It’s the other way around, i am consistent with my argument that faster=better, regardless of nationality. I praise performance.

You OTOH consistently insist that faster=better if talking about (US) F-22,
while simultaneously insisting that quote:
“speed [DOES NOT] mean disadvantage” (US) F-35.
see above quote from yourself ……..:rolleyes:

No, it is NOT the other way around. The TRUTH is that even ‘Mach 2 class’ fighters (dedicated interceptors like the Mig-25 & Mig-31 are a different story) RARELY, if ever, exceed Mach 1.5. The F-35 will do > Mach 1.5 with a ‘full internal load’ (thats two ‘2,000 lb’ JDAM [or eight ‘250 lb’ SDB] + two AMRAAM + > 18,000 lbs of fuel at take-off). And just as a pair of WVR missiles on the outer wing pylons have little effect of the flight performance of 4th generation fighters, the same is true of the F-35 (& even with a pair of WVR missiles on the outer wing pylons the F-35’s RCS & IR signatures are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than any 4th generation fighter).

I am consistent that only a F-22 SUPERCRUISING at Mach 1.78 (or a dedicated interceptor like the Mig-25 & Mig-31 with next to zero agility) will have a REAL speed advantage.

***

Really, than is the official design limit of Mach 1,6 sufficiant for you. :Dl

Mach 1.6 IS NOT a F-35 design limit.

I have no idea what you want to tell me with that:confused:

That the people who have been quoted as saying that the F-22’s fuel capacity is 18,000+/18,488 lbs are likely confusing the F-22’s fuel capacity (which is in fact 3082 gal = 20,649.4 lbs of JP-8) with the 18,480 lbs of the PRE WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35A.

***

Wrong, the actual weight is quoted ~29300 lb, when testing will not demand further weight gains. The F-35 AF-1 has just started the test program in earnest.

BS. POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35A is LIGHTER than PRE WEIGHT REDUCTION 29,036 lbs F-35A, not heavier. And POST WEIGHT REDUCTION F-35A is LIGHTER than AA-1 (which is slightly less than 29,000 lbs).

On 19 December 2008, Lockheed Martin rolled out the first weight-optimized F-35A (designated AF-1). It is the first F-35 to be produced at a full-rate production speed – the assembly line moves at 50 inches (127 centimeters) per hour – and is structurally identical to final production F-35As that will be delivered starting in 2010

On 19 February 2006, the first F-35A (designated AA-1) was rolled out in Fort Worth, Texas.

Not fully equipped it does show that the series example will be overweight really. No radar and some other equipment fitted, when the few sensor did not counter that anticipated weight. See the pre weight reduction data of the preproduction prototypes about that. Just from the AF-1 they were built to post reduction standard really and the AF-1 showed ~29300 lb as quoted by LM in 2009.

AA-1 is a PRE WEIGHT REDUCTION airframe yet even it weighs less than 29,000 lbs (although not by much). It is fitted with flight test equipment which weigh as much if not more than the ‘radar and some other equipment’ that will be fitted service F-35s. The GREAT thing about AA-1 is that it came so close to its projected weight & verified that the computer models used to estimate F-35 weight were VERY accurate.

JSF Program Overview
30 Oct 2007

And the F135 has been PUBLICLY known to be 43,000 lbs afterburing thrust since AT LEAST Dec 2005.

Here’s an article that needs to be red to understand F35’s construction and aerodynamics.

Interesting part:

LOL, what more needs to be said???
F16 accelarates M.8-M1.2 in 44 sec. and sustains, at least, 7g at the same altitude at which F35 sustains 5g.
So, how is F35 more maneuverable than F16 in any regime???
LOL, it’s so plain obvious…

Sorry but I just HAVE to respond to this troll…

That is the worst kind of trash journalism.

“The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration—also known as the 240-4—are classified.” Providing co called data on a STRIKE MISSION LOADED (two ‘2,000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + >18,000 lbs of internal fuel) 240-3 design is BS. If an F-35A is carrying only two AMRAAMs then it is carrying air-to-ground weapons…

The author can’t even get the thrust of the F135 correct. The F135 is rated at 28,000 lbs dry (military) & 43,000 lbs wet (afterburner) thrust.

The F-35’s frontal area is similar to that of the Rafale (as is it total surface area) yet I have heared no complaints of the Rafale’s acceleration with LESS thrust than the F-35 (no I am NOT saying that the F-35 is a ‘aerodynamic’ as a Rafale, I AM saying that is is about the SIZE of a Rafale).

The F-35A in a STRIKE MISSION (two ‘2,000 lb’ JDAM + two AMRAAM + 18,307 lbs of internal fuel) weighs 49,671 lbs! To get an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lbs would require an F-35A with 14 AMRAAM (that would be 4 internal + 10 external) + 18,186 lbs of fuel. And an F-35A 40% (7,323 lbs) of internal fuel with a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 (39,450 lbs) would need to have an air-to-air weapons load of 5,462 lbs – that’s 14 AMRAAM + 4 AIM-9X. Lets see any remotely comparable fighter ‘dogfight’ with that kind of load!

And even with external stores the F-35’s radar & IR signatures are superior to comparable 4th or 4.5 generation fighter with a similar payload.

Although the author did fianlly get it correct in the very last sentence. “Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement’s outcome than does the aircraft.”

Note, however, it is advantageous for potential enemies & ingorant fools like Cola1973 believe the so called data for the 230-3 design accurately represents the performance of the actual F-35A (so I may have exposed a deliberate deception but a I am certian that Cola1973, Dare2 & other such fools will chose to believe the deception). 😉

I guess it’s true that the inlet might be able to reach M>2.0- on reflection I think your conclusion is probably a bit more logical than mine, however the testing still does not determine a maximum or minimum value for the top speed for the F-35 itself, only for the inlet, and then only for the DSI type inlet fitted to the F-16 (which is substantially different from that on the F-35). Keep in mind that they may have not achieved M>2.0 because it was not possible. Fixed inlets are as a general rule of thumb limited to M=2.0. The DSI’s main advantage is that of boundary layer and shock control (it serves both as a diffuser and boundary layer redirecter) without any moving parts or non-stealthy gaps. However, it is still limited to M=2.0 from what I have heard.

You seem to be missing the point. Which is not whether the F-35’s DSI can exceed Mach 2.0 or not (it was not meant to) but that it CAN exceed Mach 1.6 & has in fact been shown to be capable of at least Mach 2.0. There is no reason for an inlet capable of Mach 2.0 on an aircraft with a ‘designed Mach limit’ of Mach 1.6 – in fact it would be detrimental as an inlet with a limit closer to the aircraft’s ‘designed Mach limit’ would tend to be be more efficent at lower speeds.

See here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43337
and
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0888497.html
The second link is particularly interesting, as it specifically references the number Mach 1.6 in numerous places (though the document suggests that such an inlet can achieve higher, and testing confirms this), and it is a Lockheed Martin patent. It references another patent referring to bump intake research from M=1.5 to M=2.0.

What is shows is that such inlets are intended for > Mach 1.6 rather than < Mach 1.6.

The F-22 does not have a fixed inlet from what I understand. Like the F-15 it has intake ramps. The purpose of these ramps is to prevent spillage around the outside of the intake. The DSI bump may serve a similar purpose, which allows it to be more efficient than a conventional inlet, but like I said, still likely limited to M=2.0 because it is fixed (a variable ramp gives you a much greater range of shock control I would think). Both the F-35 and the F-22 have air bleed mechanisms in the intake.

The F-22 has a fixed inlet. But a fixed inlet designed for sustained high speed (> Mach 1.5) flight.

Anyway, it is probably not the intake of the F-35 that limits it so much as the relatively high bypass ratio of the engine(0.53 for the F135 as opposed to 0.36 for the F100 and I think around 0.2 for the F119). However, there is reason to believe that the intake limits you to M=2.0.

The F135’s 0.56 bypass ratio does not limit it to < Mach 2.0 (much less < Mach 1.6). Even a bypass ratio of 1.0 is good for Mach 2.0.

Some examples of > Mach 2.0 engines with bypass ratio similar to or HIGHER than the F135.
AL-31 of the Flanker (0.57)
D-30F6 of the Mig-31 (0.57)
F100-PW-220 of the F-15C (0.71)
F110-GE-129 of the F-15E (0.76)
F110-GE-400 of the F-14D (0.87)
RB.199 of the Tornado (0.97)
TF-30 of the F-111 (1.10)
TF-30 of the F-14A (0.73)