Oh yes you are… You were presented with two official pages, not one, and you were told by me that the first time that this number appeared was in the old official Eurofighter page that was revamped in the late (November) 2006, in that same page, those numbers were presented in Germain and in English.
In those three pages there´s not one single connection between speed and uprated engines. Actually it is clearly stated in all the involved texts that this supercruise speed is obtained with the actual EJ200. I dont know where you get this idea of increased thrust engines (“Der hohe Leistungsüberschuss der EJ 200-Triebwerke”/”Le surcroît de puissance des réacteurs EJ200 permet d’atteindre la forte accélération indispensable pour le combat longue portée, à haute altitude et à vitesse supersonique” means that the EJ200 has specific excess thrust, something that is known for ages, not that you need a new uprated engine, surely you can understand the concept…).

Wrong again.

I do find highly amusing that the same person that dismiss the Mach 1.6 maximum speed for the F-35A presented in the official LM page has being too “slow” and merely a “KPP”, dismiss official Eurofighter information because the speed is too “fast” and only achievable with uprated engines, when that is not stated anywhere.
Nationalistic bias? Surely not…

Mach 1.6 is NOT the maximum speed of the F-35. It is the MINIMUM dash speed it MUST DEMONSTRATE with a “full internal load” (thats two ‘2000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + 18,307 lbs of fuel = ~23,000 lbs). How fast is the Typhoon with ~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel. 😉

EVERY credible (official & unofficial) source states the supercruise speed of the Typhoon as Mach 1.3 (like I said they used to say Mach 1.2) except for ONE NONENGLISH webpage (actually two PAGES but they are actually the same ‘page’ in two languages).

***

LOL, 3+ years??

Thats fewer years late than the Typhoon & Rafale. 🙂

Pfcem, we all red those news, so don’t go quoting them because they don’t address my statement…

No YOU have not. IF you had you would know just like everyone that HAS that wouldn’t/didn’t take two weeks to to change a fuel valve.

50% price reduction of what?? $500m?? a billion??

50% price reduction in COST OF PRODUCTION from the 1st production airframe to (I would asume) the last completed airframe at the time of the statement.

F35 doesn’t have fixed price, so any attempt to hide its actual price in percentage is a 101 economics. Again, check LRIP prices for US, UK and AUS and then come back.

There is no attempt to hide actual price. One need only look at the budget line items to see the actual price.

How long “B” sits on tarmac now, after being said it’ll fly on a daily basis??

Read again WHY it sits on tarmac now.

And where is this mythical report of any F-35 having any trouble getting off the ground?

In FY 2009, the F35 program is reported to made ~40 flights out of 317 planned.
If that’s not a problem, then you have some serious reality comprehension problems.

Nobody is saying it is not a problem.

“Bean” counters are just doing their job, meaning keeping a contract on agreed specs.

Quite the opposite. The bean counters CAUSED the airframe to have to be redesigned with lower cost but higher weight materials. The result was the specs being CHANGED. If AA-1 had been built to design spec it would have cost more BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN LIGHTER & not required two years of delay (& associated costs) to reduce weight.

So in the end, you still don’t know where F35’s weight is now.

This is what we DO know.

PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION (from 2006 Program Review)
F-35A: 29,036 lbs
F-35B: 32,161 lbs
F-35C: 32,072 lbs

POST-WEIGHT REDUCTION (from 2007 Program Review)
F-35A: 26,664 lbs
F-35B: 29,695 lbs
F-35C: 29,996 lbs

We ALSO know that AA-1 came in a small % BELOW target weight so it is not unreasonable to assume that later airframes are not also very close to target weight.

Second, you don’t know how much redesign/beans was required to achieve that. JET and GAO do however, since latter has been appointed by investor to examine that.

Enough to cause a two year delay (& associated costs) to reduce weight back down to closer to where it should have been.

Third, LM got a contract awarded on a basis which it didn’t fulfill, period. Normally, such behavior gets ones contract canceled and penalties payed.

What part of what contract did LM not fulfill?

With what, 3+ years delay?? Great job…Hahahaha…and one more thing…LRIP means low rate production of operational model (specs and subcontractors nailed down) and not a 80% software completed (and hardware is kept classified to avoid public hearing :D), so LRIP in fact, began only in someones dreams and that would be you, again.
However, I’m sure LM will offer a free of charge retrofit for those LRIP planes. 😀

I see you are still incapable of honesty.

The rest is yet to be seen, since neither of partners (including L1 UK) doesn’t seem happy to pay for half-product, the LM is selling.

Where on earth are you getting that?

Blablabla…here you go again quoting things without a clue of what they mean. For a price to fall, someone actually needs to pay for the aircraft, got it??
The price doesn’t fall just by itself as the time goes by, no matter what others told you. 😀
Ok, to be perfectly clear, the price does drop with time/obsolescence curve, but when that happens, no one will want it anyway.

LRIP Lots 1-3 ARE PAID FOR! LRIP Lot 4 is being paid for in the FY2010 budget.

The price drops as production is ramped up with each secessive lot increasing in number (costs split among a greater number of airframes) & the production learning curve reduces the production time & cost.

And finally, here’s where you try to pull another pathetic attempt of masking F35’s price. As said, a flyaway price is nice and shiny, but the trouble is only the US will pay it. All others need to pay program price minus their contribution in the development phase. It’s still way over $200m for partners and that’s a price without a single gun round, or a pound of fuel, or a single spare part.
So, if US want to commit an economical suicide, fine. Just don’t expect everyone to follow, that’s all.

BS.

Partner nations pay the same flyaway cost that the US. In fact there was even a plan (which appears to have fallen through) that partner nations would pay LESS than the US for LRIP airframes (essentially paying projected full rate production price for LRIP airframes). And with the exception of Israel no non-partner nation is going to order/get LRIP airframes. Partner nation contribution in the development phase are separtate cost & are offset by partner workshare.

***

Not funny at all. At no point have i stated that “stealth” is not useful. It is. Or to put it another way; some degree of em and ir stealthing is.
You are deliberately mis-interpreting and twisting the comment to suit your purposes, putting a spin on it that is not actually present. You do this with a lot of your responses.

Mearly pointing out that pretty much every future combat aircraft for the foreseeable future (INCLUDING the previous 4.5 generation fighters) are ‘banking’ on stealth. SO while you “wouldn’t hang my beliefs quite so strongly on stealth” combat aircraft designers/manufactures ARE.

But does it really have that advantage, and can it really be upgraded to maintain it if it does? Please prove it.

There is nothing out there that can support your assertations other than marketing from USAF &/or DOD &/or LM &/or JSF Program Office.
But your credability is zero if you present that as fact.

LOL

Hhmm rather a lot of vague hypotheticals there. You’re not actually saying anything of significance.

Mearly trying to put it into terms you might be capable of comprehending.

Changing the point to suit your needs, again.
Use UCAVs for this scenario, not an expensive, manned platform.
Typhoon is not and will not be (when production variants of the F35 are delivered..) more expensive than the F35.

I haven’t changed my point at all.

True strike capable UCAVs are more than 15 years away from IOC. And even then(just as I posted before) they are intended to complement/suppliment manned strike aircraft, not replace them.

You are smoking something REALLY nasty to believe that full rate production F-35s will not cost less than the Typhoon. They will cost less in 2014 dollars than the Typhoon costs in 2008 dollars much less what (assuming it is even still in production) what it will cost is 2014 dollars.

Fair point to a certain extent were it not for the fact, which you fail to appreciate, that the F35 is going to get produced whether it is a dog or not. Whether it truly meets the needs of all customers or not.
It is in reality in some terms more of an economic program than a fighter program.
The problem some have with it, that again you seem incapable of grasping, is the level of hype being spewed over it is is ridiculous.
Were this to be toned down there would, i suspect, be rather less doubters and skeptics.

The very fact that something needs hyping in this fashion also gives those with the facility for critical thought reason to question the true effectiveness of the system. In plain terms, if it is so good, why don’t they let the aircraft performance speak for itself. Before you say they do, they do not, what we have from your favourite sources are predictions and commentary upon non production examples.

BS. I appreciate full well that the F35 is going to get produced whether it is a dog or not. BUT if it were a dog (& if it WERE it would inevitably be shown to be – fortunately lfight test are proving it NOT to be) it would be produced in significantly lower numbers. LM can’t make any money on the F-35 unless it less A LOT of them.

What hype?

Interesting God complex you have there.
If your agenda was indeed the truth you woud be rather less strident in cheerleading and rather more prepared to discuss, without twisting them to suit your purposes, others viewpoints.
Contary to your delusion few people have challenged the need or indeed the eventual success of the F35.
People have generally challenged the rather over the top hyping of the aircraft when the delay and cost is considered.

Secondly you are aware that this is a forum, a place where people come to discuss and debate.
Your above statement suggests that you wish everybody to conceed to your viewpoint and agree with your version of the “truth” at all times.

No, my statement above suggests that I wish everybody would be truthful & intellectually honest in their discussion & debate.

***

Since YOU decided that it was convenient to turn Maximums into KPPs; otherwise said Minimums.

I am not turning KPPs into maximums. As I have explained to you MANY times. KPPs are MINIMUMS, not maximums.

Mach 1.6+ dash speed (to be demonstrated with full internal load) is a MINIMUM not a maximum.
600nm combat radius (KPP THRESHOLD) is a MINIMUM not a maximum.
I could go on & on & on with dozens of examples but I know it would be a waist of time as you have already proven incapable of understanding.

What a question! Yes according to every F-22 pilots they ARE.

That is because with the F-22, its perfomance advantage truly IS.

In short kinetic energy plays a large role in every aspect of air combat for BOTH offensive and Defensive maneuvers reason for some to invent new meaning to known standard definitions and inflate datas from hearsays and “supposed to have been made by” comments.

And contrary to what you & others want people to believe, the F-35 is a very good energy fighter. Not as good as a clean Typhoon but load up a Typhoon with 23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel & its flight performance sufers just like every other fighter.

But you guys keep pointing out F-22 speed advantages in both S/C and Max Machs while denying that the same principles of basic physics applies to others.

BS. Mach 1.78 supercruise is a HUGE advantage. Mach 1.3 supersonic cruise not as much, especially when the F-35A may very well prove to be capable of cruising at ~Mach 1.2 without afterburner depending of fuel load (just because you CAN carry 18,307 lbs of fuel does not mean that you HAVE to – see the flight performance of a Flanker with a reduced but still uselful fuel load vs a full fuel load as an example of how the F-35 will likely be).

The only advantage it have is a lower RCS, systems/avionics-wise, comes its sceduled service entry, it won’t be more than level-to-inferior.

It will take a new generation of engines technologies and and two of IR sensors for the USA to achieve superiority.

F-35 already have a large kinetic energy disadvantage, its aerodynamics doesn’t allow for turn rates needed to beat the Typhoon Rafale or Gripen NG, its wingload is higher, TWR lower, IR signature higher than most etc.

What are you smoking?

Like what? Single bandwidth/single channel IR vs dual channel/multi-colour IR?

AESA vs AESA?

Long range camera vs medium range video channel designed primarily for A2G and unusable in A2A while using EOTS in the A2G mode?

IR reduction measure vs the hotest running engine in the world with NO reduction of its IR signature?

You are not telling it as it is, all those newer technologies (than that of F-35) are already being funded in the case of Rafale at least.

European fighters are NOT US legacies and have far better performances where it really matters.

They are way superior to F-35 in the kinetic energy game, accelerate, climb, fly faster and higher even with their full load of AAMs, they also are more maneuvrable at all altitudes and speeds.

As for F-35 L.O, it’s nowhere near enough to beat their sensor fusion and IR detection.

LOL

That’s also a wishlist, not reality.

Wrong. PLANNED block upgrade.

So now you’re going ot explain how a design optimised for lower Machs and altitudes, and for a totaly different role is going to meet meet requierements made for the LWF, comparing F-35 to what you don’t know is not making your point at all.

Wrong. Designed to have similar or better flight performance.

You seems to lack a lot of information on the F-35 engine/inlets design optimisation as well as F/A-18 aerodynamic layout (and the origins of it), looking at their respective sweep angles without knowing a lot more than this is way insuffiscient.

No, that would be YOU.

Just a clue; it all comes down to DRAG vs THRUST, and when an engine runs out of puff at the altitude where another one can still beat drag, the difference shows, thus celling are as imp[ortant as wingsweep when it comes to real performances.

And being COMPLETELY clean with two ‘2000 lb’ JDAM (or eight ‘250 lb’ SDB) + two AMRAAM + 18,307 lbs of fuel [~23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel] vs previous generation fighters HAVING to carry weapons & extra fuel externally means that the F-35 in COMBAT CONFIGURATION won’t suffer from the drag of all that external weapons & fuel that previous generation fighters do.

And having 28,000 lbs of dry/43,000 lbs of wet rated thrust means that the F-35 will not be lacking for thrust.

For your info, Typhoon like Rafale are designed to carry their full load of AAMs 0.2 Mach faster than the Maximum designed Mach of F-35, and have DASH Mach (with at least 2 AAMs) still 0.4 M higher.

Mach 1.6 IS NOT (never has been & never will be) the Maximum designed Mach of F-35. It IS the MINIMUM dash speed & is to be demonstrated with a “full internal load“. Now how fast are the Typhoon &/or Rafale with similar payload/range…

You guys are trying to pass a strike aircraft for something designed around LWF requierements and it’s simply laughable.

No YOU are trying to pass off a F-16 & F/A-18 replacement off as an A-7 & A-6 replacement.

Typhoon never flew at M 1.5 in S/C it is said to be “possible” without actually saying “with an increase thrust of 15%.

EJ-200 pressure recovery limit is 1.3 and anything higher is pushing the engine lifespan down, what Europjet and their customers are curently looking for is a decreased TBO not an increase in performances; we’re done with the “stupid figures” war…

Note to all Typhoon fans. Dare2 says the Typhoon never flew at Mach 1.5 supersonic cruise AND that current engines are limited to Mach 1.3. 🙂

So you also know under which conditions and what the engine limits are; these figures are not representative of operational limits, just as that given for the F-22 at M 1.7 aren’t.

Not it’s NOT an “OFFICIAL” figure, it’s a figure given in non Ops conditions and we know what the USAF officialy say about the KPP for the Raptor S/C is and what exces of M it achieved in optimum conditions, thus it is easy to figure what its ops Max military power is.

Mach 1.78 is the F-22’s operational supercruise. There are in fact unofficial reports that the F-22 is actually capable of >Mach 1.8.

You guys all (both Typhoon and F-35 supporters) rewrite the very definition of the word CRUISE to come up with maximum Mach in full Military power (which is NOT cruising), be it over the engine pressure recovery limit in some cases and this is becoming simply ludicrous.

I agree. People are confusing speed at 100% military power with true cruising speed. But that is one of the reasons why I continue to mention that the official figure for the Typhoon used to be Mach 1.2…

Sorry, i dare to correct you there, Typhoon have a significant kinetic advantage over F-35 in A2A configuration (exept external tanks perhaps) at ALL altitudes, and the number of AAM is not a “few” but actually 4 more than the F-35 block 3 would carry.

The same applies in the case of Rafale although the standard AdlA/MN A2A configuration includes only 6 AAMs.

Except that the Typhoon & Rafale NEED those external tanks to obtain similar combat radius/range as the F-35 has with just internal fuel. Reduce the fuel load of the F-35 so that its combat radius/range is similar to the Typhoon & Rafale with just internal fuel & you can expect that its flight performance to increase over its design point (which includes 23,000 lbs of weapons & fuel), again see the Flanker as an example.

Good luck accelerating an airfoil with superior t/cs, inferior wingsweep and TWR as fast as the Rafale and Gripens NG, even with 6 AAMs attached to them, you’d be better off understanding that by “Legacy” the USAF think F-16 (with limits dues ot is pylons and smaller size) and that the Vipers are considerably out-performed by these two aircrafts already…

28,000 lbs of dry/43,000 lbs of wet rated thrust…

And yes as has been pointed our MANY TIMES, it is a clean F-16C which is the F-35As flight performance benchmark.

***

And since WHEN exactly were Typhoon Rafale and Gripen NG designed to meet the same requierements than F-15?

You guys got to start to put two and two together, Rafale is only 6 years older than F-22 and btw was dersigned around the ACX which was way superior to F-15 had its requierements for M 2.0+ not be lowered to M 1.8, even the Mirage 4000 had better performances with 6 AAMs than F-15.

Being slightly older than F-22 doesn’t mean they have the same operational limitations than the US legacies which simply aren’t designed to be used under the same conditions (requierements).

If F-5/F-16 are limited to subsonic with their tanks and F-16 to M 1.6 when it carries 4 AAMs it is simply NOT the case of the European fighters which are of a full generation newer, as simple as that.

Now you can call F-35 5th generation all you want, historically like technically the real 5th gens are Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen because they are way superior to the US 4th generation legacy fighters and were designed to reach higher Machs with their full loads of AAMs than F-16 (as was already the case for all Mirages since the III btw).

Somethnig else, Typhoon like Rafale had stringent A2A requierements F-35 never had (only at a slightly different Mach but with their weapon loads).

No, it is YOU who needs to pute two & two together.

The Eurocanards were designed to be better 4th generation fighters than the US ‘teens’. The concepts which guided their design was the same as it was for the US ‘teens’ just taken to a slightly higher level. BUT so long was their developement that some 5th generation like character were able to be included in their final design, such as reduce frontal RCS & improved MMI.

The F-35 OTOH was designed to be a true next generation fighter rather than ‘just a better 4th generation fighter’. The concepts which guided its design being truly transformational in nature.

The Eurocanards are like the piston fighters of the mid 1940’s. Reaching the ‘pinnacle’ of their generation but no matter how much better they were than previous fighters, advances in technology & concepts of air combat had already passed them by & they simply could not compete with the next genration of fighters.

Just so we are clear again; you are stating that you take as absolute fact anything published by the USAF/DOD/LM/JSF Program Office?
Yet anything published by other parties is in your view automatically inaccurate?

My apologies if you feel this is mis-stating your position, however if you do feel it is i would you suggest you review the nature and manner of your postings.

No, I am stating that when it comes to the F-35 I trust what the USAF &/or DOD &/or LM &/or JSF Program Office say over what parties who have a vested interest in something else suceeding over the F-35 say.

If i were you i wouldn’t hang my beliefs quite so strongly on “stealth.”
History shows time and time again that for every new weapon there is generally a counter, nucs partially excluded here. Thus your strident cheerleading of “all aspect stealth” as an absolute “game changer” is a rather dangerous position.

Funny how pretty much every combat aircraft program is including steath as a significant parameter. In fact pretty much every 4.5 generation fighter includes some degree of stealth.

This holds true in particular for those nations that cannot afford the F35 in thousands, i.e. all bar the US. You have mentioned above that the F35 is expensive and “The F-35 isn’t intended for most countries though…” btw before you try and shout me down on this.

The aircraft that carries a limited number of air to air weapons without compromising it’s main “asset” is a better fighter. Hhmm interesting logic there.

Yes. But even when you think you NEED more than 4-6 AAMs the F-35 has a significantly lower RCS AND IR signature than 4.5 generation fighters. AND steath is not the F-35’s only advantage…

That’s ignoring the very real possibility that the other aircraft might just be more than capable of being refitted with new or developed avionics over the course of their lifetimes to match or exceed the situational awareness of the F35; if they don’t already match it..

No it doesn’t. The F-35 starts off with an advantage in avionics & situational awareness over previous generation fighters & can be upgraded to maintain its advantage. The only ‘limiting’ factor being the relative size of your radar – larger radar/more internal space for avionic, the greater potential.

By stating that the Typhoon may be a better interceptor you are acknowledging that this aircraft at least has a performance better than the F35.

Nobody doubts that the Typhoon (without external tanks) has better supersonic acceleration & top speed (important factors for a good interceptor) than the F-35. But another reason one could argue that the Typhoon is a better interceptor is the question of the value of stealth for an interceptor (but of course the Typhoon has a significantly reduced frontal RCS which it has used to great effect in a number of training exercises & mock engagements). One of THE intents of interceptors is to cause an attack to ‘bug out’ upon seeing that it is in danger of being intercepted before it can employs its weapons on its intended target. OTOH, knowing that your adversary has stealthy fighters/interceptors could do even better by detering an attack in the first place for fear of not knowing if/when your strikers are being intercepted until it is too late…

For those countries that are essentially in the air defence business rather than day one high threat enviroment strike, why does it make sense to purchase an expensive striker rather than an air defender / interceptor?

Being ‘essentially in the air defence business rather than day one high threat enviroment strike’ doesn’t mean you have NO need for ‘day one high threat enviroment strike’…

In the case of the F-35 vs Typhoon it is the Typhoon that is more expensive.

You can provide absolutely no evidence to support your claims other than material from the very people who have vested interests in talking the product up.

LOL.

What you fail to realize that these ‘people who have vested interests in talking the product up’ have as much if not MORE to lose if the F-35 fails to meet expectations.

You are either driving an agenda or are naive.

My agenda is the truth & exposing the falsehoods some what others to believe is the truth.

***

5a) As of today, F35 had troubles getting into the air in the first place and it takes two weeks engine removal to change a fuel valve and the list goes on…
But hey, that doesn’t matter as long as the F35 is the most capable 5th gen fighter, available for export??

Disingenuous as always.

The F-35 had no trouble getting into the air. And once it was in the air the F-16 Block 50 chase place required engaging its afterburner to keep up. :p

It does not take two weeks engine removal to change a fuel valve.

Sadly, that speaks volumes of 5th gen fighters as a ?missed? conception.

(A word of advice: As it is the F35 program is a joke and if you want for people to be less judgmental towards it, you may want to reexamine your chattering, or if you can’t just leave the forum since you have obvious reality issues, which are in collision with technical nature of this forum)

No, people like you with ZERO perspective of history who call the F-35 program a joke are the joke.

5b) What was projected price (by the LM’s team of “experts”) for F22, again??

The price of the F-22 has nothing to do with the price of the F-35. And the F-22 was never given a chance to meet any cost projections.

No matter how you TRY to avoid it or spin it the FACT remains that the F-35 production contracts have been BELOW cost projections.

***

a) Maybe sometimes in 5+ years
b) average price for the A model of 80+ mln $, with costs still rising and that while being produced in the thousands. Very cheap.

a) TODAY.

b) The per unit cost of the F-35 is GOING DOWN WITH EACH & EVERY PRODUCTION LOT.

***

Official figures I’ve seen are vague, except for the definitive M1.5 in dry thrust – presumably clean – which I’ve given you.

Official figures have gone from Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 (some say with one external tank while others say with two external tanks).

The only Mach 1.5 I have seen is that Mach 1.5 is possible with uprated engines (presumably EJ220) & a NON ENGLISH page on ONE Eurofighter webpage. Every other credible source says Mach 1.2 or Mach 1.3.

I know you don’t like answering simple questions; but humour me here, do you work for LM or an associated company??

I have no problem answering honest questions. I HAVE made a conscious not to respond to trolls nearly as much as I have in the past.

No, I do not work for LM or an associated company.

You admit that you have no access, yet make absolute claims such as the above, based as you freely admit upon what is essentially marketing material from LM.

The ‘above’ claim is absolute fact. LM has said over & over & over & over agian that the F-35 has all aspect stealth. GmbH wants you to believe that it has only front-aspect stealth. GmbH ALSO wants you to believe that the F-35 has no IR signature reduction either (also DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY OFFICIAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY the USAF/DOD/LM/JSF Program Office).

Back to my original point; this is your hopes and dreams for the F35 not solid undisputable fact.

Psst. F-35 production contracts are coming in BELOW projections…

***

F-35? No way.. From the last figures of sales to Greece, Turkey and Morocco, even the mass produced F-16 Block 50 is not that much cheaper than Rafale. The only thing that saves Viper’s a$$ at the moment is the 0.7 conversion rate between USD and EUR.

What are you smoking? New F-16 Block 50/52s cost ~2/3 that of a Rafale.

***

All that in mind even the mass-built F-35 will be too expensive for most countries and their basic need. Just a limited number will bought of that for the fear not to be left behind. 😉

Even a new F-16 Block 50/52 is too expensive for most countries. :p

The F-35 isn’t intended for most countries though…

***

The success of F-35 will depend on how fast LO UCAV’ will be available for export.
When IS nEUROn and the like going to be for sale?
and how restrictive will export be ?

The success of F-35 will depend little LO UCAV. The 1st generation of truly strike capable UCAV aren’t planned to reach IOC unitl 2025 (and that is if THEY experience no development delays) & even then they will be a niche systems that will compliment/suppliment manned aircraft for quite some time to come. And that is just a comparatively simple strike platform, NOT a true multi-role strike fighter platform like the F-35.

The supercruise requirement was > M1.5

This does not mean that supercruise = > M1.5 speed.

No, the requirement was to cruise at >Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner. Supercruise is the term chosen for the requirement. PRIOR to that the term “supercruise” was barely ever used & all but unknown to all but a relative few.

***

Genuinely curious how you know so much about the F35 yet Ef Gmbh know nothing.
Could you please expand a little on the access you have to both programs?

It could not be more simple. I trust the USAF/DOD/LM/JSF Program Office to know more about the F-35’s stealth charateristics than Gmbh (or anyone else). You don’t need any ‘special’ access, you need only read/listen to what the USAF/DOD/LM/JSF Program Office have said & are saying.

***

Companies like Eurofighter GmbH (or LM for that matter) can’t afford to publish false data, since those can easily be debunked by demonstration and the consequential damage may well prove irreparable…

LOL.

Companies like Eurofighter GmbH NEED to publish false data in order to HOPE for further sales of their aircraft.

***

Considering the known fact that the transonic region depends on the aircraft Critical Mach and therefore the wing sweep, it is unlikely that F-35 with 7* less sweep than F-16 will fly above M 1.05 which happens to be near or at the pic of its drag polar too.

So i will ask those “in the knows” to show us why this comment doesn’t make sense to them otherwise than talking nicotine and being plain sarcastic.

Two critical errors…

1) The F-35’s wing sweep is 35 deg, not 33 deg. The fact that you have switched from 35 deg to 34 deg & then to 33 deg proves your disingenuousness.

2) Wing sweep along IS NOT the only factor.

AND since they know so much they will no doubt agree that the supercritical profile used with F-35 drags 0.011% more in supersonic than the laminary previously used in US designs, that of F-16 in particular, go figure how it will manage to fly faster in dry power now…

By having similar installed DRY thust as the F-16C has installed WET thrust. 🙂

***

That doesn’t change a squat about supercruise still being >M1.0

Of course supercruise (being >Mach 1.5) is >Mach 1.0. 🙂

It’s still slower than most fighters if need arises.

LOL. The F-22 is the ONLY operational fighter that can cruise at >Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburner! And it does that in COMBAT CONFIGURATION.

It is directly from USAF and thus more accurate than LM quotes because USAF operates Raptors, not LM. LM might be aware of what the bird can theoretically do but USAF are much better aware of what the bird is operationally allowed to do.

No it is not. In fact nearly ALL of the ‘data’ in that table is contradicted by official USAF data.

Unimportant. It is still >M1.0 and always will be.

Of course supercruise (being >Mach 1.5) is >Mach 1.0. 🙂

Important is what USAF says, not LM, because they will be operating the aircraft. If USAF writes we will be setting op limit to M1.5, then they will and there is nothing you or even LM can do about it…

The USAF/DOD says Mach 1.78, not Mach 1.5.

Who’s THEY?

The USAF/DOD.

Supercruise = >M1.0

Of course supercruise (being >Mach 1.5) is >Mach 1.0. 🙂

***

The point here, when regarding the F-35 is that LM doesn’t consider anything below M1.5 to be supercruising, therefore, when they say it doesn’t supercruise it doesn’t necessarily mean that it can’t cruise at >M1 but less than M1.5.

Not just LM but the USAF/DOD as well.

***

Robert S. Dudney

Editor in Chief (airforce-magazine.com)

. Stealth. The F-35’s all-aspect signature is much bigger than the F-22’s in key bands and against certain threats.

. Supercruise. The F-22 can hit mid-Mach 1 speeds without resorting to fuel-gulping afterburners. The F-35 cannot.

Pay particular attention to the bold text…

***

What is ridiculous is to believe that the USAF would lie to everyone by saying M 2.0 Dash and that a one/half shock inlet allows for a higher Mach, btw there was no requierements for it either.

Just a thaught.

The USAF/DOD says Mach 2.0+ Dash. And it is nothing more than a regurgitation of the requirement as the ACTUAL dash speed of the F-22 is classified.

Just like the F-22’s service ceiling is 50,000′+ &/or that the F119 is a 35,000 lbs class thrust engine. 😉

***

It probably did but the gain in terms of speed is minimal for the loss of engine/airframe service life, (just like ours).

You have ZERO evidence that exceeding Mach 2.0 results in significant loss of engine/airframe service life of the F119/F-22. It may very well reduce the service life of the F-22’s steath coatings & thus cause them to have to be repaired/replaced prior to schedule…

The day an aircraft optimised for supercruise at M 1.5 will be structuraly and aerodynamicaly built for speeds above M 2.0 without compromising the first design point optimisation isn’t passed, it is in the far future if at all, because technologies aren’t here even today to allow for both, it’s all a question of compromise.

Thanks for once again demonstraing your disingenuousness.

The F-22 is optimized for HIGHER SPEEDS than the F-15 is optimized for yet you have no problem with the F-15’s top speed of Mach 2.5.

Note that the ATF requierements for M 2.5 were droped early in the programe due to the complexity of designing a multishock inlet with low RCS.

Yes, the Mach 2.5 was dropped. It was replaced with Mach 2.0+.

So lest see…

cruise speed without afterburner requirement: Mach 1.5+
actual: Mach 1.78

dash speed requirement: Mach 2.0+
actual: take a wild guess 🙂

Who are you to make up definitions here?

I am not making up any definitions. Simply quoting THE definition used by those who ‘coined’ it to describe the requirement/capability of the AFT/F-22.

Supercruise, as stated by various military personnel, is SUPERSONIC CRUISING.

What various military personnel?

***

NASA defines supercruise as being able to attain a speed of Mach 1.0 or greater at 95% of dry thrust. That seems to make far more sense than LM’s definition. In addition 95% of the time when anyone refers to supercruise, they simply mean supersonic with dry thrust. That is the commonly accepted definition.

You may very well be correct that the F-35 can supercruise (in the commonly accepted sense of the word). I heard it did in tests already actually. I don’t think it reaches the same speed as the raptor or typhoon, but perhaps that is why LM does not state that it supercruises- it doesn’t meet their odd, contrived definition, number 1, and number 2 if they did admit it, then they would also have to admit that their competitors also can do this (and faster too mind you).

Prior to the USAF/DOD/LM ‘coining’ the use of supercruise to describe the requirement/capability of the AFT/F-22 it a term barely used as NO FIGHTER HAD SUCH CAPABILITY in any realistic manner. Sure, there were those that could do just over Mach 1.0 CLEAN but what value is cruising at Mach 1.0x vs cruising at Mack 0.9x? Then the AFT comes along with a requirements to OPERATIONALLY cruise at Mach 1.5+ without the use of afterburner & supercruise is the term chosen to describe it. Suddenly supercruise went from a term barely used to ‘a household name’. And so dramatic is the capability increase of being able to supercruise at Mach 1.5+ that everybody wanted to ‘get in on the game’ & claim that they too can ‘supercruise’ becasue they can do >Mach 1.0 without afterburner. Nevermind that they hardly (if EVER) mentioned this prior to the USAF/DOD/LM making a big deal of the AFT/F-22 ability to do >Mach 1.5 without afterburner.

Frankly I couldn’t care less if other want to play games & claim >Mach 1.0 supercruise. The FACT of the matter is that USAF/DOD/LM use >Mach 1.5 & prior to them doing so it was an all but unsued term. Just don’t fool yourselves when USAF/DOD/LM say that the F-35 does not/was not designed to supercruise that it means that the F-35 can not cruise at >Mach 1.0 without the use of afterburner & don’t be a [insert derogatory word of choice] & say that the F-35 can’t supercruise if you are using >Mach 1.0 as your threshold.

LM has said f-35 doesnt super cruise and i accept that for now, but time will tell

That is because the F-35 will not be ‘able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners’.

***

Supercruise = supersonic cruise. Cruise at M>=1.0 is supercruise. EF GMBH did not redefine this. This is the widely accepted definition, and always has been AFAIK.

Wrong.

Supercruise = able to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.5 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners. That IS the definition ‘widely accepted’ by those who do not have it or not.

***

The LM etc definition has been changed a few times. By a remarkable coincidence, the new definition always equals “what the F-22 has demonstrated but no other fighter has”. I don’t take their definition seriously.

No the ‘definition’ has not changed. They (USAF/DOD/LM) have used slightly differnt wordings throughout the years but the core ‘definition’ of >Mach 1.5 without the use of afterburners has remained the same.

***

From what i Know the Raptor Supercruises at Mach 1.7 and there was an article which was saying how it is exceeding the original air force requirements.

Officially/publicly Mach 1.78. USAF requirement was Mach 1.5.

Poor F 35 is like a younger sibling always living in the shadow of its big brother. Poor thing may well be able to cruise at Mach 1.0+ and may not be considered by LM as supercruise.

Exactly.

I would wait till it enters operational service though before deriving at any conclusions.

The F-35 will quite likely demonstrate the ability to achieve and maintain speeds in excess of Mach 1.0 for extended periods of time without the use of afterburners before it reaches FOC.

1) It was the original ’96 vintage, inlet tested for M2 (X35) and not actual F35’s which has been redesigned, along with the lower fuselage.
It’s strange that a such a well informed character like you doesn’t know that…

2) Inlet, sometimes called inlet system, as the name implies, doesn’t consist of just intake shape, but a following duct as well, so what works for F16 doesn’t work for F35.

So, you’ve been proven wrong for a millionth time and yet you continue to relentlessly march on your path of lie/stupidity…
Would you remove yourself from this forum, please?

Stick to yourself deluding claim. I am aware that my details worked up are a waste when it does come to your opinion. You are not intrested to question that even. 😀
But here are many more readers here with some serious intrest about that topic. So for the benefit of all, such work is always worth the time. Maybe strange for your way of thinking, but I does enjoy it to question my thoughts and opinions from time to time. 😉

Try actually reading what I have posted instead of making up some BS that I have not posted…

Note the THE point of the DSI flight tests were to test & verify the type of inlet to be used on the JSF.

***

So in your world you not responding to reasonable questions equals me trolling. That sheds interesting light on your world view.

There was no question of your post being clear or not; you are again pathetically trying to change the subject and deflect the attention from pertinent questions being asked of your agenda.

Answer the question: When have the F35 and F22 seen real combat?

The answer as you seem reluctant to admit; is never.

Thus your hyperbole about the F35 being 2nd only to the F22 in “real combat” is patent rubbish.

Admit this and / or qualify your comments going forward.

No YOU being unable to counter my very clear comment & thus TRYING to divert the discussion towards somehting else IS trolling.

EVERYONE knows the answers to your trolling questions so there is no need for me to feed your trolling activity & waste ANYONE’S time answering them.

***

Here’s a bit of something so that you people can argue about until Xmas. 😀

LOL. Don’t you just love how those who don’t have 5th generation fighters redefine what it is.

I won’t bother to contric ALL of Gmbh’s BS but…

How many of the REAL (US) 5th gen requirements does the Typhoon meet? 🙂

Using Gmbh redefinition of “supercruise” being ‘just’ >Mach 1.0 instead of the USAF/DOD/LM definition of >Mach 1.5, the F-35 very likely DOES ‘have supercruise’.

Gmbh doesn’t have a clue what it is talking about concerning the F-35’s stealth. Sorry but the F-35 is in a totally different league from the Eurofighter with reguards to stealth (& related survivability) no matter how much Gmbh lies to try & minimize it.

The F-35 is a BETTER fighter than the Typhoon. One MIGHT have an argument that the Typhoon is a better interceptor but as a FIGHTER, the Typhoon is a decidedly legacy system & Gmbh is trying desperately to down-play the truly game-changing nature of 5th generation fighters like the F-22 & F-35 (as well as update the Typhoon with as many 5th generation capabilities as it can realisticly afford to) in order to minimize the Typhoon’s obsolescence in comparison.

***

This is pretty accurate picture of the things and so, there’s really nothing to argue about…and only a complete moron can claim that EF can’t mix with F22, but I guess its just a matter of time until those start to pop-up. 😀

That depends on what you mean by “mix with”…