An aircraft with such data is to find in a movie only. But it was named “Firefox” if I remember well. Please stay more serious. 😀

seriously, un 1940, making anything supersonic other than a bullet would be “science fiction”… ten years later, first supersonic fighters “in dive only, but still…” were in service

in “modern” fighters, the russians are usually “late” is in electronics, but as far as aerodynamics and engines power go, they know their stuff… the F-22 can supercruise, and the PAK-FA undoubtably will be able to do it as well… what remains to be seen is how fast and for how long will it be able to do so, but it is a very sleek and very big fighter, so, it should have little drag and a huge fuel load, which should put it very high in these areas…

similarily, you assume the F-35s will be in the air and in the way of the attackers…

there’s only a slight problem with that assumption:

you don’t have aircraft on station 24h a day all over your country… on the other hand, the attackers have to organize their raid, they can gather intelligence (satelllites, AWACS etc can be of use on their side too) as to what they may have to face, and then choose the most appropriate moment to attack, coming to attack when and where they see fit.

When you have to defend, you must react to your oponents moves, which requires good coordination and speed… and if your interceptors lack the latter, you may have to compensate with the first.. if possible.

When you attack, you are the one who has the initiative and can choose where and how to go in. And if you also have the advantage of speed, chances that an interceptor comes close enough are pretty slim…

in the end, it’s not about “everything right” or “everything wrong”, but simply an aircraft is a tool designed to do a particular job. If you want it to do another job, it may be a wrong choice, try eating a soup with a fork and you’ll get an idea 😉

can’t speak for anyone, but as far as I’m concerned, a statement by someone “not anonymous” who was there and stating clearly what happened would be a good start…

actually, if there had been a press conference and it was an RAF officer saying “we did “that” against the rafales”, and france not communicating about it, except maybe some vague allegations by dassault, I’d simply consider it true and say: “ok, well done gentlemen”

it’s about that simple

Fortunately sales numbers are a better indicator than unofficial sources.

it’s not that simple, the Mig29 was sold in much bigger numbers than the mirage 2000, yet, is it so much better aircraft?

Eurofighter was bought by countries who are part of its development (contractually, they had to buy it), and besides them, who else (talking about “honest” sales with no bribes and such things)?

The mig 21 was produced (and, obviously sold) in higher numbers than any other supersonic jet (little under 11500 aircraft).. was it so much better than its contemporarires, like the F-4 Phantom II or the Mirage III?

Numbers can be spun to claim anything one wants.. but hardly can prove anything precise about the aircraft performance

To supercruise or not to supercruise..:rolleyes:

They wont get very far if they do supercruise you know.
Not the most fuel efficiant way of travel..

the major principle of supercruising is to go fast and far at the same time… for the PAK-FA, at wiki they give numbers as follows:

# Cruise speed: 1,300 – 1,800 km/h (808 – 1,118 mph)
# Range: 4,000-5,500 km[dubious – discuss] (2,500-3,100 miles)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

now, it’s wiki, so, there certainly should be some checks done, but still, even if it does “only” 3000km at 1500km/h, the F-35 won’t ever be able to catch them.

And how close to our ground radar station can they go before they get tracked?
I don’t know and eighter do you.

no, but I do know they know where their potential adversaries radars are, so they can plan their ingress and egress routes to avoid detection as much as possible

If faced with a stealth adversary like the Pak-Fa, i would think its safest to stay ‘close’ to any ground radar or any AWACS coverage.
That way you greatly increase your chances.

what was talked about was the scenario in which norwegians use the F-35 as interceptor. That means they want to use it to catch potentially hostile aircraft before they do their job. The PAK-FA being a potential adversary for the F-35 in that theatre, it’s not illogical to wonder whether an interceptor which top speed is similar to cruising speed of its target will be able to catch anything but thin air.

If they have to intercept an aircraft, they can’t just stay “near their awacs” simply because the attackers they’d have to intercept in the scenario we are talking about are going after targets on the ground… and couldn’t care less about norwegian fighters (so, they have no reason to go after them)… having your interceptors staying “near the awacs” (even if you have one) wouldn’t help much.

Now enough with this hypotetical nonsens.

Thanks

well, the only thing not making sense was you answer since you obviously didn’t read previous posts to get the idea we were talking about… sorry

Pls read the above posts about the top speed nonsens.. RuAF Flankers or the Pak-Fa will never go at 2.0 M+ some 800nm from air-bases over sea..
Unless they plan to use Norwegian Airbases to refuel:D
Go figure why:rolleyes:

Going at 2.0m+ for 15 minutes reduces Mission range considerably..

Thanks

ok, let’s see… the thing will supercruise to their ingress point, and since they have sort of “stealthiness” from forward quarter, your radars will eventually need some proximity to get a clear image of their whereabouts.

Then, they’ll go towards their target, or, more likely, shift to a direction that may lure eventual interceptors (which, they know aren’t fast enough) to a flight pattern where they won’t be a nuisance for the PAK-FA mission….

When these interceptors start getting closer, the atatckers can change course towards their real target, accelerate and leave the “would be interceptors” behind. Once the gap is sufficient to stay out of missiles range, they get back down to supercruise which is, basically, the F-35s top speed… staying simply out of reach.

Now, explain to me how the F-35 will catch them. They won’t have to go Mach 2.5 all the time, just the time necessary to distance the pursuers and then, they can resume their “normal flight profile”, supercruising at speeds the F-35 will only reach if going full AB

[B]1
I think you’re stretching to make a point here. The KC-767 is already in service with Japan, and Italy will follow suit. The A330 does have more international orders at this point, but the idea of program risk being more of an issue for the KC-767 when it is actually in service is just not something I would nail down as a reason not to buy it.

actually, if boeing proposes the saùe tanker as for japan, one may say “it’s already in service”, but if they propose to their initial idea, one part from here, antoher from there, they build, indeed, a whole new aircraft which has to go through testing and all that.

It appears they want now to do things simpler, but, still, we have to see their definitive proposal… and they wait to know whether EADS/NG does make theirs and how..

If there’s no competition, they can propose more or less anything, and increase the price for following bathes to earn good money on it (under the scheme decided by the DoD, only the first batch or two can’t go beyond a previously fixed price, after that, boeing may be free to incfrease it at the only expense of the DoD.