That is correct. Fixed inlets such as the DSI and the one on the F-16 are more or less limited to Mach 2.0 tops from what I understand.

More or less. The F-16 IS in fact capable of slightly more than Mach 2.0.

And the F-22’s fixed inlet does not prevent it from doing “1600 mph”…

However, this does not mean anything other than that the F-35 cannot travel faster than M=2.0. It does not establish a lower bound on speed.

What it DOES establish is that the inlet is capable of AT LEAST Mach 2.0 & does not limit the F-35 to Mach 1.6.

There are reasons for testing up to M=2.0 besides just to validate the base F-35 requirements. It is likely that LM wanted data on the intake itself to validate their models for the intake.

But is the F-35’s ‘designed Mach limit’ was Mach 1.6 there would be no reason for a inlet capable of Mach 2.0…

This would be useful for for any future designs, as well as F-35 growth (i.e. more powerful engines, such as the F-136).

The F136 is not more powerful than the F135. Both the F135 & the F136 have further growth potential for which the F136 arguably has greater potential but the current F136 is not more powerful than the current F135. If anything with the F135’s developement having progressed MUCH further the F135 is closer to INCLUDING potential thrust growth in production engines. The current F135 has enough thrust to push the F-35 past Mach 2.0 IF the F-35 were designed to exceed Mach 2.0.

You’ll have to excuse me if I misunderstand your post, but your quote is referring to the F-16 divertless supersonic intake F-16 demonstrator. This was a modified F-16 block 30 used to test the F-35 inlet design. Not the F-35 itself.

Yes that is what on an F-16 Block 30 means.

IF (as the trolls are trying to fool people into believing) the F-35 has a ‘designed Mach limit of Mach 1.6’, what reason is there to test its inlet up to Mach 2.0? That it achieved a maximum speed of Mach 2.0 in actual flight tests (no BS that it is ‘just computer simulation’) PROVES that the inlet doesn’t limit it to Mach 1.6…

Which is why this statement of RAND doesn’t contradict their own assessment. As I said, they simply implied every single factor in F-35’s favor which is not a comparison of fighting qualities. Just read their study. I’m sure it’s linked in some thread in these forums.

One more time for those wiith reading comprehend problems…

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

To make it even easier to comprehend, I will break it up into individual sentences.

Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved.

Those reports are not accurate.

RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat.

Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

AND since I am sure you STILL do not get it…

Niether RAND nor the game made any evaluation of air-to-air combat OR the fighting qualities of the F-35. IT WAS INCORRECTLY REPORTED BY AUSTRALIAN PRESS. So INCORRECT was the reporting that RAND felt the need to issue its own statement dispelling it.

Funny how RAND believes the opposite. According to them the F-35 will be “clubbed like baby seals” even when every single factor is in their favor.

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

***

Note to self & others…

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.

Thank you for the copy/paste job, we READ this and as opposed to YOU, understood what it really meant.

Now try again because you’re far from being on the ball. Cheers. 😉

Quite the opposite. I understand what it really means, you either don’t or do & must purposely misrepresent what it means because it completely debunks you lies.

Well news is, it doesn’t fly above Mach 1.6, is limited to 7.0, 7.5 and 9.0 g and AGAIN; the combat configuration it is designed to match legacy fithers is A2G.

Top speed > Mach 1.6 (even WITH full internal load).

Airframe is full 9 g capable with USN & USMC varients ‘soft’ limited due to common navy (USN & USMC) policy to compensate for harsher operational condition & extend service life (just as it does with the F/A-18) but CAN (F-35C at least, I do not claim to KNOW for the F-35B if something specific prevents it) be cleared for full 9 g flight envelope ‘at the flip of a switch’.

Flight performance DESIGNED to match or exceed legacy fighters (F-16C & F/A-18C specifically), in AtA and AtG.

A2A: In this configuration it “Almost” matches F-16 in “clean” configuration which means as it was originaly designed 2 X AIM-9s, there is NO speed limits for the AIM-9s, they are cleared to M 1.85> and firing at M 1.7 on the old mirage III, who exactly are you trying to fool?

YOU are the one trying to fool people, not me.

Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

No matter how you TRY to spin it “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor” is GOOD flight performance.

Next time don’t try to pass a truck for a furmula one because you see writen somewhere it will do as well as for the number of passengers and YOU still don’t understand the meaning of the world COMBAT as for Combat ceiling.

Nobody is trying to pass a truck for a furmula one. Quite the opposite. YOU are trying to pass an aircraft with flight performance as good or better than the F-16C &/or F/A-18C as an A-7.

And BTW believing that a Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon are stressed like 4th generation US designs is a little dumb to say the least, the figure i posted are documented and well known, get a grip, a Rafale is way more performant in A2A and in all-aspects in A2G it equals or beats F-35 appart for the Max speed with heavy loads.

Reality strike.

Dream on. Any F-35 adversary foolish enough to believe your lies will be in for a VERY NASTY REALITY CHECK when the F-35 “clubs THEM like a baby seal”.

Precisely it is very unlikely any foreign nation will replace their F-16 on a 1-to-1 basis for a start, then they also are facing budget issues today and the 3000 figure is looking increasingly unlikely to be reached in the foreseeable future.

Again, are you brain damaged? Or are you seriously THAT disengenous?

Yeah sure!

Appart for the FACT that you keep comparing the legacy fighters in combat configuration they never were designed to be in, a F-35 will never out-perform a F-16 with 50% internal fuel and 2 X AIM-9s which is what the LWF requierements were for maximum Combat performance and lift for best turn rates at 40.000 ft which happens to be 20.000 ft higher than L-M disclosed combat ceiling for F-35.

Wrong.

Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is “not designed for an air-show in Paris,” Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.
…
In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.
…
What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor“, Beesley said.
…
While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it’s entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). “I don’t see how that gets you an advantage” Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.
…
Beesley explained that the F-35 is different from legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, or even more modern aircraft such as the Eurofighter, in that the primary weapons load is stored internally. This arrangement means that there is no added drag to the airframe from externally carried weapons, fuel tanks, or sensor pods as in older aircraft types. The outstanding handling, acceleration, and the maximum speed of the aircraft is useable in a combat configuration unlike in legacy fighters. Beesley said that recently he flew an F-35 test flight with a full internal load of two 2000 lbs JDAMs, and two AIM-120 missiles. The aircraft “felt like it had a few thousand pounds of extra fuel” but otherwise Beesley said there was practically no degradation in the aircrafts’ performance.

And stop the BS lie about 20,000′. The graphic you are MISTAKING that figure from is a sea control/anti-ship misssion where the 20,000′ combat is due to that being the optimum altitude for ANTI-SHIP sensors & weapons performance, NOT OPTIMUM FLIGHT PERFORMANCE.

What you are refering to is the A2G configuration which isn’t that superior in F-35 stealth configuration since its cruise speed is barely 0.08 Mach superior to ours with a Combat radius about 360 nm (best case) shorter and a much lower plalyoad…

At the same cruising speed, with the possibility of a much higher combat ceilings and performances a Rafale will carry 2 X 1.300 kg SCALP-EGs and 4 X MICAS at 1.000 nm at a typical cruising speed of M 0.82 (Mach 0.9 limit), and still be able to pull 5.5 g.

Once the weapons droped it will do M 1.6 and 9 g with the tanks (Empty), anything from M 1.8 to M 2.0 DASH without tanks but with AAMs (depending on their number since two plylons are rated differently), as it was designed/stressed for these playloads and Machs, maximum demonstrated g load with 2 X MICAs is a good 11.0 g, so what do you dare calling performances deficit if not this?

I still have to SEE a maximum g load for F-35 in A2G configuration as well because if the internal ejectors for any A2G weapons have to be stressed above those of the 4.5 gen fighters then you’re talking making them in plain heavy seel.

LOL

The limits you are mentioning reffers to known external weapon store and weapons dynamic and aerodynamic limits, typicaly M 0,82/0.9 and 5,5 g in the A2G configuration, some heavy configurations are even stressed and qualified for higher limits, depending on their aerodynamic characteristics (Pods etc).

This is reality, F-35 was never designed as an LWF and performances are resulting from requiered specs, not your interpretation on them, the only superior specs is F-35 Maximum Mach with all type of internal loads and it is still 0.4 Mach lower as a DASH value.

ANY “4.5 gen” fighter enjoy the SAME kinetic advantage with their full load of AAMs over F-35 than F-22 over US legacy fighters bar the top speed and THIS is also reality, they are stressed for maximum turn rates and Machs WITH their A2A loads.

So before coming up with figure you do not understand and call other pple comments BS, the least you could do is to inform yourself.

The FACT is that the F-35 was designed to match or exceed the flight performance of the F-16C & F/A-18C.

Load a F-35A, a F-16C & a F/A-18C IN ANY COMBAT CONFIGURATION YOU LIKE (just all three is equivalent configuration) & the F-35A is NOT at a performance deficit. In fact one of the reasons why the F-22 & F-35 perform so well IN COMBAT CONIGURATION is because they were DESIGNED TO PERFORM IN COMBAT CONFIGURATION.

***

For Christ’s sake man!!! First you set up a ‘Bad news for the F-35‘ thread, then you abuse people posting bad news on it- get a grip!! (or is there some sort of bizzare reverse-Freudian flawed abstract sarcastic reasoning at play).

I did not open the thread for it to be a repository for news on the F-35, good or bad. I DID open the thread to pass on some SPECIFIC news, news which I see as bad for the F-35 program (should have included the word “program” in the thread title).

AND if you ACTUALLY READ Dare2’s BS post you can CLEARLY see that he did not post ANY news but instead, in response to my comment about the F-22 not never even had a chance to benifit from full rate production (& yet its production cost STILL reduced very significantly in its 1st 5 years of procurement), responded the BS about comparing F-22 & F-35 developement.

Oh, btw the Israelis are costing the first 25 PROCUREMENT @ ~US$130M per unit, for the indigenously customised version.
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091104_1_n.shtml

Somebody correct me if this is, in fact, good news.

News, not good or bad. Although it DOES dispel the BS “$200 million” (which is in fact TOTAL PROGRAM per unit cost if all options are exercised) naysayers misquote. And if Israel’s indigenously customised version is $130 million, you can bet non-customised versions to be LESS…

You can call it a lie if you want but no F-35 will ever cost less than 100mil, not now, not in 5 years and not in 30 years.

I call that you blowing smoke out of your rear end with NOTHING to back it up. In fact it is contradictory to historical trends & current facts.

There might be a lot of talk and marketing about it and LM might shift cost here and there, blow up the price of auxilliary and support equipment in order to make look the flyaway less than in reality but that will be just smoke and mirrors..

More smoke.

there will be tons of promises of future F-35 getting cheaper with increased numbers, that, too, will never happen to any significant degree, just like it never happened with F-16 which was a real performer when it came to numbers. no F-35 will ever cost less than 100mil, ever. And you can call yourself lucky if it stays that low.

I don’t have the actual budget figures for the early years of the F-16 BUT I do have them for the F/A-18E/F & the F-22A.

F/A-18E/F Weapon System Unit Cost
FY1997: $169.98 million
FY2001: $073.21 million

F-22A Weapon System Unit Cost
FY2001: $242.86 million
FY2005: $168.88 million
And the F-22 never even had a change to benifit from full rate production (‘full rate production’ was to have been 48 per year, was lowered to 36 per year but production has never exceeded 24 per year).

Just so you know, FY2009 USAF budget projections show the F-35A Flyaway Unit Cost dropping below $100 million in FY2013. :p

That’s all I wanted to say. Call me a fool or not, I personally call a fool everyone who thinks LM will ever deliver stealth fighters at the price of a Charlie Gripen.

Nobody has ever said the F-35 could cost the same as the Gripen C fool.