It’s from an article not written by Eurofighter GMBH, & with no indication that Eurofighter endorses its content. It’s not unknown for manufacturers to host articles written by journalists, even if they contain errors. It’s also normal not to correct, or comment on, errors in cases where they relate to data for which precise figures have not been officially released. The reason is obvious. The figure therefore has no more “official” status than any other number published in any magazine, anywhere.

Why do you consider a journalists article more “official” than, for example, the Luftwaffes official website? Some of the “internet legend” figures you deride were lifted from there, though I note they have now been replaced by vague statements about supersonic flight “ohne Nachbrenner”. Perhaps someone remembered that information wasn’t supposed to be published. 😀

I find it hard to believe that a PDF file that has been on the Eurofighter website for several months now would contain inaccuracies after all this time. You would think that if it where wrong it would be removed or corrected. Not only is this pdf file on the Eurofighter website but it was published by Air Forces Monthly as well. This is the very same magazine that many in this site use as reference and is as you know owned by our friends at Key Publishing. It is also the most up to date article I could find on the subject.

Even the old German Luftwaffe web site only said that speed without reheat of up to M1.2 was possible. Max supercruise speed is no secret. Under what conditions that you can do so, and the length of time you can do it probably is but like max speed why would supercruise be secret. They may be coy about it like the USAF:

The combination of sleek aerodynamic design and increased thrust allows the F-22A to cruise at supersonic airspeeds (greater than 1.5 Mach) without using afterburner

but they do give a number unlike the RAF or Luftwaffe.

You seem like a smart person Swerve. Use some common sense. The F-22 from the beginning was designed to supercruise at tactically significant speeds. How did they do it? Hint, engines. Not thrust mind you but ability to operate supersonically for long periods of time in military power without overheating. The EJ200 engines where not designed for this.

I don’t think you read the report. You’re just going on automatic to defend Lockheed Martin.

And do you wanna give sources that they said “the F-15, M1 tank, AH-64 and B1 bomber would be a disaster.”

I read the report and many others put out by CDI over the years. They have been consistently wrong. You are probably too young to remember but a very popular, respected (in some circles anyway) news show did a special about “wasteful, ineffective weapons systems. Much of it was based on the work done by Spey, Richioni, and CDI. The M1, F-15, and AH-64 where all in about the same stage of development (actually a bit further along) as the F-35 is now. If you had believed CDI then all three of these systems where going to be useless, expensive, white elephants. In regard to the F-15 they used much the same argument that they use today with the F-35. They want to replace it with what is in effect yesterdays technolgy and trade increased numbers for reduced cost and increased manpower.

I strongly suggest you look at what they are proposing as an Air to Air fighter on page 161. It’s just a 30 year update of the f-16 as it was envisioned by Spey and Richionni. A simple day fighter that trades numbers for lives. Read it all for grins and giggles but don;t take it seriously.

Are the USMC/RAF/RN going to use the F-35B so the aircraft can land (and take off vertically) – in the battlespace – on unprepared/rough airstrips?

And why aren’t the USN using the F-35B? Is it simply range? And if so, don’t CATOBAR aircraft have to caryy massive fuel reserves anyway – in case of ‘go rounds’ and aborted landings?

And also why not just use the F-35C instead of the F-35A in the USAF, for example does it matter if a carrier based aircraft operates from land (like the European/Aussie/Canadian etc etc Hornets, for example – Why was the F-18L not used?)

Jay
UK

Use of the F-35B is not an option for the USN. The F-35B is a compromise designed to satisfy the STOVL requirements of both the Marines and the UK. All airframes are 9g airframes but the C model may be artificially limited to 7.5g in order to lengthen the life of the airframe. Remember the C is the carrier variant and as such it’s airframe is stressed much more than the A and B over the liffe of the plane. There really is no practical difference (unless you are a fan boy) between 7.5g and 9g when you have a helmet mounted sight and missiles that do 30g.

Reduced range has already been mentioned but the B will also cost more and it carries a smaller internal air to ground load out. All three versions can carry 4 AMRAAMs internally in air to air mode and more externally if stealth or the vastly increased performance of a clean aircraft is not needed. LM has stated publicly that more AMRAAMs could be carried internally but they are planning only 4 for now.

As for everyone using the C model I tend to agree, especially for the UK. You get a much more capable airplane and it will cost about the same amount as an F-35B. In 2005 (the last year firm numbers where given publicly) the fly average estimated flyaway cost for the A model was about $45 million, and the B and C versions where anywhere between $55 and $61 million.

For instance the RN are building these two supercarriers with the intention of using the F-35B, I don’t understand why the RN will be operating these two CATOBAR size carriers with an airwing of STOVL fighters and helicopters?

Most inquiring minds are asking the same question. I suppose it has something to do with the fear of the RAF if the RN gets F-35Cs then the Typhoon becomes extraneous. The only thing the Typhoon has on the F-35B is range.

Firstly, the JSF is not ‘further along in development than Gripen NG’. The Gripen NG is a derivative of the Gripen and as such has a proven airframe (with 120,000 in service flying hours notched up), on which pretty well all of the handling/flutter/envelope expansion work is done and dusted. It incorporates systems that are mature (eg F414 engine) or well into development (eg AESA). Has JSF even cracked the 100 FH barrier yet? Only a cokehead or a braindead “oo ess ay” chanting redneck Lockmart fanboy would rate Gripen NG as riskier than JSF.

The JSF technology demonstrators all flew several years ago. Two pre production models are now flying and about a dozen more are due to be flying soon. Tell me how many Gripen NGs are flying? Tell me how long ago the technology demonstrator completed testing and pre production models started being built. The fact is Jacko, there is only one Gripen NG and it is merely a technology demonstrator. Obviously the Norwegian air force knows this, the Australian air force knows it, and I suspect the Dutch and Belgian air force knows it but you and the rest of the fan boys don’t. Your implication that Gripen has 120,000 hours of operational experience is irrelevant since they are not the same airplane. The engine is different, the avionics are different and the airframe is modified. I find it amusing that you resort to calling me a redneck fanboy when all you can do is come up with irrelevant, outdated or incorrect information. So smart ass tell me again how many hours Gripen NG has under it’s belt? Tell me has the AESA radar been tested yet? Has the EW system been tested yet? do they have enough flight hours in enough flying conditions to work out any aerodynamic issues related to the re designed lower central fuselage, wingroot area, and air intakes?

I’m not against JSF. It promises to be a great aeroplane. But let’s not kid ourselves that it’s going to be a cheap one.

Time will tell, but based on your past posts you have absolutely no credibility. First off the air force quotes THEN year (2036) dollars for a production run of only 1763 units. That is just for the USAF. Far more will be produced and that will in turn drive the cost down even more. The inflation rate used is a constant used for everything the government procures. Even the GAO in the report you quote predicted a program (including R&D) unit cost of 83.9 million (2006) dollars.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06391.pdf, pg 71.
This number again, does not include 700-1000 export units that will be produced over the life of the program. This will in turn lower the unit production cost even more.

This is not rocket science Jacko. Even us rednecks get it. Are you drinking Kool Aid or are you just dense? It’s called economies of scale. It makes everything less expensive. Gripen NG is a good plane. It will sell in non NATO countries that will not be offered JSF or do not want to buy American or Russian and who do not want to pay the high price of Typhoon or Rafale, but it cannot compete on a price basis with an aircraft that will be produced in the thousands that will have a world wide logistics infrastructure.

I just love the sound of teeth gnashing.