proof) of a Typhoon slapping a F-22…

Turkey Orders 30 F-16C Block 50s etc. for $2.9B

Turkey isn’t an ‘Arab country’ but THIS is 30 more F-16s for the Middle East.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/turkey-orders-30-f16c-block-50s-et-al-for-29b-02671/

On Sept 28/06, the US DSCA (Defense Security Cooperation Agency) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Turkey of 30 more F-16C Block 50 aircraft, as well as associated equipment and services. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $2.9 billion. This sale is in addition to Turkey’s $1.1 billion upgrade program for its existing F-16 fleet, which aims to bring all of its aircraft to a common configuration. More than 200 F-16 aircraft currently make up the backbone of Turkey’s current fighter fleet, and this marks the 52nd follow-on buy of F-16s by 14 repeat customers. Over 4,300 F-16s have been delivered to 24 nations. The final Turkish F-16 under this contract will be delivered in 2013.

I believe the Rafale has a combat radius of more than 1000nm (but I don’t know how much more?)

Air-to-Air mission with FOUR EXTERNAL TANKS.

***

You are correct, with 3 X 2.000 l tanks, 4 AAMs and two 1.300 kg Scalps/Storm Shadows at M 0.83 cruising speed it is slighly slower than the M 0.95 of F-35 for a much longer range.

Only if you include the range of the Scalps/Storm Shadows…

BTW an issue NEVER brought forward by the F-35 supporters; how on hearth will L-M make it turn at more than 5 g with an A2G load composed of 500/1.000 lb bombs?

Pylons aren’t built in Klingon steel.

So let’s wait and see when all the operational limits are known where it exactly falls, for the time being, its performances are visibly inferior to the European fighters in the A2A role, whatever the US guys read about F-16 and F-15, it doesn’t apply to these, they are not of the same generation.

LOL

***

First of all it would also apply to F-22, then a Mirage 2000 already can spank F-15/F-16.

What are you smoking?

Dismissing what you don’t have with F-35 is yet another way to rewrite history, but infortunately it is the opposite of what every F-22 pilots are saying about kinetic energy.

I guess when it comes to performances the real step backward was made by L-M when they designed the F-35 but it is to be expected because after all it IS a strike fighter as opposed to an air superiority fighter optimised for the role.

Do you even read what you post to see if it make ANY sense whatsoever?

You tried to imply it when mentioning US fighters and European fighters requierements.

I did no such thing.

That’s NOT 25.000 ft and a DASH speed of 1.6 as opposed to LWF turning speeds which were in a bracked going 0.4 Mach higher than what you write…

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Is that a FACT? (Again?) 😀

Yes.

WVR superiority fighter yes.

Sorry but there is NO WAY that a WVR only fighter is an air-superiority fighter.

They BOTH were; the famous USAF Hi-Lo couple.

Nope. The F-15 (hi) was the air-superiority fighter, the F-16 (lo) was a WVR only fighter.

LWF was a programe with stringent requierements for performances adapted to the Air Superiority role, these requierements are NOT those of F-35 which instead is optimised for the Strike role. io.e lower ceilling and subsonic cruise.

Dream on. The LWF was NOT intended for air-superiority & even the Block 1 F-16A was MUCH more than the LWF was intended to be.

Which resulted into a M 2.0 capable fighter thanks to the combination of requiered Mach and ceilling.

F-35 is NOT requiered to have the same performances at the same ceiling so the M 1.6 is perfectly consistant with its designed role, whatever way you try to spin it.

Err, the LWF was only a design study which was used as the starting point for the ACF (which the F-16 became).

The F-35 IS required to have similar performance.

YOU are the one spinning.

In the A2A role.

In EVERY ROLE & then some. But yes, the air-to-air role as well. Thanks for FINALLY recognizing that. 🙂

You repeat yourself and got it WRONG. TWICE.

The truth hurts, yes and it is WHY you try to rewrite evey stament, document and historical fact to fit your stories of a design which is not what you try to make up it is..

No YOU are wrong as has already been demonstrated.

No it is NOT, it is a designed Maximum as opposed as a known performance it means that they expect it to reach this designed Max speed, not that it is THE requiered specs which was 0.1 M lower btw.

I know the truth hurts but the text in purple is a DIRECT QUOTE of the requirement. Sorry but a ‘designed Max speed’ of Mach 1.6 is inconsistent to the requirement. It is ALSO inconsistent with demonstrating Mach 1.6+ “with a full internal load”…

Well if you comprehended the slightest what DASH means then you wouldn’t spend so many time trying to demonstrate whatever you try to demonstrate.

DASH is the SPEED above which it wont go for numerous reasons, design, lifespan and other, no matter the internal load.

End of debate.

“subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18“
Demonstrate Mach 1.6+ “with a full internal load”.

Mach 1.6 is a MINIMUM, not a maximum.

SO, READ again, and comprehend what Operational datas are, what they are there for because if it was for you managing the A-F, these aircrafts would have a 5 years service life, a 500% increased operational cost and would be 1000% less reliable.

Length 51.5 ft
Height 14.2 ft
Wingspan 35 ft
Wing area 460 sq ft
Horizontal tail span 23 ft
Weight empty 29,300 lb
Maximum weight 70,000 lb class
Internal fuel 18,000 + lbs
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
Range ~1.200 n. mi
Combat radius 610 n. mi
Power plant One P&W F135 or GE F136
Engine thrust 40,000 lb (with after burner)
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html

Again, already demonstrated to be incorrect ‘data’ contradicted by official program documents.

***

What you guys are conveniently overlooking is the real empty weight of the aircraft and the fact that it goes up with systems integration and redesigns.

No we are not.

We are ALSO not confusing (or deliberately misquoting) PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION WEIGHT with/as POST WEIGHT REDUCTION (or production/service aircraft) weight.

I didn’t miss anything; i stick to what is officialy posted for some very good reasons, the first one is that these figures are also designed goals as for the finished product with all systems integrated, what they do now with the airframe is only to try to make it happen because just in case YOU missed it, the redesign of some structure and systems cost weight.

No you don’t you DELIBERATLY ignor what is officially posted AND DELIBERATELY misquote ‘data’ which has been shown to be inaccurate.

Even though you continue to ingor it, AA-1 ACTUALLY WEIGHT is slightly BELOW its target weight…

NO. You cut the nonsense trying to make of F-35 A2A mission its primary, it is OBVIOUS that it is NOT and that if it had been, its design would be drastically different.

Good God man. NOBODY is trying to make of F-35 A2A mission its primary. It is a MULTI-ROLE fighter.

You might not comprehend what aircraft design points are, what design features are and what requierements are but it is no reason to pretend that they do not results in a given set of performances.

When you know a lot more about it, come back and try again, i’m sure your PoV will a little different by then.

It is YOU who does not comprehend.

***

obligatory,

Don’t be a fool. Of course the F-22 is in a leage all its own. But it is only because of how good the F-35 is (& the result of some thinking that with it the F-22 is frivolous) that statements of its superiority EVEN OVER THE F-35 were made.

Of course the F-35 is not on par with the F-22. That DOES NOT mean that it is not better than everything other than the though.

So who wants to use the F35 as a countries primary air defender now?

Everyone who realized that they will never get the F-22.

***

Otherwise said, how we see twisted truth and facts in a permanenty basis in order to make of F-35 what it is not designed to be. :diablo:

And we see that it is people like YOU who are twisting &/or misrepresenting the facts in order to TRY to make the F-35 AND what it was designed to be something other than reality.

When someone said it was a stealth, supersonic A7, the F-35 fans were all shocked just forgeting that the A7 was the most advanced striker of its time which is what F-35 is designed to be.

While I can not speek for everyone, I knew full well what the A-7 was decades ago & have never forgotten. I ALSO know full well that those who sa the F-35 is a stealth, supersonic A-7 are doing so in a derogatory way to deliberately disreguard/misrepresent the F-35’s flight performance & capabilities as a FIGHTER.

The F-35A was designed to replace the F-16. To not only be a highly capable striker but a highly capable (2nd only to the F-22) FIGHTER as well.

So here go, we have guys like Pierre Sprey who suddently are senile and doesn’t know what they are talking about and Boyds energy theories are gone down the gutter not applying anymore (how grateful is that to the guys who ave the US the F-16), Maximum designed Mach, Operational cellings and other datas for predicted performances sudently becomes minimas etc.

Err no, here we have technology & air combat having progressed beyond the theories of the 1970’s but Sprey & Boyd still living in the 1970’s. Pilots who have ACTUALLY FLOWN the F-35 confirm that a COMBAT LOADED F-35’s flight performance is (except for top speed) similar to a CLEAN F-16C Block 50’s.

Maximum designed Mach, Operational cellings and other datas are still what they have always been. But it is disingenuous ingoranuses like you who are deliberately misrepresenting program MINIMUM performance goals as design maximums.

Hang on, we all know Gripen NG is designed for M 2.3 isn’t it? And Rafale perfs are in realiity classified it CAN supercruise at M 1.6 with 3 X 1.250 l external tanks and 8 X AAMS, As for Typhoon it is M 2.5 and S/C at M 1.75 no less.

About as accurate (in reverse) of how you try to represent the F-35 vs what it really is.

***

I still wonder what this crap with SC is about. Depending on condition, a flight with first stage AB can be more economical than squeezing the last sh!t out of military power juist to brag about SC numbers.

Very true. See the Mig-31 for example.

Sustained supercruise only makes sense in the most economical regime and this is hardly M1.78 for the F-22 even if this number was true. If it’s a short-term value only, then it does not constitute ANY operational advantage because in emergency other aircraft can make it even much more faster with engaged AB.

Nobody is saying that Mach 1.78 is the most economic speed for the F-22 to cruise at but it can OPERATIONALLY do so. And remember that the F-22’s performance requirements include a combat radius which includes 100nm at >Mach 1.5. EVERYONE who knows jack, knows that while cruising at >Mach 1.5 the F-22 is reducing is combat radius/range vs if it were cruising at M1.7 while guzzling even more fuel, especially if the opponents won’t hesitate to engage the burners and to accelerate to M2.2 twice as fast.
[/QUOTE]
The USAF claims no such thing.

***

Q: Does Australia have any other choice?

Other fighters weren’t given much attention were they?

As already pointed out, Australia had & look at several choices.

Australia was smart enough the realize that is was not going to get the F-22 & that given that fact, the F-35 was the obvious best choice.

***

Supercruise as the USAF/LM views it, is the maximum, non-afterburning, speed the plane can reach while having the most tactically significant range per pound of fuel used. In other words, it is the optimized speed for range/fuel consumption under supersonic conditions. To use economic terms, it is the point beyond which you see diminishing returns.

No, supercruise is being ‘able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’.

And please lets stop this anal BS of only cruising at BEST (most economical) cruising speed is cruising. Aircraft are perfectly capable of cruising (achieve and maintain speed for extended periods of time) at a wide range of speeds. Hell, the Mig-31 was designed to ‘cruise’ WITH minimal afterburner! By no means the most economical way to go about it but the way the Mig-31 was designed to operate. The F-22 was designed ‘to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’.

***

pfcem has come with a figure that Raptor’s top SC speed is Mach 1.78. Even this figure has not been proven yet, but funny enough, two pages later I already see you claiming that Raptor actually has its optimum cruise speed at M1.78. 🙂 I am really looking forward at the claims three pages later on. You guys seem to never get enough of the overhyping.

No the USAF/DOD/LM publicly released in Feb 2009 that the F-22’s supercruise speed is Mach 1.78.

I personally assume that the maximum quoted SC figure will be exactly the one achieved at full military power. There is no logic in assuming that Raptor can fly faster at 70% throttle setting than at 100%. And there is no logic in assuming that Raptor can actually SC at Mach 1.9 at 100% throttle but LM would only claim M1.7 because this would be the most economical speed.

The USAF/DOD/LM did not say that Mach 1.78 was the maximum BUT without official/confirmed/reliable sources contradicting such assuming this to be at close to (if not) full military power is not unreasonable.

***

Sorry YOU are talking in circles.

Supercruise will be the supersonic Mach at which your engine SFC will allow you for the highest number of Nautical Airmiles per Pounds of Fuel used.

You are arguing the that regime at which cruise is achieved matters which it does not, since subsonic and supersonic are two different regimes it is obvious the resulting endurence will be dependent on the drag involved in these regimes.

The FACT that you refuse to ADMIT that the definition of cruise won’t change with the regime speaks volume about your motivation which is NOT to learn but stick to your fantasies.

Your lot.

No, supercruise is being ‘able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’.

F-22 undefeated at Al Dhafra

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/f-22-undefeated-at-al-dhafra-2.html

Note that photos & videos from the exercise show the F-22s flew many (if not all) sorties with two 600 gal external tanks (obviously to hide their true radar signature from ‘prying eyes’) yet were still UNDEFEATED even in WVR engagements.

Is that a FACT?

Yes it is. There is nothing of a generational leap from the US ‘teens’ (& the Flanker/Fulcrum/Mirage 2000) to the Eurocanards. If fact, about the only “improvement” is extenting the high g flight envelope – which with the introduction of 4th & 5th generation WVR AAMs is not as important as it was when the Eurocanards were designed.

NO there was never any mention of US figthers in their requierements this is PURE invention as is most of what you post.

Nobody ever said there was any mention of US fighters in their requirements.

Absolutly NOT and btw, performance-wise F-35 design was taken to a lower level than LWF requierements.

Only in your dreams.

The LWF was optimized for operations from 30,000′-40,000′ & from Mach 0.6-1.6 with maximum turning performance from Mach 0.9-1.2.

Revisionism, as expected.

Historical fact. YOU are the one trying to revise history.

F-35 was designed as a STRIKE fighter, F-16 as a PURE air superiority fighter = LWF, with higher Mach and ceillings.

No the F-35A was designed to REPLACE the F-16. The LWF was NOT an air superity fighter. It was a WVR only fighter. The FX (which the F-15A became) was the US air superiority fighter. In fact the LWF was just a design concept which was used as the starting point of the ACF. And thank God those in charge of the ACF had the foresight to recognize the limited usefulness of the LWF & designed in growth potential well beyond the capabilities of the LWF which allowed the F-16 to become the multi-role fighter it became. Even going from YF-16 to F-16A growth potential was added – most notable a 7″ increase in nose length & 4″ increase in nose diameter so as to be able to incorporate a radar of larger size & capability that the APG-159/F-5E radar previously envisioned.

GEEEEEEEEESUS. 😀

Now that’s the pinacle of the funny 2009 quote contest.

The truth hurts.

And these are NOT KPP but designed operational maximum or DASH; including the ceillings at which they are to be used.

No they are BS which have already been shown to be BS that is contradicted by official program documents.

KPPs have been published in other pages of L-M doc and well know what they are, they do not include Machs; thanks for amusing me.

Thats right. In fact the speed requirement states “subsonic cruise with supersonic dash speeds comparable to F-16 and F/A-18“. Sorry but there is no way you can claim a design maximum of Mach 1.6 with that as the requirement. :p The F-35 is even expected to demonstrate a dash speed of Mach 1.6+ “with a full internal load” (thats ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel). How fast are the Typhoon & Rafales with ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel vs their designed maximum? 😉

And since I feel like demonstrating further that you don’t know what you are talking about & are taking requirement MINIMUMS & claiming them to be design maximums…

Combat radius
USAF (F-35A)
THRESHOLD: 590nm
OBJECTIVE: 690nm
actual: 625nm (from 2007 Program Update) 5.9% greater than THRESHOLD

USMC (F-35B)
THRESHOLD: 450nm
OBJECTIVE: 550nm
actual: 498nm (from 2007 Program Update) 10.6% greater than THRESHOLD

USN (F-35C)
THRESHOLD: 600nm
OBJECTIVE: 730nm
actual: 642nm (from 2007 Program Update) 7.0% greater than THRESHOLD